Which is easier, HDV or AVCHD for PS3?

RogerB1 wrote on 8/10/2008, 11:00 AM

By that I mean, which is easier to "burn" to a standard DVD disk, AVCHD or HDV to play in a PS3? I am finding that I can edit both HDV and AVCHD about the same in Vegas 8a. I just want to know the easier method to burn high quality HD movies that can play in a PS3. I realize much has been said about this in the past but I can't find a definitive answer to this question. Thanks for your patience and help. :o)

Comments

p@mast3rs wrote on 8/10/2008, 11:08 AM

Well AVCHD will give you the opportunities to use menu and motion backgrounds where HDV would not.

blink3times wrote on 8/10/2008, 11:37 AM

"Well AVCHD will give you the opportunities to use menu and motion backgrounds where HDV would not."

Huh??

I assure you.... you can do the same with HDV

blink3times wrote on 8/10/2008, 11:43 AM

"By that I mean, which is easier to "burn" to a standard DVD disk, AVCHD or HDV to play in a PS3? "

There are pros/cons to each format and it totally depends on what you're doing. Avchd transfers to your computer much faster so if you're just transfering to disk and playing then avchd is your best bet.

If you plan on some in-depth editing then hdv is your best bet.

Avchd at present has a burning cieling of about 18M where as you can go as high as 40M with mpeg2 (not sure why you would want to go that high... but I always render and burn at no less than 28M

You have to decide what you want as an end result and THEN ask that question.

RogerB1 wrote on 8/10/2008, 12:29 PM

"You have to decide what you want as an end result and THEN ask that question."

The "end result" .....hmmm First of all, I shoot with a Sony HDV HC1 and also a Canon HG10. I want the least problematic way to burn to disk. Edit and burn and play with the most certain way to actually play a high dif disk to a PS3. I don't care for menus, etc. Just film, edit, burn and play high quality HD footage on my 43 inch Sony. thanks again for your imput. :o)
PS I am a 71 year old movie maker of 56 years, who has been using a computer to edit for only a few years and so I am behind the curve, as it were.

p@mast3rs wrote on 8/10/2008, 12:56 PM

Actually, he said burned to a standard DVD disc. While one can play back HDV from a DVD in the PS3, you get no menu support unless you use AVCHD. In the PS3, all you can do on DVD is play a file back. No menus.

RogerB1 wrote on 8/10/2008, 1:59 PM

So, are you saying I can burn my movie from Vegas and play in a PS3? As simple as that? This is really new to me and I really don't know, but I often get the impression this is more complicated. thanks so much :o)

blink3times wrote on 8/10/2008, 3:27 PM

Sorry p@.... I think you're right. I was thinking Blu Ray disk and wasn't clear that we're talking about dvd5

blink3times wrote on 8/10/2008, 3:32 PM

"So, are you saying I can burn my movie from Vegas and play in a PS3? As simple as that?"

The PS3 will play back both raw M2T files and avchd files copied straight to the disk. Of course they will not start automatically. You will have to put the disk in, highlight the file you wish to play, and hit the play button.

With your HC1, capture and edit in vegas.... render as M2T and then just simply COPY that file to disk. You can do much the same with the avchd from the HG10 (but rather render as avchd).

RogerB1 wrote on 8/10/2008, 6:19 PM

Thank you SO much Blink..... That is just the info I needed. I have all my HD movies rendered as M2T files and then copied to a disk. I appreciate your help very much. Thanks again. I can't wait to get the PS3 and give it a try. :o)

Daveco2 wrote on 8/10/2008, 7:22 PM

Which would give the higher resolution result, HC1 rendered as M2T or HG10 rendered as avchd?

Dave

blink3times wrote on 8/10/2008, 8:59 PM

"Which would give the higher resolution result, HC1 rendered as M2T or HG10 rendered as avchd?"

I've played with both formats in pretty good detail over the last few months, and my conclusion is that HDV still ends up a better quality than avchd.... even at its higher screen resolution (1920x1080)..... at present anyway. The 24M avchd cams are now starting to hit the market and it would be interesting to revisit the avchd and see what the extra bandwidth gives ya'.

But then on the other hand, at 24M avchd has pretty much lost its one BIG advantage over HDV, and that of course is file size. That being the case you really have to wonder if all the extra work in editing avchd is worth it at all. I'm not sure that file size is really that much of an issue anymore anyway with hard drive cams and the Blu Ray disk. Personally speaking I think avchd would have been an advantage a few years ago.... but now...?

In fact there was a rather interesting article a while ago titled
"Are AVCHD camcorders the next HD lie?"

The neat thing about this is that the author performed a test with 2 cams that are very similar... the only big difference being the formats used. Of course most consumers who are getting sucked into this avchd thing try to write this article off as being "old" (all of 6 months old ;) but I tend to believe it.

http://blogs.zdnet.com/Ou/?p=998

Terje wrote on 8/10/2008, 11:56 PM

HDV still ends up a better quality than avchd

The interesting thing is that this is going to be the case for quite some time I think. Think about it. My Quad Core PC can not encode high quality AVCHD in HD or HDV type resolutions at anywhere near real time. I mean, we are not even getting close to even a significant portion of real time.

These dinky little camcorders have AVCHD encoders built in, but they sure as Hell do not have the processing power of my quad core intel box. My box is probably several orders of magnitude faster. Now... a dedicated and purpose built hardware encoder can overcome some of the speed difference, but not on the level of orders of magnitude.

MPEG-2 encoding on the other hand is now pretty well understood and developed in hardware MPEG encoders. I am still pretty sure my PC would be able to do a better job with the raw footage from my HV-20 than the HV-20 chip is, but it is pretty good. Also, MPEG-2 isn't anywhere near as hard to encode.

The end result of this is that MPEG-2 is going to be significantly better quality than AVCHD for the foreseeable future.

Now, they get it completely wrong in the commentary below though, when they mix delivery formats and acquisition formats. The fact that AVC is crap for acquisition does not mean that it is bad for delivery. I would not be at all surprised if AVC at 50-75% of MPEG-2 bitrate was able to deliver the same quality as MPEG-2. Technology moves forward. Encoding to such high quality in real time on the other hand, we won't see that on a single camcorder fitted chip in a long time. If ever.

I think AVC is an absurd idea as an acquisition format. It will take a lot less time to improve storage to the stage where we can acquire at 100 Mb/s or better onto huge memory cards than it will take to create AVC chips that encode high quality at 18 Mb/s in real time. Wouldn't HD with DV style (intra-frame only) compression be great? --- Yes, I know it exists, but it would be nice to have it in camcorders in the sub $30K range too :-)