Procoder 3 questions

directx - go to the Run command (windows + R) and type in dxdiag

you'll prob have 9.0c

off ya go. :)

So far as I am able to ascertain the Encore problem still exists. However the quality of the output from Procoder is such that I've abandoned Encore in favour of DVD A. I might also investigate DVD Lab at some point and I shall post a new thread to see if anyone has any experience with it.

Fuddam,
I don't use 'Run' commands blindly, unless it comes from someone I trust and whose opinion I value.
..so I did as you said.. it's DirectX 9.0c - Thank-you.:)

Rob,
Thank-you for your comments.
Are you comparing to encore in 2 pass vbr mode when you say procoder is better?

When you say ' of DVD A', is that an authoring package - I haven't heard of it?
.. or did you mean 'for DVD authoring'?

A few points on PCE3...

The mastering quality is nice particularly if you have time to let it do a two pass and two pass VBR saves space as well. I use this mode all the time and use PC3 either as a plugin from Edius or as stand alone fed with a high quality AVI (canopus HQ), obviously working as a plugin saves making the intermediate file unless I want to archive it for later re-use.

Beware the PC3.2 upgrade, do NOT install this if you buy PC3 since it has bugs and will mess up certain things, my advice use PC3 as is and wait for a later upgrade that works properly.

In my opinion Procoder is definitely better than Adobe's media encoder solutions which I believe use the Mainconcept codec as I think does some other NLE's including Vegas (at least for MPEG).

Be careful what method you use to compare ouput from any media encoder, I used to think Procoder was not so good until I discovered that it was soft entirely due to watching it in Windows media player classic which blends fields in a dumb way. Playing the same files in VLC player they are nice and sharp, just like they will look when burnt to DVD and played on a decent telly. So don't be fooled as I was by WMP classic.

Oh, and before I forget beware that the presets in PC3 for SD output that include the AC3 option don't work! The workaround is to de-select audio in the elementary stream template and simply add a separate AC3 audio template and save that combo. This works just fine .

Lastly, in case you are down converting from HDV to SD be aware that PC3 can render to BD compliant format m2v and SD m2v/ac3 in almost the same time as only rendering the HD stuff, just add multiple targets including a rec 709 to rec 601 filter on the SD stuff, go to bed and wake up to all done.

The down converted footage will be excellent unless there is lot's of fine horizontal detail such as brickwork or mesh, in which case the solution is to use the technique employing VirtualDub and it's sophisticated Lanzcross3 resizing algorithm to frame serve to PC3. This seems to finally nail this problem that is common across virtually all NLE's when down coverting footage from the better cams that include lots of fine detail.

Hope this helps, I do think you will not regret buying PC3!

Dave, yes, 2 Pass VBR mode. Sorry for the shorthand, DVD A in this case stands for Sony DVD Architect.

Claire.
Thank-you for your informed and helpful reply - along with tips and tricks which woud otherwise require much experimentation.
So you'll refund me if I'm not happy with it? ;)

Rob.
Thank-you again.

Anyone.
When Procoder appears within P.Pro v2, I assume the P.Pro DVD output options are supplemented by Procoder, not replaced. I will therefore be able to do a comparison with adobes encoding version (Yes Claire it's Mainconcept).

It says it will work as plug-in for Prem pro v2.0 (which is the version I use) - but no mention of the current Adobe suite CS3 (presumably prem pro v3.0). Is Procoder 3 compatible to use imbedded in CS3?

Have you looked at Encore CS3? We bought Sorenson Squeeze 4.5 plus VP6 but wish we'd waited till installing CS3 as Jon says it appears to do everything required. (Only just bought CS3 though, so still playing.)

Hi Runaround.
I have CS2 with encore v2.0 and I'm not aware of CS3 having any extras I'm after, I believe it was more of a 'Vista' upgrade.
Are you saying Encore CS3 is better than CS2 or Procoder 3?
I'm asking in context of encoding/quality of resulting burnt image, rather than menu making ability.

I will ask Jon tomorrow but he was excitedly showing me CS3 and said it does all the stuff that Sorenson Squeeze does - which CS2 def didn't do! (Shame I will now have to own up to him that I wasn't listening to his every word...) It might have been another part of the suite though. The upgrade was quite reasonable we thought at the time. Just trying to decide whether or not to remove Matrox altogether or upgrade the Matrox capture card though, because you need the top spec one to work with CS3. (Always a downside!) We were a bit peeved though because we've just forked out on Sorenson 4.5 with the VP6 upgrade ... never be rich ...

Thank-you Runaround - I don't currently use matrox, so can't aomment on that.

I've read of problems with procoder 3 and encore CS2 not working.. for some people.
Is this the exception or can anyone say they happilly use procoder 3 and encore cs2?

I also wonder if procoder 3 is visible as a premiere CS2 plugin not just for dvd burning, but for exporting HDV projects.

That then brings up the question of whether it is best to use procoder3 to convert HDV to SD then to encode to dvd, or whether it can be done HDV to DVD encode directly, and is the 'direct route' better quality?

FWIW, ProCoder 2 works just fine in PPro 1, 1.5 and CS3 (I didn't get CS2).

I haven't yet seen a good reason for me to upgrade to ProCoder 3.

Thank-you David.
That is news - and good news for me.
I'm surprised procoder website doesn't say it's compatible with CS3, only mentions CS2.
In your CS3, does procoder appear in 2 different contexts:
i)File export movie
ii)file export to DVD
Also, from a HDV P.Pro project, can you export HDV footage via procoder 3?

I have found the following, from which it seems encore+procoder may work subject to crashes, green flashes in preview(but burnt version ok) and green flashes in animated thumbnails and slow running when scrubbing timeline.

I use ProCoder 2, not 3.

ProCoder Exporter appears in the Export list of all my versions of Premiere Pro either as a Wizard or without. I prefer the non-wizard version myself.

When activated from within Premiere, the source is assumed - set the output settings you want and then click on Start to initiate frame serving from the Premiere timeline.

I've used it with .m2t footage with no problems.

I would guess that ProCoder 3 would be very similar, but you'd have to check with a 3 user to be sure.

Have you tried asking this question at http://ediusforum.grassvalley.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=24

Hi David,
Yes, you mentioned v2, but it's still a help, thank-you for the info.

I haven't seen that forum before (directly) but I recognise one of the posters names from google extracts.
Reading through a few posts, as you'd expect, instills more fear rather then glee at the prospective purchase - like this post:
http://ediusforum.grassvalley.com/forum/showthread.php?t=3533
(hope I'm not breaking etiquette in referencing another forum) where HDV to SD DVD gives poor results through procoder 3.

I'll read this forum some more tomorrow.

Have you seen the new specs for newly released Sorenson Squeeze 5? I like the easy watermark feature and looks much faster. (Typically we just bought 4.5 Pro upgrade a few weeks ago!) This is a link to the video presentation which is quite well done re- explanations (meaning even I could follow it all!): http://secure.sorensonmedia.com/pages/?pageID=143 Worth a look.

The results from ProCoder 2's mastering quality have, in my and clients' view, been excellent for non-HD DVDs and I haven't felt the need (yet) to seek an alternative.

No criticism implied - it was just a 'have you seen this' post that seemed to fit in with this thread.:)

Thank-you for the link Runaround - though I couldn't watch all the tutorial - software tutors always have a u.s. 'hey wow' twangy approach - I'm sure they don't talk this way at home...

I aslo see why it's called squeeze - you get the word 'pro' printed on the box for an extra $200 for which you get..? well the 'extras' page is a broken link.

I like the sound of the watermark but this review:
http://www.webvideouniverse.com/editing/article.php/3661901
says
You can use Squeeze to add a watermark to your videos, so that other sites won’t rip you off. Only QuickTime filters offer watermarking, so this is a two-step process.
...Note: The next version of Squeeze, version 5.0, will offer watermarking with any type of filter.
..hmm my sarcasm on 'squeeze' is justified.

Enough dissing man. Atleast they give a 14 day trial download, which I'll probably try.

If you are exporting from the Premiere timeline, it's hardly rocket science to put a watermark on yourself before export.

True, but if like us one of you edits and then hands over montages and clips for website consideration and the other does the website, or again if like us you have editors who hand over work in avi format and I do the final encoding for clients' websites then it is a big time saver.

Different workflows are what help make us all unique! :)

True, but it means the whole sequence has to be rendered first - don't know whether the watermark at encode time does this in a simpler/quicker way while transcoding.

One thing you will find if youhave a play with Sorenson Squeeze is that it is incredibly quick and it must be fairly intuitive for me to understand it! ;)

YOu do not need to pre-render timelines before exporting through any of the export options. Rendering is only relevant to timeline replay - usually to tape.

Hi David,

If we are talking about premiere pro, then no you don't have to click render before exporting, but it still goes ahead and does a render internally before exporting, so it's best to do it first, ready for next time, so that internal rendering doesn't have to be gone through again.
DV with no effects (or with rendered effects) and export from premiere pro is quick.
DV plus effects - or likes of watermark is slow.

.. or were you speaking in a different context - e.g. via procoder plugin?

Timeline rendering in PPro is into the project format. I am not convinced at all that you save any time (quite the opposite) if your only required output is via export into a non-project format or is via ProCoder where the export format is invisible to Premiere.

If, on the other hand, your export is via the Export Movie option into the same format as the project settings, then I would agree that pre-rendering does not then require another rendering pass during export.

I gave sorenson squeeze (14 day trial) a go:
HDV source, 2 pass vbr (max/avg/min 8000/6000/3825) on 190 seconds of content took 31 minutes to burn dvd folder 138mb on hard drive.
*See NOTE.

P.Pro V2 burning through it's own software 2 pass vbr - similar settings - from HDV took 16 minutes. 179 mb
P.Pro V2 burning through it's own software 2 pass vbr - similar settings - from SD took 6 minutes.179 mb

I couldn't spot any difference between the three in just playing one after the other.
Encore happily accepted my 'import as timeline' command for sorenson output - which surprised me as I did a 2 file grab of video+audio file. Encore detected a transcode wasn't needed for this asset.

Sorenson's job queue is nice with room for several input files with each having multiple outputs (web/ipod/DVD etc) at run time - though this is unrequired by my typical workflows.

In view of overwhelming comments on procoder I will be going for that.

*NOTE: The sorenson squeeze had it's 'trial' text superimposed on output, which no doubt has a time overhead in the above figures. I didn't test the watermark, but the sorenson png for 'trial period' was there, confirming use of this filter.

One of the nicer features of Procoder is that you can queue up several conversions automatically. From a single source you can make several different outputs by specifying different targets. Hit the "Go" button, go to bed and it all gets done in one go. Carbon's even better :D

Nicer Alan? - Soreson does as well - your brand loyalty is making you blind.;)

I only talk of what I know. I haven't tried Sorensen. If Sorensen does all this as well, that's great.

I was having a friendly dig at you Alan.
You said 'nicer' as if in comparison to Sorenson.

Yes, I realised that :) I meant "nicer" to refer simply to the list of nice things I know Procoder can do. If other coders can do them as well, that's wonderful.

In view of the overwhelming positive feedback for procoder (and it's heritage etc from other top notch systems), I'll be getting procoder for SD to DVD encoding.
I believe I can work around the gremlins it has with encore v2.

I can then do some more tests on procoders HDV to SD down conversion and compare with other options.

The in-built Adobe Encoder is very quick and for the most part does an acceptable job....ProCoder as a plug-in will be significantly slower but the images will be really nice - always.

Thank-you for the feedback Gavin.
I've had no quality problems with adobe encoding, always using 2 pass vbr etc, but with favourable opinion of procoder from users - including folks with adobe suite, I must take note.
It would be crazy not to take advantage of extra quality in the last step after preserving quality through the workflow.
Time taken isn't an issue - I'm happy for the edit suite to work when I'm not.:)

I now have Pprocoder 3 and testing HDV to SD is producing unexpected results.

Source - mpg 1440 * 1080, 1.333 pixel ratio (from Sony Z1E captured in premiere pro).

Target - (from pre-select) AVI misrosoft DV PAL 720 *576 widescreen 16:9 (which also correctly shows 16:9 within the detail settings).

Results - 1024 * 576, pixel ratio 1.422 - not the expected 720*576, 1.422 for widescreen SD DV. :(

I accept as a first time user of Procder I may set it up wrong, but I expect the results to be consistant with the definition in the target tag.:confused:

Any ideas?

You got it delivering a square-pixel format. Not certain how you change that, but it's buried in the steup data for the output target. Scroll down far enough and you'll find it.

Hi Alan,

No, results are not square but 1.422 ratio - but that was my own gut re-action when I saw output width oversized.

I've tried alternative settings with no joy - similar outcome. If I try the 4:3 setting for sheer hell of it, it unsurprisingly, gives a 4:3 'striped' result.

It can't be a buried setting because:
i) I have looked
ii) It's a pre-set which explicity states '720*576 widescreen 16:9' and I haven't changed or customized this pre-set
...unless of course you know different?

Well, 1024x576 is the square-pixel dimension for 16:9 SD, so it should report 1:1 pixel aspect ratio for those image dimensions. Hmmm. Maybe we need Richard Payne.

I called canopus technical support in Reading 15 minutes ago.
Friday lunchtime and they answered the phone and tested me query there and then - that's something adobe is unlikely to do.
They tested same - and got same results.
After an internal referral they told me results were correct - but when I pointed out it's not what the pre-select states, he agreed it's not right and I'm told the query will go to Japan - answer probably on Monday.

Canopus have always been good that way.

Procoder Technical Support Team, Thomson Grass Valley have emailed me:
'Dear Customer,
Japan have confirmed that there is a bug within Procoder 3 and that the engineers are working on this. As soon as we have a report on this we will pass the information on to yourself.'

Dave , I am surprised by this, at first I wondered how you could be the only person to spot this until I thought some more and wondered why you would want to down convert to DV codec rather than mpeg?

Must admit never tried HDV to DV myself, always straight to SD mpeg video and ac3 audio.

Good question Claire.
Alan has mentioned in a number of posts that in-camera downconversion is likely to be inferior to other processes (have to be carefull what I say or he'll jump on me ;) ).

I've been happy with existing workflows, but keep an open mind - especially with the comments of the experienced.

It's more of a test really to see how different workflows stand up in migrating to HDV etc.
If I need to use something like multicam utility on premiere pro(4 simultaneous streams), it is cpu intensive, so I'd expect 4 SD streams to be more fluid/quicker, than 4 HDV streams, and if need to use after effects for SD output, there may also be advantages.

Don't worry Claire, you did influence my decision for procoder, but I'm sure it's still worth it for the SD encoding to DVD. My simplistic tests so far don't show it to have better definition, but does seem to produce a smaller file with same quality.

I do find it odd though that the resulting file spec differs to input parameters.
I used to design software and while I can accept processing errors, it's coding shouldn't have assignments that over-ride the defined parameters.

I won't jump on you Dave :)

I use Procoder for conversions because it does it better than anything else I've tried. Rhozet Carbon has more options, but where they're the same, the performance is the same (Procoder is a cut-down version of Carbon). But, if you want to get best results, you should be using the pre-filtering tricks that the folks on the Procoder forum have been banging on about for a while now. This trick eliminates, or at least significantly attenuates, the high frequency content that causes problems in any down-conversion, and the results are good.

I chased for date when procoder would be fixed for HD to SD conversion, for which the reply is;
'Dear David,
There is still no info on this yet and Japan are now on national holidays. I have pushed again this week for an answer but, they say that there is still testing going on.

We will get back to you as quickly as possible.

Regards'
Is the whole of Japan on holiday? Is Japan now empty?
In every big company I've worked for, we had holiday planning so that teams in the same section/skillset weren't all absent at the same time.
Confuscious say ' patience is a virtue' so I'll stop complaining.

Dave, that's pretty bloody typical Canopus Japan response. Despite the Grass Valley takeover they still have little idea of customer service. The UK branch is hamstrung by the left-over Canopus mentality that is reluctant to admit mistakes and says things are coming "soon".
The Procoder situation is particularly obtuse: Procoder was created by Canopus. Then Procoder was hived off as a separate company, Rhozet (based in the same offices as Canopus in California) now Rhozet themselves have since been taken over by Harmonic.

So despite Procoder being sold under the Grass Valley banner, the engineering is done by another company whose main focus is on their product, Carbon Coder. It took forever for the first point update to Procoder 3 to arrive, which, in old-fashioned Canopus tradition, broke nearly as many things as it fixed. Quite why they're sending things to Japan to fix, when the Procoder engine comes from a company based in California I'm not sure. Maybe "Japan" is a euphemism for the black hole where uncomfortable queries go...

Meanwhile, over on the Canopus forum, people - including Claire - have been posting about successful HD to SD downconversions. Have you seen this thread?

http://ediusforum.grassvalley.com/forum/showthread.php?t=5141

HTH

Mark

Update received following chaser:
==========================
David,

Firstly, sorry for the inconvenience and considerable frustration this matter has caused. Be assured, the bug has been validated and submitted to the programming team for correction.

I am now checking with Japan R&D/Rhozet when exactly we can expect this fix.

To let you know the TS path this is going through -

ProCoder is not programmed by Canopus/GV R&D - it is actually programmed in the US by the 'old' ProCoder team who now trade as Rhozet (they license the product to GrassValley). So, as UK TS we submit bugs to Japan (we don't have a direct link to Rhozet), who then tell Rhozet US - then the comms chain comes back via Japan to UK TS - yes, it's convoluted! But, it's the only way we are authorised to work.

Sometimes, we just we don't get updated info from our bug submissions, apart from 'Rhozet are aware and will fix in the next update' (dates are not always possible to immediately confirm due to the lengthy engineering/test cycle)

From our side (UK TS) even if we demand a quick patch we are unlikely to receive it as the update release schedule is out of our control - however, we certainly have made your points clear to Japan R&D who will pass to Rhozet. We share your frustration.

You reference other users with similar frustrations - if you are in contact with them, you may send them to me directly.

I will be back today, or tomorrow (note US/Kobe time zones) with a firm resolution date for you.

Kind Regards
=================

That sounds right to me. The biggest problem is that any change to the way part of the software works has to be validated for all the possible variations, that's why is seems to take an age to get an apperenjtly simple fix issued.

I used to work in software design.
Validation doesn't take an age it takes commitment and doesn't prevent customer service and communication.

Agreed, but it does take man-days. A camera manufacturer has told me recently that it can take up to 12 weeks to fully validate any significant change in the operating software, and I believe them.

Sorry - Raw nerve Alan.
It takes 10 minutes to send an email with estimated fix time.
Either put up the goods or give me a refund - not take the money, and say see how we're doing in 12 months time!
The commercial world is a world of choice.

I've developed some software that turns water into Gold.
Would you like to buy it?
I g'tee it works or your money back in 12 months time.

... now where's my pram..:rolleyes:

Your argument isn't with me, it's with Rhozet.

Not much use to me Dave - far too much dissolved Calcium in my water.:D

Correct.
Re-reading my comment 'in the eyes of a stranger' I see that it can be mis-intrepreted, so thank-you for picking me up on that Alan.

Still no fix on horizon for procoder3 to convert hdv to SD avi.
Update rec'd from Thomson Grass Valley support today:

Hi David

We have submitted the bug to development, but sadly have not received a technical reply/update from them ourselves - we were told Rhozet have been informed, but have had no further feedback.

It is quite probable the bug has been fixed, but regrettably we are unable to release patches on a case by case basis. We do not have details on the next PC3 update release.

We fully understand that you have decided to return the software for refund. It's an unsatisfactory resolution for all of us. We can only apologise for the frustration the matter has caused.

You may quote my name to the reseller - reason for return: bug not fixed with no firm resolution date.

I have copied UK sales so that they are aware of the case too.

Regards

That is very odd. I received the following email from Grass Valley about my report of the same problem - 1024 x576 frame size - on July 30:

"Dear Customer,
We have had a response from the developers that this
problem is fixed with the next version of PC3. As soon as this is
released we will let you know.

Regards

Desktop and Professional Video Products
Support Team (EMEA)"

Either way, there is no definitive date when a fixed version will be available or even a date when they can provide a definite date!
And thats 4 months after reporting the bug.

I accept bugs can happen, I definitely do not accept the way the software company have dealt with the issue to be satisfactory.

Canopus quietly released a patch which solves this problem on September 10! They did not bother to mention the release on their forum - not did they contact me directly - I found it by chance.

The release note does not mention this problem resolution either, but an HD .mpeg now converts to an SD .avi correctly. Windows shows the parameters as 720x576 and it no longer crashes WMP.

I was expecting to have to pay for Procoder 4 to get this (maybe), so perhaps Grass Valley/Rhozet are not so bad after all.

Refund received 15 september.
No communication received regarding fix.
>I was expecting to have to pay for Procoder 4 to get this (maybe), so perhaps Grass Valley/Rhozet are not so bad after all.

Making the software deliver what they promise, I believe, is a legal requirement, despite terms found in software vendor small print to try and avoid responsibilty.

.. I'll try and end on a positve.. thank-you for letting me know Alan in case of future need.

They did not notify me either, as they promised, but I have just had an apology from the support person with whom I was dealing.

Time to re-visit an old chestnut.

Procoder 3 has allegedly been fixed to export 720*576 avi.

I would appreciate comment from those that edit in HDV for DVD end product, using P.Pro and Encore / Procoder.

I'd be interested to know which workflow you think produces better quality results:

Workflow 1)
- Edit HDV in P.Pro and export via Procoder to avi
- Import avi to Encore and transcode using procoder (if procoder is accessible as plug in within encore)

Workflow 2)
- Edit HDV in P.Pro and via Procoder create transcoded file for import to encore

Workflow 3)
- Other

Canopus forum reports problems with procoder/encore compatibility - such as flashes of rec/colour on odd frame.
I believe it's confined to preview mode within Encore and doesn't usually affect the burnt folder.

Any rumours about a Procoder 4?

Hi Dave. I use Prem CS3 and procoder 3, I have always used (workflow2)
I do get the occasional colour flash, but as you say, this has never affected the burnt DVD

Procoder 4? Seems unlikely, unless Harmonic, the company who took over Rhozet, which was the company spun off from Canopus to make Carbon Coder and the Procoder engine develop a prosumer verison of Carbon Coder.

Seeing as how Thomson have put Grass Valley up for sale (no buyer yet AFAIK) I would say the whole future of products such as Edius and Procoder is uncertain.

Thank you Colin and Mark.