Return-Path: Received: from mail-lb0-f177.google.com ([209.85.217.177] verified) by media-motion.tv (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 4.2.10) with ESMTP-TLS id 5154384 for AE-List@media-motion.tv; Wed, 24 Jul 2013 21:24:01 +0200 Received: by mail-lb0-f177.google.com with SMTP id 10so802571lbf.22 for ; Wed, 24 Jul 2013 12:35:18 -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=g1Zjf7he5uisCrun70mhJW2WA0j18bnhrlv5nN7VTPE=; b=fNs/cVYhEN8FSgY1QdJrd00R4Cemsqg9OWIVrKvhosnLVFOtPIT3+wN9K813XvjcPS lkxFKX50Kdon0DtuiIOvRY6xk50x5MPBrUbUTE4pU7JorOzKX7pGwcSqA+FUVs6rhlVF C6MAN0IvuhlGqRGtczxzqI6K2x6sBbMUAo2bBiUdm3flFPBh3pgpBX2hcRqStV/6Oppk jWXh8vcAAm0Gli8MkbzUFTm9ifuzaK73V1UY80JTmRT2CYcQuFwRCijZw1tVp4MEKO9y nmqYjY+emoebDeSOZnubC4wqG9a7OGO6gPBFOuqLeSpKxNKYPNF9zsmw2yJR3vunB6hy F28A== X-Received: by 10.112.5.199 with SMTP id u7mr17199904lbu.67.1374694517883; Wed, 24 Jul 2013 12:35:17 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.152.133.206 with HTTP; Wed, 24 Jul 2013 12:34:56 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: From: Byron Nash Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2013 15:34:56 -0400 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [AE] lossless codec in a container roundup To: After Effects Mail List Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=14dae94ed6fd69cc3b04e2470274 --14dae94ed6fd69cc3b04e2470274 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Chris you have some valid points on the difficulty of adoption. I hope that this community can be instrumental in seeing it adopted in the After Effects space. Presenting the project in professional forums at conferences like NAB and SIGGRAPH certainly will help too. In the end one thing is has to be to succeed is BETTER. Better than the current options. I'm ready to do whatever I can to see this pushed forward. It's a great time in the industry for open sourceinitiatives(OpenEXR, Alembic, OpenSubdiv etc..) On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 2:19 PM, Teddy Gage wrote: > 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 > --14dae94ed6fd69cc3b04e2470274 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Chris you have some valid points on the difficulty of adop= tion. I hope that this community can be instrumental in seeing it adopted i= n the After Effects space. Presenting the project in professional forums at= conferences like NAB and SIGGRAPH certainly will help too. In the end one = thing is has to be to succeed is BETTER. Better than the current options. I= 'm ready to do whatever I can to see this pushed forward. It's a gr= eat time in the industry for open source initiati= ves(OpenEXR, Alembic, OpenSubdiv etc..)=A0


On Wed, Jul 2= 4, 2013 at 2:19 PM, Teddy Gage <teddygage@gmail.com> wrote= :
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@chris= zwar.com> wrote:
From: Rob= ert 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 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

--14dae94ed6fd69cc3b04e2470274--