Bay Bridge East Bound (Lumix ZS3/TZ7 Test)
Uploader Comments (kraquehaus)
All Comments (5)
-
To be honest i dont know much about video editing. I just got sony vegas movie studio platinum 9 and tried a few of the mts samples i found on the net.
I just saw that the program accepts them and you can add them on a timeline. Never actually tried chopping them.
Once i get tz7 and take a few videos I ll try editing them and I ll post my thoughts!
Thanks again for all the detailed information!!!
-
Well I just ordered the camera, It seems the ideal choice for a pocket cam and according to most reviews its the best in its class.
From what i ve seen i totally agree with your comparison. AVCHD looks good on the eye and customer goes WOW by just hearing the codecs name that's used in real camcorders.
AVCHD does better in medium light situations like rainy day or indoors during the day cause it doesnt burn the highlights like in pure daylight!
-
AVCHD Cons:
-Almost impossible to import into my computer. (I can only import them if they are still on the camera and only via Final Cut Pro.)
-Once imported they take up at least 7 times the space. An hour footage that was 8gig on the card ended up being 50gig when imported via FCP via 422.
-You can only backup the files if you back up the ENTIRE card file structure. Just getting the MTS files won't do you any good.
-
AVCHD
Pros:
-Unlimited recording time (fill up your card; my 16gig can do ~2 hours before it is filled with 720p). My battery died before the video did.
-Video files take up less than half of the same length than MJPEG on the camera.
-
MJPEG
Pros:
-Better video quality. (Especially in low light/shadows.)
-Easily backed up.
-Easily imported into editing software.
-Straightforward file system orginazation.
-No fiddling about. It's a MJPEG on your camera and imports with the pictures.
Cons:
-Roughly ~8min limit while recording in 720p HD (on this camera).
-Larger file size on the camera.
Why mjpeg? Is it better quality than AVCHD lite???
Barretlight56 2 years ago
(More AVCHD Lite cons)
-No softoware to convert MTS files into usable and uncompressed files, thus making backup painful at best.
-Horrible low light and shadow detail (part of the compression).
-Higher contrast and saturation (I get the feeling it is a "it looks better to the customer, and it gives us a way to compress" situation).
-Seems to eat up more battery power since it is doing more compression computation on the camera.
kraquehaus 2 years ago
I suppose you could always chose MJPEG when the highest quality is needed and in low light then.
Check wikipedia for "AVCHD lite". It lists all the programs that can handle that file format.
I dont undestand why you need the whole file structure. I dont know what happens on a mac but on the pc i can use and edit the mts files alone i found on the net.
Barretlight56 2 years ago
Trust me, I did days of research on this and talked to some people who author codec computability for OSes.
Since AVCHD is heavily compressed, it is not meant as a format for editing. (e.g., Since the motion information is only the delta between frames, each frame is never actually rendered as a stand alone image while in AVCHD Lite. This is why Final Cut Pro imports it as Apple ProRes 422 which is an intermediate codec meant only for editing.)
What do you use on the PC to edit?
kraquehaus 2 years ago
and to be honest, if I can't edit it easily in Final Cut Pro, which is a bit of a professional standard, then "something ain't right", IMNSHO.
kraquehaus 2 years ago
I found that the camera breaks the video up into 4gig chunks (if longer than ~30min). This is one of the reasons you need the file structure intact so as to rebuild it.
The other reason for the file structure is that all the MTS editing on Mac isn't 1:1 to the raw. I found dropped frames (noticeably missing chunks) and compression (I want to be able to get raw footage, not compressed, out of the MTS file).
For the record I also tried Adobe Premiere CS4 and it just didn't work well, if at all.
kraquehaus 2 years ago