On Wed, 26 Dec 2001 20:50:40 GMT, john63401@yahoo.com wrote:

>>When copying from miniDV to miniDV, there is generational loss - but it's
>>not much. Digital does not mean perfect copy, since the signal is heavily
>>compressed.

>Whoa!!!

My sentiments, exactly! ;-)

>I did NOT know this! I thought any copies made form a
>digital source were ALWAYS as good as the original no
>matter if it is the second copy.... or the thousandth
>copy. No?

Almost...;-)

>>MiniDV tapes are said to not hold information for a long time - so you don't
>>use them for archival.

>Why don't' they "hold" info for long? define what you
>mean by "long" please?
>
>Boy.... this message was an eye opener for this newbie!

You can close your eyes again, and rest...;-)
The above is mostly misinformation. DV copies
ARE perfect copies EXCEPT for dropouts - the
compression (actually a fairly low 5:1), etc.
are irrelevant - you are just copying digital
data. Since the data is digital, it is fairly
robust - loss of some signal-to-noise with
aging is unlikely to damage the signal until
the losses are catastrophic (VERY long-term
storage, dropouts, or wrinkles or other
physical damage). I generally make two
Mini-DV masters of edited material (and a
copy of important original material, for the
same reason), figuring I can recover from
even catastrophic losses in the future. As
for mastering on Mini-DV tape vs. D-8, if
you look at the tape itself, Mini-DV is more
highly polished, though smaller. So far, I
have had better luck with Mini-DV transports
than Hi-8 tape transports. My guess is that
using either system for mastering is OK
(just make two masters, and check them for
problems before storing them carefully
[on edge, rewound from the very end to the
beginning in one operation, stored in a
reasonably cool, dark, dry place away from
dust and solvent gasses...]).