[FFmpeg-user] LLossless (10 Bit RGB 444) and (10 Bit YUV 422) Compression

Jason Freets jasonslife at hotmail.com
Wed Dec 31 02:08:18 CET 2014

> Subject: Re: [FFmpeg-user] LLossless (10 Bit RGB 444) and (10 Bit YUV 422)	Compression
> Jason Freets <jasonslife <at> hotmail.com> writes:
> > I can convert to R10k. However, If I am to use 
> > FFMpeg, then that seems like my only option since 
> > FFmpeg won't output r10k. It means I can NEVER go 
> > back to r10k though once I convert to FFV1 using 
> > FFmpeg.
> Why do you want to "go back" to r10k?
> What is the advantage over using R10k?

I have no outstanding reason outside of conveyance and for when they come already in that format. I have a lot and deal with a lot of video in r10k (not R10k). Yes, I could work with them in R10k. Actually I have both. But, the way I am looking at it (not at the code level like you do), R10k is similar to r10k. If it's easy to output to R10k, not sure why FFmpeg couldn't be made to write out r10k too since AJA supports it and since R10k is similar to it. But, I won't push it. Like I said, it's a nice to have. Perhaps from your end (at the code level) it would be much more complicated. It is what it is then.   

I suppose that's a push up and change. In FFmpeg's world right now "-vcodec r10k" is considered R10k. So to me, I think FFmpeg dealing with r10k is already confusing since r10k and R10k are really different. But that's just my opinion. Thankfully no one has to listen to me ;) haha. I'm saying if r10k and R10k are different, might as well make it consistent. 

> > With v210, for example I could convert from v210 
> > to FFV1 and then back to v210 and verify that 
> > the conversion was correct.
> How did you verify it?
> Didn't you use FFmpeg and hoped that 
> its verification methods are correct?

Yes, using framemd5's. And, the fact that I could output FFV1 back to v210 and end up with the same v210 that I started with before passing it into FFmpeg. So that was very nice! And, very convenient. 

> If you trust the verification of FFmpeg, you can 
> still do:
> $ ffmpeg -i input -f framecrc crc1.txt
> $ ffmpeg -i input -vcodec ffv1 -pix_fmt gbrp10 -coder 1 out.avi
> $ ffmpeg -i out.avi -vcodec r10k out2.avi
> $ ffmpeg -i out2.avi -pix_fmt bgr48 -f framecrc crc2.txt
> I would bet (not my fingers but still) that crc1.txt 
> and crc2.txt are identical.
> But this of course does not rule out bugs and I 
> sincerely hope you read FFmpeg's license before 
> using it...

I may play with that later.

I wouldn't use FFmpeg if I didn't trust it =). For v210, I've proven it to myself and use FFV1 a lot.  For r10k, it's still not there yet. Making progress though. For this reason, I keep everything in original r10k format. I won't convert r10k files to FFV1 until I have a way to verify the conversion is done properly. Otherwise, yes, it is a risk. And a risk is something not tolerable for me. 



> Carl Eugen
> _______________________________________________
> ffmpeg-user mailing list
> ffmpeg-user at ffmpeg.org
> http://ffmpeg.org/mailman/listinfo/ffmpeg-user

More information about the ffmpeg-user mailing list