I really don't understand why people are exporting back in AVCHD, especially since AVCHD camcorders can't playback Sony's mts files. Blu-Ray disks are the thing of the past too. By 2015 BDs will be almost eclipsed by streaming Netflix projects.

The way to go is to purchase a capable h.264 set-top box, be it a Roku, GoogleTV, WD TV, PS3, BoxeeBox, XBoX360 or the AppleTV 2, and then export in Main Concept MP4. Using that encoder with VBR at 16/32 mbps, CABAC and Main Profile, and exporting in progressive, will yield better results than AVCHD at 16mbps, CBR, baseline profile and interlacing. Shoot in progressive, all new Canon camcorders can do PF30 and PF24/24p now, not just 60i. And Panasonics can do 60p.

This is not to say that Sony shouldn't fix their always-buggy SonyAVC encoder, but users must make an effort to use more modern exporting techniques and devices too.

Who is talking about Bluray discs ? I am only trying to create files readable on my media center PC (and not too large files too).
The last time I tried Mainconcept (less than a year ago), it was buggy too, hence used Sony AVC. And sorry, my camera is not progressive, but Eugenia, you will be happy to know that it is a SONY ! So it cannot be criticized, right ?

>create files readable on my media center PC

MP4 h.264 are readable just fine via recent versions of MCPCs. There is absolutely no reason for AVCHD.

>Mainconcept (less than a year ago), it was buggy too

This is not true. MC has always been miles ahead from SonyAVC in stability. It also is much better in quality because it supports VBR. For the SAME filesize, you can get much better quality. As I said above instead of exporting at 16mbps AVCHD which is CBR, export in VBR Main Concept, using 16mbps average and 32bmbps max, and Main Profile. Uncheck the checkboxes in that dialog. Up to 2x the quality, at the same size.

>a SONY ! So it cannot be criticized, right ?

Sony consumer cameras, camcorders and dSLRs *suck* in terms of video. I wouldn't purchase one of these, and I have never in my life suggested these to any of my readers or friends. Just the other day I tweeted about their brand new dSLRs that record HD video at... 9 mbps. Sony *consumer* video cams are some of the worst in the market: few manual controls, terrible bitrates. Get a Canon if you want control and good bitrates. If you're a serious shooter, get the $1500 Canon HF G10, the best consumer camcorder in the market today (used as a B-cam by professionals too, since it's got full manual control). If you're a less serious videographer, Canon has PF30 progressive camcorders for $400, at full 24mbps bitrate among other features.

Eugenia

You make a tantalizing point about BD disks being made obsolete by broadband distribution. But I wonder if this is really going to happen:

1. The Netflix broadband service is very nice indeed, but it does suffer from a few problems:

- relatively few of its offerings are HD format, and only very few are HD 5.1. It's not clear to me that this is going to change any time soon.

- I access Netflix via a PS3 and even with all this computing power I still get the Buffering screen from time to time. And I have a FIOS connection too, although my PS3 is wireless G to the FIOS router.

- my understanding is that Netflix compresses its videos based on what it perceives to be the average bandwidth of its customers, and this puts those people who have a higher bandwidth at a distinct disadvantage.

2. Even if all the above is magically solved people will still want to use BD disks to save their videos. I'm not talking about professional films & film makers - just regular folks making vacation or kid videos. So for this population AVCHD will always be a requirement.

3. Do you think consumer level cameras will at some point use an HD format other than AVCHD? If so, where will it come from? I think there is a huge investment by Sony & Panasonic in the development of AVCHD and I doubt anyone is going to try to come up with a replacement. My sense is cameras will get significantly better CPUs (multi-core of course) and their internal data rates will go up a lot as a result. Won't this solve the current problems with AVCHD?

Thanks (in advance) for your thoughts & feedback.

1. Netflix re-encodes for different devices, and it updates its feeds occasionally. So whatever was not originally HD, it will become HD eventually. Also, the SD vs HD might be a negotiating point between copyright holders and Netflix, not a technical problem. I never have connection problems with Netflix and Comcast btw. Also, Netflix has the best 720p encoding at about 4.5 mbps. Better than Apple's, and much better than Amazon's. They employ the best encoders and I have not noticed large differences with BluRay. Check "Hunter Prey" on Netflix in HD to see how sharp a digital camera is and how Netflix's encoding preserves just that. Put your TV in "movie mode", don't watch it in dynamic or standard color mode (long story about this, needs its own thread).

2. I personally save my videos, music and pics in two external hard drives. No optical disks.

3. dSLRs and digicams are the future for consumers, not camcorders. Camcorders will be just for professionals soon enough. And these digicams, especially the ones that matter, record in progressive h.264 at about 50 mbps. They do 1080/30p/24p and 720/60p.

When the "enthusiast artist digital videographer" movement started in 2007 with the release of the HV20 and Vimeo going HD, we were dreaming of a camera like the HF G10 that was released just this year. The HF G10 is the first consumer camcorder that had true 24p (not just PF24), and full manual control. And yet, the HF G10 hasn't sold not even 1/100 of what the HV20 sold. Why? Because people who care about video has since moved to dSLRs. Even if the HF G10 would come with a free espresso machine, they still would opt for a dSLR. If you had told this to myself and everyone else on that community 4 years ago we'd have laughed. We just wanted a better "camcorder". Today, the camcorder consumer market is at its last breath. The camcorder departments on the three main companies are fighting for their livelihoods. Sony and Panasonic artificially limit their digicams in order to keep alive their consumer camcorder departments and market, while Canon doesn't seem to care if it might have to lay off 10,000 people soon.

Eugenia,
Thanks for the info.
I went back and tried MainConcept. It turns out my rather old version of PowerDVD (8) does not read properly the files generated by MainConcept. Using Splash Lite or Windows Media Player works fine.
On the progressive vs. interlaced question, I tried rendering in both formats and have the impression (difficult to be sure though) that the progressive clip is more jerky with halo type effects in fast moving sequences. It would be strange as the interlaced clip is de-interlaced in the player anyway; could it be that de-interlacing is done better with the player ? Or is it just my eyes ?
Finally, given my original clips have a bit rate of 16Mbits, is there any benefit of using VBR up to 32Mbits ?
One strange thing I noticed is that rendering using Mainconcept is about 25% longer than Sony AVC, however CPU utilization is 100% all the time, whereas using Sony AVC CPU utilization maxes out around 70% (and is nevertheless faster; I am not using GPU acceleration).

>that the progressive clip is more jerky with halo type effects in fast moving sequences. It would be strange as the interlaced clip is de-interlaced in the player anyway; could it be that de-interlacing is done better with the player ? Or is it just my eyes ?

Just your eyes. As long as you used interpolate as the deinterlacing algorithm, you're good.

>Finally, given my original clips have a bit rate of 16Mbits, is there any benefit of using VBR up to 32Mbits ?

Yes. Your original 16mbps files get re-encoded in 16mbps, but this is not a pixel per pixel re-encoding, you're losing quality. Adding more bitrate, preserves the original better.

>One strange thing I noticed is that rendering using Mainconcept is about 25% longer than Sony AVC, however CPU utilization is 100% all the time, whereas using Sony AVC CPU utilization maxes out around 70% (and is nevertheless faster; I am not using GPU acceleration).

This is a SonyAVC problem, not an MC one. MC one can utilize all cores, which is a good thing. As for being slower, as we say in Greece "the better pie takes longer to bake".

"Sony consumer cameras, camcorders and dSLRs *suck* in terms of video. I wouldn't purchase one of these, and I have never in my life suggested these to any of my readers or friends."

Eugenia, I am just amazed how you always recommend Canon even when they offer less. Specifically, all their newest cameras don't even have 30fps, only 24fps, and 100/300/500HS don't even have exposure lock during video. It's kind-of hard to take your Canon bias seriously, especially your claims that even Sony's compacts with their 1080/60p @ 28mbps "*suck* in terms of video".

" Just the other day I tweeted about their brand new dSLRs that record HD video at... 9 mbps."

The latest 2 dSLRs that Sony announced are NEX-C3 (720/30p, 9mbps) and A35 (1080/60i, 17mbps). Don't forget to correct on that tweeter that you actually meant "ONLY ONE of their brand new dSLRs". Unless, of course, you did it on purpose to make it sound as if "pretty much all" Sony's dSLRs have ... 9mpbs ;-)

>even when [Canon] they offer less

They don't. That's the point. They offer more controls and more bitrate and visibly better quality than ANY of their competition. That's why I support them. I research well before I support one product or another, it has nothing to do with bias, or secret affairs.

>all their newest cameras don't even have 30fps, only 24fps

That's a **feature**, not an issue. Don't forget that my blog and my readership is all about enthusiast filmmakers, not about random people who just want random family/travel videos. For us, 24p is what we prefer. I personally use 30p only to slow it down to 24p, I never use it as-is.

Besides, these cams DO have 30 fps at 720p (and 720p is plenty good at Canon's 24mbps, for that resolution). All their new cams have both 24p at 1080p, and 30p at 720p. Which is great in my book (not perfect, but again, better than the competition that doesn't offer such options in the P&S digicam market).

>It's kind-of hard to take your Canon bias seriously,

Funnily, I started writing about Canon above because the guy I was replying to was sarcastic for my... pro-Sony bias. He specifically wrote: "you will be happy to know that it is a SONY ! So it cannot be criticized, right?" So I have one guy accusing me of pro-Sony bias, and another for Canon bias. Decide which one it is please. :P

>100/300/500HS don't even have exposure lock during video.

These are the ONLY models that don't have exposure lock, and I hit back at Canon hard for that: http://eugenia.queru.com/2011/04/11/bad-news-about-the-canon-500-hs/ As you can see I give congratulations where it's due, and I bitch as much as everyone (if not more), for things that are obviously wrong. And I tweeted thrice about this issue for these 3-4 specific models.

But let's not forget that Canon has a full range of P&S digicams that *do* have exposure lock, while ALL their models have flat coloring, which is important if you want to shoot in a way that doesn't look totally amateurish. On the other side, Sony, Panasonic and Samsung always lack on something: either low bitrates, or no exposure compensation, or no exposure lock, or no color controls. There's always something wrong in that combo that don't exist in any other manufacturer. In other words, as a filmmaker who shoots official music videos with these small cams (in addition to dSLRs), I have 4-5 "absolute minimum" features that MUST be met before I take these cameras seriously. Canon simply comes closer to these needs than any other manufacturer. It doesn't mean they're perfect, their IS sucks for example. Sony's and Panasonic's IS is miles ahead of Canon's. But this doesn't matter for *me* much, since I _always_ use a stabilization method (tripod, dolly, or shoulder rest -- my cheap steadycam sucks, so it stays in the closet).

From Canon's new range, the SX230 IS does everything as expected: 1080/24p at 38mbps, 720/30p at 24mbps, exposure compensation and locking, manual focus, and color control. And that's the only model I have suggested to this forum twice in the last 2 months, once as a replacement for a full camcorder too. It's a good cam for the money and for what it does.

>even Sony's compacts with their 1080/60p @ 28mbps "*suck* in terms of video".

This absolutely sucks, yes. That's 60p, 60p full progressive frames (not 60 half frames as in 60i), in 1920x1080 resolution, at 28 mbps. Now compare that to Canon's 38 mbps for 24 progressive frames. And to 24mbps for 720/30p (which is a smaller resolution, thus requiring less bitrate). If we assume that the encoders are tuned similarly (and Canon's encoder is not bad at all btw), 1080/24p at 38 mbps is miles ahead of 1080/60p at 28 mbps. See, the more frame rate, or the more resolution, the more bitrate is needed. Here are some calculations (the smaller the resulted number, the better the quality):

Sony: 1920*1080*60fps / 28mbps= 4,443,428
Sony/Panasonic: 1920*1080*30fps / 17mbps= 3,659,294
Canon: 1920*1080*24fps / 38mbps= 1,309,642
Canon: 1280*720*30fps / 24mbps= 1,152,000

Yes, there are a number of other factors that can have an impact in quality (encoder settings, motion compensation algorithm quality), but the difference is so huge (3.5x to 4x worse than the Canons), that these differences have a miniscule impact. Especially in high-motion scenes (that most amateurs shoot, since they move the camera too fast), Canons can't be beaten.

As for the Canon dSLRs, they do 24p/30p that 48 mbps, going even further than their P&S digicams: 1920*1080*24fps / 48mbps= 1,036,800

>and A35 (1080/60i, 17mbps).

Same as above. It's just not enough. Panasonic uses that bitrate too for their dSLRs, and I know a bunch of people who sold them to go Canon. Even an acquaintance of mine who used to have a business selling Panasonic lenses, and he sold everything out and he went out and bought a 5D MkII. There's a reason why Vimeo is full of Canon camera videos. It's not because of some bias, it's because they deliver very well in the dSLRs, and they deliver at least the basics in their digicam products. Another online acquaintance of mine, is shooting music videos in Australia professionally (not semi-pro like me, but his bread and butter), using the S95 (720/24p, not even 1080p). http://vimeo.com/avene/videos Here's his own blog talking about these things: http://avene.org/12-reasons-to-shoot-video-using-pocket-size-canon-hd-cameras/

Does this mean that Canon can't do wrong? Of course not, they showed us their stupidity with these three new models that lacked exposure lock (a feature that was there in the past in all their products). But they do better than the competition, and that's what matters at the end. There's always room for improvement, and I can assure you, I can always find something to bitch about, since I'm actually very hard to please as a consumer (my husband makes sure to remind me that). The only reason why Canon gets the nod, is because it does better than the rest, not because it's as it's supposed to be. I could be their armchair CEO any time of the day to "show them how". ;-) ;-)

">and A35 (1080/60i, 17mbps).

Same as above. It's just not enough."

Eugenia, the point is that your claim of 9mbps for A35 was false and you need to correct the mistake.

Twitter only has 160 chars, you can't mention everything. I simply wrote that there were two new models, and I made fun of the worst one. Not that the other one is any better anyway: they're both laughable in terms of video. Even if the C3 didn't exist, the A35 would have had the same treatment by me.

Instead of writing "ONE OF dSLRs has 9mbps", you say "all dSLRs", period.

And you did generalize it again: instead of writing "they're both laughable in terms of video BIT-RATE", you say "in terms of video", period.

Eugenia, from your long post it is clear that YOU see bit-rate as THE most important factor for the quality. I am wondering if you can support this argument with something meaningful, other than that just saying about Sony or Panasonic things like "... and I know a bunch of people who sold them to go Canon" ? (because I also know a bunch who did the opposite).

All reviews I have read never even mention Canon bit-rate advantage. Never. Do you know of ANY reviews (other than yours, of course) that compare compacts or dSLRs in terms of video quality?

>in terms of video BIT-RATE", you say "in terms of video", period.

That's because bitrate is only one of the things they lack in their video support. It's NOT JUST bitrate. These Sony dSLRs have no manual controls for video for example, while most new Panasonics, and the vast majority of the new Canons (except only one model), *do*.

>clear that YOU see bit-rate as THE most important factor for the quality.

No, this is not the case, you're mistaken. Exposure compensation, exposure lock, focus locking, and color controls are in my "basics" list. Remember that I talked about a list of minimum basic functionality that I require. Bitrate is only one of them, but in terms of actual final quality is a very important point, yes.

>All reviews I have read never even mention Canon bit-rate advantage. Never.

That's because most camera reviews are done by still picture reviewers who have *absolutely no clue* about video. The dpReview guy has publicly acknowledged that he can't possibly provide accurate reviews about the video mode because it's not what he has experience with. He said so more than once at his site. Others are even worse. If you want video reviews of these cameras then you must go to Philip Bloom's site, or Stu's, or Avene's, and yes, even mine. But these are few and between sites compared to the plethora of still imagine-specific sites that write about the video part of these digicams usually in 3 sentences or a paragraph at most. You can't possibly get an accurate review of the video mode from these sites, sorry.

We're off topic btw.

>These Sony dSLRs have no manual controls for video for example, while most new Panasonics, and the vast majority of the new Canons (except only one model), *do*.

And here goes another false generalization - Sony dSLRs do have manual controls. A33/35/55 allow you to control focus, aperture, exposure compensation, lock the exposure, and many other things during video. Your next answer will be something like "but... they don't allow you this and that", only to open another new topic and switch the subject again away from the point I've made: the point is that you constantly generalize and exaggerate things (ALL Sony products suck, ALL have 9mbps bit rate, ALL have no manual controls, etc,. etc). Only a very biased person can use such lexicon (ALLSony camcorders, cameras and dSLRs *suck*, I NEVER recommend them).

To call lack of 1080/30fps on all Canon's P&S a "feature" is my favorite. The same way you can call lack of AF on Canon's dSLRS a "feature", perhaps go even farther - call it a "major advantage" over Sony's A33/35/55 that all "suffer" from having auto focus.

Here is one interesting thing I find pretty ironic. Check out reason #6 from the link you posted to Avene's web-site ( http://avene.org/12-reasons-to-shoot-video-using-pocket-size-canon-hd-cameras/ ). He says he does not recommend Canon's latest P&S because they all have CMOS and suffer from rolling shutter problems, and he has a link that shows this on Canon ELPH 100HS: . The first comment on this link says how horrible the video is, and only for $20 more you can get Sony WX9, and this person bought Sony TX10 instead. I guess this is one of those "random people" (as you like to call them) that has no clue about Canon's legendary 38mbps, and who doesn't understand that 1080/60p is going to suck "big time" because 28mbps is just NOT enough.

Avene has a bad thing for CMOS cameras, he hates them, because he always shoots handheld. I don't shoot handheld, and I never suggest that anyone should shoot like this. The linked video is shot by someone who doesn't have a clue how to shoot a video. He just walks into a mall, and he moves his camera like it's a freaking trampoline. Hence their hate for CMOS. I have both CCD and CMOS cameras in my closet, and I prefer the CMOS ones. CCDs give you ugly vertical lines, CMOS gives you jello. But the advantage of CMOS is that it can be helped if you use a stabilizer (as you should anyway). There's a reason why all new cameras, from ALL manufacturers, are primarily CMOS. That's where technology is going.

As for the rest of your comment, you live in denial. These are not full manual controls you mentioned for the Sony dSLRs. You have to understand about the "minimum feature-set" mentioned above which is ONLY for digicams. For dSLRS and camcorders, since their prices are higher, it has to be FULL manual control. Canon offers full manual control on their new video dSLRs (except for a single, cheaper model). The Sony dSLRs don't have full manual control. They only have the kinds of features that a Canon P&S digicam would have, maybe one or two extra controls. Not enough dough for such expensive cameras. And besides, they're hindered by their bitrate, we already cleared this up. No matter if they can do coffee, if the bitrate is not there at the end to ensure visual quality, they're still toys.

You know, this is going nowhere. For the last time, I have no bias towards Canon, in fact, I recognizes their misgivings. But as I said above, everything is comparative. Compared to what a Sony or a Panasonic dSLR or P&S digicam offer, the Canon equivalent cameras offer something better. That's the bottom line. Feel free to not agree with it, but it's the truth. I offered these 4-5 basic features that are required before anyone can shoot something that looks professional on these P&S cameras (and full manual control for dSLRs), and Canon is the only manufacturer that comes closer than its competition. That's about it.

Bye.

> The linked video is shot by someone who doesn't have a clue how to shoot a video.

The linked video is about Canon's newest so-called "feature" (i.e. CMOS), not about how to shoot or not to shoot videos.

> There's a reason why all new cameras, from ALL manufacturers, are primarily CMOS. That's where technology is going.

And unlike other manufactures, Canon did a horrible job, and you are simply unable to acknowledge that.

> As for the rest of your comment, you live in denial. These are not full manual controls you mentioned for the Sony dSLRs.

The manual controls I mentioned are in the spec. You can continue to disagree, call them "not full", but the spec is not going to change.

> No matter if they can do coffee, if the bitrate is not there at the end to ensure visual quality, they're still toys.

Even if Canon can increase their bit-rate 10x or 100x, the video quality on their newest P&S will not improve one bit, that CMOS sensor is still a joke.

Next time you make fun of Sony's latest 9mpbs camera why not make fun of Canon's stupidity putting 38mpbs on a crappy sensor?

>call them "not full",

"Full manual control" has a meaning, it's not something that "Eugenia says". It means manual control of aperture, ISO and shutter speed, independently of each other. All new Canon dSLRs have that except one model, Sonys don't have it at all. Only a few Panasonics do. This is for the dSLRs. For the P&S digicams, which are cheaper, the "4-5 feature set" is important rather than full manual control (which would be nice to have anyway, but no manufacturer offers it).

>Canon's stupidity putting 38mpbs on a crappy sensor?

The CMOS sensors on the other manufacturers perform the exact same way when no stabilization is used, or when something's moving fast: and I said it earlier: the guy you link who shot that video has no clue what's he's doing. Normal filmmakers would never shoot this way. Canon is not worse than its competition, so stop moving from one feature to another trying to make a case, when there's no case to be made.

This is really my last reply to you. I don't really care of what you think. You are not going to change anything, and users who have an idea of how things really are, and care about video enough to require a few controls that are important, they will make the right purchasing decision.

If you're the same Michael who often comments on my blog about these things, then we have already established there, months ago, that you don't really care about good, artistic video -- in which case we're talking about apples and oranges. If you're the same Michael, you just wanted a camera for some random family videos IIRC. In which case, it doesn't really matter what kind of camera you own. Even a $60 DXG digirecorder, or a cellphone would be good-enough for "memories" videos. Only if you want to actually do art, or something of value that people would want to watch, would you need the extra features that Canon provides.

As I've said on my blog many times, I don't care about non-artistic videos. I don't care about birthdays, first day at school, weddings, trips, or the occasional supposedly-complex home-work-home timelapse. The suggestions I make, are always for hardware that assist to create videos that people would want to watch to entertain, or remix, or make art, or provide something of universal value. Because it's face it, no stranger on Youtube would ever care to watch about your trip in Albuquerque last summer. I sure as heck don't.

I will leave you with a new, OFFICIAL music video, shot with my Canon SX200 IS P&S digicam: http://vimeo.com/25648182 You can download the higher quality video on Vimeo. That's the kind of quality you can't get with any other consumer digicam from another manufacturer.

See, first you claimed "A35 has 9mbps", then "...but still: laughable bit-rate", then "... but still: no manual controls, whatsoever", and finally "... but still: not the exact same arsenal of controls as offered by Canon, and what we, true professionals, label as "full".

Yes, the last one is correct. Congratulations!

Question for Eugenia and Michaelt: is this thread about VMS11 and it's new functionality or what? :-)

PS: I know probably 1% of what you know about video, so I have the maximum respect for both of you. But if I think about the field (many) where I am quite expert, the little thing I have understood is that the difference of opinion is a great added value if not taken as a personal fighting... ;-)