YouTube - 24P MOTION FILE.mp4 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RUNygsB3gbI) the stutter in my 24P renderd films is caused by my pinnacle software,the files play perfectly direct from hard drive or via the camera to tv,any software recamendations that are reasonably easy to use but have a 24P timeline would be welcome.Thanks

now after trying a few files with movie studio hd platinum and finding the motion was smooth i have to decide whether to continue with it and spend months for me before its mastered if ever or use 720P which is not bad by any meens with my existing set up.

24p is nice, but over-rated for everyday use.

I would stick with 720p. 24p is only more work.

I agree with Jeff, It gives you more frames to play with... I like 720 60p alot, now if they hack it to make 1080 60p then....

now after trying a few files with movie studio hd platinum and finding the motion was smooth i have to decide whether to continue with it and spend months for me before its mastered if ever or use 720P which is not bad by any meens with my existing set up.

Generally best to shoot as large as possible 1080/60/24 (more information), then render to 720.

With the GH2, 24p is the only mode recorded at 24Mbps. Others are 17Mbps or lower.

Sony Movie Studio is a very robust editor for AVCHD files.

Thanks for that,i would like to be able to use my GH2 and get the max resolution but its hard to tell the diiference on screens 50" and below,if i was a master editor and could easily switch software i would but i am not sure i am up to it and the ghs 720p is good.

If you render out to 720p, why not shoot in 720p rather than interlaced? Why make it hard and confusing on the man?

Which is best here is the subject of arguments and debates. If he shoots in the format closest to his output, it will be simple, and effective, and the results will be outstanding.

now after trying a few files with movie studio hd platinum and finding the motion was smooth i have to decide whether to continue with it and spend months for me before its mastered if ever or use 720P which is not bad by any meens with my existing set up.

If you render out to 720p, why not shoot in 720p rather than interlaced? Why make it hard and confusing on the man?

Which is best here is the subject of arguments and debates. If he shoots in the format closest to his output, it will be simple, and effective, and the results will be outstanding.

It's not hard or confusing, it's reality, and provides the highest quality and most editing latitude. If you're going to print a photo at 4x6in do you shoot that size.

Why not provide what's best, rather than what is easiest? Then let Martyn decide what is best for him.

It is debatable as to which is best. That is the whole point.

Google it, they argue everywhere over this topic. With 720p it is at least already progressive.

In the end it doesn't matter.

Yes i have done tests and 720P shows identical resolution on all my 1920x1080P TVs to 50i in direct and after edit playback so i see no point in using it,Dan if someone was showing me i could no doubt manage to learn windows,sadly the latest pinnacle 15 i have tried still will not render 24P without jitter and even worse for some reason the render time on 720P is half as fast as with 14 ultimate so i shall stay with that,thanks for all the help.