You can get a cheap shotgun mic for probably a couple hundred bucks that would mount right to the top of the camera. It would give you much clearer sound (less background noise) than the built-in mic.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
AVCHD or HDV Tape - About to get Camcorder
- Thread starter oceanzen
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
You can get a cheap shotgun mic for probably a couple hundred bucks that would mount right to the top of the camera. It would give you much clearer sound (less background noise) than the built-in mic.
I've been pro-tape for a while now...instant archive, affordable, etc.
But I just got a small cheap MPEG4 camcorder and let me tell you what a joy it is to just drag and drop files into iMovie. I don't miss transferring tape at all and I don't think I can go back.
There are many backup options for AVCHD. Burn to disk, archive to hard disk. Heck, you can store tons of data online with Google, Amazon S3, MediaMax and many others.
When I upgrade in a year or two it will be to SD/HD based cam. B-bye tape.
But I just got a small cheap MPEG4 camcorder and let me tell you what a joy it is to just drag and drop files into iMovie. I don't miss transferring tape at all and I don't think I can go back.
There are many backup options for AVCHD. Burn to disk, archive to hard disk. Heck, you can store tons of data online with Google, Amazon S3, MediaMax and many others.
When I upgrade in a year or two it will be to SD/HD based cam. B-bye tape.
HDV and tape for the win. I bought an AVCHD cam this past summer for a vacation. Played with it for a few months, ebayed it, and picked up a Canon HV20. I don't think HDD or SD based cams are ready for prime time yet, unless all someone cares about is shooting short clips for computer viewing and doesn't do much more than a few hours a year.
IMO, the storage factor is the biggest issue. Not only do you have to have the footage you want to edit on the comp, as with any format, but now you have to "backup" your RAW footage somewhere as well. With tape, you have an instant archive. Easy to capture, easy to store off site etc. Also, if you think waiting on a 1 to 1 time basis to capture tape is a pain, you run into the same time frame, or more, to "capture" AVCHD footage for editing as it needs to be converted into an editable format.
Rather than ramble, I'll just say I obviously prefer a tape based solution, and will, until the day 100GB flash cards are available and only a few bucks each.
You are absolutely right! It takes more time to capture from sc card than from the tape. If it was just like copying a file, then it would be a different story, but at the moment it is more pain. The only thing about HDV is tape mechanism, it is very gentle and easy to brake if you are not careful.
I can't decide between the HV20 and HG10. Two areas of consideration:
1. The long term reliability of the HD in the HG10 vs. tape mechanism in the HV20.
2. I plan on using iMovie 8 to do my editing. How much hard drive space does the HG10 and HV20 take up for archiving and editing?
Thanks!
1. The long term reliability of the HD in the HG10 vs. tape mechanism in the HV20.
2. I plan on using iMovie 8 to do my editing. How much hard drive space does the HG10 and HV20 take up for archiving and editing?
Thanks!
Lethal,
Is this true? I was looking at FCE 4 on Apple's site and based on some of the tutorials and such, it seems like it implies that FCE 4 can; edit AVCHD directly. There's some blurb about how quickly that you can start editing after copying over the AVCHD files to the Mac's HDD.
It would be nice to be able to natively edit AVCHD (and HDV for that matter). It would keep the HDD requirements down.
ft
From a Macworld review of FCE 4, "As with Final Cut Pro 6 and iMovie 08, Final Cut Express 4 transcodes AVCHD footage into Apple Intermediate Codec (AIC), so importing takes longer than real time." Editing AVCHD natively might save on HDD space, but the speed and render time would suck monkey nuts.
Lethal
Thanks for the clarification. Apple's website steered me wrong. There's no mention of AIC, not that I would have expected. The QuickTour video made it seem like it was just copy/edit without a transcoding step to AIC.
Also the "Begin editing AVCHD footage seconds after import" sorta led me to believe that it edits AVCHD natively.
Anyways, I guess we're still a few years aways from editing AVCHD natively.
Other than the form factor and the 24-p Cinema Mode (avail on the Canon products line), what are the other differences between the Canon HV10 and HV20?
Personally, I find the HV20 fugly but it seems to be best unit out-there all in all.
Personally, I find the HV20 fugly but it seems to be best unit out-there all in all.
The problem I have is portability. I need a cam that is very portable, and the tape based ones are relatively bulky. I was just looking today at the Canon HV10, which is highly portable, and also highly unusable (zoom and other controls are placed in tortuous places).
I was also looking at the Pana SD5, which is very compact, but I am afraid of AVCHD.
Everyone seems to indicate it takes longer than real time to download and convert for editing. I am not doing pro stuff, so pain in the download time is not time well spent for me -- I'd rather just stick with SD video.
Does anyone know why they can't write HDV format to SD or HDD? Is it that those media don't support such high data rates?? Or, why not have a cam that captures AVCHD, but if you download the files in real time via firewire, they come out in DV or some other, single file, NLE friendly format, like with my old Sony SD camcorder.
For anyone who needs something RIGHT NOW and can't wait, and you don't care about super compact size size, then go with DV tape. DV tape is (eventually) on the way out, but today's AVCHD cams are an intermediary step, and will quickly be obsolete when either better AVCHD Mbps rates come out, or a better file format comes out (with a better name! I always have to spell check AVCHD). However, you can get a great HDV cam for a LOT less than AVCHD, so if you're buying obsolete, might as well save a couple hundred $$
I was also looking at the Pana SD5, which is very compact, but I am afraid of AVCHD.
Everyone seems to indicate it takes longer than real time to download and convert for editing. I am not doing pro stuff, so pain in the download time is not time well spent for me -- I'd rather just stick with SD video.
Does anyone know why they can't write HDV format to SD or HDD? Is it that those media don't support such high data rates?? Or, why not have a cam that captures AVCHD, but if you download the files in real time via firewire, they come out in DV or some other, single file, NLE friendly format, like with my old Sony SD camcorder.
For anyone who needs something RIGHT NOW and can't wait, and you don't care about super compact size size, then go with DV tape. DV tape is (eventually) on the way out, but today's AVCHD cams are an intermediary step, and will quickly be obsolete when either better AVCHD Mbps rates come out, or a better file format comes out (with a better name! I always have to spell check AVCHD). However, you can get a great HDV cam for a LOT less than AVCHD, so if you're buying obsolete, might as well save a couple hundred $$
Compactness is the main attraction to Flash based camcorders. It's a legitimate concern for many people. If you really need the ultra portability, then Flash based AVCHD devices are the way to go. Personally, I would never consider a HDD or DVD based AVCHD camcorder.
I don't think this is limited to just AVCHD. HDV also does not import in real-time. I could be wrong, but I think the main issue is the conversion to AIC. I think if your Mac is fast enough, it can be pretty close to real time.
As far as AVCHD goes, copying the files off of the SD card should be relatively quick. Then converting to AIC depends on the speed of the computer. Theoretically, you should be able to import and convert AVCHD faster than real time, provided you have a fast computer.
I've asked this question before, but there doesn't seem to be any reason why it can't be done. Just that no one is doing it.
Eventually, computers will be fast enough to edit AVCHD (and HDV) video directly. When this is feasible, I would expect the software to be updated. Although, when computers are fast enough to edit AVCHD, then it would be fast enough to do the conversion to AIC in real time.
ft
That's exactly correct. I believe AVCHD is more compressed in order to fit more onto the hard drive or sd card, whereas HDV is compressed as well, but no where near as much as AVCHD.
Therefore, the data rate on HDV is much higher than AVCHD.
From Wikipedia:
HDV compression
HDV is based on MPEG-2 video, which compresses data both within each frame (intraframe/spatial compression) and between frames (interframe/temporal compression). This is the same type of compression used for DVD video and many network TV broadcasts, and allows HDV to achieve high spatial resolution at low data rates compared to other HD recording formats. HDV 1080i uses a recording data rate of 25 Mbit/s (3.125 MB/s) while HDV 720p records at 19.7 Mbit/s (2.46 MB/s)
----
AVCHD Controversy
Not all manufacturers or consumers accept AVCHD's reasons for existence. The disbelief in AVCHD format is partly encouraged by camcorder manufacturers. So far there is no equipment that utilizes full 24Mbps potential of AVCHD. Instead of using bitrates comparable to HDV and achieving better video quality, the camcorder manufacturers use reduced bitrates (~12Mpbs to ~16Mbps). Most reviewers agree, that while the resulting video quality is comparable to HDV, it is still inferior.
I recently bought an HV10. I was and am fully aware of the issues with AVCHD, but I wanted a camcorder I could record my kids with (such recordings tend to be of limited duration), and the ability to have the camcorder 'always ready' was more important to me than high fidelity. Being able to take a 30 second clip and then, later, look at and transfer a series of short clips was important. I've been at too many functions where I had 10 minutes to shoot and only 5 minutes of tape, or where I just wanted to transfer one clip and didn't want to go through the whole tape. So for me, and for those reasons, the HV10 is perfect. It can literally hide behind a soda can. Really. It's tiny.
However, if you want to take longer shots, I recommend the HV20. I think that the HG10's and HV20's optics (they are the same) are phenomenal for their price range.
However, if I shot videos for anything but personal/family consumption, I'd wait for the AVCHD bump to 25 Mbps, or choose tape.
But, damn, the HV10 is tiny, shoots great video in decent light, and can hold all the clips I'll shoot in a year. For me, it's a great camera.
However, if you want to take longer shots, I recommend the HV20. I think that the HG10's and HV20's optics (they are the same) are phenomenal for their price range.
The main differences between the two, besides the obvious one of tape vs hard drive, are that 24P shooting actually works on the HV20, whereas it's a mess on the HG10, and the HG10 has a better zoom control. And the HV20 is a lot cheaper. I still sort of wish I'd gone with the HV20, but I do love the HG10. A lot.
I got used to the controls pretty quickly, FWIW.
I think the HV10 is generally better reviewed than the SD5.
This is true. It takes a long time to convert (download times are minimal). I mainly went with AVCHD for the convenience of many short clips being easily accessible and editable on-camera (easy to delete shots you don't want), with the hope that the editing will improve over time.
In a world with tiny 160GB hard drives, there's no real reason. The drives can certainly store the data at HDV speeds.
I generally agree with you, but AVCHD is better for my needs, even now, than tape.
However, if I shot videos for anything but personal/family consumption, I'd wait for the AVCHD bump to 25 Mbps, or choose tape.
But, damn, the HV10 is tiny, shoots great video in decent light, and can hold all the clips I'll shoot in a year. For me, it's a great camera.
That's because it would take too much space. In the future perhaps?
Current bitrates found on AVCHD camcorders top-out at 15 Mbps while in fact AVCHD supports up to 25 Mbps (= HDV).
The reason why manufacturers haven't offered higher bitrates is because of the storage limitation. Even 8GB memory cards would fill very quickly. However HDV on HDDs should be possible.
CES 2008 is around the corner, perhaps we will see new offerings.
JVC offers HDV (MPEG.2) on a HDD-based camcorder: GZ-HD7. It's a bit bulky even though it looks very stealthy and has dedicated buttons for manual controls (which I would like to see on the Sony HDR-CX7). For some reason this JVC hasn't hit a home-run. Everyone just buys the Canon HV20 (HDV on miniDV).
Last, I would pick the Sony HDR-CX7 over the Panasonic HDC-SD5.
The SD5's battery life sucks, it takes 16:9 still pics at 2.1 MP (vs. 4.6MP on the CX7), captures AVCHD video at 13 Mbps (max (vs. 15 Mbps on the CX7), min light is 5 lux (vs. 2 lux for the CX7), doesn't have NightShot, battery and memory card are badly located requiring removing from a tripod for instance if swapping is required and it has 2 channel audio recording (vs. 5.1 channel on the CX7). All these make the CX7 whorthwhile despite having to use Memory Sticks and the fact that it record at 1440x1080 (vs. 1920x1080 on the SD5).
Neither one has a phones and mic jacks. Focus and apperture have a manual mode on both and the SD5 also has manual shutter.
My dream device would be the Sony HRD-CX7 (size, color and design) with a viewfinder that can be vertically oriented, dedicated manual controls buttons and a manual focus ring on the lens barrel, mic and phones jacks and 24-p mode a-la-Canon, a Firewire port with video streaming (to the computer, both PC and Mac), support for both Memory Sticks and SDHC memory cards and all this for the same price of course.
Ummm... It sounds like you are indicating the HV10 uses AVCHD. I am pretty sure it is doing DV to tape. See http://www.usa.canon.com/consumer/c...ategoryid=177&modelid=14059#ModelTechSpecsAct. Are you talking about the Canon HV10, or something else?
That's what I mean. I would think there should be more of that, instead of inventing a new (lame) format. I've got to think a bus and HDD controller could be engineered to support 25Mbps instead of compressing way down.
Thanks for the input on the Sony. I admit I'm a picky consumer (euphemism for big pain in the you know what). I can't master Sony menu commands. I also read on camcorderinfo.com that the JVC output was less than stellar, not because of the compression, but because of the optics and the rest of the package. I'm definitely waiting for CES to see what shakes out next.
I'd go HDV for: archiving, quality, and the fact that you say you want to do keying. I haven't done any greenscreen with avchd(or even shot any for that matter), but I can imagine with most of the cameras' lower data rates, you will have a tougher time getting smooth edges in your keys. You will probably have artifacts and blocks along your edges, I think the highest data rate avchd camcorder i've heard of does around 15mbps, while hdv will always be a constant 25mbps. And if your editing on a system that doesnt natively accept avchd then you will have to transcode all your footage first, which will probably take as long or longer than it would to capture it in real time like hdv tape.
I think premier pro is the only semi-pro to pro edit application that will natively accept avchd, I know final cut can import it, but it has to transcode to prores first.
I think premier pro is the only semi-pro to pro edit application that will natively accept avchd, I know final cut can import it, but it has to transcode to prores first.
What you should be caring about is the quality of the image. With DV each frame stands alone. There are no key frames. THis means when you make a cut the is no generational loss. With mpeg-2 every cut means a new key frame must be computed. And then the DV is simply less compressed.
Some people think they can save money because with a hard drive recorder they don't need to buy a tape. Yes. But where do you store the data and how do you back it up? You'll not have to buy a $5 tape but you will be buy stacks of $100 hard drives.
Your data will be very valuable. How much work would be lost of you lost and hour of video? So you will want to always have three copies of the data on three different media. With at least one off-site backup. This means either a few tapes or a few hard drives.
But the quality issue I think is the biggest. mpag-2 is Ok for final distribution but that is about it.
Some people think they can save money because with a hard drive recorder they don't need to buy a tape. Yes. But where do you store the data and how do you back it up? You'll not have to buy a $5 tape but you will be buy stacks of $100 hard drives.
Your data will be very valuable. How much work would be lost of you lost and hour of video? So you will want to always have three copies of the data on three different media. With at least one off-site backup. This means either a few tapes or a few hard drives.
But the quality issue I think is the biggest. mpag-2 is Ok for final distribution but that is about it.
I hate dealing with tape.
I hate HDV even more.
There are other options for capture and storage.
Tapes/HDV are currently the least crappy of the bunch in terms of quality and long-term storage issues.
Can't have it all gentlemen. Pick & choose you battles.
+1 HDV (I really hate working with HDV, but it gets the job I need done)
I hate HDV even more.
There are other options for capture and storage.
Tapes/HDV are currently the least crappy of the bunch in terms of quality and long-term storage issues.
Can't have it all gentlemen. Pick & choose you battles.
+1 HDV (I really hate working with HDV, but it gets the job I need done)
Our office uses a Canon HV20 and it's working out really well. The only limitation I've really found is breaking long lectures, meetings, presentations etc into 62 minute segments to switch tapes. Of course the harddrive cam we were using before took sooooo long to offload video that you needed at least one full day of notice that something else needed to be filmed so you could dump the footage and make room; once you got it off you had 7 hours of space.
I'm curious, what is the speed that you are able to transfer video from the HV20 to your computer? My HG10 transcodes and transfers the video from the HG10 to my Mac in about 1.5 minutes per minute of video.
