I know there has been much discussion about editing AVCHD (a fair amount by myself). I have been away for awhile and am wondering about updated opinions and/or new programs that may have come out. I have the newest version of Nero and am not totally pleased with it (limited tools/options in AVCHD). I also have the newest Pinnacle 12 Ultra (or whatever) and again, am not totally pleased (rerendering).
My requirements are:
1. no rerendering.
2. very easy to use (intuitive)
3. full sound in HD (AVCHD)
4. full array of tools
So has anything changed since last December? Are there new programs on the immediate horizon?
Larry, are you there?

Mike

I know there has been much discussion about editing AVCHD (a fair amount by myself). I have been away for awhile and am wondering about updated opinions and/or new programs that may have come out. I have the newest version of Nero and am not totally pleased with it (limited tools/options in AVCHD). I also have the newest Pinnacle 12 Ultra (or whatever) and again, am not totally pleased (rerendering).
My requirements are:
1. no rerendering.
2. very easy to use (intuitive)
3. full sound in HD (AVCHD)
4. full array of tools
So has anything changed since last December? Are there new programs on the immediate horizon?
Larry, are you there?

Mike

Mike,

I think things haven't really changed and will not for a long time, unless they come up with another codec that is as efficient but less cpu intensive as avchd. If they do, it better be acceptable to the NLE makers as this will take some time to be used by them. AVCHD alone is still not natively used by some NLEs and that alone shows you that adopting a new codec is not the right direction at this time.

Your best option still is to get a powerful cpu, good gpu, a solid mboard that you can OC, and some good ram. The HD isn't much of an issue nowadays and you can go as high as 2TB without giving up an arm and a leg. That means going for an i7 and m'board combo.

As for being intuitive, you are probably aware that most NLEs have their own way of doing things. So, what may be intuitive to me in Sony Vegas may be tedious with Adobe Premier.


The sound in AVCHD I believe is standard for the codec. I believe your camera must have the mic to get anything more than you want (like 5.1). Again, perhaps the best recourse is still to record sound separately if you want better options.

Hi Mel. Yes, I am aware of most of what you say, and I agree with you. As for myself, my computer is up to date with a good quadcore and 4 GB of ram. My camcorder is an SR11 and I also have a Sony FX7. My disappointment is with the editing programs that I have purchased.

I have the latest Pinnacle and latest Nero, and both are left wanting in seperate areas. The Pinnacle rerenders video and thereby loses video quality, while the Nero lacks the wide array and flexibility of tools that other programs offer. If only Pinnacle were to do away with their rerendering, or if Nero were to have the tool suite of Pinnacle, then I would be happy.

The difference in video quality between Pinnacle and Nero when producing HD (AVCHD) video on DVD and playing it on a plasma HD screen is very apparent. Likewise, the flexibilty and vast array of tool choices in Pinnacle makes the Nero DVD seem rather simple, with poor title selections and transition options (for instance). Likewise, adding sound is much simpler with Pinnacle than with Nero.

So, I was and am still hoping, that another product has come along that has more tools which are effective and easy to use, without rerendering the video in the final product. Of course, I might add that I wish for these things without an exhorbatant price tag.

It seems that the trend nowadays is for producing your video to be shown on Youtube, etc., with all kinds of cute cheesy effects to wow your audience with. That I can do without. My video from my camcorders is very good and all I need is a good package to present it with. Therefore, I want a good product that produces great video with a nice suite of tools to make a "professional" looking product without having to pay an arm and a leg.

Thanks again Mel for your response.

Mike

No major news of any new AVCHD editing / authoring software I am aware of.

I share the same disappointments with Nero and Pinnacle, but consider Cyberlink PowerDirector 7 Ultra to do some things quite well. It has a smart render which doesn't always work right, but it does make AVCHD disks with nice menus, sometimes smart rendered, and is pretty stable.

I wish there were one really excellent program which made reliable, high quality AVCHD disks with AVCHD input files, but I have yet to find one and I own them all.....

Larry

I wish there were one really excellent program which made reliable, high quality AVCHD disks with AVCHD input files, but I have yet to find one and I own them all.....

Hi Larry,
Are you saying Premiere CS4 cannot do this reliably either?
This is a sincere question as I have been leaning towards purchasing it for AVCHD editing and output.

Thanks,

Allen

Allen,

Adobe, for whatever reason, does not offer the ability to only do rendering when neccesary, and therefore re-renders all AVCHD content. The consequences are considerable processing time as well as quality degredation compared to the original footage from the camcorder.

My opinion is probably quite extreme, since re-rendering if done well can be hard to distinguish from footage which has not been re-rendered. And I will readily admit that most editing results in changes which force re-rendering to occur even in programs which (unlike Adobe) support so-called 'smart-rendering' methods.

CS4 is a fine suite of software, and my intention was not to exclude or knock it with my prior post.

I do wish that a reliable program would be released which was relatively low cost, had the ability to smart render whenever the footage itself had not been modified but only trimmed, edited on I-frames, split, or joined.

The closest to date I have found is Cyberlink Power Director 7 Ultra or Corel Video Studio Pro X2, but each is fraught with specific issues as well.

Although 3 other programs offer smart rendering of AVCHD (from ArcSoft, Ulead, and Nero) these have other limitations.

AVCHD is just a very very tough format for the software developers to understand and come to deal with properly.

Larry

I have found it easier to edit my AVCHD with Vegas Pro8 and then render as MPEG2 for Bluray as being a lot faster than re-renders to AVCHD. IF you have a Bluray burner and player ( or PS3) I think this is the fastest and easiest solution for edits that will result in re-renders( colour correction, transitions etc). I mix my SR11 and XR500 outputs with HDV from my FX1 in Edius and output Canopus HQ from the timeline or HDV and then encode for Bluray or SD DVD from that. Vegas Pro8 is the easiest to use of the more pro NLE's in that it will run its preview at a lower resolution so that preview is at full frame rate during editing. For this reason I use it for single track AVCHD editing of family video. For projects I transcode to Canopus HQ for editing in Edius.
The easiest of all for simple edits is to do it "in camera" and create a playlist.

Ron Evans

Hi I use Corel Video Studio Pro X2 and have turned Smart Render off because of it's poor results at some edit points, ie, misplaced frames or parts of a frame freezing over 2 or 3 consecutive frames, the Canon HF10 at it's highest output is 17Mbps and although the Pro X2 say's it is using 18Mbps max bitrate to output AVCHD the average however is only 11.2Mbps and there is a slight drop in quality, I have recently tried Premiere Elements 7 and although it will only re-encode (no smart render) at least it gives you the option of adjusting the bitrate up to 35Mbps if you select AVCHD High profile 4.1, I did some experiments and found using 20Mbps it gave excellent results just took 8 time real time on my Core2 Duo 3HGz computer, so it seems from reading about other peoples experiences we will just have to keep battling on with what we have.

PS just thought of something else if you are making a standard DVD don't forget to change the field order to upper field first if you are using interlaced AVCHD.

Bryan

try edius or edius neo... free trial... seems to do a great job...

Another vote for Edius.

But I would wholeheartedly recommend NOT editing AVCHD (nor HDV for that matter). GV has a utility to transcode AVCHD to Canopus HQ (similar to, if not better than, Cineform*). Edius has always done the absolute minimum rendering possible--since before Edius.


*quote from Mike Downey of someone else's research--don't remember who, sorry.

Hi Mel. Yes, I am aware of most of what you say, and I agree with you. As for myself, my computer is up to date with a good quadcore and 4 GB of ram. My camcorder is an SR11 and I also have a Sony FX7. My disappointment is with the editing programs that I have purchased.

I have the latest Pinnacle and latest Nero, and both are left wanting in seperate areas. The Pinnacle rerenders video and thereby loses video quality, while the Nero lacks the wide array and flexibility of tools that other programs offer. If only Pinnacle were to do away with their rerendering, or if Nero were to have the tool suite of Pinnacle, then I would be happy.

The difference in video quality between Pinnacle and Nero when producing HD (AVCHD) video on DVD and playing it on a plasma HD screen is very apparent. Likewise, the flexibilty and vast array of tool choices in Pinnacle makes the Nero DVD seem rather simple, with poor title selections and transition options (for instance). Likewise, adding sound is much simpler with Pinnacle than with Nero.

So, I was and am still hoping, that another product has come along that has more tools which are effective and easy to use, without rerendering the video in the final product. Of course, I might add that I wish for these things without an exhorbatant price tag.

It seems that the trend nowadays is for producing your video to be shown on Youtube, etc., with all kinds of cute cheesy effects to wow your audience with. That I can do without. My video from my camcorders is very good and all I need is a good package to present it with. Therefore, I want a good product that produces great video with a nice suite of tools to make a "professional" looking product without having to pay an arm and a leg.

Thanks again Mel for your response.

Mike

Mike,

I used Pinnacle, with all it's limitations, way back in it was v7. But have stopped using it 3 years ago because it was buggy. I think it's not going to be fixed that easily unless they overhaul most of the code w/c is not going to happen that easily. I believe, howeer, since they were acquired by Avid, many of the good codes from the Liquid and avid (I'm guessing here) is being used with the newer products.

Still, Pinnacle, Ulead, and the like are considered as consumer/entry level NLEs. Nothing wrong with entry level even for pro use, but I believe some of the codecs they use aren't really robust or that good. Mainconcept, cineform, etc are considered the heavyweights or better codecs and I presume they cost more to license. I believe the codecs are part of the problem. I remember Pinnacle 7-9 was terrible rendering mpeg1 files or VCDs. Really terrible as it blurs the video and loses detail a lot! Their mpeg2 too was not as good either, but not as bad as their mpeg1. Their mpeg2 or their implementation of it was not very good in slow-mo and color correction. When I switched to vegas, w/c uses Mainconcept it was BIG difference. So, I guess codec and their implementation of things play an important part in it.

I think it would be wiser to go for better heavy duty NLEs like Adobe, Edius, or Vegas, or FCP if you are on Apple. Again, nothing is perfect. Somewhere along the way "ease of use" will be sacrificed.

If IQ is your goal, your best bet is still to transcode using a good codec and work on the transcoded material. That slows you down, but nothing is free at this time. Even FCP does transcoding as you import.

Sony Vegas pro is the only option I know that is reasonable in all areas. Again, not perfect but as I said, a "reasonable" in a sense of avoiding transcoding but with it using decent codecs. Trouble is, you have to learn its ways. As I said before, what may be easy in Vegas, Adobe users may find it difficult or clumsy, and vice-versa.

I would also question the quest for IQ as an end in itself but each of us have their reasons. In any case, 17mbps is already good, but many say, for certain applications, the limit of 25mpbs is as good as it gets. Now, the trouble with 25mpbs is it is more taxing with resources, and your other problem is I am not aware if the SR11 is capable of 25mpbs? In any case, perhaps its the source mpbs that is the culprit? I guess the only way to go way above the 25mbps is to get those very expensive videocams or get the 5d mk2 w/c is rated at close to 40mpbs.

But if you ask me, transcoding is still the best way to go if you don't want to degrade your image in editing. Once you apply color correction or anything in there that is global, that's it. You can't really expect it to be the same as the original avchd files. The trouble is, our shots are often not perfect and requires adjustments. AVCHD isn't that really great for editing.

Perhaps in time, NLEs will be able to edit AVCHD files natively and somehow transcode on the fly real time without affecting our experience as we edit. But that would still require a powerful cpu (or cpus). Again, nothing is perfect. The closest I can get to that is with Sony Vegas. I wish they release v9b or v10 where Vegas can use your video card for rendering or at least fast playback. That would, however, be a tougher thing to do, as that would need a good hefty re-write of the display preview algorithms. It would take probably v10 to have that in, maybe even v11.

As for the final output, we cannot dismiss Youtube types of output. They are as valid outputs as our own, or your own quest for quality. If any, these types of outputs are our allies and not our enemies. When many people post their video this drives camera sales up, and this drives R&D to help produce cheaper and better products in the long run. Not everybody is an indie. Not everybody is a wedding/events shooter. And I am sure there are more teens or 20-30 year old out there who don't care less of what I do or you do. But if they get hooked on video for their own reasons, then it's good for us overall. Even NLEs will adjust if only to accommodate them.

And in the end, there's going to be more of them than you and I combined! :-) So, they do help drive the prices down, more manufacturers offering more products for us to choose, opens up the mid-to-higher segment cameras, more products with better feature sets, makes NLEs easier to use (to cater to the youtube crowd), etc. In short, a lot of trickle down and side-effects when these folks who post in youtube, vimeo start creating their stuff. So, I would not consider their way of doing things really "bad." They're just different. Either way, they help us all in getting products that improve through time.

Hi I use Corel Video Studio Pro X2 and have turned Smart Render off because of it's poor results at some edit points, ie, misplaced frames or parts of a frame freezing over 2 or 3 consecutive frames, the Canon HF10 at it's highest output is 17Mbps and although the Pro X2 say's it is using 18Mbps max bitrate to output AVCHD the average however is only 11.2Mbps and there is a slight drop in quality, I have recently tried Premiere Elements 7 and although it will only re-encode (no smart render) at least it gives you the option of adjusting the bitrate up to 35Mbps if you select AVCHD High profile 4.1, I did some experiments and found using 20Mbps it gave excellent results just took 8 time real time on my Core2 Duo 3HGz computer, so it seems from reading about other peoples experiences we will just have to keep battling on with what we have.

PS just thought of something else if you are making a standard DVD don't forget to change the field order to upper field first if you are using interlaced AVCHD.

Bryan

Bryan, this may not be of interest to you since you have switched to Premeire Elements, but I'll mention it in case it helps. There are two ways to preserve the bit rate of the original AVCHD clips with Corel VideoStudio X2 Pro.

I use VS X2 Pro with a Sony SR11, which is AVCHD with a 16 Mbps average bitrate. I was finding that AVCHD files generated by Pro X2 had a much lower bitrate than the original clips -- it varied between 9 and 12 Mbps, which is similar to what you found. The lower bitrate resulted in noticeably lower quality when compared to the original clips. This is with Smart Render off - I never use it.

I discovered that instead of creating a file, if you do a "Share/Create Disc/AVCHD" directly from the project timeline, the AVCHD file that ends up on the disc has the same higher bit rate as the original clips (I use standard DVD+R's for writing AVCHD to disc). The quality looked identical to the original clips when I did an A/B comparison, even though the video had been re-rendered. If I want to use the file for playing on the PC or a hardware media player (like WDTV), I copy the .m2ts file from the disc to a hard drive.)

However, writing directly to disc doesn't lend itself well to a workflow where you want to create draft output, review it, and then re-edit the project. You have to use a recordable disc for each draft, unless you use a re-writable DVD.

Then a user in the Corel user-to-user forum suggested to me that when creating an AVCHD file using "Share/Create Video File", instead of choosing AVCHD as the file type, choose "Same as First Video Clip" (assuming all the clips in the project are AVCHD clips from the same camcorder.) That worked for me and now I can create AVCHD files with the original bit rate preserved.

Either approach will preserve the bit rate and quality of the original clips when using Pro X2 with AVCHD (if it handles your Canon clips in the same way as it does the Sony).

Thanks Dale I will give it a go using "Same as First Video Clip" I always thought it was just like using smart render so will see how I go with it, I have just received a reply from Corel on the problems I have been having with glitches at the edit point and if there was a fix to enable a higher bitrate, this is what they have said ("As of the moment there is no patch to address this issue. I will send this to the Video Studio team in case they are not aware of this problem") they do however have a patch that is supposed to give better playback of AVCHD as well as fix other problems, the patch is VSX2PROPATCH.exe so will try it out tomorrow.
I was only trying out Premiere Elements 7 but don't think I will bother buying it, it's like most of the programs I have tried it seems to have it's own set of problems, and given equal bitrates Corel Pro X2 does just as well as the Professional programs out there if only they would up the bitrate there would be very little to beat it, I've always used Premiere starting with 4.2 and later 6.5, and was rather reluctant to look at other programs, so was pleasantly surprised at the ability of Corel VS Pro X2, especially considering the price.

Bryan

My video from my camcorders is very good and all I need is a good package to present it with. Therefore, I want a good product that produces great video with a nice suite of tools to make a "professional" looking product without having to pay an arm and a leg.

Mike- I am afraid that the sad truth is that if you want to do fully edited projects that look like pro level productions in HD on a big screen, you will end up paying for the tools that can deliver it.
To me that means converting the AVCHD source material to a hunky, lightly compressed digital intermediate file like Canopus, ProresHD, or Cineform for the edit.
Cineform, for example, takes the 16 mbs, 4:2:0, 8 bit AVCHD and converts it to 100 mbs (ballpark), 4:2:2, 10 bit .avi file. Editing with this DI is as simple as editing DV used to be. You can hammer it with effects, CC, etc. with no significant quality loss. And when you are done, you can deliver it out to anything from UTube to 35mm film and it looks just great.
I think that the problems with decompressing/recompressing/transcoding such a highly compressed and complex codec as AVCHD are inherent to the codec. Certain workarounds as described in this thread can certainly help, but for me, the bulletproof solution for all situations is to get the footage into a more durable codec for editing.
Take a closer look at the marketplace- I think Cineform has an inexpensive version of their product now (NeoScene??) that works with a number of NLEs. I'm not that familiar with the GV and Apple products, but it wouldn't surprise me to see them offering an affordable solution as well.
P.S. A considerable portion of "Slumdog Millionaire" was edited in Cineform DI.

The whole package of over a dozen separate AVS programs costs $60. (U.S.). You can try if free, with a watermarked screen. It works for AVCHD and AVC, as well as the Canon MOV files for the SX1. It has a few gaps in its functions, such as not stretching 1440 X 1080 AVC video into a widescreen aspect (it does work properly with HDV) and the AVS Player doesn't smoothly play original AVCHD, AVC and MOV video (many other players will, however). I find that the Xvid MPEG-4 format for publishing, works the best with the most playing programs, for the edited versions. Needless to say, a fast computer is necessary and your CoDecs must be up to date, especially Quicktime.

AVS offers a wide range of publishing options. I'm surprised that it doesn't seem to be discussed here. I guess many people don't trust something that's so inexpensive.

I'm not that familiar with the GV and Apple products, but it wouldn't surprise me to see them offering an affordable solution as well.


Canopus HQ is included in the price.

.......Take a closer look at the marketplace- I think Cineform has an inexpensive version of their product now (NeoScene??) that works with a number of NLEs.....

Yep, NeoScene $100, plus Vegas movie studio platinum $85. Pretty nice and affordable combination.

Thanks to all who have thus far responded. As for using multiple programs (Cineform, etc.) I am clueless. How does one use, for instance, Neoscene, with Nero or whatever? Or don't you do it that way? Please explain.

Thanks.
Mike

PS Larry, I appreciate all your help now and in the past. I am bummed that there is not one "entry" package that has all its "stuff" together.

Cineform Neoscene (http://www.cineform.com/neoscene/)

Basically you convert your footage to the neoscene codec and work with that.
But read this
"NLE Compatibility:
- Windows: Adobe Elements, Adobe CS3/CS4; Sony Vegas or Movie Studio
- Mac: Apple Final Cut Pro or iMovie
File Compatibility: Because CineForm files use industry-standard AVI or MOV wrappers they are compatible with virtually any video application that supports standard interfaces, including from Adobe, Apple, Microsoft, and Sony. "

You seem resistant to Edius, may I ask why?

You import/download the raw AVCHD video files from your camcorder to your computer hard drive.

You can then edit those raw files directly in your editing software program such as Vegas.

If you choose, using Cineform NeoScene software, you convert the raw AVCHD files to AVI files for editing purposes. The converted files sit on your hard drive, the original files are also still on your hard drive. Then in Vegas, you edit the AVI files instead of the raw AVCHD files.

Robert Young's post explained some of the benefits of editing AVI files instead of raw AVCHD files.

Thanks Dale I will give it a go using "Same as First Video Clip" I always thought it was just like using smart render so will see how I go with it, I have just received a reply from Corel on the problems I have been having with glitches at the edit point and if there was a fix to enable a higher bitrate, this is what they have said ("As of the moment there is no patch to address this issue. I will send this to the Video Studio team in case they are not aware of this problem") they do however have a patch that is supposed to give better playback of AVCHD as well as fix other problems, the patch is VSX2PROPATCH.exe so will try it out tomorrow.
I was only trying out Premiere Elements 7 but don't think I will bother buying it, it's like most of the programs I have tried it seems to have it's own set of problems, and given equal bitrates Corel Pro X2 does just as well as the Professional programs out there if only they would up the bitrate there would be very little to beat it, I've always used Premiere starting with 4.2 and later 6.5, and was rather reluctant to look at other programs, so was pleasantly surprised at the ability of Corel VS Pro X2, especially considering the price.

Bryan

Bryan, if you haven't done it yet, you might also want to update Microsoft's DirectX Runtime to the latest version. Experienced users on the Corel forum recommend keeping DirectX up to date and they say it can correct some video editing problems (although I doubt it has anything to do with the bit rate issue).

I hope the "Same As First Clip" works for you. Here is a link to Microsoft's latest DirectX Runtime update (March 2009).

Download details: DirectX Redist (March 2009) (http://www.microsoft.com/downloads/details.aspx?FamilyID=0cf368e5-5ce1-4032-a207-c693d210f616&displaylang=en&Hash=eLqJHpqKsDhDdT7fOeOW1e3%2fgJNwLYTa7egFbPyvu%2fdIp339KIyCVPAGblghCL3g5udTglUAgEjo7%2bGF6wqWDw%3d %3d)

Cineform Neoscene (http://www.cineform.com/neoscene/)

Basically you convert your footage to the neoscene codec and work with that.
But read this
"NLE Compatibility:
- Windows: Adobe Elements, Adobe CS3/CS4; Sony Vegas or Movie Studio
- Mac: Apple Final Cut Pro or iMovie
File Compatibility: Because CineForm files use industry-standard AVI or MOV wrappers they are compatible with virtually any video application that supports standard interfaces, including from Adobe, Apple, Microsoft, and Sony. "

You seem resistant to Edius, may I ask why?

Well, it may be because I know nothing about Edius. I don't even think I knew Edius existed. What is it?

Mike

You import/download the raw AVCHD video files from your camcorder to your computer hard drive.

You can then edit those raw files directly in your editing software program such as Vegas.

If you choose, using Cineform NeoScene software, you convert the raw AVCHD files to AVI files for editing purposes. The converted files sit on your hard drive, the original files are also still on your hard drive. Then in Vegas, you edit the AVI files instead of the raw AVCHD files.

Robert Young's post explained some of the benefits of editing AVI files instead of raw AVCHD files.

So it sounds like then I would have two versions of the same video files (in different forms) on my hard drive. Tell me again what the advantages would be. How would it solve the shortcomings of, say, Nero, with its lack of a full complement of tools?

My computer does a decent job with these editing programs and editing AVCHD. So it is not that I am having problems in that area, instead, I am disappointed in these programs and the fact that they all can't offer a more complete suite of tools while doing away with rerendering of the video.

I guess I just don't understand how using Edius or Cineform Neoscene would help. Sorry for my lack.

Mike

Well, it may be because I know nothing about Edius. I don't even think I knew Edius existed. What is it?

Mike


There's this thing called 'google'...

Well, it may be because I know nothing about Edius. I don't even think I knew Edius existed. What is it?

Mike

Look on their site NLE Software (http://desktop.grassvalley.com/products/nlesoftware.php)
it has the fastest processing of all the NLE's and the best multicam too. Edius Neo is the entry level and Edius PRo5.1 is the Pro version. You can see the differences between the versions on the Grass Valley site as well as an explanation of HQ intermediate file ( Cineform is used in the same way and for the same reasons). Edius Neo would be a good thing for you to try as it has all the capabilities I think you need though just like all the others it will re-render.
I use Edius Pro as my main editor as well as Vegas Pro8. Once you have moved to this level of NLE's you will not use the simpler one's again.
Ron Evans

There's this thing called 'google'...

Oh yeah, showing my ignorance....once again.
Google; Why didn't I think of that.

Look on their site NLE Software (http://desktop.grassvalley.com/products/nlesoftware.php)
it has the fastest processing of all the NLE's and the best multicam too. Edius Neo is the entry level and Edius PRo5.1 is the Pro version. You can see the differences between the versions on the Grass Valley site as well as an explanation of HQ intermediate file ( Cineform is used in the same way and for the same reasons). Edius Neo would be a good thing for you to try as it has all the capabilities I think you need though just like all the others it will re-render.
I use Edius Pro as my main editor as well as Vegas Pro8. Once you have moved to this level of NLE's you will not use the simpler one's again.
Ron Evans

Thanks Ron. I think I will check into this.
Mike

PS Larry, I appreciate all your help now and in the past. I am bummed that there is not one "entry" package that has all its "stuff" together.

One of the biggest complaints I see is that AVCHD edited and saved/burned as AVCHD on disk does not match the "pristine" quality of the original AVCHD clip. If what you are comparing to is the way the AVCHD clip looks played on the camcorder connected to an HD TV with HDMI cable...

...Nothing is going to turn out like that as an end result in almost all cases. That is the best quality you are going to see.

So we have to deal with a realistic end result. I tried making an AVCHD disk once and played it back at Best Buy on one of their display 42" LCD 1080p TV's and Sony Blu-ray players. The salesman's comment, "Not too shabby". But to me, OK, better than anything I'd tried to date but room for improvement.

With the advent of inexpensive media players I'm finding editing in AVCHD (in Pinnacle Studio 12) and rendering to an HD WMV file is a different story. To me it looks better than any AVCHD disk I've seen, and comes somewhat closer to what I see playing files from my camcorder over HDMI. I copy these files over to a thumb drive and simply plug that into one of the USB 2.0 inputs on the media player. 8 and 16GB thumb drives have plenty of space for several short productions on each one.

I also just got in a Core i7 processor based computer and look for that to lift me out of the slow AVCHD editing doldrums.

Look on their site NLE Software (http://desktop.grassvalley.com/products/nlesoftware.php)
it has the fastest processing of all the NLE's and the best multicam too. Edius Neo is the entry level and Edius PRo5.1 is the Pro version. You can see the differences between the versions on the Grass Valley site as well as an explanation of HQ intermediate file ( Cineform is used in the same way and for the same reasons). Edius Neo would be a good thing for you to try as it has all the capabilities I think you need though just like all the others it will re-render.
I use Edius Pro as my main editor as well as Vegas Pro8. Once you have moved to this level of NLE's you will not use the simpler one's again.
Ron Evans


I agree with Ron. You have to move to a different NLE. I am not saying that what you are using is bad. But if it does not give you what you want or are not happy with it, maybe its time to try something different. That's what I did with my move away from Pinnacle (v9). I loved the software but it was too limited and buggy, and the renders were not as good. It took a while to get used to Vegas, but now I am happy with it.

Again, you really have to go the transcoding route if you really want to get the best quality. As been said before, there are options (neoscene, edius, etc). You have to take a hit somewhere though. The transcoding will delay your editing a bit depending on your cpu power. There is also the need for more storage, though for me, that is not such a bad thing to get larger drives.

In the end, 1) you can insist using your current NLE but learn to live with its limitations, or 2) you can check out other NLEs, or 3) go the transcoding route. But as of this time, nothing is free or all-in-one without some trade-offs. These are basically the 3 choices available to you.

Thanks Guys.

As for rerendering, from what I have learned only Nero9 and Corel Pro X2 (of the entry level programs) do not do this with the video. Each of these programs have their seperate issues. So as Mel has pointed out, you have those three choices he listed. Not very encouraging.

Mike

I depends whether you view re rendering as reducing the quality. I don't think that is the case at all. It takes time . Once you re-code to Canopus HQ or Cineform you are in a much more robust file format that will not degrade with further processing and is easy for NLE's to process. In my estimation the converted file is as good as or better than the original file. In my editing I have chosen to render out from the NLE as MPEG2 HD as I find this easier and faster. The quality on Bluray is the same in my opinion and if you don't need to put more than about 2 hours and 30 mins on a Bluray there is little point in going to AVC.

Ron Evans

Hi Ron. Yes I do view rerendering of video as reducing the quality of that video. I have seen it. Pinnacle 12 rerenders, while Nero 9 does not. When compared on a 42" plasma, there is a difference; Pinnacle is much softer than Nero.

You say that the video quality is not degraded or is even better when you recode your file using Cineform Canopus HQ, and that it looks fine on BR. Please take me through your process, step by step, as you take your raw footage from your camcorder, to burning the final product on BR or DVD.

Thanks.
Mike

Both Canopus HQ and Cineform codecs are high quality intermediate codecs that decode the AVCHD files to a high quaility file for editing. This file is indistinguishable from the original. Then there is the quality of the encoder to whatever file format one needs to go to.
My process is to transfer my AVCHD files from the Sony SR11 or XR500 using the Sony Motion Browser software that came with the camera. This stitches the small files together into one big file as appropriate for each take. Mine are usually quite long theatre performances so usually over an hour. I use the Edius AVC2HQ converter to convert these AVCHD files to Canopus HQ. I place these HQ files on the Edius timeline with the HDV files from usually the 2 FX1's so there are now 4 tracks on the Edius timeline. I then use the multicam feature in Edius and edit. I then render to either a Canopus HQ file in HD or to HDV depending on whether I want to keep a HDV copy to tape or not. I usually then open this final file in Vegas Pro8, mix my final audio and set markers used for chapter markers in DVD Architect 5.0. I then render output from Vegas to a Bluray preset 1440x1080 MPEG2 HD with embedded markers and take into DVD Architect 5.0 for authoring of the Bluray disc. Frankly this Bluray disc looks just like the tape playback from the FX1 or output from the SR11 or XR500. Not all encoders are the same. Those in Edius and Vegas are in my opinion a lot better than Nero for instance. I have no experience with Pinnacle to comment

Ron Evans

Just to throw in my 2 cents....

Re-rendering as we are discussing it here is the process of taking a file captured in one format (AVCHD) and transforming it into another format (HDV), and, in some cases, converting it back to AVCHD again when a disk is being authored.

The AVCHD compression format is intrinsically lossy and a large amount of data has been literally "thrown away" when the original footage is captured to make the video fit into a comparatively tiny and highly compressed format. Once the footage is converted, or even when it is retained in the same AVCHD format but re-rendered to new and different "groups of pictures", more of the original data is lost.

The compression processes used for video, both mpeg2 and mpeg4, use "motion estimates" to describe how each macroblock differs in comparison to the frames which follow. The only frames which are truly accurate are the I-frames, and all of the intermediary frames (P and B) are nothing more than a good "guess" as to what the macroblocks will do.

As the new re-compression takes place, artifacts get created, and details get lost in the estimation process.

There is absolutely no way that a file which has been originally captured will retain its original content intact once it has been uncompressed / expanded, then re-compressed. Unlike lossless compression schemes such as used in .zip files like Lempel-Zev, the mpeg video schemes are truly lossy, and the loss is never recoverable.

Can the loss be seen?

It depends on how it is done, how many times it has been applied, what playback devices are used, how critical the viewer is, etc.

Some people look at an iPod and see "perfect quality" video.............

My own strong opinion is that re-compression is visible and undesirable. I try to make all color and white balance adjustments in the camcorder, and smart render (which does NOT do recompression or re-rendering) whenever possible.

The fact that re-rendering takes 8 or 10X real time even on my Intel Extreme 4X3.0 GHz Quadcore is another factor, but I would gladly pay the time panalty if I had a video quality improvement. Such is not the trade-off in this situation however. Re-rendering costs both time and quality.

Larry

Larry , technically you are correct in that every re-render has the possibility of introducing losses. The real issue is are these visible and does the process improve the editing and final production to the point that they are worth the risk of introducing artifacts. Have you used Cineform or Canopus HQ in your comparisons? Using Canopus HQ and rendering to MPEG2 HD at 30mbps max. 25mbps average,18mbps min, the Bluray's are to me just like the originals as seen on my 42"Panasonic 1080P Plasma. I can also tell you that the one render I tried using Nero to AVCHD was awful.

Ron Evans

Cineform, for example, takes the 16 mbs, 4:2:0, 8 bit AVCHD and converts it to 100 mbs (ballpark), 4:2:2, 10 bit .avi file. Editing with this DI is as simple as editing DV used to be. You can hammer it with effects, CC, etc. with no significant quality loss. And when you are done, you can deliver it out to anything from UTube to 35 mm film.

I agree with Ron. Once your footage is in the big DI format there is extremely low generational loss.
I can start with 16 mbs AVCHD, convert to Cineform DI, do extensive editing, graphics, corrections & tweakings, then render it out as 30 mbs Blu Ray, burn the BD & play absolutely broadcast quality HD imagery, certainly perceived as being as good as the original footage. The digital equivalent of "free lunch"

Hi Ron. Yes I do view rerendering of video as reducing the quality of that video. I have seen it. Pinnacle 12 rerenders, while Nero 9 does not.

It depends on what you're talking about. Nero does a good job at what now seem to be called "smart rendering" (a term actually started by Ulead). But then smart rendering isn't RENDERING at all. It's simply copying, or at worst, changing the container in which the format is contained. As for actual rendering.... Nero stinks... and rendering is REQUIRED any time you change something at the frame level so that those frames have to be re-written. A cross fade for example will require a full render because each frame through out that fade must be fully re-written. If you do nothing but very simple 'cut and butt' editing then a "smart render" system will work well for you because all you need to do is copy your work, but if you do any detailed editing then you need an editor that can do REAL rendering.

It seems that the more I learn, the more I don't know. Thanks to all of you patient people for your explanations.
Another question, if I may: If I were to use Edius Neo, does this program do the whole job? I mean, will it capture both video and audio, allow me to do my editing (video and audio), and then allow me to burn a DVD in the AVCHD format? I have tried to figure out Edius on its webpage, but each time I read it, I seem to read something different into it each time.

It is a real burden being me sometimes.

Mike

IF you want to do simple cuts editing then "in camera" editing is even easier. Just divide clips where you want to and create a playlist in camera. I believe Sony's external burner will even create a disc for you of this playlist no computer needed and no rendering. I think it might even put a simple menu on the disc. The moment one needs nice menus, any colour corrections or effects one is likely into a complete re-render. Then one needs a real editing program and high quality encoders. This is where the intermediate files have real value.

Ron Evans

Mike, Neo 2 will be out sometime in May with more support than the current version and I think will ship with Panasonic cameras like the HMC150 etc. Go to the Canopus Forum site and check out the Neo section for more information. I have the full version so do not look too closely at Neo. Generally Neo has a sub set of the full version missing things like vestorscope/waveform monitor, multicam editing and support for the pro formats like P2 and XDCam etc.
The present version will certainly do most of what you want including the HQ codec converter etc. I am not sure how feffective it is at outputting AVCHD but NEO 2 will have Bluray support( as well as support for the hardware encoder board Firecoder Blu which has the Spurs Engine for encoding) so should do AVCHD as this is a part of the spec. I think the site shows price to be $199 sometime in May.

Ron Evans

Bryan, this may not be of interest to you since you have switched to Premeire Elements, but I'll mention it in case it helps. There are two ways to preserve the bit rate of the original AVCHD clips with Corel VideoStudio X2 Pro.

I use VS X2 Pro with a Sony SR11, which is AVCHD with a 16 Mbps average bitrate. I was finding that AVCHD files generated by Pro X2 had a much lower bitrate than the original clips -- it varied between 9 and 12 Mbps, which is similar to what you found. The lower bitrate resulted in noticeably lower quality when compared to the original clips. This is with Smart Render off - I never use it.

I discovered that instead of creating a file, if you do a "Share/Create Disc/AVCHD" directly from the project timeline, the AVCHD file that ends up on the disc has the same higher bit rate as the original clips (I use standard DVD+R's for writing AVCHD to disc). The quality looked identical to the original clips when I did an A/B comparison, even though the video had been re-rendered. If I want to use the file for playing on the PC or a hardware media player (like WDTV), I copy the .m2ts file from the disc to a hard drive.)

However, writing directly to disc doesn't lend itself well to a workflow where you want to create draft output, review it, and then re-edit the project. You have to use a recordable disc for each draft, unless you use a re-writable DVD.

Then a user in the Corel user-to-user forum suggested to me that when creating an AVCHD file using "Share/Create Video File", instead of choosing AVCHD as the file type, choose "Same as First Video Clip" (assuming all the clips in the project are AVCHD clips from the same camcorder.) That worked for me and now I can create AVCHD files with the original bit rate preserved.

Either approach will preserve the bit rate and quality of the original clips when using Pro X2 with AVCHD (if it handles your Canon clips in the same way as it does the Sony).

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

Larry , technically you are correct in that every re-render has the possibility of introducing losses. The real issue is are these visible and does the process improve the editing and final production to the point that they are worth the risk of introducing artifacts. Have you used Cineform or Canopus HQ in your comparisons? Using Canopus HQ and rendering to MPEG2 HD at 30mbps max. 25mbps average,18mbps min, the Bluray's are to me just like the originals as seen on my 42"Panasonic 1080P Plasma. I can also tell you that the one render I tried using Nero to AVCHD was awful.

Ron Evans

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

Mike, Neo 2 will be out sometime in May with more support than the current version and I think will ship with Panasonic cameras like the HMC150 etc. Go to the Canopus Forum site and check out the Neo section for more information. I have the full version so do not look too closely at Neo. Generally Neo has a sub set of the full version missing things like vestorscope/waveform monitor, multicam editing and support for the pro formats like P2 and XDCam etc.
The present version will certainly do most of what you want including the HQ codec converter etc. I am not sure how feffective it is at outputting AVCHD but NEO 2 will have Bluray support( as well as support for the hardware encoder board Firecoder Blu which has the Spurs Engine for encoding) so should do AVCHD as this is a part of the spec. I think the site shows price to be $199 sometime in May.

Ron Evans

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

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


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

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

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