CineForm
- Thread starter coolguy007
- Start date
David Newman
Well-known member
Andreas,
As that is not happening in my release version, it might be in an older version, but I don't know what you are running. However this doesn't sound familar, i.e. not a bug we have fixed. The value of the rate change is stored in the registry, so if you are comfortable with using regedit you can reset it. The keys for HDLink are stored in HKEY_CURRENT_USER/Software/CineForm/AspectHDCapture/ -- and the key that sets the rate change is TempoChange. Delete that entry and restart HDLink.
As that is not happening in my release version, it might be in an older version, but I don't know what you are running. However this doesn't sound familar, i.e. not a bug we have fixed. The value of the rate change is stored in the registry, so if you are comfortable with using regedit you can reset it. The keys for HDLink are stored in HKEY_CURRENT_USER/Software/CineForm/AspectHDCapture/ -- and the key that sets the rate change is TempoChange. Delete that entry and restart HDLink.
Thanks David but I am not going to mess with regedit. Just for you to know:I am running the latest version of Aspect HD. Well, its not a big deal, I just have to go to Prefs every time to make sure everything is OK. You should probably consider making Prefs open in seperate window like log so we can see everything at the same time.
Thanks
Andreas
Thanks
Andreas
David Newman
Well-known member
Andreas,
Still it is odd that is behavior is different between your PC and others. If this persists into the next release, I might still have you try regedit. We have some minor upgrades for Aspect HD 4.1.4 in a week or so.
Still it is odd that is behavior is different between your PC and others. If this persists into the next release, I might still have you try regedit. We have some minor upgrades for Aspect HD 4.1.4 in a week or so.
David Newman
Well-known member
Spartacus said:
As most of our customers have experience with only one, it might be hard for an outsider to offer their experience of each product (although we do have a lot of Aspect HD to Prospect HD upgrades.)
Simple explanations of the highlights -- read more at www.cineform.com :
Connect HD : CineForm Intermediate codec tools for resolution up to 1440x1080 at 8-bits per channel at any frame rate (no frame rate limitations on any of our products.) Connect HD also includes a capture and conversion utility that will transform any HDV or P2 media into CineForm AVIs. This tool includes resizing (handy for converting P2's 960x720 to a square pixel 1280x720), frame rate controls, 180 degree flips for M2 users, deinterlacing, 60i to 24p, etc. Connect HD is not an accelerator, it relies on the speed of the codec alone (which is pretty fast.) Connect HD works with Sony Vegas, AE, Combustion, Digital Fusion, etc.
Aspect HD : Contains everything in Connect HD, but adds editing accerator to Adobe Premiere Pro. Aspect HD is 2-3 times faster than Connect HD for mult-stream editing. It adds an integrated capture tool for HDV to Premiere Pro with timecode and deck control support. The product includes a real-time pipeline with color correction, motion, PiP, transition, titles, etc. all in RT.
Prospect HD Edit : Is Aspect HD for professional filmmakers and broadcasters. The codec is a full raster 1920x1080 at 10-bits per channel. It adds 8-bit to 10-bit upconversion for HDV/P2 media in addition to optional upres'ing to 1920x1080. Support for 32-bit float processing for the highest image quality including HDR work in Premiere and AE. Support for full quality 10-bit mastering and monitor via any of the AJA Xena HDSDI cards.
Prospect HD Edit/Ingest : Prospect HD Edit all of the feature of PHD Edit, but can also be used as a DDR and directly capture and compress an HDSDI feed onto a Premiere timeline. Ideal for demanding on-set effects work. This includes automatic pull-down extraction from Canon XL-H1's 24F, and pulldown extract from JVC HD100's 24p over 60p, all in real-time during capture.
Both PHD Edit and PHD Ingest can be upgraded with the 2K Filmmaker pack (sometimes referred as Prospect 2K.) This software support Ultra HD, at 2048 by 2048 for editing, and beyond for compositing. This product is used for those shooting super-16 or 35mm, and scanning in CineForm Intermediate.
__________________
JanBee
Active member
Batch conversion.
Uhm... is it possible that it is not really batch?? I have 1 terabyte of MXF files in almost 300 P2-4GB directories - and from what I can see now, I can only select one directory after another. 300 directories. Gosh, I really have to think if I want to go through this manually
Uhm... is it possible that it is not really batch?? I have 1 terabyte of MXF files in almost 300 P2-4GB directories - and from what I can see now, I can only select one directory after another. 300 directories. Gosh, I really have to think if I want to go through this manually
JanBee
Active member
And another one:
I've set my AspectHD/HDLink to LARGE files and NO RESIZE. The files I get are only half the size of the original MXF (contents: few motion & dark). Is this something I have to worry about? I mean, great, if I can reduce 1 terabyte down to 500 gigs, I won't complain...
Windows Explorer and Premiere 2 both report the files to be 1440x1080, which is weird, because I thought they'd be 1280x1080 (and only 1440 if RESIZE is set).
Just wanna make sure I'm not wasting a week of "batch" converting time *ggg*
I've set my AspectHD/HDLink to LARGE files and NO RESIZE. The files I get are only half the size of the original MXF (contents: few motion & dark). Is this something I have to worry about? I mean, great, if I can reduce 1 terabyte down to 500 gigs, I won't complain...
Windows Explorer and Premiere 2 both report the files to be 1440x1080, which is weird, because I thought they'd be 1280x1080 (and only 1440 if RESIZE is set).
Just wanna make sure I'm not wasting a week of "batch" converting time *ggg*
David Newman
Well-known member
Re: Batch conversion.
It is unfortunate the directory structure Panasonic forces us to navigate, but you can select multiple MXF files from multiple folders and have them converted in one unattended session. I do take your point that multi-selecting the directories rather than the MXF video files would be easier.
Re: File size.
Yes, file size can be smaller. From another post it seems you have used the M2 adaptor, that will also help your files be smaller. If you shot 1080p25 there is very little additional information over 720p25, so we can compress those frames up easily.
If you did shoot 1080p25, then your image is in fact 1440x1080. The DVCPRO-HD standard is 1440x1080 at 25 and 1280x1080 at 30. It is good to be a PAL user.
It is unfortunate the directory structure Panasonic forces us to navigate, but you can select multiple MXF files from multiple folders and have them converted in one unattended session. I do take your point that multi-selecting the directories rather than the MXF video files would be easier.
Re: File size.
Yes, file size can be smaller. From another post it seems you have used the M2 adaptor, that will also help your files be smaller. If you shot 1080p25 there is very little additional information over 720p25, so we can compress those frames up easily.
If you did shoot 1080p25, then your image is in fact 1440x1080. The DVCPRO-HD standard is 1440x1080 at 25 and 1280x1080 at 30. It is good to be a PAL user.
peter orland
Well-known member
Hi David.
I went to the Avid Roadshow to watch the demo's and release of their new products yesterday. The demo on the DNxHD codec was very impressive in regard to it's apparent visually lossless quality. Earlier in this thread, or maybe another thread, you expressed some negativity toward this product without going into any details. Is it possible for you to elaborate on the what's/and why's of your views on DNxHD? If this is not appropriate in the open forum could you PM me?
And if you would rather not say - then have a nice day.
Thanks.
I went to the Avid Roadshow to watch the demo's and release of their new products yesterday. The demo on the DNxHD codec was very impressive in regard to it's apparent visually lossless quality. Earlier in this thread, or maybe another thread, you expressed some negativity toward this product without going into any details. Is it possible for you to elaborate on the what's/and why's of your views on DNxHD? If this is not appropriate in the open forum could you PM me?
And if you would rather not say - then have a nice day.
Thanks.
David Newman
Well-known member
Peter,
We haven't done a public head-to-head with CineForm Intermediate vs Avid DNxHD for a couple of reasons. One we don't actually compete all that much, DNxHD product exists in an Avid world, and has less influence in the market CineForm is targetting. Plus Avid's messaging is the same argument that CineForm makes, i.e. the strong case for using a compressed intermediate over native or uncompressed. Having Avid backing your position is a good thing.
What I have said previously I don't believe DNxHD was designed with post-production in mind, initially it must have had other purposes, so they have used bit-rate to compensate for design efficiencies that are common for camera codecs. Proof of this is with details like CBR and DCT. There is no particular reason to select a CBR codec for post-production, as CBR is optimized for tape storage or broadcast channel limitations, a VBR design is more suitable for high quality post (where image data is on hard disk, not tape.) And of course wavelet is long been proven superior for image compression than DCT. I feel Avid is well aware of this, so why choose DCT when you didn't haven't to? It seems this codec had an earlier history, and was intended for tape based acquistion format. I might be wrong, but we made very different design choices for good reasons.
We haven't done a public head-to-head with CineForm Intermediate vs Avid DNxHD for a couple of reasons. One we don't actually compete all that much, DNxHD product exists in an Avid world, and has less influence in the market CineForm is targetting. Plus Avid's messaging is the same argument that CineForm makes, i.e. the strong case for using a compressed intermediate over native or uncompressed. Having Avid backing your position is a good thing.
What I have said previously I don't believe DNxHD was designed with post-production in mind, initially it must have had other purposes, so they have used bit-rate to compensate for design efficiencies that are common for camera codecs. Proof of this is with details like CBR and DCT. There is no particular reason to select a CBR codec for post-production, as CBR is optimized for tape storage or broadcast channel limitations, a VBR design is more suitable for high quality post (where image data is on hard disk, not tape.) And of course wavelet is long been proven superior for image compression than DCT. I feel Avid is well aware of this, so why choose DCT when you didn't haven't to? It seems this codec had an earlier history, and was intended for tape based acquistion format. I might be wrong, but we made very different design choices for good reasons.
peter orland
Well-known member
Thanks for the reply.
Having now seen what a compressed image looks like in relation to the original (and after multi-generations) screened off a HD'ish projector, it really helped to hit home the advantages of using an intermediate post production codec.
You said that " We haven't done a public head-to-head with CineForm Intermediate vs Avid DNxHD..."
Having now seen the DNxHD in a large screen presentation, and at this point only what I've been able to ascertain off the net in regard to CineForm, do you feel that your 10bit codec holds up as well as their 185x pal or 220x ntsc, in regard to heavy post grading and FX work?
Thanks.
Having now seen what a compressed image looks like in relation to the original (and after multi-generations) screened off a HD'ish projector, it really helped to hit home the advantages of using an intermediate post production codec.
You said that " We haven't done a public head-to-head with CineForm Intermediate vs Avid DNxHD..."
Having now seen the DNxHD in a large screen presentation, and at this point only what I've been able to ascertain off the net in regard to CineForm, do you feel that your 10bit codec holds up as well as their 185x pal or 220x ntsc, in regard to heavy post grading and FX work?
Thanks.
David Newman
Well-known member
CineForm will exceed the quality of DNxHD for any given bit-rate. Wavelet beats DCT, VBR beats CBR, and there are other internal advantages to CineForm's compression.
Green Hornet
Veteran
Prospect HD
Prospect HD
When do you see Prospect HD going on sale, (as in discount)
If Premiere Pro 3.0 directly supports MXF files, do you think that would be a reason to lower the price of aspect or prospect hd?
Prospect HD
When do you see Prospect HD going on sale, (as in discount)
If Premiere Pro 3.0 directly supports MXF files, do you think that would be a reason to lower the price of aspect or prospect hd?
Last edited:
David Newman
Well-known member
Green Hornet said:
Prospect HD dropped it price significantly only a few weeks ago -- if you have a high-end project there is nothing more cost effective today, otherwise Aspect HD is the way to go. When Premiere Pro 3.0 exist (a long, long way off) there are still plenty of reasons to use a digital intermediate, just as they is for HDV today, we sell even more Aspect HD copies to HDV users now that PPro 2.0 has native HDV.
Spartacus
Veteran
If my information is correct, PP3 will take some time to show up, we`re talking more than a year here...Green Hornet said:
And David has often pointed out CineForms position on "native" editing, so they are actually playing a different game.
My bet is: ConnectHD will vanish, Aspect will take its place, and ProspectHD will get cheaper cause other solutions will appear...
OR Adobe will licence the 10bit technology and offer a Premiere Pro HD, to finally become accepted as a professional software...
Ahhh, i love wild guessing...
David Newman
Well-known member
I don't expect Connect HD will go way as it is growing in functionality. Also Connect HD is not for Premiere Pro (we strongly recommend Aspect HD or Prospect HD) but for any package that can't support all these new formats but can support AVI. We have Connect HD for users of Vegas, Combusion, AE, VirtualDub, etc -- all these packages would need MXF P2, AVCHD, M2T, and what other weird formats come out to reduce the usefulness of Connect HD -- and I don't see that happening.
Green Hornet
Veteran
Aspect HD settings
Aspect HD settings
If using Premiere Pro 2.0,
What would the output settings be for creating the highest quality avi file, for use as the master edited file?
Would I chose Microsoft avi, or CFHD avi?
I am working with HVX200 files shot at 1080 24p.
As much as I want Prospect HD, I may have to settle with Aspect HD for the money.
Aspect HD settings
If using Premiere Pro 2.0,
What would the output settings be for creating the highest quality avi file, for use as the master edited file?
Would I chose Microsoft avi, or CFHD avi?
I am working with HVX200 files shot at 1080 24p.
As much as I want Prospect HD, I may have to settle with Aspect HD for the money.
David Newman
Well-known member
If you are exporting from Premiere Pro you have completed your edit? Exporting to CineForm Intermediate from a CineForm project is recommended for archive, and for the best re-scaling for non-HD outputs. i.e. for DVD Export we recommend masting to a CFHD AVI that is at your target size (i.e. 720x480/576 anamorphic for DVD.) Always use CineForm HD Export rather than Microsoft AVI for the highest quality.
erniediaz
Well-known member
Hi the other mark, I have not been able to test completely Cineform ( for a number of reasons), now that I'm ready to do it, I encounter that I can not use a new trial (wich I recently download again) because when I start it, says that my trial period is over and no matters what I do, it is not possible to start cineform (or HD link) I have to uninstall it in order to use PremPro2.
What have I do to test Cineform?
What have I do to test Cineform?