Better HDV editing with .m2t or .mpg? in Vegas 6
 

Hi. I am just messing around with Vegas 6 (coming from premiere) and found that raw .mpgs captured with CapDVHS seem to cut, even at the lowest preview setting, very chunky. Does .m2t files work better? I usually output my mpges to avi or quicktime for editing in premiere, but want a little more practical way of editing HDV. I have heard about Cineform and Vasst I believe it's called. What can I use that doesn't cost a whole lot?

thanks

Rob, sorry for the delay in getting an answer.

.m2t files are IDENTICAL to the .mpg files created by CapDVHS. Only the extension is changes. (.m2t to .mpg) thats all. In fact, you can simply rename .m2t files to .mpg if you like.

Therefore, the performance will be identical.

that very chunky video you are experiencing is your computer trying to handle those processor blood sucking HDV files. *smile* Don't worry....we all experience this, MAC and PC alike. Think about getting a new computer...well nows the time. The faster the processor, the better your playback will be of HDV files.

- ShannonRawls.com

I've read your post a couple of times over... and assuming that you do have a fast enough computer, the possibility is that you aren't "zooming" into the clip in the timeline enough before hitting the 'S' key to make a frame accurate cut.

To zoom, just use the mouse scroll wheel. The further you zoom out from the clip, the greater the steps will be when you jog using the left-right arrow keys... which can make it seem like Vegas is "chunky" when editing.

I find myself using Vegas more and more for all sorts of video editing - from chopping adds from HD captures from my DVB-t PCI card, to simple HDV edits, HDV to DVD MPEG2, HDV > CFHD into Lightwave > Vegas and CFHD > m2t > tape amongst others.

Just so you know... Unless you have a dual-core machine, you aren't going to be able to view the Preview window at any reasonable size or quality setting without a 'hit' to the smoothness of the playback. Don't use the preview as anything other than a guide. It's the performance of the final playback that's the true indicator.

BTW: If you aren't using either Cineform AspectHD (Premiere Pro) or ConnectHD (Vegas) you really are trying to mine a mountain with a tea spoon. Get the free demo and see the difference. Gearshift is the DV proxy "plug-in" for Vegas from VASST that you are thinking of... If you really want the most from HDV then you'd be mad not to use CFHD AVI or Gearshift proxies.

Even with a fast PC, editing the raw m2t files directly is going to be "clunky". If you just want to make a few rough edits it is OK, but for any "proper" editing you either want to use Cineform intermediate files or a DV proxy.
Mark

Hm, this kinda relates to my problem that I have with my FX1 (chunky/laggy image capture via CapDVHS).

Though, I just ordered a ton of new parts for my PC, will the following make it flow any better?

AMD Athlon 64 3700+ 2.2GHz
ASUS SLI-Premium Socket nVidia nForce4 Motherboard
Corsair 2 GIGS of RAM
nVidia GeForce 7800GT
-----------------------

As far as editing HD footage, yes definitely.

You also might look into GearShift by VASST. It will streamline your converting and editing in Vegas, as it was specifically developed for Vegas.

does Gearshift has scene detection? I seem to be stuck on which route to go CFHD or Gearshift

Editing m2t
 

Rob:

If you have 50 to $100.00 to blow, and want to try editing in m2t (m2v), you can try the Pinnacle Studio 10 plus. Based on Liquid engine, it does a pretty good job. Be prepared to update to a beta version out of the box, as their early version was pretty buggy..

Chris Barcellos

they're not interchangeable. GearShift isn't a capture tool, and CineForm can't build a proxy.
GearShift CAN convert your m2t files to proxy and CineForm at the same time, which is very useful for slower machines. If you have a fast machine (3.6 or faster) then you might find the CineForm-only workflow to be satisfactory.

m2t v. Cineform
 

DSE:

Assuming it got to the point we could edit with equal ease in m2t and Cineform with the same accuracy, and so on, is there a specific benefit or improvement added to the Cineform intermediate product. In other words do we get a better output from the Cineform .avi file, over the same video in an m2t file ?

While I understand .avi is easier to edit in than an mpg file, absent that, would we have any additional benefit ?

Chris Barcellos

1. The CineForm intermediary is significantly less processor intensive, making it much like a DV experience on a good computer.
2. The CineForm is 4:2:2, and carries a significantly higher bitrate, which makes it better for keying, color correction, compositing.
3. The final output to MPEG from the CineForm is fine, or you can use Gearshift to shift back to the m2t files if you want to stay 4:2:0 all throughout. Our tests show there is virtually no difference between the CineForm originated MPEG and the m2t-originated MPEG for DVD output, except in certain extremes, and even then, you can't see it in motion video, but you can see it on a zoomed in frame.

M2T v. Cineform Editing choices
 

So what I am getting is that you gain an advantage with Cineform in the edit process because of the, 4:2:2 v. 4:2:0 difference. That's way out there technically for me, but that is where the advantage lies, assuming we had editing systems that otherwise perform the same. But also there is a slight disadvantage, in the mpg for DVD output.

Forgive my illiteracy on the subject, and I did read the book that was with the Vegas Movie Studio plus software, but the next technical question is, is m2t such that we will never be able to edit it with ease, or is it just a matter of someone coming up with the right software technique. Is Liquid and or Pinnacle Studio 10 Plus going that direction ?

Chris Barcellos

DSE,

Sorry... more questions... I've been using Gearshift with DV proxy (only) as my laptop is not up to the spec for editing Cineform.

Now, I understand the speed advantage of direct capture to Cineform (if you purchase it, and have a fast enough machine). I also understand that Cineform is better than m2t for multiple renders.

But what I don't understand is... if I'm using a proxy for the reason that my machine is not fast enough to edit Cineform, why would I want to create CineForm at the same time - as opposed to DV proxy only? I currently edit the DV proxy, then switch gears to the m2t. I then render the m2t to SD DVD, I also render to a new m2t and print that to tape. If I also created a Cineform render, how should I change my flow, and why?

Mark

If you're doing a lot of compositing, or have stacked timelines, or any number of situations, some folks prefer the proxies no matter what, but want the CineForm to render with, as opposed to the m2t. The CineForm renders slightly faster, too, when going to mpg. It's really a matter of preference, not practice, but this is why GearShift offers multiple choices. You don't NEED to make the CineForm proxy.

Great - thanks. Just wanted to make sure I my proxy-only flow wasn't flawed.

Mark