Adobe - A new hope

[Steve Freebairn]

http://www.reduser.net/forum/showpost.php?p=174201&postcount=82
http://www.reduser.net/forum/showpost.php?p=174201&postcount=83

From the very heated Multi-tiered thread in recon we got confirmation that Adobe and Red are talking. I hope the rest of you are as excited as I am.

[David Wilson]

I am excited and I am hopeful. The future looks very bright. I will, however, be even more excited and more hopeful when we receive confirmation that Adobe, Red and CineForm are talking.

[Steve Freebairn]

Two of the top people at Red just said that they had firm plans with Adobe, they are talking already and have been. I don't know who higher up the chain could make this more concrete? I'd like native support like with DVCProHD, I don't want to have to use cineform to get it to work.

[Maz Mawlawi]

it is exciting news. Hopefully it's done in a timely matter though...

[Simon Blackledge]

add a node tree comper to AE for gods sake!!

[Thor Wixom]

I'd love to see PC Adobe support with and without Cineform... but I will probably use Cineform.

Of course, hardware acceleration of native .R3D files from Matrox would also be cool.

-Thor

[Karl H]

you can already convert in redcine to DVCPROHD no? If you're looking to drop redcode onto a timeline in adobe and have it directly convert and play in realtime to DVCPRO then I think you'll be dissapointed. I could be wrong.

The problem with any native implementation of Redcode is that it's an aquistion format only at the moment. Whether that is with Adobe or Apple, it will only ever be a playback format (unltil they develop redcode RGB). You will have to render to another format if you want to use the files in other apps or apply effects on the timeline.

I think the exciting part here is a 4K or 4:4:4 workflow such as cineform in realtime direct in the editor. you can render back to it, or export to AE or whatever with it too without any quality loss to the original 4K file.

But unless the red camera shoots to cineform, it will require a transcode too.

[Andrew M.]

I don't see DVCPRO option to output to from REDCINE.
Also it is 4:2:2 and 8 bit
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DVCPRO#DVCPRO

Despite the "HD" tag, DVCPRO HD is not true high-definition in the current sense. Higher resolutions are downsampled thus:

1280x720 becomes 960x720
1920x1080 becomes 1280x1080 (59.94i)
1920x1080 becomes 1440x1080 (50i)

[David Birdy]

Great News.... possible NAB Announcement???


Just another little"Gift" from Jim & team!!!! Keep it coming guys!!

Dave

[Steve Freebairn]

I'm not wanting r3d files to be converted to dvcprohd, I want native editing. While I'm at asking for that, I'll explain an idea that I think would be really cool and something that I can see adobe doing.

Vector type editing

The way I see this working is that when you create a new project you'd choose your aspect ratio and frame rate, besides that, you would just import your r3d files into the project and start editing. Depending on system performance and on your choice, it would give you the option of editing from .5k to 4k. When you import r3d files it would bring up a redcine/adobe raw import type window and ask what settings you wanted for your clips, it would then save xml files with color info that could be shared with other programs. At the end of your editing, even if you had been using .5k files to preview, you could then set your export resolution when you went to export your final edit. It's not a perfect thought, but I think it would be way sweet if they did something like this or better.

[Steve Freebairn]

We do expect to have an Avid, Adobe and others solution this year. Our commitment doesn't run forever...

Jim

This year!

[Andrew M.]

Judging on Mr. David Newman silence there is something cooking for NAB.
Lack of information is sometimes, information.

[Lars Xang]

If Adobe supported REDCODE, I would buy the entire CS3 master suite. This news makes me so excited, because I am not a very big fan of FCP or REDCINE.

[Andrew M.]

With FCP skipping the NAB and the rumours that Apple wants to unwind FCP it just doesn’t sound sexy anymore.

Adobe on the other side is better by the hour. Yes, it lacks the operating precision and the GUI interface needs some polishing but Adobe proved time and time again that it can deliver and deliver on the highest level. After all they are in business of high end image/text/sound/processing. They don’t produce computers or cell phones. Highly focused company that you can rely on.

After all we like to buy the milk from the milkman and shoes from the shoemaker not the other way around.

[Joel Kaye]

After all we like to buy the milk from the milkman and shoes from the shoemaker not the other way around.

Yep, my bets are on Adobe to win over the long haul. Premiere is actually a good app now and they own Photoshop, Flash... Apple owns iPods and iTunes and AppleTV. And they are ca$hing in on those things. Can't blame 'em if they sell their pro apps to Adobe. I mean Adobe and Apple managed to get h.264 into Flash...

[Dylan Reeve]

For adoption into bigger productions there's also a real need for Avid integration. I know that Michael at Avid is working on things related to Metadata and such, so that's good news. Once there's a clearly defined way to push the pictures into Media Composer and Xpress Pro that will open up the way for better adoption in feature and series work I think.

If Avid and Adobe can be brought up to speed, then there should be no stopping RED (Autodesk/discreet and some others will come along too in time I reckon).

[Ariana]

Apple
Assimilate
Adobe
Avid

AAAA... The A list!

[Joel Smith]

Apple
Assimilate
Adobe
Avid

AAAA... The A list!

What else could anyone every want than support from the A Team!

[Roger Singh]

you forgot to add Autodesk to add to the A List ;)

[Mark Allen]

I own the adobe suite and if it supported redcode.... I might actually use premiere. Something I don't do at all at the moment.

[laguun]

..
Apple
Assimilate
Adobe
Avid
you forgot to add Autodesk to add to the A List ;)

Its important to understand that there is one difference:

While
Avid (~$910M revenue),
Adobe Systems ($3.157 billion revenue),
Apple (24.01 billion revenue) and
Autodesk ($1.840 billion revenue)
are -big- "A"s, and offer many different products for many different markets, Assimiliate is a very small company, especially in comparison, and "only" in one market. I actually dont know how large the corporation is, but i would guestimate in the two digit million area in revenue and <50 employees.

That can be an advantage for our market, or a disadvantage - depending on their management goals. Red is a brilliant example how much a "small" company can achieve, on the other hand are many defunct (or bought and integrated) smaller corps.

[laguun]

I own the adobe suite and if it supported redcode.... I might actually use premiere. Something I don't do at all at the moment.

Premiere has grown pretty powerful meanwhile, especially teamed with 3hrd party hardware (aja, decklink, axio etc) and/or software (as cineform).

We have several $$$.$$$ NLEs from the big names here, but Premiere (and FCP) are used more and more recently.

[Gunleik Groven]

If the Adobe Suite supported RAW natively the way I thought FCP would do after last NAB, I'd probably jump ship... With or without cineform.


Gunleik

[Sven Seynaeve]

This is what we're waiting for.
Remembering everyone laughing with me when i said I was a premiere user also 3 years ago....

[Andrew M.]

Its important to understand that there is one difference:

While
Avid (~$910M revenue),
Adobe Systems ($3.157 billion revenue),
Apple (24.01 billion revenue) and
Autodesk ($1.840 billion revenue)
are -big- "A"s, and offer many different products for many different markets, Assimiliate is a very small company, especially in comparison, and "only" in one market. I actually dont know how large the corporation is, but i would guestimate in the two digit million area in revenue and <50 employees.

That can be an advantage for our market, or a disadvantage - depending on their management goals. Red is a brilliant example how much a "small" company can achieve, on the other hand are many defunct (or bought and integrated) smaller corps.

You should correct Apples numbers since they have few different businesses.
How much revenue Apple has from FCP?
They are very small player once you subtract the cell phone iPod and hardware business.
I think Adobe is clear winner.

[Dylan Reeve]

You should correct Apples numbers since they have few different businesses.
How much revenue Apple has from FCP?
They are very small player once you subtract the cell phone iPod and hardware business.
I think Adobe is clear winner.

By the same logic, I'd suggest a significant part of Adobe's business is unrelated to video (Photoshop, InDesign, Illustrator, Macromedia products, etc). Autodesk has a huge business in non-video too (Autocad, 3DS Max, etc). Even Avid, while being mainly a video company, has large parts of it's business that aren't editing.

Comparing numbers isn't going to help.

I think FCP possibly has the largest installed base. While Avid probably has the largest portion of the 'professional film and tv' market. Adobe, while not having Premiere as a leading NLE in most places does have a lot of penetration. Almost every post house I know of has multiple copies of Premiere (as they buy the Adobe Production bundle).

[Oliver Koeppel]

You should correct Apples numbers since they have few different businesses.
How much revenue Apple has from FCP?
They are very small player once you subtract the cell phone iPod and hardware business.
I think Adobe is clear winner.

if you look at software only, adobe is the leader.
followed by autodesk, but if you look at media, avid is slightly before adsk.

however i just wanted to point out that there are big As and smaller one, without judgement, as both has advantages and disadvantages.

btw, avid lowered the price of media composer to 2495$ and 295$ for students/colleges/teachers/non-profit today.

[laguun]

if you look at software only, adobe is the leader.
followed by autodesk, but if you look at media, avid is slightly before adsk.

however i just wanted to point out that there are big As and smaller one, without judgement, as both has advantages and disadvantages.

btw, avid lowered the price of media composer to 2495$ and 295$ for students/colleges/teachers/non-profit today.


AAAAArrrrrgh!

Thats what happening if you have visits from other fellow redusers - suddenly your desktop systems are logged in on their accounts on - reduser :)

above post was by laguun btw and yes tafkar was in the studio....

[Fredrik Harreschou]

By the same logic, I'd suggest a significant part of Adobe's business is unrelated to video (Photoshop, InDesign, Illustrator, Macromedia products, etc).

Acrobat is actually the top selling application! The creative solutions business unit (CS3 etc) is about 60% of the total revenue.

[Adam Glick]

Hi All,

Everybody seems to think that once the .r3d file format is "opened up" that they will be able to use the native RED footage just as they would use other media formats such as DPX, AVI & QT.

I don't believe this will EVER happen. R3D is not a CODEC. It can't be.

R3D is a type of data structure derived from photons hitting a CMOS sensor in the camera -and then being processed via a number of hardware circuitry stages before being saved to the CF card or hard drive(s).

You can DEcode R3D on a computer, but you can't ENcode it... There is no "CODEC" for R3D, and as such, your options for working with the native footage will be limited to playback, cuts-only editing and grading.

As cool as it might be to think about, my belief is that "normal" editing tasks such as cross-dissolves in your Premier (or FCP) timeline and/or multilayer compositing (AE, Nuke, Flame, etc) using native r3d files are never going to happen.

At least, not that I can foresee.

At least for now, I think people would be well-advised to steady themselves with the realization that projects being shot on RED (or any of the other 2K/4K digital cameras that generate "RAW" fotage) will need to "build in" the time & expense of transcoding the footage before they can engage on the post production process.

No other 2K/4K acquisition platforms allow you to simply yank the footage off the camera and inject it directly into the post production pipeline. That's a pipedream.

How could anybody expect .r3d to be any different?

[Fredrik Harreschou]

Can't blame 'em if they sell their pro apps to Adobe.

I remember when Apple bought Final Cut from Macromedia. Then Adobe bought Macromedia. The last piece of the puzzle would be that Adobe buys pro apps from Apple.

[Joel Kaye]

No other 2K/4K acquisition platforms allow you to simply yank the footage off the camera and inject it directly into the post production pipeline. That's a pipedream.

Doesn't SI2k record straight to Cineform? That can be immediately opened, edited and saved back to Cineform... and it's a compressed Raw format.

From Si2k's site:
"The CineForm RAW™ Digital Intermediate codec enables editing and effects to be done in real-time at the user's demand without the hefty cost penalty of high-bandwidth RAID arrays and post gear traditionally associated with 10-bit uncompressed HD workflows. Combine Digital Intermediate AVI and Quicktime files with other YUV or HDV sources on the same timeline and perform real-time editing of up to 4 1080/24p HD streams, without dropped frames or the need to render."

RED is also Wavelet based - like Cineform and ProRes (Prores may be something else)... perhaps RED is developing a CODEC so it performs similarly to the SI2k camera.

But I don't know jack about codecs... perhaps Graeme or Jarred could straighten this out.

[Fredrik Harreschou]

No other 2K/4K acquisition platforms allow you to simply yank the footage off the camera and inject it directly into the post production pipeline. That's a pipedream.


I'm smoking SCRATCH every day. It's a dream. :sarcasm:

[Gunleik Groven]

Is ProRes wavelet... ?

G

[Joel Kaye]

Is ProRes wavelet... ?

G

Maybe not. But Cineform and REDCODE are and that's all we really need for this discussion I suppose.

[Fredrik Harreschou]

Is ProRes wavelet... ?

G

I thought it was DCT...

[Joel Kaye]

I thought it was DCT...

I did mention I don't know jack about codecs, right?:clown2:

[Fredrik Harreschou]

I did mention I don't know jack about codecs, right?:clown2:

Sure. But since this is the Adobe forum I just wanted to grab the opportunity to point out that ProRes is using "old" tech... :shifty:
CS3 is way beyond FCS IMHO...

[Dj Joofa]

Is ProRes wavelet... ?

G

Wavelet-based compression may not be the best compression for all scenes. Actually, the best compression using some standardized notion of signal processing is the one using principal component analysis (PCA). Nothing can beat that. However, there is a problem with that. Each image would require different basis functions dependent upon image content.

Therefore, compression schemes using fixed notion of basis functions such as DCT-based MPEG-2, MPEG-4, and non-DCTs such as wavelets, etc., thrive on the fact that for *natural* images their basis functions are pretty close to those derived from PCAs of such images, and hence, sub-optimal, being approximately close enough to the PCAs.

[Fredrik Harreschou]

Wavelet-based compression may not be the best compression for all scenes. Actually, the best compression using some standardized notion of signal processing is the one using principal component analysis (PCA). Nothing can beat that. However, there is a problem with that. Each image would require different basis functions dependent upon image content.

Therefore, compression schemes using fixed notion of basis functions such as DCT-based MPEG-2, MPEG-4, and non-DCTs such as wavelets, etc., thrive on the fact that for *natural* images their basis functions are pretty close to those derived from PCAs of such images, and hence, sub-optimal, being approximately close enough to the PCAs.

When Joofa speaks, I STFU. :innocent:

[Dj Joofa]

When Joofa speaks, I STFU. :innocent:

Oh no Fredrik, please no.

Let me give a little more detail. There are two major parts to compression:

(1) Change of basis (axes)
(2) Quantization

When we say that one used say, DCT, then no compression has occurred at that stage as it is just the change of basis (typically matrix multiplication for image data). I.e., we have just changed axes in the multi-dimensional space. Think of it like in 3-D you rotate the co-ordinate axes. We do that so that we align the data along those axes which will help us in:

(1) We either throw away some of those axes that have little data content. Therefore it is very important to de-correlate the axes data, which DCT type transforms do.

Or.,

(2) Even for those axes we keep, we quantize them so that we coarsely define the axis co-ordinates.

Therefore, compression is actually happening in this second stage where we decide to throw away some axes and coarsely quantize some axes.

Hence, it is important to choose those axes which will help us keep a lot of image while throwing away some axes and its data, and for that it is not easy to beat PCA.

[Dylan Reeve]

When Joofa speaks, I STFU. :innocent:

Let's be honest, none of us really quite understand what Joofa says -- he sounds authoritative and knowledgeable so we just accept that he's right...

I've decided he's an escaped mental patient... :)

[Dj Joofa]

Let's be honest, none of us really quite understand what Joofa says -- he sounds authoritative and knowledgeable so we just accept that he's right...

I've decided he's an escaped mental patient... :)

Very funny Sycophant :)

However given a choice among:

(1) sounding authoritative than being one, and,
(2) being authoritative than sounding one,

I shall pick (2). :biggrin:

[Fredrik Harreschou]

Very funny Sycophant :)

However given a choice among:

(1) sounding authoritative than being one, and,
(2) being authoritative than sounding one,

I shall pick (2). :biggrin:

OK, that one I did understand. : )
Joofa, are you by any chance teaching at the University of Texas at Austin? You seem to have a grasp on so many aspects of video theory - and you speak/type like someone who is used to having pretty smart people around you all the time. ; )

I hope you don't mind me asking.

[Dylan Reeve]

Very funny Sycophant :)

However given a choice among:

(1) sounding authoritative than being one, and,
(2) being authoritative than sounding one,

I shall pick (2). :biggrin:

Why not. I know many who choose number 1.

For me I find that I only understand these topics if I don't think too hard about them. The more I think about them, the more confused I become.

[Dj Joofa]

Joofa, are you by any chance teaching at the University of Texas at Austin? You seem to have a grasp on so many aspects of video theory - and you speak/type like someone who is used to having pretty smart people around you all the time. ; )



I work in industry in Austin. However, I occasionally teach some lectures out of the full semester courses that other professors are teaching at The University of Texas at Austin.

[laguun]

Hi All,

Everybody seems to think that once the .r3d file format is "opened up" that they will be able to use the native RED footage just as they would use other media formats such as DPX, AVI & QT.

I don't believe this will EVER happen. R3D is not a CODEC. It can't be.

R3D is a type of data structure derived from photons hitting a CMOS sensor in the camera -and then being processed via a number of hardware circuitry stages before being saved to the CF card or hard drive(s).

You can DEcode R3D on a computer, but you can't ENcode it... There is no "CODEC" for R3D, and as such, your options for working with the native footage will be limited to playback, cuts-only editing and grading.

As cool as it might be to think about, my belief is that "normal" editing tasks such as cross-dissolves in your Premier (or FCP) timeline and/or multilayer compositing (AE, Nuke, Flame, etc) using native r3d files are never going to happen.

At least, not that I can foresee.

cineform is doing -exactly- that since years.




No other 2K/4K acquisition platforms allow you to simply yank the footage off the camera and inject it directly into the post production pipeline. That's a pipedream.
How could anybody expect .r3d to be any different?
you are wrong.
look at si, check ps, look at iridas.
its reality since 2007.

[M Most]

cineform is doing -exactly- that since years.



you are wrong.
look at si, check ps, look at iridas.
its reality since 2007.

Hmmm.

If you use Cineform Raw (the format you're basically talking about with SI/Premiere Pro) it is true that editorial can proceed directly from the raw files without serious overhead. However, you must ultimately do a full render/debayer for final deliverables, just like you must do with Red. The difference is that editorial is much smoother with Cineform's raw files than with Red's, for various reasons that go beyond the obvious 4K/2K difference - although it should be noted that there isn't currently any editorial workflow for Red using the raw files "directly" (and by this I mean using the QT wrappers) beyond 2K anyway.

The render and debayer for Cineform's 2K files is currently considerably faster as well.

[Adam Glick]

Hmmm.

If you use Cineform Raw (the format you're basically talking about with SI/Premiere Pro) it is true that editorial can proceed directly from the raw files without serious overhead. However, you must ultimately do a full render/debayer for final deliverables, just like you must do with Red. The difference is that editorial is much smoother with Cineform's raw files than with Red's, for various reasons that go beyond the obvious 4K/2K difference - although it should be noted that there isn't currently any editorial workflow for Red using the raw files "directly" (and by this I mean using the QT wrappers) beyond 2K anyway.

The render and debayer for Cineform's 2K files is currently considerably faster as well.

ok mmost - yours is a more concise read on the situation than mine.

[David Taylor]

Extending Mike's concise post just a bit, and offering "due" to others who chimed in, both R3D and CineForm RAW are Wavelet based, and both are acquisition-only formats. However, the Wavelet implementations are different. As others have commented, CineForm's Wavelets are pretty fast - because we made design decisions for performance, including lots of Intel architecture optimizations. We also did not compromise visual fidelity, and CineForm compression exceeds that of the respected HDCam SR format: http://www.cineform.com/technology/12Bit-RGB-QualityAnalysis/12Bit-RGB-QualityAnalysis.htm.

But at some point, as was pointed out, you must render, and a render means a demosaic, and a demosaic means you can never go back to RAW. So you must render to another format. Typically in a CineForm RAW workflow you'll render to CineForm 444 which is our 12-bit RGB format. So within PPro (and within FCP for that matter), you can have both CineForm RAW (unrendered) and CineForm 444 (rendered from CRAW) coexist on the same timeline. Also, we can do this at 4K on the PPro timeline (2K in FCP) while moving material back and forth between AE. Because CineForm compression was designed for post and then later moved into acquisition (D2D recorders, SI camera) the camera-to-post workflow is pretty efficient.

[Sven Seynaeve]

Ok , these last posts seem to scary me a little now. So this means it won't be to easy or maby not possible to edit the native footage like we're used to with dvcprohd?

[Adam Glick]

Ok , these last posts seem to scary me a little now. So this means it won't be to easy or maby not possible to edit the native footage like we're used to with dvcprohd?

Right, but you can't edit 35mm film negs like DVCproHD either...

It all requires some "processing" at one point or another.

;)

[Joel Kaye]

Also, we can do this at 4K on the PPro timeline (2K in FCP) while moving material back and forth between AE

Ok.. so does Cineform optimization work just as well in Premiere on the Mac? Or am I better off under XP. And is there any reason running XP on a MAC Pro would be problematic for a Cineform workflow?

I like the idea of being cross platform compatible.

[David Taylor]

Ok.. so does Cineform optimization work just as well in Premiere on the Mac? Or am I better off under XP. And is there any reason running XP on a MAC Pro would be problematic for a Cineform workflow?

I like the idea of being cross platform compatible.

Great question. First of all, CineForm files created on either Mac or Windows are completely cross-platform and cross-applications compatible. CineForm AVI files created on Windows play on Mac (in FCP). CineForm MOV files created out of FCP or AE can be played on Windows. There are a few rules to obey to ensure you always get full extended (10 / 12-bit) precision, but for these high-level purposes this isn't an issue.

Second, the RT engine we developed replaces the video engine in PPro (Windows). That's because Adobe publishes an SDK that allows us to do that. Unfortunately no such capability exists in FCP so we're stuck with the FCP engine that throttles (our) performance. To the specific Q you asked, we have not yet ported the CineForm RT engine to PPro (Mac) but it can (and will) be done. So our best RT workflow today is on Windows.

As you may be aware we also have an active metadata workflow for CineForm RAW that allows applying white balance, color matrix, and 3D LUTs dynamically without flattening the color information into the file itself. Currently on Windows you can change the active metadata (for instance choose different 3D LUTs) dynamically. By NAB we *should* be showing the ability to modify active metadata on Mac. Please stop by to see us if you'll be there.

[Dylan Reeve]

Right, but you can't edit 35mm film negs like DVCproHD either...

It all requires some "processing" at one point or another.

That's the thing - the workflow for RED should be compared to 35mm more than to tape I think. Or at least that type of workflow should be kept in mind.

[Joe Carney]

Great question. First of all, CineForm files created on either Mac or Windows are completely cross-platform and cross-applications compatible. CineForm AVI files created on Windows play on Mac (in FCP). CineForm MOV files created out of FCP or AE can be played on Windows. There are a few rules to obey to ensure you always get full extended (10 / 12-bit) precision, but for these high-level purposes this isn't an issue.

Second, the RT engine we developed replaces the video engine in PPro (Windows). That's because Adobe publishes an SDK that allows us to do that. Unfortunately no such capability exists in FCP so we're stuck with the FCP engine that throttles (our) performance. To the specific Q you asked, we have not yet ported the CineForm RT engine to PPro (Mac) but it can (and will) be done. So our best RT workflow today is on Windows.

As you may be aware we also have an active metadata workflow for CineForm RAW that allows applying white balance, color matrix, and 3D LUTs dynamically without flattening the color information into the file itself. Currently on Windows you can change the active metadata (for instance choose different 3D LUTs) dynamically. By NAB we *should* be showing the ability to modify active metadata on Mac. Please stop by to see us if you'll be there.

David, is metadata only available from footage captured from the SI2K? At least for now?

[David Taylor]

When we release support on MacOS for modifying active metadata you'll be able to attach active metdata to CineForm RAW files regardless of where the clips originated and regardless of whether the original CRAW file has active metdata present.

[Luis Otero]

David,

Can we expect to have the HDLink for Mac for NAB? As you know, I have the Prospect 4K, and I do have CS3 for Mac, so it will be great to finally have the application for Mac. We have been waiting for your Mac support... I use PPro and company in XP via Bootcamp and it is so fast, so I will love to have such experience in OX.

Regards,

[David Taylor]

Luis, I answered an almost identical question in this post: http://www.reduser.net/forum/showpost.php?p=181168&postcount=13 which is part of this thread: http://www.reduser.net/forum/showthread.php?t=8813

[Luis Otero]

dave,

Thanks for the info. It sounds really promissing.

[Joe Carney]

Adobe has announced 64bit version of Photoshop CS4 and LightRoom 2 for Windows. Hopefully Premier and AE won't be far behind. They said it will be awhile before 64bit for Mac version are available. Mainly because of design/OS decisions Apple has made.

Here is the link to the story over at CNET

http://www.news.com/8301-13580_3-9909725-39.html?part=rss&subj=news&tag=2547-1_3-0-20

[albert rudnicki]

http://www.adobe.com/aboutadobe/pressroom/pressreleases/200804/041408AdobeCinemaDNG.html