<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: DNxHD vs. ProRes 422 redux</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.capria.tv/2007/06/dnxhd-vs-prores-422-redux/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.capria.tv/2007/06/dnxhd-vs-prores-422-redux/</link>
	<description>Musings of a Product Designer for the Media and Entertainment Industry by Frank Capria</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 18 Nov 2011 17:55:40 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: ProRes 422 Codec Finally Cross-platform (Sorta&#8230;)</title>
		<link>http://www.capria.tv/2007/06/dnxhd-vs-prores-422-redux/comment-page-1/#comment-901</link>
		<dc:creator>ProRes 422 Codec Finally Cross-platform (Sorta&#8230;)</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 27 Oct 2008 09:12:26 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.capria.tv/2007/06/10/dnxhd-vs-prores-422-redux/#comment-901</guid>
		<description>[...] goodness you&#8217;ll still be better off with the free (and in size and quality similar or better) Avid DNxHD codec that also supports an alpha [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] goodness you&#8217;ll still be better off with the free (and in size and quality similar or better) Avid DNxHD codec that also supports an alpha [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: How The East Was Won &#187; Blog Archive &#187; Avid&#8217;s codecs are simply the best.</title>
		<link>http://www.capria.tv/2007/06/dnxhd-vs-prores-422-redux/comment-page-1/#comment-781</link>
		<dc:creator>How The East Was Won &#187; Blog Archive &#187; Avid&#8217;s codecs are simply the best.</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 12 Oct 2008 15:18:45 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.capria.tv/2007/06/10/dnxhd-vs-prores-422-redux/#comment-781</guid>
		<description>[...] http://www.capria.tv/?p=141  October 10th, 2008 in Film &#124; tags: Film [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] <a href="http://www.capria.tv/?p=141" rel="nofollow">http://www.capria.tv/?p=141</a>  October 10th, 2008 in Film | tags: Film [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Andy</title>
		<link>http://www.capria.tv/2007/06/dnxhd-vs-prores-422-redux/comment-page-1/#comment-123</link>
		<dc:creator>Andy</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 20 Feb 2008 12:11:37 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.capria.tv/2007/06/10/dnxhd-vs-prores-422-redux/#comment-123</guid>
		<description>Lee -

understand your dilemma completely... but have you considered Episode Pro (desktop) or Episode Engine (Server)?

Both integrate seamlessly  with FCP and provides a number of useful features (drop boxes watch folders etc) that I&#039;m sure you will find helpful!

And no - I don&#039;t work for Telestream!

http://www.telestream.net/products/episode_engine.htm</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Lee -</p>
<p>understand your dilemma completely&#8230; but have you considered Episode Pro (desktop) or Episode Engine (Server)?</p>
<p>Both integrate seamlessly  with FCP and provides a number of useful features (drop boxes watch folders etc) that I&#8217;m sure you will find helpful!</p>
<p>And no &#8211; I don&#8217;t work for Telestream!</p>
<p><a href="http://www.telestream.net/products/episode_engine.htm" rel="nofollow">http://www.telestream.net/products/episode_engine.htm</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Lee</title>
		<link>http://www.capria.tv/2007/06/dnxhd-vs-prores-422-redux/comment-page-1/#comment-122</link>
		<dc:creator>Lee</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 14 Feb 2008 22:08:21 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.capria.tv/2007/06/10/dnxhd-vs-prores-422-redux/#comment-122</guid>
		<description>I think you hit the nail right on here... where I really like Apple prores and its many advantages it really kills me that our only compression capable software is Compressor. Since only FCP installed quicktime can read the codec, everything leaving the house must go through compressor. And that is really poor software.

In fact we have been looking to invest in a pc based compression hardware or software solution that will take prores into anything usable at a sufficient speed. However, except for ill willed rumous about Sorensons HDxcel, none seem to be found.

For some reason this reminds me of the good old days when accusations about Microsofts monopolizing the hardware industry was still hot. Except this time it is for real. ..</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I think you hit the nail right on here&#8230; where I really like Apple prores and its many advantages it really kills me that our only compression capable software is Compressor. Since only FCP installed quicktime can read the codec, everything leaving the house must go through compressor. And that is really poor software.</p>
<p>In fact we have been looking to invest in a pc based compression hardware or software solution that will take prores into anything usable at a sufficient speed. However, except for ill willed rumous about Sorensons HDxcel, none seem to be found.</p>
<p>For some reason this reminds me of the good old days when accusations about Microsofts monopolizing the hardware industry was still hot. Except this time it is for real. ..</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Philip Hodgetts</title>
		<link>http://www.capria.tv/2007/06/dnxhd-vs-prores-422-redux/comment-page-1/#comment-121</link>
		<dc:creator>Philip Hodgetts</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 11 Jun 2007 05:02:20 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.capria.tv/2007/06/10/dnxhd-vs-prores-422-redux/#comment-121</guid>
		<description>Avid&#039;s DNxHD codecs are (or will be) compliant with the VC-3 &quot;standard&quot; (still a draft) because Avid submitted it to be a standard. Just like MS did with WMV aka VC-1.

But having Blackmagic Design put DNxHD into a hardware package for FCP capture would be cool. Won&#039;t ever happen because of the politics but a nice thought.

Philip</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Avid&#8217;s DNxHD codecs are (or will be) compliant with the VC-3 &#8220;standard&#8221; (still a draft) because Avid submitted it to be a standard. Just like MS did with WMV aka VC-1.</p>
<p>But having Blackmagic Design put DNxHD into a hardware package for FCP capture would be cool. Won&#8217;t ever happen because of the politics but a nice thought.</p>
<p>Philip</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

