ColorfulUmbrella
ColorfulUmbrella Recent Posts
Threads Started
271 posts
  • Microlancer Beta Tester
  • Bought between 100 and 499 items
  • Sold between 5 000 and 10 000 dollars
  • Has been a member for 1-2 years
  • Exclusive Author
  • Turkey
ColorfulUmbrella says

Hi.

I use Canon 600D for now.

My stock footages are all H.264 codec. But I looked best seller stock footage all of them are Photo JPEG codec.

Is that ?mportant for quality? I must render in AE Photo JPEG?

And also my Canon 600D shooting H.264, If I make render Photo JPEG will it be better my footage more than H.264 render?

it important for me.

Thank you : )

squareworldmedia
squareworldmedia Recent Posts
Threads Started
1 post
  • Bought between 50 and 99 items
  • Exclusive Author
  • Has been a member for 3-4 years
  • United States
squareworldmedia says

I am sitting here trying to figure out the same thing before I upload my first clip. I was all ready to go with a pro res clip then noticed that most of the top sellers in my category are in photo JPEG. So I am currently waiting for a render with jpeg to be done and boy its huge and slow. Is it worth it?

1471 posts
  • Sold between 10 000 and 50 000 dollars
  • Author had a File in an Envato Bundle
  • Most Wanted Bounty Winner
  • Russian Federation
  • Has been a member for 2-3 years
  • Exclusive Author
  • Referred between 10 and 49 users
  • Bought between 10 and 49 items
  • Grew a moustache for the Envato Movember competition
AndrVlad says

If you get MOV file from your camera and just re-encode to photo jpeg or whatever elso it will not improve quality. ;-)

I use the same Canon 600D camera lately and usually I either submit pure mov H.264 footage from the camera or process it in AE (usually to improve colors and remove annoying camera compression noise). After processing I still prefer to encode to H.264 (quality100, multi-pass). For me it makes much better quality for smaller size. I did a lot of comparison and use photo jpeg in less then 10% cases.

Honestly I don’t know why people love photo jpeg so much. I would not be surprised if someone use it just because it makes bigger files. :-)

P.S. Of course you need to add some litle almost invisible grain or noise before render. Otherwise rendering into H.264 will give you small file but with a lot of banding.

Best Regards, Andrey

ColorfulUmbrella
ColorfulUmbrella Recent Posts
Threads Started
271 posts
  • Microlancer Beta Tester
  • Bought between 100 and 499 items
  • Sold between 5 000 and 10 000 dollars
  • Has been a member for 1-2 years
  • Exclusive Author
  • Turkey
ColorfulUmbrella says

if l use h264 at all of my footages maybe 2000 footages; will my sells be low?

1471 posts
  • Sold between 10 000 and 50 000 dollars
  • Author had a File in an Envato Bundle
  • Most Wanted Bounty Winner
  • Russian Federation
  • Has been a member for 2-3 years
  • Exclusive Author
  • Referred between 10 and 49 users
  • Bought between 10 and 49 items
  • Grew a moustache for the Envato Movember competition
AndrVlad says

if l use h264 at all of my footages maybe 2000 footages; will my sells be low?

Depend on content mostly not on the codec at all. :-) Think about practical usage of your work and originality. Some footage here are nice but not all of them can be used widely.

Have golden rule in mind shot not everything you think nice to shot, process not every shot made and upload not every processed footage. For me I upload less then 5% of footage I shot selecting the best.

Good luck with your 2000 files!

Best Regards, Andrey

ColorfulUmbrella
ColorfulUmbrella Recent Posts
Threads Started
271 posts
  • Microlancer Beta Tester
  • Bought between 100 and 499 items
  • Sold between 5 000 and 10 000 dollars
  • Has been a member for 1-2 years
  • Exclusive Author
  • Turkey
ColorfulUmbrella says

AndrVlad Thank you for your kind comments. I need comments like yours.

but Im not have an answer yet:

Q1: I shot with canon 600d as h264. which is good render for me. photo jpeg or h264 ?

Q2: Do buyers care about this difference?

176 posts
  • Bought between 50 and 99 items
  • Exclusive Author
  • Has been a member for 2-3 years
  • Poland
  • Sold between 10 000 and 50 000 dollars
Hikari-Pictures says

Im agree with AndrVlad. Ive got similar situation in post production today. Ive created intro for music video in 60% created by HD stock footage in H264. But my client wanted this in ProRess 422HQ to next post production process (CC). I told him that it will not delivery any of extra information for this footage. Its just pump up empty gigabytes. But he didn’t believe so Ive send 3Gb file instead of 240Mb. This is just how they “see” things. :/

ColorfulUmbrella
ColorfulUmbrella Recent Posts
Threads Started
271 posts
  • Microlancer Beta Tester
  • Bought between 100 and 499 items
  • Sold between 5 000 and 10 000 dollars
  • Has been a member for 1-2 years
  • Exclusive Author
  • Turkey
ColorfulUmbrella says

Im agree with AndrVlad. Ive got similar situation in post production today. Ive created intro for music video in 60% created by HD stock footage in H264. But my client wanted this in ProRess 422HQ to next post production process (CC). I told him that it will not delivery any of extra information for this footage. Its just pump up empty gigabytes. But he didn’t believe so Ive send 3Gb file instead of 240Mb. This is just how they “see” things. :/

Understand… I made a test before 5 second.

there is no big quality or big noise difference for h264 and photo JPEG.

but photo JPEG 540 mb h264 220mb : )

4792 posts
  • Elite Author
  • Community Moderator
  • Sold between 100 000 and 250 000 dollars
  • Author had a File in an Envato Bundle
  • Beta Tester
  • Has been a member for 4-5 years
  • United Kingdom
+5 more
felt_tips Volunteer moderator says

If footage is shot in h.264 then you certainly don’t “add” quality to it by compressing as ProRes or PJPEG. However, if you are going to do something to your footage – for instance a colour correction – and then save off into another format, then by using h.264, you are effectively applying two rounds of very heavy compression to your footage. If you were to use Prores or PJPEG, you will have used the first initial h.264 out of the camera, followed by a very light compression. The artefacts from the first round of compression (saved by the camera) will always be there, but by using PJPEG or ProRes, you will be avoiding a second round of heavy h.264 artefacts.

You could liken it to making a recording of an old vinyl record. However you record it, you will have the crackle of the vinyl and the scratch of the needle, but if you imagine recording the output of the record through a cable to an uncompressed digital format – you will have a high-fidelity copy of the record, including all its scratches. If you record the same using a cheap microphone held up to the speaker, then you will have a low-fidelity copy and you will add a layer of audio-mud to the recording of the crackly record. Same principle. It’s all about generational loss.

The best way to judge for video is by eye on a clip by clip basis. Ultimately, experience and a little experimentation is usually the way to go. Important to understand is also roughly how various codecs work. Crucially, h.264 is an inter-frame codec, whereas ProRes and PJPEG are intra-frame codecs. Understanding the differences between these two will go some way to making it clear to you which to use and when.

176 posts
  • Bought between 50 and 99 items
  • Exclusive Author
  • Has been a member for 2-3 years
  • Poland
  • Sold between 10 000 and 50 000 dollars
Hikari-Pictures says

felt_tips / Great example with Vinyl record. :) PJPEG is good for time-lapse with hundreds of single jpg frames.

by
by
by
by
by
by