New to AVCHD...

LifeIsPhun wrote on 10/29/2008, 11:32 PM

My profile has my machine specs, but I have had no problem previewing my HDV events on the timeline with footage from my HDC-HC3 camera. I just bought a Canon HF-11 and put AVCHD footage on the timeline for the first time and cannot set to get smooth preview regardless of what tinkering I do with project settings, preference options or preview settings. Any help would be appreciated.

Back to post

Comments

tcbetka wrote on 11/10/2008, 5:42 AM

Well you would use UpShift to transcode the AVCHD file upfront, at a bitrate as high (or higher) than the original AVCHD was recorded at. If you batch-rendered your AVCHD files from within Vegas, I suppose you could pick a good intermediate file type and it would work fine. However it takes far less time to transcode an AVCHD file than it does to render the same file.

For example, in doing a video of a single volleyball match for my daughter's coach, there might be 15 different AVCHD clips to drop on the timeline. Using UpShift, you simply point the application at the folder where the AVCHD files reside, and then specify the target folder and a few basic parameters, and hit the go button. When it's finished you have a folder full of shiny new HDV files at the bitrate you set; I typically use 12 or 15Mbps which allows full frame rate playback on the Vegas timeline in version 8c. But contrast this now with batch rendering--you'd have to set Vegas up to load each file individually and then render it (if that can even be done). I have to believe that would take a LOT longer than using UpShift. But if you couldn't batch-render them individually, you'd then end up with an AVI file (for example) that now contains all your clips in one long event on the timeline, and you'd have to go through the whole thing to cut it into individual clips again, or you'd lose the ability to apply fades (etc.) to each one.

So while I suppose it's possible to render each clip to an intermediate type and work with that, quite honestly I'd just spend the $50 and use UpShift. If I work with short AVCHD files where I don't need to run a script or use a plug-in, I just use 8.1 on Vista 64. But if I need to use version 8c, I will transcode the files with UpShift. Now that it works well, there's simply no reason not to.

YMMV, of course...

TB

TeetimeNC wrote on 11/10/2008, 12:53 PM

TB, my batch process is easier than what you describe. However, I am definitely flying by the seat of my pants here so there may be issues with my workflow that I'm not yet aware of. For example, there may be a big difference in the render vs transcode speed, which I hopefully can test with the demo version of Upshift.

I did do a test last week with some 1080p30 chromakey footage using this approach and it yielded excellent results.

Here's my batch render workflow:

1. Open up folder of mts files (can open them directly from the SDHC card).
2. Select all and drag the batch to the Vegas timeline where they align one after the other.
3. Double click+R on each event to create a region for each. This takes about 1 minute for 80-100 events, but it would be nice to have a script to do this.
4. Batch render using the regions option. This gives me a separate AVI for each event on the timeline (i.e., one AVI for each region in the project).

I render to cineform intermediate which seems to work ok for editing on my slow pentium 4-3GHz.. I use settings same as my source mts (e.g. 720p24 mts to 720p24 avi.)

Jerry

Marc S wrote on 11/10/2008, 1:06 PM

Can someone tell me what format Upshift is transcoding to? I own TMPEG Plus and I am able to batch transcode AVCHD to HDV files. I'm wondering if there is some advantage to UpShift over TMPEG Plus?

Thanks, Marc

tcbetka wrote on 11/10/2008, 2:25 PM

Marc,

UpShift transcodes to M2T format, at various bitrates (set by you).

And Jerry,

I don't know about Cineform at all, as I've never used it. So you may have all that you need already--maybe someone else (like JR) can comment on this. But as far as rendering each clip to an AVI, I can practically guarantee that it's going to take significant longer than simply transcoding with UpShift. Rendering AVCHD files takes a while, in my experience--less so in v8.1 than in v8c, but still quite a while. And about the trial version of UpShift; it only allows you to transcode 2 minutes of the file, so that won't really help you unless you trim the AVCHD files to 2 minutes and then compare the two methods head-to-head. That shouldn't be too hard, I suppose.

But I can tell you that in my system with 8GB of RAM, rendering 12-15 AVCHD files to MPEG2 in a project that is about 70 minutes on the timeline, takes about 60-70 minutes in version 8.1...much longer in 8c. And all I have are some basic fades and a little text (eg; "Start Game 1") between the two or three games. Certainly nothing fancy. But transcoding those same 12-15 AVCHD clips with UpShift takes 25-30 minutes when I last timed it. So I estimate that it takes easily twice as long to render from the timeline as it does to transcode those files.

If you see your way to spending $50 for UpShift, I would do it and not worry about rendering. I mean sure, you could set up your batch renders to run at night or whenever you have downtime. But it's sure nice to be able to transcode an entire folder in one-third the time, and have it play at full frame rate on the timeline in version 8c.

TB

EDIT: OK Jerry, I ran a little test. I loaded an 12:46 AVCHD file onto the timeline. I then set up a render to AVI using the HD 1080-60i template, and Vegas told me that it would take 45:43 to complete the process. I didn't let it finish mind you, I simply started the render and waited for the time estimate to completion indication to stabilize and start counting down. I suppose it might have been slightly less than 45:43 had I let the render finish--but I am sure it wouldn't have been more than a minute or two. But I watched the process for ten minutes, and the total time to finish didn't change by more than a minute; I simply didn't have the time to wait for another 30 minutes to let the render finish. But I then used UpShift to transcode the exact same file to the M2T format at 12Mbps, and it took 6:06. So there you have it--nearly 9x longer to render from the timeline with no effects, fades, transitions or anything--just a pure AVCHD file.

So I'd bet the ranch that you're going to see render times at least 6-7 times longer than transcode times using UpShift, if not more than that.

TeetimeNC wrote on 11/10/2008, 5:33 PM

Thanks TB for the informative test and post. This and other posts from you made me realize I wasn't clear on the difference between render and transform - I've tended to interchange them. I read up on the differences and can understand why transform should be faster.

I'll give Upshift a try.

Jerry