Hi there,

Much has been made of the free Blackmagic MJPEG codec bundled with the Intensity, so I thought I would give it a go.

I linked up our somewhat specialised video games HD capture hardware with the Blackmagic 8-bit MJPEG VFW codec today in order to compare it against CineForm. It may be an unfair test as our capture software can address the CineForm DirectShow encoder directly and I am unsure whether the BMD codec has a DirectShow version of its encoder, and if it does, how much of an improvement it is. Notes though:

1. The VFW codec wouldn't accept a YUV 4:2:2 input, I had to feed it 24-bit RGB (CineForm will accept both but flies with YUV 4:2:2)
2. A Pentium 4 3.0GHz CPU with HT really struggled to achieve 30fps capture at 720p without dropping frames. Fed YUV 4:2:2, CineForm has no problems on this CPU
3. The codec does appear to be multi-threaded so should do much much better on a strong Core 2 platform

Picture quality then: well, putting uncompressed YUV 4:2:2 next to CineForm, I have to use zoom in Photoshop on a specific still to spot any differences. And even then half the time I'm not sure if I am actually seeing any difference! In motion it definitely lives up to its 'visually perfect' billing.

Blackmagic MJPEG has typical JPEG artefacting, especially around lettering (the usual pixel fuzziness around lettering, for example). On fine detail it's really not that good either while CineForm is practically flawless.

Filesizes then, and here's a real surprise.

One minute of 'not that challenging' video games 720p/30 footage, captured at 24-bit RGB and compressed on the fly with the mathematically lossless Huffyuv codec was dubbed into various codecs by VirtualDub. Results are:

Huffyuv: 2.23GB (double that for completely uncompressed)
CineForm HD (Low Quality Setting/Progressive): 462MB
CineForm HD (Medium Quality Setting/Progressive): 590MB
CineForm HD (High Quality Setting/Progressive): 757MB
Blackmagic MJPEG (there are no quality settings): 513MB

I was under the impression that the bandwidth used by the MJPEG compressor was lower than CineForm, and it is on all but the lowest quality setting - but not by an appreciably useful margin. Certainly not considering the gulf in quality. I think this is a fair like-for-like test too as (and I might be wrong) the CFHD VFW codec as used by VirtualDub only operates in the 8-bit domain, just like the MJPEG one.

I should also point out that the 462MB 'low' quality CineForm HD file still looked considerably better than the MJPEG in lack of artifacting, retention of key detail etc. It's also worth mentioning that video games capture is characterised by an infinite depth of field, sharper edges - all the stuff that makes compression difficult and artifacting easier to spot.

So in every appreciable way (aside from cost), CineForm HD significantly (if not massively) out-performs the MJPEG codec based on my experience.

Thanks to some input from David Newman, I know why the Blackmagic codec doesn't support YUY2 - it pumps out its 8-bit 4:2:2 output in the UYVY pixel format instead. Performance of the MJPEG codec is a lot faster then fed this directly. However, quality is stil pretty rough up against CineForm.

Another thing I have observed seems to be a total lack of keyframes in the AVI files. You can't scan through them as you would a CineForm or uncompressed AVI - if I skip ahead through the AVI to the end, I have to wait a long, long time for it to process all of the frames and then finally show the one I want!

It makes it pretty much unusable in my opinion. I'll try some Premiere capture next and see what's what, but I'm standing with my original findings vs CineForm. Interesting as a freebie, but I've been working with HDMI and DVI capture for quite some time on my video games projects and when you're dealing with that level of clarity, you've essentially got a choice between a mathematically lossless codec like Huffyuv, or a hard disk mangling uncompressed capture (best have four drives in RAID-0 for that). Neither is a workable solution.

For me only CineForm works if you want to maximise your return from the lossless input, while still having a well-compressed file.

Richard,

Thank greatly for your post.

I'm keen to have a set-up myself that will be capable of capturing gaming style things in HD (think Gran Tourismo HD or GT5). Hope its ok i'd love to pick your brain about this stuff? :)

Is it possible to capture using the Intensity card, from the HDMI output of a PS3?

Considering i've got a Dell 2405 24" LCD that is not capable of HDCP i can't use the HDMI output. I've heard the Intensity card conforms to HDCP connect and thus wont capture from such sources. Is this the case here... am i completely out of luck from digitizing replays and gaming footage via this method from the PS3?

Also, you mention HuffYUV. I used to use that codec in my analog capping days. Does it handle HD resolutions ok? I may use it as spending big on Connect (or which ever one i'll need) won't be something i'm willing to do just for a hobby atm.

How do you go about such a thing? What consoles do you capture from? Hope you don't mind me posting these queries here.


Regards,
Daymon

A retail PlayStation3 is out of the question for HDMI capture, unfortunately due to HDCP issues. Xena HLe or Decklink HD would work for analogue component up to 1080i. Both are good value (HLe especially in the Prospect combo offer CineForm has). Obviously quality won't be as good as HDMI, but I should point out that Xena HLe has been approved by Microsoft for component capture for video projects aimed at Xbox Live and for event usage (E3) and their standards are very, very high.

For the purposes of this test, I captured at 24-bit RGB in the mathematically lossless Huffyuv codec using our own hardware configuration (not Intensity which only gives you YPrPb 4:2:2 no matter what input you feed it) then 'dubbed' into the CineForm and Blackmagic codecs. PS3 development hardware has no Blu-ray playback, so Sony is able to supply an HDCP free option.

With regards Huffyuv, this was the codec I was using before I 'discovered' CineForm, and before we integrated CineForm with our own hardware solution. It can handle 720p/60 capture from YPrPb 4:2:2 (YUY2) sources on any 3.0GHz+ Pentium 4 though it struggles badly with 24-bit RGB. File sizes are colossal though, requiring RAID-0. We gained some efficiency by adjusting the way it compresses progressive content and also put some threading into it, but until we start to capture 1080p/60 we have no idea how successful that is because it's already so damn fast. By that point we would hope to be using the CineForm 4:4:4 codec any way, just as the current CineForm codec has effectively wiped out the need for Huffyuv when capturing YUY2.

The discussion is kind of moot in that out of the box, you can't capture into Huffyuv with Intensity, even if you could capture PS3 in the first place. As I said in my last post, Intensity outputs its 8-bit 4:2:2 output in the UYVY pixel format instead of YUY2, so only Blackmagic's own codecs work with it. That being the case, CineForm's HDLink tool becomes the best option.

By the way, the development PS3 sans HDCP looks beautiful on the 2405FPW, I have one myself. Maybe you could sell off your 2405FPW and get an HDCP-compatible 2407WFP. I understand that A04 revision onwards of this panel is excellent.

Richard,

Thanks for your response. Hmm well that makes my decision difficult. Was really hoping to be able to capture PS3 output via HDMI. I may update my 2405 to a 2707 or the Samsung 27" when its out. That will solve one problem of HDCP from PS3 (and any other device i get should i want to hook it up to that monitor). I heard some talk about a component > HDMI adaptor. This *might* do me for capturing from the PS3. But i'll have to look into them and see if they are any good etc.

Cheers

I'm trying to figure out exactly what you're saying on the output of the Black Magic Intensity. My interest in the card would be to capture full 1920x1080 4:2:2 video from a smaller camcorder like the Canon HV20.

If the Black Magic codec has more artefacting than Cineform, it's worthless unless it's significantly better than HDV and DVCPRO-HD... is it? Cineform's wavelet codec has an advantage over the MJPEG users, since it won't show DCT compression artefacts. That doesn't mean there isn't some image softening going on, but it's much harder to detect.

I guess my question is this:
Is it possible to capture uncompressed 1920x1080 4:2:2 with the card and record it to a RAID 0 array? Once this is accomplished, is it possible to convert the files to another codec such as Cineform via an application like After Effects or HDlink?

-Steve

You would need a very fast RAID-0 array for that, but yes it is possible as Blackmagic supply their own uncompressed codec.

Why you would want to do this when you are going to convert to CineForm though is a mystery. Why not use HDLink and capture directly into CFHD?

Now that I realize I can do that with AspectHD it's golden.

The only problem is that without an upgrade to Prospect, I'm stuck with 1440x1080 as opposed the full-raster 1920 that's coming out of an HDMI port. Particularly since the Intensity is sampling it out at 1920x1080 4:2:2.

I'm still curious though - how does the BlackMagic codec compare to DVCPRO-HD and HDV?

-Steve

Hopefully Richard will jump on the the MJPEG codec quality, but here is his original observations http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showpost.php?p=638156&postcount=1
MJPEG can't stand up against wavelet, it might do OK against HDV and slightly worse against DVCPRO-HD as far as compression artifacts (although DVCPRO-HD will sub-sample to 1280x1080.)

Note: Aspect HD v5 will be getting a codec upgrade from the Prospect HD engine. All the codec will now be running the same core, which is a win for more quality across the board. Aspect HD v5 is still 1440x1080 8-bit I/O, yet the internals are getting an upgrade which will improve quality.

I don't use HDV at all in my workflow so can't comment on that. I've a little experience with DVCPRO-HD (enough to remind me of all the advantages of CineForm!) and Blackmagic's MJPEG codec might offer increased resolution but the artefacts are more easily noticeable IMHO. For non-challenging content, I'm sure MJPEG will suffice. However, I just can't reconcile getting a pristine digital input and then degrading it for no good reason when CineForm retains practically everything.

At the risk of sounding like a CineForm cheerleader, the offer to upgrade to Prospect for $400 is excellent. I'm sure David will correct me if I'm wrong, but not only will you get 1920x1080 capture options, you'll also get 10-bit upconverting which will yield bonuses in post. There's a huge quality advantage we're getting with HDMI, and any software that maximises that should be jumped upon IMO :)

Oh Richard, thou art so forgiven. I too could be accused of being a Cineform cheerleader on more than one occasion. As an acquisition, intermediate and mastering codec, Cineform is like a dream come true. I've been a fanboy since AspectHD 3.2 (actually, you can still find my unsolicited praise on the Cineform site).

Until the consumer camcorders use those extra 2 bits on the HDMI, the 10-bit support in Prospect will be overkill for a consumer such as myself. However I'm already familiar with the benefits of HDR compositing - and I'm longing for the day when all compositing and colour correction is done in 32-bit float in linear colour spaces.

I wish the consumer camcorder market would abandon HDV, AVC-HD, and DVCPRO-HD in favour of Cineform to flash workflows. Maybe with all the quick solid state drives coming out this will happen in a couple of years. Just yesterday I saw a 16 GB USB 2 flash drive. The write speed on that one was too slow, but there are 4 GB drives with write speeds of up to 20 MB/s that should be enough.

My curiosity here is bypassing the HDV compression and going directly to Cineform - and obviously that's possible. When BlackMagic makes an ExpressCard version of the Intensity, I'll be sailing.

-Steve

When BlackMagic makes an ExpressCard version of the Intensity, I'll be sailing. -Steve

Yes, we want that Express Card version too.... Anybody listening at Blackmagic?

When BlackMagic makes an ExpressCard version of the Intensity...


Ahh, that would be A DAY!!!!

Can I confirm if you used virtualdub as a frontend to record from the BM Intensity card in your setup ?

Hi there,

Much has been made of the free Blackmagic MJPEG codec bundled with the Intensity, so I thought I would give it a go.

I linked up our somewhat specialised video games HD capture hardware with the Blackmagic 8-bit MJPEG VFW codec today in order to compare it against CineForm. It may be an unfair test as our capture software can address the CineForm DirectShow encoder directly and I am unsure whether the BMD codec has a DirectShow version of its encoder, and if it does, how much of an improvement it is. Notes though:

1. The VFW codec wouldn't accept a YUV 4:2:2 input, I had to feed it 24-bit RGB (CineForm will accept both but flies with YUV 4:2:2)
2. A Pentium 4 3.0GHz CPU with HT really struggled to achieve 30fps capture at 720p without dropping frames. Fed YUV 4:2:2, CineForm has no problems on this CPU
3. The codec does appear to be multi-threaded so should do much much better on a strong Core 2 platform

Picture quality then: well, putting uncompressed YUV 4:2:2 next to CineForm, I have to use zoom in Photoshop on a specific still to spot any differences. And even then half the time I'm not sure if I am actually seeing any difference! In motion it definitely lives up to its 'visually perfect' billing.

Blackmagic MJPEG has typical JPEG artefacting, especially around lettering (the usual pixel fuzziness around lettering, for example). On fine detail it's really not that good either while CineForm is practically flawless.

Filesizes then, and here's a real surprise.

One minute of 'not that challenging' video games 720p/30 footage, captured at 24-bit RGB and compressed on the fly with the mathematically lossless Huffyuv codec was dubbed into various codecs by VirtualDub. Results are:

Huffyuv: 2.23GB (double that for completely uncompressed)
CineForm HD (Low Quality Setting/Progressive): 462MB
CineForm HD (Medium Quality Setting/Progressive): 590MB
CineForm HD (High Quality Setting/Progressive): 757MB
Blackmagic MJPEG (there are no quality settings): 513MB

I was under the impression that the bandwidth used by the MJPEG compressor was lower than CineForm, and it is on all but the lowest quality setting - but not by an appreciably useful margin. Certainly not considering the gulf in quality. I think this is a fair like-for-like test too as (and I might be wrong) the CFHD VFW codec as used by VirtualDub only operates in the 8-bit domain, just like the MJPEG one.

I should also point out that the 462MB 'low' quality CineForm HD file still looked considerably better than the MJPEG in lack of artifacting, retention of key detail etc. It's also worth mentioning that video games capture is characterised by an infinite depth of field, sharper edges - all the stuff that makes compression difficult and artifacting easier to spot.

So in every appreciable way (aside from cost), CineForm HD significantly (if not massively) out-performs the MJPEG codec based on my experience.

Yes. But I've not used the codec since it was launched with the Intensity. Are you aware of whether it's been upgraded at all? For example, a selectable quality level/bitrate?

They have had updates but no selectable quality as far as I know. A poster on another forum used virtual dub to record with it, and apparently used huffyuv. If huffyuv can, then another JPEG codec can also be used..
I am waiting for a response from the poster..

If either VirtualDub or the codec has been patched to "translate" the Intensity's pixel format identifier into standard YUY2, then yes, Huffyuv or just about any other codec will work. I'm fairly sure that CineForm will work any way.

Is there a particular usage you're looking for?

I wanted to play with 3D. I have a sync comparator to check signal drift, and 2 mini-ITX mounted PCs and a battery..
Cineform would be too expensive for the 2x licenses. Now that I think about Huffy does have an option to record YUV, so does Lagarith. And possibly Morgan MJPEG..

Lagarith gives about 2x compression at the minimum. So I can use 2x CF cards in RAID to record at the 60 mbps rate to get 2x uncompressed streams..

For Lagarith, the low power Atoms would work as well.

Nonesense about the too expensive part. :) CineForm is fast enough that 3D encoding (dual stream) can be encoded on one PC, no need for two licenses. Your data rate is significantly smaller, plus if is you ever get a budgetted project, CineForm has Neo 3D for an online stereo post workflow.

I am not aware of an application that allows for recording 2 HDMI streams at the same time. If you do know of one, do let me know..
Blackmagic can monitor 2 streams but can record only one..
As far as I am aware the HDLink cineform utility also can record only 1 HDMI stream at once..

I am talking of a realtime recording workflow not a post workflow..

Nonesense about the too expensive part. :) CineForm is fast enough that 3D encoding (dual stream) can be encoded on one PC, no need for two licenses. Your data rate is significantly smaller, plus if is you ever get a budgetted project, CineForm has Neo 3D for an online stereo post workflow.

We have a bunch of third parties doing it. The higher-end AJA and BM cards support multiple inputs (or multiple cards,) both support DirectShow, so you can build you own capture graph hooking to the CineForm DirectShow Encoder2. We have one third party capture four 1080p CineForm streams on one PC. So if you prepared to do some experimenting, it works.

Hi David,

Would you mind giving specifics ?
I know the higher end cards have multiple inputs. Multiple realtime 1080p recording ATM is not supported as per my knowledge..

Which third party encoder were you referring to ?

We have a bunch of third parties doing it. The higher-end AJA and BM cards support multiple inputs (or multiple cards,) both support DirectShow, so you can build you own capture graph hooking to the CineForm DirectShow Encoder2. We have one third party capture four 1080p CineForm streams on one PC. So if you prepared to do some experimenting, it works.

I wanted to play with 3D. I have a sync comparator to check signal drift, and 2 mini-ITX mounted PCs and a battery..
Cineform would be too expensive for the 2x licenses. Now that I think about Huffy does have an option to record YUV, so does Lagarith. And possibly Morgan MJPEG..

Lagarith gives about 2x compression at the minimum. So I can use 2x CF cards in RAID to record at the 60 mbps rate to get 2x uncompressed streams..

For Lagarith, the low power Atoms would work as well.

Lagarith is way too slow for your application intended application. My old QX6850 based system could get around 20fps average with it at 1080p. CPU load changes dramatically according to the complexity of the scene.

If you want to stick with your mITX systems, check out the various modes of the AMV codec. It is stupidly fast and $10 a license won't break the bank: This is English page (http://amamaman.hp.infoseek.co.jp/english/amv2_e.html)

Unlike Lagarith, its threading actually works properly!

It's a great codec, if not in the same league as CineForm in lossy modes.

Hi David,

Would you mind giving specifics ?
I know the higher end cards have multiple inputs. Multiple realtime 1080p recording ATM is not supported as per my knowledge..

Which third party encoder were you referring to ?

Well, the hardware I use and sell for video games HD capture can easily handle twin 1080i streams, but as it's DVI based, your HDMI streams would be losing their audio.

Thanks for the link.. I will try it out..
I had looked into capture cards earlier..There are dual DVI capture cards but as far as I know, their pricing is north of 1K.
But thats a good point, I will look into dual-DVI capture cards as well.


If you want to stick with your mITX systems, check out the various modes of the AMV codec. It is stupidly fast and $10 a license won't break the bank: This is English page (http://amamaman.hp.infoseek.co.jp/english/amv2_e.html)


Well, the hardware I use and sell for video games HD capture can easily handle twin 1080i streams, but as it's DVI based, your HDMI streams would be losing their audio.

Hi Richard. Huffyuv and Intensity have been used for capture using virtualdub. Huffyuv was patched to support HDYC.
See this thread..
Unofficial VirtualDub Support Forums -> Optimizing A High Data Rate, 720p Capture (http://forums.virtualdub.org/index.php?act=ST&f=6&t=16116&st=0)

I could not get any contact for Amaman - the AMV3 developer. Would you mind contacting him to see if he/she could add support for HDYC so it could be used instead of Huffyuv ?
And preferably 64-bit support as well..

Thanks!
If either VirtualDub or the codec has been patched to "translate" the Intensity's pixel format identifier into standard YUY2, then yes, Huffyuv or just about any other codec will work. I'm fairly sure that CineForm will work any way.

Is there a particular usage you're looking for?

AMV already works with HDYC - in fact, I tested it for the developer since he does not own an Intensity.

Wow, so I can use virtualdub and AMV for capture from an Intensity card ? Any idea if this setup works for a 64-bit system and if there is any performance improvement ?
Thanks!
AMV already works with HDYC - in fact, I tested it for the developer since he does not own an Intensity.

There is no 64-bit version, but 32-bit VirtualDub and 32-bit AMV work just fine in x64.

On the comparison page, the compression listed for AMV3 and the other variant seemed to be less than that listed for huffyuv. In your experience, is the compression rate less or more than huffy ?

There is no 64-bit version, but 32-bit VirtualDub and 32-bit AMV work just fine in x64.

Richard, Would it be possible to contact him again to possibly get 64-bit support since you have worked with him in the past? I recently just upgraded to 64-bit and having problems with the codec in Vegas Pro 64-bit. I know it will work in 32-bit but it'd be nice in 64-bit. :) Thanks in advance if you can.

On the comparison page, the compression listed for AMV3 and the other variant seemed to be less than that listed for huffyuv. In your experience, is the compression rate less or more than huffy ?

There are many different variants of Huffyuv - predict left, gradient, median etc - generally speaking you should get better efficiency as it uses prediction techniques based on more than one frame, whereas with Huffyuv every frame is a key frame.

However, I have noticed that the UT Codec Suite - which is to all intents and purposes a highly optimised, multi-core variant of Huffyuv - can sometimes get better efficiencies (but mostly it is a lot worse). It seems to me that you should unearth some of your archive clips and run them through all the compressors to see what's what.

Huffyuv really has had its day now. If you want a true multi-core version, UT Codec Suite is what you want. AMV is faster and better though with tons more options.

Richard, Would it be possible to contact him again to possibly get 64-bit support since you have worked with him in the past? I recently just upgraded to 64-bit and having problems with the codec in Vegas Pro 64-bit. I know it will work in 32-bit but it'd be nice in 64-bit. :) Thanks in advance if you can.

Maybe you can tell me more about the problems before I contact the author. He doesn't speak English so I need to be quite precise if Google translations are to be trusted!

Maybe you can tell me more about the problems before I contact the author. He doesn't speak English so I need to be quite precise if Google translations are to be trusted!
Under my prior system setup I had no problem working with AMV3. Since I just upgraded from Windows XP 32bit to 7 64bit among all the new hardware, Core i7 860 and so forth.

I can still use the codec in some applications as they are still 32bit apps, mainly capturing except I do have Intensity Pro issues with audio but that's something I hope to work out with Blackmagic, if can.

But if I try to load previous or new captures in Vegas 64bit the codec is unreadable, same goes with VLC because they are 64bit. I was just wondering if it were at all possible for him to add that little 64bit that is needed? If it is little and not too much a pain to be done. For such a great codec at little cost, I would even pay an upgrade fee if it would take him that much more work to make it compatible.

I'll write an email.

AMV3 is 4:2:0 but I'm sure you know that... for 4:2:2, RGB and 4:4:4 you need to be using AMV2 MT...

I'll write an email.

AMV3 is 4:2:0 but I'm sure you know that... for 4:2:2, RGB and 4:4:4 you need to be using AMV2 MT...
Yea, I know that but I see no difference, drop of frames or anything while capturing with the AMV3 codec versus AMV2. The only difference I get is barely a much bigger file than AMV2 would produce (around 25MB bigger)

I have read others have no problems nor see a difference while capturing in this as well using the Intensity Pro as to why I decided to use it and enjoyed it. I am already saving so much space on my RAID with this lovely loseless codec then before which was uncompressed.

I capture through my Xbox 360 so not sure if that would be why I am not seeing a problem versus say many other intended uses for the Intensity Pro and such. While I understand a lot, I do not understand everything so if there is more reason for my setup to be using AMV2 MT over AMV3, please do tell as I am interested to hear it in case I really am using a bad setup here and I just may of never noticed it.

Thank you though for writing an e-mail. Very much appreciated.

Yes Huffy is quite old - thats true. I wonder if you could estimate a minimum system requirement for recording 1080P. I saw the benchmarks with a Celeron 420. I will use a flash SSD so the disk latency is not a bottleneck.
Thanks!

The developer said he will give 64-bit support a shot, but it's his first attempt so please be patient

Anmol: you will need to try it with your own material because it will vary. The shareware version is fully functional aside from the watermark. Just download, install, and convert some AVIs using VirtualDub and see what you get.

The AMV codec developer has written a new tool called ProxyCodec that allows you to run 32-bit compressors in a 64-bit environment:

http://amamaman.hp.infoseek.co.jp/english/proxycodec.htm
http://amamaman.hp.infoseek.co.jp/english/download/setup_proxy_codec_100en.exe

Here's a new AMV that works in Windows 7...

http://amamaman.hp.infoseek.co.jp/english/download/setup_amv300g_en.exe

I'll write an email.

AMV3 is 4:2:0 but I'm sure you know that... for 4:2:2, RGB and 4:4:4 you need to be using AMV2 MT...

Hi Richard! I am finally able to test AMV2 MT. Is there a list of settings I should try ?

I do not see HDYC as the input. Or UYVY.
The lossless compression options are R1, R2, Y1, Y2. But inputs are only YUY2 and RGB. Outputs are only RGB, and possible YUY2.

If I understand this, the codec will convert HDYC to YUY2 and then again to RGB. Does this make sense ?

Hi Richard. I must have read this thread dozens of times. Just noticed something that I should have notice years ago.
You recorded in huffy and vd in 2007..Almost 3 years ago.. Did you use the mt version or the regular version from virtualdub.org ?

My impression was that huffy hdyc support only came in this fork of huffy..
http://members.optusnet.com.au/squid_80/huffyuv-HDYC.zip

I thought the regular huffy build did not support hdyc..
Also, I wonder if you saw a color shift problem with huffy. This gent recorded color bars and the green seemed to be shifted..

Capture Pics (http://www.etfinder.net/capturepics/)

I am going to record color bars tonight and post the footage so we can test for this shift..

Hi there,

Much has been made of the free Blackmagic MJPEG codec bundled with the Intensity, so I thought I would give it a go.

I linked up our somewhat specialised video games HD capture hardware with the Blackmagic 8-bit MJPEG VFW codec today in order to compare it against CineForm. It may be an unfair test as our capture software can address the CineForm DirectShow encoder directly and I am unsure whether the BMD codec has a DirectShow version of its encoder, and if it does, how much of an improvement it is. Notes though:

1. The VFW codec wouldn't accept a YUV 4:2:2 input, I had to feed it 24-bit RGB (CineForm will accept both but flies with YUV 4:2:2)
2. A Pentium 4 3.0GHz CPU with HT really struggled to achieve 30fps capture at 720p without dropping frames. Fed YUV 4:2:2, CineForm has no problems on this CPU
3. The codec does appear to be multi-threaded so should do much much better on a strong Core 2 platform

Picture quality then: well, putting uncompressed YUV 4:2:2 next to CineForm, I have to use zoom in Photoshop on a specific still to spot any differences. And even then half the time I'm not sure if I am actually seeing any difference! In motion it definitely lives up to its 'visually perfect' billing.

Blackmagic MJPEG has typical JPEG artefacting, especially around lettering (the usual pixel fuzziness around lettering, for example). On fine detail it's really not that good either while CineForm is practically flawless.

Filesizes then, and here's a real surprise.

One minute of 'not that challenging' video games 720p/30 footage, captured at 24-bit RGB and compressed on the fly with the mathematically lossless Huffyuv codec was dubbed into various codecs by VirtualDub. Results are:

Huffyuv: 2.23GB (double that for completely uncompressed)
CineForm HD (Low Quality Setting/Progressive): 462MB
CineForm HD (Medium Quality Setting/Progressive): 590MB
CineForm HD (High Quality Setting/Progressive): 757MB
Blackmagic MJPEG (there are no quality settings): 513MB

I was under the impression that the bandwidth used by the MJPEG compressor was lower than CineForm, and it is on all but the lowest quality setting - but not by an appreciably useful margin. Certainly not considering the gulf in quality. I think this is a fair like-for-like test too as (and I might be wrong) the CFHD VFW codec as used by VirtualDub only operates in the 8-bit domain, just like the MJPEG one.

I should also point out that the 462MB 'low' quality CineForm HD file still looked considerably better than the MJPEG in lack of artifacting, retention of key detail etc. It's also worth mentioning that video games capture is characterised by an infinite depth of field, sharper edges - all the stuff that makes compression difficult and artifacting easier to spot.

So in every appreciable way (aside from cost), CineForm HD significantly (if not massively) out-performs the MJPEG codec based on my experience.

Cineform is a wavelet codec. There are many out there including Dirac (used by the BBC), RedCode, and the Morgan Multimedia Jpeg2000 implementation I currently use. It is 8-bit but is accessible by VfW and I can replicate Cineform's performance with it.

MJpeg should be deprecated honestly.

Hi Perrone. The problem is that we have a choice of intermediate codecs but very few acquisition hd codecs..

There is MJPEG, uncompressed -120 MBps, huffyuv compressed lossless..
Huffy derivatives like AMV..
And thats it, without shelling out for a Matrox..
MJPEG is still better than HDV..So a mini-itx box, will cost about 300-400 cost with an intensity and a touchscreen monitor with batteries..At total of 500 and we can acquire better than hdv..

I want to see what the next step up is - there are some colorspace issues with huffyuv and possibly with amv.

For cineform I am essentially doubling my acquisition cost (did it already and have a NeoHD license). However, I cannot do this with multiple cameras, or a 3s stereo rig..

Hence I am looking for options..

Dirac and MJ2K do not allow for realtime capture

We did a test posted at vimeo
Comparison of Blackmagic MJPEG and Huffyv colorspace on Vimeo
We played out a SMPTE color bar from a 5d Mark II. It was ingested with a BM Intensity card using Virtualdub. There were 2 files, a special Huffyuv build for HDYC and the default BM MJPEG. As you scroll through the video it can be seen that the colorspace changes when Huffyuv records. This is a confirmation of the problem first noticed at
etfinder.net/capturepics/

Will post AMV comparisons later..

Anmol,

NeoHD allows for two activations, so we are not doubling your acquisition cost. While we aren't a free solution, we are one of the best for acquisition, striving for lower cost will be at the expense of quality. If you are looking to build an acquisition product, that you are going to sell on to others, you need consider OEM prices, just like many others who have select CineForm as their primarily acquisition format.

Hi David. I sent an inquiry about the 2 activations on another forum. I did not get a reply.
The software does not allow a second activation on its own until the 1 is deactivated.

I am not looking to make a OEM product, but I am concerned about being tied down to an expensive proprietary technology.

It was also a surprise when NeoHD v3 was discontinued in terms of development.

I can actually afford a second license, but I really do not think its fair to buy another one.

I am aware that NeoHD is the best acquisition option at this time.

Hi David. I opened a support ticket #611-8307416. Lets see how the request for a second activation goes..

Unless you are used it already, the license server is typical set for two activation per serial. You might just want to try it.

Hi David. I definitely have 1 activation (for NeoHD). I got this message when I tried to activate on my capture box..I wont post the serial and other personal details at the bottom but I can PM you with those details if you like..

>>>
Dear ANMOL MISHRA,

This serial number has already been activated. If you wish to transfer your CineForm software to another PC, you will need to deactivate your existing installation first and provide to us the deactivation code that is generated.

To deactivate your previous installation of CineForm software:
1) To deactivate your installation, your CineForm software must be installed. If you have uninstalled it, you must reinstall it in order to deactivate it.
2) Click the Start Button
3) Click on 'All Programs'
4) Click on 'CineForm'
5) Click on the folder that corresponds to your product
6) Click 'Activate'
7) Be prepared to write down your deactivation code. Click 'Deactivate'.
8) You will be prompted to confirm that you wish to deactivate. When you confirm deactivation WRITE DOWN the deactivation code. It is also recommended to take a screenshot of the deactivation code as well for your own records.
9) Visit Deactivate.aspx (http://estore.cineform.com/deactivate.aspx) and fill out the form with the appropriate information.

Best Regards,

CineForm Support

-----------------------------
SUBJECT: Activate Submitted
CONTENT:text/plain; charset=us-ascii

Not an issue, then support will help you.