Newbie question on camcorders -- DVD and MiniTapes.. Pros and Cons?

[David]

Newbie questions! I hope to gain more info from those who could kindly help me out here... THANKS!

I've been using the video function of my compact digicam... Realized for best resolution, it sucks a lot of memory and of course the quality is so-so only. I'm now itching to buy an entry level camcorder (photo-taking is still my interest but video is gaining its place!). I read up and have the impression that the best quality comes from tapes, followed by DVD/harddisk, and the worst are those which use memory cards such as CF, SD, etc. Is that right?

If so, I am considering getting either a videocam that uses tape or DVD. (Harddisk types are beyond my budget.)

My main question is: Is the difference in playback quality between the tape and DVD noticeable?

Pls also correct me if I'm wrong and feel free to add on... DVDs are more convenient than tapes since they are more compact and can be read directly from the computer. Tapes are bulkier, much more inconvenient cos of post-conversion and there are lots of rewinding and forwarding to do during the editing stage. But camcorders which use tapes are generally cheaper than those which use DVDs. Correct??

Once again, thank u!! Appreciate it.

 

[dreamerz]

Newbie questions! I hope to gain more info from those who could kindly help me out here... THANKS!

I've been using the video function of my compact digicam... Realized for best resolution, it sucks a lot of memory and of course the quality is so-so only. I'm now itching to buy an entry level camcorder (photo-taking is still my interest but video is gaining its place!). I read up and have the impression that the best quality comes from tapes, followed by DVD/harddisk, and the worst are those which use memory cards such as CF, SD, etc. Is that right?

If so, I am considering getting either a videocam that uses tape or DVD. (Harddisk types are beyond my budget.)

My main question is: Is the difference in playback quality between the tape and DVD noticeable?

Pls also correct me if I'm wrong and feel free to add on... DVDs are more convenient than tapes since they are more compact and can be read directly from the computer. Tapes are bulkier, much more inconvenient cos of post-conversion and there are lots of rewinding and forwarding to do during the editing stage. But camcorders which use tapes are generally cheaper than those which use DVDs. Correct??

Once again, thank u!! Appreciate it.

mini dv is compress raw(AVI), dvd is compress mpeg2...on tv nt much of a diff...but for editing AVI is preferred...its like raw vs jpeg in photography...raw quality is obviously better...so its ur choice...n ya mini dv cam are generally cheaper than dvd cam...n dv takes are cheaper than those dvd...1hr of compress raw format is 14-16gb...jus to let u noe....

 

[SolBadGuy]

i havent had any experience with DVD camcorders. only handled mini DV tape camcorders in sch.

it depends on ur preference. but given a choice (though u may say it's biased), my vote goes to the tape. tapes are recyclable shud u choose to do so. nt sure if thr r camcorders that support DVD-RW yet though.

1 very big pain for tapes is indeed the editing stage. wat i went through in sch was digitising the footage with a dv deck then editing with final cut pro. the average size of a 1 min footage from a dv tape is 220MB. so be prepared to handle the bulk.

playback quality wise.. i think u need to compare cameras of the same specifications to be sure. if not it's like comparing a D2X to a D40. i only used a prosumer cam in sch so of course i wud tell u the quality is great! entry lvl camcorders? not tat sure..

hope i've been able to provide some help, if any. cheers.

 

[dreamerz]

i havent had any experience with DVD camcorders. only handled mini DV tape camcorders in sch.

it depends on ur preference. but given a choice (though u may say it's biased), my vote goes to the tape. tapes are recyclable shud u choose to do so. nt sure if thr r camcorders that support DVD-RW yet though.

1 very big pain for tapes is indeed the editing stage. wat i went through in sch was digitising the footage with a dv deck then editing with final cut pro. the average size of a 1 min footage from a dv tape is 220MB. so be prepared to handle the bulk.

playback quality wise.. i think u need to compare cameras of the same specifications to be sure. if not it's like comparing a D2X to a D40. i only used a prosumer cam in sch so of course i wud tell u the quality is great! entry lvl camcorders? not tat sure..

hope i've been able to provide some help, if any. cheers.

it is nt recommended to reuse the tapes...

 

[David]

Thanks...

Hmm, I tend to favour mini DV more.. But since it is advised they are not reused, it's a pain. I dun wish to end up like music cassette tapes of the past. So many of them after some time till there is little space left to keep in drybox and in the end, fungus will grow.

They do have DVD-RW as I read from the brochures. I can understand the RAW and jpg analogy but I really don't know or can't imagine how severe it is with the mpeg2 compression. Maybe DVD type is good but I have to fork out more $. The harddisk type is also good but it's beyond my budget!

But I don't understand why DVDs and harddisk are better quality compared to memory cards... (Sorry if the question sounds too simple!) :embrass: More compression in the case of using memory cards?

 

[dreamerz]

Thanks...

Hmm, I tend to favour mini DV more.. But since it is advised they are not reused, it's a pain. I dun wish to end up like music cassette tapes of the past. So many of them after some time till there is little space left to keep in drybox and in the end, fungus will grow.

They do have DVD-RW as I read from the brochures. I can understand the RAW and jpg analogy but I really don't know or can't imagine how severe it is with the mpeg2 compression. Maybe DVD type is good but I have to fork out more $. The harddisk type is also good but it's beyond my budget!

But I don't understand why DVDs and harddisk are better quality compared to memory cards... (Sorry if the question sounds too simple!) :embrass: More compression in the case of using memory cards?

to sqeeze more time record time so loss compression is used...tats y quality isnt gd...for normal viewing on tv n mayb computer...dvd is nt bad...if u are nt tat particular abt quality....

 

[David]

Hmm, okie thanks, think I'm slightly more inclined towards DVD now. Post-editing is much simpler and less time consuming than mini DV rite?

Any good brands to recommend? Canon has a DV100 but I read the review they said no good. :dunno: Do you know how much one piece of DVD-RW for such camcorders costs?

Thanks!

 

[JaPhotos]

Hmm, okie thanks, think I'm slightly more inclined towards DVD now. Post-editing is much simpler and less time consuming than mini DV rite?

Any good brands to recommend? Canon has a DV100 but I read the review they said no good. :dunno: Do you know how much one piece of DVD-RW for such camcorders costs?

Thanks!

hi,

if you willing to accept the quality of MPEG-2 and take DVD camcorder (abt the same as using miniDV tapes, as in you still need to get a few dvd cept u lose out on image quality). if you really don't mind that...than i will advice you to consider HDD camcorder. Same as DVD cept you don't have to bring any tapes, disc etc.

as for post editing...mpeg-2 means you need to decompress back to AVI which most post editing s/w can read as compare to 1:1 time require to transfer miniDV tape to PC. You decide which one is better for you

 

[alvinsclee]

Hmmm... to 'tape' or not to 'tape', that's the question!

So here is a rhetorical question:-
Ever wonder why many professionals are still sticking to films and tapes in this modern era of the digital world?

 

[David]

as for post editing...mpeg-2 means you need to decompress back to AVI which most post editing s/w can read as compare to 1:1 time require to transfer miniDV tape to PC. You decide which one is better for you

Thanks.. But I don't quite understand the above comment.. Sorry! :embrass:

By 1:1 time, you mean the the time to decompress from mpeg-2 to AVI is the same as transferring the mini DV to PC?

HDD ones seem good but cost more.. My budget preferably is not more than $900. Actually I originally wanted as low priced as possble say $500-$600+ cos I don't think I will use a camcorder that often. Seems like mini DV is the only way to go.

 

[alvinsclee]

Thanks.. But I don't quite understand the above comment.. Sorry! :embrass:

By 1:1 time, you mean the the time to decompress from mpeg-2 to AVI is the same as transferring the mini DV to PC?

HDD ones seem good but cost more.. My budget preferably is not more than $900. Actually I originally wanted as low priced as possble say $500-$600+ cos I don't think I will use a camcorder that often. Seems like mini DV is the only way to go.

Hi David,
I believe he was trying to say this:-
The amount of time needed to transfer video footages into the digital workstation for further processing is the same (hence 1:1) as the total duration of your raw footages on tape.

This is because you need to do tape playback in real-time for the computer to acquire the signals and digitise onto its storage media Editing and compression to other digital formats is a separate process... which will involve more time and further effort, of course.

Given your budget and for quality capture, miniDV seems to be a good solution at this moment.

 

[JaPhotos]

Hi David,
I believe he was trying to say this:-
The amount of time needed to transfer video footages into the digital workstation for further processing is the same (hence 1:1) as the total duration of your raw footages on tape.

This is because you need to do tape playback in real-time for the computer to acquire the signals and digitise onto its storage media Editing and compression to other digital formats is a separate process... which will involve more time and further effort, of course.

Given your budget and for quality capture, miniDV seems to be a good solution at this moment.

yes! thats what i mean. thank you uncle lee.

 

[alvinsclee]

JaPhotos -

David - The weakest part about using DVD camcorders is the compression-decompression-recompression workflow which will eventually cause lots of compression artefacts in the final video.

Frankly, I don't see advantages in decompression from MPEG2 to AVI for editing. There is already data loss in the initial compression to MPEG2 during video capture... which cannot be recovered by decompression to AVI again ... and subsequently made worse after editing by recompression to burn into VCD/DVD format. :dunno: Merrily going around the bush?

By the way, this might be helpful to you...
http://www.cnet.com.au/camcorders/camcorders/0,239035915,240061716,00.htm

 

[David]

Wow... Thanks Alvin. U must be very experienced in video! Your advice helps. Hmm, I got swayed.. Guess I'll go for mini DV. I still can't bear to part more than $1k for a camcorder. Guess I'll have to bear with the more tedious post-editing. But at least the quality does not suffer like the other medium.

 

[anakin0618]

Yes for me I also stick with tape because I want to have high quality output after post editing.

DVD is more suitable for those who do not want to edit their footage. IMO, raw footage from video camera without edit is quite distracting especially with those unwanted shot.

As for the HDD type you have to check what is the compression the camera uses if it can record long duration with lower harddisk capacity, the quality will not be as good.

So my recommendation is using Mini DV tape system. Another point to note avoid the MicroDV tape type as there are using mpeg2 compression. The MicroDV tape type camera is almost out of production, being overtake by the DVD type.

 

[alvinsclee]

... U must be very experienced in video! Your advice helps. Hmm, I got swayed.. Guess I'll go for mini DV...

8 years in the national broadcasting station (last post as a technical producer), left in 1996... I'm no longer in video but do keep up with latest in the market Glad that you made a good decision Cheers!

 

[David]

8 years in the national broadcasting station (last post as a technical producer), left in 1996... I'm no longer in video but do keep up with latest in the market Glad that you made a good decision Cheers!

Oh wow.. I see... Thank u once again!

And thanks Anakin... Yup I've decided on mini DV.

 

[tommon]

The choice is obvious. If you want to do post, go for DV or Hard Disk format. If for quick view, the DVD is OK, you cannot decode the DVD codec with most NLE software. The Hard Disk ones are good because of the quicker transfer to the NLE.

The quality of the image compared with DigiCam is noticeable difference seen on prosumer camcorders (3CCD / CMOS). Try the JVC HHD cam is quite good.

 

[alvinsclee]

Agree with you, Tommon.

To edit video footages from DVD, one has to first use software to extract data back from the compressed format (with the 'lost' data interpolated from the saved frames). Thus, not all parts of the original video data can be reconstructed faithfully.

Incidentally, tape edge over HDD by one crucial point: it would be easier to rescue video segments from broken tapes than crashed disks. I've done that a number of times from archival tapes in another department Although not as flexible as NLE systems, I personally find professional tape-based editing suites fast and straightforward.

 

[DXNMedia]

To add on to Alvin's comment, miniDV allows you to re-capture and 'online' the materials again even if you delete the media in your harddisk, or in the event of a harddisk crash.

This is because Timecode information are 'written' along with the video info.
DVD videos have no such functions, but can be worked around by some editing of metadata embedded in the clips.

So technically if you lose your media, and you still have your edit timeline (EDL) aka edit decision list, you can still capture the videos again and you will not lose all your hard work.



Speaking from my 2 cents worth of experience in broadcast video post production.


:thumbsup:
________
medical marijuana patient