recommended workflow with PNG-sequence at DVinfo.net

Robert Brueschke · February 23rd, 2010, 08:32 AM

I have a PNG-sequence that needs to be converted to a cineform MOV-file. Due to HD-Link can't handle a PNG-file sequence i have to use an intermediate programm for converting. If I use TMPGEnc for example I can use in the quicktime-settings the cineform-tab for converting.
So the question is - is there a difference in the resulting file if I convert the sequence directly within TMPGEnc or is it a better solution to build a lossless file, like quicktime animation codec and convert this file with HD-Link?
Or is there maybe a better workflow I can use?
I am working with Prospect HD in the latest build

Robert

Chad Haufschild · February 23rd, 2010, 11:54 AM

Hmmm... My first impulse was to go with the output to QT animation then to Cineform. But then I started thinking, why not just go right out of AE or whatever you would use to create the QT animation right to Cineform as long as the software can support it?

I haven't used TMPGEnc in years so I can't comment on how well it would transcode to Cineform, but my thought is that it would look just as good as anything coming out of AE or FCP or PPro to Cineform.

I'd be tempted to test both processes and compare the results. I'm guessing they'll look pretty damn equal in quality.

Robert Brueschke · February 23rd, 2010, 12:07 PM

Thats exactly the prob I have - is there a difference between the converting in AE with QT or Avi and Cinfeform? I think the engine should be the same - but if you take a look in AE to the settings in QT export and AVI export they look different, for example in QT settings you have a slider for the quality and not a list with HD, HD optimized and so on. But both are using the same engine or?
So maybe someone from Cineform can help?

David Newman · February 23rd, 2010, 10:23 PM

Both use the same codec engine, although we can present our quality setting names in QuickTime. 100% is Filmscan 2, 75% Filmscan 1, 50% High, etc. High Optimized is not needed.

Robert Brueschke · February 24th, 2010, 01:34 AM

okay that answered my second question about converting within an intermediate programm - but back to my first question: is there a diffference between converting directly between HDLink and AE? Cause if I compare the resulting files they differ in size and visible artefacts.

David Newman · February 24th, 2010, 10:11 AM

I have not idea of your settings, HDLink used the same code as the CineForm AVI export module in AE, they will look the same for the same source and same settings. Only difference is HDLink is native YUV and AE in native RGB -- so a color space conversion is employed in AE if you not using Neo 4K (also native RGB.)

February 23rd, 2010, 08:32 AM	#1
Robert Brueschke New Boot Join Date: Jan 2010 Location: Stuttgart, Germany Posts: 22	recommended workflow with PNG-sequence I have a PNG-sequence that needs to be converted to a cineform MOV-file. Due to HD-Link can't handle a PNG-file sequence i have to use an intermediate programm for converting. If I use TMPGEnc for example I can use in the quicktime-settings the cineform-tab for converting. So the question is - is there a difference in the resulting file if I convert the sequence directly within TMPGEnc or is it a better solution to build a lossless file, like quicktime animation codec and convert this file with HD-Link? Or is there maybe a better workflow I can use? I am working with Prospect HD in the latest build Robert

February 23rd, 2010, 12:07 PM	#3
Robert Brueschke New Boot Join Date: Jan 2010 Location: Stuttgart, Germany Posts: 22	difference between direct converting and intermediate Thats exactly the prob I have - is there a difference between the converting in AE with QT or Avi and Cinfeform? I think the engine should be the same - but if you take a look in AE to the settings in QT export and AVI export they look different, for example in QT settings you have a slider for the quality and not a list with HD, HD optimized and so on. But both are using the same engine or? So maybe someone from Cineform can help?

February 23rd, 2010, 10:23 PM	#4
David Newman CTO, CineForm Inc. Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: Cardiff-by-the-Sea, California Posts: 8,095	Both use the same codec engine, although we can present our quality setting names in QuickTime. 100% is Filmscan 2, 75% Filmscan 1, 50% High, etc. High Optimized is not needed. __________________ David Newman -- web: www.gopro.com blog: cineform.blogspot.com -- twitter: twitter.com/David_Newman

February 24th, 2010, 10:11 AM	#6
David Newman CTO, CineForm Inc. Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: Cardiff-by-the-Sea, California Posts: 8,095	I have not idea of your settings, HDLink used the same code as the CineForm AVI export module in AE, they will look the same for the same source and same settings. Only difference is HDLink is native YUV and AE in native RGB -- so a color space conversion is employed in AE if you not using Neo 4K (also native RGB.) __________________ David Newman -- web: www.gopro.com blog: cineform.blogspot.com -- twitter: twitter.com/David_Newman

February 23rd, 2010, 11:54 AM	#2
Chad Haufschild Regular Crew Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Lincoln, NE Posts: 162	Hmmm... My first impulse was to go with the output to QT animation then to Cineform. But then I started thinking, why not just go right out of AE or whatever you would use to create the QT animation right to Cineform as long as the software can support it? I haven't used TMPGEnc in years so I can't comment on how well it would transcode to Cineform, but my thought is that it would look just as good as anything coming out of AE or FCP or PPro to Cineform. I'd be tempted to test both processes and compare the results. I'm guessing they'll look pretty damn equal in quality.

February 24th, 2010, 01:34 AM	#5
Robert Brueschke New Boot Join Date: Jan 2010 Location: Stuttgart, Germany Posts: 22	okay that answered my second question about converting within an intermediate programm - but back to my first question: is there a diffference between converting directly between HDLink and AE? Cause if I compare the resulting files they differ in size and visible artefacts.