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.

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.

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.

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...02006070009078

Everything I have seen says "yes" to this. DivX and VC1 seem to be much easier to handle.

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 bitrate ! 24Mbps.
 

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/Pr...13E/index.html

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?

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?

Compression problems ??
 

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 !!