Best intermediate codec for Canon DSLRs: ProRes or Cineform?

B

BATman

Active member
Hey guys,

As I was playing with the new Technicolor profile and researching on it, I came across this amazing footage:


And I was blown away by the quality of this clip. Just superb. Not sure which profile he used, but I thought: 'That's great. How can I get my footage to that kind of quality?'

...

More reading on the new Technicolor profile and found this post:

http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthrea...g-the-New-Technicolor-Cinestyle-on-a-Canon-5D

Which introduced me to this:



And then my question to you is: What's the difference between compressing/transcoding your Canon DSLR footage to ProRes 4:2:2 with Compressor and compressing/transcoding it with Cineform NeoHD to Film Scan 2?

Do you really get better results? If so, how significant?

Is it worth the investment? (299 bucks last time I checked)

Also, can you apply your Technicolor LUT curve with FirstLight?

I look forward to read your answers. Very much appreciated!!

Another interesting read:

http://cineform.blogspot.com/2010/11/why-use-intermediate-for-dslr-video.html

THANKS VERY MUCH ^_^ :thumbsup:
 
I don't believe CineForm offers enough capabilities over ProRes to demand the cost for Canon DSLRs.

Canon DSLRs shoot in 8-bit 4:2:0, which can be labeled their greatest shortest coming compared to competitors in 'digital film'. Most competitor are 10-bit 4:2:2, with some even 4:4:4. That being said, ProRes converts the h.264 8-bit original video file into 10-bit 4:2:2. CineForm can do 4:4:4, but that doesn't mean more range in reality.

Since you start at 8-bit and convert, you aren't so much gaining anything, you are more just protecting the range you do have from banding and artifacting through grading and color correction.

So my opinion is that CineForm has it's place, but it's not worth it for DSLRs, you are better off starting with something that has 10-bit video if you are going to up it to 12-bit for post. The big one-up it has is it is cross-platform, and ProRes is Mac only (I believe, could be old info...).

Plus, ProRes LT has proven to be very capable and is a much smaller file size than the other ProRes and Intermediate codecs, it isn't every bit as good as the higher bitrate versions. But if you aren't working on a unlimited storage space budget and you want to keep high quality files, it is a codec to be reckoned with. Plus, during renders and edits, it will save you a bit of time as it requires less ram to buffer.

PS. Thing to note, while a high quality codec will improve your ability in grading and color correction, it is not a substitute for insuring what you shoot is exposed properly for the grading and style you want to have in the final product. Color balancing and thought out exposure compensation is indispensable when you know what you want the final product to look like. This isn't film, you develop it to match the style you want, you shoot it with the style you want.

PPS. @Norman, CS5 converts to 10-bit behind the scenes so it can natively edit the footage, it technically isn't the raw footage but CS5 takes care of it without user interaction.
 
Last edited:
plus, CS5 loads the file and treats it in a 32 bit floating point 4:4:4 environment

it doesn't add any info to your file that was not there on the 4:2:0 8-bit H.264 file, but it's just the same as transcoding to uncompressed FP32 4:4:4
 
to the op...the first video clip are still pics shot in RAW and edited into a moving image (timelapse). Also its colour graded in the RAW format. you will never get that quality from the h.264 files.
 
BATman said:
And then my question to you is: What's the difference between compressing/transcoding your Canon DSLR footage to ProRes 4:2:2 with Compressor and compressing/transcoding it with Cineform NeoHD to Film Scan 2?
Click to expand...

Read here (oh, I see now that you have link to that blog. so use it ! :thumbsup:)

Film scan 2 ISN'T intended for DSLR work. Cineform says it's unnecessary overkill (to DSLR workflow).

BATman said:
Do you really get better results? If so, how significant?
Click to expand...
The results aren't IMMEDIATELY visible. you have to understand what happened and what you have gained.

BATman said:
Is it worth the investment? (299 bucks last time I checked)
Click to expand...
Absolutely. now more then ever.

Then again, there are those who get can't seem to integrate transcoding into their workflow. dunno really why. :Drogar-Shock(DBG):

BATman said:
Also, can you apply your Technicolor LUT curve with FirstLight?
Click to expand...
As of yesterday, you can.

IMHO, it still need refinements from the user side (IMO, the "S" shape is too contrasty. but maybe it's just me...
 
jambredz said:
to the op...the first video clip are still pics shot in RAW and edited into a moving image (timelapse). Also its colour graded in the RAW format. you will never get that quality from the h.264 files.
Click to expand...
Just to concur with you jambredz, very little of that first clip is actually shot as video. Also some of that HDR (high dynamic range) photography uses three exposures per image (frame) that are blended to create those rather unreal images you see. Then the time lapse is created from those frames. It's an incredibly time consuming process to get each 10 to 15 second clip.

Cheers,
Pete
 
Last edited:
Cineform may have some slight edge in quality over some of the lower flavors of ProRes, but ProRes is a lot more ubiquitous so it will cause you less of an issue with exchanging footage with folks for FX, Color grading etc.

Noah
 
For those on a Windows system, ProRes is impossible so CineForm seems to be a good solution if an intermediate is needed.

I am currently looking at a deeper tool for color grading, but the only one that I found that supports Windows and works with an ATI card is Speedgrade DI but it doesn't import Canon DSLRs videos, that's how I ended up using Cineform.
Anyway, in any workflow that involves both visual effects and color grading with dedicated apps, you will need to do an export from your vfx app.

Right now I am making some tests, I imported a shot from my T2i into After Effects, I exported it to a Cineform version and I make some comparisons by importing it back to the composition.
But after reading this thread I am wondering, since I drive my tests directly into After Effects' Viewer.

Is this a good process for making tests ?

I can upload pictures if anyone is interested.

Edit : http://blog.mxr.at/cineform-for-7d/ Another article I found during my tests. The h264/cineform comparison looks a bit like a neutral/cinestyle one to me.
 
Last edited:
I dunno, it's what I use, but then it came with MC5.

Since it's free and cross-platform I don't know why people don't give it a go

Dave
 
NormanBates said:
I won't be able to answer the question because I have very little experience with those intermediate codecs

what I wanted to say is that the best option, even in terms of image quality, seems to be editing the original footage directly with Adobe CS5
http://www.hurlbutvisuals.com/blog/2010/12/02/in-praise-of-dissent-adobe-cs5-paves-the-way/
Click to expand...

I'll keep that in mind when I upgrade from CS4 to CS5. Thanks Mate!!

natums said:
I don't believe CineForm offers enough capabilities over ProRes to demand the cost for Canon DSLRs.

Canon DSLRs shoot in 8-bit 4:2:0, which can be labeled their greatest shortest coming compared to competitors in 'digital film'. Most competitor are 10-bit 4:2:2, with some even 4:4:4. That being said, ProRes converts the h.264 8-bit original video file into 10-bit 4:2:2. CineForm can do 4:4:4, but that doesn't mean more range in reality.

Since you start at 8-bit and convert, you aren't so much gaining anything, you are more just protecting the range you do have from banding and artifacting through grading and color correction.

So my opinion is that CineForm has it's place, but it's not worth it for DSLRs, you are better off starting with something that has 10-bit video if you are going to up it to 12-bit for post. The big one-up it has is it is cross-platform, and ProRes is Mac only (I believe, could be old info...).

Plus, ProRes LT has proven to be very capable and is a much smaller file size than the other ProRes and Intermediate codecs, it isn't every bit as good as the higher bitrate versions. But if you aren't working on a unlimited storage space budget and you want to keep high quality files, it is a codec to be reckoned with. Plus, during renders and edits, it will save you a bit of time as it requires less ram to buffer.

PS. Thing to note, while a high quality codec will improve your ability in grading and color correction, it is not a substitute for insuring what you shoot is exposed properly for the grading and style you want to have in the final product. Color balancing and thought out exposure compensation is indispensable when you know what you want the final product to look like. This isn't film, you develop it to match the style you want, you shoot it with the style you want.

PPS. @Norman, CS5 converts to 10-bit behind the scenes so it can natively edit the footage, it technically isn't the raw footage but CS5 takes care of it without user interaction.
Click to expand...

Great info, thanks very much natums!!

jambredz said:
to the op...the first video clip are still pics shot in RAW and edited into a moving image (timelapse). Also its colour graded in the RAW format. you will never get that quality from the h.264 files.
Click to expand...

I had no clue how he did it. Thanks for teaching me!!

AriG said:
Read here (oh, I see now that you have link to that blog. so use it ! :thumbsup:)

Film scan 2 ISN'T intended for DSLR work. Cineform says it's unnecessary overkill (to DSLR workflow).


The results aren't IMMEDIATELY visible. you have to understand what happened and what you have gained.


Absolutely. now more then ever.

Then again, there are those who get can't seem to integrate transcoding into their workflow. dunno really why. :Drogar-Shock(DBG):


As of yesterday, you can.

IMHO, it still need refinements from the user side (IMO, the "S" shape is too contrasty. but maybe it's just me...
Click to expand...

Awesome. Could you share with me/us how's your workflow? It'll be very interesting to learn how you do it.

Thanks very much!!

NoahK said:
Cineform may have some slight edge in quality over some of the lower flavors of ProRes, but ProRes is a lot more ubiquitous so it will cause you less of an issue with exchanging footage with folks for FX, Color grading etc.

Noah
Click to expand...

Got it. Thanks Noah!!

SvenL said:
For those on a Windows system, ProRes is impossible so CineForm seems to be a good solution if an intermediate is needed.

I am currently looking at a deeper tool for color grading, but the only one that I found that supports Windows and works with an ATI card is Speedgrade DI but it doesn't import Canon DSLRs videos, that's how I ended up using Cineform.
Anyway, in any workflow that involves both visual effects and color grading with dedicated apps, you will need to do an export from your vfx app.

Right now I am making some tests, I imported a shot from my T2i into After Effects, I exported it to a Cineform version and I make some comparisons by importing it back to the composition.
But after reading this thread I am wondering, since I drive my tests directly into After Effects' Viewer.

Is this a good process for making tests ?

I can upload pictures if anyone is interested.

Edit : http://blog.mxr.at/cineform-for-7d/ Another article I found during my tests. The h264/cineform comparison looks a bit like a neutral/cinestyle one to me.
Click to expand...

Please upload your tests. It'll be very interesting to me and I am sure to other people as well.

daveswan said:
I dunno, it's what I use, but then it came with MC5.

Since it's free and cross-platform I don't know why people don't give it a go

Dave
Click to expand...

I was not aware of the existence of such codec. Could you add more info (if any)?

Thanks very much to all for your answers!!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top