1 (edited by Fredsky 2014-12-04 15:08:36)

Topic: Open DCP vs Clipster


I'm currently trying to create a DCP with open DCP and I'm having some questions regarding the whole process.  What I'm currently doing is  a comparaison between DCP created using the cloister (which is a tested and proven workflow) versus DCP created in Open DCP.  Basically, both DCP seem to be fairly similar (which is what I'm aiming)  but I seem to have some small difference that I'm not sure is really problematic but just want to verify to make sure.

First, as anyone tried to create DCP with a ProRes source file?  If so, is there anything we should be aware of (whether on the tiff seq creation or the Jpeg 200 conversion) to make sure that we keep the color space intact through the process?

Second, regarding the XML that Open DCP generates, there seem to be somme difference from what Clipster is generating and I was wondering if those differences could create some issues.  I'll give you some example here, but if you want, I can send both cloisters and open DCP xmld so you can take a look. 

xmlns: using Clipster we get xmlns="http://www.digicine.com/PROTO-ASDCP-AM-20040311# in both volume index and Asset Map, while in Open DCP it is xmlns="http://www.smpte-ra.org/schemas/429-9/2007/AM">

In the Asset Map, clipster seems to have an Annotation field while Open DCP doesn't seem to have none.  Also, the Creator block seem to come before the volume count in Open DCP while it seems to come after the Issuer in Clipster.  Asset Map created by Open DCP have a Offset field in Chunk Block while Clipster have none.

CLP and PKL: Those XML doesn't contain any Signers or Ds: Signature block while they do in Clipster.

My question is, are those difference irrelevant or could they be causing some issues on servers (ex: Doremi)

Thanks  a lot

Re: Open DCP vs Clipster

The DCP you made with Clipster is an MXF Interop, while the one you made with OpenDCP is a SMPTE package. You'd need to create the same package type in both applications to compare them.

Re: Open DCP vs Clipster

Thanks a lot for the quick reply tmeiczin

Indeed, the DCP created by Clipster was an Intreop, but is there a way to create Interop DCP using OpenDCP?  So I did recreate a DCP using OpenDCP and set the Standard to IOP (in the title Generator).  I also created the MXF using the Interop Label. But I still have the same disparity as before

1- Open DCP use xmns "http://www.smpte-ra.org/schemas/429-9/2007/AM" instead of "http://www.digicine.com/PROTO-ASDCP-AM-20040311#"

2- Asset Map still does't seem to contain Annotation

3-  As for the Signers, this was my bad :-)  I forgot to check the "Add xml digital signature" box :-).  Once I did, I now seem to have signature, though instead of the <ds:Signature xmlns:ds="http://www.w3.org/2000/09/xmldsig#">, Open DCP seem to use <dsig:CanonicalizationMethod Algorithm="http://www.w3.org/TR/2001/REC-xml-c14n-20010315"/>.  Could this cause issues?

Thanks again for the help

Re: Open DCP vs Clipster

You need to create your MXF files as Interop, which can be done in OpenDCP. Changing the title does not change type of package.

Re: Open DCP vs Clipster

Just did and it seems way better thanks :-)

The only little things that differ now is:

- Open DCP AssetMap have a <Offset>0</Offset> tag in the Chunk block, while Clipster doesn't
- Clipster AssetMap have Annotaition while Open DCP don't
- Open DCP use  dsig: Signature while Clipster use ds: Signature

Re: Open DCP vs Clipster

Oups, forgot one

And this is still in the Digital signature.  In Clipster, both Signer and DS: Signature seem to declare an xmlns (ex: <Signer xmlns:ds="http://www.w3.org/2000/09/xmldsig#">) while Open DCP doesn't