Cineform and RED
 

I read that RED camera will have a bundled software for converting their 4K data stream into something "visually lossless" to be edited on regular PC.

David Newman... do you guys provide RED people with Cineform compression codec for editing? Or does RED use some different codec?

It'd be nice if RED employed Cineform AHD, since my system is already set for it.

CineForm will provide a RED editing solution. That is all I can say on the matter.

David, that's fantastic news!

RED codec is Jpeg2000 not cineform wavelet or DCT mpeg-like.
there is no technical reason why cineform could not convert this format, but it is not obvious that any benefit would be obtained here, except compatibility with some applications.
The way wavelet works, it is very calculation intensive to generate the multi level pictures. So big resolution are a penalty here for speed, while jpeg2000 would be faster and just require a lot of memory.
on the other hand, jpeg2000 on high compression gives easily bad result while wavelet is less destructive, so for multiple compilation of same picture, wavelet would be more forgiving.
futur will tell...

Once Red makes info on REDCODE public, we will announce why CineForm RAW is a compelling solution to do your post on Red footage. In the meantime everything must be in vague terms, after all, Red is work in progress.

I like the sound of this.....;)

Cineform and Red
 

Am overjoyed to learn that Cineform will be providing a CineformRaw and not Cineform Intermediate solution for the Red workflow.

I thought Redcode was wavelet based... Is this true?

Gunleik

Gunleik,

I think some of the forums, as you indicate, have reported that RED is using JPEG2000. Unfortunately we cannot comment on the record. But if they are using J2K, the Wavelet transforms used in J2K are different than those CineForm uses. However, the general advantages of Wavelet compression over DCT compression hold true in both J2K and CineForm RAW/Intermediate.

David.

Except CineForm RAW is MUCH faster than J2K. When we starded CineForm we considered J2K, but found it too slow for most post-production needs, that is why CineForm developed our own wavelet compression.

Someone over at SonyMediasoftware forums claimed you start getting artifacts after a couple of generations of rendering. Hope that isn't true.

Joe,

We had two design criteria for CineForm Intermediate/RAW. The first is to have literally zero visual degradation through more than 10 generations of rendering. This is proven in our own visual testing and PSNR (Power Signal-to-Noies Ratio) testing, as well as those of our customers. I don't know the background of the comment posted on the Sony forum, but there are numerous reasons why artifacts may develop, but they're normally a result of improper workflow decisions, not a CineForm codec problem.

One other comment. Most codec R&D has been focused on either acquisition (such as in-camera) or distribution, but most codec research has not focused on holding visual fidelity through multiple generations of rendering. Our visual quality analysis of CineForm Intermediate versus DVCPRO HD clearly shows this: http://www.cineform.com/technology/H...lysis10bit.htm. If your workflow requires multiple generations, most native acquisition codecs are not the best choice. That's why traditionally many users have opted to convert to uncompresed. CineForm Intermediate/RAW is designed to be an alternative to an uncompressed workflow with equivalent visual fidelity, but with numerous advantages - smaller files, more real-time streams, no specialized hardware, etc.

By the way our second codec design criterion was arithmetic efficiency as measured by performance on Intel architecture CPUs. We have no requirement for specialized hardware, either for ingest (capture) or playback at up to 2K resolution on core 2 duo machines, and up to 4K resolution on dual Woodcrest machines. Another "by the way" - we've recently demonstrated real-time dual-stream 4K (!) editing on a dual Woodcrest system. We're literally 5x - 7x higher in editing performance than using J2K.

Thanks for the response. My only reservation about Cineform is having to go to Adobe Premier to get the full benefit. Not your fault considering whats going on over at Sony.

I actually don't know anyone who has shot a full length feature using Premier or Production Studio (Spoon doesn't count because they aren't finsihed and aren't updating their progress anywhere, which makes me wonder).

btw, what are the minimum laptop type core 2 duos acceptable for cineform raw usage (capturing via the upcoming SI cam mainly)?

Lastly, I think the guy over at SonyMediaSoftware was referring to ConnectHD and it's 8bit4:2:2 codec, not the Cineform Raw.

Joe, many of our customers have completed feature with Adobe Premiere Pro -- the first of which was very high profile with "Dust to Glory." When know Premiere works for feature work.

The Spoon guys are doing fine, although they have well over 100 hours of footage, so post will take a while. :)

As for the laptop required for SI capture work, go with the fastest. I have used a Sony AR190 with 2.16Ghz Yonah (Core Duo) and Dell M90 with 2.33GHz Merom (Core 2 Duo.) Both worked, yet the 2.33Ghz Merom give you pretty of head around for the highest quality modes. We had issue for 72fps capture with the Yonah, not with the Merom.

I use PPro with Coneform AHD on daily basis, and yes I did produce a couple of HD videos that were feature-length.

I can vouch that PPro + Cineform Aspect HD can be successfully used on long form.

No, I am not connected to Cineform or Adobe in any way - just a paying (and satisfied) user.