AVCHD render to 1080 x 1920 Is this possible?

DonLandis wrote on 4/22/2008, 12:46 PM

I'm a new owner of the Sony HVR SR12 but have been using Vegas since day one.

I have Vegas 8b and have no problems in creating a timeline edit of the *.m2ts files I imported from my SR12 using the Sony PMB software that comes with the camcorder.
I set up a new project set to 1080 x 1920. The clips all have properties that state they are AVCHD at 1080 x 1920 as I shot them in the 16M FH HD mode.

The problem seems that there is no setting to render to AVCHD 1080 x 1920. It always defaults to 1080 x 1440.

What is the trick to outputting a rendered timeline file in AVCHD format that is 1920, the same as the imported clips and the same that the project is set for?

Back to post

Comments

Christian de Godzinsky wrote on 4/27/2008, 11:47 AM

Hi Don,

Yes, my rig screams on SD projects (normally always faster than realtime), and I'm still holding the New Rendertest record :)

It's a home built system, around an ASUS P5E3 WiFi AP motherboard. The system has an empty slot "waiting" for a decent BluRay burner, hopefully later this summer... I wanted to build the PC myselft, to get a clean system without any unnecessary clutter, as you'll get when buying from those vendors...

I don't think that the internal HD configuration is very critical when encoding AVCHD material. Come on, its only 16..17Mbit/s. Converting AVCHD to some intermediate files with higher bitrates - then it's a different story. My (two) internal HD's have a bandowth of about 80MByte/s, the external FireWire800 drives are at 72MByte/s.

Without trying to critisize those that do it, I never understood why you have to see the extra trouble (loosing time on transcoding and filling up your HD with huge copies of your original material). The only reason has been (or is) that the native file has been (or is) too slow to edit in real time. I have been lucky when the speed of my computers (and software) has always cathed up with my needs. Have to admit though, that I'm waiting for the promized speed improvements in 8.0c...

As usual in Vegas, you'll need a lightning fast CPU with fast RAM. I opted for the quad QX9650 because of the new SSE4 instructions, in the hope that Vegas soon will take advantage of them... And it's also a excellent CPU to overclock, lots of margin.

Christian

DonLandis wrote on 4/28/2008, 1:51 AM

Thanks for the additional information. I have not built a system box since 1998. I was pricing several today and all came in about $5500. Pretty steep but I may have included some extra stuff you don't have such as the BluRay reader writer drive.

For the present I have been testing Gearshift and it does the job but as you said these proxy systems take HD space and time in preparation but save on the system cost.

If I were doing projects for hire now in HD, I would make the jump to the $5500 system but all my HD projects are non-paying. This coming week I will be shooting 4 more TV shows so it's back to work again in SD post. That is paying the bills and allowing me to p[lay with this HD new technology. In other words, I'm in no rush to build this dream speed demon like you have. Thanks for being my mentor, however.

Christian de Godzinsky wrote on 4/28/2008, 3:18 AM

Don,

My system set me back about 2400 euros (including tax). That would be about the same in USD (without tax). This includes everything that went inside the box (excluding monitor, keyboard, mice, external storage etc). Just to give you an estimate. I could have done it for less, but I opted for 2 x 2GB DDR3 modules, leaving still two motherboard slots free, for a possible later upgrade to 8GB. You'll find a more detailed description of the components I used in the New Rendertest -thread, if it would interest you.

Christian

JJKizak wrote on 4/28/2008, 8:40 AM

Opened all three files OK with v8.0b in Vista 64. Tried render to preview but they all showed some blocking with the high def setting.
JJK

AtomicGreymon wrote on 5/2/2008, 2:48 AM

I've also noticed the number of AVC rendering options seems limited.

It's a bit dissapointing, especially since there are all kinds of Blu-Ray rendering profiles in MPEG-2... 1920x1080, 1440x1080, 1280x720, 24p, 50i, 60i.

Neither the Sony AVC or Mainconcept AVC codecs seem to contain the diversity of options offered in Mainconcept's MPEG-2 encoder, either. Sure, you can change the resolution, bitrates, fps... but all those more advanced options (or their AVC equivalents, anyway) aren't available. There doesn't seem to be a 24p AVC option, at all, in Sony's codec. It's unfortunate, since were I to burn something on Blu-Ray, I'd much rather use H.264 than MPEG-2.

Terje wrote on 5/2/2008, 11:39 AM

Atomic

I am not disagreeing with you, but I would like to point out that the Sony AVC encoder is limited and that you should use the Mainconcept one for H.264. Now, Sony needs to update the Mainconcept encoder to the latest one, but that is another matter.

What, specifically, are you missing in the H.264 encoding from Vegas (using Mainconcept) except for the improved quality that is there in the later versions?

AtomicGreymon wrote on 5/2/2008, 12:20 PM

What, specifically, are you missing in the H.264 encoding from Vegas (using Mainconcept) except for the improved quality that is there in the later versions?

Well, just in comparing it to their MPEG-2 encoder, the advanced video tab is missing. I'm not sure all the same options would exist for H.264 that do for MPEG-2, however the format must have its own variety of advanced options. Also, the stream tab is gone... all you can seem to save as is an MP4 file. The MPEG-2 encoder gives you the option of creating a transport stream, as does Sony's AVC encoder. The Mainconcept encoder Vegas uses just doesn't seem to be made for encoding content for Blu-Ray burning.

Also, I hope Sony includes a VC-1 encoder with V9.

jabloomf1230 wrote on 5/2/2008, 3:59 PM

"Now, Sony needs to update the MainConcept encoder to the latest one, but that is another matter."

I don't think that you're ever going to see that. The MC encoder included in Vegas has always lagged behind the stand alone version that MainConcept sells. You used to be able to buy a copy of it at a substantial discount, if you had Adobe Premiere. SCS should work out a licensing arrangement with MC to allow purchase of the stand alone version at a discount.

AtomicGreymon wrote on 5/2/2008, 4:24 PM

I don't think that you're ever going to see that. The MC encoder included in Vegas has always lagged behind the stand alone version that MainConcept sells.

Are you referring to the MPEG-2 encoder, as well... is that one also outdated? I've always thought Vegas' MPEG-2 encoding gave better results than what I got from PPro CS3.

Also, are the MC encoders Vegas uses the standard or pro versions? MC's website states that the standard versions are limited to 20Mbps, and the Pro up to 288... the AVC encoder in Vegas lists values up to 240; so does that mean it's an incarnation of the pro version?

I hope Sony decides to update Vegas' AVC ability in the next version, though... it's essentially the MPEG-2 of the HD generation, and should be fully supported by any NLE hoping to keep its userbase. It also wouldn't hurt them to add Mainconcept's VC-1 encoder in there, as well.

Terje wrote on 5/2/2008, 4:39 PM

Also, the stream tab is gone... all you can seem to save as is an MP4 file.

Being able to select the wrapper is an important missing part of this, I agree. As would seeing a VC-1 encoder, though that one I am not too worried about, you can always encode to something lossless and use the MS encoder.

My main concern right now is the age of the MainConcept encoder though. It is a "very old" (we are talking computer years here) version and it needs to be updated.

Also, and this one is very important for online delivery - Sony needs to wake up to the fact that online delivery is important which means that things like what SCS calls "command markers" must be enabled for other formats than wmv. Microsoft has already lost the war on the online delivery format to H.264 thanks to Adobe. They are still alive and kicking, but it is the death throes, H.264 already (which is astounding) through Flash 9, has higher penetration (of capable players) than does Windows Media. Given that all the main movie sharing sites are flash, and that Adobe pushes H.264 as the standard Flash format, this is where we need to go.

So, SCS, please enable "command markers" in mp4 (if it is supported) and enable FLV wrapping and ditto for that format. Those of us who create educational videos need to use these to do Awesome Cool Stuff (tm).