AVCHD vs DVCPROHD
- Thread starter someday
- Start date
Jg Marceaux BestBetter
Active member
AVCHD is found on consumer camcorders while DVCPROHD is found on expensive video cameras in the 5-figure dollar amount.
Technically, AVCHD is way better. Better compression efficiency and cheaper storage media on flash, HDD and DVD-discs. The only downside is that it is harder to edit, but that should change once CPUs are fast enough to decode AVCHD in realtime, much in the same way CPU nowadays have no problem with HDV.
DVCPRO HD is based on old DCT compression (think JPEG), so it is not the most efficient compression codec, and uses up a lot of media space. You'd be better off with a codec like ProRes 4:2:2 or DNxHD as a production codec. It doesn't say in the whitepaper, but those might be based on wavelet compression.
Technically, AVCHD is way better. Better compression efficiency and cheaper storage media on flash, HDD and DVD-discs. The only downside is that it is harder to edit, but that should change once CPUs are fast enough to decode AVCHD in realtime, much in the same way CPU nowadays have no problem with HDV.
DVCPRO HD is based on old DCT compression (think JPEG), so it is not the most efficient compression codec, and uses up a lot of media space. You'd be better off with a codec like ProRes 4:2:2 or DNxHD as a production codec. It doesn't say in the whitepaper, but those might be based on wavelet compression.
Barry_Green
Moderator
AVC-HD is a long-GOP codec. It's potentially substantially superior to HDV, and is slated by the manufacturers to be the replacement for HDV.
But it's not DVCPRO-HD. AVC-HD is 4:2:0 only, and it's long-GOP. If you need 4:2:2 and frame-discrete compression, AVC-HD isn't it.
AVC itself represents pretty much the pinnacle of compression technology right now; AVC is also known as h.264. It's two to 2.5 times more efficient than MPEG-2.
AVC is being used in two very different formats: AVC-HD, which is a long-GOP system designed for low-bitrate recordings, and AVC-Intra, which is a top-quality codec designed to rival and even exceed DVCPRO-HD. At 50 megabits, AVC-Intra (not AVC-HD) is said to rival DVCPRO-HD for visual quality; at 100 megabits AVC-Intra is much superior to DVCPRO-HD and is rivaling D5-HD.
But they're two different formats. AVC-Intra is intra-frame only, so no long-GOP issues. AVC-HD is inherently long-GOP. I think AVC-HD, implemented in a proper camera head, could exceed the best HDV camcorders and probably provide an excellent rival to XDCAM-HD. But it's not a 4:2:2 intraframe-only codec. If you want that you have to go to DVCPRO-HD or AVC-Intra.
(those who were with DV in the beginning may remember the great BetaSP vs. DV debate; we technologists insisted that DV was every bit as good as, and basically technically superior to, BetaSP. But the shooters looked at the results they were getting from their $60,000 BVW-D600 BetaSP rigs and saw that it was blowing away anything that users of the $4,000 Sony VX1000 could get. So the myth persisted that BetaSP was a better format... until the DSR500 came along. When we had a camera head that was worthy of the format, the argument disappeared, and so did BetaSP.) There is no "worthy" AVC-HD camcorder out yet; the only cameras out are little pocket-cams. Someday someone'll produce an XLH1-caliber or HPX500-caliber camcorder using the format, and when they do, that's when we'll be able to judge how well AVC-HD performs in the real world.
But it's not DVCPRO-HD. AVC-HD is 4:2:0 only, and it's long-GOP. If you need 4:2:2 and frame-discrete compression, AVC-HD isn't it.
AVC itself represents pretty much the pinnacle of compression technology right now; AVC is also known as h.264. It's two to 2.5 times more efficient than MPEG-2.
AVC is being used in two very different formats: AVC-HD, which is a long-GOP system designed for low-bitrate recordings, and AVC-Intra, which is a top-quality codec designed to rival and even exceed DVCPRO-HD. At 50 megabits, AVC-Intra (not AVC-HD) is said to rival DVCPRO-HD for visual quality; at 100 megabits AVC-Intra is much superior to DVCPRO-HD and is rivaling D5-HD.
But they're two different formats. AVC-Intra is intra-frame only, so no long-GOP issues. AVC-HD is inherently long-GOP. I think AVC-HD, implemented in a proper camera head, could exceed the best HDV camcorders and probably provide an excellent rival to XDCAM-HD. But it's not a 4:2:2 intraframe-only codec. If you want that you have to go to DVCPRO-HD or AVC-Intra.
Well, artifacts will depend largely on what bitrate you record at. AVC-HD is scalable; it can go to as few as 6 megabits, or scale up to as much as 24 megabits (although no manufacturer has yet produced a camera capable of more than 15 or 16 megabits, I think). The more bandwidth you allocate to the footage, the better and more artifact-free it'll be. The less bandwidth you give it, the more recording time you'll get. At 8 megabits AVC-HD is capable of producing very good HD video that largely matches HDV in a lot of cases, but it's still likely going to be subject to the same long-GOP issues. You're probably getting full HDV quality when you run AVC-HD at about 12 to 15 megabits. At a full 24 megabits it should be pretty resilient and *should* be able to go toe-to-toe with XDCAM-HD, but that's only theoretical because nobody's produced a 24-megabit AVC-HD recorder yet. And until we get an AVC-HD camera head that's comparable to the best HDV and XDCAM camcorder heads, it'll remain a theoretical argument.
(those who were with DV in the beginning may remember the great BetaSP vs. DV debate; we technologists insisted that DV was every bit as good as, and basically technically superior to, BetaSP. But the shooters looked at the results they were getting from their $60,000 BVW-D600 BetaSP rigs and saw that it was blowing away anything that users of the $4,000 Sony VX1000 could get. So the myth persisted that BetaSP was a better format... until the DSR500 came along. When we had a camera head that was worthy of the format, the argument disappeared, and so did BetaSP.) There is no "worthy" AVC-HD camcorder out yet; the only cameras out are little pocket-cams. Someday someone'll produce an XLH1-caliber or HPX500-caliber camcorder using the format, and when they do, that's when we'll be able to judge how well AVC-HD performs in the real world.
Last edited:
I'd guess the HVX300 will use the 50 Mbps flavor of AVC-Intra, but it won't be coming out tomorrow. Maybe late 2008 if we're lucky.
Barry_Green
Moderator
AVC-Intra will for sure not be on any inexpensive cameras any time soon. The AVC-Intra codec board alone costs something like $3500 or $4000. It only exists in the $48,000 HPX3000, or as an add-on board for the $27,000 HPX2000.
Barry_Green
Moderator
The 50-megabit version is mainly for news types of operations, where they need to keep the bitrate down. The magic of AVC-Intra is with the 100-megabit version, because it's full-raster 1920x1080, at 10 bits, and 4:2:2.
My God! that's incredible. The day it comes to a cheap camera, they will introduce a 40K$ camera with 4K format and so on. Tech is moving fast.
Art is always art, at any resolution.
Art is art.... so dont worry about it too much....... 
Jg Marceaux BestBetter
Active member
OMG I have the same problem!
Thanks for the post, Barry. AVC-Intra sounds like a winner.