Huge conversion times, right?

[M Most]

To be an excellent tool for red, avid needs native redcode support.
Without it its not first class. Needing to transcode is a waste of time.

Your opinion. Which I don't happen to agree with.

Redcode Raw is not an ideal editing codec. Not even close. Having to do significant processing while attaining real time playback from files that are larger than you really want to be using for offline editing is not ideal. Not to mention that certain metadata that is important for later conforming may or may not be available. Avid's approach has always been to create relatively light files that can be played back efficiently and that carry relevant metadata and file naming schemes that is then connected to a database that is specific to the need. What makes editing "first class" is editing features, not direct, real time playback support for every codec ever created and every file format ever created. Doing that creates a lot of problems in terms of media management that Avid has avoided (but Final Cut hasn't). The only time a little bit of transcoding time is really a problem is in a very fast turnaround situation (i.e., shoot in the morning and deliver that night), which is not all that common in the real world of both commercial and entertainment material editing. Personally, I would rather have an editing program that offers all of the editing features needed and more, has very solid and robust media management, and doesn't crash or choke on large projects. And I think I just described Media Composer.

 

[laguun]

Your opinion. Which I don't happen to agree with.

Redcode Raw is not an ideal editing codec.

Redcode is the native format of the red one, and its certainly not as flexible as editing codec as cineform.

But liking or disliking transcoding isnt an "opinion", its simply fact based.

- transcoding costs time which translates into money and creativity.
- transcoding can and will add human error
- transcoding costs diskspace
- transcoding costs quality, if done multiple times
- transcoding isnt possible for DIT and on-set situations.
*LOTS* of redshooters want and will want to layout / organize at the set / in the cafe after the shoot. Avid wont be part of this if it needs to transcode
- transcoding requires training and explanation.
Many Avid-editors are first of all *only* editors and are no to educated in tech - and are sceptical if they have to learn
- ... Many other disadvantages not listed.

As you explained, i agree that it is good that we can use an intermediate codec.

Its not good that Adobe Premiere CS editors will start hours, days or even weeks faster than Avid MC editors on any red project.

 

[Wayne D]

Many Avid-editors are first of all *only* editors and are no to educated in tech - and are sceptical if they have to learn

please explain.........

 

[laguun]

Many Avid-editors are first of all *only* editors and are no to educated in tech - and are sceptical if they have to learn

please explain.........

Imagine the 55 year old veteran-editor lady who cuts like a goddess but doenst know the difference from esata to fw800. When such persons call, they usually say: "Your quicktime is defect, i cant open it" - and when you try to explain that QT is missing a codec, things can get funny...

 

[M Most]

Imagine the 55 year old veteran-editor lady who cuts like a goddess but doenst know the difference from esata to fw800. When such persons call, they usually say: "Your quicktime is defect, i cant open it" - and when you try to explain that QT is missing a codec, things can get funny...

I've met 28 year old editors who are exactly the same. Age has nothing to do with it. I myself am, ahem, an "industry veteran," and I seem to know a hell of a lot more about the tech end of things than most of the editors I talk to - and a lot of them are under 30. Some considerably under 30.

 

[M Most]

- transcoding costs time which translates into money and creativity.

The time is inconsequential unless you simply have to start cutting immediately, which falls into the categories I mentioned - and is not all that common in real world situations.

- transcoding can and will add human error

Not when it's relatively automated, as it is in the case of Avid importing.

- transcoding costs diskspace

But if you're working on a portable system - the only time that the transcoding time would be an issue - you likely don't even have enough space for the original files anyway.

- transcoding costs quality, if done multiple times

I'm talking about offline editing. I don't think you're talking about the same thing.

- transcoding isnt possible for DIT and on-set situations.
*LOTS* of redshooters want and will want to layout / organize at the set / in the cafe after the shoot. Avid wont be part of this if it needs to transcode

That one is true, assuming you actually want to do that.

Its not good that Adobe Premiere CS editors will start hours, days or even weeks faster than Avid MC editors on any red project.

You're making an assumption based on something you haven't seen yet, because nobody has seen it yet (at least nobody outside of Red that we know of). You don't know whether this will be any more efficient than it is in Final Cut, or whether it will be practical to use in lieu of smaller, converted files. It might be, or it might not. We'll see.

 

[MichaelP]

It all remains to be seen. Editing has gotten more complex with multiole layers, multicamera, etc. Editors will get grumpy if everything is a render due to performance issues. It's one thing to start editing faster, it's another to get done faster. Again, all dependent on program type and effeciencies in the decoding of the codec at different levels.

Michael

 

[laguun]

The time is inconsequential unless you simply have to start cutting immediately, which falls into the categories I mentioned - and is not all that common in real world situations.

One always wants to start at once. Every additional step, be it digitizing, converting/converting etc slows the process down.

But if you're working on a portable system - the only time that the transcoding time would be an issue - you likely don't even have enough space for the original files anyway.

Transcoded files require additional space, logistics and time, that is the whole point.

I'm talking about offline editing. I don't think you're talking about the same thing.

IMHO offline quality editing is a concept which fully disappears once the computers arent to slow and small.

I dont know to many people who edit DV, or any audio, offline.

You're making an assumption based on something you haven't seen yet, because nobody has seen it yet (at least nobody outside of Red that we know of). You don't know whether this will be any more efficient than it is in Final Cut, or whether it will be practical to use in lieu of smaller, converted files. It might be, or it might not. We'll see.

Even if the implementation is weak, its about the concept.

Being *required* to transocde before editing is a massive setback in *any* workflow. By design, transcoding workflows add steps before the work starts.

The adobe subsystem is pretty powerful (cineform has demonstrated that quite a bit). If it can switch, as it seems, between quarter/half/full debayer decode on the fly, that would be pretty.

I certainly hope that Avid wants to lead - if they only offer transcoded offline workflows (be it by dpx or dnaxhd), we certainly cant recommend Avid in many scenarios in which MC would be logical choice.

 

[laguun]

It all remains to be seen. Editing has gotten more complex with multiole layers, multicamera, etc. Editors will get grumpy if everything is a render due to performance issues. It's one thing to start editing faster, it's another to get done faster. Again, all dependent on program type and effeciencies in the decoding of the codec at different levels.

Michael

I agree.
Switchable decoding/debayer quality while editing however offers the solution.

I am pretty sure that if Avid will continue to require transcoding, MC will have a tiny marketshare in quick redcode projects, as well as on set/location - something i certainly dont want to happen.

For offline, its different, however working with offline quality media is a concept (luckily) which will end restricted to special purposes (as archival etc).

 

[Wayne D]

well i'm the big four-zero next year and i have learnt more in the last 5 years then my entire career.

the whole "US" vs "AVID" thing makes my blood boil......
pick an edit system and cut, pick a work flow and cut - hell - pick a camera and cut!

end of rant!!

 

[M Most]

IMHO offline quality editing is a concept which fully disappears once the computers arent to slow and small.

I disagree again. Offline editing is a concept that makes creative editing practical. The speed of computers will likely always be behind the amount of data in the highest quality images, at least in terms of throwing them around at random, making multiple layer timelines, and cutting multicamera material. And that's fine, because convenience and quality don't necessarily belong together. Not to mention that at least in my world (which, granted, is not the no-budget-do-it-yourself world) most great editors do not double as great colorists, great sound editors, great mixers, and great technical experts on delivery elements. In my world, having the offline system being capable of throwing around things like 4K frames is a misuse of the resources available. Better to be able to play multiple sources simultaneously than to be able to play 4K images at a point in the post process when you don't need to see them that way. If you want to talk about what may or may not be possible a number of years from now, fine. But I'm more interested in what's sensible today.

 

[laguun]

I disagree again. Offline editing is a concept that makes creative editing practical. The speed of computers will likely always be behind the amount of data in the highest quality images, at least in terms of throwing them around at random, making multiple layer timelines, and cutting multicamera material.

For PAL/NTSC, the offline era has already ended.

Any NLE runs multiple layer with FX and multicam in realtime, in online quality.

In fact, i think we dont even have any offline SD NLE remaining here, all are online.

news/archive and webstreams will remain exceptions.

1080p and 2K online data are easy already today, with datareduced formats as dnaxhd even on notebooks. When i said that one would probably edit 1080p online on notebooks 3 years ago, i heard pretty similar sceptic voices.

reducing quality and adding additonal steps in the workflow is one option. mooores law the other. for me its crystalclear in which direction the industry is heading - i see sixty-something-Dops as well as twen-editors working on their notebooks in 1080p/2K online, customers are talking about "offlining in 2K or 1080p"...

And that's fine, because convenience and quality don't necessarily belong together. Not to mention that at least in my world (which, granted, is not the no-budget-do-it-yourself world) most great editors do not double as great colorists, great sound editors, great mixers, and great technical experts on delivery elements.

In my company, many editors are moving from $$$.$$$ NLEs to the Adobe premiere pro stations right now, often collaborating, often alone, doing color, image, graphics and VFX one-stop. Regarding music and audio i agree. However, in the audio world, the "offline"-paradigm has gone, as it has in almost any other area of computing for media.

In my world, having the offline system being capable of throwing around things like 4K frames is a misuse of the resources available. Better to be able to play multiple sources simultaneously than to be able to play 4K images at a point in the post process when you don't need to see them that way. If you want to talk about what may or may not be possible a number of years from now, fine. But I'm more interested in what's sensible today.

Today, the datarates of redcode are low, 38 MB/sec is a breeze on the SANS here in comparision to the 180-280 MB/sec the SANS have to take with uncompressed HD/2K.

Today, CPU and GPU power are handling 1080P/2K with ease.

If you prefer downconverting and transcoding, then editing, then onlining again - fine. In my opinion, online and native are the logical, faster and better quality workflow. NLEs which cant handle the quality of todays cameras are, IMHO, anachronistic.

We have different opinions in this, and i suppose we should agree to disagree.

p.s.
dont get me wrong - i dont complain. we are onlining many avid mc jobs here, on discreet as well as on adobe premiere. but onlining symhony "offline"-edits on premiere shows pretty much that some things are not the way they used to be.

 

[Steve Sherrick]

Well, perhaps I'm bridging the gap a little here. I'm 33 and have spent a decent amount of time in post. I think to a certain degree, you're both right and perhaps not as far off from each other as it might seem. From an editorial perpsective I believe the following to be true.

1. The best editors first and foremost know how to edit. Knowing your tools certianly helps you achieve edits faster, and allows you to try more things technically. But at the end of the day, you need to know how to tell a story through editing. A great editor can do this when on Avid, FCP, Premiere, etc. It doesn't matter. They may prefer one of those systems over another, but as long as they know where the few important keys are, they can cut.

Editors are being asked to do more these days. Client might ask to see what a certain color correction might do to change the mood of a scene, etc. Or they may ask to see a shot electronically zoomed in to see what they can get away with in terms of reframing. An editor that can excel at more than just editing is a great commodity, as long as they are still able to edit at a high level. Jack of all trades, master of none doesn't help anybody get a good edit out the door.

2. Offline is changing. When I started, we would cut in AVR2 resolution which was really bad, but it allowed us to fit a lot on 9GB drives (yes, those big clunky old boxes). Now one can conceivably offline in something like DVCAM (which will still look good to a lot of clients) and then online in whatever the deliverable codec/format needed. Or one can choose to edit 1080P and finish with those same files with no true offline/online process. These kind of things are deteremined by budget, personal preference, client demands, etc. What's great is we have options.

3. RED workflow. Pretty much right in line with what I am saying above. As more tools are available, we will see more workflows developed. What works for one person/shop might not work for another. Some will love to edit with the native R3D files, changing debayer quality on the fly and some will prefer to get the files into a format/codec that works better in their process. What's important is that everyone does find a workflow that fits your shop. Right now if you can't afford Scratch, you have to look to another solution. And that's fine, as long as you can make it work for the projects you do.

In summary. I don't know that there's really a need to break this down into a right and wrong scenario. What's right is what works for you and keeps business coming through the doors. Age is less important than experience. A 25 year old with a lot of experience and good skill set is obviously better than a 50 year old who really hasn't done much and vice versa. Obviously this comes down to an indivdual situation. A person is hired based on what they bring to the table. The situation I have always enjoyed is sitting alongside someone who I can learn a lot from, regardless of their age. If they can show me ways to work that I never would have thought of and pass along some of their experience to me, it's really cool. It's what mentoring is all about. We should all be open to that. There's so much to learn, whether it's creative or technical knowledge. Disocvering things on your own is great too, but sometimes you miss some of the gems you get from being mentored.

We are living in a time of great opportunity. Think about how many tools are available to us, some at very affordable price points. It's amazing.

Sorry for interrupting, carry on.

 

[laguun]

Steve,

thanks for the clever summary.

i suppose mmost and we can agree on most of what you wrote.

i one point however i remain clear and decided:
If avid wont offer native support for whatever important format, it will be second class for projects basing on this particular format, and redcode is no exception to this.

If only DS Nitris will support redcode native, then *every* DIT i know in Berlin will consult against MC / Symphony, explaining en detail the additional required human resources, times, required steps, additional tools etc.

Furthermore, on set/on location we wont see Avid then. We will see Adobe and Assimilate, Apple and Iridas, a scenario Avid and we as their customers cant be interested in.

 

[M Most]

i suppose mmost and we can agree on most of what you wrote.

I would agree with that ;-)

i one point however i remain clear and decided:
If avid wont offer native support for whatever important format, it will be second class for projects basing on this particular format, and redcode is no exception to this.

Well, then, I guess you won't use it. However, regardless of what you're "decided" on, many other folks here and elsewhere - including just about all editors of high end features and television programs in Los Angeles, and many others elsewhere, will - because for them, editing functionality, professional features, media management, and other tools are far more important than being able to access the material 3 minutes after it leaves the set, particularly in light of the fact that for most productions, clip logging and prep is done overnight by either a facility or an assistant editor. What you consider "wasted time" is, in most of these cases, non-existent.

 

[Christoffer Glans]

Back to the subject of conversion speed.
I'm going to edit the movie on set during the production, that is, I'm going to actually edit the movie with timecode offlines at the same time as they are shooting it.

So, I'm in the process of discussing what type of workflow that we will use for this process.

What is the FASTEST way to get SD or 720p files from the r3d files that I can edit in AMC and still have the timecode and audio present for online later on?

All workflows so far is superslow and I'm talking about PC-only workflow. Is there something equal of redrushes that could be used?

 

[Wayne D]

Back to the subject of conversion speed.
I'm going to edit the movie on set during the production, that is, I'm going to actually edit the movie with timecode offlines at the same time as they are shooting it.

So, I'm in the process of discussing what type of workflow that we will use for this process.

What is the FASTEST way to get SD or 720p files from the r3d files that I can edit in AMC and still have the timecode and audio present for online later on?

All workflows so far is superslow and I'm talking about PC-only workflow. Is there something equal of redrushes that could be used?

it all is about to change - see the ADOBE threads!
PREMIER + AE will soon take native RED files...no conversion.

 

[Christoffer Glans]

"Is about to change" is something I've heard for a long time and speaking Avid I know that "change" is something that takes 3 times longer then expected. How long did we wait for 720/25p? And what reason do we need it for now?

I don't use Premiere and I don't use Final Cut.

Again, what is the fastest CURRENT workflow based on the thing I described above (I don't have time to wait for solutions that "may" come soon, that isn't practical)

 

[laguun]

What is the FASTEST way to get SD or 720p files from the r3d files that I can edit

Adobe and Apple.
not fast. instant.

using avid will add days and weeks of transcoding.
drop avid, go adobe or apple will, sadly, become the mantra if avid wont support redcode native.

All workflows so far is superslow and I'm talking about PC-only workflow. Is there something equal of redrushes that could be used?

superslow is avid. apple (right now) and adobe (around the corner) are fast.
i am sad to have to say this.

 

[M Most]

using avid will add days and weeks of transcoding.
drop avid, go adobe or apple will, sadly, become the mantra if avid wont support redcode native.....superslow is avid. apple (right now) and adobe (around the corner) are fast.
i am sad to have to say this.

And you don't seem to be willing to stop saying it. :angry2:

The post inquired about SD conversion. That takes not much more than real time, even on a laptop, using Redcine. Not "days and weeks." One hour for an hour's worth of material. That may or may not work for what's being asked, but it is all that's required.