Assessment of the HF10 vs the SR12

Dave Blackhurst · April 4th, 2008, 12:30 PM

As Ron says, just put both on a Vegas timeline - I ran multicam for switching, render was a bit slow, but final out SD 24P to DVD was great!

Mike Burgess · April 4th, 2008, 02:00 PM

Thanks for the replies. Another question: How would one go about putting some kind of wind screen/wind sock on the SR11?

Respectfully,
Mike

Ken Ross · April 4th, 2008, 06:37 PM

Ron, I use Edius extensively for work and find the HQ codec to be excellent.

Ron Evans · April 4th, 2008, 08:54 PM

Yes Ken, Edius is my main editor and I agree HQ is good except my old PC cannot capture and convert at the same time so end up having to convert to HQ after capture and with three, two hour tracks at roughly 2.5 times realtime( and even more for AVCHD) it just isn't worth it. Edius 4.6 is able to use multicam with two HDV tracks and one DV track just fine. Even though video is an addictive retirement hobby time is still important as well as HQ demands much bigger disc space and speed!!!!! When I upgrade PC later in the year I will likely capture straight to HQ but for now raw files are the way for me. I normally use Vegas for audio ( have done from when it was just an audio editor) as well as Sound Forge but for video Edius is better. However at the moment for a single track edit mixing HDV and AVCHD Vegas is faster and easier to use.

Ron Evans

Robin Lobel · April 5th, 2008, 03:04 AM

I've just tried Edius a few days ago.. No way you can do smooth AVCHD editing without a quad-core :/ Vegas handle the files quite nicely on the other hand.

Mike Burgess · April 5th, 2008, 07:10 AM

Is there any adverse effect to editing, and rendering in a lower setting, like HD HQ or HD SP? Will your final product still be like it would've been had you done everything in HD FH?

Thanks,
Mike

Ken Ross · April 5th, 2008, 07:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Robin Lobel

I've just tried Edius a few days ago.. No way you can do smooth AVCHD editing without a quad-core :/ Vegas handle the files quite nicely on the other hand.

But when you convert to Edius' HQ files, you're good to go. The bigger issue is not having export to AVCHD capability at this point. I'm sure they will upgrade the program before too long. I'd much rather use Edius since it's a much more full-featured real-time program. It's been gaining a tremendous amount of support in the professional network arena...especially since Grass Valley took charge.

Ken Ross · April 5th, 2008, 07:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mike Burgess

Is there any adverse effect to editing, and rendering in a lower setting, like HD HQ or HD SP? Will your final product still be like it would've been had you done everything in HD FH?

Thanks,
Mike

Mike, a friend of mine is absolutely convinced we'd lose nothing by going to the Canonpus HQ codec. Since I've done that many times with HDV, I've never seen an observable loss. Canopus codecs are probably the best there is. Since I've done so many A/Bs between my SR12 and Canon HV20, I'm pretty convinced there isn't any significant difference in resolution between the two, so I doubt you'd lose it on that end. But to me the issue is exporting. If I went to this trouble to go 'tapeless', why do I want my final AVCHD product to go back to tape?

I really don't plan on doing much editing with my personal stuff...I never have. I guess I do enough editing for work and don't get overly enthusiastic about doing it on my personal stuff. Maybe once I retire I can make that one of my projects. ;)

Robin Lobel · April 5th, 2008, 08:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ken Ross

I'd much rather use Edius since it's a much more full-featured real-time program.

Much more full-featured in what ?

Ken Ross · April 5th, 2008, 08:50 AM

The ability to do real-time for almost all of your work, the more extensive use of filters, multi-cam and others.

Robin Lobel · April 5th, 2008, 09:18 AM

Vegas works realtime for any operation/filter too, is bundled with several filters and has multicam support.. In fact, from the Edius feature list I don't see something you can't do with Vegas as well.

Ken Ross · April 5th, 2008, 09:36 AM

Robin, there are more filters within Edius, but if you prefer Vegas that's fine. I'm not here to convince you to use Edius. I thought you had Edius since you mentinoned you used it a few days ago. I've tried all of the programs and for me Edius is what I use professionally and wouldn't switch.

I've tried Vegas and didn't like the interface and did not find it handled AVCHD particularly well on my computer. In fact there was really no difference in how Vegas handled AVCHD as opposed to Edius Pro 4.5. Renders take forever with Vegas and most that have tried it say the same thing. I would probably use Edius and convert to the lossless (at least to the eye) Canopus HQ codec.

The fact is that AVCHD is a bear to edit and taxes even the most powerful computers out there.

Hopefully software and hardware will catch up with the very demanding AVCHD compression.

Robin Lobel · April 5th, 2008, 09:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ken Ross

Robin, there are more filters within Edius

like ? Don't get me wrong, I'm just trying to figure what could miss in Vegas.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ken Ross

I thought you had Edius since you mentinoned you used it a few days ago

Indeed I have, since I said I used it a few days ago.. What's wrong in my sentence ?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ken Ross

]In fact there was really no difference in how Vegas handled AVCHD as opposed to Edius Pro 4.5.

That's the point you missed: Vegas has several preview mode that handle any complex operation realtime (while I did not find that in Edius, that's why AVCHD can't be played back realtime and need to be converted in another format).

I'm not here to convince you to use Vegas, that's your right not to like it... But I don't see how Edius would be more professional or more full-featured. Especially when it comes to what matters here, AVCHD.

Ken Ross · April 5th, 2008, 10:39 AM

Robin, it seems you and I just go round and round on every subject. If you have both programs then simply go into both and check out all the filters. That's all. If you like one over the other stick with it, that's fine. I'm not here to jot down each and every filter, effect and transition in each program to compare for you. The major reason aside from features that people choose editing programs is how well they like how it handles. For me nothing handles like Edius....for ME. You may feel differently and that's perfectly fine. There is no right or wrong answer.

I asked you whether you had Edius because in your sentence you could have seen someone else's and played with it, you could have downloaded a trial version etc. It didn't mean you still had it or owned it. Make sense?

Now where did I say that Edius is more 'professional' than Vegas? I DID say that Edius is being used by more and more broadcasters, but that's all I said.

As to previews in Vegas, it's one thing to 'preview' and it's an entirely different thing to render to a final product. It is this rendering that takes forever in Vegas.

Again, choose what you like, I like Edius and have used it for years and have no intention to switch.

Each to his own. I think we've beaten this one to death now and let's remember this is a thread for camcorder discussion not editing programs. So for me this subject is now closed so as not to bore everyone to death and not hijack this thread from its intended purpose.

Robin Lobel · April 5th, 2008, 11:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ken Ross

Robin, it seems you and I just go round and round on every subject. If you have both programs then simply go into both and check out all the filters. That's all. [...] I'm not here to jot down each and every filter, effect and transition in each program to compare for you.

So, there's no reason you say Edius has more feature than Vegas. That's all I wanted to know.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ken Ross

I asked you whether you had Edius because in your sentence you could have seen someone else's and played with it, you could have downloaded a trial version etc. It didn't mean you still had it or owned it. Make sense?

Make sense.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ken Ross

let's remember this is a thread for camcorder discussion not editing programs. So for me this subject is now closed so as not to bore everyone to death and not hijack this thread from its intended purpose.

Agree too, I was just asking on your statements. But this subject is closed for me too. Back to the HF10 vs SR12 fight...

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Email this Page	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

April 4th, 2008, 12:30 PM	#31
Dave Blackhurst Inner Circle Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: Apple Valley CA Posts: 4,874	As Ron says, just put both on a Vegas timeline - I ran multicam for switching, render was a bit slow, but final out SD 24P to DVD was great!

April 4th, 2008, 02:00 PM	#32
Mike Burgess Major Player Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: Traverse City, Michigan Posts: 416	Thanks for the replies. Another question: How would one go about putting some kind of wind screen/wind sock on the SR11? Respectfully, Mike

April 4th, 2008, 06:37 PM	#33
Ken Ross Trustee Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: New York Posts: 1,945	Ron, I use Edius extensively for work and find the HQ codec to be excellent.

April 4th, 2008, 08:54 PM	#34
Ron Evans Inner Circle Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Ottawa, Ontario, Canada Posts: 4,220	Yes Ken, Edius is my main editor and I agree HQ is good except my old PC cannot capture and convert at the same time so end up having to convert to HQ after capture and with three, two hour tracks at roughly 2.5 times realtime( and even more for AVCHD) it just isn't worth it. Edius 4.6 is able to use multicam with two HDV tracks and one DV track just fine. Even though video is an addictive retirement hobby time is still important as well as HQ demands much bigger disc space and speed!!!!! When I upgrade PC later in the year I will likely capture straight to HQ but for now raw files are the way for me. I normally use Vegas for audio ( have done from when it was just an audio editor) as well as Sound Forge but for video Edius is better. However at the moment for a single track edit mixing HDV and AVCHD Vegas is faster and easier to use. Ron Evans

April 5th, 2008, 03:04 AM	#35
Robin Lobel Regular Crew Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: Paris, France Posts: 80	I've just tried Edius a few days ago.. No way you can do smooth AVCHD editing without a quad-core :/ Vegas handle the files quite nicely on the other hand.

April 5th, 2008, 07:10 AM	#36
Mike Burgess Major Player Join Date: Dec 2006 Location: Traverse City, Michigan Posts: 416	Is there any adverse effect to editing, and rendering in a lower setting, like HD HQ or HD SP? Will your final product still be like it would've been had you done everything in HD FH? Thanks, Mike

April 5th, 2008, 08:50 AM	#40
Ken Ross Trustee Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: New York Posts: 1,945	The ability to do real-time for almost all of your work, the more extensive use of filters, multi-cam and others.

April 5th, 2008, 09:18 AM	#41
Robin Lobel Regular Crew Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: Paris, France Posts: 80	Vegas works realtime for any operation/filter too, is bundled with several filters and has multicam support.. In fact, from the Edius feature list I don't see something you can't do with Vegas as well.

April 5th, 2008, 09:36 AM	#42
Ken Ross Trustee Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: New York Posts: 1,945	Robin, there are more filters within Edius, but if you prefer Vegas that's fine. I'm not here to convince you to use Edius. I thought you had Edius since you mentinoned you used it a few days ago. I've tried all of the programs and for me Edius is what I use professionally and wouldn't switch. I've tried Vegas and didn't like the interface and did not find it handled AVCHD particularly well on my computer. In fact there was really no difference in how Vegas handled AVCHD as opposed to Edius Pro 4.5. Renders take forever with Vegas and most that have tried it say the same thing. I would probably use Edius and convert to the lossless (at least to the eye) Canopus HQ codec. The fact is that AVCHD is a bear to edit and taxes even the most powerful computers out there. Hopefully software and hardware will catch up with the very demanding AVCHD compression.

April 5th, 2008, 10:39 AM	#44
Ken Ross Trustee Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: New York Posts: 1,945	Robin, it seems you and I just go round and round on every subject. If you have both programs then simply go into both and check out all the filters. That's all. If you like one over the other stick with it, that's fine. I'm not here to jot down each and every filter, effect and transition in each program to compare for you. The major reason aside from features that people choose editing programs is how well they like how it handles. For me nothing handles like Edius....for ME. You may feel differently and that's perfectly fine. There is no right or wrong answer. I asked you whether you had Edius because in your sentence you could have seen someone else's and played with it, you could have downloaded a trial version etc. It didn't mean you still had it or owned it. Make sense? Now where did I say that Edius is more 'professional' than Vegas? I DID say that Edius is being used by more and more broadcasters, but that's all I said. As to previews in Vegas, it's one thing to 'preview' and it's an entirely different thing to render to a final product. It is this rendering that takes forever in Vegas. Again, choose what you like, I like Edius and have used it for years and have no intention to switch. Each to his own. I think we've beaten this one to death now and let's remember this is a thread for camcorder discussion not editing programs. So for me this subject is now closed so as not to bore everyone to death and not hijack this thread from its intended purpose.