Output for 1920x1080?

Keyan wrote on 5/19/2008, 12:16 PM
Purchased Vegas Plat. a week or so ago and am disappointed to find that it states that "1920 output not supported" or similar error when trying to output at full HD. Ironically, it even lists 1920 output options as predefined templates in 8.0d, but then refuses to use them. When the Sony consumer grade camcorders can record in it, it is annoying that their consumer grade video editing software refuses to output in it. Also the ability to author in AVCHD would be nice - it is sad when the software included with the camcorder has more advanced AVCHD support than the pay-for suite! I hope a future and hopefully free update will address this, at the very least to unlock the full 1920x1080 HD output.

Comments

Spot|DSE wrote on 5/19/2008, 12:47 PM
Movie Studio Platinum does edit AVCHD just fine. The current version supports standard 1440 x 1080 output, I'd expect a near-future upgrade to support 1920 x 1080, but 1080 is the definition of "full HD" (which is marketing hype term anyway).
Sony consumer grade camcorders (and most of the pro camcorders) record a 1440 x 1080 stream. Only a couple record 1920 x 1080.
the majority of recorded HD today is 1440 x 1080 displayed with a Pixel Aspect Ratio of 1.333. Multiply 1440 x 1.333 and you'll be surprised at the result
johnmeyer wrote on 5/19/2008, 1:55 PM
Not quite sure where Spot is drawing the line on Sony "consumer grade camcorders." Certainly there are many Sony camcorders that record in full 1920x1080, and many in the under $1,000 price point. These include:

Sony HDR-UX7 (AVCHD, $750-900)
Sony HDR-SR12 & SR11 (AVCHD, $1,300 & $1,100)
Sony HDR-SR10
Sony HDRTG1

I absolutely agree that both Movie Studio should be able to handle the video from these cameras.

Laurence wrote on 5/19/2008, 2:17 PM
...then there are mega-expensive XD-Cam (not including the EX-1 and new EX-3) that "only" record in 1440x1080i/p as well... I dunno, it looks ok on the "Planet Earth" series!
blink3times wrote on 5/19/2008, 2:47 PM
".then there are mega-expensive XD-Cam "

Please tell me you're joking by comparing xdcam with a consumer level camcorder!? The on/off switch on one of these things probably costs the same as an ENTIRE Sony sr12.

The Avchd support in both Vegas Pro and Platinum is a bit lacking which I find not only surprising, but a bit irritating as well. My guess though is that Spot is correct in saying that it will be properly updated in the near future. I would be shocked to see it left this way.
Laurence wrote on 5/19/2008, 3:01 PM
The point I was making was that up until the EX-1 and new EX-3, these cameras were also 1440x1080, the same resolution that many people are now calling "HDV" rather than "full HD". Meanwhile most of the new consumer grade "1920x1080" cameras are merely interpolating these extra pixels. It is just so silly and I was merely trying to point this out.
blink3times wrote on 5/19/2008, 3:51 PM
To be dead honest with you Laurence.... I think 1920x1080 was built simply to sell more cameras to those who think the bigger numbers represent massive increases in quality (I'm not one of them). But none the less, If Sony is selling cams that output 1920x1080, then it's logical to assume that "SONY" Vegas will output 1920x1080. I believe those that express irritation when they find out it doesn't.... are within their right to be irritated.
farss wrote on 5/19/2008, 4:00 PM
There's an issue, going from 1920x1080 to 1440x1080 requires rescaling which means rendering at Best which in turn means significantly longer render times.
Would the people buying the product even realise this or would they not change the defaults and blame the poor result on VMS?

Bob.
Spot|DSE wrote on 5/19/2008, 5:37 PM
I'd wager that 99.9% of consumers that own AVCHD camcorders don't edit their video.
95% of those that ever do, output to SD DVD
Those that output to HD, probably don't recognize the rescale.
VMS imports the 1920 stream, it merely doesn't output it. For consumer ware, I have a hard time accepting that this is a "problem." Output to any AVCHD camcorder is weak in either Vegas product. then again, I also sincerely doubt that many are outputting back to a camcorder anyway. I can't fathom a reason why one would want to?
Sony announced at NAB, that they would soon offer greater AVCHD support.
On the flip side....No AVCHD support in AVID, FCP, or Premiere....Yeah, a few crappy little consumer apps support it, sort of. Both Vegas products fall somewhere in between.
blink3times wrote on 5/19/2008, 6:30 PM
There's no sense getting into a big debate about this Spot but you say:

"I have a hard time accepting that this is a "problem."

However, you aren't the OP who IS expressing a bit of dismay.

Second, a slight correction... a few of those so-called "crappy little consumer apps" will not only do 1920x1080, but they'll also burn AVCHD disks with full menus, chapters, and will even burn to disk without re-encoding. Heck.... I can even create a avchd disk with a loop play feature.

I hope that Vegas will one day be this strong with avchd but until then, ....IMO... both Vegas products are NO WHERE "in between"

As for Avid....their Pinnacle devision ALREADY HAS avchd support, but Avid itself.... you and I both know that MC will most likely NEVER have avchd support..... It's simply not that kind of program
Spot|DSE wrote on 5/19/2008, 7:10 PM
you and I both know that MC will most likely NEVER have avchd support
Actually, I don't know anything of the kind. And have it on pretty good authority that you're wrong.

Second, a slight correction... a few of those so-called "crappy little consumer apps" will not only do 1920x1080, but they'll also burn AVCHD disks with full menus, chapters, and will even burn to disk without re-encoding. Heck.... I can even create a avchd disk with a loop play feature.
You're welcome to your opinion.
A-I like software that offers me the options I need. Consumer-ware doesn't.
B-I need software that I'm not embarrassed for clients to see. Ulead is embarrassing
C-I need software that is rock solid, never crashes, and works intuitively for me. Ulead and Liquid don't fit either of those descriptions for me.
D-I need software that will create replicator-approved DDP files. Ulead, Pinnacle can't do that for me.

If the alternatives work for you, that's great. Life is about choices. In a professional environment, the choices are fairly limited. Making home movies, pirating DVDs, or doing the neighbor's birthday party leave lots of options open for software choices, because time isn't really an issue.
farss wrote on 5/19/2008, 7:31 PM
Base on "C" I guess you don't use Vegas?

Bob.
blink3times wrote on 5/19/2008, 7:41 PM
"Actually, I don't know anything of the kind. And have it on pretty good authority that you're wrong."
I'm wrong eh... well.... I'll be sure to tell the moderators there next time I'm on the site.... because this is what they have said to me. Actually... maybe you should tell the moderators yourself (probably better coming from you).

"A-I like software that offers me the options I need. Consumer-ware doesn't. "
The "other" program offers MANY more avchd burning choices than Vegas does at this stage


"B-I need software that I'm not embarrassed for clients to see. Ulead is embarrassing"
THAT Spot is my ENTIRE POINT on this AVCHD subject. It's EMBARRASSING knowing that a cheesy little program like the "other" program is beating Vegas at this game.

BTW... I resent your implication that hobbyists in general are "pirating DVDs," That's a pretty lousy thing to assume and this conversation has little to do with people breaking the law.

And with that Spot... I'm stepping out of this thread..... I'm not interested in yet another one of our useless debates on this issue. Want the last word.... go ahead.... knock yourself out.
John_Cline wrote on 5/19/2008, 8:42 PM
The fact of the matter is that AVCHD, at it's current acquisition bitrate implementation in camcorders, sucks in terms of image quality. AVCHD is all about reducing the bitrate, not about keeping the bitrate up and increasing quality. Crank it up to at least 25Mbit/sec and we might have something to talk about. Until then, I am perfectly happy with high-bitrate, long-GOP MPEG2 or, better yet, capturing either uncompressed or MJPEG 1920x1080 4:2:2 live via the Intensity card. This works REALLY well and looks great.

As far as I'm concerned, AVCHD and Ulead go hand-in-hand.
farss wrote on 5/19/2008, 10:03 PM
I have to agree about those consummer AVCHD cameras but so what. Vegas is a consummer product targetted at exactly the same market as those cameras. We all like to think of it as "Pro" but major efforts are going into selling into anything but that part of the market.

Bob.
Keyan wrote on 5/20/2008, 5:11 AM
I know it can edit AVCHD just fine, but it can't save AVCHD - you must transcode to another format in order to save the final movie. (Unless I have missed something..)

The 5 MP CCD in the newest Sony camcorders should have no problem saving in true 1920x1080 - not interpolating. However, I don't know the inner workings of their particular implementation so it is possible that it does.

Yes I am fully aware of how the 1440x1080 works - and honestly I use that format the most when recording video anyway due to the relatively large size of the 1920 mode - and since I can't save any edited movies in it, it is kind of pointless anyway.

Finally, yes the AVCHD implementation in these camcorders isn't some crazy high bitrate - but Sony and others need to balance the tradeoff between quality and size for a consumer grade device. These are designed to be used by people wanting to take family videos and not for a professional video shoot. Frankly, the enormous size of high bitrate HD is limiting in terms of storage both on the devices and on the computers that most people who buy one are going to own.
Rory Cooper wrote on 5/20/2008, 7:45 AM
When it comes to technical stuff I am batting with a small bat and you guys are bowling too fast. But when it comes to arty creative stuff the same as i have two balls i also have two bats

The stuff that I have shot in AVCHD is awesome compared to SD . sorry guys that’s the way it is. I am talking purely from visual aspect .ON one particular shoot this one camera guy was their with his big dick and I went in with an canon hg 10 well this guy had a lot to say. Well when the content was viewed mine was a shit load better. We end up using only AVCHD content shot from my cam and a another canon hf 10 Big dick turned out to be a small arse

The problem is how the hell do I keep this quality in production and resample to SD TV look the results are better but not as great as I would like

Rory

farss wrote on 5/20/2008, 8:13 AM
The bitrates used by AVCHD aren't that dramatically lower than DV or HDV. Consummers have been editing DV for years without complaining about disk space and disks are absurdly cheap these days. I just bought a 1,000GB disk for $300 and that'll hold 70 hours of HDV, that's enough home movies to bore several generations to tears.

I'm not being an elitist here either. I own an EX1 and a HC5. We used both to shoot a stage production a few days ago and yes, the very consummer grade HC5 did remarkably well with my wife whose never used a video camera before, well enough to intercut quite a few shots with the EX1 after a bit of grading. No doubt when really pushed the HC5's image will fall apart much quicker than the EX1's but were talking a more than 10:1 different in price. Using the tape based HC5 was dead simple, just took along a couple of packets of tapes and thankfully we did as the show run for over 4 hours.

All the footage from both camera and my audio recorded on a field recorder easily fits on a disk costing $150 that can be reused because I can put all the camera tapes on a shelf. And if you're wondering how I'm doing that with EX1 footage, well it too was recording via firewire to a VCR.

Bob.