Why AVCHD format?

[Judy]

Greetings,

I continue to monitor new camcorders that are being released in hopes that one of them will seem like the right one to replace my aging Sony TRV900 mini-DV camcorder.

I saw that both Sony and Panasonic (on camcorderinfo.com) released camcorders recently the record in the AVCHD format. It also appears that the software to edit these formats is somewhat limited.

So my question is, why are they doing this? Is it that you can't record HD video on mini-DV?

I haven't shopped for a camcorder for a long time, so please forgive my ignorance here...

Judy

[Paul LS]

HDV is typically stored on mini-DV tape. However the consumer push (or they are being pushed) is towards harddrive or DVD camcorders, because of the small space available on harddrives and DVDs a more highly compressed format is required... AVCHD.
Sony, Pansonic, Canon etc are still releasing HDV camcorders storing to mini-DV tape, for example the recent Sony HDR-HC7 and the Canon HV20.

The higher compression of AVCHD footage means you need a fast computer to be able to work with it. Also recently most of the new releases of video editors support the format... Sony Vegas, Vegas Movie Studio Platinum. Ulead Video Studio+, Pinnacle Studio 11+ and even NERO 7. Not sure if Adobe will in it's next releases.

[Judy]

Hi,

OK, that makes sense. I do have a brand new rather speedy dual core computer w/ 4 GB RAM (it's a WinXP x64 computer, so the ram can be increased up to 128 GB ...not sure that I'll eve need that) so I am assuming it could handle the rendering.

I do find the lighter weight and smaller size of some of these new camcorders to be attractive. I won't say that money is no object, but because I keep equipment for a long time, I can pretty much pick whatever I want. I need to be able to carry it in a large travel purse, so I am looking for something smaller and lighter weight than the TRV900.

Now that I did my first DVD with PE3 (Thank you, Steve Grisetti), I'm not so sure I want to buy a different editing program. There seems to be so much to learn with that one. I would think that Adobe would release an update for that format, but I don't know what their release cycle is like.

I do own Nero7, but have never tried to use it for much besides the final burning of CDs and DVDs.

Judy

[Chuck Engels]

Judy,
Check out the Canon HV20 that Paul mentioned, it is not very big and it shoots HDV on MiniDV Tape, a great camcorder by the way. Don't give in to the marketing hype, you will eventually be disappointed with the difficulty of editing and the poorer quality. The professionals still use DV Tape, why think of using anything else? The prices are good and the tape is cheap, sounds like a win - win situation to me

[Judy]

Hi Chuck,

You know, I think you're right. Probably by the time the HV20 is obsolete, they will have solved all types of other problems. It's probaby a great upgrade for my TRV900.

I'm going to try to take a look at one in then next week or so.

Judy

[Wheat King]

Hi Judy,

Gonna chime in with a non professional thought. I myself would love to be able to "capture" or transfer my video the same way as I capture my still pictures into the photoshop elements organizer. This is one advantage to AVCHD or any compressed video. I know you get lower quality (compressed) and it can be difficult to edit but I really would like to eliminate the need to capture frame by frame second by second, and have an organizer and editor that recognizes and uses the metadata that is stored at the time files were captured. There is an efficiency gained in terms of workflow when working with compressed files, but you have to have a machine that can handle it.

Good thread Judy, Hope there's more discussion on this!

Are there other advantages, disadvantages?

[Judy]

Hi,

I find what you say to be interesting, but I am not sure that I fully understand. If you're not capturing "frame by frame, second by second" then how are you capturing? If video is 24 or 30 fps, regardless of the compression scheme, isn't it still a series of frames? Are you saying that AVCHD allows you to edit a frame individually like a still shot? If so, what are the advantages to being able to do that?

Also, I wonder what the spec's are for a computer which can handle the editing. For example, I have a dual core 2.66 GHz machine with 4 GB of RAM and the RAM could be increased if there was a program that could take advantage of it (the computer is only 3 months old).

Since Sony, Panasonic and Canon are all releasing HD camcorders using AVCHD format, wouldn't you think that Adobe will also be responding with software that will edit files from those machines? Do you know anything about their software release cycle?

Judy

[Wheat King]

With MiniDV when you want to move video from your camcorder to your computer for editing you have to go through the process of capturing the video. The process involves a real time capture. Meaning that if you have an hour of video it will take an hour to get it onto you computer. The advantage here is that the video is uncompressed or has very little compression and is generally easier to work with in editors including Premiere Elements.

With AVCHD and other compressed video, the process takes as long as it takes to move the file (download) depending on the size of the file, similar to how a digital camera works.

[Judy]

OK, I think I'm starting to understand.

I guess what I do with still images is simply copy and paste the files from the SD card into a designated directory on my HDD using a card reader. I never much bother with downloading from the camera. It's a process that just takes moments, even with an 4 GB SDHC card.

Are you saying that with AVCHD, I could simply copy and paste the files? I would think that would be faster than having to capture the video in real time.

Of course, that doesn't speak to the quality of the image or the editing process. If the image quality is inferior, why in the world would I want to invest probably over $1,000 for lower image quality?

I guess I'm still trying to clearly wrap my head around the AVCHD advantages. There MUST be some if the manufacturers are all rolling out equipment in that format. Will AVCHD become the BETAMAX of the future?

Judy

[Wheat King]

Also, I wonder what the spec's are for a computer which can handle the editing. For example, I have a dual core 2.66 GHz machine with 4 GB of RAM and the RAM could be increased if there was a program that could take advantage of it (the computer is only 3 months old).

Premiere Elements has a problem with machines that are RAM heavy.

Since Sony, Panasonic and Canon are all releasing HD camcorders using AVCHD format, wouldn't you think that Adobe will also be responding with software that will edit files from those machines? Do you know anything about their software release cycle?

Yes I think Adobe would because a lot of the consumers out there are like myself and want the convience of dowloading video instead of capturing video. I understand you lose quality but to my eyes (untrained mind you) I don't see much of a difference (in quality) between my compressed avi's from my Canon S3 digital camera and my DV avi's from my canon optura 20.

[Wheat King]

OH here's some good info on AVCHD, there are some links at the botoom of the page that may be useful as well.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AVCHD

[JohnnyO]

The time you will save on capturing will be taken up by the difficulty your computer will have with it, not to mention your frustration.

[Judy]

I actually found some other information on the AVS forum http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/forumdis ... une=&f=161 and have been reading other people's experiences in recording and editing. It seems to be a fairly useful forum.

One person even posted that he has the same TRV900 camcorder that I currently have and he had purchased the Canon HV20. http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showthread.php?t=868633

He reported various problems with the Canon compared with the HV20. He said that the exposure metering with the Canon wasn't quite as good as the TRV900. The Canon seemed to favor the brighter parts of the image, that darker objects (a person's hair, for example) were underexposed. He seemed unable to correct the problem using various settings. He also felt the OIS was flawed.

It's making me think that "discretion may be the better part of valor" and I might be better off in just once again putting off my purchase until the technology has developed a little further.

I can simply "make do" with the TRV900 for our upcoming trip in January and deal with the extra size and weight.

Judy

[Wheat King]

The time you will save on capturing will be taken up by the difficulty your computer will have with it, not to mention your frustration.

Agreed this seems to be the current situation, Premiere elements and or hardware seem to have trouble with workflows that are NOT DV-AVI.

I want a workflow that allows me to work with non dv-avi. Adobe seems to trying to move this direction, Consumers are moving in this direction, Canon, Panasonic, Sony are moving this way.

so, as long as I have the hardware to support the workflow then I want the software to support it as well, then I have time saved capturing and no frustration at editing time... IF you are willing to sacrifice some minimal quality in compression would this not be the closest to ideal?