AVCHD vs HDV file sizes in iMovie

Discussion in 'Digital Video' started by CMD is me, Jul 21, 2008.

  1. CMD is me macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2006
    #1
    Are AVCHD files imported to iMovie larger than HDV imported to iMovie? What sort of files sizes are we talking. Everyone talks about how huge AVCHD is but I don't hear about HDV files. Is the issue AVCHD or just high def?
     
  2. Gymnut macrumors 68000

    Gymnut

    Joined:
    Apr 18, 2003
    #2
    iMovie cannot handle native HDV files and converts it to the Apple Intermediate Codec(AIC) upon capture. AIC files are much larger than HDV, around 3-4 times larger. Rendering and editing native HDV is CPU intensive, but AIC is much friendlier which is why Apple decided to implement this conversion process for iMovie. Only FCP can handle HDV.
     
  3. CMD is me thread starter macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2006
    #3
    I've read elsewhere AVCHD to AIC are nearly 10 times.

    Are HDV to AIC smaller than that?

    If I take a 3+ hr video, which is say around 30 gigs, on a AVCHD it'd be 300gigs! Ouch. Would it "only" be 100ish with HDV?
     
  4. Gymnut macrumors 68000

    Gymnut

    Joined:
    Apr 18, 2003
    #4
    From what I understand is iMovie will also convert AVCHD into AIC as well, so the file sizes will be the same as if you had imported HDV. There's no getting around this. AVCHD is simply the format which your camera is writing to be it hard drive or flash based. When iMovie ingests your footage, it's converting it to AIC on the fly, so the resulting AIC files will be much larger. Well, your 3+ hours will probably be around 90-100GB(AIC). Naturally you're going to want to use an external hard drive to store your media and you'll have to devise a method of archiving, but such is the tradeoff from tape based media.
     
  5. CMD is me thread starter macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2006
    #5
    I guess if HDV and AVCHD both convert to AIC, then there really isn't much issue there. Still not sure why people complain about AVCHD files ballooning up and don't read the same for HDV.... guess the HDVers are keeping quiet.

    Not meaning to turn this into a HDV vs AVCHD post, but archiving is also sort of a non issue IMO. HDV tapes run about $9 (I mean, do you really want to drop a grand on a HDV and skimp 5 bucks on a tape?). Say you shoot 8 hrs a year, that's $72/yr. x 5 yrs = $360. On the AVCHD side 8hrs = ~70gb x 5 yrs = 350gb. A 500gb drive can be had easily under $180, therefore the tapeless is more cost effective over time... of course you'll also spend a couple hundred more for the camera, so its a tie ...I guess the bigger difference is your out a lot more to start with (pricier camera + external drive -- upwards of $400). $30 every few months is a lot easier to swallow ;)
     
  6. Gymnut macrumors 68000

    Gymnut

    Joined:
    Apr 18, 2003
    #6
    Well also keep in mind that tape, if stored properly, will last a lot longer than a hard drive, although that might change when flash based hard drives get larger and more economical. I've never bought HDV tapes for my XHA1 and HV20 and HV30. I use Panasonic AY-DVM63PQ tapes and have yet to encounter any drop outs. I buy in bulk. :)

    http://www.hv20.com/showthread.php?t=2844&page=9
     
  7. CMD is me thread starter macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2006
    #7
    Another good point in favor of the HDV. Storing 5ys of archived video on a single drive is sort of scary... how often do you need to spin the drive to keep it running, one power surge can fry the whole thing, etc. I've had a couple hard drives fail over the years so it does seem tape is safer for long term storage.... I'm telling you, its like ping pong -- for every pro there is a con.
     
  8. Gymnut macrumors 68000

    Gymnut

    Joined:
    Apr 18, 2003
    #8
  9. CMD is me thread starter macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2006
    #9
    Japan gets the good stuff first, but looks like a possible 2009 HDV killer! Maybe an even better reason to stick with a HDV -- cheaper now, upgrade to AVCHD in a few years ;)
     
  10. Courtaj macrumors 6502a

    Courtaj

    Joined:
    Jul 3, 2008
    Location:
    Edinburgh, U.K.
    #10
    Still no viewfinder. Is it just me? Or is the idea of a camcorder with a built in digital stills camera but NO VIEWFINDER insulting?
     
  11. CMD is me thread starter macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2006
    #11
    I bet as they get smaller that's going to be a trend. Personally I do use the viewfinder occasionally when shooting. At least its nice to have the option. I'm just waiting for one the of the DSLR makers to try it!
     

Share This Page