Some mostly random discussion and workflow-oriented thoughts on using a mastering codec…

Traditionally (can there be much tradition here yet?), this would be used in a DI process when not going out to film. This is becoming quite common now as theater deliveries are becoming increasingly digital. You want something that hits film’s final resolution of approximately 1.5K and does that very well without being hugely taxing on space and processing power. Currently Cineform and DNxHD are the only codecs I know if being used in this process (caveat: I don’t work in Hollywoodland, this is only from what I read and hear about others doing).

Now, what about the rest of us indie types not going to film but to web, DVD and Blu-Ray? First of all, notice those three (only?) mediums. They’re delivery formats. Each has a different compression, codec, and bitrate. A master is a file you build your delivery formats from. But why not just make your delivery formats from the timeline you ask?

Speed

Let’s look at After Effects for our answer as it provides probably the easiest to understand example. When you render out a composition, you have the option of rendering to as many formats as you have on your system. If you were to duplicate that render to a different format each time, After Effects would render your composition each time. But there’s another option, an option to add a different output format under a single render instance. Add 15 different output formats here and After Effects will render only once. That saves a huge chunk of time!

Using a mastering codec for your finished movie out of the timeline utilizes the same concept: compile and render everything once and build different formats from there. Just for a test (and it’s never had a different result for me) take a timeline and render it twice to different formats. Then take the same timeline render it to your mastering codec and then build the other render from that. It WILL be faster.

Quality

I once built (since it was faster) a h.264 for the web from a blu-ray mpeg stream file. The result blew me away. I rendered the same h.246 file (same specs) from the timeline as a test and it didn’t look half as amazing. My friend was like, “of course.” Like it was something everyone knew.

One of the responsibilities of any film finisher (online editor) or filmmaker (if you’re the one man show) is to make sure that the final piece be it for the web, DVD, or wherever meets the proper technical requirements but looks as good as possible at the same time. Indeed, in the short two and half years doing this, I’ve always had the best looking file by going from the timeline to Cineform first.

An additional benefit, like speed, is when needing to go to multiple formats (as I do), you’re guaranteed a faster transcode/re-wrap, with a file you know has no errors in it and is the best-looking one you can get. And if something does arise, you can make changes to your delivery format much quicker with confidence knowing where the problem lies.

Longevity

Technology is changing and will continue to change rapidly. You’re single H.264, flv, or MPEG4 stream may not be able to play in 5-10 years. And what if you have to come back to that file to make a new copy for a new format? What if you can’t keep the project, but need to keep that master and want to maintain the highest level for future use? By always going to a master codec, you know that if you need anything in the future, you’re not going to be making one copy from another copy. And you always have the best quality file on hand for years to come.

Codecs

I won’t say certain codecs are the only mastering codecs out there, uncompressed is probably ideal, but impractical. So good compression, very high quality, full color space, platform agnostic and half-way decent on space are probably the main considerations. In this camp, I’m in favor of Cineform, and Avid’s DNxHD (probably in that order too). And you might have something else you’re okay with to use as master codec.

Edit: Like HuffYUV on Windows which I was just informed is a popular mastering codec, ProRes is Apple specific which means it doesn’t quite make my cut for a good master codec even though technically probably par with Cineform and Avid.

So give your thoughts if you have ‘em. This isn’t rule-of-law by any means…

Wikipedia Links on Codecs:
Cineform
Avid DNxHD
ProRes 444

Company Information on their Codecs:
Cineform
Avid DNxHD
ProRes 444

Tags: avid, cineform, dnxhd, prores, tech, workflow

I can’t really think of anything to prep this with so here’s some random thoughts on the Cairo post-production.

• Si-2K/Cineform workflow was really easy. The network connection freaked a couple times to the Cinedeck so the clip didn’t close out properly, but SI has a utility to fix that so no issues
• You need a really good lens for the SI. Nobody’d really tried what I was doing so there was no information on the EF mount for it. I took a risk and it didn’t work out so in a pinch I used primarily the Sigma 10-20…it was all I could get my hands on. It wasn’t good…obviously.
• The Ziess 50mm is really soft. I ran it F/1.8 but it didn’t sharpen up until around 2.2 or so. Back focus issue? I don’t know anything about that. The images weren’t as sharp as I wanted.
• The SI/Cinedeck Extreme color was dead on accurate to reality.
• The T2i color, even with the profile set way down was harsh, forced and well, colored improperly.
• 10 bit is the way to go. I don’t care how awesome your 8 bit camera is; 8 bit sucks balls in post. Not to mention you have banding and absolutely no gradients (comparatively speaking). Budget might keep you at 8 bit though and that’s understandable.
• I’m really bummed I don’t own the SI2K/Cinedeck combo. Financially it doesn’t make sense right now although I’d use it for absolutely everything.

…and speaking of color. Here’s a selection of before/afters on the first Cairo short:

Tags: cameras, cinedeck, cineform, color correction, documentary, SI2K, workflow

This is only really part of the workflow, but I just tested it on a small project tonight and it works! Cineform put up this post a couple days ago about conforming selects from FCP via XML using ReMaster. I saw it and thought, well, Premiere exports an FCP XML…

I’m VERY excited to say that it works! I had a 5 minute nested project that I edited in its native HDV .M2T form. I exported the project to an FCP XML then using the instructions on Cineform’s site, imported the XML into ReMaster.

What does this mean?

The currently accepted professional format for VFX (so I’ve read) is .DPX. This is also the preferred format for Davinci’s upcoming Resolve (so they told me at NAB). This now means you can edit in FCP, Avid, and Premiere and conform your files directly from your timeline to Cineform .DPX files for use in your VFX application or Resolve. A side benefit is being able to utilize First Light to adjust any bad white balances or lighting issues and during the process apply any looks as desired.

It also means you have Cineform’s damn good telecine and pulldown removal for your multi-format/frame rate files. Those nasty little projects you take on that make you pull your hair out. I’ve talked with many editors that have said, “yeah, I can edit this 60 stuff in my 24 timeline. But now what?” Well, this is your answer.

It also means you’ll save transcoding time of ALL clips prior to onlining by allowing only the files used only in the edit to be conformed and also saves time by being able to edit natively in your NLE (take note Premiere DSLR users).

Avid users I suspect will skip the pre-Resolve conform step as Resolve will more than likely take the .MXF files straight from Avid. But there are a whole crop or Premiere and FCP users that can really benefit from this. The caveat is that you need at least Neo4K for .DPX output. But I can do it for you as well And even grade it if you want.

Now, I’m surmising this will work based on how Cineform files already interact with every application and how Resolve specs out. Once I get a copy, I’ll test forthwith.

Tags: cineform, color correction, resolve, tech, workflow