Panasonic TM700

Discussion in 'Amateur Video Production' started by Gary Eickmeier, Apr 15, 2011.

  1. The best video camera I have seen so far was the Panasonic HMC-150, which
    seemed really great at low light and could record at 24mB/sec or so. I
    couldn't afford one, so I just put it in the back of my mind.

    David Ruether has been touting the Panasonic TM700 three chipper, which is
    one of the smaller, more amateur level cameras, but with what is probably
    the same imagers and processors as the big boys. Great concept. Anyway, one
    of the only three chip cameras below $1000.

    The street fight right now is between the dedicated video cameras and the
    new DSLRs with video capability. The video cameras have all of the controls
    you need to shoot video, such as power zoom lens of great zoom range and
    continuous focus. But the DSLRs have these huge imagers that have limited
    depth of field (if you count that as an advantage) and should be pretty good
    at low light. But their lenses are limited in the video arena. But you need
    only the one camera for still and video, and the pros are using these things
    a lot nowadays, and.... I am still on the fence on their video quality.

    Well, so, David sent me some video from his TM700 on a BlueRay disc, and it
    was sensational. I projected it 13 ft wide and it was like looking thru a
    window. Sharp as hell, grain free, perfect color, great low light - couldn't
    fault it anywhere. And the resolution of the reds was MUCH better than with
    my single chip Canon HV20, which I thought was pretty good in bright light,
    but now not so much.

    Bottom line, for around $750 you can have one of the best HD cameras out
    there, if you don't mind the small size and some amateur controls. Ruether
    is starting to hoard them - has two of them now. Not sure why. Just to taunt
    me I guess.

    Gary Eickmeier
     
    Gary Eickmeier, Apr 15, 2011
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. I wasn't impressed with the picture quality of the HCM-150 in bright light
    compared with even the little Canon HV20 (they appeared about equal), but
    in low light, there was **NO** contest! 8^) BTW, HDV records at 25 Mbps,
    and even though the AVCHD format is considered more efficient, it appears
    to me that 24 Mbps is a *minimum* data rate with it is required for
    reasonably
    artifact-free video. Surprisingly, with the Canon HV20, I have NEVER seen
    compression artifacts in the original material, but I have seen them in
    exported
    edited video with some programs that have inferior codecs. With Vegas, so
    long as there are at most two layers of compression (one going to the
    archive
    file with all filters/transitions/titles/etc. in place, the other going to
    the viewing
    medium - but it is of course better if this is done directly off the edit
    timeline,
    if possible...).
    The imaging chips are different, especially in size. (but then so are the
    camera
    sizes and prices...).
    The choice depends on a few things. If you are looking at a full-frame dSLR
    that shoots 1920x1080 video with *GOOD* lenses and which provides good
    video controls (like continuous AE, AF, MF over-ride, and relative ease of
    use),
    then a still camera *can* be a good choice *for some types of work* (mostly
    "set-up" types rather than casual or "run-'n'-gun" reportage type), at a
    VERY
    high price. If you are looking at cameras that output 720p video, I have
    never
    seen really good results with these, although the potential is there... If
    you are
    thinking of small and shirt-pocket cameras that can shoot MOV or AVCHD-
    Lite, forget it except for so-so quality snap-shot level video (better than
    nothing,
    and certainly MUCH better than "iPhone"-type results, but still, UGH! ;-)
    It is cheap for what it is, but while there are many ways to control the
    many
    things that can be controlled on the camera, it takes a while to feel
    confident
    operating it for best results. Also, don't forget the not-cheap memory card,
    not included (about $55 for a good class-6 100x 32-gig one) and the extra
    *mid-sized* battery (NOT cheap!). You also need a good mic with a fuzzy
    wind screen and maybe a filter and a better lens shade - and maybe a quick-
    release, a bag, and......;-)

    An', yup, jes' t' taunt ya...! ;-) But, I've got ideas for using these two,
    with
    their abilities (especially the 60p feature) - but maybe later, I would
    consider
    selling one..., maybe.......;-)
    --DR
     
    David Ruether, Apr 15, 2011
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. Gary Eickmeier

    Smarty Guest

    Gary (and David),

    Literally for YEARS, I have been recommending 1920 by 1080 HD AVCHD, and
    David has been unrelentingly recommending HDV, in particular HDV from
    his revered HV20 Canon camcorder, as being superior. Having owned the
    HV20 (and the HV30) as well as several other HDV camcorders (the FX-1,
    the HC3, the HC5 and others) and doing a ton of controlled testing with
    ISO targets, it has been altogether and entirely clear as a broadcast
    engineer that the AVCHD camcorders have been delivering superior
    resolution all along.

    HDV at 1440 pixels across just does NOT encode detail to the same extent
    as AVCHD at 1920 across. It doesn't take 2 degrees in Electrical
    Engineering to know or understand this.

    I am therefore, DELIGHTED, that your comparison of David's TM700 is
    noticeably superior to your HV20 video. It has been my contention all
    along, and David has never acknowledged or agreed to seeing any of this
    superiority as recently as just within the last few months where he
    continues to recommend HDV on the basis of image quality equity /
    superiority.

    And yes, I admit, AVCHD does take a more powerful computer to edit. I
    have been agreeing to that point since 2006 when I made the switch 5
    years ago when AVCHD was introduced......
     
    Smarty, Apr 15, 2011
    #3
  4. [I ***PROBABLY SHOULD NOT RESPOND TO THIS***, or, "here we
    go, again", but......;-]
    The issues are not as they appear here. With equal-quality chips and lenses
    (or even with models with the *SAME* chips and lenses), **with no motion**,
    1920x1080-60i *can* win (*slightly*) over 1440x1080i-60i, **with about the
    same recording data rate**, BUT, until recently most AVCHD cameras peaked
    at 17 Mbps *maximum* while HDV is 25 Mbps, also at 60i. In motion,
    though (and even with no motion), there was no particular superority with
    17 Mbps AVCHD even with its slightly higher resolution, and in fact, it
    often
    looked worse. Once 1920x1080-60p AVCHD appeared, with 28 Mbps peak
    data rate, the game changed considerably - and it was finally worth putting
    up with the far greater difficulties (for most) of editing this new
    material.
    "Au contraire"...;-) If you have looked at resolutions in still cameras and
    the effects of even a ***DOUBLING*** of pixel counts, the practical
    positive effects can be suprisingly minimal (depending on several things,
    of course...;-). Moving from 1440x1080 pixels to 1920x1080 improves
    the resolution of the image *somewhat* in *one dimension only*, but that
    improvement can easily be swamped by other factors, including codec
    quality differences, lens quality differences, recording data rate
    differences,
    etc. One can say things like, "larger chips make better images", "higher
    pixel counts are better/worse", etc., etc., but none is necessarily true...
    See above - and add the much greater ease of editing with HDV. I still
    recommend the HV40 to people who want excellent results and who also
    want to edit but don't want to get bogged down with the hardware/software
    problems most have with AVCHD. To recommend AVCHD, without
    warnings, would be unfair...
    Even with 64-bit OS and editing software, 6-gigs of RAM, several HDs
    dedicated to various editing functions, a good video card, a reasonably
    fast quad-core Intel CPU, and a good MB, editing even 17 Mbps 60i
    AVCHD is P A I N F U L, and the quality of that is very much below
    28 Mbps 60p - and it is also below that of 25 Mbps HDV, so I stand by
    what I have written in the past. ;-)
    --DR
     
    David Ruether, Apr 15, 2011
    #4
  5. Gary Eickmeier

    Jack Santos Guest

    A friend of mine has the TM700 and has been using it in a unique way:



    Videos #10 and #9 were shot with the TM700, the remainder with a much
    cheaper priced camera that Sanyo (or Samsung?) had out a couple of years
    back. May take a little while to load before playing on slower DSL
    connections, but well worth the wait.

    He tells me that 60fps is really under par for properly capturing wing
    motion, but taking the next step to 120fps or more takes a giant leap in
    price range (if you want to retain HD).

    Just from these videos, I was impressed enough to buy the '700 for family
    and friend shots last year. Does pretty good in low light, but I sometimes
    use an overhead homemade flood lamp made from "sunlight an noon" spectra
    CFL's and the color balance is great. ANY reasonable light source in the
    house is enough for it however and very easy to color balance. Outdoors is
    no problem at all and the "intelligent" settings do a great job as well as
    IS.

    Jack
     
    Jack Santos, Apr 15, 2011
    #5
  6. I was unable to view the videos (darn!), but I can guess what they
    were like. I found that I can not only make the 60p TM700 footage go
    backwards and/or up-side-down in editing without artifacts (difficult
    with interlaced material!), but I could often slow it to 1/4 speed or
    speed it up to 4x with good results. P H U N . . . . ! 8^)
    As I said above (at least in Vegas), it is very easy to do many things
    and still have it look good...;-)
    Yes. For indoors, try dropping the shutter speed below 1/60th - that
    can work well. Also (with slow moving of the camera), try "color night
    vision".
    --DR
     
    David Ruether, Apr 15, 2011
    #6
  7. Gary Eickmeier

    Jack Santos Guest

    I think the default is in HD. Try turning off HD and it will load much more
    quickly. You won't get the wonderous resolution of HD, but it's still darn
    good in SD.


    I found that I can not only make the 60p TM700 footage go
    The fast speeds available (60 fps p) and setting the shutter high can allow
    very acceptable slow downs, which is what my friend did with his videos.
    Both of us have Vegas and also I have After Effects. It doesn't take long
    at all to convert the videos from the '700 to AVI and then do all editing in
    AVI before recompression to some format. I usually choose Main Concept MP4
    in Vegas and it looks great on the HDLCD TV. I've found that the Main
    Concept codec is one of the highest quality out there and keeps artifacts
    and other nasties of compression almost unnoticeable.
    I've tried below 1/60, but then I start getting blurs in the video. In
    fact, the "cinema mode" I think it's called is 24 fps, but I really don't
    like that mode too well and prefer to keep it at 1/60 or better. I can
    always do *some* color/ contrast correction in After Effects without
    compromising quality too much, but there's always a cost if too much
    processing is down on less than optimal lighting vids.

    Jack
     
    Jack Santos, Apr 15, 2011
    #7
  8. I just tried again, and it started immediately. Great at 1920x1080
    when the bird is in focus (much of the time...). NEAT!
    "Prolly", but it looks darn good in HD! ;-)
    Yes. Blowing leaves on a tree is what I had used for experiments.

    I just looked at 9. AMAZING!!!
    I 'spose - but these images are REALLY GOOD!
    Yes - lucky us...! ;-)
    You should be able to get one shutter speed under 1/60th without problems
    if you are careful (you need to go to "P" mode, I think...). I agree, I also
    dislike
    "cine mode" (yuck! ;-). Have you tried the "color curves" filter in Vegas?
    It's "magic" for its ability to improve somewhat underexposed video with
    minimal ill effects. In general, I'm happy using the filters in Vegas for
    moderate
    to medium levels of modifications. Anything needed beyond that, and I dump
    the clip...;-(
    --DR
     
    David Ruether, Apr 15, 2011
    #8
  9. Gary Eickmeier

    Smarty Guest


    David,

    For (literally) a couple years or more, you declared HDV superior
    without ever owning an AVCHD camera. I urged you over and over again to
    purchase one, so as to make meaningful comparisons. You had clearly and
    stubbornly decided that the Canon HV20 you owned was unquestionably
    superior, and had never had so much as a single comparative test upon
    which to base your (false) conclusions.

    I found it entirely offensive to see such drivel and mis-information,
    and reacted accordingly, although perhaps with a lack of diplomacy after
    the 2nd, 3rd, and subsequent occasions.

    It is altogether satisfying for me to see that you finally did join the
    AVCHD community within the last year, and indeed have a very nice
    camcorder to use for comparisons.

    As you may or may not be aware, the data rate is essential irrelevant
    for still / static video content. Since both mpeg2 and mpeg4/h.264
    encode deltas / differences, it makes no sense technically to infer
    superiority or inferiority based on comparing 17 versus 25 Mbit/sec
    bitrates. Furthermore, it is well established, documented, and proven
    through practical examples that mpeg4/h.264 has essentially twice the
    encoding efficiency of mpeg2. Thus, concluding as you do that 17
    Mbit/sec AVCHD camcorder somehow displays less or equal detail to an HDV
    camcorder at 25 Mbits/sec reveals that you neither comprehend the codec
    efficiency differences nor that static detail comparisons are not
    meaningfully discussed in the context of data rate whatsoever.
    If you intend to conflate ease of editing issues with picture quality
    issues, a line of reasoning I once again reject for obvious reasons, I
    offer the very same comment to you as I have many times before. Yes,
    yes, yes, a million times yes.....AVCHD takes a more powerful computer
    to edit. Does that make it somehow inferior to AVCHD? Not in my book.
    Does it require enormous computer power? Comparatively speaking, yes it
    does. And although there are some who struggle here with HDV processing,
    I fully admit and agree that AVCHD requires more resources. I will,
    however, state, having done tons of AVCHD and BluRay since the inception
    of these technologies, that editing is very achievable using moderately
    priced hardware if the software is chosen carefully and especially if
    hardware assistance from CUDA, SpursEngine, and the Sandy Bridge chipset
    are employed.
    So if resolution increases and the resulting increases in detail are, as
    you say, "surprisingly minimal", then why do folks like me and Gary
    observe distinct benefits when comparing AVCHD footage to HDV? Are you
    saying that the Panasonic TM700 is better in other ways that make the
    HV20 color and other characteristics pale by comparison?

    To the contrary, my ownership of the Canon HV20, the HV30, my loaning of
    the HV40, and the simultaneous ownership of several Canon AVCHD
    camcorders, most recently their latest larger HDPro sensor AVCHD
    camcorder make it consistently and quantitatively evident that the AVCHD
    format outperforms any prosumer HDV camcorder I have ever had in my
    possession since they (HDV camcorders) were introduced in 2003 with the
    first JVC and my FX-1 and with every one henceforth.

    I share your sincere and diligent efforts to "warn" people about the
    added processing required to handle AVCHD. It is both well-intended and
    well thought-out.

    I continue to reject, categorically, emphatically, and technically your
    pre-conceptions that AVCHD is either less than or perhaps equal to HDV
    but not superior, and I particularly reject your attribution of same to
    bitrate or encoding method, neither of which yield the "slightly worse"
    conclusion you have drawn for years now, long before ever seeing and
    using AVCHD firsthand yourself.

    I will also comment that h/.264 AVC is the very, very same format now
    being used on the vast majority of all commercial BluRay disk content,
    as well as all direct from studio to digital theater satellite links. It
    is a SUPERIOR format, whether you accept or don't accept it, and others
    who do not bring your pre-conceived notions of "nothing will ever beat
    my HV20 HDV camcorder" have been seeing and enjoying it for years now.
    As above, I entirely disagree with your comparison of 17 Mbit/sec AVCHD
    to 25 Mbit/sec HDV, and the "very much below" quality HDV reference.
    This is absolutely NOT TRUE. What you are 'standing by' is a position
    you adopted literally years before you acquired an AVCHD camcorder, and
    you are not willing to accept or adopt any different point of view
    regardless of the facts or the opinions and observations of others
    including me and Gary.
     
    Smarty, Apr 16, 2011
    #9
  10. Wow - didn't know I would be opening a can of worms. David asked me to post
    a review of the TM700 clips he sent me because they were that good. I just
    wish I had a super duper 64 bit CS5 suite with NVidea card and a city block
    of RAM. Not in my near future, but I am learning to do some tricks with my
    HV20 to be able to shoot in low light. Still not as good as the Panasonic,
    but I will have to get along for now.

    Gary Eickmeier
     
    Gary Eickmeier, Apr 16, 2011
    #10
  11. Gary Eickmeier

    Jack Santos Guest

    Vimeo can be slow loading vids at times, especially if they are longer HD
    ones. I sometimes get if I remember correctly, "index at end instead of
    beginning" errors when I've uploaded there, but there is a program to fix
    this, which I forget the name of now. For this vid, he used the fixed 10x
    zoom feature. I've never used this, but it's the "macro" mode on the '700.
    I think it's a little more difficult to keep things always in focus, but the
    camera must have a darn good quality lens to catch that kind of detail from
    that distance. I can think of many digicams that, when used beyond 2-3x,
    the video quality goes way downhill.
    This one he told me was taken about 3-4" away from the bird and no zoom.
    Hence the slightly sharper quality, but both lighting and bird have to be
    absolutely cooperative!
    I'll try that filter next time. Not sure how many know or do this, but once
    as an AVI, I sometimes open videos in Photoshop CS to do tweaks and then
    resave. As long Photoshop is in video working mode and you convert the
    video to a smart object, you can do almost as much as you can with still
    images. Sometimes I do this instead of working in After Effects. Vegas
    seems to do the fastest rendering to AVI though, something I really
    appreciate with larger files.

    Lighting issues are far less concern with the better videocams these days
    because you record at such a low noise level to begin with. So, when a
    correction is made, the noise is far less likely to rear its ugly head.
    What a shame that we can't record our vids in the equivalent of RAW mode,
    the preferred still photo mode of digital cameras. Of course, the resulting
    files would be huge (and I thought uncompressed AVIs were big), but think of
    all the opened up possibilities one would have.

    Jack
     
    Jack Santos, Apr 16, 2011
    #11
  12. [Um, I ***SHOULD*** know better than to once again "slog
    through the mud" with "Smarty" (an apt handle...;-), but....]
    For years, I have cited this (I think reputable) comparison
    between HDV and AVCHD using two cameras using THE
    SAME SENSORS AND LENSES! The results are CLEAR,
    and they are consistent with what others reported, and what
    I saw in other reviews of AVCHD camcorders, especially with
    *motion* video, and with my own experiences. Stop ignoring
    what I have cited (including my own experience with 17 Mbps
    AVCHD, and even 24 Mbps AVCHD - the quality of which
    is about equal to HDV)! See --
    http://www.camcorderinfo.com/content/Canon-HG10-Camcorder-Review-33146/Performance.htm#> I found it entirely offensive to see such drivel and mis-information, andreacted accordingly, although perhaps with a lack of diplomacy after the2nd, 3rd, and subsequent occasions.Yuh............. (the word "jerk" came to mind rather often,and I eventualy "PLONKED" you when it became clearthat further "conversation" with you was useless. (I havelost my blocks with OS changes, and I'm about to changethe OS again, so you are "slipping through the cracks",again with your annoying and insulting posts.)> It is altogether satisfying for me to see that you finally did join theAVCHD community within the last year, and indeed have a very nice camcorderto use for comparisons.BUT, this TM700 is FAR better in image quality thananything that preceeded it. So it is an "apples and oranges"comparison between it and earlier AVCHD camcorders.Nothing is "proved" except that a better camcorder (ofwhatever type) has appeared on the market at a reasonableprice). What remains, though, is that AVCHD is VERYmuch more difficult to edit - and the choice to use it,MUST take that fact into account. With this camera, itssuperior output made that choice reasonable.> As you may or may not be aware, the data rate is essential irrelevant forstill / static video content. Since both mpeg2 and mpeg4/h.264 encode deltas/ differences, it makes no sense technically to infer superiority orinferiority based on comparing 17 versus 25 Mbit/sec bitrates. Furthermore,it is well established, documented, and proven through practical examplesthat mpeg4/h.264 has essentially twice the encoding efficiency of mpeg2.Thus, concluding as you do that 17 Mbit/sec AVCHD camcorder somehow displaysless or equal detail to an HDV camcorder at 25 Mbits/sec reveals that youneither comprehend the codec efficiency differences nor that static detailcomparisons are not meaningfully discussed in the context of data ratewhatsoever."Whatever"...;-) But, I again point the reader to a direct comparisonwith identical sensors and lenses, at -- http://www.camcorderinfo.com/content/Canon-HG10-Camcorder-Review-33146/Performance.htm#and the differences are not subtle. In a comparison of a 3-chip(fairly expensive camcorder) with 24 Mbps data rate shootingsimilar material such as difficult fairly distant bare tree limbs,the results compared with the HV20 were nearly indistinguishable.>> In motion,>> though (and even with no motion), there was no particular superority with>> 17 Mbps AVCHD even with its slightly higher resolution, and in fact, it>> often>> looked worse. Once 1920x1080-60p AVCHD appeared, with 28 Mbps peak>> data rate, the game changed considerably - and it was finally worthputting>> up with the far greater difficulties (for most) of editing this new>> material.> If you intend to conflate ease of editing issues with picture qualityissues, a line of reasoning I once again reject for obvious reasons, I offerthe very same comment to you as I have many times before. Yes, yes, yes, amillion times yes.....AVCHD takes a more powerful computer to edit. Doesthat make it somehow inferior to [HDV]? Not in my book.It does, if you want ease and simplicity in editing while retainingvery high quality - and the "price of admission" for this is FARlower for HDV than for AVCHD with its (until now) questionableimage superiority. You may have the resources to make AVCHDediting practical and efficient, but most do not.> Does it require enormous computer power? Comparatively speaking, yes itdoes. And although there are some who struggle here with HDV processing, Ifully admit and agree that AVCHD requires more resources. I will, however,state, having done tons of AVCHD and BluRay since the inception of thesetechnologies, that editing is very achievable using moderately pricedhardware if the software is chosen carefully and especially if hardwareassistance from CUDA, SpursEngine, and the Sandy Bridge chipset areemployed.As in. "bleeding edge" and "hardly cheap" for most...>>> HDV at 1440 pixels across just does NOT encode detail to the same extent>>> as AVCHD at 1920 across. It doesn't take 2 degrees in Electrical>>> Engineering to know or understand this.>> "Au contraire"...;-) If you have looked at resolutions in still camerasand>> the effects of even a ***DOUBLING*** of pixel counts, the practical>> positive effects can be suprisingly minimal (depending on several things,>> of course...;-). Moving from 1440x1080 pixels to 1920x1080 improves>> the resolution of the image *somewhat* in *one dimension only*, but that>> improvement can easily be swamped by other factors, including codec>> quality differences, lens quality differences, recording data rate>> differences,>> etc. One can say things like, "larger chips make better images", "higher>> pixel counts are better/worse", etc., etc., but none is necessarilytrue...> So if resolution increases and the resulting increases in detail are, asyou say, "surprisingly minimal", then why do folks like me and Gary observedistinct benefits when comparing AVCHD footage to HDV? Are you saying thatthe Panasonic TM700 is better in other ways that make the HV20 color andother characteristics pale by comparison?Ummm, gee, maybe "yes"...;-) 1), the lens on that camera issuperb, and it is a noticeable improvement over the Canon lens;2), every 1/60th of a second, a 2+ megapixel image is on thescreen as opposed to a 1+ megapixel image; 3), there may beother image-forming electronic improvements, since the TM700produces a "cleaner" looking image with better color than theHV20; 4), the end result is what counts, and finished footagefrom this camera simply looks great. BTW, while the in-cameraconversion from 60p to 60i results in files that look almost asgood as the 60p originals (and noticeably better than the 60i 17Mbps originals shot in the camera), these 17 Mbps files do nothold up well with the addition of multiple filters while editing,unlike the 60p material.> To the contrary, my ownership of the Canon HV20, the HV30, my loaning ofthe HV40, and the simultaneous ownership of several Canon AVCHD camcorders,most recently their latest larger HDPro sensor AVCHD camcorder make itconsistently and quantitatively evident that the AVCHD format outperformsany prosumer HDV camcorder I have ever had in my possession since they (HDVcamcorders) were introduced in 2003 with the first JVC and my FX-1 and withevery one henceforth.Well, why am I not surprised...? A friend here is using aPanasonic 4/3rds camera with some of my Nikkor lenses, andthe results have been superb. Larger sensor, "pro" quality, etc.show - but do try to compare "apples with apples", somethingyou sometimes fail to do...;-)>>> I am therefore, DELIGHTED, that your comparison of David's TM700 is>>> noticeably superior to your HV20 video. It has been my contention all>>> along, and David has never acknowledged or agreed to seeing any of this>>> superiority as recently as just within the last few months where he>>> continues to recommend HDV on the basis of image quality equity />>> superiority.>> See above - and add the much greater ease of editing with HDV. I still>> recommend the HV40 to people who want excellent results and who also>> want to edit but don't want to get bogged down with the hardware/software>> problems most have with AVCHD. To recommend AVCHD, without>> warnings, would be unfair...> I share your sincere and diligent efforts to "warn" people about the addedprocessing required to handle AVCHD. It is both well-intended and wellthought-out.Yes, good...> I continue to reject, categorically, emphatically, and technically yourpre-conceptions that AVCHD is either less than or perhaps equal to HDV butnot superior, and I particularly reject your attribution of same to bitrateor encoding method, neither of which yield the "slightly worse" conclusionyou have drawn for years now, long before ever seeing and using AVCHDfirsthand yourself.See above...> I will also comment that h/.264 AVC is the very, very same format nowbeing used on the vast majority of all commercial BluRay disk content, aswell as all direct from studio to digital theater satellite links. It is aSUPERIOR format, whether you accept or don't accept it, and others who donot bring your pre-conceived notions of "nothing will ever beat my HV20 HDVcamcorder" have been seeing and enjoying it for years now.See above...>> Even with 64-bit OS and editing software, 6-gigs of RAM, several HDs>> dedicated to various editing functions, a good video card, a reasonably>> fast quad-core Intel CPU, and a good MB, editing even 17 Mbps 60i>> AVCHD is P A I N F U L, and the quality of that is very much below>> 28 Mbps 60p - and it is also below that of 25 Mbps HDV, so I stand by>> what I have written in the past. ;-)>> --DR> As above, I entirely disagree with your comparison of 17 Mbit/sec AVCHD to25 Mbit/sec HDV, and the "very much below" quality HDV reference. This isabsolutely NOT TRUE. What you are 'standing by' is a position you adoptedliterally years before you acquired an AVCHD camcorder, and you are notwilling to accept or adopt any different point of view regardless of thefacts or the opinions and observations of others including me and Gary.See above... And remember that the disc that you are referringto with the material on it that Gary commented on was madeby me...;-)And again, here is a reputable direct comparison (no "apples andoranges" between HDV and AVCHD ;-) I repeat this since youappear never to have looked at it -- http://www.camcorderinfo.com/content/Canon-HG10-Camcorder-Review-33146/Performance.htm#But, enough of this. I will not respond to your next post nomatter how much it misrepresents what I have said (*over time*),and how annoying it may be. As I have pointed out before, youdo have much to offer, but you do stay out of the group mostof the time, and when you do enter it, due to ill manners andwho knows what else, it often just results in nit-picking, insults,misrepresentations, and pointless arguements from you.I don't need that.Bye.--DR
     
    David Ruether, Apr 16, 2011
    #12
  13. See my comments in my (last!) response to a "Smarty" post.
    Responding to Smarty is pointless, unless your post doesn't
    counter anything he believes to be true...;-( Best just to avoid
    the annoyance, since there is little point in doing anything else.

    As for you, yes, a complete "bleeding edge" (and VERY
    EXPENSIVE) system of hardware/software would make
    editing the TM700's 60p AVCHD material easier, but it is
    possible to do it (but not very efficiently) on even the $70
    Vegas software (no 64-bit needed) with a single quad-core
    CPU, no CUDA video card , just 2-3 gigs of RAM, and
    Windows XP. NOT "bleeding edge", just slower, and
    FAR cheaper than what you have been *trying* to build...
    I made the video you saw using essentially that cheap
    system. Looks fine, huh? 8^) Or, quite wasting time, and
    just get one of those "wonder cameras" and have fun! ;-)
    --DR
     
    David Ruether, Apr 16, 2011
    #13
  14. [and -- ]
    Yes - I had one... The lens on this camera is certainly better.
    Or the set-up well-planned! ;-) With a LOT of luck!!!

    I use 50 Mbps 1920x1080-60p MP4 files to archive edits.

    Yuh! I used a couple of programs before settling on Vegas. There is a
    bit of a learning curve - but afterward, one wonders why, since the
    program is so logically designed.
    I most often double-click on the diagonal line in the filter box
    and push that control point toward the upper left to brighten the
    mid-tones (doing the revers darkens them) without touching the
    black or white levels. Moving that control point along the line
    emphasizes high or low parts of the tonal range. Rotating the
    "handles" at the top (highlights) or bottom (shadows) or middle
    reshapes the curve - and so long as you avoid sharp shape changes
    or "looping", you can do MUCH to adjust tonal relationships
    with this single filter, and you can pull out the handles to smooth
    the curve shape (but I often add contrast/brightness/sharpening/
    unsharp-mask/color-balance/etc. to the mix). In Vegas, any or all
    filters can be turned off to compare the video with/without the
    filter(s). I also like being able to name and save filters, especially
    complex ones that may be useful in the future or with other clips
    on the timeline.
    8^)

    --DR
     
    David Ruether, Apr 16, 2011
    #14
  15. I just tried converting an 18-second 60p 60 Mb TM700 clip to
    uncompressed 60p AVI (it took 4.5 minutes and resulted in an
    8+ gig file...). I then played both the original MTS file and the
    AVI file from the Vegas timeline, and both played about equally
    poorly with my computer (not terrible, but with considerable
    "hitching"). I then tried making RAM previews for both. The
    MTS file (using "Draft-Full", good enough to look good at
    1920x1080 on a monitor) RAM preview formed fairly rapidly
    and then played smoothly. The AVI RAM preview took
    "forever" to form, although it played smoothly when it finally
    finished - and equal length RAM previews could be made
    from both file types. Given the above (with the faster MTS
    RAM previewing), I will continue to edit with the original file
    type (also saving potential transcoding losses, even if they are
    very minor), then export 60i Blu-ray files for writing to discs
    for viewing and 50Mbps 60p MP4 files for archiving, both
    directly from the timeline.
    --DR
     
    David Ruether, Apr 17, 2011
    #15
  16. Gary Eickmeier

    Smarty Guest


    You want us to conclude that one format is inferior / superior to
    another based on a singular 2007 review of one camcorder, and discourage
    others from using AVCHD based on this inferiority?

    Have you considered that:

    Canon was NOT part of the AVCHD consortium, and that both Sony and
    Panasonic had introduced several models a year earlier in 2006, before
    Canon introduced this first AVCHD model a year later?

    Canon clearly lacked full AVCHD understanding on this first model
    compared to the other vendors, and it did indeed suffer somewhat in the
    comparison to their mature HV20 HDV model 4 years ago. Even so, the new,
    first Canon AVCHD model scored better than the HV20 in some respects,
    worse in others.

    "My own experiences" as you refer to them, did not include any AVCHD
    equipment whatsoever up until the single AVCHD model you acquired
    recently, several (3-4) years later.


    I will ask you respectfully not to resort to using a reference to "jerk"
    or any other ad hominem or personal attack. It only shows the weakness
    of your technical arguments and does nothing to enhance your technical
    credibility. Please, let's keep this discussion technical and not act
    like children in the playground.
    David.....Can't we leave this point rest entirely? I have agreed over
    and over again that this is true.
    You are entirely full of crap. There have been several SUPERB AVCHD
    camcorders preceding it. The fact that YOU DID NOT OWN THEM apparently
    seems to be the DETERMINING FACTOR of what is or what is not "far better".

    Long before last year when your (now) highly revered TM700 arrived with
    1920 by 1080 60p 28 Mbit/sec encoding, numerous DSLRs and AVC Intra
    cameras have been shooting up to 100 Mbits/sec using h.264 codecs,
    providing gorgeous video quality that make your "game changing" TM700
    look like a Tinker-Toy.

    Don't you realize that your depiction of good / bad / better / worse is
    entirely colored by your own, very narrow perception of what is and what
    is not "game-changing" rather than the factual realities?

    David, if this strong preference you have is for one camcorder versus
    another, then please tell other people that you are basing your format
    preference on such a camcorder preference. If you are finally beginning
    to see a benefit from AVCHD only because you now, finally, personally
    own an AVCHD camcorder, and it happens to be a Panasonic TM700, then
    wouldn't it be much more fair, more honest, more direct, and less
    confusing if you said:

    "I personally prefer AVCHD with the TM700 versus HDV using the HV20
    under the following conditions........., rather than saying, as you did
    in many prior posts "HDV is slightly superior to AVCHD", to your more
    recent "AVCHD has a resolution detail improvement that is "surprisingly
    minimal". You mislead others by offering, as gospel and statements of
    supposed 'fact', things which just are NOT generally true.

    I have tried to keep this discussion on a technical level, and have
    indeed spent very little time on this forum in recent years, owing
    mostly to my other duties, new grand-children, and greater interest in
    other topics. My sincere apologies if anything I have said is rude,
    insulting, or inconsiderate. Such has not been my intention. Most of
    all, I have no desire to introduce any "misrepresentations", and indeed
    suffer poorly those who make specious, inaccurate claims and mis-state
    facts, including leaping to general conclusions based on one, singular,
    old, irrelevant, and not especially rigorous test comparison.
     
    Smarty, Apr 17, 2011
    #16
  17. Gary Eickmeier

    Smarty Guest

    Gary,

    Your observations agree with my own as well as most I have read. I
    apologize if I referenced your comments in a way which causes you any
    discomfort.
     
    Smarty, Apr 17, 2011
    #17
  18. Gary Eickmeier

    Jack Santos Guest

    I almost never try playing AVIs above 3 GB or so due to the issues you
    mentioned. I only really use them for archiving purposes, especially after
    I have done any editing, processing, etc. Yes, some files will take quite
    some time to convert and I usually do it when I'll be away from the PC for a
    while. I have some AVIs approaching 100 GB and I usually save them to one
    of the TB external hard drives I have here. Of course, the "raw" mts files
    are always saved to a DVD or a separate hard drive. I can always redit
    later if I lose the AVIs, but the original mts is irreplaceable, so I tend
    to keep several copies on different drives/ discs.

    Jack
     
    Jack Santos, Apr 17, 2011
    #18
  19. Huh what? You weren't talking about me. I just wish you and David could
    develop a degree of respect for each other. I think you both have a lot to
    say, and there is more agreement than disagreement.

    Gary Eickmeier
     
    Gary Eickmeier, Apr 17, 2011
    #19
  20. I think we are all agreed on the superiority of the Panasonic, so let's
    analyze why. The differences between cameras are:

    Lens
    imagers - three chip vs single chip
    recording medium, HDV tape vs AVCHD chip
    Speed - 15 mB/s for HDV, more like 28 for the Pannasonic

    I wish there were a web site that could do all of this for all reviews.

    Gary Eickmeier
     
    Gary Eickmeier, Apr 17, 2011
    #20
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.