How much longer REALLY does it take to edit AVCHD?

othersteve wrote on 1/17/2009, 10:32 AM

Okay guys,

I am battling an epic decision here, and this is key. Is AVCHD REALLY that much harder to edit than HDV? How much longer does it really take?

Here is the catch: I plan to be shooting exclusively at 1440x1080 at least for the majority of the next year. In light of that fact, is it really going to take me THAT much longer to work with AVCHD files than it would with HDV? Has anyone performed any hard comparisons at that resolution of AVCHD vs. HDV?

My other question is this: will I be experiencing errors and other major problems *apart from* editing/rendering speed if I choose an AVCHD cam?

For my purposes AVCHD cams offer a wide variety of benefits which I really won't bore you with here... but these are the critical questions I need answers.

Thank You for any help you can provide!

Steve

Comments

blink3times wrote on 1/17/2009, 10:46 AM

I don't think it's harder to edit... it's certainly slower but if you have the right equipment you can do it.

What I have found is that the software that is offered (Vegas or otherwise) hasn't caught up to the avchd yet. No matter what software you use there always seems to be some kind of road block preventing you in doing exactly what you want and as a result, you spend a lot of time looking for work arounds. In other words it is certainly NOT a universal product as of yet like DV or HDV

If you do your research on workflow and know exactly what your end result is to be then the avchd process can be pretty easy.... but veer off that workflow just ever so slightly and you'll find yourself looking for another product or work around that can jump the hoop that you're asking from it.

othersteve wrote on 1/17/2009, 10:52 AM

Thanks blink3, I've read your posts in other threads and you certainly seem to know your stuff.

So my workflow will be as follows:

1) Shoot video (probably no more than 1-1.5 hrs per day) in 1440x1080 AVC format, probably around 12-17 Mbps for accessibility purposes (since I'm resizing down anyway significantly).
2) Import video to laptop.
3) Drop files directly into Sony Vegas, add intro/outro via prepared template, add image watermark, captions, possibly background music.
4) Render to 1072x608 AVC 5 Mbps for web delivery (this looks surprisingly good I think) using Mainconcept encoder.

So my gains via HDV probably wouldn't be so significant... right? What types of AVCHD editing would require looking at additional software?

I'm also *seriously* considering replacing my Vista 32-bit OS with Windows 7 64-bit and going with Sony Vegas Pro 8.1 if it will shorten my render times (I have 4 GB RAM and a Core 2 Duo mobile processor).

Thanks again for any advice.

Steve

blink3times wrote on 1/17/2009, 11:30 AM

I would most certainly be the wrong person to ask about this... I have NO experience at all with web deliver (HDV or otherwise) but I would say that with oddball sizes such as 1072x608 is something that you're going to have to research carefully. Most programs are geared for 1440 (or 1920)x1080 and if you step off the beaten path with avchd you start looking at some trouble.

othersteve wrote on 1/17/2009, 11:36 AM

Hmmm.... I was worried about that. Well I can't tell you how helpful you've been thus far regardless. Thank you immensely--I mean it.

Anyone else got any input about oddball web sizes (someplace in-between 480p and 720p)?

Steve

Jeff9329 wrote on 1/18/2009, 10:41 AM

Steve:

A few thoughts:

I would suggest capturing at 720P30 since that is close to your project size and will keep your memory and CPU requirements as low as possible.

Does Vegas work with 1440X1080 AVCHD? It currently dosen't work with 720P60 and a few others. 1080i and 720P30 are flawless, that's what I use.

I think your laptop may be marginal performance wise. But if it is working very well for HDV projects now. It will be fine with AVCHD, just slower.

othersteve wrote on 1/18/2009, 1:22 PM

Thanks for the help, Jeff.

>> I would suggest capturing at 720P30 since that is close to your project size and will keep your memory and CPU requirements as low as possible.

Well, the only problem is that the camcorder I am currently considering purchasing (the upcoming Canon HF S100 to be exact) cannot capture at that low of a resolution. The lowest it goes is 1440x1080. Fortunately, yes, Vegas does work with that resolution; I just tried it out for myself. I even tried using 1920x1080 AVCHD at 30p and honestly it wasn't *terribly* bad. It took around seven to eight times as long as the actual length of the file to edit/render it all into a 1280x720 AVCHD web-deliverable... which isn't ideal, but certainly isn't unmanageable.

However I just did something that might have been pretty stupid. I spent $300+ for 8 GB RAM for my laptop (2x4GB). I figure that if moving to a 64-bit operating system and doubling my RAM to 8 GB will cut, say, 1/7 off my rendering times, then it's well worth the cash.

The real question is: Will it? :-P

Steve

TeetimeNC wrote on 1/18/2009, 3:49 PM

Hi Jeff. You and I have exchanged a few frustrating posts re 720p60. Here's an update, although my testing has been pretty minimal. I recently replaced my Pentium 4 -3Ghz with an i7 940. Suddently, I AM able to render my 720p60. But we both know that success with that format is sometimes transitory, so readers - YMMV.

Jerry

It currently dosen't work with 720P60 and a few others. 1080i and 720P30 are flawless, that's what I use.

Jeff9329 wrote on 1/18/2009, 3:52 PM

However I just did something that might have been pretty stupid. I spent $300+ for 8 GB RAM for my laptop (2x4GB). I figure that if moving to a 64-bit operating system and doubling my RAM to 8 GB will cut, say, 1/7 off my rendering times, then it's well worth the cash.

Probably won't make any difference at all. There are a few threads on this.

Some are a little faster, some are a little slower.

othersteve wrote on 1/18/2009, 5:48 PM

Really? Darn... Oh well--I guess I can be the next test subject! :-)

So upgrading to 64-bit and doubling RAM with the rest of my system specs probably won't make much of a difference?

Steve

Spot|DSE wrote on 1/18/2009, 6:13 PM

Steve,
8.1 isn't your answer. If you'd like to private message me, I'm happy to help. For one of our uses, AVCHD is our preference as well, and I'd say we shoot around 6 hours of AVCHD a week.
There is a lot of confusion about AVCHD; it's got issues, but if you know how to manage it, it's not much different than HDV or even DV.

farss wrote on 1/18/2009, 10:42 PM

"Is AVCHD REALLY that much harder to edit than HDV?"

Just type "CUDA AVCHD" into Google for all the answers.

There is software + hardware that can deal with AVCHD pretty easily by all accounts.

Bob.

Himanshu wrote on 1/19/2009, 9:06 AM

othersteve wrote:
I'm also *seriously* considering replacing my Vista 32-bit OS with Windows 7 64-bit and going with Sony Vegas Pro 8.1 if it will shorten my render times (I have 4 GB RAM and a Core 2 Duo mobile processor).

Sounds like you've got a long, ongoing project coming up and it would seem that you need a reliable system.

My question to you: What makes you think about using Windows 7 as opposed to the shipping and stable product Windows Vista (64-bit)? What advantages are you expecting by using Windows 7? What happens when you run into problems either with the beta OS or with VP8.1 on W7? SCS I'm sure would not support Vegas Pro on a beta OS.