No more "offline"? [Archive]

Damien Molineaux

03-27-2007, 04:44 PM

With Redcine and claims that it looks just as good as uncompressed 4K, could this lead to the end of offline editing? That is, and this is a rusty flow, if you shoot on Red and can output as the same Redcine 4K image, without worrying about any other intermediate resolution, copy, or version whatsoever and it looks the same at the highest Redcine quality all the way through?

Perhaps I should re-phrase-- is it the end of "offline" or "online" editing with Red coming out?

Not yet, IF an editing software company comes out with a Red Raw compatible application AND you have a system capable of working in 4k, (remember the weight of the files is not the only thing to take into account, compressed files are far more demanding processor power wise than non-compressed files), THEN you way eventually be able to work in on-line mode through and through.

Presently, Red Cine is presented like a telecine process, you put your Red Raw files (your digital negative of sorts) through this process and output the digital format of your choice : DV, DVCproHD, DNxHD, Uncompressed, SD, HD, 2k, 4k, etc. You then edit, and if you wish, using a Red pull list, you push your Red Raw through Red Cine again and output in the high res format of your choice.

On a side note, you can already work with an on-line workflow. This is what most people do with DV. It is one of the great advantages of DVCproHD, one of the best compromises in quality vs file size, in my opinion.

Cheers,
Damien

Tom Lowe

03-27-2007, 05:02 PM

You won't want to edit 4K. You'll offline to HD for editing and online to whatever your finishing format is.

Brook, with all due respect, I really don't see how you can say this with so much confidence. Many people WILL be editing 4K compressed on their own editing systems. Many people do not want to deal with proxies, EDLs, and all the hassles of off-lining, especially people who learned by editing DV and DVCProHD stuff online. The amount of data and processing for 4K wavelet footage is entirely reasonable for high-end PC or MAC editing systems, and can actually be done now according Cineform. With quad- and eight-core processors, and systems supporting up to 16GBs of RAM, soon enough 4K compressed editing will be a walk in the park.

Brook Willard

03-27-2007, 05:12 PM

Yeah, the thought crossed my mind when I made the post that some people would call me out on that. As it stands, no tremendously common desktop editor supports 4K. Furthermore, even with high-end computers, drawing 27.5MB/sec of data from multiple footage streams in multiple locations on a drive is unreasonable without a more significant setup.

Those who will be cutting 4K will have a serious editing system with fast and massive data storage installed. They will know what they're getting into. But if you have to ask? The answer's probably no.

At least that's how I see it. Maybe things will change at NAB. I'd love to be proven wrong.

jbeale

03-27-2007, 05:23 PM

Even editing the lowly 1080i HDV format (about 1/10 the data rate of RedRaw) I am using 3 TB of disk space. Some of this is medium term storage but it's hard to get away from that requirement with my workflow. I am sure Red editors would use all the disk they can lay hands on, especially if any less-compressed intermediate formats are used, as is common with HDV.

Dominic Jones

03-27-2007, 05:43 PM

Disk space isn't really the issue - it's cheap as chips these days... The issue, imho is more with (a) availability of software solutions in a given user's price range (and I'm thinking of indies here, really) and (b) processing power. If you're talking about working with native RAW footage to edit, then you need real-time demosaicing of a 4k image @ 24fps. That's no small feat even for today's computers.

Add on extra for multiple streams, real-time fx, dissolves, etc. Then there's monitoring solutions to think of - the list goes on.

I doubt how many people will seriously be finishing enough projects @ 4k to warrant the capital cost of such solutions. Of course, if it makes financial sense to you, then the solutions are out there...

Dominic Jones

03-27-2007, 05:45 PM

Maybe things will change at NAB. I'd love to be proven wrong.

Well yes, ditto that! :)

Steve Sherrick

03-27-2007, 05:50 PM

Yeah, I wouldn't underestimate the demand 4K footage is going to put on the CPU, storage, monitoring, etc. Not that there won't be solutions available soon enough, but there's always the "fly by the seat of your pants" systems and then there are the systems that you'd feel very comfortable sitting with a client who's paying you $350/hr.

It's going to be fun seeing all of this new stuff at NAB.

Steve

Emmanuel Cambier

03-27-2007, 05:51 PM

The question seems to be WHY would you want to edit in 4k, unless you are about to actually deliver a 4k master for a 4k projection.
That it is possible or not is secondary IMHO.

Emmanuel

Emanuel A.

03-27-2007, 05:56 PM

Many people WILL be editing 4K compressed on their own editing systems. Many people do not want to deal with proxies, EDLs, and all the hassles of off-lining, especially people who learned by editing DV and DVCProHD stuff online. The amount of data and processing for 4K wavelet footage is entirely reasonable for high-end PC or MAC editing systems, and can actually be done now according Cineform. With quad- and eight-core processors, and systems supporting up to 16GBs of RAM, soon enough 4K compressed editing will be a walk in the park.

Tom is right. David Newman has been confirming, repeatedly, the 4K online task going into the Cineform realm. I believe RED shall deliver a 4K online solution, as well. No doubts on the 4K editing availability. But I wouldn't say the same about who will offer the best indie bundle.

MikeCurtis

03-27-2007, 05:56 PM

Realtime 4K won't work (feasibly) until:
-you can play it back in realtime on the timeline (enough drive throughput, CPU and/or GPU horsepower required)
-you can monitor it in some fashion - downconverted to HD or SD
-you can get realtime cross dissolves, color correction, etc. as you would with other compressed high res formats

This will definitely require that the NLE vendors (and probably hardware providers like AJA, who is tight with Red, and Blackmagic, who aren't as much) are willing to support all this. As a brand new format (how long ago was the codec finalized?), this will take some time. Even from large, established vendors, it typically takes about six or more months from camera release until NLEs like Final Cut support it.

That said, wavelet based formats lend themselves to extracting fractional resolutions on the fly (this is what Cineform does).

As for why - ingest once and be DONE with it. Having to process the footage to offline, ingest that, edit, RPL, generate high res final online version, conform, verify conform's accuracy, and THEN do your final color correction? Yuck.

Ingest. Edit. Color Correct (& other post steps). Master to whatever deliverables. DONE.

If I could shoot 4K RAW and deliver a nice HD master using Redcode RAW rather than uncompressed 10 bit 4:4:4 (at 190 MB/sec for 24p), that has LOTS of advantages.

Stop thinking about how fat 28 MB/sec is for 24p work compared to DV (2.7 MB/sec) or DVCPRO HD (5.7 for 720p), and think about how LIGHT it is compared to uncompressed 1080p HD - 100-190 MB/sec depending on color sampling and bit depth.

Obviously, for long form work, you may not want that much footage online at one time, and then offline proxy might be necessary. But with 750 GB drives out, and 250GB drives in the $80-90 range for making RAIDs, storage capacity is an ever reducing concern.

4K @ 24p should be under 100GB/hr based on the 27.5 MB/sec number Graeme gave us at IBC. That's about 7 hours on a 750 GB drive. Or another way of looking at it - if you're using $80 250 GB drives, that's about 57 cents per minute of storage. Got a 90 minute project with a 10:1 shooting ratio? That is:

-900 minutes/15 hours of RAW (ha ha) footage
-15 hrs @ 100GB/hr=1500 GB=1.5TB of storage
-1.5TB of storage is six 250 GB drives (really 6 1/2 - formatted capacity issues - but lets call is 6 to be easy)
-6 x $80/drive=$480

So that's under $500 to store it all online (assuming you have enclosure space etc. in your box).

That's not bad.

Five years ago, that would have been a terribly daunting amount of storage. Today, no biggie.

This is just editorial storage - don't forget to archive all that source footage, and two copies too! But that's another thread...

-mike

Mark L. Pederson

03-27-2007, 06:01 PM

The question seems to be WHY would you want to edit in 4k, unless you are about to actually deliver a 4k master for a 4k projection.
That it is possible or not is secondary IMHO.

Emmanuel

some of us like to have sex with our eyes open - you know ... it doesn't really change the end result ... but sometimes it just nice to see it all ...

Steve Sherrick

03-27-2007, 06:04 PM

By the way, Mike wrote a nice piece in DV mag about putting together an HD system, and even HD is still a pretty daunting task if you truly want to monitor correctly, have storage that sustains high data rates, etc.

So 4K, although a nice "digital" negative seems like it will take a serious system to do it right. Not just the editing, but the monitoring, color correction, storage, the whole boat.

Steve

Emanuel A.

03-27-2007, 06:14 PM

An indie bundle means to have a few commitments (= restrictions of some kind). Count on it. Will the window be enough just in order to put the head there?

But this doesn't mean that won't be possible. David said. His word is enough to believe according my book.

MikeCurtis

03-27-2007, 06:27 PM

some of us like to have sex with our eyes open - you know ... it doesn't really change the end result ... but sometimes it just nice to see it all ...

Yeah, I like mine the old fashioned analog way too - you know - real time, full motion....

:D

As for why cut in 4K, I look at it as working with maximum source resolution for under 30 MB/sec that I could push in 200% and still be 1:1 tack sharp at 2K/HD resolutions.

Somebody at NAB 2006 got snarky with me when I was talking about Red, kept saying it couldn't be done, yadda yadda, finally saying snidely "How big do the think the market is for a 4K camera?"

And bless their soul, somebody ELSE in the crowd said "You're looking at it wrong - how big do you think the market is for a camera that shoots killer HD and more for under 20 grand?"

I think that kind of thinking applies here too.

And thanks for the plug Steve, appreciated - anybody interested, the article is here:

http://www.dv.com/features/features_item.php?articleId=196602702

...and it is talking about UNCOMPRESSED HD (they edited the headline for space).

Somebody smart suggested to Red that they should target their data rate for what a modern single SATA drive can do in the kind of machine you'd be using it in - and 28 MB/sec is comfortably within that range for a desktop drive. Under 30 MB/sec is CAKE for a single SATA drive. A small RAID could handle 2 streams for the throughput for a realtime cross dissolve too.

So if I can use 28 MB/sec footage that looks as good for final HD res render as compared to uncompressed converted from that same source at 3-7 times the datarate? Why NOT do that?

(if we get all the RT luv we're hoping - next year's NAB maybe?)

-mike

Jeff Brue

03-27-2007, 07:52 PM

Well a lot of that also depends on how much CPU the debayering algorithm uses too right mike? I just saw a demo of codex's realtime debayering thats being used on the Origin. It works great but its kind of um...leaves something to be desired. The only other system out that is doing something similiar to redcode raw is the cineform raw codec. There's a lot of math crunching for a proper debayer (one of the reasons PS takes so long to load those camera RAW files).

A lot of times that doesn't happen till the prroper final render...which makes you wonder what you're looking at in editorial/grading/final output.

Tom Lowe

03-27-2007, 07:56 PM

That said, wavelet based formats lend themselves to extracting fractional resolutions on the fly (this is what Cineform does).

As for why - ingest once and be DONE with it. Having to process the footage to offline, ingest that, edit, RPL, generate high res final online version, conform, verify conform's accuracy, and THEN do your final color correction? Yuck.

Ingest. Edit. Color Correct (& other post steps). Master to whatever deliverables. DONE.

Exactly. Then you can output to 2K or 1080p, or whatever you need directly from your "4K final master," which should reside nicely on a cheap external drive once you're done. Probably 1TB of performance RAID on your main PC would be enough to edit a feature, if you are careful about not having too much unnecessary footage on it, keeping unneeded clips on some externals instead.

One thing I do think about, though, is that by editing at 4K, rather than 2K, you lose your ability to reframe, do post-production image stabilization, etc. In other words, if you shoot 4K REDCODE RAW (full DOF, etc), you could conceivably use After Effects or maybe even an NLE to downsample and crop the 4K images into very beautiful and perfectly framed 2K images. This assumes, though, that your edit would only be available at 4K resolution using your 2K EDL, is that right? You could keep a copy of the 4k data, just on the off chance that you make the next Citizen Kane and viewers will be clamoring for a 4K remaster a decade or so from now... :)

The real question in my mind, right now, is why make a 4K master? 4K-to-35mm is super-duper expensive, and the image transfer from 4k to 35mm might not be that much better than a transfer from 2K to 35mm.

goldyprog

03-27-2007, 09:09 PM

When I think and forcast Red and the numerous workflows people can produce from it, I am ultimately thinking less intermediary steps of going from production to a post-production environment. At the least, it will be a lot easier for the conforming process.

Also keep in mind, though, that Flames, Smokes and 2K and 4K based DI systems are adapting Linux and in some cases Windows workstations and running on dual-core Xeons. They are doing this and not running higher-processing PCs because it is a large cost to test and approve applicable hardware, and most buyers of this sort are not stressing technology or even speed in some (not all) cases, but rather investment. If they run an application on an unapproved system, then tech support may not come with the 2K or 4K-based application-- the buyers of these systems would be stepping out of line and into risk with, in many cases, a $100,000+ system not backed by support from the 3rd-party developer.

I'm excited for Red (for one of many reasons) because hypothetically you should be able to run this on a non-turnkey system that hasn't gone thru testing to run the dollars up, and instead have a 'minimum requirements' guideline to follow instead, as this type of testing can take a while for a third-party software applications developer. This can, in one way or another, produce an extreme savings for someone wanting to do work as 2K or higher, and also exploit quad, 8 and 16+ core processing available these days. The point is also that you probably won't need as powerful a system for more fundamental applications pertaining to Red's wavelets. I am very anxious to see what software will interface and work conjunctively with Redcine, and how future solutions will help to eliminate the need for offline-to-online protocol, given Red's breakthrough concept.

GlennChan

03-27-2007, 11:48 PM

In current practice, I think the offline/online process is still the way to go. Let's suppose you could edit Red in 4K resolution on Final Cut, in real-time. The problem with this is:
A- FCP will likely have abysmal real-time performance for color, effects, etc.
B- Monitoring 4k well and delivering 4k (or film) costs money. You might as well rent these specialized facilities.

If you get 4K monitoring and other things you need, your suite is fairly expensive and you're burning cash by tying up this equipment. It's cheaper to move editing to offline suites, and then online in your 4k suite.

Offline/online generally saves you money / gives you better quality. But if you can online on a cheap desktop system (i.e. everything including monitors and real-time editing system for under $10k), then that would be a more ideal workflow. Until good 4k/HD monitors become cheaper, and cheap editing systems become a lot faster, offline/online is still a good way of doing things.

Mike the beginner

03-28-2007, 01:02 AM

Martin Drew

03-28-2007, 01:37 AM

I am sure most people would love to edit at the highest quality possible, but to edit efficiently the edit environment has to be snappy. You want to be able to tweak your edits in real time and not wait for renders or excessive disk activity. Anything that introduces lag into the system is going to have an effect on how well you can edit and become a barrier to realising your creativity. I wouldn't want to edit at 4K if the price was a slower system.

M

Ace

03-28-2007, 03:01 AM

Karl H

03-28-2007, 05:35 AM

I am at least hoping that 4K redcode raw will convert in Redcine to a 2K editable redcode codec which is useable directly in the NLE.

Should this happen I think all other formats will become old technology quickly. Redcode 1080p or 2K at 4:4:4 wavelet will make for the best 'offline or online' I've ever worked with. I'm also hoping that one of the card manufacturers will announce output for at least 1080p recode to a monitor.....

It's a funny thing as if it all works the terms 'online' and 'offline' could be redefined by the Red workflow. With the advent of 4K we're now saying 2K will be offline - a year ago that was top-spec online... That's how much things are going to change if Redcode lives up to it's name.

Jochen Schmidt-Hambrock

03-28-2007, 08:03 AM

it mentioned a Japanese company Kawaitech is experimenting with Organic Displays.

A while ago on "This Week in Tech" they talked about OLED´s. There is this information floating around that they "go weak" after only 3 years.

I dont know what they mean by that and of course its pure second (third) hand information.

Jochen

Hans von Sonntag

03-28-2007, 08:28 AM

I found Mike Curtis' post on this topic very informative.

My thoughts on this:

1. Since Cinform will be able to make a 4k RAW editable workflow on PP and FCP possible I suppose RED will do this aswell. I like the idea of not beeing forced to convert the camera-stock to something editable but to edit 4k RAW proxies on the fly. No time eating conversion here. Great.
What you've got then is an EDL you can use in RED-Cine for instance.

2. Now you batch/convert with RED-Cine your footage into something with which you can do proper SFX/CC, for instance 1080 REG CODE RGB, Cineform 2K/1080 or uncompressed for the purists/nonbelievers. As I know from grading/keying/renderin 1080p is already a big cake to crounch. Thus mastering 4k with serious SFX/CC will be a pain. The (kind of affordable) CC-Apps relie on fast GPUs and have a 2k limit today. Apart from this 2K is the today standart for DI ond Hollywood stuff, 4 K does exist but is far to expensive for any indie production. (Writer, talents, etc. are much more vital than 4k...)

- 4k RAW is a brilliant Camera format for indie movie making. You will be able to edit it on the fly (hopfully) with data rates of SD uncompressed. But 4k ist not an online format, yet.

My 2 cents and I hope I did not miss anything vital,

Hans

Tom Lowe

03-28-2007, 01:16 PM

As with any artform, the fluidity of action is essential to creating that vital conversation between medium and artist. When things start to get slow, your allowing a great deal of conversation between you and the computer to go astray. This is why editing 2K for most will be IMO more beneficial. One is not to forget that your still editing a 4K image even if you are editing at 2k. Your editing 4K colourspace, your editing 4K sampled pixels, your editing 4K lattitude. And it would probably look better anyway due to downsampling.

All good points.

I am beginning to see a possible flow here. Shoot 4K REDCODE RAW, then use REDCINE to convert the clips to Cineform 2K (Prospect HD) or an equivalent wavelet 2K from RED, if they offer something to match Cineform (for free?). This downsampled 2K footage should be just beautiful, and easy to work with in your NLE.

If you want to do reframing, cropping, etc, I guess you could open 4K footage (again either Cineform or Red) in AE, output to 2K, then encode to the Cineform or RED 2K wavelet format and drop those clips right back into your picture. I'm not sure what happens to sound during all this.

Also, if you followed the steps above, will timecode hold up so that on the off chance the Weinsteins pick up your feature, you could use an EDL from your 2K edit to remaster from your archived 4K footage?

This also offers the possibility of shooting your overcranked stuff at 1080RGB (again, full sensor), and having the footage closely match your 2K stuff.

Zakaree Sandberg

03-28-2007, 01:29 PM

I Need an editor with a kick ass system in orange county who wants to team up! red 1015 here!

i dont think my duel g4 quicksilver will do my work anymore after red comes out.. shes served me well but ill just leave her to the protools HD stuff.

Bruce Allen

03-28-2007, 01:32 PM

HDforindies Mike is right. Just bear in mind that his storage numbers are for when the Red team succeeds in getting 4k REDCODE playing at full res through your NLE Which they haven't promised and which might be a year or two away.

...
I am beginning to see a possible flow here. Shoot 4K REDCODE RAW, then use REDCINE to convert the clips to Cineform 2K (Prospect HD) or an equivalent wavelet 2K from RED, if they offer something to match Cineform (for free?). This downsampled 2K footage should be just beautiful, and easy to work with in your NLE.

If you want to do reframing, cropping, etc, I guess you could open 4K footage (again either Cineform or Red) in AE, output to 2K, then encode to the Cineform or RED 2K wavelet format and drop those clips right back into your picture. I'm not sure what happens to sound during all this.

Also, if you followed the steps above, will timecode hold up so that on the off chance the Weinsteins pick up your feature, you could use an EDL from your 2K edit to remaster from your archived 4K footage?

This is exactly the gist of my "4k finishing folly" post (http://www.reduser.net/forum/showthread.php?t=781).

Tom, have you actually done an online recently? Of course the timecode will hold up, that's the whole point - do your film at HD or 2K like any sane person and then if you get offered tons of money for the picture at 4K, you can always go back to the original REDCODE files.

Sound is done the same way it has been done for onlines for a while - digitize at full resolution from early on. It is not really affected by picture online - if you threw the sound guys new sound files that late in the process they'd go ballistic. Usually they digitize it themselves but's a legacy from the analog era, methinks.

In a few years with faster computers this will all change but let's not be stupid now. You want a reliable, responsive editing system for doing your creative edits and if that involves working at a lower-than 4K "offline" resolution, you bite the bullet because you value the edit and the storytelling above some stupid 4K spec.

Bruce Allen
www.boacinema.com

Tom Lowe

03-28-2007, 01:57 PM

HDforindies Mike is right. Just bear in mind that his storage numbers are for when the Red team succeeds in getting 4k REDCODE playing at full res through your NLE Which they haven't promised and which might be a year or two away.

This is exactly the gist of my "4k finishing folly" post (http://www.reduser.net/forum/showthread.php?t=781).

Tom, have you actually done an online recently? Of course the timecode will hold up, that's the whole point - do your film at HD or 2K like any sane person and then if you get offered tons of money for the picture at 4K, you can always go back to the original REDCODE files.

Sound is done the same way it has been done for onlines for a while - digitize at full resolution from the get-go.

In a few years with faster computers this will all change but let's not be stupid now. You want a reliable, responsive editing system for doing your creative edits and if that involves working at a lower-than 4K "offline" resolution, you bite the bullet because you value the edit and the storytelling above some stupid 4K spec.

Bruce Allen
www.boacinema.com

All I've ever done is onlines, but not a full feature yet. That's why offlining is a bit of a mystery to me, and not something I am eager to learn.

My reasons for wanting to finish in 2K are a little different from your's, though, Bruce. If I recall, you believe that 4K post will be too intensive for most computers and personal editing systems. I do not share this view. My reasons for wanting to do post at 2K are almost purely aesthetic:

1. Wanting to reframe, image stabilize, and downsample from 4K to a lower "final" res for aesthetic reasons.

2. Wanting to match overcranked (60fps) 1080RGB to my "final" footage res. This way I can shoot all my overcranked stuff "onboard" and it will match much better to my 2K footage than trying to match it to 4K. Of course, this will not be the case if I have return to my 4K archives for a remaster, but I'll have to live with that.

The fact that 2K will be easier on my editing system is only a bonus for me.

Different paths to the same destination, my friend.

Bruce Allen

03-28-2007, 02:36 PM

you believe that 4K post will be too intensive for most computers and personal editing systems.

I believe that 4K post currently is too intensive for current editing systems. Of course one day (hopefully soon) it will not be.

Otherwise, I heartily agree with you about the bonus benefits of 2K for re-framing, overcranking, etc.

Bruce Allen
www.boacinema.com

Tom Lowe

03-28-2007, 03:28 PM

By the way, is it correct to assume that using features like AE's image stabilizer (motion tracking) will work even better on such a large image like 4K?

In other words, if you shoot a sequence from a moving car, you could take your 4K footage and stabilize some serious motion out, and still be left with a lovely, stable 2K recropped and perhaps partially downsampled footage. Will 4K give advantages in stabilizer image quality versus, say, 720p footage?

I fooled around with AE trying to stabilize some steadicam 720p footage taken on an HVX, but the obvious problem there is that you are left with a cropped image at much lower res than 720. In fact, if the motion is violent enough, you lose about half your frame.

BTW, Bruce, what happens to sound if you run some 4K footage through AE to do reframing, effects, etc? I've never tried to use footage with sound in AE and then bring it back into a Premiere Pro timeline. This is assuming that the sound guy recorded to camera, not dealing with syncing stuff he may have given you on DVD or harddrive. Simple AE work does not effect timecode, does it? Do you just leave the sound in the clip, uncompressed?

Gavin Greenwalt

03-28-2007, 04:43 PM

By the way, is it correct to assume that using features like AE's image stabilizer (motion tracking) will work even better on such a large image like 4K?

In other words, if you shoot a sequence from a moving car, you could take your 4K footage and stabilize some serious motion out, and still be left with a lovely, stable 2K recropped and perhaps partially downsampled footage. Will 4K give advantages in stabilizer image quality versus, say, 720p footage?

Yes and No. Yes it'll give you a clear image. No you won't want to use it. If it moves more than 10% and you're running a normal 180 degree shutter you're going to get Motion Blur. Motion Blur has effectively destroyed that shot. You will not be able to stabilize it. Not to mention if you're bumping around that much I would guess your parallax is going to be flying off the wall. In other words you're pretty much screwed.

No a little bit of jib vibration... no problem and with 2x oversampling you'll be able to do it without any resolution loss you'll just be only 1.8x oversampling or whatever it turns out to be.

Tom Lowe

03-28-2007, 05:22 PM

Yes and No. Yes it'll give you a clear image. No you won't want to use it. If it moves more than 10% and you're running a normal 180 degree shutter you're going to get Motion Blur. Motion Blur has effectively destroyed that shot. You will not be able to stabilize it. Not to mention if you're bumping around that much I would guess your parallax is going to be flying off the wall. In other words you're pretty much screwed.

No a little bit of jib vibration... no problem and with 2x oversampling you'll be able to do it without any resolution loss you'll just be only 1.8x oversampling or whatever it turns out to be.

Ah, thanks for the info.