AVC-HD Editing on older, weaker computers

N

notharrylume

Active member
Am I correct in thinking that if I want to edit AVC-HD video on my Dell Vostro 200 Computer [Pentium Dual E2140, 1.6Ghz, 1 GB RAM] that I need to convert the AVCHD files to an intermediate codec like AVI using a conversion program like Cineform Neo Scene?

As far as I can tell my computer specs aren't adequate to edit AVCHD natively, but it appears as if editing AVI files requires far less processing power. I don't want to buy a new computer if I don't have to. I would be editing long form narritive using CS3 or Vegas8.

Thanks very much for your advice.
 
Yes, you'll need to convert it to an intermediate. My 2.4 quad core running Vista 64 struggles with it, so I doubt your rig could handle it. And CS3 won't accept AVCHD period.

I would double check that a dual core 1.6 will run Cineform. I think I read somewhere that 1.6 dual might be the absolute lower limit.
 
Oh, you are DEFINITELY going to need to transcode. I have a machine with specs similar to yours and I worked with SD proxies on that thing instead. I do some full res HD rendering on it over the weekends when it would just be idle.

Cineform is nice, but a bit pricey. There are other options out there that work pretty well or even better than Cineform for this kind of work. When you start to get into 4:4:4 workflows or 2k+ workflows, then Cineform really shines. I'm just really done with the AVI container.
 
Thanks very much guys. That's very helpful. If I don't convert to Cineform AVI, what do you suggest? DVCPROHD or something else?
 
Hope this is not off topic, but....I am growing somewhat weary of transcoding and am not a fan of the 1GB/minute file sizes that the Panny DVCProHD transcoder creates. So I was starting to look at ordering up a new computer. I was looking at HP's with a 2.8 Ghz Quad Core, 8GB's RAM, 1GB video card, etc. Still from many of the posts I've read lately, even such a machine as this may not be adequate to edit AVCHD natively.
When it comes to editing AVCHD natively, just how strong a machine is necessary? would these basic specs cover it?
 
Adequate? Yes. I guess it depends on what your editing software is. My machine is 2.4 quad, 8gig RAM, and 512Mb graphics card, and Vista 64 with CS4. I think the weak link for me is CS4. Plenty of folks are editing issue free with Vegas. But in the choice of going to Vegas for $500, transcoding to DVCProHD for free, or transcoding to Cineform for $130 (Neo Scene) or $750 (Prospect HD)... I'd honestly rather spend the $750. AVCHD aside, I like CS4.
 
I chose to go with DNxHD for free. All the benefits of Cineform (for 2k or less) without the cash outlay. But I worked with Cineform for quite some time. Now that I have to trade files with the broadcasters instead of tapes, I needed something more universal than Cineform.
 
It is less expensive and easier to transcode, than to build a super laptop to edit footage that it still may not be able to edit.
 
Ask David Jimerson what he's running; I've seen him edit PH mode footage in realtime, drag 'n' drop from the SD card to the timeline in Premiere Pro CS4...
 
I am using Premiere Pro CS3. I'm going to try that DNxHD, as I am now having a lot of problems transcoding to DVCProHD via Main Concept's tool.
I select all clips, and let it run overnight. When I come back, I get an error message that clip 7 dropped some frames and was not transcoded. Both times, it's clip 7. Yet when I drop it on my timeline in Premiere, it will play back fine.
Additionally, when I select the MXF files and put them in the Premiere project folder, they are somehow out of sequence. Very aggravating!
 
Green Hornet said:
It is less expensive and easier to transcode, than to build a super laptop to edit footage that it still may not be able to edit.
Click to expand...


You are right about that, except that on my older (2 years is old!?!) transcoding takes forever, as does burning an MPEG file for authoring a DVD of the completed file. Plus the file sizes are so large. In this respect, it makes tape look good.

Yeah, memory is cheap these days 1TB drives can be had for $130 at FRY's, or $225 for an eSata version.... until you get to running about 9 external drives like I am. Then it gets to be a PITA. Smaller file sizes would be a real plus for me.
 
PerroneFord said:
I chose to go with DNxHD for free.
Click to expand...

What tool do you use for this transcoding? DNxHD is just a codec, right?

I was looking at VoltaicHD, which is relatively cheap, and the demo seemed to work OK. Anyone had much experience with that tool?

Thanks,
Chris.
 
sewolla said:
You are right about that, except that on my older (2 years is old!?!) transcoding takes forever, as does burning an MPEG file for authoring a DVD of the completed file. Plus the file sizes are so large. In this respect, it makes tape look good.

Yeah, memory is cheap these days 1TB drives can be had for $130 at FRY's, or $225 for an eSata version.... until you get to running about 9 external drives like I am. Then it gets to be a PITA. Smaller file sizes would be a real plus for me.
Click to expand...

If you think transcoding takes forever, then that is not a laptop that would edit your AVCHD files either. Transcoding should be about 2 times faster than real time.
On an hour worth of footage, it might take a half hour.

If you are doing any type of editing, and your laptop is the weak link, you may not know when to make the cut, due to the speed being too slow. If it is playing back like a slide show, you may not be able to clearly hear the sound to initiate the cut.

Then when you are done with the edit, you will have to render that.
Render time, slow editing of avchd, the experience is easier to solve (in my view) to go with transcoding.


I started editing avchd and hvx200 footage on a P4 laptop.
Almost impossible without transcoding.

Once transcoded, it was easier than DV.

Currently I can edit avchd, with CS4.
I am instead waiting for cineform to work with CS4 before trying to edit the footage I have.

It is that better of an experience to edit the transcoded footage than to try edit avchd. Not only that, once I go to cineform with a 10 bit codec, the color correcting is way better. Going into magic bullet will also rid the Panosonic cameras of that grit they are know for.

Grit= lower resolution upconvert to full raster, similiar to grain in film, but digital.

Once you go to 10 bit codec and add some processing, you can get it buttery smooth and more colorful, than leaving it native.
 
I am editing on a desktop, core dual but an early one, editing with Premiere Pro CS3. I am taking about 3 to 4 times real time to transcode, 10 to 12 hours to burn a MPEG2DVD file for a one hour length project. Finished file size of that one hour project is about 79GB's.
I had hoped that getting a stronger machine would allow me to edit native AVCHD files, bypass the transcoding time and finish with a much smaller file size.

But is it sort of the consensus of this board that its best to maybe get a stronger machine, but keep going the transcoding route?
If so, how do you archieve a file that's 79GB's? That is too large for even BD, which goes, I believe, up to 50GB's.
I would like to get figured out what it is I really need, and I will go and get it. I am really enjoying te quality putput of this cam, its low loght and low noise are great, especially for the price.
 
sewolla said:
...

But is it sort of the consensus of this board that its best to maybe get a stronger machine, but keep going the transcoding route?
If so, how do you archieve a file that's 79GB's? That is too large for even BD, which goes, I believe, up to 50GB's.
I would like to get figured out what it is I really need, and I will go and get it. I am really enjoying te quality putput of this cam, its low loght and low noise are great, especially for the price.
Click to expand...


I would get the software to transcode first, and see how that worked....then when machine costs come down (relative to what you currently have), get a better machine.

$800 on software that can transcode and increase your file to 10bit for grading, will be 4 times faster than what you have if you use Adobe premiere.

$800 on new hard ware will buy you a cheap laptop similiar to what you have.
Even a $2,000 laptop will not be much faster, maybe 10-20% at best.


If you have large files you need to store, just get removable hard drives, and dock them to a device like this:

http://gizmodo.com/gadgets/hard-drive/hdd-dock-plugs-bare-sata-drives-like-nes-cartridges-312747.php





.
 
ctann said:
What tool do you use for this transcoding? DNxHD is just a codec, right?

I was looking at VoltaicHD, which is relatively cheap, and the demo seemed to work OK. Anyone had much experience with that tool?

Thanks,
Chris.
Click to expand...

I use any of my machines. None are very fast, but that's ok with me. I don't have to tie up my editing machine with transcoding. I am hoping to order a new dual quad-core next week. And yes, DNxHD is just a codec.

Voltaic appears to be aimed at the FCE, iMovie, Windows Movie Maker crowd. I need professional tools.
 
PerroneFord said:
Voltaic appears to be aimed at the FCE, iMovie, Windows Movie Maker crowd. I need professional tools.
Click to expand...

Wow, that's pretty dismissive.... Out of interest, what is that judgement based on?

I am *not* in need of "professional" tools - too high a learning curve, too high a price. Yes, there is a lot of "chaff" in the consumer-grade tools, but a bit of searching can show up the wheat as well...

Chris.
 
ctann said:
Wow, that's pretty dismissive.... Out of interest, what is that judgement based on?

I am *not* in need of "professional" tools - too high a learning curve, too high a price. Yes, there is a lot of "chaff" in the consumer-grade tools, but a bit of searching can show up the wheat as well...

Chris.
Click to expand...

That judgment is based on my reading their webpage, and them essentially giving instructions for use in windows movie maker and final cut express. Typically, when you look at products aimed at pro users or prosumers, they offer instructions for how to use their product with FCP, Premiere, Avid MC, Vegas, etc. Also note the camera's supported list. All are consumer cameras. The HMC-150 isn't even mentioned.

My intent was not to be dismissive, but merely to point out who the tool seems to be directed at based on the information offered by the company itself.

If you don't need professional tools, that's fine. And this product may do exactly what you need it to do. But when I see a product that transcodes AVCHD into WMV for editing in Windows Movie Maker, they've completely lost my interest.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top