Cineform + Avid? at DVinfo.net

Michael Stewart · October 12th, 2005, 08:48 AM

Is there a possibility to put a plugin out for Avid, I work for the military (Air National Guard) as a Videographer, most if not all of the systems, in at least the Air Force, are Avid Xpress Pro/HD and the HDV is a bit sluggish, especially after using Cineform, any thoughts David, the military systems would be a wide open market.

thanks
Mike

David Newman · October 12th, 2005, 09:54 AM

Military systems might be an open market (that we can support) however Avid is far less open. We would like to add our video pipeline and compression engines to all NLE applications, but in the case of Avid we would need their support as their applications don't have the open architecture we get with Adobe Premiere Pro. Our codec alone could be ported to add performance and quality benefits, as we do with Sony Vegas, yet the CineForm Intermediate codec would be a (strong) competitor to Avid's own DNxHD compression. I would like to see the partnership happen, but as the CineForm codec become more widely used, maybe they will eventual support it from market pressure. ;)

Michael Stewart · October 12th, 2005, 02:10 PM

Thanks david, it was just a thought. Is there compression any good?, meaning, advantages and or drawbacks? Definately not as responsive as Cineform.

Thanks
Mike

David Newman · October 12th, 2005, 02:43 PM

Of course on this CineForm forum, I will happily say their codec is no match for ours ;), but in what way I can't tell you as I never tested DNxHD, never even seen a file. I do know that we have a more modern codec design (CineForm is wavelet based vs Avid DCT codec) and they have done some things that really don't make any since to too me (Avid's fixed bit-rate vs CineForm constant quality variable bit-rate.) In the end DNxHD is it likely to be a fairly decent codec, much like Canopus HQ codec, yet for any given bit-rate CineForm will have higher quality due to the wavelet design.

Michael Stewart · October 12th, 2005, 10:20 PM

When I went to apply a color correction to it (the Avid clip) it needed to be rendered just to see the effect on one stream! Well, the more I look around the more I am convinced it does not get any better than cineform, I did a test with my brand new $899 Gateway dual core system, ran a complete tape through the Premiere pro capture window with scene detect on (something I always had problems with using my 3 gig system, hdlink was my work around) anyway, captured it all to an external USB 2 drive and it was flawless on every clip, about 200 or so, I was impressed. Thanks for the post.

Mike

Serge Victorovich · October 13th, 2005, 01:53 AM

I've see only one advantage of DNxHD if you have Ikegami EditcamHD,
which used DNxHD codec and AVID your prefered NLE.
New Tomson Infinity camcorder used wavelet JPEG2000
as basic codec. I hope CFHD and JPEG2000 best choice in near future for
video editing. But from software JPEG2000 codecs (morgan, pegasus, rududu)
i can't see really competitors for CFHD, imho:) Only hardware solution based on
ADV202 may be...Everybody can make test between CFHD and DNxHD.
www.avid.com/content/7952/AvidCodecsLE101.zip

Good luck!

P.S. I want to see collaboration between CF and SI for creation HD tapeless
camcorder based on CFHD codec and 2/3"-1" cmos imagers:)
David Newman and Steve Nordhauser, i believe you can make better tapeless HD camcorder than HVX200 for same price;)

Serge Victorovich · April 18th, 2006, 10:35 AM

Quote:

P.S. I want to see collaboration between CF and SI for creation HD tapeless camcorder based on CFHD codec and 2/3"-1" cmos imagers:)
David Newman and Steve Nordhauser, i believe you can make better tapeless HD camcorder than HVX200 for same price;)

I'm winner:) Bingo!

David Newman · April 18th, 2006, 10:36 AM

So now can you predict next weeks lotto numbers? :)

Serge Victorovich · April 18th, 2006, 10:52 AM

from message above:better than HVX200 for same price
5K for CineRAW camera with 1/3 sensor:)

Serge Victorovich · April 24th, 2006, 04:42 AM

After reading info from SI Digital Cinema about their camera, i've understand:
i'm loser not a winner...My hope was a cineform code ported into fpga and direct to disk writing without bulky power consumption PC.
For full commercial success of SI camera need not only 20K solution with Altasens 1080p 2/3 cmos, but also with affordable sensors like IBIS5A 2/3 720p24 or 1/3 1080p60 from Altasens or Sony.
http://www.letsgodigital.org/en/news...tory_7363.html

David, more selling affordable SI cameras based on Cineform RAW is equal increase to sell of your software;)

October 12th, 2005, 08:48 AM	#1
Michael Stewart Major Player Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: Spokane, Wa. Posts: 445	Cineform + Avid? Is there a possibility to put a plugin out for Avid, I work for the military (Air National Guard) as a Videographer, most if not all of the systems, in at least the Air Force, are Avid Xpress Pro/HD and the HDV is a bit sluggish, especially after using Cineform, any thoughts David, the military systems would be a wide open market. thanks Mike

October 12th, 2005, 09:54 AM	#2
David Newman CTO, CineForm Inc. Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: Cardiff-by-the-Sea, California Posts: 8,095	Military systems might be an open market (that we can support) however Avid is far less open. We would like to add our video pipeline and compression engines to all NLE applications, but in the case of Avid we would need their support as their applications don't have the open architecture we get with Adobe Premiere Pro. Our codec alone could be ported to add performance and quality benefits, as we do with Sony Vegas, yet the CineForm Intermediate codec would be a (strong) competitor to Avid's own DNxHD compression. I would like to see the partnership happen, but as the CineForm codec become more widely used, maybe they will eventual support it from market pressure. ;) __________________ David Newman -- web: www.gopro.com blog: cineform.blogspot.com -- twitter: twitter.com/David_Newman

October 12th, 2005, 02:43 PM	#4
David Newman CTO, CineForm Inc. Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: Cardiff-by-the-Sea, California Posts: 8,095	Of course on this CineForm forum, I will happily say their codec is no match for ours ;), but in what way I can't tell you as I never tested DNxHD, never even seen a file. I do know that we have a more modern codec design (CineForm is wavelet based vs Avid DCT codec) and they have done some things that really don't make any since to too me (Avid's fixed bit-rate vs CineForm constant quality variable bit-rate.) In the end DNxHD is it likely to be a fairly decent codec, much like Canopus HQ codec, yet for any given bit-rate CineForm will have higher quality due to the wavelet design. __________________ David Newman -- web: www.gopro.com blog: cineform.blogspot.com -- twitter: twitter.com/David_Newman

April 18th, 2006, 10:36 AM	#8
David Newman CTO, CineForm Inc. Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: Cardiff-by-the-Sea, California Posts: 8,095	So now can you predict next weeks lotto numbers? :) __________________ David Newman -- web: www.gopro.com blog: cineform.blogspot.com -- twitter: twitter.com/David_Newman

October 12th, 2005, 02:10 PM	#3
Michael Stewart Major Player Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: Spokane, Wa. Posts: 445	Thanks david, it was just a thought. Is there compression any good?, meaning, advantages and or drawbacks? Definately not as responsive as Cineform. Thanks Mike

October 12th, 2005, 10:20 PM	#5
Michael Stewart Major Player Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: Spokane, Wa. Posts: 445	When I went to apply a color correction to it (the Avid clip) it needed to be rendered just to see the effect on one stream! Well, the more I look around the more I am convinced it does not get any better than cineform, I did a test with my brand new $899 Gateway dual core system, ran a complete tape through the Premiere pro capture window with scene detect on (something I always had problems with using my 3 gig system, hdlink was my work around) anyway, captured it all to an external USB 2 drive and it was flawless on every clip, about 200 or so, I was impressed. Thanks for the post. Mike

October 13th, 2005, 01:53 AM	#6
Serge Victorovich Major Player Join Date: Oct 2005 Posts: 376	I've see only one advantage of DNxHD if you have Ikegami EditcamHD, which used DNxHD codec and AVID your prefered NLE. New Tomson Infinity camcorder used wavelet JPEG2000 as basic codec. I hope CFHD and JPEG2000 best choice in near future for video editing. But from software JPEG2000 codecs (morgan, pegasus, rududu) i can't see really competitors for CFHD, imho:) Only hardware solution based on ADV202 may be...Everybody can make test between CFHD and DNxHD. www.avid.com/content/7952/AvidCodecsLE101.zip Good luck! P.S. I want to see collaboration between CF and SI for creation HD tapeless camcorder based on CFHD codec and 2/3"-1" cmos imagers:) David Newman and Steve Nordhauser, i believe you can make better tapeless HD camcorder than HVX200 for same price;)

April 18th, 2006, 10:52 AM	#9
Serge Victorovich Major Player Join Date: Oct 2005 Posts: 376	from message above:better than HVX200 for same price 5K for CineRAW camera with 1/3 sensor:)

April 24th, 2006, 04:42 AM	#10
Serge Victorovich Major Player Join Date: Oct 2005 Posts: 376	After reading info from SI Digital Cinema about their camera, i've understand: i'm loser not a winner...My hope was a cineform code ported into fpga and direct to disk writing without bulky power consumption PC. For full commercial success of SI camera need not only 20K solution with Altasens 1080p 2/3 cmos, but also with affordable sensors like IBIS5A 2/3 720p24 or 1/3 1080p60 from Altasens or Sony. http://www.letsgodigital.org/en/news...tory_7363.html David, more selling affordable SI cameras based on Cineform RAW is equal increase to sell of your software;)