Member of the Month

hi_vis360
November, 2024

Online

Welcome to the Newschoolers forums! You may read the forums as a guest, however you must be a registered member to post. Register to become a member today!

Good AVCHD converter?

profile picture
homestar
Posts: 2124 - Karma: 4,197
AVCHD videos play back well on my computer (Windows Media Player) but once I try playing them back in Vegas 11 they start stuttering. I guess I just need to convert them to a format that will play back better in Vegas without losing quality (and hopefully keep the videos at 60 fps.)

What is a good video converter to use? Also, what format should I convert to?
Aug 25 2012 11:29PM
0 0
profile picture
Brentizzle
Posts: 1584 - Karma: 1,871
clipwrap. thats what eheath just told me to start using for my stuff and it works quite well. .mts to what ever format your going to edit in. i just convert mine to pro res 422(LT)
Aug 26 2012 1:24AM
0 0
profile picture
goodiepocket
Posts: 950 - Karma: 641
.
Aug 26 2012 11:52AM
0 0
profile picture
BA.berger
Posts: 300 - Karma: 300
MPEG streamclip!!
Aug 26 2012 12:06PM
0 0
profile picture
eheath
Posts: 61652 - Karma: 123,517
as far as i know, mpeg doesnt read mts files
Aug 26 2012 12:40PM
0 0
profile picture
BA.berger
Posts: 300 - Karma: 300
haha, I guess you know alot more than me..
I use it for my dslr .mov files and it works great,.,
Maybe not for mts files though..
Aug 26 2012 1:51PM
0 0
profile picture
homestar
Posts: 2124 - Karma: 4,197
Sorry, I forgot to mention I'm on Windows.
Aug 26 2012 2:05PM
0 0
profile picture
B.Taillefer
Posts: 420 - Karma: 321
Clipwrap is a great program as is 5DtoRGB.

They both do the same thing and cost the same, so really its your choice. I personally use 5DtoRGB to convert from AVCHD (I shoot on a GH2) into ProRes and it works fantastically and I highly recommend it.


Aug 27 2012 12:43PM
0 0
profile picture
homestar
Posts: 2124 - Karma: 4,197
What are the downsides to the free version of 5DtoRGB?
Aug 27 2012 3:07PM
0 0
profile picture
B.Taillefer
Posts: 420 - Karma: 321
No batch conversion, so you have to convert each clip individually, which is incredibly time consuming as opposed to dragging all your clips from the day into the program and leaving it to convert which is what the full version allows you to do.
Aug 27 2012 10:11PM
0 0
profile picture
ZAHNER
Posts: 3480 - Karma: 19,220
I just use adobe premiere, it takes .mts
Aug 27 2012 11:00PM
0 0
profile picture
homestar
Posts: 2124 - Karma: 4,197
.mts works in vegas but it's a hard format to play back so it can end up laggy (especially since I'm filming at 1080 60p.)
Aug 28 2012 3:14AM
0 0
profile picture
eheath
Posts: 61652 - Karma: 123,517
always good to transcode though...
Aug 28 2012 3:19AM
0 0
profile picture
MatRich
Posts: 4789 - Karma: 1,813
why is that, I keep hearing everyone repeat this and no one has a logical explination. its like if everyone repeats something so it became standard procedure.
Aug 28 2012 11:00AM
0 0
profile picture
ZAHNER
Posts: 3480 - Karma: 19,220
what camera do  you have? i film 1080/60 too, i guess premiers just better with it
Aug 28 2012 11:38AM
0 0
profile picture
alexat955
Posts: 2732 - Karma: 112
It's easier on your computer, making editing/playback/rendering faster. Not sure if the compression will affect the final output, landis might know
Aug 28 2012 12:02PM
0 0
profile picture
eheath
Posts: 61652 - Karma: 123,517
It's just better to use an "editing" codec. If you're just filming your friends and making an edit, sure editing you h264 movs from your t2i or you mts from your tm700 is fine. But, if you are at any sort of higher level, especially if you're pushing a professional level of any kind of film making, encoding your shots is definitely important. Easier to edit, easier to organize, easier to hand off to others. Prores is a industry standard which one reason why I encode to it, another is with macs mts files have a gamma problem (shots come out with crush blacks). Now days, computers are fast enough for mts and h264 movs but a couple years ago, computers shit bricks, which is another reason why encoding is popular.
Aug 28 2012 12:08PM
0 0
profile picture
MatRich
Posts: 4789 - Karma: 1,813
Again, i see no technical reason for it (except with final cut) the gamma crushing on m2ts would make me want to convert, thats fully logical. Prores is standard for two reasons:
1. Easy to manpulate
2. Great quality when recorded natively

Problem now with 1 is that its just as easy to handle with premiere as h264.
The thing with 2 is you hain no quality what so ever when converting, your just changing the way your computer reads it.

Now with a good editing platform like premiere which actualy handles h264 better than the mac proprietary prores, in my opinion its better not to convert for the following reasons.
1: cut converting time out of the equation
2 free up hard drive space
3 no loss of quality
4 less wear and tear on my computer from converting.

Not only do i see more benifits in not converting with this platform, i will be able to see my editing time cut dramatically.

The only thing That would make me change my mind about this process is if someone gave me a technical explination that demonstrates a real loss of quality
Aug 28 2012 12:25PM
0 0
profile picture
eheath
Posts: 61652 - Karma: 123,517
You can do whatever you want, I was simply explaining why I convert all of my footage. I come from an hvx too where you had to log and transfer all your files no matter what. I think the h264 of out canon cameras is garbage, even fast computers can struggle to just play the codec. h264 isnt an editing codec, prores is, which is why its easier to edit and why alot of people transcode. If you don't want to transcode thats fine and im sure if you ever need to transcode something for any reason, it'd be a couple easy steps.
Aug 28 2012 12:31PM
0 0
profile picture
MatRich
Posts: 4789 - Karma: 1,813
stop being so offended, Im trying to find the best process for my self and at the same time benefit others. I always approach things with logic and Im not a big fan of doing as everyone does without questioning the logic.

Unfortunately the couple easy steps your talking about are huge time and processing. Im about to start a 300gb project, If I was to convert this I would find myself converting for 20+ hours. I would have a resulting project file of at least 500GB once converted. Useless space also if you ask me since anything added to the already existing information can not magically create quality. So with this conversion I would spend upwards of a day and have a project file of close to 1TB.

all of that so I can do as everyone does even though no one can explain the real benifits.

FCP7 is different though: here I noticed a real difference and I always converted my files. it was the difference between having to render every little effect and barely ever rendering. This was due to the fact that the codec works marvels when used with FCP.

Premiere how ever is capable of easily handling this, avchd, red raw... again unless there are some benifits in terms of quality, to me it makes no sense to continue wasting time on conversions.
Aug 28 2012 12:44PM
0 0
profile picture
eheath
Posts: 61652 - Karma: 123,517
I totally understand what you're saying man and I went though about 2tb in 8 months of ski filming. Most people these days are starting to care less and less about storage space because its so cheap. 2tb 3.5" drives are 110-120 bucks, its a steal. But, I do get what you're coming from, im not trying to act offended, just stating how my shit works so you can perfect the way you do yours :)
Aug 28 2012 12:49PM
0 0
profile picture
1337
Posts: 31059 - Karma: 29,335
Pretty sure the AVCHD (.mts right?) does not hold color grades and editing very well. It is a compressed codec and the effects of editing it (color correction filters, etc) do not hold as well as something like prores
Aug 28 2012 12:53PM
0 0
profile picture
MatRich
Posts: 4789 - Karma: 1,813
Once comssed you cant un compress, the only benifit is making it easyer for your computer to decript. Prores is amazing for people with heavy hd low compression video. My logic is if the created file was smaller and more efficiant ( what its made for) this would be all i use. But when converting dslr footage your file actualy becomes bigger. Indicating no advantage except easy reading. Add now the fact that premiere reads h264 even better than prores, why convert
Aug 28 2012 1:06PM
0 0
All times are Eastern (-5)