Avid opinions - Page 2 at DVinfo.net

Go Back   DV Info Net > Cross-Platform Post Production Solutions > Avid Editing Family

Avid Editing Family
All flavors of Media Composer, Symphony and more.


Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old June 13th, 2009, 12:12 PM   #16
Trustee
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Sherman Oaks, CA
Posts: 1,259
Nope it's 3.1.3. Maybe it has to do with the verison of Quicktime that's being used. I'm using 7.5.5.
__________________
Avid Media Composer 3.1.3. Boris Red and Continuum Complete. Vegas 8.0c. TMPGEnc Xpress Pro 4.0
Peter Moretti is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 13th, 2009, 12:18 PM   #17
Trustee
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Sherman Oaks, CA
Posts: 1,259
Eugenia,

Do you know what version of the DNxHD codec you were using? The latest version is 2.0.

Here is a link to the package (the download is under "File Attachments" near the very bottom of the page):

DNxHD
__________________
Avid Media Composer 3.1.3. Boris Red and Continuum Complete. Vegas 8.0c. TMPGEnc Xpress Pro 4.0
Peter Moretti is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 13th, 2009, 12:47 PM   #18
Major Player
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Bay Area, CA, USA
Posts: 348
I have used both 1.9 and 2.0 with the same UI bug appearing.

>Are you aware that Avid can playback FULL resolution

Generally speaking, my statement was correct. Most editors aren't doing that, and I was testing under Vegas anyway.

>Like I mentioned above, Avid is blazing fast. Using a Quicktime wrapper does not seem impact performance in Media Composer.

Not on Vegas. Vegas is very unoptimized with ANY MOV file (regardless of codec inside), it requires AVI to be working in its full potential. So Avid's DNxHD is very slow under Vegas. Besides, the "native" container for Windows editors is AVI, not MOV. Avid *should* provide both! Vegas is not the only PC editor that has trouble with MOV btw.

>I can replicate it in Vegas. But it seems like a Vegas problem.

I don't believe this. And the reason I don't, is because:
1. NO OTHER codec UI ever had this bug, but only yours. And I have installed a number of third party codecs.
2. All Vegas does is to invoke the DLL for the UI, it doesn't mess with it.

So, sure, there might be some conditions that exist that create the bug when invoked from within Vegas, but I believe that ultimately that UI bug is Avid's.
Eugenia Loli-Queru is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 13th, 2009, 01:17 PM   #19
Trustee
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Sherman Oaks, CA
Posts: 1,259
>I have used both 1.9 and 2.0 with the same UI bug appearing.

When you performed the multi-generation test, was it with the 2.0 codec?

>Generally speaking, my statement was correct. Most editors aren't doing that, and I was testing under Vegas anyway.

I just wanted to let you know that full resolution playback is very nice to have and certainly a reality inside Avid (w/o external hadware).

>Vegas is very unoptimized with ANY MOV file (regardless of codec inside), it requires AVI to be working in its full potential. So Avid's DNxHD is very slow under Vegas. Besides, the "native" container for Windows editors is AVI, not MOV. Avid *should* provide both! Vegas is not the only PC editor that has trouble with MOV btw.

I think the reason why Avid chose MOV is because Avid runs on both Mac and PC. Since DNxHD in MOV does run well in the PC version of Media Composer, I'm not sure that Avid will take the time to make AVI versions. But I do see your point.

>I don't believe this. And the reason I don't, is because:
1. NO OTHER codec UI ever had this bug, but only yours. And I have installed a number of third party codecs.
2. All Vegas does is to invoke the DLL for the UI, it doesn't mess with it.

But if you look at the window that surrounds the dialogbox for the DNxHD codec options in Vegas, it's the same size as the ones used for all the other Avid codecs. I believe the window that the codec options are displayed in is determined by the application, i.e. Vegas in this case. It looks like Vegas does not realize that DNxHD needs a different size options window than all the other Avid codecs.

And how can you explain that the window displays properly in TMPGEnc? The only certain condition that's different is that it's a different program. And you can see that TMPGEnc uses a slightly different Options interface window than Avid uses, which indicates to me that the Optoins interface window is also determined by the calling application, not solely the codec.

Eugenia, again I appreciate your help and please feel free to respond.
__________________
Avid Media Composer 3.1.3. Boris Red and Continuum Complete. Vegas 8.0c. TMPGEnc Xpress Pro 4.0
Peter Moretti is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 13th, 2009, 01:18 PM   #20
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: santa fe, nm
Posts: 3,264
Images: 10
Let's be clear about what problem we're really complaining about here. The graphic problem is a trivial one. The claim that DNxHD isn't suited for a PC is more serious. It is my opinion, as you may have yours, eugenia, that the problem lies within vegas. I have used vegas since version 3. vegas has NEVER handled Quicktime well, while other NLE's, such as Edius, do fine with QT. Likewise MC handles QT on my PC just fine. vegas claims to be codec agnostic, but, in reality it isn't. TmpGenc, Squeeze, Procoder, and MPEG_Streamclip, they ALL handle DNxHD without a hiccup, not even a burp. Vegas' problem may well lie with the fact that Vegas still uses the archaic vfw, rather than the contemporary DirectX.

for you to judge DNxHD on the basis of your experience, which is limited to vegas, is not only unrealistic, but, somewhat iconoclastic, eugenia.

It would seem your anger at Avid is related to the fact that DNxHD is wrapped in QT and not AVI. Again, eugenia, I think you're being rather parochial.
Bill Ravens is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 13th, 2009, 01:30 PM   #21
Major Player
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Bay Area, CA, USA
Posts: 348
>When you performed the multi-generation test, was it with the 2.0 codec?

1.8, I think, at the time. The article is not new you see.

>for you to judge DNxHD on the basis of your experience, which is limited to vegas, is not only unrealistic, but, somewhat iconoclastic, eugenia.

No, it's not. I am a Vegas user. I don't look into moving into another editor. More over, 90% of my readers are Vegas users as well. That's what we/they care about. If Edius is able to play DNxHD without problems, good for it. But I ain't gonna use Edius even if someone puts a gun onto my head: Edius problems

Look, I am a tech journalist, but the article was published on my personal blog, not on my publication (OSNews.com). The way it works in the business, is if someone wants a review of their app or their hardware, is to send me over a free copy. Both Sony A Look at Sony Vegas Pro 9 and Adobe A Look at Adobe Photoshop, Premiere & After Effects CS4 have done so (read the reviews and you will see that I write it as I see it). I can't possibly get my hands on the rest of the popular editors without spending thousands of dollars from my own pocket (especially for Avid's editors/HW).

>It would seem your anger at Avid is related to the fact that DNxHD is wrapped in QT and not AVI.

No. I am unhappy with Avid (not angry, I don't care, I use Cineform) because of both AVI, the UI bug, and the slowness on my editor. EVEN if all the blame is to go to Sony, I still can't use the damn thing. And that's the real bottomline. I have none of these problems with Cineform, because by using AVI: 1. it doesn't have a UI bug, and it's fast to decode. So even if the blame is Sony's, it's Avid who decided to not go with AVI and not support Vegas (and other PC editors) properly.

As for the bug being Vegas', I am not convinced. I will take it up with Sony and see what they say.

Last edited by Eugenia Loli-Queru; June 13th, 2009 at 02:02 PM.
Eugenia Loli-Queru is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 13th, 2009, 01:43 PM   #22
Major Player
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Bay Area, CA, USA
Posts: 348
>1.8, I think, at the time. The article is not new you see.

It was actually 1.9.
Eugenia Loli-Queru is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 13th, 2009, 01:45 PM   #23
Trustee
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Sherman Oaks, CA
Posts: 1,259
Eugenia,

If you could be so kind as to do your generational test with the latest version of the codec, that would be very helpful.

Thanks.
__________________
Avid Media Composer 3.1.3. Boris Red and Continuum Complete. Vegas 8.0c. TMPGEnc Xpress Pro 4.0
Peter Moretti is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 13th, 2009, 01:49 PM   #24
Major Player
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Bay Area, CA, USA
Posts: 348
Unfortunately I don't have Cineform installed on this machine anymore (neither the exact frame used in that tutorial). Therefore, the only test I can do is test DNxHD with another frame, and then observe the generation loss with itself, rather than with other codecs. If another codec is required for comparison, I can test it with Lagarith in YUY12 mode (not in RGB mode, as that would be completely lossless).

EDIT: email sent to Sony.
Eugenia Loli-Queru is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 13th, 2009, 01:56 PM   #25
Trustee
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Sherman Oaks, CA
Posts: 1,259
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eugenia Loli-Queru View Post
... Therefore, the only test I can do is test DNxHD with another frame, and then observe the generation loss with itself...
That's what I'd want to see. The comparisons across codecs I'm not conecerned about.


P.S. If you'd be willing to also run the a generational test of 175x on progressive 23.976 that would be great. It would help determine if it's a problem with movement between interlaced fields only, or if movement between progressive frames also causes the problem.
__________________
Avid Media Composer 3.1.3. Boris Red and Continuum Complete. Vegas 8.0c. TMPGEnc Xpress Pro 4.0
Peter Moretti is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 13th, 2009, 01:59 PM   #26
Major Player
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Bay Area, CA, USA
Posts: 348
Ok, sometime this weekend then.
Eugenia Loli-Queru is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 13th, 2009, 02:04 PM   #27
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: santa fe, nm
Posts: 3,264
Images: 10
Eugenia...

My deepest apologies for leaving you with the impression that I meant to down-play you. That is not my intention. I've read your article and found it informative and well written.

I would, however, suggest that you could best serve your readers by being as technically accurate as possible, and leave personal opinion and emotion out of the story. One of my biggest complaints with this entire NLE business is that there is very little unbiased reporting going on. And that's true for every NLE vendor, not just the vegas faithful. In the end, the unwitting noobie gets pulled into emotional arguements with very little foundation in fact. I guess the old axiom always applies....caveat emptor.
Bill Ravens is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 13th, 2009, 02:07 PM   #28
Trustee
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Sherman Oaks, CA
Posts: 1,259
World peace ;).
__________________
Avid Media Composer 3.1.3. Boris Red and Continuum Complete. Vegas 8.0c. TMPGEnc Xpress Pro 4.0
Peter Moretti is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 13th, 2009, 02:09 PM   #29
Major Player
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Bay Area, CA, USA
Posts: 348
I can assure you, there is no Vegas bias. Read my review of Vegas 9 on OSNews and you will see the hammering they get too. My benchmark article was as technically correct as possible too. It's just that it used Vegas as its platform, because that's what I use at home. As I explained above, I can't possibly use all the world's video editors to test a codec. It's impossible. You just pick an editor, and you go with it. Vegas is as good as any, because, even if it has shortcomings (e.g. MOV support), it has other benefits that other editors don't (e.g. Cineform or Lagarith AVI wouldn't work as well on FCP -- if at all). So it all balances out at the end. The various articles have to be written within logical constraints. Even if you had written my benchmarking article, and you have decided to use Edius or Avid, the FCP/Vegas users would have found a way to tell you "it's unfair" about other aspects of the article and the codecs used and how well or not these codecs are supported under the editors of your choice. As you can see, it's impossible to have an 100% objective result if a codec is good or not in all aspects, because all codecs NEED a video editor or encoding UI (e.g. even the command line ffmpeg), and they have to work through the constraints of these tools, and at the end you have to have a conclusion within the constraints of these tools. I hope I am making some sense. :)
Eugenia Loli-Queru is offline   Reply With Quote
Old June 13th, 2009, 02:19 PM   #30
 
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: santa fe, nm
Posts: 3,264
Images: 10
I agree with you, completely. I am a huge proponent of the Cineform DI, preferring it over DNxHD. As I said earlier, I would hope, however unrealistically, Avid incorporates the Cineform DI as part of their DI package, without a need to transcode to DNxHD on import.
Bill Ravens is offline   Reply
Reply

DV Info Net refers all where-to-buy and where-to-rent questions exclusively to these trusted full line dealers and rental houses...

Professional Video
(800) 833-4801
Portland, OR

B&H Photo Video
(866) 521-7381
New York, NY

Z.G.C.
(973) 335-4460
Mountain Lakes, NJ

Abel Cine Tech
(888) 700-4416
N.Y. NY & L.A. CA

Precision Camera
(800) 677-1023
Austin, TX

DV Info Net also encourages you to support local businesses and buy from an authorized dealer in your neighborhood.
  You are here: DV Info Net > Cross-Platform Post Production Solutions > Avid Editing Family

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

 



Google
 

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 04:29 AM.


DV Info Net -- Real Names, Real People, Real Info!
1998-2017 The Digital Video Information Network