Camcorder types...Disc? memory Cards? Tapes??

[Kris]

Hi There.....hopefully someone can help which this purchasing question

I used to have a digital camcorder which recorded movies on to a Mini DV Tape. I then used Premier Elements 1.0 and had done for a few years. My Camcorder was then stolen.

I borrowed a camcorder that burnt to a mini disc but I didnt like this format as it did not edit at all well using PE 1.0. I did think about buying the latest PE software as I was advised that would edit the formatted discs better - but I still wanst sold on the mini-disc versions

I am now going to buy a new camcorder but probably a simple version around £300 - My other cost £700 but i'd not be able to pay that again

I was also looking at buying the latest PE version

1. Which kind of camcorders are good to buy? - mini-tapes, Memory Card or disc?
2. Any idea of make to look for or avoid?
3. Which is a good PE version to go for?

Thanks a lot guys... I've scanned through some old posts of a similiar nature but looks like most are looking to sopend around $1000

Cheers
Kris

[Steve Grisetti]

The rule of thumb, Kris, is that, if you want to edit your video, you want a tape-based camcorder.

That means miniDV, if you're shooting standard video, or HDV, if you're shooting hi-def. But, in my opinion, you'll get the best bang for the buck (or pound) and the best interfacing with your computer and video editing software if you stick with tape and stay away from DVD, flash and hard drive cams.

(This, by the way, is as true for pros as it is for us amateurs and semi-pros.)

[Maxine370]

I concur, tape is the way to go but I also found the tape camera models are just not made the way they used to be. I recently had my camcorder go on me...it was only 6 years old but it was still a great camera. Long story short, I bought a new camera that was about $250 (the next DVtape model up was $1000 because it was HDV and there was nothing in between). I was very disappointed in the $250 model, it was flimsy and did not take good video like my older model did. I eventually returned it and bought the Sony HDR-HC9, the HDV model which sad to say I don't even like as much as my old one... but I'm now recording in Hi Def and still using tape which as Steve says is still the way to go.


see topic http://muvipix.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=26&t=4283&p=37209&hilit=+sony#p37201 for more about the HDR-HC9. It may be a bit more than you want to spend but you may find like me the quality of your old MiniDV camcorder is better than what you'll find out there now.

[Chuck Engels]

How much you will edit is the key, the more you want to do in editing software the more you need a compatible format.
If you plan on using Premiere Elements to edit then it is highly recommended that you get a tape based camcorder.
If you are willing to switch to something else then nothing is off limits.

Tape based camcorders will be by far the easiest and least amount of trouble and headaches, that means a lot to me
90% of the professional video crowd are still using tape based equipment, especially for HDV, why would I use something that the professionals won't even use?

[codebreaker]

I've seen the comments here and elsewhere about Tape being better than Flash but I still can't appreciate why. I only did a brief investigation into Cam Corders before I settled on the Canon HF10 which is Flash Based. At least for what I'm doing I don't see the Flash as being a disadvantage. I can download the video quickly and edit it in PRE7.

So why is Tape suppossed to be better than Flash? What can you do with Tape that I couldn't do with my Flash based video? The only thing I seem to read is that tape is what a lot of other people use.

I just don't get it yet....

Colin

[sidd finch]

I think it is because Flash requires a lot of horsepower for editing. In addition You will need some kind of permanent storage solution for off loading what you have recorded. Tape is inexpensive and reliable to store. Computer requirements are not as steep (less cost) and it is my understanding that the compression used in MiniDV tape is still the best quality when compared to the other digital formats.

IMO…. if you have lots of flash memory, a Ferrari for a computer, and a hard drive the size of Fort Knox, and you don’t mind the quality being a bit reduced from a MiniDV then Flash is the way to go. But I think the computer horsepower and storage is more of a factor than the quality.

Sidd

[Bill Hunt]

The beauty of a tape-based workflow is that the data is NOT compressed in any way, that can be detected. With almost all other storage systems, one gets some flavor of MPEG compression to start with.

Let's assume that one is going to go to DVD with SD footage. With tape, you are working in DV-AVI to start off, and then do one compression to MPEG-2 for burning to DVD. With most other formats, the material is compressed to MPEG (many different flavors), basically converted to DV-AVI for editing, and then re-compressed to MPEG-2 for burning to DVD.

Next in line is that you always have your tapes to go back to. Once you format the HDD in a camera, or flash memory card, the data is gone for good.

Hunt

[Bobby]

The point, Colin, is what is on the medium, not the medium itself. Bits is bits. But the data format used for DV is mostly uncompressed and hence requires less horsepower to decompress and work with. Since storage cards are limited in size, they use different techniques to store the data which involve much higher compression - hence requiring more horsepower to work with or slower if you have a slow PC. If storage cards could hold the same amount of data as on a tape, they could use the same file format.

If you have a 1 hour tape and read it into your PC with PRE or WinDV (for example) it will occupy 15-20 GB. See how much an hour's worth of data is on the storage card - for example, if you have a 16 GB card and it holds 4 hours of video (I am just making up an example), that would be 4 GB per hour - far less storage than DV - and more storage used is better quality.

Sorry if I duplicated some of the info in previous posts, but not sure they hit the nail on the head.

[Bob]

DV-AVI is compressed -- 5 to 1. But, mpg/mpeg is compressed considerably higher which is why they use in on camcorders using memory cards, discs, or other limited storage media (compared to tape). The higher the compression, the more recording time you have. But, there is a price to pay. Besides taking more computer resources to decompress, the higher the compression the greater the chance that visible and possibly distracting artifacts can appear. Also, mpeg is not as precise to edit as dv-avi. DV-avi is easy to edit because it uses intraframe compression. That is, each frame is complete. You can precisely and easily cut at any frame. Mpeg uses interframe compression, where some frames (called i-frames) are complete while others are stored as differences. In this scheme, it's difficult to cut precisely at an arbitrary frame as the frame generally has to be reconstructed. And, if you cut out an i-frame it will affect the frames that follow it unless the editing software is sophisticated enough to deal with it properly.

[Bill Hunt]

Bob,

Correct, DV-AVI is compressed, but that is why I added "that can be detected." Doing A-B comparisons between DV-AVI and Uncompressed yields no degredation, that is likely to be seen on a monitor, or TV. Yes, one can measure it, but for visual perception, the loss, i.e. compression goes unnoticed, unlike MPEG-2. DV-AVI is also I-frame, so each frame is included, unlike many other compression schemes. That is often the reason that they are so difficult to edit effectively in their native state.

Hunt

[JohnnyO]

As others have stated, it is the compression. Although flash is very small and easy to take around with you, if you edit this highly compressed video, you will loose even more data as it re-compressed to MPEG2 when burning to DVD. I'm sure you will notice the difference in quality on the final DVD.
For DV-AVI, the compression is very small and yes, you will be compressing a compressed video when burning to DVD, but he original compression was not that great to begin with. With DV-AVI copmpression, you will not notice the difference when cthe MPEG2 compression is added onthe final DVD.
In terms of quality, go with a tape based format.

I also need to mention that PRE handles less compressed vido much better than highly compressed video.

[John 'twosheds' McDonald]

The rule of thumb, Kris, is that, if you want to edit your video, you want a tape-based camcorder.

That means miniDV, if you're shooting standard video, or HDV, if you're shooting hi-def. But, in my opinion, you'll get the best bang for the buck (or pound) and the best interfacing with your computer and video editing software if you stick with tape and stay away from DVD, flash and hard drive cams.

(This, by the way, is as true for pros as it is for us amateurs and semi-pros.)

Kris, you wouldn't be far wrong in surmising that most folk here use miniDV tape. Certainly some are using cameras that record to other media but for the most part it is tape, for the reasons given above.

[Paul LS]

High definition video captured to mini-DV tape is the way to go. If not, you will regret it in the future. You may only have a standard definition TV now but eventually you will only be able to get HD TVs and you will really, really regret not capturing your precious memories in high definition. The difference between SD and HD is stunning.

[John 'twosheds' McDonald]

High definition video captured to mini-DV tape is the way to go. If not, you will regret it in the future. You may only have a standard definition TV now but eventually you will only be able to get HD TVs and you will really, really regret not capturing your precious memories in high definition. The difference between SD and HD is stunning.

Second that! . The ever watchful Mrs Twosheds stopped complaining about the money I spent on my Samsung 46" LCD 1080p TV when she saw the HD picture quality.

[codebreaker]

Thanks for an interesting discussion but from my own use nothing here convinces me that miniDV would have been a better choice, because all the points raised are based around the theoretical aspects rather than the key point of ' does it meet my expectations' - and the answer is Flash does. What I see on my TV screen is very impressive to me and I doubt if I could tell the difference between what my Flash based camera delivers and a Tape camera. Since I'm not likely to do this its academic anyway.

The issue of backup and storage isn't valid in my opinion. I certainly wouldn't put much trust in archiving Tapes without periodic replenishment. I'd still want to back up all my files on the PC anyway and Hard Drive Storage is small and cheap. A minDV tape costs about £2 for 60mins. This equates to 8GB on my flash camera for Hi-def. A 1TB drive costs approx £80 and will store the equivalent of 125 tapes on this basis - which would cost about £250. Sure you need two drives but still a better option for me than tape. (please correct these figures if you think they are way out since I haven't spent a lot of time investigating this)

So, the other two main points are compression and processing power.

Well maybe there is a difference between AVI and AVCHD (MPEG4) but I can't tell the difference on the few things I've looked at. I don't notice any artifacts on my TV from my videos.

As for processing power I'm not seeing any problems with my PC. I'm not dissatisfied with the time it takes to download, render or edit. Maybe AVI would be a little faster but can anyone quantify how much?

HDTV - I have no interest in HDTV. I have a 17" TV and don't want anything larger. HDTV is only of benefit if you go to a larger size.

So you can see I accept all your points from a theoretical basis but Flash meets my needs today and for some time to come - by which time there'll be something new around anyway

Colin