On Sun, 17 Mar 2002 04:36:32 GMT, Erik Harris
>I'm not trying to start a big debate here, and sincerely hope that isn't the
>result of this inquiry. This is an honest question about the merits of
>digital over analog _without_ taking price as a primary factor.
>
>I've been contemplating getting a digital video camera for awhile, and today,
>I wandered into Best Buy and got my hands on some of their camcorders. There
>was a somewhat decent selection of digital and analog camcorders available.
>I couldn't help but notice the enormous disparity in price, though. I've got
>no problem spending more on emerging technologies, but unlike digital still
>cameras, I don't have a clear understanding of the advantages a digital
>camcorder will offer _me_ over an analog tape camera. Unlike still cameras,
>both record to similar media - linear tape, no random access like with flash
>memory. In my case, I have a semi-decent capture card already installed and
>running in my computer, so I can get analog captures onto my computer as
>easily as I could with digital captures (or am I wrong in this?), and then
>edit them just as easily. Given that I've got a computer that I'm willing to
>do my editing on, on-camera post-editing features aren't really a major
>concern.
>
>Given that I have no qualms about spending twice as much (or more - my
>self-imposed limit is about $1K) on a digital video camera as an analog tape
>camera _if_ I can see that there are definite advantages (I did with my still
>camera), can anyone here give me some compelling reasons to go digital? Or
>compelling reasons _not_ to go digital?
Ah, this question harks back to the early days of digital
video (and it has been answered MANY times...), but it
also is a good prompt for looking at some of what we have
found out about digital since then, after the "glow" has
mostly dissipated...;-). The obvious answer is that
DV has provided higher-quality original image (in terms
of resolution and color) than analogue, in smaller and cheaper
packages, with fewer problems with dropouts, and with the
ability to copy and transfer the video without generation
losses (the video image and sound are digitized in the
camera and recorded as digital data on the tape, with
most of the advantages that that implies...;-). Having
tried a bunch of Mini-DV camcorders, though, and having
been editing digital since it became practical to do so,
I've observed a few things about the medium...;-)
(See various articles, and referenced URLs, at:
http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/camcorder-comparison.htm
http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/camcorder--comparison.htm
http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/camcorder--comparison.htm
http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/original_vs_10th-gen.htm
http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/premiere.htm
http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/perspective-correction.htm
for more...)
- if you buy "bottom end" Mini-DV gear, you may not see
much, if any, improvement over good analogue gear (other
than the multi-generational/transfer/dropout advantages,
which are real...).
- if you select from the best of the under-$1500 one-chip
DV gear, you may see some improvement over good analogue
gear, with little liability, or much improvement, with
considerable liability (more on this later...).
- if you buy into consumer-grade 3-chip DV-gear, the
worst perform worse than the best of the one-chippers
in some ways, and better in others; the best far outperform
the best of the one-chippers and also any comparably-priced
(and even far more expensive) analogue gear.
Digital video brings with it the advantages mentioned,
but also liabilities (these are mostly camcorder design
limitations, though the medium itself has limitations).
While DV *can* show better resolution than all but the
best and most expensive analogue gear, DV *can* also show
more image artifacting that detracts from the appearance
of "smoothness" in the image ("stairstepping" on edges
[and not just on near-horizontal contrasty edges...],
"mosquito" effects, and color-banding and lack of subtlety
[and smear between some adjacent colors, NTSC]). Oddly,
some of the worst effects appear with the one-chip
camcorders showing the sharpest images (this makes
sense, in terms of compression...), which may cause
one (mostly with one-chippers) to choose a model with
lower image resolution if this aspect is more important
to you. In addition, some picture ill effects that are
not strictly associated with DV may show in some models
(oversharpening, incomplete frame coverage with image,
color tints and biases, spurious color, low resolution,
excessive contrast, low brilliance, excessive high-gain
effects, and other ill effects video is subject to...).
"Bottom line": if you select carefully from among the
available DV camcorders at various price levels, you
can take advantage of the medium's advantages over
analogue; choose badly, and you may wish you had never
heard of digital...;-) (I exaggerate - but the worst
DV camcorders do produce annoying images, though this
may not be obvious at first... As with digital audio,
it can take a while before the problems are generally
recognized and then remedied...;-)