Comments

PerroneFord wrote on 12/22/2009, 8:14 AM
Avid MC 4.0
PerroneFord wrote on 12/22/2009, 8:19 AM
That's one way to do it.

I do one track above the other, set compositing mode to "difference" or do a subtract. This shows the difference between the files.

I pull up all 4 scopes set them to update real time, and play out the file. Obviously, a perfect conversion should show zero on all 4 scopes. The best codecs show VERY little. DNxHD was nearly perfect. Lagarith too. with HD422 MXF I can clearly see the outline of every object in the video. The others are worse.

If you are trying to see fine detail in videos in the intermediate (kind of the point of using an HD intermediate in the first place) the MXFs hide it from you because it blends fine detail. That's ok for some stuff, not ok for others.

Again, fine for a proxy, not fine for an intermediate.
ingvarai wrote on 12/22/2009, 8:58 AM
> Again, fine for a proxy, not fine for an intermediate
Ok, let us agree that this is the case for many, but not for all, at all times.

I am more interested to understand what I possibly do wrong. I followed your advice, and I agree that using the scopes gives a very good indication.
The $1000 0000 question is why my uncompressed AVI, as well as the Lagarith AVI come out so bad in this test. What the heck do I do wrong? The best result I get when using the standard "Main" MXF template, then 422. Worst is AVI, uncompressed and Lagarith regardless.
If I only had time, I would do some more tests, but now Christmas is here..
Ingvar
DavidMcKnight wrote on 12/22/2009, 9:25 AM

"Perrone - which NLE is this?"
"Avid MC 4.0"

Ah, via their codec, yes.
All I can add to this is that Cineform works better than MXF on the 3 camera multicam edits I'm working on - with my specific hardware (2.4 quadcore) the framerates of native avchd are unusable, mxf was about 12, and cineform is about 25.
PerroneFord wrote on 12/22/2009, 9:35 AM
With their codec or without. No difference. MC3 needed DNxHD to get the performance. MC 4 does not. I'd heard about it, but downloaded the trial to satisfy myself. I'm satisfied. My purchase request went to my boss this morning.
PerroneFord wrote on 12/22/2009, 9:37 AM
I don't know why your lagarith test came out poorly. I'd have to see your settings to know. But it should come out very well. Is your main footage interlaced or progressive? Is it HDV or HD or SD?
erikd wrote on 12/22/2009, 10:32 AM
Perone,

I've always thought of Avid as being a package deal that required their hardware to make it work. Do I understand you correctly to say you are getting the great frame rate results with a software only version?

Erik
Bill Ravens wrote on 12/22/2009, 11:09 AM
I've been using Avid since last year...no hardware, software only. It's an OUTSTANDING application. In reality, you don't really need an Avid approved computer, either. The video card and sound card are rather important, however. Having a quadro is a surefire bet. And, a firewire connected audio card won't work with Avid.
PerroneFord wrote on 12/22/2009, 11:10 AM
Yes, that is correct. The "hardware only" Avid stuff went out the window years ago. Not to say it isn't helpful for some things (like transcoding), but I've been watching folks scrub 4 layers of disparate 1080p HD (HDV, XDCam, DVCProHD, DNxHD) with effects and differing frame rates on Core2Duo level hardware. That's what my laptop has.

Now, I will say that I need to learn more about how it all works and I am currently playing with some stuff now, but I did a full screen, full quality 1080/30p playback yesterday with ZERO stuttering or dropped frames. I can't do that in Vegas on any machine.

Again, this is not to come in here and slam Vegas. I intend to use Vegas still, especially for projects above 1080p, as you have to spend REAL money in Avid to edit 2k or above. But it's another tool in the toolbox and one that is incredibly effective and fast, albeit pricey.

Federal Rule 508 justified my purchase. Avid supports closed captioning in the master timeline. Vegas does not. For me, that is an absolute showstopper on work I produce. Everything I do has to be captioned. Whether that's closed or open. If someone knows a way for me to get my caption files into my timeline so they can be saved with the project and a master archive, I'ld be most grateful.
erikd wrote on 12/22/2009, 11:18 AM
Wow. This is very interesting to me as I have an Avid qualified HPx8600 machine. It lives on the same box as your Vegas install?

I currently have Vegas and CS3 Matrox Axio LE installed on the same box but I don't know if it would be ok to download a demo on the same box or not. Also, I read on the Avid site that you must have MC3 installed on your system to try the CS4 demo. How did you swing trying out the demo?

One last question please, I assume if you go with the software only approach of Avid that printing to Beta SP tape via a 3rd party piece of hardware like AJA doesn't fly?

Thanks,

Erik
Rob Franks wrote on 12/22/2009, 2:59 PM
"I've been using Avid since last year...no hardware, software only. It's an OUTSTANDING application."

Avid is a great product if you're in the film industry but for the Event Videographer it's just not there. Much like Apple you have to transcode just about anything you want to input. Heck, it doesn't even really support mpeg2! If I want to do a quick cut/edit sample while the client waits... forget it... I have to transcode. The Event videographer needs a more native, throw-it-on-the-timeline-and-run approach... and Vegas is just that. Avid is not.

And AvidDVD.... who knows where that's going!?! Sonic has all but abandoned it. Good luck trying to get proper support for it.

Avid (IMO) is pretty old and worn out... both the software AND the company. The money is better spent elsewhere.
farss wrote on 12/22/2009, 3:06 PM
First check your footage looks remotely the same on both tracks.
Small or large errors in aspect ratio etc can really throw things out of wack.
I've been using the Difference compositing mode for eyeball matchback. I've noticed it does not show differences in levels the same as doing a subtract. This is great for what I'm using it for but would seem to indicate it's not so good for comparing codecs.

Bob.
kkolbo wrote on 12/22/2009, 3:21 PM

A lot of great work is done with Avid, but I find it hard or unfair to compare performance on a CODEC between the two. Avid MC is over $2,000 not $600. It uses a specific family of graphics cards. It is great for fixed based stations, but for run and gun (the reason I use Vegas) it is not useful. To date I have gotten Vegas to run on almost any PC I have had to sit down at. For what I do, that is the deal breaker.

It really is a series of choices and compromises to find YOUR best tool. I have to admit though, because I also work with government content, closed caption integration like FCP can do or a better implementation would be nice. For now it isn't my deal breaker. I suspect there are less folks that need that then other things. Still I do not want to loose my machine portability to improve one CODEC's performance. I would much rather use Cineform.

I thought I was going to quit this discussion. I will crawl back under my rock now.
Rob Franks wrote on 12/22/2009, 4:04 PM
"Avid MC is over $2,000 not $600."

It USED to be $5000 and they've slashed the price in 1/2 and added a bunch of 3rd party plugins. That right there should tell you something about Avid's state and situation.
farss wrote on 12/22/2009, 4:39 PM
Avid's situation has improved recently, they're even clawing people back from FCP.
As said above though it really depends what your needs are. If you're a broadcaster and/or need collaborative editing Avid still rules the roost. For elbow editing Avid is the fastest kid on the block. That's not my opinion, that's from the hard core editors who have also used Vegas. I've seen them do in minutes what'd take me ages. Why were these guys using Vegas then. Two series of a reality TV show was cut with it and at the time only Vegas could work with the footage the cameras captured. That'd probably still be true. They did change how the footage was recorded for later series and went back their Avid systems to cut those.

It's really a question of what your needs are and where your projects are headed. I'm quite happy with what I can do with Vegas and AE. I don't do this 10 hours per day so Vegas's intuitive GUI is great for me. I find having to remember a zillion keyboard shortcuts for AE painful, I'm certain I'd have the same issue as a casual Avid user.

Bob.
Cliff Etzel wrote on 12/22/2009, 4:56 PM
Rob Franks said: It USED to be $5000 and they've slashed the price in 1/2 and added a bunch of 3rd party plugins. That right there should tell you something about Avid's state and situation.

That's called becoming price competitive in the market - a good thing for users.

After fresh install of Win 7 today and of VP9, Cineform Neo Scene - Editing my winery project. Go to render out a 640x360 SONY AVC MP4 - Vegas just pukes and crashes - 3 (now 5, now 6) attempts and still can't render a simple SONY AVC based mp4.

This is a supposed Pro app???

I don't have time for this...

I've had my fill... Hello Edius

Cliff Etzel
Videographer : Producer : Web Designer
bluprojekt
--------
Desktop: OS: Win7 x64 | CPU: Q6600 | Mobo: Intel DG33TL | 8GB G.Skill Dual Channel RAM | Boot/Apps Drive: Seagate 160GB 7200RPM | Audio Drive: Seagate 160GB 7200RPM | Video Drive: WD 640 7200RPM Black Series | Vid Card: nVidia GT7200LE

Laptop: Dell Latitude D620 | C2D 2.0Ghz | 4GB G.Skill RAM | OS: Win7 x64 | Primary HD: WD 320GB 7200RPM | Video HD: WD 250GB 7200RPM
Bill Ravens wrote on 12/22/2009, 4:58 PM
As per your usual, Bob...right on!! Keep your eye peeled for future announcements from Avid. This year, Avid is the hot NLE to have.Next year...well, Vegas could well be back on top. Editors are so damn fickle...and vendors are so out of touch with reality. In the reality of today's biz, the editor with the broadest skills, will keep working. Those locked into a single capability will find themselves waiting tables somewhere.
farss wrote on 12/22/2009, 5:12 PM
The HOT thing for next year will be 3D.

Bob.

PerroneFord wrote on 12/22/2009, 6:07 PM
I have Vegas 9 (32 and 64 bit) installed on my editing machine, and now Media Composer 4.0.4. Software only, and both work just fine. I have not had any previous version of Avid on this machine. I do not have Premiere installed on this machine.

And I am sorry, I do not know the answer to your question about hooking up the BetaSP deck. I just started with this Avid thing Sunday.
Bill Ravens wrote on 12/22/2009, 6:12 PM
If you haven't seen AVATAR, in 3D, go see it!!! It's awesome.
BTW, as of v 4, AMC will do 3D
PerroneFord wrote on 12/22/2009, 6:15 PM
Clearly you are not familiar with recent versions of Avid.

As a test today, I used AMA to link my EX1's card up. A full card was ready to edit in exactly 4 seconds. FOUR. Drag to the source window, set in an out points (oh and all my essence marks were there already), drop on the timeline, trim and done. Fastest workflow I've ever seen. No transcode, no fussing about. Just edit.

P2, XDCamHD, XDCamEX, GFCam all come in this way. If you're shooting a professional, tapeless workflow, there is nothing faster. Period.

Now, I will not say that Avid is the domain for the event videographer just just wants to make quick and dirty cuts. That is what I have been doing for years on Vegas and it's excellent for that.

As for Sonic Abandoning a product, Avid bundles Sonic DVDitPro HD. Which has numerous features that DVDA is missing... like support for VC-1. And unlike Vegas, Media Composer can send a reference file to it, so no render is necessary, saving perhaps hours of time in the case of a Blu-Ray.

If you haven't taken a look at Avid since 3.0... you're really missing a LOT.

PerroneFord wrote on 12/22/2009, 6:27 PM
Cliff, I feel ya. Believe me.

It's like one of the Avid interviews I saw with the cutter on Transformers 2. In short, he said that there are people cutting on different stuff, and that's cool. But he doesn't know ANYONE cutting a $200 million dollar movie on anything else. No one would risk it.

So, when it absolutely, positively, HAS TO BE bulletproof, people go one place.

It also is worth mentioning, that like FCS, Avid is a SUITE of products. Media Composer is an editor with a built in title tool, 3d tool, and color correction tool. For REAL 3d work, REAL effects, and real color work, that stuff is not done in Avid. And that's ok. It's designed for collaboration. It is not a one-size fits all product. And I would probably never recommend it for most folks at home. It's huge, it's complicated, and it takes work to learn.

Though it's only day 2, I am currently editing a multi-cam project that I abandoned last year in Vegas. It'll be done on day 3 of my trial with Avid, if that tells you anything. And I'm fumbling around watching tutorials on Youtube to get this done. Place sync points in all the camera angles, tell Avid to group the clips, and it builds you a multi-cam session locked together with sync sound. 10 minutes work... Brilliant.
Rob Franks wrote on 12/22/2009, 6:51 PM
"That's called becoming price competitive in the market - a good thing for users."

Unless of course you're one of those poor soles that paid $5000 for it.

The point is that that they have had NO CHOICE but to step off the high horse to become more competitive.

Cineform is not part of Sony Vegas, I don't see how Sony can be responsible for how cineform does or does not perform. Avid Liquid/Pinnacle Studio do not accept cineform.... Do you hold Avid responsible? FCP does not accept cineform... do you hold Apple responsible?

FWIW, the few times I have tried cineform in Adobe.... nothing but trouble.

There are better and more reliable codecs out there that are just as universal, maybe it's time you experimented with a few others?
apit34356 wrote on 12/22/2009, 6:55 PM
Not to drag this on..........., but vegas has a new plugin that builds you a multi-cam session locked together with sync sound. I have not tested this plugin directly with real examples but others have.