Avid's HDV FAQ

Kevin Shaw · February 5th, 2005, 11:26 AM

<<<I'll be happy when they release support for it. Until then however, I do use Premiere Pro, but it's nothing like using an Avid system (at least to me). -->>>

Out of curiosity, can your Avid setup do anything Premiere Pro can't, or is it mainly a question of interface design? What specifically do you like about Avid compared to other editing programs?

Adam Rench · February 5th, 2005, 05:12 PM

With my experience I've been able to do most everything that I can do in Avid in Premiere. The main thing that I like in Avid is the interface. It's very intuitive and so easy to work in. Adobe's is horribly akward for me to use. I love Photoshop... use it everyday, but premiere in my opinion still has a way to go before it can be called "user friendly".

I'm not trying to start anything here for those of you out there that do like Premiere. I mean, I'm able to put out a pretty decent product using it.

However, when Avid releases support for HDV, which as stated in my original post, will have native editing, and no need for a cineform AVI blowup, I will use Avid and never look back. To me the final product if you look at it side by side, the avid one looks better to me.

To me it's like comparing Paint Shop Pro to Photoshop. They both get the job done, but Photoshop does it so much better.

Again, this is only my opinion.

Kevin Shaw · February 7th, 2005, 12:03 AM

<<<However, when Avid releases support for HDV, which as stated in my original post, will have native editing, and no need for a cineform AVI blowup, I will use Avid and never look back. >>>

But "native" HDV editing is extremely processor intensive and more prone to processing quality losses than an editing codec like Cineform. Hence if Avid does go native with no better codec alternative, it will be a poor choice for HDV work. For HDV it's actually better to convert to something other than the recording format for editing.

Richard Alvarez · February 7th, 2005, 10:19 AM

Guess we'll see how it looks in a couple of months. Their codec for HD and HDV is a big part of their new lineup.

Jack McCann · February 7th, 2005, 11:35 AM

<<< But "native" HDV editing is extremely processor intensive and more prone to processing quality losses than an editing codec like Cineform. Hence if Avid does go native with no better codec alternative, it will be a poor choice for HDV work. For HDV it's actually better to convert to something other than the recording format for editing. -->>>

Avid is going one step beyond companies like Cineform with their DNxHD codecs. These codecs will be what is used for rendering and outputting of effects and sequences and are of very high quality. For example, their lowest quality HD codec (if you can call it that) DNx145 codec, has a 18 megabyte/sec. data transfer rate. There will be no quality issues with HDV within Avid's new lineup of editors.

J

Adam Rench · February 7th, 2005, 12:37 PM

Sweet... I didn't know that jack. Makes me feel even better about my decision to go with Avid.

Kevin Shaw · February 7th, 2005, 01:24 PM

<<<Avid is going one step beyond companies like Cineform with their DNxHD codecs. These codecs will be what is used for rendering and outputting of effects and sequences and are of very high quality. For example, their lowest quality HD codec (if you can call it that) DNx145 codec, has a 18 megabyte/sec. data transfer rate. There will be no quality issues with HDV within Avid's new lineup of editors.>>>

Jack: If Avid uses that high a bit rate for HDV editing, they'll be at a competitive disadvantage due to hard drive bandwidth and capacity requirements. (About 65 GB per hour of source footage.) It would make more sense for them to release a lower-bandwidth version for HDV editing, using bit rates similar to Cineform, Canopus and Apple of around 10 MB/sec and up. Heck, if they were going to use their current codecs they should be able to ship their HDV solution now, so there must be something new under development.

I still don't see any indication that Avid is planning to do anything other people haven't already done for supporting HDV editing, so they sure better do a good job of it. I know I won't be waiting around for Avid's solution, since I already have access to a Sony FX1 today.

David Newman · February 7th, 2005, 01:48 PM

Jack, Culbert & Kevin:

Higher bit-rate is not always an indication of a superior codec. CineForm spent a lot of time to develop a codec that has a bit-rate suitable for high performance/quality PC editing. Avid didn't seem have the same goals in mind, as they selected DCT compression with a constant bit-rate which I feel is much more suitable for tape transports than PC editing. CineForm uses variable bit-rate wavelet compression, which makes it a more efficient codec at the same quality levels. We haven't yet done a head-to-head comparison with Avid DNxHD, but we hope to soon. I'm sure it is an OK codec; throwing enough bits around to preserve source qualily. However, today only CineForm compression has been proven in a compressed digital immediate workflow with results out to film (read Post Magazine cover story -- http://www.postmagazine.com/post/art...3492&&pageID=1.) It is nice that Avid can only follow us in this regard.

Sorry I posted to this thread, but I had to respond to "...one step beyond companies like CineForm..."

Adam Rench · February 7th, 2005, 10:37 PM

hehe, no need to apologize David. You have an excellent product and it was either cineform or avid for me. I chose Avid because I like their interface better than Adobe's.

Kudos to the cineform codec :o)

Adam Rench · February 11th, 2005, 03:44 PM

Well, you guys were right. I went to the show and it was a demo, but it was a demo of the new Avid HD version. While I did see some nice stuff they didn’t talk about the HDV format.

Here I walk into the room, and I see the new Sony 1080i cam. I’m thinking “yes! They are going to do some demo with that!” During all the breaks and during lunch, all the people are getting up and looking at that cam. I brought my camera just in case they were going to be able to do something cool with it, but I left it in the car. I almost felt like saying “hey guys, I have one of those too. Check out some of the footage I’ve taken from it”, but I didn’t feel like butting in. It was funny… there was a really nice ikegami tapeless cam on a tripod and still all the people were looking at the new Sony cam. They really should have gone more into that since that’s what everyone was really interested in.

So it’s getting near the end of the show and they said “Thanks for coming out” and they never once touched the Sony cam. I was disappointed to say the least. Oh well. I was able to talk with an Avid rep and I asked him when the update to support HDV is coming out and he said that they think it will be sping/summer time. He said to shoot for the end of summer so that way if it doesn’t come in the Spring then I won’t be disappointed. ehhhhhh

Filip Kovcin · February 11th, 2005, 04:23 PM

sad story - you didn't or anyone asked DURING the show about it?

o man... i know how you feel - all audience was waiting for THAT thing and before any noticed.... well, that's all folks... see you next year...

i will go now to area 51 - maybe some rumors are there...

filip

February 7th, 2005, 01:48 PM	#23
David Newman CTO, CineForm Inc. Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: Cardiff-by-the-Sea, California Posts: 8,095	Jack, Culbert & Kevin: Higher bit-rate is not always an indication of a superior codec. CineForm spent a lot of time to develop a codec that has a bit-rate suitable for high performance/quality PC editing. Avid didn't seem have the same goals in mind, as they selected DCT compression with a constant bit-rate which I feel is much more suitable for tape transports than PC editing. CineForm uses variable bit-rate wavelet compression, which makes it a more efficient codec at the same quality levels. We haven't yet done a head-to-head comparison with Avid DNxHD, but we hope to soon. I'm sure it is an OK codec; throwing enough bits around to preserve source qualily. However, today only CineForm compression has been proven in a compressed digital immediate workflow with results out to film (read Post Magazine cover story -- http://www.postmagazine.com/post/art...3492&&pageID=1.) It is nice that Avid can only follow us in this regard. Sorry I posted to this thread, but I had to respond to "...one step beyond companies like CineForm..." __________________ David Newman -- web: www.gopro.com blog: cineform.blogspot.com -- twitter: twitter.com/David_Newman

February 11th, 2005, 04:23 PM	#26
Filip Kovcin Major Player Join Date: Dec 2003 Location: warsaw, poland Posts: 440	sad story - you didn't or anyone asked DURING the show about it? o man... i know how you feel - all audience was waiting for THAT thing and before any noticed.... well, that's all folks... see you next year... i will go now to area 51 - maybe some rumors are there... filip __________________ in kino (sic!) veritas

February 5th, 2005, 11:26 AM	#16
Kevin Shaw Inner Circle Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Sacramento, CA Posts: 2,488	<<<I'll be happy when they release support for it. Until then however, I do use Premiere Pro, but it's nothing like using an Avid system (at least to me). -->>> Out of curiosity, can your Avid setup do anything Premiere Pro can't, or is it mainly a question of interface design? What specifically do you like about Avid compared to other editing programs?

February 5th, 2005, 05:12 PM	#17
Adam Rench Major Player Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Dallas, Texas, USA Posts: 386	With my experience I've been able to do most everything that I can do in Avid in Premiere. The main thing that I like in Avid is the interface. It's very intuitive and so easy to work in. Adobe's is horribly akward for me to use. I love Photoshop... use it everyday, but premiere in my opinion still has a way to go before it can be called "user friendly". I'm not trying to start anything here for those of you out there that do like Premiere. I mean, I'm able to put out a pretty decent product using it. However, when Avid releases support for HDV, which as stated in my original post, will have native editing, and no need for a cineform AVI blowup, I will use Avid and never look back. To me the final product if you look at it side by side, the avid one looks better to me. To me it's like comparing Paint Shop Pro to Photoshop. They both get the job done, but Photoshop does it so much better. Again, this is only my opinion.

February 7th, 2005, 12:03 AM	#18
Kevin Shaw Inner Circle Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Sacramento, CA Posts: 2,488	<<<However, when Avid releases support for HDV, which as stated in my original post, will have native editing, and no need for a cineform AVI blowup, I will use Avid and never look back. >>> But "native" HDV editing is extremely processor intensive and more prone to processing quality losses than an editing codec like Cineform. Hence if Avid does go native with no better codec alternative, it will be a poor choice for HDV work. For HDV it's actually better to convert to something other than the recording format for editing.

February 7th, 2005, 10:19 AM	#19
Richard Alvarez Inner Circle Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: San Mateo, CA Posts: 3,840	Guess we'll see how it looks in a couple of months. Their codec for HD and HDV is a big part of their new lineup.

February 7th, 2005, 11:35 AM	#20
Jack McCann New Boot Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 16	<<< But "native" HDV editing is extremely processor intensive and more prone to processing quality losses than an editing codec like Cineform. Hence if Avid does go native with no better codec alternative, it will be a poor choice for HDV work. For HDV it's actually better to convert to something other than the recording format for editing. -->>> Avid is going one step beyond companies like Cineform with their DNxHD codecs. These codecs will be what is used for rendering and outputting of effects and sequences and are of very high quality. For example, their lowest quality HD codec (if you can call it that) DNx145 codec, has a 18 megabyte/sec. data transfer rate. There will be no quality issues with HDV within Avid's new lineup of editors. J

February 7th, 2005, 12:37 PM	#21
Adam Rench Major Player Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Dallas, Texas, USA Posts: 386	Sweet... I didn't know that jack. Makes me feel even better about my decision to go with Avid.

February 7th, 2005, 01:24 PM	#22
Kevin Shaw Inner Circle Join Date: Sep 2004 Location: Sacramento, CA Posts: 2,488	<<<Avid is going one step beyond companies like Cineform with their DNxHD codecs. These codecs will be what is used for rendering and outputting of effects and sequences and are of very high quality. For example, their lowest quality HD codec (if you can call it that) DNx145 codec, has a 18 megabyte/sec. data transfer rate. There will be no quality issues with HDV within Avid's new lineup of editors.>>> Jack: If Avid uses that high a bit rate for HDV editing, they'll be at a competitive disadvantage due to hard drive bandwidth and capacity requirements. (About 65 GB per hour of source footage.) It would make more sense for them to release a lower-bandwidth version for HDV editing, using bit rates similar to Cineform, Canopus and Apple of around 10 MB/sec and up. Heck, if they were going to use their current codecs they should be able to ship their HDV solution now, so there must be something new under development. I still don't see any indication that Avid is planning to do anything other people haven't already done for supporting HDV editing, so they sure better do a good job of it. I know I won't be waiting around for Avid's solution, since I already have access to a Sony FX1 today.

February 7th, 2005, 10:37 PM	#24
Adam Rench Major Player Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Dallas, Texas, USA Posts: 386	hehe, no need to apologize David. You have an excellent product and it was either cineform or avid for me. I chose Avid because I like their interface better than Adobe's. Kudos to the cineform codec :o)

February 11th, 2005, 03:44 PM	#25
Adam Rench Major Player Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Dallas, Texas, USA Posts: 386	Well, you guys were right. I went to the show and it was a demo, but it was a demo of the new Avid HD version. While I did see some nice stuff they didn’t talk about the HDV format. Here I walk into the room, and I see the new Sony 1080i cam. I’m thinking “yes! They are going to do some demo with that!” During all the breaks and during lunch, all the people are getting up and looking at that cam. I brought my camera just in case they were going to be able to do something cool with it, but I left it in the car. I almost felt like saying “hey guys, I have one of those too. Check out some of the footage I’ve taken from it”, but I didn’t feel like butting in. It was funny… there was a really nice ikegami tapeless cam on a tripod and still all the people were looking at the new Sony cam. They really should have gone more into that since that’s what everyone was really interested in. So it’s getting near the end of the show and they said “Thanks for coming out” and they never once touched the Sony cam. I was disappointed to say the least. Oh well. I was able to talk with an Avid rep and I asked him when the update to support HDV is coming out and he said that they think it will be sping/summer time. He said to shoot for the end of summer so that way if it doesn’t come in the Spring then I won’t be disappointed. ehhhhhh