CineForm Neo and AVCHD

blink3times wrote on 4/12/2008, 12:26 PM

I'm not sure cineform has the capacity to transcode avchd to avi. I have played with tanscoding M2T to avi with cineform, editing and then exporting uncompressed avi to Ulead for conversion to avchd and burning. It works well but you have to export your avi as 1920x1080 (pixel width=1) because ulead for some reason sees 1440x1080 as 4:3 instead of 16:9. You need a big drive though... an hour of uncompressed avi at 1920x1080 is about 625gig.

Bit Of Byte wrote on 4/12/2008, 12:35 PM

Thanks Blink3times.

Why ULead? Does'nt Vegas do this same job?

I am bit confused about your question whether Cineforem can transcode AVCHD to AVI. isn't this is what Cineforem special for (see link below)..

http://www.cineform.com/products/TechNotes/AVCHD_FileConversion.htm

Don't you have to render the 1920x1080 footage from Vegas in MP4 25M/s and then burn it to a data DVD? If so, woudl it take up alot of space?
Bit

blink3times wrote on 4/12/2008, 12:41 PM

Interesting... Cineform and avchd must be fairly new.... or at least it's the first time I've seen it. I'll have to play with that a little. At any rate if it works then the cineform would be the way to go... it flows quite a bit smoother.

I use Ulead for a few reasons:

Vegas can't make a disk that starts automatically, it can't make menus, it can't loop a disk, and it has a max bitrate of 15M while Ulead is 17M

Bit Of Byte wrote on 4/12/2008, 12:48 PM

Thanks Blink.

Can you confirm this GB/hour storage number.

I have read elsewhere http://www.cineform.com/products/TechNotes/AVCHD_FileConversion.htm
(about half way down)

... that the CineForm Intermediate File Size (for HD: 1920 x 1080 10-bit 24p,15MB/sec to 20MB/sec) is 60GB/hour.

Why is this figure drastically different to your figure (625Gb / hour)?

I would also like to know if the damage caused by initial compression into MPEG-4 for AVCHD is there forever - even though the same footage can be transcoded back out to AVI (with Cineforem Neo)...

Bit

John_Cline wrote on 4/12/2008, 1:19 PM

Bit,

For the last couple of weeks, you've been asking somewhat advanced questions that indicate you haven't yet learned the basics. I appreciate your enthusiasm, but you really need to start at the beginning and understand the basic concepts before you can grasp the more complex concepts. This forum isn't necessarily the place to accomplish this, perhaps something like Wikipedia is. This isn't to say that the members of this forum won't answer your questions, but I wonder if you will fully understand the answers.

To answer your question, yes, once a file has been compressed with any lossy codec, the damage has been done and there is no way to get back to the original.

Also, the size of any given video file is determined entirely by it's bitrate.

Bit Of Byte wrote on 4/12/2008, 1:23 PM

Thansk John,

Will do. Appreciate all members' thoughts and I will disappear very shortly.

One last question- can u please confirm how many GB would take up for 1 hour of uncompressed avi at 1920x1080 (at 20MB/s)?

Regards

Bit

John_Cline wrote on 4/12/2008, 2:18 PM

I didn't say you should disappear, I just suggested that you should supplement your education on the basics. For example, "uncompressed 1920x1080 at 20MB/sec" is a virtual impossibility.

1920x1080 = 2,073,600 pixels in one frame.

2,073,600 x 3 = 6,220,800 bytes per frame (there are three bytes per pixel in RGB)

6,220,800 bytes per frame x 29.97 frames per second = 186,437,376 bytes per second. (This is why there can't be "uncompressed 1920x1080 at 20MB/s." In order to achieve 20MB/sec, it would HAVE to be compressed by about 9:1.)

186,437,376 x 3600 seconds in an hour = 671,174,553,600 bytes per hour.

671,174,553,600 bytes = 625.08001328 Gigabyte (GB) per hour

Now, your question said "uncompressed @ 20 MB/s." The large "B" in MB means bytes, a small "b" would mean bits. So, 20 MB is 20,971,520 bytes. Since we're talking only bitrate here, the 1920x1080 is absolutely meaningless, so is frame rate.

ANY file encoded at 20,971,520 bytes per second x 3600 seconds per hour would be 75,497,472,000 bytes per hour or 70.3125 GB/hr. This is regardless of its frame rate or image size.

blink3times wrote on 4/12/2008, 2:33 PM

"Why is this figure drastically different to your figure (625Gb / hour)?"

625 gig is not the count of the cineform intermediate.... that considerably smaller. It is what you will need should you decide to render the cinform as FULLY uncompressed avi at 1920x1080(1 hour), after your editing.... which is what I am doing to prepare for import to Ulead.

johnmeyer wrote on 4/12/2008, 4:07 PM

John, I wish Sony would collect great posts and put them into a FAQ. Your last one would certainly be in that document. Absolutely excellent explanation of uncompressed video size.

For those trying to self-educate about all things video, in addition to Wikipedia, I also strongly recommend the following:

videohelp.com - Has tools, "how-to" guides, test results on equipment and media, and a very strong series of forums.

avsforums (at http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/) - Fantastic discussion of everything related to video and home theater. One of the most active forums I have seen anywhere on the Internet.

http://www.camcorderinfo.com/ - Excellent and thorough camcorder reviews. Quite frankly, this is where most camcorder research should start. Then, if there is something really specific you need to know about, then the experts here can often fill in the missing blanks.

For really advanced information, nothing beats the forums at doom9.org, although it is pretty rough and tumble there, and also very geeky.

And, of course, Google can turn up amazing information. I just found this excellent tutorial on many of the subjects about which questions have been asked, in this thread and others, over the past few days:

Understanding HD Formats

Bit Of Byte wrote on 4/12/2008, 4:47 PM

Gold!

Well done team! and thank you.

Blink - that's an amazing file size - what processor are you using and ram?

What file size will end up on a DVD as final?

John Cline - many thanks for that info and help.

John Meyer - thanks for thiose links.

ALL - appreaciate your patience and assistance.

Bit Of Byte
Bit

blink3times wrote on 4/12/2008, 6:48 PM

"Blink - that's an amazing file size - what processor are you using and ram?

Yup.... big files. It kind of takes you aback the first time you do this kind of render... sitting there watching the pie chart on the "disk Properties" tab of a 750 gig drive getting swallowed up at break-neck speed.

I'm using Vista Ultimate64, Q6600quad, 8gig ram with no page file. I'm quite happy with it.

The final file on output to disk is avchd, just short of an hour at roughly 7 gigs

Bit Of Byte wrote on 4/12/2008, 7:02 PM

WOW.

Amazing reduction in file size (just over 1%) 625GB to 7GB!!

Do u use separate/dedicated HDD for this exercise and is it 1TB in size?

Anohter dumb question from me - what is the advantage/purpose of rendering a FULLY uncompressed file - as opposed to rendering a compressed file?

If u used Cineform in future, woudl that reduce file size and still retain same goodness?

Bit

blink3times wrote on 4/12/2008, 10:42 PM

I actually did a RAID on a couple of drives for a total of 750gig and yes they're dedicated to nothing but uncompressed avi work.

Someone used the term "generic" when describing uncompressed avi which i thought was just a great all round description (I think it was either John M or john C... I can't quite remember). It's lossless so you can play around with it without losing anything to compression, but more to the point, it's pretty basic stuff that will import to just about anything.

Working in an uncompressed state will allow you to render over and over again without having to worry about losses due to uncompressing/recompressing. I don't like to render a compressed file more than once (at least without smart render) and that's why I will work uncompressed going from one program to another. Now if I export from Vegas as avchd and import this to ulead, it will not render it again.... it will simply burn what Vegas has produced (in other words... only one render).... but then Vegas can only reach a max bitrate of 15M, whereas Ulead will do 17M. To get to 17M I will have no choice but to render twice.... hence the need to work uncompressed for the second round. This all may seem a bit anal... and it probably is... buuut... it makes me feel better by getting the best I can out of everything

Cineform is a good codec/format to work with because there is a nice balance between file size and compression. But having said that, it's still a somewhat compressed format. It's also not a universal codec. Some programs will not accept it and some programs (like PP) are dead in the water if the cineform program is removed from the machine.

Bit Of Byte wrote on 4/12/2008, 10:53 PM

Thanks Blink.

I may follow your lead and go down this path - great concept!

I am asusming you use a Pro camera with higher bitrates (> 25Mbps)?

Can I ask why you chose not to follow the HDV/MiniDV plaltform/codec?

Woudl you follow the same ADVHCD path and workflow still if you using a consumer model camera (HV30 or SR12 or HG 10) - with lower bitrates?

Bit

blink3times wrote on 4/12/2008, 11:02 PM

"I am asusming you use a Pro camera with higher bitrates (> 25Mbps)?"

Nope... not at all. i have the Sony HC3, HC7, and a Canon HV20 (all HDV formats)

Bit Of Byte wrote on 4/12/2008, 11:09 PM

WOW - !

OK - Your thoughts on the Cannon HV30 vs Sony HC9?

WHich one woudl be your pick and why?

Bit

John_Cline wrote on 4/12/2008, 11:16 PM

Bit, go to www.camcorderinfo.com and do some independent research.

blink3times wrote on 4/12/2008, 11:18 PM

I like my Sony's and won't be getting a canon again. I said this in another post today.... canon has a great picture quality, but that's about it. Their build quality is no match for Sony.

Sony builds a MUCH better cam... bar none. Not only do they feel and look better but my Canon is only a year old and it has some problems. My HC3 is at least 2 years old now, been used hard, and still functions like it came out of the box yesterday.

Bit Of Byte wrote on 4/12/2008, 11:25 PM

SOLD!

Thanks -

I have spent last week or so intensely researching these cameras and what you state is similar to other feedback. I have read all the reviews on these units by the websites but my real measure is to ask people like yourself who have used these units over time.

Is the HC9 it this year from Sony for HDV or should we be expecting something newer at NAB in following week?

Your opinion on the ADVHCD cameras anyway?

Bit

John_Cline wrote on 4/12/2008, 11:37 PM

Only professional equipment is announced at NAB, consumer cameras like the HC9 and HV30 are announced at consumer shows.

Bit Of Byte wrote on 4/13/2008, 12:23 AM

Thanks John,

Would you know when the next Consumer shows are planned this year?

Bit

John_Cline wrote on 4/13/2008, 12:38 AM

Yes, Bit, I do know when the next consumer show are planned scheduled.

Bit Of Byte wrote on 4/13/2008, 1:46 AM

thanks John. "-)

can u specify which dates these consumer shows are planned for..

regards

Bit.

Bit Of Byte wrote on 4/13/2008, 1:53 AM

Blink3Times -

Can I PM you or email you?

I would to discuss things further...

Thanks

Bit