AVC INTRA 50 / 100


Sorry about the problematic PDF link

HTML VERSION /

Getting started with the industry?s most advanced compression technology

More AVC INTRA 50 / 100 news and info -

ZDF Germany's National Public Broadcaster - AVC INTRA.



ZDF Commits to Panasonic AVC-Intra for HD Production

Unfortunately, both will most likely never be used in anything but "pro" HD camcorders. Just like HDCAM 422.

These are very different than AVCHD.

I wonder what the results would be like -

Canon XLH1 - HDSDI > Via HD thunder > Edius OR Via Zena > Premiere & Prospect TO

Firecoder Intra from the Timeline -

FIRECODER Intra

Panasonic has publicly stated that AVC INTRA will only be part of their broadcast HD camera lineup. So I don't think it makes sense to compare a $30k to $50k HPX 2000 or 3000 camera to a $1200 Canon AVCHD.

Just my opinion.

Oh I see the post about the Firecoder. Nevermind. Disregard my comment.

David , You are 100 % correct - Comparing AVCHD and AVC INTRA 50/100 is not the exercise.

"Considering" the AVC INTRA format as "seems like" future broadcasters choice, triggered
my question.

How can i utilize my existing equipment - Example Canon Xlh1 - HDSDI out - to achieve maximum future quality results.

Hardware AVC INTRA encoding - Firecoder Intra - Way to expensive !

or Software AVC INTRA encoding ?

tHX.

Seems like Edius 5 answered some of my prayers !

I dropped a clip shot with Infinity - Compression Photo Jpeg to the timeline and exported to
Panasonic P2 AVC INTRA 100 with selectable 50/100 preset.

I am a bit overwhelmed taking the quality of a visual perspective in consideration ,
never mind the difference in file sizes.

Awesome ! ! !


Going to pour me a brandy ..........

The Third World.

Then you would really like the HMC150. After checking out all the new 1/3" cams it seemed to have the best picture, and the most going for it.

Side note on compression and recording time - I have the Sony CX12 and the time/GB looks to be sensitive to the type of filming, as would be expected. I have filmed multiple pickup soccer games using a 16GB chip, have gone up to 105 minutes, and didn't break 13 GB with that. That's a camcorder shooting against a fixed background, essentially. Film of DisneyWorld didn't compress as much, but I think I was still getting in excess of 50 minutes an hour of the highest definition (1920 x 1080).

It was very relaxing to not have to worry about changing tapes in the middle of my games, or running out of tape during Disney shows, parades, etc. The convenience factor is quite real once you experience it. I underestimated it in advance even though it was part of the reason I bought the camera.

As the current generation of PCs ages out and Quad-Cores become the low-end ones and memory card prices plummet, I'm having trouble seeing a future for tapes. The quality of my AVCHD footage is already higher than its mini-DV (HDV) predecessor which had the effective 1440 x 1080 resolution. Whether it be very soon or 10 years from now, I think the future of HDV tape is just about the same as what happened to consumer film cameras. They'll become the niche instead of the norm.

Aren't there two factors in play, then - one being the practical recording rate between sensors and media, and the other being the amount of processing required to create what is actually recorded? A lightly-compressed data stream should be able to go the media about as fast as it could be written. A heavily-compressed data stream will end up going through so much processing that it won't have data ready to write at "full speed". And if you load the processing with post-capture features (smile detection, face detection, you name it - whatever sounds good to consumers), then the time to write becomes even less of a constraint.

Your point is well taken whether I am understanding this correctly or not. I'm just suggesting that the media write speed may not be the real limiting factor for these AVCHD camcorders.

If you spend most of your free time using one computer (in the home) and don't have a second one handy, the time spent doing tape capture is unattended but you're forced to do something other than what you'd want to do - your computer is way too busy capturing the tape. I experienced this for four years with mini-DV camcorders - I had to make decisions about when I really wanted the footage captured vs everything else I wanted to do.

When I switched to the AVCHD camcorder, I could grab the whole chip at about 1GB per minute (sometimes faster). So for average clips, it was over before I'd even decide to get out of my chair. For a full 16 GB chip, I'd go to the bathroom, read for a few minutes, make coffee - you get the idea. I'd get my PC back very quickly.

I mostly do straightforward trimming of clips, so this difference in the types of capture ended up being a pleasant surprise when I made the switch.

If you have multiple PCs on hand and can tie one up with the real-time capture, this isn't an issue.

I agree Tom, and would add that internal hardware buffers, sometimes called "write-ahead" buffers, could even further avoid a time budget limit. They can be filled at one higher rate and emptied at a lower rate (assuming the buffer is adequately sized and fast enough to accept the higher traffic rate demanded by reads / writes) thereby permitting overlapped operations if speed were in fact an issue for the SDHC card.

For AVCHD this is not an issue, since the SDHC cards are inherently 2 to 3 times faster than they need to be.

My only reason for making this earlier comment was the apprent lack of understanding in this regard which the author seemed to display.

I fundementally disagree with his criticism of AVCHD being somehow a "lie" or deceptive. A companion article on the same subject in which the author criticizes modern HDTV broadcasting practice and the artificial claim of "high definiton" for much of the program content, is another story, and I agree strongly with the comments on that subject when it comes to deception.

Larry