Basic AVCHD video Editing Tools

[glenpinn]

long story short, im in the market for a new AVCHD HD cam (most likely going for the panny HS300 with the 120gb hdd and sd/sdhd card option, or the slightly cheaper TM300 that shoots onto 32gb int flash and also onto sd/sdhd carD)

anyway, thats irrelevant at the moment, what i need to know is can someone point me in the right direction for a few apps that allows me to simply take the AVCHD footage from the cams hdd (if i have one) and then allow me to cut bits out while its still in the original format, then simply join it back up to the original format without re-encoding it.

the cams come with some basic editing software, but i want to find alternatives in case its not that good.

i just need to do the basic stuff, then store the footage away in my backup devices, and be able to play them via a new western digital tv player im going to be getting very soon.

from there, if i need the footage in other formats i can grab a copy of the original footage from my storage device and output it to whatever i like using another program if need be, but a basic cutting and joining tool is what im currently looking for.

CHEERS

just grabbed a cipy of AviDemux from this forum for chopping up my standard def Xvid/divX and H-264 files, but i assume it wont do the big AVCHD files from the camcorder.

[872156]

I'm using Microsoft Movie Maker. I only copy the MTS files to my harddrive and from MMM ouptut WMV.


--------

[glenpinn]

I'm using Microsoft Movie Maker. I only copy the MTS files to my harddrive and from MMM ouptut WMV.

thx but im not using movie maker for any kind of video editing, i wont touch that thing.

you say your importing your AVCHD files into WMM and outputting to WMV, can i ask you WHY ???

what medium do you play your video files on ????

do you keep your WMV files in HD resolution or are you re-encoding down to standard def size.

[guns1inger]

For basic assemble editing there is no reason to assume that AVI Demux won't do the job.

The big issue is that there AVCHD really isn't supported very well by any of the editors. All have various issues, depending on the pack age and the camera in use. In many cases, your PC will simply not be up the task of editing AVCHD smoothly, which is why the cineform intermediate codec is often recommended. You convert your footage using NeoScene, edit away, then output back to AVC when you are done.

[pippas]

Nero 9 is one of the programs that will let you cut bits out without re-encoding the whole thing. You can trial to see if it suits your purpose. See here

[guns1inger]

The problem with Nero 9 is that, well, it's Nero. That and the fact it is 350MB for the very knobbled trial version (that doesn't support an AVC based features - see Restrictions on the download page) and requires 1.5GB of HDD space for a typical install (see System requirements). Yes folks, Nero is bigger than Windows XP.

[glenpinn]

ok guys, can i point out i am not interested in Nero or movie maker, i dont even want them used in my vocabulary, and im not using nero when i use ashampoo as my burning tool.

i also assumed my q6600 at 3.0ghz with 4 gb ram will be more than enough to do basic cutting of AVCHD files without converting them to some other format, then back to AVC, i just dont see any point to it, might as well get a HDV cam instead and put uup with shooting onto tape (which is what i dont want to have to use again)

the only way i can test AviDEMUX i guess is to test it but i dont have any AVCHD files to test with.

surely there is something that can do basic file cutting and joining without changing the format prior to, or after the cutting.

regarding this Cineform option, is this a lossy codec, will my files suffer any real loss of quality during the conversion to it, then more on the way back to AVC, or would it be ok to leave it in Cineform after the cutting and joining is finished.

sorry but im not familiar with this stuff so please bare with me.

cheers

[racer-x]

I don't have an AVCHD camera (I shoot HDV), but I tried this method out on some downloaded AVCHD clips and it worked great:

1) Import M2T/m2ts into TsMuxeR and export at "TS". This is a lossless conversion.
2) Edit the "TS" clip in TSSniper. This is a free TS cutter with a nice viewer and cuts losslessly.
3) Export as "TS". You should be able to play back the TS clips in your hardware media player. You could also import the TS clip into TsMuxeR and export as m2ts if you want.....

[glenpinn]

For basic assemble editing there is no reason to assume that AVI Demux won't do the job.

oh wouldnt it be great if it worked, problem solved, but these basic tools sometimes find themselves lacking in frame accuracy, especially at the start of the video, sometimes i see these tools not actually cutting at the selected frame, often they start a few frames past where the starting cut was actually marked, i know AviDemux was ok on my SD Xvid files but skipped 4 frames on one of my SD 712x400 H-264 files i tried a while ago.

I don't have an AVCHD camera (I shoot HDV), but I tried this method out on some downloaded AVCHD clips and it worked great:

1) Import M2T/m2ts into TsMuxeR and export at "TS". This is a lossless conversion.
2) Edit the "TS" clip in TSSniper. This is a free TS cutter with a nice viewer and cuts losslessly.
3) Export as "TS". You should be able to play back the TS clips in your hardware media player. You could also import the TS clip into TsMuxeR and export as m2ts if you want.....

ok thx for the suggestion, sounds ok to me, but more than likely its just doing something similar to converting it to Cineform using Neo-Scene then cutting it up and converting back to AVC.

I just got a trial of Neo-Scene but dont have footage to try on it yet

anyway, im actually pretty bemused by all this at the moment because im curious what other real amateur cam users actually do with their footage on the cam, i mean i know a stack about computers, i build them, and i know a lot about dv cams and dvd format, and i am no slouch at learning, where as many cam users would be, so what on earth are they doing with their footage, or am i blind to realize that there are no ordinary mums and dads out there using HDV or AVCHD cams to have to bother with this stuff.

maybe im wrong, mabe thy are still using Hi8 or vhs, or maybe its just dv format.

[racer-x]

ok thx for the suggestion, sounds ok to me, but more than likely its just doing something similar to converting it to Cineform using Neo-Scene then cutting it up and converting back to AVC.

No, this is not the same....no conversion is taking place, just different container is used for the source video/audio...........

You can edit AVCHD in newer NLE's like Vegas and Premiere and others. The problem is it takes a very stout CPU to decode the AVCHD clips for editing and re-encoding. This is why many people that edit AVCHD use an intermediate codec like Cineform and others, or do "Proxy Editing.

[disturbed1]

ok thx for the suggestion, sounds ok to me, but more than likely its just doing something similar to converting it to Cineform using Neo-Scene then cutting it up and converting back to AVC.

Does not convert it, only repackages it. Easiest to think of it as re-muxing the streams together. The file is not decompressed, then recompressed - which takes CPU time. The steps outlined by racer-x is only limited by Hard Drive speed.

maybe im wrong, mabe thy are still using Hi8 or vhs, or maybe its just dv format.

Most people who work with AVCHD either use the crappy software supplied with the camera, or use Vegas/Adobe.

HDV does not have anything near the limitations as AVCHD. Editing and playback are easily accomplished on most PCs with most editing packages. HDV is mpeg2 25mb/s AVCHD is h264 which currently maxes out at 17mb/s (depending on camera - some only go as high as 10mb/s).

Today HDV is the better format when compared to AVCHD. From PC overhead, quality, editing, and general ease of use. AVCHD is not actually a true standard. Each camera maker uses it's own set of specification, format muxing, bitrate ....... One editor is not gaurenteeed to work with every AVCHD stream. AVCHD is just a container which has an High Definition AVC (h264 - mpeg4-part 10, A.K.A. AVC) stream. There is no concrete standard for this container. Some camera use High-Profile@Level-4.1, while other use Main-Profile@Level-4.0.

Maybe the next gen AVCHD cameras will be better. Today, the only advantage over HDV is shooting 1920x1080 vs 1440x1080, plus a couple of AVCHD models that do 60P. Though the Cannon HV20/30 @ 1440x1080 has the same, if not higher quality than any AVCHD camera in the same price range, and most that are even higher priced.

Editing AVCHD even on a Quad-core machine will be slow.

Don't forget those SD cards will be formatted to FAT32 file system, which means a 4GB file size limit. HDV is limited to 60minutes per tape.

[glenpinn]

[quote="disturbed1"]

Don't forget those SD cards will be formatted to FAT32 file system, which means a 4GB file size limit. HDV is limited to 60minutes per tape.

ok i forgot about this bit, so the cam will output 2 or more seperate files if i film continuously for longer than a certain period of time ???

i kept thinking i could film till the card ran out of space

Blu-ray is the "new" format is it not, and is it not also mpeg2 ???

if so, then why are cam makers using AVCHD at all, and here is the biggy, why cant they create a way to shoot HDV onto other types of mediums rather than just tape, and why cant they take the resolution out to 1920x1080 like AVCHD uses, i always think of 1440x1080 as being somewhat "gay" and i still dont fully understand it, obviously its not using square pixels like AVCHD does to get the 16x9 ratio.

[disturbed1]

ok i forgot about this bit, so the cam will output 2 or more seperate files if i film continuously for longer than a certain period of time ???

Yes it will split the files. Some users report errors, or skips when joining the split files back. Low percentage, but it has happened. Perhaps newer models of cameras have fixed this issue.

Blu-ray is the "new" format is it not, and is it not also mpeg2 ???

Ummm, sure it is. Blu Ray also supports h264 and VC1

why cant they create a way to shoot HDV onto other types of mediums rather than just tape, and why cant they take the resolution out to 1920x1080 like AVCHD uses, i always think of 1440x1080 as being somewhat "gay" and i still dont fully understand it, obviously its not using square pixels like AVCHD does to get the 16x9 ratio.

I think the same way . But it does scale just fine. 720x480 is not square pixel, but it scales just fine. As does 480x480 and 352x480.

HDV is yesterday's format, AVCHD is tomorrow's format. The sad part, if you purchase an AVCHD camera today, it will be surpassed by something much more effective, and higher quality, with a more stable format tomorrow. HDV is like miniDV. It is a standard that is rock solid. What you get today, will be here tomorrow. No profiles or levels to worry about. It either supports HDV or it does not. There is no in-between.

AVCHD needs some more time for software and hardware to catch up.

I'd find some AVCHD and HDV samples to play with so you can see which format better fits your editing style, and quality requirements.

[glenpinn]

ok i just read up on the 1440x1080 vs 1920x1080 ratios, and i got it

the HDV shoots 1440x1080 cos it uses rectangular pixels and when played back on WS tv or on the pc it plays square pixels @ 1920x1080, and AVCHD shoots in square pixels at 1920x1080 because that is true 16x9 using square pixels.

i dont have an issue with HDV as a recording format (mpeg2) and i dont have an issue with quality compared to AVCHD (h264) i just cant stand the thought of using tapes again after spending 5 years using dv format.

i assumed AVCHD was the future but it does seem to be somewhat retarded as far as being consumer friendly, so why did the cam makers go down this path, was it that they believed it was going to be the future or did they make a big mistake jumping so soon.

btw, regarding the HDV cams, how does the actual image appear on the cams lcd screen if it is filmed at 1440x1080, dont these cams have a true 16x9 lcd screen.

and the bit about scaling, i know what your saying, its like my GS70 cam shoots native 4x3 (720x576 pal) and i prefer to output my mpeg2 files at 16x9 not 4x3 ratio, so i shoot in cinema mode (or letterbox mode) which adds 64 lines of black to the top and 74 lines of black to the bottom of the lcd screen (its gay cos that makes the actual image 720x438)

for me to output to correct 16x9 i always assumed i needed to crop the video file down to a true 16x9 resolution which would be 720x405, but i then found out it must be 720x432, so i only needed to crop the video file a total of 144 lines so the actual resolution or size is 720x432, so i take 68 lines from the top and 76 lines from the bottom, then i encode it to 16x9 spec and it plays correctly on a 16x9 WS tv and on the pc using VLC etc.

when i go to convert the cropped 720x432 dv-avi file to Xvid format, rather than set the encoder (tmpge) to 720x432 as one would think, i actually need to set the Xvid output size to 720x396 to avoid any bars being added to the image on playback.

its wierd because i assumed Xvid also used a square pixel so i assumed that i need to set the Xvid output to an exact 16x9 resolution of 405, but if i set any size higher than 396, i get thin black bars top and bottom, and if i output to lower than 396 i get thin bars on the sides rather than the top/bottom.

gets confusing to say the least.

[guns1inger]

The same way it appears as a 16:9 image your monitor or TV - non-square pixels and Display Aspect Ratios.

AVCHD has many things going for it from a camera manufacturer point of view. The biggest is mechanical simplicity. No tape transport, no mechanical or magnetic heads. Easier to build, easier to maintain. Also easier to expand capacity on. Just slip in a bigger memory card.

Also easier for consumers. Just take your card and stick it in your card reader - PC, TV, whatever - and play it. They decided some time ago that the general public really didn't care too much for editing. That's why they made DVD cameras.

[disturbed1]

i dont have an issue with HDV as a recording format (mpeg2) and i dont have an issue with quality compared to AVCHD (h264) i just cant stand the thought of using tapes again after spending 5 years using dv format.

i assumed AVCHD was the future but it does seem to be somewhat retarded as far as being consumer friendly, so why did the cam makers go down this path, was it that they believed it was going to be the future or did they make a big mistake jumping so soon.

btw, regarding the HDV cams, how does the actual image appear on the cams lcd screen if it is filmed at 1440x1080, dont these cams have a true 16x9 lcd screen.

AVCHD is the future. The software editing sucks at this point in time. Not to mention the CPU overhead. Makes me feel like I'm authoring SVCDs on a Pentium Pro 200 again - not that bad, but you get the point . The convince of being able to simply place the flash card in the PC and copy a 4gig file over is largely offset by having to recompress the AVCHD stream into something more manageable. I just could not hack the slow scrubbing and preview issues. This is with a core2duo e8400 (3.0x2), 8 gig RAM, and 2 raid arrays in Vegas.

If you are sick and tired of tapes, go for it. Software will catch up sooner or later - it has to.

Just to push you a little more, you know how we never re-recorded on a DV tape? (ok, maybe a 2nd recording only once in a great while ) flash memory can be erased and written to at least 100's of times. I've had cheap cards die after 100 re-writes, and I currently have an 8GB stick that I lost count after 350+ complete fills. Price of flash drives are also going down.

Me, if I did not already own a Canon HV20, I would be seriously eyeballing an AVCHD camera, but I'd hold off for the next models to come out. I do not personally own an AVCHD camera, my cousin does (a Panasonic model) which I've used and edited with Vegas, and KDEnlive. He paid about the same as I did for my HV20. Though last week he told me he was about to purchase an HV30 to use as an extra cam for some of his shoots.

[glenpinn]

LOL i just added some more info on my previous post and came back and 2 more posts are up already.

now im scratching the head a bit, more to think about, maybe right not to buy a current model AVCHD cam just yet like you say, after all this stuff ive been reading in here in the past few weeks, i just might stick with the dv format at the moment, i mean my mpeg2 files at 6000br scrub up ok on a 42" full HD lcd tv (if your not standing too close) and most upscaling dvd players, ps3 and htpc and hdd media players do a pretty good job.

and now i just finished outputting the mpeg2 files to Xvid format for storing on my 2 hdd media players (they are near mpeg2 quality and i got the 170 mpeg2 files (which total 165gb) down to 115gb in Xvid format so they dont use up too much hdd space.

and no, i didnt toss the mpeg2 files away i still have 3 copies of each of them in my archive backup systems.

wish i never sold my AG-DVX100A, biggest mistake i ever made, although my NV-GS400 was a dam good dv cam apart from bad low light issues, the same as all the smaller panny dv cams, hopeless in low light.

[Ventolin]

Hi glenpinn,

TSPE will edit AVCHD natively and will not re-encode. It is shareware but has a 30 day free trial period. At the moment it is not frame accurate but is P frame to I frame accurate. This means you might loose a frame or two at the end point or a few frames at the start point, but it's dependant on the GOP structure of the stream. Frame accurate support is on the way however. It's still in beta and any feedback you can give would be most welcome.

You can get TSPE from here:

http://www.bitstreamtools.com

If you have any issues with it then just let me know and I'll sort it out.

Regards,

Vent

[redwudz]

oh wouldnt it be great if it worked, problem solved, but these basic tools sometimes find themselves lacking in frame accuracy, especially at the start of the video, sometimes i see these tools not actually cutting at the selected frame, often they start a few frames past where the starting cut was actually marked, i know AviDemux was ok on my SD Xvid files but skipped 4 frames on one of my SD 712x400 H-264 files i tried a while ago.

You will likely see that problem with any highly compressed format. Even with Xvid/Divx, you need to cut on a keyframe or you will have to re-encode at least at the cut point. Xvid/Divx has keyframes set about every 300 frames by default. This makes frame accurate editing very difficult. I don't use AVCHD, but I suspect it uses a similar keyframe spacing. This is one way to achieve high compression. And that may be another reason that some users re-encode AVCHD to a different format for editing. If most every cut needs to be re-encoded, I could see how it would be a CPU intensive operation.

DV has every frame as a keyframe, making it one of the easiest formats to edit in. But I'm not suggesting you use DV, just understand why editing some formats is a PITA.

[glenpinn]

I don't use AVCHD, but I suspect it uses a similar keyframe spacing. This is one way to achieve high compression. And that may be another reason that some users re-encode AVCHD to a different format for editing.

so if i converted the AVCHD to Cineform would that still have this keyframe problem for cutting the files where i want it cut, and if it doesnt have this problem, could i leave the AVCHD file in Cineform format.

actually this Cineform business is still something i need to look at more, not sure if the AVCHD gets re-encoded or is it just converted for editing.

[glenpinn]

Does not convert it, only repackages it. Easiest to think of it as re-muxing the streams together. The file is not decompressed, then recompressed - which takes CPU time. The steps outlined by racer-x is only limited by Hard Drive speed.

so Cineform isnt actually a form of re-compression or conversion, does it simply change the structure for editing then save it back to AVCHD and nothing is lost in quality ???

[poisondeathray]

so Cineform isnt actually a form of re-compression or conversion, does it simply change the structure for editing then save it back to AVCHD and nothing is lost in quality ???

Yes, it's a form of minimally lossy compression (visually lossless). But you are losing a tiny bit quality converting to cineform, and again some more converting back to AVCHD

[Ventolin]

Cineform will result in 2 generations of loss as it is a lossy codec.

AVCHD -> cineform = 1 generation loss
edit cineform
cineform -> AVCHD = 1 generation loss
total: 2

You can convert to something like huffyuv if you want a lossless conversion, but you will have a very large intermediate file and you will also have 1 generation loss when you convert from huffyuv (or any other lossless codec) back to AVCHD.

You can make an edit decision list using cineform or any other codec (even something like AVISynth) but to make the final edit you will still re-encode and so incur a generation loss.

The only way to guarentee *no* generation loss is to edit in native h.264 format.

There is no way to edit h.264 AVCHD frame accurately without re-encoding at least some frames around the edit point.

TSPE is the only sub-GOP editor that will not re-encode any frames (that I know of). It's more than possible to edit high bitrate h.264 transport streams in real time with a very comfortable speed on a dual core CPU. TSPE will edit 45Mbit+ bluray streams on a core duo T2300 laptop for example. As no re-encoding takes place, editing speed is governed by your hard disk speed (same speed as a file copy).

Hope that clears things up for you.

Regards,

Vent

[pippas]

Use Canopus HQ as the intermediate format.Similar to Cineform, in that it converts to another format, but it does allow frame accurate editing, and is much less demanding of CPU power than the original AVCHD.

Lossy conversion, but only just - very high quality retained.

You can trial it with Edius Neo2 editor from Grass Valley, but you can get a freebie AVCHD2HQ converter utility direct from Grass Valley site. You do need the Canopus HQ codec for it to work, and that is pretty easy to find as a freebie too, although some folk say the encode side is not supposed to be out there as a freebie. You'd have to make your own mind up about that.

I use it all the time. Workflow is to convert from AVCHD to Canopus HQ, edit using my rather ancient version of Premiere (6.5), export to Vdub and then convert to either Xvid or x.264.
Keeps the quality pretty good.
I like the frame accurate cutting, and the ease that Canopus HQ (or Cineform) can be worked with, even on older P4 machines.

[glenpinn]

hey guys thanks a million for this, its all beginning to sound interesting indeed.

im going to bookmark this thread so i have it to review as i go alond, plus ill copy/paste relevent info from it and store that in a word doc for offline reading.

one more thing, i asked b4 if my AVCHD files are converted to any of these other output formats like Cineform/Huffyuv/canopus can the files be left in that format and stored away (archived) and if so, could they be played in some medium such as a HD hdd media player or a west digital tv box or even thru some stand alone dvd player, or is it better to either take them back to AVCHD for storage, or even output to another more suitable format that is more supported out there in consumer land.

im just trying to figure the best format to archve the files in thats all, but would probably be best to convert to those other formats and just convert back to AVCHD for storage.

have to remember, all i want edit wise is to cut bits out of my footage, im not going to go to extremes with pro editing, im not doing this professionally, and if i do film any family/friends weddings etc (which i have done a fair bit of in dv format using various dv cams) then cutting is all i want to do, as most people are not fussed about having all the fancy crap in their wedding videos anyway, just getting it on disc or whatever, in very good quality and within a reasonable time frame is all people want (from my experience) and its free anyway, they never complain about giving me a slab of beer in return for the videos and slideshows.

another reason why i wish i never sold my AG-DVX100A cam, brilliant for shooting weddings.

[Ventolin]

one more thing, i asked b4 if my AVCHD files are converted to any of these other output formats like Cineform/Huffyuv/canopus can the files be left in that format and stored away (archived) and if so, could they be played in some medium such as a HD hdd media player or a west digital tv box or even thru some stand alone dvd player, or is it better to either take them back to AVCHD for storage, or even output to another more suitable format that is more supported out there in consumer land.

No media players will play back the intermediate formats you mentioned that I know of.

im just trying to figure the best format to archve the files in thats all, but would probably be best to convert to those other formats and just convert back to AVCHD for storage.

I would edit in native AVCHD format with TSPE - absolutely no loss in quality and pretty good compatibility with media players (WDTV / PS3 / PCH / etc) with the option to make bluray discs with no loss in quality.

have to remember, all i want edit wise is to cut bits out of my footage, im not going to go to extremes with pro editing, im not doing this professionally, and if i do film any family/friends weddings etc (which i have done a fair bit of in dv format using various dv cams) then cutting is all i want to do, as most people are not fussed about having all the fancy crap in their wedding videos anyway, just getting it on disc or whatever, in very good quality and within a reasonable time frame is all people want (from my experience) and its free anyway, they never complain about giving me a slab of beer in return for the videos and slideshows.

For maximum compatibility with others, make a DVD. If you do this, then you might as well forget about keeping maximum quality and edit with whatever you like. If you want to keep a master however, edit in native AVCHD format.

Good luck!

Regards,

Vent

[glenpinn]

I would edit in native AVCHD format with TSPE - absolutely no loss in quality and pretty good compatibility with media players (WDTV / PS3 / PCH / etc) with the option to make bluray discs with no loss in quality.

yep this is ideally what i want, just cut and join the original AVCHD file preferrably with no conversion either way, then retain 2 copies of each of the edited AVCHD in both my archive backup mediums.

if i output to other formats for others to watch (SD or HD) then ill just keep a copy for myself incase someone else wants the same one.

i have 16TB of hdd storage in total so im not fussed about what i keep, but i never get rid of any original files.

ill go look at TSPE program and take it all in.

cheers

[glenpinn]

for those who might be interested, i just scored myself a sony VX2100E dv cam (never thought i would ever buy a sony) and only reason i got it was because i only paid $500au and i know the complete history of the cam and what it was used for, and film time.

i recall a few years ago (b4 i got my DVX-100E) i wanted a decent dv cam and had a choice between the VX2100, canon XL2 and panny NV-GS400 and ened up with the latter because it shat on the XL2 for everything and was a few hundred cheaper, but the VX2100 was a better cam than the 400 but also a lot dearer, so i settled on the 400 and it was a nice cam, apart from the way it shot 16x9 on the screen (stretched it)

anyway, i couldnt knock this cam back at that price, its fully serviced and will be ideal for the next year for shooting family stuff and output to high quality mpeg2, and as suggested, i will see how the next generation AVCHD cams go, but i still love the panasonic TM300 all the same.

im saving this thread full of great tips and ideas and will review it when i decide more about the new HD cam.

cheers guys and many thanks.