Simplify your laptop buying
Camcorders: MiniDV or a HDD - advantages and disadvantages?
MiniDV or a HDD - advantages and disadvantages?
by haralampi - 5/6/08 11:00 AMI am about to buy my first camcorder and I have done some research already. The main question I have is: should I go for a MiniDV or a HDD model?
A typical work flow for me would be:
1) Travel somewhere and shoot a video footage
2) Get back home and review the footage I have got
3) Pick/cut/edit/dub some scenes, maybe even add some music to the footage
4) Encode/compress some of the scenes and send them to friends
5) Possibly convert to DVDs to watch on TV
6) Archive
I am using computers a lot and most of the video viewing will be on computers as well. I don't want to go for professional quality videos but still I need some decent quality, good colors and sharp picture - I already have a still images camera that can make videos but I need something better than that 
Also I don't want to spend too much money on camcorder so I guess that makes me a budget buyer.
I had some mixed opinions from different people (including camcorder dealers) and am still not sure which format is best for me. Most people are saying that MiniDV has still the best quality (very little compression) while hard drive camcorders use MPEG2 or MPEG4 compression. I have no doubts about that but the question is: is the difference in quality THAT big?
What I don't know is how easy/difficult it is to edit (points 3, 4 and 5 from my work flow above) a MiniDV recording vs one from a HDD. What are the advantages and disadvantages?
Watching with great interest
by QPhox4 - 5/6/08 1:38 PM In reply to: MiniDV or a HDD - advantages and disadvantages? by haralampiI'm watching this thread with great interest. A year ago I almost bought a DVD model thinking it was the way to go. Onto DVD, right into the computer. Then had second thoughts and used my old analog Sony for my vacation. Last weekend, I almost bought a HDD model (going on vacation again.) After spending a few days researching, I finally decided I didn't need HDD or Hi Def at the current prices, and probably didn't want DVD as it is more involved than out of the camera and into the computer. My Hi-8 video converted to digital is NOT good! So I decided on the Sony MiniDV, model DCR-HC62, mainly for price. As much as I use a camcorder, I couldn't justify much more than the $300 price tag. Of course, I have very little experience with video, but wanted to get some practice before the once-in-a-lifetime vacation. Some blogs/reviews I read made sense to go mini DV over the HiDef or MPEG route for my purposes. But still, I'd like to read on, and see if I made the right decision.
Buzz
Is the video quality difference that big?
by boya84 - 5/6/08 2:03 PM In reply to: MiniDV or a HDD - advantages and disadvantages? by haralampiIt depends... (I know - I hate this answer, too). But lets look at what you have...
First, in your work flow: Since miniDV tape is the archive, you essentially drop step 6. Unless you count exporting the finished project our to the camcorders as "archiving". This would only be done in the miniDV tape steps - not the hard drive camcorder steps. In the case of the hard drive camcorder, I would move that back to around step 2 or 3 or 4. Once you transfer the video from the camcorder to the computer, you *might* be ready to shoot more video before you've had a chance to edit what you have so you *might* delete video from the camcorder. If you start editing and deleting files from the computer - then decide you want something that you cut/deleted, and the archive is not yet done, recovery will be challenging.
Getting the video into your computer is the next step - MiniDV tape requires firewire (IEEE1394a, i.Link) for importing. Hard drive camcorders typically use USB for copying the video data files. Importing over firewire is generally real-time - whereas copying the files take a lot less time. You can use the importing of DV to watch/review possible video to use in the project, or you can go do something else (like I do... there is always something else to do around the house). Please do not fall into the "copying data files is faster so it must be easier" trap. Both transfer methods are equally easy/difficult. One way you click import; the other way you copy files. "Ease" has nothing to do with it. Keep in mind that if you archive the hard drive based video, you will most likely be burning optical discs (DVDs) with data files - and that can be time consuming (and you would need to feed the computer discs) so most of the time you think you saved copying files rather than importing files will get eaten.
Editing is easy once you have the right tools. Pretty much any video editor can deal with standard definition video whether from miniDV tape or hard drive based camcorders. Under certain conditions, you may need a free software utility to convert the MPEG video file from the camcorder hard drive to something your editor likes. High definition gets a little more tricky. For the most part, any editor that says it can deal with HDV (the high definition format from miniDV tape) can deal with HDV from any camcorder. In the hard drive (and flash memory world, many of the manufacturers have implemented AVCHD. This compression method is relatively new and not all editors can deal with all camcorders. Just do some research to be sure the camcorder you pick will get along with the video editor you pick.
Once the editing is done or a specific clip is selected, the video editor can "save as" or Export various video data file formats and compression methods suitable for emailing or uploading.
If a DVD for playback in most DVD players is desired, then a DVD authoring application (which also typically allows for creating a menu for scene selection) would be used.
Personally, I watch what the big boys use...
http://pro.sony.com/bbsc/ssr/cat-broadcastcameras/cat-hdv/
http://www.usa.canon.com/consumer/controller?act=ProductCatIndexAct&fcategoryid=172
http://www.panasonic.com/business/provideo/cat_camcorders.asp
Generally, it is typically DV and HDV which means miniDV tape. Even the flash memory (Panasonic P2 cards) and hard drive (externals from Sony or Firestore) save to DV or HDV.
A couple more issues...
by haralampi - 5/6/08 2:59 PM In reply to: Is the video quality difference that big? by boya84Wow, thanks for the thorough explanation!
It addressed my concerns to some extent. As far as archiving goes, it is pretty much clear: MiniDV tapes are a good archive in their own right. If I use HDD, I will have to burn DVD archives. That's clear.
A few more questions here:
1) I don't have a firewire port on my laptop/PC but I assume that some/most of the MiniDV cameras would support USB transfer, am I correct?
2) What about the system resource's usage when it comes to editing/converting videos? My computer is not that bad but the video is integrated on the MB, so it is not the best one. Would that favor MiniDV or HDD(MPEG) conversion?
3) HDD cameras use some variation of MPEG, which is data loss compression. If I take that footage that's already compressed, edit it (add music, dub it, shuffle scenes) and want to produce a DVD for example, this will mean that I will have to compress again. Would that degrade the quality of the DVD too much?
Thanks!
This is fun...
by boya84 - 5/6/08 3:44 PM In reply to: A couple more issues... by haralampi1) I don't have a firewire port on my laptop/PC but I assume that some/most of the MiniDV cameras would support USB transfer, am I correct?
No. USB transferring/importing video from miniDV tape camcorders pretty much does not work - that's why I specified the difference. If your tower has an available PCI slot or if your laptop has an available PCMCIA slot, firewire400 ports are cheap and easy to add
http://shop1.outpost.com/%7BJd5gO-xhf4Nu7lxPI+DVKw**.node1%7D/search?search_type=regular&sqxts=1&query_string=firewire+card&cat=&submit.x=0&submit.y=0
Once the firewire400 card is working properly, there are no device-specific drivers (i.e., camcorder drivers) required. The firewire protocol allows for the communication between the computer and the camcorder. Generally, if the camcorder does have a USB port, that is used ONLY for transferring stills from a memory card (if it has that capability) or for web-streaming. Please note that I have specified Firewire 400 - there are two versions. the firewire800 version (much faster) will not work with your camcorder and is generally used with certain external hard drives.
With hard drive based camcorders, the USB connection requires device specific drivers and are either included with the operating system or are easily added.
2) What about the system resource's usage when it comes to editing/converting videos? My computer is not that bad but the video is integrated on the MB, so it is not the best one. Would that favor MiniDV or HDD(MPEG) conversion?
What I have found is that if your computer is within about 3 years old, you will not have an issue with editing either standard definition or high definition video. Nor will you have an issue importing standard definition video. If you are doing high definition video, there can be an issue importing (it can take longer than real time) or exporting (back out to the miniDV camcorder or burning a DVD or anything that takes CPU resources for rendering frames (transitions, titles, special effects, etc.), but this is on the CPU - not on the video card. From what I can tell, the video card hardly works at all - but the CPU is working REALLY hard. In any case, fast CPU and LOTS of RAM... I do all my editing and rendering on Macintoshes - and I am using a 3 year old PPC based 2GHz, 2 gig RAM iMac flatpanel. Most of my video is 1080i HD when it comes into the computer. It leaves the computer as 1080i (back to the camcorder), standard definition (480p, I guess) when written to the DVD, or various MPEG4 compressed data files for uploading. Yes, a new Intel-chip based CoreDuo machine would be much faster, and that is in the plans - but I'd like to get another camcorder first. Heads up on hard drive space: One hour of standard definition video uses about 14 gig of hard drive space when imported - and hidef uses about 4x more than that. I use a couple of 500 gig external (firewire-connected) drives for video project work.
3) HDD cameras use some variation of MPEG, which is data loss compression. If I take that footage that's already compressed, edit it (add music, dub it, shuffle scenes) and want to produce a DVD for example, this will mean that I will have to compress again. Would that degrade the quality of the DVD too much?
Most HDD drives do indeed use some sort of highly compressed video in side an MPEG wrapper. As soon as the video was compressed, the data was lost. Generally, when you bring the video into your computer, it is decompressed so your video editor can work on it. You are correct that you would be compressing again to render the DVD, but the data was discarded way before that. "Too much" is a relative term and subject to your eye and taste. The "high quality" hard drive or flash camcorders might be "good enough" for you... They are not for me, but then I sometimes connect my camcorder to my HDTV (using component video and the audio cables) and watch my exported final projects in high-def... I don't believe this is possible with hard drive based camcorders (you can watch the original raw, unedited, footage) - and I have exported the file as "high quality" MPEG4, connected a computer to the HDTV with a VGA cable and it looks REALLY good...
Thanks
by haralampi - 5/7/08 9:22 AM In reply to: This is fun... by boya84Thanks a lot!
More info to consider
by bmccaig - 5/11/08 4:38 PM In reply to: Thanks by haralampiA few other factors to consider:
1) mini-dv tapes have a limited "self" life. If you want to archive your video permanently, you have to burn it to dvd.
2) while mini-dv tapes should be multi-use, they in fact are not. I've been using a Canon mini-dv video camera for about 10 years and have learned with experience to only ever use the tapes once. I just don't get good quality results the second time I use the tape.
3) when the hard drive on the HDD camera fills up, you can just swap in a new one and keeping shooting like you can with a mini-dv tape.
I've been considering the same question that you've posed here and after 10 years with my mini-dv cam, I'm pretty sure that my next one will be an HD hard-drive based video camera.
Based on my personal experience, I'd advise a nice little HDD camera that mets your needs and price range.
Good luck!
This one is news to me...
by boya84 - 5/11/08 6:37 PM In reply to: More info to consider by bmccaigHow do you "swap in a new hard drive" on a internal hard drive based camcorder? I've never seen that at any manufacturer's web site or in any manuals. What do you do with the full one? Is there an external case? Any manufacturer or model number information?
I agree that reusing tapes is not good - I never have and have never recommended that...
MiniDV vs. HDD
by forkboy - 5/11/08 10:43 AM In reply to: MiniDV or a HDD - advantages and disadvantages? by haralampiI have commented on a handful of other posts regarding this very issue during the past year and I stand by my long-held opinion: MiniDV is a better camcorder solution than hard drive.
In your original post I find your work flow to be very similar to my own and while the transferring of MiniDV to computer is time consuming it is, in my opinion, the only drawback to MiniDV. And while my post will venture into a slightly different area I would like to address on item you bring up: image quality. Is there enough of a difference due to compression to be of concern? I would say this is a much more important issue now than it was just five years ago. With the proliferation of large screen t.v.'s I believe image quality is more important than ever. Compression artifacts will only be more obvious as screen size increases.
While I have long been a proponent (and owner) of MiniDV over the other available options (until recently: mini-DVD and hard-drive)I would strongly urge you to consider the flash-based camcorder option.
While my Sony MiniDV camcorder works just fine, I am seriously looking at purchasing an entry level flash based device for standard definition recording. I may, however, move up to high definition if I can justify the additional cost. Regardless, I genuinely believe that flash-based camcorders are the wave of the future and in this instance I also believe they make for a far better product than either hard drive or mini-DVD based camcorders.
Unfortunately I haven't yet had the opportunity to fully research flash based camcorders so I cannot speak to the issue of compression, but I believe we can look to issues such as price, weight (and possibly size) and reliability as being favorable for flash based camcorders. My only caveat regarding flash-based units would be to avoid those camcorders with a built-in media card. We all know that flash cards can fail (although they tend to be incredibly reliable) and it is much easier to simply throw away (or send in for replacement depending upon the warranty situation) a flash card that you plug in versus one that is built-in, thus facilitating the need to send the unit in for repair.
Regardless, I wish you success in finding a camcorder that best suits your needs and expectations.
but why do they compress?
by manxman777 - 12/3/08 5:02 AM In reply to: MiniDV vs. HDD by forkboyWhy are videos saved on flash memory compressed? Is it just to save space? Don't any of the manufacturers realize how convenient many potential customers feel flash is? But we are turned off by loss of data due to compression. Or is the space needed for uncompressed video so large that even a 16 GB card gives so little recording time as to be considered a poor value?
Richard
(who really likes the idea of a no-moving-parts flash card for a camcorder)
Compression ....my 2 cents
by Papa Echo - 12/3/08 4:11 PM In reply to: but why do they compress? by manxman777A 60 minutes footage on a miniDV tape when transfered to a computer hard disk as AVI use up, some 60G....Are there many Flash memory cards of 60G capacity ? If so, at what price ? So, essentially, video file has to be compressed ....
The video footage on a miniDV tape is not in the form of a "file" but digital signals - it is only turned into a very large AVI file(relatively uncompressed) by the "capturing program". Video editing then create "projects" from the AVI file ...and it is these projects that are saved in the form of files of your choice, e.g. mpeg2 (for creating DVDs) or mpeg4 (for HD, Blur-ray...)now conveniently compressed, whereas for Hard Disk and Memory cards format, the camcorder compresses the video in-camera to mpeg ...meaning that "editability" is somewhat lost...
quality or convenience ???
by manxman777 - 12/3/08 4:31 PM In reply to: Compression ....my 2 cents by Papa EchoPapa Echo: thank you for comments. 1 GB per minute. Wow! Compared to a 120 minute DVD at about 40 MB per minute. 25:1 compression. Am I understanding that correctly?
I have spent over an hour today visiting various forums and reading comments about DVD vs. miniDV vs. hard disk vs. flash. Everyone seems to understand miniDV camcorders capture more quality, but there are so many conveniences to some of the other formats.
I have a decent digital SLR and still shoot using highest quality JPG mode. Keep planning to go RAW but have not. Then I discovered that even RAW is compressed on my camera. On my camera, raw to jpg is about 4:1.
If it was only family parties, etc, I'd go flash, but I hope to do more than that so having more quality available gives me more options.
Richard
A little overestimated.
by whizkid454 - 12/3/08 6:33 PM In reply to: Compression ....my 2 cents by Papa EchoOne standard definition tape takes up anywhere from 10-15GB of space depending on many factors during recording.
maybe flash can work
by manxman777 - 12/4/08 3:59 AM In reply to: A little overestimated. by whizkid454If we use 15 GB for an hour, then flash could (based simply on numbers) come close to matching miniDV. The Canon HF11 claims 24 Mbps which results in 2 hours 55 minutes on its 32 GB internal memory. In my research I am pretty sure I saw 25 Mbps for miniDV in a number of cases.
I have looked at so many review sites, and many (most?) just do not bother researching the quality issue (at least not from a compression or transfer rate point of view). CNET isn't bad, but usually the transfer rate is NOT mentioned in the spec section. You have to read through the commentary to find it.
Are there better review sites?
Richard
review site
by manxman777 - 12/4/08 4:06 AM In reply to: maybe flash can work by manxman777answered my own question about review sites - http://camcorderinfo.com seems to be a good one
Richard
| Forum legend: | |
 |
Locked thread |
 |
Moderator |
 |
CNET staff |
 |
Samsung staff |
 |
Norton Authorized Support team |
 |
AVG staff |
 |
Windows Outreach team |
 |
Dell staff |
 |
Intel staff |
