7 Replies Latest reply on Jan 1, 2012 9:13 AM by peter_calvin

    Cineform 422 vs ProRes 422

    peter_calvin Level 1

      Is there any real advantage in transcoding DSLR H.264 files to a 4:2:2 via NeoScene to the Cineform 422 coddec over ProRes 422 with MPEG clipstream or Adobe Media Edcoder?



        • 1. Re: Cineform 422 vs ProRes 422
          Studio North Films Level 3



          I would use the native files to edit with, faster workflow aswell, no need to transcode before hand. Premiere is fine to work with most native formats.



          • 2. Re: Cineform 422 vs ProRes 422
            lasvideo Level 4

            If you are on a Mac avoid Cineform like the plague. It crashes constantly with CS5. I was in contact with the developers a while back and it seems they havent made any progress fixing it so that it works on the Mac with Adobe CS5.

            • 3. Re: Cineform 422 vs ProRes 422
              peter_calvin Level 1

              I understand that Premiere will work with the H.264 camera files, however I have been looking at transcodng them for two reasons.  First of all, I am running a intel core 2 duo machine where the payback is rough (new one coming by the end of spring). Seconfly, I have read in several places that decompressing the camera files to a ProRes 4:2:2 or even 4:4:4 yields better results when color grading. 

              • 4. Re: Cineform 422 vs ProRes 422
                Jim Curtis Level 3

                Since I often am dragging my CTI over my Sequence timeline, I get far better response using i-frame (ProRes) over LongGOP (H.264).  It's physics.  It's the law.


                Depending on how much footage in your project, it can be faster in the long run to transcode to an i-frame codec rather than editing native.  For long form work, I recommend transcoding to i-frame first.  It will take more time before you can begin editing, but once your timeline starts to get 30 minutes plus, you'll avoid a lot of slow-downs caused by LongGOP unpacking.


                For short projects - those that take a few days - I mostly edit native.  The slowdowns caused by LongGOP don't seem so bad when they're not multiplied exponentially, as in a long-form project.


                For the most part, ProRes 422 works well in Pr on my Mac.  I've not had as good luck with ProRes4444 (I have a thread ongoing about my issues.). 


                I use MPEG Streamclip to make ProRes 422 from H.264 from a digital still camera.


                Here's a tip, if you have an 8-core machine:  Duplicate your copy of MPEGStreamclip.  Launch both, set them to use 4 Simultaneous Tasks.  Then, when you batch export (half of your files to each instance), you'll see that all 8-cores of your CPU are being maxed out.  This will get your transcodes done at maximum speed.

                1 person found this helpful
                • 5. Re: Cineform 422 vs ProRes 422
                  peter_calvin Level 1

                  Thanks for the detailed reply.  This is pretty much what I have thought, at least regarding the time factor.  I am working exclusively with DSLRs, doing short pieces for existing still clients who need video/motion.  Is there any real image quality difference between color grading H.264 camera files vs. ProRes 422?  

                  • 6. Re: Cineform 422 vs ProRes 422
                    Jim Curtis Level 3

                    Well, again, laws of physics:  There will be a quality loss transcoding to any lossy codec like ProRes.  But, the loss is slight, and likely impercepable to 99.9% of the human population.  But, when you jump from an 8-bit codec to a 10-bit codec, any effects you add at the 10-bit stage should hold up better than effects added to 8-bit footage.

                    • 7. Re: Cineform 422 vs ProRes 422
                      peter_calvin Level 1

                      Thanks for the information.  It is much the same as t is with stills - RAW files, tifs, jpgs and 8 and 16 bit files.