Alludo USER to USER Web Board

Well, I think I'm ready to move to HD. However, there is one thing that concerns me and I haven't been able to find a definite answer.

I remember the problems that can be had editing MPEG2 and other highly compressed formats. DV was the way to go and problem free.

Now, AVCHD is compressed video and I'm wondering if the same issues plague this format too. Am I just asking for trouble trying to edit this?

I think AVCHD editing is resource hungry, and the software is still not up to scratch yet. I find VS11.5 is slow and crashes regularly when moving around the clips too quickly.

You enter a whole different ball game in the world of high definition video! The two flavours are HDV, which is high definition mpeg-2 in 1440 x 1080 frame size; and AVCHD, which is high def mpeg-4 and has various frame sizes going up to 120 x 1080.

HDV is in the main filmed on mini DV tapes exactly the same as a mini DV standard def camera. Indeed, you can use a HDV camera to film standard def in DV/AVI format if you wish. There is a curious thing with this, however, in that HDV mpeg-2 uses upper field first, while DV filmed with the same camera, uses the standard lower field first of DV. HDV is in fact quite easy to edit, and Video Studio itself has evolved to have overcome most, if not all, the problems previously associated with editing standard definition mpeg-2. Moreover, Video Studio has been able to edit HDV since version 10. The only significant downside of HDV is the same as with DVD -- capture has to be done via Firewire and in real time. A one hour tape takes one hour to capture.

AVCHD is a whole different story. There are cameras which film it to hard disk drives, and others to flash drives. Because it is mpeg-4, it is much more hi9ghly compressed than mpeg-2, and thus produces significantly smaller files. But the quality is excellent.

However, as pjc has already said, unfortunately the software -- from just about anyone -- has not yet caught up. Or more to the point, AVCHD itself seems to be evolving as well, leaving the software one or more steps behind. The international AVCHD standard, for instance, was last year changed to allow a maximum bitrate of 24 Mbps, over the previous upper limit of 18 Mbps. So far only Canon has brought out a camera using that higher bitrate, but more are soon sure to appear. None of the existing software, except a fairly lame program Canon itself produces, can handle it. Ditto with some Panasonic cameras which appear to be using a new AVCHD codec developed by Panasonic -- which appears only to be editable, but then only in a basic fashion, by a program which comes with the camera...

Added to that, you require at least a Core 2 Duo, and a fairly decent one at that, to even be able to play AVCHD smoothly, let alone edit -- though VS11.5+ and X2 can handle it after a fashion, especially when you use a feature called SmartProxy. But it is still an uphill battle.

My own personal view is that I am awfully glad I bought a HDV camera. At the end of the day, you still end up with excellent high definition video which is much easier to edit. Indeed, there are some -- including among the professionals and semi-professionals -- who argue that the quality of HDV, even using a small frame format size, is still (marginally) better than AVCHD -- and certainly, if you don't use the latter's full frame size of 1920 x 1080.

Ken Berry wrote: My own personal view is that I am awfully glad I bought a HDV camera. At the end of the day, you still end up with excellent high definition video which is much easier to edit. Indeed, there are some -- including among the professionals and semi-professionals -- who argue that the quality of HDV, even using a small frame format size, is still (marginally) better than AVCHD -- and certainly, if you don't use the latter's full frame size of 1920 x 1080.

I think for consumers use, flash memory will prevail and AVCHD will end up being the standard. Ease of use with transferring files etc is a great advantage and so is size of the cameras. The absolutely absence of background device noise is also a plus.

The big players just have to settle on a common standard and give Corel, Cyberlink and the likes with the tools to incorporate the codecs into their software.

I am sure you are correct on all points! But there is still a considerable way to go... In the meantime, I will happily stick with my HDV.

Thanks Ken. I was leaning towards HDV anyway. My gut tells me less can go wrong at this point. I haven't been on the forums much in the last year or so and it is nice to see you, Steve and other are still very very helpful!

Ken Berry wrote: But there is still a considerable way to go...

Absolutely, I have ended up rendering back to mpeg2 (HD) because the AVCHD engines in both Corel and Cyberlink are still not up to scratch IMO.

For what it's worth, I've been experimenting with some AVCHD clips shot on Canon flash memory HD camcorders and a Panasonic at my local big box electronics store.

Admittedly I'm still using VS11.5, but I have not successfully rendered a test project comprising several clips joined by transitions.

In fairness, I've yet to get try the Pixela software that might make a difference when capturing the AVCHD clips.

The picture quality of the source clips looks good, but to me the picture quality of some HDV sample clips from a Canon HV30 are significantly better - particularly the way that they handle motion.

I've had no problems editing the HDV clips on my 1.8Ghz C2D laptop, and there don't appear to be any major flaws in the output, in complete contrast to the AVCHD project.

I've never thought much of the h264 encoding in VS, and find that I can encode my rendered HDV project output far more effectively in a third party program, actually using the more efficient x264 compression.

I seem to recall etech writing that VS encoded better directly to the disc, as opposed to folders or a video file, but since I don't have the means of playing back either BD or hybrid discs, it's not something I have been able to check out.

Like you Guy, I'm contemplating getting an HD camcorder, and to my mind only the HV30 makes sense. The fantastic portabilty and convenience of the AVCHD camcorders is nullified by the lack of editing support. For those users who simply want to make a disc almost directly from their source footage, the bundled software with the cams might just work, but it's not what I'm looking for.

2Dogs wrote: Admittedly I'm still using VS11.5, but I have not successfully rendered a test project comprising several clips joined by transitions.

VS11.5 is meant to have full AVCHD support. I bought it just before X2 was released.

2Dogs wrote:but to me the picture quality of some HDV sample clips from a Canon HV30 are significantly better - particularly the way that they handle motion.

Curious indeed when supposedly one of the advantages of H264 was to improve motion compression

2Dogs wrote:I seem to recall etech writing that VS encoded better directly to the disc, as opposed to folders or a video file, but since I don't have the means of playing back either BD or hybrid discs, it's not something I have been able to check out.

Interesting : I thought writing to a HDD folder (as a "disc") using the create disc module would have been identical. Thanks for the tip - I shall burn a hybrid disc and play back to see if there is an improvement. ( I usually use my mediaplayer for playback over network)

I don't think Windows Media Player is rated to play AVCHD hybrid discs. But WinDVD 9 is...

pjc wrote:Curious indeed when supposedly one of the advantages of H264 was to improve motion compression

H264 is certainly a more efficient compression, offering better picture quality for a given bitrate - so I think the problem has to be with the in-camera processing. In something as small as a consumer camcorder, there's a limit to the processor power that can be built in.

One thing that rankles with me though is that we will likely not see any flash memory HDV cameras. Sony have not updated their HDV models with their latest sensors and image processors, which suggest that their HDV models are the end of the line.

Since the HDV bitrate of 25000kbps is very similar to the 24000kbps used by the Canon HF11, it should surely be technically feasible to have a flash memory HDV camera.

Wouldn't it be a great feature if you could choose between HDV or AVCHD formats on a camera - in the same way you can choose to shoot HDV or SD DV25 on the Canon HV20/30.

But wouldn't it be great "just" to have a flash version of the HV30 that would give you the choice of shooting HDV or SD DV25 to flash memory.

I note that Canon recommend the use of a class 4 SDHC card - so these days, with class 6 cards readily available, there surely wouldn't be a problem with the data transfer rate.

But you'd need a very large flash card to capture even just an hour of HDV/mpeg-2.

2Dogs wrote:But wouldn't it be great "just" to have a flash version of the HV30 that would give you the choice of shooting HDV or SD DV25 to flash memory.

I would have bought such a beast! When deciding to upgrade to HD I decided to leave tape based devices as I shoot a lot of quiet stuff and the motor noise was always audible on my DV Canon. File manipulation of course is also an advantage BUT I am not yet sold on consumer grade AVCHD .

2Dogs wrote:One thing that rankles with me though is that we will likely not see any flash memory HDV cameras. Sony have not updated their HDV models with their latest sensors and image processors, which suggest that their HDV models are the end of the line.

I think you are right as well. I feel H264 will become standard. Our only hope is that the consumer based encoding improves.

Ken Berry wrote:But you'd need a very large flash card to capture even just an hour of HDV/mpeg-2.

As always with this flash based stuff this will not be a problem soon. Although 32 GB cards are defined as the maximum, they are here now, 64 is around the corner. Theoretical limit is over 2 TB. Prices will drop as always.

8Gb cards are already "the new 2Gb".

You can currently buy a 16Gb class 6 SDHC card for $30 in the US, and prices will no doubt continue to fall.

The Canon HF11 comes with 32Gb of built in memory - sufficient for 175 minutes of video shot at the highest 24mbps quality setting.

Using a 16Gb card, you could shoot 85 minutes. I think that you could shoot about the same amount or just slightly less HDV (were there a camera available!)

That's significantly more than the 60 minutes you can fit onto a MiniDV tape, and I reckon changing flash memory cards is a fair bit quicker than changing MiniDV tapes.

@pjc many Canon's allow you to turn off automatic volume control and go to manual, which helps avoid the mic sensitivity going up so much in quiet shots that you can hear the tape transport mechanism.