Vegas update adds support for V1

[Stephen van Vuuren]

Although I grumble that my NLE of choice Vegas is now Sony-owned and clearly favors Sony products (e.g. lack of native DVCPro/HD support and lots of silly support for PSP), in this case it's good for V1 buyers as the update is out as soon as the camera ships:
http://download.sonymediasoftware.co...70c_readme.htm

Also includes support for HVR-DR60 recorder though I would like to see details as exactly how workflow works with it.

I wish all NLE and camera support came this quickly. But hopefully FCP, Avid, Premiere etc. support will follow quickly as it seems like as easily as Vegas added it, it must be a simple fix. If anyone has some raw 1080 24p footage, test it out and let us know if true 24p workflow awaits.

[Douglas Spotted Eagle]

Just to make it PERFECTLY CLEAR:
The reason DVCPro is not supported by Vegas has absolutely ZERO to do with the fact that DVCPro is Panasonic-owned and Sony camcorders and Sony NLE are the same company. Nothing related whatsoever.
Excuse my angst, but this is an old myth constantly propagated.
Sonic Foundry Vegas didn't support DVCPro for the same exact reason that Sony Vegas doesn't support DVCPro HD. Cost. nothing more, nothing less.
If Panasonic wants it supported by everyone, they'd give the SDK away for free to everyone. But they don't.

To further comment, the "fix" or updated features are not simple to implement. Having been on the Beta for Vegas for years, and having been on the Beta for the V1, and DR60 (to my knowledge, I'm the only non-Sony employee to have beta access to both camcorder and software) it was not at all a fast, nor easy process.

I'm happy to answer questions about workflow; Vegas has some very clever methods of getting around issues the DR60 had to bring along in order to offer max compatibility with both Apple and PC workflows.

[Steve Mullen]

Originally Posted by Douglas Spotted Eagle

Cost. nothing more, nothing less.
If Panasonic wants it supported by everyone, they'd give the SDK away for free to everyone. But they don't.

I'm happy to answer questions about workflow; Vegas has some very clever methods of getting around issues the DR60 had to bring along in order to offer max compatibility with both Apple and PC workflows.

Cost was the same reason CineForm hasn't supported DVCPRO HD.

Could you outline the capture, edit, and the addition of pulldown during export.

Specifically, are you dropping frames during capture or skipping frames during editing. If the former, is the MPEG-2 being decoded? If so, is it re-encoded to MPEG-2 or recompressed to an intermediate codec?

[Stephen van Vuuren]

I don't want to get this thread off-topic and into a back and forth, but facts of NLE, Raylight etc. DVCPro/HD support widely available here and other reputable sources (e.g. Barry Green) make it more than a myth. Cineform does convert DVCProHD BTW.

But since I don't own and only occassionaly edit DVCPro, the real issue I'm interested in is how good the Vegas V1 support is. I would like to hear some detailed DR60 workflow:

(1) How are the files saved?
(2) What are the stream details?
(3) What shooting modes are supported?
(4) File naming, folders?
(5) Transfer speeds?

[Barry Green]

Cost was the same reason CineForm hasn't supported DVCPRO HD.

And yet, CineForm *does* support DVCPRO-HD. And they didn't pay anybody a penny to do it.

And neither did Serious Magic, and neither did Raylight, and neither did MainConcept, and I don't think Matrox did either, as far as I can tell. And I don't know if Canopus had to, but they developed their own DVCPRO-HD support years ago, and I don't believe they licensed anything because they don't even call their codec DVCPRO-HD, they call it "Canopus HD" (even though it is 100% DVCPRO-HD compatible). Maybe Apple paid, maybe Avid did, I don't know, but the simple fact is that support could be integrated right now without paying anybody a single penny in licensing fees.

[Zsolt Gordos]

Originally Posted by Stephen van Vuuren

I wish all NLE and camera support came this quickly. But hopefully FCP, Avid, Premiere etc. support will follow quickly as it seems like as easily as Vegas added it, it must be a simple fix.

Does this mean FCP does not support V1 at all?

[Chris Medico]

Originally Posted by Zsolt Gordos

Does this mean FCP does not support V1 at all?

Any of the current NLE solutions should support the V1 right now. The output is on tape as 1080i (60 or 50 fields/sec depending on region).

What most WON'T do right now is remove the extra fields placed in the 1080i stream when shooting 24p.

The camera is still perfectly usable unless you are needing to do native 24p editing. From other reports here its starting to show up in sofware updates.

I think there is even a workflow that will get you to true 24p using some extra steps to remove the pulldown outside of your NLE.

Chris

[Simon Wyndham]

Okay guys, lets look at this from a business perspective.

Vegas was one of the first to allow 24p editing with the DVX100. Now, from a business perspective it is a dumb idea not to support a widely used format. In fact, Vegas does support DVCpro as long as you use Quicktime to do it. You can also install DVCpro codecs and Vegas reads the files. The only real issue is HVX200 etc MXF files. I'm sure they have their reasons as DSE etc have pointed out.

Being on the beta team for Vegas myself, I will also add my 2c worth that the programmers work their butts off to make things as good as they can, and that what might seem like a simple issue to an outsider is in fact far more complex than it looks on the surface.

[Douglas Spotted Eagle]

Originally Posted by Barry Green

but the simple fact is that support could be integrated right now without paying anybody a single penny in licensing fees.

Unless more than one NLE developer has lied to me about this (and I highly doubt it) then this statement is abjectly false.
I also know beyond certainty that the Vegas team wanted to support DVCProHD, but given the costs both internal and external, it wouldn't recoup itself.
Given that DVCProHD is effectively developmentally dead, it probably was a good move anyway.

[Marcus van Bavel]

Originally Posted by Douglas Spotted Eagle

Unless more than one NLE developer has lied to me about this (and I highly doubt it) then this statement is abjectly false.
I also know beyond certainty that the Vegas team wanted to support DVCProHD, but given the costs both internal and external, it wouldn't recoup itself.
Given that DVCProHD is effectively developmentally dead, it probably was a good move anyway.

It would be relatively simple and cheap for Sony to provide a developer like me the source to their Sony MXF file interface to be adapted to reading Panasonic MXF files using the Raylight decoder. I'm doing something similar for Cineform so they can drop the Panasonic drivers from their install requirements. This would allow you to have HVX200 MXF files in the Vegas timeline. Dave Hill and Dennis Adams have my number if ya'll want to encourage them to do that.

But I agree that the mass market appeal of this is nil. You can already drop a CONTENTS folder into RayMaker and with one click it generates mirror AVI's ready for editing, so having MXF in the timeline seems a slim sliver of simpler.

[Barry Green]

Originally Posted by Douglas Spotted Eagle

Unless more than one NLE developer has lied to me about this (and I highly doubt it) then this statement is abjectly false.

Or you just don't have the full story.

Having been a software developer, and having been in communication with various developers, and having researched the process of coming up with my own DVCPRO-HD decoder back when the HVX was first announced, and having experienced the licensing issue you're concerned about, and having seen how so many others have solved the problem WITHOUT PAYING A PENNY IN LICENSING FEES, and having even been in the loop to suggest to certain software developers ways that they could also support it with NO licensing fees, I can assure you that my statement is abjectly true.

The codec issue is solved. A decoder (the key necessary component) can be gotten for free. It can also be licensed from another developer, such as SM or DVFILM. It is no problem to support DVCPRO-HD, Panasonic distributes the decoder freely (as does Avid, for that matter, and theirs is a full codec but for Quicktime). File transport is already implemented in Windows XP SP2, so capture is using a standard OHCI interface. Vegas or Premiere would need to implement Op-Atom MXF support, and they're basically done.

Will they? Remains to be seen. But the reluctance to implement support certainly isn't restricted to a "licensing fee" issue. Any assertions that it is are, at best, inadequately informed, and at worst, abjectly false.

I also know beyond certainty that the Vegas team wanted to support DVCProHD, but given the costs both internal and external, it wouldn't recoup itself.

And I also know beyond certainty that what you're saying is based on old information. There is another way.

Given that DVCProHD is effectively developmentally dead, it probably was a good move anyway.

"developmentally dead?" What is that supposed to mean? "developmentally dead"? Is HDCAM "developmentally dead"? Is Digital Betacam "developmentally dead"? Considering Panasonic is releasing three new DVCPRO-HD camcorders over the next four months, you certainly can't be implying that the format is dead, that would be a ridiculous assertion.

Or is "developmentally dead" some sort of inflammatory language that really means it's tried, true, finished and working (and thus doesn't need more development)? Because they've just launched the HDX900, HPX2000, HPX2100, announced the new HPX500, and Jan's even hinted that there's another 2/3" model that'll be introduced at NAB. All of them using DVCPRO-HD. Add that to the existing HVX, VariCam, HDX400, recently released new AJ1400 deck, and however many other products that there are out there... Heck, Panavision just announced a deal to buy $2 million worth of DVCPRO-HD products. I don't know about you, but "thriving" would seem to be a more appropriate term.

[Simon Wyndham]

DVCpro is developmentally dead. Panasonic want to move away from tape gradually, and DVCpro limits them. Hence AVCHD etc.

Its a popular format, but you can bet that it will be phased out over the coming years.

[Stephen van Vuuren]

Originally Posted by Simon Wyndham

DVCpro is developmentally dead. Panasonic want to move away from tape gradually, and DVCpro limits them. Hence AVCHD etc.

Its a popular format, but you can bet that it will be phased out over the coming years.

You could make that argument for any current format HDV, miniDV, HD CAM but for those Vegas users who need to edit a variety of formats, today, next year and in years to come, supporting all major formats natively is important feature.

But despite all the fun in Sony vs. Panny, I'm still interested in Spot's report on DR60 workflow...

[Peter Jefferson]

Originally Posted by Simon Wyndham

DVCpro is developmentally dead. Panasonic want to move away from tape gradually, and DVCpro limits them. Hence AVCHD etc.

Its a popular format, but you can bet that it will be phased out over the coming years.

to be honest with you, i dont think the issue itself is the DVCProHD format, hell, as mentioned, its been used and milked by a variety of developers, so if they can do it, there is no reason SOny cant.. cost or not, sony are isolating themselves from a professional format used by many studios throughout the world.
In all honesty, it seems that its the MXF used to transport the format..
Sony have their system with their XDCam support, and i really dont see why it cant be tweaked for the Pana equivalent to be used within Vegas
Same concept, VERY similar workflow, same file managment system.. differnt manufacturer..

I also dont think that any format which utlises 4:2:2 colour space could ever be redundant, and P2 being the ONLY real portable format for it ensures its longevity... especialy if you couple P2 with AVCHD

Direct to disc units have proven to be a risk, sure some work, but the firestores and quickstreams ive sold have had more problems than not...

[Douglas Spotted Eagle]

You're right, it's the MXF packaging which costs money, and isn't supported. However, that's what comes with the HVX flavor of DVCPro, and given that it's very expensive to purchase the SDK, and given the fact that the *majority* of the MXF format cams are from Sony, and that Vegas supports their flavor of MXF... all that totals up to "why support it?" If the tools were given to Sony at no cost/low cost, they'd support it. I've heard that commented from Madison to Japan.
either way, you're not going to see it supported in Vegas any time soon, so if you're wanting to work with the HVX and upcoming cams using Panasonic's version of MXF, you'll need to either not work with Vegas, or find a workaround.