Anyone using Connect HD to edit HVX-200 files in Vegas?

J

joshtownsend

Well-known member
http://www.cineform.com/

Anyone using connect HD as a way to edit HVX-200 footage in vegas. I'm thinking about buying it, but that would mean I'd also have to upgrade my AMD sempron to a AMD64. This has kept me from checking out the trial version.

Anybody who's tried or is using it would help me out a lot with their thoughts.
 
joshtownsend said:
Doesn't Connect HD do the same thing only faster?
Click to expand...

Raylight is native DVCPROHD, so you can (for example) create a
cuts-only edit with no recompression (meaning that there are no losses
or reinterpretation of the camera data). Non-recompressed editing is
best for a transfer to film so the film colorist can work with the original
camera data. You can also do multiple generations of editing or recutting
without losses.

Raylight will also soon support recording back to the HVX200 camera.

Raylight can also create non-recompressed AVI's in the DV and DVCPRO50
formats.

Raylight can also support HD editing at very low data rate in Raylight Red,
this is useful for systems with slow disk drives, slow CPU or system bus.

It does all this but you can still use virtually any Windows-based editing
system like Premiere, After Effects, or Vegas and not have to learn a new
editing system.
 
I believe you need Raylight because Vegas doesn't have the DVCPRO100 codec.

I have no experience with Raylight, so perhaps someone else can chip in here.
 
As Mario as plugged RayLight, here is my plug for CineForm's Connect HD.

Here is a extraction from this link (http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?t=61745) :
This is really missing the benefits of using a digital intermediate ... I imagine you intend to color correct, maybe a little work in a compositing tool, adds some titles. All these benefit from not working in a native compressed format. Now if you are just going to capture, do no interim rendering to DVCPRO-HD, no composites and no tiltes, then export straight to DPX files for filmout, then you might have an mathematically advantage, but nothing a audience can see. Once you embrace a digtial intermediate you do your post at 1280x720 (or higher) rather than the native DVCPRO-HD's lower resolution of 960x720. All your post elements such and composites and titles can benefit from this resolution gain. All this plus the performance gains CineForm offers.

This case mvb makes for cuts only editing and having the film colorist do the work, just not a practical workflow -- nor a cheap one consider the cost of any who calls themselves a "colorist", and how many of you are going a filmout? One of the benefits of modern PC based editing tools is you don't have to rely on traditional workflows, and do this like color correction, titles, and transitions yourself. As these of these operations typically incure a generation when rendered out, so the cuts-only model doesn't work (and would you really want that.) My arguement is not against Raylight but against the position that native is better, it is simple not it the real world of post. Try both products, and choose the one that is the most flexible and meets your editing needs.
 
David Newman said:
My arguement is not against Raylight but against the position that native is better, it is simple not it the real world of post. Try both products, and choose the one that is the most flexible and meets your editing needs.
Click to expand...

Agreed on that last point, for sure.

Our experience in transfer to film led me to develop Raylight and also our other products DVFilm Maker and Atlantis.

The experience was that time and time again a filmmaker would come to us with a movie that, although great in content and needing a film print for festival or theatrical release, was not made by professionals in the real world of post, as you say, and mistakes were made.

So we always wanted to undo all the mistakes and bring the images back to their original, somewhat more pristine state, namely the original data that the camera produced. Then re-apply the color correction where needed and the hi-res titles, in 12-bit RGB space at 4K resolution or whatever the film recorder required.

That's what has led me to recommend, for amateur filmmakers, to do a cuts-only, non-recompressed edit at least as a starting point, and also as a backup in case the movie is transferred to film. I don't think there is a transfer to film engineer that would disagree with that (but I would welcome the debate).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top