I suppose the easiest way to get your answer is to wait until you receive your Canon and see how it goes. :

I suspect you will (just) get away with what you have.

Here are two downloadable files from a Pana SD9
http://www.4shared.com/file/68166870/845f7b33/1920x1080p.html
http://www.4shared.com/file/68167383/2e27bec2/1920x1080i.html

The Pana and Canon are slightly differnet in how they use B and I frames for referencing but generally play the same on my PC. These clips are 25 fps not 30 (Aus version of camera)

Hope this helps.

Thanks,

The proof will certainly be in the pudding. I found a review for my motherboard where the HD graphics were benchmarked by testing 4 different HD clips and the processor usage was between 35-50%. The most demanding test was 1920x1080 at 19 mbps 24 frames/sec with an average processor usage at 50%. This system also only had 1 Gb of RAM with a 2.13 Ghz Core 2 Duo (E6400).

I'll test your clips on my machine and report back how it goes.

Jim Q9300 2.5 GHz
4 GB Ram
Nvidia 9800 GT

pjc,

I tested your files you posted on your link. I'm happy to report with your test files that my CPU usage never got above 10% playing the file in powerdirecter and I didn't notice any skipping in the video or audio. I put several of your clips in a row and had powerdirecter do a magic clean on all of them with several transitions and I used pencil sketch on several of the individual clips. I also added a slowly moving text and background audio from smart sound. Under these extreme conditions the processor usage did go up to about 75-100% (especially with pencil sketch), the video only skipped once or twice, but nothing major.

I tried encoding a series of your clips for a total length of 1:41 and I was able to render that project in a little less than 10 minutes. For that test it was just the raw video with no editing. Playing back the file in power director showed a significant loss of quality, but I suspect that is what you've been posting in the past.

So far so good! Q9300 2.5 GHz
4 GB Ram
Nvidia 9800 GT

James,

Don't judge the quality of the render by playing back in Power Director, judge by playing it back using an appropriate player.

For instance if you rendered to an HD WMV file, play it back in Windows Media Player. The results should be VERY GOOD.

Video almost never looks very good in an editing program unless that editing program has some provision for high quality playback.

It does sound like you system will handle it.

I recently picked up Western Digitals new hardware media player that has USB input and outputs to HD TV on HDMI. This is one amazing way for us to now view our edited HD video content. Look for my post on it in a separate thread.

Bif,

Actually it was your posts about your system specs which got me researching computer hardware for my soon to arrive camera. You indicated something about a video memory problem with your old ATI card.

When I was playing the rerendered clips it was produced from AVCHD back into AVCHD and played using PD. That's where I noticed the degraded quality. As for the other output profiles, I didn't know what they were for. I assumed the ones with BD were for blue ray disk, but I didn't consider the others.

Regarding your current system, how long does it take you to render your HD video using your quad core setup. For example, 20 minutes of AVCHD video? Is there a noticeable difference between 15 mbps vs. 24 mbps.

Thanks for the info about the HD video transfer box by Western Digital. How much did that cost at Best Buy? Q9300 2.5 GHz
4 GB Ram
Nvidia 9800 GT

Quote: Don't judge the quality of the render by playing back in Power Director, judge by playing it back using an appropriate player.

Hi Bif,
the difference between the original and the render can even be seen in PD preview it is that bad. The AVCHD render engine is seriously flawed in PD IMO

Quote: pjc,
I tried encoding a series of your clips for a total length of 1:41 and I was able to render that project in a little less than 10 minutes.

Just for comparison, 1:40 (9 clips back to back) took 4:30 to render at 1920x1080i with a Q9550. 3.2Gb RAM XP SP3.

Quote: As for the other output profiles, I didn't know what they were for. I assumed the ones with BD were for blue ray disk, but I didn't consider the others.

The BD under Mpeg2 is definitely a Blu-ray disc profile. Remember though Blu-ray specifications allows for playback of mpeg2, AVCHD and VC1. PowerDirector have chosen to use mpeg2. Depending on what your target playback device is going to be I suggest you use the BD profile as the resultant file is better than rendering in AVCHD in terms of artifact introduction. Mpeg2 even at 25 Mbps is easier to playback than AVCHD at 17 Mbps. (and easier to edit)
Unfortunately if you are going to burn hybrid discs (an economical way to view video on some BR players) then your only choice is to use AVCHD with it's resultant loss of quality.

Thanks, pjc

I'll use the Blueray quality you suggested to avoid the artifacts. I'm not in any hurry to get a blue ray player/burner until the cost gets much cheaper. I can't afford to burn a coaster on a US$20 disk.

Your times times are about half of mine which I would predict since you are using a Quad core at 2.8 GHz stock whereas I used a dual core at 2.5 GHz.

The only thing I didn't understand about your post is that you said for hybrid disks I would have to use AVCHD. If blue ray can play multiple formats then why would I be stuck with AVCHD? Maybe I didn't understand what you were getting at.

Thanks again for your input. Q9300 2.5 GHz
4 GB Ram
Nvidia 9800 GT

Quote:
The only think I didn't understand about your post is that you said for hybrid disks I would have to use AVCHD. If blue ray can play multiple formats then why would I be stuck with AVCHD? Maybe I didn't understand what you were getting at.

Hybrid discs burn in a modified BD structure on standard DVDs (get about 20mins worth of video) which can be recognised by some BR players (PS3 for example). People often use this as DVD media is cheap vis BD.

Quote: Bif,

Actually it was your posts about your system specs which got me researching computer hardware for my soon to arrive camera. You indicated something about a video memory problem with your old ATI card.

Pinnacle Studio gave me a warning about not having enough graphics memory to edit 1920x1080 (17Mbps) and that hardware acceleration would be turned off. Attempts to continue editing w/o hardware acceleration ground to a halt.

PowerDirector would not display 1920x1080 in the edit window. It would show it if I double clicked on the clip in the media room, but not from the timeline.

Both NLE's would handle 1440x1080 (12Mbps)

Changing graphics cards made simple editing of the 1920x1080 with both NLE's.

Quote:
When I was playing the rerendered clips it was produced from AVCHD back into AVCHD and played using PD. That's where I noticed the degraded quality. As for the other output profiles, I didn't know what they were for. I assumed the ones with BD were for blue ray disk, but I didn't consider the others.

Again, an NLE is not the best for playing back and judging quality. What is your final format going to be? Render to that format and use the appropriate player to judge what you are getting.

For instance, I am not planning to go the Blu-ray route until and unless the hardware drops to close to what we are paying for our current players and burners (and media). Unless of course BD really goes full tilt boogie mainstream like DVD is now.

My output is to SD DVD for distribution, and WMV HD on disk and hard drive for those who have a way of viewing it. The new hardware media players open up a whole new avenue.

Back to playing back in PD, most NLE's will have different reduced resolution in various modes. Playback on the timeline, playback from the clip in the media room, and playback in the included media player (best quality there) will all be different. PD is meant purely for editing and producing.

Quote:
Regarding your current system, how long does it take you to render your HD video using your quad core setup. For example, 20 minutes of AVCHD video? Is there a noticeable difference between 15 mbps vs. 24 mbps.

For a 26 minute project shot in 1920x1080 17Mbps rendered in Pinnacle Studio 12 to a 1280x720 wmv filetook 12 hours.

A 12 minute project rendered in PD7 Ultra to 1440x810 wmv file took about 2 hours so had it been the above 26 minute project it would likely have taken only about 4 hours.

So PD7 does the faster render. Detail looks to be similar quality on my 42" LCD TV from both files.

Quote:
Thanks for the info about the HD video transfer box by Western Digital. How much did that cost at Best Buy?

$129 plus tax. It should start showing up for less on amazon.com before too much longer.

Thanks pjc and Biff for the assistance. Your input has been very valuable. My camera is set to arrive today so I'll have a chance go test it out.

Jim Q9300 2.5 GHz
4 GB Ram
Nvidia 9800 GT

Quote: ... and WMV HD on disk and hard drive for those who have a way of viewing it.

Hi Bif,
Why do you use WMV which reduces the resolution of your original footage? Do you shoot in 1440 or 1920?, 24p or 60i? I haven't really considered it as a format although I have tested it for rendering artifacts when I first got PD. I am wondering whether it is worth using it as an alternative to mpeg2 1080i.