Opinions of AVCHD vs. DV

DV is Standard Definition...a dying format. EVERYONE is making the push to HD.

AVCHD is an HD format. Contest ends there. HD vs SD...game over...as SD is going out the door.

The few station that still accept SD footage, DV as shot on the DVX-100 is acceptable as an acquisition format. AVCHD currently is consumer and "prosumer" level, meaning that consumers use it, and people who do corporate, government, education and wedding and event videography can use this format...and the two Panasonic AVCCAM cameras are targetted at them firmly. But cable networks haven't OK'd this format for use yet in HD programming...and Networks have not either.

HDV, which is even lower than AVCHD, is a better choice than DV.

I'm trying to get Discovery to OK the HMC-150 as an acquisition camera...to replace the horrid HDV stuff we shoot. GOD I hate HDV.

Shane

Doesn't Panasonic make one or two AVCHD shoulder-mounted cameras, or am I just getting those confused with their shoulder-mounted P2 cams? I haven't seen Discovery Channel in HD, but I know that Mythbusters uses my same Sony camera (the HVR-A1U) and I believe that Deadliest Catch also uses Sony's HDV cameras. Obviously you have experience with them and I guess they're not good experiences, but is AVCHD any easier to work with? I take it that when you work with AVCHD, you convert to ProRes? Is Panasonic AVCHD vs. Sony AVCHD any different?

Back to your question, the DVX was a great camera, but with the HVX and now these AVCHD cameras, the DVX's aren't garbage by any means, but if quality is what you're going for, HD is where it's at.

-Brian

Shane Ross wrote:
DV is Standard Definition...a dying format. EVERYONE is making the push to HD.

Who is "everyone" and for years now, analog and standard def has been predicted to die, hasn't happened yet.

I agree. There are lots of non-network cable operations that simply can't afford the infrastructure change and will stay SD for many years to come.

OK, fine. But HD is still better than SD. WELL, AVCHD is better than DV...HDV is arguable.

-shane

(sorry, no underdog today...laptop busy so I am on another computer, one without the code for the image)

I feel a "discussion" coming on.

Shane Ross wrote:
OK, fine. But HD is still better than SD.

For what purpose? Is "The Bachelor" or "American Idol" or "Oprah" or "Your Local Nightly News" any more compelling to watch simply because it's transmitted to you in HD? Have those shows gotten better because of more expensive pixels?

Would "Laugh In" or "The Honeymooners" or "All In The Family" or "Gilligan's Island" or the first three seasons of "M A*SH" been so much better had they been done in HD?

Most folks don't know what makes their viewing experience better or not, they see bigger screens, increased detail (noise) and brighter colors and assume it's better. I do realize I'm making a gross generalization here with that statement but I've been to any number of homes with crappy consumer displays viewing highly compressed hd signals via their local satellite or cable provider. It's just a matter of physics that the more hd you have, the more it has to be compressed to get it down that little thin piece of copper.

Why is HD better than SD?

OK...if you are talking how the end result finally gets to your house...then it depends. You and I have seen those hugely expensive sports games that are shot and broadcasted in HD...that would look great on an HDTV if you had digital HD cable...look like crap on a small 13" TV that gets horrid over-the-air reception in the local bar. In that case, you'd be fine shooting with a Fisher Price cassette camera.

Pixels...more pixels make it better. Well...and lens. The lens is really the most important part of a camera. So a DVX-100a might be better than a consumer level AVCHD camera due to the lens...but DVX-100a vs HMC-150...similar lens. So the larger pixels will win, and slightly better compression. DV compression is icky...you can see those horizontal lines on curved objects. But then it has a 4:1:1 color space vs 4:2:0 of AVCHD and HDV and XDCAM.

BUT...this all REALLY comes down to the talent of the camera operator. Give me a RED camera and ask me to shoot something, and give a Hollywood Cinematographer a DVX-100a and have him shoot something, I have NO DOUBT that his stuff will look better than mine. Mine might be sharper...might be...but his image will be far better.

And true, story is king, but assuming that you have a good story, what is the better camera to shoot that with?

Shane

You both make good points.

And I bet you'ld both rather see Ginger and MaryAnn in HD than SD, but in either display you would likely watch anyway...at least for Ginger.

Zebulun wrote:
Would "Laugh In" or "The Honeymooners" or "All In The Family" or "Gilligan's Island" or the first three seasons of "M A*SH" been so much better had they been done in HD?

Uh, yeah. Especially Honeymooners or All in the Family. Jackie Gleeson's face was so expressive (ditto Carroll O'Connor) that their performances would have only been enhanced if viewed in HD. It may not improve the story (but then again with the 16:9 aspect and the better pic, it may), but actors' performances come across better.

As far as M A*SH, well, it was shot on film and so it already had a leg up on the standard sitcom of the day. And it's debatable whether HD is a superior format to film.

Why is HD better than SD?

The same reason film is better than SD. More definition gives the film maker more to work with.

Now whether people are satisfied to watch HD from a highly compressed wifi signal at the coffee shop on their iphone is another topic.

Andy

So you're speaking from an aesthetic point of view then, it's safe to assume?

I fail to see how Jackie Gleason's or anyone's performances would have been better simply because of a technicality. Same with "The Carol Burnett Show," would that have been better in hd?

Why is film better than standard definition video?

I think perhaps some contextual arguments are needed.

OK-- I've been following this with a smile on my face, but now I've got to throw in. As to why film is "better" than SD-- it's down to molecules vs pixels. Film stores it's info at a molecular level, while an sd video frame is simply 345,600 pixels. Plenty more molecules in a frame of film!

An interesting question though is why film looks better (richer, more detailed, better contrast, etc etc) even after it is telecine'd to video; since video is video.

Nothing is going to beat film on the basis of image performance for a long long time, but...
a. To make it higher definition, you just make it bigger.
b. infinitely variable frame rate
c. probably 16 stops of latitude on modern stocks
d. log response
e. not interlaced, not progressive; it is +an image+
f. lasts for centuries
g. much wider gamut
h. workflow is completely understood and mature
i. insurable
j. shall I go on?


and

Mary Ann. NO need for elaboration, I should think.

jPo

stanwelks wrote:
1. Are the pro AVCHD cameras coming out now such as this one
http://news.cnet.com/8301-17938_105-10223118-1.html
going to replace DV based cameras, such as the Panasonic DVX 100 anytime soon?

Eventually, yes.

Soon? Who knows. I've been noticing that New York City rush hour is much shorter than it's been in many many years.

But then, this type of economy can be powerful justification for moving down in camera, if one is intent on buying a new camera.

2. Is there still some advantage to using a camera such as the DVX 100 vs. this newer type of AVCHD cam?

Other than sunk cost - no.

Assuming equally competent hands, AVCHD will look better than DV at both HD frame sizes and SD frame sizes.

I saw a demo of the AVCCam cameras at the NJ FCP UG last month. Very impressive demo of the capabilities of the AVC codec. I have a demo DVD they handed out that I've been itching to pull footage from and test the workflow - but have been blessed with being too busy. Maybe one day soon I'll get around to it. Even better - maybe a client will walk in with that footage, I'm itching to see how it stands up in color correction.

- pi

and

Mary Ann. NO need for elaboration, I should think.

Oh sure, you might marry Mary Ann, but you would be asking for Ginger at your bachelor party.

You'll get no argument from me on the points you've provided which answers the general question of why film is better than video, however, is it better in every context?

And I'll ask again, is "American Idol" so much more compelling in HD vs. SD?

By the way, I think Mary Ann was on film rather an recorded to videotape.