Camcorders: HDV vs AVCHD
HDV vs AVCHD
by JonTitor - 3/6/09 5:11 PMSo I was looking into buying an affordable HD camcorder, I am deciding between which format to get. AVCHD looks more advanced with H.264 encoding and being able to write on digital media like SDHC cards are nice, but one reason I was considering HDV is because of the Mpeg2 encoding, obviously I'll be using HD for myself either way, but if I'm going to share the videos, it would be on DVD-Video, so my question is, is it noticeably faster to downsample HDV to DVD-Video since they both use Mpeg2, as opposed to AVCHD?
Just to clarify...
by whizkid454 - 3/6/09 6:32 PM In reply to: HDV vs AVCHD by JonTitorAVCHD is the MPEG2 variant. HDV is its own kind, usually audio video interleave (avi) once on the computer. Both will take a certain amount of time to downsample depending on your computer.
not sure where you got your information
by JonTitor - 3/6/09 9:21 PM In reply to: Just to clarify... by whizkid454I'm pretty sure AVCHD is based on H.264 and HDV on Mpeg2, besides logically it wouldn't make sense the other way around, HDV uses tapes and you can't record H.264/MPeg4 in a linear fashion. Anyway, obviously it would take a certain amount of time, but I'm asking if HDV is faster, because otherwise I'd go with AVCHD
yeah
by chickenorfish - 3/7/09 6:50 AM In reply to: not sure where you got your information by JonTitoryeah, hdv is mpeg2 and avchd is h264. typically, hdv is easier to work with and will take less time to encode
Some thoughts.
by whizkid454 - 3/7/09 1:01 PM In reply to: not sure where you got your information by JonTitorhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AVCHD#Overview
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HDV#Specifications
Since you were talking about what happens once the video is on the computer and ready to prepare for DVD, I used the idea that if you imported HDV into any video editing program, it would (usually) be imported into an audio/video interleave file. After importing AVCHD (which records using H.264), one (usually) outputs that video to an MPEG2 file. Of course, people can choose which formats they like, but depending on what you already have laid out, conversion times can be mixed.
Sorry to get you confused.
does hd-dvd use mpeg2?
by chickenorfish - 3/7/09 3:35 PM In reply to: Some thoughts. by whizkid454does hd-dvd use mpeg2 for the encoding? if it does, it would seem that the hdv format would be ideal as you wont have to convert to a different format for it to be burned to a hd-dvd
I wouldn't worry too much about HD-DVD.
by whizkid454 - 3/7/09 6:50 PM In reply to: does hd-dvd use mpeg2? by chickenorfishWe'll be seeing hardly any of it in a year or two. But, those HD discs can be very finicky with what it can tolerate due to all of the DRM and other restrictions. So it really depends. I do not have the information to support or deny that MPEG2 is used by high def DVDs.
HD-DVD
by Johnny Mac 7 - 11/21/09 2:26 AM In reply to: does hd-dvd use mpeg2? by chickenorfishI have a Canon AVCHD camcorder and I use Pinnacle Studio 11 Plus for video editing on a slow Intel Core 2 Duo computer. I've burnt AVCHD and HD-DVD on standard DVDs in HD quality. A 43 minute video took over 7 hours to process and burn in AVCHD format. The same video took about 2 hours to process and burn in HD-DVD format and it looked better. It was recorded at the XP+ setting which is the best quality at 1440 x 1080 resolution. My computer can't do 1920 x 1080 resolution. While my BD player will play the AVCHD disk it doesn't recognize disc menus or chapters. My HD-DVD player does, so for now all my Canon video files will become HD-DVDs. By the way, since I have both BD & HD-DVD, the superior format lost the war.
And to answer the question...
by whizkid454 - 3/7/09 1:03 PM In reply to: not sure where you got your information by JonTitorAVCHD does require more processing power than HDV. But again, it depends on your starting format and your end result (and everything in between.) A weaker processor may have an easier time with HDV, whereas a stronger processor may be just fine for AVCHD.
AVCHD vs. HDV transcoding speeds
by BarefootMedia - 3/9/09 4:20 PM In reply to: HDV vs AVCHD by JonTitorThe HDV recording captured to your computer hard drive is essentially an MPG2 recording. The H.264 compression isn't that much different from MPG2 compression. But to answer your question about transcoding from High Definition video into standard video, the source format matters less than the software you choose to use. And the speed of transcoding is also determined by the quality of the output. It takes hardly any time to transcode into a format for your phone. But if you want the best image on your family's DVD player (isn't that image quality why you bought the HD gear in the first place?) then you'll get your best compression using a slow, at least a two pass compression codec.
But one thing AVCHD has over HDV and MPG2 is a much better quality image at a greater definition. So when you start making the DVD for your family, you'll start with a better image using AVCHD going to flash memory than HDV going to videotape. And I can't stress too much that software is the determining factor here. And the software varies with the output quality you set.
So good luck with your choice.
Some confusion here
by Predrag Vasic - 4/30/09 3:08 PM In reply to: AVCHD vs. HDV transcoding speeds by BarefootMedia..."But if you want the best image on your family's DVD player (isn't that image quality why you bought the HD gear in the first place?) then you'll get your best compression using a slow, at least a two pass compression codec."
HD gear would be wasted on a standard-definition DVD. If you want to see your footage in HD, you have to burn it in Blu-ray format. Otherwise, no point in getting AVCHD, nor HDV.
If you do need to downsample your HD stuff to standard-def, it really won't matter if the source is AVCHD or HDV; the tame it takes to encode the video into the Standard-def MPEG-2 will be the same.
AVCHD has established itself as the format of the future. HDV is dying and it is hard to find more than one single token HDV model among consumer camcorder manufacturers. Vast majority are now AVCHD for a reason.
As for the two compression technologies, MPEG-2 (HDV) is old and proven, easy to edit, but is inefficient and takes up more bandwidth. AVCHD is new, modern, ultra-efficient codec, but requires a lot of computer processing muscle even for decoding (i.e. playback). There's plenty of software out there that can edit both of these.
some debate...
by boya84 - 5/1/09 1:11 PM In reply to: Some confusion here by Predrag VasicHD gear would be wasted on a standard-definition DVD. If you want to see your footage in HD, you have to burn it in Blu-ray format. Otherwise, no point in getting AVCHD, nor HDV.
Disagree. The high definition downsampled to standard definition burned to a regular DVD playable in a regular DVD player looks a lot sharper than if the video was originally standard definition. BluRay "burning" is not required. AVCHD (h.264) data files can be burned to regular single layer or double layer non-BluRay DVD blanks and played back on BluRay capable players (including PS3s). As well, one can skip discs entirely (as I am doing) and have the high definition video file on a computer or "media center" device (like an AppleTV) for storage and playback on a HDTV - in high definition.
If you do need to downsample your HD stuff to standard-def, it really won't matter if the source is AVCHD or HDV; the tame it takes to encode the video into the Standard-def MPEG-2 will be the same.
Agree.
AVCHD has established itself as the format of the future. HDV is dying and it is hard to find more than one single token HDV model among consumer camcorder manufacturers. Vast majority are now AVCHD for a reason.
Disagree. AVCHD *may* be the future when the compression problems are dealt with and the process flow issues for storing video is resolved, but when THAT happens, it will be a different AVCHD. The current AVCHD implementation is immature. The BIGGEST reason AVCHD has overtaken the consumer camcorder market is because it is cheaper to make the cameras so the manufacturers get better margins. That too many consumers are satisfied with "good enough" video quality from AVCHD based camcorders and a misconception that hard disc drive and flash memory camcorders are somehow "more digital" than miniDV tape will help kill the currently better technology. If the technology were indeed better, the professional side of the equation would have jumped first. They have not. There are some Panasonic pro cams that use AVCHD - but they are not at the anemic consumer 17mbps data rate - they are at a 24 mbps data rate. The target is HDV's 25mbps (or better). At that point, just skip AVCHD and use HDV. There are some other Panasonic cams that do that - like the P2 card flash memory units (HVX200, etc).
AVCHD is a fine compression for the LAST step of the process (when rendering the final project). As the first step - as with consumer standard definition DVD camcorders recording to VOB files - it is a bad idea if video quality and access for editing is important.
As for the two compression technologies, MPEG-2 (HDV) is old and proven, easy to edit, but is inefficient and takes up more bandwidth. AVCHD is new, modern, ultra-efficient codec, but requires a lot of computer processing muscle even for decoding (i.e. playback). There's plenty of software out there that can edit both of these.
Agree, Disagree, Agree, Disagree. HDV is indeed proven and continues to be the choice for those who want "best available video quality". There is *some* software out there - not a lot. For regular consumers looking for cheap, the tendency is to use that which is bundled. Apple's iMovie '08 or newer can deal with the MTS files - Microsoft MovieMaker cannot. Beyond that, the normal suspects fall in line - Adobe Premiere, Sony Vegas, Apple FinalCut and a few others. The number of video editor titles that can deal with whichever format is irrelevant - the QUALITY of the video editors available to deal with the MTS (or HDV) format matters. Most video editors (including certain Vista/MovieMaker configurations) can deal with HDV. The hardware configuration (for both AVCHD and HDV) of the computer is very important (as you have noted). Fast CPU, lots of RAM and tons of available hard disc space are keys to effectively editing either video file type.
Please Help
by Esw88 - 5/3/09 1:17 PM In reply to: some debate... by boya84I am sorry guys but I guess I have allowed some of the new technology regarding camcorders and video to pass me by. As a result I have difficulty understanding what you are talking about.
So, if you respond and I hope you do, please use newbie terms.
I went looking for a camcorder yesterday at J&R. Salesperson showed me a standard def Sony and a High Def Sony. Of course she suggested the HD, even though the optical zoom was much better on the SD.
Today reading the fine print in a Sony print ad, I believe it said that HD camcorders record in AVCHD format and they cannot be played in regular DVD players, only Blue Ray or Playstation, or PCs with certain software.
I do not have a Blue Ray and I want to be able to make copies of the DVDs I burn to give them to family to be played on regular DVD players.
Of course the salesperson failed to mention this. Any advice, Thanks
Same thing I'm looking for
by skeeterbug69 - 5/3/09 1:33 PM In reply to: Please Help by Esw88This is the exact thing I am trying to find out. How to burn them so I can watch them on my regular DVD player or share them with others.
dvd recording
by JonTitor - 5/3/09 4:10 PM In reply to: Same thing I'm looking for by skeeterbug69best way in terms of quality is probably using some software on the computer but fastest and easiest from what I see is using a DVD recorder, one advantage of a lot of HDV camcorder's I've seen is that they have iLink which a lot of DVD recorders also have, and many of these camcorders seem to be able to output SD through iLink as well, what I'm wondering is if it using the iLink is any faster than recording realtime with the s-video or other cables, of if it's just a quality matter
| Forum legend: | |
 |
Locked thread |
 |
Moderator |
 |
CNET staff |
 |
Samsung staff |
 |
Norton Authorized Support team |
 |
AVG staff |
 |
Windows Outreach team |
 |
Dell staff |
 |
Intel staff |
