Rethinking Cineform

Green Hornet

Green Hornet

Veteran
I use to think that Cineform codec was the best way to do things.
Against some of the senior guys on this forum, I archived all of my files
to this format.

Then the other day, I went to use my Desktop system which I hardly ever use
since I have a fast laptop that does most things well.

When trying to playback some footage, it asked me to register the Aspect HD software. Well being that I have moved since I last used this desktop, and since had 3 hard drives stolen or missing, and various other things out of reach,
it was nearly impossible to find the regestering software case, that held the code.

Then I recalled that I also put that info on a cd in a safety deposit box far far away.
I went to the location and brought back the cd.

Upon entering the code, it asked me for another code, A system code.
To obtain this code, I needed to send the info to Cineform and they would send me a code based on this info I provided Serial number plus id of the processor chip= sstem code or something to this effect.

About 24 hours later, I got the info, and it was a 68 digit code.....if I got one character incorrect, it would not work.
Not only that, but they would not even let me copy and past the entry. About another 30 minutes and 3 tries later, I
was able to view the footage.

Long story short,
This mayhem may not be the way I want to STORE my MASTERS.
If Cineform went out of business, I would have no way to get this info.
All of my footage would be at somone elses mercy.

For the price of the software, that just isn't cool.
If I pay for software, everything should be included to use it forever.
this re-activation and time wasted to do so, just is not cool.

Send me a dongle, or something, but relying on the manufacture to "be-home" when ever i need to run the software, just is not worth the quality of what it can do. I am looking into other file types, maybe tried and true avi's or movs is the best way to go.

I think I am done with Cineform.
 
Last edited:
One possible solution for this issue would be the creation of a decode-only version of the codec.

Canopus/Grass Valley has done this with the Canopus HQ codec, which allows you to view or otherwise process footage encoded with the Canopus HQ codec on a system that doesn't have the full Edius installation. If you want someone else to do post processing for you, do film out etc., they can do that as well -- they just can't encode to Canopus HQ.

All activation schemes and phone-home mechanism have the same drawbacks, when the infrastructure is not available for one reason or another (you're in the boonies without a 'net connection, the company tanked), you are SOL. Going with an established company and product also is no protection, now that Adobe owns Serious Magic, their automatic update check on startup (and manual check, too) no longer works.
 
Always archive your mxf files.

I'm sure David will have a suggestion about saving your masters.
 
Product Activation is evil on a philosophical level (you have to ask permission to use something you paid for...), but on a practical level, it just can't be trusted for anything that you use for business or revenue-generating activities.

Imagine what would happen if Cineform plain refused to reactivate your copy, saying that you've exceeded your allotted activations? Then you'd have no way of recovering your footage. That's insane.

The lack of Product Activation is one of the main reasons I chose Raylight. I can convert all of my footage into standalone Raylight AVIs, and as long as I don't lose the Raylight installer, I'll never have to worry about being able to read them.


More thoughts on Product Activation in an editorial I wrote for my site:
Product Activation: A Slippery Slope
 
I am pretty sure I read if you run a trial version of CineForm, even at expiration of the trial, the decoder for playback remains active.

Not had this issue, so I will leave this for David to confirm. :beer:
 
They suposedly have a player to paly the files, but has anyone actually had any sucess installing or using the NEO player?

For that they even want you to register, and then they say they will give you a link to download, but I , so far, have not received the link.

A friend of mine gave me the installation file and after installing, It never worked for playing files. I can't even show my footage to others.


I just shot some footage as a second camera man for a movie, and they want me to send the files on a hard drive. One of the directors wanted MOV files to look at some of the footage, the rest were to be sent as MXF files to the editor.

I don't really work with MOV files, but coneform has a conversion for doing that, so I transcoded them into cineform MOV files.
I looked on Cineform's site and they have a mac beta viewer/codec. I copied the address and sent that to the director, but I am not too sure how he is feeling about going through the whole regestration process, of giving all your info and then waiting to be e-mailed a link for downloading.

Anyway, my point is that the cineform "process" for obtaining software is too much for me, and others to want to go through when you have to pay so much for the software.
I use to hate dongles, but i would much rather use a dongle and know it will always work, than to count on e-mail confirmation to use software.
 
I like the CineForm codec for my post use, however, I can see your situation may cause some irritation to you and third parties/client. Perhaps this kind of feedback is good for CineForm to listen to and perhaps move forward adapting to user demands, whilst protecting their intellectual property.

CineForm NEO Player/Decoder
 
Green Hornet said:
I use to hate dongles, but i would much rather use a dongle and know it will always work, than to count on e-mail confirmation to use software.
Click to expand...

Agreed! At least with dongles, the responsibility to keep the dongle safe (and your software working) lies with you the user, rather than with a company that may or may not be around in the future. While dongles aren't a good solution, I would much rather see companies use them instead of Product Activation.
 
Sorry to here about all this, but licensing is not the issue.

Our decoders are not licensed protected, they are free and work as long as your computer does. This weekend was not typical for CineForm as we were all involved in the local 48 Hour film project, we now upconverting 50 films for HD projection. Somewhere in the last few days the email server went down causing you inability to get NEO Player, and were all so busy to notice -- this will need to be addressed. I'm will see that the NEO Player link is exposed with requiring your email address -- we only do that for marketing purposes, anyway.

The only limitation to NEO Player is it requires an SSE2 equipped PC -- maybe this was the issue -- are you running an old Althon XP?

Regarding archiving, they are tools and features in the works that will make you want to keep everything in CineForm. Long term archive is a market we a very concerned with, even addressing older and unsupported computer architectures.
 
I find all of the details concerning activation and moving from one machine to another an enormous pain. It often causes me to change my workflow to avoid having to do it.

In a real world working environment, I have to allow extra time to make all this work and all I get out of all this keystroking is a product that should work and be available 24/7 without all the drama.

Yes. It makes me cranky.
 
Bottom line, if I purchased the software, I would simply like to use it forever
(don't expec to get new features without paying for them), I don't want to be married to a guy granting me the right to activate. Too many dot coms going out of business for that to be wise, especially for archiving.

Cineform seems to be a good product, in everything except activation, reactivation and the like. Who's idea was it to have a 68 keystroke activation code? Why not 102 keystroke, or 400 keystroke? You seem to alienate the people you are attempting to serve.

I use to hate dongles, but if I can have that and everything always work, that is better for me.

I almost bought 2k, but I can't see spending that much on a software that can suddenly no longer work due to inability to activate it.
What ever happened to the days of just installing the software and that is it?
Your disk/software should be your registration code.

There has to be a better way.
 
Speaking of archiving, I am finally getting around to moving a couple of projects (edited in PremPro w/Cineform Prospect) and all the related injested clips to an external hard drive. I'm assuming that it will be a simple matter of using the AAF feature in the project then drag that folder to the external hard drive and also drag or send the clips into their own folder on the external. Is this too simple or am I missing any steps?
 
Green Hornet said:
Bottom line, if I purchased the software, I would simply like to use it forever
Click to expand...

Why is this so unreasonable to people? Whenever I make this argument, the default response I get is "why would you want to use old, outdated software?" My answer: BECAUSE I PAID FOR IT!!!

It isn't asking too much that software you buy continue to function as originally advertised two decades later. We aren't talking about a product with moving parts, or something physical that will wear out. As long as your computer still functions (or you have access to a compatible replacement), it is reasonable to assume that your software purchase will continue to function. Just because an application is considered end-of-life or unsupported doesn't mean you should suddenly lose the ability to use what you bought.

And the first person to tell me "you don't buy software, you just buy a license to use it" is going to get a virtual internet-forum kick in the groin. Any purchase funded by physical, real-world funds aught to come with some physical, real world rights.

For those interested, here is a list of reasons Why Product Activation is Bad
 
Last edited:
I wish there is was a better way that worked. However, activation is not all bad, it allows for fully featured trials, and it allows for electronic distribution which reduces the cost of software. Our activation is equivalent to the tools our software is used with -- Premiere, Vegas, After Effect, Combustion etc -- so we are all guilty of this type of protection. But our customer support is much better than the large companies. When I saw the concern of G.H's with getting the NEO Player download, the web site was change the next day -- now the direct link is exposed and no more registration is required. I would love to have software in the clear with zero protection, but I company is too small to experiment with the business model of shareware (pay us if you like us.) Film and TV production is an expensive business, where people have little concerns with spending on hardware (the ultimate dongle), but software is it an after thought to many. We have software that makes your expensive hardware work for you better, so we are just looking for ways to protect our efforts -- but we are always open to new ideas.
 
David Newman said:
However, activation is not all bad, it allows for fully featured trials, and it allows for electronic distribution which reduces the cost of software.
Click to expand...

Product Activation, when used exclusively for trial versions of software, isn't an unacceptable measure. After all, the "customer" hasn't paid for anything yet, so they have no expectation that their trial software work forever. But using it for the actual version being sold is a different matter entirely.

David Newman said:
Our activation is equivalent to the tools our software is used with -- Premiere, Vegas, After Effect, Combustion etc -- so we are all guilty of this type of protection.
Click to expand...

Yes, and that's why I won't buy any of them. :laugh: Actually, Sony Vegas (at least as of version 6, which I own) does not require activation to use the product, only to use the Mpeg2 and AC3 encoders. Since I don't need this functionality (and I knew this going in), I have happily run my un-activated copy of Vegas for a year now. The lack of mandatory activation (and the fact that it would work on Windows 2000, the last version of Windows that doesn't have activation) is the main reason I chose Vegas.

David Newman said:
But our customer support is much better than the large companies.
Click to expand...

This is certainly true. The mere fact you're having this conversation demonstrates you are willing to work with your customers, and even people like me, who haven't bought anything from you. That is certainly a step in the right direction.


David Newman said:
I would love to have software in the clear with zero protection, but I company is too small to experiment with the business model of shareware (pay us if you like us.)
Click to expand...

The choice isn't between shareware and activation, it is between respecting your customer's rights, and restricting them.

There's no need to release a fully functional version of Cineform without any restrictions, and simply hope people pay. You could still use activation in the trial version, if you like. Or simply do what DVFilm does, and have the demo create a watermark. The trial of Raylight was more than useful enough for me to decide to buy it, yet DVFilm didn't have to worry about me not paying.




Moreover, if you are especially concerned about unauthorized distribution, I have another suggestion for you:

In traditional activation, the software generates a key based on the user's hardware, and sends it back to the vendor. This key is then combined with a master key, and creates an unlock code that unlocks the software. If the user's hardware changes, this code will no longer function.

Instead of using a key based on the user's hardware, why not use a key based on the user's Social Security Number? When the user installs the software, they have to provide it their SS#, which the software uses to generate the key. The user can then send this key to you (via phone or the internet), where you combine it with the master key to produce an unlock code. The user uses this unlock code to "activate" the software.

The advantage to this approach is simple: the user can simply write down their unlock code, and they'll be able to reinstall the software in the future without your assistance or permission.

If the customer decides to distribute unauthorized copies, he/she'll also have to distribute their Social Security Number, because without it the unlock code won't match the original key, and the software won't "activate."

If people are forced to give out their Social Security Numbers in order to distribute unauthorized copies, they will be much, much less likely to do so. Sure, they could always register with phony numbers, but you could always make them fax in a copy of their Social Security Card to verify.

If an unauthorized copy turns up online or on file sharing networks, it will have to be accompanied by a SS# (real or fake) in order for it to be used. So even if someone manages to register with a phony number, if you find it on the internet, you can simply lock out that particular registration from ever being able to get updates, support, etc.



Honestly, I think my suggestion above is overkill. DVFilm doesn't use ANY kind of unlock key for Raylight. All they do is register your email address in order for you to get updates. And you don't see bootleg copies of Raylight causing them to lose business. I urge you to follow their lead, and respect your customer's rights to use what they paid for without relying on you to do so.



Should you drop Product Activation from Cineform, let me know, and I will instantly buy a copy. It seems to be an otherwise quality product.
 
Sounds like you are mixing two slightly different issues, activation and node locking. Activation itself is not the problem. The real issue is node locking, how many computers can a piece of software be installed and run similtaneously. Whether you using a hardware generated key like a Mac address or CPU ID, or a users SS#, you are trying to limit the number installs. Most commerical software user agreement's are one license is one install, the difference is some software tries to test for this and others do not. We set our activation server for two installs for products like Aspect HD, but the agreement is still officially for one. Once activated there is no commutation with the license server -- the software is yours. If users didn't find using their SS# offensive (I would, plus we aren't all American's, I'm not), the license would allow a user to install on any number of system there care to, this is a different license with a different value -- now with some solutions that is fine, others not so. When you purchase a camera from Panasonic, you don't expect to be able to borrow a second from Panasonic whenever you need a two camera shoot. In some ways personal node locking, where the license is tighed to the user, would be acceptable to a company like CineForm, but no one has worked out a way to do that -- the poor solution is a dongle, but they are too easy to lose, annoying and don't allow simultateous operations by a single user. Do you expect that simultaneous operation is an expected function for your software licenses? If yes, software prices would go up, but so would your freedoms. So the real issue is hardware node locking, this works fine on a computer that lasts for forever, yet computers tend to fail and undergo upgrades. To compensate for upgrades, nearly everything must change, MAC ID, CPU ID, Motherboard ID, etc., before the software "thinks" it is a new install, we are very flexible on this. Moving a license is also allows deactivation from one system and activation on another as an automatic procedure. So you can see we are trying, and not inherently evil.

If you want to purchase a piece on software looked your name and faxed SS# (or were you kidding?), I will consider it, but make it something of significant value, as personal node locking requires a custom software build. I'm interested in finding a solution, but a approach you may see elsewhere is not always a good fit. DVFilm/Raylight is a smaller operation with a film recording business, software losses to piracy as still advertisment for the rest of the business. Software sales are CineForm's only income, you (the end) help us have the confidence to not do hardware node locking, and then of we will offer that solution. I believe if there is a solution out there for this, that itself is likely a good business idea. So please, send more ideas.
 
Last edited:
David Newman said:
Sounds like you are mixing two slightly different issues, activation and node locking. Activation itself is not the problem. The real issue is node locking, how many computers can a piece of software be installed and run similtaneously. Whether you using a hardware generated key like a Mac address or CPU ID, or a users SS#, you are trying to limit the number installs.
Click to expand...

Your definition of "node locking" is the definition of "Product Activation" as I've always understood it. But yes, we are speaking of the same thing, regardless of the term -- limiting the number of installs using a technological method.


David Newman said:
If users didn't find using their SS# offensive (I would, plus we aren't all American's, I'm not), the license would allow a user to install on any number of system there care to, this is a different license with a different value -- now with some solutions that is fine, others not so.
Click to expand...

Very good point about the SS# not working for non-US citizens. That kills that idea. I hadn't even considered that. Kinda short-sighted of me, eh?

As for the license limiting the number of installs, I've always believed that licenses should place limits on distribution, not use. One should be able to install the software on as many machines as they see fit, provided all of these systems are under their control. The limit should be on the number of simultaneous users, not machines. So I should be able to install a product on each machine I own, and I should be able to let my friends use this software as well. But as soon as I want them to be able to use it *at the same time as myself*, I should have to buy an extra license. So I suppose I'm advocating a "per seat" license rather than a "per machine" one. In this case, allowing someone to use the software at the same time as yourself would be a type of "distribution" and therefore prohibited without a separate license.

After all, it is generally not practical for me to use more than one machine at the same time to run two copies concurrently. But it is silly for me to have to uninstall my software from one machine, and then reinstall it on another just to use a different box myself.


David Newman said:
Do you expect that simultaneous operation is an expected function for your software licenses? If yes, software prices would go up, but so would your freedoms.
Click to expand...

I don't expect the license to allow simultaneous operation, no. But I do expect the software to be physically capable of it. At some point, software developers are going to have to trust that their customers are obeying the license agreements. Sure, there will be some people who simply ignore them, and install on multiple machines, even when the EULA says you can't. But making the software stop you from doing so only hurts the rest of us who actually respect the license agreements and pay for their software.

I'd rather see the price of the software go up, if simultaneous operation is protected. Though as I said, I'm more concerned with the technological matter than the license. A dongle doesn't allow simultaneous operation, but it still allows for the software to be installed on multiple machines, without asking permission to do so. So a dongle, while not ideal, is still ethically acceptable.


David Newman said:
If you want to purchase a piece on software looked your name and faxed SS# (or were you kidding?), I will consider it, but make it something of significant value, as personal node locking requires a custom software build.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't ask you, or any other programmer to create a special piece of software just for me just to avoid Product Activation myself. While I would certainly support a non-activation oriented version of Cineform by purchasing it, such a version should be available to all customers, not just myself.


David Newman said:
So please, send more ideas.
Click to expand...

David, I really appreciate your dialog here. While I disagree with your choice to include activation in Cineform, the fact that you're willing to discuss alternatives is a big deal, and it does not go unnoticed.

I will indeed continue to send more ideas, though I think it more appropriate to continue this dialog via Private Message.
 
Let me first say that I too am a Cineform customer. I also agree with Tony, and after reading this thread will admit that I am now very concerned about how I archive projects.

Realistically speaking, it's not inconceivable that your products could become uneccessary as hardware continues to improve, or that a similar functionality gets built in to NLE software.

However, I guess the issue as I see it, is who do you distrust more - your customers, or your non-customers?

DRM only works for honest people anyway. As an example, CS3 is already cracked.

The people who buy Cineform products, are IMO, the exact same people who are likely to upgrade hardware frequently, which means they are the ones most inconvienenced. Most of us also produce copyrighted material, so I think the respect for your copyright is greater.

As good as David and his staff are in providing great customer service (better than any software company I've ever dealt with), I would still encourage Cineform to find a less onerous method of protecting its rights. The savings in customer support may be worth it.
 
Last edited:
Pcascio,

If you read though this thread you should see that archiving of project is in no danger, in fact as a result of this thread CineForm has made sure of that but putting the download link in the clear, no license, no registration, you're free to download. But all our decoders have been unprotected (no activation) for years, even if you had no active CineForm license you can open a old CineForm project in Premiere, you just can create new CineForm files, but can create anything else. We even allow anyone to use CineForm files without ever having a CineForm license, we are pretty open on this. So please don't continue that false assumption.

As for activation, yes we have always had that (only on the encoder and RT effects) although with most other commercial software. And yes we are willing to investigate other ideas, but remember we are not Adobe or Apple, one misstep over licensing could be the end of small company like CineForm, yet a company like Adobe would just see small drop is revenue, followed by an increase in customers that would pay off in 3-5 years. Piracy is the reason Windows and Photoshop and in the lead postition there are today, but Adobe and Microsoft, even back then, are thousands of times bigger than us. See, I'm on your side with this issue, making software widely available is a good thing in the long term. I just need a strategy that doesn't risk killing revenues, even in the short term, something more than anecdotal that says the customers will love you and buy more as a result. That is a good idea, but it very hard to undo if it doesn't work. Do you see my position?
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top