-
AVCHD Rendering
-
I think I’m gonna use Vegas Pro 8.0c.
I got it without the need to pay 😀 (If you know what I mean)
Vegas 9 Platinum dose not support my files, that’s what I read on the Sony site. It only dose Sony AVCHD.
I’ll probably go for a quad processor or an i7 if I can find one with a resonable price.Anyway here is the footage:
https://www.myotherdrive.com/dyn/pv/065.532407.25122008.07642.6a64fi/00042.MTS?sender=643.482007.25122008.57642.6a64US&reach=3856457C331729BF79F37B395C9F60D4&code=2ukCViKwAv35USN5-8kp.u&email=kozjegyzo@gmail.comJust click on the file and download.
Happy Holidays!
-
Thanks for the footage, it looks good except for the wide angle lens deformity, I was never a big fan of that.
You know, if you’re using a pirated version of Vegas, not only it’s the wrong thing to do, but it may also be the reason why it doesn’t work well for you. You might want to consider buying Platinum Pro 9, which has some enhancements on AVCHD editing, and probably accepts 1920×1080 files. At least you can check out the trial for a month and see how it works.
-
I read on Sony’s site that Vegas 9 only takes Sony AVCHD. And it only handles 4 video tracks. That’s not enough for me. I wanna learn pro editing. Vegas is just there to start me off. I’m looking to learn AVID in the future…
-
Hey there…I was reading over your replies regarding the 1440 x 1080. I have a Canon HF100.
Video can be recorded in four quality settings: FXP (1920 x 1080, 17 Mbit/s), XP+ (1440 x 1080, 12 Mbit/s), SP (1440 x 1080, 7 Mbit/s), and LP (1440 x 1080, 5 Mbit/s). A SDHC card with the capacity of 16GB and can hold up to 2 hours of video recorded at highest quality setting.
I don’t understand how you say it only records in 1440 x 1080 when the specs state otherwise. Can you elaborate? I think I understand your argument about display and delivery but the camcorder should record in 1920 x 1080…no? You’ll have to explain this in layman’s resolution 101.
After I understand what you’re explaining…in the end should I be rendering my timeline in Vegas at 1440 x 1080 or 1920 x 1080? I’ll be burning the final to Blu-Ray.
-
Yeah, he doesn’t know what he’s talking about. He may know Vegas but not camcorders. He didn’t even respond to my post/question. Today’s HD camcorders do record in true 1920×1080 which views fine on a computer monitor capable of that resolution…however, he was right about broadcast and Blu-Ray/HD-DVD being 1440×1080. The pixel aspect is simply 1.33:1 (rectangle) instead of 1:1 (square). This creates the same image area as 1920×1080 1:1 pixels. Unfortunately when you burn to Blu-Ray you need to burn at 1440×1080 1.33:1 which your program will convert for you. Good software actually does a calculation on the pixels so you don’t nessesarily “lose” those 480 horizontal pixels.
-
Umm…
Look at the date of the posts. So…let’s regurge my posts here on the COW from 1999 when I talked about Pinnacle, Matrox, or even Canopus cards vs OHCI cards. None of that is relevant either.
Back then HDV was the only affordable option, no cam was recording anything larger than 1440 x 108 (including HDCAM, the premiere option at the time).
Additionally, there are other options for HD rendering in Vegas (and other tools) that allow for 1920 vs 1440 for BD. Resolution options are there; your “current” post is incorrect. Do you not know what you’re talking about, or is it that you choose to not post complete information?it’s one thing to regurge an out-of-date post.
It’s quite another to be a jacka$$ claiming someone doesn’t know what they’re talking about based on the context of an out of date post.Douglas Spotted Eagle
VASSTCertified Sony Vegas Trainer
Aerial Camera/Instructor -
Cory, while DSE may have had some facts wrong over a year ago when he posted (“The format used in the consumer AVCHD camcorders is 1440 x 1080 with a PAR of 1.333, just like HDV, just like what the satellite and cable networks broadcast. “), what you take for granted in your post (“however, he was right about broadcast and Blu-Ray/HD-DVD being 1440×1080. The pixel aspect is simply 1.33:1 (rectangle) instead of 1:1 (square). This creates the same image area as 1920×1080 1:1 pixels. Unfortunately when you burn to Blu-Ray you need to burn at 1440×1080 1.33:1”) is also wrong.
Time Warner Cable, at least in my area, and at least for the channels I captured material from, are 1920×1080. I wish they were 1440×1080 at the same bitrate they actually broadcast, they would look a bit better. To my eyes, current cable HD broadcasting is appalling, it varies from channel to channel, the best in my area being the local CBS station, but out of the four main networks, some HD channels such as Sci-Fi and USA look like trash, to the point where there doesn’t need to be a lot of movement for the screen to turn into a horrible mosaic of pixels. But unfortunately, they are 1920×1080 in MPEG2, which I can simply confirm by transferring a show from my DVR to my computer and opening the file in any NLE or even those small programs that only show you the codec and video dimensions. When the footage is 1440×1080, such as HDV, it shows it as such. I don’t know what’s the story with satellite, I know from forums that many channels come in MPEG4 but I’m not sure if they are 1440 or 1920. Having had Directv for over a year with just their SD service when I wasn’t able to get cable, and remembering what a colossal piece of crap it was, I’m not very tempted to switch to them, even if I’m not satisfied with cable.
As for Blu-ray, I don’t know where you get from that when you burn for blu-ray you have to encode to 1440×1080. You can if you want to, but nothing prevents you from doing so at 1920×1080. In fact, if you import an AVI file with your edit into DVD Architect 5 and set it to encode to 1920×1080 at 20 MBPS AVC, it will do so, taking forever, but it will do it. And if you encode to 1920×1080 MPEG2 from Vegas, up to 40 Mbps you can also use that perfectly, but only for real Blu-Ray media, not BD5 or BD9. For the latter the best result would be AVC at 20 Mbps, encoding directly from DVDA 5, or if it’s mostly quiet footage you can output from Vegas at 1440 at 15 Mbps. This setting also works really well if you have lower quality footage such as some old family videos captured from VHS that you want to put onto a BD5 or BD9, the Vegas AVC encoder somehow cleans the picture a little bit. I don’t know the internals of it, I just know the result is pretty neat.
Of course, if you have an AVCHD camera such as the Canon HFs or Panasonic SD5 o 9, and you want your footage to look the best it can, and you just want to do straight cuts and perhaps a fade in or out here and there, the best choice is to leave Vegas to the side and use the lame software that comes with the camera, either Pixela Imagemixer, or HD Writer, which are the worst pain in the ass to use, but they offer smart-rendering for AVCHD, which Vegas to this day doesn’t, and that’s going to give you the best picture quality of all, and without even having to spend money on BD media.
-
I’d like anyone to please identify any shipping, purchaseable AVCHD camcorder capable of recording 1920 x 1080 pixels in November of 2007. The spec is capable of recording 1920 x 1080, just as the bitrate can go as high as 24Mbps at camera.
But no one was doing this at the time.Sony announced the CX12 in January 08′ at CES and it shipped in June. Panasonic was not doing 1920 at the time, nor was Canon, Mitsubishi, Samsung, Sanyo, nor anyone else.
What is a spec value and what is reality is the difference between actually working with the format (and we’ve been working with AVCHD since the first released beta units) and measurebation. Sure, it could have been argued that AVCHD was 1920 x 1080 back in 2007, just like it could have been argued that XDCAM would only be 4:2:0 and 35Mbps. Or that HDCAM would remain the standard. Or that MPEG4 would be overtaken by VC1.
How many years did Panasonic piss on MPEG before joining the MPEG chorus? Did they not know what they were talking about for all those years too?Further, at the time, broadcasters such as Dish and others were only shipping 1440 x 1080i or 720p in mpeg2 format.
This too, has changed.
As has a lot of broadcast tech in the past 18 months.It’s a damnable shame I didn’t answer one of your posts; on December 11 of 2007 I was in the Middle East and not answering much of anything. Believe it or not, I have a business and life outside of the Internet, and it’s sorta hard to feel obligated to view every single one of a couple thousand posts per week. I do my best; sorry it doesn’t meet your approval. Request a refund.
It’s absurd when a very old thread is regurged as a “he doesn’t know what he’s talking about” vs “products have changed since this was posted.”
Hmm…Alexander Bell once felt the telephone would never be found in every home, too. I guess he was an idiot too.Douglas Spotted Eagle
VASSTCertified Sony Vegas Trainer
Aerial Camera/Instructor -
[Douglas Spotted Eagle] “I’d like anyone to please identify any shipping, purchaseable AVCHD camcorder capable of recording 1920 x 1080 pixels in November of 2007.”
The Panasonic SD5. I think you mentioned in this thread that you have, or had one. The highest quality setting for it was 1920×1080 at 13 mbps, a low bitrate, but quite stunning images though, but still not as good as Canon’s. So I don’t know about the rest, but the Panasonic SD5, which I bought in Nov ’07 at the now defunct Circuit City, had the above mentioned resolution. I think it had 1440 too for a lower bitrate setting if I remember correctly.
[Douglas Spotted Eagle] “Further, at the time, broadcasters such as Dish and others were only shipping 1440 x 1080i or 720p in mpeg2 format.”
Time Warner Cable in my area, in mid 2007 was already broadcasting 1920×1080 MPEG2, and they do to this day, adding new HD channels with lower picture quality every few months or so. Analog SD cable on tube TV sets looks way better than many cable HD channels.
-
The SD5 and 9 weren’t shipping at that time IIRC. Yes, we have an SD5, as well as the original SD1 with the very odd conversion software that converted the 1440 to 1920.
Regarding the broadcast, BT709 has undergone several changes since being written/implemented, the most recent being May of 2008. If you care about predicting the future or care about historical minutaie that led us to where we are today…read the superceding documents.
Please read the context of the entire thread. We’d gone through quite a discussion at that point, now one post has been taken out of context, and it’s kind of annoying, given the insults tossed about.
Is there a less-than-novella explanation in my post? Yes. Does that mean I don’t know my subject? hardly.Douglas Spotted Eagle
VASSTCertified Sony Vegas Trainer
Aerial Camera/Instructor
Reply to this Discussion! Login or Sign Up