Trancode or Not to Transcode...That is the Question

Skilled

Skilled

Well-known member
Here is a test. I used the Panasonic Transcoder software for the HMC-150. Since Vegas has no problems editing AVCHD without transcoding I decided to do a comparison test. As you can see the footage looks much better edited native AVCHD. To me its sharper, color is better and more defined. Tell me your thoughts. No color corection done of any kind.

http://vimeo.com/4979318
 
Yes, the SD transcoded material has less contrast. Have you tried transcoding to DVCPRO HD instead of SD (I know that's another option).

Thanks for the video comparison.
 
Yes..but Vegas does not seem to understand the DVCPRO transcoded video. It says its unsupported when I try to import that format. Has anyone els had that problem?
 
O by the way...I didnt realize you could play back the raw AVCHD video in media player. Wow it looks so good like that!!! I wish I could render that way and it look as good.
 
I trancode using Neo Scene and I've found that those Neo avi's hold up very well in fact I'd say it's equal to native AVCHD when rendered.

The only problems are Neo avi's are large and Neo Scene is not free.

I never did think that rendering to DVCPRO was a good work-flow.
 
Skilled said:
Here is a test. I used the Panasonic Transcoder software for the HMC-150. Since Vegas has no problems editing AVCHD without transcoding I decided to do a comparison test. As you can see the footage looks much better edited native AVCHD. To me its sharper, color is better and more defined. Tell me your thoughts. No color corection done of any kind.

http://vimeo.com/4979318
Click to expand...

Why would a Vegas user ever transcode?
 
If it’s the Panasonic transcoder, I would say "not to transcode". But something like Cineform? I would say yes- it's a more robust file that is visually lossless and handles post adjustments better than AVCHD.

In Vegas, I put a gradient on a blue sky- one on the Cineform version, and one on the original AVCHD. The AVCHD showed some slight artifacting (very subtle- had to zoom in to see it) while the 4:2:2 Cineform did not.

In Vegas, if all you are doing is straight cuts with little to no post adjustments, I would say the raw AVCHD is the way to go. But when is the last time that has happened? With all the great tools available to us, we inevitably sweeten our footage even when it looks good out of the camera.
 
Last edited:
Why would a Vegas user ever transcode?
Click to expand...
Because Vegas struggles to play most AVCHD files in realtime. If you want screamingly fast performance, transcoding to an editing codec (like cineform) can give you much snappier performance.
 
Barry_Green said:
Because Vegas struggles to play most AVCHD files in realtime. If you want screamingly fast performance, transcoding to an editing codec (like cineform) can give you much snappier performance.
Click to expand...

Im starting to believe that a custom built computer is actually worth the trouble and cost.

My relatively old (mid-2007) Asus P5K (P35 based) motherboard and Q9650 just don't have any trouble with Vegas and AVCHD. I am rendering to NTSC widescreen in just faster than realtime. I.E. a 1 hour project takes 50 minutes to render.

I keep wanting to build a hot i7 editing system, but I dont see anyone raving about the i7 being dramatically better with AVCHD.

http://techgage.com/article/asus_p5k_deluxe_wifi-ap/6
 
Last edited:
Jeff,
Custom computers are what I do for a living. I use a i7 now and have also tested the AMD Phenoms and the AMD performes just as well. Let me know if I can help you.
 
Have you edited AVCHD on a core 2 and then can compare it to a i7 or Phenoms?

Skilled said:
Jeff,
Custom computers are what I do for a living. I use a i7 now and have also tested the AMD Phenoms and the AMD performes just as well. Let me know if I can help you.
Click to expand...
 
Barry_Green said:
Because Vegas struggles to play most AVCHD files in realtime. If you want screamingly fast performance, transcoding to an editing codec (like cineform) can give you much snappier performance.
Click to expand...

Not only that, but my transcodes with NeoScene just look better than native AVCHD. Much more latitude, especially in the dark areas.
 
jeff9329 said:
Why would a Vegas user ever transcode?
Click to expand...

My 3 yr old laptop struggles (to put it mildly) to edit the native files. After transcoding with Neo Scene, it edits in real time. My quad core does OK, but still not as well as with the Cineform files. The other option that I have been experimenting with is proxy editing. Still takes time to transcode initially, but after that you edit in real time and your final render is from the original .mts files.

Another reason to transcode is that while I use Vegas as my NLE, I like to do effects, color correction, compositing, etc. in After Effects. Since I only have versions 6.5 and 7.0, I have to transcode in order to import the files.
 
Last edited:
I am actually starting to see transcoding as a good thing, and I am starting to prefer it. Here are two reasons:

Transcoding to Cineform creates a stronger file for post (4:2:2 10bit) and is visually identical

Proxy editing not only allows you to render from the originals, but rendering from the proxy first gives you a very good SD version (Vasst Gearshift)

Now the downside is you need more storage for the proxies and transoded versions, and the time that it takes to transcode them. In a large production environment this may be a no-go. But for me it’s negligible.
 
Transcoding, or any sort of conversion is a thing of the past with my workflow. Now that Adobe has released the 4.1 update to their CS4 editing suite, I can edit with DV-like ease, any flavor of AVCHD, including 21mbps. All from a simple software update, go figure.

I understand the reasons behind converting to a 4:2:2 format like with Cineform, but I just don't have the need for it, nor would I want to spend the extra time doing the conversion.

I like the fact that now I can just set my HMC150 to 1080p 30 and just shoot whatever and whenever, without dreading the inevitable editing process.

System:

Vista 64bit Ultimate SP2
ASUS P5Q Pro
Q6600 OC'd to 3.0Ghz
8GB 1066 RAM
Nvidia Quadro FX1700
10K Sata Raptors
 
digitalcapturegroup said:
Transcoding, or any sort of conversion is a thing of the past with my workflow. Now that Adobe has released the 4.1 update to their CS4 editing suite, I can edit with DV-like ease, any flavor of AVCHD, including 21mbps. All from a simple software update, go figure.
Click to expand...

I may end up with CS4 if it works as well as some have been saying
 
I am glad CS4 is working so far so good.
I have some old footage I keep thinking about bringing it back in to tighten up some shots.

I also have some old HVX200 (that is funny calling that old) footage that I would like to have re-edited and saved as a master full raster cineform file.

I may do that as well.....if I can figure out which hard drive it is on.

Yeah Premiere Pro CS4 seems to be all I need ( i say that about every 8 months untill something else comes out). I can do AVCHD, color and save master as a full raster HD file.

Cineform makes it smoother for me.
AVCHD makes the original files smaller and easier to store.

When the speed improvement for cineform is final, that will just be icing on the cake.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top