2016-02-17, 20:58
(2016-02-17, 20:12)scf2k Wrote:(2016-02-17, 16:41)noggin Wrote: Two may be a bit hopeful - it's 330Mbs 4:4:4, but one and three are 4:2:2 at sensible bitrates for ProRes 4:2:2.
As fritsch says, and as I suspect you realise, these will only be played back with CPU decode, and if the fffmpeg implementation is single-threaded it will require a pretty high spec CPU. From memory the ffmbc implementation of ProRes was a bit better than ffmpeg at one point, but I suspect the ffmbc stuff has been folded back into ffmpeg now. (Same is true for w3fdif and frame rate conversion code I hope. There's a not-terrible frame rate converter in ffmbc based on BBC work in the 80s. It's not Alchemist, but it is a lot better than frame drop/dupe)
I use ProRes 4:2:2 HQ 1080/50i a lot for my 'day job' and have no major issues with it in Quicktime player on a Quad Core i7 Macbook Pro (though no deinterlacing) and it plays back fine over a Thunderbolt HD-SDI/HDMI output device.
Not sure I've ever had much success with 'pro' codecs (ProRes, DNXHD, AVC Intra or DVC Pro HD) in Kodi though - I tend to transcode everything to 4:2:0 H264 if I want to play it in 'consumer' devices.
Thanks for your detailed reply. Is the main problem with apple codecs is that implementation is not optimised? Or codec itself is that advanced that requires powerful hardware? I guess I'll just encode with H264/H265 high bitrate and it will play flawlessly then.
Couple of issues with that content.
Pro codecs don't have hardware acceleration in normal GPU drivers like VAAPI, as these are optimised for standard consumer codecs.
The CPU decode may not be optimised particularly as there are far fewer developers and users working with Pro codecs, and most pro codec work is done on reasonably powerful systems.
Also Kodi is really designed for 4:2:0 content not 4:2:2 or 4:4:4...