DNxHD Proxies?

[Peter Moretti]

Just stating the obvious... wouldn't it be awesome if Red joined up w/ Avid to make a DNxHD recording module!?

 

[Jörgen Persson]

Just stating the obvious... wouldn't it be awesome if Red joined up w/ Avid to make a DNxHD recording module!?

Agreed.
Because even if there's support for native editing with r3d in Media Composer v5, a module that provides media in an editing codec instead of a mastering/delivery codec would be just that - awesome. Especially for long form projects where you would backup the R3Ds and edit with the proxy media.

 

[Tom.Wong]

i think the point of having a h264 proxy module was it's flexibility in cross platform, working in all NLE's in one module, and compressed enough so that it can stream over wifi to different devices for preview. Having a codec that's NLE specific would make it less flexible like that, would probably eliminate the streaming capabilities, and would force people to buy multiple modules.

 

[Jörgen Persson]

i think the point of having a h264 proxy module was it's flexibility in cross platform, working in all NLE's in one module, and compressed enough so that it can stream over wifi to different devices for preview. Having a codec that's NLE specific would make it less flexible like that, would probably eliminate the streaming capabilities, and would force people to buy multiple modules.

Personally I'm not a fan of H264 for editing but I think it's a fantastic codec for delivery.

And isn't offering choices and upgrades for the customers the whole idea with the Epic modules? If you plan to edit with Media Composer then you rent an Epic and the DNxHD module. FCP editors would prefer a ProRes module or maybe a Cineform module.

You wouldn't rent a Sony camera if you only have DVCPRO HD decks in the editing suite.

 

[Peter Moretti]

i think the point of having a h264 proxy module was it's flexibility in cross platform, working in all NLE's in one module, and compressed enough so that it can stream over wifi to different devices for preview. Having a codec that's NLE specific would make it less flexible like that, would probably eliminate the streaming capabilities, and would force people to buy multiple modules.

Tom, that was my thinking as well when MC5 and Alexa were announced. But considering it more, DNxHD would be better for Avid users.

The obvious reason being that most Avid post houses don't use the latests and greatest versions of MC. "Avatar" was cut on 2.8 and a lot of "The Dark Knight" was cut on laptops running Xpress. So H.264 or ProRes will mean diddly for the majority of Avid's install base for a good while.

Red is pretty open to third-party developers. Perhaps Avid can make the module to Red specs? (Or more likely, Red could make it w/ Avid's assistance.)

I just think it would be great to see the Alexa recording to ProRes but the Red recording to DNxHD. Which camera fits into a professional workflow better NOW?

That would let Red one-up Arri on the workflow argument.

 

[MichaelP]

We will have to see what this involves and will certainly work with RED to support this effort. Seeing as the RED tools already create native DNxHD, the SDK and knowledge to do so is already there. The challenge will be to see if this can be done within the camera.

Michael

 

[Tom.Wong]

h264 still remains flexible enough to be transcoded into a usable visually lossless format. dnxhd and pro res, you still lose the module streaming capabilities to iphone, touch, pad, etc. I could easily transcode via mpeg streamclip to dnxhd if i wanted to from h264 at great speeds, and it's a free program, cross platform.

h264 makes sense, it's not ideal, but it makes the most sense with what they want to accomplish with this module. Maybe they'll have interchangeable modules one day and if you wanna lose your wifi streaming options and go for a more usable proxy set up, that can be incorporated. But the question is, business wise, what will sell more? time will tell if they see enough outcry for it.

It's all still a business in the end, something that has to benefit company and client all in one.

and I know all too well Peter, on old Avid systems being ran from beyond the grave. I've worked in some houses where they still were offlining with dv25 OMF, and finished on a singly symphony system. You throw current r3d files at them now and their whole suites would implode into itself.

Some companies are simply going to be left behind in this, and there's no avoiding it. Post is one of the slowest to change areas of production, it's way too costly to always have the latest and greatest. But I think h264 can incorporate companies that have upgraded in the past 3 years or so, which is fair in my opinion. And push the other companies that are working with dinosaur systems to finally make their upgrade cause all their footage is coming in as something they can't accept.

 

[Jörgen Persson]

h264 still remains flexible enough to be transcoded into a usable visually lossless format. dnxhd and pro res, you still lose the module streaming capabilities to iphone, touch, pad, etc. I could easily transcode via mpeg streamclip to dnxhd if i wanted to from h264 at great speeds, and it's a free program, cross platform.

Transcoding is the biggest hurdle to overcome with the Red and that's the entire point of having a DNxHD module. Another important factor is that H.264 will not contain the amount of metadata you can put in an MXF with DNxHD essence.

h264 makes sense, it's not ideal, but it makes the most sense with what they want to accomplish with this module. Maybe they'll have interchangeable modules one day and if you wanna lose your wifi streaming options and go for a more usable proxy set up, that can be incorporated. But the question is, business wise, what will sell more? time will tell if they see enough outcry for it.

It makes sense for the purpose of putting dailies into the hands of the director, script supervisor, makeup department and so on. But for editorial it doesn't make much sense at all since it involves transcoding and merging of metadata which means more time managing data and less time editing.

 

[David Battistella]

H.264 is a pretty great option. The main problem is that you are asking RED to conform to AVID codecs. So what would the millions of MAC and FCP users do if they wanted to edit with FCP?

Maybe the module could be "programable" so that it would record to "selectable" codecs. That way AVID DnXHD could be included. I'm not sure there is enough demand to make the files AVID ready.

ARRI went with PRORES for a reason and it's a MAC only codec.

I really love AVID editing software, but I feel like they left AVID a "closed system" for a bit to long.

David

 

[Peter Moretti]

David, FWIU Arri went w/ ProRes b/c 1) MC5 will be able to read ProRes and 1) they wanted their camera to appear new and cool (which FCP is considered and apparently Avid is not).

Where this breaks down is that MC5 has an install base of zero and a lot of post houses are very slow to upgrade. Also the Alexa is a baked-in image camera; there isn't lot of image critical metadata so ProRes in a QT wrapper is fine. Red is obviously a different beast, and I believe only a wrapper like MXF could keep track of the metadata.

I'm not saying replace H.264 w/ DNxHD, rather I'm saying add a DNxHD option. I don't see how that makes life any worse for the FCP crowd?

As for being an opened system, DNxHD is a free codec.

http://avid.custkb.com/avid/app/sel...90373&Hilite=Quicktime+Codec+QuickTime+Codecs

And the source code is open and freely downloadable.

http://www.avid.com/us/request-info/dnxhd

(I don't know what the licensing terms are for equipment makers.)

 

[David Battistella]

When I say closed system, I mean that everything needs to become "AVID friendly" on import, not that they do not make their codec available.

RE: ALEXA and PRoRES. PRORES 4444 carries the ARRI RAW data (i think) so not as baked in as you think. You can be pretty sure it will be WYSIWYG with the monitoring path of ALEXA and the Prores file (just guessing on that one)

Anyhow. It's all semantics. Far more people use FCP now and with free lightworks on the horizon that will work with any codec, this "special AVID" thing will be even less necessary.

David

 

[Jörgen Persson]

When I say closed system, I mean that everything needs to become "AVID friendly" on import, not that they do not make their codec available.

It's quite the opposite. In FCP the media has to be Quicktime. You can't edit with mxf, mp4, m2t, r3d or any other native camera codec that isn't Quicktime. Everything has to go through the process of rewrap or transcode to a Quicktime wrapper to be recognized by Final Cut Pro. So that argument against Avid is not valid since it supports far more formats than FCP.

RE: ALEXA and PRoRES. PRORES 4444 carries the ARRI RAW data (i think) so not as baked in as you think. You can be pretty sure it will be WYSIWYG with the monitoring path of ALEXA and the Prores file (just guessing on that one)

ARRIRAW is a 3072 x 1728 bayer pattern image via HD-SDI to an external recorder while the ProRes is HD 1080P recorded to SxS cards.

Anyhow. It's all semantics. Far more people use FCP now and with free lightworks on the horizon that will work with any codec, this "special AVID" thing will be even less necessary.

David

Far more people use FCP. That's true. But those numbers mean nothing.
Out of all those FCP users very few will cut media from the ALEXA because the editors of big budget productions (the ones that can afford the Alexa) still use Avids.

That's why it's so important to have a DNxHD module for Epic. It makes the Epic camera more attractive when an even smoother workflow for Avid is in place.
If it can be switchable between ProRes and DNxHD then it's really a no-brainer to buy it.

 

[Tom Gough]

Far more people use FCP. That's true. But those numbers mean nothing.
Out of all those FCP users very few will cut media from the ALEXA because the editors of big budget productions (the ones that can afford the Alexa) still use Avids.

That's why it's so important to have a DNxHD module for Epic. It makes the Epic camera more attractive when an even smoother workflow for Avid is in place.
If it can be switchable between ProRes and DNxHD then it's really a no-brainer to buy it.

:iagree: