OT: Which new Camcorder -Idiots Guide to HD AVCHD?

kraz wrote on 7/12/2008, 12:07 PM

Hi Guys,

I am definitely on the enthusiasts - side of things here and nowhere near pro or semi-pro - but I love videoing and editing and using Vegas and I enjoy this group even if I am a bit "junior" for a lot of the stuff in it.

Have been using miniDV for about 4 years and and pretty happy with it. I burn DVDs import to Vegas do whatever I want.

I am in the Market for a new camcorder - (family/fun sports - some paid stuff of peoples affairs - but nothing serious) and honestly my main reason is the cool factor and simple to carry and encorage me to use more. (capture to memory card or drive - quick copy to PC - new features etc.)

(I live in Israel and almost no one has HD TVs - almost no one has 16:9 etc.) The videos I make for people (usually either presentations for their family events -or of their family events) seem to be fine using miniDV raw from a consumer camera - input and regular DVDs/mpeg2 and even Youtube output. I don't yet have Blu-Ray and very few people have them here - nor do they have PS3s)

I know it is better today to capture things in a better format so that in the future when needed I have better source to work with.

WHAT SEEMS to blow me away from what I keep reading - is that to do the simple workflow that I do today .. Video it - import to Vegas - Edit - make a DVD of it - seems TO BE MUCH HARDER if I switch to a newer "better" format. HD or AVCHD.
I need to run conversion software to downgrade the quality of my video -so I can use it on my Dual core machine running vegas -etc. Must jump through hoops to make regular DVDs that are not Blu-Ray etc ..

Then I read other articles about getting worse quality from AVCHD than I am used to with mini DV because of compressions issues proprietary formats etc.

I am really impressed (from reading not seeing) with the Canon Vixia HF-100 and the Sony HDR-SR11(which may be too expensive) and just saw the JVC GZ-HD30 - but I am wondering if (given that this is not a need- but rather a "want") it is just not a completely baked technology and buying today will be frustrating?

So after the ramblings here are the questions /issues

1. Is there a simple well written Idiots guide to understand the various HD and Psuedo HD formats?

2. Is there a normal simple way to just as easily as I do today make and edit videos and DVDS that play on normal players - while still saving high quality footage that I can do better things with in the future.

3. Is AVCHD is real standard or is it a transitional technology that will not last long and is not so good to have now.

4. What is the best "fun" cool gadgety camcorder to get today - 6-700 max that will give me good quality video - in an easy NON-proprietary format ...

Thanks for listening to my ramblings - but I bet I may not be the only one ...

Allen

Back to post

Comments

Daveco2 wrote on 7/17/2008, 8:48 PM

Very interesting articles on AVCHD. I would avoid that format if I could, but it looks like the only path to a super small and light cam. I'm talking about something on the order of 1/2 lb. Of course, if the video is trash then that would kill the deal. So, compared to MPEG2 is edited AVCHD video (a) very poor, (b) poor but acceptable, or (c) about equal? And how do these formats compare when placed on a DVD or Bluray disc?

Thanks,

Dave

kraz wrote on 7/18/2008, 2:32 AM

scary article - and the difference in sharpness is really noticeable.

That article was written in February - how their been any improvement since then in the latest generation on AVCHD.

ingvarai wrote on 7/18/2008, 2:47 AM

> scary article - and the difference in sharpness is really noticeable.

It is still better than than footages made with my mobile phone!
Joke aside - my Canon HF 10 camera has 4 quality settings, and using the 3rd best setting I got a real jaw drop when I saw the quality. To me - the quality is more than good enough, it is fantastic. That a technology exists that possibly (I have not testet the better quality options on my camera) is even better is fine, but I do not need it.

Important to me is that I now finally have a camera I can stick in my pocket when travelling and hiking, which has no moving parts when recording video, and also has a storage medium so tiny I can litarally put it under my tongue.

A new world has opened up, the video I make is crisp and sharp with beautiful colors. I have a feeling of some professional pride and / or envy is hiding here when I read all the negativism about AVCHD.

Ingvarai

John_Cline wrote on 7/18/2008, 2:52 AM

"I have a feeling of some professional pride and / or envy is hiding here when I read all the negativism about AVCHD."

No envy here, but if you've ever seen professional level HD then AVCHD leaves a lot to be desired. Part of it is the lower quality of the camera itself and part of it is a bitrate that's just a little too low. Currently, AVCHD is in every way a consumer format. If it works for your purposes, that's great.

blink3times wrote on 7/18/2008, 2:56 AM

"That article was written in February - how their been any improvement since then in the latest generation on AVCHD."
Since February they have boosted the bitrate to 17M (from 15), but with avchd, a couple of M's either way doesn't really make that much difference.

ingvarai wrote on 7/18/2008, 2:59 AM

Hi John,
> AVCHD is in every way a consumer format

Yes! I am a consumer, I make videos for my own use, for my family and for my friends - all for hobby purposes.

> If it works for your purposes, that's great.

I wonder what audience others here are targetting. When you see people's TV sets, and how they are adjusted, too much contrast etc. I wonder.. On the PC I can maybe see the difference, but on a TV?

Ingvarai

blink3times wrote on 7/18/2008, 3:00 AM

"So, compared to MPEG2 is edited AVCHD video (a) very poor, (b) poor but acceptable, or (c) about equal? And how do these formats compare when placed on a DVD or Bluray disc?"

Well, that's the main reason I bought a blu ray burner and went back to mpeg.

I started the hi def burning with HD DVD's (which is mpeg) and when HD DVD got blown out of the water I was forced over to avchd disks in the PS3. Right away I noticed that it just did not look as good.

blink3times wrote on 7/18/2008, 3:02 AM

"On the PC I can maybe see the difference, but on a TV?"

See my comment just above. I'm viewing with a 60" plasma.

ingvarai wrote on 7/18/2008, 3:04 AM

> I'm viewing with a 60" plasma.

Uh oh.... :-)))
The day I get myself a sixty-incher I will probably reconsider ;-.)

Ingvarai

blink3times wrote on 7/18/2008, 4:15 AM

This all of course leads me to ask why Sony is pushing avchd so hard. I know they in part created it.... but I'm just wondering.... Does Sony (or any other manufacturer for that matter) have to pay some kind of royalty or license when they use the mpeg codec/format in one of their cams?

John_Cline wrote on 7/18/2008, 5:07 AM

For a lot of consumers that have no interest in editing their videos, AVCHD makes a lot of sense. The low end of professional video production has always tried to embrace consumer technology and they have always paid the price in terms of compromised video quality and difficulty in editing. Micro-MV and DVD camcorders are both examples of this. HDV is currently about the minimum that one can get away with.

Joe Balsamo|LVX wrote on 7/18/2008, 6:07 AM

I think John Cline speaks the truth here. I still have quite a bit of testing to do, but here is what I've discovered, thus far:

I am currently testing two current state-of-the-art AVCHD camcorders. The Panasonic HDC-SD9 and the Canon HF-10. Both hooked directly to my HDTV, the Canon seems to produce better image quality. The Panasonic is lighter and slightly smaller. It also doesn't offer the features that the HF-10 does.

Next step, viewing "raw" AVCHD files on my computer in WMP 11 (I didn't realize this, but you can simply drag the raw files from either camera right into WMP and they play!) Both look good, but the Canon gets the nod. Note I'm shooting in highest qualtiy for both.

Now, here comes the rub. The edited and rendered files from the Panasonic look fine. They are, other than the edits, indistinguishable on my computer monitor from the raw files.

The Canon, however, produces artifacting. Mainly pixelation and other such artifacting, especially in "complex" scenes and during fast zooms and pans (things you wouldn't really do in a "proper" video, but stuff that pushes these compression algorithms to their limits.)

So far, everything is being edited in Vegas Pro 8 with the "beta" DLL from this site. I do not understand why the Panasonic files don't do this, but the Canon files do. Is it because the Canon does higher quality and somehow the editing in Vegas is affecting this? Maybe I don't have the setttings correct. These are renders to WMV format. I'll try other formats when I have time over the weekend.

Bottom line, the Canon has better video quality when viewed directly, but if the files are taken in and edited in Vegas, severe artifacting occurs.

I REALLY want these small camcorders to work. The verdict is still out, however.

I would like to hear from anyone who's using the HF-10 and has the "artifacting" issues I am speaking of.

Regards,

Joe

blink3times wrote on 7/18/2008, 6:20 AM

But the HF-10 and the SD9 are both avchd cams.... and they're new which stands to reason why the clarity is better. But the question is.... is it better because of the quality of the cam itself or because they have increased the quality of the format (avchd) and the camera is virtually the same. I'm not interested in comparing cams here..... only their respective compression schemes.

The experiment in the article is quite valid since it uses 2 cams that are virtually the same... only difference is the compression type. What I want to know is how the HF-10 or the SD9 would look if they shot mpeg2. And let's not forget here MPEG2 is NOT restricted to 25M. You can go to 50M and beyond if you want (of course with drastic file size increase)

The other thing I want to know is whether or not Sony would have to pay a royally or something for use of the mpeg2 codec.

John_Cline wrote on 7/18/2008, 6:47 AM

Of course they pay a royalty to the MPEG2 patent holders.

http://www.mpeg-la.com

As a matter of fact, any of us creating commercial DVDs are required to pay royalties as well. Look at the Vegas and DVD Architect EULA, the MPEG2 encoder is only licensed for non-commercial use.

michaelshive wrote on 7/18/2008, 6:55 AM

I have the HF-100 and have been very impressed with the image quality - considering it is a compact $700 camera with a tiny lens that records to a highly compressed format! I can't believe what you can get for less than $1,000 nowadays. We have better HD cameras at work that are obviously way better than the HF100 - but give me a break! It's another tool in your toolbox - I won't be using it on a studio shoot but it could certainly find a purpose somewhere in the course of shooting. You never know when you'll need a small camera for a shot.

On the editing side, I haven't tested it out with Vegas yet but I have done some stuff in Final Cut and I thought it looked fine (no significant degradation or artifacting from the original file) for what it is. In FC you need to transcode it to ProRes before editing.

alltheseworlds wrote on 7/18/2008, 7:39 AM

I've been wanting to replace my current camera, but threads like this are making me hesitate.

I really want to move to a tapeless SD-card format, but AVCHD leaves me cold. On the other hand buying into the dead miniDV medium with a HV30 or HC9 seems odd.

Is there nothing on the horizon to end the dilemma ?

Joe Balsamo|LVX wrote on 7/18/2008, 7:41 AM

michaelshive,

Something is not working right for me when render the HF-10 (same camera as your HF-100, except it has the built-in memory) clips in Vegas.

Again, if I play the raw clip in WMP, they look great. If I drag the clip into Vegas and simply render it (no editing applied), I get this darned noisy pixelation that I don't get from the original file nor do I get it from files taken from the SD9. Obviously, something is amiss in Vegas, or at least the way I am rendering the file.

Can you tell me what you are rendering to in FC? Also, if you or anyone else is successfully rendering HF-10/100 files in Vegas, I'd like to learn more.

As I say, it bothers me that the "better" of the two cameras seems to give the worse results when rendering in Vegas. If I had a paying job right now that required one of the two cameras, I'd have to go with the Panny simply because the artifacting I'm experiencing is absolutely intolerable. I'm just wondering if my settings are wrong in Vegas?

Thanks,

Joe

blink3times wrote on 7/18/2008, 9:11 AM

"I've been wanting to replace my current camera, but threads like this are making me hesitate.

This is what's bothering me to no end. If avchd is great stuff then by all means let's adopt it and use it. But at this stage it doesn't look that way (from my eyes anyway) and we're getting ready to take a step BACK in the world of HD all in the name of money.

Let's not forget here... BD player manufacturers have to pay a royalty to the avchd owners so that their machines will play avchd disks. Those owners happen to be Sony/Panasonic.

For the moment I"m staying with HDV.... but what happens next month or next year??

Jeff B wrote on 7/18/2008, 1:49 PM

Sorry to take so long in replying...

LVX:

I haven't experimented with different formats for uploading to YouTube, but will in the future.

As to extracting HDR-CX7 AVCHD files from camcorder to computer, there are two ways. One is to use the camcorder software utility, and the other is to take the memory card out and use a reader.

If you use a reader, the files will be in a ".MTS" container. I've found these files work fine in Vegas Pro 8 unless they go over the camcorder's 2 gig filesize limit. Clips under 2gig work fine, but the first file in a series from one continuous shot won't open in Vegas on my machine (they will, however, open in VideoStudio and Nero).

When using the camcorder software, the files get transfered to the computer in a ".m2ts" container. The files on the camcorder are transferred as "clips", in that if the clip is over the 2gig filesize limit on the camcorder, it will be transferred onto the computer as a larger than 2gig ".m2ts" file on the computer. These work fine in Vegas.

kraz:

I shoot everything in the camcorder's highest resolution and bitrate, which gives me a 1440x1080i non-square pixel framesize at 15mbps in Sony's AVCHD format. I understand that this format is "mpeg-2 transport system" or something like that. All I know is that the files from the camcorder work fine in Vegas Pro 8 on my quad core Vista 64 bit platform. I edit them directly, add simple titles, and then render final output to mpeg-2 standard def. They look real nice on DVD.

blink3times:
"Sorry.... there's one other thing I forgot to mention about avchd cams.... In fact, hardware cams in general.... You can't capture (or download in the case of a HDD cam) as one file. The scenes are split whether you like it or not."

With the HDR-CX7 camcorder software utility, a single continuous shot of up to 2 hours can be made using a 16gig memory card, and transferred as a single ".m2ts" file to the computer. On the card, itself, the single clip with be comprised of a series of <2gig files with a ".MTS" file extension.

On my machine, the file transfer time is just under 15 minutes per hour of video.

I'd be real hard pressed to recommend the AVCHD format for "prosumer" or pro level work, but for the consumer I think this stuff is great. The quality of the video from my HDR-CX7, when rendered for a standard def DVD, is most definitely better than the quality of video from my Sony TRV-900 mini-DV used for the same output format.

blink3times wrote on 7/18/2008, 2:54 PM

Thanks Jeff.... I wasn't aware the CX7 could do that..

Joe Balsamo|LVX wrote on 7/22/2008, 6:36 AM

Just some final thoughts to tie up some loose ends on my contributions to this thread.

My personal shoot-out between the Canon HF-10 and the Panasonic HDC-SD9. After a lot of testing, playing...and, fankly...learning on my part, I have decided to go with the Canon HF-10. I really don't think that I would've made a bad decision going with the Panny, either, so fo those who have that camcorder, you most definitely have an excellent camcorder.

It is probably true that HDV camcorders are better than AVCHD, but for my purposes, extreme environments/sports/adventure/activities, the flash memory AVCHD camcorder is better. Given that as a criteria, the HF-10 worked out best for me. Size-wise, there is no doubt that the Panny is the winner. But actual image, features, etc. lead me to go with the HF-10. The final killer for me on the Panny is the stupid decision on Panasonic's part to couple 24p mode with their Digital Cinema (x,y color) mode. You can't use these features separately and the Digital Cinema mode just blows the heck out of the colors, unless you are using one of their Viera Plasma TV's. With the Canon, you have the choice of using their Digital Cinema with or without any of the modes.

Canon has 12x zoom, Panasonic 10x. It does make a difference, though for some it may not. You get the choice of 60i, 24p and 30p with the Canon. You really only have the choice of 60i with the Panasonic because in 24p mode, you are FORCED to use the Digital Cinema. Not a smart move, Panasonic!

Running with the cameras, you of course get shake, but the OIS in the Canon seems to work better. I know that Camcorderinfo.com rates the OIS in the Panny as better, but that's not what my eyes tell me when I actually VIEW the results.

Finally, I like the ergonomics of the Canon better. The stupid placement of the joystick inside the LCD well makes it very awkward to use on the Panasonc. The Canon's placement on the side of the LCD works much better. You also get redundant controls on the Canon which are quite useful in some situations. Finally, the main feature that Panasonic has that Canon doesn't is a "pre-record" button. This is probably great for shooting at Seaworld where you might miss Shamu jumping out of the pool or something is just "gimicky" to me...just record more! I mean, it's not like we're paying for tape. I don't know, it may be very useful for some.

One final nod does go to the Panny. It does get better battery life. But, again, this can be compensated for by additional battery packs or even the high-capacity battery. This was not enough of an issue to go with the Panny. Might be for some.

All-in-all, the quality of the video from both is very high and quite good enough for my purposes.

Bottom line, it was a hard decision as they are both excellent.

Joe

kairosmatt wrote on 7/22/2008, 7:21 AM

camcorderinfo has an article about the new canon HF-11, which will raise the bitrate to 24mbps. It will be interesting to see if this makes the formats more comparable.

I've become more interested in the camcorders lately because my HVR-A1 touchscreen no longer works. Sony won't give me a quote on fixing that, becuase its $135 just to get the quote (that fee can go towards the cost of repair if the quote is agreeable).

But this camera does not have great image quality, not bad-in fact pretty good, but compared to footage I've seen from the HV30 and HC9, it just doesn't compare. And yet its still expensive. Plus the lack of 24p and 30p, and its not tapeless.
What it does have is XLR jacks and focus ring.

But its still really expensive. For the price of the A1, I can get the HF10 and underwater housing (underwater is what the A1is used for 75% of the time). The ikelite housing for the Hf10 does allow manual focus, but I wonder what that would be like since you would have to use a nob to try and control a joystick on the inside of the housing.

It doesn't seem like the A1 dropped in price very much, while the other cameras drop frequently.

If the HF11 comes to the states soon, maybe that will seal the deal for me. In a perfect world, Sony would update the A1 with flash memory and progressive shooting and I'd be set!

kairosmatt

Joe Balsamo|LVX wrote on 7/22/2008, 1:28 PM

The HF-11 sounds very good. I wonder when it will be available here in the States?

This does bode well as I think we're about to see a plethora of very interesting new camcorders on the market.

Joe

kairosmatt wrote on 7/22/2008, 1:36 PM

Oh yeah, I forgot to add to may wish list OIS, instead of electrical. The electrical stabilization on the A! is headache inducing when using underwater.

Also, just saw that panasonic's new avchd cams will have the focus ring! But then, they're not raising the bit rate past 17mbps. Can't someone just make the perfect cam for ME?!?

kairosmatt