Vegas 9 smart rendering / full 24 Mb/sec output

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

  1. Smarty

    Smarty Guest


    David,

    Now that you have had a legitimate opportunity to use and understand Vegas
    9, your observations and comments are (finally) reflecting the way things
    actually work. The smart rendering in Vegas and all other programs will
    NEVER allow changed frames to go without re-rendering, and this is
    intuitively obvious for AVCHD, HDV, or any other format. The number of
    surrounding frames which are subjected to re-rendering has entirely to due
    with how smoothly the "lump" in the newly formed GOPs needs to be to make a
    seamless splice with no apparent framing errors. This decision is both
    artistic as well as mathematical, derived from the length of the GOPs, their
    frame rate, and the motion estimates which have been altered within the
    adjoining GOPs.

    I fully understand that you have no intention to prove or defend your prior
    claims regarding the overwhelming public agreement concerning the inherent
    superiority of HDV versus AVCHD nor do you wish to prove or defend in any
    way you claims as to my personal insults / name calling to you in prior
    posts.

    If you make false statements and I challenge you, you have every right to
    defend your position with facts and evidence. If you have neither evidence
    nor a desire to defend your claims, so be it.

    My challenge in this specific thread regarded your original statements that
    Vegas does not handle 24 Mbit/sec AVCHD, does not smart render 24 Mbit/sec
    AVCHD, and that AVCHD is "a can of worms". If you take it as an "insult"
    that I described all of your wrong opinions as "a train wreck", then so be
    it also. Your facts were obviously wrong, and have since, GRUDGINGLY,
    admitted so.

    What you consider a personal insult is what I consider a correction to
    glaring mis-statement of facts. And if you truly, honestly, and sincerely
    feel that I am (to use your words) "disputing something I say without
    proof", then please, please, please, please David tell me WHAT it is I have
    disputed without proof and I will be glad to substantiate it.

    My strong impression is that your claims, not mine, still are lacking proof.

    Smarty
     
    Smarty, May 18, 2009
    #21
    1. Advertisements

  2. Hi Smarty,
    I read the whole post again, and found less name calling than I originally
    thought there to be.

    Below are some of the passages that got my back up.

    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.

    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.

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


    To summarise I took offence over the use of terms like:
    "your "reviews" and "findings" with the gleeful, childish comments.
    first, that you have never used smart rendering programs of any type.
    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.
    And please David, please David, do NOT start making camcorder comparisons
    again.

    Some of the above statement are too wide ranging and are most likely
    factually incorrect, when someone uses words like "never", "any" in their
    opinions, their opinion is quite often wrong.

    Please continue to contribute to the various newsgroups as it is obvious
    that you have a fast store of knowledge, and are willing to share it.
    But also please keep the personal attacks out of them.

    I am not Canadian, just a Dutch born Australian, and love my video and
    editing.

    Regards,

    Martin van der Poel
     
    Martin van derPoel, May 18, 2009
    #22
    1. Advertisements

  3. Smarty

    Smarty Guest


    Martin,

    I agree with your observations, and offer you and especially David my
    apologies for being as aggressive and critical as these comments of mine
    indicate. I'm sure that there are much more gentle ways of saying what I
    wanted to say, and I am guilty as charged when it comes to displaying overly
    blunt and harsh comments.

    This behavior of mine is not excusable, and I only offer as an explanation
    my unending frustration with the long and continuing history of David's
    AVCHD statements frequently containing factual errors, inevitably
    undermining AVCHD and discovering the supposed superiority of HDV.

    I have no vested interest in seeing either format prevail. But I have used
    HDV for over 5 years, and AVCHD for nearly 2 years, and quickly distinguish
    a source of knowledge from a source of mistaken information.

    The things which "got your back up" and provoked you to comment on my
    behavior are much like the things which "got my back up" and cause me to
    have to comment every time I saw mistakes being submitted to these
    newsgroups.

    If a post appears saying Vegas 9 only handles 16 Mbit/sec AVCHD, and I know
    that it handles full 24 Mbit/sec AVCHD since I am doing so on a daily basis,
    I am compelled to react.

    If the same types of factual errors are systematically surrounded by the
    repeated comments that "AVCHD is a bag of worms", Vegas cannot do AVCHD
    properly", "AVCHD does look attractive for shooting and transferring
    convenience, but it can apparently come up short in the image quality area
    compared with HDV unless working with it in 24 Mbps form, which is usually
    quite difficult or even impossible with most software", I wince. Someone who
    uses AVCHD and understands it would never make such statements.

    I have asked David a number of times to gain more insight into AVCHD before
    offering such comments to newbies. Yet he persists in offering these
    comments for the last year or longer, and seems not to care that others read
    these comments and replies to their questions as if they were factual.

    These newsgroups are not moderated, but instead are self-policing. I guess I
    am guilty of being an intolerant cop, who has dealt with a repeat offender
    and no longer feels that gentle words have any effect.

    Smarty
     
    Smarty, May 19, 2009
    #23
  4. Hi Smarty,
    No problems, we all need to be pulled back to earth sometimes.

    I have recently started to edit HDV with vegas 8.0 and it is just manageable
    with my rather old AMD XP2500. It was fine with plain old SD, but HDV is
    different.

    I was also recently given some AVCHD footage (I am not sure what data rate)
    to work with and found that much harder on the PC than HDV.

    I spent most of the cash on a XH A1s so a PC upgrade will have to wait for a
    while.

    Keep the good information coming, and if people have their facts wrong (and
    who is never wrong?) lets try to correct it in a pleasant way, that will
    also look better to newcomers to this newsgroup.

    Regards,

    Martin
     
    Martin van derPoel, May 19, 2009
    #24
  5. Smarty

    Smarty Guest

    I guess one might conclude that HDV is a real can of worms, and that Vegas 8
    just can't handle HDV...........

    Just kidding!!

    :cool:

    Smarty
     
    Smarty, May 19, 2009
    #25
  6. Hi Smarty,
    But without kidding, with my XP2500 overclocked to XP3200 it takes about 22
    hrs to render 90 minutes of HDV to a SD MPG with Vegas 8.0 set at its
    highest quality and 2 pass encoding, what time would it take with a more
    modern processor?

    Just ball park figure.

    Regards,

    Martin
     
    Martin van derPoel, May 19, 2009
    #26
  7. Smarty

    Smarty Guest


    Martin,

    For over 2 years now, a very interesting thread has been maintained on the
    Vegas user forum. This thread is a continuing report by literally hundreds
    of users who have run a short Vegas 9 rendering test with a simple
    standardized HDV test file on their personal hardware. They have then
    reported the rendering time and a description of their hardware.

    This allows others to see how various hardware (and operating system
    software) changes impact the rendering time. The last time I looked, the
    shortest rendering time reported was for a very recent dual Penryn 8 core
    system with a result of less than 60 seconds. Some of the longer results
    from early trials on slow machines were tens of minutes for the same sample
    file.

    You can read this thread and find a test result which has been reported by
    someone using hardware resembling yours. Alternately, you can run the actual
    test and measure your elapsed time and then use the results of others to
    very accurately predict what you will gain if you purchased the hardware
    they are using.

    I am guessing (purely guessing) that you could gain, using today's top
    processor, easily a 4 or 5 to 1 benefit in speed of rendering, and most
    likely a great deal more. But my guess is far less useful than using the
    thread and method I suggest.

    Good luck and visit the thread at:

    http://www.sonycreativesoftware.com/forums/ShowMessage.asp?MessageID=526098&Replies=402

    Best,

    Smarty
     
    Smarty, May 20, 2009
    #27
  8. Hi Smarty,
    Excellent, what I am rendering at the moment is quite often 40 clips or so,
    total length about 120 minutes, this takes a good day. 4 to 6 hours is
    still an overnight job.

    I will have a look at the posts in a bit more detail.

    Right now I have more need for a good Tripod.

    Regards,

    Martin
     
    Martin van derPoel, May 20, 2009
    #28
  9. Smarty

    Smarty Guest


    Good luck! A small typo appeared in my prior reply to you: I referenced
    hundreds of timing reports from users of Vegas 9 but meant to say Vegas 8.
    Sorry!
     
    Smarty, May 20, 2009
    #29
  10. Reviving an old thread. This one might be of interest for you Vegas &
    AVCHD folks: http://www.divideframe.com/ (also seems to work on
    Premiere).

    I have no interest in the company, just saw it when I was browsing the
    list of CUDA applications on the Nvidia website.

    cheers

    -martin-
     
    Martin Heffels, Jul 18, 2009
    #30
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

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

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.