or Connect
AVS › AVS Forum › Other Areas of Interest › Camcorders › Why so much AVCHD compression
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Why so much AVCHD compression - Page 3

post #61 of 179
Look Chev...

Don't get me wrong. I like Sony. In fact my wife's HC3 looks like it's on its way out and I will most likely replace it with a SR11 or 12.

But this avchd.... so far its nothing more than amateur hour. Only the big 3 have decided to go with it and of that 3, only one has tried to push it at the semi pro level. It's clear with Sony (at this point anyway) that they have no intentions what so ever in trying to attach avchd to the semi pro/pro industry... and Canon... they seem to be sitting on the fence watching what happens ready to go in either direction.

The other more minor manufacturers have splintered off in different directions each choosing their own formats.... all avoiding avchd. And it is kind of interesting that most of them now have been able produce 1080/60p at the consumer level.... except of course for the avchd folks who seem to be more interested in messing around with this "avchd lite" rubbish.

The way it stands now is that HDV is STILL very much the work horse in the industry and that will continue for some time to come. Yes...the technology will SURELY change.... tape is old and must go at some point. But this avchd.... so far it has not made any huge splash at anything more than the consumer level. While other manufacturers keep pushing forward..... the avchd folks appear to be..... stalled.

I should also point out that avchd has IN FACT turned out to be a bit of a lie. The main idea behind it was better quality in a smaller package. That hasn't really turned out to be whole heartedly true. Avchd at 24Mb/s simply isn't that much smaller. Not withstanding, people were saying that you needed it to get to 1080/60p. Well... that's has turned out to be not so true either. What HAS blessed us out of all of this is the media storage types that have been produced (hard drives, flash.... etc).... but then that has little to do with avchd in itself..... does it
post #62 of 179
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigbarney View Post

Mmmm.... then I guess it must be 2004 right now because the last set of new pro end cams that Sony rolled out were all HDV cams..... imagine that!!

Oh, I thought the last big pro cams from Sony were the EX3 and PDW700 XDCAM 422. I thought the Z5 was a minor update to the Z1 and look, it's priced so low! We will see what NAB 09 has to offer and I bet nobody will be writing home about an HDV camera. Then on the Panasonic side there is the P2 cameras.
post #63 of 179
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigbarney View Post

But this avchd.... so far its nothing more than amateur hour.

And why does it need to? It is a consumer format, and that's where it shines! And why do any of the AVCHD users need to worry if it ever get used by pro or semi-pro? Sure, the pro uses tapes, so does it make your consumer HDV cam any better?

Quote:


Only the big 3 have decided to go with it

So JVC is not "big" enough?

Quote:


The other more minor manufacturers have splintered off in different directions each choosing their own formats.... all avoiding avchd.

And that just adds to the inconvenience of the users who chose these "minor" manufacturers. Their Blu-Ray player at home may or may not be able to play the video; unlike the "major" players' AVCHD which can be played in most Blu-Ray players and PS3.

The main reason for them not to use it is to reduce cost. They are typically lower priced, and licensing fee would only eat into their already thin profit margin.

The fact is that AVCHD now totally dominates the traditional HD camcorder market, whether you like it or not. I am not counting those Flip like device, which I don't believe should be grouped with camcorders.

Quote:


And it is kind of interesting that most of them now have been able produce 1080/60p at the consumer level....

Yeah, sure, on paper. But the video they produce is worse than the 60i or 30p video from Sony/Canon/Panasonic/JVC.

Quote:


except of course for the avchd folks who seem to be more interested in messing around with this "avchd lite" rubbish.

Why are you trashing AVCHD lite as a marketing tool? What's the problem? The specs were in the original AVCHD, and it is just a marketing term. Nothing was changed.

Quote:


The main idea behind it was better quality in a smaller package. That hasn't really turned out to be whole heartedly true. Avchd at 24Mb/s simply isn't that much smaller.

It IS much smaller than HDV which it replaces.

Quote:


Not withstanding, people were saying that you needed it to get to 1080/60p.

Why does consumer cam need 60p to produce good video?
post #64 of 179
Quote:
Originally Posted by kalak View Post

Yeah, sure, on paper. But the video they produce is worse than the 60i or 30p video from Sony/Canon/Panasonic/JVC.

Huh??? JVC???

They just put out a 1080/60p cam

AVCHD you say? NOPE

good ole fashioned mpeg2

The HD6
post #65 of 179
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigbarney View Post

Huh??? JVC???
They just put out a 1080/60p cam
AVCHD you say? NOPE

But many of JVC HD models are AVCHD. And is this 60p mode produce significantly better in image quality? Not really.

You keep talking about what pro and semi pro use and what not. How about 1080/60p being used in the industry or professional cam? Or those non-AVCHD 1080/60p format used by "minor" manufacturer - are they being used by the pro?
post #66 of 179
barney, you are beating a dead horse...

"...In the real world, the HMC150 performs much better in low light than the Z1.

...To get a comparison with a more recent Sony HDV model, I talked to Rob Neal of Glass Slipper Productions (www.gspvideos.com). Rob owns a Sony Z7, and he told me that the HMC150 is very similar in low light to the Z7; however, he said that he can get more out of the HMC150 low-light footage in post."
http://www.eventdv.net/Articles/Read...rticleID=52607
post #67 of 179
Quote:
Originally Posted by kalak View Post

But many of JVC HD models are AVCHD. And is this 60p mode produce significantly better in image quality? Not really.

heck yeah!

On smaller screens it's not really and issue but on the big screens there is a CLEAR difference between interlace and progressive.

@OSV
Contrary to popular belief... I have no real love for HDV. What I like is what it uses.... mpeg2. It edits easy... computers readily accept it... and we now KNOW it will handle 1080/60p (some were trying to say that it couldn't) and now that we have other methods of media storage we can break away from tape and get pretty much everything (and more) than what avchd can give (let's not get that mixed up with avc/h.264)

In my eyes avchd is nothing more than a redundant and unnecessary standard (my opinion only). It's great as a delivery format, or for those that simply want to plop their raw video on a disk.... I'm NOT one of those people.
post #68 of 179
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigbarney View Post

On smaller screens it's not really and issue but on the big screens there is a CLEAR difference between interlace and progressive.

Are you talking about interlace vs progressive in general? Or are you talking about JVC GZ-HD6 specifically.

Of course, we all know progressive scan vs interlace picture in Blu-Ray or video games. But can the current consumer cam take advantage of the 1080/60p? Have you even seen the output from GZ-HD6? Its picture quality is even worse than that of HF10! None of the 1080/60p video from consumer cam has impressed me so far. And that's the point I was trying to make!

1080/60p is in effect, and in your words, "nothing more than amateur hour." Instead of improving picture qualities, getting better encoding algorithm, pushing bitrate (remember that they have no AVCHD restriction), using High profile H.264 encoding, they instead elect to implement the 1080/60p mode just for the sake of wowing consumers who only cares about specs on paper.

Quote:


In my eyes avchd is nothing more than a redundant and unnecessary standard (my opinion only).

And you have repeated the same point over and over again.
And yes, it is your opinion only. I, on the other hand, agree with the leading camcorder manufacturers; and I am grateful for this standard so that I can play so many HD material flawlessly on my PS3 and Blu-Ray player.
post #69 of 179
Quote:
Originally Posted by kalak View Post


None of the 1080/60p video from consumer cam has impressed me so far.

Nor me. If you look at the posts in the past I even stated that I don't expect much from the Sanyo line of cams. Traditionally they have never been able to stand up to Sony or Canon. That goes for JVC as well. But then this is not the point. The point is that others are moving forward while avchd has stalled. The point is that mpeg2 works just fine... even at 1080/60p. It in fact produces INCREDIBLE video when taken from the hv20 as 1980x1020 10 bit 4:2:2 through HDMI (that's more the cam than mpeg... but I thought I would just through that in anyway)

Quote:


1080/60p is in effect, and in your words, "nothing more than amateur hour."

Mmmm... is that right...
I can name quite a few high end cams with 1080/60p capacity. Can't actually say the same about avchd. Let's see now there's one pro avchd cam.... or is there 2?

Quote:


I can play so many HD material flawlessly on my PS3 and Blu-Ray player.

Yup... you can do that with mpeg2 as well. In fact it's even easier with mpeg2 when going to real blu ray. Don't need to borrow the central computer at NASA to edit the stuff either.

Quote:


I, on the other hand, agree with the leading camcorder manufacturers;

You mean.... SUCKED IN by the leading manufacturers don't you?
post #70 of 179
JVC has licensed Sony's XDCAM EX technology. Yes, it's MPEG 2, but it's not HDV, which is the piece of crap we are talking about here. The only company that is doing something that is out of this world, is RED. As for the argument which is better, HDV or AVCHD.. the answer is AVCHD. XDCAM EX is better again, and RED is about a thousand times better yet. I mean they are doing 28k resolution now. This is about 130 times the total resolution of "Full HD." They are able to do this at 100fps.
post #71 of 179
Quote:
Originally Posted by Chevypower View Post

JVC has licensed Sony's XDCAM EX technology. Yes, it's MPEG 2, but it's not HDV, which is the piece of crap we are talking about here.

Now, now... try and hold yourself together there.
HDV IS mpeg2... or I should say a somewhat restricted mpeg2.

As I said before, the one thing that HAS blessed us with this avchd fiasco is the different media storage methods that have been introduced.... which of course Sony wonderfully used as transportation to slither this avchd under our fingernails.... kind of like bamboo shoots I would say. They knew full well that avchd would be a tough sell all by itself and it would NEED some kind of helpful transportation. (kind of what I meant in the above post by being "sucked in")

Red (scarlet).... what a great idea.... if they can ever get it off the drawing board. So far it's been more talk than anything else. I remember hearing at NAB almost 2 years ago about scarlet being "almost" ready.
post #72 of 179
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigbarney View Post

this avchd fiasco...
They knew full well that avchd would be a tough sell all by itself...
(kind of what I meant in the above post by being "sucked in")....

What "fiasco"? What "tough sell"?
Sorry, are you living in a different world as everyone else?
The fact is that AVCHD camcorders now totally dominates the HD consumer camcorder market. As of last week, the top 10 selling camcorders in Japan (the only major market where I can find weekly sales chart) are all HD and all AVCHD except one, the Hitachi Blu-Ray disc camcorder DZ-BD7 at #5. And you call that fiasco and tough sell? Please back up what you said.

And I was not "sucked in". I bought a AVCHD camcorder, and I really like the picture quality, the convenience and the work flow. This is my first hand user experience and opinion. Nothing sucked in at all. And I have had 15+ years of experience working with tapes, and I absolutely hated it.
post #73 of 179
I currently have a Sony CX-7 with resolution of 1440x1080. I am considering upgrading to the CX-12 with resolution of 1920x1080. I have gotten a little lost in reading this thread up to this point. So, would I stand to gain a fair amount more with this upgrade? It would at first glance seem obvious based just on the numbers. But, after reading some of your comments, now I am not so sure about just what the actual gain would be. Your comments would be appreciated. Thanks.

Mark
post #74 of 179
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigbarney View Post

Now, now... try and hold yourself together there.
HDV IS mpeg2... or I should say a somewhat restricted mpeg2.

As I said before, the one thing that HAS blessed us with this avchd fiasco is the different media storage methods that have been introduced.... which of course Sony wonderfully used as transportation to slither this avchd under our fingernails.... kind of like bamboo shoots I would say. They knew full well that avchd would be a tough sell all by itself and it would NEED some kind of helpful transportation. (kind of what I meant in the above post by being "sucked in")

avchd is h.264, and h.264 is a *far superior* codec to the hdv rubbish that you keep pimping out here.

avchd is a no-brainer to anyone who cares about picture quality, it sells itself:

"...In the real world, the HMC150 performs much better in low light than the Z1.

...To get a comparison with a more recent Sony HDV model, I talked to Rob Neal of Glass Slipper Productions (www.gspvideos.com). Rob owns a Sony Z7, and he told me that the HMC150 is very similar in low light to the Z7; however, he said that he can get more out of the HMC150 low-light footage in post."
http://www.eventdv.net/Articles/Read...rticleID=52607
post #75 of 179
I love everything about my hd camcorder. What kills me is the software, but it's made me shoot in a different way, that rough editing in-camera has become a method in itself.
post #76 of 179
Quote:
Originally Posted by Razz1 View Post

I currently have a Sony CX-7 with resolution of 1440x1080. I am considering upgrading to the CX-12 with resolution of 1920x1080. I have gotten a little lost in reading this thread up to this point. So, would I stand to gain a fair amount more with this upgrade? It would at first glance seem obvious based just on the numbers. But, after reading some of your comments, now I am not so sure about just what the actual gain would be. Your comments would be appreciated. Thanks.

Mark

wait a couple of months, until the next-gen canons come out, then re-evaluate both sony and canon.
post #77 of 179
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigbarney View Post

Now, now... try and hold yourself together there.
HDV IS mpeg2... or I should say a somewhat restricted mpeg2.

As I said before, the one thing that HAS blessed us with this avchd fiasco is the different media storage methods that have been introduced.... which of course Sony wonderfully used as transportation to slither this avchd under our fingernails.... kind of like bamboo shoots I would say. They knew full well that avchd would be a tough sell all by itself and it would NEED some kind of helpful transportation. (kind of what I meant in the above post by being "sucked in")

Red (scarlet).... what a great idea.... if they can ever get it off the drawing board. So far it's been more talk than anything else. I remember hearing at NAB almost 2 years ago about scarlet being "almost" ready.

Yeah XDCAM Ex is MPEG 2 like HDV, but uses solid state media and is full 1080x1920 and 35mbs. Also, unlike HDV, it records PCM audio. RED Scarlet has changed a lot since it's NAB prototype with fixed lens 3k camera. It's now a range of camera heads which go up to 6k full frame 35mm (which comes out later in the year at around $10,000 for the head only), and the RED Epic goes up to 28k.
post #78 of 179
Quote:
Originally Posted by osv View Post

avchd is h.264, and h.264 is a *far superior* codec to the hdv rubbish that you keep pimping out here.


No, no... you see... you're a bit confused there. HDV is not a codec... it's a format/standard. It's MPEG2 that's a codec.

Unlike avchd, HDV was limited only by the technology that transported it. Only those with the higher end cameras (like the EX) were actually allowed to see what mpeg2 is REALLY all about. Did you know that mpeg2 at 35Mb/s is just about as fast and easy to edit as it is at 25Mb/s?

As for h.264 being a "*far superior* codec".... that's what everybody keeps saying. The funny thing is.... I haven't seen it yet... as an editing medium anyway. But then most of you here haven't a clue about that because you're more interested in plopping raw unedited video down on a disk. Not that there is anything wrong with that of course.... it's just not what I do..... and the angle I'm coming from isn't being looked at or considered. As a result you don't see the other side of the coin

Hey... h.264 makes a great delivery codec that's for sure... but editing... forget it... it stinks worse than doggy doo-doo baking in the desert on a hot Sunday afternoon. There is NO advantage to h.264 over mpeg2 on the timeline what so ever. In fact it's quite the opposite. So what's everybody's answer... "just wait until computers get more powerful and.... ". Well that's pretty silly... why wait??? MPEG2 is already here.
post #79 of 179
Quote:
Originally Posted by kalak View Post

What "fiasco"? What "tough sell"?....

And I was not "sucked in". I bought a AVCHD camcorder, and I really like the picture quality, the convenience and the work flow.

You're not listening. What I'm saying was that it WASN'T a tough sell... and that's because they took it off tape and put it on a nice new, fast, sleek storage system.

A hypothetical here:
Canon makes the ass10 and the ass20 cams. Now the ass10 is avchd on tape with a 1440x1080 tape restriction and the ass20 is mpeg2 on flash at 1920x1080. The PQ is comparable as is the price. Which one would you buy?

Another hypothetical:
Sony fixes it so that you can do a fast easy offload of mpeg2 onto disk for quick playback in a blu ray player (you really think they can't do this??) and they make the avchd a pain in the rear end to do.
Which one would you buy into?

It wasn't avchd that sold these cameras. You just said it yourself: "the convenience and the work flow."

You have to admit though.... pretty smart move on Sony's part. They used a shiny new vehicle to sell avchd and they just happen to own a MUCH larger share in the avchd/h.264 market than they ever did in the HDV/mpeg2 market. That of course translates into a higher profit for each cam they sell.
post #80 of 179
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigbarney View Post

You're not listening. What I'm saying was that it WASN'T a tough sell... and that's because they took it off tape and put it on a nice new, fast, sleek storage system.

I don't follow what you are saying at all, as you are trying to twist everything around. The whole point of AVCHD is to fit the HD material into limited storage because MPEG2 won't! (remember that it was originally designed to fit onto mini-DVD rewritable, and later expanded to include flash memory). And so what you said simply was not true.

Quote:
A hypothetical here:
...the ass20 is mpeg2 on flash at 1920x1080.

It won't work! AVCHD was drafted in 2006, and affordable flash memory capacity in 2006 & 2007 was simply too small to use MPEG2 - don't you get it?

Quote:
Another hypothetical:
Sony fixes it so that you can do a fast easy offload of mpeg2 onto disk for quick playback in a blu ray player (you really think they can't do this??) and they make the avchd a pain in the rear end to do.
Which one would you buy into?

What? What do you mean by making the AVCHD "a pain in the rear end" to do so? Again, the whole point of AVCHD media format is to make it easy for consumer to play back the media, just like DVD. Your hypothesis does not make sense as it throws out the whole point of AVCHD's existence in the first place.

Quote:
It wasn't avchd that sold these cameras.

Of course, not. People don't care about file format. They only want a camcorder which just works, has good picture quality, has affordable media and easy to play back - I mean most won't even do editing. AVCHD can give them all of the above. But sure, you can slap another logo on top, e.g. ASSHD or whatever, people don't care.

Quote:
You have to admit though.... pretty smart move on Sony's part. They used a shiny new vehicle to sell avchd and they just happen to own a MUCH larger share in the avchd/h.264 market than they ever did in the HDV/mpeg2 market.

AVCHD was jointly developed by Sony and Panasonic. Again, it was designed to fit into smaller capacity media, and adapted to use a cheaper media than Blu-Ray disc - not the other way round!
post #81 of 179
Quote:
Originally Posted by kalak View Post

MPEG2 won't!

Wrong.
The EX is a perfect example. No reason why that technology couldn't apply on a slightly smaller scale. And no... I'm not twisting things around. The point I'm making is that you can do with mpeg2 what was done with avchd. There just isn't the same amount of money in it.


Quote:
It won't work! AVCHD was drafted in 2006, and affordable flash memory capacity in 2006 & 2007 was simply too small to use MPEG2 - don't you get it?

Mmmm... I see we have trouble understanding the term "hypothetical". If you don't like flash because your having trouble skinning that through your imagination... then replace it with the term "hard drive". i mean really... how much can you fit on a hard drive... hours? Days?


Quote:
What? What do you mean by making the AVCHD "a pain in the rear end" to do so? Again, the whole point of AVCHD media format is to make it easy for consumer to play back the media, just like DVD. Your hypothesis does not make sense as it throws out the whole point of AVCHD's existence in the first place.

I used to think you were a smart guy, but if you can't figure this out.... My point is that you COULD have done the same thing with mpeg2


Quote:
Of course, not. People don't care about file format. They only want a camcorder which just works, has good picture quality, has affordable media and easy to play back - I mean most won't even do editing. AVCHD can give them all of the above.

And what about the ones that DO want to edit? With rendering times 4 or 5 times as long, it doesn't make a whole lot of sense does it.


Quote:
AVCHD was jointly developed by Sony and Panasonic. Again, it was designed to fit into smaller capacity media, and adapted to use a cheaper media than Blu-Ray disc - not the other way round!

Size would have been a great debate.... 5 years ago. Today.... nahhh.... Hard drives cams, flash media, 25gig and 50gig optical disks. Not withstanding there really is not a significant size difference in mpeg2 at 25Mb/s and avc at 24Mb/s.

In fact I shot off a quick little experiment last week because i was quite curious

I took exactly one minute of AVC at 1920x1080 and dropped it on the time line and rendered out 2 separate files... none of this smart render rubbish either. If you're really going to edit then you don't have access to smart render in the first place. The first file was a avc file (that's an elementary video stream with no audio, container... etc) at 15Mb/s CBR. The resulting file size was 109Mb and the render time was 00:05:46. The second file was M2V (mpeg elementary video stream... no audio... etc) again 15Mb/s CBR The resultant video file was was 111Mb and render time was 00:01:36.

So... bitrate for bitrate there is almost no difference (BIG difference in render time though). Now my *guess* is that avc will encode better with vbr encodes because you can jerk avc bitrates to a wider range without causing too much damage. Mpeg2 isn't quite as flexible in that area. But then I've always said from the beginning that avc makes a really great delivery format.

The "lower bitrate while maintaining quality" issue.... well that's quite the quagmire isn't it. There are people on this site that swear up and down that they CAN tell the difference between avc at 17M and at 24M

At any rate... if they're now throwing out avchd cams at 24Mb/s.... then they can't be too, too worried about file size issues
post #82 of 179
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigbarney View Post

No, no... you see... you're a bit confused there. HDV is not a codec... it's a format/standard. It's MPEG2 that's a codec.

that pretty funny, considering that it's coming from somebody who didn't even know that the hf11 records vbr avchd.

Quote:
Originally Posted by bigbarney View Post

As for h.264 being a "*far superior* codec".... that's what everybody keeps saying. The funny thing is.... I haven't seen it yet... as an editing medium anyway.

who said anything about it being an editing medium?

we have repeatedly told you that it's far more efficient than hdv, which means that it records more picture information in the same bandwidth that hdv uses.

face barney, hdv is dead.
post #83 of 179
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigbarney View Post

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

how do you think that the vast majority of dv footage is edited? with smart rendering, of course.

so barney... tell us all of the video editing software that you know of that isn't capable of smart rendering dv footage.
post #84 of 179
Quote:
Originally Posted by osv View Post

that pretty funny, considering that it's coming from somebody who didn't even know that the hf11 records vbr avchd.

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. I'm beginning to wonder if this is another "OSV" fact.
post #85 of 179
Quote:
Originally Posted by osv View Post

how do you think that the vast majority of dv footage is edited? with smart rendering, of course.

so barney... tell us all of the video editing software that you know of that isn't capable of smart rendering dv footage.

geez.. you really haven't a clue in the world what you're talking about do you!

Tell me OSV... how do you "smart render" a clip (DV, AVI, MPEG2, AVC...etc... doesn't matter) when you do something like put a vdub cartooner effect on it?? YOU CAN'T It has to be FULLY rendered. EACH FRAME must be completely rewritten. There is no such thing as "smart rendering" here.

Composte 2 track layers together... YOU CAN'T "smart render". EVERY frame must be FULLY rewritten

Overlay a rolling title as foreground on your video and EVERY frame for that entire title roll must be fully rewritten.

It doesn't matter if you're talking DV, avchd, mpeg2 it's all the same. You REALLY NEED to educate yourself on exactly what "smart rendering" means. This is not the first time some one has tried to tell you.

"Smart rendering ONLY comes into effect when you have not constructed a change to a frame or set of frames. Those frames therefore can simply be copied. But if you add an effect, a transition, a color correction, a parent track, a child track... or otherwise change the frame(s) in ANY fashion they MUST be fully and completely rewritten. Whenb doing REAL editing OSV, it is extremely rare that "smart render" ever comes into play and that's because you're changing the state of the frames.
post #86 of 179
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigbarney View Post

Wrong.
The EX is a perfect example. No reason why that technology couldn't apply on a slightly smaller scale. And no... I'm not twisting things around. The point I'm making is that you can do with mpeg2 what was done with avchd. There just isn't the same amount of money in it.

EX is a perfect example why it would not work on a flash media as of 2 years ago! The very first Sony AVCHD camcorder HDR-UX1, records at only 9Mbps; while the very first Panasonic AVCHD camcorder uses 13Mbps max bitrate. The results were not great, but probably tolerable. But try that with MPEG2! It won't be viewable with MPEG2 at those bitrate.

You are twisting things around because you keep applying today's technology and today's media capacity to what they had available 3 years ago. There is no point comparing what can be done TODAY vs what was available 3 yrs ago. Even with today's technology, many camcorder buyers would not be happy with the recording time they would get with 35Mbps recordings.

Quote:


I see we have trouble understanding the term "hypothetical".

I don't understand hypothesis which makes no sense, and I much prefer dealing with the reality than answering endless possibilities of "what if....".

Quote:


My point is that you COULD have done the same thing with mpeg2

What you could do and what is the best are two different things.
In fact, why stop at MPEG2? We COULD do the same thing with MJPEG too! You see, it takes minimal CPU power to render and edit, and it gives you frame accurate editing like DV? Why not? Storage space is cheap, as you said....

The fact is that JVC joined the AVCHD camp when they did not have to.
Sanyo chose AVC over MPEG2 when they did not have to.
And I am not aware of any digital camera movie mode uses MPEG2.

Quote:


Not withstanding there really is not a significant size difference in mpeg2 at 25Mb/s and avc at 24Mb/s.

Size? No. But picture quality? Significant difference.

Quote:


At any rate... if they're now throwing out avchd cams at 24Mb/s.... then they can't be too, too worried about file size issues

Again you are talking about today's technology, which cannot be applied to what we had 3 years ago. Of course, they would continue to push the limit as storage media becomes more affordable. And that's why you see the first gen AVCHD cam's 9Mbps being upped to Canon's 24Mbps today.
post #87 of 179
Quote:
Originally Posted by kalak View Post

But try that with MPEG2! It won't be viewable with MPEG2 at those bitrate.

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.

Quote:


You are twisting things around because you keep applying today's technology and today's media capacity to what they had available 3 years ago.

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


Quote:


I don't understand hypothesis which makes no sense, and I much prefer dealing with the reality than answering endless possibilities of "what if....".

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



Quote:


In fact, why stop at MPEG2? We COULD do the same thing with MJPEG too! You see, it takes minimal CPU power to render and edit, and it gives you frame accurate editing like DV? Why not? Storage space is cheap, as you said....

Come on be serious. I spend a lot of time working with fully uncompressed avi when I have to jump from one nle to the other. An hour of avi at 1920x1080 is about 700gig. Uncompressed avi is great because it's about as generic as you can get... but how many people have the money and the closet space to store that?
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.

Quote:


The fact is that JVC joined the AVCHD camp when they did not have to.

Yes they did. It's becoming a rather large bandwagon that one doesn't want to be left out of if they wish to make money.

Quote:


Sanyo chose AVC over MPEG2 when they did not have to.

They chose avc in order to be more compatible with apple. Camcorderinfo states that pretty clearly.

Quote:


And I am not aware of any digital camera movie mode uses MPEG2.

I have no idea how still cams crept into this but you're right. The 2 biggies that come to mind... Nikon uses mjpeg and Canon with mpeg4. Neither one chose mpeg OR avchd.... so what's your point???


Quote:


Size? No. But picture quality? Significant difference.

Bull crap.
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.


Quote:


And that's why you see the first gen AVCHD cam's 9Mbps being upped to Canon's 24Mbps today.

You do? So... Sony's going 24mb/s too?
post #88 of 179
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigbarney View Post

geez.. you really haven't a clue in the world what you're talking about do you!

Tell me OSV... how do you "smart render" a clip (DV, AVI, MPEG2, AVC...etc... doesn't matter) when you do something like put a vdub cartooner effect on it?? YOU CAN'T It has to be FULLY rendered. EACH FRAME must be completely rewritten. There is no such thing as "smart rendering" here.

the fact remains that smart rendering with avchd and smart rendering with dv is the exact same thing, despite your irrelevant protests to the contrary, lol
post #89 of 179
Quote:
Originally Posted by bigbarney View Post

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. I'm beginning to wonder if this is another "OSV" fact.


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?
post #90 of 179
Quote:
Originally Posted by osv View Post

the fact remains that smart rendering with avchd and smart rendering with dv is the exact same thing, despite your irrelevant protests to the contrary, lol

What the hell are you babbling about??? "Smart rendering" ANY compression format is the same..... even mpeg2. Although DV is handled slightly different because it hasn't got the gop structure that mpeg2/avc does... it all works on the same basic principle

The term "smart render" BTW was started by ulead or one of those rather consumer-ish companies. The actual term is "no recompress editing". The reason is pretty simple... if you don't make any changes to a frame within a gop structure then that gop structure does not have to be opened... or recompressed The whole gop group can be simply copied or used as it is. If however you make a change to even one frame within that gop group then that entire structure must be uncompressed, each frame re-written with the altered information... and then recompressed.

And BTW... when the heck did I EVER say "smart rendering" DV and "smart rendering" avchd was different???? In fact... when did I ever mention DV at all??? Have you been smoking some funny stuff???
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Camcorders
AVS › AVS Forum › Other Areas of Interest › Camcorders › Why so much AVCHD compression