Why so enthusiastic about AVCHD?

[tcgjeukens]

Every week there is a post from somebody asking advice for a HD camera.
What surprises me is that "people" are so enthusiastic in promoting AVCHD camera's.

Question: why is that so?

Reading many post I can't shake the feeling that:

AVCHD always requires transcoding before being able to edit in iMovie/ FCE/ FCP (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=592939)
There is no native AVCHD playback on a Mac (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=510939)
Archiving AVCHD requires a duplcate transfer to Mac (if you don't want the bulky transcoded files)
Current Macs would be too slow for native editing


Why do you opt for AVCHD?

regards
Coen Jeukens

[Courtaj]

I'm not "people" so I can't comment.

[chilipie]

FWIW, I don't think iMovie and FCE can edit HDV natively either - it's converted to AIC.

[-DH]

Why so enthusiastic about AVCHD?

Becuase they believe the hype that the manufacturers spew out.

-DH

[Cromulent]

I thought most people recommended the Canon HV30? The only reason people go for AVCHD is a) ignorance b) ease and c) cost.

I have no idea why people recommend AVCHD.

[Dejavu]

AVCHD = MPEG4
HDV = MPEG2

AVCHD is twice as efficient, or twice the quality at same bitrate.

[Cromulent]

AVCHD = MPEG4
HDV = MPEG2

AVCHD is twice as efficient, or twice the quality at same bitrate.

HDV ends up being better quality than AVCHD in the end. AVCHD will suffer more in terms of editing loss due to transcoding issues. It is a pretty poor editing format.

[jzuena]

Every week there is a post from somebody asking advice for a HD camera.
What surprises me is that "people" are so enthusiastic in promoting AVCHD camera's.

Question: why is that so?

Reading many post I can't shake the feeling that:

AVCHD always requires transcoding before being able to edit in iMovie/ FCE/ FCP (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=592939)
There is no native AVCHD playback on a Mac (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=510939)
Archiving AVCHD requires a duplcate transfer to Mac (if you don't want the bulky transcoded files)
Current Macs would be too slow for native editing


Why do you opt for AVCHD?

regards
Coen Jeukens

Because if you are going to be a fanboy and buy into Steve's "Firewire is dead" statement, then you have to justify in your mind that HDV is no good, and AVCHD is next in line.

[Courtaj]

The only reason people go for AVCHD is a) ignorance b) ease and c) cost.Eh? Isn't that three reasons?I have no idea why people recommend AVCHD.Oh, I thought you just suggested one / three reasons.

I need another coffee.

[tcgjeukens]

Dejavu,

AVCHD is twice as efficient, or twice the quality at same bitrate.

"Twice as efficient" - from whos perspective?
It is a true technology statement. The manufacturer has managed to squeeze twice as much data into the same bitrate, but in doing so the data is so compacted that currect hardware has no possibility to use the native output of the camera.
The efficiency of the camera is offset by tedious archiving and editing workflows.

"Twice the quality" - how to display this quality?
This forum has quite some threads on compression artifacts. The theory will be true, but who amongst us can really talk out of experience? I believe most of us will be parrotting since only a happy few will be able to do the full HD sequence meaning: capturing in full HD, editing in full HD, authoring in full HD and displaying in full HD.
Most of us will be forced to downgrade their end-result when it comes to distrubution via DVD or Web.
So how do we "buy" the marketing message "twice the quality"?

Regards

Coen

[Dejavu]

HDV ends up being better quality than AVCHD in the end.
How so? You end up transcoding both in final output. AVCHD supports full HD 1920x1080 while HDV only supports 1440x1080.


AVCHD will suffer more in terms of editing loss due to transcoding issues. It is a pretty poor editing format.
Both formats are interframe compression formats so they both need transcoding. If you're transcoding to ProRes 422 HQ, then both should be the same. It's not recommended to edit native HDV, although many do and even FCP supports it. AVCHD requires a lot of decoding power, and most editing systems haven't been written to take advantage of it. You'll be seeing more camcorders, consumer and professional moving to AVCHD because it's the future. ;)

[Cromulent]

Eh? Isn't that three reasons?Oh, I thought you just suggested one / three reasons.

I need another coffee.

Or perhaps rather than being a smart arse you could try contributing. But I guess that is too much to ask for.

[Courtaj]

Or perhaps rather than being a smart arse you could try contributing. But I guess that is too much to ask for.Well I thought about contributing to what promised to be yet another AVCHD vs HDV thread, but I thought it was better to leave it to the experts.

Andrew.

[Courtaj]

How so? You end up transcoding both in final output. AVCHD supports full HD 1920x1080 while HDV only supports 1440x1080.True, but a difference in horizontal resolution is less noticeable than a difference in vertical resolution. Not only that but there are plenty of "full HD" AVCHD camcorders that pixel-shift to make up the numbers anyway. Besides, there are many other issues via-a-vis quality in addition to straight-out resolution.

Andrew.

[notjustjay]

yet another AVCHD vs HDV thread

I was quite happy to let the dust settle on Blu-Ray versus HD-DVD, and I'll continue waiting (and shooting with my VX2000) until a consensus is reached on how to best shoot in HD.

Both sound promising but I really don't relish the thought of additional transcoding to AIC and all the extra disk space requirements. And until there's a popular way to distribute them...

I'd be curious to know what the visible difference would be in a DVD burned from footage from one of these new HD cams versus a high-quality 3-CCD SD camera like the VX2000.

[sushi]

I'd be curious to know what the visible difference would be in a DVD burned from footage from one of these new HD cams versus a high-quality 3-CCD SD camera like the VX2000.
Likewise.

Other than less storage requirements, I don't understand the lure of AVCHD.

IMHO, MJPEG is better -- especially for action shots, when looking at flash storage.

Of course MiniDV is the standard.

Nice camcorder. :)

[ChrisA]

Every week there is a post from somebody asking advice for a HD camera.
What surprises me is that "people" are so enthusiastic in promoting AVCHD camera's....

"people" will ask all kinds of questions about "what should I buy" and then in the end simply look at the price and buy whatever is cheap. And then later when someone else askes for advice all we get is a many versions of "I have X, Buy X".


The bottom line is that most consummers don't know image quality and find almost anything acceptable.

[ChemiosMurphy]

HDV doesn't allow for full raster 1080p. Case closed.

ALSO look at AVC-Intra, AVCHD's big brother. One of the best recording formats out there.

HDV does NOT always come out looking better than AVCHD. It's more important getting a camera with a good lens. That's what matters the most.

Both are 4:2:0 GOP based formats. JVC's proHD records full raster 720, but the other 1080 flavors are 1440*1080. Not quite the same. AVCHD wins there.

Oh and those of you who complain that AVCHD needs to be transcoded, HDV is the same way. You NEVER export to HDV. I always transcode my files to ProRes so that I can throw it into color and grade it. this method allows for better quality since the export will be a color graded 4:2:2 project. Moot.

[NeoMayhem]

Working with files on a hard drive/flash card is much nicer then working with tape. Importing AVCHD is also faster then realtime if you have a decent system.

[Dejavu]

...
You seem knowledgeable enough. :)


I found this previous post funny, and ironic. ;)
The only reason people go for AVCHD is a) ignorance b) ease and c) cost.

[chilipie]

Eh? Isn't that three reasons?Oh, I thought you just suggested one / three reasons..

Or perhaps rather than being a smart arse you could try contributing. But I guess that is too much to ask for.

I don't think Courtaj is being a smart arse - the only real reason you gave was ignorance. Ease of use and lower cost are hardly negatives.

[LethalWolfe]

Both formats are interframe compression formats so they both need transcoding. If you're transcoding to ProRes 422 HQ, then both should be the same. It's not recommended to edit native HDV, although many do and even FCP supports it.
Editing HDV natively is easy in FCP especially if you are using FCP6 and you set your sequence to render in ProRes and not HDV. The choice to stay native HDV or transcode upon ingest depends on the situation. There is no wrong or right answer. It all depends on what's the best workflow for a given project.

You'll be seeing more camcorders, consumer and professional moving to AVCHD because it's the future. ;)
Pro's won't move to AVCHD.

HDV doesn't allow for full raster 1080p. Case closed.
Case closed? Not really. HDCAM and DVCPro HD aren't full raster either but I don't see AVCHD replacing them any time soon. You can't cherry pick certain stats and then conclude that X is better than Y. You have to look at the entire 'image pipeline' because the whole process effects how well the video looks in the end.


ALSO look at AVC-Intra, AVCHD's big brother. One of the best recording formats out there.
HDV's 'big brothers', like XDCAM HD 422, aren't slouches either and can be edited natively in FCP.


HDV does NOT always come out looking better than AVCHD. It's more important getting a camera with a good lens. That's what matters the most.
Agreed. Of course this comment kinda undercuts some of your other points.


Oh and those of you who complain that AVCHD needs to be transcoded, HDV is the same way. You NEVER export to HDV. I always transcode my files to ProRes so that I can throw it into color and grade it. this method allows for better quality since the export will be a color graded 4:2:2 project. Moot.
It really depends on your workflow. If you are mastering back to HDV then you should stay native all the way. Also, if you are dealing w/large amounts of footage staying in native HDV can save you time (no transcoding on ingest) and money (don't needs as beefy a storage system). Once your edit is done you use the Media Manager to create an 'on-line' project in ProRes for finishing. Yes, you still need to do a transcode, but you only transcode the media used in your final project, not all the raw media you shot. Also, IIRC, capturing HDV-as-ProRes via FW is limited to 'capture now' functionality and it doesn't bring over the TC from the tape. That is a deal breaker for me.


Lethal

[Dejavu]

Case closed? Not really. HDCAM and DVCPro HD aren't full raster either but I don't see AVCHD replacing them any time soon.

HDV is the only lower cost HD format that's comparable to AVCHD. Are you suggesting the OP look at HDCAM and DVCPRO solutions? :rolleyes:

[Dejavu]

I don't think Courtaj is being a smart arse - the only real reason you gave was ignorance. Ease of use and lower cost are hardly negatives.

AVCHD is requires more powerful computers to edit it, plus disk storage and backup, so the lower-cost (c) is incorrect. "Ease of use" is rather general. Both AVCHD and HDV cameras are easy to operate if that is what he means, but since AVCHD is newer, there isn't very much support for it, so the ease of use argument doesn't apply. In fact, I'd say AVCHD is more cumbersome than HDV. You need an Intel Mac, for instance to ingest AVCHD in FCP.

[LethalWolfe]

HDV is the only lower cost HD format that's comparable to AVCHD. Are you suggesting the OP look at HDCAM and DVCPRO solutions? :rolleyes:
No, I'm saying that AVCHD 1080 being full raster and 1080 HDV not being full raster is only looking at one piece of the puzzle that makes up the quality of the video. I thought that was pretty clear in the rest of my post which you didn't bother to quote.
You can't cherry pick certain stats and then conclude that X is better than Y. You have to look at the entire 'image pipeline' because the whole process effects how well the video looks in the end.


Lethal

[Dejavu]

No, I'm saying that AVCHD 1080 being full raster and 1080 HDV not being full raster is only looking at one piece of the puzzle that makes up the quality of the video. I thought that was pretty clear in the rest of my post which you didn't bother to quote.
Well, if I'm cherry picking, then you brought the whole fruit basket. :) ;)

[Courtaj]

I've said it before and I'll say it again: Where are the bananas?

[Dejavu]

I think the mods ate them this morning. :D

[tcgjeukens]

ChemiosMurphy

Oh and those of you who complain that AVCHD needs to be transcoded, HDV is the same way. You NEVER export to HDV. I always transcode my files to ProRes so that I can throw it into color and grade it. this method allows for better quality since the export will be a color graded 4:2:2 project. Moot.

Funny that "you" say that "I" NEVER export to HDV whilst saying that "you" transcode to ProRes.
What I meant to say about AVCHD is that with AVCHD you MUST transcode in order to edit with iMovie/FCE/FCP. In case of HDV you MAY transcode but in FCP (I use FCP) there is no need to transcode for editing. Only in my final distribution step I transcode to eg DVD, MOV or FLV.

You say that transcoding to ProRes "allows for better quality". Hmmm, please explain. I thought that transcoding to 422 could not increase the quality, only avoid the loss of quality when decoding/reencoding.

Regards
Coen

[ChemiosMurphy]

You say that transcoding to ProRes "allows for better quality". Hmmm, please explain. I thought that transcoding to 422 could not increase the quality, only avoid the loss of quality when decoding/reencoding.

Coen, I could be wrong, but I thought the general rule if you are round tripping to color was to transcode it to ProRes422HQ so that it is easier on the CPU and if you convert it to an I frame 10 bit codec it allows you to "fill in the gaps" (really crappy analogy) and make the color look better since you are working with a 4:2:2 color space instead of 4:2:0 with HDV. Color may do this automatically with HDV, but overall workflow is speedier with ProRes.

Lethal, you are right with the full raster part not being end all be all.

ALSO look at AVC-Intra, AVCHD's big brother. One of the best recording formats out there.
HDV's 'big brothers', like XDCAM HD 422, aren't slouches either and can be edited natively in FCP.

I was meaning that AVC-I is FULLY COMPLIANT off of H.264/AVC standards. XDCAM is mpeg-2 based. A tad bit different. BUT I had no merit really bringing it up here since it is a Pro format, I was just trying to show that h.264/AVC is a great codec.

Also, the AG-HMC150 (http://www.camcorderinfo.com/content/Panasonic-Aims-for-an-AVCHD-Future-with-AG-HMC150-34499.htm) is a prosumer camera that is AVCHD. Note, Camcorderinfo.com states that they have not seen an AVCHD cam beat HDV. So plus 1 for HDV camp.

Both flavors are very similar, somewhat different. The average consumer probably won't notice a difference in quality. They're more concerned with baby Jimmy on screen beginning to walk, or Mark doing a 360 on his BMX bike. HDV is easier on legacy computers, both CPU wise and space wise. Small footprint. AVCHD is a bit trickier since most programs need to transcode it and the ProRes422 files are big. So HDV gets the easier factor and seems overall better suited for standard consumers (as of 2008).

BUT, HDV needs to be captured, and tape is fragile. HDV is MUCH MORE prone to dropouts due to the higher compression than DV. Tape drives are mechanical and more prone to failure to humidity, wear and tear, and parts going bad inside. AVCHD is SD or SSD (unless you get a dvd one) based, so none of that exists. AVCHD gets the longevity factor (and not having to capture). So if you have the money....


Based on my previous post, one could gather that I like AVCHD better. I have seen footage on Vimeo and I thought it was crisp and clear. I have only viewed the ProHD flavor of HDV, and also AVC-I (but thats pro and doesn't count in this debate). I don't like tape based worflows and have come to loathe HDV because of dropout and time wasted capturing. That's my personal rant.

Here's the solid facts. both are GOP 4:2:0 formats. MPEG-4 AVC/H.264 in a Mpeg-2 transport stream vs mpeg-2 for HDV. Lenses matter greatly. Take from that what you will. Sorry for the previous pretentious post.

[NRose8989]

Ugh this is just another HDV vs. AVCHD Thread.

I recommend AVCHD because it a hell of a lot easier for me to play around with and film anything i want without worrying about tapes.

It's kinda like learning about photography on a film camera vs. a digital camera. With a digital camera you can experiment without the cost of film.

When i made my decision to buy a new camcorder, I opted for the AVCHD because it allowed me to practice and tinker without having to waste tape and the video quality looks comparable.

Not that i have anything against tape, my next camera will be the XH-A1's successor.

[tcgjeukens]

NRose8989

Ugh this is just another HDV vs. AVCHD Thread.

It is unfortunate :( that in most threads "people" need to express the merits of AVCHD by setting off against HDV. In the process they also mingle the solid state versus tape issue. What is best and what is personal preference get blurred.

For me the end-to-end* workflow is a criterium to choose my HW and SW. AVCHD may have higher tech specs than other options, the fact that there is no native editing and playback support degrades the easy-of-use.

So I'm back to my question: why so enthusiastic?

I opted for the AVCHD because it allowed me to practice and tinker without having to waste tape

Ah, now you change the subject. You are telling why you like tapeless. Solid state, as with photocamera's, has reduced "precious-film/tape" inhibitor.
I do believe reliability may be an objective criterium, but cost-wise and archiving-ease-of-use-wise I do not support your use of the word "waste".

and the video quality looks comparable.

Now that would be the killer argument. Does AVCHD look better? Is there any site "out there" that does show us the differences ... or are we the "ignorant" type that believe the supplier marketing stories?

Regards
Coen

* I am still not amused by the absence to HD (blu-ray) DVD authoring support on the Mac (the CS Encore + Toast route is too cumbersome and lacks the menu-creativity of DVDSP). I can shoot HD, I can edit HD but I can not distrubute HD on DVD. I can not display 1080 via iTV. I can not display 1080 via me.com. I can only generate a MOV file and hope the recipient has sufficient computing power to display the result.

[NRose8989]

Why do you opt for AVCHD?


You asked for why "I" opted for AVCHD.



It is unfortunate :( that in most threads "people" need to express the merits of AVCHD by setting off against HDV. In the process they also mingle the solid state versus tape issue. What is best and what is personal preference get blurred.

For me the end-to-end* workflow is a criterium to choose my HW and SW. AVCHD may have higher tech specs than other options, the fact that there is no native editing and playback support degrades the easy-of-use.

So I'm back to my question: why so enthusiastic?



Ah, now you change the subject. You are telling why you like tapeless. Solid state, as with photocamera's, has reduced "precious-film/tape" inhibitor.
I do believe reliability may be an objective criterium, but cost-wise and archiving-ease-of-use-wise I do not support your use of the word "waste".



Now that would be the killer argument. Does AVCHD look better? Is there any site "out there" that does show us the differences ... or are we the "ignorant" type that believe the supplier marketing stories?

.

Everyones workflows are different, and your claims are no different then YOU stating why you like tape. Personally I don't give a $**T about what hardware / software you have or use. "I" have a computer that is powerful enough to handle AVCHD (even though it's transcoded) so therefore it works for me. "I" don't need to be archiving old footage so YES having to buy a bunch of tapes just to film something is a WASTE.

You should also READ what people are saying.... I never said AVCHD was of "better" quality, I said that they were COMPARABLE. and there is a super special site that does show this, it's called Vimeo (http://www.vimeo.com). Before I bought a camcorder, I looked at pretty much everyones footage (Both HV30 and HF10/100) and came to the conclusion that they are COMPARABLE. Now every video "I" make is going to be used on the web anyways, I have no interest for broadcast. So even though vimeo.com only has heavily compressed video that is not as good of quality as the original footage, It doesn't matter to me because that's where the video is going to end up anyways and since all of my video is going to end up on the web anyways, I don't care if it gets transcoded before i work on it.

You asked for a personal opinion which I gave you. There is no hard facts about which is better, It's a matter of finding a persons needs then finding a workflow that fills it. I stand by AVCHD because it fits my needs, and i recommend it to people because they may have the same needs that i have.