Settings when transcoding Cineform or DNxHD?

S

shawn.w

Active member
Hey Everyone,

I just recently got DNxHD working on my PC (vista 64bit), using TMPGEnc 4 Express to encode. And I want to compare a few things between the avid codec and cineform, however im not familar at all with the options that come with encoding these codecs. I just recently got into HD video so any information you could share so i know what settings to choose would be great.

For this project im working with 720 30P footage, and need a good intermediate for green screen and color correction, but im not sure what options ill want to choose or what settings have what effect.

Also if there are any updated concerns with either DNxHD or Cineform that would be good to know in terms of choosing one to go with that would be great to hear about. Thanks!


- Shawn
 
I'm not an editor but I recently received this email regarding Avid. Does anyone know the best way to deal with AVCHD when using Avid?

"Hello Buck,

Neo Scene does a great job of converting AVCHD to AVI and MOV files, however Avid uses a file structure that is not compatible with our open architecture files. I am not specifically familiar with Avid’s Adrennlin, but if it follows the typical Avid file architecture you could use MetaFuze to convert to DNxHD allowing you to use files converted by Neo Scene. You can download the full-function trial of Neo Scene to test out your workflow here:

www.cineform.com/downloads.aspx

Best regards,

Don Riegle
VP Worldwide Sales
CineForm

www.CineForm.com"
 
i use one of the 36Mbps presets.
great quality, smaller file sizes than a higher bitrate.
only thing is i don't get realtime playback......for that you'll have to transcode to a higher bitrate that is less compressed. it's still close enough to realtime (without rendering) that i can edit very quickly while saving some harddrive space.

just pick the preset according to the bitrate number at the end of the preset name, then adjust the dimensions and frame rate to your liking.
 
Ok, let's see.

Both Cineform and DNxHD are excellent intermediate codecs. They use different types of compression. Cineform is 10-bit; however, DNxHD can be 8 or 10 bit.

Transcoding to a good intermediate will not improve your green screen work. It will help preserve your footage through multiple encode cycles.

By it's nature, Cineform is easier for PCs to decode so it offers real time playback on lesser hardware. DNxHD uses a structure similar to Apple's ProRes if that helps any.

The conversion from my EX1's XDCamEX files to DNX 175 or 220 is nearly lossless. The conversion to DNx36 is slightly lossy.

The problem with these intermediate formats for users coming from consumer type cameras is that they tend to swell the size of the footage leaving many to doubt why they are necessary. However, for those capturing with high end codecs, these intermediates offer substantial size savings so they are seeing the coin from the other side.

I have used both Cineform and DNxHD. Both are excellent. I settled on DNxHD for several reasons, perhaps some or none are important to you.

1. DNxHD is free.

2. DnxHD is a SMPTE standard so longevity is somewhat assured

3. Cineform is commercial and not open architecture so it may cease to exist at any time. Not saying this is going to happen, but since I work in Govt., I have to try to forecast 10+ years out.

4. Cineform will be able to produce higher quality files at the same file size, or similar quality files in less space due to it's more efficient compression scheme. This is a major plus for them, and the reason I went with them initially.
 
Thanks have you information:
1. DnxHD is a SMPTE standard so longevity is somewhat assured

3. Cineform is commercial and not open architecture so it may cease to exist at any time. Not saying this is going to happen, but since I work in Govt., I have to try to forecast 10+ years out.

3. Cineform will be able to produce higher quality files at the same file size, or similar quality files in less space due to it's more efficient compression scheme. This is a major plus for them, and the reason I went with them initially.


__________________
Simulation rachat credit personnel reduit | Demande rachat credit personnel en ligne | Comparatif meilleur taux rachat credit pret personnel
 
Do both Cineform and DNxHD have the same variety of presets and can both transcode every shooting mode off of the HMC150 without major problems at this time?

Cineform is just low, medium, high settings for quality if i remember right

DNxHD encoding through TMPGeng 4 express seemed to have many more options, but your saying the only important factors are selecting the correct dimensions and frame rate, then choosing a bitrate, which is represented by the 36, 125, 220. do those numbers stand equivalent to low, med, high?
 
What software are you guys using to transcode to DnxHD? I thought about using it but the render times were dreadful in the Adobe Media Encoder... at least 10 times longer than Panasonic's DVCProHD transcoder (which runs in real-time).
 
shawn.w said:
Do both Cineform and DNxHD have the same variety of presets and can both transcode every shooting mode off of the HMC150 without major problems at this time?
Click to expand...

DNxHD has many more presets, but I think that should be a minor consideration when selecting which codec to choose. DnxHD was built for film and broadcast workflow. It was not necessarily targeted to be in intermediate for the super-compressed, low-bitrate images from consumer cameras. So nearly anything it's arsenal, is practically overkill for our application.

shawn.w said:
Cineform is just low, medium, high settings for quality if i remember right
Click to expand...

Depends on which verison of Cineform you have. Some offer quite a number of modes.

shawn.w said:
DNxHD encoding through TMPGeng 4 express seemed to have many more options, but your saying the only important factors are selecting the correct dimensions and frame rate, then choosing a bitrate, which is represented by the 36, 125, 220. do those numbers stand equivalent to low, med, high?
Click to expand...

Those numbers do not represent low, medium, and high. Those numers, along with the corresponding description tell you which bit-rate is is sufficient to encode visually lossless data for the format in the description. Thus, 220Mbps is sufficient to capture 1080/60i in a visually lossless manner. 175Mbps is required for 1080/24p, etc.
 
TigerFX said:
What software are you guys using to transcode to DnxHD? I thought about using it but the render times were dreadful in the Adobe Media Encoder... at least 10 times longer than Panasonic's DVCProHD transcoder (which runs in real-time).
Click to expand...

I am using Mpeg Streamclip or my NLE. Either work ok. The encode to DVCProHD should be a lot faster, it's throwing away a lot more of your data!
 
"Thus, 220Mbps is sufficient to capture 1080/60i in a visually lossless manner. 175Mbps is required for 1080/24p, etc."


I dont understand the correlation here or how you decide what resolution / frame rate combo is best suited for what bit rate.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top