Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

I'm new to digital video and have a Sony miniDV Handycam. Compared to my old
analogue Sony Hi8 though, the captured images lack clarity and definition,
colour reproduction is not as good, and I'm generally not impressed with the
image quality, after expecting so much from dv.

I was wondering if anyone else is of the same opinion, or has a comment? To
get a comparible quality to Hi8 is it nesc. to go for a top end dv
camcorder?

At this point I am considering ditching the miniDV and going back to
analogue, even though the capture to PC process is not as straight forward
or as quick as digital, if the image quality is better, that's the main
thing.

Alistair.

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

You get what you pay for.

I remember using Hi-8 cameras about 13 years ago that produced fantastic
results compared to a lot of the junk on the market today.

I recall the Canon A1 and L1 (1/2" CCDs) being used around the broadcast
school I went to. (as well as JVC ENG cameras and a bunch of studio cameras
with interchangable backs)

I realize there's more to picture than JUST CCD size BUT I'd take one of
those old tanks over these 1/6 of an inch CCD consumer camcorders you see at
BestBuy.

Which miniDV camera did you try? What was your old analog Hi-8 cam?

If you've got the budget, look at a used market Sony VX2000 or something of
that ilk. (folks here will have other recommendations too - Canon XL & GL
series, Panasonic DVX-100 etc)

C.




"by" <Rocky@GhostRecon.net> wrote in message
news:0dz5e.42171$C12.19604@fe1.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
> I'm new to digital video and have a Sony miniDV Handycam. Compared to my
> old
> analogue Sony Hi8 though, the captured images lack clarity and definition,
> colour reproduction is not as good, and I'm generally not impressed with
> the
> image quality, after expecting so much from dv.
>
> I was wondering if anyone else is of the same opinion, or has a comment?
> To
> get a comparible quality to Hi8 is it nesc. to go for a top end dv
> camcorder?
>
> At this point I am considering ditching the miniDV and going back to
> analogue, even though the capture to PC process is not as straight forward
> or as quick as digital, if the image quality is better, that's the main
> thing.
>
> Alistair.
>
>

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

"by" <Rocky@GhostRecon.net> wrote in message
news:0dz5e.42171$C12.19604@fe1.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
> I'm new to digital video and have a Sony miniDV Handycam. Compared to my
old
> analogue Sony Hi8 though, the captured images lack clarity and definition,
> colour reproduction is not as good, and I'm generally not impressed with
the
> image quality, after expecting so much from dv.
>
> I was wondering if anyone else is of the same opinion, or has a comment?
To
> get a comparible quality to Hi8 is it nesc. to go for a top end dv
> camcorder?
>
> At this point I am considering ditching the miniDV and going back to
> analogue, even though the capture to PC process is not as straight forward
> or as quick as digital, if the image quality is better, that's the main
> thing.
>
> Alistair.

MiniDV has the potential for being far better than Hi8. The problem isn't
the format, but the priorities of the manufacturer. Low-end consumer
camcorder manufacturers seem to think that consumers prefer high-density
pixels in very small cameras. This requires small, dense CCDs, that are
artifact prone and have very poor low-light performance. Add to this the
fact that small lenses with fewer elements produce poorer images, and you
wind up with significantly degraded video.

I have a Sony VX2000 -- this is a prosumer 3-CCD miniDV camcorder. The
video it produces is absolutely stunning -- far better than anything you'll
ever get out of a Hi8 machine. The BBC uses VX2000s for ENG cameras.

The bottom line is the bottom line. If you want excellent video, you'll
need to spend the money on a higher-end camcorder. If low-light sensitivity
isn't critical, take a look at Sony's TRV-950 which has a street price, I
believe, around $1,500 US. The VX2100, successor to my camera, has street
price around $2,200 US.

>
>

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

"C.J.Patten" <cjpatten@KNOWSPAMrogers.com> wrote in message
news:J4ydnd9qi8JRWMvfRVn-2A@rogers.com...
> Which miniDV camera did you try? What was your old analog Hi-8 cam?

Hi

The mini DV was Sony's low end effort - the HC14E. Specs here >
http://tinyurl.com/6j9ch

The analogue is a Sony handycam Hi8 CCD-TR760E pal.

The only reason I went digital is the analogue machine started chewing tapes
(and that awful charger connection broke too).

Alistair

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

"David Chien" <chiendh@uci.edu> wrote in message
news36gvk$76p$1@news.service.uci.edu...
> Don't expect to see any cheaper DV camcorders to
> really do as good of a job as these two high-end options.

Yeh fair enough, but I figured pound for pound (or dollar for dollar), a
miniDV would outclass a Hi8 - looks like I was wrong.

Alistair.

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

If "video quality" is your goal and you don't want to spend a fortune, you
have to look at the used market.

I'm doing the rough arithemetic in my head - £300 is about $600USD?

For that price, I'd expect to find a decent Digital8mm or miniDV camera on
the used market.
You may find reasonable D8's of a few years ago are cheaper than a
comparable miniDV simply because miniDV is the "next hot thing" and 8mm tape
is on the way out. You'll still be able to get 8mm tape for years though so
I wouldn't be too worried about that.

Also consider bumping your range up to, say, £400 and look at the Panasonic
3CCD PV-GS120. I think they're $800 new - less on the used market if you
find one. (it's a miniDV cam BTW)

Look at the Sony TRV line of Digital 8mm's from a few years ago - TRV720,
740, 320 etc.
You should also consider the TRV900. I'd take a used TRV900 over any of the
above - the Panasonics or Sonys.

Ideally, save up and buy a used VX2000 for £750 - they can be had for that
if you spend the time looking. You'll likely never buy another camcorder
again after that - at least, not for a couple of decades when they've
replaced tape with solid state memory cubes.

The problem for the consumer (I stress "consumer", not "pro" - different
markets) is manufacturers are in business to make money. They have no
motivation to come out with "better" cameras, only ones with more gizmos
they can market at the same price as last years model.

"Quality" is rarely at the top of their list. Spend the same money on a used
camera and you get a higher-end "last years model" than something new.

My 2 cents - I buy my cars a couple years old too, letting someone else eat
the depreciation.

C.


> What I want to know is if you guys would agree
> that for sub £300 a home user should stick to a quality Hi8 machine rather
> than go for a low end MiniDV. Is that a fair recommendation?
>
> Thanks.
>
> Alistair
>
>

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

"C.J.Patten" <cjpatten@KNOWSPAMrogers.com> wrote in message
newsYWdnUZVoONMvMrfRVn-3Q@rogers.com...
> If "video quality" is your goal and you don't want to spend a fortune, you
> have to look at the used market.
>
> I'm doing the rough arithemetic in my head - £300 is about $600USD?
>
> For that price, I'd expect to find a decent Digital8mm or miniDV camera on
> the used market.

Wasn't there a Sony Hi8 that was the precursor to the VX1000? I seem to
recall something in a similar form factor that produced very nice video.
Head wear would be a concern, but less so than with a miniDV machine as the
heads are larger and spin slower.

> You may find reasonable D8's of a few years ago are cheaper than a
> comparable miniDV simply because miniDV is the "next hot thing" and 8mm
tape
> is on the way out. You'll still be able to get 8mm tape for years though
so
> I wouldn't be too worried about that.

Someone recently posted about the 4 decent D8 machines that Sony used to
make -- I think they had numbers like 730 or 740. Those might be a good
bet. New D8s are garbage, though -- worse than low-end consumer miniDV
machines.

>
> Also consider bumping your range up to, say, £400 and look at the
Panasonic
> 3CCD PV-GS120. I think they're $800 new - less on the used market if you
> find one. (it's a miniDV cam BTW)

Ugh. I haven't heard anything good about them (or seen anything good from
them). They were, evidently, designed to sell to consumers who had heard
about the advantages of 3-ccds, but weren't saavy enough to recognize poor
video. Sony and Canon have a couple of miniDVs in the $1000-1200 range that
are reported to do better than the low-end Panasonics.

>
> Look at the Sony TRV line of Digital 8mm's from a few years ago - TRV720,
> 740, 320 etc.

Yeah, those were the ones!

> You should also consider the TRV900. I'd take a used TRV900 over any of
the
> above - the Panasonics or Sonys.

The TRV900 was a wonderful machine. I'm still sorry I didn't buy one when I
had the chance.

>
> Ideally, save up and buy a used VX2000 for £750 - they can be had for that
> if you spend the time looking. You'll likely never buy another camcorder
> again after that - at least, not for a couple of decades when they've
> replaced tape with solid state memory cubes.

I don't know -- have you seen Sony's new HD machine? [begin Homer
Simpson]Hmmmm, HD! [end Homer Simpson]

>
> The problem for the consumer (I stress "consumer", not "pro" - different
> markets) is manufacturers are in business to make money. They have no
> motivation to come out with "better" cameras, only ones with more gizmos
> they can market at the same price as last years model.

I wonder, though, whether the manufacturers are following demand or creating
it. I can not, for the life of me, understand why anyone would want to use
a video camera to take low-res (by comparison to digital still cameras)
poorly-saturated photographs. Then again, I also don't understand the
allure of cellphones that take pictures, either.

>
> "Quality" is rarely at the top of their list. Spend the same money on a
used
> camera and you get a higher-end "last years model" than something new.
>
> My 2 cents - I buy my cars a couple years old too, letting someone else
eat
> the depreciation.
>
> C.
>
>
> > What I want to know is if you guys would agree
> > that for sub £300 a home user should stick to a quality Hi8 machine
rather
> > than go for a low end MiniDV. Is that a fair recommendation?
> >
> > Thanks.
> >
> > Alistair
> >
> >
>
>

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

Ya' know, I think you're right about the pre-digital VX1000 predacessor.

Here's a neat little link:
http://www.sony.net/Products/handycam/history.html
I believe it's the CCD-VX1. I don't know anything about it though...

I've been toying with the idea of buying an older but higher-end Hi-8 camera
like that instead of something newer but digital. Wish I had some
side-by-side comparisons.

AGREED 100% about the new D8's - I looked at these a few weeks ago and was
appalled. Avoid like the plague.

I'd wager the manufacturers are trying to create the need for things like
camera-cell phones and "mega pixel stills from a video camera."

The former is a great way to get kids to spend more of their parents money
on high-end cellphone plans.

The latter is, as we know, a gimmick that results in both mediocre video and
stills but probably lets the drones at BestBuy sell "the next model up" to
unsuspecting baby-boomers.

Forgive the bitterness. I work in marketing. My greatest disappointment is
consumer apathy. I invest a great deal to educate my clients. Many still go
elsewhere to hear a nicer story - even when it isn't true.

It's a stinkin' shame.

C.


"PTravel" <ptravel@ruyitang.com> wrote in message
news:3bomlgF6iv8fsU1@individual.net...
>
>
> Wasn't there a Sony Hi8 that was the precursor to the VX1000? I seem to
> recall something in a similar form factor that produced very nice video.
> Head wear would be a concern, but less so than with a miniDV machine as
> the
> heads are larger and spin slower.
>
>> You may find reasonable D8's of a few years ago are cheaper than a
>> comparable miniDV simply because miniDV is the "next hot thing" and 8mm
> tape
>> is on the way out. You'll still be able to get 8mm tape for years though
> so
>> I wouldn't be too worried about that.
>
> Someone recently posted about the 4 decent D8 machines that Sony used to
> make -- I think they had numbers like 730 or 740. Those might be a good
> bet. New D8s are garbage, though -- worse than low-end consumer miniDV
> machines.
>
>>
>> Also consider bumping your range up to, say, £400 and look at the
> Panasonic
>> 3CCD PV-GS120. I think they're $800 new - less on the used market if you
>> find one. (it's a miniDV cam BTW)
>
> Ugh. I haven't heard anything good about them (or seen anything good from
> them). They were, evidently, designed to sell to consumers who had heard
> about the advantages of 3-ccds, but weren't saavy enough to recognize poor
> video. Sony and Canon have a couple of miniDVs in the $1000-1200 range
> that
> are reported to do better than the low-end Panasonics.
>
>>
>> Look at the Sony TRV line of Digital 8mm's from a few years ago - TRV720,
>> 740, 320 etc.
>
> Yeah, those were the ones!
>
>> You should also consider the TRV900. I'd take a used TRV900 over any of
> the
>> above - the Panasonics or Sonys.
>
> The TRV900 was a wonderful machine. I'm still sorry I didn't buy one when
> I
> had the chance.
>
>>
>> Ideally, save up and buy a used VX2000 for £750 - they can be had for
>> that
>> if you spend the time looking. You'll likely never buy another camcorder
>> again after that - at least, not for a couple of decades when they've
>> replaced tape with solid state memory cubes.
>
> I don't know -- have you seen Sony's new HD machine? [begin Homer
> Simpson]Hmmmm, HD! [end Homer Simpson]
>
>>
>> The problem for the consumer (I stress "consumer", not "pro" - different
>> markets) is manufacturers are in business to make money. They have no
>> motivation to come out with "better" cameras, only ones with more gizmos
>> they can market at the same price as last years model.
>
> I wonder, though, whether the manufacturers are following demand or
> creating
> it. I can not, for the life of me, understand why anyone would want to
> use
> a video camera to take low-res (by comparison to digital still cameras)
> poorly-saturated photographs. Then again, I also don't understand the
> allure of cellphones that take pictures, either.
>
>>
>> "Quality" is rarely at the top of their list. Spend the same money on a
> used
>> camera and you get a higher-end "last years model" than something new.
>>
>> My 2 cents - I buy my cars a couple years old too, letting someone else
> eat
>> the depreciation.
>>
>> C.
>>
>>
>> > What I want to know is if you guys would agree
>> > that for sub £300 a home user should stick to a quality Hi8 machine
> rather
>> > than go for a low end MiniDV. Is that a fair recommendation?
>> >
>> > Thanks.
>> >
>> > Alistair
>> >
>> >
>>
>>
>
>

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

"by" <Rocky@GhostRecon.net> schreef in bericht
news:0dz5e.42171$C12.19604@fe1.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
> I'm new to digital video and have a Sony miniDV Handycam. Compared to my
> old
> analogue Sony Hi8 though, the captured images lack clarity and definition,
> colour reproduction is not as good, and I'm generally not impressed with
> the
> image quality, after expecting so much from dv.
>
> I was wondering if anyone else is of the same opinion, or has a comment?
> To
> get a comparible quality to Hi8 is it nesc. to go for a top end dv
> camcorder?
>
> At this point I am considering ditching the miniDV and going back to
> analogue, even though the capture to PC process is not as straight forward
> or as quick as digital, if the image quality is better, that's the main
> thing.

Alistair,

I also have an excellent Sony Hi8 camera (TR3200E). For capturing I use a
Canopus ADVC-55 analogue-to-DV converter costing about 200 Euros. The
resulting image quality can hardly be distinguished from good DV footage and
any editing program can process the DV-AVI files. A thought?
--
Lou van Wijhe
Website: http://home.hccnet.nl/jl.van.wijhe/
AntiSpam: Vervang INVALID in e-mail adres door NL
AntiSpam: Replace INVALID in e-mail address by NL

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

Thanks for the feedback and info (all three posters). Although some of the
advice is way over what I need for home use, I think you have all confirmed
my suspicion that bang for buck where the bang is image quality and the buck
is strictly limited, analogue is the way to go.

My old Hi8 showed no artifacts, the miniDV is awful in places (edges etc).
The Hi8 handled indoor low light just fine, the miniDV turns it into a grain
fest.
The colours on the Hi8 were bright and vibrant, with the miniDV even in
bright sunlight the colours looked flat.

Obviously the above comments are levelled at *entry level* miniDV, and I
fully appreciate that top end 4 figure miniDV is a different beast
alltogether, and if I win the lottery I'll go shopping for one.

But for now, it's time to stick the miniDV on ebay and dust off the old Hi8
and find a new analogie capture device that works with XP!

Thanks guys.

Alistair

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

"Alistair" <Rocky@GhostRecon.net> schreef in bericht
news:7SN5e.44150$C12.7857@fe1.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
> ...
>
> But for now, it's time to stick the miniDV on ebay and dust off the old
> Hi8
> and find a new analogie capture device that works with XP!

The external Canopus analog-to-DV converter does and you don't need a
driver.
--
Lou van Wijhe
Website: http://home.hccnet.nl/jl.van.wijhe/
AntiSpam: Vervang INVALID in e-mail adres door NL
AntiSpam: Replace INVALID in e-mail address by NL

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

If you've had the camera less than a month, most big stores will take it
back for a full refund. (if you haven't had it that long)

I'm sure it'll sell on eBay though. While you're there, keep looking for
deals on used digitals - those TRV's and the VX2000... who knows?

Good luck!

C.


"Alistair" <Rocky@GhostRecon.net> wrote in message
news:7SN5e.44150$C12.7857@fe1.news.blueyonder.co.uk...
> Thanks for the feedback and info (all three posters). Although some of the
> advice is way over what I need for home use, I think you have all
> confirmed
> my suspicion that bang for buck where the bang is image quality and the
> buck
> is strictly limited, analogue is the way to go.
>
> My old Hi8 showed no artifacts, the miniDV is awful in places (edges etc).
> The Hi8 handled indoor low light just fine, the miniDV turns it into a
> grain
> fest.
> The colours on the Hi8 were bright and vibrant, with the miniDV even in
> bright sunlight the colours looked flat.
>
> Obviously the above comments are levelled at *entry level* miniDV, and I
> fully appreciate that top end 4 figure miniDV is a different beast
> alltogether, and if I win the lottery I'll go shopping for one.
>
> But for now, it's time to stick the miniDV on ebay and dust off the old
> Hi8
> and find a new analogie capture device that works with XP!
>
> Thanks guys.
>
> Alistair
>
>

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

$$$

It costs Sony less to put a cheap, 1/6" CCD into these cameras because
they're already make millions of them for other devices.

Money trumps everything.




"HerHusband" <unknown@unknown.com> wrote in message
news:Xns963353E041F6Cherhusband@216.196.97.136...

> The CCD's seem to be the weak point for low end cameras, so I don't
> understand why they don't just use an analog camera with the DV encoding
> and tape (miniDV or Digital8) built in. The camcorder already includes the
> A/D converter (pass through model) and the tape mechnism. Just replace the
> CCD with the older style analog sensors.
>
> Maybe there's a technical issue I'm missing, but it seems like a simple
> solution for acceptable low light performance in a low-budget digital
> camera.
>
> Anthony

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

"C.J.Patten" <cjpatten@KNOWSPAMrogers.com> wrote in message
news:cfWdnZ9YRa2TdMrfRVn-qA@rogers.com...
> If you've had the camera less than a month, most big stores will take it
> back for a full refund. (if you haven't had it that long)
>
> I'm sure it'll sell on eBay though. While you're there, keep looking for
> deals on used digitals - those TRV's and the VX2000... who knows?
>
> Good luck!

Thanks, I've had it a few months so it'll be ebay. Before I do though I'm
going to do a side by side comparison by recording the same scene with both
camcorders to do a direct comparison. I'll be very interested in the
results.

I'll look out for used deals too )

Alistair