DOCSLIB.ORG

On Audio-Visual File Formats

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
On Audio-Visual File Formats On Audio-Visual File Formats Summary • digital audio and digital video • container, codec, raw data Reto Kromer • AV Preservation by reto.ch • different formats for different purposes Open-Source Tools and Resources audio-visual data transformations for Audio-Visual Archives • Elías Querejeta Zine Eskola Donostia (San Sebastián), Spain 19, 21, 26 and 28 May 2020 1 2 Digital Audio • sampling Digital Audio • quantisation 3 4 Sampling • 44.1 kHz • 48 kHz • 96 kHz • 192 kHz digitisation = sampling + quantisation • 500 kHz 5 6 Quantisation • 16 bit (216 = 65 536) • 24 bit (224 = 16 777 216) • 32 bit (232 = 4 294 967 296) Digital Video 7 8 Digital Video Resolution • resolution • SD 480i / SD 576i • bit depth • HD 720p / HD 1080i • linear, power, logarithmic • 2K / HD 1080p • colour model • 4K / UHD-1 • chroma subsampling • 8K / UHD-2 • illuminant 9 10 Bit Depth Linear, Power, Logarithmic • 8 bit (28 = 256) «medium grey» • 10 bit (210 = 1 024) • linear: 18% • 12 bit (212 = 4 096) • power: 50% • 16 bit (216 = 65 536) • logarithmic: 50% • 24 bit (224 = 16 777 216) 11 12 Colour Model • XYZ, L*a*b* • RGB / R′G′B′ / CMY / C′M′Y′ • Y′IQ / Y′UV / Y′DBDR • Y′CBCR / Y′COCG • Y′PBPR 13 14 15 16 RGB24 00000000 11111111 00000000 00000000 00000000 00000000 11111111 00000000 00000000 00000000 00000000 11111111 00000000 11111111 11111111 11111111 11111111 00000000 11111111 11111111 11111111 11111111 00000000 11111111 17 18 Compression • uncompressed • lossless compression • lossy compression • chroma subsampling • born compressed 19 20 Uncompressed Lossless Compression + data simpler to process + smaller files + software runs faster + faster writing, transmission and reading – bigger files – data processing complexer – slower writing, transmission and reading – software runs slower Examples: TIFF, DPX, DNG, OpenEXR Examples: JPEG 2000, FFV1 21 22 Lossy Compression Chroma Subsampling optimised for image acquisition and/or 4:4:4 • postproduction • 4:2:2 optimised for access • • • 4:2:0 / 4:1:1 Examples (mezzanine): ProRes 422, ProRes 4444, DNxHD, DNxHR Examples (access): H.264 (AVC), H.265 (HEVC), AV1 23 24 4:4:4 4:2:2 4 ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● 2 ● ○ ● ○ ● ○ ● ○ 4 ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● 2 ● ○ ● ○ ● ○ ● ○ ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ○ ● ○ ● ○ ● ○ ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ○ ● ○ ● ○ ● ○ 25 26 4:2:0 4:1:1 2 ● ○ ● ○ ● ○ ● ○ 1 ● ○ ○ ○ ● ○ ○ ○ 0 ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ 1 ● ○ ○ ○ ● ○ ○ ○ ● ○ ● ○ ● ○ ● ○ ● ○ ○ ○ ● ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ○ ● ○ ○ ○ ● ○ ○ ○ 27 28 Born Compressed Bayer optimised for both image acquisition and • postproduction Examples: CineForm RAW, ProRes RAW 29 30 31 32 Illuminant • D50 • D55 • D65 • D75 33 34 35 36 File Structure 37 38 0111010100101010100010110101011110 0100110101010101010100001011101010 File Structure 0111010100101010100010110101011110 0001110101010101010100001011101010 audio-visual container (wrapper) 0110101010010101010001011010101111 audio 0010101010101010000101110101010000 codec video codec 0111010100101010100010110101011110 0101010101010101000010111010100110 1001011101010010101010001011010101 audio video data 1110010101010101010000101110101010 data 0111010100101010100010110101011110 0101010101010101001101010100000001 0010100010101010101001010101010101 39 40 Audio-Visual Container Single Images • MP4 • MXF • folder • MXF • MOV • Matroska (.mkv) • TAR • Matroska (.mkv) • AVI • ZIP • CinemaDNG • Flash 41 42 Audio Codec Video Codec (Master) • WAVE • FLAC images streams • BWF • TIFF • 8 bit raw • DPX • 10 bit raw • JPEG 2000 • HuffYUV • OpenEXR • FFV1 • AAC • DNG • MP3 43 44 Video Codec (Mezzanine) Video Codec (Access) • ProRes 422, ProRes 4444, ProRes RAW • H.264, H.265 (HEVC), AV1 • DNxHD, DNxHR • CineForm RAW 45 46 Audio Data • pcm_s16le Data is anything • pcm_s24le but «raw». • pcm_s32le 47 48 Video Data What is inside my DPX? • rgb48le • yuv444p16le • log neg encoding • rgb24 • yuv422p10le • log RGB encoding or quasi-log encoding rgb72le uyvy422 gamma encoding or power function • • • encoding yuv420p • scene-linear encoding • yuv444p24le • • bayer_bggr16le • bayer_bggr24le 49 50 Principles The archive must be able to handle • the file formats it holds. File Formats • open source • simple to use and well documented • widely used by the community 51 52 Different Purposes archive master format: Elena Rossi-Snook: ➔ for preservation mezzanine format: Archiving without access ➔ for professional use in post-production isn’t preservation, dissemination formats: ➔ for widely spreading and easy access it’s hoarding. 53 54 Archive Master (Today) Mezzanine (Today) film video • folder, TIFF, 2K, RGB, 4:4:4, 16 bit • ProRes 4444, 2K • MXF, DPX, 2K, R′G′B′, 4:4:4, 10 bit • DNxHR, 2K video • ProRes 422 HQ, HD • AVI, «raw», HD, Y′CBCR, 4:2:2, 10 bit • DNxHD 175x, HD • Matroska, FFV1, HD, Y′CBCR, 4:2:2, 10 bit audio audio • BWF, 48 kHz, 24 bit • BWF, 96 kHz, 24 bit • WAVE, 48 kHz, 24 bit • FLAC, 96 kHz, 24 bit 55 56 Dissemination (Today) Archive Master and Mezzanine MP4 film Matroska, FFV1, 2K, «RGB», 4:4:4, 16 bit Video • • H.264, SD, yuv420p, «lossy» video • H.264, HD, yuv420p, «lossy» • Matroska, FFV1, HD, Y′CBCR, 4:2:2, 10 bit Sound audio • AAC, 44.1 kHz, 16 bit • Matroska, FLAC, 96 kHz, 24 bit • AAC, 48 kHz, 16 bit 57 58 Access Reading WebM (a subset of Matroska) Reto Kromer: Matroska and FFV1: One File Video Format for Film and Video Archiving?, in «Journal of Film Preservation», n. 96 (April • «H.265», HD, yuv420p 2017), FIAF, Brussels, Belgium, p. 41–45 • AV1, HD, yuv420p ➔ https://retokromer.ch/publications/ Sound JFP_96.html • FLAC, 48 kHz, 16 bit 59 60 container: codec: • folder • TIFF • TAR • DPX • ZIP • JPEG 2000 Pros & Cons • MXF • FFV1 • Matroska • OpenEXR • CineForm RAW • ProRes RAW 61 62 avantages disavantages TIFF data easier DPX to process bigger files OpenEXR Transformations JPEG 2000 smaller files data complexer FFV1 to process 63 64 Data Transformations demultiplex multiplex decode encode filter 67 65 XYZ [M] tristimulus QuickTime pcm_s24le RGB AAC transfer function R′G′B′ [M] Audio Exemple colour diff. encode Y′CBCR 4:4:4 demultiplex multiplex decode encode subsampling filter filter 68 66 Y′CBCR 4:2:2 interpolation filter Y′CBCR 4:4:4 [M] colour diff. decode pcm_s16le MP4 WAVE R′G′B′ transfer function RGB [M] tristimulus XYZ Video Exemple Audio-Visual Exemple QuickTime QuickTime demultiplex demultiplex ProRes 422 HQ WAVE decode decode ProRes 422 HQ yuv422p10le pcm_s24le filter yuv422p10le filter yuv420p pcm_s16le H.264 encode AAC encode yuv420p multiplex H.264 multiplex MP4 MP4 69 70 Acknowledgements AV Preservation by reto.ch Swiss Federal Institute of Technology zone industrielle Le Trési 3 • 1028 Préverenges • Massachusetts Institute of Technology Switzerland • Kinemathek Lichtspiel, Bern Web: reto.ch Twitter: @retoch • Charles Poynton Email: [email protected] • Dave Rice & Misty De Meo • Agathe Jarczyk & David Pfluger 71 72.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • On Audio-Visual File Formats
    On Audio-Visual File Formats Summary • digital audio and digital video • container, codec, raw data • different formats for different purposes Reto Kromer • AV Preservation by reto.ch • audio-visual data transformations Film Preservation and Restoration Hyderabad, India 8–15 December 2019 1 2 Digital Audio • sampling Digital Audio • quantisation 3 4 Sampling • 44.1 kHz • 48 kHz • 96 kHz • 192 kHz digitisation = sampling + quantisation 5 6 Quantisation • 16 bit (216 = 65 536) • 24 bit (224 = 16 777 216) • 32 bit (232 = 4 294 967 296) Digital Video 7 8 Digital Video Resolution • resolution • SD 480i / SD 576i • bit depth • HD 720p / HD 1080i • linear, power, logarithmic • 2K / HD 1080p • colour model • 4K / UHD-1 • chroma subsampling • 8K / UHD-2 • illuminant 9 10 Bit Depth Linear, Power, Logarithmic • 8 bit (28 = 256) «medium grey» • 10 bit (210 = 1 024) • linear: 18% • 12 bit (212 = 4 096) • power: 50% • 16 bit (216 = 65 536) • logarithmic: 50% • 24 bit (224 = 16 777 216) 11 12 Colour Model • XYZ, L*a*b* • RGB / R′G′B′ / CMY / C′M′Y′ • Y′IQ / Y′UV / Y′DBDR • Y′CBCR / Y′COCG • Y′PBPR 13 14 15 16 17 18 RGB24 00000000 11111111 00000000 00000000 00000000 00000000 11111111 00000000 00000000 00000000 00000000 11111111 00000000 11111111 11111111 11111111 11111111 00000000 11111111 11111111 11111111 11111111 00000000 11111111 19 20 Compression Uncompressed • uncompressed + data simpler to process • lossless compression + software runs faster • lossy compression – bigger files • chroma subsampling – slower writing, transmission and reading • born
    [Show full text]
  • © 2019 Jimi Jones
    © 2019 Jimi Jones SO MANY STANDARDS, SO LITTLE TIME: A HISTORY AND ANALYSIS OF FOUR DIGITAL VIDEO STANDARDS BY JIMI JONES DISSERTATION Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Library and Information Science in the Graduate College of the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, 2019 Urbana, Illinois Doctoral Committee: Associate Professor Jerome McDonough, Chair Associate Professor Lori Kendall Assistant Professor Peter Darch Professor Howard Besser, New York University ABSTRACT This dissertation focuses on standards for digital video - the social aspects of their design and the sociotechnical forces that drive their development and adoption. This work is a history and analysis of how the MXF, JPEG 2000, FFV1 and Matroska standards have been adopted and/or adapted by libraries and archives of different sizes. Well-funded institutions often have the resources to develop tailor-made specifications for the digitization of their analog video objects. Digital video standards and specifications of this kind are often derived from the needs of the cinema production and television broadcast realms in the United States and may be unsuitable for smaller memory institutions that are resource-poor and/or lack staff with the knowledge to implement these technologies. This research seeks to provide insight into how moving image preservation professionals work with - and sometimes against - broadcast and film production industries in order to produce and/or implement standards governing video formats and encodings. This dissertation describes the transition of four digital video standards from niches to widespread use in libraries and archives. It also examines the effects these standards produce on cultural heritage video preservation by interviewing people who implement the standards as well as people who develop them.
    [Show full text]
  • Opus, a Free, High-Quality Speech and Audio Codec
    Opus, a free, high-quality speech and audio codec Jean-Marc Valin, Koen Vos, Timothy B. Terriberry, Gregory Maxwell 29 January 2014 Xiph.Org & Mozilla What is Opus? ● New highly-flexible speech and audio codec – Works for most audio applications ● Completely free – Royalty-free licensing – Open-source implementation ● IETF RFC 6716 (Sep. 2012) Xiph.Org & Mozilla Why a New Audio Codec? http://xkcd.com/927/ http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/standards.png Xiph.Org & Mozilla Why Should You Care? ● Best-in-class performance within a wide range of bitrates and applications ● Adaptability to varying network conditions ● Will be deployed as part of WebRTC ● No licensing costs ● No incompatible flavours Xiph.Org & Mozilla History ● Jan. 2007: SILK project started at Skype ● Nov. 2007: CELT project started ● Mar. 2009: Skype asks IETF to create a WG ● Feb. 2010: WG created ● Jul. 2010: First prototype of SILK+CELT codec ● Dec 2011: Opus surpasses Vorbis and AAC ● Sep. 2012: Opus becomes RFC 6716 ● Dec. 2013: Version 1.1 of libopus released Xiph.Org & Mozilla Applications and Standards (2010) Application Codec VoIP with PSTN AMR-NB Wideband VoIP/videoconference AMR-WB High-quality videoconference G.719 Low-bitrate music streaming HE-AAC High-quality music streaming AAC-LC Low-delay broadcast AAC-ELD Network music performance Xiph.Org & Mozilla Applications and Standards (2013) Application Codec VoIP with PSTN Opus Wideband VoIP/videoconference Opus High-quality videoconference Opus Low-bitrate music streaming Opus High-quality music streaming Opus Low-delay
    [Show full text]
  • FFV1, Matroska, LPCM (And More)
    MediaConch Implementation and policy checking on FFV1, Matroska, LPCM (and more) Jérôme Martinez, MediaArea Innovation Workshop ‑ March 2017 What is MediaConch? MediaConch is a conformance checker Implementation checker Policy checker Reporter Fixer What is MediaConch? Implementation and Policy reporter What is MediaConch? Implementation report: Policy report: What is MediaConch? General information about your files What is MediaConch? Inspect your files What is MediaConch? Policy editor What is MediaConch? Public policies What is MediaConch? Fixer Segment sizes in Matroska Matroska “bit flip” correction FFV1 “bit flip” correction Integration Archivematica is an integrated suite of open‑source software tools that allows users to process digital objects from ingest to access in compliance with the ISO‑OAIS functional model MediaConch interfaces Graphical interface Web interface Command line Server (REST API) (Work in progress) a library (.dll/.so/.dylib) MediaConch output formats XML (native format) Text HTML (Work in progress) PDF Tweakable! (with XSL) Open source GPLv3+ and MPLv2+ Relies on MediaInfo (metadata extraction tool) Use well‑known open source libraries: Qt, sqlite, libevent, libxml2, libxslt, libexslt... Supported formats Priorities for the implementation checker Matroska FFV1 PCM Can accept any format supported by MediaInfo for the policy checker MXF + JP2k QuickTime/MOV Audio files (WAV, BWF, AIFF...) ... Supported formats Can be expanded By plugins Support of PDF checker: VeraPDF plugin Support of TIFF checker: DPF Manager plugin You use another checker? Let us know By internal development More tests on your preferred format is possible It depends on you! Versatile Several input formats are accepted FFV1 from MOV or AVI Matroska with other video formats (Work in progress) Extraction of a PDF or TIFF aachement from a Matroska container and analyze with a plugin (e.g.
    [Show full text]
  • Recommended File Formats for Long-Term Archiving and for Web Dissemination in Phaidra
    Recommended file formats for long-term archiving and for web dissemination in Phaidra Edited by Gianluca Drago May 2019 License: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/ Premise This document is intended to provide an overview of the file formats to be used depending on two possible destinations of the digital document: long-term archiving uploading to Phaidra and subsequent web dissemination When the document uploaded to Phaidra is also the only saved file, the two destinations end up coinciding, but in general one will probably want to produce two different files, in two different formats, so as to meet the differences in requirements and use in the final destinations. In the following tables, the recommendations for long-term archiving are distinct from those for dissemination in Phaidra. There are no absolute criteria for choosing the file format. The choice is always dependent on different evaluations that the person who is carrying out the archiving will have to make on a case by case basis and will often result in a compromise between the best achievable quality and the limits imposed by the costs of production, processing and storage of files, as well as, for the preceding, by the opportunity of a conversion to a new format. 1 This choice is particularly significant from the perspective of long-term archiving, for which a quality that respects the authenticity and integrity of the original document and a format that guarantees long-term access to data are desirable. This document should be seen more as an aid to the reasoned choice of the person carrying out the archiving than as a list of guidelines to be followed to the letter.
    [Show full text]
  • FFV1 Video Codec Specification
    FFV1 Video Codec Specification by Michael Niedermayer [email protected] Contents 1 Introduction 2 2 Terms and Definitions 2 2.1 Terms ................................................. 2 2.2 Definitions ............................................... 2 3 Conventions 3 3.1 Arithmetic operators ......................................... 3 3.2 Assignment operators ........................................ 3 3.3 Comparison operators ........................................ 3 3.4 Order of operation precedence .................................... 4 3.5 Range ................................................. 4 3.6 Bitstream functions .......................................... 4 4 General Description 5 4.1 Border ................................................. 5 4.2 Median predictor ........................................... 5 4.3 Context ................................................ 5 4.4 Quantization ............................................. 5 4.5 Colorspace ............................................... 6 4.5.1 JPEG2000-RCT ....................................... 6 4.6 Coding of the sample difference ................................... 6 4.6.1 Range coding mode ..................................... 6 4.6.2 Huffman coding mode .................................... 9 5 Bitstream 10 5.1 Configuration Record ......................................... 10 5.1.1 In AVI File Format ...................................... 11 5.1.2 In ISO/IEC 14496-12 (MP4 File Format) ......................... 11 5.1.3 In NUT File Format ....................................
    [Show full text]
  • Pragmatic Audiovisual Preservation
    http://doi.org/10.7207/twr20-10 Pragmatic Audiovisual Preservation Ashley Blewer DPC Technology Watch Report October 2020 © Digital Preservation Coalition 2020 and Ashley Blewer 2020 ISSN: 2048-7916 DOI: http://doi.org/10.7207/twr20-10 All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, without prior permission in writing from the publisher. The moral rights of the author have been asserted. First published in Great Britain in 2020 by the Digital Preservation Coalition. Pragmatic Audiovisual Preservation Foreword The Digital Preservation Coalition (DPC) is an advocate and catalyst for digital preservation, ensuring our members can deliver resilient long-term access to digital content and services. It is a not-for- profit membership organization whose primary objective is to raise awareness of the importance of the preservation of digital material and the attendant strategic, cultural and technological issues. It supports its members through knowledge exchange, capacity building, assurance, advocacy and partnership. The DPC’s vision is to make our digital memory accessible tomorrow. The DPC Technology Watch Reports identify, delineate, monitor and address topics that have a major bearing on ensuring our collected digital memory will be for the future. They provide an advanced introduction in order to support those charged with ensuring a robust digital memory, and they are of general interest to a wide and international audience with interests in computing, information management, collections management and technology. The reports are commissioned after consultation among DPC members about shared priorities and challenges; they are commissioned from experts; and they are thoroughly scrutinized by peers before being released.
    [Show full text]
  • White Paper November 2017
    White paper November 2017 XperiaTM Z4 Tablet SGP771 White paper | Xperia™ Z4 Tablet Purpose of this document Sony product White papers are intended to give an overview of a product and provide details in relevant areas of technology. NOTE: The illustration that appears on the title page is for reference only. All screen images and elements are subject to change without prior notice. This document is published by Sony Mobile This White paper is published by: Communications Inc., without any warranty*. Improvements and changes to this text Sony Mobile Communications Inc., necessitated by typographical errors, 4-12-3 Higashi-Shinagawa, Shinagawa-ku, inaccuracies of current information or improvements to programs and/or equipment Tokyo, 140-0002 Japan may be made by Sony Mobile Communications Inc. at any time and without notice. Such www.sonymobile.com changes will, however, be incorporated into new editions of this document. Printed versions are to be regarded as temporary reference copies only. © Sony Mobile Communications Inc., 2009-2017. All rights reserved. You are hereby granted a *All implied warranties, including without license to download and/or print a copy of this limitation the implied warranties of document. merchantability or fitness for a particular Any rights not expressly granted herein are purpose, are excluded. In no event shall Sony or its licensors be liable for incidental or reserved. consequential damages of any nature, including but not limited to lost profits or commercial loss, First released version (March 2015)
    [Show full text]
  • 20130218 Technical White Paper.Bw.Jp
    Sending, Storing & Sharing Video With latakoo © Copyright latakoo. All rights reserved. Revised 11/12/2012 Table of contents Table of contents ................................................................................................... 1 1. Introduction ...................................................................................................... 2 2. Sending video & files with latakoo ...................................................................... 3 2.1 The latakoo app ............................................................................................ 3 2.2 Compression & upload ................................................................................. 3 2.3 latakoo minutes ............................................................................................ 4 3. The latakoo web interface .................................................................................. 4 3.1 Web interface requirements .......................................................................... 4 3.2 Logging into the dashboard .......................................................................... 4 3.3 Streaming video previews ............................................................................. 4 3.4 Downloading video ...................................................................................... 5 3.5 latakoo Pilot ................................................................................................. 5 3.6 Search and tagging ......................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Ffsake: Further Fluff with Ffmpeg
    ffsake: further fluff with ffmpeg Talking Tech, Spring 2017 2/5/17 Ethan Gates What is ffmpeg? ● Leading open-source framework for processing and manipulating audiovisual material ● Aims to decode, encode, transcode, mux, demux, stream, filter and play “anything that humans and machines have created” ● A combination of tools and libraries ○ ffmpeg - media conversion ○ ffprobe - metadata analysis/extraction ○ ffplay - playback ■ libavutil - various utilities (e.g. math equations) ■ libavcodec - codec library ■ libavformat - format (wrapper/container) library ■ libavdevice - device library (drivers for common/open hardware) ■ libavfilter - filter library ■ libswscale - scaling library ■ libswresample - audio sampling library Who’s using it? ● VLC Media Player ● YouTube ● Media Player Classic ● Chromium/Google Chrome ● Handbrake ● Facebook ● Audacity ● DaVinci Resolve ● DCP-o-matic ● Axle But what can it do? ● Make derivative copies ● Re-wrap files ● Edit files ● Generate checksums ● Create test files/streams ● Extract/insert metadata ● Generate informative (or just plain cool) audio/video effects ● Livestream video/screencapture * Thanks for this slide, Andrew Weaver Installation All about that configuration! $ brew info ffmpeg $ brew install ffmpeg --with-sdl2 --with-freetype --with-openjpeg --with-x265 --with-rubberband --with-tesseract Translation: with ffplay (playback), with added text/titles support, with JPEG 2000 codec, with H.265 (HEVC) codec, with extra audio filters, with OCR support Tasks to Cover I. Making a test file/signal
    [Show full text]
  • Indiana University Media Digitization and Preservation Initiative (MDPI)
    Indiana University Media Digitization and Preservation Initiative (MDPI) White Paper: Encoding and Wrapper Decisions and Implementation for Video Preservation Master Files Authored by: Mike Casey, Director of Technical Operations, MDPI Reviewed by: Carla Arton, Film Digitization Specialist, IU Libraries Moving Image Archive Jon Cameron, Digital Media Service Manager, IU Libraries Jon Dunn, Assistant Dean for Library Technologies, IU Libraries Heidi Kelly, Digital Preservation Librarian, IU Libraries Brent Moberly (Appendix author), Software Developer, UITS, IU Brian Wheeler, Senior Systems Engineer, IU Libraries Special thanks to Dave Rice for astute comments and suggestions Copyright 2017 Trustees of Indiana University This document is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license (CC BY 4.0) https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ Release date: March 27, 2017 Indiana University Media Digitization and Preservation Initiative Encoding and Wrapper Decisions and Implementation for Video Preservation Master Files 1. Overview There is no consensus in the media preservation community on best practice for encoding and wrapping video preservation master files. Institutions engaged in long- term video preservation typically choose from three paths, each of which are currently seen as viable for this purpose: 10-bit, uncompressed, v210 codec, usually with a QuickTime wrapper JPEG 2000, mathematically lossless profile, usually with an MXF wrapper FFV1, a mathematically lossless format, with an AVI or Matroska wrapper No single path can be said to be widely adopted, in part because there are relatively few institutions engaged in digitizing video for long-term preservation, especially at scale. It appears as of this writing that institutions are roughly evenly divided between the three paths listed above.
    [Show full text]
  • VIDEO DIGITIZATION at the AUSTRIAN MEDIATHEK Chives Obtain a Quality Assurance Instrument for the Recording of Their Media
    ARTICLE 8LIIQTPS]QIRXSJWYGLERSRPMRIGIVXM½GEXMSRWIVZMGITVSZMHIWFIRI½XWJSVFSXLTEVXMIWEV- VIDEO DIGITIZATION AT THE AUSTRIAN MEDIATHEK chives obtain a quality assurance instrument for the recording of their media. In the past, sound Herman Lewetz, Austian Mediathek9 carrier owners had to implement quality control by means of a cost-intensive strategy: mul- tiple recording of a single sound medium and time-consuming comparative analysis. The avail- In September 2009 the Austrian Mediathek started a project called “Österreich am Wort“. EFMPMX]SJSFNIGXMZIQIEWYVIQIRXVIWYPXWEPPS[WJSVEHVEWXMGEPP]WMQTPM½IHUYEPMX]QSRMXSVMRK Its goal is to digitize and publish via the web about 10,000 full-length recordings within three years. The misfortune for me personally was that in the proposal for this project someone had For companies or organisations dealing with the process of mass migration of analogue media, claimed 2,000 of these to be video recordings. This meant I had to start what we so far suc- long-term evaluation is an important tool for supporting the continuous internal improve- cessfully had postponed: Video digitization. ment process. For example, slow deterioration over time can be made visible. Besides the cost savings due to precise situation assessment, there is another advantage for service providers: Requirements [LIRYWMRKTPE]FEGOHIZMGIWSJHMJJIVIRXUYEPMX]MXQE]LEZIFIIRHMJ½GYPXXSEVKYIXLILMKLIV costs for recording with high-quality machines to their clients. With the help of the automatic, %WE½VWXWXIT[ISYXPMRIHXLIVIUYMVIQIRXW[IXLSYKLXMQTSVXERXJSVEHMKMXM^EXMSRWGLIQE reference-based analysis, quality differences between average and high-class playback devices that best supported long-term preservation. Unlike audio digitization there is still no widely become easily measurable. By documenting the measurement results, the client can easily see accepted archive format for video.
    [Show full text]