Avidemux & Conversion Issues with Sony MTS Format

[callmebc]

Hi. I picked up a new Sony HX9V, which after some tedious research, seems to have the best all-around video mode for a compact camera. Unfortunately to record in 1080p 60 fps, you have to save to MTS format. Avidemux, both ver. 2.5.6 and the most recent nightly build, choke on it (aka crashing at some point along the way.) VLC had problems even playing it until I got the latest 2.0 version. I also tried using VLC for transcoding the MTS file to MP4, but this caused a sync problem with the audio. I rummaged through some discussion threads on the matter and looked at some suggested conversion tools like Handbrake, but they all seem to need .Net, which I really don't want to install, and others seem spywarey.

Has a consensus for an all-purpose recommended solution for dealing with MTS files on a Windows PC been reached yet? I'm currently leaning to just forget 60 fps and conversions, and just use 30 fps instead, which the Sony will then allow to be saved to a friendlier MP4 format.

And thoughts or suggestions will be appreciated.

[davexnet]

Have you tried GDSmux from the Haali media spitter package - it should create an MKV from your file.

[edDV]

MTS and mp4 are containers. MTS is the 8.3 name for m2ts, an MPEG2 transport stream used for Blu-ray and AVCHD format.

The Sony HX9V records to the h.264 AVC codec in 60p or 30p mode. 60i is also the interlace version of h.264.

You can change containers from MTS to mp4 but it won't change file size much. The MTS transport stream has a bit more overhead. The mp4 container may be more editable in programs like Vegas.

It is possible to re-encode h.264 to a lower bit rate h.264 using Handbrake or Vegas but quality will suffer.

Current Blu-Ray players aren't compatible with 1080/60p. Future players will be later this year.

[racer-x]

I also have a DSC-HX9V and shoot 60p most of the time. I like to use it for bat swing analysis and other uses when slow-mo is beneficial................

My version of Avidemux (2.6.0 r7693) will work with the MTS files, but I use Vegas instead. More control and such.....

Here is an example of HX9V shot 60p and used for bat swing analysis:

[callmebc]

Have you tried GDSmux from the Haali media spitter package - it should create an MKV from your file.

Hi, thanks. I did see Haali mentioned before, so I downloaded it after your post. But it was unclear what exactly I was suppose to do with it, so I tried a method I saw posted here and there that involved using VirtualDub with Haali and the DirectShow plugin, and that allowed me to do some filtering and save to an AVI file. Slow, but it was late so I left it running overnight. It was finished this morning and Avidemux opened it with no problems (I got the HX9v strictly for club shows, and I've gotten use to Avidemux's nice little collection of poorly documented filters to clean up funky & dim club lighting.)

How else would I use this? I did a quick Google and it seems GDSmux are Haali are used in conjunction with other apps. Is there a good how-to somewhere for an MTS -> MKV? Googling gets a lot of "noise" results.

But thanks again for your tip.

[callmebc]

MTS and mp4 are containers. MTS is the 8.3 name for m2ts, an MPEG2 transport stream used for Blu-ray and AVCHD format.

The Sony HX9V records to the h.264 AVC codec in 60p or 30p mode. 60i is also the interlace version of h.264.

You can change containers from MTS to mp4 but it won't change file size much. The MTS transport stream has a bit more overhead. The mp4 container may be more editable in programs like Vegas.

It is possible to re-encode h.264 to a lower bit rate h.264 using Handbrake or Vegas but quality will suffer.

Current Blu-Ray players aren't compatible with 1080/60p. Future players will be later this year.

Thanks. Amid my unexpected problems with the MTS format, I had Googled up discussion threads about changing just the "container," but ironically the clearest how-to was a Videohelp.com piece using, of course, Avidemux! Is there another way of doing this that you know of or can post a link to?

[callmebc]

I also have a DSC-HX9V and shoot 60p most of the time. I like to use it for bat swing analysis and other uses when slow-mo is beneficial................

My version of Avidemux (2.6.0 r7693) will work with the MTS files, but I use Vegas instead. More control and such.....

Here is an example of HX9V shot 60p and used for bat swing analysis:

Thanks. I had tried a newer build of Avidemux 2.6, r7745, and while it would open it up with an automatic reindexing, as soon as I try to save it in any way, Avidemux would just shut down without any error message. I did just now tested it with your r7693 build and unfortunately the same thing happened. This is on a pretty clean XP PC that I cobbled together a while back just for editing -- AMD Phenom 720 CPU, 3 Gb memory, and an SSD for the system disk -- and it's been otherwise very stable and quick, especially when using Avidemux. I had been using it this a lot for processing .MOV files from a Kodak Zi8 and, to a lesser degree, a Nikon P7000 and haven't had any issues. Judging from all the discussion threads and scammy seeming conversion apps and sites, I'm not exactly the only one not finding joy with Sony's peculiar packaging of H.264 video.

That's a very nice, clean video on your part. I got the HX9v, though, specifically for its seemingly overengineered low light capabilities for recording funkily/dimly lit club shows, and as I posted further up, I got really use to Avidemux's little bag of filters, which work especially well in cleaning up/enhancing low light concert videos. There is a UK-based YouTube site, Fotowhizzvideo, that had some pretty nice night/concert videos taken with the HX9v, and there is one in particular, the "Alton Towers - Thriller/Eloise" video, that sealed the deal for me in choosing the HX9v (especially after I downloaded it and tested out how much further I could enhance it.)

But thanks for your response and your experience. Actually this seems like not the worse site on the Internet for queries like mine.....

[davexnet]

Regarding GDSMUX, you'll find the program in the Haali folder in \program files\haali ... (use Windows Explorer)
Then follow these simple instructions.
https://forum.videohelp.com/threads/340448-Video-Format-and-Conversion-Questions?p=2118...=1#post2118500

[callmebc]

Regarding GDSMUX, you'll find the program in the Haali folder in \program files\haali ... (use Windows Explorer)
Then follow these simple instructions.
https://forum.videohelp.com/threads/340448-Video-Format-and-Conversion-Questions?p=2118...=1#post2118500

I just finished trying that. That created an MKV and it *looked* as though Avidmux 2.5.6 would be able to edit it normally, but it froze a short while after it started. The recent 2.6 build simply shut down when I tried to do a save. I thought, though, to retry 2.5.6 with only a couple of minor filters, and that initially seemed to have worked, but the resulting AVI file was all messed up, including being twice as long from being played at about half its original speed. Jeez, Louise.... The VirtualDub/Haali/DirectShow combo has so far been the only thing that has worked, but thanks again for all the suggestions on this board.

[davexnet]

Can you post a short section of your 60 fps MTS source?

[racer-x]

The VirtualDub/Haali/DirectShow combo should work, I've done that before when I just wanted a quick edit. If you use Virtualdub version 1.10.1, you can encode via external encoder. This is what I do and export via x264 using custom presets that I made.............

For your purposes on shooting in low light, you'd probably be better off just shooting in MP4 format anyway. The low light will limit the shutter speed to the point where it can't support 60p. At best you'll end up with 30 fps with duplicate frames to make 60p. The only drawbacks to shooting in MP4 is you'll end up with anamorphic 1440 x 1080 instead of 1:1 1920 x 1080. The quality should still be adequate. I've shot this way for indoor footage with decent results..........

As an idiot proof point and shoot camera, the Sony DSC-HX9V camera is a good choice. In my opinion, it's a better video camera than a still camera. It can get good still shots if you limit the ISO to 100 and drop the exposure a couple of stops. Where this camera really shines is the image stabilization, it's better than any video camera I own. It also uses very aggressive noise suppression for low light footage that eliminates video noise at the expense of detail.

[racer-x]

Can you post a short section of your 60 fps MTS source?

Here is a short 60p clip I trimmed with AviDemux:

[callmebc]

Can you post a short section of your 60 fps MTS source?

Actually I just finished with a successful second test: when I opened up the MKV file in Avidemux 2.5.6, I checked the framerate and what it had listed was "PAL - 24 FPS", hence the slow playing video result. I changed it to 60 fps, but the length didn't quite match up with what I got from VirtualDub. I then figured I should change it to 59.94 fps and that seemed to have done the trick, and I doublechecked it by dubbing in the audio from the VirtualDub conversion. So while the MKV file doesn't edit easily in Avidemux, at least I now know it can be converted to a more friendly file format. It's unfortunate that an intermediate conversion process seems to be needed regardless of whether I use this method or the VirtualDub combo, but at least I have two ways now to deal with that pointlessly crazy MTS format.

Mucho thanks again.

[callmebc]

The VirtualDub/Haali/DirectShow combo should work, I've done that before when I just wanted a quick edit. If you use Virtualdub version 1.10.1, you can encode via external encoder. This is what I do and export via x264 using custom presets that I made.............

For your purposes on shooting in low light, you'd probably be better off just shooting in MP4 format anyway. The low light will limit the shutter speed to the point where it can't support 60p. At best you'll end up with 30 fps with duplicate frames to make 60p. The only drawbacks to shooting in MP4 is you'll end up with anamorphic 1440 x 1080 instead of 1:1 1920 x 1080. The quality should still be adequate. I've shot this way for indoor footage with decent results..........

As an idiot proof point and shoot camera, the Sony DSC-HX9V camera is a good choice. In my opinion, it's a better video camera than a still camera. It can get good still shots if you limit the ISO to 100 and drop the exposure a couple of stops. Where this camera really shines is the image stabilization, it's better than any video camera I own. It also uses very aggressive noise suppression for low light footage that eliminates video noise at the expense of detail.

One of the reasons I wanted to stick with Avidemux is that once you get pretty familiar with its filters, you can do an awful lot to clean up a video. My standard concert video kit for the past 2 1/2 years has been this unimpressive seeming Kodak Zi8/Sony ECM-DS70P combo. But spending time editing/filtering the audio and video, and learning new tricks here and there has produced some not bad results. I recently picked up a Zoom H2n recorder as a separate audio source to merge in with the audio from the Zi8, if everything works right, this is what I can expect. When I'm in a club, I want something light enough to free up my beer hand, but good enough to deliver a good looking and sounding show.

I had been looking forward to testing out the Zi8's long overdue true successor, the Kodak Zi12, but of course Kodak then decided to fall down on its face. All I wanted was something like the Zi8, but with 2+ years of tech advancements, but no.... The supposedly competing stuff from Sony, Samsung, JVC and such were such crap that Zi8's shot up in value when Kodak discontinued it. I got a Nikon Coolpix P7000 last year, mostly because it was the only compact camera with a mic input, but it was worse than the Zi8 with club lighting. Really tedious research, including downloading YouTube videos so I could examine them better, led me to the HX9v. It does seem to be not quite as good as similar priced Canon's for picture taking, but it completely blows them away in video performance, especially at low light. It's aggravating that it doesn't have an external mic, but even the over-ballyhooed Canon G1 X doesn't have one either, and my early tests and some online concert footage indicate that its autogain is not too shabby. This is a temporary link to a video that was done by someone else using the HX9v, but which I had experimented with in regards to its audio and video qualities after downloading the original for a closer look. Again, not too shabby, and this was what made me go out and buy the camera (I actually doublechecked with the guy who did take it to make sure he really did use the HX9v.)

[racer-x]

Ironically I also own a Kodac Zx5. It's similar to the Zi8, but it's also waterproof to about 9 ft. I got it real cheap for $100 and it's usually the one I reach for when I need to put a camera in harms way. I agree it's pretty good in low light as it also uses heavy noise reduction.

It has a fixed aperture @ 2.8 and focal length of 33 mm. It adjusts exposure via shutter speed and UV filter.

[callmebc]

Ironically I also own a Kodac Zx5. It's similar to the Zi8, but it's also waterproof to about 9 ft. I got it real cheap for $100 and it's usually the one I reach for when I need to put a camera in harms way. I agree it's pretty good in low light as it also uses heavy noise reduction.
It has a fixed aperture @ 2.8 and focal length of 33 mm. It adjusts exposure via shutter speed and UV filter.

I had wondered if the Zi8 was mostly a happy mistake rather than something deliberate. My personal conclusion was that it was the former. The list price for the Zi8 when it was brand new was $179. Let me go on eBay right this moment and do a quick search for a Zi8....the top of the search results has "6 new from: $320.00, 24 used from $180.00" -- seriously, Kodak really made a complete botch out of the one camera product they had that stood out. And wasn't the Zi8's younger sibling, your Zx5, the top rated "camcorder" Consumer Reports recently rated? I had a contact at Kodak who was suppose to get me an early production model of the Zi12, so when that was pulled I sent her a long rant about Kodak, including comparing it rather unfavorably to GoPro.

I just came from a concert show where I tested the HX9v out with different movie mode settings and such. I'll let you guys know how the videos and editing came out.

[callmebc]

FYI -- this is the final result of my test video:


The video is from the GDSMux/MKV/Avidemux conversion method, with further filtering in Avidemux, while the audio is a 50-50 mix of edited audio from the HX9v (which I got via the VirtualDub/Haali/DirectShow method) and likewise edited audio from a Zoom H2n. I also had recording at the same time. That's a pair of old Casio MZ-2000's you see, and that tune is something I've been diddling with. The lighting is from two clamp lights attached to a nearby shelving unit -- one with a 25 watt blue incandescent bulb, the other with a red one.

Thanks again for everyone's help.

[poisondeathray]

FYI -- this is the final result of my test video:

I think you could improve the levels, you're leaving a significant amount of detail in the "superdark" region (Y' <16) which will get clipped when viewed on youtube. This is usuable data that your camera is recording, but you are essentially throwing away (it's there , but just not being "seen")

The lower "brown" area in the waveform tracing represents Y' 0-15 and data in that area will not be visible when viewed on youtube (or any calibrated display) - everything in that region will appear as 1 "shade" of black

You can choose to brighten up the shadows a bit as well, but usually that will reveal some noise, so you would usually have to add in some denoising filters

[racer-x]

Video quality looks good and it sounds great. Did you write that yourself?

[callmebc]

FYI -- this is the final result of my test video:

I think you could improve the levels, you're leaving a significant amount of detail in the "superdark" region (Y' <16) which will get clipped when viewed on youtube. This is usuable data that your camera is recording, but you are essentially throwing away (it's there , but just not being "seen")

The lower "brown" area in the waveform tracing represents Y' 0-15 and data in that area will not be visible when viewed on youtube (or any calibrated display) - everything in that region will appear as 1 "shade" of black

You can choose to brighten up the shadows a bit as well, but usually that will reveal some noise, so you would usually have to add in some denoising filters

Thanks for the analysis. Since this was a test video (actually I was only going to upload it to my Facebook account, but there was some FB glitch), I really did use this for testing out stuff, including helping me spot the audio sync drift with the VLC transcode method. With Avidemux, I use the Contrast, Luma Equalizer, and MPlayer eq2 filters as my usual go-to filters for club videos, with Luma Equalizer being great for smoothing out excessively bright and dark areas. The Sony HX9v has an option for a softer contrast, which I turned on out of curiosity. While it didn't seem to make too much of a difference with the raw video, it was much more obvious when filtering. If I was going to do this as a more serious video, I probably would have dropped the overall brightness down one more notch and slightly darken more the edge shadows. You're right I could have brighten this up a bit more, but there would have been the resulting noise gain, entailing more filtering. I kind of like the effects the low watt colored lamps provided.

I also used the MPlayer hqdn3d filter to see what its effect on the high frequency noise I see in my original processed video -- that was probably a waste for a YouTube only video. It's judgment call with YouTube about how much info you want to leave in video, but there really is no real penalty to make things look as good as you can on your computer before uploading it to YouTube, Facebook, whatever. I initially started filming concert shows with a Kodak Zi6, and because YouTube didn't support HD at the time, I initially only shot things in WVGA, something I very much regretted later for one particular show.

This past Sunday, I went out to see a curious basement club/theater show, and brought just the HX9v along with me. I'll post the results as a separate post. Thanks again for your opinion and taking the time for the detailed analysis.

[callmebc]

Video quality looks good and it sounds great. Did you write that yourself?

Thanks. Yeah, that tune is mostly a little hodgepodge of recent/older riffs I've built up that were never connected together before. I haven't given it a name yet since I'm still mostly playing around with it. I actually kept screwing it up initially during the recording and I was just using it to make a low light test video. But since I had the camera, a separate audio recording and the lighting all set up, test or no test, I thought to redo it until I got a clean enough full length version. I don't really consider myself a real musician -- I just grew up with Casio's.

[poisondeathray]

I'm curious as to why you decided on a 50-50mix of audio ? Surely the zoom audio would be better ?

[callmebc]

Hey all, I have some more info about using the Sony HX9v for video recording: there was a show down the street from me at this basement theater, so I brought the HX9v, sat at a theater seat, zoomed in a little bit, and set the video mode down a notch from its highest quality mode, 28 Mbps 1080p, to 1080i at 18 Mbps:



The biggest, most pleasant surprise was that Avidemux could directly open the resultant .MTS file from this mode without problems! I had to be careful with the preview slider to not lock things up, but aside from that, I was able to edit and save the file exactly the same way I did with the .MOV files from my Zi8 and P7000.

The audio needed a *lot* of TLC -- it was obviously near the limit of what its autogain/limiter circuit could handle here, resulting in ear hurting midrange, and I wasn't even sure if I could get something usable from it, but....that's what you have FFT filters for.

FYI.

[callmebc]

I'm curious as to why you decided on a 50-50mix of audio ? Surely the zoom audio would be better ?

Initially I was only going to use the audio from the H2n, and for my first experiments with it, I mounted it on a bracket along with my Nikon P7000, with the resulting video using only the H2n audio:



The audio came out rather nice, although I still had to EQ it a bit, and all I did was keep the defaults and turned the mic level all the way down. (Notice how the video quality seems a little bit off -- the P7000 had big problems with this type of club lighting.)

I was at a punk rock show a few weeks later, and was iffy about bringing the bracket setup or the P7000. What I decided to try was use my tried and true Zi8/Sony ECM-DS70P mic combo, and put the Zoom H2n on a ledge a little ways away from the stage. I'm very use to EQ'ing good audio out of the Zi8/DS70P combo so I thought to see how that would compare to the audio from the H2n, also EQ'd to taste. It wasn't so much the H2n was that much better than it had very different flavor. So I mixed the two audio tracks together, with about one third from the Zi8/DS70P and about 2/3rds from the H2n. That produced a really full sound that sounded closer to what the club actually sounds like (the second song is a killer.):



I then thought to try a 50-50 mix with this being one of the results:



I'm not sure if 50-50 will work when using the Sony HX9v with the Zoom -- the HX9v has a much better high frequency response than the Zi8/DS70P combo, but that is accompanied by much weaker bass and excessive midrange, at least with moderate club sound levels. I'll likely mount the HX9v and the H2n on a bracket and try this at a really loud show to see what's what. There's going to be a killer rock show on the 30th I want to be absolutely ready for, so I'll definitely fit in a test show or two before then. I'll post the results here when I do that.

[callmebc]

Update: I just finished diddling with and then posting my first real life concert video using the Sony HX9v and the Zoom H2n, and at a venue that's always been a problem to film. In brief: 1) the HX9v does indeed handle low light and/or funkily lit concert venues about as well as DLSR's, but that still doesn't mean you won't have noise to filter out; 2) there is no point in using the highest mode of AVCHD for these things -- the lowest mode ("FH" 17 Mbps) works fine and Avidemux has no problems with it; 3) the audio capabilities of the HX9v are not that bad, but it doesn't take much to overwhelm it in a club venue -- it noticeably struggled with even a pop/folk piece like the one below, especially band kicks in; the Zoom H2n is probably the best all-round digital recorded for concerts, and I didn't even have to use it autogain or limiter options for the video below -- I just turned its mic gain all the way down. For the noise, I used Avidemux's MPlayer hqdn3d noise filter, and then thought to process it further in VirtualDub with MSU's (Moscow State University) Denoising and SmartDeblocking filters, as well as do some tweaking with Color Mill.