It seems that at least part of the problem is the amount Panny are charging for the DVCProHD SDK, Vegas isn't the only NLE having problems with DVCProHD. Cineform I believe couldn't even get Panasonic to give them a price for the SDK.

There's another bigger issue, the MXF wrapper that the HVX200 uses, that's something that needs to be addressed urgently in Vegas, this isn't just an issue for the new Panny camera, it's a SMPTE certified sandard that more and more kit is using and we're being locked out.

DVCPro50 I think quite a few here are working with, again you'll face the issue of the MXF wrapper but there are utilitles around to strip the video out of the wrapper to a native DVCPro50 AVI, Hardly an elegant workflow though.

We're looking at the XLH1 and an InfinitiCam deck, looks like a much better deal than the HVX200 BUT again the deck writes its thing using the same MXF wrapper as the Panasonci uses.

Bob.

Yesss, I think many people are waiting on an info about DVCProHD support.

Marco

My feeling is that if anyone at Sony would give us a definitive "yes", "no" or "in approximately x months" answer, these threads would stop cropping up.

There are plenty of Panasonic devotees that would be willing to shoulder their part of the financial burden of building in the support in an upgrade.

e

darn touchpad is so senstive. had to delete double post.

"There are plenty of Panasonic devotees that would be willing to shoulder their part of the financial burden of building in the support in an upgrade."

Only problem with that is that EVERYONE pays for it even if it does not benefit them. I realize thats the way business works but its not fair for MiniDV users or Sonys HDV users to have to shoulder the cost/burden for a format that does not effect them.

Personally, I would like to see Sony use this chance to start offering plugin for a seperate costs that way not everyone is paying for something they have no need for. Just my opinion though

"Yesss, I think many people are waiting on an info about DVCProHD support.

Marco"

Count me in - I want to do some tests with this camera (they are just starting to trickle into some local rental houses) & started looking around for the Vegas workflow...Yikes! From what I've been reading on the net the PC side of the equation is looking pretty iffy right now - I'm sure this will change in time but those FCP guys are already cutting footage :(

NAB in April is a long way off.....

Apple and Panasonic have been peeing in one anothers pockets for a long time, suited Apple as the DVCProHD codec needs way less CPU horsepower than HDCAM, wouldn't want anything that showed up the weaknesses of Apples silver boxes now would we. Apple didn't care about the inferior image quality, just so long as the Macolites got their cheap thrills.
So why would the current state of affairs surprise anyone, it looks like Panasonic want to keep things the way they are, even Avid systems seem to be having issues with this new camera.
Remember this is a two party issue, Maddison cannot just write the code, Panasonic have to licence the code to them AND supply the SDK. I don't know whose court the ball is in, your guess is as good as mine, time for some more conspiracy theories?

Bob.

pmasters,

Nobody is asking you to shoulder the cost - you're presumably happy with the app. as it stands?

Unlike other editing applications, Vegas users seem completely pleased to stay with earlier versions of the program as long as it satisfies their present needs. This is widely held to be a legacy of SF - not Sony.

That stated, I've been pleased up to this point editing SD 24p / 30p / 60i and HDV.

At the same time, there are a large number of broadcast productions and features that utilize Panasonic VariCam and DVX cameras. The HVX200 figures to be a major player in both of these markets moving forward.

Final Cut Pro supports DVCProHD now. What people are asking is if Sony has any intention of remaining a cross-codec friendly application and, by extension, supporting DVCProHD in this or subsequent versions of Vegas.

That's a fair question from anyone who has already made the investment or is considering a purchase.

e

Necessity is the mother of invention. So I am quite sure there will be a knee jerk workflow that gets uncompressed HD initially and optionally a digital intermediate format (MJPEG, DV scaled to HD resolution, wavelet or Cineform codecs).

DV, SD SDI, HD SDI are all feasible options with device control being somewhat achievable without access to proprietary SDKs.

It will be interesting too what the direct-to-disc folks come up with for non-Macintosh editors on these camcorders.

I'd imagine many folks with or without Z1 today will be borrowing or renting Canon H1 HDV and Panasonic DVX/P2 - perhaps also the Thomson caddy solution. The new generation models are certainly an interesting bunch - definitely avoiding the me-too competition we had been getting rather uncomfortably used to.

"Nobody is asking you to shoulder the cost - you're presumably happy with the app. as it stands?"

Youre misunderstanding me. If cost of the PanySDK is what is causing the delay, then let the HVX users shoulder the cost of the development for Vegas. If the cost is significant, then the price of Vegas will rise which will affect all paying users regardless whether they need HVX support or not.

That's a good suggestion - where can I send Sony my $20? I just dropped nearly six bills on 6.0 - does that not buy me any forward compatibility?

I recall a time when SF was at the wheel - jumping through hoops to make 24p support a reality. What could have changed?

e

"I just dropped nearly six bills on 6.0 - does that not buy me any forward compatibility?"

Forward compatibility? Come on now, be realistic. I dropped $2k on my laptop so by your theory, shouldnt that afford me forward compability to playback 1080p H.264 AVC?

Your money should afford your past compability for what is supported when you purchased your product. If thats the case, then Vegas 5 users should be complaining about losing the forward compatiblity for better 60i>24p renders.

Has the cam even shipped yet?

An "HVX pack" add-on has been suggested, so that only HVX/DVCPRO users would pay to have that capability in Vegas. This seems like a reasonable bridge to me.

But why complain when we've got that ever-so-critical PSP format support everyone was screaming for . . . ?

Let me see,
since Sony bought Vegas I'm able to edit 24p footage from the HD100 (Vegas is about the only NLE that can) and 24f from the XLH1.
Panasonic cannot even provide a viewer for their MXF file, one comes with every BD disk out of a XDCAM.
Perhaps everyone should be pounding on Panasonics door, they could just give the SDK away and put the codec in the public domain, that might spur some action on many fronts. Nothing to stop THEM from providing a codec that'll work with Vegas and PPro. lets not forget that PPro users are in the same boat.
Bob.

"Nothing to stop THEM from providing a codec that'll work with Vegas and PPro. lets not forget that PPro users are in the same boat."

Not for long. PP has worked something out. Please dont ask how I know because I just cant say.

pmasters,

There is plenty of forward compatibility built into your laptop. What you want to improve - O.S., memory, processing speed, peripherals, applications - is entirely up to you. The onus is on you to do your research and buy a system that does not paint you "technically" into a corner.

Vegas historically represented an "expandable" solution - where newer formats (actually DVCPro50 isn't so new at all) were often supported before anyone else had a product in the pipeline.

What we are asking Sony is simple. What are your intentions surrounding DVCProHD?

No one here is asking for a free ride.

e

Jim Arthurs over at DVXUser was good enough to provide this link to Marcus van Bavel's Raylight conversion application.

http://www.dvfilm.com/raylight/index.htm

e

E,

I promise I am not trying to diminsh anyones need for the support. That is not my intention. I just dont see the abundant need for support right now and I am not even sure the cameras have even begun shipping yet.

"What we are asking Sony is simple. What are your intentions surrounding DVCProHD?"

Absolutely nothing. My workload much less bank account can justify the need for an extremely high priced camera/storage solution. I could honestly see if these cams were selling like hotcakes and had the number of market penetration compared to the number of threads and posts asking for HVX support.

I also agree that things are run a bit differently under Sony than they were under SF but wasnt SF about to go out of business? Last, the majority of companies dont release information about support for features or products until close to shipping date. Adobe will offer native support with PP2 but you wont find that in any press release from Adobe.

I am positive Sony will weigh the plusses and minuses and then make a decision regarding HVX support. Like everyone else, we have to wait and see.

Cool - thanks overland films! The web site says a pre-release demo will be available on Jan 6th.

I am surprised Panny chose to store redundant frames on the tiny P2 cards.

Why use pull-down when they are introducing a new format anywya? It would seem to just reduce the already short recording time (because they have no inter-frame compression).

from my understanding the progressive nature within the p2 format wont have actual pulldown redundant frames, BUT will have a "shell" of sorts

Noone has been abel to clarify this to me as yet, but the fact remains the P2 device and MXF formats within that device DONT need to adhere to standard DV frame rates... theoretically the unit doesnt have to shell it, but i guess this comes down to NLE support.. if the NLE soesnt actaully support TUE FRAME 24p, then the NLE wil be looking for frames to pulldown.. but if theyre not there.. well...

who knows. like i said, im yet to have this clarified to me.. either way im glad im in PAL land where we dont have to worry bout this...

This might help

http://www.dvxuser.com/articles/framerates/

Udi