Cineform preview rate at DVinfo.net

Tony Spring · August 30th, 2007, 01:05 AM

Hi all

I'm using Neo HDV for intermediate files in Vegas 7d, mainly to overcome the black frame bug when editing .m2t files.

I'm viewing 4 camera tracks at the same time in the preview window using the pan/crop tool and can only get a frame rate of about 6 at best, .m2t files run much faster.

I thought the problem was my hard drive not being able to keep up with all the extra data in the intermediate files but after doing some tests, including trying a raid 0 external drive, I've come to the conclusion it's Vegas that's struggling with the Cineform files. Anybody else getting a better frame rate?

I've got a quad core PC with 4gb of ram.

Paul Fierlinger · August 30th, 2007, 06:54 AM

I have a similar experience. Being a 2D animator I import my video events from Mirage, a graphics software, as AVI GBR-24. After I export my edited film from Vegas by rendering the timeline using Mt2, I can import the Mt2 file back into Vegas and playback at full size and speed as a 720p, 24fps single event on an external monitor.

But when I do the same using the CineForm HDV-24fps codec I can't get the event to play any faster than 19fps in Vegas.

David Newman · August 30th, 2007, 09:43 AM

Frame rate is dependent on our system and the preview resolution, the CineForm is accelerated at half and quarter resolution decoding. The Vegas M2T is nice in that it is hardware accelerated, but you do lose chroma resolution and other quality factors. There is always some trade-off.

Paul Fierlinger · August 30th, 2007, 10:06 AM

David, would you then say that I would be better off with CineForm in the case of rendering my Vegas timeline to DVD-A to make a WIP DVD for my producer?

Because in DVD-A the playback rate isn't applicable, but does it make sense to go from lossless AVI BGR-24 (Mirage to Vegas), then AVI BGR-24 to Vegas again (I am working on an eighty minute film which I have split into 13 parts and export each finished part to a new compilation timeline, in which I put the parts together, thus BGR-24 Vegas to Mt2 Vegas, which has a flawless playback rate).

When I render from this compilation file to DVD-A I again use Mt2, so would I get better results if I made this third render step in Cineform for DVD-A rather than in Mt2 again?

After all, this is done for mere WIP DVDs, not the final output of the completed film which will be scanned to 35 mm film.

I worry now that I might not be making my question clear. If this is the case I'll try asking in a different manner; please let me know and thank you.

Seth Bloombaum · August 30th, 2007, 10:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tony Spring

I'm using Neo HDV for intermediate files in Vegas 7d, mainly to overcome the black frame bug when editing .m2t files.

I'm viewing 4 camera tracks at the same time in the preview window using the pan/crop tool and can only get a frame rate of about 6 at best, .m2t files run much faster...

Many people (including me) have experienced and documented poorer preview performance of Cineform on the Vegas 7 timeline than with Vegas 6, regardless of hardware.

M2T is *not* a very good intermediate codec for bouncing around between applications and generations. Cineform is pretty darn good for this, as a compressed format that lives up to their claims of "visually lossless" over multiple generations.

You might try some workflows that include Vegas 6 and see if there is a significant difference in Cineform preview rates. (Bear in mind that 6 doesn't perform as well as 7 for m2t previews.)

Marc Salvatore · August 30th, 2007, 12:19 PM

I'm working on a very similar project/system and have had the same issues but decided to use the intermediate files for color correction and to avoid the black frame bug. I find that if I set the Vegas qaulity mode to "Preview/half rate" it still gives me decent views (on my NTSC montor) and better playback rates overall.

When viewing from the trimmer however in any preview mode the footage looks blurry. For multi-cam editing I still ended up rendering the 4 cameras to a track in Excalibur to overcome the slow playback.

Marc

Paul Fierlinger · August 30th, 2007, 01:40 PM

Well, I found the answer to my earlier question about using CineForm to render out of Vegas Mt2 to DVD-A by just trying it out with a 45 minute film and there is a huge improvement in overall quality of the DVD. The difference is so huge that I actually see only now how bad the Mt2 to Mt2 was and what I had been missing out on. The rendering takes about twice the time but it's certainly well worth it.

August 30th, 2007, 01:05 AM	#1
Tony Spring Regular Crew Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: london UK Posts: 170	Cineform preview rate Hi all I'm using Neo HDV for intermediate files in Vegas 7d, mainly to overcome the black frame bug when editing .m2t files. I'm viewing 4 camera tracks at the same time in the preview window using the pan/crop tool and can only get a frame rate of about 6 at best, .m2t files run much faster. I thought the problem was my hard drive not being able to keep up with all the extra data in the intermediate files but after doing some tests, including trying a raid 0 external drive, I've come to the conclusion it's Vegas that's struggling with the Cineform files. Anybody else getting a better frame rate? I've got a quad core PC with 4gb of ram. __________________ www.springproductions.co.uk

August 30th, 2007, 06:54 AM	#2
Paul Fierlinger Major Player Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: Wynnewood, Pennsylvania Posts: 355	I have a similar experience. Being a 2D animator I import my video events from Mirage, a graphics software, as AVI GBR-24. After I export my edited film from Vegas by rendering the timeline using Mt2, I can import the Mt2 file back into Vegas and playback at full size and speed as a 720p, 24fps single event on an external monitor. But when I do the same using the CineForm HDV-24fps codec I can't get the event to play any faster than 19fps in Vegas. __________________ Paul Last edited by Paul Fierlinger; August 30th, 2007 at 07:34 AM.

August 30th, 2007, 09:43 AM	#3
David Newman CTO, CineForm Inc. Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: Cardiff-by-the-Sea, California Posts: 8,095	Frame rate is dependent on our system and the preview resolution, the CineForm is accelerated at half and quarter resolution decoding. The Vegas M2T is nice in that it is hardware accelerated, but you do lose chroma resolution and other quality factors. There is always some trade-off. __________________ David Newman -- web: www.gopro.com blog: cineform.blogspot.com -- twitter: twitter.com/David_Newman

August 30th, 2007, 10:06 AM	#4
Paul Fierlinger Major Player Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: Wynnewood, Pennsylvania Posts: 355	David, would you then say that I would be better off with CineForm in the case of rendering my Vegas timeline to DVD-A to make a WIP DVD for my producer? Because in DVD-A the playback rate isn't applicable, but does it make sense to go from lossless AVI BGR-24 (Mirage to Vegas), then AVI BGR-24 to Vegas again (I am working on an eighty minute film which I have split into 13 parts and export each finished part to a new compilation timeline, in which I put the parts together, thus BGR-24 Vegas to Mt2 Vegas, which has a flawless playback rate). When I render from this compilation file to DVD-A I again use Mt2, so would I get better results if I made this third render step in Cineform for DVD-A rather than in Mt2 again? After all, this is done for mere WIP DVDs, not the final output of the completed film which will be scanned to 35 mm film. I worry now that I might not be making my question clear. If this is the case I'll try asking in a different manner; please let me know and thank you. __________________ Paul

August 30th, 2007, 01:40 PM	#7
Paul Fierlinger Major Player Join Date: Aug 2007 Location: Wynnewood, Pennsylvania Posts: 355	Well, I found the answer to my earlier question about using CineForm to render out of Vegas Mt2 to DVD-A by just trying it out with a 45 minute film and there is a huge improvement in overall quality of the DVD. The difference is so huge that I actually see only now how bad the Mt2 to Mt2 was and what I had been missing out on. The rendering takes about twice the time but it's certainly well worth it. __________________ Paul

August 30th, 2007, 12:19 PM	#6
Marc Salvatore Major Player Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Medford, OR Posts: 351	I'm working on a very similar project/system and have had the same issues but decided to use the intermediate files for color correction and to avoid the black frame bug. I find that if I set the Vegas qaulity mode to "Preview/half rate" it still gives me decent views (on my NTSC montor) and better playback rates overall. When viewing from the trimmer however in any preview mode the footage looks blurry. For multi-cam editing I still ended up rendering the 4 cameras to a track in Excalibur to overcome the slow playback. Marc