Temporary workaround for me...

LarsHD wrote on 5/23/2009, 6:27 AM
Pro9-32 in Vista 64 seems like the workaround for me until next version (until I find out something new tomorrow....)
=====================================================


Cineform isn't working OK at all in Pro 9
Cineform isn't working at all in Pro 9 64 (or in 8.1 64)
Pro 9 crashes if I try to render anything that has Cineform in it.
Cinescore isn't working at all in 8.1 or 9.0 64
Major stutter problems in Pro 9 - 64 bit
Pro 8.0c plays back stills with dissolves rather bad. Low frame rate.
Etc.

I work with 1920x1080 30 fps footage. It seems like the following workaround is the best for me and my setup.

Does the following seens ilke a good workaround you think?


For the time being, use straight forward uncompressed AVI.

Use half size uncompr 960x540 AVIs for editing. Then when rendering it, throw in the 1920x1080 AVIs for best quality.

Use Pro9 32 bit version becasue it plays back sequences of disslves with still photos at full frame rate.

Pro 9 plays back my uncompressed 960x540 AVIs fine at full 30 fps.

It also does it OK during dissolves (it may go down to 28-29 fps sometimes)

Pro 9 in Vista 64 renders projects with twice the speed as Pro 9 - 32 renders in XP 32.


Staying away from 8.0c and instead using Pro 9 32 gives me better performance with stills.

Skipping Cineform for now (although it is a GREAT codec!) allows me to to use Pro 9 without the Sony-Cineform bug. (Here's the danger in not getting an essential codec working right away - people quickly invent new habits...).



System spec.
=======================
Asus P5KR mobo
Q6600 CPU
8 GB RAM
Vista 64 OS drive
WP 32 OS drive
nVidia 8800 GTS 512 Ge Force
WD 10000 rpm Raid-0

Source footage:
1920x1080 30 fps from 5D2
Norjal workflow = transcoding to Cinneform 1920x1080 - now instead using 960x540 uncompr AVIs during editing, then exchanging those for fullsize uncompr AVIs when rendering.

Only using the original H.264 5D2 MOV files for recording in camera. Transcoding them. Then just putting them on a backup drive.

Comments

farss wrote on 5/23/2009, 6:34 AM
You could save a lot of disk space using the Sony YUV codec as a proxy compared to uncompressed.

Bob.

LarsHD wrote on 5/23/2009, 6:39 AM
I just ran a test and here the Sony YUV codec comes out at *exactly" the same file size. Which confused me. Any explanations?
farss wrote on 5/23/2009, 6:57 AM
At the same resolution?

One is 8bit 4:4:4:4 and the other 8bit 4:2:2. Unless you selected the 10bit version of the YUV codec, that'd explain it.

Bob.
LJA wrote on 5/23/2009, 8:04 AM
It is interesting to note that if you have, or have had, Gearshift installed, Cineform previews OK, but very slowly in V9 32 bit. I haven't tested rendering yet but the hdv intermediates appear among the render templates. (This is under XP 32.)
johnmeyer wrote on 5/23/2009, 8:18 AM
Lars,

Have you read this thread?

Enable Multicore preview playback?!?! - who knew?

It makes a HUGE difference in playback of still photos in 8.0c. In fact, I haven't installed the 9.0 trial yet, so I don't know how this fix compares to the playback in 9.0, but I think it actually might be better because people are reporting that 9.0 takes time to get up to speed, and has other weird playback issues. I have not experienced that with 8.0c with the multi-core playback enabled.
LarsHD wrote on 5/23/2009, 9:02 AM
Uncompressed AVI = 1 217 024 KB 57 sec to render
Sony YUV codec AVI = 1 217 024 KB 57 sec to render
Sony YUV 10 it codec AVI = 1 622 023 KB 1 min 12 sec to render

Sony YUV and just uncompressed are identical file sizes and behave identical when putting them on the time line.

Explanation?