Cineform VS AVCHD

Report · Feb 16, 2017

Hello,

I just got a windows 10 PC. It has a Xeon Processor, 16GB of Ram, Quardom4000 Graphics Card with 8GB of Video Memory.

Is there any point to transcoding AVCHD footage with this type of PC? This thing is wicked fast but I read that it's still recommended to transcode because Cineform is easier on faster machines and if you use prelude you can rename files and organize your files easier if you transcode.

Is there really any difference between AVCHD and Cineform? I'm also a little stumped because I read there is a 129 dollar version of Cineform and wondering if that's any better than the free codec that comes with Premiere?

Thanks,

Bryce

Report · Feb 17, 2017

If your machine can handle avchd then there is no point in transcoding.

It it cannot use proxies.

The Cineform codec that comes with Premiere is an excellent codec.

This 129 dollar version which one would that be?

Cineform or its now GoPro use to have a program/plugin that is called NeoScene (and many others)

but all those plugins are obselete.

Report · Feb 17, 2017

thanks,

Here's a question.

Can I load the footage from my SDHC card into Prelude and select in and out points then rename the .mts files to something I want then import into Premiere? I don't like how the .mts files are named with random numbers and If I import the whole SDHC card into Premiere I sometimes have footage I don't need on my hard drive.

Report · Feb 18, 2017

Hmmm, I've not tried ingesting a partial clip through Prelude. I understand about wanting a renamed file that "means" something, but I would suggest giving a try. Would take you a couple minutes. If it works, Prelude's rename/transcode/store 2-3 different places capabilities are good.

And it would be interesting to find out the results.

Neil

Report · Feb 18, 2017

Cineform is easier to edit. Depending on your machine, this can become evident with normal editing, or not until you start adding lots of effects. It's really editor's choice whether you use it or not.

The included Cineform codec is sufficient. Don't spend any money on this.

Report · Feb 19, 2017

Thanks,

Can you explain this persons second post? http://www.kenstone.net/discussions/read.php?3,38384 The person in the second post is saying if you add an effect, title etc to avchd you lose quality. I've never had this happen. What is this person talking about? Is this strictly a Final Cut problem and not a premiere problem?

I also keep reading that transcoding does nothing to help. Read this. http://www.provideocoalition.com/tra...color-premiere

Why would transcoding make the footage worse?? Another article I can't seem to find right now mentioned avchd had color artifacts when color correcting, such as banding and blocking with added noise.

Report · Feb 19, 2017

Can you explain this persons second post?

Ignore that person.

Report · Feb 19, 2017

Wow ... I'm at a loss. The over-generalizations and mis-information in that first link are amazing.

Some cameras implement AVCHD fairly decently, some not so much. The complete dismissal of AVCHD there is absurd. I avoid it in my GH3 as they didn't implement it well there ... even though they have a higher bit-rate on the AVCHD output than for mov or mp4, it has a bit more noise in the shadows and some blocking. I've seen footage produced in AVCHD in Sony I think it was that was simply beautiful.

Yes, it can be more compressed ... and a righteous transcode to say Cineform 10-bit for editing can keep all your quality and edit through your CPU a lot smoother. There's a thread on here where someone needs to do serious lens distortion cleanup, noise removal, and warp-stabilization to some clips. That will take probably a couple transcode steps ... the first using the camera maker's software which includes a good lens distortion tool, and then taking those sections that need it (but not everything) through warp, then finish editing ... and do a rinse repeat to go after noise. Something like that.

Done poorly, you'll kill your pixels. Done righteously, the overall project is improved.

I get a "Page not found" on the PVC link, but I think I know where the author would be coming from. Again ... while it's wise to not wash your pixels through repeated transcodes, and yes, PrPro can work "native" with most camera outputs, between how well PrPro can handle playback on your machine with certain ... or multiple ... codecs on a sequence, and what effects you're throwing at it, you may get a great benefit to the editing process by transcoding.

I know Jim transcodes a lot of his material to Cineform prior to editing, archiving the original ... but using the transcodes to complete the project. So do I, largely because of testing Jim's workflow a few years back. It's solid.

Neil

Report · Feb 27, 2017

thanks,

what's interesting is my PC that I got custom built can handle 5 warp stabilizer effects, 4 lumetri color effects all on one clip. I have an 8GB Graphics Card. I can even throw 4 other clips in the sequence as mutlicam all with these effects stacked and it never slows down. This is all with AVCHD footage.

Report · Feb 27, 2017

Nice!

Report · Feb 27, 2017

Woa ... so, share some details on that rig! That's ... stunning ...

Neil

Report · Feb 27, 2017

I posted the specs of my pc in the first post

Report · Feb 28, 2017

Yes, I see that. Nice ...

Report · Feb 28, 2017

I did find out through testing that Cineform is slightly faster at rendering. I added the lighting effect four times applied it to one .mts clip. Rendered it and it took approximate 10 min to finish on a 1:30 second clip. I then I transcoded that same clip to cineform with the same four lighting effect and it took approximately 5 min to render. So it took 5 min less to render when it was transcoded to Cineform via the render and replace.

I think what I'm going to do is transcode all my footage for big projects that need to be sorted and organized, such as a documentary or music video or concert. For fast turn around projects like demos, rough cuts things that need to be done quickly with little effects or color correction I will edit and finish with AVCHD.

My computer is very fast and I'm glad it is but I do have to make sure the project I'm working on is efficient especially when i'm billing a client.

Report · Feb 28, 2017

Sounds like you've come to a good conclusion!

Report · Feb 28, 2017

efficient especially when i'm billing a client.

Editor's choice, of course, but I personally never include proxy, transcode or export times in the billing.

Report · Feb 28, 2017

For many workflows, this can be a considerable amount of time. Say, someone getting a PrPro project ready for a colorist to use in Resolve ... which can be hours ... well, having an assistant (or yourself) sitting there working away for a few hours has got to be paid somehow.

It's also been discussed in aisle-way talks at NAB as a "teaching moment" for clients. Deliver to a post-house media in this condition (well-spelled out) ... the charge will be about here. Deliver a bunch of mixed discs with media & assets in different formats all over the place, well ... there will be a slightly higher fee. As it might raise the hours required to complete the project enough to darn near double the labor/suite times.

Now, if you're talking about unattended computer runs, that's different. Or a project where setting up proxies is only going to be a minute or two, well ... maybe ... but even then, I sit down, that clock is running.

Neil

Report · Mar 01, 2017

if you're talking about unattended computer runs, that's different.

Proxy/transcodes/exports generally are unattended, which is why I posted my earlier point.

Report · Mar 19, 2017

I also found out that making proxy files is quicker. I will just make Proxy files for editing and color correction then link back to original media later

Report · Mar 20, 2017

back with another question. What do you think of me creating a low res Proxy SD file that I can edit with rather than transcode to Cineform? It's not that I'm against editing with Cineform but some projects I can't take the time to transcode everthing because of quick turn around and creating a proxy is much faster as that happens in the background and is quicker than creating a full high rez Cineform file. Plus AVCHD is only 8 bits so to me I would be wasting file storage space by making Cienform versions when I don't really gain any quality.

Report · Mar 20, 2017

I would not be a fan of that option. Premiere Pro's native proxy process is quite painless and effective. Doing proxies any other way often...isn't.

Report · Mar 21, 2017

I'm with Jim on this.

Neil

Report · Feb 27, 2017

bryced87
Is there really any difference between AVCHD and Cineform?

To get back to an earlier question... yes, there's a huge difference; however, depending on how you're distributing your video once you have an edited master, it may not matter.

Technically, AVCHD is lower bit rate, 8-bit color with 4:2:0 color sampling while Cineform is higher bit rate with support for 10-bit or 12-bit color as well as 4:2:2 and 4:4:4 color sampling. There are also differences in intra-frame compression and inter-frame compression as well as PSNR (peak signal noise ratio).

If you find that AVCHD is working fine for your workflow from start to finish, you should be good sticking with it.

-Warren