Is there any need to buy cineform neo?

david-ruby wrote on 11/29/2009, 11:27 AM
Is there any need to buy cineform codec for editing hdv in vegas?
Will this down conversion to cineform avi benifit anything for editing as far as non glitchy editing with fx? Or has Vegas 9 made this a better experience to edit nativley. Thank you for the thoughts. We are still using Vegas 8c with two I7 core machines. Plenty fast enough but get a bit glitchy when applying fx as expected.
DR

Comments

kkolbo wrote on 11/29/2009, 2:39 PM
There may be a number of opinions on this one. Here is just my view.

I get better performance with Cineform transcoded material when I have to layer things deeply or I have tons of corrections or effects added.

If I am going to go through multiple generations of rendering to transfer from one process or application to another, I see less generational loss with the Cineform transcoded material.

For straight cuts and dissolves with a little color correction, native HDV gives me a good enough product.

KK
david-ruby wrote on 11/29/2009, 4:49 PM
Thank you KK.
Can you tell me how this works with Vegas. I understand you bring in your m2t files from the camera and then do you re render to the cineform codec and edit this? Then how do you get this to become hdv video again before the final render for DVD arc? A lil confused.
Thank you again. : )
David
kkolbo wrote on 11/29/2009, 6:53 PM

Actually you can capture using the Cineform application and it can begin the process of transcoding it during the capture. The end result when the Cineform app is done is you have Cineform files ready to drop on the timeline.

You do not go back to HDV. You simply render your timeline for whatever final format you need.

Let me make sure that you understand my opinion. You do not NEED to purchase Cineform Neo. It has its advantages and if they suit your desires, then it is a good choice. I would test drive the trial and see how it works for you. It works for me.

KK
ingvarai wrote on 11/29/2009, 7:14 PM
>I get better performance with Cineform transcoded material when I have to layer things deeply or I have tons of corrections or effects added
This is my experience with the Vegas built in MXF format. MXF files are slightly larger than M2TS or MTS original files. And play back in real time, also when adding effects etc. After I started to use MXF, I have not looked back. I do not know to what extent this applies to Vegas 8, but in vegas 9, MXF is the answer to many questions you have when using AVCHD source.
My advice to the initial topic question is: Try MXF first, it comes with Vegas. Cinreform migt be super for some purposes, for what I know, so far I am not sure if Cineform will be any better than the built in MXF format, for my own purposes.
Ingvar
ushere wrote on 11/29/2009, 7:31 PM
i agree with ingvarai in as much as i use .mxf for all my avchd stuff. for most of my work (hdv), i'm happy enough using m2t straight fro the camera.

however, would like to know if there's a similar method to transcoding avchd to mxf on capture?
david-ruby wrote on 11/30/2009, 9:35 AM
Ushere. I guess my only issue is the choppiness of the video on playback when we add fx like new blue. Becomes abit slow and not a good source to estimate if the setting is desirable.That was why we were looking at an alternative. Besides having to render each segment.Our computers are as fast as we can get with 12 gigs ram and i7 processors. Any other thoughts are welcome and thank you all. : )
These are HDV files.
David
ingvarai wrote on 11/30/2009, 1:00 PM
however, would like to know if there's a similar method to transcoding avchd to mxf on capture?
What do you mean with capture? Transferring files from the camera to disk? What I do - I just copy the files from the camera to disk, like any file operation.
I always keep the original AVCHD files, and use them for the final render (perhaps not neccesary), since the MXF quality is so good.
Jay_Mitchell wrote on 11/30/2009, 1:23 PM
Cineform NeoScene is worth every penny it costs. It has saved me time and the hassle of processing HDV files and Sanyo VPC-FH1 files. It converts to Cineform .avi files that Vegas loves. The encoding quality is superb! IMO, A must have editing tool.

Jay Mitchell
Laurence wrote on 11/30/2009, 1:57 PM
Neo HDV was a step backwards and forwards from the version I upgraded from. I gained the ability to do true 1920x1080 but lost the ability to use the Cineform utility to convert formats other that AVCHD to their codec (I can still do this with Vegas however). I also lost the ability to losslessly transcode between .mov and .avi formats.

IMHO, buying Neo HDV lets you do two things. Use the higher quality Cineform codec level, and encode with programs other than Vegas like VirtualDub and AVIsynth.

As far as the Cineform codec goes, it is really good quality. Much better than .mxf for multiple generations. Size is bigger than .mxf but efficient enough that it works quite well with a regular external USB hard drive.
David Newman wrote on 11/30/2009, 2:58 PM
Yes, NEO HDV for $249 was removed well over a year ago and replaced with NeoScene $129 and Neo HD $499 (judge by sales this was a good move.) Nothing is removed from Neo HD, that has many more features than Neo HDV, but at a price of course. NeoScene works with Canon DSLRs, AVCHD and HDV sources, and meets 95% of end user needs for those camera types (5% need Neo HD or Neo 4K.)

P.S. If all you miss is a MOV to AVI rewrap, I can help you do that with NeoScene -- via a shell tool. NeoScene users generally don't need or miss this feature.
MarkWWW wrote on 11/30/2009, 3:39 PM
> If all you miss is a MOV to AVI rewrap, I can help you do that with NeoScene -- via a shell tool.

Is this "shell tool" generally avaialble, David? I can't justify the cost of NeoHD but if the .mov/.avi rewrap could be added to the features of Neo Scene that would be very useful.

Mark
Laurence wrote on 11/30/2009, 4:01 PM
avi to mov rewrap is something I do maybe once a year. I would love to have it back but I'm not going to spend hundreds of dollars on it because I use it so rarely. When you need it though (giving footage to a FCP friend) it sure is useful though. Yes I would be very interested in finding out how to use the "shell tool".

At the current low cost of Neo Scene, buying it is kind of a no-brainer IMHO. It's very close to uncompressed at a much more reasonable file size and bitrate. If you want my opinion as to whether or not you need it: yes you do. For all practical purposes, you can use it like you would uncompressed.
David Newman wrote on 11/30/2009, 4:05 PM
Here is the rewarp utitily.

http://www.miscdata.com/cineform/RewrapTool.zip

Unzip and place the DLLs in C:\Program Files\Common Files\CineForm and register them both (regsvr32 fullPathAndFilename.dll.) And place the exe into C:\Program Files\CineForm\tools

usage:
rewarp myFile.avi newFile.mov

or
rewrap old.mov new.avi

Only time I every use it is if a Mac user gave me an MOV, otherwise it is not needed.
David Newman wrote on 11/30/2009, 4:07 PM
The reason to go to Neo HD, is not for inbuilt rewarp functions, it is for color correction with First Light -- I can't edit a project without it now.
Laurence wrote on 11/30/2009, 4:13 PM
Can you batch convert a whole directory? Something like rewrap *.mov *.avi?
David Newman wrote on 11/30/2009, 4:19 PM
You can write that script (DOS, vbs, whatever,) it not designed for user friendliness. I'm a lazy script writer

I just do :

> cd founderOfMovs
> dir /s/b > batchMOV.bat

then edit batchMOV.bat in notepad (or equivelent that has column cut/paste, like Crimson Editor) adding "rewarp" to in the line begin. A minute later:

> batchMOV

You're done.
Laurence wrote on 11/30/2009, 4:37 PM
Thanks. I'll use it I'm sure.
ingvarai wrote on 11/30/2009, 6:10 PM
Laurence
>As far as the Cineform codec goes, it is really good quality. Much better than .mxf for multiple generations
Let me ask - do you have any business interests in Cineform? You maintain that Cineform is superior, but not all agree with you on this.
Look at this thread:
Cineform vs MXF
-----
Laurence: If you end up rerendering a few generations, the Cineform should look the same and the XDCAM will start falling apart.
-----
Here is my advice, based on my 18 months with Vegas:
Use the built in MXF first. If you see it "falling apart", take Cineform or Acme Codec for a test ride, to see if it is better.
When I discovered the MXF-format, it was like finding a treasure chest. Small files, super quality, plays back as smooth as a lump of butter sliding around in a frying pan.
Ingvar
David Newman wrote on 11/30/2009, 7:57 PM
Ingvar,

The issue that started that thread has long since been addressed (it was using coded 4.8.x which had introduced a color space error, we are now way past that on 5.7.x). Laurence is just a happy customer, no need to trash is findings. While 50Mb/s MPEG2 is fine, but it can't beat 120Mb/s Wavelet (from any vendor) for quality. MPEG2 is designed for distribution, CineForm is designed for post. MPEG2 will show marco-blocking in multiple generations, wavelets will not. Try it. If you happy with XDCAM, don't try it. :)

David
Laurence wrote on 11/30/2009, 8:03 PM
I wish that I had some sort of deal with Cineform. If I did I wouldn't have the lowest rung product from their lineup. Besides, my posts aren't always so complimentary. I was pretty darned unpleasant when it looked like Cineform Neo wasn't going to offer 64bit Vegas support (Sorry David).

If you are really worried about multiple colorspace conversions, just select the RGB options until your final render. That way it won't keep converting back and forth.
Laurence wrote on 11/30/2009, 8:11 PM
.mxf is pretty awesome too. My favorite thing about .mxf format is that when I play it back with the free Sony .mxf playback utility, it looks just awesome. It does some sort of color correction on the fly that makes the video colors look like they are going through a studio monitor. It also does the best media player deinterlace that I've ever seen. I use .mxf quite a bit. My two complaints with it is that it starts looking a little blocky after multiple generations (which Cineform doesn't) and I can't access it from programs like VirtualDub or AVIsynth. As Lars pointed out in the previous thread, it is extremely good color wise after multiple generations. The blockyness bothers me, especially with the noise that you often get with a CMOS camera like my Sony Z7U.
ingvarai wrote on 12/1/2009, 4:05 AM
Thanks for clearing this up!
Well - as a matter of fact, I do not recompress any video, if I am not in a hurry. I use MXF for proxy files only, that's all. My AVCHD files are squeezed so much already when they come out of my camera, I do not want to hurt them anymore.

I use AVI compressed with Lagarith (which I hope is as lossless as claimed), otherwise I use PNG image sequences. These are generated from the original AVCHD files. If the footages are used as is - I switch back from MXF to the original MTS files when it is time to render out for the target media.
So all in all - I will use MXF for proxy files and otherwise lossless media as far as this is possible at all.
Ingvar

MarkWWW wrote on 12/1/2009, 4:15 AM
Brilliant, thanks David.

It will help a lot when you find yourself faced with a Mac user who simply refuses to accept anything other than a .mov.

Mark
LReavis wrote on 12/1/2009, 11:07 AM
If I'm sure I won't need to go down the multi-generations-render path, I use PicVideo for 32-bit OS intermediates. It compresses faster than Cineform, and can produce smaller files - if you set the quality slider at 19 instead of 20. If the slider is set for 20, you'll get 4:4:4 color, but files are really large. PicVideo costs only about $40 if you buy from the right place (search this forum for PicVideo).

However, PicVideo 64-bit costs a bundle. Moreover, I once compared the 6th generation PicVideo (with quality slider set for 19) with 6th from Cineform, and Cineform was the winner by a slight margin.

I'm now using Cineform to render out all my .MP4 files to 1080p in Win 7 64 bit. They play back smooth as silk if playing from a fast hard disk (I use a pair of striped disks). Moreover, I can use Cineform NeoScene to and from Virtual Dub, or even with oddball programs like the ArtStudio that I tried out this morning (see another thread posted today - 12/1/2009)