Comparision between 10-bit Uncompressed and FFV1 Video Archive Preservation at Oxford Duplication Centre

DISCUSSING FFV1

The most common challenge in digitising moving image is the file sizes that result from the actual digitisation. The file sizes can be huge and with that comes the increased cost of storage and maintenance for long term preservation.

Common consensus consider 10-bit uncompressed to be the preservation standard for moving image because it uses no file compression.

It is considered the most reliable safest format for moving image preservation at the current time. 10-bit uncompressed deliver high image resolution, colour quality and sharpness whilst avoiding motion compensation and compression artefacts.

THE DOWNSIDE TO 10-BIT UNCOMPRESSED

1 hour of 10-bit uncompressed video can produce a 100gb file. To put it into perspective it would take 21 DVDs to store a video of this size. As you can see, its a lot of data!

WHAT IS FFV1?

FFV1
(Full name: FFmpeg Video Codec 1)
Contained by‎: ‎AVI‎, ‎MKV‎, ‎MOV‎
Latest release‎: ‎Version 3 (FFV1.3)

FFV1 is a video codec developed within FFmpeg. It is lossless, meaning that it compresses video without introducing quantization degradations. Therefore, FFV1 is a good choice for archiving and preservation. A lossless codec comparison found FFV1 to be the "most balanced", offering "relatively good speed and high compression". There are two versions of the codec supported by ffmpeg, version 1 and 3.

COMPARISON

FFV1 is a lossless codec which can store its own aspect ratio data which has started to gain in popularity as an alternative to 10-bit uncompressed. FFV1 uses lossless compression (think of a zip drive) to store digitised moving image at reduced file sizes without any data loss.

FFV1 is part of the open-source FFmpeg project which has been around since 2003. FFV1 uses entropy encoding to deliver mathematically lossless intra-frame compression. As a result this produces substantially smaller file sizes when compared to 10-bit uncompressed digitisation.

TESTING ENCODED FILES

The testing shows that files encoded to FFV1 produces files around 1/3rd smaller than 10-bit uncompressed. Both formats can be carried in a variety of different wrappers (container files) such as AVI (Microsoft), MOV (Apple) or MKV (open source).

The encoded video and audio streams are wrapped together in the container with other data streams that include technical metadata. The type and variety of data that a container can hold are specific to that container format.

EXCITING TIMES BUT SOME DOWNSIDES!

Reduced files produced using FFV1 are exciting but there are some downsides. FFV1 is open source and as such will not play on video software on MAC and Windows, nor can FFV1 be utilised within commercially available digitisation hardware and software. It can only be converted using 'terminal command'. This is because currently Apple, Microsoft, Adobe and Black-magic has not adopted the codec or announced plans to do so.

Any file format that does not eventually achieve widespread adoption and universal playback within the broadcasting and film-making communities has a higher risk of long term obsolescence and lack of engineering support.

I should also mention that FFV1 version 3 is nearing release. It is now available in ffmpeg under experimental status as testing completes. The version 3 adds multithreaded encoding, which should speed up encoding by about 2.5 times. For long term digital preservation FFV1 version 3 also incorporates mandated checksums per frame. Thus if any digital damage occurs to the file in storage or transmission, an ffv1 decoder should be able to identify which frames were affected, which makes the preservationist's response much more specific than if only enabled with a whole file checksum.

Generally I'd recommend that an uncompressed codec may be the safer choice for an archive with limited digital preservation infrastructure since the technology dependencies, consequences of digital damage, and requirements for access may be less severe than with lossless codecs.

	container	video-codec	audio-codec
1.	MXF	JPEG2000	PCM (uncompressed)
2.	MXF	Uncompressed	PCM (uncompressed)
3.	MOV	ProRes	PCM (uncompressed)
4.	MKV	FFV1	PCM (uncompressed)
5.	AVI	FFV1	PCM (uncompressed)

How Magnetic's Can Destroy Your Family VHS Tape Memories

MAGNETIC DAMAGE TO FAMILY VIDEO TAPES Magnetic tape damage is pretty common. Family tapes store video and audio information in the form of a magnetic strip. The VCR has special heads that can pick up on these magnetic signals and translate them into images and sound that plays on your TV. While magnets are used to write information to the tape, they are also used to erase footage from your tape. Since VHS uses an iron oxide as its formula, this makes them very susceptible to magnetic damage. A tape that has been exposed to magnetic damage is nearly always irreparable. There is no way to recover footage that has been magnetically erased or damaged. The best bet is to make sure you keep your video tapes away from anything resembling a magnet! CLIENT CASE Unfortunately one of our clients contacted us Friday with regard to his family Hi8 video tapes that had been damaged by the magnetic field given off by a mobile phone. He asked whether our company would be able to help recover

How to Digitise Glass Plate Negatives | Oxford Archiving

The Preservation of The Curnock Glass Plate Negatives Introduction Our services ( @OxfordDuplicat1 ) are highly recommended in the UK for specialist photographic film scanning. Trusted to our company, we are preparing The Curnock glass plate collection, held at Oxford Brookes University and part of the @MethodistGB collection. Almost all archives possess some type of photographic collection. Many individuals typically think of “photographs” as plastic-based negatives and slides; but these photographic techniques are relatively recent inventions. Prior to the invention of cellulose nitrate film in 1903, photographic emulsions were made on glass supports. These glass supports are typically referred to as glass plate negatives. The term “glass plate negative” refers to two separate formats: the collodion wet plate negative and the gelatin dry plate. Both of these formats consist of a light sensitive emulsion that is fixed to the glass plate base with a binder. Dozens of photographic te

What is Betacam SP? Is it Still in Use?

Sony’s Betamax lost out to JVC’s VHS in the home video entertainment format war in the 1980s. This didn’t stop Sony from venturing into another ‘Beta’ format, namely, Betacam SP or Beta SP. SP stands for Superior Quality. Sony introduced this analogue video camera format in 1986. Before Betacam SP was Betacam which was released in 1982 as the ‘pro version’ of Betamax. Betacam SP is an enhancement of the Betacam format. The Betacam system was a 1/2-inch tape format (similar to VHS and Betamax) that needed a camcorder, video recorder, and tape. It was targeted at the professional market. It was meant to be an improvement on Sony’s 3/4-inch U-Matic tape format. Betacam tapes came in two sizes – Short (S) and Long (L). Betacam camcorders for consumers could only load the S version. Only broadcast stations with a complete Beta system could support both the S and L versions through recorders meant for editing. Betacam offered a horizontal resolution of three hundred lines

Oxford Duplication Centre Ltd

Search This Blog