Opinions of AVCHD vs. DV

Just curious what your opinions are on the quality and future of AVCHD vs. DV:
1. Are the pro AVCHD cameras coming out now such as this one
http://news.cnet.com/8301-17938_105-10223118-1.html
going to replace DV based cameras, such as the Panasonic DVX 100 anytime soon?
2. Is there still some advantage to using a camera such as the DVX 100 vs. this newer type of AVCHD cam?

OK...if you are talking how the end result finally gets to your house...then it depends. You and I have seen those hugely expensive sports games that are shot and broadcasted in HD...that would look great on an HDTV if you had digital HD cable...look like crap on a small 13" TV that gets horrid over-the-air reception in the local bar. In that case, you'd be fine shooting with a Fisher Price cassette camera.
Pixels...more pixels make it better. Well...and lens. The lens is really the most important part of a camera. So a DVX-100a might be better than a consumer level AVCHD camera due to the lens...but DVX-100a vs HMC-150...similar lens. So the larger pixels will win, and slightly better compression. DV compression is icky...you can see those horizontal lines on curved objects. But then it has a 4:1:1 color space vs 4:2:0 of AVCHD and HDV and XDCAM.
BUT...this all REALLY comes down to the talent of the camera operator. Give me a RED camera and ask me to shoot something, and give a Hollywood Cinematographer a DVX-100a and have him shoot something, I have NO DOUBT that his stuff will look better than mine. Mine might be sharper...might be...but his image will be far better.
And true, story is king, but assuming that you have a good story, what is the better camera to shoot that with?
Shane

Similar Messages

Another AVCHD discussion - looking for some opinions here.

I have a client that does some of their work in-house and then sends some of the more heavy lifting stuff to me to edit on my FCP workstation. Recently, against my subtle suggestions, they purchased a Sony camcorder that records natively in AVCHD (as many prosumer cameras are doing nowadays) and spits out .mts files. They use Sony Vegas and seem to be happy with very basic native editing on that software with those .mts files. They are telling me that they can import that AVCHD stuff straight into Sony Vegas and do at least their basic editing tasks - I don't know anything about Sony Vegas but I would assume that BASIC editing (without compositing or filters) is working ok like they say.
However, when they hand me a bunch .mts files, I have to convert them to my preferred native editing format in FCP (.mov, Pro Res)
Am I correct in telling these guys that they should be converting that footage out of AVCHD even if it runs on their Vegas software simply with the reasoning that AVCHD is not an editing format but rather a recording or capture format and its painfully compressed? Basically, I am trying to reason with them that when it is time to import the footage on their end from the camera initially, don't just be happy with leaving it in the AVCHD (.mts) format - convert it to a friendlier 'editing' format - then send it my way so it also plays nice with FCP and I don't have to do any conversions when I get it.
Is my reasoning sound here or does my argument hold no water? Thanks for any insight.

Ha, X, thanks and I agree, unfortunately with this project I am not in a position where I have billable hours - in other words, I will get paid the same regardless of whether I do the conversion or they do the conversion. So that's why I'm trying to give them good reason to do it themselves because this is not one of my normal clients and the arrangement we have gives me huge incentive to do as little work for them as I can, as fast as I can, but still turn out a respectable product.
It sounds like I will use some kind of conversion software to get to ProRes then. Correct me if I'm wrong but when you guys mention that Vegas might work with other format/codecs that FCP doesn't like, I was of the understanding that across the board with editing software, you were going to at some point be limited in editing performance if you were trying to edit a format that was highly compressed - like if you began adding effects or layering multiple tracks of video or something - like if you try to edit h.264 natively in FCP eventually things really start to bog down.
Thanks everyone for the comments - I welcome any further perspective here.

Why archive AVCHD as disk images, versus .MOV or .MP4?

I get an interesting array of responses to this everywhere I ask...but most of all I'm curious about the opinions of folks who specifically use FCPX for editing, so I'd greatly value your feedback.
Like many folks who have been shooting AVCHD for a while, I now have many years worth of footage from a variety of cameras stuffed into my backup/archive workflow. For all those years, I've been keeping perfect disk images (generally non-compressed, read-only .dmg files created in Disk Utility right off cards and cameras) of every single one of those AVCHD shoots. In the early days of the format, when support was far, far more twitchy and frustrating than it is today, I felt it made sense to have a little "healthy" paranoia.
These days, however, I wonder if this isn't a colossal waste of time and storage space?
Here's the thing about this method...nothing ever gets deleted. You end up sucking every little take, every borked shot, every mishap, into your diskspace, cloud storage, tape library, or whatever you use for archival, forever. When I stop to think objectively about this, it seems nuts. I mean, if I did this with photography, my photo library would be 2x to 3x its current size and full of garbage. It would also be hard to navigate, which come to think of it is a major annoyance with all my AVCHD disk images. I keep them well organized, but still, having to mount them to look through videos (and then having to climb down into the "STREAM" subfolder each and every time) feels like a hassle.
I wonder if I should just go back, bust open those old disk images, use something like ClipWrap or Media Converter to repackage all those .MTS clips in something more portable (like Quicktime or MP4 containers) and just keep around the ones I actually want? There's no quality loss in doing so, and the video/audio content would continue to be usable in both FCPX and pretty much any modern multimedia software, right?
My question is what, if any, good argument is there in 2012 for keeping complete disk images of AVCHD?

Hi Neil,
Sorry about all the frustration.
Why does GB output an iMovie generated video podcast as .mov and Final Cut export to iPod as .m4v?
I don't have the newest GarageBand, so can't really say. But I do know that Final Cut will export a movie in different formats. If you choose the default setting for the iPod, you will get a high quality file, but it will be HUGE! Takes a long time to download, and takes a lot of server space.
This isn't too much of a concern if you have just a few movies and they are short, but if you make many long movies, it's a big problem. We produce a movie every week that's about 40-45 minutes long, so we use the QuickTime .mov as well as the MP4 export from Final Cut Express and encode them as H.264 using settings we've refined to make the file size small. Last week's 38:33 minute talk was 61.1 MB for our large 480x360 .mov video, and 35.5 MB for our 320x240 .mp4 videocast.
The extension on a H.264 file could be .mov (our large video) or .mp4 (our videocast). .m4v can also be H.264 (the default iPod QT setting).
The encoding (like H.264) is the most important part - you want to make something that looks good, sounds good, and streams well.
Hope this is helpful.

AVCHD edit in PE10 share to DVD or Blue Ray

I am currently editing a project in AVCHD and plan on making DVD and BR discs. Not all the people who want this footage have blue ray players or HD TVs.   The footage is of sporting events with lots of action and camera movement.    What I have found in doing many trial samples is the DVD quality is poor that PE10 produces when using AVCHD files.   I have done some limited editing with DV from an old camcorder in PE10 and it looks much better than the AVCHD rendered to a DVD disc. Since the AVCHD files are much higher quality I was very disappointed that I can't get the same quality as an old camcorder that was mini DV. After reading various forums and Steve Grisetti's book I have a work around but it seem crazy to go through all these steps.   Does this make sense?
Camera Cannon HFM 41 settings used are AVCHD 1440 x 1080 60i, I have set the PE10 project settings at HD 1080i 30 (60). After editing about 15 minutes of video, still pictures(which have been resized), with transitions, titles, etc. PE10 seems to be doing the editing fine.
When taking through the Share process to DVD the quality is poor.
Steve has a work around in his book where I take the project to a computer file and save it. The setting is under the MPEG option and is : MPEG2 1440 X 1080i30.   This file looks good on the computer screen.
From here I take the file through "ANY Video Converter" to an AVI file.   I take this file and put it into a new PE10 project with DV settings of 720 x 480.   When I render this to a DVD the quality is OK, almost as good as other projects I have done starting with standard definition cameras.    Still a little disappointed that even the stills are quite as good.
This seems like a lot of work but I have tried dozens of different ways and the quality comes out very poor.   I have considered taking the files from the camera and converting to AVI before editing but then I can' t make a BR disc.
Is there a better way to take AVCHD to DVD and BR from one project?
There seems to be lots of opinions on which converters are the best, not sure if I selected the best one.

You should be shooting at 1920x10801 for Blue Ray otherwise you will get an unexpected loss of quality in trying to make your final BD.
1440 doesn't correspond to any horizontal TV size (usually 680,720,1366 or 1920)
The loss occurs because you cant fit in an exact pixel so a sharp video transition gets averaged around a few pixels immediatley halving the apparent resolution.
To see this at it's worst, set your computer adapter card to half the pixel resolution of your computer monitor and try to read fine text compared to when it is exactly the same.
This matching is why true full HD 1920 x 1080 observed on a true 1920x1080 big screen is so dramatically better than all others. (Few TV transmissions are true Full HD)
There is always a loss of some quality converting resolutions that are not an exact multiple of the final result.
You should also be cropping and converting all stills to 16x9 1900x1080 pixels (in Photoshop) before adding to the timeline
Because HD is so much better, HD camera dont need so much "high frequency" boost or sharpening as standard cameras did,
They are relatively soft at the point where the pixels cease in DVDs (about 640)
The HD sharpening (or crispening) is done at a much higher pixe setting setting in HD and this is completely wiped out when you convert to DVD.
The way to compensate is to sharpen the video to be downconverted at the 640 pixel part of the spectrum before converting which is what most standard def broadcast cameras always did to make them apparently sharp at that lower resolution (it was all done with mirrors!)
Obviously you only sharpen the file to be made to a DVD, not to the one for BD although you can often make up for a fuzzy original even in a BD!
See the difference only 10% makes?

Importing AVCHD

Just bought a Canon HF R10 and imported into iMovie. Been shooting at the highest quality (FXP, or something like that), and still struggling to get a quality DVD burned, but my first question is about the import.
1. Our use is home movies which will be burned to DVDs. We have 2 hi-def TVs, but don't even have a blu-ray machine yet. I tend to import things in highest quality (which is "full" in this case) just to keep my options open. But is this silly for home DVDs? Should I just use "large"? Opinions on this appreciated.
2. I notice that iMovie converts the AVCHD into quicktime (not sure if it's AIC or H.265) upon import. Great, it then works with iMovie! As for quality, are there views as to whether this conversion is being done well? Or should I consider an alternate converter outside of iMovie?
Bottom line is that I'd like to have excellent video quality, even if they're just our silly home videos.

I'm not an authority on the subject, but I've run into similar issues with Canon HF 20, AVCHD files, MXP or FXP (highest 1920x1080 quality modes of the camera) and iMovie 08.
My camera is recognized by iMovie, and imports the files, which iMovie will always (to my knowledge) bring in as AIC format (Apple Int. Codec). Supposedly this is necessary for iMovie to be able to do all the editing. This process will also bloat up the file sizes massively. Example... a 47 MB file on the camera will become 221 MB or more in AIC after iMovie pulls it in (using the "original" 1920x1080 import setting). This also takes roughly twice the footage length in time to convert. Also, importing MXP and FXP resulted in almost the same final file size once iMovie put it into AIC format, so might as well use MXP on the camera for the best quality.
Using "large" mode (960x540) for importing into iMovie took roughly real time (40 sec for a 38 sec clip), and keep the file size down (115 MB clip on camera became 134 MB clip on the computer after iMovie imported into "large" format).
However, all of my AVCHD clips imported into iMovie using "large" format import all had a "sped up" feel when playing it back. Very odd. Just like the fight scenes in Russell Crows' Gladiator movie. It was very subtle, but still noticeable. I don't know what the differences between iMovie 08 and 09 are for all this, but perhaps iMovie 09 can fix the "sped up" issue.
As for burning to DVDs, I haven't gotten that far yet, but I think I've read there are some hoops to jump through.
In my research, one person suggested the software from:
http://shedworx.com
The FlamingoHD is suppose to store AVCHD imported movies in their native format and functions as a library. However, it took forever to build it's "filmstrip" for me, whatever that is (I still don't know). And I could not figure out how to simply play the clips from this program.
VoltaicHD is suppose to let you convert/share your AVCHD movies, and RevolverHD is suppose to let you disk burn HD. I haven't used either of them.
FYI, from what I've been told, converting from AVCHD to MP4 h.264, even with a high bitrate, will offer superb quality with relatively small file sizes, but there will be quality loss. So it's best to keep the conversions to a minimum. I ran into this question with the idea of converting AVCHD into something iMovie could recognize.
I'm not sure how iMovie AIC is compared to this, but I suspect it's similar. Almost the same quality, but there might be loss, since it is a conversion. To my knowledge, even Final Cut Express uses AIC, and Final Cut Pro uses its own format, but it still converts it from AVCHD to something else.
If you are looking to simply PLAY the AVCHD files in their native format on the Mac, I uncovered a great little utility called MOVIST that can do it:
http://www.macupdate.com/info.php/id/27642/movist
If you are looking to convert AVCHD files into something even easier to play on Mac (rather than the MOVIST route), you can use ClipWrap utility to convert them into DV format (stan.def.). This would simply be for viewing on your computer, not for editing for high quality burning. ClipWrap can rewrap AVCHD into MOV too, but it didn't work well for me.
Finally, iMovie has some issues with interlacing, but I haven't read up on it yet. I get the impression it drops video information.
I have not read this eBook yet, but seems like people are recommending it to cover all these issues:
http://www.mindspring.com/~d-v-c/page1/page1.html
The final solution might be to use software that works with AVCHD files natively. The only inexpensive (cough, if you call it that) one I know of is the $800 (or $299 upgrade) Premiere Pro Creative Suite 5 coming out in May. No transcoding or rewrapping. Just raw AVCHD goodness.
My hope is that iMovie 10 will be AVCHD native, but I doubt it.
One thing to note is that AVCHD is native to Windows 7. So you could setup Win7 on Boot Camp and use a PC program to edit (premiere elements 8, etc.) then put the final products on your Mac side for playback.

5930K vs 5960X for AVCHD editing and color correction?

***I have also posted this in Hardware Forum because I'm not certain which forum will be the best place to ask. Mods, I apologize if this is a no-no and of course you're welcome to remove the one you deem inappropriately placed. Thanks**
Hi guys, getting ready to have a new custom system built (probably iBuyPower, not sure yet). I would love your input on choosing the ideal processor. I have read benchmarks and forums on both the Intel 5960X and the 5930K. Most benchmarks are only concerned about encoding times, not the actual editing and color correction processes. I realize that encoding (exporting) would be generally faster on the 8-core 5960 compared to the 6-core 5930. HOWEVER, all my source material is AVCHD and for that, higher clock speed does make a big difference during the actual editing. So let's forget about encoding/exporting right now and ONLY think about the actual editing. Let's also assume I will not overclock, or if I do then never more than 20%.* I 'm not a gamer and this workstation is ONLY for editing. I use Premiere Pro CC 2014.x and always keep it up to the latest version.
Since the 5960X is only clocked at 3.0 Hz. I'm concerned that editing and color correcting AVCHDs will be not as smooth as one would expect from a $1000 chip. The editing process is quite complex, with multiple video layers (all AVCHD, either 60p or 60i), picture-in-picture, color correction (mostly GPU-accelerated ones such as the Three Way CC and RGB Curves), and so on. It's not simple cuts and a few transitions. In fact, the work required on those AVCHD files is very much beyond what AVCHD is meant for but it is what it is.
So, considering all that, would you STILL fork out the extra cash to get the 5960X versus the 5930K, and if so, why?
I thank you in advance for your opinions and insight!
Current planned system specs (highlights)
- Win 8.1
- 5930K or 5960X (help!)
- Asus Rampage V
- 32 Gb 2666 RAM
- GTX 780 (possibly will invest in a Titan X 12 Gb if funds allow)
- Intel 730 SSD (480 GB) for OS and programs
- I will use my current set of 5-6 SSD drives for sources, scratches, misc pull files, exports
Thanks again for your feedback!
PS: I would like to emphasize again that the actual process of editing and color correcting AVCHD files is what matters most to me here rather than getting the absolute fastest encoding times.
* I realize that both chips are unlocked and made for overclocking. I've overclocked for years but frankly, I was never that comfortable with it, lots of crashes and instability - and that was at low overlock levels of around 20% or less. I do not want manage overclocking or thermal management or worry about frying the chips. If at all possible I would like to run the chips at stock, or as close to stock as possible. However I'm also open to suggestions about that.

Actually the 5960X will clock the turbo speed for all cores if you set it that way which is one of the things we do with our systems. All Intel chips that are not locked can clock to their turbo rating for all cores if set that way. Even without setting all cores to the peak turbo ratio they will turbo to a clock speed higher than base when all cores are active. It's just not the peak turbo ratio. That has to be manually set. Turbo occurs anytime the system load reaches beyond a low level regardless of what your doing. The system boards and bios effect that. You can also disable a setting in the bios and the system will always stay at it's peak clock ratio. The 5960X clocked at 3.9 will easily outperform the 5930K with all codecs due to the cores and cache.
We can configure the systems with any hardware available in the market. However we cant include all those items on the website right now without making it far harder for people to configure systems. The hardware options we list are there because they are tested to work with the video and audio hardware/software and the reliability. We also support the systems as a solution for the life of the system. We have price the systems for that support which is part of the price difference. The options you are looking at wont have near the same support or expertise with the hardware and software together hence why your asking the questions here.
Eric
ADK

Worth the effort? 8 bit AVCHD 1080p 4:2:0 versus 1080i 10 bit uncompressed

Hello,
I am i homing in on a final MacBook Pro versus Mac Pro decision to enable both real-time capture (argues for portable) and final cut - color - motion work flow.
i have a new sony HXR 5NU that provides me with 25 Mbps 1080p AVCHD 8 bit 4:2:0 from the camera or 10 bit uncompressed 1080i 4:2:2 via SDI or HDMI. The latter would involve a MacBook (not lugging a 45 pound Mac Pro around on the set) and an external MOTU HD Express HDMI or or a Matrox O2 LE.
The key question is if the extra information is significant in terms of final look, constructing quality masks, etc. I believe the answer is yes as it relates to simply comparing 8 bit 4:2:0 versus 10 bit uncompressed 4:2:2. Seems the answer is murkier with the trade-off of 1080i (the uncompressed signal) versus 1080p from AVCHD.
I do not know the internal workings of the camera, it is possible that it is 1080i off of the sensor electronics and a pull down is happening with the avchd encoder which means that it is not really a trade-off.
Any opinions?
Otherwise I just focus on getting the best out of my camcorder's avchd output using a waveform monitor and go for a Mac Pro in Post.
Any thoughts on this?
Wayne
Portland

Thoughts or opinions? Remember, you asked for it.
You haven't done the math.
You do seem to realize there might be some kind of quality difference between 4:2:0 AVC and 10 bit uncompressed, which is a good thing, but haven't dealt with the larger issues.
First off, while FCP might deal with AVC without too much fuss, it is not an approved codec for use with COLOR, and you will be dealing with a transcode at some point.
If you are dealing with some kind of sub-cinema format camera, which is producing AVC, then the practical reality is that its sensors are indulging in a serious amount of voodoo, and if your project is going to involve anything like a lot of greenscreen, then you are also buying yourself a certain amount of downstream pain, since the bandwidth that an actual 10-bit 4:4:4 camera produces is what you might really want. But that brings us to the real math.
Your first paragraph contains the phrase:
MacBook Pro versus Mac Pro decision to enable both real-time capture
Uh.... I guess you'd also be looking for some other kind of AJA/Io or whatever interface to work with the MacBook Pro, since it only supports USB and FireWire natively, neither of which will support 10-bit Uncompressed, or some other kind of slot34 device. I expect you really meant "on-set" capture, rather than real-time, since the only other way into a MacBook would be a P2-type card interface. In addition, real time Uncompressed 1920x1080 is very demanding no matter whether it is 24/30 frame, 8- or 10-bit. I'd be surprised if any Mac laptop could hack it. Its harder to do than HDV.
If you are recording on tape, then you can bet that the recorded format is segmented, which is a special, non-temporally related form of interlace, that allows a progressive frame to be recorded on a format that is maxed out at 1080i. Pull down is a term reserved for use with generating redundant frames to bridge a rate difference -- most notably "24" fps to "30" fps, which you don't mention. But which would be another significant hurdle.
I used to have this handy-dandy chart that listed all the bitrates and storage requirements for uncompressed formats SD, HD, 2K, etc., but it isn't in my field of view at the moment. 10-bit Uncompressed 1920x1080 at 29.97 takes up about a TeraByte per hour... do you have that much storage for field work? It isn't RED. It also requires a transfer rate in the Gigabit range, so in a practical sense it really requires a fibre-channel interface.
I'm kind of thinking you will eventually wind up with a ProRes workflow. You could get away with a laptop and AJA interface doing that.
jPo

AVCHD file compatibillity with Prem. Pro CS5

I have Premiere Pro CS5 and am switching from my old miniDV camcorder to a new AVCHD format camcorder. I'm used to capturing footage directly from my old tape camcorder, but am not familiar with the process of working with files on a flash card. Will I be able to transfer and edit the video files as easily--and hopefully faster--as compared to the capture from tape? Please advise before I invest in the new camcorder. I'm obviously new to this process so any advice will be appreciated. Thank you.

Thanks to you and Jim for your excellent feedback. Since this is like learning a new language for me, I just want to verify a couple of things:
1. The "transferring and importing files" link you provided indicates that CS5 supports "M4V (MPEG-4 Video File).
I'm looking at purchasing the Panasonic AG-AC130A camcorder and its spec sheet indicates that the video compression is "MPEG-4 AVC/H.264 (AVCHD)." Am I correct in assuming that M4V to Premiere Pro is the same as MPEG-4 to Panasonic? Another forum suggests that they are if I am reading it correctly -- http://forum.doom9.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=62723
2. The next question involves the debate -- 1080p/30fps versus 720p/60fps
I will primarily use the camera for shooting (1) lecture-based training videos with layered text graphics for emphasis, and (2) youth hockey games. While the opinions abound on the net, it appears that 1080p/30fps would be best for the lecture videos since there will not be a lot of movement in the sequences, and 720p/60fps is best for the hockey games due to fast movement of the players and fast panning. The camcorders in my budget do not shoot 1080p/60. While the camcorder does support 1080i/60, everything I've read online says not to use it.
Am I on the right path with these thoughts?

AVCHD and 2.8 IMac

I am still editing SD footage and am HD ignorant at this time, but I'm thinking of picking up a couple Panasonic AG-HMC40 AVCHD cameras for my documentary work. Can my 2.8 ghz core 2 duo IMac handle working with this footage? I know this is a "do-a-google-search" type question, but I have read a wide variance of opinions on this.
Any help, as always, is greatly appreciated.

Get your footage onto a fast external FireWire 800 drive -don't store it on the system drive and you should be OK.
[AVCHD workflow for Final Cut Pro|http://documentation.apple.com/en/finalcutpro/professionalformatsandworkflo ws/#chapter=6%26section=0].

AVCHD vs. DV

I Understand there are many variables that can affect the quality of video captured to a Mini DV tape or SD card. However, on paper, how does AVCHD compare quality wise to DV NTSC? I believe they use the same color space? AVCHD has a higher resolution. However, what about the actual compression and final image quality from two cameras in the same price range?
Thanks for any input.

Hi Steve,
Best choice will depend on what you need the camera for and how important is to edit a given format quickly and natively.
AVCHD gives 4:2:0 colour sampling as DV PAL if you are in PAL land.
If you are in NTSC land then colour sampling for DV NTSC is 4:1:1
4:2:0 colour sampling delivers same colour resolution as 4:1:1 but with different pixel's patterns.
With AVCHD you don't need to rewind or fast forward and can download material quickly but once converted to ProRes it will take a lot more space and you may want to use a FW800 or better eSATA to edit.
AVCHD is still a very compressed format and some cameras may not deliver the best image sharpness on fast movement, nevertheless if you fancy higher resolution than DV you might decide to go for it.
DV is still an option and I still believe that cameras like the Panasonic DVX100 can be a good second hand investment. Quality doesn't only depend on the format but lighting and lenses and skills of course, learning how to use the DVX is good basic training to pro cameras, should you get into that in the future.
It will be still a little while before DV becomes obsolete but certainly the market is overloaded with all these new funky, tiny, cute HDD consumer cameras.
My suggestion is to hire an AVCHD and a DV camera that you have in mind and do some tests (edit,compress,send to DVDstudio) then buy, because people have different opinions and needs and only you know what you need.
Hope that helps,
G.

Does Pro-Res codec yield better quality from AVCHD files than AIC?

Hi folks,
I use FCE4 and ingest AVCHD for editing. I'm wondering if, for example, I ingested with the Pro-Res codec (eg. such as when using Final Cut Pro or FCX), would that be a higher quality transcoder than the inherent Apple Intermediate Codec that is part of FCE4? In other words, if I upgraded my software, would I likely get better quality?
FYI: I shoot with a single chip AVCHD camcorder, in case that matters.
Thanks,
Vixter

If you are running Lion, then FCPX is the only way forward unless you go with a non-Apple editing suite. For what it's worth, I think FCPX has gotten a bum rap overall. It's quite powerful compared to the old FCE even with its current limitations. Apple will continue to improve the program over time, and no one should discount the foresight that Apple actually does have in its product lines. The FCPX user interface and the method of editing is quite different compared to FCE, and takes a lot of adjustment if you were familiar with FCE or FCP. For general purpose editing, even prosumer editing, FCPX is quite an application, even if it's not quite ready for broadcasters & professionally employed editors.
The best way to find out is to try it out - it's available as a free 30-day trial so you can see for yourself whether or not it works for you. You can read all about it elsewhere and of course people in these forums have their opinions one way or the other. As I long ago discovered about wine, there is no definitively good or bad wine ... just wine that we ourselves like because it satisfies our individual tastes and conditions. I don't concern myself with Robert Parker's opinions. In fact I think a lot of his 95+ rated wines stink! If you follow my drift ...

AVCHD (HG10) and iMovie

Hello,
Some information about AVCHD and iMovie. I've been looking for this before buying my HG10, so ...
Macbook (Intel Core Duo 1.83/2GB 10.4.10)
Canon HG10
External HD (import destination) : LaCie 500GB connected thru Firewire 400
Total movie duration (7 clips) : 08:51 (8 min 51 sec)
AVCHD files size : 967 MB
Import duration (Full Quality) : 21:32
Imported files size (Full Quality) : 4374.1 MB
Import duration (Large) : 15:39
Imported files size (Large) : 1246.6 MB
AVCHD files copy (HG10 -> External HD) : 00:30
Facts :
- When I copy the entire content of the HG10 on the External HD (root), this drive is detected as a camcorder by iMovie and I can import the MTS files.
- The PS3 can play the AVCHD files stored on the HG10 when connected thru USB
- AVCHD files stored on the PS3 can also be played but I had to change the extension to .mp4 (files transferred thru the PS3 browser)
Of course, it is not a surprise that the macbook (intel core duo) does not perform very well with AVCHD. Can you guys post some similar information with higher setup (new iMac, ...). Also, do you know a way to split/merge AVCHD files on MAC OS X ? So frustrating to import 1h of video in iMovie when you need to edit 2 min of this video.
Regards.

I have the HG10 and here are some of my thoughts...
AVCHD is definitely a processor hungry codec, let's hope someday Apple or a third party will dedicate an add on processor much like the Turbo.264 but for IMPORTING AVCHD (to my knowledge the Elgato Turbo.264 only works when Quicktime exports)
As for artifacts, the only thing I have to compare is my older Sony Digital8 DV cam, and clearly the HG10 is a step up, I have become more realistic, there will be no sub $1000 camcorder that performs like a professional machine, in my research the "three chip" consumer cams have such small chips that any benefit from three chips is outweighed by the small amount of light these chips capture, but everyone will have their opinions my advice is to check out each, especially downloading example files and then playing them on the intended viewing screen, I can say the images from the HG10 look different when displayed on computer screen vs an HDTV via Apple tv and in all respects the quality is plenty for capturing the kids, and other memories. In the end it's about capturing the moment and no amount of resolution is going to change that. Aspiring film producers should probably save their cash and buy a professional camera, and consider it an investment in their career, for the rest of us we just want a decent camcorder that we don't have to mess around with tapes. The cost of not messing around with tapes is TIME and SPACE. these cameras generate a huge amount of data. Be realistic about what you intend on doing with the files
My experience with transferring files is the same as above, slow clip imports, depends on your CPU (mine a new late 2007 MacBook 2.0GHz) you can just copy the files from the drive which is quick, iMovie only recognizes if it's mounted as a drive, so either put it on an external, or better just make a disk image out of it. iMovie will recognize the mounted image as if you hooked up the camera, the whole file system needs to be there you can't just copy the stream file.
Overall I like the camera and will keep it, I chose the Canon because of the added benefits that I already own a digital rebel, same battery charger, batteries (you can use the small ones from the SLR on the HG10) so traveling for me will be lighter.
As is stated in the iMovie specs (you just have to look) AVCHD is NOT supported by PPC my Dual 2.0 GHz G5 won't recognize the camera (don't ask me the reasons I don't know, I assume they just didn't write the decoder software for the PPC, probably to encourage people to go out and get a new Mac. Something as a shareholder I'm entirely in favor of Once you import the files you can tranfer them to a PPC and iMovie will work just fine so for now I've been importing with my Macbook and then transferring the files to my G5, the MacBook shows some stuttering (probably dropped frames) compared editing on the G5, however my Macbook only has 1GB of RAM until the UPS guy comes today and then it will have 4GB
if anyone has other questions about this camera I'd be glad to share
couple clips at http://gallery.mac.com/mmelkonian
one shows how grainy the picture can get in low light, that was shot at night in a dimly lit room

AVCHD Cams and FC Studio 5?

I did a search on AVCHD cam workflow and the questions I see here deal with FCP 6. We are still on FC Studio 5, and are looking at some canons, like the HG21.
I am getting the idea that capturing footage from an AVCHD cam is different than with our old Mini DV cam, but I can't tell if it's possible, or even worth it to try...maybe we should look at simply getting a replacement Mini DV cam.
The weak economy isn't exactly helping matters, so upgrading all of our hardware and software isn't an option right now.
Thank you for any thoughts/opinions.
r

I had the same questions recently, and received some great info here. Hopefully, I can pass on what I learned.
I too have FCS (fcp 5). I am running on 10.5.5 with a G5 dual 2ghz tower. I recently picked up a canon HG 20. They can all work together well, but there are some things you need to be aware of.
As noted you will need a 3rd party converter such as toast 9. I picked up a copy for 49.99. Without this (or Votaic) you will need an intel machine and fcp 6.x. With that, you will still convert the avchd to apple pro RES.
Toast gives you many conversion options. I connected the hg20 via USB. After confirming the connection it mounted on the desktop as a USB drive. I copied the video files to my hd. I then had toast convert to DC pro 1080i. Converted files were about 3x size of original. Time wasn't bad. About 20 minutes for 15 gb of avchd if memory serves.
Resulting files imported into fcp5 without problem. Just make sure to set your fcp project sequence settings to same as the converted footage.
Fcp is a little slow for me with many filter in use, but that is to be expected working in that resolution on it machine.
Hope this helps.

Opinions on 3.5

I know this forum is more on "the one solution that'll work" rather than on opinions...
Also, "new" is always better seems to be a rule.
BUT: Is it better to get FCE 3.5 or 4?
I use a DV camera, will get a HDV (propably a Canon XH A1). I read a lot of commentators when 4 came out. Major points were: missing soundtrack, and some liked using 3.5 better.
What will I need it for: music videos (early music, in castles, churches, historic sites, etc.). Music will be recorded seperately, syncing is vital...

If you are running a Mac with Snow Leopard (10.6) then FCE 4 is what you should get. FCE 4 is the only version supported on Snow Leopard. Even on Leopard (10.5) at this point I would get FCE 4 not FCE 3.5.
The only major differences between v3.5 and v4 are these - FCE 4 has some additional plugin effects, support for AVCHD video, SoundTrack was dropped from the package, and there are fewer LiveType sample media files. The user interface & editing functions are identical in both versions.
For what it's worth, I never found SoundTrack very useful and gave up on it after a number of very frustrating work sessions. It is not integrated with FCE at all, difficult to use and does not have noise reduction capability (as SoundTrack Pro does). I use SoundStudio, SoundSoap and WireTap pro to do my sound editing.
If you record sound separately from your video, you should ideally create AIFF, 48Khz (16-bit), stereo files for use in FCE. Also understand that you will need to manually sync the sound with your video while editing. In my opinion you will be better off with good external mics connected to your camcorder so your audio is captured with the video.

AVCHD (GF2) vs H.264/Mpeg4 (Nikon D5100)

Hi friends,
1) AVCHD isn't the same codec to H.264/Mpeg4?
i. Both offer the same quality?
ii. Which codec most convenient to a FCP user?
iii. Nikon D5100 vs Lumix GF21-what do you say in term of Video Mode?
Thanks for contributes your precious opinions!

I shoot video with the Nikon D7000, you can find my recent posts in another thread. No idea what a GF2 is but using any adapter to put one lens mfr's glass on another camera compromises the quality of the lens Buy lenses for the specific camera.
The whole idea of using prime lenses to shoot video is based on image sensor size and the inherent physical properties of the point of focus. The depth of field and the resulting bokeh effect are directly proportional to the resulting circle of confusion, highly theoretical optical characteristics, easily researched.
Mish's points are excellent negatives. Here are few more:
1. Focusing is not just important, it's beyond critical.
2. Today's autofocus SLR lenses have stupidly and inappropriately small focus runs which means the point of focus is easily overshot. Just letting go of the focus barrel can screw up your focus. Look for classic, old style lenses that will work on your modern camera.
3. You cannot see focus in the viewfinder when in live view mode, which is stupid but technically unavoidable, and you cannot rely on the LCD display. You must have a viewfinder magnifier hood which elevates the cost of your rig by $200-600.
4. You simply must understand the relationships between f-stops, shutter speed and ISO and it is my experience that only about 1% of the goofballs shooting "video" on DSLRs have the slightest idea what these properties mean let alone how to control them and how they interact.
5. You need to know how to use a light meter and not rely on the camera.
bogiesan

Opinions of AVCHD vs. DV

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for