From parachutes to wings? And book editing to a new level?
Wow!
JJK

Thanks Spot and the whole group of you who contributed. I just pre-ordered here:
Vegas Pro 11 Editing Workshop

"AVCHD does not have variations.... AVCHD is the spec created by Panasonic and Sony as a joint effort and is the spec is tightly adhered to."Well, the AVCHD 1080 60p was added as an Specification addendum (AVCHD 2.0) recently (i.e. 2011). A "variation"? Maybe, maybe not, but this very well could be the source of the issues with various smart render software indentified by johnmeyer several posts up. He is working with 1920x1080 60p.

...Jerry

Edit: I'm also looking forward to Spot's book. Just put in my preorder - guess I'm second in line in back of xberk.

Well, the AVCHD 1080 60p was added as an Specification addendum (AVCHD 2.0) recently (i.e. 2011). A "variation"? Maybe, maybe not, but this very well could be the source of the issues with various smart render software indentified by johnmeyer several posts up. He is working with 1920x1080 60p.Yes, Jerry, I think this is almost certainly the case. The whole 1080p extension of the original HD specs (which, both in the hardware and software realm, concentrated initially on 720p and 1080i) seems to have created a lot of confusion and problems: Blu-Ray doesn't handle 1080p; many TV sets won't accept it via HDMI; older sets and projectors can't handle it; and it is quite clear that while many video editing programs can put it on the timeline, they don't always seem to do the "right" thing when rendering it. At least that is what I have gathered from reading posts in this forum since 1080p became much more common, especially after the introduction of the wildly successful TM700.

Just pre-ordered mine from amazon.ca...
Looking forward to it. :-)
Tom

Ordered a copy.

I guess I'm dense but I don't understand the difference between smartrendering AVCHD and MPEG2.

First, Vegas would have to identify which parts of the timeline have video that is unchanged from the source video and which do not. I don't see the distinction between AVCHD and MPEG2 in this regard.

Second, Vegas would have to splice in the rendered video to the unchanged or native video. I can see that this would be more challenging to do with AVDHD as compared to MPEG2 but I can't see it being a deal breaker or seemingly impossible. Especially when all of the other coding is basically there for the existing MPEG2 Smartrender feature in Vegas.

Finally, I did some extensive research on AVCHD a few years ago when I contributed to a book on HD video. AVCHD basically expands on the DCT compression method of MPEG2. Employing smaller block sizes, less I frames, and other coding optimizations.

I'm not trying to be dense or argumentative here but I think that making excuses for Sony not including a feature that is really basic to editing, especially with the low bitrate of many AVCHD cameras, is counterproductive. It's not like AVCHD is a niche format that few people use and is on it's way out. It is the defacto standard for consumer camcorders and most prosumer camcorders.

I am willing to bet that there are far more people that would see a larger benefit to AVCHD smartrender than 3d capability.

Well VideoReDo has been in the business of smart rendering MPEG2 for many years, yet it took them some time to get a workable product for AVC, so it can't have been that easy.

Cyberlink boasts of their smart rendering of MPEG2 etc. but warns that their smart rendering of AVCHD is not strictly according to the book.

Womble does not seem to have AVC output yet (too difficult?).

The lack of I-frames must make it more difficult to choose a point to start smart rendering from, as well as coding up what comes before that in a legal fashion. I get the feeling that you can't arbitrarily choose what the sequence of slice types should be, at least for some decoder implementations.

You're absolutely right Peter, if it was easy then everyone could do it. I went through a lot of beta releases of VideoReDo's h264 product before they finally got it right.

I could be wrong, but AVCHD still uses GOPs and if it uses GOPs then there are I-frames, or keyframes . I would bet that there are plenty of keyframes in the stream that comes out of a camcorder since the low power electronics in camcorders aren't designed to maximize compression but instead trade a little bandwidth to keep power consumption (and battery life) longer. I read the article you posted and it only provided a very basic overview of what AVCHD can do. Nowhere to be found is an AVCHD GOP structure.

VideoReDo costs less than $100. Same with Cyberlink. If they are able to make AVCHD Smartrender work then it seems Sony should have the brain power to get it done as well right?

I never said it was "easy" to do. I said "how hard can it be?" And if you take that in context it would read how hard can it be for an 800lb gorilla like Sony to add a feature to their $600 professional NLE that works in one format but not another and other smaller manufacturers offer in their sub $100 editors?

I'm just expressing one opinion here guys. I would much rather have AVCHD smartrender over 3d editing.

Now if Sony waits long enough and AVCHD camcorders start to record at bitrates over 30 or so mbps then the point will be mute because there will be enough headroom there to re-compress to a smaller size.

I would much rather have AVCHD smartrender over 3d editing.Amen to that!! Anyone with a few gray hairs (are there any such people at SCS?) could have told them several years ago that 3D was never going to take off in the marketplace.

I just had several people over last night to watch the 49ers game, and there was an ad for a 3D movie. They both said that their kids refuse now to see 3D movies in theaters because they don't like the glasses, get headaches, and don't really think the effect is all that interesting. Their kids are 19 and 24. My kids have exactly the same reaction. So does every single person I know.

I saw "Avatar" in IMAX 3D, and it was interesting, but most definitely not compelling. My glasses were scratched, and I did get a headache.

So, yes, 3D in Vegas was a big waste of time and development money that could have been spent on things that really matter to people trying to actually get projects out the door quickly and professionally.

Oh, and for those that think this in "Monday Morning Quarterbacking," you can read what I said over a year ago:

3D... does anyone care?

i'm on exactly the other side of the 3D argument. Folks who were around 3 years ago when we first started hearing about 3D again might recall that it was referred to as another fad, and would die soon.
Now I'm not aligned with myself from 3 years ago.
3D is here to stay. It's a factor in all future video formats, especially 4K.

Sure, I'd rather have AVCHD smart rendering (AVC is highly unlikely to have it) over 3D, yet at the same time recognize the marketing resources that Sony must observe.
I've also yet to see AVCHD come out of the camera looking great. Ever. Color correction and attention to post-imaging is more critical than ever with the highly compressed formats. I guess I don't mind the absence of smart rendering right now, because I can't think of any AVCHD-present project that hasn't required at the least, a gamma shift and color correction.

I agree that many times I have to colour adjust AVCHD, but other times it is "good enough" for my purposes.

It would also be nice to be able to colour correct or otherwise change a clip (perhaps in some other application), save it in AVCHD format and then smart render that clip in the final job.

"3D is here to stay"

Like the human appendix? :)

"3D is here to stay"Absolutely irrefutable statement: it has been here since the 1950s and has never gone away, so in that sense, it is definitely here to stay. This list of 3D movies since the 1950s shows that it never went away, and is still here:

3D Movie List

I'm sure it is not exhaustive, but I do note that the releases for 2011 don't appear to be a big increase from 2010, and that the releases due out this year (I also checked a few other sites) appear to be about the same.

Of course Vegas isn't about movies, but instead is about corporate video, event video, etc. I sure don't see evidence that 3D wedding videos are a big thing. I looked on YouTube, and it is very hard to tell how many videos are 3D. The old (yt3d:enable=true) tag apparently isn't required any more although, FWIW, I did search using that tag an YouTube only reported 12,100 videos. I think that it is safe to say that the percentage of 3D videos to 2D videos on YouTube is probably way less than 0.01%.

I followed up on a comment that I picked up somewhere in this forum that PMB (Picture Motion Browser), the utility that comes with some Sony cameras, can smart trim AVCHD (ie trim start as well as end). Well it can, and furthermore such a trimmed clip will smart render in Vegas 9c. (An AVCHD clip that has had its start trimmed in Vegas will not smart render.) A 25 minute AVCHD clip took about 2.25 mins to smart render in PMB and about 5 mins in Vegas 9c.

I presume that PMB is written by the people who write the firmware for cameras, and not Sony Creative Software.

I wonder if there is some way to break down walls and get these two groups to talk to one another!

Edit

I just discovered that Vegas Pro 9c will smart render if the start has been trimmed. A few trials resulted in smart rendering after a variable number of frames ranging from 48 to 253 (2 to 10 secs. approx).

I find 3D interesting for 30 seconds, then it's annoying. It's also distracting for me. I can't get "through it" to the content of the film. It's "always in the way" of the composition. Like a chorus or flanger on a lead vocal. But that's just my opinion.

If I want 3D I go to live theater and get the real thing.

But what the execs think the market wants, or needs, or they need to sell, they get.

I find 3D interesting for 30 seconds, then it's annoying. It's also distracting for me.There are some great editorials about this. Roger Ebert's various rants against the technology are perhaps the best known. This is one of several, from just one year ago:

Why 3D doesn't work and never will. Case closed.

This is his better-known, original rant:

Why I Hate 3-D (And You Should Too)

I don't agree with a lot of what Roger Ebert says in his film reviews, but I agree with just about everything in these two articles.

Just watched Werner Herzog's "Cave of Forgotten Dreams" at home in 3D, found it very compelling. You get a real dimensional feel of the cave and its paintings. Also liked "Avatar" in 3D but find it a snooze in 2D, guess I'm getting accustomed to using both eyes.