video camera question

[pacguy]

Hello,

Having ben lurking(lurk, lurk) in these forums i feel this place is knowledgable about video camera's.

so strait to the point, is it worth getting a DV (panasonic NV-DS28A) or hi8 or vhsc camera .
planned use is to capture concerts and celebbrations and transcoding them to mpeg( or winmedia as it looks good).
looking for comments about brand name and model please.
Any replies appreciated.




Still using g400 tv under win98 first edition(on se shutdown patch hangs, go figure).

[Sciascia]

DV DV DV DV DV.

If I could go back in time....

Not only is it higher res, but you can use Firewire (later on) and not lose any quality.

Be sure to check if it uses progessive or interlaced scanning and what kind of lens, stuff like that, but unless you are doing pro stuff, then most mid priced DV cameras beat the snot out of HI-8 or VHS.

[Patrick]

You do NOT want an analog camcorder of any format. What you DO want is a digital camcorder, be it MiniDV or Digital8.

Make sure the camcorder you choose has often overlooked features such as an external mic input and a headphone output.

[Brian Ellis]

Mini-DV, every time. For concerts, NEVER use the built-in microphone. Ideally, if the budget is not limitative, go for any make of 3 CCD model and a good lens, with a limited optical zoom range (pref not more than 8 or 10:1. Higher ranges introduce too many compromises). You may also wish to complement the sound with a separate digital disk recorder (if you record a whole piece of music, while the camera is being switched on and off during shooting, you can dub in what is missing from the camera in inserted shots of, say, the audience or the landscape of the band's origin and so on: you've seen the technique on the tele!).

[pacguy]

ordered a the panasonic model mentioned above.

thanks to everybody for theinfo.

[Rob100]

This is a pretty unanimous (if that's how you spell it!) that DV is much much better than analogue.

Brian: Why do you recommend MiniDV over Digital8? If I went digital I was tempted by Digital8 as I can easily convert old Hi8 tapes to DV.

Rob.

[Dr Mordrid]

Here comes the naysayer

DV is NOT best for everything. Far from it. It has limitations, as do all formats. DV's are just easy to bring out and are quite annoying in that you can't just re-capture using a higher quality setting, or as uncompressed video.

The real issue is: what is each format best at?

DV can be quite good for some things, stationary shots with plain backgrounds for example. I echo that 3CCD cams are the way to go if you can afford one.

HOWEVER....when doing studio work where the end product will be composited or bluescreened DV puts painfully obvious artifacts all along the foreground objects edges that it takes a blur filter to remove, if then. 'Tis better to use a direct feed from an analog cam to an S-Video or component input and capture uncompressed video.

DV is also pretty terrible at titling unless you're using DV hardware that can do alpha channeled overlays in an expanded colorspace. Thank God for my RT-2000's capabilities in this regard.

DV also has limitations when it comes to in-frame diagonal edges. Well lit objects or lines at a 1-20 degree angle from the horizontal often show painfully obvious stair stepping along the edge. EX: the lower edge of a cars side window in sunlight; the same cars hood or trunk etc. This may sound picky, but once you have shot an un-repeatable sequence and had this crop up you'll understand.

Also; in any kind of situation where DV is prone to artifacting don't even THINK about panning or zooming at any rate faster than a dead crawl. As in a sick turtles pace. When you do this too fast the artifacts become "alive" and...well....you have to see it to apreciate it.

Jeezzzzz...

Still, DV is VERY convenient. In fact, I use DV cams all the time, but I sure as h**l make sure those uses take into account DVs limitatitions.

Uppance: I take one of each type of cam on shoots and watch my composition carefully. I don't insert DV into a situation it obviously can't handle.

Dr. Mordrid

[Sciascia]

Dr Mordid,
How are you importing your video, analog or firewire? Is there a difference between the two in regards to the "stairstepping"? I also think that the trade off for upward compatability (firewire) and not having to worry about dropped frames and the higher resolution really makes DV a much better option. You can always use the analog as the capture source if you don't have firewire. Also 99% of us don't have a blue screen in their house (unlike a certain Dr).

I know that DV has limitations, but if you cold only have 1 or the other which wold you pick?

[Dr Mordrid]

What's a dropped frame? My RAID is now doing 85-90 mb/s

Seriously, you can get dropped frames with DV just as you can any other format if your system isn't optimized for video. Don't let the hype tell you otherwise.

Stairstepping (aka: quliting) is a side effect of two things: colorspace and a relatively high DCT compression.

DV uses a reduced 4:1:1 colorspace compared to analogs 4:2:2, so analog wins that one.

Problem footage gets capture here as uncompressed YUV, so there is no DCT compression. Analog wins that one too.

The main thing that makes DV look good to the eye relative to analog is because there is it derives a higher proportion of its total signal from the luma (B&W) channel.

Because of this relative over-abundance of luma in its signal DV looks contrastier and brighter, which the human eye likes. The rub is that when processing effects the lower proportion of of color samples makes compositing problematic.

Also, DV's 5:1 DCT compressioin will by its nature generates more artifacts on recompression than other DCT codecs at a lower compression ratio. PICVideo at max quality can crank out 3:1 compression with complex sources. Uncompressed or HuffYUV encoded video uses no DCT's at all. Either composites VERY nicely.

These "features" of DV can also translate into other issues. DV can be very tricky to encode into MPEG's. Again this is mainly due to its colorspace having a reduced number of color samples.

Some MPEG encoders, most notably TMPGEnc, try to mitigate this situation by having features that emulate a higher colorspace (helps a bit) or blur block artifacts (works only if you have just a few). Some DV sources just will not encode to MPEG cleanly. Those I try to shoot with analog.

IF I had my *total* druthers I'd go with DVCPRO50 or D9. They are pro DV formats that use the same 4:2:2 colorspace as analog and captures at double the bitrate. It's the best of both worlds.

The problem: $$$$ cams.

Until they become affordable I have kept my analog cams (Sony Hi8's) and use them as the situation warrants. Because of this this practice I have both analog and DV cards in several of my systems.

ATI recently addressed this very real issue by coming out with their new 8500 dual mode capture card which can import both analog and DV. Matrox had the chance but blew their opportunity to beat ATI to the punch.

Terry

[Brian Ellis]

Rob

You have hit on the one advantage of D8, but if you keep your Hi-8 and use that for your legacy tapes, why limit yourself to a bastard format that is to be found only on near-low-end consumer cameras. If you wish to upgrade to a prosumer camera or even a better consumer one, you would be totally stuck with an archaic format which, let's face it, has not met with Sony's commercial expectations. As I mentioned elsewhere, Sony shot themselves in the foot, because they kept on mini-DV for their better cameras, therefore implicitly stating that D8 is inferior. If they had had the courage of their convictions, and used D8 for their top-end cameras, they may have got a better market penetration, nearer the 100% they were hoping for. As it is, in 2 or 3 years, your precious D8 tapes will be in the same category as 8-track audio tapes. For the technical aspects, this subject has been treated ad nauseam in this forum many times: please look at the archives.

[Patrick]

Been down this road before...

Oh no, the D8 versus MiniDV chest thumping debate rears it's ugly head again!!!

[pacguy]

Brian Ellis,
Thats what i thought when i read D8 was sony's special format.

Patrick,
this is the first time i've been down this road, sorry if this is a rappid hit question that keeps coming up.searching through the archives right now.

Dr Mordrid,
you do make DV sound a little over hyped.
in fact you've got me downright paranoid if i made the right decision.

just a bit more info ,
i only plan to record everyday events with no editing, or blue screening. i was shopping for a average price camera, maybe spend a little more for dv.i can only choose 1 format which is why i was gunning for DV but the Dr. makes analog sound better.

[Dr Mordrid]

Pacguy,

First understand I'm trying to make you into an informed consumer. The hype of DV sometimes over-extends folks expectations and when the problems arise they get discouraged and quit trying.

The question is this:

how many of those kinds of special effects are you going to do?

If none or few then don't worry about DV.

If just a few then there are workarounds. Some involve using analog footage (my choice because I have the gear to do it) and some that can be done by manipulating DV footage using various software manipulations (horizontal blur filters etc.).

One simple trick involves analog captures from the DV cam. Most DV cams have an S-Video output that can connect to an analog card like the Marvel or eTV. Capturing the DV footage through this connection provides just enough reduction in sharpness to mask {b]some[/b] DV artifacts.

Another trick is to shoot bluescreen effects on a GREEN screen instead. DV handles this better with less artifacting.

Still, some problems end up being intractable and should be handled by shooting in analog from the get-go.

Experience is the best teacher.

Dr. Mordrid

[pacguy]

Thanks for all the input.

just bought a normal sony hi 8

bye.

[Patrick]

A giant step backwards

Hi8 ??!!!

Oh well, we tried...