DV Info Net - AVCHD Lite Format

DV Info Net (https://www.dvinfo.net/forum/)

- Photo for HD Video (D-SLR and others) (https://www.dvinfo.net/forum/photo-hd-video-d-slr-others/)

- - AVCHD Lite Format (https://www.dvinfo.net/forum/photo-hd-video-d-slr-others/142513-avchd-lite-format.html)

The camera can record to 17MBPS if you haven’t read my previous post. That’s not low at all especially for a small still camera.

Here's the question for me - I've been avoiding avchd because I have a g5 dual 2ghz running fcp 5 and I always read I needed a intel mac to use avchd - will I be able to play with these cameras ? I know it's really the wrong forum but since this is a new type of avchd . I really want a underwater video and still camera and 10 feet is enough and the price is right also, but I don't really want to spend $2500 on a new computer and $600 more to upgrade fcp again , all for a $400 camera . thanks

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kurth Bousman (Post 1002896)

I don't really want to spend $2500 on a new computer and $600 more to upgrade fcp again , all for a $400 camera

Well, you don't upgrade computers and software all for a $400 camera. You upgrade computers and software for other reasons. Some folks go through that upgrade process more frequently than others; for me it's usually every three years or so. The point is that when you are eventually ready to upgrade, you'll be able to enjoy much more flexibility with today's cameras, even though they might not be the primary reason for that upgrade in the first place.

Chris , so I assume your saying "no" ? Obviously for example if I wanted a new cheap waterproof camera and I can't do "any" avchd , then the new sanyo would be , for me now, a much better choice . When I do finally buy a new system it will be for a Scarlet , not a avchd consumer camera . This is all too expensive and since I'm a starving artist type and not a commercial event videographer , then I really have to stretch that "3" to a "5" or "6" year cycle . With photography , since I only print at 16"x24" and don't have any desire to go larger I found out that I don't need any more than I already own , a canon 20d and an Epson 4000. In this technological world , it's a warm feeling when you can arrive at a point and not feel a need to keep upgrading every few years . That's what I'm hoping the Scarlet brings me finally for video. So until that point , no new Macs , and I guess , no avchd waterproof consumer cameras . Sorry Steven !

I'm sorry I wasn't clear. AVCHD Lite will indeed most likely require an Intel Mac. FCP5 will not support it, but iLife09 (that is, that latest version of iMovie) probably will, after an update. AVCHD Lite is probably not a consideration for you until after your G5 is replaced. Hope this helps,

"Lite" mean encoding different Level@Profile than AVCHD "standart" without B-frame?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Kurth Bousman (Post 1002896)

Here's the question for me - I've been avoiding avchd because I have a g5 dual 2ghz running fcp 5 and I always read I needed a intel mac to use avchd -

There's a solution. If you import AVCHD using FCP or iMovie, yes, you need an intel mac.

However, back when I had an AVCHD camera I converted my clips on my powerPC using a series of steps that relied on open source software. It was a bit complex and took awhile.

someone commercialized this process under the trade name "voltiac" and this should work for you.

Here's the website:
VoltaicHD | ShedWorx

Here’s a video sample:
what is a .mts-file?: Panasonic Talk Forum: Digital Photography Review

Just remember that it’s never good to judge a camera based on the first example that you see online.

ouch

this panasonic camera only does 30p or 25p and then doubles it!

DMC-ZS3/DMC-TZ7 | PRODUCTS | LUMIX | Digital Camera | Panasonic Global

1,280 x 720 pixels,

AVCHD Lite (SH: 17 Mbps / H: 13 Mbps /
L: 9 Mbps):

[NTSC] 60p *CCD output is 30p (fps).
[PAL] 50p *CCD output is 25p (fps).

Unfortunately my old HD TV doesn’t do 720p so my test may not be 100% accurate but playing the clip on the PS3, one frame at a time, I can see that every 2 frames looks alike which means the frames are being doubled instead of calculating the first and third frame to get the second frame and so on.

The only theory I have is that camera’s CCD may overheat if it’s used to output 1280x720 60p. Would have been different if it was a CMOS or Live Mos chip because the power consumption is less.

It’ll still give a better picture quality than all the other small cameras but it would have been better if it did 30p while still keeping the bit rate at 17MBPS.

It's a few things, really...

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ethan Cooper (Post 1002773)

Chris - I understand that bitrate isn't the only determining factor in quality, but if the 12 - 15 Mbps AVCHD was all it was cracked up to be in the first place why did the camera manufactures decide to up the max bitrates on their cameras?

It's not one thing. The problem in the early camera is that they were simultaneously dealing with a new compression technology, cutting the bitrate in half (versus tape), and upping the resolution (1920x1080 rather than 1440x1080).

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ethan Cooper (Post 1002773)

Seems to me that the early AVCHD cams that shot those 12 - 15 Mbps rates were getting some not too stellar reviews and that was why I was initially confused as to why they would try to tout low bitrate AVCHD as a good thing.

The quality of these early videos could have been helped by higher bitrates, sure. But they probably still wouldn't have been stellar. The H.264/AVC CODEC is quite a bit more complex than MPEG-2, and they needed (and probably still need) more evolution on this to deliver realtime compression on a portable camera that rivals MPEG-2 in quality, even at higher bitrates.

There's little question that well encoded AVC delivers at least twice the coding efficiency as MPEG-2... most satellite HD these days has gone to AVC, and the quality actually improved over that of MPEG-2. I've been doing HDV -> AVC for Blu-Ray delivery, with little to no observable quality loss. But it's one thing to claim that's possible when rendering for a day on a dedicated Core2 Quad machine, another to get that in a small camera in realtime.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ethan Cooper (Post 1002773)

Now seeing as how it's targeted at 720, I can understand the lowish bitrate a bit more, but I'm just pointing out that those bitrates in that particular codec weren't cutting it early on.

They're going up to 17Mb/s, which is actually an improvement over first generation AVCHD camcorders (current ones are going as high as 24Mb/s, the official spec limit, on 1080 line material). This ought to be a huge improvement over the MJPEG... I have a TZ5, and while have occasionally used its 720p MJPEG video as "C-Camera" inserts for DVD, you wouldn't likely confuse this with HDV quality.

There are a few questions to answer... if the CCD only does 30p, what's the point of delivering 60p? And in the TZ5, they have had problems with focusing in video mode. Basically, the focusing algorithm you want for a still camera is dramatically different than what you want for a video camera. The original TZ5 code didn't seem to understand this at all; updates address is a bit, but you still get too many visually distracting autofocus seeks. I would consider the upgrade, if they really addressed this.

I'd also like to hear what makes the AVCHD "Lite"... it can't just be going 720p, because that's going to work under regular AVCHD, far as I can tell. Are they using normal features of the AVC CODEC, or leaving out some of it... which ought to still work fine with regular decoders, and would decrease complexity at encoding time, but might also make big compromises in video quality.

Watch.Impress review