Comments

mjroddy wrote on 7/6/2006, 12:08 PM
Other than what you mentioned, not that I can tell. I was hoping for deck control on this version, but they didn't promise that and it's not there. Still for a significantly better codec, I'm happy to have it in my system. I'm all about playback speed.
Jay-Hancock wrote on 7/6/2006, 12:19 PM
Look in the other, recent threads about Cineform 3.x and you'll see it's noted that a "smart render" feature has been added for CFDIs that were created with their HD Connect's HD Link program.
David Newman wrote on 7/6/2006, 3:07 PM
If quality is important to you, the Connect HD 3.x codec version offers quality controls that aren't in the free bundled version. If fast capture, conversion, resizing, pre-filtering is import, than HDLink is the way to go. If you try it out you will want it -- so if you don't want to spend $199, don't try it. :)

David Newman
CTO, CineForm
ECB wrote on 7/6/2006, 3:39 PM
Thank you all for the responses. David, that is a great answer. :) My dilemma is what Sony will offer for HDV support in Vegas 7 speculated to be out in the September... timeframe.

Ed B
JohnnyRoy wrote on 7/6/2006, 4:34 PM
> My dilemma is what Sony will offer for HDV support in Vegas 7 speculated to be out in the September... timeframe.

It’s not that simple. Connect HD is so much more than just the codec. HD Link does 3-2 pulldown removal of Sony Cineframe24 and can do rate changes from 50i to 24p, resize video, and delinterlaces on-the-fly (while you capture). It also has scene detection and can capture direct to AVI. There are a lot of convenience functions in there that really add up.

~jr
ECB wrote on 7/6/2006, 5:32 PM
JR,

I agree there is a lot of function offered in Connect HD beyond an excellent codec. But, I have to believe that Sony is also adding a lot of the missing HD function beyond an HD codec in Vegas 7. What Vegas 7 will offer and how it compares to HD Connect is the question. I would like to avoid buying duplicate function. That said, I am afraid I am caving. :)

A subjective question: Aside from the improved performance and additional function can you 'see' the differece in image quality between the v.2.1 codec and the v 3.x codec?

Thanks again.

Ed B

ECB wrote on 7/6/2006, 5:32 PM
Sorry, Duplicate post.
Serena wrote on 7/6/2006, 7:46 PM
Have you considered downloading the free trial and checking the quality question by a practical test. Improvements in facilities (without improvements in image quality) are usually valuable. However you're the only one who can evaluate whether or not you think the upgrade worth the cost. Presumably you've read previous threads, such as codec
I own two licences (upgraded to 3.04), so I thought the money well spent.
ECB wrote on 7/7/2006, 6:46 AM
I ran the trial version and I am sold. :)

Ed B