I attached a downscaled version of Perrones 1080p-image to 720x405 with Compressor for comparison.

I've been doing some testing with actual footage.

I created 2 1080 30P movies. One rendered in XDCAM (20mb) and one rendered in ProRes HQ (120mb).

The problem I'm running into is that when I go from HD to SD it wants to make my progressive footage interlaced. That looks like crap when viewing as a QT movie. (too ugly to show you all) But for broadcast my video needs to be interlaced. I need to spend more time with this...

I did learn that it's important when viewing a QT movie for comparison, to make sure that High Quality is turned on. Everything looks bad if you forget to do this step.

I'm going to head to lunch and then do some more testing when I get back.

I attached a downscaled version of Perrones 1080p-image to 720x405 with Compressor for comparison.

Dominik, very impressive. Does the same apply to motion?

Yeah, I think compressing a still image isn't as big a deal as actual video (motion). Especially when you're dealing with interlacing issues.

Here's the HD movie clip I'm starting with.
http://www.ssscc.org/ftp/hd-sd/Test-(XDCAM-1080-30P).mov

Now I just need to get it to look good in SD (720x480 letterbox)

Here's what I came up with (crap). I couldn't seem to get Compressor to transcode to SD without interlacing the footage. I went to the Encoder>Video>Settings and chose Scan Mode>Progressive, but it doesn't seem to make much difference.

http://www.ssscc.org/ftp/hd-sd/Test-(XDCAM-1080-30P)-DV-NTSC-Anamorphic.mov

This is exactly what I predicted. The video in the background looks okay, but the graphics (red circle logo) look like crap.

This is harder than I thought!

The problem I'm running into is that when I go from HD to SD it wants to make my progressive footage interlaced. That looks like crap when viewing as a QT movie.
Your example has some strong reds. Are you sure that you don't confuse interlacing-artifacts with 4:2:0-artifacts?

http://www.ssscc.org/ftp/hd-sd/Test-(XDCAM-1080-30P)-DV-NTSC-Anamorphic.mov
That confirms my suspicion: there's no interlacing going on, but 4:1:1-chroma-subsampling (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chroma_subsampling)-artifacts of DV.

Dominik, very impressive. Does the same apply to motion?

Send me a file to try, and we can see. I need a QT file that is compressed with something I can read on a PC. Like PNG Lossless, or QT uncompressed. Just send 3-5 seconds with high motion. It can be interlaced, and I'll try my de-interlacer as well.

I've done this for footage off the EX1 for myself, but would be interesting to try someone else's footage.

-P

I need a QT file that is compressed with something I can read on a PC.

Hey! What's a PC guy doing on a Mac/FCP thread? hehehehehehe (just kidding)

Hey! What's a PC guy doing on a Mac/FCP thread? hehehehehehe (just kidding)


LOL!

Trying to learn!

I have to work with Mac folks in this video editing world, so it behooves me (and other PC users) to learn as much as possible about BOTH systems.

I've created a PNG file and I'm uploading it now. It's going to take a while as it's 150 mb. (about 15 minutes)

http://www.ssscc.org/ftp/hd-sd/Test-(PNG).mov

EDIT: Okay it's uploaded.

Are you sure of the name? And permissions?

Sorry, there was a typo in the name (MOV not MPV) I fixed it.

Processing ...

Done. Images coming!

DVInfo is acting dumb. Check here.
http://vimeo.com/groups/8264/files

Dang! Very nice Perrone! Too bad you're not on a Mac, I'd love to duplicate your work flow. I haven't given up on Compressor yet though.

Anything that I could benefit from on a Mac? (since this IS a Mac/FCP thread)

Dang! Very nice Perrone! Too bad you're not on a Mac, I'd love to duplicate your work flow. I haven't given up on Compressor yet though.

Anything that I could benefit from on a Mac? (since this IS a Mac/FCP thread)

There has GOT to be some software application out there that uses the underlying rescale algorithm that I am using. The Lanczos one. Its FEELY available for goodness sakes.

Are you running bootcamp? It might be worth it for you to run some of these tools that I have. Especially, the stuff in Virtualdub since it's all free. The denoising programs available rival that $1k stuff I see people raving about. And you've seen the rescaler. There are also sophisticated tools for framerate conversion, color space conversion, etc. And they are all free.

Mitchell, I will say it one more time, but if you don't listen to me I can't help you:
if you compress with a YUV-format like DV, then there's chroma-subsampling going on, so features with strong saturation-jumps + hue-jumps + luma-jumps will look pixelated or blurred. There's nothing you can do against it but using a non-YUV-format or decreasing saturation.
Try to use QTs uncompressed setting and you'll see the difference.

There has GOT to be some software application out there that uses the underlying rescale algorithm that I am using. The Lanczos one. Its FEELY available for goodness sakes.

Yeah, it must be somewhere. Does anybody know which algorithm Cinema Craft is based upon, given its exceptionally oustanding results? With the new CC plugin for Compressor, that might be the road to go for high end encodings.

Mitchell.... There's nothing you can do against it but using a non-YUV-format or decreasing saturation. Try to use QTs uncompressed setting and you'll see the difference. Would ProRes be a viable solution? And/or which other codecs?

Yeah, it must be somewhere.
Compressor is doing exactly the same than lanczos. I posted an example to show that, but who realizes it?
Does anybody know which algorithm Cinema Craft is based upon, given its exceptionally oustanding results?
I guess we are talking about rescaling, not mpeg2-encoding. Or do you really want to know, how CCEs mpeg2-engine works?
Would ProRes be a viable solution? And/or which other codecs?
ProRes uses 4:2:2, so it's not a "solution" for that problem. There's no solution, because all formats used by DVD, BluRay,... use chroma-subsampling. You have to live with that and to hope that end-consumer-playback-devices use proper chroma-filtering to transform pixelation to blurriness.

Would ProRes be a viable solution? And/or which other codecs?

You need a codec which can handle RGB, and preferably 10-bit or higher. Prores is 10-bit, but yuv, not rgb. You'll note that I typically ask for QT PNG or Uncompressed. Both of these are RGB with alpha channel. I am still testing codecs, but right now am about to test 10 bit Avid.

Compressor is doing exactly the same than lanczos. I posted an example to show that, but who realizes it? I have so far not found any hint about Compresor and Lanczos. But thx very much, will turn my radar more towards Compressor, albeit I don't like its GUI.

I guess we are talking about rescaling, not mpeg2-encoding. Or do you really want to know, how CCEs mpeg2-engine works? Rescaling, which CCE MP, the plugin, does also.

ProRes uses 4:2:2, so it's not a "solution" for that problem. There's no solution, because all formats used by DVD, BluRay,... use chroma-subsampling. You have to live with that and to hope that end-consumer-playback-devices use proper chroma-filtering to transform pixelation to blurriness.Is there a table with the subsampling specs of all known codecs? Or would you say ProRes is kind of "the best compromise". QT Uncompressed leads to extremely large files...

Fraunhofer Institut suggests JPEG2000 for a comparable task. Any comments on that?

Are you running bootcamp? It might be worth it for you to run some of these tools that I have. Especially, the stuff in Virtualdub since it's all free. The denoising programs available rival that $1k stuff I see people raving about. And you've seen the rescaler. There are also sophisticated tools for framerate conversion, color space conversion, etc. And they are all free. Yes sir, I am. Which apps are you talking about? Would love to test them on my Mac turned WinMachine;-)

Based on my results tonight, and over the past few months of testing, Avi's DNxHD is giving results darn near equal to uncompressed at a fraction of the size. ProRes isn't close since it cannot do RGB with Alpha channels (unless someone know's sommething I don't).

Looks like this is my new mastering format! Sweet!

And it comes in Mac and PC versions, and the codec is free. Can't beat that.

Is there a compatible codec to QT PNG in Winworld?
BTW, we are testing Avid Meridien uncompressed for file exchange between Macs and Wins (Liquid, Avid).

Yes sir, I am. Which apps are you talking about? Would love to test them on my Mac turned WinMachine;-)

The program you want is Virtualdub. Its just a framework. You extend it by dropping "filters" into its folder. No install necessary. Just close the program and restart. The lanczos rescaler is built-in though. Just open your video, select the resize filter, type in the new size, choose lanczos, and convert.

It's pretty fast too.

Is there a compatible codec to QT PNG in Winworld?
BTW, we are testing Avid Meridien uncompressed for file exchange between Macs and Wins (Liquid, Avid).

I hadn't done a Jpeg2000 test in HD, so I tried it just now.

Basically, what I've tried are the following codecs

Uncompressed
BlackMagic 10 bit - Largest file besides uncompressed
Aja Kona 10 bit
Jpeg2000 (best quality) - Small files, performance not so great on timeline
HuffYUV - YUV so loses Chroma
Lagarith - Similar performance to HuffYUV
PNG Paeth - Nice encode but takes FOREVER to encode
Avid DNxHD 220 - Small files, good timeline performance.

I did not test DVCProHD because I wanted full raster
I did not test ProRes because I don't have a Mac.

For my money, the Avid Codec wins. Good performance, reasonably fast encode time, available on Mac and PC for FREE. I'm glad I have this solved as I have a huge project I am currently working on and needed something I could work with. But now I have to go back and remaster all the bit's I've done already!

Based on my results tonight, and over the past few months of testing, Avi's DNxHD is giving results darn near equal to uncompressed at a fraction of the size. ProRes isn't close since it cannot do RGB with Alpha channels (unless someone know's sommething I don't).

Looks like this is my new mastering format! Sweet!

And it comes in Mac and PC versions, and the codec is free. Can't beat that.


But don't you have to edit in AVID to use it? How can you go from FCP to this codec?

But don't you have to edit in AVID to use it? How can you go from FCP to this codec?

Absolutely not. I edit in Vegas. If you install the quicktime Avid Codec, you should be able to render to it from FCP just like any quicktime file.

Ok thanks for that. I will try it later today.

OK it installed perfectly. Stuck a 720P50 clip on the FCP timeline, went export, Quicktime Conversion, chose DNxHD codec, and it made the same sized file. A 20 second clip came out at 283Mb in size.


But. The clip looks washed out. The contrast is shot. However I have chosen one of the other Avid codecs and got stunning results downconverted to Pal DV. I am now importing that into compressor and out with Cinema craft Encoder MP.

Fraunhofer Institut suggests JPEG2000 for a comparable task. Any comments on that?

I've been using PhotoJPEG at 80-100% (I believe 100% is 4:4:4 RGB and virtually lossless) for over a decade, mostly for archiving motion graphics final renders, though I also used it for downsampled HDV and DV50 work. With more compression (75% to 85%), it makes for a great real-time playback format in Apple's Keynote - especially 1280x720.

Great legacy format.

Compressor is doing exactly the same than lanczos. I posted an example to show that, but who realizes it?

I realise it, Dominik.
You proved your method to me and you are obviously an expert in this field but sadly, despite your best efforts, some others don't seem to want to learn from you.

I hope you won't give up.
People like you are just what these forums need.

I hope you won't give up.
People like you are just what these forums need.
Can't help, but you sound a bit ironic to me. ;)
I have so far not found any hint about Compresor and Lanczos.
This one was posted by Perrone done with lanczos in virtualdub:
http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/attachments/sony-xdcam-ex-cinealta/10206d1230310090-hd-sd-downconversion-mac-fcp-only-test_small.png
This one was posted by me done with Compressor:
http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/attachments/sony-xdcam-ex-cinealta/10212d1230317041-hd-sd-downconversion-mac-fcp-only-compressor.png
They are almost 100% identical. Hence Compressor is doing something equal to lanczos.
HuffYUV - YUV so loses Chroma
HuffYUV can do RGB, but it is a lossless codec, so it produces very large files. About 50-60% file-size of uncompressed, similar to rar-compression.
Based on my results tonight, and over the past few months of testing, Avi's DNxHD is giving results darn near equal to uncompressed at a fraction of the size. ProRes isn't close since it cannot do RGB with Alpha channels (unless someone know's sommething I don't).
That sounds very interesting, especially for pre-rendering of green-screen work because of the alpha-channel-capability. Earlier I used HuffYUV for that, now I've got a faster computer. ;)

Yes, there are some other great intermediate codecs, which are capable of 4:4:4YUV/RGB. They're especially useful for special-effects-work. But I think that with 4:4:4 you don't gain any advantage for pure editing/grading, because the end-consumer/release-formats are at most 4:2:2, so using 4:4:4 is just a waste of harddisk-space.

Yes, there are some other great intermediate codecs, which are capable of 4:4:4YUV/RGB. They're especially useful for special-effects-work. But I think that with 4:4:4 you don't gain any advantage for pure editing/grading, because the end-consumer/release-formats are at most 4:2:2, so using 4:4:4 is just a waste of harddisk-space.

The codec has a number of options. One preset (DNxHD 36) is specifically for intermmediate work. I am about to try it now.

More info here:

Avid DNxHD Codec (http://www.avid.com/dnxhd/index.asp)

Cool article about Iron Man being cut in this HD proxy Format:

DNxHD Marvel | Behind the DNxHD 36 workflow for Iron Man (http://digitalcontentproducer.com/mil/features/video_dnxhd_marvel/index.html)

Ok I have had a few plays with it now and it does give off a very good video file which I boought into Compressor and then out again via Cinema craft Encoder MP. I did a 10 pass VBR with a max of 9000, min of 2000 and average of 6000.

Quite a good clip to use as it has plenty going on with all that confetti. Plus the bride ain't bad looking either!

Original untouched file is here. Shot with EX1.
Right mouse click and "save target as"
http://www.steveshovlar.com/cinemacraft_encode/944_1441_01.mov

The finished file is here.
Right mouse click and "save target as"
http://www.steveshovlar.com/cinemacraft_encode/CinemaCraftEncoderMP.m2v

Can anyone improve on that finished file?

I tried DNxHD and my impressions are:
-it is 4:2:2, not 4:4:4
-the 36mbit/s-variant has much more artifacts than 35mbit/s-XDCAM-EX
-at all bitrates (and without alpha-channel) it needs for playback about 2 times as much CPU than ProResHQ and about 3 times as much CPU than XDCAM-EX
-it doesn't support 1080p/29.97

So I can't see any advantages using it except the alpha-channel-capability.

Can't help, but you sound a bit ironic to me.

Maybe something got lost in translation.
(I was saying you do a good job - I meant it).

Mitchell, I will say it one more time, but if you don't listen to me I can't help you:
if you compress with a YUV-format like DV, then there's chroma-subsampling going on, so features with strong saturation-jumps + hue-jumps + luma-jumps will look pixelated or blurred. There's nothing you can do against it but using a non-YUV-format or decreasing saturation.
Try to use QTs uncompressed setting and you'll see the difference.

Sorry Dominik, I am listening, but I'm not understanding. You (and others in this thread) talk over my head quite a bit.

So what your saying is that because I compressed to standard DV codec (YUV), it's going to look crappy. Sorry but this doesn't make any sense to me, because the commercial was originally produced and broadcast in DV codec. I rendered the project in AfterEffects directly to a DV codec file (Quicktime mov). I've seen it on the air and it looks fine. By my logic this tells me that it should be possible to convert HD to SD - DV codec, but that the tools I'm using (Compressor) arn't working very well.

Compressor does offer conversion to DVCPRO50. Isn't that a 4:2:2 codec? I can't remember. I think it also will convert to the Uncompressed codec.

My problem is all the local broadcasters in my market broadcast their commercials using the DV codec. When I send them copies of my work (dubs) I have to send them as Standard Def DV codec mov files. Another option is to send them as a DV Stream, but that's basically the same thing as a DV codec mov.

On January 5th (when all our new equipment arrives) I'm especially looking forward to installing our new AJA Io HD device. Supposedly I does a great job converting HD to SD using hardware based conversion. Once it's all hooked up, I will have an SD monitor connected alongside our HD monitor so I will be able to instantly see what an AJA IoHD SD conversion looks like. But I agree with you, I not very optimistic that it will look better than the best software based conversion.

Still looking for a simple HD to SD (DV codec) solution on a Mac..... (hopefully you now understand why I keep wanting to transcode to DV)

I tried DNxHD and my impressions are:
-it is 4:2:2, not 4:4:4


Neither is ProRes, DVCProHD, HDCam, Etc. Other than an image format like PNG, JPEG2000, or something similar, you are not going to get 4:4:4. Most people can't aquire in 4:4:4, but it does have some uses for VFX and such. If that's your bag, then this isn't for you.


-the 36mbit/s-variant has much more artifacts than 35mbit/s-XDCAM-EX


Not in my testing. What was your source? I tested mine against some 2k RED footage and it was very, very nice.


-at all bitrates (and without alpha-channel) it needs for playback about 2 times as much CPU than ProResHQ and about 3 times as much CPU than XDCAM-EX


I can't verify this because I am not on a Mac. So I'll take your word for it. The closest I can come to ProResHQ on the PC is Cineform, and I can't use it in my new NLE, which is why I went on a hunt for a new codec. I am trying to be respectful to the fact that this is a Mac thread and not a PC one though.



-it doesn't support 1080p/29.97


This surprised me until I realized what the codec was for. Film. This is not a broadcast codec. It is there to support 24p, 25p, and IVTC film rates. Honestly, if you're going to NTSC broadcast, you'd want to follow standard, and I don't remember 1080p being in the rec.709 standard. Though maybe it is now.


So I can't see any advantages using it except the alpha-channel-capability.

Advantages over what though? The advantages of working in uncompressed are clear. The Advantages over working in ProRes, I can't speak to. How do the file sizes compare? For us poor PC folk, it has an advantage over nearly any other choice we have except maybe Cineform, but this is free.

It was not my intent to come to a Mac thread and convince everyone to use an Avid codec! :) It works well for my purposes, and I think others may find use for it. One of the PRIMARY advantages to me, is the ability to move high quality proxy and master files from Mac <-> PC without gamma shift or other issues. ProRes falls down badly there, and the 4:4:4 codecs are HUGE in comparison.

For me, and as noted in the linked articles, the ability to cut HD sized proxies gives great advantage. I can preview for clients in HD and view my cuts and grades on my laptop. This was not something I could easily do before. I recut my latest project masters over night. Being able to open my masters and play them in near realtime on this underpowered laptop is amazing. I wish AVCHD was as easy!

OK it installed perfectly. Stuck a 720P50 clip on the FCP timeline, went export, Quicktime Conversion, chose DNxHD codec, and it made the same sized file. A 20 second clip came out at 283Mb in size.


But. The clip looks washed out. The contrast is shot.

Sounds like a gamma conversion issue. This is one thing I wish the Mac and the PC could sort out. Not sure why you saw it in one codec and not the other.

Original untouched file is here. Shot with EX1.
Right mouse click and "save target as"
http://www.steveshovlar.com/cinemacraft_encode/944_1441_01.mov

The finished file is here.
Right mouse click and "save target as"
http://www.steveshovlar.com/cinemacraft_encode/CinemaCraftEncoderMP.m2v

Can anyone improve on that finished file?

Try this - I downconverted with Compressor
http://www.workingsheepdog.co.uk/video/Compressor-MPEG-2.tiff

And here's a still from your CCE file:
http://www.workingsheepdog.co.uk/video/CinemaCraftEncoderMP.tiff


Look closely at the bride's necklace.

So what your saying is that because I compressed to standard DV codec (YUV), it's going to look crappy.
I'm sorry I did a mistake. What I wrote is true for 4:2:0 but not for 4:1:1, because 4:1:1 has quartered horizontal chroma-resolution, but FULL vertical chroma-resolution, so NTSC-DVs chroma-subsampling doesn't produce an interlaced look on strong colored edges.
But there are two issues with QuickTime-Player:
-DV-Movies will initially be displayed with very bad quality. You have to check the "high-quality"-checkbox in the movie-settings to get better quality.
-then the quicktime-player shows indeed a full-resolution luma-channel, but always deinterlaced chroma-channels. I don't know how to turn that chroma-deinterlacing off.

I only can access the full-resolution DV-file, if I load it into AfterEffects. Then I see that your downscaling hasn't worked well, because there are jaggy edges.
I don't know what went wrong, but if I try it myself to do that HD->DV-conversion in Compressor, then everything looks fine. I attached examples to illustrate:
The first one is a still of your dv-file. The second is a still of my dv-result.

Sorry Dominik, I am listening, but I'm not understanding. You (and others in this thread) talk over my head quite a bit.


Mitchell, this article may help. It's very clear, speaks on the variety of codecs out there, and what they do (in non-technical terms):

http://www.avid.com/resources/articles/Post_Technology_Truth_About_Codecs.pdf


So what your saying is that because I compressed to standard DV codec (YUV), it's going to look crappy. Sorry but this doesn't make any sense to me, because the commercial was originally produced and broadcast in DV codec. I rendered the project in AfterEffects directly to a DV codec file (Quicktime mov). I've seen it on the air and it looks fine. By my logic this tells me that it should be possible to convert HD to SD - DV codec, but that the tools I'm using (Compressor) arn't working very well.


I think Dominik, and myself to a degree, get in these semantic arguments for no purpose. The primary purpose of a codec for editing, is to allow you to do your work while losing as little information as possible. In the camera, what we WANT is high resolution (4k is great, 8k is better) and no color subsampling, so 4:4:4, and we want as much fine granularity as possible in that color, so 12 or 14 bits please! Now I shouldn't have to tell you that saving 4k, 4:4:4, 12 bit data is going to make data files that are astronomical. So choices need to be made on what to throw away. In the camera, we generally see resolution subsampling so that lovely image is now 1920x1080. And we lose some color usually, so that goes down to 4:2:2 or even 4:2:0 in the case of the Sony XDCamEX. And we record 8 or 10 bits instead of 10 or 12. More expensive cameras throw away less data.

When we get back to the NLE, our camera has tossed away a ton of stuff already, so we'd like to preserve whatever is left if possible! In film, the norm has been to use uncompressed data which preserves all we can. Problem is, it makes very large files which require big and fast disks to handle properly. So we have to make more compromises. But it's here that we have some choices. If data is going to the web, do we really NEED massive files when we're going to lose 80% going to the web? If we are going to broadcast and we know that 50% of it will be tossed, do we really need the pain of 20 hour renders?

So you can chose two things. Your editing codec, and your mastering codec. I typically chose to master to uncompressed because I could always go back later and re-render to anything lower. And for editing, I chose to use uncompressed SD, which was still big files, but not as big as HD. You can use ProRes for both mastering and editing. I changed to Cineform to do the same. The Avid codecs don't fit here. They fit in the idea of proxy and seperate master. Not a one size fits all. It's simply a choice. However, of all the codecs out there, the DV codec typically is the most lossy of all the common ones. Coming from uncompressed 1080p, it probably loses 80% of the information, or thereabouts. It is absolutely the worst thing to do to a file. So do NOT go there until the very end of the workflow when you are producing a deliverable.


Compressor does offer conversion to DVCPRO50. Isn't that a 4:2:2 codec? I can't remember. I think it also will convert to the Uncompressed codec.


DVCPro50 is nice, but not full raster. So you'll take your 1920x1080 and shring it to 1280x1080. better than DV, but still a terrible thing to do if you don't have to.


My problem is all the local broadcasters in my market broadcast their commercials using the DV codec. When I send them copies of my work (dubs) I have to send them as Standard Def DV codec mov files. Another option is to send them as a DV Stream, but that's basically the same thing as a DV codec mov.


If this is what you have to do, then it's what you have to do. BUT, don't do this until the VERY END of the workflow. Render to DV, and master to tape or whatever. Save it for the very end.


On January 5th (when all our new equipment arrives) I'm especially looking forward to installing our new AJA Io HD device. Supposedly I does a great job converting HD to SD using hardware based conversion. Once it's all hooked up, I will have an SD monitor connected alongside our HD monitor so I will be able to instantly see what an AJA IoHD SD conversion looks like. But I agree with you, I not very optimistic that it will look better than the best software based conversion.


The very same Aja codec is available as a free software codec. I've used it. Honestly, I like the Avid one better.


Still looking for a simple HD to SD (DV codec) solution on a Mac..... (hopefully you now understand why I keep wanting to transcode to DV)

I think we've inched closer though. Especially given Dominic's success with his Compressor results, and my posted resuts with Virtualdub that are available to Mac users running bootcamp.

Neither is ProRes, DVCProHD, HDCam, Etc.
I know, but I guessed that you implied that DNxHD can do 4:4:4 by saying that it can do RGB:
Based on my results tonight, and over the past few months of testing, Avi's DNxHD is giving results darn near equal to uncompressed at a fraction of the size. ProRes isn't close since it cannot do RGB with Alpha channels (unless someone know's sommething I don't).
Not in my testing. What was your source? I tested mine against some 2k RED footage and it was very, very nice.
I used XDCAM-EX-source for testing. I attached an 100%-crop-example. The left side is avid with 36mbit/s, the right unaltered XDCAM. There are clearly more artifacts on the left side.
Advantages over what though?
advantages over using ProRes.
How do the file sizes compare?
very similar.
Btw, watch the graph at the top on page 10 in this (http://images.apple.com/finalcutstudio/resources/white_papers/L342568A_ProRes_WP.pdf) document. ;)

Try this - I downconverted with Compressor
http://www.workingsheepdog.co.uk/video/Compressor-MPEG-2.tiff

And here's a still from your CCE file:
http://www.workingsheepdog.co.uk/video/CinemaCraftEncoderMP.tiff


Look closely at the bride's necklace.

Andy, remember although the CCE file is out of compressor, it was also taken out of FCP using quicktime conversion into the Avid codec.

I'll run two tests. One from FCP to compressor using CCE, and the other from FCP via Prores422, then onto a SD FCP time line and out via compressor with CCE.

I'll post screengrabs when done.

I don't have much time to talk right now (I will later tonight).

But I'm amazed at how Dominik has made my DV footage look so much better. I'm wondering if it's how you guys are taking "screen shots". Are you literally taking a screen grab (on a Mac = shift, command, 4) or are you exporting a frame from Quicktime?

Dominik says that he could only download my crappy DV conversion. But he has taken crap and made it look great! This makes no sense to me.

Sorry guys if I'm slow on the uptake. But when the light bulb finally comes on it will be much appreciated.

BTW, Dominik I knew about the high-quality thing in Quicktime. I'm guessing that trips a lot of people up though. When do you think Apple is going to remove that check box.....it's about time. :)

Dominik says that he could only download my crappy DV conversion.
No, I downloaded your dv-version and your png-compressed HD-version. The left attachment was a grab of your dv-version, the right was a grab of my dv-version made out of your hd-version with compressor.

I used AfterEffects for the grabs.
When do you think Apple is going to remove that check box.....it's about time. :)
It would suffice if it would be turned on by default. ;)

I know, but I guessed that you implied that DNxHD can do 4:4:4 by saying that it can do RGB:


No, only implying that the codec has an RGB option built into the choices. My guess is that it's there for Alpha Channel support.


I used XDCAM-EX-source for testing. I attached an 100%-crop-example. The left side is avid with 36mbit/s, the right unaltered XDCAM. There are clearly more artifacts on the left side.


That's weird. I am going to compare some 1080p high motion stuff I shot 2 weeks ago (flowing water) and see what happens. I'll post a difference still as well. Source to uncompressed, source to DNxHD, and Uncompressed to DNxHD.


advantages over using ProRes.


Prores is pretty darn good. But I can't use it, and neither can any PC person. So for collaboration, it stinks. It also has no alpha channel.


very similar.
Btw, watch the graph at the top on page 10 in this (http://images.apple.com/finalcutstudio/resources/white_papers/L342568A_ProRes_WP.pdf) document. ;)

LOL! Check out the paragraph BEFORE the chart: "The chart below plots the PSNR value for each image frame in the Digital Cinema
Initiatives StEM (Standard Evaluation Material) sequence. The HD version of this
sequence was converted to a 10-bit, Rec. 709–compliant sequence."

i.e. ProRes couldn't handle the RGB values from the original file so we truncated it to something we could handle, and then compared ourselves to our competitors! And even WITH that the gap from DNxHD to ProRes was 2db. Visually indistinguishable. Mind you, this is ProResHQ which most people don't use but probably should for this work.\

Gotta love Applespeak!