I have an pretty fast computer (see specs below) and a camera that records in AVCHD format.  My experience using Pinnacle Studio 15 to edit AVCHD video files has been far from satisfactory and is very frustrating.  The editing is very slow and subject to crashes.  What should take a few minutes, sometimes ends up taking the better part of an hour, especially when transitions and a music track are involved.  I tried turning off background rendering, video acceleration, etc., but none of these setup changes made a significant difference.  It looks like the only thing left to do is to render the AVCHD files to high definition MPEG2 files and edit using those files.  Aside from adding to the workflow, I have some concerns about the quality of the final product since something is lost everytime a clip is rendered. 

I'd like to hear how other users are handling AVCHD files.  Is there a better way of handling those files?

Asus P8Z68-V Pro

Intel Core i7 2600K 3.4GHz QUAD CORE 8MB 95W

Kingston 16GB DDR3-1333 (4x4GB)          

MSI GeForce GTX 560 Ti 1GB Twin Frozr II             

2 Western Digital Caviar Black 1.0TB SATA 6Gb/s

Asus 12x Blu-ray Burner SATA (black)    

Windows 7 Professional 64-bit OEM SP1               

 It looks like the only thing left to do is to render the AVCHD files to high definition MPEG2 files and edit using those files.

Well, that's what I do. Although you have a monster computer by my standards, Studio apparently cannot use more than a few gigs of RAM and the i7 processor doesn't solve the AVCHD problem (AVCHD being hard to edit by the usual standards)..

On the up side, MPEG2 produces a very good HD video and edits like a breeze.

 

.

I edit AVCHD on a slightly slower machine than that and in comparison to mpeg-2 or DV-AVI yes it is slower and crashes more often, but "The editing is very slow and subject to crashes." is a bit subjective. On my laptop, which is a 2.0GHz i7 sandy bridge I'm getting a lot of crashes because of my graphics card, so I'm wondering if this isn't a hardware or software specific issue for you too. My suspicion would be the graphics card - are you running two cards?

I'm even able to edit footage from my Canon 5Dii at 46Mbps on both machines. I find the experience OK - I can jog around and carry out actually edit tasks acceptably smoothly. I tend to use Avid Studio for most things now, but PS is similar in speed.

 

jjn:

I edit AVCHD on a slightly slower machine than that and in comparison to mpeg-2 or DV-AVI yes it is slower and crashes more often, but "The editing is very slow and subject to crashes." is a bit subjective. On my laptop, which is a 2.0GHz i7 sandy bridge I'm getting a lot of crashes because of my graphics card, so I'm wondering if this isn't a hardware or software specific issue for you too. My suspicion would be the graphics card - are you running two cards?

I'm even able to edit footage from my Canon 5Dii at 46Mbps on both machines. I find the experience OK - I can jog around and carry out actually edit tasks acceptably smoothly. I tend to use Avid Studio for most things now, but PS is similar in speed.

I'm only running one graphic card, but it may well be a hardware issue.  Prior to purchasing the computer I now use,  I had a 3-year old computer which, of course, had lot less horse power and memory.  I used that computer and Pinnacle Studio 12 to edit AVI files imported from my camcorder.  Although it's difficult to quantify, I believe it was a bit easier to edit avi files on that computer than AVCHD files on my new rig.      

What sort of AVCHD are you trying to edit?  The 28mbps AVCHD2 or 24mbps AVCHD1 strains a PC without adding much in the end, IMHO.  If you shoot at a lower bitrate or resolution, the editng task is easier, without anyone but the pixel-peeper perceiving much IQ difference.  In low light, or if the camera shakes, or on YouTube, even the pixel-peeper will be at a loss to notice.  AVCHD of a mere 17mbps is probably more than one needs for on-line video, most of which viewers opt to see at 480p / <5mbps because the playback is easier on most budget-price connections.

Aside from converting to MPEG2, which takes time, space, and adds a little to IQ loss, you can reduce hangs or delays by:

1. Adding transitions last and let them render tranquilly on their own;
2. Do complex edits, montages, 2-D editing advanced FX, or overlays as separate sub-projects, converting to MPEG2, if necessary;
3. Turn off Background Rendering, or use it only when the better part of your fundamental clip editing is done;
4. Don't mix video clips of divergent resolution, or you'll need to let them background render before doing anything;
5. Use smaller file sizes for still shots in the timeline, particularly if you use PAZ or animations; IMHO, use of file resolution over 1920x1080 adds exponentially to rendering of effects or transitions, without appreciable improvement in IQ; if you want to crop a huge still, do that in a separate editor, and the IQ will be better;
6. Check if there is a graphics card problem or incompatibility.

Music files, per se, should not be causing much trouble, if any.  The Scorefitter tool also renders relatively fast.

Generally speaking, though, an i7 machine should have little problem with a vanilla project timeline under 30 minutes, even with 24mbps AVCHD.  More TLC is in order as the timeline lengthens or as the quantity and complexity of effects increase.  FWIW, it is quite possible to do a looooong, fancy 1920x1080 17mbps AVCHD project on an under-spec 2.4 gHz core 2 duo, with an ancient NVIDIA 8400M GT 250kb card, though I don't recommend  this sort of high-wire feat, unless your other hobby is to sniff for land mines or brew your own nitro-glycerin.

I generally have no problems with crashes etc.,however things slow down when going over 30 min of AVCHD, I use 24Mb. Recently I too started converting all raw 1920x1080 video to MPEG2 at 35 Mb, using Pinnacle v15, this makes editing a breeze and there is no objectionable degradation of the original when burning to 24Mb bluray.

The correct graphics card is very important, mine was specifically recommended for HD editing, not good for gaming.GE 240, 1TB. only $80 at Newegg, some time ago.

Gene

I tried editing AVCHD once and quickly learned the hair-pulling lesson to NOT use AVCHD natively with any editing software.  Now I convert AVCHD into MPEG-2 and the editing is much faster and more stable with no noticeable quality difference.  AVCHD was never meant to be edited natively.

I always edit AVCHD natively, using the machine in my profile

JKoch:

What sort of AVCHD are you trying to edit?  The 28mbps AVCHD2 or 24mbps AVCHD1 strains a PC without adding much in the end, IMHO.  If you shoot at a lower bitrate or resolution, the editng task is easier, without anyone but the pixel-peeper perceiving much IQ difference.  In low light, or if the camera shakes, or on YouTube, even the pixel-peeper will be at a loss to notice.  AVCHD of a mere 17mbps is probably more than one needs for on-line video, most of which viewers opt to see at 480p / <5mbps because the playback is easier on most budget-price connections.

Aside from converting to MPEG2, which takes time, space, and adds a little to IQ loss, you can reduce hangs or delays by:

1. Adding transitions last and let them render tranquilly on their own;
2. Do complex edits, montages, 2-D editing advanced FX, or overlays as separate sub-projects, converting to MPEG2, if necessary;
3. Turn off Background Rendering, or use it only when the better part of your fundamental clip editing is done;
4. Don't mix video clips of divergent resolution, or you'll need to let them background render before doing anything;
5. Use smaller file sizes for still shots in the timeline, particularly if you use PAZ or animations; IMHO, use of file resolution over 1920x1080 adds exponentially to rendering of effects or transitions, without appreciable improvement in IQ; if you want to crop a huge still, do that in a separate editor, and the IQ will be better;
6. Check if there is a graphics card problem or incompatibility.

Music files, per se, should not be causing much trouble, if any.  The Scorefitter tool also renders relatively fast.

Generally speaking, though, an i7 machine should have little problem with a vanilla project timeline under 30 minutes, even with 24mbps AVCHD.  More TLC is in order as the timeline lengthens or as the quantity and complexity of effects increase.  FWIW, it is quite possible to do a looooong, fancy 1920x1080 17mbps AVCHD project on an under-spec 2.4 gHz core 2 duo, with an ancient NVIDIA 8400M GT 250kb card, though I don't recommend  this sort of high-wire feat, unless your other hobby is to sniff for land mines or brew your own nitro-glycerin.

Thanks for the tips.  I've been shooting and recording at the highest quality my camera allows -- 24mbps -- which is my preference.  For online video, it does not make much of a difference if one shoots at a lower bitrate, but if I capture something that is really outstanding, I like to have it saved in the highest quality format.  I'm leaning toward converting to MPEG2 prior to editing.  (I intend to test it out and see how the final product looks on a big screen)  I will definitely try suggestions 1, 2, 5 when editing with AVCHD.  Turning off background rendering did not appear to make much of a difference.   

 

kiteflyer:

I always edit AVCHD natively, using the machine in my profile

Intel(R) Core(TM)2 Quad CPU Q8300 @ 2.50GHz, 2499 Mhz, 4 Core(s), 4 Logical Processor(s),Physical Memory (RAM) 6.00 GB, NVIDIA GeForce GT 220

interesting -- your machine is not that different than mine.

I normally convert 17mps AVCHD to MPEG2 to edit in PS14 -- it would otherwise be much too painful.

FWIW, in my limited use of it, Avid Studio seems to handle AVCHD quite well (though I have other issues with Avid Studio.)

edit --

Our machines are more different than I thought

according to Passmark the CPU test site, your Q8300 CPU is rated at: 3547 -- while my i7 920 is rated at 5567 (our video cards are very similar).

So your editing AVCHD natively in PS is interesting.

Must admit i do very little editing with PS these days, most of what i do I use AS.

The other thing is, this to me is just a hobby so it's very rare for me to have deadlines to meet so i chuck a little bit of that magic ingredient into my editing..................... Patience!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

kiteflyer:

I always edit AVCHD natively, using the machine in my profile

Are you happy with the performance of AVCHD with your machine?  Mine is also a quad core and I found it frustratingly slow because of all the recalculation it has to do.  Once I converted the clip, the computer noticeably increased in speed.

Have you compared the speed of editing the same clip in AVCHD and MPEG-2?  It would be interesting to hear your thoughts on the comparison, in case my problem was with something in my workflow, and not with the machine.

I think we have to beware of being too subjective here. "Too painful to edit" is different to different people. Let's have some accurate descriptions before we start accusing each other of exaggeration, eh? Quite clearly by the way people talk here, we all have different degrees of tolerance. Those of you who cannot even consider using workrounds and rant fruitlessly at Avid probably aren't getting any pleasure or creativity from editing with AVCHD, I can see that.

In PS 14 I can put some mpeg-2 SD footage on the timeline, grab the scrubber and drag up and down it without the slightest lag. If I tried to do that 10 years ago on my 266Mhz CPU and Pinnacle Studio 1.04 (or was it 7 by then?) it would have be painful by todays standards. But I could still edit.

Now with a fairly old AMD Quad core, which I'd like to think is properly set up without intrusive background programs, I can scrub up and down a Canon 46Mbs timeline with a bit of lag, but not as much as I got 10 years ago on mpeg-2

There is nothing slow enough about AVCHD editing, 17 Mbps or 46 Mbps, on my AMD or laptop that makes it worth converting to mpeg-2. If I'm going to add a lot of effects, then I have to turn on background rendering and wait for the process to happen - and some of those effects don't take advantage of 2 cores, let alone 4.

BTW, I don't know how many people realise that PS and AS use mpeg-2 as the render format, so every time you add an effect or a transition to an AVCHD clip, it's converted to mpeg-2.- and then converted back when you make your bluray disc. So being too anal about conversion is also a waste time

I haven't tried it Igor, but I'm always willing to run a test and report back, I'll see what i can fit in towards the end of the week.

Which version of those listed in my signature would you like me to try it on? Maybe S14 & AS1.1 ?

I think that there's more going on than just hardware.

In AS my 17mps AVCHD navigation, scrubbing, and editing etc. is flawless (I rarely use EFX etc in AS). On PS14 17mps AVCHD lags to the point that its unworkable. It even seems to take forever for AVCHD to be ingested/imported into PS14.

Recently I shot some AVCHD video at 5mbps -- it imported and edited flawlessly in PS14.

I built a dedicated drive specifically for PS14 AVCHD -- with little on it beyond standard Vista and video utilities and Anti-virus. AVCHD performs MUCH better on this drive, on this same hardware.

As a test I have just done a 500% speed compression on a 10 minute 17mps AVCHD clip in AS.

This system was simultaneously recording (30 Rock and Nightline) as a DVR, several browser tabs were open, and email was active -- so this info may not be perfectly comparable -- but my CPU usage performance was between 60-86% employing 8 cores -- using up to 3.7gb of memory.

The time taken to perform the 500% compression w/pitch correction was approx 50 minutes.

Scrubbing the timeline after performing the the 500% compression in AS is flawless.

(With AS at idle and without the DVR recording, CPU usage is approx 20%).

jjn:

BTW, I don't know how many people realise that PS and AS use mpeg-2 as the render format, so every time you add an effect or a transition to an AVCHD clip, it's converted to mpeg-2.- and then converted back when you make your bluray disc. So being too anal about conversion is also a waste time

I think you have just hit the nail on the head.  The fact that both programs convert in the background would certainly explain why doing the MPEG-2 conversion to the whole sequence before editing speeds up the rendering process.  I didn't know about the MPEG-2 conversions in both programs, but it makes more sense now.  Thanks for that info, Jeff.

As a test I have just done a 500% speed compression on a 10 minute 17mps AVCHD clip in AS.

This system was simultaneously recording (30 Rock and Nightline) as a DVR, several browser tabs were open, and email was active -- so this info may not be perfectly comparable -- but my CPU usage performance was between 60-86% employing 8 cores -- using up to 3.7gb of memory.

The time taken to perform the 500% compression w/pitch correction was approx 50 minutes.

Not sure what that proves. Firstly you are not comparing it with anything else, and secondly you've got another active program running at the same time!

(With AS at idle and without the DVR recording, CPU usage is approx 20%).

Something is using 20% CPU when no programs are running?

jjn:

As a test I have just done a 500% speed compression on a 10 minute 17mps AVCHD clip in AS.

This system was simultaneously recording (30 Rock and Nightline) as a DVR, several browser tabs were open, and email was active -- so this info may not be perfectly comparable -- but my CPU usage performance was between 60-86% employing 8 cores -- using up to 3.7gb of memory.

The time taken to perform the 500% compression w/pitch correction was approx 50 minutes.

Not sure what that proves. Firstly you are not comparing it with anything else, and secondly you've got another active program running at the same time!

(With AS at idle and without the DVR recording, CPU usage is approx 20%).

Something is using 20% CPU when no programs are running?

I'm not certain what I'm reporting means -- particularly in as much as its not easily replicable. I mentioned all that so that what I'm reporting has an accurate context.

But it seems significant that AVCHD is easy -- silky smooth easy -- on my i7 920,  despite many other programs running etc. I think its significant that the same system editing the same video, is unusable in PS14. (and I needn't remind most here that I am not an evangelist for AS.)

As you might recall my system originally could not in PS edit AVCHD at all -- until I did a thorough uninstall & registry cleaning of PS, AS, and several other media programs. 

That AVCHD works as well as it does using AS on my system lends support to my belief that the problem is not just hardware -- maybe not primarily hardware.

jrak's Core i7 2600K 3.4GHz system is superior to mine -- and yet he cannot edit AVCHD in PS15. Kiteflyer can edit AVCHD -- despite a system significantly inferior in CPU speed to mine.

Based on my experience it sure seems that by design AS was written from the start with AVCHD editing in mind -- whilst PS was not. And that both PS and AS are very sensitive to installation and system configuration issues. (I btw, agressively optimize my system for performance, eliminating things like Windows eye candy, unwanted startup programs, and unneeded MS services.)

Regarding the 20%, I did not mean nothing was running.  Documents are being worked on, email & browsers are open -- and Windows Media Center operates continually in the background -- as well as AS still being open and active.  My system is in general working well -- despite being 2 1/2 yrs old -- and how I multitask on it. 

(The drive on which I have little but PS is inaccessible for now, BTW -- Windows may have been corrupted on it when I maybe pulled it from the drive drawer before it had completely shut down -- otherwise I'd make a more direct comparison between PS installs.)

kiteflyer:

I always edit AVCHD natively, using the machine in my profile

Using the HP laptop in my profile (Core i7-720QM CPU) I do the following:

(a) For simple projects (no or few video overlays, complex effects, transitions etc.) I tend to edit with the original AVCHD footage. The only thing I do prior to use is to copy from the camera cards and rename the files with a unique project name/description as the first part of the file name - so I don't end up with hordes of files in different folders all called 00000.MTS, 00001.MTS etc. I then edit mostly in PS14UC and occasionally in AS 1.1. (FWIW I tend to keep background rendering switched off unless I really must see a smooth preview of an effect).
(b) For more complex edits, or if I need to process the source video prior to use (e.g. colour correction) I will apply any wanted correction(s) and convert from AVCHD to something "easier"
i. If I need to preserve the full HD 1920x1080 frame size I'll convert to MPEG-2 (using the HD1080i setting; so far I have had no need for progressive)
ii. If I am only going to be creating a standard-def DVD and don't need to edit in HD at all I'll output as PAL Widescreen DV (720 x 576)

Editing the native AVCHD in PS14UC is reasonably comfortable; rendering during DVD creation manages around 20-25 frames/second.

Regards,
Richard

Most qualms about editing in native AVCHD would vanish if people shot all video in 1280x720 @ 13mbps or less.  Any higher resolution or bitrate become superfluous, if future viewers are apt to see the video on 10" 1280x720 tablet screens streamed over the Web.  It's not as though, years from now, when 4k or 8k video become the "norm," that mere 1280x720 video will be unwatchable, as blurry 1990s-vintage VHS material may seem now.  The watchability will depend more on subject matter, as well as whether the stuff was edited (cut to essentials) with sufficient skill to win the attention anyone other than the person who shot the stuff, if he can stay awake.

The idea that one needs 'full HD" at 28mbps or 25mbps has as much foundation as the idea that more megapixels make a photo better.  Sensor size and lens quality, or maybe the optical image stabilization, are probably more potent "hard" determinants of IQ.   People with big budgets, crews, and post production support can take advantage of those factors for staged productions.  Supplementary lighting, separate sound capture, a John Williams score, a hit thriller screenplay, and an assortment of stabilizers, jibs, and dollies also help.  Use of 1920x1080 resolution and high bitrates might aid a nature, sports, or similar outdoor work.  Otherwise, folks who always select the highest "quality" settings when they shoot may simply be making the editing more onerous.

Alas, many new videocams now offer only the 1920x1080 resolution setting, and the next wave of tablet displays may claim 1920x1080 resolution, even though that means next to nothing on a small screen.  However, even the new cameras offer alternative bitrates, and some allow one to select, besides AVCHD, mp4 or MJPEG option at 1280x720, which are soft as butter for editing.   If people have trouble editing the files in native format, conversion to MPEG2 is one remedy, although it takes time and can get to use lots of disc space.  To break up editing into small sequences is another approach.  However, I'd simply suggest that, as a third option, people experiment by shooting at lower resolutions or bitrates and then, with an audience that has no knowledge or cues, see if anyone can tell the difference.  Again, I suspect that subject matter and editing quality account for most of the viewer impact, so if there is anything that makes video easier to edit, legitimate options do include: lower bitrate, lower resolution, or a less compressed codec.

Another consideration regarding 720 and 1080:

When viewing plasma TVs, most people sit well back from the "ideal" distance. In this case, the human eye cannot tell the difference between 720/1080. (Therefore, when buying, don't rely on the up-close test but compare at actual viewing distance.)

It is said that with smaller flat-screens, under 36", the difference 720/1080 is just about zero to the viewer at any distance.

The desire to shoot and archive video to presumed futuristic standards is understandable, but I think  we are worrying too much.

The limitation is not the gear--it is the human eye. And we're there already.

Sorry, all that "don't use the highest resolution and bit-rate" isn't going to hold water for. If people have a camera that shoots full HD, they want to use that setting. Listen to all the moans about Studio not handling 50P/60P

But it seems that people here are throwing some very high spec hardware at the issue and still not getting results. Let's not even discuss render times - it's the frustration of not being able to navigate around a clip that stymies the creative process.

Anyway, there is something odd going on here. Having revisited PS14 (not 15) on my desktop, I discover the the 17Mbps video from my panasonic is more laggy than it is in AvSo (and as I remember it being). But here is the odd thing - .mp4 AVCHD files from a HD Hero Go Pro and full 46Mbps AVCHD from my Canon 5Dii aren't anywhere near as bad.

One thought might be that bitrate isn't everything - I think the Canon uses smaller GOPs, which might help with frame by frame decoding.

On the laptop, the 17Mbps footage in S14 is fine - as I remember it. I'm going to have to re-install PS15 to test that. Intel Quicksync may well be playing a pert here.

Software environment?

Quote from JKOCH:

However, I'd simply suggest that, as a third option, people experiment by shooting at lower resolutions or bitrates and then, with an audience that has no knowledge or cues, see if anyone can tell the difference.  Again, I suspect that subject matter and editing quality account for most of the viewer impact, so if there is anything that makes video easier to edit, legitimate options do include: lower bitrate, lower resolution, or a less compressed codec.

 

HUH? Well the problem with that is, I KNOW!

I will ALWAYS strive for the BEST picture quality that technology and my wallet allows, even in small increments

 

Eugene.

jjn:

Sorry, all that "don't use the highest resolution and bit-rate" isn't going to hold water for. If people have a camera that shoots full HD, they want to use that setting. Listen to all the moans about Studio not handling 50P/60P

But it seems that people here are throwing some very high spec hardware at the issue and still not getting results. Let's not even discuss render times - it's the frustration of not being able to navigate around a clip that stymies the creative process.

Anyway, there is something odd going on here. Having revisited PS14 (not 15) on my desktop, I discover the the 17Mbps video from my panasonic is more laggy than it is in AvSo (and as I remember it being). But here is the odd thing - .mp4 AVCHD files from a HD Hero Go Pro and full 46Mbps AVCHD from my Canon 5Dii aren't anywhere near as bad.

One thought might be that bitrate isn't everything - I think the Canon uses smaller GOPs, which might help with frame by frame decoding.

On the laptop, the 17Mbps footage in S14 is fine - as I remember it. I'm going to have to re-install PS15 to test that. Intel Quicksync may well be playing a pert here.

Software environment?

So then you are seeing what I see.

My Panasonic 17Mbps AVCHD footage is painful on PS14 -- but graceful in AS.

I too have never had any problem with the GoPro stuff -- but I've assumed it was of a lower bit rate.