This content has been marked as final. Show 113 replies
>What could be the problem?
AVCHD just isn't very good source material.
I dont have problems with AVCHD in CS4, the problem is AVCHD has a very very heavy compesion... before I edited AVCHD in CS3 with Mainconcept HD 3.1 and this is realy slow, when jump from clip to clip on time line the image is locked, now in CS4 running best.
My PC only have most powerfull prosesor and AVCHD play fluid without render
Intel Quad 6600 @2.4 GHz
4 Gb RAM
Ati Radeon HD2600XT
Alright, so let's say I don't want to cough up MORE money for an intermediate formatting software. What's my best option for transcoding AVCHD into something easy-to-edit within CS4 (Adobe Media Encoder)?
Cheapest: Don't edit that material. Then you don't need to transcode at all.
Best: Get a different camera that does not use AVCHD.
Thanks for the pointer, Jim. (And for the flippancy, Harm. I'm not going to rule out shooting and editing with the Panasonic HMC150 just because there's an extra transcoding step.)
Bullsh!t Jim. Sony, Ulead/Corel and many others have video editing
applications that handle AVCHD just fine.
and what and why the AVCHD on Premiere Pro CS4 is so Slow?! (if Robert Barnett say "Ulead/Corel and many others have video editing
applications that handle AVCHD just fine") ????
I just posted today, and am having the same problem. It's true. Ulead does handle it fine. The problem is with Adobe. Adobe's ability to handle AVCHD was the reason I shelled out the bucks and upgraded to CS4. This is not fair!
My posting is "Disappointing MTS Render".
My computer specs are there.
Ulead makes you edit on proxy files converted from the original footage. In CS4 you edit with the actual footage. The use of an intermediate codec has its advantages and drawbacks. Read the Apple forums about ProRes422 in FCP. You'll get an earfull.
But what is the benefit if you can't see your video clearly enough to make accurate and timely edits?
It's very compressed video so it is more taxing on the computer to undo all the compression. Even though DVCPRO HD 1080 is 3 times bigger than AVCHD it plays realtime no problem even on a week computer. In fact if your computer can't handle it good enough use the free Panasonic converter.
Download Edius and Vegas and see if they edit faster. If not then your computer can't handle the codec.
If took editing programs years to edit HDV real-time but I agree they shouldn't advertise or release products with half *** features. Especially since they just recently released the demo's.
>But what is the benefit
Exactly. That's just one of the reasons I generally recommend against using source material that uses interframe compression, such as HDV and now AVCHD.
Stick with I-frame only source - DV, DVCPRO HD, AVC-I, and RED come to mind. There may be others.
I'm in the middle of a big AVCHD project (1,000+ clips).
Using Cineform Prospect 1920x1080 intermediate AVI, it edits just like DV on Premiere. I would never try to do a project of any complexity or length in native AVCHD.
I have a brand new Core2 Processor Q9400 @ 2.66Ghz, 4GB DDR2 SDRAM, running a 64bit Vista OS. Purchased Production Suite CS4 because of its advertised ability to edit native AVCHD files in PP. But even with my specs, playback in timeline is buggy and simply unacceptable. I feel like I was duped into upgrading into CS4. They never mentioned that you needed to have a supercomputer to edit AVCHD files...or did I miss the fine-print??
I agree that Adobe was very misleading about a ton of things with premiere (I'm happy with AE CS4 and the rest of the suite). You'd be better off using Cineform or Adobe free program to make DVCPRO-HD files from your originals. DVCpro HD edits smooth as butter on computer way slower than yours and the file sizes are 2-4 times bigger!
Anyome have a link to some AVCHD footage I can test on my system? There have been so many complaints I wanna check out myself.
Hey Josh, pardon my lack of knowledge, but what is "Adobe free program"? I understand that cineform is not yet compatible with CS4, as are a lot of other useful plugins. >.<<br />I don't care about file sizes at this point...I would just like to be able to edit the footage. I'll see if I can upload a clip later tonight and post the link here. Thanks for replying.
Sorry I meant Panasonic.
They make a free AVCHD converter to DVCPRHD which Adobe edits very fast. I didn't think you might not be using a Panasonic camera though. If not download the Edius broadcast trial and see if it edits the files faster than CS4. http://desktop.thomsongrassvalley.com/products/EDIUS/index.php
And yeah Cineform doesn't work, no third party codects like Blackmagic orthat will work with CS4 until "a future update".
There is a cineform work around apparently.
"Ok, They sent me a work around.
I had to unregister 2 files
ad2dsh264.ax and ad2esh264.ax
It is working now....It seems as if Premiere CS4 is trying to do ALL conversions and not allowing any third party apps to do them. By unregistering these two items, it now lets the core pro codec to do the conversion from AVCHD to cineform..which is what I wanted."
Maybe that'll help.
This conversion avchd to dvcprohd is it lossless or lossy?
Unfortunately I have avhcd files from a sony comcorder so the panasonic converter wouldn't work. I'm thinking of trying out Vegas for this particular project since I'm running out of options. Sucks!
Joseph -- you should be able to work with AVCHD files, but if you reduce the quality of your program monitor - set it to automoatic or draft quality from highest - you'll find that playback should be smoother. The preview quality won't be as good, but your final output will be fine.
AVCHD is a beast to edit - I've got a beefy system, and it's not always smooth for me.
I don't want to mention this again, but I've seen AVCHD imported onto a new mac desktop, a full hour of it, and the playback on the timeline is seemless, it it is as smooth as peanut butter. Zip along the timeline, anywhere, and it just plays, without any effort at all. Editing is very very fast.
I just don't understand why it is so slow on the PC :-(
Premiere can only access one core at a time when editing (multiple instances can be accessed during rendering, however). What that means is that your actual power during editing is limited to the "beefiness" of any single core. What that means is that a dual core processor running each core at 3.4 GHz will be much better for you than a quad core with each core only running 2.6 GHz. So what you think is a beefy system would be fine for running multiple applications that don't demand the entire capability of any single core (say OS+PPro+AE) but when it comes to processing those long GOP files, it's not nearly as capable as a lesser setup (say OS+PPro) running on a dual core 3.4 GHz. You're talking about a processing increase of nearly 33% per core, disregarding the other two cores in a quad setup (which are irrelevant if all you are running is your OS and PPro, to oversimplify it a bit).
Some of those Macs are equipped with 3.2 GHz Xeon quads, which are not in the same ballpark as the Core 2 Quads you're talking about, even at the same spec. The price differences are indicative of the difference in ability.
EDIT - oh, also...don't forget that in FCP the AVCHD is not native support...it's probably ProRes422 that you see (unless you're talking about PPro PC vs. PPro Mac, in which case all the other stuff above still applies regardless).
>Premiere can only access one core at a time when editing
>Premiere can only access one core at a time when editing (multiple instances can be accessed during rendering, however). What that means is that your actual power during editing is limited to the "beefiness" of any single core. What that means is that a dual core processor running each core at 3.4 GHz will be much better for you than a quad core with each core only running 2.6 GHz. So what you think is a beefy system would be fine for running multiple applications that don't demand the entire capability of any single core (say OS+PPro+AE) but when it comes to processing those long GOP files, it's not nearly as capable as a lesser setup (say OS+PPro) running on a dual core 3.4 GHz. You're talking about a processing increase of nearly 33% per core, disregarding the other two cores in a quad setup (which are irrelevant if all you are running is your OS and PPro, to oversimplify it a bit).
I edit a 30 min. program every week from AVCHD material, but I have put it into the workflow to convert to something else before editing.
I know that several NLE's support natively AVCHD, but I have experienced it to be slowly too, and I dont think you should edit natively ever.
Somebody who is editing AVCHD on XP or Vista 32 with a quad core and CS4...do a quick check for us all. Open up your task manager to monitor CPU usage and then jump into PPro to playback an AVCHD sequence. See what you can determine for your CPU utilization (1 core at 100%, 2 cores at 100% or 4 cores at 100%...or whatever your utilization might be).
PPro CS4, AVCHD, Vista 64-bit, Quad Core:
Core 1: 48%
Core 2: 47%
Core 3: 37%
Core 4: 35%
Seems pretty well distributed across multiple cores.
Roger, I don't recall if you have reported this - do you experience the degree of disruption described in the OP's problem:
> They'll play straight through once, but scrubbing through them, or even just hitting play in the middle of a clip, causes severe stuttering and sometimes a total lockup.
Christian, you asked for an XP/Vista 32 test; Roger's is Vista 64. Are you suggesting the number of active cores varies depending on Vista 32 vs 64?
Stanley, no i have not experienced such issues when scrubbing or play back from the middle of a AVCHD clip. Personally i would however avoid to edit native AVCHD footage.
Coverting the footage with Panasonics AVCHD to DVCPro HD Converter if using the Panasonic HMC150/151 camera or Cineform for other cameras will make the editing experience soooo much better IMO.
So, what does adobe have to say about all this? Are they going to fix this problem anytime soon?
So I took Eric's advice and lowered the quality of the program monitor to draft from automatic. It helps a little bit not truthfully, scrubbing or playing AVCHD on PP still sucks. The output is fine once I render but I can't see the edits I make smoothly, which is a total bugger. Alas, I am thinking that I'll have to live it until Adobe addresses the problem *fingers crossed*. Converting the files is a pain in the arse as I have a few hundred pieces of video to edit. Blah!
>Alas, I am thinking that I'll have to live it until Adobe addresses the problem *fingers crossed*.
Not going to happen. Adobe says that AVCHD is a bear to edit because of the nature of the codec. The only thing to do is get top notch hardware or use Cineform.
> Christian, you asked for an XP/Vista 32 test; Roger's is Vista 64. Are you suggesting the number of active cores varies depending on Vista 32 vs 64?
This is according to Adobe, who says that the software is optimized in a 64-bit environment (while not saying what special things it may or may not do to simulate the same in a 32-bit environment).
My guess was that in XP or Vista 32, Adobe might not have bothered recognizing the additional cores, since the RAM utilization is already limited by the OS to 4 GB (3 GB max per application instance with registry edited). But....I don't know. Adobe (and others) tend to throw these red herrings out in the verbiage to describe certain scenarios that can help avoid answering just such specific questions as these. You go "wow, that's cool!" and don't really think about what might be implied alongside.
I tried Cineform and it's a really really nice tool (3:2 pulldown removal, 23.97->24->25 with resizes, fast and efficient convertions, smooth editing capabilities etc...)
But it's way over my budget for what I'm doing (home videos editing).
There are 2 other free intermediate codecs who have the same "smoothness" in editing : Apple's ProRes422 and Avid's DNxHD (who has many flavours in terms of file sizes).
But I can't find a simple transcoding application that will convert my AVCHD files into a ProRes/DNx quicktime file!
I found some quite cheap (50-100$) transcoders who offers quicktime conversion but both codecs can't be selected in the options!
Finding such application could resolve most problems editing AVCHD source material, costing less than Cineform's wonderful tool.
I run a 2.8 Core 2 Duo under XP Pro.
Task manager reports balanced core loading during unrendered timeline playback. I added effects until the loads reached 99% and balanced load was consistently shown.
Mind you, that was according to Task Manager. When I removed core 2 from Premiere using the Affinity option, it still showed both cores working together, so I'm not sure how trustworthy this indicator really is.
I would to hear if the ProRes codec is workable with CS$ as well, either in PPro or AFX. I believe you cannot encode to ProRes without FC Studio2 but can you edit using the ProRes decoders Apple has out now? (For both Mac & Windows.) Anyone try doing this?