Many are moving to DSLR's. Canon is the current leader in those cameras.
You will need an audio recorder because they do not record audio well and
several accessories to bring them up to the needs of video production.

Personally I prefer the JVC cameras that record to HDSC cards. You might
want to at least look at them.

=============================================
The aim of an argument or discussion should not be victory, but progress.
Joseph Joubert, essayist (1754-1824)

quote:

---

Originally posted by certified instigator

Many are moving to DSLR's...You will need an audio recorder because they do not record audio well...several accessories to bring them up to the needs of video production.

---

I'm not "ready" to go the DSLR route. Any prosumer JVC you like?

I own both the GY-HM100 and the GY-HM710.

The downside of the 100 is a fixed lens. You don't mention the
lens in your post - only the capture format - so I don't know if
that's important to you or not. If you only used the stock lens on
your XL then you will be upgrading with the fixed lens on the JVC.

What price range are you considering?

I use the Fluorite 20X lens and would like to stay under $5,000.

I was really hoping for more suggestions and discussion on leaving behind MiniDV tape or not?

Me too. Sometimes this place is a little dead.

Well, here are my thoughts regarding the format conundrum.

MiniDV has been out there for over 10 years. It has worked well, and there is plenty of resources to support its workflow. On a simpler level, most modern computers either have a built-in FireWire port, or an easy add-on option, and literally all video editing software of the past 10 years can work with MiniDV. However, the time has simply passed it. It is a Standard Def format, which is becoming increasingly obsolete, not to mention inadequate, with respect to image quality, for any serious work, especially in filmmaking. The successor to the DV format, the HDV has essentially tried to extend the useful life of the MiniDV format. HDV, beingh High-Def, significantly increases the image quality, making the MiniDV tape format a reasonably competitive choice today.

However, recent emergence of tapeless formats seem to indicate that the tape (and especially any format using MiniDV, such as HDV) is headed for history. AVCHD, as the most popular format and container for consumer Hi-Def video, already has about five years of history. Over that period, the format has matured, the image processing hardware has become much more efficient in compressing video well, and all this practically means that AVCHD (as well as other modern containers based on the AVC/H.264 flavours of the MPEG-4 compression standards) continues to extend its lead over HDV in image quality superiority.

In practical matters, the metrics are generally as follows.

HDV uses MPEG-2 compression format, and image is encoded at the HD resolution of 1440x1920, with bitrate of 25Mbps (Mega-bits per second; NOT to be confused with MBps, which is Mega-Bytes per second!). The format only allows interlaced encoding of images (legacy of old Std-Def, analogue TV formats), however, most modern HDV camcorders also offer capturing progressive images and then breaking them down into fields for interlacing (and possibly adding telecine pulldown if the capture frame rate was 24p, and target rate is 60i). Modern editing software can re-compose these interlaced fields into progressive ones, and some can even remove pulldown from 24p material encoded into 60i.

AVCHD, on the other hand, captures images at 1920x1080 pixels. Frame rates can be 24p, 25p, 50i, 60i and (since recently) 60p. Most recent changes to the AVCHD standard (AVCHD 2.0, adopted in 2011) have introduced 60p at 1080, stereoscopic 3D standard, as well as increased maximum bitrate from 24Mbps to 28Mpbs.

Both standards use 8-bit luma and chroma sampling with the 4:2:0 chroma sub-sampling. Some research shows that MPEG-2 encoding takes up approximately twice as much space (or bitrate) as AVCHD (more accurately, MPEG-4) for the same perceived image quality, for the same type of content, at same image resolution and frame rates.

Based on this, simple math tells us that AVC-based HD formats provide at least twice, and possibly three times the image quality of HDV at same frame rates and at maximum bitrates. Obviously, image quality depends, to much greater level, on the quality and efficiency of the image processor in the camera (which is responsible for the encoding), quality of lens, CMOS (or CCD) capturing sensors, their actual size, etc. But for all other things being equal, AVC is significantly superior to HDV.

In the end, this will come own to some other factors as well. There are fundamental differences in the workflow between HDV and AVCHD. HDV requires real-time capturing of content onto a computer hard disk before editing can begin. With AVCHD, many editing tools allow you to work directly with the raw AVCHD files, as captured by the camera. Obviously, nobody would ever want to do that before carefully backing up all recorded material on alternative media, but even that process is significantly faster than real-time transfer from tape. One important disadvantage of AVCHD (which becomes less and less significant with the rapid progress of computing power) is that, due to the complexity of H.264 format, it requires a lot of muscle from the computer used to play it back and edit it. This is the reason why many professionals don't actually edit AVCHD files directly, but instead first transcode them into a different HD format that ends up with much larger file sizes, but also much lower demand on computer processor(s). Final Cut Pro won't even work with AVCHD files directly and will insist on transcoding them first (although there is a way around that, which involves re-wraping the MPEG-4 H.264 video from AVCHD into a regular MOV quicktime container, which FCP can understand).

Bottom line? Even with the occasional performance hiccups caused by the complexity of AVCHD (fewer and fewer, as computers get faster and faster), I would still choose, without hesitation, tapeless format. Anything based on MPEG-4 H.264 (either AVCHD, AVCCAM, even simple MPG, or even AVI files produced by DSLRs today) will provide more modern, efficient and better medium than HDV.

So, there you have it.

Well Vasic thank you. I admit I didn't understand everything but appreciate the well thought out post with detail. I think I'm getting close to choosing a new camera and yes finally going tapeless. I use Adobe Creative Suite 2.0 will I have any issues with new formats, AVCHD?

If I am not mistaken, Adobe Creative Suite 2.0 does NOT have any video production tools (it contains Photoshop, Illustrator, Indesign, DreamWeaver and other graphic design tools). At the time of CS2, Adobe was making the Production Studio (previously, Adobe Video Collection). Since CS3, this collection became the part of the CS3 package, as Adobe Creative Studio Production Premium.

In order to edit AVCHD or AVCCAM (or any other MPEG-4 based, H.264-compressed video), you will need at least CS4 Production Premium. Current version is CS5.5, and it runs on all modern Macs and Windows.

By the way, please let me know which parts from my original message did you not understand, so that I can explain, if you wish.

It is Adobe Creative Studio Production Premium 2.0 so the answer above still stands?

Hi John, what do you mean when you say you are not 'ready' to go down the dslr route?

Rob - UK

quote:

---

Originally posted by JohnRogers

It is Adobe Creative Studio Production Premium 2.0 so the answer above still stands?

---

Yes. Your version is some 4 years old. At the time, AVCHD was in its infancy. By now, it has matured, and so has software that is used to edit video.

If your budget allows, get an upgrade to your CS2 to the current version before Adobe's institutes their new subscription policy. Actually, during November, they're running a pretty decent discount sale (I hear it is now 30% off on upgrade pricing). Your CS Production Premium can be upgraded to CS5.5 for some $660 (until Monday).

Vasic thanks for the Adobe upgrade tip.

Rob, my understanding about DSLR is I need many more accessories to do full video work.

May I please get some thoughts on these three cameras?

http://usa.canon.com/cusa/consumer/products/camcorders/professional_camcorders?pageKeyCode=65&category=0901e02480061142&compare=0901e024801e5be9&compare=0901e024801e3c02&compare=0901e02480041726

The A1s is the best of the three. As you can see the two XF's are
nearly identical. If you want to stay with Canon either of the three
will be fine - you will like any of them.

=============================================
The aim of an argument or discussion should not be victory, but progress.
Joseph Joubert, essayist (1754-1824)