To Elysium

sebus wrote on 3/19/2002, 5:17 AM
I simply can not take your comments on poor quality of mpeg2 renders.
How do you capture your DV?
Try to use something (like scLive) that will use (but have it installed first!) EXCELLENT MC DV codec. This bypasses (I believe) the SF DV codec that you so complaining about.
It is interlaced avi now. In VV set your project as progressive & render to SVCD as progressive.
The results I am getting are WAY better then TMPEGEnc, CCE, LSX etc.
Simply the MC mpeg2 codec is the very best in my tests. Not the quickest, but would not use anything else out there.

And yes, I am working on not perfect quality of DV footage.

In my tests none of your arguments stands!

sebus

Comments

Elysium wrote on 3/19/2002, 8:34 AM
I shall at the very least attempt to reitterate once again the problem. Firstly, DV capturing process matters little as the data is captured raw. The only difference capturing with Ulead Media Studio, Vegas Video or indeed scLive would have is that each would put its own header in the video depending on which codec it sees as the default; but the video is captured the same regardless. If its interlaced it will be interlaced, top filed or bottom depending on the video.

Your comments about rendering to a "progressive" state are quite incorrect as video that is generated as 'interlaced' should always remain as interlaced if your intention is to play back on "none PC" systems; such as TV; its the rule. There are times when you may wish to render to progressive but some of the filters one can install in AVISynth would make this a better option should that be the direction you wish to go. But regardless of this, rendering to progessive is not an option that should be taken in such instances... or this instance ( SVCD PAL creation ).

There comes a point in time when you have to accept the failings of a product however much of a "fan" you feel you are of it. I said earlier that "all that glitters is not gold.." and this remains the case for Vegas Video. On the surface it seems like a product that can perform miracles, but the more time you spend with it the more you realise just how it is lacking in certain key areas. If your intention is to generate MPEG DVD or fire back DV video, or indeed generate NTSC compliant SVCDs then I can see how it can be comparable to other products; but if you wish to put its MPEG codec to some work and generate PAL SVCD from PAL DV source material you will *quickly* realise the poor performance of the product. Now, I could more than happily accept this if I was not forced to use a codec that has the misconception of being fullproof.

So, what do we do.. well, we can shout.. scream, argue.. rant and rave, jump up and down.. we can do the same via email to Sonic Foundry, try pleasent, try angry.. try normal; but you know something, nothing will change. They have obviously a need to correct problems, but I presume the developers have a specific charter of problems that need addressing and this is not one of them. It'll get "noted..", for sure.. it'll get "we'll look into it..", i presume.. but six more months will pass and some other guy will be posting the same comments here and some other guy will be defending the product. Sadly this is why software with as much "potential" as VV will never live beyond the cult fanatics that surround it.. because all that it ever had was potential. Its partly the fault of the developers who spend so much time in a "zoomed" state that they don't quite see the bigger picture.. but hey, many of you won't be here in six months time either.. you'll probably be turning to Premiere 7.0 by then.
VinceG wrote on 3/19/2002, 8:50 AM
<< hey, many of you won't be here in six months time either.. you'll probably be turning to Premiere 7.0 by then. >>

I've said it before and I'll say it again. With everything considered, VV3 is by far THE BEST home editor out there. I will not be turning to Premiere for anything.

All I can say is that I am sorry Elysium has had such a bad experience with VV and I am glad that we don't share the same experience.
SonyEPM wrote on 3/19/2002, 9:26 AM
Elysium is unhappy with the quality of his PAL SVCD renders- fair enough- he has a critical eye, knows what he sees, and has tested with other encoders. There are other encoders out there that can be used that apparently produce more satisfactory results for him, although this does require an interim render.

We have been working on improvements to the MPEG-2 encoder, and will continue to do so (a good number of these shipped in 3.0a). The PRIMARY FOCUS of our MPEG efforts has been, and will continue to be, rendering high quality MPEG-2 files for DVD. We believe that is the area of largest potential growth, and it is also a higher quality format than VCD and SVCD.

El also has another problem (a PAL widescreen issue discussed in earlier posts) which we have not been able to repro with our PAL broadcast monitors, dv/analog converters or camcorders. If we could repro, we would fix.
Elysium wrote on 3/19/2002, 11:06 AM
Thank you for being so presumptuous regarding the quality my eyes. But irregardless of your need to defend, one would suggest that you employ people with better eyes than you appear to have. I would not call extremely noticeable artefact/blocks spread across areas of the screen as only noticeable by those with a critical eye; but downright ridiculous and sloppy to have in a product that has quite obviously only been tested with one region in mind.

> The PRIMARY FOCUS of our MPEG efforts has been, and will continue to be,
> rendering high quality MPEG-2 files for DVD. We believe that is the area of
> largest potential growth, and it is also a higher quality format
> than VCD and SVCD

[Translation] – Elysium was spot on about SF blubbering that we’ll look into it and take no notice. We’ll still advertise our product as being able to generate SVCD but deliberately forget the addendum that it’s a pointless feature for those in PAL regions.

> El also has another problem (a PAL widescreen issue discussed in earlier posts)
> which we have not been able to repro with our PAL broadcast monitors, dv/analog
> converters or camcorders. If we could repro, we would fix.

I believe I still have the emails from some months ago in which you said you believed you knew what the problem was and that it would be fixed. But then, that was six months ago wasn’t it, your quite entitled to change your thoughts as you obviously have.. not to mention the fact that I wasted a good portion of my time passing on as much information as I could; and my willingness to upload two DV generated clips.. one generated with Premiere and one with VV3 so that you could see the problem in action, but you declined the offer, didn’t you (head, burry, sand .. are words that spring to mind) . Also, you don’t possess a European widescreen TV for you to do the testing on.. Phillips widescreen TV’s would show the problem immediately. But hey, burry your head in the sand and hope that I’m the only one who notices. Odd that Adobe Premiere has no such problems, isn’t it?

This is the problem with some software developers.. they all too kindly believe that they are right in everything. If something can’t be reproduced then the best thing to do is shoot the messenger or retreat into their shell. Its interesting to note the level of discontent SF is showing in his message.. somehow attempting to deride so that it hides the fact that problems exist. You can only say that I tried.. and believe me when I say that I tried harder than most, but the brick wall that exists outside of the “spin doctoring” will be noted by some of you in time.
haydenj wrote on 3/19/2002, 2:44 PM
Gee, most of the comments that Elysium made seems to be self-serving.
Cheesehole wrote on 3/19/2002, 3:42 PM
>But irregardless of your need to defend, one would suggest that you employ people with better eyes than you appear to have.

I didn't take his tone the same way Elysium did. I don't believe SonicEPM was trying to fool anyone. I'm sorry that some of us seem to be stuck with a couple bugs. no software this sophisticated is perfect. it appears to me that El is deriding the product to somehow get what he wants fixed, but maybe I'm wrong. (I hope I'm wrong)

on a completely unrelated note, please fellow readers, don't absorb 'irregardless' into your vocabulary. it is a common mistake for the word 'regardless'. it wouldn't make sense the other way would it? and that's my english tip of the day :D (not that mine is perfect, but some things just get to me! like when people say 'supposably' AAHHHHH!!!)

nothing's worse than lawyer talk though. ever try to read a legal contract written by a lawyer?

- ben (cheesehole!)
Control_Z wrote on 3/19/2002, 5:45 PM
I missed earlier posts, but I feel for the guy. VV3 is my NLE of choice right now, but earlier when I was pointing out some serious deficiencies (bad slo-mo, deck control), since nobody had any good solutions the only people that responded to me was the 'cheerleading' contingent. "You're an idiot. VV3 is perfect so you must be doing something wrong."

I'd be lost without P6 to do my slo-mos and control my DSR-11.
Cheesehole wrote on 3/19/2002, 6:40 PM
>earlier when I was pointing out some serious deficiencies (bad slo-mo, deck control), since nobody had any good solutions the only people that responded to me was the 'cheerleading' contingent. "You're an idiot. VV3 is perfect so you must be doing something wrong."

I searched back Control_Z, but didn't see what you were talking about. the deck control thing...? I'm in the same boat with my DSR-11. as far as I can see, people just tried to help out with common mistakes. no one called anyone names or derided either of us. true no real solution was posted, but I see no evidence of a 'cheerleading' contingent.

the slo-mo thing may be a real bug too, but I didn't get the impression that people were behaving the way you claim. maybe you could post links to the messages you are talking about.

if these issues were in fact shoved under the carpet somehow with the help of a 'cheerleading' contingent, I'd like to see the evidence. I am going to revive that DSR-11 post now that I've tested it with VV3.0a and found the problem is still there.

- ben
sebus wrote on 3/20/2002, 5:26 AM
We are loosing the track here of the original complain which was the poor quality of mpeg2. We are not discussing the whole program & its potential etc

As I said nothing can get near the quality of PAL mpeg2 rendered clips for SVCD.
I have not done DVD, so can not comment, but SVCD is absolutely perfect.

MC mpeg2 codec is the very best available with the huge advantage of being built into the program & not needing anything external to get the mpeg2 fle.

sebus
Elysium wrote on 3/20/2002, 5:39 AM
*Sigh* .. can you re-read the previous message to you? I have already explained that SVCD PAL quality is terrible and can be *proven* as so; there have been previous posters who have said the same thing and were willing to offer/send video to SF to prove it so. But now take -notice- that SF are saying they have no intention of correcting SVCD PAL rendering as the future is (rightly so) DVD. Also, you are so wrong in rendering to "progessive" from video that was "low-field interlaced" as this will create a good deal of blurring as you would have noticed had you done any real comparisons with other codecs. But once again, I have more critcal eyes than most it would seem, which makes one wonder what the bloody hell you are doing creating video in the first place :-)

This is exactly the kind of thing I was talking about when I mentioned the word "Cult" .. it seems that if you actually raise a concern about *MAJOR* problems within a package you get shot down for it. I don't mind one way or the other to be honest, but its quite sad that you choose not to open your eyes a little more and take on board the problems that exist. It would be nice, wouldn't it .. if SF actually got off his backside and took the time to talk it through via email.. but there are no signs of that happening, far better to get some of the cult-followers to create a wall of fire instead. Get a life, and get real..


Elysium wrote on 3/20/2002, 5:48 AM
That couldn't be so.. possibly your getting a little paranoid, surely? I mean, we are such a happy little forum all aiding each other out; well, as long as its "pro VV" you'll be fine, just don't raise any concerns you might have or ask troublesome questions.
sebus wrote on 3/20/2002, 6:07 AM
Obviously the final quality is very subjective to yourself.
Maybe what you like I would not and vice versa.
I do not like interlaced quality displayed on TV (I simply claim that to my eye progressive render looks much better, but lets do not get in discussion on this. Other forums covered this subject & there are as many opinions as people reading the forums)

What encoder would you think would produce better results?
I have tested all of them & again, MC mpeg2 rendered file is simply the smoothest to watch on my WS JVC TV (it is my personal subjective opinion that you might not agree with)

sebus
Elysium wrote on 3/20/2002, 6:42 AM
Look, I'm not being funny here but you really haven't done much testing as this is clear from your comments. If your happy with the results your getting, this is all well and good. I am simply pointing out that *some* of us out here in Euro-PAL land do not like our SVCD video to have immediately noticeable artifacts/blocks in our video. Like you, I don't think we need debate this any more until some of us get our head out of the sand.. wave the white flag, and say Elysium was right all along; its going to take a real man to say it, so maybe you can begin and ask me for my forgiveness? ;-)
SonyEPM wrote on 3/20/2002, 9:26 AM
Some clarifications:

What I did _not_ say: "SF are saying they have no intention of correcting SVCD PAL rendering"

What I did, I hope clearly, say: "We have been working on improvements to the MPEG-2 encoder, and will continue to do so (a good number of these shipped in 3.0a). The PRIMARY FOCUS of our MPEG efforts has been, and will continue to be, rendering high quality MPEG-2 files for DVD."

Does this mean that SVCD output in Vegas will never improve or that we are somehow conspiring against the PAL SVCD user? No.

Also: We do, contrary to some opinions, take your comments seriously, and every forum post gets read by people at SF. We did make a large number of fixes/changes in the 3.0a update, many of these based on forum comments, and hopefully this has improved your Vegas experience. Does this mean that every reported bug, reproduceable by us or not, was fixed in 3.0a or will get fixed/addressed in the next update? Straight answer: No.

If you find the app unusable for your particular needs, or you think it is a cult app or we have our head in the sand, we will give you a refund and you can use the bug-free app of your choice.

If you have issues with Vegas, but can manage stick with us and keep providing constructive criticism, we'd like nothing better than to make you a happy user at some point. Losing a member of the Vegas family is something we hate.
PeterMac wrote on 3/20/2002, 9:46 AM
Well, I'm your number one fan for focusing on MPEG2 quality. I also concur with your conclusion that DVD quality is where the main development effort should be made. As I've said in previous postings, this is the one to stand or fall by.
What cannot be gainsaid however, is that VV is slower than competitors. The eventual quality is subjective, but the encoding speed is not. It's even slower than Tmpgenc, and that runs backwards. Using Cinema Craft, I get an encoding speed on my 1GHz Athlon of 0.6 x real-time. Cinema Craft in its CBR mode generates the most successful (highest quality) rendering. I can't speak for its VBR mode because it invariably crashes - something I'm discussing with the publishers.

Now here's the thing that exercises me: what in the world is in one piece of code, ostensibly using the same cosine transformations, that makes it not only faster but also closer in its approximations to the original? Is that a naive question, I suppose it is? I would like to know, though.

I would never desert VV; I think it is immeasurably better than Premiere. I also think the MPEG thing will get cracked eventually. I do repeat though, I would pay extra for good, fast, high-quality MPEG2 rendering from the timeline.

Kind regards

-Pete

PS How do you render an AVI file from the timeline that is PAL compatible but 480 x 576 in resolution? The only way I can find is to use 'uncompressed' mode, and the resultant file size makes this unworkable.
PeterMac wrote on 3/20/2002, 10:00 AM
Sebus

I'd be very grateful if you'd share your settings and what-have-you with me.
I use PAL too, but, as the saying goes, my mileage varies from yours.
Considerably.

-Pete
Elysium wrote on 3/20/2002, 10:51 AM
The barebones of the program remains a joy to use - its the delivering of final video that is letting it down, sadly the most important part of the package. It does seem that you deliberately intend to shy away from making the product as "open ended" as possible; rather locking us into the one product with no outside interfearence.

I have yet to see a product that does not ask or beg for ouside help survive in this competitive area.. I have noticed that anyone who mentions Hollywood FX plug-ins here will get shot down, with comments about how its too flashy and over-used.. all purely intended to gloss over another point of concern, that decent plug-ins are sadly lacking. The fact is that its on Adobe Premiere, Ulead Media Studio and Avid Express / DV .. what is stopping it being involved with Vegas Video; these are all tools that some would like to use..

I think you really do need to get away from the whole restraint aspect and get it more open ended.. you've got enough fancy plug-ins that, to be quite honest, are pretty pathetic when all said and done.. but i'm more worried that you are getting a little blinkered and tunnel visioned. Its certainly what seems to be coming over time and time again.

Have you thought about discussing what advances you are making in the next version, what we can hope to see .. be it a free update or otherwise. It would be interesting to see what direction you are moving in, if at all. I so hope that its not purely the concentration on the "Main Concept Codec.." that would seem like a complete waste of time..

Have you noticed that mpEEG DV Codec produced using cinemacraft technology is now on Ulead Media Studio and Premiere? I wonder why its not being made for VV3 .. once again, a little too tunnel visioned to see whats going on in the real world.. maybe some of your programmers need to get out more and have some improved discussions with the guy whose running the whole show.

Fact is, for all its good points Vegas Video is *never* going to be taken seriously until it can take itself seriously. Its becoming more of a toy like Studio 7 than a thinking mans product. Its just not getting the acceptance it needs.. and thats largely your fault. If you sit here and listen to everyone patting you on the back and telling you how good things are, your going to really go down.. stand back, take a good look and see that all isn't rosey in the garden..

Just a few thoughts.. ignore them, after all .. what do I know.
sebus wrote on 3/20/2002, 10:58 AM
I simply do not think so. Your opinion are subjective as much as mine. So for now I like the SVCD quality of MC codec & you do not.
But you never even managed to answer what gives you better quality...

sebus
sebus wrote on 3/20/2002, 11:42 AM
What can I do for you?
I create SVCD mostly from not very good VHS stored archive material.
The resulting SVCD at VBR or CBR progressive PAL are as good quality as the source material (which I would expect to be a great result!, as it would be impossible to get better result without proper digital remastering - but then not even that from simple VHS tape)

I have tried CCE, TMPEGEnc, LSX & others & none was able to reproduce the quality of the original (there was always sth less there)

No I simply like the MC codec (or maybe it is my subjective opinion & I do not know if tho things look this same)

sebus

Elysium wrote on 3/20/2002, 12:42 PM
It feels like too much hard work .. go read some previous posts, you'll gain all the info elsewhere.
PeterMac wrote on 3/20/2002, 2:33 PM
Ah, if I understand you correctly, you are bringing standard VHS material, which is by your own admission not very good (is VHS ever?), into VV. Presumably, you used an A/D convertor - unless your camera is a VHS model? When you test encode to MPEG2/SVCD, which is also not very good, you find the VV encoder to be as good as, if not better than, CCE and Tmpgenc. You also have a preference for 'progressive' as opposed to interlaced encoding.

Is that a fair summing up?

If you are happy with that, then that's good and I'm pleased for you. I only wish something similar would happen to me ;-)

I do think, however, that if you encoded good quality DV footage you might be less delighted. For a start, even with the best encoders, rendering to SVCD will lose you resolution. In addition, the low bit rate you're obliged to use will introduce flickering or blockiness when there's movement in the shot. It's all very subjective - one man's meat, etc. - but I can't see the point in shelling out all the money good DV costs just to have it all degraded to SVCD. So for me the answer's simple: I have to go DVD. The corollary of this is that the differences between the outputs of different encoders then becomes less noticeable: the higher bit rates mask whatever coding inefficiencies lie below the surface.

It would be nice, wouldn't it, if we could just plonk the original AVI onto a CD/DVD and the set top DVD player recognise it and play away? Don't suppose that'll ever happen - no commercial call for it.

Thanks for responding.

-Pete


deef wrote on 3/21/2002, 5:06 PM
Your deck control issues are only in Vegas, correct? Video Capture should provide complete deck control. We will try to address this in the future.
SonyEPM wrote on 3/26/2002, 11:51 AM
elysium- could you please send your current email address to sonicepm@sonicfoundry.com.

This is RE the PAL widescreen TV issue. We believe we have it resolved, but we need you to help us confirm, if you are willing.

Thanks-
Norin wrote on 3/28/2002, 7:38 AM
Please reply how the problem was solved ... ...

I really like Elysiums posts actually. Maybe you got abit of a negative tone (but I know how it can be with lack of support..). This forum needs more posts which critizie Vegas features (and lack of em). I have followed all Elysiums post and in the beginning he used a positive and helpful tone which later (after some couldn't take that Vegas had serious probs) became more aggresive (which I can understand in many ways..).

I have never felt so creative in a software before than with Vegas Video 3 and really hope that software like Adobe Premiere won't win this "race"....

/ Claes Norin