Digital 8 or Pure DV

[Guci]

Hai Guys

I am thinking about buying a digital camera.
I do not know which of the two digital 8 or DV gives us a better out put video quality.

Any respond will be much appreciated.

Thanks

[DrMordrid]

Go pure DV. You'll get more image quality for your bux. D8 really isn't any better in the quality department than Hi8.

I know it's tempting to use the cheaper 8mm tapes, but if you're not gaining much image quality over Hi8 why bother? Just to get IEEE-1394?

Price is no longer much of a concern. Panasonic has come out with the PV900 and PV910 DV cams which are excellent bargains.

The PV910 has image stabilization, S-Video out, composite out, IEEE-1394 (I-Link), 3" LCD monitor, built in light, 18x optical/300x digital zoom, built in still cam capability (~750 images/tape), digital effects, audio overdub and it delivers real DV quality.

I got my PV910 for $750 USD, very close to the price of the D8's with similar features. It's a ton of cam for the money.

The PV900 can be had for about $675 USD. It's missing a couple of features like the light and the LCD is only 2.5" but it's still got I-Link and is a helluva deal.

Dr. Mordrid

[Patrick]

Same quality.

Just make sure you're not comparing apples to oranges. In other words, it's not fair to compare a 3 chip DV camcorder to a single chip D8 camcorder.

Compare the prices, then compare the quality.

With all due respect to the Doc, I believe his comment about D8 not being any better than Hi8 to be totally false and misleading. I can't fathom why anyone would say this.

[This_Idiot]

Different strokes for different folks. The main factors are :

a) Firewire input (and mebbe output, see c)
b) Budget. D8 is cheaper than full DV
c) Geographical location. Much of Europe is still locked out of firewire output TO the Cam. The situation is getting better, but to the best of my knowledge the only enabled cams here in the UK are Canon, Panasonic and JVC (IE DV not D8)
d) Redundancy. How long do you want your solution to last ? If you are prepared to write-in a 2 year redundancy factor, D8 maybe fine for you. In the longer term DV will become the de-facto standard.

Grigory has a wealth of information on the D8 equation, and I know that he is very happy with his D8. I'm sure that he will chip in with his experience.

Doc, is there any difference at all between DV and mini-DV standard apart from the size/cost of the storage medium ?

[CMB]

im hoping to buy a DV cam beginging of the year.
in an ideal world id buy the Sony 3 chip TRV900
(i do hope thats the right product code, cos im tired and doing this from mempory :O)
but unless i happen to find 2,000 in the street somewhere i shall go for one of the DV8 cams
WHY???
cos i know i can get a peice of software on the net costing about $30 that can activate the Recording options (the url esacpes me bu t i have it written down somewhere)
i think it works with certain panasonic ones too, but the DV8 for sure, as well as DV in, you get analogue SVHS and composite recording too, all for under £800 on my budget thats great

[mrpc]

A quick question on the subject DV and downloading to hard disk.

Are we still limited by a 1 to 1 download time-video clip time? In other words if I have 30min of video will it still require 30min of realtime to input to PC? And if so when will this change?

HI8 is still good enough for most uses; it's the time of the input that annoys me the most!

Richard

[Jerry Jones]

I agree with Doc. As usual.

Go for the MiniDV. Digital 8 confines
you exclusively to Sony camcorders.

The fact JVC, Canon, Panasonic and Sony
all produce MiniDV camcorders makes that
format a safe bet. And the prices of
MiniDV camcorders are coming down.

That's not to say Digital 8 camcorders are
bad buys. But you asked for opinions and I
think you're getting more for your money
if you go DV.

One positive aspect to Digital 8: For
people living in the U.S. they offer
analog inputs so you can input legacy
analog video.

(I sympathize with the UK and European
folks who have to deal with the DV-In
obstacles.)

There are several DV camcorders with
analog input capability, including the
Sony TRV900, the Canon Elura.

Currently we're limited to one ne
video-to-harddrive Firewire transfer.

That probably won't change for at least
another year.



[This message has been edited by Jerrold Jones (edited 10-12-1999).]

[Brian Ellis]

IMHO, Mini-DV every time. The Hi-8/D-8 intercompatibility is a compromise which adds weight and bulk to the camera. DV is purpose-designed without compromise and uses tape coatings designed for just that job and that job alone. I feel that Sony (who have not gone the whole hog and produce both formats) are trying to do what they did with VHS-C, produce a rival format to try and corner a part of the market to themselves: it is just a ploy by the marketeers. Other than the ability to play Hi-8 tapes, the D-8 cameras offer no advantages over DV. If your fortune permits it, buy a 3-CCD DV.

------------------
Brian (the terrible)

[Guci]

Thanks for your explanation

Now I am going for DV instead of D8

[Patrick]

Hey, it's your money.

[Mark F]

I went with D8 for the simple reason that I had a Hi8 cam, and can still play back my "older" tapes. It's a matter of economics, my EX has the old cam, and I needed a new cam, and I wanted digital and 1394. The D8 gives me what I needed in on product, therefor less expence.
If I were starting from scratch, or wasn't interested in Hi8 compatability I would have gone with DV. Again, as so often, the situation and needs, dictated the dicision. If in a few years if I upgrade my equipment, it'll be DV (based on current formats).

Just my thoughts,
Mark F.

------------------
OH NO, my retractable cup holder swallowed a CD

[Keith Wiebe]

I bought a Sony DCR-TR7000 and am happy with it so far. Much better quality than my Canon ES3000 hi-8. Recording into the RR at the second highest setting only adds a little background noise to the video and outputting to the D8 really makes 1rst rate archives. The quality is so much better than Hi-8 ever can be. I also have a shoe box full of old Hi-8 tapes I can play out and into a firewire card for better qualtiy still and I can run down to the grocery store to pick up an 8mm tape for under $4.00. Try that with DV. If I didn't have hi-8 tapes I might consider DV but I really think that the durability of 8mm will be better in the long run if the format catches on.

[Grigory]

Hi,

I don't agree with Dr. The quality issue of D8 vs nimi-DV is nonsence. D8 has industry-standard DV format in recording. It is exactly the same as for ALL DV and DVcam in terms of digital video data: 25 mbps data rate DV data.

Because the data format is the same, there is NO quality difference.
As for tapes, don't you think that mini-dv tape coating and other "quality enhancing" features were originally designed and implemented for Hi8 tapes?
As for the influence of tape coating on picture quality - do you see quality degradation when you copy image file on cheap and unreliable floppy? Strange enough, I cannot distiguish the quality difference between digital images stored on floppy and on UWSCSI server RAID. I have something wrong with my eyes ?

You can take D8 or mini-dv. If you buy 1 CCD device, you will get exactly the same picture quality.

I do not say the recording reliability of D8 is low. More, I have to say that it is very good. I have 5 TDK video-8 tapes, used multiple times. I could not see any image defect on these tapes. The same is also true for Hi8 TDK tapes, one Sony ME Hi8 tape that came with my camcorder, and for several BASF video 8 tapes.

Other advantages/disadvantages.
Tape cost. For me, it costs 2.5 $ per 65 minutes of video on good quality video8 tape, or $4 per 65 minutes on TDK Hi8 tape.

What about the price of mini-DV tape?

Format interoperability. How many of us used to play Hi8 or regular video 8 tapes on other devices? You always can record DV data to-from D8 device from-to any mini-DV device and PC via firewire.

Weight/dimensions. 3CCD Sony camcorder has the same weight and dimensions as D8. The cost is x4 more, and the cost of ownership (tapes) too.
Small Mini-DV camcorders have similar 1CCD and optical components quality as D8.
I also doubt that very small and light camcorder is good for quality shooting. Have you ever used built-in calculator on wrist watch?

Analog tapes. When you have ability to store digital video on cheap video8 tape, you can use camcorder as storage device. More expensive 3CCD camcorder, or small mini-DV devices are x3 more expensive in the cost of data storage. So, when I made a decision what to buy, I moved to D8 for this reason too. I decided that it is better to get SAME as cheap mini-dv picture quality, AND, in addition, multi -puspose PC video-editing-oriented solution. It proved to be effective even as analog capture device. I can afford mechanical wear of D8 parts while making DV from analog tapes I have left from VHS-c camcorder. The quality of DV video made from VHS is MUCH better than from RR_G or similar cards. I can record DV from VHS, leave digital video on cheap tape, and then use it in editing when I decide to do so. When I finish editing of all my analog tapes, I'll forget about analog.
the card like MIRO DC30 costs more and has no data storage advantage.
I can imagine that some time I'll move to mini-DV in 3CCD flavour. By now, I am happy with the quality I get from 1 CCD device.

All ideas that D8 1 CCD has lower quality than 1 CCD mini-dv are simply incorrect.

Now about the picture quality measures.
Sony camcorders use Sony DV codec, which is the same for all models. So, digital life of video is the same.

D8 camcorders use digital image stabilization that is also used in all low-cost mini-dv camcorders.
Some very expensive models, using also 3 CCD sensors, utilize mechanical stabilization. The weight and dimesions of such camcorders may be even more than for D8.
BTW, heavy and bulky camcorders work better for shooting from hand, because of weight and size. Compact mini-DV may give you more shakes than D8. If you plan to use tripod - do you need any stabilization?

1CCD vs 3 CCD. 1CCD devices use one optical sensor with pixels grouped by four. Each pixel in group has small filter cap. The video signal is produced by mixing data from these four pixels, producing luminosity component and two color difference components. Because of this mosaic structure, fine monochrome elements of input picture may become slightly colored. This is inevitable for a scheme used.
You can reproduce similar effect on regular TV. On some monochrome patterns, tri-color stripes on TV picture tube may produce colored moire. It is visible from close distance only.
The same is true for 1 CCD camcorder. If you look at the image on PC monitor, and have ethalon image from 3 CCD device, you can see the difference. If you compare two images on TV screen, the difference will be barely noticeable, because the conditions when color moire appear on 1CCD device are very close to the conditions when you get similar distortions directly on TV screen color stripes.

1CCD image artefacts may have adverse effect on digital editing. However, I could not find this by myself.

3CCD camcorders are much more expensive. Because of different price range, most of 3CCD devices have also better optical part, better edjusted electronic regulators, better gain and exposure control, more professional features such as manual control over most of shooting parameters, better arrangement of control elements. The last feature inevitably involve increasing of camcorder size. You cannot use all control buttons if they are too close to each other, or located in inconvenient place.
Combining together all improvements for 3CCD device, you get better picture quality, which can be explained as a combination of MANY factors, each having only small influence on the result:
1. Optics, AR coating quality, extra filters, ...
2. 3CCD
3. mechanical image stabilization ( better for hand shooting)
4. manual controlling of everything. Could be good or bad, depending on your action.
5. Better factory tuning and adjustment of auto-everything (gain,focus,white balance), fine-tuned analog to digital and back converters,... . This is the most expensive stage of any serial production. See car market for examples.
6. Comfortable shooting conditions. You don't shake camcorder when you adjust focus or push a button while shooting, because the control elements are located in proper places and have elaborated design.
7. Better viewfinder.

All these factors influence your results.

You see that there is no point for cassette type. It is just not important what tape is used to store data. You can imagine even hard drive of 14 GB inside the camcorder. Not too futuristic assumption for now.

So, I always laugh when I see comparisons based on tape names. Digital is always digital.
Inexpensive DV solution like D8 or mini-dv from the same price range are equivalent and give you ability to work in digital. D8 has lower cost of ownership.

Hi-end solutions are always better than low-end.
But now I have better idea how to spend extra 2000$ than to get 3CCD all-best "super very much better...MAX " camcorder and be unable to see the difference on my TV set.

Grigory

[Grigory]

Brian,

I have no Hi8 or video8 tapes with analog recording, so the ability to play them in DV via D8 camcorder is not an advantage for me.


Interesting note:

ALL analog tapes are recorded with ALL OR NOTHING principle. Luma signal modulates the frequency of carrier signal, and this FM modulated signal is recorded just as ANY digital signal: All or Nothing . So, your words about coercitivity and the difference between DV and Hi-8 tapes tell me nothing. The more coercitivity - the better is S/N ratio of FM modulated luma carrier. The requirements are the SAME.
As of data density, I am not familiar with details, but low data density of analog tapes is because of absence of ECC mechanism in analog world, and because of historical reasons. Today is just a time to re-design old mechanics and abandon 20 years old VHS compatibility.

Hi-8 tape has to be better than DV only in analog path of chroma carrier. This, however, does not limit coercitivity: FM luma channel is used as biasing for chroma subcarrier. It is almost the same mechanism as for audio tapes recording. Because of low signal level, and pure analog recording of downshifted chroma subcarrier, the tape quality MUST be better than for DV, especially in terms of tape coating uniformity to lower random level modulation.

Now, assume you record modem signal with 25 kbits per second on audio tape. Is it possible? Yes, because the bandwidth is only 4 kHz. Now, multiply the values by 1000. You get 25 mbps at 4 Mhz bandwidth. Do you see the analogy between Hi8-DV formats? Strange enough, the data density easily fits in Hi-8 tape. Note, for modems the limit is 33.6 kbps at a given bandwidth limit and S/N ratio probably below what we have in Hi-8.


Tape cost. Yes, I do video recording for myself. So, my explanations are given to those as myself and simply don't work for professionals. Anyway, the ability to spend x3 less money for tapes is good for me.
As for mechanics, if I use VCR device for editing on PC, I have to accept the wear. There is simply no way, until we get better recording-only solution as a replacement of analog devices and with reasonable cost. Now, the most cost-effective storage solution is another D8 camcorder used as DV deck and videocapture device. This is a side effect of Sony activity on "low end consuner DV market". It is strange enough, but what prevents me from using (or suggesting to use) this side feature, if I cannot find any better solution?
Again, I speak about home video editing, for which I only spend personal money and time, but not pay salary to anybody. Video editing as profession may change the approach, but it is a topic of another discussion. I always assume that a question "What shall I ... " comes from amateur.

About TV replacement. Maybe. It is 25" Trinitron with composite input.
To keep peace, I confirm that there is a BIG difference between VHS and DV on my TV .

However, it is my turn to repeat that the quality difference is a sum of many factors that differ $800 1CCD device from $3000 3CCD device, among which the CCD design is only one factor. The others were listed in my previous post. To get actually better quality, you must work with professional device professionally. Using it for casual family shooting may give you worse quality, if you use advanced features incorrectly or not trained enough.

The type of tape is not an argument either.

Best regards,
Grigory

[Jerry Jones]

Although I still believe Doc was
correct in most respects regarding
D-8 and MiniDV...

...I think he's been misinterpreted...

I don't believe he said D-8 was not
better than Hi8. I interpreted his
comment to mean the camcorder optics
probably aren't that much better than
Hi8 camcorders and he's probably correct
in that regard.

The compression schemes used by D-8
camcorders... I would agree with Grigory...
are the same as MiniDV. Sony has
published a pretty good FAQ at the
following site:

http://www.sel.sony.com/SEL/service/digital8.shtml

I've always been curious to know the
the truth about what a rep told me about
the "hidden" weakness of D-8... the speed
at which the heads must operate.

This particular rep told me Hi8 and
8mm tapes were not designed to withstand
that kind of speed. So my question would
relate to long term durability of tapes
recorded in Digital8 camcorders.

I think DV Magazine is going to be doing
an in depth review on these camcorders in
an upcoming issue. It should be interesting.