avchd (mts) to SD DVD via vegas pro 10

[Phil Lee]

Hi Richard

Cineform really helps with editing as the files are less compressed so a PC doesn't have to work so hard to move about the file and display a preview. If you are quite happy and your PC is keeping up with having AVCHD directly on the timeline, there is little if anything to be gained by converting to Cineform first, and as it is another lossy codec then you are losing a bit more detail because of it, although this might not be noticeable unless you scrutinise the footage.

Regards

Phil

[Richard Green]

Hi Phil,
Thanks for that. That's what I thought, just needed confirmation! I couldn't see any benefit from using Neoscene apart from making it easier for my computer to handle the files and like you say the more you mess with compressed files the more information is lost. So I'll stick with what I have and beef up the computer.

Thanks again.
Richard

[Dale Guthormsen]

Richard,

Actually that is not true because cineform changes it to 10 bit color space which is better for color correcting and the likes.
Of course if you always get fabulous footage right of the camera and do not want to change mood or such then there really is nothing to be gained.

[Phil Lee]

Hi

I thought we had the discussion here that it makes no difference converting to 4.2.2 colour space using Cineform, then using that on the timeline in place of the original AVCHD footage?

This is because Sony Vegas (and other editors) decompress the AVCHD footage anyway and work on uncompressed RGB with a big colour space, so all you've done with Cineform is put your video through another lossy codec.

The only benefit using Cineform and it's larger colour space is if you need to export the finished video but then pass it to something else for further editing or processing, now you get a benefit of keeping the larger colour space while maintaining more manageable file sizes than using uncompressed video.

Certainly my testing has shown a very small quality loss from the extra conversion, and a demo of two clips here it was seen that the clip that went via Cineform had very slightly less sharpness than AVCHD without being converted.

So unless you have a PC that is struggling with AVCHD, or you have a long sequences that need to be off-loaded into another application, then Cineform is of benefit, otherwise you are better off saving your cash, or even putting it towards a faster PC perhaps. Also for us 'amateurs' if we want to get a bit of footage into something else for further work, and with disc space in the terabytes these days, we can use something like Lagarith which isn't a lossy codec, so will give better results than Cineform, and is free :-) Now if we could acquire using the Cineform codec, now there's a big benefit.

Regards

Phil

[Richard Green]

Hi Phil,
I assume you edit your AvCHD directly from the timeline, can I ask you what computer you use. In great detail if possible. I'm going to build myself another machine and thought it best to ask someone who has a good setup for vegas.

Regards
Richard

[Phil Lee]

Hi

I have an Intel i5 4 core CPU, 8Gig of system memory and Windows 7 64bit. Straight forward single 1TB hard-disc (no RAID). I don't think you require RAID for AVCHD editing as the bottleneck isn't the hard-drive.

Hope that helps.

Regards

Phil

[Richard Green]

Thanks Phil,
What graphics card does it use and any idea what the motherboard is.

Regards
Richard

[Phil Lee]

Hi

Using an Intel motherboard media series (DP55WG) and NVidia graphics card, I think 9000 series, it's around a year or more since I built it, so I suppose an equivalent board would be DP67 series with newer Intel CPUs.

I don't see much point going for the most expensive graphics card for video editing as they are mostly targetting 3D and games, so I look for a fanless design a step or so behind the current top cards. I also don't go in for overclocking so avoid the "go faster stripes" of motherboards from the likes of Asus and Gigabyte, and with Intel CPUs automatically overclocking themselves when they can, not sure how much speed you gain overclocking against possible instability.

Regards

Phil

[Richard Green]

Hi Phil,
Thanks for info.
I've settled for the Intel I5-2500 (1155 socket) CPU. The motherboard has become a bit of a challenge,
currently looking at an ASUS P8H67-M EVO REV 3.0 - New H67 B3 Revision. Which looks very appealing at the moment, with it's HDMI socket and onboard graphics.

Any comments?

Regards
Richard

[Phil Lee]

Hi

Sounds good to me and avoids the need for a graphics card. I'm not sure how good the graphics are in the Intel CPUs, but I'm sure they will keep up, worse case you just add on a graphics card.

Regards

Phil

[Edgar Vasiluk]

Hi all, just re-read this interesting thread. Thank you all! Good advice there! I will check my properties tonight...

Wedding Videos London | Wedding Videos Essex | Wedding Videos Surrey from YouMyWorld Productions

[Richard Green]

Hi Guys,
The OP is back. Phil, if you're still about, I now have my new computer up and running and have just finished editing a wedding video. The computer is excellent and edits AVCHD files without problem. Had a few problems with vegas, crashed on me twice, I think there are still a few bugs in it especially with windows 7. The final sd dvd is very good, quality wise and using your suggested method made things go quite smoothly. However I have noticed there are one or two defects mainly jaggies on straight edges, not too important on this particular video, but never the less they are there and I don't like, so have been doing a bit of research and have come up with a workflow which has given me the cleanest, smoothest, sharpest video I have ever done. Knocks the spots off broadcast video. (my opinion). So I have done a list of my workflow and hopefully people with more knowledge than me might be able improve it.
Notice I'm a PAL user.

To process AVCHD 1920x1080 50i PAL video edited with Sony Vegas 10d
to a SD DVD.

Tools Required
Vegas 10d, DVDArchitect 5.2, VirtualDub 1.9.11 & Lagarith 1325 codec.

Settings to edit
In Vegas set project settings to HD 1080i (1920x1080,50i,25fps)
Keep everything default.
Introduce content to the timeline.

Render as
Video for Windows (*.avi)
Use the <Lagarith Lossless Codec>, go to configure and choose <Use Multi
Threading> if you have a Multi Processor. And <Mode RGB(Default)>
And Render.

After Render run VirtualDub open the AVI just rendered.

Under Video Menu
Choose Filters and add the resize filter and configure to
resize to 720x576(RGB32)
In filter mode use Lancoz3 and
check/tick interlaced.
Framing Options <do not Letter Box or Crop>
Codec Friendly Sizing <Do not Adjust>
Save as Default if you wish for future use.

Under Video Menu Choose Colour Depth,
Set Decompression to Auto Select and Output Format...........
to Same as Decompression Format

Still under Video Menu Choose Compression
select (uncompressed RGB/YCbCr)

Under File Menu choose <Save Processing Settings> for future use
and finally under File Menu choose Save as AVI

When VirtualDub has finished run Vegas with a new project.
Change project properties to
PAL DV Widescreen 720x576 25fps and leave all default settings.

Load the newly created AVI on to the timeline right click the clip
and select properties, Uncheck maintain Aspect Ratio and apply.

Render as
Mainconcept MPEG2 and DVD Architect PAL Widescreen
And Render.
When finished, put the mpg file into Architect and use the
default SD DVD Settings. Burn the DVD

WOH! JUST NOTICED OVER 2000 PEOPLE HAVE LOOKED AT THIS THREAD!!!!!!!
Just shows that AVCHD to SD DVD is a huge problem to many, Hope this helps.

Regards
RichardG

[Phil Lee]

Hi

Yes I'm still here :)

I've used your method as well, one of the better ones.

I'm not 100% sure but my research on resizing has seen it written that the resolution for 1920x1080 HD to SD should be 704*576, which gives a more correct aspect ratio, although most will not notice unless something in the shot gives it away, it also depends on a DVD player correctly displaying 704*576 correctly, although most should.

I've found another method which means using AVISynth to do the resizing, this seperates out each field and resizes it avoiding a de-interlacing step. De-interlacing often produces artefacts especially with camera pans, and this method keeps pans and movement looking really good. Not as pin sharp as other methods if examining close up, but overall I think personally it is the best conversion, and jaggy free. You watch it and can tell it comes from a good HD source.

When I get chance I'll post up the workflow, very similar to what you are doing now with Virtual Dub but just uses AVISynth to do some clever resizing on each field.

Good to hear you have your new computer and all is going well.

Regards

Phil

[Chris Harding]

Hi Guys

I don't want to put a fly in the ointment but I have tried that method and found an easier way and still have sharp SD footage on the DVD

(1) Transcode to AVCHD in VAAST's Upshift to MPEG2 at 50mbps and make it progressive.
(2) Import the M2t footage into Vegas and edit... I let Vegas choose the correct properties
(3) Render out to MainConcept MPEG2 using the PAL Widescreen Preset

This gives me pretty good MPEG2's for the DVD and my little DuoCore handles the transcoded files nicely without any stuttering!!! and it's only one Render process rather than 3 of them!!

Chris

[Richard Green]

Hi Chris,
No flies on my ointment, don't get that many flies in the UK. :-)
I suppose it depends what you call pretty good, I'm after exceptionally good!
You have to transcode all your clips first. Isn't that classed as a render?
My last Render to mpg takes only a few minutes on a 60min video.
I can't find Upshift, is it now called gearshift, it's $50. VDUB is free!

Hi Phil,
Thanks for comments, interesting about the aspect ratio must check that out.
I have seen your AVISYNTH method on another forum, complete with script.
I tried yesterday to download AVISYNTH, but couldn't get on to the website. Looks like it doesn't
come with a GUI, is that true?
I will try that method as soon as I get a copy, although to be honest I'm more than happy with the method above.
Regards
Richard