You can download a trial version of the "pro" cineform and the free version (Cineform Studio) to see for yourself what features you get and how your files look/behanve after conversion.

I personally just did this test and have not yet found a compelling reason to add cineform to my workflow.

That is kinda where I'm at. On my 1080 monitor, I don't SEE any improvement, infact I spotted some extra noise. The files were twice as large, and on MY crappy system, didn't seem to work any better/smoother/faster. Vegas pro 11 seems to handle DSLR MOVs just fine as is

thanks for the link cohibaman I'll definitely check it out. Was trying to find a good forum for it with no luck

To: wwjd,
You are probably correct that VegasPro 11 can handle DSLR files to some degree. Where cineform shines as an intermediate codec is when you use Vegas as a compositor through several generations. If you are not specifically doing that , then leave cineform alone.

FYI - David's fav forum of choice to monitor is dvinfo.net. He has been addressing your concerns to some degree already - but not in the Vegas context.

AS far as the long development cycle that Cineform chooses to implement their products...I can say the present line-up has not matured in the way that they have planned. So a little early in the game to be finding an assessment of the 'free' versus 'paid'.

The difference between the different quality modes in Cineform is not how it looks. They look about the same. The difference is the amount of information that you don't immediately see that can be expanded in things like color correction and bringing out the detail within shadows. To see the difference, encode some video that needs correction into various qualities of Cineform then grade and correct. Better yet, color correct with Cineform's First Light for the extra precision, lighter CPU load, and surprisingly efficient workflow.

I haven't been using Cineform because V10 adds occasional black frames and V11 is too unstable, but I used to really like it. Here's to hoping it can make a comeback in V12...

The difference is the amount of information that you don't immediately see that can be expanded in things like color correction and bringing out the detail within shadows. To see the difference, encode some video that needs correction into various qualities of Cineform then grade and correct.

Laurence, I'm curious to see examples of this - not so much the differences in various qualities within Cineform, but the differences between the best in Cineform and Vegas. Perhaps I'm missing something obvious (or perhaps too subtle for my untrained eye).

Again, my testing, including pushing the color correction, shows very slight differences, with no clear "better". By this, I mean that I can see the scopes change slightly, banding (in the original footage) changes only slightly, with the banding in the Cineform clip not being less, just oh so slightly different, etc. Shadow detail doesn't appear different (indeed, how could Cineform create shadow detail that isn't there?). Moreover, my understanding of having better color sampling is that the difference shows up at the detailed borders of colored objects. For example, I've seen this when comparing footage shot in 4:2:2 sampling vs. 4:2:0 where red objects had jaggedy edges against a white background in the latter, but not the former.

In previous discussions on this forum (I don't recall the specific subject), there was a suggestion that Vegas is doing a similar "upconversion" of the color space or bit depth that Cineform or any other conversion would do. Is it possible that a difference would show up in an 8-bit project but not a 32-bit project (or vice versa)? While Cineform might do it differently I still haven't seen this break down of footage in Vegas and no break down in Cineform (or any other cross-conversion that I've tried, such a 5DtoRGB). So, I'm curious to see what it would look like if you could point me in the right direction.

Thanks.

One of the things Cineform does during the conversion of DSLR footage is to convert it from computer RGB (0-255) to Studio RGB (16-235) which is why it looks flatter. I prefer this because those cameras really should record in Studio RGB like other video cameras.

>One of the things Cineform does during the conversion of DSLR footage is to convert it from computer RGB (0-255) to Studio RGB (16-235) which is why it looks flatter. I prefer this because those cameras really should record in Studio RGB like other video cameras.

Yeah, it saves me the step of adding a color correction filter with a cRGB to sRGB preset.

>Laurence, I'm curious to see examples of this - not so much the differences in various qualities within Cineform, but the differences between the best in Cineform and Vegas. Perhaps I'm missing something obvious (or perhaps too subtle for my untrained eye).

It is very hard to see this on a computer monitor. Blow it up on a big HD TV and it is quite a bit more obvious.

This sort of thing is one reason why when I am using an intermediate, I often color correct as I create the intermediate. Because a lot of what you lose is the in between colors that you only see when you color correct. By color correcting as you make the intermediate, you avoid this problem even with a slightly lessor codec. You can stabilize and clean up noise with Neat Video before creating an intermediate as well. All these things minimize the loss of going to an intermediate.

To tell you the truth, I rarely use intermediates anymore because between the power of my i7 quad core and the efficiency in Vegas since version 10, it really isn't necessary. On a longer documentary project with lots of pre-edited footage I still will, but most of the time I don't bother. When I do, these days it's usually XDcam .mxf or XDcam .mp4 (with mpeg2 video).

ah ha! Many, MANY good answers, thanks so much everyone!

Usually I will film in less contrasty neurtral already, but maybe changing the color range is exactly what I am seeing. Not sure if this specific clip was filmed neutral or not.