Noob question about MiniDV camcorders

[Capmaster]

I'm not a noob to video, but I am with camcorders. I haven't owned one since I had an old VHS model years ago. But I'm considering one for Christmas.

I found a good price for this model:

http://consumer.usa.canon.com/ir/controller?act=ModelDetailAct&fcategoryid=114&modelid=9739

I've been a Canon fan ever since buying one of their Powershot digicams. Canon optics are superb, IMO.

Does anyone have any experience with this model? Is it good? Junk? And please tell me why you feel a certain way. I'm going to base my decision entirely on feedback I get here, since Videohelp is "the place"

[Red96TA]

Depends on what you want to do...that cam sucks as far as the ccd size and resolution (1/6" 460k)

I use a JVC GR-DV500 that runs about the same price and has better resolution (1/4"ccd 1330k)

If you love Canon, try their Optura series...great ccd and resolution and it's only about $100 more.

[EGrier]

Also Cap,
If you go to www.camcorderinfo.com you can read their reviews on it. They say that the Canon ZR series really are not good in low light situations. They show alot of noise in the video.

[Capmaster]

Red96TA & EGrier,
Thanks a bunch for the tips. I will check that link out, and look at the JVC models.

I'd like to keep it under $400 because I'm mainly buying it to build a telecine to transfer super 8 movies, and then have it around after that for situations here and there, but I don't see being a big camcorder guy.

It's strictly casual use. The Optura seems to be a nicer unit but I don't want to sink that much $ into something I may use once or twice a year at most. I'm budgeting everyone in the family $400 each for Christmas, including me. So I'd rather stick to that if I can. If it wasn't Christmas I wouldn't even be considering it

[EGrier]

In that case check out the GR-D33US. It ranks pretty high in the under $400 range on camcorderinfo. Good low light performance. But, it lacks the ability to do analog to digital passthrough and if you take still pictures, it stores them on the tape.

[EGrier]

Oops, forgot to mention. That is a JVC model number.

[Capmaster]

In that case check out the GR-D33US. It ranks pretty high in the under $400 range on camcorderinfo. Good low light performance. But, it lacks the ability to do analog to digital passthrough and if you take still pictures, it stores them on the tape.

Thanks

I'm not too concerned about pass-through. I have a separate cap box and standalone TBC for those analog duties. Same with stills. It probably won't get much use as a digicam. Low-light performance is much more important than those two features for me.

I'll check out the D33US review. Thanks again

[Capmaster]

Pretty impressive review, at least the picture quality. The reviewer had some issues about ease of use, fit in the hand, etc. But those things are less important to me given that it'll be only for occasional use. And the price is right.

I think we have a winner. Thanks for the assist EGrier

[spooky2k]

i recommend reading the user comments on 'camcorderinfo' too. The cam i jsut bought had a bad review on that site, bu ti bought it based on user comments, and to my suprise.... i think the reviewer was drunk/stoned/dying/delusional when he wrote that review.
SPooky2k/Dan

[BSR]

For best low light performance find yourself an old VHS camcorder(if you can still find your old one) and hook it directly into your computer.
Capture as if the camcorder was a live webcam.

Remember on the old camcorders, the limiting factor was the media(VHS) that the video was stored on.
The optics were still really good, and the lenses were much much larger to let more light in.

Might be worth testing yourself if your on a budget and have a VHS cam available.
Got this info from a friend that did it, said he was absolutly amazed at a 640x480 capture.
Of course test first, all old VHS cams might not all be equal.

[MachineMan]

Go for a larger CCD for best low light. Don't get caught up in the more megapixel count is better advertizments. Video doesn't need to have a huge number of pixels (2mp, 3mp, 4mp...) In fact the more megapixels per CCD size means less light becuase each pixel sensor is now smaller.

[Capmaster]

Thanks guys. The low-light consideration is important to me only in the context that several models I would have probably chosen just from brand reputation, like the Sony or the Canon, I have been told that they don't do so well in low light. To me that's an indication of a marginal optics/CCD/algorithm combination.

The JVC reviews say it has the same CCD as some of the otner poorly-performing models, but the low-light performance is much better. To me that shows attention to details.

Although the JVC, in typical style for them, appeals more to the novice and their models have an obvious lack of bells and whistles, that's exactly what I want for my use. Simple ...decent optics and CCD. I don't need fancy titling or voice notations ....I certainly would never use my camcorder for still pictures unless I was planning to just make some quick and dirty 320x240 pics for a website.

I haven't had a VHS cam since 1993 when I busted our gear in a move. And I'd rather not buy one ...I'm trying hard to make our home a tape-free zone

I agree that the megapixel count has been overhyped for camcorders and digicams. Especially when you have online enlarging houses with some exceptional interpolation built into their printing gear ...and silver halide paper to boot. I've got 6 or 8 16x20 framed prints on the wall from our trip to Egypt last winter that I took with a 2.1MP Canon Powershot S300 Digital Elph. They look like they were grabbed with a medium-format film camera No kidding. You'd never know they weren't ...so I'm convinced that optics and data algorithms are far more important than just the pixel count of the sensor

[vhelp]

hay guys.

I have an 8mm I bought about 4 years ago. Ain't that considered old
The model is a Samsung model SCA12. Here are my specs. I'm just curious
what your thoughts are:

* f=3.9-62.4mm
* F:1.4 o46 (that'a the o w/ a slash through it - whatever it means)
* High EVF Resolution
* Composite (RCA) connector only.

Anyways.

@ Capmaster

Have you considered the Sony TRV22 cam in your round-up ??

* Great under low light too.
* Superier with VHS sources (ADVC-100 is not good w/ VHS)
* Is MV free (via passthrough)
* Touch screen (I love it.., though, at first, I hated it. Now I can't live w/out it)

Only problem is, I don't know what the average price is for it these days.
I paid $700 bucks for it two years ago, to replace my Canon ZR-10 cam.

-vhelp

[vhelp]

@ cap ...

I'd like to keep it under $400 because I'm mainly buying it to build a telecine to transfer super 8 movies,

You have me at a loss here

Also, if you don't my my OP on the VHS transfer.. I'm assuming you mean those
VHS you recorded from your VHS cam..

I would recommend a DV device. The TRV22 is a great DV Passthrough for this
type of media. In my experience w/ my ADVC-100 I did not find the quality to
be satisfactory. And, after many experiments, I found that TRV22 's passthrough
for VHS sources to be far superior in quality. Don't worry about the color space
in these cercumstances. It won't really matter all that much.

-vhelp

[Capmaster]

vhelp,
Thanks for your input. I appreciate it

I've got super-8 film on reels. Not 8mm camcorder footage. That's what us dinosaurs used before there was VHS or beta

My plan was to build a little frame about 3' by 3' which has a hole in one end to poke through the film projector lens. The inside opposite wall would have a surface of glass-embedded projection screen material.

Just above the projector hole would be a mount for the camcorder on the outside of the box, so it could look in at the screen.

Fire up the projector, start the camcorder, and capture the film onto DV.

I'll of course have to wait until I have all the equipment to determine the exact dimensions ...and if I can even do it. I'll probably try just pointing the camcorder at a regular 4 foot screen and see how it comes out. But I want a smaller screen so it doesn't end up very faint and washed out.

Hollywood uses a more sophisticated version of this to transfer old movies to digital media. I believe they call it a telecine

I already have a good VHS capturing setup, including a standalone TBC-1000. I don't need anything that has a pass-through

[vhelp]

@ cap

Thanks for the explanation.

One more question. R U saying that (in your version) your aim is
to get a "progressive" capture, once your seup is complete ??

In any case, I wish I just capture my PC monitor's output of my DV cam,
when I feed it through S-Video and let ATI's v7.1 screen do it's TV Simulation
of de-Interlace. I've never seen such a perfect look. Its as though I'm looking
at my TV set NO INTERLACE (just like on TV) for any sources, be it a Movie or
CAM footage. Its perfect. ATI is using the Overlay technique and somehome
simulating TV scans or something. I can't explain it because I'm not a technition

As far as your VHS goes. Ok.

-vhelp