DAVID RUETHER'S PHOTO-VIDEO POSTS

From 8/15/2009 Through 4/24/2010, Part 2

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"Brian" <bclark@es.co.nz> wrote in message 
news:pkke85pnkj2sn9j8lfeq0ksj5ov0ucvkpo@4ax.com...

>I know everyone has there methods when it comes to editing a movie but
> there's usually a hard way and a easy way of doing things.
> Recently I was having some practice in editing a short movie (a video
> of making a cup of tea) I had a mid shot of the water being poured
> into a cup and also a close up shot of this. To insert the close up
> shot I split the mid shot to insert the closeup shot and trimmed but
> the second half of the mid shot to just as I'm withdrawing the water
> from the cup.
> I'm thinking that I might have been better to put the close up video
> clip on another track and check the results (if a video clip is put on
> a higher numbered track then it overrides the main video. This might
> give me more control as I can move the close up video clip sideways to
> position it where I want the cut away. Also I can make the close up
> video clip 100% transparent if I want to see the video without the cut
> away. This could cause problems when switching to the thumbnail view
> that I use to set the order of video clips so once I'm happy with the
> result I'd move the cut away down to the main video as a replacement
> video for a part of the main video. Dragging it down with the mouse is
> not the best way to do this as I could end up inserting the close up
> video a few frames too early, I'm hoping that there is a better way of
> doing this in the Adobe Premiere Elements 7 manual.
> I try to avoid cutting up the main video as I end up with a lot of
> very short bits of video and if I make a mistake in the position of
> the cut there doesn't seem to be any way of re-joining the video
> again. Also it's a problem when moving the video sideways in a video
> track as I need to tag all the video bits so they can move as well.
> 
> I'd welcome any comments, advice, etc
> 
> Regards Brian

This is where taking a few "junk" clips and putting them in a project 
and going through ALL the program menu items (there aren't that 
many - but don't forget right-clicking on things to bring up many...) 
to see what they do *before* starting even a simple "finished" video 
would help. Everything you want to do is in the program, and easy 
to do. Don't forget about things like "snapping", "ripple edit", setting 
50% transparency, etc. It does look like you need to learn the very 
basics of using Elements, but the good news is that there is not all 
that much to learn...
--DR

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"Martin Heffels" <goofies@flikken.net> wrote in message news:l2fd95h6363e5jmu47259237aakbdeuljp@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 27 Aug 2009 22:04:17 +1200, Brian <bclark@es.co.nz> wrote:

>>I tried installing a demo of Adobe Premiere CS4 on my computer a few
>>weeks ago but it fails to run on my computer. Someone in this news
>>group had the same problem. I'm using Visa on a intel Quad Core
>>processor so I don't know why it wont work.

> That's a bummer, as this would be the logical next step for you to
> take into the more serious editors. Vista is not the greatest thing
> since sliced bread, so Premiere might choke on that. But it's best to
> persist and try and find a solution to get it running. With your
> experience on Elements, your much quicker on the way.
> Some are probably thinking now "if he needs to spend lots of time on
> fixing the installation, he might as well just learn c ompltely new
> program" ;-)
> 
> cheers
> 
> -martin-

I don't see many "real" limitations in Elements here. Why not just 
copy the clip and paste multiple copies on the timeline where 
they are desired, and trim them on the timeline (my preferred 
method in any case...;-) The one REAL limitation with Elements 
(and equally with the expensive version of Premiere) is with 
exporting HDV (there is no "Smart Rendering"). 
--DR

~~~~~~~~~~~

"Richard Crowley" <rcrowley@xp7rt.net> wrote in message news:7fnt4eF2m9ok6U1@mid.individual.net...
> "Brian" wrote ...
>> ushere wrote:

>>>brian, if you're that keen on learning to edit 'properly' - get rid of
>>>your hobbist nle and get a serious one - fcp, ppro, vegas, avid,
>>>whatever. you'll find countless user groups dedicated to 'pro' editors,
>>>many of which welcome newbies with open arms (though reading the manual
>>>prior to asking questions is advisable - no matter how true martin's
>>>observation is!).

>> I tried installing a demo of Adobe Premiere CS4 on my computer a few
>> weeks ago but it fails to run on my computer. Someone in this news
>> group had the same problem. I'm using Visa on a intel Quad Core
>> processor so I don't know why it wont work.

> I was the one who tried installing the demo of the latest version of
> Premiere. It installed half a dozen other applications (including fully
> installed but completely non-functional Encore), but absolutely no
> sign of Premiere anywhere (except for the licence notice file.) Bah!
> I'm moving on to Vegas. Tired of being jerked around by Adobe. 

I assume you have not yet gotten into HD? If so, you would 
likely have encountered a BIG shortcoming of Adobe editing 
software - the lack of "Smart Rendering" (the simple copying 
of unchanged footage without recompression). This shortcoming 
results in three problems - slow export, reduced image quality 
that ranges from slight to extreme (with the sharpest HDV source 
material), and inability to reexport the edited video file without 
either further damaging it with another compression pass or 
having to retain the original project and all of its source material. 
Assuming someone wants to move to HD (do - it's FUN!!!), 
Adobe doesn't currently offer any good editing solution, so its 
software is "dead end". I have settled in with Vegas Pro 8c (still 
available, cheaper than Pro 9, and currently very cheap for 
what it is), and Sony Platinum 9 offers most of its features at a 
small fraction of the price (under $100). BTW, for those not 
familiar with them, I have a written beginners guide to editing 
with them at - www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/Sony-editing.htm, 
and among the URLs within it are the ones for the Sony video 
guides, which show the operations in the programs very clearly. 
--DR


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"Brian" <bclark@es.co.nz> wrote in message news:8hug85p50iolsr0v3buloavd9pf1mek3al@4ax.com...
> "David Ruether" <d_ruether@thotmail.com> wrote:

>>This is where taking a few "junk" clips and putting them in a project
>>and going through ALL the program menu items (there aren't that
>>many - but don't forget right-clicking on things to bring up many...)
>>to see what they do *before* starting even a simple "finished" video
>>would help. Everything you want to do is in the program, and easy
>>to do. Don't forget about things like "snapping", "ripple edit", setting
>>50% transparency, etc. It does look like you need to learn the very
>>basics of using Elements, but the good news is that there is not all
>>that much to learn...
>>--DR

> Thanks David.
> At least Adobe Preimere Elements is not as difficult to learn as
> Premiere 6. I got a book out of the Library a while ago on Premiere 6
> to find out more about it.

I never read anything on any editing program (I'm not a "reader"...;-),
but I got pretty good first with Premiere 4, then 5.1, then 6/6.5 just
by "messing around". 'Course necessity can speed learning... When
I first started with Premiere 4 (and a Spark card, and unnecessarily
expensive [and small] hot-running SCSI drives), I got an assignment
to produce three 5 minute story videos for a major bank for an
employee get-together - with a two-week deadline! I finished them
JUST in time (shooting, editing, and delivering copies). They were
"funny" versions of "Star Wars", "Beauty and the Beast", and "Wizard
of Oz", complete with voice-overs, yellow text going off into space
(WITH stars! ;-), a light-saber (WITH proper sound, made from
"brown" noise and a name, modified), and R2D2 (made from, and
credited to, the men's room waste container), a giant teapot, a moving
view of the yellow brick road under the titles, the spinning and crashing
house - with dog, tornado, properly attired green witch, etc., etc., etc.
WHEW!!! I'm tempted to put two of them on YouTube, but I'm
not sure about property issues with them.

> I've read most of the Adobe Premiere 7
> manual including the chaper on video editing (ripple effect etc) but
> I'll read it again as sometimes things make more sense the second time.

I (personally...) learn much better by doing/experimenting/playing-with
the software - but good video guides can be excellent help.

> There seems to be a lack of support for Adobe Premiere 7 in books and
> on the internet where there is more support for Adobe Photoshop
> Elements 7. I did learn a few things not taught in the manual by
> downloading a few Youtube videos. A step by step guild on making a
> special effects movie was useful.
> A few things seem to be lacking in Adobe Premiere 7 such as dragging
> the last thumbnail of a video clip to near the beginning of the main
> movie. It's a pain in the neck when you have many thumbnails. There
> doesnt seem to be a cut and past for this in the thumbnail mode
> (unless I missed seeing it in the manual).

I'm confused. I just tried putting a clip at the front end in a track that
was occupied, and Premiere moved the clip (and the others after it that
were at the left end) just enough to let in the new clip. Is this what you
meant? Also, without needing to select anything, you can draw out a
rectangle with the mouse around as many adjacent clips as you want
to select them all to move them as a unit. (I sure do like Elements for
Mini-DV - too bad it mangles HDV. Once used to HD, it is VERY
hard to look at Mini-DV again - but Elements is such a nice, "clean"
program for editing that...)

> Increasing or descreasing
> an effect (such as volume) on the time line by selecting a keyframe is
> not easy to get the exact value you need and you have to be careful
> not to change the position of the keyframe so the effect does not
> occur too early or too late. If I was able to move the up and down
> arrows then this would have helped.
>
> Regards Brian

Increasing magnification of the timeline helps, and raising and lowering
the keyframe position gives a readout of the value and position of
the keyframe. The exact values for these are rarely critical...
--DR 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"Brian" <bclark@es.co.nz> wrote in message news:e0vh85tm111eibpp6r911rl78j51lkh1j9@4ax.com...
> "David Ruether" <d_ruether@thotmail.com> wrote:
>>"Brian" <bclark@es.co.nz> wrote in message news:8hug85p50iolsr0v3buloavd9pf1mek3al@4ax.com...
>>> "David Ruether" <d_ruether@thotmail.com> wrote:

>>>>This is where taking a few "junk" clips and putting them in a project
>>>>and going through ALL the program menu items (there aren't that
>>>>many - but don't forget right-clicking on things to bring up many...)
>>>>to see what they do *before* starting even a simple "finished" video
>>>>would help. Everything you want to do is in the program, and easy
>>>>to do. Don't forget about things like "snapping", "ripple edit", setting
>>>>50% transparency, etc. It does look like you need to learn the very
>>>>basics of using Elements, but the good news is that there is not all
>>>>that much to learn...
>>>>--DR

>>> Thanks David.
>>> At least Adobe Preimere Elements is not as difficult to learn as
>>> Premiere 6. I got a book out of the Library a while ago on Premiere 6
>>> to find out more about it.

>>I never read anything on any editing program (I'm not a "reader"...;-),
>>but I got pretty good first with Premiere 4, then 5.1, then 6/6.5 just
>>by "messing around". 'Course necessity can speed learning... When
>>I first started with Premiere 4 (and a Spark card, and unnecessarily
>>expensive [and small] hot-running SCSI drives), I got an assignment
>>to produce three 5 minute story videos for a major bank for an
>>employee get-together - with a two-week deadline! I finished them
>>JUST in time (shooting, editing, and delivering copies). They were
>>"funny" versions of "Star Wars", "Beauty and the Beast", and "Wizard
>>of Oz", complete with voice-overs, yellow text going off into space
>>(WITH stars! ;-), a light-saber (WITH proper sound, made from
>>"brown" noise and a name, modified), and R2D2 (made from, and
>>credited to, the men's room waste container), a giant teapot, a moving
>>view of the yellow brick road under the titles, the spinning and crashing
>>house - with dog, tornado, properly attired green witch, etc., etc., etc.
>>WHEW!!! I'm tempted to put two of them on YouTube, but I'm
>>not sure about property issues with them.

> Sounds like you have a lot of fun. 

Talk about pressure on that one! I was learning the editing program, 
and also at the same time learning about some of its less usual features 
in order to do some of the special effects. Fun?! FUNNN?!?!?! Is 
NO sleep and constant work, not sure if you have what you want, with 
no time for retakes, and not being sure that you will finish more (or less...!) 
than at the very precise deadline, let along with "breathing space" 
FUN"??? 8^) I was so tired when I delivered it that I shot the short bit 
before the meeting that was needed, made the transfer to tape during the 
introductions, delivered it and left immediately to go get sleep... The client 
liked the result so much that they paid a considerable amount extra.

> Let me know (and others know) if
> you are able to put them on Youtube. It seems like the type of thing
> they would do when putting together a video for a rock band.

They were not like music videos... 

>>> I've read most of the Adobe Premiere 7
>>> manual including the chaper on video editing (ripple effect etc) but
>>> I'll read it again as sometimes things make more sense the second time.

>>I (personally...) learn much better by doing/experimenting/playing-with
>>the software - but good video guides can be excellent help.

> I've found that there is usually is some hidden command that's very
> powerful to use which would save me time and I prefer to know about it
> now than later by reading the manual. At least the Adobe Premiere
> Elements 7 manual is not just a few pages of text that some programs
> offer.

I sometimes find those accidentally while "messing around" with the 
program, or by reading posts here...;-)

>>> There seems to be a lack of support for Adobe Premiere 7 in books and
>>> on the internet where there is more support for Adobe Photoshop
>>> Elements 7. I did learn a few things not taught in the manual by
>>> downloading a few Youtube videos. A step by step guild on making a
>>> special effects movie was useful.
>>> A few things seem to be lacking in Adobe Premiere 7 such as dragging
>>> the last thumbnail of a video clip to near the beginning of the main
>>> movie. It's a pain in the neck when you have many thumbnails. There
>>> doesnt seem to be a cut and past for this in the thumbnail mode
>>> (unless I missed seeing it in the manual).

>>I'm confused. I just tried putting a clip at the front end in a track that
>>was occupied, and Premiere moved the clip (and the others after it that
>>were at the left end) just enough to let in the new clip [automatically, when 
>>the material was inserted]. Is this what you meant? 

> The problem is holding down your mouse button and trying to drag a
> thumbnail [clip?] to the left pass [past?] about 40 or so other thumbnails and 
> having to wait a while until you have dragged it to the start of the movie.

Elements on some computers does seem rather slow while trying 
to move rapidly along the timeline (and you can sometimes crash the 
program if you go too fast). You can turn off the full thumbnail view 
when you want to move around quickly. You can also copy the clip 
("Ctrl+C"), then go to the beginning of a track above and hit "Ctrl+V" 
to put a copy there. Then insert the copy where you want it, and delete 
the original. 

> If I move a video clip on the time line to the right to full a gap
> then only the video clip moves and not the reat [rest?] of the video clips
> that are to the right of the moved video clip. I'm think there might
> be a way around this in the manual (maybe holding down a key on the
> keyboard while dragging perhaps).

Take the mouse and surround (or at least enter) all the clips you want to 
move as a unit with a rectangle that appears when you drag the mouse 
around them, as in the below.....\/ \/ \/

>>Also, without needing to select anything, you can draw out a
>>rectangle with the mouse around as many adjacent clips as you want 
>>to select them all to move them as a unit. 

> I have not tried that yet but it sounds useful.

It is VERY useful!!! ;-) And, unlike in Vegas, you do not need to grab 
a specific tool to do it.

>>(I sure do like Elements for
>>Mini-DV - too bad it mangles HDV. Once used to HD, it is VERY
>>hard to look at Mini-DV again - but Elements is such a nice, "clean"
>>program for editing that...)

> I brought my Sony DV-mini camera about 5 years ago and it was the
> latest in technology at the time, technology sure races ahead. 

The Sony VX2000/21000 was pretty much the pinnacle of "handycam" 
Mini-DV technology, and it appeared many years ago (but it is still sold, 
and used where low light reach is important). I owned three, but its good 
Mini-DV image is FAR short of what the cheap Canon HV20 can 
produce (but in good light only...). See my reviews/comparisons here - 
http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/Canon_HV20-HV30.htm 
http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/sony_dcr-vx2000.htm 
http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/camcorder-comparison.htm 
Plus more on video, at - 
http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/camcorder-comparison.htm

> So is HDV format similar to broadcast quality and can it be recorded 
> on to DV tape?
Yes, and yes. Much HDV is broadcast in HD programming now, and 
it is well above the quality standard needed for SD broadcast. 

>>> Increasing or descreasing
>>> an effect (such as volume) on the time line by selecting a keyframe is
>>> not easy to get the exact value you need and you have to be careful
>>> not to change the position of the keyframe so the effect does not
>>> occur too early or too late. If I was able to move the up and down
>>> arrows then this would have helped.
>>>
>>> Regards Brian

>>Increasing magnification of the timeline helps, and raising and lowering
>>the keyframe position gives a readout of the value and position of
>>the keyframe. The exact values for these are rarely critical...
>>--DR 

> I remember reading in the manual about a popup box that allows you to
> type in a value when changing things such as the amount of volume but
> I'll have to go back to the manual to find out how it's done.

It is easy to just grab and move the point or the line and move acceptably 
specific amounts. 

> I think I'll need to either get closer to my 17 inch LCD monitor or
> buy a 22 inch monitor as some things are difficult to see on the
> screen. 

I would HIGHLY recommend getting a 24" LCD instead (generally better 
color than 22" screens, and all the major editing programs fit that size ideally). 
They're about $300 in the US). See screen captures at 50% of three programs, 
here on a 24" - http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/video-editor-screens.htm 

> Thanks David.
> My reply is between the text you wrote (above).
> 
> Regards Brian

That's the way I like it - so one can have a "conversation". I hate top-posting, 
since it destroys the logical time-order of the posts and prevents "interleaving". 
Fortunately, no one here does it...! ;-)
--DR

~~~~~~~~~~~

"Brian" <bclark@es.co.nz> wrote in message news:ungq859s9r651ijvgaauf7k8gh6bjsk0n1@4ax.com...
> "David Ruether" <d_ruether@thotmail.com> wrote:

> Thanks David for the useful links and your comments.
> Programs seem to be pushing for better hardware. It's hard to believe
> that most of us used a 14 inch computer monitor.
> 
> Regards Brian

My first one was smaller, and monochrome yellow over black 
(with DOS, then, thank goodness, with GeoWorks). My first 
"good" monitor was 15" and cost $350 (ugh!). Now, for less 
than that, one can get a much sharper, much higher resolution 
(be careful to get a 1920x1200, not the 1920x1080 that is 
often offered now), much lighter, much lower heat and 
radiation emitting LCD - and tilt/turn/adjust it for best picture 
characteristics. These are a joy to work with compared with 
CRTs except possibly for subtle color corrections.
--DR

~~~~~~~~~

"David Ruether" <d_ruether@thotmail.com> wrote in message news:h6jm2t$pqq$1@ruby.cit.cornell.edu...
> "Brian" <bclark@es.co.nz> wrote in message news:ungq859s9r651ijvgaauf7k8gh6bjsk0n1@4ax.com...
>> "David Ruether" <d_ruether@thotmail.com> wrote:

>> Thanks David for the useful links and your comments.
>> Programs seem to be pushing for better hardware. It's hard to believe
>> that most of us used a 14 inch computer monitor.
>>
>> Regards Brian

> My first one was smaller, and monochrome yellow over black
> (with DOS, then, thank goodness, with GeoWorks). My first
> "good" monitor was 15" and cost $350 (ugh!). Now, for less
> than that, one can get a much sharper, much higher resolution
> (be careful to get a 1920x1200, not the 1920x1080 that is
> often offered now), much lighter, much lower heat and
> radiation emitting LCD - and tilt/turn/adjust it for best picture
> characteristics. These are a joy to work with compared with
> CRTs except possibly for subtle color corrections.
> --DR 

I forgot to mention that if you have a dual-head video card, you 
can simultaneously run your 17" off to the side at the same time 
(for text, program menus, color checking, etc.). For instance, 
while writing the video editing guide, it was a great help to have 
a 19" LCD off to my right so I could have the HTML-writing 
program there with both versions of the article available, and 
Vegas open on the 24" (with a .doc version also there, usually 
minimized, but available). Ah, the "moderen" age - ain't it gran'? 8^) 
--DR

~~~~~~~~~~~

"Brian" <bclark@es.co.nz> wrote in message news:tuds851iosjlld8t6591nvr3ua5kbsaf4h@4ax.com...
> "David Ruether" <d_ruether@thotmail.com> wrote:

[...]
>>(be careful to get a 1920x1200, not the 1920x1080 that is
>>often offered now), much lighter, much lower heat and
>>radiation emitting LCD - and tilt/turn/adjust it for best picture
>>characteristics. These are a joy to work with compared with
>>CRTs except possibly for subtle color corrections.
>>--DR 

> Thanks for the advice.
> It would depend on what my video card can deliver. Lucky for me it's
> able to output at 1920 x 1200. Also I'd get a wide screen monitor
> these days. Maybe the difference between 1920 x 1080 and 1920 x 1200
> is that the 1920 x 1200 could be for wide screen.
> 
> Regards Brian

The 1200 vs. 1080 vertical (x1920) permits more material to 
be placed on the screen, important if you want to see a full 
1/2-sized HD preview window later plus more than one or 
maybe two timeline tracks comfortably (without vertical 
scrolling). Even with SD, the greater vertical real estate of 
the 1200 pixel height display is VERY useful to have.
--DR

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"Martin Heffels" <goofies@flikken.net> wrote in message news:hgcs85thgpq8l1h9aqq6vdp77fd12i7vip@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 20 Aug 2009 10:20:18 -0400, "David Ruether"
> <d_ruether@thotmail.com> wrote:

>>be careful to get a 1920x1200
> 
> Why do you recommend that size?
> 
> -martin-

All the major video editing programs fit this size very well 
for both SD and HD using a single monitor. The 1200 vs 1080 
vertical (x1920) permits more material to be placed vertically 
on the screen, important if you want to see a full 1/2-sized 
HD preview window plus more than one or maybe two 
timeline tracks comfortably (without vertical scrolling). Even 
with SD, the greater vertical real estate of the 1200 pixel 
height is VERY useful to have. Also, the 22" LCDs tend to 
use the worst of the three panel type choices for color 
accuracy. Here are screen captures from Ulead, Adobe, and 
Sony software on a 24" monitor (at 50%), at - 
http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/video-editor-screens.htm
Here is another screen capture of Sony Vegas, at - 
http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/Sony-layout.htm 
And one that is larger yet, used for the Sony editing guide, is at - 
http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/SONY-NUMBERED-LAYOUT.htm 
(This last one, at 75%, is for the Vegas editing guide, at - 
http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/Sony-editing.htm.) The 
last is more "comfortable" to use at 100% on a 24" 1920x1200 
monitor... Also, good 24" monitors run around $300 (although 
you can spend much more if you want...;-), and smaller 
monitors are not a heck of a lot cheaper - so why not get the 
size that these programs appear to be optimized for?
--DR

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"Brian" <bclark@es.co.nz> wrote in message news:rh0i8519ioe85bhe06mljkethj68ue9js7@4ax.com...
> "SteveB" <oldfart@depends.com> wrote:

>>My tutor came today, and after having looked at AVID, brought Adobe Premier 
>>CS3 and installed it. We worked with it a while, and it is easier to use 
>>than AVID if not just that it is uses Windows templates and symbols, making 
>>it a little easier to figure out. He showed me lots of shortcuts, which I 
>>wrote down, so now my brain's on overload. He says I should uninstall AVID, 
>>as I have the original disks available should I want to put it back on. Is 
>>this Adobe program a good one?
>>
>>Will keep hacking this week, but now I have some backup and a number to call 
>>if I get stuck.
>>
>>Steve 

> Adobe Premiere is the set standard in the video industry (some might
> disagree) just like Microsoft Word is the set standard in word
> processors and Adobe Premiere is the video editor that is taught in
> schools.
> 
> Regards Brian

Ummm... Diff'rent strokes fer diff'rent folks...;-) To me, CS3 is rather 
bloated, has a relatively "uncomfortable" interface, is WAY overpriced, 
and it does not work well with HDV HD. The under $100 Vegas 
Platinum 9 beats it on all grounds except for esoteric features unlikely 
to be used by most folks (which is NOT to say that 9 cannot be used 
to make fine videos in both SD and HD). Premiere Elements is also 
under $100, has a superb interface, and has most of the features one 
would want (but it, too, does not handle HD HDV very well - but it 
is great for SD). Sony Vegas Pro is not cheap (but still about $250 
less than CS3, as I recall), and it has MANY features, some not in 
CS3. It can also handle HD quite well, and also 24bit 96 KHz audio 
with unlimited tracks, and it even includes four 'scopes for checking 
video. It has always annoyed me that marketing often trumps quality, 
performance, price-for-capability, and/or practicality. Examples of 
great marketing are Canon providing still gear to school papers, etc. 
to get the students "hooked" on it, although at the time, Nikon products 
were clearly superior - and Apple providing computers at cut-rate 
prices to schools for the same purpose (not to mention the often 
outlandish claims made for performance compared with PCs - but at 
least you got a "niftier looking" case for your extra dollars spent...;-). 
Adobe products early on became standard among publishers and 
designers through good marketing and likely an attractive and useful 
compatibility among users (and, heck, I recently had to give up on my 
much loved photo editor when it became incompatible with XP - and 
I moved to PhotoShop Elements...;-). But with Adobe, I've always 
detested the "expensive treadmill" they had users on with their VERY 
expensive software and upgrades. I choose to stay clear of that (and 
I did not "upgrade" Vegas Pro 8c to Pro 9 when it recently came out, 
with a "discounted" price on the new version...;-).
--DR

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"Brian" <bclark@es.co.nz> wrote in message news:4b4e95tf6d9iuhso2p0vqfghmm8cgbn0s0@4ax.com...
> "David Ruether" <d_ruether@thotmail.com> wrote:
>>"Martin Heffels" <goofies@flikken.net> wrote in message news:l2fd95h6363e5jmu47259237aakbdeuljp@4ax.com...
>>> On Thu, 27 Aug 2009 22:04:17 +1200, Brian <bclark@es.co.nz> wrote:

>>>>I tried installing a demo of Adobe Premiere CS4 on my computer a few
>>>>weeks ago but it fails to run on my computer. Someone in this news
>>>>group had the same problem. I'm using Visa on a intel Quad Core
>>>>processor so I don't know why it wont work.

>>> That's a bummer, as this would be the logical next step for you to
>>> take into the more serious editors. Vista is not the greatest thing
>>> since sliced bread, so Premiere might choke on that. But it's best to
>>> persist and try and find a solution to get it running. With your
>>> experience on Elements, your much quicker on the way.
>>> Some are probably thinking now "if he needs to spend lots of time on
>>> fixing the installation, he might as well just learn compltely new
>>> program" ;-)
>>>
>>> cheers
>>>
>>> -martin-

I forgot to add that I'm one who thinks that dumping the Adobe route 
while the OP can do that cheaply is the best option. At this point, he 
has obtained some experience with editing without much cash outlay 
using a fine program for SD (only!), but he should now likely avoid an 
expensive further Adobe route, especially since that one is so limiting 
with HD, a consideration for the future.

>>I don't see many "real" limitations in Elements here. Why not just
>>copy the clip and paste multiple copies on the timeline where
>>they are desired, and trim them on the timeline (my preferred
>>method in any case...;-) The one REAL limitation with Elements
>>(and equally with the expensive version of Premiere) is with
>>exporting HDV (there is no "Smart Rendering").
>>--DR 

> I hope Adobe is reading what you have written David and consider this
> in the next version of Adobe Premiere.

They didn't when I noted it with Elements 4 and CS3 - and when 
Elements 7 and CS4 came out without it, I wondered what Adobe 
was "thinking", leaving out decent handling of HD in their editing 
software products. HD has been around for quite a while now, the 
cameras can be cheap (and also truly excellent in one case), and 
almost all other software handles HD properly - so what is Adobe 
waiting for, and why would anyone buy into it at this point with such 
an important functionality route continually left unavailable in this 
software?

> Like I said in one of my reply posts is that I can make a copy of the
> video clip, rename the copy of the clip in the media window then have
> different in and out points for these two clips and then drag them to
> the timeline when I'm ready to use them. I'm pleased that this works.
> 
> Regards Brian

Whatever works! ;-) You have noticed that most software provides 
at least a couple of different ways to accomplish a given operation, 
and that the editor chooses the ones that are the most comfortable for 
doing what is desired...;-)
--DR

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"Richard Crowley" <rcrowley@xp7rt.net> wrote in message news:7fodnmF2mm09pU1@mid.individual.net...
> "David Ruether" wrote ...
>> "Richard Crowley" wrote ...

>>> I was the one who tried installing the demo of the latest version of
>>> Premiere. It installed half a dozen other applications (including fully
>>> installed but completely non-functional Encore), but absolutely no
>>> sign of Premiere anywhere (except for the licence notice file.) Bah!
>>> I'm moving on to Vegas. Tired of being jerked around by Adobe.

>> I assume you have not yet gotten into HD?

> That was my reason for graduating from Adobe to Vegas Pro 9
> I got a Sony PMW-EX1 XDCAM-EX camera. It makes breath-
> taking pictures at full 1920x1080 HD resolution.
> 
> I edited our 48-Hour Film on Premiere because I'm not up to speed
> enough with Vegas to do anything useful yet. Right now I'm trying
> to figure out how to mark the in and out points of a clip before
> dragging it into the timeline. That and a whole raft of other things
> that seem easy to do in Premiere have so far escaped any form
> of discovery in Vegas.

I decided to stick with Pro 8c 'cuz it does everything I want, was 
cheaper originally (on a special deal) than even the 8-to-9 upgrade, 
and 9 appears as yet to be rather buggy (but updates are free as they 
become available...). For what you're doing, and at this point, Pro 9 
was most likely the way to go - but look at the Vegas Pro forum at 
www.sonycreativesoftware.com, under "Support". The basic Video 
Tutorials are also there, plus more advanced ones put on by TV's 
"Survivor Man" (he gets dumped in the wild almost anywhere with a 
small HD camera and minimal supplies, and makes it alone through a 
week, then puts together a show from the footage - which is often 
amazing). Welcome to the wonderful world of HD! I bet it would be 
hard (VERY hard...) to go back to SD at even this point, no matter 
how good it was! 8^) Even my little Canon HV20 produces VERY 
high quality imagery (in good light only, and with considerable 
attention to picture control while shooting...) - see my review, at - 
http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/Canon_HV20-HV30.htm

> I have no question that for the reasons you give and several more,
> I will be happier with Vegas, but right now I'm grumbling about
> the learning curve. I've downloaded your tutorial to me out there.
> Thank you! 

It can be scary at first, but while the particulars may be different, the 
concepts are generally the same. The one that stopped me for a 
while was the more complex operations required for the audio - but 
the greater complexity provides more control everywhere in the 
program, and its operations are remarkably logical once you "get 
the gist". Things like being able to separately keyframe all the video 
filters and transitions, save filtered tracks as new tracks automatically 
while preserving the original, being able to save files that appear 
automatically above the original material in synch, being able to use 
RAM for short previews, having the "Dialogue Boxes" for everything 
open with the identical contents (and the ability to adjust each box to its 
proper maximum size by double-clicking on its header bar), adjust all 
layout and component sizes at will, move tracks around freely, run a 
sharp 1/2 sized preview window and also an HD TV at the same time, 
getting lost in the huge amount of color control (8^}) and titling 
possibilities, watching (and following, step by step) the in-program 
tutorials, having four vector scopes available within the program, etc., 
etc., etc. I think you will like it once you get into it. Try "nibbling around 
the edges" at first. (BTW, to open the trimmer window, right click on the 
clip and click "Open In Trimmer"...;-) And, if you are a "key-stroker", 
there is a list in the program of almost 300 keyboard shortcuts. Have 
fun with it! ;-)
--DR

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"Paul Furman" <paul-@-edgehill.net> wrote in message news:h773ib$tr9$1@news.eternal-september.org...
> David Ruether wrote:

>> I assume you have not yet gotten into HD? If so, you would
>> likely have encountered a BIG shortcoming of Adobe editing
>> software - the lack of "Smart Rendering" (the simple copying
>> of unchanged footage without recompression). This shortcoming
>> results in three problems - slow export, reduced image quality
>> that ranges from slight to extreme (with the sharpest HDV source
>> material), and inability to reexport the edited video file without
>> either further damaging it with another compression pass or
>> having to retain the original project and all of its source material.
>> Assuming someone wants to move to HD (do - it's FUN!!!),
>> Adobe doesn't currently offer any good editing solution, so its
>> software is "dead end". I have settled in with Vegas Pro 8c (still
>> available, cheaper than Pro 9, and currently very cheap for
>> what it is), and Sony Platinum 9 offers most of its features at a
>> small fraction of the price (under $100). BTW, for those not
>> familiar with them, I have a written beginners guide to editing
>> with them at - www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/Sony-editing.htm,
>> and among the URLs within it are the ones for the Sony video
>> guides, which show the operations in the program very clearly.

> Thanks David, I'll check that out. These programs are not intuitive!

> The way I accomplish splitting a clip in Vegas Movie Studio 8 is 
> control-drag a copy to a timeline below, aligned, and drag the ends to 
> clip... that actually is intuitive. I'm probably missing a way to just 
> split with some key combo... 
> -- 
> Paul Furman

In Vegas, place the cursor where you want (you can go to the exact 
position using the "left/right" keys while holding the "Alt" key down).
Once there, hit the "S" key. Select and then hit the "Delete" key to 
remove the unwanted material (but you can use the "Undo" button 
to undo as much as you want, even back through a "save" - or you can 
"unfurl" the end(s) of the clip as you describe... If you have the "Ripple 
Edit" button engaged (and have selected the appropriate choice to its 
right! ;-), once you trim the clip on the timeline, the new gap will be 
removed automatically (on one, or more tracks). You can also use the 
"Trimmer Window" by right-clicking on the clip and selecting the trimmer. 
--DR


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"Martin Heffels" <goofies@flikken.net> wrote in message news:k2gf8593rpns4bal2029jjoj80dbo65l3m@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 15 Aug 2009 12:28:34 -0400, "David Ruether"
> <d_ruether@thotmail.com> wrote:

>>I just counted 263 keyboard shortcuts in Vegas (not counting
>>different ones for the same functions, but possibly recounting
>>repeatedly listed functions[?]). FAR, FAR more than I would
>>ever learn! I'm (mostly) a "mouse pointer/clicker", but there are
>>some keyboard shortcuts that even I find handy in Vegas...;-)

> Plenty of shortcuts to keep me busy then ;-) But I don't know about
> their logicality. For instance on Final Cut Pro there are some
> shortcuts which one would use frequently, but to get them you have to
> press two keys. Fortunately the shortcuts can be changed to avoid
> this, but it's a default thing. C'mon, can Apple only think about how
> the outside of the box looks like???
> 
> cheers
> 
> -martin-

As I recall (while quick-counting through the list of shortcuts in 
Vegas), some for "esoteric" functions are three-key ones - but 
Vegas permits customizing keyboard shortcuts, so......;-) 
--DR

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"Justin" <justin@nobecauseihatespam.com> wrote in message 
news:h67049$7ik$1@news.eternal-september.org...
> David Ruether wrote:
>> "Justin" <justin@nobecauseihatespam.com> wrote in message 
news:h65k70$aoo$1@news.eternal-september.org...

>>> I made my own car camera mount, and I am currently using a "knuckle" 
>>> to mount the camera. The problem is I have to unscrew it everytime.
>>> I would like something with a tripod style top, so I can have a few of 
>>> those plastic pieces on different cameras and easily swap them out.
>>> What would one of those things be called?

>> A "quick release". A small part attaches to the bottom of the
>> camera using the tripod mounting hole, and this slides/clamps
>> onto the main part of the mount (which is attached to whatever
>> you want - usually using the tripod mounting hole in its bottom).
>> --DR 

> Right but I want one without the tripod attached so I can attach it to 
> something else.
> Is it called a head?

No - a "quick release". The top part goes on the camera, and the 
bottom part goes on a tripod, clamp, or anything else you want with 
a suitable mounting screw on it. The "Q-R" is generally compact and 
adds little weight unless "heavy duty" - and many are quite cheap. 
There are photos of the bottom half of one on a brace I made for use 
with my small HDV camcorder (it's the piece at the end opposite the 
handle), at -- http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/brace.htm
--DR

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"Woodsman" <woodsman@myaddress.net> wrote in message news:bbpc85h9rp1gatc8tmc8n891tks97t6i13@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 15 Aug 2009 02:32:09 -0500, Maybe They'll Catch On
> <mtco@spamblock.org> wrote: 
>>On Sat, 15 Aug 2009 06:44:43 GMT, "Dudley Hanks"
>><dhanks@blind-apertures.ca> wrote:

>>>How do you compete with this kind of charisma?
>>>
>>>www.edmontonjournal.com/technology/goes+nuts+over+Banff+scene+stealing+squirrel/1892665/story.html

>>Already been seen on every news network worldwide for the last 24 hours in
>>every display resolution conceivable. Again attesting to the proven fact
>>that pixels and resolution, nor camera, will ever matter. CONTENT always
>>trumps everything. Pro's know this, amateur snapshooters do not.

> So true.
> 
> Just last night I captured an infrared video at only 320x240 resolution of
> some raccoon young'ns playing in my yard. They were at it for a good 10
> minutes, play-fighting with each other. Then at one point when one of them
> was on the other's back biting its neck, the one under-attack reared
> backward and they both fell into a water-dish set out for them. The one
> under attack now thoroughly doused (as well as the attacker) became furious
> and now became the attacker. I'm still chuckling from just thinking about
> it while trying to describe it.
> 
> I showed that video-clip to several friends today and none of us can keep
> from laughing every time we see it. I must have watched it a good 20 times
> and I still laugh out-loud every time.

Hmmmm.... Just wait 'til the little bastards break through your kitchen 
door and evenly deposit a peck of ripe peaches about 1/4" deep on 
your kitchen floor... So cute - NOT! Then there is the battle to keep 
the garbage ***IN*** the can when raccoons are around. Funnnn! ;-) 
(Currently experiencing a "scintillating scotoma"...)
--DR

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

<oleuncleted@aol.com> wrote in message news:e9d02a83-9b7e-448f-9e35-968a46327667@r36g2000vbn.googlegroups.com...

> looking for some input/suggestions on buying new pc.
> 
> im shooting with the 5d mark II ,raw files are big around 25 the mb
> region
> my current specs are below .
> 
> machine is slowing a bit around 1 1/2 yr old looking to upgrade to a
> new one .
> 
> INTEL PENTIUM 4 3.20 GHZ
> NVDIA GEFORCE 7800 GS
> 200 GG HD ATA
> 4 GB RAM
> WINDOWS XP PRO
> GATEWAY 24 IN HD MONITOR
> calabrated with the xrite pro
> 
> thanks
> oleuncleted

Why not keep what you have and upgrade the MB and CPU 
(with a quad-core Intel - but XP can handle no more than 3.3 
gigs of RAM, and more can slow the computer) and add at 
least one more internal drive (use one for the OS, current work 
in progress, and incidental stuff only, with preferably two others 
used for duplicate archiving)? Reinstall XP, with the latest service 
pack, after a complete (slow/thorough) reformatting of your "C" 
drive. Afterwards, keep the drives defragmented the best you 
can, and occasionally run anti-spyware software and dump the 
cookies, etc. from your browser. The computer will FLY, and 
the upgrade would be much cheaper than buying something new 
that is comparable. BTW, I use a similar system to the above 
for editing HD video, and it works without problems...
--DR

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"Dewittian" <dewittian@gmail.com> wrote in message news:392f13a1-b507-413c-9e36-3b4f7cbd86f1@a13g2000yqc.googlegroups.com...
On Aug 26, 11:04 am, <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> "Dewittian" <dewitt...@gmail.com> wrote in messagenews:e656a05f-e22f-4027-bc5a-da50a8acb54b@l5g2000yqo.googlegroups.com...
> > Remember the old sing along with Mitch type of bouncing ball on the
> > lyrics? I don't know about Karaoke machines but I want to scroll my
> > lyrics along with the song I'm singing. I have Sony Vegas 8 and was
> > wondering if anybody know the easiest way to get the text track to
> > sync up to the video tract on this music video I'm trying to make?
>
> > I'd hate to think I have to make separate text inserts and stretch
> > them out to cover each section of music that has those words sung?
>
> > I don't even know if what I'm writing is understandable but could sure
> > use some help?
>
> > Thanks,
>
> Originally, the bouncing ball was simply a light put on the end of
> a stick, and shot on high contrast film:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bouncing_ball
>
> Note this part: "Some modern video editing programs achieve the
> same effect as the bouncing ball by highlighting each displayed
> syllable as it is sung."
>
> *Much* easier and more precise than a bouncing ball.

I'm not aiming to actually have a bouncing ball follow the lyrics but
I might try that also. I think what Brian is suggesting might get the
job done but it would be good if someone else has a different way to
get the lyrics (text) to stay at the bottom. I',m really hopping to
get te lyrics to scroll horizontally underneath my face as I sing the
song. If I just put the text there it will look static instead of
scrolling.

Anyone know of any scrolling feature in Sony Vegas Movie studio?

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

MovieStudio is probably close enough to Vegas Pro 8 to use this method to 
build the "crawl" (not "scroll", which is vertical text movement...). Look here:
http://www.sonycreativesoftware.com/news/article.asp?articleid=64&keycode=64135
BTW, you may be able to place a marker on the timeline at the beginning 
of each sung line by placing the cursor there and hitting the "M" key. Time 
stretch/condense the audio as needed to keep reasonable synchronism. 
--DR

~~~~~~~~~~

"David McCall" <mccallmail@verizon.net> wrote in message news:h747cu$gfa$1@news.albasani.net... 
> "David Ruether" <d_ruether@thotmail.com> wrote in message 
> news:h744vv$3l0$1@ruby.cit.cornell.edu...

>> MovieStudio is probably close enough to Vegas Pro 8 to use this method to
>> build the "crawl" (not "scroll", which is vertical text movement...). Look here:
>> www.sonycreativesoftware.com/news/article.asp?articleid=64&keycode=64135
>> BTW, you may be able to place a marker on the timeline at the beginning
>> of each sung line by placing the cursor there and hitting the "M" key. Time
>> stretch/condense the audio as needed to keep reasonable synchronism.
>> --DR

> I would not try to do it all in one piece. Perhaps even line by line. That way you
> can do a combination of adding spaces, changing kerning/font width, or adjusting 
> the speed to tweak the synchronization. 
> David 

Yes, good additions. My last post (very!) roughly covered that, but it needed 
your expansion/details/clarifications to "work"...;-)
--DR

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"Bruce" <docnews2011@gmail.com> wrote in message news:1opf95hnltg791l3bt1uft6m8o4akm9lib@4ax.com...

> On Fri, 28 Aug 2009 15:54:37 +0200, Ofnuts <o.f.n.u.t.s@la.poste.net>
> Perhaps using Cosina lens caps on Canon L lenses would reduce the risk
> of them being stolen. ;-)

But, but...., Cosina has made some very fine lenses...! ;-)
--DR

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"Argo22" <markrc@gmail.com> wrote in message news:e959a36e-9a96-4327-8818-628b654f690d@o6g2000yqj.googlegroups.com...

> I posted a similar message on rec.video.desktop, but thought I may get
> more responses on here.
> 
> I am in the market for a used camcorder for some live webcasts that I
> do from time to time on ustream. I currently have a Panasonic PV-
> GS180
> palmcorder, which has a nice enough picture, however I would like
> something with more of a professional feel and look. I have found a
> good deal on a Canon GL-1 (around $500). Outside of webcasts I also
> do
> some standard DVD work as well. Just wondering if the GL-1 is a good
> enough camera to buy today(2009) or should I hold off with my
> palmcorder a few more months until I can afford a prosumer HDV
> camera.
> 
> I am caught because I love the look of the footage ive seen from
> palmcorders like the Canon Vixia HVs, and others, but I cannot stand
> using the small sized
> cameras. I have used cameras like the GL1 and Sony VX-1000 and I am
> very comfortable with their physical size. Plus they have LANC
> capabilities
> which is great for tripod work.
> 
> Any help? 
> Thanks
> M. 

Long ago I compared many Mini-DV camcorders, and at the time, 
I did not like Canon's offerings very much compared with Sony's 
(http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/camcorder-comparison.htm). 
Also see (with the "key" open) my article on video image faults 
(http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/vid_pict_characts.htm). The 
Canon products had many image problems. If you can find one at a 
good price, a VX2000 was the best of the "handycam" Mini-DV 
camcorders at a possibly reasonably OK price (or maybe the 
VX1000). I guess for $500 for what you want, the GL-1 is OK in
a pinch, if in very good condition - but its image is FAR inferior to 
current HD (and the Canon HV series is one of the best - I would 
look for a used HV20 or 30 if you have good enough light to shoot 
it in (http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/Canon_HV20-HV30.htm). 
--DR

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"Argo22" <markrc@gmail.com> wrote in message news:b09ce8f9-e6b1-4780-84db-f30a3e52e732@d4g2000vbm.googlegroups.com...
On Aug 29, 2:47 pm, "David Ruether" <d_ruet...@thotmail.com> wrote:
> Long ago I compared many Mini-DV camcorders, and at the time,
> I did not like Canon's offerings very much compared with Sony's
> (http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/camcorder-comparison.htm).
> Also see (with the "key" open) my article on video image faults
> (http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/vid_pict_characts.htm). The
> Canon products had many image problems. If you can find one at a
> good price, a VX2000 was the best of the "handycam" Mini-DV
> camcorders at a possibly reasonably OK price (or maybe the
> VX1000). I guess for $500 for what you want, the GL-1 is OK in
> a pinch, if in very good condition - but its image is FAR inferior to
> current HD (and the Canon HV series is one of the best - I would
> look for a used HV20 or 30 if you have good enough light to shoot
> it in (http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/Canon_HV20-HV30.htm).
> --DR

Thanks for the suggestions and reviews. I am learning a lot from them.
Just wondering though, I was looking at the specs of my current camera
(Panasonic PV-GS180) and compared to the Canon GL1 the 3ccds
apparently have more in the PV-GS180 than in the GL1, although the PV-
GS180 has smaller ccds (1/6" as opposed to the GL1's 1/4"). Would I
notice that much difference between the video of my current one and
the GL1? 

cccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccc
[Gmail's lack of time sequencing markers, the ">"s, is annoying...] 

Likely the only gain with the GL-1 would be in lower picture contrast 
and maybe slightly better low light range. Why bother, since the GL-1 
was not very good in most respects in picture quality...? BTW, I used 
to have Sony TRV-900s (a fairly compact 3-chip camcorder with 
a good picture and reasonably good low light range) in addition to 
VX2000s, but I was tempted to try the newer TRV-950. It also had 
the tiny 1/6th inch chips, and the picture was not very good (too 
contrasty). While the TRV-900 had a long life on the market, the 
TRV-950s life was very short... If you are not satisfied with the 
Panasonic for your purposes, I would consider a used TRV-900 
(but not the TRV-950...;-). 
cccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccc

I don't mind not having HDV right now, and for the current
prices of a VX2000 or 2100 that ive seen used (still around $1000-1500
or more on ebay) ill stick with the GL1, but wondering if compared to
my current palmcorder I will be moving up to a better picture, or will
it just be the same quality in a bigger box with more control.

cccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccc
I have not compared them side-by-side, but I really didn't like 
the GL-1 very much. Another camera to consider is a used Panasonic 
AG-EZ1U. It is not without faults, but I liked the picture. 
cccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccc

Learning as I go along here so please everyone don't get too annoyed
lol

Thanks
Mark

cccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccc
I would hesitate to throw $500+ at Mini-DV at this point when that 
would go a long way toward MUCH higher quality image with HD. 
--DR
cccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccc

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"Brian" <bclark@es.co.nz> wrote in message news:b03i95hku5cg85657f52g2g06vrsn2mvmp@4ax.com...

> Some in this news group some suggested that I move from standard video
> to High definition video. I was talking to a salesman to day and he
> told me that on a 32 meg SD memory card you can fit 8 hours of HD
> video. Is this correct as it seems a lot of data to fit in a small
> amount of space unless it is very heavily compressed. I've seen 8 meg
> SD cards sold but not the 32 Meg SD cards.
> To load it into a video editor from the SD card do you need some kind
> of converter?
> Someone on this newsgroup suggested that the best way to backup a
> video was to write it to DV tape, but I'm told that DV video camera's
> are rapidly disappearing from the market which leaves external hard
> drives as a backup for video.
> Are there still some advantages of a hard drive video camera compared
> to a solid state camera that uses SD memory cards?
> 
> Regards Brian

It is VERY difficult to edit 24 Mbps AVCHD (and even 17 Mbps AVCHD, 
which is what the cheaper cameras shoot, and the image quality of that 
is not up to HDV, which is MUCH easier to edit). There are many low end 
consumer, prosumer, and low end pro camcorders that shoot HDV, and I 
would STRONGLY recommend staying with these, tempting as the shooting 
storage and transferring ease of AVCHD are. But what good are those if you 
run into major problems trying to edit it (without the losses of a transcoding, 
and the resultant larger files)? Don't be fooled by what is on sale to those who 
don't realize what they will be up against when they try to edit their AVCHD 
camcorder's output - but I do hope the word spreads fast enough to save the 
HDV format that is superior for editing and archiving. 
--DR

~~~~~~~~~~~

"Brian" <bclark@es.co.nz> wrote in message news:d86k95h7gjp8kuqf673sui7qehqu2qc0lj@4ax.com...
> "David Ruether" <d_ruether@thotmail.com> wrote:
>>"Brian" <bclark@es.co.nz> wrote in message news:b03i95hku5cg85657f52g2g06vrsn2mvmp@4ax.com...

>>> Some in this news group some suggested that I move from standard video
>>> to High definition video. I was talking to a salesman to day and he
>>> told me that on a 32 meg SD memory card you can fit 8 hours of HD
>>> video. Is this correct as it seems a lot of data to fit in a small
>>> amount of space unless it is very heavily compressed. I've seen 8 meg
>>> SD cards sold but not the 32 Meg SD cards.
>>> To load it into a video editor from the SD card do you need some kind
>>> of converter?
>>> Someone on this newsgroup suggested that the best way to backup a
>>> video was to write it to DV tape, but I'm told that DV video camera's
>>> are rapidly disappearing from the market which leaves external hard
>>> drives as a backup for video.
>>> Are there still some advantages of a hard drive video camera compared
>>> to a solid state camera that uses SD memory cards?
>>>
>>> Regards Brian

>> It is VERY difficult to edit 24 Mbps AVCHD (and even 17 Mbps AVCHD, 
>> which is what the cheaper cameras shoot, and the image quality of that 
>> is not up to HDV, which is MUCH easier to edit). There are many low end 
>> consumer, prosumer, and low end pro camcorders that shoot HDV, and I 
>> would STRONGLY recommend staying with these, tempting as the shooting 
>> storage and transferring ease of AVCHD are. But what good are those if you 
>> run into major problems trying to edit it (without the losses of a transcoding, 
>> and the resultant larger files)? Don't be fooled by what is on sale to those who 
>> don't realize what they will be up against when they try to edit their AVCHD 
>> camcorder's output - but I do hope the word spreads fast enough to save the 
>> HDV format that is superior for editing and archiving. 
>> --DR

> I was interesting in reading your comments on AVCHD. Version 7 of
> Adobe Premiere Elements now support AVCHD. I'd be interested in
> knowing why it's difficult to edit? What's the difference between
> editing a DV-tape video and a AVCGD video? Once loaded into the video
> editor does it take up much more space than the original stored HD
> video.

HDV and 24 Mbps (the better of the two likely possibilities) AVCHD 
occupy about the same amount of drive space per unit recorded time 
on the computer, but there the similarity ends. HDV handling in software 
requires FAR less able computer hardware to handle efficiently (HDV 
has been around for years, and software and hardware handle it well), 
but even with the fastest 8-core computer, editing 24 Mbps AVCHD is 
a PAIN (unless you don't mind viewing your material in a "chunky/clunky" 
bit-by-bit way...). The only options for getting smooth playback for editing 
are to go to a very low resolution substitution file (YUCKY - and you have 
no idea how sharp/unsharp clips are or what they really look like, as used 
by Corel), or transcoding to a different but far larger file type that will play 
well (as used by FCP), or transcoding to a higher resolution version of 
HDV (sound familiar...? ;-). This adds in the last two cases a generation of 
transcoding losses, and slows the "loading process" to more than loading 
HDV. Why bother, when HDV works well and offers some additional 
advantages?

> With the disappearence of the DV-tape and the mini-disc camera it
> seems that all is left to choose from is solid state and hard drive
> cameras. 

Again - don't assume that HDV is going away just yet...! ;-)

> If a solid state camera is smaller and lighter then the
> consumer is likely to buy this camera. 

Yes - and THEN realize their mistake, unfortunately, when it comes time 
to edit and archive material...

> These days consumers seem to face the problem of if you update one
> component then you need to update the other components which gets
> expensive after a while.
> 
> Regards Brian

Uh-huh. Good reason for sticking with "tried-and-true" instead of walking 
out there onto "the bleeding edge"...! ;-)
--DR

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"Dewittian" <dewittian@gmail.com> wrote in message news:4964d205-49b4-443d-873a-187954177167@p15g2000vbl.googlegroups.com...
On Aug 28, 5:01 pm, "Ken Maltby" <kmal...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

>> Actually what would be even more cool would be to get the looped
>> section to play forward then backward like when you find 2 frames and
>> use the left and right arrow keys to toggle back and forth between the
>> frames. On fast moves between the 1st and second frame it's pretty
>> cool looking. Anyone know of an effect to do that?

> Until someone using your NLE and version replies, you could
> consider how a timeline works. Also, that you can select a portion
> of the material on a timeline and copy it as many times as you wish.
> Most editing program suites let you reverse the playback of selected
> portions, on the timeline, as well.
>
> Your NLE has some easy way of breaking the association of tracks
> on a timeline, including having separate audio and video tracks.
>
> A timeline is, by definition a linear display, "loop" on a timeline is
> just
> where material is repeated on the timeline. You can't have an "infinite
> loop" on a timeline, you would need an "infinite timeline".
>
> So, a loop in your production is just a matter of your editing, of you
> copying the same portion of material over and over onto a later portion
> of the timeline. All under your complete control. If you want to reverse
> every other portion, go right ahead.
>
> Luck;
> Ken

The way it works in audio programs is when you loop something you just
drag the right handle out as many times as you want it to repeat.
I've never seen an infinate loop. I just wish someone in this group
who know Sony Vegas know how to reverse sections, create a loop if
possible, and knows how to separate the audio and video tracks.

ccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccc

There is an excellent video tutorial on Vegas Movie Studio at -- 
www.sonycreativesoftware.com/support/trainingvids.asp?prod=moviestudio. 
I have also written a beginner's video editing guide for it and Vegas Pro at -- 
www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/Sony-editing.htm. As for specific questions, 
you can ungroup video and audio by selecting a clip and hitting the "U" key. 
You can regroup items by holding the "Shift" or "Ctrl" key down (whichever 
is appropriate for the situation) and hitting the "G" key. Loops can be created 
by copying something, then pasting it onto the timeline as many times as you 
want (and overlapping the pieces will result in video and/or audio dissolves). 
BTW, you will get into less visual trouble if you first deinterlace or reverse the 
field order of what will run backward, to avoid wrong field order artifacts. 
--DR

~~~~~~~~~~~~

"David Ruether" <d_ruether@thotmail.com> wrote in message 
news:h7c6ed$8ks$1@ruby.cit.cornell.edu...

> You can regroup items by holding the "Shift" or "Ctrl" key down (whichever
> is appropriate for the situation) and hitting the "G" key. 

That should have read, "You can regroup items by holding the "Shift" or 
"Ctrl" key down (whichever is appropriate for the situation, whether for two 
items, or for more), selecting the items to be grouped, and hitting the "G" key 
to link them." 
--DR


~~~~~~~~~~~~

"Paul Furman" <paul-@-edgehill.net> wrote in message news:h7bhvn$g6a$1@news.eternal-september.org...
> Dewittian wrote:
>> Paul Furman wrote:
>>> David Ruether wrote:

>>>> ...hit the "S" key.

>>> Doh!

>> ...I have Vegas MS 8 and am still trying to figure out how to make a cut
>> out section reverse itself so I can make a loop going back and forth.

> Right-click and choose Reverse from the menu ;-) 
> -- 
> Paul Furman

Oooops! I went into more detail above, but I forgot to include this 
rather important basic bit of information...! :-( 
--DR

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"Paul Furman" <paul-@-edgehill.net> wrote in message news:h7e6su$ft9$1@news.eternal-september.org...
> Dewittian wrote:

>> I got Vegas to copy a section 8 times then on every other section I
>> reversed it. I used the U command to get the audio our and I'm not
>> sure what i'll put in for audio but the video going back and forth is
>> funny. I don't have a manual for either elements or Vegas but the PDF
>> help files are availabel on line most likely. It always breaks down
>> to time. I like tutorials better but usually have no time.

Look at the ones for Vegas at http://www.sonycreativesoftware.com/training. 
They are very good and easy to follow. Also, within the programs (if you 
can figure out what you want to do is called in "Sony-speak...;-), the 
step-by-step guides in the programs are excellent. Then, there is always 
my guide, at www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/Sony-editing.htm, which has a 
PDF version...;-) The manuals are also available on the Sony site, as Mike 
Kujbida pointed out. 

>> I still wonder how to combine sections in Vegas? Its' much easier to
>> deal with 1 section after I get all the small sections aligned.

> As David said, turning on the ripple thing will make that somewhat more 
> manageable. I think you'll just need to burn out an AVI & re-import. 

Just be careful to select the right version of ripple edit for doing what you 
want, or "big messes" could result. You can also select things with the "Ctrl" 
key held down, then let it go, and hit the "G" key. Or, with SD, you can just 
export, then import, a file of what you want combined (you do not want 
to do this with HD due to the extra compression pass that results which 
is more damaging than it is with SD).

> I have done that before and when I asked around was told it's a 
> reasonable approach. 

It is, since the damage from any recompression is imperceptible with 
Mini-DV (but this is not true with HD under many circumstances). 

> Just do it without compression. 
> -- 
> Paul Furman

It is recompressed if any changes have been made to the footage, but 
otherwise things are just copied to the new file...
--DR

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"Martin Heffels" <goofies@flikken.net> wrote in message news:t8ai959a2v746mmcpdnp3s5denoppm2vak@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 27 Aug 2009 14:56:04 -0700, "Richard Crowley"
> <rcrowley@xp7rt.net> wrote:

>>I edited our 48-Hour Film on Premiere because I'm not up to speed
>>enough with Vegas to do anything useful yet. Right now I'm trying
>>to figure out how to mark the in and out points of a clip before
>>dragging it into the timeline. That and a whole raft of other things
>>that seem easy to do in Premiere have so far escaped any form
>>of discovery in Vegas.

> Unfortunatelt Vegas is using the same kind of "interface" since it
> started off as an audio-editor. Hence the uncommon way when dealing
> with the video. I tried a while ago to do a quick project on Vegas,
> but had the same as you, that it looked to foreign to me (and mind
> you, I can use Avid blindfolded), and had to abandon the idea. I think
> it's best for people who use it, when coming from other NLE's, to sit
> down and follow the tutorials to ge used to the unconventional GUI.
> 
> cheers
> 
> -martin-

I guess I'm of the "old school hands-on film ganged-sprocket-wheels-
with-a-film-reader-and-a-tape-track-reader-on-it" sort, with little 
inclination to use most keystroke shortcuts while editing. Handled in 
this way, Premiere 4, 5.1, 6, 6.5, Elements, Vegas Platinum 9, and 
Vegas Pro 8 pretty much operate the same, with some minor exceptions 
with the audio and file rendering and exporting procedures in Vegas. It 
was Ulead VideoStudeo's interface that "drove me up the wall" (I hate 
it...;-). I can "fly" with Vegas, but I never bother with the Trimmer (too 
mysterious - and I prefer to trim on the timeline where I will know how 
the clip ends will relate to the adjacent clips with visuals and audio, 
including with transitions). But, whatever works...;-) 
--DR

~~~~~~~~~~~

"Martin Heffels" <goofies@flikken.net> wrote in message news:ncpk95pncve05tjfgert1mdjqhjfpahmjh@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 29 Aug 2009 17:44:29 -0400, "David Ruether"
> <d_ruether@thotmail.com> wrote:

>>It was Ulead VideoStudeo's interface that "drove me up the wall" (I hate
>>it...;-).

> Hmm, I used to have Mediastudio 5 & 6, and that pretty much worked
> like Premiere.

It seemed that I was always getting "kabolixed" by the interface, 
simple as it appeared to be... It almost seemed to actively fight me 
at every editing step! ;-) Other editing programs were much more 
alike than different.

>>I can "fly" with Vegas, but I never bother with the Trimmer (too
>>mysterious - and I prefer to trim on the timeline where I will know how
>>the clip ends will relate to the adjacent clips with visuals and audio,
>>including with transitions). But, whatever works...;-)

> Oh, I love the trimming in Avid :-) Roll, slip, slide, all with the
> the press of a key. You should spent some time on mastering trimming,
> as it much quicker to do this with a few keystrokes, than with the
> mouse.
> 
> cheers
> 
> -martin-

M a y b e s o m e d a y . . . . . 8^) 
--DR

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"Martin Heffels" <goofies@flikken.net> wrote in message news:2vel95h11phhpt2kdfnmd25r015n2se7nr@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 30 Aug 2009 08:56:41 -0400, "David Ruether"
> <d_ruether@thotmail.com> wrote:

>>It seemed that I was always getting "kabolixed" by the interface,
>>simple as it appeared to be... It almost seemed to actively fight me
>>at every editing step! ;-) Other editing programs were much more
>>alike than different.

> Believe it or not, I have never grasped the workings of Pinnacle
> Studio. It just confused me, so I gave up on trying.
> 
> -m-

We own a copy of that one, too, for reasons unknown...;-) 
Given its reputation for stability problems, I never saw a 
good reason for giving it a try. 
--DR

~~~~~~~~~~~~

"Martin Heffels" <goofies@flikken.net> wrote in message news:k12o95d395f2nangu619k5gr8tqcmfe738@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 30 Aug 2009 14:20:39 -0400, "David Ruether"
> <d_ruether@thotmail.com> wrote: 
>>"Martin Heffels" <goofies@flikken.net> wrote in message news:2vel95h11phhpt2kdfnmd25r015n2se7nr@4ax.com...

>>> Believe it or not, I have never grasped the workings of Pinnacle
>>> Studio. It just confused me, so I gave up on trying.
>>>
>>> -m-

>>We own a copy of that one, too, for reasons unknown...;-)
>>Given its reputation for stability problems, I never saw a
>>good reason for giving it a try...

> Oh, I knew about that, so I never put in on my system. But some people
> I know, wanted to get into NLE, and took the unwise decision to buy
> this POS. They asked me to install it for them, and give them a crash
> course. Given from what I heard that the program was easy to use, I
> thought it would be a breeze to learn it myself while learning them,
> but that didn't work out that way.
> 
> -m-

I know the feeling. I had actually used Ulead VideoStudio (but hated 
it - but I thought it would be a cheap easy-to-teach program for a 
beginner friend). BIG mistake! It is a good program for authoring DVDs,
both SD and AVC HD, so it wasn't a total loss. It was quickly replaced 
with Vegas Platinum 9, another cheap program - but I still couldn't teach 
it over the 'phone long distance, hence my web beginner's guide...:-) 
--DR

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"Brian" <bclark@es.co.nz> wrote in message news:3qno95d20mg391moqetkq8sc6dhte7gcc8@4ax.com...
> "David Ruether" <d_ruether@thotmail.com> wrote:

>>I know the feeling. I had actually used Ulead VideoStudio (but hated
>>it - but I thought it would be a cheap easy-to-teach program for a
>>beginner friend). BIG mistake! It is a good program for authoring DVDs,
>>both SD and AVC HD, so it wasn't a total loss. It was quickly replaced
>>with Vegas Platinum 9, another cheap program - but I still couldn't teach
>>it over the 'phone long distance, hence my web beginner's guide...:-) 

> When you say you hated using Ulead Videostudio it would be of interest
> to readers like myself if you told us one or more things you didn't
> like about the program. I also used Ulead Videostudio a few years ago
> and at the time it seemed easier to use than some of the other
> programs which had limited options.
> 
> Regards Brian

It is hard at this point to relate the specifics - but it seemed that after using 
Elements 4 (and trying CS3) and using Vegas Pro 8c (and trying the very 
similar Platinum 9), that VidioStudio was just very annoying to use. It 
seemed to put up "roadblocks" to my editing at nearly every turn. I guess 
if one is used to its quirks (as I was for a short time when I began editing 
again recently with HD - and it was the first program I used), it is OK. 
But, I wouldn't touch it again now for editing ('course we also now have 
the latest version of this program, too - which will sit unused on the shelf 
next to the latest version of Pinnacle...).
--DR

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"Brian" <bclark@es.co.nz> wrote in message news:eb5k955p6441lnifhraub09o8u0mkjok47@4ax.com...
> Dewittian <dewittian@gmail.com> wrote:

>> > Elements 7 seems to be all about albums, slid shows and organizing. I
>> > just got it the other day and I think it's weak on editing.

>>I have Vegas MS 8 and am still trying to figure out how to make a cut
>>out section reverse itself so I can make a loop going back and forth.

> Take a good look at the manual (the 303 page version) before giving up
> on Adobe Preimere Elements 7 as there are many hidden features.
> 
> Regards Brian

Elements 4/7 are surprisingly able programs **for SD**, but you may need 
to ignore all the amateur "junk" in them to appreciate them...;-)
--DR

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"Brian" <bclark@es.co.nz> wrote in message news:gino95tafgkhmngu1agd7m39tlfp8s9qe2@4ax.com...
> "Ken Maltby" <kmaltby@sbcglobal.net> wrote:

>> There are elements that are touted by one publisher and
>>then seem almost hidden, or at least not mentioned by
>>others. Then the terms used don't always match, "Smart
>>Rendering" comes to mind. It would not be an easy task.
>>
>> Luck;
>> Ken
> Out of interest what was one of the things you found that was wrong?
> 
> Regards Brian

Uh, there is a big basic one (for HD) mentioned by K.M., above...;-) 
It is not surprising that at least one major maker of video editing 
software would not be eager to display its software's shortcoming 
in this area...;-) I agree that a really meaningful feature comparison 
would be very difficult, especially since in a few months, much of it 
could change. 
--DR

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"j." <ggobbo@gmail.com> wrote in message 
news:8f0957a3-998c-4711-8a25-2da26b5bf305@r34g2000vba.googlegroups.com...

> I'm moving to a new camcorder, but I used to word with standard DV
> cassettes, so all it's on the market now looks quite new to me.
> One thing I'd love to have is an optical stabilizer (my canon had it
> and I loved it) but almost all the standard definition camcorder now
> doesn't have it. It looks like that to have a decent equipment I have
> to move up to HD models. Now my thought is: I don't have HD readers
> nor TV at the moment so HD would be only for the originals backups
> (for the future) and my videos will be scaled down to Std Def. Is that
> heavy to to on an old PC (P4 2.8 1GB RAM)?
> Is is worth buying an HD camcorder in my case?
> Any suggestion for a good standard definition one?
> 
> Thanks in advance,
> j.

If you want to stay with Mini-DV, I have one of the best 1-chip 
camcorders FS, almost unused and in perfect condition, the Sony 
TRV-30, at - www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/fs-camcorders.htm 
(there is more on it on my web page, along with comparisons 
with other Sony camcorders, at - 
www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/camcorder--comparison.htm). 
It has a very sharp lens, stabilization, very good color, and decent 
low light range. If you move to HD, do NOT be tempted by 
memory-chip, hard-drive, or DVD types - the file types resulting 
are VERY difficult to edit with even very "bleeding edge" computers. 
Stay with tape type (these use Mini-DV tapes), which also provides 
a good archive of material shot. The best of the "cheap" (about 
$1000, plus accessories like spare battery, etc.) HD camcorders 
is the Canon HV30 (if you can find one) or the HV40 (or the HV20 
used). These will shoot both HD and SD (but the SD is horrible 
compared with the wonderful HD it can shoot). My review is at - 
http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/Canon_HV20-HV30.htm. 
I haven't tried it, but I seem to remember that these will export both 
HD and SD for viewing from the same HD tape - but having had 
no interest in that, I don't know (maybe I will check that soon, and 
if it can, I will add that to my review). As for editing, the main HDV 
problem with editing is the slower, less smooth previewing. It takes 
about a dual-core medium-high speed CPU to show HDV smoothly 
with no filters on the footage, and a dual 8-core monster to show 
the higher data rate type of AVCHD (from memory card, etc.) 
smoothly. If you are handy with computers, you can do as I did 
and swap out your motherboard, CPU, and RAM for a quad-core 
CPU with three gigs of RAM (not very expensive), and upgrade to 
XP if you haven't already. I highly recommend Sony's Vegas 
Platinum 9 for cheap (well under $100) but excellent editing 
software (and I do not recommend Premiere since it lacks "Smart 
Rendering", the ability to simply copy unchanged footage while 
exporting, a surprisingly important feature beyond speed). See 
my - http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/hdv-editing.htm, and - 
http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/Sony-editing.htm. This last 
has URLs for other material, including some very well-done 
video guides to using the program. BTW, the index for my 
articles on video is at - 
http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/articles.html#video
--DR

~~~~~~~~~~~~


"David Ruether" <d_ruether@thotmail.com> wrote in message news:h7jelt$msi$1@ruby.cit.cornell.edu...

> The best of the "cheap" (about
> $1000, plus accessories like spare battery, etc.) HD camcorders
> is the Canon HV30 (if you can find one) or the HV40 (or the HV20
> used). These will shoot both HD and SD (but the SD is horrible
> compared with the wonderful HD it can shoot). My review is at - 
> http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/Canon_HV20-HV30.htm.
> I haven't tried it, but I seem to remember that these will export both
> HD and SD for viewing from the same HD tape - but having had
> no interest in that, I don't know (maybe I will check that soon, and
> if it can, I will add that to my review). 

I just checked. The HV20 (and similar) will, as I said earlier, record 
HD superbly in good light, but the SD it can record is made ugly with 
excessive "stair-stepping" (see my "Video Characteristics And Faults", 
at - http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/vid_pict_characts.htm). The 
HV20 will also playback SD from HD when some menu items are 
set properly - but playback uses the composite output rather than a 
superior "S" connection for the picture. In other words, HD and SD 
recording in this HD camcorder are possible as are playback of both, 
but....
--DR 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"j." <ggobbo@gmail.com> wrote in message news:a4186a21-e8cc-459a-acf6-5698eed9eb13@y9g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...

>> I just checked. The HV20 (and similar) will, as I said earlier, record
>> HD superbly in good light, but the SD it can record is made ugly with
>> excessive "stair-stepping" (see my "Video Characteristics And Faults",
>> at - http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/vid_pict_characts.htm). The
>> HV20 will also playback SD from HD when some menu items are
>> set properly - but playback uses the composite output rather than a
>> superior "S" connection for the picture. In other words, HD and SD
>> recording in this HD camcorder are possible as are playback of both,
>> but....
>> --DR

> I'm considering the canon hg20, still full hd, bu I've read that
> converting into mpeg2 (in standard def) it not that heavy. From there
> I can edit my dvds as I'm doing now. With the plus of havin the
> original stored and backedup for the future.

Do NOT try to edit ANY non-tape HD format!!!!!! You will 
find out what frustration truly is...! :-( It is VERY unfortunate 
that people get suckered into buying this type of camcorder 
at places like Best Buy, only to find out later their mistake, 
especially if they shoot 24 Mbps AVCHD (roughly equivalent 
in image quality to tape HDV). 17 Mbps AVCHD is easier to 
edit, but not as easy as HDV, and the quality is also lower. 
Avoid AVCHD camcorders like the HG. Also, for best quality 
and ease of editing, do not edit DVD format MPEG. But, if you 
must buy an AVCHD camcorder (don't!), the Canon HG20/21 
appears to be a good one. BTW, there is a good review of it 
(with comparisons with some others) at - 
http://www.camcorderinfo.com/content/Canon-Vixia-HG20-Camcorder-Review-35510/Format.htm#
--DR

~~~~~~~~~

"David Ruether" <d_ruether@thotmail.com> wrote in message news:h7oi96$l8$1@ruby.cit.cornell.edu...
> "j." <ggobbo@gmail.com> wrote in message news:a4186a21-e8cc-459a-acf6-5698eed9eb13@y9g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...

>>> I just checked. The HV20 (and similar) will, as I said earlier, record
>>> HD superbly in good light, but the SD it can record is made ugly with
>>> excessive "stair-stepping" (see my "Video Characteristics And Faults",
>>> at - http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/vid_pict_characts.htm). The
>>> HV20 will also playback SD from HD when some menu items are
>>> set properly - but playback uses the composite output rather than a
>>> superior "S" connection for the picture. In other words, HD and SD
>>> recording in this HD camcorder are possible as are playback of both,
>>> but....
>>> --DR

>> I'm considering the canon hg20, still full hd, bu I've read that
>> converting into mpeg2 (in standard def) it not that heavy. From there
>> I can edit my dvds as I'm doing now. With the plus of havin the
>> original stored and backedup for the future.

> Do NOT try to edit ANY non-tape HD format!!!!!! You will
> find out what frustration truly is...! :-( It is VERY unfortunate
> that people get suckered into buying this type of camcorder
> at places like Best Buy, only to find out later their mistake,
> especially if they shoot 24 Mbps AVCHD (roughly equivalent
> in image quality to tape HDV). 17 Mbps AVCHD is easier to
> edit, but not as easy as HDV - and the quality is also lower.
> Avoid AVCHD camcorders like the HG. Also, for best quality
> and ease of editing, do not edit DVD format MPEG. But, if you
> must buy an AVCHD camcorder (don't!), the Canon HG20/21
> appears to be a good one. BTW, there is a good review of it
> (with comparisons with some others) at -
> http://www.camcorderinfo.com/content/Canon-Vixia-HG20-Camcorder-Review-35510/Format.htm#
> --DR

I forgot to mention that HDV (which is an HD form of MPEG-2) 
is easily converted to SD MPEG-2 for writing SD DVDs (and they 
look better than Mini-DV made into DVDs). Also, you can convert 
edited HDV to AVCHD and use the files to author HD DVDs made 
with standard blanks and writers - but they will play properly only on 
some players...
--DR

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"Paul Furman" <paul-@-edgehill.net> wrote in message news:h7jv85$bbf$1@news.eternal-september.org...

>I shoot time lapse with DSLRs at 2:3 and it doesn't seem to make sense 
> to crop away perfectly good image area. Is this a stupid move? I'm 
> really just a tinkerer and more interested in capturing the scenes than 
> putting together actual movies. I set them to music. I've been working 
> at 720 x 480 which has big black bars on the sides on youtube, small 
> black bars maxed on my 1920 x 1200 screen.
> 
> I've been doing initial clean up of my jpegs at 1920 wide, that's 1278 
> high, which is 78 pixels taller than my monitor but who knows, that may 
> be child's play in a few years.
> 
> I'm accustomed to framing shots with a tight crop in the viewfinder and 
> since the subject is clouds, landscape & sky I'm really hesitant to 
> remove sky. Should I retrain myself to think in wide screen? Many of my 
> shots are ruined with a wide screen crop.
> 
> Sony Vegas Movie Studio on a 2GHz Vista laptop with 3+GB RAM, 1280 x 800 
> screen and second monitor is 26" 1920 x 1200. It's not fun to edit in HD 
> so I haven't bothered but I figure I can redo with the larger files 
> substituted in somehow when I want to, though I haven't tested that 
> swapping idea. 
> -- 
> Paul Furman

OK, I may not be getting exactly what you-want/the-problem-is, but 
it seems that you can do this. BTW, I would edit in HDV 1080i and 
convert to 720p for sending material to YouTube for best quality, which 
is what I do now. If while preparing your photos you crop them to 
1920x1080 using the full width, or stretch them to exactly fit without 
bars - then working with them in Vegas will be very easy. Or, in Vegas 
you can click on the little "Pan/Crop" symbol near the right edge of the 
clip/photo on the timeline, click on the "Lock Aspect Ratio" button to 
disable it in the Dialogue Box that comes up (or you can hold down the 
"Ctrl" key while reproportioning), and change the values to 1440x1080 
(width x height for HDV...) in the "Position" location - or leave that 
alone and enlarge the image enough to lose the bars (you can recenter 
the image as you wish). You will probably want to use the keyframing 
to keep the image centered (unless you want to move it with time...;-). 
Simpler is to import photos in the correct proportion, whether cropped 
to 1920x1080, or stretched to 1920x1080, if you want to keep the full 
frame in the video...
--DR


~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"Paul Furman" <paul-@-edgehill.net> wrote in message 
news:h7mdhj$bkh$1@news.eternal-september.org...
> David Ruether wrote:

>> OK, I may not be getting exactly what you-want/the-problem-is, but

> I would like to just produce at 2:3 but wonder if I'm the only one doing 
> this and if it's just unbearable & dumb :-)
> -- 
> Paul Furman

If you are showing stills in a video, you must use the formats available 
(generally 4:3 or 16:9 for standard playback) and either fit the photos 
to these proportions by cropping, stretch the photos to cover the chosen 
format, or use/accept black (or other color/texture) bars to make up the 
missing photo areas in the frames (choose one...;-). 
--DR

~~~~~~~~~

"Paul Furman" <paul-@-edgehill.net> wrote in message news:h7r8tn$h4g$1@news.eternal-september.org...
> Martin Heffels wrote:
>> Richard Crowley wrote:

>>> Something doesn't make sense there. 3:2 (DSLR) has an aspect
>>> ratio of 1.5:1 and 720x480 has exactly the same 1.5:1 aspect ratio.
>>> You shouldn't be seeing ANY bars horizontal or vertical.
>>>
>>> 1920x1080 is an aspect ratio of 1.6:1 so a DSLR image won't
>>> completely fill the width (or it will need cropping the top/bottom).

>> Exactly my thought. 1920x1080 = 16:9 = widescreen.

> My computer monitor is 1920x1200, an intermediate ratio.

Why are you so attached to this - it is purely a 24" LCD native resolution 
that happens to have a horizontal pixel count that matches 1080i/p HD 
video. This is especially odd since it appears you are shooting stills to 
make animations for HD videos, which can only be 16:9 in either 1080i/p 
or 720p. BTW, if you are primarily shooting for videos, I think it makes 
more sense to shoot much of it in HD video with an inexpensive HDV 
camcorder and add the stills animations to that material during editing. 
If you must fill a computer monitor with it, 1920x1080 computer monitors 
are fairly cheap - but these make editing harder (with the more restricted 
vertical "real estate"), and the money is likely better put toward a decent 
32" LCD HDTV...
--DR

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

>>>>> My computer monitor is 1920x1200, an intermediate ratio.
>>>> But we don't care about your monitor size ;-) Important is what
>>>> format you want to show it to others.

>> Sorry guys I'm really not trying to be difficult, just coming at it
>> from my own isolated perspective. Do people really have 16:9 TVs as
>> the more common size?

> Who are your customers? Are THEY throwing out their old
> 4:3 TVs and replacing them with 16:9? There are certain
> markets where likely 100% have 16:9, and OTOH, there are
> likely markets where there is pretty nearly 0%. We have no
> clue who your customers are, so we would only be guessing.

We use both. For convenience, I use the old 27' CRT 4:3 for news 
in the morning during breakfast and later during lunch - and I may 
afterward watch other programming, including, yes, cartoons 
("Tom and Jerry" still hold up well after decades, and the newer 
"Courage The Cowardly Dog" is quite wonderful...;-). For "serious" 
viewing, there is the properly placed excellent 42" LCD (on viewing 
axis, 6.5' away - NOT way over there at an angle and way up there 
over the fireplace!) with a good stereo system connected to it (and 
with a cable box with over a thousand stations available, many in HD). 
For occasional bedtime viewing, there is a cheap-but-relatively-poor 
32" 720p TV with only the basic 77 channels available, some in HD. 
This is not uncommon around here. 

>> I guess I'm assuming TVs are mostly an
>> intermediate ratio like my computer monitor.

> TV screens are ALL either 4:3 or 16:9. They are NOT many
> different shapes/aspect ratios like computer monitors.

Hey, the OP sure is "in the dark" when it comes to TV...! ;-) BTW, 
these days, there is some AMAZING programming in HD, and HD 
service brings with it a lot of great older SD material, too. 

>> If that's true, an intermediate ratio is going to work best for most 
>> people. I haven't had a TV in decades & most people I know don't 
>> have one <g>.

WOW! That's kinda like being able to read but never owning a 
book or going anywhere near a library...;-(

> So are you saying that YOUR likely customers will be viewing
> your pictures on computer screens vs. on TV screens (either 4:3
> or 16:9)? If that is the case, then why not release the photos in
> their native aspect ratio. If people are viewing on a compter,
> then they will have many options for viewing which are beyond
> your control.

Good advice - and the above OP's comment clears up questions 
I had about why a particular unique proportion was of interest. 
As an aside, I make rotating animated GIFs of a friend's work, but 
he insists that how they look on HIS monitor is all he is concerned 
about even though they are on his web site. Never mind that most 
monitors vary in contrast/brightness//color-balance/color-saturation 
and it would therefore be best to try for neutrality...;-) So the photos 
going into the animated GIFs remain as he sends them except for 
resizing and adjusting brightnesses to match. 

>> Do they actually watch the news and old reruns at 16:9 these days?

> By the millions.

Yes. We are still in transition when it comes to TV formatting, but the 
"big" shows are in 16:9, as are any wide-screen movies (with bars 
if they are beyond 16:9), with older 4:3 material generally broadcast
with side bars - but more of this programming is now being broadcast 
in "faux-16x9" in which the center of the image is nearly correct and 
then stretched progressively more toward the edges. Often this works 
well (unless the camera pans or someone walks across the frame - and 
I still can't figure out how straight horizontal lines through the frame 
remain straight anywhere vertically [ooops - I just did: the stretching is 
done *only* in the horizontal direction...;-]). BTW, many large HDTVs 
now have memory card or USB slots making viewing of stills rather 
wonderful, and very much better than the old "slide-projector-plus-
screen" method.
--DR

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"Paul Furman" <paul-@-edgehill.net> wrote in message news:h8j4r3$jpb$1@news.eternal-september.org...
> David Ruether wrote:
>> Richard Crowley wrote 
>>>> I guess I'm assuming TVs are mostly an
>>>> intermediate ratio like my computer monitor.

>>> TV screens are ALL either 4:3 or 16:9. They are NOT many
>>> different shapes/aspect ratios like computer monitors.

> OK, thanks!
> I would not get a computer monitor that shape unless it was huge perhaps.

There is no need to - video will display properly on them at 16:9 
or 4:3 with bars (big deal...! ;-). In on dimension, the whole screen 
will be used. 

>>>> If that's true, an intermediate ratio is going to work best for most 
>>>> people. I haven't had a TV in decades & most people I know 
>>>> don't have one <g>.

>> WOW! That's kinda like being able to read but never owning a
>> book or going anywhere near a library...;-(

> I can watch clips on the net. It's funny though, I never owned a VCR, I 
> totally missed that epoch, and wasn't able to rent videos till I got a 
> computer with a DVD drive <g>. 

A good LCD 1080p HDTV viewed appropriately centered on the 
screen and close enough (figure about 6.5' for a 42", and scale for 
other sizes) will outperform any computer display for TV viewing. 

> I have a Sony laptop with bluray now but 
> the dang thing got buggy & refuses to play bluray any more.

Good upsampling of SD commercial DVDs results in image quality 
that is surprisingly close to that of Blu-ray. As a result, a BD must be 
both one I want (and don't have in an SD DVD), and $10 or less. 
Otherwise, I consider Blue-ray disks not worthwhile to buy. 

>>> So are you saying that YOUR likely customers will be viewing
>>> your pictures on computer screens vs. on TV screens (either 4:3
>>> or 16:9)? If that is the case, then why not release the photos in
>>> their native aspect ratio. If people are viewing on a compter,
>>> then they will have many options for viewing which are beyond
>>> your control.

>> Good advice - and the above OP's comment clears up questions
>> I had about why a particular unique proportion was of interest.
>> As an aside, I make rotating animated GIFs of a friend's work, but
>> he insists that how they look on HIS monitor is all he is concerned
>> about even though they are on his web site. Never mind that most
>> monitors vary in contrast/brightness//color-balance/color-saturation
>> and it would therefore be best to try for neutrality...;-) So the photos
>> going into the animated GIFs remain as he sends them except for
>> resizing and adjusting brightnesses to match.

> I'm inclined to take your friend's view & continue to produce them at 
> the best size for my computer screen but I am going to start thinking 
> about framing so that the shots aren't ruined with a 16:9 crop. When I 
> say 'produce' I mean cleaning up the time lapse stills, selecting usable 
> segments, editing out random bird distractions, running through deshake 
> software (if I ever figure that out), etc. The original files, even at 
> the smallest capture size are 1.5MB each vs 1/3MB processed.

I'm as mystified by this approach as I am by my friend's (rather insular) 
intent. And I would go further. Why shoot videos using a still camera when 
cheap HD camcorders are available that do a better job - except possibly 
for the speeded-up cloud (or flower-opening, etc.) sequences, which 
can be easily added while editing HD video if you want them. Shooting 
in HD for an HD video product just makes sense - especially since 
you do not need to crop a large number of images to make it work, 
and programs like Vegas will auto-fit images to the frame size. Also, 
with *careful* use of stabilization programs (used to augment the excellent 
stabilizers in many camcorders) and pre-editing and sharpening the best 
footage, results can be excellent (if not quite "tripod-steady" - but I think 
that is a boring approach to shooting, anyway...;-).

>>>> Do they actually watch the news and old reruns at 16:9 these days?

>>> By the millions.

>> Yes. We are still in transition when it comes to TV formatting, but the
>> "big" shows are in 16:9, as are any wide-screen movies (with bars
>> if they are beyond 16:9), with older 4:3 material generally broadcast
>> with side bars - but more of this programming is now being broadcast
>> in "faux-16x9" in which the center of the image is nearly correct and
>> then stretched progressively more toward the edges. Often this works
>> well (unless the camera pans or someone walks across the frame - and
>> I still can't figure out how straight horizontal lines through the frame
>> remain straight anywhere vertically [ooops - I just did: the stretching is
>> done *only* in the horizontal direction...;-]). BTW, many large HDTVs
>> now have memory card or USB slots making viewing of stills rather
>> wonderful, and very much better than the old "slide-projector-plus-
>> screen" method.

> Sounds like a disaster for portrait oriented shots though <g>.
> -- 
> Paul Furman

They appear with appropriate bars - but portrait-mode photos are 
more than a little smaller than landscape-mode ones within the 16:9 
proportion...;-) 
--DR

~~~~~~~~~~

"John Williamson" <johnwilliamson@btinternet.com> wrote in message news:7h4rqoF2r5lt6U1@mid.individual.net...
> Martin Heffels wrote:
>> On Sun, 13 Sep 2009 08:41:57 +0100, John Williamson
>> <johnwilliamson@btinternet.com> wrote:

>>> And amazingly often with the picture stretched to fill the whole screen, 
>>> because they don't like the black bars at the sides. Some of the digital 
>>> broadcasters here in the UK even transmit stuff that way.

>> You're joking right? Which stations do such a thing?

Many, now, in the US. As I pointed out elsewhere, they leave the picture 
center *almost* normal, but progressively stretch things wider as the edges 
are approached. It often looks good - at least until someone walks across 
the frame or the camera is panned. Surprisingly, if the camera is tilted, long 
horizontal lines remain correct, as do grids. 
--DR

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"Richard Crowley" <rcrowley@xp7rt.net> wrote in message 
news:ypadnRrRIfjDsjDXnZ2dnUVZ_jadnZ2d@posted.pcez...
> David Ruether wrote:

>> Why shoot videos using a still 
>> camera when cheap HD camcorders are available that do a better 
>> job - except possibly for the speeded-up cloud (or flower-opening, 
>> etc.) sequences, which can be easily added while editing HD 
>> video if you want them.

> Even inexpensive digital still cameras (i.e. point-n-shoot--not even
> as sophisticated as DSLR) seem ideal for shooting time-lapse things
> like skyscapes, flowers, etc. You can get much better image size
> and quality than any video camera. You don't need dozens of GB
> of storage for time-lapse, even at very high resolution. You can
> leave them unattended without risking thousands of dollars worth
> of equipment, etc. 

Good points - thanks.
--DR


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"John Lars" <jlars3450@ezmail.net> wrote in message news:h7r1q0$r3h$1@news.eternal-september.org... 
> "Porte Rouge" <porterougeman@gmail.com> wrote in message 
> news:910fa1c0-e09a-4b78-a650-0782f2bac245@v36g2000yqv.googlegroups.com...

>> Newbie looking for a new camcorder for family stuff and I think I
>> found one with with good features. It's a Sanyo VPC-FH1 Dual Camera
>> Xacti Full 1080p HD Camcorder. The one thing mentioned by a reviewer
>> was that Premier Pro could not edit the format the camera shoots in,
>> MPEG4 AVC/H.264. I don't know what that means, I just want to be sure
>> I'm going to buy a camcorder that shoots family scenes that I can edit
>> with some kind of simple cheap sofware. Is mpeg4 a problem? Is it a
>> rare format or proprietary or something. I want these videos in a
>> common format that I can save for the long haul, and will be easy to
>> convert to whatever in the future.

> I can answer this since I own the same camera. I use After Effects and it 
> crashes on rendering unless I save as an uncompressed AVI. I have found no 
> way around this issue other than this. Once as an AVI, I then use 
> VirtualDub to convert back to a compressed AVI format, although my question 
> above yours is whether or not the compression I'm using is a decent one for 
> archiving, etc. In After Effects, I have been able to edit and apply 
> effects all I want and all is saved fine as long as I do the uncompressed 
> AVI first.
>
> I've been told that PC's, even the latest ones, haven't quite caught up to 
> the extraordinary resolution, etc of the latest cameras and so that is 
> creating a lot of issues.

Basically, AVCHD/MPEG4/H.264 is VERY difficult to edit practically, 
even with "bleeding edge" computers (nice, huh, that "pushed", often-cheap 
camcorders use this format - but then what...?) without first transcoding 
the material (and accepting the quality hit, much larger resulting files, 
difficulties with archiving, and the slowed computer ingest). Why bother 
when there are fine HDV camcorders (tape) that output fine HD in an easily 
edited format - and they shoot the material in an archived format as it goes? 
BTW, I would still avoid Premiere for this since it doesn't have the "Smart 
Rendering" feature, which is rather basic... 
--DR

~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"Smarty" <nobody@nobody.com> wrote in message news:h7poep$4ol$1@news.eternal-september.org...

> I am outraged and disgusted when new and improved methods are dismissed, or, 
> in this case, diminished by erroneous claims from those who have not owned 
> and used the equipment involved.

Um, here we go again...;-)
Note that the OP stated his computer specs, and these WILL NOT be, 
by any stretch of the imagination, sufficient to work with the 24 Mbps 
AVCHD data rate that the camcorder he is interested in, the HG20, is 
capable of shooting. His computer will also be impractical for editing 
directly the lower quality 17 Mbps. I have tried editing both with a 
quad-core cpu, and the effort was "awkward" to say the least!

> Editing in h.264 has come of age already for those of us who do so, and it 
> has been a very stable, reliable, and efficient medium for at least the last 
> two years. 

If you state the VERY high level of hardware that you use, what you say 
is possibly then understandably true. But that is NOT what the OP has, 
or is likely to have any time soon...

> Attempting to discourage others from using it just does not do 
> justice to the large collection of current software, camcorders, 
> distribution and playback devices, etc. which have arisen since the 
> introduction of AVCHD in 2006, and all the surrounding work done by DiVX, 
> XVID, Quicktime, Microsoft WMV, and a number of other developers dating back 
> well before 2006. The broadcasters, video engineers, satellite designers, 
> and camcorder designers, an engineering family of which I made 40+ years of 
> my professional career, have gotten behind this advancement 1000% whether 
> David Ruether believes in it or not.

The above may be true - BUT, AGAIN, at the BEGINNING LEVEL 
at which the OP obviously is, editing AVCHD is just going to result in 
grief, frustration, and disappointment. Why do you encourage a route 
that will result in this?

> The claims of lower quality, unusable tools, extreme frustration, and the 
> like sound like a broken record from an observer who clearly has NOT had 
> access to these tools or technology. Or would prefer to dismiss them for 
> reasons I just cannot fathom.

I have compared 24 Mbps AVCHD with 25 Mbps HDV, and the differences 
are slight in image quality regardless of the theoretically superior compression 
of H.264. With 17 Mbps AVCHD compared with HDV, the "race" goes in 
favor of HDV - with HDV also being much easier to edit...

> Having seen some of the more recent work in minimum entropy encoders and 
> wavelet algorithms, I assume that AVCHD will succumb eventually to yet 
> another wave of even more efficient video techniques. Perhaps at that time 
> David will begin to recommend AVCHD............

Yes, as time passes, gear and software improve (as I have noted 
before), but why recommend a jump now into something that will be 
considerably less than pleasant to use *now*, just to make a point? 
The OP can buy/try whatever he wants, but he did ask for advice, and 
I gave honest and accurate advice given his conditions and the current 
state of affordable software and hardware, much as you always (with 
some sort of "bee in your bonnet" or "chip on your shoulder") come here 
to question that. Be happy that you can afford to "play on the bleeding 
edge" of editing technology, but not everyone can - nor should they be 
put down because they can't or don't choose to.
--DR

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"Smarty" <nobody@nobody.com> wrote in message news:h7p8ui$l7t$1@news.eternal-september.org...
> "David Ruether" <d_ruether@thotmail.com> wrote in message 

>> I forgot to mention that HDV (which is an HD form of MPEG-2)
>> is easily converted to SD MPEG-2 for writing SD DVDs (and they
>> look better than Mini-DV made into DVDs). Also, you can convert
>> edited HDV to AVCHD and use the files to author HD DVDs made
>> with standard blanks and writers - but they will play properly only on
>> some players...
>> --DR

> Most ironic is the fact that the HD disks which David suggests you might 
> make are, in fact, transcoded into AVCHD from HDV in order to play. 
> Rather than using HDV at all, it is my firm belief that capturing, editing, and 
> directly authoring in AVCHD is a superior way to preserve the full detail of 
> high definition video, and also spares the wasted time and reduced quality 
> arising when converting from one compression format to another as David 
> suggested. There are numerous programs on the market to directly author 
> these AVCHD disks.

The above is "technically" true, BUT, I made these suggestions to offer a 
route for the OP to good SD DVDs from HD, and also to good HD DVDs 
on standard blanks from HDV (which is originally easier to edit than 
AVCHD...). The resulting conversions can be very good, and can look 
VERY close to the original material (and DVDs should not be regarded as 
an archiving medium in any case...). Also "ironic" is the fact that in order 
to make editing AVCHD practical, both Apple's FCP and PCs with the 
appropriate software make conversions of the AVCHD (yup, with losses...!) 
to file types that are more easily handled by current hardware (even though 
[or because...;-] these files are generally much larger than the originals). 

> I offer this opinion to counter the mis-statements of supposed AVCHD 'facts' 
> which David Reuther seems to take perverse delight in spouting.

Sigh...! At your advanced age, it really is time for you to get over this silly 
antagonism you have for me. And, BTW, it's "Ruether"...;-)
--DR

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"Smarty" <nobody@nobody.com> wrote in message news:h7rrev$57i$1@news.eternal-september.org...
> "David Ruether" <d_ruether@thotmail.com> wrote in message 
> news:h7ri9d$t3f$1@ruby.cit.cornell.edu...
>> "Smarty" <nobody@nobody.com> wrote in message 
>> news:h7p8ui$l7t$1@news.eternal-september.org...
>>> "David Ruether" <d_ruether@thotmail.com> wrote in message

[It is usually pointless to have exchanges with "Smarty", but here goes, 
with a few items...;-]

>>>> I forgot to mention that HDV (which is an HD form of MPEG-2)
>>>> is easily converted to SD MPEG-2 for writing SD DVDs (and they
>>>> look better than Mini-DV made into DVDs). Also, you can convert
>>>> edited HDV to AVCHD and use the files to author HD DVDs made
>>>> with standard blanks and writers - but they will play properly only on
>>>> some players...
>>>> --DR

>>> Most ironic is the fact that the HD disks which David suggests you might 
>>> make are, in fact, transcoded into AVCHD from HDV in order to play. 
>>> Rather than using HDV at all, it is my firm belief that capturing, 
>>> editing, and directly authoring in AVCHD is a superior way to preserve 
>>> the full detail of high definition video, and also spares the wasted time 
>>> and reduced quality arising when converting from one compression format 
>>> to another as David suggested. There are numerous programs on the market 
>>> to directly author these AVCHD disks.

>> The above is "technically" true, BUT, I made these suggestions to offer a
>> route for the OP to good SD DVDs from HD, and also to good HD DVDs
>> on standard blanks from HDV (which is originally easier to edit than
>> AVCHD...). The resulting conversions can be very good, and can look
>> VERY close to the original material (and DVDs should not be regarded as
>> an archiving medium in any case...). Also "ironic" is the fact that in order
>> to make editing AVCHD practical, both Apple's FCP and PCs with the
>> appropriate software make conversions of the AVCHD (yup, with losses...!)
>> to file types that are more easily handled by current hardware (even though
>> [or because...;-] these files are generally much larger than the originals).

>>> I offer this opinion to counter the mis-statements of supposed AVCHD 
>>> 'facts' which David Reuther seems to take perverse delight in spouting.

>> Sigh...! At your advanced age, it really is time for you to get over this 
>> silly antagonism you have for me. And, BTW, it's "Ruether"...;-)
>> --DR

> David,
> 
> Let me reply by first saying that my advanced age, as you call it, is in my 
> early 60's, and I play a mean game of racquetball. Such personal comments 
> reflect an ignorance and jumping to wrong conclusions which I find 
> exceptionally annoying in your posts to those seeking HD advice. Don't you 
> want to have any basis in facts before you make such statements?

Um, let's see. You once described yourself (aptly, I think...;-) as 
something like "a crabby old man". Another time (but it would take 
a search of MANY posts - too many for the unimportance of the 
proof to be worth it), as I recall (sorry if my memory was incorrect) 
you said you were 76. OK, if either is incorrect, my apologies... (but 
I think your posts responding to mine actually do support the first ;-).

> It is indeed true that a single core 2.8 GHz computer like the original 
> poster's machine is not suited for HD editing, and less so for AVCHD than 
> for HDV. One of my students here has, however, demonstrated some time ago 
> (to my surprise) that DVD Movie Factory 7 on such older hardware along with 
> CoreAVC does allow workable editing and production of AVCHDs using camcorder 
> .mts output files directly from the Canon HG and HF camcorders with 17 
> Mbit/sec AVCHD at 1920 by 1080 resolutions. No transcoding, no conversions, 
> no big files, and smart rendering when the file is not in need of 
> re-rendering. It would certainly not be my first choice for a video editing 
> solution, but it is an extremely low cost (approx $50) solution for those on 
> a tight budget, those using a laptop, and particularly those with old 
> hardware such as the original poster. The program also does what the OP 
> asked for, allowing creating of SD disks as well, while retaining the HD 
> content for future computer upgrades.

Now this is useful, instead of just the usual "nay-saying" regarding my posts. 

> Next..... regarding your comment:
> 
>> Also "ironic" is the fact that in order
>> to make editing AVCHD practical, both Apple's FCP and PCs with the
>> appropriate software make conversions of the AVCHD (yup, with losses...!)
>> to file types that are more easily handled by current hardware (even 
>> though [or because...;-] these files are generally much larger than the 
>> originals).

> I specifically ask you to name any program for the PC which does what you 
> claim. I have most of the AVCHD editing suites on machines here in the lab 
> and have NEVER seen this happen on any PC program.

It is an add-on utility that converts AVCHD to higher data rate HDV 
(up to 60 Mbps). It is New Blue's Upshift, $79 from - 
http://www.newbluefx.com/avchd-upshift.html?vmcchk=1 

> You are possibly thinking of proxy files or temp files used to speed up 
> editing? These are always smaller, lesser resolution files for any of the 
> programs I have ever seen or used here.

No, I'm not. Those are generally useless due to their low resolution 
preview images. See above for the New Blue software. 

> What are the programs which produce files which are "generally much larger 
> than the originals"??
> 
> Smarty

See above for PC, and ProRes422 for Mac - both convert AVCHD files to 
larger working files. And both involve transcoding - and Apple is honest 
enough to give detailed descriptions of the losses with the transcoding on 
their web site.

> Incidentally, my apologies for spelling your last name wrong. It is not my 
> intention to be rude, insulting, or attack you personally. I just have a 
> really hard time tolerating mis-statements of fact or personal opinions 
> whose essential basis disagrees with my own experiences. Your posts are 
> absolutely full of them. 

Um, do honestly try to evaluate and asses your last sentence...;-) 
And, in fact, with me you are generally rude. insulting, and you do attack 
me personally. So, what did I ever do to you to deserve your nonsense?
--DR

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"Smarty" <nobody@nobody.com> wrote in message news:h7s3rk$4ss$1@news.eternal-september.org...
> "David Ruether" <d_ruether@thotmail.com> wrote in message 
> news:h7rukl$mu4$1@ruby.cit.cornell.edu...

YUCK!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 
I know the following is ABSOLUTELY POINTLESS, BUT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
"Smarty" never bothers to actually read my posts carefully before attacking 
them, the mark of (what?). "Smarty" is very knowledgeable and willing to 
freely share his knowledge - but when it comes to me, he just irrationally sees 
"RED!" and responds to what he THINKS I said, not what I really did say! 
This is STUPID!!!! 

> David,
> 
> You provoke my posts for one and only one reason. You make false statements 
> which mislead others.

I do not! I answer at the level of the OPs knowledge, abilities, gear and 
software, and finances, as indicated by the OP's posts. My posts are 
accurate considering the above! 

> Most recently you state that PC programs processing AVCHD and I quote you 
> exactly here:
> 
> "make conversions of the AVCHD (yup, with losses...!) to file types that 
> are more easily handled by current hardware (even though [or because...;-] 
> these files are generally much larger than the originals)."
> 
> These are your exact words.
> 
> Don't you see???????

YES, I DO. YOU MISQUOTED BY "MISQUOTING BY OMMISSION", 
which is deceitful. The whole quote is, "Also "ironic" is the fact that in order 
to make editing AVCHD practical, both Apple's FCP and PCs with the 
appropriate software make conversions of the AVCHD (yup, with losses...!) 
to file types that are more easily handled by current hardware (even 
though [or because...;-] these files are generally much larger than the originals)."
You ignored the "both Apple's FCP and PCs *with the appropriate software*", 
which clearly indicates that the "appropriate software" is additional, as I have pointed 
out elsewhere. Come on, "Smarty", this kind of deception or carelessness in 
reading is beneath you...!

> You give the absolutely false and incorrect impression that AVCHD editing 
> software both makes larger files, and also, in doing so, incurs losses. 
> Neither of these statements is true whatsoever.

Both Upshift and ProRes422 (used to make AVCHD 24 Mbps editing 
on PCs and Macs respectively without hardware acceleration or terrible 
proxy files) do make conversion files that are larger than the originals, and 
in the process of transcoding, ingest is slowed considerably, and some 
transcoding losses occur (even Apple admits this). I DID NOT SAY that 
the editing software itself did any of this. Again, READ BEFORE YOU 
WRITE! Otherwise, you may look very stupid here.... (and I know that you 
generally aren't...;-).

> When I ask you to identify any editing AVCHD NLE program which demonstrates 
> this (and I know that none exist on the PC for the dozen or so I have and 
> use here), you come up with Upshift, a stand-alone file conversion utility 
> program, which once again, very very very ironically is ONLY USED TO CONVERT 
> AVCHD TO HDV for those who cannot / will not do direct AVCHD editing.

SEE ABOVE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
COME ON, you are just being obnoxious, not helpful!

> Don't you see that you are handing out false information?????

No, especially since it is true information...;-)

> Don't you see that you are absolutely, entirely, and positively full of shit 
> when it comes to making your AVCHD points????

You have stooped to insults and name calling before, then denied it 
and accused me of doing it. STOP THE NONSENSE! This really does 
NOT become you, and it helps no one with anything related to video. 

> In fact, AVCHD NLEs on the PC do NOT, I repeat, do NOT, I repeat, DO NOT 
> convert the AVCHD to larger file formats and incur conversion losses.
Um, no one, including me, said they did. Again, READ!

> Apple does, in FCP, convert HD content (both HDV and AVCHD) into their own 
> format, and this is Apple's tradition since QuickTime began. Maybe someday 
> Apple will support standard formats, provide BluRay, or do a lot of other 
> things, but presently they do not.

Gosh, so there is one NLE that DOES transcode HD files at ingest to another 
file type. So why all of your nonsense above about what I wrote??????????? 
And, not only are the ProRes422 files larger than the original, ingest slower 
due to the transcoding time required, and losses present (as documented in 
detail by Apple on their own web site), but this is exactly what I said (that you 
complained so vociferously about...;-). What gives with you - or, why do you 
just appear to blindly hate me and anything I write, even if there is no legitimate 
reason??? 

> Do you know why VASST / New Blue uses fifty (yes 50) megabits/sec as the 
> output bitrate of Upshift when transforming AVCHD to HDV mpeg2????? You can 
> speak with Douglas Spotted Eagle, the developer of Upshift, as I did during 
> the beta testing, and he will tell you the same thing he told me, and which 
> I subsequently observed.
> 
> Specifically, they chose 50 megabit/sec upshift conversion so that the 
> details of the original AVCHD content would be preserved in the 50 Mbit/sec 
> HDV output.
> 
> So when David Ruether says that 25 megabit/sec HDV and 25 megabit/sec AVCHD 
> are indistinguishable, no different, have the same appearance, etc........I 
> can only say:
> 
> David, you are again, so entirely full of shit.........

Thar ye goe agin! But, if in ANY medium there is a transcode from one format 
to another, whether HDV to HDV, AVCHD to HDV, HDV to AVCHD, 
film to digital, "reality" to film, or whatever - you ALWAYS want to try 
to exceed by as much as you can the resolution of the source with the 
resolution of the target to preserve as much as possible of the information 
in the original in the copy - but you will ALWAYS fail to preserve all of it. 
A choice of 2:1 increase is a good, practical compromise - but this indicates 
nothing inherent about the superiority of either HDV or AVCHD in itself. 
If HDV were the more difficult format to edit and AVCHD the easier and 
a different conversion type were chosen to make the editing process more 
practical, it would seem quite logical to transcode 25 Mbps HDV to 48 
Mbps AVCHD. But there is nothing very mysterious (or telling) here about 
the intrinsic merits of the format types and image quality.

> I did indeed refer to myself once as a "grumpy old man" as a possible 
> explanation for why I react so strongly to your posts. I now officially and 
> totally retract that earlier attempt I made to excuse my earlier criticism 
> by accepting some of the blame.

Sorry, once self-applied, it shall now always be part of history...;-) 
But, thanks, anyway...;-)

> I now go on record as stating that you are extremely ill informed when it 
> comes to AVCHD, and make way too many false and misleading statements in an 
> attempt to justify weak or specious arguments, and I will not sit quietly by 
> and let them go undetected. This has absolutely nothing to do with my age or 
> being grumpy. This has entirely to do with you making false and misleading 
> statements, invariably undermining AVCHD, and ultimately revealing that you 
> do NOT know and understand these AVCHD products. Certainly not in a way to 
> pretend to be an expert or offer others solid technical advice.
> 
> If you continue to make these comments I will continue to react.
> 
> Get your facts straight and I will disappear. I promise. I am not posting 
> here in general except when I see your shit all over the floor.
> 
> Smarty

Oh, such nice language...! ;-). Unfortunately, much as you have to offer, 
you seem to find it difficult to have a civil dialogue (and do tend to jump to 
conclusions, and respond to them rather too "forcefully", especially given 
the errors in your readings). You may want to once again keep your 
earlier promise (but many times broken) to just block my messages. This 
may keep you in better health. As for the quality of my posts, I leave it to 
others to evaluate this (but not to you unless you can be constructive...).
--DR

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"Steve King" <steveSPAMBLOCK@stevekingSPAMBLOCK.net> wrote in message news:h80k05$ko5$1@news.albasani.net...
> "Smarty" <nobody@nobody.com> wrote in message 
> news:h7v25a$si9$1@news.eternal-september.org...
> | "David Ruether" <d_ruether@thotmail.com> wrote in message
> | news:h7ub3t$6h8$1@ruby.cit.cornell.edu...

> BIG SNIP|
> 
> You guys are no longer amusing;-)

> Why don't you both just agree to this: AVCHD is today becoming more popular 
> in acquisition and distribution. This file format can be difficult for 
> users with older, less capable computers. It can be conveniently edited 
> only by higher horse-power computers. Some NLE software does a better job 
> with AVCHD than others. Some software must transcodes the files to toher 
> formats before editing, which may or may not affect the quality depending on 
> the users purpose and opinion. Some cameras record HD video on tape based 
> systems that have their own advantages and disadvantages.
> 
> Steve King 

Hey, I agree completely with the above - and it is essentially what I 
have tried to point out when appropriate to help beginners or others 
on relatively tight budgets (as indicated in their posts) avoid unpleasant 
discoveries when it comes time to editing AVCHD. I also intend my 
posts to show an easier route *for now* for HD (HDV) that even has 
some additional advantages (but, all this will of course, change with time 
and the maturing of both hardware and software to the point where they 
are cheaper and more practical to use with AVCHD than now). I do 
this in the face of the often rude, deceptive, and persistently irrationally 
angry posts from "Smarty" attacking me, who also tends to ignore the 
specific levels and needs of posters in a thread while offering advice that 
is still impractical for most to follow. BTW, I have often made it clear 
that if I make a *factual* mistake (and not just express an *opinion* 
that is different from "Smarty's"...;-), I am more than happy to receive a 
correction (especially if it is backed up with a reliable factual citing, and 
not just a claim) since this is a type of exchange that we can all learn 
from here. Also BTW, I'm all for 24 Mbps AVCHD when it really finally 
becomes practical and pleasant to edit it without needing to cobble 
together expensive hardware and software to do it. When 24 Mbps 
AVCHD is as easy to edit as HDV is now with standard relatively 
inexpensive off-the-shelf computers and good under $100 NLEs, I will 
be waiting in line to buy into this format and make the switch - but 
meanwhile, I just want to make HD videos without struggling with the 
format...
--DR

~~~~~~~~~~~

"Smarty" <nobody@nobody.com> wrote in message news:h8125g$n7v$1@news.eternal-september.org...

> Since 24 mbit/sec (maximum rate) AVCHD was introduced well over a year ago 
> with the Canon HF11 (in July of 2008), a number of people have been using 
> various methods to produce AVCHDs which directly create full bitrate disks 
> which can entirely (for cuts / splices editing) avoid transcoding entirely 
> and go directly from camcorder to BluRay (AVCHD) player very quickly with 
> neither image loss or long conversion delays. These disks play in most 
> BluRay players at full 1920 by 1080 resolution and bitrate, as well as on 
> PCs with free or low cost software.
> 
> Such software prefers a fast computer to make editing and playback go 
> smoothly, and a quadcore machine is best, although Core Duo and AMD users 
> can use do so with a compromise in smoothness of editing. Since quadcore 
> hardware such as the Dell Inspiron 530 desktop have been selling as low as 
> $458 for the computer with careful shopping, and the software is frequently 
> offered for $79, the combined purchase price for a system of this type is a 
> bit over $500 including both the hardware and NLE software.
> 
> I would specifically recommend as a low cost "beginner" AVCHD editing suite 
> the software offered at:
> 
> http://www.arcsoft.com/products/totalmediaextreme/
> 
> and a suitable quadcore such as:
> 
> http://www.products.pikaba.com/30396.aspx
> 
> as examples of how it can be done inexpensively.
> 
> Please note that such solutions have been on the market for well over a 
> year, and the ability to process 24 mbit/sec AVCHD and create 24 mbit/sec 
> AVCHDs in this fashion is not new in any way.
> 
> Smarty

Good information - but "editing" does often include the addition of 
color corrections, transitions, titles, and other effects to produce 
a completed video that is more than just a "slide show with motion". 
OK, here come the brickbats, but it is worth noting that with HDV, 
one can do a complete editing job *easily and now* with this price 
level of hardware and software. 
--DR

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"Smarty" <nobody@nobody.com> wrote in message news:h815eq$h9g$1@news.eternal-september.org...
> "David Ruether" <d_ruether@thotmail.com> wrote in message 

>> Good information - but "editing" does often include the addition of
>> color corrections, transitions, titles, and other effects to produce
>> a completed video that is more than just a "slide show with motion".
>> OK, here come the brickbats, but it is worth noting that with HDV,
>> one can do a complete editing job *easily now* with this level of
>> hardware and software.
>> --DR

> David,
> 
> I have no idea what you mean by "a slide show with motion"? 

I reasonably took "which can entirely (for cuts / splices editing)" from
your post to indicate that what you were recommending in hardware 
and software was good for "cuts only" editing - and I pointed out 
that if that were true, it was extremely limiting compared with HDV 
editing with the same price level of resources, with which ANY video 
editing process could be done fluidly and easily to make a "real" video. 
"Cuts only" in video editing is essentially making a slide show in which 
each "slide" contains moving video instead of stills - but this is VERY 
limiting...
--DR

~~~~~~~~~~

"Martin Heffels" <goofies@flikken.net> wrote in message news:el9aa55g95i15p5fn690ik51ufp2g77e5a@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 4 Sep 2009 00:14:04 -0700 (PDT), "j." <ggobbo@gmail.com>
> wrote:

>>Thanks guys.
>>I had precious comments from this newsgroup.
>>I decided to go with the HG20, that has decent performance overall,
>>and lets me open for improvments in the future.

> Don't be put off by the bickering about AVCHD ;-) It is always
> possible to edit your material on a less than stellar computer, with a
> bit of work. There are two ways around AVCHD@24:
> 1) Use proxy editing
> 2) Use an intermediate codec
> These two things are more or less the same principle but with
> different quality.
> 
> With proxy editing, you capture & convert the material first in a
> quality your system can handle. Once finished, you recapture the
> material in it's original format (that would then be the sections you
> need) or relink to the original files, then export it for delivery;
> finished. This process takes some time because of all the rendering,
> but you can work.

You can also work directly with it in a program like 
Corel VideoStudio Pro X2, which can (after a selection 
is made in a program menu) capture 24 Mbps and also 
make low resolution proxy files to use while editing. While 
these files can make smooth video previewing practical on 
older gear, the low quality of the previews prevents good 
evaluation of the characteristics of the original material (we 
have this program, and I do not think it is of much value 
except in a pinch). 

> An intermediate codec is a codec which uses the same quality as the
> the recorded format, except the codec is less streneous on your
> system. The quality remains the same, so once you're finished, you can
> export straight away to delivery format. But if you're picky, you can
> recapture again in the original format and export that.

Technically, these intermediate files are larger than the originals, 
have slightly lower quality given the necessary transcoding step 
to make them, and they are generally only practical when used 
on powerful gear. 

> In your case, I understand that you have a P4 system, so if you don't
> want to splash out for a new system, proxy editing would be the thing
> for you to edit AVCHD.
> 
> cheers
> 
> -martin-

I agree - but we still come around to the basic question of whether 
or not it is more reasonable to choose an HD format type that works 
well on modest gear (like a cheap dual-core machine, and even better 
on a still-inexpensive quad-core machine) without the complications 
and disadvantages of needing to use poor quality proxy files or good 
but larger intermediate files. HDV is that well-proven and easy to use 
HD format - and it additionally offers the advantage of easy archiving 
of the source material. I know there is strong appeal to the convenience 
of shooting to a memory card or hard drive and making quick transfers 
to the editing computer (I feel this "tug" toward AVCHD myself...;-), 
but it is not yet easy to edit 24 Mbps AVCHD on modest (and 
affordable for most) hardware and software if one wants to do more 
than just assemble clips, and really make videos. This is simply still 
true, no matter how much someone else here rails against this truth, 
or any of us wants it to be otherwise. Maybe in a year or two, things 
will be different...;-)
--DR

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~