Glitchy mpeg output in VS12

[DavidCresswell]

Thanks to everyone who responded to my original thread on this subject.

After reading through all these points and also looking at the sticky about AVCHD "blips", it appears that the manufacturers of AVCHD video cameras have got a bit of "tidyng up" to do before our "blip" and "glitch" problems go away.

I guess we shouldn't expect Corel to attempt to cover all the deficiencies of the various camera models from Canon, Panasonic and Sony.

I eventually gave up using VS12 and started using a downloaded trial version of the software mentioned by Van Rouge in his earlier post. I have edited and burned a 10 minute DVD, using the raw .MTS files in my timeline, adding still images, a number of transitions, titles and a music track. PERFECT DVD-Video output which plays on my oldest and newest DVD player as well as on my PC without any glitches or artefacts.

Looks like for AVCHD, I shall move my work to this "other" software in future. Thanks again Guys for all your comments.

[erdna]

I downloaded and played a bit with Magix Deluxe 16. I made a short AVCHD disk.Took more time than VS but was OK. I did not specifically verify the VS blib problems. The UI is a bit strange, and there were very little transistion, title...options. Maybe because I have a trial version?

[DavidCresswell]

Well erdna, I downloaded the Magix Movie Edit Pro 15 trial and that has quite a lot of transitions and title templates to use. Perhaps the Deluxe 16 is a reduced and cheaper version of that.

[me]

............... So if you are somewhere along the line using Lower Field First in any of your settings, that is the cause. Your high def originals are AVCHD and either .mts in the original form in the camera or as you realise, .m2ts when captured from the camera... So the first thing I would be doing all along the production line would be to ensure everything uses Upper Field First...

Sorry to respond to an old thread, but I have a question about the statement above.

Are you saying that, when one imports progressive non-interlaced AVCHD video into VS, then saves to interlaced MPEG-2 for a DVD, one should choose upper field first?

If so, it sure would be nice, if in that situation, the program would know that, and when one tries to save to DVD, would set the default to upper field first.

Instead, the default is set for lower field first. Most users might not know much about upper and lower fields, and just go with the default. Why is the default interlace setting, when rendering AVCHD to DVD-MPEG-2, lower field first, if it is supposed to be set the other way?

[Black Lab]

Well, I guess the default had to be set to something. A few years ago the majority of cams in the market place were mini-dv, which would be lower field first. With the introduction of HD has come more cams using upper field first. What basis Corel uses to determine their default values is anyone's guess.

[me]

Well, I guess the default had to be set to something. A few years ago the majority of cams in the market place were mini-dv, which would be lower field first. With the introduction of HD has come more cams using upper field first. What basis Corel uses to determine their default values is anyone's guess.

My point though, was that although Corel does not know what brand of camcorder you use, the program does see the info for the clips you import. (For instance, one can right-click any clip in storyboard view, and it will give you all the info on it.

In the share section, save to disk, one can choose the option "same settings as first clip". Therefore, it knows the settings of the material you are starting with.

If it knows that the clips that will be rendered will render better with upper field first, shouldn't it set the default that way, rather than the opposite?

------------

By the way, I wouldn't say that most HD cams are "upper field first". Don't most HD cams shoot progressive, no interlacing, that means no upper and lower fields at all. Mine does certainly. Therefore, I assumed that either form of interlacing would work, as the original was not interlaced, so I stuck with the default.

However, in reading that post above, I'm wondering if I should have changed it to upper field first, and whether that could have made the difference with the transition problem I described in another post.

[Ken Berry]

I don't think that all that many HD camcorders film in progressive mode. The majority use either 1920 x 1080i or 1440 x 1080i -- with a stress on the "i" for interlaced. By comparison, there are only a few which shoot in 1280 x 720p... though the number is growing, particularly with digital still cameras which have their video component in AVCHD Lite...

[me]

I don't think that all that many HD camcorders film in progressive mode. The majority use either 1920 x 1080i or 1440 x 1080i -- with a stress on the "i" for interlaced. By comparison, there are only a few which shoot in 1280 x 720p... though the number is growing, particularly with digital still cameras which have their video component in AVCHD Lite...

That is what i have--a digital still camera that shoots in AVCHD Lite--720 P.

As you say, that is a growing segment.

Therefore, why does the the new VS not have any templates to save a video file in 720p?

However, my main question here--- should video that is originally progressive, non-interlaced, when saved to DVD format, be interlaced upper field first?

(By the way, tried that, did not solve the transition problem from the other thread.

[Ken Berry]

In fact, I would think that if the original were progessive, then it would not really matter whether you used Upper or Lower Field first as each frame is a full scan, as opposed to an interlaced half scan. You could also try Frame Based which is the SD equivalent to progressive scan...