Digital sucks !!

[Resolution]

Ok, I am probably doing something wrong, one would think, but a guy in the business has been looking over my shoulder and confirms that my Analogue camera footage from the early '90s, looks MUCH better than current footage from my Digital 8 Sony and the Mini Dv Sony on my TV coming out of a DVD.
The good stuff was taken on a Sony V5OOO Hi 8 (Pal)--I still use only Pal.
. If they still made that camera today I'd take it over any thing else .
I transfer to PC using DVIO, Encode with TMPGEnc and burn to DVD with TsunamiMPEG DVD author. Anything from a "digital" scource doesn't come close . I've changed firewire cables, used every combination of options on the software, different media--the works. Digital origin produces a noisy picture, edge fuzz, "micro dots" all over the place, looks terrible. Old V5000 hi 8 footage through the same procedures looks excellent. I converted some Pal images to ntsc --using Atlantis Dv film software (worth the $200)--Excellent conversion program. To theoretically come at it from a different direction--same end result .
Anyone else come across a similar situation ? Like to hear some input .

[Epicurus8a]

I've been in broadcasting for more years than I care to mention. Everytime a company comes out with something new and improved, there's always some sort of trade off. (i.e. better _________ but worse ________.) Digital video is just another link in the chain of progress. What it really comes down to is $$$. In many ways digital video (and equipment) isn't better than analog at all. Unfortunately, it's being sold to the public as a godsend; and that's a load of crap.

All things considered, I'd rather work with a digital server than load hundreds of video tapes every day.

[edDV]

I still have my Sony V5000 and it still makes nice pictures. These sold for ~$3000 in the early 90's and most of it's worth is in the camera section. Inflation has probably doubled or trippled that $3000 in 14 years. The equivalent camera today would be the PD-150/170 or VX2100 that sell in the $2000-3500 range.

I have to say that by any measure, these new 3CCD camera's make superior pictures to the single CCD V5000. I also have a Digital 8 that has camera section that is in every way inferior to the V5000, but it's DV recording section is far superior to Hi8 and the equal of the $3,000 DV cameras.

When pressed for an additional stationary camera, I've used the V5000 connected to the Digital8 camcorder with S-Video and record to DV format. The results are very good and I'm not ashamed to mix the result with the PD-150.

V-5000's are available cheap on E-Bay. This NTSC model is priced higher than most.
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&category=21168&item=7523093928&rd=1&ssPageName=WD1V

[thecoalman]

Ok, I am probably doing something wrong, one would think, but a guy in the business has been looking over my shoulder and confirms that my Analogue camera footage from the early '90s, looks MUCH better than current footage from my Digital 8 Sony and the Mini Dv Sony on my TV coming out of a DVD.

How about if you compare similar footage if you make a direct TV connection and don't go through the conversion process, that would be the best way to compare them because you have eliminated anything that can possibly be attributed to user error.

One of the big difference between analog and DV capture devices is the field order. Nearly 100% of the time it's going to be lower filed first for DV devices and top field first for analog devices. If your picking the wrong field order during the conversion this will have a big impact on the quality.

https://www.videohelp.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=257631

My personal opinion on the matter is my Canon GL2 is far superior to any analog consumer cam that I have seen. It's also far superior to the Digital 8 that I was able to compare it to, if your comparing a high end anlog cam to low end digital cam your not making a fair comparison. Here's a sample clip.

http://www.nepadigital.com/reencode/8000cbr.mpg

[vhelp]

Digital sucks !!

I agree (at times)

I've been in broadcasting for more years than I care to mention.
Everytime a company comes out with something new and improved, there's
always some sort of trade off. (i.e. better _________ but worse ________.)
Digital video is just another link in the chain of progress. What it really
comes down to is $$$. In many ways digital video (and equipment) isn't better
than analog at all. Unfortunately, it's being sold to the public as a godsend;
and that's a load of crap.

I've been saying this for years now.. in one form of words or another
And, I too agree

From what I understand (knowledge 'wise) there are two forms of "digital"
that are in use throughtout televsion:

* MPEG
* DV

Anything else, and.. who cares. Anyways.

The main issue with these two, is the quality level. Both exhibit various
amounts of "breakage", or pixelation (commonly refered to as, macroblocs)

In the digital world of television (Satalite and dig. Cable) you have
MPEG. I'm sure there are some use in the DV format, but in the end, MPEG
is pushed out and onto our TV sets. With a good clean source, DV -> MPEG
and then to our TV (--> dv -> mpeg -> tv) is ok in most cases, if not all.
But, if there is "noise" in DV, *or* the scene is "noisy", then there
may be some problems with the (--> dv -> mpeg -> tv) setup. This is
assuming that *some* broadcasters are using this route. It would be
interesting to learn if this is true, and then, how/and/or where/when
are they using this route in their process of bringing the content to
our tv sets.

With HD now on the move, (to take over) I mean, to bring us, so called,
better quality.., I have to wonder how much quality are we *really*
receiving. Remember, (based on my experence) Satalete *jimmy* their
bitrate/mpeg distribution, to get more (dollars) I mean, channels to
us (dumb asses) I mean, viewers. These entities bring us nothing but
macroblocks. I've seen so much, and grew soo tired of it, that it was
partly the reason I gave up Satelite, and went back to my noisy antenna.
I know it doesn't make much sense, but then again, when you think about
*ALL* the channels they macroblock us with..

With respect to edDV and some pics he posted on another forum, I took
some of those pics and ran it through a quick analysis. I found
macroblocks in them. However, those were from (if I understood the
post topic) real-time mpeg encoding

(Would have been nice it they were .PNG files, to eleminate all
doubts - ..until then)

I am quirous though, how clean those HD signals are of macroblocks.
Since I don't have HD signals, I can't do my own testing
But, we are talking about a much greater amount of data that has to
be processed. And, it would seem that the same methods of tools
are being used on such highly large-amount sources.

Is the move *really* worth it, for HD ??

I guess that remains to be found

Anyways.

But all this talk about digital brought back memories of my past
Satalete signal experience.., and How much did they sold me "pure
digital quality" hype, back then. I used to struggle with the "Star
Trek Enterprise" series, till I realized then, that it was on account
of the above nonsense (macroblocks) to this day, when source is Satelite,
but mostly on account of it all originating from "digital" though
processede through the avenue of *jimmyization"

-vhelp 3387

[Resolution]

Interesting input, I have truly tried so many options ---including known incorrect settings (like switching fields) . Playback direct to Tv looks ok, but no better than playing back old Hi 8 tapes recorded years ago.
Its a pity that V5000 is NTSC and not Pal, Very tempting, despite the fact it's massive compared to most consumer units .
I concluded it must be a fault in the camera, it transfers via firewire analogue tapes and the results are good. Transferring anything recorded on the Digital 8 looks bad. But of course, so does the Mini DV camera----Two faulty cameras ??---Unlikely.
Maybe I'll just go back to "Stills".---The Digital age has ceased to be fun.

[lordsmurf]

I'd blame it on user error. TMPG isn't the best you could have used. Procoder on MASTERING settings would have yielded better output.

If your DVD does not look AT LEAST as good as the analog source, you did something wrong. I never made discs that look worse than the source.

[vhelp]

I think we are missing something here..

What is Resolution comparing with ??

* *CAM'wise*, his 90's cam vs. today's cam, or..
* the *ENCODE* of his 90's cam vs. today's cam

But also.., what other factors are missing here. I'm not sure
what else is being compared here

@ Resolution

Can you give us some details as to what you are comparing to when
you talk about which is better ??

-vhelp 3388

[lordsmurf]

Buying a SONY also wasn't the best move.
Canon, Panasonic, both better choices.

[thecoalman]

I think we are missing something here..

What is Resolution comparing with ??

* *CAM'wise*, his 90's cam vs. today's cam, or..
* the *ENCODE* of his 90's cam vs. today's cam

But also.., what other factors are missing here. I'm not sure
what else is being compared here

@ Resolution

Can you give us some details as to what you are comparing to when
you talk about which is better ??

-vhelp 3388

Compare it to this :P , I'm guessin everyone around here is getting a little tired of these pics. You really have to compare apples to apples. If your analog cam is high end and your comparing it to a low end digital then it's not a fair comparison. I'm guessing your analog looks nothing near as good as this.

[Resolution]

Trv 900e Mini dv /3ccd and dIG 8 IS 740E.
Coalman : On that screen shot, the guy on the left , right side of face around the mic. area has some Distortion/feathering ?
I'll try and get a shot and post it.
Maybe I was just expecting to much as even the Sony 150 pro my friend let me borrow at his studio to play around with, played back on his "pro- monitors" I saw the "edge buzz" on areas of high contrast. --"That's Digital" he commented.
Different strokes for different folks I guess. I'm going check out the Procoder and a few others.

[lordsmurf]

I think you're seeing things. Psychological. I see lots of that.

[Resolution]

Ok. Thanks for all the input. Bye.

[junkmalle]

Coalman : On that screen shot, the guy on the left , right side of face around the mic. area has some Distortion/feathering?

I see normal interlaced video (4x enlargment):



There is a little macroblocking around the guys left arm and some ringing artifacts (these could be from the JPEG compression).

[edDV]

Trv 900e Mini dv /3ccd and dIG 8 IS 740E.
Coalman : On that screen shot, the guy on the left , right side of face around the mic. area has some Distortion/feathering ?
I'll try and get a shot and post it.
Maybe I was just expecting to much as even the Sony 150 pro my friend let me borrow at his studio to play around with, played back on his "pro- monitors" I saw the "edge buzz" on areas of high contrast. --"That's Digital" he commented.
Different strokes for different folks I guess. I'm going check out the Procoder and a few others.

I was writing it off to a cheap camera section until you mentioed the TRV 900E which is a decent 1st generation 3CCD (below the original VX1000).

It would help if you could post some samples and we could compare results to my TRV-103 Digital8, PD-150 and Coalman's GL2. I also have some tapes done with a rented VX-1000. Plus of course, my V5000.

It would be interesting to separate camera issues from encoding issues.

[Jester700]

I was writing it off to a cheap camera section until you mentioed the TRV 900E which is a decent 1st generation 3CCD (below the original VX1000).

It would help if you caould post some samples and we could compare results to my TRV-103 Digital8, PD-150 and Coalman's GL2. I also have some tapes done with a rented VX-1000. Plus of course, my V5000.

It would be interesting to separate camera issues from encoding issues.

The 900 was actually 2nd gen - at least it was later than the 1000. And it still holds up well with the current crop of $1500 3-ccd cams, mostly because the ccds were larger than many newer cams (like the 950) use.

[thecoalman]

Here's a similar BMP, there is some slight compression atifact from the JPG but not much, the checkerboard pattern mostly.

41.bmp

BTW, I'm taking these screenshots directly form my editor. The aspect is incorrect, they should be 16:9. They are both from the original DV.

There's some other screencaps and video with encoding comaprisons here: https://www.videohelp.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=257651

More caps here:
https://www.videohelp.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=242782

[edDV]

Here's a similar BMP, there is some slight compression atifact from the JPG but not much, the checkerboard pattern mostly.

41.bmp

BTW, I'm taking these screenshots directly form my editor. The aspect is incorrect, they should be 16:9. They are both from the original DV.

That looks very good to me. Certainly better than the huge single CCD in the V5000.

[thecoalman]

That looks very good to me. Certainly better than the huge single CCD in the V5000.

Another thing to consider is the low light conditions and the condition of the video guy. :P I'm not trying to compare to other cams but when someone says digital sucks out comes the pics.

[Richard_G]

Playback direct to Tv looks ok, but no better than playing back old Hi 8 tapes recorded years ago.

In that one sentence you have confirmed that it is the method that is degrading the quality and not a lack of quality in the first place. The V5000 was a top camcorder of it's day so the quality will be very good, how much better are you expecting it to be? Come to that, how much better could it get? As you are using a PAL DV camcorder, the final DVD, when played back on a TV, should be indistinguishable to the raw DV straight from the camcorder. If it isn't, you're doing something wrong further down the line.

[BJ_M]

the V5000 also had a pretty good lens, a lot of minidv cameras have suck the bone lens now days ..

[edDV]

I bought my DCR-TRV103 bottom of the line Digital8 camcorder* in 1998 just after they came out for $799.

When I opened the box the first thing I did was compare it to my CCD-V5000. I quickly discovered the TRV103 camera section was far inferior. I also quickly discovered that DV recording ran rings around Hi8. The V5000 was also superior for audio modes with 4 channel PCM with an internal mixer+VU meters. The bottom of the line TRV103 had only AGC level audio control and the normal 12/16bit DV audio recording modes.

In sum, it was a mixed bag.

The TRV103 has been great as a DV transcoder to my computer editing systems (Premiere and Vegas) and as a dubbing VTR to broadcast formats. The first thing I did with it was to dub all my Betacam SP tapes to DV and I have to say this bottom of the line Digital8's playback was near idential to the Betacam SP originals on a broadcast monitor. I was thrilled.

The TRV103 is only OK as a home camcorder but does an equal job to low end Hi8 units. As said above, the V5000 recorded into the TRV103 produces fine results and seems equal or better for shooting graphics and as a foreground chroma key camera (compared to higher end DV cams) due to the natural edge smoothing of its NTSC output. Sometimes, 3CCD MiniDV camcorders are just too sharp.

Later I bought a PD-150 that I share with others for field shooting. It is superior in most ways but when it's loaned out, the V5000 can be used as a substitute.

* a key point on Sony DV camcorders in the first generations (and maybe today) was the analog I/O and DV codec were identical from the top of the line VX-1000 down to the lowly $800 TRV103 Digital8 that I bought for home. Also in those days, Canopus was making a big deal about licensing Sony DV codec technology so that video was processed identically on its DV PCI cards and adapters.

PS: When I play my V5000 Hi8 tapes through the TRV103 to DV they do look good, but the huge differences for Hi8 are noise floor and those dam* dropouts. Hi8 is awful for dropouts. This was never a problem with Betacam SP and is never a problem with DV unless the heads get very dirty.