Hi,

I am about to buy an HD camcorder, and need help choosing between AVCHD format (Panasonic SD1) and HDV (Tape) like the Canon HV20 or Sony HDR-HC7

Here are my issues:

1. I have a Mac. So my options are limited with AVCHD transfer and editing. Is this true?

2. I like the Memory stick flexibility of AVCHD but worry that the quality is compromised by the "trail" factor i read about on Camcorderinfo.com
http://www.camcorderinfo.com/content/Panasonic-HDC-SD1-Camcorder-Review.htm

3. How difficult is it to get HDV (Tape) and/or AVCHD onto my Hard-drive, and once there is it flexible to convert to Regular DVD and or HD-DVD/BLU-Ray.


thanks for your comments.
:) :) :) :)

In two weeks with a Panasonic SD3, I haven't noticed this "trail factor" yet. As far as ease of copying material out of the camera, there's simply one file per clip on a standard FAT-formatted SD card. If you can read files from a USB thumb drive, you can read files from the camera, and the transfer rate is faster than capturing HDV over Firewire.

I haven't heard of any Mac apps that support natively editing AVCHD yet, but I'd expect Apple's own apps to be catching up soon. In the meantime, it is possible to use free command-line tools to convert the clips into other formats, including ones you can edit today. This thread (http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=789775) has the details. (There's a fairly high geek factor here, as you'll need to download and build the tools yourself, but I can confirm the solution does work.)

If you don't mind dealing with tape and need to edit your clips today, probably the HV20 is your best bet. If you want about the same quality as HDV with the advantages of going tapeless, don't need 24p, and you can wait a bit for editing apps to catch up, the SD1 is a very nice camera.

I would like to get the SD1. Except for the archiving and editing problems. (I have a PC and the lack of support is a concern) Getting a camera with a possibility of solutions to large problems is not a good idea.

Perhaps the problems will be fixed soon. If so I will get the SD1 (or SD3 if the price comes down). But the Canon looks like the camera I will end up with.

HERE'S (http://www.camcorderinfo.com/content/The-Great-HD-Shoot-Out---Canon-HV20-Sony-HDR-HC7-Panasonic-HDC-SD1-JVC-GZ-HD7.htm) a link to a shootout at Camcorderinfo between the Canon, the Panny, a Sony and a JVC. Lots of edifying info in the article.

HERE (http://www.simplydv.co.uk/Reviews/panasonic_hdc-sd1.html) is another review of the SD1. Good review.
Good luck

Thanks for your feed back. If the quality is not compromised, then i dont mind becoming a geek - to get files transfered, but definitely like the tapeless version. Will probably get the SD1.

One of the concerns I have with AVCHD is its lack of standarization so far. It seems that Sony AVCHD videos can not be played in Panasonic AVCHD cams and vice versa. I know that with miniDV you can play any tape in SD or HD from any manufactures in these in HDV cams. If getting into AVCHD means sticking with one manufacture then it would make me think twice about it.

One of the concerns I have with AVCHD is its lack of standarization so far. It seems that Sony AVCHD videos can not be played in Panasonic AVCHD cams and vice versa. I know that with miniDV you can play any tape in SD or HD from any manufactures in these in HDV cams. If getting into AVCHD means sticking with one manufacture then it would make me think twice about it.
I did not know this fact. It definitely puts me back on the MiniDV track.

The problem in moving AVCHD .MTS files between cameras may be that clips written by the camera include corresponding metadata files off in another directory. If you place your own .MTS files into the camera's storage, I'd bet they will not show up for playback in the camera's UI unless you supply appropriate metadata files as well. (The metadata files are not needed to use the footage outside the camera, for example in editing applications.)

I don't view this as much of a limitation, since I'll only be using the camera for playback of clips I haven't downloaded yet ("Hey, now that we're home, let's check out that vacation footage we just shot."). Likewise, I would never transfer digital photos back into a digital camera to view them. To play AVCHD files natively, once the've been downloaded from the camera, you can use certain H.264-capable network media players such as the Tvix 4100SH and Tomacro limHD200i. You can also use a PS3 or other Blu-Ray player, or a PC equipped with hardware-accelerated H.264 decoding (video card with nvidia 8500/8600 etc.). Personally, I think the network media player route is the best solution, regardless of whether one chooses HDV or AVCHD (these players can play HDV MPEG2 clips as well).

One of the concerns I have with AVCHD is its lack of standarization so far. It seems that Sony AVCHD videos can not be played in Panasonic AVCHD cams and vice versa. I know that with miniDV you can play any tape in SD or HD from any manufactures in these in HDV cams. If getting into AVCHD means sticking with one manufacture then it would make me think twice about it.

This is absolutely true... there are different BREEDS of avchd out there so you need to be careful. They are not interchangeable from different brands of cams. The sad part about it is that very few people know this.

I hope that canon comes up with a sdhc version of hv20 within this year.
Of course not with seashell looking body of hr10 but with a barrel type of body.
And perhaps it can spice things up with dual card writing technology.

They don't need to wait for gresham's law (shelf life of a product) cos both products have different spectators.

HDV is superior to AVCHD in terms of PQ.

Tape is superior to HDD/DVD for the archiving.

If both those factors are no concern for you and you prefer fast transfers of the video instead of capturing in realtime, go with AVCHD.

Here are my issues:
1. I have a Mac. So my options are limited with AVCHD transfer and editing. Is this true?
Well, there is an option now for Mac users. The free option is at this thread (http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=789775). The shareware option is Voltaic (http://www.mac1080hd.com). Voltaic converts AVCHD *.MTS files into iMovieHD and Final Cut compatible, HDV1080i Apple Intermediate Codec movies.

Just in the nick of time....went to this website...http://www.mac1080hd.com
and it answers every concern i had.

I have an off the wall question. It seems everyone is trying to convert files FROM AVCHD. Is there any software out there that will convert TO AVCHD?

I have an off the wall question. It seems everyone is trying to convert files FROM AVCHD. Is there any software out there that will convert TO AVCHD?

Why do you want to convert data to AVCHD?

Is there any software out there that will convert TO AVCHD?

Yes, there is a reference encoder for H.264/AVC here (http://iphome.hhi.de/suehring/tml/download/); it can be built for Windows, Linux, OS X etc. It is not very fast, but it works and the quality is good.

You'll need to use ffmpeg to decode your source material to uncompressed YUV format to feed to this encoder.

If you're looking for an easy-to-use Windows app for this... I'm not aware of anything out there yet.

Why do you want to convert data to AVCHD?

I cant get the PS3 to run any HD videos. I know for a fact that it can run AVCHD files so I would like to convert my HD material to that. What other HD formats can the PS3 run?

I use NeroVision 4, part of the Nero 7 ultimate suite. It's buggy, but gets the job done. It is very slow. It takes 5 minutes to render 1 minute of high def .ts files.

I cant get the PS3 to run any HD videos. I know for a fact that it can run AVCHD files so I would like to convert my HD material to that. What other HD formats can the PS3 run?

such as HDV MPEG-2, which is *.m2t file. I exported the video in this format using sony vegas studio platinum 8.0a and it works on my PS3.

I recently purchased a Sony HDR-CX7 (Memory Stick) camcorder. This camcorder is absolutely amazing.

So here is my question;

How can I archive my footage without using the PC only Sony software?

I was hoping I could simply copy the .mts files from the Memory Stick to my storage drives. This is possible, but what I cannot seem to find is a viewer, especially one that is Mac compatible. There are means to convert .mts files to a different format, I would like to avoid this though as it creates enormously large files.

Hi guys... went to the store... and did a complete UTURN... bought the Sony SR5. I am testing it now, and had to take some immediate footage and because i dont have a HD Burner, i recorded the footage in Standard Definition format.

NOW........i dont know how to get my iMOVIE to import teh files i downloaded (to my Hard-drive.)

Can anyone tell me what to do. Is it something do with the fact that my "corresponding" Meta files are still on my camera, and not on my Hard Drive. If that is the case, how do i get the "corressponding" Meta files from my camera to my Hard Drive.

I recently purchased a Sony HDR-CX7 (Memory Stick) camcorder. This camcorder is absolutely amazing.

So here is my question;

How can I archive my footage without using the PC only Sony software?
I would just burn your *.MTS files to a DVD. I suppose you could burn the whole directory structure from the memorystick (pretty easy since the largest memorystick I know of is 4GB).

I was hoping I could simply copy the .mts files from the Memory Stick to my storage drives. This is possible, but what I cannot seem to find is a viewer, especially one that is Mac compatible. There are means to convert .mts files to a different format, I would like to avoid this though as it creates enormously large files.
Yeah, Voltaic creates pretty large files. I suppose you could use QuicktimePro to convert those files to something smaller (h264 or mpeg4).

I recently purchased a Sony HDR-CX7 (Memory Stick) camcorder. This camcorder is absolutely amazing.

So here is my question;

How can I archive my footage without using the PC only Sony software?

I was hoping I could simply copy the .mts files from the Memory Stick to my storage drives. This is possible, but what I cannot seem to find is a viewer, especially one that is Mac compatible. There are means to convert .mts files to a different format, I would like to avoid this though as it creates enormously large files.

Have you had a chance to see the difference in the highest/next to highest resolution? I just got mine today and wondered if it was worth the extra memory space.

I would just burn your *.MTS files to a DVD. I suppose you could burn the whole directory structure from the memorystick (pretty easy since the largest memorystick I know of is 4GB).


Yeah, Voltaic creates pretty large files. I suppose you could use QuicktimePro to convert those files to something smaller (h264 or mpeg4).

Actually after posting I came across CoreAVC CorePlayer Pro and CoreAVC Quicktime for Mac OS X (Windows too I suppose) , although they currently are not selling the software, it sounds like the solution I am looking for. From what I understand it should be able to play .mts files natively.

If all works as planned I will just copy the .mts files to my raid, just like you would with your photos, play them with a CoreAVC product on demand, and output them on my HDTV via my Mac Pro.

Have you had a chance to see the difference in the highest/next to highest resolution? I just got mine today and wondered if it was worth the extra memory space.

Well I just got mine yesterday and have not had time to compare those settings yet. Besides I have not even been able to play the footage natively on my HDTV as there are no players for Mac OS X. Please post your findings; I will surely post mine when I can compare the settings.

"I suppose you could use QuicktimePro to convert those files to something smaller (h264 or mpeg4)."

How do i do that? Also, cant simply burn the file... it is 19gig long!! Need to edit it to reduce it.

How do i do that? Also, cant simply burn the file... it is 19gig long!! Need to edit it to reduce it.
Open the converted video (from Voltaic) in Quicktime Pro. Go to File->Export. CLick on the Options button. From there, you can choose different compressors. h264 will give you a size similar to the original AVCHD file size.

HDV is superior to AVCHD in terms of PQ.

Tape is superior to HDD/DVD for the archiving.

If both those factors are no concern for you and you prefer fast transfers of the video instead of capturing in realtime, go with AVCHD.


Huh what -??????

AVCHD at its highest frame rate yeilds more resoltuion then HDV...

Tape superior to HDD????? - what could be easier then hooking a Hard drive camcorder to a computer and pulling files off of it - only the files you want to keep. Tape is 1)slow 2) no random access

I already posted the below info but wanted others to understand AVCHD and HDV differences....

AVCHD uses MPEG-4 AVC/H.264 compression and encoding for video recording. HDV, on the other hand, uses MPEG-2 Main Profile @ High-1440. Anyone who has compressed an HD video feed to H.264 and to MPEG-2 High-1440 at the same bit rate will tell you that the H.264 version is noticeably better. And this is the first "rub" to HDV users -- AVCHD uses an almost identical data rate (24 Mbps) -- in an MPEG-2 transport stream wrapper. There are other video advantages in the AVCHD format. For example, it allows for 16:9 aspect ratio pictures in HD with a raster size of 1920x1080 in addition to the HDV raster sizes of 1440x1080 and 1280x720. At the larger raster size, AVCHD has the potential to produce higher horizontal resolution than HDV. AVCHD recording supports 1080i/24/50/60, as well as 720p/24/50/60. Plus, the new format supports 16:9 and 4:3 SD raster sizes of 720x480 at 60i (NTSC) and 720x576 at 50i (PAL). Digging a little deeper into the two specs, AVCHD has an advantage over HDV in luminance sampling of 1080 video. With the 1920x1080 raster, AVCHD uses a luminance sampling frequency of 74.25 MHz, compared to HDV's 55.7 MHz. In HDV, the higher luminance sampling frequency is reserved for its 720p recording modes, which may explain why 720p HDV can show higher horizontal resolution than 1080i HDV. When AVCHD is set to use the 1440x1080 raster, however, it appears that the standard requires the use of 55.7 MHz luminance sampling, and that will limit AVCHD's advantage solely to the superiority of H.264 encoding. AVCHD calls for audio recording Dolby AC-3 for one channel or up to 5.1 channels, with data rates from 64 kbps to 640 kbps, or in PCM up to 7.1 at 1.5 Mbps per 2 channels. HDV is limited to two channels of audio compressed with MPEG-1 layer II to 384 kbps. The difference in audio specs might be a giveaway as to why yet another "consumer" HD format has been introduced.

Huh what -??????

AVCHD at its highest frame rate yeilds more resoltuion then HDV...

Tape superior to HDD????? - what could be easier then hooking a Hard drive camcorder to a computer and pulling files off of it - only the files you want to keep. Tape is 1)slow 2) no random access
.

All other factors aside, the first 2 points you make are very minimal to someone like me. The first thing I do when I finish a tape is capture it to a HDD. Yes, this is a realtime process but I don't care because I don't go through tapes so frequently; if I was a day-to-day professional videographer, then perhaps I'd feel differently about it. As a result of this "painful" process, I get a free tape backup in case my HDD fails (so it's not a cost without benefit). Your second point about "no random access" is moot if you plan on working with the captured video (which *has* random access). Who on earth uses their HDV camcorder as a playing device? HOWEVER, due to the limitations of HDV tape (bitrate and resolution), I can see more potential for HDD-based systems in the future.

AVCHD at its highest frame rate yeilds more resoltuion then HDV...

This may be perfectly true... and it is also true that AVCHD is a more advanced format that is more efficient than mpeg2 based HDV.... but you still can't edit it anywhere near as easily and efficiently as mpeg2 base.... and until this happens, AVCHD won't be much more than what it is.... a novelty.

Tape superior to HDD????? - what could be easier then hooking a Hard drive camcorder to a computer and pulling files off of it - only the files you want to keep. Tape is 1)slow 2) no random access

HDD's are certainly more effective than tape... no doubt about it, but it still costs about 1/2 as much to archive on tape as opposed to HDD. The big problem with HDD's (as I see it anyway) is not really the HDD at all but rather these new formats they keep coming up with. If they took good ole fashioned, dependable mpeg2 based hi def, combined it with a HDD.... my guess is that they would have a winner... at least until avchd has a chance to really mature. They came pretty close with the JVC HD7, but JVC had to ruin it by taking the mpeg one step further.

AVCHD is a good format, and I don't knock it at all... but we're not QUITE ready for it yet. It still needs a bit of mature time. Until then, mpeg2 based tape, when all things considered, is the safest bet.

I dont disagree at all -but that is today - what about tomorrow?? AVCHD seems to be showing up on more and more new models - i personally cant buy a new product every year to keep up with technology - so when making my decision i went with a new technology that seemed to be gaining popularity. Right choice i dont know - purchase made - no looking back.

As far as using my camcorder for a playback device - i do so alot when i am away from home - (ie shooting video of my daughter swimming in grandma and grandpa's pool and watching the video after dinner).

The AVS Forum is great and i apreciate all the information i have gained from it on HD products.

It is only a matter of time before the tape based camcorder goes the way of the 8 track, cassette tape and VHS. The time may not be now, but it will come.

It seems like there's a lot of discussion going on here which blurs the lines between products, their behavior, and the formats themselves. Since there have been plenty of good points made about products (both cameras and editing software) it might be helpful to step back from the store shelf and discuss the formats objectively.

HDV and AVCHD were not created to solve the same "problem" so except for the fact that they capture a motion picture in a tasty high resolution, they don't have very much in common.

HDV was an attempt to reuse technology developed during the standard definition era to bring us into a high definition era, at a time when an existing tape mechanism already existed (thanks to DV) and when "small and fast" was an oxymoron in the hard drive realm and "cheap and high capacity" was an oxymoron in the flash storage realm. Instead of creating a bunch of totally new standards, HDV was able to be implemented quickly. The decision to use MPEG-2 (like DVD, but with the bitrate jacked way up) and anamorphic storage (again like DVD, but again with the image resolution way better) was made for the same reason. HDV has been very successful in its goals. In fact as we move towards a hard disk and flash memory future, there have even been "baby step" advances in the HDV world to allow cameras designed to expect a tape mechanism to output over firewire to drive/memory arrays which present themselves as a "virtual" tape drive.

Now, at the same time as HDTV broadcasting and HDV cameras were coming about using proven MPEG-2 at high bitrates, other codec technologies were coming into existence like H.264 (I'm going to say H.264 and not MPEG-4 to keep people from getting confused, since one standard is a subset/superset of the other). While not as immediately useful, H.264 had great promise as computing processors were getting faster and multicore, and as time went by it started to become more than just a great way to push Internet video clips. Now we all know it as the standard behind our "next generation" video disc formats as well. While interpolated like MPEG-2 (not made up 100% real frames like good old DV was) and much more processing-intense, H.264 gives us similar qualities with much less storage space. This then leads back to that old storage problem, where meanwhile hey look - flash memory has gotten cheaper and higher capcity while simultaneously hard drives have gotten to be both small and fast at the same time...

...and thus, now in 2007, we're looking for the first time at a marketplace in which H.264 playback devices are becoming common, the new disc formats are taking hold, more and more people have HDTV displays, and more and more people have computers powerful enough to edit H.264 (or at least transcode it reasonably into intermediate formats, which is how we edit HDV anyway). So, AVCHD is the first attempt to design new standards from the ground up by which high definition video can be shot and logged in a random access scheme appropriate for random access devices like hard disks and flash memory (and yes, optical media, but that's really just a convenience thing meant for the most entry level consumer just like the previous standard definition DVD cameras were).

Is AVCHD supported on as much hardware and software as HDV? Well no, of course not, it's just coming into adoption now. Is AVCHD as easy to edit in terms of computing horsepower necessary? Well no of course not, it's intended for now-to-future use, not maximal-backward-compatibility use. Is AVCHD some sort of totally perfect successor to HDV in that it records complete and perfect frames of huge resolution video? No, of course not, it's interpolated like HDV is and it's edited using intermediate codecs like HDV is - frankly our computing hardware (both CPU power and storage mediums) just isn't up to that task yet. Now, to get into that product shelf I mentioned earlier, are most of the initial AVCHD products all consumer-oriented and limited in their prosumer and pro appeal? YES of course they are, because AVCHD is a brand new set of standards.

Professionals and experienced video folks are going to continue to use HDV and "interstitial" technologies like P2 cards and such for years because they're not first-timers buying all new gear, they have massive investments in their gear and they need to try to adapt what they have to high definition needs (getting back to why HDV was invented in the first place). However as time goes on, will the entire video world slowly migrate towards either AVCHD or something like it, something intended for a world that has random access storage and more and more editing horsepower?

Personally, I think that's a given.

HTH.

AVCHD will need to improve before it can compete with HDV. Check camcorderinfo. Canon HV20 (HDV) superior pq to Canon HG10 (AVCHD). Same for Sony models. Specs aren't everything; reviews seem to favor HDV by a fair margin as far as PQ.

My feeling is the issue is a bitrate issue. Until we start seeing AVCHD at 18MBPS or higher, I think there will be this problem. AVCHD format supports bitrates to 24MBPS. I'd imagine AVCHD at 24MBPS would destroy HDV. I suspect hardware encoding chips, the likes of what are in these consumer level cams today aren't powerful enough to encode at those bit rates in real-time yet. At least not at chip costs that are consistent with consumer level products. As technology improves, I suspect we will see AVCHD products with higher bitrates than the current max (15MBPS) as well as improved algorithms that make better use of the bits. (Not all codecs are created equal.)

AVCHD's time will come. And for the sake of convenience (Hard Drive recording), I suspect my next camcorder (and first HiDef one) will be an AVCHD model...

AVCHD will need to improve before it can compete with HDV. Check camcorderinfo.

Apples will need to improve before you can use them to make decent orange juice. Check your local grocer.

AVCHD will need to improve before it can compete with HDV. Check camcorderinfo. Canon HV20 (HDV) superior pq to Canon HG10 (AVCHD). Same for Sony models. Specs aren't everything; reviews seem to favor HDV by a fair margin as far as PQ. camcorderinfo focused on the 24p results, and those results are both explained and disputed over at DVinfo.net, where they have footage you can examine. It is believed the camcorderinfo 24p footage was likely not processed properly. I looked at the HG10 24p footage and found it just fine when compared to the HV20. The Canon AVCHD implementation is very similar to HDV in quality.

camcorderinfo focused on the 24p results, and those results are both explained and disputed over at DVinfo.net, where they have footage you can examine. It is believed the camcorderinfo 24p footage was likely not processed properly. I looked at the HG10 24p footage and found it just fine when compared to the HV20. The Canon AVCHD implementation is very similar to HDV in quality.

...and just imagine what the comparison would be like if one were to compare the current crop of AVCHD cameras to an HDV camera from several years ago! I think to make an intelligent study of the formats' potentials and future usefulness one really needs to step back and try to think objectively and outside the (retail) box (on a shelf). This is just the beginning of a very welcome change in digital video paradigms.

Its all well and good to discuss AVCHD specs but the reality is that it does not look as good as HDV at any bit rate. I really wanted it to because of the transfer speed but after comparing it to HDV, it simply does not look as good. I am not saying it won't in a couple of years but right now, it is lacking. I totally agree with regards to CPU horsepower. Even with quad core CPUs, the amount it takes to encode AVC and VC-1 on a home PC or Mac is brutal. MPEG2 even takes a long time. Video is always going to max out the resources of a home computing solution and we are 10 years away from PCs having the ability to encode in real time with out external processing.

Even with quad core CPUs, the amount it takes to encode AVC and VC-1 on a home PC or Mac is brutal. MPEG2 even takes a long time. Video is always going to max out the resources of a home computing solution and we are 10 years away from PCs having the ability to encode in real time with out external processing.
So, this is why it's so difficult to get good REAL-TIME encoders in these camcorders. Of course, camcorders don't have the luxury of improving quality at the expense of encoding time...

Also, your AVCHD HDV comparison statement is misleading. I believe AVCHD is indeed a more efficient codec.

AVCHD at 24MBPS (seeming the spec's maximum) will, with little doubt, blow the socks off HDV at 25MBPS. I still think the issue is with development of a REAL-TIME AVCHD codec to do the job at 24MBPS. For now, we have to deal with 15MBPS max, which most agree doesn't look as good as HDV at 25MBPS.

Good info in here.... Thanks for posting it... Currently using a MacPro and I was tempted to pick up a AVCHD camcorder and upgrade my Sony HDV-HC3, I also have been looking at the new Canon HV20. My Sony isn't that old, and it has a nice extended Warr with it, just wondering if I should wait till AVCHD becomes more of a standard, flash drives will become bigger and cheaper with time. I am shooting some semi-pro stuff mostly played back on my HDTVs.... Sony SXRD 1080/24 would be nice, but not sure if one can tell the difference sometimes. Thanks for any info or input...

...just wondering if I should wait till AVCHD becomes more of a standard, flash drives will become bigger and cheaper with time. I am shooting some semi-pro stuff mostly played back on my HDTVs.... Sony SXRD 1080/24 would be nice, but not sure if one can tell the difference sometimes. Thanks for any info or input...

in order:

AVCHD is established and software is busily catching up, so I don't think you have to worry about the "standard" itself changing. However the products available (especially cameras) which use it are going to change in features and price very rapidly during the next 12-18 months, that's just how new stuff is. So know that going into any purchase I suppose.

Flash memory will only get bigger and cheaper. When you consider that a high capacity SD card that's 8GB right now only costs like $60-$70 and look back to six months ago, one can only wonder what things will be like by the November/December mad xmas rush on cameras and related products.

As far as shooting 1080 in 24p, it's worth looking at the details when camera shopping, especially AVCHD stuff. I've seen reviews of some models that "short list" their features as shooting "either" 720p or 1080i, but when you dig further you realize that the camera can in fact shoot 1080 at 24p, just not at 60p, etc. Read the fine print, and always favor the reviews on trusted web sites over the marketing bullet points on the camera companies' web sites (since they're pretty much engineered to be misleading).

Good luck!

khyron: thanks for the helpful info, currently my choices are the HV20 by Canon and I might look at some of the new Sony AVCHD Camcorders. Since I have a PS3, and a Mac using iMovie 2008 It might be worth looking at both...

khyron: Thanks for your words. They put current (and future) development into a very understandable perspective.
It's all going to get better.

AVCHD uses an almost identical data rate (24 Mbps) -- in an MPEG-2 transport stream wrapper. There are other video advantages in the AVCHD format.

This and several other of the examples you site make AVCHD a better format in theory. In practice, non of the camcorders currently on the market are offering 24 Mbps modes. All of the camcorders using AVCHD suffer a similar problem with motion blurring. The AC-3 audio used by the AVCHD camcorders causes several of the consumer video editing apps to choke on the audio and in some cases causes the audio and video to lose sync because the buffering required to decode AC-3 isn't properly implemented in the software encode solutions used by consumer NLE products.

AVCHD will likely be a better solution than HDV in the long term, but right now, HDV is a more reliable choice, with broader support and more mature options for editing, archiving and playback.

I dont disagree at all -but that is today - what about tomorrow?? AVCHD seems to be showing up on more and more new models - i personally cant buy a new product every year to keep up with technology - so when making my decision i went with a new technology that seemed to be gaining popularity. Right choice i dont know - purchase made - no looking back.

As far as using my camcorder for a playback device - i do so alot when i am away from home - (ie shooting video of my daughter swimming in grandma and grandpa's pool and watching the video after dinner).

The AVS Forum is great and i apreciate all the information i have gained from it on HD products.

I just did the oppoiste for now, I found the Tape picture on the Canon HV20 looked much better on my Projector, but I am sure when Flash Drives on Camcorders become bigger and AVCHD becomes more standard I will join you. For now Tape works, the only thing that pisses me off if you don't convert it to a DVD or Blu-Ray you need to use the Camcorder for playback, I wish they would make a inexpensive playback device for the tapes, would make editing easier. For now I thought the Tape on the Canon HV20 looked better than the Sony AVCHD Camcorder I had for a week.

...but I am sure when Flash Drives on Camcorders become bigger and AVCHD becomes more standard I will join you.

Just so ya know, SDHC is quickly becoming bigger than most people will practically need. Think about how much you can capture to a 16GB device versus a miniDV tape! Plus in the space of a single miniDV tape case, you could store, what, six or eight of these in your pocket?

http://www.engadget.com/2007/09/04/a-data-unveils-16gb-sdhc-class-6-flash-card-amongst-others/

It will be really interesting to see where the cameras go in the coming months.

Think about how much you can capture to a 16GB device versus a miniDV tape! Plus in the space of a single miniDV tape case, you could store, what, six or eight of these in your pocket?
That's not the problem. The problem is that 16GB cards will still be $200 or more by the end of the year... So, yeah, you could fit 6 or 8 in your pocket, but those 6 or 8 will cost you significantly more than the camera.. (~1500?)

Of course, 6 or 8 tapes can be had for, what, $15?


I STILL will not buy a tape based camera. I'm not sure, though, if my camera will be HDD or Flash yet. Can't make up my mind...

- Mike

I fairly new to this, and have had a Sony SR7 for a little over 2 months. I'm pretty pleased with it, especially the HDD. The Canon did have a little bit better PQ when played back through the camcorder. But, after it's captured and edited, then moved to a DVD. Is the quality going to be any better than the Sony, where it stays in AVCHD all the way to the disk with no conversions?

Normally, I play back directly from my computer to a 42" 1080p monitor and, the edited material looks exactly like the camcorder's footage. An AVCHD DVD looks the same too. How well does the Canon hold up through editing? I know that the couple of times that I converted my mt2s to mpg2, there was a big drop off in quality. Isn't that true with the Canon as well? Isn't the capture only going to be as good as your computer and program will allow? I'm not sure about capturing 25mps video. Seems like just moving files from a HDD or a falsh card would be the way to go for optimum PQ. Something has to be lost during a capture.

So far, the only editing programs that seem to work with the Sony AVCHD, are the Sony programs. I've had trouble with Pinnacle and Ulead. Luckily, the Sony program is pretty good.

But, after it's captured and edited, then moved to a DVD. Is the quality going to be any better than the Sony, where it stays in AVCHD all the way to the disk with no conversions?
I think if it's edited, then it's being converted. If you're just trimming the clips, it may be a different story, but if you're really editing... i.e. cross-fading between clips, adding music, integrating with stills, etc., then even Sony Vegas is encoding to some other codec, and your video is NOT AVCHD all the way through... This is a concern for me too. I suspect it's only a matter of time before these programs will output AVCHD, and not recompress GOP's (Groups of pictures) that don't need to be recompressed.

Anyone know if there's any out there yet? I think the answer is still no.

- Mike

... Normally, I play back directly from my computer to a 42" 1080p monitor and, the edited material looks exactly like the camcorder's footage. An AVCHD DVD looks the same too. ...

What format do you render to and what settings do you use? I can't seem to keep the quality, whatever I do. :confused:

I suspect it's only a matter of time before these programs will output AVCHD, and not recompress GOP's (Groups of pictures) that don't need to be recompressed. Anyone know if there's any out there yet?

People have been pushing the VideoRedo (http://www.videoredo.com/) developers (on their user forums) to add AVCHD support. For its MPEG-2 editing, VideoRedo already does not recompress GOPs that are unchanged, so hopefully they will carry this feature forward when they implement H.264.

Update: I checked up on the VideoReDo forums, and they've announced they're working on adding H.264 support, ETA "a few months".

I've been a VideoRedo user for a couple years. Its small, focused and effective, and I'll look forward to h.264 support.

I have been working with a few cameras recently to replace my aging trv-20 (7 year old MiniDV). I've worked with the sony HDR-SR5, the sony HDR-SR7, and the Canon HV20.

All three looked very good in bright outdoor environments. Of the three, the Canon provided the best picture for indoor shooting. I was disappointed in the noise levels on the sony cameras. I also did not like the touch screen interface on the sony cameras.

The sound was noticeably better on the Sony SR7 vs. the Canon.

I also found myself irked by working with tape again - I didn't think I would because I had been familiar with tape, but it was a pain rewinding and fast forwarding to find the right spot to start recording again. I also found it quite nice on the Sony cameras to be without the "tape whine" that I got on the Canon and my old MiniDV camera.

out of curiousity wasn't jobs using a panasonic with avchd on the last keynote
showing off i-life 08 no problems were mentioned on i-movie or am i missing
something.

iLife '08 adds the ability to import AVCHD, but it doesn't edit it natively. It also mangles the 5.1 DD sound... last I heard, Apple was aware of the problem and looking into it.

iLife '08 adds the ability to import AVCHD, but it doesn't edit it natively. It also mangles the 5.1 DD sound... last I heard, Apple was aware of the problem and looking into it.

This is an excellent resource for iLife '08 information...

http://discussions.apple.com/forum.jspa?forumID=1194

...I did some searching around there and it sounds like people with more advanced audio needs are disappointed in the way iMovie '08 handles audio tracks (it only appears to support 3, a "background" track, the one associated with each video clip, and a "voiceover" track). You can search and read many threads there to learn more (or watch the tutorial videos Apple has on their web site) but the basic idea seems to be that just like the non-timeline video editing, the audio editing in the new iMovie is intended for people who don't understand how to edit video. Thus it comes as little surprise that people who already understand NLE don't like it.

Anyone who expects a traditional NLE interface should probably just wait until Apple updates Final Cut Express with AVCHD. That's really the tool you want if you already know what you're doing and understand complex multitrack editing, and it's amazingly cheap considering how powerful it is.

On a tangent, I'm not sure I understand why people on this thread keep talking about whether a given software package edits "natively" in AVCHD or HDV. I don't understand why anyone would want to do that, are the folks advocating that as a good idea unaware of how long GOP temporal compression works? If you don't transcode to an intermediate codec of some kind, every effect and transition would be limited to starting or stopping cleanly between GOPs where the "real" frames are (instead of exactly where you might want it). That might be satisfactory for very basic home movie stuff but for anyone trying to do very tight, specific edits and audio sync, wouldn't that drive you nuts? Maybe I'm missing the point that folks mentioning this are trying to make...

I just a got Cannon HV-20 and I'm using a trial version of Vegas Pro 8 to test it. I'm a long time vegas user so that will likely be my choice. Anyway, Vegas will now import HDV from the Camera and when you render your final movie it will only re-encode the parts that must be, fades, overlays, effects etc. It gives you a message to let you know the section it's currently working on has to be is not being recompressed. The net result is a much faster render and no generational loss for those parts. I think pro's will still like to use an intermeidate HD format (Cineform) that allows for lots of editing with little loss of quality. But a home user like myself this is great. Now, if they would just update DVDA to to be HD compatible.

I just a got Cannon HV-20 and I'm using a trial version of Vegas Pro 8 to test it. I'm a long time vegas user so that will likely be my choice. Anyway, Vegas will now import HDV from the Camera and when you render your final movie it will only re-encode the parts that must be, fades, overlays, effects etc. It gives you a message to let you know the section it's currently working on has to be is not being recompressed. The net result is a much faster render and no generational loss for those parts. I think pro's will still like to use an intermeidate HD format (Cineform) that allows for lots of editing with little loss of quality. But a home user like myself this is great. Now, if they would just update DVDA to to be HD compatible.

Does the Vegas 8 Platinum do the same or we need the full version ? Thx

Hammer65: I have the Canon as well, just picked it up a few weeks ago. I use mostly Macs but I am looking for a program to burn HD content to a DVD-R or a Blu-Ray so I can play it back on my system. I could also download it to my PS3 and view it this way as well is what I was told. Is there a way to burn AVCHD disc via iLife 08 and play it back on my PS3?

Since Apple/Macintosh does not currently support the UDF 2.5/6 filesystem, there is no way to burn AVCHD content back onto a disk for use in a PS3 or other blu-ray player. There is rumored support for UDF 2.5/6 in OS X 10.5, so there might be a Apple native solution on the way. Then again, it took Apple 2 years to support AVCHD cameras in the first place, and many people have reported difficulties with AVCHD in iMovie08 and FCP.

We over at Mac1080hd.com (http://www.mac1080hd.com) are planning on writing some blu-ray authoring software to go along with our Voltaic program, but that project is in early development stages.

Since Apple/Macintosh does not currently support the UDF 2.5/6 filesystem, there is no way to burn AVCHD content back onto a disk for use in a PS3 or other blu-ray player. There is rumored support for UDF 2.5/6 in OS X 10.5, so there might be a Apple native solution on the way. Then again, it took Apple 2 years to support AVCHD cameras in the first place, and many people have reported difficulties with AVCHD in iMovie08 and FCP.

We over at Mac1080hd.com (http://www.mac1080hd.com) are planning on writing some blu-ray authoring software to go along with our Voltaic program, but that project is in early development stages.

Thanks for the info... I for one waited on the AVCHD, because of other issues. So I understand why Apple waited on this.

The new Vegas Pro 8 will let you render the final project as an m2t or m2ts, allowing export back into the camera. This is what I've been waiting for and akaik it is the only one to do this so far.

I just did a test video and played it back from my Sony HDR-SR1 via HDMI to my LCD TV. It is definitely way better picture quality than the other things I've tried (don't have blu-ray or PS3).

PInnacle Studio Plus 11, with 11.1 patch now allows for exporting AVCHD onto standard DVD's (i.e. Short Blu-Ray format on a standard DVD). Effecively, this means it has a AVCHD encoder included now, not just a decoder. I don't know if this means that you can put the AVCHD file back into the camera to play. That would be handy.

Also, I'm hoping that Vegas 8 and Pinnacle Studio Plus would olny render and recompress AVCHD segments that have changed (via effects/transitions), including, of course, neighboring dependent frames. Anyone know for sure?