Final Cut Studio 2 Announced!

[Ari Shomair]

For those which haven't heard:
http://www.apple.com/finalcutstudio/

Let the discussion begin!

[Cory Sheldon]

Anyone find any good details on this codec. I was thinking of using the SheerVideo codec (its on sale now, hmmm), but this appears to server basically the same need. Trying to go from HDV to a codec that will maintain quality (something uncompressed), smaller sizes will rock. Hope it encodes quick and edits fast.

[Chuck Spaulding]

Originally Posted by Cory Sheldon

Anyone find any good details on this codec. I was thinking of using the SheerVideo codec (its on sale now, hmmm), but this appears to server basically the same need. Trying to go from HDV to a codec that will maintain quality (something uncompressed), smaller sizes will rock. Hope it encodes quick and edits fast.

This is long overdue. I'm not sure how well it will compare to the Sheer Video codec. The Sheer Video codec is lossless and I imagine this codec is lossy.

However, Apple obviously has an unfair competitive advantage over other third party codec developers. How well the new ProRess codec works will be determined in large part in how well they integrated it. Can you use the log and capture window and have the same functionality you do capturing SD with HDV while converting to the new ProRess codec during capture?

This is probably the most significant part of the upgrade.

[Nate Weaver]

ProRes, according to the video on the Apple site, is two levels:

-145mbs (18 megabytes per second)

-220mbs (27 megabytes per second)

HDCAM is about 145mbs second as well, so even if ProRes is an old-school DCT based codec (like DVCPRO HD, or HDCAM), it should still look pretty good.

If it's anything of newer tech (wavelet, like Cineform or REDCode), I'm sure it'll be absolutely awesome.

[Chuck Spaulding]

Originally Posted by Nate Weaver

ProRes, according to the video on the Apple site, is two levels:

-145mbs (18 megabytes per second)

-220mbs (27 megabytes per second)

HDCAM is about 145mbs second as well, so even if ProRes is an old-school DCT based codec (like DVCPRO HD, or HDCAM), it should still look pretty good.

If it's anything of newer tech (wavelet, like Cineform or REDCode), I'm sure it'll be absolutely awesome.

I'm guessing that because they claim that this is a 4:2:2 codec that the difference in data rate is 8 bit and 10 bit. Also to get to those data rates at 1920x1080 they must be using newer VBR compression.

I will check this out at NAB on Tuesday. It appears that this upgrade has more to do with usability than new bells and whistles which IMHO is what Apple needed to do. If it works as advertised this could be cool!

[Nate Weaver]

Originally Posted by Chuck Spaulding

I'm guessing that because they claim that this is a 4:2:2 codec that the difference in data rate is 8 bit and 10 bit.

No, there's two flavors of the same codec. regular and "HQ" HQ is the 220.

Originally Posted by Chuck Spaulding

Also to get to those data rates at 1920x1080 they must be using newer VBR compression.

Well, they do mention ProRes is VBR, but I wouldn't say there's a causeality there. I mean, you can compress a 1920x1080 raster to any data rate you please. Whether it looks good to meet your goal is up to you.

In simplest terms, this is DNxHD for FCP, except hopefully leveraging 2 years of codec advances.

The AJA HD/IO video touts doing the new codec in hardware, but FCPs history implies you'll be able to digitize to it in real-time without the HD/IO if your hardware is manly enough for it. The only codecs they've locked out for digitizing in the past has been the MPEG2 based codecs, for obvious horsepower reasons. Photo-JPEG, DVCPRO HD and Motion JPEG have always been up for grabs when digitizing.

[Chuck Spaulding]

Yeah, but I have to believe that in order to get the quality they need to compete with Canopus and DNxHD this must be wavelet or something newer than DCT.

I didn't do the math but the difference in data rate is probably 4:2:2 8bit is regular and 4:2:2 10bit is HQ.

Also, I agree [and hope] that although Aja has the ProRes in hardware this should be a software only solution. This is a lot more interesting if I can capture HDV directly via FW into the ProRes Codec and then capture HD-SDI into the same codec. Sure if the hardware enables me to up and down convert from this codec to anything else in realtime that would be great.

But I want to be able convert different formats into the same codec for editing. Apples foray into the digital intermediate...

[Nate Weaver]

Originally Posted by Chuck Spaulding

I didn't do the math but the difference in data rate is probably 4:2:2 8bit is regular and 4:2:2 10bit is HQ.

The difference is too great. It does not explain such a great divide between the two. The math when you do this with SD uncompressed (8bit vs 10bit) is a 20% increase, not ~55% as it is here.

Besides, the narration on the video explaining ProRes does not characterize it like this either. It basically says you have both regular and HQ to choose from, each being 8bit or 10bit, your choice.

Originally Posted by Chuck Spaulding

Also, I agree [and hope] that although Aja has the ProRes in hardware this should be a software only solution. This is a lot more interesting if I can capture HDV directly via FW into the ProRes Codec and then capture HD-SDI into the same codec.

At $3495, it better be able to do this. I'm sure it will. While the I/O HD is awful neat, you can get 75% of it's functionality with an LHe for $1500.

[Matt Crane]

I will definitely be ordering FCS2, next month!
I'm super excited about having multiple formats and frame rates in the same time line.

I really hope it can offer me a solution to get slow-mo from my Canon XH A1 (referring to the old "take my 60i and convert it to 60p and then slow it to 24fps" issue)

[Cory Sheldon]

So does ProRes appear to be something that could be counted on for multiple processes and survive a few generations being worked on. I believe I read they showed a uncompressed vs prores 10th generation comparison and they looked indistinguishable. I guess we'll find out when it ships.

The new retiming features really caught my eye too. Anyone catch if this is somthing that is only in motion (especially the optical flow / ramping bit) or is it in FCP too. I suppose with the 'great integration' being touted it may not matter too much. Also, assuming this is tech they're taking from shake, anyone know how it compares to Twixtor, quality and speed of rendering wise?

[Chuck Spaulding]

Originally Posted by Cory Sheldon

So does ProRes appear to be something that could be counted on for multiple processes and survive a few generations being worked on. I believe I read they showed a uncompressed vs prores 10th generation comparison and they looked indistinguishable. I guess we'll find out when it ships.

There is lossless compression, the Sheer Video codec for example which remains the same no matter how many generations you go and lossy, like the Cineform codec, which are wavelet compressed codecs. Demonstrating a sequence that has gone through 10 generations using wavelet compression is a bit of a tradeshow gimmick because any loss in image quality will happen after the first compression. So if its compressed 10 times it doesn't really matter.

If your footage originates with uncompressed HD and you want to deliver on 35mm film then lossless is the way to go. The Sheer Video codec would give you a compression of about 3 to 1 over uncompressed. If you are delivering in HD for any compressed deliverable (HDDVD for example) then Cineform or ProRes is probably a good choice. All of these codecs provide excellent image quality with a lower data rate compared to uncompressed and are much better quality than either DVCProHD and HDV [although in this case the data rates would actually increase]

Also, an important difference is that lossless codecs have a higher data rate then lossy codecs but require very little processor power. Lossy codecs have a lower data rate but place a much higher demand on the processor while encoding. So how well either of these codecs works for you depends on what the footage originated on, what the deliverable will be and how your system is configured. The important point here is that you now have a choice that goes way beyond deciding which easy setup to use.

Originally Posted by Cory Sheldon

The new retiming features really caught my eye too. Anyone catch if this is somthing that is only in motion (especially the optical flow / ramping bit) or is it in FCP too. I suppose with the 'great integration' being touted it may not matter too much. Also, assuming this is tech they're taking from shake, anyone know how it compares to Twixtor, quality and speed of rendering wise?

Both Twixtor and Motion3 are using similar optical flow technology for arriving at the same results. Assuming that Apple engineers are good at math they should be about the same. So if all your doing a lot of retiming a ton of clips Twixtor might still be the right answer but if your retiming a clip as part of a design in Motion3, well you see the benefit...

[Daniel Wonacott]

Does anyone know if FCS2 will support MT2 files natively (from JVC DR-HD100)

[Steve Benner]

Originally Posted by Daniel Wonacott

Does anyone know if FCS2 will support MT2 files natively (from JVC DR-HD100)

First off, you can download the 2.2 update and get the .m2t files to record directly into HDV 24 .MOV which import directly into FCP.

Having said that, the answer is likely no. Apple mentioned an Open Timeline. For Apple that means you will still need everything in a .MOV wrapper. From this point though, you no longer need to render when dropping clips of different Frame Rates, Codecs, and Resolutions in the same timeline.

[Gene Crucean]

I think it looks like a nice little update. A few things I still hope to see included once I get my hands on it though.

[Luis Rolo]

I'm on the line to buy it!!!
I just don't get if Color will work in my computer (G5 with 9600XT). In the FCS requirements they mention that card, but when it comes to Color alone they specify a better one. Hope it will work.