DVCPROHD MXF Files in the Timeline with Raylight at DVinfo.net

Marcus van Bavel · December 31st, 2006, 11:14 AM

DVFilm Raylight now has a plugin for Vegas that allows you to
put Panasonic MXF files directly into the timeline.

See http://dvfilm.com/raylight

Peter Jefferson · December 31st, 2006, 08:48 PM

yup, its been out for a while... u DO need a chunky PC to get teh most from it, and rendering .. lets just say that if u thought HDV was slow.. this is gonna drive u mad..

Marcus van Bavel · December 31st, 2006, 11:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Peter Jefferson

yup, its been out for a while... u DO need a chunky PC to get teh most from it, and rendering .. lets just say that if u thought HDV was slow.. this is gonna drive u mad..

The plugin for Vegas is a new feature of Raylight (as of about 24 hours ago). Previously you had to convert the MXF files to Raylight AVI but now you can drag them directly into the timeline.

Slow rendering was mainly a problem with the very old versions of Raylight. On the fairly cheap dual core AMD system I have here for example, a 2-min program of 1280 x 720 24P MXF files can be rendered to DVD widescreen format in about 2.5 minutes, so just slightly longer than real time. That's not bad.

David Jimerson · January 8th, 2007, 08:22 AM

I'm very pleased with the performance I'm getting with this -- and can't wait for the further support. It only stood to reason that if Sony wouldn't do it, someone else would see the market potential and do it for them.

It always was a matter of will to do it. I can't imagine that Marcus paid for Panasonic's DVCPRO SDK -- no way to charge what does for Raylight if he did -- so it shows that a little personal enterprise can get the job done without it. If he did pay for the SDK, this shows it's economically feasible to do so and charge the customer less than $200 for it (and free upgrades! Rock ON!). Either way, it pretty much shows Sony was simply unwilling to provide the necessary support.

We had said more than a year ago that we'd be willing, if Sony didn't want to figure in the cost of doing this into the Vegas price, to pay $200-$400 extra for an "HVX Pak." Well, someone's cashing in on that now.

If it's a market that Sony simply didn't want to pursue, it's their business (and their legitimate business decision). But frankly, that Marcus was able to do this torpedoes the idea that it was all about Panasonic's exorbitant DVCPRO SDK kit. It was obviously about something else.

Dennis Hingsberg · January 15th, 2007, 01:54 PM

How does Raylight compare to Cineform in terms of performance? Same, better, worse.. ?

Also can someone tell me if it's the rendering time that's improved by using these "after market" codecs or just how well footage plays on a time-line... or both?

Thanks..

Douglas Spotted Eagle · January 15th, 2007, 02:11 PM

With regard to DVCProHD, I've got old Raylight and old CineForm installed. Haven't upgraded either of them, but should.
Old versions, Raylight outperforms CineForm by a little bit.
Rendering on either codec is faster than what you'd expect.

Dennis Hingsberg · January 15th, 2007, 02:15 PM

In another thread under the Sony HC1/3/5/7 forum titled "Editing HD Footage" the thread started Joe and I tested both new codecs (trial) using Sony Vegas and posted the results there.. basically Cineform was a little slower playing off the timeline than Raylight was. The clip was 1080i with 3 effects on it.

Douglas Spotted Eagle · January 15th, 2007, 02:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dennis Hingsberg

In another thread under the Sony HC1/3/5/7 forum titled "Editing HD Footage" the thread started Joe and I tested both new codecs (trial) using Sony Vegas and posted the results there.. basically Cineform was a little slower playing off the timeline than Raylight was. The clip was 1080i with 3 effects on it.

Maybe I'm in the dark. I was unaware that Raylight had an HDV toolset?

Dennis Hingsberg · January 15th, 2007, 02:25 PM

We used the CapDVHS program to capture footage from the camera to the hard drive in MPG format, then used raylight to convert it into the raylight codec.

David Jimerson · January 15th, 2007, 02:35 PM

I wasn't aware that Raylight could convert MPEGs?

Dennis Hingsberg · January 15th, 2007, 02:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dennis Hingsberg

We used the CapDVHS program to capture footage from the camera to the hard drive in MPG format

Raylight doesn't convert to MPG... we used CapDVHS to capture footage directly into MPG format from tape, then Raylight to convert.

David Jimerson · January 15th, 2007, 02:39 PM

I understood what you said. I just wasn't aware that Raylight would convert MPEGs to Raylight codec, if that's what you meant.

Marcus van Bavel · January 15th, 2007, 02:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by David Jimerson

I wasn't aware that Raylight could convert MPEGs?

see
http://dvfilm.com/raylight/raylightTutorial7.htm

:)

David Jimerson · January 15th, 2007, 02:41 PM

:)

Guess I didn't have to worry about that part. Good to know!

Marcus van Bavel · January 15th, 2007, 02:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dennis Hingsberg

How does Raylight compare to Cineform in terms of performance? Same, better, worse.. ?

Also can someone tell me if it's the rendering time that's improved by using these "after market" codecs or just how well footage plays on a time-line... or both?

Thanks..

Also in case you are editing DVCPROHD, here's another tidbit comparing the
codecs used in the 2 applications:

http://dvfilm.com/raylight/raylightRes.htm#Panasonic

December 31st, 2006, 11:14 AM	#1
Marcus van Bavel Contributor Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: Austin TX Posts: 176	DVCPROHD MXF Files in the Timeline with Raylight DVFilm Raylight now has a plugin for Vegas that allows you to put Panasonic MXF files directly into the timeline. See http://dvfilm.com/raylight

January 8th, 2007, 08:22 AM	#4
David Jimerson Jubal 28 Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: Wilmington, NC Posts: 872	I'm very pleased with the performance I'm getting with this -- and can't wait for the further support. It only stood to reason that if Sony wouldn't do it, someone else would see the market potential and do it for them. It always was a matter of will to do it. I can't imagine that Marcus paid for Panasonic's DVCPRO SDK -- no way to charge what does for Raylight if he did -- so it shows that a little personal enterprise can get the job done without it. If he did pay for the SDK, this shows it's economically feasible to do so and charge the customer less than $200 for it (and free upgrades! Rock ON!). Either way, it pretty much shows Sony was simply unwilling to provide the necessary support. We had said more than a year ago that we'd be willing, if Sony didn't want to figure in the cost of doing this into the Vegas price, to pay $200-$400 extra for an "HVX Pak." Well, someone's cashing in on that now. If it's a market that Sony simply didn't want to pursue, it's their business (and their legitimate business decision). But frankly, that Marcus was able to do this torpedoes the idea that it was all about Panasonic's exorbitant DVCPRO SDK kit. It was obviously about something else. __________________ www.wrightsvillebeachstudios.com

January 15th, 2007, 01:54 PM	#5
Dennis Hingsberg Trustee Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: Toronto, Canada Posts: 1,055	How does Raylight compare to Cineform in terms of performance? Same, better, worse.. ? Also can someone tell me if it's the rendering time that's improved by using these "after market" codecs or just how well footage plays on a time-line... or both? Thanks.. __________________ Blog: www.hingsberg.com Ultimate Exposure Guides for FS5/F7S/F5/F55

January 15th, 2007, 02:11 PM	#6
Douglas Spotted Eagle VASST Join Date: Jan 2004 Location: Stockton, UT Posts: 5,648	With regard to DVCProHD, I've got old Raylight and old CineForm installed. Haven't upgraded either of them, but should. Old versions, Raylight outperforms CineForm by a little bit. Rendering on either codec is faster than what you'd expect. __________________ Douglas Spotted Eagle/Spot Author, producer, composer Certified Sony Vegas Trainer http://www.vasst.com

January 15th, 2007, 02:15 PM	#7
Dennis Hingsberg Trustee Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: Toronto, Canada Posts: 1,055	In another thread under the Sony HC1/3/5/7 forum titled "Editing HD Footage" the thread started Joe and I tested both new codecs (trial) using Sony Vegas and posted the results there.. basically Cineform was a little slower playing off the timeline than Raylight was. The clip was 1080i with 3 effects on it. __________________ Blog: www.hingsberg.com Ultimate Exposure Guides for FS5/F7S/F5/F55

December 31st, 2006, 08:48 PM	#2
Peter Jefferson Inner Circle Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Aus Posts: 3,884	yup, its been out for a while... u DO need a chunky PC to get teh most from it, and rendering .. lets just say that if u thought HDV was slow.. this is gonna drive u mad..

January 15th, 2007, 02:25 PM	#9
Dennis Hingsberg Trustee Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: Toronto, Canada Posts: 1,055	We used the CapDVHS program to capture footage from the camera to the hard drive in MPG format, then used raylight to convert it into the raylight codec. __________________ Blog: www.hingsberg.com Ultimate Exposure Guides for FS5/F7S/F5/F55

January 15th, 2007, 02:35 PM	#10
David Jimerson Jubal 28 Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: Wilmington, NC Posts: 872	I wasn't aware that Raylight could convert MPEGs? __________________ www.wrightsvillebeachstudios.com

January 15th, 2007, 02:39 PM	#12
David Jimerson Jubal 28 Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: Wilmington, NC Posts: 872	I understood what you said. I just wasn't aware that Raylight would convert MPEGs to Raylight codec, if that's what you meant. __________________ www.wrightsvillebeachstudios.com

January 15th, 2007, 02:41 PM	#14
David Jimerson Jubal 28 Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: Wilmington, NC Posts: 872	:) Guess I didn't have to worry about that part. Good to know! __________________ www.wrightsvillebeachstudios.com