Hi there, I'm wondering if someone here can share their experiences editing AVCHD footage. I'm aware that for most editing machines, you will have to use an intermediate codec - the question in my mind is whether you can actually live with all this intermediate codec stuff if you had to edit this format on a daily basis (as opposed to editing footage a client brought in shot on his home camcorder).
Right now with P2, you stick your memory card into your computer and edit away. Which makes me wonder if it is at all smart to even consider an AVCHD cam for a pro workflow.
Is it too slow? Is anyone editing AVCHD in real time? Is anyone HAPPY editing AVCHD?
For my professional work video I shoot HDV, 24fps, with an XH A1. However, I have a little Sony TG1 just for home movie type things. I use FCP, Studio 2 until this week when I installed Studio 3.
There's basically no difference in FCP between editing AVCHD and anything else. You plug in the card and instead of going to capture, you go to log and transfer menu. All the clips appear in a window and you can choose to load all of them or drag and drop selected clips to the window below.
The first time you do this you choose what you want. I use the high quality ProRes. You only have to do that once unless you want to change codecs.
Click OK and the footage transcodes and each clip appears in your browser window. I haven't timed it out, but I'd say a clip loads a little faster than it does with tape, plus you don't have to log every clip since they all appear at once. So overall it's faster.
Editing is normal. No problems at all. The only thing is with FCP you have to have an Intel Mac. The older pre-Intel Macs won't do AVCHD, but any one with the Intel chip does it easy. I don't like tapeless at this point and wouldn't use it for work purposes, but it is OK for the small amount I shoot for home movies.
--- On Mon, 8/10/09, Randy Quimpo <randy.qui...@gmail.com> wrote:
> From: Randy Quimpo <randy.qui...@gmail.com>
> Subject: [DV-L] DV-L] Anyone editing in AVCHD?
> To: DV-L@googlegroups.com
> Date: Monday, August 10, 2009, 2:47 AM
> Hi there,
> I'm wondering if someone here can share their experiences
> editing
> AVCHD footage. I'm aware that for most editing machines,
> you will have
> to use an intermediate codec - the question in my mind is
> whether you
> can actually live with all this intermediate codec stuff if
> you had to
> edit this format on a daily basis (as opposed to editing
> footage a
> client brought in shot on his home camcorder).
> Right now with P2, you stick your memory card into your
> computer and
> edit away. Which makes me wonder if it is at all smart to
> even
> consider an AVCHD cam for a pro workflow.
> Is it too slow? Is anyone editing AVCHD in real time? Is
> anyone HAPPY
> editing AVCHD?
My question is actually regarding the use of AVCHD in a pro environment - meaning daily editing of AVHCD footage, tight deadlines, demanding edits, reliable output, etc. While it seems that FCP can handle it using the Prores intermediate codec, I'm wondering if this is workflow is practical in a pro environment (as mentioned above), because I've got my mind set on the new Panny HMC150, which is like the DVX100, but using the AVCHD codec. If its a bummer to edit, then I might have to reconsider my choice.
You are saying that transcoding is a little faster than real time - I guess that means there's some advantage there vs tape based formats (DV, HDV, etc). But I guess its not the same as P2 which is stick in the cartridge, dump the data and edit.
If anyone else has input, please let us know what you think!
rgds/ RandyQ
On Tue, Aug 11, 2009 at 10:37 AM, Bill P<bill...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> For my professional work video I shoot HDV, 24fps, with an XH A1. However, I have a little Sony TG1 just for home movie type things. I use FCP, Studio 2 until this week when I installed Studio 3.
> There's basically no difference in FCP between editing AVCHD and anything else.
My main consideration of using AVCHD / tapeless workflow in pro
environment will be a data backup and storage.
In tape, when the event has done, just eject the tape, and put it on archive.
In tapeless workflow, download from memory, then burn the data to backup disc.
I don't know about the rendering process to DVD resolution in FCP,
will it be longer (due to downscaling process also) ?
In Sony Vegas, downconverting process to DVD takes a bit longer rendering time.
Perhaps you want to try to make a test by downloading AVCHD raw
sample, make a test edit with available footages.
Google for 'HMC150 AVCHD raw sample'...
On Tue, Aug 11, 2009 at 7:19 PM, Randy Quimpo<randy.qui...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Thanks for the input, Bill.
> My question is actually regarding the use of AVCHD in a pro
> environment - meaning daily editing of AVHCD footage, tight deadlines,
> demanding edits, reliable output, etc. While it seems that FCP can
> handle it using the Prores intermediate codec, I'm wondering if this
> is workflow is practical in a pro environment (as mentioned above),
> because I've got my mind set on the new Panny HMC150, which is like
> the DVX100, but using the AVCHD codec. If its a bummer to edit, then I
> might have to reconsider my choice.
> You are saying that transcoding is a little faster than real time - I
> guess that means there's some advantage there vs tape based formats
> (DV, HDV, etc). But I guess its not the same as P2 which is stick in
> the cartridge, dump the data and edit.
> If anyone else has input, please let us know what you think!
> rgds/ RandyQ
> On Tue, Aug 11, 2009 at 10:37 AM, Bill P<bill...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> For my professional work video I shoot HDV, 24fps, with an XH A1. However, I have a little Sony TG1 just for home movie type things. I use FCP, Studio 2 until this week when I installed Studio 3.
>> There's basically no difference in FCP between editing AVCHD and anything else.
> --
> Randy Quimpo
> Corporate Film maker
I'm not sure what you mean by dumping the data in P2. How long does it take for it to copy over? If it goes really fast, then P2 would be faster. If it goes in real time or slightly faster, then it would be the same. Transcoding is about the same as loading from tape, no more hassle. I wouldn't have a problem with editing it daily as I do footage from tape. My only issue with any tapeless format at this point is that I don't want to have to download and back up the data on location, which is what you do with P2. I shoot so many tapes for professional purposes that would be impractical, and on some shows the shoot may happen a couple of months before the edit and I don't want to spend the time to load and backup things.
But that's not relevant to your issue since you're acclimated to tapeless already. If P2 lands in your browser immediately, then you wouldn't have the loading time you do with AVCHD. Other than that, it should be the same. You don't have to transcode the AVCHD to ProRes 422, you can use anything. Basically, you can't tell any difference from the footage just capturing in the normal manner. I would be inclined to go with the AVCHD camera because the media is not a proprietary and expensive thing. The cards are cheap enough so a guy could buy extra and not worry about offloading and backing up several hours of footage every day if you shoot a lot.
--- On Tue, 8/11/09, Randy Quimpo <randy.qui...@gmail.com> wrote:
> From: Randy Quimpo <randy.qui...@gmail.com>
> Subject: [DV-L] Re: DV-L] Anyone editing in AVCHD?
> To: DV-L@googlegroups.com
> Date: Tuesday, August 11, 2009, 7:19 AM
> Thanks for the input, Bill.
> My question is actually regarding the use of AVCHD in a
> pro
> environment - meaning daily editing of AVHCD footage, tight
> deadlines,
> demanding edits, reliable output, etc. While it seems that
> FCP can
> handle it using the Prores intermediate codec, I'm
> wondering if this
> is workflow is practical in a pro environment (as mentioned
> above),
> because I've got my mind set on the new Panny HMC150, which
> is like
> the DVX100, but using the AVCHD codec. If its a bummer to
> edit, then I
> might have to reconsider my choice.
> You are saying that transcoding is a little faster than
> real time - I
> guess that means there's some advantage there vs tape based
> formats
> (DV, HDV, etc). But I guess its not the same as P2 which is
> stick in
> the cartridge, dump the data and edit.
> If anyone else has input, please let us know what you
> think!
> rgds/ RandyQ
> On Tue, Aug 11, 2009 at 10:37 AM, Bill P<bill...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
> > For my professional work video I shoot HDV, 24fps,
> with an XH A1. However, I have a little Sony TG1 just for
> home movie type things. I use FCP, Studio 2 until this week
> when I installed Studio 3.
> > There's basically no difference in FCP between editing
> AVCHD and anything else.
> -- > Randy Quimpo
> Corporate Film maker
That would be the logical thing to do--a test. See how it works for you. I don't think compressing for DVD would be any different. I export my timelines as a 1920 x 1080 H.254 best quality before compressing for DVD, or to PNG if time permits, though frankly I can't see any difference from the H.264. Lots of people export directly from the timeline to a DVD compression in FCP but I always do the H.264 which becomes my master that I save with a backup to DVD storage.
--- On Tue, 8/11/09, Setiawan Kartawidjaja <setiawa...@gmail.com> wrote:
> From: Setiawan Kartawidjaja <setiawa...@gmail.com>
> Subject: [DV-L] Re: DV-L] Anyone editing in AVCHD?
> To: DV-L@googlegroups.com
> Date: Tuesday, August 11, 2009, 9:46 AM
> My main consideration of using AVCHD / tapeless workflow in
> pro
> environment will be a data backup and storage.
> In tape, when the event has done, just eject the tape, and
> put it on archive.
> In tapeless workflow, download from memory, then burn the
> data to backup disc.
> I don't know about the rendering process to DVD resolution
> in FCP,
> will it be longer (due to downscaling process also) ?
> In Sony Vegas, downconverting process to DVD takes a bit
> longer rendering time.
> Perhaps you want to try to make a test by downloading AVCHD
> raw
> sample, make a test edit with available footages.
> Google for 'HMC150 AVCHD raw sample'...
> Hope helpful,
> Setiawan
> On Tue, Aug 11, 2009 at 7:19 PM, Randy Quimpo<randy.qui...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > Thanks for the input, Bill.
> > My question is actually regarding the use of AVCHD in
> a pro
> > environment - meaning daily editing of AVHCD footage,
> tight deadlines,
> > demanding edits, reliable output, etc. While it seems
> that FCP can
> > handle it using the Prores intermediate codec, I'm
> wondering if this
> > is workflow is practical in a pro environment (as
> mentioned above),
> > because I've got my mind set on the new Panny HMC150,
> which is like
> > the DVX100, but using the AVCHD codec. If its a bummer
> to edit, then I
> > might have to reconsider my choice.
> > You are saying that transcoding is a little faster
> than real time - I
> > guess that means there's some advantage there vs tape
> based formats
> > (DV, HDV, etc). But I guess its not the same as P2
> which is stick in
> > the cartridge, dump the data and edit.
> > If anyone else has input, please let us know what you
> think!
> > rgds/ RandyQ
> > On Tue, Aug 11, 2009 at 10:37 AM, Bill P<bill...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
> >> For my professional work video I shoot HDV, 24fps,
> with an XH A1. However, I have a little Sony TG1 just for
> home movie type things. I use FCP, Studio 2 until this week
> when I installed Studio 3.
> >> There's basically no difference in FCP between
> editing AVCHD and anything else.
> > --
> > Randy Quimpo
> > Corporate Film maker
Thanks for the input on this - I was all set to download some HMC151 AVCHD footage and do some tests, when I realized that I was editing on FCP5.1, which doesn't have the integration with AVCHD built into it yet. Aargh.
I've ordered FCPStudio3 which has AVCHD integration built-in via transcoding to Prores, but its arriving in a week so have to hold off on that test.
I suspect, though, that AVCHD and other long GOP codec is the way the world is going. In a year or so, the faster multicore CPUs will be everywhere and we may all be editing AVCHD natively.
On Wed, Aug 12, 2009 at 10:20 AM, Bill P<bill...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> That would be the logical thing to do--a test. See how it works for you. I don't think compressing for DVD would be any different. I export my timelines as a 1920 x 1080 H.254 best quality before compressing for DVD, or to PNG if time permits, though frankly I can't see any difference from the H.264. Lots of people export directly from the timeline to a DVD compression in FCP but I always do the H.264 which becomes my master that I save with a backup to DVD storage.
I've not personally tried P2, but SxS (XDCamEX) goes in at around 6x on a decent laptop. I would imagine P2 is similar. XDCamHD is limited by the BlueRay process to around x2. I would imagine the consumer card systems would be similarly limited.
FCP edits AVCHD via an interim 'ProRes' codec. It would be interesting to know if there are any edit systems that keep it 'native' in the AVCHD codec? Perry Mitchell
On Wed, Aug 12, 2009 at 4:02 PM, Perry<perry.mitch...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I've not personally tried P2, but SxS (XDCamEX) goes in at around 6x on a
> decent laptop. I would imagine P2 is similar.
> XDCamHD is limited by the BlueRay process to around x2. I would imagine the
> consumer card systems would be similarly limited.
> FCP edits AVCHD via an interim 'ProRes' codec. It would be interesting to
> know if there are any edit systems that keep it 'native' in the AVCHD codec?
> Perry Mitchell
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bill P
> I'm not sure what you mean by dumping the data in P2. How long does it take
> for it to copy over?
I thought AVCHD was a joint Panny/Sony standard (with others) and therefore the same (like DV and HDV). DV was notorious for having different 'versions' of essentially the same codec. Quicktime (for instance) wouldn't open a DV movie with the wrong 'publisher's' version. I always suspected that there was more politics than science in this situation! Interestingly a computer magazine I was browsing in a store yesterday had a review of consumer video edit apps - they thought Vegas Movie Studio was the best performer but was perhaps too different an interface to be readily accepted. It was of course derived from an audio editor and therefore does seem rather alien to the video fraternity! I would expect a native editor to require vastly less storage resources for the rushes (compared to one like FCP using an interim codec). In these days of cheap TB drives I guess that it may be irrelevant to most producers. Perry Mitchell
I have Sony CX7EK, and got a chance to make test recording during
HMC152's road show several months ago.
First I found them different is when I put Panny's AVCHD to VegasPro
8.0a, the apps goes crashed immediately. Then in VegasPro 8.0c release
notes, written Panasonic's AVCHD is now supported. The folder
structure in memory card is also slightly different.
Opening Sony's AVCHD in Panny's AVCCAM free utility (can be downloaded
from their website) is also directly rejected.
(Message Box : "The Application only works with Panasonic Cameras!")
https://eww.pavc.panasonic.co.jp/pro-av/support/desk/e/download.htm#a... Just found and remembered that there's a free tool too to convert
AVCHD to P2 DVCProHD.
Adobe CS4 able to edit AVCHD natively too, but I never tried it.
Sony Vegas, yep, it's interface feels very different as it is
basically an audio software before. But, what I like with Vegas Pro
right now is it also feels like After Effects, freely to move the
tracks up or down.
I agree too as doing editing natively if possible, so, the video files
are ready to edit, no need to do conversion of anything.
On Wed, Aug 12, 2009 at 6:18 PM, Perry<perry.mitch...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I thought AVCHD was a joint Panny/Sony standard (with others) and therefore
> the same (like DV and HDV). DV was notorious for having different 'versions'
> of essentially the same codec. Quicktime (for instance) wouldn't open a DV
> movie with the wrong 'publisher's' version. I always suspected that there
> was more politics than science in this situation!
> Interestingly a computer magazine I was browsing in a store yesterday had a
> review of consumer video edit apps - they thought Vegas Movie Studio was the
> best performer but was perhaps too different an interface to be readily
> accepted. It was of course derived from an audio editor and therefore does
> seem rather alien to the video fraternity!
> I would expect a native editor to require vastly less storage resources for
> the rushes (compared to one like FCP using an interim codec). In these days
> of cheap TB drives I guess that it may be irrelevant to most producers.
> Perry Mitchell
In this case you are using DVCProHD as an interim codec, it just happens that it is an acquisition codec as well. I have no real knowledge of this - but my gut feeling says that there must be better edit codecs around if you don't need to go back out to DVCProHD. Lossless would be better if you have the space. It's a little old - but this site may give you some thoughts: http://compression.ru/video/codec_comparison/lossless_codecs_2007_en....
I believe this is what gives P2 systems their advantage (hence additional outrageous cost) - the ability to go right from camera to edit with no transcoding. For some folks (Maybe news crews) that speed advantage is worth paying for, much like Betacam was in the linear days (you pop in the tape, you edit the shot, you are done).
With AVCHD, you save on the acquisition but pay on the editing side. Then again, my attraction to AVCHD is that computer power gets very cheap very fast, while P2 cams stay expensive very long. This is why I am thinking that AVCHD has a bright future ahead of it.
Its interesting how Vegas can edit AVCHD natively, while others still can't (or in the case of FCP, wont). Probably means there is a lot of improvement yet to be seen in editing systems.
Perry, I can't imagine how we can discuss uncompressed codecs in this context. If AVCHD is hard enough to edit with existing hardware, wont this be the same problem with uncompressed?
BTW, that link you shared earlier was sooo hard to understand. Is that the stuff you read for entertainment?
rgds/ RandyQ
On Thu, Aug 13, 2009 at 4:31 PM, Perry<perry.mitch...@gmail.com> wrote:
Basically you have two problems in the edit domain: 1)Storage space and data rate 2)Codec processing power
Uncompressed HD consumes around a Gb/s, call it a 100MB/s. This is still a very serious data rate but it is now well in the ball park of a normal desktop computer. A modest RAID system will allow you to edit multiple streams. A hour of uncompressed footage is several hundred GB, but with TB drives now the 'norm' it is no longer a real barrier for even consumer use.
Modern processors, often with Graphic board acceleration, can munch through common long GOP codecs with ease. However, in my experience there is some way to go to make this a 'gimme'. In an edit you may well need to be decoding several streams of AVCHD data, processing them together in some form of 'effect', displaying all the relevant pictures, and probably re-encoding back to AVCHD (or whatever selected) for the rendered result. It has to do this over many frames at the same time. It is no wonder that this is at the cutting edge of current processor technology! Uncompressed has no such processor demands - basically the less compression; the easier it is to process.
Sorry about the article - I just found it in a Google search and it seemed relevant. It seems to be a university thesis! (I must confess I only read the synopsis)
Perry Mitchell
PS Folks often criticize MS Outlook but I just lost power on this computer right in the middle of this reply. When it rebooted and I opened Outlook (after it did a short automatic 'repair' routine) the message was saved in the 'Draft' folder without a word lost! I'm not sure any of the e-mail competitors can do that?
Perry, I can't imagine how we can discuss uncompressed codecs in this context. If AVCHD is hard enough to edit with existing hardware, wont this be the same problem with uncompressed?
BTW, that link you shared earlier was sooo hard to understand. Is that the stuff you read for entertainment?
Uncompressed:
The Hard Drive and Storage speed is challenged, while computer
processors remained 'cool & relaxed', but you got a perfect & clean
picture of every frame.
in contrast, AVCHD:
Storage is not much a problem, BUT, computer's processing power for
'decoding' picture is challenged.
On the link that Perry shares, as long as I know, these are Lossless
and, perhaps, freeware/opensource codecs, well, those can be an option
too, although no idea of how they works or affects the video quality,
or how they are going to be in professional environment.
Anyone here ever try, as suggested on that review, Lagarith compression ?
(A bit different topic)
I have one here installed, but haven't been used.
Reason: I surfed and found the 'Deshaker' utility (as a 'plug-in') for
freeware apps of 'VirtualDub'.
Deshaker able to minimize camera or picture shakes.
But, VirtualDub (or any graphics and video utility) unable to read any
of Sony Vegas internal codecs (these codecs only works in Sony Vegas
apps) or HDV or AVCHDs.
So, maybe Lagarith can become a bridge.
A bit strange thought perhaps, but, don't know if it works... I
haven't been able to try them.
On Thu, Aug 13, 2009 at 5:36 PM, Perry<perry.mitch...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Basically you have two problems in the edit domain:
> 1)Storage space and data rate
> 2)Codec processing power
> Uncompressed HD consumes around a Gb/s, call it a 100MB/s. This is still a
> very serious data rate but it is now well in the ball park of a normal
> desktop computer. A modest RAID system will allow you to edit multiple
> streams. A hour of uncompressed footage is several hundred GB, but with TB
> drives now the 'norm' it is no longer a real barrier for even consumer use.
> Modern processors, often with Graphic board acceleration, can munch through
> common long GOP codecs with ease. However, in my experience there is some
> way to go to make this a 'gimme'. In an edit you may well need to be
> decoding several streams of AVCHD data, processing them together in some
> form of 'effect', displaying all the relevant pictures, and probably
> re-encoding back to AVCHD (or whatever selected) for the rendered result. It
> has to do this over many frames at the same time. It is no wonder that this
> is at the cutting edge of current processor technology!
> Uncompressed has no such processor demands - basically the less compression;
> the easier it is to process.
> Sorry about the article - I just found it in a Google search and it seemed
> relevant. It seems to be a university thesis! (I must confess I only read
> the synopsis)
> Perry Mitchell
> PS Folks often criticize MS Outlook but I just lost power on this computer
> right in the middle of this reply. When it rebooted and I opened Outlook
> (after it did a short automatic 'repair' routine) the message was saved in
> the 'Draft' folder without a word lost! I'm not sure any of the e-mail
> competitors can do that?
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Randy Quimpo
> Perry,
> I can't imagine how we can discuss uncompressed codecs in this
> context. If AVCHD is hard enough to edit with existing hardware, wont
> this be the same problem with uncompressed?
> BTW, that link you shared earlier was sooo hard to understand. Is that
> the stuff you read for entertainment?
Modern processors, often with Graphic board acceleration, can munch through common long GOP codecs with ease. However, in my experience there is some way to go to make this a 'gimme'. In an edit you may well need to be decoding several streams of AVCHD data, processing them together in some form of 'effect', displaying all the relevant pictures, and probably re-encoding back to AVCHD (or whatever selected) for the rendered result. It has to do this over many frames at the same time. It is no wonder that this is at the cutting edge of current processor technology!
|
