AVCHD workflow and quality loss

I have been trying to establish a workflow with imovie and my Canon HF100 to make a BD with menus. I tried the Canon program on windows that edits AVCHD natively, and it is miserable. I still keep parallels around just in case I decide to use the Canon program again, but I probably need to move on for the power of iMovie and FCE. I absolutely love the new iMovie for really quick edits and I have FCE on hand for the advanced stuff.
The reality is that using iMovie entails quality change. I have been spending weeks looking over clips on my PS3 and 52" panny plasma to decide which workflow to chose. I am sharing my experience for anyone who cares and please comment.
I have taken screen shots, because they are easier to show differences, but the missing comparison would be MPEG compression noise, which I will comment on. The lighting and backgrounds were chosen to show the differences more clearly. I watched many more video clips than Im showing, but the findings are all pretty consistent between clips.
http://picasaweb.google.com/robanderi/CanonHF100AVCHD17mbpsIMovieComparison#
A. The 1st set of cat pictures were done to test the workflow AVCHD -->import to AIC -->export to mp4 18mbps --> Burn Blu-ray disc using Toast 18mbps. I think the end product is ~8% inferior due to a what you can see in the pictures (brightening, maybe a loss of detail and more ...green?) PLUS this test had the largest increase in MPEG compression noise during playback.
B. The second set of pictures shows: AVCHD --> import to AIC --> export to AIC --> Burn Blu-ray 18mbps. The changes seem to be similar to the first test, but the MPEG compression noise was not as bad after the conversion. I would call this 5% inferior. Whatever percentage YOU give test A, I would say B will always be slightly worse by a tiny margin factoring in the MPEG noise.
C. Same as B.
D. Adding an h.264 conversion to another h.264 conversion changes the picture ever so slightly as I mentioned before, but you cannot see the MPEG noise that is the biggest deal.
E. Importing the media from AVCHD to AIC in Imovie seems to not be that big of a deal, except the picture darkens slightly resulting in the loss of information upon subsequent conversions.
CONVERSION TIME: Doing TWO h.264 conversions takes longer than going from AIC --> AIC then AIC --> mp4.
SPACE: Option B consumes massive space, because then you have TWO collections of AIC's plus space for the end video. My hour video thus needed 110GB! 50 + 50 + 10.
END RESULT: Option A: you can keep the best copy for viewing on the computer and have a BD. Takes longer, but you get two products. BD is not as good. Option B: Faster and better BD, but you really only have a BD and no copy for the computer (unless you fish out the .mts files). You would have to convert the iMovie again for a computer copy.
The last option is to eliminate the double conversion and just not have a BD with a menu. Will a regular BD player play a straight mp4 file?

AIC is a lossy intermediate codec.
You need to consider moving up to FCP which facilitates pro res HQ conversions.

Similar Messages

Subtitles: FCP or DVDSP? Best workflow and quality?

I have always placed subtitles in FCP. I am now looking at DVDSP instead. This will help I know if I ever need a second language option. But how is the workflow and is the quality good?
For me it seems easier in FCP, because I can make editing decisions while seeing the subtitle. Having to make a locked and final edit and still not have subtitles in place appears more difficult and prone to problems. Anyone find these problems easy to deal with using DVDSP for subtitles?

Jon Braeley wrote:
I am talking about subtitles not captions
Maybe. the function isn't the issue, it's the delivery method that makes the determination. Are you encoding to Line 21, burning the text over the video, or creating a stream of subtitle data? Most DVD players cannot handle Line 21, that's a function of the television set. All DVD players can access up to 32 subtitle streams. If you're burning the subs into the video, it doesn't matter how you play the video.
My question is that if the delivery is to be DVD, why do some users still create subtitles in FCP instead of DVDSP?
Subtitling in FCP is still a grim chore. Just seems that DVDSP would be the better option, or does FCP offer much better text quality-format options?
There is no option to burn in "subtitles" in DVDSP. DVD subtitles are streams of text and formatting data, not text image files, although sub streams can display graphics. FCP does not have a utility to export text objects as subtitle data streams in STL, SMI, SML, SON, or SCR formats. You cannot import a QT movie into the subtitle tracks.
So, where you create the subtitles is determined by two things: a) your need for flexibility (for changes or to receive data from another source) and b) your need for quality. Subs created and drawn onto the screen by the DVD player will be fairly high quality. Text that is burned into the video will never be any better than the encoder settings you used for the MPEG2.
bogiesan

Exported Wraptor dcp File-Size difference and quality loss

Hi,
I am currently working on exporting a short trailer (45 sec) to wraptor-dcp with AME straight from an After Effects project.
In the export-preferences the estimated files size is about 8000MB (check out the screenshot).
But the finalized dcp only has a size of 180MB. That irritated me so I downloaded a demo of easyDCP to check the material. The dcp is working fine but the quality is a mess even in comparison to a small mp4 (take a look at the second comparison screenshot: dcp left and mp4 (H264) on the right). Gradients are destroyed and chunky.
Also with the color transformation off, the colors feel dull and only fit if I choose 'X'Y'Z » R'G'B (P3). Should it be that way? How can I enhance the quality of the dcp?
All the best,
Jay
1 Export Settings (I just choose the wraptor setting in AME '2K Digital Cinema Flat' and did not change any settings)
2. Comparison dcp / mp4 (H264)

Will there be a new update coming soon?
Problem: Wraptor DCP will play on GDC-TMS 8.0 at one theater and will not play at another theater running GDC-TMS 9.0
Identified: Xsize/Ysize problems when reading on GDC-TMS 9.0. XOsize is wacked!
Although GDC-TMS is part of the problem...please help fix the Wraptor DCP part of the problem!
-Eric
Geek-4-Hire
@DailyGeekTip

IMovie 11 and quality loss with Sony Handycam DCR-SX33e

Hi folks,
I have a Sony Handycam DCR-SX33e (good one!) and iMovie '11 recognizes it, it's able to import movies directly from the cam, creates events, etc... BUT the quality of the movies within iMovie environment is very very poor (i.e. pixels big like a house!) BUT if I look at the movies using QT (from iMovie events, "reveal in Finder" on a movie), the quality is perfect.
Still, if I make a project and finalize it, the exported movies are horribles.
I notice that the cam works with a DV-PAL resolution (720x576), but iMovie works with wide resolutions.
How can I work with iMovie without losing quality on my movies? Can QuickTime MPEG-2 Playback Component for Mac OS X help?
Thank you!
Bye

Geriatra,
Don't judge the imported footage in iMovie11 on the clip area and the monitor area. They are not a true representation of the finalized project. What's the best way to judge if the footage is imported properly is to look at the actual footage itself by clicking the clip and then select reveal in finder. Play the footage and see if it matches the original. If you do not want iMovie to optimize the footage, you can deselect this feature and it will simply either copy or move your original footage.
Personally, I don't know if iMovie 6HD helps because your Mac still needs to read MPEG-2 properly which you said are not having any success. Over here on my Macbook, I have no problems working with MPEG-2 converted files and with iMovie 11. Quality is superb. Albeit, I converted those MPEG-2 files using my faster Quad Core Vista 64 machine and posted them later on my RAID network server before being made available for the Mac.
Hope this helps.

Imovie workflow and quality

I have a Sanyo Xacti VPC-e2 video camera. It was a gift. Anyway, I shot some footage indoors with plenty of available light and used a tripod. The quality was sort of soft and not very good and since it's a brand new camera I can't tell if it's b/c of the way I imported the footage. I hooked the SD card reader to my USB port and tried importing directly to imovie. All looked good except that imovie didn't import the 5 clips entirely. For some reason each clip imported but only a 20 seconds of each 2 minute clip. So, I tried copying the files from the SD card to my hardrive and then importing to imovie. This resolved the issue and all the clips were present. I dragged the parts of the clip that I wanted to the project space and was all done. Is there anything that I did that would degrade the quality or it the camera?

I had a Wal-mart special Sanyo. I think it was the HD100. It was very sharp and the HD looked really good but it struggled with lighting and horrible inside with low light. The WB pulled a vacuum.
I am not familiar with your model at all.
--Mickey

HDV or AVCHD editing = processor utilization = import/exp. quality loss

Hello,
my question about processability of HDV/AVCHD Movies with iMovie. I have learned that HDV and AVCHD files are transfered in the AIC format. That should mean editig a movie would be always in the AIC format and I assume no difference whether I come from HDV or AVCHD format it should be similar demanding to the core2duo processor except initial transcoding from H264 to AIC - is this right?. When I save a movie out of iMovie do I save it in AIC or in HDV/AVCHD? Is there a quality loss transferring a movie back and forth from/to HDV/AVCHD to AIC since HDV employs mpeg2 and AVCHD employs H264 which are both compressed formats? Practically does this also mean that AIC can work as a bridge to between both formats?
Thanks for your replies to my several questions!

I have cut/pasted this from another thread where I posted it following a question from a Canon HV20 owner. The info applies to all HDV and AVCHD cams though. Might help you decide.
This comes from www.camcorderinfo.com
Compression (7.0)
The Canon HV20 (Review, Specs, Recent News, $903) uses HDV compression, a very efficient MPEG-2 codec with a fixed data rate of 25Mbps, identical to the data rate of standard definition DV compression. HDV excels in capturing stunningly high-resolution video, but it is inferior to DV in terms of rendering motion realistically, due to its dependence on interframe compression. This means that at 1080i, only one in fifteen frames is a full-frame picture, while the intervening frames are compressed in relation to each full I frame. Interframe compression is much more efficient than intraframe compression, and allows HDV to squeeze a full 1920 x 1080 picture into a 25Mbps stream, recordable to inexpensive MiniDV tapes. DV uses intraframe compression, so each frame is a fully independent picture, allowing much better motion capture. DV also uses a superior 4:1:1 color space while HDV encodes via a truncated 4:2:0 color space.
The inherent weaknesses of HDV have led many networks to deem the format sub-standard for broadcast, but it is still the best high definition format available on the consumer camcorder market. Most consumers find the stunning resolution of HDV trumps the superior motion handling of DV. A professionally lit HDV interview (or any HDV shot without too much detail or motion) can look nearly as good as footage shot in a professional HD format on a $20,000 camera. AVCHD, a new HD format that uses H.264 compression was introduced in 2006 and compresses video even more aggressively than HDV. Our tests of Canon's UX1 (Review, Specs, Recent News, $729.95) and SR1 (Review, Specs, Recent News, $1119.99) last fall show that while AVCHD video is very sharp, it suffers from grain and artifacts much more than HDV compression. The wildcard in the consumer high definition arena is a new MPEG-2 format developed by JVC, the MPEG Transfer Stream codec, which appears for the first time in the Everio HD7 (Review, Specs, Recent News, $1529). MPEG Transport Stream compresses video at up to 30Mbps, and may rival or even outclass HDV compression.
Media (6.0)
Like other HDV camcorders, the Canon HV20 records to MiniDV cassettes, the same inexpensive and widely available format used by standard definition DV camcorders. MiniDV cassettes have a run time of 60 minutes in SP mode, but can hold up to 90 minutes of more compressed LP video. Unlike the DVD, memory card, and HDD formats, MiniDV tapes are linear media so moving clips to a PC from tape is a real-time process. For anyone serious about the quality of his or her video, HDV recorded to MiniDV cassette remains the best consumer HD option available. To date, consumer non-linear video formats do not support the highest-quality video compression codices for high definition (HDV) and standard definition (DV).

Significant quality loss and jagged diagonal lines when exporting from FCP

I've been working on this problem for several days and I'm going insane! Every time I export my movie from Final Cut, there is a significant quality loss. It is most noticeable in two ways: diagonal lines become very jagged (looking somewhat like diagonal lines in an older video game -- more a diagonal sequence of blocks); also, in some areas such as faces, the colors get a little blurry and there seems to some "pooling" of colors around the edges of the face.
I'm pretty sure the problem's not in capture: the Quicktime clips that I captured from the camera are all pristine. When I play them in Quicktime, I can blow them up several times their original size, and they maintain their sharp lines. (I also Reverse Telecined them all with Cinema Tools, if that's relevant.) I also know the problem's not just my computer monitor; when I play these movies on my external monitor and TV, they look bad too. The clips look bad after I bring them into Final Cut, and while I'm editing, but at first I figured that was because Final Cut sometimes doesn't show full resolution in the timeline. Still, when I export, the quality of the original captures just isn't there.
Some details:
Captured from 24A progressive, Sony HVR V1U HDV.
Using Final Cut 6.0.1, Compressor 3.0.1, Quicktime 7.2.0, OS 10.4.10 (all the most recent versions I believe).
I've exported in many different ways: using Compressor (and have tried a number of different settings: the DVD Best Quality 90 Minutes default Setting, as well as using a variety of bit rates from 3.0-8.0, One pass CBR, Two pass CBR, Two pass VBR, Two pass VBR best; Video Formats NTSC, HD 1440x1080...I have tried many combinations. Regardless of the size of the m2v created, the files seem to have the same problem over and over. I've also tried exporting from Final Cut as a Quicktime Movie and with Quicktime Conversion. Same result. I also tried using different compressors with my Final Cut sequence: Apple Intermediate Codec (which I used when capturing -- you have to with the Sony HVR), HDV 1080p24, HDV 1080i60, Apple Pro Res 422, H.264...
What's happening? Why is Final Cut turning my nice pristine captures into jagged foulness? What can I try that I haven't yet?

Welcome to the forums!
Unfortunately, you seem to have tried everything I can think of, and I don't have the latest versions of FCP to know if it is a bug. However, in the off chance that you haven't given this a shot:
Take a problematic 10 second section of your timeline (set in and out points) and the Export -> Quicktime (not QT Conversion) and make sure that you have it on Quality settings that you captured, and select the "Make Self Contained" box.
Look at that in Quicktime and see if it's bad. If it's not problematic, use that video file in Compressor for your render.
Hope that helps!
~Luke

Workflow for avchd clips and meta data

Just started using a Panasonic AG-AF100 on a 5 month project. Will be producing 1000's of clips. So I have off-loaded the first 3 cards we shot and have discovered something about avccam material. If you just copy the .MTS files from their /stream folder or rename the file with a name instead of its original number produced in the camera you lose the timecode and other meta data.
If I leave the clips in that folder and other card folders in their associated directories and "import" clip with Premiere Media Browser it retains the timecode. Trouble is that I cannot see thumbnails in Media Browser and the clip number means little. Bridge on my Win7/64bit machine shows thumbnails (but no preview) and a double-click will preview in Win Media Player.
On my main edit station (Vista/64bit) Bridge neither shows thumbnails or previews and I get no avchd .mts playback in Windows Media Player. Everything worrks the same within Premiere, nice solid editing and playback of avchd clips. (I will probably upgrade this machine to Win7 next week)
So my request for advice/questions are:
Suggestions for managing and organizing large qualities of clips with what will be similar names, etc
Previewing updates or options to find media
How do you manage AVCHD material and still maintain meta data?
Thanks so much!! As I get older and the technology seems faster, stronger, sharper, the demands on my brain get tougher.
Rick

Rick,
If you just copy the .MTS files from their /stream folder or rename the file with a name instead of its original number produced in the camera you lose the timecode and other meta data.
If I leave the clips in that folder and other card folders in their associated directories and "import" clip with Premiere Media Browser it retains the timecode.
You mustmustmust keep the files in their folder structure, if you intend to maintain timecode. You've clearly discovered this Good you did so early. The folder structure thing is really not a big deal; there is very little need to manipulate these at the OS level, and the Media Browser in PPro makes it reasonably easy to bring these in for editing. You can pre-build a folder structure into which you can offload each card's worth of clips.
Trouble is that I cannot see thumbnails in Media Browser and the clip number means little. Bridge on my Win7/64bit machine shows thumbnails (but no preview) and a double-click will preview in Win Media Player.
On my main edit station (Vista/64bit) Bridge neither shows thumbnails or previews and I get no avchd .mts playback in Windows Media Player. Everything worrks the same within Premiere, nice solid editing and playback of avchd clips. (I will probably upgrade this machine to Win7 next week)
Windows 7 has built-in splitters and decoders for H.264 media, so that's the reason you can at least get thumbnails in Bridge and playback the files in WMP there. The Media Browser, even on Windows 7, won't show thumbnails as they are not saved into the folder structure the way that P2 saves a poster image into the folder structure. Note that even "standard" containers like AVI or MOV do not display a thumbnail in Media Browser.
As far as Bridge is concerned: I know a lot of people like it, but from my perspective, it's just about worthless for video. This is largely an application designed for photography workflows that has been shoehorned into "working" with video. I don't even like it for AVI/MOV.
The ugly truth is that Bridge is not going to be much, if any, help in this workflow. However, there may be another tool in the suite that will accomplish what you need: OnLocation. You won't get thumbnails, but you can browse through the folder structure without knowing you're doing it, import clips to preview them, and add metadata. You could do this for each card you offload. Then, in Premiere, simply use Media Browser to navigate to your OnLocation Project, and it will open up just like a folder, listing all your clips with the metadata you added. Granted, it is not a perfect workflow, but once you added that metadata, it will flow with the files wherever you move them around in the Adobe suite--it won't go elsewhere, as it's not injected into the files themselves. So long as you're editing in Premiere, you're good.
Now, there is another thing you can do that may make clip management even easier, though it does require a bit of forethought in pre-production. It will really depend on the type of project you're shooting, but you can preload metadata on to an SD card and into the camera, and then automatically record this to the clips as they are shot! I don't have an AVCCAM to give you exact workflow steps, but I do this all the time with my P2 workflow and it's a tremendous help once you hit the edit bay.
If you haven't already, head over to the Panasonic support site: Support Desk Top / Broadcast and Professional AV. You'll need to register for a "PASS" membership (it's free, and you don't need to register a camera), but you can then download the AVCCAM Viewer application. Unfortunately, this application is not quite as helpful as P2 Viewer is (it's rather cartoony, actually), but it does have the metadata editor in it that will let you create your metadata files in advance and save them to an SD card. Then, after consulting the camera manual , you can set those metadata files to be a data source for the footage as you record it. Here's what you can add to the metadata files and, summarily, the clips:
Once you load this into the camera's memory, that data is saved into the clips, and is readable by Premiere. The "User Clip Name" field can be set to auto-increment (again, this is going off my knowledge of the way metadata works in a P2 camera, but the AVCCAM should be similar) so that each clip has a base name and then a serial number. When you're done with a particular scene/shot, you'd load the next metadata files, reset the indexing, and continue. Lather, rinse, repeat.
The biggest hole in the metadata workflow, at least as it pertains to AVCHD/AVCCAM, is that there is no tool (that I'm aware of) that lets you edit this metadata after the fact. With P2, you can--there are a number of applications, both free and payware, that let you do this--but I've yet to find one that works with AVCCAM. Even Panasonic's own AVCCAM Viewer is incapable of this, it seems.
The major advantage to adding file metadata like this is that it travels wherever the clips go, and into whatever application they land in. Not being able to edit it after the fact, though, just plain sucks. This is where the clip metadata you'd add in the Adobe applications comes into play, with the obvious disadvantage that it's only useful in Adobeland. As always, ain't no such thing as a free lunch.
So that's my take on this--it's good you're looking into this before you have a couple terabytes worth of footage on hand Let me know if I can help fill in any details that I might have overlooked. And be sure to check on the Panasonic site linked above for firmware updates to the AF100--I see one came out just a few days ago. It's always good to stay current.
Good luck!

Serious quality loss with MTS files and iMovie '11

Hello,
I have some issues with my brand new Panasonic HDC SD700 (a full HD camera)
I experience serious quality loss when I use iMovie to create a movie.
I did some tests, but still puzzled int this world of codecs and formats.
Maybe some of you can help.
I have made a short shot of 450 sec with highest mode (1080p 24fps)
It show is finder as a .MTS file size 99MB, I'm very happy with the quality when I play this with VLC.
iMovie turns this file into a .mov file with 635MB size, in Apple Intermediate Codec, Linear PCM, Timecode. This quality is already poor compared to original MTS file.
No wonder that the output file (select 1080p H.264 codecs) results also in unacceptable quality.
I'm running latest imOvie version with all updates etc.
I have no idea were to look to solve this issue. It is quite annoying since I have invested in a top Cam recorder. Not sure is Final cut express will sure the issue either.....

I have made a short shot of 450 sec with highest mode (1080p 24fps)
Have you tried shooting at the PAL standard of 25fps? I checked the specs for your Panasonic but didn't see any mention of a 24fps mode, but most reviews seem to miss mentioning the shooting modes. If you did indeed shoot at 24fps, did you choose this frame rate when importing to iMovie '11?
I export as 1080p (same as original. My output is a bit blurry and colors are a bit pale.
Did you use the 1080p preset under Share to Media Browser, or Export using QuickTime? If the latter, be sure to select an appropriate data rate - if set too low this may result in poor quality output.
And yes you are right I'm using IMovie '11, quite confusing that '11 means version 9.0
Yes - very confusing! In the forums, iMovie versions are generally referred to by their year number, not version number. It's a pity that we have version 9.0 (iMovie '11) and iMovie '09.
Glad you liked the video - it looked very clear on YouTube at 1080p Full Screen, at least to my ageing eyes!
John

Workflow and settings for best quality .png export

I need to export a vector image to a .png for use on Retina display devices. What is the workflow and settings for exporting that results in the best possible quality .png image?

The workflow I used to produce the previously posted image on a WIndows 7 PC:
File>Export>Set "Save As" type to PNG
Upon pressing the "Save" button a PNG Options window will appear.
Resolution: Screen (72 ppi)
Anti-Aliasing: Type Optimized (Hinting)
I contacted Adobe support and they told me that the only way to export .png is via "Export" or "Save For Web".
"Save For Web" is designed to compress and I wanted to avoid that to ensure retina display quality.
I chose 72 ppi instead of a higher setting (support suggested I use 300 ppi) because Apple retina displays do not recognize ppi above 72.
The Anti-Aliasing setting was my default and I read somewhere that this was the best for getting crisp edges on retina displays (Sorry, I cant recall the source)
My concerns are that the export and anti-aliasing make larger files and I'm not convinced they are noticably better quality than "Save For Web".
Also, it's worth noting that the support was clearly reading from a reference guide. It was not a "real" expert that could explain the best workflow.

Difference between workflow engine and quality assurance system

Hi,
please let me know the difference between workflow engine and quality assurance system.

Hi,
please let me know the difference between workflow engine and quality assurance system in TMS.

How to shoot 1080p/60, output to 720p/60, so Warp Stabilizer or zoom/crop has no quality loss?

I'm new to AE, and making a painful transition form FCP to Premiere, so please be patient, I don't understand many of the subtalties of these apps yet. :-)
Also, please forgive the long explaination, I'm having trouble articulating the problem...
I'm shooting in 1080p/60, AVCHD. I plan mainly to output to 720p/60.
The idea being, that if I need to warp stabilize footage, or zoom/crop, I can do so without any quality loss.
I don't want to edit the project in 1080p/60, because if I stabilize it, and it blows up the image, it will result in quality loss. Then when I scale down for final output, that pixilated/crapified footage will be present just in scaled down form.
I don't want the footage to be scaled down first, then, when I stabilize it, I'm blowing up 720p footage (thus defeating the whole purpose of doing this) and once again, outputting pixilated/crappified footage.
What are the steps / workflow to set up Premiere and the stabilizing shots in AE, such that I'm working in 720p, but using the 1080p footage, so that extra resolution is available when I need to crop, zoom, stabilize, etc. the footage... and can do so without any quality loss? It would be great to have that ability to zoom in on elements in post, almost 2x, and not see any loss of quality.
Thanks in advance!
-Jason Wallace

100% positive. There is a family of lesser known Prosumer Panasonic cameras (my particular model is the TM700) that record 1080p/60. It's a 3-chip, CMOS, that genuinly records at that resolution and frame rate. Has audio input, headphone output, shoe mount, zebra stripes, touch screen, good battery life, and a manual focus ring (fly by wire, can be set for exposure, framerate, or focus). Also has very good low light capabilities, that are much better than the published specs would lead you to believe. The firmware is a bit goofy, and was clearly designed by engineers, not people who have ever shot video. For example some things that should be easily accessible, are buried in menus, while other useless "fluff" features are front and quickly accessible.... but if you can live with a few stupid firmware compromises, it's absolutely AMAZING bang for the buck, and well under $1k to buy.
Note: if I'm not mistaken, the camera can only output via HDMI 1080i/60, but for absolute certain the video files being recorded are genuine 1080p/60. (This has lead to some confusion and forum arguements as to whether the camera is actually 1080p/60)
This was one of the main reasons for my moving from FCP to Premiere, as Premiere Pro handles the 1080p/60 AVCHD files, while FCP requires they first be transcoded and inflated to a intermediate codec.
-Jason W

IMovie HD6: HDV to AIC to HDV... quality loss?

Hi All,
I'm curious, when I use my normal workflow (HDV to AIC (imovie 6) to HDV), does it lose quality?
If so:
* Is there a way to avoid this?
* How much quality is lost? Is there a visual comparison available?
Thanks for any input!

Dear catspaw,
Here are my thoughts, based on my experiences, and what I think I understand of all this..
1. Standard-definition DV (those little tapes, or the larger 'broadcast' tapes) is pretty much compression-free ..we-ell, strictly speaking there's some, but relatively little, compression used in DV. It looks perfect, although it is slightly compressed. The material recorded onto tape - and imported into iMovie - contains every frame which the camcorder optics see. So editing it is simple: all the frames get copied into iMovie, and you can chop out, or insert, anything you want. Using iMovie HD 6, or earlier, you can then copy the edited material back to a DV camcorder ..all the frames get shuffled out of the computer and back onto tape again. (You can't do that with iMovie '08, as it has no option to Export to Camcorder.) What you see in iMovie - after importing from a DV camcorder - isn't exactly the same as what you've imported, because iMovie runs on a computer, and uses a computer display, and that generally shows complete "progressive" frames of video, whereas a TV ..or TVs with cathode ray tubes; precursors to the latest LCD or DLP or plasma TVs.. will generally show interlaced 'half-frames' one after the other, each comprising half the TV picture, but shown in such rapid succession that they blur into each other, and our brains see a succession of complete frames.
(..Here's a good visual representation from one of Adam Wilt's pages:
..There are two 'fields' of video, each made of half the entire number of lines down the screen, superimposed on each other, and blending into a full frame of video comprised of all the lines. That's what happens on a TV screen when the interlaced 'fields' of video blend together..)
So standard-def DV is really plain and simple, and there should be no quality loss after shooting, importing, editing, exporting.
2. Hi-def. A can of worms. There are several different varieties of "hi-def". What we're working with in our 'amateur' movie program, iMovie, is generally the HDV version of hi-def, or the AVCHD version. (And a few people may be working with JVC's version of 'progressive' frames, but with a lower total number of lines down the screen: 720p, instead of 1080i. 720p has 720 pixels down the screen, and records and presents an entire 'progressive' ..one-line-after-the-other.. frame of video at a time, whereas 1080i shows 1080 pixels down the screen, consisting of half that number, 540; all the 'odd-numbered' lines.. at a time, immediately followed by the other half ..the even-numbered lines.. slotting in-between the previous lot. That repeating pair of 540 'interleaved' lines gives a total of 1080 interlaced lines in every frame. Movement appears smoother using 1080i (..after all, the picture is refreshed twice as often as with single-complete-frame 'progessive' video..) but may not look as super-sharp as progressive video, because at any moment there's only half the total information of a frame onscreen. 'Interlaced' video is smoother, and any action flows more "creamily", whereas 'progressive' may be considered 'sharper' (..it is if you freeze a frame..) but more jerky.)
So our 'amateur' hi-def movies may be recorded as HDV, AVCHD or some other similar format. 'Professional', or broadcast-intended, hi-def may consist of several other non-amateur formats, some of which are completely uncompressed and require extremely fast links between the cameras and recording equipment, and massive-capacity hard discs to capture and edit the huge quantity of data which such cameras..
..deliver ..for $150,000. Or here's a remote-control broadcast hi-def camera for (only) $7,995..
(..Tell me if I'm boring you..)
The hi-def cameras which we're more likely to be using..
..record compressed video in MPEG-2 format, or H.264, or some similar codec. The idea behind HDV was that the companies which make 'consumer-grade' (amateur) camcorders wanted a method to record hi-def - with about 4x the data of standard-def - onto the little miniDV tapes which we were all familiar with. So a method was found to squeeze 4x the data onto a tape which normally records standard-def DV data at 25 megabits per second. The method decided upon was MPEG-2 ..the same codec which is used to squeeze a two-hour Hollywood film onto a little 4.7GB capacity DVD. (Bollywood movies, as distinct from Hollywood movies, tend to be three hours long!)
If MPEG-2 was good enough for the latest cinema releases, in nice, sharp, sharper-than Super-VHS form, then it was thought to be good enough for 'domestic' hi-def recordings. The only awkward thing about that - from an editing point of view.. (..but which of the camcorder manufacturers are seriously interested in editing..? ..they primarily want to sell 'product' which - according to their advertising - is terrific at simply recording and playing-back video. Like car advertising shows you how wonderful cars are to sit in and for travelling to places, but the adverts don't tell you about how tricky it may be to get into the rear sidelights and replace a blown bulb..) ..is that in HDV there's only one 'real' frame for every 15 frames recorded on the tape. The other 14 are just indications of what's different between the various frames. Therefore, for editing, the 'missing' frames must be rebuilt during import into iMovie.
Steve Jobs heralded 2005 - at MacWorld, you may remember - as the "Year of HD!" ..It became possible to import and edit hi-def in iMovie ..that is, the HDV version of hi-def, not the uncompressed 'professional' broadcast version of hi-def, of course.. but ONLY with a fast enough computer ..and many weren't fast enough to import and convert HDV to editable-format in real-time (..no mention of it being the year you would import at half, or a quarter, or an eighth, real-time ..ugh-ugh).
So HDV gets converted to AIC to make it editable ..and then what d'you do with it? ..Few (none of them?) HDV camcorders let you import HDV back to tape from iMovie. No Macs had/have Blu-Ray burners ..although you can burn about 20 mins of hi-def onto normal DVDs with a Mac's normal inbuilt SuperDrive DVD burner with the appropriate software ..DVD Studio Pro, or Toast, etc.
(..Once again, there was some omission from the hoopla ..yes; you can import HDV! ..yes; you can edit HDV! ..er, no, sorry; no mention that you can't burn a 1 hour hi-def home video onto a hi-def DVD with a Mac ..iDVD would/will only burn in standard-def, and there are no Blu-Ray burners built into Macs..)
Then came AVCHD (Advanced Video Codec; High Definition). This compresses video even more than HDV (whose compression is pretty much invisible, and is in regular use for broadcast material) by using a different method. And along came progressive hi-def recording, trying to supersede HDV's generally 'interlaced' 1080i hi-def.
But the problem with progressive, non-interlaced AVCHD is that if there's rapid movement in a scene - if you move the camera, or something rapidly crosses the picture - instead of the "creamy flow" of interlaced video, there's a jerky lurch from one frame to the next. And with the added extra compression of AVCHD this jerkiness can be (..to my mind..) even more horribly evident.
Anyway, unscrambling ..and then re-assembling.. hi-def interlaced MPEG-2 HDV is pretty much invisible - to me, anyway. The video looks sharp, moves smoothly, looks 'true-to-life' and doesn't have terrible artifacts and jerks.
Unscrambling ..and then re-assembling.. hi-def interlaced or progressive AVCHD (..which is sometimes described as MPEG-4 or H.264..) - I know that you know this, but I'm also writing for others here - isn't quite as simple as doing the same for tape-based MPEG-2 hi-def HDV. Here's all the gobbledegook about what AVCHD can consist of.. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MPEG-4_AVC
..Oh, and here's a bit about the "usability" of AVCHD: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AVCHD
There are many more 'varieties' of encoding in AVCHD than in 'simpler' hi-def, such as HDV. There's less data sent in an AVCHD data stream than HDV (..AVCHD has jumped from 17MBits/sec to 24MBits/sec ..just below HDV's 25MBits/sec..) so the video is more compressed than HDV. And there are all sorts of video formats (interlaced, progressive, HD, 'Full' HD) which are recorded by different cameras under the all-embracing 'AVCHD' label. iMovie - or a Mac - has to work much harder to unscramble and convert the more-compressed AVCHD format(s) than uncompressing HDV. And has to work harder to compress the output of iMovie to H.264 (an AVCHD codec) than when re-compressing to MPEG-2 (the codec for standard-def DVDs and hi-def HDV).
To - finally! - come back to your question "..is there therefore no advantage in using DV tape-based vidcams for editing purposes.." I'd say that there ARE advantages in using tape-based vidcams for editing purposes ..using your two categories:
1. Non-hi-def tape-based DV is ..to all intents and purposes.. lossless. And the material can be imported in real-time, and be output - with no loss - in real-time, too, using any Mac from an old G3 onwards. Importing non-tape material into iMovie ..e.g; miniDVDs, or chip-based, more compressed video.. is more long-winded, and generally has to go through various external bits of software (..e.g; MPEG Streamclip or somesuch..) to put it into a format that's editable in iMovie. AVCHD can, theoretically - as 'AVC', without the 'HD' - be used for recording in standard-def, but there are currently few AVCHD camcorders which are built to record standard-def video as well ..there is the Sony HDR-SR12. But only iMovie running on an Intel-powered Mac will decode AVCHD, apart from separate standalone Mac software such as 'Voltaic'.
2. Hi-def tape-based recording IS an advantage on anything that's less than the fastest, or highest-powered, of Macs, because it needs less "horsepower" to "unpack" the compressed data and to get it into an editable format through recovering, or rebuilding, the necessary individual frames. I think it's an advantage in every case, as not only can tape-based hi-def be edited on older, slower Macs (including pre-Intel Macs) but also:
(a) HDV data's less compressed, and so motion is generally expressed - currently - more "fluidly" than with the more compressed hard-disc or chip-stored AVCHD,
(b) HDV original material is "self-archived" onto its tapes ..you don't have to "empty" a camcorder's hard disc or memory chips onto something else - such as a separate hard drive - in order to re-use, or continue using, the camcorder: you just drop in another cheap 1-hour tape,
(c) Tape-containing camcorders tend to be heavier, less lightweight, than fewer-moving-parts chip-based AVCHD camcorders. They're therefore inherently less "wobbly" and don't tremble so much in your hand ..that gives smoother, less "jiggled-about" recordings ..even taking into account the stabilisation built into most camcorders,
(d) Tape-based camcorders are less likely to lose an entire 'shoot' by being dropped or mis-treated. Material already recorded onto a tape will not be damaged if you drop the camera and its tape-heads thereby become misaligned. The data can be recovered by simply ejecting the tape and popping it into another camcorder. If a hard-disc camcorder is dropped, subsequent head misalignment may mean that all data already on the hard disc is irrecoverable. If a memory chip becomes corrupted, all data may similarly become irrecoverable. If a tape becomes damaged, it's usually only a few seconds' worth which be lost. (..I dropped a tape-based camcorder in the sea when I was trying to get shots of waves coming in onto the beach from an offshore viewpoint, and a wave washed right over me and knocked me down. The camcorder was a write-off, but I managed to prise the tape out, and recover the 30 minutes of movie I'd already recorded. I don't really want to test it, but I have doubts about whether I'd have been able to recover my video from a similarly-drowned hard-disc based camcorder ..maybe, in the interests of factual objectivity I'll try it some day with an old, no-longer-used 2.5" hard disc..)
(e) AVCHD camcorders - unless you're looking at 'semi-pro' or professional 'cost-a-plenty' record-to-chip camcorders, or that Sony HD12..
..are generally built for "point-and-shoot" amateurs. This means that AVCHD camcorders generally do not have the assortment of manual controls which you find on most tape-based HDV camcorders (..because the camcorder makers also aim, or aimed, HDV at low-cost broadcast users, too). There's usually far greater flexibility and more shooting options (shutter speeds, exposure, audio handling) on tape-based HDV camcorders than can be found on AVCHD camcorders. If you're just pointing and shooting, that doesn't matter ..but if you want to shoot good-looking video, there are generally - and it is a generalisation - more adjustment options to be found on a tape-based camcorder than on a chip-based or hard-disc AVCHD camcorder. In my experience - yours may be different - people tempted by AVCHD camcorders tend to buy (..and manufacturers tend to publicise..) high pixel counts (like "Full HD 1920x1080") and that magic word "progressive" (perhaps because it has the flavour, in English, of "futuristic" or "more advanced") rather than their being concerned with choices of apertures or shutter speeds and the clearest representation of what the camcorder's pointing at.
In summary ..at last!.. "..is there therefore no advantage in using DV tape-based vidcams for editing purposes.." Yes; the advantages, I believe, are that HDV converts fast into AIC for editing; my perception is that HDV delivers smoother action (onscreen movement) than AVCHD; and with a suitable deck..
..HDV can be returned back to tape, whereas it's more long-winded and needs more subterfuge to export AVCHD back to a chip, or a camcorder's hard disc, for in-camera replay ..and thence out to an HDTV.
As always, these are simply my opinions ..others may disagree.

Export QuickTime file with new audio and maintain the file size and quality as the original.

I shot some footage for a client yesterday and ran into an issue. To make a long story short I have QuickTime mov files shot with my Panasonic GH4 that have a buzzing sound in the audio track. I have clean audio from a recorder that can be sync'd. Is there a way for me to do this for the client and deliver them as the same QuickTime file but with the clean audio and keep the file size close to the original and not have quality loss in the image?
If so I will probably put all of the spanned clips together from each interview and sync the audio before delivery. I am just not sure which codec will give the client the same quality footage compared to the originals and not have a massive difference in the overall file size. They did request that they be Quicktime MOV files though so that is a must.
I don't see this as an option in the codecs in the export settings in PP, but is there a way to export as ProRes or another MAC native codec that will save them from having to convert it on their end? I am on a PC with Adobe CS5.5 so I am not too familiar with MACs, but from what I understand they would need to convert the files if I sent them straight out of the camera.
I found some related search results for this but they pertained to "Best quality" for export. I am not sure how the varying options work but I don't want to create files that are considerably larger, just not less quality.
If anyone has experience with this it would be greatly appreciated.
Thanks,
Cole

Here's the workflow: I imported the video footage into iMovie '08 and did my edits. Then I exported it (share) to my desktop with compression set @ 740 X 480. Then I used QuickTime Pro to fix the audio track. The file plays perfectly with both audio tracks working. It's a QuickTime file (.mov).
I hope this jars any replies as to why the file when uploaded to my iWeb gallery drops the second audio track.
Hmm,
Jack

Tapeless workflows and Sandy Bridge or other PC's: KISS or LOVE?

Tapeless workflows and Sandy Bridge or other PC's: KISS or LOVE?
Life used to be so simple when shooting video on a tape based camera. You shot your material, captured it for editing and stored your precious original footage on tape in a safe and dry place. Sure, it took time to capture, but the big advantage was that if you had a computer or drive failure, you would still have the original tape so everything could be recreated.
Now with tapeless workflows we have the significant advantage of much faster import of the original footage. Connect the flash card or disk drive to the computer over USB and copy the data to a HDD on the computer, ready for editing. The data on the flash card or disk drive can then be erased, so you can reuse it for more shots. But, like Johan Cruyff has said repeatedly, every advantage has its drawback. In this case it simply means that you no longer have the original material to fall back on, in case of computer or drive failures. That is a very unpleasant and insecure feeling.
The easy anwser to that problem is backups. Backup of the original media, backup of projects and backup of exports. This often means a bundle of externals for backup or NAS configurations. One thing is clear, it requires discipline to make regular backups and it costs time, as well as a number of disks. Four as a minimum: 1 for media, 1 for exports and at least 2 for projects. Note: This is excluding a backup drive for OS & programs.
There are different backup strategies in use. Some say backup daily and use one disk for monday, one for tuesday, and so on. Others say one disk for the first backup, the second for the second backup, then the first again for an incremental backup, etc. and once weekly a complete backup on a third disk. Whatever you choose, be aware that shelf live of a disk is far less than tape. There are horror stories everywhere about ball-bearings getting stuck after some time and without original tapes, you better be safe than sorry, so don't skimp on backups.
What is the relevancy of all this? I thought this was about Sandy Bridge and other PC's.
It is and let me try to explain.
Card based cameras are for the most part DSLR and AVCHD type cameras, and we all know how much muscle is required to edit that in a convenient way. Adobe suggests in the system requirements to use raid configurations for HD editing and practice has shown that raid arrays do give a significant performance boost and improve responsiveness, making for a nicer editing experience. The larger the project and the longer the time-line, the more a raid array will help maintain the responsiveness.
One thing you would not do is using a raid0 for projects, media and exports, even if you have backups. The simple reason is that the chance of disk failure multiplies by the number of disks in the raid0. Two disks double the chance of disk failure, three disks triple the chance, four disks quadruples the chance, etc.
Remember: Disaster always strikes when it is most inconvenient.
Imagine you have been working all day on a project, you decide to call it a day and to make your daily backup, but then the raid fails, before you made your backup. Gone is all of today's work. Then take into consideration the time and effort it takes to restore your backups to the state it was in yesterday. That does not make you happy.
Another thing to avoid is using a software or mobo based parity raid, for the simple reason that it is slooowww and puts a burden on the CPU, that you want to use for editing, not house keeping.
For temporary or easily recreated files, like the page-file, media cache, media cache database and preview files, it is very much advised to use a raid0. It makes everything a lot snappier and if disaster strikes, so what? These are easily recreated in a short time.
This was a general overview of what is required with tapeless workflows. Now let's get down to what this means in terms of system design.
Two approaches or train of thoughts
KISS: Keep it stupidly simple or LOVE: Laughing over video editing
The first one, the most economic one, is to use a system with 3 or 4 disks internally and 4 or more backup disks.
A typical disk setup can look like this:
This is a perfectly sensible approach if one does not have large or complex projects, long time-lines and is willing to take the risk of occasionally losing a whole days work, between backups. Many hobbyists and consumers fall in this category.
The KISS approach keeps it stupidly simple. The drawback is that there is no logical way to add more disks or storage. The discipline, diligence and effort required for regular backups make it far from a laughing matter. In fact it can quickly become a bore. Add to that the fact that the disk setup is simple but not very fast, so less suited for situations where lots of clips are involved, multi-cam is a regularly recurring situation or lots of video tracks are involved.
A number of video editors want more from their system than the occasional platonic KISS, they want to really LOVE their system, which lead to the other train of thought.
This is more costly than the KISS approach, but you all know a fiancée or wife is more costly and dear than the occasional kiss on the cheek by an old friend.
Let's start with a typical disk setup. It may look like this:
Two striking differences in comparison to the KISS approach:
1. Much easier disk organization and more disks and thus more space.
2. It requires a hardware raid controller, causing a higher investment cost. It is like an engagement ring. You don't get LOVE for free, one of the guiding principles of the oldest trade in the world.
These are easy statements to make, but what are the benefits or advantages, that you would fall in LOVE with such a system, and what are the drawbacks? Think back to Johan Cruyff's adage.
The only drawback is cost. The advantages are multiple, easier organization, more speed, more storage, snappier editing, no jerkiness, lesser requirements for regular backups and - this is the major benefit - hardly a chance of losing a day's work in case of a drive failure. Keep in mind that a parity raid keeps all your data intact in case of a drive failure, so lessens the need for up-to-date backups.
We all know, we get what we pay for: "If you pay peanuts, you get monkeys. OTOH, if you pay money to monkeys, you get rich monkeys". But in this case you get what you pay for, a much better editing experience with a much easier workflow.
Using a parity raid (be it raid 3/5/6/30/50/60) you get security, ease of mind that you are protected against losing precious media, that you need not worry about the last time you made a backup, that the editing you did today may be lost and you save valuable time editing and a lot of aggravation because of a much more responsive system.
How does this all relate to Sandy Bridge and other PC's?
First of all, the price difference between a Sandy Bridge / P67 platform and an i7-950+ / X58 platform is very small. Of course the new architecture is slightly more expensive than the older one, but the differences are small, almost not worth talking about.
So what are the differences? Look below:
The first thing to keep in mind is that the Sandy Bridge is the successor of the i7-8xx CPU and as such it is much more evolutionary than revolutionary. The CPU power has increased significantly over the i7-8xx due to new architecture and a smaller production process (32 nm), but in essence all the capabilities have remained unchanged. Same memory, same PCI-e lanes, same version, same L3 cache and no support for dedicated raid controllers.
It is great that the processor performs much better than the older i7-8xx CPU's, almost achieving the level of the i7-9xx range of processors, but is still limited:
The Sandy Bridge is unsuitable for anything more than a KISS system.
Why? Because it lacks the required PCI-e lanes to accomodate more than a 16 x PCI-e nVidia card with CUDA support to enable hardware MPE acceleration and the integrated graphics are not supported by CS5.
You may wonder if that is a bad thing. The plain and simple anser is NO. It is a great processor, it delivers great value for money, is a solid performer, but it has its limitations. Intel had a reason to position this CPU as a mid-level CPU, because that is what it is, a mid-level performer in comparison to what is to come.
The term mid-level performer may seem strange when compared to the old generation of i7-9xx CPU's, because they perform almost equally well, but keep in mind that there is a generation difference between them.
So what about the i7-9xx and X58 platform?
It still is going strong. About the same performance as a Sandy Bridge, with only the much more expensive hexa-cores clearly in the lead, both performance and price wise. The quad cores deliver about the same value for money. The main difference however is the platform that allows a dedicated raid controller to be installed, thus making it the platform of choice for those who want to go from a passing KISS to true LOVE.
And what lies ahead?
Sandy Bridge E on the Waimea platform (X68). Now that is revolutionary. More than double almost everything a processor can offer: double the cores, double the PCI-e lanes, triple the memory, more than double the L3 cache, increase the PCI-e support from 2.0 to 3.0, etc...
This is why Intel calls this a high-end CPU / platform.
So what now?
If you prefer a KISS approach, choose either a Sandy Bridge/P67 or an i7-950+/X58 platform.
If you wonder whether in the future you may need multi-cam more frequently, edit more complex projects and longer timelines or even progress to RED, look at KISS/LOVE solutions, meaning the i7-950+/X58.
If you can't have downtime, time pressure is high, delivery dates to clients are critical or you edit highly complex projects, lots of multi-cam situations or lengthy time-lines, choose a LOVE solution, an i7-950+/X58 platform.
If you have the time to wait till Q4/2011, Sandy Bridge E/Waimea looks to be worth the wait.
Hope this gives you some more insight into recent and future developments and helps you make wise investment decisions.

I'm upgrading from an AMD 3800+, cutting with Vegas 7 Pro. Usually shoot DSLR or HDV, sometimes P2, EX or RED. I have ridiculously cheap access to Macs, FCP/FCS, all kinds of software.
I've been agonizing over this for the last month, was originally hoping the UD7 mobo was the solution, read the read about the NF200/PCIe issue a few days ago, http://www.dvinfo.net/forum/non-linear-editing-pc/489424-i7-980x-now-wait-sandybridge-2.ht ml- and still decided to go for a 2600k.
My preference is to treat my video footage the same way as my digital imagery: I make (at least) duplicate back ups of everything before reformatting the cards, never delete the back ups, and only worry about the day-to-day stuff at night. Unless I'm rendering or involved in other long processes, in which case I'll back up the work in process the next day. If I am under a really really tight deadline I might back up as I go.
Yes, a RAID might make it easier, but I'm paranoid enough to prefer a slower, safer backup. You can always duplicate, and usually improve upon, a days work, but you can never get back original footage you lost. I have only ever had one hard drive die on me (a few enclosures crapped out, though)- it took a couple of (mostly unattended) hours to rectify. As a matter of act, I've had far more loss/damage from tapes than from hard drives.
I ordered the UD7, 2 F4s and 4 F3Rs, understanding I will probably want to upgrade to SBE when it comes out, or maybe next year. The 2600k/mobo/RAM will likely hold its value better than a 950/X58, likely because of the marketplace as much as merit.
The UD7 / RAID card issue is in it's early days, there may be a solution/mitigation. Probably not. But if I really really need a RAID card, then I probably really really need a 980, NAS, etc etc.
But Harm still rocks!

AVCHD workflow and quality loss

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for