AVCHD Converter

[Ron Evans]

Well now I know how to get it to convert fast ( should have read the instructions I know!!!). By dragging the file to the Icon the converter encoded to HQ a 1 hour and 9 min file in 50 mins. I think I am a happy camper now knowing I can upload from the SR11 at about 4 times realtime and then encode to HQ in just under realtime. A 1 hour file should take about 1 hour and 15 mins to get into HQ format from the camera. I can live with that. CPU was at 100% for the whole time so I expect the only way to do it faster is with faster CPU. Hard drive utilization was at about 25% so no real pressure on the hard drives at this conversion rate.

Ron Evans

[GrassValley_KH]

I believe the other purpose of this function is that you can right-click on another AVCHD file, and convert it.

So you're processing two files simultaneously. This is how it was explained to me, at least.

[Ron Evans]

Perhaps not everyone has a system they can simply devote time to just encoding video? (with all available resources)

Do I understand from this that the intent of the right click is so that processors are available to do other tasks while the encode is taking place using just one processor? IF that is the intent then that is not well stated either. Over many years I have found that while encoding I do not do anything else on the PC. One task at a time leads to a lot less problems. More processors to me mean more power not more tasks. Yes I do have several PC's one for email and browsing, one for editing, one for audio and one for all my important household stuff like internet banking etc.

Ron Evans

[Ron Evans]

Well by draging the file to the Icon it starts to convert at a speed that would be faster than realtime except it will not go past a file size of about 12G. I know the file should be almost 4 times that size when converted. I have tried 4 times now and it stops at the same place. It is now converting the slow way to see if it stops at the same place.

Ron Evans

[THoff]

think Canopus should remove the right click as its of no use. Why would anyone want a slower encode?

No, they should fix it so it does the same thing as dragging a file onto the converter icon.

[GrassValley_KH]

I think Canopus should remove the right click as its of no use. Why would anyone want a slower encode?

Perhaps not everyone has a system they can simply devote time to just encoding video? (with all available resources)

[Ron Evans]

Thanks Bill. Right click was the way I was doing it. Another case of reading the instruction carefully!!!! By dragging the file, CPU is now 100% on all cores, physical memory use has gone from 1.8G to 2.33G and disc use is now above 15MB and about 10% disc use. At this rate it will convert in less than realtime. It is working on one now so will let you know when its finished. I think Canopus should remove the right click as its of no use. Why would anyone want a slower encode?

Ron

[Mr Bill]

Right clicking is the slowest way of converting the files.
Don't do that.


Drag the files onto the icon (like the pdf shows you) you should see an improvement.

make sure you're using 2.10

[UlfLaursen]

Interesting. I get 67-72% utilization on all 4 cores both when I convert 1 and several files. If I f.ex. mark 50 files, right click and choose convert, it converts 4 files at a time, but the CPU util. is the same as when I just right click and convert a single file.

/Ulf

[Mr Bill]

Hi guys,

I work for a company that uses these files a lot (I can't stand AVCHD files)
So I have started to learn about the joys of wasting time converting these files to be usable for editing....

Look at the pdf manual that comes with the new converter.
It states that if you want to use ALL cores of your CPU, then you must drag the file/s onto the AVCPRV icon.

If you right click and convert it that way it wont use all of your cores so you can still run other application at the same time.

If I convert only one file I only use about 70% of my 4 cores,
so I convert 3 files at once and all 4 cores are running at 100% !

Bill :)

[UlfLaursen]

Hi Ron

On my PC I have aprox. 65-72% utilization on the CPU's on XP Pro 32. Sounds strange that your covertion is so much slower than mine. I did convert between 2 different discs too.

Could it be different formats? don't know if the Sony and Canon AVCHD is the exactly the same.

/Ulf

[Ron Evans]

Yes I am using V 2.1. On my old system an AMD X2 4200 it would have taken 10 times real time( with V 2.1) so the processor change and time change is in line. Q9450 is about 4 times faster than the X2 4200 on most benchmarks I have seen. I converted at the standard HQ settings leading to files that are about 4 times bigger. I have not looked at the other options of Cineform etc as I want to finish this show on Edius quickly but will do so next week.

Ron Evans

[THoff]

Ron, are you using V2.10 of the AVCHD converter? It's supposed to improve performance on multi-core/multi-processor systems.

[Ron Evans]

I have just got my new computer up and running. Gigabyte X48-DQ6, Q9450 quad core, 8G RAM, Palit HD3850, 250G Boot, 250G Temp/Preview/Projects, 750G storage, 750G storage and two external eSATA 500G storage, Vista 64 Home Premium. Having turned pretty much everything off set at VISTA Basic Color it looks just like WIN XP!!!. Conversion times for a 1 hour Sony AVCHD file from a SR11 was about 2.5 times realtime or close to 2 1/2 hours. This was converting from one hard drive and writing to another using the latest converter 2.1. Looking at the performance window of Vista, CPU is only 34%, disk even less, RAM seemed to be fully used, only one processor seems to be running at about 70%, another at about 30% the other two with almost no activity!!!! maybe if there more smaller files the conversion would be quicker but this was a 1 hour performance and from the SOny gets transfered to the PC as one file. I recorded two performances each with two parts so have 4 files each from two cameras ranging from 9G to 14G in size that will have to be converted from both a SR7 and SR11 so looking at about 25 hours!!! It took about 1 hour and 15 mins to transfer to the PC from both cameras.
Ron Evans

[UlfLaursen]

Hi

I just did some tests with the fairly new AVCHD Convert tool and my newly upgraded quadcore, 4GB, XP Pro.

I was lucky to get a Canon HF10 to test - we sell canon cams at work so I got one from Canon in Denmark to try out.

I found that converting was aprox 1-1 in time. Don't know if it matters if the files are a lot small or it is one big. I am going to test with one big later tonight when it is finished to record.

My goal was to save time. Today I use my Canon HV20 to record ½ to 1 hrs. every week for editing. I wanted to save some of that time by getting a HF10 instead, but I can see I need faster Processors to get the job done quicker - probably dual quad xeons or something like that, and that's too much atm. in cost.

The quality is fine, and playback / editing if the HQ clips in 1920 x 1080 runs smooth too, but converting takes the same time as cakturing, so the only thing I would save is tape-cost.

I tried to edit the native mts-files, but that was impossible.

/Ulf