Jump to content

Neil Creek

Members via Facebook
  • Content Count

    4
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  1. Having a smaller file size would be nice, but the workflow difference is the real issue for me. To process the shoot I did yesterday using the new workflow with cineform took 10 mins to turn the RAW files into usable (but soft) .avi files. The cdraw/after effects workflow for the same files took approximately 3 hours. That's a huge amount of time I'd rather spend editing. Surely this can't be simply how Cineform works? I can't imagine Andrew would recommend Cineform in his book if it causes this great a hit to sharpness? I thought I must be missing something in my workflow.
  2. Hi! I'm new to the forum, and a recent purchaser of the EOSHD 5D3 RAW video ebook which has been great thank you very much! I learned about Cineform from the book, and at first glance it seems like a huge boon: smaller file sizes, fewer post production steps etc. But today after converting my first full 5D3 RAW video shoot with Cineform, I noticed it didn't seem to be as sharp as I expected. Let me briefly explain my old and new workflow and perhaps someone can tell me if I'm doing anything wrong: Old workflow: - Copy ML RAW video files to HDD - Point Rawanizer to the folder and batch convert all clips into a DNG sequence using the dcraw option - Import the DNG sequence into Adobe After Effects, using Adobe Camera Raw to apply some general grading, colour correction, sharpness etc - Drop the import into a composition and scale the composition to suit the length of the clip - Export to a DNxHD "DNX 120 1080p 25" encoded .mxf file - Import all .mxf files into Premiere for editing New workflow: - Copy ML RAW video files to HDD - Point Rawanizer to the folder and batch convert all clips into .avi files with the Cineform option (-422 parameter for the free version) - Import all .avi files into Premiere for editing - Apply grading and sharpening in Premiere As you can see, the new workflow has fewer steps, and I end up with much smaller files, which is great. But even before I apply sharpening to the DNGs in the old workflow, those images are FAR sharper than the ungraded Cineform files. It almost looks like the files are 720p not 1080p. I've attached a photo illustrating the dramatic difference. The Cineform is on the left, and the DNG is on the right. The DNG has had no processing done to it, this is how it looks with all ACR sliders set to their defaults. Can anyone help? Thank you!
×
×
  • Create New...