Canopus Eduis 3.0 Vs. Liquid Edition 6.0 For HDV Capture and Real time editing

[Tim Kolb]

<<<-- Originally posted by Randy Donato : but 3d text and animation and TM pro has it hands down....if you need those features which not everyone does. And I know where you go to do that and it is AE(kinda like RED in Edius):)And am I wrong that a coder for inscriber wrote the adobe titler?

And I don't think you can have it both ways, meaning touting the RT of Aspect then defend the lack of filters(it is a plugin right) by saying you get all the Ppro stuff which isn't RT. But yes right now Ppro is more feature laden than Edius....right now.But since this thread is about RT then Edius has Aspect beat hands down on the features that perform RT.A good example is if you do any keying(and Tim you know canopus has a good keyer) that is RT in Edius plus Nx....render time with Aspect. Did you know nested sequences are coming along with mattes and full alpha support? Don't forget the new hardware accelerated effects with full key framing.
-->>>

True...I do go to AE for that sort of thing, though I don't do a lot of the XYZ rotation/flying text type stuff outside other compositing so Inscriber itself probably wouldn't help me much. And, yes...Inscriber expatriots did code the Title Designer.

As I've said many times on the Canopus forum, Edius is VERY fast, as long as it does everything you need it to do. Rt is faster than rendering, but I use multiply, screen, and other types of keyers on a daily basis, and once we all go to editing and extended special effects, Edius users will always answer that they can do everything that PPro can do with Boris. All I'm saying is that it kind of blows the "all RT" argument for Edius as once you fire up Boris to do something that PPro can do on the timeline, even rendering it's speed advantage:PPro. Even relative to AE, Boris seems pokey to me when I've seen it working...

The Chroma keyer is incredible and the Luma keyer is good in Edius...but these aren't the only form of compositing I use...they're not even the main ones. I think I can count on one hand the times I've actually used a PiP in my professional career, which is close to 18 years now. Bottom line is what I've told Hiro Yamada every time he's asked me what I think of Canopus products over the years..."Don't give me more RT layers until you give me some ways to USE them." Mattes and better alpha support? Wonderful. Nested sequences will be great. Keyframing will also be great, but they've all been a long time coming and PPro isn't standing still.

As far as running the one stream, I'm using Windows Media Player to play back the one stream so it plays full res, and yes, at this point I'm running Prospect and the clip was actually 1920x1080-10 bit, so 1920x1440-8 bit would theoretically run better. I'll have Aspect loaded in a week or so and I guess I'll investigate a bit more later.

I'm not sure that any true LCD is technically "interlaced" as it really doesn't "scan" so much as refresh...

The fuss about monitors is the customer's fuss about monitors...no secret plot there. I think it's important, but with most users not ready to invest in a really high quality CRT for HD, I suspect a LOT of this content will be played back via DVI or some other connection to LCD panels, which are simply not that great to color correct on. If they're properly adjusted, they're OK, but I think some of the huge monitor-out concerns are sort of offset by the idea that relatively few Aspect users who are clamoring for this feature because of color correction, etc. will lay out the serious money for a monitor that will actually make much of a difference once they have it...

I think that may be where David Newman was coming from...

[Tim Kolb]

<<<-- Originally posted by Kevin Shaw : "It's true that the pixel raster of HDV 25 is 4.5 times the pixels of DV, but with the temporal compression of MPEG, there is only 1 full frame being loaded every 6 frames, so the raw data rate on playback should still be relatively manageable. "

Tim: this doesn't sound right. Isn't the point here to be able to display your editing output in real time with editing effects incorporated? Seems like that inherently requires being able to process all the necessary calculations for all of those pixels, which is 4.5 times as many at native HDV resolution or 6 times as many at 1080i monitoring resolution. And even if we somehow get past that, there appears to be universal agreement that rendering HDV projects to available HD output formats is extremely processor intensive. So like I said earlier in this discussion, if you really want to do significant HDV video production effectively, it just makes sense to buy the most powerful base hardware you can afford to back it up. Doesn't mean you *have* to have a super-duper computer to work with HDV, but it clearly helps. -->>>

The quote you picked out of my post was talking about playback only. What you're referring to is the re-encoding necessary to preview your edit progress, and we agree that this is very, very processor intensive, and it seems in many cases, impractical.

The point of this is that the systems that offer an intermediate codec that is designed to be symmetrical, whether Canopus HQ or CineForm HD, have a significant speed advantage because of reduced processor load, not a smaller filesize. The file size of HDV is small.

[Tim Kolb]

<<<-- Originally posted by Darren Kelly :

The output from the PNY videocard will be RGB. As to whether all LCD's image in RGB, I believe some do - the computer monitor type, while the HDTV versions immage in YUV. Once again, I could be corrected.

Any application can be used for professional applications, but when my time is worth money, I need to go with the fastest solution.

Fastest is taken into consideration with regards to

1. Speed of editing
2. Reliability of the system
3. Least hassels.

That's my short list. While Cineform provides an inexpensive solution, I'm not sure it wins as the fastest.

To each his own though

DBK -->>>

The varied display colorspace of these different monitors is part of the point for me...even with monitor out, are you truly getting a huge advantage from the computer screen if the outboard monitor also is not imaging YUV?

Your Ikegami monitor is beautiful, I'm sure. I'm concerned that some might think an Apple Cinema display (or worse) is equivalent to that broadcast monitor simply because it's external...

Your points are well taken and I am not criticizing your choice in the least. Canopus makes very solid products.

I'm just trying to interject a bit of clarification to some of the things that some users may have heard, but are not correct about the CineForm product...and throw in a little list of my own.

:-)

[Kevin Shaw]

Tim: I wouldn't describe the Aspect HD solution as "illegitimate" or unprofessional, but it does appear that there are meaningful functional differences between the Canopus HDV solution and the Cineform one. The most important issue for me at the moment is whether Cineform supports a full range of editing features in real time, because if it doesn't then it's not equivalent to Edius in this regard. With Edius there's support for HDV built into the application across a wide range of filters and effects; with Aspect HD it appears only a limited range of editing features are fully supported. With Edius there's an out-of-the-box option for full-quality real-time HD monitoring; with Aspect HD you have to buy a separate video card and probably compromise your real-time performance if you want full quality output. This doesn't mean Aspect HD isn't useful; it's just not as comprehensive as Edius in its approach to working with HDV. Both appear to be fine tools for some purposes with limitations for others, so it's important to understand the differences between them.

It's worth noting that this discussion has largely ignored one of the original topics proposed, which was a comparison between Edius and Liquid Edition. Looks like hardly anyone is using LE for HDV work, with Edius and Aspect HD being more practical solutions.

[Gary Bettan]

Unfortunatley LE6.0 was not handling the HDV footage form the Sony HDV cams well. The new 6.1 update has addressed these issues and now it is a very good solution for editing HDV 1080i footage.

Liquid Edition leverages your graphics card and you must have a powerful 3D gaming card with 256 megs of RAM in order to handle the workflow and deliver the best real-time performance.

Edius software alone can edit HDV, especially if you use their HQ CODEC. I prefer the full Edius NX for HDV solution. Teh extra hardware allows you to get the most realtime performance of any HDV solution currently available. The HD component output is full res, and it looks spectacular.

Aspect HD is a tool that allows Premiere Pro users to easily migrate to HDV. While you are not editing native HDV files, the workflow is stable and productive. You get a wide variety of realtime filters and effects. More will come with each release.

One of the bi-prodcuts of this discussion is quite interesting:

We don't yet have an easy way to deliver our HD content to our customers. We can encode and author WM9 on a standard DVD, but you need a computer to play it back. WM9 set top DVD players are expected this holiday season. So for now, as far as "what is real-time with HDV goes", it's all about the workflow and not the final output.

Other then for backup & archiving I see no reason to go back to HDV tape.

All of the NLE apps being discussed in this thread, plus Vegas give you a very productive workflow while editing.

Overall I think this has been one of the best discussions to date on HDV editing - on any message board or user group. Lets keep in mind that we are only at the very early stages of teh HDV revolution!

Gary

[Steven Gotz]

I already own a WM9 set top player. It works great. But for some reason they have not made it available to retailers as far as I can tell. I don't know why. It is a great box for only $249.

Check this out:

http://shop.iodata.com/shopping/prod...=AVLP2%2FDVDLA

Maybe Videoguys should contact these people and get the rights to sell it? Seriously.

[Tim Kolb]

<<<-- Originally posted by Kevin Shaw : Tim: I wouldn't describe the Aspect HD solution as "illegitimate" or unprofessional, but it does appear that there are meaningful functional differences between the Canopus HDV solution and the Cineform one. The most important issue for me at the moment is whether Cineform supports a full range of editing features in real time, because if it doesn't then it's not equivalent to Edius in this regard. With Edius there's support for HDV built into the application across a wide range of filters and effects; with Aspect HD it appears only a limited range of editing features are fully supported. With Edius there's an out-of-the-box option for full-quality real-time HD monitoring; with Aspect HD you have to buy a separate video card and probably compromise your real-time performance if you want full quality output. This doesn't mean Aspect HD isn't useful; it's just not as comprehensive as Edius in its approach to working with HDV. Both appear to be fine tools for some purposes with limitations for others, so it's important to understand the differences between them.

It's worth noting that this discussion has largely ignored one of the original topics proposed, which was a comparison between Edius and Liquid Edition. Looks like hardly anyone is using LE for HDV work, with Edius and Aspect HD being more practical solutions. -->>>

"Meaningful functional differences" may be one of the most intelligent things said in this thread.

It comes down to this in my mind: Edius IS completely RT. However, it's feature set is not as rich as PPro's. Aspect does a small subset of PPro's functions in RT, but PPro has a wealth of features.

Which system is truly best depends a bit on how you work. When I say "If you can get done what you need to get done in Edius, use Edius." What I'm trying to say is that Edius is very fast with its list of features. I use many other features that are, or have been until a very recent Edius update, only in PPro. Real Time only matters to me if I can do what I need to do. In the end, I'd rather have the capabilities that I personally use, regardless of RT or not.

Also "full range" of editing features means something different to each person. Some users use features everyday that I never touch. It's a combination of style and the type of work you do. I happen to do corporate and broadcast work and I can't remember the last time I used a page turn transition or 1,2, or (for crying out loud) 3 PiPs... We go the extra mile to shoot the best possible footage and most "specialty" elements are done in AE.

AE is the only place to go to get a chroma or green screen keyer that can touch Canopus, and I like Canopus blurs as well. I also move footage in and out of Edius because sometimes that Old Movie effect is just the ticket for a specific project... However when it comes to general editing of our material, we use serious color correction, audio capabilities, multiple layers of alpha channel (footage and GFX), and heavy duty keyframing....all things where Edius (at least as it applies to what I do...) is lagging right now.

As Darren stated, you need to understand what your needs are and get the system that is the best match for you. You've seen me post around the various forums. I can't remember challenging anyone who says how much they like a particular solution (unless I have some technical questions about what they're claiming), but I really dislike it when in order to compliment one product a user feels like they have to shoot another one down, and particularly using information that's simply incorrect or hearsay.

As far as Liquid Edition goes...I just don't have a good feeling about the continued existence of that product. Avid's track record just doesn't justify a ton of optimism in this regard.

[Randy Donato]

<<<-- Originally posted by Tim Kolb :As I've said many times on the Canopus forum, Edius is VERY fast, as long as it does everything you need it to do. Rt is faster than rendering, but I use multiply, screen, and other types of keyers on a daily basis, and once we all go to editing and extended special effects, Edius users will always answer that they can do everything that PPro can do with Boris. All I'm saying is that it kind of blows the "all RT" argument for Edius as once you fire up Boris to do something that PPro can do on the timeline, even rendering it's speed advantage:PPro. Even relative to AE, Boris seems pokey to me when I've seen it working...-->>>

Tim before we drift off too far I thought we were comparing what Edius will do RT as compared to what Aspect will do RT? Somehow that has turned into a feature comparison between Ppro and Edius without regard to RT and somehow those features in Ppro are morphed now as a part of the Aspect feature set. I agree and so do many others that Edius because it is designed for RT editing just lacks certain tools that Ppro has....the philosophy being if it stops playback do it in a composting app. I also think the gap is much narrower today and will get to a negligible point SOON(those who frequent the Canopus boards will get that one) The fact is there is one Rt filter in Aspect and that is color correction which is limited (and I don't know much about it or whether "Dust to Glory" used it or whether you use it or the native Ppro tools instead)when compared to the SET of RT color correction tools(white balance with luma ranges , YUV, color wheel,color balance and monotone....all of which offer split screen!!) you get with Edius. Sorry but since I did not count the layout tool(great for working with mixed sources) in Edius I will likewise not count the pan and zoom in Aspect as a filter since in apps like AE they don't call a camera a filter. Also what the heck is the "force render" filter that adds a red line....heck who needs a tool that forces a render.....unless you need to render to see the work properly I guess:-). When Aspect can claim they have blend, blur, soft blur,focus ,chroma, luma,chrominance, region, old movie/film, matrix and about 16 more filters working in Rt then we will continue the debate. The one about RT I hope.I forgot the blending modes but even though there are 16 of them I will count them as one.

Your point is well taken though that others who don't mind renders can get more features in Ppro....I prefer to do it all in one app like Edius and hope the gap closes...but I can get it done.

"I'm not sure that any true LCD is technically "interlaced" as it really doesn't "scan" so much as refresh..."

Tim you are right about the prohibitive cost of a true 1080i professional crt versus an LCD but I think you will agree that going from yuv to rgb is fairly accurate and it beats the heck out of doing it on a computer monitor that is scaled down. Also I would add as food for thought....where do you think consumer displays for HD are headed?....I think LCDs

[Tim Kolb]

<<<-- Originally posted by Randy Donato :
Tim before we drift off too far I thought we were comparing what Edius will do RT as compared to what Aspect will do RT? Somehow that has turned into a feature comparison between Ppro and Edius without regard to RT and somehow those features in Ppro are morphed now as a part of the Aspect feature set.
Sorry but since I did not count the layout tool(great for working with mixed sources) in Edius I will likewise not count the pan and zoom in Aspect as a filter since in apps like AE they don't call a camera a filter. Also what the heck is the "force render" filter that adds a red line....heck who needs a tool that forces a render.....unless you need to render to see the work properly I guess:-). When Aspect can claim they have blend, blur, soft blur,focus ,chroma, luma,chrominance, region, old movie/film, matrix and about 16 more filters working in Rt then we will continue the debate. The one about RT I hope.I forgot the blending modes but even though there are 16 of them I will count them as one.

Tim you are right about the prohibitive cost of a true 1080i professional crt versus an LCD but I think you will agree that going from yuv to rgb is fairly accurate and it beats the heck out of doing it on a computer monitor that is scaled down. Also I would add as food for thought....where do you think consumer displays for HD are headed?....I think LCDs -->>>

Consumer video is headed for Windows Media as well...I'm not ready to edit in it yet. I never considered using VHS for production either.

Going from YUV to RGB really ISN'T fairly accurate, at least when it comes to color correction...that is why all these people are screaming for an external monitor. My point is that if you decide to use an external RGB monitor, it's like using a VGA monitor to make color judgements about your standard def work instead of an NTSC monitor. You do gain a size difference vs. the overlay, no question, but the whole point of doing color correction on an external video monitor is to use the 709 (or 601 depending on if you're using JVC or Sony...) colorspace of HD video instead of RGB...otherwise everything but the size argument is moot on the external monitor question.

As far as RT goes...as I've said, Edius is fast, but at the end of the day I need to get done what I need to get done. RT everything is great unless "everything" doesn't include the capabilities that I need.

What I will say is that you can count ALL the blend modes as far as I'm concerned. They are fantastic and exactly what Edius needed to work with all those layers of RT that it can do and they are what I wanted Canopus to add to the RT feature set that worked inside Premiere once upon a time.... On the Rt side of things, I currently have Prospect loaded, so I'm not sure if there are less RT transitions in Aspect, but I show 41 RT transitions and 4 RT effects. Far less than Edius...but I never claimed otherwise.

If we restrict the discussion to what is RT, then we aren't evaluating anything as an editing tool. If the only thing anyone wants to know is what is fastest...absolutely Edius is... However, I don't get paid to play pictures back instantly, I get paid to make a program work to the best of my abilities. At that point you have to balance out all the factors associated with speed. I happen to be editing some CineForm HD footage tonight on my laptop. I think that is fast as I don't have to sit in my office and do this...I can go home and see my kids.

The NX card, which requires dual processors to run Canopus HQ doesn't work with a laptop, so I guess this is faster for me.

Again, if the thread is only about RT...the discussion was over a long time ago. However, the thread evolved to where we're talking about what each system can do as far as editing, and then there are factors that shift back and forth.

[Randy Donato]

"I happen to be editing some CineForm HD footage tonight on my laptop. I think that is fast as I don't have to sit in my office and do this...I can go home and see my kids. "
Whatever you are doing it is requiring a render if you are using Ppro native effects....It can't be color correction because I don't think you are relying on rgb and that is all I know of besides transitions....... I forgot to mention there is a plugin for the NX card into PPro that gives full frame full resolution out from Nx to monitor using Canopus HQ .....and like Aspect the native Ppro effects need to be rendered. Now there is a place I hope canopus goes and that is developing the Ppro plugin further....then we can talk apples to apples.

[Tim Kolb]

<<<-- Whatever you are doing it is requiring a render if you are using Ppro native effects....It can't be color correction because I don't think you are relying on rgb and that is all I know of besides transitions....... -->>>

I AM using RGB...my point has obviously been lost here.

What I've been saying is that RGB works...unless you have a YUV video monitor on your output...you're still in RGB with an LCD. So, what exactly are you gaining besides sheer size?

I think an NX plugin for PPro is a great idea...however, there are one or two Storm owners out there who might be skiddish about trying the Adobe/Canopus combo again. It may be an uphill marketing battle...

[Randy Donato]

"I suspect a LOT of this content will be played back via DVI or some other connection to LCD panels, which are simply not that great to color correct on."
Yes I am lost now.....

[Andrew J Hall]

Tim, I wonder if you would mind spending a moment to help a newbie by outlining the issue of RGB versus YUV.

Am I right in thinking YUV is what you get on a TV and has a wider dynamic range than RGB which is the basic PC monitor color space. So if you balance colors intended for final use on a TV by looking at a PC monitor, whether the monitor is CRT or LCD (and recognising that LCD does not yet match CRT for color rendition), then you are likely to get some unpleasant surprises when you try the resulting output on a TV / Video display.

There was a stage when I tried to edit some SD video using the PC instead of a monitor and when I eventually tried it on a TV the colors were blown right out (ie highlights blown out and sometimes taking on a color cast as well). After that I always used the external TV montior - which I take it is the problem right now with HDV.

Andrew Hall

[Tim Kolb]

<<<-- Originally posted by Andrew J Hall : Tim, I wonder if you would mind spending a moment to help a newbie by outlining the issue of RGB versus YUV.

Am I right in thinking YUV is what you get on a TV and has a wider dynamic range than RGB which is the basic PC monitor color space. So if you balance colors intended for final use on a TV by looking at a PC monitor, whether the monitor is CRT or LCD (and recognising that LCD does not yet match CRT for color rendition), then you are likely to get some unpleasant surprises when you try the resulting output on a TV / Video display.

There was a stage when I tried to edit some SD video using the PC instead of a monitor and when I eventually tried it on a TV the colors were blown right out (ie highlights blown out and sometimes taking on a color cast as well). After that I always used the external TV montior - which I take it is the problem right now with HDV.

Andrew Hall -->>>

YUV has a "different" dynamic range would probably be more accurate...as you found out, some color saturation issues actually find RGB with the bigger range...luminance, in a sort of over-generalized way, goes to YUV.

The point I was attempting to make, then it got pretty lost in the discussion is that that same external monitor that you learned you needed with SD video, is the exact principle that most users on this forum are referring to when they say they need an external monitor. However, why would you have used an external monitor with your SD that was VGA? That would've been RGB just like the display that you eventualy determined wasn't accurate... Therefore my point was why is an exernal monitor so important to these people if all they're going to do is put an RGB LCD panel on it anyway?

I use the desktop overlay to do a lot of editing and the nice thing is that PPro has a waveform and vectorscope built in so I can see if I'm creating a problem with color, but I still often need to tweak on a television monitor if it will be shown on a normal television...

As I said in a private email to someone in the thread...I never said RGB was necessarily unacceptable for viewing...but for those who say that an external monitor is absolutely necessary, but put an RGB display on it...I ask why?

...the only thing I can think of is a size increase and I can understand that of course. It's just hard to make a solid case for an external RGB monitor being vastly different than the desktop monitor as far as color rendition is concerned.

[Kevin Shaw]

Tim: what would be your opinion of using a consumer-grade HDTV set for external monitoring of an HDV editing project? Would there be any particular brand or type of set you would recommend if you wanted a reasonably decent monitor but didn't want to break the bank to buy it?