Personal View site logo
ProRes vs Cineform vs MTS + Profiles
  • neksneks

    First of all hello to everybody and thanks to all who made this little camera shine!

    Just wanted to share some test I did today about noise, conversion and profiles. I went outside and shoot few takes all with the same camera settings(iso 160, 1/100, F5.6), using Driftwood's amazing new Cluster X S2 - 1GOP Intra Moon T5 settings. Also, I did a few tests with profiles few days ago and what I could find is that Vibrant has the least amount of noise, while Smooth(that I was using all the time) was the worst, for me at least.

    So here you can see 3 profiles used, Vibrant, Smooth, Cinema, all to -2, wanted to test them once again and make sure, plus convert the files to ProRes and CineForm and see the difference. Scaled at 400%

    As ProRes looked more/less the same as the raw MTS file, I decided to push them even further and scale them to 800% and compare only CineForm and raw MTS files.

    I know I'll be always converting files to CineForm before edit from now on, and never again use Smooth profile. Also because a weird amount of blockiness in 25p mode I'll probably just go with 24p when ever I can. Need to test 25p a bit more with this new Moon settings though.

    Cheers!

  • 12 Replies sorted by
  • radikalfilmradikalfilm

    If you cut in Premiere you could manually reconform (to Cineform files) only those takes that made it into the edit. Just saying. I don't know what your shooting ratio is.

  • neksneks

    Nice to know, thanks. Most of the time I edit in Vegas but good to know that about Premiere.

    btw...Just to mention that you can use the GoPro free Cineform version and use Adobe Media Encoder to convert files ;)

  • neksneks

    Where did my images go? Weird...here they go again ;) Ignore that Bokeh test one as I can't delete it.

    CineForm vs MTS.jpg
    2168 x 1164 - 634K
    bokeh-test.jpg
    1040 x 2336 - 1M
    ProRes vs CineForm vs MTS.jpg
    2800 x 6200 - 5M
  • thepalaliasthepalalias

    @neks Vibrant and Standard are much closer in the way they handle colors than the other profiles. I'm surprised you showed Cinema instead of Standard. Nonetheless, cool test and thanks for sharing. :)

  • neksneks

    @thepalalias Yeah I know, just wanted test Cinema as well in terms of noise, compared to Vibrant, raw and when converted with Cineform ;)

  • VoltVolt

    @neks Did you use Adobe media Converter to covert the files or another program? Thanks

  • neksneks

    @Volt Yes, all converted with Media Encoder CS6 to Cineform format

    Moon is doing a great job as the files average bitrate was 135mbps and when converted there is just a slight change in file size.

  • zserozsero

    If you use the Cineform Premium, it will upsample your chroma channels (like 5DtoRGB), so it can actually look better than MTS. Not the case with Media Encoder. Also I don't know if Media Encoder has rainbow bugs or not.

  • omnidecayomnidecay

    Vibrant crushes the blacks more in camera so it hides the noise better vs smooth. However, this isnt good because the detail in shadows is crushed and not as recoverable. Vibrant will look better out of the camera vs smooth but smooth is able to be pushed further in post. Smooth basically just shows the noise that is already there.

    I would love to see Cineform vs DNxHD vs UT. UT is lossless 8bit with 420, 422, or 444.

  • VoltVolt

    @neks Ok thanks

  • mo7iesmo7ies

    CineformRAW is especially great if you have a camera that shoots in raw. BMCC, pocket BMPCC, Digital Bolex, Ikonoskop, etc... http://PrimeHD.com/raw-to-cineform

  • zcreamzcream

    @zsero If I install free gopro studio/quik on a new partition and convert files from non-gopro avchd folders, will there be a 420 to 422 conversion?

Add a Comment