Return-Path: Received: from mail-qe0-f50.google.com ([209.85.128.50] verified) by media-motion.tv (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 4.2.10) with ESMTP-TLS id 5154335 for AE-List@media-motion.tv; Wed, 24 Jul 2013 20:08:51 +0200 Received: by mail-qe0-f50.google.com with SMTP id k5so3280328qej.9 for ; Wed, 24 Jul 2013 11:20:06 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :content-type; bh=1Tcbkk+leCH7dyhuNBbTA73lm96ozTbJKSbA8UBpfyE=; b=LvlMLw8cEi1aArhXpv1pppctQ69xkaTjRZYf2/l5rGVwYOVVKJAUOvi4RvarapONFW mylyzA1jNI2P+njt0pGcvIfFt3ZVDD6Yvsck29HC0LY+1WsXsDr5aTRoaxl94hV3DEQ4 pWNayXxfgreJPiNtXwhcM738nmx2WDg0UhacPZS/p5ig3caI/AxHkadLIhiFQ+PeA1R+ nu0bYWhZbjbepwbo9rAV1qDY9IYUhsRm69IXGg2hZwAuzYzddbYPkGs6XBAzR+eRfBB/ Jam1PAfQF74AV2+Xgg1p1HuDHwWbrXbQNyiSmANbmYL2ocQNkM7yZJJyAbpBZVsyNxn+ GBHQ== X-Received: by 10.49.58.134 with SMTP id r6mr15880546qeq.27.1374690006111; Wed, 24 Jul 2013 11:20:06 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.49.41.70 with HTTP; Wed, 24 Jul 2013 11:19:24 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: From: Teddy Gage Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2013 14:19:24 -0400 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [AE] lossless codec in a container roundup To: After Effects Mail List Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=047d7b6dd1327d9c9404e245f56e --047d7b6dd1327d9c9404e245f56e Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 I love this idea even as just a personal, lasting storage format for personal use. I have tons of minidv .avis I've been backing up on multiple drives for years. If I tell another editor I'm providing graphics for, and it is smaller with same quality, and there are easy plugins for support, I see no reason why it couldn't take off. And by the way, I am seeing more and more houses switch to premiere instead of adopting FCP X On Tue, Jul 23, 2013 at 9:55 PM, Chris Zwar wrote: > From: Robert Kjettrup [mailto:robert@stvmayday.dk] > It looks like it has all the features needed in production so what is > holding it back? > > The quality of something doesn't relate to market acceptance, not sure if > it's marketing 101 or economics 101 or something else, but there are plenty > of examples out there where better technology has failed. Commonly cited > examples are VHS over Beta, the QWERTY keyboard layout, and if you're up > for a flame war then you can try Mac vs Windows, x86 chips vs all other > architectures and so on. > > The acceptance of a video codec is primarily determined by video editors > and content distributors. Practically all video editors either use Final > Cut or Avid and so in production all you will commonly find is ProRes or an > Avid codec. For distribution then MPEG2 and h264 are used professionally, > but even the popularity of torrents has made xvid in mkv containers > relatively common. > > It doesn't matter how amazing a new codec will be, gaining mainstream > acceptance will be a real struggle as long as there is no impetus to change > from the current way of doing things, even MP3 is still a common audio > format. If the BBC can't get their own codec more widely accepted then > there's little hope for alternatives that don't even have a springboard to > launch from. > > Something new will need to fill a market niche. A new codec that has all > the features of ProRes 4444 but is cross platform will be welcomed, > especially by windows users. But (just as a an example) a new codec that > is just like ProRes 422 but is Mac only won't succeed, because there's no > reason to use it and not ProRes 422 even if it is open source and free. > Getting everyone to change the way they work, and to get editors to move > away from established workflows will require more than an open source > licence. > > > -Chris > > > > +---End of message---+ > To unsubscribe send any message to > -- Animator & Editor www.teddygage.com Brooklyn --047d7b6dd1327d9c9404e245f56e Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
I love this idea even as just a personal, lasting storage = format for personal use. I have tons of minidv .avis I've been backing = up on multiple drives for years. If I tell another editor I'm providing= graphics for, and it is smaller with same quality, and there are easy plug= ins for support, I see no reason why it couldn't take off. And by the w= ay, I am seeing more and more houses switch to premiere instead of adopting= FCP X


On Tue,= Jul 23, 2013 at 9:55 PM, Chris Zwar <chris@chriszwar.com>= wrote:
From: Robert Kjettrup [mailto:robert@stvmayday.dk]
It looks like it has all the features needed in productio= n so what is holding it back?

The quality of something doesn't relate to market acceptance, not= sure if it's marketing 101 or economics 101 or something else, but the= re are plenty of examples out there where better technology has failed. =A0= Commonly cited examples are VHS over Beta, the QWERTY keyboard layout, and = if you're up for a flame war then you can try Mac vs Windows, x86 chips= vs all other architectures and so on.

The acceptance of a video codec is primarily determined by video editors an= d content distributors. =A0Practically all video editors either use Final C= ut or Avid and so in production all you will commonly find is ProRes or an = Avid codec. =A0For distribution then MPEG2 and h264 are used professionally= , but even the popularity of torrents has made xvid in mkv containers relat= ively common.

It doesn't matter how amazing a new codec will be, gaining mainstream a= cceptance will be a real struggle as long as there is no impetus to change = from the current way of doing things, even MP3 is still a common audio form= at. =A0If the BBC can't get their own codec more widely accepted then t= here's little hope for alternatives that don't even have a springbo= ard to launch from.

Something new will need to fill a market niche. =A0A new codec that has all= the features of ProRes 4444 but is cross platform will be welcomed, especi= ally by windows users. =A0But (just as a an example) a new codec that is ju= st like ProRes 422 but is Mac only won't succeed, because there's n= o reason to use it and not ProRes 422 even if it is open source and free. = =A0Getting everyone to change the way they work, and to get editors to move= away from established workflows will require more than an open source lice= nce.


-Chris



+---End of message---+
To unsubscribe send any message to <ae-list-off@media-motion.tv>



--
Animator & Editor
www.teddygage.com
Brooklyn
--047d7b6dd1327d9c9404e245f56e--