|
|||||||||
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
June 23rd, 2010, 12:28 PM | #16 |
Major Player
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Posts: 287
|
...Something must be seriously wrong with your either the NEO SCENE or Vegas Pro install. I've been using NEO SCENE on three different computers with zero problems for almost one year now. ( I custom built all 3 PCs, each one running on premium ASUS motherboards, 1 PC uses an Intel Quad 6600 CPU, the other two both use Intel Quad i7 920 CPUs, Corsair premium RAM used in all 3 PCs, 1 PC runs on Win XP SP3, the other two use Vista SP2 )
|
June 24th, 2010, 11:32 AM | #17 |
Regular Crew
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Vancouver, Canada
Posts: 131
|
You may very well be right. When I get a chink of free time I might trouble-shoot this properly - I know how solving these issues can just explode time-wise. For now, 'good enough" is okay and I'll continue editing mts and use mxf for splicing in sound.
|
June 24th, 2010, 06:23 PM | #18 |
Major Player
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Nowra, Australia
Posts: 440
|
|
June 24th, 2010, 07:25 PM | #19 | |
Inner Circle
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Tallahassee, FL
Posts: 4,100
|
Quote:
1. What version of Vegas? 2. Where did you get the codec from? Link? 3. Does the video show normally if you play it in VLC or a similar player?
__________________
DVX100, PMW-EX1, Canon 550D, FigRig, Dell Octocore, Avid MC4/5, MB Looks, RedCineX, Matrox MX02 mini, GTech RAID, Edirol R-4, Senn. G2 Evo, Countryman, Moles and Lowels. |
|
June 24th, 2010, 08:50 PM | #20 |
Inner Circle
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Tallahassee, FL
Posts: 4,100
|
I decided to try the Matrox codec in Vegas 8 on my old home PC. I do a few things here from time to time, so have not even bothered to upgrade it to VPro9. Here's a screen shot:
__________________
DVX100, PMW-EX1, Canon 550D, FigRig, Dell Octocore, Avid MC4/5, MB Looks, RedCineX, Matrox MX02 mini, GTech RAID, Edirol R-4, Senn. G2 Evo, Countryman, Moles and Lowels. |
June 25th, 2010, 02:30 AM | #21 |
Major Player
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Nowra, Australia
Posts: 440
|
Hi Perrone,
Although I downloaded the codec this morning from Matrox I did end up getting an older version, build 52, which when I checked the fine print said "resolution supported 1440X1080"(not happy encoding 1920X1080). The current version , 1.0.0.028, is at Matrox Video - Support - Matrox VFW Software Codecs Downloads . VLC reports "No suitable decoder module VLC does not support the audio or video format "M705". Unfortunately there is no way for you to fix this." But it all looks good and plays smoothly in other editors and WMP. There are a lot of settings for the codec, and in particular I need to set rounding to MPEG2 rather than Matrox. At 50Mbps encoding on my system is around real time and there's a 3X space penalty, which is fine. I think I'll be using it instead of proxies from now on. I also hope this solves the issue for the other two people having problems with black video. Thanks again very much for your help, much appreciated. |
June 25th, 2010, 11:15 AM | #22 |
Trustee
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Milwaukee, WI
Posts: 1,719
|
I have been playing around with the Matrox Iframe 150 mbit codec and it has actually been running slower then native mp4 files from an EX1. Even the rendering was slightly slower. Now granted I do not have blazing fast drives in this system but to me the whole point here was to get better performance. Considering I get the same or faster performance with the native mp4 files it almost seems like a waste of time to convert the files.
Has anybody really noticed a huge boost in performance with using the Matrox Iframe codecs. |
June 25th, 2010, 11:18 AM | #23 | |
Inner Circle
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Tallahassee, FL
Posts: 4,100
|
Quote:
__________________
DVX100, PMW-EX1, Canon 550D, FigRig, Dell Octocore, Avid MC4/5, MB Looks, RedCineX, Matrox MX02 mini, GTech RAID, Edirol R-4, Senn. G2 Evo, Countryman, Moles and Lowels. |
|
June 26th, 2010, 07:49 AM | #24 |
Trustee
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Milwaukee, WI
Posts: 1,719
|
Yes I am very much aware of what EX1 files realy are. I wrote my own software to demux the files when the camera first came out.
My point was that the 35mbit files are IPB format while the Matrox files are Iframe. To me on other systems a IPB format was always slower then an I frame format but with Vegas I noticed they were about the same speed. In theory I frame only mpeg2 should be faster then IPB mpeg2 but in Vegas that doesn't seem to be the case. It isn't that it is bad but that Vegas is already pretty good at working with mpeg2. To me outside of maybe AVCHD I just didn't see any advantage of using the Matrox codecs. I realize thats what this thread was about. I was just pointing out what my experience has been with the Matrox codecs. While they are an AVI file they are still mpeg2 on th inside and I think Cineform is still a much better option. I would like to hear feedback from those that have used both. |
June 26th, 2010, 08:50 AM | #25 |
Major Player
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Rio de Janeiro - Brasil
Posts: 304
|
From another forum / thread I started some days ago:
" I use Vegas 9.e and have been transcoding my T2i files to Neoscene - big files. In fact I have ignored MXF up to now. But I made a litle test rendering some T2i files to Sony MXF (35mb/s) and noticed that, beside the rendered MXF files are much smaller than the corresponding T2i files (great!), comparing them on the preview monitor, it seems that there is no video quality loss, and editing is easy. Is that possible or I`m making a wrong judgment (on no video quality loss)? Is there a real benefit (regarding avoiding compression) to transcode to MXF to edit T2i original files?" Response: "MXF is a file container designed specifically for TV, film and broadcast workflow. It is a subset of the AAF standard. It is a file container like Quicktime, Windows Media and MPEG-4. Within that container are specific codecs like DV, WM 9, and H.264. The big difference with MXF is that it can contain much more metadata information than Quicktime or Windows Media. Metadata may include timecode, pullown, file path, aperture, color profile, etc, etc. MXF is codec agnostic. It can virtually support any codec a company wants to implement. It is possible that there is no video degradation when you converted to MXF. It is possible that Vegas extracted the video and audio stream and then wrapped it in MXF container. This is similar when you convert DV files from AVI to Quicktime. If done correctly, all you do is put the raw media stream in another file container with no change in the data - think of it as cutting and pasting from Microsoft Paint to Photoshop. You have to check what codec Vegas is using to generate the render files. Usually you want some form of a 4:2:2 codec (instead of 4:2:0 or 4:1:1) that does not do long GOP (HDV XDCAM, etc)." So yesterday I brought the files to a friend with another computer / monitor but with the same Vegas 9e, and he made the same test comparing the original T2i files with its respective first and second generation MXF (1980x1080 35mb/s) convertions and he couldn`t notice any video quality loss too - color, contrast, resolution, everything seamed to be the same. Then I think that Sony MXF is a viable editing solution for Canon T2i / Vegas 9, despite I didn`t try to edit many video layers with heavy effects in the same project. Ron |
June 26th, 2010, 09:08 AM | #26 | |||
Inner Circle
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Tallahassee, FL
Posts: 4,100
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
DVX100, PMW-EX1, Canon 550D, FigRig, Dell Octocore, Avid MC4/5, MB Looks, RedCineX, Matrox MX02 mini, GTech RAID, Edirol R-4, Senn. G2 Evo, Countryman, Moles and Lowels. |
|||
June 26th, 2010, 09:27 AM | #27 | ||||
Inner Circle
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Tallahassee, FL
Posts: 4,100
|
Quote:
The Transcode to MXF inside Sony Vegas is indeed lossy. H.264 is about twice as efficient as Mpeg2. Thus it would take nearly 100 Mpbs of Mpeg2 to provide similar quality to the 7D/550D files. The MXF options in Vegas are 35 Mbps, or 50 Mbps. These constitute a significant step down. Due to their lower bandwidth, they will certainly create smaller files though. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
1. It is low bandwidth 2. It is Long GOP 3. It has subsampled colors (though this is not such a big deal for most delivery) 4. It is lossy mpeg2 5. It will cause Vegas to choke as your project gets more advanced. All that said, it might work perfectly for your needs. I don't know what those needs are. If you are delivering 2 minute videos to YouTube it may be overkill. But if you are looking to deliver pro level work, then it's a poor solution and something like Cineform, the Matrox i-frame codecs, DNxHD, CanopusHQ, or others would be better choices. Each of those has things to work around, but each is a higher quality solution.
__________________
DVX100, PMW-EX1, Canon 550D, FigRig, Dell Octocore, Avid MC4/5, MB Looks, RedCineX, Matrox MX02 mini, GTech RAID, Edirol R-4, Senn. G2 Evo, Countryman, Moles and Lowels. Last edited by Perrone Ford; June 26th, 2010 at 04:04 PM. |
||||
June 26th, 2010, 12:11 PM | #28 |
Major Player
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Rio de Janeiro - Brasil
Posts: 304
|
Thank you Perrone. I gess I understand what you are talking about.
My needs are pro level - TV broadcast (and maybe a theater projection). Our comparison was not scientific and not VERY accurate. We used our eyes. I believe in you that "mathematical difference would have shown a massive amount of loss". But as unscientific testers and casual observers (eye checking), I´m sure I and my (video professional) friend noticed absolutely NO change in video paramethers / image appearance. We put each video file (T2i original, first and second generation Sony MXF converted files) in each Vegas 9e track and pressed solo button on each track to compare them in a 19`widescreen LCD monitor. No change at all. They behave as clones. Again, thank you for your comments. Ron Last edited by Ron German; June 26th, 2010 at 04:20 PM. |
July 11th, 2010, 08:27 PM | #29 |
Regular Crew
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: London UK
Posts: 33
|
Render the events to uncompressed AVI or uncompressed MOV (I prefer MOV files) which will have the smallest hit on quality. The problem with compressed video formats is that the processor has to do a lot of decoding between I-frames. By transcoding to uncompressed AVI, you will not have that overhead.
The PavTube MTS Converter software seems to do a decent job. I've had good results converting the .mts files to .mov, with the settings h.264, 1200, 1280*720, 25fps, aac. The files look good on my PC. Pavtube MTS/M2TS Converter - Convert MTS/M2TS to AVI,WMV. |
August 11th, 2010, 10:49 PM | #30 |
Regular Crew
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Palo(RD)
Posts: 28
|
did you tried HD stream tools, I just downloaded it and still evaluating, it converts videos and also converts framerates, does pulldown removal and many things more. I like it gets apperture and shutter speed info from my SD9, have converted a few avchd for testing and the results are very nice so far, but it has a lot of options, would like to see a professionals review about , the web is CineComp Software - HD StreamTools - Professional video processor converter and transcoder for HD,HDV and AVCHD video cameras. Convert, pulldown removal, deinterlace, slow motion, superwhites, convert to 24p.
|
| ||||||
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|