Image Quality: AVCHD or HDV? at DVinfo.net

Alexis Avon · February 20th, 2009, 02:07 PM

Hello,

I am concerned about which of the those two recording formats offers the best video image quality.

Also, which of those two handles the motion better?

Kind Regards,
Alexis

Bruce Foreman · February 23rd, 2009, 02:07 PM

They can be somewhat close but there is a difference I can see in video I have done. HDV seems to be limited (for now) to 1440x1080, AVCHD goes up to 1920x1080 at the highest bitrates. My cams (Canon HF100) use a 17Mbps bitrate at the 1920x1080 setting and 12Mbps at 1440x1080 with an option for an even lower bitrate at that setting.

The higher bitrates handle motion better. The Canon HF11 goes up to 24Mbps and footage I have seen shows a visible improvement in rendition of detail during a moderate speed pan over the HF100 and HF10. Still, by realizing that camera movement is potentially problematic in all HD formats and carefully controlling movements, I've not been frustrated with my HF100s' function during pans (except for a "crap" head on my tripod, just solved with a $35 Velbon PH368 head - I can get away with that because of the super light weight of the HF series cams).

The determining factor for many in deciding between AVCHD and HDV will very likely be deciding "how much computer" will be needed for editing. HDV can be fairly easily edited on most recent fairly fast processor equipped dual core based machines, while AVCHD will for many REQUIRE a very fast quad core.

My personal experience comes from trying to edit AVCHD with a quad core slightly under spec for what Pinnacle says is needed. They say 2.66Ghz minimum, I have 2.4Ghz. With a graphics card with 512MB on board I can edit 1920x1080 but it's not always a pleasant experience, much patience is needed waiting for things to "catch up" with each change on the timeline. 1440x1080 is easier and much more workable, but I like the increased definition at the 1920x1080 setting.

The guys running a quad core with 2.8Ghz to 3.0Ghz clock speed seem to be generally in good shape.

Both HDV and AVCHD look very good rendered to an HD WMV file and played back on a hardware media player connected to my 42" LCD with HDMI.

I hope I've given you some useful information.

Alexis Avon · February 23rd, 2009, 07:01 PM

Thank you very much Bruce!

Ronald Lee · February 25th, 2009, 01:51 AM

They look good as HD WMV. How do you think they would hold up if burned to blu-ray and played on a blu-ray player on a HD TV?

Martyn Hull · February 25th, 2009, 05:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bruce Foreman

They can be somewhat close but there is a difference I can see in video I have done. HDV seems to be limited (for now) to 1440x1080, AVCHD goes up to 1920x1080 at the highest bitrates. My cams (Canon HF100) use a 17Mbps bitrate at the 1920x1080 setting and 12Mbps at 1440x1080 with an option for an even lower bitrate at that setting.

The higher bitrates handle motion better. The Canon HF11 goes up to 24Mbps and footage I have seen shows a visible improvement in rendition of detail during a moderate speed pan over the HF100 and HF10. Still, by realizing that camera movement is potentially problematic in all HD formats and carefully controlling movements, I've not been frustrated with my HF100s' function during pans (except for a "crap" head on my tripod, just solved with a $35 Velbon PH368 head - I can get away with that because of the super light weight of the HF series cams).

The determining factor for many in deciding between AVCHD and HDV will very likely be deciding "how much computer" will be needed for editing. HDV can be fairly easily edited on most recent fairly fast processor equipped dual core based machines, while AVCHD will for many REQUIRE a very fast quad core.

My personal experience comes from trying to edit AVCHD with a quad core slightly under spec for what Pinnacle says is needed. They say 2.66Ghz minimum, I have 2.4Ghz. With a graphics card with 512MB on board I can edit 1920x1080 but it's not always a pleasant experience, much patience is needed waiting for things to "catch up" with each change on the timeline. 1440x1080 is easier and much more workable, but I like the increased definition at the 1920x1080 setting.

The guys running a quad core with 2.8Ghz to 3.0Ghz clock speed seem to be generally in good shape.

Both HDV and AVCHD look very good rendered to an HD WMV file and played back on a hardware media player connected to my 42" LCD with HDMI.

I hope I've given you some useful information.

Bruce i use pinnacle as well i dont know why probobly because i am too lazy to learn the better more expensive sofwares.anyway i have done various tests with my FX-7 hdv and SR-12 hd avchd cams,the tests were test cards and country views with both cams on the same zoom setting so the SR-12 was on full wide and the FX-7 slightly zoomed in to match[strangely this needed doing on a widescreen tv as the FXs lcd does not show its full wide angle]
The results played through my 1920X1080p tv via separate hdmi sockets clearly showed the SR-12 having slighly more resolution and sharpness[the FX is set at factory middle sharpness as increasing it only realy increases grain rather than more sharpness.But what i have found is that loading to my pc via its usb slightly changes the results as the FXs footage loses no resolution in firewire capture where as the SR-12 loses some and is now slightly lower than the FX-7s this shows when the footage is put on a avchd disc with mixed alternate frames[ i have not yet tried it with a bd disc yet ].So i presume the problem is pinnacle or does all usb capture slightly lose resolution,do you or anyone else know the answer to this.

Greg Laves · February 25th, 2009, 12:09 PM

At one time on here, there were some frame grabs from the Panasonic AG-HMC150 and the Sony FX1000. These were identical content and lighting. I couldn't see a large difference between them except that it seemed like there was some slight ghosting around black letters on a white background on the screen grabs from the Panasonic. And that could have been a compression artifact.

Bruce Foreman · February 25th, 2009, 07:23 PM

Martyn,

I have no idea. I have never done any video "capture" or transfer through USB. I never liked the idea of a hard drive based camcorder anyway, having seen hard drives "go south". I know they are shock mounted and all that but I never considered it.

I always did HDV capture through firewire, and now copy AVCHD *.MTS files directly from the card through a reader plugged into a USB port.

I had one HDV project I combined on the same timeline with an AVCHD project but with the latter having been shot at 1440x1080 12Mpbs setting instead of 1920x1080 17Mbps because my Q6600 only runs at 2.4Ghz instead of the 2.66Ghz clock speed Pinnacle recommends.

I rendered this timeline to a Blu-ray compliant file on standard DVD media, took it to Best Buy and played it on their Blu-ray player and 42"LCD. Both the HDV and the AVCHD looked identical in resolution likely because the AVCHD was shot in HDV resolution.

February 20th, 2009, 02:07 PM	#1
Alexis Avon New Boot Join Date: Dec 2008 Location: Athens Posts: 14	Image Quality: AVCHD or HDV? Hello, I am concerned about which of the those two recording formats offers the best video image quality. Also, which of those two handles the motion better? Kind Regards, Alexis Last edited by Alexis Avon; February 20th, 2009 at 05:03 PM.

February 23rd, 2009, 02:07 PM	#2
Bruce Foreman Trustee Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: San Angelo Texas Posts: 1,518	They can be somewhat close but there is a difference I can see in video I have done. HDV seems to be limited (for now) to 1440x1080, AVCHD goes up to 1920x1080 at the highest bitrates. My cams (Canon HF100) use a 17Mbps bitrate at the 1920x1080 setting and 12Mbps at 1440x1080 with an option for an even lower bitrate at that setting. The higher bitrates handle motion better. The Canon HF11 goes up to 24Mbps and footage I have seen shows a visible improvement in rendition of detail during a moderate speed pan over the HF100 and HF10. Still, by realizing that camera movement is potentially problematic in all HD formats and carefully controlling movements, I've not been frustrated with my HF100s' function during pans (except for a "crap" head on my tripod, just solved with a $35 Velbon PH368 head - I can get away with that because of the super light weight of the HF series cams). The determining factor for many in deciding between AVCHD and HDV will very likely be deciding "how much computer" will be needed for editing. HDV can be fairly easily edited on most recent fairly fast processor equipped dual core based machines, while AVCHD will for many REQUIRE a very fast quad core. My personal experience comes from trying to edit AVCHD with a quad core slightly under spec for what Pinnacle says is needed. They say 2.66Ghz minimum, I have 2.4Ghz. With a graphics card with 512MB on board I can edit 1920x1080 but it's not always a pleasant experience, much patience is needed waiting for things to "catch up" with each change on the timeline. 1440x1080 is easier and much more workable, but I like the increased definition at the 1920x1080 setting. The guys running a quad core with 2.8Ghz to 3.0Ghz clock speed seem to be generally in good shape. Both HDV and AVCHD look very good rendered to an HD WMV file and played back on a hardware media player connected to my 42" LCD with HDMI. I hope I've given you some useful information.

February 23rd, 2009, 07:01 PM	#3
Alexis Avon New Boot Join Date: Dec 2008 Location: Athens Posts: 14	Thank you very much Bruce!

February 25th, 2009, 01:51 AM	#4
Ronald Lee Major Player Join Date: Jan 2004 Location: Vancouver, Canada Posts: 435	They look good as HD WMV. How do you think they would hold up if burned to blu-ray and played on a blu-ray player on a HD TV?

February 25th, 2009, 12:09 PM	#6
Greg Laves Major Player Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: Corpus Christi, TX Posts: 640	At one time on here, there were some frame grabs from the Panasonic AG-HMC150 and the Sony FX1000. These were identical content and lighting. I couldn't see a large difference between them except that it seemed like there was some slight ghosting around black letters on a white background on the screen grabs from the Panasonic. And that could have been a compression artifact.

February 25th, 2009, 07:23 PM	#7
Bruce Foreman Trustee Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: San Angelo Texas Posts: 1,518	Martyn, I have no idea. I have never done any video "capture" or transfer through USB. I never liked the idea of a hard drive based camcorder anyway, having seen hard drives "go south". I know they are shock mounted and all that but I never considered it. I always did HDV capture through firewire, and now copy AVCHD *.MTS files directly from the card through a reader plugged into a USB port. I had one HDV project I combined on the same timeline with an AVCHD project but with the latter having been shot at 1440x1080 12Mpbs setting instead of 1920x1080 17Mbps because my Q6600 only runs at 2.4Ghz instead of the 2.66Ghz clock speed Pinnacle recommends. I rendered this timeline to a Blu-ray compliant file on standard DVD media, took it to Best Buy and played it on their Blu-ray player and 42"LCD. Both the HDV and the AVCHD looked identical in resolution likely because the AVCHD was shot in HDV resolution.