Is there an alternative to Cineform HD codec?
- Thread starter thome
- Start date
if you say good for quality, there are plenty of codecs as good as cineform.
The advantage of cineform is to be agnostic (compatible mac/PC and almost any editing tool, 2D and 3D) , to generate files that are still manageable in size (while still huge regarding other codecs) and offering performance in some case (when used in premiere for example).
Now, if you do not mind to use another codec, XDCAM and mpeg4 (AVCintra) and DNXHD and many others are all as good if not better, but they are more finnicky about implementations and use.
for eamples many good codecs are limited in format they support (no 24p or no 24psf or no 60p) and some are runnning only in their native application (Avid is pretty closed in that way)
Cineform has been really great to keep up with virtually all formats (from RED, Si-2k, canon AVCHD, XDCAM and many
exotic implementation of AVCHD).
If you are like me and have many source for video, you would be happy to have only one codec, doing all.
On the other side, if you shoot only with your camera, and edit only what you shot, you could possible use a codec avoiding source files to be converted. for example high-end sony camera use XDCAM and premiere can edit it without problem.
Premiere 5 with its new hardware rendering engine for AVCHD is also able to edit sources in this format.
If you are on Mac, apple solved the problem by making its own codec (Prores) that has good reputation.
You probably have to put flat on the table your workflow, so you can see what exactly you need.
for example, from distribution point of view, Cineform is a dead end, nobody will accept that, almost all professionals are
asking for tapes or disks and then you go back to XDCAM or AVCHD or some kind of mpeg format.
The advantage of cineform is to be agnostic (compatible mac/PC and almost any editing tool, 2D and 3D) , to generate files that are still manageable in size (while still huge regarding other codecs) and offering performance in some case (when used in premiere for example).
Now, if you do not mind to use another codec, XDCAM and mpeg4 (AVCintra) and DNXHD and many others are all as good if not better, but they are more finnicky about implementations and use.
for eamples many good codecs are limited in format they support (no 24p or no 24psf or no 60p) and some are runnning only in their native application (Avid is pretty closed in that way)
Cineform has been really great to keep up with virtually all formats (from RED, Si-2k, canon AVCHD, XDCAM and many
exotic implementation of AVCHD).
If you are like me and have many source for video, you would be happy to have only one codec, doing all.
On the other side, if you shoot only with your camera, and edit only what you shot, you could possible use a codec avoiding source files to be converted. for example high-end sony camera use XDCAM and premiere can edit it without problem.
Premiere 5 with its new hardware rendering engine for AVCHD is also able to edit sources in this format.
If you are on Mac, apple solved the problem by making its own codec (Prores) that has good reputation.
You probably have to put flat on the table your workflow, so you can see what exactly you need.
for example, from distribution point of view, Cineform is a dead end, nobody will accept that, almost all professionals are
asking for tapes or disks and then you go back to XDCAM or AVCHD or some kind of mpeg format.
Last edited:
Free is better 
Thus it's Lagarith for me. Thou admittedly I haven't had to use an intermediate codec since I built my current computer (it's fast). Yes Lagarith files are large but if you have the hard-drive space who cares right?
Also anyone use AVID DNxHD as in intermediate? It's also free but it's also huge files sizes. I saw a tutorial that uses it so they can use Handbrake for the final render (not my video --->) http://youtu.be/rWMX5lSvEgY
Supposedly it gives the best quality? If anyone watches the video I would love to hear your thoughts on it.
Thus it's Lagarith for me. Thou admittedly I haven't had to use an intermediate codec since I built my current computer (it's fast). Yes Lagarith files are large but if you have the hard-drive space who cares right?
Also anyone use AVID DNxHD as in intermediate? It's also free but it's also huge files sizes. I saw a tutorial that uses it so they can use Handbrake for the final render (not my video --->) http://youtu.be/rWMX5lSvEgY
Supposedly it gives the best quality? If anyone watches the video I would love to hear your thoughts on it.
bruceallen
Well-known member
Well, almost everyone using Avid uses DNxHD. So that means... most TV shows, most films... although for final output films will go to uncompressed. But often if they're screening tests, etc DNxHD will be used.
Also, believe it or not, some stuff you see on TV was just brought in at the mid-level datarate, color-corrected, then shot out to air. I wouldn't do that though.
It's more about a tradeoff of price (free), convenience, performance, file size and quality. It is intra-frame only (meaning that the computer only has to decode the frame it's on (unlike H264). Also, it's not a particularly complex encoding for the given frame, so you don't need a supercomputer to play back at full res.
DNxHD at the highest datarate is good enough for broadcast though, while DNxHD36 is fantastic for offline if you have a feature with untold hours of footage and need to work with it on a laptop. My guess is that reasonably soon they will be announcing a 444 version with a higher datarata and >1080p resolution, along with Media Composer 6. That will be awesome.
Bruce Allen
www.boacinema.com
Nicholas DK
Member
You can get Cineform for free now (up to 1080P encoding) since GoPro bought the company so price is not an issue anymore however Vegas has terrible support for Cineform in the current version 10 so it doesn't really matter how good Cineform is, with Vegas it's broken & frustrating to use hopefully there will be a fix in 11.
Really? I searched the site and all I could find was the 15 day trial version? Also I didn't know GoPro bough Cineform wow. I'm not sure if that's a good thing or not?
Nicholas DK
Member
You can download it here GoPro CineForm Studio, it's on the GoPro site and not the Cineform site yet, it's pretty much NeoScene for free with a few added benefits. So far the take over has been pretty good with prices dropping like crazy, codec packages that was $999 was lowered to $299, will help to make Cineform more mainstream in the long run I guess.
Last edited:
I disagree. I used Vegas 10 with Neoscene for my last 22 minute short and it worked wonderfully.
Have you used this? It seems like it was designed for use only with GoPro cameras:
in fact the utility is done to translate go pro files to cineform, but once you got the cineform files, there is no way for cineform to knows where the video comes from.
So what is really missing is the HDLink utility allowing to transfer almost any format to cineform.
But if you got an application that can read your original shots and convert them to cineform, there is no problem.
that is why people having paid 1000$ for the original cineform, were a bit upset to discover it was free or cost only 299$ overnight.
The 299$ version still offers more features to justify the spending.
For example there is some acceleration built for Adobe Premiere or the HDlink utility or the Firstlight utility etc....
But if you just need the codec, yes, the free version is great.
So what is really missing is the HDLink utility allowing to transfer almost any format to cineform.
But if you got an application that can read your original shots and convert them to cineform, there is no problem.
that is why people having paid 1000$ for the original cineform, were a bit upset to discover it was free or cost only 299$ overnight.
The 299$ version still offers more features to justify the spending.
For example there is some acceleration built for Adobe Premiere or the HDlink utility or the Firstlight utility etc....
But if you just need the codec, yes, the free version is great.
Last edited:
All what you need is encoder being open (so some CF software with license ), than you can use 100s of tools to convert your source files to CF- just note only few will keep 10bit precision (if source is 10bit). Decoding is free.
DNxHD, ProRes are good for broadcast (with their current bitrate limitations), but they are not as good as CF, which is also targeted at high-end workflows. CF is now everywhere- from Premiere, FCP to Resolve, Mistika, Baselight, etc. It offers better quality as bitrate is not restricted and it's real VBR based- besides it does 12bit 4:4:4. DNxHD 444 is same as old version- just enabled 4:4:4 smapling, so bitrate is doubled, but still 5:1 compression at best. DNxHD introduces macroblocking on difficult, noisy sources- not really good for high-end workflows- just for broadcast.
Look here:
http://www.grassvalley.com/docs/WhitePapers/professional/GV-4097M_HQX_Whitepaper.pdf
Both DNxHD and ProRes are restricted in terms of bitrate and not really VBR based (ProRes goes only 10% above target bitrate), so with more difficult sources they are not as good as HQX or CF. Some scenes may look way worse than rest of them- this is a bit of problem. Apple white paper shows it- they use STEM testing footage- at about 700 frames (and also near to end) there are difficult scenes with lots of details- ProRes/DNxHD falls down to 46dB PSNR, where CF keeps it at above 55dB as for other scenes. This is due to open, real VBR nature of CF.
It's Apple's, AVID's decision to stop at about 5:1 compression ratio, where HQX, CF can go even to 2:1 (near lossless compression) and support 8K resolution or even above. They are all about the same efficiency, just with different restrictions.
If you don't need 10bit use free UtVideo codec (now on PC and MAC)- lossless 4:2:0, 4:2:2 or RGB modes, with speed way above all intermediate codecs- fastest codec on Earth Big file size?- disk are cheap these days- don't see it as a big problem.
DNxHD, ProRes are good for broadcast (with their current bitrate limitations), but they are not as good as CF, which is also targeted at high-end workflows. CF is now everywhere- from Premiere, FCP to Resolve, Mistika, Baselight, etc. It offers better quality as bitrate is not restricted and it's real VBR based- besides it does 12bit 4:4:4. DNxHD 444 is same as old version- just enabled 4:4:4 smapling, so bitrate is doubled, but still 5:1 compression at best. DNxHD introduces macroblocking on difficult, noisy sources- not really good for high-end workflows- just for broadcast.
Look here:
http://www.grassvalley.com/docs/WhitePapers/professional/GV-4097M_HQX_Whitepaper.pdf
Both DNxHD and ProRes are restricted in terms of bitrate and not really VBR based (ProRes goes only 10% above target bitrate), so with more difficult sources they are not as good as HQX or CF. Some scenes may look way worse than rest of them- this is a bit of problem. Apple white paper shows it- they use STEM testing footage- at about 700 frames (and also near to end) there are difficult scenes with lots of details- ProRes/DNxHD falls down to 46dB PSNR, where CF keeps it at above 55dB as for other scenes. This is due to open, real VBR nature of CF.
It's Apple's, AVID's decision to stop at about 5:1 compression ratio, where HQX, CF can go even to 2:1 (near lossless compression) and support 8K resolution or even above. They are all about the same efficiency, just with different restrictions.
If you don't need 10bit use free UtVideo codec (now on PC and MAC)- lossless 4:2:0, 4:2:2 or RGB modes, with speed way above all intermediate codecs- fastest codec on Earth
Big file size?- disk are cheap these days- don't see it as a big problem.
Last edited:
zcream
Well-known member
Utvideo now supports 10-bit 4:2:2
Is utvideo compression faster than Cineform High or Filmscan at 10-bit 4:2:2 ?
Is utvideo compression faster than Cineform High or Filmscan at 10-bit 4:2:2 ?
All what you need is encoder being open (so some CF software with license ), than you can use 100s of tools to convert your source files to CF- just note only few will keep 10bit precision (if source is 10bit). Decoding is free.
DNxHD, ProRes are good for broadcast (with their current bitrate limitations), but they are not as good as CF, which is also targeted at high-end workflows. CF is now everywhere- from Premiere, FCP to Resolve, Mistika, Baselight, etc. It offers better quality as bitrate is not restricted and it's real VBR based- besides it does 12bit 4:4:4. DNxHD 444 is same as old version- just enabled 4:4:4 smapling, so bitrate is doubled, but still 5:1 compression at best. DNxHD introduces macroblocking on difficult, noisy sources- not really good for high-end workflows- just for broadcast.
Look here:
http://www.grassvalley.com/docs/WhitePapers/professional/GV-4097M_HQX_Whitepaper.pdf
Both DNxHD and ProRes are restricted in terms of bitrate and not really VBR based (ProRes goes only 10% above target bitrate), so with more difficult sources they are not as good as HQX or CF. Some scenes may look way worse than rest of them- this is a bit of problem. Apple white paper shows it- they use STEM testing footage- at about 700 frames (and also near to end) there are difficult scenes with lots of details- ProRes/DNxHD falls down to 46dB PSNR, where CF keeps it at above 55dB as for other scenes. This is due to open, real VBR nature of CF.
It's Apple's, AVID's decision to stop at about 5:1 compression ratio, where HQX, CF can go even to 2:1 (near lossless compression) and support 8K resolution or even above. They are all about the same efficiency, just with different restrictions.
If you don't need 10bit use free UtVideo codec (now on PC and MAC)- lossless 4:2:0, 4:2:2 or RGB modes, with speed way above all intermediate codecs- fastest codec on Earth