Avid opinions

Eugenia Loli-Queru · June 13th, 2009, 03:59 PM

Test is done! Download the PNG files and the results in text form, here: http://eugenia.gnomefiles.org/images...ional-test.zip
I can't possibly upload the original files though, they are huge. 2.0 version of DNxHD was used. It seems that 2.0 behaves much better than the 1.9 version in terms of interlacing content. Only interpolation visibly shows a generational loss (and no, this is not because you lose half the res with interpolation, as this happens for all generations, including the original file).

But for some very weird reason, the progressive results are worse than when in my first article (might be scene-dependent). On my original test with DNxHD 1.9, it wouldn't have more than 20,000 pixels of difference, but this time it did over 35,000.

Peter Moretti · June 14th, 2009, 08:47 PM

Eugenia,

Thank you so much for re-doing the test. I looked through the pictures and read the Readme. I also compared the performance to your original test.

As for the progressive footage's worse performance than in the previous test, it could be like you mentioned b/c the image is different. The new one looks very challenging. But I also have read that DNxHD 175 had some banding issues that prevented "ER" from using some Red footage transcoded to it for broadcast. Avid said they have worked on the issue, but who knows for sure. That said, the marks for the progressive multi-generations still look very good, assuming I understood the tests properly.

Thanks again very much!

Eugenia Loli-Queru · June 15th, 2009, 11:11 AM

Thx Peter. BTW, regarding the visual UI bug, apparently it does not happen on older versions of the codec (e.g. v1.2.0), which leads me to believe that the bug is Avid's and not Vegas', that happen to get reproduced under specific conditions.

Peter Moretti · June 15th, 2009, 10:58 PM

Eugenia,

I'm looking into the UI bug some more. It's the least I can do ;). Hopefully I'll get an answer and post back soon.

Peter Moretti · June 23rd, 2009, 05:01 PM

Eugenia,

The best I've been able to find out is that it's an issue with Quicktime. Apparently there are different ways for a program to interact with Quicktime. In the case of TMPGEnc and Media Composer, they do it in a way that doesn't cause the error. In the case of Vegas and Sorenson Squeeze, they use a different manner which causes the error.

As you probably know by now, clicking on the middle of the bottom border will cause the drop down box to appear, but that's not a real fix.

I'll let you know if I find out anything else.

Peter Moretti · October 13th, 2009, 06:52 AM

Eugenia,

I just want to let you know that Avid released a new version of it's DNxHD codecs.

Here's a link:

Knowledge Base

Realize that if you use the 2.1 version, you will be decode previous versions of DNxHD, but the files you encode will not run properly on computers w/ the old codec versions installed.

I'm not sure if this version fixes the drop down box problem that you mentioned. But it does alter how interlaced footage is decoded. Which was problem YOU had noticed.

HTH.

June 14th, 2009, 08:47 PM	#32
Peter Moretti Trustee Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Sherman Oaks, CA Posts: 1,259	Eugenia, Thank you so much for re-doing the test. I looked through the pictures and read the Readme. I also compared the performance to your original test. As for the progressive footage's worse performance than in the previous test, it could be like you mentioned b/c the image is different. The new one looks very challenging. But I also have read that DNxHD 175 had some banding issues that prevented "ER" from using some Red footage transcoded to it for broadcast. Avid said they have worked on the issue, but who knows for sure. That said, the marks for the progressive multi-generations still look very good, assuming I understood the tests properly. Thanks again very much! __________________ Avid Media Composer 3.1.3. Boris Red and Continuum Complete. Vegas 8.0c. TMPGEnc Xpress Pro 4.0 Last edited by Peter Moretti; June 15th, 2009 at 01:20 AM.

June 15th, 2009, 10:58 PM	#34
Peter Moretti Trustee Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Sherman Oaks, CA Posts: 1,259	Eugenia, I'm looking into the UI bug some more. It's the least I can do ;). Hopefully I'll get an answer and post back soon. __________________ Avid Media Composer 3.1.3. Boris Red and Continuum Complete. Vegas 8.0c. TMPGEnc Xpress Pro 4.0

June 23rd, 2009, 05:01 PM	#35
Peter Moretti Trustee Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Sherman Oaks, CA Posts: 1,259	Eugenia, The best I've been able to find out is that it's an issue with Quicktime. Apparently there are different ways for a program to interact with Quicktime. In the case of TMPGEnc and Media Composer, they do it in a way that doesn't cause the error. In the case of Vegas and Sorenson Squeeze, they use a different manner which causes the error. As you probably know by now, clicking on the middle of the bottom border will cause the drop down box to appear, but that's not a real fix. I'll let you know if I find out anything else. __________________ Avid Media Composer 3.1.3. Boris Red and Continuum Complete. Vegas 8.0c. TMPGEnc Xpress Pro 4.0

October 13th, 2009, 06:52 AM	#36
Peter Moretti Trustee Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Sherman Oaks, CA Posts: 1,259	Eugenia, I just want to let you know that Avid released a new version of it's DNxHD codecs. Here's a link: Knowledge Base Realize that if you use the 2.1 version, you will be decode previous versions of DNxHD, but the files you encode will not run properly on computers w/ the old codec versions installed. I'm not sure if this version fixes the drop down box problem that you mentioned. But it does alter how interlaced footage is decoded. Which was problem YOU had noticed. HTH. __________________ Avid Media Composer 3.1.3. Boris Red and Continuum Complete. Vegas 8.0c. TMPGEnc Xpress Pro 4.0

June 13th, 2009, 03:59 PM	#31
Eugenia Loli-Queru Major Player Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Bay Area, CA, USA Posts: 348	Test is done! Download the PNG files and the results in text form, here: http://eugenia.gnomefiles.org/images...ional-test.zip I can't possibly upload the original files though, they are huge. 2.0 version of DNxHD was used. It seems that 2.0 behaves much better than the 1.9 version in terms of interlacing content. Only interpolation visibly shows a generational loss (and no, this is not because you lose half the res with interpolation, as this happens for all generations, including the original file). But for some very weird reason, the progressive results are worse than when in my first article (might be scene-dependent). On my original test with DNxHD 1.9, it wouldn't have more than 20,000 pixels of difference, but this time it did over 35,000.

June 15th, 2009, 11:11 AM	#33
Eugenia Loli-Queru Major Player Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Bay Area, CA, USA Posts: 348	Thx Peter. BTW, regarding the visual UI bug, apparently it does not happen on older versions of the codec (e.g. v1.2.0), which leads me to believe that the bug is Avid's and not Vegas', that happen to get reproduced under specific conditions.