Proxy Module...

[Tim Morten]

Even a technologically advanced picture like Avatar used Avids that were a couple of versions older than what was being offered at the time of post production. Because if it ain't broke, don't fix it.

By that argument, we should have stuck with Moviola.

Yup, lots of folks are behind the curve. Doesn't mean that the curve is what should change.

- Tim

 

[Jörgen Persson]

Calling James Cameron behind the curve made me laugh out loud. Priceless.

 

[Tim Morten]

Calling James Cameron behind the curve made me laugh out loud. Priceless.

Cameron had other reasons than resolution to choose 1080p and the workflow that he did. But yeah, I did catch the irony in that when I wrote it.

 

[Jörgen Persson]

Let's just agree to disagree on the benefits of an "edit" module.
Personally my workflow would benefit tremendously from a DNxHD/ProRes proxy module by editing offline with the proxies and conforming with the R3Ds. No transcoding necessary. Just a final render to a delivery format.

 

[Stefan Christou]

I totally agree with all of those people who want a DNX HD module, just not that there is anything wrong with an H.264 module.

In fact just as good would be an AVC Intra module or a DVCAM module. Because Scarelet 2/3" has the ability to break into ENG in a big way, but the key to that market is keeping the cost of media down, so a freelance cameraman can "give away a tape" without it denting profitability. So in other words a proffessional disc module would be great, or some other cheap form of media module, like DVCAM tape.

[takes cover for incoming flack]

 

[Noah Kadner]

Please count my hearty endorsement of a ProRes module in addition to/instead of an H.264 module. (And now that Avid supports ProRes natively there's less urgent need for a DNXHD module first for feature parity on NLEs.)

Noah

 

[Stefan Christou]

DNXHD module would be wanted because producers would be able to choose the data rate for editing that they want and know that that is what they are getting. eg Transformers was edited in DNXHD36 to save space on their servers with all those miles of footage. But some might choose DNXHD120 if they are finishing from that format, for example for TV news.

S

 

[Bob Rudis]

Let's just agree to disagree on the benefits of an "edit" module.
Personally my workflow would benefit tremendously from a DNxHD/ProRes proxy module by editing offline with the proxies and conforming with the R3Ds. No transcoding necessary. Just a final render to a delivery format.

Thank you Jörgen, I could't agree more... Have you sounded off in the here"

http://www.reduser.net/forum/showthread.php?t=44624

 

[Jeff Kilgroe]

The problem I would have with a DNXHD or PRORES module is that people would fall into a habit of using them for deliverables or primary camera files rather than working from the R3Ds.

It's going to be bad enough with the H.264 module. I think there are far too many people thinking that they can use it for deliverable camera files. Personally, I will probably buy one, but will only use it for wireless on-set streaming to video village with some dailies use. Or if I want to do a live feed for a webcast or something of that nature.

 

[Peter Moretti]

OK. You do the business model on that DNXHD module for RED, show them that doing the R&D, producing the module and figuring out how many units RED would sell to recover their costs and make a profit.

How much money do you think a DNXHD module would make RED. Come on.

David

Okay, you do the business plan for me for Red Digital Cinema, Inc. Sell a total 7,000 cameras for $18.5K each plus accessories. That's about $25 million in revenue. Minus Cost Of Goods Sold, engineers, staff, plant, property and equipment, advertising, public relations, travel, accommodations and everything else I forgot... and that's why the industry thought Jim was ut:.

But let's say there will be 10,000 Reds out there in two years from now. And let's say you sell 250 DNxHD proxy modules; that's one in forty. Let's say the module sells for $1,000. Red already knows how to transcode .R3D to DNxHD and keep all the metadata. DNxHD chips are already made and used in Mojo hardware and Ikegami cameras. And perhaps Avid could contribute some expertise to making a Red module happen.

So is a quarter of a million dollars in revenue enough to support designing, manufacturing, selling and supporting a DNxHD module? Maybe.

But also realize that a DNxHD module would cause some productions to choose Red b/c it would work well w/ their exisiting post workflow. This would result in additional sales and rentals of a Red cameras and accessories. And it would help to address the charge that Red's workflow does not fit well w/ what is currently in place in Hollywood.

 

[James Brundige]

OK. You do the business model on that DNXHD module for RED, show them that doing the R&D, producing the module and figuring out how many units RED would sell to recover their costs and make a profit.

How much money do you think a DNXHD module would make RED. Come on.

David

Invaluable in terms of market share and positioning. There are all sorts of episodic TV shows looking at Alexa because of the instant turn around feature. H264 is not good enough for that. Pro Res / DNXHD module would really help Red in that industry segment.

There are two reasons I often shoot my Sony instead of my Red: turn around time and audio. This module would help the first. The epic digital audio input should fix the other.

 

[Tim Morten]

Okay, you do the business plan for me for Red Digital Cinema, Inc. Sell a total 7,000 cameras for $18.5K each plus accessories. That's about $25 million in revenue. Minus Cost Of Goods Sold, engineers, staff, plant, property and equipment, advertising, public relations, travel, accommodations and everything else I forgot... and that's why the industry thought Jim was ut:.

Maybe you're just mixing up your terms, but 7000 x 18500 = 129500000. Perhaps you mean profit, and not revenue? Either way, I think you're making some questionable assumptions. Did anyone who owns a Red spend only $18500? Is the margin on the camera really 20%?

Your global point was that a module might or might not make money itself, but that it could help sell cameras. Granted. I think we have to leave it to Red to do the math on whether that's worthwhile though... the development costs and cost of goods are unknown, and the sales potential is likewise unknown. Personally, I wouldn't buy one: native R3D support is much more attractive to me.

Cheers,
Tim

 

[Peter Moretti]

Tim, wow that's embarrassing! :emote_couch: Can't really say how I came up with that figure :confused5:.

Jim brought in some good money. Hope my crappy math in the first example didn't hurt the DNxHD module's chances.

 

[Tim Morten]

No worries - I'll bet they are seriously considering it after all the requests that have been posted.

Cheers,
Tim

 

[Michael Hastings]

snip...
Jim brought in some good money.

Yeah, Jim brought in some good money. I think I saw an annual report for Ikegami (U.S.?) a couple years ago that said they did about $30 million.


$130 million (plus accs., lenses, etc.) in two years for a startup camera is VERY respectable. And I suspect the quantities were substantially higher than they originally budgeted for, so I imagine gross margins are pretty respectable too. (In other words, even if you know sales might be higher you plan for a realistic target - say 500 cameras and price according to those component volumes. Also, probably a reason why R1 production was much slower than Epic is likely to be since I imagine you have to "book" time with a contract manufacturer and this time around they have a clearer idea of volumes due to the trade-in program and can book more time and preorder higher component volumes so quicker turnaround.)

 

[David Battistella]

I think that they should make a lightworks module? A media 100 module would be good too? Also. I really think they should make a Meridian Codec model too, because some AVID's are still running meridian codec on Quadra 950's.

Anyway. I hope you get my sense of humour. I am being cheeky of course.

One thing I have to say is that I know that this feedback is valuable and that I am pretty sure RED is listening. I would venture a guess that they might go PROres before they go DNXHD.

And just for the record. I think that AVID is a great piece of software with an amazing track record and is incredibly reliable. It's up to RED to determine if they want to push the SHOOT > EDIT philosophy that ARRI is proposing or if they want to stick to the PROXY EDIT (offline) > R3D > FINISH (online) model.

One thing is for sure. The quality of the media on the proxy module will NEVER IMPROVE, but your RED footage from 2008 has benefitted from technology since it was shot. This is the part that is most sexy about capturing RAW.

It will be interesting to see how the Prores module influences TV workflow, but I think that the stakes have been raised and that competition is good.

David

 

[Gunleik Groven]

I know the show I am currently on (which will look very good btw), would have serious pains if we didn't have RAW from the cam.

A lot of shots go from very low (think fluorecent) tungsten and into very high K daylight (think late afternoon/early night)

And they do it effortlessly due to the format.

A prores/DNx master would cause huge problems. And the fun thing is that the shots are very well lit and planned... And look really beautifull...

Anyhow.
I can def see the argument for a "quick delivery" module. As long as we can have RAW, too...

 

[andrewhake]

The amount of mis-information in this thread is just mind boggling. . .

The Red workflow is already incredibly efficient if planned properly, and even more so with Red Rocket.

As already mentioned, this isn't really meant to replace the current workflow, but add more depth to it.

That said, and I hate to say this, I bet an iPad could actually edit 960x540 H.264 footage to some extent. And at the very least it could place selected clips in the proper order.

Walk with me:

1. Footage is shot (with the Director on set working with actors, not buried in a monitor somewhere). Still looking at what was shot as they work through the proper feed. Be it iPad, Panasonic monitor, etc.

2. Footage is delivered in its respected formats to the proper places, with the h.264 clips being sent wirelessly to an iPad.

3. After the shoot is finished one of the minions hands the director an iPad and they browse through a clip library of what was shot that day while they drive away from the location. With the ability to drag and drop the selected takes/clips into a very basic timeline.

4. Once the director is done making love to the iPad, they can press a big (Red?) button that shoots some meta data of what they have been doing off to the editors at mission control, who have by now got access to the raw footage or h.264 clips as well and can begin work based off of the directors suggestions and can also send their suggestions back to the director who is by now playing FlightControlHD on the iPad.

5. Throw in a dash of talent, creativity, skill, and taste in and around all of these steps and you might just have a finished film that is worth watching.

How about a VFX supervisor module that analyzes what is being shot against the vfx budget and alerts the crew of important bits of info like, "Halt! This shot cannot be fixed in post!", or "Hey Ya'll! Wouldn't it be lovely if you put some tracking markers over there?".

Maybe a H.A.L.9000 module that critiques the work as it is being done? "I am sorry Leonardo DiCaprio, I'm afraid I can't live with that performance. . ." (Leo is great btw, just an example, stay calm)

 

[Paul Leeming]

Too bad the iPad has limited memory and no way to expand it....

 

[Joe Carney]

If the feature has a real budget, a small i5 based laptop with great graphics and a fast hdd would be better than an iPad.
or one of the new HP Touchpads. But that would mean....windows, hehehe.