I mainly do long form projects and deal with a LOT of footage and until conversion and/or rendering of AVCHD can be handled by the massive horsepower of a video card GPU, I'm going to stick with MPEG2-based formats. My Quad-core handles MPEG2 HD stuff as easily as my old machines handled standard definition DV. High bitrate MPEG2 looks very, very good.

I expect that in the next few years, the hardware will be fast enough to make the AVCHD workflow practical for me.

John Cline wrote: High bitrate MPEG2 looks very, very good
Which formats/bitrates do you use?

"My angle is if it looks good, It’s good to go…..so if I am missing something I would really appreciate a heads up from all you good folks out there."

From my point of view it's rather simple... show me an advantage that avchd has over mpeg2 that can be used right now. Avchd has the ability to ONE DAY become a solid and dependable replacement for mpeg2... but not now. It's not standardized... Canon uses one type while Sony uses another. It's slower and more problematic on the timeline, still can't do full renders at much more than 17Mbps.... and it's max bitrate is (presently) quite limited as compared to mpeg2

If anything at this stage.... it can be called a good delivery format because it can compress better than mpeg2.... but that's about it.

If if you look at this from a broad perspective and take all into account, the only REAL reason to switch to avchd right now is not for the avchd at all.... but rather for the MEDIUM(s) that these new avchd cams are using. It's more like people are out there buying the cams according to the medium and simply accepting avchd as part of the package.

Is avchd ready for pro use?
No. Surely Not.

Sony and one other manufacturer would disagree.
They both offer professional AVCHD camcorders, and of course there is the Panasonic AVC"CAM" silliness too.
The formats aren't different, they way they are written is different.
At very high bitrates (higher than 50Mbps, it is significantly more efficient as far as storing image qualilty.
At very high bitrates (higher than 50Mbps), it is incredibly less efficient in the computer/editing realm.
Discovery, E!, FOX are all using/airing AVCHD content on a regular basis. The image is there, significantly better than DV that everyone screamed was such crap and became one of the dominating broadcast formats.
Get over it, it's a great format. The challenges don't lie nearly as much with the image as they do with the processing. If you've never worked AVCHD in other applications, do so. It'll make you appreciate Vegas.
We can measurebate all day long, but the numbers don't mean nearly as much as some that have never shot a frame of commercial video in their lives would have you believe.
AVCHD isn't for the weak, and I'm not promoting it as a replacement for anything but the DV that it does replace. XDCAM is still first choice, but there is a balance between "First choice" and "Piece of crap."

Well, as everyone has said, HDV is easier to edit, by far. No one has said AVCHD footage looks better. In fact, it seems that the consensus in the posts above is that, if everything goes well, it can look as good.

I have only one experience -- a full-length ballet shot with an FX1 (HDV) and a Sony SR12 for the wide-shot (AVCHD). I did post that I found the SR12 footage lacking in basic sharpness and detail, something I was able to overcome enough to not call attention to itself by using Sharpen set to 0.00. I shot on the SR12 using the top quality 1440x1080 mode. Perhaps I should have used the 1920x1080 setting, and by not doing so, put the camera at a disadvantage. The reason I did this was that I couldn't get the proxy converter to work reliably, and had problems with the Cineform demo.

So, in my case, the quality difference may have had to do with the SR12 itself, or the setting I used (although it was the same setting as what the FX1 produces). AVCHD may not have been the issue.

The render of this project took longer than any other project I have ever created, and by a LOT. Those that think faster computers are around the corner are smoking stuff: performance improvements in basic computing power have maxed out for the last six years, and the only improvements we're seeing is by providing parallel threads, processes, and CPUs. This is great for rendering, but won't help much during playback. The basic clock speed has been at 3 GHz for over six years now (I just bought a new computer and the maximum clock speed available to me is identical to what it was years ago).

So, since AVCHD is slow to edit, it is going to STAY slow to edit for a LONG time. No miracle is around the corner.

Why Sony and others don't provide solid state recording for HDV is a complete mystery to me. The difference in compression between HDV and AVCHD is, at most, two to one, and unlike CPU speeds, the change in the cost and size of solid state memory is changing dramatically. Thus, it won't be long before 32 GB of solid state storage is only $20 or so. That's enough for two hours of HDV. At that point, I really don't see the advantage of AVCHD, other than as a delivery format for BD.

I just purchased what is just about the fastest single-CPU stock computer one can get (3.2 GHz i7), and I still expect that AVCHD editing will be uncomfortable and slow, although I expect the render times will come down dramatically because that can be done on parallel threads and cores.

[edit] Blink and I posted at the same time. The word he uses is perfect: painful.

"The formats aren't different, they way they are written is different."

Wrong.
http://www.sonycreativesoftware.com/forums/ShowMessage.asp?MessageID=633683&Replies=3
http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/avchd-format-discussion/133481-2-kinds-avchd.html



"At very high bitrates (higher than 50Mbps, it is significantly more efficient as far as storing image qualilty. "
Please show me a NLE that can do full recompress renders at more than 24Mbps (most won't even render above 18).... one that we can afford anyway. I can use vegas to get to 40 with mpeg2

You talk like this is all here... now. It is not... not to the average Vegas user anyway. Mpeg2... at this stage anyway is just plain easier. Again... please show me an ADVANTAGE of avchd that can be used now by the average prosumer

Why Sony and others don't provide solid state recording for HDV is a complete mystery to me.

They do.
It's called CF. We use it every day with the S270 and the Z7.

All you did is to demonstrate my point, Blink.
Same format, different profiles of writing.
You're measurebating. That's an area that one can't have a rational discussion with.
Advantages of AVCHD;
Fast Xfer of high resolution data

Why you insist on bringing bitrates into the discussion is beyond me. Vegas can render a 660 Mbps file, too. But what does that mean?
Does a high bitrate equal quality? Of course not. The name of the game is balancing payload and quality, not hitting a specific bitrate, and CERTAINLY not comparing two very unique formats at an identical bitrate.

"All you did is to prove my point, Blink. "[i]

Well you see.... there is this little tiny issue with the new 24Mbps cams.... you CAN'T render at 24Mbps. Kinda makes a 24M cam sort of useless don't you think?

John,
I shoot with an S270 to CF card and recently purchased a Sandisk 32GB one and it holds 150 mins - 2.5hrs of HDV or DV/DVCAM.

As well, it's significantly faster, as you'd expect, to get it into the computer. Straight file copy and it's roughly 5x faster than capture.

FWIW ...
Tom

They do.Yes, but isn't this an external attachment which costs a large fraction of the price of a good second camera, and which requires its own batteries, and has to be attached on the hotshoe, thus complicating attachment of lights, external on-camera mics, etc.?

If there is an HDV camera which has integrated solid state recording, I'd sure like to know about it. I'm afraid the external solution really isn't the same thing at all.

I see absolutely no technical reasons why an HDV camcorder couldn't be made. Same goes for an HD HDV camcorder. And given all the advantages of HDV over AVCHD (in terms of the ease of post-production), the roughly 3:2 advantage (maybe) in compression of AVCHD vs. HDV seem to pale by comparison. The only real advantage of AVCHD that I can see is for the consumer to be able to simply copy it to disk and then view it in a compatible player. And, that IS a big deal, so I don't sniff at it. However, the topic of the thread is why a pro -- someone who is going to edit every pixel before it is viewed -- would prefer to shoot AVCHD -- and I cannot see any advantage, assuming -- and this is key -- that a solid state HDV camera actually existed. If it did, then about the only advantage is that the slightly smaller AVCHD files would transfer a little faster when copied to the computer. Hardly a compelling proposition.

So, if an HDV solid state (or HD) camcorder existed, we wouldn't even be having this disucssion.

John,
The CF unit of the Z7 and the 270 are integrated into the unit itself.
They're not separate purchases, although I've been told Sony will make them available as a separate unit.
They do not require their own batteries; they use the camcorder battery.
The MRU communicates directly with the camera, its status is viewable on the camera LCD panel, and it turns on/off with the camera. It begins recording when the camera record buttons are depressed. It behaves exactly like tape, except that it's faster to transfer.
Technical reason you don't see HDV on a non-tape system is that HDV it a tape-based format. This can be changed, but technically.... :-)
However, putting 25Mpbs on a card-only is certainly doable. There are somewhat obvious marketing reasons it's not done, but I agree...t'would be nice. For small format/low budget work, we've really come to love the 270 and the Z7. Both are great low-cost tools, the expensive 350's can stay in a case, and I can fly the Z7, which is of particular appreciation to me.
Project we're in now, we edit straight off the CF cards, and do a render to new of the areas we want to keep. This means no Xfer time, and dailies are done immediately so we can debrief the next piece/scene.

Darn!! Never thought of that. I guess we gotta figure out a way to deliver 35Mbps XDCAM at 35Mbps, 660Mbps HDCAM needs to be delivered at 660Mbps, and o my lordy! We need to deliver 25Mbps DV at......25Mbps!
No wonder the web is filled with so much bad video, they're not delivering the right BITRATE.

It is EXTREMELY rare that acquisition bitrate has any bearing on delivery bitrate. In fact, outside of film, I can't think of an instance. Can you?

Your argument is identical to saying that 8mm film is meaningless because there is 72mm film, and no Steenbeck or Moviola can handle 8mm film.
...is it the profiles or is it the bitrate that vexes you? Wouldn't it seem more sensible to tackle the two questions in different discussions, because they are not tied together at all.

"Technical reason you don't see HDV on a non-tape system is that HDV it a tape-based format. This can be changed, but technically.... :-)"

Yes.. I agree..... and it makes no sense to take HDV off tape and onto cards. HDV has a limit of 1440x1080... a limit that was set by the tape itself. But that doesn't mean that mpeg2 has this limit. That doesn't mean that they can't start developing full HD mpeg2 cams on cards.

"It is EXTREMELY rare that acquisition bitrate has any bearing on delivery bitrate. In fact, outside of film, I can't think of an instance. Can you?"

Mmmmm.... let me think. Hey I know! How about HDV?!?

Most if not all my hdv render templates in vegas are at... what.... 25M

Mmmmm.... let me think. Hey I know! How about HDV?!?

Please identify for us all what commercially broadcast production, or what commercially distributed tape-delivered production you have shot, edited, or produced in the past 24 months that was acquired, edited, and delivered to a broadcaster, distributor, or replicator for display/broadcast/replication on an HDV tape.

We do this every day. And have only delivered a couple HDV masters, and that was only because it was how the broadcaster wanted raw content for their own editing. I'm curious to know the secrets of your workflow that demand delivery to any distributive format that involves tape.
I wonder how many people shooting P2 are delivering masters on P2?

"Please identify for us all what commercially broadcast production, or what commercially distributed tape-delivered production you have shot, edited, or produced in the past 24 months that was acquired, edited, and delivered to a broadcaster, distributor, or replicator for display/broadcast/replication on an HDV tape."

You misunderstand. "Tape" was never delivered... and rarely is. The finished product (or disk) in my case is what's delivered... and it's at the SAME bitrate as what was on the tape. You can't do that with the 24Mbps avc cams that are out there... not with a prosumer nle anyway.

You misunderstand. "Tape" was never delivered... and rarely is. The finished product (or disk) in my case is what's delivered... and it's at the SAME bitrate as what was on the tape.

I'll phrase differently (BTW, HD is by far more delivered to broadcast on tape to than any other medium at this point in time).

What mechanism are you delivering HDV mastered content on for broadcast, replication, mass distribution?
On what mechanism are you delivering 25Mbps MPEG2 content for broadcast, replication, mass distribution?
I'd very much like to learn.

"On what mechanism are you delivering 25Mbps MPEG2 content for broadcast, replication, mass distribution?"

Blu Ray... and I wouldn't exactly call it "MASS" production.

"That doesn't mean that they can't start developing full HD mpeg2 cams on cards"

Sony have had such cameras for over 12 months. It's called XDCAM EX. Not a true professional camera but good enough.

Bob.

I'm aware of that. I'm also aware of a JVC cam that puts out mpeg2 base as well. But do you see this sort of thing popping up in droves on the consumer front is my point The answer to that is no. Almost all consumer cams now are coming out as avchd.... with no other choice available. Sony and Canon could just as easily put out a consumer flash cam with mpeg2... or even a HDD cam, but they don't. One has to wonder how popular avchd would be right now if the consumers has a REAL choice.

"Almost all consumer cams now are coming out as avchd.... with no other choice available."

Your point being?
Consumers get what they deserve. Manufacturers build whatever rubbish they know the unwashed masses will buy by the truckload. None of the issues raised about AVCHD are of any concern to consumers. They do not edit video. Some think they might and get sucked into buying cheap software, they don't care about image quality and after they edit one or two bits of their hosepipe videos they give up.

If you doubt any of this a quick tour around Youtube should clue you in.

The very, very few who use cheap cameras to make something watchable are such as small market segment as to be meaningless to a manufacturer. It's that simple.

Bob.