Cineform? [Archive] - REDUSER.net

David Taylor

05-01-2008, 07:43 AM

Gopher77, regarding general workflow, CineForm converts all camera source formats (HDV, AVCHD, P2, Raw, uncompressed, etc) into a (CineForm) compressed digital intermediate format. You could say we "normalize" all formats into a CineForm format while maintaining the source visual fidelity and also the source chroma format. The latter comment means CineForm has 10-bit 4:2:2, 12-bit 4:4:4(:4) and 12-bit Raw formats depending on the source camera. We then support these formats through the post workflow in various editing applications. We're best integrated into Premiere Pro on Windows because Adobe offers an SDK which allows CineForm to literally replace the video processing engine inside Premiere Pro with our own. Apple does not offer such an SDK, so we have to do more work outside FCP in order to compensate.

Regarding Red, our strategy for supporting R3D is the same, and earlier discussions (January) showed we offered compatibility with Build 13 for a couple days. We agreed with Red to withhold our software until their SDK becomes available. I think Jim announced PC support will be available in June which we hope also means June is when CineForm will be able to offer a workflow for Red. But as has been stated clearly, Build 16 in the camera means the bitstream (file) formats will change, and we expect the SDK will be able to help with the changes.

Gopher77

05-01-2008, 05:31 PM

OK, got a few more questions;

Which does cineform work better in Adobe a Mac or PC?

Just want to make sure I'm understanding things correctly, with Cinefore can I edit 4k in realtime? I keep getting told that you can't only 2k, so you have to offline then conform from an EDL.

How does Color finese fit in the Adobe/Cineform workload?

David Taylor

05-01-2008, 09:21 PM

OK, got a few more questions;

Which does cineform work better in Adobe a Mac or PC?
Prospect 4K works best in PPro on Windows. Adobe provides an SDK on both Windows and Mac, but CineForm's RT engine has not been ported to PPro on Mac yet. CineForm files work fine in PPro/Mac but without the same performance our RT engine enables on Windows.

Just want to make sure I'm understanding things correctly, with Cinefore can I edit 4k in realtime? I keep getting told that you can't only 2k, so you have to offline then conform from an EDL.
Yes, you can edit 4K in real time - multiple stream actually, including RT color correction, transitions, titles, and more. Also CineForm RAW offers RT 3D LUT processing as part of our Active Metadata architecture.

How does Color finese fit in the Adobe/Cineform workload? CineForm files are fully compatible with Color Finesse. In fact we've optimized pixel formats with Synthetic Aperture to ensure 32-bit floating-point compatibility. We don't accelerate Color Finesse as we do PPro, but Color Finesse performance will be as it always is.

Vladimir Eugene

05-01-2008, 10:20 PM

The news from Cineform just gets better, and better

Mike Harrington

05-03-2008, 04:56 PM

Jay A. Kelley

05-03-2008, 06:26 PM

6 months?

Jesus..... I feel so sorry for the PC guys out there.

That is a long damn time... Too long.

I hope and pray your wrong Mr. Harrington

Jay

Thor Wixom

05-03-2008, 09:35 PM

6 months and Avid only? That would be tragic!

In the meantime, I keep telling my clients they have to make a choice. They can have me + Sony Z1U, and I can handle post... or, they can have me + Red, and take their chances with another post house.

Gosh, why don't I just give in a buy a Mac?

-Thor

Mike Harrington

05-03-2008, 11:48 PM

Na, I wouldn't buy the mac, the only thing you gain is editing of the proxy's.

The guy demoing the Final Cut workflow.....Flowmaster.......showed all the in's and out's bringing Redcode into Final Cut.....but that is to more or less just create an EDL....which they suggested finishing in Scratch. In fact he said he would not recommend finishing it in Mac because of how Mac switches from gamma 1.8 to 2.2 without warning.

The broadcast workflow using ProRes is good though, and fully self contained within the Mac apps.

It was a very good demo, and showed a working solution.

But if you go Mac, and want to finish in it, Color is only 2k.....and there is no immediate plans for 4k.

With cineform (if it was allowed) can edit the 4k raw file....scaled....but it is the RAW file....no EDL`s neccessary. Finishing could be done in various tools...color finesse ect at full bit depth 4k.

I`m thinking for the immediate time:
Red Cine debayer.....first light ect
Export TIFF or EXR (RedCine cineform export is not working)
Convert through cineform into cineform intermediate(not RAW anymore)

Edit my 4k files at realtime speed....No conform required

You just lose having Raw on the timeline....which will eventually come when RED releases the SDK

Red is working hard on there own workflow....and I think there ultimate goal is the same,native R3D raw file in the timeline

Thor Wixom

05-03-2008, 11:54 PM

Mike Harrington

05-04-2008, 12:08 AM

I totally agree....
cineform had that at there booth
Red footage in RAW on CS3

converted of course into cineform raw.

But for the time being we'll have to make do with another workflow.

Thor Wixom

05-04-2008, 12:23 AM

I totally agree....
cineform had that at there booth
Red footage in RAW on CS3

converted of course into cineform raw.

But for the time being we'll have to make do with another workflow.

I'm looking forward to when time being is time now. :-) Go Cineform!

-Thor

Jay A. Kelley

05-04-2008, 07:08 AM

I'm still trying to wrap my head around 6 months.

This is extremely dissappointing for a lot of people.

In the past I would comment on these sorts of things, but now.. I dunno.

Even in RED offered Adobe support in June, I would find it very unpleasent that other choices would be locked out for an additional 4 or 5 months.

Big time ouch.

Jay

Greg M

05-04-2008, 07:30 AM

Gosh, why don't I just give in a buy a Mac?

-Thor

Its the best $2500 accessory you can buy for your Red.

laguun

05-04-2008, 07:54 AM

David,
I was just at Red, and was told the SDK would be available in about 6 months.
And I have a feeling the PC support may be in the way of an Avid workflow....I hope I'm wrong because the cineform workflow is the best I've seen.

That cant be right.
Jim Jannard said multiple times that they wanted to have the open format this April.
Can someone from red comment on this?

laguun

05-04-2008, 07:57 AM

Gosh, why don't I just give in a buy a Mac?

-Thor

You cant finish your RED footage at its masterquality on OSX, you need windows for this right now.

Greg M

05-04-2008, 08:18 AM

You cant finish your RED footage at its masterquality on OSX, you need windows for this right now.
or linux

BUT...a $2500 MBPro is still the best accessory you can add to your package. We are a mostly PC facility and the MBPro is the best thing we did for our Red. We mostly use it on set to check footage and if the commercial is complex we edit on set as well.

It is our primary offline tool back at the studio for all our Red projects.
I understand this is a PC thread, but as I said we were all PC prior to the Red, and are now very pleased we added the Mac OS to support our workflow.

And btw...in the past 6 months of use the MBPro has paid for itself several times over.

Mike Harrington

05-04-2008, 10:03 AM

Your right, having the macbook pro would have a lot of advantages...

But i would still edit and finish in pc....unless it was strictly for broadcast....then Final Cut is the way to go.....for now.

As far as the 6 month SDK....that's what we were told

They said "within 10 months there will be many workflows by third parties"
Meaning 6 months for SDK.....4 months for developement.

So if I am wrong don't bite my head off....but this is what I heard from Red employees

David Wilson

05-04-2008, 10:29 AM

From the position of an outsider, I completely sympathize with RED not wanting to have loose-cannons in the post-mix at what is still a sensitive moment in the broader acceptance of this image making revolution.

But, from my understanding, the CineForm folk and their products hardly qualify as loose cannons with their impressively solid track record and a very impressive and demonstrated RED/CS3 workflow (among others) all but ready to go. Seems like a perfect win/win arrangement for all parties; this is going to make everyone look good. What’s not to like?

I remain ever hopeful.

Thor Wixom

05-04-2008, 03:50 PM

Its the best $2500 accessory you can buy for your Red.

Greg,

I hear what you're saying, but I'm not going to buy a Mac.

I'm going to hold out for the Cineform solution.

-Thor

Jay A. Kelley

05-04-2008, 07:13 PM

I won't buy a mac because so far it's not a matter of them being the "best" solution.. They are simply the ONLY solution.

It's like watching a race with only one runner.. He's the best on the track, but only because no one else is allowed to race.

Once other programs and choices are out there, then I will take a hard look at MAC, and Scratch for that matter.. I am moving up and Scratch looks like a possibility, but I won't go near them as long as they are the only ones who have direct support... It's a bad business move for me.

Jay

Karl H

05-06-2008, 02:59 AM

This is slightly off-topic, but I'm one of those that gave in a switched from a PC to a Mac. Am I happy? well, mixed feelings. Most Red footage I've shot so far has been 16:9 - so i cant use the proxy feature in FCP anyway. (I didnt know about this limitation until I had shot)

I spent about $5000 on my mac, 8 core, 16G ram, FCS2... along with at least the same amount again on monitors, raid units etc (which could be used with my PC too) . Now with that set-up on my Mac I bring in 2:1 redcode proxies into FCS, on my raid, and is realtime? not even close, even at 1K the proxies stutter. Applying any fx to 2K proxies takes a long time to render. Redcode is aquisition only so I have to render back to prores on the timeline and it's 4:2:2.

I think there are two reasons for this speed. First redcode as it stands today isnt optimised for any kind of playback or post workflow. Also FCS isnt multithreaded, or at least not multithreaded well..... I've done as much as rendering in motion and FCP at the same time. The Mac slows down and stutters but the CPU monitor never goes above 40-50%. Very odd. It appears not to use all 8 cores. That's a big deal when you really need them.

No mattter what effect I tried to do, FCP alone would have 10 mins remaining render time and only be at 40% cpu usage. Same goes for conversions and exporting.

Im not saying Mac and FCS is bad, there are a lot of great things about it. Perhaps I'll grow to edit with proxies, as it is great being able to see your footage instantly, but the stuttering just puts me off as an editor. Bear in mind you would still have to apply some sort of basic CC to stop the raw files from looking milky, so you're back to rendering regardless. I bought a Mac specifically for Red workflow and I expected it to be easier and more powerful than it is.

With 2K proxies I was expecting to have full quality real time playback and also I thought there was meant to be a plugin that gives you access to the raw controls, so you can tweak the curves, direct in FCP? So far this hasnt emerged. I hope build 16 brings some post speed enhancements on the Mac

Together with cineform I think the PC is primed to be a more powerful and realtime solution for the indie guy not wanting to go uncompressed or with scratch. Also with cineform you stay 4:4:4 throughout the post workflow. I hope too that you can apply realtime basic CC to cineform RAW clip on the timeline (anyone know this?).

The best workflow for me so far has been to go redcine > 2K prores. Maybe it's me but when I edit I like to edit with a onelight cc and in realtime. If im going to go that workflow of converting then there is no real advantage to going mac at all right now.

By the way, Im speaking with very limited experience here, I havent had my mac for long and it's had little use. (mainly due to not having the birger mount yet)

M Most

05-06-2008, 05:36 AM

Most Red footage I've shot so far has been 16:9 - so i cant use the proxy feature in FCP anyway. (I didnt know about this limitation until I had shot)

It's been pretty well known and heavily discussed, at least here.

Now with that set-up on my Mac I bring in 2:1 redcode proxies into FCS, on my raid, and is realtime? not even close, even at 1K the proxies stutter. Applying any fx to 2K proxies takes a long time to render. Redcode is aquisition only so I have to render back to prores on the timeline and it's 4:2:2.

That should not be the case, as 2K proxies play just fine (at least in straight play through in Final Cut, not in QT Player or with effects applied - but I digress..) on my basic Mac Pro with dual dual core 2.6 GHz. You cannot use "High" quality playback in FCP for this, however - try either Dynamic or Medium. You should not have to select Low quality to get real time playback. You can keep frame rate at full, though.

Im not saying Mac and FCS is bad, there are a lot of great things about it. Perhaps I'll grow to edit with proxies, as it is great being able to see your footage instantly, but the stuttering just puts me off as an editor. Bear in mind you would still have to apply some sort of basic CC to stop the raw files from looking milky, so you're back to rendering regardless.

Not really. You can open up each clip in Red Alert, set a basic color correction (remember to set up your monitor for 2.2 gamma before you do this), and make new proxies without rendering anything. The color corrections will play back anytime those proxies are accessed.

With 2K proxies I was expecting to have full quality real time playback

I don't know why you would expect that. It's always been made pretty clear (at least to me, and I'm pretty unforgiving myself) that this is not the case.

Together with cineform I think the PC is primed to be a more powerful and realtime solution for the indie guy not wanting to go uncompressed or with scratch. Also with cineform you stay 4:4:4 throughout the post workflow. I hope too that you can apply realtime basic CC to cineform RAW clip on the timeline (anyone know this?).

Yes, you can. However, in all of the apparent euphoria about Cineform, it is rarely if ever mentioned that in doing a conversion, you are going through two codec cycles using two different lossy codecs (Redcode and Cineform). It doesn't matter that Cineform is planning to do a "Raw to Raw" conversion - you still have to decode Redcode to extract the Raw information, and re-encode using Cineform to create a new compressed Raw file. Both of these codecs are nicely optimized, but there is no getting around the fact that you cannot go through two very high compression ratio passes without losing something in the process. So to produce final, master quality product, you will probably want to heavily test such a workflow before declaring that it is acceptable.

The best workflow for me so far has been to go redcine > 2K prores. Maybe it's me but when I edit I like to edit with a onelight cc and in realtime. If im going to go that workflow of converting then there is no real advantage to going mac at all right now.

That's not an uncommon view, especially from users with investments in PC's. But if you're using ProRes as your format, you actually do have to be on a Mac because that codec only exists on the Mac. You could, of course, use various other codecs on a PC if that's what you prefer. Cineform comes to mind for this.

David Newman

05-06-2008, 08:12 AM

Yes, you can. However, in all of the apparent euphoria about Cineform, it is rarely if ever mentioned that in doing a conversion, you are going through two codec cycles using two different lossy codecs (Redcode and Cineform). It doesn't matter that Cineform is planning to do a "Raw to Raw" conversion - you still have to decode Redcode to extract the Raw information, and re-encode using Cineform to create a new compressed Raw file. Both of these codecs are nicely optimized, but there is no getting around the fact that you cannot go through two very high compression ratio passes without losing something in the process. So to produce final, master quality product, you will probably want to heavily test such a workflow before declaring that it is acceptable.

We have gone through this quality testing many of times for uncompressed to CineForm encoding, with plently of high-end post house customers. Yes, please do the testing for yourself. Yet your understanding of compression is a little flawed. There are not two added generations involved, Redcode is already compression, you can't avoid its loss whether you go to DPX or CineForm or use it natively. The is only one generation to consider, the CineForm encode. CineForm has been used to archive uncompressed sources with higher quality than HDCAM SR, acceptable to most, yet converting from a pre-compressed source like Redcode is in fact much easier and introduces significantly less loss than compressing from DPX source (which is what we are typically tested against.) So generation losses are not equal. Next, CineForm is hardly "high" compression, it is signifactly less compressed than the Redcode source, data rates will often increase 50-70% when encoding to CineForm with a log curve (Redcode currently peaks at 9:1 to CineForm's range of 6:1 to 4:1.) All this results in no one being able to determine original of a DPX file generated from Redcode directly or one that has gone through a CineForm generation. Something else to consider, compression is so much less of a factor than actions like scaling filers, demosaics, and color work. We intend to our best at all of these when given the opportunity.

Karl H

05-06-2008, 09:23 AM

thanks for the tip on the proxies mike, I will try that, and if I can get playback at 2K then I may well use that workflow instead.

When I say I expected realtime playback, I guess Im saying I hoped for it. If cineform can play back 4K in realtime from a RAW wavelet file on a modest spec PC, then Redcode with a few iterations of optimisation should be able to do the same.

Put on top of that I bought a computer 4x more powerful than my old one (which could play cineform 1080p 4:4:4 fine). And I expected a lot more. I think cineform is an amazing little codec

Of course it doesnt help that FCP isnt multi-threaded, which is a killer no mac fan boy appears to be willing to tell you until you've bought the thing.

All Im saying is the general vibe seems to be for Red footage , Mac is the way to go. It's almost drilled into everyone. I dunno, I may have made the wrong choice, Ive had the opportunity now to use both cineform and the prores workflow and I cant say I feel Ive taken a leap into the future by buying the mac. Infact I see prores as an offline, while I see cineform as an online.
We wont even get into the fact that motion 3 is super slow - thats another digression.

I made my mac purchase as a last minute decision to get out of the way before my end of year tax; so I didnt spend much time in the apple forums on here to know about the 16:9 problem. I found out after I had shot and it didnt work :-).

Maybe you could help me out with a mac question, as im new to FCP and Red. As far as i know each proxie is in a subfolder of the clip name, so lets say I want to import 100 proxie clips, do I have to go into each subfolder to import the files individually 100 times? is there a way to batch import all of my clips at a certain proxy (i.e. not import all my proxies, just the 2K ones).

thanks (I know I should have asked this in the apple forum, but its kinda cross merged).

M Most

05-06-2008, 10:46 AM

Maybe you could help me out with a mac question, as im new to FCP and Red. As far as i know each proxie is in a subfolder of the clip name, so lets say I want to import 100 proxie clips, do I have to go into each subfolder to import the files individually 100 times? is there a way to batch import all of my clips at a certain proxy (i.e. not import all my proxies, just the 2K ones).

thanks (I know I should have asked this in the apple forum, but its kinda cross merged).

I think this was actually answered recently in the apple forum.

The easiest way I've found to do this is to import the master folder (the one in which you've put everything: the R3d files, the proxies, etc.) into Final Cut. Note that you might get an error message saying that FCP doesn't support all the files in that folder. That's OK, ignore it. Select that folder in the Browser, then use the Find function (edit->find) to search for what you want - for instance, all files ending in "_H". It will then open up a new window with only those files. Select them all and drag them into either the Browser directly, or into a bin you create inside the Browser, then delete the original imported folder. This is a very fast way of doing what you're asking.

laguun

05-06-2008, 11:10 AM

Final Cut is a good solution, and i own it.
However for Red, it has lots of limitations compared to Adobe CS with cineform, in quality and speed.

Adobe CS is full 4K, fcs can be hacked to "almost" 4k or is 2K.
Adobe CS has full 15/16bit RGB processing, Final Cut pro sadly has only 8bit RGB. One can use YUV instead of RGB, but having colorspaceconversions for a post workflow is highly problematic if you aim at maximum quality, dci or filmout. For TV its less of an issue.

Adobe CS cineform works in 4K in realtime, and 2K is easy, in RAW and RGB, while for FCP you have to go for 2K YUV non-raw (prores) to get RT or have to lower quality to playback 4K raw files via a 2K proxy.
Adobe CS is crossplatform, OSX and win, while FCP is OSX only.

However, FCS is still an very good offer with an excellent proce/performance ratio, and motion is excellent as well. But that Adobe CS 3 has (meanwhile) gained substantial speed and quality advantages over it is something which should be rememberd - and hopefully Apple will adress this. I dont understand why Apple why apple doesnt eliminate the long standing issues so many FCS Users endure daily (mainly: Gammashift, disfunctional Color integration, the 8bit RGB barrier and the missing full 4K) as they would highly improve FCs usability and the user experience.

Dj Joofa

05-06-2008, 11:18 AM

Adobe CS has full 15/16bit RGB processing

I think Adobe Premiere can do 32 bit (float) per R, G and B also.

Dj Joofa

05-06-2008, 11:33 AM

Next, CineForm is hardly "high" compression, it is signifactly less compressed than the Redcode source, data rates will often increase 50-70% when encoding to CineForm with a log curve (Redcode currently peaks at 9:1 to CineForm's range of 6:1 to 4:1.)

Can you directly use the compressed RedCode co-efficients (I assume they have used a standard wavelet transform) without going through decompression of RedCode to uncompressed to compressed cineform?

Additionally, if RedCode has already removed redundancies by a factor of 9:1, then why don't you keep that factor? I can understand that given uncompressed sources and then going either 9:1 RedCode or 6:1 Cineform on that uncompressed source, but as you say in your case you operate on RedCode data and not uncompressed source.

(1) If the nature of redundancies that you are removing via (6:1) more or less the same as RedCode (9:1), then probably a lower compression factor is not going to help much. (2) However, if the nature of Cineform redundancy removal is different than RedCode, then to some extent it will be closer to what MMost said of the cascade of two redunancy removal units operating in tandem.

I assume that Cineform case is closer to (1), and perhaps that is the reason that Cineform compressed files are visually indistinguishable from direct DPX via RedCode as you mentioned.

Sven Seynaeve

05-06-2008, 01:07 PM

Hopefully this aint true.... Avid would take to much benefit from it and gain market share again against Cs and FCP. This approach ;if it is true, could put us CS users in the corner again<; and only slow down independants. And btw their upgrade rates aint nothing but very expensive....with hardware going out of date rather sooner then later....

Having used Protools for some time, this is the last thing I'd love to see happening.

David Newman

05-06-2008, 01:58 PM

Can you directly use the compressed RedCode co-efficients (I assume they have used a standard wavelet transform) without going through decompression of RedCode to uncompressed to compressed cineform?

Additionally, if RedCode has already removed redundancies by a factor of 9:1, then why don't you keep that factor? I can understand that given uncompressed sources and then going either 9:1 RedCode or 6:1 Cineform on that uncompressed source, but as you say in your case you operate on RedCode data and not uncompressed source.

(1) If the nature of redundancies that you are removing via (6:1) more or less the same as RedCode (9:1), then probably a lower compression factor is not going to help much. (2) However, if the nature of Cineform redundancy removal is different than RedCode, then to some extent it will be closer to what MMost said of the cascade of two redunancy removal units operating in tandem.

I assume that Cineform case is closer to (1), and perhaps that is the reason that Cineform compressed files are visually indistinguishable from direct DPX via RedCode as you mentioned.

Probably the simplest response is that not how it works, plus wavelets are not all the same. While we could target a lower data rate, we simply give that option to the user. These data rate reflect our Filmscan1 mode using a Log 90 curve, all under user control. Filmscan1 is the same mode we use in our SR comparisions and our DPX testing, yet they are quality level higher and lower to meet most needs.

David Newman

05-06-2008, 02:01 PM

laguun

05-06-2008, 02:27 PM

Regarding the NLE, FCP vs Premiere, both have 32-bit YUV 4444 modes. However, Premiere also has RGBA 16-bit, RGBA 32-bit modes and more filters that support them. Premiere internals are better, but in general using 32-bit float mode will give you equal quality on both products.

If its possible to use YUV instead of RGB, yes, but many animation, VFX & grade systems are RGB only, as are most masters here.

Therefore having a YUV editing in the middle of several RGB systems and software is a mayor issue, which apple should fix. Or - if i missed that - does cineform use FCPs YUV float to process cineform RGB and RAW?

David Newman

05-06-2008, 02:46 PM

There is enough precision in 32-bit float, it doesn't matter what the pixel colorspace is. Using 32-bit float, YUV to RGB transforms are effective lossless. Within FCP, CineForm RAW and 444 use the 'r4fl' YUVA 4:4:4:4 32-bit pixel format to deliver full quality. I believe Redcode within FCP does the same -- it is the only way to get beyond FCP's 8-bit limitations.

Dj Joofa

05-06-2008, 02:54 PM

Is there a direct comparison for Cineform vs. Sheer Video codecs? I noticed that they are also using 'r4fl' flavor codecs.

David Newman

05-06-2008, 03:07 PM

Is there a direct comparison for Cineform vs. Sheer Video codecs? I noticed that they are also using 'r4fl' flavor codecs.

Sheer is a nice codec, but a quite different solution. Sheer is mathematically lossless YUV or RGB codec, the datarate will be about 3-4 times higher than CineForm 444 encode. As CineForm can encode RAW there is another 3X advantage to the CineForm bit-rate. Sheer makes sense for some high-end SD or HD work, but at 4K the datarates become more of a driving factor.

Dj Joofa

05-06-2008, 03:25 PM

Thank you very much David for your quick replies.

Mike Harrington

05-06-2008, 03:31 PM

David

Do you guys still have the deal that if we buy prospect 4k....we get the debayerer for all forms of Raw (whatever you call it) once it is released

David Newman

05-06-2008, 05:26 PM

David

Do you guys still have the deal that if we buy prospect 4k....we get the debayerer for all forms of Raw (whatever you call it) once it is released

Yes. We will not be charging current Prospect 4K customers for the up-coming RAW conversion utilities once they can be made available. We have said that anyone who purchases before the end of May will be in that category, although that may be extended if the SDK still seems a long way off.

Gopher77

05-06-2008, 06:53 PM

although that may be extended if the SDK still seems a long way off.

Don't say that!

Maz Mawlawi

05-06-2008, 07:11 PM

I would rather spend the money on a few cineform licenses than spending it on a MAC.... I just hope we don't have to wait 6 months for the cineform release. I can't believe Cineform has to wait for RED...it's so frustrating especially knowing that David and co already have a wroking solution that doesn't require the wait for the SDK......

Mike Harrington

05-06-2008, 08:17 PM

Frustrating yes....

but look on the bright side....really

with cineform (once REDCINE is fixed) you will still have 4k online editing in PP......which blows the doors off the Final cut workflow.......you just won't have it in RAW.....but it is coming

No matter how hard the market tries to sway us.....horsepower will win over hype.

If Final Cut could do the same thing as Premiere with cineform......I would become a fan boy overnight.

And really....I'm an Avid guy.....but you can't argue the power this combo will give the film maker.

Jason Sinclair

05-07-2008, 08:26 AM

It seems strange that there is a road block stopping the revolution from going ahead and yet the only person who can unblock it is the revolutionary leader himself. There's obviously missing information. It just doesn't add up. Have to let time tell its own story... I don't know David but by all impressions so far he seems like one of the kind of business partners you would want. He is obviously a genius in his field, has a product light years ahead of anyone else, and in terms of business ethics, communication etc... he is so close to red compared to some other companies the frequent this board, it just makes the mind boggle as to why he's not getting the support.
One gets the feeling that red is developing their own product in competition, considering the silence on the subject. Considering there are three major products that have to be developed in the next 9 or so months, surely, it's sensible to go third party on this? If it was Jim's plan to really go the software route from the beginning as a part of the whole plan and it's something he wants to stick to then surely some transparency would alleviate the situation and not lead people on who really don't deserve it. I really feel that if David and Graehme got together then what they would be capable of would be something magical. I'm sure a situation could be sought where everyone profited the least of all the people who have supported the dream. These are just random thoughts but i suppose that's what the mind does when information doesn't flow. I hope we get some feedback on this issue in the near future.

Obin Olson

05-07-2008, 11:51 AM

hang OUT guys...4k cineform is coming...and lets just say....well, I guess I can't really say yet but I know things.....you wish you knew...:) well...I wish I knew them too but I "Think" I am in the "Loop" anyway, um...er.....I can't really say what I know I guess is the bottom line....

:)

I can say I am REALLY stoked about a little update coming my way in terms of 4k editing on PC... :)

BTW used both, I think FCP blows. Premiere has way better tools and most are now high bit depth too!

kinda feels like Apple does not sell enough FCP seats to stay 100% on top of things sometimes....

Gopher77

05-07-2008, 03:12 PM

We're still trying to determine on buying a MAC or PC, so will this be as effective on premier on an intel mac as it will be on a pc?

David Newman

05-07-2008, 03:33 PM

If you buy a Mac do consider using Boot Camp as CineForm's Prospect is Windows only. We do have Intel Mac support for the codec, but our Windows products are more advanced.

Jason Sinclair

05-08-2008, 04:09 AM

We're still trying to determine on buying a MAC or PC, so will this be as effective on premier on an intel mac as it will be on a pc?

Buy one of each, you won't be able to back to anything else after you tried the super combo... Life without a pc is sad and when you need to feel special, you can go on the mac. The mac is also good for surfing as lack of virus's is good. It's also solid as a plug and play unit with little troubles (don't tell anyone i said this but they actually do have troubles). But PC is a swiss army knife on steroids. The modularity (where have i heard that word before?) is mind boggling and you don't feel like you belong to some kind of cult. You can upgrade as soon as technology becomes available and competition is fierce so prices are good (mac is finally catching up here) But get one of each and the next time you're at a party you won't get shouted down by someone just because you own a computer or have to listen to hours of technical drone of why product a is better than product b. Why not add a linux and go supersized?

Ed Blythe

05-08-2008, 08:36 AM

It seems strange that there is a road block stopping the revolution from going ahead and yet the only person who can unblock it is the revolutionary leader himself. There's obviously missing information.

Yes...but I think only you are missing it...? Build 16 is a complete revamp of the codec from the ground up. This has been stated many times as the reason for the SDK not being released until after 16 is proven - all of Cineform's currently functioning (and oh-so-sexy) work will need to be re-done (doubtless much easier the second time around) once the new Redcode hits the streets.

You may be talking about the rumored postponement - hasn't been confirmed here by Red, so either they're hiding it or it's untrue. Let's hope for the latter. A denial would be nice :ph34r:

One gets the feeling that red is developing their own product in competition, considering the silence on the subject. Considering there are three major products that have to be developed in the next 9 or so months, surely, it's sensible to go third party on this? If it was Jim's plan to really go the software route from the beginning as a part of the whole plan and it's something he wants to stick to then surely some transparency would alleviate the situation and not lead people on who really don't deserve it. I really feel that if David and Graehme got together then what they would be capable of would be something magical. I'm sure a situation could be sought where everyone profited the least of all the people who have supported the dream. These are just random thoughts but i suppose that's what the mind does when information doesn't flow. I hope we get some feedback on this issue in the near future.

I think this is pulling a bit of a long bow. But I can't really prove you wrong, so I guess what you're saying about information flow is the key to getting this resolved.

Would definitely like to see Red and Cineform get into bed.

Gopher77

05-23-2008, 08:36 AM

We've decided on a PC as our main platform and a MAC in suite 2. I was just wondering what type of video outputs do I need to configure in the PC to run dual editing monitors a JVC DT-V24 monitor to color grade and a 50" plasma client monitor? Boxx is building the system, and those guys are great to work with. Right now it is configured with a NVidia 8800 GT. But I think I need additional cards to drive the color correction monitor and the client Plasma. Any recommendations or warnings?

Thanks!
G

Jason Sinclair

05-24-2008, 06:47 AM

Yes...but I think only you are missing it...? Build 16 is a complete revamp of the codec from the ground up. This has been stated many times as the reason for the SDK not being released until after 16 is proven - all of Cineform's currently functioning (and oh-so-sexy) work will need to be re-done (doubtless much easier the second time around) once the new Redcode hits the streets.

You may be talking about the rumored postponement - hasn't been confirmed here by Red, so either they're hiding it or it's untrue. Let's hope for the latter. A denial would be nice :ph34r:

I think this is pulling a bit of a long bow. But I can't really prove you wrong, so I guess what you're saying about information flow is the key to getting this resolved.

Would definitely like to see Red and Cineform get into bed.

Yes agree with you on all points. I really don't know what i am talking about. I though that the sdk was due for release in march but yea i am speculating. I am normally wrong ;)

In any case Jim stated in his latest post adobe support is coming.

It's probably just a communication thing or lack therof. Trying to organise everything for production is so difficult at the moment... So many unknowns and so much silence... Not how it was in the begining. So much changing etc...

Just feels like a few simple words would help their marketing out a bit, make people feel a bit more secure. I don't think it could hurt. But in saying that, i'm still going ahead with my order no matter what.

laguun

05-24-2008, 07:27 AM

Yes agree with you on all points. I really don't know what i am talking about. I though that the sdk was due for release in march but yea i am speculating. I am normally wrong ;)

open redcode definition and sdk were announced for april 2008.

In the early reservation stage it wasnt announced that all postproduction systems and manufacturers would be locked out of redcode centric workflows except one editor on osx and one di/daily system on windows.
That information became officially published later in ~okt 2007 and caused much concern for several users and customers of red.

In any case Jim stated in his latest post adobe support is coming.
It's probably just a communication thing or lack therof. Trying to organise everything for production is so difficult at the moment... So many unknowns and so much silence... Not how it was in the begining. So much changing etc...
Just feels like a few simple words would help their marketing out a bit, make people feel a bit more secure. I don't think it could hurt. But in saying that, i'm still going ahead with my order no matter what.
More and more precise information about red compability with postproduction systems and manufacturers would be very welcome, especially after the "orginally non-official" lockout of any postproduction system for redcode-native there is some scepticism. I surely hope the best for the release of open redcode with the R16-SDK which is in alpha now.

laguun

05-24-2008, 07:31 AM

Would definitely like to see Red and Cineform get into bed.

cineform is the perfect expansion for red, as it solves most issues at once:

- redcode->cineform is crossplatform (OSX and windows)
- non-proxy realtime editing (FCP and Adobe)
- The excellent .look LUT colorcorrection in any quicktime application, which can be generated while shooting with
- speedgrade on set
- Allows full-quality use of red images in most of the so far locked out softwares, as combustion, fusion, nuke etc

Brian Harbauer

05-27-2008, 01:34 PM

Yes. We will not be charging current Prospect 4K customers for the up-coming RAW conversion utilities once they can be made available. We have said that anyone who purchases before the end of May will be in that category, although that may be extended if the SDK still seems a long way off.

David, does that include the Prospect 2K customers as well? I see there are several conversion utilities on your webpage that are downloadable without purchase (providing that I already have the codec). Would the raw conversion utility only be available for those who purchase prospect?

Brian Harbauer

05-27-2008, 01:34 PM

Also I can not find anything official about this offer on your website. Was this announced somewhere?

David Taylor

05-27-2008, 04:54 PM

David, does that include the Prospect 2K customers as well? I see there are several conversion utilities on your webpage that are downloadable without purchase (providing that I already have the codec). Would the raw conversion utility only be available for those who purchase prospect?

In the near future we will be separating the conversion utility from Raw camera sources into CineForm RAW, whether those sources are Red, Dalsa, Vision Research, Arri, etc. Currently that capability is provided at no additional charge for Prospect 2K/ or Prospect 4K/Neo 4K customers. This is what David Newman was referring to. As is well known we are not supplying our converter for Red yet, but hopefully we're getting closer.

All who have a license for Prospect 4K/Neo 4K at the time we separate the converter will get the converter at no additional charge. After the separation there will be separate purchases for the converter and for Prospect 4K/Neo 4K. We'll offer advance visibility here about when that changeover will happen so forum participants can take advantage of it.

In general we haven't made any noise about this on our site because of the uncertain time when we'll support Red, and we try not to be too commercial on the forums. We mentioned it at NAB to many people, and we'll post about it on our site when the timeframe for supporting Red becomes more clear.

conrad gaunt

05-27-2008, 05:29 PM

Do you expect the Red SDK will let you extract the Red raw CFA, so you can transcode to cineform RAW, like the S.Imaging workflow, or will it be transcoded into a 4:4:4 format ?

David Taylor

05-27-2008, 05:52 PM

As Red has indicated Build 16 changes a lot of things, including requiring new releases of RedAlert and RedCine. That means things will change for CineForm's conversion utilities too, but in a manner we're not yet privvy to.

With previous builds we've been able to convert the Raw data directly (although we haven't shipped the tool), but we haven't supported the increasing amount of metadata being added to the files. Hopefully we will continue to be able to convert the Raw files directly (to CineForm RAW), but we will also begin to use the SDK for better access to metadata.

Brian Harbauer

05-28-2008, 12:04 PM

David thanks for the quick reply.

Just to be clear, will the raw converter only come with Prospect 4K/Neo 4K? Or will it come with Prospect 2K as well? I ask because I only have a need for 2K, however I would need the raw converter.

Thanks again

David Taylor

05-28-2008, 12:35 PM

Brian, the Raw converter - until we separate it out - comes with Prospect 2K, Prospect 4K, and Neo 4K.

But a technical word is in order. A Raw converter must keep the spatial resolution of the source file. So 2K Raw in --> 2K CineForm RAW out. 4K Raw in --> 4K CineForm RAW out.

If you want to change spatial resolution, such as 4K Raw in and you want 2K out, then you must "develop" the image including demosaic. The CineForm RAW converter does this BTW - so you can take 4K Raw in and generate 2K CineForm 444 (or 422) out by performing a demosaic and spatial resample as part of the conversion.

Brian Harbauer

05-28-2008, 01:15 PM

Ah! Thanks for the clarification David, I didn't realize that. I just thought via the dynamic sampling less pixels would be sampled or sampled differently for 2K. But that makes complete sense - thank you for explaining.

Again thank you for the quick response and your time.

Gabriele Turchi

05-28-2008, 02:32 PM

David may I ask what application it's possible to try right now on Mac from Cineform?

I saw your interview on Fresh DV about Cineform and Mac and i have to say that was quite amazing,
I have downloaded Neo Player for Mac ,and it allow me to play Cineform RAW File (downloaded from Silicon Imaging website), but i can't find how i can change the .look file using quicktime as you did in the interview...and If i try to download Neo 4K it's only for PC (.exe)

\So what you suggest me to try the potentiality of yours product right now on Mac?

I think that your Idea to keep all the clip in Online (After the Cineform RAW conversion off course) having the ebility to play it in 4k , having the possibility apply LUT in Realtime under any application (like FinalCut or Quickime) in a non-destructive way it's really amazing and helpful

I think could be great add support to RED Codec Soon...

What about Apple Colo and Cineform?

Thanks

Gabriele

Hop Litzwire

05-28-2008, 03:17 PM

David Taylor

05-28-2008, 03:38 PM

Gabriele,

Our Mac demo at NAB was with an unreleased version of our Mac workflow. There are a number of feature and performance upgrades that will be part of our next Mac release, some of which you saw at NAB - or on the Fresh DV interview.

It seems all our Mac releases take longer than we intend. That said, I'm hopeful that we'll have the next release in the next 2-3 weeks that will allow you to experiment with the Mac workflow from NAB.

David Taylor

05-28-2008, 03:47 PM

I apologize for not being in on this point earlier, as I am sure it has been discussed, but say you shoot RED footage in 4K and want to convert your footage for use in a Win/PPro Cineform project (4K or 2K) today....what is the current procedure?

Thanks

Litzwire, today there is not an easy way to use a CineForm workflow deriving from Red footage. RedCine has a bug in its deep-precision QuickTime export which means you can't export to CineForm 422 or CineForm 444 using this path yet. A CineForm RAW path still remains in front us as we wait for the Red SDK. Hopefully this will change in the not too distant future....

Hop Litzwire

05-29-2008, 02:21 PM

Wow. That's rough if you're looking to use Cineform in the near future. What about exporting to some other codec then transcoding that to a form that Cineform/PPro can use? Even though it would be a pain, couldn't one output from RedCine to Targa and then transcode that to Cineform? (I feel like Roy Batty asking Eldon Tyrell in Blade Runner how he can get more extension on his life....except without the eventual consequence). Update: someone just hipped me to some footage from RedLab that was labeled with the following workflow: REDCODE RAW > CAMERA RGB > GAMMA REC 709 > CINEFORM 1080HD. Any comments on that?

Christopher Grant Harvey

05-29-2008, 02:33 PM

It is Cineform who are waiting for RED.:wacko:

As soon as build 16 comes & the SDK Cineform will be good to go with full support for the RAW data. I stand corrected but there is no real way to get "raw" data out of Redcine to Cineform without losing quality.

David Taylor

05-29-2008, 04:38 PM

What about exporting to some other codec then transcoding that to a form that Cineform/PPro can use? Update: someone just hipped me to some footage from RedLab that was labeled with the following workflow: REDCODE RAW > CAMERA RGB > GAMMA REC 709 > CINEFORM 1080HD. Any comments on that?

Litzwire, in the short term you're right. You can always go through an intermediate file format supported by RedCine (such as you illustrated), and then convert that into CineForm files. But remember when you go out of RedCine you're also developing to either YUV or RGB (it's no longer Raw). There is nothing wrong with doing that conversion - I mention it as a point of clarification.

If you have to develop first, generally our recommendation would be to go through an RGB format (TIFF / DPX) and then into 12-bit CineForm 444 - either HD or 2K. This will maintain maximum quality through the remainder of your post workflow.

The workflow as described is doable, but certainly a pain. Hopefully it won't be too long before we have something more elegant.

Hop Litzwire

05-30-2008, 07:24 AM

Looking for to it, of course. Until then I will go DPX > Cineform as you suggest. To be honest, I don't even have Cineform system right now; I have a Matrox Axio. But my plan is to continue to use the Axio for the TV shows I do and build a Cineform system strictly for RED work. Perhaps I'll have the two systems working together somehow....hey, did I just invent something? Two separate computer systems working together? :P By the way, is the output hardware suggested for Cineform still AJA Xena?

David Taylor

05-30-2008, 10:47 AM

By the way, is the output hardware suggested for Cineform still AJA Xena?

Yes, AJA Xena LHe is the recommended HD-SDI hardware today.

BTW, our DPX conversion software (either direction) is included with installations of all CineForm products. Look in the CineForm --> Tools folder under Start Menu.

Gabriele Turchi

05-31-2008, 02:26 AM

David what does Xena do for Cineform?

-Playback Output trough the SDI i guess...resolution?2K?
-Capture in realtime in Cineform RAW?
-What more?

Are you planning to do the same with Kona?

PS:Onestly how much time you think you need o have the same features that cineform have on windows but on Mac?like 3 months ...more ?

Thanks

G

David Taylor

05-31-2008, 04:06 PM

Gabrielle, Xena is used for timeline monitoring with a known 709 color space. The way we do this is to scale 4K to 2K, then perform a center crop of HD resolution (1920x1080) out of the 2K window. This retains about 88% of the 2K window.

If you have HD material to acquire you can do this too, but you cannot capture RAW as RAW material is usually file based.

We will support Kona on Mac in the not-too-distant future.

We cannot offer identical features in FCP as in PPro as there is no SDK available for FCP such as Adobe offers for PPro.

Gabriele Turchi

06-01-2008, 05:16 AM

David,i have to say that your company is surprising me (in a good way)your approach to apply metadata on the fly it's pretty amazing,and i appreciate the fact that you constantly upgrade the website etc...
But I am on Mac so i can't really deep undertsand right now all the possibilities that you product offer,

so

I have a couple of question more...

Does the Metadata stuff" application on the fly" works only with Cineform Raw or with all Cineform Intermediate codec?

Can we transcode any kind of file or codec to cineform Raw ?or just a Bayer data Only?

What's the main differences (in terms of feature in the workflow) between working with Cineform Raw file instead of the others Cineform Intermediate Files?Or it's just question of bayer versus debayer data?

I don't understand the differences between NEO 4K and Prospect 4K...

Thanks!

G

Christopher Grant Harvey

06-01-2008, 05:55 AM

Does the Metadata stuff" application on the fly" works only with Cineform Raw or with all Cineform Intermediate codec?

Can we transcode any kind of file or codec to cineform Raw ?or just a Bayer data Only?

What's the main differences (in terms of feature in the workflow) between working with Cineform Raw file instead of the others Cineform Intermediate Files?Or it's just question of bayer versus debayer data?

I don't understand the differences between NEO 4K and Prospect 4K...

G

I'll attempt to answer some of your questions.. I stand corrected though..

1) The Metadata and SetActiveMetadata only work for C-RAW.
2) You cannot transcode to RAW, you only convert RAW data from any source be it Red, Dalsa, or SI-2K to Cineform RAW.
3) Cineforms RAW workflow saves the debayer process till the end of your workflow when you export.

There are many differences between working with RAW and just CF-AVI's.
For example with C-RAW you can actively apply a LUT and white balance data on top of the RAW file non-destructively.

Read this: http://www.cineform.com/technology/CineForm_RAW.htm & this http://www.cineform.com/products/TechNotes/SetActiveMetadata-Win.htm & this http://www.cineform.com/products/TechNotes/3DLUTGeneration.htm

4) NEO 4K is for a mac workflow offering encoding to CF AVI's up to 4K resolution and 12 bit precision no enhanced realtime playback.

Prospect 4K is for pc workflow but offers an enhanced realtime playback engine for Premiere Pro.

David Taylor

06-01-2008, 09:39 AM

Thanks Chris. Also, I have one piece of new data, and one comment.

Comment: One way to think of the differences between our Prospect and Neo families is that Prospect includes our real-time engine for PPro on Windows. Neo does not. So if you're using PPro (Windows) you want Prospect. If not, you want Neo.

New Info: We will be adding active metadata features to CineForm 444 in the near future. This will allow you to render C-RAW into C444 without having to flatten color information during render. Active metadata will remain as active metadata. There are many times when you need to render out of C-RAW, such as when applying effects, but many times you'd prefer to maintain color information as metadata to better preserve highlights for latter portions of the workflow.

Gabriele Turchi

06-24-2008, 03:25 PM

David Taylor

06-24-2008, 03:47 PM

Gabriele,

Your question was timed perfectly. We will have a public beta for the next release of our Mac codec posted in about three hours or less. Check our website then - we'll have news posted on our home page.

This release will have more performance plus the initial release of "SetActiveMetadata" on Mac that we demonstrated at NAB.

We will have numerous Mac releases over the coming couple of months that further improve Mac performance and add features.

Comments requested....

Gabriele Turchi

06-24-2008, 03:55 PM

Thats sound really great!!!

G

Gabriele Turchi

06-25-2008, 05:10 AM

Obin Olson

06-25-2008, 05:48 AM

And your support of RED when?....

Jay A. Kelley

06-25-2008, 07:20 AM

Obin, the question is not when will Cineform support RED.. The question is when will the SDK be available.

When that happens, Cineform will be right behind it. The support, and software already exists. They just want to move when they are supposed too.

Jay

David Taylor

06-25-2008, 08:07 AM

Hi david i have downloaded the new Cineform Mac Codec Trial,

now i can see the new set metadata tab ....but actually it didnt work ....

First i have tried using a cineform RAW clip downloaded from the Silicon imaging website : "the spider experiment" ,

using that clip the only control that was working in the set metadata panel was enable/disble metadata ...all the others control like "apply a different look" or change white balance or change color matrix doesn't work...

maybe that clip is not a Cineform RAW clip? In quicktime in the movie inspector tab it say "CineForm HD/2K/4K, 1024 x 540 "

Gabriele, I'm glad you asked this question. The CineForm file format syntax to support Active Metadata has evolved considerably since "Spider Experiment" was shot. The material you tested was shot about a year ago, and doesn't have the updated mechanisms within the file to support modification of Active Metadata on the Mac. The fact that the clip shows up as 1024x576 also indicates its age. It's actually a 2048x1152 clip, but older clips reported their size to the Mac file system as 1024x576. To use the SetActiveMetadata features you need "modern" CineForm RAW clips from the latest SI recording software or from software encodes into CineForm RAW.

Also, how i can encode the RED RAW .R3D into cineform RAW ?
I have tried using the last REDCine but the images comes out corrupted (no image and all gray with black stripes actually...),
Maybe there is specific setting to use , like color space etc...?

You cannot yet transcode from R3D into CineForm RAW. We are hoping this mechanism is made available to us through the Red SDK we are waiting for. If so, the SetActiveMetadata features will come to life through CineForm RAW. Separately, we will be adding the SetActiveMetadata features to CineForm 444. So in some cases you may need to render out of RAW, but you'd prefer to not bake in your color information. Once we turn on Active Metadata support for CF444 you'll be able to move Active Metadata for RAW files into CF444 without flattening color information.

Finally, but it's a different subject, many RedCine users are reporting success rendering out to CineForm 444 files other than at 16:9 which apparently has some memory problems.

Gabriele Turchi

06-25-2008, 09:10 AM

Thanks David

Any chances to get a modern Cineform 4K RAW Clip?

What about the one that you were showing at Nab from RED Camera (Santa Clause i think...)

So the option to transcode into Cineform from RED cine means transcode into Cineform 444? (and not active metadata yet...right?)

Thanks

G

Troy Smith

06-25-2008, 10:16 AM

David Taylor

06-25-2008, 03:30 PM

Thanks David

Any chances to get a modern Cineform 4K RAW Clip?
Yes - we will make a 4K (4000-wide actually) clip available in the near future. We will make 4000 available because FCP will support up to 4000-wide horizontal rasters. We are adding a few behind-the-scenes features to the SetActiveMetadata utility, and we're fixing a couple bugs in the Active Metadata engine, so want to wait to provide the clip until the next release. I'm guessing in the next 1-2 weeks-ish.

So the option to transcode into Cineform from RED cine means transcode into Cineform 444? (and not active metadata yet...right?)

Correct....

David Taylor

06-25-2008, 03:38 PM

Hi David,

I'm wondering once editing with cineform raw is supported, editing
in ppro will crossfades work? or will it be strictly cuts only until one bakes
the footage?

As far as I know in fcp, editing the r3d files one cannot do crossfades, only
cuts only, so I was wondering the above.

The issue with supporting RT dissolves in FCP has nothing to do with whether metadata is flattened (or not), nor whether the data is Raw (or not). Instead it is an architectural decision made by FCP as to whether you are considered an "internal" codec (like ProRes) or not. All third party codecs in FCP must render transitions, effects, titles, etc. In this situation FCP does a fine job as a RT cuts editor for third-party codecs, but its architecture unnecessarily limits other features for third-party codecs.

Gabriele Turchi

06-25-2008, 04:01 PM

Joel Kaye

06-25-2008, 04:56 PM

FCP does a fine job as a RT cuts editor for third-party codecs, but its architecture unnecessarily limits other features for third-party codecs.

Any progress on seeing Cineform supported in Color? That would help a common round trip tremendously.

Jay A. Kelley

06-25-2008, 05:14 PM

Thanks David!

I'll wait

PS: Did you ever spoke with RED guys about the possibility to record directly into Cineform instead of REDRAW?
Or both maybe?
Or that it could be not possible for some reason?

G

This is not going to happen. As much as I LOVE Cineform, REDRaw is FREE, and Cineform is NOT. We need a free system in camera that can move anywhere. However, the transfer speeds from REDRaw to Cineform RAW are so fast, it's not a big deal anyway.

As a matter of fact, one of the things we need in REDCine is a more standard video output like DVCProHD so that we can service those clients who do not have "special systems"

We also need sound support in REDCine.. This is major

Jay

Jay

Jay

David Taylor

06-25-2008, 06:43 PM

Any progress on seeing Cineform supported in Color? That would help a common round trip tremendously.

Unfortunately it is a problem that Apple has to solve. Color, going back to the pre-Apple days at Final Touch, elected to NOT support QuickTime codecs, and instead to compile in support for only specific codecs. Now that Apple owns Color the problem becomes more acute. Apple has acknowledged the problem and told us (a year ago) they wanted to fix it, but as most people know there are lots of problems with Color, so I'm not sure exactly when this one will be fixed.

Gabriele Turchi

06-26-2008, 01:18 AM

However, the transfer speeds from REDRaw to Cineform RAW are so fast, it's not a big deal anyway.

Jay

Fast like 1:1 ?... How do you know that if that kind of encoding is not available yet?

Off course i agree about DVDCPRO HD and audio , but i think the Future is to eliminate the proxy and stay always in Online , Cineform says that can play in realtime 4K Raw in quicktime player and finalcut etc...(plus adding layer of metatada like LUT) ...thats is the future to me...

I think that if RED would have that possibility to record it in Camera could be
really Amazing...

Off course have a portable system that can record on CF or hard drive is Amazing but if could be portable + use the Cineform Raw....or that could be technically impossible?

Anyway what RED guys did until today it's Amazing, we all Love and respect that off course

G

Jay A. Kelley

06-26-2008, 03:48 PM

The trick here is that you are speaking of two different companies that want to make a living. It would be foolish for Cineform to give away it's technology to RED, and why would RED want to pay for something that it's been busting it's butt over for quite a while now.

There may have been a time for something like this to have happened, but it would seem that both companies could not come to an agreement that made them feel that it would be a profitable arrangement.

No one was wrong, it was simply a matter of not being able to agree.

"There are always, possibilities" Spock said, and I'd like to think that some day these two wonderful companies will once again speak of the future, and creating a relationship that not only benefits the both of them, but us as well.

Until that time, Cineform will do everything they can to give us the best possible conversion/mastering/editing tool possible. And RED will give us the best camera.

Jay

RGR films

06-30-2008, 06:05 PM

hi david
now that the sdk will soon be available, i'm trying to get a system that will be capable of handling my red + cineform project. i'll be shooting a feature in 4k and cutting in premier pro for a digital and film out. our budget is pretty tight... anybody have some advice on building this pc?
thanks in advance
ps- we are new to pc workflow so please use small words ;)

David Taylor

07-01-2008, 08:12 AM

At CineForm for 4K projects, we are using a few HP xw8600 Dual Quad workstations at 3GHz and above. We find 4K editing more stable with XP64 than XP32. Although the underlying apps are 32 bit, we can instantiate mutiple 2GB address spaces with a 64-bit OS which helps us with app stability with these large image sizes.

CineForm RAW file sizes are roughly 45 MB (+/- 10 MB) per second in sustained data rate (variation based on image statistics). When rendering CineForm RAW, we generally recommend you render to 2K CineForm 444 files. 2K CineForm 444 files are similar in size to 4K CineForm RAW. From these numbers you can design your storage subsystem.

When you're on a budget the big money savers are your storage subsystem and processor speeds. If you go downward on processor speed, performance will degrade accordingly, but it's important to note that your performance won't fall off a cliff. If you go down to 4 cores I'd recommend doing it using a Dual Dual 3GHz at a minimum. Comparatively to a single Quad Core, although you also have 4 cores on a single Quad, you don't have as much memory transfer as on a Dual Dual.

You probably know more about the costs of storage subsystems and different RAID configurations than we do, so I'll leave that exercise to you.

Troy Smith

07-03-2008, 10:03 AM

Hi Dave, Is there any reason why one would not use your cineform work flow now, baking to cineform 444 and editing in cs3 and that's your master right there, no conforming etc needed, using build 16, isn't it just a matter of going form redcine to cineform qt, then use your conversion tool to wrap in avi.

One other question, do you guys have any ball park time when the conversion tool going from r3d to cineform raw will be out?

Regards stricko

David Taylor

07-03-2008, 12:26 PM

Stricko108, you are correct, there is no reason why one couldn't use a CineForm 444 workflow from RedCine today, in which case the CineForm 444 files become your new online master from Build 16 source. In general for this workflow we recommend exporting from RedCine at 2K CineForm 444, whereas for CineForm RAW editing of source content we would recommend 4K editing.

For Mac editing you would use the CineForm 444 MOV files created from RedCine. For Windows editing you would use CineForm's HD Link to rewrap the MOV files to AVI files. This process is as fast as a file copy as it does not touch the underlying compression.

To your second question about when we might have a conversion tool from RedCode to CineForm RAW - we, like others, are waiting for Red's SDK. Hopefully that isn't too far away, and hopefully the SDK will enable us to make this conversion. When the SDK becomes available we will prioritize finishing our conversion tools and making them available.

Troy Smith

07-03-2008, 12:48 PM

Stricko108, you are correct, there is no reason why one couldn't use a CineForm 444 workflow from RedCine today, in which case the CineForm 444 files become your new online master from Build 16 source. In general for this workflow we recommend exporting from RedCine at 2K CineForm 444, whereas for CineForm RAW editing of source content we would recommend 4K editing.

To your second question about when we might have a conversion tool from RedCode to CineForm RAW - we, like others, are waiting for Red's SDK. Hopefully that isn't too far away, and hopefully the SDK will enable us to make this conversion. When the SDK becomes available we will prioritize finishing our conversion tools and making them available.

Thanks for the answers, couple more, I just noticed on your website it says that export from redcine to cineform is not currently working, was that fixed with the latest recent redcine release?

Is 4k Cineform 444 possible, or is it just to taxing on the system?

At the moment is there even a way to get from r3d to cineform raw?

Stricko

David Taylor

07-03-2008, 01:01 PM

I just noticed on your website it says that export from redcine to cineform is not currently working, was that fixed with the latest recent redcine release?
Yes, the latest RedCine fixes the earlier export problem. I'll need to update the website.

Is 4k Cineform 444 possible, or is it just to taxing on the system?
It is possible, but:
1. As has been discussed in various threads on the forum, 4K RAW, after demosaic, is rougly equivalent to 3K RGB from the standpoint of spatial resolution.

2. From both a system memory and CPU standpoint, 4K CF444 is definitely more taxing than either 4K CRAW or 2K CF444.

Having said the above, I encourage you to experiment with both 4K and 2K CF444 both from a visual quality standpoint and also from a workflow standpoint. If you're doing some effects/compositing shots you may prefer to keep these at 4K then later down-rez to 2K. So there are some mixed modes you can use based on the specific goals you have.

At the moment is there even a way to get from r3d to cineform raw?

There is not.

Troy Smith

07-03-2008, 01:37 PM

Yes, the latest RedCine fixes the earlier export problem. I'll need to update the website.

.

Sorry for all the questions in one go here today, previously one of the davids from cineform mentioned that export to cineform mov from redcine was limited to 8 bit, is that now 10 bit with the new release of redcine.

Thanks
Stricko

David Taylor

07-03-2008, 01:46 PM

Yes the latest version of RedCine fixed the export problem. The output is actually 12-bit CineForm 444.

Gian Joon

07-16-2008, 05:34 PM

Edgar Pitts

07-16-2008, 05:48 PM

David,

I am with Joon. We are looking at at the following combos for some new workstations for Prospect, AE & Speedgrade XR using Cineform RAW on XP64 platform:

High - Quadro FX5500 1GB & Aja Xena 2K 10-bit PCIe
Middle - Quadro FX4600 768MB & Aja Xena-LH 10-bit PCI-x

Would it make more sense to get a single Quadro FX5500 SDI instead of the two cards?

Thanks.

Edgar

David Newman

07-19-2008, 08:38 AM

Go with the high end ATI over NVidia. Currently we have AJA Xena HS, LH and LHe support, working on Xena 2K at the moment.

Simon Blackledge

07-19-2008, 11:20 AM

So is cineform codec on mac now playing with fcp well? playing in realtime at 2k 444 etc ?

s

Brian Harbauer

07-19-2008, 11:35 AM

David, is the code optimized for ATI? Any plans for nVidia?
P.S. Love your codec! Keep up the good work!

David Taylor

07-19-2008, 11:39 AM

We get better on Mac with each release. Our Mac release about 3 weeks ago increased performance. We're now preparing for our next new release, probably Tuesday (plus or minus a day) this week that adds *many* new features on Mac including:

- many new Active Metadata features and control panels. This will finally exceed the features and performance we showed at NAB.
- Active Metadata added to CineForm 444 files
- second monitor support
- further performance increases

With new Active Metadata support in CineForm 444 you now have identical features as are in CineForm RAW where White Balance, Saturation Matrix, and 3D LUTs are carried as Active Metadata. With Active Metadata support in C444, all cameras - not just RAW - can benefit from this workflow.

Regarding performance, we'll want users to chime in also after the next release, especially those with Dual Quads. We have an older 2.66 GHz Dual Core 2 Duo Mac - we don't yet have a dual Quad (that will change in the near future). For external compression solutions (like CineForm) FCP is a MAJOR obstacle to performance because of the way it interfaces to external codecs. We continue to try to work around these oddities, and each release gets better.

Simon Blackledge

07-19-2008, 11:47 AM

Thanks David.. so I suppose my ultimate question is .

What's not possible still on osx with the next release.. say on Quad core

reason I ask we entirely mac based so would be buying the whole thing just for the codec.. If I understand your sales structure and you dont just sell the codec for osx to encode to.

S

David Taylor

07-19-2008, 12:21 PM

HD-SDI monitoring will *probably* not work yet. We have added the pixel format necessary for supporting the Kona card, but we haven't yet spent any time testing it. But we'd like some feedback from those who have this configuration setup.

Also, we don't yet have the HD Link image processing and conversion utilities running natively on Mac. This is a scheduled task - we realize many want this - but it will be a few months yet. Until this is ported we will continue to provide both Mac and Windows S/Ns so you can run these utilities on Windows (or Parallels or Bootcamp).

The above comments apply to our upcoming release in 2-3 days. Flameop, give it a try when released and give us some feedback. It will operate fully in Trial mode for 15 days.

Simon Blackledge

07-19-2008, 12:52 PM

Thanks David.. will do.

Are you at IBC?

s

Brian Harbauer

07-22-2008, 08:21 AM

Are you guys still on schedule for the update?

Brian Harbauer

07-22-2008, 06:25 PM

Ok, I just saw the update. Thanks again!

David Taylor

07-22-2008, 06:46 PM

Brian, I was posting more information about the new Mac build in the Mac Workflow section of RedUser. For all Mac-interested people please take a look at my new post. You can download a Trial and also some CineForm MOV clips to test with.

Brian Harbauer

07-25-2008, 11:18 AM

Go with the high end ATI over NVidia. Currently we have AJA Xena HS, LH and LHe support, working on Xena 2K at the moment.

Would Cineform be able to benefit from nVidia's CUDA in the future?

David Newman

07-25-2008, 11:35 AM

Maybe one day. Currently we don't use or need GPU acceleration, we find that sending data from CPU to GPU and back again losses most of the benefits of the GPU. Most compression algorithms are not suitable for GPU acceleration and the entropy coding/decoding stages are much faster on the CPU. All our compression transforms, while suitable for GPU accleration, where designed for fast SSE2 (CPU SIMD) implementation, so again we don't need the GPU.

Obin Olson

07-25-2008, 12:15 PM

It would seem your doing well in terms of acceleration at this point with your threading working pretty well... I mean your stuff is getting really fast on multi core machines. Why not support the r3d files direct david, instead of transcoding into your format? I guess you will say something along the lines of your code is faster and more optimized..but still, once we hit the horsepower we need why not just natively support the r3d files and cut out all the huge render time to get from r3d to yours?

Obin Olson

07-25-2008, 12:16 PM

I could see you using the SDK to just "grab" data from the r3d files and then use it as you want inside your engine?

David Newman

07-25-2008, 12:27 PM

Not our business model. Think of all the camera format we support, not one do we need to support in it native format. The whole point of the CineForm workflow to avoid the myrid of input formats, and normize to one format that can hold all the source data. This make both product development and many elements of the post production faster.

Brian Harbauer

07-25-2008, 12:58 PM

Right David, that's the whole idea why we chose cineform for our intermediate codec. And the fact that it preserves raw all in one codec!

Thanks for the update! Was looking forward to this ever since I saw it demoed at NAB 08!

Cheers

Obin Olson

07-26-2008, 08:57 AM

What about cineform RAW david, will it decode the RED RAW into RGB and then re-encode into cineform RAW? or just transcode the REDRAW DIRECT in the native bayer black and white info into native RAW cineform? in other words will you loose info from the RED RAW and re-encode from RED RGB?

Obin Olson

07-26-2008, 08:59 AM

what about supporting the camera LOOK data? so the color comes across from the camera preset?

David Newman

07-26-2008, 10:19 AM

Obin,

Both are what we intend to do it (going through RGB is too slow), requires an open SDK to extract RAW and camera metadata. Fingers crossed.

Mike Harrington

07-27-2008, 07:24 AM

david,
kinda side note, what is with the 1 second hang when you press play in PPro.

i am running prospect 4k on cs3

David Newman

07-27-2008, 07:37 AM

When things settle we going to look into why that has increased a little, but the short delay is partly filling the pipeline for the playback engine. CTRL+Spacebar will play immediately without the pipeline, but that mode is not as fast.

Mike Harrington

07-27-2008, 08:04 AM

your up early for a sunday
cool...keep optimizing

:sorcerer:

Tom Lowe

07-27-2008, 08:55 AM

Hey David, we are doing a shoot in August with Sony EX1s. Will my Aspect HD handle that footage at 720p? Do I need to update to a new version? I have version 5.0.2 now.

What Cineform product will allow me to work with EX1 files at 1080p?

David Newman

07-28-2008, 09:37 AM

Aspect HD work fine at 720p, it will also do 1080p but only 1440x1080. You like should upgrade to Prospect HD.

Hop Litzwire

07-28-2008, 01:05 PM

David - I have been reviewing my eventual addition of a Cineform system to my setups, specifically for my RED projects (I currently deliver HD shows using a Matrox Axio). I'm confused about one recommendation on your site: It shows you recommending a 64bit system running XP64, but the Adobe CS3 package is not 64bit. How does the advantage of 64bit work in this case?

Also, in comparing my Matrox system versus a potential Cineform installation, I'm concerned about not having the I/O that I have with the Matrox breakout box. Is there a one-box solution to go from the Aja Xena to XLR, HDMI, Component, etc., or would you basically need to hook up different conversion boxes to the HD-SDI outputs? Also, in regards to a RED workflow - if you can output the monitoring of 2K via the Xena, what would you suggest is the best way to actually monitor in 2K? Maybe the Dell 30"? I did just find this on your site: "Monitoring using OEM Xena-2K is not yet supported, but it is on the list to complete."

Mike Harrington

07-28-2008, 01:58 PM

i think(i may be wrong) cineform is 32 bit
so it could only access 2 or 3 gigs, but a 64 bit os can have more total ram
that can be used by the os....so cineform would use 2(or 3)gigs...but there would still be plenty for the os and 2 gig for PPro and all the other crap running.

I have 64bit vista(not always the best choice) with 8 gigs

on a true 64 bit program like syntheyes 64, it makes a major difference...but i'm not sure how much that would benefit cineform....

Edgar Pitts

07-28-2008, 02:38 PM

I have been using Aspect for a while now, and it is a great product. We will soon be upgrading to Prospect 4K when we begin our Red project shortly.

I have found that Premiere and AE CS3 are much more stable on XP64 even though it operates under 32 bit emulation. This is partly because of the additional RAM allowed. Each application can use 4 Gigs of RAM on it own and still leave overhead for the OS.

We saw Premiere CS3 crashes disappear when we switched to XP64 and added more RAM. We edit longform narrative projects on the system.

Edgar

David Newman

07-28-2008, 03:00 PM

It is true Premiere is a 32-bit, and so are the CineForm components, yet a 64bit OS allows 32-bit apps to address 4GB rather than 2 or 3GB. Premiere is often needing more memory so the 64-bit OS helps.

Xena 2K is being work on activity. Today you can simple use a second 30" display with a stretch desktop (2.5K display -- nice), or a Xena LHe for 1920x1080p 10-bit output.

Hop Litzwire

07-28-2008, 09:42 PM

Man....looking over AJA's Xena 2K offering....that thing is Aaaaaawesome! Of course, I would rather you simply get a good RED workflow happening first, but I look forward to the day when you fully support the Xena 2Ke too. That would just be the end-all be-all....until the Xena 4K comes out ;).

Thanks for the clarification on 64bit! Guess I need to get me one of them there 64bit machines! Actually, I have a 64bit machine built for music composition (Vista64 - could not get XP64 to work with my motherboard), and it works very well, but before tonight I figured a 64bit machine for the CS3 work would be overkill.

Gabriele Turchi

08-03-2008, 06:46 PM

How do you guys from Cineform (David Taylor and david Newman) plan to encode R3D RAW into Cineform RAW?

I mean, it will be only a software based solution?

Could you please give us an idea of the encoding time?

I mean, i know that the SDK has been released just a few days ago , but..... any chances to have it in realtime????in some way???

just an idea?

Thanks

G

David Taylor

08-03-2008, 10:50 PM

Gabriele, actually the SDK is not yet released, but the signups were opened last week. We are waiting to receive the SDK before we'll be able to comment on specific workflow, techniques, and performance. In fact, we want to know the answers to those questions too! We have a roadmap planned, but the SDK will influence that so I'd rather not comment yet on specifics.

Gabriele Turchi

08-04-2008, 05:34 AM

Thanks David

when do you think you will be able to offer RED RAW to Cineform RAW conversion?...i mean , i know that you can't say it for sure but....more or less ?(like not less than 2 months ?etc...)

PS:today is already possible convert to CF 444 and use the new set active metadata feature from RED RAW Material? (using REDCINE to convert?)

I have not tested yet...

PS: i have tried the clip that you post here RAW and 444 , i have noticed that in My Mac Pro dual core 2.66 when i activate the metadata in the panel the playback go from 24 fps to 12 fps ...i have checked the activity monitor of the Mac Pro and the CPU is at 50% and the RAM available i5 5Gb....is it a Video cards matter? ( i am running an Nvidia 7300 GT...)

wich video card should playback fine?

Thanks

G

Gabriele Turchi

08-04-2008, 08:22 AM

Actually i have tried right now to convert some RED RAW footage into the Cineform codec ....but the active metadata features did not work....

G

David Taylor

08-04-2008, 08:31 AM

Thanks David

when do you think you will be able to offer RED RAW to Cineform RAW conversion?...
Gabriele, because features and performance of a CineForm solution are heavily influenced by the SDK we haven't seen, it's not possible to be very specific about schedules yet. But we imagine the first look at our support for Red should be less than two months.

today is already possible convert to CF 444 and use the new set active metadata feature from RED RAW Material? (using REDCINE to convert?)
Yes that is correct.

PS: i have tried the clip that you post here RAW and 444 , i have noticed that in My Mac Pro dual core 2.66 when i activate the metadata in the panel the playback go from 24 fps to 12 fps ...i have checked the activity monitor of the Mac Pro and the CPU is at 50% and the RAM available i5 5Gb....is it a Video cards matter? ( i am running an Nvidia 7300 GT...)
To offer some insight, QT Player and FCP are accessing our software through the QT interface. For some reason performance is degrading significantly through the QT interface, whereas when we directly access our SW (bypassing QT) performance remains very high - similar to Windows performance. We're actively working with Apple on this playback performance issue.

wich video card should playback fine?
CineForm does not use the graphics card for GPU processing - only display. Consequently the choice of graphics card doesn't matter. That said, there are often minor display differences between cards. We haven't characterized them yet.

Gabriele Turchi

08-04-2008, 09:15 AM

To offer some insight, QT Player and FCP are accessing our software through the QT interface. For some reason performance is degrading significantly through the QT interface, whereas when we directly access our SW (bypassing QT) performance remains very high - similar to Windows performance. We're actively working with Apple on this playback performance issue.

Is it possible to access your sw bypassing QT?
How did you do at NAB ( the playback was perfect on a MAC ...)

As i wrote in the previous post i have just tried to convert an RED RAW file into CF 444 , but when i open the set active metadata panel and i try to switch some .look or change the WB nothing happen...

Any ideas?

Thanks

G

Jason Rodriguez

08-04-2008, 11:00 AM

Hi Gabriele,

One thing to make sure is that the frames from QT are actually cached properly so that the SetActiveMetadata applet can "see" what the QT file that is being decoded is.

What has helped me is to playback the file a couple seconds before opening SetActiveMetadata, or in the actual applet itself going to File->New, and opening a new clip metadata window. Also you can quickly scrub through the clip a couple frames, and that helps as well.

Once you do this "refresh" to the QT layer (BTW, this applies OS-wide), you can then go into SetActiveMetadata, and if it's already open, go to File->New. From there you should get a window that will let you apply new .Look files, etc. After you've applied the new settings you want, go back to QT Player (or whatever application is decoding your QT file . . . could be FCP as well), and scrub through the clip . . . the settings should switch over.

I would also make sure that in your CineForm System Preferences you have the active metadata switches turned on for .Looks, etc.

Finally, as always, make sure you have the latest version :)

Hope this helps,

Jason

Gabriele Turchi

08-04-2008, 12:38 PM

Hi Jason

Thanks
i have tried all your suffestion but it doesn't works....it works correctly using the 4 clips that david have posted (2 clips RAW and 2 444)but not with the images from RED converted using REDCine...

I am running the very last version of Cineform (Version 1.1.0.56) and REDCine...

Does anybody had success with this?

Thanks

G

David Taylor

08-04-2008, 12:55 PM

Gabriele Turchi

08-04-2008, 04:00 PM

My apologies...

now it works!!!

Do you think that transcoding the RED RAW to CF RAW will be faster or slower...?

Thanks!!

G

Luis Otero

08-05-2008, 08:22 PM

Gabriele, we posted Build 58 last week. Please uninstall Build 56, then install Build 58 and try again.

If you continue to have problems, please reply to my PM so we can work through this with you off-board.

David,

I am experiencing the same problem as Gabriel, even with Build 58... Any pointers?:wacko:

David Taylor

08-05-2008, 09:36 PM

Luis, I think Gabriele got it to work by two things: 1) making sure our Build 58 was installed, and 2) rendering files to CineForm MOV using Build 58.

The background on the latter point is that to support Active Metadata requires a specific syntax in the file structure. That structure has existed for files created on Windows for about a year, and on Mac only since Build 56.

I don't recall the origination of your files, but make sure they meet these parameters. BTW, if your files originated on Windows, and are less than about a year old, you should be able to rewrap as MOV and have them work properly.

If that description fits your files and you think AM should work, then we should probably take a look at a couple of your files and see if we can see what the problem is.