 
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
|
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
In Reply to: Digital video vs older analog video posted by gonzo on June 26, 2003 at 03:22:26:
>Do the newer digital video camcorders infact provide a higher
>quality video image when 1-viewed on a standard TV , 2-viewed on a
>hdtv ,3-provide a higher quality image when converted to a dvd.digital camcorders generally provide a higher quality image in most cases; however, they also introduce issues of their own. it also depends highly on the camera and what optics are being used. the original sony vx1000 got a lot of great press for convenience and quality, but they were very limited in what lenses could be used. the canon xl1, on the other hand, has a pretty decent assortment of lenses that can be easily interchanged for quality or shot.
there is only one consumer HD camcorder to my knowledge that is on the market and that is the JVC GR-HD1. i can't say specifically how standard camcorders will perform on HD screens, but suffice to say if it looks good on your PC monitor (assuming your editing non-lin on a PC or Mac), it will look about the same on HD.
finally, DVD have a native resolution of 720x480 with some adjustments if it's anamporphic, what have you. that said, DVDs are NOT designed for HDTV and do not take full advantage of the improved resolution. again, compare performance on your PC. if it looks good at 640x480, it'll look great on most consumer TVs and HD at lower resolutions.
personally i'm not a huge fan of digital cameras. they strike me as a lot of hype overall. they've worked fine in my experience, but i still think Hi8 (not regular 8) is the landmark format... the quality of Hi8 just about equalled BetaSP when it came out at perhaps 1/50th the cost. digital is only slighty better than Hi8 to my eyes and provides a smoother picture in many cases.
>Lastly do any of the digital video camcorders give sufficiently high
>resolution so a reasonable still frame picture could be printed.to my knowledge, no. they all look pretty decent on video screens, but they won't give you the resolution you need for printing. get a separate still digital camera for that.
Follow Ups:
Intersting comments Some Guy.I replaced my older 8 MM with a Sony Hi 8 a short while ago. I am very happy with the format, and find that when I dub onto VHS, I do not lose much quality. I have an analog mixer wich I sometimes use which must boost the image a bit.
I have used it to mostly videotape my sons' soccer matches. I recently taped some games that he played in Italy, and made some VHS copies for some of the other players. They really came out pretty good. My model has a 20X analog zoom, most of the entry level digital has only 10X.
About 2 years ago, I had about an hours worth of highlites from my older son, and I had sent them away to a lab to get put on a DVD. The quality seems to be better than the original tapes that I sent. Could that be? They were filmed on an older 8 MM Sony, and we swear that the DVD version is better.
Thanks for the helpful post. One other question. Is hi-8 still a format that is available commercially? and are there hi-8 cameras with interchangeable lenses. Or is it worth waiting for the digital format to mature a little more? Norm
As far as I know, Hi8 is still available. Most of the versions left, however, are more aimed at the home user. The quality is still there, though.There are also some decent used camcorders out there. The Canon XL1 is the digital version of the original Hi8 version, the L1. Both have interchangeable lenses along the Canon line, although I'm pretty sure other companies have made compatible lenses as well. You'll have to do some research on that, but last time I checked there are a number of support pages by people who are still fans of the format.
As for waiting for digital to mature, I think it's decent enough right now for most purposes. What a lot of companies seem to be doing, though, is trying to get it to look less digital by taking away the harsh edges and such while still retaining the clarity. That and trying to make the conversion to HD in a few years time.
Honestly, I'd get out there and try a bunch of different cameras and see what best fits your purposes. I wouldn't be sold by just the tagline "digital" as that's been the most abused marketing gimmick of the past 20 years. Digital is just a means of processing the info: it doesn't automatically mean it's better than analog. There are so many other factors to consider that I honestly don't even care about it much anymore.
One other thing: after experiencing digital distortion, analog distortion seems like a soft and comfy blanket.
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2024, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
