pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Mpeg Streamclip Help  (Read 1400 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« on: August 03, 2016, 15:12 »
0
Hello everyone,

I have a problem with converting movies with photo jpeg codec by using mpeg stream clip..

Selecting "export to quick time" and "apple photo jpeg" codec creates a output three times bigger than the original movie size. I am attaching a screenshot of this.

When i select "export to other format" then select "quicktime movie" then select photo jpeg codec creates an output as big as the original movie size. I am also attaching a screenshot of this.

Converting with h.264 works fine. I get small size converted movies. Bu i haven't managed to get small size movies with photo jpeg codec with mpeg stream clip.

Is there anyone who knows what i am doing wrong? Any suggestions?
« Last Edit: August 03, 2016, 15:14 by theendup »


SpaceStockFootage

  • Space, Sci-Fi and Astronomy Related Stock Footage

« Reply #1 on: August 04, 2016, 04:54 »
0
I've never used that software, but I would expect Photo Jpeg to be a lot bigger than mpeg. Different formats and different codecs, use different levels of compression, and when uploading to stock sites, less compression is usually the way to go.

My upload sizes vary quite a bit depending on the complexity of the scene, but for a 10 second clip in Photo Jpeg, I get clips from between 50MB and 350MB. I'd say most are around 150MB. For H.264 they come out at around 25 to 50% less than that. If I was exporting MP4 for Youtube or something, then they'd be about 5MB to 35MB.

« Reply #2 on: August 04, 2016, 04:57 »
0
Which software do you use to convert movies for stock?

SpaceStockFootage

  • Space, Sci-Fi and Astronomy Related Stock Footage

« Reply #3 on: August 04, 2016, 07:30 »
0
I create, or at least finish, all my work in After Effects, so I use Adobe Media Encoder which comes with it.

Benozaur

« Reply #4 on: August 04, 2016, 08:51 »
0
What is your source material, what are you converting from? What is your workflow?
pjpeg isn't exactly the most efficient codec out there - but why should you care about file sizes anyway if you are uploading them to stock agencies.
It seems to me (and I'm only assuming this) that you probably already have heavily compressed source material and just want to re-wrap into another container (mov) with pjpeg codec.
Need more info in order to answer your question...

« Reply #5 on: August 04, 2016, 08:58 »
0
Well the source material is the raw movies right out of my camera.. They are .mov files with h.264 codec.. I try to convert them to .mov files with photo jpeg codec for istockphoto.. But i can t reduce the files sizes while they are much smaller with h.264...
« Last Edit: August 04, 2016, 09:01 by theendup »

SpaceStockFootage

  • Space, Sci-Fi and Astronomy Related Stock Footage

« Reply #6 on: August 04, 2016, 11:22 »
0
Most sites accept H.264 if it's the native output of your camera

Benozaur

« Reply #7 on: August 05, 2016, 05:39 »
0
Well the source material is the raw movies right out of my camera.. They are .mov files with h.264 codec.. I try to convert them to .mov files with photo jpeg codec for istockphoto.. But i can t reduce the files sizes while they are much smaller with h.264...

OK, that's where the "problem" lies. h.264 is a delivery codec which saves chunks of data over a number of frames in order to be more "efficient" at throwing away as much data as possible while trying to preserve overall quality. For example a shot of a blue sky doesn't change much so information is passed along in chunks as opposed to every frame (depending on how often you set your keyframes - i.e. Variable Bit Rate).
PhotoJPEG is more an intermediary codec that saves data every frame (Constant Bit Rate), it's less efficient at throwing away data over spans of frames.
So I am not surprised that converting h.264 to PJPEG results in a larger file.
Just give the agencies what they want and don't worry too much about smaller file sizes.
Its a good thing that you are not trying to convert to ProRes - then your file sizes will really go through the roof...

« Reply #8 on: August 05, 2016, 09:05 »
0
So I am not surprised that converting h.264 to PJPEG results in a larger file.
Just give the agencies what they want and don't worry too much about smaller file sizes.
Its a good thing that you are not trying to convert to ProRes - then your file sizes will really go through the roof...

I'll say right off the start I'm not a fan of PhotoJpeg. FWIW- I took a short 7 second clip shot with H.264 on a GH4 with a original file size of 84MB and ran it through MPEG Streamclip. The ProRes 422 yielded a file size of 246 MB and the PhotoJpeg yielded a file size of 581 MB, more than twice that of ProRes 422. That's at 100% setting. I guess you can diddle with the Quality slider but why? With ProRes you only get one thing, max quality. Half a gig plus for 7 seconds of 1080P?? I also found that by the time you get the P-jpeg to a reasonable size, there really is a degradation of quality especially WRT banding in narrow graduations of colour or luminance. This is just me, I'd go for the 422 over Pjpeg.

Benozaur

« Reply #9 on: August 05, 2016, 09:29 »
0
So I am not surprised that converting h.264 to PJPEG results in a larger file.
Just give the agencies what they want and don't worry too much about smaller file sizes.
Its a good thing that you are not trying to convert to ProRes - then your file sizes will really go through the roof...

I'll say right off the start I'm not a fan of PhotoJpeg. FWIW- I took a short 7 second clip shot with H.264 on a GH4 with a original file size of 84MB and ran it through MPEG Streamclip. The ProRes 422 yielded a file size of 246 MB and the PhotoJpeg yielded a file size of 581 MB, more than twice that of ProRes 422. That's at 100% setting. I guess you can diddle with the Quality slider but why? With ProRes you only get one thing, max quality. Half a gig plus for 7 seconds of 1080P?? I also found that by the time you get the P-jpeg to a reasonable size, there really is a degradation of quality especially WRT banding in narrow graduations of colour or luminance. This is just me, I'd go for the 422 over Pjpeg.

True. I always encode pjpeg at 90-95% quality. However its still an 8bit codec so banding will occur and macro blocking will transfer from the h.264 source. However simply changing the codec doesn't add to the quality of your clip. Simply converting h.264 to ProRes adds nothing (apart from extra megabytes to your overall file).
Like I said earlier - if the agency wants pjpeg then give them what they want, if its a bigger file then so be it - it will live on their servers anyway.

« Reply #10 on: August 05, 2016, 09:50 »
0

Like I said earlier - if the agency wants pjpeg then give them what they want, if its a bigger file then so be it - it will live on their servers anyway.

True enough. There was a time when agencies demanded TIFF photo files. Never would they let an inferior jpeg touch their servers. No way. "you know how jpegs are made -- don't you?" they would say. "buyers want to manipulate a high quality file that hasn't been compressed..." You'd hear the  odd photographer grumble, "but I can't tell the difference..." who would quickly be shut down for his/her inferior eye. I think this is where we are at with h.264

gyllens

« Reply #11 on: August 05, 2016, 11:08 »
0
Using Premierepro and converting to proress422HQ!


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
0 Replies
674 Views
Last post January 14, 2010, 19:53
by melastmohican
3 Replies
1643 Views
Last post May 17, 2015, 14:01
by lex-icon
1 Replies
750 Views
Last post February 05, 2016, 22:48
by Rick_jo
7 Replies
610 Views
Last post April 18, 2017, 09:00
by dragonblade

Sponsors

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors