Indie Filmmaker - Wish List - Vegas 7.0

Comments

RBartlett wrote on 4/14/2006, 1:41 PM
Come on then, which tape format is 8bit RGB? 8bit YUV needs near enough 10bit RGB to work in a transcription manner as accurately as many would presume Vegas does out of the box.

8bit RGB does exist in SDI formats but really, it is rare, somewhat frustratingly so, to see RGB sources in the raw.

Sony does a fantastic job of renumbering YUV formats (like prosumer DV, MPEG-2, MJPEG, JPEG, etc) into its RGB 8bit pipe. However I'm sure they'd have switched to 10bit if only they hadn't had to rewrite the provided Video FX, filters and providing an additional annex/constraint to folks who already had third party add-ons for Vegas4 onwards.

Some MPEG-2 formats have 10bit DCT co-efficients, but again these are renumbered (I won't say compromised as the gradient/contouring tests do prove Sony does all that it can with its choice of RGB against YUV being native). Indeed uncompressed RGB24/RGBA32 and DV formats are the only native-passthrough ones.

So to say that 10bit support is premature in the prosumer marketplace is a tad short of the truth. 10bit YUV would be a bit premature for a video app.

Vegas ought to have a 10bit RGB mode or a true YUV 8bit mode. Also 4K and 8K properties. It used to have 4K but it disappeared in a patch (possibly a third party SDK issue, but more likely the folks from the top floor in the suits).

As for grunt, 8bit RGB requires 24bits storage per pixel. 8bit 4:2:2 YUV requires 48bits for every three pixels. 4:1:1 and 4:2:0 are more painful to budget. However there is some transcode tax and CPU/cache/memory bandwidth pain to deal with YUV ingest and target formats through an RGB pipe. You have to decide which type of signal processing you'll support, and whether you'll require everything to "conform", but Sony/SoFo made their decision and it wasn't such a bad one. However don't be too accepting of the purity of the maths. The results are where we mostly care but a 10bit RGB mode would be welcome, IMHO.

Love Vegas, but won't sit down when I see good folks like Bob being even slightly hoodwinked. 10bit RGB is required for 8bit YUV oriented DVCProHD and HDCAM formats unless you are happy with cramping the range even if it might be difficult to detect. When it boils down to it, many shooters won't mind MP3 or 44k1 PCM audio tracks, but many folks in the modern day want PCM 24/96 or 30/192 audio - because it is within our reach from a hardware perspective. The software always follows behind. Vegas is slightly dragging on this specification. Something all to easily done in this digital world we compromise our way through in.

Hmm, ITU-R601 vs ITU-R709 colour identity has also been a bit hit and miss. Perhaps this is fixed in 6d.

Personally, I'd like to see a 6e before the next paid for release. A 6e with additional features. I'm not totally enthralled about NAB anniversaries. Probably because I cannot afford to attend personally. Sometimes a major update is issued because a major piece of work is done. However money makes the world go 'round.

What is all this soap doing on my feet,.... ? ;)
farss wrote on 4/14/2006, 3:31 PM
I don't think I'm being hoodwinked.
My understanding is that 8bit YUV has a smaller gamut than 8 bit RGB, although I'll admit that I hadn't thought much about the translation process from YUV to RGB, some of that maths gets a tad challenging. But I can see that to convert the values within the 8 bit YUV space to RGB with minimal loss one might need more than 8 bits in the RGB space.

I found your comparison with audio encoding curious, for my money YUV is rather similar to mp3 or more likely ac3 audio encoding, bits that our brains don't hear well are ditched to save bandwidth. That's arguably a reasonable compromise for content delivery but not for acquisition and the same goes for video. What I'm waiting for is cameras that record in RGB. To me YUV and interlacing were clever compromises that we no longer need.

One small point that never gets mentioned, the original thrust of Vegas was I believe delivery of streaming content, in that case working in RGB makes perfect sense.

Bob.
rmack350 wrote on 4/14/2006, 3:33 PM
Couldn't restrain myself. Why should Sony provide you with Panasonic codecs? Wouldn't you think that Panasonic should provide their codecs?

Get with it, Panasonic! Provide your DVCPro50 codec for free! ;-)

Rob Mack
Spot|DSE wrote on 4/14/2006, 3:39 PM
;-) you can bet that if Panasonic owned an NLE dev group, Sony would provide their codecs for free. Even though Ulead is now owned by Intervideo, I'd bet that Panasonic could pick up Media Studio Pro for cheeep.
GoodnightFilm wrote on 4/14/2006, 5:20 PM
Sometimes I think we would have all been better served by not having Sony buy Vegas. Too much political baggage between the camera/hardware division and the NLE. That kind of relationship can create monsters (e.g., Xpri, AVID). Here's a thought, I bet Bill Gates would take it over (instead of MovieMaker, LOL ;)...after all, the Vegas dev team has done a good job of incorporating the latest Microsoft dev tools...(e.g., .NET and SQL Server Desktop engine). Prove me wrong Sony!!!! Please! Let's kick some Adobe and Apple ass! And, gain the respect of the A.C.E and Thelma Schoonmaker while your at it! :)
Spot|DSE wrote on 4/14/2006, 5:51 PM
Once again, you're talking out of your hat. The camera division doesn't rule or for that matter, influence the software division. This forum carries more weight than the broadcast division. in fact, they sometimes are at odds with each other.
As someone who has worked closely with both divisions, AND with the Electronics division, it's very, very obvious.
Still on point....Why did Sony Vegas support the JVC 24p but not the SD-XDCAM out of the gate? Why wasn't there HDV support prior to the release of Vegas 6?
Why is it that I was able to walk into Apple's offices and see a Z1 sitting there last January when the boys in Madison hadn't seen one yet? Because they are two totally independent companies with very little in common, other than the goal of developing and selling products.
There is zero truth to the notion that the broadcast division has any weight to throw on the software division. And vice versa. That might change under the new CEO, but for the time being, it is what it is.
GlennChan wrote on 4/14/2006, 6:02 PM
YUV (which should really be called Y'CbCr) has a larger color gamut than RGB (studioRGB to be more accurate). However, this color gamut includes lots of illegal colors... so there is waste there. The good thing about Y'CbCr is that it allows color subsampling (more luminance resolution than color information; a good optimization), and that it's easy for hardware to deal with.

I believe the way Vegas currently handles things, you get some slight rounding error. I don't think you'd see this, since most sources have noise that would mask this error. IMO, image noise and compression in the image overshadows/hides issues like this.

You would have to consider that most delivery formats would have compression or noise that would mask things. A lot of broadcast material will be compressed on video servers, DVD has compression, etc.

You might get very real benefits with YUV processing though, when dealing with footage where the white balance is off. The studioRGB color space will clip information from the highlights and superwhites... one of the color channels (R/G/B) will clip in the studioRGB color space.

Some other things to bear in mind:
1- Even Final Cut Pro is buggy in its 10-bit mode. The Apple 10-bit uncompressed codec is quirky. This may be because not that many people care.

2- It may be more worthwhile for the Vegas team to get the most out of 8-bit RGB. For example, handling of studioRGB versus computerRGB is poor. There are some simple things that can be done... i.e. change the filter interface so that black level will stay at 16, and white level at 235. Or allow an option to automatically convert still images to studioRGB, and to do the opposite conversion when compressing for web formats.
The difference between studioRGB and computerRGB is very obvious, unlike slight rounding error.

Another example would be a better chroma recovery filter. The chroma blur filter is slow, which hinders its use in practice. There may also be a better algorithm... I haven't looked closely into this, because it usually isn't worth the effort to even apply the chroma blur filter except when doing chroma key.

3- Perhaps the best approach would be to include a better set of color enhancement tools. You can make very noticeable changes in image quality with this. This is one reason why 35mm film looks great... a lot of it is run through a color enhancement process at the video transfer stage.

I'm currently working on an open source filter that does this... hopefully I find the time to finish it. Don't get me wrong, Vegas also has good tools already... but the interface is not that well organized for color enhancement, and there is not that much information available on what to do with those tools. The algorithms can be improved upon (i.e. linear light processing), but you can say that about many of the color enhancement systems out there. Vegas is above average in that regard.

*Disclaimer: I have a bit of a bias since I've done work for VASST on a training DVD for color correction in Vegas.
GoodnightFilm wrote on 4/14/2006, 7:26 PM
okay. you have authority here. sorry if i mispoke. appearances can be deceiving though. i would just like vegas to support DVCProHD (like Premier and FCP) and for Sony to figure out how they are going to reconcile Xpri with Vegas....those two do seem at odds with each other (but again, that's from an outside POV)....Sony needs to clarify which editing system is targeted at indie filmmakers....because right now, neither is and that is making sony lose ground to FCP and Premier. Xpri is for the big boys with lots of $$$ (even though they don't like it) and Sony does not do enough to go after the indie crowd w/ Vegas. i would just like to know (as would i'm sure many Vegas editors) that our skills can transfer to Hollywood at some point...if we should be so lucky ;) we need more feature-length films edited with Vegas and less with FCP...and that's not gonna happen until the "millimeter" crowd sees Vegas side-by-side with the F950 and Varicam.
Spot|DSE wrote on 4/14/2006, 7:55 PM
All the more point.
Sony Xpri-comes from Sony Broadcast
Sony Vegas-comes from Sony Media Software.

EDL's from Vegas go very nicely into Xpri. I've demonstrated it on many an occasion. Xpri is made for the broadcast crowd. Would be nice to see it used for indies, but how many XpriHD systems do you think there are installed out there?

Let's examine your other posts.
1. you're sure that Vegas doesn't support JVC 24p. not so.
2. you're sure that 10 bit is the grail, citing HDCAM as a supportive reason. HDCAM is 8 bit. As are most cams.
3. you're sure that the camera division directs the politics that affect the software division. They don't. Their websites aren't even linked.
4. you state that Premiere Pro supports DVCProHD. It doesn't. Premiere doesn't support DVCProHD without third party support. The same third-party support available for Vegas.
5. you're sure that the HVX is a "kicka$$ camcorder" when you haven't shot any frames with it, nor tried to edit with it in any application. Rent it before you're so sure. Or download some from our website.

I'm sure you're good at what you do, but much of what you're *sure* of seems like it's coming more from reading and not practical experience. Media color corrected in 8 bit is broadcast every day. Media shot without DVCProHD is broadcast every day. Media shot on DV makes its way to big screens every day. And media edited in Vegas makes it to national broadcast, every day.
Is Vegas the holy grail? No. No single editor is. I too, wish Vegas had a lot of features it currently doesn't have. But there are realistic views, and it seems like your demands are not. To suggest that you can't shoot on an HDCAM and edit in Vegas for instance, is silly. Sure, you don't have native support, but with an HDLink and monster RAID, fast proc, and some sense of editing, you can certainly do this. We do. So do others here. Would it be better if we could upsample to 10bit? Sure. Is it the most important thing on the feature list? I doubt it. I'd rather see an overwrite mode than see 10 bit, for example. I'd rather see an easier workflow to export to FCS other than using Duck as an intermediary. I'd rather see stronger HDV capture support, with timecode write, etc.
There is marketing hype, and there are important features, and rarely do the two match up.
GoodnightFilm wrote on 4/14/2006, 8:10 PM
> 1. you're sure that Vegas doesn't support JVC 24p. not so.

Again, Sony didn't capitalize on sharing this info...as did FCP and Premier. Not my fault. I was on the phone the day the HD100U was announced trying to see if was going to be supported by Vegas. Vegas tech support had nothing to say about this.

>2. you're sure that 10 bit is the grail, citing HDCAM as a supportive reason. H DCAM is 8 bit. As are most cams.

i defer to the expert/tech post that was made on this thread. 10-bit is still good...why else do other NLE's brag about it.

>3. you're sure that the camera division directs the politics that affect the software division. They don't. Their websites aren't even linked.

the possibility of influence is there. don't expect us to buy everything you're selling (no pun intended). as a matter of fact, you seem to be touting Xpri now for the indie film crowd. give me a break...we'll continue to use FCP in that case.

>4. you state that Premiere Pro supports DVCProHD. It doesn't. Premiere doesn't support DVCProHD without third party support. The same third-party support available for Vegas.

I've corrected this statement. But, the CineForm codec is 10-bit in Premier and 8-bit in Vegas. Why?

>5. you're sure that the HVX is a "kicka$$ camcorder" when you haven't shot any frames with it, nor tried to edit with it in any application. Rent it before you're so sure. Or download some from our website.

that's low. i just read the HDV camera shoot out in the new issue of DV Mag...all the cameras have their merits. but let me say one thing...i'll never use the Sony HDV because its 24 fps is a joke. it's the only camera they kept in 60i mode!

and, yes, i would rather use DVCProHD over HDV...anyday. As would most pros.

But relax, DSE. I do support Vegas -- more than you may have noticed. I just want to see it used for more than just broadcast news. Is that so bad? Apparently so....from a company that wants to push a 100k editing system down our throats (at the expense of Vegas?).
mvb wrote on 4/14/2006, 9:21 PM
If they don't want to give into Pany then buy Raylight (what the hell, buy the whole company while you're at it). Bingo...instant DVCProHD support.

Cool, I would love to sell DVFilm to Sony. I'm thinking
low seven figures :)

I did get some excellent help from Sony in the development
phase of Raylight and hope to get their cooperation to more tightly
integrate it with Vegas, and hope to do the same with Adobe and Premiere Pro as well.

Raylight was recently added to the Panasonic's FAQ on the
HVX200 and we're very grateful for that nod.

more info at




farss wrote on 4/14/2006, 9:23 PM
Glenn,
I'd have to question a couple of your statements.

I've certainly never color graded 35mm but looking at some examples of what's done between 35mm camera neg and the final print compared to what can be achieved with almost all video formats that's not a limtation of the processing chain, it's a limitation of the amount of data that's captured.
I'd back that up by saying that several articles I've read by film colorists have noted exactly the same limitation, you simply can push 35mm way, way more than you can DV25 or even 8 bit 4:2:2 even when video is fed through the same chain. I suspect the issue starts with the limitations of CCDs themselves, maybe the monsters in digital film cameras are better than the 1/3" babies most of us can afford.

Secondly and I could be wrong here but from memory every article I've read about video and YUV shows the NTSC or PAL color gamut INSIDE the possible range of RGB values, my own experience working with sRGB in stills would seem to back that up. I believe also that's why there's an ongoing issue with graphic artists preparing material in sRGB for video, it's all too easy for them to use out of gamut colors.

Bob.
GlennChan wrote on 4/14/2006, 10:06 PM
Hi Bob,

I don't disagree about what you've said about film versus video. Film certainly captures more information with no compression. If you ingest 10-bit material (i.e. film transferred to digibeta), then it would be better if Vegas supported 10-bit input/output. I think that most of the folks here aren't into that kind of thing. But I could see how it would be nice if there were some high-end users who were using Vegas for that kind of thing. I haven't seen a real-world example of how 10-bit differs in quality- it may or may not make a significant difference in image quality.



Out of gamut is different from being illegal.
The Y'CbCr color space allows for illegal colors and can store those colors. The color gamut is big enough to include many illegal colors.
Real-world imagery typically does not contain illegal colors. Whereas working with computer graphics, you can occaisionally end up using an illegal color.

The diagram at
http://www.doom9.org/index.html?/capture/digital_video_color.html
shows the relationship between RGB and Y'CbCr color space.
busterkeaton wrote on 4/14/2006, 10:06 PM
I've demonstrated it on many an occasion. Xpri is made for the broadcast crowd. Would be nice to see it used for indies, but how many XpriHD systems do you think there are installed out there?

How does saying "Xpri is made for the broadcast crowd" translate into touting it for indies?
farss wrote on 4/14/2006, 10:10 PM
Firstly I'd have to question why anyone would even want to shoot at 24fps, serious production is done at that frame rate not because it's better, simply because there's no choice. With it comes a range of limitations, there's simply no upside to 24fps.
Some of the most spectacular film ever shot and I've seen a little of it was shot and projected at 60fps. Unfortunately it's a very expensive process but if you really wanted to do something 'independant' why not give it whirl. The film cameras are still available, the lab will not care but you might give the projectionist a bit of a heart attack !

As for DVCPro, well a few years ago we had something like 5 DVCPro decks, today we have none. There's just too much argy bardgy with their gear, one year Panny are doing one thing but next year they say they'll do another and don't. We just gave up on them. There's no compelling reason to stick with their products and local demand is decreasing. Sony got to be the big boys in broadcast because they understand that business, broadcasters want stuff that works, no widgets needed, no dramas over non embedded audio needing more gizmos in the chain. And that's before I even get to the problems with the dreaded Varicam, my goodness if Vegas supported the variable frame flags from that thing I could have made a killing, wish I knew what does cause no one seems to have a solution, talk about a 'record only format' :)

As to Vegas (or anything) supporting DVCPro HD it's not a matter of them just sitting down and writing the code. You have to BUY a licence from Panny and Panny can say they will not sell it to you, period. It's their property and good luck to them, if they were so concerned about the Indie film maker why dodn't they put the codec into the public domain? Why not go and bang on Pannies door and ask them, so far I've yet to read a squeak out of them. I've read at least one post from the CEO of one far from bit player in this game saying Panny wouldn't even answer his phone calls, it wasn't a matter of money, it was a matter of NO WAY CAN YOU USE THIS. So from where I sit the company that's acting like some version of uStuff on steriods isn't Sony.....

And here's the other thing that gets up my nose. Everyone focusses on cameras and yet a cameras are a very small part of the cost of production. Just look at the cost of a 800 Watt HMI, around the same price as a Z1, I know cause we're looking to buy a couple of Joker Bugs, hard to convince yourself though, what do you want, a Z1/HVX 200/XL H1 or a light? Sure lights aren't very sexy but good lighting will make a production look way more 'film like' than 24 fps ever will.

Feel better know, must be the meds kicking in....

Bob.

PS, I've seen some very film like footage from the Z1, have a look around dvxuser.com. Might have been because the guy shooting this stuff used some of those boring things that the film guys use, like dollies and cranes.
apsolonproductions wrote on 4/14/2006, 10:52 PM
I was reading more posts about the HVX. I finally got mine about three weeks ago (back ordered for almost three months from B and H). Funny thing is I can't edit the DVCpro HD stuff..lol I'm waiting until the NAB convention to see if Vegas 7 will or will not be released with native DVCproHD support or not. Native DVCpro HD support in Vegas will determine where I break down or not and go back to Avid. Any how, after viewing the HVX on two HD TV's (one was a 1920X1080 LCD) I have to be impressed with the HVX. The camera does have a little noise in the image (darker images) but it blows my Z1U away in resolution! I do say the Z1U does better in low light conditions and not to say the Z1U res is low, but the HVX in 1080p and 720p was much sharper and clearer. I cant afford cameras over 10 grand, so the new sony line of XDCAM HD and others in the HDCAM line are out of my reach $ wise. For the independant film maker I think the HVX is the way to go, at this point. However you know how things change every two years or so..lol. Anyhow I just thought I would give my opinion from someone who has shot with the HVX too.

DSE,
I have not used the JVC H100U yet. I've heard great things about it, but I used to shoot HDV on two older JVC cameras (remember the HD1 and HD10U). I thought the footage was "good" at the time but I was a little reluctant of the H100U because of my bad experinces with the HD1 manual features ( or lack of..lol). I should be working with a canon H1 in the future and I would like to compare the Z1U , HVX, and the H1, including fast moving shots, quality, etc.
busterkeaton wrote on 4/14/2006, 11:21 PM
Have you tried Raylight yet?
apit34356 wrote on 4/14/2006, 11:28 PM
"Why is it that I was able to walk into Apple's offices and see a Z1 sitting there last January when the boys in Madison hadn't seen one yet?" Apple agreed to ""buy"" a large number of FX1s, put them in all (USA)Apple stores, promote and offer free FCP and FX1 intro editing sessions...... and Apple did as promised(basicly). Apple did promote the FX1 and HDV format aggressively. tho this relativeship has chilled, about 3 months after the FX1 intro when IBM and Sony Japen said no, ( off topic).

And we all know Madison has no retail outlet. Madison can't get Sony Style Stores to display their stuff.
rmack350 wrote on 4/14/2006, 11:30 PM
Get the light. Problem is, you should get three. You might also look into the adapter to attach it to a leko, and the chimera rings, and the chimera, and the lanterns.

Problem is you eventually find yourself buying 4 and 6kw pars and wishing you had something with a little more punch.

But the 800 joker bugs are really flexible. Definitely worth while.

Rob Mack
apsolonproductions wrote on 4/14/2006, 11:54 PM
Busterkeaton
I have not tried raylight yet. I really dont like third party plug-ins, and I'd rather have the guys that are make the NLE make the code for the video I'm using.
RBartlett wrote on 4/15/2006, 12:59 AM
Well, streaming video will remain non-RGB (YUV, YCbCr etc) even for computer video for a while longer. Sure, vector imagery "streams" with RGB color-picking for flash animations. However FLV, WMV, QT and MPEG (oh, and those Real folks) use non-linear Luma+Chroma presentation-reformatting (compression). Without using this technique, a lot of bit-budget headroom is lost.

Like any optical deficiency (macroblocking, subsampling, lossy cabling, badly written clamping/scaling codecs) - if you can't see the problem, there isn't one.

I tried to write my post earlier to explain that 8bit RGB is fine. 8bit with a switchable RGB/YUV core would be better. Using a sub-pixel representation and floating-point luma+chroma internally would be better still. Even if the output was 8bit non-RGB (DV, DVD, WMV, FLV etc). 10bit would equate to some of the elite equipment and some animation codecs (some of which would elect to use non-RGB).

When it comes down to it, Sony could simply state that it has a floating point, 16x sub-pixel internal representation for 2D/3D processing of your media. We'd have a job to prove otherwise, as what we believe is an 8bit RGB process (because we asked and were told) holds out well with video and animations.

Vegas works very well for me. I'd like to see it grow into something that can make best use out of >250MB/sec storage and fast FPU+CPU cores dotted around PCI-Express buses and >12GB/sec memory interfaces. Having no compromise in the internal mechanics of the software isn't really a challenge but will eventually be an expectation.

Spec sheets (like the 6bit/262k + dithering-engines that we consumers end up with when we want cheap fast response LCD panels - although this seems to be less commonplace as I look about more recently) drive folks down the wrong route sometimes.

Cameras ought to have multi-port gigabit ethernet bitstream connections on them that give us full access to the full CCD/CMOS imager post-proc-amp but pre-processing. We can then make exactly what RGB 8bit balanced signal we want to pop into Vegas6d. This also needn't be in the realms of fantasy/the-big-league but today it is.

Vegas remains a fantastic value product and most of us use it to make a living on. Now when that concept is extended to the Indie Filmmaker - that is sensational.

BTW: RGB has a different gamut than YCbCr. The lowest and highest values in each or on a single vector for either case can cause a conversion issue. That is before you consider the legal and broadcastable values. RGB would be the go-to format if it wasn't for the issue of compression in virtually all moving picture acquisition and many target formats.

A good photographer can take a decent picture on 110/disc-camera. A videographer can make a film or tell a fine story that doesn't leave you concentrating on the how-they-did-it using an 8mm/VHSc camcorder or 8mm cine-camera. So I agree that the road-map for improving Vegas to make it faster and better for editing is more than being about leading spec sheet improvements.
apit34356 wrote on 4/15/2006, 2:18 AM
Nice post, RBarlett. Color space discussion usually puts everyone asleep. I suspect that all the new 1080p displays are going to have a greater impact on the NLE's developers than was expected two years ago. 1080p's are pushing consumer cameras design and marketing a little faster that expected. By summer, I expect to see announcements for new consumer video cameras that will be pushing SD into that " old timer stuff",( most manufacturers do not like moving fast on product lines if they are making money). So, 8bit or more, the demands on the NLEs are going to be a lot more this year and color space will probably become a hot topic for a short time as new users argue, rehash and discover the known facts.
farss wrote on 4/15/2006, 4:18 AM
Well this thread sure wandered around a lot but it served one purpose, at least for me. After a few hours of trolling the web I now understand the problem of colorspace. Funny thing is ages ago when I looked at all those fancy diagrams and those horrid matrix equations something said I was missing something, guess it was just my audio background, and then just now I realised I was right all along.

1) A color can be comprised of an almost infinite number of wavelengths of light, each at a different intensity.

2) The average human eye cannot resolve all the possible range of combinations, some can resolve none at all and a select few (mostly women) can resolve more.

3) No system can capture and reproduce even the limited range that we can see.

4) The CIE system defines the range of colors that we can see based on three theoretical emitters (XYZ), no light sources exist that match the XYZ emitters used in that model.

5) RGB could in theory reproduce the entire spectrum of the CIE colorspace but such a system would be hugely complex. What we refer to as RGB is in fact a standard based on the spectrum emitted by the RGB phospors in a CRT. In other words saying 'RGB' only has meaning by convention.

6) YUV is also a largely meaningless term in itself. It could be used to represent the whole of the CIE color space but usually isn't, rather subsets of that space are used. YUV is a system that defines a point within the CIE space as a vector however for technical / engineering reasons the various implementations of YUV limit the range of values, no point having a system that can define a value that can neither be captured or displayed!

7) ITU R601 was designed with B&W reception in mind and display on CRTs. ITU R709 is designed with LCD and plasma displays in mind. It doesn't support simple conversion to B&W and conversion to 601 is not foolproof as not all values within 709 will map to 601.

8) The limitations of capturing color using only 3 sensors are now clear to me. The idea of using more than 3 sensors isn't just marketing hype although just how the extra data would be used is still a bit of a mystery.


I hope I haven't made any huge errors in the above. It's highly simplistic and far, far from the whole story. However as always so much of what I've read seems to start off by assuming you understand the basic issues. I hope I've captured some of the basic problems that underpin why there's so much involved.

Bob.
ForumAdmin wrote on 4/15/2006, 6:51 AM
People who need HVX support in Vegas - have you tried Raylight?

"MVB", who's already posted in this same thread, is the author of Raylight- we've been working with him since before the HVX was released.

So...we'd like to get some more feedback on YOUR Vegas/Raylight /HVX editing experience. What's good, what's not so good, how can we make it better. Ideally this feedback comes from people who "have" (active present tense) a camera or who have on their hard drive footage that they have personally shot.