Unleash the DV codec?

pcady wrote on 2/19/2002, 12:21 PM
One for the VV3 product manager:

I saw a post a while back on the rationale behind keeping the new DV codec internal to VV3 and have a couple of observations: 1) the new DV codec is superior to other codecs we've checked out; 2) the footage we work with comes in DVCAM and goes out to a DVCAM master, usually; 3) almost all the footage we work with goes through After Effects and is composited with Lightwave/Aura/Photoshop/Illustrator material. Only the final sections are assembled in a NLE.

In order for us to get the benefits of the new DV codec, we'd have to render everything out of After Effects as TGA sequences, read them into VV3, then render to DV.

It would greatly enhance our workflow to be able to render to the DV codec directly from After Effects, then assemble the clips in VV3. Since TGA sequences run about 30mb/sec and we've already got TGA sequences coming from Lightwave and Aura, the added disk usage hit would be considerable.

Wouldn't there be a way to tie the codec to only work on a machine that had VV3 installed? Move it from internal to VV3 to internal to the machine VV3 is installed on? It would greatly improve VV3's interoperability with other programs, at least in our case, without letting anyone get a "free ride".

Thanks.

Comments

kkolbo wrote on 2/19/2002, 2:28 PM
I also am suffering from the internal nature of the SF CODEC. I need to transport finished video to my office where the three systems are DPS and Media 100. I prefer to transport the video in SF's native DV format, but I have to transcode it to an inferior CODEC for transport. Being able to install the SF CODEC on the other boxes would sure help with transport.

K
Chienworks wrote on 2/19/2002, 7:02 PM
Maybe we should suggest that they offer it as a plugin and charge a license fee for it.

Kkolbo, you don't mention what software you're using on your first machine. Are you editing in Vegas there? If so, why transcode to another codec? You can render to SF's codec and still open the resulting DV files on other systems even if they don't have SF's codec installed.
Cheesehole wrote on 2/20/2002, 6:28 AM
reading the SF DV codec is not an issue. all DV programs / DV devices should be able to decode the DV data encoded with SF DV.
PeterMac wrote on 2/20/2002, 12:33 PM
They don't though. Neither Ligos nor Cinema Craft stand-alone MPEG encoders can for a start.

-Pete
db wrote on 2/20/2002, 1:32 PM
DV holds very good detail ..a close up of a face .. on my sony pvm 14MU2 monitor i can see skin pours, "peach fuzz", detailed eye lashes, a single hair -excellent details ... when i render out to a uncompresseed avi file i loose the skin pours , peach fuzz , the detail is good if you have nothing to compare it to -but when compared to the DV file the uncompressed avi looks POOR! also my camera has a HOT pixel which i can see clearly in DV ..when i convert file to uncompressed avi the hot pixel does NOT show up ...
getting back to AFTER effects /commotion ..they will use the MS codec to uncompress your dv clip then either you render using MS dv codec, or as uncompressed avi , or as MOV to get it back so you can use in VV ..but when you get it to VV you will see you have LOST quality ( fine details ) ... the SF dv codec is excellent .. i willing to PAY $$ to be able to use it in commotion !!!! HOW MUCH SF?????
DataMeister wrote on 2/21/2002, 6:33 AM
Personaly I would like to see Sonic Foundry come out with a video paint and rotoscoping program with features similar to Pinnacle's Commotion. But, with the cool SF interface. That would be so awesome.

JBJones
Chienworks wrote on 2/21/2002, 7:52 AM
Have you looked at SF's Viscosity? I've never seen Commotion, so i can't give you a comparison. Viscosity seems pretty basic though, but it does work and it has most of the typical SF UI elements. It's also very cheap now. I just registered it for $60.
DataMeister wrote on 2/21/2002, 4:26 PM
I tried the demo a couple of years ago at the beginning of my video experience, but I wasn't very impressed with it. So, I don't know if my limited experience affected my judgment of it or not. I don't seem to remember it having any form of spline based rotoscoping or tweening. Is is strictly a paint program for video, or are there key frame features to automate the touch up processes across the time line?

I figured Sonic Foundry was either revamping it or phased it out since I haven't seen anything in the catelogs over the last year. You said you just registered it for $60? I just tried to find the demo and can't locate it. Where can it be downloaded from?

JBJones
Chienworks wrote on 2/21/2002, 4:42 PM
Doggoneit! It was there two days ago, honest! Looks like we've just seen another SF product bite the dust. I'm glad i decided to buy it when i did.

Well, the download is still here anyway, and i presume you can run it in demo mode.
sonicfoundry.com/download/step2.asp?DID=202