My report on AVCHD and FCP

Question

After mucking around with AVCHD files on FCP and mixing them with HDV footage I have finally got a good working outcome which may be of interest to others wanting to do likewise.
From the same .mts file from a Panasonic SD5 camcorder I made 3 versions via Clipwrap:
1/ Pro Res HQ
2/ Pro Res
3/ AIC
I then placed each clip in succession on the timeline and carefully observed the result. I couldn't discern an obvious difference in spite of the fact that pro res hq was using a huge amount of memory. I therefore suggest simply using the AIC codec. Another point is that when I have attempted to import my AVCHD into FCE, and Pinnacle, WITHOUT using clipwrap, the 5:1 sound wasn't mixed down to stereo properly. Clipwrap seems to solve this problem.
So finally I can use AVCHD in FCP, mix it with HDV footage all, with a minimum of fuss and perfect stereo sound.
I hope this info is of use to others wanting to use AVCHD with FCP.
NOTE: I havn't checked with fast moving footage.The footage was of a person moving around in a well lit room.

Answer 1

Your eyes can see digital code when you're looking at a video? Wow, I'd love to have that ability.
Sarcasm aside, you can't use your eyes to judge the quality of your video, and you can't trust the display of your computer monitor. A well done mpeg2 can look amazing, and most people can't tell, or don't know how to tell, the difference between the DVD movie they bought, and the original it was compressed from. That's why home theater has become so popular.
The file size of ProRes is bigger because it contains more information. That's a no-brainer. Unless you're zoomed in all the way, looking at the videos on a pixel-to-pixel basis, you probably won't see the difference. Some will, most won't. But AIC is not nearly as high quality as ProRes. And you don't need HQ, as has be said already.
You can get portable 1TB hard drives with FW800 and eSATA capability from LaCie, and they're only slightly bigger than rugged drives. I use them all the time in the field, and I use ProRes and DVCProHD to edit.
AVCHD is an amateur codec. It's compressed. It was designed to make acquisition to delivery one step. (You know, film the kids in the back yard, and then show it on your HDTV so Grandma can see them). That's not what professionals use. Even the pros that use these cameras (mostly because of the price, and that the lenses are getting better) are capturing directly to ProRes in the field (using recorders like the AJA Ki Pro, or I/O HD to a laptop) and bypassing the AVCHD encoding altogether. The fact is, you can't improve your AVCHD footage. It will look only as good as it started, no matter what codec you convert to. You can, however, make it worse.
Early AVCHD used 4:2:0 color space, but the more recent AVC-INTRA uses 4:2:2. If you go to AIC, you're throwing out color information. That being said, if you can't see the difference using your eyes, then your eyes are not reliable. If you understand the reason why different color spaces work (in regard to the sensitivity of the human eye) then you would understand that we all know our eyes don't tell us enough.
But here's the real crux. If you're happy with the result, and it gives you what you want, then do it the way you're doing it. But I certainly wouldn't advise others to do it your way. It's not a better way. It's just an acceptable-to-you way.