AVCHD vs HDV (once again)

[flashcoder]

I know, this topic is beaten to death already years ago, but I need an update since I have to choose between two only today. Did not wanted to create a new topic because there are similar ones, but rules say I should not hijack topics..

I need to know if picture quality from latest AVCHD cameras can beat Sony's HDR-HC1. I know that now there are true-pixel 1920x1080 cameras out there and they can do 24Mbit in MPEG4 and should have better resolution, BUT its also true that the new cameras are cheap not by accident, and as it often has been proven, the older high quality designs sometimes outperform the latest technologies only because of more quality implementation. Let aside the MPEG2 vs MPEG4 wars at the moment, what I am curious is not the theoretical level of detail you get from both technologies but rather real level of detail, judging by eye. I could not find any links to test videos on the web, I found only dead links. Could someone could post a link to test video of HDR-HC1 and some latest AVCHD gadget? I need to see in reality how its looks before I make my decision. I've red too many forums by now but they cover different timelines (when AVCHD was just born and when HDV is no more), I know that HDV is better for editing and AVCHD is like the technology of future blablabla but I dont care what it takes to edit, I care about the best quality starting from image sensor till AFTER I have edited my footage - the quality of final footage. There MPEG4 comes into play by not being a format for editing BUT MAYBE it has grown and improved since the dawn of AVCHD? When it showed up most of the reviews, talks and comparisons went on and clearly for my purpose HDV had definite advantage and HDDR-HC1 had excellent scores for picture quality (except low level light). So how HDR-HC1 compares to current line of AVCHD gadgets? I would not want to buy a camera which does too much software filtering and sharpening and at the end picture looks too cleand and too artifical. I am afraid that thats exactly what latest cheap consumer cameras do - they have crapy small sensors and lots of software filtering to produce bling-bling image just for supermarket showrooms. So, the question is - wether to buy latest cheap consumer camera (best from the cheap ones) or buy a good second-hand HDR-HC1, which has manual controls, CMOS sensor possibly not from china, and uses old and proven MPEG2 compression, maybe not always sufficient for fast-moving scenes, but at least editable without too much loss of detail.
For some this topic might look beaten to death, but I cant have them both side aside the latest AVCHD and HDR camera to play and compare myself. Like I said - the tapes are not an issue neither the rig for AVCHD editing, its rather about the quality of results I will get if I want to do occasional editing of material, is it still better to have older HDV for quality or the latest cheap AVCHD cameras will beat it? I can buy a good used HDR-HC1 for $600-$700 USD. Is there any AVCHD gadget that can beat it at this price?

Thanks, and sorry for lenghty post.

[minidv2dvd]

personally i wouldn't buy a used cam at half of that price. the only cam in your price range i would consider is the canon hv30. but even that needs an external mic in addition to the cam.

[zoobie]

You should ask yourself:

Where will I offload my AVCHD?
How do I back AVCHD up?
Do I need to buy more hard drives?
Do I need to buy a Blu-ray burner?
Do I need to upgrade my computer to handle editing AVCHD?
What happens if the cam's hard drive fails?
Does my editor support AVCHD?

Sometimes you can get a deal on a factory refurbed Canon HV20/30 w/ extended warranty.

I don't care if my hard drives fail because all my HD is on tape and I still won't lose a single frame.

Currently, I'm putting m2t on DVD as a data disc backup. At 13gb per hour for $2.50 USD, tape is still the most efficient and cheapest way to store your HD.

Just My Opinion

[2Bdecided]

To be fair, I think you'd "care" if your hard drives failed, because you'd have to re-capture all those tapes in real time!

But yes, they provide a nice backup.

Cheers,
David.

[edDV]

I know, this topic is beaten to death already years ago, but I need an update since I have to choose between two only today. Did not wanted to create a new topic because there are similar ones, but rules say I should not hijack topics..

I need to know if picture quality from latest AVCHD cameras can beat Sony's HDR-HC1. I know that now there are true-pixel 1920x1080 cameras out there and they can do 24Mbit in MPEG4 and should have better resolution, BUT its also true that the new cameras are cheap not by accident, and as it often has been proven, the older high quality designs sometimes outperform the latest technologies only because of more quality implementation. Let aside the MPEG2 vs MPEG4 wars at the moment, what I am curious is not the theoretical level of detail you get from both technologies but rather real level of detail, judging by eye.... etc.

First separate the "Cam" and "corder"-format issues.

Formats stay fixed but sometimes advance with new features or improved codec performance.

HDV has two variants (1440x1080i and 1280x720p) and is fairly fixed to 25Mb/s MiniDV tape. But HDV is a subset of XDCAM (MPeg2) and development there is rapid. Expect a new higher compression XDCAM flash ram codec next year that might be the eventual HDV replacement but it will be some time before flash ram costs fall to tape levels.

HDV/XDCAM remains targeted at professional editing applications (Prosumer, TV editorial and TV news)

AVCHD has more format flux. The consumer camcorder main split is:

1440x1080i @8-17Mb/s
1920x1080i @24Mb/s

Current models are approaching 1st generation HDV picture quality as AVCHD hardware codecs improve but understand that hardware codecs are fixed to a particular camera design (not upgradable). Also be aware that AVCHD editing workflow usually suffers more generation loss than HDV workflow so the end quality result still favors HDV.

AVCHD is clearly targeted as a consumer format. Panasonic is testing a premium "AVCCAM" line targeted at the prosumer HDV market. They emphasize flash ram workflow advantages over picture quality and recommend use of digital intermediate editing formats to reduce AVCHD generation loss. Expect Sony to respond with a cost reduced XDCAM-EX line.


Camera development is a separate subject from recording format. The Sony HC1 was a first generation 2004 CMOS design. Development has improved cameras since that initial design. Current camera designs seem to divide into ~1/3" sensors for the serious high end consumer and 1/4" to 1/6" sensors for budget models. The Canon HV series is built around ~1/2.6" sensors and has set a standard for quality comparison. Upper range Canon AVCHD models have similar camera designs. The 1920x1080 models have higher resolution but similar size sensors. Low light performance is compromised with smaller pixels on a similar size sensor. Optics quality also scales with camera price. You need to read individual camcorder reviews to understand the pro-con issues.

I know that HDV is better for editing and AVCHD is like the technology of future blablabla but I dont care what it takes to edit, I care about the best quality starting from image sensor till AFTER I have edited my footage - the quality of final footage. There MPEG4 comes into play by not being a format for editing BUT MAYBE it has grown and improved since the dawn of AVCHD?

XDCAM/HDV (MPeg2) has less generation loss and more flexible editing workflow vs. AVCHD. However conversion to a digital intermediate format (e.g. Cineform, Apple Intermediate Codec, etc.) makes AVCHD more equally competitive. Native AVCHD editing remains unproductive with current CPU/GPU solutions.

So, the question is - wether to buy latest cheap consumer camera (best from the cheap ones) or buy a good second-hand HDR-HC1, which has manual controls, CMOS sensor possibly not from china, and uses old and proven MPEG2 compression, maybe not always sufficient for fast-moving scenes, but at least editable without too much loss of detail.
For some this topic might look beaten to death, but I cant have them both side aside the latest AVCHD and HDR camera to play and compare myself. Like I said - the tapes are not an issue neither the rig for AVCHD editing, its rather about the quality of results I will get if I want to do occasional editing of material, is it still better to have older HDV for quality or the latest cheap AVCHD cameras will beat it? I can buy a good used HDR-HC1 for $600-$700 USD. Is there any AVCHD gadget that can beat it at this price?

In that price range I think a used Canon HV20 is clearly superior to the older Sony HC1. Similar quality AVCHD models are priced above $1000 street. Avoid the small sensor models.

When considering the AVCHD option, add in the extra cost for flash ram and the digital intermediate codec. Also consider computer upgrade needs.

[zoobie]

I forgot to mention I'm also backing up by sending my HDV productions back to tape which is nice for us NTSC users...

[flashcoder]

HDV has two variants (1440x1080i and 1280x720p) and is fairly fixed to 25Mb/s MiniDV tape. But HDV is a subset of XDCAM (MPeg2) and development there is rapid. Expect a new higher compression XDCAM flash ram codec next year that might be the eventual HDV replacement but it will be some time before flash ram costs fall to tape levels.
HDV/XDCAM remains targeted at professional editing applications (Prosumer, TV editorial and TV news)
AVCHD has more format flux. The consumer camcorder main split is:
1440x1080i @8-17Mb/s 1920x1080i @24Mb/s
Current models are approaching 1st generation HDV picture quality as AVCHD hardware codecs improve but understand that hardware codecs are fixed to a particular camera design (not upgradable). Also be aware that AVCHD editing workflow usually suffers more generation loss than HDV workflow so the end quality result still favors HDV.
Camera development is a separate subject from recording format. The Sony HC1 was a first generation 2004 CMOS design. Development has improved cameras since that initial design. Current camera designs seem to divide into ~1/3" sensors for the serious high end consumer and 1/4" to 1/6" sensors for budget models. The Canon HV series is built around ~1/2.6" sensors and has set a standard for quality comparison. Upper range Canon AVCHD models have similar camera designs. The 1920x1080 models have higher resolution but similar size sensors. Low light performance is compromised with smaller pixels on a similar size sensor. Optics quality also scales with camera price. You need to read individual camcorder reviews to understand the pro-con issues.

edDV, thanks for your huge explanation of formats and sensors, this sums up nicely with what I have red so far. I completely understand that its not wise to jump into one of Mpeg4 flavors until its in development and not backed by professional segment which could ensure that its quality enough format which will remain for some time at least and will be supported by industry.

In that price range I think a used Canon HV20 is clearly superior to the older Sony HC1. Similar quality AVCHD models are priced above $1000 street. Avoid the small sensor models.

This is exactly what I wanted to know! But there is a problem, HV20 is not so easy to get at that price Of course HV20 is better it has optical image stabilizer but the HC1 has that perfect manual zoom/focus ring which HV20 unfortunatelly does not, but its such a nice thing.. The HC1 I can buy right away and I have not seen it for less than that at least here. Well, I have to see what are the possibilities to find HV20 for similar price. At least I know that the AVCHD will have to wait for another couple years.

[edDV]

I agree the focus ring is nice. The HV20 has a small geared wheel near the focus button that works for fine focus but is not as direct as a focus ring.

Refurb HV20s have been popping up time to time under $500. Refurb HV30s are showing up as well.

[flashcoder]

You should ask yourself:

Where will I offload my AVCHD?
How do I back AVCHD up?
Do I need to buy more hard drives?
Do I need to buy a Blu-ray burner?
Do I need to upgrade my computer to handle editing AVCHD?
What happens if the cam's hard drive fails?
Does my editor support AVCHD?

Sure the problem is that I dont have blu-ray burners neither AVCHD supported editor, though I believe my rig should handle the realtime editing - dual opteron quadcores with 16Gb RAM (actually built for virtualization projects on Linux) and I could throw in some GeForce 8800GTS for GPU processing, its capable of something is it? The hard drives ok they are cheap nowadays, but I do like the idea of tape archives, at least you will not loose everything in one instant

Sometimes you can get a deal on a factory refurbed Canon HV20/30 w/ extended warranty.
...

Well I wish I could, I am not sure how do I get into this distribution channel here in Europe. Here you go to shop or buy second hand, but I will investigate this subject at least it seems the best way to get an older camcorder!
Thanks!

[tat2jr1]

I'm so glad to be done with MiniDV tapes. I love using my 8GB SDHC card (and then burning the 24Mbps AVCHD folder to DVD-DL for backup). The funny thing is that hard drives are so cheap now that I'm skipping the DVD-DL backup and just throwing my videos on 2 different 1TB drives (1 as backup). My MiniDV tapes from the late 90's just aren't holding up well at all (and I've kept them stored correctly). Get dropouts here and there. Plus, tape is so 80's, let alone 2010.

Having said all that about tapes, I have to add that I would never buy a used tape based camcorder. I know what my VX2100 (and back in the day my TRV900's) has been through, and I wouldn't want to be starting off with heads that have been used as much as mine. For that matter I would never buy a new AVCHD hard drive camera either. If you've ever had a hard drive die you'll know why, let alone the hard drive noise. Long live the SDHC card! 2 cents.

[minidv2dvd]

maybe... i guess you haven't had a sdhc card fail for no apparent reason yet. static was the only thing i could guess killed one of mine. data was unrecoverable.

[tat2jr1]

maybe... i guess you haven't had a sdhc card fail for no apparent reason yet. static was the only thing i could guess killed one of mine. data was unrecoverable.

Ouch. No... I haven't had that happen, and hope I never do. I need to google the average lifespan of those cards, and cut it in half. They're so dang cheap now. BTW - If you still have the card, and have a paid project or implacable video (isn't it all?) on it... you might be able to have one of those data recovery services get the info off it. They saved my butt when one of my drives failed. I tried every trick in the book to get the data off it myself (including the refrigerator trick). They had no problem getting it off (and charging me $900).

[edDV]

I'm having no data loss from 1998 DV or D8 tapes* but I'm still scrambling to get all analog Hi8 and Betacam SP digitized.

I trust DV tape over hard drive or DVD-R so I usually back to tape +HDD.


*The one exception was a 1987 manufactured ME Hi8 tape that was re-used for Digital8. ME tapes don't age well.

[zoobie]

I'm so glad to be done with MiniDV tapes. I love using my 8GB SDHC card (and then burning the 24Mbps AVCHD folder to DVD-DL for backup). The funny thing is that hard drives are so cheap now that I'm skipping the DVD-DL backup and just throwing my videos on 2 different 1TB drives (1 as backup). My MiniDV tapes from the late 90's just aren't holding up well at all (and I've kept them stored correctly). Get dropouts here and there. Plus, tape is so 80's, let alone 2010.

spoken like the true brainwashed consumer that you are
the networks have it all wrong, eh?

hard drives fail just in case you don't know that, either

[edDV]

Flash ram is ok for short clips but if you shoot in any volume, the costs become extreme (~7x tape). That and tape provides an instant backup (after transfer).

As flash ram costs drop to ~$3 per 16GB, then tape becomes redundant. Still flash ram is not suitable for long term storage so other backup strategies are required.

[Persistence]

If one opts to transcode AVCHD for editing purposes, which format poses the least stress on CPU/GPU, and which will entail the least IQ loss if the edited file is then recompressed for a Blu-ray disc?

As an "intermediate codec" how lossy is HDV MPEG2 1920x1080i at perhaps 30 mbps compared to other PC compatible options?

[edDV]

If one opts to transcode AVCHD for editing purposes, which format poses the least stress on CPU/GPU, and which will entail the least IQ loss if the edited file is then recompressed for a Blu-ray disc?

As an "intermediate codec" how lossy is HDV MPEG2 1920x1080i at perhaps 30 mbps compared to other PC compatible options?

Better is Cineform NeoScene which is all I frame and 4:2:2.
http://www.cineform.com/neoscene/features.php

AVCHD to HDV means MPeg to MPeg generation losses and 4:2:0 to RGB and back.

HDV is 1440x1080i and 25 Mb/s by definition. I think you mean XDCAM which can be 1920x1080i at up to 35Mb/s.

Vegas Pro 9 and Premiere Pro CS4 can native edit XDCAM.

[tat2jr1]

hard drives fail just in case you don't know that, either

If you hadn't done such selective editing with my quote you'd know quite well I know hard drives fail (one of the reasons I have each video on 2 different hard drives with each set stored in a different fireproofsafe). "..... For that matter I would never buy a new AVCHD hard drive camera either. If you've ever had a hard drive die you'll know why, let alone the hard drive noise. ....."

Anyway, I'm not brainwashed... I just don't like tape. As I stated, I personally haven't had good luck with them once they're hitting 10 years old. I have over 300 miniDV tapes here, and have never been happier to not have to use them for my new stuff. Between backups on 2 drives (that are only used to put more raw AVCHD video on) and a 3rd copy burned to DVD-DL (for pulling them off to edit).... or 1 minidv tape. I'll go the first route.

Wasn't trying to ruffle any feathers. Just was stating my reasons for liking the AVCHD format.... and yes... I edit the hell out of them. I just use proxy files to do it.... and yes... editing DV or Mpeg2 is MUCH easier. To each his own. As for any opinions - YMMV!

Now where's that peace pipe, so I can make up with the DVtape lovers?

[lordsmurf]

I don't like DV tape either.

[zoobie]

It's all cognitive dissonance...If you're human, you suffer from it. It states if we make an investment in it, we're more likely to recommend it...

Maybe I'm just jealous of transfering an hours worth from cam to HDD in 5 minutes...

...but an hours worth of what? It would take me 2 months to shoot an hours worth of anything...what could I possibly shoot that needs transfered right away?
Some lame wedding? They'd already be divorced by the time I transfered it

[smarlie]

To me, handling computer is a lot easier than tapes.
I'm not that familiar with tapes, either,
but I'd trust tapes more than hard drives/flash cards.
There might be some drop frames or... when the tapes god old,
but you're not going to end up with having nothing at all.
In the other hands, video files are soooo difficult to save when the hard drive fail.

[harringtonb]

I have had a Sony minDV camcorder for years and have always copied my tapes to computer. For me I have more trust in computers than tapes, any tape based medium will suffer from degradation due to magnetic fields, dust and other factors.
However, before anyone puts there trust in computers, they must have a robust backup strategy. I myself have three networked storage devices located in separate areas in the house, all three devices holding synchonised copies my all my digital media, including tape backups.
For years it has pained me the amount of time I have to spend copying my miniDV tapes to PC and have long awaited for hard disked or solid state high def. camcorders.
I have recently purchased a Canon Legria HF S10 and am delighted with my purchase. I do minimum editing on the PC, so I copy my AVCHD content striaght from the camcorder to my main PC. The main PC then syncs the data with the other storage devices on the LAN therefore the data is protected from any hard disk failures. One the stroage devices on the LAN is connected to a PC running Windows Media Centre. This PC is connected on the HDMI port my digital TV. Therefor all my historical and new AVCHD content is ready for viewing in full HD on my TV.
I know AVCHD is going to consume large amounts of hard disk but hard disk devices are so cheap it dosen't bother me..(i can get an external 1TB unit for 100 Euro). Also, I now don;t have to worry about storing any tapes..another pain.
Finally, I decided on the Canon, first it complies with the full AVCHD specification and secondly I opted for a 32GB solid state storage unit as oppossed to a hard disk based one as hard disk based camcorders add extra weight to the devices but more critically, the encorporate far more moving components and therefore can be impacted by knocks and shakes.
Regards,
BRian