Annoyed

ronhurt wrote on 7/21/2009, 3:14 PM
Hate to pee on the party, but I'm annoyed and need to vent.

Users have been complaining about Vegas' avchd preview flaws for months now. From what I finally understand and accept after reading hundreds of posts on the subject is that my only options for seeing anything approaching smooth playback in the laptop I bought a year ago -- ( 2 Gig Intel Duo Core! 3 Gigs of RAM! 300 Gig HD! Vista! 64-bit capable! Woo-hoo!) -- requires shift-b several dozen times through a project (thanks, blink, it helps) or a time-consuming batch render to a readable but much larger format.

I produce daily news videos with Vegas. My newspaper won't be buying me a camera that outputs a less compressed format anytime in the next eon, and ratcheting back to 720x480 dv avi obviously isn't an option. My little $600 canon vixia hard drive cam captures stunning video, after all., compared to dv.

Did I mention that I prefer to edit on a laptop? (Is that uncommon?) The paper has a couple mac workstations running FCP that seem to play this stuff back just as smooth as can be. But I'm obsessive enough I want to take my projects home with me and, with four pcs in my house, adding a mac isn't an option.

So I use vegas. Videofactory 2.0. Movie Studio 7. Movie Studio 8 (after finding out the HDV that MS7 boasted didn't include avchd), Vegas Pro 8 so I could add more tracks (at least I got the B&H deal), and, in a leap of faith on June 30, Vegas Pro 9.

But I've liked Vegas since I first started editing almost a decade ago. Back then I used Premiere LE, which came bundled with my sony digital 8 and a sound forge 5/vegas audio le combo sonic foundry sold me for $100, downloaded. I had a canopus raptor card and was running an amd k6-2 with probably 256 or 512k of RAM.

Anyone remember those days? I remember a lot of crashes, but I also remember mostly smooth previews off the timeline.
I was capturing and editing video on my computer. It was amazing.

Point is, editing isn't so amazing anymore.

Tapeless cameras are here, and I have been saving hours now that I'm not capturing in real time over firewire. But how great is it if I have to give back that time saved by rendering proxies or converting to other formats.

One would think getting what's becoming the leading consumer camcorder format to work smoothly with their software on everyday computers would be a priority for a company that built its reputation on portability, reasonable cost, and ability to run on lower-powered gear.

Don't get me wrong: I can work with this stuff on deadline, even if I can't show it to co-workers without a full draft render.

But I'm disappointed we're back to where we were a decade ago, and I now have to build a new desktop with all new components, an i7 processor and 8 gigs of RAM to make vegas work the way it should. And accept that no laptop in my budget can work smoothly with vegas.

So 9.0 and 9.a has come along, and, while there are dozens of new features I'll probably never use, there's also no improvement in avchd timeline playback. And, my partition install of 64-bit Windows 7 and 64-bit Vegas 9 has been a bust too. Why doesn't the 64-bit architecture at least improve avchd playback? I thought the calculations were Twice as Fast! Blah.

I know you will tell me that the avchd is too compressed, isn't meant for editing, etc., but why then does it play smoothly with vlc on the same laptops? Why does it play so smoothly out of my camcorder?

I would have expected at the very least that 9.0 or 9.a would have acknowledged this difficulty by offering a batch conversion feature that one could set and forget after importing avchd files. Instead, I read here that I must buy neo scene or gear shift. And that vegas no longer supports everyone's favorite lossless avi conversion format.

So I think I made a mistake buying vegas 9.

Anyway, I just wanted to get this off my chest. If you've read this far, thanks. And I'm sorry.

I'm disappointed I can't edit avchd on a laptop. I'm disappointed canon sent me down this road. I'm disappointed I didn't realize what a big issue this was before spending hundreds on a camera, laptop, vegas......

Yes, higher-quality video sure looks great. But damn, this is frustrating.

Comments

Cliff Etzel wrote on 7/21/2009, 3:26 PM
Ron,

First off, editing on a desktop is not the same as editing on a laptop. Are these macs running FCP quad cores with lots of RAM?

Secondly, I'd be transcoding the AVCHD files to something easier on the system - Will the paper foot the bill for Cineform NEO Scene? $139.00 - even with papers going thru what they're going thru, isn't that much from a departmental budget - I should know - I worked in newspaper and magazine a number of years. Many of my colleagues are out there trying to figure out how to make this vj thing work for them. Tough times for them. The simple transcode of AVCHD to Cineform is painless, takes a little more time but is well worth it in the long run IMO. When editing on a laptop - I edit on a Dell D620 core2duo with 4GB RAM and keep my video files on a second hard drive. AVCHD is processor intensive - more cores = better performance. Remove the bottle neck on the processor by going to an intermediate and you'll remove the frustration.

Dirck Halstead (a web design client of mine), Michael Rosenblum (originator of the Travel Channel Academy and is someone I correspond with) and others are all about the MAC but none of them teach with or use AVCHD as a shooting format. I myself still shoot tape and am willing to contend with ingest for the very fact I know if needed, I can edit m2t files and not have my laptop puke on me. Vegas Pro is still a better post production environment for SoloVJ's at a lower cost and provides better value.

In addition, Vegas Pro 9.0a was just released today - might fix some of your issues as well.

Cliff Etzel
Videographer : Producer : Web Designer
bluprojekt
ronhurt wrote on 7/21/2009, 3:32 PM
Thanks, Cliff.
I have a Dell Duo Core as well, with a portable drive, and the machine is stout. And just about any other format works like butter.
My primary complaint is I don't want to wait for my files to transcode. If I shoot 30 to 60 minutes in the morning or early in the day, then return to the newsroom between 2 and 4 -- that transcoding time becomes as big a drag as capturing via firewire.
How fast does your computer convert 60 minutes of avchd?
Cliff Etzel wrote on 7/21/2009, 3:37 PM
since I don't shoot in AVCHD, I don't have an answer for you on your question.

I do know that I shot 60 minutes worth of footage and transcoded the m2t's to Cineform and it does take some time. The other option you may want to consider is using VAAST AVCHD Upshift to convert the AVCHD files to m2t transport stream files. Only $79.00

Cliff Etzel
Videographer : Producer : Web Designer
bluprojekt
blink3times wrote on 7/21/2009, 3:48 PM
"I bought a year ago -- ( 2 Gig Intel Duo Core! 3 Gigs of RAM! 300 Gig HD! Vista! 64-bit capable! Woo-hoo!) "

If you want to edit native avchd then you have to (sorry...) buy a REAL computer. With the machine you have you should be using proxies or an intermediate.
ronhurt wrote on 7/21/2009, 4:01 PM
...A real computer that's going to cost me another $1,000, sits in a room, is too heavy to move easily, blows a loud fan and requires a liquid cpu cooler.

I understand what you're saying, but I want to edit on a laptop. Why is this so unusual? Hasn't that long been the holy grail for computer video editing? To have a portable computer capable of field work.

But as soon as decently-priced off-the-shelf machines became capable of this, the earth shifted, the bar was moved forward, and now I'm facing being tethered to a desk and dark room again if I want to stay with the technology.

I guess it separates the serious from the non- and keeps the pros working.
rich__r wrote on 7/21/2009, 4:03 PM
I share your frustration. I suggest you do a search on the ProxyStream script. It can be used to create proxy files that you can use to edit and then switch back to your AVCHD files for final render. But even better (IMHO) is using ProxyStream to convert your AVCHD files to high fidelity mxf files that you be used to edit and produce your final output.

Cost $0.

rich
blink3times wrote on 7/21/2009, 4:09 PM
"...A real computer that's going to cost me another $1,000, sits in a room, is too heavy to move easily, blows a loud fan and requires a liquid cpu cooler."

And them's the woes of editing avchd!

avchd is still very much a consumer format.... and probably always will be for exactly the reason you basically state.... it's messy to edit, and requires...... "A real computer that's going to cost me another $1,000, sits in a room, is too heavy to move easily, blows a loud fan and requires a liquid cpu cooler".
rs170a wrote on 7/21/2009, 4:11 PM
Thanks to Gilles (aka rosebud), ProxyStream and much more :-(

Mike
ronhurt wrote on 7/21/2009, 4:15 PM
Hmm, thanks Mike. I'll check it out.
Chienworks wrote on 7/21/2009, 6:06 PM
"...A real computer that's going to cost me another $1,000, sits in a room, is too heavy to move easily, blows a loud fan and requires a liquid cpu cooler."


Hmmmm. Where do i remember hearing sentiments like that before? Oh, right ... all the comments about trying to edit DV on a laptop a not too many years ago. Now laptops handle DV as easily as they used to handle .gif files and 8-bit mono .wav files back then. It's still a little bit too soon to expect portable hardware to handle all varieties HD with aplomb.
ingvarai wrote on 7/21/2009, 6:09 PM
It's still a little bit too soon to expect portable hardware to handle all varieties HD with aplomb.

Why edit AVCHD when you can use proxies..

ingvarai
TheHappyFriar wrote on 7/21/2009, 6:31 PM
not sure why'd you spend $1k on a system with a liquid cooler... $1k isn't really that much. At best 4 cores on a single CPU, a few TB's of space & a 19" LCD.

but... better idea. Buy your own HDV camera & use that. many people buy their own equipment when the stuff supplied sucks. I did (bought Vegas 4).
ushere wrote on 7/21/2009, 7:48 PM
agree with all those saying proxies of one sort or another..... (and in two > five years laptops will handle avchd as those today handle dv, however, they won't handle whatever 'new' format sprouts up, and i'm sure they'll be a new one by then!!!!)

and, as happy friar points out - if what you're supplied sucks, complain, and (if you're serious) get your own gear, after all, it's your business.

leslie
blink3times wrote on 7/21/2009, 7:55 PM
"Hmmmm. Where do i remember hearing sentiments like that before? Oh, right ... all the comments about trying to edit DV on a laptop a not too many years ago."

There's a difference between then and no though. Today the technology is changing so incredibly fast. The question is whether or not avchd will get buried by some other technology by the time we can actually edit it.
ronhurt wrote on 7/21/2009, 8:30 PM
"Hmmmm. Where do i remember hearing sentiments like that before? Oh, right ... all the comments about trying to edit DV on a laptop a not too many years ago. "

Exactly. I'm back to where I was a decade ago. Except back then, my NLE and Windows Media Player played DV files at roughly the same quality. Today, players like vlc plays the same avchd files flawlessly that vegas previews in fits and starts at 5, 8, 2, sometimes 14 and once in a while 29.97 fps.
blink3times wrote on 7/21/2009, 8:42 PM
VLC doesn't have to refresh a time line (audio and video) and a hundred other things at the same time. VLC can dedicate itself to one thing only.... playback.

VLC is a player while Vegas is a NLE.... there is quite a difference.
A. Grandt wrote on 7/21/2009, 10:15 PM
Base line is that editing HD takes a LOT of cpu power, and always will. That AVCHD is that much more cpu intensive comes from the fact that the h.264 codec is still relatively young, and that it is compressing the video much harder than MPEG2.

You don't take a computer that may have been good for editing DVD resolution in MPEG2, and expect it to do perform just as well on a resolution that gives you 5 times the number of pixels in a format that takes longer to decompress to boot.