Current AVCHD support in 4.6?

[LV_DVC]

The last AVCHD thread kind of ended nowhere.

1) Is 4.6 intended to import AVCHD and edit it natively?

By EDIT, I don't mean just playback a clip. I mean at least support the CCing of clips and a dissolve between them with smooth playback at 30fps?

2) If so, what Intel chip is required to this?

3) If so, does this actually work from Sony and Canon camcorders?

If not, then I assume AVCHD must be converted to HQ:

1) Can a folder of clips be batch converted?

2) Is double buffering now supported so there is no need for a certain processor to do conversion?

3) Does this actually work from Sony and Canon camcorders?

4) What Intel chip is needed to support the CCing of clips and a dissolve between them with smoothly play at 30fps?

Lastly, why are folks still talking about the Converter now that 4.6 is out?

[THoff]

If you want to edit AVCHD, I think your best bet is to convert the AVCHD to Canopus HQ using the updated AVCHD to Canopus HQ Converter, which is now at V2.10. While Edius can convert to Canopus HQ as well, the converter is more up-to-date than Edius V4.61 and includes bug fixes and additional features. It is optimized for multiple CPUs / cores and handles 24p.

Once your material has been converted to Canopus HQ format, editing multiple streams with effects and transitions can be done in realtime with any modern CPU.

[GrassValley_KH]

Simply put, native editing of AVCHD, with applied effects, in realtime with smooth playback in its true frame rate, size and resolution is almost outside the realms of modern computing technology.

With EDIUS, we provide:

1) the ability to edit AVCHD in its native format if you don't want to convert for optimised performance

or

2) a free utility to convert said native content to a far better format for editing, whether in realtime or not

AVCHD is a highly compressed acquisition format. Like MPEG before it, it's not the ideal choice of format for editing.

[LV_DVC]

If you want to edit AVCHD, I think your best bet is to convert the AVCHD to Canopus HQ using the updated AVCHD to Canopus HQ Converter, which is now at V2.10. While Edius can convert to Canopus HQ as well, the converter is more up-to-date than Edius V4.61 and includes bug fixes and additional features. It is optimized for multiple CPUs / cores and handles 24p.

Didn't 4.61 just ship? Without the latest code? When will the actual app contain working code?

OK -- about the converter:

1) Can a folder of clips be batch converted?

2) Is double buffering now supported so there is no need for a certain processor to do conversion?

3) Does this actually work from Sony and Canon camcorders?

[THoff]

I don't want to presume to speak for Canopus / Grass Valley, but I would guess it is a great deal easier to make changes in a utility with very narrow focus than in a full-fledged NLE where the testing effort and risk are substantially higher.

The AVCHD converter does support converting multiple files, and it can assign each file to a separate core if available. It can also assign more than one core to one file.

I'm not sure what you mean by double-buffering.

As far as supporting specific cameras is concerned, if you state what camera(s) you have or are considering, maybe someone with those cameras can chime in.

More information about the AVCHD Converter can be found here.

[LV_DVC]

I don't want to presume to speak for Canopus / Grass Valley, but I would gu
I'm not sure what you mean by double-buffering.

Thank you. The old version of HDV to HQ required a processor to be fast enough to process data as it came in via FW. Double-buffer keeps an input process delinked from the conversion process.

But, of course, in an all file based system it doesn't matter. :)

[THoff]

The AVCHD to Canopus HQ converter works with files that are on disk so your system doesn''t have to be capable of real-time conversion.

[AJL14]

Steve,
1. The new AVCHD2HQ converter is much more reliable, faster and better quality than the old version.
2. It WILL batch convert - you can load as many files into the converter as you wish before "starting conversion". They can all be loaded at the same time from a folder.
3. In order not to bother with a buffer, I load the native AVCHD files onto the hard drive, then convert from there to a new folder. Then erase (or keep until project edited) the AVCHD files if drive space is needed.
4. If you have a dual or quad core, each core will grab a file simultaneously and covert the file. Therefore a quad converts files 4 times faster than a single core CPU.
5. I'm using the new Sony HDR-SR12, 120gb HDD, 1920x1080 fullHD. Had NO problems whatsoever in editing the HQ files - and there is vitually NO loss in quality of the pix from AVCHD to HQ.
Cheers,
Alan

[ken7]

Alan, when you say 'no loss', have you viewed the material on a large screen 1080p display? I know many people tend to say this by how it appears on a relatively small, somewhat unrevealing computer monitor. I've found that the larger the screen the more revealing any potential loss of quality can be.

[STORMDAVE]

Canopus HQ codec is a very very good codec. Quality is superb. Anything above the "Online" setting, you have to have super eyes to notice a difference between the original footage and the transcoded footage.

Now AVCHD format is good, heavy on the system...but the camcorders don't even produce good images. They are mostly single CMOS or 1 CCD camcorders.

[Ron Evans]

Can't agree about AVCHD quality. My SR11 in good light has a better image than my FX1. It has beautiful colour and depth that the FX1 has difficulty producing. I just used my FX1 with SR7 and SR11 AVCHD camcorders in a multicam event, and played on my Panasonic 1080p Plasma that SR11 has the best picture ( it does of course record 1920x1080 so may have an advantage). Like all the Sony consumer cams the SR11, SR7 and my DV HC96 all use too much gain in auto when the light gets low. In manual one needs to know where the indicator for exposure is at 0 db. They are not usable above 6 db gain( though you can't tell what you used until looking at the data code afterwards !!) I got the SR11 to use as family cam rather than lug around the FX1. With all the auto features like face recognition ( which really does work well) I would use it more if editing was easier. With Panasonic coming out with the 150 in the fall I am sure Sony will have a competitive product likely a replacement for the FX1/Fx7/V1/Z1 and I will definitely be interested. The SR11 and these AVCHD cameras do have some issues. They do not code fast movement well, tends to soft focus as the main issue I have seen. This is easy to avoid, don't go in close to fast movement!!!! Its only a little worse than HDV and nowhere near as disturbing as 24p stutter!!

Ron Evans

[AJL14]

Hi Ken,

Yes, all my evaluations and testing (I have done testing for Canon, Sony, Faroudja and others) are done on a big screen at 1080p. My theater screen is 14 1/2 ft. diagonal. My theoretical horizontal resolution in 2,500 - so I do not have a problem with 1920 (3-CRT projector - still the best as long as it lasts!). I built a "black clamp" for the signal path, thereby clamping the blacks on the screen at .02% - virtually non-existent.

When I say "no loss", I am speaking of a comparison between the original AVCHD output direct from the camera, and the resulting HQ file out of the AVCHD2HQ program. On my very large screen, there is SOME loss of detail in the very fine detail areas, but on my 70" screen I can barely - if at all - detect any qulaity difference at all. And colors are "spot-on".

However, Dave does bring up a really good point. AVCHD cameras are primarily single-chip CMOS cameras, and will not deliver as good a pix as a 3-chip camera - SIDE-BY-SIDE! And even many have preferred the clean codec of HDV especially 3-chip HDV) over AVCHD - even at the 1440 horiz. resolution compared to the 1920. HOWEVER - most of the guys probably have not had the opportunity yet to test out the new 17Mbps AVCHD cameras (Sony and Canon so far)- which are (to quote a show I directed ) a QUANTUM-LEAP better than the 1st version, which was 7Mbps. At 7Mbps there is false contouring, lousy compression and artifacts all over the place - especially on my big screen. At 17Mbps - I see hardly any blocking or false contouring at all - if any. The next generation is going to be 25Mbps (the practical limit to non-professional AVCHD according to Sony) - which should be even more surprising and successful. However - even more difficult for our editing computers to stay up with, thereby necessitating even more, the AVCHD2HQ advancements, which have been met pretty successfully by GV so far.

Hope this sheds some light. See you on the forum.
Cheers,
Alan