Prospect Hd Or Matrox Rtx2? at DVinfo.net

Deniz Ahmet · March 30th, 2008, 12:30 PM

Im impressed with the trial of Prospect HD, but the features offered by the Matrox card are just too many to ignore?

What's better about Cineform that should stop me switching. (Ignore the price issue).

Never seen a comparison of the two.

Thanks all.

David Newman · March 30th, 2008, 04:05 PM

Our products are fairly different, that why there are rarely comparisons. Matrox is more broadcast focused, CineForm more indie-film focused. CineForm much more into the quality issues, quality through multi-generations and through color correction, using our 10/12-bit compressed intermediate, whereas they have only a 8-bit compressed intermediate. CineForm is also allows for a wider range of tool support, with CineForm files working outside of Premiere and even outside of the PC. All these types of enhancement appeal to the filmmaker, but are far less important to a broadcaster you can actually use hardware accelerated 3D effects/transitions of the Matrox products.

Deniz Ahmet · March 30th, 2008, 05:17 PM

Agreed. I had a Matrox before for my SD work. It offered a lot, but was a very unstable solution and fussy about compatibility. For this reason, the cineform software solution appeals to me.

I assume CineformHD 8bit codec is better quality than the matrox Mpeg I-frame codec.

David Newman · March 31st, 2008, 09:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Deniz Ahmet

I assume CineformHD 8bit codec is better quality than the matrox Mpeg I-frame codec.

I would think so in the higher quality modes, but I've never tested the Matrox implementation.

March 30th, 2008, 12:30 PM	#1
Deniz Ahmet Regular Crew Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: LONDON Posts: 178	Prospect Hd Or Matrox Rtx2? Im impressed with the trial of Prospect HD, but the features offered by the Matrox card are just too many to ignore? What's better about Cineform that should stop me switching. (Ignore the price issue). Never seen a comparison of the two. Thanks all.

March 30th, 2008, 04:05 PM	#2
David Newman CTO, CineForm Inc. Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: Cardiff-by-the-Sea, California Posts: 8,095	Our products are fairly different, that why there are rarely comparisons. Matrox is more broadcast focused, CineForm more indie-film focused. CineForm much more into the quality issues, quality through multi-generations and through color correction, using our 10/12-bit compressed intermediate, whereas they have only a 8-bit compressed intermediate. CineForm is also allows for a wider range of tool support, with CineForm files working outside of Premiere and even outside of the PC. All these types of enhancement appeal to the filmmaker, but are far less important to a broadcaster you can actually use hardware accelerated 3D effects/transitions of the Matrox products. __________________ David Newman -- web: www.gopro.com blog: cineform.blogspot.com -- twitter: twitter.com/David_Newman

March 30th, 2008, 05:17 PM	#3
Deniz Ahmet Regular Crew Join Date: Oct 2007 Location: LONDON Posts: 178	Agreed. I had a Matrox before for my SD work. It offered a lot, but was a very unstable solution and fussy about compatibility. For this reason, the cineform software solution appeals to me. I assume CineformHD 8bit codec is better quality than the matrox Mpeg I-frame codec.