i read this but still not 100% clear

http://fp.avid.com/resources/whitepapers/DNxHD_WP3.pdf

 

---

 

Original media is from Canon HFS11 set to PF30: 2GB AVCHD

 

 

--

 

Cineform:

settings:

quality- high

result:

7.45 GB, slight contrast bump, truncated audio, plays back well

 

--

 

Avid DNxHD:

settings:

Audio: 48,000 Hz, 16 Bit, Stereo, PCM

Video: 29.970 fps, 1920x1080 Progressive

Codec: Color Levels- 709, Alpha- None, Resolution- 1080p/24 DNxHD 175 10-bit

result:

18.5 GB, no noticeable difference with original, looks great, plays back well

 

--

 

I want to try getting the file size of the Avid DNxHD down so I will have to keep testing

 

I know I could do a proxy but I'd rather get decent qualilty and reasonavble file size and just use it all the way through.

 

any tips?

 

 

I am not sure how you could do a proxy... since the last I looked MC doesn't use proxies...

The Cineform codec is way better than using the original AVCH file as an editing media... but, then so is DNxHD.  Just because the size of the Cineform codec is smaller does not mean you are loosing quality.  In fact, that is one of the advantages of using the Cineform as a file base instead of DNxHD... there is no quality loss but the file is easier to edit and more univerally usefull between different editing and compositing applications. 

Quality is determined by your parrticular choice of DNxHD format... and, same is true for Cineform.  Both offer different levels of quality.   The best level is to use that which most closely matches the bytes/sec of the orignal video... and, not try and match file size.

I am not certain... but, I beleive the HFS11 shoots at 8 bit color and not 10 bit.  I see you show a 10 bit color in the DXnHD file information... which tells me you first converted this by Cineform... then, you imported it into MC as a DXnHD.  If so, then the increase from 8 bit to 10 bit was a result of the Cineform conversion and not from the DXnHD.  DXnHD does not change the original 8 bit color in the AVCH file.

How much quality is needed depends heavily upon your computer systems capabilities and how you will use the final results.  Internet usege is typically much lower in demands than say a Blue Ray DVD... but, is higher than SD DVD (if uploading in HD format).

BTW, that slight contrast bump in Cineform is probably the 8 bit to 10 bit increase in color... but, Cineform does change the gamma a bit...which can be very useful if you shoot the original video "flat" and therebye gaining more details in the mid-tones.

BTW #2, your truncated audio... is not likely because of Cineform... it is the capture application... however, if you didn't capture this video... then, it could be your computer hardware may not be sufficient.

i injested the AVCHD and the audio level was redueced once I converted to CF.

Cineform told me i had to use AC3Filter and bump up the "main volume sldier" if the audio is  not rendering loud enough.

not knowing anyhinttg about AC3Filter I am concerned that bumping up the volume there will effect something else in my system,or does it only effect the cinefrom render preocess and nothing else?

it also is a concern because the idea of enhancing the audio level of an audio file is highly undesireable. unless I can better understand 1. why I have to do that for a cineform render 2. what the implcations are on the integrity of the sound file. I might have to just use the avid condec whihc delivers audio perfectly and as expected. most of my video work is documentaries about recording so the audio is a big deal.
--
also- you are right about the canon it is and 8-bit source. the numbers I typed refered to my render settings - so i thinnk i went overkill. do you have an idea what would be comparable to "cineform-high" in the DNxHD settings from the Canon source?

I can see no reason why you shouldn't use the an AC3 filter with an increase in volume (but, you will have to find the correct volume that works best).  Maybe someone with audio experence can chime in... but, off hand your concerns are unwarranted.

There are a lot way to define the "best" video codec.  And, what final format you want to use for it distribution is pretty important part of this never ending look for the best video codec.

Plus... another key thing  you need to consider is the match of the (megs/kilo)byte rate per sec  to your output needs and your computer capabilities.  It is not so about whether or not Cineform or HNxHD is better.... nor... which are comparable settings.

What Cineform codec high setting is equal to DNxHD? 

Well... that's a apple vs. orange "sort'a" of question... For starters, Cineform converts from an 8 bit to 10 bit color space... that automatically places the Cineform codec on a different (not necessarilly better) level no matter the quality level of DNxHD used... both CF and DNxHD have various levels of quality settings that are petty much equivalents.   But, Cineform is a codec that might be considered over DNxHD if color correction or chroma keying is an important part of your final output.  However, DNxHD can work as well... A lot depends upon how you shot the video and what you want for a final look. 

"I can see no reason why you shouldn't use the an AC3 filter with an increase in volume (but, you will have to find the correct volume that works best).  Maybe someone with audio experence can chime in... but, off hand your concerns are unwarranted."

 

OK I guess I just have to get my head around - where - AC3 filter is working?

is it something that is completely null and idle while I run my computer/run pro tools/vegas/media composer ------------ and it ONLY "turns on" during a cineform encode of AVCHD footage ----------------- and it then "turns off" and is again null and idle.

 

Or is it somehow "running" in the background, where if I bump the volume by 4db it is a realtime/live process?????

"For starters, Cineform converts from an 8 bit to 10 bit color space... that automatically places the Cineform codec on a different (not necessarilly better) level no matter the quality level of DNxHD used"

 

i thought DNxHD offers a 10-bit choice

 

e.g. DNxHD 175x

 

but also from you post it would seem something like DNxHD 115 would be adaquate even for master quailty since I dont forsee tons of filters / grading on this particular project.

Joe M:

For starters, Cineform converts from an 8 bit to 10 bit color space... that automatically places the Cineform codec on a different (not necessarilly better) level no matter the quality level of DNxHD used...

 

I don't follow this; DNxHD has ten-bit version of its codecs.

 

P.S. Amy, stop reading my mind... or did I read yours??? LOL!

It is my understanding that the 10bit choice is for existing 10bit video... you wouldn't use a 10 bit choice if your original video is only 8 bit.  I haven't looked this up... but, that is what I remember.... maybe someone chime in and verify this for me.

DNxHD 115 is a certain quality level that uses a certain amount of bandwidth... what is your videos original bandwidtch usage?  By that I mean, how much infomation is needed to be processed... this is defined as mega/kilo bytes/sec.  Is this the "best"?  Don't know for certain... here is why. 

There is a chart that shows each level of DNxHD's mega/kilo bytes/sec somewhere (and... can't seem to find it anywhere in my search)... compare this chart to your original video bandwidth usage.  You can find this information for your original footage by using an application like G-Spot or Super.   The higher the mega/kilo bytes/sec the greater the demand on your system... and, this demand could make 115 to difficult to edit when it comes to rendering and getting smooth previews.  So... 115 may be OK or it may not be... lot depends upon what your hardware capabilities are...

You seem to keep thinking in terms of quality first... which is OK, BUT... I think it is best to think in terms of quality in relation to your ability to edit the video based on the limitations of your computer hardware.   You want the highest quality relative to the original data available for editing without exceeding your computer hardwares capabilities.  You can actually make a video so bandwidth demand intensive that it could take days to weeks of render time to edit... which would make the editing process far to difficult to handle.

"...I don't forsee tons of filters/grading on this particular project"... famous last words.... 

 

the guide is here

 

http://fp.avid.com/resources/whitepapers/DNxHD.pdf

 

ok i have super and dont see an MTS cabaiblty

 

how do i see datarate in G-Spot ?

This is a very confusing thread. I will say that Cineform is a 10 bit codec. If you've converted footage from your Canon, you've generated 10 bit footage from your native 8 bit footage. There's nothing wrong with this procedure. If you intend to do any color correction or add special FX, then you want to stay in 10-bit. It will take more file size, but, if you can accept that, it's a good thing. If you want smaller file sizes, don't use Cineform as your intermediate, or, when you import it, convert it back to an 8-bit DNxHD format at a lower bitrate, such as DNx145.

amy.powers:

ok i have super and dont see an MTS cabaiblty

 

how do i see datarate in G-Spot ?

 

it is indicated as kbps... right side of the G spot (v. 2.7) 

Also, in Super.... you drop it into the source files to be converted (or something to that effect... don't have access to it at this time)... and douple click on the file or right click and choose details (again, that is from memory)... another window will open up with details.

gspot

 

works on DV

 

on mts, mxf, m2t = displays nothing

Mediainfo, link below

 

http://mediainfo.sourceforge.net/us

 

 

Video: MKV, OGM, AVI, DivX, WMV, QuickTime, Real, MPEG-1, MPEG-2, MPEG-4, DVD (VOB)...
(Codecs: DivX, XviD, MSMPEG4, ASP, H.264, AVC...)