Reading mode: Light Dark

Canon Movie Quality - Defending MJPEG

Go to last post
wowlfie said:
Hey all you camera guys. If you want FREE software that will batch
convert your Canon clips into Mpg4 or DIVX get the free OPEN SOURCE
converter FFMPEG at this link:

http://ffmpeg.mplayerhq.hu/index.html
Click to expand...
Hi,

so, can you help out just a little bit more. If I do not want (or can) compile the ffmpeg source code myself, where can I find it compiled (and no, I do not have linux running at home)?
wowlfie said:
It can reduce a standard Canon 2S movie file of 1 Gigabyte down to
about 80 megabytes with seemingly little loss in quality (12:1
compression). Beyond that you gets lots of artifacts and noise so
I don't recommend it but you can get very acceptable results for
web use if you plan to make available on the web (lower the bit
rate, frame rate, etc). You have total control of the bit rate,
how many frames to process, the timeframe, the size of the results
(you can zoom to any size you want), etc. Heck I can't possibly
list how much control you have here. For more details visit this
link:
Click to expand...
Can you share what encoding and parameters you use to compress 12:1 with little loss. Again, just to get me a little longer towards getting smaller files.

Thanks a lot!

Mats
 
DrSid said:
Or even loosy mpeg would be better.

As for worse color saturation or sharpness, there is no reason why
mp4 would introduce those. The person who processed the files had
to do some mistake somewhere.
Click to expand...
Actually the Canon MJPEG is actually 4:2:2 I believe. That means that it has many more colors than most other codecs can handle. There is a reason why the videos almost always look washed out when you recompress them. The original can handle many more colors.
 
No, actually they were taken under sunlight, outdoors. No matter what I did, I could easily (and I mean easily) see artifacts in the compressed video. I finally gave up.
Isabel Cutler said:
I'm wondering if your original was taken in low light. You may be
getting artifacts from visual noise at higher ISOs.
Isabel

--
'Twelve significant photographs in any one year is a significant
crop' Ansel Adams
http://www.pbase.com/isabel95
http://www.pbase.com/digipets (not only for pet digital photography!)
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digicamvideo/
Click to expand...
 
Yup, exactly my settings. I tried with higher data rates too, up to 1024 kbps. Still got artifacts. There are significant artifacts in your compressed videos too - look at the carpet and walls in "The Referee" or "Don't chew that baby". Compare with original - I bet your originals have much more "punch" and have better detail.
 
I agree, H264 beats other codecs in quality, while still being far from perfect for my needs ...
 
Canon should use this, instead of MJPEG.

it produce same/better quality at much lower size and it doesn't need powerful hardware. So they can get rid of that silly GB limit.

Use x264 its free and the best.
 
Isabel,

Did you ever try the new Microsoft WMV "Advanced" WMV9 codec as described on this webpage? It requires Windows Media Player 11 and some tweaks but it will rival your H264 compression. If you have the original .avi files from your camera we can do a comparison. Or we could just compress the sample video from the Tx-1 review and compare that way. I will post my best effort for the compressed TX-1 video in .wmv advanced. Can you post your best effort for the H.264?

Use this video
http://www.dcresource.com/reviews/canon/powershot_tx1-review/MVI_0013.AVI
Isabel Cutler said:
to that from other codecs, it does look better.
Isabel
--
'Twelve significant photographs in any one year is a significant
crop' Ansel Adams
http://www.pbase.com/isabel95
http://www.pbase.com/digipets (not only for pet digital photography!)
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digicamvideo/
Click to expand...
 
mpgxsvcd said:
If you have
the original .avi files from your camera we can do a comparison. Or
we could just compress the sample video from the Tx-1 review and
compare that way. I will post my best effort for the compressed
TX-1 video in .wmv advanced. Can you post your best effort for the
H.264?
Click to expand...
That would be very interesting!
By "best effort" you mean best video quality (size doesn't matter), I suppose?
 
I don’t think my 1600 kb/sec file is going to be quite up to the point I want it. I might try for 2000 kb/sec. I should be able to get pretty darn close to the original at that bit rate.

Let’s put this into perspective. The original is 32 megabits per second. The .MP4 file that the review had is 8 megabits per second and it showed considerable compression in my opionion. We are now trying to get down to 2 megabits per second with no quality loss. 1/16 compression is quite outstanding!
 
Yes, I meant could you take the TX-1 sample and encode it in H.264 at 2000 kb/sec average(It should be about a 16 megabyte file for the 8 seconds). If you can post that file then I will post the WMV file and we can compare.

Yea I was leery about editing the registry at first. That is why someone came up with this nifty tool that configures everything for you. Just install WMP11 and this tool. Then open the tool and you can hover over each setting and it will tell you what to pick.

http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?t=111710

If you are not using the advanced profile with WMV9 then you might as well revert to wmv7 because it is that big of a difference.
 
By best effort I meant maintain the highest quality you can while still hitting the target bit rate. Right now I could not acheive the quality I desired at less than 2000 kilobits per second. If someone can do better then please proove me wrong. I will post my example this weekend. My computer got hit by lighting yesterday so it will take me some time to restore everything.
harvester said:
mpgxsvcd said:
If you have
the original .avi files from your camera we can do a comparison. Or
we could just compress the sample video from the Tx-1 review and
compare that way. I will post my best effort for the compressed
TX-1 video in .wmv advanced. Can you post your best effort for the
H.264?
Click to expand...
That would be very interesting!
By "best effort" you mean best video quality (size doesn't matter),
I suppose?
Click to expand...
 
(You do need Quick Time Player 7 to view this.)

Size 2.8mb - rendered with 2000 bit rate, double pass processing in QuickTime Pro with H264 encoding.

When it opens up it fills the screen and there are no controls showing. I had to make it half size to see the controls. (I could then stretch it out to view it larger and still include the controls.)

http://www.isabelcutler.com/MVI_0013.MP4

Isabel
--

'Twelve significant photographs in any one year is a significant crop' Ansel Adams
http://www.pbase.com/isabel95
http://www.pbase.com/digipets (not only for pet digital photography!)
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/digicamvideo/
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

S
Canon EOS R7 - which zoom lens for wildlife photography?
2
Replies
36
Views
2K
MAC
MAC
D
Using Epson Glossy Exhibition Canvas on a Canon PRO-4600
Replies
7
Views
642
Dave Morgan OR
D
B
The R7 and Canon's Cheapest 3D Lens: 3D Stills and Video
2
Replies
22
Views
731
Jack Calypso
J
Scott Pickering
Canon R5 Vs R5ii for 8K Video Quality
2
Replies
20
Views
7K
Laqup
L
G
Amazon/eBay Canon compatible ink cartridges quality
Replies
0
Views
191
Guillermo Shashte
G

Keyboard shortcuts

f
Forum
m
My threads
Mobile site
About
Editorial content
Cameras & Lenses
Community
All content, design, and layout are Copyright © 1998–2025 Digital Photography Review All Rights Reserved.
Reproduction in whole or part in any form or medium without specific written permission is prohibited.
When you use DPReview links to buy products, the site may earn a commission.
©GPS Media - Guides, Products, Services.
Back
Top