Since I have been in the market for a high definition camcorder, I
have done some research comparing the two formats. I have read many
threads on various newsgroups and forums and consolidated my findings.
I have posted these findings at http://skarkada.googlepages.com/mini...%3Aprosandcons

My intention is to help other people save some time in their research.
Please take a few minutes to review the document and post any
recommendations here. I will try to update the Web page with the
suggestions.

Thanks for your time.

(In case you are wondering, I haven't decided on a high-def camcorder
yet. It has to be either HV20 or SR1.)

I am in the excat same situation as you and are trying to decide which
storage formate i am gonna invest in, the only difference bieng that i
probably know much less about it than you, since ive only spend a few hours
researching so far and havent ever owned a videocamera.

Anyways i have a question for your comparesion (which i thought was very
informative):

In the future and sharing section you say that you would need to keep the
tapes as backup and that sharing is hard (due to it bieng on tape i asume).
My idear if i bought a miniDV camera was to transfer all the data onto my
computer and edit it from the harddisk, and try to save the movies as files
on the harddisk and not on a tape. Am i completly missing a point here and
is that not possible ? (if it is i would say that sharing would be easier
and backing up data could be done on more futurefriendly medias)

wrote in message
ups.com...
Since I have been in the market for a high definition camcorder, I
have done some research comparing the two formats. I have read many
threads on various newsgroups and forums and consolidated my findings.
I have posted these findings at
http://skarkada.googlepages.com/mini...%3Aprosandcons

My intention is to help other people save some time in their research.
Please take a few minutes to review the document and post any
recommendations here. I will try to update the Web page with the
suggestions.

Thanks for your time.

(In case you are wondering, I haven't decided on a high-def camcorder
yet. It has to be either HV20 or SR1.)

That is what I used to think about tapes. Transfer the tape content to
hard disk and then reuse the tape. After reading many discussions, I
have learnt that one is supposed to keep the tape as backup.

Relatively speaking, sharing the footage from a hard drive based
camcorder is much faster and easier. From what I have read, with Sony
SR1, these are the steps:
1. Transfer the clip to your computer's hard disk
2. Open Sony's application
3. Right mouse click on the file and burn either a regular DVD or a HD
DVD
(It may not be that simple, though.)

With MiniDV, you have to capture the clip first. Getting to that clip
on the tape could become tedius with all the rewinding and fast
forwarding. Then, you should know when exactly to stop. Then, you have
to remember to fast forward to blank spot for future recording;
otherwise you will overwrite existing footage. All these comments are
based on my old VHS-C camcorder that I have stopped using 3 years ago.
Probably latest tape camcorders are intelligent.

My current camcorder uses DVD media. I don't like the picture quality
at all. I recently read a few articles that said DVD lifetime is
anywhere between 2 years and 10 years.

wrote in message
oups.com...
That is what I used to think about tapes. Transfer the tape content to
hard disk and then reuse the tape. After reading many discussions, I
have learnt that one is supposed to keep the tape as backup.

Relatively speaking, sharing the footage from a hard drive based
camcorder is much faster and easier. From what I have read, with Sony
SR1, these are the steps:
1. Transfer the clip to your computer's hard disk
2. Open Sony's application
3. Right mouse click on the file and burn either a regular DVD or a HD
DVD
(It may not be that simple, though.)

With MiniDV, you have to capture the clip first. Getting to that clip
on the tape could become tedius with all the rewinding and fast
forwarding. Then, you should know when exactly to stop. Then, you have
to remember to fast forward to blank spot for future recording;
otherwise you will overwrite existing footage. All these comments are
based on my old VHS-C camcorder that I have stopped using 3 years ago.
Probably latest tape camcorders are intelligent.

My current camcorder uses DVD media. I don't like the picture quality
at all. I recently read a few articles that said DVD lifetime is
anywhere between 2 years and 10 years.

Copying a mini dv to disc is no more difficult then copying from a hdd
camera.
DV is higher quality then what will be on disc as that has to be compressed.
Editing is better from DV for that reason Then rendered to DVD. The tapes
are relatively cheap so keeping the original so that you could edit it
differently at some latter day can be worth while Depending on abilities.
and must editing software can control the camera via the firewire.
I think in the case of Adobe premier it only downloads a draft quality until
you have done all you cuts and edits then controls the camera to get the
bits you wanted at best quality and does the render.

I'm also studying different types of camcorders for a purchase and have
never owned one.

So, the question arises- why can't that make a hard drive camcorder which
does not have any more compression than the DV tape camcorders? I suppose
the answer is that doing so would eat up too much of the hard drive too
quickly? But hard drives are getting bigger and cheaper- so I should think,
given the advantages of using a hard drive, that it won't be long before
they'll make hard drive camcorders without the heavy compression?

Tape of any sort seems like obsolete technology.

I understand the difference in compression between digital still imagery but
not video imagery. Tape has no compression at all? And, just how much
compression do the hard drives use?

Somewhere online I read a review of new systems and the reviewer said he saw
little difference between the quality of high end tape and hard drive
camcorders so maybe the issue is moot or soon will be.

Joe



"Trev" trevbowdenAT.dsl.pipex.COM wrote in message
...

wrote in message
oups.com...
That is what I used to think about tapes. Transfer the tape content to
hard disk and then reuse the tape. After reading many discussions, I
have learnt that one is supposed to keep the tape as backup.

Relatively speaking, sharing the footage from a hard drive based
camcorder is much faster and easier. From what I have read, with Sony
SR1, these are the steps:
1. Transfer the clip to your computer's hard disk
2. Open Sony's application
3. Right mouse click on the file and burn either a regular DVD or a HD
DVD
(It may not be that simple, though.)

With MiniDV, you have to capture the clip first. Getting to that clip
on the tape could become tedius with all the rewinding and fast
forwarding. Then, you should know when exactly to stop. Then, you have
to remember to fast forward to blank spot for future recording;
otherwise you will overwrite existing footage. All these comments are
based on my old VHS-C camcorder that I have stopped using 3 years ago.
Probably latest tape camcorders are intelligent.

My current camcorder uses DVD media. I don't like the picture quality
at all. I recently read a few articles that said DVD lifetime is
anywhere between 2 years and 10 years.

Copying a mini dv to disc is no more difficult then copying from a hdd
camera.
DV is higher quality then what will be on disc as that has to be
compressed. Editing is better from DV for that reason Then rendered to
DVD. The tapes are relatively cheap so keeping the original so that you
could edit it differently at some latter day can be worth while Depending
on abilities.
and must editing software can control the camera via the firewire.
I think in the case of Adobe premier it only downloads a draft quality
until you have done all you cuts and edits then controls the camera to get
the bits you wanted at best quality and does the render.

"Joe" wrote ...
I'm also studying different types of camcorders for a purchase and have
never owned one.

So, the question arises- why can't that make a hard drive camcorder which
does not have any more compression than the DV tape camcorders? I suppose
the answer is that doing so would eat up too much of the hard drive too
quickly? But hard drives are getting bigger and cheaper- so I should
think, given the advantages of using a hard drive, that it won't be long
before they'll make hard drive camcorders without the heavy compression?

I would be very surprised if it ever happens. Concurrently with
the cost-effectiveness (size/weight/capacity/cost) of small hard
drives, we appear to have ever more compressed storage
methods foisted upon the consumer. In the same manner
that MP3 seems to be the audio "quality standard" of the latest
generation of high-tech consumers.

Tape of any sort seems like obsolete technology.

It still can't be beat for capacity, convienence, and proven
reliability. It is still far and away the media of choice for most
of our planet's data.

I understand the difference in compression between digital still imagery
but not video imagery. Tape has no compression at all?

Tape has whatever compression was written to it. If you are
talking about DV video specifically, it is spatially compressed
about 5:1, and has no temporal compression.

And, just how much compression do the hard drives use?

Roughly the same compression as DVD video. Several x
more compression (both spatial and temporal) than DV,
for example.

Somewhere online I read a review of new systems and the reviewer said he
saw little difference between the quality of high end tape and hard drive
camcorders so maybe the issue is moot or soon will be.

I could believe that under ideal conditions. In the real world,
however, it is baloney.

"Richard Crowley" wrote in message
...
"Joe" wrote ...

Somewhere online I read a review of new systems and the reviewer said he
saw little difference between the quality of high end tape and hard drive
camcorders so maybe the issue is moot or soon will be.

I could believe that under ideal conditions. In the real world,
however, it is baloney.
It depends on the quality of the device.
There have been broadcast quality hard drive recorders
around for quite some time. The drives are removable
so you use them as temporary storage as in news gathering.
It would probably take a pretty good eye to see the difference
between it and Betacam SP. But, it's not inexpensive.
http://www.avid.com/resources/articl...egami_avid.pdf

I don't think that is what we are talking about here.
This is probably about those sub $1000 consumer cameras.
If compared to DV, DV would win.

It's all relative

David

Well, as much as I like convenience, I also like quality.

About a decade ago when digital cameras were catching on with consumers- I
had a tough decision- to buy a top of the line 35 mm or a consumer digital.
At that time consumer digital cameras were not cheap and not very good- I
ended up with a Nikon F100, a premium 35 mm and also got extra lenses, fancy
tripod, fancy camera case, etc. For the same amount of money I could have
gotten a digital camera that by today's standards would be a toy.

But, I'm very impressed with the quality I see from friends using fairly
inexpensive digital cameras. With my 35 mm, to use the pictures on the net-
I had to scan them which lost quality and which resulted in pictures
inferior to what you can get from modern $300 digital cameras. I just some
pictures of my house which is for sale with a digital and they're much
better than those I took with my Nikon F100- seeing those fine pictures
really makes me realize that I want quality imagery and will sacrifice the
convenience- so maybe I'll go with tape after all- from what I've read in
this newsgroup, that seems to be the consensus if quality is more important
than convenience.

Joe


"David McCall" wrote in message
news:87Bgi.2236$t95.515@trndny01...

"Richard Crowley" wrote in message
...
"Joe" wrote ...

Somewhere online I read a review of new systems and the reviewer said he
saw little difference between the quality of high end tape and hard
drive camcorders so maybe the issue is moot or soon will be.

I could believe that under ideal conditions. In the real world,
however, it is baloney.
It depends on the quality of the device.
There have been broadcast quality hard drive recorders
around for quite some time. The drives are removable
so you use them as temporary storage as in news gathering.
It would probably take a pretty good eye to see the difference
between it and Betacam SP. But, it's not inexpensive.
http://www.avid.com/resources/articl...egami_avid.pdf

I don't think that is what we are talking about here.
This is probably about those sub $1000 consumer cameras.
If compared to DV, DV would win.

It's all relative

David

"Joe" wrote in message news:ThCgi.9701$9b5.112@trndny05...
Well, as much as I like convenience, I also like quality.

About a decade ago when digital cameras were catching on with consumers- I
had a tough decision- to buy a top of the line 35 mm or a consumer
digital. At that time consumer digital cameras were not cheap and not very
good- I ended up with a Nikon F100, a premium 35 mm and also got extra
lenses, fancy tripod, fancy camera case, etc. For the same amount of money
I could have gotten a digital camera that by today's standards would be a
toy.

But, I'm very impressed with the quality I see from friends using fairly
inexpensive digital cameras. With my 35 mm, to use the pictures on the
net- I had to scan them which lost quality and which resulted in pictures
inferior to what you can get from modern $300 digital cameras. I just some
pictures of my house which is for sale with a digital and they're much
better than those I took with my Nikon F100- seeing those fine pictures
really makes me realize that I want quality imagery and will sacrifice the
convenience- so maybe I'll go with tape after all- from what I've read in
this newsgroup, that seems to be the consensus if quality is more
important than convenience.

Joe


True but remember when edited and saved on a DVD for viewing on the telly
it has lost some detail as its now compressed to what the mini DVD or HDD
would have been. But if you had edited and saved the later two forms again
to DVD you would Lose some even detail.

wrote in message ups.com...

Since I have been in the market for a high definition camcorder, I
have done some research comparing the two formats. I have read many
threads on various newsgroups and forums and consolidated my findings.
I have posted these findings at http://skarkada.googlepages.com/mini...%3Aprosandcons

My intention is to help other people save some time in their research.
Please take a few minutes to review the document and post any
recommendations here. I will try to update the Web page with the
suggestions.

Thanks for your time.

(In case you are wondering, I haven't decided on a high-def camcorder
yet. It has to be either HV20 or SR1.)

In looking over your web page, I noticed a couple of things that
may not be correct. Under "Quality", the Mini-DV compression
rate is 5:1 (not none), but it is frame-by-frame, with a clever error
correction system in place that covers well most small drop-outs.
Under "Convenience 1", you are not limited to 1 hour of
recording time with tape - 90-minute tapes are available (these
have equal image and sound quality, but may risk a slightly higher
drop-out rate, which is rarely a problem with well maintained
gear), and the shooting camera can be FireWire connected to
a cheap second Mini-DV camcorder in VCR mode ready to
record a second 1.5 hours of continuous recording on tape (3
hours total!). Having a cheap second camera also likely solves
the "Future" problem...
--
David Ruether

http://www.donferrario.com/ruether