How long till ProRes dies?

[L. Langer]

I remember the golden days of QT in the 90's. It was everywhere in the Windows 3.1-95/98/ME era when FMV interactivity was a genre unto itself.

 

[Gavin Greenwalt]

(Oh, and, as I indicated above, if you don't want to use it - you very definitely shouldn't use it.)

Well when you're talking about someone's experience, it's easy to be 100% right when you are said person.

Saying "Just don't use it" isn't useful either. I don't make the delivery specs for other collaborators. I don't know about you but almost all of my work goes to another vendor to either put on air or prep to put on air. They set the terms of the deliverable. So unless you want to ruin our reputation and refuse delivery of a job, you gotta give them what they want. I'll never make a prores by choice for sure.

 

[Blair S. Paulsen]

Industry standards still matter

Industry standards still matter

I wonder why Arri went with ProRes? Was the 4:4:4 variant out at the time they made their choice? They eventually added DNxHD but IIRC almost 2 years after Alexa shipped.

We can rant and reminisce about QT, ProRes, DNxHD, CineForm and the rest all day but let's get to the meat of the issue:

in a file based world there needs to be an open source codec that suits most deliverables, has a good balance of quality to data load, is resolution independent and most importantly; is easily and widely supported in distribution infrastructures. There needs to be some sort of licensing scheme that provides the financial incentive to develop, maintain and propagate said codec. That said, it needs to be very low cost per usage and NOT controlled by a specific vendor.

Despite its flaws the DCI spec might be the best example of what we need. If a significant standards body like the ITC, ASTC, etc were to administrate a certified deliverable codec ecosystem for the industry as a whole with a mandate to provide tools for accessing library content for 50 years or more I think it would be a great service to us all. With tape on the way out I think there is a serious need to have a file spec with similar interoperability. The IIF/ACES program for color and file format standards is perhaps another model worth looking at.

Its easy to understand why individual companies want to develop, and reap the rewards from, specific codecs but IMHO the best case scenario for the industry user base is a codec that all stakeholders have reliable access to indefinitely at marginal cost. I don't have the statistics to prove it, but if the number of uses was high enough I would think you could generate enough total revenue to make it self sustaining even at extremely low fee levels per use.

Cheers - #19

 

[Brian Boyer]

people can argue FCPX is currently viable for professional usage all they want, but if all the post houses switch(ed) then what does it matter if the "couch editors" are using it? my job phased out Apple entirely and bought PC's to run Avid. At home I am about to upgrade to a new machine and I am not even sure I want to bother installing FCP7 on my new machine. Seeing what SSD costs per gb its tough to justify an EOL 32bit program...

What happened to you guys?

The "couch editors" are who FCP started with. If you or your facility are using FCP it's because you were, to some degree, thumbing your nose at Avid and other expensive, turnkey NLE solutions that were representative of the "establishment".

Now you're claiming that FCP can't survive without you?

Avid and its users didn't initially see FCP as anything more than a hobbyists toy, either.

FCP 1.0, a Sony VX1000 and few intrepid filmmakers were all that was needed to give an entire industry a wake-up call. FCP arguably singlehandedly forced Avid to eventually change its tune, put other NLEs on notice and helped put some others out of business. And that was before the internet played a significant role in video distribution.

YouTube is positioning itself to be a major content provider of original programming and high resolution delivery (ala internet enabled 4K televisions). I see many "pros" poo-pooing it because they can only see the real value in traditional broadcast and cable channels and not paying attention to what's happening right in front of them.

I guarantee, there will come a day in the next 3-5 years when some of those same people will be talking about how proud they are of the work they did on that one breakout YouTube original series.

FCPX is $299 for crying out loud. It's already way more advanced and powerful than FCP 1.0 was when it debuted.

There's no reason to think that a new generation of editors isn't going to make its bones on FCPX and start that process all over again.

They are the you that many of you used to be.

What happened to you guys?

 

[Gavin Greenwalt]

I wonder why Arri went with ProRes? Was the 4:4:4 variant out at the time they made their choice? They eventually added DNxHD but IIRC almost 2 years after Alexa shipped.

We can rant and reminisce about QT, ProRes, DNxHD, CineForm and the rest all day but let's get to the meat of the issue:

in a file based world there needs to be an open source codec that suits most deliverables, has a good balance of quality to data load, is resolution independent and most importantly; is easily and widely supported in distribution infrastructures. There needs to be some sort of licensing scheme that provides the financial incentive to develop, maintain and propagate said codec. That said, it needs to be very low cost per usage and NOT controlled by a specific vendor.

Despite its flaws the DCI spec might be the best example of what we need. If a significant standards body like the ITC, ASTC, etc were to administrate a certified deliverable codec ecosystem for the industry as a whole with a mandate to provide tools for accessing library content for 50 years or more I think it would be a great service to us all. With tape on the way out I think there is a serious need to have a file spec with similar interoperability. The IIF/ACES program for color and file format standards is perhaps another model worth looking at.

Its easy to understand why individual companies want to develop, and reap the rewards from, specific codecs but IMHO the best case scenario for the industry user base is a codec that all stakeholders have reliable access to indefinitely at marginal cost. I don't have the statistics to prove it, but if the number of uses was high enough I would think you could generate enough total revenue to make it self sustaining even at extremely low fee levels per use.

Cheers - #19

Maybe if they add PIZ compression to IIF/ACES it'll be the best of all worlds?

 

[Terry VerHaar]

Well when you're talking about someone's experience, it's easy to be 100% right when you are said person.

Saying "Just don't use it" isn't useful either. I don't make the delivery specs for other collaborators. I don't know about you but almost all of my work goes to another vendor to either put on air or prep to put on air. They set the terms of the deliverable. So unless you want to ruin our reputation and refuse delivery of a job, you gotta give them what they want. I'll never make a prores by choice for sure.

Haha - Gavin, you are right. I am sure I am 100% wrong in your case but I do think there are lots of folks who are just pissed off at Apple for something and would love for them to fail... at anything.

As I mentioned in a previous post, I have the curse and the blessing of not being tied to others' workflows given the kind of work I seek and do. I understand that it really is a bitch to have people dictate deliverables when, all too often, those said people are, shall we say, somewhat "ignorant" of what works and what doesn't. I really do love FCP-X and, until they get around to handling R3Ds natively (seems like it's proceeding at a glacial pace), I am even OK with transcoding to ProRes to edit. I truly believe that FCP-X is going to evolve to a very powerful editing paradigm for many people but, of course, not for everyone. Just who those people are remains to be seen and will probably evolve over time; just like the first set of Final Cut users did.

 

[Brian Boyer]

Yes. You just need the codecs installed. To get the codecs without FCP, you must download them (L Langer offers up a link). Purchasing the latest version of Compressor from the app store (US $50) is another great way to accomplish this. It gives you full QT support, including all ProRes codecs, and also provides a great encoder that is superior to other options (including Adobe Media Encoder) for some tasks. Compressor is the only Apple "Pro App" I keep on all my Macs.

As I understand it, that Prores codec installer only works if you have FCPX.

However, if you use unpkg from Tim Doug, it will unpack the contents of the dmg so that you're able to copy the individual codecs to the Quicktime folder.

I used this at a previous job and it worked like a charm.


http://www.timdoug.com/unpkg/

 

[Paul Toth]

Hey Brian, thanks for the TimDoug thing, that worked (so far). Good to be able to access and deliver in ProRes next time it comes up.

 

[Jeff Kilgroe]

As I understand it, that Prores codec installer only works if you have FCPX.

Not exactly true. You don't need FCPX, but you do need to have an active installation of the QT Pro Codecs. You can obtain this several ways, doesn't have to be via FCPX. Can be via cheaper apps like Compressor or Motion or by way of prior QT Pro installations. Or yes, you can undo the PKG contents and insert the codecs manually.

Those with FCS or FCP7 can just install QuickTime and nothing else and then update the codecs via the installer package. However, it's easier to do it manually. Lots of little things I guess some of us don't think about when posting above. I keep Compressor on my Macs and that gives me access to all the codecs without jumping through any hoops. No FCPX necessary. But yeah, if the codec updater won't let you install, they're in the PKG and you can install manually via a utility like unpkg or Pacifist.

 

[M Most]

I wonder why Arri went with ProRes? Was the 4:4:4 variant out at the time they made their choice?

Yes, it was. 3 reasons (among others) for their choice:

1. 12 bit container (not available in any other codec at the time, and still not available in DNxHD)
2. RGB (same as above)
3. Already in existence and widely supported

The reason you might not have thought that 444 was available at the time might be because it was not supported on the original Alexa release, only Prores and Prores HQ. It was rather quickly added in an early update.

 

[Tom Lowe]

Haha yeah I think you're right. I'm envisioning Avid and Premiere stations armed to the teeth with Red Rockets and insane hardware...and Macs sitting at the back as client computers only.

4 years ago...who would have thought this possible?

Me. I've been screaming at the top of my lungs for half a decade on this forum that Apple would lose to Adobe and PCs. Final Cut is a closed system. Apple cannot match the hardware of PCs, and in the long run, it cannot match Adobe's laser focus on image-related software. I could see this coming a mile away.

 

[Terry VerHaar]

And how many more decades do you see it taking to have this happen? LOL

 

[Tim Morten]

The more successful Apple gets in the consumer space, the less they care about anything else.

FCP no longer leads the market, and the anemic pace of continued development sends a clear message for the future.

ProRes will continue to exist for years... heck, I know plenty of folks who still have physical tape DVR's, so obsolete formats die slow deaths, but Apple's "walled garden" is its undoing.

I agree with Tom 100%...

 

[Patrick Tresch]

Avid don't support 2k editing (nor 4k).

You can install codecs on a Mac just by copiing them from the library/Codecs to your USB Key and dropping them in your system.

Pat

 

[David Rasberry]

The real sleeper in the NLE race is Lightworks open source. It is format, codec, and resolution independent. IMO interoperable open standards based codecs like AVC and universal format wrappers like MXF are the wave of the future for deliverables. Proprietary codecs and file systems will all eventually fade away with the rapid move to cloud based services for everything data related, including streaming, broadcast and theatrical media delivery systems.

 

[Scott Crawley]

The more successful Apple gets in the consumer space, the less they care about anything else.

FCP no longer leads the market, and the anemic pace of continued development sends a clear message for the future.

ProRes will continue to exist for years... heck, I know plenty of folks who still have physical tape DVR's, so obsolete formats die slow deaths, but Apple's "walled garden" is its undoing.

I agree with Tom 100%...

Updates to FCPX have come rather quickly, in spite of their reduction of staff. I'm not sure what you are referring to.

 

[Gavin Greenwalt]

You can install codecs on a Mac just by copiing them from the library/Codecs to your USB Key and dropping them in your system.

Pat

Technically you can do the same thing with a cracked copy of FCP too. Doesn't mean you can legally do it though.

 

[Terry VerHaar]

It's easy to make very general predictions about future events when you don't define "the future" and you don't define the specifics of the prediction. What exactly constitutes the "demise" of ProRes or of FCP-X. For some, that event has already happened, because they have decided not to use these tools. The same confusion surrounds the claim that "pro" users don't use these tools. If a web video creator is making $1 million/year in 5 years, is he a "pro?" If he is one of only 10,000 people using FCP-X or ProRes (or 100,000?), is it dead?

In the past, one could claim Avid was "dead" and the same with Premiere. And, IMO, those NLEs of the past were WAAAAY more "dead" than FCP is now or will be in the next 5-10 years. But what is the measurement? How many seats sold in a quarter? How many active users? How many Hollywood movies were cut with it? What "pros" declare? Who shouts the loudest?

I go back to the suggestion that many people just don't like Apple, for whatever reasons, and love to make claims about the imminent demise of something in their repertoire. My definition is this: ProRes is "dead" when Apple stops supporting it. FCP-X is "dead" when Apple says it is. For me, Premiere was dead a dozen years ago and I have seen no reason to go back. Avid was always dead because I never saw a need for it.

As far as the "closed system" argument - I honestly don't "get it." Apple has been a "closed system" during the entire time when FCP kicked everyone's ass; it didn't seem to make a difference. Why, all of a sudden, is that the demise of Apple? It's not like Microsoft is such a hot shit company. Vision? They don't need no stinkin' vision. Like I said earlier, Steve Ballmer and Steve Jobs shared exactly one thing: a first name. Oh, and they are/were both capable of being real asses. Ballmer a marketing genius? Not so much.

Apple will continue to do what Apple does; piss people off by "moving the cheese." Some people don't like their cheese moved.

 

[Paul Toth]

plus ça change plus c'est la même chose... The more things change the more they stay the same...

It doesn't matter what nle we choose to cut on... who cares? Not me... I think tho that the closed prores system will slowly die since it is not cross platform (easily at any rate)... I also don't care which codec I use or gets used as long as the quality is there. That being said, I run into more problems with prores on pc than any other format... And what I find most regularly is the so called 'pro user' refuses to send the file to me in another codec or QT flavor... Generally because they don't know how...

 

[Blair S. Paulsen]

Still think we need an independent industry initiative to create and propagate an open codec that marries 2012 compression tech with modern file based infrastructure. Using ProRes and DNxHD as examples of what people want, and offering a code base with a decent future, an industry controlled independent format supported by all the key stakeholders might finally give us the rest of the payoff inherent in a file based ecosystem.

Cheers - #19