Camcorders: Evaluating HDD or DVD Handycam
You don't even begin to understand the issues whizkid.
by Kiddpeat - 11/10/06 6:54 PM In reply to: Exponential Decay of price for HDD by whizkid454Decreases in computer prices, including storage costs, were probably occurring before you were born. They aren't exactly news flashes. You're clearly so eager to find a nail to use your hammer on that you fail to see the forest for the threes.
As for DVDs, if you want your videos stored on untested media whose life is uncertain, and which may be one scratch away from oblivion, that's certainly your choice. Others may be excused if they don't follow you off the cliff.
I love doing math...
by boya84 - 11/10/06 9:51 PM In reply to: Exponential Decay of price for HDD by whizkid454I can shoot 1 hour of high definition video on my HDR-HC1 on a $3 miniDV tape (which is actually a little high, but it is a nice round number). Again, for round numbers in this activity, lets say I have 50 tapes (I have more, but that is not the point). When I transfer that HD video to my computer, 1 hour of unedited, uncompressed, HD video (suitable for editing) uses 30 gig of hard drive space on my computer. That miniDV tape becomes my archive for later retrieval.
$3 per miniDV tape x 50 tapes = $150.
30 gig x 50 tapes = 1,500 gig or 1.5 terabytes.
I'm looking, but I can't find a terabyte drive for $150... Most are four times that. I guess I could do multiple 500 gig drives, but they end up costing even more.
http://shop2.outpost.com/search?cat=-48948&pType=pDisplay
http://shop2.outpost.com/search?cat=-48954&pType=pDisplay
(don't forget the drive cases)
I do agree that properly stored and never handled discs will not get scratched... but the fact remains that discs do not have the shelf life that digital tape does... and I specify digital tape since that is what miniDV tape is... which is VERY different from analog tape (like the old cassettes and VHS tapes...).
What about transfer time?
by hpwhite - 11/11/06 7:02 AM In reply to: I love doing math... by boya84I agree with all the posts about miniDV and Image Quality. I also agree about the storage issues, but this particular issues has not been a big deal to me since I am not a heavy video user or professional.
The biggest issue I have with miniDV is transfer/encoding time. Even with a fast computer and firewire it seems to take a VERY long time to get stuff off the camera to the point of doing something usefull with it. In my limited experience it adds HOURS to any project.
With DVD and HDD cameras this time is redically reduced, and close to zero. So basically you are editing immediately.
I would appreciate your thoughts on this, how much time you spend on transfer / encoding, and what if anything you do about reducing it.
Thanks
Phil
Based on personal experience...
by whizkid454 - 11/11/06 7:51 AM In reply to: What about transfer time? by hpwhiteHDD transfers way faster than miniDV. I can transfer a full 30GB in 10-15mins. I ahve heard it takes longer with miniDV tape.
Transfer time with miniDV
by boya84 - 11/11/06 8:37 AM In reply to: What about transfer time? by hpwhitecan be an issue, I agree. With standard definition video, it is a real-time activity - 1 hour of SD video transfered to a 'puter takes an hour. It can take longer with high-definition video. My G5 Macintosh buffers the high-def video and decodes it at about 1/2-3/4 speed so it takes about an hour and a half to get an hour of high-def video into my year and a half old machine. I would expect that the newer CoreDuo machines would be faster. And the reverse is also true - when the editing is complete, rendering out to DVD takes time (but this would be the same as with a hard-drive based... and this action has nothing to do with the camera).
I can't say that I totally agree that it adds HOURS to all projects, because all projects do not use full or multiple miniDV tapes. As a favor to an audio engineer/instructor friend, I shot about 30 minutes of video for her sound design class. The students wrote the script and story-boarded everything, so there were multiple shots of pretty much every scene. She did a quick edit and got it down to about 7 minutes - per the script. Their homework assignment was to do all the post-production audio. The video import/export was the least of the time taken in this example.
That said, if you are doing multiple miniDV tapes of the high-school drama production or sporting event or whatever other full or multi-tape activity to be edited, yes, it can add some time to import and export - but there is always something to do while that is going on. If you just sit there and stare at it, then you are wasting time that could be better spent doing something productive. I could argue that transferring from a hard drive (or ripping from a DVD) machine *could* be less productive since you might be compelled to sit there and wait for the file(s) to transfer - typically not enough time to go do something else productive. I hit "import" and go do something else like collect information for the credits or work on the opening titles design or have a cup of coffee or respond in forums like this (there is an import going on right now, by the way). If I choose to do something else away from the 'puter, I might swing by occasionally to see what progress is being made, but that is a quick glance at the screen - certainly not time-consuming.
For output, on my old G4 tower (in my standard definition days), I would click the burn-to-DVD button and go to sleep. In the morning, the disc was done. Today, even with HD video, it happens a lot faster than over night, and you are right, it can take some time... but again, I don't sit there and stare at it...
So it turns into more of a time-management activity than a time-waster... and given this, I guess it is fair to say that once I hit the import or export buttons I don't spend ANY time on transfer/encoding... Is there a big rush to do something that I'm not aware of?
Ok, this is (hopefully) the last argumentative post....
by whizkid454 - 11/11/06 7:49 AM In reply to: I love doing math... by boya84It is FACT that digital media (i.e. HDD, flash, and DVD) is decreasing in price very rapidly. Before you know it, computers will be sold with standard 500GB drives. This is all true because the price is going down allowing manufacturers to put larger drives in for less price. I agree that at this moment, price is still too high, but like I said, it will go down way below what it is now. DVDs (which hold 4.7GB) were as expensive as BluRay discs (which hold 25GB(eventually 50GB)) now when they came out in the 90s. Now you can find a DVD for $5 or less instead of $30 in the 90s.
When I record a certain event, such as a birthday or sports outing, etc, I never use the whole thing without editing it first like you said. But when you said you would sometimes reuse scenes you didn't use seems kinda odd. "Here's Johnny running around(new scene from earlier recorded video), wait.. this looks different than what I was just watching...". I don't know when I would ever use an unwanted scene so maybe that is just your personal way of editing but I would never do that so if I got rid of the unwanted video (approx 40mins out of 60 mins), I would save 66.6% of HDD space for an hour of video imported for other wanted video. This puts more wanted video in the HDD per dollar.
Please check this link for regarding the shelf life of miniDVDs (not that I'm actually sticking up for the format):
http://ezinearticles.com/?Mini-DVD-R&id=122953 Go to the third paragraph.
Sorry but I cant find an estimated shelf life of miniDV. But there are many websites that say there are many maintenance tasks that have to be done to miniDV tape. 1, fastforward or rewind the tape every couple years. 2, clean the heads, etc. There are really no maintenance tasks that have to be performed on HDDs or miniDVDs.
So....since there's really no point to arguing about this anymore, I will tell people what my own opinion is and you and Kiddpeat can tell the reader what your opinion is. They are both OPINIONS, not a fact of who is wrong or right. (BTW, that video you were putting together for me is not that big of a deal, you don't have to do it if you don't feel like it. But thanks for your willingness to do that for me.)
D
argument? Nah... interesting discussion.
by boya84 - 11/11/06 10:09 AM In reply to: Ok, this is (hopefully) the last argumentative post.... by whizkid454I agree that ALL memory prices are falling rapidly. That has never been denied. But I work and live and shoot video in the here and now... And right now, miniDV tape is much more cost effective as evidenced by the math activity I went through. And yes, I agree that given any set of numbers and arguments, one can make the numbbers say whatever you want them to - but in its simplest form - right now and likely for the short and mid term of at least a couple of years - MiniDV tape is cheap compared to electromechanical hard drives capable of storing the same amount of space.
As I have said before, hard drives and DVD-based recordable memory are an interim step...
Three years from now, this whole discussion would not be happening. It was not that long ago I remember paying $100 per megabyte for RAM - and I thought that was a good deal - when I was upgrading my Macintosh SE to max out at 4 meg of RAM. Today, it is less than $100 per gigabyte. But gig RAM was not available then and had I waited, I would not have been able to take advantage of the technology THEN. When new technology has a compelling reason AND I have a compelling event to jump in, I am all for it. That is why I use a HiDef camcorder even though I don't yet have a HiDef TV. I wanted a new camera (because my son got my Elura 60) and I can downsample... plus I know one of these days I will get a HiDef TV.
Solid-state memory - electronic RAM - for data storage is where this all needs to go. The low-end cameras like the AipTeks have the right idea - but they keep their prices low and image quality suffers. The Panasonic AG-HVX200 also has the right idea, but the P2 cards need to store more (1080i) and the whole rig needs to drop in price for mere mortals to afford. I have also said that hard drive based cameras would be fine for the short term - if the hard drives were removeable - but they aren't (unless you get an FS-4 which are WAY too expensive).
On using old cut scenes... I used to think the same way you did - If I cut the scene from the final edit, why would I ever use it anywhere? And I used to re-use the VHS tapes (when I used to use a full-format VHS shoulder mount camcorder) after editing... all the way up until I figured out a couple of things: (1) tape is cheap. (2) using scenes no one has seen can be fun. (3) outakes can be especially interesting... (4) when recorded over or deleted it is gone. Forever.
I do agree that there is a measure of savings by dumping shaky, really poorly lit, icky zoom/pan or blurry stuff no one would ever care about and where there really is no subject to speak of... but as time passes, I am getting less of that. I stand by my gig/tape continuing to be more cost effective - for now. As for maintenance, I had not heard the FF/RW every couple of years requirement... and cleaning the heads takes nearly 30 seconds... I don't see how that 1 item equals "many maintnenance tasks"... Just a suggestion, though, you should keep http://drivesavers.com/index.html handy - and I sincerely hope you never need them.
And I agree, we are stating our opinions... By the way, I am still prepared to email the series of 8 meg clips, but you said you couldn't see anything (though you could hear it) in the first 1/2 second uncompressed HD .mov clip I sent and your video editor would not recognize that .mov clip, either, so I figured there was not much else to do on it since the only way to get the whole several seconds would be to edit them together... which, by the way, was imported from from my archive tapes - that no one would ever see - until you asked, so I guess keeping everything DOES come in handy... 
You never did tell me how that downsampled, 2 meg, clip came across...
Whizkid.
by Kiddpeat - 11/11/06 3:39 PM In reply to: Ok, this is (hopefully) the last argumentative post.... by whizkid454The article you linked to on DVD life? I wouldn't bet any money on that opinion.
First, there is no link to a scientific study in the article. Things like what causes DVDs to fail, how soon they fail, which brands fare best, etc. Without a detailed study, video stored on home/camera burned media is hanging by a thread. I have seen studies on CD media longevity. They weren't very encouraging. I have not seen similar studies for DVD media. The author you cite doesn't even mention the importance of who made the media.
The author's qualifications? They appear to be focused on billing software for dentists and other businesses. In an age where everyone thinks he/she is an expert, his opinion is more of the same. It is lacking in credibility.
You really need to stop looking for nails, and think deeply about the issues. For example, where is that 500GB drive backed up? How many generations of backup exist? How will you know when that drive should be replaced to avoid data loss? How many more of them will you need? Those are some of the issues.
Kiddpeat.
by whizkid454 - 11/11/06 4:58 PM In reply to: Whizkid. by KiddpeatFirst of all, I don't think you know what these forums are about. Do you know why people post questions on this forum? They want responses from different people to see what they say. Are they the same? NO! It is an OPINION FORUM. Out of all your posts, I asssume(eh hem) that your opinion is for miniDV. I am ok with that because I RESPECT YOUR OPINION. I also respect boya's opinion and he in return respects mine. It just seems that you are trying too much to find wrongs in my OPINIONS when you could be helping people with their problems by saying what you think works for you.
Second, I don't know what "nails" you are talking about but in case you weren't aware, I'm not sticking up for miniDVD. In fact, ALL SHELF LIVES ARE ESTIMATES ANYWAY!!! Have you noticed that not even tape has been around for 100 years??? So how can you (or anyone) say it has a life of over 100 years?? Scientific tests do not prove the future. DVDS have been here for about 10-15 years so apparently there hasn't been enough time to test them thoroughly. When I see an official (or in your case, credible) report on shelf life of DVDs, I will then decide.
Third, I understand your hatred against HDDs being safe for data. When I transfer my videos, I put them on a DVD because I know they will not last forever on an HDD and will have a lot longer life on solid-state media. If my HDD crashes, I have DVDs to put back on there when I need them. If I dont mess with them and keep them stored, they won't scratch!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
These forums are about giving good information to people
by Kiddpeat - 11/12/06 6:35 AM In reply to: Kiddpeat. by whizkid454seeking it. The expression of opinion, if that opinion is questionable or wrong, is not the primary goal. Most things do involve opinion, but opinion needs to qualify itself with the possibility of error. Opinions expressed as 'this is a fact' fail to do this.
You seem to have a misapprehension of scientific knowledge. Science does indeed predict the future with a high degree of certainty. Those trips to the moon we made? That science stemmed from the 1930s. The people who built those missions had a high degree of certainty in their knowledge. The same thing has been done to recordable media. We know about tapes, hard drives, and CDs because scientists have studied these devices and learned their characteristics. We don't know much about DVDs. I suspect the reason is that we would not like that knowledge if it were released. However, we are stuck with that technology for the moment. We are well advised to be aware of the pitfalls and have a plan in place to work around them.
I don't hate HDDs. If you are really a kid, then I was using them and appreciating them before you were born. I LOVE the idea of an uncompressed video and audio stream going to a hard drive rather than tape. I just can't yet afford that technology. I also haven't figured out what I would do with that data once I had it. What I don't like is folks misrepresenting hard drive technology. Claiming that it is something that it really is not. Claiming, for example, that present day consumer HDD cameras deliver high quality. These devices MUST compress in order to work. That means lower quality. They also present backup issues and costs which are the same as those of the higher quality devices I described. Failing to acknowledge these difficulties, IMCO, is misrepresenting them.
Emotional diatribes and characterizations do not add to the debate.
I don't know where you see.....
by whizkid454 - 11/12/06 7:40 AM In reply to: These forums are about giving good information to people by Kiddpeatthat I said any format was for "fact" the best format available. And I don't see how anyone can predict the future (ummm....because it hasnt come yet!!!). Anyway, I'm done arguing with you because I'm going to use my time wisely by helping others who need help instead of wasting my time arguing with you. BTW, my member name, I guess, misled you. I am in fact 30 years old and there is a reason for my member name that I don't feel like telling the whole story. Good luck, and keep posting your OPINIONS to others and I will keep posting mine to others.
Argument over..... >:0
Thinking a DTE unit may be the best solution
by Horacio - 11/11/06 6:36 PM In reply to: Evaluating HDD or DVD Handycam by tremorzDTE (direct to edit) or firestore seems to me to be the future. It consist in an external HDD unit that attaches to a MiniDV camera giving you the option to choose between MiniDV media, or recording direct to a hard drive in a bunch of different formats including High Definition.
An external HDD is a better idea than an internal, which will limit you to a certain amount of time of shooting until you get to your computer. And also lets you the chance to record on tape, if you wish.
I heard that, this is what professional uses, and I hope, this is going to be available at consumer prices (a DTE unit cost around $1000 per 80GB, and obviusly that doesn't include the camera).
As far as DVD or internal HDD (reason of this forum), I think HDD is the way to go. DVD will only provide you the flexibility of storing without processing into the computer, but their capacity is quite small, compare to an 60 or 80gb hdd camera. HDD is cheaper and eco-friendly 
(no consumables).
Thanks for all your response ... which brings me to MiniDV
by tremorz - 11/12/06 8:25 AM In reply to: Thinking a DTE unit may be the best solution by Horacioa gentleman asked me earlier why didn't I consider MiniDV, which I briefly did but I just didn't have a 'feel' of how on earth will it work.
Went to a shop and the sales told me just connect the MiniDV Handycam to the compueter and select "Import"
But I'm unsure how (what files will turn out) after importing and are there many video editing software that supports it.
Also I've never handled a MiniDV solution before 
But I really like the idea of having no quality loss
| Forum legend: | |
 |
Locked thread |
 |
Moderator |
 |
CNET staff |
 |
Samsung staff |
 |
Norton Authorized Support team |
 |
AVG staff |
 |
Windows Outreach team |
 |
Dell staff |
 |
Intel staff |
