Horrible quality image quality from my Sony HDR-XR520 camcorder when played on my pc

richardstringer

Standard Member
I've just bought myself the excellent Sony HDR-XR520VE camcorder and i'm thrilled with it. The picture quality is awesome. The problem i'm having is with awfully motion blurred and weird kind of effcts when played on my computer. When I play the video straight out the camcorder it looks awesome though. Plus when I import the file onto my computer and then back onto my Sony camcorder and watch it again, its also fine. Does this mean ther problem is with my graphics card?

Here's a link to the video on youtube to show you what i'm on about. (click twice on the you tube screen to be taken to the actual page where you can watch full screen)

YouTube - Sony HDR-XR520 Motion Blur Test Video

If the video looks fine on your computer then its obviously my graphics card. Although the graphics card is only 2 months old, and other HD videos on youtube loook awesome, but mine doesn't. I've taken jerky camera video to emphasize the horrible motion blur and what looks like serious fringing I think. Plus when I hold the camera still, the footage on my computer is still noway near as sharp as when I play it on my video. When watched on my tv direct from the camcorder, the image quality is breathtaking. By the way, yes, I am using the top quality inside the camcorder
 
Last edited:

jonnypb

Well-known Member
how does it look on your TV direct from the camcorder?

i had issues playing footage back on my PC from my Canon HF100. the video was all jerky and stuttered. a quick purchase of coreavc ($12ish) and installed media player home cinema sorted this out. you need a pretty decent spec PC and the correct codecs to play back HD footage.

i've also learnt that sudden movements and fast panning when filming doesn't help
 

richardstringer

Standard Member
No offence, but if you have to ask what the quality is like direct from my camcorder then you obviously didn't read the whole post I made. I said that the direct footage from my camcorder to my tv is awesome. I'm not sure if that CoreAVC will work either because even when I watch the uncompressed, untouched .m2ts file imported from my camcorder to my computer, once it's on my computer it looks dreadful. And at that stage I haven't even edited or touched it or converted it in any way, its still the raw .m2ts file.

But i'll try the trial version of that CoreAVC and see how it goes. Its just weird that .m2ts sample files that I downloaded off the net and played on my computer looked awesome before I got my camcorder. How does the youtube link link video look to you? Does it look stuttered?
 

senu

Distinguished Member
No offence, but if you have to ask what the quality is like direct from my camcorder then you obviously didn't read the whole post I made.
:nono:
Your mention of TV playback was on the very last line.. easy to miss:rolleyes:
I said that the direct footage from my camcorder to my tv is awesome
No you said your camcorder viewing was awesome in the body of the post TV was the very last bit
. I'm not sure if that CoreAVC will work either because even when I watch the uncompressed, untouched .m2ts file imported from my camcorder to my computer, once it's on my computer it looks dreadful. And at that stage I haven't even edited or touched it or converted it in any way, its still the raw .m2ts file.
What spec of PC doe you have.?
A graphic card only makes a difference if it has intrinsic HD playback acceleration ( Ie Nvidia Pure Video H) otherwise it is all down to the processor
But i'll try the trial version of that CoreAVC and see how it goes. Its just weird that .m2ts sample files that I downloaded off the net and played on my computer looked awesome before I got my camcorder
could be they were lower bitrate .
How does the youtube link link video look to you? Does it look stuttered?
Ill need to get that video to you fast...
Try Shooting very very still . panning very very slowly ( if at all ) shoot using a tripod . and see what happens
The video does look very stuttered but it is impossible to judge it fairly as these far too much movt, this is a bit more than any camcorder s expected to cope with
 
Last edited:

A n d r e w

Well-known Member
I'm not really sure what you were expecting from poking your camcorder out the front door and waving it around. Do you have some carefully shot footage that exhibits the same or similar problems? Incidentally, televisions almost always do a better job of video than computers.
 

jonnypb

Well-known Member
No offence, but if you have to ask what the quality is like direct from my camcorder then you obviously didn't read the whole post I made.

Sorry :suicide: although it was at the end and I thought I'd got the jist of your post......

I'm not sure if that CoreAVC will work either because even when I watch the uncompressed, untouched .m2ts file imported from my camcorder to my computer, once it's on my computer it looks dreadful. And at that stage I haven't even edited or touched it or converted it in any way, its still the raw .m2ts file.

Which coreavc would help with. When using it with Media Player Classic or Home Cinema you need to make sure it's using the coreavc filter. (Tools, Options, External Filters, Add in CoreAVC)

Its just weird that .m2ts sample files that I downloaded off the net and played on my computer looked awesome before I got my camcorder.

Like senu said they could be lower bitrate.

How does the youtube link link video look to you? Does it look stuttered?

I'm not sure what you're expecting from that clip as it's very shaky and fast panning action which any camcorder would struggle with and wouldn't produce a good viewing experience

Do you still experience problems when filming without panning or the camcorder shaking?
 

JefUK

Active Member
I've just bought myself the excellent Sony HDR-XR520VE camcorder and i'm thrilled with it. The picture quality is awesome. The problem i'm having is with awfully motion blurred and weird kind of effcts when played on my computer. When I play the video straight out the camcorder it looks awesome though. Plus when I import the file onto my computer and then back onto my Sony camcorder and watch it again, its also fine. Does this mean ther problem is with my graphics card?

Here's a link to the video on youtube to show you what i'm on about. (click twice on the you tube screen to be taken to the actual page where you can watch full screen)

YouTube - Sony HDR-XR520 Motion Blur Test Video

If the video looks fine on your computer then its obviously my graphics card. Although the graphics card is only 2 months old, and other HD videos on youtube loook awesome, but mine doesn't. I've taken jerky camera video to emphasize the horrible motion blur and what looks like serious fringing I think. Plus when I hold the camera still, the footage on my computer is still noway near as sharp as when I play it on my video. When watched on my tv direct from the camcorder, the image quality is breathtaking. By the way, yes, I am using the top quality inside the camcorder

Your posted clip will always look somewhat jerky on a PC due to the amount of energetic panning and camera movement. PC's use progressive displays and although some (most) player software will attempt to de-interlace the video it will never be as good as when watching on a true interlaced display, such as a TV. The motion will be more fluid on a TV.

Also your CPU may not have enough power to fully decode the AVC video stream. Although you have a recent video card, it can only help with the decoding process when used with appropriate player software. CoreAVC has a more efficient codec that gives better performance from the CPU. You ideally need player software that can fully utilise the decoding capabilities of your graphics card GPU. I would recommend the appropriate version of WinDVD (winDVD9 Plus or Blu-ray) or PowerDVD (PowerDVD9 Deluxe or Ultra). These players offload the vast majority of the decoding workload from the CPU to the GPU, enabling a lower power PC to be used.

What is your PC spec and what graphics card do you have?
 

chrishull3

Well-known Member
Its not what the footage looks like on a pc i have said many times avchd playback and edit is a pain in the --- its what a burnt hd disc from the footage looks like.
PS the first line did say the picture quality was awesome.But why not show some proper footage.
 
Last edited:

richardstringer

Standard Member
I made this demo sample video jerky to emphasize the motion blur and kind of weird effect when played on my computer. Like I said, that Splash video player has made the playback a lot better, so maybe it was a codec neeeded. Although, not the playback is in kind of slow motion. I'm gonna get some blank DVD-R discs next week so i'll burn one and play it on my mate's blu ray player. If it looks fine on his player then i'm not really bothered how it looks on my pc from then on because i'll know the burnt disc will look ok. But if it still looks pretty terrible on the burnt disc then i'll have to continue to find a solution.
 

chrishull3

Well-known Member
I made this demo sample video jerky to emphasize the motion blur and kind of weird effect when played on my computer. Like I said, that Splash video player has made the playback a lot better, so maybe it was a codec neeeded. Although, not the playback is in kind of slow motion. I'm gonna get some blank DVD-R discs next week so i'll burn one and play it on my mate's blu ray player. If it looks fine on his player then i'm not really bothered how it looks on my pc from then on because i'll know the burnt disc will look ok. But if it still looks pretty terrible on the burnt disc then i'll have to continue to find a solution.

It always looks poor on the pc in 1920x1080 hopefuly the discs will be fine:smashin:
 

richardstringer

Standard Member
Yeah, hopefully. Some of the youtube videos of the same camcorder I have, the Sony HDR-XR520VE are breathtaking on my tv (which, like I say, i'm using as a pc monitor). I know the camcorder isn't faulty because like I say, it looks awesome on my tv direct from the camcorder. I use to have these kinds of problems with my old Panasonic NV-GS180B mini dv camcorder so I guess its an overall computer problem with maybe the graphics card, codecs, drivers (maybe) and interlacing.

I really can't voice loudly enough how disgusted I am at the fact that every video editing software i've used degrades the image quality of the beautiful footage you take. And although rendering as an .avi file means no degradation, the smallest file size I managed to get was at least 7gb with most being over 10gb for a little 60 second clip which made me gasp in disbelief really. Especially when the original .m2ts file size straight from the camcorder was only 77mb.

It just shows, although the broadcaster's video cameras are better than the consumer cameras, they're not by a vastly better image quality nowadays, so they must have some serious video editing software and de-interlacing etc......to get their final broadcasted footage to look so good.
 

senu

Distinguished Member
Yeah, hopefully. Some of the youtube videos of the same camcorder I have, the Sony HDR-XR520VE are breathtaking on my tv (which, like I say, i'm using as a pc monitor). I know the camcorder isn't faulty because like I say, it looks awesome on my tv direct from the camcorder. I use to have these kinds of problems with my old Panasonic NV-GS180B mini dv camcorder so I guess its an overall computer problem with maybe the graphics card, codecs, drivers (maybe) and interlacing.
There is also the "little" matter of correct shooting technique and knowing the limitations of your camcorder
I really can't voice loudly enough how disgusted I am at the fact that every video editing software i've used degrades the image quality of the beautiful footage you take
.
Some, not all do but obviuosly budget software is just that.. budget
And although rendering as an .avi file means no degradation, the smallest file size I managed to get was at least 7gb with most being over 10gb for a little 60 second clip which made me gasp in disbelief really. Especially when the original .m2ts file size straight from the camcorder was only 77mb
It shows you that in a sense AVCHD was meant from inception as a playback , not editable format, as such.
Back in the day even mpeg2 did not lend itself as well to editing as it now does
It just shows, although the broadcaster's video cameras are better than the consumer cameras, they're not by a vastly better image quality nowadays,
They are, when you consider that the broadcast output has been greatly compressed and still looks great. the original output viewed on Pro monitors is way better that domestic output. Most are even 720p
so they must have some serious video editing software and de-interlacing etc......to get their final broadcasted footage to look so good.
Yes they have that too but the source is really that much better, PRo grade lenses, exceptionaly accurate sensors processing chips, and indeed the actual video formats recorded to are not the same as used on consumer kit.
It is certainly true that some of the higher end features have filtered downwards into consumer kit but this is because R and D costs have been recouped
Also the Semi pro pro and braosdcast kit tend to have: interchangeable lenses and loads of manual control to cope with more demandings scences
While they do use bespoke edutng software mant smaller independent poduction outfits use Adobe Premiere , Avid and indeed Sony Vegas , Final cut Pro ect and end up with excellent results
Quite a large no chose to hire Pro grade camcorders for specific projects rather than use domestic kit , as these may look good but really dont cut it when challenged
 
Last edited:

chrishull3

Well-known Member
Yeah, hopefully. Some of the youtube videos of the same camcorder I have, the Sony HDR-XR520VE are breathtaking on my tv (which, like I say, i'm using as a pc monitor). I know the camcorder isn't faulty because like I say, it looks awesome on my tv direct from the camcorder. I use to have these kinds of problems with my old Panasonic NV-GS180B mini dv camcorder so I guess its an overall computer problem with maybe the graphics card, codecs, drivers (maybe) and interlacing.

I really can't voice loudly enough how disgusted I am at the fact that every video editing software i've used degrades the image quality of the beautiful footage you take. And although rendering as an .avi file means no degradation, the smallest file size I managed to get was at least 7gb with most being over 10gb for a little 60 second clip which made me gasp in disbelief really. Especially when the original .m2ts file size straight from the camcorder was only 77mb.

It just shows, although the broadcaster's video cameras are better than the consumer cameras, they're not by a vastly better image quality nowadays, so they must have some serious video editing software and de-interlacing etc......to get their final broadcasted footage to look so good.

You should not lose quality even on hd discs burnt fom 1920x1080, i lose none at all but sadly i can only burn basic files from avchd which is why i still prefer hdv.
You are right although tv pro cameras obvously have better contrast depth of field etc used to their maximum the latest consumer cams cam produce footage which is very indeed,it depends on the programns certainly gadeners world [hd]and football even on the hd channel does not look noticeably better than i get from my cams and many a cinema film has now been made with hdv cams.
 

richardstringer

Standard Member
Its weird, because the footage played on my computer is as good now as being played on my tv, but only with that Splash Beta video player, but its in slow motion. When I play the video footage on say, Windows Media Classic Home Cinema Player, its proper speed, but jerky, purplish fringing and weird, like the pc can't keep up with the speed of the video.
 

rogs

Well-known Member
Media Player Classic doesn't play raw AVCHD streams (that is .m2ts or .MTS) very well - even if your computer is fast enough .
VLC is better, but you'll need activate the deinterlace function every time, if you're not playing progressive files.

The only two ways I've found of playing back original AVCHD footage on a PC, that looks the originals is either with the software supplied with the camera (HD Writer in my case), or previewing using the Canopus AVCHD2HQ utility preview window, again set up for deinterlacing.

The first option uses all four cores of my Q9950 2.66GHz quad core at over 40% capacity, to display on my 22" monitor - and that's only about 3/4 full screen (largest option).
The second option needs 65% from all 4 cores.
That is pretty much full screen.
AVCHD needs a lot of computing power, to decode well in real time.

There are ways of keeping most of the quality, but without so much CPU power, but it would involve transcoding to another format like Canopus HQ or Cineform Neo scene.
Don't know if you want to go that far?
 
Last edited:

richardstringer

Standard Member
Canopus what? Neo something what? Never heard of them, nor do I have the slightest clue what you're talking about. Maybe its just better that I just try and burn a file onto a dvd and play it at a mate's house on his blu ray dvd player. See what the result of the burned video quality is like.
 

rogs

Well-known Member
Canopus what? Neo something what? Never heard of them, nor do I have the slightest clue what you're talking about.

As I asked in my last question, I didn't know if you want to go that far. Clearly you don't.

Good luck with your 'DVD burning' experiments.
 

JefUK

Active Member
Playing AVCHD 1920 x 1080 video at high bitrates is not a problem with most relatively recent graphics cards provided a player is used that can take full advantage of the hardware decoding capabilities.

For example, using PowerDVD I can play back at full screen and native resolution the 1920x1080 raw video from my Canon HF100 recorded at 17Mbps with a CPU utilization of 2% - all the work is being done by the graphics hardware. The quality is excellent and the de-interlacing very good.

Even systems with early P4 processors will work provided the PC can take a relatively recent graphics card, and an appropriate player is used.
 
Last edited:

richardstringer

Standard Member
I think from what i'm learning, the problem is a de-interlacing problem. Also, I know my graphics card isn't HDCP, whatever that is. It didn't have that on the box. Maybe I should get a better graphics card, see if that makes any difference. I'd get better image qualoity anyway from every source too I would hope.
 

senu

Distinguished Member
Playing AVCHD 1920 x 1080 video at high bitrates is not a problem with most relatively recent graphics cards provided a player is used that can take full advantage of the hardware decoding capabilities.

For example, using PowerDVD I can play back at full screen and native resolution the 1920x1080 raw video from my Canon HF100 recorded at 17Mbps with a CPU utilization of 2% - all the work is being done by the graphics hardware. The quality is excellent and the de-interlacing very good.

Even systems with early P4 processors will work provided the PC can take a relatively recent graphics card, and an appropriate player is used.
Most Systems with early P4 processors are limited to AGP cards, most of which are now far from cutting edge
Even with Core AVC pro + widows media classic, my P4 3.0Ghz with a 512 mb 8X AGP ATI card was playing AVCHD files encoded at lower bitrates with difficulty
Nonetheless as youve said, even capable card needs to be able to accelerate playback otherwise it will still be down to the processor. For instance with Nvdia you need the "Pure Video HD" drivers to take advantage of this and not all its cards support that unless thay are relatively recent
 

senu

Distinguished Member
I think from what i'm learning, the problem is a de-interlacing problem.
Part of.. with VLC and many video playback software you can deinterlace anyway
Also, I know my graphics card isn't HDCP, whatever that is
HDCP means High Definition Content Protection: it is a hardware specification which is there not so much to improve playback but to prevent the easy dupication and potential piracy of Hi def material especially from Blu ray discs via HDMI or DVI
I have a Monitor/LCD TV whose DVI ports said to be "HDCP compliant" but I cannot output HDMI to it from a Blu ray player or a PC with HDMI out.
The only way I can play blu ray off the PC or Blu ray player is via component which is analogue and does not have HDCP
This has nothing to do with your AVCHD playback issue though

. It didn't have that on the box. Maybe I should get a better graphics card, see if that makes any difference. I'd get better image qualoity anyway from every source too I would hope.
True . It may not if the PC processor is struggling . You still haven't said your PC spec though .. or Have I missed it somewhere...:confused:
Unless you have a decent C2D or quad core.. it may be better to consider getting a new PC and not just changing the graphics card
 
Last edited:

richardstringer

Standard Member
My pc spec is :

Intel Core 2 Quad [email protected]
3.25gb Ram
640gb SATA Hard Drive
200gb IDE Hard Drive
NVidia GeForce 7300 Graphics Card - HDMI Output To A :
Samsung LE32A556 32" Full HD 1920 x 1080 TV (used as a monitor, and looks awesome really)
 
Last edited:

senu

Distinguished Member
Yeah I have said my pc spec already, twice if I remember right.

Possibly on another thread .. Nowhere in this one.. Unless Im really really getting old...:rolleyes:!

I did look through all the posts and it isnt mentioned anywhere
I only ask because the problems you are experiencing may be rlated to your PC hardware or configuration.
PS: You really hadnt had you?
 
Last edited:

senu

Distinguished Member
My pc spec is :

Intel Core 2 Quad [email protected]
3.25gb Ram
640gb SATA Hard Drive
200gb IDE Hard Drive
NVidia GeForce 7300 Graphics Card - HDMI Output To A :
Samsung LE32A556 32" Full HD 1920 x 1080 TV (used as a monitor, and looks awesome really)
Now you have ....:)

I guess you need playback software that can utilise the GPU.. Have you installed Nvidia Pure Video HD drivers?
ALso I find that Nero Showtime seems to be quite decent playback software
You could try
THIS
 
Last edited:

richardstringer

Standard Member
I can't download the Pure Video HD drivers. I looked on the NVidia website and I cant see any such drivers for my GeForce 7300 graphics card. It looks like the lowest spec graphics card they make which supports Pure Video HD is the GeForce 8400GS.
 

The latest video from AVForums

Podcast: LG C1 OLED First Thoughts + JBL Synthesis SDR-35 Review, TV Show & Disc Reviews & more
Subscribe to our YouTube channel

Latest News

Bluesound unveils new generation of Node and Powernode audio players
  • By Andy Bassett
  • Published
Naim launches Uniti Atom Headphone Edition
  • By Andy Bassett
  • Published
Sennheiser announces flagship IE 900 earphones
  • By Andy Bassett
  • Published
Sony launches larger screen sizes for latest Bravia XR TVs
  • By Andy Bassett
  • Published
Sennheiser Consumer Electronics acquired by Sonova
  • By Andy Bassett
  • Published

Full fat HDMI teeshirts

Support AVForums with Patreon

Top Bottom