Do we really need Cineform and Prores even in the 2020s?

[Truthler]

We can capture/record cut/edit videos with lossless formats without problems.

Do we need Cineform and Prores lossy compression in the 2020s?

These codecs are for people, who have slow internet speed for video sharing sevices (under 2Gbit/s) and/or who have not enough big storage. Buying some 16TB fast HDDs are not expensive in the 2020s.

[Cornucopia]

Short Answer: YES, we still need them and will continue to for a while.

Long answer: Hardware manufacturers (cams, dvrs, atomos, gopro, etc) still encode their captures with these codecs, and we need them for compatibility of workflow projects. Those codecs also support many features (RAW, HDR, Stereo3D, 444, etc) and platforms (PC & Mac) that many of the OP's tauted lossless codecs (HUFFYUV, Lagarith, UTVideo) do not. Also, while I ultimately would prefer that we had an cost/royalty-free, international, standards-based suite of codecs to use, the large corporations that have created and provided these closed-source (and largely, free) codecs still have better support than the open source lossless alternatives. And, those codecs often do now have their own lossless capabilites.

Also, stop being so pie-in-the-sky: only a very small minority of users has consistent >2Gbps internet, and 16TB SSDs (which would be very necessary at data rates required for HD or especially 4k higher end versions of those codecs*) cost $2500-3000.


*3840 x 2160 x 24bits x 60fps = 11390.63Mbps. or 12Gbps. Even with a generous compression factor of 2.2:1, lossless codecs could only drop that down to 5Gbps.


Scott

[poisondeathray]

Also, there are potential compatibility issues with lossless compressed formats (such as UT, lagarith, huffyuv) with host programs. They don't work in some programs like Resolve, FCPX . If your projects involve other people, a standardized widely compatible format like prores is going to cause fewer headaches (even with the drawbacks of using prores)

Quality issues - Most professional programs do not treat YUV lossless codecs as lossless (they get converted to RGB using standard range) . You get highlight/overbright clipping. That can be worse than using a lossy codec that preserves the range and gets treated as proper YUV

So it' s not just a codec issue; it's also a how-the-codec-is-used-and-in-what-program-issue . None of them are perfect, they all have pros/cons in various situations

[Cornucopia]

good points, @pdr. I've encountered those inter-app compatibility issues that you mention. Huff & Lags in particular. And I've seen versioning differences that cause problems too.


Scott

[Truthler]

Also, there are potential compatibility issues with lossless compressed formats (such as UT, lagarith, huffyuv) with host programs. They don't work in some programs like Resolve, FCPX . If your projects involve other people, a standardized widely compatible format like prores is going to cause fewer headaches (even with the drawbacks of using prores)

Quality issues - Most professional programs do not treat YUV lossless codecs as lossless (they get converted to RGB using standard range) . You get highlight/overbright clipping. That can be worse than using a lossy codec that preserves the range and gets treated as proper YUV

So it' s not just a codec issue; it's also a how-the-codec-is-used-and-in-what-program-issue . None of them are perfect, they all have pros/cons in various situations

I could upload a short UTvideo content to youtube around 2011 (because of file size), and YT recognized it. However, it was not the case with Prores and Cineform.
FFMPEG support for UTvideo was earlier than Prores or Cineform ....

[poisondeathray]

I could upload a short UTvideo content to youtube around 2011 (because of file size), and YT recognized it. However, it was not the case with Prores and Cineform.
FFMPEG support for UTvideo was earlier than Prores or Cineform ....

Yes, UT was supported earlier. It's not that relevant because it's 2020 now

[_Al_]

I could upload a short UTvideo content to youtube around 2011 (because of file size), and YT recognized it. However, it was not the case with Prores and Cineform.
FFMPEG support for UTvideo was earlier than Prores or Cineform ....

So what?
If you work with youtube that does not mean others do, you seam to have that concept be pro and upload to youtube somehow intermixed. Also why would you want to upload intemediate codec to Youtube?

[Truthler]

I could upload a short UTvideo content to youtube around 2011 (because of file size), and YT recognized it. However, it was not the case with Prores and Cineform.
FFMPEG support for UTvideo was earlier than Prores or Cineform ....

So what?
If you work with youtube that does not mean others do, you seam to have that concept be pro and upload to youtube somehow intermixed. Also why would you want to upload intemediate codec to Youtube?

I use only lossless video for recording editing and uploading. Otherwise the quality sucks!

[Truthler]

Short Answer: YES, we still need them and will continue to for a while.

Long answer: Hardware manufacturers (cams, dvrs, atomos, gopro, etc) still encode their captures with these codecs, and we need them for compatibility of workflow projects. Those codecs also support many features (RAW, HDR, Stereo3D, 444, etc) and platforms (PC & Mac) that many of the OP's tauted lossless codecs (HUFFYUV, Lagarith, UTVideo) do not. Also, while I ultimately would prefer that we had an cost/royalty-free, international, standards-based suite of codecs to use, the large corporations that have created and provided these closed-source (and largely, free) codecs still have better support than the open source lossless alternatives. And, those codecs often do now have their own lossless capabilites.

Also, stop being so pie-in-the-sky: only a very small minority of users has consistent >2Gbps internet, and 16TB SSDs (which would be very necessary at data rates required for HD or especially 4k higher end versions of those codecs*) cost $2500-3000.


*3840 x 2160 x 24bits x 60fps = 11390.63Mbps. or 12Gbps. Even with a generous compression factor of 2.2:1, lossless codecs could only drop that down to 5Gbps.


Scott

But why do we need them, really? Small light weight mini laptops are capable to capture of lossless Utvideo 4K@60p recording via small 4K HDMI-USB3 converter sticks. So you can record the full lossless superb quality with a very easy way, even during walking on the street!!!!

[Cornucopia]

The answer hasn't changed just because you repeated your question.


Scott

[Iamback]

But Youtube is the be-all / end-all of video
If you have a channel you are a big time broadcaster, if not you are nobody, even if you are a licensed OTA channel

Cornucopia, poisondeathray do you have big time YT channels?

In case certain people/person missed it---this is sarcasm

[lordsmurf]

These codecs are for people, who have slow internet speed for video sharing sevices (under 2Gbit/s) and/or who have not enough big storage. Buying some 16TB fast HDDs are not expensive in the 2020s.

WTF? ProRes422 files are huge! (Have you ever actually used ProRes?)

If you have a sippy straw for internet, you need to stick to compressed H.264. If broadband isn't adequate for ProRes files.

I never used Cineform, and was a stop-gap format for HD shot video 10+ years ago. DNxHD and ProRes, or H.264/AVCHD, own that space now. So I'd agree, Cineform probably isn't needed now.

Utvideo

It's not a very good format/codec. It's just not. Sort of like the modern MJPEG, JPEG 2000, or some others. As popular as a fart in an elevator.

[poisondeathray]

Utvideo

It's not a very good format/codec. It's just not. Sort of like the modern MJPEG, JPEG 2000, or some others. As popular as a fart in an elevator.

What are your objections with UT ?

[poisondeathray]

I use only lossless video for recording editing and uploading. Otherwise the quality sucks!

What do you use to edit ?

Use whatever meets your needs or scenario... It might not meet other people's needs

YT re-encoded quality sucks whether you upload lossless video or not. If you're hosting your own videos, you can't use lossless video for streaming

[Truthler]

I use only lossless video for recording editing and uploading. Otherwise the quality sucks!

What do you use to edit ?

Use whatever meets your needs or scenario... It might not meet other people's needs

YT re-encoded quality sucks whether you upload lossless video or not. If you're hosting your own videos, you can't use lossless video for streaming

Only 1 thing matters: How many people can watch a video. And YT and vimeo the only platform for 4K video for mass publicity. Nobody will find my video in my own website, wo do not know the name/URL of my webpage.

And yes, if I upload lossless video to YT, the quality will be better too.

[poisondeathray]

And yes, if I upload lossless video to YT, the quality will be better too.

Not necessarily; It depends on which lossless version you're referring to , and how you've prepared it

[Truthler]

And yes, if I upload lossless video to YT, the quality will be better too.

Not necessarily; It depends on which lossless version you're referring to , and how you've prepared it

When I capture a video with my camera with UT-video to my mini laptop, and I cut it, and upload it. When the file was uploaded and touched the YT, it will be mathematically exactly the same as the my camcorder's HDMI signal was. It is a fully lossless process. It is the perfect system. Only the YT compress it.

[poisondeathray]

And yes, if I upload lossless video to YT, the quality will be better too.

Not necessarily; It depends on which lossless version you're referring to , and how you've prepared it

When I capture a video with my camera with UTV video to my mini laptop, and I cut it, and upload it. When the file was uploaded and touched the YT, it will be mathematically exactly the same as the my camcorder's HDMI signal was. It is a fully lossless process. It is the perfect system. Only the YT compress it.

It depends -

Most cameras have noise - and lossless codec will retain that noise, it makes it more difficult for YT to compress, resulting more compression artifacts. The viewer streaming quality can be lower

If instead you preprocess the signal (either filtering, or even a lossy codec - essentially the codec is denoising in that latter case ), the end result on YT for the viewer can be better. If you preprocess it properly, you're making it easier for YT to compress, this can result in higher signal to noise ratio

There are tips and tricks people use for YT to help compression, resulting in better viewer experience, fewer artifacts (even though it's still bad, it's not as bad)

[Truthler]

And yes, if I upload lossless video to YT, the quality will be better too.

Not necessarily; It depends on which lossless version you're referring to , and how you've prepared it

When I capture a video with my camera with UTV video to my mini laptop, and I cut it, and upload it. When the file was uploaded and touched the YT, it will be mathematically exactly the same as the my camcorder's HDMI signal was. It is a fully lossless process. It is the perfect system. Only the YT compress it.

It depends -

Most cameras have noise - and lossless codec will retain that noise, it makes it more difficult for YT to compress, resulting more compression artifacts. The viewer streaming quality can be lower

If instead you preprocess the signal (either filtering, or even a lossy codec - essentially the codec is denoising in that latter case ), the end result on YT for the viewer can be better. If you preprocess it properly, you're making it easier for YT to compress, this can result in higher signal to noise ratio

There are tips and tricks people use for YT to help compression, resulting in better viewer experience, fewer artifacts (even though it's still bad, it's not as bad)

What about Neat video, the state of art noise and grain remover?

Why do Hollywood love and obsessed with video grain in such a degree, that all films directly contain grain? Even you can buy video grain templates for the movie idustry.

Is it true the video grain is necessity to enjoy movie and long videos? Without it the picture is boring for the audience.

[lordsmurf]

What about Neat video, the state of art noise and grain remover?

NeatVideo isn't state of the art. It had it's place in restoration, some 15-20 years ago. But Avisynth eventually beat it -- crushed it, squashed it, pulverized it. NeatVideo is like using a hatchet to perform a heart transplant surgery. Sure, it can work, but there are quality consequences. The main issues is that it's so overaggressive at all times. Avisynth is the scalpel.

Why do Hollywood love and obsessed with video grain in such a degree, that all films directly contain grain? Even you can buy video grain templates for the movie idustry.

I don't know. I always had to be really careful with my studio restoration work, because the "grain police" would come after me. I don't want plastic people, but grain is noise. It's not detail. It's noise. You want to retain all of the grain that makes up actual detail, but the rest just needs to go. There are some unusual restoration situations where you actually need to add grain, but I don't encounter those projects often.

Is it true the video grain is necessity to enjoy movie and long videos? Without it the picture is boring for the audience.

No. I've never even heard that (that I can recall). That sounds like "videophile" nonsense.

[poisondeathray]

Why do Hollywood love and obsessed with video grain in such a degree, that all films directly contain grain? Even you can buy video grain templates for the movie idustry.

Film grain is not the same thing as camera digital sensor noise . The grain look of different film stock is completely different.

Technically if you shoot something on film, that grain is noise, because the reality when you are there , there is no grain floating in the air.

But on digitally shot "films", grain is often added in post production on purpose - so in that case it's not "noise" in the film makers' eyes. It's wanted and a form of art

Whether you like it (or not) is another matter.

Is it true the video grain is necessity to enjoy movie and long videos? Without it the picture is boring for the audience.

It's subjective . It's not necessary. Do you need grading to look a certain way to enjoy a movie ? Some films are graded harsh or green hues. Is that necessary? Some filmakers think it helps with the atmosphere of telling the story, like grain

Grain has a functional purpose too - it covers up banding patterns in 8bit consumer space. Dithering is a form of noise that is added on purpose. But banding is less of an issue with 10bit becoming common among consumers

In visual effects, it helps to "cover up" roto work seams, rig removals and other defects. VFX artists love clean shots, that get grain added later - it conceals problems

[KarMa]

And yes, if I upload lossless video to YT, the quality will be better too.

I seriously doubt you will be able to tell the difference between a x264 CRF 10 and a lossless file, after both have been processed by Youtube's 3Mbit 1080p output. And by whatever their 4K bitrate is with VP9.

[Truthler]

And yes, if I upload lossless video to YT, the quality will be better too.

I seriously doubt you will be able to tell the difference between a x264 CRF 10 and a lossless file, after both have been processed by Youtube's 3Mbit 1080p output. And by whatever their 4K bitrate is with VP9.

1080p is for losers since the mid 2010s. 4K is starting to became not enough good for me. I'm waiting for the appear 8K pro-sumer camcorders.

[KarMa]

1080p is for losers since the mid 2010s. 4K is starting to became not enough good for me. I'm waiting for the appear 8K pro-sumer camcorders.

I mentioned 4k, nor was that the heart of the issue. You aren't going to see any difference between a lossless video and a high quality lossy encoding, after Youtube gets their hands on the file for final conversion.

[lordsmurf]

1080p is for losers

Why are you consistently such an a$$hole in every conversation?

Is it not enough just to talk tech?
Some of us enjoy this topic, and we don't want worthless smartass commentary always sprinkled in.
This isn't Facebook, Twitter, 4chan or whatever. It's VH. Leave out the smug juvenile attitude if you want to be a member here.

[RodVid]

As popular as a fart in an elevator.

Farting in an elevator is just wrong on so many levels