Cuts only editting of m2T clips in V7????

Back to post

Comments

Laurence wrote on 12/5/2006, 8:59 PM
Actually I have two complaints with Cineform. The second is that as they update the codec, I have twice now ended up with projects captured in an older version of Cineform that do not properly work with the current version of Vegas. This can be a big deal if you are doing a long term documentary project.
Bill Ravens wrote on 12/6/2006, 5:40 AM
well, now, that ain't good.
Laurence wrote on 12/6/2006, 6:00 AM
Let me rephrase that: the older Cineform codec stuff works with the latest version of Vegas, it just doesn't preview smoothly. I'm currenty sitting with a large project on one of my drives that was originally captured in Cineform, rerendered to Cineform 3 once, but still doesn't preview smoothly in Vegas 7. Somehow I lost one of the original tapes. Otherwise I'd just recapture the whole thing as m2t.
Bill Ravens wrote on 12/6/2006, 6:15 AM
there's a utility available from cineform that does a registry change to make playback of cineform files smoother. dunno if this will work within the vegas preview window....they claim it works with WMP.

here:
http://www.cineform.com/downloads/PlaybackControls.zip
Laurence wrote on 12/6/2006, 7:00 AM
It only works from WMP. It doesn't work on the Vegas preview window.
MH_Stevens wrote on 12/6/2006, 10:38 AM
Laurence:

You say the truth when you say "My only complaint with Cineform is how the dramatically the performance has dropped (to the point where it's less efficient than editing native m2t video) with the version 7 release of Vegas." ........ but did you know this is a Vegas7 problem. I and others have written on this before. There was bad information exchanged between Cineform by Sony about V7 during development. Cineform says they can not afford to make the changes needed and saying its Sony responsibility while Sony seems to to care while pushing native editing. Having spent over $300 on Cineform I find this disappointing. It looks like maybe Sony wants to dump Cineform and this is the first step in distancing themselves. JMPOTM. (Just My Perception Of The Matter)
Bill Ravens wrote on 12/6/2006, 10:58 AM
i'll tell ya that if sony can't fix the "smart render" problem of m2t files, editting native m2t is a non-starter for me on the vegas platform. and it sounds like it's out of sony's hands since mainconcept owns the m2t codec software. so, as long as i have the cineform HD conversion software, i don't think i really care whether sony bundles the CF codec with Vegas or not.
Jay-Hancock wrote on 12/6/2006, 11:06 AM
Bill:
If you have the storage space, there is one way to get the "best of both worlds" (playback performance & rendering speed).

Cineform's HD Connect has a flag that allows conversion of .m2t into an avi that gets "smart rendered" from the Vegas timeline (you probably know this).

You can convert the .m2ts to CF (during capture if your PC has the horsepower). Then you can simultaneously put both on the timeline as "takes." While making your cut selections choose the native HDV as the active take. This gets you the best playback performance. When it comes time to do your rendering, switch the active take to be the Cineform intermediates. Then it will do a fast smart render to the smaller clips you are wanting. And, because it doesn't use GOP, I-frames won't be an issue.

All of this of course assumes you have adequate storage available.
Bill Ravens wrote on 12/6/2006, 11:21 AM
AMD athlonx2 4600, 2gig RAM, Working Project Drive:2x SATAII RAID0(~100MB/sec) HD's.

I think the only thing faster than this is a newer Intel core 2 duo. I hadn't thought of arranging both files as "takes" as you suggested. Interesting idea.


Workflow: 1-always use FS-4HD, so m2t files are directly available without capture.
2-conversion to CF codec with HDLink
3-choose CF avi or native m2t to edit, depending on edit reqmnts.

After following this thread, I'm thinking that sticking with the CF avi files is the best plan. I was occasionally doing cuts only editting on the native m2t, for the sake of better quality, but, the rerender time is killin' me.
Jay-Hancock wrote on 12/6/2006, 12:48 PM
Your workflow could definitely lead into using takes as I suggested. The playback benefit during your review for cuts is quite significant. This approach also gives you more benefit from Vegas 7 (you get the playback rate of HDV plus the editing improvements) and your smart rendered CF clips won't require time-consuming re-rendering.

Also, the takes feature is not difficult to work with. You can have lots of footage on the timeline and simultaneously toggle all the active takes with one menu or keyboard command. I did find that after you put an initial media file (like an .m2t file) on the timeline, you need to drag the CF equivalent over the thing twice (once for the audio event and once for the video event). There may be a way to do them both at once, I just didn't find it. Still, it's really quite simple.
Serena wrote on 12/6/2006, 1:06 PM
>>>because it's a short-form GOP format, I-frames won't be an issue<<<<

Which are you referring to?
Jay-Hancock wrote on 12/6/2006, 1:26 PM
Well, I guess the term GOP really doesn't apply at all for CFDI, since it's actually a completely different type of compression.
Serena wrote on 12/6/2006, 1:34 PM
>>>GOP really doesn't apply at all for CFDI<<<

Yes, it's quite erroneous.
Jay-Hancock wrote on 12/6/2006, 1:47 PM
Ok, I edited my previous post to remove the error. The basic idea of using takes for a best of both worlds situation was what I wanted to convey. While not ideal, it does offer another approach.

Vegas has so many ways to do things, which is one of the reasons l like to work with it.
Serena wrote on 12/6/2006, 3:16 PM
Jayster,
I pointed that out only because it was significant in the context and in fact had already been a subject pertinent to this thread. We have all, at some time, used a technical term loosely in the course of an explanation, well knowing that it isn't strictly correct but figuring it'll do for the moment. One of my recent ones was, on a CML site, calling the CFDI "lossless" (instead of visually lossless) which brought down a terse correction from people in the high-end HD post-production business. Quite rightly, for many people don't go back to sources and the film/video discussion forums are populated with threads based on mis-heard technical "facts".
Obviously none of this detracts from the technique you were explaining.
Laurence wrote on 12/6/2006, 7:45 PM
>You say the truth when you say "My only complaint with Cineform is how the dramatically the performance has dropped (to the point where it's less efficient than editing native m2t video) with the version 7 release of Vegas." ........ but did you know this is a Vegas7 problem. I and others have written on this before. There was bad information exchanged between Cineform by Sony about V7 during development. Cineform says they can not afford to make the changes needed and saying its Sony responsibility while Sony seems to to care while pushing native editing. Having spent over $300 on Cineform I find this disappointing. It looks like maybe Sony wants to dump Cineform and this is the first step in distancing themselves. JMPOTM. (Just My Perception Of The Matter)

Yeah I've followed the threads. Vegas changed their code in a way that negatively impacted Cineform. They didn't even include the Cineform team on Vegas 7 beta testing! The fix would only require a small amount of change in the Vegas code to improve or it would take a huge adjustment to fix from the Cineform side. It does look like Sony dropped the ball on this one.