The XDCAM clip browser is on the CD that is included in the camera package. That will extract the mxf files that Vegas can read from the mp4 wrapper in which the files are recorded on the SxS cards.

BTW (perhaps a stupid question): why did Sony choose to wrap in the MP4 container on SxS cards? The files are MPG2's, and have nothing to do with MP4 as we've known it!

Also, why to wrap at all, when most NLE's understand mxf?

You ask an interesting question!
However most other NLEs have or soon will have native support for the mp4 container. I did read somewhere long ago that Adobe were the instigators of the change to mp4. If the mp4 container allows additional metadata to be added that would make a lot of sense given where they seem headed with CS4 and speech to text and OnLocation.

Bob.

True - but EX being XDCAM (and that means MXF), I don't think Sony envisioned some non-Sony NLE's to come up with native MP4 wrapper support, almost 2 years after XDCAM EX announcement....

I'd like to see Vegas' XDCAM Explorer supporting the EX format just like it does XDCAM HD - with all metadata, and - first off all - proxy editing and conforming (to a HDD folder rather than the Professional Disk - or both).

I'm bumping it up, because actually I'd like to know your answers/guesses to the question:

Why can't XDCAM EX be edited the way XDCAM HD is? Can't all the mechanisms, working now with the Professionsl Disk in FAM mode, be implemented in HDD folder mode?

> Why can't XDCAM EX be edited the way XDCAM HD is? Can't all the mechanisms, working now with the Professionsl Disk in FAM mode, be implemented in HDD folder mode?

You're going to have to ask Sony. They did the community a great disservice by tagging the name "xdcam" to he EX line. They are different creatures.

Has anyone shot and cut with the EX1 on Vegas? I'm looking to upgrade my camera rig for Same Day wedding edits and need the fastest combo of any computer/software/camera.

Right now it's looking like FCP with EX1.

No problems with EX1 in Vegas Pro 8. Handles the mxf files just fine. Various users no longer use Cineform DIs.

I've been basic-editing my EX1's mxf stuff with Vegas without any problems, and find it much more robust than with HDV. So the only reason I'm asking about the lack of XDCAM FAM mode (with metadata, proxies and conforming) is that - even with my Quad CPU and 8 GB of RAM - once I start any more serious editing (like heavier CC, or compositing) - I really miss the ease it all can be done with smaller resolution files...Proxies would be great!

Cineform (or any other kind of full-res intermediate AVI's) don't help at all, and IMHO are useless. What it gives thanks to less compression / less CPU taxation, it takes away due to higher bandwidth (bigger/faster HDD's) requirements. On systems with slower CPU, they can help a lot, however.

"Why can't XDCAM EX be edited the way XDCAM HD is? Can't all the mechanisms, working now with the Professionsl Disk in FAM mode, be implemented in HDD folder mode? "

I guess the answer to that lies in the faster read speed of the SxS cards compared to the optical disks. There probably isn't much point in transferring proxies (which the EX cams don't write) to edit and then conforming.

Bob.

"There probably isn't much point in transferring proxies (which the EX cams don't write) to edit and then conforming."

EX cams don't, but Vegas XDCAM Explorer could

"EX cams don't, but Vegas XDCAM Explorer could "

True but for what purpose?
Sony's clip browser could too but again I'm not certain what that gains us.

We've already got the full res clips, getting them onto the T/L is pretty fast.

Bob.

OK Bob, let me explain. It so happens that my serious video editing started only when I already had gone HD (HDV at first, now XDCAM EX). So you could say I just omitted (lost?) the whole era of DV editing, and the exciting developments in NLE's capabilities that most of you in this forum participated in, and gained experience from...

While you're right Vegas does very well with the mxf files in simple cuts, transitions, and a bit of CC plus some basic audio mixing, I have always been wondering how much patience and time it requires to perform more complicated editing - with the RAM preview covering just a couple of seconds of HD, and the heavy edited areas still not playing full speed when prerendered to AVI...

... until I actually tried some more complicated things on DV clips! I did that after having read Spot's "Vegas Pro 8 Editing Workshop"; I also used some example vegs from the various Internet sources, showing things that can be done in Vegas. Believe me - while testing it with DV, my reaction was "Wow! This is easy, and fast"...

...but after trying to re-create with my own HD clips, I was disappointed with the pathetic Vegas performance, doing exactly the same things!

Now, don't get me wrong - I'm not starting another rant, or platform debate. All those things are even more difficult to achieve in Edius, for that matter. But ever since this experience, I cannot help thinking that

- either I need even more CPU cores, RAM (which will only help if Vegas is fully optimized to use them - hopefully the 64bit version is a light in the tunnel)

- or, I should be editing on some kind of proxy files, that would behave just like DV I experimented with...

I hope I made myself clear now.

Piotr

Piotr, my Editing Machine is fairly modest by modern standards - Core2Duo, 2.6 Ghz with 2 Gb ram, of which I can assign up to 1 Gb to Dynamic Ram Previews in Vegas. If I do, I can get around 24 seconds of Ram Preview, which for me is plenty.

So I already edit mxf files comfortably - your experience is evidently different ?

24 secs of RAM preview? This is what I can get with DV, but certainly NOT with HD!

And that's my point, exactly.

Well I just re-tested. A full HD 35Mbps 1920 x 1080 project. Three Ram Previews at different parts of the timeline achieved 21, 20 and 22 seconds. What are your results, and what settings (as I said, 1024 allocated to Preview, rendering set to max 4 threads)

Is that at full best preview resolution? I'm not seeing that sort of time.

Ah - that could be the difference Serena - I'm set to Preview (auto), which I find perfectly adequate, as I use Ram Previews largely to check timings of cuts, dissolves, titles etc., and seeing it at Best is not necessary.

Oh, no - for me, the preview is for assessing the intended, final quality; I'm talking Full/Best preview throughout!

PS. I guess I should have mentioned it in my first post - sorry.

I'm glad we got that sorted out!

I find that although Best/Full does of course look better, it doesn't really tell me anything I need to know at the "assembly" stage.

But Peter, my point is not about "assembling" - I said Vegas is OK with the EX1's mxf, didn't I?

I'm talking about more complicated edits, which really require seeing the results in their ultimate form. This can be done, of course - but compared to editing with SD/DV, is so much slower and tedious!

When you find a way to do what you want at a price any of us here can afford let us know.
Bob.

Bob - I know you're sceptical, but if the 64bit Vegas delivers on the scalability promise, within a year or two some of us will have 16-core machines with 32 GB of RAM, and will edit HD just like you did DV a couple of year ago.

Piotr

PS. And that's even without proxies to mxf :)