FORUMS: list search recent posts

Uncompressed vs. ProRes: Paging Bob Zelin

COW Forums : AJA Video Systems

<< PREVIOUS   •   VIEW ALL   •   PRINT   •   NEXT >>
Alan Okey
Uncompressed vs. ProRes: Paging Bob Zelin
on Nov 3, 2009 at 7:41:35 pm

Bob,

I just saw this posted in the FCP forum and wanted to hear your take on this:

http://forums.creativecow.net/thread/8/1060915

Assuming that we're talking about a 4:2:2 YUV video camera, is this merely high end Avid post house snobbery, or does this post house have a legitimate beef? I don't ever recall reading that working in ProRes will negatively affect color fidelity or luma range.


Return to posts index

Arnie Schlissel
Re: Uncompressed vs. ProRes: Paging Bob Zelin
on Nov 3, 2009 at 10:22:54 pm

I think it's fear, laziness and ineptitude masquerading as arrogance. They don't know how to get ProRes into their Avid, and rather than figure it out they simply tell you that it's a bad format.

But I don't know these guys & I'm jumping to conclusions, so don't take my word for it.

Arnie

Post production is not an afterthought!
http://www.arniepix.com/


Return to posts index

Bob Zelin
Re: Uncompressed vs. ProRes: Paging Bob Zelin
on Nov 4, 2009 at 3:49:28 am

AVID introduced compressed HD codecs because the AVID Unity could not handle uncompressed HD. This is why DNxHD 145 and DNxHD220 were developed - and are still used EVERY DAY on NEW AVID PRODUCTS like the AVID Nitris DX and AVID Mojo DX. The DS is a DEAD PRODUCT that NO ONE uses - the popular AVID products are the AVID Adrenaline (which uses the DNxHD codecs) and the Nitris DX and Mojo DX, which use COMPRESSED HD CODECS.

So your Nitris DS buddy is a dinosaur, even in the AVID world - let me make this clear - a dinosaur even at BIG TV NETWORKS LIKE CBS NETWORK TELEVISION. I am sick of these idiots that say "my toys are so much better than your toys", when they are out of touch with the actual manufacturer (AVID in this case) that makes "their really cool toy". I still see idiots that think that the AVID Meridian systems are the best thing AVID ever made, and continue to use them.

But just to be fair to idiot FCP users, there are owners of AJA I/O's and MAC G5's that say "HD isn't all that it is cracked up to be, and the I/O is the best product AJA ever made".

And just for hi end refernce, the real "big boys" use products like DVS Clipster, and Quantel Pablo, not Nitris DS.

Dope !

Bob Zelin




Return to posts index


Shane Ross
Re: Uncompressed vs. ProRes: Paging Bob Zelin
on Nov 6, 2009 at 12:52:30 am

[Bob Zelin] "I still see idiots that think that the AVID Meridian systems are the best thing AVID ever made, and continue to use them. "

Well, I know plenty of places that used them and made good use of them until the DX line came out. because the Adrenalines were so unstable that people didn't want to switch. The Adrenaline issues are actually what turned me on to FCP. But now with the DX line and Avid 4.0...my head is REALLY turning back.

But yeah...People who are still using DS thinking they are "the bomb" and "all that" are pretty out of touch. BUT, they invested hundreds of thousands of dollars into those systems....EIGHT YEARS AGO...so they think they are still "all that" and the "end all to post production."



Shane



GETTING ORGANIZED WITH FINAL CUT PRO DVD...don't miss it.
Read my blog, Little Frog in High Def


Return to posts index

Matt Riley
Re: Uncompressed vs. ProRes: Paging Bob Zelin
on Nov 6, 2009 at 9:46:32 pm

Wow, no DS love here...

Speaking as a former (still sometimes) DS user, I can tell you that for a time, those systems were great. They still are, in many ways, wickedly powerful. Way back when, the DS was ahead of its time and had some interesting ideas of how an all-in-one box should work.

Unfortunately, Avid chose to crap all over its DS customers when it acquired Soft Image. You see, I wouldn't really classify DS as an Avid product. It wasn't Avid's to begin with and it looks/acts very differently from a traditional Avid (Composer, Symphony, etc). DS is the red-headed stepchild that Avid chose to ignore after adoption. They let it languish for too long while the competition continued to improve. That's part of the reason we moved to Smoke from DS... There have been more updates and added features to Smoke in the year that we've owned one than in over five years combined of owning a DS.

DS users very much got the shaft from Avid. They were led to believe (and in some cased outright told) that DS was THE high-end solution from Avid, their flagship product. It was meant to replace the Symphony and much more. I think at the start, Avid really saw the DS as a potential competitor to Flame, and almost certainly Smoke. And there was a time when this could've been close to reality. However, instead of innovate and make the DS what it should've been, Avid instead caved to pressure of whiny old-school Avid users and attempted to graph a Media Composer interface onto DS. They did this instead of integrating 3D compositing or modeling or any number of other advanced features - and the feature set of DS (and its users) suffered for it.

While Avid was busy letting DS die a slow and painful death, an interesting thing happened: they released a new version of Symphony that used the EXACT SAME Nitris hardware DS users had exclusively for a year or two prior. In effect, Avid was using DS users as beta testers for the new Nitris hardware and then slapped them in the face with a release of a product they were told was dead and that their DS boxes were replacing. It was a sad, sad day at that NAB DS user group meeting when one of the speakers broke the news that Symphony Nitris was being released. I was there and it wasn't pretty.

Before you knock DS users, understand what some of the die-hards have been through with the system. Before we got a Smoke, I always kept up with the DS user group. It was easily the best user group I've ever belonged to. There were a core group of really smart, really dedicated and passionate owner/operators in the group. I'm convinced that if it weren't for the actions of a few remarkable users in that group the DS would've been killed off years ago.

What you might be experiencing is the disgruntled old-school Avid editor who got shoe-horned into running a DS. This caught more than a few companies by surprise: Avid marketing tells you to upgrade to their flagship product (DS) and then you get it and it is NOTHING like the Avid you were used to. That sucks. But you spent so much money on it that you are going to use it, whether you know what you are doing or not.

Long live the DS spirit,
Matt



Return to posts index

Arnie Schlissel
Re: Uncompressed vs. ProRes: Paging Bob Zelin
on Nov 6, 2009 at 4:31:03 pm

[Bob Zelin] "I still see idiots that think that the AVID Meridian systems are the best thing AVID ever made, and continue to use them. "

Of course they do! If they're still paying them off, they may as well continue to use them!

Arnie

Post production is not an afterthought!
http://www.arniepix.com/


Return to posts index


Matt Riley
Re: Uncompressed vs. ProRes: Paging Bob Zelin
on Nov 6, 2009 at 9:52:00 pm

I'm willing to give the DS op. the benefit of the doubt and assume he/she's a purist (i.e. doesn't want to work with compressed anything). ;)

As good as ProRes is, it is still a lossy compressed codec. Information is being thrown out somewhere to get that data rate down and eventually that will impact quality, perceived or otherwise.

If I were doing a steep color grade and wanted to ensure I had as much information in the files as possible (which is important for grading as well as compositing) I would almost always try to get an uncompressed codec over a compressed one. The DS op. has no idea how many iterations of ProRes compression the images have gone through. All he/she knows is that if you hand off uncompressed files, the compression stops there (at least as far as the DS op. is concerned).

-Matt



Return to posts index

James Sullivan
Re: Uncompressed vs. ProRes: Paging Bob Zelin
on Nov 12, 2009 at 12:12:02 am

The DS is still a great box. It has not been updated which sucks. Now that Smoke is coming to the Mac could that have killed a newer DS? Final cut needs help from other applications like After Effects and Color. The math and quality that a DS artist can produce inside that one box is great and has been the standard for some time. I still have not sat in front of one to this day. In my opinion lack of access to that box is what has ultimately undermined the product. Because I could on my own Final Cut system that is what I learned how to use. Is shake officially dead? I guess it is between Nuke and Smoke at this point.

Let's go back to beta and retire,

James



Return to posts index

<< PREVIOUS   •   VIEW ALL   •   PRINT   •   NEXT >>
© 2017 CreativeCOW.net All Rights Reserved
[TOP]