Hi Dale, I had never thought of using the AVCHD disc option, but it worked fine I made a folder on one of my partitions and saved the temp folder to it and it saves a folder in there called DMF_TEMP inside that is one called CvtedTitle were it hides an .mpg file that turns out to be the video at full 18000kbs h264 AVCHD no need to try to extract it from the disc which in my case was not readable in the DVD drive it had just made it in, sod's law at work again. I then dropped out some frames as bmp captures from the same place from a test file I had kept from Premiere Elements 7 at 2000kbps and the same frame from Corel Pro X2 at 18000kbps and compared them at 2x resolution and would say there is virtually nothing in it, if I was pushed would give it to Corel by a whisker. I might send Corel another email asking them why they default there AVCHD out put to 70% and yet give the AVCHD disc output the full 100%. even if you change the settings of the AVCHD default to 100% it still only gives you 70% maybe they think it makes it to slow at rendering but I would rather be able to pick speed or quality myself. I also did some smart renders and that seems to be playing better now I have put the patch in and loaded the latest Direct X like you suggested, so thanks for the recommendations.

Cheers Bryan

Hi Dale just as an after thought I did try the "same as first file" but found it did a re-compression at a much lower bitrate than the original so haven't worked that one out yet.

Bryan

Ron,

Regarding Nero, my experience was the same as yours. Nero, if forced to render, has low quality codecs and the results are indeed poor. Their smart render is my only reason for using Nero, as it seems to work quite well.

Regarding Edius (as well as other transcoders to HDV such as Vaast Upshift and Voltaic): Yes, I have used them, and I dislike their long conversion times and drop in quality compared to original footage.

I personally do not often author BluRay disks, although I have burners and blanks here to do so. I virtually always author AVCHD disks, and therefore have no interest in mpeg2 conversion, either for ease of editing or for distribution. (I have created many hundreds of HDV/mpeg2 disks from HDV content in the 2003-2008 time frame before I switched to AVCHD with HD DVD format, and found this to be a superb way to retain quality) For AVCHD content, I capture in AVCHD, edit in AVCHD, and publish in AVCHD, and re-render this fragile format as seldom as possible.

If a lot of editing is neccesary, I generally use Vegas Pro 8, and find that it handles AVCHD quite well. I used Cineform with Premiere a few years ago when it first came out and found Premiere was just full of problems, so I have not returned to using either Premiere or Cineform in recent years. It is probably rather clear I personally dislike the use of intermediate file forms and conversion times, so I try to avoid both.

With all due respect to others and how workflow should be accomplished, I need to point out that I am NOT a professional, do relatively light editing work, and use only a small subset of the features of an NLE most of the time.

I do, however, spend a lot of time observing, measuring, and comparing frame grabs, comparing identical clips edited in different software, and have several big hi def displays, so I have strong preferences for certain workflows based on image quality. In my view, re-rendering has more than "the possibility of re-rendering losses". It introduces losses which, to me, are visible in many if not most cases. Your milegage may vary. I think it is entirely up to each user to decide whether they are able to see differences and also judge whether they are concerned about it or not.


Larry

Larry. Since you are using Vegas Pro 8, I am going to assume that you are pleased with the final video/audio product. Is this true? How is it to work with? What is its tool suite like? Better than Neros?

Mike

Thanks again Ron.
Since I am not completely happy with the NLEs that I currently have, I am wondering if Neo or Neo 2 would be a smart investment. I pretty much understand that applying my footage after Neo converts it, to say Pinnacle (if it will work with Pinnacle), should alleviate any problem with losing quality due to rerendering. But the keys here are; will it work with the NLEs I already have, and will it truely contribute to a better quality video/audio product working with these NLEs?

Mike

Mike,

Sony Vegas Pro is stable, full of features, and produces very good output and I particularly like their excellent forum and support. Unlike the cheaper programs including Pinnacle, Ulead, Cyberlink, Arcsoft, they have a real support organization in Madison Wisconsin with knowledgable people, as well as a very active online forum with many real experts. It is also priced reasonably, all considered.

You can also use the DVD authoring program it contains (called DVD Architect) to make fully menued AVCHD disks. If you feed it raw .mts files, it will make an AVCHD with NO rerendering, retaining original quality. You give up the editing tools of the companion program, Vegas, but for some jobs this is still just fine.

You should give it a free trial. Same for Edius. Only YOU can decide which one will work best for YOU.

Larry

Just to clarify a couple of points about "rerendering" AVCHD to digital intermediate codecs for editing.
1) Converting AVCHD to Cineform DI, for example, expands the AVCHD to a wavelet compressed, I Frame only .avi file- not something like HDV, which is another varient of mpeg, and would be lossey. It is a lightly compressed file with a data rate of around 100 mbs, and at 10 bit, 4:2:2, has a lot of redundancy. That's why it's near "lossless".
2) Conversion time on an up to date system is real time for tape capture (HDV), and often exceeds real time for file based media (AVCHD, XDCam). In my case, I simply insert the raw media card and "capture" the footage as Cineform DI.
3) Render times during edit, for previews or output, are quicker with the big DI avi codec than with the more complex AVCHD codec because it is less demanding of system resources.
There are many possible workflows available to meet the various objectives of a particular project, or client.
If you can do everything you need to "in camera", and your goal is to preserve the original look as faithfully as possible, then it's desirable to keep the original AVCHD untouched all the way thru to BD.
In my case, I often need to CC and color match, adjust gamma, blacks, insert/overlay AE comps, and on top of that often make global adjustments to the finished movie- Magic Bullet Looks, etc. That's way too much whammy for the original codec. The DI formats make it possible in an easy, efficient workflow.

Thanks Bob for making a very important distinction.

Cineform's intermediate format is quite different from the method used by Vaast Upshift, Voltaic, and other programs which transcode from AVCHD into mpeg2 / HDV. The Cineform process and format avoid the severe recompression penalty, and presumably can be used subsequently in the workflow to create, for authoring, an AVC file once again without yet another degredation due to expanding GOPs temporarily created in the inrtermediate. Their approach is comparatively "gentle" and should be much less destructive. Edius Neo most likely enjoys the same advantage.

The Vaast, Elecard, Voltaic method of transcoding to HDV leaves much to be desired in my own limited usage / experience, most likely due to their recompressions.

Larry

Thanks Larry.

I will try the free trial of both programs.

What is your opinion of the regular Sony Vegas movie studio 9 Platinum? Worth looking into, or just a waste of time?

Mike

Sony Vegas Movie Studio 9 Platinum is a cut down version of Vegas just like Neo is a cut down version of Edius. Both have the more pro features missing and may be good for a beginning or casual user. Vegas 9 Platinum is the latest upgrade so would be more similar to the about to be released Neo 2. Neo has the HQ codec capability but Vegas will smoothly edit AVCHD by reducing resolution in the preview window to match the PC capabilities. Both give an idea of how the pro versions operate and have upgrade paths too.

Ron Evans

Mike,

I tried the "Movie Studio" version of Vegas after using Vegas for several years and found it lacking. Had I started with it, I may have not been so disappointed by its limitations.

I would again suggest a download and a trial. Each person has their own comfort zone and individual preferences regarding complexity, feature set, user interface, and performance on their specific hardware, so I really am reluctant to "reccomend" a solution for anybody. You may find that the Platinum Movie Studio version is just right for your situation.

Larry

Thank you both, Larry and Ron.
Two things would hold me back from getting the Vegas Pro, and that would be:
1. I am not in business for myself, or at least not yet, to cover the added cost. I am a retired teacher with a small pension with little room for the expenses of my hobby. So my expenditures must be thought out carefully. Although such a purchase would seem warranted, if I am to make this hobby into a business, I am reluctant. Perhaps after trying the free trials, I will feel differently.

2. My demands are not all that great. I do not need many of the extra features that the "upper level" or "higher tier" programs offer. My future products will not be targeted to broadcast television, etc., but rather to private individuals who share my interest in the subject matter. With that in mind, I need a program that will present my video in a pleasing, straight up "professional" manner, without all (well, some but not all) the bells and whistles. I do not film cutsie family/vacation video type things, so all those "cute" or over the top graphics type tools are unnecessary. Chapters, transitions, titles, music, narration capabilities, and the ability to produce quality video/audio in the DVD, AVCHD, and BR formats in a straight forward manner is all I need.

I will download the free trials and give them a look. Who knows, maybe after trying them, I will opt for their more complete brothren.

Mike

Movie Studio platinum looks and acts just like the Pro version except a few options/features are not present. For $85 Studio Platinum is excellent.

Sony Vegas Pro has a little brother called Vegas Movie Studio. The Platinum version will do avchd. It's not as detailed (obviously) as Vegas pro, but it's only around $100.

The advantage is that the interface is very much the same to the pro version so when you feel that you have out grown VMS.... it's not like having to learn a whole new program if you decide to switch up.

EDIT: I see some one beat me to the answer!

So basically to sum this thread up in laymen's terms is that AVCHD's time has not yet come and we were premature in buying AVCHD format camera's... Would that be a fair statement?

Not really
 

If you said, that 2 years ago, I'd agree with you. But nowadays, not really. Us Sony Vegas users have a slight advantage though that we can edit avchd natively. But of course that still requires a good quad cpu. Even if native editing within the NLE was available 2 (or even a year ago), without the matching hardware, it would still be a pain.

But even without native avchd editing, avchd is really not "conducive" to editing. It was meant more to record video in a small file without giving up IQ or PQ a lot. The trade-offs are obvious, but it's either that or we prepare ourselves for very large files. And 2 years ago, sdhc files were very expensive and 8gb is probably the biggest size then.

The use of cineform or other intermediate codec is really not a step back. It's just the nature of avchd and if you want to edit it properly, one way is to not edit avchd but some form or codec that doesn't present us the problems of avchd editing.

We can expect, that maybe this year or next year Adobe or some other NLE will handle avchd editing without transcoding. That is possible. Vegas has shown the way. Or maybe some clever programmer can think of a way to work around avchd's limitations. But I doubt if at this juncture, we can expect another codec to come in to replace avchd. That's harder to do than learning to adjust to it. And it will take years again before the software gets around to working with that new codec. So, I'd rather learn to live with avchd warts and all.

What is significant that is happening, however, is that the hardware (cpu, hard drives, memory cards) are all getting the power, capacity, speed, at a lower than before cost, w/c in turn is necessary for working with avchd. All we need to wait further is for NLE makers (software) to step up and make this process more seamless and easier, without sacrificing IQ/PQ in the final delivery output.

You could, still wait a year and stick with HDV w/c is easier to manage. But that has it's own issues. The good side is the NLEs already have an easy time with them and even dual cores can handle them quite well. The down side is I notice that the camera makers are moving away from tape or HDV. One way or the other, the handwriting is on the wall for tape, whether we like it or not. If you are just moving away from SD to HDV or HD now, I'd rather go directly to HD or tapeless solutions than go to HDV at this time. This is just me of course. But I have no doubt that next year, we would hardly see 2 tape based HDV cameras coming out per manufacturer and we will see 6-8 non-tape based models. If this is any indicator at all, these are clear signs of where the industry is moving into. I'd rather start hedging my bets on that.

The other downside is to edit avchd either natively or with the use of some intermediate codec means you have to upgrade your computer system if you want to have a smoother and painless editing experience. It's not that you can't do it with your dual core cpu, but it will take longer and it may be unpleasant. Though the price of hardware has gone down a lot, it is still expense that you have to factor in if you want to edit avchd. In that respect, yes, maybe you can say, avchd editing is not yet mature. But surely the word is not "premature." And it may mean you may have to add an extra U$600-800 for a new quad core cpu.


In summary, I don't think it's premature. It still has some ways to go, but definitely we are no longer in stage one. We are about 1/3 there. But we should not expect avchd to be an easy codec to handle. Hence, hardware and now software must step up the plate to make editing them like we are editing SD files with a dual core cpu. For now, if your NLE does not support it, the best recourse, though it will add to your storage requirements and extra time, transcoding, for me, is still the better option.

Good news for AVCHD EDITORS!!!
 

Hey check this out!!!

VEGAS MOVIE STUDIO PLATINUM 9 free at Fry's this week.
Price: $ 70.00
After Rebate: $ 0.00

Not true. For the consumer who follows the intent of the manufacturer then they are great. For the pro who has a reason for a small easily carried B camera or for inconspicuous video its also great. For the people in the middle who want to be better, at a consumer price point for equipment ...you may be correct. The consumer doesn't need a computer really for edited Sony output. Buy the camera and the stand alone disc burner and learn how to create playlists and your done. For the pro who has pro NLE and a powerful computer there is no real problem. For the people who do not have a powerful computer or NLE and want something special its not there and likely never will be. A powerful computer is the minimum.

Ron Evans

I agree with you Ron, and Mel, but have to disagree on one point. I have a fast computer. That is not the issue with me. My issue is the lack of a good all around affordable package. Pinnacle comes with a great suite of tools, but the final product when producing AVCHD is less than it ought to be (video quality). Nero, while producing a beautiful picture, lacks in the tool department. If one could take both programs and combine them, then it would be a very good program with a good tool suite and able to produce a great quality video/audio presentation. Hopefully there are, or soon will be, such a program. Perhaps when I try Neo or Vegas I will surprisingly find that one of them is what I am looking for. Who knows?

Mike

I know I sound like a broken record, but there is a current solution for $185

$85 Vegas Movie Studio Platinum
$100 Cineform NeoScene

Both have free trials for download on their site.

Good news for AVCHD EDITORS!!!
Hey check this out!!!
VEGAS MOVIE STUDIO PLATINUM 9 free at Fry's this week.
Price: $ 70.00
After Rebate: $ 0.00

I understand your point about the "middle man" but I have to disagree about the average consumer.
Case and point:
Joe the plumber wants to take videos of his kids. He picks up a standard apple iMac. He uses the editing program included, iMovie. The salesman talks him into the latest technology an AVCHD camcorder. He takes it home films his kids at the park and their piano recital. When he sits down to edit it all hell breaks loose! Nothing works right... He gets a tip to join DVinfo.net, and learns that he can't have the 'run of the mill' computer with his new camera. He needs a top of the line 8 core with tons of ram! That is the experience the average consumer is having. The only happy customers are those with higher end professional set ups.

When I see the problems my friend has with a Mac and I Movie I'm glad I stayed with XP, his m/c is a dual core 2.2 GHz but it won't load AVCHD off my HF10.
I use a Core 2 Duo 3Hhz and Video Studio Pro X2 and stay with AVCHD 1920x1080 through out as any conversion loses definition, the only thing I use is Proxy Files to help with the editing, and then a bit of patience waiting for the final rendering, in my case about 8 times real time, but the outcome is worth the wait as the quality of the final video is so close to the original it is just about impossible to pick. If you go back to the early days of video editing 8x real time would have seemed lightening fast, after all the editing is what takes the time the rendering is nothing in comparison, so having quad core might be nice but is only of any significant benefit to the final render.

Well Joe plumber is not likely to pick up a MAC. The law of averages says he will buy a cheap PC. On the PC there are lots of programs including the ones that come with the AVCHD cams that work just fine even on slow computers. If he is like the painter I had recently he keeps all the video on the camera and edits "in camera", makes backup discs on his PC and plays out playlist for family and friends to watch. No problems. This is the value of a big hard drive in the camera. Sony have even included a feature( on the XR500 and XR520) that creates a trailer of your clips including music!!! The problem comes with people who wish the cams would do a lot more, for less effort on their part. The easy solution is to get a stand alone burner. Both Sony and Canon have burners setup to make discs from the cameras as a backup or playlist. The average person doesn't want to do anything else. The average user is not a video enthusiast they just want to take some video. If you need to make fancy edits then you will need a powerful computer or wait!!!



Ron Evans

I understand your point but we'll have to agree to disagree on the Mac/PC issue. Although averages lean towards the PC that doesn't mean that it doesn't happen often for MAC users.

My point wasn't a MAC/PC issue. Buy whatever computer meets ones needs. PC's are about 90% of the market and are lower cost. They are therefore more likely to be the computer used. I was also making the point that a computer is not needed at all to enjoy AVCHD on a nice HD display and have backup discs as well. One would need a Bluray ( or PS3 ) player though to enjoy the discs.
If you want to do a lot of editing and have no computer the choice would be a PC providing a lower cost way of getting the needed power and having a wider choice of software including the software that comes with most AVCHD cameras that is normally PC based. I have no bias PC or MAC this is just the way it is at the moment. Buy the tool that meets the need.

Ron Evans

If you're planning on doing a lot of avchd editing and even getting into Blu Ray the Mac is not the way to go. Mac is behind the times in this department. You can do it but it's not nearly as efficient.

Apple sided with HD DVD and Toshiba/Microsoft during the format war and has still not fully adjusted to the way of blu ray as of yet. In fact there is still a question as to whether or not they ever will.

If you're working with avi, HDV.... etc then a mac will do ya', but avchd and Blu Ray.... PC is the way to go.