Originally Posted by Chevypower
But the image sensor has nothing to do with the limitations of the recording format, you just said it yourself, it downsizes for HDV. You can have a Hollywood movie shot on 35mm or 4K Digital, but when you watch it on VHS, it looks like absolute crap! When you downsize, you only see as good as the limitations of the bottleneck. The Sony Z7 does the exact same thing as you are talking about. The thing is, when you bypass the HDV recording, it's NOT HDV!!! So you can no longer use it for your examples in saying how good HDV is.
No, no... you're not getting it.
First, this has nothing to do with tape, hdv... or mpeg for that matter and I am not using it as an example. It's not even mpeg when it hits the hard drive. It's FULLY uncompressed and takes up HUGE swaths of hard drive space. I keep 2 completely empty 1TB drives for this purpose and I pretty much fill them both in a short period of time through live capture.
When you capture live through the hdmi port on the hv series cams you're not pulling from the tape. The tape has got nothing to do with it. It wouldn't make a difference through hdmi or through firewire if it's coming from the tape... it's already compressed. The signal you're getting through hdmi on a live capture with the hv series cam is coming DIRECTLY from the cmos. The signal hasn't even reached the tape yet... that's where it goes AFTER the hdmi port. It gets compressed then goes onto tape. Now... if you try and pull tape through the hdmi port it's 1440.
Now ... as for avchd vs HDV... more picture info doesn't always make the case. People don't seem to be to impressed with the Sanyo shooting avc 1920x1080 60p so you can't automatically say that more picture info will always be better... it's not necessarily the case.
Is avchd more efficient in terms of space? Sure as hell is and for that reason it makes a really great delivery format
Is avchd more convenient for the consumer to get to disk? Sure is... but that's ONLY because a company has chosen to make it that way. Now you can debate as to why... my guess is that they stand to make more money on avchd because they own more of it than mpeg Some people say bcause of size. I discount that. They're pumping out cams now at 24mb/s and at that rate that is not a big difference between mpeg and avc
Now you can debate the above and then some until you're blue in the face but what you can't debate... and what clinches it for me is that avc is some of the most inefficient and cumbersome stuff on the time line that is come to light so far. It takes almost 5 times as long to render it through as hdv, or even mpeg2 at 1920x1080.... and it will always be that way because of its compression scheme (and btw.... editng EX footage is almost as fast and easy as that of HDV) Any pros or pluses that avc can bring to the table are useless to me if I have to tie up a machine for 5 times as long to create a project. We're talking DAYS
of rendering here.
Do I have any great love for HDV? No. But hdv is ONLY hdv because of the tape. It has little to do with the mpeg codec. In fact I would die and go to heaven if Canon would put out a reasonably priced full hd mpeg cam like jvc has done. I could get canon quality at full hd AND
good editing ability
People say that the machines will get faster. Well... maybe someday. But then mpeg2 editing will get that much faster too.
Do i expect you to understand this? no. but you can. Do what I suggested to kalak above. Put 2 hours of avc on the time line, add dissolves, some color correction, some effects, alpha channels, cartooners, a few title rolls...then render that through. Let me know how many days it takes. Then do the same thing with HDV....