Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[jmone]

I'm looking at a new HD Camcorder and have three basic format choices but would like to know how how MC12 users go in playing back the format it its native format (I am not a big fan of transcoding unless there is no choice!)
- HDV
- AVCHD
- MPEG-2 TS (the new JVC)

I currently just edit and store my Anamorphic DV files in *.AVI containers on my HTPC which MC12 will play just fine.  I like the original format as it keeps it all lossless and with HDD cheap, I don't care about saving size - so would like to do the same in the HD world.

Thanks
Nathan

PS - This is just part of the decision buying process!  At this stage I am leaning towards the Canon HV20 as the compative reviews of HDV are qantitativly better than the other two formats (at this stage), I can play back my "old" DV Tapes from the unit, and I would prefer SD cards over MemStick.

[glynor]

I just bought a Panasonic P2 camera (the HVX200).  I haven't gotten my FireStore for it yet, and I didn't buy any P2 cards, so I haven't actually used it much yet, but the FireStore is on the way so I'll be able to test it soon...

I will say this though...

Do you have any questions about any of the formats and options?  I learned quite a bit about them while I was at NAB this year.  That was one of my big tasks... We're going HD in my company for some internal video, and I had to pick out the format and camera.  You're certainly welcome to pick my brain.  I have all kinds of esoteric details stored up there about compression formats, frame sizes (and CCD captured sizes vs. format stored sizes), 4:2:0 vs. 4:1:1 vs. 4:2:2 color spaces, etc, etc, etc...

I will tell you this... When it came right down to it, my choice became between the:

Canon XH-A1 (and to a lesser degree the G1)
Sony HVR-Z1U
Panasonic AG-HVX200 (DVCPRO HD)
Panasonic AG-HSC1U (AVCHD "Prosumer" Camcorder)

I ended up eliminating the Sony HDV camera and the Panasonic AVCHD camera due to quality issues.  The AVCHD camera (this is the $1699 list price one that records to a 40GB external hard drive -- not the SD recording $1k consumer one), when I used it suffered from too much "tearing" and color space shifting and fringing issues.  The video looked great on the camcorder's little LCD panel, but the footage looked a lot less great in my Final Cut and on a big HD display.

The Sony is somewhat personal, I guess.  I don't like the way footage from Sony's lower-end camcorders looks.  I think they look too "video-ey" and (with too much cool colors).  Also, the Canon did WAY better in low-light situations.  NAB was fantastic because I was able to compare them side-by-side.  The Sony is also old, and primed for replacement.  The CCD in it is getting a bit long in the tooth, the optics were really not designed for the HD Camera from the ground-up, and all of the Sony reps refused to say what the true digital resolution of the CCD was.

Canon's almost won.  Had I decided to go with a HDV camcorder, it would have been the Canon.  The only difference between the A1 and the G1 is the SDI port and Genlock by the way.  For $4k I hope you need SDI!!  Otherwise, the A1 is a fantastic HDV camcorder!

JVC's are really frowned upon by most of the pros I talked to (and took classes from) at NAB.  The sensors in them aren't really even close to "true" HD, and the codec isn't really all that great.  It's quite likely that the JVC proprietary MPEG-2 format will eventually "lose out" to HDV (which is also a MPEG-2 based recording format), in the view of the VAST majority of people I talked to about it (other than JVC employees of course).  I really like JVC's pro monitors, but their camcorders were lacking compared to the competition.

In the end though, I'm very happy with my decision.  Panasonic's P2 series are currently big favorites among the newsmedia and many small-budget TV shows and indie movie producers, and there's a reason.  Color space, and codec choice is a HUGE deal....

[jmone]

Fantastic!  I want to step up to an HD Camcorder and have been using the review at camcorderinfo.com to help guide me.  I am really a home snapper (but really get distracted by any video artifacts).  So for me I care about:
- not large
- great quality
- decent battery life
- tape based (don't want to be limited by a fixed recording size with HDD when away from home)
- must be playable from my HTPC without transcoding, but must also be supported by NLE apps.  I cut a tape up into different clips but want to keep the same format to avoid introducing transcoding artifacts.  I only trascode if I need to create a DVD (or later a bluray disk) for distribution for others.
- prefer SD for pics
- pics need to be reasonable quality
- I'll live with the price
- Would like to also be able to play back my DV tape from the old camcorder

Given the above the Canon looks the best but other suggestions are welcome!

Thanks
Nathan
PS took ages to type this from my PDA!

[glynor]

I don't have any way to test it, but I'd really guess that FFDSHOW could handle HDV, since it's really just a long-GOP MPEG-2 file.  I'm probably eventually going to replace some of our existing XL-2 SD camcorders with the Canon A1 (or whatever it becomes).  It is really a nice camcorder....

HDV DOES have visual artifacts, I'm not going to lie.  They aren't too bad, but it doesn't compare to DVCAM HD or HDCAM in quality, since it is temporally compressed.  It essentially suffers from all the same problems as MPEG-2 compressed BluRay discs do (if you've read those reviews).  It is QUITE heavily compressed to fit the HD footage into the 12mbps MiniDV tape format.  For comparison, my Panasonic uses 100mbps (1GB per minute) to record in DVCAM HD mode, and 50mbps for even SD footage.  XDCAM and AVCHD also have similar problems, but to a lesser extent.  That said, I'd guess that for low-end consumer usage, HDV will eventually win the "format battle" (it's too low-key to call a war).  HDV builds on the existing DV infrastructure (tapes, machinery, manufacturing, and everything already exist for it) and that's a very important point -- especially relating to price.

One really nice thing about the Canon though is that it does have component outputs which aren't run through the HDV compression engine first, but are raw feeds from the CCDs.  So, if you ever decide you need to, you could hook it up to a HDCAM deck, a AJA capture card/box, or some future HD recording box and record the non-HDV compressed output in all of it's 1440x1080 glory.  The G1 with it's SDI out would be even better, but again, for $4k you'd better have a plan to use it.

I'd be sure to check out these sites as well as camcorderinfo for all kinds of great stuff:

http://www.dvxuser.com/
http://dvinfo.net/conf/index.php
http://www.hdvinfo.net/
http://www.p2info.net/

[jmone]

Thanks DVCAM etc would be nice but the size factor is a killer for me.  FYI I thought that HDV used the same 25mps MiniDV data rate (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HDV#Specifications) with the trade off for the higher resolution being the use of MPEG-2.  I also have seen scattered news around that the AVCHD spec will be raised to 24mbs (which may help fix the current artifact problems as most current implemenations us around 1/2 that - no doubt as a trade of for limited/expensive on board storage).

If I was a betting man (and sometimes I am) - I'd say AVCHD would win, but I need (or is that just want  ) an HD Cam now and a like the capacity, price, and flexiblilty that tapes give when in the field and really don't care about the NLE benefits on non-tape systems back at home as I will copy them off to HDD anyway.

I also expect that as you point out if there is a filter out their, it should be fine to play in MC12, however:
- I'd still be interested if anyone has had any expereince actually getting HDV files playing in MC12

Thanks again
Nathan

[glynor]

Thanks DVCAM etc would be nice but the size factor is a killer for me.  FYI I thought that HDV used the same 25mps MiniDV data rate (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HDV#Specifications) with the trade off for the higher resolution being the use of MPEG-2.

Yeah, it is.  I don't know where I came up with that 12mbps figure.  MiniDV is certainly the same as DVCPRO25 (25mbps), and HDV is too, of course, since it uses the same physical tape format.  I was temporarily insane or something.   

What do you mean about the "size factor" for DVCAM?  If you're referring to the old DVCAM tape-based cameras, then I understand.  The full-sized cameras stink for most people.  The new (little) P2 camera isn't like that at all though.  My HVX200 is smaller than the Canon AND the Sony HDV cameras (only slightly, but it is).  And if you also get a FireStore you get 100GB of storage space (which at DVCAM HD data rates is about 100 minutes record time), you don't have to ingest the footage to get it onto the computer (just plug in the FireWire drive), and you don't have to buy any P2 cards and break the bank.  I was certainly with you on my gut instinct to go with a HDV camera at first... The P2 flash media is certainly way too expensive right now.  Throw in a FireStore though, and you've got a pretty great rig with plenty of flexibility and much higher quality than you'll get with ANY HDV camera.  And, you can't beat not having to spend all that time ingesting the tapes! One tiny little thing to consider if you're in the US... Panasonic US is running a rebate deal right now that if you buy a HVX200 you get one of these for free which is pretty cool.  If only the MiniDV tape function on the HVX200 was able to record in HDV format (it can use MiniDV tapes, but it's DVCPRO25 -- regular DV basically -- only.  Then it'd really be the PERFECT camera.

That said... I'll reiterate.  I don't think you'll be disappointed with the Canon.  I'm still probably going to end up buying one or two to replace some of our installed cameras next year -- If I don't decide to go with one of the Panasonic AVCHD cameras of course...    I admit, the benefits of being able to carry around a whole suitcasefull of tapes and never having to worry about running out of recording space is huge.  For me though... I rarely need to shoot more than an hour of HD footage in one go.  Even if I did... Where would I store it all when I do get back to do the ingesting?!?  I mean... I have a 2TB RAID5 for just Video Editing, but it only goes so far!!  (And remember, if you're adding any text or motion graphics, or doing any compositing of multiple layers of video, you can't keep your timelines in HDV format or it'll recompress the video over and over.  HDV has SERIOUS generational loss issues due to the temporal compression and rounding issues with the color space.)

As far as AVCHD.... I'm reserving judgement on that format.  The current implementation of it isn't up to snuff at all.  AVC codecs are very difficult to do with current processors in real time, even when hardware accelerated, without compromising somewhat on quality.  Does this mean it'll never take off?  Certainly not... However, I do think the "existing infrastructure" argument is, from a manufacturing and business perspective, a bigger concern than you may be considering.

HDV uses MiniDV tapes.  AVCHD doesn't -- it's designed for flash or hard drive storage.  Flash and HD storage are nice for pro and semi-pro use, because of the ease of ingesting issues, but the benefits of sticking to the existing MiniDV infrastructure are immense to the manufacturers.  It is cheaper because they already have working MiniDV "mechanisms" designed and de-bugged.  They just need to migrate the equipment into the new cameras and change the encoder chips.  There is already an entrenched manufacturing base for the media.  The media is cheap.  Compare record time costs on Flash vs. Tape right now.

That said... If Panasonic plays their cards right, and fixes some of the quality issues I saw at NAB, I can certainly see AVCHD coming out on top eventually.

One very interesting possibility for their new AVCHD cameras is that they are a very cheap way to get a 3CCD HD Camera with a HDMI port on them.  You can then get one or two of these cheap Blackmagic Design Intensity cards and record in full 4:2:2 uncompressed HD glory right onto a computer ... That has some serious possibilities!

As far as MC supporting the native HDV formats... I actually am putting together a test to throw at MC.  I'm a Final Cut user though, so my exports from the HDV 720p30 and 1080i60 sequences are going to be in a MOV container file format.  That's what FCP ingests with from HDV cameras natively, and that's how you can export it without recompressing or anything.  There might be a way to export to MPEG-2 and keep the native long-GOP HDV structure and not recompress, but I'm not sure how!  Do you know what container format your ingested files will be?  What NLE are you using?

[glynor]

It just dawned on me that when you said "size issues" you may have been comparing to the little "consumer" HDV camcorders, as opposed to the prosumer or pro HDV camcorders like the A1/G1 or the equivalent Sony.  They're also in a completely different price class (even though that was not one of your top priorities)... Still, price has to be a concern a little or we'd all just be seeing red.

If you're looking for something that small, and you want tapes, then yes, the Canon is CERTAINLY your best option.  The only other realistic option at that size is the AVCHD cameras from Panasonic.  I'd look to upgrade to the "coming soon" pro one, rather than the consumer one though!

[jmone]

Thanks for all that and yes in Size I do mean the "consumer" end, the HVX200 format would make a horrid bulge in the swimmers (off to Fiji in a few weeks) - however the RED could work..... 

Interestly the Canon also does native/real 24p which I know (but don't understand) causes great excitment in some!  The reason I like tape is if I'm on Vacation I may easily break the capacity of HDD camcorders and I just don't want to cart around a bunch of PC equipment to take it off (however once I've edited the boring bits I'm sure I'd only get a few min of usable footage  ). 

I'd be very interested to see how you go with the MC12 testing of playing back but I "think" the container format is M2V (but I'm pulling this from memory - would need to check again).  On the W'End I'll see if I can find some sample downloads to try.

Thanks
Nathan

[glynor]

Apple's HDV implementation is not available for Windows and is not Windows compatible (even with Quicktime files).... So, my tests failed.  They play back fine on my Mac, but not on my Windows box.  Even when converted to AVI (but still Apple HDV compressed) I couldn't get them to play.  FFDSHOW doesn't seem to be able to handle it.  I also tried the Cineform HDV playback components but they wouldn't play them either, even when forced in GraphEdit.

[glynor]

I found some test clips from the Canon XH G1, in their native M2T format here: http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthread.php?t=76978

MC does NOT play them back for some reason... MPC does, and decodes them with the regular MPV decoder.  I'm not sure why MC can't handle them!?!

[Yaobing]

I found some test clips from the Canon XH G1, in their native M2T format here: http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthread.php?t=76978

MC does NOT play them back for some reason... MPC does, and decodes them with the regular MPV decoder.  I'm not sure why MC can't handle them!?!

I downloaded the first one on that page. MC does not play it because MC does not recognize the extension m2t. Changing the extension to mpg works.

[jmone]

Thanks guys,
Looks like I off on the W'End to see what $'s I can spend!

Yaobing - given that the codec selection may be different than "normal" mpeg is is possible to have M2T added as a file extension in MC12?

Thanks
Nathan

[Yaobing]

Yaobing - given that the codec selection may be different than "normal" mpeg is is possible to have M2T added as a file extension in MC12?

Yes.

[jmone]

OK...Looks like I've got the Canon DV20 coming this w'end!

[jmone]

OK - I've got the Camera and only had a bit of a play but:
1) Capture - so far having probs with VideoStudio11 but could get some import from Windows Movie Maker as a dvr-ms file (of all things!)
2) Playback - have tried a few codecs and it stutters badly using the MS MPEG-2 Video decoder and the nVidia one, yet the MPV filter seems to do an OK job (but aspect ratio needs forcing!)

Thanks
Nathan

[jmone]

The latest version of DirectX fixed the VideoStudio capture problem (just out a week ago for Vista, XP etc) - captures it as a 1440x1080 anamporphic which I'll need to look at as the Canon boasts a 1920x1080 res....

The files look great in Nero Showtime using thier DVD Filter so it should be simple to set up in MC12 but with my current filter selection for MPG they would not play....(looks like I may need that M2T file extension option)

Thanks
Nathan

[glynor]

captures it as a 1440x1080 anamporphic which I'll need to look at as the Canon boasts a 1920x1080 res....

HDV is 1440x1080, it's part of the spec.  They call it 1080p, but it's really not quite.  That's why some cinema purists (those 2K film guys and those 4k RED guys) get all up in a tiff and say that HDV isn't "real" HD (and DVCPRO HD and HDCAM and XDCAM and all the other camcorder formats).  HDV prefilters the signal coming off of the sensor to 1280x720 for 720p and 1440x1080 for 1080i.  For 1080i the footage is recorded with a 1.33 pixel aspect ratio (instead of square) so it still plays back at the proper 16:9 display AR.  For comparison, DVCPRO HD also does a very similar prefiltering technique.  It records 720p at 960x720 and 1080i at 1440x1080 (some older cameras use 1280x1080 for certain frame rates at 1080i, but not the Panasonic VariCam cameras).

Of course, DVCPRO HD (like HDCAM) records much more color data, which is often a much more important predictor of final quality than raw resolution.  My Panasonic records color data sampled at 4:2:2 (YUV).  HDV is limited to 4:2:0 (alternating the two color channel samples between the U channel and the V channel).  Simply put, for every frame, my Panasonic camera only records 1/2 the resolution in color data (2 samples for every four pixels in each of the two chroma channels).  For every frame, your HDV camera only records 1/4 of the color data (2 samples for every four pixels, in only ONE of the two chroma channels, then the other chroma channel on the next frame).

The upside is that Canon uses a full 1440x1080 CCD sensor (at least on their high-end camcorders), where many of the other companies don't and later upsample the resolution in the encoder.  For example, my new fancy Panasonic doesn't "really" have a 1440x1080 sensor.  It has 3 1/3" CCDs each with a lower resolution (unpublished but probably something around 960x720 each) and then they use fancy math to sum those three sensors to come up with the higher resolutions...

[glynor]

The upside is that Canon uses a full 1440x1080 CCD sensor (at least on their high-end camcorders)

It looks like that particular Canon uses a single CMOS sensor (similar to Canon's SLR Digital cameras) with "full" 1920x1080 resolution.  That's nice in some ways, for sure!  However, it doesn't change the fact that the image MUST be downsampled to 1440x1080 (for 1080i60 resolution) in order to "fit" on the MiniDV tape in HDV format.  Think of it like this...

HDV is a round bucket that is 1440 "units" wide and 1080 "units" deep.  The sensor is another bucket that is 1920 across and still just as deep.  What you're trying to do when you encode the video coming in off the sensor is to dump as much water from the sensor bucket into the HDV bucket without spilling a bunch around the sides.  Since you have more "source" water, you can be sure to completely fill up the HDV bucket.  Sure... some is going to spill out, but at least it'll be full!  The other way is with a 1440 source bucket and a 1440 destination bucket.  Even if you pour very carefully, some is still probably going to spill out, leaving you with a "not quite full" HDV bucket.

The big downside to that camera's sensor is the fact that it is using a single CMOS sensor instead of 3 CCD sensors (like most high-end camcorders do).  It uses a filtering pattern to extract color data, rather than using three separate CCDs... The jury is still out on how well that works.  It probably works well for most "consumer" applications.  I'd say it's quite likely to be less true-to-life color accurate, in studio lighted situations and for product shots and whatnot.  They say "without creating false colors" which makes me think that the filtering pattern is, while highly refined, probably somewhat prone to creating false colors.  It's essentially extracting three different primary light colors (RGB) from one single sensor.  It can only do that by interpolating, or by using a sensor that is triple the resolution of the final image (which it is obviously NOT doing).  That's okay for your purposes though, I'd guess!  Like their still camera CMOS sensors, the algorithms they use to extract the color data is likely quite well tuned for the situations most people use their camcorders on (daylight and incandescent light, skin tones, etc, etc)...

[jmone]

Thanks Gylnor.  Been reading some more over at DVINFO.NET and it seems some of the posters there have been playing with captuing the real time unHDV-compressed, higher colour space, 1920x1080 output from the HDMI port.  While it all sounded "exciting" it sounds like for most it looks pretty much the same as the HDV stored image....Still got lots of buttons to press to see what they do.

[glynor]

Osho sent me this PM, but I thought others really could benefit from the advice as well so I'm going to post my response here...  I'm a jerk and not asking first so I hope no one minds!

I just noticed your posts in HD camcorder thread. Looks like you have done a fair bit of research about buying one . Can I tap into your wisdom? I am planning to buy a HD camcorder for about $1000-$1500 range. Which one would you recommend? Which are the prime candidates to evaluate?

In that price range I'd probably recommend the same one jmone just picked up... The Canon HV20.  It's a pretty fantastic HDV camcorder for the price.  There are other options though...

Unfortunately, going HD requires delving into a world of codec comparisons (HDV vs AVCHD vs whatever else), delivery format comparisons (tape vs. flash vs. hard disk), color space issues (4:1:1 vs. 4:2:0 vs. 4:2:2), and on and on.  Most of my research into the subject has been decidedly pro or semi-pro level.  Sometimes it's difficult to translate that down into the consumer space, where the sliding scale of quality is much more tempered by cost.  Keep in mind, in some pro circles, the RED-ONE camera is mind-numbingly cheap at $17,500 (and really, for what it is, it IS mind-numbingly cheap even though that doesn't include a required lens or "digital magazine" hard drive storage device)...

Here's what I'd recommend:

• Look at: Canon, Sony, and Panasonic.  Avoid smaller companies, and (for now) avoid JVC.  JVCs "build your own" HDV-clone-format is probably doomed to failure, and quality reviews haven't been kind.  The big three are probably the way to go.  Not to say that some of the smaller companies don't have great tech.  They often do!  Unfortunately, they can also go extinct or get bought up in a flash and with basically all of the accessories you'll have to count on them to supply stuff (batteries, lenses, lens caps, power supplies, etc, etc, etc).  I've been burned too many times...
• Go to the store and play with them, but ignore the sales reps.  They are usually kids who don't know what the hell they're talking about.  If they seem to know what they're talking about, they might, but confirm everything they say with independent research.  However, it's important to actually SEE and USE the camera before you buy it.  Often, even if they don't have the exact model you want, you can tell a lot about the way a camcorder is going to work by trying earlier models or slightly cheaper versions in store.  Try the Zoom, turn auto-focus off and try to focus manually, mess about in the menu system (does it make sense?), load and unload a tape (bring a MiniDV tape with you if you have a DV camcorder), etc...
• Don't go by the viewfinder for a comparison of the quality of the footage.  The viewfinders are usually about the resolution of an iPod screen, which doesn't tell you much about how a 1080i screen will show it.  See if the rep will let you hook the camera up to one of the fancy 1080p HDTVs they're probably selling too.  When you do this, you have to play back footage you RECORDED to see real quality.  Many cameras will put out uncompressed signals directly from the CCD or CMOS sensor via the component and HDMI outs.  This is a good feature really, but it doesn't tell you ANYTHING about the quality of the recording.  Compression is absolutely required in HD camcorders for most purposes (even HDCAM SR uses MPEG-4, ASP -- like DivX or XviD at superhigh bitrates -- to compress the footage).
  
  
• Research the formats.  The biggies in the consumer space right now are:
• HDV: uses MPEG-2 (DVD-style) compression and a few other tricks (like it's not actually 1920x1080 when they call it 1080i) to squeeze down HD footage to fit on the same old MiniDV tapes your Standard Def camcorder uses.
• AVCHD: uses MPEG-4, Part 10 (you've probably heard it called H264).  I've personally been quite unimpressed with this format quality wise.  Lots of potential for v2, but not there yet.
• JVC's HDV: For whatever reason, JVC designed and implemented their own MPEG-2 compressed format instead of just using the HDV standard.  Theirs is pretty subpar resolution wise and yet still suffers from all of the MPEG-2 problems
• Above this, in the semi-pro space you add in:
• DVCPRO HD: Panasonic uses this in their P2 line of camcorders which are very popular.  Much higher bitrates than HDV or AVCHD.  4:2:2 color space and doesn't suffer from as many of the temporal quality issues seen with the MPEG-based formats.
• XDCAM: This is like AVCHD on steroids.  It's Sony's answer to Panasonic's DVCPRO HD based P2 cameras.

[glynor]

Delivery methods.  There are basically three options here: tape, hard drive, or flash.  All have upsides and downsides.

Tape: HDV uses, as I mentioned previously, MiniDV tapes.  These are the same tapes as are used by most consumer standard def camcorders (other than the few random DVD-burning and Digital8 ones).

Pros:

• easy to find/buy/replace tapes on the road
• basically infinite cheap storage
• reliable and well understood mechanics make the camcorders often a "generation" ahead of competition
• non-proprietary recording format (a Canon HDV tape will play back in a Sony HDV camcorder)
• codec used is very well understood and optimized for performance and quality
• well-established format that will be around for years to come
• well supported native format in most modern NLE applications (non-linear editors), such as: Apple Final Cut Pro, Avid Xpress/Composer/Liquid, Sony Vegas, Adobe Premiere Pro, Autodesk Fire, or whatever.
• many HDV camcorders offer HDMI and component video outputs that DON'T go through the encoder first, so you can get full access to the uncompressed feed from the sensor in all of it's HD glory (with no MPEG-2 artifacting and no enforced aspect ratio conversion).  The Canon is especially nice here because of it's native 1920x1080 sensor.

Cons:

• tapes quite susceptible to heat and saltwater (and other corrosive substance) damage
• relatively low quality because of using old codec to squeeze HD footage into an old, ow-bitrate tape format
• getting footage onto a computer or any other device to convert to "playable" format requires real-time capture process (1 hour of tape takes 1 hour to capture)
• tape mechanisms have moving parts that wear out and require adjustment (typically not cost effective on cheap cameras).
• HDV doesn't really do "real" 1080i HD (it's 1440x1080).  HDV footage uses pixel aspect ratios and lower resolutions to help with the compression. All other consumer and prosumer formats do the same exact thing, including AVCHD, DVCPRO HD, and XDCAM.
  

Hard Drive:

Pros:

• reliable media much less susceptible to elements than tape
• well understood and supported media format
• large recording times possible (tapes are usually limited to 60 or 80 minutes and then you have to "stop the action" to switch tapes)
• relatively easy to delete unwanted media, reusable media format (digital tapes generally should NOT be re-used if you want reliable recording)
  
• far fewer "accessories" needed (tapes, cases, pens to label, etc, etc, etc).  grab the camera and go.
• no capture time.  plug in the camcorder and edit the video instantly.  use what you want, export it to the delivery format (HD-DVD or DVD or AVI or whatever), format the drive, and go again.  you don't know how huge this is until you do it once and realize that this way, you might actually finish that project you filmed with the best of intentions...
• cool features like pre-roll sometimes available (where the camera always buffers the last few seconds before you hit "record" as long as it is turned on)

Cons:

• moving parts.  ever had a hard drive die?  unless you can pull off the repair yourself, a dead hard drive will likely mean a dead camera
• compression used heavily to achieve recording times.  Mostly AVCHD based (which has serious quality issues IMHO).
• quite susceptible to shock.  Don't go jogging with it turned on, and don't drop it while you're recording or it's probably a goner.
• always proprietary.  formats generally require using proprietary software to convert to be compatible with NLE apps, which reduces somewhat the "instant access" benefit of the hard-drive recording.  This isn't always true, but be sure it is supported in your application well.
• hard drives often built-in to the camera, making them impossible to replace.  don't think you'll be using your own USB2 drive anytime.
• many of these types of cameras are brand new.  who knows what formats are going to eventually "win", if any.  will support exist in 3 years time?

Flash:

Pros:

• effectively same as hard drive, but doesn't have the shock or moving parts issues.  flash essentially impervious to assault.  Panasonic's P2 cards have worked after being in the ocean for a few hours.

Cons:

• Expensive, tiny media.  Feel like paying $800 to record for 16 minutes in HD?  Then flash is for you.  Make sure to evaluate any flash based camcorder using it's 1080i60 recording time!  They hide this by saying "up to 80 hours on the 8GB flash card storage hoobie-joobie"!!  Yeah... 80 hours in the crappiest standard-def recording format at 15 frames per second.  That's not exactly why you bought the thing, is it?
• EXTREMELY heavy compression used, to the point of absurdity.  Doing quality MPEG-4, AVC encoding is hard.  It takes modern Core2 Quad-core processors at least 2 passes and usually 4-5x recording time to do quality x264 compressions.  Doing this on the fly and squishing it small enough to fit on a flash card is asking for quality trouble.

DVD:

I'm loathe to even mention this.  DVD is NOT a HD format, and was never designed to be used as a recording format.  I'd stay WELL CLEAR of any DVD recording camcorder, or make VERY SURE to do extensive research on it.

Prosumer Camcorders:

If quality matters, it may be worth considering stepping up to the low-end of the pro lines.  Cameras like Canon's XH A1, Sony's XDCAM line, and Panasonic's P2 line offer huge advantages for the increased cost.  I described some of this stuff above...

Testing:

And that brings up another point.  When you're testing things in the store... Don't just film still objects and people waving their hands slightly.  You need kids running, people talking and walking around.  Fast motion is where most of these MPEG-2 and MPEG-4 compression schemes break down.  Look for tearing around the edges of fast motion.  Color shifts in weird lighting.  Auto-focus response times.

Even at NAB, I saw so many people looking at the Panasonic semi-pro AVCHD cameras and oohing and aahing over zooming in and out on static objects they had conveniently placed.  Ummm... It's called a "movie" because people and things move in it.  Swing that AVCHD sucker around, play it on a good HDTV, and you're gonna see some tearing around the fast motion edges.

This isn't to say that it's worthless.  Just know what you're getting into before you jump.

[glynor]

Suggestions for Models:

Considering all the above, I personally would go with HDV in the consumer space.  I think eventually HDV will win most of the format "battle", with flash and AVCHD eventually catching up in 2-3 years.

I love the Canon camcorder footage "look".  It's a lot more like film than the Sonys, which I think look cold and "video-ey".  But check them both out.  While you're at it, take a look at the Panasonic AVCHD line.  They do have a semi-pro model out that includes a 40GB hard drive, which I saw at NAB and has real potential (just not for kid's sports and rollercoaster rides for sure).

That said, I'd surely look at:

Canon HV20
Sony HDR-HC7 or the older HDR-HC5 (the HDV ones)
Sony HDR-SR8 (100 GB HD based AVCHD camera, coming soon)
Panasonic HDC-SD1 and HDC-DX1
Panasonic AG-HSC1U

Look and decide.  You'll find what you want.

[jmone]

Nice review - I've got the Canon but have had little time to capture, edit, and play the results in  MC12 yet.  I'm still collecting advice on the best method to do this (eg 1080/50i vs 1080/25p)!

[gpvillamil]

I found this combination of filters to work for playing HDV M2T files.

1. Disable Haali splitter for MPEG-TS (if installed)
2. Use MainConcept Splitter (note: comes with Vegas 6.0 - NOT Vegas 7.0 - better save a copy somewhere!!!)
3. Standard File Source, or HDTV Pump
4. Use Open Source MPEG2 decoder (Gabest)
5. Disable MPEG2 decoding in ffdshow

The MainConcept splitter was the only one that gave me fluid playback and fast seeking, every other splitter had some problems.

FWIW I have two HDV cameras. While the format does have its limitations, I found it the best tradeoff between size, cost and quality. I am in the market for a Canon XH-A1 at some point in the near future...

[jmone]

FYI I find the NERO File Source (Async) works on these files (as well as my muxed MPEG/DTS) ones but my usual decoders stutter badly (yet the MPV ones work nicely). 

Yaobing indicated that he will add a M2T file extension to MC12 so we can setup a particular combo for these files.

Thanks
Nathan

[glynor]

FWIW I have two HDV cameras. While the format does have its limitations, I found it the best tradeoff between size, cost and quality. I am in the market for a Canon XH-A1 at some point in the near future...

The A1 is really nice.  Definitely the best small pro-level HDV camera out there right now.  I do wish they'd add in a HDMI port on the cheap one (and leave SDI to the G1) so that it could be used with a Blackmagic Intensity card for capture.

If so... I'd probably snap two of them up this year.  Otherwise, I'm gonna wait for a while and see what happens.

I really, really almost bought it instead of the HVX200, but I'm overall VERY pleased with my Panasonic.  As I mentioned, I'm not using the P2 recording media (which is still WAY too expensive).  With a FireStore 100GB drive though, it's a great option.  And, I would have ended up buying the FireStore for the Canon anyway (the events I record can't be "stopped" to switch tapes at the hour mark).  Plus, all things considered, it is significantly better quality than any of the HDV cameras.  The resolution isn't quite as high as the Canon, but the color sampling issues drastically reduce the apparent quality of the HDV cameras when used for HD footage.  Now, if you're downsampling it to SD for DVD (or streaming or something) then a HDV camera is basically perfect (DVD is 4:2:0 color space anyway).

[jmone]

I've had a bit more of a play and found out a few interesting things!

The following link is to a single 1080/50i HDV (Program Stream) file that contains two similar clips, the first is a 1080/25p with cine mode on, the second is straight 1080/50i. Both were recorded on my HV20, imported in one go into VideoStudio where I added a napf title (to see the effect of how post production movement was handled) then output using the HDV 1080/50i (For PC) option - this give a HDV PS (Program Stream) file which the CODECS seem to like ALOT better than HDV TS (Transport Stream).  I've got stutter free play with the Nero File Source (Async), and the NVIDIA Decoders.

http://www.megaupload.com/?d=7NY2M0V8

I'd be interested in what other think but:
1) I have a (slight) preference for the first clip (1080/25p)
2) Deinterlacing settings made no difference for the first clip (but you could see the two fields in the second if inappropriate deinterlacing was selected)
3) Very quick to re-render (no transcoding)!
4) I'd rather true 1920x1080/50p/4:2:2! (Glynor - check this link out - http://blackmagic-design.com/products/intensity/  now all I need to hoof around is a PC!)

Thanks
Nathan