Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

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 :)

Life After ProRes?

one word... apple.

.mov is not a good professional format. we need to move away from it.
 
Subhadip Sen said:
The problem with MXF and DNxHD is that only Avid MC can encode DNxHD MXFs, as far as I know. DNxHD that is interoperable between different platforms and software are Quicktime based.
Click to expand...

Absolutely not true. Assimilate Scratch, DaVinci Resolve, Baselight, Nucoda Film Master, Quantel Pablo, Telestream Episode, Red's RedcineX and Avid's DS and their free Metafuze program can all read, write, and encode DNxHD MXF files. As can Cinedeck, which is a real time hardware device. And as can some third party software, both commercial (MXF Factory) and open source (writeavidmxf).
 
M Most said:
Absolutely not true. Assimilate Scratch, DaVinci Resolve, Baselight, Nucoda Film Master, Quantel Pablo, Telestream Episode, Red's RedcineX and Avid's DS and their free Metafuze program can all read, write, and encode DNxHD MXF files. As can Cinedeck, which is a real time hardware device. And as can some third party software, both commercial (MXF Factory) and open source (writeavidmxf).
Click to expand...

Thanks for the clarification. I apologize for the misinfo and must confess I have never actually used DNxHD, except testing it on Premiere Pro from which MOV seemed like the only option. What would you suggest is the best way to get a MXF DNxHD out of Premiere Pro?
 
I don't really have any suggestions for that, in part because I don't use Premiere Pro (frankly, I don't know anyone in the mainstream industry in Los Angeles that does).
 
All valid points so far. Bringing it back to the Adobe Premiere World, I am thinking about a codec that will be "Real Time" with Premiere Pro - Mac and PC - with the Mercury Playback Engine. The other factor is if you are using a hardware I/O card like Blackmagic, Aja, or Matrox you need to be able to get "Real Time" performance there as well. Currently what ever card you have installed, you need to be working in one of their sequences to see it through the HD-SDI output. So whatever becomes the next big codec, needs to be "Real Time"not only with the Adobe native sequences, but also be "Real Time" in their hardware partners sequences.
 
M Most said:
Absolutely not true. Assimilate Scratch, DaVinci Resolve, Baselight, Nucoda Film Master, Quantel Pablo, Telestream Episode, Red's RedcineX and Avid's DS and their free Metafuze program can all read, write, and encode DNxHD MXF files. As can Cinedeck, which is a real time hardware device. And as can some third party software, both commercial (MXF Factory) and open source (writeavidmxf).
Click to expand...

The apps that can write MXF files are very limited. Very high end apps and Avid. RCX is the only free app that makes MXF files. To get Resolve to work with DNx MXF files cost what $500.

writeavidmxf works but requires a lot of knowledge to use and you need other apps to do most of the heavy lifting. I wrote a shell script to convert Prores files to MXF using writeavidmxf and it works great except for the horrible gamma shift issues that make it completely useless.

MXF is limited in what can write it and what can read it. That makes it a long way from a Quicktime Prores replacement. If you render out MXF files from RCX what apps can you use to play those files to QC them?


Dusty
 
H.264 with Hi444IP 5.1 - upto 4K, 14-bit, 4:4:4, all-intra. The standards are there waiting to be implemented. 10-bit 4:4:4 X264 is already here.
 
File based equivalent of baseband video...

File based equivalent of baseband video...

There was another similar thread a few months back where I suggested that Sony has a unique opportunity to leverage the file based variants of the SR codec they announced recently.

Sony is still HUGE in the broadcast/network world. AFAIK HDCAM-SR tape is the most common deliverable (Mike can correct me if this is not true) so it has a track record with engineers. There are at least 6 SR "levels" to suit different applications. Solid state devices from Sony that offer most of the same functionality as the tres expensive SR decks were being shown at NAB 3 months ago.

While the SR codec at level 4 or higher may choke older computers, I see it as the mastering codec most likely to make file based deliverables viable sooner than later.

I also wonder what would happen if Avid, Adobe and/or Apple were to optimize their products to work with the SR codec for post processes?

Don't get me wrong, I do not consider the SR codec superior to ProRes or DNxHD in actuality. What I do believe is that a widely accepted codec with established credentials in the broadcast realm is most likely to gain traction and, if we're really lucky, provide a known container format with a known gamma that the big "A"s would support out of marketplace necessity.

I would argue that Apple still has the upper hand in leading the industry to a ProRes future. That said, their lack of understanding of what suddenly killing FCP7 would mean (no matter how wonderful FCPX may one day be) is a serious strike against greater adoption at the professional level.

Perhaps somebody should just buy Cineform and offer the tools for free ;-)

Cheers - #19
 
if anybody at cineform is reading this, I think you guys should strike up a deal with a leading NLE, like avid or adobe and package your codec with the NLE... could prove to benefit everybody :)
 
Tom.Wong said:
if anybody at cineform is reading this, I think you guys should strike up a deal with a leading NLE, like avid or adobe and package your codec with the NLE... could prove to benefit everybody :)
Click to expand...

Since Cineform is now owned by GoPro - a camera used by many individuals/consumers and pros alike - I wouldn't be surprised to see some movement in that area. I would also add that the latest version of Baselight suddenly added support for Cineform and Cineform Raw, so that would probably provide some evidence....
 
M Most said:
Since Cineform is now owned by GoPro - a camera used by many individuals/consumers and pros alike - I wouldn't be surprised to see some movement in that area. I would also add that the latest version of Baselight suddenly added support for Cineform and Cineform Raw, so that would probably provide some evidence....
Click to expand...

one codec to rule them all... har har har, i'm such a dork.
 
Joe Carney said:
when cineform dropped their price to 299.00 i jumped on it.
Click to expand...

Its a fine mezzanine codec for in house use, I know several top facilities that use it - in part to deal with cross platform issues and also as a file based mastering format for output to tape.

That said, due to limited uptake in the industry it was rarely a viable alternative to ProRes when dealing with the wide ranging population one interacts with on most projects. As noted earlier in this thread, ease of use and ubiquity matter. ProRes 422HQ landed in a nice sweet spot of quality, payload and wide accessibility - any legitimate successor will need to hit those marks as well.

Cheers - #19
 
Blair S. Paulsen said:
This is a critical area of need in the industry right now. File based deliverables may finally be palatable, especially after the SR tape scarcity wake up call.

Codec needs to be open source, high enough quality for deliverables at 1080P or i, manageable on most 2008 or newer computers, cross-platform, ...

The question is, who cares to develop such a thing for free?

Cheers - #19
Click to expand...

Bitjazz. Sheervideo. Someone should look seriously at this technology. It's probably one of the best codecs around and it has the best colorspace conversion between rgb and Yuv.

Used in a lot of high end professional applications. Prores was probably a rip off of this very fine codec.


David.
 
Subhadip Sen said:
DNxHD is free and cross-platform between Mac and Windows. It is fair to call it "Avid's ProRes".

There are some great lossless codecs on Windows, e.g. UT or Lagarith. Compression and speed similar to ProRes 4444, except there's no loss in quality. These codecs work on pretty much every software within Windows. Those are replacements for intermediates. For compressed deliverables, high bitrate X264 10-bit is the way to go. Using X264VfW, you can export X264 masters directly from Premiere Pro on Windows. Of course, X264 is compatible with virtually any OS. .
Click to expand...

I have to correct you, and I'm a big windows fan..but, there are not many video containers for windows that are NOT limited to 8bit colour depth.

Off the top of my head Sheervideo (possibly, they don't like responding to emails..), Cineform (definately, but possibly only 12bit : avi..BUT NOT LOSSLESS SO USELESS FOR MYSELF), Quicktime.

I use lagarith a lot (used to use Huffy in the old days), but mainly I use TIFFs, because I want at least 16bit colour depth for passing stuff around and post/grading.

I remember David Newman from cineform saying that Directshow was the secret to writing 8bit+ codecs.. Lagarith 48bit would work for me.

Subhadip Sen said:
Let's step back for a moment and consider why ProRes even exists - it is for proxies to enable editing on FCP for "uneditable" formats. In today's day and age, the whole concept of "transcoding" is obsolete, and hence, ProRes should be as well. How it has become a standard deliverable or a camera acquisition format endlessly baffles me.
Click to expand...

It exists so that people can store lossless changes made to a video stream. Reasons for this include things such as passing data between apps, and archiving
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top