Announcement

**Brian Ellis** · 1 September 2007, 09:41

I think it was all said here, just a coupla days ago: http://forums.murc.ws/showthread.php?t=62796

My personal recommendation is a Panasonic 3-CCD mini-DV if you wish adequate quality, ease of use, ease of editing and freedom of risk of the format being replaced by something else. Certainly, HD is today's format, but is it tomorrow's? And which HD? Until all the wars have been settled, get something that is standard. And I do not recommend Sony: their products are often quirky and can sometimes be used ONLY with other Sony products.

**Paddy** · 1 September 2007, 10:17

Thanks Brian. I've checked out the other thread. I've posted back here as I don't want to hijack the thread.

The Sony and JVC looks interesting. I'm not bothered about the ability to add third party components such as a mic or stand so would that swap the Sony for you?

Is the only difference between the HDR-SR8E and the HDR-CX7 the HD or memory stick? If that is the case, I dont think I could justify Â£250-300 just for the 100GB HD - although I've not checked the price of a 8GB memory stick yet!

The JVC also looks nice and has the 3 CCD that you mentioned. There was no hint of that in the Sony one... I guess i'd need to find one in a shop and feel the difference....

Is there a specific Panasonic model I should look at?

**Paddy** · 1 September 2007, 10:26

hmm.. I see that AVCHD can not be played back on standard DVD players.... I'm not sure what format I need. I'd like to record at high def, but i'd need to be able to play back on a standard dvd player. Am I contradicting myself?

**Dr Mordrid** · 1 September 2007, 14:08

AVCHD is actually H.264 MPEG-4, which regular DVD players won't play unless it's transcoded to DVD compliant MPEG-2.

To play it natively would require an HD DVD or BR deck, and I don't recommend getting either of those until combo decks/burners arrive that can do both.

**Paddy** · 1 September 2007, 14:27

So can i record in AVCHD and transcode to mpeg2 for everyday use and keep a HD copy of special video for the future?

Would this be a pain to do?

From reading around, the main pitfall in the sony camcorders is the software. I'd hope to use MSP if that were possible...

Is this getting silly? Because I don't intend to replace it I would like to get the best I can afford, because I'd hope to use the features in the months/years to come.
ATM, it is looking like I wont be able to play anything back without buying new hardware... Will most HD cams will record in mpeg2 so it will be more versatile for daily use...

**Dr Mordrid** · 1 September 2007, 20:04

It's time consuming to do and you need encoding/editing s/w that can read the AVCHD files. Check your feature lists.

**Paddy** · 2 September 2007, 02:06

Now that I have had the time to do some research, I am better informed

I can see that most cameras will record in either SD or HD. Great. If i record in SD, will it used MPEG2 thus getting around the transcoding problem?

If I burn a AVCHD to DVD I assume that I can play it in my computer, as playback will be a codec issue. Clearly this will not work in a standalone DVD player. I wonder if there are standalone players that support AVCHD from DVD (like those XVID and DIVX players)....

A lot of reviews seem to complain about editing of AVCHD. Is this now a thing of the past, or do you still have to use the crappy software that is supplied?

Is AVCHD the way forward? i understand the BR/HDVD debate, but are these just hardwre to facilliate the software? If AVCHD is equally 'temprimental' then would I be better going for a more widely adopted standard?

Oh, is the 3CCD much better than Sonys array?

Thanks.

**Brian Ellis** · 2 September 2007, 02:35

3-CCD will always give better colour rendition, whether it be in a Sony cam or one of any other make.

You are hitting the problems of the various HD systems, which are not interchangeable, and their ability to be edited. I know more than one person who has bought an HD cam (of whatever flavour) and been disappointed, especially when they end up with a standard DVD with poorer quality than they were getting with mini-DV. Just think, give or take an ounce or two, the same bandwidth at 720p as at 576i tells you what? Fair enough, reduced to DVD, both may give reasonable pics, on condition that you don't edit. But if you do? Something has to give - and it does!

AFAIK, there are no AVCHD DVD players, probably because no one would be interested in one that needs a DVD disc changing every few minutes. Whether it will come with BR or HD-DVD players is probably moot, at this time. And whose implementation of AVCHD? I'm told they are not all created equal.

I acquired a new mini-DVD cam (Pana 3-CCD) earlier this year to complement my old one. I chose this because I believe that it will take another 2-3 years before we can see any semblance of tidiness in the HD market, with dust beginning to settle. My nature is to mistrust new technologies, especially when there are system rivalries and jockeying for market position by propietary, non-standard, innovations. That having been said, if you consider one or the other flavour of HD to be mature, go ahead, but my advice is to see the results on your TV before the final decision. Chances are you will see little improvement in picture resolution with HD, but you may see a load more artefacts.

**Paddy** · 2 September 2007, 02:51

Thanks Brian.

The problem is that I dont own any HD equipment. I am prepared to spend Â£800 on a camera, but it will have to last. In the years to come when i replace my TV etc, I want the camera to still be usable. I am concerned that I run the risk of buying tech that will fail to be adopted and supported in two years time....

If I record in SD will it be in MPEG2 so that I can simply dump to DVD (for now)?

**Paddy** · 2 September 2007, 03:21

Essentially is AVCHD here to stay, or is the debate still wide open?

**Brian Ellis** · 2 September 2007, 03:40

DV will still be here for many years. It appeared in 1995, yet you can still buy VHS-C and Hi-8 cams.

It is possible that the SD MPEG-2 will not be fully DVD-compliant and you may have to re-encode with loss of quality.

**Paddy** · 4 September 2007, 12:54

Just an update.
I've been informed from a Sony camcorder site that the SD video is fully DVD complient. I've also found the 100GB HDR-SR8e for the same price as it's 60GB counterpart.

I'll probably get that unless I can find something else on offer.

**Jerry Jones** · 5 September 2007, 06:12

AVCHD is going to be the dominant consumer high definition format for the next few years.

The MPEG-2 will be fully compliant with DVD-Video.

The problem I've encountered editing these two formats is the classic problem that results from long GOP (Group of Pictures) editing challenges.

With MPEG-2 and AVCHD, you're dealing with long GOP.

So, in my experience, it's best to edit these formats by first converting them to a good I-Frame format for editing so that you can make frame accurate cuts/dissolves/etc. and then render out the result with satisfactory appearance when you view the playback.

Most consumer-level software has a very difficult time directly editing the long GOP file types such as MPEG-2 and AVCHD.

With AVCHD, you need an extremely fast computer to directly edit it... unless you're willing to tolerate very sluggish timeline behavior.

It's much easier to use an intermediate codec and transcode the AVCHD to a good editing format such as Cineform .AVI on the PC platform or the Apple Intermediate Codec on the Macintosh platform.

With MPEG-2, it's good to have a piece of software with an extremely high quality DV encoder so that you can transcode the MPEG-2 to high quality DV .avi for editing.

Most consumer software can edit standard definition MPEG-2 with ease, but I've noticed that when you directly edit such video in software such as Corel -- with Smart Render turned "on" -- then the result isn't ideal... you can spot tiny glitches in the final, rendered result... it looks like a "jerk" or a "bump" at transition points.

If you transcode the MPEG-2 to DV .avi and then edit using Smart Render, the result is far better, in my experience.

But I use the DV encoder in Pinnacle software because that encoder is superb.

Unfortunately, the Pinnacle software is so limiting in so many other ways, it's pathetic.

Jerry Jones

http://www.jonesgroup.net

**Dr Mordrid** · 5 September 2007, 12:35

Originally posted by Jerry Jones View Post

So, in my experience, it's best to edit these formats by first converting them to a good I-Frame format for editing so that you can make frame accurate cuts/dissolves/etc. and then render out the result with satisfactory appearance when you view the playback.

Most consumer-level software has a very difficult time directly editing the long GOP file types such as MPEG-2 and AVCHD.

Correct regarding long-GOP.

It's much easier to use an intermediate codec and transcode the AVCHD to a good editing format such as Cineform .AVI on the PC platform or the Apple Intermediate Codec on the Macintosh platform.

With MPEG-2, it's good to have a piece of software with an extremely high quality DV encoder so that you can transcode the MPEG-2 to high quality DV .avi for editing.

Yup, intermediates are the way to go but IMO DV isn't in the Butter-Zone because of its colorspace and Cineform is expensive.

I prefer a good MJPeg (Morgan, PicVideo and others) or even I-frame-only MPEG. The MJPegs have better controls, some have lossless modes, high colorspace options and they are generally faster than converting to DV or I-frame MPEG. Morgan is SMP ready while PicVideo is 1-cpu.

These really shine when your project is effects laden.

They're also cheap; Morgan MJPeg is $20. PicVideo is a tad faster on 1-cpu systems & the non-commercial license is $28.

Announcement

Video Camera recommendations?

Video Camera recommendations?

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment