The future of post....

[Thor Wixom]

Yip a lot of "prosumers" use Premiere Pro...

And a lot of prosumers use FCP, too.

But, back to point...

I think there is a lot of value in this discussion Jay has raised about codecs.

My biggest issue with Matrox (and I'm generally a big fan), is that their I-frame codec is proprietary. I had a situation just recently where my client requested copies of all their footage for a project they wanted to do in-house. I sent it, but they couldn't use it without buying a Matrox card, or buying a Matrox mkey (it's basically a dongle). Customers don't mind paying good money for an editing solution, but they don't want to have their arms twisted behind their backs, either.

Even Apple has seen the error of being too proprietary, and they have released a free ProRes decoder for both Mac and Windows.

Cineform's decoder has been free for years.

At the very least, all NLE and codec companies should provide a decoder for free. That decoder should work in all other NLE systems, or at least provide the code hooks for other NLE's to support each other's codecs.

I have hope for Cinema DNG. Maybe someday we will even be able to record to it on Red hardware.

Jay, you make sense... after all, most cars run on the same fuel. And if they don't, you can usually get different types of fuel from the same gas station.

-Thor

[Mark L. Pederson]

First let me say I am 100% behind the CinemaDNG effort by Adobe. I am just chiming in on this thread with some "food for thought comments" -

Seems like this thread should have called something else - more to the point I feel Jay is trying to make - like "the need for a universal codec" -

I think it's important to remember a few simple things -

For something to be "universal" it needs to be "universally" accepted and adopted.

You can have the best technology in the world - and you can make it free - but that does not mean "everyone" will support the format.

Who is "everyone"? Is that only Apple, Avid and Adobe? Is that everyone that wants to make a new software solution from the ground up? What if that "standard" is adopted and then some young rockstar coding in his bedroom who comes up with a better algorithm?

The objective(s) in editing is not the same as finishing and delivering.

A "new industry standard for digital cinema files" does NOT mean we can EDIT in that format - although it would be foolish if that were not an obvious objective.

Performance depends on other factors beyond the codec. Hardware, IO, os, filesystem, etc. - One system can edit 2K CinemaDNG in realtime - one can not, etc.

DPX is a file format the ENTIRE freekin industry used in basically EVERY SINGLE motion picture released today. Does Final Cut Pro support DPX natively? No it does not. Could they? Of course they could. Why don't they? Because they don't believe it is needed by the MAJORITY of people that use their application, and they believe that adding the support will not amount to selling them significantly more BOXES. Apple is in it for the hardware - NOT the software. They LOVE software that "sells more boxes". But at the end of the day - they sell hardware.

And even though I have asked for 4 years for it - and I still want it - fundamentally, they are right. MOST people don't use DPX files in an EDIT. They use it in a FINISH. Final Cut Pro does not serve the majority, or even a significant percentage, of the "post edit finishing process" of large scale projects in film and television.

Seems like yesterday when I was testing DVCPRO 50 - then DVCPRO HD - and WOW how amazing it seemed at the time. I almost NEVER use those codecs anymore.

The other thing that I think is really important here is that the technology will always change. Computers will get FASTER, CHEAPER, SMALLER - and hard drives will get HIGHER CAPACITY, FASTER, CHEAPER and eventually SOLID STATE. You can't change that. A codec optimized for existing technology may not be relevant in a matter of months when new processors are released. If will not stop. It will most likely move and change FASTER.

"Standards" have many advantages. Just remember ... eventually ... someone else will set a new standard.

And there will always be some company that chooses NOT to support that "standard".

[Jay A. Kelley]

First let me say I am 100% behind the CinemaDNG effort by Adobe. I am just chiming in on this thread with some "food for thought comments" -

Seems like this thread should have called something else - more to the point I feel Jay is trying to make - like "the need for a universal codec" -

I think it's important to remember a few simple things -

For something to be "universal" it needs to be "universally" accepted and adopted.

You can have the best technology in the world - and you can make it free - but that does not mean "everyone" will support the format.

Who is "everyone"? Is that only Apple, Avid and Adobe? Is that everyone that wants to make a new software solution from the ground up? What if that "standard" is adopted and then some young rockstar coding in his bedroom who comes up with a better algorithm?

The objective(s) in editing is not the same as finishing and delivering.

A "new industry standard for digital cinema files" does NOT mean we can EDIT in that format - although it would be foolish if that were not an obvious objective.

Performance depends on other factors beyond the codec. Hardware, IO, os, filesystem, etc. - One system can edit 2K CinemaDNG in realtime - one can not, etc.

DPX is a file format the ENTIRE freekin industry used in basically EVERY SINGLE motion picture released today. Does Final Cut Pro support DPX natively? No it does not. Could they? Of course they could. Why don't they? Because they don't believe it is needed by the MAJORITY of people that use their application, and they believe that adding the support will not amount to selling them significantly more BOXES. Apple is in it for the hardware - NOT the software. They LOVE software that "sells more boxes". But at the end of the day - they sell hardware.

And even though I have asked for 4 years for it - and I still want it - fundamentally, they are right. MOST people don't use DPX files in an EDIT. They use it in a FINISH. Final Cut Pro does not serve the majority, or even a significant percentage, of the "post edit finishing process" of large scale projects in film and television.

Seems like yesterday when I was testing DVCPRO 50 - then DVCPRO HD - and WOW how amazing it seemed at the time. I almost NEVER use those codecs anymore.

The other thing that I think is really important here is that the technology will always change. Computers will get FASTER, CHEAPER, SMALLER - and hard drives will get HIGHER CAPACITY, FASTER, CHEAPER and eventually SOLID STATE. You can't change that. A codec optimized for existing technology may not be relevant in a matter of months when new processors are released. If will not stop. It will most likely move and change FASTER.

"Standards" have many advantages. Just remember ... eventually ... someone else will set a new standard.

And there will always be some company that chooses NOT to support that "standard".

I titled the thread, and then it kind of took on a life of it's own.. Sorry about that.. You make some excellent points Mark.. One of my kids is a little sick so I hope to discuss some of this with you on here tomorrow.

Thanks!

Jay

[Blair S. Paulsen]

Perhaps your little one will get BETTER, FASTER and perhaps even SOLID STATE :clown2:

Seriously, good thoughts on a speedy recovery.

[Lucas Wilson]

Clint,

Adobe is still hard at work on CinemaDNG. You'll be happy to know that several manufacturers are part of the CinemaDNG steering group, and some really damned smart people at Adobe are also part of it.

Adobe just takes their time and does stuff right.

Best,

Lucas
------
ASSIMILATE, inc.
LA, CA, USA

[bolex]

I sure hope it does get more simple in the long run. I second some people in this thread that codecs are really just here because of the limitations of the technology. If you look at audio side of things they use .wavs and .aiffs, which are extremely straightforward uncompressed formats. You just crank the samplerate to get decent quality.

We at moving picture side are living now in a phase where many people use MP3's, wmv's, aac's etc. for mastering. Couple of years (decades?) down the road we will just use the straightforward uncompressed format as it is good enough and we feel no need to increase the resolution over what you can show in cinema. Of course there is a question of colourspaces, useful metadata, which make it more difficult to standardize the format.

When capturing, this model of saving everything that comes out of the chip and leave the post processing to post is quite good also. Especially for feature film type of work where you supposedly have time to do a good job at every stage.

[Joe Carney]

When people mention dpx and tif, what about OpenEXR? It's widely supported, supports both 2D and 3D sourced material.

I thought MJPEG2000 was a new 'standard' for editing and post? Or only for delivery? Only for capture? Just wondering.

[Dan Hudgins]

First let me say I am 100% behind the CinemaDNG effort by Adobe.

Does anyone know if there is a detailed pdf or something for the CinemaDNG file format details that a programer could use to write code that makes and loads those files, I tried google but did not see a detailed published document?

[David Newman]

The details for CinemaDNG are still being proposed.

[Clint Johnson]

I see that the A-Cam dII is using a sequence of DNG stills as its recording format. Interesting comment on both the versatility of the DNG format and the not-yet-ready-for-primetime status of the cinemaDNG format.