Vegas 9 smart rendering / full 24 Mb/sec output

Discussion in 'Professional Video Production' started by Smarty, May 14, 2009.

  1. Smarty

    Smarty Guest

    Just a brief post to report that the new Vegas 9 now provides "no
    recompression" smart rendering and also creates full 24 Mbit/sec disks when
    smart rendering is applied.

    The rendering times have been drastically reduced by this enhancement, and
    the final published disks have absolutely identical quality to the original
    pristine 24 Mbit/sec AVCHD content.

    There are numerous caveats associated with these features, in particular the
    method which Sony uses to decide when smart rendering will and will not be
    applied. Also, the full 24 Mbit/sec bit rate output is only available under
    some circumstances, so it cannot be offered as a complete 24 Mbit/sec
    solution yet. Clearly a lot of progress has been made in these directions
    since version 8.

    I can also only confirm this performance for the Canon HFS10, but I presume
    other 24 Mbit/sec AVCHD content will perform similarly.

    Smarty
     
    Smarty, May 14, 2009
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. "Smarty" <> wrote in message news:CqWOl.1231$...

    > Just a brief post to report that the new Vegas 9 now provides "no recompression" smart rendering and also creates full 24 Mbit/sec
    > disks when smart rendering is applied.
    >
    > The rendering times have been drastically reduced by this enhancement, and the final published disks have absolutely identical
    > quality to the original pristine 24 Mbit/sec AVCHD content.
    >
    > There are numerous caveats associated with these features, in particular the method which Sony uses to decide when smart rendering
    > will and will not be applied. Also, the full 24 Mbit/sec bit rate output is only available under some circumstances, so it cannot
    > be offered as a complete 24 Mbit/sec solution yet. Clearly a lot of progress has been made in these directions since version 8.
    >
    > I can also only confirm this performance for the Canon HFS10, but I presume other 24 Mbit/sec AVCHD content will perform
    > similarly.
    >
    > Smarty


    The above is technically true, but if one tries to export an AVCHD
    computer file for archiving, etc., the data rate is still limited to 16 Mbps,
    the same as it is with Pro 8, and that is presumably the same as it also
    is for any changed footage on the timeline that is exported to disk. This
    is certainly an improvement over Pro 8c's handling of AVCHD (at least
    when exporting to disk, and in terms of using "Smart Rendering"), but
    given that "good" AVCHD camcorders now use the 24 Mbps data
    rate, Pro 9 is, as you point out, not yet a complete 24 Mbps solution
    for editing AVCHD. Perhaps with an update, it will become so, but it
    is unfortunate that Pro 9 does not do what it should have done "out of
    the gate"...
    --DR
     
    David Ruether, May 14, 2009
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. "David Ruether" <> wrote in message news:guhtvi$ei7$...
    > "Smarty" <> wrote in message news:CqWOl.1231$...
    >
    >> Just a brief post to report that the new Vegas 9 now provides "no recompression" smart rendering and also creates full 24
    >> Mbit/sec disks when smart rendering is applied.
    >>
    >> The rendering times have been drastically reduced by this enhancement, and the final published disks have absolutely identical
    >> quality to the original pristine 24 Mbit/sec AVCHD content.
    >>
    >> There are numerous caveats associated with these features, in particular the method which Sony uses to decide when smart
    >> rendering will and will not be applied. Also, the full 24 Mbit/sec bit rate output is only available under some circumstances, so
    >> it cannot be offered as a complete 24 Mbit/sec solution yet. Clearly a lot of progress has been made in these directions since
    >> version 8.
    >>
    >> I can also only confirm this performance for the Canon HFS10, but I presume other 24 Mbit/sec AVCHD content will perform
    >> similarly.
    >>
    >> Smarty


    > The above is technically true, but if one tries to export an AVCHD
    > computer file for archiving, etc., the data rate is still limited to 16 Mbps,
    > the same as it is with Pro 8, and that is presumably the same as it also
    > is for any changed footage on the timeline that is exported to disk. This
    > is certainly an improvement over Pro 8c's handling of AVCHD (at least
    > when exporting to disk, and in terms of using "Smart Rendering"), but
    > given that "good" AVCHD camcorders now use the 24 Mbps data
    > rate, Pro 9 is, as you point out, not yet a complete 24 Mbps solution
    > for editing AVCHD. Perhaps with an update, it will become so, but it
    > is unfortunate that Pro 9 does not do what it should have done "out of
    > the gate"...
    > --DR


    More...
    I just tried placing two 24 Mbps clips (from a Panasonic 150) on the Vegas
    Pro 9 timeline. I first tried exporting part of one of the files, without change,
    to a file on the desktop. It went very quickly, indicating that it was being
    copied and not recompressed. I then chopped the clips into several pieces,
    removing some small pieces, and overlapping the ones that remained (adding
    a different transition type to one of the overlaps). I also cut one clip to move
    a section to a track above where I extended its ends, applied a color change,
    then brought it back down to join (with overlaps) its original clip. Remaining
    were several relatively unchanged parts. I then added audio and video
    fade-in/outs at the ends and included an "empty" leader and tail. Exporting
    this to a file required about 6:15 for 40 seconds of material with a dual core
    CPU, and that plus the "stepped" preview image progress indicated that
    none of the timeline material was merely copied once part of the timeline
    material had been modified. I compared the exported video frame-to-frame
    with the original, and while it was very close, it wasn't quite as good. Also,
    at no time with any 1/2 sized preview window setting was playback of 24
    Mbps AVCHD material smooth on this computer. Hooray for HDV! It
    works, and AVCHD doesn't appear to yet work with Vegas, and it is still
    a "pain" to use unless the hardware resources are extraordinary. I will be
    staying with HDV and Vegas Pro 8 for a while longer, it appears...
    --DR
     
    David Ruether, May 15, 2009
    #3
  4. Smarty

    Smarty Guest

    "David Ruether" <> wrote in message
    news:guhtvi$ei7$...
    >


    >
    > The above is technically true, but if one tries to export an AVCHD
    > computer file for archiving, etc., the data rate is still limited to 16
    > Mbps,
    > the same as it is with Pro 8> --DR
    >



    Again, not true,
     
    Smarty, May 15, 2009
    #4
  5. Smarty

    Smarty Guest

    "David Ruether" <> wrote in message
    news:guk88v$1eb$...

    > More...
    > I just tried placing two 24 Mbps clips (from a Panasonic 150) on the Vegas
    > Pro 9 timeline. I first tried exporting part of one of the files, without
    > change,
    > to a file on the desktop. It went very quickly, indicating that it was
    > being
    > copied and not recompressed.



    Yes indeed, and these files can be exported, archived, and used directly
    from Vegas 9 as 24 Mbit/sec files.

    I thank you for actually trying Vegas 9 with 24 Mbit/sec content. You are
    beginning to now (finally) understand what it actually can and cannot due,
    unlike your prior two posts.



    > at no time with any 1/2 sized preview window setting was playback of 24
    > Mbps AVCHD material smooth on this computer. Hooray for HDV! It
    > works, and AVCHD doesn't appear to yet work with Vegas
    > --DR
    >
    >


    Get yourself a quadcore for about $650 and stop moaning and making false
    statements. AVCHD works absolutely fine with Vegas, both version 8 and now
    version 9. What "doesn't appear to work with Vegas" is your dual core.

    Your "facts" and opinions are a train wreck when it comes to AVCHD.

    Smarty
     
    Smarty, May 15, 2009
    #5
  6. "Smarty" <> wrote in message news:hglPl.1535$...
    > "David Ruether" <> wrote in message news:guhtvi$ei7$...


    >> The above is technically true, but if one tries to export an AVCHD
    >> computer file for archiving, etc., the data rate is still limited to 16 Mbps, the same as it is with Pro 8
    >> --DR


    > Again, not true,


    It is true. If you change ANYTHING in the material on the Vegas 9
    timeline, it will ALL rerender as Main Profile (16 Mbps), not High
    Profile (24 Mbps) when exporting a file. If you don't change anything
    in the material on the timeline, you aren't editing, which seems kinda
    pointless...8^)
    [And, hey, I thought you said you had "PLONKED!" me...! 8^]
    --DR
     
    David Ruether, May 15, 2009
    #6
  7. "Smarty" <> wrote in message news:ZllPl.1536$...
    > "David Ruether" <> wrote in message news:guk88v$1eb$...


    >> More...
    >> I just tried placing two 24 Mbps clips (from a Panasonic 150) on the Vegas
    >> Pro 9 timeline. I first tried exporting part of one of the files, without change,
    >> to a file on the desktop. It went very quickly, indicating that it was being copied and not recompressed.


    > Yes indeed, and these files can be exported, archived, and used directly from Vegas 9 as 24 Mbit/sec files.


    Only if NOTHING is changed in the timeline material, otherwises Vegas
    9 recompresses EVERYTHING at 16 Mbps instead of 24 Mbps, not
    very useful when editing and exporting 24 Mbps material to files...

    > I thank you for actually trying Vegas 9 with 24 Mbit/sec content. You are beginning to now (finally) understand what it actually
    > can and cannot due, unlike your prior two posts.


    ??? They either agreed with what you wrote, or with an expanded version
    I placed on the Vegas Forums - which was followed up with responses
    from several others who know what they are doing and who agreed with my
    observations. Nothing I wrote earlier about Vegas 9 contradicts that - so,
    stop being silly...

    >> at no time with any 1/2 sized preview window setting was playback of 24
    >> Mbps AVCHD material smooth on this computer. Hooray for HDV! It
    >> works, and AVCHD doesn't appear to yet work with Vegas
    >> --DR


    > Get yourself a quadcore for about $650 and stop moaning and making false statements. AVCHD works absolutely fine with Vegas, both
    > version 8 and now version 9. What "doesn't appear to work with Vegas" is your dual core.


    I tried it on a convenient dual-core machine, but AVCHD still runs poorly
    on my quad-core compared with HDV. Why bother trying to run something
    that doesn't work well when a better alternative is available (especially if
    one cannot export *edited* files at the highest source camera quality at all
    with the program)?

    > Your "facts" and opinions are a train wreck when it comes to AVCHD.
    >
    > Smarty


    Yuh, right. See above. Methinks you may not always "know it all", but
    what is true is that you are always rude in your posts following mine...;-)
    I suggest that you really do "PLONK!" me this time, instead of just lying
    about doing it.
    --DR
     
    David Ruether, May 15, 2009
    #7
  8. "David Ruether" <> wrote in message news:guko9t$ruj$...
    > "Smarty" <> wrote in message news:hglPl.1535$...
    >> "David Ruether" <> wrote in message news:guhtvi$ei7$...


    >>> The above is technically true, but if one tries to export an AVCHD
    >>> computer file for archiving, etc., the data rate is still limited to 16 Mbps, the same as it is with Pro 8
    >>> --DR


    >> Again, not true,


    > It is true. If you change ANYTHING in the material on the Vegas 9
    > timeline, it will ALL rerender as Main Profile (16 Mbps), not High
    > Profile (24 Mbps) when exporting a file. If you don't change anything
    > in the material on the timeline, you aren't editing, which seems kinda
    > pointless...8^)
    > [And, hey, I thought you said you had "PLONKED!" me...! 8^]
    > --DR


    I do now offer some corrections to the above although they appeared
    to be true at the time I tried these things... You can do a "Render
    as" export of 24 Mbps edited material from the timeline by setting
    the data rate to the maximum available rate of 20 Mbps (still not 24
    Mbps, though...) in the custom settings (and "Smart Rendering" doesn't
    work). Also in the settings, the default, even with a "Ctrl + M" export
    (which has a maximum available data rate of 16 Mbps) is listed as
    "High", rather than "Main". The only way to export higher data rate
    files is to use the Blu-ray format, but I was unable to import these back
    into the project. Again, why bother with all this nonsense when an
    excellent alternative is available with HDV? It seems to me that this
    whole AVCHD 24 Mbps thing is like trying to use a "monster truck"
    as a race car...8^)
    --DR
     
    David Ruether, May 16, 2009
    #8
  9. Smarty

    Smarty Guest

    "David Ruether" <> wrote in message
    news:gumq2r$emr$...
    >
    > "David Ruether" <> wrote in message
    > news:guko9t$ruj$...
    >> "Smarty" <> wrote in message
    >> news:hglPl.1535$...
    >>> "David Ruether" <> wrote in message
    >>> news:guhtvi$ei7$...

    >


    > I do now offer some corrections to the above although they appeared
    > to be true at the time I tried these things... You can do a "Render
    > as" export of 24 Mbps edited material from the timeline by setting
    > the data rate to the maximum available rate of 20 Mbps (still not 24
    > Mbps, though...) in the custom settings (and "Smart Rendering" doesn't
    > work). Also in the settings, the default, even with a "Ctrl + M" export
    > (which has a maximum available data rate of 16 Mbps) is listed as
    > "High", rather than "Main". The only way to export higher data rate
    > files is to use the Blu-ray format, but I was unable to import these back
    > into the project. Again, why bother with all this nonsense when an
    > excellent alternative is available with HDV? It seems to me that this
    > whole AVCHD 24 Mbps thing is like trying to use a "monster truck"
    > as a race car...8^)
    > --DR
    >


    Well, once again, your "corrected facts" are partially correct and again
    overlook how DVD Architect, an integral part of the Vegas suite, can be used
    to take full rate 24 Mbit/sec edited content and deliver a total 24 Mbit/sec
    final disk.

    I will agree that Vegas itself, the editor portion of the suite, is indeed
    limited by its current template / profile to 24 Mbits/sec under some
    circumstances, 20 Mbits/sec under some, and that the present situation is
    badly lacking for those who own the Vegas suite but do not have other tools
    at their disposal. These caveats were alluded to in my original post. For
    those of us who do edit 24 Mbit/sec content, very competent editing tools
    such as TMPG Express 4 do the job very handily.

    To be more specific, not one but two hardware acceleration methods have been
    added to TMPG Express, one using the CUDA/ATI graphics card as a rendering
    platform added last year, and more recently a second, blazingly fast AVCHD
    accelerator using Toshiba's SpurEngine hardware. These make AVCHD editing
    extremely quickly for all types of rendering.

    http://tmpgenc.pegasys-inc.com/en/product/te4xp.html

    I do not want to digress from the original Vegas suite any further, but
    point this out to further clarify and explain that your approach to
    understanding AVCHD and describing is is very shallow, and extremely
    prejudicial.

    Had you merely missed the true functionality and left it at that, I would
    still complain. But you insist on punctuating your "reviews" and "findings"
    with the gleeful, childish comments which inevitably attempt to bolster your
    original false hypothesis that AVCHD is somehow inferior to HDV.

    Through the lens of someone who does not routinely author and edit in AVCHD,
    your comments neither serve the newsgroup community accurately nor do they
    reflect a balanced understanding of how tools can and are used together to
    achieve AVCHD workflow.

    I will not even attempt to elaborate on the methods being used to create and
    author even higher bitrate (greater than 24 Mbit/sec) AVCHD disks using
    BluRay BDMV folders with patch programs and hex editing of the index files.
    Suffice it to say that those who are working with AVCHD and h.264 on a
    routine basis are not sitting still waiting for Sony or anybody else to make
    a "template". As broadcast/ENG and AVC-Intra gain traction, these tools
    will, no doubt, increase. Although Sony may be a slow starter in the high
    end AVCHD markets for both consumer and pro users, I am altogether certain
    that the market share being garnered by Canon and Panasonic in the camcorder
    arena has not been unnoticed by Sony management. Their recent, stunning,
    1.26 billion dollar loss, their first in 14 years, will no doubt drive them
    back into competition in this very rapidly growing market.

    http://g4tv.com/thefeed/blog/post/695547/Sony-Reports-Billion-Dollar-Loss.html

    Further......AVCHD Lite, yet another variant which has been introduced in
    the last 6 months for movie making on lower cost consumer still image
    cameras, now shows up on low cost consumer digital cameras. With cheaper
    cameras making AVCHD in the mass market space where all of the digital
    camera makers and consumers play, an inevitable flood of new software for
    AVCHD editing will add to the dozen or so programs already on the market
    which handle AVCHD editing and authoring.

    Smarty
     
    Smarty, May 17, 2009
    #9
  10. "Smarty" <> wrote in message news:2yPPl.1855$...

    >... DVD Architect, an integral part of the Vegas suite, can be used to take full rate 24 Mbit/sec edited content and deliver a
    >total 24 Mbit/sec final disk.
    >
    > I will agree that Vegas itself, the editor portion of the suite, is indeed limited by its current template / profile to 24
    > Mbits/sec under some circumstances,


    I could find no AVCHD 24 Mbps template anywhere in Vegas 9 - only
    one with 20 Mbps, although one can export 25 Mbps Blu-ray files...

    > 20 Mbits/sec under some, and that the present situation is badly lacking for those who own the Vegas suite but do not have other
    > tools at their disposal.


    This is what I have been pointing out - that Vegas Pro 9 cannot, itself,
    export edited 24 Mbps AVCHD files. For a very recently updated editing
    software product, with a growing base of camcorders now out there that
    operate using this format, one does wonder about the value for most of
    upgrading to this product (although it does have some particular new
    capabilities of interest to a few people).

    > These caveats were alluded to in my original post. For those of us who do edit 24 Mbit/sec content, very competent editing tools
    > such as TMPG Express 4 do the job very handily.


    But the discussion is about the capabilities of Vegas Pro 9...

    > To be more specific, not one but two hardware acceleration methods have been added to TMPG Express, one using the CUDA/ATI
    > graphics card as a rendering platform added last year, and more recently a second, blazingly fast AVCHD accelerator using
    > Toshiba's SpurEngine hardware. These make AVCHD editing extremely quickly for all types of rendering.
    >
    > http://tmpgenc.pegasys-inc.com/en/product/te4xp.html
    >
    > I do not want to digress from the original Vegas suite any further, but point this out to further clarify and explain that your
    > approach to understanding AVCHD and describing is is very shallow, and extremely prejudicial.


    Again, the discussion is about the capabilities of Pro 9 itself. While it is
    useful to know about alternatives in both software and hardware, that
    is not the point. (Look at the title of this thread...;-)

    > Had you merely missed the true functionality and left it at that, I would still complain. But you insist on punctuating your
    > "reviews" and "findings" with the gleeful, childish comments which inevitably attempt to bolster your original false hypothesis
    > that AVCHD is somehow inferior to HDV.


    By agreement among most, the best 17 Mbps AVCHD is, as a medium,
    inferior in image quality to the best HDV. Only with the best 24 Mbps
    AVCHD does the image quality approach or equal the best HDV. While
    AVCHD is more convenient to shoot and transfer than HDV, what matters
    for many is the ultimate quality, the ability to easily and cheaply edit the
    material, and the ability to archive it in a reasonably durable way. Vegas
    Pro 9 does not easily satisfy those requirements (although the edited material
    can be transcoded and exported as Blu-ray files and saved on Blu-ray disks
    and/or on hard drives).

    > Through the lens of someone who does not routinely author and edit in AVCHD, your comments neither serve the newsgroup community
    > accurately nor do they reflect a balanced understanding of how tools can and are used together to achieve AVCHD workflow.
    >
    > I will not even attempt to elaborate on the methods being used to create and author even higher bitrate (greater than 24 Mbit/sec)
    > AVCHD disks using BluRay BDMV folders with patch programs and hex editing of the index files. Suffice it to say that those who are
    > working with AVCHD and h.264 on a routine basis are not sitting still waiting for Sony or anybody else to make a "template". As
    > broadcast/ENG and AVC-Intra gain traction, these tools will, no doubt, increase. Although Sony may be a slow starter in the high
    > end AVCHD markets for both consumer and pro users, I am altogether certain that the market share being garnered by Canon and
    > Panasonic in the camcorder arena has not been unnoticed by Sony management. Their recent, stunning, 1.26 billion dollar loss,
    > their first in 14 years, will no doubt drive them back into competition in this very rapidly growing market.
    >
    > http://g4tv.com/thefeed/blog/post/695547/Sony-Reports-Billion-Dollar-Loss.html
    >
    > Further......AVCHD Lite, yet another variant which has been introduced in the last 6 months for movie making on lower cost
    > consumer still image cameras, now shows up on low cost consumer digital cameras. With cheaper cameras making AVCHD in the mass
    > market space where all of the digital camera makers and consumers play, an inevitable flood of new software for AVCHD editing will
    > add to the dozen or so programs already on the market which handle AVCHD editing and authoring.
    >
    > Smarty


    The above is interesting overall and possibly useful speculation at the low
    end, but at the high end it reminds me of something like, "I just bought a
    $600 motor scooter, and I want to go 90 MPH on it - so I bought a Harley
    Davidson motorcycle and a side car and modified the side car (with many
    new components) so the scooter could be placed in it, and now, with the
    help of someone to operate the motorcycle, I can actually ride my motor
    scooter while it is going 90 MPH!". 8^)
    Think "practical and straightforward"...;-)
    --DR
     
    David Ruether, May 17, 2009
    #10
  11. Smarty

    Smarty Guest

    "David Ruether" <> wrote in message
    news:guph64$2nq$...
    >
    > "Smarty" <> wrote in message
    > news:2yPPl.1855$...
    >
    > I could find no AVCHD 24 Mbps template anywhere in Vegas 9 - only
    > one with 20 Mbps, although one can export 25 Mbps Blu-ray files...
    >
    >> 20 Mbits/sec under some, and that the present situation is badly lacking
    >> for those who own the Vegas suite but do not have other tools at their
    >> disposal.

    >
    > This is what I have been pointing out - that Vegas Pro 9 cannot, itself,
    > export edited 24 Mbps AVCHD files.


    Vegas, like Nero Vision, Power Director, and other programs which provide
    'smart rendering' does not have an explicit 'template' or other setting to
    export 24 Mbit/sec content. However.......they ABSOLUTELY DO output 24
    Mbut/second output when the content they are smart rendering is 24 Mbit/sec
    content. Smart rendering is, by definition, the same bit rate out as in, and
    it is extremely obvious that the render time is 15 times shorter, the Vegas
    program displays the message "No Recompression" and the player bitrate
    indicator shows exactly the same speed output as the input file contained.

    As should be pretty intuitively obvious, any input at 24 Mbits/sec once it
    has been smart rendered will, in fact, remain 24 Mbits/sec.

    The fact that you "could find no AVCHD 24 Mbps template anywhere in Vegas 9"
    shows me two significant things:

    first, that you have never used smart rendering programs of any type
    including Vegas 9 with 24 Mbits/sec AVCHD content

    and also,

    that you may not even comprehend how such programs should work in performing
    smart rendering.

    Had you used Vegas 9 or any other program to do smart rendering, this all
    would have been extremely obvious. Looking for a template setting is
    entirely unneccesary in Nero Vision, Power Director, Vegas, DVD Movie
    Factory, Video Studio Pro X2, ........... since there is not specific
    setting of this type in ANY OF THEM. Yet all of them smart render.


    > By agreement among most, the best 17 Mbps AVCHD is, as a medium,
    > inferior in image quality to the best HDV. Only with the best 24 Mbps
    > AVCHD does the image quality approach or equal the best HDV. While
    > AVCHD is more convenient to shoot and transfer than HDV, what matters
    > for many is the ultimate quality, the ability to easily and cheaply edit
    > the
    > material, and the ability to archive it in a reasonably durable way. Vegas
    > Pro 9 does not easily satisfy those requirements (although the edited
    > material
    > can be transcoded and exported as Blu-ray files and saved on Blu-ray disks
    > and/or on hard drives).


    Please cite references to support this claim of HDV superiority among the
    majority of users. This "agreement among most" you claim is total bullshit.
    What YOU BELIEVE is based on your selective hearsay and no direct experience
    with AVCHD as best as I can tell.

    And please David, please David, do NOT start making camcorder comparisons
    again.............

    Smarty
     
    Smarty, May 18, 2009
    #11
  12. "Smarty" <> wrote in message
    news:Wj2Ql.1990$...
    > "David Ruether" <> wrote in message
    > news:guph64$2nq$...
    >>
    >> "Smarty" <> wrote in message
    >> news:2yPPl.1855$...
    >>
    >> I could find no AVCHD 24 Mbps template anywhere in Vegas 9 - only
    >> one with 20 Mbps, although one can export 25 Mbps Blu-ray files...
    >>
    >>> 20 Mbits/sec under some, and that the present situation is badly lacking
    >>> for those who own the Vegas suite but do not have other tools at their
    >>> disposal.

    >>
    >> This is what I have been pointing out - that Vegas Pro 9 cannot, itself,
    >> export edited 24 Mbps AVCHD files.

    >
    > Vegas, like Nero Vision, Power Director, and other programs which provide
    > 'smart rendering' does not have an explicit 'template' or other setting to
    > export 24 Mbit/sec content. However.......they ABSOLUTELY DO output 24
    > Mbut/second output when the content they are smart rendering is 24
    > Mbit/sec content. Smart rendering is, by definition, the same bit rate out
    > as in, and it is extremely obvious that the render time is 15 times
    > shorter, the Vegas program displays the message "No Recompression" and the
    > player bitrate indicator shows exactly the same speed output as the input
    > file contained.
    >
    > As should be pretty intuitively obvious, any input at 24 Mbits/sec once it
    > has been smart rendered will, in fact, remain 24 Mbits/sec.
    >
    > The fact that you "could find no AVCHD 24 Mbps template anywhere in Vegas
    > 9" shows me two significant things:
    >
    > first, that you have never used smart rendering programs of any type
    > including Vegas 9 with 24 Mbits/sec AVCHD content
    >
    > and also,
    >
    > that you may not even comprehend how such programs should work in
    > performing smart rendering.
    >
    > Had you used Vegas 9 or any other program to do smart rendering, this all
    > would have been extremely obvious. Looking for a template setting is
    > entirely unneccesary in Nero Vision, Power Director, Vegas, DVD Movie
    > Factory, Video Studio Pro X2, ........... since there is not specific
    > setting of this type in ANY OF THEM. Yet all of them smart render.
    >
    >
    >> By agreement among most, the best 17 Mbps AVCHD is, as a medium,
    >> inferior in image quality to the best HDV. Only with the best 24 Mbps
    >> AVCHD does the image quality approach or equal the best HDV. While
    >> AVCHD is more convenient to shoot and transfer than HDV, what matters
    >> for many is the ultimate quality, the ability to easily and cheaply edit
    >> the
    >> material, and the ability to archive it in a reasonably durable way.
    >> Vegas
    >> Pro 9 does not easily satisfy those requirements (although the edited
    >> material
    >> can be transcoded and exported as Blu-ray files and saved on Blu-ray
    >> disks
    >> and/or on hard drives).

    >
    > Please cite references to support this claim of HDV superiority among the
    > majority of users. This "agreement among most" you claim is total
    > bullshit. What YOU BELIEVE is based on your selective hearsay and no
    > direct experience with AVCHD as best as I can tell.
    >
    > And please David, please David, do NOT start making camcorder comparisons
    > again.............
    >
    > Smarty
    >


    I have been following this post.

    I have some advice for "Smarty".
    Get rid of the HUGE chip on you shoulder and start to apply your knowledge
    in a more productive way.
    If you are unable to do that, go somewhere else and stop wasting our time.

    I for one is sick and tired of your rantings.

    You might have noticed that no one else is replying to your petty arguments,
    only David, but he is just about obliged to defend himself (poor bastard).

    My advice to David is: don't bother with further replies, "Smarty" is not
    worth it.

    Martin
     
    Martin van derPoel, May 18, 2009
    #12
  13. "Ken Maltby" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    >
    > "Martin van derPoel" <> wrote in message
    > news:4a114f4e$0$24356$...
    >>

    >
    >>
    >> I have been following this post.
    >>
    >> I have some advice for "Smarty".
    >> Get rid of the HUGE chip on you shoulder and start to apply your
    >> knowledge in a more productive way.
    >> If you are unable to do that, go somewhere else and stop wasting our
    >> time.
    >>
    >> I for one is sick and tired of your rantings.
    >>
    >> You might have noticed that no one else is replying to your petty
    >> arguments, only David, but he is just about obliged to defend himself
    >> (poor bastard).
    >>
    >> My advice to David is: don't bother with further replies, "Smarty" is not
    >> worth it.
    >>
    >> Martin

    >
    > Hmm... I will give you the benifit of the doubt and
    > assume that you are just ignorant of the history behind
    > this thread. Smarty is just pointing out where David's
    > overbroad statements give a false impression of the
    > current state of AVCHD editing capabilities.
    >
    > Judging the "worth" of posters in a NG, is above my
    > pay grade. We do evaluate the worth of what is being
    > posted, though. This thread could be looked at as being
    > a discussion on the "worth" of Vegas 9, a very limitted
    > portion of its functionality, at least. It would appear that
    > you only wish David's opinion heard. That would defeat
    > some of the purpose and benefit of the NG.
    >
    > As tiring as this kind of thread may be, it is often in the
    > details that get examined this way, that new information
    > comes to light. It is often the case that one man's "it can't
    > be done" is answered by the means to do it, following a
    > different procedure. (Sometimes the new procedure is
    > to read the manual.)
    >
    > Luck;
    > Ken
    >
    >

    I am neither in favour of David or Smarty, my problem is with the manner of
    writing that "Smarty" uses.

    I would like to hear the opinions of both David and Smarty, but Smarty seems
    to be intent on name calling and using derogatory remarks, whilst
    contributing only a little to the subject at hand.

    Reading a post mutulated like this bores me.

    Martin van der Poel
     
    Martin van derPoel, May 18, 2009
    #13
  14. Smarty

    Smarty Guest

    "Martin van derPoel" <> wrote in message
    news:4a114f4e$0$24356$...
    >
    > "Smarty" <> wrote in message
    > news:Wj2Ql.1990$...
    >> "David Ruether" <> wrote in message
    >> news:guph64$2nq$...
    >>>
    >>> "Smarty" <> wrote in message
    >>> news:2yPPl.1855$...
    >>>
    >>> I could find no AVCHD 24 Mbps template anywhere in Vegas 9 - only
    >>> one with 20 Mbps, although one can export 25 Mbps Blu-ray files...
    >>>
    >>>> 20 Mbits/sec under some, and that the present situation is badly
    >>>> lacking for those who own the Vegas suite but do not have other tools
    >>>> at their disposal.
    >>>
    >>> This is what I have been pointing out - that Vegas Pro 9 cannot, itself,
    >>> export edited 24 Mbps AVCHD files.

    >>
    >> Vegas, like Nero Vision, Power Director, and other programs which provide
    >> 'smart rendering' does not have an explicit 'template' or other setting
    >> to export 24 Mbit/sec content. However.......they ABSOLUTELY DO output 24
    >> Mbut/second output when the content they are smart rendering is 24
    >> Mbit/sec content. Smart rendering is, by definition, the same bit rate
    >> out as in, and it is extremely obvious that the render time is 15 times
    >> shorter, the Vegas program displays the message "No Recompression" and
    >> the player bitrate indicator shows exactly the same speed output as the
    >> input file contained.
    >>
    >> As should be pretty intuitively obvious, any input at 24 Mbits/sec once
    >> it has been smart rendered will, in fact, remain 24 Mbits/sec.
    >>
    >> The fact that you "could find no AVCHD 24 Mbps template anywhere in Vegas
    >> 9" shows me two significant things:
    >>
    >> first, that you have never used smart rendering programs of any type
    >> including Vegas 9 with 24 Mbits/sec AVCHD content
    >>
    >> and also,
    >>
    >> that you may not even comprehend how such programs should work in
    >> performing smart rendering.
    >>
    >> Had you used Vegas 9 or any other program to do smart rendering, this all
    >> would have been extremely obvious. Looking for a template setting is
    >> entirely unneccesary in Nero Vision, Power Director, Vegas, DVD Movie
    >> Factory, Video Studio Pro X2, ........... since there is not specific
    >> setting of this type in ANY OF THEM. Yet all of them smart render.
    >>
    >>
    >>> By agreement among most, the best 17 Mbps AVCHD is, as a medium,
    >>> inferior in image quality to the best HDV. Only with the best 24 Mbps
    >>> AVCHD does the image quality approach or equal the best HDV. While
    >>> AVCHD is more convenient to shoot and transfer than HDV, what matters
    >>> for many is the ultimate quality, the ability to easily and cheaply edit
    >>> the
    >>> material, and the ability to archive it in a reasonably durable way.
    >>> Vegas
    >>> Pro 9 does not easily satisfy those requirements (although the edited
    >>> material
    >>> can be transcoded and exported as Blu-ray files and saved on Blu-ray
    >>> disks
    >>> and/or on hard drives).

    >>
    >> Please cite references to support this claim of HDV superiority among the
    >> majority of users. This "agreement among most" you claim is total
    >> bullshit. What YOU BELIEVE is based on your selective hearsay and no
    >> direct experience with AVCHD as best as I can tell.
    >>
    >> And please David, please David, do NOT start making camcorder comparisons
    >> again.............
    >>
    >> Smarty
    >>

    >
    > I have been following this post.
    >
    > I have some advice for "Smarty".
    > Get rid of the HUGE chip on you shoulder and start to apply your knowledge
    > in a more productive way.
    > If you are unable to do that, go somewhere else and stop wasting our time.
    >
    > I for one is sick and tired of your rantings.
    >
    > You might have noticed that no one else is replying to your petty
    > arguments, only David, but he is just about obliged to defend himself
    > (poor bastard).
    >
    > My advice to David is: don't bother with further replies, "Smarty" is not
    > worth it.
    >
    > Martin
    >




    Martin,

    I have, for the last year or so, avoided this newsgroup, since it has mostly
    degraded to spam, very rare discussions of technical issues, and a lot of
    garbage.

    I am not alone. Those of us who have been involved with this newsgroup and
    Usenet for a long time have also chosen to do so.

    It is not a coincidence that Frank, nappy, PTravel (Paul), Gary, Steve King,
    and tons of others no longer show up here.

    I personally have a real problem with someone claiming to make factual
    statements which are absolutely incorrect. Perhaps it is because I have
    taught for so many years to adults. Perhaps I am a smug and arrogant SOB.
    Perhaps it is because I have a couple degrees in electrical engineering and
    worked for 30+ years in this field. Or perhaps it is because I am a grumpy,
    older, retired person with time on his hands. Or perhaps it is because I
    feel that people seeking help and information on the Internet deserve better
    than mixed up opinions disguised as facts.

    Whatever the reason, I find the posts of David Ruether on the subject of
    AVCHD to be absolutely ill informed, technically incorrect, and laced with
    his personal prejudices. He has made many other excellent contributions and
    I applaud him for doing so. In the area of AVCHD however, he is totally out
    of his element and speaks with no experience or understanding, most recently
    on what Vegas 9 can and cannot do.

    This newsgroup deserves a lot better.

    I am glad to retreat, and, as is perhaps apparent already, only visit here
    when falsehoods and glaring mistakes are being made.

    I will be glad to retreat even further, and sorry if you consider my rants
    to be unproductive. You chose to read them, and could have just as easily
    skipped over them so as to not be bothered.

    When David corrects himself, as he did most recently, I consider that to be
    beneficial to those seeking facts and truth. Perhaps you feel differently.

    Regardless, I intend to post very very seldom here, even less than I have
    done recently.

    In the 1990's before I retired I made over $300K a year in network broadcast
    engineering, which translates into about $150/hr. I'm extremely good at what
    I do, and know video engineering backwards and forwards. This newsgroup
    truly has become a true waste of my time for the reasons I have stated
    above, and I will have very few qualms about withdrawing further. Those
    seeking advice on professional video production will have to rely on David
    Reuther for his "facts". What a shame............................

    Smarty
     
    Smarty, May 18, 2009
    #14
  15. "Smarty" <> wrote in message
    news:wIdQl.1780$...
    > "Martin van derPoel" <> wrote in message
    > news:4a114f4e$0$24356$...
    >>
    >> "Smarty" <> wrote in message
    >> news:Wj2Ql.1990$...
    >>> "David Ruether" <> wrote in message
    >>> news:guph64$2nq$...
    >>>>
    >>>> "Smarty" <> wrote in message
    >>>> news:2yPPl.1855$...
    >>>>
    >>>> I could find no AVCHD 24 Mbps template anywhere in Vegas 9 - only
    >>>> one with 20 Mbps, although one can export 25 Mbps Blu-ray files...
    >>>>
    >>>>> 20 Mbits/sec under some, and that the present situation is badly
    >>>>> lacking for those who own the Vegas suite but do not have other tools
    >>>>> at their disposal.
    >>>>
    >>>> This is what I have been pointing out - that Vegas Pro 9 cannot,
    >>>> itself,
    >>>> export edited 24 Mbps AVCHD files.
    >>>
    >>> Vegas, like Nero Vision, Power Director, and other programs which
    >>> provide 'smart rendering' does not have an explicit 'template' or other
    >>> setting to export 24 Mbit/sec content. However.......they ABSOLUTELY DO
    >>> output 24 Mbut/second output when the content they are smart rendering
    >>> is 24 Mbit/sec content. Smart rendering is, by definition, the same bit
    >>> rate out as in, and it is extremely obvious that the render time is 15
    >>> times shorter, the Vegas program displays the message "No Recompression"
    >>> and the player bitrate indicator shows exactly the same speed output as
    >>> the input file contained.
    >>>
    >>> As should be pretty intuitively obvious, any input at 24 Mbits/sec once
    >>> it has been smart rendered will, in fact, remain 24 Mbits/sec.
    >>>
    >>> The fact that you "could find no AVCHD 24 Mbps template anywhere in
    >>> Vegas 9" shows me two significant things:
    >>>
    >>> first, that you have never used smart rendering programs of any type
    >>> including Vegas 9 with 24 Mbits/sec AVCHD content
    >>>
    >>> and also,
    >>>
    >>> that you may not even comprehend how such programs should work in
    >>> performing smart rendering.
    >>>
    >>> Had you used Vegas 9 or any other program to do smart rendering, this
    >>> all would have been extremely obvious. Looking for a template setting is
    >>> entirely unneccesary in Nero Vision, Power Director, Vegas, DVD Movie
    >>> Factory, Video Studio Pro X2, ........... since there is not specific
    >>> setting of this type in ANY OF THEM. Yet all of them smart render.
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>> By agreement among most, the best 17 Mbps AVCHD is, as a medium,
    >>>> inferior in image quality to the best HDV. Only with the best 24 Mbps
    >>>> AVCHD does the image quality approach or equal the best HDV. While
    >>>> AVCHD is more convenient to shoot and transfer than HDV, what matters
    >>>> for many is the ultimate quality, the ability to easily and cheaply
    >>>> edit the
    >>>> material, and the ability to archive it in a reasonably durable way.
    >>>> Vegas
    >>>> Pro 9 does not easily satisfy those requirements (although the edited
    >>>> material
    >>>> can be transcoded and exported as Blu-ray files and saved on Blu-ray
    >>>> disks
    >>>> and/or on hard drives).
    >>>
    >>> Please cite references to support this claim of HDV superiority among
    >>> the majority of users. This "agreement among most" you claim is total
    >>> bullshit. What YOU BELIEVE is based on your selective hearsay and no
    >>> direct experience with AVCHD as best as I can tell.
    >>>
    >>> And please David, please David, do NOT start making camcorder
    >>> comparisons again.............
    >>>
    >>> Smarty
    >>>

    >>
    >> I have been following this post.
    >>
    >> I have some advice for "Smarty".
    >> Get rid of the HUGE chip on you shoulder and start to apply your
    >> knowledge in a more productive way.
    >> If you are unable to do that, go somewhere else and stop wasting our
    >> time.
    >>
    >> I for one is sick and tired of your rantings.
    >>
    >> You might have noticed that no one else is replying to your petty
    >> arguments, only David, but he is just about obliged to defend himself
    >> (poor bastard).
    >>
    >> My advice to David is: don't bother with further replies, "Smarty" is not
    >> worth it.
    >>
    >> Martin
    >>

    >
    >
    >
    > Martin,
    >
    > I have, for the last year or so, avoided this newsgroup, since it has
    > mostly degraded to spam, very rare discussions of technical issues, and a
    > lot of garbage.
    >
    > I am not alone. Those of us who have been involved with this newsgroup and
    > Usenet for a long time have also chosen to do so.
    >
    > It is not a coincidence that Frank, nappy, PTravel (Paul), Gary, Steve
    > King, and tons of others no longer show up here.
    >
    > I personally have a real problem with someone claiming to make factual
    > statements which are absolutely incorrect. Perhaps it is because I have
    > taught for so many years to adults. Perhaps I am a smug and arrogant SOB.
    > Perhaps it is because I have a couple degrees in electrical engineering
    > and worked for 30+ years in this field. Or perhaps it is because I am a
    > grumpy, older, retired person with time on his hands. Or perhaps it is
    > because I feel that people seeking help and information on the Internet
    > deserve better than mixed up opinions disguised as facts.
    >
    > Whatever the reason, I find the posts of David Ruether on the subject of
    > AVCHD to be absolutely ill informed, technically incorrect, and laced with
    > his personal prejudices. He has made many other excellent contributions
    > and I applaud him for doing so. In the area of AVCHD however, he is
    > totally out of his element and speaks with no experience or understanding,
    > most recently on what Vegas 9 can and cannot do.
    >
    > This newsgroup deserves a lot better.
    >
    > I am glad to retreat, and, as is perhaps apparent already, only visit here
    > when falsehoods and glaring mistakes are being made.
    >
    > I will be glad to retreat even further, and sorry if you consider my rants
    > to be unproductive. You chose to read them, and could have just as easily
    > skipped over them so as to not be bothered.
    >
    > When David corrects himself, as he did most recently, I consider that to
    > be beneficial to those seeking facts and truth. Perhaps you feel
    > differently.
    >
    > Regardless, I intend to post very very seldom here, even less than I have
    > done recently.
    >
    > In the 1990's before I retired I made over $300K a year in network
    > broadcast engineering, which translates into about $150/hr. I'm extremely
    > good at what I do, and know video engineering backwards and forwards. This
    > newsgroup truly has become a true waste of my time for the reasons I have
    > stated above, and I will have very few qualms about withdrawing further.
    > Those seeking advice on professional video production will have to rely on
    > David Reuther for his "facts". What a shame............................
    >
    > Smarty
    >


    Hi Smarty,
    All I was trying to point out was that your manner of speech was not helping
    the debate.

    I am not disputing how good you are, how much you know, etc. your post will
    talk for themselves.

    Stick with the facts, forget the name calling (name calling is opinion, not
    facts) and we will all be the better for it.

    Regards,

    Martin van der Poel
     
    Martin van derPoel, May 18, 2009
    #15
  16. Smarty

    Smarty Guest

    "Martin van derPoel" <> wrote in message
    news:4a1172e0$0$24383$...
    >
    > "Smarty" <> wrote in message
    > news:wIdQl.1780$...
    >> "Martin van derPoel" <> wrote in message
    >> news:4a114f4e$0$24356$...
    >>>
    >>> "Smarty" <> wrote in message
    >>> news:Wj2Ql.1990$...
    >>>> "David Ruether" <> wrote in message
    >>>> news:guph64$2nq$...
    >>>>>
    >>>>> "Smarty" <> wrote in message
    >>>>> news:2yPPl.1855$...
    >>>>>
    >>>>> I could find no AVCHD 24 Mbps template anywhere in Vegas 9 - only
    >>>>> one with 20 Mbps, although one can export 25 Mbps Blu-ray files...
    >>>>>
    >>>>>> 20 Mbits/sec under some, and that the present situation is badly
    >>>>>> lacking for those who own the Vegas suite but do not have other tools
    >>>>>> at their disposal.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> This is what I have been pointing out - that Vegas Pro 9 cannot,
    >>>>> itself,
    >>>>> export edited 24 Mbps AVCHD files.
    >>>>
    >>>> Vegas, like Nero Vision, Power Director, and other programs which
    >>>> provide 'smart rendering' does not have an explicit 'template' or other
    >>>> setting to export 24 Mbit/sec content. However.......they ABSOLUTELY DO
    >>>> output 24 Mbut/second output when the content they are smart rendering
    >>>> is 24 Mbit/sec content. Smart rendering is, by definition, the same bit
    >>>> rate out as in, and it is extremely obvious that the render time is 15
    >>>> times shorter, the Vegas program displays the message "No
    >>>> Recompression" and the player bitrate indicator shows exactly the same
    >>>> speed output as the input file contained.
    >>>>
    >>>> As should be pretty intuitively obvious, any input at 24 Mbits/sec once
    >>>> it has been smart rendered will, in fact, remain 24 Mbits/sec.
    >>>>
    >>>> The fact that you "could find no AVCHD 24 Mbps template anywhere in
    >>>> Vegas 9" shows me two significant things:
    >>>>
    >>>> first, that you have never used smart rendering programs of any type
    >>>> including Vegas 9 with 24 Mbits/sec AVCHD content
    >>>>
    >>>> and also,
    >>>>
    >>>> that you may not even comprehend how such programs should work in
    >>>> performing smart rendering.
    >>>>
    >>>> Had you used Vegas 9 or any other program to do smart rendering, this
    >>>> all would have been extremely obvious. Looking for a template setting
    >>>> is entirely unneccesary in Nero Vision, Power Director, Vegas, DVD
    >>>> Movie Factory, Video Studio Pro X2, ........... since there is not
    >>>> specific setting of this type in ANY OF THEM. Yet all of them smart
    >>>> render.
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>> By agreement among most, the best 17 Mbps AVCHD is, as a medium,
    >>>>> inferior in image quality to the best HDV. Only with the best 24 Mbps
    >>>>> AVCHD does the image quality approach or equal the best HDV. While
    >>>>> AVCHD is more convenient to shoot and transfer than HDV, what matters
    >>>>> for many is the ultimate quality, the ability to easily and cheaply
    >>>>> edit the
    >>>>> material, and the ability to archive it in a reasonably durable way.
    >>>>> Vegas
    >>>>> Pro 9 does not easily satisfy those requirements (although the edited
    >>>>> material
    >>>>> can be transcoded and exported as Blu-ray files and saved on Blu-ray
    >>>>> disks
    >>>>> and/or on hard drives).
    >>>>
    >>>> Please cite references to support this claim of HDV superiority among
    >>>> the majority of users. This "agreement among most" you claim is total
    >>>> bullshit. What YOU BELIEVE is based on your selective hearsay and no
    >>>> direct experience with AVCHD as best as I can tell.
    >>>>
    >>>> And please David, please David, do NOT start making camcorder
    >>>> comparisons again.............
    >>>>
    >>>> Smarty
    >>>>
    >>>
    >>> I have been following this post.
    >>>
    >>> I have some advice for "Smarty".
    >>> Get rid of the HUGE chip on you shoulder and start to apply your
    >>> knowledge in a more productive way.
    >>> If you are unable to do that, go somewhere else and stop wasting our
    >>> time.
    >>>
    >>> I for one is sick and tired of your rantings.
    >>>
    >>> You might have noticed that no one else is replying to your petty
    >>> arguments, only David, but he is just about obliged to defend himself
    >>> (poor bastard).
    >>>
    >>> My advice to David is: don't bother with further replies, "Smarty" is
    >>> not worth it.
    >>>
    >>> Martin
    >>>

    >>
    >>
    >>
    >> Martin,
    >>
    >> I have, for the last year or so, avoided this newsgroup, since it has
    >> mostly degraded to spam, very rare discussions of technical issues, and a
    >> lot of garbage.
    >>
    >> I am not alone. Those of us who have been involved with this newsgroup
    >> and Usenet for a long time have also chosen to do so.
    >>
    >> It is not a coincidence that Frank, nappy, PTravel (Paul), Gary, Steve
    >> King, and tons of others no longer show up here.
    >>
    >> I personally have a real problem with someone claiming to make factual
    >> statements which are absolutely incorrect. Perhaps it is because I have
    >> taught for so many years to adults. Perhaps I am a smug and arrogant SOB.
    >> Perhaps it is because I have a couple degrees in electrical engineering
    >> and worked for 30+ years in this field. Or perhaps it is because I am a
    >> grumpy, older, retired person with time on his hands. Or perhaps it is
    >> because I feel that people seeking help and information on the Internet
    >> deserve better than mixed up opinions disguised as facts.
    >>
    >> Whatever the reason, I find the posts of David Ruether on the subject of
    >> AVCHD to be absolutely ill informed, technically incorrect, and laced
    >> with his personal prejudices. He has made many other excellent
    >> contributions and I applaud him for doing so. In the area of AVCHD
    >> however, he is totally out of his element and speaks with no experience
    >> or understanding, most recently on what Vegas 9 can and cannot do.
    >>
    >> This newsgroup deserves a lot better.
    >>
    >> I am glad to retreat, and, as is perhaps apparent already, only visit
    >> here when falsehoods and glaring mistakes are being made.
    >>
    >> I will be glad to retreat even further, and sorry if you consider my
    >> rants to be unproductive. You chose to read them, and could have just as
    >> easily skipped over them so as to not be bothered.
    >>
    >> When David corrects himself, as he did most recently, I consider that to
    >> be beneficial to those seeking facts and truth. Perhaps you feel
    >> differently.
    >>
    >> Regardless, I intend to post very very seldom here, even less than I have
    >> done recently.
    >>
    >> In the 1990's before I retired I made over $300K a year in network
    >> broadcast engineering, which translates into about $150/hr. I'm extremely
    >> good at what I do, and know video engineering backwards and forwards.
    >> This newsgroup truly has become a true waste of my time for the reasons I
    >> have stated above, and I will have very few qualms about withdrawing
    >> further. Those seeking advice on professional video production will have
    >> to rely on David Reuther for his "facts". What a
    >> shame............................
    >>
    >> Smarty
    >>

    >
    > Hi Smarty,
    > All I was trying to point out was that your manner of speech was not
    > helping the debate.
    >
    > I am not disputing how good you are, how much you know, etc. your post
    > will talk for themselves.
    >
    > Stick with the facts, forget the name calling (name calling is opinion,
    > not facts) and we will all be the better for it.
    >
    > Regards,
    >
    > Martin van der Poel
    >



    Martin,

    Could you please cite examples of my "name calling"?

    Thank you.

    Smarty
     
    Smarty, May 18, 2009
    #16
  17. "Ken Maltby" <> wrote in message news:...
    > "Martin van derPoel" <> wrote in message
    > news:4a1172e0$0$24383$...


    >> Hi Smarty,
    >> All I was trying to point out was that your manner of speech was not helping the debate.
    >>
    >> I am not disputing how good you are, how much you know, etc. your post will talk for themselves.
    >>
    >> Stick with the facts, forget the name calling (name calling is opinion, not facts) and we will all be the better for it.
    >>
    >> Regards,
    >>
    >> Martin van der Poel


    > ?Name calling?? I just re-read Smarty's posts in this thread
    > and could find no name calling. There is plenty of disagreement
    > with David's postings, but I can't see where he called him any
    > name.
    >
    > Your objection to Smarty's "manner of speach" seems more the
    > distraction than anything either poster is saying. You wouldn't be
    > Cannadian would you? No that .au would indicate otherwise.
    > Still, you seem to equate lack of agreement as "name calling",
    > those of us with thicker skins, can tell the difference.
    >
    > Luck;
    > Ken


    I guess you have missed some of "Smarty's" responses to me in
    other threads, then? ;-) He has gotten purdy durn nasty at times
    (kinda like an angry kid jumping up and down and hollering swear
    words at me...8^). Fortunately, unlike "Smarty", I don't get angry
    with people, and I do try to make my responses in threads civil.
    And, I'm eager to learn and to accept corrections that are made
    in a spirit of being helpful, especially if they contribute to our
    understanding of related subjects here - and if I spot a mistake
    I've made, or have changed my mind on something, I see no
    reason for my avoiding posting this as soon as possible (I have no
    egotistical reasons for not doing so...;-).
    --DR
     
    David Ruether, May 18, 2009
    #17
  18. Smarty

    Smarty Guest

    "David Ruether" <> wrote in message
    news:gurvoe$f3c$...
    >
    > "Ken Maltby" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    >> "Martin van derPoel" <> wrote in message
    >> news:4a1172e0$0$24383$...

    >
    >>> Hi Smarty,
    >>> All I was trying to point out was that your manner of speech was not
    >>> helping the debate.
    >>>
    >>> I am not disputing how good you are, how much you know, etc. your post
    >>> will talk for themselves.
    >>>
    >>> Stick with the facts, forget the name calling (name calling is opinion,
    >>> not facts) and we will all be the better for it.
    >>>
    >>> Regards,
    >>>
    >>> Martin van der Poel

    >
    >> ?Name calling?? I just re-read Smarty's posts in this thread
    >> and could find no name calling. There is plenty of disagreement
    >> with David's postings, but I can't see where he called him any
    >> name.
    >>
    >> Your objection to Smarty's "manner of speach" seems more the
    >> distraction than anything either poster is saying. You wouldn't be
    >> Cannadian would you? No that .au would indicate otherwise.
    >> Still, you seem to equate lack of agreement as "name calling",
    >> those of us with thicker skins, can tell the difference.
    >>
    >> Luck;
    >> Ken

    >
    > I guess you have missed some of "Smarty's" responses to me in
    > other threads, then? ;-) He has gotten purdy durn nasty at times
    > (kinda like an angry kid jumping up and down and hollering swear
    > words at me...8^). Fortunately, unlike "Smarty", I don't get angry
    > with people, and I do try to make my responses in threads civil.
    > And, I'm eager to learn and to accept corrections that are made
    > in a spirit of being helpful, especially if they contribute to our
    > understanding of related subjects here - and if I spot a mistake
    > I've made, or have changed my mind on something, I see no
    > reason for my avoiding posting this as soon as possible (I have no
    > egotistical reasons for not doing so...;-).
    > --DR
    >



    David,

    I offer you the same challenge. Please go back to these earlier posts and
    cut and paste those "durn nasty" personal insults I have supposedly made to
    you. Let's see them !!!

    I have, no doubt, repeatedly and forcefully challenged your erroneous
    statements, and I have called "bullshit" some statements which are just
    plain factually wrong, but I would like to see where I have attacked you
    personally. My attacks have been to your mistakes and most of all your
    conflation of two independent issues....encoding methods (AVCHD/HDV) and
    specific camcorders.

    In fact, David, I recently___ REMINDED YOU____ that calling me a grumpy old
    man had taken the discussion from being technical and factual, and had, at
    your initiative, turned it into a personal attack on me. I despise ad
    hominem attacks.

    Let's see your proof and Martin's please......

    Smarty
     
    Smarty, May 18, 2009
    #18
  19. "Martin van derPoel" <> wrote in message news:4a114f4e$0$24356$...
    > "Smarty" <> wrote in message news:Wj2Ql.1990$...
    >> "David Ruether" <> wrote in message news:guph64$2nq$...
    >>> "Smarty" <> wrote in message news:2yPPl.1855$...


    >>> I could find no AVCHD 24 Mbps template anywhere in Vegas 9 - only
    >>> one with 20 Mbps, although one can export 25 Mbps Blu-ray files...


    >>>> 20 Mbits/sec under some, and that the present situation is badly lacking for those who own the Vegas suite but do not have
    >>>> other tools at their disposal.


    >>> This is what I have been pointing out - that Vegas Pro 9 cannot, itself,
    >>> export edited 24 Mbps AVCHD files.


    >> Vegas, like Nero Vision, Power Director, and other programs which provide 'smart rendering' does not have an explicit 'template'
    >> or other setting to export 24 Mbit/sec content. However.......they ABSOLUTELY DO output 24 Mbut/second output when the content
    >> they are smart rendering is 24 Mbit/sec content. Smart rendering is, by definition, the same bit rate out as in, and it is
    >> extremely obvious that the render time is 15 times shorter, the Vegas program displays the message "No Recompression" and the
    >> player bitrate indicator shows exactly the same speed output as the input file contained.
    >>
    >> As should be pretty intuitively obvious, any input at 24 Mbits/sec once it has been smart rendered will, in fact, remain 24
    >> Mbits/sec.


    This would seem to be logical (and this did appear to be true *until* I
    changed *some* 24 Mbps footage on the timeline, then tried to
    export it again - when it would no longer "Smart Render" *any* part
    of the timeline). This led me to believe (with some justification, I think),
    that I was not exporting 24 Mbps AVCHD from the timeline. From a
    discussion about this on the Vegas Pro 9 forum, I learned that others
    had also experienced this behavior in the program, and unlike with
    HDV, while it may actually be exporting 24 Mbps files, Pro 9 handles
    cut or changed AVCHD files GOP very differently, and it may leave
    long stretches (up to around 300 frames) around a change (or even
    within an unchanged long stretch of unchanged footage at random places)
    where it does not perform "Smart Rendering". Since my test footage
    consisted of short clips, this would explain my test experience with
    24 Mbps in Vegas Pro 9. Since I (and others) use many short clips
    in videos (or clips with short additions of filtration, etc.), this does
    represent a shortcoming compared with editing with HDV - but at least
    I now know that 24 Mbps editing and export can be done (with slower,
    less smooth previewing and recompression of relatively more material
    on the timeline).

    >> The fact that you "could find no AVCHD 24 Mbps template anywhere in Vegas 9" shows me two significant things:
    >>
    >> first, that you have never used smart rendering programs of any type including Vegas 9 with 24 Mbits/sec AVCHD content
    >>
    >> and also,
    >>
    >> that you may not even comprehend how such programs should work in performing smart rendering.
    >>
    >> Had you used Vegas 9 or any other program to do smart rendering, this all would have been extremely obvious. Looking for a
    >> template setting is entirely unneccesary in Nero Vision, Power Director, Vegas, DVD Movie Factory, Video Studio Pro X2,
    >> ........... since there is not specific setting of this type in ANY OF THEM. Yet all of them smart render.


    Aw, cummon, "Smarty", you know better...;-) I've been editing HDV in
    Pro 8 for some time, and for a short time before that in Ulead VideoStudio
    (as you know), both of which use "Smart Rendering". I kinda do know
    how "SR" is *supposed* to work, if it is working well...;-)

    [...]

    > I have been following this post.
    >
    > I have some advice for "Smarty".
    > Get rid of the HUGE chip on you shoulder and start to apply your knowledge in a more productive way.
    > If you are unable to do that, go somewhere else and stop wasting our time.
    >
    > I for one is sick and tired of your rantings.
    >
    > You might have noticed that no one else is replying to your petty arguments, only David, but he is just about obliged to defend
    > himself (poor bastard).
    >
    > My advice to David is: don't bother with further replies, "Smarty" is not worth it.
    >
    > Martin


    Thanks for the comments. I do value "Smarty's" experience and knowledge
    and his willingness to share it - but that "plus" is often unfortunately spoiled
    by the manner of his delivery and his apparent inability to engage in civil
    discourse. When I think that there is ***SOME*** hope for advancement
    in my (or other's) knowledge on a topic, I do try to stick with a thread, even
    though "Smarty" appears to go out of his way to personally insult me (he is a
    lousy teacher...). I am always willing to be proven wrong (that's can be how
    we learn best), but name calling or simply disputing something I say without
    proof is not the way to do it. We are ALL here to learn things, not engage
    in petty squabbles... Again, thanks for your comments - they are very much
    to the point.
    --DR
     
    David Ruether, May 18, 2009
    #19
  20. "Smarty" <> wrote in message news:pyfQl.2072$...

    > David,
    >
    > I offer you the same challenge. Please go back to these earlier posts and cut and paste those "durn nasty" personal insults I have
    > supposedly made to you. Let's see them !!!
    >
    > I have, no doubt, repeatedly and forcefully challenged your erroneous statements, and I have called "bullshit" some statements
    > which are just plain factually wrong, but I would like to see where I have attacked you personally. My attacks have been to your
    > mistakes and most of all your conflation of two independent issues....encoding methods (AVCHD/HDV) and specific camcorders.
    >
    > In fact, David, I recently___ REMINDED YOU____ that calling me a grumpy old man had taken the discussion from being technical and
    > factual, and had, at your initiative, turned it into a personal attack on me. I despise ad hominem attacks.
    >
    > Let's see your proof and Martin's please......
    >
    > Smarty


    This isn't worth my time, really, but anyone who has read your
    responses to just about any of my posts in the video NGs will find
    them full of personal insults, falsehoods, and expressions of general
    disrespect (but I kinda did like that description of late of some of my
    posts as "train wrecks" 8^). As for my referring to you as "a grumpy
    old man", need I remind you that that was your self description, one
    that is obviously apt, and one that I seem to recall I applied to you
    with some degree of humor...? ;-). My advice to you is to "lighten
    up" - it is not healthy to live so much of the time with anger...
    --DR
     
    David Ruether, May 18, 2009
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Doc
    Replies:
    13
    Views:
    485
  2. David Causier

    "Disk Full" error while rendering to avi in Premiere

    David Causier, Feb 1, 2004, in forum: Amateur Video Production
    Replies:
    6
    Views:
    452
    Martin Heffels
    Feb 1, 2004
  3. Replies:
    4
    Views:
    376
  4. Smarty

    Vegas 9 smart rendering / full 24 Mb/sec output

    Smarty, May 14, 2009, in forum: Amateur Video Production
    Replies:
    29
    Views:
    1,373
    Martin Heffels
    Jul 18, 2009
  5. wjva
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    218
    Bryce
    Aug 20, 2003
Loading...

Share This Page