Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

Hi 8 to Digital - Advice Wanted

Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
Anonymous
August 9, 2004 7:27:49 PM

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

I'm interested in converting my hi-8 tapes to digital for archiving
and eventual editing.

I've read that the Canopus AVDC 100 or 300 are good units for
accomplishing this taak. Another method is to use a digital camcorders
that has an analog to digital pass-through. Apparently this allows you
to connect an analog source and use the digital camcorder's circuitry
to make the analog to digital conversion.

If you you've done either method, or even better, both methods, can
you comment on which would yield the best picture quality. And if you
feel one way is better, can you tell me what the pros and cons are of
one method over the other.

It seems that if you can accomplish the task with a digital camcorder,
you have a piece of equipment you can continue using once the analog
tapes are converted. This is in contrast to the Canopus AVDC 100 or
300, where once the conversion is done, what else can it be used for.

Any advice would be appreciated

More about : digital advice wanted

Anonymous
August 9, 2004 11:15:21 PM

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

On 9 Aug 2004 15:27:49 -0700, clemke@email.toast.net (kmc) wrote:

>This is in contrast to the Canopus AVDC 100 or
>300, where once the conversion is done, what else can it be used for.


I use the AVDC 100 for the purposes you stated but also for editing
purposes. Vegas 5 editing software has a function whereby you can
preview your work on a TV or monitor. This is done through the AVDC
firewire connection with Digital In selected. I also use it to record
broadcast signals, OTA through a VCR or satellite, which I guess you
could do with the camera also. The AVDC 100 (at least mine does) has
an undocumented feature for which I will let others contribute.

Rich M.
Anonymous
August 10, 2004 4:20:00 AM

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

kmc wrote:

> I'm interested in converting my hi-8 tapes to digital for archiving
> and eventual editing.
>
> I've read that the Canopus AVDC 100 or 300 are good units for
> accomplishing this taak. Another method is to use a digital camcorders
> that has an analog to digital pass-through. Apparently this allows you
> to connect an analog source and use the digital camcorder's circuitry
> to make the analog to digital conversion.

Yep. You can't go wrong with a AVDC-100. I have a 300, and it also
works with the Mac and PC too.

> If you you've done either method, or even better, both methods, can
> you comment on which would yield the best picture quality. And if you
> feel one way is better, can you tell me what the pros and cons are of
> one method over the other.

Both do essentially the exact same thing. But the 300 is more for
correcting bad VHS tape masters. Since you have a Hi-8, I'm going to
assume that the tape quality (because its still fairly new) is still
good. I'd stick with the 100.

Also.. another alternative would be to "buy" a newer Digitl8 camcorder.
D8 has the ability to play those Hi-8 tape, while making new tapes in
Digital format (using the very same tapes), and it also has a Firewire
port giving you access to digitize the video from the camera and avoid
using a bridge like the AVDC-100.

> It seems that if you can accomplish the task with a digital camcorder,
> you have a piece of equipment you can continue using once the analog
> tapes are converted. This is in contrast to the Canopus AVDC 100 or
> 300, where once the conversion is done, what else can it be used for.
>
> Any advice would be appreciated

Your comment about ".. for eventual editing".

Lets say you capture a whole 1-2 hour tape. When you capture, you
capture to your hard drive with minimal or no compression.. Which means
that your capture files are going to be HUGE!. An hour could be as much
as 100 Gigs or more. How exactly will you be saving this for future
editing? Keep this in mind.

You should consider doing the editing right after the capture. Then
take your edited project, save it in a compressed format, and burn it to
a DVD, then erase your captured files, and do the next tape. Just a though.

-Richard
Related resources
Anonymous
August 10, 2004 4:20:01 AM

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

Richard Ragon wrote:
> snip <
> Also.. another alternative would be to "buy" a newer Digitl8
> camcorder. D8 has the ability to play those Hi-8 tape, while making
> new tapes in Digital format (using the very same tapes), and it also
> has a Firewire
> port giving you access to digitize the video from the camera and avoid
> using a bridge like the AVDC-100.


Be advised that (for whatever stupid reason) the 8/HI8 playback capability
has been dropped in some of the newer D8 camcorders.


> Lets say you capture a whole 1-2 hour tape. When you capture, you
> capture to your hard drive with minimal or no compression.. Which
> means that your capture files are going to be HUGE!. An hour could
> be as much
> as 100 Gigs or more. How exactly will you be saving this for future
> editing? Keep this in mind.


100 gigs/hr.? No way!! If captured in "standard" DV-avi format, it's only
13 gigs/hr.


> You should consider doing the editing right after the capture. Then
> take your edited project, save it in a compressed format, and burn it
> to
> a DVD, then erase your captured files, and do the next tape. Just a
> though.
>
> -Richard


This is what most folks do. However, they also make a backup copy of the
original tape and put it away for safekeeping. The jury is still out on the
longevity of DVDs.

Mike
Anonymous
August 10, 2004 4:20:01 AM

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

"Richard Ragon" <bsema04NOSPAM@hanaho.com> wrote in message
news:QwURc.21401820$Id.3542684@news.easynews.com...
> kmc wrote:
>
> > I'm interested in converting my hi-8 tapes to digital for archiving
> > and eventual editing.
> >
> > I've read that the Canopus AVDC 100 or 300 are good units for
> > accomplishing this taak. Another method is to use a digital camcorders
> > that has an analog to digital pass-through. Apparently this allows you
> > to connect an analog source and use the digital camcorder's circuitry
> > to make the analog to digital conversion.
>
> Yep. You can't go wrong with a AVDC-100. I have a 300, and it also
> works with the Mac and PC too.
>
> > If you you've done either method, or even better, both methods, can
> > you comment on which would yield the best picture quality. And if you
> > feel one way is better, can you tell me what the pros and cons are of
> > one method over the other.
>
> Both do essentially the exact same thing. But the 300 is more for
> correcting bad VHS tape masters. Since you have a Hi-8, I'm going to
> assume that the tape quality (because its still fairly new) is still
> good. I'd stick with the 100.
>
> Also.. another alternative would be to "buy" a newer Digitl8 camcorder.
> D8 has the ability to play those Hi-8 tape, while making new tapes in
> Digital format (using the very same tapes), and it also has a Firewire
> port giving you access to digitize the video from the camera and avoid
> using a bridge like the AVDC-100.
>
I essentially agree with you, except perhaps the ADVC-300 noise reduction
is more helpful than was implied. Firstly, it can provide NR BEFORE the
digital encoding, which is VERY HELPFUL even for DV25.

The analog tape formats (e.g. VHS, SVHS, 8mm and Hi8) have noise that isn't
very visible, but does create some challenge for the DV25 encoder (and also
for any subsequent MPEG encoder.) You really want to do NR before DV25
encoding because DV25 isn't very friendly to signals with random
characteristics.
MPEG is even worse, but you can do some NR to a previously DV25 encoded
signal, but a 'challenged' DV25 encoding will already be damaged.

Note that I am being somewhat 'purist', but in some cases, the absolutely
best
quality is desired. Some of my discussion is relative to LD (and composite
video), but my claims are still mostly valid for SVHS/Hi-8 (just recognizing
that the 3D comb is only one of the improvements in the ADVC-300...)

The NR action provided by the ADVC-300 is also helpful for LD, and the
3D comb in the ADVC-300 is very very good. The TBC action of the
ADVC-300 is more than adequate for LD also (of course, works well with
tape formats also.)

When using the ADVC-300, and comparing the results with D9 (DV50), it
might be plausible that one half of the quality difference between normal
DV25 and DV50 is bridged by using the very high quality ADVC-300. When
I do the very best signal processing that I can do with my DV50 system
(grabbing
a LD, but still applicable to Hi8), I can obtain higher quality than any
DV25
combination of my system. The ADVC-300 bridges enough of the quality
difference
that the advantage of using DV50 with LD or any consumer tape format is
mitigated. The probable reason for the quality improvement is that the NR
and
excellent comb filtering (for LD) provided by the ADVC-300 allows the DV25
encoding to do the best job possible (alot of the randomness of the signal
is
removed, and PROBABLY allows for use of more coefficients for the actual
video and not wastefully encoding the noise.)

So, for normal video, the ADVC-300 does a fantastic job, and pushes DV25 up
to
the level where DV50 is less justified in at least one of my applications.
On
the other hand, DV50 does MUCH better when the signal has alot of
randomness,
and you wish that the randomness is very accurately reproduced. This would
mean
that the DV50 is justified when signal processing (NR) is deferred until
later. (This
is slightly off topic, but I am trying to give as much background as
possible.)

When using the ADVC-300, one should be very careful about avoiding TOO MUCH
processing. I have found that the minimal settings for each major feature
is the
wisest course. For very noisy signals, where quality is already severely
compromised,
then perhaps nudging up some of the noise reduction might be useful.
However, with
pristine source material by LD standards (it is still a little noisy and
normally would have
comb filter artifacts crawling around with non-3D decoders), the lowest
settings help
to provide damned good video quality for my eventual MPEG2 SDTV DVDs.

When I want to produce the absolutely highest quality DVD from an ancient
LD, I might
do an initial edit on DV50 (not necessary in your case), but equivalently,
the LD might
be grabbed by the ADVC-300 (perhaps with an essentially redundant DPS290 TBC
before
the ADVC-300, but I suspect that there might actually be a loss of quality
given the very
supurb ADVC-300, except for damaged LDs that the DPS290 actually helps to
recover.)
For the LD, the lowest settings for NR, comb, etc are adequate. Edge
enhancement should
mostly be avoided.

After grabbing onto DV25, then edit on DV25. Avoid encode/decode cycles,
because the
quality of the ADVC-300 results are so darned good. Then, I use the most
aggressive NR with
TMPGENC -- as long as motion artifacts don't appear. When I replay the
results of an old,
discontinued LD that had been copied onto DVD, the video is so good that it
never really looks
like it was an LD. AFAIR (I haven't checked recently), much of the time, it
might be difficult
to determine if the video was ever composite, and the biggest, semi-obvious
defect would have
been a little softness.

For SVHS and Hi8 (instead of LD), you'll essentially max out the quality,
and actually do better
than an analog to DV25 converter without NR. Those extra DV25 coefficients
really do help the
picture quality. The challenge to see the 'difference' can be difficult
because the DCT
is a transform that is purposefully more difficult to see when coefficients
are dropped because
of compression.

Frankly, when I use the ADVC-300, it sometimes tricks me into forgetting
that DV25 is
being used in the signal path. It would be a stretch to claim that the
ADVC-300 overcomes
the deficiencies of the DV25 relative to the DV50 format, but the improvment
is substantial.

John
August 10, 2004 5:53:21 AM

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

RE: "eventual editing" My goal was to get the Hi-8 tapes into a digital
format as is and burn them to DVD as an archive, and because at some point I
might just want to trot out the unedited DVDs and watch them. Doing that
would get them in a more permanent format.

And then as time permits, I was going to go and use those DVD "masters" as
my source video for editing. I'm guessing from Richard's response that Hi-8
digitized to hard drive to compressed to DVD and later decompressed back to
hard drive for editing would result in degraded quality. Is that correct
Richard? It just seemed as though keeping everything as shot in a digital
format would be a good idea just to be able to go back if ever necessary.
Not a good idea?

Kenn.





"Richard Ragon" <bsema04NOSPAM@hanaho.com> wrote in message
news:QwURc.21401820$Id.3542684@news.easynews.com...
> kmc wrote:
>
> > I'm interested in converting my hi-8 tapes to digital for archiving
> > and eventual editing.
> >
> > I've read that the Canopus AVDC 100 or 300 are good units for
> > accomplishing this taak. Another method is to use a digital camcorders
> > that has an analog to digital pass-through. Apparently this allows you
> > to connect an analog source and use the digital camcorder's circuitry
> > to make the analog to digital conversion.
>
> Yep. You can't go wrong with a AVDC-100. I have a 300, and it also
> works with the Mac and PC too.
>
> > If you you've done either method, or even better, both methods, can
> > you comment on which would yield the best picture quality. And if you
> > feel one way is better, can you tell me what the pros and cons are of
> > one method over the other.
>
> Both do essentially the exact same thing. But the 300 is more for
> correcting bad VHS tape masters. Since you have a Hi-8, I'm going to
> assume that the tape quality (because its still fairly new) is still
> good. I'd stick with the 100.
>
> Also.. another alternative would be to "buy" a newer Digitl8 camcorder.
> D8 has the ability to play those Hi-8 tape, while making new tapes in
> Digital format (using the very same tapes), and it also has a Firewire
> port giving you access to digitize the video from the camera and avoid
> using a bridge like the AVDC-100.
>
> > It seems that if you can accomplish the task with a digital camcorder,
> > you have a piece of equipment you can continue using once the analog
> > tapes are converted. This is in contrast to the Canopus AVDC 100 or
> > 300, where once the conversion is done, what else can it be used for.
> >
> > Any advice would be appreciated
>
> Your comment about ".. for eventual editing".
>
> Lets say you capture a whole 1-2 hour tape. When you capture, you
> capture to your hard drive with minimal or no compression.. Which means
> that your capture files are going to be HUGE!. An hour could be as much
> as 100 Gigs or more. How exactly will you be saving this for future
> editing? Keep this in mind.
>
> You should consider doing the editing right after the capture. Then
> take your edited project, save it in a compressed format, and burn it to
> a DVD, then erase your captured files, and do the next tape. Just a
though.
>
> -Richard
>
Anonymous
August 10, 2004 12:08:57 PM

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

John Dyson wrote:
> Frankly, when I use the ADVC-300, it sometimes tricks me into forgetting
> that DV25 is
> being used in the signal path. It would be a stretch to claim that the
> ADVC-300 overcomes
> the deficiencies of the DV25 relative to the DV50 format, but the improvment
> is substantial.
>
> John

So.. I guess I'm glad that I bought the ADVC-300 then.. :) 

-Richard
Anonymous
August 10, 2004 12:14:29 PM

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

KC wrote:

> RE: "eventual editing" My goal was to get the Hi-8 tapes into a digital
> format as is and burn them to DVD as an archive, and because at some point I
> might just want to trot out the unedited DVDs and watch them. Doing that
> would get them in a more permanent format.
>
> And then as time permits, I was going to go and use those DVD "masters" as
> my source video for editing. I'm guessing from Richard's response that Hi-8
> digitized to hard drive to compressed to DVD and later decompressed back to
> hard drive for editing would result in degraded quality. Is that correct
> Richard? It just seemed as though keeping everything as shot in a digital
> format would be a good idea just to be able to go back if ever necessary.
> Not a good idea?
>
> Kenn.

Degraded quality? Yes. Because to get a quality video onto a small
format like a DVD (4.7g) you'll need to compress it as much as possible
to fit in this small space.. While this works fairly great with
compression such as Mpeg-2, its not a good storage medium for later
coming back and editing the video.

-Richard
Anonymous
August 10, 2004 2:32:54 PM

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

On Tue, 10 Aug 2004 01:53:21 GMT, "KC" <clemke@email.toast.net> wrote:

>And then as time permits, I was going to go and use those DVD "masters" as
>my source video for editing. I'm guessing from Richard's response that Hi-8
>digitized to hard drive to compressed to DVD and later decompressed back to
>hard drive for editing would result in degraded quality.

Degradation in quality comes from re-encoding. It is barely noticeable
if you re-encode once, but gets progressively worse the more you
re-encode.

Now, wether that constitutes a problem in your case, depends on the
kind of editing you plan to do on the mpeg material. If it is just
trimming the video here and there, then an mpeg editor like MpegVcr
can do that without reencoding but a few frames (say, 15 frames
average); the rest of the frames are not re-encoded at all, and you
would not notice degradation.

But if you plan to add effects -anything that changes the original
image-, then that part of the video requires reencoding. But once one
adds effects, clear and sharp pictures use to lose their relevance.
Anonymous
August 10, 2004 2:47:09 PM

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

On 9 Aug 2004 15:27:49 -0700, clemke@email.toast.net (kmc) wrote:

>I'm interested in converting my hi-8 tapes to digital for archiving
>and eventual editing.
>
>I've read that the Canopus AVDC 100 or 300 are good units for
>accomplishing this taak. Another method is to use a digital camcorders
>that has an analog to digital pass-through. Apparently this allows you
>to connect an analog source and use the digital camcorder's circuitry
>to make the analog to digital conversion.
>
>If you you've done either method, or even better, both methods, can
>you comment on which would yield the best picture quality. And if you
>feel one way is better, can you tell me what the pros and cons are of
>one method over the other.
>
>It seems that if you can accomplish the task with a digital camcorder,
>you have a piece of equipment you can continue using once the analog
>tapes are converted. This is in contrast to the Canopus AVDC 100 or
>300, where once the conversion is done, what else can it be used for.

The big selling point of the Canopus boxes is that they lock sound and
vision in perfect synch.
Anonymous
August 10, 2004 2:47:10 PM

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

I get the impression that many of you shoot, edit, and then burn to
DVD. What do you do with your original source tape? Don't you save
them?

My oldest Hi-8 tapes are 12 years old. If DVD is not the answer, what
is a practical way to preserve them so that the content remains
editable?

I ask because I might want to edit the content on the original Hi-8
tapes one way this year, but next year may want to create another
presentation with the material edited differently.

It seems as though the answer to this question boils down to waiting
for practical and cost effective large storage to become a reality.


Kenn
August 10, 2004 2:50:53 PM

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

"KC" <clemke@email.toast.net> wrote in message
news:lUVRc.79890$vN3.53365@twister.rdc-kc.rr.com...
> RE: "eventual editing" My goal was to get the Hi-8 tapes into a digital
> format as is and burn them to DVD as an archive, and because at some point
I
> might just want to trot out the unedited DVDs and watch them. Doing that
> would get them in a more permanent format.
>
> And then as time permits, I was going to go and use those DVD "masters" as
> my source video for editing. I'm guessing from Richard's response that
Hi-8
> digitized to hard drive to compressed to DVD and later decompressed back
to
> hard drive for editing would result in degraded quality. Is that correct
> Richard? It just seemed as though keeping everything as shot in a digital
> format would be a good idea just to be able to go back if ever necessary.
> Not a good idea?
>
> Kenn.

Better would be to store the video on DV tape for editing. You'll lose too
much with the compression needed for DVD. You want the raw footage as close
to uncompressed as possible. DV is 5:1, but I don't think you'll see any
image degradation, given the original is Hi-8.
August 10, 2004 2:52:50 PM

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

"Mike Kujbida" <kujfam-misleadingspam@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:2nqo5iF3m9c3U1@uni-berlin.de...
> > Lets say you capture a whole 1-2 hour tape. When you capture, you
> > capture to your hard drive with minimal or no compression.. Which
> > means that your capture files are going to be HUGE!. An hour could
> > be as much
> > as 100 Gigs or more. How exactly will you be saving this for future
> > editing? Keep this in mind.
>
>
> 100 gigs/hr.? No way!! If captured in "standard" DV-avi format, it's
only
> 13 gigs/hr.

I think the point was that it was uncompressed. But the compression for DV
would not degrade the image quality of Hi-8 noticeably
August 10, 2004 2:58:02 PM

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

"kmc" <clemke@email.toast.net> wrote in message
news:96e10b2f.0408091427.4068e495@posting.google.com...
> I'm interested in converting my hi-8 tapes to digital for archiving
> and eventual editing.
>
> I've read that the Canopus AVDC 100 or 300 are good units for
> accomplishing this taak. Another method is to use a digital camcorders
> that has an analog to digital pass-through. Apparently this allows you
> to connect an analog source and use the digital camcorder's circuitry
> to make the analog to digital conversion.
>
> If you you've done either method, or even better, both methods, can
> you comment on which would yield the best picture quality. And if you
> feel one way is better, can you tell me what the pros and cons are of
> one method over the other.
>
> It seems that if you can accomplish the task with a digital camcorder,
> you have a piece of equipment you can continue using once the analog
> tapes are converted. This is in contrast to the Canopus AVDC 100 or
> 300, where once the conversion is done, what else can it be used for.
>
> Any advice would be appreciated

I think that transferring and storing on DV TAPE is the best way to go. For
one thing, you get a fixed compression of about 5:1, which won't degrade the
Hi-8 image quality in any noticeable way. For the compression ratio, you
also get more bang for the buck. If you MUST use DVD for storage, then
capture into AVI files and store them on DVD as DATA FILES, not as a movie.
You'll get less per disk (more like 20-25 minutes), but you'll have less
compression - and an easier time accessing the files for future editing.
Anonymous
August 10, 2004 7:56:06 PM

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

If you have a lot of tapes, buy a cheap <$300 digital 8 camcorder and
hook it up. It'll play all of your older tapes, and give you the
benefits of the digital format -- eg. transfers to PC.

the ADVC-100 is just the camcorder's converter section w/o the camcorder
parts, at practically the same price. No difference at all in quality
of transfers/conversions between the two.
Anonymous
August 10, 2004 7:58:47 PM

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

> that your capture files are going to be HUGE!. An hour could be as much
> as 100 Gigs or more. How exactly will you be saving this for future
> editing? Keep this in mind.

Ahem. Most people with a digital camcorder will simply be capturing
to DV AVI files at 13GB / hour since they can't capture the video stream
RAW from their camcorders anyways (know of no consumer level camcorders
that export in anything BUT DV anyways).

That's about 10 2 hour tapes per 250GB HD, at a cost of about $130
per 250GB HD today. (cheaper on sale)

Otherwise, capture/convert to high-rate MPEG-2 files (6000kbps+) and
you'll be fine.
Anonymous
August 10, 2004 8:06:32 PM

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

> I get the impression that many of you shoot, edit, and then burn to
> DVD. What do you do with your original source tape? Don't you save
> them?
>
> My oldest Hi-8 tapes are 12 years old. If DVD is not the answer, what
> is a practical way to preserve them so that the content remains
> editable?

Backup to other digital tape formats, such as Digital 8 or DV.
Realistically, tape is the only format that has proven itself to last
20+ years (eg. playable VHS tapes from decades ago exist), and the
digital tape formats add error correction to prevent dropout problems.

Other-wise, nothing cheap. You can try BluRay drives (at what?
$5000+ for the drive and $100+ for the disc) but they're too expensive.
Hard drives are far too expensive still unless $130 per 10 tapes is
cheap to you, but a HD won't last past 3-7 years in storage (bearings
will fail, etc.) since they're easily erased and weren't designed for
long-term non-operational storage.

Those with expensive AIT/ultra-high capacity PC tape backup drives
can backup to those huge 100GB+ tapes, but unless you're running an
expensive server farm, forget about even owning one.

In the end, if you want the original tape/quality stored safely for
years, backup the analog tape to a digital format (the conversion won't
lose anything of note), make multiple copies, and put away.

----

Converting to DVD (MPEG-2) format at high bitrates (6000+kbps) is
another idea, but don't expect the discs to last very long right now
(5-10 years max) since some of the earlier ones have already started to
delaminate and seperate, and since they're all glued together, they're
weaker than even CDs for long-term storage.

Here, picking the top brand (Maxell, DVD-R discs only labeled made in
Japan) is the best way to go. The lowest error-rates across multiple
brands of burners, made in Japan quality, and hopefully, they'll last...

david =)
Anonymous
August 10, 2004 11:20:11 PM

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

kmc wrote:

> My oldest Hi-8 tapes are 12 years old. If DVD is not the
> answer, what is a practical way to preserve them so that
> the content remains editable?

Copy them over to MiniDV tape, either by using a D8 camcorder
to transcode them into DV format (make sure you get a model
which can actually do this), or by playing them back in
your old Hi8 camcorder and recording the analog output
with a MiniDV camcorder (the MiniDV camcorder, of course,
needs to have the analog-in functionality.)

Whichever route you take, the DV(25) format is probably
the easiest way to get them into easily editable and widely
supported, "future-proof" digital format.

You could, of course, order a large batch of DVD±R(W)
blanks and burn everything on them, but you would need
six single-layer discs per one 2-hour Hi8 tape. (The dual-
layer drives and blanks could help, though I have no idea
of their current prices.)

Yet another way of dealing with the problem is purchasing
a sufficient number of large hard disks, transferring the
video on them, and storing them away in a safe place. For
example, you can get over 10 hours of DV25 video on a single
160 GB hard disk (which costs about $80...$100). You could
also buy some mobile racks for the HDDs, making it easier
to exchange the drives as needed without opening the case
or fiddling with screws and cables. (Additionally, you could
also buy new drives from time to time as they get bigger and
cheaper, and sell the old ones away.)

--
znark
Anonymous
August 11, 2004 6:28:53 PM

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

Thanks for the advice all

With your advice I have narrowed down my options to:

1. Do nothing. The Hi-8 tapes are not old enough (oldest is 12 years)
to be a problem.

2. Purchase either a digital 8 camcorder that is capable of playing
the Hi-8 tapes, or a MiniDV camcorder that has analog inputs to
connect the Hi-8 camcorder. But in either case, use them to get the
content on to digital tape.

3. Continue using the Hi-8 camcorder, but get a Canopus ADVC unit to
digitize the material if I want to edit it.

Thanks again for all the advice and for sharing your knowledge
Anonymous
August 11, 2004 6:35:39 PM

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

Thanks for the advice all

With your advice I have narrowed down my options to:

1. Do nothing. The Hi-8 tapes are not old enough (oldest is 12 years)
to be a problem.

2. Purchase either a digital 8 camcorder that is capable of playing
the Hi-8 tapes, or a MiniDV camcorder that has analog inputs to
connect the Hi-8 camcorder. But in either case, use them to get the
content on to digital tape.

3. Continue using the Hi-8 camcorder, but get a Canopus ADVC unit to
digitize the material if I want to edit it.

Thanks again for all the advice and for sharing your knowledge
!