newbie question about Vegas and Panasonic

[Bo...@somewhere.com]

I just got a Panasonic TM900 and I want to get editing software...

Does Sony Vegas handle Panasonic AVCHD?

I have Pinnacle Studio 9 but don't like it too much so I don't want to upgrade.

The reason I ask is that I tried playing a clip in my friends computer with
Canon software and it wouldn't... even though the files are all called the same
.mts and the software mentions "loads Sony AVCHD".

Thanks!

[Brian]

The AVCHD format should be the same for all cameras that support this
format. The only difference is the video bit rate.
Sony Vegas 10 and 11 supports AVDHD but you need a fast computer as the
processor has to process more data.

Most Blu-Ray players support AVDHD so you can put your video from the
camera on to a DVD disc and play it back on a Blu-Ray player. Also useful
if your camera has surround 5.1 sound. You should be able to put the
camera's video on a flash drive and plug it into a Blu-Ray player.

--
Regards Brian

[ushere]

hi brian - pleased to see all your research over the months has / is
paying off. great advice....

[Brian]

Thanks ushere.
I've received a lot of help on this newsgroup so its nice to be able to
give some help to others for a change.

--
Regards Brian

[David Ruether]

"Bo...@somewhere.com" <Bo...@somewhere.com> wrote in message news:
rth9i7tl7frit24uj...@4ax.com:

> I just got a Panasonic TM900 and I want to get editing software...
>
> Does Sony Vegas handle Panasonic AVCHD?

The short answer is yes (and all versions of Vegas running back
to the introduction of the very similar TM700 could import MTS
files and export MP4, Blu-ray, etc.), BUT, this material is
VERY difficult to edit without having a "monster" computer. I
finally just "bit the bullet" and built a 4.4gHz Intel i7 with
a big cooler, a new case that would fit the cooler and with 7-6"
fans to keep it all cool, 16 gigs of 1600-speed RAM, a 480-core
video card, etc., and Vegas Pro 11. It is now *almost* easy to
preview and edit/export this material. There were many times
when I sorely wished that I had stuck with HDV, which can be
edited easily on a dual-core machine - but the image quality
of material edited at 1920x1080-60P is very noticeably higher.
--DR

[mike]

There are trial versions of all the different Sony editing packages.
Download them, play with them and see what you think.
http://www.sonycreativesoftware.com/vegassoftware

Mike

[David Ruether]

"David Ruether" <d_ru...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:
jg3jur$rmf$1...@ruby.cit.cornell.edu:

Specific to the Panasonic TM700 (and likely the very similar
TM900) is the following: if you directly compare video shot
at native 60I at 17Mbps and 60P at 28Mbps (both at 1920x1080)
by shooting the same subject matter, placing the results on
two tracks (one over the other in the editing software, lining
up similar material, and switching the upper track on/off to
compare it at "Best-Full" using a full-resolution secondary
monitor), you will find it hard to shoot with the former even
though it *may* be easier to edit - but there is a partial
way out of this, which is to shoot 60P video to the camera's
internal memory, then later have the camera convert these
files to 17Mbps 60I on a memory card placed in the camcorder.
This is done at much less than a real time rate, so the 17Mbps
conversion is of higher quality (very close to 60P original)
than similar camera original (but the conversions do take
quite a while...). The other down side of this is that the
data rate is still lower at 17Mbps, and if you do much
modifying of the material, it may not hold up as well as the
60P original material.
--DR

[Mxsmanic]

David Ruether writes:

> ... BUT, this material is

> VERY difficult to edit without having a "monster" computer. I
> finally just "bit the bullet" and built a 4.4gHz Intel i7 with
> a big cooler, a new case that would fit the cooler and with 7-6"
> fans to keep it all cool, 16 gigs of 1600-speed RAM, a 480-core
> video card, etc., and Vegas Pro 11. It is now *almost* easy to
> preview and edit/export this material.

Wow ... are you sure you're talking about AVCHD?

I edit AVCHD from my little Handycam on a vastly more modest machine, and it
seems to work just fine. I set the preview to low quality so that it runs
smoothly. And it does take a lot of time to render if I render to the best
blu-ray quality (about 9 times the length of the video, 25 Mbps). But it's
still quite usable even with modest hardware.

Or is Panasonic's implementation of AVCHD somehow more aggressive in
compression?

[David Ruether]

"Mxsmanic" <mxsm...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:
fkcbi7t6jmse338g3...@4ax.com:
> David Ruether writes:

[About 28Mbps 1920x1080-60P, now part of the AVCHD standard...]

> > ... BUT, this material is
> > VERY difficult to edit without having a "monster" computer. I
> > finally just "bit the bullet" and built a 4.4gHz Intel i7 with
> > a big cooler, a new case that would fit the cooler and with 7-6"
> > fans to keep it all cool, 16 gigs of 1600-speed RAM, a 480-core
> > video card, etc., and Vegas Pro 11. It is now *almost* easy to
> > preview and edit/export this material.

> Wow ... are you sure you're talking about AVCHD?

Yes - but there is AVCHD, and AVCHD...;-)

> I edit AVCHD from my little Handycam on a vastly more modest machine, and it
> seems to work just fine.

What is the camera, data rate, frame resolution, and frame rate?

> I set the preview to low quality so that it runs
> smoothly.

If you do this, how can you tell what you have? I run a side
monitor at full 1920x1080-60P to see detail on individual frames,
and run at "Best-Half" in Vegas to see a smooth playback (or I
make a RAM preview at the highest resolution). Anything less
would be useless to me.

> And it does take a lot of time to render if I render to the best
> blu-ray quality (about 9 times the length of the video, 25 Mbps). But it's
> still quite usable even with modest hardware.

My current "monster" computer reduced the render times to a
small fraction of what they used to be (maybe 1/8th the render
time with the fast CPU's 8 cores and threads and the video card's
slower 480 cores all "chewing up" the footage) - but the main
purpose in building the computer was so that I could see what I
was doing while editing. Fortunately, it didn't cost a fortune
to build the computer (I can supply a list of parts if anyone is
interested...;-). BTW, the maximum quality Blu-ray can do is
about 40Mbps at 1920x1080-60I (the last part is unfortunate,
since all things being equal, it cuts the amount of information
on the screen by a factor of two - but the Panasonic's lens is
also unusually sharp, giving a further advantage to it...).

> Or is Panasonic's implementation of AVCHD somehow more aggressive in
> compression?

The data rate is higher. I haven't compared file sizes with other
cameras shooting for the same period. If you are curious, try
shooting a 20-second clip with your camera. That length clip
results in an unmodified clip file size of 63-64megs shot by
the Panasonic TM700. Let us know the results...;-)
--DR

[Brian]

Thanks David for your suggestion on comparing videos shot at different
video data rates.
I'm not certain why but I recorded some short test videos at 17M 50i, 25M
25p and 28M 50p and when played back on my 40 inch LCD TV using a direct
connection from the camera to the TV (using HDMI) I could see no difference
in picture quality.
Maybe it depends on what subject is being video recorded. even at 5M 50i
the video looked good. My TV supports 1920 x 1080.
--
Regards Brian

[Bo...@somewhere.com]

Thats a good plan... I'll do so when I get my new computer.

[Bo...@somewhere.com]

On Sun, 29 Jan 2012 14:09:29 +0000, "David Ruether" <d_ru...@hotmail.com>
wrote:

Right now I have an old "game quality" machine with a heat pipe cooled MB (MSI
Platinum) and an 8800 VC running a Samsung 24", but it's a bit out of date...
I'm going to get an i7 machine next.

Can you give me some details on your machine?

Before I forget, is Vegas a good choice? I'm not a "pro", can I get away with
the "lessor version"?

Thanks again

[Bo...@somewhere.com]

So far I've found that Canon videos don't play properly without Canon software,
using media player by itself, it has bad sound, but the Panasonic videos play
perfectly. (One reason I didn't buy Canon, besides the secret password to
register.)... (( I have a Canon MiniDV, as well as a Sony and a Samsung))

For myself, I plan to get an i7 computer with a "many T byte drive" and keep all
the videos on it to just output direct to a TV. Of course a blu-ray as well to
export the odd thing.

My camera also does 60P but apparently that isn't AVCHD compliant. Not a big
deal for me really.

[Mxsmanic]

David Ruether writes:

> What is the camera, data rate, frame resolution, and frame rate?

A Sony Handycam, 24 Mbps, 1920x1080/50i.

> If you do this, how can you tell what you have?

Easily. I just need to see what's in the image so that I can edit it. The
quality is constant so it doesn't need to be verified.

> I run a side monitor at full 1920x1080-60P to see detail on individual frames,
> and run at "Best-Half" in Vegas to see a smooth playback (or I
> make a RAM preview at the highest resolution). Anything less
> would be useless to me.

Why do you need to see detail on individual frames?

> The data rate is higher. I haven't compared file sizes with other
> cameras shooting for the same period. If you are curious, try
> shooting a 20-second clip with your camera. That length clip
> results in an unmodified clip file size of 63-64megs shot by
> the Panasonic TM700. Let us know the results...;-)

My camera generates about 56 MB in 20 seconds.

[Mxsmanic]

Bo...@somewhere.com writes:

> Before I forget, is Vegas a good choice? I'm not a "pro", can I get away with
> the "lessor version"?

Even the "consumer" versions of Vegas are excellent video editing programs.
The code base is the same as the pro version; only certain features are
missing.

[Brian]

one of the features missing is masking but there are ways to get around
this missing feature. As its more for the home user there are some extra
features such as directly uploading to the video YouTube.

--
Regards Brian

[David Ruether]

"Bo...@somewhere.com" <Bo...@somewhere.com> wrote in message news:

r6ubi7pvb0ed68e76...@4ax.com:

> On Sun, 29 Jan 2012 07:46:33 GMT, Brian <bcl...@es.co.nz> wrote:
> ><Bo...@somewhere.com> wrote:

> >> I just got a Panasonic TM900 and I want to get editing software...
> >>
> >> Does Sony Vegas handle Panasonic AVCHD?
> >>
> >> I have Pinnacle Studio 9 but don't like it too much so I don't want to upgrade.
> >>
> >> The reason I ask is that I tried playing a clip in my friends computer with
> >> Canon software and it wouldn't... even though the files are all called the same
> >> .mts and the software mentions "loads Sony AVCHD".
> >>
> >> Thanks!

> >The AVCHD format should be the same for all cameras that support this
> >format. The only difference is the video bit rate.
> >Sony Vegas 10 and 11 supports AVDHD but you need a fast computer as the
> >processor has to process more data.

Vegas Pro 8 and 9 (and also 7?) supported AVCHD (I used Pro 8 with it),
as do the cheap Vegas Media Studio HD editing programs.

> >Most Blu-Ray players support AVDHD so you can put your video from the
> >camera on to a DVD disc and play it back on a Blu-Ray player. Also useful
> >if your camera has surround 5.1 sound.

AVCHD to DVD is limited by the acceptable data rate for writing DVDs
(16Mbps?), whereas Blu-ray disks can be written at up to about 40Mbps.
One advantage of AVCHD DVDs (I think...;-) is that 1920x1080-60P files
can be written to DVDs as 60P(?), whereas Blu-ray at that resolution
is limited to the inferior 60I.

> >You should be able to put the
> >camera's video on a flash drive and plug it into a Blu-Ray player.

Some Blu-ray players can't do this, but some can accept SD memory cards
(although I have never figured out how to write video back to a
card...).

> So far I've found that Canon videos don't play properly without Canon software,
> using media player by itself, it has bad sound, but the Panasonic videos play
> perfectly. (One reason I didn't buy Canon, besides the secret password to
> register.)... (( I have a Canon MiniDV, as well as a Sony and a Samsung))

In Mini-DV I preferred Sony, but in HDV I preferred Canon, and now
with AVCHD I prefer Panasonic...;-)

> For myself, I plan to get an i7 computer with a "many T byte drive" and keep all
> the videos on it to just output direct to a TV. Of course a blu-ray as well to
> export the odd thing.

You can build a better computer by doing it yourself. A great Antec
steel case is cheap, a good Asus MB that makes safe overclocking of
a certain i7 CPU chip is reasonably priced, that Intel chip is a
"give-away" relative to the performance offered for the price
(4.4gHz+, 30+ percent above standard with an i7 2600K), the cooler
is very inexpensive that makes the overclocking practical, 16-gigs
of DDR3 1600 RAM is about $90(!), Blu-ray writers are now under
$100, etc. Here is one bit of STRONG advice: SAVE *ALL* FILES YOU
WANT TO KEEP ON ***AT LEAST*** TWO SEPERATE DRIVES! One could be
external, unplugged much of the time. Also, I would avoid drives
larger than 2-TB. The only "trick" that requires the help of a
second person is installing the big CPU heat sink (look on Google
for how to do it - that's not clear from the huge instruction
sheet with many drawings, but it is easy) and also (surprising to
me) how to properly apply the heat transfer paste to the top of
the CPU chip. Follow directions, especially ones about often
grounding yourself to the case and how to handle electrostatically
sensitive parts (mainly board bottoms, terminals, the CPU bottom).
If you want, I can put here a list of parts...

> My camera also does 60P but apparently that isn't AVCHD compliant. Not a big
> deal for me really.

The AVCHD standard was changed to include it...
--DR

[David Ruether]

"Brian" <bcl...@es.co.nz> wrote in message news:
1844060349570341.21...@free.teranews.com:

A few things that **MAY** be involved --
--TVs vary (plasmas are generally somewhat less sharp than the
*best* LCDs properly viewed *on-axis*), which levels things.
--TVs vary in how well they process video (white text on a black
background can show remarkable differences among TVs, and the
ones that can't do that well will limit the detail level of
everything).
--Cameras vary (the Panasonic has an unusually sharp lens, and
its internal processing favors sharpness over motion smoothness,
but I've seen others that don't look very sharp even at 60P).
--Some TVs (mine included) do not accept 60P on the HDMI input[!]
and I must use a DVI input in the TV to see 60P directly from
the camera.
--If there is little motion and relatively little fine detail,
you may well find it hard to see the differences, especially
if your TV does a good job of upsampling the interlaced video
to progressive scan, which is what HDTVs display.
Just guesses, though...;-)
Try a very detailed subject (like shooting into woods) with a
none-too-steady holding of the camera (NOT tripod-mounted) at
widest angle using an aperture (if possible) around f5.6.
If you can, put the video on tracks one above the other with
a full-resolution monitor view of the results. In Vegas you can
do the following: with all tracks "open", move the cursor to a
sharp frame on track 1 and record the frame number; close track
one and do the same thing with track 2, but finding a frame
that is similar in content to the one chosen in track 1; etc.
Line up those frames exactly one above the other, with the cursor
placed on them. Using the track on/off switches, you can directly
compare the content quality. With just viewing video, it may not
be quite so obvious what the differences are, but doing the
above, it likely will be unless something like a possibility
described above is "leveling the playing field" to a lower than
ideal height. I can tell you, though, that the differences here
are very visible...
--DR

[David Ruether]

"Mxsmanic" <mxsm...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:

pf8ci71sh25gfct1r...@4ax.com:

> David Ruether writes:

> > What is the camera, data rate, frame resolution, and frame rate?

> A Sony Handycam, 24 Mbps, 1920x1080/50i.

> > If you do this [reduce the preview image size/resolution],

> > how can you tell what you have?

> Easily. I just need to see what's in the image so that I can edit it. The
> quality is constant so it doesn't need to be verified.

Hmmmm........ Your quality may be constant, but mine is NOT,
which is why I do NOT trust what a tiny little unsharp preview
window can reveal!

> > I run a side monitor at full 1920x1080-60P to see detail on individual
> > frames, and run at "Best-Half" in Vegas to see a smooth playback (or I
> > make a RAM preview at the highest resolution). Anything less
> > would be useless to me.

> Why do you need to see detail on individual frames?

Video is made up of a string of individual frames (especially
progressive video). If my clip has a bunch of (or high percentage
of) softer frames, something is wrong, like miss-focus, too slow
a shutter speed for hand-holding or to cover subject motion, etc.,
and these would cause me to likely toss the clip. Without accurate
previewing, my video would not be as sharp, and sharpness (plus
other aspects, visible only at full resolution) is something I
value. After all, I'm editing the *image* part of a video (as well
as the sound part later, when I then require a good playback
system to tell what I'm doing with the audio).

> > The data rate is higher. I haven't compared file sizes with other
> > cameras shooting for the same period. If you are curious, try
> > shooting a 20-second clip with your camera. That length clip
> > results in an unmodified clip file size of 63-64megs shot by
> > the Panasonic TM700. Let us know the results...;-)

> My camera generates about 56 MB in 20 seconds.

That makes sense for PAL's 50P mode since the frame rate is
slower than NTSC's 60P...
--DR

[David Ruether]

"Bo...@somewhere.com" <Bo...@somewhere.com> wrote in message news:

dntbi7115il93nh91...@4ax.com:

I bought the parts from Newegg, a great seller with great prices!
Look on the Newegg site at the "egg" ratings, paying attention to
the lowest ratings and what proportion of the total these represent.
And regardless of what the manufacturer says, if something has a
defect, get an RMA from Newegg since you get a new part, fast,
and not a "reconditioned" one. I can't remember everything exactly,
but here goes...
--Antec mid tower steel case, black (it has ports at rear, top,
left side, and two on the front for 6" fans, and mine came with
all but the side and top ports with fans installed.
--A pair of 6" Antec fans (these are three-speed, all are quiet
in the case running at mid-speed), one for a spare and one to
add to the one on the CPU cooler (Newegg had a deal on a pair).
--A 750watt-rated (likely actually about 600 watts, but the
video card alone "grabs" 285 watts...) power supply (Corsair or
whatever with a good reputation - but I kinda avoid Newegg's
"Rosewill" brand - but it may be OK...). Ask for the most
knowledgeable computer hardware salesman at Best Buy - here
he recommended any of three, so I took a stab in the dark but
I can't remember the odd name of what I bought...
--For HDs I would get maybe a 250meg for the program drive, maybe
partitioning it to provide an extra drive, and two 1 to 2 TB
internal drives plus the same size for an external drive. Avoid
the "green" drives unless you can put up with start-up lag. I
didn't find SSD useful for drives. You can also use a USB thumb
drive to store programs while you are working, and these are cheap
in ordinary sizes.
LG, Sony, etc. internal Blu-ray writers are under $100.
--For the motherboard, I use an Asus P8P67 (it must support a
CPU intended for socket LGA 1155 [NOT 1156]). Before installing
anything on the MB, switch the two switches "on" (the opposite of
their defaults, and they may be hard to reach later).
--For the CPU, I got "Intel's gift to builders of fast computers
on a budget", the i7 2600K (MAKE SURE THAT THE "K" IS THERE!).
There is a 2700K out, but it may not be worth the higher price,
and the 6-core version is definitely not worthwhile at three times
the price with little speed increase over the overclocked 2600K.
--Don't install the cooler (heatsink and fan) that comes with
the CPU - instead get the Coolermaster 212+ or the slightly better
one that comes with two 6" fans already installed.
STOP! Find out how to apply the thermal paste and stall the cooler
on Google (with three descriptions/videos for each)! You WILL need
help with the installation of the cooler on the CPU chip and
motherboard - do it right or the CPU will overheat or not function.
--For a video card, there are many brands and models based on the
480-core nVidia GTX570, but I chose the EVGA 1579-AR for the
reputation of good service from the company (hey, they actually
appear to have pride in their products!;-), the (possibly
meaningless) 2.5gigs of RAM on the card, the shorter length of the
card (some of these are L O N G !), and that "AR" at the end which
signifies that if you register the card within 30 days of invoice
date (not the easiest process...), the warranty is a "lifetime"
one, valuable with a card that dissipates 285 watts (hence the use
of 6 6" fans for the case plus the 6" fan in the supply, keeping
the case metal and vent air cold.
--For RAM (installed before the CPU and cooler, and low profile
to fit under the cooler), I used 4gigsx4 Kingston DDR3 1600.
Once you get the computer up and running, go to www.memtest86
and download it and put it on a CD to run it from overnight.
My RAM showed zero errors with 5 passes...

If with the keyboard and mouse are connected (and I use dual Acer
24" 1920x1200 monitors since the editing program lays out better
with 1200 rather than 1080 pixels vertically), there are no "beeps",
etc., and the computer appears to run, then load the 64-bit version
of Win 7. If all goes well, load the software for the MB bios, "AI
Suite II", which is a windows program. First, though, with MB book
in hand, open the BIOS with the usual pressing of the "Delete"
key at startup (do it with both "splash" screens, but likely it
will work only with the second) and bit by bit go through the
settings and make choices (or, maybe better is to leave it alone.;-)
The standard "speed" of the CPU is 3.4gHz, but you can use the AI
Suite software to auto increase the CPU speed in steps (it self
tests) until failure with a blue-screen-of-death. CTR-ALT-DEL to
restart, and stop short of where you got before. I once got to
4.9gHz OK, but a good compromise between heating with intensive
video rendering and render speed is about 4.4gHz, a good speed
increase! If you bigin to overheat the CPU, a warning will pop up
in the lower right of the screen, and at 95 degrees C., the CPU
will shut down. A little program called "Core Temp" is useful to
check the CPU speed (it's 1.6gHz with light duty requirements,
4.4 gHz on mine under load, and the video card voltage goes from
.9v. to 1.366v.) and the temperatures of each of the four cores.

> Before I forget, is Vegas a good choice? I'm not a "pro", can I get away with
> the "lessor version"?
>
> Thanks again

The major differences for me are that the Vegas Movie Studio HD
Platinum 11 Production Suite, $60 including shipping[!] from Amazon at
--

www.amazon.com/Sony-Vegas-Studio-Platinum-Production/dp/B0051M6IPI/ref=sr_1_1?s=software&ie=UTF8&qid=1327939451&sr=1-1
is that Vegas Pro has more default tracks and they are unnamed
(but more tracks can be added in both and named anything you want),
some of the more "esoteric" functions are missing, some file types
appear to have size limits even when trying to make custom render
templates - but there are more included transitions, filters, and
sound effects, plus it includes site upload templates). You can
find a comparison of features here --
http://www.sonycreativesoftware.com/moviestudiope/compare
Video tutorials are here, for Pro --

http://www.sonycreativesoftware.com/support/trainingvids.asp?prod=vegaspro
and for MS --

http://www.sonycreativesoftware.com/support/trainingvids.asp?prod=moviestudio
And I wrote some basic things (including layout of the software) --
http://www.donferrario.com/ruether/Sony-editing.htm
Also, ***IF*** you can figure out what nonstandard terms Sony uses
for things/operations, you can ask the program for info or even
get a step-by-step guide within the program (MS) on how to do it!;-)
And, as others have suggested, there are 30-day trial versions
available.
--DR

[Mxsmanic]

David Ruether writes:

> Video is made up of a string of individual frames (especially
> progressive video). If my clip has a bunch of (or high percentage
> of) softer frames, something is wrong, like miss-focus, too slow
> a shutter speed for hand-holding or to cover subject motion, etc.,
> and these would cause me to likely toss the clip. Without accurate
> previewing, my video would not be as sharp, and sharpness (plus
> other aspects, visible only at full resolution) is something I
> value.

You don't review the rushes separately before beginning your editing?

I take a look at the raw footage before editing if it's important enough, and
that allows me to see things like improper focus (rarely a problem on a little
camera with a small sensor, but I've seen occasional anomalies, especially in
low light).

> After all, I'm editing the *image* part of a video ...

Well, unless you're doing something unusual, most of the original camera
frames you use will be unchanged in the final product, if they appear at all.
Indeed, Vegas takes advantage of this and will pass unmodified frames through
to the rendered final product without recompression, unless you turn this off.
Thus, there is no quality loss in the final product for footage taken straight
from the camera, if there's no format change.

> That makes sense for PAL's 50P mode since the frame rate is
> slower than NTSC's 60P...

Hmm, I didn't think of that, but you're right.

[Mxsmanic]

Brian writes:

> one of the features missing is masking but there are ways to get around
> this missing feature. As its more for the home user there are some extra
> features such as directly uploading to the video YouTube.

I'd like to be able to save up and get Vegas Pro, but Sony has permanently
prevented me from doing that.

I've never used the direct upload feature. I always render to a file so tha tI
can archive the final product, and then I upload that. The files are much
larger than they need to be for YouTube, but I want better quality for the
archive, and rendering twice in two different formats is time-consuming ...
I'm not sure that the slight gain in upload time would be worth it.

[David Ruether]

"Mxsmanic" <mxsm...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:

fi1ei71ooqld52g3h...@4ax.com:

> David Ruether writes:

> > Video is made up of a string of individual frames (especially
> > progressive video). If my clip has a bunch of (or high percentage
> > of) softer frames, something is wrong, like miss-focus, too slow
> > a shutter speed for hand-holding or to cover subject motion, etc.,
> > and these would cause me to likely toss the clip. Without accurate
> > previewing, my video would not be as sharp, and sharpness (plus
> > other aspects, visible only at full resolution) is something I
> > value.

> You don't review the rushes separately before beginning your editing?

Yes, but I don't make all of my choices of material to use then,
especially since I can do it more easily later while editing.

> I take a look at the raw footage before editing if it's important enough, and
> that allows me to see things like improper focus (rarely a problem on a little
> camera with a small sensor, but I've seen occasional anomalies, especially in
> low light).

I sometimes see them even in bright light, especially if I'm
using a wide stop like f1.5...

> > After all, I'm editing the *image* part of a video ...

> Well, unless you're doing something unusual, most of the original camera
> frames you use will be unchanged in the final product, if they appear at all.

This is never true for me. All footage can be improved through
careful adjustments in sharpening, contrast/brightness, saturation,
color balance, and especially tonal-relationships (using the amazing
Sony "color-curves" filter) - all of which require good monitoring to
do them well.

> Indeed, Vegas takes advantage of this and will pass unmodified frames through
> to the rendered final product without recompression, unless you turn this off.
> Thus, there is no quality loss in the final product for footage taken straight
> from the camera, if there's no format change.

The last part is true (at least with Vegas 11, but not with some earlier
versions like 8 and 9 except with HDV, but see above). Also, I export
two
file types: 50Mbps 1920x1080-60P for archiving, and 40Mbps 1920x1080-60I
Blu-ray for display.

> > That makes sense for PAL's 50P mode since the frame rate is
> > slower than NTSC's 60P...

> Hmm, I didn't think of that, but you're right.

--DR

[Bo...@somewhere.com]

On Mon, 30 Jan 2012 17:51:47 +0000, "David Ruether" <d_ru...@hotmail.com>
wrote:

-snip-

Thanks for all the info!

[Bo...@somewhere.com]

On Mon, 30 Jan 2012 14:51:22 +0000, "David Ruether" <d_ru...@hotmail.com>
wrote:

>

Thanks for the info!

[Mxsmanic]

David Ruether writes:

> Yes, but I don't make all of my choices of material to use then,
> especially since I can do it more easily later while editing.

But if any of the rushes are of unacceptably low quality, you can eliminate
them while watching them for the first time. Then all the material that
remains is of acceptable quality and need not be verified again during
editing.

> I sometimes see them even in bright light, especially if I'm
> using a wide stop like f1.5...

And what do you do then?

> This is never true for me. All footage can be improved through
> careful adjustments in sharpening, contrast/brightness, saturation,
> color balance, and especially tonal-relationships (using the amazing
> Sony "color-curves" filter) - all of which require good monitoring to
> do them well.

Are you recording test patterns, or scenes from real life?

[David Ruether]

"Mxsmanic" <mxsm...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:

9urfi7to2p93m60f7...@4ax.com:

> David Ruether writes:

> > Yes, but I don't make all of my choices of material to use then,
> > especially since I can do it more easily later while editing.

> But if any of the rushes are of unacceptably low quality, you can eliminate
> them while watching them for the first time. Then all the material that
> remains is of acceptable quality and need not be verified again during
> editing.

But it is so easy to do it then (with some memory of questionable
or undesired clips in mind). "Click, click, click", and three
clips are gone off the timeline - but I'd rather not miss partial
clips that may prove useful by making absolute choices in advance.

> > I sometimes see them even in bright light, especially if I'm
> > using a wide stop like f1.5...

> And what do you do then?

Either do keyframed sharpening if that is useful/practical,
or dump the clips.

> > This is never true for me. All footage can be improved through
> > careful adjustments in sharpening, contrast/brightness, saturation,
> > color balance, and especially tonal-relationships (using the amazing
> > Sony "color-curves" filter) - all of which require good monitoring to
> > do them well.

> Are you recording test patterns, or scenes from real life?

8^)
"Real life" subjects - but I don't make "story" videos... Here
are some stills from videos, and videos --
http://www.donferrario.com/ruether/HD-video-captures.htm
--DR

[Mxsmanic]

David Ruether writes:

> Either do keyframed sharpening if that is useful/practical,
> or dump the clips.

Of course, as soon as you modify the clip, it has to be recompressed,
entailing more loss of quality. Are you sure that you come out ahead?

And is your audience checking the quality to the extent that you are?

> "Real life" subjects - but I don't make "story" videos... Here
> are some stills from videos, and videos --
> http://www.donferrario.com/ruether/HD-video-captures.htm

They look fine to me. Was the objective of these videos to show exactly how
much sharpening can improve image quality, or something else?

In other words, would anyone in the audience even notice if you skipped the
sharpening and other tweaking of the image?

[David Ruether]

"Mxsmanic" <mxsm...@gmail.com> wrote in message news:

76ngi7hull946sf90...@4ax.com:

> David Ruether writes:

> > Either do keyframed sharpening if that is useful/practical,
> > or dump the clips.

> Of course, as soon as you modify the clip, it has to be recompressed,
> entailing more loss of quality. Are you sure that you come out ahead?

YES! With 50Mbps CBR 1920x1080-60P, there is no detectable difference
in quality between it and the 28Mbps VBR original.

> And is your audience checking the quality to the extent that you are?

Maybe not, but *I* know the difference, and they may also know
it if they find the results impressive.

> > "Real life" subjects - but I don't make "story" videos... Here
> > are some stills from videos, and videos --
> > http://www.donferrario.com/ruether/HD-video-captures.htm

> They look fine to me. Was the objective of these videos to show exactly how
> much sharpening can improve image quality, or something else?

Neither - but all HD the footage was processed from HDV original
material
rather than from the noticeably superior material I'm now working with,
and the video that appears on the sites was very highly compressed.
You should see what you can do when starting with the better source
material and viewing it with less compression! 8^)

> In other words, would anyone in the audience even notice if you skipped the
> sharpening and other tweaking of the image?

If shown a comparison, YES!!! Maybe I should write an article (with
downloadable 1920x1080 frame-grab examples) on my web site showing
how much the use of filters can improve the image quality over that
of even good original material (with improved sense of detail, "snap",
color-balance and saturation, opened-up shadow areas, etc.). To do
less than that is to not really bother editing in a way that realizes
the potential of the source material.
--DR

[Brian]

Mxsmanic <mxsm...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Brian writes:
>
>> one of the features missing is masking but there are ways to get around
>> this missing feature. As its more for the home user there are some extra
>> features such as directly uploading to the video YouTube.
>
> I'd like to be able to save up and get Vegas Pro, but Sony has permanently
> prevented me from doing that.

Sony Movie Studio is still a good product and you can do lots with it.

>
> I've never used the direct upload feature. I always render to a file so tha tI
> can archive the final product, and then I upload that. The files are much
> larger than they need to be for YouTube, but I want better quality for the
> archive, and rendering twice in two different formats is time-consuming ...
> I'm not sure that the slight gain in upload time would be worth it.

The file would be rendered in Sony Movie Study before it was uploaded from
this program.
--
Regards Brian

[Brian]

Thanks for he suggestion David its certain worth a try.
LCD TV's are getting so good these days that they can improve on a lower
quality video. Blu-ray players are improving also. Sony's top Blu-Ray
player (which I don't own) can blend together limited graduations you get
in a low quality video.

--
Regards Brian

[Brian]

You should be able to write a AVCHD file to DVD no matter how the file was
created in the camera. Its no different than copying the AVCHD file to a
flash drive.
I have copied an AVCHD file recorded at a video rate of 28 Mbps 50p to a
flash drive, plugged it into the usb slot on the blu-ray player and played
it back with no problems. The blu-ray player indicated that it was playing
it back in 50p. It's possible with older blu-ray players that this might
not be possible.

>>> You should be able to put the
>>> camera's video on a flash drive and plug it into a Blu-Ray player.
>
> Some Blu-ray players can't do this, but some can accept SD memory cards
> (although I have never figured out how to write video back to a card...).

Just copy the file from the camera to the computer then from the computer
to a flash drive. I am taking about the raw uncompiled AVCHD file.

--
Regards Brian

[Brian]

I liked the still images. Good photography in my option.
--
Regards Brian

[David Ruether]

"Brian" <bcl...@es.co.nz> wrote in message news:

1314740769349700109....@free.teranews.com:

> "David Ruether" <d_ru...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > "Bo...@somewhere.com" <Bo...@somewhere.com> wrote in message news:
> > r6ubi7pvb0ed68e76...@4ax.com:
> >> On Sun, 29 Jan 2012 07:46:33 GMT, Brian <bcl...@es.co.nz> wrote:
> >>> <Bo...@somewhere.com> wrote:

> >>>> I just got a Panasonic TM900 and I want to get editing software...
> >>>> Does Sony Vegas handle Panasonic AVCHD?
> >>>> I have Pinnacle Studio 9 but don't like it too much so I don't want to upgrade.
> >>>> The reason I ask is that I tried playing a clip in my friends computer with
> >>>> Canon software and it wouldn't... even though the files are all called the same
> >>>> .mts and the software mentions "loads Sony AVCHD".

> >>> The AVCHD format should be the same for all cameras that support this
> >>> format. The only difference is the video bit rate.
> >>> Sony Vegas 10 and 11 supports AVDHD but you need a fast computer as the
> >>> processor has to process more data.

> > Vegas Pro 8 and 9 (and also 7?) supported AVCHD (I used Pro 8 with it),
> > as do the cheap Vegas Media Studio HD editing programs.

> >>> Most Blu-Ray players support AVDHD so you can put your video from the
> >>> camera on to a DVD disc and play it back on a Blu-Ray player. Also useful
> >>> if your camera has surround 5.1 sound.

> > AVCHD to DVD is limited by the acceptable data rate for writing DVDs
> > (16Mbps?), whereas Blu-ray disks can be written at up to about 40Mbps.
> > One advantage of AVCHD DVDs (I think...;-) is that 1920x1080-60P files
> > can be written to DVDs as 60P(?), whereas Blu-ray at that resolution
> > is limited to the inferior 60I.

> You should be able to write a AVCHD file to DVD no matter how the file was
> created in the camera. Its no different than copying the AVCHD file to a
> flash drive.

The difference is that DVD is not a simple storage medium unless
you write a data disk, and I don't know if that would play as video
from the DVD.

> I have copied an AVCHD file recorded at a video rate of 28 Mbps 50p to a
> flash drive, plugged it into the usb slot on the blu-ray player and played
> it back with no problems. The blu-ray player indicated that it was playing
> it back in 50p. It's possible with older blu-ray players that this might
> not be possible.

Try that with a DVD, and let us know if it plays on a Blu-ray deck...

> >>> You should be able to put the
> >>> camera's video on a flash drive and plug it into a Blu-Ray player.

> > Some Blu-ray players can't do this, but some can accept SD memory cards
> > (although I have never figured out how to write video back to a card...).

> Just copy the file from the camera to the computer then from the computer
> to a flash drive. I am taking about the raw uncompiled AVCHD file.

Try this with DVD at 28Mbps...

I don't know where in what thread I listed parts, but here is more
info: the case was an Antec 300 Illusion (it comes with two 6" fans
installed, and is wide enough to accommodate the tall Coolermaster
212+ CPU cooler), and the power supply was a "750"-watt Rockfish.

> >> My camera also does 60P but apparently that isn't AVCHD compliant. Not a big
> >> deal for me really.

> >> --
> >> Regards Brian

[David Ruether]

"Brian" <bcl...@es.co.nz> wrote in message news:

533746351349757891.0...@free.teranews.com:

Thanks.
These are frame-grabs from videos, and the videos are available
at the URLs given on that site. Those are limited by being SD
or HDV, and not my current 60P AVCHD. Those would be limited by
the acceptable file size limits and data rates for uploading and
streaming the videos...
--DR

[Brian]

I was meaning that you need to write a data dvd disc. You can access the
file by selecting it from the list of files on the blu-ray player.

>
>> I have copied an AVCHD file recorded at a video rate of 28 Mbps 50p to a
>> flash drive, plugged it into the usb slot on the blu-ray player and played
>> it back with no problems. The blu-ray player indicated that it was playing
>> it back in 50p. It's possible with older blu-ray players that this might
>> not be possible.
>
> Try that with a DVD, and let us know if it plays on a Blu-ray deck...

That was the main reason why I brought a Blu-ray player. I have put AVCHD
filed recorded with a video data rate of 17 mbps on to dvd and played it
ack on the blu-ray player and listened to it in 5.1 sound. I. Can't
remember if I have played back files recorded at 28mbps 50p but i did put a
28mbps 50p test file on flash drive memory, plugged it into the blu-ray
recorder and played it back.

--
Regards Brian

[David Ruether]

"Brian" <bcl...@es.co.nz> wrote in message news:

955574625349876299.4...@free.teranews.com:

> "David Ruether" <d_ru...@hotmail.com> wrote:

> >> I have copied an AVCHD file recorded at a video rate of 28 Mbps 50p to a
> >> flash drive, plugged it into the usb slot on the blu-ray player and played
> >> it back with no problems. The blu-ray player indicated that it was playing
> >> it back in 50p. It's possible with older blu-ray players that this might
> >> not be possible.

> > Try that with a DVD, and let us know if it plays on a Blu-ray deck...

> That was the main reason why I brought a Blu-ray player. I have put AVCHD
> filed recorded with a video data rate of 17 mbps on to dvd and played it
> ack on the blu-ray player and listened to it in 5.1 sound.

Try this with a DVD with AVCHD progressive video at 28Mbps and
let us know if it works. I, at least, am curious...;-)

> >>>> My camera also does 60P but apparently that isn't AVCHD compliant. Not a big
> >>>> deal for me really.
> >>>> --
> >>>> Regards Brian

> >>> The AVCHD standard was changed [in 2011] to include it...
> >>> --DR