Raylight plug in for Cineform????!!

J

joshtownsend

Well-known member
I emailed David and he said he's never even heard of it. They make it sound good but the fact that David at Cineform knows nothing about makes me wonder about Raylights integrity after reading the following:

This project came about because of observed problems with the Panasonic DVCProHD decoder and the desire at CineForm to provide the best quality image possible for their customers. Users of the CineForm products can add in Raylight Decoder for $95. A page showing the improvment in image quality is here. Also our own testing shows a reduced size of the CineForm AVI's when using the decoder, presumably due to a less noisy picture. One of our test files showed a 7.5% reduction. The improvement is subtle and is probably most important for customers who are doing critical work like blue or green screen, or a transfer to film.

17-Nov-2006

This :"and the desire at CineForm to provide the best quality image possible for their customers"
makes it sound like the at least talked to cineform about it. David said he never heard of it. It would make sense for them to advertise it on Cineforms page so cineform users can use and buy it.

What's going on here?

www.gainesvilleripper.com
 
More info here. . . .

http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?t=80164&highlight=decoder

David IS quoted here so Im not sure what you are saying about him not knowing about Marcus's decoder. . ..

http://www.dvfilm.com/raylight/decoder/ explains it all - have not heard anything bad about the decoder. Maybe David does not want to promote other competing products directly. . ..

Ive only heard good things about this product. They have a free demo, you may want to try it before you buy it. . . ..
 
Last edited:
David emailed me when I asked him about it and his thought he told me to ask DVFILMS. I assumed he didn't know but I guess He doesn't care.

If it'll give cineform users better pictures then then he should say something about on his website or when I email him. I won't reprint the email exactly but when I asked him his opinion he said people make 3rd party stuff all the time and I should ask DVFILM if it improves the picture.

Just thought it was a wierd answer. If it makes for a less noisy better picture I would have expected him to tell me and other cineform users.

I mean what's the chance of someone who's already using cinfeform finding out about this plug in if they are already using cineform. You'd think it would be on his web page so Cineform users could benifit.

Because of this I'm thinking about bailing out of Cineform and using Raylight.

I mean what if another plug in comes out that improves cineform files. Doesn't seem like your likey to news of it from them.
 
Last edited:
There is more than one David at CineForm -- that has caused the confusion. I (David Newman) worked with Marcus to allow the RayLight decoder to work with HDLink, David Taylor was not involved and we have so many projects this one wasn't high enough profile for him (D.T.) to be aware of.

HDLink itself is a DirectShow based conversion utility, it supports many third party decoders which RayLight is now one. As for recommending RayLight, yes it does produce and image with slightly lower noise, but it is not a visible difference for most image types, even so it would be recommending it more if it wasn't significantly slower than than the free version the P2 Viewer installs. For user with at least 4 cores, the slow down is less of an issue. In it up to the user to decide, it is great that it is compatible, options are always good -- I have even asked for Marcus to port some of his other filters to DirectShow where there is no equivalent and greater need.
 
All I understand now. Thanks for the explanation that makes perfect sense. Wrong David. I thought it was wierd cause you are always so helpful around here and I also think cineform gets a bad rep in genreal around here compared to the slower Raylight.
ONE LAST THING I DON'T UNDERSTAND. You said:

"As for recommending RayLight, yes it does produce and image with slightly lower noise, but it is not a visible difference for most image types, even so it would be recommending it more if it wasn't significantly slower than than the free version the P2 Viewer installs."

Are you saying that a) the Raylight plugin slows down HDlink or b) do you mean it slows down work in the timeline or c) are you sayingthe obvious, that Raylight (the program not plug in) is slower?
 
All I understand now. Thanks for the explanation that makes perfect sense. Wrong David. I thought it was wierd cause you are always so helpful around here and I also think cineform gets a bad rep in genreal around here compared to the slower Raylight.
ONE LAST THING I DON'T UNDERSTAND. You said:

"As for recommending RayLight, yes it does produce and image with slightly lower noise, but it is not a visible difference for most image types, even so it would be recommending it more if it wasn't significantly slower than than the free version the P2 Viewer installs."

Are you saying that a) the Raylight plugin slows down HDlink or b) do you mean it slows down work in the timeline or c) are you sayingthe obvious, that Raylight (the program not plug in) is slower?
 
HDLink's conversion speed is the speed of the decoder and the speed of the our encoder summed together. The CineForm encoder is extremely fast, allowing faster than 1:1 times for many file conversion types (with the P2 Viewer's decoder 720p content converts faster than 1:1 even on a P4.) As the RayLight decoder itself is not real-time on many PCs the conversion is significantly slowed. As CineForm don't use RayLight on the timeline, editing performance remains high using either source DVCPRO-HD decoder.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top