Originally Posted by JohnSchultz
Make sure the output is interlaced and the frame rate is preserved (29.97 or 59.94- usually 29.97 is correct if interlace is maintained). Try with Cineform and make sure interlace is preserved (one side effect I need to report to Cineform is the last line is green (bug)). Otherwise, the quality is excellent with Cineform (I'm using Low to save disk space; a 'Difference' test showed Low as good enough for my footage (can reprocess and rerender later if necessary (treat initial files like proxies)).
I tested Matrox I-Frame HD at 102Mbits- looked OK (interlaced, 29.97).
(Realized after I wrote this that it's more appropriate for an editing thread. Oh, well, it's easy enough to skip it.
I've maintained interlace throughout the process. This is a quirk I can work around now, so it's no longer a top priority to figure out, but one of these days I'd like to know exactly what's going on.
Could you point me to the software you use to measure differences in file integrity? I have test clips that I can use to eyeball differences (fine details around tree leaves, motion clips), but the software you're describing is obviously more precise.
I've tried the Matrox I-Frame HD codec at different bitrates (again, thanks to Petri's suggestion) and it looks good at 100 mbps, but at 120 mbps I can see virtually no difference between it and Cineform at "High." And it's about 20% smaller. Since it saves time in post (if I don't have to do FirstLight corrections), I'm going to use it for my next project.
You've mentioned a couple of times about doing titles in Vegas after editing in PPro. Is that because of rendering time in Premiere if you do the titles there? I prefer Premiere's titler to Vegas (maybe it's a matter of my greater familiarity with Premiere, but I think it's more feature rich). If rendering time is not an issue for you, why not do the titles in Premiere, too?