Canon Decod MXF Files

[aljimenez]

Well Ken I am tickled and very happy with your tip. It produced a 24Mbps render that is stunning. Not that the AVCHD was bad; in fact, not sure I can tell the difference. The thing is that AVCHD is so efficient that in less Mbps can produce incredible quality. I think AVCHD is the most efficient codec right now. In any case thanks for this suggestion. We have buried this great discussion into a thread that does not indicate it. Perhaps you or someone else could copy this thread with a better title for others to benefit... Al

[Ken Berry]

I wouldn't worry too much about it. I have repeated much the same thing time and time again in other threads too, and I can certainly do so again if the need arises!! Though I agree that rendered HDV mpeg-2 and Blu-Ray mpeg-2 looks remarkably identical to AVCHD rendered with high quality settings. But though AVCHD wins out in terms of size, it is still the most difficult codec for most people to handle in terms of computer technology. But it is certainly the way of the future as both computers and software manufacturers catch up...

[aljimenez]

A last postscript: I just watched on my HD TV displayed via my WD TV Live media player the three files: 1- AVCHD ~1.5GB, 2 - Blueray mpeg ~2.7GB, and 3 - Blueray mpeg4 ~1.8GB I could tell a very slightly better image of some tile roof homes in a portion of the video with #2, with #1 a close second. Except where the higher Mbps rendered those detailed sections better, the two are the same. It is great to know that higher quality with VS is possible if necessary... Al

[Ken Berry]

I opt for the "necessary" each and every time!!