Hard disk vs mini-DV tapes vs memory cards

[Andreq]

I was told that mini-DVs produce the highest quality videos, followed by hard-disk and the worst of the lot is memory card. Is that true?

I'm thinking if it's worth to get a hard-disk video cam. Thought it will be convenient since for mini dv tapes, I have to go the extra step of converting them first before I burn a DVD.

Are there any other significant disadvantages of a hard-disk type videocam? Heard that editing can be a pain since the computer processing must be super-fast? True?

Thanks....

 

[tommon]

The pros are going tapeless and solid state is the answer. I think you have been told a lie.

 

[Andreq]

oh really....

Any more feedback?

so you're saying a video recorded with an SD card will yield better or show no difference in quality compared to using DV tapes?

 

[Octarine]

I was told that mini-DVs produce the highest quality videos, followed by hard-disk and the worst of the lot is memory card. Is that true?

I'm thinking if it's worth to get a hard-disk video cam. Thought it will be convenient since for mini dv tapes, I have to go the extra step of converting them first before I burn a DVD.

Are there any other significant disadvantages of a hard-disk type videocam? Heard that editing can be a pain since the computer processing must be super-fast? True?

Thanks....

Since when does the storage medium affect or influence the image quality? It's the same as with every other digital imaging product: lens, sensor and image processor define the quality. Digital video processing in general requires a lot of computing power, it's just more obvious with videos cause you have 24 pictures per second.

 

[jaegersing]

I agree with octarine. It's the camera that determines the image quality (and the user of course).

Consumer cams that record to HD or memory card generally apply a lot more compression than HDV cams that record to DV tape. The quality therefore suffers because of this compression.

Higher end cams like the EX1 and HVX200 use less compression, so they can produce great results on memory cards. However the workflow of using very expensive media is a problem for many at the moment, so tape is still very popular.

 

[munwei]

I just upgraded from a tape-based DV video cam (Sony HC90) to a tape-based HDV video cam (Canon HV30). Reasons:

a) Tape is cheap at about $10-$12 per pop (records abt 1 hr at hi-res per tape).

b) HDV uses a less aggressive compression as compared to the HDD/memory card based HD cams (please check out www.camcorderinfo.com for details).

c) As a result of b), HDV quality is probably better than for the other 2 media.

d) HDV footage is less taxing on the PC to edit as compared to AVCHD format (more highly compressed) used for HDD/memory card HD cams.

e) And of course, the HV30 has excellent reviews and proven to record really great footage (all I needed to buy were a wide angle adaptor + external mic, which are essentials even if I were to buy a HDD/mem card based HD cam).

But of course, tape-based HDV footage is less convenient than HDD/mem card based footage. But at least I have the original footage in a storage medium that's cheap and fairly reliable.

Food for thought. : )

 

[Andreq]

Hmm, some of the answers kinda confusing for a newbie like me.

I'm not after the common and sickening debate on whether the type of camera (or video cam) makes one a better photographer/videographer.

So there is a difference in image quality based on the compression that is done for memory cards and hard disk isn't it? Isn't that in itself already means shooting using these media will not produce as top quality videos as DV tapes?

Thanks munwei, think your thots kinda answer my questions!

 

[DXNMedia]

Based in this context, in the consumer video market, it may be fair to say that miniDV, as compared to other HDD based video cameras yield a better recording quality in the standard definition domain.

In layman's term, miniDV's quality is compressed to 5x lower than the quality of an uncompressed standard definition video image, with no motion compression and the compression affect only the individual frames (intraframe compression).
Most HDD based cameras record standard definition video using MPEG2 compression with a much higher compression ratio, and it is a interframe compression.


Recording medium aside, you need to understand some of the technical aspects of video technology. If you say recording to tape yields a better video quality over HDD, you need to be asking what video format is it recorded in.

Taking an example from the photography analogy, if you take a photo of say 800x600 using a RAW uncompressed format, will it be better than say capturing it at 800x600 with the lowest JPEG compression? Will it matter if you put this file into a CF card or SD card or even copy it to a HDD for storage?

I was told that mini-DVs produce the highest quality videos, followed by hard-disk and the worst of the lot is memory card. Is that true?

To further clarify this statement, it can be true, and yet wrong.
Tape based miniDVs don't produce the highest quality video. There are better tape recording formats for standard definition like Sony's Digital Betacam.
HDD or memory card based video recording doesn't necessarily produce the worse video quality, there are high video quality recording options for Panasonic's P2 card (PCMCIA) that can be based on DVCPro50 recording resolution which is technically better than miniDV's quality. There are also HDD based cameras from Ikegami that records almost uncompressed video images.

Hope this clarifies your doubts.
:thumbsup:

 

[Andreq]

Thanks DXNmedia. Ermm, I understand a little of what you are saying. Like the RAW analogy also. though some parts are above me. :embrass:

So simply put, putting all those big video cams costing $5k, 10k and above aside, for a consumer, what would be a big deciding factor when choosing which medium to go for?

I understand SD card videocams are generally smaller and lighter in design. But big downside is that I probably need lots of cards to shoot at highest quality.

So now the choice is betn mini DV tapes and HDD. How does one decide then? I've always thought HDD will be more convenient? And moreover I don't have to keep all those tapes which require proper care. There must be some down sides to HDD, besides the heavier weight....

Thanks guys.

 

[jaegersing]

So now the choice is betn mini DV tapes and HDD. How does one decide then? I've always thought HDD will be more convenient? And moreover I don't have to keep all those tapes which require proper care. There must be some down sides to HDD, besides the heavier weight....

As said before, HDD quality is not as good as HDV at the moment, but the results are still OK so it is up to you whether you want the best quality (from a consumer cam) or not.

If the quality of both is acceptable, you have a decision to make. HDD is faster for file transfer, but if you need to keep a permanent copy of all those files you will need to plan for this. With tape, you can just put it into a dry cabinet and it will be there if you need to retrieve those shots again in future.

If you are going for long trips with a lot of shooting on a HDD cam, you will need some means of storing all the video files when the hard disk is full. That means a laptop or something with a large hard disk that you can dump all the files onto.

If you are planning to do some editing other than cuts, it is easier to work with HDV files off tape, compared with AVCHD files off hard disk. The downside of the tape is of course the capturing time which is much longer.

There are possibly other considerations too, but I think my point is that while HDD is more convenient in some respects, in others it is a lot more hassle.

If you are doing basic or no editing, posting your clips on Youtube and then deleting everything because you have no further use for it, then HDD is a clear winner for you. If you have additional editing and archiving needs, the answer is not so obvious and only you can decide what's best for you.

 

[sundazz]

I think.. are we talking of the consumer or the non consumer contact here?
tho both are going tapeless. but interms of quality in diff media storage.. the consumer camcorder may have more compression to reduce storage sapce.. wherass for pro, quality concern and less compression.. :think:

 

[Andreq]

Thanks, thanks, jaegersing. Got it! :thumbsup:

Looks like I should be more inclined towards tapes. Do foresee I'll be dabbling with editing...

 

[visualise]

Andreq, the format may not be the main factor. In a camera, the lens is impt, the CCD size and number of CCDs are impt, the processing is impt, and the way you control the settings etc is impt, then the format is impt. Just like a normal digital SLR, it's not whether you record to an SD card, CF card or whatever card. It's the end format of what you're recording : MINI DV, DVC PRO HD, HDV, XDCAM, etc. You should be looking at the end format which is produced rather than the media.

regards

Isaiah
www.visualise.tv

 

[tunster]

Maybe list some examples for you here:

HDD: Sony SR series -> acceptable good quality. You need to connect your camera to your PC to transfer data. And editing will need good PC and special software to handle the load.

Flash: Canon HF10/HF100 -> acceptable good quality. You can opt to use the internal flash (HF10) or SDHC card for both then just copy the file for editing. Again, a good PC and special software needed.

Tape: Canon HV20/HV30 -> Very good quality. You need to connect your camera to PC to do capturing. Normal software and fairly good PC is required.

 

[daxdigital]

Here's the thing regarding this whole debacle:

1. Tape
Cheap. Reliable. Established System, pro or consumer. Ready for archive. Quality dependent on what codec used (Hi8, D8, DV, DVCAM, DVCPRO, HDV, etc.). Though reusable, this practice is not recommended. Good for general purpose, but reports of tape misaligning when shooting on high G-forces (roller coasters, speed boats, etc.) Recommended for editing or archiving.

2. HDD
No tape changes. Recording is limited by storage capacity. Selectable bitrate/picture quality. May require PC for data transfer. Quite expensive, but reusable. However, archiving could get tricky (DVD or BD?). Also, moving parts (HDD head crash can definitely ruin your work!) Good for people requiring quick data transfers (like people in the news business or when doing same-day edits for weddings)

3. Memory card
No moving parts. Recording limited by storage capacity. May require PC data transfer. Reusable. Expensive (especially large cards!) and electronic shock to a card is never good! (Bye bye data!). Good for people requiring quick data transfers (like people in the news business), can also be used for smuggling data from repressive countries (like Burma.)

4. Optical media
DVD-R (and recently BD-R) discs are cheap. Again, moving parts. Usually doesn't require PC transfer. Decent image quality. Good for people who shoot but don't edit.