-
IO HD and ProRes – RT playback?
-
Well, we have to see how good the ProRes codec really is. I am keeping my fingers crossed and hoping for good things!
Jeremy
-
Just to clarify from a technical level, the ioHD speaks ProRes422 along the firewire 800 cable. Essentially when footage is sent out to the ioHD, it translates that footage to ProRes422 for playout by the device.
Since FCS2 just shipped and the ioHD hasn’t even begun to yet, it remains to be seen what the hardware limits will be, but in theory you could still edit and work with uncompressed HD footage, just not capture it.
At the end of the day, these are all unknowns until it is a shipping product and has been QAed on some different machines. My suggestion would be to not speculate how high/low it can go until it is shipping. In the mean time, focus on what it can do that other cards can’t. It fits right in the middle of the product line perfectly. All the i/o and then some of an LH, all the conversions of a Kona3. Depends on what YOU need to do with it. Any way you look at it, AJA has a solution.
—
—
-Mike -
[szumlins] “Any way you look at it, AJA has a solution.”
No doubt at all. I’m hyped for it!
-
You have it correct.
The positive thing about Pro Res is that it’s visually lossless. It is compresssed video, but if you can’t see the difference between it and uncompressed video what does it matter as long as it keys well (It does) and stands up to digital genration loss. It does that too. I’ve seen 10th generation Pro Res, and it looks like the camera master.
The benefit? Less expensive scratch disks are needed. Pro Res is about 1/6th the size of uncompressed HD so it doesn’t require the really expensive disk arrays to play it… Let alone 1/6 the actual space needed to store any given amount of HD video.
It’s going to be an extremely popular codec… it’s 10 bit too so graphics look really great (no banding issues at all), and as far as I know, it’s the lowest data rate 10 bit codec out there… it’s going to change the rules a lot I think. It’s optimized for RT Extreme technology too meaning more RT per kbp of data rate. Basically, more RT than other codecs of this quality (HD).
The positive thing about the Io HD is that it does compression from any source (except dual link HD) and will compress it to any other codec including pro res in the box… this releaves the heavy lifting from your CPU (Cards will require your CPU to do the compression to pro res. thus eliminating dropped frames and allowing something like a laptop to do the job even on set) What comes back to your Mac from your Io HD is still pro res (as long as that’s what you’re working in – remember it works with any video codec that isn’t uncompressed HD) and then the box decompresses the signal to anything you want (except dual link again) for monitoring and recording. Up converts, cross converts does a lot of things AND it’s portable… doesn’t mean it’s only for laptops, it’s for any mac as long as you don’t need to work in uncompressed HD, the Io will do it all… and it’s the only solution on the planet that compresses to pro res on board. Since it does this heavy lifting you should have more RT playback of unrendered material because your CPU is NOT doing this decompression to monitor with…
Jerry
Apple Certified Trainer
Author: “Jerry Hofmann on Final Cut Pro 4” Click here
Dual 2 gig G5, AJA Kona SD, AJA Kona 2, Huge Systems Array UL3D
-
> and it’s the only solution on the planet that compresses to pro res on board. Since it does this heavy lifting you should have more RT playback of unrendered material because your CPU is NOT doing this decompression to monitor with…
Which gets back at my original question. So from this I assume that FCP is able to mix and modify ProRes media _without_ decompressing them first – is that really possible?
Otherwise the scenario at the top of this page would take place, with the CPU not only decompressing for the effects etc. but doing the extra task of recompressing for the trip to Io HD.
Hope I’m not beating a dead mosquito here, it’s just hard to imagine that ProRes wouldn’t go through this extra compression on output.
-
I agree with the initial scenario! From my point of view, it seems the only major advantage of the Io/HD doing the compression onboard is on capture (enough compression to send an HD signal down the FW800). Otherwise I think there may be a disadvantage since your CPU(s) must recompress to pro-res before sending it back down the FW800 to the Io/HD for output. This may indeed cause less RT playback than a PCI-E card. – FWIW
-
Hello –
What is the question here ?
The AJA I/O HD exists for several reasons.1) you don’t need the combination of the Kona 3 and the I/O anymore. For less money, this box does everything. That is, if you don’t need uncompressed HD. It even does HDMI I/O, as well as LTC I/O. And once again, it costs LESS MONEY than a Kona 3, I/O combo purchase. And this combo has always done more than the LHe, so it’s a “best buy”.
2) Pro Res 422 and Pro Res 422 HQ is designed to SPECIFICALLY MATCH AVID DNxHD 145 and DNxHD220. This is what AVID calls “good enough”, and for most TV stations in the world – especially in the US – this is IMPORTANT. AND Pro Res 422 does not eat up all of your disk drive space. If you don’t want to spend countless money on a disk drive array, and want to get the same look at uncompressed HD, without spending a fortune, Pro Res 422 is VERY IMPORTANT. If you own a couple of SATA drives, and don’t want to buy a big Fibre array, this is VERY IMPORTANT. For those of you that say “what is so important about AVID, and DNxHD – well, you guys don’t have a clue.
Bob Zelin
-
I’m coming to this a little late but I have to say great question braker!! I thought it was perfectly worded and I’m sorry it seemed to produce some defensive responses along with honest attempts to answer it for you.
I seriously doubt that Final Cut Pro can composite, cc or do anything else with ProRes video without decompressing first, seems as though it must decompress, composite and/or apply effects, recompress to ProRes and pass it back to the IO HD to be decompressed again for monitoring. (Sorry for repeating exactly what you outlined in the initial question, just want to get it completely straight for myself too). Anyway to me it seems like getting a laptop to do all that compression/decompression in software, when you have the codec in hardware sitting on the IO box doesn’t make a lot of sense, as does that final recompression to ProRes purely to put across the firewire cable to be decompressed again.
I’m glad to see I’m not the only one who expected a bit more from the box, don’t get me wrong, it’s great for what it does, I just wish they’d put a PCI-E or eSATA connection on it too so I could capture uncompressed if my drives could handle it, or pass it data and put that hardware to work as I edit.
Do I have it wrong?
Glennser
-
That’s the way I see it.
Which again isn’t meant to dis the Io HD. Just a nudge for me that editing on a laptop still hss disadvantages – speaking as someone who edits on a laptop. If you do need to edit ProRes level on a laptop, then Io HD will allow you to do things you otherwise couddn’t.
Reply to this Discussion! Login or Sign Up