VideoHelp Forum
+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 22 of 22
Thread
  1. I converted a video to image sequences of lossless jpeg2000 (both jp2 and j2k) files, but when I opened them in XnViewMP, I got this. Is there a way to fix this?
    Image
    [Attachment 76767 - Click to enlarge]

    Image
    [Attachment 76768 - Click to enlarge]


    Here's my command lines:
    ffmpeg -i input.mkv -pred 1 output%05d.j2k
    ffmpeg -i input.mkv -pred 1 output%05d.jp2
    Image Attached Files
    Quote Quote  
  2. Probably 16bitRGB jpeg2000 is not supported by XnViewMP . You can convert to 8bit RGB using -vf format=rgb24 . Or ask a XnViewMP developer to include support
    Quote Quote  
  3. Originally Posted by poisondeathray View Post
    Probably 16bitRGB jpeg2000 is not supported by XnViewMP . You can convert to 8bit RGB using -vf format=rgb24 . Or ask a XnViewMP developer to include support
    If I use this, will the result still be lossless with YUV?
    Last edited by Mr. Fanservice; 3rd Feb 2024 at 19:36.
    Quote Quote  
  4. Originally Posted by Mr. Fanservice View Post
    Originally Posted by poisondeathray View Post
    Probably 16bitRGB jpeg2000 is not supported by XnViewMP . You can convert to 8bit RGB using -vf format=rgb24 . Or ask a XnViewMP developer to include support
    If I use this, will the result still be lossless with YUV?
    No. 16bit RGB is lossy as well for YUV input . Because you can never get back the original YUV values if you convert to 8bit or 16bit RGB .

    But you won't "see" any differences on a typical 8bit RGB display . If you 're viewing something on a display - even the original video - likely it has been converted to 8bit RGB anyways for display . ie. You're not viewing the original YUV data, but a converted RGB representation of it
    Quote Quote  
  5. Originally Posted by poisondeathray View Post
    Originally Posted by Mr. Fanservice View Post
    Originally Posted by poisondeathray View Post
    Probably 16bitRGB jpeg2000 is not supported by XnViewMP . You can convert to 8bit RGB using -vf format=rgb24 . Or ask a XnViewMP developer to include support
    If I use this, will the result still be lossless with YUV?
    No. 16bit RGB is lossy as well for YUV input . Because you can never get back the original YUV values if you convert to 8bit or 16bit RGB .

    But you won't "see" any differences on a typical 8bit RGB display . If you 're viewing something on a display - even the original video - likely it has been converted to 8bit RGB anyways for display . ie. You're not viewing the original YUV data, but a converted RGB representation of it
    So, even original YUV videos, even with lossless video codecs, are lossy by default? Does that also apply for BDMVs and Blu-ray remuxes?
    Quote Quote  
  6. Originally Posted by Mr. Fanservice View Post
    So, even original YUV videos, even with lossless video codecs, are lossy by default?
    No , an original YUV video encoded with lossless YUV codec - is lossless - compared to that original YUV input source , if it's handled properly - same pixel format etc...



    Does that also apply for BDMVs and Blu-ray remuxes?

    A proper BD remux is the same video data as the original retail BD - that remux is lossless compared to the BD. It's essentially a stream copy into an new container usually MKV. This even retains the original BD lossy compression (The BD uses lossy compression and be considered lossy compared to the studio master) , so much smaller than a lossless re-encode

    If you were to re-encode that original BD (or remux) with a lossless codec, it would balloon up in filesize, but still be lossless , because the decoded (uncompressed) data is the same for both
    Quote Quote  
  7. Originally Posted by poisondeathray View Post
    Originally Posted by Mr. Fanservice View Post
    So, even original YUV videos, even with lossless video codecs, are lossy by default?
    No , an original YUV video encoded with lossless YUV codec - is lossless - compared to that original YUV input source , if it's handled properly - same pixel format etc...



    Does that also apply for BDMVs and Blu-ray remuxes?

    A proper BD remux is the same video data as the original retail BD - that remux is lossless compared to the BD. It's essentially a stream copy into an new container usually MKV. This even retains the original BD lossy compression (The BD uses lossy compression and be considered lossy compared to the studio master) , so much smaller than a lossless re-encode

    If you were to re-encode that original BD (or remux) with a lossless codec, it would balloon up in filesize, but still be lossless , because the decoded (uncompressed) data is the same for both
    I mean when viewing them in RGB displays.
    Quote Quote  
  8. Originally Posted by Mr. Fanservice View Post
    Originally Posted by poisondeathray View Post
    Originally Posted by Mr. Fanservice View Post
    So, even original YUV videos, even with lossless video codecs, are lossy by default?
    No , an original YUV video encoded with lossless YUV codec - is lossless - compared to that original YUV input source , if it's handled properly - same pixel format etc...



    Does that also apply for BDMVs and Blu-ray remuxes?

    A proper BD remux is the same video data as the original retail BD - that remux is lossless compared to the BD. It's essentially a stream copy into an new container usually MKV. This even retains the original BD lossy compression (The BD uses lossy compression and be considered lossy compared to the studio master) , so much smaller than a lossless re-encode

    If you were to re-encode that original BD (or remux) with a lossless codec, it would balloon up in filesize, but still be lossless , because the decoded (uncompressed) data is the same for both
    I mean when viewing them in RGB displays.
    Yes , the RGB display is technically lossy . It's not showing the actual YUV data. An original retail 8bit BD (that's all regular BD supports), played on an 8bitRGB monitor will look the same as a 8bit PNG sequence - and both are lossy representations of the original YUV data . So it's not a big deal to use 8bit RGB images , when your sources are typical consumer sources
    Quote Quote  
  9. Originally Posted by Mr. Fanservice View Post
    So, even original YUV videos, even with lossless video codecs, are lossy by default? Does that also apply for BDMVs and Blu-ray remuxes?
    what are you trying to do? source is lossy not lossless

    Originally Posted by poisondeathray View Post
    If you were to re-encode that original BD (or remux) with a lossless codec, it would balloon up in filesize, but still be lossless , because the decoded (uncompressed) data is the same for both
    why would anyone do this? once it's lossy, it's done.
    make video everyday
    Quote Quote  
  10. Originally Posted by 4kblurayguru View Post

    Originally Posted by poisondeathray View Post
    If you were to re-encode that original BD (or remux) with a lossless codec, it would balloon up in filesize, but still be lossless , because the decoded (uncompressed) data is the same for both
    why would anyone do this? once it's lossy, it's done.
    Nobody would. You lose the original compression - massively larger filesizes for no benefit. The hypothetical "if" was to help answer his earlier question .

    His sources are 2nd generation lossy, not the original BD

    I can think of some scenarios where you might use a lossless codec. eg. A fan subber wants a lossless hardsubbed version , perhaps additionally filtered, from which to encode several different formats from . If you had slow filters, it would be beneficial in terms of time saving
    Quote Quote  
  11. All that matters is that people will not see the difference because all displays are RGB? There are no YUV displays?
    Quote Quote  
  12. Member Cornucopia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Location
    Deep in the Heart of Texas
    Search PM
    Correct. None are YUV (except perhaps in some lab), ALL are RGB, or grayscale/monochrome.


    Scott
    Quote Quote  
  13. Originally Posted by Mr. Fanservice View Post
    All that matters is that people will not see the difference because all displays are RGB?
    Is that a question ? I don't know what matters to you

    People have different perceptions. But the same person looking at an 8bit RGB display will see the same thing between a YUV video in a media player directly, and an 8bit RGB lossless screenshot such as an 8bit PNG assuming both are using the same method of YUV to RGB conversion.

    The majority of displays are 8bit RGB, but 10bit RGB displays are becoming more common on higher end models. 10 and 12 bit YUV to 10 bit RGB for 10bit RGB display will show smoother gradients, fewer banding artifacts (sometimes because of additional processing). So in that case, an 8bit RGB image could be worse . But your original, original sources were 8bit YUV, so you will gain no benefit unless there was some other processing done to achieve that 10bit version

    For filesize discussion , YUV video will be the smallest by far - YUV compresses better than RGB, and you get temporal compression with video. If you care about filesize, use video . In this thread https://forum.videohelp.com/threads/412810-Video-to-APNG , a 10bit444 video 12.7MB became 474MB as an 8bit PNG sequence, 1.15GB as a 16bit RGB sequence. You can reduce it slightly by brute force PNG compression, but it will still be >35x the size in that case. I understand making a few screenshots, but a whole video to image sequence is going to consume lots of storage, so I assume you have a good reason to, or start buying HDD's

    YUV or lossless workflow might be important if there were other steps such, filtering / additional processing being used in a workflow. Because YUV<=>RGB is not lossless unless it's done in float, and some filters only work in YUV

    There are no YUV displays?
    RGB only. There might be some scientific YUV displays, but not publicly available
    Quote Quote  
  14. Originally Posted by Mr. Fanservice View Post
    There are no YUV displays?
    Colors are a human concept, because our eye catches brightness and color depending what color cones catch. So we humans have to have a monitor where a segmented regions on screen emit wavelengths that our eye can catch and process.
    You'd need a robot eye to "see" YUV , some radio signals for Y, U and V. Just like hardware boxes that received signal years back. Those hardware boxes interpreted that to RGB in the end, but robots would not need that. They could see YUV, interpret things from YUV signals directly, and later change our human eyes for YUV after birth, when they take over, so we are on the same page.

    Btw. color is a totally made up human thing only. Birds see more ultraviolet wavelengths, so they must see something we do not. Imagine a flying bird interpreting (seeing) a wind with different colors. But what colors? That color does not exist in our brain. So most likely, when aliens land here on Earth, and you show them your cartoons, they will see nothing anyway, or just some blotches of something.
    Quote Quote  
  15. Member Cornucopia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Location
    Deep in the Heart of Texas
    Search PM
    No, @_AI_, color is neither made up nor human-only. Color is the perception of certain wavelengths/frequencies of light, brought about by that light's excitation of the cone receptors in the eyes. Not all animals have Cone receptors, and they may not be tuned to the same wavelengths/frequencies, so may not perceive color the same as humans (which also vary individually), but the color IS there, it IS reproduceable, and it IS noticed and differentuated by many animals.
    How we name and categorize colors is a construct, but their objective existence and our perception of them is not.


    Scott
    Quote Quote  
  16. No, wavelength and brightness is interpreted in our brain to our conscience as a color. It is a made up/evolution concept, that is a conscience perception. If it was not, I ask what color is that ultraviolet part that bird see and we do not. What color has a radio, microwave. If there is something that can see that, in conscience, not with a gadget where a small hand goes from left to right? If there is other organism and they in theory could see to opposite spectrum than birds, longer wavelengths (towards radio) what color they are going to see?
    Quote Quote  
  17. Colors do not exist. It is just a soup of electromagnetic waves all around, and depending what something just tunes up to, it will be detected.
    But no alien (I know , aliens, go with it) would look at our video and see the same thing as we do. Depending what star they are under and environment, they might just "see" something else and in no circumstance, they would see even the same wavelength as we do , calling it red for example, their red might be interpreted as some "color" that goes deeper into infrared and still call that "perception" as a marshmallow.

    Color name and where color starts and where it ends is a totally made up concept.
    Quote Quote  
  18. Try with older XnView with full formats support.
    I found MP version subpar of previous releases.
    Quote Quote  
  19. Member Cornucopia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Location
    Deep in the Heart of Texas
    Search PM
    Yeah, pretty sure you're just trying to be a contrarian right now, but no matter. If an "alien", or bird, or elephant can sense a strong 700nm light wave with little other competing waves nearby from some source, that's red to us and possibly something else equivalently significant to them too ("favorite food" color, danger -something going to catch on fire). It's still counts as a color, and is electro-mechanically sensable, recordable and reproduceable. And if you think it only exists in human minds, there are plenty of studies on animal vision you could look up to counter that, or just watch one of the many YouTube clips of an animal reacting hilariously to something on TV. Or a laser pointer.

    But all that divergence really doesn't have much to do with the OP's quest for a perfectly lossless and perfectly small and perfectly common format for their capture extracts, does it?


    Scott
    Quote Quote  
  20. That was his question, why there are no YUV monitors, a legit question on op's part. We cannot interpret YUV signals. Y only. Instead we need to intercept waves in light spectrum to see colors. YUV needs to be converted to RGB, or TV monitor needs to do that, but that would be RGB monitor anyway or called differently, this is just word play.
    Also not trying to be a "contrarian", rgb IS a human concept only and animals see their visual perception of waves that are certainly mapped in their conciseness differently. Pretty close almost the same, like chimps perhaps, but radically different if further out on tree of life. Animals do react to TV images, but certainly they see something different. We can register three colors and brain mixes them, other animals register less colors, etc., so their brain mixes them into completely something else, either skipping colors or adding them. But that's the principle, what colors are correct? Theirs or ours? It's neither. Universe is not colored in rgb, not in human colors, or other, that is what I try to say. Latest images coming from JWST as an example. Colors are added to its images, it is an illusion for us. It always was. Now, this part os off topic, but it is not me being contrarian. I react to "color is neither made up nor human-only". It is made up.
    Quote Quote  
  21. Member Cornucopia's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Location
    Deep in the Heart of Texas
    Search PM
    Potato - potahto.

    Btw, YUV is partially usable to us, as-is, because the Y = grayscale (or very close to it). It is the U & V that is difficult to use natively. As an analogy, if you have ever seen L*a*b image layers, the U & V are akin to the a &:b layers.


    Scott
    Quote Quote  
  22. That's a nice example, lab color space, because our brain or visual cortex basically might use somewhere along similar "equations" to add a rod brightness signals to color signals. We create models that mirror our perceptions, not reality. So all color spaces are usable to us.
    Quote Quote  



Similar Threads

Visit our sponsor! Try DVDFab and backup Blu-rays!