Personal View site logo
Make sure to join PV on Telegram or Facebook! Perfect to keep up with community on your smartphone.
Grass Valley codecs now available for free
  • LongJohnSilverLongJohnSilver

    Grass Valley have made their codecs, including Canopus HQ and HQX free to non-Grass Valley users.

    It should be a good free option to DNxHD, Cineform etc. as a near-lossless intraframe codec.

    Limitations: Windows 7 is required and also registration on the GV site.

    Here the download page:

    http://www.grassvalley.com/support/downloads/products?product=&download=625

    Here some discussion on the topic:

    http://www.sonycreativesoftware.com/forums/ShowMessage.asp?ForumID=4&MessageID=818496

    Free codec release came with the new Edius 6.5 release:

    http://www.streamingmedia.com/Producer/Articles/News/Featured-News/Grass-Valley-EDIUS-6.5-Now-Shipping-83580.aspx

    EDIUS Pro 6.5 include:

    Color correction tool supports 10-bit color depth
Export sequence with alpha channel
Native RED (.R3D) support*
Improved XDCAM/ P2 data transfer
3D (stereoscopic) editing
AVCHD 2.0 support
EOS movie support (ALL-I (I-only), IPB)
Camera RAW format support*
Filmstrip view in Timeline
Enhanced video layouter (drop shadow, resize quality)
Built-in loudness meter
Built-in shake stabilizer
720p Blu-ray authoring support
Flash F4V export
QuickTime HQ/HQX codec (Windows/Mac)
  • 24 Replies sorted by
  • Ralph_BRalph_B

    This is good news. Canopus HQX is the best lossy codec in the world, bar none. At the highest quality setting, you can go 10 generations with no artifacts, no banding or posterization - just a pure clean image. And it's fast, too!

  • janisjanis

    Is this good codec for archiving slices of AVCHD format videos?

  • Ralph_BRalph_B

    @janis

    Absolutely.

  • peternappeternap

    @Ralph_B Are these better than Cineform Ralph?

  • Ralph_BRalph_B

    @peternap

    Yes. You may not notice the difference in one or two generations, but go more and the superiority of Canopus HQX is obvious. By coincidence, last week I did a 10 generation test of Canopus HQX (highest quality setting) on a very demanding 3D computer graphic render. I was absolutely thrilled with the result. This is the only codec other than lossless, that I feel confident to use for multi-generational post work.

  • janisjanis

    Downloaded these ones will try them on AVCHD. These are not able to do video of resolution above 1080p (like 4000x3000). I need it for timelapse photography first video from photos, so that it would be possible to crop and resize it in editor in next step. Right now I'm using Lagarinth witch is better than Uncompressed RGB, but loosing some more of those GB would be great.

  • Mark_the_HarpMark_the_Harp

    I had a go with this codec last night, using win 7 / vegas pro 11. For some reason Vegas didn't like wrapping (if that's the correct term) HQX in .mov and wouldn't render at all (or keep the settings). But it was very happy in .avi and seemed to play very smoothly. I also used it to render something out of Vegas and into Speedgrade and back, and it seemed to be happy about that.

  • peternappeternap

    @Ralph_B Thanks Ralph! I tried the HQX last night in PP and as you said, I didn't see any difference.

    I'm not going to bother a generation test since you already did one and you're word is the gospel with me.

    I'm doing slices today and this should work perfectly.

  • zigizigizigizigi

    Are these Windows 7 x64 compatible?

  • peternappeternap

    @zigizigi I guess they are since I'm using them in W7x64

  • danyyyeldanyyyel

    So would these replace something like 5dtorgb in premiere pro for example. I am not an expert in video (codec) and would like to have a good workflow with premiere/after effect and davinci resolve. Would it be a good codec to work with these and what would be the workflow.

  • LongJohnSilverLongJohnSilver

    They are maybe the best codecs out there. A lot of people report they are better than Cineform.

  • Ralph_BRalph_B

    @Mark_the_Harp

    As you've discovered, Quicktime on a PC adds a layer of complexity that degrades playback performance. Given a choice, avi is the way to go.

  • nomadnomad

    I'd choose the container depending on your preferred platform. Just like QT is less efficient on a PC, it's the same for AVI on a Mac.

    But at least we have a cross-platform codec here with excellent quality and can move footage around.

  • Mark_the_HarpMark_the_Harp

    @Ralph_B @nomad Well, bugger me. Thanks to your comments, I think I'm starting to understand this codec / wrapper thing. And just took one of the .avi files I created using HQX and renamed it with a .mov extension and yes, it still plays. So I can just use whatever my machine (in my case a pc so I use .avi) most likes, and then it will still be able to be shared on a mac or anything else that uses .mov files as long as they have the codec installed? Is that basically it? Or is it a lot more complicated than that?

  • kankalakankala

    @Mark_the_Harp just renaming it does no change the container. i am sure the player you used detected that it's not a mov container but an avi, and disregarded the extension and internally played it using an avi container demultiplexer. changing the container means taking the content out of the e.g. avi box and putting in the mov box, which has different size, lid and handles than avi (but your content is unchanged)

    if you want to actually change containers you can use Mpeg_streamclip: open avi and save as (not export as) mov. likewise you can use the command line ffmbc as described in method 5 on this page: http://lightworks.wikidot.com/avchd-workflow (only you choose avi input file and mov extension or viceversa)

    You need to have codecs for both avi and QT in order to be able to switch containers and still be able to play the file

  • Ralph_BRalph_B

    @Mark_the_Harp

    kankala's comments are right on the money.

  • carlopeciccarlopecic

    Its only 4:2:2 chroma sampling :(

  • carlopeciccarlopecic

    why dont you than grade original footage? 422vs444(with interpolation) image

    422444.jpg
    1439 x 590 - 226K
  • carlopeciccarlopecic

    You dont get banding because gradin 422 or 420,you get it because of 8bit depth,you get blocky artifatcs like on picures above on red and blue channel,but never mind if it is ok with you it is ok with me,peace bro

Add a Comment