DSE, I tried to delete my response before you responded because I didn't see the point in making things too directly confrontational. In the end if you feel the way you do, that's fine, but I cannot agree as to how you can project that forward onto an entire industry.

It just doesn't make sense. It's not logical. When AVC is a more-efficient codec, when it does things that HDV doesn't, when the whole production industry is beginning to go tapeless, why would anyone say "well, the tapeless more-efficient full-raster uncompressed-audio codec is only suitable for consumer product; professionals would much rather have an older, less-efficient compressed-audio tape-based system." It just doesn't make sense. I mean, we don't have to agree, I guess; let's just see what happens with AVC-HD.

For my part, I am extraordinarily confident that when the dust settles, AVC-HD will be "the new DV", and HDV will be relegated to a blip in history, equivalent to Hi8. And I think the current Sony AVC-HD offerings have about as much to do with the format as the original HDV camera (the JVC HD1) did to its format.

To look at the UX1 and say "see? AVC-HD is only a consumer format" is grossly unfair. I mean, would you also think it fair if one was to go back to March 2003 and say "HDV is a marginalized consumer format and that's all it'll ever be, look at the JVC HD1"? Such talk would have looked rather silly the day the Z1 came out, and then the HD100, and then the XLH1.

History has an uncanny habit of repeating itself. And it will again. AVC-HD is the real deal.

I'm almost tempted (almost) to just predict that Sony won't ever release another HDV model already, I'm almost ready to say that the FX2 will be AVC-HD, and by extension the Z2 would also be AVC-HD... only reason I don't go ahead and do so is because Canon just threw a monkey wrench in the works with their A1/G1 introductions. So there may be a couple more HDV models before the transition to AVC-HD is complete. But I am certain that by this time two years from now (8/8/8) HDV will be officially discontinued by Sony, in the terms that no new HDV models will be introduced from that date forward. And I predict that Sony Broadcast will follow suit; you won't see any HDV models from the Sony Broadcast division being introduced two years from now.

My guess is they are losing some sales by using 960x540 CCDs. Their format should have but them way ahead of HDV storage, yet the tests just show it competitive with the HD100 and H1. It has to be one of the best SD 16:9 cameras though.

Barry and All,

I can't speak for DSE, but I partly know why he is saying this. It's because Sony people are saying this. Sony's official position is that AVCHD is a consumer format. Their words, not DSE's. I witnessed this personally at the Apple/Sony XDCAMHD event in Dallas. Mike Curtis was also in attendance and can verify what I am saying.

A question came up along the lines of whether a future XDCAM HD offering might use AVCHD and the Sony person immediately responded with, "AVCHD is a consumer format." No ifs, ands, or buts about it. A very direct answer with no hesitation whatsoever. But they are referring to the current incarnation of AVCHD. Any variant of this could become a reality for prosumer or broadcast work in the future but then it's not AVCHD anymore.

But the AVCHD that's of the here and now is considered a consumer format by Sony. Other manufacturers may feel differently about that.

regards,

-gb-

This thread is really funny. AVCHD will be consumer until the pros start using it. Then, it will be pro. Just like DV, just like HDV. And, I predict pros will start using it just about as soon as the camcorders become available. So, this whole debate is moot.

The most you could say is that it's not AVCHD version 1.0 anymore. But then again, that spec was amended less than 2 months after it had been announced to permit a higher data rate and a greater variety of storage formats. That being said, just implementing the full 24-Mbps data rate and supporting 24p would go a long way toward making it suitable for broadcast/prosumer work. And as for editing ACVHD, I'm sure CineForm is working on a visually lossless intermediate codec.

No argument. In my post above, I was emphasizing Sony's stance on the current implementation.

-gb-

I think you are all right. SONY may have said that AVCHD is a consumer only format but that doesn't really mean anything.

DVCAM is virtually the same as DV but yet DV is considered consumer while DVCAM is pro.

We must remember that AVCHD is just a fancy title given to a form of profile and level of mpeg-4. It is the same thing as how HDV is a fancy name and special setup of a Main profile/high 1440 level mpeg-2 file. HDV is limited to a certain bitrate but mpeg-2 can do so much more. In fact I have been working on using 422 profile/high level 100 to 300 mbits/s mpeg-2 I frame files with Liquid systems for real time close to uncompressed editing.

Even if AVCHD stays as a consumer format I'm sure AVCHDCAM (totally made up) will not. All you have to do is change the name but still use mpeg-4 level 10. SONY doesn't own mpeg-4.

If HDV means it must be on tape but a firestore is used does that mean it is no longer HDV? Who cares? The format is still exactly the same.


Finally about editing AVCHD. Yes it will be a major problem for a few years but I think there will be solutions.

1. Cineform should work exactly the same with AVCHD as it does with HDV. You might need a slightly faster system to convert AVCDHD to Cineform on the fly but as long as your system can play AVCHD I would think it could convert it with no problems. Once on your system as a Cineform file it will edit exactly the same way as HDV in a Cineform file. So the only hurdle to overcome for Cineform is live transcoding into a Cineform AVI.

2. Finally a good case for why somebody would capture the format through component or SDI as uncompressed or lightly compressed. The advantage to this is that you will be able to edit the material much faster and you will not have to wait to transcode it to another format. While the quality will not get any better it will not really get any worse either. Since AVCHD is in theory so much better looking than HDV capturing to uncompressed HD or lightly compressed HD should allow you to hang on to that quality while saving you some of your hair. Uncompressed HD systems and capture cards are becoming very cheap and I don't really see it as a major concern anymore. If you do not want the large drives then just use DVCPROHD or photojpeg. It might not be perfect but it should look better than HDV.

3. Forget about Cineform if you do not want to buy it. Since mpeg-4 is a much more open standard and can be encoded and decoded easily in quicktime just transfer the files and convert to photojpeg or something like it with Quicktime pro. You could even use a tool or write a script to convert all the files. Yes it may take extra time, but it will take less time then trying to edit the stuff.

100% agree with Thomas.
The history repeats itself: when the first DVD camcorders were announced, a fast death was predicted for the DV format, and Mpeg-2 was presented as the perfect 'all-purposes' codec.

Today, DV is still alive, Mpeg-2 is used by consumers and by professionals on all the channels and supports: Satellite, cable, tape, HDD, DVD,...etc

Tomorrow Mpeg-4 AVC (aka Mpeg-4 part 10, aka H.264), and other new Mpeg-4 variants (like for mobile phones) will replace Mpeg-2 everywhere.

AVCHD is only a marketing name and, IMHO, people make too much noise around this acronym: the real winner of the next years is Mpeg-4 AVC whatever are the 'names' of its perticular implementations.

How far off is tomorrow?

There seems to be some product bias going on here but that is good.

Can anyone who claims that AVCHD is the new format that will wipe out HDV and I guess SD too, when a good pro-sumer model will be out? When will a pro model be out? When will there be editing software? Are we talking two years? Four years? By Christmas?

When will the DVX100B start selling cheap because they are so outdated? If I buy the Canon A1 in Oct will it be like my old Sony Hi 8 (by the way mine still works and you can still by tapes) bye next year?

I'd say it's still early in the game for AVC, so at least 18 months before it's a fully functional format for professional purposes and another couple of years after that for it to become as popular as HDV is today. Note that Canon just released their first affordable HDV cameras roughly three years after the format was originally proposed, so figure a similar timetable for AVC.

What, people are still selling and buying SD cameras? At some point that's bound to taper off for professional purposes as customers come to expect HD recording, and long after that happens you'll still be able to buy tapes for HDV cameras. Any HD camera is more likely to still be in use ten years from now than most SD cameras, sort of like how any DV camera is more likely to be in use today than Hi-8 models.

Maybe so, but by the time that happens HDV will be a pretty big blip, and many HDV cameras will remain in service until they wear out. If AVC becomes more popular it may be more because of its tapeless workflow than anything else, and that won't be cost-effective and convenient for at least another 3-5 years. So yeah, several years from now when we can buy 64GB flash memory cards for under $25 then HDV may seem a little dated; until then let's not be too quick to dismiss one of the most clever video recording formats of the past 50 years.

It will be interesting to see how well AVCHD does in the consumer world.

On one hand it might give very nice quality even though the cameras will still be lacking. The image quality itself should better mimic what the camera head itself can do.

On the other hand it may end up a niche product that will be very hard for consumers to edit and may not take off for a few years yet. While there may be methods to edit that I listed above I doubt any consumer would do any of those except for maybe option 3. Would a consumer know how to deal with this or even want to deal with it? It might seem like a nifty idea but in the end it may put them off because of the workflow involved.

The nice thing about HDV is that it does have the option of down converting in camera to a format consumers are used to dealing with. What options are there for AVCHD? Since it is file based I doubt there is any way to let the camera do it for you.

AVCHD should have really had a proxy system built in like XDCAMHD does. The cameras and NLE's should have had automated built in support for the proxy files. The consumer could build an edit with the proxy files and then let the NLE handle the final stage. This would make AVCHD much easier to use for the consumer.

Remember the consumer market isn't always driven by quality but a lot of times by ease of use. It might be easy to shoot with these things but it will not be as easy to do anything else with it.

When we had vhs vs. betamax, it took years for the "format war" to settle and for people to buy in.

When we had everyone on the same page for CD, and for DVD, (i.e. one unified global standard) the adoption rates were the fastest in history.

Now that we have HD-DVD vs. blu-ray, everyone's waiting and unsettled.

With HDV you basically have the same situation -- Canon vs. Sony vs. JVC, and all of them vs. Panasonic. HDV is not one unified standard, it's three incompatible formats from three different manufacturers, with about the only concession to intercompatibility being that Sony tapes will play in Canon cameras (and 1/3 of Canon's formats will play in Sony's cameras/decks).

With AVC-HD, we have the two biggest players on the same page, the two manufacturers that account for something like 80% of all consumer camcorders sold. With AVC-HD we're not talking about "this vs. that", you're talking about one standard unified compatible format across the board. If this were a Sony-only format, or a Panasonic-only format, I wouldn't be nearly so bullish on it. But because it's sponsored and promoted by both behemoths that's why I think it's inevitable.

Second, as far as editing: obviously there's no editing support yet. But did anyone find it curious that Sony didn't introduce Vegas 7 at NAB? Could it perhaps be that they're holding it to announce AVC-HD support? Did anyone else find it curious that there was no major Apple FCP announcement at NAB? Could it be perhaps that they're holding it to integrate AVC-HD support?

As for HDV editing, that's hardly a settled question. Some editing programs have various levels of support for HDV; everyone supports 1080/60i and 720/30p, a couple have some support for 1080/24f, and one or two have some support for 720/24p, but support is hardly universal. Why? Because the market is tiny. Prosumer/HDV cameras have sold a few, but nothing compared to what consumer cameras sell. I mean, in the world of JVC, JVC Professional accounts for only 8% of all the revenues JVC generates, and JVC Consumer accounts for something like 52% (don't remember the exact number).

On the other hand, everybody supports DV. DV is the prevalent, dominant format. DV is supported by every manufacturer, and every mode of DV is compatible with every manufacturer's equipment, something that can't be said for HDV. But AVC-HD is designed to be the same type of intercompatible system as DV. One unified worldwide cross-manufacturer standard.

In other words, exactly the kind of thing NLE manufacturers want to hear.

And ATI and nVidia are already talking about including H.264 hardware chips on their graphics cards, which will take a huge burden off of the editing computer's CPU.

So yes, NLE support is unannounced right now. But all the chips appear to be lined up in the right way, in the right places, to point towards positive things happening.

Only in Sony products. No JVC or Canon HDV camera can do that.

Barry I just bet when AVCHD comes out it will also shoot SD too. Just like now we have SD/HDV or even the HVX200 has SD. AVCHD might be out done in a few years, but I bet we still have tape SD video.

One factor that could really move AVCHD along in acceptance would be if standard red laser dvd players were to have playback ability. AVCHD and VC1 are very close, and Microsoft was pushing for support in devices other than pc's and blu ray/ hd dvd devices. Problem is that digital rights got in the way and so now you have AVCHD and VC1 more closely tied to BD/HD players, so you do have a chicken/egg type situation.
The chip sets to decode the AVCHD are likely to come along if in the broadcast set top box market we see a move away from Mpeg2 to this format. AVCHD's origins were more in the broadcast distribution side of things than acquistion
Sharyn

I would tend to agree.
Here's how I see it.

Sony, one of two licensees of the format, says unequivacobly that AVC is a consumer format, both officially and in conversation. Greg is spot-on, no pun intended.
Here in Malaysia, one Panasonic person, in conversation, said the same although I don't consider that remotely close to any kind of a corporate statement.

One manufacturer, and all of their evangelists have screamed from the top of the mountains how bad MPEG and 4:2:0 is, how poor 25Mbps data rates are, and how weak temporal compression is for the past two years.
Canon, Sony, and JVC have all disputed that, and for the most part, HDV has been embraced worldwide to the tune of well beyond a quarter million units in only two years. Canon and JVC have both recently announced new HDV models, which further demonstrates a level of commitment.

Now, some evangelists for that same manufacturer that vehemently denounced HDV claim that a subset of the MPEG 2 format, that is more greatly compressed, same color space, less datarate is not only acceptable, but better. I'm failing to comprehend how that could possibly be so? The only serious benefit of one over the other is that audio is not muxed in the MPEG stream, allowing it to be any format. PCM, OGG, MP3, AC3, you name it, it can be there. Including 24 bit, 96K PCM or some compressed variant that doesn't currently exist. But saying that MPG2, 4:2:0 color, 25Mbps is "bad," but it's subset of greater compression, same colorspace and lesser bitrate is "good" is very confusing to me.

AVC HD has many profiles. The currently offered product profile is a non-professional quality. We all know that will eventually change. AVC includes profiles that allow for 4:4:4 color sampling and 10bit depth as well. Will those profiles be used? Absolutely. Otherwise, why do they exist? The question isn't "if" but "when." And I submit the when is a longer way off than folks are being led to believe. Incidentally, all this talk of "twice as efficient" is relevant only to low bitrates. As bitrate goes up, like anything else, efficiency begins to rapidly fall.

Moreover, having worked with the format, regardless of the HDI used, the current crop isn't ready for primetime yet. Captured as 4:2:2 uncompressed using an AJA card, that's a different story. Also not a sweet story for most users. Additionally, I'd like to know why the comparisons of AVC are constantly made only to HDV? Why not compare them to DVCProHD? Especially when discussing AVC-I, as that's a much more appropriate comparison.

I've never said the *format* can't manage growth, just that the current crop of camcorders are consumer.
How many formats have ever once approached maxing out their possibilities?

AVC will grow, of that I have zero doubt, and information to the contrary. But to deliberately throw red herrings into a discussion of the current crop of shippable camcorders (which would currently be ONE model) is wrong, IMO.

Ok, there are probably two things here. The Panasonic/Sony is a version of HiP/Level 4 encoded in an MPEG 2 Transport data stream. Isn't that the same data stream used for HDV?

H.264 doesn't cover the transport mechanism, so the combination, along with the support for specific audio channels, there is a new standard for a consumer HD format. Probably comparable or even superior to HDV formats.

However, what a lot of other people are adding, is the ITU-T H.264, also known as AVC and ISO MPEG4 Option 10, includes specs for a 10-bit 4:2:0, 4:2:2, and 4:4:4 encoding. This encoding holds the promise for a higher quality, lower bandwidth successor the DVCProHD and an equivalent capablity for non-Panasonic cameras. This could be recorded to solid state media, such as a P2 card, hard disk, or optical disk. It is possible (likely?) that 5.25 Blu-ray disk with 2008 technolgy would be able to store 3-4 hours of 10-bit 4:2:2 recording in real time. What the H1 and HD100 have shown is that sensor resolution does count and can be more important that recording format (which Panasonic should have won hands down, at least from a quality viewpoint). Hopefully the next generation of cameras will all have high resolution sensors.

This could mean the availablity of some very nice, hopefully affordable high resolution HD cameras with inexpensive, high resolution, highly portable recording in the next 3-4 years. That is about the same time frame from the introduction of the DVX100 to the present time.

So, to delve further into this, are you saying that you believe Sony will be introducing more HDV models? Interesting. I still think that if they do, it won't be for long. Unless you think broadcast will completely diverge from consumer, unlike Sony's recent past (PD170/VX2100, PD150/VX2000, PD100/TRV900, PDX10/TRV950, PD1/TRV9?, Z1/FX1 etc). It is very clear that Sony Consumer has said that AVC-HD is the the format they'll be pushing in the future, so presumably an FX2 or later will be AVC-HD based. Are you saying that you think if an AVC-HD FX2 came out, then the accompanying Z2 would eschew AVC-HD and would actually install a tape and be HDV-based? I guess that could happen, but frankly I just don't see it.

As for future commitments from the other manufacturers, Sharp has never produced any HDV models, and Canon has (as far as I know) expressed interest in AVC-HD. As for JVC, there was one interview where Matsushita said that JVC would not be producing any AVC-HD products.

Well, let's clarify a few facts instead of resorting to spin, please. First, I never said AVC-HD was "acceptable"; I'm an intraframe kind of guy and don't care for temporal compression at all. But I acknowledge that many people have found HDV acceptable, so for THEM, I would think they would find AVC-HD more than acceptable. And whether they or we find it acceptable is largely irrelevant, as the two dominant behemoths have declared AVC-HD is going forward (and besides them, a few others who have standardized on AVC include HD-DVD, blu-ray, NHK, BBC, DirecTV, DISH, the DVB, France, Estonia, Lithuania, Brazil, Tokyo Broadcasting System, Nippon Television, TV Asahi, Fuji Television, TV Tokyo, Euro1080, Premiere in Germany, ProSieben HD and Sat 1 HD, SkyHD, Sky Italia, USDTV, 3GPP, the Motion Imagery Standards Board of the US Department of Defense, NATO, the Internet Engineering Task Force, and lots of others at least according to Wikipedia).

Like it or not, embrace it or not, it's here and it's going to be huge.

But the concept that it's "a subset of MPEG-2" is completely erroneous, it's an unrelated compression system which has been lumped under the category of MPEG-4 Level 10, but has little to nothing in common with MPEG-2. Second, it's the same color space, yes, which I also find less than desirable. But how can you completely gloss over other, very viable improvements? Dude, I know you love your HDV, but come on...

AVC-HD is full-raster. This is not an improvement?

It's over twice as efficient in encoding. This is not an improvement? (talk about "at lower bitrates" all you want, but it is substantially more efficient than HDV)

It's uncompressed audio, at up to 7.1 channels. This is not an improvement?

And, it's open-standard. You gotta love that.

AVC-HD is everything HDV is, with better/more efficient compression, full-raster recording, and uncompressed audio. In every possible comparison it comes out ahead of HDV, except for 4:2:0 and long-gop structure (where it ties). What I've always said is: if someone finds the 4:2:0 and long-GOP nature of HDV acceptable, why wouldn't they be happier with the same color sampling, the same long-GOP nature, but more efficiency (which makes it about the equivalent of 36-megabit HDV), full-raster recording, uncompressed audio, and native 24p support?

Well, this shows me that you don't understand the excitement over the AVC-HD format at all, if you think that's the only serious benefit.

The first, #1, most-important, serious benefit to AVC-HD is: it's compatible! HDV is not. Can't you see that as a massive improvement? Cross-manufacturer, cross-platform, cross-industry. No more decks that will only play one format but not the other, etc. This is a MAJOR improvement.

Second, it's tapeless, which is the way things are going. To some of us, that's a massive improvement. I understand there are those who will cling to their tapes until the end, and that's fine, they're welcome to them. But there are very valid benefits to going tapeless.

Third, it's a better codec, and I can't fathom any respectable engineer arguing otherwise. 18 megabits of H.264 will deliver a substantially better, more robust image than 25 megabits of MPEG-2 any day of the week, and will be more resistant to motion artifacts or other issues.

Fourth, it's endorsed by both major manufacturers. It's not a "format war" within itself. That can only be viewed as a good thing.

Because a) that's a straw man argument, I don't know that I've ever said 25mbps of 4:2:0 MPEG-2 is "bad". I've said it's amazing for what it is, that it usually looks surprisingly good, and that it's a fantastic technical achievement. But that I don't trust it because it can and does fall apart in certain circumstances and I won't risk it. Some will, that's fine. Some have, got bitten, and abandoned it (like Monster Garage and WETA/Kong).

Second, I haven't said that AVC-HD as a format is "good" either. I've said that it will replace HDV, and it will. I have said that it's better than HDV, and it is, in every measurable way except the camera heads that are currently using it. That doesn't mean that I think it's appropriate for professional use, but I do think it will prove better and more acceptable than HDV was once there's a camera out that does it justice. Whether it crosses the line to "good enough" still remains to be seen, but obviously different people place that line at different threshholds.

Because AVC-HD and HDV are animals of the same kind, and DVCPRO-HD is an animal of a different kind. I would compare a 4:2:0 long-gop codec against a 4:2:0 long-gop codec as those are animals of the same kind. I wouldn't lump a 4:2:0 interframe long-gop codec against a 4:2:2 intraframe-only codec because those are animals of a different kind.

DVCPRO-HD would be more fairly compared against an intraframe codec like AVC-Intra. And that day will come, and I don't doubt that AVC-Intra will come out ahead in that comparison. Phil Livingston already said that the 50-megabit AVC-I looks as good as the 100-megabit DVCPRO-HD, while still being intraframe-only.

What you've said is that AVC-HD is only a consumer format and I'm pretty sure I've read where you've said it will only ever be a consumer format. And that's the part I disagree quite thoroughly with; I say that the current Sony cameras are consumer-only yes, but that someday someone is going to produce a camera head worthy of the format (such as a Sony Z2 or a Canon XLH2) and when they do, AVC-HD will not be pigeonholed as a "consumer format." It's a better format than HDV, and sooner or later some manufacturer is going to say "hang on... why don't we make an AVC-HD version of this camera instead of just using HDV with it" and that's when things will start to get very, very interesting.

BetaSP and DV, for two. I'm pretty sure that you can't extract much more out of BetaSP than the BVW600 got from it, and I can't imagine there's much left in DV that an SDX900 can't get from it. But it took years to get there, obviously the first crop of BetaSP and DV cameras didn't come close to maxxing out their format's capabilities.

Hold on there a minute. Who's throwing out red herrings? This is a thread for discussing THE FORMAT, not for discussing the current crop of underpowered consumer cams that Sony has saddled the format with. There are other threads and other forums for discussing the UX1 and comparing it against current HDV offerings or whatever. In this thread (at least judging by the title of this thread) we were supposed to be discussing the format itself. If anyone has done anything "wrong" (wrong? "morally and ethically incorrect?") by discussing a format and its potential... well... sorry, can't see eye to eye on that one. Especially since we have plenty of history to base that discussion on, having seen how HDV was introduced, the first product having been an ultra-consumer format, people saying it's "consumer only", then the FX1/Z1 hit and people changed their minds. Seems eerily familiar to me.

Everything I've read has indicated that H.264 is a much better compression algorithm than H.263 and MPEG2. Since AVCHD is being encoded at about the same bit rate as HDV (please correct me if I'm wrong), the image should be better. Especially around motion.

A quick scan of the Internet will show many presentations on H.264 showing the motion improvements.

What is also interesting is that Panasonic choose to use the encoding for a storage and not a quality improvement vs. DVCProHD. An interestng comment on the quality of the H.264 encoding algorithms.

True David, but have you encoded an H.264 file recently? It's definitely a hurry up and wait process at the moment. Not suitable for acquisition, just delivery. It's an excellent coding scheme in terms of efficiency, scalable from cell phone to full raster HD. But right now, you pay the price in terms of encoding time to get that efficiency.

When dedicated hardware H.264 chips come along as they did for MPEG2 years ago, you might get realtime encoding. But for now, I know of nothing that offers that option.

Wow, we all seem to be beating this poor horse to death.

-gb-

Quite obviously, the AVCHD cameras are doing HiP@Level 4 encoding in realtime. And Panasonic seems to have a solution for their P2 cards. Also, various broadcast hardware is available to encode video streams as HiP@Level4. (note: there are many more to encode MP@Level 3.)

It seems the solutions are nearing our doorstep...just not there yet. Like HD itself 2-3 years ago when the HD1 came out.

BARRY GREEN STATED /"Third, it's a better codec, and I can't fathom any respectable engineer arguing otherwise. 18 megabits of H.264 will deliver a substantially better, more robust image than 25 megabits of MPEG-2 any day of the week, and will be more resistant to motion artifacts or other issues."

Yes, probably true with a night long encoding on a powerful specialised workstation with appropriate hardware for minutes of HD video.

But i dont think that this is what we are going to get in a battery powered realtime encoderonboard a consumer cam ! THEORETICALLY, we agree, with some "declining advantage " when resolution increases. But a format is just as good as its realworld ENCODER IMPLEMENTATIONS. ( decoders usually are easier). And there is a big difference between encoding in a studio a Feature movie and doing recording on line .

Another point worth considering was the recent Soccer WorlCup, so called HD, broadcasted under some MPEG4/ H264 in some european countries. Very questionable definition, improvemnt verus SD noticeable but diaspointing. Even with the big guns of the big networks!

So I guess what you guys are saying is,,,,there will be better formats in the future. The big companies are battling it out. The new Canon's are awesome. Don't buy Sony, Canon or any HDV camera they are outdated, AVCHD is for consumers, AVCHD will be the standard,,,,,,

My guess is it will be blue ray. Sony will win. Record, then pop it in your Playstation.

But unless something really big happens in the next few months, or maybe if Sony or Panasonic tops the new Canon A1 I'm going to buy that and without a doubt HDV will live on for a few years. There is too much support for it right now and for some reason people still like tape! Companies like Canon are not clueless and would not introduce new HDV camera's if AVCHD was going to wipe it out anytime soon.
Same as Panansonic coming out with a DVX100b last year. A new 4:3 SD camera? I didn't get that one, a 16:9/4:3 (not the P2 model) would have been better but they must have thought the 4:3 market is going to be around for a few years.

So I don't thing 16:9 AVCHDHD is going to wipe out all other cameras anytime soon. Now if someone announced a new Z1U or DVX100 with AVCHD and SD soon I would think about it if I knew I could edit it. I know my mac can handle HDV. We will see.

There is nothing in the AVCHD standard that would prevent it from being written to existing HDV DV tape drives. The new format is encoded in the existing MPEG 2 Transport envelope. What you may see, in fairly short order, is an XH-A1s that uses the new format.

You think a A1s model already? Sorry but no way.

Nothing except the fact that the format specification clearly indicates tapeless recording media only. There will be *no* tape-based AVCHD camcorder, guaranteed.

In fairly short order? No. Not going to happen.

Eventually, Canon will most likely do an Optura / HV10 style AVCHD camcorder. Remember that Canon is always the last of the major manufacturers to bring any new format to market. They were last for DV, DVD, HDV, and most likely they will be the last for AVCHD.

This is a great discussion. Obviously there are going to be promoters and doubters of any new format. What I find especially intriguing is that fact that it is tapeless. Which means the vieo is just a big chunk of data. So their isn't any kind of loss from drop-outs or copying it.

What I'd really like to see is how are we going to edit the stuff. What kind of hardware/ software will be needed? If you can't edit and work with the footage, then it's nothing more than point and shoot. Potentially a huge business, but not really effecting the folks here.

Could we see a 3 teir approach?
1) AVCHD as the consumer format. Point, shoot, copy to DVD (blu-ray or HD DVD). transcode for Utube & the web.

2) HDV and DVC Pro HD continue to be for those of us here. The folks who actually create digital content?

3) Broadcast HD for the bigger guys.

For me this is quite interesting. The simple truth is that only a fraction of those people who shoot video edit it. Of those the great majority are just looking to cut out the crap, add some titles, beasic effects and a soundtrack. Then share it with friends & family via DVD or web. For these folks the tapeless AVCHD is the perfect solution, especially if it can go seemlessly t other media for delivery.

But that still leaves everyone here. The video editiors and independent film makers and event videographers and small post production facitities. Not the mass market, but still a very nice niche. One that is growing and is migrating to HD.

Just some thoughts. In my discussions with our NLE vendors, the only group that seems to really have this new format on the map is Sony Vegas. Avid, Adobe, Apple, Canopus and Matrox are all asking us about what we think about it - but not really saying anything more. They appear to be sitting more or less on the sideline and waiting to see if and how it actually takes hold.

Gary

Here's my 2 pennies (btw, not worth much these days :o) . . .

We have been considering an HMC150 which is an AVCHD camera also and I spoke with both Panasonic and Sony about them and this is the consensus that I derived from those technical conversations:

1.) AVCHD was designed out of the desire to produce a quick easy to use consumer HD format for youtube, iPod, streaming, cell phones, that would utilize efficient methodology to acheive big pictures in small packages for internet and uploading/downloading.

2.) Proof of this (they both said) was that the format was first and foremost sent to the consumer market with both DVD and HDD cameras which is the way the product was initially intended foregoing the opportunity to move the product into the prosumer lines with obvious limitations to bandwidth on color, gamma, and other such editable features that many pro folks like.

Lastly, on this whole direct-to-edit solid-state one always has to consider the often overlooked obvious . . when one's work is sent to solid state it is at risk of disappearing right before their very eyes in a flash or heartbeat or as some easterners say "a New York minute." Most will say, "awwww but . . " Here's the facts, we (through operator error) have lost four major projects using very expensive and very reliable solid-state media and to that end lost 1,000's over it and our only lost client since we been in business. So, we went to HDV tape with solid-state which gave us the best of both worlds BUT that doesn't mean that there aren't other options . . like the SafePhoto II, wherein one could shoot, dump the files into the SPII and KEEP the SD card so that there is 100% back up. However, if I were a wedidng videographer or an event videographer (and I am) I would not shoot to any solid-state media WITHOUT also shooting/recording to some other media at the same time just because before getting to the back up method, you have to have material on the card.

Have you ever lost any media on an SD or CF card? Ever forgot to tell Windows to unmout the card and then have the card lock up? Ever accidently offload data from a card onto a HDD and have the HDD fail? Ever offload from a card to a HDD, reformat the card, then accidently delete the offloadded data from the HDD? We have . . all these. :o(

One can "lose" your data whatever format it's in, or what it's on... proper planning would provide for at least a backup copy if not triple redundant copies in mission critical situations - that's a simple fact of ALL digital media, PERIOD, tapes included.

Tape dropout or tracking failure is ugly, I'll take a non-mechanical recording method any time, but of course you need to adjust workflow so EVERYONE touching the media understands backup protocols... Tape may be more "durable" and in some respects more convenient for long term storage, but barring a large EMP pulse in my general vicinity, I'm comfortable with redundant hard drives backed up fairly regularly, along with DVDs. Sure wish BluRay would become more affordable!

I'm not sure about the "consumer" orientation... perhaps it was ORIGINALLY intended to be a low grade format, but it seems to me that with several generations of refinement, AVCHD cameras are producing video every bit as good as HDV if not better. IIRC MP3 was originally a "low grade" lossy format (and still is I suppose), but considering the market penetration and the varying compression ratios and all, it seems to have become a robust method for delivering audio on a massive scale in many different ways, and via various media. I remember early JPEGs, and they looked like doody... now... it's a standard format and can deliver pretty respectable quality. AVCHD may be the video equivalent??

Sure the purist may still have a love affair with vinyl records and Hi8 tapes or whatever, but technology moves on. EVERY "new" technology always meets with it's detractors and goes through a learning curve before it either suceeds, disappears, or gets replaced with something else that's better (or better marketed).

From my standpoint, the first multicam shoot I did with AVCHD cameras sold me - dump 3 cameras to disk, less than 30 minutes from start to editing a 30 minute event, while it was still fresh, editing was a breeze, little or no color correction or tweaking needed, hit render (and yes, wait a long time...), burn to DVD, looked simply awesome, and painless workflow.

I'm interested in the HMC150, although I wish Sony would get off their bum and do something similar, as they seem to have hit a home run with the latest generation of tapeless cams in both the consumer and pro space, leaving a big toothless gap in the "prosumer" zone where the HMC resides...

Dave, by all means I'm not suggesting that solid-state isn't an excellent method of video production and I'm not saying that AVCHD isn't a great format, what I am saying is this . .

SOLID STATE IS VOLATILE - With tape (or other immediate copy method) there is a lot less chance of total failure, and if you are a wedding videographer, walking away with a card that might be good and might not and/or might get messed up in the transfer or virus or ?? is dangerous. I would NOT want to tell a bride that I "lost" their data. I'm sure I'd find out what data really meant by the time she found me. On the other hand if one can afford a volatile format that can disappear in the blink of any eye, then so be it but in our broadcast, wedding, event, operations where we get "one shot" to get it right and if we miss it, it isn't just "oh well," it's lawsuit, customer complaint, better business bureau, and very dissatisfied, mad, upset, vomitting . . well I may be going a little overboard but you get the point :o) Personally we've lost 4 projects due to stupidity on operators and one of them was ME :o( However, in producing over 156 video projects last year and just shy of that in the three years that preceded it, we've lost one tape and that was a broken tape which BTW, was sent to California and for $25 which included return shipping, we got the tape back minus 3 seconds of video. Not a bad workflow. However, with P2 solid state in only one years use we lost 3 projects data through operator error and one through HDD failure - one of which cost us our only lost customer since we began video production operations in 2000.

AVCHD BETTER? - We like AVCHD and were set to go 100% with it, studying just how we'd get 100% back up in the field, but when we looked at the footage from cameras like the HMC150, we simply didn't see that much improvement over HDV. In other words, perhaps we have arrived so high in definition and codec manipution inside NLE's that HDV or AVCHD is the same as six of one or half dozen of the other or even half full half empty. We recently saw a bicycle scene shot on an HMC150 and just weeks earlier had shot our own bicycle scene from a simliar angle, similiar lighting, etc. and although not exactly the same side by side shot, here's what we did see: 1. the foalage looked lower in definition than our HDV footage did; 2) there were what appeared to be pixel blocking along the edges of the foalage and sky which we do not see virtually ever on HDV although we don't have a lot of HDV experience (three months total); and 3) the colors do not appear any richer or cleaner than HDV, let alone the low light grain is similiar or even worse than we observe with our newly purchased HDV.

DIRECT-TO-EDIT & SONY - Sony actually does have an HDV solution that satisfies what you were referring to as similiar when they came out with the HVR-Z7U that comes with solid-state Compact Flash with a built in (removable) Memory Recording Unit (that we've actually used on our DVX100B's) and thus we are able to record to both tape AND solid state at the same time and accordinly satisified two goals: A. Direct to edit as you indicated AND B. 100% back up on tape as we like.

In closing, I'm not against any format or process, I am also not loyal to any company or product (all they all want is your money) I am however into warning new folks who are anxious to jump in the water and get wet and have fun not to make the mistakes I have and discover that there are sometimes a lot of bolders or shallow spots and to look hard and deep and talk to people who have had bad experiences not just the ones that are experts on A product or biased to a product due to allegiences because the real truth is learned in failures, not success. Any product or process is great when it is working right or in a particular right situation but in a bad one or in failure is where the rubber meets the road to success or failure. Sticking with alligences nearly cost me my business in NLE's but we managed to come out alive and no longer.

Now I've spent 3 cents :o)

Rodger brings up a lot of salient points, and we've been a tapeless house for nearly 3 years, excepting our extreme sport stuff like BASE, Skydiving, and motorcycle stunts. I disagree that the memory itself is the problem; it's what happens in the Xfer and aftermath that create problems. Dual backups are a *must* for critical projects. For this one reason alone, I *love* the Sony Z7 for the light work, and the 270 for heavier lifting. I also have recorded to DR60 while using SXS on the EX1, but all of this is moot if the storage mechanisms are junk or less than bombproof.
Folks that buy cheap WD storage or similar at the local Costco are just begging for trouble vs the guys that buy enterprise-grade drives. Logging, adding metadata, and having a good file system is equally critical.
FWIW, I have a class that I teach on this subject at NAB, and will be teaching tapeless workflows at the NYC NAB in November.

I can't point a finger at P2 quite as hard as Roger does, although I have big issue with P2. the only "stability" issue I can point to with P2 is the small pins DO bend (although you'll hear folks swear to heaven they don't) and dirt DOES get inside the small connector points (Again, you'll hear folks swear they don't). The media itself is bulletproof until you remove it from the camera and insert it to something else and vice versa. CF cards *may* suffer the same fate, but CF has been around longer, has a lot more use, and has fewer connections. It also is significantly cheaper, even for UDMA CF.

Tapeless workflow is WONDERFUL and can save a LOT of time. But....consider your intentionality, and plan your post-acquisition workflow CAREFULLY and with long-term goals and searchability in mind.

Rodger -

One must ALWAYS take the time to understand new technology/processes/workflow before undertaking serious production, unless one wants to discover lots of "new" problems while "on the job training"... you yourself admit it's not the tech, it's operator error... in most cases cameras don't kill footage, bad operators kill footage...

I use cheap drives, and I've had some "episodes", but I've recovered anything critical because I back up data to another cheap drive <wink>, sure it's a pain, but realistically you need to make it a part of using technology that can and will eventually fail. You change the oil in your car, right? Tires need replacing, and you have to keep putting air in them...

ANY mechanical device can fail under the "right" conditions, just like "human beans" can make mistakes. The key lies in establishing and maintaining a process to minimize mistakes/errors/failures that is appropriate to the situation.

Tapeless has been painless, but I've got quite a lot of time on HDV, and THAT was a pain being an early adopter...

I like tapeless to edit with the Z7U but what I really like . . is having that tape just in case :o) I also like that HDMI OUT and with the Sony Z7U front end . . wow what a picture. I can assure you that my HVX never gave me this picture. Whew, it will scare you it's so HOT. I guess it's true there just is NO REPLACEMENT for a removable lens.