AVCHD conversion

[John Rofrano]

If you don’t want to buy CineForm then I would simply convert it to HDV. This is what the VASST/New Blue FX tool AVCHD UpShift does (only automated). I doubt you will see any difference in quality.

~jr

http://www.johnrofrano.com
http://www.vasst.com

[Steve Rhoden]

Yep, Convert it to HDV…And if you are using Vegas 10,
there is no need to stress over Cineform.

Steve Rhoden
(Cow Leader)
Film Maker
Filmex Creative Media.
1-876-832-4956

[Douglas Spotted eagle]

I don’t know if your experience will be like mine, but Vegas 10 32 loves HDV and Vegas 10 64 does not.

Douglas Spotted Eagle
VASST

Certified Sony Vegas Trainer
Aerial Camera/Instructor

[Stephen Mann]

“I don’t know if your experience will be like mine, but Vegas 10 32 loves HDV and Vegas 10 64 does not.”

Not my experience. I have three Z1’s (HDV) and do multi-camera edits all the time. My previews and render/encodes are noticeably improved with Version 10C on my quad-core system running Win7, 64-bit.

Steve Mann
MannMade Digital Video
http://www.mmdv.com

[Rob Franks]

Cx500 is 1920×1080. If you convert to HDV then you will cut the resolution to 1440×1080. Are you sure you want to do that?

[John Rofrano]

[Rob Franks] “Cx500 is 1920×1080. If you convert to HDV then you will cut the resolution to 1440×1080. Are you sure you want to do that?”

Good point Rob, but the question is, “can you see the difference”? 1440 at PAR 1.3333 = 1920 so it is essentially the same resolution represented with less pixels which is no worse than the compression that is being used anyway. I agree with your point, but if you can’t see a difference then does it really matter? To some people it does and if it does, those people should buy CineForm. It sounded like Scott just wanted a “good enough” solution without spending any money and converting to HDV is probably “good enough”.

~jr

http://www.johnrofrano.com
http://www.vasst.com