| |
 |  | |  | |  | |  | |  | |
 |
| | BitJazz Is SheerVideo useful for the Animation codec?
Absolutely. SheerVideo is designed as a superior replacement for uncompressed codecs. Whether RGB or Y'CbCr, 4:2:2 or 4:4:4[:4], progressive or interlaced, SD or HD or arbitrary resolution, NTSC or PAL/SECAM, 4:3 or 16:9 or arbitrary frame aspect ratio, SheerVideo offers, on average, a 60% savings in time, space, and bandwidth.
Yes, SheerVideo is designed as a superior replacement for the RGB[A] 8b format of Apple's None codec, also known as 'raw '. SheerVideo directly supports the highest-precision RGB[A] 8b pixel format used by None, corresponding to Millions of Colors and Millions of Colors+. But SheerVideo takes only half the storage space and half the bandwidth to transmit. And in most situations, SheerVideo is twice as fast as None, because it overcomes storage and transmission bottlenecks.
Absolutely. SheerVideo is designed as a superior replacement for Apple's Component Video codec. SheerVideo directly supports the wide-range Y'CbCr 8bw 4:2:2 pixel format (also known as 'yuv2' or 'yuvu') used by Component Video. But SheerVideo only takes half as much storage space and half as big a bandwidth to transmit. And in most situations, SheerVideo is twice as fast as Component Video, because it overcomes storage and transmission bottlenecks. Moreover, unlike the Component Video codec, SheerVideo also directly supports other popular component video formats, such as 601-compliant video-range Y'CbCr 8bv 4:2:2 and Y'CbCr[A] 8bv 4:4:4[:4], and even RGB[A] 8b.
Yes. If time is more valuable to you than space, then SheerVideo is a heaven-sent replacement for Microcosm, since SheerVideo encodes 70 times faster (110 MiB/s on a 1-processor 1 GHz Mac G4) than Digital Anarchy's Microcosm codec (1.5 MiB/s), and SheerVideo decodes 15 times faster (100 versus 6.3 MiB/s). Yet for real-world footage, SheerVideo is only 3% less powerful (2.20 versus 2.27). And unlike Microcosm, SheerVideo also supports native video formats as well as RGB[A], although Microcosm also supports 16-bit channels.
Probably. If you're using PNG for real-world RGB 8b content, then SheerVideo is the perfect substitute. Not only does SheerVideo encode 60 times faster (110 versus 1.8 MiB/s on a 1-processor 1 GHz Mac G4) and decode 5 times faster (100 versus 18 MiB/s) than Apple's excellent implementation of PNG, and SheerVideo decodes 15 times faster (100 versus 6.3 MiB/s). SheerVideo is also 20% more powerful (2.20 versus 1.80) for real-world footage. And unlike PNG, SheerVideo also supports native video formats as well as RGB[A]. although PNG also supports 16-bit channels.
Maybe. If you're using PhotoJazz for real-world RGB[A] 8b data, and if time is a much more valuable criterion for you than space, then SheerVideo is unquestionably a superior substitute for PhotoJazz, since SheerVideo encodes and decodes 50 times faster (110 MiB/s on a 1-processor 1 GHz Mac G4) than BitJazz's PhotoJazz codec (1.9 MiB/s). And unlike PhotoJazz, SheerVideo also supports native video formats as well as RGB[A], although PhotoJazz also supports 16-bit channels and many other print-oriented formats and features.
Maybe. If you are using Apple's Animation codec for the traditional low-detail constant-shaded 2-dimensional content it was designed for, you will probably find it to be the best choice, since it compresses such material with much higher power than SheerVideo. And Animation directly supports low-precision color formats that are ideal for such material.
|
|
