Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (
More info?)
<Mitch@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news
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.
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram