OT: Opinions on Canopus HQ codec

ddm wrote on 2/11/2010, 12:38 PM
I was wondering if anyone has used the Canopus HQ hd codec for rendering avi's. I've read a white paper on it and it sounds impressive but I can't find much in the way of user opinions as to how it stacks up against Cineform or Apple ProRes in quality and file size. Any opinions out there? They also have a lossless codec as well, if anyone has any experience with that.

Thanks.

Comments

malowz wrote on 2/11/2010, 1:02 PM
i use it a lot.

i convert various formats (xdcam ex, hdv, avchd) to Canopus HQ, also some SD formats.

i use also as a generic codec, for exporting compositions and some old analogue video capture.

the codec also support alpha channel. but vegas can't export alpha channel with a codec besides uncompressed (already complained a decade ago)

during the time i was testing it, i tested cineform also. but some bugs in cineform (wrong bith depth info causing re-render - also complained a long ago but no fix) forced-me to abandon it.

so im now with canopus only, and very satisfied. the only limitation for now is the lack of 64bits codec. but i will stay with 32bits for a loooong time.... so, no worry.

about quality, if i remember, in my tests, the 5 generation recompress the canopus was better. but i hardly do 2 recompress, so both codecs should be just fine.

didn't tested file sizes...i have tons of 1.5tb hard drivers... ;P
Sebaz wrote on 2/11/2010, 7:55 PM
It's an excellent codec, although as the other user said, useless for Vegas 64 bit, but it works in the 32 bit version. I haven't used Cineform and I don't have a Mac with FCP at hand to test Apple ProRes, but if I convert anything to Canopus HQ I cannot tell the difference at all in picture quality between the source and the converted file. Of course I only use it at the highest quality, which makes it pretty close to a lossless codec, with the only drawback that the rendered files are large.