>Thanks Chris and Neuman[-**Ruether** ;-]. See my remarks inserted below.
>"Chris"
>news:9v3ilm$csmtg$1@ID-99664.news.dfncis.de...
>: "Neuman - Ruether"
>: news:3c163d35.50448586@newsstand.cit.cornell.edu...
[...]
>: > >...you might be better off considering one of the mid-range VHS-C
>: > >camcorders by JVC. The advantage to these is, next to price (Consider
>: > >$300-$400US tops, plus maybe $30-50 for an extra battery), is that the
>: > >tapes, while small enough to be easily portable, are also playable in a
>: > >standard VHS VCR, through the means of an "adapter" (A shell, into which
>: > > you pop the VHS-C tape, and then stick the whole thing into your VCR).
>: > Possibly useful advice, for the really low end - but
>: > resolution is VERY low with VHS as an acquisition medium,
>: > and it will not tolerate copying or later editing, if image
>: > quality is a concern (better to recommend Hi-8, at around
>: > the same price...). I would never recommend VHS as a camera
>: > format...
>Ok, I definitely wasn't clear in my OP. Image quality is of **some**
>concern. So is having/owning a modern, high quality device that I can
>**afford**. I haven't defined my objectives clearly because in this arena
>(video), I just do not know what I'm doing. I do however, have at least an
>idea of what I'd like to do, and it is this: Be able to record various
>indoor/outdoor family things with baby et.al., have that recording be of good
>quality both in ambient and low-light conditions, and maybe even be able to
>edit various sessions in my computer and copy onto a CD to send to my family
>(I live in Spain, they live in USA) for them to watch. I have a lot of
>experience in still photography, (25 years) and use both conventional (film)
>and digital cameras (Canon G2) for my stills. It's just video I don't have a
>clue on, and to be honest the more I read the more exasperated I'm becoming!
>;-(
OK, one can look at low-end-consumer-to-low-end-commercial
as several steps in in quality level in video formats:
-Web-video/streaming-video (sometimes used for acquisition,
and sometimes used for low-quality distribution)
-Video-CD (rarely used for acquisition, but sometimes
used for low-quality distribution)
-VHS/8mm (to be avoided for acquisition, but often used
for distribution [quality varies from very poor made
from low-quality originals, to very good made from
high-quality originals])
-SVHS/Hi-8 (good for acquisition, and sometimes used for
distribution)
-One-chip Mini-DV (very good for both acquisition [I split
this one out from the last, though the recording format
is the same, due to the general difference in quality]
and distribution)
-DVD (rarely for acquisition, but often for distribution)
-Three-chip MiniDV (excellent for both acquisition and
distribution)
By "acquisition", I mean "shooting in camera"; by
"distribution", I mean "how you store and pass around
the results"...
Some media are more-common/more-convenient for distribution,
so they are used more often than technically superior
media. In common use right now (levels of quality):
VHS/Hi-8/Mini-DV for video acquisition; VHS and DVD for
video distribution.
As for your requirements, above, (good!) 3-chip Mini-DV
offers the high resolution, smooth image, and good
low-light performance useful for best transfer to
inferior distribution media, but the prices start around
$1500 in US (TRV900, a very good camcorder). Short of
this, one must "pick-and-choose" among various other
options, all of which fall short in some respect for your
requirements... (one-chip Mini-DV for low-light performance,
analogue formats for ease/quality of transfer and editing,
the rest for quality reservations or rarety of use...).
>: On the other hand, how many of those "8mm memories" were ever edited? My
>: opinion on home videos has always been why chop any of it? If they're
>: memories, wouldn't you want to save them?
>See my remark above. I **may** want to edit only in terms of transferring a
>session or two to CD to send to the folks/family in USA for viewing on their
>computers or maybe even their DVD players (possible?).
Yes, for some - but home-produced DVD-video is not yet
a universally playable medium, nor is it cheap. BTW, one
may not **intend** to really edit - but I would be VERY
surprised if you did not wind up cutting here and there,
rearranging a bit, adding nice transitions and titles,
improving the sound, etc. (this is called "editing"...;-).
>: > >The Sony PC9 (Mentioned by the previous poster) or PC5 would
>: > >also work. The advantage to some of the digital cameras, is that by
>: paying
>: > >$100 or so more for a slightly better model of a certain camera, will
>: > >usually net you the ability to take digital still pictures which can be
>: > >downloaded to your PC.
>: > These are limited to 640x480 for high-quality results,
>: > regardless of CCD resolution - and cheap digital camera,
>: > or a scan of a negative from any cheap film camera, will
>: > easily surpass this level of resolution...
>
>Understood. I much prefer to take my "stills" with a "real" camera, whether
>that be my Nikon or my Canon G2 digital.
I do use my video cameras for web images, though...;-)
For this, they can be quite good, and fast/easy to use.
[...]
>: > >A few people will point out that these professional grade cameras will
>: > >produce a "much better image". Of course, what I point out, is that if
>: you
>: > >plan to record it to VHS tapes to play in your VCR, the quality will
>: > >instantly drop to that level, making the quality difference due to format
>: > >irrelevant.
>: > This is not true...
>: > Try copying VHS to VHS, then Hi-8 to VHS, then one-chip
>: > Mini-DV to VHS, then (good) 3-chip Mini-DV to VHS. If
>: > the VHS deck is decent, you will see the improvements
>: > in image quality on VHS tape with each improvement
>: > in original format... The VHS copy from the best will
>: > never look as good as the original, but it will look much
>: > better than VHS copied to VHS, and probably better than
>: > a VHS original...
>This is an interesting POV (point of view). Now what really confuses me is
>the **types** of video cameras out there.
(See earlier comments...)
>What the heck should I consider if
>I want to record something, then play it back on my TV, (either via a VCR or
>DVD), and also be able to edit without a lot of trouble on my computer as to
>make a CD to send to the family to play? Along these lines, I would also like
>the ability to make a **tape** to send to the parents who only have a VCR and
>will never have a DVD player, and whose computer is not an option to watch a
>home-grown video on. Any thoughts?
Mini-DV serves all the above requirements (as do, less well,
the better analogue formats [Hi-8 and SVHS]).
>: Of course, if you start out with VHS-C, there wouldn't be any copying at
>: all. And like I pointed out, he won't notice the difference between a one
>: chip and a three chip for his purposes...
>As far as I can tell, there's no way I could even afford a 3-chip. Like I
>said, I would like to keep the amount spent at around $1000 U.S., although I
>can probably convince the wife to spend a little more "for the sake of our
>child's future." ;-)
An easy sell.....! ;-) Heck, "irreplaceable moments
recorded", etc....;-)
>: > >Of the quality difference between a one chip camera, and a 3 chip camera,
>: > >for home-video purposes, the difference isn't worth the price.
This is sometimes true - a good low-end Mini-DV one-chip
camcorder (Sony TRV11/17-PC5/9) may well be sufficient
for most needs, and these are generally under $1000 US.
>: > Depends on what you value...
>: > If a smooth image in a wide range of lighting conditions
>: > is desired (the original poster indicated an interest in
>: > low-light ability, as I recall...), 3-chip Mini-DV may
>: > be the way to go...
>Yes, I guess I want it all but without a big pricetag.
Don't we all...? ;-) But, alas......;-)
>I was hoping to find
>something that would do well when shooting indoors, which in many
>circumstances would indicate low light conditions. Do I understand that
>Mini-DV is a format that I could not just pop into a VCR and play? If true,
>how do you reproduce the session on your TV? Do you just hook the camera up
>directly to one of the input jacks on the back of the set? Could I (via
>editing on the computer) produce either a CD or VCR tape from my original DV
>recording?
Yes, and yes (to the last two questions...). As for
low-light, unfortunately that is one area where one-chip
Mini-DV does not "shine"... (You can add lights, and select
a camera that produces almost-acceptable images in low-light
[see: www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/camcorder--comparison.htm
for low-light comparisons of Sony camcorders].)
>: Yes, but there could be a financial implications as well. I just thought it
>: would be a good idea that expensive digital cameras aren't the only route...
This is true - earlier used good Hi-8 models are inexpensive
and often very good (Sony TR700, TR101, TR200) - but late
model Hi-8s appear inferior, as are ALL VHSs for shooting.
An alternative is the D-8 format, similar to Mini-DV, but
using Hi-8 tape (and generally inferior imaging parts...).
>: > >Finally, many of the cameras mentioned by the previous poster are
>: beautiful
>: > >cameras. I'd love to own them. But they're not for you. They're far to
>: > >expensive for what you plan, are far too large.
>I'll take that remark under consideration.
But, it's (almost) complete nonsense...! ;-)
The VX2000/PD150 and a couple of others are bigger,
more expensive, but all others are compact and under
$1500 or so...
>: > Hmmm... The TRV20, TRV30, PC5, PC9, TRV11, TRV17,PC100,
>: > PC110, PC120, and even the TRV900 and EZ30U 3-chip (about
>: > the size of a VHS-C cameras...) can be considered compact
>: > cameras... Prices of some are under $1000...
>: No arguments with any of those, but what about the Xl-1? The VX-# series?
>: These were mostly what I was referring to. But of course, if the original
>: poster has money to burn, then by all means, you're quite right :)
This is silly - he points out a minority of cameras covered in my
reviews, which I did not recommend to you...
>Heh heh....I **wish** I had money to burn, but as I indicated above I
>certainly do not.
[...]