The original files are as good as it gets. You cannot get more of anything by transcoding to another codec. Those numbers do not refer to the apha channel. I don't use NeoScene but I've seen those dreaded red frames in native codecs.
Different codecs may be easier to edit but that's it.

Bob.

Thanks, Grazie!

---------------------------

"...but I've seen those dreaded red frames in native codecs."

Ugh! Thanks, Bob! Hopefully some of the other suggestions will work for me.

I should add I've NEVER had them turn up in a render. I can make them go away by zooming in and out on the timeline, for me they're like ghosts in the machine.

Bob.

The original files are as good as it gets UNTIL you change something. And that is where the trouble starts. There are things you can do in 4:2:2 color space that you cannot in 4:2:0. There are certainly codecs that hold up better to generational loss and being manipulated than the weak AVCHD codec in these HDSLRs and consumer video cameras.

If he was bringing in HDCamSR, I'd say sure... leave it in the original format. But come one. AVCHD is the PITS for editing. Slow, poor color structure, 8-bit..... terrible.

You are seeing Red Frames because:

1. Vista is a memory HOG
2. You only have 4GB of RAM (8 should be the minimum for HD editing)
3. You are putting AVCHD on the timeline instead of something meant for editing

Going to 32bit Vegas works better because it uses less RAM on a machine that doesn't have enough. Using older versions of Vegas works for the same reason. There is no magic here. Your machine has 1/3 the RAM it needs. Solve that, and your Red frames will go away.

As far as Green Screen, the GH1 will be absolutely AWFUL for Green Screen work. I wouldn't even try it. And yes, there are many things better than Cineform for green screen work, but your camera will be the limiting factor, not Cineform.

"The original files are as good as it gets UNTIL you change something"

Wrong. Vegas decodes everything into uncompressed RGB which is to all intents and purposes 4:4:4. It cannot get better than that.

If you feed AVCHD into Vegas or you feed Neo or anything else it goes through the exact same processing regardless of the source codec.

I'll say it again. Transcoding to another codec will not, cannot, improve image quality. It's mathematically impossible. Transcoding to another codec could well make editing easier, less strain on CPU and/or disk i/o but that is it.

Bob.

> "Going to 32bit Vegas works better because it uses less RAM on a machine that doesn't have enough"

PF! When you're right, you're right! - LOL, excellent and succint!

Love it . . ..

Grazie

Was good for a laugh :)

Real world results.
No correlation between red frames and RAM. In fact I could argue the exact opposite but that'd be plain daft. The red frames seem linked to Vegas having an issue decoding a frame. I've not had them with hours of a mixture of AVCHD, HDV and DV on the T/L and have had them in a new project with only seconds of video on the T/L. The screwy thing is it was ONLY the last frame in the clip that was red and it was a file rendered out of Vegas 9.0c.

Some more info. A 32bit app can only use 2GB of RAM regardless of running under 32bit or 64bit OS and how much more RAM you add. A 64bit app can pretty much use as much as there's available. Generally when Vegas runs out of RAM it crashes, it doesn't develop red frames.

After load Vegas80.exe uses 5,208K of RAM, Vegas90.exe uses 120,524K, wow.
Add a bunch of HDV files to 8 in a HDV project and it uses 91,124K, V9 uses 331,000K but it reaches a limit and stops using more as I add more files. Different kinds of files also adds a tad to RAM, no doubt as codecs are loaded.

Of course this is just how much the exe is using to run code, that's not all the RAM it has. Page file usage is linked to Preview RAM settings. I can push my PF to around 1.8GB with a 1GB Preview Ram setting. Drop Preview RAM to 0 and PF usage drops to well under 1GB. There's a good reason why the preview RAM is limited to 1GB in the 32bit build of Vegas.

As far as I'm aware the design of Vegas is pretty good, the Maddison codesmiths aren't entirely clueless. No matter how much physical RAM you have with a 64bit OS the code would not be written to run amok gobbling it up until it displayed red frames.
Indeed a 64bit build of an app can be slightly less effecient in memory requirments but as we see above the main usage of RAM by Vegas is not the executable at all.

Bob.

I am aware of Vegas' 4:4:4 on the timeline. And you are of course correct that if you only render ONCE then things are fine. I do tend to forget that most folks are only doing single renders.

So yes, if you drop your files into Vegas, edit, and render your master, then transcoding won't improve quality. It might improve performance...

I quickly ran into the red-frame problem and other quirks in 9C on my Win6-64bit machine, so now I edit in 8C, then pull it into 9c for rendering. So far, it seems to be the best of all worlds - stable editing (except for large-dimensioned stills), and stable rendering.

Where to get 8c? I downloaded it when it was new, so I really can't say . . .

See my post above . .

Grazie

Previous versions of latest updates of Vegas

Mike

> Bob said: "No correlation between red frames and RAM."

So what you're saying is that Vegas 9 is the problem, and no matter how much RAM, CPU, whatever I throw at it, I'm going to see red frames until Vegas gets fixed?

I know that some people are reporting not having any issues with V9. But I assume their setup is more "compatible" with what the programmers had in mind for hardware. But I assume they can fix the code to work with more setups.

I'm putting off a complete new PC upgrade until USB3 and SATA6 get well a good established. And unfortunately my current rig uses DDR2 (with only 4 slots). So going above 8GB of RAM is prohibitively expensive (I haven't seen any DDR2 4GB sticks for sale ... so even finding more RAM will probably be difficult).

I really like the idea of using an easier to edit codec than AVCHD. Is there something other than CineForm? But then I guess if V9 is the real problem, then any codec can produce red frames...?

Is Vegas 9b really any better? I've seen posts where people say they've gone back, but I haven't noticed anyone actually saying that it solved their red frame issue...?

Vegas 8 is looking better and better!

Thanks for all the posts, everyone!

-joe

> As far as Green Screen, the GH1 will be absolutely AWFUL for Green Screen work. I wouldn't even try it

Hum! May i suggest you to actually try it before talking?

Many examples on the net...

http://www.vimeo.com/5762412

"I know that some people are reporting not having any issues with V9. But I assume their setup is more "compatible" with what the programmers had in mind for hardware. But I assume they can fix the code to work with more setups."

There's no real evidence to support that either. Vegas makes no use of any specific hardware nor favours any setup. Clearly faster CPUs make it run faster and more RAM means more space for storing RAM previews and faster disks might, in some circumstances, give better performance but that's it.
In fact the opposite is likely true. Vegas's development has been a bit behind the times in using the newer instructions in the latest generation CPUs and of course the lack of use of the GPU is another debate that is run regularly here.

Bob.

GH1 footage is actually pretty workable with V9. Long form or short form.

CPU: i920
Win7 64 bit
6 go Ram
V9c 32 bits

I would never go myself into the hassle of transcoding giving my experience with V9c and a fast computer.

Already did try it... along with RED One, EX1/EX3, SI2K, and Viper.

But thanks.

> "There's no real evidence to support that either."

So Bob, what has been your solution to the red frames? More RAM, older Vegas, something else completely?

Thanks again,

-joe

". . . an easier to edit codec than AVCHD. Is there something other than CineForm?"

I often use Pegasus PicVideo - a $40 download (search this forum for the link). It works fine in 8C and 9xxx 32-bit, and opens fine in 9C-64bit even though I haven't purchased the 64-bit version.

It produces smaller files than Cineform (if the quality slider is set for 19 instead of 20), is faster during compression, plays smartly on the timeline.

However, I don't think it solves the red-frame and other quirks in 9c. Moreover, after a 6th-generation comparison, Cineform (from NeoScene) looked a tiny bit better. And the 64-bit version is way too expensive for compression, so I always used Cineform if I render from 9c-64bit.

Incidentally, I'm running these on a Q6600, currently not overclocked, w/8GB RAM.

The main culprit I've found for red frames in the source footage is errors that were introduced during the video's capture. For instance. running a virus checker when capturing video will give me occasional errors in my captured video. Changing the format to Cineform (or anything else) afterwards will not help. The damage is already done.

Normally I just shoot to memory card now, but when I have to capture video, I turn off the virus checker, turn off the video preview during capture, and don't use the computer for anything else (like browsing web sites) during the capture. This avoids most (if not all) of this sort of problem.