-
The death of QuickTime as we know it
-
Yes, you can wrap nearly anything in an MOV wrapper, just like an AVI or MXF wrapper. The codec component must also be installed in order to encode or play that file. These are two independent items. So when Avid creates ProRes files, they are wrapped as MXF.
Oliver
Oliver Peters Post Production Services, LLC
Orlando, FL
http://www.oliverpeters.com -
[Bill Davis] “This is what we used to call “damn good advice.””
Used to? Still! 😀
My advice is always keep the footage in the format it came off of on the camera. Master it in that format if possible, if not, ProRes/DNxHD.
I am keeping my fingers crossed that Apple does to ProRes what it did with ALAC. I don’t see how making it open-source would hurt them in any way.
-
[John Davidson] “Animation is my Grandpa’s codec – I feel like we’ve been using it since the 90’s.”
We have been using it since the 90s. It’s old, but that doesn’t make it bad.
The only real problem with QuickTime/Animation in 2013 is that it’s limited to 8-bit. Otherwise, it’s a super-simple, cross-application, cross-platform, lossless RGBA mezzanine codec.
QuickTime/PNG (another boring, reliable, 8-bit RGBA losslessly-compressed format) is also on the hit list. Does that mean that ProRes 4444 is the only native option for video with transparency?
I understand that AV Kit is an important step forward for a number of reasons (more developer-friendly, better multithreading, 64-bit), but the limited choice of format options seem like a big step backwards, and pushing ProRes this way looks like 1990s Microsoft behavior.
[John Davidson] “I want that ProRes only future.”
I find that idea terrifying. No one developer should have that degree of control over the industry.
ProRes is a great codec from a technical perspective, but the fact that it’s a closed, proprietary format should give anyone standardizing on it pause.
Thank goodness some open source developers have reverse-engineered it — now we can all be confident we’ll at least be able to read our ProRes archives in a decade whether Apple continues to support it or not.
Walter Soyka
Principal & Designer at Keen Live
Motion Graphics, Widescreen Events, Presentation Design, and Consulting
RenderBreak Blog – What I’m thinking when my workstation’s thinking
Creative Cow Forum Host: Live & Stage Events -
Absolutely.
As the youngest of three siblings myself, I lived through the standard arc. First born: obsessive pictorial documentation. Second: less. Third: Christmas morning and birthday only.
It’s pleasant to see my sons Disneyland visit when he was 5, and as a pro, I made a darn watchable “labor of love” video of it. But nobody’s watched it in 10 years. And there are exactly two people on the planet (my wife and I) who have any desire to watch it.
I mean, Oliver, do you want to take 8 minutes of your life to watch my son enjoy Disneyland?
I suspect not.
It’s the same for most business video, I increasingly suspect.
Know someone who teaches video editing in elementary school, high school or college? Tell them to check out http://www.StartEditingNow.com – video editing curriculum complete with licensed practice content.
-
[Walter Soyka] “The only real problem with QuickTime/Animation in 2013 is that it’s limited to 8-bit. Otherwise, it’s a super-simple, cross-application, cross-platform, lossless RGBA mezzanine codec. “
Actually, animation can do 16bit if the program can handle it. After Effects is the prime example of this.
The other problem with Animation is that it’s huge, a la uncompressed. Fine for internal work, terrible for sharing work.
[Walter Soyka] “I find that idea terrifying. No one developer should have that degree of control over the industry. “
If it isn’t Apple, then it would be someone else. As a matter of fact, I’d rather have it be a funded source than some open source apple bob.
There was that third party Sheervideo bitjazz codec. It was very promising but it never went anywhere. It was not open source, but for pay.
https://www.bitjazz.com/en/products/sheervideo/
Cineform looked like it might be contender, then someone bought it outright.
I just don’t see the codec world becoming open source, as idyllic as that would be. No entity wants to shoulder the burden of creating a codec that will be around for the next 100 years. Who has the time, money, and effort? Who is going to answer the support calls when it doesn’t work?
Camera codecs are great for acquisition and transmission, but not so great for multigenerational renders, so we can rule those out.
I think digital media has the fallacy of being “permanent”. It is not. As companies shed older technology more quickly to keep pace the rapid development, digital media becomes much more temporary.
-
There’s a difference between open source and documentation of a codec available to all. I am fine with a manufacturer making codecs for whatever benefits it can provide as well as keep up with changes in new cameras and deliverables. For example, DNxHD is an Avid developed codec, but the code can be downloaded, or available as VC-3 from SMPTE. The optimized (speed) and name “DNxHD” is what is licensed. But speed aside, assets stored in DNxHD can always be decoded by someone, somewhere per the defined spec. That gives broadcasters and such a little more relief as to accessing their content whether Avid is around or not.
As far as what archives have value or not. That is the $64K question. You never know when it might have value. The classic example is Monica Lewinski wearing the blue dress. trust me, all those broadcasters were going through their archives for that one.
Michael
-
[Jeremy Garchow] “Actually, animation can do 16bit if the program can handle it. After Effects is the prime example of this.”
Ae cannot output 16b Animation. Only a handful of QuickTime formats allow >8b output (ProRes being one of them):
[image][Jeremy Garchow] “The other problem with Animation is that it’s huge, a la uncompressed. Fine for internal work, terrible for sharing work.”
Depends on the source material. Animation’s RLE compression is more efficient than ProRes 4444 for areas of large, flat color.
But yes, any mathematically lossless compression should be generally less efficient than lossy compression. It’s one of the trade-offs.
[Jeremy Garchow] “If it isn’t Apple, then it would be someone else. As a matter of fact, I’d rather have it be a funded source than some open source apple bob.”
I rely on all kinds of closed tools for my work. I have no problem with proprietary tools. I don’t need open source, but I do like open standards.
[Jeremy Garchow] “I just don’t see the codec world becoming open source, as idyllic as that would be. No entity wants to shoulder the burden of creating a codec that will be around for the next 100 years. Who has the time, money, and effort? Who is going to answer the support calls when it doesn’t work?”
Companies will develop codecs because their other products need them, but it doesn’t mean that they have to keep these codecs totally closed. Microsoft’s Windows Media 9 and Avid’s DNxHD are SMPTE standards (VC-1 and VC-3, respectively). Apple has history here; they submitted QuickTime as the container format for MPEG-4 and won. Apple could submit ProRes to SMPTE for standardization, or they could submit it to a pool like the Moving Pictures Experts Group.
The industry has rallied around open acquisition formats like MPEG4/H.264 (in various profiles), and we’re maybe seeing the beginning of CinemaDNG.
If we as an industry can do this for acquisition, why not for post?
[Jeremy Garchow] “I think digital media has the fallacy of being “permanent”. It is not. As companies shed older technology more quickly to keep pace the rapid development, digital media becomes much more temporary.”
And this is a huge problem that real standards can help to alleviate.
Walter Soyka
Principal & Designer at Keen Live
Motion Graphics, Widescreen Events, Presentation Design, and Consulting
RenderBreak Blog – What I’m thinking when my workstation’s thinking
Creative Cow Forum Host: Live & Stage Events -
[Michael Phillips] “There’s a difference between open source and documentation of a codec available to all. I am fine with a manufacturer making codecs for whatever benefits it can provide as well as keep up with changes in new cameras and deliverables. For example, DNxHD is an Avid developed codec, but the code can be downloaded, or available as VC-3 from SMPTE.”
Correct. And Avid wanted this certification/ratification. What other company is going to go through, what I am sure, is a long testing process? Apple?
Will VC-3 be relevant in 10 years? 30 years? 50?
[Michael Phillips] “As far as what archives have value or not. That is the $64K question. You never know when it might have value. The classic example is Monica Lewinski wearing the blue dress. trust me, all those broadcasters were going through their archives for that one. “
I agree. I archive everything as I can’t afford not to.
-
[[[Jermey Garchow
Correct. And Avid wanted this certification/ratification. What other company is going to go through, what I am sure, is a long testing process? Apple?Will VC-3 be relevant in 10 years? 30 years? 50?]]]
It does not matter whether the codec is currently relevant 20-50 years down the road. What is relevant is whether the content owner can go back to the orignal sources if and when needed. Ratification is a lengthy process, but that what companies who serve the industry are requested to do by their customers in those markets.
Michael
-
[Walter Soyka] “Ae cannot output 16b Animation. Only a handful of QuickTime formats allow >8b output (ProRes being one of them):”
I would encourage you to render out an 8b gradient and then a 16b gradient out of Ae in the Animation codec.
[Walter Soyka] “I rely on all kinds of closed tools for my work. I have no problem with proprietary tools. I don’t need open source, but I do like open standards.”
But if you need proprietary tools to access open standards, isn’t it really six of one, and half dozen of the other?
[Walter Soyka] “If we as an industry can do this for acquisition, why not for post?”
I don’t know. I just don’t see Apple doing it as they don’t have to. If they had to, they would.
[Walter Soyka] “And this is a huge problem that real standards can help to alleviate.”
I think we can all feel better about it, but I’m not sure how alleviated it will be.
Everything I need to send video to a Beta tape is based on standards, but this doesn’t mean I will be able to play that beta tape forever because it was based on open standards.
This is really my only point. At some point, ProRes will be grandpa’s codec (probably when I’m a grandpa).
Reply to this Discussion! Login or Sign Up