When can we expect 9.0a ?

A. Grandt wrote on 5/31/2009, 4:12 AM
Hi

Based on past experiences, how long does it usually take from the x.0 till the x.0a versions to be released?

There are a number of minor and unfortunately major issues cropping up with SVP9.0 so far, one of which has proven itself to be a show stopper for me, Memory usage.

Memory sometimes shoots up to max. physical mem (on an XP 32-bit) and the render crashes after a few frames with the Out of memory error, where SVP8.0c just took about 1GB during render and stayed there for the most part throughout the render.

SVP9.0 also is a memory hog on virtual mem, and I get the Virtual memory low from Windows, and that is after increasing that to go to 12 GB. Is SVP9.0 really trying to load the entire file into memory? In which case I have to increase the virtual mem to 40+ GB, and that is just insane!

One scenario is with on a ~80 minute file (AVCHD 'upshifted' to mpeg2) which I'm trying ot time lapse to ~6 minutes (12x with Playback speed=4 and velocity envelope=3, there must be a better way)

But that is not the only one where I get into memory trouble, even after shutting down just about all applications but Windows itself.

Comments

Harold Brown wrote on 5/31/2009, 6:24 AM
My download archive records show 39 days between 8 and 8a. However, there isn't any real way to know when 9a will be out. They will work to resolve the top show stoppers.
Brad C. wrote on 5/31/2009, 7:09 AM
Even though quite a few people here scoff at AVCHD and it not being professional workflow worthy, SCS needs to work on Vegas' handling of it. Regardless of Sony's decision to stay at main profile, AVCHD is growing exponentially in terms of people who own a camera that produce these files. It seems to be a huge issue with any NLE right now. Wouldn't you think (or hope) that one of the co-developers of AVCHD would actually have an NLE that would outmuscle the rest?

I get through my projects in decent time, but it could be sooo much faster. I think AVCHD would push NLE manufacturers to get on the ball just for bragging rights alone. Hopefully 9.0a will address this even further.
blink3times wrote on 5/31/2009, 9:05 AM
Well I too would like to see slightly higher bit rates in AVCHD.... even though I'm working with main profile avc. You always loose a little bit on the final renders so I like to goose the bits a little to make up for the difference.

But in all fairness, Sony has made it reasonably clear that they have no interest in high profile avchd... right from their cams.... to the time line. There WAS a time where i was complaining that scs was behind the times with avchd but I don't think I can say that anymore. Out of curiosity I downloaded the trial of Edius 5 (everybody says it's so good with avchd) and I found it to be simply horrid. The stutter on time line playback is worse than it ever has been in Vegas and the final rendered output wasn't even usable. Granted, I haven't played with PP and Encore, but from what I can see so far is that SCS and Vegas is on a better track now with avchd than the majority of competitors and I think it will continue to get better. But I also think we will hit a point with all nle's and avchd, where we will have to start owning up to the fact that no matter what we do.... avc will simply be a b*tch to deal with on the time line.

But for what it's worth anyway, native editing with main profile avchd works better in Vegas than others I have played with (again... I have not yet played with PP and Encore)
Harold Brown wrote on 5/31/2009, 9:20 AM
I would be curious with the comparison on faster processors. It might just have to come down to that.
Brad C. wrote on 5/31/2009, 1:17 PM
Blink is running a Q6600 (2.4ghz quadcore) with 8gig of RAM (held back to 3 because of 32bit I'm assuming?)

I'm running a Q6850 (3.0ghz quadcore extreme) with 4gig of RAM (held back to 3 because of 32bit, actually it's 3.3 recognized going by the meter)

Anyway, are any Core i7 guys reporting the same issues? Is there anybody running dual Xeon quad's?

Btw, have I mentioned that I love Sony and I'm not whining? haha
ritsmer wrote on 5/31/2009, 2:05 PM
Brad C wrote: Is there anybody running dual Xeon quad's?

Yes. 2 x 2.8 GHz Xeon quads: Rendering 10 minutes of 720p with Vegas 8.0c under Windows XP x32: some 20 minutes. Same render with same Vegas but under Windows 7 x64: under 5 minutes - and here preview is dead on 29.970 Fps even with some FX'es and crossfades.

Difference?? - well the x32 Windows generates some 50.000 page faults per second (no joke) and while the x64 Windows generates 0-2 page faults per second....
blink3times wrote on 5/31/2009, 2:14 PM
Well, I'm running a q6600 but on Vista 64... OCed to 3Ghz and I can run single track avchd at full frame rate. Now an i7 may be a slight improvement added, but overall when you start getting into effects and transitions with avchd, the only thing that really works for even timeline playback is Dynamic ram (shift-B)

But let's not forget that I'm talking about main profile avchd which is much easier to edit/playback than High profile avchd. (it's been clearly stated that high profile avchd is harder to play/edit) When you factor all of this in what it pretty much spells is that you will need one SCREAMING fast and powerful machine to properly work with high profile avc and not have to hit SHIFT-B every two and a half minutes.
ritsmer wrote on 5/31/2009, 2:35 PM
Everybody are talking about "AVCHD". Some say that it is good and some say that it is bad. But are they talking about the same thing?

Pls check http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AVCHD and you will see that ADCHD actually is many things with differences in format, data rates and especially Video compression.

Even if we limit AVCHD to just 720p the versions are so different internally that the frame rate in Vegas preview goes from 4 Fps to way over 30 Fps.

So - in order to be able to edit it - just get a camera that delivers AVCHD that is editable...

blink3times wrote on 5/31/2009, 2:45 PM
"But are they talking about the same thing?"

This is why I keep mentioning Main profile and High profile avchd.

Sony cams (as well as Vegas) are rigged for Main profile avchd which is easier to edit/playback while canon and Panasonic cams operate on high profile avchd... higher bitrates can be attained with high profile... but it's also harder to edit/playback.

Avchd may be a great acquisition format as well as a good delivry format because of its level of compression. But what makes it so great in those areas is exactly what makes it so awful as an editing format...... and (IMO) it will always be that way.
ushere wrote on 5/31/2009, 6:27 PM
well, i've whinged enough about my problems in v9 (so hurry on 9a), but regarding avchd.....

a client dropped in his sr10 with 1hr+ of material on it. i have to admit i was a bit iffy about the whole thing from what i'd read here.... so i transferred in 8 (having no knowledge of the removal of 'import avchd' camcorder' in 9 and the substitution of 'device manager' instead) and all went well.

i started off in xp pro 32 / e6600 / 3gb - playback of the raw avchd (project prop. at hdv 50i) left a lot to be desired.

just up'd to i7 920 - still on xp pro 32 / 6gb ram (in anticipation of testing win 7).

files play back smoothly in 8, require 'start-up' of a couple of seconds in 9. in both cases once they're running they're fine.

as soon as i start 'playing with them - bit of cc'ing, etc.,' they started bogging down a bit in both version (more noticeably in 9).

did as i read here (and suggested by bob (farss), converted them to mfx - and no problems with playback in 8 or 9 (still takes a moment to get upto full frame rate - 8 is instant). i'm sold on this method - and to all intents and purposes i can't see and difference in quality - and i'm bloody sure my clients wouldn't either.

all the above was at either preview auto, or best auto. i found i had to turn off the 'auto preview quality' whatever in 9 since it did seem to make playback rate a bit unpredictable and at times stuttery.

leslie