General DNxHD the Cineform Alternative..

[btnhcleon]

Up to this point DNxHD has seemed to be a winner, its running smooth as can be so far.
It's really flexible when it comes to Color Grading/CC and effect rendering, though, It has definitely made my files obscenely big though, haha..

So my question is, for you who have used Cineform, how is it working out for you?
If you have used both, what did you find to be the major differences?

Running a PC + i5 + 6Gs RAM
Premiere/AE CS5 and Mpeg Streamclip
Got the codec from Avid site.

 

[PerroneFord]

Cineform files are slightly smaller. Seems more "picky" to me for encoding as I see numerous posts every week around the web of people having trouble with it. DNxHD is free, but uses a different kind of compression (same as ProRes) and it makes larger files for the same quality as Cineform.

On the PC, Cineform is AVI. That is good for some folks, not so good for others. Really, both are good codecs, you just need to select one and go for it.

 

[btnhcleon]

Ahh okay I see, I assumed so, I read somwhere that DNxHD came before ProRes and is somewhat what Prores was built off of, very similar.

I didn't know that cineform had smaller files..
But, I guess if these fatt MOV files are running smooth, I might aswell continue using em.. Along side the fact it's free, haha.

 

[ROCKMORE]

Up to this point DNxHD has seemed to be a winner, its running smooth as can be so far.
It's really flexible when it comes to Color Grading/CC and effect rendering, though, It has definitely made my files obscenely big though, haha..

So my question is, for you who have used Cineform, how is it working out for you?
If you have used both, what did you find to be the major differences?

Running a PC + i5 + 6Gs RAM
Premiere/AE CS5 and Mpeg Streamclip
Got the codec from Avid site.

I know I've been warned that I'm in the minority, but I transcode all my 1080p H-264 files with Streamclip to Mjpeg 720p at 50% quality and scale to frame size in the CS4 1080 project. The files are half the size as the originals for offline, fast as hell to edit and link to the original H-264 file for export to what ever you file want for grading. I've used this workflow on over 20 projects in the last 2 months. Much less wasted HD storage, and working with the camera originals till the end, plus you can dump the Mjpeg files when you're done.
Don't dismiss it until you try it.

 

[PDR]

Cineform is quite a bit faster for editing on a PC than DNxHD - it's multithreaded decoding is better

Regarding "size", note there are a few versions of cineform. The lowest version is "neoscene" - it has the smallest size. But there are other higher quality, larger filesize versions even 12-bit 4:4:4 variants (but of course, they are more expensive)

 

[PerroneFord]

Cineform is quite a bit faster for editing on a PC than DNxHD - it's multithreaded decoding is better

Blanket statements like this are misleading and wrong. Cineform CAN be faster but that is not always so. And decoding only has to be so fast. Disk speed and frame rate are going to play a large role here.

Regarding "size", note there are a few versions of cineform. The lowest version is "neoscene" - it has the smallest size. But there are other higher quality, larger filesize versions even 12-bit 4:4:4 variants (but of course, they are more expensive)

Neoscene is a product. Not a file size. Each more expensive version of Cineform adds a higher level of the codec, through the 12bit 4:4:4 as you mentioned. The more color space available, and the more bits, the larger the files. The same is true of DCT based algorithms like ProRes, which also offers a 4:4:4:4 variant, though only at 10bit, not 12. However, unless you're scanning 35mm or 70mm film at 6k or 8k, I don't think this is going to be a concern to anyone.

Something tells me that if Avatar was able to be filmed at 1080p, cut in DNx175, and played out in IMAX, then it's probably going to hold up for the jobs anyone here is doing. Cineform had a nice showing in Slumdog and some other good features as well.

As for "Much less wasted HD storage" with the Mjpeg option, as Rockmore pointed out, we're talking about intermediates here, not masters. ALL these files will be deleted at the end of the edit, so who's worried about disk space? The other major issue with MJpeg is the horrific color shifts you get. You say don't knock it until you try it. Fair enough. I tried it in 2005, and moved away to a better solution. I cut Dnx36 and it flat out FLIES with none of the color shifting, so I can do my grading in offline, instead of having to wait for online. In fact, I am cutting a film right now using this workflow and I clearly feel this is the superior way to cut.

 

[PDR]

Blanket statements like this are misleading and wrong. Cineform CAN be faster but that is not always so. And decoding only has to be so fast. Disk speed and frame rate are going to play a large role here.

Yes you're correct. I'll be more specific - the neoscene variant is significantly faster on your average system than DNxHD 175. This enables you to cut more streams simultaneously , edit faster even on older setups. The neoscene variant is roughly the same size as DNxHD 175 , so there are no disk IO bottlenecks (or if there was, it would affect both).

Neoscene is a product. Not a file size.

LOL of course it is ! I never said so otherwise. You don't have to point out the obvious. I was answering the questions the OP had regarding the major differences between cineform and DNxHD

Something tells me that if Avatar was able to be filmed at 1080p, cut in DNx175, and played out in IMAX, then it's probably going to hold up for the jobs anyone here is doing. Cineform had a nice showing in Slumdog and some other good features as well.

As for "Much less wasted HD storage" with the Mjpeg option, as Rockmore pointed out, we're talking about intermediates here, not masters. ALL these files will be deleted at the end of the edit, so who's worried about disk space? The other major issue with MJpeg is the horrific color shifts you get. You say don't knock it until you try it. Fair enough. I tried it in 2005, and moved away to a better solution. I cut Dnx36 and it flat out FLIES with none of the color shifting, so I can do my grading in offline, instead of having to wait for online. In fact, I am cutting a film right now using this workflow and I clearly feel this is the superior way to cut.

There are 2 different subjects here. You're talking about offline/proxy editing. The OP was using DNxHD for editing and using it as input for final render, not swapping back to master or original

Also, MJPEG in AVI doesn't exhibit color shifting if you convert it correctly - only in MOV

Cheers

 

[PerroneFord]

LOL of course it is ! I never said so otherwise. You don't have to point out the obvious. I was answering the questions the OP had regarding the major differences between cineform and DNxHD

I was referring to where you said this: "there are a few versions of cineform. The lowest version is "neoscene" - it has the smallest size". That would lead one to believe that Neoscene cannot output the higher quality types. It's been a while since I used Cineform, but when I did even the cheapest version allowed 4 sizes including film1 and film2. The more upscale products included the all the stuff Neoscene could do, but also had some higher output modes. I just didn't want to leave the OP with the impression that Neoscene only made the small files, and other version only made large ones. You understand what I mean?

There are 2 different subjects here. You're talking about offline/proxy editing. The OP was using DNxHD for editing and using it as input for final render, not swapping back to master or original

DNx comes in many flavors. I've used DNx175 or 220 all the way through, and I've done offline/online with DNx36/DNx175. Either one works, but if I am doing a big project, like cutting a film, I prefer the offline/online workflow.

Also, MJPEG in AVI doesn't exhibit color shifting if you convert it correctly - only in MOV

I've never seen MJpeg inside an AVI container. Where do you get it?

 

[PDR]

I was referring to where you said this: "there are a few versions of cineform. The lowest version is "neoscene" - it has the smallest size". That would lead one to believe that Neoscene cannot output the higher quality types. It's been a while since I used Cineform, but when I did even the cheapest version allowed 4 sizes including film1 and film2. The more upscale products included the all the stuff Neoscene could do, but also had some higher output modes. I just didn't want to leave the OP with the impression that Neoscene only made the small files, and other version only made large ones. You understand what I mean?

Got it Thanks for clarifying - sorry for the confusion

I've never seen MJpeg inside an AVI container. Where do you get it?

free: ffdshow e.g. vfw in vdub, ffmpeg, avidemux

paid: picvideo mjpeg, mainconcept mjpeg, morgan mjpeg, pinnacle, lead, blackmagic, canopus, matrox

The "gotcha" is how you do the conversion - some software will convert to RGB before converting to MJPEG in YV12 or YUY2 , that Y'CbCr <=> RGB conversion is often where the potential problems can occur