8 Replies Latest reply on Oct 21, 2010 4:47 AM by Colin Brougham

    CamStudio Lossless avi - only audio is imported

    MikeAllenUK Level 1

      Hi all,

       

      I'm having trouble getting a CamStudio Lossless-encoded AVI to import into Premiere Pro, wonder if anyone can help me out? I'm completely new to PP, so it may be something to do with my project setup! My video uses the LZO compression algorithm and is exactly 1280*720 pixels with 44.1khz mono 16-bit PCM audio. When I use the Import option within PP, I the audio timeline of my voiceover appears, but the video window remains blank. The import appears on the left-hand side with a speaker icon next to it, which I presume means that PP believes the file to only contain audio... I've tried using VitualDub to convert the entire file into an uncompressed AVI, but the sound becomes very juddery and *I think* the video speed slows as well.

       

      Any help much appreciated!

        • 1. Re: CamStudio Lossless avi - only audio is imported
          Colin Brougham Level 6

          There's no 64-bit version of the CamStudio codec; 64-bitness is required for AVI editing in Premiere Pro CS5. Check out either Lagarith or the Ut Video Codec, both of which have 64-bit versions that work well in CS5, and are popular amongst users here.

          • 2. Re: CamStudio Lossless avi - only audio is imported
            John T Smith Adobe Community Professional & MVP

            Back at the main page http://forums.adobe.com/community/premiere/premierepro_current go to the SEARCH THIS FORUM ONLY and enter

             

            camstudio

             

            Read the other message threads

            • 3. Re: CamStudio Lossless avi - only audio is imported
              MikeAllenUK Level 1

              Thanks Colin! Worked a treat! I'm probably opening a can of worms here, but is there any info on which of the two is best? Thanks again for your help!

              • 4. Re: CamStudio Lossless avi - only audio is imported
                MikeAllenUK Level 1

                And thanks John, but I did do that but none of the existing discussions seemed to deal with my particular issue of audio with no video.

                • 5. Re: CamStudio Lossless avi - only audio is imported
                  Jeff Bellune Adobe Community Professional

                  Lately, I prefer UT because of its speed.  For my recent CamStudio projects, UT has demonstrated stability and quality at least equal to Lagarith.

                   

                  -Jeff

                  1 person found this helpful
                  • 6. Re: CamStudio Lossless avi - only audio is imported
                    Colin Brougham Level 6

                    I used Lagarith for a long while until Ut came around. It is regularly updated and optimized, and offers a few more encoding options than Lagarith. That said, Lagarith has been around a long time, and is highly regarded. There's no harm in having both installed; play with both and see which works best for you on your machine. You may find that one gives better compression/smaller files or provides smoother playback.

                     

                    EDIT: Yep, what Jeff said

                    1 person found this helpful
                    • 7. Re: CamStudio Lossless avi - only audio is imported
                      MikeAllenUK Level 1

                      Thanks Jeff and Colin!

                       

                      A couple of final questions:

                       

                      - Despite having installed both the x86 and x64 UT Video codecs, CamStudio only gives me a selection of x86 options for video capture. Is this expected? If it is, I'm assuming all codecs used within CamStudio have to be x86-compatible because the application itself is (and therefore the codecs themselves run in x86 mode), but for Premiere Pro to open the resultant video file, the codec has to have x64 compatibility as well, so that Premiere Pro, being x64 software, can read it in. Would that be correct, or is (for example), my single Lagarith option within CamStudio actually running in x64 for the capture and there's something up with my UT install?

                       

                      - Given your feedback, I'd be inclined to use UT, but having taken two 4.5 (approx) second captures of the same webpage (this one) with no voiceover (although still recording from the mic) and no movement, Lagarith gives me a 6.25mb file, whereas UT gives me a 22.4mb file..! To try to make the test fair, I've set UT to 'Ut Video Codec RGB (ULRG) VCM x86' mode with 'Same as # of logical processors' ticked and 'Optimize for compression ratio (Predict median)' selected. Settings for Lagarith are 'RGB (Default)' with everything unticked. The difference in filesize seems huge and I can't make out any particular reason for why, quality seems identical (from the very little testing I've done so far)! Any thoughts?

                       

                      Thanks again for all your help!

                      • 8. Re: CamStudio Lossless avi - only audio is imported
                        Colin Brougham Level 6
                        - Despite having installed both the x86 and x64 UT Video codecs, CamStudio only gives me a selection of x86 options for video capture. Is this expected? If it is, I'm assuming all codecs used within CamStudio have to be x86-compatible because the application itself is (and therefore the codecs themselves run in x86 mode), but for Premiere Pro to open the resultant video file, the codec has to have x64 compatibility as well, so that Premiere Pro, being x64 software, can read it in. Would that be correct, or is (for example), my single Lagarith option within CamStudio actually running in x64 for the capture and there's something up with my UT install?

                         

                        That's correct; CamStudio is 32-bit and Premiere Pro CS5 is 64-bit, so you need to have both variations installed. The video encoded with one is playable with the other, however; it's just that the host application requires the encoder architecture to match the application's architecture.

                         

                        It think the difference between Lagarith and Ut and how they show up in the host application is just a nomenclature issue. Lagarith installs both 32-bit and 64-bit versions when you use the 64-bit installer, and doesn't specify which one you're using in the host application, as it's assumed you can only use the one that matches the program's architecture. Ut is a little different in that I think the 32-bit and 64-bit versions are separate installers, the author chose to put "x86" and "x64" in the names, and broke out the colorspace options into separate codecs instead of making them options of the main codec, like Lagarith does. If you can access both codecs in both applications, you're good.

                         

                        - Given your feedback, I'd be inclined to use UT, but having taken two 4.5 (approx) second captures of the same webpage (this one) with no voiceover (although still recording from the mic) and no movement, Lagarith gives me a 6.25mb file, whereas UT gives me a 22.4mb file..! To try to make the test fair, I've set UT to 'Ut Video Codec RGB (ULRG) VCM x86' mode with 'Same as # of logical processors' ticked and 'Optimize for compression ratio (Predict median)' selected. Settings for Lagarith are 'RGB (Default)' with everything unticked. The difference in filesize seems huge and I can't make out any particular reason for why, quality seems identical (from the very little testing I've done so far)! Any thoughts?

                         

                        That's interesting--but there might be an explanation. I think you need to do a longer test, at least a minute or maybe longer, and then compare file sizes. Of course, it's going to be difficult to do the exact same thing in each test, and that will affect variability between the codecs' efficiencies. My guess is that there is simply some extra "stuff" that is written into a Ut encoded file regardless of the duration of the file. With a short/small file, that stuff seems to have more of an impact on file size, but for a longer encode, that difference may be negligible. In my experience, Ut encodes and decodes faster than Lagarith, though at a bit of a filesize hit.

                         

                        You might also try Ut in YUY2/YUV mode--it's possible that Lagarith is actualy encoding in YUY2 mode due to the nature of the host application (CamStudio). You could also try recording using CamStudio Lossless, and then convert that recording using something like VirtualDub with the two codecs; that will give you a better test than trying to do the same recording twice using both codecs.

                         

                        Ultimately, they're both great codecs, so it's just a matter of finding the one that meets your particular requirements better--file size versus speed.