DV100 vs DNxHD vs CFHD

[Graeme Nattress]

The codec is the limitation, not the tape, with regards to the resolution.

An 8bit DCT based codec might seem outdated but:

It works, proven in the field,

8bit is enough for acquisition. 10bit is better, but >8bit is much more important for compositing / CC etc. than for aquisition. If you’re going to put more “bits” in, that’s the place where it pays off with the greatest value to the end product – that and in the DSP of the camera. It’s a compromise, remember.

Avid’s codec is Avids. They like to tie you in tight. Much more people than Avid support the DVCpro series of codecs. I bet a lot oof us here don’t edit on Avid.

Wavelets? Are they better?? Does Apple’s Pixlet codec use wavelets?? I think it does. In tests Pixlet performs worse than PhotoJPEG100%. PhotoJPEG, that ancient DCT based codec produces images with less deviation from the original image, in less time, with less processing power. Unless Pixlet is the worst wavelet implementation going, I’d say that good old DCT is better because it’s faster to process with, and indeed, at low compression levels produces images that are essentially lossless. Look at Digital Betacam, although 10bit, is DCT based and beautiful.

Graeme

– http://www.nattress.com – Film Effects for FCP

[Noah Kadner]

It’s a good point though. Perhaps with there being no tape on this camera the possibility exists down the road for an upgraded compression codec. DVCPROHD is a solid codec especially compared to HDV but there’s always room for improvement.

Noah

[Graeme Nattress]

Yes indeed. I think if they just went with the equivalent of PhotoJPEG100%, and kept it all RGB from the get-go, then that would be most awesome. I’m not keen on the amount of processor power these new wavelet codecs need to decode / encode. Let’s say good-bye to Y’CbCr compression forever and go 4:4:4 R’G’B’.

Graeme

– http://www.nattress.com – Film Effects for FCP

[Jason J rodriguez]

All Wavelets are not created equal in the same way that DCT codecs are not equal. Pixlet uses a different Wavelet transform than CFHD (Cineform).

DNxHD is DCT-based, not wavelet.

I’ve worked with CFHD, and the codec is practically flawless. On the one-river media codec test, it’s almost on the level of Apple’s Uncompressed 10-bit HD, except it’s being compressed at 6:1! But seriously, CFHD perfectly preseves the gradients in Marco’s test image (so there’s a very low white-count), and the only artifacting apparent is the 4:2:2 color sampling on the super-saturated colors.

Pixlet is also 8-bit, not 10-bit like Cineform, so it doesn’t do as good on the gradients.

Also there’s a big difference between Prospect HD (their high-end professional 10-bit codec engine), and Aspect HD (their 8-bit HDV intermediate codec).

If you’re at NAB, I’d really encourage you to check out Cineform’s offerings. For a listing of where they’ll be, go to their website (they’re in 8 different booths ranging from Microsoft and Adobe to AMD, etc.).

Jason Rodriguez
Virginia Beach, VA

[Graeme Nattress]

Thanks Jason, that’s interesting. As I say, my big concern is processing time for wavelt based codecs – they seem to need a lot more processor power than DCT based ones.

I can’t see a Cineform test at Marco’s site. Do you have a link for it? Also, do you have any processing time metrics, compared to, say, PhotoJPEG100%?

Graeme

– http://www.nattress.com – Film Effects for FCP

[Jason J rodriguez]

I had to do the test myself with the Cineform stuff, since Marco only seems to do codecs that are Mac-based.

Yes, Cineform needs some muscle, especially Prospect HD and HD-SDI input/output, but I think it’s well worth it. You get three HD streams in real-time on one of their “certified” turnkey systems, with DVE’s, transitions, graphics, etc. Sort of similar to what you have with DVCProHD in Final Cut, except the visual quality of CFHD, even after multiple recompressions, is on-par with what a traditional uncompressed signal would look like.

The only down-side (for us FCP guys) that I see with Prospect HD is that it’s PC-based, and only works in 10-bit in it’s native AVI codec inside Premiere Pro and After Effects.

BTW, all the real-time effects are made possible by the Prospect HD rendering engine taking over Premiere Pro’s default render and effects processing engine. So you have to have a Prospect HD system to work effectively with 10-bit CFHD footage.

Jason Rodriguez
Virginia Beach, VA

[Vsv]

I’m just impressed by speed and quality of Cineform HD codec and wish only to see implementation this
amazing algorithm into DSP. I hope, David Newman and Co. can did it:)
Graeme Nattress, do you know about modular camera Drake? German guys already finished their “Drake Cam project” wich is able to record raw stream 1280x720p24 (RGB 4:4:4 8bit)straight to two striped HDD.
This is a Kinetta’s little brother:) You can download clip (need divx codec) about Drake camera here _https://www.drachenfeder.com/int/drake_clip2.avi

[Graeme Nattress]

The Cineform comparisons on their website are interesting, but as Cineform stores the full raster, and DVCproHD does not, it’s a rather unfair comparison to repeatedly stretch the DVCproHD out to full size, then squash it back down again, rather than keep it in it’s native 960×720 or 1280×1080 throughout processing, as this is what any sensible DVCproHD workflow would do. To keep changing the dimensions would introduce many more artifacts than to keep it native dimensions, as it’s only ever stretched for viewing, not for effects etc.

Cineform is very interesting, but without a camera or tape deck that supports it, it’s only useful as a computer codec. Without camera or deck support, I doubt it will ever be popular. Even for moving videos around, you need something that’s cross platform, and preferably free, or at least with a free playback codec.

Graeme

– http://www.nattress.com – Film Effects for FCP

[Jason J rodriguez]

Cineform is going places, many more than you think.

For instance, Adobe has licensed their coded for their HDV intermediate technology, making Adobe’s compression technology for HDV intermediates one of the best in the industry for it’s abilty to sustain multiple generation passes, yet retain all the aspects of the original MPEG-2 source, compression artifacts and all (yet not introduce any new ones, except for YUV->RGB conversion artifacts, as you go through the post process).

Much, much better IMHO that native MPEG-2 GOP editing (which can’t sustain multiple generation passes), or Apple’s MPEG-2 I-frame intermediate codec (which also is lossy).

In other words, Cineform is a very powerful technology as an intermediate codec that allows one to get away from the limitations of the tape-based native codec editing workflows with their lossy generation problems WITHOUT having to resort to the space and bandwith consumption of uncompressed base-band HD-SDI editing.

Frankly, from the testing I’ve done, I would never go through post-production on a film using DVCProHD. I would readily choose CFHD because it gives the picture quality of uncompressed 10-bit, can withstand multi-generation passes like an uncompressed 10-bit codec, yet still give the editing speed of a compressed codec like DVCProHD.

All in all, CFHD and DNxHD are the same concept, although CFHD is more efficient for the same bandwidth as a wavelet-based compression codec rather than DNxHD which is DCT-based.

Jason Rodriguez
Virginia Beach, VA

[David Cherniack]

[Graeme Nattress] “Cineform is very interesting, but without a camera or tape deck that supports it, it’s only useful as a computer codec. Without camera or deck support, I doubt it will ever be popular”

First of all it’s an intermediate codec, not an acquisition or delivery codec. With prospect HD on a dual Opteron you ingest via HDSDI from wahtever flavour of HD you’ve shot in (or 1394 if HDV) and convert to it in real-time. After editing/compositing (and it can do 10 generations without blinking), you export to whatever delivery codec you want.

AFA popularity goes you can bet that as a superb codec that’s a cheaper alternative to Axio and a more powerful editing solution than Decklink, they’re going to do very well with PremierePro as their base.

David
AllinOneFilms.com