When do we expect next generation AVCHD specs to be published? The current specs is about to limit the possibilities of the development of new HD camcorders (current max bit rate 24 mbps and no official 1080/60p support). Also the quad HD TVs/monitors start to appear by the end of current year.


ap

PS The next generation HDMI specs should be finalized in the coming months supporting resolutions up to 4K.

4k resolution is not a consumer format, and there aren't very many monitors that can handle it, so it's not an issue yet.

avc intra is the next level up from avchd, but there is still no 1080 60p support... probably because no tv stations broadcast 1080 60p here in america, the demand for it just isn't there.

This from John Cline (a long time respected editor on the Vegas forums)

http://www.sonycreativesoftware.com/...131&Replies=87

Sanyo BTW has introduced the first 1080p cam..... and it is not avchd

http://www.camcorderinfo.com/content...000-36124.htm#

I wonder if they're going to offer true blu ray specs i.e. High profile level 5.1 with 40 mpbs bitrate in the near future. Obviously it won't be AVCHD anymore, but by then blu ray media might actually be affordable.

It already is. You can pick up rydata 25gig disks at newegg for $2.99 each.

As we know the first 1080/60p camcorder in published by Sanyo (non-avchd). There is an urgency to create next gen. AVCHD specs. That should allow 1080/60p camcorders as well as support resolutions up to quad HD (3840 x 2160p). I see no reason why Sony and Panasonic would no create such specs to receive license income from the next gen camcorders as well.

ap

What... and have three avchd specs out there all with the same name?? I think it's gotten confusing enough.

I'm not sure why Sony started the avchd kick... maybe to draw a line in the sand between consumer and pro... who knows. But one thing I do know is that we have AVC/h.264 and it already does what's needed.

What I would like to see is both Sony and Canon get off this avchd marry-go-round and just run with straight AVC/h.264. The door swings much wider this way.

i would love to shoot in 1080/60p, even if it can't be using anywhere... i could still edit it down to a compatible format for the web, dvd, etc., and have the advantage of no interlacing in the source footage.

Have u seen $5.99 50gig BD-R's?

i've heard of those, do they require a special blu-ray burner?

I have a 2yr & half old notebook Blu ray burner, I have burnt 50gb BD Rs with it. I not sure if all blu ray burners can burn 50gb bdrs, they should. I'll find out if i can burn 100gb bdrs when they come out. Software, firmware updates could do the trick

Wait a minute. These are all single layer BD-Rs or are we talking about dual layer? I didn't even know 100 GB BD-Rs existed.

25Gb = single layer
50Gb = double layer
So by that, 100Gb = quad layer?....

Not heard of those either.

Seggers

Well I just googled it and I guess the 100 gb bd discs are quad layer. I don't know any burner that can even do quad layer. I believe the LG burners can do dual layer. The Lite On burners only do single layer.

i dont think the systems would be able to keep up with the resolution specs....we can barely edit AVCHD now without transcoding it to another format or etc...

the technology is there but none of us will be able to handle it with our systems...

dont think we will see much of it at a cosumer level anytime soon...or if we do it will be so overpriced that its not worth it

I am talking about foundation work for the next 3 years or so in a similar way as the original avchd specs were published back in May 2006.

I am not overly worried about costs as they will come down as technology develops and mass production takes place.

ap

What makes you think there will be a "next generation" avchd?

Don't get me wrong... I'm not saying it's impossible, but this entire avchd thing has had me quite confused since its inception. They've taken an extremely powerful and versatile codec (avc/h.264) and dumbed it down incredibly. I have no idea what Sony was thinking but it's hard to imagine them seeing avchd used in any kind of serious fashion at main profile bit rates. Canon/Panasonic were a little better in going with high profile at 24Mb/s but still.... when I watch a Blu Ray movie I've seen avc data rates reach as high as 45Mb/s

When Sony first rolled out Blu Ray there were some things that just didn't add up... avchd NOT being part of the blu ray spec was one of those spine tingling things. I have always wondered whether or not Sony was trying to set up a 2 tier system... one for the consumer, and one for the pro

In any event Sanyo has done an interesting and smart thing..... they have shown the world that "avchd" is rather redundant and isn't even required.

The last bit, which I bolded, in what way?

Seggers

You didn't hear?

Sanyo has created the first consumer level 1080/60P cam. They did it with avc/h.264.... not avchd

I agree with you bigbarney, they crippled down H.264 too much.

But let's face it, avchd is defacto standard for consumer HD camcorders (now even more as JVC has chosen it too). It would be irrational not to develop it further as technology has progressed, and it would be everybody's interest (editing tools etc) to have some sort of specs to follow.


ap

the avchd standard is the same concept as the hdv standard, but i don't hear anybody crying about how hdv is nothing more than crippled mpeg2.

both avchd and hdv are standards that the manufacturers needed to get cross-compatibility amongst themselves... we should be thankful that they did it, because it gave the software some standards that it needed to meet.

There's a difference. HDV's standards were not set low... they were pretty much set by the maximum that tape would comfortably allow because tape was what we had and were using at the time.

The same can be said for the dvd standard... it was set at pretty much the maximum that a dvd player could comfortably handle.

This is not the case with avchd. Cameras AND playback equipment (as well as the present avc/h.264 codec) can easily attained much higher goals... and this has been true for some time now.

HDV is most definitely a standard. No matter where you go and who you talk to.... HDV means the same thing. Even the NLE's we use today know exactly what HDV is

avchd on the other hand changes from cam to cam....NLE to NLE.... not too much of a standard I would say.

not quite... years ago, the reason that you didn't see avchd instead of hdv was because the silicon capabilities weren't up to speed for avchd recording... take a look at how much computer cpu power is required for editing avchd, and you'll have an idea of how much power is need to encode avchd in the camera.

the only reason that hdv came about was because mpeg2 is not nearly as computationally intensive as h.264 is.

despite that, when hdv came out, a lot of the computers of the day couldn't easily edit it, so intermediate codecs were the rage(CineForm Aspect HD).. it's very similar to the present-day situation with avchd.

if avchd had been brought out any earlier than it was, it would not have been accepted as a standard, because desktop computers couldn't handle editing native avchd.

all avchd cams that i know of are within the avchd spec, so that doesn't make sense.

because of the limitations of hdv, jvc and others went outside of the hdv spec with things like the tod spec, which is not a formal standard, and the ProHD camcorders: "ProHD is JVC's approach for delivering affordable HD products. It is also used to describe family of bandwidth efficient professional HD models.

ProHD is NOT a format."

which proves that the hdv spec was too limited, so the manufacturers had to create their own proprietary standards... the exact opposite of what the software people needed.

avchd hopefully fixed all that, by being broad enough to cover all eventualities.

Since when do camera manufacturers worry about editing??? They didn't before.... and they didn't with avchd either

avchd was the exact same thing as HDV as far as desktop editing is concerned.... there wasn't one single editor on the market set up for it. Heck... Sony was the one that started this avchd kick and Vegas wasn't even set up to take it on. It was almost a year spread from the first avchd cam and the first editor that could deal with it. I believe it was Ulead Movie factory 5 that was the first one out and even with that it was quite the mess.

AVCHD was not the driving force of its popularity. It was the different media types that became available (HDD's, flash...etc) that drove it to popularity


Yup... TWO different spec sets. Now that's what I call standardization

Now just exactly which spec set is the REAL standard All depends on WHICH camera manufacturer you talk to. And let's not forget about folder layout on each of these cams that seems to be different as well.... one of the reasons people are having such trouble putting their work back on camera.

Mmmm in fact before you even TRY to put your edited work back on camera... you had better figure out WHICH avchd profile your cam takes and which one your nle outputs

But hey... according to you this is a.... "standard" so who am I to argue!

Very good discussion and I tend to agree with osv.

I'll stop you there, Bigbarney.

Manufacturers are critically concerned about editing whether it's because users will want to create their own discs or because supplied software will have to do it. In either case, users want to transfer their videos to another medium and see them on a big screen.

AVC-HD is a specific (industry) version of the H.264 standard. Sure, H.264 can do more than what AVCHD offers but at the moment, most users don't have PCs to cope with such quantities of data. The perfect is the enemy of the good.

I agree with osv that we should be happy that AVCHD introduces basic compatibility. And frankly, given my eyesight, I'm not so sure that future data capabilities will go in the direction of higher resolution, or even faster refresh rates.

Excuse me???
What in the world has Canon done to show you that they have ANY interest at all in what you do with your video after you off load it to your computer???? What has Sony done to make you believe this. Did anybody bundle any nle's with their cameras??? Did anybody recommend a software for editing. Maybe offer you a money-saving deal on a nle??? The absolute MOST that I have seen a camera manufacturer do at the consumer level is offer something like Motion Picture Browser. As far as software is concern... they'll do as LITTLE as possible.

If you think camera manufacturers give a rats rear end what you do after you shoot your video..... then you are sadly mistaken. And further more... this is EXACTLY the way it should be. Camera manufacturers are in the business to make and sell cameras... NOT edit video.

And this makes no sense at all. If your machine can do avchd... then it can also do AVC/h.264.... because that's what avchd is based on. Right now, today, at this moment I can render out (with Vegas pro) AVC at 45Mb/s, put it on a Blu Ray disk and play it in the PS3. My machine is nothing special... a quad core with 8gig ram on Vista64.

You see August...
My problem with avchd is (and always has been) that it just doesn't seem to fit in anywhere. It was a format developed from what seems to out of the air. It's not an official part of the Blu Ray spec. It doesn't really exist outside the world of 3 specific camera manufacturers... and the manufacturers that are using it can't even seem to agree with which profile should be used.

AVC/h.264 on the other hand hasn't got the restrictions that avchd does which means you can do some pretty amazing things with it... RIGHT NOW. It's officially recognized by the Blu Ray spec and can therefore be played without question in any Blu Ray player. It also ties the mac and pc worlds together.... it works natively on both machines, and it can be used in both the pro and consumer worlds.... The short and long of it is that AVC/h.264 just simply makes sense.

Avhcd.... sorry... it just seems to be out there in left field somewhere. And now to top it all off.... Sanyo, a relatively insignificant figure in the camera industry, has proved it to be pretty redundant... or at minimum... an extremely consumer level format.

maybe Apple should make a high def camcorder

That would be great if the AVC in the new Sanyo's due out are smoother to raw/native edit & if current avchd editing software recognizes it. I plan on grabing a HD waterproof one just because it's waterproof. This is all bonus!

Well not too bonus, its 9Mbps but hey its still Waterproof HD!

Well... we'll see the reviews when they come out. It *MAY* be that with 60 complete frames a second a high bit rate is not required.

You do have to remember though... this is Sanyo and their cams have traditionally never really stood a chance when measured against a Canon or Sony

Sanyo's FH1 &HD2000 specs state 24Mbps & yeah i can't wait to check one out

Found a new Waterproof! http://www.dpreview.com/news/0901/09...ft1.asp#images

very impressive for the casual shooter...

wowza

maybe you never heard of an editing program called sony vegas?

what editing program does canon package with their camcorders? of course the camera manufacturers care.


??? that makes no sense at all.


that describes hdv to a tee, as i already proved... panasonic and jvc went completely off of the hdv reservation, and some of the hdv tape decks didn't play back hdv tapes from all manufacturers, because some of the hdv modes were not fully compatible.

if hdv is your idea of a STANDARD, who are we to argue ;-)

how can they sell camcorders that record in a format that can't be edited?

the two go hand-in-hand.

the blu-ray spec was never designed to be a camcorder spec, just like hdv is not a blu-ray spec.

you can say the same silly things about mpeg2... you are telling us that hdv should have never been invented, they should have just recorded straight to mpeg2.

1080/60p is not a broadcast standard, there are very few professional video cameras that will record it, and most big screen tvs are not capable of displaying it... it's a marketing gimmick.

Hey... I'm not going to argue with you OSV. You have a nasty habit of arguing just for the sake of arguing and I don't plan on getting roped into that again.

So let me say this... If you think avchd is so great then knock yourself out with it... and you're certainly welcome to carry on here all by your lonesome. Don't let me stop you!

I totally don't get this... at all.
Why are you comparing a codec with a media format? The whole point of a media format like AVCHD is to ensure compatibility; and it uses AVC as its codec! Sure, AVC does not have restrictions (it is a CODEC!), and the sky is the limit - BUT there is no guarantee that you AVC file could be played by a player event though it has "AVC support". OTOH, a "AVCHD" label on the Blu-Ray player would reassure you that your AVCHD video would be played fine on that player.

AVCHD has just come out with AVCHD Lite, and surely it can come out with AVCHD Ultra if it wants to for even higher specs like 1080 60p 45Mbps etc. But would it be meaningful? AVCHD is meant for DVD media, and such high specs would severely limit play time. Otherwise, you might as well go Blu-Ray.

Sorry, I don't understand your hate for AVCHD. It is an intermediate media format designed to fit HD video onto DVD media, which has limited space to start with - and the restricted specs reflects that. Practicality and compatibility are the whole point of AVCHD.

bigbarney, its clear that avchd won out over hdv, your pet format is dead, so get over it.

bashing avchd with false information won't change the truth about the format... it rocks, period.

Sorry... you're wrong.

AVC stands for Advanded Video Coding

In other words AVC is a video stream. The codec used is H.264

[url]http://www.pcmag.com/encyclopedia_term/0,2542,t=AVC&i=38294,00.asp

http://www.pcmag.com/encyclopedia_te...i=44034,00.asp

Avchd is more or less a format complete with audio
Avc is the elementary video stream within avchd
H.264 is the codec used.

The new Sanyo 1080/60p cams for example use AVC/h.264 instead of avchd

quote from camcorderinfo.com
AVC is in fact written into the official blu ray spec so there IS a guaranty that it will play.... and if you place your "avchd" disk in the PS3 for example it will display as "AVC" (The PS3 always displays the video file and audio file as separate entities)

avchd on the other hand is NOT part of the blu ray spec.... no guaranty it will play.

To give you a practical example, when I do a Blu Ray disk (real one) in Vegas with avc I will render a avc video stream (.avc) at 20 or 30 Mb/s at 1920x1080.... or what ever you wish at the time, render out surround sound file (.ac3).... import those to DVDarchitect and the end result is a Blu Ray disk (with M2TS) and it will display as "AVC.... , Dolby Digital...." when played back in the PS3

It's a lot easier to put into perspective if you think about how a normal dvd is created which uses mpeg2. A M2V is an mpeg elementary video stream and you render out an audio file... then import that to your dvd author program which takes your M2V and audio file and lays it on the disk in terms of a VOB file. An avchd file is basically an avc stream and an audio stream together and governed by a specific set of rules as to bitrate... resolution...etc...etc

I trust this clears the confusion?

And no... I have no hate for avchd... just no use for it.... it's not needed. Sanyo has already produced a cam that bypasses the avchd laws and uses straight avc/h.264

But that's the entire point... You can ALREADY render out avc at 45Mb/s right now... today with Sony Vegas or PP... so why would you need to further advance avchd?

You see... the only thing that avchd is, is avc/h.264 with an audio file and a set of rules

This is NOT true.
In all practical purposes, the term H.264 is equivalent to the term MPEG-4 AVC - i.e. a video compression technique. Ref
AVC was first used by MPEG to describe the H.264 technology. Ref

AVCHD is a media specification including what file format to use, what other files should be present (playlist, clipinfo), and complete directories specifications. It gives you the ability to include menu, chapters, multiple subtitles, multiple audio tracks. etc
It is a very good format.

AVC/H.264 is the codec used by AVCHD.

Again, you are comparing apples to oranges. Sanyo also uses H.264/AVC codec, but they decided to use another file/container format.

Again, this is not true. AVC/H.264 is just a Codec! So you can use AVC/H.264 in mov quicktime file format, m2ts file format, mp4, avi, mkv.... etc etc.

MKV file with AVC/H.264 encoding is one good example that most blu-ray player or PS3 would not play!

It is not part of Blu-ray spec - correct! But many player would include AVCHD compatibility on its feature list. Just like DIVX compatible DVD player.

Your example just showed that you have output a file within specs of the player. But AVC can come in different shape and form, and many cannot be played in your player (mkv files are good example).

I think your comments create more confusion by lumping codec (MPEG2, H.264/AVC, DivX.... ) with a primarily media format (AVCHD) together.

And why is this better?
AVCHD functions like a Blu-Ray disc or DVD. You insert the disc or SD card, and the player would play right away without any user input. And the video clips are played back in sequence with flawless transition from one clip to another.
Now the Sanyo is in raw data file format, and it needs user to select the video one by one. Not every consumer would prefer that.

Because AVCHD is designed to fit in a SD card and DVD disc. When the time comes where we have 2TB SDXC card, and we have camorder capable of 45Mbps H.264 real time encoding, then maybe a high bitrate AVCHD specs would be of use. Now they design the specs to be practical with the media it is designed to work with!

Exactly! AVCHD is a media specification! It is designed so that all media from all AVCHD recording device are compatible with each other and playable in AVCHD player; and it offers reasonable play time for the media we have now, and usability we expect (like using any DVD disc - menus, chapters, scene navigation, subtitles, multiple audio tracks etc).

Basically, your argument is like comparing MPEG2 vs DVD. And you are like saying what's the point of having a DVD specs (which is restricting to NTSC/PAL resolution) when we can just use MPEG2 with no such limitations! But there is no comparison between the two, just like AVC/H.264 vs AVCHD. They are apples and oranges!

Absolutely correct... but now you're talking containers which is a different ball game.

WMP can play avi right? Well... not really. Cineform is avi and WMP can't play the cineform codec

DVD players are based on mpeg2, but they can't play it directly (the standard ones anyway). They must be in a vob container.

AVC and blu ray players are no different. There are certain things here that I'm assuming are "givens". In order for a Blu Ray disk to be a "Blu Ray disk" the avc must be in the correct container.... the folder structure must be proper....etc

EDIT: In fact there is a perfect example of h.264 in a mov container on the board right now:

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=1113792

Exactly, now you are getting the point. And that's the whole purpose of AVCHD! In order for AVCHD disc/storage media to be a AVCHD disc/storage media, it has to be in a certain folder structure, the AVC/H.264 has to be in m2ts file format, resolution/bitrate specs are laid out etc. I.E. NO DIFFERENT from blu-ray or DVD specs!

That is why it makes no sense comparing AVC/H.264 vs AVCHD. AVC can be in different shape and form, and it is part of AVCHD. Unless the detailed specs is laid out, there is just no way any player can support all the different AVC files/container/transport stream out there.

Okay... you and I are saying pretty much the same thing here... we're just kind of veering off at the end.... so let's attack this from a slightly different angle.

First, I understand and agree that there must be a set of rules and standards so that everybody is on the same page. I don't think there is any disagreement there.

What I am saying though is that the rules and standards have ALREADY been set..... by the Blu Ray standards and there is no need to set further rules and standards on top of the Blu Ray standards...... unless of course you're trying to create a consumer level format.

Take a AVC Blu Ray movie for example. It's a avc video stream with a resolution and bitrate that falls within blu ray specs, an audio file again meeting the blu ray specs, all wrapped up in a m2ts container along with the proper folder structure. Sounds a lot like avchd....but it isn't. In fact if you ADD a few MORE restrictions like setting a max bitrate 24Mb/s, a few more audio restrictions.... etc, THEN what you have is avchd.

Now you may ask what the heck Blu Ray and video cameras have to do with each other and that would be a fair question because they really are separate entities. But LOGICALLY speaking it would make more sense to tailor everything under one universal set of guidelines and it would also add flexibility to both the pro and the consumer level videographer.

What they have done with avchd just doesn't make sense (and never has to me). They have restricted the bit rate when there really was no need (relatively speaking of course... I doubt you can even make a video cam that puts out a bitrate even close to the blu ray maximum). They have not included it in the blu ray spec when they could have.

Actually, that's exactly what AVCHD is - a consumer format.
Blu-Ray standard only applies to Blu-Ray media. In order to fit into SD card and DVD media, they have put in more restrictions. Unlike Blu-Ray supporting MPEG2, VC-1, AVC etc, they just go for AVC.

And it is not a bad thing. Since it is a subset of Blu-Ray, so it won't get obsolete as long as Blu-Ray is still around. I think it is more like a 8cm mini-DVD. It exists for a purpose and as a consumer format media. Just like AVCHD.

I personally am not worried about bitrate restriction. There is still a long way to go for real time encoding (algorithm and CPU power) to take full advantage of the bitrate.

And AVCHD can evolve. Current hardware has hardly pushed the limit of any restriction imposed by AVCHD. And when the time comes that it does, new AVCHD specs would be drawn.

I disagree you for one reason. The recent appearance of 'avchd lite' seem to be going in the wrong direction for a consumer format, the only improvement for the foreseeable future will be to integrate the 'lite' hd at a lower cost, eliminate the middle ground, and put pro-sumer HD above the $1000 mark.

Well I can only agree to a certain extend on that. I'm not so sure you can evolve a standard. You can expand it and you can certainly add to it, but you can't change its basic concept of it because it loses its "standard". Toshiba for example ran into a little road block with this concept when they developed their triple layer disk... how to use it without altering the standard that they had set.

Now if the avchd standard is such that it must work at a consumer level (on dvd media... stick.... etc) then how do you evolve its bit rate beyond that of dvd media without changing the meaning of "avchd"

I'm guessing here (don't know anything about avchd lite) but they couldn't fit it in to the existing avchd standard so they ended up having to create yet another standard called avchd lite.... again though that's just a guess.

As for avchd going obsolete... i don't know. It's certainly hard for me to believe avchd could go obsolete anytime in the foreseeable future... it's not even really out of the box yet. But then on the other hand this Sanyo issue can't be ignored.
1080/60p at the consumer level is a big enough issue so that the major manufacturers (Sony, canon....) are at least going to have to look at it. If they can't do it on existing avchd specs then the big question will be are they going to try and create a "avchd Heavy" or will they simply follow Sanyo's footsteps?

And Elifino does have a valid point BTW... they seem to be heading in completely the wrong direction.

I checked out what AVCDH Lite is all about. It looks like it is not even a specification as I first thought. So the format is not actually going in any direction .

AVCHD Lite is simply a new marketing trademark, not a new specs or new format. All current AVCHD camcorders are capable of 1080i recording. And AVCHD Lite is used to inform the consumer that the camera is only capable of 720p recording at maximum resolution. That's all there is to it.

"The ?AVCHD Lite? is a subset of the ?AVCHD format? for HD digital video cameras with HD video recording restricted to 720P.The new ?AVCHD Lite? Logo and the ?AVCHD Lite? License are restricted to devices within the AVCHD Video Camera category. Digital cameras have been added to the AVCHD Video Camera category.
*The ?AVCHD Lite? and the ?AVCHD Lite? logo are trademarks of Panasonic Corporation and Sony Corporation."

so now you know... avchd lite isn't a new spec, it was put in place for digital cameras.

and it's still a way to cheapen HD in lower priced products. The middle ground will disappear.

i actually agree with where you are saying that avchd is going, but i don't see it as something bad.

the big camera manufacturers needed a video recording format, and since they already had avchd, why not use it... doing something completely out of left field, like sanyo did, wouldn't make sense, there is no guarantee of software compatibility.

look what happened when canon didn't use avchd for the new 5d... it's a bastard h.264 .mov format that has serious quicktime gamma shift issues, when edited on a pc... people are tearing their hair out trying to overcome the problems.

I'm not sure I would worry about software compatibility.... no one did when avchd first came out. They bought because they didn't want tape. not withstanding (according to camcorderinfo.com anyway) Sanyo went this way for better compatibility in the first place.

No doubt Sanyo is off the beaten path and personally speaking I don't think Sanyo is that great in the camera industry.... but IMO these cams are going to be popular. With 1080/60p, a price that beats most other HD cams, and some of the styles even waterproof, I don't think the big 3 manufacturers will have much choice but to re analyze the direction they're heading

Just an opinion of course.

since there is little 1080/60p support, i think that sanyo made a bad choice as far as compatibility.

what happens when the footage gets played back on a big screen? every other frame gets dropped, so it's a worse picture than 30p, because it only has half the bitrate? you basically went from 24Mpbs to 12Mbps?

Most new 1080P HDTVs can play a 1080/60p input stream, so I don't see why there should be a problem with this camera playing native 1080/60p files via HDMI to most newer sets. The question is, when will we see this camera to test it? I've seen various posts suggesting late January 2009 (now) and other suggesting March. Anyone know?

Thats a good question. If Sanyo's AVC quaility is great & I'm assuming that there 24 bit rates is & its alot smoother to native/raw edit than avchd i'll fall right off my chair all smiles

Why are you expecting this? Why is there any difference editing AVCHD vs Sanyo's mp4? There shouldn't be. The video compression used in both format is the same - H.264/AVC; and the rendering hardware requirement would be the same. If anything, with Sanyo's much higher compression (24Mbps for 2x the data of 60i camcorder), and higher resolution, it could put more stress on the CPU requirement. In addition, I don't know if the software would support 1920x1080 60p editing.

We'll see