I've got a related issue with DV-encoded QT7 files. I started a thread that's fallen off the front page here, and have a support ticket that's been in process for two weeks while support gets past the "install the latest QT with authoring tools" standard pat response.
I understand from previous threads that the Vegas internal QT codecs are distributed through Sony updates. Installing QT updates does not make Vegas compatible with the latest versions of QT codecs.
"I understand from previous threads that the Vegas internal QT codecs are distributed through Sony updates. Installing QT updates does not make Vegas compatible with the latest versions of QT codecs."
Well - maybe the tech support folks in Madison should drill through the forum archives more often to find better advice to dole out, because the ONLY response I've gotten was the re-install QT7 with authoring tools on...
...and I *HAVE* searched the forums here before logging the issue with support, using terms such as "QT DV", "DV codec", "QT stream not recognized".
I posted in *MY* first thread the exact content of the properties window which showed the following:
General
Name: Reel 9_endcreds.mov
Folder: R:\ARRANGEMENT
Type: QuickTime
Size: 113.43 MB (116,152,467 bytes)
Created: Saturday, October 22, 2005, 6:49:44 AM
Modified: Tuesday, October 18, 2005, 6:56:55 AM
Accessed: Saturday, October 22, 2005, 7:28:05 AM
Attributes: Archive
ACID information
ACID chunk: no
Stretch chunk: no
Stretch list: no
Stretch info2: no
Beat markers: no
Detected beats: no
Other metadata
Regions/markers: no
Command markers: no
Media manager
Media tags: no
Plug-In
Name: qt5plug.dll
Folder: C:\Program Files\Sony\Vegas 6.0\FileIO Plug-Ins\qt5plug
Version: Version 1.0 (Build 2648)
Company: Madison Media Software, Inc.
Now - my questions to support were: 1) why are the properties only picking up the audio stream, and 2) why was Vegas still using a "qt5plug.dll" to scan a QT7 encoded video file.
My question to you is: if "Vegas internal QT codecs are distributed through Sony updates" then why the HELL are we using a DLL that's two version old? I'm running 6.0c (Build 153)
You come into the thread like a prick - leave it like a prick. See if I care. But when someone says they have a two-week-old support issue you'd better come with more than "use the search function".