Given the difficulty of outputting Cineform in V9, I've spent a couple of hours comparing PicVideo MJPEG with Cineform in V8 (PicVideo works well in V9 32bit, and they sell a 64-bit version too - which I haven't tested). First, I selected an area on the timeline that had a mix of high motion, a high quality still, skin tones, blue sky, trees, etc.
Since both codecs use intraframe compression, I expected no difference in high-motion vs. still; confirmed.
Next, I put a hi-res still (6310x4827) on the timeline of V8b and it immediately crashed. I opened it up again and the gods were with me: I was able to compress a short selection with both codes, plus uncompressed.
Results
I consistently got faster renders with PicVideo (Cineform required about 50% more time).
File size:
PicVideo typically was about 20% smaller when its quality slider was set for 19 (on scale of 20, with full 1920x1080, square pixels). With the slider at max (20), PicVideo files were about 3 times as large as Cineform. Because of the large file size, I considered PicVideo unsuitable at that setting for use as an intermediate and did not conduct further tests (although uncompressed, full 1920x1080 renders were about 2.5 times as large as PicVideo at 20, with same resolution).
Quality
After a single render, I could not see any difference between Cineform, uncompressed, and PicVideo - even when I captured a frame grab from each and put them in Photoshop. However, by the 6th generation, Cineform was a tiny bit better, IMO. Notice the street lamp post, for example, in the following images (tiny selections from one full frame). . . first, the cineform image:
Now the PicVideo after 6 generations (you may need to download and open in Photoshop to really see the difference):
Given the very suttle difference after 6 generations, I'd settle for PicVideo as an intermediate. If you don't find the image adequate, you could go with PicVideo set for 20 instead of 19. I paid about $30, but now the price is $99.
http://www.accusoft.com/pvmjpegpricing.htm
Since both codecs use intraframe compression, I expected no difference in high-motion vs. still; confirmed.
Next, I put a hi-res still (6310x4827) on the timeline of V8b and it immediately crashed. I opened it up again and the gods were with me: I was able to compress a short selection with both codes, plus uncompressed.
Results
I consistently got faster renders with PicVideo (Cineform required about 50% more time).
File size:
PicVideo typically was about 20% smaller when its quality slider was set for 19 (on scale of 20, with full 1920x1080, square pixels). With the slider at max (20), PicVideo files were about 3 times as large as Cineform. Because of the large file size, I considered PicVideo unsuitable at that setting for use as an intermediate and did not conduct further tests (although uncompressed, full 1920x1080 renders were about 2.5 times as large as PicVideo at 20, with same resolution).
Quality
After a single render, I could not see any difference between Cineform, uncompressed, and PicVideo - even when I captured a frame grab from each and put them in Photoshop. However, by the 6th generation, Cineform was a tiny bit better, IMO. Notice the street lamp post, for example, in the following images (tiny selections from one full frame). . . first, the cineform image:
Now the PicVideo after 6 generations (you may need to download and open in Photoshop to really see the difference):
Given the very suttle difference after 6 generations, I'd settle for PicVideo as an intermediate. If you don't find the image adequate, you could go with PicVideo set for 20 instead of 19. I paid about $30, but now the price is $99.
http://www.accusoft.com/pvmjpegpricing.htm