Why is DV smaller file size than huffyuv but better quality?

[Will Hay]

I'm sure there's any easy answer to this and it may seem a dumb question but I'm going to ask it anyway.
I don't capture with huffyuv even though I have the disk space. I find it too large a file size and more likely to drop frames than quality 19 of the PicVideo MJPEG codec, which for me has no noticable difference in quality.
My question is this:
How come the file size of DV (approx 3.6mb/sec, right?) is smaller than that of anything captured via huffyuv, yet is better quality?
It's generally regarded that if you have analogue passthrough on a digital camcorder that's the better option than capturing say with an ATI card, right?
Many thanks,
Will

[RoopeT]

Why do you think DV is better qualitywise compared to Huffuv? It really isn't.

It's generally regarded that if you have analogue passthrough on a digital camcorder that's the better option than capturing say with an ATI card, right?

Yes, but that's because digital comcorders do better job converting the analog signal to digital, not because DV format is superior compared to huffuv. I used MainConcept DV codec for capturing with my Bt848 based card for a few months but now I'm using PicVideo @ 19 again.

[Will Hay]

Why do you think DV is better qualitywise compared to Huffuv? It really isn't.

It's generally regarded that if you have analogue passthrough on a digital camcorder that's the better option than capturing say with an ATI card, right?

Yes, but that's because digital comcorders do better job converting the analog signal to digital, not because DV format is superior compared to huffuv. I used MainConcept DV codec for capturing with my Bt848 based card for a few months but now I'm using PicVideo @ 19 again.

Thanks, that's a little clearer
On reflection it may have been suggested to me that DV passthrough was the better option, not perhaps the best quality
Would it be fair to say that if I'm achieving nil/minimal frame loss capturing from an anologue source with PicVideo 19/20 then paying the extra £50.00 for a 'DV in/passthrough enabled' camcorder would be pointless/not worth the extra cash?
Thanks,
Will

[Bondiablo]

The quality is about the same, though it's possible to get slightly better quality with uncompressed avi and probably with huffy, it's unlikely you'd ever notice the difference and much easier to use DV because of the smaller file sizes (about 12GB per hour) and you avoid the problems of dropped frames and audio/video sync loss.

[energy80s]

Go the DV camcorder route. It yields much better quality than straight AVI "through a TV card" type transfers. However if you were to do a direct comparison between DV avis and Huffy avis the Huffy ones would be better - but at about 3 times the file size. This is OK for small projects, but for films / TV shows its not really practical.

[RoopeT]

paying the extra £50.00 for a 'DV in/passthrough enabled' camcorder would be pointless/not worth the extra cash?

So you're buing a camcorder anyway and considering if the DV in/passthrough is important for you? If that's the case I would buy the extra 50 pounds. I think you should get better quality using a camcorder since the conversion is done far away from the PC and you don't get any noise caused by the electrical components (Power supply etc.)

[Will Hay]

I actually decided to go with the Sony TRV-14 without 'dv-in' rather than the TRV-19 which hasn't yet been released in the UK.
It's no problem, I'll upgrade it.
Do the 'dv-in' enabled camcorder's have the composite sockets, ie the yellow video and red and white audio (from the vcr) or do I need a special cable?
Thanks,
Will