Severe Preview lag when using .mov video from a Casio EX-F1

[Chris Young]

Your .MOV files are H264 AVCHD files. This problem is cropping up time and time again because people think AVCHD is a suitable editing format. AVCHD .MOV files are the worst thing in the world to edit with. To help solve your problems you might find some useful suggestions at:

https://forums.creativecow.net/readpost/24/906738

Chris Young
CYV Productions
Sydney

[Kristian Tigersjäl]

Hi!

Thank you for the suggestions. After some thinking and research I’ve come to this conclusion aswell. Still I’m annoyed by the fact because everything BUT transitions seem to work fine in vegas with these files, so it keeps giving you the feeling that it “almost” works but I assume that it’s pretty far from that. When I start dropping multiple things on the timeline it will probably still screw up.

Neoscene isn’t free, and I’m not doing anything that renders money here so I’d prefer staying away from that. DnxHd is another option that I’ve tried and while it works it produces absolutely insanely sized files, can’t be far from raw. This works, but isn’t very practical for this very reason. One thing I did try was converting the original files to HDV instead (some kind of mpeg2-derivative). These files run smooth as silk in vegas even in transitions and they are “only” about twice the size of the original files making them more space conservative.

Now what I wonder here is if this is a bad approach, using HDV as intermediate format. I’m sure I’m loosing abit of quality still the reencoded files in HDV still looks fantastic in my eyes, before editing anyway. I’ve also tried another format called mfx which uses some yet higher level of MPEG2 compression (MPEG2-HD?) which produces, in default settings, a slightly larger file compared to HDV but has linear PCM sound and even higher video quality. These files also run smooth in vegas.

Am I doing wrong with the HDV idea here or is it an okey solution when MAX MAX quality isn’t required? Any other suggestions for intermediate codecs?

Kristian

[John Rofrano]

It is perfectly fine to transcode your AVCHD to HDV or MXF for editing as long as your PC can handle it smoothly. I wouldn’t call that an “intermediary” because usually we refer to intermediary codecs as lossless or near-lossless intraframe codecs that can stand up to the rigor of re-rendering back and forth between application which HDV and MXF are not. But “intermediary” in the sense that it’s an “in-between” codec I guess is accurate. 😉 If you’re not using After Effects or another application that requires more rendering, then you should be fine with those formats.

~jr

http://www.johnrofrano.com
http://www.vasst.com

[Kristian Tigersjäl]

As of now the only processing I do (both editing and mastering) is done within the same application so I guess I don’t have the need to reencode multiple times and could just stick with HDV or MFX for now.

Now I’m battling another issue: not getting good enough quality from the cam in low light conditions, always something 😉

Thanks for the answers!

[Chris Young]

As John says, if you are not doing a lot of compositing and the MXF files work fine for you then go with the MXF files, and as you say they take up much less space. If you have to do a lot of compositing then go with the Cineform codec. It’s $130 bucks you won’t regret. We shoot all our shows on XDCam HD cameras that record native MXF. We edit natively in MXF we render out in MXF and deliver to the networks MXF masters at 1920×1080 50i 4:2:2 50-mbit. Have no concerns because if done correctly your quality will be full broadcast. Quite a bit of our program material contains onboard camera footage shot in AVCHD 1920×1080 and once converted to either MXF or Cineform it comes up well. If you can satisfy network HD delivery requirements then there is not too much wrong with your quality.

Chris Young
CYV Productions
Sydney

[Kristian Tigersjäl]

While at the subject, maybe you know… The HDV files is basically a slightly improved standard MPEG2 codec as far as I understand? What about the MPEG2 compression used in MFX files? I know MFX is just a container but it’s commonly used with a MPEG2 compression that is called “MPEG2-HD”. What’s the different between HDV MPEG2 and MFX MPEG2-HD? Is the HD better in any way? I do realize both can be adjusted to different bitrates.

Kristian

[Chris Young]

The HDV codec is a constant bit rate 25-mbit stream with mpeg layer 2 compressed audio.

Not sitting in front of a unit but I think I am right in saying that with the current Sony Vegas HD MXF render flavours you have starting at the top the 1920×1080 50-mbit 4:2:2 constant bit rate codec (double that of HDV) with up to eight tracks of uncompressed PCM audio.

Next is the 35m-bit 4:2:0 (HQ) format. This can be either 1920×1080 or 1440×1080. This 35-mbit variable bit rate 4:2:0 codec compares quite favourably (apart from when keying) with the 50-mbit codec in spite of being 4:2:0 because its variable bit rate is very efficient and it’s compression ratio overall is 16:1 as opposed to 20:1 for the 50-mbit codec. This 35-mbit codec can support up to four PCM audio tracks.

Next is the 25-mbit fixed bit rate MXF (SP) format that is the same as HDV but with the better uncompressed PCM audio tracks.

Finally there is the 17.5-mbit codec, commonly referred to as 18-mbit, (LP) format. This is hardly used; sometimes know as the ENG choice.

So to answer your question? Yes the 50 and 35-mbit HD codecs are better than the standard 25-mbit HDV codec in terms of both video and audio. We shoot a lot of material in 35-mbit but always deliver our network masters rendered out at 1920x1080i 50-mbit 4:2:2. This is basically the best of the Vegas templates.

Chris Young
CYV Productions
Sydney

[Kristian Tigersjäl]

Thanks for a very detailed answer. This really helped me in choosing my codecs for editing and understanding the differences. I’ll probably go for either HDV or MFX as long as vegas handles them nicely on my computer which it should really on the 4 cores running on 64bit.

I’m still puzzled however at why most delivery formats make vegas cry for help when used with transitions as it handles to play them back so well including effects etc. An enigma, perhaps it will work better in the future.

ps: compliments to a very good page! one hint would be not sending out posting notifications for your own posts 😉

[John Rofrano]

I’m still puzzled however at why most delivery formats make vegas cry for help when used with transitions as it handles to play them back so well including effects etc. An enigma, perhaps it will work better in the future.

Because delivery formats are optimized for delivery, not editing. They play back great, they edit poorly. Adding transitions is editing.

~jr

http://www.johnrofrano.com
http://www.vasst.com

[Kristian Tigersjäl]

Funny thing is, other editing works great! such as effects, adding texts etc. But I guess those things that work aren’t editing the files in the same kind of way. Well I’m still much happier now adays with video editing compared to the early days in adobe premiere 3 or was it 4… I remember one video editing session usually incorporated 4 reboots and a dozen of crashes and the harddrive sounded like a sewing machine 90% of the time. That is thank god gone with the new computers, even in HD.