Really let down with the camera, or lack of suitable included software. I need to find an answer fast if possible. This camera is completely useless to me if I cannot convert the m2ts files to wmv hd and looking around all night and day, I have not found a solution. I see claims of ulead being able to do it and several others however when I download the demos the do not recognize the file. Pinnacle supposedly does it but no demo.

I need a proven solution. I dont mind buying the needed application at a resonable price, which to me would be in the $50 to $100 range, but I must know it works first. I dont want to buy Ulead or whatever I may need and it not do this one thing I need.

Looking for an answer today if possible as the camera is going back to the store for refund tonight if one is not found.

Thanks

For an editor: Pinnacle does it well. They're using VC-1, support 5.1 audio and also have 60p profiles. You can create your own PRX file if you don't like the ones they have in there.

If you just want to transcode your files, there's a new option if you have right DShow codecs on your PC: Microsoft Expression Encoder 2 (http://www.microsoft.com/expression/products/Overview.aspx?key=encoder). They have a trial version.
To make it work, you'll need to have three filters:
- A TS splitter that supports AVCHD (Haali works, or use the one that comes with Sony's PMB)
- A H.264 decoder (Sony's PMB uses half-res, but it's free; CoreAVC will work here too)
- A AC-3 decoder (AC3Filter works)

Thanks.. I read several post saying pinnacle worked but there were several others that claimed to work but they sure didnt work when I tried the trial versions.

Any thoughts on this..

http://www.zoomerart.net/index.php?target=desc&progid=10187

I would just buy it here:
http://www.buy.com/prod/pinnacle-studio-plus-v-11/q/loc/105/204511926.html
$57 (after MIR) for a real box...

Yes that would be nice but I dont think it would make it here by this evening before I take the camera back :) I have to confirm it works today.

Yes that would be nice but I dont think it would make it here by this evening before I take the camera back :) I have to confirm it works today.

If you're only looking for conversion, try this:

http://www.nchsoftware.com/prism/plus.html

You can download a demo that does everything for a few days for free. When you add a .mts file to it, it'll say something like "format might not be supported", but it'll do the conversion anyway. I think it just doesn't recognize the extension, but it supports h.264/avchd.

I don't know if it comes with all codecs included, but if it doesn't, download CCCP (which is free) and you'll definitely be covered.

Anyway, there are many many ways to convert and edit m2ts files now, and a lot of us are doing it... so you certainly don't need to return the camera for that reason.

I gave that one a shot but it did not work out. Does not seem to deinterlace.

I boxed it up and its going back. For $1000 you should not have to jump through hoops just to put the video on your computer in a form you can share in HD.

I gave that one a shot but it did not work out. Does not seem to deinterlace.

I boxed it up and its going back. For $1000 you should not have to jump through hoops just to put the video on your computer in a form you can share in HD.

now hold on a second. how can you blame the camcorder for YOUR lack of proper research?

the sr11/12 is very clearly labeled as an AVCHD camcorder. not a wmv camcorder. and you can, out of the box with the included software, burn an avchd dvd that is playable in full 1920x1080 on just about every blu-ray player on the market.

so where is the disconnect here? if you want to waste countless hours converting it to a format that almost nobody in the world can play back without a pc of decent power (and even then is only playable on either a pc or a media center pc), that's your problem. don't blame the camcorder

now hold on a second. how can you blame the camcorder for YOUR lack of proper research?

the sr11/12 is very clearly labeled as an AVCHD camcorder. not a wmv camcorder. and you can, out of the box with the included software, burn an avchd dvd that is playable in full 1920x1080 on just about every blu-ray player on the market.

so where is the disconnect here? if you want to waste countless hours converting it to a format that almost nobody in the world can play back without a pc of decent power (and even then is only playable on either a pc or a media center pc), that's your problem. don't blame the camcorder

I can see a number of reasons to use WMVHD:


WMVHD takes significantly less processing power to play back than AVCHD from what I've seen.
It is far more likely to be installed on a PC than an AVCHD decoder.
It is the easiest way to play back on Xbox 360.

I can see a number of reasons to use WMVHD:


WMVHD takes significantly less processing power to play back than AVCHD from what I've seen.
It is far more likely to be installed on a PC than an AVCHD decoder.
It is the easiest way to play back on Xbox 360.


Your 2 last bulletpoints are valid... but have you ever tried to playback a 1080i 17Mbps WMVHD file? The processing power needed is pretty much on par with H.264 used by AVCHD.

I've been doing this with Sony Vegas. Does WMV output just fine. Port the MTS files into timeline and render them to wmv. You can set the WMV render preset and save it for future use.

now hold on a second. how can you blame the camcorder for YOUR lack of proper research?

the sr11/12 is very clearly labeled as an AVCHD camcorder. not a wmv camcorder. and you can, out of the box with the included software, burn an avchd dvd that is playable in full 1920x1080 on just about every blu-ray player on the market.

so where is the disconnect here? if you want to waste countless hours converting it to a format that almost nobody in the world can play back without a pc of decent power (and even then is only playable on either a pc or a media center pc), that's your problem. don't blame the camcorder

At this time, without a doubt, there are probably more people with PCs that will play an HD WMV than their are with BR players. At the very least they might have to update Windows Media Player. If you actually think burning multiple BR discs or even DVDS standard def and sending them out to everyone is first even cost effective, and second even logical then the disconnect is on your end ;). Im also referring to converting and sharing smaller clips that do not take hours of conversion time. I guess I should burn a 3 minute clip to BR disc, make 10 copies and send them out to all my friends rather than make a WMV HD, host it and then email them a link. :rolleyes:

Yes.. with this being a fully digital piece of equipment I do expect a wider range of options out of the box.

To the others thanks for the help... I did get a copy of 11 for $29 and it worked out great. Now my only complaint is the crap still camera. They should have done much better on this or just left it off. Im seen lesser MP cellphones take higher quality images than this thing.

most trial versions are crippled. to use ulead videostudio with AVCHD, for example, you need to buy the full 11.5plus version.
oh, and for simpler solutions to basic avhcd>wmvhd conversion, take a look at programs windows media encoder and volataic hd.

At this time, without a doubt, there are probably more people with PCs that will play an HD WMV than their are with BR players. At the very least they might have to update Windows Media Player. If you actually think burning multiple BR discs or even DVDS standard def and sending them out to everyone is first even cost effective, and second even logical then the disconnect is on your end ;). Im also referring to converting and sharing smaller clips that do not take hours of conversion time. I guess I should burn a 3 minute clip to BR disc, make 10 copies and send them out to all my friends rather than make a WMV HD, host it and then email them a link. :rolleyes:

Yes.. with this being a fully digital piece of equipment I do expect a wider range of options out of the box.

To the others thanks for the help... I did get a copy of 11 for $29 and it worked out great. Now my only complaint is the crap still camera. They should have done much better on this or just left it off. Im seen lesser MP cellphones take higher quality images than this thing.

the sr11 has the best still camera of any consumer camcorder on the market. if you're saying that a cellphone camera is superior then you really are out of touch...

so i have to ask, why start a thread to basically slam the sr11? it seems you never should have purchased it based on your specific needs

Pinnacle definitely does AVCHD to WMVHD. The conversion takes a while, at least 3x real time on my overclocked E8400, but the converted video is indistinguishable from the AVCHD source.

I've been converting to MPEG2. Pinnacle offers a nice set of profiles including 1080i HD @ 17mbits which is also indistinguishable from the source AVCHD.

the sr11 has the best still camera of any consumer camcorder on the market. if you're saying that a cellphone camera is superior then you really are out of touch...

so i have to ask, why start a thread to basically slam the sr11? it seems you never should have purchased it based on your specific needs

chalk this up to yet another person who doesn't know how to research and use the the web to know what they are buying before they waste other peoples time.

If I were the person at the store taking back the return I sure hope that person doesn't ask why he is returning it or he'd be there all day listening to the complaints. :rolleyes:

Im seen lesser MP cellphones take higher quality images than this thing.

You have GOT to be kidding! There is no cellphone on the market that can even come close to the quality of the SR11/12's still feature. I'd like to see the make and model of a cellphone that I can show on my 60" plasma that looks so unbelievably crystal clear as my SR12. There are none...period.

Sigh... another thread spreading lies and misinformation.

Complaining that the SR11/12 isn't shooting true 10MP resolution is one thing, but stating that it's worse than cell phones is complete rubbish. I wish there was a way to vote avsforum users' comments down, like on some blogs, so that people would know not to trust some posts. Rz22g clearly has an agenda to bash Sony's SR camcorders.

Personal Note: Even though I sometimes sound like a Sony fanboy, I'll be happy to switch over to Canon, Panasonic or even Casio when they get the features I want in a camera. You guys can believe me when I say that I have no further motives regarding Sony either way. If anything, I should be trying to bash Sony with everything I've got because of where I work (I work in WA-state, 'nough said). But I give credit where it's due, and with my experience with over 30 different camcorders both SD and HD, I personally enjoy the SR11 the best for my personal needs (so far).

I should rephrase.. Im saying in terms of still images, the usefullness of the images on the SR11/12 are no better than cell phones. If you think the 10mp images from this camcorder are good, your the reason they still release crap like this.. because they know there are consumers who will settle for less and accept it. The images from the camera are good for one thing and thats viewing on a computer at reduced image size.. just like cell phones. Not a real fair comparsion but an outdated 6.3 MP 10D or Digital Rebel with LOOOWWW end lens set to small image low quality (less than 6.3MP), will slam any 10mp image from this device.

Not slamming the SR11 video quality. Its good for a video camera but the still camera is complete crap. Anyone who thinks otherwise has no clue what the properties of good digital still image are ;)

I should rephrase.. Im saying in terms of still images, the usefullness of the images on the SR11/12 are no better than cell phones. If you think the 10mp images from this camcorder are good, your the reason they still release crap like this.. because they know there are consumers who will settle for less and accept it. The images from the camera are good for one thing and thats viewing on a computer at reduced image size.. just like cell phones. Not a real fair comparsion but an outdated 6.3 MP 10D or Digital Rebel with LOOOWWW end lens set to small image low quality (less than 6.3MP), will slam any 10mp image from this device.

Not slamming the SR11 video quality. Its good for a video camera but the still camera is complete crap. Anyone who thinks otherwise has no clue what the properties of good digital still image are ;)

Riiiiiight... if it's not as good as the latest high-end consumer SLR, it's crap [/SARCASM] :rolleyes:

My SR11 is not replacing my SLR, it's complementing it. I would rather be able to take a few shots with it than none at all when I don't have my SLR with me. And yes, IMHO, the SR11's pictures are 100x more useful than cell phone ones. You can easily print a 8"x10" with one.

To each his own. Enjoy whatever other camcorder you'll be buying instead of the SR11... which is pretty safe to say it will have worse photo quality than the SR11.

I should rephrase.. Im saying in terms of still images, the usefullness of the images on the SR11/12 are no better than cell phones. If you think the 10mp images from this camcorder are good, your the reason they still release crap like this.. because they know there are consumers who will settle for less and accept it. The images from the camera are good for one thing and thats viewing on a computer at reduced image size.. just like cell phones.

You have no idea what you're talking about...none! Did you even read my post above? I said very explicitly that I was viewing the stills of my SR12 on a 60" (that's SIXTY INCH) Pioneer Kuro plasma...not a 17" computer monitor.

On the 60" plasma the pictures are superb! Clarity is superb! Color is superb!
So please, don't spread your totally unfounded and untested 'assumptions' on AVS where people might actually think you know what you're talking about.

......but the still camera is complete crap. Anyone who thinks otherwise has no clue what the properties of good digital still image are ;)


Wow for a new member with 10 or so posts this is not a good start. This topic has been discussed ad nauseam here in this thread alone. And at this point of this particular thread, to make such a claim infers that you have not read any of the preceding posts but I'll let that go. Instead the issue I really want to pin point is your stating that any who thinks otherwise from your point of view has no clue! Perhaps you should provide some data to back your claims. Some image comparisons would help. In fact, include images from the cellphone you claim to be superior. But dont make a degrading remark and follow it with a winking emoticon. Thats smug! If you really know so much then why are you asking how to produce a .wmv?

I am very happy I read this before I posted my .wmv production advise.

humility is a great attribute