Barry_Green
Moderator
What circumstances have you seen AVCHD not match or exceed XDCAM-EX? As a recording format, not as a camera head, because obviously those are different...
Yes, but -- that's using a separate $5,000 product. How is that relevant? I mean, could an HPX300 or HPX170 user not use that exact same product and record 35mbps MPEG-2 to those same cheap CF cards? If you're going to bring an external recorder into the mix, that works both ways. I could just have easily said "if I want long recording times, I can use 35mbps or 25mbps MPG2 and get long recording times on cheaper CF cards."
But what do you mean by "much easier post production workflows"?
If we're staying with the onboard recording codecs, then I say that in 720/24pN it's almost identical record time per minute, and if we're using AVC-I 720/24pN or 1080/24pN at 50mbps it's comparable record quality and almost identical record time per minute, and if you're using AVC-I 50 in any other mode it's reasonably comparable. The concept of 3x as much recording per gig doesn't apply, it's more like 1.3x as much recording per gig, which is reasonably comparable.
It's only when you want to compare AVC-I 100mbps against XDCAM-EX that the recording time per minute becomes significantly different, but *so does what you're recording* so how is that a direct comparison?
Says who? Have you ever tried it? AVC-Intra is effortless to edit in post as compared to long-GOP MPEG-2! AVC-Intra plays in realtime on my LAPTOP. EDIUS plays it in realtime with no GOP issues.
Now, AVC-HD is another matter, it's quite a bit slower than AVC-Intra. But AVC-Intra is no big deal, and that's on a 2.4GHz laptop. Use it on a quad-core or octo-core desktop and it screams.
Trashing long-GOP and then embracing long-GOP does seem like quite a fine line to dance for them. Almost as hypocritical as Sony claiming that AVCHD is a "consumer" format, while pushing HDV as "professional". Doesn't that seem equally ridiculous? I can't help but laugh my guts out when Sony says that a V1U, V7U, Z1U, or S270 (have you seen the S270?) are "professional" products that use 25mbps of 1440x1080 HDV, but then they say that 24mbps of 1920x1080 AVCHD is "consumer". And, at the same time, SONY THEMSELVES say that 9mbps of AVCHD provides an equivalent picture quality to 25mbps of HDV. Yet 24mbps of AVCHD is "consumer" and 25mbps of HDV is "professional"? It's ridiculous in the extreme. Kind of like Sony saying that 4:2:0 is just as good as 4:2:2, and then coming out with their own version of 4:2:2. Or them saying that 25mbps is good enough, and then coming out with 35mbps and saying "that's good enough" and then coming out with 50mbps... If 35mbps is good enough, why go 50? And if 50mbps of MPEG-2 is good enough, why go with AVC? And they will, you just watch... and when they do, they will look profoundly hypocritical.
There's "marketing" going on, on both sides. Both sides have to sell what they've got on the shelf.
So is there any truth to be had anywhere? Long-GOP sucks, right? Yes, it does - when the bandwidth is too low. Long-GOP can be very helpful if there's enough bandwidth so that it doesn't screw you over. Using Long-GOP as a crutch to prop up your too-low-bandwidth video does indeed suck, and that defines HDV in a nutshell. Using Long-GOP to give you better video quality at adequate bandwidth is a perfectly valid technique, which is why I don't doubt that the 100mbps long-GOP of the XDR will look as good as the 160mbps I-frame version. I have tested the living **** out of HDV and can break it all day long, it is NOT good enough. I have tested AVCHD pretty well and cannot break the 24mbps version no matter what I try. I find it at least as robust as XDCAM-EX. At least. If you've seen otherwise, I'd love to know the circumstances.
The way I see it, Sony has historically come up with half-assed recording formats that they shove out the door, while Panasonic at least takes the extra effort to make their professional lineup be more professional. What do I mean by that? Look at DVCAM. Sony took the exact same DV format, sped up the tape 50%, and called it "DVCAM". Panasonic took the same DV format, put it on much more durable metal particle tape, widened the track pitch out further, and sped up the tape even faster. DVCPRO slew DVCAM, over 2/3 of broadcasters in the US replaced their BetaSP systems with DVCPRO, and Hitachi, Phillips, and Ikegami all licensed and manufactured DVCPRO gear; nobody licensed DVCAM.
For HD, Sony took the exact same DV tape and mechanisms that they already had, and used that as the basis to build their HD system. Didn't matter how much bandwidth you'd actually need for quality, they were restricted by what their hardware and tape could handle, so 25mbps was it. They called it "HDV" and shoved it out the door. And it sucked. Panasonic instead took their exact same DVCPRO-HD format from the VariCam and put it on P2 cards. We're talking about the exact same format that had already been certified for unlimited acquisition *and post* by Discovery HD. Same format.
For "enhanced HD" Sony took a blu-ray disc with a maximum write speed of 35mbps and juiced up their HDV format to match what the disc could handle. Again, the defining idea here wasn't to show off the ultimate in best formats, it was to hawk proprietary hardware and proprietary media, and the format was limited by what the media could do. So that's where XDCAM-HD came from. And for EX, they stuck with the exact same bandwidth restrictions for *no conceivable reason*. They claim the card is capable of 800mbps, yet they limited the recording to 35mbps of 4:2:0. Why? Who knows? Panasonic instead counters with 4:2:2 10-bit AVC-Intra, which is HDCAM-SR caliber recording.
So now Sony is introducing 50mbps of MPEG-2. Seriously? With a straight face? Sure, it has 4:2:2 now, finally. But come on... and yes, of course, it's disc-based and requires its own proprietary media and its own custom expensive deck. Whereas Panasonic will re-use the same P2 cards and could introduce a 200mbps "ultra-AVC-Intra" if they wanted to, not costing the user anything additional. Or, they could put AVC-HD on the cards if people want long record times. Doesn't matter. What matters is that the recording media and the flexibility stay the same, and the quality exceeds anything the other side produces.
So yes, they went long-GOP, but at least they chose the best codec they possibly could, AVC. Sony uses 1990-era MPEG-2, Panasonic uses 2006-era AVC. Same pattern holds: Sony half-asses it, Panasonic at least does what improvements can be done. If you're gonna go long-GOP, at least use the best technology available, right?
Last edited:
I think something was wrong in the set up, ya think? I can shoot a flopping trout clear as a bell. I sincerely think he had something going on unrelated to CMOS.