New Camcorder: Quality Concern

Sonata wrote on 12/11/2009, 11:46 AM
My lovely MiniDV camcorder finally broke entirely.

Looking at new camcorders, I am looking into either a flash (SDHC) type or hard drive type, standard definition, but HD if one is affordable.

My concern is the quality when I bring it in to VMS to edit.

I am used to the quality of DV AVI from the MiniDV tapes. But, I notice the flash based camcorders record in MPEG-2 and the HD versions record in MP4.

Aren't these already highly-compressed formats? If I bring in MPEG-2 footage from the camcorder into VMS to edit, am I going to suffer major quality loss?

Are there any flash or hard drive camcorders that will record in similar to MiniDV tape quality, or do I have everything all wrong and my concern is completely invalid?

Comments

Eugenia wrote on 12/11/2009, 3:12 PM
Just because a format is compressed doesn't mean it's of less quality. DV AVI at 25 mbps is not necessarily better than h.264 at 8 mbps. In fact, h.264 might even be a bit better at the same bitrate/resolution. The only drawback is that h.264 is really difficult to decompress in real time, so it's going to be MANY times slower than DV AVI.

So, if you're looking for a new camera, you have the following options:

1. Get a digirecorder, like Flip HD, or Kodak Z-series. These record in h.264 and are very difficult to edit (and they usually crash Vegas), but they are cheap. Quality will be better than mini DV since they will be HD. These will cost between $80 and $180. Bitrate is low in these digirecorders. For easier editing you will need Cineform NeoSCENE ($100) or Avid DNxHD (free) codecs if your PC is a CoreDuo tech. Basically you will have to pass your recorded files via these encoders before editing, so they produce files that are editable.

2. Get an mpeg2 SD camcorder, these days they sell for about $230 to $300. These are EASY to decode and edit, since mpeg2 is not as compressed as h.264. However, these are still SD. SD is simply not as good as HD, and not as future proof. For example, if you have kids, and you record everything in SD even after you have the ability to get an HD camcorder, I don't think they will like that in 20 years time when they revisit your video archives. Bitrate is at about 8 mbps VBR.

3. Get the Canon SD780 digicam ($180 refurbished) or the Canon SX200 IS ($300). These digicams will take good-enough pictures, and they take great video in h.264 at 24 mbps (which is the same bitrate as DV AVI, but in h.264 means that the quality will be MANY times better than either DV AVI, or any of the above solutions I mentioned). To edit that format you need either Cineform NeoSCENE (an additional $100), or DNxHD, or a very fast PC (faster than Core Duo at 2.4 Ghz). The good thing of the new Canon HD digicams is that they offer exposure compensation AND locking. Most digicams and digirecorders as mentioned above don't support that at all, resulting in amateur-looking video.

4. Get a real camcoder, an AVCHD one, like the HF200 or the HF-S100. These are expensive, but they are real camcorders, with real good features and ports, and their AVCHD h.264 format has b-frames in it which results in much-faster editing speed than plain h.264 that Samsung/Kodak/Toshiba/Flip/Sanyo/etc use. But they cost $700 upwards. You get what you pay for.
Terry Esslinger wrote on 12/11/2009, 3:25 PM
Eugenia,
How and why would you rank an HDV cam such as Canon HV30-40 in this scheme of things? Cost again is about 600 - 800. Yes, its film based but.....
Eugenia wrote on 12/11/2009, 3:44 PM
>How and why would you rank an HDV cam such as Canon HV30-40 in this scheme of things?

HDV at 25 mbps has less quality than AVCHD at 24 mbps. The HF-S100/S10 camcorders, which used pretty much the same lens design/specs as in the HV20/30/40, have more quality per pixel (when compared under enough light, since the HF-S series suck in low light because of the too many pixels packed under its relatively small sensor). h.264 is superior to mpeg2 in terms of compression, WHEN the encoder used is good, and WHEN the switches used are meant for quality over speed. This is why Canon's and Panasonic's h.264 for digicams at 24 mbps, *is not* as good as AVCHD's h.264 at 24 mbps. But when h.264 is used properly, it pretty much has no competition as a *delivery* lossy codec (although On2's VP8 encoder, that Google recently bought for over 100 million dollars, is said to be better than h.264 -- time will show).

I should make a note here about Canon's 5DMkII and 7D video dSLRs. These shoot at 38 and 48 mbps VBR respectively (which sounds like a lot), but if they were using the AVCHD h.264 format instead of plain low profile "baseline" h.264, their quality wouldn't probably account for more than 25-30 mbps of the AVCHD kind. These digicam's footage DOES look WAY better than an AVCHD camcorder, but that's because the sensor/lens information (the "source", before it goes through the encoder) is way better than a 1/3" sensor/cheapo-lens as found on AVCHD camcorders. So having a good SOURCE image, helps with the final quality overall, even if the encoder itself used might not be stellar compared to other version/switches of the same encoder.

So to recap: h.264 has many faces. But when used properly, like in most AVCHD situations (*not* AVCHD-Lite btw), it's better than other versions of h.264 (e.g. in digicams, cellphones, digirecorders), and better than HDV mpeg2. However, when the sensor/lens image of a dSLR is much superior to consumer camcorders', then this will work in favor to these dSLR's footage quality, even if their h.264 encoder/switches are not as good. Confusing, no?

>Yes, its film based but.....

Tape is not film. Their only commonality is that they both "reel". Tapes are digital, all information is stored digitally, even if it might "feel" old & analog to us, like film is (actually, film is not 100% analog either, it's "analog, quantized"). :-)
Sonata wrote on 12/11/2009, 5:45 PM
Thank you for the information as always, Eugenia.

You said that MPEG-2 from the cameras is easy to edit. I also noticed that most of those cameras produce a file that is actually .MOD. Looking around this site, I noticed in another post from a long time ago you said that VMS8/9 can edit the MOD files if you import the files using VMS instead of the camera's software.

I have found other information on other video forums stating that Vegas canNOT edit those files at all, and even further information stating that one simply needs to change the .MOD to .mpg and it will work, but some people complain that there is video but no audio that way.

Is this accurate?

You also mention that h.264 needs to be decompressed to be edited; does VMS take care of this, or do you need another application to do that before bringing those files into VMS?

The more I learn, the more confused I get. :)

Thanks again.
Eugenia wrote on 12/11/2009, 7:34 PM
VMS9 can edit MOD files just fine, at least from cameras created by reputable manufacturers. The only thing that doesn't work (and it's not Vegas' fault), is that you need to set the files to widescreen manually when you import them into project media (otherwise Vegas thinks they are 4:3). Not a biggie.

As for h.264 editing, yes, you will need Cineform NeoSCENE to re-encode these files to Cineform AVI, which edits much faster. As I already mentioned above, that costs $99. There's a freeware intermediate codec, Avid's DNxHD, but it's not as fast as Cineform. So it depends on the speed of your PC. Give us more info on CPU *architecture* and speed, and how much RAM you got.
5Herb wrote on 12/12/2009, 5:25 AM
Was looking at buying a a digutal camera with HD Video, the Panasonic Lumix FZ35 produces AVCHD LITE (devoleped by Sony & Panosonic) videos. Can Vegas import this format?
Thank you
Herb
Eugenia wrote on 12/12/2009, 4:04 PM
Vegas 9 Platinum can, Vegas 8 Platinum can't. It plays ok on a fast PC.
kkolbo wrote on 12/12/2009, 9:10 PM
As for h.264 editing, yes, you will need Cineform NeoSCENE to re-encode these files to Cineform AVI, which edits much faster. As I already mentioned above, that costs $99. There's a freeware intermediate codec, Avid's DNxHD, but it's not as fast as Cineform.

I installed the Avid CODEC and with VMS and it decodes with the audio out of sync. It is unfortunate, but we will have to wait for Sony to add more compatibility for baseline .h264 with AAC LC audio. Running the files through QT or Cineform is about the only option at the moment.

Paul C wrote on 12/13/2009, 3:01 AM
Hi Herb,
I have the TZ7 and presuming you can import the files (works for me in VPro 8, but not VMS Platinum 8) the only problem you will find is that although the camera records at 25/30 fps, it outputs the video to the SD card at 50/60 fps, effectively doubling up the frames.

Vegas tries to interpret this frame rate and on output there is some motion blending going on. To fix this, you have to select all the clips on the timeline, then select Switches - Disable Resampling.

I believe the FZ35/38 is the same. I do quite like the video though. It's far superior to most other digicams.

Paul
Westside Steve wrote on 12/13/2009, 8:14 PM
What's the storage requirement for HD as opposed to regular video by time?
Eugenia wrote on 12/13/2009, 10:59 PM
Your question does not hold I'm afraid, because what determines the filesize is the bitrate used, and not if a file is SD or HD, or how many frames it's got. Anyone can select any bitrate for most formats. For standard consumer camcorders, DV, HDV (and AVCHD when using a Canon cam), these are all 24-25 mbps, so they're all 1 hour for 12 GBs.
Westside Steve wrote on 12/14/2009, 4:08 AM
For standard consumer camcorders, DV, HDV (and AVCHD when using a Canon cam), these are all 24-25 mbps, so they're all 1 hour for 12 GBs.

Thanks.
Osotosail wrote on 1/30/2010, 7:46 PM
"As for h.264 editing, yes, you will need Cineform NeoSCENE to re-encode these files to Cineform AVI, which edits much faster. As I already mentioned above, that costs $99. There's a freeware intermediate codec, Avid's DNxHD, but it's not as fast as Cineform."

Is the conversion a one time operation, or is it done on the fly for every frame? Perhaps it's not as much of an issue during preview as for final render?

Also, I've got a Q6600 which is I think the slowest Intel Quad core that came out, but I've rarely seen it at 50% and that is while rendering, but not h.264 yet.

I'm also thinking of getting a new camcorder, leaning heavily towards SD based. I'm torn between something small like a mino, and something with optical zoom and maybe image stabilization.
Eugenia wrote on 2/1/2010, 2:55 PM
If you're getting an AVCHD camcorder, then you don't need Cineform. The sentence you quoted above, is for plain MOV/MP4 h.264 camcorders, not for AVCHD .m2ts/mts ones. AVCHD works on Vegas 9 pretty well, on a fast machine, without the need for Cineform.
Osotosail wrote on 2/10/2010, 11:21 PM
Not sure if this is AVCHD : The Sanyo TH1 claims
"Highly advanced MPEG4 AVC/H.264 video compression"

To accomplish the complexity of encoding AVC/H.264 in real-time on the TH1, a dedicated H.264 video compression IC was incorporated into the camera that was designed specifically for portable consumer devices. This achieves high video quality while simultaneously reducing the system power consumption.

Is this true AVCHD?