Jay A. Kelley
member
- Joined
- Feb 2, 2007
- Messages
- 3,803
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 36
- Location
- St. Louis MO
- Website
- www.dreamwelder.com
Post work is getting complicated. There's no doubt about it. Tape was expensive to make, and a lot of work to sell. So manufactures were careful about how many formats were out there.
This is not the case in our new digital, tapless world. Everyone with a camera and/or capture card can design their own codec and call it God's gift to the editor. In the past codecs lived mainly with capture cards. Now with capture cards serving mainly as a viewing solution, the codecs the posses no longer have the same importance (Unless you are working with tape).
As consumers / editors, we're kind of screwed aren't we? The forest of post production was thick enough and now a bunch of companies have come along and planted a crapload more trees. In other words, we're getting a lot of formats.
This is the reason for Adobe's new program whereby they, and many others are searching for a "common standard" in terms of RAW workflow. The idea being that no matter what codec your camera uses, there will be one format you can transcode to, that will insure no matter what system you wish to work/edit on, it will support this codec. A lot of marketing is made of "WE OFFER DIRECT SUPPORT, NO TRANSCODING NESSESARY!!" And while this is a good thing for the small editor who may post AND deliver a project on one system using JUST that software family, it does very little for the editor who may need to run their project through a number of different programs.
Right now the number of choices for a "standard codec/worflow" are very slim. The one with the largest headstart would be Cineform. They offer solutions for both Final Cut Pro, and Adobe Premiere. I am sure this will be for both Windows and Mac then cs4 comes out. The only nut they have not been able to crack up to now is Avid. If they were able to get on board with Avid then Cineform would be able to make a good case for being a viable codec standard for post houses to use.
Another factor is that IF more people start using a standard codec, more pressure will fall on the editing software companies to support it well. What they don't want to hear is:
Nah, I want to use Final Cut, my codec is real time there and Vegas is slow as hell. If larger post houses start saying "we support this codec" that will also make a difference.
The problem here is that what's required for this type of idea to come off well is a strange little word called "cooperation". These codecs are not coming from little known guys in their garages. They are coming from mulimillion dollar companys that are in this game to MAKE MONEY. So it's hard for them not to see one another as competition.
The funny part is that as customers, we all know something the software companys are slower to learn: Easy post helps EVERYONE.
But let's look at that for a moment.. Does it really?
Right now a lot of RED people are moving to Adobe Premiere. The reason, as they have said time and again is the support Adobe gives RED. NOT the editing system itself. Don't get me wrong, Adobe has really improved over the years, but it's still far behind FCP and AVID in it's feature set. And is this making a difference? Not really, customers are more concerned with support for their camera codec than they are the features and benefits of the editing platform they are working on.. This strikes me as a little bass ackwards. A standard codec would put the editor's attention back where it's suppose to be, on the best tool for job, rather than the only tool that works.
Now this may be blasphemy to say on a RED forum, but in my humble opinion SI-2K did a pretty amazing thing by supporting Cineform as their Capture codec rather than make their own. Not only did they get to dump what is no doubt a buttload of R&D but they had a system that had very impressive post support before the camera was even completed! Now this works for SI, but may not work for Dalsa, RED, and the other high end companies. Nevertheless, I think it was a clever move, and I would not be surprised if you saw more of this down the line. As obvious as it seems, I find it interesting to look at why more companies do not do it. One reason could be cost, Cineform is not free, and every time a camera is sold, SI-2k may have to pay something. Perhaps this is not something other camera & capture card companies want to deal with, also they give up a certain amount of control if they rely on a 3rd party to handle the codec needs for their given hardware. The solution here is "size". The company that handles the "Standard Codec" would need to be large enough to insure two things:
1: That they have enough history, and capital to make any company that uses their workflow/codec feel safe.
2: That they do high enough numbers to offer this solution at a relatively low cost to the vendors and/or consumers that use it.
The cost factor is a huge deal right now, and it's the one thing that could keep a standard codec/workflow out of the hands of the masses. That said, if the "standard codec/workflow" began pulling in enough sales, they would be able to get a handle on the cost. My own opinion is that it would need to be around $500 -$800 for the general consumer. To get there would require some serious sales.
This brings up an interesting question: If someone buys an SI-2K do they have to purchase Cineform, or does the codec and all it's bells and whistles come with it. If the camera company, or the software package INCLUDED Cineform, or a Codec like it, then that would get around this problem completely. And get us one step closer to a "codec/workflow" for all.
Think about this for a second: If there were a standard codec supported WELL be all three of the big editors, then the only real choice you would have to make is which PROGRAM you like more. While we've been busy working, AVID lowered it's pricing so that it could compete with the other two. They are all closer than they have ever been in terms of being reachable by the average editor.
Up to now, only Cineform has positioned itself to be the codec for all things editing. Everyone else (For the most part) has attached themselves to a piece of hardware, be it a camera or capture card. Of course there's always Jpeg2000, but that a dinosaur of a codec who's time has long since pasted in terms of speed and efficiency. That said some companies are doing pretty creative things with it. For cameras and the like, Jpeg2000 can be a good thing, but for the speed and multiple generations that editors and various post people need, it's not the best choice out there.
Due to Apple getting lazy, and Adobe and AVID getting busy, the playing field is as level as it's every been between the big three. But the only real solution is going to come from the outside. And it's going to have to work on ALL THREE platforms.
If it does, then it will be a game changer for us, that's for sure.
Jay
This is not the case in our new digital, tapless world. Everyone with a camera and/or capture card can design their own codec and call it God's gift to the editor. In the past codecs lived mainly with capture cards. Now with capture cards serving mainly as a viewing solution, the codecs the posses no longer have the same importance (Unless you are working with tape).
As consumers / editors, we're kind of screwed aren't we? The forest of post production was thick enough and now a bunch of companies have come along and planted a crapload more trees. In other words, we're getting a lot of formats.
This is the reason for Adobe's new program whereby they, and many others are searching for a "common standard" in terms of RAW workflow. The idea being that no matter what codec your camera uses, there will be one format you can transcode to, that will insure no matter what system you wish to work/edit on, it will support this codec. A lot of marketing is made of "WE OFFER DIRECT SUPPORT, NO TRANSCODING NESSESARY!!" And while this is a good thing for the small editor who may post AND deliver a project on one system using JUST that software family, it does very little for the editor who may need to run their project through a number of different programs.
Right now the number of choices for a "standard codec/worflow" are very slim. The one with the largest headstart would be Cineform. They offer solutions for both Final Cut Pro, and Adobe Premiere. I am sure this will be for both Windows and Mac then cs4 comes out. The only nut they have not been able to crack up to now is Avid. If they were able to get on board with Avid then Cineform would be able to make a good case for being a viable codec standard for post houses to use.
Another factor is that IF more people start using a standard codec, more pressure will fall on the editing software companies to support it well. What they don't want to hear is:
Nah, I want to use Final Cut, my codec is real time there and Vegas is slow as hell. If larger post houses start saying "we support this codec" that will also make a difference.
The problem here is that what's required for this type of idea to come off well is a strange little word called "cooperation". These codecs are not coming from little known guys in their garages. They are coming from mulimillion dollar companys that are in this game to MAKE MONEY. So it's hard for them not to see one another as competition.
The funny part is that as customers, we all know something the software companys are slower to learn: Easy post helps EVERYONE.
But let's look at that for a moment.. Does it really?
Right now a lot of RED people are moving to Adobe Premiere. The reason, as they have said time and again is the support Adobe gives RED. NOT the editing system itself. Don't get me wrong, Adobe has really improved over the years, but it's still far behind FCP and AVID in it's feature set. And is this making a difference? Not really, customers are more concerned with support for their camera codec than they are the features and benefits of the editing platform they are working on.. This strikes me as a little bass ackwards. A standard codec would put the editor's attention back where it's suppose to be, on the best tool for job, rather than the only tool that works.
Now this may be blasphemy to say on a RED forum, but in my humble opinion SI-2K did a pretty amazing thing by supporting Cineform as their Capture codec rather than make their own. Not only did they get to dump what is no doubt a buttload of R&D but they had a system that had very impressive post support before the camera was even completed! Now this works for SI, but may not work for Dalsa, RED, and the other high end companies. Nevertheless, I think it was a clever move, and I would not be surprised if you saw more of this down the line. As obvious as it seems, I find it interesting to look at why more companies do not do it. One reason could be cost, Cineform is not free, and every time a camera is sold, SI-2k may have to pay something. Perhaps this is not something other camera & capture card companies want to deal with, also they give up a certain amount of control if they rely on a 3rd party to handle the codec needs for their given hardware. The solution here is "size". The company that handles the "Standard Codec" would need to be large enough to insure two things:
1: That they have enough history, and capital to make any company that uses their workflow/codec feel safe.
2: That they do high enough numbers to offer this solution at a relatively low cost to the vendors and/or consumers that use it.
The cost factor is a huge deal right now, and it's the one thing that could keep a standard codec/workflow out of the hands of the masses. That said, if the "standard codec/workflow" began pulling in enough sales, they would be able to get a handle on the cost. My own opinion is that it would need to be around $500 -$800 for the general consumer. To get there would require some serious sales.
This brings up an interesting question: If someone buys an SI-2K do they have to purchase Cineform, or does the codec and all it's bells and whistles come with it. If the camera company, or the software package INCLUDED Cineform, or a Codec like it, then that would get around this problem completely. And get us one step closer to a "codec/workflow" for all.
Think about this for a second: If there were a standard codec supported WELL be all three of the big editors, then the only real choice you would have to make is which PROGRAM you like more. While we've been busy working, AVID lowered it's pricing so that it could compete with the other two. They are all closer than they have ever been in terms of being reachable by the average editor.
Up to now, only Cineform has positioned itself to be the codec for all things editing. Everyone else (For the most part) has attached themselves to a piece of hardware, be it a camera or capture card. Of course there's always Jpeg2000, but that a dinosaur of a codec who's time has long since pasted in terms of speed and efficiency. That said some companies are doing pretty creative things with it. For cameras and the like, Jpeg2000 can be a good thing, but for the speed and multiple generations that editors and various post people need, it's not the best choice out there.
Due to Apple getting lazy, and Adobe and AVID getting busy, the playing field is as level as it's every been between the big three. But the only real solution is going to come from the outside. And it's going to have to work on ALL THREE platforms.
If it does, then it will be a game changer for us, that's for sure.
Jay
