DV Info Net

DV Info Net (https://www.dvinfo.net/forum/)
-   What Happens in Vegas... (https://www.dvinfo.net/forum/what-happens-vegas/)
-   -   What can 7.0 do with HDV that 6.0 can't? (https://www.dvinfo.net/forum/what-happens-vegas/93330-what-can-7-0-do-hdv-6-0-cant.html)

Glenn Gipson May 6th, 2007 07:51 AM

What can 7.0 do with HDV that 6.0 can't?
 
I was just curious about what Vegas 7.0 can do with HDV that Vegas 6.0 can't. Can anybody fill me in? Thanks.

Douglas Spotted Eagle May 6th, 2007 08:40 AM

Faster processing, faster renders, zippier with FX piled on...If you're HDV anything, or HD anything, you want to run, not walk to the upgrade.

James Hooey May 6th, 2007 10:14 PM

Allow much better handling of M2t files on the timeline....meaning no intermediate renders necessary if your computer is up to snuff. That was what made me upgrade.....

And what Douglas mentioned is nice to boot...

Matthew Chaboud May 7th, 2007 08:15 AM

There's also a significantly larger per-source-file memory cost with 6. We've had projects with well over 1000 m2t files on the timeline in 7. I think 6 will die on you at around 80, tops.

Glenn Gipson May 7th, 2007 09:36 AM

Will I need an intermediary codec to edit HDV in Vegas 7.0? Or will Vegas 7.0 handle everything perfectly fine by itself?

Glenn Chan May 7th, 2007 10:54 AM

You can edit either way. Editing native HDV may make a lot more sense though.

Guy Bruner May 7th, 2007 11:09 AM

Has anyone noticed that 7.0e is slower than 7.0d? I just replaced my C2D E6300 with a C2Q Q6600 and it renders the rendertest.veg file slower than I benched with the C2D, even with overclocking. I also noted that 7 was slower than 6 when I upgraded.

Jason Robinson May 7th, 2007 11:42 AM

Depends
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Glenn Gipson (Post 674068)
Will I need an intermediary codec to edit HDV in Vegas 7.0? Or will Vegas 7.0 handle everything perfectly fine by itself?

That is all up to our hardware. Awesome software can't make up for trying to edit on a Centrino system with a Celeron processor (just to use an example)

Ron German May 7th, 2007 03:01 PM

I agree with Guy. Vegas 7.e is slower in my computer than Vegas 7.d and I don`t know why.
Ron

Matthew Chaboud May 7th, 2007 11:04 PM

Well, it's not expected to be slower, but, in Guy's case C2D vs. C2Q is not a fair bit of benchmarking for certain tests. Things that previously benefited from the shared L2 cache of the two cores in the C2D (for instance, two threads that worked on the same frame data in succession) may not move as quickly on the split-cache system of the C2Q, dependent on the scheduler.

The expectation is that it is a bit faster on identical systems for most work. I'd like to know about numbers from real projects, rather than the rendertest project. It, being a low-bandwidth downloadable benchmark project, isn't representative of actual HD editing work for most.

Guy Bruner May 8th, 2007 06:26 AM

Matthew,
You may be right about the construction differences. However, the C2D OC'd to 3.15 GHz benchmarked the rendertest in 28 seconds using Vegas 7.0b and that is the same speed as 7.0e on the C2Q OC'd to 3 GHz (exactly everything else is the same). JohnnyRoy's QX6700 did it in 14 seconds. Now, I don't expect to hit 14 seconds, but I was expecting some speedup from 4 vs. 2 cores. To see absolutely none was a real surprise.

The only reason to use rendertest is that it has been widely used and there are plenty of references for benchmarking.

John Cline May 8th, 2007 10:15 AM

I ran the rendertest.veg file today on my QX6700 Quad machine to see if there was any difference between Vegas v7.0d and v7.0e. I had been getting 14 second renders in 7.0d, but I am now getting consistent 12 second renders in v7.0e.

Since the render times were getting close to the 10-second range and Vegas only reports render times in 1-second increments, I thought that perhaps it was appropriate to increase the "time resolution" of the test by making it a bit more "intense," so I modified the original rendertest.veg file for HDV. I increased the resolution of all the generated media and set the project properties for "HDV 1080-60i" and rendered it out as HDV using the default "HDV 1080-60i" template. My machine rendered it in exactly 120 seconds.

If anyone else wants to try the new, modified test file and report their results back to this thread, I have uploaded the VEG file to my web site:

www.johncline.com/rendertest-hdv.veg

John

Guy Bruner May 8th, 2007 10:48 AM

Ok. I'll have to look into my hard disk setup. IIRC, you guys are running RAID0. That's the only thing I can think of right now. I should be getting 20 sec or lower renders with the Q6600.

Matthew Chaboud May 8th, 2007 12:22 PM

I have a QX6700 (whatever the extreme 2.66GHz marketing name is) without any RAID right now. I can get a rough sense of what the numbers are on the rendertest project to spot any possible configuration problems with your machine.

Guy Bruner May 8th, 2007 12:50 PM

Thanks, Matthew. I'd appreciate that. The render test is on the VASST site.

Guy Bruner May 8th, 2007 06:05 PM

Ok, I have defragged C:, moved swap file from C: to another drive, optimized my bios, rendered to different drives and I still can't render the original rendertest.veg in less than 27 seconds. However, I can render John Cline's new rendertest-hdv.veg in 155 seconds. Go figure (shrug).

Ok, thanks, John. I had the wrong output file format. Duh! Original rendertest.veg now renders in 12 sec. That's more like it.

Glenn Gipson May 19th, 2007 10:03 AM

I have a P4 @ 2.8 ghz, will this be enough to run HDV (HV20 footage) smoothly with Vegas 7.0? As it stands right now, the footage can't run smoothly with Vegas 5.0 (my current system) so I'm hoping this is related to the version of Vegas that I have, and not my CPU.

Guy Bruner May 19th, 2007 10:51 AM

Glen,
Vegas 7 handles HDV better than v.5, but I doubt you will be able to see enough improvement to make the experience better. My core 2 duo would edit it but not at full framerate in preview unless I went to draft mode. Putting it in Full (Best) would drag it to less than 10 fps. My quad core zips right through it with a single video track.

Glenn Gipson May 20th, 2007 11:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Guy Bruner (Post 682207)
Glen,
Vegas 7 handles HDV better than v.5, but I doubt you will be able to see enough improvement to make the experience better. My core 2 duo would edit it but not at full framerate in preview unless I went to draft mode. Putting it in Full (Best) would drag it to less than 10 fps. My quad core zips right through it with a single video track.

So in other words, I'm going to need a Quad Core machine to edit HV20-1080-24f footage the way I use to edit SD?

Douglas Spotted Eagle May 20th, 2007 12:02 PM

Editing four streams of HDV mixed with XDCAM quite regularly with full/usually full frame playback at Preview/Auto, sized to half rez. This setting has always been the recommended playback in previous versions of Vegas, and still is.
You can edit HDV quite easily on any dual core machine, assuming you're not running antivirus or other background apps. Dual 270 machine (dual dual core) is a great way to work, we've got 5 of these machines running, and all are HDV or XDCAM on the timeline, all the time.
Faster is better, but not necessary. If you've got a dual core system, you should always be able to achieve full framerate playback at Preview/Auto

Glenn Gipson May 20th, 2007 12:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Douglas Spotted Eagle (Post 682683)
Editing four streams of HDV mixed with XDCAM quite regularly with full/usually full frame playback at Preview/Auto, sized to half rez. This setting has always been the recommended playback in previous versions of Vegas, and still is.
You can edit HDV quite easily on any dual core machine, assuming you're not running antivirus or other background apps. Dual 270 machine (dual dual core) is a great way to work, we've got 5 of these machines running, and all are HDV or XDCAM on the timeline, all the time.
Faster is better, but not necessary. If you've got a dual core system, you should always be able to achieve full framerate playback at Preview/Auto

Thanks Douglas, that's good to know. I'm only looking to have one HDV track on my time line at once, along with six to eight other audio tracks. I'm only going to be performing simple cuts, fades, dissolves and some color correction.

Glenn Gipson May 30th, 2007 11:55 AM

Well, I just put Vegas 7.0 on my system before upgrading my hardware, and wow, what a difference! The HDV actually plays smoothly without the need for a new processor!

Glenn Gipson May 30th, 2007 11:57 AM

Well, it actually only plays smoothly in a small preview window. Where as before it wouldn't play at all.

Marcus Marchesseault May 30th, 2007 01:37 PM

It's nice when you get a big boost just from software. Save your money and there will be some fancy new quadcore processors late this year. They may even be affordable early next year. The best news for me is that the new quadcore chips (Penryn?) will be the same socket as my Core2Duo and much faster.


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 11:47 AM.

DV Info Net -- Real Names, Real People, Real Info!
1998-2025 The Digital Video Information Network