So VMS 8 doesn't let you render in AVCHD..guestion

Beester wrote on 1/9/2008, 10:58 AM
Trying to render from AVCHD to any other format is excruciatingly slow especially considering all I am doing edit wise is basic cropping ie deleting frames. First why would Sony no allow rendering in AVCHD since this is the format their HD cameras record in? Second if I upgrade to the pro version will it allow me to render in AVCHD and will the rendering times doing so be substantially quicker for BASIC editing? Now a 30 minute HD clip takes 2 to 3 hours or more to render to any format despite much tweaking suggested in this forum and elsewhere. I have a duocore machine with 2 gigs of ram and a large hard drive. Thanks.

Comments

Eugenia wrote on 1/9/2008, 1:28 PM
>First why would Sony no allow rendering in AVCHD since this is the format their HD cameras record in?

Because this is brand new feature on Vegas Pro 8, that was released AFTER Platinum. When Platinum came out last July, AVCHD support was spotty (Canon cameras were not supported at all, for example). Over the months they added reading support for more AVCHD cameras, but I would not expect full writing until Platinum v9. I would suggest you download the Vegas Pro demo and see if the exporting of AVCHD it does works on your camera. Because I would expect, Vegas developers mostly test with Sony cameras, not Canon.

>will the rendering times doing so be substantially quicker for BASIC editing?

No, Vegas Pro will be as slow/fast to edit, but it will be faster to export using its Sony AVC encoder than Platinum's WMV.

>Now a 30 minute HD clip takes 2 to 3 hours or more to render

For two reasons:
1. Reading AVCHD is SLOW. And this is NOT Vegas' problem. AVCHD is a very slow format because h.264 is complex, it happens on all editors (except iMovie '08, but that's only because iMovie re-encodes on the fly on another format -- because not even iMovie wants to deal with pure AVCHD files).
2. If you are exporting in WMV, it will be extra slow, because the encoder that Vegas uses for WMV is slow. On my Vegas Pro, exporting in h.264 with the MainConcept or Sony AVC encoders (not available on Platinum), it's faster than WMV. But even if you upgrade, you don't expect miracles, because of #1.

And btw, exporting a 30 minute clip in 3 hours is FAST. It usually takes TWO hours on my P4 3 GHz to export a 10 minute clip, and I am using HDV mpeg2, which is WAY faster to read/edit/export than your AVCHD format. So the slowness you get, is normal. It's HD we are talking about anyway, HD is way more heavy than DV. The only thing you can do to get it a bit faster, is to not use the slow WMV encoder -- the problem is that Vegas Platinum does not offer any other "user-oriented" codec with full customization. I do hope that Vegas Platinum replaces that encoder in the future, but I don't see it happening. I surely hope at least they include their Sony AVC encoder fully next time (to allow you to "customize" it).
Beester wrote on 1/9/2008, 6:02 PM
guess I will try the pro version and see if it renders any faster. It seems rightly or not that it would be faster to render in the native format used to record ie AVCHD. Also I can't understand why it takes so long to "edit" if so called editing consists only of lopping off some frames at the beginning or end of the imported file.I could understand such slow rendering times if i were adding effects, optomizing colr, etc; but it just doesn't seem like it should take so long to do what I am doing. ANother question.. I have the Sony HDR-SR5. Can I change what type of file it records in if I record in standard def and if so would it be any easier/quicker to edit? Thanks.
Eugenia wrote on 1/9/2008, 6:22 PM
>guess I will try the pro version and see if it renders any faster

As I said, it will render faster than WMV if you try the AVCHD or AVC codecs, it's codec-specific not Vegas version-specific. If you try WMV again with Pro, it will be as slow, as the engine is the same for both Platinum and Pro.

>Also I can't understand why it takes so long to "edit"

If you are talking about slow editing, that's normal. AVCHD is extremely demanding, because as I explained, it uses h.264, and h.264 is more complex than mpeg2. Make sure you are using the right template and frame rate in your project settings btw, because if you are editing with the wrong properties (e.g. wrong resolution, wrong frame rate), Vegas will be really slow. Vegas needs to know exactly with what kind of footage it's dealing with, and you do that by having the right project settings.

>if I record in standard def and if so would it be any easier/quicker to edit?

Standard Def is 1/4 of the size of HD, so it can be up to 4 times quicker, yes.

Honestly, if you are not happy with the AVCHD speed overall, sell the camera and buy an HDV camera instead. The HV20 or HV30 are the best in that department, producing better quality than AVCHD too.
OhMyGosh wrote on 1/9/2008, 10:47 PM
Does anyone know of a spot where I could download a small native file of AVCHD and mpeg2 to try? I would really like to play with some myself, to see how my hard and software handle it. Thanks. Cin
Eugenia wrote on 1/9/2008, 11:13 PM
I found these by searching on google:
panasonic: http://eirikso2.com/Panasonic_HDC-SD5/Original-MTS-Streams-From-Camera/
canon: http://file.meyersproduction.com/hg10/
unknown: http://kartracevideos.com/f1outdoors-4-22-07/
This one has both AVCHD .mts and HDV .m2t http://plasticmagonline.com/HVHGTEST/

Please note that if you want to test these .m2ts or .mts AVCHD files, you will need samples from all 4 major camcorder manufacturers (canon, sony, panasonic, jvc), as their formats have implementation differences.

A lot of .m2t HDV files can be found on hv20.com's "footage" subforum too.
Beester wrote on 1/10/2008, 8:10 AM
and what codec? I have tried a few but most leave a lot to be desired as far as playing smoothly with good sound. The camera of course plays it flawlessly but I would like to find a good player for my PC. Thanks again.
OhMyGosh wrote on 1/10/2008, 9:19 AM
Thank you Eugenia for going through the trouble of finding the links. I thought you, or one of the other members might just have a link to some of your stuff that could be easily accessed.
I was confused from the start (go figure) when I saw the file extentions. I've never seen .mts. My research shows that the camera shoots in .mts and then when it is downloaded, it is converted to .m2ts through a software converter (not sure if that is from the camera manufacturer, or video editor)? And that m4v, mpeg-4, and mp4 are the exact same format? When I tried to download several of them, I got the ole 'Unknown File Type' message (one of my personal favorites). Is there something I should do, or install on my computer so it 'knows.'? As a side note, I noticed some .mov files there as well. I have googled for years (literally) on if there is some way to get my .mov files to show with a thumbnail preview. Unlike my .avi or .wmv files, which show the first frame of the clip so you have an idea what the heck you are looking at, all I get with the .mov clips is the QuickTime logo. It has bothered me forever, and makes it slow and difficult to work with them, as I'm never sure what is what without having to preview each and everyone. Thanks again. Cin
Eugenia wrote on 1/10/2008, 10:40 AM
Use the latest version of Vegas to view the files. WMP won't play these, even if you install ffdshow (there's no good support for AVCHD on the open source codec world yet).

.mts and .m2ts are not renamed into each other, it's just that some manufacturers choose the one over the other, depending on the kind of container they use.

Try this app though as suggested there:
http://eugenia.gnomefiles.org/2007/11/19/media-player-classic-rocks/

>And that m4v, mpeg-4, and mp4 are the exact same format?

No. It depends how they are encoded internally, and there are differences in the container too. But they are similar.
Kennymusicman wrote on 1/11/2008, 4:32 AM
Eugenia - are you saying that WMP does not play AVCHD, such as Sony's .mts files?
4eyes wrote on 1/11/2008, 8:07 AM
WMP can play anything, it's just a bear to setup.
Also depends which version of WMP.
Don't expect windows to set it up automatically, unless you get lucky.
Eugenia wrote on 1/11/2008, 2:02 PM
Installing the latest ffdshow and required splitters does not work with AVCHD correctly on WMP. I've worked with the guy who maintains ffdshow, and while his MPC player can play AVCHD, he can't make WMP to work correctly with .mts/m2ts files. You might get luckier, but I went to the source and I got no solution for WMP. That's why I use MPC.
Kennymusicman wrote on 1/11/2008, 2:14 PM
I just use Vista WMP11 and K-Lite. stuff works perfectly for me. I sometimes use media player classic - but only on XP machiens as WMP11 is not brilliantly implemented on xp.
Eugenia wrote on 1/11/2008, 2:37 PM
I use ffdshow, not K-Lite. Ffdshow has a good encoding system too, so I can use these codecs to also encode via Vegas.
Simard wrote on 1/11/2008, 3:42 PM
AVCHD is indeed quite demanding on my computer CPU. It is interesting to notice that the camcorder (Sony HDR-CX7) manage to create and play AVCHD files without a sweat.

Is there an add-on card that I can install in my computer that could accomplish the AVCHD encoding/decoding as easily as the HDR-CX7?
Eugenia wrote on 1/11/2008, 4:02 PM
No, there's nothing like it. Only buying the GeForce 86000GTS can help you out with sheer 2D speed because of its extra bandwidth compared to other cards (from both nvidia and ATi), but not because of any special extension/driver support. When I moved to that card from my previous PCI-Xpress card I got about 25%-40% better speed on *playback* on all applications. Again, not because of special drivers or special extensions, but just because this card has a lot of bandwidth which makes it great for 2D stuff (I am not even talking about 3D).

The camcorders can record and playback in real time because they have specialized hardware in them... quite expensive too.
4eyes wrote on 1/11/2008, 8:44 PM
ATI & Nvidia video cards use hardware decoding & hardware de-interlacing.
ATI calls this "AVIVO", Nvidia uses "PureVision".
Software players that support the AVIVO & PureVision acceleration are PowerDVD7 Ultra, WinDVD 8 Gold (haven't used WinDVD8), they supply the accelerator codecs to interface with the hardware on the ATI & Nvidia HD accelerated video cards. Ex: ATI HD2600XT-Pro.
Other programs that access and use the acceleration use approx 1% - 5% cpu usage
for playing back AVC/H264 15,000kbs w/Dolby Audio 5.1@448kbs.

Nero Showtime uses about 30%-35% on a Q6600, it does NOT use the AVIVO hardware acceleration, only DirectX acceleration.

When you have the correct codecs installed (like the Cyberlink avc/H264) that uses either the "AVIVO" or "PUREVISION" Acceleration you can setup WMP11 to use it. WMP11 processor usage is 1% when playing back 15MBS avc/h264 w/dolby 5.1@448kbs.
It can be hard to setup if using dual monitors because of screen overlay settings. XP versus Vista also makes a difference. Much easier to just use the players that support the video card such as PowerDvd 7 Ultra or WinDvd 8 Gold.
ATI - AVIVO
ATI - AVIVO Features
Eugenia wrote on 1/11/2008, 10:40 PM
Yes, but Vegas and WMP and VLC or MPC don't support these technologies. In fact, 99% of the media apps out there don't support these extensions, which is why you just need a card that's just fast on its own in the hardware level (meaning, just sheer bandwidth speed).
4eyes wrote on 1/12/2008, 8:29 PM
I use VLC to playback my AVC/H264 videos exported from Vegas Pro 8a.
They are encoded at High Definition 1440x1080 AVC 15MBS using AAC audio @ 192kbs.
Cpu usage on the Q6600 is about 25% - 30%.
VLC player plays them fine using it's own codec's.
SuSE Linux 10.3 also plays them fine, Mplayer, VLC or Xine.
Eugenia wrote on 1/12/2008, 9:28 PM
Yes, and? This means nothing at all. If VLC had gfx extension support your CPU usage would be 5%, not 25%. ;-)

And just because your PC can handle it without extension support, doesn't mean that other people's PCs can. Mine can't for example. I run a 3 year old P4 at 3Ghz, and VLC chokes even on 720p, let alone 1080p.
4eyes wrote on 1/12/2008, 9:59 PM
It means exactly what you posted:
"which is why you just need a card that's just fast on its own in the hardware level (meaning, just sheer bandwidth speed).