-
JPEG 2000 Codec
Not very familiar with this codec, and may need to use it to deliver a universal QT format. Anyone have any experience with this codec? Any thoughts or things to consider before using it?
-
19 Replies
-
I’m not exactly a pro at FCP, but I’ve recently had to use footage from a camcorder Grass Valley just put out called the infinity. It was recorded with a JPEG 2000 codec. The camera came with something called a rev pro reader (it’s a tapeless camera and records onto something that looks like a mini disk), which I used to change the file to either a cineform codec (HD/2k/4k) or ProResHQ… Once again I’m not sure if this is exactly what you are talking about, but thought I’d offer what I knew 🙂
-
Joel, Thanks! that does help. What did you think of JPEG 2000 conversion? Did the end file look good? Did it hold up in post?
Thanks!
asher
-
well to be honest, we’re shooting next week. I’ve only done tests so far, but the tests looked great and after you transcode the footage your left with a quicktime either in cineform/2k/4k or prores HQ so I don’t see a reason why the post process wouldn’t go smoothly; but of course that doesn’t mean something won’t pop up. I can tell you this for sure:
1. the footage looks GREAT
2. the media is a 2:1 or even 3:1 transcoding process (for every 1 minute you shoot, it can take 2 – 3 minutes to transcode it to quicktime)
3. the quicktime is a significantly larger file than the files the JPEG 2000.
4. if i think of anything i’ll add it.I hope I was a help… I know the camera we are using is one of like 15, I’m not sure if this is the only camera that uses JPEG 2000, maybe someone else can chime in on that.
-
JPEG 2000 is supported by QT since long time but as you can see today is considered a “legacy codec”.
This doesn’t means that is old-fashioned at all.
Is a high quality codec with many different possibilities and uses, but Is not an editing codec. Is a codec for acquisition or for delivery. One of his versions (Motion JPEG 2000) is used as the standard for Digital Cinema.
I’m not sure if QT would be the best option to go to this codec. I’m afraid that the option in QT are limited.
You may ask Russell Lasson. I know that he is delivering in this format the productions they shoot in RED. But he is doing that in a big PC based machine.
rafael -
[Rafael Amador] “Is a high quality codec with many different possibilities and uses, but Is not an editing codec. “
I second that.
Asher, it would help to know more about what you’re delivering and why. As Rafael mentioned, JPEG 2000 is the standard for digital cinema, but there’s a lot more to getting a file onto a digital cinema sever for playback than just compressing a JPEG 2000 QuickTime file.
-Russ
Russell Lasson
Ridgeline Digital Cinema Mastering
Universal Post
Salt Lake City, UT -
Hi Asher, As I told you, Russell knows about this.
I have just a very general idea.
Delivering codecs like this one needs that they must be decompressed very fast for RT play.
In the other hands those codecs normally are more complicated to compress.
Cameras like one that Joel comments must to have a very, very powerful processor (and very expensive) to compress to this codec in RT with the quality and definition that they are able to cope with.
Happy Saturday,
rafael -
Rafael & Russ, thanks for your input. It has been most helpul. The files will be for HD (1920×1080) stock footage downloads. I have been exploring the JPEG 2000 on recomendation from an experienced Avid editor, ideally the file needs to be universal enough that a FCP or Avid, or whatever the NLE, could download the clip and convert it to their prefered “flavor”. 2000 seems promising thus far specifically with size and the qaulity of converted files compared to other universal’ codecs.
-
[Asher Castillo] “universal enough that a FCP or Avid, or whatever the NLE, could download the clip and convert it to their prefered “flavor”. “
I don’t see JPEG2000 like a very “universal solution” when talking about NLE and conversion.
JPEG2000 is a compressed format (lossless/lossy) and FC only likes certain compressed formats.
I think there are better options. But if your client wants JPEG2000..
rafael -
Personally, if I downloaded a stock shot that was compressed in JPEG 2000, I’d be shocked and think it was really strange. I think that something like Photo-JPEG would be much more common. I would suggest using something that is more of an industry standard for downloading so you’ll have less need to support and explain to people why you chose JPEG 2000.
That’s just me though.
-Russ
Russell Lasson
Ridgeline Digital Cinema Mastering
Universal Post
Salt Lake City, UT -
Yesterday i was wandering if Asher was talking about PhotoJPEG instead of JPEG20000.
Rafael.
Reply to this Discussion! Login or Sign Up