I've just got a Sony HDR-SR7 and I'm not sure I'm happy...

[sigol]

Hi, I'm a n00b so please go easy on me!

I've just bought a HDR-SR7 and despite its good looks and impressive specs, I'm worried that I'm not getting the quality I'd expect.

After shooting a couple of minutes of video in XD mode (the highest), I used the utility that came with the camera to download the footage on to my PC. Then I used the same utility to "Convert to MP2" so that I can, say, use the footage in Windows Movie Maker, etc.

The footage is awful! When the camera is absolutely still, there's no problem but when the camera moves or if somebody runs across the scene, there are all sorts of jagged lines all over the place. Looks like really poor interlacing.

Can anybody offer me any advice?

Thanks in advance,

Sigol.

[Soopafresh]

Those are interlacing "artifacts". AVCHD is pretty tricky to work with. However, you can process it pretty nicely with proper deinterlacing.

https://forum.videohelp.com/topic330400.html

[sigol]

Hi Soopafresh,

Thanks for your superspeedy reply.

I'll take a look at the editing packages mentioned in that post. Thanks for the tip.

However, why would Sony create a camera/package/video format that generates such crappy results?

I can't believe that I've spent all this money on what I thought was a really good unit only to find that I'm going to have to use 3rd party apps to get the most out of it.

All I want to do is the basics. I.e. shoot some footage and put it on a DVD with a menu!

Why can't I do this out of the box?

Should I be getting a refund?

Thanks for your advice.

Sigol.

[Soopafresh]

"However, why would Sony create a camera/package/video format that generates such crappy results?"

I know what you're saying. It's not that it is bad by any stretch. I'll post some examples. This clip is only 25MB or so - AVCHD source deinterlaced and encoded to Mpeg2 720x480 (for us NTSC guys) http://www.wikiupload.com/download_page.php?id=158604 (Right-Click to Save!)

Here's a small 1.7MB example
output_hq.mpg

Personally, I like the old reliable Mpeg2 file format, but the DVD storage format for AVCHD also makes it a convenient option. Either way, you'll still have to do some processing to go from 1440x1080 to 720x576 or 720x480

Read this recent thread, as it kind of covers your concerns. edDV should also chime in on this one, he's quite in the know.

https://forum.videohelp.com/topic329901.html

[sigol]

Hi Soopafresh

According to this link, the tech specs say that the camera shoots in progressive mode.

If this is the case, then why am I seeing interlacing artefacts at all?

Sorry I'm a n00b at all this.

EDIT: Sorry, the tech specs say "Image Device: System = Progressive" but further down it says "Progressive Recording Mode = NO", so am I right in assuming it IS interlaced?

best wishes,

Sigol.

[v_palmeira]

Hi Sigol/Soopafresh

I´m waiting to clarify some doubts before i go and buy a SR7.
First, like you, i want to create some DVDs in AVCHD format to read on a PS3, but i want to edit first and create a menu. I read in Pinnacle specifications, that you cannot create menus in a AVCHD file. Is this true?

I was trying to edit and create new files with a avchd sample given by Soopafresh (00003. m2ts i think).
When i use Studio 11 and create the several output files available, the final quality is horrible compared with original.

I tried the options:
mpeg-4
mpeg-2 HD1080i
mpeg-2 HD720p
mpeg-2 HDV1080i

This concerns me, because i dont want to loose quality with edition.

What to do? Thanks

JP

[Soopafresh]

Dunno the Pinnacle app at all. I posted in this forum about my experience with TmpgencXpress 4 and AVCHD, to which I was pretty happy with the results of the AVCHD-MPEG2 encode. https://forum.videohelp.com/topic331865.html

[edDV]

All I want to do is the basics. I.e. shoot some footage and put it on a DVD with a menu!

Why can't I do this out of the box?

Should I be getting a refund?

Thanks for your advice.

Sigol.

Why didn't you get a standard MiniDV cancorder? It would do what you want with simple tools.

Or get an HDV camcorder that can shoot standard DV format while you wait for tools.

AVCHD is way early for tools and has severe quality compromise to get low bit rate.

[Soopafresh]

Yeah, I'm with edDV on that one. It is a PITA to convert the stuff. I think PAFF AVCHD has a limited run - in 2 years, it'll have been a blip on the radar. Too bad it has convenient storage features that HDV doesn't (or does at a higher $ amount)

[edDV]

AVCHD may well be a viable format in 3-5 years.

I'm still wondering who is served by this format today? It appeals to gadget types who buy a $1400 camcorder so they can say "Look I can record HDTV to a flash drive or mini hard disk and see this, I can also play it back to my HDTV. Cool huh?"

That is about it. If you want to edit this video, you take a quality hit and tools are lacking.

Panasonic and Sony have done their market research and find most (90+%) consumer camcorder users never edit or create a DVD from their camcorder tapes. This same 90+% think it is cool to record without tape.

Was it unethical for Panasonic and Sony to provide first DVD camcorders and then AVCHD ? These camcorders have a willing set of buyers.

In the future both will be easily imported for edit and DVD creation. SD DVD is almost there now.

At the Pro end, serious broadcast news types are reluctantly warming up to HD MPeg2 and Blu-Ray DVD (XDCAM) recording for productivity reasons. They understand they won't be looking for cutting edge special effects awards. Just cut the story for the 6PM news. Conservative types will stay with tape.

[racer-x]

I agree, once Computers get a lot faster (Quad-Core minimum), then AVCHD becomes much more feasible to edit. The manufacturers are just looking to make the sale and AVCHD does that just fine.

As for me, I experimented with both AVCHD and HDV before I bought. I could edit AVCHD well enough, but it's more work than it's worth. I had no such issues with HDV and that's the format I choose to go with. No regrets........

[v_palmeira]

So in the end... I understand that you recomend to go for HDV instead of AVCHD.
This means that i should consider to get the sony HCR-HC7 instead of the HCR-SR7, right?

Can i say that with HC7 i can edit (menus, transitions, effects, etc) without loosing quality, and if i use SR7 there i´m seriously comprimising quality of end product?

I didn´t understand if in fact is possible to create menu dvd with avchd?

JP

[racer-x]

Any time you edit video, you will loose some quality, unless you're working with Uncompressed RGB or a lossless codec. It doesn't matter if you edit HDV or AVCHD, there will still be some quality loss however small it is..............

The difference is that you need a lot more CPU power to edit AVCHD than HDV. You also have much fewer tools for AVCHD. HDV is much better supported. All this can change in time, but right now is not a good time for AVCHD if you plan to edit the footage.

You can use any video footage you want for menus. You just need to know how to process it.........

[edDV]

If you really feel you need high definition, I've concluded HDV is best consumer format for now but you will need to use tape. For half the price you can get a good miniDV camcorder. Here is a good HDV camcorder shootout review (also covers a Panasonic AVCHD).
http://www.camcorderinfo.com/content/The-Great-HD-Shoot-Out---Canon-HV20-Sony-HDR-HC7-...erformance.htm
http://www.camcorderinfo.com/ratings.php

MiniDV* matches current DVD resolution so if you just want a DVD, MiniDV is a good match and uses simple editing/authoring tools.

HDV gives you the option of shooting at DV/DVD 720x480i resolution or HDV 1440x1080i. If you shoot 1440x1080i you have two choices. You can transfer and edit at *1440x1080i and then downsize to DVD 720x480 (time consuming) or you can have the camcorder transfer at DV/DVD resolution and edit with generic DV format tools. The idea is you save the HDV master on tape for the future when there's an HD DVD solution.


*If you want a good MinDV camcorder for a quarter the price look at the Canon Optura 600 ~$250 or ZR850 ~$350. If you want 3CCD look at the Panasonic GS-300 ~$800. If DVD is the goal these are more than adequate.

[sigol]

Why didn't you get a standard MiniDV cancorder? It would do what you want with simple tools.

Or get an HDV camcorder that can shoot standard DV format while you wait for tools.

AVCHD is way early for tools and has severe quality compromise to get low bit rate.

Hi edDV, thanks for your feedback. I also have a sony PCR-110E DV camera that has served me well. My problems with that format were:

- I hated having to rewind tapes and play them to capture the recordings
- I've lost footage before now to faulty tapes

I wanted hard disk recording because I wanted to drag the footage directly off the camera like a USB drive. That really appeals to me. I also like the fact that I can store hours of footage without the need for tapes, etc. (Albeit limited to battery life).

However, I must admit that I anticipated getting the footage on to a DVD in good quality would be easier and faster than it turns out at the moment.

Also, the fact that it's a hi def camera appealed to me. However, tools that Sony supply for converting the .MTS files in to something more useful are just a joke. The interlacing is so bad it makes you feel sick when watching it!

[zoobie]

The research points to consumer convenience but what happens when the hard drive fails? It's already happened...

[edDV]

The missing product is a consumer HDV camcorder with built in hard drive. I'll ignor Panasonic P2 flash for a moment. All DV and HDV hard drive solutions are external (e.g. Firestore). There's no reason why an internal hard drive couldn't replace the tape. An 80GB HDD would store six hours of DV/HDV.

As for interlace, almost all consumer formats are interlace and that will continue for some time. Interlace must be accommodated.

[v_palmeira]

Thanks for the reviewa edDV.
Very usefull.
From what i read the HV20 may is a better choice... but what concerns to design, the HC7 seems to have a better finished materials...
About going to miniDV, from what i read, the quality of even SQ output is better than any not HD camcorder... isnt that so?

Even so, i prefer to record todays memories in HD and then maybe in the future put them in a BRay (when get cheaper).

Still like edDV said i can edit today and put them in a regular DVD in a SQ (with great quality compared to others regular camcorders).

JP

[edDV]

Thanks for the reviewa edDV.
Very usefull.
From what i read the HV20 may is a better choice... but what concerns to design, the HC7 seems to have a better finished materials...
About going to miniDV, from what i read, the quality of even SQ output is better than any not HD camcorder... isnt that so?

Even so, i prefer to record todays memories in HD and then maybe in the future put them in a BRay (when get cheaper).

Still like edDV said i can edit today and put them in a regular DVD in a SQ (with great quality compared to others regular camcorders).

JP

I was just reacting to your original stated goal of DVD target. DVD is max 720x480.

Shooting HD is not always better for DVD release. Low light performance may be worse than DV if that is important. DV has editing and productivity advantages.

[ronnylov]

Interlacing is not actually a bad thing. You get better temporal resolution when using interlaced mode (I mean 50 pictures per second instead of 25 in PAL format). But unfortunately the HDTV displays of todays technology can only show progressive pictures so they need to do deinterlacing of 1080i video. Maybe in future there will be HDTV dispalys with true interlaced picture but not in the close future.

However there is the 720P HDTV format that can use 50 or 60 progressive pictures per second. This format is what seems best for me, but no consumer video cameras seems to use it. Why?

The "real resolution" of a camera like Canon HV20 is not better than 1280x720 (despite of the fact it uses 1440x1080 pixels). I have seen a test somewhere that claimed around 600 lines of resolution both vertical and horisontal (but it was lines per picture height) so I guess it would equal something like 1100x600 in "true" resolution. So 720P would have been enough to get all the quality out ot that camera...

I know about the progressive mode on Canon HV20 but this is still only 24 or 25 fps, which in my opinion is too low for fluid video.

My guess is that high resolution sells. People seem to prefer 1080i over 720P even if the real quality of the camcorders is not any better today...

EDIT: Regarding converting to DVD format I would try to keep the interlacing by separate the fields before downsizing and then weave back to interlaced format and then create interlaced DVD. In this way you can keep the temporal resolution and get fluid playback on a TV.

[edDV]

...

However there is the 720P HDTV format that can use 50 or 60 progressive pictures per second. This format is what seems best for me, but no consumer video cameras seems to use it. Why?

I agree that 720p would be more appropriate for general consumer use but 720p requires a more expensive imager compared to 1080i and creates a higher flow of data.

To match the motion fluidity of 1080i (50/59.94 fields per second), 720p must run at 50/59.94 frames per second. This requires a heavier load on image update 1280x720 per time increment vs. 1440x540 for HDV or HDCAM. 1280x720p generates about the same uncompressed data flow as 1920x1080i but is ~ 20% greater than 1440x1080i.

1920x540 = 1.036 Megapixels / time sample
1440x540 = 0.778 Megapixels / time sample
1280x720 = 0.922 Megapixels / time sample

So 720p/59.94 requires faster frame computation and greater uncompressed data rate than HDV/HDCAM. This is why DVCProHD uses a 960x720 resolution for 720p/59.94.

Some would propose a compromise of 29.97 or 25 frame rate to make 720p more achievable but the loss of half the motion fluidity would be highly noticeable for a hand held consumer camcorder. I'm certain Sony, Panasonic, et. al. have heavily focus group tested 1440x1080i/29.97 vs. 720p/29.97 and chose interlace.

In my opinion, 1280x720p 59.94/50 beats 1440x1080i 29.97/25 for camcorder use. Convincing the average consumer that 1280x720 is better than "pure 1080i" is another story.

[ronnylov]

I have seen somewhere that HDV specification use a bitrate of 19 Mbit/s for 720P and 25 Mbit/s for 1080i. If the megapixels per time sample is higher in 720P why using a lower bitrate then? What are the rest of the bits used for? HDV tape playback speed is the same in 720P?

[edDV]

I have seen somewhere that HDV specification use a bitrate of 19 Mbit/s for 720P and 25 Mbit/s for 1080i. If the megapixels per time sample is higher in 720P why using a lower bitrate then? What are the rest of the bits used for? HDV tape playback speed is the same in 720P?

I was talking about the uncompressed bit rate before HDV encoding. I'm not sure why HDV uses 19Mbit for 720p. Maybe because 19Mb/s matches ATSC maximum bit rate.

I'll try to find out.

Also, the figures I calculated above were just for the uncompressed luminance channel.

[edDV]

I should have remembered this. Per http://www.sonyhdvinfo.com/index.php
HDV 720p is only 29.97 or 25 fps. So we are talking the same frame rate but 1080i is recorded with a higher bit rate than 720p. If you look at just resolution, 1440x1080 has 68% more pixels than 1280x720. 25Mb/s is only 31% higher than 19Mb/s so in result, 1440x1080 is more compressed.

XDCAM is HDV's similar big brother. It allows 35Mb/s bit rates at 1440x1080i or 1440x1080p at 29.97, 25 or 23.976 fps. 35Mb/s at 1080p would provide similar compression to 720p at 19Mb/s.

The low end 720p/59.94 market is owned by Panasonic's DVCProHD standard which uses 960x720p and 100Mb/s bit rate!

[racer-x]

I shoot lot's of sports footage with my Canon HV20. I agree that 720p @ 59.94 fps looks fantastic. Although my camera shoots standard HDV (1440 x 1080i), it can easily be convented to 720p 59.94 fps using a simple Avisynth script. I've done it numerous times with excellent results. Basically you separate the fields (which are 1440 x 540) and resize them to 1280 x 720. The quality is very good and can easily be encoded to 14-17 mbps Mpeg-2 that look fantastic.

[MickKeay]

Just got a SR7. Stunning footage (cam - TV) Sony software (motion Pic Browser) dreadful!! It wont even recognise play or burn its own AVCHD files (yet Grrr) But Ive got the m2ts files editing in vegas and burning (unedited) via nero to play in the PS3. Next plan is render to HDV and edit in Premiere Pro (my editor of choice) I do NOT like the resulting separate file after each press of the record either!! Anyone know what the generated .modd files are all about? I never thought this AVCHD was gonna be easy.....

[DVWannaB]

I shoot lot's of sports footage with my Canon HV20. I agree that 720p @ 59.94 fps looks fantastic. Although my camera shoots standard HDV (1440 x 1080i), it can easily be convented to 720p 59.94 fps using a simple Avisynth script. I've done it numerous times with excellent results. Basically you separate the fields (which are 1440 x 540) and resize them to 1280 x 720. The quality is very good and can easily be encoded to 14-17 mbps Mpeg-2 that look fantastic.

racer-x,

if you dont mind could you post your avisynth script for 1080i to 720p 59.94 fps? Thanks.

[Soopafresh]

In case Racer-X doesn't see your request, you can download this batch file which will auto create the script for your M2T files. Choose the Bob method for 59.94 fps

http://www.savefile.com/files/893627

[DVWannaB]

thanks soop, you always come riding to my rescue