GH2 transcode with 5D2RGB

M

Mike_Bluestone

Member
Just tried using 5D2RGB on GH2 files and it reveals a lot of detail in the darkest areas of the image. Quite a big difference. Use the 1.8 gamma. I rewrapped the .mts file to .m4v without re-encoding first.
I'm sorry, I don't have the time to post the results, but anyone can try it, the program is free http://rarevision.com/5dtorgb/
 
Last edited:
will try. thanks

edit : the difference is quite significant. I didn't expect so much more data to be preserved. From whatever small tests i just performed, i'd say the dynamic range and the detail have increased by a large margin.
 
Last edited:
A few months ago the site had "GH1" in the list of supporting cameras, but I can't find the keyword anymore. What does it mean?
 
stonebat said:
A few months ago the site had "GH1" in the list of supporting cameras, but I can't find the keyword anymore. What does it mean?
Click to expand...
5DtoRGB Features:

  • Basic command line / shell scripting support (1.1)
  • Panasonic HDSLR support (video only)
so all is good I guess. I have to wait for the windows version.
 
If you're looking for something similar for Windows, you could do worse than ffmbc (http://code.google.com/p/ffmbc/) - it uses the ffmpeg library and is geared more towards transcoding to broadcast quality codecs. FFMPEG would likely do the same job, but this customised version provides an emphasis on properly transcoding AVCHD clips.

It's command-line based, but you need only write a simple batch file and you can automate the entire transcoding process. For example, to transcode to Avid DNxHD, you might use the following command line:

Code: 
ffmbc -i AVCHDclip.mts -vcodec dnxhd -b 175M -acodec pcm_s16le -ar 48000 -ac 2 OutputFile.MOV


To automate transcoding, create a batch file in the same directory as ffmbc.exe that contains the following:

Code: 
for %%a in ("*.mts") do ffmbc -i "%%a" -vcodec dnxhd -b 175M -acodec pcm_s16le -ar 48000 -ac 2 -threads 4 "%%a"-Transcoded.MOV

Now drop your .mts files in the same folder, run the batch file and go and make a drink (or take care of other work!). You can transcode to other codecs of course, but the quality of the conversion to DNxHD is very good. You can also add the switch "-mdb rd" for a best quality mode, apparently, but I've yet to see much of a difference..


Hope that helps if some want to try a straightforward Windows solution!
 
MIke, I just got the 5gtorgb, but it says it does not use mts files and will do weird things to them. Can you tell me the specific way to use this with GH2 files? (i just tried it, the video look good but there is no audio)

I am on a mac

WOOPS... I just saw that the website says "video only". oh well.

Thanks
 
Last edited:
JamesRitson said:
If you're looking for something similar for Windows, you could do worse than ffmbc (http://code.google.com/p/ffmbc/) - it uses the ffmpeg library and is geared more towards transcoding to broadcast quality codecs. FFMPEG would likely do the same job, but this customised version provides an emphasis on properly transcoding AVCHD clips.

It's command-line based, but you need only write a simple batch file and you can automate the entire transcoding process. For example, to transcode to Avid DNxHD, you might use the following command line:

Code: 
ffmbc -i AVCHDclip.mts -vcodec dnxhd -b 175M -acodec pcm_s16le -ar 48000 -ac 2 OutputFile.MOV


To automate transcoding, create a batch file in the same directory as ffmbc.exe that contains the following:

Code: 
for %%a in ("*.mts") do ffmbc -i "%%a" -vcodec dnxhd -b 175M -acodec pcm_s16le -ar 48000 -ac 2 -threads 4 "%%a"-Transcoded.MOV

Now drop your .mts files in the same folder, run the batch file and go and make a drink (or take care of other work!). You can transcode to other codecs of course, but the quality of the conversion to DNxHD is very good. You can also add the switch "-mdb rd" for a best quality mode, apparently, but I've yet to see much of a difference..


Hope that helps if some want to try a straightforward Windows solution!
Click to expand...

So, did you try it on Panasonic footage and got similar results as Mike?
Isn't 5DtoRGB based on FFmpeg library as well?
 
What do you guys feel about this solution - http://lacoloronline.com/blog/?10118-How-to-Edit-DSLR-Footage-in-Premiere-Pro-CS4

This works with the CS5 version of Media Encoder as well. In Export Settings under the Video tab, there's the Codec Settings tab. Once you pull up the Codec Settings dialogue box for Matrox MPEG-2 I-frame HD there's a box labelled DC that can be turned to 8-bit, 9-bit, 10-bit, or 11-bit. Is this affecting color sampling do you think?

Under Media Encoder's Video tab there's also a checkbox for 'Render at Maximum Depth' which is 24-bit. And an Optimize Stills box under Advanced Settings. Still trying to wrap my head around which, if any, of these settings may achieve similar results to 5DtoRGB or Cineform.

Any thoughts?
 
I'm told a Windows version is in the works - I've tested a Windows beta. I'll ask what's happening with it.

Still trying to wrap my head around which, if any, of these settings may achieve similar results to 5DtoRGB or Cineform.
Click to expand...

I doubt you will find another decoder that is - if you see what I mean - willing to be as slow as 5DtoRGB must necessarily be. A large part of the improvements it offers are down to much more careful scaling of the subsampled chroma channels, and I don't think you're going to see that in a codec that aims to provide realtime performance, at least not without a lot of GPU processing being involved (which 5DtoRGB now does).

P
 
Last edited:
Phil Rhodes said:
I'm told a Windows version is in the works - I've tested a Windows beta. I'll ask what's happening with it.



I doubt you will find another decoder that is - if you see what I mean - willing to be as slow as 5DtoRGB must necessarily be. A large part of the improvements it offers are down to much more careful scaling of the subsampled chroma channels, and I don't think you're going to see that in a codec that aims to provide realtime performance, at least not without a lot of GPU processing being involved (which 5DtoRGB now does).

P
Click to expand...

Thanks, Phil! Yes, please keep us posted on a Windows version.
 
When exporting from 5DtoRGB, I noticed the difference between ProRes HQ&LT and DPX is visible as well. It isn't huge but i thought ProRes was as good as lossless, which apparently is not wholly true.
Anyway, i'll stick with ProRes LT as it's about 50 times or so smaller the DPX/Cineon.
 
JamesRitson said:
If you're looking for something similar for Windows, you could do worse than ffmbc (http://code.google.com/p/ffmbc/) - it uses the ffmpeg library and is geared more towards transcoding to broadcast quality codecs. FFMPEG would likely do the same job, but this customised version provides an emphasis on properly transcoding AVCHD clips.

It's command-line based, but you need only write a simple batch file and you can automate the entire transcoding process. For example, to transcode to Avid DNxHD, you might use the following command line:

Code: 
ffmbc -i AVCHDclip.mts -vcodec dnxhd -b 175M -acodec pcm_s16le -ar 48000 -ac 2 OutputFile.MOV


To automate transcoding, create a batch file in the same directory as ffmbc.exe that contains the following:

Code: 
for %%a in ("*.mts") do ffmbc -i "%%a" -vcodec dnxhd -b 175M -acodec pcm_s16le -ar 48000 -ac 2 -threads 4 "%%a"-Transcoded.MOV

Now drop your .mts files in the same folder, run the batch file and go and make a drink (or take care of other work!). You can transcode to other codecs of course, but the quality of the conversion to DNxHD is very good. You can also add the switch "-mdb rd" for a best quality mode, apparently, but I've yet to see much of a difference..


Hope that helps if some want to try a straightforward Windows solution!
Click to expand...
Wow that´s prompt, thanks. I will try it just for fun as I have NeoScene.
 
Sorry, folks - I had to delete that message. For some reason the forum software decided to recompress my demonstration image as a tiny JPEG, which completely obscured the intent of the thing.

What it was supposed to be was this 100% crop as a PNG, in which the difference is crystal clear.

rgbdemo.png


Again, my previous post was meaningless as a demo - ignore that, look at this. It's clear which is better, although I think taking the edges off the chroma channels probably does cost some perceived resolution, even if that resolution was really just aliasing and poor chroma upsampling all along. There is a small - in my view insignificant - colour shift. That's probably fixable in the coefficient designer.

This is 5D footage, for the record, but the same issue applies.
 
Last edited:
Phil Rhodes said:
Sorry, folks - I had to delete that message. For some reason the forum software decided to recompress my demonstration image as a tiny JPEG, which completely obscured the intent of the thing.

What it was supposed to be was this 100% crop as a PNG, in which the difference is crystal clear.

rgbdemo.png


Again, my previous post was meaningless as a demo - ignore that, look at this. It's clear which is better, although I think taking the edges off the chroma channels probably does cost some perceived resolution, even if that resolution was really just aliasing and poor chroma upsampling all along. There is a small - in my view insignificant - colour shift. That's probably fixable in the coefficient designer.

This is 5D footage, for the record, but the same issue applies.
Click to expand...

Wow! Maybe I'll just run this on my GF's Macbook Pro until they make a Windows version. Did they get back to you on that BTW?
 
i thought ProRes was as good as lossless, which apparently is not wholly true.
Click to expand...

...and no, that really isn't true. ProRes and DNxHD are technologically very similar - in fact, you can losslessly transcode between the two if you know what you're doing at a very low level of software. They're also technologically quite similar to, let's say, DV. Or JPEG. Spectacular new tech this is not.

There is nothing special about ProRes other than Apple's workflow with it. Such a workflow could just as well have been implemented in any other codec. Cineform on the other hand is a wavelet codec and has better performance than any of this stuff, at the cost of being much harder on your computer. In my view the best approach is uncompressed. Best quality, doesn't cane your CPU so hard - and the disk bandwidth is probably cheaper than the better CPU, now terabyte disks are US$75 and fast SATA controllers come with every PC.

The only thing - absolutely the only thing - that compression helps with is disk bandwidth. In absolutely every other way, it's nothing but bad.
 
Phil Rhodes said:
There is nothing special about ProRes other than Apple's workflow with it. Such a workflow could just as well have been implemented in any other codec. Cineform on the other hand is a wavelet codec and has better performance than any of this stuff, at the cost of being much harder on your computer.
Click to expand...
Is Cineform better than ProRes, even ProRes HQ at 220 Mbit/s (without mention ProRes 4444) ?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top