Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Register Log in
  • Hey all, just changed over the backend after 15 years I figured time to give it a bit of an update, its probably gonna be a bit weird for most of you and i am sure there is a few bugs to work out but it should kinda work the same as before... hopefully :)

Resolve on PC

well...having tons of GTX card available for Win and 7 Pcie slot ... that would be fantastic ... writing prores is not a massive deal , just render DNxHD and than convert to ProRes (the image does no shift at all (no gamma etc...) ... but having all the newer GTX available would be very very cool ...

g
 
Brad Allen said:
This makes a great deal of sense to me. If other high end grading solutions are Windows compatible or Windows exclusive then surely Windows itself cannot be a deal breaker.

What do facilities that have a Pablo or FilmMaster installed do when a client requests a ProRes file? Would they transfer it to a Mac in some other format and then convert to ProRes or kindly ask if the client would be happy to accept another format? (DNxHD or Cineform etc). That's not meant to be a jab - it's a legitimate question. It just seems crazy that the whole industry revolves around the ability to write one file type - and this file type is only able to be written on Mac.
Click to expand...

Don't quote me on this as I am not entirely sure, and neither is it my workflow, but I guess the industry standard is DPX. More forward looking studios will go for OpenEXR or Uncompressed. These are then encoded and packaged to DCPs or printed to film or mastered to any other deliverable (web, blu-ray, etc).

If you really must encode ProRes, Telestream enables ProRes encoding on Windows 7. I have not tried it, but that is what they advertise anyway. According to their format support list, Windows ProRes encoding is only available on Episode Engine 6 which is mighty expensive for a transcoding software at $4k. You are better off buying a Mac dedicated to transcoding ProRes! Hopefully better solutions will start popping up soon enough - there's no reason why there shouldn't be a proper ProRes encoder on Windows.
 
Don't quote me on this as I am not entirely sure, and neither is it my workflow, but I guess the industry standard is DPX. More forward looking studios will go for OpenEXR or Uncompressed. These are then encoded and packaged to DCPs or printed to film or mastered to any other deliverable (web, blu-ray, etc).
Click to expand...

It has nothing to do with forward thinking or lack of it. A service company - and that is what any post facility is - delivers whatever the client wants. In the higher end of the business, this usually represents a bunch of deliverables for either television or a feature, with multiple file formats and physical formats involved. You make whatever the client's spec sheet calls for, and it's different for just about every show you do.

... there's no reason why there shouldn't be a proper ProRes encoder on Windows.
Click to expand...

Sure there is. ProRes is owned by Apple. Apple makes Macintoshes and a lot of software that runs on them. They don't make Windows PC's, or anything other than iTunes that runs on them. They clearly have no interest in expanding their market to platforms that bring them no direct benefit. That's why they'll license to companies like Aja and Arri, but they won't release a Windows version of the ProRes encoder. It's really that simple.
 
Fair enough! I did mean to say there's no technical reason. There's no technical reason for a lot of things Apple do - but, hey, that is what makes them the biggest tech company!
 
Subhadip Sen said:
Fair enough! I did mean to say there's no technical reason. There's no technical reason for a lot of things Apple do - but, hey, that is what makes them the biggest tech company!
Click to expand...

Well, I mentioned it because people tend to forget that ProRes is a closed, proprietary codec. It is not open in any way, is not officially supported by its vendor for encoding on any platform other than OS X, and is unavailable on Linux in any form. The fact that companies like Arri and AJA have licensed it and incorporated it into their gear doesn't change that fact, and quite frankly, it's a fact that has created a lot of havoc for major post facilities that use a lot of equipment that is Linux based, and therefore require either external transcoding or a hardware hack to directly support the codec. Consumers and individual users may love this embracing of ProRes, but for many professional facilities it's been a serious pain in the neck.
 
M Most said:
Well, I mentioned it because people tend to forget that ProRes is a closed, proprietary codec. It is not open in any way, is not officially supported by its vendor for encoding on any platform other than OS X, and is unavailable on Linux in any form. The fact that companies like Arri and AJA have licensed it and incorporated it into their gear doesn't change that fact, and quite frankly, it's a fact that has created a lot of havoc for major post facilities that use a lot of equipment that is Linux based, and therefore require either external transcoding or a hardware hack to directly support the codec. Consumers and individual users may love this embracing of ProRes, but for many professional facilities it's been a serious pain in the neck.
Click to expand...

It is baffling - how a proprietary intermediate codec initially designed for a single NLE has become something of a standard deliverable. (or a standard acquisition format, for that matter!)
 
Subhadip Sen said:
It is baffling - how a proprietary intermediate codec initially designed for a single NLE has become something of a standard deliverable. (or even an standard acquisition format!)
Click to expand...

It's baffling, annoying, and short sighted all at the same time.
 
jake blackstone said:
What other compressed codecs possible to use on Linux, beside the usual open source uncompressed ones along with DPX, TIFF, JPG, JPG2000 and Open EXR? Is it possible to write MXF?
Click to expand...

Yes, we do it every day with Baselight, but it can also be done with Resolve and other programs, as can H264. There is also another compressed codec that is supported on Linux, and quite well - Redcode.
 
Ubuntu's codec support is formidable - it can even encode some VfW and QT based codecs with the right frontend. The MPlayer developers have even managed to hack ProRes and get it running on Linux (decode only - for now). Of course, there's a large variety of open source codecs readily supported on most Linux distros. FFMPEG - available for both Windows and Linux - supports encoding/decoding of a large number of codecs itself.

Mac OS X and Linux distros are surprisingly similar - they are both Unix based. The underlying architecture is identical. There's a theory that anything developed for Mac OS X can very easily be ported to Linux. FreeBSD is closest, sharing the same ancestry.
 
jake blackstone said:
These are all good reasons, but you can't discount the ability to write Prores, which, unfortunately, on Windows a no go...
Click to expand...
Apple are starting to relax the licensing for writing ProRes on Windows. There are a number of windows based systems that can do it now and I also know there are a number of software companies adding Prores support for Linux.
 
Yes, with all those new field recorders out there, ProRes is quickly becoming a de-facto standard. These are obviously no Macs, but licensed, why should Apple stop it on PCs?
 
+1 vote for windows version.. A couple of licenses will be good for me..

I really can't believe there is not enough demand from "PC" guys for a professional CC application in Windows. IMO "Windows" guys just got used to the idea of "switching" to Mac if they want a cheap professional CC application (Color first.. now Resolve..). So they choose not to waste their breath..

This is the scenario of what happens to Windows guys colorists in time:
1- Editing and light color correction in Premiere or Vegas or any other program..
2- Better color correction experience with After effects..
3- Plugins like colorista or Color Finesse are used, making the experience even better...

4- Then ...........T-H-E --- S-W-I-T-C-H----T-O-----M-A-C-

With Adobe being more involved in the development of Premiere for professional market the need for a professional CC application in Windows is greater.. Just imagine a Resolve Lite for Windows.



If BM will not do it somebody will do it sooner or later.. Switching platforms is not a real solution, IMO..
 
Kujtim Ereqi said:
Switching platforms is not a real solution, IMO..
Click to expand...
Why is that? Why not just use what's appropriate for a specific job? To me, the operating system is inconsequential. It's all about just using what you need to get the job done.

When you have a project that cost hundreds of thousands of dollars -- or even $50,000 -- or millions of dollars, spending five grand on a Mac setup is trivial. Heck, the drive array could easily cost several times more than that. I think you guys are worrying too much about the wrong things.

I routinely have to move back and forth between Macs, Linux, and Windows machines, and it's not a big deal to me. Whatever works best. I've worked on DaVinci 2K systems running on Windows and running on Macs, and Resolve systems running on Macs and Linux, and it's all fine. It's more about the amount of RAM and processor speed you throw at the system, not about the OS.
 
Kujtim Ereqi said:
I really can't believe there is not enough demand from "PC" guys for a professional CC application in Windows. IMO "Windows" guys just got used to the idea of "switching" to Mac if they want a cheap professional CC application (Color first.. now Resolve..). So they choose not to waste their breath..
Click to expand...
Incorrect.
Scratch, Speedgrade, Lustre (Win XP 32 only) and, of coarse, FilmMaster all run on Widows 7 and quite well I may add.
All professional and all on PC. Technically, Baselight and Resolve on Linux run on PCs as well...
 
The request was for "cheap." "Cheap"on Reduser seems to mean under $1000, or, preferably, free. Aside from DaVinci, no manufacturer of professional systems has seen fit to participate in the race to the bottom that this represents, including the 4 that you mention.

And please, let's not get started on why people here seem to think that "cheap" - i.e., "free" - and "professional" should be the same thing.
 
Marc Wielage said:
I routinely have to move back and forth between Macs, Linux, and Windows machines, and it's not a big deal to me. Whatever works best. I've worked on DaVinci 2K systems running on Windows and running on Macs, and Resolve systems running on Macs and Linux, and it's all fine. It's more about the amount of RAM and processor speed you throw at the system, not about the OS.
Click to expand...

The only part of a DaVinci 2K system that would be running on Windows would be a Clipster that it might be controlling, and that's not actually part of the 2K. The 2K runs on a combination of an embedded system (for the hardware) and a Linux host. Early 2K's used an SGI O2 host, but all 2K's have always been hosted on either Unix (OK, Irix) or Linux, never Windows.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top