Why so much AVCHD compression - Page 4 - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #91 of 179 Old 02-18-2009, 06:29 PM
AVS Special Member
 
bigbarney's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Winnipeg, Canada
Posts: 2,509
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 84 Post(s)
Liked: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by osv View Post

if you had even test-edited any of the raw avchd video clips on the 'net, you'd know that the hf11 records vbr.

so how come you are out here whining about avchd, but you have zero experience editing it?

So in other words you can't produce anything in writing.... that's what I thought.... more "OSV facts"
bigbarney is online now  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #92 of 179 Old 02-18-2009, 07:23 PM
Senior Member
 
elifino's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 464
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
RTFM, BB.

Right there, for all the world to see, hiding in plain sight, on page 36 of the manual.

"The camcorder uses a variable bit rate
(VBR) to encode video so the actual
recording times will vary depending on
the content of the scenes."

I'd call that a Canon fact.

btw, the manual for the HF10 has that same statement.
elifino is offline  
post #93 of 179 Old 02-18-2009, 08:20 PM
osv
AVS Special Member
 
osv's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 1,047
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigbarney View Post

And BTW... when the heck did I EVER say "smart rendering" DV and "smart rendering" avchd was different?????

here:

Quote:
Originally Posted by bigbarney View Post

Wrong.
If you're really going to edit then you don't have access to smart render in the first place.

wrong, barney.

avchd edits just like dv, they both use smart rendering, with the right editing software.
osv is offline  
post #94 of 179 Old 02-18-2009, 08:25 PM
osv
AVS Special Member
 
osv's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 1,047
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by elifino View Post

RTFM, BB.

Right there, for all the world to see, hiding in plain sight, on page 36 of the manual.

"The camcorder uses a variable bit rate
(VBR) to encode video so the actual
recording times will vary depending on
the content of the scenes."

I'd call that a Canon fact.

btw, the manual for the HF10 has that same statement.


uh oh, bigbarney takes it in the shorts again ;-)

maybe we should include the link to the hf11 manual, before he starts calling you a liar as well, lol

http://gdlp01.c-wss.com/gds/1/030000...f11nim2-en.pdf
osv is offline  
post #95 of 179 Old 02-18-2009, 09:42 PM
Senior Member
 
kalak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 421
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigbarney View Post

Huh????
May I remind you that SD DVD with the inclusion of vbr encoding goes down to some stupidly low bitrates and in spite of that remains quite clear. But let's not talk about SD. Watch a mpeg2 Blu ray and keep an eye on how low the bit rate will go.

Huh???? You are mixing things up again!
Video bitrate from post processing cannot be compared with real time encoding. You simply cannot get the same quality in real time for the same bitrate. I maintain that the target bitrate of 9Mbps in the first AVCHD mini-DVD camcorder 3 yrs ago was not workable if MPEG2 was used.

Quote:


Hard drive camcorders have been around for more than 3 years.

And what's your point? You mean they should abandon removable media camcorder, and just have MPEG2 Hard Drive cam as they are the only one which can get any reasonable video recording length?

Quote:


That's pretty clear... simply shut up... don't question... and go with the flow. That seems to be the general philosophy

Yeah, and your philosophy is to twist things around, arguing what they should have or have not done 3 yrs ago using today's technology and today's media capacity.

Quote:


We're not talking about avi or mjpeg here... we're talking about mpeg2 and avc.... both of which are no where NEAR the size of uncomp. avi or mjpeg.

Hey, you are the one saying that storage size does not matter anymore in this day and age. And I am not inventing stuff, MJPEG has been used and is still being used.

Quote:


They chose avc in order to be more compatible with apple. Camcorderinfo states that pretty clearly.
....Nikon uses mjpeg and Canon with mpeg4. Neither one chose mpeg OR avchd.... so what's your point???

My point is if MPEG2 is such a wonderful format for HD as you said, how come hardly anyone chose it as the primary codec for HD in consumer device where storage space matters?

Quote:


Anybody that claims they can see the difference between mpeg2 at 1920x1080@24Mb/s and avc of the same.... probably sees little green men too when they close their eyes. At 15M... YES, but then again I have repeatedly stated that avc makes a really great delivery medium for exactly this reason.

What? Hold on, so you now say AVCHD would be a better choice at 15Mbps? Didn't you just say MPEG2 in Blu-Ray can go way low in bitrate? Or are you saying AVC is good but AVCHD is a fiasco?

Quote:


You do? So... Sony's going 24mb/s too?

Maybe, maybe not. I don't have a crystal ball. And it's totally irrelevant. If bitrate is important to you, you have plenty of choices out there.
kalak is offline  
post #96 of 179 Old 02-19-2009, 03:53 AM
AVS Special Member
 
bigbarney's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Winnipeg, Canada
Posts: 2,509
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 84 Post(s)
Liked: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by elifino View Post


"The camcorder uses a variable bit rate
(VBR) to encode video so the actual
recording times will vary depending on
the content of the scenes."

Very good... Thank you
As noted in a previous post, I don't have a hf10 and OSV half the time doesn't have a clue what he's talking about.
bigbarney is online now  
post #97 of 179 Old 02-19-2009, 04:27 AM
AVS Special Member
 
bigbarney's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Winnipeg, Canada
Posts: 2,509
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 84 Post(s)
Liked: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by kalak View Post

!
I maintain that the target bitrate of 9Mbps in the first AVCHD mini-DVD camcorder 3 yrs ago was not workable if MPEG2 was used.

That's total rubbish! You can write hd down to 3Mb/s with mpeg2 and it will still work. Granted it won't be a pretty picture.... but you WILL get one.


Quote:


And what's your point? You mean they should abandon removable media camcorder, and just have MPEG2 Hard Drive cam as they are the only one which can get any reasonable video recording length?

Who said ANYTHING about abandoning removable media??? Your argument was that the technology wasn't there 3 years ago. I'm merely pointing out that you're dead wrong. Hard drive cams have been around for a long time now.

Quote:


Yeah, and your philosophy is to twist things around, arguing what they should have or have not done 3 yrs ago using today's technology and today's media capacity.

Well... I'm good at questioning things... it's my nature... but twisting things around?? Here we have OSV off on some incredibly wrong tangent talking about "smart rendering" and you talking about still cameras which has absolutely NOTHING to do with this.... but.... I'm twisting things???


Quote:


Hey, you are the one saying that storage size does not matter anymore in this day and age. And I am not inventing stuff, MJPEG has been used and is still being used.

You're being silly and you know it. Here... allow me to return the favor... When mommy dresses you in the morning and notices that your shoes are getting a little tight, does she go out and buy you the next size up..... or does she buy size 13 triple E?

Don't put words in my mouth... "size doesn't matter" are YOUR words, not mine. What I said was that bite for byte there is not a huge difference between mpeg2 and avc and this *may* have been a problem 5 years ago.


Quote:


My point is if MPEG2 is such a wonderful format for HD as you said, how come hardly anyone chose it as the primary codec for HD in consumer device where storage space matters?

I fail to understand why I must continually remind you of the EX. Sony was one of the brainchildren behind avchd and yet they went with mpeg2 on the EX. What I have said (and maintain) is that there is NO reason (other than a larger profit margin) why that technology couldn't be used at this level.


Quote:


What? Hold on, so you now say AVCHD would be a better choice at 15Mbps?

Again please don't put words in my mouth. Go back and read a bit more carefully. I said it makes a really great delivery format

Quote:


If bitrate is important to you, you have plenty of choices out there.

And it's not to you??? So let's just go back to avchd at 9Mb/s or sd dvd at 6M and be done with it. Not with standing it seems that this is what your whole argument is all about... the older technology did not have the volume to support mpeg2 at a reasonable bit rate. Now your saying bit rate is not important?
bigbarney is online now  
post #98 of 179 Old 02-19-2009, 10:43 AM
Senior Member
 
kalak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 421
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigbarney View Post

That's total rubbish! You can write hd down to 3Mb/s with mpeg2 and it will still work. Granted it won't be a pretty picture.... but you WILL get one.

Ha! Who is talking rubbish here? We are not just trying to get a picture on the TV here. We are talking if maximum bitrate of 9Mbps is workable to record 1920x1080 using MPEG2. I said no. Prove to me that it is rubbish by giving me an example of MPEG2 High definition cam with a max bitrate of 9Mbps.

Quote:


Who said ANYTHING about abandoning removable media??? Your argument was that the technology wasn't there 3 years ago. I'm merely pointing out that you're dead wrong. Hard drive cams have been around for a long time now.

No, my point was that they need to implement a format to cater for limited storage. Then you brought in the Hard Drive which is totally irrelevant. Hard Drive cam is higher priced, particularly so 3 yrs ago. Sure, the technology was there, but they still need a removable media camcorder for lower priced model. So how would the fact that Hard Drive has larger storage space help the need for removable media high definition camcorder?

Quote:


You're being silly and you know it. Here... allow me to return the favor... When mommy dresses you in the morning and notices that your shoes are getting a little tight, does she go out and buy you the next size up..... or does she buy size 13 triple E?

I am not surprised that you find it silly as I am just using your line of argument. To me, the shoe size analogy fits perfectly well with the comparison of AVCHD vs MPEG2. MPEG2's 35Mbps is like size 13 vs a size 6 of AVCHD's 16Mbps.

Quote:


Don't put words in my mouth... "size doesn't matter" are YOUR words, not mine.

Then you totally lost me. I have been very consistent in maintaining that one of the main design goal of AVCHD is to fit High Def media into limited storage space. OTOH, here's what YOU said (YOUR words, not mine):

"Size would have been a great debate.... 5 years ago. Today.... nahhh.... Hard drives cams, flash media, 25gig and 50gig optical disks."

Quote:


Sony was one of the brainchildren behind avchd and yet they went with mpeg2 on the EX. What I have said (and maintain) is that there is NO reason (other than a larger profit margin) why that technology couldn't be used at this level.

Can you find any reference or backup that Sony would profit more from AVCHD than EX? I simply cannot see why that could be so. Sony does not own either codec, which is where the money is.
At consumer level, 35Mbps vs 16Mbps is a huge difference in storage requirement. For the pro, speed for editing and rendering is the primary importance; consumers do not have the same requirement. That's why I always said what the pro uses has very little relevance to consumer device.
kalak is offline  
post #99 of 179 Old 02-19-2009, 11:47 AM
AVS Special Member
 
bigbarney's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Winnipeg, Canada
Posts: 2,509
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 84 Post(s)
Liked: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by kalak View Post

Ha! Who is talking rubbish here? We are not just trying to get a picture on the TV here. We are talking if maximum bitrate of 9Mbps is workable to record 1920x1080 using MPEG2. I said no. Prove to me that it is rubbish by giving me an example of MPEG2 High definition cam with a max bitrate of 9Mbps.

So you're saying that that the rubbish on the older dvd systems at 9Mb/s avc was actually quality video??? Please don't tell me that's what your suggesting??

look kalak.... I'm not not going to continue with this.... there's no sense. You and i are at TOTALLY opposite ends of the field and there is no way in a million years that anybody will agree on much of anything here.

Contrary to you may think, I understand your end of the field. AVCHD has given you a soft, easy workflow with reasonable quality. To the other extreme it's nothing but a disaster area on my side of the field.

If you truly want to understand where I'm coming from then take 2 hours of avc @1920x1080 (i work with Blu Ray, not dvd), and throw it on the time line. Add transitions, effects, some title rolls, maybe a few alpha channels imported from Particle Illusions or similar... then render that out. Do the same thing with mpeg (full hd or hdv... doesn't matter). What you will see is render times in terms of hours vs days and you feel like your back in stone ages again.

So... while avchd may be great for people like you... it couldn't get worse for people like me who want to edit
bigbarney is online now  
post #100 of 179 Old 02-19-2009, 12:07 PM
osv
AVS Special Member
 
osv's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 1,047
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigbarney View Post

Contrary to you may think, I understand your end of the field. AVCHD has given you a soft, easy workflow with reasonable quality. To the other extreme it's nothing but a disaster area on my side of the field.


that's because you don't know anything about avchd, as we have already proved.

you keep ignoring the fact that avchd records a better picture than hdv, because it has a more efficient codec.

nobody who does serious editing ignores picture quality.
osv is offline  
post #101 of 179 Old 02-19-2009, 12:37 PM
AVS Special Member
 
bigbarney's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Winnipeg, Canada
Posts: 2,509
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 84 Post(s)
Liked: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by osv View Post

that's because you don't know anything about avchd, as we have already proved.

This from a person that can't figure out how to get a simple ac3 file to open in Vegas, doesn't know what the heck 'smart rendering" is, and thinks the vive works on the dolby digital principle.

Oh yes OSV.... I really value your words
bigbarney is online now  
post #102 of 179 Old 02-19-2009, 01:22 PM
osv
AVS Special Member
 
osv's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 1,047
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigbarney View Post

This from a person that can't figure out how to get a simple ac3 file to open in Vegas, doesn't know what the heck 'smart rendering" is, and thinks the vive works on the dolby digital principle.

Oh yes OSV.... I really value your words

wrong, you didn't know that vegas can't open ac3 files, the dvda software is required to do that... typical barney misinformation.

and you still refuse to acknowledge that avchd records more picture info than hdv.
osv is offline  
post #103 of 179 Old 02-19-2009, 01:41 PM
AVS Special Member
 
bigbarney's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Winnipeg, Canada
Posts: 2,509
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 84 Post(s)
Liked: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by osv View Post

wrong, you didn't know that vegas can't open ac3 files, the dvda software is required to do that.

You see... this is exactly what I mean. SONY VEGAS (pro) DOES open and edit AC3 files. How do you think you edit ac3 files... in dvda???? It's a BURNER program. Come on now... this HAS to have sunk in by now!?!

dvda must be installed on your computer because the ac3 encoders/decoders are housed within dvda. This is done for piracy control and licensing reasons.

Quote:
heres the deal. The Dolby Digital License is actually within DVD Architect, NOT Vegas, however, once u install DVDA, the license unlocks the AC3 encoder within vegas.
However, one thing to note, is that Vegas will ALWAYS allow u to mix (and rener) 5.1 projects, even without the AC3 encoder.. reason is that WMV and some oither formats allow for surround sound integration (WMV9 moreso than anything else) and with the advent of BD and HD DVD using WMV formats, having this option will be integral to the future performance of Vegas as a HD editor.
U cant buy the program (DVD Architect) on its own, and neither can u buy the AC3 encoder on its own anymore.

http://www.sonycreativesoftware.com/...4217&Replies=4

Now I don't know what else I can do here to make you understand. I've even gone so far as to actually open one of YOUR ac3 files and I gave you screen shots of it. I just can't believe some one is this dense!

Maybe THIS will help...
I had a problem opening a m2ts sample from the sr11... you know... the one with ac3 sound. All audio channels opened properly (left front, right front, left rear, right rear, and center) but the LFE channel was flat lined. I fired of a problem ticket to Sony. Here it is:

http://www.custcenter.com/cgi-bin/so...ted=1224279538

Now... are you going to try and tell me that this is a huge conspiracy and customer service is lying too???


If anybody out there has Vegas pro with dvda installed with and has a m2ts 5.1 sample... please drag it onto the vegas time line and tell OSV what you see. Maybe he'll understand if it comes from somebody else.

And HDV...
My little HV20 is better than ANY of those rat trap avchd things you call a cam. The PQ fantastic, her resulting mpeg2 is fast and efficient on the time line and edits like the wind. And if I really want to go all out, I just connect her to my BM intensity and rip fully uncompressed 1920x1080, 10 bit 4:2:2 directly to the hard drive. You couldn't get me to trade it in for one of those avchd crappers if you PAID me.
bigbarney is online now  
post #104 of 179 Old 02-19-2009, 06:01 PM
osv
AVS Special Member
 
osv's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 1,047
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigbarney View Post

You see... this is exactly what I mean. SONY VEGAS (pro) DOES open and edit AC3 files. How do you think you edit ac3 files... in dvda???? It's a BURNER program. Come on now... this HAS to have sunk in by now!?!

dvda must be installed on your computer because the ac3 encoders/decoders are housed within dvda. This is done for piracy control and licensing reasons.


http://www.sonycreativesoftware.com/...4217&Replies=4.


stop repeating what i already told you months ago.

you had no clue that vegas needed dvda in order to properly handle ac3
osv is offline  
post #105 of 179 Old 02-19-2009, 06:21 PM
osv
AVS Special Member
 
osv's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 1,047
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigbarney View Post

And HDV...
My little HV20 is better than ANY of those rat trap avchd things you call a cam. The PQ fantastic, her resulting mpeg2 is fast and efficient on the time line and edits like the wind. And if I really want to go all out, I just connect her to my BM intensity and rip fully uncompressed 1920x1080, 10 bit 4:2:2 directly to the hard drive. You couldn't get me to trade it in for one of those avchd crappers if you PAID me.

"her"?? LMAO... what do you do to your camcorder when nobody is around, bigbarney?

anybody can hook a bm intensity card up to an hdmi port, there is nothing special about the hv20, here it is with an hf10:

"I'm using a HF10 and a Sennheiser wireless mic. I almost bought a beachtek, but thought I'd give it a try without, and I'm quite pleased. We are shooting greenscreen with the camera locked down on a tripod and feeding raw uncompressed 4:2:2 video over HDMI to a Blackmagic card. You can see examples of the footage on our site at http://myvideospokesmodel.com. We stared the project with a Canon XL1s and promptly unloaded it on e-bay after the first 10 shoots and the issues we had trying to get a good key.

We LOVE the HF10"
http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread...=138250&page=3
osv is offline  
post #106 of 179 Old 02-19-2009, 08:24 PM
AVS Special Member
 
bigbarney's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Winnipeg, Canada
Posts: 2,509
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 84 Post(s)
Liked: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by osv View Post


you had no clue that vegas needed dvda in order to properly handle ac3

I didn't?
Here... let's replay this one more time. You asked me to prove to you that Vegas could open YOUR ac3 file because you couldn't. Well... I did... even presented you with screen shots. Of course you called them "bogus". I notice that you're not calling the problem ticket "bogus".... but then it's a little hard when it's got official Sony URL on it.... too bad for you.

Now if I didn't know about dvda or the ac3 encoder housed within... how could have I possibly opened your ac3 file.

Would you like me to dig up the thread so you can refresh yourself on the events?

I'll let you in on a little secret there.... Einstein. I've been a Vegas user since version 4. There is very little about Sony Vegas Pro and DVDa that I don't know about

Quote:


anybody can hook a bm intensity card up to an hdmi port, there is nothing special about the hv20, here it is with an hf10:

Funny... I don't remember saying anything about the HF10 NOT being able to connect to the BM. Could you kindly show me where I said it couldn't?

Although I must say... if I owned a cam like the HF10 I'd be a little too embarrassed to mention it at all
bigbarney is online now  
post #107 of 179 Old 02-20-2009, 07:49 AM
osv
AVS Special Member
 
osv's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 1,047
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigbarney View Post

I didn't?


that's correct, you had no clue that dvda is required to fully implement ac3 support in vegas... i had to provide you with a link and screenshots that proved it.

and bigbarney... i've been working with vegas since version one.

tell us the truth, you were bragging about the hdmi port on your little hv20 because you didn't know that the hf10 had one too, huh? i bet that you had to start using your hdmi port because the hdv compression quality is so bad.
osv is offline  
post #108 of 179 Old 02-20-2009, 08:25 AM
AVS Special Member
 
bigbarney's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Winnipeg, Canada
Posts: 2,509
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 84 Post(s)
Liked: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by osv View Post

that's correct, you had no clue that dvda is required to fully implement ac3 support in vegas... i had to provide you with a link and screenshots that proved it.


OMG!... You are the biggest Bold faced liar I have ever dealt with!

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showp...7&postcount=58
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showp...3&postcount=64

Sorry I can't continue with this... you lie worse than a rug and you're certainly not worth the time this is taking.
bigbarney is online now  
post #109 of 179 Old 02-20-2009, 08:27 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Chevypower's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 1,163
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 38
Big Barney, if you can rip HDV in to 422 then I can do the same with VHS. I could have a 240x320 MPEG file and convert it to 4k, but that doesn't mean it will look better. I rip some of my AVCHD using ProRes 422 but it's not going to be HDCAM quality.
Look you have side stepped the original argument and I think because you don't have a legit defense. HDV uses MPEG 2 compression and records 1440x1080. MPEG is a more lossy codec, it uses a lossy audio codec, and the Mini DV tape is not robust especially for high
Compression. Why do you think they sell a tougher version with the HDV label on it? 6mm tape will never suffice, even if it's metal partical. EX is full HD but still uses MPEG 2 but the higher bit rate compensates for the lossy codec. You have turned this in to a MPEG 2 versus H.264 argument, but let's stick to the original argument. AVCHD versus HDV.
Chevypower is offline  
post #110 of 179 Old 02-20-2009, 08:37 AM
osv
AVS Special Member
 
osv's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 1,047
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigbarney View Post

OMG!... You are the biggest Bold faced liar I have ever dealt with!

http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showp...7&postcount=58
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showp...3&postcount=64

Sorry I can't continue with this... you lie worse than a rug and you're certainly not worth the time this is taking.

thanks for backing me up bigbarney ;-) right there is the frame grab that i posted that PROVES that vegas can't open ac3 files without dvda:

osv is offline  
post #111 of 179 Old 02-20-2009, 09:12 AM
AVS Special Member
 
bigbarney's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Winnipeg, Canada
Posts: 2,509
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 84 Post(s)
Liked: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chevypower View Post

Big Barney, if you can rip HDV in to 422 then I can do the same with VHS.

No.

The HV20 has a true 1920x1080 cmos and in fact shoots true 1920x1080. It is only compressed as it goes to tape. If you shoot/capture through hdmi to bm intensity directly to the hard drive you then capture the fully uncompressed and true 1920x1080.

This is one of the reason the HV serires cam is so popular... even for b roll shooting at the pro end. Most hdv cams shoot 1440x1080... the HV series cam shoots TRUE 1920x1080 and DOWNSIZES it to tape.
There's lots of info all over the net about this.
bigbarney is online now  
post #112 of 179 Old 02-20-2009, 10:17 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Chevypower's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 1,163
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 38
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigbarney View Post

No.

The HV20 has a true 1920x1080 cmos and in fact shoots true 1920x1080. It is only compressed as it goes to tape. If you shoot/capture through hdmi to bm intensity directly to the hard drive you then capture the fully uncompressed and true 1920x1080.

This is one of the reason the HV serires cam is so popular... even for b roll shooting at the pro end. Most hdv cams shoot 1440x1080... the HV series cam shoots TRUE 1920x1080 and DOWNSIZES it to tape.
There's lots of info all over the net about this.

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.
Chevypower is offline  
post #113 of 179 Old 02-20-2009, 11:27 AM
AVS Special Member
 
bigbarney's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Winnipeg, Canada
Posts: 2,509
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 84 Post(s)
Liked: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chevypower View Post

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....
bigbarney is online now  
post #114 of 179 Old 02-20-2009, 11:53 AM
Member
 
hollip3020's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 56
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
I completely agree with Chevypower and osv. bigbarney, your arguments are moot since you're not comparing apples to apples. How many people do you think actually have a BM Intensity card? I'll tell you, very few. It's great that you have massive amounts of hard drive space and a multi-hundred dollar capture card, but this doesn't apply to the vast majority of people who will be using the camera's media to transfer video to their computer. It also doesn't apply to the comparison at hand, HDV vs. AVCHD.

HDV is limited to 1440x1080 whereas AVCHD can go up to 1920x1080. This by definition means that AVCHD has more "picture information" (as osv put it), 1/3 more to be exact. Bit rate means nothing if the resolution isn't there.
hollip3020 is offline  
post #115 of 179 Old 02-20-2009, 12:13 PM
AVS Special Member
 
bigbarney's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Winnipeg, Canada
Posts: 2,509
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 84 Post(s)
Liked: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by hollip3020 View Post

I completely agree with Chevypower and osv. bigbarney, your arguments are moot since you're not comparing apples to apples. How many people do you think actually have a BM Intensity card?

[sigh]

Do you need read or what. I said the BM has NOTHING to do with this and I am not using it as an example.

It's EDITING ABILITY.... geeez.

Please go back and read what I said.
bigbarney is online now  
post #116 of 179 Old 02-20-2009, 12:39 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Chevypower's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Posts: 1,163
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 38
Barney I completely understand what you are saying. Your argument is flawed. You are saying HDV is better because SOME HDV cams can bypass the HDV recording and record in higher quality. Now why would they be able to do that if HDV was so great? The EX Sony cams can bypass the XDCAM limitations and record 422 non long GOP through SDI. You are either confused that though these are HDV cams you think that the full HD recorded to flash media - you think that is still HDV? Or all you really care about is proving you are correct and everyone else is wrong. Anyway, it doesn't really matter you have no chance in making any of us think you are correct if that is your goal. If it's confusion, maybe you should ask more questions and speak out less.
Chevypower is offline  
post #117 of 179 Old 02-20-2009, 12:52 PM
AVS Special Member
 
bigbarney's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Winnipeg, Canada
Posts: 2,509
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 84 Post(s)
Liked: 50
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chevypower View Post

Barney I completely understand what you are saying. Your argument is flawed.

No.
I'm sorry I ever brought the bm intensity into this. It's got little to do with the argument at all. It's NOTHING more than a fringe benefit of the hv20

IT'S EDITING ABILITY and i am afraid you will not understand this until you try to REALLY edit this stuff.

Go back and read what I said... and forget about the intensity card.
bigbarney is online now  
post #118 of 179 Old 02-20-2009, 01:54 PM
osv
AVS Special Member
 
osv's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 1,047
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigbarney View Post

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.


wrong... 60p vs 60i is NOT the same thing, you are trying to compare apples to oranges... a typical bigbarney failure to compute.

AVCHD MEANS BETTER PICTURE QUALITY BECAUSE IT CAPTURES MORE PICTURE INFORMATION THAN HDV DOES.
osv is offline  
post #119 of 179 Old 02-20-2009, 03:23 PM
Member
 
hollip3020's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Posts: 56
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
This thread is going nowhere.

HDV (MPEG2) is easier to edit because of its relative lack of codec complexity. AVCHD (H.264) is easier to get off the camera. AVCHD can do more with less bitrate. MPEG2 is still the defacto format for professional cameras. AVCHD is still mainly a consumer format. HDV and AVCHD are almost identical in PQ at their highest settings. AVCHD is higher resolution than HDV meaning it has more pixels per frame which means it has more picture information.
hollip3020 is offline  
post #120 of 179 Old 02-20-2009, 03:49 PM
Senior Member
 
elifino's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 464
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigbarney View Post

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.

Which people? After all, the anticipated VPC HD-2000 isn't out yet.

The only reviews I've read were hands-on, positive, but excluded any measured test results. The one photographer's review recently posted, didn't focus on the video side of the camcorder. It may well be that the HD-2000 won't live up to your expectations either.

Is this one of your BigBarney facts?

That reminds me... can you show that to me in writing somewhere. I've looked and can't find anything that states the HF11 records as vbr.

Apparently, you didn't look as far as the owner's manual. If you can't be bothered to perform due diligence, then everything else you claim could be questioned.
elifino is offline  
Reply Camcorders

User Tag List

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off