Good intermediate codec?

SJX

SJX

Veteran
Hi guys, I'm looking for good intermediate codec. I was thinking cineform. Anybody has experience? Is it good option to keep max quality from F35? Now it is open source. Don't want to use prores etc. Thanks.
 
I use DNxHD 36 or 115 for my offline edits in Avid and couldn't be happier with them for screeners. When I'm ready for color, I bring the edit into Resolve and relink to the source files
 
SJX said:
Hi guys, I'm looking for good intermediate codec. I was thinking cineform. Anybody has experience? Is it good option to keep max quality from F35? Now it is open source. Don't want to use prores etc. Thanks.
Click to expand...
Cineform, DNxHx and ProRes are all great codecs for intermediate use.
 
Thanks. But maybe intermediate was wrong word. I'm not thinking of coming back to original codec. I want to convert to Cineform and stay in cineform till the end. Then output whatever is needed of finished video. I don't mean convert to cineform as proxies. This is why I ask if cineform will keep the quality.
 
Been using Cineform since David Newman and co released it in 2002. The following is all Windows related. That horrible HDV codec that virtually no NLE could handle back then was transformed using it. Then over the years used in Cineforms' NeoScene, Connect HD and Firstlight. Sadly Cineform got taken over by GoPro. You need to install GoPro Studio on Windows to avail yourself of the codec. If on Windows a small word of advice. The best version of GoPro studio to install is GoProStudio 2.5.7.549. Later versions had a tendency to cause some issues on Win 10. Cineform on Windows becomes available as a codec choice in Resolve which is a nice thing. As it is a VFW codec it will appear in any application that can see VFW codecs. 10-bit 422 to to 12-bit 444 Film Scan qualities all available under the configuration selection. Quality wise it stands up very well as it is employs full frame Wavelet encoding as opposed to DCT encoding as used by ProRes and Avid DNX. Basically that means it is unlikely to ever get 'blocky' under heavy duress. DCT on the other hand tends to show artifacts more as encoding blockiness. Basically it means one can compress more with fewer artifacts when using Wavelet compression. It may look a little softer under extreme duress but that is much more acceptable than picture encoding blocks starting to show. Need for Speed, End of Watch and Slumdog Millionaire are just some of the productions shot on Cineform. I use it all the time in Resolve, AE, Vegas and even in Edius when I use it. It used to be cross platform so it's a shame to see Apple and FCPX dropping support for Cineform along with Avid DNX. I love the codec. If you want to batch encode to Cineform or do many other things to your footage prior to editing the super tool in my mind is "Intertake." It has a great tool set and they are nice guys to deal with when you have questions or queries.

https://acrovid.com/intertake.htm

https://blog.frame.io/2017/02/13/50-intermediate-codecs-compared/

On the other hand the lowest CPU/GPU demand I've seen on any quality codec on Windows that betters Cineform performance wise to work with has been Grass Valley's HQ and HQX codecs which are also very well worth looking at. I just can't render with them in Resolve which is a shame because they are super smooth and robust codecs to work with. If they could work in Resolve I think they would be my choice today. A modern lower CPU/GPU demand Cineform replacement. That would be great to have in many apps. BTW It looks like GV's HQ and HQX which used to work in earlier versions of FCPX no longer work in the latest version. Why Apple???

https://www.grassvalley.com/products/hqx_codec/

Chris Young
 
My workflow is as follows, maybe it will be of good info, maybe not.

I shoot on HDCAM SR tape using the SRW, I capture into my mac pro as Apple Prores 4444, edit those files, finish in either the same codec or ProRes422. I've swarn to ProRes since its release ages ago.. before that I use to master with the Apple Intermediate Codec.
 
SJX said:
Thanks. But maybe intermediate was wrong word. I'm not thinking of coming back to original codec. I want to convert to Cineform and stay in cineform till the end. Then output whatever is needed of finished video. I don't mean convert to cineform as proxies. This is why I ask if cineform will keep the quality.
Click to expand...
It's not the wrong word, that what intermediate is, you use it during the editing and grading process and then render it to a deliverable codec.

You got three stages:

1. Acquisition codec - what the camera records
2. Intermediate codec - what is used during the post-production process
3. Deliverable codec - the codec of the final product
 
I'm another fan of Cineform. I've been using it for more than 10 years now. Apple shot themselves in the foot by discontinuing FCPX support for both Cineform and DNxHD CODECs. I will avoid working with FCPX editors from now on because they can't work with my Cineform files. ( such a stupid move by Apple )
 
TheDingo said:
I'm another fan of Cineform. I've been using it for more than 10 years now. Apple shot themselves in the foot by discontinuing FCPX support for both Cineform and DNxHD CODECs. I will avoid working with FCPX editors from now on because they can't work with my Cineform files. ( such a stupid move by Apple )
Click to expand...

I Hate, repeat, HATE FCPX. I still work with my copy of FCP Studio 3 (so FCP 7) and am very happy with it. Apple really did do themselves in with FCPX for multiple reasons.
 
Cary Knoop said:
It's not the wrong word, that what intermediate is, you use it during the editing and grading process and then render it to a deliverable codec.

You got three stages:

1. Acquisition codec - what the camera records
2. Intermediate codec - what is used during the post-production process
3. Deliverable codec - the codec of the final product
Click to expand...

OK. Thought intermediate mean only editing codec but then in resolve or other you use edl to grade original files. I want to grade the cineform or whatever other I end up choosing. So need to be good quality and not less quality than 12 bit from F35.
 
OK so will give it a try. Thought of dnxhd but then heard cineform is better and better quality too.
 
SJX said:
cineform is better and better quality too.
Click to expand...
ProRes, DNx and Cineform compress pretty much equally well given the same bitrate and bit-depth.

Wavelet compression (only Cineform uses this) has some advantages, but the actual quality improvement is very minimal compared to DCT based compression.
 
And truly cross platform which ProRes still isn't in the PC world. Cineform can be rendered out as .MOV or .AVI. I find it generally requires about 20% less CPU horsepower on the systems I'm working on which generally helps with smoothness of playback especially when you are working with the biggest 12-bit 444 Film Scan files.

Chris Young
 
Cineform is ~2.3x more efficient than ProRes at similar visual quality levels: http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthrea...upport&p=1986787487&viewfull=1#post1986787487

I've tested this myself (including doing image deltas vs. the originals). Regardless of the quality settings, the Cineform and Wavelet image deltas were substantially different (makes sense: DCT in blocks vs. DWT on entire image). To the eye, both are visually lossless at the ProRes equivalent level and higher. It's easy to test: if you can't see a quality difference with the smaller files, you can save a lot of disk space.
 
Cineform being so good and maybe better is pity it is not more used. I think gopro is the reason. Now I think it is even open source? Is still being developed?
 
SJX said:
Cineform being so good and maybe better is pity it is not more used.
Click to expand...
Without starting another discussion on this let me just say that not everybody agrees with the claim that Cineform is ~2.3x more efficient than ProRes. ;)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top