Vegas update adds support for V1

[Marcus van Bavel]

Originally Posted by Douglas Spotted Eagle

You're right, it's the MXF packaging which costs money, and isn't supported. However, that's what comes with the HVX flavor of DVCPro, and given that it's very expensive to purchase the SDK, and given the fact that the *majority* of the MXF format cams are from Sony, and that Vegas supports their flavor of MXF... all that totals up to "why support it?" If the tools were given to Sony at no cost/low cost, they'd support it. I've heard that commented from Madison to Japan.
either way, you're not going to see it supported in Vegas any time soon, so if you're wanting to work with the HVX and upcoming cams using Panasonic's version of MXF, you'll need to either not work with Vegas, or find a workaround.

Here's your workaround

1. Drop CONTENTS folder into Raylight RayMaker.
2. Start editing

;)

[Barry Green]

Originally Posted by Douglas Spotted Eagle

You're right, it's the MXF packaging which costs money

http://freemxf.org/
An open-source library, free source code.

if you're wanting to work with the HVX and upcoming cams using Panasonic's version of MXF, you'll need to either not work with Vegas, or find a workaround.

That's what we've all been doing. A shame that we have to though.

[Stephen van Vuuren]

Originally Posted by Barry Green

http://freemxf.org/
An open-source library, free source code.


That's what we've all been doing. A shame that we have to though.

I agree - support more cameras and more codecs, happier users, more sales, the worlds a better place. I don't own a HVX or other DVCPro cam - just love Vegas and want to use it for all freelance editing work without having to buy extra solutions for each supported item.

But at least they added speedy support for V1. I can always be an optimist and decide they will change their mind and strategy and support DVCPro natively, though glad Cineform and Raylight have offered workarounds.

[Douglas Spotted Eagle]

Originally Posted by Barry Green

http://freemxf.org/
An open-source library, free source code.

That's what we've all been doing. A shame that we have to though.

No, that's not what we've "all" been doing. "We're" doing just fine using the Serious Magic and Raylight tools for those few times when we *need* to use our HVX. If we had a Varicam, it would probably be different. but I don't see the need for the extra cost that supporting DVCProHD coming out of my pocket or the pocket of the majority of users that don't use the DVCProHD format. That's where I have to turn south of supporting DVCProHD. If it costs more, but can't support itself in the number of users it engenders, then it's not a high-value add, and makes no business sense to add it if it doesn't generate additional revenue.
At the end of the day, that's all it adds up to. We both know if the Madison team could add DVCProHD to Vegas without significant cost to them (which is then in turn passed on one way or another to users), they would do so. It's not a Sony vs Panasonic conspiracy. It's a cost issue, nothing more, nothing less.

[Peter Jefferson]

Understood, however, like canopus with the HD codec upgrades, im sure those that wish to use it within the NLE would be more than happy to pay for the priviledge...

[Douglas Spotted Eagle]

*that* idea, I can get behind. Paying extra for a codec package makes for good business sense. For that model to work however, there has to be a belief that XX% of the users of a particular product requiring the codec would either purchase the codec package, or move from XYZ NLE to Sony Vegas. Adobe has done it, Canopus has done it, and it's a proven model.
If there were enough "guaranteed" revenue, it makes total sense to build a package that isn't third-party dependent.

[Marcus van Bavel]

Originally Posted by Barry Green

http://freemxf.org/
An open-source library, free source code.

I remember looking at that when I started the raylight project. The wrapper does weird thing like puts each frame in its own essence container. It follows a more generic scheme for MXF files than SMPTE 377. For example, there's no function call that returns the frame size. You still have to wade through the spec to figure out how to get that.

Anyway it's not the file format decoding that I need, but an SDK for the Vegas file interface which only Sony can provide. I did send an email to Dennis Adams to see if they would provide that.

[Barry Green]

Originally Posted by Douglas Spotted Eagle

No, that's not what we've "all" been doing. "We're" doing just fine using the Serious Magic and Raylight tools for those few times when we *need* to use our HVX.

I seriously don't get this. I quote your exact words, which say we have to either not use Vegas, or use a workaround -- which are the only two choices available to us (and CineForm, Raylight, and SM DVCPRO-HD Decoder are all workarounds). We all have to do that because there is no native support.

Then you try to come in here and mock my words and say that's not what
"we're" doing. Why? Why play word games? I was agreeing with you and quoting your exact words.

It gets worse though. We've already shown that there is no additional licensing cost at all to support it, MXF support is a SMPTE-codified standard (390M) which is used by Panasonic, Ikegami, and Thomson to name a few so Vegas will likely have to support Op-Atom anyway... so even though the cost argument has been disproven you come up with a different "cost" argument, saying you don't want that cost coming out of your pocket.

Well, that argument slices both ways. I don't want the cost of supporting the PSP coming out of my pocket either. And I really don't use the Ogg Vorbis format, so why should I have to pay for that? And I'm not too jazzed on using XDCAM HD, yet they spent time and money to support that, which I, as a Vegas user, would presume that part of the price I pay for the software is now higher because of that development, right?

Supporting any format is going to involve some work on somebody's part. Should they just decide to not support new formats? I don't get this logic. At all.

As for an extra-cost add-on pack, I'd be fine with an add-on pack. I did that with DV Rack, I'd do it for Vegas too. In fact, I have done it for Vegas, I bought Raylight. But while I love that Raylight allows me to use the HVX with Vegas, the non-native implementation can't hold a candlestick to how it could be -- try EDIUS Broadcast with it, where my laptop can handle six streams of HD in realtime off the card. Or try it on FCP, with three streams of HD from the internal hard disk. Raylight or SM can't do that, can't come close to that. Native support could (because I can see it happening in the other programs).

Like it or not there are a massive amount of HVXs out there. If editor integration was decided solely on the number of potential users, factor that there are probably more DVCPRO-HD systems (if not multiple times as many) as there are XDCAM HD systems out there. Yet Sony felt there were enough users to implement XDCAM HD support, obviously. And I'd wager that there are probably thousands and thousands more DVCPRO-HD users than there are people trying to author PSP titles.

Seems to me that an editor should support editing footage, regardless of who makes the camera. And with tiny startup companies and one-man operations like MVB able to solve the problem, I think it's not unreasonable to wish (and that's all we're doing anymore, is wishing) that Vegas would support it too.

I really don't see what's so wrong with that.

[Marcus van Bavel]

Originally Posted by Barry Green

try EDIUS Broadcast with it, where my laptop can handle six streams of HD in realtime off the card. Or try it on FCP, with three streams of HD from the internal hard disk. Raylight or SM can't do that, can't come close to that. Native support could (because I can see it happening in the other programs).

The reason for that is not the non-native format but becasue FCP and Edius embrace hardware acceleration, which limits the platforms (ie graphics cards) that can run it. Vegas has never used hardware acceleration I presume so it can run on any PC

[Bob Grant]

Perhaps a more intersteing approach / question is how many NLEs have implemented full MXF support in the same way as Vegas does with XDCAM. It seems to me this is where the power of MXF lies, all the talk about codecs is a side issue.
Having to suck the footage out of the wrapper into another wrapper like I believe FCP does kind of bypasses the whole concept.

[Peter Jefferson]

Originally Posted by Marcus van Bavel

The reason for that is not the non-native format but becasue FCP and Edius embrace hardware acceleration, which limits the platforms (ie graphics cards) that can run it. Vegas has never used hardware acceleration I presume so it can run on any PC

I beg to differ...
its teh management of the codec which is the issue. not HW acceleration. To date, i am yet to se a "hardware accelerated" version of FCP5, however i have seen a juiced out MacG5 dual core with 4gb ram pumpin many MANY video tracks without a problem.. of course these are all QT shelled, but to get the gravy, u need to cook the meat.. in tehend however, were still lookin at abotu 4 streams of 100mbps material... vegas with raylight cant even manage 1 stream without puking.. hell it pukes when u do too much with HDV...

I am yet to see a PC based NLE with equivalent grunt (im talkin XP with Dual core cpu and 4gb ram vs MAc OS10 with dual core and 4gb ram) have the ability to do what FCP5 can do with this same footage..edius comes close, i have seen it running HD material without skipping a beat and this is SW only.. run on my Edius SP training system (HW based), and the bugger screams, but thats not the point. the point is that the codecs are much more efficient within Canopus and Apple systems as opposed to any other NLE i have seen.. even Avid pukes unless u have cash to burn.. and the godfather would be the Axio, but then your looking at 20k system

Fair enough we get what we pay for, and if we want to use professional Broadcast formats using higher bitrates for our acquisition and delivery, then sure enough we pay for it, however, one should never forget the fact that 90% of event editors working on projects day by day shot on the HVX (as an example) , do NOT use AVID, Edius or FCP... they use PP, Liquid and Vegas.. why??
Cost...
Thing is those same Editors are now forced to to rethink their NLEs as many of these NLEs DONT suppport the Pana MXF format..

irrespective of what else is availabel out there, the issue here is the fact that specific camera users are isolated from using a specific NLE.
This will hurt the camera manufacturer AND the NLE developer equally as the producer will have to decide whether to stick with the NLE theyre comfy with, or stick with the camera which gets the footage they need.
Consider that its this same tossup which bought many people across to Vegas in the first place with its implementation of progressive scan.
Of those DVX100 and XL2 users, many have now upgraded to newer machinary, however those DVX100's users who jumped teh HVX wagon are now isoalted with this NLE and a camera which cannot be used as it could be.. (ie immediate P2 MXF edit) and its these users who have no option but to chop and change to an intermediate workflow simply becuase teh NLE which they supported back when it was virtually unknown does nto support the format to which they use now

its really not much to ask for... hell Vegas supports QT, which not only is an opposeing OS, but usually created on an opposing NLE

go figure...

[Douglas Spotted Eagle]

Barry,
I can't really argue most of your points with you, as on the surface, they appear to be sensible. But there are a few points that should be mentioned:

PSP support didn't cost you a dime. Even if it did, what do you suppose the ratio of PSP owners vs HVX owners might be? 500,000 to 1? Ogg is another example of a no-cost development, but a massive user-base existing. If DivX support ever happens, it won't be of any real cost to you either. DivX has people *begging* the NLE companies to allow them in the box, and will do the dev themselves.

Originally Posted by Barry Green

Like it or not there are a massive amount of HVXs out there.

This would run contrary to what Panasonic's own representatives had to say in a public forum at the Academy of Recording Arts and Sciences just last month.
Which is why I don't think it's sound business sense to develop for a tool that isn't as popular as hype might have one believe.
As Bob mentioned, it's really about the MXF, and Sony has taken steps thus far, to support it beginning with their own flavor. No application in the industry at any price point can do what Vegas does with XDCAM. However, you didn't/aren't paying for that either. And even if you were, there are indeed "massive" numbers of XDCAMs out there the world over.

Maybe you know a secret with FCP, as I can't get it to stay stable with footage from my HVX. And working with it has been nothing but a PITA. Edius does a great job. But they too, are not future-developing for DVCProHD/MXF for a while, as stated at NAB. They've got their own codec and MXF flavor to work with/on.

Originally Posted by Barry Green

And I'd wager that there are probably thousands and thousands more DVCPRO-HD users than there are people trying to author PSP titles.

Maybe you don't understand the PSP encoding role in Vegas, as you'd not have said this? Vegas isn't a PSP authoring tool, it's merely an encoder for the PSP, and for iPod. And Vegas is an exceptionally popular tool for encoding to the PSP. But the UMD authoring tools are not included in Vegas. And sell for $20k.

So the point still is; develop for and embrace a featureset that sells more product to fund future development, particularly when it costs virtually nothing to develop while looking at a massive existing user base (such as PSP or HDV), or develop for a format that:

a-is exceptionally costly to develop due to costs from the manufacturer (particularly when that manufacturer provides no-cost development and support for your competitors)

b-not a significant number of camcorders in the same cost/user class exist in the world as a whole, to support the costly development.

Putting my bias regarding the marketing ethic of the HVX aside, I agree with you in that I'd like to see every codec/format/interchange ever devised inside of Vegas. But if the checks and balances don't work out, then priorities have to be made. That's basic business sense. During the dev of Vegas 5/6, we didn't have good HDV support in the app either. CineForm to the rescue. Third party support that made it work, and given the number of HDV cams out at the times of release of Vegas 5/6m, it made perfect business sense. Sony even put the basic wrapper package in the box. Bear in mind as well, that some of the development for the HVX tools would be best done using DirectShow, and Vegas doesn't support Directshow at this time (although I wish it did/think it should).

Comparing the number of XDCAMs out there to the HVX #'s, well...

[Peter Jefferson]

"No application in the industry at any price point can do what Vegas does with XDCAM."

and the funny thing is, even Avid cant do half the things vegas can with XD... now, if the Pana MXF could be implemented it would be the perfect system for the HVX user considering the price point of the NLE and the camera...

all i can say to this is that amazing potential is lost.. political, economical.. who cares.. fact remains a perfect system is dead before its given a chance to thrive...

[Steve Mullen]

Originally Posted by Marcus van Bavel

The reason for that is not the non-native format but becasue FCP and Edius embrace hardware acceleration, which limits the platforms (ie graphics cards) that can run it. Vegas has never used hardware acceleration I presume so it can run on any PC

EDIUS does not use hardware acceleration for any codec.

-----------

Frankly, I don't care if any P2 codec is supported because I'll never use a P2 anything. Which includes AVC-Intra. IMHO P2's a dead format walking.

But, DVCPRO HD is a different animal having proven itself. The new 900 DVCPRO HD camcorder looks great. These will sell for years to come. So supporting DVCPRO HD in an NLE seems to be an obvious thing to do -- since the $100K SDK cost issue seems to be untrue.

That does seem to leave the issue being a political one. But, that really is Sony's call to make. It's not like Vegas is Avid or FCP -- or even Premiere in market importance. Do those shooting DVCPRO HD really miss anything by not having Vegas support? Especially considering the huge market share of HD editing held by FCP which has great DVCPRO HD support. I don't think so. Why the big fuss then.


But this thread has gone WAY off topic. DSE has yet to describe the V1 support details which are what is important to V1 owners.

[Douglas Spotted Eagle]

Originally Posted by Peter Jefferson

"No application in the industry at any price point can do what Vegas does with XDCAM."

and the funny thing is, even Avid cant do half the things vegas can with XD... now, if the Pana MXF could be implemented it would be the perfect system for the HVX user considering the price point of the NLE and the camera...

all i can say to this is that amazing potential is lost.. political, economical.. who cares.. fact remains a perfect system is dead before its given a chance to thrive...

No argument from me, Peter. As mentioned before, it would be great if Vegas could be treated equally by the various manufacturers at all levels. Then it would easily have far more support than anything out there. In the meantime, I for one, am grateful for Raylight. Serious Magic had a good thing cookin' too, but Adobe immediately killed the product when they bought Serious Magic. Who knows...? As mxf becomes the buzzworkflow of the industry, maybe we'll see some meeting of the minds on the subject.

[edit] Of course Edius has had hardware support available, Steve. So has FCP. Not required, but certainly available.
I agree, P2 is a dead format before it hit the ground. "Slightly ahead of it'self" IMO. But that's beside the point.
I guess I don't understand what workflow question you're asking about.
As I've described in several threads, Vegas sees the DR60 and brings in the files that are in a tree format, and appends appendable files. In other words, it doesn't worry about the drive format limitations, it has smart tools to know what files go with what. I think the Vegas team learned a valuable lesson after the nasty errors the DSRDU 1 brought to the table, with identical file names in different folders, which caused a lot of NLE's and users to accidentally delete files. That won't happen with the DR60 and Vegas.
Vegas 7c also allows users to remove the pulldown, or leave it. Your choice.