PDA

View Full Version : Why XDCAM HD support is a good idea



ScorpioProd
04-19-2008, 02:31 AM
http://forums.creativecow.net/readpost/105/859717

This post in the COW explains some of the reasons why XDCAM HD is a great format to support in SpeedEDIT, especially with more than 31,000 XDCAM units already out there.

And look at the long list of vendors supporting the format.

Can Newtek really afford to not support this high-end format with SpeedEDIT? I think not.

A lot of the jobs that XDCAM HD can be used for are jobs that the "speed" in SpeedEDIT can really work well with. If the format is supported...

Bytehawk
04-19-2008, 03:35 AM
I thought they already did, that's what the guy at nab said anyway.

something in the gist of 'you can throw anything at it, it will work, no need to convert to a proprietary format'

ScorpioProd
04-19-2008, 12:17 PM
No, definitely not the case.

It's easy for Newtek to make the claim you heard, but look for the footnotes.

SpeedEDIT does support many formats, but by no stretch of the imagination can it really claim all.

Remember, NAB is marketing, marketing, marketing, and all that implies.

I assure you, having SpeedEDIT 1.5.1 and XDCAM HD gear, SpeedEDIT can not work with any XDCAM HD MXF files currently.

Rich Deustachio
04-19-2008, 06:10 PM
The demo at NAB that I watched on the live feed said it supported Panasonic's MXF and Sony clips from the EX-1.

ted
04-19-2008, 10:03 PM
Rich, that's where the problem lies. Sony keeps putting out new "flavors" of codecs and scewing their customers through greed. Gotta have Vegas to edit all Sony codecs.

I understand the confusion. I had a NewTek friend insist SpeedEDIT supported all XDCAM codecs. I had to point out the XDCAM HD wasn't supported.

I hope SE gets there for Eugene's sake. I know how much I'd miss SE if it didn't support our .mxf files.
Hang in there! :thumbsup:

bbeanan
04-20-2008, 12:22 PM
or buy Vegas to convert MXF files to something more friendly the use SE all you want...between the 2 programs you will be under $1k in total cost still cheaper than a tricked out Avid.

As Don said during his demo (and trust me I heard EVERY single demo he gave 100% of them) "I'm not saying SpeedEdit is the end all of editors, but 99% of the time it is the right tool for the job".... "Consider SpeedEdit as a Plug In to other editors... the I need to get this done now Plug In"...

Jim_C
04-20-2008, 12:52 PM
.. "Consider SpeedEdit as a Plug In to other editors... the I need to get this done now Plug In"...


Jeez.. comparing Speed Edit to a plug-in...?
Is that a good thing?

It's certainly not a plug-in price.

ted
04-20-2008, 12:59 PM
I understood what Brett was getting at.
SpeedEDIT is good for most things and this day in age, you buy what you need for the job.

bbeanan
04-20-2008, 03:04 PM
That was it exactly.... 99% of the editing work I do is with SpeedEdit... but I do own Premire Pro, Vegas 8.0, Avid DV Express, Pro-Animator, & After Effects. All were bought as I needed something that one package offered that the others did not have... But I always return to SpeedEdit (or VT Edit in days past)

Also the learning curve for SpeedEdit is so low it is great to throw someone on it... I did a job and the editor I brought in to help out was a Vegas editor it is all he had ever used. So I bought Vegas for the system he was going to be using during the project. As the job started he watched me on my system and within 30 minutes he said let me try SpeedEdit with in 10 minutes he was creating some great video and has never launched Vegas since... I bought him a copy of SpeedEdit as his "bonus" for the gig...

As for the price SpeedEdit cost about the same as some Plug-In's that I have bought in the past.

videodoc
04-20-2008, 03:27 PM
I just ordered an EX -1 based soley on being told by multiple people at the NAB booth that the format was supported. Has anyone been able to use this camera with SE?

ted
04-20-2008, 09:10 PM
Videodoc, As you can see, there is a lot of confusion on the different Sony Codecs. But I "think" SE will work with your files.

ScorpioProd
04-20-2008, 11:54 PM
Sony XDCAM EX and Sony XDCAM HD are different animals, I'm not sure why there's so much confusion, it's as simple as that.

XDCAM HD uses MPEG-2 elementary streams in a MXF wrapper, XDCAM EX uses MPEG-2 program streams in a MP4 wrapper.

Your EX-1 should work fine with SpeedEDIT, videodoc.

(Note that this is what I have been told, I don't have one.)

As for using Vegas Pro 8 to convert XDCAM HD to something SpeedEDIT could use, that would be like the tail wagging the dog.

More importantly, no way would I convert my beautiful footage to a different format in a lossy manner just so an editing program that won't natively support it could use it. I frankly can't even think of an HD format that would work in both SpeedEDIT and Vegas Pro 8 to do this with, unless I converted it to HDV.

Dr. Andrew Cross said at NAB that "MPEG-2 is a standard" that Newtek is now fully into supporting, as witnessed by the new TriCaster Broadcast recording programs to MPEG-2. Well, XDCAM HD is MPEG-2, so let's see it happen.

I think there are more than 1% of us out here using XDCAM HD, so I think Don's math may be a bit off. :hey:

rbartlett
04-21-2008, 05:51 AM
and to set videodoc's expectations correctly.... Folks have been using the EX1. But given that this camcorder is a CineAlta unit with various cadences and modes; don't be too surprised please if you find that some of the more luxurious recordings are not quite right. Especially given the current lack of luxurious frame rate adaptation within SpeedEDIT. YMMV.

I'd say the EX1 1080i modes are probably the ones to encounter first.

XDCAM HD needs to be imported. Whether by writing a codec or if really necessary through some means of rewrapping the MXF as an MP4 or M2T (ideally without creating anything more than a pointer file). This Sony MXF issues needs something sooner rather than later and seems a great way to move forward and away from other technology that folks have asked about for this NLE such as batch-capture and non-NewTek playback based analog/digital I/O. IMHO

Dufusyte
04-21-2008, 07:10 AM
buy Vegas to convert MXF files to something more friendly the use SE all you want...between the 2 programs you will be under $1k in total cost
Vegas for $130 (http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/536041-REG/Sony_VP8Q_Vegas_Pro_8_Video.html), now that's a cheap plugin.

bbeanan
04-21-2008, 08:18 AM
man I paid like $350 for my copy... must have been that $220.00 box and book...

Dufusyte
04-21-2008, 09:40 AM
no way would I convert my beautiful footage to a different format in a lossy manner just so an editing program that won't natively support it could use it. I frankly can't even think of an HD format that would work in both SpeedEDIT and Vegas Pro 8 to do this with, unless I converted it to HDV.
Couldn't you use the free Lagarith or a purchased Cineform codec as an intermediate format?

bbeanan
04-21-2008, 09:52 AM
no way would I convert my beautiful footage to a different format in a lossy manner just so an editing program that won't natively support it could use it.


Well as Don said during his demo it is only the right tool for the right job "MOST" of the time... In your case it is not

ScorpioProd
04-21-2008, 10:50 AM
Vegas for $130 (http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/536041-REG/Sony_VP8Q_Vegas_Pro_8_Video.html), now that's a cheap plugin.
That appears to be a "Vegas-only" version, which is not normally sold. I don't think that includes DVD Architect or the AC-3 encoder which only comes with the full package.

ScorpioProd
04-21-2008, 10:53 AM
Couldn't you use the free Lagarith or a purchased Cineform codec as an intermediate format?
I haven't actually heard of these codecs working with SpeedEDIT. Based on how SpeedHQ doesn't work properly with Vegas without a remapping of colors, I would not assume they would.

But more importantly, Newtek themselves were expousing that working natively is the only way to go for best quality, versus intermediate formats that other NLEs use.

ScorpioProd
04-21-2008, 10:56 AM
Well as Don said during his demo it is only the right tool for the right job "MOST" of the time... In your case it is not
True.

It just depends what market Newtek wants to support with SpeedEDIT. The high-end isn't the easiest to support, especially with the commodity pricing of NLEs nowadays.

Dufusyte
04-21-2008, 11:01 AM
That appears to be a "Vegas-only" version, which is not normally sold. I don't think that includes DVD Architect or the AC-3 encoder which only comes with the full package.
Quite right: no DVD Architect. Then again you could buy DVD Architect standalone for an extra $50. (http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/504339-REG/Sony_Media_Software_SDVDAS4500_DVD_Architect_Studi o_4_5.html)

But sufficient for the purpose at hand, namely transcoding Sony XDCAM HD footage.

Regarding color space, I have heard that Vegas works in "Studio RGB" while SpeedEdit works in YUV. So yes, there will be some loss involved in moving from one color space to the other. Unless you can capture in Vegas and specify a codec such as Lagarith where you can specify the colorspace. But this is quite beyond me, as to the details of whether it would work. I do think, however, that the loss produced by switching color spaces in lossless codecs is not too bad - not too bad, compared to moving in and out of lossy codecs in the same color space.

ScorpioProd
04-21-2008, 11:22 AM
Quite right: no DVD Architect. Then again you could buy DVD Architect standalone for an extra $50. (http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/504339-REG/Sony_Media_Software_SDVDAS4500_DVD_Architect_Studi o_4_5.html)

Of course, for anyone that bought their XDCAM HD gear in the last six months, Sony gave an even better deal, a full Vegas Pro 8 suite FREE with each camera.

And honestly, I love Vegas Pro 8 more and more the longer I use it. In fact, I'd dare say it is the right tool for the right job MOST of the time. But I won't dare to suggest a percentage of users that it's perfect for, though. :hey:



But sufficient for the purpose at hand, namely transcoding Sony XDCAM HD footage.

Regarding color space, I have heard that Vegas works in "Studio RGB" while SpeedEdit works in YUV. So yes, there will be some loss involved in moving from one color space to the other. Unless you can capture in Vegas and specify a codec such as Lagarith where you can specify the colorspace. But this is quite beyond me, as to the details of whether it would work. I do think, however, that the loss produced by switching color spaces in lossless codecs is not too bad - not too bad, compared to moving in and out of lossy codecs in the same color space.

Yes, Vegas still does work in RGB color space, but I haven't seen any problems from this, plus it can now work in 32-bit color mode, which prevents any issues even more.

Thing is, there's no "capture" involved coming from XDCAM HD, it's a file transfer, so it already is in its native codec.

Anyway, I'm not worried, I can do fine just working in Vegas Pro 8 with my XDCAM HD. It's just I'd prefer to see SpeedEDIT keeping up and supporting this high-end format. I like SpeedEDIT. I think it has a lot of unrealized potential, and I'd like to see it succeed.

ted
04-22-2008, 11:54 AM
With all due respect Eugene, the fact that SE doesn't support XD Cam HD doesn't exclude it from the "High End" market. That's twice in one thread that you've implied this as fact. :D

ScorpioProd
04-22-2008, 01:28 PM
True, but it definitely excludes it from a good chunk of the "high-end" market. :thumbsdow

Brian Peterson
04-22-2008, 07:39 PM
True, but it definitely excludes it from a good chunk of the "high-end" market. :thumbsdow

Someone correct me if I'm wrong but isn't the SpeedHQ codec an intermediate codec for editing?

Most of the people I know using FCP with the various forms of HD cams are transcoding to the ProRes codec in order to edit their footage.

Can't we transcode to HQ for editing?

Hey Art Polin! Welcome. You still have your VT system or have you gone all SpeedEDIT?

ScorpioProd
04-22-2008, 09:17 PM
Someone correct me if I'm wrong but isn't the SpeedHQ codec an intermediate codec for editing?

Most of the people I know using FCP with the various forms of HD cams are transcoding to the ProRes codec in order to edit their footage.

Can't we transcode to HQ for editing?


Good question, that sounds like a practical solution at least for now... It's just Newtek or someone would need to make a way to convert from one to the other.

Thing is, Newtek hasn't really considered SpeedHQ an intermediate codec, AFAIK. Newtek has always expoused native codec editing.

But again, SpeedHQ is certainly good enough, I would consider it if the option was there.

As it is, I have offered to connect Newtek up with Sony for some help in the XDCAM HD support. But Newtek likes doing things all themselves. Realize, Sony has personally helped other NLEs support XDCAM HD, especially FCP, for instance. Sony wrote the plug-in for FCP to support XDCAM HD, not Apple.

This is why at the main Sony booth at NABSHOW there were demo pods for ALL the NLEs that support XDCAM HD.

From my talks with the right Sony people at NAB, they are definitely willing to help Newtek support XDCAM HD, if Newtek would accept the help.

Sony especially wants XDCAM HD supported since XDCAM EX is already supported, and Sony considers them all part of the XDCAM family, so ALL should be supported in a NLE supporting one of them.

So yes, definitely if native XDCAM HD support isn't coming any time soon, I would be quite happy with a method of converting to SpeedHQ. :thumbsup:

There is another option as well... AFAIK, the issue with SpeedEDIT and XDCAM HD is really the MPEG-2 stream being an elementary stream instead of a program stream, so really, just having a utility to convert the elementary stream to a program stream MAY be all that SpeedEDIT would need to work with the files.

This would be an even better solution, since it would be a lossless conversion. :thumbsup:

Again, only if SOMEONE writes the converter.

Brian Peterson
04-22-2008, 09:59 PM
Good question, that sounds like a practical solution at least for now... It's just Newtek or someone would need to make a way to convert from one to the other.

What, it can't transcode the streams as you firewire the footage in? Then what the heck is SpeedHQ for?!!!!!!

ScorpioProd
04-22-2008, 10:54 PM
What, it can't transcode the streams as you firewire the footage in? Then what the heck is SpeedHQ for?!!!!!!
I could be wrong, but I believe SpeedHQ is really intended for three things:

1) It is the best compressed format for storing analog video brought in through the VT as true 4:2:2 sampled video.

2) It is used internally in SpeedEDIT for background rendering.

3) It is useful for output of a project to another program that can't make use of the AVI wrapper, and it even includes an optional alpha channel.

But as for using it as an intermediate codec for normal editing inside SpeedEDIT, though certainly doable, I don't think that was the intent. No, actually I know that was not the intent based on past conversations I've had with Newtek.

As for "transcoding the streams as you firewire the footage in", ah, no, that's not how XDCAM HD works. XDCAM HD is a file based video format. Your camcorder or external XDCAM HD drive looks like a hard drive to the computer. Your video is already in MXF clips.

Firewiring video in is rather old school. :D

bbeanan
04-22-2008, 11:13 PM
and to add to Eugene's comments firewire is a compressed format that is lower quaility... If I am doing a job I will always use my YUV inputs on my VT5 system (granted capturing in SD). If I must be in HDV then I have to use firewire.

Man trying to doing green screen work with firewire and you will know my pain...

Brian Peterson
04-23-2008, 08:57 AM
But as for using it as an intermediate codec for normal editing inside SpeedEDIT, though certainly doable, I don't think that was the intent. No, actually I know that was not the intent based on past conversations I've had with Newtek.

Funny, I've been treating it as an intermediate codec for HDV footage for a long time now. Was even touting it on another forum.


Firewiring video in is rather old school. :D

Not when you are on tape based HDV. ;)

You want Sony support, I want Red support (if they stick a 10 or 12x lense on Scarlet) and how long till we get either? sigh...

ScorpioProd
04-23-2008, 12:00 PM
Being curious, why would you use SpeedHQ as an intermediate for HDV?

I've done HDV on an old dual-Xeon 2.8 system, and honestly, SpeedEDIT's native HDV performance is better on it than if I converted the HDV to SpeedHQ, I had tried doing that once. Though I would need a new PC to do HDV efficiently in SpeedEDIT, I still found that HDV native performed better in my test.

And actually, when I compared processor load for native HDV decoding in a number of NLEs, SpeedEDIT's was the most efficient.

Yeah, 8X on Scarlet sounds a bit limiting to me.

Brian Peterson
04-23-2008, 09:19 PM
Being curious, why would you use SpeedHQ as an intermediate for HDV?

Hmmm, unlike you I've found that my old dual xeon 2.4 system handles the SpeedHQ codec better than HDV. I can get two streams no stuttering with SHQ while it stutters under HDV.


Yeah, 8X on Scarlet sounds a bit limiting to me.

I actually have a thread going at reduser about that. Right now the arguement is that with a 3K image you can crop image into a tighter shot. Fair enough, but I would rather not be cropping massive amounts of footage to approximate a zoom!:thumbsdow

Well they do say, things will change... So here's hoping they change their mind at at least give us 10, but I would prefer 12.

ScorpioProd
04-23-2008, 11:01 PM
Hmmm, unlike you I've found that my old dual xeon 2.4 system handles the SpeedHQ codec better than HDV. I can get two streams no stuttering with SHQ while it stutters under HDV.

Oh... Maybe I should give it another try, my HDV in SpeedEDIT on my system is only one stream without stuttering. I definitely remember it not being better for me in SHQ, but that was a year and a half ago. I should give it another shot.



I actually have a thread going at reduser about that. Right now the arguement is that with a 3K image you can crop image into a tighter shot. Fair enough, but I would rather not be cropping massive amounts of footage to approximate a zoom!:thumbsdow

Well they do say, things will change... So here's hoping they change their mind at at least give us 10, but I would prefer 12.

Yeah, I thought I would be able to do that with my Z1 shooting HDV and cropping to SD... Turned out I could only crop to about 60-75% of SD resolution cut out of the HDV till there was noticable lack of true resolution left. As in, drop 1080 HDV in SpeedEDIT in a DV project, autosizes to about 40ish% as I recall, theoretically one should be able to "crop zoom" to 100% of DV resolution, but reality was 60-75% before quality would suck.

I figure it's just limitations in the lens, I'll have to try it with my XDCAM HD once it is supported and see. :D

bbeanan
04-24-2008, 08:03 AM
I figure it's just limitations in the lens, I'll have to try it with my XDCAM HD once it is supported and see. :D

I had the same hopes with my Z1Us too and had the same findings... I would be very interested to find out if your XDCAM HD works any better

Brian Peterson
04-24-2008, 08:30 AM
Oh... Maybe I should give it another try, my HDV in SpeedEDIT on my system is only one stream without stuttering. I definitely remember it not being better for me in SHQ, but that was a year and a half ago. I should give it another shot.

Actually I wonder how much some of this has to do with the configuration and manufacturer of the hardware in the computer. I've encountered that similar computers but different parts result in different outcomes. Like my supermicro board handles this fine, but when we did the same thing on a Gigabyte board, your results.


As in, drop 1080 HDV in SpeedEDIT in a DV project, autosizes to about 40ish% as I recall, theoretically one should be able to "crop zoom" to 100% of DV resolution, but reality was 60-75% before quality would suck.

Are you actually cropping the picture with the crop controls? I just dropped the footage on a DV timeline. Of course SE letterboxes the footage. In the positioning panel I just increase the size and let the excess spill off screen. A friend of mine was trying to do this in Premier, oh my was the footage trashed. :hey: Luckily I talked him into buying SE at WEVA so I had him boot that up and resize/render out his clips. Now if he'd only learn SE he wouldn't have to render out to get it back into Adobe.:foreheads

bbeanan
04-24-2008, 08:45 AM
What we are trying to do is take HDV footage into a SD project then make the HDV footage 100% size (so that it is way bigger than the SD frame) then do a Pan and Scan within the SD frame of the HDV footage...

Look at it this way... you shoot a Dance Recital just a simple locked down shot of the whole stage. Then when it comes time to edit you can zoom in on one kid and follow that kid around... making a personalized video for that parent like their kid was the star of the video.... Yea that is what I was trying to pull off... no such luck.

But I think a 5K RED Epic could pull it off... now where did I put that extra $500k I had laying around.... hummm

ted
04-24-2008, 01:41 PM
If you are using a Red Camera for Dance recitals, you better be charging a heck of a lot of money! :D

ScorpioProd
04-24-2008, 03:45 PM
True on the different systems, different results. But I built this one myself, definitely a SuperMicro board. It could be the RAMBUS or the AGP that limits me, whatever, I'll build a new one soon. Though honestly, my current system works fine with Vegas Pro 8, so I'm in no rush. (Different paradigm.)

As for XDCAM HD, I've made some interesting progress in SpeedEDIT. DVCAM SD mode MXF and HD 25Mb/s CBR MXF, ironically the data rates just like DV and HDV, that one would expect to be supported currently in SpeedEDIT, are the ones that SpeedEDIT won't even load.

While the XDCAM HD 35Mb/s VBR mode that you wouldn't expect SpeedEDIT to understand loads perfectly! It plays fine, too! With all four audio channels, waveforms and all!

So, it seems to me that beyond a feature request, there are some definite BUGS at work here, since one type loads and the others don't, and they are ALL from the XDCAM HD family of codecs. (Again, this should be the HARDER version to have working, not the others!)

Of course, even though I can load and play it, I still can't edit it.

The seeking simply doesn't work correctly with it. If you seek and then play it's like you hit your video with a phaser. Very bizzare effect, but not useful for editing.

bbeanan
04-24-2008, 06:21 PM
It's my wife's dance studio sooooo... If I had a few RED cameras around then yes I would... but sadly no I still would not be paid a fair rate....

Last dance recital I ended up with 8 HDV Z1u cameras, Jibs, SteadyCAM the works All edited as HDV with Bob's MultiCAM worked like a charm...

Quiet1onTheSet
04-25-2008, 02:54 PM
...the XDCAM HD 35Mb/s VBR mode that you wouldn't expect SpeedEDIT to understand loads perfectly! It plays fine, too! With all four audio channels, waveforms and all!...Of course, even though I can load and play it, I still can't edit it...

Interesting. Questions for scorpioprod.
Q.1. What happens when you attempt to make a subproject of that XDCAM HD 35Mb per sec. A/V clip, on the SpeedEDIT timeline?
Q.2. If a Subproject can be made from that file, can you then "edit" that, without suffering the nuclear consequences you've already been experiencing?
Q.3. Have you been on the phone with NewTek tech support, to have them attempt to replicate the actions you've performed with that type XDCAM video file... to see what happens on their up-to-spec PC workstation(s)?
Q.4. Wouldn't it be quite exciting if that XDCAM HD 35Mb/s file is editable on their machines?!

Q1

ScorpioProd
04-25-2008, 03:50 PM
Interesting. Questions for scorpioprod.
Q.1. What happens when you attempt to make a subproject of that XDCAM HD 35Mb per sec. A/V clip, on the SpeedEDIT timeline?
Q.2. If a Subproject can be made from that file, can you then "edit" that, without suffering the nuclear consequences you've already been experiencing?
Q.3. Have you been on the phone with NewTek tech support, to have them attempt to replicate the actions you've performed with that type XDCAM video file... to see what happens on their up-to-spec PC workstation(s)?
Q.4. Wouldn't it be quite exciting if that XDCAM HD 35Mb/s file is editable on their machines?!

Q1
I'm not looking at it further till Newtek tells me things have changed in a future version of SpeedEDIT.

I talked to all the appropriate Newtek people at the NABSHOW and they told me that SpeedEDIT cannot currently seek properly in XDCAM HD clips, which my experiment confirmed. They did think that the clips would at least load though, so I have informed them of my results trying that with different types of XDCAM clips.

So hopefully feature requests and bug fixes will change this in the future, but I was told not to really expect actual XDCAM HD support any time soon.

Believe me, if SpeedEDIT could do it, Newtek would say SpeedEDIT could do it.

And I understand that they don't have the resources to support all formats at once, so it's always a prioritization problem. But for me, XDCAM HD support is a priority.

But hey, I never give up, hence my feature request. :)

Fotolux
07-05-2008, 01:29 AM
XDCAM HD MXF and Speed Edit.

I don't know why, but I have had problems with XDCAM HD MXF 35 Mb VBR in SpeedEdit 1.5.5.

SE closes when I place a MXF file into timeline, no messages or explains, just close.

Before last 2 updates the same MXF clips recorded with the same cameras (Sony 530 and 335), with the same settings (XDCAM HD HQ 35 Mb VBR) works perfect. So I reinstall 1.5 version and MXFs works great!

The problem is 1.5 update is no longer available for download.

The only secret once you reinstal 1.5 is place the MXF clips in the timeline and let the comforming proccess to complete alone, DO NOT TOUCH ANYTHING while it completes!

ScorpioProd
07-05-2008, 12:46 PM
But you can't seek properly in XDCAM HD files in SpeedEDIT anyway.

They are not a format supported by SpeedEDIT.