Cineform...is it really necessary?

[kiwipwnage31]

See here

All you need is the trial version installed and a registration number. I don't even think that Cineform is shipping a physical product, as per their web page.

but bh charged me shipping and told me they were going to ship something. i'm assuming they're shipping me a cd.

the post you directed me to refers to videoguys. i believe their process is different.

[Video Frank]

Yeah, I'm not sure what's going on there. That's why I went with Videoguys - they're cheaper than buying it from Cineform (and Cineform even addresses this fact on their reseller FAQ) and there's nothing to ship. I bought Magic Bullet quicklooks via Red Giant directly because a) they were cheaper and b) they would sell me a download only copy vs. Videoguys, who would only sell me a boxed disc (which would have been $60 to UPS to Toronto).

I'd be interested in finding out what B & H "ships" you.

edit Cineform's shipping page.

[kaydawgy]

Just wanted to point out another benefit if Cineform. If yer an Adobe user, you can preview the converted clips in Bridge which makes picking out clips for your project nicer. Before with the .mov original files, they wouldn't playback. You get audio, and really studdery footage.

[Piewee]

I have a cineform question since I'm not sure I need it.

I got a dual Intel Xeon E5540 workstation, DDR3 32GB memory, with a NVidea GTX285 graphics card to use with Cuda Mercury inside Adobe CS5. (I sometimes rent a RED, that why I got this system)

Now I got a Canon HF S10 PAL (I'm from the Netherlands) that records in AVCHD and don't have any problems with playback while editing. Also when I add effects inside CS5 I can view them realtime because of the Mercury thingy.

So for playback I don't need cineform, but I've heard people talk about converting to a cineform file makes the footage look better?!? Is this true? I record my footage in 25p cinema mode. (that your 24p right?) I've heard that Pal doesn't need pulldown removal?

Fill me in guys as you always do so well.

[Khaver]

Because of the 4:2:2 10bit colorspace of Cineform instead of the 4:2:0 8bit avchd, you have more leaway when CC and green screening.

[Piewee]

IC, so that would mean cineform would be good for me as well? What version should I get to get the stuff you talk about Khaver? By the way, are there any cons about going from avchd to cineform file?

[kaydawgy]

IC, so that would mean cineform would be good for me as well? What version should I get to get the stuff you talk about Khaver? By the way, are there any cons about going from avchd to cineform file?

Wow, with your computer you probably won't need cineform especially if your working with CS5 and you have a CUDA card on board. The only downside to cineform files is the massive size.

[Piewee]

Hi Kaydawgy, indeed for the speed there is no need for cineform, but like Khaver said, 4:2:2 10bit colorspace of Cineform instead of the 4:2:0 8bit avchd. Should I need cineform as well, eventhough I don't need it to speed up the workstation?

[Halsu]

Because of the 4:2:2 10bit colorspace of Cineform instead of the 4:2:0 8bit avchd, you have more leaway when CC and green screening.

Not true. This is a common misunderstanding.

Changing the colorspace and bitdepth afterwards does NOT add any new information. You still only have 8 bits of 4:2:0 information, even if they're saved in a 10 bit / 4:2:2 file, all of that extra room is just padding and spatial interpolation. Technically speaking, the only change is that A) your files are bigger and B) you do an unnecessary recompression step, thus losing quality.

What Cineform does do though, is a pretty decent interpolation of the 4:2:0 to 4:2:2. Even though no new information is added, this gives an alternative for filtering of the chroma signal for decent looking RGB images / keying results.

For the optimum quality, dedicated filtering from the camera original is better though.

[Piewee]

Hi Halsu,

Thank you for your information. So I guess there is really no need for me to go and get Cineform. Since I'm not green screening. And if I was, I understand I'm pretty okey with the original AVCHD as well, right?

[Khaver]

What Cineform does do though, is a pretty decent interpolation of the 4:2:0 to 4:2:2. Even though no new information is added, this gives an alternative for filtering of the chroma signal for decent looking RGB images / keying results.

That's what I meant. Thanks for making this more clear.

[Piewee]

So in a nutchell, if yá don't work with a green screen, and work with a PAL camcorder recording AVCHD in 25p, and your computer is fast enough, you don't need Cineform. Cineform might even make the image quality look bad, then while working with the original AVCHD file format, since converting the file don't do it much good...right?

[Eugenia Loli-Queru]

Cineform worth its money. The freeware ways are simply not as fast or stable to deal with, or with the huge support Cineform has. Or the features. If you do have that $100, it will be $100 well spent.

I would only suggest AGAINST Cineform if you're using Vegas Pro 9 or Vegas Platinum 10 in particular. These versions have a bug with red/black frames and the Cineform codec. All other versions of Vegas (Pro or Platinum), and most other video editors work fine.

[Halsu]

So in a nutchell, if yá don't work with a green screen, and work with a PAL camcorder recording AVCHD in 25p, and your computer is fast enough, you don't need Cineform. Cineform might even make the image quality look bad, then while working with the original AVCHD file format, since converting the file don't do it much good...right?

Essentially, yes. If your machine is fast enough to work without cineform (or other intermediate codecs), there's no reason to use them really.

Cineform isn't needed for green screen work either, but to get good results, you need to filter the chroma of your footage: HDV's/AVCHD's color information is saved at half resolution both horizontally and vertically - in other words, you have only 1/4th of the pixel count actually contributing to color information.

What cineform does, AFAIK, is to calculate in-between average values for the vertical part of this missing information: the resulting file has pseudo-full color resolution vertically, but still only half resolution horizontally.

Proper filtering calculates/interpolates the missing values in both directions, resulting in pseudo-full resolution both horizontally and vertically.

For a quick approximation with progressive footage, simply blurring the color signal a little (by 1 pixel in both directions) gives decent results for all but the most critical situations. For best possible results, a dedicated plugin is the way to go.

This kind of plugins rarely come bundled with editing software, and may be a little hard to find, especially as freeware. I've actually written my own, with pixel bender - it works with After Effects CS4 and higher. I recall Adobe hasn't yet added pixel bender support for premiere, but i might be wrong... anyway, if someone's interested in trying my AE plugin out, send me a PM and i'll hook you up.

[Piewee]

Wow Halsu, thanks for your indepth info, that really explains allot. When I ever need that plug-in I'll def. send you a pm.

[net]

If 24p pulldown is not needed, does anyone know the advantages of using NeoScene versus the free Cineform codec to convert to Cineform AVI files?

Is the free codec still boosting the quality (i.e. color/luma for better grading) - or is the purchased NeoScene necessary for that?

I have used the trial version of NeoScene in the past; just wondering this.

[drapeama]

If 24p pulldown is not needed, does anyone know the advantages of using NeoScene versus the free Cineform codec to convert to Cineform AVI files?

Is there any at all?
Edit: Where did you downloaded it for free?

[net]

Is there any at all?
Edit: Where did you downloaded it for free?

It improves the quality, helps with color grading, makes editing smoother and the files will allow for cross-platform compatibility. (Although most NLE's can work with mts.)

I was just wondering what the difference between the purchased version and transcoding on your own with the Cineform codec.

The Cineform codec is free. In Sony Vegas, if you export in AVI, it should be there.
There is also free "Neo Player" at the Cineform site that has the codec.

[Lunchbox]

You can also use the Matrox HD codec. It was used to be made only for their products. Now they unlocked the codec. I put together a tutorial on how to edit DSLR footage with the Matrox codec

http://lacoloronline.com/blog/?10118...emiere-Pro-CS4

[net]

I put together a tutorial on how to edit DSLR footage with the Matrox codec

http://lacoloronline.com/blog/?10118...emiere-Pro-CS4

Thanks for that. I understand about converting to the intermediate codec for smoother editing - but, as far as lumina color/improvement for grading (or any other benefit) with NeoScene - is there any real advantage of NeoScene versus using just the Cineform or Matrox codec alone?

[Lunchbox]

It's not proxy editing. Matrox codec is a high quality codec that is like the Cineform codec. With Cineform, you will need to convert DSLR .mov files to Cineform .avi files for editing. With the Matrox codec, it is the same. Need to convert them to Matrox AVI for editing and export. They are the same but using Matrox saves you $100 for NeOScene.

[net]

It's not proxy editing. Matrox codec is a high quality codec that is like the Cineform codec. With Cineform, you will need to convert DSLR .mov files to Cineform .avi files for editing. With the Matrox codec, it is the same. Need to convert them to Matrox AVI for editing and export. They are the same but using Matrox saves you $100 for NeOScene.

Great. I will try it out.

So, in your tutorial, "Once all the clips are transcoded into AVI, import them to Premiere to edit" you are transcoding by exporting as uncompressed files to a folder and then re-importing into your editor? Or does Premier actually have a "transcoding" function? (That part wasn't clear to me on your page.)

I will try this in Vegas, I think exporting Matrox uncompressed/then re-importing would do it.

[Lunchbox]

You need to transcode to Matrox AVI for editing and export. Same you need to transcode to Cineform AVI for editing if you pay for neoscene.

What you said is more complicated than it needs. there is no need to export as uncompressed then reimport. Those are not in my tutorial either.

[net]

You need to transcode to Matrox AVI for editing and export. Same you need to transcode to Cineform AVI for editing if you pay for neoscene.

What you said is more complicated than it needs. there is no need to export as uncompressed then reimport. Those are not in my tutorial either.

I think that may be a function unique to Premiere. I don't see a transcoding feature in Vegas.
I think it either has to be exported/then re-imported or used with some third party interface outside of Vegas.

This is what I meant by an interface (NeoScene):
neoscene interface--.jpg

There's probably a script to be able to transcode without leaving Vegas/I'll look into it.

[drapeama]

They are the same but using Matrox saves you $100 for NeOScene.

Thanks for the link in the previous post, I might give it a try. I never thought of spending 100$ for cineform before, as my current workflow served me well, even if it wasn't lossless or near of it.
Thanks Taky!