Intra means that it compresses each frame separately, unlike the AVCHD which compresses across frames for motion and higher efficiency. Intra is less efficient, why they have higher data rates, but it is easier to edit and has more consistent quality under extreme scenes, where the higher efficiency of inter coding (AVCHD) can't compress highly complex unstatic scenes enough to fit into the smaller 19mb/s stream.

more on the AVCHD format!

http://lifestyle.hexus.net/content/item.php?item=5620

This is a great article - wow - nice info - so any guesses then how much 1080/24p will fit on 1 DVD-R since they postulate it's 720p or 1080i that will be 12-20 minutes...???

I'm guessing from what they're saying it will be less - maybe 8 min?

Yeah, sure appreciate you posting that link (and welcome to DV Info Net). That's probably the best of all the various AVCHD articles I've seen so far.

will the quality be comparable or better than today's HDV codec?

will the quality be comparable or better than today's HDV codec?
Quality should be substantially superior to today's HDV.

H.264 is generally twice as efficient as MPEG-2 at the same bitrate. So 18mbps H.264 should be equivalent to somewhere around 36mbps of MPEG-2; HDV only offers 19 or 25 megabits. AVC-HD offers the same 4:2:0 color sampling and the same 8-bit color depth, but it adds full-raster resolution, true 24p support, and more efficient encoding. AVC-HD is going to be the replacement for HDV.

IMO

1/ this format will be better exploited with HARD DISK DRIVES rather that DVDs....and i have some hints that this is what the next gen of ProSumer and Pro cams are going to have...

2/ independently of the Througput, the quality of the codec IMPLEMENTATION is key. As we already saw many times, due to the REAL TIME encoding situation, compliant compressed stream are often delivered, which are FAR WORSE than what can be achieved by an async encoder. ( For the worse, look at the sanyo encoder on HD1)... so we bettre see before elaborating on abstarc specs...

3/ AVCHD editing is going, IMOO, to be the key acceptance factor for this new format. Or will the guys at Cineform support this as just another input format for their wawelet encoder?

will it take more processing to edit mpeg4's? my experience with divx/xvid playback (a mpeg4 variant) has been very pleasant and low CPU-intensive. much less than H.264 playback.

PS just like HD/BR disc format war, now us DV creators will face a codec war =(. i wonder if XL H1 can take advantage of the codec through SDI out.

4:2:0 - the future looks pale... my grandpa's super-8 footage of myself
as toddler looks crisp and fresh compared to DV of my three year old son...

There are two different systems under discussion here. What Panasonic has planned for their big cameras is an I-frame-only version of H.264, probably 10-bit 4:2:2, no GOP issues and no motion artifacting issues. They'll have an upgrade codec board available for the HPC2000 that will let it use this new H.264 format.

AVC-HD is something entirely different. That's the new consumer-oriented format designed to replace HDV; Sony plans to record it to mini-DVDs, Panasonic may also do mini-DVDs but they've announced that they'll record it to SD cards too. AVC-HD is an 8-bit, 4:2:0 codec (like HDV), but it's based on H.264 instead of MPEG-2 so it should be about twice as efficient at encoding; an 18-megabit stream of H.264 AVC-HD may be able to match 35 megabits of MPEG-2. AVC-HD also has a few more things going for it over HDV; it offers uncompressed audio, or Dolby 5.1 AC-3 audio recording, and it offers a native 24p mode in both 1080 and 720 resolutions, and it records the full raster. Sony and Panasonic both have eventual eyes towards recording AVC-HD on blu-ray discs, and apparently AVC-HD material will play on a blu-ray player. But blu-ray camcorders can't happen yet because affordable blu-ray isn't ready yet, so they're launching the format initially on mini-DVDR and on SD cards.

AVC-HD is something entirely different. That's the new consumer-oriented format designed to replace HDV;

Barry HDV is not going to be replaced by anything, why would Sony destroy its own product line with this new codec, they are set to compliment each other, like todays DV and DVD cameras. I seriously doubt they will be in direct competition with each other, 60min HDV or 20min AVCHD

AVC-HD is something entirely different. That's the new consumer-oriented format designed to replace HDV;

Barry HDV is not going to be replaced by anything, why would Sony destroy its own product line with this new codec, they are set to compliment each other, like todays DV and DVD cameras. I seriously doubt they will be in direct competition with each other, 60min HDV or 20min AVCHD.

It's like everyones dropping specs and numbers from the sky and not a single product of this new codec has not even come into the market yet.

Maybe tape based is not "fashionable" enough. Its a consumer oriented market and I have seen few consumers to colour correct their birthday or holiday videos (as oposed to the prosumers).
Most people want ultra sharp video for their ultra sharp HD flatscreen televisions.

What I am implying is that the prosumer segment is very critical in their judgement and somewhat heterogeneous in their demands. Consumers are easy to impress with HD logos, little spinning DVDs and real 2 megapixel video resolution (even though the 1/6" camera chip doesn't provide this ;-)

alright, but how does this format compare with pro-codecs?

I remember Sony releasing disk recording still cameras. It did not become mainstream. They were much bigger than non-disk still cameras. Memory cards were not only much smaller, but more reliable and people were willing to backup their data with their own computers in order to avoid disk drives in their cameras.

These 8cm DVDs can hold only 1.36GB. Now if that is enough to store video, the age of memory card video cameras has come. Now you can buy cheap memory cards much bigger than 1.36GB to make your recording time longer. And you can back up several of these onto one cheap normal sized DVD with your computer.

Barry HDV is not going to be replaced by anything, why would Sony destroy its own product line with this new codec, they are set to compliment each other, like todays DV and DVD cameras. I seriously doubt they will be in direct competition with each other, 60min HDV or 20min AVCHD.

It's like everyones dropping specs and numbers from the sky and not a single product of this new codec has not even come into the market yet.

Maybe Sony woke upto the fact that Panasonic was going to do this, where ever they liked it or not, and rather than risk getting left behind in a format war, where they had the inferior product, they went with it.

Dropping specs etc, it is based on h264, HDV is based on Mpeg 2, both are well enough understood to make some comparison. Unless they stuff it up, it should be better.

Now, if only there was 10 bit and 4:2:2, or 4:4:4 at 25mb/s (yes quality would suffer a bit, but that would be the compromise). I always wanted 25-50Mb/s H264 GOP, but I suspect that the 50Mb/s H264 non-GOP will not be too significantly better then 100Mb/s DVCPROHD (except in resolution and colour depth).

IMO
3/ AVCHD editing is going, IMOO, to be the key acceptance factor for this new format. Or will the guys at Cineform support this as just another input format for their wawelet encoder?

We have been discussing it with David from cineform, in one of the SI camera threads, and he is rubbing his hands already, so it might well happen.

I am not a Pro guy, but I love the look of 24p, and I want to dabble in HD. I was going to buy and HVX200 next year, and get a mac with FCP Studio to edit the footage. But I was seriously concerned about the out lay of cash for such a system.

But this new AVCHD sounds great. I wonder will Final Cut EXPRESS be updated in the future to edit this, in 24p. Wouldn't that be a blast? I could run it on a MacBook. Talk about a nifty low end, HD workflow. Shoot HD in 24p and edit it. I know it won't be in the same league as the HVX and a Big Honkin' Mac, but it might just smoke the JVC HD100. At least be close.

Heck, might even try a Feature Film on it. For fun.

What do y'all think?

Heck, might even try a Feature Film on it. For fun.

What do y'all think?
The format is not the sole factor that determines quality. I do believe that this format should be notably superior to HDV, but if the camera attached to the format is a little 1-ccd handycam, then the end result wouldn't be comparable to a top-end HDV camera like a Z1 or HD100.

You'd have to have all elements of the chain be comparable before you'd see a viable alternative. So if the manufacturers develop cameras that are worthy of exploiting the format's capabilities, then you might have something there. But if it's stuck onto the back end of a tiny pocket-cam, then just because the recording format is better, you still won't have a competitive product.

Think about it like this: a $299 Sharp Handycam records in the same codec using the same compression and basically the same format as a $15,000 Sony DSR450WS. But the images that end up on the final tape are night and day different.

Barry HDV is not going to be replaced by anything,
Thoroughly disagree. AVC-HD is definitely intended to replace HDV. The entire broadcast industry is looking at standardizing on H.264. The very fact that Sony is cooperating with its blood enemy Panasonic on this format is telling, as is the statement in the press release that says the two companies will "extensively promote the format throughout the industry."

why would Sony destroy its own product line with this new codec,
Three reasons:
1) progress moves on. MPEG-2 is old and dated, being 14 years old. AVC-HD is new, better, takes up less space, and is being adopted by the EBU for HD transmission in Europe, and by cable and satellite dish distribution here in the US.

2) they want to transition to blu-ray camcorders. They can't do it yet, blu-ray isn't available and affordable enough yet, so Sony is starting with red-laser DVDs, but recording video that is compatible with blu-ray players. Panasonic is skipping the disc entirely and going straight to memory cards, but the footage would be compatible with a blu-ray player. Both companies are firmly convinced that blu-ray will be the future.

3) this is Sony we're talking about. Sony introduces formats, it's one of their hallmarks. Beta, BetaSP, 8mm, Hi8, DV, Digital8,DVCAM, HDCAM, HDCAM SR, BetaSX, MPEG-IMX, DigiBeta, MicroMV, HDV... it's what they do. DVCAM replaced BetaSP. MPEG-IMX is designed to replace DigiBeta. MicroMV and Digital8 were meant as proprietary alternatives to DV; they flopped but they still tried it.

And AVC-HD offers everyone a way forward.

Think about it: we're talking about what will be the standard in the future, not the state of the market today. Sure today you've got people buying tape-based HDV product, but we're not talking about today, we're talking about today's replacement. And think about the state of today anyway: the HDV market is fragmented and splintered; there are basically three relatively incompatible formats being offered under one banner ("HDV"). The second-largest camcorder manufacturer didn't even participate in it. But now, with AVC-HD, it all comes together: tapeless, new codec, format compatibility, a path towards the future with blu-ray... and both the major players are on board, announcing a unified/compatible standard. H.264/AVC is quickly becoming a computer file transfer standard, and the convergence between computer and video will continue. The DVB has approved H.264. The EBU is going with H.264. H.264 is the foundation for IPTV as well.

No doubt about it, AVC-HD is meant to replace HDV. Whether it WILL replace it or not, that's up to the customers and what they choose to buy (BetaSX was supposed to replace BetaSP, but never did, nobody bought into it, they bought DVCAM and DVCPRO instead; I'm sure Sony wanted MicroMV to supplant DV as the new consumer format but nobody bought into it either). So I have no doubt that both manufacturers would like to see HDV replaced by AVC-HD.

It's like everyones dropping specs and numbers from the sky and not a single product of this new codec has not even come into the market yet.
Well that's true, and it will probably be months before the first product does come out. The HDV standard was formally announced in September of 2003, it was 13 months before the first product bearing the HDV label (the FX1) hit store shelves.

Barry Green,
I am not happy that you have already clearly indicated the advantages of H.264 over HDV. You said a lot of the things that I was already going to post. I will just add to it.

Panasonic have already stated the reason that they are going to this format is because they knew that the HDV format was already doomed. As you all know Panasonic will release all future DVCPRO-HD cameras with some form of MPEG-4 codec’s and don’t be surprised if by this November you will see an H.264 option for the HVX200. Even the next Z1U and FX1 may use the H.264 codec.

The prices will be at around 1500 to 2000 dollars for the consumer camcorders. Panasonic will have 3 CCDs and Sony will definitely use at least a 3 Mega Pixel CMOS chip. Also each company will have GS400 type of manual control on their top consumer version. Yes these two companies worked together to make the AVCHD format but they will not let the other make a much better product.

It may sound all speculation but one thing is certain, AVCHD will take the industry by storm.

What was the HD1/10?

I think it was inevitable, mpeg4 was meant to replace mpeg2, but that got mucked around, here, all these years latter, it's successor is doing that (and the VP codec looks significantly superior again). HDV 720p, and XDCAM HD both delivered substantially on the 1080i HDV spec (but seriously 1080p could have saved the day). They skipped out of the fire, I feel that this time they got the consumer format right. It also helps that there is a push on in the TV industry for h264, and that this fits the standard channel.

The things about quality of cheap cameras using this. Yeah, I imagine the sub $1K cameras are going to have the usual image quality issues. But for the more expensive cameras 18mb/s is what should be expected.

I suspect that we might find that 720p is still the best compromise of quality and resolution though. It is the data rate per pixel rather then the compression standard that matters when the going gets tough. I still think that even though the 50Mb/s no-gop pro version will deliver over this, that it is still a compromise, hopefully the HVX200 replacement gets it. I think they need 100Mb/s no-gop h264, or gopped 50Mb/s, for real pro and cinema work in the 10K-50K+ range.


But this new AVCHD sounds great. I wonder will Final Cut EXPRESS be updated in the future to edit this, in 24p. Wouldn't that be a blast? I could run it on a MacBook. Talk about a nifty low end, HD workflow. Shoot HD in 24p and edit it. I know it won't be in the same league as the HVX and a Big Honkin' Mac, but it might just smoke the JVC HD100. At least be close.

What do y'all think?

Not on the present Macbook, unless you use an intermediary codec like cineform. Not very optimised for h264 unfortunately, it should be able to play back at various resolutions though. I don't know about the Pro through, but new chips and chipsets coming this year, so hopefully the Pro will get an upgrade.

The prices will be at around 1500 to 2000 dollars for the consumer camcorders. Panasonic will have 3 CCDs and Sony will definitely use at least a 3 Mega Pixel CMOS chip.
But when will they release a HVX100, or AVCHD 100, that would be substantial. The first 18mb/s h264 pocket camera is in two months, lets hope that a 100HVX can arrive in that time as well. I hope they release with high latitude, low noise cmos sensors (IBis5a, Altasens, Foveon and other competitors come to mind) even a Kodak 100K -ev well ccd.

Now if only AVCHD and the other disk and card-based HD formats would have compatible output streams, so they could be transfered to HDV tape for dependable and longterm archiving. Perhaps HDV recorders could have an alternate mode that would accept these bitstreams for storage on tape.

Those who rely on these disks and cards to keep their precious video productions intact, may have a bitter disappointment 5 or 10 years in the future. The claim of disk makers that they will last a "lifetime", is already being undermined by delamination and other breakdowns of many video disks. Solid-state cards may or may not endure better. Most people who use card-based camcorders, will transfer their recordings to disks, anyway.

I won't trust anything important to either type of media. The fact that all my evaporated-metal videotapes from as far back as 17 years, still play back flawlessly, supports my preference.

isn't h264 a resource hog whether encoding or decoding? that's been my experience with h264 HD trailers from quicktime (and for your record, i'm using coreavc to play it back, not quicktime container).

isn't h264 a resource hog whether encoding or decoding? that's been my experience with h264 HD trailers from quicktime (and for your record, i'm using coreavc to play it back, not quicktime container).

have you tried using the nero media player on those quicktime trailers?

without installing COREAVC, it would impossible.

Is HDV tape that reliable compared to server backup tapes?

I would be interested in what the media life of Hard disks are, particularly long life server hard disks? I'm not talking about the operational life ratings of hard disk, that have gone down in consumer drives since they changed from metal bearings. If you don't use the disks for anything but finale storage, and swap to better media when it becomes available you should be alright (probably a solid state sort of storage in future decades).

But you can use a computer backup to Mini-DV/HDV program to record the stream as a file to tape.

without installing COREAVC, it would impossible.

the nero player does not require coreavc to play quicktime-compatible h.264 files.

coreavc is pretty interesting, i've seen claims that it'll out-perform nero, even when nero has hardware acceleration from generic video cards.

But when will they release a HVX100, or AVCHD 100, that would be substantial

The reason why I didn’t mention a DVX100 is because they just recently release a B version which to me seems like a mistake because the price almost matches the Sony Z1U. If Panasonic was going to release one with the H.264 codec built in then they probably would never have released the B version. If they do end up making a DVX100 version this year, they might be forced to have both a DV tape drive and a DVD drive all in one unit. It would be very smart to use full size DVDs instead of the mini DVDs because you would be able to store 9 gigs of storage or 1 hour of the highest AVCHD setting. The size would only be a little bit taller. If it gets released by the middle of 2007 then they may just have a DVD drive and dump the DV tape drive because by that time all Panasonic camcorders will be using the H.264 codec.

In this case if Panasonic decides to have a DVX100 and a HVX200 coexisting with each other, they may find themselves in the same position as Sony where people who would have bought the more expansive version would instead buy the more affordable one. The HD picture quality will definitely look better on the HVX camera but blank DVDs are a whole lot cheaper than memory cards.

technically possible, but with enough frame-skips that renders it "impossible" =). ti definitely does outperform everything out there even x264 decoding via ffdshow.

the nero player does not require coreavc to play quicktime-compatible h.264 files.

coreavc is pretty interesting, i've seen claims that it'll out-perform nero, even when nero has hardware acceleration from generic video cards.

Paulo, possibly, but a B version doesn't really mean much. A HVX100 could be at least 6 months out, even if it was three from the announcement of the new codec, they would simply drop the price of the DVX100 to compensate. In the meantime they retain the illusion that the B version is worth that much.

I see your point about the HVX 100 running up against the HVX200 H264 intra replacement, but they are too different markets, favouring the HVX200 replacement in both markets. You might be considered mad, if you had the clear money to splash on a HVX200 replacement and bought a HVX100 instead. HVX200 h264 50mb/s intra replacement would offer desirable advantages over a HVX100 h264 18mb/s inter. 10 bit, definitely helps in serious applications, consistency in footage quality for shooting, documentaries/sports, 4:2:2 another advantage for movies, disk, editing. Even in if you needed a smaller camera as well, you could buy both.

They could design the HVX100 with a single hard disk, if they wanted. As it is, they are looking forward to SD, so it does not need to be bigger then a JVC HDD Everio camera, or the Sanyo HD1 pocket camera.

I've just noticed something interesting about the AVCHD camera format (18Mb/s h264) is that there is no 30p or 25p 720p, it goes from 24p straight to 50/60p. I think it more likely now that those modes will have 18mb/s. Has anybody else spotted this?

http://www2.panasonic.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/prModelDetail?storeId=11301&catalogId=13251&itemId=97439&modelNo=Content05102006070009078&surfModel=Content05102006070009078

isn't h264 a resource hog whether encoding or decoding? that's been my experience with h264 HD trailers from quicktime (and for your record, i'm using coreavc to play it back, not quicktime container).
Everything I have seen says "yes" to this. DivX and VC1 seem to be much easier to handle.

isn't h264 a resource hog whether encoding or decoding? that's been my experience with h264 HD trailers from quicktime (and for your record, i'm using coreavc to play it back, not quicktime container).A lot of the processing power for h.264 is related to interframe processing (motion vectors and all that). For intraframe coding, this whole section of circuitry/code can be ignored.

I have a friend who is active in MPEG standardization. He recently told me that as you increase the datarate and approach lossless coding that the interframe processing doesn't really buy you much. Motion vectors are critical for squishing video so it can be transmitted to cell phones, but not so important when the squish factor is low.

720 x 1280 x 24p is 530 mbps. Compressing by a factor of five or ten isn't all that extreme. Let's hear it for intraframe compression!

Revised spec has been announced for AVCHD.

See this article, including the table at bottom :
http://www.avchd-info.org/press/20060713.html

The one change is that the bitrate has CHANGED. Was "up to 18Mbps" and now its "～24Mbps".

Also theyve added to the spec for new recording media hard-drives and memory cards.

So looks like a strategy shift. I wonder why they've upped the bitrate. Either they weren't getting the results they wanted at 18Mbps or they see this as a more "serious" format now and have upped the ante.

Official press release is here:
http://www.sony.net/SonyInfo/News/Press/200607/06-0713E/index.html

The one change is that the bitrate has CHANGED. Was "up to 18Mbps" and now its "～24Mbps".

That's a potentially significant change which suggests good things ahead for this format if they can implement it well. It also suggests this is all still in an early development phase?

The one change is that the bitrate has CHANGED. Was "up to 18Mbps" and now its "～24Mbps".

..........I wonder why they've upped the bitrate.
Pure speculation, but that is so close to standard DV data rate, I wonder if there is any likelihood of an AVCHD TAPE camera being produced!?

I wouldn't expect it to be tape only, but would see a tape/solid state hybrid as a killer device. Record to one or the other as appropiate, or to both for some situations - use the solid state version for immediate ingest to NLE, put the tape on the shelf as archive/backup.

All the solid state advantages of such as the HVX when most useful, but still able to give a cheap media version away to a client if needed. Just a thought......

Wouldn't a 24 Mbit AVCHD file be like a 48-72 mbit mpeg-2 file in terms of image quality based on the claim that AVCHD is about 2-3 times better than mpeg-2?

It’s interesting that both Samsung and Canon now support AVCHD.
Where is JVC by the way?

Wouldn't a 24 Mbit AVCHD file be like a 48-72 mbit mpeg-2 file in terms of image quality based on the claim that AVCHD is about 2-3 times better than mpeg-2?
IMHO the AVCHD format was mostly meant for prosumer /highend consumer type of camcorders. Therefore using 24Mbps can have two explanations :

a/ the definition will be ultimate, including for 1920*1080 60i ( why not p)
and could probably be even better that that. With the proper ressources, AVC at 24Mbps can encode very nicely a 4K definition !!

b/ the realtime encoders available now are just NOT GOOD NOR EFFICIENT ENOUGH to ddeliver a decent job, therefore the bandwith had to be increased, a few weeks after the initial launch.

Given the poor job we have seen with other MPEG4 family encoders, i would bet on explanation B !!

Most likely the strategy or technology changed. It is possible they were off on their calculations, but looking at the Sanyo HD1 (which is crippled I know) 18Mb/s H264 should be enough of an minimum. I guess they found that either a) a better encoder performance was available, b) Storage capacity/options changed, or c) some broadcast/blu-ray/HDDVD workflow consideration to do with interpolatability with the pro h264 broadcast spec.

Tape is a possibility, but hard disk a certain. Something could be happening in the SD card industry. One SD card technology that is supposed to be coming this year is IBM millipede, 150GB claimed on an SD card (bigger in future). If this does eventuate, I suspect, smaller versions might go for economical prices.

I think prosumer 24mb/s cameras from Sony and Panasonic are more likely. I wonder where Pana is going to place their pro intra h264 codec.

http://news.stockselector.com/newsarticle.asp?symbol=SNE&article=80792517

60 minutes in 4GB is around 9mb/s. That is most likely the base rate. Ambarella can do 60fps h264 in this data rate (or was that lower) though I don't want to watch it.

This is what I was afraid of, you get broadly the same data rate, and time, as existing DVD recorders except in HD. But if there is a dual layer DVD available (I don't know where they are at) you get double, if there is 4.5mb/s 30fps HD then double again (I doubt they will go more layers before blu-ray, though there are many new alternative DVD formats out there). I think I will buy a upto 24mbs version.

Forgot to mention, 2010 Intel plans 32 core processor:

http://www.tomshardware.com/2006/07/10/project_keifer_32_core/index.html

Yet another way that H264 encoding can be assisted. I suspect that 4+ cores will become cheap before then.

An article claims the hard drive model (at least) will have 24mb/s recording (hopefully).

Any idea what frame rates this thing will have?

1/ Could our japanese friends get their hands on one, and give an evaluation of the encoding quality ??
2/ as soon as a camcorder records on disk, one might envision to get a Firewire 800 or USB 2.0 properly tuned to connect directly to the editing PC . ANy mention of such connections anywhere ??

An article claims the hard drive model (at least) will have 24mb/s recording (hopefully).Unlikely, the specs available on the Japanese Sony web give not a maximum of 24mb/ but only 15mb/s (with a new qualification for this level of compression: "XP"); the DVD model has 'only' a HQ+ level at 12mb/s max.

You can use Babelfish or similar to translate this Japanese page: http://www.sony.jp/products/Consumer/handycam/PRODUCTS/HDR-SR1/spec.html

We can presume that the 'XP' mode is not available on the DVD model due to the lack of space even on a double layer DVD: at 15mb/s you would get only 12 minutes on a 8cm DVD-/+R(W), and 21 minutes on a DVD+R DL... that's short! So, 24 mb/ is simply not imaginable on a 8cm DVD camcorder.

The lack of the 24mb/s on the HDD model comes certainly from the first AVCHD specifications: at first only the 8cm DVD and the SD card formats were concerned; 24mb/s, P2 card, HDD, ...etc, came after.

On an another hand, as said by Pierre in one of his previous posts, the available Mpeg-4 AVC chips for the consumer market are only (today) at 15mb/s max.

I spotted a potential problem with that alleged 24mb/s bandwidth posted here:

http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthread.php?t=72226

There are two different systems under discussion here. What Panasonic has planned for their big cameras is an I-frame-only version of H.264, probably 10-bit 4:2:2, no GOP issues and no motion artifacting issues. They'll have an upgrade codec board available for the HPC2000 that will let it use this new H.264 format.

AVC-HD is something entirely different. That's the new consumer-oriented format designed to replace HDV; Sony plans to record it to mini-DVDs, Panasonic may also do mini-DVDs but they've announced that they'll record it to SD cards too. AVC-HD is an 8-bit, 4:2:0 codec (like HDV), but it's based on H.264 instead of MPEG-2 so it should be about twice as efficient at encoding; an 18-megabit stream of H.264 AVC-HD may be able to match 35 megabits of MPEG-2. AVC-HD also has a few more things going for it over HDV; it offers uncompressed audio, or Dolby 5.1 AC-3 audio recording, and it offers a native 24p mode in both 1080 and 720 resolutions, and it records the full raster. Sony and Panasonic both have eventual eyes towards recording AVC-HD on blu-ray discs, and apparently AVC-HD material will play on a blu-ray player. But blu-ray camcorders can't happen yet because affordable blu-ray isn't ready yet, so they're launching the format initially on mini-DVDR and on SD cards.
so once blue ray is cheap then AVC-HD is a dead format too? Why waste all the time? Sony should just work with BlueRay. They already have it in the stores. $20 for a Blue Ray disk. I say stay with HDV until all the Blue Ray is going and edit systems are out. HDV is there now and pretty cheap to get into and really pretty good.

Blu-Ray is one of the driving factors behind AVC-HD. AVC-HD disks will play in blu-ray players. And once the cheap blu-ray recorders are out you'll see newer cameras incorporating mini-blu-ray mini-DVDs.

I say stay with HDV until all the Blue Ray is going and edit systems are out. HDV is there now and pretty cheap to get into and really pretty good.

I am totally in line with this comment. Nothing is really ready to edit and play AVCHD. Seems that Sony is just trying to carve a niche for its HomeTheater BlueRay Players, and that prosumer video ( and specially HDV) suffers from the fallouts of the HD-DVD format war, therefore creating a second front !!

Marketing, marketing