Cineform v Red Raw Comparison Shots?

[Joe G.]

Please use this thread to post side by side screen shots and/or footage of the same material in Red and in Cineform. I would like to compare quality.

[Obin Olson]

so would I...David?

[David Newman]

There is little point in the comparison, as the source will always be Redcode. If the Rawport wasn't discontinued, then the comparison would have been possible. While CineForm RAW can be applied to ARRI, Dalsa, Phantom or SI footage, different cameras and therefore different results. For Red foootage, CineForm is an online post and DI format, just as we are for every other compression or non-compressed camera source. CineForm 444 as DI is quality visually equivalent to posting with DPX files, just 4 to 7 times smaller files. We look forward to implementing the Redcode SDK, allowing easier conversion of Red media into the CineForm workflow.

[Edgar Pitts]

Hi David. Will Redcode to Cineform RAW be a viable workflow? Thanks.

Edgar

[David Newman]

Yes and sort-of. Initially we understand that the Redcode SDK will not support RAW exports, so we will primarily be do 4:4:4 CineForm encodes until the SDK supports RAW (faster transcodes to small file sizes.)

[Tom Lowe]

so we will primarily be do 4:4:4 CineForm encodes until the SDK supports RAW (faster transcodes to small file sizes.)

David, how does this compare to the news that R3D files will be handled "natively" by Premiere Pro CS3 now? I still don't understand how that is going to work. Does that mean RAW-style CCing can be done in Premiere Pro or AE, or will the RAW color and exposure settings have to be done at some earlier stage?

Any ideas on how the RED/Adobe workflow without Cineform will work compared to with Cineform, now that Adobe is apparently supporting RED? I understand you cannot be completely objective, but still, I thought I would ask, since you know more about this stuff than most anyone here.

[David Newman]

Native support has no impact on us, if anything is helps a little (saving us some work.) Remember most of the cameras we support have a native Adobe mode, users simply choose a CineForm workflow for a better experience. We will have a compelling workflow, but there is no point discussing the details when none for the components involved are out yet.

[Michael Thornton]

There is little point in the comparison, as the source will always be Redcode. If the Rawport wasn't discontinued, then the comparison would have been possible. While CineForm RAW can be applied to ARRI, Dalsa, Phantom or SI footage, different cameras and therefore different results. For Red foootage, CineForm is an online post and DI format, just as we are for every other compression or non-compressed camera source. CineForm 444 as DI is quality visually equivalent to posting with DPX files, just 4 to 7 times smaller files. We look forward to implementing the Redcode SDK, allowing easier conversion of Red media into the CineForm workflow.
__________________
David Newman
CTO, CineForm

Thank for shot of truth.

Much appreciated.

Files size 4-7 time smaller?

What is the ETA on a beta?

Thanks

Tek

[Andrew M.]

I was always thinking about CineForm as a proxy file to the original RAW whatever it comes from.

Kind of like the QT proxy file on RED that is saved together with the RED RAW file when you finish the clip.

The only difference is that CineForm is fatter proxy allowing you to play real time right from the CineForm file without necessity of converting it to the QT but rather converting it to the CIneForm.

Is that right or I am getting confused here?

I would love to have CIneForm proxies created at the end of the clip on RED during the “POST” instead of QT proxies.

It looks like Apple converted itself right now to Apple Mobile and theirs focus is there, so counting on Apple to be serious right now about non profitable segment of theirs business it is bit unrealistic.

[David Newman]

Tek,

4-7 times smaller than DPX (so there is no confusion.) 4K CineForm files are typically a little bigger than R3D source files.

Beta? CineForm Prospect 4K and NEO 4K have been out for a while, from DPX sources you can start using these products now. If you asking for R3D support we looking forward to receiving the SDK just like all other vendors.

[David Newman]

Andrew,

We have some ideas to help Red workflows with CineForm proxies. More details when we are supporting the SDK.

[Andrew M.]

The best idea would be to have a choice on the camera to create CineForm proxies or QT proxies.
David, talk to RED about it. QT is good for previews but not for work and grading real time.
CineForm proxies are good for both.

I had this idea of shooting to the CF cards memory and when camera is idle to create CineForm proxies to the hard disk. Camera is idle most of the time so when not recording, there is plenty of time to keep background process running doing something useful.

[Michael Thornton]

The only difference is that CineForm is fatter proxy allowing you to play real time right from the CineForm file without necessity of converting it to the QT but rather converting it to the CIneForm.

Is that right or I am getting confused here?

I would love to have CIneForm proxies created at the end of the clip on RED during the “POST” instead of QT proxies.

RedRushes does a fine job for us R3D to 720p Full/Half Res.

I think I would try Cineform for DPX replacement to save money on space.

At $2000.00 and drive cost is 50-75 cents GB it's making sense for now, when drive space drop to 10 cent per GB then there is no need.

I will do DPX all day.

Especially at that price $2000.00 USD

Tek

[Andrew M.]

Problem is that Red Rushes do not allow you to grade the RAW and CineForm proxies could actually allow you to grade in 32 bit space without modifying the REDRAW.
The idea is to get out of RAW in real time only the data that is necessary for grading and only after you are happy with the final product, you can work on RAW.
DPX is too heavy and there is tons of unnecessary data in it for grading.
We need something lighter in terms of amount of data used.

All this RAW, you need only just for final product but for grading you need something that is intuitively predicting what you do need for the next step in grading process. Also previews in real time do not need all the data from the RAW.

Sure once you want to see it on 20’ preview screen you have to do final transcode but for the grading 1/10 of data is more than enough and you get it on demand when needed.

[Thor Wixom]

I was always thinking about CineForm as a proxy file to the original RAW whatever it comes from.

Kind of like the QT proxy file on RED that is saved together with the RED RAW file when you finish the clip.

The only difference is that CineForm is fatter proxy allowing you to play real time right from the CineForm file without necessity of converting it to the QT but rather converting it to the CIneForm.

Is that right or I am getting confused here?

Andrew,

The Cineform files are actually online quality. There is no need to conform like you do with proxies.

Transcode from Red RAW to Cineform 444. Then edit, grade, export your master file... you're done. Print it to tape, master it to DVD or Blu-Ray, or do a film out.

Once you have the files in the Cineform 444 format (codec), it's the simplest most straightforward post process possible.

-Thor

[Christopher Grant Harvey]

Once you have the files in the Cineform 444 format (codec), it's the simplest most straightforward post process possible.

-Thor

Precisely! :sorcerer:

[donatello b]

"best idea would be to have a choice on the camera to create CineForm proxies or QT proxies. David, talk to RED about it"

not going to happen !! the camera shoots Red raw = red proxies not X proxies ...
based on posts on DVXusers back in ? summer/fall ? 2006 , i would say Red & Cineform had talks/meeting = there will be NO Red camera processing cineform ...

[Andrew M.]

CineForm requires trancoding REDRAW to CineFormRAW

I was thinking along the lines of creating CIneFORM Proxies that do not require transcoding but if REDRAW is present in the same directory (or linked) it works like transcoded CineForm.

[Ash Bolland]

Andrew,

The Cineform files are actually online quality. There is no need to conform like you do with proxies.

Transcode from Red RAW to Cineform 444. Then edit, grade, export your master file... you're done. Print it to tape, master it to DVD or Blu-Ray, or do a film out.

Once you have the files in the Cineform 444 format (codec), it's the simplest most straightforward post process possible.

-Thor


Hey Thor,

When do you transcode? Can you transcode from redcine to Cinefrom 444?

Thanks

[Christopher Grant Harvey]

Hey Thor,

When do you transcode? Can you transcode from redcine to Cinefrom 444?

Thanks

Yes, in later builds.

[Thor Wixom]

Hey Thor,

When do you transcode? Can you transcode from redcine to Cinefrom 444?

Thanks

Sorry, didn't see your post until tonight.

I'm actually experimenting with the Express files. They are 1k, so high enough res to see if things are in focus, but low enough data rate and size to be manageable.

If your computer is fast enough, you could transcode directly to CF444 right off the bat and always be working in online quality... or you could do the Express files first, and then go back and only transcode the files that make it into your final project. The choice is your's depending on what resources you have.

-Thor

[Peter Moretti]

This may sound like a crazy ?, but will CF444 work in TMPGEnc Xpress 4.0?

[David Newman]

This may sound like a crazy ?, but will CF444 work in TMPGEnc Xpress 4.0?

Yes, all encoding types work, yet most conversion tools will likely request 8-bit and 4:2:2, the decoder will automatically handle the down converison as needed.

[Peter Moretti]

So it sounds like while TMPGENnc Xpress 4.0 can convert CF444 into DNxHD 220x (10 bit 4:2:2), only 8 bits of the DNxHD 220x color info would be useful. The other two bits would be essentially padded with zeros.

Is that correct?

Thanks very much.

[David Newman]

We can provide deep pixel output, but I doubt TMPGEnc would request or deliver it.

[Peter Moretti]

David,

Are you familiar with any way to transcode CF444 to DNxHD 220x and preserve the 10 bit color?

Thanks again.

[David Newman]

Not from experience. You need a application is know support deeper than 8-bit Quicktime and support both CineForm 444 and DNxHD. There are several in the NLE/Compositor class, nothing I can think of that is great for efficient batch conversion.

[Peter Moretti]

Well I have Media Composer 3.0. Is that one of the NLE's you're thinking of? Even if batch conversion isn't an option, could it work on a one at a time basis?

[David Newman]

Not sure, you will need to check if Media Composer support 'b64a', 16-bit per channel RGB via QuickTime.