Nope its not my system config. Everything works fine in 8 and Premiere pro CS4. If it makes a difference the clips were captured in pro 8 and worked on in 9. I shot the footage a few months before pro 9 came out and have not worked on the video until today. I have encountered this problem with other avi files made in camtasia studio 6 and worked on in pro 9, however they edit fine in pro 8.

One note to add to the first post. I rendered out the project just a few minutes ago in pro 9 and the transition problem was not in the render. It is only present in the preview. Any thoughts as to why?

Also any thoughts as to why cineform does not work well in pro 9 too?

"I use a panasonic HVX200 for most of my work. I want to move over to the EX more but its codec stinks for chromakey"

You think, not from my tests. I'd be interested to hear your justification for that statement.

Bob.

Sounds like a troll.

"Sounds like a troll."

I wouldn't go that far. Rather I suspect someone who swallowed Panasonics use of very rubbery numbers. I notice down here Panasonic have shaved 50% of the price of many of their cameras. Maybe they're finally realised you can fool some of the people some of the time but eventually it'll come back to bite you.

Regardless I think we should wait until the OP has a chance to explain his statement. He certainly would not be the first person in this game to get sucked in by marketing hype.

Bob.

lol A troll!

Dude I have been using Vegas for a very long time and I thought this forum was for problems and solutions when using the program. However it seems like the Vegas forum is getting to be more like the place where people want to defend it rather than trying to find a solution to its issues. The tuts I have made for 9.0 have been a nightmare to produce because of problems

Sure look me up on youtube and see what kind of a troll I am..lol
www.youtube.com/markapsolon
or you can visit my websites
www.markapsolon.com
www.apsolonproductions.com


As for EX1 and HVX200 the answer is the color spacing in the codec. I have yet to see a really good key from a long GOP mpeg2 but I have had no problems with the DVCpro100 format. Sony has a 4:2:2 mpeg2 cam but right now it is out of reach for me cost wise. While the HVX200 is right in the sweet spot.

"As for EX1 and HVX200 the answer is the color spacing in the codec"

I think you've fallen into a common trap.
DVCPro HD is 4:2:2 sampling of 1280x1080.
XDCAM EX is 4:2:0 sampling of 1920x1080.

The chroma sampling numbers are deceptive, what counts are the total number of chroma samples. It gets worse for the HVX because of the low res of the sensors and the pixel shifting used to up their apparent res. Looking at the image on a HD monitor I'd rate it as a very good 16:9 SD PAL camera. Recording DVCPro 50 makes a lot of sense with this camera, going to DVCPro HD just seems a good way to fill up P2 cards.

With the EX you do get 10bit 4:2:2 out the HD SDI port. You've got the option of adding a FlashXDR or NanoFlash without breaking the budget. Even without that our clients are very pleased using it alongside the F35. My only real gripe with the EX is the lens but I'm well aware of the cost of good glass so it's not a real complaint.

As for CK'ing XDCAM EX footage. All I can say is our EX cameras are seeing a lot of work in studios shooting green screen for web, broadcast and the silver screen. For my feeble attempts at CK'ing I've not found any issues that I'd attribute to the codec looking at the results pixel to pixel. You'd want to tweak a few default camera settings to get the best results and the usual care with lighting but that's it. I'd really suggest you download some sample CK footage and try it for yourself. You can have some of mine if you like, it's not perfect, too much Detail dialed in but it is an extreme test.

Bob.

"As for EX1 and HVX200 the answer is the color spacing in the codec" ? Really? I would suggest renting an EX1 or for more fun the EX3 and do some serious testing. There is no way the HVX200 can complete, especially with its half resolution, with it's firmware upscaling resolution. A "look" is not really meaningful if you're losing details outside your choice to do so.

Hi Bob,

I agree the images that the HVX200 are very soft because of the pixel shift and the size of the senors which makes the EX look far better with the long GOP it records onto the cards. I will be the first to admit the EX resolution looks better than the HVX. The HVX says 4:2:2 but in reality it is more like 4:2:1..lol However you can not tell me the a long gop mpeg2 from the EX is going to key better than the DVCpro100 or 50. Yes if you do HD SDI out (4:2:2) it will look great but why would I want to do that when I could go with a Canon for its HD SDI 4:4:4 and bypass the mepg2 all together for less. I really do not care if the product is sony, panasonic, canon, etc as long as it does the job that I need it for and fits within the budget.

The thing with the HVX200 is I can half-way light my Chromakey background and still get a great key using DVCpro100 (720p). I can not do that with any HDV or miniDV camera. I plan on purchasing a EX within the next 6 months for shooting other productions for my clients but I was not planning on doing any green screen with it. I like the res on the camera! However what I will do is a side by side comparison keying both of their formats in Vegas pro and Premiere pro (even though I think Vegas has the better keying) and post the video online to show my results. It will be interesting to see if it plays out better than I thought or not.

The question that I really would like to have answered is why is cineform not working well with Vegas pro 9? It works fine in 8