My "Mini" Test of Panasonic DVD-Writer

[IM_Riktar]

Awhile back I recall reading about some DV camcorder that used a DVD-RAM cartridge instead of a tape. As I also recall the reviewer (Videomaker?) wasn't all too keen on the product in terms of image quality with the unit.

With the advent of the new DVD-RAM/ROM drive I am going to do a little digging into that unit. I am just thinking out loud here, but if that DVD-RAM camcorder had the capability to accept analog in, or on the fly firewire transfer I wonder how slick that would be to just pop your DVD-RAM right into your box.

Not knocking firewire or anything, heck my setup is working just dandy. But to save step in getting the syuff into your machine, not to mention no more sweating the fragilness of magnetic tape?

It would be interesting to see that play out.

[IM_Riktar]

Uh, scratch that thought. I just dug up some info on the Hitachi and Panasonic models and it seems they use Mpeg2 as their recording format.

POOP

[Jerry Jones]

The newest Hitachi DVD camcorder also records to DVD-R:

http://www.dvdcreation.com/2002/01_jan/news/dvdcamcorder.htm

[wkulecz]

Yes but as long as they are recording mpeg2 your editability will be about as bad as with VHS :-(

As to the fragility of tapes, well I've encoundered far more unreadable CD-R and other optical media than I have encountered unreadable tapes. Most problems with tapes or other magnetic media is format change making it damn hard to find a drive to read your old tapes or disks. 44MB SyQuests anyone?

--wally.

[IM_Riktar]

Jerry:

DVD-R is an interesting alternative, but in the case of camcorder usage I would prefer the DVD-RAM. At least until the price of DVD-R media drops to the levels of CD-R. While DVD-RAM isn't the cheapest either, it does offer the ability to stand up to many uses. I think the number of rewrites is 100,000? That translates into mui-cheapo cost per use.

Wally:

That was the reason for for my final comment on that point. Although I am wondering if the camera is capable of writing I-frames only? That would make the format a little more appealing from an editing standpoint. Or do I have it wrong that I-frame only capture makes for an editable format?

My point with fragilness is based on how well a tape holds up to shuttling back and forth repeatedly. Or the reusability of the tape. I myself treat my tapes as "CD-R" by way of record once, and then just playback. When I first started exploring the world of video I realized very quickly that re-use of tapes was a recipe for dropouts. Of course buying better quality tapes helped some, but eventually even the best would start to break down. And when it comes to shuttling back and forth, I prefer to just dump the whole tape into the computer, and trim out the stuff in the harddrive instead of looking for and eliminating the unwanted stuff on tape.

Unreadablity happens in both world's (Optical and magnetic) and this will probably be the constant no matter what medium you choose. I am hoping that as time goes by the manufacturer's of CD/DVD recordable formats will improve their product's ability to be used (reliably) across all hardware readers.

Of course that is assuming the present formats stick around long enough to be improved upon.

Is it just me, or does it seem like technology seems to favor "bigger and better" replacements before all the bugs are worked out of the existing products?

[Jerry Jones]

It really depends on one's needs... i.e. MPEG-2 editing.

For example, the Hitachi camcorder allows for in-camera editing of MPEG-2.

If one's needs are for cuts-only editing (such as news report), then making simple camcorder edits might be all that's required.

I'm curious to know if one can cut an audio narration for a news report and cover that with scenes... all within the camcorder.

But for most types of editing, I agree MPEG-2 presents problems.

Jerry

[wkulecz]

I'm sure Doc has more technicial details, but I-frame only generally has worse quality at a given bit rate compared to CBR or VBR since its basically DV but with a higher compression ratio on each frame without being able to take advantage of similarities across frames. I-frame only at 25 Mbps would essentially be DV if we ignore a few technical issues.

Yeah I'm sure many of the "new products" are a way to dodge responsibility for making what you've already sold actually work as advertised.

I think the big video camera companies want to reduce the quality available to the public since events in Afganistan have shown that it wouldn't take much improvement in VX2000 or GL1 type DV cams to really eat into their high margin "professional" broadcast stuff.

I pretty much always capture a tape in one pass too, since scrub cut scrub cut delete is much faster than FF/REV and or watching the tape to mark time codes for batch capture in terms of the total time I have to sit attending to the computer to get my clips.

--wally.

[Hulk]

Here's what I'd like to see, and I know I'm dreaming.

Let's assume that the manufacturers can put good quality hardware MPEG II compressors in their cameras.

In theory we could have a few interering camera modes:

1. Have a 4:1:1 stream at about 12Mbps that could be better quality than DV format. This stream could be translated to DV format on the way to the computer for editing. This mode would allow at least twice the recording time on a tape vs recording in dv format.

2. Have a high quality 4:2:2 MPEG (possibly 4:4:4) mode at 25Mbps. This quality would be much better than current dv format and could be transferred to the computer via firewire as a raw data stream, ie the computer sees the camera as a tape drive.

The CCD is "seeing" 4:4:4, it's a shame we don't have the option to capture it.

[IM_Riktar]

How is the drive holding up?

Hey Jerry:

I was curious how the Panasonic has been holding up for the past few months?

Did you ever try ghosting your HD image to a DVD-Ram disc for storage?

A recent problem with my main rig (My fault) left me with a reinstall that was it's usual PITA restoring all my files from multiple back up copies. Having the ability to pull a ghosted image off of a single disc would have been very nice.

I am just about ready to take the plunge into the RAMBO unit. If your results have been positive with your drive I am going to pick one up.

The newer version that writes to everything sounds appealing but I am having this bad analogy in my head that keeps comparing that particular model to a motherboard with multiple onboard devices. So I think I am going to look at the present models for purchase.

[Jerry Jones]

Yes - it's still working fine.

I have it in the Windows 2000 system that I've just built around an Athlon 1.4 Thunderbird and Asus A7N266.

(And I have a second LF-D311 on order.)

According to the July issue of DV MAGAZINE, the slower 1X recording speed is actually a "plus" when it comes to glitch-free playback of DVD-R discs on stand alone players.

That's why I believe I'm having such good luck with the cheaper Meritline DVD-R discs, which are now selling at www.meritline.com for only $1.19 each.

As for the DVD-RAM, I love it.

I haven't recorded a ghost image to it.

But now that you mention it, I'm going to look into updating my Drive Image software package so that I can do that.

The DVD-RAM behaves like a hard disc.

You simply drag and drop files to an icon that says "removable drive."

The great thing about DVD-RAM is that it features defect management and I personally believe it's the most bullet-proof archive medium out there.

I use it to archive native Mini DV format .avi files.

DVD-RAM disc formatting is a snap - you simply use the "DVFormat" software that ships with the drive and if you are using the disc for data you select UDF 1.5.

(If you're using the disc for DVD-RAM video to be played on a DVD-RAM VCR, then you use the UDF 2.0)

I like DVD-RAM for archiving fifty times better than I like the idea of transferring precious DV data back to DV tape.

It's possible for hiccups to be introduced when recording *very long* video transfers via Firewire.

These types of Firewire errors may happen only rarely, but can force you to spend precious labor time fixing a production at a later date.

In addition, even some brand new Firewire tapes that I have purchased have turned out to be faulty (JVC Mini DV tapes especially) on occasion.

When one records back to one of those brand new - yet faulty - DV tapes and then erases the contents of the hard drive... one is left with a faulty production on tape.

When the rare tape errors do happen, they're often so teeny-tiny that it's difficult to see them unless you scrutinize every second of what has been recorded back to tape.

This is why I don't subscribe personally to the notion of archiving DV material to DV tape.

With DVD-RAM, there is no such possibility for error introduction.

One simply drags and drops a perfect, digital, finished .avi production, for example, onto the icon and it's 100% identical to what's on the hard drive... with absolutely no error.

I've tested this aspect of my Panasonic LF-D311 several times and it works as advertised in this regard.

So I'm very big on DVD-RAM right now... for Mini DV .avi storage.

Jerry Jones

http://www.jonesgroup.net

[wkulecz]

I'm with you on archiving finished DV projects to computer storage instead of back to DV tape, but with large hard drives approaching $1/GB this is what I use: WD 120 GB 5400 RPM drive on-sale at Fry's $109.95, $12 removable carrier. For $122 I get 110+ honest GB (2^30 bytes). This is cheaper per GB than the cheapest DVDRAM media at Fry's and I don't have to span disks or tapes on large projects.

--wally.

[IM_Riktar]

Interesting idea Wally. The only thing that gives me pause about that is the failure of the Harddrive in the future when I need the footage.

Granted, the DVD drive could fail, but all one needs to do is get another drive, grab the existing DVD-RAM caddy, (No scratches, how nice) pop it in the new drive and data is restored. It is costlier, but then again, what price do you put on irreplaceable video footage?

One thing I could see doing, along your lines is using some of my older drives for that purpose when time is a factor. But then I would still ultimately archive the footage to a "Non-Moving" storage medium.

[Jerry Jones]

Wally makes some valid points, but I agree - hard drive failure is a really scary aspect of that kind of storage practice.

I had a 40gb IBM Deskstar go bad not too long ago. Very, very frustrating. I lost everything on it.

In addition, I like to categorize my DV .avi source files so that all of my "topic a" material goes on one disk, my "topic b" material goes on a second disk, my "topic c" material goes on a third disk... and so on...

In this way, even material that I do not initially use in a project can be archived with similar scenes that are used... and I can draw on the non-used material at future dates to make existing productions look "different" at a future date.

In addition, each DVD RAM disc can be sold - to clients - as a means of providing them with the highest quality archiving available. Giving them a DVD-RAM disc is a much more practical thing to do than to give them a hard disk.

I label each DVD-RAM disk according to subject.

So far, the system is working well.

I use standard CD towers to hold the DVD-RAM discs.

Another positive aspect of DVD-RAM is that they do not require a jewel case for protection as they are already encased in a cartridge - yet - they fit perfectly into standard CD towers.

In addition, some of them are designed so that you can remove the disc from the cartridge for use in stand alone "DVD Multi" qualified players that will be hitting the market big time in the year ahead.

Also... if it ever becomes practical to edit material *shot* on DVD-RAM camcorders - then one can skip the FireWire process altogether... simply pop the DVD-RAM disc out of the camcorder, stick it into the drive and edit.

Jerry Jones

http://www.jonesgroup.net

[goldstein]

excellent review, been surfing here for years just joined recently though - great stuff JJ.