I'm trying to find a non-lossy intermediate codec for MTS files to ease editing in Vegas Pro 9.

Tried so far:

To Huffyuv via Prism - found no difference, in fact I think clips were actually a bit choppier to edit.

To Avid DNxHD via MPEG Streamclip - Streamclip did not recognize MTS as a format, so non-starter.

Abandoning the freeby route: Tested NeoScene trial - dropping the converted clips on the timeline caused Vegas to crash!

So I'm currently back to editing MTS clips directly until I find a workable solution.

-Terence

What PC do you have as editing MTS should not be a problem for Vegas 9. Try changing the preview settings to get to the point where you get full frame rate. Vegas will reduce resolution to get smooth editing I don't find this a problem as the preview size on my screen is a lot less than 1920x1080 anyway.

Ron Evans

editing MTS should not be a problem for Vegas 9.
Ron Evans
Nor is it until you add a few tracks and transitions. I now mostly use proxies. You get used to the workflow.

That is why I edit with Edius and HQ conversion for multicam. But for single track it should work fine.

Ron Evans

Comments so far are pretty much what I have found in fact: I have a Quad core Q9400, 2.66 GHz. Editing even a few tracks of MTS is fine, even at 1080. But I was recently making a pop song video that had multiple takes across several tracks, plus various effects. Vegas actually coped and, although a bit choppy at times, it got the job done.

It's my slightly perfectionist nature to optimize a workflow, so reading that H.264 was never intended for editing lead me up this path.

Do you guys think I should just leave well alone then?

Thanks,
Terence

After working with a littany of codecs (HuffYUV, Lagarith, DNxHD, Jpeg2k), I've really only found one suitable for working in Vegas with no proxy. And that's the new Matrox VfW codecs. They are i-frame, high quality, and reside inside a .AVI container. They are not as efficient as Cineform, meaning they make larger files for the same quality, but that quality is EXCELLENT. Even doing mathematical differencing, once you get over about 150Mbps, the loss is negligible. I'm not working in Vegas a lot these days, but when I do, this is my only codec of choice. That is if I am STAYING in Vegas.

If I am going over to Mac and back, I use DNxHD. And for Archival purposes, it's Jpeg2000. But for just editing, it's the Matrox codecs all the way. And bonus is, they're absolutely free.

Hello Perrone, and thanks for your valued take on this, having read your previous postings on Edius.

Anyway, while I have Vegas I think the Matrox Codecs are worth a try. I have just loaded them in Prism. I'm assuming Matrox Uncompressed HD is the correct flavor for my purpose?

-Terence

Hello Perrone, and thanks for your valued take on this, having read your previous postings on Edius.

Anyway, while I have Vegas I think the Matrox Codecs are worth a try. I have just loaded them in Prism. I'm assuming Matrox Uncompressed HD is the correct flavor for my purpose?

-Terence

Oh goodness no! Use the i-frame HD. and adjust the bitrate to your needs.

Yikes! You were right. Uncomcompressed is humongous (of course!). So I tried the MPEG I-frame HD at a conservative 50 Mb/s. Unfortunately the output file gives a black screen, in any player or in Vegas. Hmm...

Did you restart your computer after installing the codecs?

Hi Perrone,

I did the reboot and even re-rendered the clip, but same deal.

I have a fairly basic set-up, no dedicated output monitor and an NVIDA 9800 GPU. So I wouldn't wast too much time helping me trouble-shoot this - but thanks.

Another question, if I may, more to help my faltering knowledge gap:

One format I recently used as an intermediate to mux some audio from within Vegas, was mxf set at HQ. This produced files about 30% larger than the original MTS and, with my poor eye at least, I couldn't detect any visible loss of quality on final rendering. I know it's a container and I'm vague about what codec Vegas employs. As best I can remember, Vegas handled these mxf renders fairly smoothly. Would this be a viable alternative as a default intermediate for my general work flow? I recently purchased the Marantz PMD661 for dedicated sound capture, so zipping A to V prior to editing will be mostly de rigueur from now on.

-Terence

The codec is inside that MXF is Mpeg2. Ostensibly, the same codec that is in the XDCamEX cameras and the Convergent Design recording device. At HQ it is 50Mbps, so quite similar to what the new Canon XF cameras are going to be recording. Whether that will stand up as a true intermediate I have my doubts, but for a one-time pass, it should be find.

And whether or not you can see the difference or not, believe me, it's lossy.

You are the second person I've heard have issues with the Matrox codec. I am almost wondering if there isn't something else going on or you've got a bad copy of them. I know several people using them, and I am using them on three machines with no issues at all.

-P


Hi Perrone,

I did the reboot and even re-rendered the clip, but same deal.

I have a fairly basic set-up, no dedicated output monitor and an NVIDA 9800 GPU. So I wouldn't wast too much time helping me trouble-shoot this - but thanks.

Another question, if I may, more to help my faltering knowledge gap:

One format I recently used as an intermediate to mux some audio from within Vegas, was mxf set at HQ. This produced files about 30% larger than the original MTS and, with my poor eye at least, I couldn't detect any visible loss of quality on final rendering. I know it's a container and I'm vague about what codec Vegas employs. As best I can remember, Vegas handled these mxf renders fairly smoothly. Would this be a viable alternative as a default intermediate for my general work flow? I recently purchased the Marantz PMD661 for dedicated sound capture, so zipping A to V prior to editing will be mostly de rigueur from now on.

-Terence

Cineform's NEO SCENE CODEC works great with Sony Vegas Pro. You can download a free trial to test it out yourself:

Cineform NeoScene (http://www.cineform.com/neoscene/features.php)

I recently tried the Matrox I frame codecs with Vegas. Back in the day I developed I frame only mpeg2 codecs for Avid Liquid and they worked great. Of course these were raw m2v files which never really worked in Vegas without muxing into a container. I thought the Matrox codecs should work fairly well but so far the performance hasn't been the best for me. Although I have only tried it on a smaller system with a single drive so I think most of my problems may be drive bandwidth issues. One of these days I will give it a shot on one of my better systems with a raid drive.

Cineform's NEO SCENE CODEC works great with Sony Vegas Pro. You can download a free trial to test it out yourself:

Cineform NeoScene (http://www.cineform.com/neoscene/features.php)

Thanks for your input, Guy: Please see my first post - I did try this, but dropping the rendered clip on the timeline caused Vegas to simply crash - without fanfare!

Thanks for your input, Guy: Please see my first post - I did try this, but dropping the rendered clip on the timeline caused Vegas to simply crash - without fanfare!

...Something must be seriously wrong with your either the NEO SCENE or Vegas Pro install. I've been using NEO SCENE on three different computers with zero problems for almost one year now. ( I custom built all 3 PCs, each one running on premium ASUS motherboards, 1 PC uses an Intel Quad 6600 CPU, the other two both use Intel Quad i7 920 CPUs, Corsair premium RAM used in all 3 PCs, 1 PC runs on Win XP SP3, the other two use Vista SP2 )

You may very well be right. When I get a chink of free time I might trouble-shoot this properly - I know how solving these issues can just explode time-wise. For now, 'good enough" is okay and I'll continue editing mts and use mxf for splicing in sound.

You are the second person I've heard have issues with the Matrox codec.

I'm now the third person. Black video all round. (Win 7 64 bit). And the codec sounded so promising.

I'm now the third person. Black video all round. (Win 7 64 bit). And the codec sounded so promising.

Could you answer a few questions for me?

1. What version of Vegas?
2. Where did you get the codec from? Link?
3. Does the video show normally if you play it in VLC or a similar player?

I decided to try the Matrox codec in Vegas 8 on my old home PC. I do a few things here from time to time, so have not even bothered to upgrade it to VPro9. Here's a screen shot:

Hi Perrone,
Although I downloaded the codec this morning from Matrox I did end up getting an older version, build 52, which when I checked the fine print said "resolution supported 1440X1080"(not happy encoding 1920X1080). The current version , 1.0.0.028, is at Matrox Video - Support - Matrox VFW Software Codecs Downloads (http://www.matrox.com/video/en/support/windows/vfw_software_codecs/downloads/softwares/version1.0/) .
VLC reports "No suitable decoder module VLC does not support the audio or video format "M705". Unfortunately there is no way for you to fix this." But it all looks good and plays smoothly in other editors and WMP. There are a lot of settings for the codec, and in particular I need to set rounding to MPEG2 rather than Matrox. At 50Mbps encoding on my system is around real time and there's a 3X space penalty, which is fine. I think I'll be using it instead of proxies from now on. I also hope this solves the issue for the other two people having problems with black video. Thanks again very much for your help, much appreciated.

I have been playing around with the Matrox Iframe 150 mbit codec and it has actually been running slower then native mp4 files from an EX1. Even the rendering was slightly slower. Now granted I do not have blazing fast drives in this system but to me the whole point here was to get better performance. Considering I get the same or faster performance with the native mp4 files it almost seems like a waste of time to convert the files.

Has anybody really noticed a huge boost in performance with using the Matrox Iframe codecs.

I have been playing around with the Matrox Iframe 150 mbit codec and it has actually been running slower then native mp4 files from an EX1. Even the rendering was slightly slower. Now granted I do not have blazing fast drives in this system but to me the whole point here was to get better performance. Considering I get the same or faster performance with the native mp4 files it almost seems like a waste of time to convert the files.

Has anybody really noticed a huge boost in performance with using the Matrox Iframe codecs.

The native files from the EX1(r) and EX3 are *NOT* encoded with Mpeg4. They are Mpeg2 files inside an mp4 wrapper. You are taking a 35Mbps Mpeg2 file in an mp4 wrapper and encoding it to a 150Mbps Mpeg2 file in an AVI wrapper. Yes, that is going to be slower.

Yes I am very much aware of what EX1 files realy are. I wrote my own software to demux the files when the camera first came out.

My point was that the 35mbit files are IPB format while the Matrox files are Iframe. To me on other systems a IPB format was always slower then an I frame format but with Vegas I noticed they were about the same speed. In theory I frame only mpeg2 should be faster then IPB mpeg2 but in Vegas that doesn't seem to be the case. It isn't that it is bad but that Vegas is already pretty good at working with mpeg2.

To me outside of maybe AVCHD I just didn't see any advantage of using the Matrox codecs. I realize thats what this thread was about. I was just pointing out what my experience has been with the Matrox codecs. While they are an AVI file they are still mpeg2 on th inside and I think Cineform is still a much better option. I would like to hear feedback from those that have used both.

From another forum / thread I started some days ago:

" I use Vegas 9.e and have been transcoding my T2i files to Neoscene - big files. In fact I have ignored MXF up to now.
But I made a litle test rendering some T2i files to Sony MXF (35mb/s) and noticed that, beside the rendered MXF files are much smaller than the corresponding T2i files (great!), comparing them on the preview monitor, it seems that there is no video quality loss, and editing is easy.
Is that possible or I`m making a wrong judgment (on no video quality loss)?
Is there a real benefit (regarding avoiding compression) to transcode to MXF to edit T2i original files?"

Response:
"MXF is a file container designed specifically for TV, film and broadcast workflow. It is a subset of the AAF standard.
It is a file container like Quicktime, Windows Media and MPEG-4. Within that container are specific codecs like DV, WM 9, and H.264. The big difference with MXF is that it can contain much more metadata information than Quicktime or Windows Media. Metadata may include timecode, pullown, file path, aperture, color profile, etc, etc.
MXF is codec agnostic. It can virtually support any codec a company wants to implement.
It is possible that there is no video degradation when you converted to MXF. It is possible that Vegas extracted the video and audio stream and then wrapped it in MXF container. This is similar when you convert DV files from AVI to Quicktime. If done correctly, all you do is put the raw media stream in another file container with no change in the data - think of it as cutting and pasting from Microsoft Paint to Photoshop. You have to check what codec Vegas is using to generate the render files. Usually you want some form of a 4:2:2 codec (instead of 4:2:0 or 4:1:1) that does not do long GOP (HDV XDCAM, etc)."

So yesterday I brought the files to a friend with another computer / monitor but with the same Vegas 9e, and he made the same test comparing the original T2i files with its respective first and second generation MXF (1980x1080 35mb/s) convertions and he couldn`t notice any video quality loss too - color, contrast, resolution, everything seamed to be the same.

Then I think that Sony MXF is a viable editing solution for Canon T2i / Vegas 9, despite I didn`t try to edit many video layers with heavy effects in the same project.

Ron

Yes I am very much aware of what EX1 files realy are. I wrote my own software to demux the files when the camera first came out.


My apologies. Your post made it seem like you were saying the EX1 files were mpeg4. At least it seemed so to me, so I am sorry I misunderstood.


My point was that the 35mbit files are IPB format while the Matrox files are Iframe. To me on other systems a IPB format was always slower then an I frame format but with Vegas I noticed they were about the same speed. In theory I frame only mpeg2 should be faster then IPB mpeg2 but in Vegas that doesn't seem to be the case. It isn't that it is bad but that Vegas is already pretty good at working with mpeg2.


I think you reach a point of diminishing returns here. Every I-frame codec is not always going to be faster than every long-GOP codec. And I think you'll find that point with the EX1 files right around 100 Mbps i-frame. Mpeg2 is not all that difficult to decode on the fly. Mpeg4 on the other hand is another matter altogether. Thus the 150Mbps i-frame codec will be significantly faster than trying to work with the 5D/7D files. And likely will still be faster than working with the AVCHD files which are only 17-24Mbps depending on the camera they come from.



To me outside of maybe AVCHD I just didn't see any advantage of using the Matrox codecs. I realize thats what this thread was about. I was just pointing out what my experience has been with the Matrox codecs. While they are an AVI file they are still mpeg2 on th inside and I think Cineform is still a much better option. I would like to hear feedback from those that have used both.

There really isn't any advantage of using the Matrox codecs if you are starting with EX1 files. There is a significant advantage if you are starting with mpeg4 compressed material. Cineform, being wavelet, has several advantages over the Matrox codec. But often people are looking for free solutions. If one is willing to pay for Cineform, then it will create smaller, and superior files. Though I have issue with it's color space conversion. I've used Cineform in the past, and have worked with Cineform RAW. The Matrox codecs, at least the i-frame ones, are 8-bit and that is a signficant drawback. But for many users it won't matter all that much.

From another forum / thread I started some days ago:

" I use Vegas 9.e and have been transcoding my T2i files to Neoscene - big files. In fact I have ignored MXF up to now.
But I made a litle test rendering some T2i files to Sony MXF (35mb/s) and noticed that, beside the rendered MXF files are much smaller than the corresponding T2i files (great!), comparing them on the preview monitor, it seems that there is no video quality loss, and editing is easy.
Is that possible or I`m making a wrong judgment (on no video quality loss)?
Is there a real benefit (regarding avoiding compression) to transcode to MXF to edit T2i original files?"


The T2i shoots the same format as the 7D. Both are around 45-48 Mbps. Cineform is about 45Mbps. So other than changing from an 8 bit Long GOP codec, to a 10 bit wavelet codec, there isn't a lot to be gained here. And there is going to be a visible color change that will need to be corrected later. But the early tip off that this is going to devolve quickly is when the poster mentions that these are "big files". Most pros consider this size a Proxy size and about as small as they would dare go. Avid's proxy format is 36Mbps and Apple's ProRes Proxy is around 40Mbps. The quality of those won't be as good as Cineform's, but the file sizes are going to be quite similar.

The Transcode to MXF inside Sony Vegas is indeed lossy. H.264 is about twice as efficient as Mpeg2. Thus it would take nearly 100 Mpbs of Mpeg2 to provide similar quality to the 7D/550D files. The MXF options in Vegas are 35 Mbps, or 50 Mbps. These constitute a significant step down. Due to their lower bandwidth, they will certainly create smaller files though.



Response:
"MXF is a file container designed specifically for TV, film and broadcast workflow. It is a subset of the AAF standard.
It is a file container like Quicktime, Windows Media and MPEG-4. Within that container are specific codecs like DV, WM 9, and H.264. The big difference with MXF is that it can contain much more metadata information than Quicktime or Windows Media. Metadata may include timecode, pullown, file path, aperture, color profile, etc, etc.
MXF is codec agnostic. It can virtually support any codec a company wants to implement.
It is possible that there is no video degradation when you converted to MXF. It is possible that Vegas extracted the video and audio stream and then wrapped it in MXF container. This is similar when you convert DV files from AVI to Quicktime. If done correctly, all you do is put the raw media stream in another file container with no change in the data - think of it as cutting and pasting from Microsoft Paint to Photoshop. You have to check what codec Vegas is using to generate the render files. Usually you want some form of a 4:2:2 codec (instead of 4:2:0 or 4:1:1) that does not do long GOP (HDV XDCAM, etc)."


Though MXF is codec agnostic, Sony's implementation inside Vegas is not. It's Mpeg2. Only. It is either 4:2:0 35 Mbps or 4:2:2 50 Mbps. Both Long GOP.



So yesterday I brought the files to a friend with another computer / monitor but with the same Vegas 9e, and he made the same test comparing the original T2i files with its respective first and second generation MXF (1980x1080 35mb/s) convertions and he couldn`t notice any video quality loss too - color, contrast, resolution, everything seamed to be the same.


How did you do the comparison. A mathematical difference would have shown a massive amount of loss. And that is the method I use to determine just how much I am throwing away. It's scientific and VERY accurate. It's also quite easy to see to the casual observer.


Then I think that Sony MXF is a viable editing solution for Canon T2i / Vegas 9, despite I didn`t try to edit many video layers with heavy effects in the same project.

Ron

The Sony MXF codec, to my view, is a poor choice for an editing codec because:

1. It is low bandwidth
2. It is Long GOP
3. It has subsampled colors (though this is not such a big deal for most delivery)
4. It is lossy mpeg2
5. It will cause Vegas to choke as your project gets more advanced.


All that said, it might work perfectly for your needs. I don't know what those needs are. If you are delivering 2 minute videos to YouTube it may be overkill. But if you are looking to deliver pro level work, then it's a poor solution and something like Cineform, the Matrox i-frame codecs, DNxHD, CanopusHQ, or others would be better choices. Each of those has things to work around, but each is a higher quality solution.

Thank you Perrone. I gess I understand what you are talking about.
My needs are pro level - TV broadcast (and maybe a theater projection).
Our comparison was not scientific and not VERY accurate. We used our eyes.
I believe in you that "mathematical difference would have shown a massive amount of loss".
But as unscientific testers and casual observers (eye checking), I´m sure I and my (video professional) friend noticed absolutely NO change in video paramethers / image appearance.
We put each video file (T2i original, first and second generation Sony MXF converted files) in each Vegas 9e track and pressed solo button on each track to compare them in a 19`widescreen LCD monitor. No change at all. They behave as clones.
Again, thank you for your comments.
Ron

Render the events to uncompressed AVI or uncompressed MOV (I prefer MOV files) which will have the smallest hit on quality. The problem with compressed video formats is that the processor has to do a lot of decoding between I-frames. By transcoding to uncompressed AVI, you will not have that overhead.

The PavTube MTS Converter software seems to do a decent job. I've had good results converting the .mts files to .mov, with the settings h.264, 1200, 1280*720, 25fps, aac. The files look good on my PC.

Pavtube MTS/M2TS Converter - Convert MTS/M2TS to AVI,WMV. (http://www.pavtube.com/mts-converter/)

did you tried HD stream tools, I just downloaded it and still evaluating, it converts videos and also converts framerates, does pulldown removal and many things more. I like it gets apperture and shutter speed info from my SD9, have converted a few avchd for testing and the results are very nice so far, but it has a lot of options, would like to see a professionals review about , the web is CineComp Software - HD StreamTools - Professional video processor converter and transcoder for HD,HDV and AVCHD video cameras. Convert, pulldown removal, deinterlace, slow motion, superwhites, convert to 24p. (http://www.cinecomp.com)