F55: Vote for Prores

What editing software are you using that you can only import prores in one step and not other codecs? I think asking camera manufacturers to add a codec because you have obsolete software isn't very efficient.
 
Last edited:
Richard Allen Crook said:
What editing software are you using that you can only import prores in one step and not other codecs? I think asking camera manufacturers to add a codec because you have obsolete software isn't very efficient.
Click to expand...
Personally, I use a strange combination of FCP 7, FCP X, and Adobe Premiere CS6.....depending on the situation. Adobe CS6 does not work with XAVC and (I assume) support will not be added as Adobe wants to move people to its 'cloud' based option (which really has almost nothing 'cloud' based about it, and is instead a subscription 'rental' model). A recent survey of Adobe users was done, and 31% of Adobe users surveyed said they will 'never' move to Creative Cloud. Now they will eventually probably move to other, newer NLE's but for now, it indicates a sizable number of people who would be able to edit with ProRes and not with XAVC. Whether you think that is 'inefficient' or not, it seems to me to indicate there is a market there....

http://news.investors.com/technology-click/121113-682544-adobe-systems-set-to-report-q4-earnings.htm#ixzz2nH6nqiuS
 
Last edited:
alaskacameradude said:
Personally, I use a strange combination of FCP 7, FCP X, and Adobe Premiere CS6.....depending on the situation. Adobe CS6 does not work with XAVC and (I assume) support will not be added as Adobe wants to move people to its 'cloud' based option (which really has almost nothing 'cloud' based about it, and is instead a subscription 'rental' model). A recent survey of Adobe users was done, and 31% of Adobe users surveyed said they will 'never' move to Creative Cloud. Now they will eventually probably move to other, newer NLE's but for now, it indicates a sizable number of people who would be able to edit with ProRes and not with XAVC. Whether you think that is 'inefficient' or not, it seems to me to indicate there is a market there...http://news.investors.com/technolog...s-set-to-report-q4-earnings.htm#ixzz2nH6nqiuS
Click to expand...


Completely understandable and I don't disagree with ANYTHING you just said. The question was posed to Mitch, who said he doesn't hire anyone who won't provide certain files (prores and I'm assuming MXF to Avid) that he can't import in one step. This is the inefficiency I was referring to....to only accept what your limited NLE can import "in one step." That's like me saying I have Premiere 2.0 and only accept AVI files or you "dont get the job." If you don't want to accept certain files from DPs because you don't have the proper software then that's your right I guess...but its silly to demand such things from camera manufacturers if the only reason for doing so is this strange refusal to move over CC. Make sense?

There is also a market for Final Cut 7 users...as there are still tons of them out there....but that doesn't make it efficient to continue to support an obsolete system at the camera manufacturer level. I was on a project recently that used DV tape. If that's what they want then that's what they'll get...I don't really care but don't tell me that Sony needs to go out and make the F55 with a DV tape slot.

I think I have a valid point. If you refuse to update your software then the only person to blame is yourself for not being able to import new and efficient codecs. ProRes is fantastic, but it's also HUGE. If H265 or XAVC is more efficient, keeping the 10 bit 4:2:2 and all that at a third of the file size...what's wrong with that? Just upgrade your software and stop spending tons of money on storage drives. Stop pushing for these older codecs that hog up disk space and start supporting the newer efficient codecs.
 
Last edited:
Richard Allen Crook said:
Completely understandable and I don't disagree with ANYTHING you just said. The question was posed to Mitch, who said he doesn't hire anyone who won't provide certain files (prores and I'm assuming MXF to Avid) that he can't import in one step. This is the inefficiency I was referring to....to only accept what your limited NLE can import "in one step." That's like me saying I have Premiere 2.0 and only accept AVI files or you "dont get the job." If you don't want to accept certain files from DPs because you don't have the proper software then that's your right I guess...but its silly to demand such things from camera manufacturers if the only reason for doing so is this strange refusal to move over CC. Make sense?

There is also a market for Final Cut 7 users...as there are still tons of them out there....but that doesn't make it efficient to continue to support an obsolete system at the camera manufacturer level. I was on a project recently that used DV tape. If that's what they want then that's what they'll get...I don't really care but don't tell me that Sony needs to go out and make the F55 with a DV tape slot.

Anyway I'm not going to argue about it...I think I have a VERY valid point and don't want to exhaust myself arguing this. Bottom line if you refuse to update your software then the only person to blame is yourself for not being able to import new and efficient codecs. Period. PreRes is fantastic, but it's also HUGE. If H265 or XAVC is more efficient, keeping the 10 bit 4:2:2 and all that at a third of the file size...what's wrong with that? Just upgrade your software and stop spending tons of money on storage drives. Stop pushing for these codecs that hog up disk space and start supporting the newer efficient codecs.
Click to expand...

Not to be argumentative, but it seems to me that although new codecs may be better and more efficient (as you said
and I happen to agree) that if there are a lot of people still using outdated NLE's....there is a market there. Now it it is
obviously up to camera manufacturers to do what they want, but usually if there is a market, they will want to tap into it.

As for what Mitch said, I have worked on 5 fairly big productions this year.....a couple as DIT and a couple as AC.
And all of them wanted ProRes. A lot of them can't just 'change direction' as quickly as us smaller guys as it means
a lot of new computers and NLEs. They would rather stick with 'tried and true' (not to mention already paid for.)
That is just the truth of the matter accept it or not. And I don't think anyone is pushing for XAVC or H.265 to
go away....they want ProRes in addition to it. Just because you personally see no need for it, does not mean
many others don't need it. All of us have different needs and priorities. I see no reason not to help out
'the other guys' even if I don't need a feature, as long as it can be done. Offer it as a paid upgrade and
only those that need it will be charged....doesn't that sound like a fair solution?
 
alaskacameradude said:
Not to be argumentative, but it seems to me that although new codecs may be better and more efficient (as you said
and I happen to agree) that if there are a lot of people still using outdated NLE's....there is a market there. Now it it is
obviously up to camera manufacturers to do what they want, but usually if there is a market, they will want to tap into it.

As for what Mitch said, I have worked on 5 fairly big productions this year.....a couple as DIT and a couple as AC.
And all of them wanted ProRes. A lot of them can't just 'change direction' as quickly as us smaller guys as it means
a lot of new computers and NLEs. They would rather stick with 'tried and true' (not to mention already paid for.)
That is just the truth of the matter accept it or not. And I don't think anyone is pushing for XAVC or H.265 to
go away....they want ProRes in addition to it. Just because you personally see no need for it, does not mean
many others don't need it. All of us have different needs and priorities. I see no reason not to help out
'the other guys' even if I don't need a feature, as long as it can be done. Offer it as a paid upgrade and
only those that need it will be charged....doesn't that sound like a fair solution?
Click to expand...

My vote is NO, it's not fair. I want manufacturers to concentrate of making cameras, not appeasing outdated users. Sorry, i just don't agree! The title asked for a vote, and that is mine. I want better dynamic range, more efficient codecs, internal 10bit that doesn't fill up all my hard drives, etc etc. That is what mfr's should focus on. Go get a hyperdeck or blade if you want to record to an old codec...that's fair isn't it? :)
 
Also I would like to point out that Prores is NOT the "industry standard" for acquisition. Funny how it's the people who use it are the ones who always say that. The Apple Final Cut users say Prores is the all-be-all standard. People who use Avid say that about DNxHD. Yet only ONE camera in existence records to one of those codecs. Hmmmm let's think about that one for a sec! That means that it MAY be an intermediate codec standard but then again many houses use DPX or DNG files too. But to say it's the acquisition standard while only one camera in existence shoots to Prores is silly.

EDIT: I just thought of Alexa and BMCC...two cams that shoot to ProRes.
 
Last edited:
Richard Allen Crook said:
My vote is NO, it's not fair. I want manufacturers to concentrate of making cameras, not appeasing outdated users. Sorry, i just don't agree! The title asked for a vote, and that is mine. I want better dynamic range, more efficient codecs, internal 10bit that doesn't fill up all my hard drives, etc etc. That is what mfr's should focus on. Go get a hyperdeck or blade if you want to record to an old codec...that's fair isn't it? :)
Click to expand...

Just to be clear, The original point to this thread was to point anyone with an interest in PRORES to an active thread over at the Sony community forum.

The desire for PRORES dosen't come from owner operators themselves. It stems from the clients we have to work for. Just yesterday I was handed a memo from post, to a client....... it stated the XAVC is "buggy" and not prefferable. Now before we all start shouting, I know full well that the reason this post facility are claiming XAVC is buggy is because most of the seats on their server based NLE are not current, and therefore they have only one or two worstations that can handle XAVC. Even if those two workstations are dedicated to cutting this project, they'll still be doing a transcode to send it to the Audio mix, and then the Online.

Watching this discussion on both forums, they guys who don't get what the fuss is about and really aren't interested in PRORES are those who have some level of control over their post workflow. ie those who are doing post themselves. For those of us that have clients that do their own post (broadly speaking larger companies) we are more at their mercy, and it can be hard to get this camera on the job if post (who are all powerful because effectively they are the client) deem it too hard.

Personally I bought this camera becasue I hope it will have slightly longer longevity in the market, and it'll make reasonable ROI. The type of jobs I work on tend to be with larger crews and therefore the reliability of the camera system is paramount (more $$ buring every minute on set). External recorders hanging off the side of the camera will make poeple nervous, and increase the probability of problems.

I have no idea of the technical feasability of implimenting and additional codec in a camera once it is released, but I would suspect it's something Sony isn't going to spend a great deal of time on. If it's easy, and Sony hear from their customers that it would add value to the camera, maybe they'll impliment it. One thing is certain, if Sony don't hear from their customers what we need we're never going to get the gear that works for us.
 
brad smith said:
External recorders hanging off the side of the camera will make poeple nervous, and increase the probability of problems.
Click to expand...

I had a Samurai mounted to the rear of my F3 for about two years because I wanted a 10-bit codec. It was not in the way, it never failed, and it didn't add to the hassle of any shoots. So if someone really feels they need to have ProRes, there are plenty of external recorders that can be attached almost invisibly to the rig. And in the case of the Samurai (I'd buy a Blade today) the price is under $1000 plus SSD. A simple solution for those that need it.
But I'd never use ProRes now even if my F55 had it because XAVC is so much better. In fact, most of my shoots are XAVC 4K. ProRes is a step backwards. A little client education does wonders.
 
Last edited:
You know what would ensure the continuation of post-houses forcing DPs to turn in Prores files? Altering cameras to include a dying codec to appease their laziness and/or lack of updated software.
 
Richard Allen Crook said:
You know what would ensure the continuation of post-houses forcing DPs to turn in Prores files? Altering cameras to include a dying codec to appease their laziness and/or lack of updated software.
Click to expand...


Nobody is forcing anything. Post houses have leverage as the client, they will simply choose the format they prefer to work with, and if I won't offer it or want to work with it, they'll choose someone who will. History is pretty clear about what happens to companies who dictate to the market rather than respond to the market. Free market economics means that whoever is offering the product/format/codec that the client desires will get the work.

It's also worth realising that even if, right now they don't know what's good for them, and they want to work in an old data heavy codec, they'll more than likely accept the camera now (which is all i really care about), and sooner or later see the advantage, and migrate to the newer smarter codec.

I find the way post dictate formats as tedious and frustrating as the next guy, I just realise, the easier I make it for them, the better off I am.
 
Okay now we're getting into the fundamentals of the free-market system and economics and how it dictates camera codecs. I'm going to bed. Good luck guys! Keep the prores fight alive!
 
Last edited:
Richard Allen Crook said:
Excuse me, a bunch of people in this thread have said that the post houses are dictating to them what codecs they use. That is forcing it. It had never happened to me because I guess the post houses I work with are capable of transcoding their own material. I don't know where you guys get this from or what companies you work with but I think you are under the impression that post houses somehow to dictate where the market goes and what codecs manufacturers use. I think you are wrong on so many levels I don't even know where to begin I guess I'll go ahead and leave you to your own devices. Good luck!
Click to expand...

It's almost enough to make me break my NDA, just to tell you who some of these 'unprofessional'
post houses are. Alas, I know better than to do that, one good way to earn a bad name is to break
an NDA. Another way is for me to dictate to a big post house what they should do.

'Excuse me but you should just use XAVC, it's a much better codec and uses less space too and......
Hello?......Hello?'

'Hey Joe, you won't believe what this stupid moron from podunk Alaska was trying to tell me.
As if he'd know more than the editor, what an idiot. Call the next guy on the list.'

Think that doesn't happen? Mitch is right, it happens all the time.....and with big, well known
guys too. Glad it's not happening to you. My vote remains yes.
 
alaskacameradude said:
It's almost enough to make me break my NDA, just to tell you who some of these 'unprofessional'
post houses are. Alas, I know better than to do that, one good way to earn a bad name is to break
an NDA. Another way is for me to dictate to a big post house what they should do.

'Excuse me but you should just use XAVC, it's a much better codec and uses less space too and......
Hello?......Hello?'

'Hey Joe, you won't believe what this stupid moron from podunk Alaska was trying to tell me.
As if he'd know more than the editor, what an idiot. Call the next guy on the list.'

Think that doesn't happen? Mitch is right, it happens all the time.....and with big, well known
guys too. Glad it's not happening to you. My vote remains yes.
Click to expand...

As I've mentioned before I am not denying that this happens. It is happened to me as well. But to tell a camera manufacturer to start adding codecs because of this? I don't think the majority camera users run into this problem. I think a select few. You guys make it sound like everyone who uses these cams are going through this. Majority dictates the free market and all that. I just don't think the majority has this problem.
 
"If you can't deliver files to ingest in one step into our AVID (or in the case of ProRes, our FCP) system, then you don't get the job."

AVID MC 7 ingests just about anything, and spits out just about anything. However AVID will not output ProRes. I do have one broadcast client who requests ProRes, and we shoot on DPX or DnX and either grade, edit, or both in AVID, then do a quick transcode to ProRes in Compressor. I don't like to record in ProRes as I don't think it is as good as DnX, definitely not on par with Dpx. I work closely with a major post house and they have nothing but good to say about XAVC. If I get a 55 for Xmas, I'll find out for myself.
 
I find conversion from 4k XAVC to ProRes very fast using FCP X, which is what I do if I'm just handing footage over and that's the format they want. Then there is also using Davinci to do it.

Lots of options exist. Does it need to be in-camera? I think first the F5/F55 needs to finally create some killer gamma profiles like Alexa, so if you do have an option to output to ProRes it doesn't have to be in silly slog2 all the time.

That's my 2 cents.
 
I'm using XAVC and am very happy with the grade-ability of it. I've pulled out the Samurai for an F5 ProRes project once. 100mbs vs 220mbs is a BIG difference too. Within a year FCP7 will be gone and every NLE will accept XAVC. Just my prediction. :thumbsup:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top