I read the exact same article. You are NOT mistaken... this IS what it said.

That's the problem with people that use only 1 NLE. They come up with things like this. It's even worse when they are in a position to influence others. The fact is... most NLE's of today will mix different formats on the same timeline.

The funny thing is... Vegas is the only one that's been doing it for years.
The problem is... if you try it in the other NLE's... you still have issues.
(I use Vegas, FCP, Premiere, & Avid)

Thanks for confirming that my oldtimers disease is not as advanced as I was thinking. Actually, I started with 3LE that came with my Canopus card and I was able to do it back then. By-the-by - I misquoted Studio Monthly - I should have said "timeline" and not "tileline".

The new FCP6 can finally do it, but this points out SF's/Sony's complete inability to be explicit about where Vegas is superior to other NLEs.

Saying it is "like.no.other" says absolutely nothing.

I hope Sony didn't pay original creative fees for this concept that inspires editors to run to the nearest reseller.

Why? Because it is also used by at least one other company in a different field.

Not to mention that it sucks (is more likely to reduce sales than to increase them).

It's about time for Sony to figure this out, before Apple/Adobe/Avid launch a DAW paradigm NLE, saying with much fanfare, "we're the first!" and customers won't know any better, because all they know about Vegas is that it is "like.no.other."

Lemme see now, should that go in the Features column, or in the Benefits column?

No.

It should go in the "Marketing BS" column :O)

Yes, the mixing thing is one of the features I really like a lot in Vegas. Basicly you just drag and drop almost any video file to TL from the explorer.

/Ulf

A few years back I was amazed that Avid wouldn't capture DV over firewire, only over component. I spent a lot of time saying how superior Vegas was until I found out that actually the way Avid does it is for good reasons.
I suspect there may be more to the statement than what got published. Maybe they meant mix NDF, DF NTSC and PAL, create an EDL and then conform it all in an online suite. Just speculation on my part but one thing I've learned of late, in this game before you open your mouth, be very, very certain of ALL the facts.

Bob.

Opampman,

Your posting is the second in 24 hours here at this forum about some serious mis-statements in so-called product reviews. Just goes to show that all reviews have to be taken with a grain of salt and some double-checking.

However that statement is pretty biased to say the least. Someone should shoot off a "''Ess'scuuuuuse me, Sir/Madam, but you've made a rather seriously misleading statement there..." email.

May already have happened, who knows

And/or since you have the facts and your/our experiential backing on this, you could send one yourself since you know the mag.
Or do it incognito as...



Dear Editor, Your recent article on Avid stated that...."
.

Bob:

Out of curiousity, why would you want to capture DV ofer component instead of firewire?

Maybe they meant mix NDF, DF NTSC and PAL, create an EDL and then conform it all in an online suite

Maybe, but you can do that in Vegas too. It may not look the best automatically (or manually), but you CAN do it.

Honestly, I'm surprised "professional reviewers" don't sit there & think "would everyone understand this?" If you're preaching to your followers, there's no need. As someone who's reviewed & read reviews, I find it important to explain things, like this. Or you don't inform, you create confusion. I read a review for facts, not 1/2 of the needed info.

This reminds me of getting a Matrox RT 2500... Real Time work, yeah! but only under perfect conditions. Maybe you can mix NTSC, PAL, etc. all together & it works great... as long as it's captured under the same capture format but from different sources. Eh? :)

A few years back I was amazed that Avid wouldn't capture DV over firewire, only over component. I spent a lot of time saying how superior Vegas was until I found out that actually the way Avid does it is for good reasons.
I don't believe it's for good reasons? (Unless you are talking about component digital... i.e. SDI.)

If you capture via SDI, the image goes down a different image processing path. The 4:1:1 --> 4:2:2 conversion is done nicely (depends on the deck/VTR, but likely linear/triangle upsampling), and it handles the difference between 720x480 and 720x486. It's kind of helpful in Vegas.

Answer is that decks such as the DSR 45 apply chroma smoothing on their analogue component outputs. Captured to a 4:2:2 codec it looks better. Somewhere on the web there's a pretty indepth analysis of the improvements to be had.
I have no clue as to whether or not you can get similar results in Vegas with Chroma Blur.
Other thing is that you seem to get less problems with dropouts on the analogue outputs (both audio and video) from these decks than you do over 1394. I know, took me a long while to be convinced about this too but finally I tried it with a problem tape and it worked.

Downside to all this is generational loss I'd guess. Capture over component and then PTT back to DV several times and things must start to get noticeably worse. Probably this is not how Avid see you working however, more likely you'd be going back to DB or SP in their scheme of things.

Interesting to also see reports that HDV captured over HDMI into the Intensity card looks better than a straight bit copy. I have my doubts about this too but this time I'll keep my mouth shut, I've already got both feet in there :)

Bob.

Edit:

Here you go:

http://www.nattress.com/Chroma_Investigation/chromasampling.htm

Now that does talk about capturing DV over SDI, I'm perhaps wrongly assuming tha component analogue into a BMD card or Avids Mojo yields much the same result. Avid seem very adament that capturing DV via component into their Mojo box is better than 1394.

I have no clue as to whether or not you can get similar results in Vegas with Chroma Blur.
I don't think so.

The Vegas DV codec decodes DV using box resampling... the chroma center effectively gets shifted 1.5 pixels to the right. This is for most cameras (with some exceptions).

The Microsoft DV codec uses linear resampling, which gets the chroma center right. But that opens a whole different can of worms. When you do resampling that way, you get generation loss (whereas you don't with box). On cross dissolves, both sides are 1st generation material but the dissolve gets rendered to 2nd generation. You can see a sudden jump in quality when you hit the cross dissolve. If Vegas could be set to render both sides of dissolves (and from cut to cut), you wouldn't have that problem.

1b- Anyways the chroma blur doesn't have an option to shift the chroma center into the right place.

Other thing is that you seem to get less problems with dropouts on the analogue outputs (both audio and video) from these decks than you do over 1394. I know, took me a long while to be convinced about this too but finally I tried it with a problem tape and it worked.
?!

2- I've spoken with Graeme Nattress about some chroma issues... well it's a bit of a different issue since it concerns where the chroma center should lie.
Most cameras seem to use co-siting, where the chroma center lies exactly over a luma pixel.
Some cameras seem to use interstitial siting (I think so anyways), where the chroma center lies between luma pixels. / It lies 1.5 pixels to the right of co-sited 4:1:1.

This is not a huge deal for his chroma reconstruction plug-in since (as a byproduct) it kind of gets it right (my paraphrasing).

3- What Nattress' plug-in does is to convert the 4:1:1 chroma to 4:4:4 in an intelligent manner, taking advantage of the luma information (since it gives you clues/hints). The webpage is to demonstrate that you can get better chroma quality from capturing 4:1:1 and using intelligent chroma reconstruction
Compared to...
Capturing DV over SDI.

OK,
but I'm still curious to know if Avids assertion that capturing DV through component into their Mojo box is better than capturing through 1394. Looking at what Grahame is saying I've assumed there could be some basis for the assertion.

The answer doesn't really matter that much, no matter what, trying to convince an avid Avid user that Avid have it wrong is a futile exercise anyway, I just give them a DSR 45 and off they go....

Bob.

>>>>I'm still curious to know if Avids assertion that capturing DV through component into their Mojo box is better than capturing through 1394<<<

Of course it's better. AVID makes $1500 ( or whatever the cost of mojo is these days ) by selling you an useless box. From AVID's point of view it can't get any better than that.