The NeoScene purchase experience

[DrDave]

Well, I finally took the NeoScene plunge. A few comments for those who are still on the fence. I assumed that the price quoted in this forum would be a good price since discounts were offered in the past. Wrong DING DING DING do not buy from Cineform. Shame, really. My mistake.
Installation was a breeze. Of course, the program did not work. Oh well. Sent in a request for support. Still waiting. Meanwhile, I look around on the internet to see if anyone else is having problems. Turns out it does not work with Nero 7. Everyone I know uses Nero 7 cause of the Code Bloat issue. Can't be more than a billion Nero 7s out there. Well, you would think that Cineform would have warned me. Only spent 6 hours trying to get it to work. "Deactivated" it, noting the irony of the situation, since it did not work, and installed it on a different computer with no Nero--yay! Of course, that computer is slow as a turtle. Anyway, removes the pulldown very nicely and is easy to use for my HF100. Nice piece of software. Uses 100 pecent of the cores available as far as I can see. Works on the AMD platform as well.
Bottom line: don't buy from Cineform, ask if there are issues before installing, well worth the money if you have a Canon 24p camera project, quality is good. A great product when it works. Fairly frequent fixes, so I will wait for the next fix to reinstall it on my quad core. Having gone the freeware route, this is much simpler. Zippy playback.

[previdman]

Love hate relationship?

Or just too much sugar?

[1]

Well, ever since they're not offering a HV20 discount, I've been watching them closely.

Requests for specific info or behaviour has gone unanswered.

At the very least CineForm has dropped from my initial A- rating, to a measly C-.
With more reports like yours, it will likely be an F soon.

A shame really, especially since they got a lot of business through this site.

ADDED:
I forgot they are now also on SPAM-watch, as they've posted SPAMMY crap.
My above ratings hence amended.

[Eugenia Loli-Queru]

> Of course, the program did not work.

The fault is yours. You bought the application without first having tried their 3-day trial. Only newbies buy software without having first tried their trials (if available), and you don't struck me as one. Anyways, ask for a refund.

The Cineform guys have been answering questions daily on the DVInfo forum, as this is their default forum. The $130 NeoSCENE package is as good as described. If it doesn't work on some PCs, well, this is to be expected. Coming from a software background myself, having 100% bug free apps is nearly impossible -- especially for that price.

[Rumpelgeist]

* If Neo Scene indeed conflicts with Nero 7, it may not be Cineform's issue, but Nero's or someone else's.
* "Works on the AMD platform as well." -- AMD makes x86 chips for about 20 years, and still people expect x86 software not to work on AMD chips. Incredible. By the way, modern 64-bit x86 architecture was designed by AMD and copied by Intel.
* I don't believe in discounts. If a vendor offers discount to any literate person who was able to read the coupon code on this site, then the price had been hiked at the first place. I consider current Neo Scene pricing more reasonable and honest, and one does not have to search different boards for magical coupons. I see that Mal may benefit from coupons being linked to registrations, but AFAIK the old Neo HDV coupon was not for members only.

I think that Cineform's programmers are good, but their support and marketing departments are not so. I had (still have) an issue with the Cineform version that came with Vegas, it does not work. Verified by other board members, but neither Sony nor Cineform did not bother to provide me a working version. In Neo HDV I had a problem with AVCHD decoding, when the video slowed down twice on conversion. Cineform declined the problem, but the trial of Neo Scene does not have this issue, I assume it was fixed. Cineform pulldown detection scheme is not nearly as good as on many set-top DVD players, Cineform claims that this is because they have to detect it in realtime during HDV capture. What about non-realtime? Same thing, because it is the same algorithm, but they don't bother to change it, because Cineform is a codec, not a pulldown-removal utility. Pull-down removal was an afterthought, an additional but not the major source of income. Compare to Ferrari cars (expensive, few wealthy buyers, all known to the manufacturer by name) and Ferrari handbags (stuff for those who cannot buy a real car).

[1]

I see that Mal may benefit from coupons being linked to registrations...

Not sure what that means, but let me explain something, so it's clear:

I am okay with CineForm (or any other company) promoting their wares, as long as a few things are in place:

- DON'T SPAM, i.e. don't post verbatim messages to other fora. Simple.
- We prefer no hit-n'-runners; i.e. don't just post a SALES message and then never reply again.
- Product/service better be somewhat related to cams/NLE/photo/video, you get the point.

Cineform's original stuff was welcome, as it was related to our field of interest, didn't have a SPAM feel to it,
David was a frequent contributor, AND they even offered a special discount for members.

TOTALLY COOL!


The original thread got MANY hits, partly due to THREAD title including the words: "HV20.com DISCOUNT".

Then the new products came out, and the discount disappeared.
Then David started to post less.
Then he started to post SPAM (http://hv20.com/showthread.php?t=21831&highlight=Cineform).

NOT COOL!

[DrDave]

[QUOTE=Eugenia Loli-Queru;193353]> Of course, the program did not work.

The fault is yours. You bought the application without first having tried their 3-day trial. Only newbies buy software without having first tried their trials (if available), and you don't struck me as one. Anyways, ask for a refund.

I did try the trial :) It worked great! I tried it out on my second computer because I prefer not to trash my main computer with unknown software. The only difference happened to be the Nero thing--which I simply was not looking for. I think it is worth the money--just advising people about this issue because ALOT of ppl run Nero, and also that the price is lower elsewhere.

[Eugenia Loli-Queru]

You always try software you are going to buy on the PC you are going to use them. Different configurations yield different results. As I said, ask for a refund, or remove Nero.

[SenorKaffee]

Nero... since it started to produce conflicts with my AFX installation I'm not letting it back on my video PC. o_O

[Bob Sanders]

The problem here is not Cineform.... it's nero.

Nero is the worst piece of crap you could run on a machine. It doesn't install on your machine anywhere near as much as it INFILTRATES it.

I know at least half a dozen programs that stop working when you install nero. Go through your start up configuration and services and disable/turn off ANYTHING that says "nero....." and then try cineform again. A far better bet though would be simply to get rid of nero altogether..... the nero 9 as I understand it is even worse.

[DaFireMedic]

I'm sorry that you have had some problems with it. Based on my experiences with Cineform, I'm sure they can be resolved. I know that not everyone will necessarily have the same experience that I did, but mine has been good with Cineform and Neo Scene, as well as their support. And I agree with the others, the problem lies with Nero.

I bought Neo Scene to transcode the .mts files from my HMC150, as well as to remove pulldown from 24p footage on the HV30. It does both of these very well, and I can actually edit the footage in real time on my 3 yr old dual core laptop. I cannot do this with the native files from the HMC150.

I also like the fact that it's a windows codec, so I can use programs like TMPGEnc to transcode the files to the Cineform codec. This enables me to batch convert all my files from both the HMC and the HV30 to 1280x720 .avi files for editing. This gives me many more options for transcoding than if I were limited to using only the Neo Scene program. I can also edit the files in Vegas, Premiere, and work with them in After Effects.

Regarding support, I had an initial problem with installation (it didn't accept my activation code). I emailed tech support and they responded in less than 30 minutes (way to go Jake). He solved the problem almost immediately and I was up and running. I am not a big fan of restrictive activation processes, but I understand why it is necessary, and either way Cineform's is much better than some, like Adobe.

Also regarding support, David Newman frequents this forum, DVinfo, and others, making him easily accessible. I had a few questions for him and I PM'd him through this forum. He responded quickly and went out of his way to make sure that I was satisfied with Neo Scene, even approving something that I'm not sure is supposed to be openly advertised. If David reads this and says its OK, I will post what that was. But either way, they've been pretty good.

Two thumbs up from me for Cineform and Neo Scene :hv20-smilie77::hv20-smilie77:

BTW: I've had problems with Nero. Its good software for what its supposed to do, but Neo Scene is not the only software that Nero conflicts with. In addition, its difficult to get the Nero installation off your computer to the degree that you can run some of these conflicting programs. You sometimes cannot even upgrade Nero to the next version without running Nero's own uninstaller that you have to download from them, and even then it sometimes doesn't work. I stopped using Nero two computers ago.

[1]

C+

[Bob Sanders]

BTW: I've had problems with Nero. Its good software for what it does, but Neo Scene is not the only software that Nero conflicts with.

Is there anybody that HASN'T had problems with Nero?

You need to be careful with programs today in the way that they install. Many programs (and Nero is at the head of the list here) install with parts of it as resident memory systems that start as you boot up and are running even when you're not using. Most of the time the resident install part is NOT necessary and ALL of the time these programs do not inform the user that they are installing in this manor. You get enough of these resident install programs together on one machine and it starts to become very slow, extremely buggy and prone to crashing.

Pretty much ALL of Nero 7 resident install sections can be disabled and started by the user only when required.

And be warned.... Nero 9 is just AWFUL for this resident install baloney!

[CycleWriter]

The problem here is not Cineform.... it's nero.

Nero is the worst piece of crap you could run on a machine. It doesn't install on your machine anywhere near as much as it INFILTRATES it.

I know at least half a dozen programs that stop working when you install nero. Go through your start up configuration and services and disable/turn off ANYTHING that says "nero....." and then try cineform again. A far better bet though would be simply to get rid of nero altogether..... the nero 9 as I understand it is even worse.

I totally agree. I stopped using it after version 6. I couldn't believe the amount of stuff it installs along with the main program and the way its insidious little app helpers infiltrate almost every aspect of the OS. And I don't just mean the packet writing app that lets you drag-and-drop from within Explorer. Many parts of Nero conflict with the Sonic software that has been coming with HP computers since XP.

[dbx]

I personally am using Canopus HQ as my intermediary codec, along with TMPGenc Xpress 4 for pulldown. This combo has been super awesome for me. I would highly recomend it. With the price of Edius though, I would use Lagarith instead with YUV2 mode and TMPGenc.

[Bob Sanders]

I'm not so sure getting into Eduis right now is a wise thing to do. The entire Grass Valley portfolio (which includes Eduis) is up for sale. This may be good.... or bad depending on who buys it.

[Eugenia Loli-Queru]

And as far as I know, Canopus' codec is not visually lossless as Cineform is, it's just high bitrate mpeg2. AFAIK, that is.

[DaFireMedic]

With the price of Edius though, I would use Lagarith instead with YUV2 mode and TMPGenc.

You can use Lagarith, but unless you have a gorilla of a computer you will not be able to edit in real time.

[Eugenia Loli-Queru]

Even the fastest computer doesn't playback Lagarith real time. It's always capped at around 9 fps. Design problem more than anything else.

[BARSENAL]

FWIW I've had nothing but good experiences with Cineform. Software works as advertised and makes life easy. Responses to problems were fast and efficient.

Also, you will find that David Newman monitors the more popular forums and often responds directly to threads. I'm surprised he hasn't popped up here already.

For the price point I don't think you can complain too much.

[poker]

FWIW I've had nothing but good experiences with Cineform. Software works as advertised and makes life easy. Responses to problems were fast and efficient.

Also, you will find that David Newman monitors the more popular forums and often responds directly to threads. I'm surprised he hasn't popped up here already.

For the price point I don't think you can complain too much.

^X2^

I've made it part of my work flow and it's great. I use it also for my 5DMK2 video. I got it for under $100 at Videoguys plus coupon :hv20-smilie03: Plus, David answered my newbie questions quickly.

[Gymnut808]

Like FireMedic, I purchased Neo Scene(Mac) to transcode AVCHD files from my HMC150. Other than the odd activation, I've had no problems and felt the money was well worth it. I also have VoltaicHD and have transcoded to Pro Res from it, but I like the look of the Cineform files better.

[Madd]

ImgBurn is freeware and does everything I've ever needed. Google it.

[jbierling]

For the price point I don't think you can complain too much.

It costs more than many versions of Vegas. Sort of expensive just to remove pulldown isn't it?

[lobstaman]

It costs more than many versions of Vegas. Sort of expensive just to remove pulldown isn't it?

Just to remove pulldown? That is secondary to the lossless codec IMO. I don't even think about the pulldown removal aspect of cineform .. it's the codec that I'm interested in. A Lossless codec that has a file size of less than double that of the orginal m2t files is pretty darn worthy of a 100 bucks I think.

[DaFireMedic]

It costs more than many versions of Vegas. Sort of expensive just to remove pulldown isn't it?

I already had TMPGEnc and After Effects to remove pulldown when I bought Neo Scene. I wanted the codec, mainly to give me an easier format to edit than AVCHD. Pulldown removal was just made easier for the HV30, which was a bonus.

Not everyone will have as much use for it as I do, but man it has made my life easier.

[jbierling]

A Lossless codec that has a file size of less than double that of the orginal m2t files is pretty darn worthy of a 100 bucks I think.

Nothing is more lossless (and smaller) than just using the source avchd files off a HF100. The only problem is that those files need the pulldown removed.

[lobstaman]

Nothing is more lossless (and smaller) than just using the source avchd files off a HF100. The only problem is that those files need the pulldown removed.

Of sure right off the camera but suppose you want render a video .. keep the full quality for a later date to maybe re-encode to a web video or to a dvd .. bluray .. etc and keep it at as small of a file size as possible without loosing quality? Or suppose you want to edit a clip then export it to another editor without loosing quality and keeping a smaller file size? In both these cases cineform is the cats meow. So it's not all about removal of pulldown IMO.

[jbierling]

suppose you want render a video

The only time I need to render is to my final output. My settings are all contained in Vegas project files so if I need to render, I just need the tiny project file and the source AVCHD.

I don't dispute that there are good use cases that extend beyond this but personally I don't need them. I think the real "problem" is that powerful software like Vegas is almost ridiculously cheap making the $100+ entry fee for one codec rather painful/extravagant by comparison. The pricing scheme for CineForm is such that it isn't an automatic purchase and it really should and would be if it was cheaper.

[Rumpelgeist]

Of sure right off the camera but suppose you want render a video .. keep the full quality for a later date to maybe re-encode to a web video or to a dvd .. bluray .. etc and keep it at as small of a file size as possible without loosing quality? Or suppose you want to edit a clip then export it to another editor without loosing quality and keeping a smaller file size? In both these cases cineform is the cats meow. So it's not all about removal of pulldown IMO.
If you are going to export then load then export then load then export again, then Cineform surely helps, but for amateurs this is usually not the case. You load your source files (real ones, not even proxies), edit them, add effects, and output. This is it. There is only one re-encoding in this process. When an NLE works with your source files, it does not decode them, add one effect, then encode, then add another effect, then encode again. No. It decodes source files into uncompressed video on the fly, adds filters on the fly (this is why your video gets dead slow with several filters), then outputs. If you want better speed during preview, you sure can output after EVERY filter, then adding one more filter will be fast, because the NLE will work with only one filter at a time. My machine can cope with 3-4 simple filters like levels, color and curves, so I don't feel the need to export after each filter. Also, for me, on my machine, Cineform files are previewed with the same or slower speed than native AVCHD files. For someone else this may be different.

But I do like the look of files processed by Cineform. They may differ from original files, if checked with emotionless software, but for my eye, they look more pleasing, softer yet not too soft. Sort of like when you compare picture from a Pioneer plasma TV with picture from a Sony LCD TV. If you know the difference you know what I am talking about.

[DaFireMedic]

Nothing is more lossless (and smaller) than just using the source avchd files off a HF100

True, for simple edits. But my 3 yr old laptop lags big time when working with AVCHD files. It can handle Cineform files in real time. My quad core desktop will handle the AVCHD files just fine, but most of my editing is done away from home.

In addition to this, I do my color correction, image stabilization/tracking, etc. in After Effects. Since I can't yet afford to buy CS4, I have to transcode to Cineform, as previous versions do not support AVCHD.

In reality, AVCHD (and HDV) are acquisition formats (based on .h264 and MPEG-2), not sot so much editing formats although you can edit them just fine. But Cineform files are much more robust (10 bit, 4:2:2) and can retain their quality better over generations of color correction and visual effects than can the native files.

As I said, Cineform will not be as much a benefit to some people as it is to me and some people will not need it, but for me it meets my needs very well. My next laptop will be a quad core, then I can look at doing more with the native files.

[jbierling]

In reality, AVCHD (and HDV) are acquisition formats (based on .h264 and MPEG-2), not sot so much editing formats although you can edit them just fine. But Cineform files are much more robust (10 bit, 4:2:2) and can retain their quality better over generations of color correction and visual effects than can the native files.

Can you explain what you mean by this? I'm not writing out edited AVCHD, but applying filters to the gen 1 source. So there are no generations of AVCHD, only the original.

[DaFireMedic]

Can you explain what you mean by this? I'm not writing out edited AVCHD, but applying filters to the gen 1 source. So there are no generations of AVCHD, only the original.

In this specific case, there's probably no real advantage to Cineform in subjective quality.

I do a lot of compositing and color correction, as well as some chromakey. Cineform transcodes the AVCHD (or HDV, as the case may be) long GOP to a frame-based lossless compression format and expands the color space from AVCHD (or HDV) native 4:2:0 to 4:2:2. While this doesn't add any additional chroma information, it does expand the color space which enables it to hold up better when doing lots of chromakey, effects work, compositing, motion graphics or heavy color grading, which for me means moving the file to After Effects.

In addition to this, since I mix footage from the HV30 and the HMC150, Cineform also puts everything into the same format so that the footage responds similarly to effects and color correction, as well as just making things run smoother.

Again, there's nothing wrong with editing the native files, I certainly do it for simple edits and when I am at home with the computer that can handle it. But if doing lots of compositing, multiple layers, color correction, etc, Cineform has the benefit of the compatibility, extra color space, format robustness and much easier editing (at the expense of increased file size, of course)

[jekins]

I was pretty blown away by the results of the CineForm NeoScene encodes I did on my AVCHD (Canon HF S10) content. Even though I'm still a newbie, it was easy to see that what they advertised about increased color space and retaining fidelity over renderings was completely true. I was totally sold. But then I started noticing a few odd points, and although David personally answered one of these questions, I'm still not satisfied...

1) When opening files (add to queue) in NeoScene, although my HDV .m2t files say "1440x1080 29.97p VHST 25mbits", my AVCHD files from the Canon HF S10 read "1920x1080 29.97p DHVA 15mbits", even though they definitely show up as 24mbps (MXP) files on the camera. The resulting files are visually stunning, but even so, I want to make sure there's no technological limitation going on here.

2) The bitrates are inconsistent. Now, I know that CineForm is VBR, so each file is going to show a different average bitrate in Quicktime's inspector, but I'm really wondering how widely it should vary, and how the Low, Medium and High settings (NeoScene has no Film Scan quality setting, though Neo HD does, and I'm not sure how they match up) really translate out to average bitrates. They have a little chart in one of the technical articles on the Cineform site, ranging from 10MBps (Low/_) to 24Mbps (Film Scan 2/Best), where the NeoHD setting is on the left of the slash / and the NeoScene setting is on the right. It's all quite confusing and None of it really seems to match up anyway actually. Is the highest setting in NeoScene (Mac) equivalent to Film Scan 2 (PC)? Then again, the chart purports that Neo HD Mac has no Film Scan 2 setting, when it actually does have all 5 (only NeoScene doesn't). Someone help :-(

3) Right now, I'm using DVHSCap to ingest my HDV source, and then loading that .m2t file into NeoScene / Neo HD. But for some reason there is this one file that looks like utter crap after being converted to CineForm. There's blatant banding, strange, cheap-looking colors, etc. When I playback the .m2t file directly in the newest VLC, although it's not my best piece of work (there are indeed artifacts), it's certainly nothing like the converted CineForm file (visually lossless is definitely not a term we could use in this case). Also, when I check the bitrate, for some reason the outputted Cineform file is only about 7MBps (55mbits), whereas all of my AVCHD conversions were around 13Mbps (used the highest possible setting in NeoScene). Since I made sure I was using CF422, and I was still seeing this bad banding in several places and overall poor quality, I figured it must have to do with this mysteriously lower bitrate. That's when I went to CineForm's website and got the trial for Neo HD. Using that, I boosted the quality up to Film Scan 2, and produced a file that ended up being around 15Mbps average bitrate. I still had no idea what was causing the wild variations in bitrates and how the quality settings matched up in the two programs, but at least I'd produced a higher bitrate. But STILL, the resulting file had all this banding and poor quality. Next I even tried producing a CF444 file... still no luck. It's obvious that the CineForm codecs don't like something about this particular footage, but I'm lost. All I know is that the .m2t doesn't suffer from the banding or (such a bad degree of) poor quality. Check out the following screenshots of the original and CineForm:

http://dl.getdropbox.com/u/316233/Picture%201.png
http://dl.getdropbox.com/u/316233/Picture%202.png

Any ideas folks? (sorry for the long read)

I am so anxious to buy NeoScene and build a workflow around CF422, but I desperately wanna figure this stuff out first. So now I've got 14 days left on the Neo HD trial.

Thanks,
Justin

[DrDave]

I think with Cineform you will have to figure some stuff out on your own, or go to their forum and ask the users, many of whom are very well versed in the product. It makes capture and workflow very easy, so that is what you are getting. I never received a response for my request for technical support, but I figured out a work around from the clues in the forum. Can't imagine NOT using it, but certainly I was annoyed I most of the weekend trying to get something to work when there was a known, fixable issue that would have saved me loads of frustration. But now I know to check the forums.

[jekins]

Apparently this seems to be a problem with any HDV I try to convert. My AVCHD produces much higher bitrate CineForm conversions and they look amazing.

As I was writing this I just made an amazing discovery. I apparently just never had the eye to see the banding that naturally existed in HDV source material. Now that I go back and look at HDV source files, all of my captures (which I previously did in Final Cut into Apple HDV codec QT files) had some degree of this banding. Though the CineForm conversions exacerbate the problem (as very visibly exemplified in my screenshots above), AVCHD appears to be far superior to HDV. Either that or it has something to do with the high quality of my AVCHD camera (Canon HF S10).

[monkeynutsjr]

> Of course, the program did not work.

The fault is yours. You bought the application without first having tried their 3-day trial. Only newbies buy software without having first tried their trials (if available), and you don't struck me as one. Anyways, ask for a refund.

The Cineform guys have been answering questions daily on the DVInfo forum, as this is their default forum. The $130 NeoSCENE package is as good as described. If it doesn't work on some PCs, well, this is to be expected. Coming from a software background myself, having 100% bug free apps is nearly impossible -- especially for that price.
I agree. I have had neo scene for a while with no issue. As far as it not working properly, that is the editing programs fault for not implementing higher up things that Premiere has. You are saying it is a thin editor, and that is the reason why. Neo scene has to use a work around to work with Vegas as Sony has not added a few things to the program because they don't want to make it a pro editors choice. I believe one of the more knowledgeable people here ran into Sony Vegas reps at one of the big electronic/program expos and asked him if Vegas would ever implement these few things. He said the Reps laughed and had the attitude that they don't want to make it a program of choice for serious editors. If you want to stop playing with hack editing programs, go up to premiere and receive all the benefits therein.

[barnesjonr]

FWIW, I just ordered Neoscene from Videoguys ... when you register on their site, you get a coupon code for $10.00 off your first purchase! :hv20-smilie03:

I'll be using it on my HV20, with Sony Vegas 8.0c.

[Bob Sanders]

If you want to stop playing with hack editing programs, go up to premiere and receive all the benefits therein.

You've got to be kidding me!?! CS4 is a total disaster.... granted it's better than CS3 was but none the less, for the money it should be a heck of a lot more efficient and stable than it is

The only thing good about CS4 is Photoshop, and After Effects. But PP..... what a joke!

[Duke]

Just as an FYI, Neo Scene is selling for $99.95 with no shipping at videoguys.com. I ordered it, and will report again later.

I'm after the auto pulldown removal and 4.2.2 color space for green screen processes.

After 2 years of working with a pro screenwriter (sold over 70 scripts including Quigley Down Under, Close Encounters of the Third Kind, Quantum Leap, etc) my screen play is finally, FINALLY good enough. I'm starting to shoot back grounds and special effects shots now. Assuming Neo Scene works I'll be a happy camper as I'll be able to use my HV20 without having to get an HV40.

Duke

[edit: Opps Barnsjonr beat me to it.] :)

[LOGOS PATHOS ETHOS]

anybody experienced issues with the cineform on a mac? does it work properly with FCP?

[Rikki]

Going to try the demo out on the PC tonight.

HMC150 AVCHD files are not fun to try and scrub through

[Duke]

I'm not using a mac, but on the PC everything worked fine. The software does new files on scene detection like HDVSplit, which is a nice feature.

I did find that if I capture 24f without telling it that its 24fps it speeds it up. LOL That was simply operator error. :hv20-smilie03:

Also, the purchase through videoguys.com worked fine. After I paid I received an email with a serial number.

After that you have to jump through several hoops at Cineform. A little more complex than I would have liked, but that was on Cineforms end to prevent piracy. It did work though.

[dearcatastrophe]

logos, try the demo. i was sold right away after trying the demo on my macbook pro.

[LOGOS PATHOS ETHOS]

yeah gonna do that as soon as I get the MBP :-P