Re: Standard definition or HD

"Martin Heffels" <goofies@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:4qnaa593kr7frj1ahksqes220u0ucnid4q@xxxxxxxxxx
On Mon, 7 Sep 2009 12:57:19 -0400, "David Ruether"
<d_ruether@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

You can also work directly with it in a program like
Corel VideoStudio Pro X2, which can (after a selection
is made in a program menu) capture 24 Mbps and also
make low resolution proxy files to use while editing. While
these files can make smooth video previewing practical on
older gear, the low quality of the previews prevents good
evaluation of the characteristics of the original material (we
have this program, and I did not think it is of much value
except in a pinch).

The lower quality is true. However not everybody is concerned or can
even see this. It's up to the individual to decide what is acceptable
for them.


An intermediate codec is a codec which uses the same quality as the
the recorded format, except the codec is less strenuous on your
system. The quality remains the same, so once you're finished, you can
export straight away to delivery format. But if you're picky, you can
recapture again in the original format and export that.

Technically, these intermediate files are larger than the originals,
have slightly lower quality given the necessary transcoding step
to make them, and they are generally only practical when used
on powerful gear.

Not necessarily. Usually you won't see a difference with the naked
eye. They require less performance, because the compression algorithms
of the intermediate codecs, are less demanding on the computer being
used. Avid DNxHD and Apple ProRes come to my mind.

In your case, I understand that you have a P4 system, so if you don't
want to splash out for a new system, proxy editing would be the thing
for you to edit AVCHD.

cheers

-martin-

I agree - but we still come around to the basic question of whether
or not it is more reasonable to choose an HD format type that works
well on modest gear (like a cheap dual-core machine, and even better
on a still-inexpensive quad-core machine) without the complications
and disadvantages of needing to use poor quality proxy files or good
but larger intermediate files. HDV is that well-proven and easy to use
HD format - and it additionally offers the advantage of easy archiving
of the source material. I know there is strong appeal to the convenience
of shooting to a memory card or hard drive and making quick transfers
to the editing computer (I feel this "tug" toward AVCHD myself...;-),
but it is not yet easy to edit 24 Mbps AVCHD on modest (and
affordable for most) hardware and software if one wants to do more
than just assemble clips, and really make videos. This is simply still
true, no matter how much someone else here rails against this truth,
or any of us wants it to be otherwise. Maybe in a year or two, things
will be different...;-)

HDV is proven, and works indeed with modest computers. However it's
not a wise investment when looking into the future, as camera's with
24Mbps AVCHD have a better picture quality than HDV, so why buy an
"antiquated" format? It is possible _now_ to work around the computers
limitations on AVCHD, and when time comes, buy a new system with
additional en/decoders (as mentioned by Smarty), and go at the task,
full blast.
This principal is not new, and we have this every time a new
video format appears on the market, because the technology they use
(encoding) is ahead of what is currently possible for us, but they
know that the market will catch up. And when the market caught up, the
next format will pop-up, and the game starts all over again. We forgot
the debates we had about AVCHD and will be bickering about the next
format :-)

cheers

-martin-


I wanted to add a few comments and observations here with regard to
intermediates for doing AVCHD editing. Some NLE software uses intermediate
codecs, but many of them do not, choosing instead to edit AVCHD in a native
format and using preview files at lower resolution to see immediately the
result of filters, transitions, etc.

Some NLE companies have chosen to first convert AVCHD to another format
which they already supported, rather than re-work their software to handle
the GOP structure and profiles of AVCHD. Some NLE companies have optionally
permitted intermediate codecs to be added such as Cineform, but do not
demand it.

With the exception of Apple which always convert to their own formats
regardless of whether you are using AVCHD or HDV, the software for the PC
with very few exceptions does not include or use intermediate files / codecs
as such. Most of the AVCHD editing / authoring programs (Corel Video Studio
Pro X2, Ulead/Corel Movie Factory, Cyberlink Power Director, Nero Vision,
ArcSoft Total Media Extreme) make smaller proxy / preview files, usually
about 1/3rd the size of the original AVCHD file. These are of relatively low
resolution, and, as David says, do not typically show the very fine detail
of the original during the editing process. They make no large files whatsoever.

Programs which permit true HD preview typically do have either a larger
intermediate, a (time consuming)rendering preview, or an outright conversion
to some other truly larger file. In the case of Sony Vegas, this is an
optional process, both in the sense that the render can be avoided entirely
for those willing to take a lesser quality preview, or at higher size and
resolution for those willing to add Cineform or wait for render previews to
be performed. In the case of Edius this is not an option, but does require
each AVCHD file to be converted into the proprietary format Canopus uses at
ingest time.

For those people with more time than money, a conversion from AVCHD into
another format does indeed help the editing smoothness, but with penalties
in processing time and possibly quality. Those with truly inadequate
hardware can use 3rd party converter utilities such as VASST Upshift or
Voltaic to make the AVCHD file into another format, but this is a lame
solution in my opinion.

As was true at the onset of MJPEG when the Iomega Buzz cards came out, and
was true of HDV when the FX-1 was first introduced using Premiere to edit,
the computer hardware and software lags the compression technology. Just as
Martin succinctly stated, the editing suites need some time to catch up.

The really important realization here though is that extremely adequate and
low cost hardware and software is now available and has been available for
quite some time to handle AVCHD. Choosing the right codecs such as CoreAVC,
enough memory, the right version of Windows, the right graphics card, and
the right software is a bit more tricky, but the results are achievable
without spending a lot of money.

I don't want to over-hype this technology, and have no personal gain here
except a true belief that the format has a lot to recommend it. I, for one,
was extremely dismayed to see HD DVD go away, and found HD DVD authoring
with HDV / mpeg2 to be a very stable and beautiful format, particularly for
people like myself who wanted only red laser disks. I now feel the very same
way about red laser AVCHD disks with h.264/AVC content, since they are
usually as easy to create, more detailed and crisp in appearance, and have
the same essential feature I personally strive for, which is that the
camcorder output can be placed on the delivery disk with bit-for-bit
retention of detail / no re-compression, except with filtering / transitions
/ or titles are applied. I realize that a lot of editing creates filters,
transitions, and titles, but I always prefer the editing tools which ONLY do
the recompression for these special cases, and not in general.

Just my 2 cents.....

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Picking a camcorder for HD
    ... camcorder and have narrowed it down to 2 models, one an AVCHD format and the other HDV.The AVCHD camcorder has very noticeably superior image quality whereas the HDV format model only does 1440 by 1080. ... Will my Core 2 Duo laptop handle the AVCHD editing? ... Will I be able to edit with the same capabilities as if I got an HDV model? ...
    (rec.video.desktop)
  • Re: Editing HD
    ... AVCHD certainly has its problems, but it is showing up in a lot of cameras and is likely to persist and perhaps prevail as a consumer format, despite the processing workload. ... Canon and others have mastered the science of sensing / capturing exceptionally sharp and beautiful video in tiny cameras, and the challenge of making a really fast, low power consumption, artifact-free encoder which can truly record it in h.264 without defects is not too far off, IMHO. ... Therefore, I would NOT dismiss the format or its inevitable future growth; rather, I would suggest that faster and cheaper computer hardware will absolutely ensure that really excellent AVCHD as well as smooth editing is just a matter of time. ...
    (rec.video.production)
  • Re: Standard definition or HD
    ... This file format can be difficult for ... users with older, less capable computers. ... discoveries when it comes time to editing AVCHD. ...
    (rec.video.desktop)
  • Ah, there IS a way to retain the original 60p quality of the edited Panasonic TM700 material!
    ... there IS a way to retain the original 60p 1920x1080 quality of the ... available format types. ... 60p AVCHD camera files on my computer than 60i 17Mbps AVCHD ... "winnuh an' troo champeen" for easy editing is still HDV (And I chose ...
    (rec.video.desktop)
  • Re: Standard definition or HD
    ... intermediates for doing AVCHD editing. ... codecs, but many of them do not, choosing instead to edit AVCHD in a native ... Some NLE companies have chosen to first convert AVCHD to another format ... Most of the AVCHD editing / authoring programs (Corel Video Studio ...
    (rec.video.desktop)