Bob: Many of these "new' technologies are quite old, the theory has been around for decades

Just to interject, these theories have not been around for decades, they have in fact been around for centuries. All of this cool video stuff was actually done in the late 1700s, around 1780 and onwards. Nothing new about the theory but a lot of new about putting the theory into practice.

Just to prove I am a pedantic azz.

Blink: I have no idea what Sony was thinking

They were designing for delivery on media that can not support the higher bandwidths, such as DVDs.

you can easily do the exact same thing as FCP and switch to an intermediate... the only difference of course is that you have to pay extra for cineform

Blink I fully understand what FCP is doing and the difference that Vegas tries to implement by importing the native AVCHD. My comment is that FCP, as you point out, converts the AVCHD to an intermediate file on import and at faster than real time where with Vegas I have to do the import and then spend a great deal of time transcoding with Cineform before I can start editing.

When Vegas 8.0c was released and could import the native AVCHD I tried importing and editing video, without transcoding. The result was intermittent replay, stuttering video yet some times a clip would play smoothly. All this on a twin 3GHz ZEON dual core machine (MacPro) running Windows XP which is what I've been using for editing with Vegas for the last two and a half years (prior to that I had a PC). I quickly realised that if I wanted to stay with Vegas I'd need to transcode but the conversion process after import was so slow it actually was taking longer than capturing DV off tape in real time (the format I used to shoot and edit with Vegas).

Like I said I love Vegas and was pleased to see Sony implement native editing of AVCHD (it saves a hell of a lot of disk space) however it just isn't working for me. When it does, or if it does without having to upgrade my computer before I need to, I'll travel the AVCHD path again with Vegas.

The crucial point for me isn't whether I stay in AVCHD as an editing format, it's whether I can easily edit in HD the footage I've shot on my AVCHD camera.

RIght now I'm using software (FCP) that allows me to import my video quickly, play and edit it smoothly without having to go through third party renders taking hours after the import. With FCP I can log, preview and name the original AVCHD files off the original media, or having previously transferred them to a hard drive or optical disk, then import them with conversion to ProRes in faster than real time and begin editing.

Time is money and I won't waste it sitting around while my NLE renders to a format it can play smoothly. As you wrote Vegas attempts to handle avchd in a native environment.... for my money it isn't succeeding quite yet but I look forward to the time when it does.

New Hope Media

"They were designing for delivery on media that can not support the higher bandwidths, such as DVDs."

And that's a good point.

But that point would also suggest that avchd is mainly aimed (or at least initially aimed) at the consumer level and not at the pro.

BTW Terje;
I meant to ask you...
I'm a little confused here... Above you said that you created a avc file or disk at 50M and confirmed it in the PS3. I was always under the impression that the Blu Ray spec was to a maximum bit rate of 48M. Am I wrong? Does the PS3 play above 48?

One thing no one has mentioned and is critical to my workflow is that no AVCHD cameras have firewire out so they can't be used with DV/HDV Rack or Adobe On Location! This, IMHO, is a big drawback and what keeps me working quite happily with my Sony Z1U. Carrying a laptop in lieu of a heavy field monitor is a big plus of HDV cameras.

I also don't use tape even when I'm not using HDV Rack. I've got a Sony HVR-DR60 Hard Disc Recording Unit that I keep on my Z1 so I have the advantage of being tapeless and editing an easy to deal with M2T format. AVCHD has nothing professionally to offer me that I don't already have and takes away valuable tools like HDV Rack.

I do own an AVCHD camera for personal use (a little Sony HDR-CX12) that takes outstanding footage given is small form factor. I just hate editing AVCHD on the timeline. It's way too slow at times even for my QuadCore. :(

~jr

One thing no one has mentioned and is critical to my workflow is that no AVCHD cameras have firewire out so they can't be used with DV/HDV Rack or Adobe On Location! Wow, great point! That pretty much, almost by definition, eliminates those cameras from consideration as "professional." Of course, not having Firewire doesn't necessarily have to be left off an AVCHD camera, but like HDV not having solid state or HD recording, it is obviously a conscious choice by the manufacturers

HDCAM doesn't have firewire out, nor do any of the Varicams. Nor does the GrassValley product line ranging from Viper to Infinity.... not sure what the point there is.
Not defending AVCHD from that view point, the question is whether one would use AVCHD in a professional environment. I'm aware of at least 50 instances where AVCHD has been used in broadcast content, which in my mind, equals being used in a professional workflow. I'm also aware of several instances of crummy bullet cams being used in professional environments, but they were the best thing there was available at the time. HDV isn't considered "professional" either. But it's used in a LOT of broadcast, production, and even some film applications. Eastwood used a few dozen Sony Z1's in "Flags of our Fathers." But no one in their right mind would consider the Sony Z1 as a replacement or even common companion for HDCAM SR or an Arri 35.
So...if the discussion is "Is AVC a professional format" then I'd say "no." Even with Panasonic's new silly AVCCam/AVCI format, it's not pro, not conducive to a professional workflow, and not what we expect from a high end camcorder. But can AVCHD be used in a professional workflow? Of course. Absolutely. It's a ridiculous question as AVCHD has already been used as an acquisition format in a professional environment, several times over now. Only three nights ago I watched CTV in Edmonton showing an AVCHD-aquired piece I'd done.
Don't be so sure that USB can't be used for monitoring via OnLocation at some point in time....

Aren't AVCCAM and AVC-I two different formats?

> Wow, great point! That pretty much, almost by definition, eliminates those cameras from consideration as "professional."

I didn't say that this made those cameras not "professional". I'm not sure how you read that into my post. All I said was AVCHD did not fit my workflow.

The questions is NOT "IS" AVCHD a professional format. The question being asked is "would YOU use AVCHD professionally" (check the subject) and my respose was no because it didn't fit MY workflow. That says NOTHING about YOUR workflow or AVCHD as a professional format. Simply that it doesn't fit with the tools that I use so I see no advantage to using it, and in fact, I see an advantage for me to stick with HDV.

Given the question, I am entitled to answer NO if I wouldn't use it and give the reason. I'm not sure why anyone has a problem with that?

~jr

I didn't say that this made those cameras not "professional". I'm not sure how you read that into my post. All I said was AVCHD did not fit my workflow.I guess since the topic is whether AVCHD cameras would be used by pros, and since you said they didn't have Firewire and therefore didn't fit your workflow, and since you are a professional, I concluded ...

Anyway, Spot's point, reading between the lines, is that really high-end pro cameras obviously don't use Firewire to provide signals to monitors or capture equipment. However, for those of us in the middle -- the even videographers and corporate training video producers, etc. -- not having Firewire definitely does cut out a chunk of workflow, such as those things JR mentioned, which eliminate such cameras from consideration. However, as I stated, this really isn't an issue that is forever tied to AVCHD, but is simply a (hopefully short-term) marketing decision made by various manufacturers.

I'd at best consider myself maybe in the middle and I have a camera that doesn't really do firewire. The XDCAM EX cameras only output over firewire in SP. In Full HD (1920x1080) firewire is a no go. Technically firewire has the bandwidth but there's no spec for it and therefore nothing to go onto the other end.
There is HD SDI which I'd take over firewire any day. The firewire connectors and cables are just too frail. On top of that firewire is difficult to loopthru, SDI can be looped though monitors, scopes and into recorders and run considerable distances. Plus it carries 10bit 4:2:2 out of the EX. It can carry way better than that if you've got the budget.

Bob.

Probably a better way for me to re-state what I thought JR was saying is to ask: Do any current AVCHD cameras provide some facility for real-time capture or transfer of recorded video? I assume some of them have provisions for some sort of external monitor, but can you send the video bits to anything other than the camera's internal storage?

Currently, there is no way to output the content from the camera outside of analog means, ie; component cable carrying HD signal.
I'm aware of at least one third party working on developing a USB-transferred monitor. I don't know that it will record, but perhaps someone else has something up their sleeve too.
Me personally, we're using HDMI out of the cameras to a monitor, so OnLocation is somewhat superflous, but I do miss the scopes.

The options for output are generally, composite, component in the analogue realm or as Spot suggested HDMI for digital images and HDMI can be converted to DVI if you have an LCD without HDMI input.

Spot:

I also use the HDMI output for monitoring off my AVCHD camera. HDMI output is uncompressed digital, so the image quality is exactly what the imager sees and great for uncompressed capture, where a 1394 TS is a highly compressed 4:2:0 digital signal. The HDMI is also 4:2:2 colorspace which is great for keying. HDMI also supports cables up to 20M in length and 100+M is possible with special equipment.

A lot of folks seem to be using the BM Intensity Pro card for HDMI capture. http://www.blackmagic-design.com/products/intensity/

The HMC-150 has a built-in waveform monitor and vectorscope, so OnLocation isn't really needed for me.

Thanks for being the voice of reason in this thread and providing actual technical information. People on HDV seem to be very defensive for some reason, and want to rationalize why HDV is better than AVCXX. They are all just tools.

blink: I was always under the impression that the Blu Ray spec was to a maximum bit rate of 48M. Am I wrong? Does the PS3 play above 48?

I have not had the PS3 not play stuff I have thrown at it, and it did play the 50M material fine. Have not tried higher, but would be fun to try. I see no reason why someone would build an AVC decoder into the PS3 that was limited to bitrates dictated by the BD drive. As long as the PS3 CPU can keep up, why should it not play it?

This is one of the reasons I am a little annoyed at SCS these days. SCS insists on putting the limits in place, giving the user no options. If I know that my player supports what I am doing, why doesn't SCS just give me a warning but go ahead and do what I tell it to do. I mean, how dumb are they over at SCS?

Example - my player, and all HD based players I have ever tried, plays HDV MPEG-2, but the HDV spec is not in line with the BD spec, so Sony insists on re-encoding. Dumb. Give me a warning. Tell me it may not play on some players, and just get on with the bloody job.

I hate software developers who develop software that is "more intelligent" than the end user. Often it is justified, but ONLY if you can override the behavior. All the other BD writing software I have tried will stuff HDV MPEG-2 (no re-encode) onto my BDR if I ask nicely. Obviously you need a transcode, bu that is something else entirely.