I can't see $0.80 royalty costs being an issue for poor codec support. Also, nVidia is just as good if not better when you choose the right settings (you have more choices, more flexibility). So, no reason not to fully embrace it. HEVC has been around long enough, it's the obvious way forward, and the team has chosen to ignore this albeit various requests, for other reasons.

I can't see $0.80 royalty costs being an issue for poor codec support. Also, nVidia is just as good if not better when you choose the right settings (you have more choices, more flexibility). So, no reason not to fully embrace it. HEVC has been around long enough, it's the obvious way forward, and the team has chosen to ignore this albeit various requests, for other reasons.

 

 

*Sighs*

You're comparing consumer/end user pricing versus development/large scale commercial licensing. The price tag that Media Player pops up for HEVC playback is not as the same as what a developer gets when getting in touch with the proprietors of the technology.

And everything that was put fourth regarding this matter has been categorically referred to as a "Speculation", at least from my end.

I do not work for MAGIX. I'm not on VEGAS Team's payroll, as much as I'd love to be.


 

I use hevc extensively mostly because it is high quality, high performance, and space effective both in-camera and in-computer. But I think it's days are numbered unless they drop licensing costs. Otherwise it'll be gone in new cameras as soon as someone makes an in-camera asic that allows it to record av1. Which is royalty-free. Av1 decoding is already starting to be included in video boards and igpus. Some Samsung and Android cell phones are already decoding it, being driven by Netflix transmission. Quality analysis I did with ffmetrics puts av1 encoding up with the best.

I use hevc extensively mostly because it is high quality, high performance, and space effective both in-camera and in-computer. But I think it's days are numbered unless they drop licensing costs. Otherwise it'll be gone in new cameras as soon as someone makes an in-camera asic that allows it to record av1. Which is royalty-free. Av1 decoding is already starting to be included in video boards and igpus. Some Samsung and Android cell phones are already decoding it, being driven by Netflix transmission. Quality analysis I did with ffmetrics puts av1 encoding up with the best.

After thinking about it, how would a license fee play into this- The file plays fine with Intel QSV, if it was a license issue the file would not import at all into Vegas. The issue is the inability of Vegas to utilize the NVIDIA GPU to decode the file so unless NVIDIA is charging them (which I don't see them doing that since they want to sell cards) HEVC fees are not the problem.

I wouldn't call HEVC high performance, it takes quite a lot to decode it, and if your GPU doesn't support decoding it, then you definitely won't be editing it without proxies.

It's in the name, High Efficiency. Hence little data, at a great quality, albeit at the cost of compute intensity, hence one needs hardware acceleration to work with effectively; no one had a problem with this with XAVCS being AVC, which this more sophisticated codec is built on. But AVC is OLD and the world moves on. So do I, and if my NLE isn't, then I have a problem. Most of us now shoot/edit 4K which is 4x the data. As we're heading down the road of more resolution>more data all the time, this is one necessary path we must take. And yes, when you can decode with Intel, why can't you with the faster nVidia? Also, if one developer cannot afford the license fee, then give the client a chance to purchase separately, for that 80c.

. And yes, when you can decode with Intel, why can't you with the faster nVidia? Also, if one developer cannot afford the license fee, then give the client a chance to purchase separately, for that 80c.

Like I said to that guy from the start, he is coming up with a premise that logically describes why on earth Vegas doesn't fully implement the NVIDIA and AMD decoders, and only use Intel GPU decoder to it's fullest at a time where home users are moving away from Intel. I think his idea is that Magix spent all their budget on HEVC rights for Intel decoding, and didn't have the money for AMD and Nvidia GPU decoding. That's probably not how it works, he's saying software, and each GPU maker requires a different license and they all cost money so Vegas only bought the software and Intel IGPU decoder license???

There used to be 10bit HEVC Nvidia decode, but it was unstable and caused crashes, and was removed. Doesn't it make more sense that this is still the reason, not some story about Magix being cheap, and back to my original point, bring someone in that can fix the problem, it will pay for it'self with positive reviews

I wouldn't call HEVC high performance, it takes quite a lot to decode it, and if your GPU doesn't support decoding it, then you definitely won't be editing it without proxies.

If you are a pro/semi-pro editor you most likely have a decent GPU and most of them have decoded HEVC for a while now.

I think that my old GTX 960 card even had it

I wouldn't call HEVC high performance, it takes quite a lot to decode it, and if your GPU doesn't support decoding it, then you definitely won't be editing it without proxies.

If you are a pro/semi-pro editor you most likely have a decent GPU and most of them have decoded HEVC for a while now.

I think that my old GTX 960 card even had it

Even the lowest power gpu's like GTX1030 have hardware decoding, and on the laptops the MX150. Anything with a low powered CPU will have a GPU decoder that does HEVC, and anything with a high power CPU will, It's basically everything. Only problem might be the cheapest AMD laptops and no discreet GPU with integrated graphics, not sure if Vegas support that

I wouldn't call HEVC high performance, it takes quite a lot to decode it, and if your GPU doesn't support decoding it, then you definitely won't be editing it without proxies.

Hevc is clearly very hardware demanding but the advantage is that it's possible to satisfy its needs. If you do, it yields better performance than other formats. When it comes to 10-bit 422, there's no avc decoder support for that from anybody.

Here's a summary of Hevc licensing:

https://www.mpegla.com/wp-content/uploads/HEVCweb.pdf

With so many patent holders, it can get complicated. End users are not charged a license fee unless they sell an hevc product above a threshold count. I assume ffmpeg doesn't have to pay because they don't sell anything. I assume Magix might have to pay based on sales volume, which is probably why they go through the codec authorization process so they can document their hevc user count. Microsoft is probably in the same boat with their hevc codec which probably motivated them to put it in their store for a nominal fee. Camera and GPU makers are probably paying through the nose. Nvidia tried to sell the cell phone makers an hevc decoding asic a few years ago and got no takers. Probably because they'd end up paying double. Since then camera, computer, phone, and chip makers have all banded together into the open source av1 consortium.

Actually I think they did add AVC 10 bit 4:2:2 decoding to the latest intel chips, if I remember right, but yes, there are more hardware decoding options for HEVC.

. Probably because they'd end up paying double. Since then camera, computer, phone, and chip makers have all banded together into the open source av1 consortium.

As you said AV1 is the highest quality on YouTube, so already there is a use to be able to decode AV1 via GPU, The latest Intel CPU's and Nvidia and AMD GPU's support AV1 decode, Video editors have begun supporting AV1 and VP9 GPU decode. An 8K AV1 I tried editing with from YouTube has a 28MB/s bit rate which is about what I would hope for. YouTube didn't use the extra efficiency of the codec to save bandwidth at a cost to quality. I hope it would be feasible for cameras to provide AV1 encoding as an option soon. Also from what I can see YouTube only does 8K in AV1, I guess bandwidth too high on VP9, and YouTube is banking on widespread support for AV1 gpu decoding

Did a quick double check and there's no 4:2:2 avc hardware decoding yet on Intel igpus. I put a copy of the 7th gen and later Intel support matrix in a google sheet here (easier to read than Intel's web page):

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1zVCWwv8GP5e8gST1J_1dntVk4tXGaIteZNgUxgBHtDQ/edit?usp=sharing

... which is supplemented by this which I clipped off of my 11900k data sheet:

I think the convo has gone a bit off track with the license fees.

The bottom line is what exactly is the hold up on getting Vegas to intergrate NVIDIA GPU decoding of common codecs used in Pro and Prosumer cameras- especially the Panasonic line of mirrorless cameras (GH5,GH5s, S1, etc).

Is it?

1-cost

2-lack of programmers at Magix well versed with the NVIDIA SDK

3- They hate NVIDIA and 10bit HEVC

4- Lack of resources to do it (YET). They are an 8 person team that has a lot of big issues to tackle. This is a relatively small annoyance in comparison.

4- Lack of resources to do it (YET). They are an 8 person team that has a lot of big issues to tackle. This is a relatively small annoyance in comparison.

Subcontract a person to do it

@Richvideo I was able to test the GH5 clip you uploaded on my 1660 and not even the ffmpeg nvidia decoder would take it. Only the x265 software decoder. Using ffmpeg with the copy codec gave the same results. Suggests it's a GH5/Nvidia problem. Fwiw, AMD wouldn't decode it either. Only Intel or software codecs. So I tried the software libx265 codec to transcode it with ffmpeg to a nearly identical mov clip. And that clip is golden all around. If you want to try it for yourself, here's the script:

ffmpeg -i "A074C006_210724_E99Z.mov" -an -c:v libx265 -crf 11 -y out420.mov

That yields a slightly higher bitrate and omits the audio. Crf 12 will yield slightly lower.

@Richvideo I was able to test the GH5 clip you uploaded on my 1660 and not even the ffmpeg nvidia decoder would take it. Only the x265 software decoder. Using ffmpeg with the copy codec gave the same results. Suggests it's a GH5/Nvidia problem. Fwiw, AMD wouldn't decode it either. Only Intel or software codecs. So I tried the software libx265 codec to transcode it with ffmpeg to a nearly identical mov clip. And that clip is golden all around. If you want to try it for yourself, here's the script:

ffmpeg -i "A074C006_210724_E99Z.mov" -an -c:v libx265 -crf 11 -y out420.mov

That yields a slightly higher bitrate and omits the audio. Crf 12 will yield slightly lower.

Thank you for looking into this issue for me it is appreciated

It plays very smoothly in Adobe Premiere on the same AMD Ryzen system and Adobe uses NVIDIA decoding so I am not sure if it is an NVIDIA -Panasonic codec problem.

I can re-encode it in Adobe Media Encoder but I would rather that it just plays in VP19 as is. The name of the product is Vegas Pro (Pro being the keyword) I shoot with a pro camera and this is not some weird obscure codec from an off-brand camera or device.

@Richvideo I was able to test the GH5 clip you uploaded on my 1660 and not even the ffmpeg nvidia decoder would take it. Only the x265 software decoder. Using ffmpeg with the copy codec gave the same results. Suggests it's a GH5/Nvidia problem. Fwiw, AMD wouldn't decode it either. Only Intel or software codecs.

Once again, people are blaming Nvidia (and Amd) instead of the developers. If Resolve and Premiere can get it right, so can Vegas. ffmpeg and handbrake both use software decode and like Vegas they need further development. Looking at handbrake options they also favor Intel IGPU with a box to tick to use it instead of using your AMD/Nvidia GPU because at a guess handbrake works with the Intel IGPU works where Nvidia/Amd doesn't

I looked at 2 recommended trans-coders, they both used Nvidia decoder for this file, I don't like the first so won't name it, but the 2nd is Shutter Encoder. Shutter encoder a more recently developed trans-coder and it is a better developed ffmpeg with a GUI, you can enter ffmpeg commands into it's function box, so ffmpeg can use Nvidia GPU decoder in the hands of a good developer

@Former user Just tested the clip @Richvideo uploaded with Resolve Studio configured to only use the Nvidia 1660 gpu and it crashed. The 16- and 20-series use the same decoder chips. The 30-series uses a newer decoder chip so they might be more friendly to it.

@Former user Just tested the clip @Richvideo uploaded with Resolve Studio configured to only use the Nvidia 1660 gpu and it crashed. The 16- and 20-series use the same decoder chips. The 30-series uses a newer decoder chip so they might be more friendly to it.

I just put it in Resolve 17 and it plays fine. It does not seem to be utilizing the GPU so that does seem to indicate that Vegas should be able to play it even without GPU decoding, that is if you are working with a system with a decent CPU (Ryzen 3900-12 core).

@Howard-Vigorita What about Shutter Encoder, see if you get Nvidia GPU decode for that. My GPU decoder option in preferences is auto, make sure that's not set to none. I think the only thing that changed between your GPU's decoder and 3000 series is addition of AV1 decode. I would ask on the Resolve help forum for people with 16/20 series Nvidia GPU's to try and play the file to determine if it's software bug or a problem with your system.