Is AVCHD better than HDV?

R

rc444

Well-known member
Sony make a few HDD camcorders which I've noticed record in the AVCHD format.

This records in the "MPEG-4 AVC/H.264" codec. I'm not really sure what this means. I just know that HDV records in MPEG-2. Therefore, is AVCHD better and less compressed than HDV?

And does anyone here know anything about Sony's AVCHD format?

Thanks,
rc444
 
AVC-HD is a much better format than HDV. BUT -- the camcorders that are available in HDV are much better than the camcorders that are currently available in AVC-HD!

So it's no easy choice. AVC-HD is unquestionably the future -- it's endorsed by Sony, Panasonic, Sharp, Samsung, Canon, and many others. Sony and Panasonic both developed the format and announced it was 2.5 times as efficient as MPEG-2 and is "the format most suitable for the HD era". AVC-HD will be the new DV and will replace HDV.

AVC-HD and HDV both have a lot in common; they're both highly compressed long-GOP 4:2:0 formats. But AVC-HD has many advantages, including:

1) it's scalable compression, rather than a fixed bandwidth. HDV is always 19 or 25 megabits, AVC-HD can be varied from as low as 6 megabits to as high as 24 megabits.

2) it's a lot more efficient. AVC-HD at 8 megabits can about match the picture quality of HDV at 25 megabits. AVC-HD at 24 megabits should be able to match XDCAM-HD at 35 megabits.

3) AVC-HD provides for full-raster 1920x1080 recording (as well as prefiltered 1440x1080). HDV is only 1440x1080.

4) AVC-HD provides for true 24p in both 1080 and 720 modes.

5) AVC-HD is inherently tapeless. HDV is an inherently tape-based format. You can record AVC-HD to hard disk, SD cards, optical disc, memory stick, etc.

6) AVC-HD has preposterously better audio support. HDV is limited to two channels of highly compressed audio (MPEG-1 Layer II at 384 kbits), whereas AVC-HD provides 1 to 7.1 channels of uncompressed PCM audio, or 5.1 channel Dolby Digital AC-3 audio.

Now, the problems with AVC-HD: it's extremely processor-intensive to uncompress and edit, so there are few edit solutions on the market; Pinnacle Studio 11 and Ulead are native AVC-HD editors. Vegas can edit Sony AVC-HD (and *only* Sony AVC-HD) but it's extremely slow, about 2 fps. Sooner or later we'll get hardware integration with graphics card processors (nVidia and ATI both offer hardware acceleration of AVC decoding) but as of right now, it's not happening. To edit AVC-HD effectively we basically have to flash back in time to how HDV had to be edited at first: by being transcoded to an intermediate codec like CineForm or ProRes.

And, the biggest problem with AVC-HD right now: there are no worthy camera heads. There's no AVC-HD version of the XHA1, or XLH1, or Z1U, or HD250. Someday there will be, and when there is, AVC-HD will be unquestionably dominant. But until there is, for a shooter having to shoot today, there's a better selection of cameras in HDV than there is in AVC-HD.

That's a temporary situation, but it is today's situation.
 
rc444 said:
And does anyone here know anything about Sony's AVCHD format?
Click to expand...
Specifically to this question: it's not "Sony's" AVC-HD format. It was jointly developed by Sony and Panasonic, and has now been endorsed by every major camcorder manufacturer (excepting, for some reason, JVC).

But, of course, Sony has (as always) gone slightly proprietary. Their Vegas software can edit AVC-HD from Sony camcorders, but cannot edit AVC-HD from Panasonic or Canon camcorders. So while AVC-HD is not Sony's format, Sony has once again made an at-least-somewhat proprietary version of a non-proprietary format.
 
i just dont get their thinking.... they are so worried about losing customers... they dont know that their name recognition is enough, they make good products, they just need to stop hobbling them.
 
TimurCivan said:
i just dont get their thinking.... they are so worried about losing customers... they dont know that their name recognition is enough, they make good products, they just need to stop hobbling them.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I suppose it it has to do with some proprietary technology they don't share.

But Panasonic's new line of AVC-Intra frame cameras in the pipeline due out look really exciting, far, far better than HDV.
 
MikeGunter said:
Yeah, I suppose it it has to do with some proprietary technology they don't share.

But Panasonic's new line of AVC-Intra frame cameras in the pipeline due out look really exciting, far, far better than HDV.
Click to expand...
What are the model numbers of Panasonic's new AVC-Intra frame cameras you just mentioned?
 
Barry_Green said:
Specifically to this question: it's not "Sony's" AVC-HD format. It was jointly developed by Sony and Panasonic, and has now been endorsed by every major camcorder manufacturer (excepting, for some reason, JVC).

But, of course, Sony has (as always) gone slightly proprietary. Their Vegas software can edit AVC-HD from Sony camcorders, but cannot edit AVC-HD from Panasonic or Canon camcorders. So while AVC-HD is not Sony's format, Sony has once again made an at-least-somewhat proprietary version of a non-proprietary format.
Click to expand...
In addition to causing a threat to HDV, do you think it would be fair to say that AVCHD may also cause a threat to P2 and DVCPRO HD?
 
Well, a "threat" is a matter of perspective. Will there be buyers who've been stretching to afford an HVX, who then decide that they'd instead spend their money on an AVC-HD camera? Of course.

But P2/DVCPRO-HD is an entirely different market than AVC-HD. AVC-HD is a long-GOP, 4:2:0, highly compressed system. DVCPRO-HD is 4:2:2 intraframe. It's an animal of a different kind.

AVC-HD and HDV are animals of the same kind, but AVC-HD is (potentially) a lot better. DVCPRO-HD and AVC-HD are completely different types of compression, appealing to different customers.

I do think that people on the low end who are stretching beyond their means and spending more than they really should, just to get an HVX, are going to find an AVC-HD DVX (or comparable) to be a compelling alternative; not only would it be a lot lower-cost camera, but the media is off-the-shelf SD or SDHC cards, vs. the more-expensive P2 cards. It may be that we here on DVXUser see a shift from HVX/P2 to AVC-HD/SD, I don't know. But among broadcasters, they're gobbling up P2 at a ferocious rate, and will continue to do so.
 
rc444 said:
What are the model numbers of Panasonic's new AVC-Intra frame cameras you just mentioned?
Click to expand...

Panasonic hasn't introduced or announced any low-cost AVC-Intra models. The *only* AVC-Intra cameras are the HPX3000 and the HPX2000/2100 with the optional board.

AVC-Intra is not AVC-HD. Entirely different formats with unfortunately confusingly similar names.
 
Just want to add to the list of nle's that have native support for avc-hd: EDIUS 4.5x now has native support, if I remember correctly.

Jason
 
Hi,

I think the high-end AVC-Intra cameras are too high end for the HDV end crowd to make much of a difference. Should cameras drop in price point to $2K - $3K with features similar to Z1 and similar HDV cameras, it would be a new ball game.

A least, I think so.
 
AVC-Intra will never be that cheap. It's a totally different class of codec.

AVC-HD will be the replacement for HDV, and it will be the codec that will be in Z1/XHA1 caliber cameras. AVC-Intra is for the high-end.

AVC-HD is in competition with HDV. AVC-Intra is in competition with HDCAM SR.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top