Red Rushes Vs. Metafuze

[Ralph Wong]

I'm a Mac guy, so I've been using Red Rushes to transcode my RED footage. However, there are a few things that confuse me about what is actually happening. I load the RED clips into RR as the avid website says, and I choose the output to be Quicktime Mov (No Dnx option) and Avid 1080p DNx 175/185. I transcode the footage, output the ALE, import the ALE to media composer, then batch import the Quicktime movies to the Avid. I look in the Avid folder, and I see mxf files the same size or larger than the Quicktime transcode files.

My first question is when I export from RR, why does it create quicktime files instead of DNx files which are suppose to be native to Avid. When you transcode through Metafuze and get Dnx files, do those files need to be imported and turned into mxf files? It just seems like a waste to do one transcode to Qts and then having to wait again for the Avid to bring the Qts in as mxf files. Also, it seems like a big waste of space to have Qt transcode files and mxf transcode files sitting on the hard drive in addition to the R3D files. I understand why keeping the original R3D files are important, but after bringing in the Qt transcode files and creating the mxf files, is there any reason for keeping the Qt files? Are the newly created mxf files just as good in quality as the Qt files that RR output? Unfortunately, there is not a Metafuze for Mac, or I could do some experimenting with that. My experience with virtual PC software has not been good so I don't want to go that route. I am wondering, though, if Metafuze is really as easy as 1. transcode R3D to Dnx 2. Import Dnx files into Avid without having to create new mxf files (Once you click batch import, everything links up immediately). Right now the Red Rushes method seems long, convoluted, and a waste of Hard Drive space. Meta Fuze would seem the way to go, but I would have to get a PC. If anybody could clear up what is going on, it would be greatly appreciated. Thanks.

 

[MichaelP]

Quicktime is not native to Avid editing and Red Rushes does not create native MXF wrapped DNxHD files at this time. So the Mac based workflows are to use the QT wrapped DNxHD files from Red Rushes then do a fast import into MC. The downside as you see is the duplicating of media - the files are the same size since the "essence" is DNxHD, just a different metadata wrapper.

While MetaFuse does work on Mac via VMWare, the performance is not the same as on a native Windows OS. You may be better off using Bootcamp to access all the processors.

Michael

 

[Ralph Wong]

Quicktime is not native to Avid editing and Red Rushes does not create native MXF wrapped DNxHD files at this time. So the Mac based workflows are to use the QT wrapped DNxHD files from Red Rushes then do a fast import into MC. The downside as you see is the duplicating of media - the files are the same size since the "essence" is DNxHD, just a different metadata wrapper.

While MetaFuse does work on Mac via VMWare, the performance is not the same as on a native Windows OS. You may be better off using Bootcamp to access all the processors.

Michael

Thanks Michael, I'm glad you are always here with some answers for us Avid guys. So if I am hearing you correctly, RR generates Dnx files wrapped in Quicktime. Then when I import those files to Media Composer, MC rewraps the Dnx files into mxf files that Avid can read. The new Mxf files are the exact same quality as the Quicktime wrapped files, they are just in a different wrapper. Therefore, once I get the media into Media Composer, there is no need to keep the QT wrapped media as long as I have the mxf wrapped files and the original R3D. Correct?

 

[MichaelP]

Correct.

Michael

 

[dglasgal]

Is there a "rule of thumb" established for how long it will take to ingest footage into Avid this way on a modern mac? So, How long will it take me to get 1 hour of HD footage into my Avid sequence? With this double transcode process- seems like it might take a while. Thanks!

 

[Job ter Burg]

Is there a "rule of thumb" established for how long it will take to ingest footage into Avid this way on a modern mac?

The transcoding time itself is extremely dependent on horsepower. See http://www.hdhead.com/?p=166.

Apart from the transcoding time, it boils down to drive speed / connection speeds. It's basically just a copy, so whatever copy speed you can get, that's the speed of the import. Faster drives and faster connections are key.

 

[joe hedge]

On a 3ghz 8-core Mac (currently the fastest thing Mac makes) in RedRushes, I get 4 frames a second transcoding from RC36 4k 16:9 to ProRes HQ 1080 at Half Res High debayer, with 2 clips going at the same time. If you are transcoding different aspect ratios (4k 2:1 to 1080, for instance, or scaling to a custom frame size) it slows down a little.

The whole MXF-wrapper thing is absolutely ridiculous - it effectively doubles the transcode time and required storage space. Presumably the real reason for this isn't technical, but legal - Avid not wanting to play ball with Apple for use of QT, or vice-versa, so we are made to jump through this proprietary-related hoop?

Interesting to note that in Noah Kadner's Red book, he recommends using a Windows machine (!) for ingest into Avid. Supposedly RedRocket solves this problem by cranking out MXF's on a Mac, or am I wrong on that?

 

[Job ter Burg]

am I wrong

On several facts, indeed you are. ;-)

Avid works - internally - with MXF (or OMF) wrapped media. Not Quicktime, like FCP does. Avid can import from Quicktime. But whatever you capture or import into Avid becomes Avid MXF media. It's just a question on what the application is built around.

The whole MXF-wrapper thing is absolutely ridiculous

Of course not. There are several advantages to that principle, like reliable media management.

Nowhere is there a law nor a logic that determines that any and all NLE's should work with Quicktime internally. Fortunately, some transcoding applications can create MXF media (and even some cameras can shoot it, too).

Both RedCine-X and RocketCine-X can output Avid MXF media, as can Avid MetaFuze (which now also supports RedRocket). There are also other solutions, like Baselight/BLT that are also capable of creating native Avid media.

it effectively doubles the transcode time

Of course not. The rewrap (import) from DNxHD Quicktimes is very fast, as said, not more than the time it would take to copy a mediafile to a drive. The copy times are much, much shorter than the transcode times.

 

[joe hedge]

Not really no.
Avid works - internally - with MXF (or OMF) wrapped media. Not Quicktime, like FCP. It can import from Quicktime.

But what I'm saying is, there really is no technical reason why Macs can't work natively with MXF's, or Avids with QT. The incompatibility exists because of proprietary, licensing, legal issues, not because it is literally impossible for MXF's to run natively on Macs. The fact that all you have to do is place the QT in a MXF wrapper for it to work in FCP bears this out. The MXF wrapper is there for licensing reasons, not technical. There is no Metafuze for Mac for the same reason, no?

 

[Peter Moretti]

Job, thanks so much for cleaing a lot of that up. While I'm a frequent critic of Avid being slow to respond to new trends, its products obviously do a lot very well.

There is a lot of mis-understanding/information out there about Avid's Red capabilities. It's nice to see it when the record is set straight. Thanks .

 

[Peter Moretti]

But what I'm saying is, there really is no technical reason why Macs can't work natively with MXF's, or Avids with QT. The incompatibility exists because of proprietary, licensing, legal issues, not because it is literally impossible for MXF's to run natively on Macs. The fact that all you have to do is place the QT in a MXF wrapper for it to work in FCP bears this out. The MXF wrapper is there for licensing reasons, not technical. There is no Metafuze for Mac for the same reason, no?

Joe of course MXF can run natively on Mac's. If that weren't the case, then how could Media Composer and Symphony run on Mac (which they obviously do)?

No MetaFuze for the Mac is an Avid development decision, it has nothing to do with legal issues or intellectual property or licensing fees.

As Michael, Job, and others have pointed out in other threads, you can run MetaFuze via Bootcamp or you can use RedCine-X.

Hope that helps to clear things up.

 

[joe hedge]

The rewrap (import) from DNxHD Quicktimes is very fast, as said, not more than the time it would take to copy to a drive. The copy times are much, much shorter than the transcode times.

Which is fine, I suppose, given that one has unlimited drive space, but on low-budget indies, doubling storage space is an issue. Then again, LBI's aren't cutting/finishing on Avids in the first place.

Again, I would defer to Noah's book, who recommends ingest from R3D into Avid on a Windows machine and using Metafuze. I went the Mac RedRushes/export-ALE-into-Avid route once, and it did double both the time and storage space required. Perhaps I wasn't doing it right though...in any case both I and the editor (who had been asst editing on Avids on features since the 80's, but was on his first Red project) gave up and switched to FCP.

 

[Peter Moretti]

Joe,

Once you've fast imported the QT's you don't need them anymore. You can simply delete them. You have double the drive usage b/c you are keeping the QT's as a backup. If you kept a backup set of files on any system, you'd use double the drive space.

I would not defer to anyone's book for how use Avid w/ R3D; the technology changes too quickly. I'd do what Michael, Job and other users say.

... Perhaps I wasn't doing it right though...in any case both I and the editor (who had been asst editing on Avids on features since the 80's, but was on his first Red project) gave up and switched to FCP.

What I've said above notwithstanding, Avid needs to listen to experiences like yours. Whether not having a Mac version of MetaFuze is serious drawback for Avid has been debated recently on Avid's user forum.

 

[joe hedge]

Joe,

Once you've fast imported the QT's you don't need them anymore. You can simply delete them. You have double the drive usage b/c you are keeping the QT's as a backup. If you kept a backup set of files on any system, you'd use double the drive space.

Thanks for that, I didn't know that you didn't need the transcodes anymore. You would, however, have to transcode all over again if you chucked them and something bad happened to the drive with the MXF's...so I would think that unless you're on RAID 5 or something, keeping the transcodes would be a good idea regardless...

 

[Job ter Burg]

But what I'm saying is, there really is no technical reason why Macs can't work natively with MXF's, or Avids with QT.

As said, Macs can surely work with MXF.
(And even Quicktime can work with MXF, for that matter.)

You appear to be missing the fact that Quicktime, like MXF, is ALSO a wrapper.
Avids are built around an internal MXF mediafile structure, like FCP is built around QT.

The MXF wrapper is there for licensing reasons, not technical.

No, as far as I know it is a product design choice. It's the architecture of the application. It does deal with Quicktime for imports, it just stores its own media in a MXF wrapper.

There is no Metafuze for Mac for the same reason, no?

No, that assumption is competely incorrect. MetaFuze - as far as I was told - is in essence an import module of Avid DS (used to be Softimage DS a long time ago), which is a (PC-only) editing/compositing/finishing solution that is miles apart from Media Composer and Symphony. Avid broke that module out of DS and formed it into a standalone transcoding application. At this time, as it originated on PC, it is PC-only (or via BootCamp, or via VMWare).

I'm not sure if there is ever going to be a Mac version, but you have some facts mixed up.

Avids (Mac Avids AND PC Avids) use MXF media internally. And the do so remarkably well. Inside the MXF wrappers there is actual media which can be in various codecs, most notably the Avid DNxHD codec.

If you desire to create Avid mediafiles, which you can use WITHOUT the need to import, you should look at applications that can create Avid MXF Mediafiles, like RedCine-X, RocketCine-X, MetaFuze, BLT/Baselight (there might be others).

Any transcoding application that transcodes to Quicktime, simply places the encoded content (say, DNxHD media, or ProRes media) in a QuickTime wrapper. If you use such a transcoding application and need to get that footage into Avid, you would need to import the QT files into Avid (rather than adding the MXF media to the internal MediaFiles folders). That is called a Fast Import since NO TRANSCODING is going on in that process. It's just taking bits and bytes from one bucket and pouring them into the other.

This is different from other imports, say, importing H264. Avid does not deal with that codec natively, so in order to work with it, you would import the file into the Avid, which means that the Avid will decode the H264 (from the QT container), and encode into DNxHD (or another natively supported codec) and place the result in the Avid MediaFiles folders, in an MXF wrapper. That takes more time than importing DNxHD Quicktimes, since there is a decode/encode (transcode) process going on there.

both I and the editor gave up

That's too bad, I hope this information will shed some light on some of your questions. I'm doing my third Red project now, and it all works well for me.

 

[Job ter Burg]

keeping the transcodes would be a good idea regardless...

Either that, or having a backup of your Avid media (which I have been doing for years with traditional workflows as well). Capuring a Beta tape takes realtime. Copying mediafiles is much, much faster.

 

[Job ter Burg]

I would not defer to anyone's book for how use Avid w/ R3D; the technology changes too quickly.

Absolutely. Before last summer, using MetaFuze was much more cumbersome. Since a few weeks MetaFuze 2.1 is released and it supports the RedRocket. See what that does for your transcode times.
Same with RedCine-X and RocketCine-X. Things are constantly evolving and improving. Takes some time to get up to speed and to keep up with the ever changing situation, but fortunately, a lot of folks are sharing experiences and knowledge.

 

[MichaelP]

We are in a constant state of accelerated change.

Michael

 

[joe hedge]

I'm doing my third Red project now, and it all works well for me.

Job thanks for your input, allow me to describe my experience...in RedRushes, I transcoded the R3D's with the Resize tab set to 720 scaled, and using the Avid 720p DNx 90/110 10 bit codec in the Output tab. When I exported the resulting ALE into the Avid project, it told me that I could not import 1080 media into a 720p project (my project settings were 720p 23.98). So I changed the project settings to 1080 and imported - perhaps this is why the wrappers took so long...

I was wondering if you had ever done a Red project in FCP? You simply transcode to ProRes and start cutting. A lot of this discussion about the ease of using Metafuze, BootCamp, MXF wrappers, "fast importing" etc (fast compared to what?) rings a little hollow...

 

[Job ter Burg]

I was wondering if you had ever done a Red project in FCP?

No. I'm sort of familiar with the workflow, but not hands-on, no.

You simply transcode to ProRes and start cutting.

Same goes for Avid. Transcode to DNxHD, and start cutting.

Again: with FCP, you transcode the R3D to ProRes (in a QT wrapper) and off you go. With Avid, you transcode the R3D to DNxHD (in an MXF wrapper) and off you go.

I fail to see the difference.

The best part is: with these standalone transcoding apps (either for Avid or FCP workflows, Mac or PC based) you don't need to tie up your editing system for the transcoding process, since you can run them on another machine, happily keeping your editing system available for editing. I've found that a huge timesaver.

Sure, a year ago, when we were stuck using RedRushes and such, you needed a few more steps when you walked the Avid route. That's in the past.

The workflow you describe having experienced does not seem sound to me (appears that this was not a rewrap but yet another transcode, which indeed takes much longer, but should not have been necessary). I must admit I try to stay away from 720 as much as I can, though. My workflows have always been 1080p.

A lot of this discussion about the ease of using Metafuze, BootCamp, MXF wrappers, "fast importing" etc (fast compared to what?) rings a little hollow...

You were obviously confused or misinformed on some of those subjects. I think I have been quite straight and clear and elaborate. So I don't understand that final remark.