Hey you should read the thread I started. We went over a lot of all this there.

http://www.sonycreativesoftware.com/forums/ShowMessage.asp?MessageID=716865&Replies=42


I need to learn how to make a hyper link here. ugh.


peace

I need to learn how to make a hyper link here. ugh.

Sony tells you how in sticky #3 on the main forum page.
Or you could do what I do and use Jonathon Neal's Sony Creative Software Forum Preview Tool.

Mike

"Do you want a proxy or do you want in intermediate? They are different."

I haven't heard of an intermediate, so I'm not sure. My understanding is that Cineform is a proxy where it switches out your AVCHD files with the videos using the Cineform codec for your editing, which is supposed to be faster, and than before you render, your plugin switches them back. Do I have anything wrong there, and if not, what is an intermediate?

A proxy is a substitute file on the timeline. It is changed out before render. Usually it is lower quality or resolution. An intermediate is a format that the original is transcoded to. The intermediate becomes the files used for edit and render source. An intermediate needs to be a format that does not loose quality over generations and is easily edited. I believe that an intermediate needs to be a file that is capable of a higher quality than the source. Cineform is an intermediate. Using DV widescreen would be an example of a format that you might use as a proxy.

KK

That helps, KK. I think I want a proxy. If I was only putting my stuff on youtube, I'd be fine with an intermediate, but I'm also burning DVD's for local TV stations, and I want to keep those as high quality as possible. (especially since my HD camcorders aren't super crisp as it is.)

What would be the best way for me to go about setting up proxy editing using MX4?

Thanks! You're very helpful.

I am not sure what MX4 is, sorry for my ignorance, so someone else will have to jump in there.

I find that if I am going to do more than a cut only edit, on some formats, I get better quality in the end using Cineform as an intermediate than doing a proxy edit.

You're thinking about an intermediate in entirely the wrong way. The codec for the intermediate is going to be VASTLY superior to what's coming out of your camera. As soon as you start doing any color or luma work to your footage, the intermediate becomes superior to keeping the footage native.

The time of doing Proxy edits is quickly coming to an end. Save for digital cinema work in the field, or for doing BIG projects like feature films where you'd need 10-50 Terabytes of local storage to pull it off.

Wow, ok, so here's what I think I'm hearing. Using Cineform as an intermediate results in superior looking video, AND it's faster and easier to edit with. (Not so skippy, like my native AVCHD files are.) Is the only downside to using Cineform the initial cost of the codec? My main goal here is to use something that is easier for me to edit with.

Your native footage has several "issues" that make it a poor choice for editing.

1. It's highly compressed. For each frame to display on the monitor during playback (or rendering) it has to be UNcompressed. So the less compression, the easier playback gets.

2. It's long GOP. Which essentially means that not every frame can stand on it's own. The camera is only recording a full frame every 15. The next 14 frames are partial frames. During playback, the computer has to keep that first frame in memory, and apply the difference in the successive frames in order to display a full one. This takes time and processor power. This is another reason AVCHD is slow on the timeline.

3. AVCHD is 8bit. Nearly all camcorder formats are 8bit. This is generally ok for most work, but is limiting once we get to editing and especially color correction and color grading. So moving to a 10bit codec brings advantages.

4. AVCHD is 4:2:0 color subsampling. Again, most camera codecs shoot this natively, but it's a liability in color grading footage, so we'd like to get to 4:4:4 if we can or 4:2:2 if need be.

Cineform brings all this to the table. And it's AVI based which Vegas loves. There are other good intermediates out there to use, and they are free, but Cineform brings at least one thing the other's won't. I am not aware of ANY others that are 10bit and AVI.

I used MXF (I am still in Vegas Pro 8, not sure about MX4?) as an intermediate for some Kodak Zi8 mp4 footage. The footage was rather low light, so wasn't very good to begin with, but there was noticeable degradation compared to the original footage.

I've hardly noticed any degradation in all my time using Cineform. Not sure if I had a setting wrong or what, but I have not revisited the issue yet.

Awesome. So is Cineform NeoScene the only thing I need?

Josh - I would avoid using MXF as an editing format personally. It's a great acquisition format and for those needing to edit under tight deadlines it's great. Me personally I would still encode to an intermediate if your machine is underpowered.

Just purchase Cineform NeoScene. It comes with their HDLink utility to transcode your footage to Cineform Intermediates. You will bring those clips into Vegas and edit to your hearts content. Render out to whatever final delivery codec supported by Vegas.

You do not need anything else other than NeoScene unless you need the advanced features of NeoHD with Firstlight.

Cliff Etzel
Solo Video Journalist | Micro Documentary Film Maker
bluprojekt | SoloVJ Blog
--------
Desktop: OS: Win7 x64 | CPU: Q9400 | Mobo: Intel DG33TL | 8GB G.Skill Dual Channel RAM | Boot/Apps Drive: Seagate 160GB 7200RPM | Audio Drive: Seagate 160GB 7200RPM | Video Source: WD Black 2x750GB RAID 0 | Video Card: nVidia GeForce GT 220 1GB

Laptop: Dell Latitude D620 | C2D 2.0Ghz | 4GB G.Skill RAM | OS: Vista x64 | Primary HD: WD 320GB 7200RPM | Video HD: WD 250GB 5400RPM

> Awesome. So is Cineform NeoScene the only thing I need?

Yes, and you can get it for $99 USD at Videoguys.com. In addition to everything Perrone said (which is dead on) NeoScene will also transcode your footage for you in batch mode. So you run it through Neo Scene before using Vegas and then edit and render in Vegas with the files Neo Scene produces. I think you will be amazed at the difference in editing experience when using Cineform for multi-camera work. It should be very smooth. I use it for all of the work that I do in After Effects to bring it back into Vegas Pro. It's an awesome intermediary codec.

~jr

Thank you guys SO much. I've never seen such helpful people on a tech forum like this. Blessings.

This forum is one of the big advantages of Vegas over other platforms. I am really serious. There is stuff that will stop you dead in your tracks no matter which editing software you choose. With this forum and Vegas, it seems like the answer is always just a post or two away.

It still doesn't make sense why the cams that shoot AVCHD and the ps3 can play these files perfectly, but a new computer can't with Vegas 9e.

In fact the Canon Zoom browser software plays the files perfectly on the same computer where Vegas can barely get 5 frames a sec.

Make all the excuses in the world but if Vegas 10 can't do the job most of us will be forced to leave this software.

Usually Vegas can do it from the trimmer but not from the timeline. Your Canon Zoom Browser is more analogous to the trimmer.

Rob

A firm grasp on the engineering of an NLE might help you, but suffice it to say that some devices have hardware chips inside them that are solely dedicated to dealing with the video coming from these cameras. Nearly all camera have playback hardware built in otherwise you'd never be able to see your playback in camera.

There are numerous things that have to happen when you place video on a timeline. And sadly, those things affect playback performance. That is true for Vegas, Premiere, Avid, Final Cut Pro, Edius, and any other NLE you could probably name. It is inescapable. However, some other NLEs are able to use the graphics card's GPU to assist with playback. And some cannot. The current version of Vegas Pro cannot. The current versions of Avid, Premiere, Edius, and some other editors can. This makes quite a difference.

FishEyes said:

"Make all the excuses in the world but if Vegas 10 can't do the job most of us will be forced to leave this software."

Transcode to a DI and be done with it. What part of the equation don't you get?

Quit complaining and utilize a standard practice that is used in major film editing arenas.

Vegas Pro cannot utilize the GPU - deal with it.

Buy Cineform or transcode to another DI such as AVID DNxHD.

Cliff Etzel
Solo Video Journalist | Micro Documentary Film Maker
bluprojekt | SoloVJ Blog
--------
Desktop: OS: Win7 x64 | CPU: Q9400 | Mobo: Intel DG33TL | 8GB G.Skill Dual Channel RAM | Boot/Apps Drive: Seagate 160GB 7200RPM | Audio Drive: Seagate 160GB 7200RPM | Video Source: WD Black 2x750GB RAID 0 | Video Card: nVidia GeForce GT 220 1GB

Laptop: Dell Latitude D620 | C2D 2.0Ghz | 4GB G.Skill RAM | OS: Vista x64 | Primary HD: WD 320GB 7200RPM | Video HD: WD 250GB 5400RPM

No, thank you. Vegas should come with these type of solutions built in if this is the case. I shouldn't have to buy 3rd party BS to work with today's sony consumer cams.

The ps3 now comes with a video editor that plays and edits avchd files in full frame rate but Vegas has no built in solution at all regardless of what that solution is.

Sony get it together.

And please... You couldn't pick up what I put down if you had a team of hands on your side working full time with velcro gloves... deal with it.

Well, go cut your feature on your PS3... You'll get in all the magazines. People are trying to help you out and you don't want it.

Sony should do a lot of things, but they haven't. So you can live in today's reality, or you can move it along.

Dear Fisheys,

I think you will find that most of us will not leave Vegas simply for the fact that we prefer it regardless of it's performance with AVCHD on slower machines. By the way it performs fine on my computer. You should join/get something trendy. I hear FCP handles AVCHD real well and bonus, it's the darling of Hollywood. Sounds like just the product for you, especially considering your last snide comment. Who are you anyway to denigrate someone personally on OUR forum who is just trying to help?