On Sun, 17 Mar 2002 15:50:09 GMT, Erik Harris
>On Sun, 17 Mar 2002 15:18:12 GMT, d_ruether@hotmail.com (Neuman - Ruether) wrote:
[...]
>>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,
[...]
>Cheaper packages? This was part of my inquiry, though as I said, I am
>willing to spend the "more" that appears to be required of digital. You seem
>to be saying here, though, that going digital is cheaper than analog. When I
>dropped into Best Buy to look at some of the consumer camcorders, I saw the
>digital models in the $600-1600 range, and the analog models, which seemed to
>have similar feature sets (minus the digital-only stuff, of course), were all
>in the sub-$500 range, maybe even sub-$400.
For **roughly equal performance** (not "features"), digital
gear is cheaper than analogue; for high-quality original
image, DV is FAR cheaper than analogue with similar gear
with similar capability...
>I'm definitely looking for
>"consumer level" stuff, since I'm not going to be using any of this in a
>remotely professional category. The first thing I'll be using it for is
>filming a martial arts performance that I and some of my friends will be
>doing at Cornell University in about a month (dunno how much you keep up on
>campus activities, but my group has performed in CSA's China Night for the
>past 4 years, and this will be my fifth year performing, on April 13th), and
>that recording will probably go to 10 people or less. After that, it'll be
>primarily for personal recreational use, with recordings that relatively few
>people will see or care about.
The best of one-chip Hi-8 gear (not current Hi-8 gear, but
camcorders like the Sony TR700 and TR200...) may well
outperform most current low-end DV, especially in marginal
lighting...
>>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...
>I understand this advantage, though if you're using the capture card as the
>first step, then this generation loss only happens once, and isn't
>cumulative, as it would be if I were copying from the source tape to VHS to
>VHS to VHS, etc.
It also happens on output... With DV, the footage is
stored digital (in the same form) on both the camera
and on the computer - there is no loss either at input
or at export to DV, though when transferred to a
lower-quality format like VHS, one loses considerable
quality...
>> - 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...).
>As I said, I'm not looking to spend more than $1K, so I expect many people
>would consider that "bottom end" (though I see a lot of really cheap digital
>camcorders going for much less than $500). This rules out the advantages of
>a 3-chip camera, since none of those (that I've found) seem to be anywhere
>near the $1K price range.
I happen to have a used, low-use megapixel Sony
Mini-DV available used, for under $1000 - nice
image and sound quality... Holler, if interested
(it is definitely better than low-end Mini-DV
choices available locally - and I can show you
what it actually does, since we are in the same
town...;-).
>>"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
>Do you have any particular favorites or cameras that you feel should be
>avoided for these reasons in the range I'm looking at? ($1000 or less - I
>plan on buying on-line from a cheap-but-reputable dealer, so that probably
>translates into at least a $1200 or $1300 maximum in terms of list price, if
>digital camcorders are marked down from list anywhere near as much as most
>consumer electronics)
I don't want to start more "brand" wars...;-)
Contact me directly for more...
Consider my used camcorder, too - you get more
for the money, specific advice on use, a
thoroughly checked-out camera (defects can
occur in new gear...), and lose only the
(short) new warranty in the deal...;-)
>Thanks for the in-depth reply, David. I appreciate it. I've looked at some
>of the articles you linked to in your email already (though the ones I looked
>at don't really address my "analog or digital" type question, they're useful
>in looking at the different digital options).
Actually, they do, since I cover DV performance
issues/problems (and use an analogue BetaSP in
one of the comparisons...) - but if buying new
at this point, I would buy digital for most
purposes... If you still want analogue, I also
have a "fancy" Canon A-1 "Digital" Hi-8 FS,
$375...;-) (This one has the "big" 1/2" CCD and
lotsa controls...)