DVCPro HD or AVC-HD?

Gauranga

Gauranga

Active member
Which format is superior? What are the features and benefits of each?

Technology only please, let's pretend cost and workflow are not significant factors (even though we all know they are).
 
They're entirely different animals. AVC-HD is a tiny-bandwidth, long-GOP, 4:2:0, interframe codec. DVCPRO-HD is a higher-bandwidth, intraframe-only, 4:2:2 codec.

AVC's reason for being is that it can cram a good-looking picture into a much smaller space. DVCPRO-HD is a fixed rate of 100mbps, AVC-HD can go as low as 6mbps. But the potential for long-GOP issues remains, and it's half the color information. DVCPRO-HD is a professional codec, a mastering codec, and an editing codec. AVC-HD is not really any of those; it's more like a "super HDV".
 
Thanks Barry. I got the answer I was looking for.

The real intent of the question was to determine which camera to buy, a new AVC-HD DVX (if one were to be released) or an HVX200A (if one were to be released). I am in no hurry to buy a new camera and I'm waiting to save some money and see what comes out. If, theoretically, both of those cameras were to be released by the time 2009 rolls around, they would be what I would choose from.

DVCProHD wins!

I waited to buy the DVX100B and was glad I did. Looks like I'll wait until the HVX200A comes out. I don't really care if it takes a year or more.
 
Hmmm. Just realised that DVCProHD footage should have about the same level of quality as DV since HD is roughly 4 times the resolution of SD and the bandwidth the codec uses is 4 times as much. Cool. But that's about 52GB per hour of footage!
 
seunosewa said:
Hmmm. Just realised that DVCProHD footage should have about the same level of quality as DV . . . .
Click to expand...

NTSC DV is 25 mbps and DVCProHD is 100 mbps. Totally different color space as well.

What are suggesting by your comment.
 
Last edited:
seunosewa said:
Hmmm. Just realised that DVCProHD footage should have about the same level of quality as DV since HD is roughly 4 times the resolution of SD and the bandwidth the codec uses is 4 times as much. Cool. But that's about 52GB per hour of footage!
Click to expand...

Not sure where you get the first part of yourstatement, but I've never heard that and it doesn't add up.
52GB per hour, yes, but less isn't better unless you are shooting high end home movies. That's where most of the AVCHD cameras are aimed at. JMHO

My GFX guy just brought one in today and it's definately a consumer camera.
We're going to look at the component output tomorrow.
I am impressed how good some of these cameras look when you bypass the recording medium and take a straight feed out.

I'm actually thinking about using it as a overhead shot for a live production we are doing next week with NewTek's TriCaster Pro.
I'll let you know what I find when cutting between the HVX and the Sony camera.
 
DV has 1/4 the resolution of DVCProHD
DV uses 1/4 the bandwidth of DVCProHD
Therefore the level of compression,
and hence the image quality,
should be about the same for both codecs?
 
seunosewa said:
DV has 1/4 the resolution of DVCProHD
DV uses 1/4 the bandwidth of DVCProHD
Therefore the level of compression,
and hence the image quality,
should be about the same for both codecs?
Click to expand...
I don't think so - though it's not as straightforward as it used to be.

ORIGINALLY DVCProHD was engineered to have a resolution of 960x720 (which is still the case for 720p/60) and that is TWICE the resolution of NTSC DV at 720x480. But it doesn't end there. I believe that initially DVCProHD was engineered quite ingeniously by running 4 DV codec chips in parallel. Two provided the doubling of resolution, and the second pair enabled it to be 60 FRAMES/sec, as opposed to the 60 FIELDS/secs of DV. Hence it becomes a progressive v interlace picture, and a higher effective resolution.

That explains how 720 came to be originally proposed as a standard, and why the DVCProHD incarnation is non square pixel - the 960x720 raster is two 60Hz Dv rasters rotated and combined.

But since then there has been a move to 1080 formats and an expansion of DVCProHD to such as 1280x1080 at 30i, 30p etc and 1440x1080 at 25i, 25p - hence the original comment, it's not as straightforward as it used to be.

There may be some truth in your saying that it has the same level of compression as DV, but I don't think it then follows that that means the same image quality, for many reasons.
 
seunosewa said:
DV has 1/4 the resolution of DVCProHD
DV uses 1/4 the bandwidth of DVCProHD
Therefore the level of compression,
and hence the image quality,
should be about the same for both codecs?
Click to expand...

Did you take into account that NTSC DV compresses 5:1 in the cam at acquisition and discards 75% of the color information?
 
The HVX Rocks! Panasonic is running around doing P2 meetings...if one comes to your area go. Also, there's a great HVX demo dvd that explains all the codec/color space stuff very well. Your dealer should have it. That and Barry's Bootcamp go well together.
 
As promised I did a side by side of the HVX and the Sony AVCHD camera. (It's only a $1,300 camera, but I thought bypassing the AVCHD codec and taking direct component from camera would help).
It didn't.
The HVX even had a better look then my Beta Camera which I always loved the look of.
Even with running the Sony camera through our TriCasters proc amp, I just couldn't get it close enough. But for a lipstic cam, on a totally different shot with no flesh tones, it might work.

Sorry if this is kinda off topic.
So to save face, even if you were to compare identical elecrtonics, NO the AVCHD codec sucks compared to DVCPro HD. Am I forgiven? :happy:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top