CineForm NEO 4K Beta, RedCine compatible, and available for trial.

[Nathan Troutman]

Nathan, it is as Rob said - you get 2K out of FCP, not 4K. Hopefully this will change.

I was talking about the last part of what he said - hopefully that will change. . . If you read into that then you might get the idea that Final Cut Studio might go to 4k sometime down the road. I'm sure Red would be a big part of pushing for that. So maybe Rob is just teasing us dropping little hints. Red should know the plans Apple has with Final Cut Studio.

Boot Camp directly boots a Mac Pro into XP or Vista(I believe Vista works too.) This is not an emulation. So when you take into account that the price of a Mac Pro is very competitive compared to a similarly equipped Dell. I'm not sure exactly why you would go Mac if you're on the fence. It gives you more options.

 

[JoshBertrand]

How is this different from what REDCODE is doing now? You're loading 4K footage into whatever timeline you want.

FCP can currently only handle 2K footage, so there's no way to really load actual 4K footage (or render that out). Hopefully that will change....

Rob, I haven't tested any Cineform workflows but I suppose it is similar to transcoding to ProRes at this point in Final Cut (though with a 4:4:4 option). What I'd love to be able to do is put 4k (or 3k) files into a 1080p sequence so I have a little room for stabilizing or reframing. I have no interest in a 4k finish as I lack a venue for it. The biggest deal right now is just performance. On my quad-core Mac Pro 1k RedQuick files play back fine, but I'm looking to edit and finish from the same files and a little extra resolution would be great. ProRes is possibly a viable solution in the future if Apple supports higher than 2k resolution, and Redcode RGB might work just as well once it is finished. I'm only considering Cineform as they seem to be on the cusp of providing the ability to transcode to a 4k 4:4:4 format that will playback in a 2k (or 1080p) sequence (albeit not in Final Cut yet). Once this is working on the Mac (preferrably in FCP, but I'll run it in Premiere if need be) I'll give the beta a go and see what the real-time performance is like.

I'd love to use Recode RAW through the whole process with no transcodes, but I feel like the ability to do that comfortably in real-time is a long time away. If it's not then I'll do a little happy jig right now. Ultimately we have to find a way that works best for each of our needs at the time we need it. Keep up the freakin' amazing work you guys are doing. Much respect!

 

[Rob Lohman]

That's exactly what you can do today. Load the 2K QuickTime file into your 1080 FCP timeline. No transcode needed. This has been working for the last two months.

Or am I missing something?

 

[David Newman]

That's exactly what you can do today. Load the 2K QuickTime file into your 1080 FCP timeline. No transcode needed. This has been working for the last two months.

Or am I missing something?

Maybe. Can you online with these proxies? Are they 4:4:4 encoded? Do they support the 32-bit float modes of FCP? Are they fast enougth? Are they movable to other applications and platforms? While some of these are likely true for an Redcode QT proxy, likely not all, and therefore there are reasons to use CineForm. It will depend on the user's needs. Always best to try out all your workflow options.

 

[Mohammed El Sharqawy]

No worries there Jim, we're only interested in transcoding, nothing else was being implied. Transcoding everyone's camera format to CineForm is what we do well, native support is a thing for the big NLE vendors. We are quite happy that RedCine works as well as it does for rendering out to CineForm. Once the 4096 wide bug in fixed RedCine we are all set. Thanks for following the thread.

well, I think that its no technical problem making HDlink convert REDCODE RAW to CineForm Raw... except that for agreements which I don't understand much... But, I think the agreements problems would implement things such as IRIDAS/Assimilate handling of the footage,,, Cineform RAW uses IRIDAS .look files to apply look to the Cineform RAW footage from SI-2k,
if converted from REDCODE to Cineform RAW then it would be possible to use thoose .look with the converted material... which I think Assimilate wouldn't like that much as they're supporting the native REDCODE on their system...

well, I don't know much about that, its just thinking out...
but, REALLY it would be great to have this conversion from REDCODE to Cineform RAW available... the best of all .. is of course having direct support of REDCODE in all apps...

 

[Karl H]

I would ask this...

Am I correct in assuming if you import Redcode, when you render on the FCP timeline you would have to render back to another codec such as prores? So anything with an effect on it would suddenly be a different quality/compression? If I edit in Redcode, what do I produce a master as?

Also, can you import Redcode into color right now?

Equally I'd ask if cineform stays in a singe 4:4:4 codec throughout the pipeline and CC? If so then thats a huge reason to go cinefom, along with is superior realtime performance. If you cant take cineform into color, then thats a bitch. But at least you can take it into AE or combustion for VFX work and render out at the same quality.

Anyone know the answer to these questions?

 

[Mike Zinner]

darkline, from what I have gathered so far (no guarantee that it is true):

1) Apple Color does not work with Quicktime codecs at this point, so it is not possible to use Redcode RAW Qucktime wrappers nor Cineform. I am sure Apple is working on fixing that but at the moment you have to render out image sequences (DPX, etc.). This is does not work for me at all so I will not use Color until that is fixed.

2) If you got the money, Assimilate SCRATCH ($30k for the full system and best workflow) is the way to go. Full support for RED and agreements in place that guarantee a long partnership between the two.

3) Only affordable real-time online workflow (without any offline cutting cr*p) that is suited for my needs (effects work) is Cineform on Windows.

* That hits me hard because I have switched to Mac during the last 6 months and I do not want to go back - but I see it that way, Macs are the fastest machines to run Windows in Bootcamp, anyway. Btw. Premiere Pro on OS X is a new product and if I take a look at the support forum I see that it suffers from a lot of problems - and there is no Cineform Prospect for the Mac version yet, anyway.

* No direct conversion into Cineform RAW. I also see a chance that we will get direct conversion support in Cineform's HDLink - but Cineform will have to do reverse engineering of the REDs file format since I don't think there are any contracts in place and the only support Cineform gets from RED is generic support of all installed Quicktime codecs in RedCine (= which is exactly no support at all).

* But I also try to see this positive. Cineform Intermediate 444 can be decoded in real-time even faster than Cineform RAW and as soon as you have to apply a secondary color correction or any effects you have to render to Cineform Intermediate 444 anyway. The only drawback are the huge rendering times in RedCine - this is really is a pain. So I am not giving up my hope for the direct conversion to Cineform RAW in HDLink yet.

 

[Karl H]

Thanks Mike,

I was thinking about switching to FCP, but mainly for color. If the redcode/color workflow remains a problem for the next 6 months or so, then I would go cineform on the PC.

 

[David Taylor]

Mike and Darkline, you've both got it pretty much correct. The first concept is that both REDCODE and CineForm RAW are acquisition codecs. That means that when you render (from either codec) the result is in a non-Bayer codec. And yes, CineForm 444 is an excellent choice because of its 12-bit 444 (RGB characteristic). Most all other codecs used in post are YUV 4:2:2.

You can use CineForm RAW and CineForm 444 simultaneosuly on the timeline. So if you render portions of your timeline to CineForm 444 it works well.

Also as stated, Color does NOT support QT codecs. This is a problem with the architecture prior to Apple purchasing Color. Apple has assured us they realize this is a problem and it's on their list to fix, although we have no indication of where it is on the priority list as Color has other issues also.

 

[laguun]

Also as stated, Color does NOT support QT codecs. This is a problem with the architecture prior to Apple purchasing Color. Apple has assured us they realize this is a problem and it's on their list to fix, although we have no indication of where it is on the priority list as Color has other issues also.

Sadly, bit only color, but also FCP is limiting the quality for the use with red very much:
- it has no 4k, only 2k, so you need to dump 75% resolution
- it has only 8bit colordepth in RGB, which reduces the colorresolution, dependending on the source 20-40%, or one uses braodcast colors, yuv.

Therefore, for quality reasons, Adobe offers the much better quality the camera records: 4K and 16bit color/rgb are supported.

regarding some of the mayor differences between cineform and redcode via qt... (if i understand it correctly, please correct me if i am wrong, our tests with cineform are far from completed).

- Cineform is functional on windows and osx, redcode QT as of yet only OSX.
- Cineform is highquality and realtime, redcode QT is lowered quality realtime or non realtime.
- Cineform can be written by applications and be used as output/mastering and intermediate format, redcode QT can´t.

what i am unsure of: Cineform is up to 4K, redcodes QT wrapper gave me only 2K, but this may be related to our osx setup back then in november - running the first redalert version with only fcp, so it might have been an issue with qt or something else.

 

[David Taylor]

Laguun, there are a few things that third parties supporting FCP can do. FCP supports a 32-bit floating-point YUV mode which converts losslessly to 32-bit RGB. CineForm uses this mode for all renders within FCP. Although it's slower arithmetically than the parallelization we can do with higher bit depth integer processing, the latter is not an option in FCP. So we use 32-bit FP for all renders which is more precision than we need for 12-bit CineForm 444.

Yes FCP has a 2K limitation, although I've got to believe they will change this sometime soon. Meanwhile I suspect that many projects, even for theatrical release, will be finished at 2K, so 2K CineForm 444 is perfect as an online workflow in FCP (the issues with Color aside).

I don't know enough details about the plans for REDCODE evolution to comment, nor would it be appropriate. But CineForm Intermediate / 444 / RAW is cross-platform and cross-applications compatible and is designed for an online real-time workflow. CineForm files are used frequently in high-end workflows as the master format, and increasingly as a replacement for DPX files. We're actively working with numerous Hollywood facilities on compression-based workflows to augment what has been mostly an uncompressed DPX world to date. This becomes even more important as 4K becomes a more mainstream format.

To your final comment, in the current release of CineForm's Mac codec we limit spatial resolution to 2K because of FCPs limitations. However, very soon after New Year the next CineForm Mac codec release will support up to 4K. (Actually the spatial resolution will be unlimited, so you could go to 8K if you wanted). There is no limit on spatial resolution for P4K/N4K on Windows.

 

[laguun]

Laguun, there are a few things that third parties supporting FCP can do. FCP supports a 32-bit floating-point YUV mode which converts losslessly to 32-bit RGB. CineForm uses this mode for all renders within FCP. Although it's slower arithmetically than the parallelization we can do with higher bit depth integer processing, the latter is not an option in FCP. So we use 32-bit FP for all renders which is more precision than we need for 12-bit CineForm 444.

Nice - for us (as we have to deal with dpx and many other rgb formats roundtripping through softwares) sadly this sadly isn´t smooth.

Yes FCP has a 2K limitation, although I've got to believe they will change this sometime soon.

I really hope so. Not only for mastering in 4k, but also for large pan & scans, multiscreens etc 4k (and up) shhould really be supported by apple.

Meanwhile I suspect that many projects, even for theatrical release, will be finished at 2K, so 2K CineForm 444 is perfect as an online workflow in FCP (the issues with Color aside).

theatrical release is typically at 2k. however, especially for noise reduction, keying etc one usually drops from the maximum resolution (be it 1536, 2048 or whatever vertical) to 2k -as final step-. Additionally it makes no sense to shoot with a 4k camera just in order to erase 75% resolution before starting the online.

Same with audio. we record 24bit 96khz - even when the cd/broadcast master will be 16bit 44khz/48khz, or dolby digital via film low kbit rates.

I don't know enough details about the plans for REDCODE evolution to comment, nor would it be appropriate. But CineForm Intermediate / 444 / RAW is cross-platform and cross-applications compatible and is designed for an online real-time workflow.

Yes, thats was missing most for us in redcode - i sure hope red will go that way, once the urgent things as fileformatlockdown etc are final.

To your final comment, in the current release of CineForm's Mac codec we limit spatial resolution to 2K because of FCPs limitations. However, very soon after New Year the next CineForm Mac codec release will support up to 4K. (Actually the spatial resolution will be unlimited, so you could go to 8K if you wanted). There is no limit on spatial resolution for P4K/N4K on Windows.

Thanks for the information - and yees, we will certainly use 8k, as we do special venues sometimes. last project was for an opera, shot with 3 hdcam side by side and then projected/screened via multiple 1080p displays.

i have to admit, however, that i am still sceptical regarding datareduced and again datareduced workflows. we will test cineform en detail in january and i sure hope that the positive impression most users of your product told us will be reproduced here.

 

[David Taylor]

i have to admit, however, that i am still sceptical regarding datareduced and again datareduced workflows. we will test cineform en detail in january and i sure hope that the positive impression most users of your product told us will be reproduced here.

We accept and respect that everybody wants to test and verify the posted visual quality claims of CineForm compression. After all, compression has been a bad word in post (hence your skepticism), but mostly because people have tried to apply compression in post that was designed for cameras or distribution. It's only in rare cases that camera or distribution compression formats (HDCam, DVCPRO HD, MPEG (and variants), etc) are appropriate for post production. People began to use acquisition formats in post because it was convenient, even though those formats were never designed for the rigors of post.

When CineForm designed our compression, it was originally intended for 1) multi-generation post workflows, and 2) very high performance on Intel-architecture CPUs without the need for specialized hardware. Post requirements have significantly higher quality demands on compression algorithms than do cameras and distribution. We like to think we've done a pretty good job as indicated by the visual quality analysis of CineForm 444 compared to the respected HDCam SR format. For those who haven't seen that analysis, please see the Quality Analysis page on the CineForm website.

Laguun, after you perform your analysis, others on this site might be interested in the results.

 

[Thor Wixom]

David(s),

Not to change the subject (thank you, Laguun), but I do have a question about AMD processors.

AMD sent me 2 turnkey systems based on the first generation Opteron processors about 2 years ago.

They have served me well, but will they continue to serve me if I switch my workflow to Cineform? Or, will I need to invest in new Intel machines?

Thanks for all the questions you have answered over the past months. I look foward to your response.

-Thor

 

[David Taylor]

Thor, your Opteron's should work fine. Before Intel's architecture surge a couple years ago we recommended Opteron's exclusively. The Opteron' Hypertransport memory architecture works well with our algorithms.

 

[Jay A. Kelley]

David,

I asked this on an old thread with no response.. So I am trying here.. I am considering a Quadro FX 1700. Will this work well for your Cineform/Premiere workflow? I had thought to use the 8800gtx but I am hearing bad things about the "overlay". I am assuming the overlay is Premiere's Monitor, or is this just a feature that allows video output to the 2nd monitor on the system? I guess I should understand this first since my future capture card will most likely do this anyway.

Some education would be good here

Jay

 

[David Taylor]

Hi Jay, sorry for the slow response to your earlier question.

The recommended workflow for Prospect 2K/4K, whether CineForm 444, CineForm 422, or CineForm RAW, is to use an AJA Xena card for your reference display. In this case you don't use the overlay, so the discussion about the overlay surface of the 8800 is not relevant, and you can use whichever graphics card works best with RedCine. A choice to use the overlay for video preview is a compromise compared with an Xena LH/e.

However, if it is NOT an option to use a Xena card then issues with overlay support become relevant. NVidia in general does not do a good job with the overlay surface as it is better tuned for games. We tend to have better luck with ATI cards. We often recommend Matrox Parhelia cards but there is no GPU support for RedCine with Parhelia so this is probably not a good option in this case.

 

[Jay A. Kelley]

David,

I have been looking at the black magic cards.. Would they work? I like the fact that they are cross platform.

Jay

 

[David Taylor]

The SW architecture of the BM cards is different than AJA which is why we haven't supported them yet for monitoring (only capture). That said, we're working on it as we speak. No specific schedule, but hopefully in the next few weeks-ish.

 

[Jay A. Kelley]

Hey,

I am trying to render a 1080p file using REDCine and Cineform.. But I keep getting FAILED TO RENDER FRAME 0

Any advice on this? The system is new so it's not old hardware

Jay