HD Video

[AlexM]

I am thinking of buying a new Sony camcorder.
Is there any version of Video Studio that can edit HD video?
It records in Mpeg2 AVCHD.


Thanks

[Ken Berry]

Tell us the model number of the camera. I am afraid that AVCHD is mpeg-4, not mpeg-2, so we don't really know whether you are wanting a HDV model (high def mpeg-2) or AVCHD (high def mpeg-4).

FWIW, any version of VS since VS10+ can handle HDV with no problem. AVCHD is a much more difficult format, and VS11.5+ and VS12 are supposed to be able to handle it. However, in practice, there have been one or two bugs already noted. And some of the most recent Canon and Panasonic AVCHD cameras are apparently using a format of the AVCHD codec which VS either cannot see properly or simply cannot handle properly. Corel is said to be working on a patch for VS12 which should correct at least one of these bugs. Hopefully it might also update the program so that it can handle the latest cameras as well.

The other thing you absolutely have to know about AVCHD is that, regardless of the editing program you use, you must have at the very least a decent Core 2 Duo or Core 2 Quad. Even using Video Studio's SmartProxy feature -- which creates standard definition proxy versions of the high def originals, to make editing smooth -- you need at least a Pentium 4 3.0 GHz processor with hyper-threading...

The basic message is that at the moment, AVCHD is not for the faint-hearted. It's a great format, particularly in terms of quality-to-size. But even a modest Google search will reveal that there are a lot of users out there searching for a decent editing program which can deal with it well.

[AlexM]

Thanks for the answer Ken.
It looks like I will have to wait some time before going HD.
My processor is a 2.20 gigahertz AMD Athlon 64 X2 Dual Core
I also have been reading about the many problems people are having trying to edit HDV.
It sounds like more trouble than it is worth.

Tell us the model number of the camera. I am afraid that AVCHD is mpeg-4, not mpeg-2, so we don't really know whether you are wanting a HDV model (high def mpeg-2) or AVCHD (high def mpeg-4).

FWIW, any version of VS since VS10+ can handle HDV with no problem. AVCHD is a much more difficult format, and VS11.5+ and VS12 are supposed to be able to handle it. However, in practice, there have been one or two bugs already noted. And some of the most recent Canon and Panasonic AVCHD cameras are apparently using a format of the AVCHD codec which VS either cannot see properly or simply cannot handle properly. Corel is said to be working on a patch for VS12 which should correct at least one of these bugs. Hopefully it might also update the program so that it can handle the latest cameras as well.

The other thing you absolutely have to know about AVCHD is that, regardless of the editing program you use, you must have at the very least a decent Core 2 Duo or Core 2 Quad. Even using Video Studio's SmartProxy feature -- which creates standard definition proxy versions of the high def originals, to make editing smooth -- you need at least a Pentium 4 3.0 GHz processor with hyper-threading...

The basic message is that at the moment, AVCHD is not for the faint-hearted. It's a great format, particularly in terms of quality-to-size. But even a modest Google search will reveal that there are a lot of users out there searching for a decent editing program which can deal with it well.

[Black Lab]

I think you may be confusing things, or else I'm confused.

There are two types of hi-def formats. One is AVCHD, which is hi-def MPEG-4, and is usually found in cams with hard drives or memory cards. To edit this format you need a lot of horse power under the hood of your pc. The other hi-def format is HDV, which is hi-def MPEG-2, and is recorded onto mini-dv tape. This format is much easier to edit. You could easily do it with your machine.

Since you initially said the cam you are looking at is MPEG-2 AVCHD (has to be one or the other), I'm not sure if you are confusing the formats or simply using "HDV" to mean hi-def video.

[tony62]

I recently purchased a Sony Handycam which records on a hard drive in AVCHD. It was impossible to edit the files on my P4 system (have a look) even when I was using the Smart Proxy feature of VS X2. So I was forced to upgrade to a 2 Quad Core with 2 MB RAM. This now does the job very. So camera and PC came to a total of $3000.00
If you want quality then you have to pay for it, if you want to move to High Definition Video.

[Ken Berry]

And just to emphasise what Black Lab has already said, and I tried to, as far as I am aware, HDV is in fact an easy format to edit and requires no special computing power to do so. I recall no particular problems people had with it, apart from in VS10 where a special patch had to be brought out to export HDV back to Canon cameras.

It is AVCHD which is the killer.

[AlexM]

Thanks for the replies, Ken, Tony and Black lab.
I have been looking at and reading reviews of several Camcorders, so I probably did get some terms confused.
I was leaning toward the hard drive or flash drive models but now am having second thoughts. Is HDV as good as or almost as good as AVCHD?
I rarely look at my standard definition video on an a TV. I almost alway put them in my computer and edit them, and usually watch them on the computer.
A few times, I have put the edited video back on the tape in my Sony 560X.
If I get an HDV camcorder, would I be able to do the same with it, watching on an HD TV?

The only thing worse than watching my unedited video, is watching someone elses unedited video.

Alex

[Ken Berry]

I tend to be biased. I made a careful study of the pros and cons of both AVCHD and HDV cameras before actually buying one, and settled on the HDV model (Canon HV20) because I was very familiar with mini DV tapes and because there were no particularly special requirements for editing the format. Essentially a decent computer and VS10+ would do a good job.

AVCHD, on the other hand, presents advantages in terms of the size of some of the cameras (the ones that use USB storage tend to be very small) and the quality of the video for the size of the files. But it seemed -- and still does -- to be a format which has not yet quite settled down. The different camera manufacturers appear to trying out new standards and AVCHD codecs. And as usual, the software manufacturers are scrambling to catch up. They haven't managed to do so convincingly as yet. And this is not to mention the fact that you require at least a decent Core 2 Duo or Quad to have a chance of not only editing your AVCHD, but even playing it back smoothly on the computer.

Usually, the AVCHD cameras come with some basic proprietary editing software made by the camera manufactuer which works with that camera. But it is indeed basic. The bottom line is that, in my opinion, AVCHD cameras are still better for those who want to point and shoot, not do much editing and quickly play things back on a HDTV. More serious users still face enormous editing hurdles, and no one yet seems to have brought out a perfect program within the budget of most average users.

As for quality, to me they are much the same, though AVCHD quality can vary considerably because there are so many varieties of it, depending on the camera -- both in terms of the codec/technology, and the frame size, bitrate and other properties used. So when I say the quality of AVCHD and HDV are pretty much the same, I am talking about AVCHD shot and edited using high quality settings (1920 x 1080 and a bitrate of around 18 Mbps -- though Canon now has an AVCHD camera which uses a bitrate of max. 24 Mbps. But that is one that VS and other software packages have severe difficulty with.)

Although there are a couple of variants of HDV, essentially another advantage for me is that there is a main single standard (1440 x 1080 at CBR 25 Mbps). And that is easily as good as top quality AVCHD. Some even argue that it is better, though perhaps my eyes aren't up to the job of detecting any significant differences. (I can, however, easily detect AVCHD which has been shot using lesser quality settings when compared to HDV.) One argument is that AVCHD tends to show high definition shimmer in fast panning shots more than HDV, and this may be so, but fast pans in HDV are also pretty awful and best avoided.

The downside with HDV for many users is the same as its main upside for me -- the DV tape. As with SD mini DV cameras, everything is done in real time. So one hour of HDV video takes one hour to capture. With an AVCHD camera, transfer of the video to computer is only a matter of seconds. Fortunately, I am patient!

As a final comment, there are quite a lot of predictions that mini DV/HDV is probably on its way out at the consumer level. But the same predictions note that it will remain the preference for professionals. For me, that says a lot in support of the strength of the HDV format and I am more than content to stick with it for the momet.

Oh, and as for your other question: yes, you can send the edited HDV back in transport stream format (like it is shot in) to the camera, and then hook up the camera via its HDMI port direct to the HDTV. The camera then in effect acts like a mini Blu-Ray player... A warning here, though: VS11.5+ and 12 both seem to have a problem doing this with Canon HDV cameras (but not the other brands). This problem was first noticed with VS10+ and Ulead, as it then was, brought out a patch which fixed the problem. But for some unknown reason, this was not included in the later versions. (Adobe Premiere Pro CS3 also has a similar problem with Canon HDV cameras. I don't know if this has been fixed with the recent CS4.) Anyway, I am lucky that I still have VS10+, and so I have used that to successfully send my edited HDV back to the camera.

Now, however, I have to admit that I don't bother since I have bought a PlayStation 3 which I have networked to my computer. I can thus stream my edited HDV from computer to my HDTV via the PS3. The result is simply marvellous. The PS3 will also play HDV (and AVCHD) copied to either a USB stick or external USB hard drive (formatted in FAT32), and also play edited HDV burnt as an archive on an SD DVD. It will also play 'hybrid discs' which are high definition AVCHD burned to a Blu-Ray format directory on a standard definition DVD. So all in all the PS3 is a versatile device which opens up the whole world of home high definition video without the necessity of having to move immediately to expensive Blu-Ray!

[AlexM]

Thanks Ken,

After thinking it over, I decided not to go high def for now.
I'll wait a few years. I bought a JVC GZ_MG330U.
A nice small camera with 35X optical zoom and a 30G hard drive.

[lespurgeon]

I have an HDR-HC1 (first Sony consumer HDV) and edit on an X2 4400+ with VS11.5+ (previously with 10+) with 2 GB ram under Win XP Pro. While not really FAST, it is plenty powerful to get the job done. OK, I have been known to render overnight, but the hardware can take it.

AVCHD does requrie more guts.

Personally, I would not buy and SD equipment ever again. NTSC SD is dead, and HD will take over soon.

[2Dogs]

NTSC SD is dead, and HD will take over soon.

But for the next two or three years, we'll see many proud parents shooting video of their kids in glorious high def but without a clue as to how to edit it. Could be a business opportunity for Graham Skier-Hughes!

[ptrcka]

I ageee with Ken. Having tried both AVCHD and HD tape I noticed that AVCHD playback from all camcorders I experimented with is always a little bit jerky when panning. Canon HV 20 (now HV30) produces excellent quality and the editing is really no problem even with less powerful PCs. I do not want this to appear like an ad for Canon but it really works.

[JohnDale]

Sony Vegas seems to handle AVCHD editing well. As far as editing HDV goes if I convert a AVCHD file to HDV then I still get Jerky play back in the time line the same as AVCHD. Also if I use four of the overlay tracks all with video, as in four pictures on the screen I cannot see any difference between AVCHD and HDV when playing back in the time line. I have a core 2 qaud 2.8Ghz, 2GB ram.