AVCHD no concern in V9

Addo wrote on 5/3/2009, 12:48 PM
I'm buying V9 just it'll handle my AVCHD
reading the V9 overview I have no concern for that, it says
With the Vegas Pro 9 collection you can efficiently edit and process DV, AVCHD, HDV, SD/HD-SDI, and all XDCAM™ formats in real time

They also put down the System Requirements; most of us have better coputers here.

Does anybody think Sony would like to be held liable for claming something that does not work?

Comments

TheHappyFriar wrote on 5/3/2009, 1:06 PM
no, I don't think they should be held liable because you have a setup that can't run their stuff. If someone else can, then they did nothing wrong in their claims.

you don't list your specs in your profile, so, the only one to blame for you not running the software the way you want is you.

There's also a big difference between "required" and "runs well". I'm pretty sure you could run uncompressed HDVideo in an old P3/P4/AMDXP, but it wouldn't run very well. But it would edit.
srode wrote on 5/3/2009, 1:13 PM
Edit and process in real time - I wonder if that means it will Render in real time, ie: 1:1 rendering time? We'll know in a couple weeks for sure - don't see that happening though.
InterceptPoint wrote on 5/3/2009, 3:55 PM
I built a Core i7 computer a few months back. I run Vista 64 bit and Vegas 8.1. I can preview AVCHD on the timeline at full framerate and full screen on a 21" monitor and render simple AVCHD projects at between real time and 2x real time.

So it would be nice if Sony has made some improvements in AVCHD rendering and previewing with Version 9 (which I have pre-ordered) but if they don't it isn't really going to make much difference to me or anyone with a Core i7 machine.
blink3times wrote on 5/3/2009, 3:57 PM
Maybe getting a tad technical, but I don't think rendering is actually part of editing. I would think it's more along the lines of FINALIZING your editing work.
DGates wrote on 5/3/2009, 4:20 PM
Anything that consumes time is a factor in the editing.
Stringer wrote on 5/3/2009, 5:08 PM
I'm with blink..

You render when the editing is finished ..

It will take more time to burn disks or print to tape, and prepare for distribution...
Would you call that editing also ?
DGates wrote on 5/3/2009, 5:32 PM
Ok, refer to it as post instead of editing.
srode wrote on 5/3/2009, 7:42 PM
Edit in real time is meaningless - that's all about how fast you can operate vegas from your controls - 'Process' is what caught my eye, what does process mean? Agree, it's not render - that would have been called out specifically I would guess.
rmack350 wrote on 5/3/2009, 9:29 PM
Not to get even more nit-picky, DGates, but editing is "post". Everything after "production" (shooting the video) is post production.

Now back to the OP's topic...
TheHappyFriar wrote on 5/3/2009, 10:01 PM
"real time" for editing has always meant you don't need to render to see what cuts/FX/etc. look like. you can do that in any version of Vegas that can read your file. Way back when, every other NLE needed to stop what it was doing & render a temp file for you to see an FX/fade/etc.