PremierePro Main Concept codec vs Canopus and AVI1 vs AVI2 at DVinfo.net

Pete Bauer · November 22nd, 2003, 02:55 PM

After a year of lurking this outstanding site, here’s my first post. Thanks in advance to any technically knowledgeable folks who can answer these two questions that extensive searches haven’t quite clarified.

BACKGROUND: I’m a novice with a WinXP 3GHz P4 with 1GB DDR and tons of hard disk space. So hardware real-time isn’t important to me; I just want high quality exports for my time and effort…After all, DV has enough artifacts as it is so don’t want to add more with poor rendering! Thus far my projects have just had simple transitions and some color correction etc, but eventually I’d like to try my hand at more advanced stuff like green screen.

I’ve previously used a DVRaptor + Premiere, but recently bought Adobe Video Collection, of course not knowing that Canopus would not be supporting the ol’ DVRaptor under PremierePro.

The good members here seem to agree that the Canopus codec is far superior to M$’s. But since PremierePro uses the Main Concept DV codec internally (although apparently giving files an MS-DV wrapper when it exports them), I’d rather not spend a large additional amount to buy another Canopus card just to get the codec for rendering.

QUESTION 1: Would rendering within PremierePro (one or two generations, not 25 or 50 times as in some web tests!) -- which I presume is done on 5:1 compressed DV using the Main Concept codec at 4:1:1 -- be noticeably inferior to Storm2’s uncompressed 4:2:2 processing?

QUESTION 2: If I decide to NOT use Canopus any more, I’ll want to convert a large number of original clips intended to be permanent archives from the Canopus codec to MS, using Canopus’ utility. Would you agree that it is best to convert them to MS AVI Type 2 files, rather than Type 1?

Looking forward to your reading your wisdom!

Rob Lohman · November 24th, 2003, 10:33 AM

Disclaimer: I know nothing about Premiere Pro

Are you sure it is using the MC codec? If so, just stick with that.
Let me explain to you what happens when a program "exports"
it as a different DV (!) codec. Almost nothing. It changes a codec
identifier in the header of the resulting AVI file. The video/audio
INSIDE the file IS NOT change in anyway.

Basically this identifier tells the playback system which codec
to use.

If it is using the Main Concept codec then it is also exporting
with this codec. What it does is NOT write the Main Concept
identifier BUT the MICROSOFT one (MSDV). Why? Because that
makes sure every system can play it back and read the resulting
file.

If the quality looks good enough for you, don't sweat and stick
with that. There are far more important things then which
codec you are using. Microsofts codec has increased leaps and
bounds in quality in later versions (like XP) but is still not as good
as the other codecs, though.

As to your other question: it is best to use AVI type 2 if all your
applications (that you use) understand it. Why? Because it
supports files larger then 4 GB (if you are running NTFS file
system) and some other benefits.

Chris Long · November 25th, 2003, 02:29 PM

Just an independant corroboration: Premiere Pro does in fact utilize the Main Concept codec. It seems to do quite a nice job, from my experience (which is somewhat limited)...

Pete Bauer · November 27th, 2003, 05:47 AM

Rob and Chris,

Thanks very much for the replies. I'll convert to Type 2 AVI files.

Agree that unrendered frames would be unaffected. But, I'm not sure I'm clear about how significant the 4:2:2 noncompressed processing of a Storm2 would be for rendered frames (eg green screen compositing) as compared to the compressed 4:1:1 rendering native to PP alone. (without having to spend the $1200+ to get a Storm2+Bay to do the comparison!)

Then again, perhaps the answer is: that's what After Effects is for?

I'm still on the very low end of the learning curve for AE, but many other posts indicate that its green screening and most other effects are superior to Premiere's.

I'm satisfied for now to experiment w/ AE and see how it goes. But, if anyone is willing to do a brain dump on the subject, I'm sure many of us in DV-Land would appreciate the added knowledge.

Whew, there sure is a lot to learn!

Thanks again for the words and Happy Turkey Day to all!

Rob Lohman · December 2nd, 2003, 03:59 PM

I can't help you with those questions. What I do know is that
the green issue and 4:2:2 and 4:1:1 have been discussed
before. Try a search (see link in my signature)!

November 22nd, 2003, 02:55 PM	#1
Pete Bauer Wrangler Join Date: May 2003 Location: Eagle River, AK Posts: 4,100	PremierePro Main Concept codec vs Canopus and AVI1 vs AVI2 After a year of lurking this outstanding site, here’s my first post. Thanks in advance to any technically knowledgeable folks who can answer these two questions that extensive searches haven’t quite clarified. BACKGROUND: I’m a novice with a WinXP 3GHz P4 with 1GB DDR and tons of hard disk space. So hardware real-time isn’t important to me; I just want high quality exports for my time and effort…After all, DV has enough artifacts as it is so don’t want to add more with poor rendering! Thus far my projects have just had simple transitions and some color correction etc, but eventually I’d like to try my hand at more advanced stuff like green screen. I’ve previously used a DVRaptor + Premiere, but recently bought Adobe Video Collection, of course not knowing that Canopus would not be supporting the ol’ DVRaptor under PremierePro. The good members here seem to agree that the Canopus codec is far superior to M$’s. But since PremierePro uses the Main Concept DV codec internally (although apparently giving files an MS-DV wrapper when it exports them), I’d rather not spend a large additional amount to buy another Canopus card just to get the codec for rendering. QUESTION 1: Would rendering within PremierePro (one or two generations, not 25 or 50 times as in some web tests!) -- which I presume is done on 5:1 compressed DV using the Main Concept codec at 4:1:1 -- be noticeably inferior to Storm2’s uncompressed 4:2:2 processing? QUESTION 2: If I decide to NOT use Canopus any more, I’ll want to convert a large number of original clips intended to be permanent archives from the Canopus codec to MS, using Canopus’ utility. Would you agree that it is best to convert them to MS AVI Type 2 files, rather than Type 1? Looking forward to your reading your wisdom! __________________ Pete Bauer The most beautiful thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the source of all true art and science. Albert Einstein Trying to solve a DV mystery? You may find the answer behind the SEARCH function ... or be able to join a discussion already in progress!

November 24th, 2003, 10:33 AM	#2
Rob Lohman RED Code Chef Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: Holland Posts: 12,514	Disclaimer: I know nothing about Premiere Pro Are you sure it is using the MC codec? If so, just stick with that. Let me explain to you what happens when a program "exports" it as a different DV (!) codec. Almost nothing. It changes a codec identifier in the header of the resulting AVI file. The video/audio INSIDE the file IS NOT change in anyway. Basically this identifier tells the playback system which codec to use. If it is using the Main Concept codec then it is also exporting with this codec. What it does is NOT write the Main Concept identifier BUT the MICROSOFT one (MSDV). Why? Because that makes sure every system can play it back and read the resulting file. If the quality looks good enough for you, don't sweat and stick with that. There are far more important things then which codec you are using. Microsofts codec has increased leaps and bounds in quality in later versions (like XP) but is still not as good as the other codecs, though. As to your other question: it is best to use AVI type 2 if all your applications (that you use) understand it. Why? Because it supports files larger then 4 GB (if you are running NTFS file system) and some other benefits. __________________ Rob Lohman, visuar@iname.com DV Info Wrangler & RED Code Chef Join the DV Challenge \| Lady X Search DVinfo.net for quick answers \| Buy from the best: DVinfo.net sponsors

November 27th, 2003, 05:47 AM	#4
Pete Bauer Wrangler Join Date: May 2003 Location: Eagle River, AK Posts: 4,100	Rob and Chris, Thanks very much for the replies. I'll convert to Type 2 AVI files. Agree that unrendered frames would be unaffected. But, I'm not sure I'm clear about how significant the 4:2:2 noncompressed processing of a Storm2 would be for rendered frames (eg green screen compositing) as compared to the compressed 4:1:1 rendering native to PP alone. (without having to spend the $1200+ to get a Storm2+Bay to do the comparison!) Then again, perhaps the answer is: that's what After Effects is for? I'm still on the very low end of the learning curve for AE, but many other posts indicate that its green screening and most other effects are superior to Premiere's. I'm satisfied for now to experiment w/ AE and see how it goes. But, if anyone is willing to do a brain dump on the subject, I'm sure many of us in DV-Land would appreciate the added knowledge. Whew, there sure is a lot to learn! Thanks again for the words and Happy Turkey Day to all! __________________ Pete Bauer The most beautiful thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the source of all true art and science. Albert Einstein Trying to solve a DV mystery? You may find the answer behind the SEARCH function ... or be able to join a discussion already in progress!

December 2nd, 2003, 03:59 PM	#5
Rob Lohman RED Code Chef Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: Holland Posts: 12,514	I can't help you with those questions. What I do know is that the green issue and 4:2:2 and 4:1:1 have been discussed before. Try a search (see link in my signature)! __________________ Rob Lohman, visuar@iname.com DV Info Wrangler & RED Code Chef Join the DV Challenge \| Lady X Search DVinfo.net for quick answers \| Buy from the best: DVinfo.net sponsors

November 25th, 2003, 02:29 PM	#3
Chris Long Regular Crew Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: Middletown, Maryland USA Posts: 177	Just an independant corroboration: Premiere Pro does in fact utilize the Main Concept codec. It seems to do quite a nice job, from my experience (which is somewhat limited)...