Video editing recomendations?

[ginodiver2011]

because i just downloaded,,, and dont understand how to use it!!!!!!!!!

 

[PerroneFord]

Cineform, uses wavelet compression. It is not uncompressed. Wavelet is a very excellent compression scheme also employed in the RED cameras.

Cineform uses 10bit color depth, unlike most consumer codecs (but pro codecs are mostly 10bit such as DnxHD in Avid, ProRes in FCP, etc.) which gives quite a lot more latitude to move colors around as well as luma.

On a PC, Cineform wraps into a .AVI file, which is what Vegas wants. Thus giving good timeline performance, and excellent color fidelity. There are other ways to get similar quality, but most have other drawbacks.

Cineform has some pecularities that prevent me from using it, but for most people it's just the ticket.

-P

I believe the benefit theory to Cineform is the converted files are uncompressed, which makes them easier to edit with less powerful computers. Another benefit is the uncompressed files are converted to a much larger color space which allows better color, lighting and contrast changes.

Someone like Perone can explain it better and more accurately, but I'll give it a shot.

Take the color yellow. Let's say the different shades of yellow go from 1-5. Editing compressed footage allows you to change the shades in increments of 1: 1 2 3 4 5. Uncompress the footage, the shades are still 1-5, but the uncompressed footage allows shade increments of .5: 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 etc..

Not sure how accurate this is, but it's how it was explained to me. Kinda makes sense since the uncompressed files are much larger.

 

[danvolker]

Cineform, uses wavelet compression. It is not uncompressed. Wavelet is a very excellent compression scheme also employed in the RED cameras.

Cineform uses 10bit color depth, unlike most consumer codecs (but pro codecs are mostly 10bit such as DnxHD in Avid, ProRes in FCP, etc.) which gives quite a lot more latitude to move colors around as well as luma.

On a PC, Cineform wraps into a .AVI file, which is what Vegas wants. Thus giving good timeline performance, and excellent color fidelity. There are other ways to get similar quality, but most have other drawbacks.

Cineform has some pecularities that prevent me from using it, but for most people it's just the ticket.

-P

Perrone,
The biggest issue I have right now in my videos, is getting them uploaded to Youtube....I am using Youtube because of the expectation that it will be more effective at increasing the ranking of South Florida Dive Journal > Home from linking of the videos and hits....over better quality video sites like vimeo ( which I would ALSO upload to once I create a really well produced and interesting video )
The issue for me is I want good 1080p for those with fast download potentials, so I have tried uploading avi files ( takes more than 2 days, so is problematic on many levels--and can fail often regardless of the nonsense about the java based resume feature--does not come close to delivering)...I have also used 10mps wmv which also results in 900 minute uploads....and lots of failures ---8 hours later, the video is frozen --upload is dead.
Has anyone found the IDEAL codec and maximum quality level that Youtube can actually process without being prone to failure?
Also, is there any truth to the SEO concept about youtube being able to increase ranking level for a website the videos are linked to ( over using vimeo or others) ?

 

[danvolker]

Another question is about Handbrake.... apparently people with Vegas 10 often use Handbrake to render the h264 videos instead of using Vegas. From the forum on sony, the guys doing this tried the cineform codec as an intermediate, and decided there was a color space problem with it, so use something else..and they absolutely do not use the sony YUV that would be typical for Vegas.
I am less inclined to believe that the color shift concerns they have will be an issue with U/W video, as lighting "creates" such color variations, that ideas such as "accuracy" are far less important than clarity and ease of seeing essential visual details in the videos.
The rendering speed of Vegas 10 on a 12 minute long 1080p video is absurd, at a 9 or 10 mps 2 pass quality level....this being the reason I assume people may try handbrake....What is your take on this?
I have also read that a Nvidea video card with lots of cuda cores will make rendering much faster, but there is no good information on whether my AMD phenom processor in ASUS computer will work with the 3800 quadra, 4800 quadra, or other reasonably priced cards that are supposed to do fast gpu rendering.....does anyone have first hand experience with this?

 

[PerroneFord]

Perrone,
The biggest issue I have right now in my videos, is getting them uploaded to Youtube....I am using Youtube because of the expectation that it will be more effective at increasing the ranking of South Florida Dive Journal > Home from linking of the videos and hits....over better quality video sites like vimeo ( which I would ALSO upload to once I create a really well produced and interesting video )

Interesting criteria. However, I feel it's misplaced. I'll explain further down.

The issue for me is I want good 1080p for those with fast download potentials, so I have tried uploading avi files ( takes more than 2 days, so is problematic on many levels--and can fail often regardless of the nonsense about the java based resume feature--does not come close to delivering)...I have also used 10mps wmv which also results in 900 minute uploads....and lots of failures ---8 hours later, the video is frozen --upload is dead.

Uploading AVI files is pointless. All you are doing is shifting the burden of compression to Youtube. And I can absolutely guarantee that their compressors are NOT tuned for quality, but for speed. Additionally, as you noted, the file sizes are going to be inordinately large, and will lead to upload issues. This is not the best course of action.

Has anyone found the IDEAL codec and maximum quality level that Youtube can actually process without being prone to failure?
Also, is there any truth to the SEO concept about youtube being able to increase ranking level for a website the videos are linked to ( over using vimeo or others) ?

Sadly, there is no "ideal". I tend to use AVC codecs (aka Mpeg4) to upload to YouTube because of the level of control I have over a number of parameters during compression. Things that greatly enhance quality while maintaining reasonable file sizes. I have yet to have issues with YouTube failures. I use a maximum of 8Mbps for 1080p and generally 5-6Mbps for 720p.

I doubt very strongly that ANY video linking done to YouTube or anywhere else is going to going to increase ranking levels for a webpage. If you want to increase rankings, compelling subject matter, along with good presentation tends to win over all other factors. At least that has been my experience since starting webpage development in the early 1990s.

Don't focus on building a website. Focus on building a "brand".

 

[PerroneFord]

Another question is about Handbrake.... apparently people with Vegas 10 often use Handbrake to render the h264 videos instead of using Vegas. From the forum on sony, the guys doing this tried the cineform codec as an intermediate, and decided there was a color space problem with it, so use something else..and they absolutely do not use the sony YUV that would be typical for Vegas.
I am less inclined to believe that the color shift concerns they have will be an issue with U/W video, as lighting "creates" such color variations, that ideas such as "accuracy" are far less important than clarity and ease of seeing essential visual details in the videos.

Compression is something of a black art. However, there are some well understood pieces to the puzzle.

1. The codec. Whether it's WMV, AVC/h264, or anything else, not all implementations of the codec are equal. The freebie x264 implementation of the AVC/h264 is one of the best. However, it needs a front end to access it. Handbrake is one of those. Handbrake can also access other h264 based codecs installed on the machine. Vegas does not include a great h264 codec.

2. The front end processor. Each of the codecs needs a front end to "feed" it the video to be worked on. Not all front ends give access to all features the codec has built in. Vegas is notoriously poor here. Handbrake and other tools do a better job.

3. The "tweaks". Understanding the tweaks in the codec like b-frames and slices can yield remarkably improved results but you have to know something about compression and understand how these things can help in order to implement them. You'll probably never see these options in Vegas. However, other software can show them to you and allow you to take advantage of them.

Cineform mandates a color space change from RGB color space to YUV color space. Sometimes I want this, sometimes I don't. But you cannot control this in Cineform. So I don't use it. It most certainly makes a difference in underwater video. Don't kid yourself.

The rendering speed of Vegas 10 on a 12 minute long 1080p video is absurd, at a 9 or 10 mps 2 pass quality level....this being the reason I assume people may try handbrake....What is your take on this?

People use Handbrake for a variety of reasons. But rendering speed in Vegas is DIRECTLY proportional to the CPU you have installed. Version 10 now has the ability to leverage a CUDA based GPU such as those found in the NVidia cards. However, that is ONLY true if you are using the Sony AVC codec, which is the poorest Vegas comes with.

Encode speed is generally 1:6 - 1:12 for nearly anything. There is a LOT of heavy math going on in the background, especially for 1080p size video. Ten minute videos are going to take an hour or more to encode. Period.

I have also read that a Nvidea video card with lots of cuda cores will make rendering much faster, but there is no good information on whether my AMD phenom processor in ASUS computer will work with the 3800 quadra, 4800 quadra, or other reasonably priced cards that are supposed to do fast gpu rendering.....does anyone have first hand experience with this?

Nvidia cards with lots of cores CAN make encoding faster. If the host application can utilize them. Vegas can't except in the special circumstance I highlighted earlier. I have a Quadro FX3800 in my laptop and a Quadro FX4800 in my desktop. And in applications which can leverage them, they FLY. They operate independently of your CPU so that is generally immaterial.

Vegas, in general, does poorly at compression for a variety of reasons. Pro's typically use dedicated compression software and with good reason. I was absolutely SHOCKED at the difference in quality when I moved away from Vegas to other software. I now use Sorenson Squeeze for my compression needs and am VERY pleased with results. There are cheaper ways to go about this, but Squeeze gives pro level results with a minimum of fuss.

 

[danvolker]

Compression is something of a black art. However, there are some well understood pieces to the puzzle.

1. The codec. Whether it's WMV, AVC/h264, or anything else, not all implementations of the codec are equal. The freebie x264 implementation of the AVC/h264 is one of the best. However, it needs a front end to access it. Handbrake is one of those. Handbrake can also access other h264 based codecs installed on the machine. Vegas does not include a great h264 codec.

2. The front end processor. Each of the codecs needs a front end to "feed" it the video to be worked on. Not all front ends give access to all features the codec has built in. Vegas is notoriously poor here. Handbrake and other tools do a better job.

3. The "tweaks". Understanding the tweaks in the codec like b-frames and slices can yield remarkably improved results but you have to know something about compression and understand how these things can help in order to implement them. You'll probably never see these options in Vegas. However, other software can show them to you and allow you to take advantage of them.

Cineform mandates a color space change from RGB color space to YUV color space. Sometimes I want this, sometimes I don't. But you cannot control this in Cineform. So I don't use it. It most certainly makes a difference in underwater video. Don't kid yourself.




People use Handbrake for a variety of reasons. But rendering speed in Vegas is DIRECTLY proportional to the CPU you have installed. Version 10 now has the ability to leverage a CUDA based GPU such as those found in the NVidia cards. However, that is ONLY true if you are using the Sony AVC codec, which is the poorest Vegas comes with.

Encode speed is generally 1:6 - 1:12 for nearly anything. There is a LOT of heavy math going on in the background, especially for 1080p size video. Ten minute videos are going to take an hour or more to encode. Period.



Nvidia cards with lots of cores CAN make encoding faster. If the host application can utilize them. Vegas can't except in the special circumstance I highlighted earlier. I have a Quadro FX3800 in my laptop and a Quadro FX4800 in my desktop. And in applications which can leverage them, they FLY. They operate independently of your CPU so that is generally immaterial.

Vegas, in general, does poorly at compression for a variety of reasons. Pro's typically use dedicated compression software and with good reason. I was absolutely SHOCKED at the difference in quality when I moved away from Vegas to other software. I now use Sorenson Squeeze for my compression needs and am VERY pleased with results. There are cheaper ways to go about this, but Squeeze gives pro level results with a minimum of fuss.

Perrone,
I was going to try the Sorrenson Squeeze, but the $99 per month to upload and process is to much for my taste... the $500 plus price tag would have been enough
Is there a more cost effective alternative for a business use that does not justify this much expense being created each month?
Is the new windows media encoder option via silverlight significantly better than the windows media encoder was......and, is the free standing windows media encoder better than the windows media plugin within vegas 10....this question because you explain that the 264 codec in vegas is poor....

And thanks again for all the help so far!

 

[PerroneFord]

Perrone,
I was going to try the Sorrenson Squeeze, but the $99 per month to upload and process is to much for my taste... the $500 plus price tag would have been enough
Is there a more cost effective alternative for a business use that does not justify this much expense being created each month?
Is the new windows media encoder option via silverlight significantly better than the windows media encoder was......and, is the free standing windows media encoder better than the windows media plugin within vegas 10....this question because you explain that the 264 codec in vegas is poor....

And thanks again for all the help so far!

1. You do not have to use the $99 per month upload portion of Squeeze. I certainly don't. This is an option for client review.

2. Procoder used to be good, but it's been rolled into the Edius NLE now. Most other good encoders are either freeware, or significantly more expensive. Squeeze is really the best professional options.

3. I use the Windows Media standalone encoder because it offers options that you can't get using the Vegas front end. I have not used the Silverlight version as I have not needed that level of WMV encoding thus far. I actually haven't used the standalone version either since buying Squeeze. It's served my needs thus far.

Navigating this stuff isn't easy for those who don't do video professionally. There's a lot to it if you want to get it right. I would recommend trying Squeeze as a demo. I think you'll like it if the purchase cost isn't too off-putting.

 

[danvolker]

1. You do not have to use the $99 per month upload portion of Squeeze. I certainly don't. This is an option for client review.

2. Procoder used to be good, but it's been rolled into the Edius NLE now. Most other good encoders are either freeware, or significantly more expensive. Squeeze is really the best professional options.

3. I use the Windows Media standalone encoder because it offers options that you can't get using the Vegas front end. I have not used the Silverlight version as I have not needed that level of WMV encoding thus far. I actually haven't used the standalone version either since buying Squeeze. It's served my needs thus far.

Navigating this stuff isn't easy for those who don't do video professionally. There's a lot to it if you want to get it right. I would recommend trying Squeeze as a demo. I think you'll like it if the purchase cost isn't too off-putting.

I thought my windows media videos were coming out nicely from Vegas 10...but....sorrenson appears to make much sharper/less artifacted reef views, and the colors appear much better saturated--wmv files actually look washed out in comparison..is this your experience too?

Thanks for letting me know about this Perrone.. I would have never tried this otherwise, and I do need these videos to pop as much as possible

 

[PerroneFord]

I thought my windows media videos were coming out nicely from Vegas 10...but....sorrenson appears to make much sharper/less artifacted reef views, and the colors appear much better saturated--wmv files actually look washed out in comparison..is this your experience too?

Thanks for letting me know about this Perrone.. I would have never tried this otherwise, and I do need these videos to pop as much as possible

Yes, this mirrors my experience, and I am glad you decided to give it a go. People will say there is no difference. That a dedicated compression application is just silly money spent.

Now you know the difference. As you learn more, your results will improve.