When I'm editing AVCHD-files in Premiere CS5, playback was very smooth on my i7, 8GB, GTX460, Win7 system.

Now I've added a Matrox MXO2 Mini, mainly for HDMI output for color correction. Apparently you have to choose a Matrox-preset in CS5 for the MXO2 output to work. Playback is still smooth, but I've experienced some minor hitches along the way. For example: scrubbing in the source monitor isn't as smooth anymore and when using the slip-tool I have to wait 1 or 2 seconds for the double screen to appear in the program monitor, and when I'm already done 'slipping', the footage seems to continue for 4 or 5 frames before stopping. Somewhat irritating when it was buttery smooth at first.

I was almost ready to throw everything out of the window and going back to Mac again, but instead I've been experimenting. So here's what I come up with, comments welcome:

1) I start a new project, sequence with the CS5 AVCHD preset, I import my AVCHD-footage. (I've heard some people say it's better to convert AVCHD to cineform or another intermediate to hold up better when color correcting, but others say the cineform intermediate is just a waste of disk space, as the AVCHD files are converted within Premiere as well...)

2) 50pfs (PAL-land) footage is imported as 50i AVCHD, but I interpret the footage as 25p.

3) Editing my sequence, without any color correction and external monitor. This goes without a glitch, slip tool works works immediately, source scrubbing goes buttery as well...

4) After I'm done, I create a new sequence, this time using the Matrox preset, and just copy all the edited clips from the AVCHD-sequence to the Matrox-sequence for color correction...

Comments/feedback very welcome!

It seems the problem becomes worse when using many clips. For example, a project with 20 source clips will edit and play fine within the Matrox preset, but now I'm editing a wedding with 400+ source clips and the problem becomes more apparent. Could be down to my low amount of RAM... How do you guys and gals handle large projects within CS5?

Problem:

"When I'm editing AVCHD-files..."
"I've experienced some minor hitches along the way."
"It seems the problem becomes worse when using many clips"


Answer:

"I've heard some people say it's better to convert AVCHD to cineform or another intermediate"

Answer:

"I've heard some people say it's better to convert AVCHD to cineform or another intermediate"

Thanks Perrone, although just using AVCHD's without the Matrox preset and MXO2 gives no problem at all. But I'll try Cineform, although I'm a little bit sceptical, since Cineform-files are bigger in size than the original AVCHD's, and I think the data-rate is larger as well. But I assume it's easier for Premiere to playback Cineform files than the raw AVCHD.

What Cineform quality setting would you advise when converting AVCHD to Cineform, for simple Canon HFS21 footage, 1080i, for export to DVD?

I don't use Cineform. But I do use other intermediate file types. Each have their pluses and minuses. Larger files typically mean less compression. AVCHD uses a type of compression that is very efficient, but requires significant computer power to decode and play. Other types of compression, such as that used in Cineform, DNxHD, ProRes, and others, is MUCH easier to decode quickly, and thus you get less lag as you put more demands on the system.

I don't know the Cineform levels well enough to advise you what to choose. Hopefully, others will chime in. Do you already own Cineform?

I'm a longtime Premiere-editor, and I did purchase Neoscene for my HD footage a while ago, before CS5... but after that I did a project in FCE on my 13" Macbook Pro, so I didn't find the time to test Cineform. But then I switched back to PC when CS5 came out... really like the way After Effects en Premiere work together...

Use the Cineform encode quality of "High" at your native frames size (Presumably 1920x1080 or 1440x1080) You should be able to upgrade to the newest version of NeoScene for a small fee, which should be well worth it. Cineform files are supposed to work with the MXO2, but I can't confirm that from personal experience.

Cineform files are supposed to work with the MXO2, but I can't confirm that from personal experience.

They work fine from inside Avid. Not sure about CS5.

Cineform NeoHD conversions have worked very well for me within CS5. I use the Matrox 1920x1080i preset with my MXO2 mini. I've never seen lags with the source monitor, but I have seen some on the playback monitor when I've mixed HDV with AVCHD in multi-cam timelines. I've found that working with more and shorter sequences helps avoid these problems. Periodically cleaning out the CS5 media cache also helps.

8 gb of RAM might be contributing to the Michiel's problems. I run 12gb in my system, and I have all the slots filled. I think Randall Leong (and maybe Harm Millaard) may have commented on there being minor annoyances under CS5 when working with 8 and 16 gb of RAM as opposed to 12 or 24. Sorry, I can't find the references just now.

Thanks Jay. Overnight I converted my footage to Cineform, will try today. If I still see lags, I can assume it's 8GB RAM...

Your problems are not due to 8GB of ram. It is due to Matrox's software.

I mean, c'mon and think about it. If it works just fine WITHOUT the Matrox preset, and THEN does not work so well WITH the Matrox preset, then the culprit is the Matrox software. That's my final answer :p

Just read these threads to decide if you still want to use the Mini anymore: Matrox MXO2 Mini Calibration Issues : Matrox Video Systems (http://forums.creativecow.net/thread/132/859736#859736)

http://www.dvinfo.net/forum/view-video-display-hardware-software/486737-matrox-does-not-calibrate-monitors.html
(many here know that I have not been a fan of the Mini, and for good reason: Matrox claims the Mini's "color-calibration tool can be used to turn your HDMI monitor into a professional-grade video monitor". I'm sorry, but it does not make a $500 LCD as accurate as a $2000 Eizo or $2800 Panny. Notice my post in this thread and specifically, the last sentence.

FYI, just a heads up to anyone using the Matrox MPEG2 codec, be aware that any video with this codec cannot be played/edited on any system WITHOUT the Matrox software installed. I learned the hard way after capturing some video from a DVR, and then trying to edit it on my 'work' OS installation. (I have 2 drives in my workstation, both w/ Win 7 and one has the Matrox software which is my 'testing' drive since I have had many problems due to the Matrox software. My main 'work' drive only has the absolute minimum software installed to prevent software conflicts & problems).

On a side note: since you mentioned AE & PPro's integration, I'd like to mention an oddity I encountered tonight. Rendering from AE took 7 mins but the same AE comp imported into Premiere and then encoded thru AME took only 133 seconds. And all 24 cores were pegged at 100%. I've never seen this happen with an AE comp within a PPro sequence - usually, the CPUs drop to ~40% when rendering the AE comp.....now that I think about it, I bet AME somehow is encoding from the file I rendered from within AE (QT+PNG).

Thanks for pointing that out, Steve. With growing amazement I've read the discussion on the MXO2 Mini calibrating issues. Seems I was lured into this 'Matrox trap' as well, for the main reason I've bought the Mini was CC. Of course, how could a $500 box compete with a $2000+ broadcastmonitor, but the idea: tweak the HDMI output sounded believable...

MENTAL NOTE TO SELF: before buying product X, google 'issues with product X' first!!!!

Although, since I assume the Matrox sends out HDMI signals in the correct colorspace, if you have a calibrated broadcast monitor or HDTV, would that be an advantage over using your regular computer monitor for CC/grading? My Samsung HDTV has a built in blue-only function, so if I feed it the MXO2 signal & colorbars and then do the calibration on my Samsung itself, would this be an acceptable solution?

I do not have the funds for a dedicated $2000+ broadcast monitor...

Very interesting discussion.

My Matrox Mini 02 w/Max cost about $850.

Why did I buy it?

1. Because it's the only non-Avid solution that allows me to monitor in HD.

2. Because after testing the colors, it appears to be better than what I had before.

3. Because my budget simply will not allow me a $2500 monitor.

4. I am not doing film or broadcast level grading. When I buy a DaVinci or a Pablo, I'll worry about my Matrox.


Will the product replace a broadcast level monitor? No. Sadly it won't. Not for color critical jobs. And people do need to understand that. However, I've found that it gives me repeatable results with good color rendition (even if not perfect) and for a few hundred dollars, I consider that good value.

Someone could easily bring in a real color correction system and calibrate that way, and if you are doing that level of work, that is what I would recommend.

Converted my AVCHD to Cineform; first thoughts: editing goes smoother than AVCHD. Haven't tried with Matrox yet (party because above MXO2 facts...)

@Michiel

I'm not sure of this, but if you've got Matrox hardware, why not try converting into a Matrox codec??
The cineform codec is a proven workhorse, but if you've already paid for hardware, i'm sure that the codec should be down loadable from their website.
Don't they have a 1920x1080 supported codec? It might be with their Axio line of products.
If that's the case, then running a Matrox sequence should be a breeze...

Warning, i use an RT.X2 card, and have no familiarity with the MXO...

I have the Matrox codec, and have used it. It's an Mpeg2 based codec and works very nicely. It is AVI based and that can be problematic in some workflows. I used AVI based workflows when I was using Sony Vegas primarily because that is what it wanted. Avid workflow is best centered around .MOV. Not sure about CS5.

The MXO2 Mini does not add any Matrox codecs to any CS5 apps. The Mini with Max provides hardware acceleration for encoding to H264 and may add a Matrox codec for that. (Don't know as I only have the plain Mini.).

Without Cineform, one could use Adobe Media Encoder to convert AVCHD/mts files to, say, Microsoft AVI or to a plain MPEG2 or maybe to MXF. I imagine that MPEG2 would be like editing HDV after conversion.

I've never tried this for editing files since I have Cineform NeoHD which comes with Cineform's "First Light" application. FL works on metadata so I find it very easy for me to make basic color adjustments to video files (say, tweaking my Canon XH footage to match that from my Sony Cams) with very little load on the system. When I get some time in the next week, I might try this kind of conversion and see what I get.

I know that the old manual of RT.X2 suggests to take AVCHD files, and transcode them to the Matrox codec.
So saying that, Matrox should allow the free download from their website....

I know that the old manual of RT.X2 suggests to take AVCHD files, and transcode them to the Matrox codec.
So saying that, Matrox should allow the free download from their website....

And they do... that's how I got mine.

Interesting Peter, I'm going to try that...

If the MXO installer doesn't add the codecs and exporters to CS5, the Matrox codec installer will, which is now a free installer. Matrox MPEG2 I-Frame HD is a good 8bit intermediate codec, which I used for a long time before converting to Cineform for 10bit color. That would make a good alternative to AVCHD for MXO2 editing on PC, but is not at all compatible with Avid or OSX.

Very interesting discussion.

My Matrox Mini 02 w/Max cost about $850.

Why did I buy it?

1. Because it's the only non-Avid solution that allows me to monitor in HD.

2. Because after testing the colors, it appears to be better than what I had before.

3. Because my budget simply will not allow me a $2500 monitor.

4. I am not doing film or broadcast level grading. When I buy a DaVinci or a Pablo, I'll worry about my Matrox.


Did BlackMagic Intensity Pro not provide similar capabilities? While being significantly cheaper?

Did BlackMagic Intensity Pro not provide similar capabilities? While being significantly cheaper?

See point #1.

(Additionally, I didn't have to get the unit with MAX. The normal unit is $450.)

Matrox MXO2 offers output from Avid, while the Blackmagic does not. Since this thread is in the CS5 forum, and those products offer similar features in CS5, that is probably why there is so much confusion about formats and capabilities. Cineform MOV is the only format I am aware of that will play in RT out of the MXO2 from both CS5 and Avid. Avid only supports MOVs and MXFs, and Matrox's CS5 editing modes only support Matrox formats (Mostly AVI based) and Cineform. XDCam MXF files might be another option, but the workflow will be less intiutive than using CIneform.

Avid only supports MOVs and MXFs,

What version of Avid are you talking about? Because version 5 certainly supports more than that.

Feel free to elaborate. As far as I know, Avid supports converting all imported files to MXF, or linking to them via AMA. AMA supports P2, XD, EX, (all basically MXF) and Quicktime MOVs. (Plus RED technically I guess) It does not support AVI files at all, which is the primary format of most CS5 based workflows on the PC side, leaving you rather limited.

Feel free to elaborate. As far as I know, Avid supports converting all imported files to MXF, or linking to them via AMA. AMA supports P2, XD, EX, (all basically MXF) and Quicktime MOVs. (Plus RED technically I guess) It does not support AVI files at all, which is the primary format of most CS5 based workflows on the PC side, leaving you rather limited.

EX is not MXF and Avid won't support it that way. It DOES support it as Mpeg2 wrapped in an Mpeg4 container. And yes, it directly support .R3D. P2 (DVCProHD/AVC-Intra) are MXF, and as you said, MOV. It does not support AVI which certainly does put a crimp in the workflow between CSX/Vegas and Avid. I lived with the pain in Vegas by essentially mostly working with DNxHD36. It was good enough for web work and downconvert to SD. But working on broadcast level stuff was much more painful.