Announcement

**DrMordrid** · 22 April 2000, 09:31

Here we go again (G)

As far as the CCD numbers go, basically the more pixels the better quality your video will be. It isn't the only factor but it is a major one.

As far as D8 goes it's suitability depends on what your intent is.

Most D8 cams may well be OK for the occaisional home user who wants to save a buck on the cam and tapes, but for anything more serious than that miniDV offers advantages you shouldn't ignore. The sole exception might be the top end Sony TRV820 D8.

While both D8 and miniDV will deliver a 720x480 frame what is in those frames can be very different quality wise. Maybe not to the naked eye or on casual examination, but eventually lower quality will bite you when editing (exception noted for the TRV820 D8 which has quite good quality).

No matter how you cut it; if you start with lower quality video it never improves during the editing process.

The lack of a manual white balance is also non-trivial in ANY type of cam. If you get into adverse lighting that fools the auto sensors manual white balance can save your skin. That said, AWB issues have been a consistant problem with many D8 models. On some of them you can even see the color shift on the LCD when just panning it around in the store.

I'd spend the extra for the better cam. The noted Sony TRV820 D8 would be a good alternative to the TR7000 if it offered true manual white balance, but I don't see any reference to it in Sony's specs. On the other hand it offers 16:9 recording, which might be handy.

Of the two you mentioned I'd go for the JVC based on features alone.

You might want to look at the Canon Elura as well. The Elura offers manual exposure, focus, white balance and shutter controls. It also has a Progressive Scan CCD (no flicker with fast moving subjects), 16:9 recording and optical image stabilization. One of my friends has one and he just loves it.

An interesting case study of a photojournalist using the Elura can be read at;

http://www.dirckhalstead.org/issue9909/cameracorner.htm

Dr. Mordrid

[This message has been edited by DrMordrid (edited 22 April 2000).]

**kenobi** · 22 April 2000, 10:15

Thanks for the reply. The elura looks nice. I'm not exactly sure what progressive scan is, except that I gather it makes for a better picture. The elura lists a "Progressive Scan CCD image sensor with 380k pixels " Isn't that a little low?

------------------
Damnit Jim I'm a film maker, not a systems tech!

**Patrick** · 22 April 2000, 11:31

I wonder what the Doc means when he says, "Here we go again"?

Ken, if you need and will actually use manual white balance, then don't get any camcorder that doesn't have it. That advice applies to any and all manual controls on a camcorder.

By and large, the vast majority of people use their camcorders in the fully automatic mode. The truth is, in most situations, the results will be fine. Yes, there are situations where manual overrides are definitely advantageous, but only if you make use of them, and only if they are then used correctly.

**DrMordrid** · 22 April 2000, 12:32

Like I said, the CCD rez is an important factor, but not the only one.

Also important, and most of us photography types think it's right up there with CCD quality, is the quality of the lens. Canon has some of the best optics around. Many other cams use inferior quality lenses relative to theirs, particularly in the less expensive models.

Marginal lenses can make even a huge CCD deliver crappy quality. Excellent ones can make a smaller CCD look like it's twice its size.

Also important IS the use of a Progressive Scan CCD. This is different in that they don't capture video images as interlaced fields like a "normal" CCD's, but as whole frames. 60 of them per second vs. 30 full frames when using fields.

This eliminates the jitter you sometimes see in interlaced video that has had an object move between field captures. Only after the images are captured do they get translated to interlaced NTSC or PAL video, but by then without the jitter artifacts they would have had otherwise.

Another important factor with PS CCD's (when they're done right) is if a Primary RGB Filter is integrated. This can make the image have well saturated, crisp colors with smoother gradations. The Elura uses one to excellent effect.

Another major factor is the use of image stabilization and the type. Nothing can reduce the quality of video more than the camera moving. I've seen both digital and optical. Optical looks better. The Elura has optical stabilization, very good optical stabilization.

Dr. Mordrid

**stevenscott** · 24 April 2000, 09:26

Hi,
For what my advice is worth, I bought a JVC GR-DVF31U camcorder, miniDV, on E-Bay a few months ago new for $720. it is very very nice. I bought a few more goodies to like a bag, tripod a 2nd battery and stuff. I also have a Matrox Marvel G400 Video card. The JVC is an excellent choice and you will definitely want some good software like MS5/6 Pro, Adobe Premiere, you can get away with some of the cheaper video editing programs too, depends on your needs. But the camera is very nice. I have some pictures on my web site, but not sure if they will help you.
----------
http://members.xoom.com/skialps/Vide...m00/jvn001.htm

------------ http://members.xoom.com/skialps/homepage1a.html
----------
http://members.xoom.com/skialps/

-------------------

[This message has been edited by stevenscott (edited 24 April 2000).]

[This message has been edited by stevenscott (edited 24 April 2000).]

**Aryko** · 25 April 2000, 07:56

Just thought I'd throw in my two cents. The Canon 380k CCD vs. JVC's 680k CCD certainly did make me stand up and take notice, especially now that I'm in the market for a new camcorder. I think as Doc mentioned, there is some room for different companies to advertise their cameras a bit differently (and perhaps misleadingly).

MiniDV cameras are going to give you around 500 lines of resolution, and the number of pixels in the CCD is going to affect how good those lines look. If I'm not mistaken JVC's image stabilization (as well as Sony's consumer-level cameras) are electronic, meaning they use a fair number of those 680K pixels just to keep the picture in the middle.

It would be nice if we had some side-by-side comparison on image quality between a 380k CCD and a 680k CCD.

Doc, I have to wonder about the progressive scan CCD. Not having had my hands on an Optura for a while, I see conflicting points in the product literature saying it captures 30 or 60 full frames per second. The last time I saw it it certainly looked like 30 frames per second, because without the interlacing the video looked segmented (which is ok 'cos I like that look). I wonder how it handles video out on progressive scan mode, as in does it interlace fields from the scans recorded so they can be played accurately on an NTSC television?

- Aryko

**mynx** · 25 April 2000, 16:57

FYI ther are at least 2 methods of measuring the CCD pixels. Sony Service manuals list an actual count and a usable amount. The steady shot feature among others uses the outer pixels. I haven't noticed any other manufacturer list more than one count. The size of the CCD is important also. Make sure it has a 1/4" CCD not 1/6".
Kenobi: the more pixels the clearer the picture.

**kenobi** · 26 April 2000, 00:43

thanks for the replies. The JVC has progressive scan, which is what I thought I was looking for untill ARKYO said it gives a segmented look. If anyone has seen video shot with and without progressive scan I would very much like your comparision. The JVC GR-DVL300u seems to absolutly rock for its price.

------------------
Damnit Jim I'm a film maker, not a systems tech!

**wkulecz** · 26 April 2000, 02:15

Manual white balance is critical if you are the least bit serious. I have the TR7000 D8. In my shoots I'm indoors and have control of the lighting so I thought lack of manual white balance wouldn't matter but I was wrong.

All it takes is a second subject coming into the scene to change the overall color balance. Also color shifts are very noticible when zooming. This is usually a problem for me when cutting from a wide view to a close up. My idea was to use two D8 camcorders since they cost about half as much (fortuanately I borrowed a second one instead of buying another!), and shoot the scene from a fixed view on a tripod and edit in closeups at different angles from the handheld camcorder. Lack of manual white balance causes big troubles here.

--wally

**DrMordrid** · 26 April 2000, 07:53

The conflict in the literature over 60 vs. 30 fps for PS CCD's is because of the way they work. They can be rightfully listed either way, depending on when you measure the frame rate.

Regular NTSC CCD's capture 30 fps/60 interlaced fields, normal for the format. The odd numbered scan lines in each frame get captured left to right/top to bottom first, then it goes back to the 2nd row and scans the even lines in similar fashion. This means there is a significant time gap between any two adjacent scan lines. Enough for bad things to happen.

Because of this time gap video captured with interlacing can exhibit very annoying motion artifacts when a subject moves quickly between fields. A car, athlete, 2 year old....whatever. This usually displays as objects in the frame having the "jitters". This interfield motion can also make MPEG encoding an adventure.

Progressive Scan CCD's go about it differently from the get-go. They capture video at 60 full non-interlaced frames/sec.

Being inherently frame mode devices they record the data for all the scan lines in order and in sequence, leaving a much shorter time gap between any two adjacent scan lines. This data is then converted to 30fps for output.

PAL works the same except for the frame rates.

Since they are frame mode devices this also makes Progressive Scan CCD data much better for still shots and the net. MPEG encoding also becomes much simpler.

Check this page for comparative images conventional interlaced and progressive scan video frames:

http://digitalorigin.com/learn/progressive-scan.html

Progressive Scan is the future of digital video.

Dr. Mordrid

[This message has been edited by DrMordrid (edited 26 April 2000).]

**kenobi** · 26 April 2000, 20:44

Now I made a mistake when I said the JVC model had progressive scan(bad web page) I am still high on the GR-DVL300u but I have my eye on a Cannon OPTURA that is on a clearance sale. Obviously the Optura has PROGRESSIVE scan. The documentation says
" 3 shooting modes: Normal Movie Mode, Digital Photo Mode and Digital Motor DriveTM (Progressive Scan Mode)"
Can anyone explain the difference between these modes, mainly what is Normal movie mode compared to Digital Motor Drive mode.
My concern is that I'm using it for film making. I don't demmand that still puased frames be perfect its how the footage looks. Am I gonna see a difference?

------------------
Damnit Jim I'm a film maker, not a systems tech!

**cjyo~** · 26 April 2000, 22:50

my 2 cents...

I have worked with a few miniDV cams - the SONY VX1000 and the Panasonic AG-(EZ)1 (no firewire!). My friend recently shot a short entirely in Progressive Movie mode on his new Canon GL-1, which I assume has the same look as the Optura.

My general impression is that Progressive mode looks very sharp, but almost jerky or jittery, because it's so sharp. The look is similar to the opening of Saving Private Ryan, where they used a narrow shutter which created a strobe-like effect. (But the GL-1 progressive effect is no where near as extreme.)

With a standard film shutter angle you get motion blur on movement, which smooths the motion out. Interlaced video gives you a similar effect of smoothing motion out (while also adding jagged edges). You'll note that most 2D and 3D computer animations incorporate simulated motion blur for a smooth look, which most viewers are used to.

From my friend's GL-1 video, I would say that you should reserve the Progressive shooting for an intentional effect.

There is an obvious difference.

------------------
Please visit http://spincycle.n3.net - My System: Celeron 300a(@450/2v),Abit BH6, 128mb RAM, Win98SE, Marvel G200TV, Diamond MX300, Maxtor DiamondMax Plus 20g system drive, DiamondMax Plus 40 capture drive, IBM 8g Deskstar program drive, Adaptec 2940UW SCSI, 9gb Barracuda UWSCSI video drive, Hitachi GD-2500 DVD-Rom, UltraPlex CD-Rom, Plexwriter CD-recorder, Viewsonic PT775, Soundworks 4.1 speakers

**Aryko** · 27 April 2000, 07:35

Thanks Doc, for the enlightening reply, as always.

I'm especially intrigued by your comment that the 60 fps progressive scan action is converted to 30 fps for output. Can you elaborate on this? I can see a big application for being able to get a 60 fps stream of progressive scans - it sounds like that to achieve the 30 fps playback the camera has to drop every other frame.

- Aryko

**Biker** · 29 April 2000, 11:14

On Topic (mostly) -
Can anyone tell me if the Panasonic NV-DS11 DV cam:
1) has progressive scan ?
2) Still shot output pixel resolution through the S-video output lead into the Marvel G200?
Even good guesses would be helpfull here PLEASE.

Reason -
I need a Better and smaller cam than my semi-pro Full size S-VHS Ferguson.
+ I need areasonable STILLS digital cam. After testing many of the the 'Best' Digital cameras today, i was well UNIMPRESSED. They nearly all had nearly 1/4 second lag between pressing the button and the photo being taken!!!

So i want to continue to use my trusted method of capturing moving footage and selecting a still from the exact moment I in time i wanted the shot from.

Video cams are better value for money and generally better specified in many ways- except resolution!!!

So can anyone help please.

Max budget approx £1000 for a complete new setup heere.

Thanks Chaps

Biker

------------------

Announcement

Camcorder advice: Purchase advice

Camcorder advice: Purchase advice

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment