Community Newsletter: Q&A: What are the differences in today's camcorders? Go HD or wait?
- 1/17/08 4:10 PM
My take on best camcorder format
by SeniorSlacker - 1/10/08 7:45 AM In reply to: What are the differences in today's camcorders? Go HD or wait? by Lee Koo (ADMIN)
Russ: I firmly believe that the mini-DV cassette is potentially the best format. Memory cards and DVD formats use more compression and as a result will yield a poorer image, at least theoretically. It is also important to look at the resolution of the video chip or chips. A three-chip sensor will provide more detail than a one-chip, and chip size and resolution also are important. So the ultimate resolution of the camcorder depends on all these issues (and the lens quality, too).
For convenience, mini-DVD may be the best. The DVD can be played on conventional DVD players. Tape and memory chip units generally must play back using the camera itself.
For long term reliability, memory chip may be best. Fewer moving parts, fewer things to go wrong.
The resolution issue. One hour of mini-DV tape unloaded to a PC will eat up about 12 gb. When burned to a DVD it is compressed to about 4.7 gb. So the mini-DV tape should get you the highest resolution. And if you plan on burning DVDs from your video, it seems to me that maintaining the highest quality through the video editing process will ultimately get you the best end product.
Hope that answers your question.
Potential winning answers
by Lee Koo (ADMIN) - 1/11/08 3:34 PM
In reply to: What are the differences in today's camcorders? Go HD or wait? by Lee Koo (ADMIN)
Here are the selected submissions grouped in one post. Read through them and place your votes in the newsletter poll.
Answer:
Selecting a video camera
Russ,
One might say that this is the best of times and the worst of times for making a decision regarding a video camera. There are many choices from which to select and making a good long-term selection can be difficult. You have inadvertently made helping you a bit more difficult because you haven't given us any clues as to what your needs and expectations are, other than you want to modernize from the Hi-8 you currently own. However, I'll offer my two-cents worth of information and let you decide what is or isn't important.
As I see things (and this is strictly my opinion), you have two major issues with which to contend regarding the actual video camera: (1) storage format, and (2) standard definition (SD) or high definition (HD). I'm going to address the latter first as I think it is an easier decision.
There are a handful of high-def video cameras on the market these days. While watching your home movies in HD on your HD t.v. must be very exciting you may run into a problem if you want to create (i.e. capture, edit and burn to DVD) home movies from your recordings. It is my understanding that there remains little in the way of available software for working with high-def home video recordings (at least where the software can work directly with your footage - some software will allow you to work with your footage, but only after transcoding to a different format, which inevitably degrades the quality of the video). This may not be as true today as it was last year, but from what I am reading around the web (including here at CNET), the hardware is there, but software has lagged behind. If you are interested in the creative process of making home movies this may prove to be a problem. However, if you simply want to record movies and then watch them (directly) on your television, then go HD if you want to spend the money.
The more complicated issue is the one of to which media format you wish to record your movies. Currently the big three are Mini-DV tape, direct to DVD, and hard-drive-based units. There are some flash-memory type cameras on the market, but at this time I would, again, in my own opinion, steer clear of this option due to it's lack of recording time and video quality. Each of the big three has its own advantages and disadvantages, but it is how you will use your camera that may best determine the more appropriate route for you. That said....
While Mini-DV is the older technology here I still firmly believe it's the best all-round choice for the average consumer. First, the technology is tried-and-true. Second, Mini-DV tapes are rather inexpensive (especially when bought in bulk at a place like Costco or Sam's). Third, while they take a while to download ('capture') onto your computer, there is plenty of software available for editing if that is a direction in which you are currently engaged or think you would like to go. Fourth, they offer a very high-quality image and use a minimum amount of compression. Finally, you can save the tape for long-term storage as it remains quite stable over long periods of time if you take just a modicum of care of the tape.
Direct-to-DVD appears to me to be a system that is geared towards instant gratification. You can shoot your video and then take your DVD (actually it's a mini-DVD; not a full-sized one) to your computer or stand-alone DVD player and watch it on your monitor or television. It couldn't be simpler. This format works very well if you have no intention of making home movies (avoiding that creative process), but this method comes with a price: video quality. There isn't a whole lot of room on an unused mini DVD. If you elect to capture video using less compression you will have less recording time. If you opt to increase compression you will obtain longer recording times, but the video quality will diminish. This will become even more apparent if you watch your video on a large screen television where compression artifacts will become much more apparent. In addition, the cost of mini DVDs is more than that of mini-DV tapes by a fair margin.
Finally, there is the latest incarnation of media - the well-known hard drive. Hard-drive based camcorders appear to be the wave of the future based upon how many I see at my local consumer electronics stores as well as by what I read in the press and on the Internet. This isn't necessarily a bad thing either as a hard-drive based camcorder seems to bridge the gap between mini-DV tape and mini-DVD based camcorders. With a sufficiently sized hard drive you should be able to record long movies without the need for much in the way of compression, thus offering you good (if not great) quality video as well as long recording times. Transferring your videos to your computer should also be quick, but keep in mind that large video files still take time to transfer. However, you are no longer tied to the 1:1 time ratio when moving video from mini-DV tape to your computer so things will be much quicker than if you purchased a tape-based camcorder.
They only down-side that I can see with hard-drive based units is long-term reliability and I say this from the perspective of the hard-drive. Hard drives can be finicky. When they sit in your desktop PC there is no concern about motion (as opposed to a camcorder being moved while your video tape, dropped, etc.). There are no physical forces being exercised upon the drive other than those created by the drive itself (as it spins and the read/write heads move back and forth). Even laptops are reasonably safe for hard drives because most folks aren't moving around their laptops while they work on them. A camcorder is a different story and might better be related to the mini hard drives that have been found for years in MP3 players. Both camcorders and MP3 players can receive quite a bit of shock when being moved about in the normal course of use. And even with all the physical and software-based things a company can do to help protect a hard-drive, it is still in an environment that is less than conducive to long-life and reliability (this may be why so many folks see what they perceive to be premature deaths in hard-drive based MP3 players). If you are considering the hard-drive route for a camcorder I think I would carefully consider under what circumstances and how often it will be used. Remember, the big professional video cameras used by the folks at your local television station are tape-based and there is a reason they remain so: tried-and-true and long-term reliability.
I hope this helps you in your decision-making process.
http://forums.cnet.com/5208-6142_102-0.html?forumID=7&threadID=278424&messageID=2673098#2673098
Submitted by forkboy
***********************************************************************
Answer:
Go with HD... but its up to you on what storage type to use
Hi Russ,
This is really a two part question. The first part of the question is about what format to use; do you use SD or HD video formats? The second part of the question is about how the camera stores that chosen format.
So let's look first at the question of which format to use. Do you go with an HD camera or an SD (non-HD) camera? Much like HDTV television, video cameras are experiencing the same technology transition. A good indicator of how HD is not just hype is looking at the middle to high end camera market. There is not a single camera in the middle to high end market that is SD anymore. Everything is HD. The only SD cameras left on the market are at the low end as manufacturers are trying to get rid of their old supplies so they can move on to manufacture the new HD format equipment. So this really becomes a question of whether or not you want to have a future proof video camera or if you want to save a lot of money in the short term. In the end (5-10 years from now) SD video cameras will no longer be available anywhere nor will they be supported by many of the daily household items you will use.
So now we come to the second part of your question. How does the format get stored? There are many choices for how a camera will store a format's data. Traditionally cameras store the data on magnetic tape or film. In today's world we have a few more options such as hard drives, optical media (DVD), and even flash memory. The type of storage used does not change the format the video is recorded in but rather changes how you will interact with the data once your video has been recorded. Also, not every storage choice is available for both SD and HD formats. The following is a break down of the available storage choices, the formats they support and their pros and cons.
DV/HDV/MiniDV - This will be familiar to you as these are magnetic tapes like Hi8 uses. It is available for both SD and HD formats. SD formats use DV or MiniDV tapes and HD formats use HDV tapes. The down side to this storage choice is that you will have to carry around lots of tapes if you want to capture a lot of video (but you're already used to that with your Hi8). The up side to the format is that it is very easy to connect to a computer and edit your material. These cameras are supported by virtually every video editing software available.
DVD - This option uses optical media to store your recordings. These cameras require no editing or further preparation. Because of this your recordings can immediately be put into a standard DVD player for playback. The disadvantages of these cameras are that they only support the SD video format and it is much more difficult to download to a computer for editing. There are also only few software packages which allow you to edit this type of media and they are all typically simplistic programs that have little to no advanced editing features.
Hard Drive/Flash Memory - This option uses small hard drives or flash memory to store the video recordings. These cameras come in both SD and HD flavors. The downside to this choice is that your storage size is fixed within the camera. If you run out of space your only option is to copy your recordings to a computer so you can further free up the space on the camera. The up side of course is that you don't have to carry around lots of tapes. Also, these cameras are as easy to connect to a computer as the DV/HDV/MiniDV cameras are.
My recommendation would be to buy an HD camera in whatever storage format you prefer most. If you cannot afford an HD camera yet then wait to save some money and purchase one later. The video camera I chose is a Sony HDR-HC3. It is an HDV camera. While the hard drive based cameras are great I like not having a camera with fixed recording capacity. This is especially crucial if I go on trips where I may not have a computer accessible to me for days or even weeks at a time.
Whatever format and storage type you ultimately decide to go with make sure you do some more research as there are many cameras within each category to choose from and they all vary in terms of recording quality, extra features and so forth. Good luck!
http://forums.cnet.com/5208-6142_102-0.html?forumID=7&threadID=278424&messageID=2670382#2670382
Submitted by caskater4
***********************************************************************
Answer:
A reasonably priced camcorder with a future
Hi Russ,
I'll start with a short answer followed by an elaborate justification. I would recommend a Canon HV20 with an external firewire hard drive recorder. This is based on owning and enjoying a Canon HV10, Sony HC3, Sanyo HD1, Canon TX1, and Aiptek A-HD high definition camcorders, and miscellaneous SD cameras.
There are many measures of quality, but one of the most basic is resolution. Here are some picture size approximations for reference: SD 480I = 720 x 480 pixels, or about 350K pixels per picture (two interlaced fields); 720P = 1280 x 720, or about 1 megapixel per picture; and 1080P = 1920 x 1080, or about 2 megapixels per picture (1080I requires two successive fields for one picture).
And here are the pixel rates per second for various common formats: SD, 10 megapixels per second, 30 complete pictures; 720P30, 30 megapixels per second, 30 complete pictures; 1080I, 60 megapixels per second, 30 complete pictures; 1080P24, 48 megapixels per second, 24 complete pictures.
Interlaced standards imply that a picture will be reproduced using two interwoven fields, the first consisting of the odd numbered lines, the second of the even numbered lines. Most cameras expose each field separately, 1/60 of a second apart, which means that moving objects in the image won't line up when a picture is composed from the two fields. The benefit is that when they are shown as video, they produce a smoother moving image. Progressive standards imply that the entire picture is exposed at one time, as it would be on film. 1080P24 is supposed to emulate the appearance of film, as film is typically exposed at 24 frames per second.
We'll use this information below.
The first consideration in your choice of equipment should be the value of the content over your lifetime. It takes little more effort to shoot good video using HD formats versus SD formats, but results in pictures with three to six times the resolution. As resolution standards increase in the future, they will have greater value than SD video of the same content. It doesn't matter if this is personal or professional video, the same rule applies. The cost of the equipment is far less important than the time and effort you will spend using it over its life, and the content you will produce -- go for the best results.
Within the HD camcorders you are considering, there are four predominant compression formats: MJPEG (Canon TX1, JVC), HDV (HV20, others), MPEG-4 (Sanyo, Aiptek), and HDAVC (really MPEG-4 AVC, aka h.264). Real AVC requires lots of horsepower, and current implementations leave room for improvement, as one might expect in the first generation. HDAVC cameras typically record to hard disk or flash media.
MPEG-4 is generally for flash media cameras, such as the HD1 and A-HD. It allows 720P30 high definition recordings around 4 gigabytes per hour with acceptable quality, although quite a bit short of HDV quality. This is necessitated by the current capacity and data rate of flash memory cards. Memory cards still cost about ten times as much as DV tape for the same storage capacity, so you will probably want to erase and reuse the cards. Just be sure you have made two copies to different storage devices before erasing the original.
MJPEG is a format that offers easy editing, much like DV format (each picture is compressed individually). However, it eats memory like crazy (Canon TX1 uses about 8 GB/hr). And the difficulty of editing MPEG formats which share information from picture to picture is only a problem for the guy who has to write the editing program -- for you, there should be no additional burden.
MPEG-2, which is the basis for HDV, is well understood, and although it isn't as efficient at compression, produces an excellent image. HDV compression puts an hour of high definition content on a one hour DV tape, the same as a standard definition DV camera. HDV editing tools are common. DV tapes are inexpensive enough that it makes sense to never erase them, keeping them as your archive instead.
Speaking of media, DV tapes store about 12 GB for about $4. Flash memory is down to about $5 per gigabyte, and hard drives are around twenty cents per gigabyte to forty cents per gig for tiny drives. While hard drives are remarkably reliable, when they fail, their entire contents is gone. With video tapes, only the section affected by the failure (e.g. crinkling) is lost. When video is captured to a hard drive, it is ready to plug into a non-linear editing system immediately, avoiding the "real time" (1x) transfer of content from tape to disk before editing can begin. An ideal capture medium in terms of reliability, cost, and workflow is a removable hard drive.
But wait -- none of the consumer camcorders have removable hard drives! So you have to take the camera out of service in order to edit the content of its hard drive, or at least transfer it to another drive before editing, since you'll have to erase the contents of the camera's fixed hard drive before continuing to use it!
What makes a lot more sense is to use an external hard drive, capturing simultaneously to DV tape for archival purposes (copy 1) and to the disk (archival copy 2), which can then immediately be used for editing. Unfortunately, external firewire disks (with controller intelligence to be able to download) are remarkably expensive -- about the cost of a portable computer. So -- use a portable computer! Run an editor with a built-in capture program to record the content as you shoot. If you record it to an external hard drive, you can hot swap drives in the field for immediate editing.
The Canon HV20 is about the best quality, most versatile HDV camera available (according to reviews from owners at Amazon, NewEgg, CNet, etc.). My HV10 has been very pleasing, and the HV20 offers both 1080I and 1080P24 recording formats. It is said to have an actual 1920 x 1080 sensor (many HDV cameras are 1440 x 1080), with reasonable sensitivity and noise. It has an external mike in, and a headphone output (it is very important that you monitor your audio while shooting).
So that is the basis for my recommendation. However, I also recommend that you get an Aiptek A-HD (about $120 on sale) to play with, so you'll know what is coming. I have always associated Aiptek with gimick cameras that were fun but low quality. The A-HD is a real surprise in quality and low noise, and you can afford to give an HD Camcorder to your children! It seems to readout the video sensor in real time, so that if you pan quickly vertical objects tilt. Getting good audio is difficult. You'll need a tripod. But by and large, it is really cool. It can even record an NTSC video input (with audio) and work as a portable video (or MP3) player.
I've carried the HD1 (pocket sized) or the TX1 (even smaller) at all times for a few years. The world's finest camera setup won't do you any good if you don't have it with you when an opportunity presents itself. The 720P30 format is just fine in this context. The A-HD could also serve in this capacity.
By the way, great video requires great audio. Small portable recorders with good microphones (such as the iRiver IFP 7xx and 8xx series sold as MP3 players, or the Zoom H2) have crystal controlled timebases, just like your digital camera. As a result, the audio can be synchronized during editing and (as long as all devices remained rolling during record) they should remain in very good sync. You can sprinkle recorders in areas where you expect interesting audio, and once everything is rolling, clap once in front of the camera so you can line things up later. In this way, you don't have to be dependent on the camera's mike, or worry about dragging around the external microphone wire while you shoot. And you are not limited to the single channel of audio a wireless mike typically provides. If you get a wireless mike, remember you want a lightweight, battery operated receiver (most come with clunky AC powered receivers).
Although your camcorder will be great for handheld shots, please also get a decent tripod, with a quickly removable camera mount (and a spare platform), with "fluid head". The fluid is a viscous dampling fluid, which almost guarantees all of your camera moves will be smooth. A jerky tripod is almost useless for a video camera. Also, when you shoot on the tripod, turn off the image stabilization which will otherwise produce strange lagging movement effects.
Please remember when you are shooting that camera moves and zooms are like fonts on a page -- use too many and you distract from the content by calling attention to the camerawork.
So the answer, although it can be boiled down to a rational choice of equipment, is not intuitive. First, the cost of the equipment will be of far less importance than the value of the content; second, great video requires great audio; and third, great video requires great attention to lighting.
One last thing: Please back up your media, both locally and on distant servers. There are services which specialize in this, but with a little effort, you can use private space on a shared Internet host that is readily accessible but secure. Hosting space in a distant city can cost as little as $6 per terabyte(!) per month, but guarantees that any local catastrophes won't destroy your family picture and video collection. And if you wish, you can also set up your own website in the public space.
Whatever you choose, Russ, I hope you have a blast.
Aloha,
Steve
http://forums.cnet.com/5208-6142_102-0.html?forumID=7&threadID=278424&messageID=2670509#2670509
Submitted by Steven W Rose
MiniDV yeah, but...
by theanimaster - 1/11/08 5:59 PM In reply to: What are the differences in today's camcorders? Go HD or wait? by Lee Koo (ADMIN)
I got a JVC GR-X5 (mini-DV) camcorder, thinking it was HD because of the 16:9 "feature". It's not. It just adds black bars to get the 16:9 ratio (I HATE it when manufacturers do that)!
The biggest problem that arose later (which I will NEVER forgive myself for) was when I (yes, you guessed it) RECORDED OVER MY FIRST BORN'S DELIVERY (c-section). I was guilty of mentally calling other people 'stupid' for recording over their precious moments and here I am doing the same!! When I realised what I was doing I only had the part where he was out and into the incubator 
I was reviewing the footage the previous night and forgot to fast-forward the tape before I took more in the morning at the hospital. Ah well. It was one good moment for another. Alas, if it were a hard-disk based camcorder, it would have never happened.
Here's the thing. Get DV/MiniDV if you want to edit your movies right? Well that's what I knew from the beginning, and since I thought I'd be an editing freak, as I am a quality control freak, I thought I'd be editing away after my videos were on the computer.
NO, IT WASN'T SO.
It wasn't that I couldn't edit the video. I could edit it as much as I wanted to. The problem was TIME. TIME TIME TIME TIME TIME TIME TIME TIME TIME!! It seemed there just was never enough time to edit anything! Later on I started wishing I had gotten the hard-disk series in the first place (and all the while thinking back on my son's first moments in the world again). In the end I was just ripping the video and putting it order with quick transitions anyways. If it wasn't for iMovie '05 being limited to DV ripping, I would have felt worse...
THEN CAME IMOVIE 08!
iMovie 08 has the ability to rip video from these had-disk based cameras! That was initially a kick in the stomach for me, until I realised that iMovie 08 was a dumbed-down, bug-ridden atrocity to iMovie HD ('05). Suffice to say I'm still using iMovie '05, because I just don't have enough time (again... TIME) or disk space to convert all my iMovie '05 projects.
But speaking of disk space. I imagine if I had had a hard-disk camera... WHERE would I be putting all the footage? I'd probably be condemning them to 720X480 DVD resolution forever. Definitely they wouldn't be on my harddisk. With the miniDV at least I can have them on tape for almost forever and when and if I ever do get the time -- I can always edit it.
So if you're a busy person with little time to be mucking around editing your videos -- get a High Definition (HD) harddisk (HD) cam. This means you'll take the videos and burn them to DVD with little effects and little time. The only thing here is that with Blu-ray coming around, I'd probably wait a little longer.
If you're a video nut who likes to experiment, or you're a student doing video, get a High Definition (HD) cam with tape - miniDV or DV or as someone else mentioned (which I'm embarrassed to say I've never heard before) HDV. This also gives you the option to archive your video on the tape rather than on harddrives. With tape you're still sure to get the best quality you can either way. Just don't record over your son's first moments!!
HDV cameras: Standard mini-dv tape or HD mini-dv tape?
by GlennFaigen - 1/12/08 10:31 PM In reply to: MiniDV yeah, but... by theanimasterI just ordered the Canon HV-20. Wondering if it pays to spend the big bucks for the HD mini-DV tape (about $25 for 2 60 sec. tapes) or just go with the SD mini-dv tape (very cheap at Costco).
Do you know where I can get batter prices on the HD mini-dv tape?
Where's the best place to buy the extended life battery, filters, etc?
What is the voltage of the HV-20? I've got 12volt battery belts and a compact Propak (NRG) battery with 6volt converter/adapter that I used for my old Canon Hi-8. I can call to see if they make an updated 12v to 6v adapter for the HV-20.
Does it matter if I shoot on HD tape vs. SD tape if I transfer the footage to DVD (on my DVD recorder)?
Thanks so much,
Glenn
Any Mini DV tape will work
by dan herrman - 1/13/08 12:44 PM In reply to: HDV cameras: Standard mini-dv tape or HD mini-dv tape? by GlennFaigenJust stick with the same brand.
The tested version of the Panasonic PQ versus MQ came out identical and the MQ cost twice as much.
It is all about dropped frames and I have shot years worth of tape and never experience dropped frames.
I believe it 100% marketing.
Stay away from the cheap versions though as they are put together ussing less lubricant and that is what is the difference with tape brands.
There are many sellers on line and I buy in the 100 per order category and pay 3 bucks/per for the Panasonic PQ and they are great.
Remember DV is nothing but 1 and 0's and as long as you shoot with quality camera you will get quality output.
anyone saying that a 13 dollar DV tape can out perform a 3 dollar tape just is not understanding how DV works
Panasonic MQ vs. PQ mini-dv tape
by GlennFaigen - 1/13/08 9:03 PM In reply to: Any Mini DV tape will work by dan herrmanDan:
I'm assuming you like the Pansonic brand and thatMQ is Panasonic's version of "standard" mini-dv tape while PQ is the HD version?
Is the TDK standard mini-dv tape (as sold at Costco) bad?
Isn't there any difference in quality using HD tape...if played back directly to a HD TV wouldn't I see a difference? Otherwise, why is the camcorder 1080i HD capable?
No problem or difference transferring to DVD using either standard or HD tape?
Thanks,
Glenn
Sorry...got the MQ and PQ reversed.
by GlennFaigen - 1/13/08 9:08 PM In reply to: Any Mini DV tape will work by dan herrmanMQ is the HD version of Panasonic's mini-dv tape?
Standard versus "High Definition" DV tapes
by Steven W Rose - 1/14/08 11:34 AM In reply to: Sorry...got the MQ and PQ reversed. by GlennFaigenHi Glenn,
Dan is right. Even on the Panasonic web site, all of the listed specifications for the two tapes are no more than 1 dB apart, and both have the "diamond like carbon coating". The key element is that the bit rate for standard definition DV recordings is the same as the bit rate for HDV recordings, and the tape transports can therefore be identical. This is achieved by using a different compression strategy for each.
SD DV compresses each picture without reference to any other picture, which makes editing (i.e. writing editing programs) much easier. It also avoids new compression artifacts in cuts-only editing, and is comparable to the MJPEG strategy.
HDV uses MPEG-2, which uses two additional strategies to reduce the overall bit rate. Some pictures are encoded as only the difference between the current and last picture (P frames), which reduces the number of bits required for that picture to about 1/3 (ymmv) of that required to encode the entire picture (I frames). And then, the nasty trick: Many frames are encoded based on differences between the reference picture that comes before, and a reference picture that comes after (B frames)! The nasty part is that this requires sending the pictures in a different order (decode order) than they will be presented (presentation order), so that B frames will have all the information needed to be decoded properly. It is worth doing because a B frame takes about 1/3 of the bits of a P frame. And the result is being able to record on DV tape at the same rate as SD (25 megabits per second), but storing video with four times the number of pixels.
Please note that I've used the term picture (and been loose with the use of frame) to avoid the complexities of interlace.
The implications of all of this relative to tape quality has to do with the impact of a tape dropout. With SD DV, a dropout can only affect one frame. With HDV, the impact of a dropout can affect a sequence of frames if it happens in the wrong place. Video circuits for tape based devices contain "dropout compensation" designed to visually mask dropouts. But as Dan mentioned, experience shows that regular DV tape seems to be almost dropout free, in part due to the digital nature of the data recorded. And the manufacturer's specs don't even mention dropout rate, which would be the telling comparison.
If I were the marketing guy, I'd be talking about any difference in dropout rate, and any archival qualities of the more expensive tape. However, according to the specs on the website, there are no differences in these qualities. I use standard DV tape in my HDV recorders, just like Dan.
Speaking of archival qualities, tape is not an archival medium. It is finely powdered rust glued to a very thin strip of mylar, and no matter how well lubricated or what type of protective coating, the biggest problem in my experience (since 1969) is glue failure, where the oxide rubs off. DV tapes seem to be much better than earlier standards, but please store your tapes carefully, and make periodic backups to then current media, so that you will continue to be able to play them! It gets difficult to find equipment to play back old formats as the years pass.
Aloha,
Steve
Steve deserves a Top rate for his detailed reply
by dan herrman - 1/15/08 6:32 AM In reply to: Standard versus "High Definition" DV tapes by Steven W RoseSteve did you a favor with his response and I can tell that he is either a pro or prosumer user.
Sticking to the differences between the $3 panasonic PQ versus their MQ HDV version here is the marketing take
What is the difference between the Panasonic PQ, MQ and AMQ?
The Panasonic(PQ)professional quaility product a new evaporation technology named S-AME(Super Advanced Metal Evaporation). With the new process, it is now possible to improve magnetic density over 400% Panasonic PQ mini dv tape is also available in professional master grade (MQ). "MASTER GRADE" DV Tape is +1db C/N and 1db OUTPUT vs. Pro Standard PQ series. The new (AMQ)series has these further advancements: -Enhanced Durability for Still Images -High Output Level -Superb Total Performance -Low Head Wear -High-Precision Cassette Design -2-Way Opening Soft Case.
So for three dollars more you can feel better about the Still images you take with your VIDEO camera and the fact that you can get a TWO WAY OPENING SOFT CASE.
I would like to understand the low head ware but all I know is the three HDV cameras I use; Sony HDR-HC1 (Camcorderinfo.com 2005 Camera of the year), Canon XH-A1 (Camcorderinfo.com 2006 Camera of the year)and the Canon Hv-20 (Camcorderinfo.com 2007 Camera of the year) all have performed flawlessly other than when I miss a shot,and I have run nothing but Panasonic Mini DV, AY-DVM63PQ (Professional Quality) tape through them (other than using the cheap Panasonic tape early on, but I guess I bought into the marketing and upgraded to the PQ two years ago) and I have never dropped a frame and have not noticed any head ware in the quality of my captures. Trust I wear these cameras out.
Keep in mind I shoot load into Hard Drives through Cineform HDLink (which will notify you if you missed a frame) and Edit then Store.
With 500GB Drives costing $100 and having the tape stored at my office
I have the protection of all of my footage that I deem necessary to save.
With all the choices of media nothing is better than $3 tape at this point. If you use HD for Capture you will need to back it up, if you use DVD then you will have a difficult time in the edit suite and if you use Flash then either prepare to spend a fortune for extra cards or bring a hard drive with you to off load footage on you next extended trip.
80 minute tapes
by sfraibe2 - 1/15/08 7:22 AM In reply to: Steve deserves a Top rate for his detailed reply by dan herrmanWhat is your opinion(s) about 80 minute tapes?
Thanks Steve & Dan...HD vs reg. mini-dv tape in Canon HV-20
by GlennFaigen - 1/15/08 10:40 PM In reply to: Steve deserves a Top rate for his detailed reply by dan herrmanThanks to both Steve & Dan for your input & advice...very tech. oriented!
From what I gather in layman's terms, I can record using the HD mini-dv tape but it will give me more headaches than is worth the quality difference. Direct transfer of HD tape from my camera to my DVD recorder won't work?? Editing more complicated?? Why even have a HD camera? I guess it kind of "upconverts" standard tape to HD quality (like 1080P dvd players do for standard dvd's through the HDMI cable to HDTV's)? Kind of a shame... just thought to get the best quality out of a HD camera would be to use HD tape!! Even if I want to shoot & archive on the HD tape (for future ease of use, compatibility and HD quality), I understand there will be a problem transfering my footage to my standard DVD recorder? Then I guess I have no choice other than to use the non-HD (standard) mini-dv tape...which sounds like there's not much quality difference from HD anyway. I guess the only thing you can do if shooting on the HD tape (other than the fancy editing programs that can deal with HD tape) is just playing back through HDMI cable to the HDTV?! Thanks for the recommendation on the Panasonic tape; seems all versions (PQ, MQ and the new AMQ) are good, better and best versions of their standard mini-dv tape. Does Panasonic put out a HD mini-dv tape? Just curious. I will look around for the AMQ tape and forget the other brands on your recommendation.
Thanks so much,
Glenn (still kinda' stuck in the analog world):<)
Clarification about standard vs "High Defiinition" DV tapes
by Steven W Rose - 1/16/08 4:48 PM In reply to: Thanks Steve & Dan...HD vs reg. mini-dv tape in Canon HV-20 by GlennFaigenHi Glenn,
The resolution of the video recorded on a DV tape does not depend on the tape. It only depends on the capability of the camera. If you put a "High Definition" DV tape in a standard definition DV camera, its contents will be in standard definition. If you put a DV tape that is not labeled "High Definition" in a high definition camera, the contents of the tape will be in high definition. The words "High Definition" on the tape label mean almost nothing -- they were put there by the marketing department to extract (lots) more money from your pocket.
What Dan and I were saying about DV tapes is that there is no point in wasting your money on the "HD" tapes because the regular DV tapes are excellent. There is no additional "stress" on the tape to record HD, because it is recorded on the tape at the same bit rate as standard definition DV. The higher resolution is obtained by using a different compression approach (MPEG-2 versus DV). There is no "up-conversion" trick -- the content of a tape recorded on an HDV camcorder is genuine HD, regardless of what is printed on the label.
There is a big difference in the quality of HD versus regular standard definition DV. HD is really beautiful, and worth using even if you are going to watch in standard definition for now, because you'll be able to watch in high definition later.
Dubbing your video to a standard DVD is really easy. Most HDV cameras have an NTSC "composite" A/V output, and automatically translate the high definition content of the tape to standard definition on that output. This "down conversion" does not affect the content of the tape, only the playback resolution from the A/V output port. The cable that plugs into this port comes with the camera, and has a yellow video plug, and separate red and white plugs for audio. Connect them to the corresponding inputs on your DVD recorder, insert a blank DVD, and press record on the DVD recorder and play on the camera. When it is finished, you'll have a standard definition DVD that you can play anywhere. This will also work for dubbing all of your existing analog video to DVD, and the recorders are under $100!
If the camera and the recorder have firewire connections, you can use a firewire cable instead of the analog cable and get an even better copy. You'll need to use the camera's menu to have it put out standard definition DV format on the firewire, as the firewire connection can also be used for high definition transfers.
As Blu-Ray and HDDVD recorders become more affordable, you'll be able to repeat the process with the same tape, using the firewire port in high definition mode, and produce a high definition DVD copy, with about four times the resolution.
By the way, recording to DVD directly, as many cameras offer, does not really offer instant gratification or an easy solution. First, DVD RW media has to be preformatted before being used, which takes a minute or so. DVD R media can be used immediately, but it must be "finalized" before it can be used in a standard DVD player, which can take up to six minutes for a clean disk. Once finalized, any remaining space on the disk becomes unusable.
Each mini DVD disk records for a relatively short period unless you severely compromise the video quality (which can never be recovered). And if anything goes wrong during the finalizing process, you can lose the entire contents of the disk, just like the silver coasters your CD burner sometimes creates.
Disks from DVD AVCHD cameras can only be played back from the camera, or from an external Blu-Ray player that knows how to decode AVC video. This information about DVD cameras comes not from direct experience, but from reading dvd camera instruction manuals and posts of frustrated owners.
Bottom line:
> HD is beautiful, and takes no more time or effort than recording standard definition.
> HD is not upconverted standard definition, but really has two to four times the resolution of standard definition.
> HDV offers the very best current approach to recording HD (see other posts for more).
> HDV cameras allow you to easily produce a standard definition DVD for now, and HD later (or now if you are wealthy).
> DV tapes of any type will record HD. The tape doesn't "know", because the bit rate is the same for HDV and DV. Standard DV tapes and so called "High Definition" DV tapes produce the same result.
If the "HD" tapes were 20% more, I'd buy them just for snob appeal, even though the quality of the output is the same. But at $3 versus $12, I think not.
Aloha,
Steve
80 minute tapes
by sfraibe2 - 1/16/08 6:25 PM In reply to: Clarification about standard vs "High Defiinition" DV tapes by Steven W RoseSteve,
Can you comment on the quality of 80 minute tapes vs. 60 min.
Thanks
83 Minute DV vs 63 Any difference....YES
by dan herrman - 1/17/08 4:37 AM In reply to: 80 minute tapes by sfraibe2The issue is tape run length, which can affect tape thickness. 63 minute and shorter tape is 7.0µm thick while 80 and 83 minute tape is 5.5µm thick. The thinner tape presents more of a flaking hazard to your equipment and stands a greater chance of wrinkling or otherwise deforming. It is considered somewhat less reliable. Remember only Panasonic, Sony and TDK make their own tape. Canon and several others buy form Panasonic and rebrand, Fuji makes other media so I assume they make tape also. I do recommend the highest available quality of tape if using 83 minute cassettes.
Longer, thinner DV tapes and the "LP" mode
by Steven W Rose - 1/17/08 4:52 AM In reply to: 80 minute tapes by sfraibe2Hi Steve,
I haven't used any 80 minute tapes, and I don't expect to. In general, tape is a fragile medium, so making it thinner has generally been a bad idea unless there was a new backing medium (e.g. the transition from acetate to mylar). This is particularly true when you want to play the tape in the future and the friction of the transport device has increased, which can cause stretching (the supply reel is retarded by an appropriate, but critical, amount of friction). Notice the difference in diameter of the tape pack on the supply reel from full to empty in the context of the transport having to maintain an even backpressure regardless of the amount of the tape remaining.
Sixty minute tapes actually record for about 62 minutes. Eighty minutes is not enough of a gain to balance the risk. There are longer DV tapes, but they are in physically larger cassettes and will not fit most camcorders. They are intended for use with professional decks.
By the same token, recording in LP mode on a 60 minute tape to get 90 minutes is a bad idea. If you check the manuals of most camcorders that offer this, you'll notice a warning that a tape recorded in LP mode may not play back on another camcorder or deck. What that really means is that it may not play back on even the original camcorder at some point in the future as the transport ages.
If sixty minutes is not enough, my advice would be to either use a hard drive based camcorder with an external power supply, or use an external hard drive recorder or laptop connected by firewire to a DV camcorder as we discussed earlier.
Aloha,
Steve
| Forum legend: | |
 |
Locked thread |
 |
Moderator |
 |
CNET staff |
 |
Samsung staff |
 |
Norton Authorized Support team |
 |
AVG staff |
 |
Windows Outreach team |
 |
Dell staff |
 |
Intel staff |
