The process involves importing the original file first, then rendering for hours into the MXF or CineForm, correct?

I'd like to be able to select for rendering into this more friendly codec only the necessary parts of extended interviews, but even attempt to view them is beyond frustrating.

Also, if the output is to be standard def (a DVD or WMV, for instance) I have noticed that if I work in HD on the timeline, then render to SD the product looks better than if I work in SD on the timeline. In other word, it's better to downconvert as a last step.

If I were to work in SD, would you still render to MXF or CineForm, or are there others that would work better?

Thanks.

> If my video were in the right codec, seems to me it could 1) look great 2) run at full frame rate and 3) not take up that much space. Impossible?

On your old Pentium 4 computer? Yes, I'm afraid impossible is probably true.

> What is the equivalent in Vegas to FCP's ProRes codec?

Sony YUV format. This is Sony's HD 422 codec.

> ...but editing in those formats (at least on my old P4 3GH machine) means a preview framerate of 1-2fps or 8-9 fps respectively in a tiny low-rez preview window. That's not what I'd call "professional..." I want full frame rate, high def, real time playback. That's professional editing.

What all due respect... a Pentium 4 is not a "professional" editing workstation in 2010 by any stretch of the imagination. You are editing on a computer that is below the required specifications set forth by Sony for using HD in Vegas Pro. You might want to consider upgrading your system beyond the minimum specs. HDV edits like butter in Vegas Pro on a modern Quad Core system. Any Mac using FCP with ProRes is at least a Dual Core if not a Quad Core.

> After all, many dedicated devices (Blu-ray player, uprezing DVD players, the Western Digital Media Player, etc) can play back high bitrate, highly compressed codecs like MTS, AVCHD, WMV, H.264, QuickTime and many others in real time at 1080p from standard drives (hard drive or disc) with no problem.

These dedicated devices have hardware designed for this single purpose and not a general purpose CPU that is executing codecs from software. Dedicated hardware will always run much faster than software based solutions.

If you really don't want to upgrade your computer, you could use a proxy based editing solution like VASST GearShift. You will still need to render your files before editing but they will at least run fast on your P4 because they will be DV Widescreen proxies that you can swap out for the original HD media before you render.

~jr

Hmmm,

You want to run the equivalent of ProRes, ok. Purchase the equivalent of a MacPro, just like the Apple guys have to.

I wouldn't DREAM of trying to edit HD on a P4. In fact, I didn't edit SD on a machine that slow without hardware assistance (DVStorm2).

Sidecar, the cheapest / fast rendering solution for a P4 would be buying the Toshiba cell card probably with the Tmpgenc software, checkout tom's hardware site for articles.

> What is the equivalent in Vegas to FCP's ProRes codec?

There are many ProRes codecs for different needs, from ProRes Proxy to the 12-bit 4:4:4:4 ProRes 4444 for digital cinema post production at the Hollywood level.

Even standard ProRes (no HQ) is 10-bit and the highest version anyone will need unless they're shooting Sony F35 or RED, etc. where the recording is above true 10-bit.

Most of them are way more compact than uncompressed 4:2:2, which makes it possible to run them on machines that don't have mega RAID setups, even editing 2K on a MacBook Pro (I've sat with a guy doing it).

ProRes Technical White Paper

Vegas doesn't have an equivalent to ProRes at this time, but for a bit of money, Cineform can do much of what ProRes can do (and for the most expensive versions, a few things it can't), and there is also Avid's DNxHD.

Vegas can import ProRes files if you install the free Windows codec pack, but it can't render to ProRes.

In the end, Sony will need to step up to the plate and provide a few modern post-production codecs, as it has become a hard requirement for pro NLEs over the last few years. 1920x1080 especially is too beefy otherwise, and these modern codecs provide a quality that is indistinguishable from uncompressed in nearly all cases.

Perhaps they are counting on being able to edit H.264 with GPU support instead?

"
Perhaps they are counting on being able to edit H.264 with GPU support instead?"

Yea, but other than the DSLRs, darn few pro cams are shooting H.264.

Wow, Coursedesign, THAT is good information.

Not only are you helping me work Vegas better, but you are helping me understand the confusing world of ProRes/FCP, which some of my co-workers need to use.

A few years back (probably when I first had HDV to deal with in Vegas) I experimented with rendering intermediates to Sony YUV (Vegas 5 or 6, perhaps). To my eye, YUV made the video look remarkably better, though took up a lot of space. Is that possible? Can imported video (in this case, converting highly compress M2T files to YUV) actually make it look better? It seemed "fuller" or "richer," something that also impresses me about ProRes.

Would you recommend the YUV conversion from 24mbps AVCHD files from my Canon HFS100 or some other intermediate?

How compact is Sony YUV and are there secrets to customizing it or should I just use its default setting?

Where do I get this free Windows Codec pack so I can import ProRes? That would be helpful should I need to edit FCP files.

I agree my aged P4 machines (both at work and at home) need to be replaced, and will be soon, but that doesn't mean I should work native if other options improve the quality.

The HD Media 100 codec (at least the way our machines are set up now) always bumps anything it ingests to full uncompressed 1920x1080. It is gorgeous, but requires huge disc space and scary fast RAIDS to play (or even capture) in real time. It's gotten where we do few HD shows because the darned files are simply too large and we are constantly archiving at a severe cost of archival drive space and the time it takes to copy to and from the archival drive.

By the way, because it was so frustrating working with AVCHD native files, once I had made a very rough with large handles on both ends for later fine tuning, I rendered out an uncompressed avi and edited from that, still with some frustration, but workable.

Rendering an MPEG2 standard def for DVD production from that uncompressed avi produced the best-looking DVD I have ever made, especially playing it back from my up-rezzing Blu-ray player into a 52" 1080p display. I could not believe that video came out of my little semi-pro camcorder

In your opinion, how does that uncompressed 1080-60i avi stack up to the HD YUV 1080-60i?.

Uncompressed is lossless. HD YUV is lossy. Both look pretty darn good. When I want compressed, but lossless, I use Lagarith. This should give you 4:1 or 5:1 compression over uncompressed, with zero visible difference.

As to ProRes, you need to either install Quicktime version 7.6.2 (which I recommend ..don't use newer ones) and that will let you place most quicktime based codecs on the timeline in Vegas with no fuss.

Apple ProRes essentially derived from Avid's DNxHD codec. In fact, when Apple first introduced ProRes, they chose the two most popular bitrates from the DNxHD codec to use. Apple did choose to use all 10-bit versions, where Avid has some 10-bit and some 8-bit, and the choice is left to the user. Because Avid was seeing ISO certification for their codec, they opened the source code to it as required. Shortly thereafter, ProRes was introduced and Apple refused to allow anything other than Final Cut Pro use the new codec. It took almost two years before they relented and allowed PCs to even READ it. And sadly, they won't even let their sister app Final Cut Express use ProRes. As of 2 years ago, FCE couldn't even READ ProRes, I am not sure if that has changed.

Recently, Apple has added more bitrates to their ProRes codec, including one that Avid doesn't have, which is a 4:4:4:4 option. Few people other than VFX artist would have a need for it, and frankly, I think most of them are going to be working in something other than ProRes if they're smart.

Perhaps someone here will tell you how to do multi-track difference comparisons so you can lay your originals on the timeline, and lay 3-4 other rendered versions on tracks below it and do mathematical differencing so you can see the loss with these various options.

It really is rather shocking how much loss is occurring with some of these favored codecs, which is why I avoid most of them. These days, unless I have no choice, I have either Jpeg2000 on my timeline, or DNxHD, or Lagarith.

To my eye, YUV made the video look remarkably better, though took up a lot of space. Is that possible? Can imported video (in this case, converting highly compress M2T files to YUV) actually make it look better? It seemed "fuller" or "richer," something that also impresses me about ProRes.

What you are seeing is common. Doing grading and effects in a better codec can make your video look better. It depends on what you do, but what happens is that you get some color smoothing for your original clips going from 4:2:0 (or 4:1:1 for NTSC DV) to 4:2:2, and your renders stay in 4:2:2 all the way.

Vegas uses 4:4:4 for internal renders. but that is lost on output.

I'd get Cineform to work with HFS100 footage, because even when your computer is fast enough to work with it natively, I don't think it is a good idea. Every time you render back to that codec...

ProRes Decoder for Windows

Editing uncompressed 1080 HD is not for mortals, there is simply no reason whatsoever to put up with the hassle when modern intermediate codecs are so good, providing "uncompressed HD quality at SD data rates" (actually true for most people).