You guys didn't really add HDV support. Boo!
You guys didn't really add HDV support. Boo!
You added a FireWire input routine. One that, for some reason, can't run on laptops!!! If it's because you can't convert in RT -- the solution is double-buffering. iMovie can do it! This is not rocket science.
By the way, converting HDV to something else not only is NOT necessary -- it doesn't improve quality or present quality loss -- it causes a huge waste of disk space and increases the needed disk bandwidth.
FCP, MC, Edius, Vegas, and Premiere all support REALTIME native HDV editing and have done so for YEARS. It can't be that hard if $99 Ulead and Pinnacle do it.
PS: If you don't buy FCP -- how do you get ProRes? And, if you don't have ProRes -- what can one convert HDV to?
If you can't fully support HDV in the spring of 2008 -- 4 years late -- how can you support AVC-Intra now and AVCHD in the fall of 2008. And, of course, XDCAM EX and XDCAM 422 HD? If we can't edit these format's NATIVELY in M100 -- the game seems over for M100.
I agree that this is not a proper HDV support but do we need it? I have been upconverting HDV through the Convergent Design HD-Connect and editing in HD for two years now.The perceived wisdom seems to say that native HDV editing is not a good path to travel. Don't let's have the Media 100 boys wasting time with trying to edit HDV natively, rather let us have the promised support for EX1 media where we will get far better quality and be up with 'the future'.
Converting HDV to anything has not a single advantage. In fact it has several disadvantages: (1) cost of your converter which doesn't do anything but decode HDV. Exactly the same thing that happens to every frame of HDV as each frame is displayed during editing. (2) a huge increase in storage space which contains not one bit of information that's not in an HDV file. (3) When editing, a huge increase in disk bandwidth that really limits the number of realtime streams.
With FCP every HDV frame is decoded to 4:4:4 YUV -- better than your box offers. All FX are done in 4:4:4 YUV. The result is displayed and DISCARDED. It is never reused. It is never recoded to HDV -- unless you export to HDV tape.
Since one can edit HDV in RT there is little need to render. But, even if you do need to render short sections -- the render is automatically made to ProRes. (Avid auto renders to DNxHD.)
Some folks claim the export takes long if you edit native HDV. Nonsense. HDV decodes many times faster than RT. The time required is long -- relative to SD -- because one is exporting HD. Makes no difference if one is exporting to HDV, to MPEG-2 for BD, to XDCAM HD. It will be even longer for H.264 or WM. Bottom-line, export time is a function of the export codec -- not the source codec.
Now -- it's possible M100 is far less sophisticated internally than FCP. Maybe they don't have an MPEG-2 codec that can decode long GOP MPEG-2 in RT to 4:4:4 YUV. Maybe FX must be rendered. And, maybe the render codec is forced to be the same as the source codec. If these conditions are true -- the problem isn't HDV -- it's the internals of the M100.
By the way -- HDV is simply the brand name for 1440 MPEG-2. Once you have written an MPEG-2 decoder that works in RT within a Timeline -- all forms of MPEG-2 can be processed: HDV, HDCAM HD, HDCAM EX, and HDCAM 422.
THERE IS NO CONFLICT BETWEEN HDV AND XDCAM EX SUPPORT. In fact that are thousands of more folks with HDV than with any kind of XDCAM.
Of course, this raises the terrible possibility that when Boris says XDCAM support is coming they only intend to convert HDCAM to something else. This will not fly when FCP supports native XDCAM.
PS: Apple is supporting AVCHD by converting it. They claim one can't edit it natively. What they mean is they want to protect their PPC owners. PC-based NLE's have no problem of editing native AVCHD. Intel chips have dozens of instructions that do H.264 and MPEG-2 decoding.
Steve, thanks for your very detailed explanation. I wasn't really hoping to gain anything by using the HD-Connect, I just had to get my HDV into Media 100 and since I had the HD capability thought I'd edit in that. I figured that at least I'd retain some of the higher quality rather than down convert to SD at the outset. I have plenty of fast external drive space and generally only edit one production at a time.
I think that when Media 100 get around to dealing with EX1 media they will be utilising Quick Time in some way, we will have to wait and see.
When you say that they don't support HDV, are you talking about Media 100 Producer or Media 10 HD suite? Or both?
In terms of HDV capture via FW, I doubt there is any difference.
What's so frustrating is that Apple provides all the code needed to capture .M2T in their QT toolkit. They also provide a demo app using their code. And, of course, they provide an HDV codec.
Boris should Open Source the BASE Media 100 code so coders could add what they need. There are fantastic Open Source video/graphics tools plus a huge community.
Trying to SELL Media 100 with today's $99 NLE's supporting new formats makes no sense to me.
Then Boris could sell a Boris plug-in to the Open Source app. for those who want Boris. Frankly, the way we used to work with M100 and AE still seems fine to me.
Apple makes code development EZ -- it's a shame that a slowly dying product is still trying to be sold against Apple, Avid, and Adobe products. Open Source of the BASE product would give it new life. The more users, the more who might by the Boris plug-in.
[John Aufderheide] "When you say that they don't support HDV, are you talking about Media 100 Producer or Media 10 HD suite? Or both?
Both Media 100 Producer and Media 100 HD Suite do support HDV acquire via FireWire. I don´t want to start a discussion about if this is the right way to do it or not (I think it is much better than e.g. what FCP is doing), but you definitely can acquire from HDV sources via FireWire into the current (V12.5 and up) Media 100 systems.
Of course, they can ACQUIRE from an HDV device via FW -- unless you are using a laptop. But, you are NOT capturing HDV which is what one needs to do. Nor, can one edit HDV natively -- let alone multiple streams in realtime. Can't match FCP or MC. In fact, one can buy FCS1 for a few hundred and get REAL HDV support in 5.1.4 -- plus get all the other Apple Tools. Who in their right mind is going to spend nearly $1000 to so much less?
In any case, this is not the support of HDV that matches the HDV support provided by ALL NLE's. It is a only a wasteful and totally unneeded CONVERSION of MPEG-2 to another codec that requires far more space and disk bandwidth. No VIDEO INFORMATION is in the converted file that is not in the far more compact HDV file. So the time for the conversion is totally wasted.
[Steve Mullen] "Of course, they can ACQUIRE from an HDV device via FW -- unless you are using a laptop. But, you are NOT capturing HDV which is what one needs to do. Nor, can one edit HDV natively --"
Actually many very knowledgeable people disagree on that you have to edit HDV natively, but insist in getting out of the HDV codec as soon as possible. In FCP you can acquire HDV ONLY natively in realtime, which is as much of a limitation as Media 100 only being able to acquire into another codec.
Regarding the Laptop use: I would think that the guys at Media 100 know this limitation, and they already have said that they are working on solutions (on a webinar about the new features of V12.5).
I don´t really want to get into a FCP vs Media 100 vs Avid vs whatever discussion here, but there are many areas in Media 100 that are much superior and much more "professional" than FCP. We rely on our systems for several primetime broadcast shows in some of the most-viewed German TV stations, so they are definitely worth their money for us. If you want to work with FCP, fine (we also have several FCP seats, and do use it in production, so I know what it can and cannot do). But I´d think you should accept that Media 100s approach for editing and the way they are handling their footage is better for some than the way FCP is doing it.
I'm with you there Floh, no way do I want to get involved with FCP and all the odd way they do things. Straight and simple Media 100, great media management, intuitive editing and a Boris team who seem intent on keeping up to date even though they seem to be struggling with the Sony EX systems! HDV is easy enough for me with the Convergent Design HD-Connect with no time wasted on conversion whatsoever.
"Actually many very knowledgeable people disagree on that you have to edit HDV natively, but insist in getting out of the HDV codec as soon as possible."
They, simply put, are wrong. There is NOTHING gained by "getting out of HDV" as the data that are encoded cannot possibly become "better" data nor are the "bits" any better preserved in another codec. This nonsense began with DV and before that Hi8.
Moreover, you don't need to convince me M100 has some great points. I've used M100 literally from day 1 since I reviewed it before it shipped. (And, John was a little boy running through my office at Data Translation long before anyone had even heard of an NLE.)
But, codec technology and realtime render engine technology is ultimately more important because most of the M100 old-timers have, by now, already learned to use a dozen NLEs. People can always switch if the internal technology doesn't keep up.
PS: it's possible that M100 has a rendering engine that forces renders to be in the SAME codec as the SOURCE codec. If this is true, then on the M100, one wouldn't want to natively edit HDV. But that is a failing of the M100.
Both FCP and MC NEVER use HDV for rendering. Rendering is always done to ProRes or DNxHD. If M100 uses this DV-in-DV-out type of engine, then that means XDCAM may be treated just like HDV. IMHO, non-native editing is simply unacceptable in today's world of quad-core chips.
[Steve Mullen] "They, simply put, are wrong. There is NOTHING gained by "getting out of HDV" as the data that are encoded cannot possibly become "better" data nor are the "bits" any better preserved in another codec. "
You, simply put, are wrong here. And I am not speaking about gaining any additional Data/colordepth/whatever by converting HDV to something else, and not about "better" data, but about a more manageable file and codec format, without the restrictions of handling a long-gop MPEG2 stream.
[Steve Mullen] "PS: it's possible that M100 has a rendering engine that forces renders to be in the SAME codec as the SOURCE codec. If this is true, then on the M100, one wouldn't want to natively edit HDV. But that is a failing of the M100. "
They don´t, and (unlike FCP) can freely select into what codec you want to render. Media 100 even supports codec mixing on a timeline much longer than FCP (and it actually really mixes all codecs in realtime without needing to render them before mastering).
[Steve Mullen] "Both FCP and MC NEVER use HDV for rendering. Rendering is always done to ProRes or DNxHD."
In FCP5 you had to render into your sequence codec (or into AIC) for HDV (no ProRes in FCP5), and you still have to render into HDV codec if you want to master back to a HDV tape.
[Steve Mullen] "IMHO, non-native editing is simply unacceptable in today's world of quad-core chips. "
That´s your opinion, but Apple announced ProRes especially for the reason of getting over this format chaos. They have said publicly on several occasions that most likely new codecs (like Panasonics new AVCHD) will not be supported natively but via conversion due to the fact that manufacturers are starting to create their "codec of the week", and that they simply will not try to catch up and support everything.
I think this was my last post on this subject, since I don´t think we will find an agreement here. I think it is unnecessary to support native HDV editing, and we would never think about e,g, mastering our projects back to HDV (which more or less would be the only reason why staying in HDV could make sense for us; but even then you would have to rearrange the GOP structure for the whole timeline to match the HDV specs, which means you have to render anyway). HDV support with the realtime transcoding is working excellent for us, and I am glad to get out of HDV as soon as possible. Most of our footage is touched up in one or another way sooner or later (e.g. Color Graded or distributed to the web for review), and it is much easier to do that with a Quicktime file in your Codec of choice than with something that is a mix of HDV MPEG2 files with other QuickTime formats. So if you say that it is better for you to stay in HDV, then do that; for us it definitely is not an option we would use.
My last post too.
"And I am not speaking about gaining any additional Data/colordepth/whatever by converting HDV to something else, and not about "better" data, but about a more manageable file and codec format, without the restrictions of handling a long-gop MPEG2 stream."
Once again a myth. What "restrictions" on long GOP MPEG-2? It's in a file on your disk. It's QT just like any other QT codec! (Why do you say it's "different?" Share it with anybody. Much better to send HDV via the net than ProRes. Your NLE inputs HDV just like any other codec. YOU have no awareness of what source is in what codec. Totally invisible to the editor.
"In FCP5 you had to render into your sequence codec (or into AIC) for HDV (no ProRes in FCP5), and you still have to render into HDV codec if you want to master back to a HDV tape."
And, in 2005 gas cost a few bucks. What's your point -- who didn't upgrade for $500?
And, of course, you have render to WHATEVER export codec you want to use. So when you make a BD disk you'll wind-up rendering to MPEG-2, AVC, or VC1-1. No matter what -- HD export via a file requires rendering to SOMETHING long GOP at some point.
PS: Apple may say no more codecs, but note they just gave us a nice complete set of XDCAM codecs. Clearly, Sony expect folks to edit XDCAM natively. (AVC-Intra and AVCHD must go to ProRes today, but not in the future.)