1000$ HD work flow?
 

1000$ HD work flow?

Hi I am new to video of any sort in production and very little hobbyist experience.
so few questions :-)

i need fastest HD to INTERNET sollution in 1000$ budget - EDITING required.
so if possible, no capturing/transcoding of input signal.
which HD format/camera allows that?

Sony Vegas Studio, $100,
Canon HF10, $700 (records AVCHD) or Canon HV30 (Records HDV to Tape)

I assume you already have a computer?

Ummm, you're playing in big boy territory when you want to edit (cleanly) in the native format and output HD without a transcode.

AVCHD is out since it has to be transcoded. HDV off tape is out since it has to be captured. HDV from solid state might work. SxS or P2 might work depending on platform. But you're not going to get into either of those solutions under $6k.

Cameras that record in their finishing format are expensive, so we won't go there.


So maybe someone can suggest and HDV solid state solution. I don't know any.

@ Brian - but as I understaind AVHCD still has to be transcoded in input, and with a lot of proccesing power and significant amount time? or no with vegas program?


@perrone - i get it, so better sollution is to record the HD DV tape, then capture certain parts that i need & edit, or transcode from AVHCD then edit?
i don`t want to output HD, very little resolution is for outoput....so there i know transcoding is necesery, but since the films will be short (~5min) it will not take a lot of time

my dream of no transcoding for serbia`s budget is over :), so new question

fastest/easier way from recording - to output possible (in ~1000 budget); TAPE or AVHCD?

tnx

What productions would you make? $1k for "real" HD quality production is just not possible.

There are (plenty) HD consumer cams out there, even for under $1000, and most will come with software that also exports to "web video". Or you can use Vegas or even a converter to prep it for web.

Realistically for a "Prosumer" HD camera, camera support, accessories, NLE suite/plugings, PC/Mac and media, you're quickly looking at 10k, if not well more.

George/

Milutin,

You have not told us what type of computer you are using. This makes a very big difference.

If you have a very fast computer, like a quad core, you can edit h.264 AVCHD format HD from a memory card quickly with no wasted time to ingest / capture the video.

If you do not have a very fast computer, then HDV format mpeg2 HD video from tape is your best option for editing.

I entirely agree with George that a $700 camcorder and a low cost video editing program is all you will need to take HD video and deliver it to the web for under $1000.

There is no reason I can think of to involve very expensive NLE software or systems, since the web only can and will deliver lower resolution, lower bandwidth video. It cannot provide 18 to 25 Mbit/sec video delivery rates demanded by true HD video over broadband connections unless you have the very best and highest speed versions of fiber optic connections or use bonded T1 or T3 backbones like the major ISPs use.

If your computer is very fast, I would take George's recommendation and get an HF100 Canon and a program like Corel VideoStudioX2 which makes Flash-compatible .FLV files directly for web use.

Total cost in the U.S. would be maybe $750 leaving you another $250 for extra lighting, microphone, filters, wide angle converter, etc.

Larry

Pinnacle Studio 12 edits AVCHD natively without transcoding. On a 3-5 minute project, the rendering is mostly dependent on how many effects I may have added to clips. But on the last 5 minute project, rendering to HD WMV format took only about 20 minutes. Rendering to SD DVD took a little less.

If I set the camera to 1440x1080 12Mbps (overkill for web anyway but less than the 1920x1080 17Mbps the HF100 will do), rendering takes no longer than HDV from the HV20.

Most recent project, shot in 1920x1080 17Mbps, when edited ran 26 minutes. Render to HD WMV did take 12 hours on my quad core Q6600 2.4Ghz PC, but render to SD DVD for distribution took little over 1 hour.

At least one other software I know of, CyberLink's PowerDirector 7 Ultra, edits AVCHD natively and seems a little less demanding of computer resources than Pinnacle Studio.

I have been editing AVCHD since the HF100 came out, in Pinnacle Studio 11.1.2 before installing version 12. If transcoding was required, I would not mess with it.

It does take VERY SERIOUS computer horsepower.

There are two issues: transcoding before editing and encoding after editing.

Transcoding BEFORE is a pain, but trying to edit AVCHD with a computer that does not meet the requirements of your NLE is even more painful. So, unless you HAVE a 2.66GHz Quad Core PC already, you will either need to transcode or shoot HDV. Since AVCHD gives you no greater quality than does HDV, why even consider AVCHD? Do you REALLY REALLY need to avoid tape? Do you have a way of backing-up AVCHD after shooting?

If you are going to the web -- you should know you can use HD. Both ExposureRoom and Vimeo accept 720p. You will need to re-encode. And, they will transcode your upload to Flash -- although soon they may support streaming MPEG-4/AVC. So it makes sense to export as 720p MPEG-4/AVC -- not the same as AVCHD. So once again there is no advantage to AVCHD.

1440x1080 HDV is fine since you are going to reduce the image size to 1280x720. Going to DVD? Now the image is reduced to only 720x480.

PS: Only ExposureRoom accepts 720p30 and 720p25. Vimeo converts either to 720p24, which looks nasty.

Excuse me.

I'm editing 1920x1080 17Mbps AVCHD with a quad core 2.4GHz computer right now. I need neither transcode nor shoot HDV. And what I said was shooting 1440x1080 (12Mbps) looked identical to HDV. There were a couple of projects I had to set the cam for 1440x1080 before changing video cards. Yes, my processor is a tad "underspec'd" for the NLE but replacing an ATI Radeon HD 2600 XT 256MB card with an Nvidia GeForce 8800GT 512MB allowed me to edit the full 1920x1080.

The Remembrance Ceremony project at Lackland AFB just finished in 1920x1080 and test renders on the old Texas fort project shot in 1920x1080 I'm currently editing both look visibly crisper and more detailed than renders to the same formats from HDV shot with a Canon HV20 I used to own.

Do I really need to avoid tape? Probably not. But I do often work in a windy dusty environment and choose to not worry about dust and grit getting into a tape mechanism.

Backing up AVCHD after shooting: Multiple external hard drives. 3 at present. Files from the cards are first copied to project folders on all 3 plus the internal drive on the computer. Then as the files are reviewed they are renamed from the "0001.MTS" filename format to something that will mean something to me in the editing process, like "Cav_Drills_SabreCharge01.MTS". When all the renaming is done the results are copied to dupe project folders on the 3 externals and the original project folders on those drives deleted. The external drives are not left spinning but are powered up only to save files and access any needed then powered down.

Steve, not trying to come across as argumentive, really. But not everyone has to be "crammed into the same mold". For my purposes (for now) copies I may have to distribute are standard DVD (very few folks I know are falling for the Blu-ray thing, finding their standard DVD library looks great upconverted so they settle for something a little less detailed than BD). Played on my upconverting player and 42" LCD my SD product still looks far better than my SD from Digital8 and miniDV used to look. For the short ones I put on vimeo their conversion does skip a bit now and then but it still looks better than "nasty".

The "semi regular" dvchallenge on this site requires our entries be posted on youtube for convenience of judging. Both vimeo and youtube work from same 1280x720 WMV render and the youtube high quality option is not bad for what it is. And for my personal viewing, that same render looks crisp and detailed on my 21.6" Samsung monitor.

If Blu-ray comes down quite a bit more in price and tends to stick around for long enough I may author to BD media. Or we may see reliable media players supporting WMV that hook up to TV with HDMI. But for now I shoot AVCHD because I like the end result whichever final format I render to.

You are assuming those who will see the poster's DVD will have upconverting DVD player. Bet they don't. If they do -- it's likely because they bought a BD player.

You are assuming that folks can't see 1 of every 6 frames dropped by Vimeo isn't visible. Something that doesn't happen with ExposureRoom because they support 720p25 and 720p30. Vimeo does NOT.

You are assuming a guy with $1000 budget want's to buy harddrives rather than $10 tapes because YOU worry about dust. Come-on, folks have shot DV/HDV for a decade and this is not exactly a big deal. And, HDV camcorders now have harddrives and SD storage.

The bottom line is that even with a quad core you can't do REAL real-time editing -- multiple layers, transitions on color corrected video, etc. You can barely PLAY AVCHD at 30fps. You could likely do up to a half-dozen layers with HDV.

When was the HV20 designed? It's OLD! Of course, a new camera looks better.

You are assuming "people are falling for BD." They aren't. If you can't see the difference ... . BD down in price? Amazon has players for under $200. And, by Xmas you can bet they'll be under $100. How much cheaper do you need them to be? I bought a new Sony VAIO laptop. It came with a BD burner. No big deal. In fact, a better deal than spending the money to switch from HDV to AVCHD.

Bruce, not trying to come across as argumentive, really. But not everyone has to be "crammed into the same mold."

PS 1: You don't need to burn a BD for BD quality. Simply burn AVCHD. It's an ideal distribution codec. About equal to ATSC HD.

PS 2: I'm certainly not opposed to AVCHD! But to assume its the best $1000 solution for everyone doesn't make sense. I certainly wouldn't want to edit it on my new VAIO except with EDIUS. But then I would be transcoding. Which doesn't bother me, but might bother some. Buy my computer would thrive with any MPEG-2 based format.

Steve,

Are you saying that the only reason someone would have an upconverting DVD player
would be that they bought a BD player?

Jim

Steve: Look, I don't want to participate in an argument here. This is too useful a forum for this to happen, you've got your way of looking at things and I appear to have mine. I did react to the someone else's statement that "AVCHD was out because it had to be transcoded".

I assumed this was in the context of having to transcode before editing.

I don't transcode. I edit. Then render to whatever form is needed for a particular use.

It works for me, no one else has to do it my way, everyone may have their own needs and requirements.

You asked a series of questions seemingly in the context of "what do I do".

I answered. Not intending anyone had to do it my way. What I do works for me. On the tape vs. tapeless thing, I chose flash media tapeless for my own purposes and reasons but often when asked recommend tape to others for their own situation. I make no attempt to impose my ideas and application of standards on others.

You stated that I "assume" many things on the part of others. Not so, I assume nothing of the sort but merely explained my ideas and why I do what I do.

No -- I have an old Toshiba HD DVD player and it does a great job of upconverting. There are companies such as Toshiba who are, or have been, pushing upconverting DVD players, but with BD players under $200 -- what's the point?

My first CD player was $1000 -- so I'm not one to think an HD disc player at $200-$300 is anything but a steal. It will last far longer than HDTVs, computers, and camcorders that have only an 18 month life. And, cost 10X more.

PS: If you watch films, then you may want a 1080p player at under $300.

Bottom line, I was editing AVCHD on a 6000+ dual core nuthin' fancy computer. Clunky, yes, doable, also yes. I put a new quad core and cheap-o MB in my box primarily to improve render time, and it is better for editing of course.

The software handling of AVCHD still leaves a bit to be desired IMO - I'm still seeing some odd quirks when using Vegas Pro 8, BUT I work with it, and dang, the output will blow away anything I shot "HDV", sorry if that shocks anyone, but looking at stuff I shot with an HC7 is disappointing when compared to what the SR11/CX12 can deliver. I'm sure the Canons also deliver pretty good quality - AVCHD can do the job, and it no doubt will get easier to deal with over time.

HD is no picnic no matter which way you slice it - it takes more horsepower to process 4x + the pixels of SD, that's just simple math in action... but going HD in ANY flavor has its benefits, you just have to adjust, and if you can't afford it NOW, it'll come down in price and quality will likely improve as well...

I had doubts about tapeless, but it's working for me very well in practical use. Maybe it's not for everyone, but it's worth serious consideration given that all the development $ on under $1k price point cameras are going into AVCHD, NOT HDV.

thx all for the answers

@ Larry Horwitz & Steve Mullen - at my work i would probably get a quad core, but some times I would like to edit from my home avoiding coming to work (intel 2180@2.66ghz clocked & the rest is also entry level)
i downloaded a trial of ulead VS X2 and like it.
tapes offer me a better and probably cheaper storage, so 99% i will stick to a tape.
it will work 100% so i will not experiment with the AVHCD. if all goes well i will easily change cameras to AVHCD


cheers