Topic: minidvd camcorder recommendations/worth spending extra $$$ vs. minidv?

[pathfinder2976]

I'm new to this, so bear with me if it has already been discussed. 
I'm in the market to purchase my first camcorder, but need some feedback on what would best provide me as a wise investment. 
I am looking at the sony dcrdvd-403, because of the Still Shot/5.1 surround built in feature.  I was disappointed by the price(about $1000).  Also,when I learned that a single minidvd's recording last on an average of 30 minutes.  Is this length accurate.  I had hoped to record concerts/performances, which usually has a running time of about 2hours.  Any pros/cons from people who own this model?
So is investing in a minidv camcorder a better choice? The cost is cheaper and  longer recording time(?), but I'll give up the 5.1 surround feature.  Also, is the minidv camcorder on its way out as being a thing of the past.  Or would investing in the minidvd camcorder, compatibilty wise, a better choice of things to come.
Just to remind everyone, this is my first post and have never owned/used a camcorder.  So if the post has any inaccurate info, please have patience and understanding.     

[Simp-Dawg]

there have been a few discussions on this topic as of late....what i've learned is that no digital media (mini-dvd , mini-dv, solid state) really provide sufficient recording time for concerts...however some cameras allow for connection to a "firestore" drive which is basically a portable external hard drive that can capture video straight off the camera.  that's what i think i'm going to look into.

[sabre]

DVD recorders are garbage. Stay away from them. Seriously, get yourself a miniDV camcorder over a DVD or hard drive recorder. The 5.1 surround "feature" is a gimmick. Yes, the average recording time for a camcorder that records on a DVD is about 20 minutes (due to the smaller disc) and the picture quality is not as good as miniDV.

[firmdragon]

DVD recorders are garbage. Stay away from them. Seriously, get yourself a miniDV camcorder over a DVD or hard drive recorder. The 5.1 surround "feature" is a gimmick. Yes, the average recording time for a camcorder that records on a DVD is about 20 minutes (due to the smaller disc) and the picture quality is not as good as miniDV.

what he said.  imo hard drive video recorders are still won't become a good solution for a while.

[gewwang]

I haven't looked into this very seriously, but it seems to me that the future cost of media would give the advantage to the mini DVD camcorders.

[willndmb]

DVD recorders are garbage. Stay away from them. Seriously, get yourself a miniDV camcorder over a DVD or hard drive recorder. The 5.1 surround "feature" is a gimmick. Yes, the average recording time for a camcorder that records on a DVD is about 20 minutes (due to the smaller disc) and the picture quality is not as good as miniDV.

i agree

[dklein]

MiniDV is higher quality than DVD (less compression).  It's better to capture in MiniDV and then compress down to mpeg2 later - that way you can optimize the bitrate to use as much of the DVD as possible and take advantage of things like multipass encoding.

An interesting thing I've been reading about lately is using the LP speed.  Apparently the data stream is identical (same quality as the SP setting).  It's just that the tape moves slower across the heads and as a result, is less robust and more prone to playback difficulties over time, or when played back on a device other than the camera used to record it (head alignment becomes more critical??).

The word seems to be that it's ok as long as you transfer right away from the same camera as it was recorded on.  Then they recommended archiving to disc or transferring back to tape at the SP speed.

I was going to do try it at my last outing but didn't end up running video due to crowd crush.  Running video at SP makes me feel like I'm recording on minidisc all over again - always cutting songs off and scrambling to change media while the music plays on    And with my Sony camera, I have to remove the tripod quick-mount to access the tape.  Takes almost 2 minutes to swap tapes and get rolling again.  Then I have to get creative filling in the video gap.

[sabre]

Running video at SP makes me feel like I'm recording on minidisc all over again - always cutting songs off and scrambling to change media while the music plays on    And with my Sony camera, I have to remove the tripod quick-mount to access the tape.  Takes almost 2 minutes to swap tapes and get rolling again.  Then I have to get creative filling in the video gap.

Have you heard about the MCE Quickstream DV?
http://www.mcetech.com/quickstreamdv/
They're small portable hard-drives that plug into your miniDV camera that records all footage from your camera onto the hard drive in the DV-AVI format. They come in various sizes. Certainly worth looking into, they'd work great as a backup to your miniDV tapes.

[dklein]

Have you heard about the MCE Quickstream DV?
http://www.mcetech.com/quickstreamdv/
They're small portable hard-drives that plug into your miniDV camera that records all footage from your camera onto the hard drive in the DV-AVI format. They come in various sizes. Certainly worth looking into, they'd work great as a backup to your miniDV tapes.

Very cool - except the price!  I suppose if I was serious about video or needed instant editing capability it'd be on the shopping list... but at those prices it's cheaper to just run a second camera (at least the kind I have)!

[firmdragon]

MiniDV is higher quality than DVD (less compression).  It's better to capture in MiniDV and then compress down to mpeg2 later - that way you can optimize the bitrate to use as much of the DVD as possible and take advantage of things like multipass encoding.

An interesting thing I've been reading about lately is using the LP speed.  Apparently the data stream is identical (same quality as the SP setting).  It's just that the tape moves slower across the heads and as a result, is less robust and more prone to playback difficulties over time, or when played back on a device other than the camera used to record it (head alignment becomes more critical??).

The word seems to be that it's ok as long as you transfer right away from the same camera as it was recorded on.  Then they recommended archiving to disc or transferring back to tape at the SP speed.

I was going to do try it at my last outing but didn't end up running video due to crowd crush.  Running video at SP makes me feel like I'm recording on minidisc all over again - always cutting songs off and scrambling to change media while the music plays on    And with my Sony camera, I have to remove the tripod quick-mount to access the tape.  Takes almost 2 minutes to swap tapes and get rolling again.  Then I have to get creative filling in the video gap.

i've been taping in LP since 2003.  there's no quality difference.  as mentioned before you're prone to more drop outs/bad frames, but it's well worth it, if a band plays more than 60 min.  plus tapes are expensive.  that's an extra 30min. i've only had one complication on playback, but the tape i was transfering was taped with a different brand of camcorder altogether.

[dklein]

good to hear.  I think I'll switch my concert taping to LP and keep the family stuff at SP.

[blajnwand]

The only dropout problems I've ever had with any of my archived tapes have been LP mode recordings. If you are going to record in LP, I would suggest that you quickly transfer the recording to HD and then back up to data DVD. Backing up an hour of video only costs about a dollar worth of Taiyo Yuden DVD's and it's much better than the alternative.

[kidrocklive]

The only dropout problems I've ever had with any of my archived tapes have been LP mode recordings. If you are going to record in LP, I would suggest that you quickly transfer the recording to HD and then back up to data DVD. Backing up an hour of video only costs about a dollar worth of Taiyo Yuden DVD's and it's much better than the alternative.

what's the reason for all these dropouts and stuff when using LP mode? It seems like the companies that made the camera would have fixed that before releasing it because that is an issue I would think. Also kinda weird that quality isn't better with 60mins than 90, but you guys know what you're talking about more than me lol, i'm just looking into it aswell.

[BayTaynt3d]

I'm a newbie taper, but not a newbie when it comes to video. First of all, STAY AWAY FROM DVD CAMS! They record in lossy MPEG2 format. Why do that when you can record to MiniDV? It's kind if like taping in MP3 or WAV. Definately MiniDV, no questions, game over.

When it comes to taping long periods of time, LP mode is where it's at, but I'll raise you one too. Get yourself an 80 minute MiniDV tape, and THEN tape in LP mode, that'll give you 120 minutes on ONE TAPE! It's an easy trick to get the same quality footage over a continuous 2 hours instead of the typical one.

And YES, LP mode is not as robust as SP and it is not a defect of anyone's cams or the products. It has to do with the fact that when the tape is running that slow, it just barely has enough room to squeeze all of the data on in the amount of time it has, whereas SP mode has more tape to spread the same data over. Now, normally when played with the same cam within a short period of time, this will NEVER BE a problem. So, just capture the DV to your computer, and you get a perfect digital copy that is just as good as SP footage -- no difference. However, over time, the LP tapes may not play well or show mosaic blockiness, etc. This can happen because the cams heads change a little, and the LP mode is so unforgiving, that can become problematic. Also, pretty much every brand of MiniDV camera states that tapes recorded in LP mode on that brand may or may not work in other cams by the same manufacturer or in cams/decks of other manufacturers.

Bottom line IMHO: it's a tradeoff. You should probably stick with SP mode because of its reliable and widespread compatibility and robustness to last a while. But, when continuous time recording or your budget are the main concerns, then go with LP mode.

[kidrocklive]

I'm a newbie taper, but not a newbie when it comes to video. First of all, STAY AWAY FROM DVD CAMS! They record in lossy MPEG2 format. Why do that when you can record to MiniDV? It's kind if like taping in MP3 or WAV. Definately MiniDV, no questions, game over.

When it comes to taping long periods of time, LP mode is where it's at, but I'll raise you one too. Get yourself an 80 minute MiniDV tape, and THEN tape in LP mode, that'll give you 120 minutes on ONE TAPE! It's an easy trick to get the same quality footage over a continuous 2 hours instead of the typical one.

And YES, LP mode is not as robust as SP and it is not a defect of anyone's cams or the products. It has to do with the fact that when the tape is running that slow, it just barely has enough room to squeeze all of the data on in the amount of time it has, whereas SP mode has more tape to spread the same data over. Now, normally when played with the same cam within a short period of time, this will NEVER BE a problem. So, just capture the DV to your computer, and you get a perfect digital copy that is just as good as SP footage -- no difference. However, over time, the LP tapes may not play well or show mosaic blockiness, etc. This can happen because the cams heads change a little, and the LP mode is so unforgiving, that can become problematic. Also, pretty much every brand of MiniDV camera states that tapes recorded in LP mode on that brand may or may not work in other cams by the same manufacturer or in cams/decks of other manufacturers.

Bottom line IMHO: it's a tradeoff. You should probably stick with SP mode because of its reliable and widespread compatibility and robustness to last a while. But, when continuous time recording or your budget are the main concerns, then go with LP mode.

Those 80min tapes sound awesome, i've never seen em though but I guess I didn't look hard enough (that's usually the case) lol.