|
|
Posted by Spex on 05/21/07 07:59
Maxwell wrote:
> On May 14, 10:50 pm, Frank <f...@nojunkmail.humanvalues.net> wrote:
>> Well, alright, let me say this: I do think that the subject line of
>> this thread is a bit off-base. As things presently stand, the
>> highest-priced AVCHD camcorder doesn't provide audio or video quality
>> even matching, let alone exceeding, that of even the lowest-priced HDV
>> camcorder.
>>
>
>
> HDV is MPEG-2.
>
> AVCHD is a variation of MPEG-4 (H-264 actually).
>
> The benefit of MPEG-4 is that it reduces the dataflow considerably.
> It does that by increasing compression. In my opinion, the more you
> compress, the more you sacrifice. For me, MPEG-2 (HDV) is too
> compressed. I wouldn't even touch MPEG-4. All my cameras are HDV.
> AVCHD is for the family vacation.
>
All very true but the camera manufacturers have crippled AVCHD cameras
by starving them of bandwidth. The max bit-rate for these cams is
around half the bit-rate as HDV but as efficient as MPEG 4 is it cannot
make up for the difference.
It is a classic case of the camera manufacturers clubbing together and
forming little cartels that protect their higher-end cameras. An AVCHD
camera running at 25 Mbps would easily be more than a match for Sony's
XDCAM HD format running at 35 Mbps MPEG-2 and destroy P2 overnight.
The biggest problem these consumer level cameras have is not the
compression scheme they use but the cheapo CMOS chips and their inherent
rolling shutter. Jelly vision! But they're cheap and the idiots will
buy 'em...
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|