I've been giving serious consideration to buying one of the Everio HDD camcorders, or at least *a* HDD camcorder. I've never bought a camcorder before, barely used them at all. I really like the simplicity of use (or at least, they seem easy to use to me). I could record, transfer from the camcorder to the HDD, and make my own DVDs using TMPG DVD-A. I don't plan on doing any voice-overs, or adding music, or any of that fancy stuff. I just want to get video of my son at his piano concerts, other family events, etc. I also like how small and lightweight they are, as I would like to take it along while hiking. Having a 9 hour recording time on a 30gig HDD would probably be enough for several MONTHS worth of hiking for me, as I am just interested in the occasional vista shot or some great scenery I might run across, but I don't want to haul along 10 pounds of gear for the privilege. Suffice to say the form factor here is a huge consideration for me, and a major reason I'm seriously looking at buying a camcorder finally (it always seemed to me to be more hassle than it was worth to have a camcorder when you needed to haul along 15 pounds of gear - spare tapes, spare batteries, cables, etc. - along with the 5-10 pound camcorder).
Some questions I have, hoping you folks can shed some light or give me more to think about:
1) The Everio records in the mpg2 format, which I understand is DVD-quality. What I don't understand is why everyone seems to think that is a bad thing. I know how to work with mpg2 files, from using TMPG DVD-A. The quality seems fine to me. If the DVDs I buy to watch are recorded in that format, why is it so "bad" compared to .avi format? I think I understand that avi is super-high quality, so if a person was going to be manipulating the video the quality would stay really high. I'm not planning on doing or wanting to do anything like that.
2) From reading various articles at camcorderinfo.com it seems apparent to me that *most* camcorders under ~$1000 don't have very good low-light capabilities. If this is the case, it seems to me almost any unit I might get will suffer from this, so again I like the small and lightweight HDD machine(s). But, how bad in real-life situation terms are these cameras? I don't know lux or lumen categories, I'm looking for "bad in candle light but ok indoors" or "anything without lots of direct light will look like crap", that sort of description would be great to help me understand these low-light rankings.
Thanks for any food for thought folks, greatly appreciated.
+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 23 of 23
-
-
Originally Posted by nathanaa
Other than carrying spare tapes, there is no real packing advantage vs a small DV camcorder. The main limitation is the necessity to transfer and preserve data to a computer and archive to DVD media. This can be a limitation for extended vacations if you don't also carry a laptop.
Advantages of the HDD model include limited internal cuts editing, faster than 1x transfer to the computer over USB2 and no need to cue tape. HDD allows random cue access.
The camera section is typical for a 2nd tier consumer camcorder. Low light results will be noisy. Better low light performance requires a more expensive class with a larger lens and sensor. See camcorderinfo.com for rankings. -
I almost bought a JVC HDD comcorder last Xmas. But after I learnt
its poor performance under low light condition, I changed my mind.
Then, I heard the best comcorder under $1000 for low light is some
of SONY DVD comcorder. -
When you say that you learned of the poor low-light performance, do you mean that you yourself had a lot of problems? What sort of settings did you try to use the camcorder in that you were unhappy with the results?
-
I have not tried JVC. I had a Canon camcorder 2 years ago.
I found it performed badly under the low-light condition.
The picture is gainy with a lots of noise when shoting
inside a room with just regular lights. I also learnt that
almost all comsumer comcorders do poorly under low-light
because the size of the CCD inside. The larger the CCD,
the better. But it is very expensive for large CCD. So it
is almost impossible for low priced camcorders perform
good under low-light. If you check user's reviews on
camcorders under $1000, you will find it is hardly anyone
praise their performance for low-light, except a few Sony
models.
Last Xmas when I planed to by JVC, I checked user reviews
on Circuit City, Amazon.com, and CNET.com. I particular
focus on if anything was said about its low-light performance.
Just like most other brands, there were a few comments
related to its low-light performance. They were all
nagetive. I could not find any positive comments on its
low-light performace. Although most comments are positive
for its performance under bright sunshine. So my impression
is that this comcorder very likely would not perform good
when used inside room with regular lighting. -
Camcorderinfo.com details comparative low light performance in their reviews.
Recommends: Kiva.org - Loans that change lives.
http://www.kiva.org/about -
Does anyone know if there is a HDD camcorder in the $1000-1500 range that has good low-light capability? When I do a search for HDD camcorders I only get info on the JVC Everio, but there have got to be more out there, right?
-
Originally Posted by nathanaa
Prosumers use higher end camcorders (bulky) + external HDD recorders.
http://www.videoguys.com/FireStore.html
You need to decide between low light performance and bulk. Assuming $ not important.
BTW: Prosumers value the advantages of the DV format since they will be editing. -
This may be out of the subject but I am voicing my opinion about camcorder performance under low light condition.
Most comsumer digital camcorders has trouble with low light. But the analog ones do not.
I used to have a Hi8 camcorder, great video even at low light. I did tape a live show outdoor, at night with lights beaming at me and the camcorder, with a special setting, the tape came out really great. I missed that when I bought a Sony Digital 8. At low light, the video is s...o.... grainy.
When I made DVDs from analog Hi8 or Digital 8, I cannot tell the difference in quality, except the analog Hi8 (my rating:8/10) beats Digital8 (2/10)under low light condition.
I wish my Hi8 camcorder still work today (I broke it after falling on a vacation trip, standing on a slippery rock !!!). I know there are high definition camcorders out there now, maybe that what I will get next.ktnwin - PATIENCE -
Originally Posted by edDV
If $ is not important, I want good low light performance AND low bulk. But can I get that? With a HDD I mean, hopefully.... -
Originally Posted by nathanaa
-
Originally Posted by ktnwin
I had a very nice $2500 CCD-V5000 Hi8 camcorder that out performed a new cheap Digital8 by far as a camera. When I used the Digital8 to record this cam via S-Video, I had superior recording performance as well. Best of both worlds.
Think of a camcorder as two products, a "cam" and a "corder". -
I'm surprised nobody has bought this up ealier. In your original post you quote 9 hours on a 30GB HDD. That's 3.3GB per hour mpeg2. Forget vistas, shot handheld (as you seem so worried about size and bulk, I doubt you'll be taking a tripod along with you) at that sort of quality, you'll get a varying coloured mush that might bear a vague resemblance to the vista you are viewing. It most certainly won't recreate the view you are trying to reproduce.
HDD and DVD camcorders are for people who want convenience not quality. The only way you will get that is with a decent quality MiniDV camcorder. -
Many trekking poles now come with a mono-pod mount in the top of the pole grip, which is what I was planning on using for the vista shots. I could mount the camera and sloooowwwly rotate the trekking pole, for example. Much more stable than my hand/shoulder.
I also found directions for a 20oz plastic soda bottlecap camera mount that I am thinking I could utilize for a small camcorder, if I upsized it to a litre bottlecap mount.
Yes, I am looking for a convenient size, but I'm also hoping for decent performance - doesn't have to be fantastic performance, just good-to-better-than-average. If it is DVD-quality video, I'll be happy with that (at least, I think I should be), so the mpeg2 format in the JVC isn't a downside for me so far. -
Originally Posted by nathanaa
If you want reasonable "vista" quality you should be using something like this (or better)
http://www.jvc.com/product.jsp?modelId=MODL027421&pathId=26&page=1
Since they fail to speak to video resolution in the single CCD Everio,
http://www.jvc.com/product.jsp?modelId=MODL027663&pathId=119&page=2
you have to suspect they are embarrassed to say. Research the camcorder review sites to get a clue. It won't be anywhere near commercial DVD quality.
That said, every pound* saved helps while trekking.
* this site says the weight difference is 0.3 lb. 0.95 vs 1.2+tapes
http://www.epinions.com/JVC_Cameras_and_Photography_High_Band_3_CCD_Digital_Video_Came...ay_~full_specs -
Why did you ask on here in the first place? You seem determined that you are going to buy a HDD camcorder despite virtually everyone condemning them as toys for lazy consumers that want convenience and not serious tools for people that want quality. No matter how high the data rate, mpeg2 is inherently inferior in quality than DV. If you start with something that is good, you can degrade it until it doesn't look good to you any more. When you start with something that is poor(er) quality in the first place, you can never get it back, it is lost forever.
-
I agreed with Richard_G, an HDD camcorder maybe convenient because:
1) no need to carry a lot of tapes (4 or 5), but miniDV tapes are small so what's the heck
2) convenient reviewing of captured videos without fearing overwritting it with new video (this happens a lot with tapes, you rewind to review something, then forget to fast forward, and the next video capture will overwritte what's on there. This is the biggest advantage of HDD recorder.
You may regret for not being able to do some editing later one because the video is already in MPEG-2 format.
However, the low light handling capability has nothing to do with HDD or tape based camcorder, as I said earlier, analog camcorder did not have this issue while digitial ones do.
Too bad, the analog ones are disappearing on the market (meaning the tapes may also disappear too).ktnwin - PATIENCE -
Originally Posted by ktnwin
ID your analog camcorder and your Digital8 models. As strated earier, only low end single CCD camera sections were ever available for Digital8. What analog model are you comparing? -
Originally Posted by Richard_G
And to touch on your second point Richard_G, again, I go back to my earlier comments about quality. I recognize that DV is inherently the superior format - but I'm not planning on doing anything with my footage where I would benefit from that better format. No editing, no adding audio, no fancy effects....if I ever decide to learn or do that sort of thing, I would obviously need to get a different type of camera, which idea I am comfortable with.
And still, the quality issue is somewhat unclear to me in this regard - if the Everio (or any of the current HDD camcorders) records at 8.5 Mb/s vs DV's 25 Mb/s, what does this mean in "real life" viewing? Will everything from the HDD camcorder look grainy? Blurry? Not as sharp as mini-DV but still ok? Perfectly viewable by 99% of the people out there in the world but horrible to the 1% who really know/understand video quality? This is what I don't get from reading reviews, these sort of particulars. EdTV's comments way back at the beginning of this topic were great in helping me gain a grasp of some of this type of info.
As for mini-DV being a low-bulk/lightweight form factor, even hauling along "a few tapes" destroys the benefits of the higher quality for me. I would rather wait until a HDD or flash based camcorder with better quality recording comes out than get a mini-DV camcorder now. -
I'm not sure you are going to find what you want. The cheaper camcorders, whether they are HDD, DVD or MiniDV, have a single small CCD and hence have poor low light performance. As you go up the range the CCD gets larger and the low light performance improves. Further up, you get the 3 CCD camcorders that give better colour rendition but the 3 CCDs are small so the low light performance suffers again. At the very top of the range you get a camcorder with 3 big CCDs which will give you the best of everything. It will also be very big and heavy compared to the consumer models.
You have to look at the differing market sectors these camcorders are aimed at. The HDD and DVD camcorders produce footage that is already compressed to mpeg2 so is not suited to any serious editing. It is easy to play it back though, no messing around with plugging lots of cables into sockets on a TV that the user doesn't really understand. Consequently, they are aimed at the average Joe who can't tell good quality from bad. All he wants is something that is small and light enough to put in his pocket and point at anything that moves. He takes the moving equivalent to snapshots as opposed to photographs. A camcorder equivalent to a Kodak Instamatic if you are old enough to remember them (or a better comparison might be the 110 format still cameras, tiny negative size hence tiny camera but diabolical quality).
Manufacturers assume that if you want decent quality, it is because you can tell the difference and appreciate that you will have to sacrifice convenience to get it. Therefore they aren't going to bother making a decent quality camcorder, with good optical and low light performance, and then riun all their hard work by degrading the quality to store it on a hard drive. Even if they did, it probably wouldn't appeal to you (and a lot of the other buyers of HDD camcorders) because the better lens and larger CCD will make the camcorder bigger.
If, as you said in your original post, 9 hours recording would last you for months of hiking, why is the one hour on a MiniDV tape such a problem? You probably wouldn't need to carry a spare at all, but even one takes up such a tiny amount of space. -
Excellent summary Richard_G
Using the JVC line as an example, the size and weight cost of 3CCD DV format vs MPeg2 "Everio" is 1/3 pound and a few MiniDV tapes. Low light performance is probably a wash.
Low light performance currently pushes you into larger glass and CCD size (i.e. size and weight). At the limit, a minimal Digital Betacam camcorder is 8-12 pounds with minimal glass.
Currently there is a gap in "low light performance" _AND_ small form factor. Best way to get there currently is with security camera technology but that won't look good for "vista" on a large screen.
Even the trust fund baby whiners need to make choices. -
I agree, excellent summary Richard_G, and thanks for putting it all so succinctly. I think I now have a much better understanding of what I'm faced with regarding my choices. Thanks for the tip edDV, I'll look into the security camera thing, although I'm guessing price will be a real problem, as well as what kind of form factor I'll have.
I had not thought about this from the manufacturers POV, and what that would mean for the types of items available. Thanks for all the food for thought everyone, you've been extremely helpful.
Similar Threads
-
No sound playback on copied files from HDD Camcorder
By syberkill in forum Camcorders (DV/HDV/AVCHD/HD)Replies: 5Last Post: 14th Nov 2012, 07:36 -
what software for sony hdd camcorder
By ballboy in forum Camcorders (DV/HDV/AVCHD/HD)Replies: 1Last Post: 11th Dec 2008, 14:26 -
HDD VS Flash VS miniDV camcorder. Which is better?
By vid83 in forum Camcorders (DV/HDV/AVCHD/HD)Replies: 4Last Post: 11th Dec 2008, 09:11 -
Which is good HDD camcorder or DV camcorder?
By tapal in forum Camcorders (DV/HDV/AVCHD/HD)Replies: 5Last Post: 16th Sep 2008, 03:09 -
will hdd camcorder work with premiere?
By aj8690 in forum Camcorders (DV/HDV/AVCHD/HD)Replies: 11Last Post: 28th Apr 2008, 04:06