12 replies to this topic

[treehousemann]

Currently have the Canon HV20. Love the camera, love the picture, but the digitizing process and working with MPEG 2 HD files is  finally getting to me .  Thought I'd try to simplify the process without losing a lot of quality if possible. Maybe its not.  Any recommendations on flashed based HD camcorders out there that you really like and work well with Creator?

I really like the Canon products and was looking at the new Canon Vixia line, but I believe I saw a thread the other day here about the their video files something called  .MTS needing some kind of additional converter. Definitely don't want to add a step to the process.  

Also do you lose a lot of resolution because of compression on these flashed based cameras vs HDV and tape source?

Any info would be appreciated.

Thanks.

Tim.

Edited by treehousemann, 14 October 2009 - 08:06 AM.

[ggrussell]

Currently have the Canon HV20. Love the camera, love the picture, but the digitizing process and working with MPEG 2 HD files is  finally getting to me .  Thought I'd try to simplify the process without losing a lot of quality if possible. Maybe its not.  Any recommendations on flashed based HD camcorders out there that you really like and work well with Creator?

How much compression is used depends on the brand.  One thing you should know is that AVCHD can be more difficult to edit because of the compression.  C2010 is now suppose to edit AVCHD natively without converting, but you would still need a fast computer for preview and rendering. If editing HDV is slow on your current machine, AVCHD will be even slower.

Edited by ggrussell, 14 October 2009 - 08:42 AM.

[treehousemann]

Gary
Thanks for the info.

Editing HDV moves pretty well for me in Videowave. No complaints there. It was about digitizing time. But if your telling me AVCHD as an editing format is a slower process because of the compression that would defeat the purpose of the change. Basically trading one evil for a new one.

You are actually telling me  the opposite of what I was thinking. I was thinking AVCHD compression generally should equal smaller file sizes as opposed to MPEG 2 HD, which in my head would equal to less resource pull and better performance in the editing process.  Sounds like I am mistaken.

So what are the benefits of AVCHD?  just the obvious of no digitizing ?

Thanks..

Tim

[ggrussell]

So what are the benefits of AVCHD?  just the obvious of no digitizing ?

What do you mean by 'no digitizing'?  DV AVI, MPEG 2, HDV and AVCHD are all digital video.  C2010 should be able to 'smart render' any of those formats.  Meaning only the parts you have edited needs re-rendering or encoding.  How long encoding takes depends on many things like CPU speed, video resolution and output format, how much editing like transitions, overlays, added audio, special effects, etc.

AVCHD uses a much more complex compression technique and uses more resources especially CPU.

Edited by ggrussell, 14 October 2009 - 09:30 AM.

[treehousemann]

Sorry Gary,

I meant other than not digitizing from a tape source such as Mini DV, is AVCHD ultimately slower in the editing process than working with other digital HD formats such as MPEG 2, which is what you are locked into when digitizing from HDV tape source in C2009.

Can you now digitize via HDV tape source to different formats in C2010?

Edited by treehousemann, 14 October 2009 - 09:46 AM.

[myguggi]

Sorry Gary,

I meant other than not digitizing from a tape source such as Mini DV, is AVCHD ultimately slower in the editing process than working with other digital HD formats such as MPEG 2, which is what you are locked into when digitizing from HDV tape source in C2009.

Can you now digitize via HDV tape source to different formats in C2010?

The video on mini DV tape is already digitized, that is why its called a digital camcorder.
I think you are confusing a lot of the terminology, eg, confusing digitizing and rendering or encoding.

[treehousemann]

Sorry Walt.
Not confused at all. You still have to "digitize" or "ingest" a physical digital tape source into Creator.

Thanks

Tim

[sknis]

Sorry Walt.
Not confused at all. You still have to "digitize" or "ingest" a physical digital tape source into Creator.

Thanks

Tim

That is called capture and is done using a Firwire cable.  There are other types of camcorders - hard drive, DVD, memory stick that your copy from the media to your computer.  Capturing is a 1:1 time process where Copying is depends only on your computer- ususually seconds or minutes.    After that, except for smart rendering of the files the process is pretty much the same.

AVCHD is a highly compressed video format.  Unformatunately not all manufacturers comply with the same standard.  AVCHD disc also refers to a HD video burned to a Standard DVD that is near blu-ray quality.  It will play on your computer and certain Blu-ray players.  The other down side is that you can get about 40-45 minutes on a DVD.  With the normal mpg2 video format, you can get about 1 hour of best quality on a dtsandard DVD>

[ggrussell]

Not confused at all. You still have to "digitize" or "ingest" a physical digital tape source into Creator.

Perhaps just using the wrong terms or you don't understand the process or maybe confusing it with analog tape camcorders.

The video on the tape is indeed DIGITAL.  When you capture HDV from the tape, all you are doing is transferring bit for bit.  There is no conversion!  The video on the tape is already MPEG 2 HD.  The transfer is a 1 to 1 , bit for bit transfer. That is how it works for HDV tape. You have to 'play' the tape. There simply is no way to get the bits off the tape any faster.  PHYSICALLY impossible.

Hard drive and memory card camcorders are treated differently because the device shows up in Windows as a storage device. NOT A CAMCORDER.  You are still transferring data, bit for bit.  It's just faster because there is a huge difference in how Windows accesses the media.

Edited by ggrussell, 14 October 2009 - 12:45 PM.

[treehousemann]

Guys,

It must be the wrong terminology. My apologies. I work in the avid world so "digitize", "ingest"  are still standards in the industry. But I'm getting off track here. Ok I have no experience in working with AVCHD files for editing in Videowave.  As you mentioned Gary, is it indeed a slower process then working with say MPEG 2 HD?  And how is the quality on your final HD outputs whether to a DVD platform or an HD file of some kind from AVCHD sources.

Just trying to gather information on whether a move to flash or hard drive camcorder is worth it.

Thanks guys.

Tim

[ggrussell]

Personally, I think HDV is much better quality. This is a up close comparison of files directly from the camcorders with no editing. I watch all my files on a 42" LCD monitor connected to my Media PC.  I don't have a Bluray player or burner yet.

[treehousemann]

Thank you.
Very much a  big help!

Tim

[ggrussell]

Granted I haven't tested AVCHD extensively.  Most were files sent to me for testing purposes from users on the forum.  I base my opinion on 'average' bitrates used in most 'average' priced camcorders.   There are always exceptions with more expensive camcorders and you get what you pay for in 'cheaper' camcorders.  HDV tape camcorders use 1440x1080i so it can be recorded within the bandwidth of the tape.  The JVC HDV hard drive model has full 1920X1080i MPEG 2 HD files.  As far as I know, the only one that does.

AVC claims to get the same quality as MPEG 2 at lower bitrates.  Very  subjective so you would have to test it yourself.

Edited by ggrussell, 15 October 2009 - 10:01 AM.