Cineform question and SRGB to CRGB observation?

Jan_Cannon wrote on 12/1/2015, 7:16 PM
I am shooting HD video with a Canon 5DMarkIII and in the past I have converted the original camera clips to Cineform avi files. Now that I have a higher performance computer and the clips play fine on the timeline I am wondering if there is still any point in using Cineform. I will still use it if I render out sections of a project but otherwise, unless I hear differently, I won't convert clips. Thanks in advance for any advice.

And one other thing, regarding the original Canon clips on the Vegas 13 timeline, I now don't have to use the convert SRGB to CRGB filter to read the clips correctly. On the other hand rendered Cineform clips need that filter to read correctly. So I guess in Vegas 13 there has been a change in how it deals with color space?

Comments

NormanPCN wrote on 12/1/2015, 8:00 PM
Canon DSLR MOV files are full range. Computer RGB.

How do you convert the Canon MOV to Cineform? If you use Cineform/GoPro studio, it will always normalize the output to studio video levels. It recognizes full range AVC input and acts accordingly. aka GoPro, Canon and most DSLR input.

Vegas justs puts input data onto the timeline and lets you worry about what "proper" levels are. At least with the normal 8-bit editing.
musicvid10 wrote on 12/1/2015, 8:17 PM
That's the best answer you'll get.
Your DSLR is capable of full range, but that isn't always filled in flat lighting.
Best to check the levels on the scopes because that overcast day may actually be closer to studio RGB levels.

malowz wrote on 12/1/2015, 9:34 PM
Canon records "by default" in full-levels, but you can change the profile to adjust levels, and make it output studio levels if wanted.

i did a picture profile for 16-255 levels, with a small "inverted S" curves to lower a bit the "contrasty" look of canon DSLR's and to better slope on the highlights (also became very similar to my other cameras, so no special care is needed).

i convert everything to Canopus HQ (it keeps the original levels) so i can edit smoothly on my old PC's very fast. even with newer and faster pc i would still convert to intermediate. is very fast to covnert and i use external programs to encode to bluray/dvd/pendrive.
john_dennis wrote on 12/1/2015, 10:47 PM
I've been using the Color Curves Filter to change the levels of the full range video from my Canon cameras. I tried the Cineform conversion and was pleased that the levels were handled but my machines handle the media without resorting to an intermediate. The Color Curves filter gives me more flexibility than a hard Computer to Studio RGB filter.

My main system:
Motherboard: Asus X99-AII
CPU: Intel i7-6850K
GPU: Sapphire Radeon RX480-8GB
RAM: Corsair Dominator (4 x 4 GB) DDR4 2400
Disk O/S & Programs: Intel SSD 750 (400 GB)
Disk Active Projects: WD BLACK SN750 NVMe 1TB Internal PCI Express 3.0 x4 Solid State Drive
Disk Other: WD Ultrastar/Hitachi Hard Drives: WDBBUR0080BNC-WRSN, HGST HUH728080ALE600, 724040ALE640, HDS3020BLA642
Case: LIAN LI PC-90 Black Aluminum ATX Full Tower Case
CPU cooling: Corsair Hydro series H115i
Power supply: SeaSonic SS-750KM3 750W 80 PLUS GOLD Certified Full Modular Active PFC Power Supply
Drive Bay: Kingwin KF-256-BK 2.5" and 3.5" Trayless Hot Swap Rack with USB 3
Sound card: Crystal Sound 3 on motherboard. Recording done on another system.
Primary Monitor: Asus ProArt PA248q (24" 1920 x 1200)
O/S: Windows 10 Pro 190943
Camera: Sony RX10 Model IV

https://www.youtube.com/user/thedennischannel

Wolfgang S. wrote on 12/2/2015, 5:30 AM
A conversion that changes 0..255 to 16..235 may not be very usefull (at least not so long as I cannot controll how that happens - clipping yes or no for example?). If you would use TMPGenc to convert to Cineform, then you would see that TMPGenc does not change the luma range.

If it is worthwile to convert to a high quality codec like Cineform may depend on what you are doing. What kind of corrections are you using? Are you talking about keying? If your operations are something that can be done in 8bit 420 without problems, why not staying with 8bit 420 as long as you do not blow up the footage? Yes there are some opinions that it would be worthwile to edit 8bit 420 footage also in 32bit floataing point - to avoid effects like banding. But that takes a lot of ressources too. So to go for Cineform may be usefull if you work with 10bit footage and wish to maintain the quality - since not all codecs are decoded as 10bit in the Vegas timeline. Or if you have some tough operations that perform better in a 32bit floating point mode even with 8bit footage.
Jan_Cannon wrote on 12/2/2015, 9:17 AM
Thanks everyone for your thoughts. I'm not doing any special color correction, or keying, so I'm going to see how it works out editing with the original 5DMarkIII clips on the timeline.
OldSmoke wrote on 12/2/2015, 12:12 PM
If the clips from the Canon are .mov I would rather convert them. There are issues with larger amount clips of that format on the timeline where VP will hang. I do remember that I tried that personally and I think the threshold was 150 clips or so. Try to get away from anything that would require Quicktime.

Proud owner of Sony Vegas Pro 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 & 13 and now Magix VP15&16.

System Spec.:
Motherboard: ASUS X299 Prime-A

Ram: G.Skill 4x8GB DDR4 2666 XMP

CPU: i7-9800x @ 4.6GHz (custom water cooling system)
GPU: 1x AMD Vega Pro Frontier Edition (water cooled)
Hard drives: System Samsung 970Pro NVME, AV-Projects 1TB (4x Intel P7600 512GB VROC), 4x 2.5" Hotswap bays, 1x 3.5" Hotswap Bay, 1x LG BluRay Burner

PSU: Corsair 1200W
Monitor: 2x Dell Ultrasharp U2713HM (2560x1440)

malowz wrote on 12/3/2015, 1:15 PM
canon mov files do not require quicktime if i recall. if you do not use in any other app, you can uninstall it, vegas will use sony avc decoder to open them

maybe removing the QT input plugin can have the same effect
Jan_Cannon wrote on 12/3/2015, 3:11 PM
I don't have QT installed and the original .mov clips are playing fine. I haven't put a lot of clips on the timeline so I don't know about that being a problem. The thing that is new to me in Vegas 13 is that the original Canon files don't need the SRGB to CRGB filter applied. They read correctly just putting them on the timeline. As a test I rendered out CF files and put them exactly above the original Canon clips. I had to do the SRGB to CRGB filter on the CF files but when I would toggle track views, between the CF clip, with filter applied, and the original camera clip, there was absolutely no visual difference. There was a slight difference in the histogram.
R0cky wrote on 12/7/2015, 10:56 AM
Oldsmoke, what about DNxHD which is in a mov wrapper? Will that choke vegas with too many clips? I use cineform as an intermediate but DNxHD is also a popular choice.

rocky
musicvid10 wrote on 12/7/2015, 11:39 AM
Either Cineform or DNxHD are far easier on your system and preview / timeline capabilities than the Canon .mov files, which are long-GOP interframe transport streams.

That said, if one has a system capable of previewing the Canon files at full frame rate and resolution, go for it.

R0cky wrote on 12/7/2015, 11:49 AM
thanks mark.
rocky