Do any of you have experience editing AVCHD video or HD video?

[DisneySuiteFreak]

I am debating purchasing a Canon HV40 HD camcorder or perhaps getting one of their other ones that use SD memory cards. The problem is my computers are older and I don't think that they will be able to handle editing AVCHD or HD video from the HV40. It's MiniDV, but still my XP won't even see it without adding in all these various software and other gobbilty gook. Anyway, if anyone of you has experience editing HD video either from the mini Dv or AVCHD format, than I would really appreciate your input. One good thing I hear about the HV40 is that it shoots in true 24p or 30p now so you don't have to deal with pulldown issues. I imagine that would remove a lot of steps in the process.
I will obviously need a new computer. DH and I own a recording studio, so we use all Macs for that. I am on Windows only because I work from home and I couldn't access my work email without installing Windows on our old Mac laptop. So I dumped that and got my computers I use now. Any suggestions for what type of computer I would need in order to not have to break a sweat learning how to edit HD video? I hear that most of the pros use Quad core Macs. I am not a pro, so I don't know if I want to invest that much money into a computer like that. However, I also hear that a similar computer in the Windows world would cost me just as much if not more than the Quad core Mac and I would have to deal with pop ups, spam and viruses possibily interfering with the editing process, whereas none in the Mac environment...
Any suggestions or ideas or thoughts about how difficult it is to edit HD video?

 

[gacompguy]

If you're looking to stay with Mac's for editing video, the current generation of Macs (both desktop and laptop) will do what you want (they'll also come with the current version of iMovie). I currently have one of the 13 inch MacBook Pro's that came out earlier this year. I've been editing HD video on it in iMovie since I got it with no problems. My only complaint is the size and speed of the hard drive. I'll probably upgrade that early next year to a 7200 RPM 500 GB later this year.

Honestly, a Quad Core system will probably be overkill for what you're doing. If you're looking to get a desktop system, stick with an iMac with as much RAM and hard drive space as you can afford. If you can get a bigger screen... great! If you can't, you can always order the adapter from Apple and add a second screen when you can afford it.

 

[MarkBarbieri]

First, the HV40, to my knowledge, records in HDV rather than AVCHD. There is a big difference. I can edit HDV realtime on my machine (an older quad core PC), but AVCHD eats its lunch. I don't know of any PCs or Macs that can edit AVCHD in realtime without specialized hardware. It's a great recording format, but a lousy editing format.

If you do get an AVCHD camcorder, I recommend that you learn a little about codecs and learn to transcode from AVCHD to something much easier to edit. Cineform has some great solutions for this.

Using the proper editing codecs, you should be fine doing editing with any relatively modern Mac or PC. I'm under the impression that most video professionals use Macs, so you'd be safe staying there. If you are PC comfortable and use a cross-platform editor like Vegas or Adobe Premiere, you can save a lot of money with a PC.

My kids have been after me for faster computers for a while, so next weekend, they are building their own PCs. They'll be quad-core boxes with 4 gig of RAM and will cost under $500 (using some left over hard drives or they'd be closer to $600).

 

[DisneySuiteFreak]

If you're looking to stay with Mac's for editing video, the current generation of Macs (both desktop and laptop) will do what you want (they'll also come with the current version of iMovie). I currently have one of the 13 inch MacBook Pro's that came out earlier this year. I've been editing HD video on it in iMovie since I got it with no problems. My only complaint is the size and speed of the hard drive. I'll probably upgrade that early next year to a 7200 RPM 500 GB later this year.

Honestly, a Quad Core system will probably be overkill for what you're doing. If you're looking to get a desktop system, stick with an iMac with as much RAM and hard drive space as you can afford. If you can get a bigger screen... great! If you can't, you can always order the adapter from Apple and add a second screen when you can afford it.

Thanks gacompguy. Lots of good info!

First, the HV40, to my knowledge, records in HDV rather than AVCHD. There is a big difference. I can edit HDV realtime on my machine (an older quad core PC), but AVCHD eats its lunch. I don't know of any PCs or Macs that can edit AVCHD in realtime without specialized hardware. It's a great recording format, but a lousy editing format.

If you do get an AVCHD camcorder, I recommend that you learn a little about codecs and learn to transcode from AVCHD to something much easier to edit. Cineform has some great solutions for this.

Using the proper editing codecs, you should be fine doing editing with any relatively modern Mac or PC. I'm under the impression that most video professionals use Macs, so you'd be safe staying there. If you are PC comfortable and use a cross-platform editor like Vegas or Adobe Premiere, you can save a lot of money with a PC.

My kids have been after me for faster computers for a while, so next weekend, they are building their own PCs. They'll be quad-core boxes with 4 gig of RAM and will cost under $500 (using some left over hard drives or they'd be closer to $600).

Yes, the HV40 is HDV and the others are all AVCHD. Honestly, I don't know why the AVCHD camcorders are so popular. I have read so much about how it's difficult to work with, you do need the codecs and if you are not computer tech savvy (which most people aren't) it's not easy to learn either. That's actually why I was looking at the HV40 instead of the AVCHD cams.
Thanks Mark. I think I will get the HV40. I wish Nikon would come out with a Camera that could do true HD Video without time limitations. A lot of people on the forums dedicated to the HV 20,30,40 cams are switching over because they get more control with a DSLR. I love the video shot with my D90, but it's 720p (which is fine for me, it's still looks great!) and the worst thing is you can only shoot in 5 minute increments. I don't know how some people have managed to make movies using them. I hear that Canon has a new 7D coming out that can shoot HD video at 30p...and it's listed at around $1700. That's the buzz on the HD video forums anyway... I wonder if there is a time limitation like the Nikon DSLR? I was surprised to find out that a lot of semi-pros who shoot indie HD films often outfit their cams with old Nikkor and Canon lenses like the 50mm 1.8, etc because they have greater control over depth of field. I'm wavering in my decision to get the HV40 only because I wonder if Nikon will be coming out soon with any Camera that will be able to shoot HD for longer than 5 minutes. I would be all over that.

 

[Groucho]

However, I also hear that a similar computer in the Windows world would cost me just as much if not more than the Quad core Mac and I would have to deal with pop ups, spam and viruses possibily interfering with the editing process, whereas none in the Mac environment...

I'll avoid a "rolleyes" smiley here - but anyone telling you that is full of hooey.

1. Popups - blame the browser, not the operating system. I get no popups using Firefox. I think even IE8 is relatively pop-up free, but I'll stick to Firefox, thank you very much.
2. Spam - again, that's the email, it has nothing to do with the operating system.
3. Viruses - well, technically, the big issue nowadays is spyware, and again - if you use Firefox and Thunderbird (the latter for mail) and don't open attachments or run programs that you're not sure what they are, you're likely to be pretty safe. I have never gotten a spyware infection or virus on my PC, and I go to some pretty disreputable websites.

Cost-wise - again, that seems kind of nuts. You don't need any kind of special hardware for editing HD video - it's all processor and memory. Your video and sound cards won't make much of a difference. I'm quite sure that you will be able to get a faster processor and more memory for quite a bit less in the PC world (plus easier to upgrade and/or repair in the future.)

I wish Nikon would come out with a Camera that could do true HD Video without time limitations. A lot of people on the forums dedicated to the HV 20,30,40 cams are switching over because they get more control with a DSLR. I love the video shot with my D90, but it's 720p (which is fine for me, it's still looks great!) and the worst thing is you can only shoot in 5 minute increments.

5 minutes is a bit much but there the issue is not so much with the cameras as with the memory cards. Unlike a DV tape, a memory card is plain old removable storage designed to talk nicely to a PC. That means that it's formatted in FAT (for 2g or smaller cards) or FAT32 format, the latter of which came out with Windows 95 OSR2 and supports formats much larger than 2g. However, FAT32 still has a limitation which is the cause for the headaches - it can't handle a single file that's larger than 4g in size. That means that any digital camera shooting video is limited to however much fills in 4g of space.

Alternatives are seamlessly moving to a second large file or requiring that the card be formatted in NTFS format, which can handle the large files but can't read in Windows 95/98/ME. (Yes, there are still people using them, though they are probably not the ones shooting HD video with their DSLR!)

I don't know how some people have managed to make movies using them. I hear that Canon has a new 7D coming out that can shoot HD video at 30p...and it's listed at around $1700.
...
I'm wavering in my decision to get the HV40 only because I wonder if Nikon will be coming out soon with any Camera that will be able to shoot HD for longer than 5 minutes. I would be all over that.

The 7D was officially announced a few weeks ago, it's actually IMHO pretty similarly specced to the Pentax K-7 (more so than anything else out there) but it can do 1080P at 30fps. (The K-7 does 720P at 30fps and a 3:2 aspect ratio 1536x1024 at 30fps.)

I would assume that Nikon will have 1080P at 30fps DSLRs coming at some point but it's not a good sign that their highest-spec, just-released D300S still only does 720p at 24fps while Canon's T1i that costs less than half as much can do 30fps (and 1080p at 24fps which the D300s can't do at all.)

It's amazing how much can change in just 6-12 months... it was just a short while ago that many photographers were disgusted at the idea of video on their DSLR (the same ones who choked at the idea of live view) and now it's become an important feature on the checklist!

 

[DisneySuiteFreak]

I'll avoid a "rolleyes" smiley here - but anyone telling you that is full of hooey.

Thanks Groucho.

Cost-wise - again, that seems kind of nuts. You don't need any kind of special hardware for editing HD video - it's all processor and memory. Your video and sound cards won't make much of a difference. I'm quite sure that you will be able to get a faster processor and more memory for quite a bit less in the PC world (plus easier to upgrade and/or repair in the future.)

Yeah, but then I would need to know how to make it myself. I've heard that if I had to buy it out of the box like that (quad core) they would cost as much as the macs. Is that true?

5 minutes is a bit much but there the issue is not so much with the cameras as with the memory cards. Unlike a DV tape, a memory card is plain old removable storage designed to talk nicely to a PC. That means that it's formatted in FAT (for 2g or smaller cards) or FAT32 format, the latter of which came out with Windows 95 OSR2 and supports formats much larger than 2g. However, FAT32 still has a limitation which is the cause for the headaches - it can't handle a single file that's larger than 4g in size. That means that any digital camera shooting video is limited to however much fills in 4g of space.

Thanks for this info. I read something about the fact that it had to do with FAT32, but I didn't know what that was!

The 7D was officially announced a few weeks ago, it's actually IMHO pretty similarly specced to the Pentax K-7 (more so than anything else out there) but it can do 1080P at 30fps. (The K-7 does 720P at 30fps and a 3:2 aspect ratio 1536x1024 at 30fps.)

OMG don't tell me that! I'm already invested to the Nikon line of cameras...

I would assume that Nikon will have 1080P at 30fps DSLRs coming at some point but it's not a good sign that their highest-spec, just-released D300S still only does 720p at 24fps while Canon's T1i that costs less than half as much can do 30fps (and 1080p at 24fps which the D300s can't do at all.)

I agree, it's not a good sign. On some of the HV20,30,40 forums people are speculating that it's an issue with Sony because they get the CMOS sensor from Sony and Sony doesn't want Nikon to eat into it's DSLR and camcorder market more than it already has. Do you think this is true or has merit? One thing I do know is that the camera does shut the video feature down at 5:00 because the sensor can overheat if used for much longer than that. I believe in the manual it says something about not using it for continuous shooting without taking breaks in between use due to the possibility of overheating. What would cause the sensor in the D90 to overheat when the 7D and the T1i don't have an issue with it? They are CMOS sensors too right?

It's amazing how much can change in just 6-12 months... it was just a short while ago that many photographers were disgusted at the idea of video on their DSLR (the same ones who choked at the idea of live view) and now it's become an important feature on the checklist!

I know! I never thought I would care to shoot video on my camera, but I have to say that the videos I have shot straight out of the camera is soooo much nicer than any of the videos I've ever shot w/ camcorders. The reason is the ability to use the fast lenses and capturelow light shots and have the nice creamy background so it looks more movie like as opposed to looking like a home video. I just hope they don't come out with an upgraded Pro camera like the D3 or D700 and then put the Full 1080p HD video in that. I don't think the pro photographers would be interested in shooting HD video as much as regular consumers like myself. Plus, it would be way too cost prohibitive for regular consumers or hobbyists who would use the feature.
Thanks Groucho!

 

[MarkBarbieri]

I'd be wary of replacing a video camera with a still camera that does video. The still camera that does video got lots of attention in the pro video arena for one reason - DOF control. Something like a 5DM2 can get low DOF shots that you can't get with any video camera costing 10 times as much. That's about the only advantage, though.

Other than some little gimmick films to show off the capabilities, you won't find many people doing serious video work with still cameras. It's just too hard.

Here are a just a few reasons why I use my video camera instead of my 5DM2 for video in most circumstances:

1) Articulated video screen.
2) Viewfinder that works while shooting.
3) Ability to control audio levels (5DM2 is auto-gain).
4) Useful built in mics on the video camera.
5) Viewscreen features like zebra stripes and peaking.
6) The video camera autofocuses much, much better (though relying on autofocus with HD requires a lot of luck, prayer, and contrast).
7) A useful manual iris control. You can't smoothly adjust the aperture while shooting on a DSLR.
8) Built in ND filters.
9) Greater control over the video signal to adjust colors, contrast, knee points, etc.
10) The shape of a DSLR isn't as good for handheld video.

Don't get me wrong. I love the video capability of the 5DM2. It has been extremely useful as a supplemental video camera. I just wouldn't consider relying on it as my primary video camera if I planned on shooting any serious video.

To make video work with the 5D, I typically record my audio separately. I also use it for more predictable shots so that I can work out the focus and exposure in advance. It's great for things like static interview shots (with externally recorded audio). Don't even think about trying to capture low DOF shots with motion relative to the film plane.

You may also want to pay attention to frame rates. Some cameras, like the 5DM2, only shoot at one frame rate (30fps). Filmmakers like to shoot at 24fps. You can't easily mix the two. Personally, I do everything at 30fps, so it doesn't bother me. For serious indie film people, though, their whole world is 24p.

One other thing to watch for in the Nikon cameras is the Codec that they use. To date, I think Canon is the only combocam maker using a processor that can do AVCHD. I think Nikon and the others are using Motion JPG, which is a much less powerful compression algorithm. That forces them to have larger files or lower quality video (or a combination of the two). I'd estimate that you need about 4 times the storage to encode mjpeg at the same quality as AVCHD. On the other hand, the files should be easier to edit. That's just a question of computing power and compression software. That'll almost certainly change when Nikon gets their next chipset into production.

 

[Groucho]

I agree with Mark on most of these issues... though I'm not sure that AVCHD is necessarily better for capturing. When recording, you want something that is going to record the most amount of data possible - AVCHD is very high compression, which means you fit more data in but possibly at a cost of quality. Now, turn the bitrate up and you can get back there, but if you're doing something on a high-quality level, you want the least compression to begin with, then add compression later. Of course, that's a lot more work (time and CPU power) than just editing the AVCHD stream as is. Note that I don't know what the various bitrates of the DSLRs recording streams are so I'm not trying to suggest that one is necessarily better than the other, just trying to look at both sides of it.

FWIW, if you look at some sites that have video capture tutorials (like converting VCR tapes to DVDs), mjpeg is often the top pick for the format to do the initial conversion in, before converting to the final output format. (HuffyUV being another popular choice.)

One other thing I'd read somewhere, not sure of the truth, was that most DSLRs do not really put out detail for a full 1080P resolution... that the video stream is grabbed by pulling only some pixels and binning most of them, and you lose detail somewhere just north of 720P. I don't know how true it is or how it applies to the various DSLRs out there, but it might be something to keep in mind if you've really got 1080p on the brain.

DSF - not sure on "out of the box" PCs since I usually build my own... let me take a quick peek. Since the Macs use the same processors as Intel PCs do now, it's fairly easy to compare. (From what I've read over the years, once you get past the OS and benchmark the actual apps like Photoshop, they perform virtually the same on either platform.)
Entry-level imac - 2.66 Core 2 Duo, 2g of RAM, 320g drive, $1,200.
HP p160t - 2.93 Core 2 Duo, 3g of RAM, 320g drive - $450 plus monitor (say, $150 or so)
Cheapest Mac Pro - 2.66 Xeon, 3g of RAM, 640g drive, $2,500
hp Elite e9150t - 2.66 i7 (newer quad-core processor family), 4g of RAM, 640g drive, $850

So yeah, I'd say that you can save a wee bit of money.

As for Sony and them potentially handicapping Nikon... who knows? But I kind of doubt it. Lately Nikon has been really keep a tight lid on who designs and makes their sensors - until the D300, I think it was all clearly Sony yet the D300 sensor claimed to be Nikon's own design, yet the Sony A700 seemed to be suspiciously similar (different wiring to it so a few different characteristics, but by and large, pretty comparable.) Pentax is keeping secret who's making the 12mp sensor in the upcoming K-x - Sony? Samsung? Someone else?

It's pretty surprising that Sony hasn't gotten on the HD video bandwagon, especially since they seem to be releasing new DSLRs every few weeks, but I'm sure that it's inevitable... I kind of doubt they're pressuring Nikon not to do HD video, though.

 

[DisneySuiteFreak]

Thanks Mark. What video camera are you using if you don't mind my asking?

One other thing to watch for in the Nikon cameras is the Codec that they use. To date, I think Canon is the only combocam maker using a processor that can do AVCHD. I think Nikon and the others are using Motion JPG, which is a much less powerful compression algorithm. That forces them to have larger files or lower quality video (or a combination of the two). I'd estimate that you need about 4 times the storage to encode mjpeg at the same quality as AVCHD. On the other hand, the files should be easier to edit. That's just a question of computing power and compression software. That'll almost certainly change when Nikon gets their next chipset into production.

This is pretty much what I've been hearing too. I'm a total novice when it comes to editing video so I am worried that if I go the AVCHD route, I'll be biting off way more than I can chew. I hear a lot of horror stories from many people on various forums who bought the camera, only to find out their computer won't see it or won't edit AVCHD video because there's not enough memory or they don't have the right codecs, etc. That's why I thought I'd ask around here first which way you all thought would be the easiest, most cost efficient way to go to HD video. It's funny because a couple of years ago people were predicting the end of tape and MiniDV, but many pros still use it because it doesn't have the issues like dealing w/ AVCHD compression.

I agree with Mark on most of these issues... though I'm not sure that AVCHD is necessarily better for capturing. When recording, you want something that is going to record the most amount of data possible - AVCHD is very high compression, which means you fit more data in but possibly at a cost of quality. Now, turn the bitrate up and you can get back there, but if you're doing something on a high-quality level, you want the least compression to begin with, then add compression later. Of course, that's a lot more work (time and CPU power) than just editing the AVCHD stream as is. Note that I don't know what the various bitrates of the DSLRs recording streams are so I'm not trying to suggest that one is necessarily better than the other, just trying to look at both sides of it.

FWIW, if you look at some sites that have video capture tutorials (like converting VCR tapes to DVDs), mjpeg is often the top pick for the format to do the initial conversion in, before converting to the final output format. (HuffyUV being another popular choice.)

Yes, I've read many times on various forums that they do this. Digital Camera review has stated many times in their analysis of the various AVCHD cams that the video appears to be more compressed than the equivalent shot with, for example, the HV20 or 30 cams. They have screen shots posted that shows side by side comparisons. Also IIRC, the cams (at that time I read it) that utilize AVCHD didn't perform better than the HV20 or 30 in low light conditions, in fact they performed worse.

One other thing I'd read somewhere, not sure of the truth, was that most DSLRs do not really put out detail for a full 1080P resolution... that the video stream is grabbed by pulling only some pixels and binning most of them, and you lose detail somewhere just north of 720P. I don't know how true it is or how it applies to the various DSLRs out there, but it might be something to keep in mind if you've really got 1080p on the brain.

I read this too somewhere, but I wasn't sure if it was true either. I do have to say for what it is, the video straight out of my D90 is really nice. I've done a lot of shoots in nightclubs in very low light and the video was nice! Of course, using my 18-50mm 2.8 lens probably helped out a lot with the lighting. I didn't experience the 'jello' effect people have mentioned unless I did a too quick pan. Keep it steady and it was really nice. The only bad thing on the D90 is no stereo line mic input, and of course you have to focus manually. The D300s has AF from what I've read. Manual focusing is not that big a deal if you aren't freaking out panning around and jerking the camera around like crazy or you're not one of those zoom freaks that are constantly zooming in and out, in and out.

DSF - not sure on "out of the box" PCs since I usually build my own... let me take a quick peek. Since the Macs use the same processors as Intel PCs do now, it's fairly easy to compare. (From what I've read over the years, once you get past the OS and benchmark the actual apps like Photoshop, they perform virtually the same on either platform.)
Entry-level imac - 2.66 Core 2 Duo, 2g of RAM, 320g drive, $1,200.
HP p160t - 2.93 Core 2 Duo, 3g of RAM, 320g drive - $450 plus monitor (say, $150 or so)
Cheapest Mac Pro - 2.66 Xeon, 3g of RAM, 640g drive, $2,500
hp Elite e9150t - 2.66 i7 (newer quad-core processor family), 4g of RAM, 640g drive, $850
So yeah, I'd say that you can save a wee bit of money.

Thanks for looking that up for me. I am remembering now why I went to PC format in the first place... Don't let my DH read that or he'll disown me! One thing I do hear a lot about though is that with the new macs, all people have to do is plug and play. No codecs, no issues of why won't my video play back, or why isn't my computer seeing my camcorder, etc. To a certain degree, if it's as simple as drag and drop for AVCHD or plug and play for HDV, working with the Mac just sounds so much easier.

As for Sony and them potentially handicapping Nikon... who knows? But I kind of doubt it. Lately Nikon has been really keep a tight lid on who designs and makes their sensors - until the D300, I think it was all clearly Sony yet the D300 sensor claimed to be Nikon's own design, yet the Sony A700 seemed to be suspiciously similar (different wiring to it so a few different characteristics, but by and large, pretty comparable.) Pentax is keeping secret who's making the 12mp sensor in the upcoming K-x - Sony? Samsung? Someone else?
It's pretty surprising that Sony hasn't gotten on the HD video bandwagon, especially since they seem to be releasing new DSLRs every few weeks, but I'm sure that it's inevitable... I kind of doubt they're pressuring Nikon not to do HD video, though.

Ahhh, maybe Sony is no longer making their sensor...I'm surprised about Sony not getting on the HD bandwagon too, but maybe they realize that if they did, people may not want to buy their $1200+ AVCHD camcorders ever again.

 

[MarkBarbieri]

I agree with Mark on most of these issues... though I'm not sure that AVCHD is necessarily better for capturing. When recording, you want something that is going to record the most amount of data possible - AVCHD is very high compression, which means you fit more data in but possibly at a cost of quality.

I agree that more compression in recording is not necessarily better than less compression. It's a trade-off between quality, space, and computational power.

The advantage of AVCHD over MJPEG is that it is a more space efficient compression algorithm. It encodes a higher quality video stream in less space than MJPEG or even MPEG2. An AVCHD file can be half the size of an MJPEG file for the same level of quality. So if you are space constrained (and that's generally the case for portable recording of HD video), AVCHD let's you record a higher quality video stream than MJPEG does in the same amount of space (or an equivalent quality video stream in much less space).

The downside, of course, is that AVCHD is more computationally intensive to encode and decode. It's hard to edit directly. One generally has to transcode it to an uncompressed or lightly compressed stream for editing. The same used to be true of HDV (which, I think, uses an MPEG2 compression scheme). Eventually, computing power caught up and now most people can edit HDV directly. With the popularity of H.264 for video, video cards are already on the market that accelerate the decoding.

Basically, all video recording devices will move from MJPEG to some MPEG4/H.264 based codec as inexpensive encoding chips become available.

Thanks Mark. What video camera are you using if you don't mind my asking?

I have a Canon XH-A1. It's sort of the big brother of the Canon HVx0 series. I've been very happy with it. At first, I wished it was tapeless, but I've used it for a couple of years and haven't had any tape glitches yet. The secret, I've been told, is always using the same type of tape. The tapes make for handy archives. Overall, though, I'd rather that it was tapeless.

This is pretty much what I've been hearing too. I'm a total novice when it comes to editing video so I am worried that if I go the AVCHD route, I'll be biting off way more than I can chew. I hear a lot of horror stories from many people on various forums who bought the camera, only to find out their computer won't see it or won't edit AVCHD video because there's not enough memory or they don't have the right codecs, etc. That's why I thought I'd ask around here first which way you all thought would be the easiest, most cost efficient way to go to HD video. It's funny because a couple of years ago people were predicting the end of tape and MiniDV, but many pros still use it because it doesn't have the issues like dealing w/ AVCHD compression.

Having an XH-A1 (HDV) and a 5DM2 (AVCHD), I've got experience editing both. I have a quad core (3ghz) PC and can easily edit HDV in realtime even with several adjustments. Editing the AVCHD footage is a pain without transcoding. It's basically like editing a slideshow.

Yes, I've read many times on various forums that they do this. Digital Camera review has stated many times in their analysis of the various AVCHD cams that the video appears to be more compressed than the equivalent shot with, for example, the HV20 or 30 cams. They have screen shots posted that shows side by side comparisons. Also IIRC, the cams (at that time I read it) that utilize AVCHD didn't perform better than the HV20 or 30 in low light conditions, in fact they performed worse.

As far as video quality, you can't really compare AVCHD to HDV. They're formats. A really good HDV camera will have better IQ than a good AVCHD camera and vice versa. The camera quality is more important than the format. I can definitely say that the 5DM2 does better in low light, but that's because it has a huge sensor and lens advantage over the XH-A1, not the format.

I read this too somewhere, but I wasn't sure if it was true either. I do have to say for what it is, the video straight out of my D90 is really nice. I've done a lot of shoots in nightclubs in very low light and the video was nice! Of course, using my 18-50mm 2.8 lens probably helped out a lot with the lighting. I didn't experience the 'jello' effect people have mentioned unless I did a too quick pan. Keep it steady and it was really nice. The only bad thing on the D90 is no stereo line mic input, and of course you have to focus manually. The D300s has AF from what I've read. Manual focusing is not that big a deal if you aren't freaking out panning around and jerking the camera around like crazy or you're not one of those zoom freaks that are constantly zooming in and out, in and out.

Focus is a pain with any HD camera. Without an external monitor and a good focus puller, you're going to have focus issues. It's just a fact of life. It's particularly bad with a DSLR based video camera because of the shallower DOF.

Ahhh, maybe Sony is no longer making their sensor...I'm surprised about Sony not getting on the HD bandwagon too, but maybe they realize that if they did, people may not want to buy their $1200+ AVCHD camcorders ever again.

I'm somewhat baffled by Sony not pushing hard in the video DSLR space. They are the dominant player in the video market, being one of the leaders with consumer video and essentially owning pro video. They have more video expertise than everyone else combined. Strange company.

 

[DisneySuiteFreak]

Mark and Groucho, I just want to thank you both for responding to my queries. On my last trip to DLR, I bought the new Panny waterproof TS1 which does AVCHD lite video. I compared it to the Canon waterproof camera that recently came out which does not do HD video. Well....Everything I am reading about editing AVCHD video says it is a PITR! There really is no standard software to edit it on the market yet. Even Sony Vegas doesn't do it right for some people. You have to download updates to the software, etc. Even people with Vista and Macs are having issues with it. I think after the short time I've had to play with my video from my last trip, I have decided that the HV40 w/ miniDV is the way to go for me. I am not totally a computer geek, but neither am I totally inexperienced with computers, software, and c'mon editing video shouldn't be that much harder than editing music. Gimme a break. So I think the HV40 is going to be it for me. I think...We'll see...
I don't mind doing it in real time. I'd rather do that than have to download stuff just to get it to work and then wait over night while the 1 hour video renders in the computer hopefully without crashing. yikes.