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 !!

Most likely the strategy or technology changed. It is possible they were off on their calculations, but looking at the Sanyo HD1 (which is crippled I know) 18Mb/s H264 should be enough of an minimum. I guess they found that either a) a better encoder performance was available, b) Storage capacity/options changed, or c) some broadcast/blu-ray/HDDVD workflow consideration to do with interpolatability with the pro h264 broadcast spec.

Tape is a possibility, but hard disk a certain. Something could be happening in the SD card industry. One SD card technology that is supposed to be coming this year is IBM millipede, 150GB claimed on an SD card (bigger in future). If this does eventuate, I suspect, smaller versions might go for economical prices.

I think prosumer 24mb/s cameras from Sony and Panasonic are more likely. I wonder where Pana is going to place their pro intra h264 codec.

http://news.stockselector.com/newsar...ticle=80792517

60 minutes in 4GB is around 9mb/s. That is most likely the base rate. Ambarella can do 60fps h264 in this data rate (or was that lower) though I don't want to watch it.

This is what I was afraid of, you get broadly the same data rate, and time, as existing DVD recorders except in HD. But if there is a dual layer DVD available (I don't know where they are at) you get double, if there is 4.5mb/s 30fps HD then double again (I doubt they will go more layers before blu-ray, though there are many new alternative DVD formats out there). I think I will buy a upto 24mbs version.

Forgot to mention, 2010 Intel plans 32 core processor:

http://www.tomshardware.com/2006/07/...ore/index.html

Yet another way that H264 encoding can be assisted. I suspect that 4+ cores will become cheap before then.

An article claims the hard drive model (at least) will have 24mb/s recording (hopefully).

Any idea what frame rates this thing will have?

1/ Could our japanese friends get their hands on one, and give an evaluation of the encoding quality ??
2/ as soon as a camcorder records on disk, one might envision to get a Firewire 800 or USB 2.0 properly tuned to connect directly to the editing PC . ANy mention of such connections anywhere ??

Unlikely, the specs available on the Japanese Sony web give not a maximum of 24mb/ but only 15mb/s (with a new qualification for this level of compression: "XP"); the DVD model has 'only' a HQ+ level at 12mb/s max.

You can use Babelfish or similar to translate this Japanese page: http://www.sony.jp/products/Consumer...-SR1/spec.html

We can presume that the 'XP' mode is not available on the DVD model due to the lack of space even on a double layer DVD: at 15mb/s you would get only 12 minutes on a 8cm DVD-/+R(W), and 21 minutes on a DVD+R DL... that's short! So, 24 mb/ is simply not imaginable on a 8cm DVD camcorder.

The lack of the 24mb/s on the HDD model comes certainly from the first AVCHD specifications: at first only the 8cm DVD and the SD card formats were concerned; 24mb/s, P2 card, HDD, ...etc, came after.

On an another hand, as said by Pierre in one of his previous posts, the available Mpeg-4 AVC chips for the consumer market are only (today) at 15mb/s max.

I spotted a potential problem with that alleged 24mb/s bandwidth posted here:

http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthread.php?t=72226

so once blue ray is cheap then AVC-HD is a dead format too? Why waste all the time? Sony should just work with BlueRay. They already have it in the stores. $20 for a Blue Ray disk. I say stay with HDV until all the Blue Ray is going and edit systems are out. HDV is there now and pretty cheap to get into and really pretty good.

Blu-Ray is one of the driving factors behind AVC-HD. AVC-HD disks will play in blu-ray players. And once the cheap blu-ray recorders are out you'll see newer cameras incorporating mini-blu-ray mini-DVDs.

I am totally in line with this comment. Nothing is really ready to edit and play AVCHD. Seems that Sony is just trying to carve a niche for its HomeTheater BlueRay Players, and that prosumer video ( and specially HDV) suffers from the fallouts of the HD-DVD format war, therefore creating a second front !!

Marketing, marketing

more economic codec, better audio - it's about how good the cameras will be
 

If AVCHD plays in blu-ray players, then it will not be an intermediate format. It has the same compression codec as blu-ray, Quicktime, and it is a broadcast compression standard.

It just depends on the data rate. If you want better color space, there will be avc-intra, which is avchd at more mbps.

I do not think hdv is that good. Audio is poor, as it is highly compressed.
Also: why use an outdated compression format (mpeg2), if you can have better image quality at a lower data rate with better audio.

Hdv cameras are not that mature a technology. They have poor autofocus (hc-1, hc-3, a1u) poor low-light (a1u), are much too big (fx-1).

It all depends on how good those new avchd camcorders are. Will we get enough manual control, acceptable low-light performance and an autofocus, that doesn't hunt like a neandertaler.

Quicktime is a wrapper, not a codec. anything can be contained in a QT wrapper, including OGG, mp3, and at least a hundred other non-broadcast standards. BD has 3 codecs; AVC, MP2, VC1.

No, this isn't so. Intra is "Intra-frame" (intra-"contained within" vs inter-frame"("inter-"not contained within") which has nothing to do with colorspace, it's that each frame is essentially an I-frame. Color sampling remains the same.

4:1 is "highly compressed? I'll wager 100.00 I can put up a PCM file that has both the original, uncompressed audio, and an HDV file converted to PCM, and that you can't tell the difference.
Why use MP2? Because it's a LONG running standard, because there is a lot of support already existent for it, and because it's the same color sampling scheme as the largest delivery format in the world. One of the most overall common standard inside broadcast houses around the world with BetaSX, IMX.

This statement so absurd, I'm not even going to dignify it with a response. You apparently have never had the opportunity to work with the cameras. Additionally, who uses autofocus for anything but a spot requirement? (and in responding to that particular aspect, I'm not in the least agreeing the cameras hunt. Just last night I operated one of several HDV cams for Heroes of Speed. High speed action, lots of color, exceptionally fast motion; no hunting.

It all "depends" is speculation, and speculation on a yet unannounced camera, speculative potential format, and unknown is just plain silly. I guess the national economy depends on a lot of things too, but I don't suppose you'd care to speculate on how many potatoes it takes to fill a truck in July vs January, thus affecting the cost of transportation, thus impacting the US economy? A lot of potential is dependent on a lot of "maybes" and speculating on "maybe" when there is a "here and now" is absurd.
Low light has zero to do with the compression. It has everything to do with how many pixels are being crammed into small real estate. All the low cost HD cams suffer from some kind of lowlight issue or another.
Autofocus has nothing to do with the compression, it's an algorithm.
Manual control? All of the professional grade HDV camcorders have great manual control excepting one.
NONE of your comments are related to HDV, but rather features of any camcorder at any price.

HDV isn't the best of the game, but it isn't remotely what you state either. Buck for buck, it's the best there is right now. AVCHD at current, is a consumer format.
I'm usually not this acerbic, but your commentary based on opinion rather than real world fact and experience is beyond the pale.

Long Time No See, DSE.
It was just about time someone with undisputed authoritative experience fixed all those digressions. And though somewhat "irritated" ( rather than acerbic) these re-assesments were badly needed.

Thank you, DSE.

Although AVC Intra is indeed a GOP-less format, there is speculation that Fidelity Range Extensions will be implemented for increased color-sample accuracy (10-bit encoding) and higher-resolution color information (YUV 4:2:2 and possibly 4:4:4). As far as I know, AVC-HD is restricted to 8-bit encoding and 4:2:0 sampling. So, while it's true that "intra" refers to the data reduction technique, Panasonic's AVC Intra format may also entail a greater color space.

This is *potentially* correct. But then it's not AVC HD, it's simply AVC that departs from AVC HD at that point. It's entirely likely that a separate forum should be developed for AVC Intra, because for whatever reason, it appears a few professionals and most of the rest of the community are combining/confusing the two formats. AVC HD and AVC Intra have less than more in common, and I'd hate to see some poor guy reading about AVC Intra and then buying an AVC HD camcorder thinking he's getting anything broadcast-worthy.

anyone know when this is going to be available so people can check out the visual quality?

You mean AVC HD? Or AVC Intra?

AVC HD cams are out in pre-production models, and the shipping models are expected in the next month. As soon as we're released from NDA, we can put up footage.
AVC Intra, I don't have any knowledge of these products whatsoever.

I believe that you are entirely correct -- AVC Intra is not AVC-HD but rather a separate format that is, as far as I know, proprietary to Panasonic. At this point, most "information" about it is speculative.

hte one for consumers, which is intra- i believe.

i'm assuming the AVC-HD is for pros.

Reverse that. AVC-HD is primarily a consumer format, and Intra, professional. That said, AVC-HD, particularly at 24 Mbps and with 24p capability, may prove more than adequate for some professional applications.

It could, but bear in mind that there are a LOT of other components to making the image worthy of professional use.
Prefiltering, DSP, glass, and a host of other related components and processes determine the majority of the image. All of those components add up in cost, and with AVC HD aimed at consumers, the goal is quality control and cost reduction, not a raise in quality that would carry a price level along with it.

The recently announced Sony models peak at about 15 Mbps, not the 24-Mbps maximum in the AVC-HD specs, and neither model supports 24p. So it appears that there will be AVC-HD quality "tiers" -- I was thinking about prosumer-level camcorders with these two features. At that level I would expect at lenses, imagers, ADC, etc, to be at least as good as those found on the Z1 or the HVX200.

There are no, and will not be, "prosumer AVC" camcorders from Sony for a long, long time to come.
It's ridiculous that any of this speculation ever came about (not pointing at you, Lawrence) about AVC in the professional world. It's a consumer format, was developed as such, and currently implemented only as such. More compression is not a good thing, it's a bad thing, overall.
Talking about comparisons of AVC vs HDV, is seriously misguided, particularly when discussion of AVC-I comes into the mix. It's all conjecture, and from my own viewpoint, it seems like an attempt to divert focus from one format to another, even though the "other" format is mere conjecture and non-existent at this point in time.
It's frustrating, because while it's apparent folks want more picture for less cost, AVD HD is * not* the answer. There are a lot of problems with it as a broadcast format in it's current inception, ranging from the complexity of the deblocking algorithms to the bitrate, etc. It's even more frustrating to see discussions of AVC-I come into the AVC HD discussions. *IF* AVC-I comes to fruition, it will first likely be based on the consumer codec, as development of a new compliant codec will be so expensive it would easily put the cam out of cost-range for most, and second, once it is out in whatever inception, it will be more in the mid-camera price range, I'll wager, even if based on the consumer codec.
For some reason, folks seem to tie much of the AVC HD excitement back to "MPEG sucks."
No, MPEG doesn't suck, *some* MPEG encoders suck. For the most part, there is no spec for MPEG encoding . From HDV to HDCAM SR, MPEG is in constant production use, whether it's Canon, JVC, Sony, or others using this format. The temporal compression allows for big frames (in other words, full size frames) as opposed to other popular formats that have small frames that are then expanded on output or in post, using header information to control the conversion. This is why some formats are seen as "soft" by many folks vs what the HDV camcorders offer.

AVC HD is a great little format, designed for delivering very good quality content over small bandwidth, which makes it easy to store on mem sticks, microdrives, 3" DVDs, and other consumer-friendly formats. It's incredibly efficient, very cheap codec to license, and "good enough" for consumer use without a lot of processing for acquisition.
When the Sony cams start shipping, it's expected you'll see a lot of comparison to the HDV output, and I just hope a lot of folks are not disappointed if they're waiting to make decisions on whether to buy a Sony, Canon, or JVC HDV camcorder over the Sony AVC HD camcorders for professional or semi-professional use. Based on what I'm seeing, they likely will be.

We *really* need to get an AVC-I forum going, because discussion of AVC-I in this forum is like discussing XDCAM HD in the HDV fora. It's confusing, and is leaving more questions than answers for some folks.

never mind...

AVCHD is only up to twice as efficient at low bitrates. Once you hit 18Mbps or so, efficiency is not tremendously different than HDV or any other MPG-derived format. The efficiency by comparison diminishes as bitrate rises. Processing coefficients become more challenging, processing horsepower goes up substantially. All things considered it actually becomes less efficient overall at high bitrates. With current development, the gains don't offset the costs. But, like anything else, this is likely to change.

It's significantly more compressed than HDV or any other heretofore format. This presents problems. Have you attempted to edit AVC HD yet?
Try it. You're throwing away more information than ever before, and complex frames suffer if you keep the spatial values intact.

The audio benefits significantly in the AVC format, since there aren't any significant restrictions on audio formats for MP4 and audio isn't interleaved as it is in HDV. That said, I've not run into any of the heavily purported audio problems that some assign to HDV.

Press releases from Sony are press releases from the consumer division of the company. You know that just as well as I do. Bending words doesn't benefit anyone.
Sony Broadcast didn't do a press release for the HC1, HC3... the consumer division did. Just as the same division announced the AVC HD format. Sanyo says "We're redefining High Definition...." Would you suggest we accept the HD1 is "redefining" HD in the professional or prosumer realm?

Will AVC grow? Obviously. Will it be the current AVC-HD profile as the foundation? Maybe. Will it be AVC-I? Perhaps. Dunno. Way too early to tell.

But the bottom line for now is that AVC HD as it stands is a budget format. It might grow into something else, I hope it does.

All that said, I do understand the position; Panasonic desperately needs this story to offset the small frame antiquated format of DVCPro and it's DV-based variants.
It's likely ill-affordable to create their own codec and expect to develop a competitively priced camcorder. They need something that will record to P2 and other static media easily in big frame format, so AVC becomes a logical answer. Of course they need to champion it as it's another opportunity to bash MPEG 2. Ironically, AVC is a subset of the MPEG 2 that's been bashed for the past two years. More ironic is that the 4:2:0 colorspace is now acceptable when for the past two years, it hasn't been acceptable.

Regardless of what you or I say, feel, want, or believe....AVC HD is at this time is aimed squarely at low-cost buyers and non-professional user. Neither of the two announced camcorders have professional features included. I can say with at least some surety that Sony, Canon, JVC, Grass Valley, and Ikegami aren't doing anything with it on the professional/semiprofessional side at this point, but I'm equally confident you're speaking for Panasonic, and they're a big player (Grass Valley's MPEG 4 is not AVC).
We might as well be discuss MPG 7 and MPG 21-based camcorders too. After all, they're part of the various future mpeg profiles too. If we're relying on conjecture to generate a new market or discourage users from a current market, we might should go deeper into the realm of "maybe."

Next year, the year after...AVC HD or one of it's variants could be the new DV. A lot could happen in the next 24 months. But the issue we're faced with here, now, and in this particular forum, is that folks are being grossly mislead about what AVC HD currently is, and what it will be for at least some time to come. It's currently only leading to great confusion.

I have the money to buy and I will by the time the new Canon's come out. It looks to me like HDV is pretty well dug in for now. I've seen some really good stuff shot with the Z1U. I'm sure this canon will be there too.

I think Panasonic made a mistakes by not having a DVX100 type camera with HDV. They bet on P2 but the cost is just to high for a lot of people. If they would have came out with a 16:9/SD/HDV they would have sold like crazy.

When you hear the AVCHD talk it is usually just to make HDV look bad. It's once AVC comes out HDV will dry up and blow away. But if it is that good so will the SD DVX100 and all other SD cameras.

I will spend my money now on the Canon A1 or maybe if Sony comes out with
something new by October.

Well they *couldn't* make a DVX100 type camera with HDV, because they're not part of the HDV consortium. So I think what you meant to say is that Panasonic made a mistake by not choosing to be part of the HDV consortium. I don't see that as a mistake. They're selling the HVX200 faster than they can build it. Seemingly Panasonic choose to skip HDV altogether for their own reasons, for better or for worse. It's only a "mistake" if it affects their solvency, and I don't believe Panasonic is about to collapse as a result of not offering HDV.

With every respect Douglas, you have been wrong before, so there does remain the possibility that you may be wrong again, and pigs may once more take to the skies:

http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showpost....6&postcount=21

regards

I think they miss some sales by going the P2 route, but if you say there selling bunches of them that's good. But the prices to run one is to much for a small timer like myself,,,so they really screwed up!!

I guess none of these companies can please everyone. I'll just be glad to have something again in the next couple of months.

Not to challenge you, Douglas, but you seem to be painting AVCHD with an excessively broad brush in your attempt to portray it as a consumer format. A few points:

1. Nowhere on the AVCHD information site is the format called a consumer-only format.
2. The current AVCHD specs are at 1.0; since May they have been revised (Memory Sticks, SD memory cards, and hard disk drives have been added as storage media and the maximum data rate has been raised to 24 Mbps). Who knows when subsequent versions of the specs will be released or what they will contain?
3. The spec supports 24p for both 720p and 1080i. There's no real need for 24p in a consumer camcorder, especially given the complexity of inserting 24p into an interlaced signal. Any arguments for 24p in HDV camcorders were made with an eye toward professional applications, specifically film release.
4. AVCHD is nascent, and judging its quality -- or predicting its future -- based on Sony's inaugural camcorders would be silly.
5. You say "once you hit 18Mbps or so, efficiency [of AVCHD] is not tremendously different than HDV or any other MPG-derived format." Again, I would think it premature to judge the potential of format from the quality of a consumer camcorder. AVC (a.k.a. H.264 and MPEG-4 Part 10) is a wide-ranging set of specifications of which the current incarnation of AVCHD is only a small part. Whither AVCHD? I don't know, but if you do, please share (that is, when your NDA expires).
6. "Press releases from Sony are press releases from the consumer division of the company. You know that just as well as I do. Bending words doesn't benefit anyone. Sony Broadcast didn't do a press release for the HC1, HC3... the consumer division did. Just as the same division announced the AVC HD format." The initial products, which don't support even the full range of the current spec, are obviously targeted at consumers (albeit relatively well-heeled ones), so I would expect the first press releases to come from the consumer division. But I wouldn't use Sony as any indicator of whether AVCHD has a future as a prosumer format. Sony will be the last company to add a usable 24-fps feature to an HD camcorder costing less than $10,000, so I don't doubt that Sony will wait a long time before releasing a 24-Mbps, 24p-capable, third-inch CCD/CMOS chip camcorder.
7. Editing AVCHD might currently be a bitch. The same situation held at release of HDV. It's very, very stupid of manufacturers to release a format before they line up software-vendor support, but it happens.