@Howard-Vigorita thank you for your clip. and yes it plays way better, even here on my notebook. there are 2 main differences in your clip, my material is bt2020 with HLG, and dont ask me why the GH5 inputs this 50fps information in it, since it can not record in HEVC mode over 30fps.

 

I meant that decoding for both H264 and H265 10bit codec is available on the Nvidia GPU -that is what is doing the heavy lifting in regards to the decoding and that code base as you said should be standardized at this point in time. I don't see Panasonic doing something so wild with the H265 version compared to the H264 that would make it so hard to program for the Nvidia GPU.

You go here

https://developer.nvidia.com/nvidia-video-codec-sdk/download

Read the docs, download the software, and make it work, and if you don't know how bring some one in that does

GPU works fine on Premiere

@Former user Tested this and other gh5 hevc clips and was not able to load them with Resolve Studio unless I disabled encoding and decoding with the 1660.

The team is always working on improving format encode and decode support, they just had to devote their resources to making sure ProRes RAW and BM RAW worked out of the gate. Moving forward, they'll be able to further refine those while getting to some of you other squeaky wheels as well. There's only 6 engineers working on this, they cannot tackle every request at once. It doesn't mean they don't want to.

I admit I do not know the finer aspects of programming such things but is it really a monumental task to get Vegas to access the decoding from the Nvidia GPU, in my case the Panasonic camera has an HEVC 10 bit 150MB/s MOV codec and Vegas is not utilizing the Nvidia GPU for timeline playback but on the same camera they have an h.264 version of the same codec and Vegas does make use of the Nvidia GPU for playback so when coding shouldn't this just be a plug and play sort of thing, using the same code model but instead of pointing it to decode h.264 it points to the h.265 decoder on the Nvidia GPU?

I can understand BM RAW that it being a propriety codec that it might take lots of work to get it right but I would think that since you already have h.264 NVENC decoding working that h.265 should not be that much more difficult to implement.

First, as a general priority ( and I speak as a GH5 user) given a handful of team members, it makes sense that the priority goes to ProRes and BM RAW given Marketshare and demand.

ProRes actually requires to undergo Apple's blessing before the VEGAS Team is able to release it onto the public. This means a lot of back and fourth between the two companies as the codec is being fine tuned. Thankfully, the guys at Blackmagic are awesome and have provided their SDK for free. Apple, given its closed ecosystem culture is not as flexible.

The same, I suspect, is no different for H265 Codec updates. Software devs actually have to pay money for it. Fxhome (Vegas effects/hitfilm) didn't allow you to import H265 videos for a very long time, specifically because the licensing costs. I can't say for certain, however, if licensing costs extend to what you're asking for. But I wouldn't be surprised that it did.

Remember - at one point, VEGAS used to employ Dolby codecs for sound. You can guess why this is no longer possible.

Legality has more implications on software development then we can appreciate.




 

The same, I suspect, is no different for H265 Codec updates. Software devs actually have to pay money for it. Fxhome (Vegas effects/hitfilm) didn't allow you to import H265 videos for a very long time, specifically because the licensing costs. I can't say for certain, however, if licensing costs extend to what you're asking for. But I wouldn't be surprised that it did.

Remember - at one point, VEGAS used to employ Dolby codecs for sound. You can guess why this is no longer possible.

Legality has more implications on software development then we can appreciate.

Well thats why i said they could go with X265 if its a cost issue or try an option with ffmpeg as a general additional selecatable option. And they still offer at least dolby export. Very limited but they do. I have no clue why there are nearly 0 other options to export DD but there is one.
BUT we are talking here about performance and integration issues. Because its obvious since you can render with MAGIX HEVC output, there are fees payed already. Heck even HW Encoding works, so why does decoding not work properly? GH5 HEVC cant be that exotic in their settings..... Also i dont agree that Blackmagic RAW is more out there and needs more priority.

@eikira pls read here (6/17/2021): "Starting with the current versions of Windows 10, the VEGAS product line uses native Windows tools for stereo AC-3 encoding and decoding."

 

The same, I suspect, is no different for H265 Codec updates. Software devs actually have to pay money for it. Fxhome (Vegas effects/hitfilm) didn't allow you to import H265 videos for a very long time, specifically because the licensing costs. I can't say for certain, however, if licensing costs extend to what you're asking for. But I wouldn't be surprised that it did.

Remember - at one point, VEGAS used to employ Dolby codecs for sound. You can guess why this is no longer possible.

Legality has more implications on software development then we can appreciate.




 

You're saying that because you have no idea why the codec is not supported and coming up with logical reason why that could be without any knowledge of the true reason. The 2 sample files can be decoded by the Intel GPU hardware, it doesn't work with Nvidia or AMD discreet GPU's, if the codec needed to be paid for they're already doing so. Normally those codecs are unlocked on a user by user basis, and a screen pops up and connection made to Vegas to install the codec. With this model they only pay when someone uses the codec.

Did Intel people get a user activated codec install?

Given that the files play fine with Intel GPU decoder I don't think your reasoning that Magix is too cheap to pay for a codec is valid, and if Intel users don't a codec activation when playing the sample files there may not be a per user individual cost for the codec

@Former user Tested this and other gh5 hevc clips and was not able to load them with Resolve Studio unless I disabled encoding and decoding with the 1660.

@Howard-Vigorita I don't think it should matter but do you have latest version of Resolve Studio installed, 17.3?

The files use the GPU decoder for me

@eikira Just tried that clip on my xeon system which has no Intel igpu... I have an Nvidia 1660 in it for decoding. And it showed no decoding and played it mighty jerky at around 1.5 fps. The strange thing is that I use that system all the time with my zcam hevc clips and the 1660 decodes them fine and they play full rate. Only diff I can see is your clip is 25 fps and I shoot 29.97... surprised that could be so significant. Looks like from the metadata that your clip has been trans-coded from 50 fps. Maybe your transcode script can be fine tuned to emit something Vegas/Nvidia likes better. If you want to try my zcam clip out, here's a link:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1wfy03JE2OcRtHwxAMAqPGHcHR2jiW5w2/view?usp=sharing

I do not think that the frame rate matters, here is a 29.97 clip and no NVIDIA GPU encoding

https://www.dropbox.com/t/KLtVmj7P14KZFLfd

(Shot with the Panasonic CX-350) ^

If it is HEVC 10bit and LongGOP Vegas seems to choke on it because of a lack of NVIDIA GPU support, for some reason, not even a 24 AMD processor will not get it to play correctly.

 

I meant that decoding for both H264 and H265 10bit codec is available on the Nvidia GPU -that is what is doing the heavy lifting in regards to the decoding and that code base as you said should be standardized at this point in time. I don't see Panasonic doing something so wild with the H265 version compared to the H264 that would make it so hard to program for the Nvidia GPU.

You go here

https://developer.nvidia.com/nvidia-video-codec-sdk/download

Read the docs, download the software, and make it work, and if you don't know how bring some one in that does

GPU works fine on Premiere

Maybe Magix could have a fundraiser to contract an NVIDIA guru to fix any lingering codec playback issues while the rest of the team works on other things, I would chip in for that.

Maybe I am wrong but I think that the industry-standard device for GPU decoding of video for editors is NVIDIA and not Intel QSV so I am not sure why they would overlook NVIDIA decoding for a codec used by Panasonic's very popular GH5 line. I know WAY more people that have GH5s than Blackmagic cameras in the special event industry.

Side note- The Blackmagic pocket 6K is a great camera, I worked on a multi-Cam shoot with 4 of them back in June for a huge wedding band company demo shot in NYC. Walked away with like 80TB of footage after the 4 day shoot.

I do not think that the frame rate matters, here is a 29.97 clip and no NVIDIA GPU encoding

https://www.dropbox.com/t/KLtVmj7P14KZFLfd

(Shot with the Panasonic CX-350) ^

If it is HEVC 10bit and LongGOP Vegas seems to choke on it because of a lack of NVIDIA GPU support, for some reason, not even a 24 AMD processor will not get it to play correctly.

Crazy, your file gives me stunning 0.25fps playback performance on my notebook in VP19 ... loaded it into adobe premiere absolutely flawless not one stuttering playback in highest quality. 4800H amd, 1650 Ti nvidia, 16gb ram.

Tested this and other gh5 hevc clips and was not able to load them with Resolve Studio unless I disabled encoding and decoding with the 1660.

@Howard-Vigorita I don't think it should matter but do you have latest version of Resolve Studio installed, 17.3?

The files use the GPU decoder for me

@Former user Just bumped up from 17.2 and it's slightly better. Vega64 now decodes and plays it nicely. The 1660 still errors but I can get it onto the timeline and it plays it with a little decoding but puts up the same error screen repeatedly:

I do not think that the frame rate matters, here is a 29.97 clip and no NVIDIA GPU encoding

https://www.dropbox.com/t/KLtVmj7P14KZFLfd

(Shot with the Panasonic CX-350) ^

If it is HEVC 10bit and LongGOP Vegas seems to choke on it because of a lack of NVIDIA GPU support, for some reason, not even a 24 AMD processor will not get it to play correctly.

Crazy, your file gives me stunning 0.25fps playback performance on my notebook in VP19 ... loaded it into adobe premiere absolutely flawless not one stuttering playback in highest quality. 4800H amd, 1650 Ti nvidia, 16gb ram.

Yep, it plays real smooth in Premiere using my RTX 2080 Super card but barely 1FPS in VP18

Tested this and other gh5 hevc clips and was not able to load them with Resolve Studio unless I disabled encoding and decoding with the 1660.

@Howard-Vigorita I don't think it should matter but do you have latest version of Resolve Studio installed, 17.3?

The files use the GPU decoder for me

@Former user Just bumped up from 17.2 and it's slightly better. Vega64 now decodes and plays it nicely. The 1660 still errors but I can get it onto the timeline and it plays it with a little decoding but puts up the same error screen repeatedly:

Drivers are important with Resolve as releases are common and can require a very recent driver to work properly, you most likely are using a recent studio driver so don't know what the problem is

When you guys try these sample files with HEVC legacy mode (gpu decode off) do you get a strange stop start motion. I"m not sure if it's vegas or my system which has been having some problems lately. This is what it looks like

When you guys try these sample files with HEVC legacy mode (gpu decode off) do you get a strange stop start motion. I"m not sure if it's vegas or my system which has been having some problems lately. This is what it looks like

yes, exactly the same on my notebook.

Tested this and other gh5 hevc clips and was not able to load them with Resolve Studio unless I disabled encoding and decoding with the 1660.

@Howard-Vigorita I don't think it should matter but do you have latest version of Resolve Studio installed, 17.3?

The files use the GPU decoder for me

@Former user Just bumped up from 17.2 and it's slightly better. Vega64 now decodes and plays it nicely. The 1660 still errors but I can get it onto the timeline and it plays it with a little decoding but puts up the same error screen repeatedly:

Drivers are important with Resolve as releases are common and can require a very recent driver to work properly, you most likely are using a recent studio driver so don't know what the problem is

 

When you guys try these sample files with HEVC legacy mode (gpu decode off) do you get a strange stop start motion. I"m not sure if it's vegas or my system which has been having some problems lately. This is what it looks like

Yes, it is like it is buffering and then it tries to catch up

I have given up on VP18 for the time being for the lack of HEVC 10bit 420 GPU timeline acceleration / playback support. I have mentioned this many times before. 422 not working at all, not even for a proxy workflow, is embarassing. Then spending time on codec support for Blackmagic and Apple is rather questionable imo. where traditionally VP has a historic Sony user base. For some, a low data footprint 10bit SLOG is preferred as it can deliver similar quality than data intensive RAW formats. Devs time wasted on Post and cloud features that I don't really wanted where all I wanted is an NLE that can edit quick and reliably. May have to sit this one out chaps good luck

 

Maybe I am wrong but I think that the industry-standard device for GPU decoding of video for editors is NVIDIA and not Intel QSV so I am not sure why they would overlook NVIDIA decoding for a codec used by Panasonic's very popular GH5 line. I know WAY more people that have GH5s than Blackmagic cameras in the special event industry.

There's users here that talk down on the Nvidia decoder like it's 2nd rate and Intel is so much better, it's only much better on Vegas, but not the fault of the decoder.

This is showing playback of an 8K60 AV1 video, the most highly compressed video format available on a 4K24 timeline without dropping frames, I can also playback 8K VP9 without any conversion, it all works great using Nvidia decoder, we're missing out on a lot, it should not be necessary to buy a Intel to get all the functionality out of Vegas

 

The same, I suspect, is no different for H265 Codec updates. Software devs actually have to pay money for it. Fxhome (Vegas effects/hitfilm) didn't allow you to import H265 videos for a very long time, specifically because the licensing costs. I can't say for certain, however, if licensing costs extend to what you're asking for. But I wouldn't be surprised that it did.

Remember - at one point, VEGAS used to employ Dolby codecs for sound. You can guess why this is no longer possible.

Legality has more implications on software development then we can appreciate.




 

 

You're saying that because you have no idea why the codec is not supported and coming up with logical reason why that could be without any knowledge of the true reason. The 2 sample files can be decoded by the Intel GPU hardware, it doesn't work with Nvidia or AMD discreet GPU's, if the codec needed to be paid for they're already doing so. Normally those codecs are unlocked on a user by user basis, and a screen pops up and connection made to Vegas to install the codec. With this model they only pay when someone uses the codec.

Did Intel people get a user activated codec install?

Given that the files play fine with Intel GPU decoder I don't think your reasoning that Magix is too cheap to pay for a codec is valid, and if Intel users don't a codec activation when playing the sample files there may not be a per user individual cost for the codec

I would encourage you to look up the pricing model of H.265 when it was available (or even better ask a dev ) and compare it to the timeline it took for mainstream adaptation.

Sorry to say this, but no matter how inconveniencing - pricing is a business nuance you simply cannot ignore. If bigger editing brands took time to implement them, smaller brands with a handful of people will especially do the same.

BRAW, on the other hand, cost little. Because the SDK is practically for free.

I would encourage you to look up the pricing model of H.265 when it was available (or even better ask a dev ) and compare it to the timeline it took for mainstream adaptation.

Sorry to say this, but no matter how inconveniencing - pricing is a business nuance you simply cannot ignore. If bigger editing brands took time to implement them, smaller brands with a handful of people will especially do the same.

BRAW, on the other hand, cost little. Because the SDK is practically for free.

Why dont you provide the sources so people can look up fastly? I did not found much but i found this https://web.archive.org/web/20141006091331/http://www.mpegla.com/main/programs/HEVC/Documents/HEVCweb.pdf

page 7: HEVC Products Sold to End Users by a Licensee with (a)
ownership/control of the brand name or (b) if the HEVC Product
bears no brand name, with discretion over decision to Sell
•0 ‐100,000 units/year = no royalty (available to one Legal Entity in an
affiliated group)

beside that, did i not pay already through nvidia on their GPU for the license to use HEVC for decoding AND encoding?

what am i missing here. to me it sounds like you make it a license issue, which all this problems of decoding has pretty much almost nothing to do with.

I would encourage you to look up the pricing model of H.265 when it was available (or even better ask a dev ) and compare it to the timeline it took for mainstream adaptation.

Sorry to say this, but no matter how inconveniencing - pricing is a business nuance you simply cannot ignore. If bigger editing brands took time to implement them, smaller brands with a handful of people will especially do the same.

BRAW, on the other hand, cost little. Because the SDK is practically for free.

Why dont you provide the sources so people can look up fastly? I did not found much but i found this https://web.archive.org/web/20141006091331/http://www.mpegla.com/main/programs/HEVC/Documents/HEVCweb.pdf

page 7: HEVC Products Sold to End Users by a Licensee with (a)
ownership/control of the brand name or (b) if the HEVC Product
bears no brand name, with discretion over decision to Sell
•0 ‐100,000 units/year = no royalty (available to one Legal Entity in an
affiliated group)

beside that, did i not pay already through nvidia on their GPU for the license to use HEVC for decoding AND encoding?

what am i missing here. to me it sounds like you make it a license issue, which all this problems of decoding has pretty much almost nothing to do with.

If you were to observe the text I quoted, the response was to the gentleman who suggested that I was saying Companies or MAGIX are being "Cheap"

Secondly, the reference you quoted suggest End Users. Those are me & you. End Users rarely pay anything.

B2B Data isn't the first thing Google will yield, which is why I emphasized that it would better to communicate with a developer to understand this, since licensing fees scale differently based on development scale.

It is not my argument for why this is happening, it is simply speculation that it may be why VEGAS hasn't been optimized for it. Licensing fees may not even have a baring on it.

For the first few years BRAW was playable on Premiere, people had to flock to a third party paid solution called "Braw Studio" by AutoKroma because of how frustrating it was to even try. And this is Adobe we're talking about. The SDK is free. Could it have been a coding discrepancy? I have no idea. But I'm speculating :p

I'm able to afford working with multiple systems, so it hasn't bothered me as much. But I can sympathize with people who aren't in my position.

 

I would encourage you to look up the pricing model of H.265 when it was available (or even better ask a dev ) and compare it to the timeline it took for mainstream adaptation.

Sorry to say this, but no matter how inconveniencing - pricing is a business nuance you simply cannot ignore. If bigger editing brands took time to implement them, smaller brands with a handful of people will especially do the same.

BRAW, on the other hand, cost little. Because the SDK is practically for free.

Why dont you provide the sources so people can look up fastly? I did not found much but i found this https://web.archive.org/web/20141006091331/http://www.mpegla.com/main/programs/HEVC/Documents/HEVCweb.pdf

page 7: HEVC Products Sold to End Users by a Licensee with (a)
ownership/control of the brand name or (b) if the HEVC Product
bears no brand name, with discretion over decision to Sell
•0 ‐100,000 units/year = no royalty (available to one Legal Entity in an
affiliated group)

beside that, did i not pay already through nvidia on their GPU for the license to use HEVC for decoding AND encoding?

what am i missing here. to me it sounds like you make it a license issue, which all this problems of decoding has pretty much almost nothing to do with.

If you were to observe the text I quoted, the response was to the gentleman who suggested that I was saying Companies or MAGIX are being "Cheap"

Secondly, the reference you quoted suggest End Users. Those are me & you. End Users rarely pay anything.

B2B Data isn't the first thing Google will yield, which is why I emphasized that it would better to communicate with a developer to understand this, since licensing fees scale differently based on development scale.

It is not my argument for why this is happening, it is simply speculation that it may be why VEGAS hasn't been optimized for it. Licensing fees may not even have a baring on it.

For the first few years BRAW was playable on Premiere, people had to flock to a third party paid solution called "Braw Studio" by AutoKroma because of how frustrating it was to even try. And this is Adobe we're talking about.

I'm able to afford working with multiple systems, so it hasn't bothered me as much. But I can sympathize with people who aren't in my position.

 

I do recall someone mentioning that the reason that some of the codecs need to be downloaded from Magix from time to time is that somehow this avoids a royalty cost or something to that effect.