AVCHD vs AVCintra out of the AF 100 article by Crewstv
- Thread starter Everts
- Start date
Homunculus
Carbonite Member
as i said in other thread, very encouraging. they are saying in - cam native acvhd is virtually indistinguishable from AVC intra external recorded footage. could this be because there IS no difference due to the port still being 8bit even to external recorder?
BowiesInSpace
Member
Even if the output is 8-bit there's still no restrictions on recording to 4:2:2 or 100mbps on an external recorder.
I'd say Jan was right. So many people were dissing the native codec, but we should wait to see if we're pleasantly surprised by it. I sure am.
Definitely not spending a few grand for a nanoflash asap. Better to wait until my cell phone shoots 3K, then I'll really need to up my camcorder codec.
Michael Olsen
Veteran
I must say I prefer the look of the AVC-I. The difference is very subtle, and strikes me most in the bokeh. Seems like the AVCHD footage is a slightly more "square" in its rendition of detail. Of course, this is just looking at 1920x1080 JPEGs, sooo...
This is definitely a head and shoulders above DSLR h264. :beer:
This is definitely a head and shoulders above DSLR h264. :beer:
Last edited:
Philip Goetz
Well-known member
I am thinking that AVCHD 25mb/sec recording to SDHC cards in the camera is just a way to get off the ground and rolling to get recording. Using an external recorder will be the key to high resolution digital cinema.
Michael Olsen
Veteran
It would be interesting to see a similar test from the footage of the Alfa Romeos - something with more motion that pushes the codec a bit.
Jaime Valles
Veteran
Very encouraging. More tests are in order, but I'd say this is making me reconsider the need for a Ninja or a Ki Pro Mini for serious production work.
Homunculus
Carbonite Member
wow you seriously can see a difference? You must have bionic eyes. are you a replicant? lol I flipped between the 2 images instantaneously back and forth for 2 min and could not see an iota of difference. am i blind??
TheReverend
Well-known member
When seeing this after the "other" thread... I told you so. 
But seriously this is good news. Hopefully people will realize that they didn't just ignore what we want. They gave a great codec inside the cam, and an even better output, at a great price. Well done Panny and Jan!
But seriously this is good news. Hopefully people will realize that they didn't just ignore what we want. They gave a great codec inside the cam, and an even better output, at a great price. Well done Panny and Jan!
For serious production work i'd still consider an external recorder. They said the codec held up in basic colour correction, but i think where the codec will fall apart will be during much heavier correction, not to mention if you wanted to do some serious greenscreen work.
Homunculus
Carbonite Member
When seeing this after the "other" thread... I told you so.
But seriously this is good news. Hopefully people will realize that they didn't just ignore what we want. They gave a great codec inside the cam, and an even better output, at a great price. Well done Panny and Jan!
hmm in 'other thread' were you the proponent of the theory that no matter how much mbps you increase the bitrate of the codec it will always stay the same in avvcam ? i.e. quality will not appreciably increase at all? why is this?
wouldn't this mean that ki-pro, ninja, whatever are all literally useless for af100?
I can see a difference aswell, only slight though. To me it seems that the AVC-I was a bit more contrasty
Even if this is the case it shouldn't affect the ki-pro or ninja as they are recording in different codecs anyway. So even if the increase in mbps doesn't affect avccam it will affect the Prores codec of the ki-pro or ninja.
Chris Messineo
Veteran
Great article. I don't always understand all the bits and bytes of every argument on DVXuser, but I can appreciate what my eyes see and the AVCHD footage so far look beautiful to me.
I'm probably in the minority on this, but I'm thrilled to have a codec that can deliver quality results without filling my hard drive every time I shoot.
I'm so excited that I preordered and I can't wait for December to get here.
I'm probably in the minority on this, but I'm thrilled to have a codec that can deliver quality results without filling my hard drive every time I shoot.
I'm so excited that I preordered and I can't wait for December to get here.
Steve Kahn
Well-known member
In these AVCHD does look good. To be very picky one can a slight bit more noise in the blacks in Frame-2. To my eyes both Frame-1 look virtually identical
They codecs rendition of the scenes we shot are so close that everyone i've shown in my edit suite, cannot tell them apart. DPs, Camera Operators & Editors.. they all were amazed.
I was the one who extracted those frame grabs for that article, they were originally full res tiff files however i think hosting them was an issue.
I've put the JPEG and TIFF side by side and they are 99% identical.
AVCHD FTW.
I was the one who extracted those frame grabs for that article, they were originally full res tiff files however i think hosting them was an issue.
I've put the JPEG and TIFF side by side and they are 99% identical.
AVCHD FTW.
TheReverend
Well-known member
Ummm, that's not really what I said. I stated many times that a proper implementation of AVC at 24mbps will be more than enough for most scenarios. This report supports that. I did state that more bitrate won't necessarily help get a better image. Again this is backed up by this report because only when adding 4:2:2 and I frames only at 100Mbps do we see improvement, and marginal at that.
The end story is 24Mbps with I B and P frames is a great balance for quality and data rate. And that's good news for anyone looking at this cam.
Justyn
Veteran
Ive been shooting with the 150 for almost two years and the codec can really handle a lot of CC and even on the greenscreen it's been virtually identical to what I was able to get off the HVX, with one thing to note, the HVX was a bit more forgiving about off lighting and shadows and less than ideal keys, but if you do your job, then this is NOT an issue for the codec. I have shot a few hours of greenscreen with the 150 with great success...
This is super good news all in all cause I really didn't want to take away the simplicity and complicate things. This was supposed to get us away from the kitchen sink setup of the DSLRs, and I for one and thankful for that. My only decision is whether or not to sell my 150....
This is super good news all in all cause I really didn't want to take away the simplicity and complicate things. This was supposed to get us away from the kitchen sink setup of the DSLRs, and I for one and thankful for that. My only decision is whether or not to sell my 150....
Michael Olsen
Veteran
Yes. As I said, it's very subtle. I'm looking at it on a 21" 1080p monitor. If I'm about four feet away, I can't distinguish between the two. But the AVC-I footage is somehow a little smoother looking to me. I was able to distinguish it without knowing which image was which first. In the real world, when looking at moving footage and not a big compressed JPEG, I don't think even that subtle difference would really appear. I would, however, be very interested to see how the codecs affect noise when playing back - something that can't be seen in a JPEG.
Frankly, this test is quite favorable to the AVCHD codec. I think the real test will come with lots of detail in the scene - a flyover of a forest or a pan of lace - and/or motion.
Tortoise, what's that?