avchd very 'consumer-ish'... had enough of it

blink3times wrote on 6/19/2008, 5:10 AM
Either this weekend or next I'm going to get a BD burner so I can go back to hi def mpeg2 because I have had enough of this consumer-type format.

AVCHD is not only hard to work with but the end result just does not look as good as the mpeg2 on the HD DVD's I was producing.

I hope either this avchd thing is a passing fad or at least it gets better with time! I just can't figure out why it's being used in the first place. Compression due to lack of space is no longer a concern. With the HDD cams there's lots of room for mpeg2 @ 25M and the same goes for Blu Ray disks.

My only question on BD burners though..... when burning a MPEG2 based blu Ray disk, can you use DD5.1 audio?

Comments

Cliff Etzel wrote on 6/19/2008, 5:34 AM
I've held off myself on AVCHD as I wasn't totally convinced it is a viable format for producing serious content. I'm sure others will chime in to state otherwise, but I'm not willing to be the lab rat for SONY, Panasonic, etc with regards to the format. I'm still shooting tape only as the idea of how to archive flash media based content is still up in the air - at least for me it is. At least with tape, I know exactly where the content is and not have to worry about whether a hard drive will all of a sudden quit working if I need to access said content.

Maybe being paranoid, but I say if it ain't broke, don't fix it.

Cliff Etzel - Solo Video Journalist
bluprojekt | SoloVJ.com
blink3times wrote on 6/19/2008, 5:42 AM
". I'm still shooting tape "

I'm still on tape too (refuse to get into this avchd stuff any further).

The only restrictions with tape are time and resolution via firewire. But there is no reason in the world why they can't build a mpeg2 based HDD cam. JVC in fact has done it but the problem is that it just doesn't compare well to the HV20, or the Sony line of cams.

I would buy a Sony mpeg2 based HDD cam in a flying second if they put one out. Come on Sony.... Please!?
Rory Cooper wrote on 6/19/2008, 5:46 AM
That’s interesting

I had a problem in the beginning and the extra work of re sampling to SD. I don’t need to supply HD not yet. farss method of down sampling works and is simple

So if you guys are battling then I know what’s waiting for me around the corner. But so far I am really starting to like it, did some stuff yesterday and great stuff. Maybe my camera work is just getting better
But personally I like AVCHD so far

Rory
farss wrote on 6/19/2008, 6:30 AM
Said this before. The AVCHD codec used in consummer cameras is only licenced for non commercial use. Panny use AVCHD Intra in their higher end cameras and no doubt pay a lor more in licencing. It looks pretty good.

Bob.
TheHappyFriar wrote on 6/19/2008, 6:56 AM
so legally i can't even buy one of those consumer cameras for video work?
UlfLaursen wrote on 6/19/2008, 6:58 AM
Hi

I was testing th Canon HF10, I bought form Canon, the other day. I had 45 min. footage and it took a lot of time, aprox 1-1 to convert it to editable stuff on a quadcore.

I was hoping to gain some time, and use that cam for my once a week program, but it's the same thing. I'll stick with tape as well for now.

/Ulf
Rory Cooper wrote on 6/19/2008, 7:09 AM
Sorry farss

The AVCHD codec used in consummer cameras is only licenced for non commercial use. Panny use AVCHD Intra in their higher end cameras and no doubt pay a lor more in licencing..

Explain I missed that
Thanks

Rory

InterceptPoint wrote on 6/19/2008, 7:31 AM
I've been editing AVCHD from my Sony CX7 camcorder for some time now. I use Gearshift to simplify the editing and print to Blu-Ray straight from Vegas 8.0b to standard DVD disks. These AVCHD disks play on my PS3 with quality indistinguishable by me from the original CX7 clips played from the camera via HDMI. I see no quality degradation at all in going from camera to disk. None.
seanfl wrote on 6/19/2008, 7:37 AM
I've held off trying the AVCHD until I read about the Sony HDR-SR11/12. After buying it and shooting some footage, then encoding it into mpg2 and authoring a DVD with footage from the camera as well as a Sony HDR-FX1, I'm impressed.

After viewing the footage, they are very similar. At the lower bitrates (standard quality, about 7 mbps) you can see some artifacts on the AVCHD footage. At the 16 mbps setting it looks fantastic. Granted, the cameras are very different...one costs $1000, the other near $3000. In low light the high end HDV does much better. Is the quality equal? no. Is it pretty close? in many cases yes.

Still, my point is that the newer crop of AVCHD cameras are looking much better than the previous. It's also very nice to be tapeless on certain projects that will end up on DVD or the web.

Sean
rmack350 wrote on 6/19/2008, 7:38 AM
Meaning that the manufacturers license the technology based on whether it's going into a consumer product or a professional product. What you do later is up to you but I suppose this also suggests that SCS must buy a different license for panny's AVC-Intra.

AVC-Intra is 50MB/s, btw. It is supposed to replace DVCPro HD (which requires tape)

Bit of trivia and rumormongering here. We just bought an HDX900 camera (DVCPro-HD/Tape) and what we've been hearing is that there's been a real run on these cameras because they're the last tape-based pro HD camera that panny will sell. There's a lot of demand still for tape based cameras.

Rob Mack

warriorking wrote on 6/19/2008, 8:27 AM
Same here, Edited and burned several AVCHD disc's for playback on my PS3 from my HG10 Camcorder recordings, no problems whatsoever, quality is simply stunning compared to regular MPEG 2 renders, no video loss whatsoever...Sure render times can be long at times but nothing outlandish, My quadcore handles it pretty easily....I have never regreted my purchase....
apit34356 wrote on 6/19/2008, 10:29 AM
Farss, I believe Sony and Pan have join forces a couple of years ago to develop AVCHD into a stronger consumer product and high-end pro gear. With AVCHD, its all about pure computing power and memory buffering. So, better image capture encoding requires a lot more computing pwr, of course, 24p is easier than 30p ...etc..


AVCHD is considered a better compress format for moving a lot of data with cheaper communication gear, ie the similar formats, mepg4, DIVX,etc. But Pan and Sony prefer to have move control of intra connections of cameras, TVs, storage media, and exclude MS in the intra connective of their products. ;-)
Rod L Martin wrote on 6/21/2008, 3:12 PM
You have got to be joking. How can you license a "format" for any particular use. That is obsurd. If this is true, and they think they can do this, then try to stop me! It is hard enough to guard software from being ripped off in the first place. How the heck do they think they can manage where people use it?
video777 wrote on 6/21/2008, 3:21 PM
I think I'll just stick with my Digital 8 and MiniDV tapes. They provide EXCELLENT quality and hold lots of footage. I have always been able to rely on them.

Licensing how you use a codec/format? Laughable! I doubt they have any legal leg to stand on with this one. That's about the kookiest thing I've ever heard.
blink3times wrote on 6/21/2008, 3:52 PM
"Same here, Edited and burned several AVCHD disc's for playback on my PS3 from my HG10 Camcorder recordings, no problems whatsoever, quality is simply stunning compared to regular MPEG 2 renders, no video loss whatsoever...Sure render times can be long at times but nothing outlandish, My quadcore handles it pretty easily....I have never regreted my purchase...."

If your render times are long then that means you're not smart rendering.... or in other words you ARE suffering losses.

Hi def mpeg2 can be easily smart rendered.... no losses.
I've compared hidef mpeg2 base @ 25M in my Toshiba A1 with avchd@17M on my PS3 (both at 1440x1080). The mpeg2 is just plain better. Not as much break up on faster pans, richer color, and shaper image.

I also have a quad core.... mpeg is just plain easier to work with.... quad or otherwise
farss wrote on 6/21/2008, 3:55 PM
MPEGLA now have a somewhat fuller explaination of the licencing agreement:
http://www.mpegla.com/avc/AVC_TermsSummary.pdf

They certainly have a legal leg to stand on, they couldn't limit what you do with say video shot with a camera. They can limit the bitrate that the chip manufacturer can offer, they can limit the bitrate that software encoders can do.

The same restrictions apply to mp3 and Dolby. You want to sell mp3 encoded content you need a licence and pay fees, the mp3 codec included with Vegas doesn't cover you selling encoded content. Same goes for Dolby. I think a few here have a licence which for small volumes if free. That also lets you use the Dolby logo.

When you have a DVD replicated, the replicator pays a fee per unit for the mpeg-2 technology.

With Dolby their broadcast hardware encoder/decoders cost big time, that's where they make a lot of their money.

Bob.