Define "a lot of horsepower". I have no trouble editing AVCHD files with my minimal system. Check my profile for details.

Typically, we say that for AVCHD a quadcore is required - if you really edit your AVCHD material in a native way. For the 1920-AVCHD even my Q6600, run with 3.3 Ghz, tends to be too slow. And I am talking here about the capability, to run AVCHD 50i footage with 25 fps only.

I am not talking about intermediate codecs or proxys here.

Prior to buying Vegas Pro, I was paranoid that my system would be able to handle AVCHD files from all the talk here. I can tell you from personal experience that most of the warnings about system requirements for AVCHD files here are overblown. My 3 year old PC can edit and render AVCHD files just fine. Speed is not a huge issue. Bumping up my RAM from 1 to 3 GB's made a huge difference. Even before the upgrade, 1 GB of RAM with a P4 3.4GHz processor could adequately edit AVCHD files.

Yeah, a quad core would be faster, but I have other priorities for my cash right now. Maybe next year. In the meantime, people with lesser systems should not be frightened into upgrading.

dspenc1,

I am really very surprised that a single 3.4 GHz P4 machine can handle AVCHD. My experience was entirely the opposite.

My prior Dell P4 3.0 GHz system had 4 GB of RAM, the fastest FSB (800 MHz), 7200 RPM Sata 2 drives with big caches, a carefully trimmed XP with no background services except those required for video, and each and every AVCHD program I could find to test it, including Ulead Video Studio 11 Plus, Movie Factory 6 Pro, Vegas 8.0b, Nero Vision latest version 8 Ultimate, Virtual Dub, super fast CoreAVC Pro h.264 codes, etc.

Each and every AVCHD sample I tried ran like absolute crap, sluggish to the point where editing was a total pain.

When I tried the same AVCHD clips on another dual core Q6600 machine, things improved a lot, but still not particularly snappy.

I now have just installed a Dell QX9650 quad core Extreme 3.0 GHz and FINALLY the editing is going very fast and smoothly.

I find it very hard to believe that AVCHD editing can be done at all on a 3.4 Ghz single P4. My original Dell could not even play it back without severe stuttering.

My exp[erience seems to be about the same as other replies to this thread.

Larry

Does anyone happen to have a brief AVCHD clip from a Sony SR11 or SR 12 I could download/we could download, to test in Vegas 8? That would be a big help...

thanks,

Ken

Since Vegas will run on pretty much anything, I'm sure I could edit AVCHD on an older-than-dirt 233Mhz Pentium2 laptop, but it sure wouldn't be very pleasant.

LSHorwitz wrote:
I find it very hard to believe that AVCHD editing can be done at all on a 3.4 Ghz single P4.

I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt that you are not inferring that I am lying. :-)

If you check my profile, I inquired as to whether my system would be able to handle AVCHD files prior to receiving Vegas (http://www.sonycreativesoftware.com/forums/ShowMessage.asp?Forum=4&MessageID=580032) I decided to take a chance on my current configuration. In the end, I opted to purchase more RAM which made a difference. If my PC performed half as bad as you state that yours did, I would've upgraded my PC.

I have posted videos on Vimeo.

http://vimeo.com/user380939

These videos were shot with a Canon HG10 and edited in Vegas. The raw AVCHD files were imported into Vegas with the exception of the Five Candles video which was imported as an MPEG file.

Seeing is believing.

I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt that you are not inferring that I am lying. :-)

I have to say I am surprised at your pleasant experience, hugely in fact. And no, I would never try to infer that you are lying. Given that your system isn't even up to playing H.264 encoded HD footage, the fact that you can edit it with Vegas is amazing.

I hope your experience continues to be pleasant.

Terje wrote:
that your system isn't even up to playing H.264 encoded HD footage, the fact that you can edit it with Vegas is amazing.

Oh really?

I would love to learn the source of this information. I could find nothing on the web to back that up. My system was above all the system requirements I could find (e.g. http://www.snapstream.com/Products/beyondtv/sysreq.asp).

I would love to learn the source of this information. I could find nothing on the web to back that up. My system was above all the system requirements I could find (e.g. www.snapstream.com/Products/beyondtv/sysreq.asp).

Sure. Let me quote from the article you just referred to:

Decoding H.264 - minimum requirements:
1080p : 3.0 GHz Pentium dual-core : 1G RAM

According to this page, you are not supposed to be able to play H.264 video at 1080p. Your 3.4GHz P4 should not be up to the task. Also, to my knowledge, the Radeon X300 does not include hardware decoding support for H.264.

That was the source of my surprise. If you experience otherwise, I am of course happy for you. Surprised, and I'd love to know how you do it, but still happy for you.

Surprised, and I'd love to know how you do it, but still happy for you.

I just learned today that my PC is not supposed to playback H.264 video at 1080p nor edit AVCHD files. Scientists are baffled.

dspenc1, if I understand your posts correctly, you're saying that your system is decoding 1080p at full framerate, full resolution, full time?
And you're running:
Processor: P4 3.4 GHz
Video Card: ATI Radeo X300,

Right?

Obviously, you can edit AVCHD, the question is playback speed/how fast. If I understand you correctly, you're playing back 1440/1920 x 1080 AVCHD files at full framerate on the Vegas timeline on a computer with the above specs? Preview window set to what value? Project properties set to?
From an HG10? Set to what record values?

Scientists are baffled.

I would really like to see some more information about your video dspence1. Playing back 1920x1080 progressive H.264 takes a lot of horse power. That is why there are a few of us asking you questions. Even significantly higher speced computers than yours would normally struggle with this.

Thanks boys.

Tell me, when sitting back in your couch watching your rendered footage on your DVD x 2 on your favourite TV - One recorded with AVCHD and the other with HDV.

What differences woudl you see with the each?

Have the masses gone towards AVCHD or is HDV still most preferred at this point in time?

Why do u need more grunt when working with AVCHD?

Bit

To answer everyone's questions:

I can playback the raw 1440x1080 raw AVCHD files from my HG10 handily. No issues.

My project settings for Vimeo, which is what I have been using, are 1280x720. I will try a new project at 1920x1080 when I get home tonight. I will attempt to render the file and play it back.

Preview settings of Best/Auto work OK. Best/Full is slow. Most of the time I use Good/Auto.

Most of my HG10 videos have been shot in HXP.

Spot: Define "full time".

"Spot: Define "full time"."

Forget it. You have nothing you need to prove to these people.

I would imagine your playback would be none too smooth, and your render times to be pretty long, but that shouldn't stop you from doing what you need to do on the timeline. If it works for you.... then fly with it.

Is tape still the go ? i read on net that alot of people still prefer tapes to minimise pq loss.

How do all those who came from tape and arenow using HDD, SSD, Flash, etc.. fare - ?

Do they lose pq ?

Bit

What differences woudl you see with the each?

That is a question that is impossible to answer. It depends on what the source material is. However, AVC allows for more image information at the same bit rates as MPEG-2, which would normally mean that given identical circumstance and a situation where MPEG-2 is having trouble keeping up at a given bit rate, AVC should yield a better image.

Have the masses gone towards AVCHD or is HDV still most preferred at this point in time?

Again, a rather impossible question to answer. The question in this case would be "For what?". At the moment I, and I can not speak for "the masses" but I prefer HDV for editing. On the other hand I do think that most Blu-Rays encoded with AVC look better than those that are MPEG-2 encoded.

A video format that is good for delivery isn't necessarily good for editing. My ideal consumer camcorder still used inexpensive tapes like DV (easy to get, and I won't run out of space like on an HD camcorder) but were able to pack more data onto the tape so that the codec could use intra-frame compression only. I can dream.

Tahnks Teje

I read elsewhere
"The random access speed of a flash based camcorder doesn't help video at all, because video is all about capacity and sequential access speed. You don't search the drive as much as you read or write at high speeds."

In light of above statement, how does flash memory hold up against tape - as far as compression goes?

Bit

In light of above statement, how does flash memory hold up against tape - as far as compression goes?

Well, next time I can drop into a random drug store in Bangkok and buy 20G worth of flash memory for less than $5, it is competitive, but given the size constraints of flash, too high compression is the nature of the beast for consumer stuff for now. I am strictly consumer.

Thanks.

Here is waht I also found...
"........even though the AVCHD codec is superior to the old HDV codec, the solid state camcoders do not have the bandwidth/bitrate to write the data to the chips fast enough without utilizing alot of compression. Because of this HDV/Tape footage looks sharper than footage from AVCHD Solid State devices......"

Has this issue been addressed?

What footage is compressed more :

HDV on tape or HDV on flash?

Bit

"What footage is compressed more: HDV on tape or HDV on flash?"

They are exactly the same. HDV is 25 megabits/second whether it's recorded to tape or flash memory.