is it even worth using? at DVinfo.net

Paul Mailath · September 28th, 2009, 07:41 PM

I've just dumped the tapes from the last wedding into CS4 and didn't use HDlink - without the RT engine is there really any point in using cineform?

Graham Hickling · September 28th, 2009, 11:46 PM

Cineform products provide various kinds of functionality - explained on their site, in the sticky at the top of this forum, and in various previous answers to previous posts similar to yours. Reduced hardware requirements for editing (still relevant for laptops), high quality 10-bit intermediates, First Light, all the HDLink functionality (resizing, pulldown, framerate, etc) ... plus the realtime stuff for CS3 ... plus other things I've likely forgotten.

If you don't need any of those things then no, you dont need it.

Paul Mailath · September 29th, 2009, 04:24 PM

I appreciate the advantages and certainly purchased cineform when I was using CS3 but having moved over to CS4 I'm losing interest in continually installing beta versions that don't have full functionality.

Hence my comment that I didn't use HDlink for my last wedding.

Robert Young · September 29th, 2009, 06:08 PM

I believe that the RT function really just relates to previewing the timeline.
When PHD v 4.0 was first released, the preview imagery with CS4 was not good (on my system, anyway).
With the more recent releases, I'm not noticing any real problem with previewing, thus I'm not really missing the RT engine.
To use CF DI vs. edit in the native acquisition format really just comes down to weighing the advantages of a lossless 10 bit avi, and if that has value to you relative to the type of editing you are doing, and the requirements of the final delivery format.
I think it's good news- we've got lots of choices to tailor the workflow to the needs of the project.

Marty Baggen · September 30th, 2009, 05:12 AM

In my opinion, it's unfortunate that the argument has become, "do we need Cineform".

In my mind it's "why do we put up with Adobe"? The answer for many is that, in spite of the technical roadblocks from Adobe, Cineform still manages to carry the clunker known as CS4 on its shoulders.... and that's without the benefit of its RT engine, etc.

All things aside, and based strictly upon the question of do you "need" Cineform.... First Light alone is worth the money, and the improvements hinted at for that program are very exciting.

Greg Kubitschek · September 30th, 2009, 07:51 AM

Aobe would be great - if the thing worked like it was supposed to. I know there is a lot of coding and information handling going on behind the surface, but if Premiere Pro CS4 functioned like Photoshop has for years, it would be a top notch program.

I use First light all the time now, with output through my Intensity card to a decent monitor. It works REALLY well. When I first was looking at Cineform Aspect HD a couple of years ago, the HDV was absoulutely great. No one natively could compare to it for quality. This still stands today. I am sorry for the problems David and others have faced dealing with Premiere. I know they'll get it ironed out in the end, but it takes time. It is always a question of quality and you "get what you pay for" either through money, time patience or all three. My projects are worth having the CIneform tools work for me.

Despite Adobe's size, I've always wondered why they don't listen to the hundreds of copmplaints all over various sites concerning the issues CS-4 has and take some real action to get them corrected.

Rock-on Cineform!

Simon Zimmer · September 30th, 2009, 01:53 PM

I love cineform as a codec for After Effects CS3.

Once you create a cineform avi in AE, you can just put it on a timeline in PPCS3 and no rendering at all no matter how complex the animation was you created in AECS3.

I LOVE THAT!!!!!!!!

Simon

Stephen Armour · September 30th, 2009, 02:21 PM

In a multi-codec, fast-changing electronic world, having a high quality intermediate codec that is flexible to handle most of what comes it's way, is very close to "lossless" in perceived final output, and delivers a final product (after multi-generational, multi-edit paths) that is usually good enough for near-cinema projection and multi output targeting...and all that using standard workstations...is really no small feat!

No other codec I know of can deliver all that today...in spite of CS4 and other editor problems (and they all have them).

If those things are not important to some particular workflows, then of course it's logical to move on to what is.

That still is not true for most of the independent producers sticking it out with Cineform. The cost/benefit for us is still extremely high in many ways and seems to be for the foreseeable future.

September 28th, 2009, 07:41 PM	#1
Paul Mailath Trustee Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: Central Coast - NSW, Australia Posts: 1,606	is it even worth using? I've just dumped the tapes from the last wedding into CS4 and didn't use HDlink - without the RT engine is there really any point in using cineform? __________________ Cheers - Paul M. www.perbenyik.com

September 29th, 2009, 04:24 PM	#3
Paul Mailath Trustee Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: Central Coast - NSW, Australia Posts: 1,606	I appreciate the advantages and certainly purchased cineform when I was using CS3 but having moved over to CS4 I'm losing interest in continually installing beta versions that don't have full functionality. Hence my comment that I didn't use HDlink for my last wedding. __________________ Cheers - Paul M. www.perbenyik.com

September 29th, 2009, 06:08 PM	#4
Robert Young Trustee Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: Coronado Island Posts: 1,472	I believe that the RT function really just relates to previewing the timeline. When PHD v 4.0 was first released, the preview imagery with CS4 was not good (on my system, anyway). With the more recent releases, I'm not noticing any real problem with previewing, thus I'm not really missing the RT engine. To use CF DI vs. edit in the native acquisition format really just comes down to weighing the advantages of a lossless 10 bit avi, and if that has value to you relative to the type of editing you are doing, and the requirements of the final delivery format. I think it's good news- we've got lots of choices to tailor the workflow to the needs of the project. __________________ Bob

September 30th, 2009, 07:51 AM	#6
Greg Kubitschek Regular Crew Join Date: Dec 2008 Location: Lincoln, Nebraska Posts: 34	I second Marty's and others assertion! Aobe would be great - if the thing worked like it was supposed to. I know there is a lot of coding and information handling going on behind the surface, but if Premiere Pro CS4 functioned like Photoshop has for years, it would be a top notch program. I use First light all the time now, with output through my Intensity card to a decent monitor. It works REALLY well. When I first was looking at Cineform Aspect HD a couple of years ago, the HDV was absoulutely great. No one natively could compare to it for quality. This still stands today. I am sorry for the problems David and others have faced dealing with Premiere. I know they'll get it ironed out in the end, but it takes time. It is always a question of quality and you "get what you pay for" either through money, time patience or all three. My projects are worth having the CIneform tools work for me. Despite Adobe's size, I've always wondered why they don't listen to the hundreds of copmplaints all over various sites concerning the issues CS-4 has and take some real action to get them corrected. Rock-on Cineform!

September 30th, 2009, 01:53 PM	#7
Simon Zimmer Major Player Join Date: May 2008 Location: Easton, Maryland Posts: 497	After Effects I love cineform as a codec for After Effects CS3. Once you create a cineform avi in AE, you can just put it on a timeline in PPCS3 and no rendering at all no matter how complex the animation was you created in AECS3. I LOVE THAT!!!!!!!! Simon

September 28th, 2009, 11:46 PM	#2
Graham Hickling Trustee Join Date: May 2004 Location: Knoxville, Tennessee Posts: 1,669	Cineform products provide various kinds of functionality - explained on their site, in the sticky at the top of this forum, and in various previous answers to previous posts similar to yours. Reduced hardware requirements for editing (still relevant for laptops), high quality 10-bit intermediates, First Light, all the HDLink functionality (resizing, pulldown, framerate, etc) ... plus the realtime stuff for CS3 ... plus other things I've likely forgotten. If you don't need any of those things then no, you dont need it.

September 30th, 2009, 05:12 AM	#5
Marty Baggen Major Player Join Date: May 2005 Location: monroe, or Posts: 572	In my opinion, it's unfortunate that the argument has become, "do we need Cineform". In my mind it's "why do we put up with Adobe"? The answer for many is that, in spite of the technical roadblocks from Adobe, Cineform still manages to carry the clunker known as CS4 on its shoulders.... and that's without the benefit of its RT engine, etc. All things aside, and based strictly upon the question of do you "need" Cineform.... First Light alone is worth the money, and the improvements hinted at for that program are very exciting.

September 30th, 2009, 02:21 PM	#8
Stephen Armour Major Player Join Date: Dec 2005 Location: Natal, RN, Brasil Posts: 900	In a multi-codec, fast-changing electronic world, having a high quality intermediate codec that is flexible to handle most of what comes it's way, is very close to "lossless" in perceived final output, and delivers a final product (after multi-generational, multi-edit paths) that is usually good enough for near-cinema projection and multi output targeting...and all that using standard workstations...is really no small feat! No other codec I know of can deliver all that today...in spite of CS4 and other editor problems (and they all have them). If those things are not important to some particular workflows, then of course it's logical to move on to what is. That still is not true for most of the independent producers sticking it out with Cineform. The cost/benefit for us is still extremely high in many ways and seems to be for the foreseeable future. __________________ http://lightinaction.org "All in the view of the LION"