NLE - Non-Linear Editor. Examples are Adobe Premier Pro, Sony Vegas, Avid, etc.

When it comes to purchasing an NLE, it depends a lot on your budget, your computer specs, and your preferences. I use Premier Pro CS3. I actually bought CS3 Production Premium, so I got Adobe Encore (for authoring DVDs), AfterEffects, Photoshop, and several other apps with it. CS3 is out of production, having been superseded by CS4. Premier pro, like all NLEs, is pretty expensive (go to the Adobe web site for prices).

Without investing in an NLE, I don't know how you'd edit your footage. I don't know what you're using now for your XL1S footage, but if you were able to edit the 1440x1080 footage with that, you'll most likely be able to edit the CFHD 1920x1080 footage too.

I use Adobe Encore to author DVDs. Again, I don't know anything about using Nero to do it. I'd imagine Nero is pretty limited and all you can do with it is feed it a movie file and say "make me a DVD." That's far different from using DVD authoring software.

Again, remember that the CFHD AVI files and your final edited movie are indeed huge, but they will be down-rezzed to 720x480 by the DVD authoring program so that they are within the DVD specifications. This will result in the files being substantially smaller.

Julian

.MOV all the way
 

I never would have considered any camera that does not put out a quicktime file format.

Do you mean useless for the average consumer in the was that penicilin is useless to the average consumer, or a Boieng 747 is useless to the average consumer? Because, both of these tools are useless at first, but if you take the 15 minutes to LEARN HOW TO USE THEM, they really become surprisingly useful.

You mean as opposed to: XDCAM, DVCPRO HD, Red RAW, etc?

Stan, if all you want to do is take the video & burn it to DVD why are you recording in 1920x1080p HD? You can record in 640x480 SD & those files will surely play easily on any PC.

thanks
 

thanks ,i'm going to keep trying using the neo scene to convert then i'm going to try vegas ,i'll get there ...it will take some experimenting
Mind today i looked at an apple computer with final cut but it can be costly too

more
 

Besides looking at the results of a converted *.mov canon 5D file then running the file are there specs that depict the quality ie if the result of the conversion of the *.mov file is avi H264 (avc) 1400kpbs and audio 192kbps mp3 are we talking this is a good file to output(it looked good)
In fact the best i have seen so far

On a Mac you don't need Final Cut to edit this footage. iMovie which ships with every Mac handles Canon 5D Mk II .MOVs just fine. It's far less sophisticated than Final Cut Pro or even Final Cut Express but is far more functional than e.g. Windows Movie Maker. For quick & simple editing it's a neat program.

Stan,

I'm sorry, I don't really understand the question. Is the CFHD AVI file good enough to output? Output to what? It's a 1920x1080 square pixels, 29.97 fps AVI file. It's good enough to output to HD BlueRay (1920x1080), SD DVD (720x480), MPEG-2 (your choice of resolution), and pretty much any other format. Cineform HD files are used in the film industry to create the final prints for motion picture films, so yes, I'd say they're good enough for output! :-)

Julian

what i meant
 

After converting the *.mov file the file playback was good ,picture and audio were good but i was wondering what the file specs are ,were there losses .When you play back a video you have no idea how good it is because the player does not show the file contents ie1920x1080
During conversion the program indicated it was H264(avc) 1000 kbps and audio mp3 192 kbps,i'm asking if these specs are an indication of a good quality video file.


stan
By reading your thread above i'd say my file is good ,i'm happy with the results
i won't be needing a mac

The audio is not MP3, it's 16-bit PCM. And it depends on your player and your screen, as to whether it shows the full 1920x1080 display.

Julian

1000Kps (1Mbps) is a rather low bit rate for a Full HD video. 1280x720 HD video uploaded to Vimeo gets converted to about 5Mbps while for video uploaded to SmugMug 1280x720 HD is 3.2Mbps with 1920x1080 is about 7Mbps. Here is an example of a short clip converted to 10Mbps using MPEG Streamclip uploaded to SmugMug in various sizes & bit rates Barkers Videos I normally set audio to 128Kbps AAC

At the end of the day if you are happy with the quality of the video then that is all that matters.

Even more important - if the audience is happy with the quality, then it's all good. :)

again
 

the video is very good ,i'm not there yet but getting close ---what size was that file (audio video is perfect)

The original file from the camera was about 250MB. The sizes of the different versions at that link are roughly:-

1920x1080 146MB
1280x720 66MB
960x540 38MB
640x360 27MB
320x180 13MB

Barkers Videos