REDcode RAW vs Cineform RAW at DVinfo.net

Serge Victorovich · September 8th, 2007, 12:08 PM

I have started thread "REDcode RAW vs Cineform RAW" on reduser forum.

------------------------------------------
vsv (its me)
"My thoughts - Cineform RAW will be better solution for RED Camera...
No need to waste time to do conversion from REDcode RAW to another codec.
Owners of RED One camera what you think about possibility to load alternative codec as Cineform RAW? ;)"

khmuse
"If you are contemplating having the camera natively generate Cineform raw files, I think you will be waiting a long time as there is no incentive for Red (nor really any reason) to configure their hardware to accomplish this. Now, if your thinking about an application that can take REDCODE RAW and converting it to Cineform RAW, that is something that is practical, possible and maybe even desirable as an option.
Good question and worth a bit of exploration."
-----------------------------------------------

But after 1 hour this thread was deleted:(
Now i know who is WINNER! :)

SI2K have good codec and software integration but overpriced ($17500 for camera head.)
RED4K at same price $17500 for camera body only but REDcode RAW need to be converted.

David Newman · September 8th, 2007, 12:19 PM

Thanks for your support.

Red has been resistive to third parties, other that Scratch and Apple, and I really don't know why. While they do claim they aren't ready for third parties, even a simple dialog is pretty much turned away at the moment. We do hope this changes. While I clearly do believe CineForm RAW is better than REDCODE RAW (in speed, quality, user flexibility, etc.), but it shouldn't be issue of competition, as I also believe CineForm is better than HDCAM/SR yet we work very well with Sony (most of the camera manufactures are good partners,) Sony isn't threaten by a small startup company in Solana Beach, CA. CineForm only wants to sell software to support camera, not cameras themselves, and Red is just another market opportunity for us.

Serge Victorovich · September 8th, 2007, 01:03 PM

David, i'm not supporter of the bad or averages solutions:)
I can choose best from the best everytime. And i believe in bright future for Cineform and Elphel.
Together, two small company's ( just two genius -David and Andrey), you can do more than billionaire Jim Jannard.
You only need support of indy's community, who can pay deposit for Cineform/Elphel Camera.
You can hire developer (Jason Rodriguez ? ) who do porting CineformRAW into FPGA.

David Kirlew · September 8th, 2007, 04:47 PM

I agree with Serge. I look for the best solutions possible. Prior to Red , I choose CineForm for a project I'm in preproduction on as I felt it was the best solution. Since Red's release a week ago I've listened to a couple podcasts and read multiple pages of stuff on Red. While I have specifically been asked to use Red on the project I'm not 100% sold on Red not yet. In terms of specifications I'm all for Red, I'm just not sure about the workflow. I would liike more integration with other manufacturers including CineForm, with Red but it doesn't look like that's going to happen in time for the production. I am now re-evaluating Canon XL-H1 with CineForm and possibly Wafian or the Silicon Imaging camera although like Serge said that is pricey.I so enjoy CineForm's integration with various cameras and manufacturers.

Serge Victorovich · September 9th, 2007, 03:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by David Kirlew

I so enjoy CineForm's integration with various cameras and manufacturers.

David, i've started the thread Elphel camera with Cineform RAW for people who want getting this camera in 6 month.

http://dvinfo.net/conf/showthread.php?t=103145

Jason Rodriguez · September 9th, 2007, 11:06 PM

[quote]You can hire developer (Jason Rodriguez ? ) who do porting CineformRAW into FPGA.[quote]

Whoa! Sorry, I couldn't help being surprised on that one . . . there are some things I'm very good at, but VHDL programming is not one of them . . . (unfortunately)

September 8th, 2007, 12:08 PM	#1
Serge Victorovich Major Player Join Date: Oct 2005 Posts: 376	REDcode RAW vs Cineform RAW I have started thread "REDcode RAW vs Cineform RAW" on reduser forum. ------------------------------------------ vsv (its me) "My thoughts - Cineform RAW will be better solution for RED Camera... No need to waste time to do conversion from REDcode RAW to another codec. Owners of RED One camera what you think about possibility to load alternative codec as Cineform RAW? ;)" khmuse "If you are contemplating having the camera natively generate Cineform raw files, I think you will be waiting a long time as there is no incentive for Red (nor really any reason) to configure their hardware to accomplish this. Now, if your thinking about an application that can take REDCODE RAW and converting it to Cineform RAW, that is something that is practical, possible and maybe even desirable as an option. Good question and worth a bit of exploration." ----------------------------------------------- But after 1 hour this thread was deleted:( Now i know who is WINNER! :) SI2K have good codec and software integration but overpriced ($17500 for camera head.) RED4K at same price $17500 for camera body only but REDcode RAW need to be converted.

September 8th, 2007, 12:19 PM	#2
David Newman CTO, CineForm Inc. Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: Cardiff-by-the-Sea, California Posts: 8,095	Thanks for your support. Red has been resistive to third parties, other that Scratch and Apple, and I really don't know why. While they do claim they aren't ready for third parties, even a simple dialog is pretty much turned away at the moment. We do hope this changes. While I clearly do believe CineForm RAW is better than REDCODE RAW (in speed, quality, user flexibility, etc.), but it shouldn't be issue of competition, as I also believe CineForm is better than HDCAM/SR yet we work very well with Sony (most of the camera manufactures are good partners,) Sony isn't threaten by a small startup company in Solana Beach, CA. CineForm only wants to sell software to support camera, not cameras themselves, and Red is just another market opportunity for us. __________________ David Newman -- web: www.gopro.com blog: cineform.blogspot.com -- twitter: twitter.com/David_Newman

September 8th, 2007, 04:47 PM	#4
David Kirlew Regular Crew Join Date: Oct 2005 Location: Orlando, FL Posts: 25	I agree with Serge. I look for the best solutions possible. Prior to Red , I choose CineForm for a project I'm in preproduction on as I felt it was the best solution. Since Red's release a week ago I've listened to a couple podcasts and read multiple pages of stuff on Red. While I have specifically been asked to use Red on the project I'm not 100% sold on Red not yet. In terms of specifications I'm all for Red, I'm just not sure about the workflow. I would liike more integration with other manufacturers including CineForm, with Red but it doesn't look like that's going to happen in time for the production. I am now re-evaluating Canon XL-H1 with CineForm and possibly Wafian or the Silicon Imaging camera although like Serge said that is pricey.I so enjoy CineForm's integration with various cameras and manufacturers. __________________ David Kirlew

September 8th, 2007, 01:03 PM	#3
Serge Victorovich Major Player Join Date: Oct 2005 Posts: 376	David, i'm not supporter of the bad or averages solutions:) I can choose best from the best everytime. And i believe in bright future for Cineform and Elphel. Together, two small company's ( just two genius -David and Andrey), you can do more than billionaire Jim Jannard. You only need support of indy's community, who can pay deposit for Cineform/Elphel Camera. You can hire developer (Jason Rodriguez ? ) who do porting CineformRAW into FPGA.

September 9th, 2007, 11:06 PM	#6
Jason Rodriguez Trustee Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Virginia Beach, VA Posts: 1,095	[quote]You can hire developer (Jason Rodriguez ? ) who do porting CineformRAW into FPGA.[quote] Whoa! Sorry, I couldn't help being surprised on that one . . . there are some things I'm very good at, but VHDL programming is not one of them . . . (unfortunately)