DNxHD or Matrox or Vegas 10

JHendrix wrote on 12/7/2010, 6:51 AM
Any opinion as to weather to use Avid DNxHD or Matrox or just use Vegas 10?


Here is the AVCHD stuff I have (from Canon HFS11):

Streams
Video: 00:11:20.613, 29.970 fps interlaced, 1920x1080x12, AVC
Audio: 00:11:20.613, 48,000 Hz, Stereo, Dolby AC-3


--


I tested a Matrox conversion using Prism

I chose:

output: avi
encoder: Matrox I-Frame HD

Result:

Streams
Video: 00:02:46.166, 59.940 fps, 1920x1080x24, Matrox MPEG-2 I-frame HD
Audio: 00:02:46.303, 48,000 Hz, 16 Bit, Stereo, Uncompressed

I did one with Data Rate @ 140 and it looks pretty good + seems to play well in Vegas:

I do notice a slight added contrast to the converted footage. It looks less flat but not necessarily in a bad way.

I can not conclusively tell if playback is smoother but the "sometimes slow start" of raw AVCHD seems to be addressed.


--

I tested a Avid conversion using Vegas
I chose:

output: QT
encoder: DNxHD

Result:

Streams
Audio: 00:11:24.117, 48,000 Hz, 16 Bit, Stereo, 16-bit Little Endian
Video: 00:11:24.117, 29.970 fps progressive, 1920x1080x32, Avid DNxHD Codec

it looks identical to orig seems to play well in Vegas. It seem to play smoother than the Matrox.



Comments

PerroneFord wrote on 12/7/2010, 8:23 AM
It seems somewhere between Vegas 9.0c and 9.0e, SCS made real progress in handling Quicktime on the timeline. Given that, I would probably use DNxHD. My version of Vegas is older so I settled on the Matrox codecs since they were in AVI which those versions of Vegas much preferred.

LoTN wrote on 12/7/2010, 9:05 AM
I do notice a slight added contrast to the converted footage. It looks less flat but not necessarily in a bad way.

With Matrox codec, you have to be careful about levels settings in vegas and the codec colorspace conversion settings that are available from the windows taskbar menu.

I believe the codec documentation should be read by any person wanting to use them.

I ran some tests with different settings (YUV <> RGB conversion left as is) using vegas generated media (gradients from 16 to 235 and 0 to 255) . I am sorry it is in french but the pictures speak themselves.

Well, some awareness about this is not useless.
JHendrix wrote on 12/7/2010, 9:53 AM
yes, I noticed on my test clip the avid is 6GB bigger than the matrox but really does seem to look better (or exact) so i guess the file size is a consideration but probably not a deal breaker.

orig: 1.9 GB
matrox : 11.2 GB
avid: 17.6 GB

hey, this is kind of fun learning about this stuff but I might just end up staying with the orig. If I am not mistaken, Vegas 10 seems to be playing the raw back better than 9.

PerroneFord wrote on 12/7/2010, 10:29 AM
File size is determined by one thing, and one thing alone. Bandwidth. if you make the bandwidth equal, the files will come out the same size no matter WHICH codec you choose. The only question then, is which looks better at that selected bandwidth, and how does it work with Vegas.

Editing the original files can work fine for some edits. But will be a killer in others.

Best of luck.
JHendrix wrote on 12/7/2010, 11:11 AM
well I am going to forge ahead and do the avid conversion ...Im just now downloading Streamclip (and notice i will also need the QT MPEG add on!!)
PerroneFord wrote on 12/7/2010, 11:23 AM
Why do you need the QT Mpeg Add-on? I've never used it.
JHendrix wrote on 12/7/2010, 1:09 PM
maybe I don't.


but


1. when you launch the program it complains about not having that codec


2. when i try to open MXF in MPEG Streamclip it says "unsupported format" and "imports" only audio

3. does it matter if if use MPEG Streamclip on mac or windows? (on both I am getting the unsupported format dialog upon import.

Laurence wrote on 12/7/2010, 1:18 PM
My experience is that the Matrox codec is useless without the Matrox hardware. Vegas uses a VFW version of the Matrox codec that isn't accelerated with the Matrox hardware, but in this case the hardware is used as a hardware dongle and without it, you don't have access to the codec. A good option for those with the hardware, but not for the rest of us.
PerroneFord wrote on 12/7/2010, 1:27 PM
I have that Matrox codec running on 3 machines. Of those, 1 has Matrox hardware. The new release of Lightworks specifies use of that same Matrox codec. HUNDREDS of people are using it without any Matrox hardware attached.

There is something particular with your install causing you issues, or you've downloaded and installed the wrong version.
PerroneFord wrote on 12/7/2010, 1:29 PM
Sorry, I didn't realize you were trying to open .MXF files. Are these MXF files created with Vegas or out of a camera?
JHendrix wrote on 12/7/2010, 1:38 PM
out of the camera. Canon HFS11 AVCHD
PerroneFord wrote on 12/7/2010, 1:48 PM
Looks like I've deleted all my Canon HFXXX stuff. I used to keep some for testing purposes.

Not sure if installing FFMpeg would help you, but it couldn't hurt.

Mpeg Streamclip is a nice utility, but it started on a Mac, was ported to PC, and development seems to have stopped. It hasn't been updated in a VERY long time.
JHendrix wrote on 12/7/2010, 3:52 PM
i have ffmpeg installed for creating web video but I dont have the right front end to do the avid conversion in an easy way. someone mentioned jetdv and vasst but I have not used them for batch so dont know


at this point i might try cineform or either Vegas or AE to render to avid.

Vegas or AE to render to avid would be perfect it it were an easy ui/workflow to do it.
PerroneFord wrote on 12/7/2010, 3:56 PM
The whole point of using intermediate files is to do the conversion on the files BEFORE you lay them on a timeline. And in that vein, using Vegas or AE really falls down.

But do what you feel you need to. I am going to see if I have any HFXXX files at home to play with and test this workflow. Been a while.
NickHope wrote on 12/7/2010, 7:12 PM
JHendrix, you can also use the free and excellent Proxy Stream. I've batch rendered thousands of .mov files from .m2t files using this script. I've never used the proxy function though. I've just used it as a batch renderer. DNxHD shows up as an option in it if you have it installed.
JHendrix wrote on 12/7/2010, 7:37 PM
@ PerroneFord

i emailed you a link to a file


@ Nick

thanks, I'll check that out.. where does the .dll get installed?
PerroneFord wrote on 12/7/2010, 9:20 PM
I got the link. No go in Mpeg Streamclip. Squeeze didn't like it much either. Prism is ok with it because it can use FFMpeg. VLC did a conversion, but it cant write .MOV. I don't have QT Pro here at the house to try it.
JHendrix wrote on 12/8/2010, 3:16 AM

but Prisim is avi only and wont do avid?

--

regarding "just using vegas and raw avchd" ...I keep wanting to think this is doable and really hope it simply will be in upcoming releases of Vegas. people say, "but if you have a modern machine you should be able to do it". well I have a macpro 3ghz 8 core with 32gb ram and Im still getting intermittent weird behavior / freezes, only when working on avchd projects.

--

anyhow, I did use cineform and the results are good but some issues I had:

result had slight contrast look
audio level was reduced

I'm going to keep working with cf to see if these issues can be addressed. the biggest plus with cf so far is the file size is smaller than any avid I've done, its 10 bit and has the ready made ui to do batch.

--

but I'll keep working to get the avid workflow smoothed out because, so far, its the only one where I notice zero difference in the look of the transcode. just need to work on the file size thing and decide on a batch workflow.


Im looking at http://vegasaur.com/transcoder...will see how it goes
NickHope wrote on 12/8/2010, 5:17 AM
>> thanks, I'll check that out.. where does the .dll get installed? <<

On my 32-bit XP SP3 system it's at C:\Program Files\Sony\Vegas Pro 10.0\Script Menu\Proxy Stream 15e.dll
JHendrix wrote on 12/8/2010, 10:54 AM
so i got vegasaur transcoder and proxy stream both working and they both do the exact same thing in terms of the final render.

that said, vegasaur is much nicer UI and lots of really cool extra features (plus the other things it can do beyond transcoding).

--



regarding the current round of renders:


Original AVCHD from Canon HFS11 set to PF30: 2GB


--
Cineform:

settings:

quality- high

result:

7.45 GB, slight contrast bump, truncated audio, plays back well

--


Avid DNxHD (using Proxy Stream or Vegasaur)

settings:

Audio: 48,000 Hz, 16 Bit, Stereo, PCM
Video: 29.970 fps, 1920x1080 Progressive

Compressed Depth: 32bpp color
Quality: High

Codec: Color Levels- 709, Alpha- None, Resolution- 1080p/24 DNxHD 175 10-bit

result:

18.5 GB, no noticeable difference with original, plays back well

--


I want to try getting the file size in Avid DNxHD down so I will have to keep testing




PerroneFord wrote on 12/8/2010, 11:01 AM
Read this:

http://fp.avid.com/resources/whitepapers/DNxHD_WP3.pdf

Then read this (from 2008):
http://digitalcontentproducer.com/mil/features/video_dnxhd_marvel/index.html

Things have come a long way in a couple of years and DNx36 is the darling of big budget films now for offline cutting.
JHendrix wrote on 12/8/2010, 12:25 PM
not 100% clear, seem the only way to save file size would be jump to 720 (145) ?
JHendrix wrote on 12/8/2010, 12:25 PM
not 100% clear, seem the only way to save file size would be jump to 720 (145) ?
PerroneFord wrote on 12/8/2010, 12:51 PM
DNxHD has numerous bit rates available. File size, no matter what codec, what frame size, or what frame rate per second, simply comes down to the chosen bit rate. So you simply need to select a bit rate that gets you the file size you want.

Let's say you have a 1080/24p video and want to encode it to DNx60. You can select that bit rate, even though it says 720p by it. Those are merely suggestions of the kind of video that would be best served by that bit rate. They are not set in stone. DNxHD will not (or at least it has not in the past) change the video to 720p. It will simply make a 1080p video at your chosen bit rate.

I just did a test run of this in Vegas with a 1080/24p video in DNx115 and made a 1080/24p DNx60 video from it.

One caveat here is that if your video is progressive, you MUST choose a progressive version of the codec, and if the video is interlaced, you must choose an interlaced version. Other than that, you can safely ignore the "frame size" listed, and even the FPS listed, and just choose the bit rate that you want.