Cineform 3.0 and SD 24p!

Laurence wrote on 6/7/2006, 10:55 AM
I just converted a little wedding footage in m2t format to Cineform 24p using the reverse pulldown removal and deinterlacing within Cineform 3.03, then I rendered it to 24p SD mpeg 2. OMG it looks just wonderful! There are none of the double/triple images of the Vegas 24p render or the odd frame double images and stuttery motion of a DVFilm render. At HDV resolution I see a little resolution loss, but at SD 24p, to my eyes at least it just looks wonderful ... better than shooting fake 24p and removing the pulldown. Much smoother!

The file sizes of the Cineform 24p are quite a bit smaller as well and there is much less strain on my CPU as well.

I was A/Bing the 24p mpeg 2 footage with some regular blockbuster type movies and the look is much closer than I would have expected. Then I A/Bed the footage to a DVX100A project I was involved with recently. The Cineform 24p conversion looked much better.

I don't know if this is premature yet, but it looks to me like this is exactly the look I've been trying to get these last couple of years. I wasn't happy with DVFilm 24p. Vegas's 60i to 24p render looked ever so slightly better, but still not good enough to use. The Cineframe 24 captured with Cineform and pulldown removal looked pretty on individual frames, but too stuttery on motion. The ConnectHD 60i to 24p capture/conversion looks really good to me so far though. Wow this is cool!

Comments

David Newman wrote on 6/7/2006, 11:17 AM
Thank you for the feedback. I glad you like a feature we was almost an after thought.

David Newman
CTO, CineForm
epirb wrote on 6/7/2006, 11:27 AM
laurence could you post what settings you did in the pref. tab on HD Link.
I take it this was orig straight 60i HDV footage.
Laurence wrote on 6/7/2006, 11:59 AM
I'll feel a lot better when someone else's eyes confirm or disagree with what I see:

I just used the standard medium quality settings and checked both the "remove pulldown" and "deinterlace" tabs. There was really nothing to it. Please somebody else do this and tell us what you think. To my eyes, it just rocks!

Yeah, it was on just straight 60i 1080 footage.
Laurence wrote on 6/7/2006, 12:39 PM
OK, I just rendered a little 1280x720x23.976 WMV clip. Aside from the colorspace dulling which WMV encoding always does, it looks just wonderful. I am so happy with this new ConnectHD feature I can hardly express it...even if it was just an afterthought.

I do remember suggesting this a while back though ;-)
David Newman wrote on 6/7/2006, 2:01 PM
OT: re: "Aside from the colorspace dulling which WMV encoding always does"

Vegas uses vsRGB for processing so you will have to convert to cgRGB before encoding into WMV -- this avoids any dulling issue with WMV. In Vegas terms - apply the "Studio RGB to Computer RGB" Color Correction filter to your export.

David Newman
CTO, CineForm
ztalk112 wrote on 6/7/2006, 2:09 PM
Dan,

Thnx for that . . . I've been hanging out for such a plain english explanation and pointer regarding the two RGB modes for some time!

Gary

PS: Now . . . if I can just get my head around the workflow implications of ITU 601 vs. 709 for capture with DV Rack, conversion with HD Link, compositing with Ultra 2 and editing with Vegas for eventual delivery (1) on SD DVD, (2) WMV, and (3) Flash!
farss wrote on 6/7/2006, 2:35 PM
Laurence,
just so we're all clear on this. You're saying that shooting straight 60i and somehow converting to 24p looks better than shooting real 24p in the DVX100 ???
Would be nice if it were true but....
(That load sound was Panasonic stock crashing through the floor)

Bob.
Laurence wrote on 6/7/2006, 2:41 PM
Well I was involved in a project that used a DVX100 and it looks better than the footage we shot on that project. It is after all HDV and true 16:9, both of which give it a real edge in resolution. Try it yourself and see what you think.
epirb wrote on 6/9/2006, 1:31 PM
Ok so I went outside to my backyard this morning to find Heron and Egret central. So I grabbed the FX and started shooting, sorry a little shaky, all hand held and I hadnt had my morning coffee.
the water levels are extremly low so they are all going where there is food. (normaly where I was shooting from is about 2ft deep.
Anyway, I decided to try the CFDI 60i to 24p thing just for the heck of it.
So if you want to check it out here ya go
HDV24ptest
Be warned its a 49meg file 3mbs 1280x720 .wmv
you may want to d/l it if its slow.
BTW
No color corr done or anyhting besides adding the conv studio rgb to computer rgb. noticed while that made the colors less muted it blew out the whites. didnt really have time to mess with it.
Laurence wrote on 6/9/2006, 8:01 PM
It looks really good. Did you convert to 1280x720x24p or 1440x1080x24p and downrez?
epirb wrote on 6/9/2006, 8:11 PM
I did the on the fly HD Link conversion from the cam like you did(i think) to the 1440x1080 x 24p. then rendered to a 1280x 720x24p .wmv 3mbs cbr.
Not really testing anything other than to "see how it looked".

BTW the straight conversion to the CFDI even with deinter and 24p conv is working great on my 3.4g P4(didnt before , encounterd lots of bad frames)
Plus the playback is much better in turns of frame rate w ith 3.0 be it 24p stuff like this or reg 1440 CFDI's
Well worth the upgrade IMO.
Laurence wrote on 6/9/2006, 8:57 PM
In your video, when the birds are flapping their wings the 24p look really jumps out at me.
epirb wrote on 6/9/2006, 9:12 PM
Yeah that and the feather falling and twirling from the bird as he flies away at the end....
I think my pans and zooms really look too stuttery , but it was shot at ss 60 and I dont normaly shoot for 24p so I attribute alot of the stutter to my inexperience w/ pan zoom speeds for film speed shooting.
I would like to improve my skill on that even though as I said most my shooting doesnt require that style.
like I said was just went out and shot, the 24p thing was an afterthought.