Paolo Ciccone wrote, "When editing HDV footage I only do the rough cut in that format," one of the problems in working with Final Cut Pro is that any media in a format other than the sequence setting has to be rendered to the video format of the sequence. For the video news magazine I edit (I only edit some of the stories but I end up doing the final assembly, color correct, and sound mix), we've started mixing footage from both Sony XDCAM HD and JVC H100 HDV, so I've found it easiest to edit using a DVCPRO HD timeline.

I'm not worried about the slight loss of resolution (and hope to stay out of the XDCAM HD vs. DVCPRO HD vs HDV-1 vs. HDV-2 debate), as the speed gains in post are worth it to me, the additional render time on every edit with HDV costs time and this work is done on a tight deadline. The first time I do the assembly I do have render time (but not that long since I'm using a Mac Pro) but then any changes I make are rendered much faster than if I was working in HDV. Doing it this way I still maintain the original camera media in their native format of Sony's MPEG-2 and JVC's HDV in the event we lose media and I have to recapture from tape.

David, it would be intesrting to know the difference in rendering time between using AIC or DVCPRO. Wihout having tried it I would expect AIC to be slightly faster because it requires less computation. The other argument in favor of AIC /Uncompressed is that it requires the least amount of transcoding. DVCPRO, or any other format will basically transcode our footage with not only loss in resolution but also, possibly, color definition and increase of image noise.

What's odd is that there seems to be a large price gap between entry-level HD cameras costing about $3-6K and anything better starting at around $25-30K (with lens and accessories). I wish someone would develop a "better" HD camera for around $10K, and I might prefer to have two of those than one super camera for twice the price...

I could run a test on the master of the last show, AIC vs. DVCPRO HD. Let me try that and I'll report back.

In the ideal best of all possible worlds I'd choose to master in uncompressed 4:2:2 HD, however, we're limited in the amount of space we have on our RAIDs.

As opposed to the cost of all the hard drives you'll have to buy to archive your P2 footage?

Sorry, but there's no contest. The cost of all the hard drives you'll have to buy to archive your P2 footage is significantly less than the cost would be to archive your P2 footage on DVCPRO HD tape.

To put it another way, the cost of P2 memory plus the cost of archiving to hard disk storage is less than the cost of acquisition of the same amount of video with DVCPRO HD tape. P2 is the least expensive way to acquire in the DVCPRO HD format. There are a variety of archival options for P2, and most of them beat the cost of DVCPRO HD tape.

OK, I ran an unscientific yet practical test last night on the latest sequence I've assembled (an episode of ZigZag), it's a 6:25 show with a mix of H100 HDV footage and Sony XDCAM HD footage along with some upscaled DV footage with several lower-thirds, several motion effects and transitions, and some reframes. Here's the render time for the whole sequence starting from scratch (deleting all of the render media and re-rendering the whole thing). This was done on a Mac Pro 2 x 3GHz Dual Core Intel Xeon machine and Final Cut Pro 5.1.2 w/ 4 GB Memory with source files and render files stored on a XServe RAID:

Apple Intermediate Codec 720/30p Sequence: 16 minutes

DVCPRO HD 720/30p Sequence: 15 minutes

So basically the render time is the same for all practical purposes.

I did not measure the time it would have taken to render the whole project using an HDV 720/30p sequence, it took about 12 minutes to do the first minute of the program, I did not have the patience to let it finish, this is the reason I choose to master using DVCPRO HD, using an intra-frame codec is much faster to work with than an inter-frame codec like MPEG-2, even on a fast machine. Since I work on a deadline, and speed improvement helps me make the deadline with less stress and I get more creative work done in the time available.

Now this test is a worst-case scenario, as we're using a format for the sequence which does not match any of the source formats. This is just the final mastering phase. Edting is usually done in the native format of the majority of the source material.

But the point is clear and generalizable: it's much faster to work with an intra-frame codec (e.g. DVCPRO HD) than a inter-frame codec (e.g. MPEG-2) in an editing scenario. Now if I had some specialized hardware acceleration, the story would be different.

I personally think that DVCPRO HD looks better than AIC, resolution issues notwithstanding. Image quality is a complex mix of several factors including color depth, resolution, scan, frame rate, compression artifacts, characteristics of the original material, viewing device, viewing context, etc.

Hey David, thank you for running this test. Now we know more about performance of these codecs and people can make decisions based on their own preferences while the time is now a factor anymore.

Thanks again.

Happy to do it.

I think the ultimate HD workflow if you have the storage and fast CPU is to capture from HDV direct to a component intra-frame format with very little or no compression. This would allow you to mix and match source formats with no extra render time in your sequence.

Getting back to the topic of the JVC camera, since that's the topic of this thread, you can use the JVC BR-HD50 deck analog component outputs as the input to something like the Kona LH/LHe or Kona 3 card. This way you can ingest video from the JVC-H100 into Final Cut Pro as uncompressed video and avoid working the 4:2:0 color environment and having to wait for MPEG-2 renders. This also facilicates mixing and matching of HD from various sournces and use a 10 bit 4:2:2 intermediate format. It also gives you a clean and simply way to get 24p footage into the Mac. Of course this method eats up lots of storage. Here's a PDF document describing the process: JVC HDV and Sony HDV Workflow with Final Cut Pro 5 (from the AJA web site). This is what we've set up for some captures.

Paolo... you can perceive RED to be anything you want. And, although we have shown 4k and REDCODE footage to many, the camera is not done. We have made our schedule known from the beginning and are on target (as of now). The only downside to the reservation holders is getting their deposit back... unless you think I would risk my entire reputation to fraud. The upside is that they will have the camera and the skeptics won't. If and when you decide if RED is worthy of your project, there will be a handful of rental houses with the camera. But I understand the waiting lists are beginning there. As for shooting a project, David Stump has already stated (after working with our prototype) that he will shoot a feature as soon as he gets one in his hands. Vaporware has many meanings. If you are using the term to imply that the RED ONE is not on the market, you are correct. If you are implying that it will not happen, I take exception. But you can mark my words that reservation holders are not at risk.

Jim

Actually yes there is an established track record for RED in all of these areas. Look at Oakley (Jim's other company) for experience in customer service, look at who the members are of the assembled RED team for technical support -- several of them are names you'll recognize from this message board including our own Rob Lohman; codec wizard Graeme Nattress; chief VariCam designer Stuart English; and Ted Schilowitz formerly of AJA; all of them with firmly grounded industry experience. And as for financial strength, I thought just about everybody here was already aware of Jim's long-standing status as a self-made billionaire, so it pains me a bit to have to bring it up yet again. RED may be a new company but there is absolutely nothing new or unknown with regard to their collective experience and expertise in all three areas of customer service, technical support, and financial strength. Hope this helps,

I think the team behind RED is about as credible as teams get. I suggest reading this interview I did with Ted Schilowitz, Leader of the Rebellion, way back during NAB 2006:

http://kino-eye.com/2006/04/27/ted-at-red/

RED is simply letting people know what they are up do and their development plan. Grass roots marketing at it's best is partially what's going on. Letting people know their plan and providing sneak peeks to potential end-users allows them to get feedback from real users. When was the last time Sony, Panasonic, JVC, or Canon engaged in a conversation with their potential end-users with this much lead time and this much dialog? RED's not vaporware, RED's partnering with their future users in the product development process. That's actually a good thing.

There's plenty more objective press and analysis on them too if you look for it. And Jim himself posts on this board. What more can you ask for from a camera company?

How about....

RED is out of the range of this thread as we could buy four HVX200s or four HD-110s for the price of one RED.

RED seems to have a lot of promise (although the Terminator inspired design frightens me) and I would rent one when a suitable job shows itself. However people who are considering between a HVX or an HD-100 probably are not going to consider RED or even the high end HVX Panasonic is now promising.

Believe me, I'm all for a US upstart to shake the Japanese lock on video equipment. By the end of 2007, we'll see how it all works out. Good luck to all the RED people.

PS - The return of wavelets gladens my heart, Video Cube forever!

Hi Jim.

As I menioned in my message I wish all of you good luck. Having said so I have to say that I feel strongly about asking people for money. When you ask for my money I see two only possibilities: a) you are asking me to be an inverstor and for that I will reap the benefits later in an amount that we will negotiate b) you ask for my money in exchange for something. It seem to me that the advance RED asked was for the second case and for that I have a profound distaste. I based my other business, e-commerce of motorcycle accessories, on the promise to charge he customer's card only at moment of shipping and only for the merchandise shipped. That's because I strongly feel that if I get your money today I have to give you something wort that money TODAY. The reality is that RED has no product today and so people, IMHO, should not be asked for money. It's just not right. I'm not saying that your trying to fraud people, that would not be a smart plan and Oakley doesn't need that kind of tricks. I's just a matter of fairness. You can say anything about being "on schedule". Until you have a product to show all that I hear are words.
I used the term vaporware because I come from the sotware industry were I helped developed multimillion dollar projects and were I saw fortunes being wasted in a flash by very smart people who took the wrong decision or that thought they were better than the industry's gorilla (Microsoft). When a product is announced and expectations are built but the delivery date doesn't happen for a while you have vaporware. For so many reasons that product might never materialize.
That's why I admire Apple so much. They are very driven, they have a vision and they announce a product when it's ready. Their fondness for secrecy is a well-known fact. Even with that they had their share of bluders (Newton anyone?). RED has decided to go a different way. That's fine but you have to be prepared to deal with the criticism. From my point of view, your business model is just plain wrong. That doesn't say anything about the planned product. I just dislike with intensity when people asks for money with nothing to give in return. In fact credit card regulations requires that you deliver the goods no later, if I remember well, than 30 day from the date of the charge. I was at CineGear and I visited your booth. There was nothing to see except for a mock-up under glass.
That's why I said what I said. If you end up with a wondeful products and you'll be able to build a support network and software/storage infrastructure to compete with what we have today then you'll probably earn my money. Until then, though, I will keep stating my opinion based on the available facts.

Respectfully.

Chris. With all due respect no, RED has not a record yet. Oakley is another company. They make glasses. RED wants to make caemeras. If IBM was the parent company of RED I would say the same. Just because the parent company is reputable it doesn't meant that the new company is managed in the same way. BTW, speaking of IBM, pretty big company, anybody remembers OpenDOC or OS/2? They probably spent more money on those projects than RED is gonna spend in developing the camera. Microsoft announced thet "by 1989 every PC will be running OS/2". Yeah, right.

In fact there are different people managing and taking decisions in RED than in Oakley. Without taking anything away from the creative individuals that work for RED, a company is more than the sum of its parts and many times the engineers don't determine the commercial success of the company. I worked in the corporate world long enough to see this reality. The individuals are great, the company, since it has no product available yet, is a total unknown. We have high hopes and a valid pedigree but the only thing that makes a proven record is history. Sales history, support history, market penetration, alliance with other vendors etc. etc.
For so many months we have waited support for FCP and the HD100. And this is from companies like JVC and Apple which, basically, demostrated to not being able to communicate with each other at a productive level leaving us, the customers, struggling with workarounds to ingest and edit our footage. No problem, we deal with it with a bit of grumbling and the occasional rant on the web. And this is from companies that built products for the past few decades. I'm all freshed out of trust and belief in promises from yet another player in this market.
If you want to trust somebody based on their words then it's your prerogative, I'm not gonna criticize your choice. Somebody asked *me* about my opinion and simply said that there is no opinion that can be made because there is nothing to use to create an opinion. I hate seing people sitting on the fence when they could get out today and make films. The camera is not the thing that makes you a filmmaker. Plenty of movies have been made with rudimentary cameras. If you have an idea today grab any camera and shoot it, don't wait for RED. As a matter of fact don't wait for anyone. Grab the camera and do it. Talking about non-existing cameras is just a waste of time.

Who says everyone is waiting and sitting on the fence? We own the JVC HD100, and when RED is released we will own one as well. For now, until release, we are also buying the HD250 for the "here and now". I have no problem plunking down a 1000K deposit (refundable even) for the chance to work with a better camera/workflow than what we can use today. Those who look ahead and put some faith in the technology around RED will be the first to reap those rewards. No one put my nuts in a vise and said I had to look head, but I too have my own opinion on those who fear the impact Red may cause and prefer to look the other way.

Although I respect you Paolo and for your time in this community, I however don't share your point of view any more than the other 1000+ early Red adopters. Your opinion is welcome but don't expect the rest of us to join in your song.
Peace!

Actually, I think the Red asking for money is fine. It's clear how much is being paid, that the product is not there yet, etc. etc. etc.

You willingly pay your money. You don't have to if you don't want. No problem.

I don't know about you credit card rules. A couple of years ago I ordered close to a thousand dollars worth of software before it was available, my card was charged, and there ended up being delays and the product was delivered several months late, about 9 months after the card was charged. This was a big operation. As I look back, there were so many customers, that if the practice was illegal I would have thought someone would have called them on it.

Where I do have a problem is software companies advertising features for there product, printing those features on the box, in the manual, on the website and more, then delivering software that does not have those features working. And on top of that, the company continues to sell the product advertising those features and refuses to even post a list of said features that don't work... just keeps pretending they do, and keeps selling product will the features falsely advertised. If you want to protest about taking money, this is the company to go after, in my opionion.

I, too, saw the bizarre Red display at Cinegear, with the Mad Max looking pieces of metal under glass, and lots of nicely uniformed attendants. But it's all part of the magic of the ever evolving movie industry and all the people that inhabit the strange world.

Ah, but fashion accessories by name designers... that's where I think you're not getting your money's worth.

And it comes to me now, when paying for a Red camera, the number in line to get the camera might actually be worth more than the camera itself. Different people value different things differently.

Exactly why Red cannot be defined as Vaporware. I come from the software industry as well and have seen many instances of it, and in the video industry we've had it too (Trinity, anyone?)

But in order to qualify for vapor, the #1 criteria is that you have to have missed your promised date. Red hasn't done that. On every schedule they've issued, they've met their deadlines or been early.

You can't call it "vapor" until July 1, 2006, because they've promised delivery in "early 2007"; July 1 will mark the transition into "late 2007."

Hi Daniel.
I didn't say that everyone is waiting, but I did talk with several people who are saving their money for the RED or other cameras that have been announced in the future. There are people sitting on the fence thinking that a given camera is going to make them movie makers. I wanted to make clear that in the opinion of this humble shooter that is not true. RED is probably the most talked about camera in the business today. Good for them. I don't expect that people join in "my song". I've been known for going against mainstream all my life and I have a pretty jaded point of view when it comes to announce producst. See the Zune. That's all that is there. When I'll see the product I'll evaluate. That's why I went to their booth at CineGear. I always keep an open mind but right now I find all this quite pointless.

Peace.

Fine, it might have been an unhappy choice of word, I haven't changed my mind but I'll avoid using that "v" word in a public forum.

It is illegal. Credit cards are not to be charged until the product is ready for immediate shipping. If enough people complained the bank for that company would have shut down their account and they would have been blacklisted from doing further credit card transactions. I know a few businesses that have had this happen to them.

I understand your POV of charging for something that isn't there and I even agree with you that RED as a company as such doesn't have a track record.

I suppose it is just a choice. The 'normal' route would be searching an investor or a bank. You'll need to convince them of the bankability of your project, but that's just talking. Problem is that investors and banks want more in return then they put in so you loose there.

If you can get some of your money for R&D straight from customer investments, that seems cheaper because they don't want more in return then they put in. Of course before you'll be able to get a lot of customers to put in an advance before there's anything, you have spend a lot of money on marketing (for hyping your product).

In the end a part of your money goes to investors, banks or marketing companies. I can't say I'm morally negative towards this method. I'm a businessman, it is all about the return and this way might be slightly more profitable then the standard way of using banks.

Nevertheless, as a businessman, I wouldn't invest in RED. I think the only point that's unfair to the customer is the lack of communication. Not communication of the product (this kind of communication is there a gogo - even without the product), but communication about the RISC involved in the investment (albeit a small investment and limited risc due to refund). There's always some risc and that's what banks and investors are after - yet that's what end-customers as investors might overlook.

As I said, I wouldn't do it, but there's nothing wrong with the business tactics. If you would invest $1000, you invest it in a product with paper specs. If the RED CAM doesn't become a reality you seem to be garanteed to get your money back (I'm not certain how that's garanteed, but it should be legally), so you can only loose about $30 interests over the span of a year I suppose. On the other hand: if the camera gets a reality and you have pre-ordered, but it's not what you expected it to be (and that's always a reality), will you still be entitled to get a refund?

I think no-one can be blamed for calling it vaporware. It might be, it might not be, but at the end of the day it is a product of a new/unknown company that has been hyped for a long, long time and there still isn't anything tangible out. It might not be vaporware, but people should be forgiven for thinking it is. Besides, it might still be. And this is exactly where business tactics might backfire. To get customper input BEFORE some of your R&D, you'll need to hype it. RED has done that succesfully. If the R&D takes too long the effect of the hype is lost and investors might get edgy. Customers with pre-orders are less strict about deadlines then investors, but they haven't got endless patience either. Businesswise this might be and interesting story, especially if there's no product any time soon...

I would never blame anyone for buying into hype (well,... I might, but hey), but some of the arguments are bogus. Someone said he wants to pay $1000 for knowing he'll have a better camcorder next year. Well that sounds like a salesguy's argument: 1) you don't know anything: it might just not be there in the end - perhaps unlikely but still a possibility 2) a better camera? By the time red will be eventually out, there might be other competitors on the market. And you have already payed your advance and thus you've made your choice before it was clear what the competition might have on offer. (let's face it, in between the first rumors of the XL-H1 and the product officially being announced were only a few weeks - the same with the JVC GY-HD100/HD200/HD250 - the same with the HVX200 - who's going to put his money on the fact that there won't be ProHD XE by the end of next year? or perhaps sony has something up its sleeve? Panasonic might be able to bring a HVX300 or HVX500...?)

Has the Red stolen the HD-100's thunder then? Whats the outcome?

Andrew

How did we get from HVX vs. H100, and what accounts for the RED shift? Comparing a RED, akin to a Porsche Boxter to the HD100, akin to a Camry, us such fun, but not really a fair comparison given radically different design criteria and price-points. But it's so fun! We now return to our regularly scheduled discussion thread (with a smile on my face).

The RED-related posts might need to be split out of here and become their own topic.

Werner, a very well balanced and worded post. I think that it summarizes the whole deal. Where I disagree with you is the definition of "investment". The people who gave the $1000 advance didn't really invest. If I invest in a movie I espect to recover my money and then some. Othewise I basically lend money at 0% and that is not a good business model.

Take care.

The $1000 reservation is not an investment. It is a deposit. RED does not "use" the money (nor does it need to). What the reservation holders get for their $1000 deposit, along with an early place in line, is $1000 deducted from the total cost of the camera. $17,500 for the RED One body minus the $1000 early deposit equals $16,500 final cost before taxes. The deposit is fully refundable at any time with no questions asked. Yes deposit holders did receive a physical item, a token RED icon, when their credit cards were charged. The $1000 deposit is completely without risk. The idea behind the reservation with deposit was to accurately determine the serious response to the camera in order to guage the initial production run. It is not possible to invest in RED, nor they are not seeking investors. Given the tremendous financial backing behind the project, the last thing RED needs is more money. They could probably use some more time. But they've got plenty of money already.

Both Oakley and RED are Jim Jannard companies. However, it's an unfortunate misconception to characterize Oakley as merely a maker of glasses. While it's true that Oakley is one of the largest manufacturers of ballistic protective eyewear on the planet with enormous law enforcement and military accounts worldwide, that is only one facet of what Oakley does. Oakley is best described as an industrial design firm covering a wide variety of markets (see examples here).

Oakley is not the parent company of RED. Oakley is Jim's other company, separate from RED, it's just been around a little bit longer. It's safe to say that Jim has at least the same level of enthusiasm for RED as he did when he first started Oakley.

Incorrect. Jim Jannard runs both companies.

For the sake of our readers here, I desire only to clarify a couple of misconceptions. Chief among them is the notion that there's nothing to use to create an opinion of RED. That's mistaken. Perhaps the single best example of something tangible upon which to to create an opinion of RED is the actual 4K image output itself. This has been shown several times recently in well-documented public screenings that were heavily attended, most notably at IBC, NAB New York, and just recently at the NuArt theater in Los Angeles last month.

Fully agreed -- you're preaching to the choir on that one!

Exactly what I've been telling people for years. If you have something to shoot now, then now is always the right time to buy. Don't wait for anything, especially hardware. Don't wait for RED. I agree with you completely.

Except that RED is not "non-existing." RED is real, it most definitely exists, it has been producing images for more than a month. It may not be shipping just yet, but yes it is very real. And thanks to the proactive participation online of the RED design team, talking about it has been highly productive in that the people who are going to use this camera have provided a lot of input regarding the actual feature sets, ergonomics and workflow and a lot of that discussion is being incorporated into the camera. Basically, the customers have had a partial hand in designing what they'll be using. And that's probably one of the best uses of time online that I've seen yet. Hope this helps,

By the way... has the HVX stolen JVC's Thunder?

Oh Great Grinch, please get the RED out.

Definately not mine. Almost a year ago, I cancelled my preorder for the HVX200 after checking out the HD100. I haven't looked back.

We also did a lot of one-on-one with the HVX. In fact the person who owned the HVX sold it and bought the HD100. He's a member of this forum.

I do like the HVX200 concept. In my opinion it fell short of its expectations.
To be fair, this problem can happen with a lot of technology.

I would like HVX200 concept if the media was an affordable solution and if they have designed a HD100 style body.

That concept is already avalable although it's more expensive to own The Sony F-350 is, as far as I'm concerned, next to the ideal camera before the 4:4:4 big guys (Genesis, F-950, Viper).
The recording to BlueRay DVD is a dream to wok with. The integration with FCP is ready *today*, the DVD represents both the recording media and the archiving system, this latter detail being sorely missing with thd HVX200. The transfer of the clips, with set In and Out points, is faster than realtime. The 1/2 " sensor allows the use of native lenses and 2/3" standard lenses with a simple adapter. If Sony manages to create a similar system for smaller body cameras, like our HD100, the BlueRay HiDef DVD will be the future of camera media. At $30.00 for 90 minutes of recording time it's exidingly more convenient than the P2.

This topic has been started recently, but I always felt that the HVX wasn't such a succes as some people previewed. I mean: before the HVX was actually available everyone was talking and speculating whether or not the HVX would kill the JVC sales. After that the HVX became available those rumors and talk just died away and I haven't really experienced that they picked up again. Perhaps in other parts of the world, but over here in Europe, I'd say: no... (DVCPRO / DVCPRO50 was not that big of a succes here either (rather Betacam SX, ...), that might explain some things)

Grass Valey has the REV Pro disc which is a much more affordable solution than the P2 media, I'm not sure about it's price but I heard it would be around $75. But this is another reality, not the HD100 or HVX200 owners world.

That's because Sony always dictates the rules in Europe, I know few people who work with Panasonic DVCPRO50 cameras here in Portugal. Everyone owns a DVCAM, when I say to some clients that I have a DV camera they ask me if I can get a Pro DVCAM one... than I start explaining that DV and DVCAM is basically the same.

I know - sometimes you just want to shout "DV and DVCAM is EXACTLY the same". It is just written further apart on a faster spinning tape to minimize chance on drop-outs. Next time, I think I have to tell those people that it is like a book (DV) and the same book in larger print (DVCAM). Less mistakes when reading - EXACTLY the same information...

Anyhow SONY has dominated the professional marked here (in Belgium), but that seems to be over by now. I notice that in Germany as well: JVC is doing very, very well the last few years in Belgium and Germany. The Netherlands seems to be sticking to SONY more (especially in the lower end market: Dutchmen refusing to give up their Sony DSR300 -or even DSR250- for a JVC GY-DV5100 or JVC GY-HD100 e.g. - go figure...)