???? What is burned to a DVD and Bluray is limited by the media format, But a file on a USB card or that is downloaded can have a lot higher bitrate and is limited by the player decoder being used. The PS3, for downloads, can handle about any bitrate you can throw at it, especially if you know how to modify internal flags. ;-)

Of course, the PS3 output is limited currently to 1080p. Now with refresh rates reaching 240hz, it will possible to push frame rate up to 120/s but usually over 60p is not cost efficient.

@blink3timesM- Ok, now I'm confused. hahaha....

"I just downloaded a few of the clips that are out there from the new Canon 5D MKII and I dropped them on my time line. I didn't check the bitrate before doing so, but rendering them to 50Mb/s posed no problem whatsoever. I played it on the PS3 and it confirms the clip is 50Mb/s"

wiki about the 5D MKII:

"Video clips are recorded as Quicktime MOV files with H.264/MPEG-4 compressed video and uncompressed PCM audio. HD and SD bitrates are approximately

What codec did you use to render the file with? This is where I need to learn some things. Was it uncompressed? I didn't know that rendering at a higher bit rate than the native H.264 file actually improved anything.

OK so let’s rename AVCHD to ACHE

The fact that pro’s of Spot’s calibre are using AVCHD says a hell of a lot. Also some valid points are made against using AVCHD although none of which would prevent me from continuing to use it. It’s just that I haven’t come across any other Pro’s using it over here, yet.

Another point that Spot made is “balancing payload and quality” which is pivotal and it’s not about counting time but making time count ,what you gain on xfer you can lose on edit so I will have a look at Spots suggestion keeping trimmer and undo history clean

Also other pro folks I work with have seen some of the good footage and also want to go AVCHD and I am a bit reluctant to give advice and say “sure go for it” so as for AVCHD it’s more a personal choice than a professional one for me at this point

AVCHD hasn’t been time tested yet and I hope it stands that test,… will it be around in 5 years?

Finally I think everyone agrees the XDCAM is first choice but after I’ve added the cost of the inevitable divorce on top of that.. it’s looking a bit pricy right now

Thanks for a very balanced view everyone

Rory

"It seems however to be a limitation of the present day nle's. There isn't one (at the consumer/prosumer level anyway) that will render much above 18M."

Maybe Vegas has some wierd reason why it will not encode H.264 at over 20Mbps however my copy of Ppro lets me go to a maximum of 240Mbps, yes, two hundred and forty, 1920x1080 at upto 60fps.

I don't have the faintest notion of why you'd ever want a bitrate that high but it's certainly there if you need it.

Bob.

"Maybe Vegas has some wierd reason why it will not encode H.264 at over 20Mbps however my copy of Ppro lets me go to a maximum of 240Mbps, yes, two hundred and forty, 1920x1080 at upto 60fps."

First.... not H.264.... AVCHD (and apparently there is a difference)... which is what this thread is discussing. Second, what profile/level/version of avchd does PP render out to? Third... this sort of illustrates my point of there being no real set standard. How can you use something on any real professional level when you can't even figure out which type is being discussed from one moment to the next.

blink: "With AVCHD, two companies are calling two specs by the same name."

That one's not confusing. There are different standard formats for shooting. No problem. What I do not get is the rendering part. What is it that prevents me from rendering either of this footage to, for example, 50Mb/s AVC?

"Second, what profile/level/version of avchd does PP render out to?"

The choices are HUGE and bewildering, way more options than Vegas offers, heck you can even FTP the ourput directly, I cannot for one minute dispute that you really need to know what you're doing with this stuff and I don't. To get to 240Mbps I used 3GP and V5.1. Damned if I know what that means exactly at this stage.

I did use Ppro to render something H.264 for Vimeo yesterday and just kept changing all the options until I got what I wanted and thankfully Vimeo sucked it up just fine.

However post encode PPro did fire up Device Central which showed that whatever combo I'd chosen was not supported on most mobile phones. Thank goodness for I wasn't trying to do this for a mobile phone :)

Ppro does have a "BD" profile and a "PSP" profile. Later I'll check what that lets me get to.

But hey, if this stuff was simple we'd be out of a job so ssshhh :)

Bob.

apit34356: What is burned to a DVD and Bluray is limited by the media format,

Obviously. This is where I am a little unsure as to what it is that is being said in this discussion. What has been said is that there is some sort of limitation in Vegas and other NLEs on the market right now as to the rendering of AVC, and I don't see this limit. I was just curious where the limit comes in? I seriously doubt that the source format would limit my output, so I am trying to find out what this is about.

If this is not about rendering, what is it about? And who would care?

blink: First.... not H.264.... AVCHD (and apparently there is a difference)... which is what this thread is discussing

OK, I feel my confusion letting go. It seems it is not in me where the confusion lies. AVCHD is a capture format with a certain set of limitations introduced to make some sort of standard for camcorder manufacturers. The video encoder used in AVCHD is H.264 and either PCM or AC3 audio in an MPEG-2 wrapper. You can't render to AVCHD outside of the specs in these NLEs which should not surprise anyone. The purpose of the AVCHD spec is (in addition to being a capture format) to allow HD on media that doesn't lend it self to high bitrate HD delivery. Exceeding the spec would be exceedingly dumb, but then again, why on earth would you?

If you are rendering a project of your own and your delivery mechanism is not a regular DVD or similar limited media, rendering to AVCHD would appear to be fundamentally stupid. Why limit your self in such a way when you can render at whatever bitrate you wish? Obviously your delivery format will set some limitations, on a BDR(E) you can deliver at max "speed", why would you not?

As far as I understand this discussion there is no limits whatsoever in the current NLEs as to render AVC unless you absolutely, and for reasons only known to your self, insist on rendering to AVCHD, where you do limit your self to one or both of the AVCHD standards.

If you are rendering a project of your own and your delivery mechanism is not a regular DVD or similar limited media, rendering to AVCHD would appear to be fundamentally stupid. Why limit your self in such a way when you can render at whatever bitrate you wish? Obviously your delivery format will set some limitations, on a BDR(E) you can deliver at max "speed", why would you not?
Nicely put.

According to the Panasonic AVCAM white paper, AVCHD is H.264, MmPEG-4, part 10 standard.

The Panasonic Professional website has some decent information.

"OK, I feel my confusion letting go. It seems it is not in me where the confusion lies. AVCHD is a capture format with a certain set of limitations introduced to make some sort of standard for camcorder manufacturers. The video encoder used in AVCHD is H.264 and either PCM or AC3 audio in an MPEG-2 wrapper. You can't render to AVCHD outside of the specs in these NLEs which should not surprise anyone. The purpose of the AVCHD spec is (in addition to being a capture format) to allow HD on media that doesn't lend it self to high bitrate HD delivery. Exceeding the spec would be exceedingly dumb, but then again, why on earth would you?"

Agree with you completely. In fact I mentioned to some one else in another thread who was trying to churn out M2TS (avchd), why not just pump out a separate avc and audio file.... more flexibility that way.

But the specs for avchd can go as high as 24Mbps (high profile used by canon). The question I'm asking is... why don't you see a nle go to that point. I would APPEAR and this is just a guess.... that they are following main profile specs. Is this a line they're trying to draw between the pro industry and that of the consumer?

why don't you see a nle go to that point

What would be the purpose of creating AVCHD output? To distribute on a regular DVD. Would there be any other reason? Not that I can think of. Max bitrate for DVD distribution, due to limitations of the DVD medium, is 18Mb/s. Is that not reason good enough?

I checked into this further and to some extent Blink does have a point.

In Ppro's media encoder selecting H.264 BD:

Level 4.1 High Profile VBR, 2 Pass the Max value for Avg and Max bitrate is 35 Mbps.

Level 4,0 Main Profile VBR, 2 Pass the Max values for Avg and Max bitrate is 21 Mbps.

If Vegas is limiting you to 21Mbps it would seem this is a Vegas problem, not a limitation of AVCHD / H.264.

Bob,

Exactly.... this is what I keep saying.

The problem here is that people keep using these terms (avchd, avc, and H.264) as if they were the same thing....... they are not. Avchd is a format (or a few formats actually) while avc is the elementary video stream within that format and h.264 is the codec used for that format. Now it's not hard to break avchd down to its individual components and come up with what you want. Vegas can do it, and according to Bob PP can do it....

But the title of this thread is "Would you use

Avchd has the ability to ouput to a maximum 24Mbps.... and to the best of my knowledge, you will not see that as an option anywhere. (I don't know PP so I'll stay away from that one)

Now the question is... would you use avchd professionally.... and I again say NO, and I say it for my above reasons. It was BRAD C I think that said it best way up above:

"Professionally....AVCHD? Ehhh, maybe. H.264? Absolutely."

"What would be the purpose of creating

I don't know... good question, but the point is that the option is not there. The point is that there are too many gaps, holes, and question marks with avchd.

There were a whole pile of questions a while back on another site involving people trying to edit their avchd and get it back on camera. Now why a Pro would need to do this is beyond me. But the point is that avchd is such a mess that it's almost impossible in many cases to do.

If your cam outputs high profile avchd and your nle outputs low profile avchd...... and visa versa...
If your cam outputs a certain file structure and you don't get it right....

These confusions don't exist with HDV and until you can say that about avchd then is it really ready for professional use?

"The point is that there are too many gaps, holes, and question marks with avchd."

What gaps? You can decode it, you can transcode it, that is ALL you need to be able to do with an acquisition format / codec. There's even one popular camera that uses a codec that NO NLE can read or render, period. And yet movies get made from the footage, people edit it etc, etc.

Your argument is false. Professionals oftenly use formats that cannot be edited in an NLE, for acquisition. Where do you think they stuff 35mm and 16mm film, in the slot in the front of their PC?
Try getting R3D files into a NLE too.

So far all you might have proved is AVCHD is confusing to some consumers. That in no way means it is not suitable for professional use, arguably the opposite.

And as was pointed out previously AVCHD is mpeg-4 layer 10. mpeg-4 is used daily by professionals for bearer transmission. Yes the full mpeg-4 spec is a mighty piece of work. To the best of my knowledge many of its feature have not and likely never will be implimented. That does not mean it's unsuitable for anything, professional or otherwise.

So distilling your argument into it's core it goes like this:
AVCHD is unsuitable for professional use because you and a few others are confused by it.

I'd as politely as possible suggest you consider the obvious conclusion one would draw from that.

Bob.

"So far all you might have proved is AVCHD is confusing to some consumers. That in no way means it is not suitable for professional use, arguably the opposite."

I disagree.

look... at this point you can certainly muddle your way through on avchd, that's pretty clear. But there are many different facets, sides, and angles to pro editing/shooting... I think you will agree to that. Now if you're lucky then you work for a studio or in film, or even broadcasting where the workflows are pretty solid from day to day and don't change too much from shoot to shoot. In this circumstance avchd may be your best friend right now.On the other hand if you're like the vast majority of people on this board and work freelance, then what you need is a format with as much universality as possible, yet has a steadfast set of rules for a singular end goal. Have a look at some of the questions on this board... one day you may be shooting a wedding, the next... who knows. There may very well be a reason for a freelancer to get their avchd back on camera...

Don't get me wrong.... I'm not saying avchd is a bad thing. It's not, in fact far from it. With the h.264 codec, the ability to record 5.1 sound at the camera level, the ability to go beyond 1440x1080/60i.... we'll be able to do some pretty interesting stuff and I for one find it hard to wait for it all to be finalized and come together so that we can REALLY start taking advantage of it.

What i AM saying.... is that it simply isn't here yet..... not on any serious dependable level anyway.

"But there are many different facets, sides, and angles to pro editing/shooting... I think you will agree to that. "

Sorry no, I do not agree
Professionals get paid to know what they're doing. They spend much of their lives studying and testing. Consumers don't. They expect to pull something out of a box and use it, not spent days, months or years mastering whatever box they're using.

I own an EX1. It takes a LOT to master that camera.
I've been called upon to master a camera I've never heard of to shoot high speed footage. There's a raft of issues to deal with. I've spent hours on the phone with the producer, the DoP, I need to get specs on lights, worry about makeup melting from the lights to say nothing of problems that I haven't even thought of yet.

I'd wager the majority of people on this forum would be totally lost trying to use any of the high end professional cameras. Does this make those cameras not suitable for professional use, no.
Does this make most of the members of this forum unprofessional, no. Most here know what they don't know. If they need to, they learn, it's a hard road in this game. If you want to be a professional in it you simply have to devote a lot of your life to it.

"ability to record 5.1 sound at the camera level"

Your comment there is a good example. Any professional would know you cannot record surround sound with a microphone in a camera. Not that this has anything to do with the camera being AVCHD of course but good grief. It's simply a ploy to suck in the mugs and one reason why I'd not consider using the current crop of AVCHD cameras. The higher end ones from Panasonic I would consider.

Bob.

"I own an EX1. It takes a LOT to master that camera. "

Bob... we're not talking about mastering a camera here. This has little to do with the subject at hand.

"Your comment there is a good example. Any professional would know you cannot record surround sound with a microphone in a camera."

I use 5.1 sound merely as an example of the kind of flexability that we can look forward to.

Now I see we're starting to slide off on another tangent here, so this is where I get off. let me end by saying this; there are some here that believe avchd is ready and some that don't.... I'm in the latter category.

Just to remind you guys, there are already large numbers of people who are shooting and editing AVCHD off the HMC-150 for a living (professionally?) with no problems at all.

Im one of them. I think this thread might have lost sight of that.

The DVXuser HMC-150 forum is extremely active and if you need camera or project help, you will get it.

This arguing over HDV and AVCHD is useless.

Im posting the link again to the HDV vs. AVCHD comparison by Panasonic. Shot with the same camera, but using different codecs. You decide which codec you favor.

http://www.panasonic.com/business/provideo/avccam-features.asp

"This arguing over HDV and AVCHD is useless."

Truer words have not been spoken in this thread to date.

Dave