avchd downsides at DVinfo.net

Martyn Hull · March 8th, 2009, 03:15 AM

As i have said naughtily by invading other threads for me avchd still has problems,footage from mr SR-12 that edges my hdv FX7s resolution loses 10-15% after being imported to my pc compared to direct cam to tv playback so that after import its less than hdv,also clips longer than around 15 seconds start to glitch a bit after that time,clips can be any lenghth and play fine directly to tv,it sounds similar to a problem with a panasonic 150 on their page.Why wont sony put the bionze chips in their consumer hdv cams.

Chris Hurd · March 8th, 2009, 09:53 AM

Not sure what you're saying. Do you mean:

"As I have said naughtily by invading other threads, for me AVCHD still has problems. Footage from my SR-12 that edges my HDV FX7's resolution loses 10-15% after being imported to my PC (compared to direct cam-to-TV playback), so that after import it's less than HDV. Also, clips longer than around 15 seconds start to glitch a bit after that time. Clips can be any length and play fine directly to TV. It sounds similar to a problem with a Panasonic 150 on their page. Why won't Sony put the BIONZ chips in their consumer HDV cams?"

For me, the biggest problem with your post is the lack of spaces after commas. It's a bit difficult to read. The only answer I have for you is that most likely the Sony BIONZ image processor simply wasn't built for HDV encoding.

Martyn Hull · March 8th, 2009, 12:46 PM

Sorry i thought i explained my problems as well as i could, but today i have hopefully found the problem it is pinnacle, today by using ulead studio 11 i can see no noticable resolution loss even rendering to hdv tape i have not tested it regarding the glitch problem in long files.

Dave Blackhurst · March 8th, 2009, 02:55 PM

AVCHD takes a fair amount of horsepower to play back, and I think the NLE's and some players need some optimization.

The files play back smooth for me with the PMB software and VLC player, but are a bit choppy in Vegas... but rendered files play back fine.

I don't feel that there are "downsides" to AVCHD, rather there is room for improvement in handling the format. HDV was tough at the beginning too, now it's "normal".

I think in a way you've answered your own question - I don't know the sales figures, but I'm guessing there's a good reason that we arent' seeing any "new" HDV cams in the consumer space. The demand has shifted to HDD and Memory stick/card. Smaller, quieter cameras that are easier to stick in a big pocket or purse that shoot high quality video - that's where the market seems to be going. Makes sense really.

I have no doubt that Sony COULD update the sensors block and processing in the HC series, it can't be THAT difficult as the CX7 was the sensor block and processing from the other 7 series cameras. With the SR11/12, the CX12 adopted the same sensor block and processing... and the HC9 just carried over from the 7 series. It certainly should be possible with minimal engineering to make a tape based cam with the new XR sensors (EXMOR-R), but I don't think Sony believes there is a market there.

Martyn Hull · March 8th, 2009, 04:37 PM

After using video tape for 27 years avchd editing is a little hard for me, as i have always taken the easy option and used pinnacle software has not helped matters either as avchd is more fussy regarding pc power and softwares, as i said i hope i have now got over the picture resolution loss using ulead and hopefully it will stop the glitches i get on long files with pinnacle.

Like you Dave i wish they would bring out a cam a bit bigger with plenty of on cam controls but i fear we wont get one.

Ron Evans · March 8th, 2009, 04:43 PM

I use my SR11 as a full stage fixed camera shooting theatre archives. The show, as one would expect run between 1hr 20min to 1hour for each of the two parts. Files transfer using Sony Motion Browser to get a single large file ( 8 to 11 G AVCHD) I use either Canopus HQ intermediate or Cineform NeoScene. I use Edius 5 to edit the multicam ( usually two FX1's and the SR11) and the SR11 edits fine with the FX1's. I don't see much downside. I can transfer to PC and convert in less than the time it would take to capture HDV and the rest of the edit is the same.

Ron Evans

Robert Young · March 8th, 2009, 06:52 PM

I agree with Dave, I think Sony sees the future as file based (no tape), highly compressed acquisition formats, and they are delivering it to the marketplace from the Cine Alta line down to the consumer cam.
Ron's post adresses the other side of the equation: editing and delivery. I think AVCHD, XDCam/EX formats are great for acquisition, but not so great for editing & transcode for delivery. The use of a lightly compressed, near lossless DI format like Cineform seems like the way to go for trouble free editing and high quality output to whatever delivery formats the program is destined to.
I've used Cineform DI from the early days of HDV. It's been a happy experience. Now with full raster AVCHD, mp4, etc., it has only gotten better.
As to tape, it would not surprise me to see it fade away over the next few years- just as film has nearly disappeared from the still photo marketplace.

Mike Lewis · March 10th, 2009, 03:50 AM

I've just been trying Neoscene. The problem is that it downconverts my nice 5.1 surround sound from the camcorder into boring old fashioned stereo... I really like this feature on my Panasonic: once you've heard it, you miss it when it goes.

Martyn Hull · March 10th, 2009, 11:28 AM

i can understand you being annoyed losing the 5.1 sound, but as the mike is so wind sensitive i use an external and dont mind losing the surround sound, do all the non pro software lose surround sound in edit.

Mike Lewis · March 11th, 2009, 05:11 AM

You can make up a mini windshield with some 'faux fur' fabric. Looks like a dead mouse on top of the camcorder of course! I've been quite surprised by how well the surround effect is retained from the camcorder mikes.
Here's a video which demonstrates the utility:
DIY Camcorder Microphone Wind Shield on Vimeo

Ulead VS, Sony Mediastudio, Pinnacle, Cyberlink Power director all can retain the 5.1. Only the Adobe stuff seems not to cope in my experience to date.

Martyn Hull · March 12th, 2009, 04:25 AM

As i said using ulead seems to keep a bit more detail than pinnacle but there may be a downside in that i can see a few more artifacs and it does not like panning as at times they go slushy, do you think Adobe will cure both problems.

Jay Bloomfield · March 16th, 2009, 01:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mike Lewis

I've just been trying Neoscene. The problem is that it downconverts my nice 5.1 surround sound from the camcorder into boring old fashioned stereo... I really like this feature on my Panasonic: once you've heard it, you miss it when it goes.

Why not demux the AVCHD file into video and audio and then preserve the separate audio file as 5.1? Then, convert the AVCHD file to Cineform and line up the demuxed audio file and your Cineform file in your NLE? If the two audio tracks are slightly out of sync, you can line up the Cineform and 5.1 tracks, manually in your NLE. When you are done editing & applying any FX, just render to your final format.

March 8th, 2009, 03:15 AM	#1
Martyn Hull Major Player Join Date: Aug 2008 Location: England Posts: 444	avchd downsides As i have said naughtily by invading other threads for me avchd still has problems,footage from mr SR-12 that edges my hdv FX7s resolution loses 10-15% after being imported to my pc compared to direct cam to tv playback so that after import its less than hdv,also clips longer than around 15 seconds start to glitch a bit after that time,clips can be any lenghth and play fine directly to tv,it sounds similar to a problem with a panasonic 150 on their page.Why wont sony put the bionze chips in their consumer hdv cams.

March 8th, 2009, 09:53 AM	#2
Chris Hurd Obstreperous Rex Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: San Marcos, TX Posts: 27,368 Images: 513	Not sure what you're saying. Do you mean: "As I have said naughtily by invading other threads, for me AVCHD still has problems. Footage from my SR-12 that edges my HDV FX7's resolution loses 10-15% after being imported to my PC (compared to direct cam-to-TV playback), so that after import it's less than HDV. Also, clips longer than around 15 seconds start to glitch a bit after that time. Clips can be any length and play fine directly to TV. It sounds similar to a problem with a Panasonic 150 on their page. Why won't Sony put the BIONZ chips in their consumer HDV cams?" For me, the biggest problem with your post is the lack of spaces after commas. It's a bit difficult to read. The only answer I have for you is that most likely the Sony BIONZ image processor simply wasn't built for HDV encoding. __________________ CH Search DV Info Net \| 20 years of DVi \| ...Tuesday is Soylent Green Day!

March 8th, 2009, 06:52 PM	#7
Robert Young Trustee Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: Coronado Island Posts: 1,472	I agree with Dave, I think Sony sees the future as file based (no tape), highly compressed acquisition formats, and they are delivering it to the marketplace from the Cine Alta line down to the consumer cam. Ron's post adresses the other side of the equation: editing and delivery. I think AVCHD, XDCam/EX formats are great for acquisition, but not so great for editing & transcode for delivery. The use of a lightly compressed, near lossless DI format like Cineform seems like the way to go for trouble free editing and high quality output to whatever delivery formats the program is destined to. I've used Cineform DI from the early days of HDV. It's been a happy experience. Now with full raster AVCHD, mp4, etc., it has only gotten better. As to tape, it would not surprise me to see it fade away over the next few years- just as film has nearly disappeared from the still photo marketplace. __________________ Bob

March 8th, 2009, 12:46 PM	#3
Martyn Hull Major Player Join Date: Aug 2008 Location: England Posts: 444	Sorry i thought i explained my problems as well as i could, but today i have hopefully found the problem it is pinnacle, today by using ulead studio 11 i can see no noticable resolution loss even rendering to hdv tape i have not tested it regarding the glitch problem in long files.

March 8th, 2009, 02:55 PM	#4
Dave Blackhurst Inner Circle Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: Apple Valley CA Posts: 4,874	AVCHD takes a fair amount of horsepower to play back, and I think the NLE's and some players need some optimization. The files play back smooth for me with the PMB software and VLC player, but are a bit choppy in Vegas... but rendered files play back fine. I don't feel that there are "downsides" to AVCHD, rather there is room for improvement in handling the format. HDV was tough at the beginning too, now it's "normal". I think in a way you've answered your own question - I don't know the sales figures, but I'm guessing there's a good reason that we arent' seeing any "new" HDV cams in the consumer space. The demand has shifted to HDD and Memory stick/card. Smaller, quieter cameras that are easier to stick in a big pocket or purse that shoot high quality video - that's where the market seems to be going. Makes sense really. I have no doubt that Sony COULD update the sensors block and processing in the HC series, it can't be THAT difficult as the CX7 was the sensor block and processing from the other 7 series cameras. With the SR11/12, the CX12 adopted the same sensor block and processing... and the HC9 just carried over from the 7 series. It certainly should be possible with minimal engineering to make a tape based cam with the new XR sensors (EXMOR-R), but I don't think Sony believes there is a market there.

March 8th, 2009, 04:37 PM	#5
Martyn Hull Major Player Join Date: Aug 2008 Location: England Posts: 444	After using video tape for 27 years avchd editing is a little hard for me, as i have always taken the easy option and used pinnacle software has not helped matters either as avchd is more fussy regarding pc power and softwares, as i said i hope i have now got over the picture resolution loss using ulead and hopefully it will stop the glitches i get on long files with pinnacle. Like you Dave i wish they would bring out a cam a bit bigger with plenty of on cam controls but i fear we wont get one.

March 8th, 2009, 04:43 PM	#6
Ron Evans Inner Circle Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Ottawa, Ontario, Canada Posts: 4,220	I use my SR11 as a full stage fixed camera shooting theatre archives. The show, as one would expect run between 1hr 20min to 1hour for each of the two parts. Files transfer using Sony Motion Browser to get a single large file ( 8 to 11 G AVCHD) I use either Canopus HQ intermediate or Cineform NeoScene. I use Edius 5 to edit the multicam ( usually two FX1's and the SR11) and the SR11 edits fine with the FX1's. I don't see much downside. I can transfer to PC and convert in less than the time it would take to capture HDV and the rest of the edit is the same. Ron Evans

March 10th, 2009, 03:50 AM	#8
Mike Lewis Regular Crew Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Cheshire UK Posts: 96	I've just been trying Neoscene. The problem is that it downconverts my nice 5.1 surround sound from the camcorder into boring old fashioned stereo... I really like this feature on my Panasonic: once you've heard it, you miss it when it goes.

March 10th, 2009, 11:28 AM	#9
Martyn Hull Major Player Join Date: Aug 2008 Location: England Posts: 444	i can understand you being annoyed losing the 5.1 sound, but as the mike is so wind sensitive i use an external and dont mind losing the surround sound, do all the non pro software lose surround sound in edit.

March 11th, 2009, 05:11 AM	#10
Mike Lewis Regular Crew Join Date: Aug 2006 Location: Cheshire UK Posts: 96	You can make up a mini windshield with some 'faux fur' fabric. Looks like a dead mouse on top of the camcorder of course! I've been quite surprised by how well the surround effect is retained from the camcorder mikes. Here's a video which demonstrates the utility: DIY Camcorder Microphone Wind Shield on Vimeo Ulead VS, Sony Mediastudio, Pinnacle, Cyberlink Power director all can retain the 5.1. Only the Adobe stuff seems not to cope in my experience to date.

March 12th, 2009, 04:25 AM	#11
Martyn Hull Major Player Join Date: Aug 2008 Location: England Posts: 444	As i said using ulead seems to keep a bit more detail than pinnacle but there may be a downside in that i can see a few more artifacs and it does not like panning as at times they go slushy, do you think Adobe will cure both problems.