Why so enthusiastic about AVCHD?

[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.

 

[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 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. 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.