HDV, AVCHD, XDCAM EX - what format will prosumer camcorders use in 2010?

[Cranky]

I was thinking of getting the HMC40... instead I got myself a used V1U. It was almost an impulsive purchase, after I missed couple of good deals on XH-A1 because of my own indecisiveness. Anyway, the topic here is not about the camera that I bought, but about recording format and physical form factor.

My preferences are:

1. I prefer cheap tapeless (read: SD/SDHC or CF) to tape.
2. I have no real preference between AVCHD and HDV; despite that AVC can in theory be twice more efficient than HDV, in practice they look very comparable.
3. I want to watch my clips with realtime frame rate. I want to edit them in realtime too, even with filters and effects.
4. I don't care much about file size, but I guess I'd prefer to keep bitrate under 50 Mbit/s for space-saving reasons.
5. I don't care much about 720p vs 1080p as long as I can get "film-like" progressive (24/25/30) and "reality" progressive (50/60) frame rates.
6. I wish interlaced were dead.

After having the V1U for almost two weeks I can say that I don't hate tape, it does not make me cringe, I can wait 30-40 minutes waiting for video to be transferred to my computer. I don't shoot much. Still, tapeless is future.

HDV can look good. Older Sony camcorders, including the V1U, have worse codec than Canon cameras, so you can can spot macroblocks more easily, especially in busy scenes. This is not a defect of MPEG-2 per se, Canon proved it with the XH-A1, which wasreleased in 2006, but its video is on par with the newest Sony cams and I think it matches the HMC150 pretty well. So, I would put the quality difference argument between HDV and AVCHD to rest.

HDV edits much faster than AVCHD. I have a quad-core 2.2GHz machine. When I play an AVCHD clip in the Vegas timeline, it plays fine for about 15 seconds with 50% CPU load, then core temperature jumps to 65C, the fans wind up, the CPU speed is throttled down, and I get a noisy computer with 100% CPU load and 5 fps playback. Nasty. I was not able to find software for controlling CPU fan, basically to turn the fan all way up and keep it like this, and I could not find a way to turn CPU throttling off, I set Windows 7 power profile to 100% performance, but this does not help much. I guess if I put my computer outside (it is about 50F outside in the nighttime) or put it on ice, or add a couple of huge fans to the computer case, I can achieve realtime AVCHD playback in Vegas. Still, when I add effects, even simple ones like levels, the frame rate drops, and there is a pause in cut points even without effects added (damn you long-GOP AVC). So, to make sure my cut looks clean I have to render small pieces with the cut in them. Please, do not recommend using Cineform or other intermediate codec, I want to work with original files. With HDV it is almost like editing DV on my older 2GHz Athlon 32. Vegas is fast, responsive, does not slow down much even with effects, and cuts are almost as fast as with DV.

I hate those cliche statements like "AVCHD is not ready for primetime", but seriously, it is still a pain to edit. Maybe if I've got an 8-core c7 machine it would look alive... But considering that there are very little visual differences between HDV and AVCHD, I would prefer having HDV video on solid state media. Um, no, I don't want XDCAM or XDCAM EX with its expensive media and equipment. Basically, I want something like the HMC150/HMC40 that encodes to MPEG-2, not to AVCHD. OR, something like a Sony's CompactFlash card recorder, which is not a tack-on to a tape-based camera, but is main recording media, without tape transport whatsoever. I am not sure what format these external recorders use, I think they just record raw MPEG transport stream instead of wrapping it into MXF like XDCAM does. This is fine, this would work for me.

And here are my attempt to look into 2010:

I don't think that Panasonic will enable MPEG-2 recording onto SD cards. After all, AVCHD officially does not support MPEG-2, though many standalone players accept MPEG-2 payload with AVCHD file structure. So, consumer/prosumer models from Panasonic will stick to AVCHD. AVC-Intra is even more resource-intensive, so I am not expecting it on lower end models. I do not expect a successor of the HMC150 to use DVCPRO HD either, this would ruin P2 business for Panasonic.

Situation with Sony seems more promising. They continue relying onto MPEG-2, which now seems to me like a brilliant strategy. HDV/XDCAM/XDCAM EX - all use MPEG-2. Third-gen models already come with bundled CF recorder. It does not record in XDCAM format, but users seems to be pretty happy with bare M2TS. I expect next year's Sony lower end models to ditch tape transport and replace it with solid-state media. Which one: CompactFlash or MemoryStick? (obviously not SxS, too expensive). I believe that Sony will use CF media because it is more upscale than MemoryStick and better fits prosumer models, and is not too proprietary to portray Sony as overly greedy. Will Sony allow recording at higher than 25 Mbit/s bitrates? I don't think so, this is XDCAM EX terrritory. Anyway, with good tweaking, MPEG-2 can look good and it is much easier to edit. It would be fun if Sony flanked Panasonic with well-supported easy-to-edit tapeless format. Their decision to keep AVCHD for consumer use is another hint of their strategy.

JVC does not belong to Panasonic anymore, is this correct? Anyway, JVC has been relying onto MPEG-2 for quite a long time, after all it invented HDV. JVC tried pushing MPEG-2 to consumers, but their TOD format was a mistake. Now JVC partnered with Sony and acquired a well-known XDCAM wrapper for MPEG-2 stream. So, JVC remains in MPEG-2 land, AND it does not mind using cheap SD cards. I would expect a successor to the HM100, with better ergonomics and lower price.

What about Canon? Unlike Panasonic and Sony, Canon does not have its own media format. SD or CF? AVCHD or MPEG-2? Anyone wants to venture a guess or share a rumor? The XH-A1 dates back to 2006, Canon must be readying something.

P.S. 24A from the V1U edits beautifully in Vegas, and renders very fast into AVC with Sony's AVC codec, about 2.5 times faster than into WMV with Microsoft's codec. After making 720p24 AVC output, I muxed it with AC3 soundrack in tsMuxer, then dropped into MultiAVCHD to create AVCHD file structure, then copied onto SDHC card, inserted into my Panasonic Blu-ray player, and voila! a 720p24 video on my HDTV. Nice.

 

[Jim Brennan]

My money is on watercolors. Maybe pastels.

:beer:

 

[Barry_Green]

The future looks to be all h.264, from broadcasting to delivery, whether over the airwaves or over the wires or delivered on a disc.

Sony and Panasonic jointly developed AVCHD and intend to push it aggressively as the format of the future. Even though Sony also owns/developed HDV, their press release flat-out said that "Panasonic and Sony will extensively promote this format (AVCHD) throughout the industry as the new HD digital video camera recorder format best suited for the HD era." Doesn't leave much room for a future for HDV or MPEG-2.

AVCHD, when properly implemented, is not only far superior to HDV, it's superior to 35mbps XDCAM-EX, at almost half the bitrate. 21mbps of AVCHD is definitely superior to 35mbps of XDCAM-EX, I've tested and proven this. It's pretty close in most cases, but when things get crunchy AVCHD stays cleaner longer than XDCAM-EX.

Canon has straddled the line between formats, supporting both HDV and AVCHD, but going forward I think it's likely to be AVCHD for them as well.

No doubt AVCHD is taking time to catch on in editing applications; solutions exist but few are implementing them. The key is graphics card acceleration. I can already get fullscreen realtime playback on my laptop, so once the NLE developers fully embrace CUDA, the last hassle towards AVCHD should fall and at that point you'll simply have superior video in almost half the bitrate.

Sony has already stated that their next gen formats will be h.264, Panasonic's already fully supporting h.264 (AVC-Intra and AVCHD), Canon has AVCHD products, and JVC already produces AVCHD products too.

Canon, JVC, and Panasonic already have AVCHD products that use SD memory cards, and Apple has already proclaimed that "SD won", so don't expect to see new AVCHD camcorders with compactflash. Especially in the pro arena; I mean, compactflash has one big glaring omission -- you can't write-protect it! You can write-protect SD, SxS, and P2, even MemoryStick. The inability to write-protect CF is a huge omission.

So, the future (as stated by both major players) is h.264 AVCHD and in the pro cams, AVC-Intra. Sony has said they'll produce both long-GoP and intraframe AVC for the 1080/60p era. Canon will follow along; they have always used existing standard formats. JVC is a wild card, they invent formats on their own, but they're also a member of the AVCHD coalition so I expect they'll standardize on and produce more h.264 products.

MPEG-2 had its day, but it doesn't have a future in the face of h.264, IMO. Now, whether there'll be a complete transition away from MPEG-2 in 2010, that seems a little early. But it looks pretty obvious that there will be a complete transition away from MPEG-2 to h.264.

 

[Cranky]

> The future looks to be all h.264, from broadcasting to delivery, whether
> over the airwaves or over the wires or delivered on a disc.[/quote]

Well, in 1989 I was reading that HDTV was almost there. I am talking about the next 3-5 years. No HDTV set is capable or receiving AVC off air, they all have MPEG-2 decoders only.

> Sony and Panasonic jointly developed AVCHD and
> intend to push it aggressively as the format of the future.

So far Sony was pushing AVCHD to consumer market only.

> AVCHD, when properly implemented, is not only far superior to HDV,
> it's superior to 35mbps XDCAM-EX, at almost half the bitrate.

The key part here is "when properly implemented". This means using all AVC features, which are technically optional. Presently, only studios can afford doing this for Blu-ray titles, offline. Realtime encoding in budget-priced products can show much less difference.

> once the NLE developers fully embrace CUDA, the last hassle
> towards AVCHD should fall and at that point you'll simply
> have superior video in almost half the bitrate.

Will this happen in half a year? A year?

> Sony has already stated that their next gen formats will be h.264,
> Panasonic's already fully supporting h.264 (AVC-Intra and AVCHD),
> Canon has AVCHD products, and JVC already produces AVCHD products too.

So far, Sony, Canon and JVC use AVCHD for consumer products only, except for a POV cam from Sony.

> Canon, JVC, and Panasonic already have AVCHD products that use SD memory cards,
> and Apple has already proclaimed that "SD won", so don't expect to see
> new AVCHD camcorders with compactflash.

Do you see Sony embracing SD?

> Sony has said they'll produce both long-GoP and intraframe AVC for the 1080/60p era.

1080p60 OTA broadcast is nowhere on the horizon. While having 1080p60 for mastering would not hurt, I don't see Sony rushing to implement it.

> JVC is a wild card, they invent formats on their own,
> but they're also a member of the AVCHD coalition so I expect
> they'll standardize on and produce more h.264 products.

JVC invented HDV and adopted XDCAM EX.

> it looks pretty obvious that there will be a complete
> transition away from MPEG-2 to h.264.

The question is: when? 2 years? 3? 5? With established MPEG-2 infrastructure I expect Sony to hang onto MPEG-2 in their new pro models for at least 3 years, maybe 5. They just released the 560, which is not even 50 Mbit/s 4:2:2.

 

[patssle]

Between working with h264 with the 7D and AVCHD with some consumer camera a client shot some stuff on...these consumer/prosumer codecs are aggravating to work with with their CPU requirements, laggy responses, and just overall pain the the ass. Makes me just want to stick to the HVX200, even though the DOF/low light sucks on it.

How do consumers use it if my quad core computer can barely work with it?

 

[Barry_Green]

No HDTV set is capable or receiving AVC off air, they all have MPEG-2 decoders only.

This is true -- but it doesn't stop DirecTV, DISH, and cable companies from all using H.264. They may re-code to MPEG-2 for your TV, but the underlying backbone is h.264.

So far Sony was pushing AVCHD to consumer market only.

That is correct. They are pushing an inferior, double-the-bandwidth codec to professionals. And a grossly-inferior HDV format, to professionals. Even though they have publicly acknowledged that h.264 is better, and they've even gone so far as to say that 9mbps of AVCHD matches the visual quality of HDV.

So while they acknowledge that the codec is way superior, they somehow think that professionals would prefer the acknowledged-inferior HDV. Or that while they know that AVCHD is better than XDCAM-EX, they somehow think that people would rather take up 35mbps instead of 21mbps.

Go figure.

The key part here is "when properly implemented". This means using all AVC features, which are technically optional. Presently, only studios can afford doing this for Blu-ray titles, offline. Realtime encoding in budget-priced products can show much less difference.

Um, no. Maybe in a $300 camcorder, I don't know. But this little device outperforms XDCAM-EX. No studio or offline blu-ray recording needed.

Will this happen in half a year? A year?

No way to know. EDIUS has already said they've got an AVCHD Booster coming this month. Premiere Pro already implemented most of it, it's just a little buggy (but hey, it's premiere pro...) I fear Vegas will hold off implementing any optimized h.264 support until their parent company embraces h.264 in the pro line. FCP should have been first out of the gate with it (what's the point of making the hardware, and the software, if your software can't take advantage of the hardware that you know for a fact that the user has?!?!) but they haven't done it yet. Some third-party company is already offering an h.264 accelerator plug-in for Vegas and Premiere. Avid? Who knows -- I don't think they even support AVCHD *at all*, much less with graphics acceleration.

So far, Sony, Canon and JVC use AVCHD for consumer products only, except for a POV cam from Sony.

Correct. Which makes no sense, since the h.264 format is plainly superior. And none of them disagree about it! So why they're not using it, I don't know. Maybe Panasonic negotiated an exclusive window of opportunity among the coalition, same way that they had a free ride on tapeless for a couple of years (for those that believe in the collusion between companies).

Do you see Sony embracing SD?

I don't believe Sony will ever produce anything using a format they don't own, again. I wish I could find the quote, but back when XDCAM was introduced, that's what they said -- "we will never produce another product that records to a media that we don't control." But I can't find the quote to reference.

1080p60 OTA broadcast is nowhere on the horizon. While having 1080p60 for mastering would not hurt, I don't see Sony rushing to implement it.

Broadcast, especially OTA, is becoming less and less relevant. How many people do you know who are receiving HD broadcasts OTA? Free broadcasting has been available for years and years, but I think only a very small percentage of users get HD broadcasts OTA. The much greater percentage get it through cable or satellite, and with growing incursion from the Internet, OTA broadcasting is becoming frankly less important when looking at the future worldview. And whether it's for broadcast or not, that has no bearing on whether they want to and will produce 1080/60p equipment; both major manufacturers have announced that they are actively working on stuff for 1080/60p.

JVC invented HDV and adopted XDCAM EX.

Not really. JVC invented their own format, which didn't even have a name, back in March 2003. HDV came about in September 2003, and was primarily a Sony push. JVC was grandfathered in, although kept at arms' length (Sony and Canon cameras couldn't play/digitize JVC tapes, JVC equipment couldn't play Sony/Canon tapes, etc).

Yes they have adopted XDCAM EX.

The question is: when? 2 years? 3? 5? With established MPEG-2 infrastructure I expect Sony to hang onto MPEG-2 in their new pro models for at least 3 years, maybe 5. They just released the 560, which is not even 50 Mbit/s 4:2:2.

That is indeed the question -- when? Frankly I'm surprised that HDV is still with us, but it is, and will continue to be as long as people keep buying it.

The manufacturers can have agendas and decide what they want to have happen, but ultimately if the public won't buy it, they won't buy it, so in the end it's the buyers who will decide the transition time.

 

[Alex H.]

Betamax.

 

[Barry_Green]

Between working with h264 with the 7D and AVCHD with some consumer camera a client shot some stuff on...these consumer/prosumer codecs are aggravating to work with with their CPU requirements, laggy responses, and just overall pain the the ass. Makes me just want to stick to the HVX200, even though the DOF/low light sucks on it.

How do consumers use it if my quad core computer can barely work with it?

Yep -- that's the #1 gripe about it, and it's a very valid gripe.

As for consumers -- I think it's just that consumers don't really edit much. They record, they store the footage, and they never look at it again. They record to their mini-DVDs or their memory cards, and play it through their PS3... and when they do edit, they use something like Pinnacle Studio or Ulead Studio, and those have accelerated playback functions already.

What's annoying is that the capabilities are all there, just very few have put them all together yet. Graphics cards have the ability to tremendously accelerate AVCHD decompression and playback; I can play full-screen 1920x1080x24p on my laptop because of its nVidia CUDA graphics card. It's not about CPU power, because the CPU will never be able to handle it as fast and efficiently as a GPGPU graphics card decode would.

But this is, I believe, a barrier towards wider adoption. It doesn't really matter WHY it's a problem, all that really matters is that it IS a problem, and when the problem's resolved I bet folks will be a lot quicker to look at and adopt AVCHD products.

 

[Blade Borge]

So I'm feeling pretty good about owning an HMC, pretty pretty pretty good.

 

[Cranky]

[Sony is] pushing an inferior, double-the-bandwidth codec to professionals. And a grossly-inferior HDV format, to professionals. Even though they have publicly acknowledged that h.264 is better, and they've even gone so far as to say that 9mbps of AVCHD matches the visual quality of HDV.

Maybe it is all about having a good enough product? There was a whole thread about "good enough" on this site. After all, both AVCHD and HDV are 4:2:0 long-GOP DCT-based encoders, and the differences are mostly in optional AVC features, which are often not used. We are not talking 10-bit 4:2:2 AVC-Intra here.

So while they acknowledge that the codec is way superior, they somehow think that professionals would prefer the acknowledged-inferior HDV. Or that while they know that AVCHD is better than XDCAM-EX, they somehow think that people would rather take up 35mbps instead of 21mbps.

I think that they feel that MPEG-2 @ 35 Mbit/s is good enough to not bother with resource-intensive AVCHD.

JVC invented their own format, which didn't even have a name, back in March 2003. HDV came about in September 2003, and was primarily a Sony push. JVC was grandfathered in, although kept at arms' length (Sony and Canon cameras couldn't play/digitize JVC tapes, JVC equipment couldn't play Sony/Canon tapes, etc).

This is semantics. JVC invented a high-def MPEG-2-based format that later was formalized as HDV. JVC made it a proper progressive-scan format, but Sony decided to bastardise it with interlacing. Not JVC's problem, but I wish JVC did not let Sony off the hook so easily.

The manufacturers can have agendas and decide what they want to have happen, but ultimately if the public won't buy it, they won't buy it, so in the end it's the buyers who will decide the transition time.

Customers buy whatever manufacturers offer them. Customers do not manufacture these products. Presently, there is no an easy-to-edit, well-supported tapeless HD format, so people have to decide, whether they want bit depth or cheap media or compatibility with existing equipment or something else.

 

[Cranky]

While HDV had been originally designed as a tape-based standard, there are number of products that allow converting an HDV camcorder into a tapeless camera.

First, JVC offers (or at least used to offer) the hard drive-based DR-HD100 and memory card-based MR-HD100, which are basically Focus Enhancements' FireStore products, sold by JVC with ProHD label. They record HDV via FireWire, so no re-encoding and no change in quality. Format: MPEG-2 transport stream (M2T) or QuckTime (MOV), the latter one with 2.0 upgrade. Files are recorded into one folder with name reflecting current date and time, and recording format (720p vs 1080i and frame rate). Files are split into 2GB segments, segments of one long logical take have suffixes in their names to allow combining them back into one chunk if the host filesystem allows it, like NTFS or the one Mac OS uses.

Sony offers the HDD-based HVR-DR60, which integrates with many HDV camcorders, not only with Sony's but with Canon's too, but is integrated best with the V1. Sony also offers the CompactFlash-based HVR-MRC1K, which integrates best with the third-gen cameras as a clip-on device, but also can be connected to other camcorders via FireWire. Both units record HDV via FireWire as M2T files. Both can record DV and HDV, the DR60 uses two separate directories for DV and HDV files, while the MRC1K uses one directory for both types.

There is also the really cool the KA-MR100G that can be used with JVC's ProHD camcorders, both tape-based and tapeless, that records onto SxS card in XDCAM EX format at 35 Mbit/s. It connects to the camcorder through dedicated feed and encodes uncompressed video. Theoretically, this recorder should offer the best quality of the all mentioned above.

There are also NanoFlash recorders that can be connected to pretty much any camcorder, not necessarily HDV, that has HDMI or HD-SDI output. These recorders use about 10x higher datarate and should deliver much higher quality.

THE BIGGEST MISTAKE that Sony made is not using XDCAM EX wrapper. Instead, Sony came up with yet another directory structure and file naming scheme. Sony could use 25 Mbit/s SP mode, preserving HDV video in XDCAM wrapper, thus providing a clean path of upgrading from HDV to XDCAM EX. What Sony engineers were smoking? Obviously, Focus Enhancements could not use XDCAM format without getting a license, have they tried?

I think that limiting the MRC1K to FireWire connection and as such to HDV quality only is another mistake. Sony should have engineered this recorded in the same way as JVC's KA-MR100G to offer recording in XDCAM EX format.

These mistakes and a multitude of temporary, quickly designed file storage format do not work well for HDV-to-XDCAM case.

WHAT SHOULD SONY DO:

1. Release updates to the S270/Z5/Z7/FX1000 with dedicated jack for an external recorder, which either delivers HD-SDI or HDMI or some proprietary jack with XDCAM EX encode.

2. Release an updated recorded to match. Record in XDCAM EX.

3. Drop the DR60, release a new model with XDCAM EX wrapper/file system. It would record in 25 Mbit/s SP mode when connected via FireWire, or 35 Mbit/s XDCAM EX when connected via uncompressed.

Then Sony will have a clear path from HDV to XDCAM EX. After moving users to new file-based platform Sony will be able to introduce AVC into the mix and update firmware in the recorders.

P.S. Ideally, the camcorders should be manufactured in a modular way, so that the whole tape transport could be removed and a tapeless recorder installed. Obviously this would require custom covers for each camcorder model. I don't think this will ever happen.