Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

DV vs Digital8...is size the biggest difference?

Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
Anonymous
June 8, 2004 10:34:02 PM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

I'm trying to figure out which digital camcorder to get.
In reading the reviews, it seems that Sony still has the best
low-light recording...do you guys agree?

According to reviews of Canon and JVC, everything about them is great
except for low-light.

Do any of you think the smaller size of a MiniDV camcorder encourages
you to take it with you more often, and therefore get more footage?

I'm currently borrowing my father-in-law's Sony TRV840 to transfer my
8mm tapes to the PC. It's the exact same size as my Sony Hi8 camera.
Of course it's not huge compared to the thing my dad had to set on his
shoulder <G>, but I'm wondering if you get more spontaneous shots with
a MiniDV because you have it on you more often.
Anonymous
June 8, 2004 10:34:03 PM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

<Mitch@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:t70cc0dfu166ihcbhhh9qqmmce6l79f9np@4ax.com...
> I'm trying to figure out which digital camcorder to get.
> In reading the reviews, it seems that Sony still has the best
> low-light recording...do you guys agree?
>
> According to reviews of Canon and JVC, everything about them is great
> except for low-light.

I think you would certainly find that in consumer level cams that Sony does
indeed have some edge in low light conditions when compared to their best
competitors. I'd have to say the same for their pro-sumer cams as well with
the exception of the Panasonic DVX100A (also excellent in low light compared
to similarly priced/marketed Cannons etc - The panasonic is as good as the
Sony VX2xxx and PD1xx in low light).

>
> Do any of you think the smaller size of a MiniDV camcorder encourages
> you to take it with you more often, and therefore get more footage?

Not personally. I have two relatively new small mini-DV cams, two Hi-8s,
two Digital-8s (only one plays back Hi-8), and a pair of Sony VX2000s. Due
to the comparatively very impressive image quality, I shoot much more with
the VX2000 than anything else. My small mini-DVs are spending a lot of time
being used as VTRs instead of cameras to keep the playback hours off my
VX2000 heads and tape transports.

>
> I'm currently borrowing my father-in-law's Sony TRV840 to transfer my
> 8mm tapes to the PC. It's the exact same size as my Sony Hi8 camera.
> Of course it's not huge compared to the thing my dad had to set on his
> shoulder <G>, but I'm wondering if you get more spontaneous shots with
> a MiniDV because you have it on you more often.

In certain situations, it is easier to get candid shots with a small camera
because people don't notice it as easily. Everyone has a friend or relative
who doesn't like their picture taken or doesn't like to be on tape... those
people are much easier to get with a little palmcorder. However, when
shooting family and friends, well... they get used to you always having a
camera in your hands after awhile (in my experience). For the last four
years, I haven't ever left the house without a camera. My relatives and
friends just see a camera as "part of me" now. In fact, even those few who
don't really care to be on camera are beginning to appreciate the
documentation of family events, including their presence at them.

I don't know what your exact plan and purpose for getting a new camera is,
but after using a number of larger pro-sumer cams the last few years, I
think I'd have to suggest you should consider one. If you have a rental
shop with that sort of equipment in your area, you might rent a cam like a
Sony VX2xxx or something from Cannon or Panasonic in the same range for a
weekend. - You've already made it plain that you are really leaning towards
a small cam for the ease of transport.... but, when you see first hand the
difference in the quality of your product (the video you shoot), you might
not feel the same way about it. That's how it has been for me, anyway.
June 8, 2004 10:47:13 PM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

<Mitch@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:t70cc0dfu166ihcbhhh9qqmmce6l79f9np@4ax.com...
> I'm trying to figure out which digital camcorder to get.
> In reading the reviews, it seems that Sony still has the best
> low-light recording...do you guys agree?
>
> According to reviews of Canon and JVC, everything about them is great
> except for low-light.
>
> Do any of you think the smaller size of a MiniDV camcorder encourages
> you to take it with you more often, and therefore get more footage?
>
> I'm currently borrowing my father-in-law's Sony TRV840 to transfer my
> 8mm tapes to the PC. It's the exact same size as my Sony Hi8 camera.
> Of course it's not huge compared to the thing my dad had to set on his
> shoulder <G>, but I'm wondering if you get more spontaneous shots with
> a MiniDV because you have it on you more often.

"There is no significant difference in quality between the two formats. The
features and quality of individual cameras are more important to the end
product."
http://www.mediacollege.com/video/format/Mini-DV-D8.htm...

I have both. I went with Digital8 only because of the compatability with
older 8mm and Hi8 tapes which I had. Digital8 is dying out as evidenced of
the fewer models being produced.

Rich
We all remember 8 track tapes? How about "PlayTape"
Related resources
Anonymous
June 8, 2004 11:49:35 PM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

> Digital8 is dying out as evidenced of
>the fewer models being produced.

I didn't realize that.

I just went to eBay to check the value of my Hi8 camcorder (TRV67).
Holy cow....$12. I thought I'd get a hundred bucks or so. I can't
believe how disposable technology has become.
Anonymous
June 9, 2004 3:20:13 AM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

>I don't know what your exact plan and purpose for getting a new camera is,

Thanks for your reply. I should have mentioned, I'm strictly
point-and-shoot consumer level.

Is there any reason NOT to go with a Digital8? The prices seem much
lower than MiniDV.

The reason I want a new camcorder is because when we switched from
film camera to digital camera, we took way, way more pictures, because
we could pull them into the PC, organize them, fix red-eye, throw away
bad pix, etc.

In terms of camcorder, we are still living in the world of rewinding,
fast forwarding, wondering where on a 2-hour tape is the thing we want
to see. I'm hopeful that switching to digital means that I will be
more diligent about importing the video right after it's shot, editing
it down, cataloging it, burning it to DVD. And this means I'll be
prone to shooting more.

I think having an analog camcorder has been "Why bother..we won't
watch it anyway. It's a pain."
Anonymous
June 9, 2004 3:20:14 AM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

On Tue, 08 Jun 2004 23:20:13 GMT, Mitch@hotmail.com wrote:

>
>>I don't know what your exact plan and purpose for getting a new camera is,
>
>Thanks for your reply. I should have mentioned, I'm strictly
>point-and-shoot consumer level.
>
>Is there any reason NOT to go with a Digital8? The prices seem much
>lower than MiniDV.

You can't play D8 tapes in a DV machine. If you exchange the
digital tapes with other people, D8 is the odd-man out format.

D8 has no higher end upgrade path. The current Sony D8 top of the
line model is a mid-range entry level consumer camcorder -- they
dropped the two higher end (740/840) versions of it. AFAIK Hitachi,
Sanyo, or others haven't stepped in with D8 clones of those. There
aren't many makers of them -- most stores only carry the Sony D8
models.

OTOH -- a lot of the other hardware is the same between Sony D8 and
MiniDV -- batteries, filters, mikes, lights, etc. -- they are pretty
interchangeable between the formats.

D8 is aimed purely at consumers, and primarily as a transition
format for video8/Hi8 users. There are many of those out there, who
want to jump to digital and reuse their tapes, so the D8 format isn't
likely to go away anytime soon. But if you're tempted to upgrade to
something better later on, it will mean moving to DV.

One nice thing about D8 -- a double nice thing, really: the
Video8/Hi8 tapes are cheaper than DV, and you can get longer tapes (90
minutes at SP) from Sony.

Another plus: The D8 tape is physically larger, which makes it
more durable. I trust D8 more at LP speed than I would MiniDV. Of
course, bigger tapes means more space to store and carry them, DV wins
that easily.



>The reason I want a new camcorder is because when we switched from
>film camera to digital camera, we took way, way more pictures, because
>we could pull them into the PC, organize them, fix red-eye, throw away
>bad pix, etc.
>
>In terms of camcorder, we are still living in the world of rewinding,
>fast forwarding, wondering where on a 2-hour tape is the thing we want
>to see. I'm hopeful that switching to digital means that I will be
>more diligent about importing the video right after it's shot, editing
>it down, cataloging it, burning it to DVD. And this means I'll be
>prone to shooting more.
>
>I think having an analog camcorder has been "Why bother..we won't
>watch it anyway. It's a pain."

Editing digital is way easier than analog, even using an NLE to
capture and edit.
--
*-__Jeffery Jones__________| *Starfire* |____________________-*
** Muskego WI Access Channel 14/25 <http://www.execpc.com/~jeffsj/mach7/&gt;
*Starfire Design Studio* <http://www.starfiredesign.com/&gt;
Anonymous
June 9, 2004 3:20:14 AM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

<Mitch@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:p 4icc0dp4c9v5d50ao1kcbo8koqh8jel8b@4ax.com...
>
> In terms of camcorder, we are still living in the world of rewinding,
> fast forwarding, wondering where on a 2-hour tape is the thing we want
> to see. I'm hopeful that switching to digital means that I will be
> more diligent about importing the video right after it's shot, editing
> it down, cataloging it, burning it to DVD. And this means I'll be
> prone to shooting more.

Are you otherwise happy with your analogue camcorder? If the issue is
importing your video to your PC... well, there is another option. An A to D
converter may be your solution. Personally I recommend (and I think the
majority of the people I've read in this group will agree) the Canopus
ADVC100. If your current camcorder (I'm assuming it's a Hi-8, guessing from
your earlier comments) is satisfactory in size, shape, portability, image
quality etc for your shooting needs, then it may not be a bad idea to save a
few hundred bucks and keep it. An ADVC100 can be found in the $200 USD
range on Ebay and elsewhere. There are many other choices for A to D
converters, but that's the one I use and like.
Anonymous
June 9, 2004 4:56:22 AM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

This is kind of off topic, but one thing I love about DV (and Digital 8,
probably) is that you can shoot the event with two DV camcorders, and when you
transfer the footage to your computer, both cuts will sync up perfectly. You
just find a common sound point, when the music starts is a good one, mark both
cuts and they pretty much stay dead synced up. This is nice for shooting
recitals or plays where you can capture both camera angles and put them one
track on top the other and do simple cutting between the two.

I could never do this with any of the analog formats, whether it was VHS, Hi-8
or anything else.

Mike
Anonymous
June 9, 2004 4:56:23 AM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

"SimMike-" wrote ...
> This is kind of off topic, but one thing I love about DV
> (and Digital 8, probably) is that you can shoot the event
> with two DV camcorders, and when you transfer the footage
> to your computer, both cuts will sync up perfectly. You
> just find a common sound point, when the music starts is a
> good one, mark both cuts and they pretty much stay dead
> synced up. This is nice for shooting recitals or plays where
> you can capture both camera angles and put them one track
> on top the other and do simple cutting between the two.

This is a benefit of using crystal-controlled equipment.
Digital recorders (audio, video, data) are generally much
more time/speed stable than analog.

> I could never do this with any of the analog formats,
> whether it was VHS, Hi-8 or anything else.

Two reasons: Analog equipment is of earlier vintage(es),
and digital formats are more stable inherently.

As to your original question (in the subject line)...
DV and D8 share identical bit patterns (data format),
but are physicallly different (and not interchangable).

However, remember that D8 camcorders tend to be both
older and of older design generations compared to DV.
In particular, you are likely to find better camera sections
(image pickup, lens design, etc.) in DV camcorders than
in D8.
Anonymous
June 9, 2004 5:56:59 AM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

> An ADVC100 can be found in the $200 USD
>range on Ebay and elsewhere.

I haven't had a problem with the image quality of my camera.

Would the Canopus get me the same quality as playing back an analog
tape in a Digital8 camcorder and capturing it via Firewire?

Thanks again for fielding my questions!
Anonymous
June 9, 2004 5:57:00 AM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

<Mitch@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:egrcc0tlqff4ph2un3pf3pu4r8l3mlq60g@4ax.com...
> > An ADVC100 can be found in the $200 USD
> >range on Ebay and elsewhere.
>
> I haven't had a problem with the image quality of my camera.
>
> Would the Canopus get me the same quality as playing back an analog
> tape in a Digital8 camcorder and capturing it via Firewire?

In my opinion, yes. It will.
Anonymous
June 9, 2004 8:12:31 AM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

<Mitch@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:p 4icc0dp4c9v5d50ao1kcbo8koqh8jel8b@4ax.com...
>
> >I don't know what your exact plan and purpose for getting a new camera
is,
>
> Thanks for your reply. I should have mentioned, I'm strictly
> point-and-shoot consumer level.
>
> Is there any reason NOT to go with a Digital8? The prices seem much
> lower than MiniDV.

I think I need to clarify something:

Though the digital specification for D8 and miniDV are identical, i.e. video
is encoded and compressed to the identical signal stored in the identical
format (though, of course, miniDV and D8 tapes are physically different),
the quality will vary for a number of reasons.

Digital camcorder video quality is dependent on a whole set of devices, all
of which work together to produce the digital signal recorded on the tape.
The optics system (lens, baffles and irises) focus the image on the sensor.
The sensor, not unlike the human eye, is made up of a number of
photoreceptors which convert light into an electrical charge. Electronics
in the camcorder convert the photoreceptor charges into a video signal which
is compressed, formatted and written to tape. Obviously, the better each of
the components, the better the final signal.

In the _present_market, D8 is relegated to low-end, budget consumer
camcorders (this wasn't always true -- when first introduced, there were
some higher-end consumer D8 machines, but they are no longer manufactured).
MiniDV spans the gamut from low-end machines, up to prosumer and
professional quality camcorders.

As a rule, _new_ D8 machines will have poorer optics, sensors and
electronics than miniDV. They'll produce grainer, lower-resolution
pictures, with poorer color fidelity and worse low-light performance. They
won't white balance as well (white balance is the ability to accurately
render color under a variety of lighting conditions), they won't handle
autoexposure as well, and they won't autofocus as well. They're also
cheaper than better-performing miniDV camcorders.

So, it is not really correct to say that D8 and miniDV are the same -- the
technical specification for storing data on tape is the same (it's D-25),
but all similarity ends there. The best way to choose a camcorder is to
actually handle the different models and see which one "fits" you better in
ergonomic terms (you might be very unhappy with, for example, my VX2000,
which is larger and heavier than consumer camcorders). THEN, compare the
video by running the output of the camcorders into a video monitor (not the
RF input of a television set) -- most electronics stores that sell
camcorders are equipped to do this. Don't rely only on the image produced
"live" by the camera -- shoot some tape (even if you have to buy and bring
your own) and watch that.

You say that you're only interested in a point-and-shoot consumer machine,
but that covers a large range of cameras and quality levels. If you care
about what your video looks like, it's worth spending a little time
comparison shopping to make sure you'll be happy with your purchase.

>
> The reason I want a new camcorder is because when we switched from
> film camera to digital camera, we took way, way more pictures, because
> we could pull them into the PC, organize them, fix red-eye, throw away
> bad pix, etc.
>
> In terms of camcorder, we are still living in the world of rewinding,
> fast forwarding, wondering where on a 2-hour tape is the thing we want
> to see. I'm hopeful that switching to digital means that I will be
> more diligent about importing the video right after it's shot, editing
> it down, cataloging it, burning it to DVD. And this means I'll be
> prone to shooting more.

I found that I didn't necessarily shoot more, but I watched my finished
videos far more often than the early unedited analog ones.

>
> I think having an analog camcorder has been "Why bother..we won't
> watch it anyway. It's a pain."

Ah, I see you're way ahead of me. Yep, that was my thinking, too. The
biggest drawback of _any_ new consumer camcorder is the limited low-light
capability (this is a function of smaller sized CCDs to accomodate smaller
and lighter cameras, and higher-density pixels so that manufacturers could
include still-imaging capabilities). Sony consumer camcorders tend to be a
little better in low light than their competitors due to Sony's use of HAD
CCDs which are more sensitive to light, but also have the side effect of
smearing pin-point light sources against darker backgrounds (not necessarily
an unpleasing effect -- my VX2000 does that, but I don't mind it at all).
However, for really excellent low-light performance, you'll have to move up
to a VX2100 (the VX2000 isn't offered any more), which may not at all be
what you're looking for.
Anonymous
June 9, 2004 8:14:12 AM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

"SimMike-" <simmike@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:Wetxc.58788$3x.9190@attbi_s54...
> This is kind of off topic, but one thing I love about DV (and Digital 8,
> probably) is that you can shoot the event with two DV camcorders, and when
you
> transfer the footage to your computer, both cuts will sync up perfectly.
You
> just find a common sound point, when the music starts is a good one, mark
both
> cuts and they pretty much stay dead synced up. This is nice for shooting
> recitals or plays where you can capture both camera angles and put them
one
> track on top the other and do simple cutting between the two.
>
> I could never do this with any of the analog formats, whether it was VHS,
Hi-8
> or anything else.

I've synced Hi-8 and VHS with no problem at all. After capturing, it's just
a question of matching up a single event, e.g. a hand-clap or photo flash.
Once they're matched up on both tracks, they'll hold sync for quite a long
time (the longest I've ever tried was 2 hours, but it worked fine).


>
> Mike
>
>
Anonymous
June 9, 2004 8:17:20 AM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

<Mitch@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:egrcc0tlqff4ph2un3pf3pu4r8l3mlq60g@4ax.com...
> > An ADVC100 can be found in the $200 USD
> >range on Ebay and elsewhere.
>
> I haven't had a problem with the image quality of my camera.
>
> Would the Canopus get me the same quality as playing back an analog
> tape in a Digital8 camcorder and capturing it via Firewire?
>
> Thanks again for fielding my questions!

You didn't mention what kind of analog camera you're currently using (or, if
you did, I missed it -- sorry). But, yes, a quality capture card can
produce digital video that meets or exceeds miniDV quality, particularly if
you capture uncompressed (though this can create other problems, not the
least of which is the requirement for an enormous amount of hard drive
space). You'll find that most consumer D8 and miniDV cameras do not produce
as good video as a good-quality Hi8 machine. However, also remember that,
with analog video, you'll have to cope with occassional drop out.

>
Anonymous
June 9, 2004 9:14:56 AM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

>I'm trying to figure out which digital camcorder to get.
>In reading the reviews, it seems that Sony still has the best
>low-light recording...do you guys agree?
>

Mitch, what is your price range? Digital 8 has never really had great optics,
but the tape format is really robust. Same track pitch as DV Cam, a pro format
of DV.
None of the five or so generations of Digi8 cams from sony had manual white
balance while lots of dv cams do. Auto can drift/pulse the wb on mixed
lighting.
The new dv 3 ccd panasonic gs120/200/400 cams might give you the best bang
for the buck in the $700 -1k us price range.
Any camera you get, keep it really clean for longer life and have fun with
it.

Craig H.
Anonymous
June 9, 2004 2:22:41 PM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

Also the D8's usually have 25 x zoom compared with 10x of most MiniDV's.

"Jeffery S. Jones" <jeffsj@execpc.com> wrote in message
news:tvocc0p43ur80pq2dnj3octdafcepp60ni@4ax.com...
: On Tue, 08 Jun 2004 23:20:13 GMT, Mitch@hotmail.com wrote:
:
: >
: >>I don't know what your exact plan and purpose for getting a new camera
is,
: >
: >Thanks for your reply. I should have mentioned, I'm strictly
: >point-and-shoot consumer level.
: >
: >Is there any reason NOT to go with a Digital8? The prices seem much
: >lower than MiniDV.
:
: You can't play D8 tapes in a DV machine. If you exchange the
: digital tapes with other people, D8 is the odd-man out format.
:
: D8 has no higher end upgrade path. The current Sony D8 top of the
: line model is a mid-range entry level consumer camcorder -- they
: dropped the two higher end (740/840) versions of it. AFAIK Hitachi,
: Sanyo, or others haven't stepped in with D8 clones of those. There
: aren't many makers of them -- most stores only carry the Sony D8
: models.
:
: OTOH -- a lot of the other hardware is the same between Sony D8 and
: MiniDV -- batteries, filters, mikes, lights, etc. -- they are pretty
: interchangeable between the formats.
:
: D8 is aimed purely at consumers, and primarily as a transition
: format for video8/Hi8 users. There are many of those out there, who
: want to jump to digital and reuse their tapes, so the D8 format isn't
: likely to go away anytime soon. But if you're tempted to upgrade to
: something better later on, it will mean moving to DV.
:
: One nice thing about D8 -- a double nice thing, really: the
: Video8/Hi8 tapes are cheaper than DV, and you can get longer tapes (90
: minutes at SP) from Sony.
:
: Another plus: The D8 tape is physically larger, which makes it
: more durable. I trust D8 more at LP speed than I would MiniDV. Of
: course, bigger tapes means more space to store and carry them, DV wins
: that easily.
:
:
:
: >The reason I want a new camcorder is because when we switched from
: >film camera to digital camera, we took way, way more pictures, because
: >we could pull them into the PC, organize them, fix red-eye, throw away
: >bad pix, etc.
: >
: >In terms of camcorder, we are still living in the world of rewinding,
: >fast forwarding, wondering where on a 2-hour tape is the thing we want
: >to see. I'm hopeful that switching to digital means that I will be
: >more diligent about importing the video right after it's shot, editing
: >it down, cataloging it, burning it to DVD. And this means I'll be
: >prone to shooting more.
: >
: >I think having an analog camcorder has been "Why bother..we won't
: >watch it anyway. It's a pain."
:
: Editing digital is way easier than analog, even using an NLE to
: capture and edit.
: --
: *-__Jeffery Jones__________| *Starfire* |____________________-*
: ** Muskego WI Access Channel 14/25 <http://www.execpc.com/~jeffsj/mach7/&gt;
: *Starfire Design Studio* <http://www.starfiredesign.com/&gt;
Anonymous
June 9, 2004 4:20:02 PM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

On a sunny day (Tue, 8 Jun 2004 18:13:28 -0700) it happened "Richard Crowley"
<rcrowley7@xprt.net> wrote in <10ccp1ualq22d8c@corp.supernews.com>:

>This is a benefit of using crystal-controlled equipment.
>Digital recorders (audio, video, data) are generally much
>more time/speed stable than analog.
It depends on the frame frequency, and in both cases it is
derived from a crystal oscillator.
It may vary wildly, if you are lucky, it will match, if not
it may be of by seconds after 2 hours.
There are 2 factors, the absolute frequency of the crystal oscillator,
and it drift cause by temperature, to be taken into account.
JP
Anonymous
June 9, 2004 4:56:55 PM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

> Mitch, what is your price range?

We'd like to spend no more than $600.

My head is spinning from reading reviews at camcorderinfo.com!

JVC GR-D93? Sony DCRHC20? HC30? HC40? :) 
June 9, 2004 4:58:02 PM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

<Mitch@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:fv5cc09lh23qstok9vc1k2lticrgg2jtsq@4ax.com...
> > Digital8 is dying out as evidenced of
> >the fewer models being produced.
>
> I didn't realize that.
>
> I just went to eBay to check the value of my Hi8 camcorder (TRV67).
> Holy cow....$12. I thought I'd get a hundred bucks or so. I can't
> believe how disposable technology has become.

I would give you more than $12 if it works well. Keep putting it up on eBay
till you get what you want.

Yes, disposable technology. I look back at what I spent for my first Color
TV, VCR, digital watch, computers etc.

Rich
June 9, 2004 4:58:03 PM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

"Jeffery S. Jones" <jeffsj@execpc.com> wrote in message
news:tvocc0p43ur80pq2dnj3octdafcepp60ni@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 08 Jun 2004 23:20:13 GMT, Mitch@hotmail.com wrote:
>
<snip>
>
> One nice thing about D8 -- a double nice thing, really: the
> Video8/Hi8 tapes are cheaper than DV, and you can get longer tapes (90
> minutes at SP) from Sony.

With mass production and popularity of MiniDV I don't think tapes costs of
Digital8 over MiniDV is a big factor anymore. Taking a quick look at
http://www.tapeandmedia.com

N8-60P2 Sony 60 Minute Digital8 Video Tape $3.35
DVM60PR Sony Mini DV Tape 60 Minute Premium $3.79

Yes, you can get 90 minute Digital8 tapes, at a premium price as well as 80
minute MiniDV tapes:

N8-90P2 Sony 90 Minute Digital8 Video Tape $6.79
DVM80PR Sony Mini DV Tape 80 Minute Premium $8.59

I don't use extended tapes, cd's etc.

Rich


> --
> *-__Jeffery Jones__________| *Starfire* |____________________-*
> ** Muskego WI Access Channel 14/25 <http://www.execpc.com/~jeffsj/mach7/&gt;
> *Starfire Design Studio* http://www.starfiredesign.com/
June 9, 2004 4:58:04 PM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

<Mitch@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:egrcc0tlqff4ph2un3pf3pu4r8l3mlq60g@4ax.com...
> > An ADVC100 can be found in the $200 USD
> >range on Ebay and elsewhere.
>
> I haven't had a problem with the image quality of my camera.
>
> Would the Canopus get me the same quality as playing back an analog
> tape in a Digital8 camcorder and capturing it via Firewire?
>
> Thanks again for fielding my questions!
>

Mitch, I agree with twobirds and PTRAVEL.

I do not have a Canopus but I have seen the results of a friends Canopus
ADVC-100. It seems a bit pricey, but it seems to work well and very few
complaints from people getting into Non Linear Editing (NLE). Their spec
sheet is at:

http://www.canopus.us/US/products/advc-100/pm_advc-100....

However be aware of what computer system you have and if it is up to the
task for any NLE work.

Rich
Anonymous
June 9, 2004 4:58:04 PM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

On Wed, 09 Jun 2004 12:58:03 GMT, "Rich" <rich_sanchez@usa.com> wrote:

>
>"Jeffery S. Jones" <jeffsj@execpc.com> wrote in message
>news:tvocc0p43ur80pq2dnj3octdafcepp60ni@4ax.com...
>> On Tue, 08 Jun 2004 23:20:13 GMT, Mitch@hotmail.com wrote:
>>
><snip>
>>
>> One nice thing about D8 -- a double nice thing, really: the
>> Video8/Hi8 tapes are cheaper than DV, and you can get longer tapes (90
>> minutes at SP) from Sony.
>
>With mass production and popularity of MiniDV I don't think tapes costs of
>Digital8 over MiniDV is a big factor anymore. Taking a quick look at
>http://www.tapeandmedia.com
>
>N8-60P2 Sony 60 Minute Digital8 Video Tape $3.35
>DVM60PR Sony Mini DV Tape 60 Minute Premium $3.79

It is closer, but D8/Hi8 tapes are still cheaper, especially some of
the sales going on. Not a major factor, but it is worth considering.

>Yes, you can get 90 minute Digital8 tapes, at a premium price as well as 80
>minute MiniDV tapes:
>
>N8-90P2 Sony 90 Minute Digital8 Video Tape $6.79
>DVM80PR Sony Mini DV Tape 80 Minute Premium $8.59
>
>I don't use extended tapes, cd's etc.

I like having some for event shoots where I don't want to change
tapes. It is sometimes unavoidable -- a reason to use more than one
camera if you can't afford to miss any action -- but the longer tapes,
coupled with using LP speed, give you a way to match the recording
time of Hi8/full size SVHS.

OTOH, I recommend neither LP speed nor the longer tapes unless they
are necessary. Either one has a higher risk of video dropouts and
other playback problems than 60 minute tapes.

One more thing about D8 is that you can use Video8 tapes in it. I
don't recommend it either -- they can work, but you risk playback
problems. But for uncritical stuff (like letting the kids take their
own movies) it isn't bad.

In the long run you have to buy new tape sometime. You can't reuse
old tapes too often, even with digital (which is much more tolerant of
tape wear than analog). When you want perfect recordings, you don't
dare risk using worn tape.


For home videoing -- and D8 is nice for that, pricewise and in most
features for the cost -- all these things add up.
--
*-__Jeffery Jones__________| *Starfire* |____________________-*
** Muskego WI Access Channel 14/25 <http://www.execpc.com/~jeffsj/mach7/&gt;
*Starfire Design Studio* <http://www.starfiredesign.com/&gt;
Anonymous
June 9, 2004 5:17:58 PM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

>
>In my opinion, yes. It will.
>

After reading more about the Canopus, this may be the way to go.
Although, my wife is hot and heavy to get a "tiny" camcorder, I can't
justify the cost of basically discarding my Hi8 camcorder plus the
cost of a new MiniDV.

Thanks alot for the kind advice!
June 9, 2004 6:14:37 PM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

<Mitch@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:u52ec05q4gaqci42ged3tnfssgnas0e80f@4ax.com...
>
> > Mitch, what is your price range?
>
> We'd like to spend no more than $600.
>
> My head is spinning from reading reviews at camcorderinfo.com!
>
> JVC GR-D93? Sony DCRHC20? HC30? HC40? :) 

Mitch, consider using a MiniDV camcorder as a digitizer for your old 8mm and
Hi8 tapes. This will require that your vidcam have audio and video inputs.
Basically you just playback into your new camcorder on to tape. I have been
doing that with my VHS tapes. Play VHS into my Sony TRV460 then capture the
digitized video file to my PC via FireWire. That would save the cost of the
Canopus (which is a fine item). But it could save you some bucks.

Some camcorders have passthrough which you can play from your old analog
vidcam through your new MiniDV vidcam directly to your PC. I have this
feature but do not use it as I want a good digital copy archived on tape.

It looks like the JVC GR-D93 and Sony DCRHC40 have the Mini A/V in / out. I
did not look up the other two.

Rich
June 9, 2004 8:15:04 PM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

On Wed, 09 Jun 2004 13:17:58 GMT, Mitch@hotmail.com wrote:

>
>>
>>In my opinion, yes. It will.
>>
>
>After reading more about the Canopus, this may be the way to go.
>Although, my wife is hot and heavy to get a "tiny" camcorder, I can't
>justify the cost of basically discarding my Hi8 camcorder plus the
>cost of a new MiniDV.


I have all of the equipment you are talking about in this thread. Hi8 Cam, Digital 8 cam, Mini DV
cam, Canopus ADV-C100.

Got the Digital 8 so I can transfer my old Hi8 and 8mm via firewire.
Although I could have used the D8 Cam as a digital passthrough for my VHS and SVHS tapes, I went
with the Canopus because it was a pain in the ass to connect the camera every time I wanted to do
that.

As for buying a new D8, I would because they are down to the $300s now. They will play your Hi8 and
8mm and you will not need the Canopus.

Tony
Anonymous
June 9, 2004 8:15:05 PM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

On Wed, 09 Jun 2004 16:15:04 GMT, Tony <trusso11783@yahoo.com > wrote:

>On Wed, 09 Jun 2004 13:17:58 GMT, Mitch@hotmail.com wrote:
>
>>
>>>
>>>In my opinion, yes. It will.
>>>
>>
>>After reading more about the Canopus, this may be the way to go.
>>Although, my wife is hot and heavy to get a "tiny" camcorder, I can't
>>justify the cost of basically discarding my Hi8 camcorder plus the
>>cost of a new MiniDV.
>
>
>I have all of the equipment you are talking about in this thread. Hi8 Cam, Digital 8 cam, Mini DV
>cam, Canopus ADV-C100.
>
>Got the Digital 8 so I can transfer my old Hi8 and 8mm via firewire.
>Although I could have used the D8 Cam as a digital passthrough for my VHS and SVHS tapes, I went
>with the Canopus because it was a pain in the ass to connect the camera every time I wanted to do
>that.

Hooking up the D8 for transfering Hi8/Video8, OTOH, is the same as
hooking it up for digital tape. That is a nice plus. As well, it
seems to me that the Sony D8 playback of Hi8 is very good, no worries
about imperfect levels, and even some picture stabilization.

>As for buying a new D8, I would because they are down to the $300s now. They will play your Hi8 and
>8mm and you will not need the Canopus.

If you have a lot of 8mm/Hi8 videos you'd like to digitize, D8 is a
very economical solution. The camera isn't too expensive, making it a
fair option as a spare/second camera, even if you later on move to DV.

OTOH, if you're going to shoot all new videos on your new camcorder,
and don't have many or any Hi8 tapes to copy/reuse, DV is just as
good, and has more options in models.
--
*-__Jeffery Jones__________| *Starfire* |____________________-*
** Muskego WI Access Channel 14/25 <http://www.execpc.com/~jeffsj/mach7/&gt;
*Starfire Design Studio* <http://www.starfiredesign.com/&gt;
Anonymous
June 9, 2004 8:34:54 PM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

Mitch wrote:
>After reading more about the Canopus, this may be the way to go.
>Although, my wife is hot and heavy to get a "tiny" camcorder, I can't
>justify the cost of basically discarding my Hi8 camcorder plus the
>cost of a new MiniDV.

Lots of mini DV cameras can function like a Canopus for Analog/Digital
conversion. Most of the Sony dv cameras offer A/D and D/A. Sometimes called
analog pass thru.

Craig H.
Anonymous
June 10, 2004 12:58:51 AM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

>Yes, disposable technology. I look back at what I spent for my first Color
>TV, VCR, digital watch, computers etc.

My 4-year old Sony DVD player just broke ($500) and I replaced it with
a $59 Sanyo from WalMart, and it has DTS, DD, and progressive scan
output, plays DVD+-R and RW, and MP3 CD's. Amazing. :) 
Anonymous
June 10, 2004 1:26:35 AM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

Tony wrote:
> On Wed, 09 Jun 2004 13:17:58 GMT, Mitch@hotmail.com wrote:
>
>>
>>>
>>> In my opinion, yes. It will.
>>>
>>
>> After reading more about the Canopus, this may be the way to go.
>> Although, my wife is hot and heavy to get a "tiny" camcorder, I can't
>> justify the cost of basically discarding my Hi8 camcorder plus the
>> cost of a new MiniDV.
>
>
> I have all of the equipment you are talking about in this thread. Hi8
> Cam, Digital 8 cam, Mini DV cam, Canopus ADV-C100.
>
> Got the Digital 8 so I can transfer my old Hi8 and 8mm via firewire.
> Although I could have used the D8 Cam as a digital passthrough for my
> VHS and SVHS tapes, I went with the Canopus because it was a pain in
> the ass to connect the camera every time I wanted to do that.
>
> As for buying a new D8, I would because they are down to the $300s
> now. They will play your Hi8 and 8mm and you will not need the
> Canopus.
>
> Tony


Be advised that several of the newer D8s will NOT play back 8/Hi8. That's a
feature Sony is choosing to leave out, ostensibly to keep costs down.
Similar, I guess, to the lack of pass-through on several of the newer
mini-DV camcorders :-(

Mike
June 10, 2004 3:18:43 AM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

Mitch@hotmail.com wrote:

>> An ADVC100 can be found in the $200 USD
>>range on Ebay and elsewhere.
>
>I haven't had a problem with the image quality of my camera.
>
>Would the Canopus get me the same quality as playing back an analog
>tape in a Digital8 camcorder and capturing it via Firewire?
>
>Thanks again for fielding my questions!

Hi Mitch,

I recomend you consider the Canopus ACEDVio card rather than the
ADVC100 box if you decide to go with an AD converter.

You are really unlikely to see any difference using a DV or Digital8
Camcorder or the ADVC100 in converting your Hi8 tapes, or in
converting your edited DV back to VHS. However, the ACEDVio card has
several important features that set it apart from the other three
methods. Through software, you can control Brightness, Contrast,
Saturation, Hue and Sharpness of the analog signal before it is
digitized. Since Hi8 tends to have dismal saturation and contrast,
(and your individual camcorder may have problems with any of the other
visual components of your video), it can make all the difference in
the world in the quality of the captured video to be able to tweak
those elements before you capture.

I increase the saturation and contrast of all my old Hi8 tapes as I
digitize them, and they were recorded on professional-grade ME tapes
and professional camcorders.

It is true that you can "fix" many pictute quality problems by using
video filters in the editing process. However, it is usually far
better to fix such things at the analog level before the picture is
ever digitized, because filters require re-encoding, which sooner or
later will lead to picture degredation in addition to the extended
rendering times.

Don't get me wrong, there is nothing basically wrong with the ADVC100,
but it is two generations down from the ACEDVio card and doesn't give
you any control of the video stream before it is digitized.

If you decide to go with the ACEDVio card, you can get it by itself or
bundled with Vegas or PremierePro/Audition/Encore. It also comes
bundled with the Let's Edit software but that is not a good deal since
Let's Edit is sorely lacking in basic usability features and it has no
upgrade path.

I've used many Analog to DV and back converting methods and by far the
ACEDVio is the best.

Hope this helps.

Susan
Anonymous
June 10, 2004 3:41:42 AM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

>We'd like to spend no more than $600.
Sorry if this is OT but if you're not that bothered about the image
quality then a digital still camera with video feature may suit you.
I've stopped using my camcorder since I got a Canon A60.
It only allows clips up to 3mins each but with a 256Mb memory card you
can get quite few clips on.
However, as I said, the quality is rubbish compared with a camcorder
and it wont allow alteration of the zoom whilst recording. But I take
a few decent still shots around the clips for detail.
It's great for clandestine filming as most people assume it only takes
stills.
For example I managed to film my daughter playing the flute without
her realising - I'd no chance with a camcorder!

HTH
Anonymous
June 10, 2004 10:19:57 PM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

I was just looking at camcorders at WalMart. They only have Sony and
JVC. I have to say, you get no sense of scale looking at pictures of
them on the internet. I had no idea just how TINY the MiniDV's are.
Anonymous
June 14, 2004 4:10:18 PM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

On 13 Jun 2004 18:48:02 -0700, ed_frank@hotmail.com (Ed Frank) wrote:

> Right now
>Mini-Dv is by far a better choice than D8.


Thanks for the post.
I did alot of research over the weekend, and I'm leaning heavily
towards the Canon Elura 65. Now I'm just trying to find the best
price.
June 15, 2004 2:52:14 AM

Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

<Mitch@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:5b5rc09o9ame4l3ucv37bn7skd1s8bnhrc@4ax.com...
> On 13 Jun 2004 18:48:02 -0700, ed_frank@hotmail.com (Ed Frank) wrote:
>
> > Right now
> >Mini-Dv is by far a better choice than D8.
>
>
> Thanks for the post.
> I did alot of research over the weekend, and I'm leaning heavily
> towards the Canon Elura 65. Now I'm just trying to find the best
> price.

In my never ending research I ran into this thread with Collection of sample
media from Canon Elura 65. Thought you might be interested:

http://www.camcorderinfo.com/bbs/showthread.php?s=&post...

Rich
!