From my understanding of what Cineform are about it's a very advanced wavlette style codec. I was under the impression that you could use it to encode and edit anything. If you're encoding to their codec from Vegas then your source material is kind of irrelevant.
Thing that I'm truly confused by though is they offer a higher quality version than the Vegas one, for PP, given Vegas's open codec support I'm wondering why it will not work with Vegas or is it just that given Vegas's inability to output at more than 8bit res it'd be a waste?
Bob.

My understanding is that if you have purchased their standalone version of the codec ( as opposed to the one that comes with Vegas), Vegas uses the purchased codec - certainly if you use HDConnect to capture and convert your footage it is using the standalone version of the codec.

As for encoding SD material I've done a few experiments that worked - but I haven't done any serious comparisons or analysis.

Gary

><farss posted>Thing that I'm truly confused by though is they offer a higher quality version than the Vegas one, for PP, given Vegas's open codec support I'm wondering why it will not work with Vegas or is it just that given Vegas's inability to output at more than 8bit res it'd be a waste?

Yes, you have it. We do have a 10-bit verison of the CineForm codec for film and broadcast applications that needs more than an 8-bit interface. Both 8 and 10-bit codec are based on the same core technology and are completely compatible. Yet the10-bit version only comes with Prospect HD which sells between $3k-$6k, so you do get excellent value from Connect HD at only $199.

David Newman
CTO, CineForm

In testing this for HD to SD, while it encodes incredibly fast, I also saw some artifacting. I wish there was an easy way to show it.

has the comparison images I'd created. I could be wrong, but it seems that the Cineform just doesn't perform well in SD modes, even though it encodes at lighting speeds.
David, any idea why that might be?

David,

Not too long ago you offered HD Connect to registered Vegas users at a discount from the $199 price. I think it was $149??
I noticed on your website now that you no longer offer the discount! Everyone pays $199.
I just got Vegas 6 because of the integrated HD capture, but it is not woking well with my JVC HD10 material. I am trying your product via the trail version and it works better, but the cost is half the price of the entire Vegas program at $199!!
Why don't you consider the discount again for registered Vegas 6 users????!!!!
Thanks
Gordon

I'd like to clarify a point or two. I bought HD Link/VConnect HD prior to V6, and haven't used it since.

Is HDV capture a transfer of digital info, like DV. If so, apart from maybe faster rendering of proxy files, is there any qualititive reason to continue using the Cineform S/W?

I have been using widescreen DV proxies via Gearshift, then swapping back to the original HDV files before rendering in Vegas to whatever format is required. Could I be doing better with HD Link?

No, you'll be much faster using Gearshift, rendering the proxies with Vegas, and replacing those with M2T's for final render IF you're going back to camera/deck.
It's all workflow dependent, this is why we offer access to the Cineform templates in GearShift. If you're going to DVD, HDCAM, or tape out, for the most part you'll find faster results and editing experience with DV proxies, unless you've got the latest, fastest computer. Then you might as well just stick with CineForm, and render to 4:2:2 YUV for HDCAM or to m2t from CineForm...but if you've got a slower machine, less than 3.6 GHz, might as well stick with the GearShift method.

Thanks Douglas.

At present, even if I'm rendering to DVD, I still shift gears first to replace the proxies with the original m2t file, on the principle that starting with max quality will produce the best looking final product.

Ain't necessarily so?

Peter

>From : Spot -- http://www.sundancemediagroup.com/articles/Cineform_comparison.htm has the comparison images I'd created. I could be wrong, but it seems that the Cineform just doesn't perform well in SD modes, even though it encodes at lighting speeds.

In you example it seems there are more problems problems with the MPEG encoded material (MPEG blocking in the red of the "parent's(?)" clothes.) I've go an eye for that sort of stuff. The DV encode material has a different aspect ratio, and the CineForm vs MC show slightly difference frames so more direct comparisons are difficult. CineForm encoding as SD will be pretty good although we optimize a little more for HD.

David Newman
CTO, CineForm