I'm pretty much of the same mind as Tim here. Definitely good lights and audio will last a long time. On the other hand, we're still using the DSR500 DVCam that we must have bought 12 years ago or more. You could get many years out of a very good camera.

Just this Monday I set up a product shot in my basement. The space is similar sized but unfinished. In my opinion this isn't a lot of space to work with but the sorts of things you're talking about are just barely doable in the space you've got.

Here are some possible rigging suggestions:
--If you're planning on using paper backdrops go to the B&H site and look up autopoles. There are kits there that allow you to keep three paper rolls ready to go. You might need to carve a hole in your acoustical tiles so that the poles can go up to a hard surface. This might box you in to certain setups but if you keep this room totally stripped clean you could use one end for backdrops and another end for no-backdrops.

--An 8' ceiling is too low to hang pipe to mount your lights on. Chances are high that your lights will be too low and the pipes and lights will be in some shots. There are clever ways to build a pipe grid that'd help with this but I think the cieling is too low make the effort worthwhile.

--The simplest rigging is going to be to put lights on stands, but this will be cramped and eat up floor space so where you can hang lights you should.

--Most suspended ceilings will accept scissor clamps. These will allow you to hang lights from the ceiling structure but you'll need at least marginally professional gear that can be mounted on a 5/8" baby stud. I've done this a lot and you can hang quite a bit off of a well built ceiling. However, it wouldn't hurt to have someone come in and put more hanger supports into the ceiling structure. The other thing about this is it chews up paint and ceiling panels. Be prepared to replace panels once in a while.

--Simple Pony clips can be used to hang light cables on the ceiling. If you want to get fancy you could get an electrical system installed up there, but I think that's overkill for this room.

--If you want to get a light a little higher you can pop out an acoustical tile and hang a light from those floor joists above. A collection of furniture clamps with 5/8" stud adapters might work for this. You might also want some way to hang the light lower than the clamp would allow on it's own. Usually I'd use a grip head and grip arm but that's because I've got a handful available.

--Regarding the grip heads and arms, I've found that I could usually clamp them onto the support wires of a suspended ceiling. One end clamps to one wire, the other end grips another wire, and the grip arm becomes a crossbar to hang a light off of. This opens up a few options for light placement above the acoustical tiles. (Use the 5/8" adapter from a furniture clamp as the hanger. These also fit onto grip arms.)

For lights...I love kinoflos but I think they're a lot of money for your budget. You start to appreciate them more when you've got a lot of experience and when you can charge for them. Never-the-less, if you can afford a set of florescent fixtures they'll save on heat and electricity. You say your HVAC is quiet but these often get louder as a room heats up and then you'll have to turn it off to record sound.

One point about flourescent lights is that you should try to stick with the same fixture and tube manufacturers. Flos often get green or magenta casts to them but you can minimize that *a little* by standardizing your gear. No guarantees, though.

In the end, you can't do everything with flos. They're soft lights that can never be made hard. Keep an open mind about having a few small tungsten fixtures around, or small HMIs if you've got money to burn. (There's a daylight vs tungsten decision creeping in here.)

I'm out of time. There's always more to say but I'm off to a delicious Japanese dinner (not sushi). I've got my priorities, after all.

Rob

If you know enough to be telling other professionals what to do in a corporate environment, then you certainly don't need any advice from me.
I cannot remember that I have told anyone what to do. I have just shared my own experiences. You, on the other hand, tell people here to "not put AVCHD on the timeline". So when you tell people what they not should do, it is interesting to know what you think they should do.
I have taken the liberty to share my positive experiences using AVCHD on the Vegas timeline. In fact - how on earth should I otherwise use the media I shoot with my cameras?
Ingvar

PerroneFord
Thank you for your input.
Being in the decision stage, and recognizing that I'm an independent low volume wedding videographer, but do pride myself in what I deliver, and do want the capability to deliver HD via Buray media, you mention converting to a "real editing codec and use it". I would really appreciate your suggestions as to camera and editing codec to use. Keep in mind that I do not anticipate doing much of anything on color; rather my editing is primarily titles and transitions, and while I do use at least 2 cameras, I've never felt the need to use the multi cam feature. I'm wondering if Ingvar is utilizing his equipment in the same way, and that is the reason he is successful with AVCHD. I suspect he and I both don't have a huge budget, and so we are simply trying to find the most cost effective way of accomplishing editing HD and delivering via Bluray.

Thanks very much.

Bob

I'm usually the one going on about the value of good audio kit, tripods and lights.

Why I'm not doing so this time is because of what the stated requirements are:

1) Quick setup.
2) It seems likely there'll be animals in the room.
3) Possible use of the same space for video conferencing.
4) The space might also be used for other things.

To me this says stadium lighting, just space lighting, it's got to be goof proof. Nothing or as little as possible on the floor. What is on the floor should be sand bagged. I can just imagine the havoc a great dane on the loose could cause. This kind of work really doesn't need to have any artistic merit, it is what it is so you keep it simple, in focus, clean audio no shadows for things to get lost in. There's no rehearsals, probably no script, you just have to shoot whatever happens.

Bob.

You know what... you're right. I will never again tell anyone in this forum that they shouldn't put AVCHD on the timeline.

Thanks for pointing that out.

If you plan on doing transitions, titles, and cutting, there is no need to do anything differently than you're doing it now if it's working for you.

Best of luck.

PerroneFord

I'm not currently using ACVHD on the timeline.-Sorry if there was confusion.

I'm currently doing mini DV SD on Vegas Pro9.0c with no issues. But because I want to do HD, I'm looking at retrofitting my entire suite of equipment. Because I'm familiar with Vegas and like it, I felt that would be the best starting point. I've been looking at the Panasonic HMC-150 as a prosumer means of getting away from tape, and an affordable camera option, since I want two of them. Obviously this and other forums within sonycreative has peaked my concern about editing with AVCHD files. I think perhaps the confusion has been what you are going to do with it. I suspect there are a lot of professionals stating their opinions basis their specific needs, which sound pretty intense. I'm just trying to figure out if it will meet my needs with basic editing requirements; again, titles, transitions, etc. If you feel you can point me specifically in the right direction, I would appreciate that. Thanks!

Feel free to contact me privately.

However, as ingvarai has so eloquently pointed out.... it's working for him. So...

PerroneFord,
I think what Ingvarai is asking is: if you do not put AVCHD on the timeline, what is your workflow, and how do you do this to edit AVCHD using V9.0.
I am another one who would like to know how/what you do?
In your posts above you keep telling people to not put AVCHD on the timeline but do not offer your way of doing it the 'correct' way.
Please share your workflow with us.

Ted

Bob,
I'm wondering if Ingvar is utilizing his equipment in the same way, and that is the reason he is successful with AVCHD. I suspect he and I both don't have a huge budget, and so we are simply trying to find the most cost effective way of accomplishing editing HD and delivering via Bluray.
Mostly correct, yes. But I do make complicated edits using Vegas. Among other things, I am making a real movie, which has taken me 9 months already. So - with AVCHD you'd better have a powerful computer, I noticed a significant difference when I upgraded from dual core to quad core. This is all I have to say about this. My advice is not to fear AVCHD at all. It is all over mow. In consumer cameras, in prosumer cameras.
What I do: I put my AVCHD files on the time line, and edit right away. If I think they stutter and pause too much because of effects and transitions, I batch convert them to MXF files, and use these as proxies in Vegas.
I have a limited budget. The cameras I can afford, save to AVCHD these days. So I have to put AVCHD on the timeline, regardless of the advices some come up with here in the group. What you could do, is to convert your AVCHD files to another format, and take it from there. AVI, or what I prefer - MXF.

AVCHD is a prevalent format in the consumer / prosumer market. It is heavily compressed, it contains some artifacts. It is demands a lot of computer power to decompress. My experience is that Vegas does a good job with AVCHD. However, since this debate is going on, I will also drop my files on the Adobe Permiere timeline and see if I can notice any difference, it will be interesting.
The camera I have, Panasonic HMC 151, has an HDMI output. I will see if it is possible to grab the output signal and capture directly to an uncompresssed format, I am not sure how to do it yet.
Anyhows - I am glad I got the advice to get just this camera here in this news group. I like it a lot, and furthermore - Vegas also likes it a lot it seems ;-)
Ingvar

My workflow is greatly dependent on the job at hand. I have put AVCHD/h.264 on the timeline, as much as I hate doing it. But when absolutely necessary for speed or technical issues I do it.

I have transcoded to Lagarith, HuffYUV (but not since going 64bit), and DNxHD. I have also used MXF for some projects.

If I am doing a longer project, I have transcoded to XDCam 422, or even to SD.

So I can't give you my workflow because it's tailored to the job at hand including what format the incoming data is, what format needs to be delivered, what steps I'll need to do in the middle, how much time I have, etc.

The issue I see most often is that people want to shoehorn everything into a single or simple workflow with no regard to format or delivery. People are looking for the most expedient route, and then complain with the results don't match expectations. If you are shooting for your own entertainment there is NOTHING wrong with this. But when people are paying me to produce work, I feel compelled to provide the best quality work I can in the time allotted.

So, can you put AVCHD on the timeline? Sure. Is it going to fall to mush when you correct your white balance, then try to do some grading, some blending, some secondary color correction, and render out? Yea probably. Will it fall to pieces if you need to do multiple passes at rendering? You bet. Does it cause headaches if you need to work in 32bit because you really want to do accurate coloring? Yep.

So I would encourage people to examine their options, and choose a solution that works for them. But as I've pointed out, I am not going to tell anyone here not to put AVCHD on the timeline. People here are grown, and they are spending their own money, and can do whatever they like.

PerroneFord,

actually - we agree a lot. What I meant is that in order to transcode, you have to put AVCHD on the timeline at least once, provided you use Vegas for transcoding. AVCHD is a format used out of necessity as I see it. One may wonder why not compact flash cards are used instead, to allow for a higher bit rate.
But this should not sky Bob away from the camera we talk about. If AVCHD is a problem, transcode and get rid of the problem. Here we agree completely!
Ingvar

Ingvar, correct. The camera is immaterial. To people who come from a film background, this idea of a transcode is laughable. When the decision is made to digitally work with film, it's scanned, proxies are made, a conform is done, and sometime it's printed right back to film! The format the camera shoots in should have zero bearing on what goes on the timeline.

AVCHD was never meant to be dropped on the timeline. It's HORRIFIC for that. But people seem to be in a massive hurry and feel that they need to drop whatever comes out of the camera onto the timeline for editing. That is rarely a good idea, and it's never done in cinema. Broadcast news maybe, but their cameras are set up to record in a format that is designed for that workflow. That's why P2 and XDCam are so fast on the timeline.

But whatever. Either people will do what is necessary to meet expectations, or they won't.

Ingvar and PerroneFord
I appreciate the constructive feedback. Unfortunately PerroneFord, it sounds like you are light years ahead of me in what you have to do for your clients, deadlines and cost notwithstanding. So I really do appreciate your patience, and your feedback. You'll have to forgive me then for my ingnorance, but, that is why I'm on this forum, and soliciting help from the experts like yourself.

Ingvar-(here's my ignorance showing again), when you say "I batch convert them to MXF file, and then use these as proxies in Vegas", do you simply highlight those clips, and do a "render as" and select mxf to create that file? I'd be interested to know if you are seeing degradation on the final output using a transcoded mxf file. I'm also not really sure what you mean by "proxies in Vegas". Can you elaborate on that? Also, my timelines for weddings can be upwards of 2.5-3 hours long. Is length going to spell potential issues when working with these ACVHD files?

Thank you both. I do appreciate the technical input, and your time.

Bob

Seems to me there's some bad information entering into this discussion.
You simply cannot improve anything in the digital domain by converting it to something else. You can make it easier to work with for sure but you cannot improve what was already recorded.

You can however be fooled and very easily.
A lot of applications and users setup the sequence settings and hence the processing pipelines based on the source media. Clearly a 10bit or 32bit float pipeline can improve many things. This can create the illusion that transcoding from a lossy 8 bit format to a lossless or near lossless 10bit codec leads to better quality.

Secondly and I've been caught out on this one, what you see is oftenly not what you get. Do not trust what you see in preview monitors. Do a final render and check that. I recetly wasted a few hours in AE trying to wrangle an aliasing issue that simply wasn't there once I tried doing a final render. GPU acceleration can really fool you as can the quality of your monitors.

H.264 is a complicated beast, much more so than mpeg-2. It is more than just a codec. After the core codec has done it's work more arithmetric magic is performed on the data. What is done can have a significant impact on ease of decoding but has no impact on visual quality, thinks of it like using Winzip. Also H.264 can be decoded at various quality levels for speed or reduced processing overhead.

Bob.

Bob farss:
Seems to me there's some bad information entering into this discussion.

Yes, the purpose of transcoding is performance - not quality.
Ingvar