Best HD format to render for PS3

MattAdamson wrote on 5/25/2009, 12:28 PM
Guys

I have captured footage from a CANON HF10 in AVCHD 17mbit/s M2T files. I have Vegas Pro 9 and it has a bewildering array of output formats and am wondering the best one to pick to lose as little if any detail from the original footage.

I understand I would want one which applies no recompression. If I click the "Match Media Settings" button on the "Project Properties" window it shows "HD 1080-50i (1920 * 1080 ) 25 fps. I see two formats with an "=" sign next to them which I understand would not recompress, they are

Files of Type ( Sony AVC )
1) Blu Ray 1920 * 1080 50i 10Mbps video stream
2) Blu Ray 1920 * 1080 50i 16Mbps video stream
3) AVCHD ( 1920 * 1080 ) 50i

Files of Type ( MainConcept MPEG-2 )
4) Blu Ray 1920 * 1080 50i 25 Mbps

Looking at the above it seems 4 would be the best option if the source is 17mbps however really not sure.

I'd also be interested to know whether I should even render 50 i or 60 i, I have a Panasonic Viera TH42PZ70 television which will show 60i I think.

If anyone can enlighten me I'd really appreciate it :)

Comments

goshep wrote on 5/25/2009, 1:07 PM
If you aren't going to edit those clips you can avoid rendering altogether by simply serving them to your PS3 via PS3 Media Server. I use it (as do several others here) and love it. Best of all, it's free. I don't remember the link offhand but a Google search will likely get you there.
MattAdamson wrote on 5/25/2009, 1:19 PM
Thanks GoShep

However I'm definitely editing the clips e.g. I have 50 small M2T files I add to a vegas project say for a" day out to the zoo", then want to finally render this project into a single HD file which I can then presumably import into DVD Architect Pro 5 as a menu item, or as you say stream direct to my PS3
John_Cline wrote on 5/25/2009, 1:27 PM
Just to be clear, the "=" sign indicates that template matches the project image dimensions. It does not mean that the bitrate is the same as the source footage.

Also, if the source footage and project is 50i then render it at 50i.
MattAdamson wrote on 5/25/2009, 3:48 PM
Sure thanks so I'll definitely use a 50i format the question is which one out of the 1 - 4 or others mentioned above?
MattAdamson wrote on 5/27/2009, 9:32 AM

Does anyone have any thoughts on best format to render as here? I'm about to render some edited clips to save and I'd like to choose the right one as I'm going to delete all the source footage


blink3times wrote on 5/27/2009, 10:45 AM
I always go with mpeg2. The avchd encoder is better in V9 than in V8 but still produces some artifacting in the low light shots.

My settings are always the standard Blu Ray mpeg2 template (1920x1080 @ 20/15/30 Mb/s vbr(. I also use AC3 audio@ 24 bits, 448
kronos78 wrote on 5/27/2009, 11:56 AM
I also go with the mpeg2 template. For my purposes I also include the audio in the file. Then I put it on a thumb drive and plug it into the PS3. Works like a charm. I have a 32 GB thumb drive with all of my HD home movies. Makes it a lot easier than having to mess with burning blu-rays.
john-beale wrote on 5/27/2009, 1:29 PM
I don't know about the relative quality of encoders in V8 or V9, but there is another factor in play. If you convert AVCHD to MPEG2, or MPEG2 to AVCHD, your quality will not be as good as you keep it in the original format, other things being equal. I have read that H.264 is in theory capable of equivalent image quality at half the bitrate of MPEG2, but I am pretty sure that is only true if your source is an uncompressed original.

MattAdamson wrote on 5/27/2009, 2:13 PM
Hi JBeale,

That's why I'm confused as the source is AVCHD 17mbit/s however others have mentioned MPEG is a better choice. I don't really mind what format I use as long as I don't lose any quality and it will play well on the PS3.

I've found issue with some rendered files which play jerky on the PS3 and clearly don't want that, especially when my source materials and clips all play smoothly on their own.
blink3times wrote on 5/27/2009, 2:32 PM
"I don't know about the relative quality of encoders in V8 or V9, but there is another factor in play. If you convert AVCHD to MPEG2, or MPEG2 to AVCHD, your quality will not be as good as you keep it in the original format, other things being equal."

Sorry... not true.... in the case of Vegas anyway.

I have the SR11 (avchd and dd5.1 sound). I get better quality when going from avchd to mpeg2. The Sony avc encoder has artifacting issues... particularly in low light.
john-beale wrote on 5/27/2009, 3:06 PM
The X264 codec is supposed to be pretty good, although I haven't done much with it myself.

http://www.videolan.org/developers/x264.html
MattAdamson wrote on 7/24/2009, 12:23 PM
Guys

Given 9a is released now does most of the content in this thread still stand. TBH I'm still having issues finding a suitable format for rendering my CANON HF10 M2T AVCHD files.

Another thing that puzzled me is their are templates for AVC but within the custom settings of the template you can choose format as AVCHD or AVC

All I want is the best format to preserve the original content of the video before I destroy all the original captured files. I'm even confused as to whether the CANON HF10 M2TS files it captures are AVC or AVCHD now, is there an easy way to find out through Vegas?
othersteve wrote on 7/24/2009, 4:01 PM
This is funny, because actually, I have precisely the same set of questions as Matt here.

Speaking from my own experience, I--to date--have not yet rendered specifically to Blu-ray high-bitrate AVC formats yet, only web version (low bitrates) instead. However I would also like to inquire as to why anyone is using the Sony AVC encoder. In my personal experience quality is considerably better with the MainConcept AVC encoder.

Here's also a question that is perhaps better served for the DVD Architect forums (but let's give it a shot):

What if I just want to shorten some of these files on the Blu-ray (only burn parts of the clips I mean), but leave all else constant at 17mbps and all that? Is that possible to do without recompression of the entire file? I certainly hope so.

Thanks guys,

Steve
blink3times wrote on 7/24/2009, 4:45 PM
"Given 9a is released now does most of the content in this thread still stand."

From my perspective, they've done a fair bit of work on the avc encoder. It's coming much cleaner and nicer now. I feel that I can now start using it seriously.
apit34356 wrote on 7/24/2009, 8:15 PM
"All I want is the best format to preserve the original content of the video before I destroy all the original captured files."

I would consider at this time using Sony's MXF for long term storage because it has a small file size and good overhaul performance. As Sony and "others" fix and improve AVC at a later date or completely replace it, you can use it or the new encoder to transcoder from MXF to AVC or "other". ;-)