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?

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?

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.

Hey check this out!!!

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

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 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.

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

Not true. For the consumer who follows the intent of the manufacturer then they are great.

Ron Evans

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.

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.

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

Well Joe plumber is not likely to pick up a MAC.
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.

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.