Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
scrambled

Codecs etc

Recommended Posts

I think izoneguy hit on a very important point in the 'shutterstock footage!' thread:

 

One suggestion, have a standard for the .avi & .mov files, or it could get real nasty will quick. Every NLE uses it's own codec so you have to be careful what you are offering. I assume you will have the same kind of model release as you do for the still photos?

 

In the world of still images, jpg is a very standardized file format with few restrictions on use. However in the video (and to a lesser extent audio) world codecs have a history of rapid change and are usually proprietary (microsoft, intel etc etc) and may have restrictions on use (e.g. divx, another e.g. is there even a player on pc / mac / linux).

 

On top of that most video codecs are very lossy and cross-conversion from a very lossy archive codec to the latest 'flavour of the month' web codec could lose a lot of quality. Not to mention conversion between PAL and NTSC, interlacing etc.

 

So while a content developer can invest in making a photo collection and have his photos usable everywhere and be sure his photos would still be usable in 5 / 10 years time, the future is far less certain for video (dvcams, high definition tv, new codecs, standards etc).

 

In order to even attempt to give some future-proofing to the footage collection, maybe some kind of standardization might be worth looking into. One example might be a lossless open source public domain codec (there may be a suitable huffman codec) but again there are problems with huge filesizes. Another might be motion jpg.

 

Be very interesting to see how it all pans out!! :)

 

Oo and here's a simpler suggestion ... audio stock!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"codecs" ... a six letter word that for the sake of consistency with modern English ... should have four letters.

 

Did you have to mention codecs?

 

I was really, really enjoying this idea about stock video.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
"codecs" ... a six letter word that for the sake of consistency with modern English ... should have four letters.

 

Did you have to mention codecs?

 

I was really, really enjoying this idea about stock video.

 

lol :D

 

I know ..

 

didn't want to be the first to point this out so didn't post last night .. however it's early days yet and I'm sure shutterstock will come to some reasonable arrangement that's best for content providers and buyers. :)

 

Have had previous experience of this problem working in games, where u have to be very careful what you distribute as far as codecs are concerned .. which is partly why 'smacker and bink' has become so popular for in-game movies.

 

So that avi you made with a mp3 soundtrack? Guess who wants a slice of the pie! etc etc ad infinitum ...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

hhaaaaa, I hate codecs.

It would probably be better if SS supplied some guidelines regarding compression, video especially.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would agree that SS should be providing some groundrules - for want of a better word - on the formats to use. At the moment, it seems a bit woolly.

 

For example, it would be possible to use WMV9 lossless, but that is proprietary to MS, so should we also provide clips in lossless QT?

 

The advantage of using one of these codecs over, say, raw DV footage in an AVI file is that you can put in tagged information.

 

What about high-definition footage? Does that muddy it even further?

 

--Philip

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've thought of two reasons why there needs to be standardisation on the codecs used:

 

1. It ensures that some whacky format isn't used that the inspectors and, more importantly, the customers haven't come across before and therefore have to install.

 

2. It minimises the extra work that customers have to go through in order to utilise the clips. Almost anyone, on any platform, can use at least one of the major formats like MPEG, QT .mov and MS .wmv.

 

The trouble with AVI and QT formats is that they are actually containers for other formats inside them. Again, if those are formats that are being used, there needs to be guidance as to the exact parameters for the encoding so that there is consistency.

 

Without consistency in the offerings to customers, this might turn into a jumble sale and none of us would want that.

 

--Philip

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
For example, it would be possible to use WMV9 lossless, but that is proprietary to MS, so should we also provide clips in lossless QT?

I was mistaken about this - Windows Media offers lossless audio compression but not lossless video.

 

--Philip

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All systems do take DV25, in either AVI or QT, as long as it is encoded in standard DV25... but if you ask me (as a video producer), I'd rather have them in QuickTime. There are more standards but DV25 is huge enough for the Net. It is clear that codecs for submission are not clear. Has this been written?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...