V9 and AVCHD - challenges and solutions

PeterWright wrote on 8/16/2009, 5:25 AM
I've gone back from V9.0a to V9.0 with a largish project, using client-supplied AVCHD files ( 76 of the devils ) and by disabling all thumbnails, which means working "blind" with plain grey thumbnails, I was able to finally complete editing without memory-loss-induced-lock-ups.

However, when I tried to render on Friday evening, it wouldn't go past about two minutes (43 min project) without run-out-of-memory lock-ups/error messages.

Desperation. What to do? V9.0b due in a couple of weeks, but the client wants a DVD in a couple of days.

I tried nesting the project in a new one, as someone posted - this render got a few frames further, then that crashed too. Tried many times with the same result. Felt completely hopeless.

Slept on it. Woke up Saturday morning with a plan .... seems obvious now.

I used V8 to render every single AVCHD.mpg file to Sony MXF.
I then "hid" the original AVCHD files, and re-opened a copy of the project, and when Vegas asked me where the files were, I pointed to the new MXF files.

Anyway, the result is that presently, on Sunday evening, V9.0 is happily rendering ready for DVD.

Hopefully, if I'm ever forced to do another AVCHD project, I shall immediately replace the supplied files this way before starting ....... until a future version really does handle this format efficiently.

Been a good weekend, really.

Comments

PerroneFord wrote on 8/16/2009, 9:28 AM
How much RAM is installed on your machine? What OS are you running?
Cheno wrote on 8/16/2009, 10:54 AM
Peter,

As much as I love the concept of native file editing, there are some file formats that are better rendered to an intermediate. AVCHD is one of them IMO. It plays pretty darn well on the Vegas timeline for me but when it comes to rendering, it simply blows. It's no easier to work with in any other program, really though.

With all of the various file formats coming down the pipleline, it makes complete sense to me to move back to a conforming routine. So much easier. In fact all my AVCHD is conformed to ProRes now on the mac as I can easily move back and forth between PC / Mac with the footage and the ProRes playback on the PC is more preferable to me over native AVCHD.

cheno
john-beale wrote on 8/16/2009, 12:52 PM
Always good to see useful workarounds posted.

I'm curious about MXF, I have not tried it yet. Wikipedia says MXF is a "wrapper" format (like Quicktime) which might contain any of various A/V codec types. What is the actual video codec that goes into the MXF file, which Vegas can edit smoothly?
PerroneFord wrote on 8/16/2009, 1:02 PM
Likely mpeg2
Brad C. wrote on 8/16/2009, 4:05 PM
Any title that says AVCHD, I am instantly drawn to since it's always what I have worked with. I don't think I have ever worked with anything easy yet. Hahaha

I have used a couple different intermediate types. Mainly using Sony YUV 8-bit uncompressed avi's, and then trying the MXF file route. Huge difference in file sizes! While MXF did cut like butter, I noticed that the end quality result wasn't as good as the YUV or raw AVCHD when rendering out as AVC H.264 for the net/PS3. It wasn't horrible, but I could tell a difference.
PeterWright wrote on 8/16/2009, 6:25 PM
Perrone, I have 2 Gb ram and am using XP 32 bit.

PerroneFord wrote on 8/16/2009, 6:37 PM
Bingo!

You have about 1/4 the memory required, and an OS that is not suited to cutting HD.
john-beale wrote on 8/16/2009, 6:47 PM
Looks like the Sony MXF format defaults to a 35 Mbps MPEG2, however you can also select a 50 Mbps 422 profile, which should have a bit more quality if you're using it to generate your final output.
srode wrote on 8/16/2009, 7:34 PM
Have you tried selecting only one core in your options? That might reduce the memory load - increasing the size of you virtual memory might help too.
Brad C. wrote on 8/16/2009, 8:21 PM
jbeale- I feel like an idiot for not looking further into that. Thanks for bringing that up.

Here's how a specific file that I tested came out.

00012.mts - (raw AVCHD) 36mb
00012.mxf - (35Mbps MPEG2) 44.6mb
00012.mxf - (50Mbps 422 profile) 100mb
00012.avi - (8bit Sony YUV) 687mb
00012.avi - (uncompressed) 5.27gb

I'll actually work with some files and renders later and see how they compare.
PeterWright wrote on 8/16/2009, 9:01 PM
> Bingo! You have about 1/4 the memory required, and an OS that is not suited to cutting HD."

It's only a problem with AVCHD Perrone. I usually work with 1920x1080 MXF files from the EX1 and my system handles this easily.
UlfLaursen wrote on 8/16/2009, 9:12 PM
I have always converted AVCHD for projects larger than a few min. to something else.

I know it should be natively editable, and that the conversion takes extra time, but I still do it to be sure to be able to edit more smoothly.

/Ulf
PerroneFord wrote on 8/16/2009, 10:59 PM
"It's only a problem with AVCHD Perrone. I usually work with 1920x1080 MXF files from the EX1 and my system handles this easily. "

Of COURSE it's only a problem with AVCHD. EX1 native MXF files are mpeg2. Same as HDV. They don't require anywhere NEAR the horsepower nor RAM that dealing with uncompressing AVCHD does.

Mpeg2 /= Mpeg4

Your system is running out of memory trying to decompress the video on the fly. It's really that simple. Give it RAM and an OS that can address the RAM and you won't have issues. Or use a viable codec on the timeline. Either one will make your problem go away.
JBowren wrote on 8/16/2009, 11:55 PM
I agree with PerroneFord. AVCHD has seemed to always be a major work load for any computer to process through. AVI and MXF and others just have a smaller smoother workload to present to the processor.

I would start with getting some more RAM. If you haven't installed RAM on your computer before, don't worry it's not that hard. Google it, many sites tell how easy it is to pop another RAM card or two in to the mother board, turned off of course.

I would then see what happens. You can't go wrong here. I personally believe you can't have enough RAM. So if it doesn't work, you still could use the RAM for stuff down the road.

I also favor srode's suggestion on check virtual memory problems. Google that one too on how to adjust, check or fix. You computer is choking we have to find out what it's choking on.

I have edited AVCHD on a 32bit XP and 32bit Vista 4 gb RAM machine quite well, with little problems for a while now.

Good luck !! Hopefully this gets you back in the ball game.
josh


farss wrote on 8/16/2009, 11:58 PM
"Mainly using Sony YUV 8-bit uncompressed avi's"

YUV is not uncompressed, it's 4:2:2 whereas uncompressed is 4:4:4:4 and the uncompressed file size is dramatically larger than the Sony YUV codec.

As for your quality issues B3T had a good example of that kind of issue some time ago. I suspect in part your issue is due to the difference in the compression schemes between mpeg-2 and AVC H.264, there may also be issues with differences in the chroma sampling.

Using the 50Mbps 4:2:2 MXF codec should yield much better results and a fairly easy editing experience.

Bob.
Brad C. wrote on 8/17/2009, 12:07 AM
YUV is not uncompressed, it's 4:2:2 whereas uncompressed is 4:4:4:4 and the uncompressed file size is dramatically larger than the Sony YUV codec.

Bob, my bad. I was mixing the two. Thanks for setting me straight.
I will definitely start using the 422 .MXF route for intermediates.

(example post fixed as well.)
PeterWright wrote on 8/17/2009, 12:20 AM
Thanks for all the suggestions.

I don't honestly need to change anything in a hurry - my problem was AVCHD and hopefully I'll never have to edit it again.

In the not too distant future I'll be looking to upgrade to 64 bit, probably when Windows 7 is released, and at that time I'll also get as much ram as she'll take.
PerroneFord wrote on 8/17/2009, 1:02 AM
I think you'll find a 64 bit OS and a lot of RAM will remove MANY lf your issues with editing.

I firmly believe that AVCHD has no place on the timeline. I don't work with any long-GOP on the timeline for that matter.
Wolfgang S. wrote on 8/17/2009, 4:18 AM
> Perrone, I have 2 Gb ram and am using XP 32 bit.
> Bingo! You have about 1/4 the memory required, and an OS that is not suited to cutting HD."

Well, frankly spoken I never have heard that. There is no specification by Sony that states, that you MUST have 8 GB Ram for cutting HD, und another OS then XP. Both comments are wrong.

True is, that there were bugs that have been corrected in Vegas 9a, compared with Vegas 9.0. Given that, Vegas 9a renders AVCHD even on (at least some) machines with 2 GB RAM only. But with Vegas 9.0 the Sony AVC encoder generated crashes more often, especially on quadcores machines.

Yes, a lot of people use mpeg2 as intermediate - even if mpeg2 was never foreseen to be an intermediate. But when it works for you - fine. However, there are better intermediate codecs - the Cineform codec or the Canopus HQ codec (what can also be used in Vegas).

Desktop: PC AMD 3960X, 24x3,8 Mhz * RTX 3080 Ti (12 GB)* Blackmagic Extreme 4K 12G * QNAP Max8 10 Gb Lan * Resolve Studio 18 * Edius X* Blackmagic Pocket 6K/6K Pro, EVA1, FS7

Laptop: ProArt Studiobook 16 OLED * internal HDR preview * i9 12900H with i-GPU Iris XE * 32 GB Ram) * Geforce RTX 3070 TI 8GB * internal HDR preview on the laptop monitor * Blackmagic Ultrastudio 4K mini

HDR monitor: ProArt Monitor PA32 UCG-K 1600 nits, Atomos Sumo

Others: Edius NX (Canopus NX)-card in an old XP-System. Edius 4.6 and other systems

Tomsde wrote on 8/17/2009, 6:06 AM
Does anyone know of a video conversion application that handles a wide variety of file formats? AVCHD does not seem to be the only problem codex for me as I have a variety of cameras and this version of Vegas seems not to like 3 of them. It would be nice to have something effective in one software application.
PerroneFord wrote on 8/17/2009, 6:15 AM
"Well, frankly spoken I never have heard that. There is no specification by Sony that states, that you MUST have 8 GB Ram for cutting HD, und another OS then XP. Both comments are wrong."

Just because there is no indication by Sony doesn't make the reality of the situation any less true. If the user tries to render *HIS* video files and gets out of memory errors, he needs more memory. That's pretty simple. Since he's got 2GB of RAM already, if he intends to add at least 2 more, he's going to need a 64bit OS to use it. Thus he is not using an OS adequate to resolve his issue.

Frankly speaking, I'd attribute about 90% of the issues I've seen here and on other forums with Vegas 9, to users with inadequate hardware trying to edit HD, especially AVCHD. You can argue that point if you like, but the evidence will speak to the contrary.
Wolfgang S. wrote on 8/17/2009, 6:41 AM
No that is something that you do not know for sure! What you call evidence is pure guess. All what is observed here is a system crash during rendering. BUT there is no proof that this can be avoided by adding 400% of the specified RAM. Maybe that helps, maybe not. And there is no indication that XP is the wrong operating system. Crashes with the Sony AVC encoder took also place with Vista 64 and 4 GB on quadcores with Vegas 9.0.

System requirements state very clear what is required:

"System Requirements
Microsoft® Windows® XP 32-bit SP2 (SP3 recommended) or Windows Vista™ 32-bit or 64-bit (SP1 recommended)
1 GHz processor (multicore or multiprocessor CPU recommended for HD)
1 GB RAM (2 GB recommended)"


The fact, that the Sony AVC encoder tends to crash, can be also a software bug - for me for example, rendering with the Sony AVC encoder crashed with 2 GB (effective) and on a quadcore, with XP Pro SP1 with Vegas 9.0, but not any more with Vegas 9a.

IF the software does not crash with 8 or 12 GB RAM, then this is fine, but it is also true that this is far beyond the technical specification. What makes a bug more likely. There is a strong indication for such a memory issue - some time ago it was reported here that patching some .dll files to more then 2 GB helped to overcome rendering issues with the Sony AVC encoder. But as said, such a huge memory usage as suggested by you is out of specificatin completely .

By the way, that is an issue with the Sony AVC encoder. With HDV the mainconcept encoder works fine, even on a 1 GB Pentium 4 with 3.2 Ghz. And that is HD, too.

Desktop: PC AMD 3960X, 24x3,8 Mhz * RTX 3080 Ti (12 GB)* Blackmagic Extreme 4K 12G * QNAP Max8 10 Gb Lan * Resolve Studio 18 * Edius X* Blackmagic Pocket 6K/6K Pro, EVA1, FS7

Laptop: ProArt Studiobook 16 OLED * internal HDR preview * i9 12900H with i-GPU Iris XE * 32 GB Ram) * Geforce RTX 3070 TI 8GB * internal HDR preview on the laptop monitor * Blackmagic Ultrastudio 4K mini

HDR monitor: ProArt Monitor PA32 UCG-K 1600 nits, Atomos Sumo

Others: Edius NX (Canopus NX)-card in an old XP-System. Edius 4.6 and other systems

PeterWright wrote on 8/17/2009, 6:44 AM
Yes Perrone, but you're overlooking a few things.

As I reported in my initial post to start this thread, I have already resolved "my issue".

I replaced the AVCHD files by rendering them all to a format which my poor inadequate system can handle.

I have been editing EX1 HD material with it continuously since December 2007, and will contunue to do so until I decide to "move up".

farss wrote on 8/17/2009, 6:56 AM
" You can argue that point if you like, but the evidence will speak to the contrary. ."

Do you have any such evidence, especially as you say you've never edited any long GOP?

The most common cause of a program crashing due to running out of memory is a memory leak.
I've been editing long GOP HD video for years with 0.5GB of RAM on a quite slow P4 and never had a crash with Vegas. I've had V8 start to chew up RAM at an alarming rate and get very close to crashing, adding more RAM would have perhaps avoided a pending crash but I know the underlying problem was not anywhere as simple as you think it is and yes, I and others have evidence to back it up.

Bob.