AVCHD Editing: Hurdles and Nightmares
 

I would love to be contradicted but my TEMPORARY findings are the following:

1/ Software coming with the camera are a joke:
I have been using Sony's and Pana.
Importing works, ok, but everything would do, including the Explorer or Finder, able to read the FlashMem Card

The so called 'Browser' offered by Sony for instance is DESPERATLY slow:Trimming one second at each end of a 7 sec clip would take kind of 20 sec to achieve. And then the Browser has to re-import the edited clip, reparse and calibrate it, etc: IT IS A JOKE !

2/ NLEs pretending that they 'support' AVCHD are indeed saying that , through several intermediate steps, you can, indeed, produce some final rendering. But nothing is really pratical here: you would spend 4 to 10 times the time editing your AVCHD clips that you did spend editing HDV. Reendering degradates the quality even when no mods are made. The process is at best sluggish, and more usually absolutely unnerving.

3/ AVCHD playback on computers is very demanding in ressources and it precludes the usage on th efield of lightwight portables.All this MIGHT be temporary ( although the intricaties of H264 combined with the transport stream design will not easily been solved - dedicated hardware or Hi-end chips are the only routes.

This situation is indeed VERY disastrous in absolute terms but can be managed through some workarounds

I must confess that i have (temporarily ??) opted for a bizarre workflow..that I am almost shamefull to expose:

I use TMPGExpress to create HDV encoded files ( on computer drive , of course) and then i use my traditionnal workflows ( PPro for sophistication, or Womble MPEG Wizard for quick and easy samples) This is an other case illustrating my signature "Future is Forward, though often Sideways..."

Impossible to notice any quality loss..I launch a batch of transcoding and then the speed of action is back here.

Finally you can create BDs in MPEG2 ok, or re-encode into AVC or VC1 if you need more space, or reencode in any format just easily.

I have the Canon HF100.

My workflow is simple as follows:

Using SDHC card reader, copy .MTS files to where NLE can find them.

I use Pinnacle Studio 11, it edits AVCHD natively (no transcoding to ANYTHING else needed) and when done editing I render to standard def DVD (if that is what I need to deliver), a BluRay compliant file on standard DVD that will play in a BluRay Player or PS3, a 1280x720p 60fps WMV file that looks SUPER on my computer monitors, MP4 files and other options I haven't tried yet.

The only thing I use the software that came with the cam is for the AVCHD file player supplied.

I think you are right, but why is everyone so hot to buy an AVCHD camcorder when HDV camcorders work better and offer higher video quality? Why are people buying AVCHD after they come here and read about how slow working with it is?

AVCHD requires nearly 8 times the computer power to edit natively. Realtime color correction, dissolves, wipes, 3D FX -- all in realtime with perfectly smooth 30fps playback. No rendering for anything? Somehow I doubt Pinnacle can do this this.

Until Avid and Apple and Adobe support true realtime native AVCHD editing -- aren't you working backwards. Buy a camcorder and be then forced to use one NLE? And, be forced to use a PC?!?

To edit non-natively requires hours of conversion time and more disk space. If one converts to HDV -- why not shoot HDV? Or, better FullHD MPEG-2.

I share your view .

I made the move to AVCHD ONLY because of the FORM-FACTOR of the TG1.
Whenever its possible, i still use my HC!1or FX7, of course!

If some manufacturer would come with a VERY handy HDV i would go for it.
I remember my first DV cam had the same formfactor (size and weight) than the TG1 . It was probably a Panasonic (?) I Climbed the Himalayas with it.

No doubt you could do better these days. But supporting 25 MB/s is not sustainable by todays SDHC cards.. If it was, or when it will be, the massive bombardment of Sony and Pana marketing will probably have deteriorated MPEG2 image to an irrecoverable point. Its a real maneuver by these big names to force the general public into new gear, even if to day its an almost dead-end path.

People MUST know ! And resist !

I don't agree with some of your assumptions Steve. First off, IMO, the Sony SR12 does indeed offer higher quality than the HDV consumer counterparts. I've had the HV10, still have the HV20 and found in A/B tests that the SR12 offers at least the same picture quality, but actually produces less overall noise. In fact, I'd take the overall picture quality of the SR12 over the FX7. Yes my FX7 could produce a somewhat sharper picture, but it could not produce the low noise levels (in good & medium light) that the SR12 does. To my eyes there's nothing that looks more professional than a really low-noise picture. I also think the SR12 also offers some of the best color I've ever seen in a Sony consumer HD unit.

People also prefer AVCHD because once you've looked at your footage from the camcorder via the really slick menu systems and instant access to any scene, HDV looks kind of antiquated. There is nothing like seeing all my picons on a 60" plasma and having instant access to any scene. When you've become accustomed to that, it's really hard to go back to tape.

I would never have done this however if I truly didn't believe that AVCHD, in the best of the cams in that format, were at least the equal of its HDV counterpart.

Now, as for editing, you are correct. In this area it's hard to argue that AVCHD lags HDV in terms of ease of editing and the requirements it places on the computer. It really depends on what you use the AVCHD camera for. For me it's pure pleasure with no professional implications. I've rarely edited my own 'fun footage' over the years and so for me the instant access far far outweighs the current lagging of editing tools. These will catch up however, you can bank on it.

Once Edius Pro comes up with their AVCHD solution (and they will), I might then consider editing my own pleasure footage. So for work AVCHD would not be my first choice. For pleasure it most certainly is...especially with the kind of picture quality I'm seeing on a big screen plasma.

Depends on the NLE. I've had excellent results with Sony Vegas 8 Pro with a Canon HG10. Workflow is drag and drop the clip to the timeline - direct from the camera if you really wanted to.

I agree that AVCHD is computationally intensive for decompression, however, it is entirely usable on a modern laptop. I can successfully edit in the field on a MacBook or MacBook Pro either running MacOS or Vista (via Boot Camp). The performance is bound to improve over time, though I expect this will be through the brute force of multi-core CPUs and perhaps decoder optimisations rather than specialised silicon.

For me, it's the form factor, lack of the mechanical tape mechanical tape mechanism, and secondarily the ease of browsing and organizing the clips.

I do a lot of backcountry travel, and I've always wanted to bring video with me, but it just hasn't been practical until the current crop of AVCHC cams, at least if size, weight, and reliability are concerns. Also, I've had problems in the past with dropouts in DV tapes in outdoor dusty/windy environments. Unless you have a defective SD card, dropouts should now be a thing of the past.

Put me in the "what are you guys talking about?" camp...

I'm VERY satisfied with the video quality from my SR11 and even the earlier CX7 when processed properly (it's not THAT difficult, but I've seen lots of footage that was obviously botched in edit!!), and I'm sorry, but it's perceptably better than the HDV cams I've owned, or I'd still be using tape.

Add to that the furiously fast importing and drag and drop to the timeline on Vegas, and I'm sync'd and editing before I would have dumped even one tape from a multicam shoot... for me the workflow is an absolute no-brainer once I took time to work it out!! Maybe if I used a Mac I'd feel differently, but it'll catch up...

Yes, I have to lower the preview resolution to get smooth playback, it's not that big a deal, still plenty adequate for cutting, and looks fine. Higher resolution previews could use some tweaking of the code, and that's obvious, but it'll come. On a dual core 6000+, I'm quite happy with the speed and capabilities now... CC is instant, transitions are a bit sluggish, but it's doable.

HDV was a PITA initially too, with slow processing/display and processor intensive issues... AVCHD is on the same curve, and I have no doubt it will only improve. Sure rendering takes time, but I'm off doing something else after completing an edit anyway!! Did I mention I got to start editing 2/3-3/4 faster for a multicam shoot depending on the # of cams?

I hated the idea initially (yes, I thought it was insane not having tape, but I wanted a CX7 for a pocket cam, and it turned into an instant favorite... the SR11 is a winner as well).

Put the PQ of the SR11/12 in something just a tad larger with a bigger lens for better light gathering and decent manual control, and maybe a couple configurations (how about one with a tape option... for old times sake?) and you'd have a category killer. I'd ditch the FX7 for that and get an older HC for accessing archive tapes!

Eliminating dropout potential is a bonus, as is the durability of the completely solid state cams (I'm still a bit leery of the HDD, but I'm OK with it...). There are LOTS of good reasons for people to go this way, and when the editing becomes a bit more refined, tape could quickly disappear IMO.

The last missing piece is BR burners and players at affordable prices.

I was somewhat playing devils advocate because I do think folks are being swayed by the marketing AND articles that keep claiming HDV is dead.

The SR12 may be equal to HDV -- but where are the manual controls? Where's progressive? Where's the real viewfinder? Where's the colored peaking? Where's the Expanded Focus that works while you shoot?

Form factor IS important -- but a Canon camcorder with NO VF? What's the point of hiking with a camcorder on nice day and then not being able to see what you are shooting. How can you frame and focus when the sun wipes out the LCD?

Getting rid of a tape transport sounds good, but I've never had transport problem, but I have had flash cards lose EVERYTHING. And, my tapes are on my shelf -- my stills exist on HD drives all over the place. I've got no time to burn to BD -- even if Apple sold one. And the cost is huge compared to MiniDV tapes I can buy anywhere.

Yes the thumnails are neat, but I have that on my JVC HD7 that shoots 30Mbps MPEG-2. So it edits EZ. And, I've got full manual controls!

I'm still not seeing anyone answer -- can you do this: Realtime color correction, dissolves, wipes, 3D FX -- all in realtime with perfectly smooth 30fps playback. No rendering for anything? Somehow I doubt Pinnacle or Vegas can do this this with NATIVE AVCHD.

Please understand I'm not opposed to AVCHD. I would kill for the coming Panasonic AG-150. An LCD with waveform monitor. Real VF and real manual controls. And, it uses 21Mbps AVCHD. In other words -- I would choose the camcorder first. Then I'd find a way to edit.

It seems people have been sold AVCHD first. And, once they choose it they get a very restricted set of really awful camcorders. In 1980 my first camcorder offered ALL manual controls. The new AVCHD Canon's don't even have a cruddy little focus wheel.

So maybe I should gave asked -- how are folks actually able to shoot with these camcorders.

CX7 - use the touch screen, not great, but the auto settings are usually spot on. No space on such a small form factor for "real" controls, but it fits in your pocket and gets great image quality.

SR11/12 - has a control wheel, zebras, nice 3.2" LCD AND a VF if you need it, focus is fast and accurate in decent light, peaking probably wouldn't be of much use in low light anyway, touch screen is usable too...

What you're missing is that because these cams are compact and easy to carry, you actually DO shoot with them, because they aren't sitting back at home in a case...

Are they "perfect"? no... are they amazingly good for the $ and would ANY of them in "auto" smoke the image quality on your 1980 "manual" camcorder?? most likely... Are they "bleeding edge", with what that entails for the user? Yes, but so was HDV a couple years ago.

"really awful camcorders"?? I guess that depends on your perspective...

Ciao Steve,

why are you speaking about "real viewfinder" about sr11/12? ...we are speaking about commercial camcorder and that camera has to be compared to an HDV camera as canon HV20/30...so, in this case, i can round you the same question "has the HV30 a real viewfinder?"

off course manual tuning of HV30 (that is the best 'economic' recognized HDV camera in term of video quality) is more complete than the sr11...(but not too much, since for example the manual focus is better usable in SR11...or other things as Dave told above)

about the intrinsic quality of the format, Ken told already everything. I can add that some friends of mine prefer sr11 in low light than HV30, since its grain is more fine and there are not any dominant color...

off course an AVC video require more times to be managed since h264 is more complex algoritm to be decoded (in fact it is able to generate the same quality of mpeg2 with lower bitrate..).
But a q6600+ 2x2gb+2x500gb+2900pro 1gb+P5kE it is a very good example of performance/cost system to be able to edit without any problem HD content (both HDV and AVCHD). In Italy that system costs "only" about 700 eur.

The path of "intermediation" in .AVI is faster than you think both for AVCHD and HDV. Here it is the optimum chain:

DgAVCIndex (free)-> avisynth (free)-> virtualdub+intermediate codec (cineform, dvcprohd, blackmagic, huffyuv for a completely loseless or AVC loseless that is free and its space requirement is the same of 'lossy' cineform fillm scan preset and the half of huffyuv...) and so you only need disk space (but a 750gb cost, for example, is "trascurable" today...).

Furthermore, by the named chain above, you can really FRAMESERVE your AVCHD or HDV footage to any program that support avisynth plugin, directly, without any kind of AVI transcoding...

I agree but that camera will be collocated in another range of price...

however pinnacle and Edius 4.6 AVCHD NLE work really fine. And you can add "typical" effect as prodad for example and in the new Pinnacle studio 12 you will be able to use magic bullets presets...try it ;)

ciao!

My perspective is that I think the idea of carrying around a camcorder in case something happens is a bit crazy. I don't need it to fit in a pocket. Any camcorder that small light simply CANNOT be held steady and keep a perfect widescreen framing.

On the other hand, Sony and Canon mid-priced ($3500) cameras are too big and heavy. Once upon a time -- there were 3lb medium sized camcorders that were perfect. They cost $2000-$2500. Panasonic EX1, for example. They had room for real switches. They had focus and zoom rings.

You could shoot in AUTO, but you had independent control of focus, exposure, and shutter-speed. (Something the SR12 cannot do without using menus.) They had 1/2-inch or bigger VF that tilted-up. (Can the SR12's VF do this?)

I prefer AUTO, but I'm not convinced I can trust it. And, having to dig into menus and try to read settings on a screen washed-out by light, seems really risky. That's what I call "awful."


You may be right that the SR12 is a better camera, but why does everyone seem to be buying Canon? Five things come to mind:

1) with all VFs being so tiny and non-tiltable folks may feel they'll never use one. So not having one isn't a big loss.

2) They want 25p, 30p, or even 24p. Sony offers progressive on all its other camcorders, why not the SR12? I don't care, but it seems many do!

3) When I read the Canon manual I see a product oriented to photographers. Many modes and settings.

4) If they are going to depend on AF -- they see Canon's IR focus as supporting better AF than the Sony offers. And, reviews seem to confirm the Sony AF is not swift. This is really critical when the LCD is washed-out.

5) They see that as SD cards rapidly fall in cost -- they can use SD cards just like tape. HDD disk camcorders allow you to shoot hours of video with NO protection. And, if tiny is good -- then why not go with tiny cards? I've got an HDD camcorder and why cheap SD cards seem so neat.

Of course, it may be that for years Canon recorded better video than did Sony. :)

"DgAVCIndex (free)-> avisynth (free)-> virtualdub+intermediate codec (cineform, dvcprohd, blackmagic, huffyuv for a completely loseless or AVC loseless that is free and its space requirement is the same of 'lossy' cineform fillm scan preset and the half of huffyuv..."

You've got to be kidding! Cineform costs almost as much as your camcorder. This process is better than HDV?

And, sorry Pinnacle is not exactly a professional NLE. It's a $99 NLE that only runs on PCs at a time when folks are switching to Macs.

What's frustrating is that our old camcorders cost about $2000. That's a perfectly reasonable price to get a good camcorder. The joke is that HD AVC recording chipsets are now ready for cell phones. So, isn't this a better option for those who want cheap and light? If the Japanese keep this up, Apple will make their camcorders seem as old as a Walkman.

Steve i can't understand why do you think that SR11/12 has to the "perfect" camera...i can buy a new SR11 camera at 800/850 eur in Italy...and I can buy an HV30 at the same price.
They have both pro and con.
They are not professional. they are not perfect.

Why people, usually, prefer HDV to AVCHD? Lack of informations...
No real reason, today, to prefer HV30 to SR11. Or, better, HV30, today, is not more the "uncomparable Queen" of economic HD, beacuse there are really valid alternative as, for example, SR11.
To do an example, many people (in italy) think that AVCHD is full of artficats, that is not good in low light and that is shuttering in fast motion scenes...but do you know the funniest thing? that are metropolitan legend! they believe it without any proofs...maybe someone in some limit conditions founded that problems and so, as always happen, the lack of information did the rest...

What about progressive? i'm happy that sony has not introduced it in its SR11. A good and valid progressive COSTS. Introducing progressive in these commercial low price camcorder as HV30 or Pana SD9 it is only marketing movement..Ask people about progressive of HV30 if they are satisfied, especially with fast motion footage...

About the avisynth path. Do you think i'm kidding you? your problem.
And obviously you don't have any idea of what i'm speaking about (lack of information...).
You don't know what are you losing, since that 'path' could be really useful and powerful also with HDV content, in particular about deinterlacing plugin(to do an example)...since you can manage a really high quality 50p from 50i...
I can provide you any clip you want...

About cineform: i mentioned it, but not only. There are valid semiloseless and completely loseless codec that i mentioned that are valid too...

About solid memory and tape. The solid memory is the future...16 gb SDHC are cheap now and they can be used many times...while a tape for HDV usually is used one time (long gop could give trouble to be recorder if the tape is not 'perfect'). About system filing...you can transfer all "raw" clip inside an home HDD...and if you want to be safer, a RAID1 is cheaper for everyone...

ciao!

[And, sorry Pinnacle is not exactly a professional NLE. It's a $99 NLE that only runs on PCs at a time when folks are switching to Macs.]

Can't agree with you Steve. I am not switching to a Mac ( that's really a PC in a Mac box). My PC runs fine , has always run fine and has a very large selection of programs for it!!!! To add to the differences I hate 24p the stuttering makes my old eyes hurt and its nothing like film, even the stuff I have from my film days over 40years ago. In all these discussions we seem to want every camera to do everything for a very low price. It isn't going to happen. I bought my SR11 so that I could have a backup cam that I didn't need to change tapes on in support of my FX1 and do family service as well. In this regard it works just great. In good light it produces better images than the FX1 as seen on my 42" Plasma from the HDMI outputs of the SR11. Does it have some problems..sure what do you expect from a $1300Can camera? IT has problems maintaining focus( I mean encoder focus, image softens) on fast moving closeups like closeups of dancers moving fast across the screen, it doesn't have independent gain control so I can't set gain at 9db and aperture at F5.6 for instance to get more depth of field, the aperture control is not shockless so adjustments go in steps I could go on but this is a little pointless because for the money this is the best picture I have from any of the cameras I own. Editing is a little more of a problem than HDV or DV but I am sure that will improve. Get a fast computer with lots of hard drive space and use intermediate file format like Cineform or Edius HQ just like lots people do for HDV anyway.

Ron Evans

What is the Panasonic AG-150 you would kill for?
 

Hi Steve,
Thanks for your opinions,very articulate.
My question to you is :
What is the Panasonic AG-150 you would kill for?
When i Google it, i find only batteries...
Could you post some URL ? Thanks in advance.

pana
 

is called... AG-HMC150 they said will be out in Setember.

A few different things being discussed here
 

It seems to me that there are a few different things being discussed here.

When the first tapeless consumer camcorders were introduced a few years ago, they used different compression schemes, none of which were compatible with one another as I recall. Initially, I saw AVCHD as a standardised tapeless format, but strictly in the consumer space. Unfortunately, it took forever for NLEs to actually start supporting it. Now that we're on the third generation of consumer AVCHD gear, NLEs are finally getting there. On Windows, Sony Vegas Pro 8 (with its latest patches) does a good job. On the Mac, the latest version of FCP does a good job too. Of course, you need a capable machine to work with AVCHD but what else is new? Back when DV was introduced, you needed a fast machine (for the time) to capture DV without dropping frames. As Dave Blackhurst pointed out above, HDV was a pain when it first came out.

Concerning the gear itself, every AVCHD camera on the market is a consumer level camera. About three generations of consumer AVCHD gear have been released in probably less than a couple of years. The latest ones offer higher bitrates than the previous generation, which presumably equates to better image quality. Nonetheless, this is all going to be limited by the rest of the camera. So a comparison of a Canon HF10 to a Canon HV30 is certainly warranted, whereas comparing it to a Canon XH-A1 most certainly not warranted.

It seems to me that manufacturers are getting experience with the codec at the consumer end of the market before moving it up to prosumer. We're seeing the first evidence of this with the Panny AG-HMC70 (in that has "real" audio connections and is shoulder mount) and more evidence with the to be release Panny AG-HMC170 (24Mbps peak, manual controls, etc.)

Is it really a surprise to anyone that the prosumer gear costs >$2k? When the Sony HVR-FX1, the first 3-chip HDV camcorder, was introduced I think it cost about $3k. With inflation, the weak dollar, etc. $4k+ isn't unreasonable for a prosumer camera based on the newest technology. Like everything else in technology, either the price will go down for similar performance (as we see in the consumer space), or more likely the price will stay around the same for much better performance in time to come (at the prosumer level).

Finally, if the tapeless aspect of AVCHD appeals to you but the rest of it doesn't then don't use it! Look at one of the tapeless recorders available for HDV camcorders. The Sony HVR-Z7U comes with one, Edirol is launching their F-1 and there are existing solutions on the market. Their advantage is that they're just putting the now commonly understood HDV stream onto random access media (flash or hard drive), so your existing workflow will be the same with the exception of the ingest phase, which will be faster.

Crazy of you to think that we all have only the same needs and desires in our cameras that you think we should have. That and glittering generalizations like those regarding Cineform, full manual control for consumer cams, and folks switching to Macs (I dunno, maybe I'm the only one who's not..although I haven't heard the PC industry has collapsed) are just prickly opinions that don't apply to a lot of people, myself included.

When I'm "serious" I set up my 2 XL H1's, lights, etc and edit on CS3 with Cineform. When I'm traveling or just taking quick casual shots of our daughter or our crazy puppy dogs (now there's the proper use of the word "crazy"), the new little HF10 I carry around is indispensable, and I can edit my footage using the post tools above. It's already gotten me many nice shots I never would have because you can't always carry an H1 on your shoulder. That's the currently available toolset I have to meet MY needs. If I'd happened to choose a Sony "pocket cam," same would be true. Crazy to call it crazy; works well for me. You do what works for you, but disparaging others' needs and ways of doing things isn't appreciated.

Each camera has its unique features and no camera has it all, and perfectly done at that. It's worthwhile to discuss the features, differences, and wish lists. Going negative is for politics, not cameras and workflows.

Well said Pete -

One cannot "argue" with unsupported statements put forward as "fact".

The VF on the SR11/12 tilts up for instance... I'd rather it pull out, but it is actually quite handy and usable, unlike that of the HV20/30 IMO and actual experience. Canon only "lost" a few $ in production costs by eliminating the VF - when I owned an HV20, I wondered why they bothered with a VF at all...

"Switching to Mac" - I guess if you believe the ad campaigns, sure... I won't anytime soon buy overpriced hardware to run fewer compatible programs... then again, I haven't bought into Vista either. A quad core maybe in the near future, but it won't cost me much!

A little economics lesson. $2k 10 years ago is $4K or likely even more when one considers inflation - so comparing all these cameras that can be had at well under the 1K price point TODAY (which means sub $500 cameras if you reverse the equation) with what today would be a V1 or equivalent is actually "crazy".

"CANNOT be held steady" - hmm, these small cams weigh FAR less than larger ones, and actually can be held quite steady and or stabilized simply for a LOT longer just because they are not going to result in user fatigue... 3 pound weight on your arm = user fatigue, fairly quickly... I owned the PV1000 version of the Panny EZ1. Great cam, but my CX7 will smoke it, at a far lower price and weight! Handheld can actually be a bit better because you're not fighting the inertia of the camera weight, which can work both for you and against you! YMMV, but handheld is ALWAYS problematic with HD, you just have to learn to adapt to make it work. I've got a couple simple inexpensive rigs that are only slightly larger than the cam, and help with stability when needed.

If crazy is having a camera that I can have with me anytime "something might happen", and will give truly stunning HD quality, not "cell phone video", well, call me crazy!! Have you ever actually TRIED one of these pocket rockets?? FWIW, I was about 99% sure they were a little wacky at first too...


All that said, I think the camera I've proposed, an SR11 with slightly larger form factor so you can have manual controls and bigger lens for better light gathering would be a category killer (including that new Panny that DOES look interesting). No doubt Sony could pander to the marketing and add 24P and 30P (it's likely nothing other than a firmware feature), I probably wouldn't use it... but they could bring it in in the sub 2k-2.5K price point (street, meaning 3-3.5K retail).

I'd expect announcements sometime in the near future, as there's a huge gaping hole in the Sony product line and both the CX7 and FX7 are discontinued... I'd expect Sony to release SOMETHING in both those categories - will be interesting to see what comes out.

For now, the SR11 is simply the best overall video quality I've ever had at a pretty sweet price point. It has it's flaws, but so has every camera I've tried along the way. The CX7 is close, and I'm sure if I tried the Canon versions I'd like them - they reviewed well, and the users here seem to be enjoying them a LOT - so at least all the "small cam loonies" are in good company!

Steve, the SR12 does have a real viewfinder and its LCD display is of a higher rez than many prosumer cams. It does have manual controls, perhaps not as many as prosumer cams, but I think you have a tendency to mix up prosumer cams with high end consumer cams. The consumer Canons don't have all of these goodies either. Frankly I want those for work, but have no need for them for play. Two different markets even with the same person!! The SR12 meets most of its target audience. For me the bottom line for this target is picture quality pure and simple. I didn't like the Canons partly because of the total lack of a viewfinder.

Ah, we've got an area of agreement!!! I am amazed by the people that claim even in bright sun they have no issue with LCDs. They must have superman eyes.

I think you're missing the point here. It's not that people have frequent 'problems' with tape transports, but the convenience of watching your videos INSTANTLY with no rewinding, instant access to ANY scene and no wear on tape heads can't be denied. These are simply facts and beyond dispute. You may find they have little value to you, but I'll tell you Steve, I'm having more fun watching my videos this way then I ever had with tape!

Oh, and let's not forget tape transport noise...totally absent on HD and memory stick cams. Again, an undeniable advantage.

Sometimes you sound a bit like you're trying to find reasons NOT to switch to AVCHD. Been there done that. I sounded just like you a year or two ago. But then picture quality was nowhere near where it is today and was surely not in the same league as HDV. Today things have changed. And again, nobody is arguing the point on editing. But Steve, I bet I'm not alone in not editing most of my material when it's just for fun, just for family, just for vacations. And trust me, there will be editing solutions that will be every bit as convenient as HDV and at that point AVCHD will surpass even HDV in the ease of edit. Not today, but surely in the not too distant future. It's coming guy and you need to start mentally preparing for it.

When Canopus' Edius offers AVCHD native import and export, I just might do SOME editing. But even then, if it's not for work I simply won't edit my personal stuff as I do for clients. For me it goes beyond 'convenience' in terms of editing, it goes to desire. I'm perfectly content shooting and simply playing back in a convenience that no HDV cam can offer. :)

I'll also disagree with you strongly about people switching to Macs. If anything I see more people sold on PCs! I see more networks editing in the PC environment than ever before. I really truly think you're wrong. Again, this is not the past Steve. Today PCs offer a far far broader, more viable spectrum of great editing solutions than any Mac can ever hope to. I laugh at the number of people using Macs in a PC Windows mode because it works better for what they're doing. Macs became more 'usable' once they got away from their own processors and began using Intels. Pretty ironic I think. The ease of editing that Canopus' Edius offers and what to me is the fastest, real-time, mixed format editing solution around, exists only in the Windows environment. Macs? No thanks. If you love Final Cut, that's fine, it's a great editing solution. But try to venture beyond that and you kind of run up against a brick wall.

As they say in French, we shall agree to disagree on most points. :)

Ken, edius 4.6 can! i'm testing it and it seems to work really fine!
ciao!

I found an SR11 at Costco with a 90-day return. So it will be interesting to see if it is really as great as claimed. The flip-up VF makes a big difference as does the cam control wheely.

I'm not opposed to auto--in my reviews and book on the Sony V1/FX7 I kept telling people they should try auto because it REALLY worked! But folks are screaming about AF in the Z7 and EX1. So obviously Sony's latest models are not as good as the V1/FX7.

My questions are going to be, if Auto doesn't work perfectly:

1) it is critical to not have AF hunting during a shot -- so after focus has been found, one must lock it.

2) it is critical to not have the AE rapidly change during a shot -- so after exposure has been found one must lock it.

3) it is critical to be lock shutter-speed to 1/60s to 1/120th avoid strobbng on fast moving objects.

4) it is critical to not keep iris between f/2.8 and f/5.6 to keep maximum sharpness. It should never go fully open or to f/8!

These are the tasks that must be able to be done by a photographer verses a point-and-shooter. At this point I just don't see how all these can be done with one dial.

I can do all this with my $1300 JVC and with any PROSUMER camcorder. The fact that JVC can offer it means its not a matter of cost or size.

=======

About editing. I've got PC and Macs. And, run Windows on my Mac. I've got no problem with anything from UNIX onward. (OK -- I'll never use Vista.) But, I can tell you that in the USA sales of PCs have slowed while sales of Macs have zoomed. I haven't talked to anyone buying a new computer that wasn't going to buy a Mac. And, I've never been in a production suite in ANY kind of creative field that didn't use Macs. Even in India they are switching to Macs. I think you are all missing the fact that almost all video production except in NYC and Hollywood is done with FCP. And, those that don't use FCP use Avid MC on Macs. And, in the USA -- Macs don't cost more more.

When folks talk about $99 NLE's you've got to accept the fact that no pros use them. I'll admit I picked-up a copy of Pinnacle because it claims it can do everything, but I just can't believe it really works given Pinnacle's horrible history of buggy products. And, I've reviewed many of their products.

I just downloaded EDIUS 4.6 which I have always thought was the best NLE. If it can edit native AVCHD in RT -- that makes a big difference. But, for Mac users, the situation isn't good because all their NLEs convert AVCHD to something else wasting time and disk space.

PS: has anyone confirmed if you use theSR11 with SD cards -- does the HD fully shut-off. Like for sky-diving?

Hey Lorenzo, good to hear on the import side. I know that 4.6 can import AVCHD natively, but it still can't export AVCHD natively. I know that capability is coming, but I don't believe it's here yet. I think you need to export it as HDV.

Steve, more and more U.S. broadcasters are using Edius for HD editing. There's nothing faster, easier with this kind of depth. With Grass Valley's takeover of Canopus, the support is much greater and broadcasters are finding an attractive combo in both the Edius program and GV support.

In terms of who's buying what platform, you and I must be in different circles. Almost everyone I know is buying a PC. I simply can't see a reason for going to an inherently slower platform with far far less software support. IMO it makes no sense. Yes, their advertising is great, but every single time I've played with a Mac I just leave the Apple store shaking my head at the slowness of programs relative to a good speed PC. I've played with Final Cut Pro and to do simple operations on even a high speed Mac takes too long and pales by comparison to how Edius responds with even a more modest PC.

I don't want a computer for which I can simply say "no problems", but rather I want one that is fast, has unparrelled support, and isn't tied to just one manufacturer. Apple's insane policy of 'non-user replaceable batteries' on so many of their products is just one more reason Apple turns me off. I will never buy a product that I have to bring in for servicing to simply replace a battery!

No Mac in my future, but that's just my opinion.

Back to the SR11/12, it seems nobody can say for sure if the HD shuts down while using memory cards. Some say the HD is parked, but that's not enough apparently to ensure no damage while skydiving. So I can't answer your question with any certainty.

Without a doubt, there are professionals who use these cameras when they are the best tool available for the task. However, these little gems are primarily mass market ("consumer") gadgets. So I really don't see the point of gnashing our teeth over their limitations in a professional environment. Conversely, if we want to share good ideas about how one CAN make use of them for pro purposes, we're not wasting bits and bytes.

Well said Pete.

Yes, there has been several large sales to NBC. But, that's about it. Canopus was sold because it couldn't sell enough units to stay in business. It's my favorite NLE, but I would never claim it is a widely used NLE. (By the way, the reason EDIUS is fast ain't because of the PC. It follows Storm Edit which was very coded. It screams on my MBP.)

However, there are close to a million users of FCP. If you monitor the pro lists -- Red, XDCAM HD/EX, DVCPRO HD, JVC 200 series -- you are not going to find but a tiny minority using anything but FCP or Avid MC. Like it or not -- pros just do not use consumer NLEs on PCs. (Vegas is an exception because of its support for XDCAM HD.)

By the way, a PC magazine tested laptops and found the MBP to be the fastest XP laptop -- running Boot Camp. It was also no more expensive. And, Apple beats every other company in reliability and service. So why buy anything else when all the creative (video, 3D, graphics) software runs on the Mac.

Moreover, Apple is the #1 seller of laptops and laptops are the hottest segment in the computer market. I'm not saying PCs are bad -- I'm saying Apple is rapidly growing its market share because PC owners are switching.

PS: If you go to the Edius site it seems AVCHD editing isn't really working. (I'm still not clear if one can edit natively or not.) If anyone has EDIUS working with the SR11 -- you should post how you are doing it.

True to an extent Steve. Edius has always stated that one of its major advantages is how well it scales with processor speeds. The better the computer the better the output. Yes this may be true of many editing apps, but Edius is particularly sensitive to improvements in your system. Remember too that the old Storm system was proprietary hardware & software based, but yet the speed of Edius today does not rely on proprietary hardware.

I also recall large sales to other broadcasters other than NBC (I can't recall which). Canopus' main problem has always been poor promotion. They had what IMO was the best editing product on the market, bar none, yet most people never heard of them. I think GV is doing a better job in this respect.

I don't think we can classify Edius as a 'consumer NLE'. Yes Ulead, Pinnacle and such, but not Edius. I don't disagree that FCP is more widely used, but much of this entrenchment occurred PRIOR to the PC 'catch-up' in NLEs. People learned FCP, were sold on the product and as with most people using NLEs, they developed a loyalty and didn't want the hassel of having to learn a new program. However I've been seeing a number of people switching now that faster and equally competent PC programs exist.

The other issue is that nobody promotes products, any product, like Apple. Watching their Mac-PC ads, you'd think PCs lock up all the time, can't do anything properly and are simply antiquated dinosaurs. This might work with the great unwashed, but people who know computers know how goofy these ads actually are. Since Windows XP, lockups are almost a thing of the past and good editing apps rarely lock up themselves. For the rare times they do, autosave does its job very nicely. So IMO there's much less of a need for a Mac today in the NLE world than there ever was.

Perhaps because there are still MORE editing choices on the PC? Perhaps because some PC-only editing solutions run faster on a PC? As far as I'm concerned Edius runs circles around FCP when it comes to speed and there's very little that I can't do with Edius. Speed is money guy. As I mentioned before, it amazes me at how slow FCP is on even the most powerful Mac for many operations. The kind of rendering that FCP requires should have been a thing of the past. It's not for me.

You'll never impress me with marketing stats Steve. Using this logic we'd conclude that Mercedes and Lexus owners should switch to Chevy or Toyota since they dramatically outsell them. Sales does not always equate to quality...it never did and it never will. I'm certainly not saying Macs are bad, I'm just saying the #s don't equate to quality. Apple's ads do very well with kids since they're perceived to be the 'in' products. The kids represent Apple's biggest area of growth. I don't need to be among the 'in' crowd, been there done that. I'm old enough to know what I need and what works best for my needs. I simply don't fall prey to ads like this. Additionally, these kids will still have to retain familarity with the PC since the world and big business still uses PCs and not Apples. There are still tons and tons of software that simply don't run on a Mac.

I just bought my son a Sony Vaio laptop with a 2.4 gig T8300 processor. For fun I loaded Edius (yes, it's got the 'dreaded' Vista OS with SP1). But let me tell you, I was shocked at how beautifully this thing ran in general and how amazingly fast Edius ran on it! Edius never hiccuped and ran faster than it does on my editing PC. I did find one or two Edius features that didn't seem to run quite right, but considering there is no support for Vista, I was shockied at how well it ran. Total Vista support will soon be here for Edius. In general it looks like SP1 took care of many/most of the issues that people were having. It's also amazing to see how quickly virtually any ap launches. I am supremely impressed with this machine and more than pleasantly surprised with Vista at this point.

I showed it to a buddy who was considering a Mac and he walked away feeling there was absolutely no need for a Mac after seeing this machine. Sony laptop displays are second to none and the machine has some very slick features.

Steve, Edius never claimed to totally support AVCHD. The latest version can import AVCHD natively but it has no provision to export AVCHD natively. You can export to HDV if you like and people are doing fine that way. As I said before, I don't edit my 'fun' footage so I have no first-hand experience with it for this purpose.

yes, you're right Ken. i've Edius in front of me, i can only import avchd.
but not a problem, in fact i usually export in loseless format so I can load my loseless rendered file in avisynth and megui and so i can obtain an h264 exactly as i want with all tuning I need! :-)
ciao!

Hi Lorenzo. Many people are importing AVCHD natively in Edius and simply exporting to HDV. They say they see no loss, but I'm not sure what they're viewing their results on. I'm not sure that would be the case if I displayed it on my 60" 1080p plasma. I think there would be some loss, perhaps minor. But fear not Lorenzo, your solution is a good one and from what I've heard Edius will have total support of AVCHD in the not-too-distant future! :)

Ken, you and I are in full agreement on EDIUS. I too think it is THE BEST NLE SOLD TODAY. It is fast, stable, and the GUI is wonderful. I too think FCP is a bad version of the new Premiere. Likewise, the new Premiere is a bad copy of FCP.

Where we part company is the platform. I too think the claims of XP crashing are totally untrue. But, when it comes to the hardware to run XP on -- I've had Dells and Sonys. They lasted about a year, had zero support, and lost value at an alarming rate. Nobody will buy a used PC and I need to upgrade every year. The opposite is true of Apple. Everyone wants to buy a used Mac.

Just heard this data today: Mac sales are growing at 50%/year while PC sales are growing at 8%/year. Now you may claim it's only kids buying Macs. But, anyone who uses a Mac knows there are no PCs you can buy that match them. Dell and Sony are junk. hp is better, but more expensive than Apple. Levovo is high-quality, but outrageously expensive.

But, leave aside marketing and sales. Since Macs are based on Intel -- and since Intel sells Apple the latest chips first, Macs tend to be faster than a PC. So, if you want EDIUS to really run fast, run it on a Mac. :)

However, once you use OS X you'll have a very hard time using XP. Not because XP is unrealiable, but because Windows is so vulnerable to viruses AND because it is so primitive internally.

Once you've used UNIX, you understand how an OS should be internally organized. So if you need to maintain an XP system you are confronted with a truly bizzare set of Wizards, Tools, Active X crap, and tons of DLLs -- not to mention they dreaded Registry. Look at all the tools sold to maintain a Windows system!

With OS X every aspect of the internals are logical. That's why MS can't make upgrades that work. Internally it's still in the DOS age.

So now we come to why I don't use EDIUS. The best hardware is made by Apple. The internals of OS X are based upon the best OS -- UNIX.

So it doesn't matter if I'm happy to USE XP. Frankly, I like USING XP!

Using is not maintaining. I've no choice but to run OS X. And, thus FCP and Avid MC. I think if you were to ask why post houses use Macs -- they would say the same thing. If you've got dozens of computers to maintain and upgrade you want Macs. Plus they want the cheapest, fastest hardware, with very high reliability.

But, we are way OT. Back to EDIUS. There is no real increase in seeable rez. in 1920x1080 verses 1440x1080. That's why one can use HDV.

But, with FullHD displays becoming the norm -- it makes sense, if one records FullHD, to stay FullHD through the editing process and to BD as it avoids scaling.

Which comes back to my question about RT. I've used Vegas and it is really performance limited. You've got to use minimum rez. in a tiny window to get smooth playback. Adding CC or any FX and it drops to only a few fps. So when these folks post they can PLAY native AVCHD in Vegas -- my question is what happens when you CC two clips and place a page-turn as a transition. They never say they can do this and have playback stay at 30fps. So, Vegas can't really edit native AVCHD in RT -- can it?

EDIUS -- and FCP -- have far more sophisticated internals. In fact, iMovie 08 is fully realtime. You never need to render anything!

So the question I keep wondering is -- does GV plan to make native AVCHD editing fully RT like HDV? Or, do they assume one must convert to HQ?

I've been looking over the messages for the last few days and decided to post some links regarding the Panasonic HMC-150 that I saw at NAB (with photos):

http://web.mac.com/bobdiaz/Site/HMC150.html


Also, I had a chance to interview Jan Crittenden (from Panasonic) as well as Berry Green regarding the HMC-150, the HPX-170 and the HVX-200a.

http://web.mac.com/bobdiaz/Site/Podc...Panasonic.html

http://web.mac.com/bobdiaz/Site/Podc...rry_Green.html


I'm pleased to read that Steve Mullen likes the HMC-150. (Great minds think alike... Ha ha) This camera has caught my eye too and I have big hopes that Panasonic will be able to keep the price in reason and still deliver a quality camera.


The word from NAB was October for the HMC-150 and September for the HPX-170.


Bob Diaz

What to do?
 

I have been following this and several other threads. I am about to move to a HD camcorder. I have been looking at the Canon and Sony offerings as well as JVC recently. The editing has me concerned. Have have been using IMovie 06 and just read Steve Mullen's ebook on iMovie 08 and like the prospect of using it. I currently have an iMac and a MBP is coming soon. I also have a XP laptop. I was hoping to move to FCE , but that doesn't sound like a good option for a AVCHD camera.

While my editing is for family use and some no-profit stuff, I don't do anything real fancy, just basic trims, titles and the like. Editing with AVCHD has me concerned enough that I am considering going with a HV20 or HV30 instead of a camera with flash memory.

Why is it that I don't see a lot of interest in the JVC that records in MPEG 2 to a harddrive? It would seem as thought it would be the best of both worlds. What is that I am missing here?

I find this forum very helpful and look forward to more great post. I want to get a camera in the next few weeks before I start traveling. I need to decidewhich format and which camera real soon.

I ask ask you a favour guys, if you can, if you want, if you have time...
I've seen bob's link about hmc-150 and the two video; i've understood something but not all beacuse they speak too fast and there is too much noise in background and it results for my english too much difficult.
Someone could put in written words what they are saying in the two video? (it's enough a summary of course not exactly each word! :-) ). thanks in advance.

------------

I would like to post a couple of clip that i treated by avisynth chain, since i'm not kidding anyone, as Steve told me...

Here it is 2 clip i did by the "old" pana SD1...I deinterlaced by avisynth's yadifmode building a 50P clip. And after i load it in premiere CS3 using timewarp and time remapping.
(i did this experiment since in italy many people think that AVCHD panning is poor and shuttering. And that is impossible to get decent rallenty...I don't think so... off course i've not any claim but i think it is not a bad work, compared, off course between same camcorder class...)

here there is the timeremapping test:
http://www.savefiles.net/d/tdr4zx83ekyd3.html

and here there is the timewarp test:
http://rs86.rapidshare.com/files/109..._yadif_50F.mp4

it would be possible to do better job, but i am a dog to use premiere and its effects!! :-)


and here there is a little test from SR11 of my friend. I treated the video in avisynth, sharpening a little bit using a powerful sharpening function, called seesaw.

http://www.speedyshare.com/398541820.html

i used 12mbit in full resolution, that was exactly the amount of bitrate this particular clip needed, not too much bitrate not too little ( and this thanks to compressibility test i can do using another avisynth script..).

ciao!

Tom,

I've been looking into AVCHD also and I'm facing many of the same problems you see. To me the HMC-150 looks like my ideal camera, but the editing issue does raise its ugly head.

Editing native does require a much more powerful computer than what I have (iMac, dual core, 2.4 GHz). Yet, considering the cost of getting a computer that's powerful enough, it would be better to spend the extra money and get the HPX-170.

Using a digital intermediate like AIC (Apple Intermediate Codec) solves the processor power problem, but does add a generation to the process. However, the AIC is a high bit rate editing Codec, so the "loss" is very minor and may not matter much.

I've been toying a lot with FCE (Final Cut Express) to see how well it will work with HD. In one experiment, I took some footage from Philip Bloom that was 720/25P. According to FCE's documentation, this mode is not supported, but when I outputted the file in 1080 mode, it came out as 1080/25p. It may well be that there are modes to FCE that are supported, but not in the manual.


Bob Diaz

Interesting analogy Steve, I never thought of it that way. Maybe that explains it since I've always hated Premiere.

Well the resale issue holds no water with me since I'd never think of reselling an old laptop. In actuality I never buy anything because of resale value, but that's me. I buy based soley on how the product appeals to me.

I can't agree with you at all on the Sony laptops but I do agree with you on the Dells. I've had Dell laptops for work and they are indeed garbage! I've had numerous issues with them. However I've always gotten Sony laptops for my son and they have been rock-solid. The kid abuses the hell out of his laptop, runs it 24/7 and the thing never ever gives up. In fact the only reason I got him the new T8300 2.4gig Vaio was because his battery was pretty much shot. Rather than spend $150 on a 3-year old Vaio laptop, I got him a new one. I'm extremely impressed with the new Vaio. The speed is tremendous and the Vista OS is a pleasant surprise. I've never had a computer where apps launch so quickly...almost instantly!

Again, I've played with Macs and have not been impressed with their speed. Even using something as simple as Word, both my wife and I noticed a significant lag when typing on the keyboard and finally seeing the results. The only thing I like about their laptops is the screen and they Vaio screen seems to be a match for them.

The problem I have here Steve is that the computer I use for editing is never hooked up to the internet and I therefore have never ever gotten a virus on them. In fact, I've only gotten a virus once in all my years with PCs on my home computers. I think the whole issue of viruses is over-rated...at least on the sites I go on. I've also always used Norton and so that may be a factor too. But suffice is to say I don't think I've gotten a virus in 5 years.

That may be true Steve, but I've used Windows since the advent of the PC and for me it's like the back of my hand. Once you've become so accustomed to what Mac users may find weird, it's no longer weird. The Mac OS to me is weird because I'm not used to it. It may indeed be better, but I have no reason to switch since everything I run on XP is so rock solid...it truly is.

Steve, the computer I've been using is made by Shuttle. These are beautifully made and designed PCs. They have a small form factor and have been rock solid. I use one for my editing and I have another as a family computer. Never had an issue with them. So I don't worry about the hardware, don't need to learn a new OS and have had great success using Edius. I would have a very very hard time dealing with FCP interface...I hate it. To be honest, even if I had a maintenance issue with hardware (which fortunately I don't), I would still put up with it to use Edius. I figure the time that Edius saves me and the pleasure I have using it, would more than make up for the maintenance issues. For me it's truly a win win.

I agree, why throw out the extra resolution when you have it...particularly in my case when I do have a 60" 1080p display.

I tried Vegas and really wasn't crazy about the interface. I think you're right about layers, CC and transitions. I don't believe Vegas can handle that in RT.

Knowing Edius, I'd truly be shocked if AVCHD wasn't real time. I think this is one of the reasons they may seem 'delayed' in introducing AVCHD total support to Edius.

Looks we agree more than we disagree. I had one very expensive Sony laptop -- preVAIO and is it was horrible. But, i bought one of the tiny tiny VAIO laptops for my wife used -- and I love it.

We also agree on speed. I have a big mother Dell, bought used after tons of repairs were made -- and it screams. My wife used it keeps comment on how slow her far new MacBook is. Of course, the MacBook weights half of what the Dell does. I hear that OS X 10.6 is, at last, going to focus on performance.

I posted at the EDIUS site. The answer I got was that no computer can edit AVCHD natively. Yes, Vegas can play a clip as can EDIUS at minimum resolution. But, I still think it can't do CC and FX in RT. And, we agree on the Vegas GUI. Seems like Premiere V2.

Maybe I'll look at a VAIO from Sony with BD burner.

PS: I came very close to buying a Shuttle!

I have the JVC HD7 and I LOVE it. I wrote a book on it. Same 960x540 chip system as the Pana 200, 60GB HD like SR11, Full Manual controls, and everything edits it like it were HDV.

So why look at AVCHD? Because right or wrong the market follows Sony, Panasonic, and Canon. Since it's time for a new book -- I really have no choice but to write about AVCHD even if it wouldn't be MY first choice.

Likewise, even if I come to love the Sony SR11/12 as the "best" -- I need to consider that Canon is selling a ton of camcorders. Someone loves them. And, if you want progressive it's the only way to go.

I need to consider the market more than I consider what I would buy. In fact, since companies these days don't give long loans -- I often need to sell what I have. So if you are interested in my HD7, email me off-line. I'm saving my pennies for the Pana HMC-150. I have a severe case of lust.

Yeah, I've seen those really tiny Vaios...super nice! I just saw one on the plane last night as I was returning from Atlanta. Of course the give back is that small screen.

Per Edius, keep in mind that you can import and edit AVCHD natively, but with a hit to performance. I saw your post on the Edius board. I'm sure they'll have the total AVCHD solution with 5.0 and I'd be surprised if it's not real time in keeping with their tradition.

I also saw how people have said that transcoding AVCHD to the Canopus HQ codec (which is indeed excellent and visually transparent for HDV) resulted in no drop in picture quality. I'm not sure what screen they were viewing it on and I asked that question. It's hard to believe that there would be a zero drop in quality in going from 1920X1080 to 1440X1080. Granted that 1920X1080 AVCHD does not have much more detail than the best 1440X1080, but I'd still like to see what screen these people are using to make these assessments.

Yes Steve, we agree more than we disagree here.

I think many of the "pros" are missing the point of AVCHD. While full editing of AVCHD has a tough time getting up up speed, simple cuts-only editing (what consumers want) is a thing of beauty.

I have the Pany SD5 with the bundled DVD burner, and this offers possibilities NEVER available with tape. Here's what I can do if I don't even OWN a computer. Delete and split shots in the camera, then copy these to a standard DVD (even dual layer). I can then play the DVD through the camera's HDMI or component outputs in HD, or I can play it in a Blu-ray player.

If you have a computer, you have a few more options using the included HDWRITER software. You must use ONLY this software, but within its limited capabilities it works very well. You can copy memory card or DVD to a hard drive, then do cuts-only editing and burn a DVD (in HD) and create basic menus for a Blu-ray player. That disc can also play through the camera in HD using the bundled burner. You can also copy that edited DVD back to an SD card, and play that in the camera. A couple Pany HDTVs have a card slot that will play AVCHD as well.

HDWRITER ran fine on a 3GHz P4, while Pinnacle Studio plus stuttered and crashed. A quad core 3GHz did much better. AVCHD is not just a file format, but a complete folder structure. In fact, the "edited" material is simply a playlist of the original shots. I thought the Pany combination was simplicity itself, and just what consumers need.