Need Cineform for the MAC (Final Cut) - Join me in sending feedback to Apple

G

Geoff Murillo

New member
Hi Everyone,

I am a new to this site and a new MAC owner who has previously worked with Cineform on a PC. The Cineform codec, as a lossless editing and delivery codec is bar none the best I've work with - High quality clips with smaller file sizes than uncompressed files. I miss Cineform's HDLink and their codec's quality. There's nothing like it on the MAC.

Having a Quicktime Version of Cineform with software based acceleration would be a tremendous win for Final Cut Editors. As well as potentially add cross-platform compatability (PC to MAC or MAC to PC) and add compatibility with other applications like Combustion.

Please join me in sending feedback requests to Apple, asking them to support Cineform within Final Cut and Quicktime.

Here's the link:

http://www.apple.com/feedback/finalcutpro.html

Please let me know if you have sent a feedback request to Apple. Let's keep this post active until Apple decides to support Cineform. Cineform will benefit everyone editing on a MAC.

Thanks,

-Geoff Murillo
 
Why introduce yet another Intermediate Codec to the Mac when it already has one built in for HDV that is ever bit as good as Cineform? I just did an article on Intermediate Codecs, got to talk to product managers from all the major NLE makers. Cineform was not considered the best option.

If you're talking DVCPRO-HD, FCP handles it fine as is.

Question, what do you think Cineform will give FCP that it doesn't already have? Since you're a new user, I suspect you are not aware of what's in FCP.

BTW, Cineform is not software based acceleration, it's a plain old Intermediate Codec for NLEs that don't have built in methods to handle HDV and DVCPRO-HD. FCP handles both natively.

Again, what will Cineform bring to FCP that it can't already do? My suspicion is that you are sorely missing all of FCP's features and are not very educated in using it.
 
Geoff Murillo said:
Having a Quicktime Version of Cineform (...) would be a tremendous win for Final Cut Editors. As well as potentially add cross-platform compatability (PC to MAC or MAC to PC) and add compatibility with other applications http://www.apple.com/feedback/finalcutpro.html
Click to expand...

Ben:
I think these are his very relavant points.

I dunno if (or why) cineform is considered lossless, but as long as Apple won't supply a DVCPRO HD codec for QT-windows, we'll need intermediate codecs to move those files around. A crossplatform way to move HDV files would also be good. (AE windows/FCP Mac)

I don't know Cineform, but their products seem solid, and the reasoning here, too.

This falls in line with some other weird QT policies:
(The mentioned) difference in supported codecs on the Mac and Windows side
Inconsistent gammashift prediction for different apps (read: FCP/Shake)which you cannot turn off.
And my favorite (though minor) quirk: Not being able to export mp3 directly from the QT interface. Hate it! Hate it! Hate it!
I don't really like iTunes as an app for anything but playback.

OK
Spinning off here...
In short: I see his point


Gunleik
 
Are you aware that Apple does NOT develop Cineform? Why contact them?
Are you aware that Cineform IS developing a version for the Mac that is super late?

Going cross platform will always be a problem. Gamma shift will be solved with the new version of Shake coming out. It's not the codec, it's the app. Cineform on a Mac would do the same thing between the apps.

As for MP3, that has nothing to do with DVCPRO-HD or video editing. Apple actually is bound by agreements to only let iTunes do that, as part of their being able to sell so much music on iTunes. Talk to the RIAA about that issue, not Apple.

Taking stuff to a PC, which I never do with my DVCPRO-HD stuff but I know a lot of y'all do. I see it as the only valid reason for Cineform on a Mac. When (IMHO, it's not an IF) Apple releases the DVCPRO-HD codec for the Windows version of QuickTime Pro, problem solved.

BTW, emailing Apple won't get Cineform on the Mac. I'd email the Cineform developers and ask why THEY haven't developed the Mac version ON TIME. Apple has nothing to do with what they do or don't develop. Thus, FCP feedback page is a waste of time in this effort.

In fact, if you do your homework, I found this on the Cineform.com web site:
"Will Aspect HD or Connect HD run on a Mac?
We have highly optimized our video pipeline and its component pieces for the PC (especially within Adobe Premiere Pro). We are currently in the process of porting to the Quicktime format and we are looking at having that ready by late Summer of 2006."

So they're pretty late at this point. Contact Cineform, contact them ASAP, raise hell, why are they late?
Cineform's email-
productinfo@cineform.com
 
BenB said:
"Are you aware that Apple does NOT develop Cineform? Why contact them?"

Yep. But Apple are the ones who "bless" codecs for realtime use in FCP

Non-blessed codecs give a more complicated workflow.

Same problem as with DVCPRO HD, as long as _Apple_ does not implement DVCPRO HD into QT windows - the oddities and hassles will stay in the workflow.

"Are you aware that Cineform IS developing a version for the Mac that is super late?"

Yep. Super late... I haven't seen any promise or plans for Cineform - Mac untill lately. I still see the crossplatform argument, though - allthough I'd probably go uncompressed - but this is not a real alternative for most.

"Going cross platform will always be a problem. "
Sure, but it is the codec-container-producers who make this a hassle. In this case: Apple.


OK. Admit I was going into QT RANT MODE from here on, but I'm less than happy with some of QT's features and how Apple adresses them.

"Gamma shift will be solved with the new version of Shake coming out. It's not the codec, it's the app. "

Shake is officially EOL'ed - so there won't be any "update to Shake". You have written about this update before. Makes me really curious. -;)
The gammashift is a well documented Quicktime problem (It's not really a bug as it was programmed to do this. Problem is you cannot manually turn the assumption on or off or controll it)

Whichever program module is at fault is actually less interesting than that this has been a known issue for years and that all the Apple apps implements this "function" differently on a sort of "consumer" to "pro" assumption.

(compare similarily configured exports through QT, Compressor, import with DVDSP or iDVD. You would risk to see incostint gamma-handling in all cases.)

http://www.hdforindies.com/2006/10/more-final-cut-pro-color-oddness.html#links

http://greeny.typepad.com/finalcutpronews/workflow/index.html

http://docs.info.apple.com/article.html?artnum=93794


Shake is the program that is doing this "right" as it ignores the gammashift asumption - still things get pretty messed up going to-from shake and the gammashifting apps.


"Cineform on a Mac would do the same thing between the apps."
No argument here as this is a QT messup.

"As for MP3, that has nothing to do with DVCPRO-HD or video editing. Apple actually is bound by agreements to only let iTunes do that, as part of their being able to sell so much music on iTunes. Talk to the RIAA about that issue, not Apple."

Agreed. Sorta.
But as we buy "pro" lisences exactly to be able to export and the transformation actually happens in QT - it's just another QT inconvinience. I have to fire up another app (be it Cubase or iTunes or whatever) to make mp3's...

And we _can_ export AAC and Apple Lossless. Again: I think this is market positioning and has nothing to do with RIAA. If it had, we'd not been alowed to make any kind of audiocompression outside iTunes.

"Taking stuff to a PC, which I never do with my DVCPRO-HD stuff but I know a lot of y'all do. I see it as the only valid reason for Cineform on a Mac. When (IMHO, it's not an IF) Apple releases the DVCPRO-HD codec for the Windows version of QuickTime Pro, problem solved."

I think this is a big if. Apple is protecting selling points for FCP. They have the know and have had for years. It's all just marketing - of which I don't totally disagree.
It is still a big PITA.

"BTW, emailing Apple won't get Cineform on the Mac. I'd email the Cineform developers and ask why THEY haven't developed the Mac version ON TIME. Apple has nothing to do with what they do or don't develop. Thus, FCP feedback page is a waste of time in this effort."

As to the implimentation of the codec (how e.g. FCP sees it) Apple is the right adress.

"In fact, if you do your homework, I found this on the Cineform.com web site:
"Will Aspect HD or Connect HD run on a Mac?
We have highly optimized our video pipeline and its component pieces for the PC (especially within Adobe Premiere Pro). We are currently in the process of porting to the Quicktime format and we are looking at having that ready by late Summer of 2006."
I do some -;)
Cineform and Adobe are close. So are QT and FCP. And my guess is that Premiere and FCP are competing products. -;)

I think this is the main reason for the DVCPRO HD & cineform story.

I find it understandable, but it is a hassle.

Gunleik

(Edited some of the typos...)
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
What codecs in QTPro are not blessed?
Cineform is working on a codec, they have to work with Apple to do that. Apple won't tell them to hurry up or anything. It's totally up to Cineform, period.

As for Shake, Apple's official statement is that Shake version 4.1 is the last of it's current out dated programming code installment. They have never said Shake was dead. In my questions directly to Apple when at their offices, the official response is that Shake may come out as a version 5, or under another name, either is possible, but Apple won't say publicly for sure.

DVCPRO-HD is the only codec in QTPro that is not yet translated to the Windows platform.

Again, Apple only gives Cineform a developers agreement and some code, Cineform is on their own from there on out. Apple won't ever tell Cineform to hurry up. Call Cineform, it's TOTALLY in their hands.

At least we have Flip4Mac for the WMV codecs Microsoft refuses to release for the Mac.
 
BenB says DVCPRO HD is only codec not cross platform. Really? Do AIC, HDV, and Apple's Uncompressed codecs (forgoing the BMD/AJA compatibility) read natively in Windows? I thought not, but please correct me if I'm wrong. Seriously.

And as for a forthcoming version of Windows QT that supports DVCPRO HD - why ON EARTH would Apple do that for the benefit of its competitors? Apple wants you to edit (FCP), do mografx (Motion), vfx (Shake), make DVDs (DVDSP) all on the Mac. Why would they enable their competitors' products to have a key benefit that Macs have? (Native DVCPRO HD support).

As for highly optimized code in Cineform, my take on it (and IANAP) is that they've optimized their code for the AMD/Intel processors - and that'll make it easier to port to Intel Macs (so quite likely no PPC support, so my quad G5 may well be SOL).

While you CAN run other codecs (such as the excellent Sheer from BitJazz) in FCP, you get no realtime effects with it - that's what's meant by "blessed" in this context (or at least I assume that's what the writer meant).

Apple doesn't offer RT support for any non-Apple originated codecs...damn shame.

Somebody on hear is also saying why use Cineform if AIC is so good....gaaaaaahhh!!!

Cineform is:

1.) better color sampling - AIC is 4:2:0 color space
2.) full raster - no subsampling like DVCPRO HD and HDV - it is 1920 pixels across, for real
3.) better compression quality - wavelets, baby, wavelets
4.) better bit depth - does 10 bits, not just 8

So LOTS of reasons why I'd want to use it. FCP requires that RT enabled codes be able to provide a half-res version quickly on the fly - no problem, that is cake for wavelets.

In any case, I too want to see Cineform:

a.) not just running on the Mac, but
b.) supported with the RT architecture in FCP

Since Apple offers us NO compressed, high quality, full raster, 10 bit options whatsoever, we want/need this....or something just as good.

And as long as I'm in a ranting mood, all of these benefits apply for REDCODE as well - I want to see that, too, fully and natively supported in FCP
 
No NLE's HDV codec works outside of that specific NLE.
HDV is 4:2:0, so what's the point.
If you're going to compare apples to onions, go ahead.

My main point was, Apple won't lift a finger to hurry Cineform up. Go after Cineform, not Apple, that's all.

If you're not happy with FCP, don't use it. I could care less. But I'm not going to answer to twisted misquoted numbers.
 
Hi BenB, gunleik, and MikeCurtis,

Thanks for the responses. Like I stated, I'm a recent "new" MAC owner. I've worked on Final Cut before, but this is the first MAC that I've actually owned. I've previously edited on a PC with Cineform in Premiere. I've read many posts on this site before, but I am a brand new "Junior Member".

I've been trying to rebuild an HDV project on my MAC that I started on a PC. Moving from one platform to another has presented many hurdles. I love Final Cut - But the one thing that I miss from the PC is Cineform.

Cineform has a great import tool called HDLink. It can do a wide variety of things, while taking your m2t or P2-MXF files and transcoding them into their lossless codec. There is the capability to up-sample color (for HDV source files) to 4:2:2 (eliminating a lot of banding), rotate footage for owners of indie adapters (like Redrock), and rescaling of footage (720p to 1080p). The quality is excellent. And the files sizes don't eat up your entire hard drive. Cineform (Aspect and Prospect), through Premiere Pro only, also has software components that act like hardware accelerators, giving users real-time full-rate playback and real-time effects.

And Cineform is one of the few companies that have been able to quickly adapt and support the ever-changing world of camera formats and frame rate implementation. They added 24p support for the GY-HD100 shortly after it was released, they supported 24F from Cannon shortly after it was released, and they worked out HVX200 support quickly too. They also support 2K resolution film scans and their Cineform RAW codec is behind the SI-1920HDVR.

In order for Final Cut to be able to handle Cineform with RT Effects, their codec would have to be Quicktime certified. This is why I'm asking everyone to write to MAC. Apple is a company that listens to their user community.

I love Final Cut. It is a tremendous application. I only wish it could share the benefits of Cineform. I hope a Cineform Quicktime codec will be announced soon, with Apple's Quicktime certified blessing. And more than anything else, I hope that Cineform can go Quicktime to bridge the gap between MACs and PCs and allow users of either platform the ability to share footage without having to battle with cumbersome work-arounds and incompatible codecs.

Thank you all for the information that you have provided, especially about the Quicktime color shifts between applications. I go to forums like this to learn.

-Geoff Murillo
 
Damn, quite the debate that got started here. I gotta say though I lean towards what Ben's said on this stuff. Unless Apple buys out Cineform, why should they be the ones trying to lift Cineform's products up. And as for making it a 'blessed' codec, until Cineform makes a Mac version, again, why should Apple get invovled? Maybe there could have been a better incorporated version of it for 5.1.2 had the Mac version been ready on time. So perhaps people could or should write to Apple about Cineform, but I think people need to wait for Cineform to get their $--- together first.

Mike, as for allowing DVCPro HD codec for Windows QT, I see your point on the business end of things. My personal desire to see it happen though would be so that I could provide my director's DVCPro HD footage to view on their Windows based Laptops, on the few occassions that I'd like to do so. Not to say that I don't turn around and tell them all to buy a MacBook Pro each time, but some people are handcuffed to Windows.

Also at the end of the day, it looks like people are just trying to get Apple to build this super all encompassing mega application that would leave no reason to have a rival (why build a rival application if FCP has everything possible?). So gotta ask, when on earth has any software developer ever done that? Each developer does its best to try and meet the demands of its customer base. Each time it makes a new version is customer base comes out with even more requests for new features. It then has to make decisions about which to develop and which not to develop. So sometimes it doesn't develop something that some people want. In this respect I don't see how Apple and FCP is different then anyone and everyone else out there. Its just a reality of software as far as I'm concerned. I'd like FCP to make me coffee and toast in the morning, but I think I'm a long way off from seeing that happen.

Oh and just a question, what's a wavelet?

cheers.
 
Hi Varicam! Cheers.
I feel sorta guilty here due to my headbanging over this QT issue, basically hijacking the thread.

Sorry!

from wikipedia:

In mathematics, wavelets, wavelet analysis, and the wavelet transform refers to the representation of a signal in terms of a finite length or fast decaying oscillating waveform (known as the mother wavelet). This waveform is scaled and translatedwavelet series, which is the coordinate representation of a square integrable function with respect to a complete, orthonormal set of basis functions for the Hilbert space of square integrable functions. Note that the wavelets in the JPEG2000 standard are biorthogonal wavelets, that is, the coordinates in the wavelet series are computed with a different, dual set of basis functions.
The word wavelet is due to Morlet and Grossman in the early 1980s. They used the French word ondelette, meaning "small wave". A little later it was transformed into English by translating "onde" into "wave", giving wavelet. Wavelet transforms are broadly classified into the discrete wavelet transform (DWT) and the continuous wavelet transform (CWT). The principal difference between the two is the continuous transform operates over every possible scale and translation whereas the discrete uses a specific subset of all scale and translation values.
[edit]

Using wavelet theory

Wavelet theory is applicable to several other subjects. All wavelet transforms may be considered to be forms of time-frequency representation and are, therefore, related to the subject of harmonic analysis. Almost all practically useful discrete wavelet transforms make use of filterbanks containing finite impulse response filters. The wavelets forming a CWT are subject to Heisenberg's uncertainty principle and, equivalently, discrete wavelet bases may be considered in the context of other forms of the uncertainty principle.



Outline of the wavelet theory

Wavelet transforms are broadly divided into three classes, the continuous wavelet transform, the discretised wavelet transform and multiresolution-based wavelet transforms.






Right! -;)

It's a clever encoding algorithm AFAIK.
Cineform, Redcode RAW and jpeg 2000 use different dialects of it.

From the little I understood from the text, it seems to make very scalable images as the basic form is not squares but rather "shapes".
(But I may be way off here....)


Gunleik
 
Ok, now describe "wavelets" in terms of how Cineform uses the word? Cause it's not the same as how physicist use it. I can talk fluff about AIC and other codecs, too. What exactly does it do for cross platform transfer of media, specifically? Not much, seeing as how Cineform can't make it work... yet...

FCP is QuickTime based, and Cineform is trying to build a QuickTime version of Cineform, and they are super late, and you all are trying to blame Apple, who has no control over what Cineform does.

Wavelet, blah, blah, blah, blah...

How does that really relate to our real world cross platform problem? It doesn't.

I admit, there's a cross platform problem. Nobody has a cross NLE HDV codec! Why? Cause every camera manufacturer had a different implementation of HDV. HDV is not a single universal. Intermediate codecs are usually written for the NLE, not to be cross platform.

So much is missing the point here...

But I think Varicamlife gives the best summary.

Why doesn't Microsoft come out with a universal codec that will work on the Mac? Their the worst offender of not porting codecs to other platforms!

Why does no other NLE's native HDV codec transfer seamlessly to any other NLE? Why do we need third party codecs like Cineform to do this? Don't say Apple doesn't do anything, cause Adobe doesn't do it either! No NLE needing to use Cineform has a cross NLE compatable HDV or DVCPRO-HD codec! XML is not a codec.

Why doesn't Grassvally? Why doesn't Avid? Why doesn't Apple? Think, people, just think for a moment. Maybe intermediate codecs native to an NLE are NLE specific, across the board?

Again, if you don't like Apple, don't use their products. I don't complain about the overwhelming and totally unjustifiable violence and graphic gross-out appeal that's proven bad for children on CSI, I just change the channel and don't let the kids watch it! Simple!

My point, if you bash Apple, bash every other NLE maker for doing the same thing. Apple is not alone in it's short comings on anything.

If you want Cineform on the Mac, go after Cineform who is the sole entity responsible for it, period.

Oh, maybe I should bash Microsoft cause Preimer Pro dosen't have the Apple AIC codec internally?

I'm done...
 
Last edited:
Ben.

Peace!

I happen to use apple products everywhere here. FCP Studio, Shake. I prefer Cubase to Logic, but that' s just a personal preferense. 4 laptops here, 4 at another place and an editing suite around a G5. I really like it -;)

I've also been actively selling apple solutions both to institutions, companies and private people.

And still: it's not perfect!

So if there are products and workflow I'd like to see improved, it is these tools I'd like to see improved. Not another.

QT does some stupid stuff.
Some are due to marketing. (Like dvcpro/mp3 things)
Others are probably due to QT serving a bigger specter of purposes and situation than what one once foresaw.
The needs for a homemade iMovie and peter Jackson for king kong in image controll and consitency ... differ.

It doesn't help that "so do all the others".

I agree - or rather I guess you're right. But so what?
To fix these things we have to ask Apple (if we really want them...)
And that's what their feedback pages are for. So I don't really see the big stir here.

Anyway

This one got much more heated than I ever foresaw.
I enjoy your knowledagable and clear answers arround here.

Let's not pick fights over how another company (Apple) runs its business!

Cheers!
Gunleik
 
Who seems to be some passion here. We now a beta versions of our Quicktime components on PC and alpha version for the Mac. The PC version it will allow even more tools to get access to our 10-bit workflows (Combustion for example can't use 10-bit AVIs, but it can with CineForm MOVs.) The Mac version allows files encoded on the PC to interoperate on the Mac. We still have more work on the Mac as FCP is lacking some the APIs for deep pixel processing (and Apple is doing their best to offer technical help, but their bandwidth is limited.) All the talk of HDV and DVCPRO-HD is missing the point, for much of the professional market 10-bit is a requirement, nor are the pro markets limited to 1440x1080, and there are not suitable cross playform solution. CineForm is working on bridge the gap without forcing people to use uncompressed. If you shot DVCPRO-HD, you are welcome to edit natively under FCP, we are targetting higher end applications -- HDSDI resolutions, 2K, 4K, film scans -- productions that need multiple platform support. We are a resolution, frame rate and color space independent, visually lossless compression solution. You would be surprised at the number of markets that can benefit.

As for the request to Apple, that can help all third party codec developers, which in turn helps filmmakers. This is what you can ask for, you don't need to drop our name. CineForm doesn't need custom help from Apple, FCP needs it RT engine to not give up when it sees a third party codec. Most other NLEs will at least play RT operations as fast as they can on third party media (see Sony Vegas for a good example.) FCP is in danger of not being up to date. As filmmakers move beyond P2 and HDV, FCP becomes an awkward solution. If you shoot with HDCAM, Infinity, Viper, Red One or SI-2K you can't use FCP RT features. As all of these shoot different compressed formats, a native solution for each is not practical, nor is mixing formats, this is the space for an intermediate compression solution.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top