PDA

View Full Version : Whats the best LOSSLESS format so i can edit w/o lag with after effects/premiere?



iFilm7
09-27-2009, 09:24 PM
as of now, im using PNG sequence and .wav converted using TMPGenc Xpress

idk if thats the best... cuz it makes INSANELY huge files....
Whats the best LOSSLESS format so i can edit w/o lag with after effects/premiere?

Huy Vu
09-27-2009, 09:29 PM
Truly lossless codecs naturally have very high data rate so of course you'll see lags. Something like the Cineform codec is not really lossless, but it's robust enough so that you won't be able to tell the difference. Cineform isn't free though and currency it doesn't support real time engine within Premiere.

AndrewGentle
09-27-2009, 09:59 PM
I've used the free Lagarith Lossless Video Codec (http://lags.leetcode.net/codec.html) successfully before. It makes quite large files but not as big as PNG sequences, I bet.

iFilm7
09-27-2009, 09:59 PM
ohh, but i hate lossy codecs like cinform (what you mentioned)
what, in fact, is the best LOSSLESS format can i edit in?
like, cuzz i use PNG sequence and a .wav for audio.....
EDIT: @Andrew, is this the best? haha i might sound demanding but im not lol, im just really careful with the quality of my footage

EDIT2: liike, i want the best with fastest editing

karapetkov
09-27-2009, 10:00 PM
To avoid lag, you need a fast drive [or RAID setup?], you can't be lossless and fast without it.

I use this [free]:

http://lags.leetcode.net/codec.html

But check the converted files and/or final output for errors as sometimes it corrupts the files.

And also make sure you set the right colorspace in the codec options.

There are other options too, google around.

EDIT: Mr. Gentle beat me to it.

iFilm7
09-27-2009, 10:03 PM
see, how that is easily to corrupt files, i dont really want that haha, i want like a pure fast going paranoid-free lossless conversion to a format that is amzing to edit with xD

shaun1970
09-28-2009, 12:41 AM
Canopus HQ or the Lossless version.

Postmaster
09-28-2009, 02:16 AM
Check out the various modes of the AMV codec. It is stupidly fast and $10 a license won't break the bank: http://amamaman.hp.infoseek.co.jp/english/amv2_e.html

Frank

Huy Vu
09-28-2009, 02:21 AM
To avoid lag, you need a fast drive [or RAID setup?], you can't be lossless and fast without it.


Yup, there it is, there's no free lunch. I don't see the point in working with lossless file in regular editing ; it's incredibly inefficient. You're eating up huge chunks of HDD space and it's unlikely that you're actually deriving any benefit from the file since the original source is already compressed and the moment you apply any color grading or transition you're already losing data.

Luis_
09-28-2009, 02:37 AM
Yup, there it is, there's no free lunch. I don't see the point in working with lossless file in regular editing ; it's incredibly inefficient. You're eating up huge chunks of HDD space and it's unlikely that you're actually deriving any benefit from the file since the original source is already compressed and the moment you apply any color grading or transition you're already losing data.

agree

karapetkov
09-28-2009, 12:40 PM
Yup, there it is, there's no free lunch. I don't see the point in working with lossless file in regular editing ; it's incredibly inefficient. You're eating up huge chunks of HDD space and it's unlikely that you're actually deriving any benefit from the file since the original source is already compressed and the moment you apply any color grading or transition you're already losing data.

Yeah, doesn't make much sense to be lossless throughout post. I think what matters is to have your source files for the final render and export your master with the lossless codec at the end.

Minimum mistakes and maximum quality.

TIFF sequence is another *lossless* way but that's big.

Mike Harvey
09-28-2009, 12:58 PM
I 3rd Huy... if the source is an HMC150, there isn't much point to go lossless anyways. If converting from AVCHD... there is already so much lost to begin with that going uncompressed doesn't gain you anything. If taking it off of the HDMI output straight from the chips... while it might look nice, it's no F950 or RED. The size and nature of the pixel shifted chips, plus the fact it's 4:2:2 isn't going to gain you anything noticeable over a "lossy" codec like Cineform. Plus, it's not like something like Cineform is losing all that much. The whole point of codec like Cineform is to have a manageable file size that still edits nicely. I mean... "Slumdog Millionaire" was shot with Cineform. And if you don't want to fork out the bucks, Avid's DNxHD codec is free and will work in Premiere (though personally, I like Cineform better).

I guess a good question is what do you hope to actually gain buy using an uncompressed format for HMC150 footage?

cuervo
09-28-2009, 01:19 PM
Hmmmm...not sure if this poster really understands what he's being told....
There is no free lunch. That's for sure. As far as I'm concerned Cineform can't be beat.

iFilm7
09-30-2009, 09:22 PM
i want it lossless because itll go through visual effects in after effects and ill export that and then edit in premiere and then make a master file out of that..... if i use cineform its lossy? idk... for somereason i just dont like the idea of my footage degrading...

Mike Harvey
10-01-2009, 09:16 AM
Ask anyone who's used Cineform... it will hold up, and you'll be hard pressed to notice a difference. As to the term "lossy"... anything that is compressed is going is "lossy", it's just a matter of how "lossy".

It's not like the old days of editing tape to tape, where after three dubs it started to look like poo. Just because it's a "lossy" codec doesn't mean it's going to look bad. Like I said, Slumdog Millionaire was shot and edited using Cineform.

Editing it uncompressed is just going to be unreasonable and unwieldy for most systems, and a bit pointless if converting from AVCHD (which, while efficient, is a pretty "lossy" codec itself), and you aren't going to see any real difference than if you used Cineform or a codec like Avid's DNxHD. They were designed specifically so that people wouldn't have to deal with editing in uncompressed while doing all sorts of post work.

iFilm7
10-02-2009, 01:17 AM
ayy, so since im a PC user editing on premiere and effects in after effects, i use cineform in both?

is cineform a codec or program? i have TEMPGEnc Xpress to convert my AVCHD footage to something to make the effects with and stuff...

Mike Harvey
10-02-2009, 07:05 AM
is cineform a codec or program?

Yes.

They are a company that provides a codec (also called Cineform) which is designed to be "visually lossless" in their marketing terms. They also supply several versions of software to convert video to this codec depending on your needs. Neo Scene is the cheapest, and just does a straight conversion. Their more expensive is Prospect HD, which also provides a few other bells and whistles for post work, and is designed to be used with Premiere.

www.cineform.com (http://www.cineform.com)

iFilm7
10-04-2009, 09:35 PM
is cineform easy to edit for visual effects editing in AE?
and when i DO put in the effects in AE, what do i output from AE to Premiere?

PDR
10-04-2009, 09:47 PM
is cineform easy to edit for visual effects editing in AE?
and when i DO put in the effects in AE, what do i output from AE to Premiere?

It depends on how "heavy" your effects are. Most things don't edit very well in AE regardless of format because of the effects used. You usually end up doing ram previews on segments. And if you aren't doing heavy effects/compositing etc.. then why even use AE ?

If you have a fast (overclocked) quad core, UT video codec has very good multithreaded decode speed , and is probably the fastest truly lossless codec available for decoding. It's even faster than huffyuv-mt

iFilm7
10-05-2009, 12:43 AM
yes i do heavy compositing, but does cineform do well as well?

"is cineform easy to edit for visual effects editing in AE?
and when i DO put in the effects in AE, what do i output from AE to Premiere?"