DVD camcorder or MiniDV?

Archived from groups: alt.video.dvd.authoring,alt.video.dvd,rec.video,rec.video.production,rec.video.desktop (More info?)

Hello

I am in the market for a family-oriented (vacations, birthday parties,
etc) Camcorder and am looking for input on whether DVD or MiniDV is
the better option.

I WILL be doing video editing on the home computer. In addition, I am
looking for the longest battery life possible.

Budget is no more than $800 for the camera itself.

A quick look at the top sellers for both are

(DVD) Sony DCR-DVD201

(MiniDV) Sony DCR-HC20/HC40

any info is appreciated

thanks
55 answers Last reply
More about camcorder minidv
  1. Archived from groups: alt.video.dvd.authoring,alt.video.dvd,rec.video,rec.video.production,rec.video.desktop (More info?)

    Bill,

    If your home computer is up to the task (and this is a big if which I will
    expand upon below), I would opt for the DV tape format rather than record
    directly onto disk. My reasoning is as follows:

    1. The mpeg2 encoders found in DVD camcorders which do real-time encoding to
    the disk are generally weak, leaving artifacts which become especially
    apparent when you use the longer recording times.

    2. The inherent recording capacity of a miniDV tape is nominally 10 times as
    great as that of a mini DVD disk used in the DVD camcorders, thus capturing
    considerably more raw detail on the tape.

    3. The minDV tape is ultimately more precisely edited, since it contains far
    less compressed video and has a linear format with respect to time base.
    This makes for extremely precise edits and lessens the opportunity for time
    base issues like lip synch errors to appear later in the editing process.

    4. The media (miniDV tape) is less expensive.

    5. The miniDV camcorders and tapes have been around for nearly a decade and
    are reliable and very mature. The camcorders themselves typically have more
    features per dollar than the DVD style and there are a wider variety offered
    as well.

    Having made these points (and there are certainly good arguments to be made
    for the opposing choice as well), I want to briefly qualify the editing
    computer issue mentioned above.

    Your home computer, in order to do good editing on miniDV (tapes) which
    contain avi files, requires quite a bit of disk space for editing, typically
    50 to 100 GB would be recommended at a minimum, since these files are about
    22 GB per hour of recording. The home computer needs a fast processor (at
    least a couple gigahertz), a half a gig of RAM or more, and a relative;y
    fast I/O capability. The editing software for doing avi editing is extremely
    mature and stable, and ranges from shareware to some very nice high end
    predicts costing hundreds or even thousands. This format is, after all, what
    professionals use rather than editing mpeg2 files directly off a DVD.

    I and others would be glad to elaborate and help you make specific editing
    and authoring choices when you get to that stage.

    One final caution..........if you are someone looking for fast, simple, and
    basic........and are not really anxious to get into the more complex
    computer and editing approach I am proposing, then I would look for a simple
    DVD camcorder with the approach that a little editing on the computer and
    within the camcorder may be enough.

    Also....as regards camcorders in general......I have personally owned many
    over the years and keep coming back to Sony brand stuff despite occasional
    Canon, Panasonic, and other alternatives. I am not surprised that Sony still
    has "top selling" status in these areas based on your comment, and would buy
    another Sony without hesitation. Now if they would just drop the price of
    their new HD camcorder from $3700 a wee bit..............

    Smarty


    "Bill" <3726414@spamhole.com> wrote in message
    news:6eac4d8d.0410230849.7367bf4c@posting.google.com...
    > Hello
    >
    > I am in the market for a family-oriented (vacations, birthday parties,
    > etc) Camcorder and am looking for input on whether DVD or MiniDV is
    > the better option.
    >
    > I WILL be doing video editing on the home computer. In addition, I am
    > looking for the longest battery life possible.
    >
    > Budget is no more than $800 for the camera itself.
    >
    > A quick look at the top sellers for both are
    >
    > (DVD) Sony DCR-DVD201
    >
    > (MiniDV) Sony DCR-HC20/HC40
    >
    > any info is appreciated
    >
    > thanks
  2. Archived from groups: alt.video.dvd.authoring,alt.video.dvd,rec.video,rec.video.production,rec.video.desktop (More info?)

    Smarty wrote:
    > Bill,
    >
    <snip>
    > Your home computer, in order to do good editing on miniDV (tapes) which
    > contain avi files, requires quite a bit of disk space for editing, typically
    > 50 to 100 GB would be recommended at a minimum, since these files are about
    > 22 GB per hour of recording. The home computer needs a fast processor (at
    > least a couple gigahertz), a half a gig of RAM or more, and a relative;y
    > fast I/O capability. The editing software for doing avi editing is extremely
    > mature and stable, and ranges from shareware to some very nice high end
    > predicts costing hundreds or even thousands. This format is, after all, what
    > professionals use rather than editing mpeg2 files directly off a DVD.

    Although these are good recommendations for a video editing system, they
    are by no means the minimum requirements. For example, I started out
    serious video editing with an 800 MHz cpu and only 256 MB RAM. Of
    course, I have a much more capable system now, and that speeds up the
    job of editing quite a bit.

    The only performance requirement you really need to be concerned about
    is your hard drive. Check the required drive rotational speed and
    transfer rate for the software you will use. [That info is available
    from a variety of web sites.] If you have a fairly new desktop computer,
    you probably needn't worry, but some laptops and older computers aren't
    up to the task.

    BTW: A miniDV tape contains a DV data stream, not avi files. If you
    capture the data to a Windows computer, you will most likely store it in
    an avi file. Other platforms use different file types. But you don't
    need to worry about that.
  3. Archived from groups: alt.video.dvd.authoring,alt.video.dvd,rec.video,rec.video.production,rec.video.desktop (More info?)

    If you plan on editing your video on a computer, go with mini-DV. If you just
    want disks to play on your TV, and that is all you are ever going to do with
    your video, the disk is probably OK. It isn't like you can't edit these disks,
    but like someone else says, the on-the-fly MPEG2 encoders of these DVD
    camcorders is certainly not as clean as mini-DV.

    "Bill" <3726414@spamhole.com> wrote in message
    news:6eac4d8d.0410230849.7367bf4c@posting.google.com...
    > Hello
    >
    > I am in the market for a family-oriented (vacations, birthday parties,
    > etc) Camcorder and am looking for input on whether DVD or MiniDV is
    > the better option.
    >
    > I WILL be doing video editing on the home computer. In addition, I am
    > looking for the longest battery life possible.
    >
    > Budget is no more than $800 for the camera itself.
    >
    > A quick look at the top sellers for both are
    >
    > (DVD) Sony DCR-DVD201
    >
    > (MiniDV) Sony DCR-HC20/HC40
    >
    > any info is appreciated
    >
    > thanks
  4. Archived from groups: alt.video.dvd.authoring,alt.video.dvd,rec.video,rec.video.production,rec.video.desktop (More info?)

    I agree with Ed that the DV tape does not, strictly speaking, contain an avi
    file. The avi file format is a Windows concept, with very specific file
    format (actually Type 1 and Type 2 formats) which the camcorder does not
    inherently know or use. The capture device and its' driver need to know how
    to build an avi file during the transfer of the camcorder data using
    whatever operating system support is provided.

    Smarty


    "Ed Anson" <EdAnson@comcast.net> wrote in message
    news:MvednYImZ_y3BOfcRVn-pA@comcast.com...
    > Smarty wrote:
    >> Bill,
    >>
    > <snip>
    >> Your home computer, in order to do good editing on miniDV (tapes) which
    >> contain avi files, requires quite a bit of disk space for editing,
    >> typically 50 to 100 GB would be recommended at a minimum, since these
    >> files are about 22 GB per hour of recording. The home computer needs a
    >> fast processor (at least a couple gigahertz), a half a gig of RAM or
    >> more, and a relative;y fast I/O capability. The editing software for
    >> doing avi editing is extremely mature and stable, and ranges from
    >> shareware to some very nice high end predicts costing hundreds or even
    >> thousands. This format is, after all, what professionals use rather than
    >> editing mpeg2 files directly off a DVD.
    >
    > Although these are good recommendations for a video editing system, they
    > are by no means the minimum requirements. For example, I started out
    > serious video editing with an 800 MHz cpu and only 256 MB RAM. Of course,
    > I have a much more capable system now, and that speeds up the job of
    > editing quite a bit.
    >
    > The only performance requirement you really need to be concerned about is
    > your hard drive. Check the required drive rotational speed and transfer
    > rate for the software you will use. [That info is available from a variety
    > of web sites.] If you have a fairly new desktop computer, you probably
    > needn't worry, but some laptops and older computers aren't up to the task.
    >
    > BTW: A miniDV tape contains a DV data stream, not avi files. If you
    > capture the data to a Windows computer, you will most likely store it in
    > an avi file. Other platforms use different file types. But you don't need
    > to worry about that.
  5. Archived from groups: alt.video.dvd.authoring,alt.video.dvd,rec.video,rec.video.production,rec.video.desktop (More info?)

    "Ed Anson" <EdAnson@comcast.net> wrote in message
    news:MvednYImZ_y3BOfcRVn-pA@comcast.com...
    > Smarty wrote:
    >> Bill,
    > BTW: A miniDV tape contains a DV data stream, not avi files. If you
    > capture the data to a Windows computer, you will most likely store it in
    > an avi file. Other platforms use different file types. But you don't need
    > to worry about that.

    Ed,
    Are you positive about this? Because reading this forum for a long time, I
    see many posts about this subject and most come to the consensus that when
    you capture with a 1394 dv card, you aren't really capturing, more like just
    transferring the already digital dv-avi signal from tape to the HD for
    editing. The actual capturing encoding is done by the camera chips during
    the initial recording to tape. There is no further converting done when
    capturing( really transferring) to the hard drive.
    But I am only going by the threads I've read on here in the past.

    AnthonyR.
  6. Archived from groups: alt.video.dvd.authoring,alt.video.dvd,rec.video,rec.video.production,rec.video.desktop (More info?)

    AnthonyR wrote:
    > "Ed Anson" <EdAnson@comcast.net> wrote in message
    > news:MvednYImZ_y3BOfcRVn-pA@comcast.com...
    >
    >>Smarty wrote:
    >>
    >>>Bill,
    >>
    >>BTW: A miniDV tape contains a DV data stream, not avi files. If you
    >>capture the data to a Windows computer, you will most likely store it in
    >>an avi file. Other platforms use different file types. But you don't need
    >>to worry about that.
    >
    >
    > Ed,
    > Are you positive about this? Because reading this forum for a long time, I
    > see many posts about this subject and most come to the consensus that when
    > you capture with a 1394 dv card, you aren't really capturing, more like just
    > transferring the already digital dv-avi signal from tape to the HD for
    > editing. The actual capturing encoding is done by the camera chips during
    > the initial recording to tape. There is no further converting done when
    > capturing( really transferring) to the hard drive.
    > But I am only going by the threads I've read on here in the past.

    Yes, I'm positive about this. You are correct when you say that the
    conversion to digital form is done in the DV camera. You are also
    correct when you say that the FireWire just transfers the digital
    stream. However, that doesn't mean that the data are stored as AVI files
    on the tape.

    A DV tape does not have a file structure as such. It simply stores a DV
    data stream. AVI is one of several file types that can be used to store
    the digital data. I happen to use QuickTime files. Both file types store
    the same DV data, and differ only in how it is "wrapped" by the file
    format. Both file types can also store different video encodings, but
    that's another story.

    But (as I said before) this isn't terribly important. Just use whatever
    file format your software creates and consumes.


    >
    > AnthonyR.
    >
    >
    >
  7. Archived from groups: alt.video.dvd.authoring,alt.video.dvd,rec.video,rec.video.production,rec.video.desktop (More info?)

    In rec.video.production Smarty <nobody@nobody.com> wrote:
    : Your home computer, in order to do good editing on miniDV (tapes) which
    : contain avi files, requires quite a bit of disk space for editing, typically
    : 50 to 100 GB would be recommended at a minimum, since these files are about
    : 22 GB per hour of recording. The home computer needs a fast processor (at
    : least a couple gigahertz), a half a gig of RAM or more,

    I have only 256Mb memory and 1.4GHz processor. I use Vegas-Video,
    VirtualDub, TMPGE, DVD-Lab, Dynapel, CoolEdit, NTrack, and other
    software with no problems. However, I don't even want to talk
    about disk space. :)

    Scott
  8. Archived from groups: alt.video.dvd.authoring,alt.video.dvd,rec.video,rec.video.production,rec.video.desktop (More info?)

    Scott,

    Your post and one other both comment on using slower and less capable
    computers for video editing. It is entirely true that lesser machines can be
    used for video editing. My first video editing home computer was an Apple
    Quadra 660AV (about 13 years ago) with a 25 MHz processor and 32 MB of RAM
    and it was indeed a far less capable machine. My first Intel based PC for
    video editing was also of the same class. I mostly was suggesting a modern 2
    GHz 512MB (or better) machine to the original poster because none of us like
    to wait 24 hours or longer to render a two hour video! And machines of the
    class I recommend can be had for $400 if you know how to shop for them!
    Slower machines are a poor choice for this specific application.

    Smarty


    <sgordon@changethisparttohardbat.com> wrote in message
    news:i7Aed.670$_3.12221@typhoon.sonic.net...
    > In rec.video.production Smarty <nobody@nobody.com> wrote:
    > : Your home computer, in order to do good editing on miniDV (tapes) which
    > : contain avi files, requires quite a bit of disk space for editing,
    > typically
    > : 50 to 100 GB would be recommended at a minimum, since these files are
    > about
    > : 22 GB per hour of recording. The home computer needs a fast processor
    > (at
    > : least a couple gigahertz), a half a gig of RAM or more,
    >
    > I have only 256Mb memory and 1.4GHz processor. I use Vegas-Video,
    > VirtualDub, TMPGE, DVD-Lab, Dynapel, CoolEdit, NTrack, and other
    > software with no problems. However, I don't even want to talk
    > about disk space. :)
    >
    > Scott
    >
  9. Archived from groups: alt.video.dvd.authoring,alt.video.dvd,rec.video,rec.video.production,rec.video.desktop (More info?)

    Anthony, I would support you - FireWire just transfers video data so it
    must be avi format on the tape.
    Roman

    AnthonyR wrote:

    > Because reading this forum for a long time, I
    > see many posts about this subject and most come to the consensus that when
    > you capture with a 1394 dv card, you aren't really capturing, more like just
    > transferring the already digital dv-avi signal from tape to the HD for
    > editing.
  10. Archived from groups: alt.video.dvd.authoring,alt.video.dvd,rec.video,rec.video.production,rec.video.desktop (More info?)

    My question is: do these DVD camcorders till have firewire input/output like
    mini-DV camcorders?

    If they do have firewire, editing video might not be too bad. Quality would
    probably not be as good as straight mini-DV format, but certainly acceptable for
    many people. If these camcorders lack firewire input/output, I would for sure go
    with mini-DV.
  11. Archived from groups: alt.video.dvd.authoring,alt.video.dvd,rec.video,rec.video.production,rec.video.desktop (More info?)

    The camcorder mentioned by the OP uses USB2.

    "Bailey Savings & Loan" <nospam@no-spam.iwl> wrote in message
    news:x_zed.519902$8_6.501618@attbi_s04...
    > My question is: do these DVD camcorders till have firewire input/output
    > like mini-DV camcorders?
    >
    > If they do have firewire, editing video might not be too bad. Quality
    > would probably not be as good as straight mini-DV format, but certainly
    > acceptable for many people. If these camcorders lack firewire
    > input/output, I would for sure go with mini-DV.
    >
    >
    >
  12. Archived from groups: alt.video.dvd.authoring,alt.video.dvd,rec.video,rec.video.production,rec.video.desktop (More info?)

    "luminos" wrote ...
    > The camcorder mentioned by the OP uses USB2.

    Many (most?) camcorders have USB (1 or 2) for transferring
    still pictures. Doesn't preclude using Firewire for transfer of
    full-frame full-speed video (such as DV).

    We're still waiting for a list of camcorders that use USB2
    for transfer of DV video. So far, the list is empty.
  13. Archived from groups: alt.video.dvd.authoring,alt.video.dvd,rec.video,rec.video.production,rec.video.desktop (More info?)

    "Richard Crowley" <rcrowley7@xprt.net> wrote in message
    news:10nlkf6i827ld65@corp.supernews.com...
    > "luminos" wrote ...
    >> The camcorder mentioned by the OP uses USB2.
    >
    > Many (most?) camcorders have USB (1 or 2) for transferring
    > still pictures. Doesn't preclude using Firewire for transfer of
    > full-frame full-speed video (such as DV).
    >
    > We're still waiting for a list of camcorders that use USB2
    > for transfer of DV video. So far, the list is empty.
    >

    Nonsense. The Sony camcorder mention by the OP has USB2 transfer of video.
  14. Archived from groups: alt.video.dvd.authoring,alt.video.dvd,rec.video,rec.video.production,rec.video.desktop (More info?)

    > "Richard Crowley" wrote ...
    >> Many (most?) camcorders have USB (1 or 2) for transferring
    >> still pictures. Doesn't preclude using Firewire for transfer of
    >> full-frame full-speed video (such as DV).
    >>
    >> We're still waiting for a list of camcorders that use USB2
    >> for transfer of DV video. So far, the list is empty.

    "luminos" wrote ...
    > Nonsense. The Sony camcorder mention by the OP has USB2 transfer of
    > video.

    Perhaps we should define "video". Yes, the DCR-DVD201
    mentioned by the OP transfers "video" via USB2, but that is
    MPEG (having been previously encoded and stored on a mini-
    DVD-R disk).

    The list is still empty.

    Currently displayed on www.sonystyle.com....

    "USB Interface Allows digital still images and MPEG1 movies,
    stored on Memory Stick® Media, to be easily transferred to
    Microsoft® Windows® operating system compatible or
    Macintosh® computers equipped with USB terminals. Simply
    plug in the supplied USB cable from your camera to the
    computer's USB port for fast access to your pictures. "

    "i.LINK®2 DV Interface (IEEE1394) A high speed bi-directional
    digital video/audio communication between two compatible
    devices equipped with an IEEE1394 interface, including
    camcorders, digital VTRs and PCs."

    The OP asked whether Mini-DV or Mini-DVD was "better"
    and I don't think there is any serious contention that MPEG
    is higher quality than DV.
  15. Archived from groups: alt.video.dvd.authoring,alt.video.dvd,rec.video,rec.video.production,rec.video.desktop (More info?)

    "AnthonyR" <toomuchspam@tolisthere.com> wrote in message
    news:KTyed.33474$4C.7714133@twister.nyc.rr.com...
    >
    > "Ed Anson" <EdAnson@comcast.net> wrote in message
    > news:MvednYImZ_y3BOfcRVn-pA@comcast.com...
    >> Smarty wrote:
    >>> Bill,
    >> BTW: A miniDV tape contains a DV data stream, not avi files. If you
    >> capture the data to a Windows computer, you will most likely store it in
    >> an avi file. Other platforms use different file types. But you don't need
    >> to worry about that.
    >
    > Ed,
    > Are you positive about this? Because reading this forum for a long time, I
    > see many posts about this subject and most come to the consensus that when
    > you capture with a 1394 dv card, you aren't really capturing, more like
    > just transferring the already digital dv-avi signal from tape to the HD
    > for editing. The actual capturing encoding is done by the camera chips
    > during the initial recording to tape. There is no further converting done
    > when capturing( really transferring) to the hard drive.
    > But I am only going by the threads I've read on here in the past.
    >
    > AnthonyR.
    >
    >


    It is true that the encoded stream is not converted in any way. But your
    computer won't recognize what to do with it unless it is placed in an AVI
    wrapper. An AVI file does not define the encoding, which is why files with
    different encoding / codecs can have the same AVI extension. Among other
    things, the AVI wrapper tells your software what codec to use.

    --
    I am 3 of 10. Prepare to be assimilated.
  16. Archived from groups: alt.video.dvd.authoring,alt.video.dvd,rec.video,rec.video.production,rec.video.desktop (More info?)

    I agree with you Anthony, it is done at the camera and simply transferred
    across to the computer.

    "AnthonyR" <toomuchspam@tolisthere.com> wrote in message
    news:KTyed.33474$4C.7714133@twister.nyc.rr.com...
    >
    > "Ed Anson" <EdAnson@comcast.net> wrote in message
    > news:MvednYImZ_y3BOfcRVn-pA@comcast.com...
    >> Smarty wrote:
    >>> Bill,
    >> BTW: A miniDV tape contains a DV data stream, not avi files. If you
    >> capture the data to a Windows computer, you will most likely store it in
    >> an avi file. Other platforms use different file types. But you don't need
    >> to worry about that.
    >
    > Ed,
    > Are you positive about this? Because reading this forum for a long time, I
    > see many posts about this subject and most come to the consensus that when
    > you capture with a 1394 dv card, you aren't really capturing, more like
    > just transferring the already digital dv-avi signal from tape to the HD
    > for editing. The actual capturing encoding is done by the camera chips
    > during the initial recording to tape. There is no further converting done
    > when capturing( really transferring) to the hard drive.
    > But I am only going by the threads I've read on here in the past.
    >
    > AnthonyR.
    >
    >
    >
  17. Archived from groups: alt.video.dvd.authoring,alt.video.dvd,rec.video,rec.video.production,rec.video.desktop (More info?)

    Mini DV is better quality than MPEG2. the better quality the master is the
    better and correct me if I am wrong that mini dv edits with little or no
    loss. there are mpeg2 editors that retain un-edited portions. mini dv is
    more precise at cutting

    "Bill" <3726414@spamhole.com> wrote in message
    news:6eac4d8d.0410230849.7367bf4c@posting.google.com...
    > Hello
    >
    > I am in the market for a family-oriented (vacations, birthday parties,
    > etc) Camcorder and am looking for input on whether DVD or MiniDV is
    > the better option.
    >
    > I WILL be doing video editing on the home computer. In addition, I am
    > looking for the longest battery life possible.
    >
    > Budget is no more than $800 for the camera itself.
    >
    > A quick look at the top sellers for both are
    >
    > (DVD) Sony DCR-DVD201
    >
    > (MiniDV) Sony DCR-HC20/HC40
    >
    > any info is appreciated
    >
    > thanks
  18. Archived from groups: alt.video.dvd.authoring,alt.video.dvd,rec.video,rec.video.production,rec.video.desktop (More info?)

    "TigerMan" <nospam@antispam.com> wrote in message
    news:417ac6f4$0$10351$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au...
    > Mini DV is better quality than MPEG2. the better quality the master is the
    > better and correct me if I am wrong that mini dv edits with little or no
    > loss. there are mpeg2 editors that retain un-edited portions. mini dv is
    > more precise at cutting


    This is generally true, however, some of the newer Mpeg2 editors are frame
    accurate: They expand and rewrite the frames of I , B, P in software.
  19. Archived from groups: alt.video.dvd.authoring,alt.video.dvd,rec.video,rec.video.production,rec.video.desktop (More info?)

    Frame-based editing on an avi file (using miniDV format data) has a unique
    and linearly spaced frame each and every 30th of a second (in NTSC) so that
    an individual edit point could be 1/30th of a second away from its' nearest
    neighbor.

    Frame-based editing on an mpeg2 file, using groups of pictures (GOPs) which
    contain 15 frames apiece (the standard used for DVD encoding) can only be
    every half second apart, even if a software interpolator or some other
    "filter" or algorithm or method is used to try to simulate the transition
    between two adjacent frames.

    Thus, the precision of the edit of an mpeg2 file can only be effectively 15
    times more coarse (twice per second instead of 30 times per second). For
    most video, this is often enough, since things do not change to the human
    observer in most instances over such a short time span nor do they require
    such extreme precision in editing. The exceptions to this rule arise in high
    motion rate situations where edit points in one half second steps are just
    too coarse. The best example I am aware of is a diagonally moving black
    hockey puck traversing a white field of ice at high speed. The mpeg2
    algorithm itself has a very hard time with motion estimation with this type
    of content. And editing this type of material will surely reveal very ugly
    effects where the "splices" occur if you use an mpeg2 editor.

    If you are editing a 30 second television commercial and want to maintain
    precise, accurate, and smooth edits, the avi editor is unquestionably the
    right way to go. Home movies are usually much less demanding in this regard
    and could use an mpeg2 editor without noticeable problems, but there are
    certainly a lot of exceptions, ice hockey being a good one.

    Smarty


    "luminos" <logos1@trip.net> wrote in message
    news:10nli7g3eh2uf97@news20.forteinc.com...
    >
    > "TigerMan" <nospam@antispam.com> wrote in message
    > news:417ac6f4$0$10351$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au...
    >> Mini DV is better quality than MPEG2. the better quality the master is
    >> the better and correct me if I am wrong that mini dv edits with little or
    >> no loss. there are mpeg2 editors that retain un-edited portions. mini dv
    >> is more precise at cutting
    >
    >
    > This is generally true, however, some of the newer Mpeg2 editors are frame
    > accurate: They expand and rewrite the frames of I , B, P in software.
    >
    >
  20. Archived from groups: alt.video.dvd.authoring,alt.video.dvd,rec.video,rec.video.production,rec.video.desktop (More info?)

    "Smarty" <nobody@nobody.com> wrote in message
    news:19udnec3KbRub-fcRVn-oA@adelphia.com...
    > Frame-based editing on an avi file (using miniDV format data) has a unique
    > and linearly spaced frame each and every 30th of a second (in NTSC) so
    > that an individual edit point could be 1/30th of a second away from its'
    > nearest neighbor.
    >


    I suggest you try editing with VideoReDo. The edit points are not in .5
    seconds, and the algorithm is quite remarkable, providing edit points in
    hundreths of a second at the finest settings. It is very easy to see the
    actual movement with 1/30th of a second! After all, the DVD output
    algorithm for mpeg2 is 30 frames per second.
  21. Archived from groups: alt.video.dvd.authoring,alt.video.dvd,rec.video,rec.video.production,rec.video.desktop (More info?)

    luminos,

    VideoReDo really is an excellent program, and does reconstruct a 30 frame
    per second time base for editing. The left and right arrow keys do indeed
    step through the video content in 1/30th of a second clicks.

    However, the mpeg2 encoding scheme does not ensure discrete and unique and
    separate frames at this rate. Rather, it only encodes video whose motion
    vectors meet or exceed pre-determined thresholds. For the mpeg2 encoders
    which have user-specified motion estimation controls, then choosing the
    right thresholds for the specific type of video content could guarantee that
    the mpeg2 compressed stream does indeed have the necessary frame to frame
    detail to permit editing on these 30 samples per second to achieve absolute
    accuracy. For the vast majority of situations, especially in a consumer DVD
    camcorder, these thresholds are NOT user specified. More importantly, by the
    time VideoReDo sees the video content, the camera's encoder has made a lot
    of premature and incorrect assumptions about what to keep and what to
    discard, and has thrown away 90% of the "avi" sampled content which can
    NEVER be accurately regenerated. This is the very reason why multi-pass
    mpeg2 encoders, which first parse the video and build predictive and
    backward (B and P frame) candidates on the first pass before doing the
    actual mpeg2 encoding on the 2nd pass look so much better.

    My point before as well as now is that avi / linearly sampled and lightly
    compressed (non intraframe compressed) video from a miniDV camcorder has
    nearly 10 times the data to work with, and no "rash assumptions" about what
    a cheap hardware encoder would keep or discard as it runs "on-the-fly"
    attempting to write a DVD and throw away 90% of the data in the process. No
    amount of editing software sophistication can recover the original detail,
    despite appearances to the contrary.

    Does any of this matter in real, day to day editing? My opinion is that it
    matters a great deal for critical editing work and not much at all for most
    users who are merely doing home movies.

    Smarty


    "luminos" <logos1@trip.net> wrote in message
    news:10nm59eh4afuq0e@news20.forteinc.com...
    >
    > "Smarty" <nobody@nobody.com> wrote in message
    > news:19udnec3KbRub-fcRVn-oA@adelphia.com...
    >> Frame-based editing on an avi file (using miniDV format data) has a
    >> unique and linearly spaced frame each and every 30th of a second (in
    >> NTSC) so that an individual edit point could be 1/30th of a second away
    >> from its' nearest neighbor.
    >>
    >
    >
    > I suggest you try editing with VideoReDo. The edit points are not in .5
    > seconds, and the algorithm is quite remarkable, providing edit points in
    > hundreths of a second at the finest settings. It is very easy to see the
    > actual movement with 1/30th of a second! After all, the DVD output
    > algorithm for mpeg2 is 30 frames per second.
    >
    >
    >
  22. Archived from groups: alt.video.dvd.authoring,alt.video.dvd,rec.video,rec.video.production,rec.video.desktop (More info?)

    "Smarty" <nobody@nobody.com> wrote in message
    news:LZadnUXOmclasubcRVn-tg@adelphia.com...
    > luminos,
    >
    > VideoReDo really is an excellent program, and does reconstruct a 30 frame
    > per second time base for editing. The left and right arrow keys do indeed
    > step through the video content in 1/30th of a second clicks.
    >
    > However, the mpeg2 encoding scheme does not ensure discrete and unique and
    > separate frames at this rate. Rather, it only encodes video whose motion
    > vectors meet or exceed pre-determined thresholds. For the mpeg2 encoders
    > which have user-specified motion estimation controls, then choosing the
    > right thresholds for the specific type of video content could guarantee
    > that the mpeg2 compressed stream does indeed have the necessary frame to
    > frame detail to permit editing on these 30 samples per second to achieve
    > absolute accuracy. For the vast majority of situations, especially in a
    > consumer DVD camcorder, these thresholds are NOT user specified. More
    > importantly, by the time VideoReDo sees the video content, the camera's
    > encoder has made a lot of premature and incorrect assumptions about what
    > to keep and what to discard, and has thrown away 90% of the "avi" sampled
    > content which can NEVER be accurately regenerated. This is the very reason
    > why multi-pass mpeg2 encoders, which first parse the video and build
    > predictive and backward (B and P frame) candidates on the first pass
    > before doing the actual mpeg2 encoding on the 2nd pass look so much
    > better.
    >
    > My point before as well as now is that avi / linearly sampled and lightly
    > compressed (non intraframe compressed) video from a miniDV camcorder has
    > nearly 10 times the data to work with, and no "rash assumptions" about
    > what a cheap hardware encoder would keep or discard as it runs
    > "on-the-fly" attempting to write a DVD and throw away 90% of the data in
    > the process. No amount of editing software sophistication can recover the
    > original detail, despite appearances to the contrary.
    >
    > Does any of this matter in real, day to day editing? My opinion is that it
    > matters a great deal for critical editing work and not much at all for
    > most users who are merely doing home movies.
    >
    > Smarty


    I do not disagree with anything you say.
  23. Archived from groups: alt.video.dvd.authoring,alt.video.dvd,rec.video,rec.video.production,rec.video.desktop (More info?)

    luminos,

    I failed to say "Thank You" for mentioning VideoReDo. I was originally
    toying with the idea of buying TMPGE's new standalone MPEG2 editor, but your
    comment led me to take a look at VideReDo. I now feel like it should be the
    one to buy rather than TMPGE, and would not have considered it had you not
    brought it up.

    For whatever it is worth, I am doing most of my editing these days on mpeg2
    files, both from the PVR-250 boards and from my standalone recorder's VOB
    files. I really do appreciate how nicely VideReDo works, and I fed it a
    number of high-rate video streams with very rapid motion to see how the
    software behaves. Just as you said, it is a super product, and I will "vote"
    with my wallet!

    Thanks again,

    Smarty
    "luminos" <logos1@trip.net> wrote in message
    news:10nmd78sugg38a6@news20.forteinc.com...
    >
    > "Smarty" <nobody@nobody.com> wrote in message
    > news:LZadnUXOmclasubcRVn-tg@adelphia.com...
    >> luminos,
    >>
    >> VideoReDo really is an excellent program, and does reconstruct a 30 frame
    >> per second time base for editing. The left and right arrow keys do indeed
    >> step through the video content in 1/30th of a second clicks.
    >>
    >> However, the mpeg2 encoding scheme does not ensure discrete and unique
    >> and separate frames at this rate. Rather, it only encodes video whose
    >> motion vectors meet or exceed pre-determined thresholds. For the mpeg2
    >> encoders which have user-specified motion estimation controls, then
    >> choosing the right thresholds for the specific type of video content
    >> could guarantee that the mpeg2 compressed stream does indeed have the
    >> necessary frame to frame detail to permit editing on these 30 samples per
    >> second to achieve absolute accuracy. For the vast majority of situations,
    >> especially in a consumer DVD camcorder, these thresholds are NOT user
    >> specified. More importantly, by the time VideoReDo sees the video
    >> content, the camera's encoder has made a lot of premature and incorrect
    >> assumptions about what to keep and what to discard, and has thrown away
    >> 90% of the "avi" sampled content which can NEVER be accurately
    >> regenerated. This is the very reason why multi-pass mpeg2 encoders, which
    >> first parse the video and build predictive and backward (B and P frame)
    >> candidates on the first pass before doing the actual mpeg2 encoding on
    >> the 2nd pass look so much better.
    >>
    >> My point before as well as now is that avi / linearly sampled and lightly
    >> compressed (non intraframe compressed) video from a miniDV camcorder has
    >> nearly 10 times the data to work with, and no "rash assumptions" about
    >> what a cheap hardware encoder would keep or discard as it runs
    >> "on-the-fly" attempting to write a DVD and throw away 90% of the data in
    >> the process. No amount of editing software sophistication can recover the
    >> original detail, despite appearances to the contrary.
    >>
    >> Does any of this matter in real, day to day editing? My opinion is that
    >> it matters a great deal for critical editing work and not much at all for
    >> most users who are merely doing home movies.
    >>
    >> Smarty
    >
    >
    > I do not disagree with anything you say.
    >
    >
    >
  24. Archived from groups: alt.video.dvd.authoring,alt.video.dvd,rec.video,rec.video.production,rec.video.desktop (More info?)

    Hi Bill;

    I am not one of the experts here, not by a long shot. I want to get that
    straight. That being said, I was just in the same situation as you. I wanted
    to get a camcorder for family oriented home movies to send back home. I went
    to several stores and asked that almighty question "which is better.. miniDV
    or digital tape?" The question they put back to me was "how much editing are
    you going to be doing on your computer?". I was told that miniDV captures in
    mpeg while tape captures in AVI and mpeg is very limited to how much editing
    you can do to it. Since I wanted to do more than just add credits and a menu
    I choose the digital tape. It was that simple for me.

    As for the camera? I was tossing up between the Canon and the Sony. I have
    owned a couple Sony Hi8 before and was very pleased but the Canon was on
    special. I think I should have stayed with the Sony but in the end I took
    the better deal Canon. To be honest, I have had no problems with the Canon
    so far and am quite pleased. Mind you, this is just your typical family
    birthdays, plays, home movies with the kids as stars kinda deal. Nothing
    special.

    Hope that helped.

    Paul

    "Bailey Savings & Loan" <nospam@no-spam.iwl> wrote in message
    news:Puwed.294658$MQ5.87014@attbi_s52...
    > If you plan on editing your video on a computer, go with mini-DV. If you
    just
    > want disks to play on your TV, and that is all you are ever going to do
    with
    > your video, the disk is probably OK. It isn't like you can't edit these
    disks,
    > but like someone else says, the on-the-fly MPEG2 encoders of these DVD
    > camcorders is certainly not as clean as mini-DV.
    >
    > "Bill" <3726414@spamhole.com> wrote in message
    > news:6eac4d8d.0410230849.7367bf4c@posting.google.com...
    > > Hello
    > >
    > > I am in the market for a family-oriented (vacations, birthday parties,
    > > etc) Camcorder and am looking for input on whether DVD or MiniDV is
    > > the better option.
    > >
    > > I WILL be doing video editing on the home computer. In addition, I am
    > > looking for the longest battery life possible.
    > >
    > > Budget is no more than $800 for the camera itself.
    > >
    > > A quick look at the top sellers for both are
    > >
    > > (DVD) Sony DCR-DVD201
    > >
    > > (MiniDV) Sony DCR-HC20/HC40
    > >
    > > any info is appreciated
    > >
    > > thanks
    >
    >
  25. Archived from groups: alt.video.dvd.authoring,alt.video.dvd,rec.video,rec.video.production,rec.video.desktop (More info?)

    "nerdz_r_us" <nerdz_r_us@yahoo.com> wrote in message
    news:417aca4c$0$14204$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au...
    > Hi Bill;
    >
    > I am not one of the experts here, not by a long shot. I want to get that
    > straight. That being said, I was just in the same situation as you. I
    > wanted
    > to get a camcorder for family oriented home movies to send back home. I
    > went
    > to several stores and asked that almighty question "which is better..
    > miniDV
    > or digital tape?"

    Bill, just to interject here...I assume you mean miniDVD as opposed to
    digital tape, right?
    Because miniDV is digital tape, so that might confuse people.

    miniDV (digital tape) is different from miniDVD, these companies don't make
    it easy, do they?
    LOL

    AnthonyR.
  26. Archived from groups: alt.video.dvd,rec.video,rec.video.production,rec.video.desktop (More info?)

    "nerdz_r_us" <nerdz_r_us@yahoo.com> writes:
    > I am not one of the experts here, not by a long shot. I want to get that
    > straight. That being said, I was just in the same situation as you. I wanted
    > to get a camcorder for family oriented home movies to send back home.

    For most amateur purposes, the DVD video quality is fine, but
    unfortunately all DVD camcorders I know of use those mini-DVD's that
    only hold 30 minutes of video at full rate. Mini-DV holds 1 hour and
    hi-8 (what I use right now) holds two hours. I think of getting a
    Mini-DV camera but what I really want is a full sized DVD camera that
    uses normal DVD-R or DVD+R. The camera would be about the size of my
    hi-8 camera but would hold 2 hours of video on a 4.7 gb disc, 3 hours
    on the new dual layer discs. Why does nobody make those?
  27. Archived from groups: alt.video.dvd.authoring,alt.video.dvd,rec.video,rec.video.production,rec.video.desktop (More info?)

    which mpeg2 editors can do that?

    "luminos" <logos1@trip.net> wrote in message
    news:10nli7g3eh2uf97@news20.forteinc.com...
    >
    > "TigerMan" <nospam@antispam.com> wrote in message
    > news:417ac6f4$0$10351$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au...
    >> Mini DV is better quality than MPEG2. the better quality the master is
    >> the better and correct me if I am wrong that mini dv edits with little or
    >> no loss. there are mpeg2 editors that retain un-edited portions. mini dv
    >> is more precise at cutting
    >
    >
    > This is generally true, however, some of the newer Mpeg2 editors are frame
    > accurate: They expand and rewrite the frames of I , B, P in software.
    >
    >
  28. Archived from groups: alt.video.dvd.authoring,alt.video.dvd,rec.video,rec.video.production,rec.video.desktop (More info?)

    "TigerMan" <nospam@antispam.com> wrote in message
    news:417acafc$0$11774$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au...
    > which mpeg2 editors can do that?


    http://www.brothersoft.com/Multimedia_Graphics_Video_Tools_VideoReDo_QuickEdit_29564.html

    Among others.
  29. Archived from groups: alt.video.dvd.authoring,alt.video.dvd,rec.video,rec.video.production,rec.video.desktop (More info?)

    "TigerMan" <nospam@antispam.com> wrote in message
    news:417acafc$0$11774$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au...
    > which mpeg2 editors can do that?
    >
    > "luminos" <logos1@trip.net> wrote in message
    > news:10nli7g3eh2uf97@news20.forteinc.com...
    >>
    >> "TigerMan" <nospam@antispam.com> wrote in message
    >> news:417ac6f4$0$10351$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au...
    >>> Mini DV is better quality than MPEG2. the better quality the master is
    >>> the better and correct me if I am wrong that mini dv edits with little
    >>> or no loss. there are mpeg2 editors that retain un-edited portions. mini
    >>> dv is more precise at cutting
    >>
    >>
    >> This is generally true, however, some of the newer Mpeg2 editors are
    >> frame accurate: They expand and rewrite the frames of I , B, P in
    >> software.
    >>
    >>
    >
    >

    I just tried the new Main Concept MPEG PRO Plug v.1.04 in for Premiere Pro,
    it's amazing!
    It allows you to do frame accurate editing on all types of Mpeg files right
    on the timeline, just like it's dv-avi.

    But please don't confuse this with the regular, Main Concept Mpeg Plug in
    encoder which is just used for encoding the final output to mpeg video from
    the timeline, the 2 products are similarly named and can be confused!
    It's the $250 Plug in, I am talking about, or more for the HD Version.
    There is a demo on their site, it is amazing the editing ability of mpeg in
    premiere pro, to bad adobe doesn't include this, maybe in the next upgrade?
    Here is the link:
    http://www.mainconcept.com/mpeg_pro.shtml#standard

    and demo link:
    http://downloads.mainconcept.com/fdl.php?downloads.mainconcept.com+MPEGProv1.0.4+mpegprov1.0.4.exe

    this has changed how I think about editing in mpeg in Premiere, in fact with
    this plug in you can capture directly to Premiere Pro in Mpeg2 from a dv
    camcorder or a miniDVD camcorder, and edit in Mpeg2 on the timeline and it
    will only render the changes with smart rendering to preserve the quality
    and save much time.
    Too bad it costs so much as a plug in, plus the price of Premiere pro, but I
    suspect with the new Liquid Edition 6 doing native frame accurate mpeg
    editing now, that this will become more common.

    AnthonyR.
  30. Archived from groups: alt.video.dvd.authoring,alt.video.dvd,rec.video,rec.video.production,rec.video.desktop (More info?)

    great, thanks

    "luminos" <logos1@trip.net> wrote in message
    news:10nlja5nu5dpv33@news20.forteinc.com...
    >
    > "TigerMan" <nospam@antispam.com> wrote in message
    > news:417acafc$0$11774$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au...
    >> which mpeg2 editors can do that?
    >
    >
    > http://www.brothersoft.com/Multimedia_Graphics_Video_Tools_VideoReDo_QuickEdit_29564.html
    >
    > Among others.
    >
    >
  31. Archived from groups: alt.video.dvd.authoring,alt.video.dvd,rec.video,rec.video.production,rec.video.desktop (More info?)

    he may mean Micro DV

    "AnthonyR" <toomuchspam@tolisthere.com> wrote in message
    news:vzAed.174891$4h7.32895313@twister.nyc.rr.com...
    >
    > "nerdz_r_us" <nerdz_r_us@yahoo.com> wrote in message
    > news:417aca4c$0$14204$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au...
    >> Hi Bill;
    >>
    >> I am not one of the experts here, not by a long shot. I want to get that
    >> straight. That being said, I was just in the same situation as you. I
    >> wanted
    >> to get a camcorder for family oriented home movies to send back home. I
    >> went
    >> to several stores and asked that almighty question "which is better..
    >> miniDV
    >> or digital tape?"
    >
    > Bill, just to interject here...I assume you mean miniDVD as opposed to
    > digital tape, right?
    > Because miniDV is digital tape, so that might confuse people.
    >
    > miniDV (digital tape) is different from miniDVD, these companies don't
    > make it easy, do they?
    > LOL
    >
    > AnthonyR.
    >
    >
    >
  32. Archived from groups: alt.video.dvd.authoring,alt.video.dvd,rec.video,rec.video.production,rec.video.desktop (More info?)

    yeah that is a good program and has smart rendering in it as well for the
    unedited parts of the video. it would be good to see that as standard in
    Premiere Pro 2

    "AnthonyR" <toomuchspam@tolisthere.com> wrote in message
    news:RHAed.174896$4h7.32898150@twister.nyc.rr.com...
    >
    > "TigerMan" <nospam@antispam.com> wrote in message
    > news:417acafc$0$11774$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au...
    >> which mpeg2 editors can do that?
    >>
    >> "luminos" <logos1@trip.net> wrote in message
    >> news:10nli7g3eh2uf97@news20.forteinc.com...
    >>>
    >>> "TigerMan" <nospam@antispam.com> wrote in message
    >>> news:417ac6f4$0$10351$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au...
    >>>> Mini DV is better quality than MPEG2. the better quality the master is
    >>>> the better and correct me if I am wrong that mini dv edits with little
    >>>> or no loss. there are mpeg2 editors that retain un-edited portions.
    >>>> mini dv is more precise at cutting
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> This is generally true, however, some of the newer Mpeg2 editors are
    >>> frame accurate: They expand and rewrite the frames of I , B, P in
    >>> software.
    >>>
    >>>
    >>
    >>
    >
    > I just tried the new Main Concept MPEG PRO Plug v.1.04 in for Premiere
    > Pro, it's amazing!
    > It allows you to do frame accurate editing on all types of Mpeg files
    > right on the timeline, just like it's dv-avi.
    >
    > But please don't confuse this with the regular, Main Concept Mpeg Plug in
    > encoder which is just used for encoding the final output to mpeg video
    > from the timeline, the 2 products are similarly named and can be confused!
    > It's the $250 Plug in, I am talking about, or more for the HD Version.
    > There is a demo on their site, it is amazing the editing ability of mpeg
    > in premiere pro, to bad adobe doesn't include this, maybe in the next
    > upgrade?
    > Here is the link:
    > http://www.mainconcept.com/mpeg_pro.shtml#standard
    >
    > and demo link:
    > http://downloads.mainconcept.com/fdl.php?downloads.mainconcept.com+MPEGProv1.0.4+mpegprov1.0.4.exe
    >
    > this has changed how I think about editing in mpeg in Premiere, in fact
    > with this plug in you can capture directly to Premiere Pro in Mpeg2 from a
    > dv camcorder or a miniDVD camcorder, and edit in Mpeg2 on the timeline and
    > it will only render the changes with smart rendering to preserve the
    > quality and save much time.
    > Too bad it costs so much as a plug in, plus the price of Premiere pro, but
    > I suspect with the new Liquid Edition 6 doing native frame accurate mpeg
    > editing now, that this will become more common.
    >
    > AnthonyR.
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
  33. Archived from groups: alt.video.dvd.authoring,alt.video.dvd,rec.video,rec.video.production,rec.video.desktop (More info?)

    "AnthonyR" <toomuchspam@tolisthere.com> wrote in message
    news:KTyed.33474$4C.7714133@twister.nyc.rr.com...
    >
    > "Ed Anson" <EdAnson@comcast.net> wrote in message
    > news:MvednYImZ_y3BOfcRVn-pA@comcast.com...
    > > Smarty wrote:
    > >> Bill,
    > > BTW: A miniDV tape contains a DV data stream, not avi files. If you
    > > capture the data to a Windows computer, you will most likely store it in
    > > an avi file. Other platforms use different file types. But you don't
    need
    > > to worry about that.
    >
    > Ed,
    > Are you positive about this?

    He's right. AVI is just a file wrapper which can hold data in a variety of
    formats. MiniDV uses the DV25 format and does not use an AVI file. When
    you "capture" miniDV, you are merely transferring the data from the
    DV25-formatted tape to an AVI-formatted file on the computer.

    >Because reading this forum for a long time, I
    > see many posts about this subject and most come to the consensus that when
    > you capture with a 1394 dv card, you aren't really capturing, more like
    just
    > transferring the already digital dv-avi signal from tape to the HD for
    > editing. The actual capturing encoding is done by the camera chips during
    > the initial recording to tape. There is no further converting done when
    > capturing( really transferring) to the hard drive.
    > But I am only going by the threads I've read on here in the past.
    >
    > AnthonyR.
    >
    >
    >
  34. Archived from groups: alt.video.dvd.authoring,alt.video.dvd,rec.video,rec.video.production,rec.video.desktop (More info?)

    "nerdz_r_us" <nerdz_r_us@yahoo.com> wrote in message
    news:417aca4c$0$14204$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au...
    > Hi Bill;
    >
    > I am not one of the experts here, not by a long shot. I want to get that
    > straight. That being said, I was just in the same situation as you. I
    wanted
    > to get a camcorder for family oriented home movies to send back home. I
    went
    > to several stores and asked that almighty question "which is better..
    miniDV
    > or digital tape?"

    If, by "digital tape," you mean Digital 8, they are, in theory, identical in
    quality. Both formats store data in DV25 format, and both can be
    transferred to a computer for editing. However, in practice, Digital 8 is a
    low-end consumer format, meaning that the cameras will be of poorer
    quality -- poorer electronics, optics, etc.


    > The question they put back to me was "how much editing are
    > you going to be doing on your computer?". I was told that miniDV captures
    in
    > mpeg while tape captures in AVI and mpeg is very limited to how much
    editing
    > you can do to it. Since I wanted to do more than just add credits and a
    menu
    > I choose the digital tape. It was that simple for me.
    >
    > As for the camera? I was tossing up between the Canon and the Sony. I have
    > owned a couple Sony Hi8 before and was very pleased but the Canon was on
    > special. I think I should have stayed with the Sony but in the end I took
    > the better deal Canon. To be honest, I have had no problems with the Canon
    > so far and am quite pleased. Mind you, this is just your typical family
    > birthdays, plays, home movies with the kids as stars kinda deal. Nothing
    > special.
    >
    > Hope that helped.
    >
    > Paul
    >
    > "Bailey Savings & Loan" <nospam@no-spam.iwl> wrote in message
    > news:Puwed.294658$MQ5.87014@attbi_s52...
    > > If you plan on editing your video on a computer, go with mini-DV. If you
    > just
    > > want disks to play on your TV, and that is all you are ever going to do
    > with
    > > your video, the disk is probably OK. It isn't like you can't edit these
    > disks,
    > > but like someone else says, the on-the-fly MPEG2 encoders of these DVD
    > > camcorders is certainly not as clean as mini-DV.
    > >
    > > "Bill" <3726414@spamhole.com> wrote in message
    > > news:6eac4d8d.0410230849.7367bf4c@posting.google.com...
    > > > Hello
    > > >
    > > > I am in the market for a family-oriented (vacations, birthday parties,
    > > > etc) Camcorder and am looking for input on whether DVD or MiniDV is
    > > > the better option.
    > > >
    > > > I WILL be doing video editing on the home computer. In addition, I am
    > > > looking for the longest battery life possible.
    > > >
    > > > Budget is no more than $800 for the camera itself.
    > > >
    > > > A quick look at the top sellers for both are
    > > >
    > > > (DVD) Sony DCR-DVD201
    > > >
    > > > (MiniDV) Sony DCR-HC20/HC40
    > > >
    > > > any info is appreciated
    > > >
    > > > thanks
    > >
    > >
    >
    >
  35. Archived from groups: alt.video.dvd,rec.video,rec.video.production,rec.video.desktop (More info?)

    "Paul Rubin" <http://phr.cx@NOSPAM.invalid> wrote in message
    news:7xbret3tqy.fsf@ruckus.brouhaha.com...
    > "nerdz_r_us" <nerdz_r_us@yahoo.com> writes:
    > > I am not one of the experts here, not by a long shot. I want to get that
    > > straight. That being said, I was just in the same situation as you. I
    wanted
    > > to get a camcorder for family oriented home movies to send back home.
    >
    > For most amateur purposes, the DVD video quality is fine, but
    > unfortunately all DVD camcorders I know of use those mini-DVD's that
    > only hold 30 minutes of video at full rate. Mini-DV holds 1 hour and
    > hi-8 (what I use right now) holds two hours.


    MiniDV holds 60 minutes at standard play and 90 minutes at extended play.
    Note, too, that there is no difference in quality between standard and
    extended play -- it's the same data, just packed more closely in extended.
    There is a greater risk of drop outs, and may be compatibility issues with
    other camcorders, but extended play video quality is identical to standard
    play.

    Also note that there are miniDV tapes available that will provide up to 2
    hours recording time at extended play.

    > I think of getting a
    > Mini-DV camera but what I really want is a full sized DVD camera that
    > uses normal DVD-R or DVD+R. The camera would be about the size of my
    > hi-8 camera but would hold 2 hours of video on a 4.7 gb disc, 3 hours
    > on the new dual layer discs. Why does nobody make those?
  36. Archived from groups: alt.video.dvd.authoring,alt.video.dvd,rec.video,rec.video.production,rec.video.desktop (More info?)

    On Sat, 23 Oct 2004 13:12:37 -0400, "Smarty" <nobody@nobody.com>
    wrote:

    >Bill,
    >
    >If your home computer is up to the task (and this is a big if which I will
    >expand upon below), I would opt for the DV tape format rather than record
    >directly onto disk. My reasoning is as follows:
    >
    >1. The mpeg2 encoders found in DVD camcorders which do real-time encoding to
    >the disk are generally weak, leaving artifacts which become especially
    >apparent when you use the longer recording times.
    >
    >2. The inherent recording capacity of a miniDV tape is nominally 10 times as
    >great as that of a mini DVD disk used in the DVD camcorders, thus capturing
    >considerably more raw detail on the tape.
    >
    >3. The minDV tape is ultimately more precisely edited, since it contains far
    >less compressed video and has a linear format with respect to time base.
    >This makes for extremely precise edits and lessens the opportunity for time
    >base issues like lip synch errors to appear later in the editing process.
    >
    >4. The media (miniDV tape) is less expensive.
    >
    >5. The miniDV camcorders and tapes have been around for nearly a decade and
    >are reliable and very mature. The camcorders themselves typically have more
    >features per dollar than the DVD style and there are a wider variety offered
    >as well.
    >
    >Having made these points (and there are certainly good arguments to be made
    >for the opposing choice as well), I want to briefly qualify the editing
    >computer issue mentioned above.
    >
    >Your home computer, in order to do good editing on miniDV (tapes) which
    >contain avi files, requires quite a bit of disk space for editing, typically
    >50 to 100 GB would be recommended at a minimum, since these files are about
    >22 GB per hour of recording. The home computer needs a fast processor (at
    >least a couple gigahertz), a half a gig of RAM or more, and a relative;y
    >fast I/O capability. The editing software for doing avi editing is extremely
    >mature and stable, and ranges from shareware to some very nice high end
    >predicts costing hundreds or even thousands. This format is, after all, what
    >professionals use rather than editing mpeg2 files directly off a DVD.
    >
    >I and others would be glad to elaborate and help you make specific editing
    >and authoring choices when you get to that stage.
    >
    >One final caution..........if you are someone looking for fast, simple, and
    >basic........and are not really anxious to get into the more complex
    >computer and editing approach I am proposing, then I would look for a simple
    >DVD camcorder with the approach that a little editing on the computer and
    >within the camcorder may be enough.
    >
    >Also....as regards camcorders in general......I have personally owned many
    >over the years and keep coming back to Sony brand stuff despite occasional
    >Canon, Panasonic, and other alternatives. I am not surprised that Sony still
    >has "top selling" status in these areas based on your comment, and would buy
    >another Sony without hesitation. Now if they would just drop the price of
    >their new HD camcorder from $3700 a wee bit..............
    >
    >Smarty
    >
    >
    >"Bill" <3726414@spamhole.com> wrote in message
    >news:6eac4d8d.0410230849.7367bf4c@posting.google.com...
    >> Hello
    >>
    >> I am in the market for a family-oriented (vacations, birthday parties,
    >> etc) Camcorder and am looking for input on whether DVD or MiniDV is
    >> the better option.
    >>
    >> I WILL be doing video editing on the home computer. In addition, I am
    >> looking for the longest battery life possible.
    >>
    >> Budget is no more than $800 for the camera itself.
    >>
    >> A quick look at the top sellers for both are
    >>
    >> (DVD) Sony DCR-DVD201
    >>
    >> (MiniDV) Sony DCR-HC20/HC40
    >>
    >> any info is appreciated
    >>
    >> thanks
    >

    Seperate , dedicated HD for the video editing...plain and simple.
  37. Archived from groups: alt.video.dvd.authoring,alt.video.dvd,rec.video,rec.video.production,rec.video.desktop (More info?)

    On Sat, 23 Oct 2004 22:36:47 +0200, Roman Svihorik
    <gemini@post.mbc.sk> wrote:

    >Anthony, I would support you - FireWire just transfers video data so it
    >must be avi format on the tape.
    >Roman
    >
    >AnthonyR wrote:
    >
    >> Because reading this forum for a long time, I
    >> see many posts about this subject and most come to the consensus that when
    >> you capture with a 1394 dv card, you aren't really capturing, more like just
    >> transferring the already digital dv-avi signal from tape to the HD for
    >> editing.


    It is in DV format on the tape AND in DV format in the captured .avi
    file....... .avi is just a shell for different types of formats.
  38. Archived from groups: alt.video.dvd.authoring,alt.video.dvd,rec.video,rec.video.production,rec.video.desktop (More info?)

    Tigerman,
    yes I agree, it would be good for Premiere pro 2, especially if the upgrade
    is only $99 or $149 for registered users, then they can save from the cost
    of $250 for the plug in. :)
    Let's wait and see what else they can add.
    But with newer dvd camera's coming out everyday which capture already in
    mpeg2 and maybe some high definition models will use mpeg4 to fit all that
    info, editing directly on mpeg will makes sense at that point.

    I see the point about mpeg2 being very lossy as a capture format but
    considering how much more info a hdtv picture will have to begin with, maybe
    a higher compression capture scheme will be necessary, unless they start
    making blu-ray camera devices.

    AnthonyR.


    "TigerMan" <nospam@antispam.com> wrote in message
    news:417ae354$0$14203$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au...
    > yeah that is a good program and has smart rendering in it as well for the
    > unedited parts of the video. it would be good to see that as standard in
    > Premiere Pro 2
    >
    > "AnthonyR" <toomuchspam@tolisthere.com> wrote in message
    > news:RHAed.174896$4h7.32898150@twister.nyc.rr.com...
    >>
    >> "TigerMan" <nospam@antispam.com> wrote in message
    >> news:417acafc$0$11774$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au...
    >>> which mpeg2 editors can do that?
    >>>
    >>> "luminos" <logos1@trip.net> wrote in message
    >>> news:10nli7g3eh2uf97@news20.forteinc.com...
    >>>>
    >>>> "TigerMan" <nospam@antispam.com> wrote in message
    >>>> news:417ac6f4$0$10351$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au...
    >>>>> Mini DV is better quality than MPEG2. the better quality the master is
    >>>>> the better and correct me if I am wrong that mini dv edits with little
    >>>>> or no loss. there are mpeg2 editors that retain un-edited portions.
    >>>>> mini dv is more precise at cutting
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>> This is generally true, however, some of the newer Mpeg2 editors are
    >>>> frame accurate: They expand and rewrite the frames of I , B, P in
    >>>> software.
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>
    >> I just tried the new Main Concept MPEG PRO Plug v.1.04 in for Premiere
    >> Pro, it's amazing!
    >> It allows you to do frame accurate editing on all types of Mpeg files
    >> right on the timeline, just like it's dv-avi.
    >>
    >> But please don't confuse this with the regular, Main Concept Mpeg Plug in
    >> encoder which is just used for encoding the final output to mpeg video
    >> from the timeline, the 2 products are similarly named and can be
    >> confused!
    >> It's the $250 Plug in, I am talking about, or more for the HD Version.
    >> There is a demo on their site, it is amazing the editing ability of mpeg
    >> in premiere pro, to bad adobe doesn't include this, maybe in the next
    >> upgrade?
    >> Here is the link:
    >> http://www.mainconcept.com/mpeg_pro.shtml#standard
    >>
    >> and demo link:
    >> http://downloads.mainconcept.com/fdl.php?downloads.mainconcept.com+MPEGProv1.0.4+mpegprov1.0.4.exe
    >>
    >> this has changed how I think about editing in mpeg in Premiere, in fact
    >> with this plug in you can capture directly to Premiere Pro in Mpeg2 from
    >> a dv camcorder or a miniDVD camcorder, and edit in Mpeg2 on the timeline
    >> and it will only render the changes with smart rendering to preserve the
    >> quality and save much time.
    >> Too bad it costs so much as a plug in, plus the price of Premiere pro,
    >> but I suspect with the new Liquid Edition 6 doing native frame accurate
    >> mpeg editing now, that this will become more common.
    >>
    >> AnthonyR.
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >
    >
  39. Archived from groups: alt.video.dvd.authoring,alt.video.dvd,rec.video,rec.video.production,rec.video.desktop (More info?)

    Not so far. MPEG2 format can not be edited as easy as avi format.
    Format is the point. Not transfer line.
    Roman

    Bailey Savings & Loan wrote:
    > My question is: do these DVD camcorders till have firewire input/output like
    > mini-DV camcorders?
    > If they do have firewire, editing video might not be too bad. Quality would
    > probably not be as good as straight mini-DV format, but certainly acceptable for
    > many people. If these camcorders lack firewire input/output, I would for sure go
    > with mini-DV.
  40. Archived from groups: alt.video.dvd.authoring,alt.video.dvd,rec.video,rec.video.production,rec.video.desktop (More info?)

    "Smarty" <nobody@nobody.com> wrote in message
    news:64OdnZwdetsAqubcRVn-pw@adelphia.com...
    > luminos,
    >
    > I failed to say "Thank You" for mentioning VideoReDo. I was originally
    > toying with the idea of buying TMPGE's new standalone MPEG2 editor, but
    > your comment led me to take a look at VideReDo. I now feel like it should
    > be the one to buy rather than TMPGE, and would not have considered it had
    > you not brought it up.
    >
    > For whatever it is worth, I am doing most of my editing these days on
    > mpeg2 files, both from the PVR-250 boards and from my standalone
    > recorder's VOB files. I really do appreciate how nicely VideReDo works,
    > and I fed it a number of high-rate video streams with very rapid motion to
    > see how the software behaves. Just as you said, it is a super product, and
    > I will "vote" with my wallet!
    >
    > Thanks again,
    >
    > Smarty

    Guys, I too feel the same way about everything you both said, and find
    myself in the same boat editing video captures from my WinTV PVR board and
    standalone VOB files in mpeg also. For those video's it is appropriate.
    That is also why I was amazed at the main concept mpeg pro plug in cause it
    let me capture directly in premiere pro using the plug-in to recognize my
    Hauppauge TV Tuner and edit the mpeg captured directly on the premiere
    timeline.
    I tried VideoReDo,a nd think it's a great program also, but I like using my
    normal editor that I am use to more.
    So both ways are good solutions when having to deal with mpeg files.
    :)

    AnthonyR.
  41. Archived from groups: alt.video.dvd.authoring,alt.video.dvd,rec.video,rec.video.production,rec.video.desktop (More info?)

    or even a camera with a HDD. JVC are about to release one with a memory card
    and think it is MPEG2 format. i had a JVC mini DV but swapped it for a Canon
    and glad I did, the JVC was a poor camera so hope they improve their quality
    with these new models

    "AnthonyR" <toomuchspam@tolisthere.com> wrote in message
    news:fJVed.96730$Ot3.54425@twister.nyc.rr.com...
    > Tigerman,
    > yes I agree, it would be good for Premiere pro 2, especially if the
    > upgrade is only $99 or $149 for registered users, then they can save from
    > the cost of $250 for the plug in. :)
    > Let's wait and see what else they can add.
    > But with newer dvd camera's coming out everyday which capture already in
    > mpeg2 and maybe some high definition models will use mpeg4 to fit all that
    > info, editing directly on mpeg will makes sense at that point.
    >
    > I see the point about mpeg2 being very lossy as a capture format but
    > considering how much more info a hdtv picture will have to begin with,
    > maybe a higher compression capture scheme will be necessary, unless they
    > start making blu-ray camera devices.
    >
    > AnthonyR.
    >
    >
    > "TigerMan" <nospam@antispam.com> wrote in message
    > news:417ae354$0$14203$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au...
    >> yeah that is a good program and has smart rendering in it as well for the
    >> unedited parts of the video. it would be good to see that as standard in
    >> Premiere Pro 2
    >>
    >> "AnthonyR" <toomuchspam@tolisthere.com> wrote in message
    >> news:RHAed.174896$4h7.32898150@twister.nyc.rr.com...
    >>>
    >>> "TigerMan" <nospam@antispam.com> wrote in message
    >>> news:417acafc$0$11774$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au...
    >>>> which mpeg2 editors can do that?
    >>>>
    >>>> "luminos" <logos1@trip.net> wrote in message
    >>>> news:10nli7g3eh2uf97@news20.forteinc.com...
    >>>>>
    >>>>> "TigerMan" <nospam@antispam.com> wrote in message
    >>>>> news:417ac6f4$0$10351$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au...
    >>>>>> Mini DV is better quality than MPEG2. the better quality the master
    >>>>>> is the better and correct me if I am wrong that mini dv edits with
    >>>>>> little or no loss. there are mpeg2 editors that retain un-edited
    >>>>>> portions. mini dv is more precise at cutting
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>> This is generally true, however, some of the newer Mpeg2 editors are
    >>>>> frame accurate: They expand and rewrite the frames of I , B, P in
    >>>>> software.
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>
    >>> I just tried the new Main Concept MPEG PRO Plug v.1.04 in for Premiere
    >>> Pro, it's amazing!
    >>> It allows you to do frame accurate editing on all types of Mpeg files
    >>> right on the timeline, just like it's dv-avi.
    >>>
    >>> But please don't confuse this with the regular, Main Concept Mpeg Plug
    >>> in encoder which is just used for encoding the final output to mpeg
    >>> video from the timeline, the 2 products are similarly named and can be
    >>> confused!
    >>> It's the $250 Plug in, I am talking about, or more for the HD Version.
    >>> There is a demo on their site, it is amazing the editing ability of mpeg
    >>> in premiere pro, to bad adobe doesn't include this, maybe in the next
    >>> upgrade?
    >>> Here is the link:
    >>> http://www.mainconcept.com/mpeg_pro.shtml#standard
    >>>
    >>> and demo link:
    >>> http://downloads.mainconcept.com/fdl.php?downloads.mainconcept.com+MPEGProv1.0.4+mpegprov1.0.4.exe
    >>>
    >>> this has changed how I think about editing in mpeg in Premiere, in fact
    >>> with this plug in you can capture directly to Premiere Pro in Mpeg2 from
    >>> a dv camcorder or a miniDVD camcorder, and edit in Mpeg2 on the timeline
    >>> and it will only render the changes with smart rendering to preserve the
    >>> quality and save much time.
    >>> Too bad it costs so much as a plug in, plus the price of Premiere pro,
    >>> but I suspect with the new Liquid Edition 6 doing native frame accurate
    >>> mpeg editing now, that this will become more common.
    >>>
    >>> AnthonyR.
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>
    >>
    >>
    >
    >
  42. Archived from groups: alt.video.dvd.authoring,alt.video.dvd,rec.video,rec.video.production,rec.video.desktop (More info?)

    "PTravel" <ptravel@ruyitang.com> wrote in message
    news:2u29inF25vl9bU1@uni-berlin.de...
    >
    >
    > He's right. AVI is just a file wrapper which can hold data in a variety
    > of
    > formats. MiniDV uses the DV25 format and does not use an AVI file. When
    > you "capture" miniDV, you are merely transferring the data from the
    > DV25-formatted tape to an AVI-formatted file on the computer.
    >
    PTravel,

    This reply has been thrown around so many times, even I am confused as to
    what people have agreed on.
    The camera does all the encoding to DV-AVI( DV25) internally using it's
    chips. Then when you hook up the digital camcorder to your PC using a 1394
    transfer protocol port, you merely transfer over the already digitized data
    to your computer, and of course it is saved as a DV-AVI as opposed to other
    types of AVI's, naturally.

    But my original point was that the 1394 capture card, as some call it,
    actually does no encoding, just transfers the already digitized video data
    to the PC. Is this correct?
    Now, who names it AVI? That is done as the last step in the Operating
    System, naturally, as the file is saved.

    AnthonyR.
  43. Archived from groups: alt.video.dvd.authoring,alt.video.dvd,rec.video,rec.video.production,rec.video.desktop (More info?)

    "AnthonyR" <toomuchspam@tolisthere.com> wrote in message
    news:eSafd.33894$4C.8364547@twister.nyc.rr.com...
    >
    > "PTravel" <ptravel@ruyitang.com> wrote in message
    > news:2u29inF25vl9bU1@uni-berlin.de...
    > >
    > >
    > > He's right. AVI is just a file wrapper which can hold data in a variety
    > > of
    > > formats. MiniDV uses the DV25 format and does not use an AVI file.
    When
    > > you "capture" miniDV, you are merely transferring the data from the
    > > DV25-formatted tape to an AVI-formatted file on the computer.
    > >
    > PTravel,
    >
    > This reply has been thrown around so many times, even I am confused as to
    > what people have agreed on.
    > The camera does all the encoding to DV-AVI( DV25) internally using it's
    > chips.

    It does not encode to "dv-avi." It encodes to DV25, which is not the same
    thing.

    AVI is a computer file format which can contain data in a variety of
    formats, e.g. compressed, uncompressed, etc. The format of a miniDV tape is
    NOT avi.

    >Then when you hook up the digital camcorder to your PC using a 1394
    > transfer protocol port, you merely transfer over the already digitized
    data
    > to your computer, and of course it is saved as a DV-AVI as opposed to
    other
    > types of AVI's, naturally.

    Yes, the camcorder transfers the data to the computer via 1394. No, it does
    not transfer it in AVI format.

    >
    > But my original point was that the 1394 capture card, as some call it,
    > actually does no encoding, just transfers the already digitized video data
    > to the PC. Is this correct?

    Yes, that is correct -- "capture" is a misnomer when talking about a 1394
    transfer of DV25 data, as the term usually refers to digitizing an analog
    video signal.

    > Now, who names it AVI? That is done as the last step in the Operating
    > System, naturally, as the file is saved.

    The capture program places the DV25 in an AVI wrapper, not the OS. Win XP
    Pro, I believe, has this capability built-in to the OS, but other operating
    systems do not.

    >
    > AnthonyR.
    >
    >
    >
  44. Archived from groups: alt.video.dvd.authoring,alt.video.dvd,rec.video,rec.video.production,rec.video.desktop (More info?)

    "AnthonyR" <toomuchspam@tolisthere.com> wrote in message
    news:eSafd.33894$4C.8364547@twister.nyc.rr.com...
    >
    > "PTravel" <ptravel@ruyitang.com> wrote in message
    > news:2u29inF25vl9bU1@uni-berlin.de...
    >>
    >>
    >> He's right. AVI is just a file wrapper which can hold data in a variety
    >> of
    >> formats. MiniDV uses the DV25 format and does not use an AVI file. When
    >> you "capture" miniDV, you are merely transferring the data from the
    >> DV25-formatted tape to an AVI-formatted file on the computer.
    >>
    > PTravel,
    >
    > This reply has been thrown around so many times, even I am confused as to
    > what people have agreed on.
    > The camera does all the encoding to DV-AVI( DV25) internally using it's
    > chips. Then when you hook up the digital camcorder to your PC using a 1394
    > transfer protocol port, you merely transfer over the already digitized
    > data to your computer, and of course it is saved as a DV-AVI as opposed to
    > other types of AVI's, naturally.
    >
    > But my original point was that the 1394 capture card, as some call it,
    > actually does no encoding, just transfers the already digitized video data
    > to the PC. Is this correct?
    > Now, who names it AVI? That is done as the last step in the Operating
    > System, naturally, as the file is saved.
    >
    > AnthonyR.
    >
    I think you are very close, except that the camera only knows about
    DV and 1394. The camera doesn't know anything about AVI files, or
    QuickTime for that manner.

    DV, as used here, is DV-25 it relates to the compression technique used
    by the camera to do a 5-1 compression before stashing the data to tape.

    1394, i-link, and Firewire are all virtually the same thing, and can be
    thought of as a transfer protocol. They are not DV, they are just different
    names for the scheme used to format the stream in a manner that can be
    read by the computer.

    Sony owns the name i-link, and Apple owns Firewire. They are pretty
    interchangeable, but there are probably slight differences in the actual
    specification from one vendor as compared to the next. At any rate,
    they both use 1394 as a transfer medium.

    AVI is what they call a wrapper. When the file comes into the computer
    as raw DV, it is then wrapped up in an AVI file which helps the program
    know how to deal with the data it is receiving. You can use other
    wrappers just as well. Apple uses MOV (QuickTime) to wrap DV for
    use with their programs. Avid typically uses it's own OMF wrapper,
    but even there I think the DV data is still the same, only the wrapper is
    different. I'm not totally sure of the details, but it is something like
    that.

    I have not been following this thread, but I think the discussion is about
    using Mini-DV tape, or DVD to acquire video in the camera. This may
    have changed, but I think the information stored on an in-camera DVD
    recorder is a form of MPEG-2. MPEG-2 is usually highly compressed.
    It doesn't have to be, but that is it's main value so that Movies can be
    crammed into the small amount of space available on DVDs. MPEG-2
    can be very good by eliminating the delta compression and having
    every frame be an I frame. This could make it be smellier in quality to DV,
    but it is rarely used that way.

    MPEG-2 is usually applied as a very lossy format. Generally much more
    Lossy than implementations of DV compression. DV can be copied and
    edited without no further lossy as long as you don't make any changes to
    the video. If you add titles, do color correction, etc. you will get some
    loss,
    but most people won't notice.

    MPEG-2 uses delta compression. that means that it will have a fully
    formed frame of video only occasionally. Most frames will just be the
    difference between the new frame and the previous frame. This makes
    it a cumbersome format for editing, and everything gets recompressed,
    wither you make changes or not. Just making simple cuts will force
    recompression. Since the video was so heavily compressed in the first
    place, it goes down hill much faster than less compressed formats. The
    relatives probably won't care, and it will still look better than VHS.

    For home movies this may be perfectly acceptable, and it is convenient
    to be able to play the DVD directly in your, or a relative's, DVD player. In
    my experience, very few home movies ever actually get edited, so having
    them go straight to DV might be a plus in that respect.

    I hope that helped.

    David
  45. Archived from groups: alt.video.dvd.authoring,alt.video.dvd,rec.video,rec.video.production,rec.video.desktop (More info?)

    "AnthonyR" wrote ...
    > This reply has been thrown around so many times, even I am confused as to
    > what people have agreed on.
    > The camera does all the encoding to DV-AVI( DV25) internally
    > using it's chips.

    The camera encodes to DV25 (or DV50 if you're rich and have a
    high-end Panny). The camera has no concept of AVI or any other
    computer file definition. DV25 (or DV50) is a *bitstream* of
    digital video data just as analog video (composite, Y/C, etc.) is an
    analog stream of individual video frames.

    > Then when you hook up the digital camcorder to your PC using a 1394
    > transfer protocol port, you merely transfer over the already digitized
    > data to your computer, and of course it is saved as a DV-
    > AVI as opposed to other types of AVI's, naturally.

    There are other ways of saving DV besides AVI. When I started out
    editing DV, I was using software that prefered the QuickTime .MOV
    container format. But it was the same DV data inside.

    > But my original point was that the 1394 capture card, as some call it,
    > actually does no encoding, just transfers the already digitized video data
    > to the PC. Is this correct?

    Exactly.

    > Now, who names it AVI? That is done as the last step in the Operating
    > System, naturally, as the file is saved.

    The DV bitstream is parsed (so that it can start and stop cleanly at a
    frame-break) and written to a disk file with the appropriate headers
    (including those that identify which codec is required to interperet
    the file data). The capture application software (Adobe Premiere,
    or Scenalyzer in my case) is where the file is formatted, written, and
    named. Very similar to the way audio is captured and saved to a file,
    or the way a document is created/edited and saved to a file.
  46. Archived from groups: alt.video.dvd.authoring,alt.video.dvd,rec.video,rec.video.production,rec.video.desktop (More info?)

    >
    > MPEG-2 uses delta compression. that means that it will have a fully
    > formed frame of video only occasionally. Most frames will just be the
    > difference between the new frame and the previous frame.

    Wrong.

    >This makes
    > it a cumbersome format for editing, and everything gets recompressed,
    > wither you make changes or not. Just making simple cuts will force
    > recompression.

    Not necessarily. See VideoReDo.

    >Since the video was so heavily compressed in the first
    > place, it goes down hill much faster than less compressed formats.

    This is an inacccurate metaphor....down hill?

    The
    > relatives probably won't care, and it will still look better than VHS.
    >
    > For home movies this may be perfectly acceptable, and it is convenient
    > to be able to play the DVD directly in your, or a relative's, DVD player.
    > In
    > my experience, very few home movies ever actually get edited, so having
    > them go straight to DV might be a plus in that respect.
    >
    > I hope that helped.
    >
    > David
    >
    >
    >
  47. Archived from groups: alt.video.dvd.authoring,alt.video.dvd,rec.video,rec.video.production,rec.video.desktop (More info?)

    Bill wrote:
    > Hello
    >
    > I am in the market for a family-oriented (vacations, birthday parties,
    > etc) Camcorder and am looking for input on whether DVD or MiniDV is
    > the better option.
    >
    > I WILL be doing video editing on the home computer. In addition, I am
    > looking for the longest battery life possible.
    >
    > Budget is no more than $800 for the camera itself.
    >
    > A quick look at the top sellers for both are
    >
    > (DVD) Sony DCR-DVD201
    >
    > (MiniDV) Sony DCR-HC20/HC40
    >
    > any info is appreciated
    >
    > thanks
    If you want to edit it, MiniDV is your choice.
    It's an MJPG related format and much better suited for editing.

    Andre

    --
    ----------------------------------
    http://www.aguntherphotography.com
  48. Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

    On Mon, 25 Oct 2004 18:43:06 GMT, "david.mccall"
    <david.mccallUNDERLINE@comcast.net> wrote:

    >MPEG-2 uses delta compression. that means that it will have a fully
    >formed frame of video only occasionally. Most frames will just be the
    >difference between the new frame and the previous frame. This makes
    >it a cumbersome format for editing, and everything gets recompressed,
    >wither you make changes or not. Just making simple cuts will force
    >recompression.

    Only for the frames of the incomplete GOP, the rest of GOPs are not
    re-encoded. If you cut at an I-frame, then there's no re-encoding at
    all.
  49. Archived from groups: rec.video.desktop (More info?)

    "Bariloche" <bariloche@bariloche.com> wrote in message
    news:d8qtn0ploghp0paer2cbbmvv66eicckp9b@4ax.com...
    > On Mon, 25 Oct 2004 18:43:06 GMT, "david.mccall"
    > <david.mccallUNDERLINE@comcast.net> wrote:
    >
    >>MPEG-2 uses delta compression. that means that it will have a fully
    >>formed frame of video only occasionally. Most frames will just be the
    >>difference between the new frame and the previous frame. This makes
    >>it a cumbersome format for editing, and everything gets recompressed,
    >>wither you make changes or not. Just making simple cuts will force
    >>recompression.
    >
    > Only for the frames of the incomplete GOP, the rest of GOPs are not
    > re-encoded. If you cut at an I-frame, then there's no re-encoding at
    > all.
    >

    Bariloche,
    This is true, if you cut on an I-frame, there will be no recompression at
    all, no loss, and if you edit in-between this group of frames(GOP) then the
    recompression will only be for the incomplete GOP, not the entire video.
    Correct.
    I believe some older software didn't have this smart render ability, and
    forced you to wait while it re-encoded an entire file, which not only took
    hours but made people believe it was adding artifacts to the entire video.
    This is why so many people believe it's impossible or impractical to edit
    mpeg.
    But with the new breed of encoders that use smart rendering and only
    recompress incomplete GOP's it is a lot easier now.
    AnthonyR.
Ask a new question

Read More

Tuner Cards DVD Video MiniDV Graphics