| Author |
Message |
David Cleland
Guest
|
 Posted:
Mon Oct 24, 2005 1:45 pm Post subject:
DV camera |
|
|
Hi,
I am producing a few short videos for school and accept a certain about of
video noise. I take it this down to me using a mini dv camera at £250 and
not a camera at £3000.
What sort of camera would give broadcast quality picture ?
David
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Gary Eickmeier
Guest
|
| Posted:
Mon Oct 24, 2005 6:07 pm Post subject:
Re: DV camera |
|
|
David Cleland wrote:
| Quote: | Hi,
I am producing a few short videos for school and accept a certain about of
video noise. I take it this down to me using a mini dv camera at £250 and
not a camera at £3000.
What sort of camera would give broadcast quality picture ?
|
A 3-chip. Mine is the Sony VX-2000, which is especially good in low
light. Newer model is VX-2100.
Gary Eickmeier |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
David Cleland
Guest
|
| Posted:
Mon Oct 24, 2005 9:20 pm Post subject:
Re: DV camera |
|
|
| Quote: | A 3-chip. Mine is the Sony VX-2000, which is especially good in low
light. Newer model is VX-2100.
|
Thanks Gary,
I think I need to start saving :)
David |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gary Eickmeier
Guest
|
| Posted:
Mon Oct 24, 2005 10:38 pm Post subject:
Re: DV camera |
|
|
David Cleland wrote:
| Quote: | A 3-chip. Mine is the Sony VX-2000, which is especially good in low
light. Newer model is VX-2100.
Thanks Gary,
I think I need to start saving :)
|
You're welcome. But before spending BIG bucks on DV, think about HDV.
Gary Eickmeier |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
David Cleland
Guest
|
| Posted:
Tue Oct 25, 2005 9:53 pm Post subject:
Re: DV camera |
|
|
| Quote: | I think I need to start saving :)
You're welcome. But before spending BIG bucks on DV, think about HDV.
|
are you saying don't invest in dv when a new technology is coming out or
would an HDV camera be an alternative ?
David |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gary Eickmeier
Guest
|
| Posted:
Tue Oct 25, 2005 11:18 pm Post subject:
Re: DV camera |
|
|
David Cleland wrote:
| Quote: | I think I need to start saving :)
You're welcome. But before spending BIG bucks on DV, think about HDV.
are you saying don't invest in dv when a new technology is coming out or
would an HDV camera be an alternative ?
|
Both. If you could afford an HDV camera, it is also backward compatible
with DV, so you could shoot either way. Or, you could shoot everything
in HD, realizing that that is how we are going in short order, and
convert to DV in post. It's just a consideration, that a DV camera may
be useful for only two or three more years, before HD takes over
everything - which it eventually certainly will.
If, on the other hand, you will be shooting a lot of DV with your new
camera, and you can amortize its cost in a couple of years with your
fees, then it may be worth it.
Gary Eickmeier |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
John F. Miller
Guest
|
| Posted:
Tue Oct 25, 2005 11:32 pm Post subject:
Re: DV camera |
|
|
"David Cleland" <davidjcleland@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:djlnu0$ptr$1@news.freedom2surf.net...
| Quote: |
I think I need to start saving :)
You're welcome. But before spending BIG bucks on DV, think about HDV.
But the OP didn't want to spend BIG bucks on DV! |
| Quote: | are you saying don't invest in dv when a new technology is coming out or
would an HDV camera be an alternative ?
David
|
IMHO, HDV is a clever marketing ploy to hide the fact that it is really just
MPEG2, albeit of the MP @ HL flavour. HDV is attractive (to some) because
it uses the same miniDV cassettes but crams a high-definition format into
the same space as DV does for standard-definition. Guess what? A *lot* of
information is thrown out and, like any MPEG format, editing is less than
ideal due to the fact that not every frame is an independent, complete
picture. DV on the other hand doesn't perform any of the "interframe"
compression.
If you don't want to edit - just watch it - then fine. But as soon as you
decide you want to edit, you have to also buy all the supporting software
etc.
Now, back to your original question. "Broadcast quality" - that's a *very*
loose term. Certainly, in the UK (I assume that's where you are!), the
requirements for broadcasting (e.g., by transmitter, cable, satellite) are
much more stringent than in the US, for example. For private consumption,
though, you probably mean the picture quality in terms of resolution,
clarity, stability etc. If that's the case, DV will be just fine and -
since it is one of your criteria - affordable.
A downside (in the EU), is that most DV camcorders cannot record a signal
from an external source (e.g., the edited material from the computer) but if
you want to put it on DVD anyway, that's a moot point.
Frankly, you'll be very happy with a modest DV solution - there's a lot of
freeware/cheapware out there, too. For HDV, it's spend, spend, spend.....
(The marketing ploy I suspect is similar to that for MRI - magnetic
resonance imaging. It's real name is nuclear magnetic resonance, but the
word nuclear freaks too many people out, so the name changed. I recently
decided to upgrade to a more "professional" camcorder and was, at first,
tempted by the new HDV camcorders but as soon as I read the details and
realised it was just MPEG2 in a different guise, I chose a 3CCD DV/DVCAM
with a lot of great features instead. Let others buy the HDV stuff and you
can reap the benefit of the falling DV prices on equipment with more useful
features.)
John. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ty Ford
Guest
|
| Posted:
Wed Oct 26, 2005 3:50 am Post subject:
Re: DV camera |
|
|
On Tue, 25 Oct 2005 12:53:21 -0400, David Cleland wrote
(in article <djlnu0$ptr$1@news.freedom2surf.net>):
| Quote: |
I think I need to start saving :)
You're welcome. But before spending BIG bucks on DV, think about HDV.
are you saying don't invest in dv when a new technology is coming out or
would an HDV camera be an alternative ?
David
|
as long as 384 kbps MPEG stereo audio doesn't bug you.
Ty Ford
-- Ty Ford's equipment reviews, audio samples, rates and other audiocentric
stuff are at www.tyford.com |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
David Cleland
Guest
|
| Posted:
Thu Oct 27, 2005 3:04 am Post subject:
Re: DV camera |
|
|
everything - which it eventually certainly will.
| Quote: |
If, on the other hand, you will be shooting a lot of DV with your new
camera, and you can amortize its cost in a couple of years with your fees,
then it may be worth it.
|
if only, I am teacher this is for education.... if only there were fees :)
David |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
John F. Miller
Guest
|
| Posted:
Thu Oct 27, 2005 4:41 am Post subject:
Re: DV camera |
|
|
"Research" <None@NoSpamThankYou.Com> wrote in message
news:92a0m1l6ahi3mlaorabjbrm4erjo135emn@4ax.com...
| Quote: | On Tue, 25 Oct 2005 14:32:54 -0400, "John F. Miller"
johnATenosoft.net> wrote:
SNIP
IMHO, HDV is a clever marketing ploy to hide the fact that it is really
just
MPEG2, albeit of the MP @ HL flavour. SNIP
How is HDV "just mpeg2" ?
Isn't it 1080I ?
TIA
|
MPEG2 covers a lot of formats. For HDV, it uses the "MainProfile @ High
Level" profile.
For more, try
http://viswiz.gmd.de/DVP/Public/deliv/deliv.211/mpeg/pr@lv01.htm
John. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Research
Guest
|
| Posted:
Thu Oct 27, 2005 4:41 am Post subject:
Re: DV camera |
|
|
On Tue, 25 Oct 2005 14:32:54 -0400, "John F. Miller"
<johnATenosoft.net> wrote:
SNIP
| Quote: |
IMHO, HDV is a clever marketing ploy to hide the fact that it is really just
MPEG2, albeit of the MP @ HL flavour. SNIP
|
How is HDV "just mpeg2" ?
Isn't it 1080I ?
TIA |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gary P
Guest
|
| Posted:
Thu Oct 27, 2005 4:41 am Post subject:
Re: DV camera |
|
|
"John F. Miller" <johnATenosoft.net> wrote in message
news:11lsuip55papfef@corp.supernews.com...
| Quote: | Now, back to your original question. "Broadcast quality" - that's a
*very*
loose term. Certainly, in the UK (I assume that's where you are!), the
requirements for broadcasting (e.g., by transmitter, cable, satellite) are
much more stringent than in the US, for example. For private consumption,
though, you probably mean the picture quality in terms of resolution,
clarity, stability etc. If that's the case, DV will be just fine and -
since it is one of your criteria - affordable.
|
Stringent or not, even the BBC broadcasts a lot of DV these days, including
makeover programmes, educational programmes, and business documentaries.
Just has to be good DV.
Gary |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Steve Guidry
Guest
|
| Posted:
Thu Oct 27, 2005 4:41 am Post subject:
Re: DV camera |
|
|
Like many, I'll probably buy HDV before mid-year '06.
But it won't be because it's that much better, or more reliable, or for any
reason having to do with quality.
It will be because I'll need to say to my clients, "I can shoot in HD. Use
me instead of that other guy."
Unlike some, I'll be honest about it, and say that it's just a tool like the
rest of them. I won't sell it as the high-end Sony/Lucasfilm flavor, but I
will offer it as an option.
Who knows - - Maybe it will revive the concert market for us . . .
--
Steve Guidry
Video Works, Inc.
Live events for TV and Video
www.videoworksinc.com
800.844.4404
"John F. Miller" <johnATenosoft.net> wrote in message
news:11lsuip55papfef@corp.supernews.com...
| Quote: |
"David Cleland" <davidjcleland@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:djlnu0$ptr$1@news.freedom2surf.net...
I think I need to start saving :)
You're welcome. But before spending BIG bucks on DV, think about HDV.
But the OP didn't want to spend BIG bucks on DV!
are you saying don't invest in dv when a new technology is coming out or
would an HDV camera be an alternative ?
David
IMHO, HDV is a clever marketing ploy to hide the fact that it is really
just
MPEG2, albeit of the MP @ HL flavour. HDV is attractive (to some) because
it uses the same miniDV cassettes but crams a high-definition format into
the same space as DV does for standard-definition. Guess what? A *lot*
of
information is thrown out and, like any MPEG format, editing is less than
ideal due to the fact that not every frame is an independent, complete
picture. DV on the other hand doesn't perform any of the "interframe"
compression.
If you don't want to edit - just watch it - then fine. But as soon as you
decide you want to edit, you have to also buy all the supporting software
etc.
Now, back to your original question. "Broadcast quality" - that's a
*very*
loose term. Certainly, in the UK (I assume that's where you are!), the
requirements for broadcasting (e.g., by transmitter, cable, satellite) are
much more stringent than in the US, for example. For private consumption,
though, you probably mean the picture quality in terms of resolution,
clarity, stability etc. If that's the case, DV will be just fine and -
since it is one of your criteria - affordable.
A downside (in the EU), is that most DV camcorders cannot record a signal
from an external source (e.g., the edited material from the computer) but
if
you want to put it on DVD anyway, that's a moot point.
Frankly, you'll be very happy with a modest DV solution - there's a lot of
freeware/cheapware out there, too. For HDV, it's spend, spend, spend.....
(The marketing ploy I suspect is similar to that for MRI - magnetic
resonance imaging. It's real name is nuclear magnetic resonance, but the
word nuclear freaks too many people out, so the name changed. I recently
decided to upgrade to a more "professional" camcorder and was, at first,
tempted by the new HDV camcorders but as soon as I read the details and
realised it was just MPEG2 in a different guise, I chose a 3CCD DV/DVCAM
with a lot of great features instead. Let others buy the HDV stuff and
you
can reap the benefit of the falling DV prices on equipment with more
useful
features.)
John.
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Richard Crowley
Guest
|
| Posted:
Thu Oct 27, 2005 4:41 am Post subject:
Re: DV camera |
|
|
"Research" wrote ...
| Quote: | How is HDV "just mpeg2" ?
Isn't it 1080I ?
|
Compression format and image size/interlace are completely independent
variables. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Frank
Guest
|
| Posted:
Thu Oct 27, 2005 1:10 pm Post subject:
Re: DV camera |
|
|
On Thu, 27 Oct 2005 01:07:27 GMT, in 'rec.video.production',
in article <Re: DV camera>,
Research <None@NoSpamThankYou.Com> wrote:
| Quote: | On Tue, 25 Oct 2005 14:32:54 -0400, "John F. Miller"
johnATenosoft.net> wrote:
SNIP
IMHO, HDV is a clever marketing ploy to hide the fact that it is really just
MPEG2, albeit of the MP @ HL flavour. SNIP
How is HDV "just mpeg2" ?
Isn't it 1080I ?
TIA
|
HDV comes in two flavors: 720p (as implemented by JVC) and 1080i (as
implemented by Sony and Canon), known as HDV1 and HDV2, respectively.
Both flavors of HDV use CBR MPEG-2 encoding for the video stream and
4:1 lossy compressed MPEG-1 Layer II encoding at 192 kbps per channel
for the 2-channel audio stream. The 720p HDV format writes to tape at
a data rate of approximately 19.7 Mbps while the 1080i HDV format
writes to tape at a data rate of approximately 25 Mbps, just like
ordinary DV, Panasonic's DVCPRO, and Sony's DVCAM formats.
The 720p flavor of HDV uses square pixels and has a frame size of 1280
by 720 while the 1080i flavor of HDV uses non-square pixels and has a
frame size of 1920 by 1080, although only 1440 pixels per scan line
are written to tape.
Like all HD formats, both 720p HDV and 1080i HDV use a widescreen 16:9
display aspect ratio. The 720p flavor of HDV has a 1:1 pixel aspect
ratio and the 1080i flavor of HDV has a 1.333:1 pixel aspect ratio.
The 1080i flavor of HDV uses so-called "long-GOP" (one-half second)
encoding, with 12 frames per GOP in PAL-like 50i mode and 15 frames
per GOP in NTSC-like 60i mode.
--
Frank, Independent Consultant, New York, NY
[Please remove 'nojunkmail.' from address to reply via e-mail.]
Read Frank's thoughts on HDV at http://www.humanvalues.net/hdv/ |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
Memberlist
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in