Colin,
Yeah, if you encode fields with Animation, you don't lose them, but the
file doesn't indicate where they are. While M-JPEG will include field order
data in the file.
The problem with RGB is that if your source is subsampled Y'CbCr and so
is your output, you're causing two color space transforms, with attendant
rounding errors, in order to get precision that can't really be extracted
from the source or delivered in the output.
As for Photo-JPEG, it isn't truly lossless, but can be visually lossless
at high data rates.
-Ben
on 3/21/05 5:48, Colin Holgate at email@hidden wrote:
> At 2:26 AM -0700 3/21/05, Luke Wonderly wrote:
> As Ben Waggoner mentioned earlier on his post "If you want an interoperable
> video
> codec that supports fields, Motion JPEG B is your best choice. Quality is
> excellent
> at 90+. It'll actually be better than None, since it won't force an unneeded
> RGB transform"
>
> All the videos are DVC-PRO interlaced . . . isn't it important to maintain
> this for final delivery
> to T.V. DVD disk?
>
> I don't think Ben was saying that animation would get rid of a field, I
> believe he didn't mention it either because he was just thinking about video
> codecs, or he was concerned about the rgb conversion.
>
> Is it really true that some form of JPEG compression is a better option than a
> perfect rgb conversion? Doesn't 24 bit color have enough information in it to
> reproduce 4:4:4?
>
> When it is said that PhotoJPEG is lossless, does that mean in terms of
> quality, rather than the fact that the original image is reproduced pixel
> perfect (as is the case with animation)?
_______________________________________________
Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored.
QuickTime-Users mailing list (email@hidden)
Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription:
http://lists.apple.com/mailman/options/quicktime-users/email@hidden
This email sent to email@hidden
