Taperssection.com
Gear / Technical Help => Photo / Video Recording => Topic started by: grunge on January 19, 2008, 10:28:54 AM
-
what is the best cam to buy to tape shows? someone told me that mini DVs are the best, but i think that mpg cams with hard drives have better defenition but the question is if they give probls when recording? like disc erros or disk freezing.
anyone can help?
thanks!
-
what is the best cam to buy to tape shows? someone told me that mini DVs are the best, but i think that mpg cams with hard drives have better defenition but the question is if they give probls when recording? like disc erros or disk freezing.
anyone can help?
thanks!
This has been discussed at great length in other threads here in the Photo/ Video Recording section. Do a quick scan at threat titles and you'll easily be able to find some of those threads.
-
Consumer hard drive camcorders record in MPEG-2 which is heavily compressed and meant to be a final viewing format, not what you start out with. It's more difficult to edit and if you want to do anything besides basic cuts (like adding transitions) the footage will need to be re-encoded reducing the quality further.
DVD camcorders are not any better. DVD is meant to be a final viewing format. DVD is basically MPEG-2 renamed and with certain file structures that a DVD player can read and understand.
MiniDV has a low level of compression and was made to be easily edited and manipulated. You can edit, add transitions, add text, add effects, and many other things without losing quality.
There is also the tape vs. hard drive/optical media argument for long term storage and survival of your footage. Nothing lasts forever but mass produced recordable DVD's can and will go bad within a few years, especially if not stored in perfectly ideal conditions. With a hard drive camera you have to dump the footage on a DVD or PC hard drive and worry about keeping it backed up. If your hard drive goes out or the DVD you stored the footage on gets corrupted you've lost it forever. Tapes do degrade over time but have been proven to survive a long time. You may lose some data on a tape in 10 years but the majority of the footage will still exist.
My advice is this, if you care about what you are filming and want to be able to watch it 10 years from now stick with MiniDV. I guarantee anyone reading this that the majority of footage shot on DVD and hard drive camcorders today will not exist 10 years from now.
That's my $.02 worth.
-
thanks a lot for your advise you convinced me :)
Consumer hard drive camcorders record in MPEG-2 which is heavily compressed and meant to be a final viewing format, not what you start out with. It's more difficult to edit and if you want to do anything besides basic cuts (like adding transitions) the footage will need to be re-encoded reducing the quality further.
DVD camcorders are not any better. DVD is meant to be a final viewing format. DVD is basically MPEG-2 renamed and with certain file structures that a DVD player can read and understand.
MiniDV has a low level of compression and was made to be easily edited and manipulated. You can edit, add transitions, add text, add effects, and many other things without losing quality.
There is also the tape vs. hard drive/optical media argument for long term storage and survival of your footage. Nothing lasts forever but mass produced recordable DVD's can and will go bad within a few years, especially if not stored in perfectly ideal conditions. With a hard drive camera you have to dump the footage on a DVD or PC hard drive and worry about keeping it backed up. If your hard drive goes out or the DVD you stored the footage on gets corrupted you've lost it forever. Tapes do degrade over time but have been proven to survive a long time. You may lose some data on a tape in 10 years but the majority of the footage will still exist.
My advice is this, if you care about what you are filming and want to be able to watch it 10 years from now stick with MiniDV. I guarantee anyone reading this that the majority of footage shot on DVD and hard drive camcorders today will not exist 10 years from now.
That's my $.02 worth.
-
it does suck buying tapes but there are a lot of advantages
what's your budget to buy a camera?
-
Consumer hard drive camcorders record in MPEG-2 which is heavily compressed and meant to be a final viewing format, not what you start out with. It's more difficult to edit and if you want to do anything besides basic cuts (like adding transitions) the footage will need to be re-encoded reducing the quality further.
DVD camcorders are not any better. DVD is meant to be a final viewing format. DVD is basically MPEG-2 renamed and with certain file structures that a DVD player can read and understand.
What he said.
A relative of mine went out shopping for a videocam. She was talked into buying a DVD-cam by a salesman. After coming home she realized her iMac wasn't compatible - Macs simply refuse reading from the disc! The only way to import the video was over USB1 after paying for a third party plug-in. And even after doing that, iMovie refused to touch the video files.
I talked her into ditching the whole idea. She handed back the cam and got a Mini-DV instead. Works a charm with Mac, so easy both with iMovie, iDVD and Final Cut.
Tapes are still the preferred media for all professional and prosumer software, whether we like it or not... Until the technology catches up, which will be another year or two at least.
/Jan
-
This is why sales people piss me off. I buy most stuff online these days but if I go to a store I've already done a lot of research and know exactly what I want. Those sales people don't care about quality and usually don't know their butts from a hole in the ground. They just want to sell as much as they can.
-
MPEG-2 is actually not that bad of a compression format. I would still probably lean to the MiniDV because of the ease of tapes. HD based cams CAN have comprable quality, but it is camera dependent. MiniDV is a much more universal format.
From Wikipedia...
"Video compression
DV uses DCT intraframe compression at a fixed bitrate of 25 megabits per second (25.146 Mbit/s), which, when added to the sound data (1.536 Mbit/s), the subcode data, error detection, and error correction (approx 8.7 Mbit/s) amounts in all to roughly 36 megabits per second (approx 35.382 Mbit/s). At equal bitrates, DV performs somewhat better than the older MJPEG codec, and is comparable to intraframe MPEG-2. (Note that many MPEG-2 encoders for real-time acquisition applications only use intraframe compression [I-frames only], but not interframe compression [P and B frames].) DCT compression is lossy, and sometimes suffers from artifacting around small or complex objects such as text. The DCT compression has been specially adapted for storage onto tape. The image is divided into macroblocks, each consisting of 4 luminance DCT blocks and 1 chrominance DCT block. Furthermore 6 macroblocks, selected at positions far away from each other in the image, are coded into a fixed amount of bits. Finally, the information of each compressed macroblock is stored as much as possible into one sync-block on tape. All this makes it possible to search video on tape at high speeds, both forward and reverse, as well as to correct very well faulty sync blocks"
-
No, MPEG-2 is not that bad of a compression scheme, if you're using it as your final format. One of the main things about DV vs. MPEG-2 is key frames. Every frame in DV is a key frame. I think every 15th frame is MPEG-2 is. Correct me if I got the number wrong. For NTSC at 29.97fps that means there's only a key frame every 1/2 second and that's where your editor will cut at if you go to chopping the video. DV can be cut at any frame.
I use old fashion animation to think about it. For a hand drawn animation you make a bunch of individual images, each one slightly different than the next. When they are stitched together they form a moving image. DV makes a new image 30 times per second. When they are stitched together it forms the movie. MPEG-2 has the same movie as that DV video but it has taken 15 of those frames and permanently glued them together. If you want to make a cut you have go to the beginning or end of that segment.
Plus when you're encoding MPEG-2 on the fly, either with camcorder or video card on a PC, if you have any glitches or bandwidth issues you will see it noticeably and you can't fix it. With a software encoder compresing DV to MPEG-2 you can control all the settings and let the encoder take it's time to do things right.
-
it does suck buying tapes but there are a lot of advantages
what's your budget to buy a camera?
i dont want give more that 150euros
what you recomend?
thanks
-
No, MPEG-2 is not that bad of a compression scheme, if you're using it as your final format. One of the main things about DV vs. MPEG-2 is key frames. Every frame in DV is a key frame. I think every 15th frame is MPEG-2 is. Correct me if I got the number wrong. For NTSC at 29.97fps that means there's only a key frame every 1/2 second and that's where your editor will cut at if you go to chopping the video. DV can be cut at any frame.
I use old fashion animation to think about it. For a hand drawn animation you make a bunch of individual images, each one slightly different than the next. When they are stitched together they form a moving image. DV makes a new image 30 times per second. When they are stitched together it forms the movie. MPEG-2 has the same movie as that DV video but it has taken 15 of those frames and permanently glued them together. If you want to make a cut you have go to the beginning or end of that segment.
Plus when you're encoding MPEG-2 on the fly, either with camcorder or video card on a PC, if you have any glitches or bandwidth issues you will see it noticeably and you can't fix it. With a software encoder compresing DV to MPEG-2 you can control all the settings and let the encoder take it's time to do things right.
Thanks for breaking it down stantheman, I think I actually understand it now! I do take exception to the tape theory though. Isn't that like saying everyone recording audio should be still be using DAT? I just don't see a problem archiving to DVD *and* hard drives, that's we do with our audio. But I readily admit I'm a total amateur with video as I'm cutting my teeth on a new Canon HD-10 right now. I knew there were problems with editing (but didn't really understand until you explained it here) and didn't give it too much thought since I was a bit in a rush as I needed a new camcorder for my son's basketball games before the season ended. I started out looking at the very low end and ended up spending more on an HD that was HDTV compatible. So far, all I've done in the post is dump to HD and then burn to DVD and that was very quick and easy.
-
I needed a new camcorder for my son's basketball games before the season ended....So far, all I've done in the post is dump to HD and then burn to DVD and that was very quick and easy.
Take it from someone who has been there and done that...kids sports videos...really need to be edited if you ever expect to be able to enjoy them in the future.
-
No, MPEG-2 is not that bad of a compression scheme, if you're using it as your final format. One of the main things about DV vs. MPEG-2 is key frames. Every frame in DV is a key frame. I think every 15th frame is MPEG-2 is. Correct me if I got the number wrong. For NTSC at 29.97fps that means there's only a key frame every 1/2 second and that's where your editor will cut at if you go to chopping the video. DV can be cut at any frame.
I use old fashion animation to think about it. For a hand drawn animation you make a bunch of individual images, each one slightly different than the next. When they are stitched together they form a moving image. DV makes a new image 30 times per second. When they are stitched together it forms the movie. MPEG-2 has the same movie as that DV video but it has taken 15 of those frames and permanently glued them together. If you want to make a cut you have go to the beginning or end of that segment.
Plus when you're encoding MPEG-2 on the fly, either with camcorder or video card on a PC, if you have any glitches or bandwidth issues you will see it noticeably and you can't fix it. With a software encoder compresing DV to MPEG-2 you can control all the settings and let the encoder take it's time to do things right.
Thanks for breaking it down stantheman, I think I actually understand it now! I do take exception to the tape theory though. Isn't that like saying everyone recording audio should be still be using DAT? I just don't see a problem archiving to DVD *and* hard drives, that's we do with our audio. But I readily admit I'm a total amateur with video as I'm cutting my teeth on a new Canon HD-10 right now. I knew there were problems with editing (but didn't really understand until you explained it here) and didn't give it too much thought since I was a bit in a rush as I needed a new camcorder for my son's basketball games before the season ended. I started out looking at the very low end and ended up spending more on an HD that was HDTV compatible. So far, all I've done in the post is dump to HD and then burn to DVD and that was very quick and easy.
I do video almost exclusively. Usually when I'm recording audio it's from a board feed or a lapel or handheld mic that I'll sync with the video and put back to tape. I use an iRiver H120/SP-PREAMP combo for interviews and recording board feeds so I absolutely cannot knock digital recorders. Those projects that I want to keep always go back to tape though.
If you are comfortable with DVD and HDD storage that's OK. I just don't trust it the way I trust a tape when it comes to long term storage.
-
what about this model is this good enought?
http://www.pixmania.com/pt/pt/526054/art/sony/camara-de-video-minidv-dc.html
-
what about this model is this good enought?
http://www.pixmania.com/pt/pt/526054/art/sony/camara-de-video-minidv-dc.html
I like the 40x optical zoom on this model (don't ever use digital zoom, it ruins your footage), but one concern is the lack of an external mic. jack. Camcorder preamps are usually shitty, and will brickwall easily at a loud concert. I would suggest running separate audio to sync in post. If you don't want to go through the extra hassle of running separate audio, you might want to look into a minidv cam with a jack for an external mic, and the ability to disable AGC (auto gain control).
Wish I could recommend a model for you, but I haven't looked into what's available since purchasing my Canon Optura 50 a few years ago. I always run alternate sound to sync in later. Sony Vegas makes this a piece of cake once you get past the initial learning curve.
I remember hearing good things about some of the Panasonic cams, and the ability to disable AGC. Might be worth looking into, even if it means buying used.
Good luck to you!
-
thanks for the tips, i will only buy a cam with jack for external micro!
what about this model is this good enought?
http://www.pixmania.com/pt/pt/526054/art/sony/camara-de-video-minidv-dc.html
I like the 40x optical zoom on this model (don't ever use digital zoom, it ruins your footage), but one concern is the lack of an external mic. jack. Camcorder preamps are usually shitty, and will brickwall easily at a loud concert. I would suggest running separate audio to sync in post. If you don't want to go through the extra hassle of running separate audio, you might want to look into a minidv cam with a jack for an external mic, and the ability to disable AGC (auto gain control).
Wish I could recommend a model for you, but I haven't looked into what's available since purchasing my Canon Optura 50 a few years ago. I always run alternate sound to sync in later. Sony Vegas makes this a piece of cake once you get past the initial learning curve.
I remember hearing good things about some of the Panasonic cams, and the ability to disable AGC. Might be worth looking into, even if it means buying used.
Good luck to you!