DV v. D8 (again)

[Grigory]

And again,

EUROPEAN MODELS have 800,000 pixels both on mini-DV and D8.

Europeans, do not take above feature list seriously!

I have nothing to add. The list has too many deviations from truth - do not read the magazine's articles.

Grigory.

[Patrick]

Brian, thank you for going through the trouble of reprinting some of the info from the Camcorders Buyers article. However, having said that, there really wasn't anything there to convince me that,

"...most DV camcorders also offer other features that D8 does not."

I'm also disappointed that you just had to throw in this comment at the end of your post:

"Incidentally, some of the features quoted for boosting D8 sales are also available on Hi8s!"

What was the purpose of that statement? I doubt that you mentioned this to help boost sales of Hi8 camcorders. No, I can only surmise that this was stated to somehow try and belittle the D8 format. Was that really necessary? It only brings into doubt any credibility you might have regarding fair and honest comment on this subject.

I'm definitely NOT blinded by any kind of loyalty to Sony or to the Digital8 format. What I do find somewhat disturbing though is the apparent bias against the D8 format by certain forum regulars and maybe even by the writer(s) of the Camcorders Buyers article. I don't have any problem with differing opinions, but I do have a problem with hidden agendas and/or ulterior motives.

[DrMordrid]

Amen.

And added to that there are this weeks prices at the local Circuit City (US dollars);

D8: $799 (TR7000) to $1299 (TRV510)

DV: $719 (Pan DV910) to $1599 (Sony TRV8)

Also I noticed a mail order company in NYC is selling the DV910 for $699.

There is no longer a price advantage to D8's. The economics of scale have caught up with 'em.

Dr. Mordrid

[Brian Ellis]

Patrick

The thing that narks most people about D-8 is the fact that it offers no real advantages that Sony could not have made available on low-cost DVs (other than Hi-8 compatibility). When Sony introduced 8 mm, there was some advantage over VHS-C, especially bulk/weight. Similarly, Hi-8 over S-VHS-C. Although I have stuck with VHS-C formats until DV came along, I never "ranted" against the analogue 8 formats.

I maintain, then, that Sony have done us a disservice by introducing an unnecessary format, offering no advantages. I don't consider that the compatibility issue is a real advantage because most guys with Hi-8 tapes already have a Hi-8 camera and it does create the quality issue this thread has discussed. OK, DV tapes cost a little extra: the last ones I bought were 3 for CHF 18 (USD 12 or 4 bucks each, for 60 minute ones, Sony, BTW) - I used to pay a helluva lot more than that for 4 minutes of Super 8 Kodachrome.

So, if D-8 were outstandingly better than DV, then it would have its raison d'être, maybe even if it were half the price for the same quality. This is not the case for either, in my opinion. One big Sony flop was the Beta video format for non-professional use (unfortunately), because it was too expensive. Sony are possibly heading for another flop with D-8 because it does not offer enough, in comparison with the purpose-made mini-DV format. If no other maker offers it, as well, it will become a dead duck, especially as they are ambivalent by offering mini-DV - and some much better cameras, at that - as well.


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

[Keith Wiebe]

I seen the TR7000 listed for $601 at one vendor on the net! The $799 figure you're quoting is retail! The Panasonic probably isn't retail-is it? Does the Panasonic have firewire input and output and analog input and output? What's your guy's beaf anyway?

[DrMordrid]

Yes, the Panasonics was a retail price. It was sitting right there on the shelf at Circuit City at $719 USD. The $699 mailorder price was retail too.

Yes, the Panasonic also has firewire in/out and composite/S-Video out. A few bux more and you can get a DV cam with video in if you need it. I didn't.

The "beaf" is that with the D8/DV prices equalizing I don't see any reason to go with an inferior, propriatory format that has little likelihood of industry wide acceptance. As such continued support for this format is problematic.

Remember the BETA decks? The MSX computers? Philips Video2000 tape format?

Dr. Mordrid



[This message has been edited by DrMordrid (edited 16 November 1999).]

[Patrick]

I'm glad that we've all been rather civilized during this discussion. I suppose I've been the one most guilty of pushing the envelope...

Brian, we're ALL shooting video with "dead duck" formats. Do you really think in five years time that any of us will be buying tape based camcorders, be they D8 or DV? You continue to promote this idea of yours that there was no need for Sony to introduce an "unnecessary format, offering no advantages". Does this mean that we should all drive the same make of car, use the same kind of vacuum cleaner, or buy the same brand of toothpaste? I can't understand why you don't appreciate the advantages of competition between the manufacturers. Even if you don't care to own a D8 camcorder, the fact that they are available has probably been largely responsible for the cost of low to medium end DV camcorders being cut in half over the last ten months.

Doc, believe it or not, I was honestly intrigued by some of your comments regarding DV camcorders. Just out of curiosity, I checked out the Panasonic DV910. I have to say, without any animosity, I was quite disappointed. As has already been mentioned, this unit does NOT have analog inputs. To make use of its analog outputs, a separate Jack box needs to be attached to the camcorder. And guess where it attaches? It goes where the battery normally mounts. This means you don't have the option of using a battery to power the camcorder if you want to watch a few minutes of video on your TV. Although this camcorder has manual focus, it also has a colour viewfinder. Anyone who is serious about videography will state that a colour viewfinder is useless when trying to manually focus due to its inferior resolution. Oh yeah, one last thing, are you aware of how the tape is inserted and removed from this unit? From the BOTTOM!!! Great idea, flick the tape eject switch and watch your expensive DV tape hit the pavement! And what do you do if your camcorder is mounted on a tripod and you have to change tapes? Remove it from the tripod, I guess. Real handy for wedding videographers or others who have to change tapes in a hurry.

I haven't had a chance yet to do an A/B comparison of the image quality between a Panasonic DV910 and any D8 camcorder, but I can confidently state that if I was to simply judge this camcorder by it's features (or lack of them), I wouldn't give this camcorder a second look.

[This message has been edited by Patrick (edited 16 November 1999).]

[Brian Ellis]

Patrick

"I can't understand why you don't appreciate the advantages of competition between the manufacturers."

This is exactly what I do appreciate. With Mini-DV, there is plenty of competition. With D-8, there is none.

I'm not sure that tape is a "dead duck". In the audio field, it has stayed with us for 99% of apps (not to mention pro computer back-ups) and the alternatives with audio are a lot more attractive. To record an hour of compressed video (DV quality) would require umpteen Gb of memory. The only economical medium for this, other than tape, would be a hard disk. With current technology, such an HDD, as used in laptops, is larger, consumes more juice and, most important, would be useless where there are considerable sharp movements, inevitable in camera use. And, once your HDD is full, how do you change it? You won't get a spare one for a few bucks. This also means that you would have to transfer the video data to another medium, to release it for further use. You may be thinking of memory sticks: too damn expensive to have them for Gb. I wouldn't mind betting you don't have a single Gb of RAM in your computer: mine has only one-eighth of a Gb, give or take an ounce, let alone fragile portable ones. My guess is that mini-DV tape is here to stay for a decade or so.

Have you thought, Patrick, that Hi-8 tape may die from the market long before mini-DV? It is now old technology and may go the way of 9,5 mm and double-8 cine film.

Anyway, I think the arguments on this thread are becoming sterile as they are turning into a dialogue between deaf people. Each camp is expressing its views but not conceding a jot to the other. Let's start thinking about closing the thread????



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

[Brian Ellis]

Rene

If you wish to quote Sony, have a look at this page, as well. Note the 500 line resolution has no difficult-to-read footnotes: this is through the lens.
http://www.sel.sony.com/SEL/consumer...italvideo.html



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

[VIKINGMAN]

Okay...all you guys who persist on having a format that is not following any standards, answer me this:

How can it be, that if you buy a Sony-cam, be it Video8, Hi8 ot Digital8, you're not able to do 100% accurate editing, unless you use Sony gear, to be able to use the time codes!?

If I buy any Panasonic cam SuperVHS and/or DV-cam, I simply connect to my homegear and/or professional studiogear and I can edit professionally down to single frames! Because it uses VITC-timecode, which is what Pro-gear uses.....

So much for standards - or lack of.

------------------
ASUS P2B-S, PII-350 (o/c to 412MHz), 128MB RAM, Cheetah 9.1 GB, Matrox Mill. G200SG, SB 64AWE, Plextor 32x CD-Rom, Sony CDU-924S CD-R, Canon BJC-7000 InkJet and Canon CanoScan 300 Scanner.

[Patrick]

Brian, I like your comment about the arguments in this thread "turning into a dialogue between deaf people". I hope you realize that you're just as hard of hearing as the rest of us. In my own defence, I did check out the Panasonic DV910 with an open mind, but I was not impressed.

Rene, you may be very knowledgeable when it comes to MSP (and I thank you again for the help you've given me), but you have not brought anything new to the table regarding D8 or DV. Your point about the reduced number of lines of resolution is nothing new. I believe there is common agreement here that it applies to BOTH formats within the same price range.

Vikingman, why are you mentioning professional gear and consumer gear in the same breath? Are you suggesting that Sony's pro gear does not follow an industry standard? Are you suggesting that the majority of people shooting with consumer camcorders are going to want to turn around and edit on pro editing decks? I think not. Most manufacturers had NO editing protocol for their consumer gear to follow. Rather odd isn't it that Canon adopted Sony's RC time code on their top-end Hi8 camcorders? Besides, with the use of non-linear editing equipment such as the Rainbow Runner or Marvel, do we now not all have the ability to edit with frame accuracy? And does not everyone who uses a DV capture board now have the ability to control any DV equipped playback device (be it D8 or Mini-DV) with frame accuracy? Vikingman, we really should limit our discussions to women and cars.

[This_Idiot]

OK guys,

I think that everyone has made their legitimate points, and that "deaf ears" are indeed the order of the day.

Some folks like apples, some folks like pears, before it comes to blows it's a good idea to agree that we're happy with what we have n'est-ce pas ?

So unless someone has got something new and valid (and non-derogatory) to say, let's let this thread decay in the honourable manner. Otherwise I'll close it off.

That's my conciliatory words for the day

[Rene]

D8 and the 500 lines story.

Found on the sony site.
http://www.sel.sony.com/SEL/consumer...other/faq.html

Digital8 has the ability to reproduce up to 500 lines of horizontal resolution (1*) for sharp, highly detailed images. That's more than twice the capability of VHS or VHS-C. Digital8 also has very good signal to noise reduction, which makes your video extremely clean and clear. Because the video is recorded digitally to a high quality tape, your Digital8 videos will also look great for longer, so memories can be enjoyed for many years after the video is recorded without suffering the deteriorating effects of other types of video.

(1*). Through the video inputs :-)

------------------
Happy editing

[Patrick]

I had a private "chat" with Chris today and I expressed my surprise that he would even consider stepping in and closing the thread. I remarked to Chris that it seemed to me that we had all been rather well behaved up to this point. I think Chris's concern is that we are simply dredging up the same old stuff and that eventually we'll get nasty with each other. Well, I certainly don't hold any ill will towards Brian, Doc, Vikingman or Rene. And I hope that you guys don't dislike myself, Grigory, Keith, A_Bit, or CMB too much. (Did I get everyone?)

Let's show Chris that we are all sensible adults, and that no matter which format we appear to support, we won't degenerate into a bunch of macho chest-thumping morons. If the interest in this thread subsides, fine, but let's let it die a natural death.

By the way Chris, on this side of the pond, and on this side of the continent (Pacific), it's mild and WET. If it ever does get cold, the snow will be up to the telephone wires.

[Keith Wiebe]

Why are you guys barking about the resolution so much? What DV cam in the price range has better resolution? I understand that broadcast resolution is around 330 lines and I would be quite happy if my videos looked as good as the broadcast ones! The noise level is more important than resolution!!!!