Hi, David

Thanks for the explanation and the hard work I know you guys at Cineform are doing to try to resolve this. I understand from some posts on other forums that Cineform MOV files are not affected by Vegas 9 incompatibility issues, just the AVI files. Is this correct?

For NeoHD and above users, they should be able to rewrap AVI files to MOV in HDLink as a work-around. But, for those of us using NeoScene, that's not an option.

Would Cineform consider letting Vegas 9 / Neo Scene users have free, time-limited access to the rewrap-enabled HDLink as a workaround until the V9 vfw issues are resolved? If not, how about letting Neo Scene AVI purchasers exchange their software for the MOV version?

It sounds to me like Cineform is having to clean up Sony's mess here, which is unfortunate. I do appreciate, however, that both teams are working to resolve the problem.

Brian, The workaround for Neo Scene users (and all AVI users) is to run Preview Full with that auto control turned off. The MOV importer is not doing multiple resolution decodes so a half or quarter is not going to improve decoding performance -- i.e. stick with AVIs.

David

CClub - if you look at the first screen shot in my picasa album - it shows me going in and changing to a custom setting - it worked fine for me. I just rendered out to a 720p custom version with the same results. I've even gone in and changed preview to the settings that other users are having issues with and rendering out new clips.

No issues whatsoever.

Cliff Etzel
Videographer : Producer : Web Designer
bluprojekt

I don't know why you guys are whinging and complaiing about Cineform. Since version 8 (or maybe even 7) Vegas has been BEST IN CLASS at editing and archiving natively in HDV, even on modest computers. Why piss about with Cineform when you can edit and archive in the format you shot in?

I'm not showing any cineform at all ,bought or the free one,, did 9 not even come with the old free (included) one ?

V9 didn't come with the free Cineform codec... really sucks as I use it for AVCHD editing. No option to render to an intermediate in V9 and my V8 veg files when edited in V9 show no video.

missed that in the whats new section,

David,

OK, appreciate the workaround tip. I'll try it and see how it works.

Well, that is pathetic. They should at least support Cineform as a legacy codec. Seems SCS have fallen out with Cineform, same as they seem to have no on-going development deal with MainConcept... Which would be fine if SCS had their own codec development program, but they don't seem to. Look at the awesome SCS DV codec, which was half the reason many of us switched to Vegas from Premiere et al.. The talent is (or was) obiously there at SCS to sort refine these codecs in-house, but ut they haven't. FFS, just get together with MainConcept and licence the curent H.264 codec goddamit instead of that embarrassing old crappy "tick in the box codec" that we have. So we end up with a poor MPEG2 codec, a poor H.264 codec, no FLV codec whatsoever, etc... SCS don't seem to recognise the importance of web video, but it's undoubtedly the future. Vegas still rocks big time and continues to improve as an NLE but it would be a world-beater if it took output formats such as H.264 seriously. OK, rant over, I still love Vegas and I love Mr Satish even more. Muah.

Because re-rendering into HDV or AVCHD codecs generates unacceptable quality loss. Uncompressed files are too big to be useful as an archive media (especially if you're archiving to LTO tape, like I am). Cineform strikes a good balance between size and robust, nearly-lossless encoding.

AND, at least until V9, playback and preview speed were much better with Cineform media than with native HDV or AVCHD files.

I'm beginning to wonder if its time to check out dnxhd. It's free and is wrapped in mov format. Avid even has the free metfuze converter software. Even has similar color bit depth and data rates to ProresHQ. Food for thought.
I'm wondering if it would work in Vegas 9 64bit.

"everybody" is right here...well? sort of.

SCS probably didn't to pay a liscensing fee for Cineform this time around. That's fine, it's well within their right to do that.

As a business decision, it's VERY debatable. ( I think it's crazy to move "backwards" on features like that)

Hell,..if SCS chose to not allow native AVCHD codec support on V9,...that would be well within thier rights,...just as well. (but equally stupid on a busness level)

Bottom line: Dont upgrade to 9 and maybe SCS will change their minds. That is something that is well within your rights too.

Vegas doesnt "have" to support ANYthing....you dont "have" to buy it.

CT : - )

Dont complain here, you will only upset certain people on this board. Just buy V9 and be happy with what you get.

Response from my support ticket to SCS: Hi James, Thank you for contacting Sony Creative Software. A response we have received from a rep from Cineform regarding the development of their codec outlines: "We currently don't have a release for a 64-bit codec, required by Vegas 8.1 and 9 64-bit -- this will come shortly. The 32-bit components do work in the 32-bit Vegas 9, however there is a performance hit when using the Half or Quarter res modes (or the auto mode), full preview is working fine. A bug report has been sent to the Vegas team." (That was from David Newman's communication to Sony).

"From the looks of the dialogue going back and forth with our development team and their reps, both companies are aware of the known issues and are working toward a solution. "

THAT is all we were asking for... DIALOGUE GOING BACK AND FORTH with BOTH companies working toward a solution. Thank you to all who are involved with this process.

"Bottom line: Dont upgrade to 9 and maybe SCS will change their minds. That is something that is well within your rights too."

And I'm sure the loss of the few that complained about this here and on the dvinfo.net forum will severely cripple Sony Vegas. You will bring them to their knees and they'll be begging you to release them. Why, they'll be in the palm of your hands shaking at the notion that you'll close them up, thereby crushing them to bits.

Yeah... it's about as silly as your statement.

"Dont complain here, you will only upset certain people on this board. Just buy V9 and be happy with what you get"

Nobody minds complaints... as long as they're legitimate, but this whole thread blaming SCS for a compatibility problem on a new release is just plain stupid and has gotten even more stupid with your drivel.

And BTW... I already have upgraded.... GREAT program!

Blink,
When your mother finds out how much time you've been spending in the basement on the computer while she was away, she's gonna beat your a**. Especially when she finds out you skipped school to stay home and type away on this forum. Now go clean your room!!

Actually the wife is at work and she left me a nice little to-do list... and expects it done by the time she gets home. I haven't even started yet so getting my a** kicked tonight is a distinct possibility!

Must be hard to find anyone more annoying than blink or one who has such fervent belief in his own unhelpful views; still a teenager? In mind, anyway.

I agree... I can't wrap my mind around what this fellow Blink must be like... remember that office nerd character played by Rob Schneider on SNL who always said stuff like, "The Bobster, Mr. copy mahn." That's how I picture Blink. C'mon, Blink... post us a photo.

Blink had posted a photo of himself in a thread I started in February of 2008 asking forum member to post photos of themselves. The links to his photo has no longer valid. In case you want to see what some other members of the forum look like, the thread is here:

http://www.sonycreativesoftware.com/forums/ShowMessage.asp?ForumID=4&MessageID=579300

I saved that thread! Here's the photo of Blink editing!

I don't see how personal attacks are really appropriate here.

In this case, I think blink is getting the short end of the stick. I agree with most of his point. The reality is that a vendor like sony, in order to innovate, is going to have to make some changes that break backwards compatibility.

I'm not saying that sony has *no* responsibility, however, there is a limit to what they can reasonably be expected to do.

Microsoft has been cited as a positive example here, but emulating Microsoft is not practical for everyone.

Disclaimer: I work for Microsoft, on Windows, though I'm speaking on my own behalf, not the company's.

Microsoft has a *ton* of resources compared to Sony Creative. Backwards compatibility is maintained by a combination of Microsoft resources maintaining communications with 3rd party vendors, those vendors engaging with us, and our development resource.

We maintain relationships with these vendors during the development of new versions of Windows. In some cases, we actually have code in our product to work around apps that did not follow convention, or haven't been able to upgrade their code. However, this is not something smaller outfits can be expected to do to the same degree.

On the negative side, this mode results in some unpleasant things. Often people complain because Windows is overly complex and contains some bloat. Much of this comes from the price of backcompat.

People also complain about the pace of innovation in Windows. Windows release cycles are loooong. We could move much faster, and our software would be leaner, if we did not go through this cost and effort for backcompat.

Having said that, the principle Microsoft exhibits, as famously cited in Steve Ballmer's developers! video is a good one to follow to the extent that you can. Sony is a platform. Their platform's success is dependent on the 3rd party ecosystem. Right now Adobe and other products garner the majority of 3rd party support via plugins and other value add products. Sony should be investing in partner relations to ensure that 3rd parties have been kept up to date.
The large ecosystem of these other product platforms is definitely a competive advantage for them and a disadvantage for sony.

Adobe and others tend to have the economics on their side. 3rd parties are going to be more proactive in making sure that they work with adobe because their userbase is so much larger.
This is why people make sure their apps work and are up to date on Windows, but less for Linux.
Similarly, there are a gazillion 3rd party products for the iPod/iPhone platforms. Meanwhile, Zune is lucky to have the few that it does. Zune is a great product, better I think, but its a numbers game and we suffer.

I guess my view is that the reality is somewhere in the middle of the spectrum of discussion here.

Sony should focus on providing support to those making the top tier 3rd party extensions. Sony probably needs to do more than Adobe as they don't have the marketshare that others do. It sounds like Cineform is one of those products. They do seem to be working together to find a solution, but it seems like customers aren't satisfied with the pace. If customers aren't satisfied, they will go elsewhere. At the end of the day, nothing else really matters.

Still, there are limits to what Sony can do, and that doesn't seem to be acknowledged much here.

my 0.02