Multiple generation through repeated color space conversions is never optimal, but it does much better in codec version 5.0.9, yes. Do speed the speed also.

David

David: "Do speed the speed also."
Lars: = ??


----------------------------------------------------------------------------


David,

Colors didn't get fixed... And levels didn't get fixed... Color cast is still there, just green instead of magenta.... If I had known this I don't think I would have spent the time today.

First of all, it doesn't feel good to transfer footage to something that you *know* is altering colors and levels.

Just imagine for a moment that some of the plugins in Vegas, in their neutral / defaul postion "behind the panel" did the color shift and level alterations to the signal that Cineform 509 is doing now.

Most of the codecs that are accessible from within Vegas don't alter the colors nearly as much as Cineform does.

Your codec is performing very well in terms of low degree of artefacts and the possiblity to play at good framerates. The MBAN test it passed excellent (see below). But to me, it just feels really wrong to transfer my camera footage to something that tints everything green and lower luminance and that only after a few generations cause blacklevels to go down and the footage generally looking dull and green.

So your codec can be seen as a Rolls Royce of codecs but with the Rolls Royce have some old unbalanced wheels which - despite the excellent car - does not provide the comfortable ride you would expect...

All I read on your website makes me think that if there is something these guys know better than enyone else it is colors and levels... Cinema... Motion Picture... Awards... That sound like precision and professionalism in every aspect.

What do I experience from NeoScene. Green tinted footage that is lowered in level for each generation. Looking dull,

See?

.................................................


1 - COLOR CAST / TINT
The color cast of CF is still bad. Now its towards green. Already after 3-4 generations it's very obvious. Compare this with MXF and the original uncompressed AVI and you see that Cineform is getting green. Water that is bluish, reflicting a blue skie is looking dull and muddy after multiple generations. Here MXF is way better.

2 - ARTEFACTS AFTER MULTIPLE GENERATIONS
Running multiple generations Cineform adds a little grainyness / noise. This is OK though. After approx 10 generations MXF is beginning to show small blocks on surfaces with subtle lighting variations. Skies etc.

3 - RENDERING SPEED
If the footage contains lots of information Cineform seems renders faster than MXF. MXF struggles sometimes with dense material (close up of moving foliage in wind, close up of cars moving etc). But... I don't want my footage tinted green.

4 - PLAYBACK EFFICIENCY
MXF is doing better most of the time. However, where there is a lot of motion in combination with lots of detail CIneform may be the better performer. They are fairly similar in playback efficiency. I think. Probably need to test this more. MXF is more content depending it seems. But why test more - I don't want green footage.

5 - RUNNING THE MBAN TEST...
MBAN is a test where there are 4 sequences of noise. White, Red, Green and Blue. On top of the intense noise /filmgrain like sparkling lively noise, there is a combination of big geometrical white shapes moving. Like a big 255 white bold letter "I" moving across the screen from left to right in 1 second and repeating this pattern for some 10 seconds.

This test totally cripples MXF. Cineform pass this test with no problem whatsoever (but tints my footage instead). MXF stutters severely. It freezes one frame sometimes for 4-7 frames. The noise on some frames are 100% and unaffected while on 3-4 frames in a row the noise is filtered like it had gone through a low pass filter (the noise is severely blurred). I see some frames loosing chroma as well during this test.

So this is an example of MXF when it doesn't work at all.

Now, I have been trying with the camera to record big bright objects and panning "wildly". Having detailed patterns, trees etc in the background and sort of simulating what I created in the studio. But I cannot reproduce the MXF MBAN test failure with real camera footage. Only with the "synthesized" test signal.

I still think it is worth mentioning though. Suppose a client wants a white moving logo on top of a "TV-noise" background, this could mean a problem (?).

I think in real life the MBAN failure is of no significance. And using MXF as a format/codec for camera footage seems very safe. I haven't seen any problems like this at all with real cam footage.


6 - FILE SIZE
MXF files are considerably smaller than Cineform. That's not bad.

7 - FINE DETAIL IN IMAGES
Cineform after 10 generations preserve *a little* more detail than MXF. The cost here is a little noise. But nice and kind noise. MXF after 10 generations sort of evens out surfaces (sand surfaces on beaches etc) and can show a slight tendency of losing small details. And small blocks can appear here and there. This is looking at 1920x1080 and comparing side by side and at 2-6 generations certainly not an issue at all. No block problems for me after just a few generations. And depending on the nature of the footage, sometimes not even after 15 generations And most non-initiated persons shouldn't complain after 25 generations.

There were some other intersting tests I did today but since the colors in CF aren't right I think this is enough.


----------------------------------------------------------------------

Summing up my experiences from todays test:
====================================

Cineforms attention to luminance levels and chroma and to color casts was not what I expeced today. I had hoped it was all fixed.

One version drifting towards green/yellow. Next version drifting towards magenta, next version drifting towards green.

And so clearly that it can be seen already after 2-4 generations. Actually after 1 gen if you looks carefull and use the scope/vector.

It shows - what I already have mentioned - that one release differs from a previous in a somewhat surprising way. Video / photo software must be predicatble and accuret when it comes to color / levels. I can't have software that is so unreliable.

What will the colors look like on the next update? How do previous converstions play back? What happens when I feed a new version with older CF-conversions? Why have the colors all been different during these last 3 updates?




Rounding this off I think it's sad this version of Cineform fixe colors and levels. CIneform is basically a great codec.

But Sonys MXF *LOOKS* better after 2-5 generations than Cineform.

Cineform may have / could have had a quality advantage after many generations but in my opinion it's spoilt by not getting the colors and levels right.

MXF looks fresher and cleaner and more like the original.

With Cineform - is the user supposed to do color correction and counter adjust their codecs color cast for each run it is used? Not a practical solution....

=========================

Wanting only 1 generation for better streaming performance? Well, they are both OK then. But MXF is free and has no color problems. And files are smaller. And seems reliable from update to update. And that is VERY important here. Reliability!

==========================

If I was working with a project and needed 8-10 generations for doing advanced and complex stuff, uncompressed AVI would still be the natural choice for anyone I think. Doing a corporate logo, short sequences would not likely involve codecs anyway.

If I would play back a 1920x1080 from my computer and wanted to feel I was using the absolutely best I'd just play uncompressed AVI.

The vast majority, incl myself are interested in getting camera footage to run smoothly for editing. MXF does that job pretty well I think. Without tinting the footage green.


=======================================
=======================================
1. I think the only question I have to David before I finally decide to go MXF / uncompr AVI only is: Can Cineform fix the colors, cast and levels and make a new release withon a couple of days?

2. Also David, do you see yourself the color/cast/luminance problems I'm speaking about? Do you also feel this isn't good? Or do you think this *IS* good as it is?
=======================================
=======================================


Best,
Lars


It's obvious that good fast hard drives is vital. I may get something even faster here and use uncompressed AVI for multiple generation work and MXF for general camera footage. MXF *IS* a great camera footage codec - I realize this now. It preserves the color balance / feel of the footage better.

So more or less the same conclusion as when I spent hours testing a few weeks ago...

That's it for my codec testing. The feeling I'm having with Cineforms codec is that since their colors vary from release to release it sort of turns me off to rely on it.

David: "Multiple generation through repeated color space conversions is never optimal, but it does much better in codec version 5.0.9, yes. Do speed the speed also. David "


Lars: I think you mntioned earlier in a post "200+ generations". How was this made and what did it look like? Which codec version?

ok, i don't want to cast any dispersions on anyone, and admire lars hugely for the effort and research he's putting in, but...

(and this is coming from decades of on-line analogue where every generation was a worry!) under what circumstances would you end up going 20 generations, let alone 200?

leslie

20 GEN
I*m testig with 20 generations becasue at that stage errors have shown up clearly and at a magnitue where they have become easy to speak about and analyze. Basically the same errors that show up at 20 generations are present at 5 generations, but at a lesser degree. 5 generations is certainly not unrealistic in production and there Cineforms color and luiminance simply isn't accurate enough (for me). Cineforms color/level problems show up very early in the process here.

"200+ GEN"
200+ generation I mention because Cineform/David has spoken about this. I was curious as to what his resuls were as this lates Cineform failed colorwise after only a few generations...


I do a lot of architectural/interior and some fashion still photography. I work with two cameras Canon 5D MkII and the Hasselblad H3D-II. Had something in these cameras , in their software affected the image the way the latest Cineform does, it had been totally *un*acceptable. I know video and still isn't the same. But just the feeling of using something that alters colors and levels visibly just isn't good.

Cineform with good color and level accuracy would have been a *good* codec.

Again:

Cineforms latest codec plays back fine
Cineforms latest codec has few artefacts
It is fairly quick to render out to Cineform
Colors and luminance levels are poorly managed
Releases vary too much and communication from CIneform is confusing

MXF plays back fine
MXF can struggle with extrem compbinations of motion and noise
MXF can take longer to render out to
Colors and luminance is better managed than Cineform
MXF apperas to be reliable and Sony are good at communication

Uncompressed AVI with a good hard disk setup is nice!


Best,
Lars


PS. Example: Let's say I use Cineform, 2-5 generations in a project. I do minor color corrections here and there. Then when I'm finished, for one reason or another decide I want to throw in uncompressed AVIs or original MOVs to make sure I have the best quality possible. Those corrections made on the Cineform copies will then not be valid... And.. imagine a situation where one release from Cineform is tinting your footage magenta.... and you bring that into a production... next release tints the footage to green.. ( 180 degrees opposite magenta...) and you do compensation adjustments.... One release can compensate your problem, another release magnify.. or do something new.. was the error in encoding... will it affect how the playback is done? ....there are lots of scenarios where altered colors / levels will cause problems.

What exactly can I count with when it comes to Cineform and colors? All I've seen so far is that it varies from release to release. The color and level accuracy needs to be specified and defined, just like with most other standards in the industry.

If I were them, I would quickly as h*** go back to the drawing board and fix colors and levels and their codec would be truly great. But without significant new trust I'm not sure I'd spend more time on this now.

thanks lars, greatly appreciate your time out for explaining the reasoning behind your testing.

in my own productions (which rarely ever go beyond 2 gen), i've started converting any avchd i get (clients stuff) to mxf. for my purposes it both plays nicely and is indistinguishable from the original.....

i wish you luck in your quest - it's been my sad experience that with video (as opposed to handing a client a tranny or print), the client usually watches the end result on whatever screen comes to hand, be it lcd, crt, projector, etc., and in very few cases, have any of these been set up by someone who could be remotely described as a professional ;-(

my worse experiences were many years ago when dealing with company logo's, having been supplied with ai, psd, or other pro format files in which the colours used in the logo were specified, only to have complaints come down the line AFTER acceptance in the studio that the colours were 'off', expecially when they were when watched on cheap tv's playing 2nd generation vhs tapes.....

ah, gimme a tranny, or rather, the client. that way we both know what were getting!

MXF XDCAM 422 wins all the way, cineform has problem with the new 8core i7 cpu, crash and freeze alot.

infact with mxf render u can open 4 vegas and render 4 sections of a project at the sametime... massive speed...

Sony MXF XDCAM 422 is a truely beautiful, inteligent, artistic , cost effective codec!!!!!!!!!!

BTW I hate cineform now because it doesk work with my new setup, core i7, asus p6t deluxe v2, 12gb consair dominator...when render complex project in vegas to cineform, it randomly freeze...

I don't suppose anybody knows of any software what works just like NeoScene but outputs MXF files not Cineform. as In, taking Canon 5D mov files at 30fps, adjusting the framerate to 29.97fps, and doing an audio pitch and speed change on the audio to match the video.

I have UltimateS, but I don't think I can get this to do all the stages that I need, I would love something much more automated, just like Neoscene.

Matt

I'm sure one of the VASST guys will chime in to help you with with batch encoding. But, other than that option, to encode to XDCAM HD 422 50 mbps outside of Vegas, you need either a free-standing VFW or DirectShow codec to do so. Vegas Pro 9 has its codec "built-in", so no other software can gain access to it.

MainConcept sells an MPEG-2 codec:

http://www.mainconcept.com/site/prosumer-products-4/mpeg-2-20202/features-20220.html

which supposedly will encode to high bitrate 4:2:2 MPEG-2 and can be accessed via the various tools that do batch transcoding. I can't vouch for this, since I've only tried the demo and that's not one of the things that I tested. Sony may also license their codec, but I've not see any literature stating such.

I've used the Mainconcept Reference tool in the past - problem is - it won't allow you to read m2t files to transcode to MXF - although it will read them and I believe render to MXF.

Cliff Etzel
Videographer : Producer : Web Designer
bluprojekt

Vegasta,

I've haven't received any reports of that, so it is likely a local system issue. Please do two things, make sure you running the latest tools (all upgraded 7/10/09) and if the problem persists after the upgrade, please submit a trouble ticket -- after all, if there is a new bug we are fast to fix them.

David Newman
CTO, CineForm

Hi Dan, thx for the response

Ive been using Cineform and Sony Vegas for along time, and recently I discover that cineform has problem with my new core i7 setup.

sometime it just crashes and freezes when it renders complex projects with alot of magic bullet looks

I recently shot a music video with a RED one camera, I batch convert r3d to cineform 444 and start edit in sony vegas 8, I have about 12 tracks in sony vegas, with magic bullet looks effects.

I render it out to cineform filmscan 2, 444 and without 444

the render randomly stops at about 20%~25%

sometime the previewing is getting crazy and all the events in the timeline turn red.

It doesnt crash, the time lapse in vegas rendering box is still running but the rendering just stop, its very weird, Ive never seen something like that with my old core2due system.

So i used vasst ultimate to convert all the cineform 444 footage to mxf xdcam hd 422, i replaced all the cineform 444 clips in the timeline with the mxf xdcam 422, the render went smooth.

I assume there is something wrong with cineform and core i7 or maybe this problem can be caused by my 12gb ram.

and onemore thing, i discover from cineform, after a generation of compression from after effect or hd link, it always off sync video and audio by 1 or 2 frame, this is problemmatic when I do a round trip batch rendering the events from vegas to after effects. The clips came out from After Effect and HD link usually have 1 or 2 black frame at the begin or the end.

is Cineform going to support the industrial standard MXF container anytime soon?

PS: System Spec
Corei7 940 at stock speed
Asus P6t Deluxe v2
Consair Dominator 1600 12gb (6x2gb)
Raid 0: 2x Intell SSD 80gb
Raid 0: 2x WD raptorx 150gb
Raid 0: 2x Hitachi 1TB
Nvidia 9800gt 512 MB
Creative X-fi Sound
Windows XP 64bit, Windows Vista Home Basic 64bit, Windows 7 64bit
After Effect CS4
Sony Vegas 8, 9

When MXF becomes a standard we will use it, but at the moment every implementation is custom. AVIs and MOVS are far more standard than MXF (seriously MXF Is a mess, a great idea completely screwed up.)

We have no issues with i7, most of our developement is not done on them. Even my home PC is that exact motherboard. The issue maybe in Magic Bullet Looks combined with memory usage of CineForm vs MPEG2 -- some have had Looks issues, not sure why. Talk to support, they know this stuff, I only partly do.

David

Thank you David for your response.

Since You mention Mpeg2, I do have some xdcam ex mxf files in the timeline mix with cineform 444 files.

What is Cineform's recommends settings for corei7 cpu, motherboard and memory?

thx

OK I just read this whole post


Im missing something as ususal....please clarify?

what is being mentioned as "HDCAM 422" - from Vegas - is obtained using Sony MXF 50 CBR 422 ?????


Also, is this discussion exclusive to HDV conversions? Because Im not really having trouble with HDV. I am having trouble with AVCHD. I know Cineform will do AVCHD and so will Vegas so is all this talk the same for any source format?

The reason I ask is because (as some may have noticed in my other posts) I have 3 formats and am trying to get a game plane going before i start this (quite large ) project.:

HVX200 > P2/MXF 30 FPS 1280X720
XHA1 > HDV/M2T 30 FPS 1440x1080
HFS11 > AVCHD/MTS 30 FPS 1920x1080

I tried rendering the AVCHD to Sony MXF 50 CBR 422 and it does seem quite nice. (it played at full FPS but during long crossfade went down to about 15).

I did not try the same to Cineform bcuz CF tech support has not sent me my new auth yet (it will be a wary test anyway once Im re-authd bcuz last time I tried using CF HDLink would crash before finishing and I didn't know if I could use CF without HDlink so I just did that project using HDV)

Im thinking at this point I might render my HDV and my AVCHD to Sony MXF 50 CBR 422 then I will have all MXF on 1 timeline....any opinions?

Didn't know if this had been stated.

Xdcam is a compression that was developed by Cinealta the same folks that gave us Hdcam. It was devolped with Sony. I believe it was Sonys answere to DvcPro HD codec. The XDCam format is now accepted for broadcast by HDNet and discovery channel. The folks at Cinealta are kings of this stuff.


L.T.

CineAlta is Sony.

"CineAlta is a brand name used by Sony to describe various products involved in content creation, production and exhibition process within digital cinema workflow." See Wikipedia.

"OK I just read this whole post


Im missing something as ususal....please clarify?

what is being mentioned as "HDCAM 422" - from Vegas - is obtained using Sony MXF 50 CBR 422 ?????


Also, is this discussion exclusive to HDV conversions? Because Im not really having trouble with HDV. I am having trouble with AVCHD. I know Cineform will do AVCHD and so will Vegas so is all this talk the same for any source format?

The reason I ask is because (as some may have noticed in my other posts) I have 3 formats and am trying to get a game plane going before i start this (quite large ) project.:

HVX200 > P2/MXF 30 FPS 1280X720
XHA1 > HDV/M2T 30 FPS 1440x1080
HFS11 > AVCHD/MTS 30 FPS 1920x1080

I tried rendering the AVCHD to Sony MXF 50 CBR 422 and it does seem quite nice. (it played at full FPS but during long crossfade went down to about 15).

I did not try the same to Cineform bcuz CF tech support has not sent me my new auth yet (it will be a wary test anyway once Im re-authd bcuz last time I tried using CF HDLink would crash before finishing and I didn't know if I could use CF without HDlink so I just did that project using HDV)

Im thinking at this point I might render my HDV and my AVCHD to Sony MXF 50 CBR 422 then I will have all MXF on 1 timeline....any opinions?"


What about using Raylight AVI instead of Sony MXF?

The advantage of Raylight with the HVX is you can use Raymaker to simply rewrap to an AVI, absolutely no loss.
With HDV and AVCHD you would have to render from the vegas timeline to Raylight AVI, so you may lose something there (although I haven't tested this).

On the other hand, Cineform and Raylight are about the same quality, and handle renders about the same-although I haven't done more than two, three at most, generations.

kairosmatt

The ongoing issues I'm having with getting Cineform to activate on my computer after a reinstall has me considering just dumping it altogether and either natively editing m2t again or transcoding to XDCAM

Given the files are already compressed as m2t file format - is there any advantage or loss in image quality by transcoding to XDCAM file format?

I don't' go outside of Vegas Pro for anything related to video so there's no need for me to take my footage and render out to another file format to work in something like AE.

I still have a certain sense of confusion as to the best workflow - Cineform hasn't been showing much love lately and I'm wondering if working in a native SONY file format like XDCAM or just sticking with original m2t file format is the way to go for the kind of work I shoot.

Please - someone enlighten me on this.

Cliff Etzel
Videographer : Producer : Web Designer
bluprojekt
--------
Desktop: OS: Win7 x64 | CPU: Q6600 | Mobo: Intel DG33TL | 8GB G.Skill Dual Channel RAM | Boot/Apps Drive: Seagate 160GB 7200RPM | Audio Drive: Seagate 160GB 7200RPM | Video Drive: WD 640 7200RPM Black Series | Vid Card: nVidia GT7200LE

Laptop: Dell Latitude D620 | C2D 2.0Ghz | 4GB G.Skill RAM | OS: Win7 x64 | Primary HD: WD 320GB 7200RPM | Video HD: WD 250GB 7200RPM

"The advantage of Raylight with the HVX is you can use Raymaker to simply rewrap to an AVI, absolutely no loss.
With HDV and AVCHD you would have to render from the vegas timeline to Raylight AVI, so you may lose something there (although I haven't tested this)."


Thats the 50 million dollar question I guess...sounds like it would be great to rewrap my Canon AVCHD and Canon HDV to Panasonic MXF but tools like this:

https://eww.pavc.panasonic.co.jp/pro-av/support/desk/e/download.htm#avchd

say they are for panny footage only.

So Im wondering if rendering from Vegas to Raylight AVI is the same thing