Just purchased Epic and really happy...

You might want to check my comments on the Vegas thread


http://www.dvinfo.net/forum/what-hap...ml#post1510857

Ok thanks. Seems that some people have your opinion, while some people say I need to lay out at least $3000. It's confusing.

I don't have the need to edit the 550d footage in Native, I don't have a problem with converting it to an easier format as long as the quality-loss is negligible.

But also, I use Premiere Pro 7.0 to edit my current projects (DV and animation in PAL) and I guess I have to upgrade to a newer version of Premier to cut HD? Ppro7.0 don't have any support for HD I'm guessing?

Emil.
You can download trial versions of Vegas 9 or better still, Edius Neo Booster. Edius Neo is the very best at handling AVCHD, and far less expensive than the leading NLEs

I use Proxy Stream in Vegas 9.0 on window 7 64bit, and once you get used to it, it is very nice.

Document sans nom

This approach allows me to do basic cuts on my laptop, a cheap core2 duo machine with 4gb, and the full screen grading/post production on my ageing core2 quad.

I have also used Neoscene in the past when I was using AVCHD, but I have a question about that. If my final medium is always DVD, using proxy stream instead of going via an intermediate codec means I only have to transcode once from the original footage, because the final render is done from the original .mov files. Is this better? Or are there benefits to using Neoscene anyway?

I would second the poster who states that you don't need to spend big bucks, but I feel that applies more to people who are qualified to hand pick components to create a performant, stable system (like me :) ).

If you buy off the shelf, it pays to spend a few hundred more.

If your final is always DVD, you can use proxies straight away. Then again, it might be nice to have an HD cut to be future proof. Of course, it depends on your business.

If you do much color correction, it makes sense to use the full res signal. I would do this:

* Rough cut (proxy or otherwise). This helps reduce the amount of footage that you need to...
* Color correct full res, but render to SD resolution.
* Final edit with color corrected SD.

Of course, it depends on the quality that you need to achieve. If time is more important than quality, build proxies and go!

Thanks Jon.

I was very unclear!

I do the cutting and post production in proxies because it's smoother to work with. It does mean you have to wait for the proxies to be generated before you start work (from what I understand Epic, which was mentioned earlier, takes some of the wait out of proxy editing, but is otherwise equivalent).

When I'm done, I get proxy stream to switch back to the originals (which is obviously instant) and generate a DVD and a HD master render from them. Thus there is only one transcode in the entire process

However, I have read around a bit, and come across this thread:

http://www.dvinfo.net/forum/avchd-fo...-cineform.html

Which says it much better than I could. I am going to ditch proxy stream and buy a license for Neoscene. Less fidelity loss during successive processing, cos of the 4.2.2 colour space upsampling, wavelet compression based chroma interpolation type jazz, and it edits nice and smooth. Big files though!

I hope this makes sense.

James

Thanks James,

I understand better now.

Personally, I like the Neoscene workflow. The transcode on an older 4-core machine is roughly real time, so it's not bad. There are a number of nice things that it brings, not the least of which is the ability to render intermediates for going in and out of After Effects.

Off the top of my head, advantages are: 1) Cineform preserves the proper gamma curve (unlike Quicktime, which many NLEs will default to for decoding Canon files), 2) It moves from the computer 0-255 range to the video 16-235 range, 3) It is a 10-bit structure, which preserves some accuracy when changing the gain in point 2 above.

On the older Canon files, they got some of the metadata wrong: for instance, it showed 1088 lines, rather than 1080, which would leave a black line at the bottom of the frame in Vegas, not to mention eight skipped lines. I don't know if the latest firmware fixes that. Then there was the 30.000p thing.

Personally, I think that going the proxy route and rendering from the originals *can* be the cleanest, if you use 32-bit processing and avoid the Quicktime decoder. If you use 8-bit processing and/or Quicktime, then Cineform is superior.

But I really like being able to create 10-bit, clean intermediates as well as a 10-bit master. This is especially nice if you do intensive effects or color correction. That way, you render the tough bits up front in pieces and assemble a simple edit for the final pass in creating the master. It removes the risk of leaving a big honking render for the end as deadlines loom near.

Hopefully, that responds more closely to what you were thinking. :)

With Edius 5.5 there is no need to convert. Just drop in the timeline and edit away.

Another good point I hadn't thought of. Accepting the intermediate format will free my concerns about pre-rendering sections as you describe. I hate waiting 3 hours for the final render, worrying about power cuts and natural disasters intervening! I have started to piece together a new workflow and I'm liking it. It is no slower, and offers a lot more options.

My next project is to figure out auto batch converting my rushes to Cineform.

The 64-bit Vegas version of Epic is in Beta right now, shoud be released next week barring any major problems.

DVFilm on Twitter

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 recently I made a litle test rendering some T2i files to Sony MXF (like Robert St-Onge sugested on March 24) 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 flows easy.
Am I 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?
Thanks
Ron