This ARTICLE was primarily written for PrPro, but most applies directly to setting up a computer for an NLE session.

Most computers, even stout and brand new ones, can benefit from a bit of set up.

Good luck,

Hunt

Jeff,

You may have a lot of experience with reviewing, but you seem to not be comprehending that AVI is but a "wrapper." To say that a program can work with AVI is an impossibly broad statement. An AVI wrapper can contain anything from a PDF with the wrong extension to a file encoded with almost any CODEC known to mankind. If the AVI is Xvid, or DivX, it will not Import and edit. If it's encoded with the Lagarith Lossless CODEC, you need that properly installed. Now, when Adobe says that .AVI is a supported format, they are talking about MS AVI [Uncompressed] and MS DV-AVI, and not all of the possibilities.

Now, if the format/CODEC is a state-secret, then so be it.

When one has problems, they sort out this way, and in this order, hence my questions:

1.) System

2.) Project

3.) Assets

4.) OE

5.) Bugs

Sorry that I cannot help you. Maybe someone else will be more successful.

Good luck,

Hunt

BTW - I do not feel that anything in my attempts to get you going inplied that you were a noob. If they were taken that way, I apologize.

I have stated simply that I am trying to get this program to work with a video shot from a camcorder, you're talking about the broad use of AVI in all sorts of contexts and other programs that do not really pertain to Elements and video editing.

This where the confusion comes in. An unknown camcorder shooting to .AVI does not tell us anything. The example of the .PDF with the bad extension was extreme, I will admit, but it has happened, same with .XML, .DOC and even .TXT. AVI is Audio Video Interleave. That is it. It is a wrapper, just like .MOV, .WMV and MPEG, just to name a few. What is inside is the key. I recommend the use of G-Spot, a freeware utility that will break into that wrapper. It is mentioned in that linked article.

A user recently had a helmet-cam, that recorded to .AVI. Unfortunately, within that Audio Video Interleave was the Xvid CODEC. Without conversion, no Adobe NLE can edit that footage natively, even if the Xvid, or the DivX CODEC is properly installed. Some other NLE's can, but not Adobe's.

If the unknown camcorder uses a CODEC, beyond the MS Uncompressed, or MS DV, there is a great likelihood that no Adobe NLE can Import and edit it natively. I use the Lagarith Lossless CODEC for intermediate file transport. Natively, Adobe cannot edit it. When I install the Lagarith Lossless CODEC, then PrE, or PrPro can edit it. It's the same for HuffYUV, and many others. PrE and PrPro ship and install but a very few CODEC's. One's system usually has more (some can allow an Adobe NLE to edit the footage, but they are primarily for either encoding on Export, or just simple playback) too. There are many hundreds, if not thousands, of other CODEC's out there. Many can be used for encoding, and nearly all can be used for playback. Some can be used by the NLE to edit the footage, but this is a very small sub-set of the total.

Since I work in SD only, and on Adobe NLE's, I tend to think of .AVI as being the same as DV-AVI Type II w/ 48KHz 16-bit PCM/WAV Audio - it almost always is on my system, but not on the majority of others, where Xvid and DivX, also in the .AVI wrapper abound. That is why the first question asked, when someone mentions "AVI" is "what is inside the wrapper." Next will come a rec. that the user run the file through G-Spot, or MediaInfo, to peek inside. Otherwise, AVI is totally meaningless, other than that it is probably Audio Video Interleave.

Even when one gets down to something like the H.264 CODEC in an MP4, there can still be differences. These are usually related to ultimate quality, and not to editability, or basic encoding, but differences exist - Lead, MainConcept and Apple to name but a few variations. The same can be said for a .MOV file. I use these a lot with the Animation CODEC, but they can contain all sorts of different CODEC's, and some are Mac-only ones, that are not even available for the PC.

The topics of wrappers and CODEC's are highly involved and can be highly confusing. It does not help that mfgrs. release new, or revised CODEC's with such great frequency. Recently, we got several versions of AVCHD and then AVCHD-Lite. MJPEG is another CODEC, that has some variations and PJPEG will likely follow suit. It will likely get more confusing as time goes on.

Hunt

If the CODEC is MJPEG, then the two most often recommended CODEC's are the Morgan and the MainConcept. Either will work fine with most NLE's, when installed properly.

Many camera mfgrs. are using MJPEG as the CODEC. Nikon's most recent DSLR's use it for AV files.

Good luck,

Hunt

I really do not care much about the CODEC and file type as I am just trying what any user would, buy the program and try to get it to work without knowing much about CODECS and such. I have been able to use these videos on other editing programs, Cyberlink, Microsoft and Arcsoft, without any problems but I have not been able to do much with Premiere Elements.

Unfortunately, too many camera mfgrs. are not interested in having their products record AV material in a form that is edited. Their target market is aimed at users, who just want to shoot footage, and then either display it with the camera, or flash media card, attached to a computer, or TV set, or upload, unedited to YouTube, or similar. They use various CODEC's (with more new, or variations on older ones) coming each quarter.

Some NLE's can do a better and more universal job of editing these CODEC's right out of the box. As you are finding, PrE is not one of those. It is designed around DV-AVI Type II files for SD and several HD formats/CODEC's, like AVCHD or HDV.

The right way to handle this would be for the camera mfgrs. to include the necessary CODEC in the utilities disk. Very, very few do, and this covers some heavy-hitters, like Canon and Nikon, with their DSLR's and point-and-shoot still cameras, that also do motion recording. That would allow the resulting footage to be edited by most NLE programs. Unfortunately, most do not anticipate that their users WILL want to edit, only view, or upload complete to YouTube, or similar.

No NLE will handle every possible Asset thrown at it. Some, as you point out, are much more lenient, than are others. Some get closer to being universal, though usually at the sacrifice of usability, features and then output choices. Also, by 2nd Qtr. 2010, there will be new CODEC's and formats, that will NOT work in the existing NLE's, regardless of how lenient they are today. It is a never-ending cycle.

Some mfgrs., like Sony, do a good job of equipping their NLE's (Vegas in this case) with the capabilities to handle their new CODEC's. Development of the cameras is closely tied in to the development of their software. However, they do not work closely with companies like Adobe, CyberLink, Avid, and Magix, as these are the competition for Vegas.

Though I use PrPro for 99% of my editing needs, I have PrE, CyberLink PowerDirector and Magix MovieEdit Pro, for those file formats and CODEC's that PrPro does not handle well. Along with those, I also have a toolbox full of utilities, like file converters. However, I am not your average consumer, picking up an NLE program and an inexpensive camera that shoots some form of motion, at the local Best Buy. I do this for a living.

Of the NLE's that I have, that do the broadest work, with the fewest additional add-ons, I think that the CyberLink PowerDirector would be my choice. Now, I cannot edit with it, but probably could, if I spent enough time with it, and did not have PrPro to use. Still, none are 100% fail-safe, right out of the box. They get closer to being universal, but none can handle everything out there, even with their add-on modules, and downloaded CODEC's. That is impossible today, and will be less possible "tomorrow," as new CODEC's and formats are introduced.

It would get down to what does the "average" consumer want. According to the camera mfgrs. that is to just display, or upload unedited material to the Web. That is their target market. It does not involve ANY NLE program.

Hunt

look at the bigger picture here and please stop worrying about codecs.

Well, that would be a lot easier, if the camera mfgrs. quit adding new ones, or variations to older ones. If all cameras were miniDV tape-based, using the standard MS DV CODEC in the AVI wrapper, all would be fine in the world. Maybe the slings and arrows should be aimed squarely at them. The "average" consumer wants to go to DVD for viewing. It's actually a step up to go to YouTube, or similar. Forget all things HD, as the "average" consumer does not own a BD burner and will likely not. Keep it simple and all will be fine. Maybe a letter to each camera mfgr. would be in order, so no one has to worry about any CODEC - it will be installed with the OS on their PC.

Unfortunately, the "average" consumer picks up a camera that was not designed to produce editable footage, and then tries to edit it. Some just will not work in any NLE. Some will, but with such a quality hit that the consumer is left wondering what happened.

Same thing happens when the average consumer takes their old VHS tapes, or their 8mm/S-8mm films into WalMart to be transferred to DVD for viewing on their new TV hooked to a set-top player. Fine, as far as that goes. Then, they decide that they want to edit the material on that DVD, which has been compressed to MPEG-2. Suddenly, they have major problems, even if their editing program can import the VOB, containing the MPEG-2 footage. The Video-Audio sync is now often off, and the quality is horrible, when they make a few cuts, add a Title and output to another DVD. They cannot understand what has happened, as the stuff looked pretty good on the original DVD. Hundreds come here annually, asking the same question - "what happened to my quality, and why is my Audio out of sync?"

When you get down to it, the "average" consumer still has a flashing 12:00 on their DVR, just like they did with their VCR.

I strongly suggest that the "average" consumer stick to Windows Movie Maker, or iMovie on the Mac. They will be much happier and will likely not realize the limitations of those programs, as they only want to cut out the half-hour where they recorded their shoes, not realizing that the camera was on.

Hunt

Just a point of clarification here. As has been stated many times in this forum and others, the Adobe forums are user-to-user. There's not a guarantee that any particular thread will be reviewed by an Adobe employee, or that we will post a reply to direct queries about help with a product.

For those kinds of questions, technical support is still your best conduit for discussing the issues you're having with a product.

That being said, if I say "try this and let me know what happens" or that I'm "actively monitoring" a thread, then I'm subscribed to that thread and will at minimum read the response.

Thanks for your participation.

Sorry I misled you.... I do understand what a CODEC is.  What I don't understand is why PE has such a hard time with video (a series of still images) that my PC can display successfully.

Paul,

Either you still do not get it, or have skipped over what I just posted. There is a great deal of difference between playing an AV file and editing it.

I feel that I am just not making things clear for you, or that you have your mind made up otherwise.

I've given you some topics to research, and can only suggest that you do so. Then, things might be more clear.

I also do not understand what your problem with PrE is. You have found that Vegas does everything that you want. What's your point?

Good luck,

Hunt

Paul,

Ideally, our support system is the conduit you're talking about. Feedback from support is carried back to engineering, resulting in a better product. We've acknowledged publicly that our support level has been unacceptable in recent months, but that's the way it should work, and we're moving behind the scenes to get all of that back up and running effectively.

I don't expect to fully restore your confidence in a couple forum posts, but I do want to let you know that we hear you, and we're working on it.

Regards,

Chad

I don't want to argue with you about this

Paul,

I'd much rather help people with problems, if I can, than argue points on PrE. This is especially true, as I use PrPro for most of my work. I agree with this point, and will refrain from continuing.

I also agree that PrPro is not perfect. I file Feature Requests all of the time. Still, it does 99% of what I want, and the same is true for the companion authoring program, Encore. They are each great, though short of perfect - hence the Feature Request forms.

Thanks for your comments,

Hunt

"If a person wants to edit video they need DO need to grasp what a CODEC is."

 

This is utter hogwash, to use a nice term. No offense meant but I think you are wrong.

Other than the double word "need," you are totally wrong. The CODEC is the building block of video, just as ISO is for still photographs. I feel that it your aversion to CODEC's, that is clouding your impressions. Also, maybe the word "need" does need to be repeated, just not as I had done.

As has been belabored above, the CODEC is the keystone to AV files, and hence to editing. Whether one wishes to learn the rudiments of these, or wishes to sweep them under the carpet, is their own choice. Obviously one that you have made beforehand.

Installing Premiere Elements and importing video and editing it does not require any knowledge of what a CODEC is or even that it exists. I remember editing video when I first got a Panasonic camcorder using a simple Arcsoft editing program that came with the camera and had no clue what a CODEC was at the time.

Again, had you read, or understood, that was easy in an earlier time - back when DV-AVI from miniDV tape was the only real way to capture video footage, and then Capture it and edit it. Nowadays, there are many different CODEC's and how they work is very important. People want to do some form of capture of YouTube material and then edit it. People want to use programs like FRAPS, or Camtasia, and then edit the footage. People want to capture footage on various cell-phone cameras, or helmet cams and edit it. All of these are very different. They need to know what a CODEC is, how it impacts the prospects of editing the resultant footage, and what they can expect. To ignore this is foolishness, and will lead to problems, regardless of which NLE is chosen.

An NLE can only contain certain capabilities, and adoption of newer technologies (read CODEC's here) takes some time and coding. In the case of Adobe, they must first decide if a new CODEC is likely to be a big enough part of their install-base to warrant the engineering efforts. All possibilities cannot be included. Some newer ones come out, after a program is released. Some need to be incorporated in an update. Two good examples of this are the RED CODEC's and the recent Panasonic Intra-Frame CODEC's. Both were included in the recent CS4 updates.

Why you have such aversion to CODEC's is beyond me. Again, they are the building blocks of AV files and editing. They've been around for over a decade, and will be around for more. Maybe it's time that you learn what they are, how they impact video playback, editing and then Export. To ignore them is an injustice to anyone reading your reviews. Again, were I to ignore Megapixels in a camera review, or DOF in a review of a lens, or system, or to ignore CODEC's in my reviews of an editing system, it would be a disservice to my readers.

Now, in a perfect world, every NLE would be able to natively edit all possible sources (read CODEC's here), and all that are likely to come about over the next decade. The world is not perfect. No NLE can possibly handle even the list of CODEC's that are available at this exact moment in time.

I do not want to get off base with arguments about CODEC's, I'm simply stating what others here have said and it does seem like the wine snob is getting off track with CODEC's.

Again, and in my defense, these are the building blocks of digital video. To think otherwise is shear folly. To ignore them is a disservice to the readers of any review. Now, many may wish that they did not exist, but they do. They are very important, whether some wish to acknowledge that, or not.

What would you advise a user to do, should they have the TechSmith CODEC in a source file? What would you suggest, should someone hand you a RED CODEC file? What would you intimate would be a good workflow, should someone hand you a BlackMagic CODEC file? Same for Xvid, or DivX. Same for an Panasonic Intra-Frame CODEC. What would you suggest? Oh, I can guess that it would be, "ignore the CODEC, as they are meaningless." Is that correct?

The other programs worked with the same video so obviously my computer has the right CODEC's otherwise they would not edit the video in the other programs.

And this proves that those other NLE's support the particular CODEC's, and that they are installed properly on your system. It does not mean that CODEC's are immaterial, as you have repeatedly suggested. The Adobe NLE's are based on a DV-AVI workflow. They make use of other CODEC's, but that does not render CODEC's moot, regardless of what you might contend. As I stated up-thread, I use CyberLink's PowerDirector for some footage, that PrE and PrPro cannot edit natively. I use that tool (and many more) to handle the CODEC's, and then Export to DV-AVI for final editing in my Adobe programs. This does not mean that the particular CODEC is immaterial, but that some NLE's either handle one better than others, or include native support for some. Adobe programs are often a bit more limited. Does this mean that they are dreck? Not in my book. I use these various programs as tools. My art comes from my camera, and my skills as an editor. I might need to use several "tools" to get me to where I can create.

Are the Adobe programs perfect? No. Do they do a good job with the proper footage and CODEC's? Yes, at least in my book. I've had the luxury of using many different NLE's, so I have a lot of experience with other NLE's. I also have extensive experience editing 16mm and 35mm film. Maybe that makes me so grateful for digital editing. That also allows me to open my mind to what it takes to do great work nowadays. I know how it was in the film-only days. One of my films was nominated for an Academy Award, and it was edited on a six-plate Moviola deck. I cannot imagine how much better that film would have been today, edited on an NLE with digital material. One will never know.

I am not trying to say that I don't want to know or don't care about what a CODEC is, I shouldn't have to in order to use this program. I compare the box requirements to my system, I meet or exceed them so my system should be able to edit video from a compatible camera. Video from a camera that can work in less expensive and even free programs should easily work in Premiere Elements regardless of knowing what a CODEC is.

But that is exactly what you have said, over and over again. What you are failing to grasp is that digital video cannot exist without CODEC's. Why you choose this platform is lost on me. I've stated many examples outside of video CODEC's, but they have been lost on you.

Just to give you a bit of background, I have 393 CODEC's installed on my workstation, and 243  (266 now) on my laptop. Why? Most are to play various files with those CODEC's. Some are for just encoding, like the HuffYUV and Lagarith, so I can transport files in a lossless format between programs. Some are so that I can edit in various NLE's. Some of these, like RealMedia, Indeo and CinePak are for older AV material, that I still may have to use. I have 4 flavors of H.264, because all CODEC's are not created equally. I also only have CODEC's from the source, and no CODEC "packs," as I want the best that I can get for me, and for my clients. Amazing! If CODEC's were not important, why on Earth would I have 393 on my workstation and 266 on my laptop? Ignore them if you wish, but you are doing a great disservice to your readers. Still, that is you choice.

Please do not confuse the issue of CODEC's with a program that does not work as advertised for many. It seems to me that high definition video is the problem and the program may be a resource hog when it gets its hands on HD content.

Well, since most of the recent CODEC's are for HD material, I'm not sure how you propose to separate these.

Now, what Adobe's marketing department might state, all depends on the CODEC's involved. Maybe they should state that that some HD material will work perfectly, and that some will not. Again, this will depend on that evil word, "CODEC."

Going back up-thread, I was taken to task, after commenting on what the "average" consumer wanted. The following statement was on what those, who DID want to edit their footage would want. That is but a small subset of the "average consumer." I find that disingenuous, at the very least. What the "average consumer" wants is to display their footage on their TV for their friends and family. The next group up wants to also post it to YouTube, or similar. Then, the next group wants to edit it - a subset of the main group. Would you not agree, now that I have broken thing out? Now, it is quite possible that a majority of your readers DO want to edit the footage, but would you not agree that a great number could care less about that aspect?

Good luck with your reviews. I hope that you are able to get PrE running on your system and can write about it. Only suggestion that I would make would be to use files that the majority of your readers are likely to use, and report on that.

Hunt