Harry Clark
Well-known member
OK, here's a thought...
Rather than struggle with stability on the myriad configurations and OSes to cross-check and program for, what if Red made a hardware encoding solution that could be CONTROLLED from a Mac or PC? Then they could build it as a bulletproof system, capable of cross-conversion at fractions of real time. Could be a box that you connect a drive to and also put a CF card into. The Mac or PC just becomes the interface with the box. Maybe there could be several versions, at different price points for people who could afford more or less "crunching". Maybe the high-end one could have HD-SDI and SD outs for output to tape.
I only mention this because, in my own experience, I've had limited success outputting Quicktimes, using Quicktime proxies, and making TIFF files. No client of mine will have the patience to troubleshoot all day to achieve what should be a simple step; getting your footage from one box to another. And they don't have to; they'll just choose a different camera for their project.
I have two different Macs, and they seem to have differing success. The feedback here seems to indicate that the OS, the version of Red's program, Quicktime, and other factors all can conspire to failure. A single configuration would make for much easier implementation of updates and features. A hardware box could be a rental item that would pay for itself. Speediness of encoding that can ONLY be achieved by hardware will be popular with producers with tight deadlines.
Yes, harness the power of the PC to control and interface. But standardize the "platform" that does the actual crunching.
Red could even continue to develop the free software version. But the hardware solution could both bring in revenue for Red to help this development and make high-end users happy.
Just dreaming here...
Cheers,
Harry
Rather than struggle with stability on the myriad configurations and OSes to cross-check and program for, what if Red made a hardware encoding solution that could be CONTROLLED from a Mac or PC? Then they could build it as a bulletproof system, capable of cross-conversion at fractions of real time. Could be a box that you connect a drive to and also put a CF card into. The Mac or PC just becomes the interface with the box. Maybe there could be several versions, at different price points for people who could afford more or less "crunching". Maybe the high-end one could have HD-SDI and SD outs for output to tape.
I only mention this because, in my own experience, I've had limited success outputting Quicktimes, using Quicktime proxies, and making TIFF files. No client of mine will have the patience to troubleshoot all day to achieve what should be a simple step; getting your footage from one box to another. And they don't have to; they'll just choose a different camera for their project.
I have two different Macs, and they seem to have differing success. The feedback here seems to indicate that the OS, the version of Red's program, Quicktime, and other factors all can conspire to failure. A single configuration would make for much easier implementation of updates and features. A hardware box could be a rental item that would pay for itself. Speediness of encoding that can ONLY be achieved by hardware will be popular with producers with tight deadlines.
Yes, harness the power of the PC to control and interface. But standardize the "platform" that does the actual crunching.
Red could even continue to develop the free software version. But the hardware solution could both bring in revenue for Red to help this development and make high-end users happy.
Just dreaming here...
Cheers,
Harry
