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 :)

Why Red Rocket? Why not Cineform?

Cineform is transcoding. It takes a fair amount of time, and negates some of the advantages of working with the R3Ds directly.
 
cineform does get awsome realtime performance...

but red rocket is a lot more then that....4k output for projectors for example.

when you think a top end kona card is worth $2500++...and you will never get 4k output out of it it's worth comes more obvious

if it was only a hardware accelerator....that would be a different story...pretty hard to keep up with intel.
 
with cineform u need a kona as well to get proper output.
 
Not required, but highly recommended.

In the next Kona driver update expected imminently CineForm becomes a natively supported format through Kona. Kona will become a recommended display option for CineForm online workflows because it bypasses FCP inefficiencies for greater-than-HD workflows.

The problem we've faced with FCP is that it is essentially an HD application. When playing greater-than-HD material FCP scales 2K to HD using non-optimized code which kills performance - lots of stuttery playback. When using Kona we're able to bypass that and support 2K workflows efficiently to an external monitor. It becomes a pretty nice real-time 2K online solution.

When the driver release is out we'll publish the Kona setup parameters in a Tech Note.
 
How much is it strictly necessary for the Kona add-on, David?
 
Ya know... I bet Cineform will work quite well with the Red Rocket... Just sayin'
 
Jeff Kilgroe said:
Ya know... I bet Cineform will work quite well with the Red Rocket... Just sayin'
Click to expand...

Agreed, Red Rocket only helps our story, as not every system will have a RR. Facillicities based Red transcodes, delivering CineForm 444 or RAW for real-time software based work. A $1500 i7 system plays CineForm RAW 4K at 35fps - Software Rocket, software plus the i7 cheaper than mulitple RRs. :)
 
Cristina S. said:
How much is it strictly necessary for the Kona add-on, David?
Click to expand...

Christina, if you create CineForm HD content from Red source the Xena card is not specifically required. For 2K (or 4K) source the Xena card is able to work around HD limitations in FCP. Without the Xena card, and with greater-than-HD images, FCP resamples your 2K (or greater) images back to HD for preview. So it's like FCP is stealing 6 of your 8 cores from you for no good reason.

The Xena card fully works around this problem, not because it's doing processing on the card, but because it replaces part of the FCP software decode engine with its own software calls that don't force a resample.
 
David Newman said:
Agreed, Red Rocket only helps our story, as not every system will have a RR. Facillicities based Red transcodes, delivering CineForm 444 or RAW for real-time software based work. A $1500 i7 system plays CineForm RAW 4K at 35fps - Software Rocket, software plus the i7 cheaper than mulitple RRs. :)
Click to expand...

why is it that cineform raw is less processor intensive than redcode raw? (i dont know if it really is)
 
it is less intensive...

i run both workflows...

with cineform i can get realtime playback of 4k through PPro(one layer of video in the timeline) with 1 core i7

redcode is based on jpeg 2000
cineform something else....

they are both wavelet encoded, but i think cineform is more optimised for intel

another workflow plus for cineform is, i can convert a 4k DPX sequence to cineform and edit real time in 4k with just a 2 hard drive raid 0 setup...all with active metadata coolness
so whereas it is a hassle to convert redcode to cineform....it is a solution for more then just redcode....there still will be filmscans for the forseeable future
 
Cüneyt Kaya said:
why is it that cineform raw is less processor intensive than redcode raw? (i dont know if it really is)
Click to expand...

The simplest answer is that although both compression formats are Wavelet based, and both algorithms produce high visual quality, there are portions of the respective algorithm implementations that differ, and these differences affect performance on Intel CPUs. When we (CineForm) started our Wavelet work 8 years ago we had a design goal focused on algorithm choices that could be implemented efficiently in Intel CPUs. We wanted to eliminate the need for specialized hardware and always offer multi-stream real-time playback with just the CPU. Intel CPU performance has been on a rocket ride in recent years and the performance of our algorithm implementations has benefitted.
 
how long it takes to convert from red to cineform ? is it faster than the usual debayer.
and from cineform to any other output codec ? Does cineform help bypass the super slow debayering process ?

thanks
 
And since RED ROCKED decodes the 4K files in real time, encoding to Cineform also benefits since the long part of the process has been the debayering.

Michael
 
So if I have only Cineform it will still take ages for REDCINE to convert from R3D to Cineform ?

What about from Cineform to whatever format i want the final output to be ?
 
I would convert R3D to cineform through there utility not redcine
and for output cineform has command line utilty for DPX output,.... Any other format you'll have to run through your editor or AE ect
 
ok thanks,

but it is faster to convert R3D to cineform than debayering R3d files to whatever format you wish ?

And how long does it take cineform to transform into DPX or other formats if using the editor ? Is it the same as debayering R3Ds ?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top