Cineform vs .mfx for t2i native footage? at DVinfo.net

James Binder · June 11th, 2010, 02:21 PM

I recently converted some t2i footage from native h.264 to .mxf> preset: HD 422 1920x1080-24p 50mbps -- and it looks pretty good.

Why not use this format/method instead of neoscene (and the resultant .avi file)? The file is much smaller (.mxf) and the image seems extremely close to the original.

In short, what are the main difference between the two formats and advantages/disadvantages in rendering out for editing ?

Curious to hear the thoughts of others who are more technically versed in these codecs...

Thanks --

James Binder · June 11th, 2010, 11:17 PM

Some more info:

Using Intermediate Codecs

For several years, Vegas users have been using the CineForm codec to work with HDV and AVCHD video. They render these HD source files to a CineForm AVI file and use this new HD file through the rest of their editing workflow. Note that when rendering to the CineForm codec, the resulting file size will be larger because it isn't as compressed—unlike AVCHD and HDV, CineForm uses all complete frames instead of the occasional complete frame surrounded by reference frames. But it will be much easier to edit.

Other FullHD codecs exist within Vegas that can function as editable intermediates; the Sony MXF and Sony YUV, for instance (both included in Vegas Pro 9). I performed side-by-side tests using the MXF codec and the $129 CineForm Neo Scene product. On my hardware, video encoded with the CineForm codec played back on the timeline at a full 29.97 fps in Preview Auto mode, and I couldn't get the MXF video to go higher than 18. Your mileage, as they say, may vary. If you're looking to go the intermediate route, it's worth it to try the included MXF codec as your intermediate and see what kind of performance you get. For us, given our current hardware setup, the difference was substantial enough to warrant the purchase of Neo Scene, which I'm glad I did. Unlike proxy editing, once the MTS files were transcoded to the CineForm codec, I didn't use them any longer. All subsequent renders and encodes were done with the CineForm files functioning as the source files.

From the article:

EventDV.net: The Event Videographer's Resource

My only other question: what is the color space of the Vegas version of mxf?

Gerald Webb · June 12th, 2010, 07:16 AM

Hey James, I have bought Neoscene recently after trying the MXF codec for a few months.
The MXF looks great, really good, my prob was doing multi cam stuff (5 or 6 cams at 1080p), using the MXF it just wouldnt cope, it would go ok for a while and then crash.
Since getting Neoscene Ive done one 90min project with no crashes (which for me is a first).
So I guess Im sold on the Cineform workflow.
I'm still suspect on how you go with re encoding Neoscene over and over, I may be wrong but I still edit with Neo then go to Lagarith for any AFX work and before compressing for DVD or Web.

Ron German · June 26th, 2010, 09:15 AM

Hi James
I also converted some t2i footage from native h.264 to .mxf, but 1920x1080-24p 35mbps.
I tryed many times to observe image (color, resolution, contrast) diference / degration between T2i originals and the respective converted MXF files and I just couldn`t notice it.

See recent thead: http://www.dvinfo.net/forum/avchd-fo...ml#post1542598

Ron

June 11th, 2010, 02:21 PM	#1
James Binder Major Player Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: NY, NYC Posts: 367	Cineform vs .mxf render for t2i native footage? I recently converted some t2i footage from native h.264 to .mxf> preset: HD 422 1920x1080-24p 50mbps -- and it looks pretty good. Why not use this format/method instead of neoscene (and the resultant .avi file)? The file is much smaller (.mxf) and the image seems extremely close to the original. In short, what are the main difference between the two formats and advantages/disadvantages in rendering out for editing ? Curious to hear the thoughts of others who are more technically versed in these codecs... Thanks -- Last edited by James Binder; June 11th, 2010 at 11:33 PM.

June 12th, 2010, 07:16 AM	#3
Gerald Webb Trustee Join Date: Oct 2009 Location: Central Coast Australia Posts: 1,046	Hey James, I have bought Neoscene recently after trying the MXF codec for a few months. The MXF looks great, really good, my prob was doing multi cam stuff (5 or 6 cams at 1080p), using the MXF it just wouldnt cope, it would go ok for a while and then crash. Since getting Neoscene Ive done one 90min project with no crashes (which for me is a first). So I guess Im sold on the Cineform workflow. I'm still suspect on how you go with re encoding Neoscene over and over, I may be wrong but I still edit with Neo then go to Lagarith for any AFX work and before compressing for DVD or Web. __________________ http://vimeo.com/livewebvideo

June 26th, 2010, 09:15 AM	#4
Ron German Major Player Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: Rio de Janeiro - Brasil Posts: 304	Hi James I also converted some t2i footage from native h.264 to .mxf, but 1920x1080-24p 35mbps. I tryed many times to observe image (color, resolution, contrast) diference / degration between T2i originals and the respective converted MXF files and I just couldn`t notice it. See recent thead: http://www.dvinfo.net/forum/avchd-fo...ml#post1542598 Ron Last edited by Ron German; June 26th, 2010 at 04:06 PM. Reason: english mistakes

June 11th, 2010, 11:17 PM	#2
James Binder Major Player Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: NY, NYC Posts: 367	Some more info: Using Intermediate Codecs For several years, Vegas users have been using the CineForm codec to work with HDV and AVCHD video. They render these HD source files to a CineForm AVI file and use this new HD file through the rest of their editing workflow. Note that when rendering to the CineForm codec, the resulting file size will be larger because it isn't as compressed—unlike AVCHD and HDV, CineForm uses all complete frames instead of the occasional complete frame surrounded by reference frames. But it will be much easier to edit. Other FullHD codecs exist within Vegas that can function as editable intermediates; the Sony MXF and Sony YUV, for instance (both included in Vegas Pro 9). I performed side-by-side tests using the MXF codec and the $129 CineForm Neo Scene product. On my hardware, video encoded with the CineForm codec played back on the timeline at a full 29.97 fps in Preview Auto mode, and I couldn't get the MXF video to go higher than 18. Your mileage, as they say, may vary. If you're looking to go the intermediate route, it's worth it to try the included MXF codec as your intermediate and see what kind of performance you get. For us, given our current hardware setup, the difference was substantial enough to warrant the purchase of Neo Scene, which I'm glad I did. Unlike proxy editing, once the MTS files were transcoded to the CineForm codec, I didn't use them any longer. All subsequent renders and encodes were done with the CineForm files functioning as the source files. From the article: EventDV.net: The Event Videographer's Resource My only other question: what is the color space of the Vegas version of mxf?