Analog better than digital?

[waldi]

I have Panasonic 3CCD DV-953 camcorder, and I have recorded quite a lot already. I don't have the time to do the final editting so I just dump the tapes to my PC via firewire as DV avi, cut out the pieces I don't want, and then burn them as a master backup for editting in the future.

I also have some old HI-8 analog tapes and I wanted to do the same, so I've started to capture them into DV avi using my PC and the capture card as well, and to my surprise the quality seems to be better than the digital one. Thie digital one is not bad, don't get me wrong, but it is NOT BETTER!

I start to wonder now why I bought this "expensive" camcorder, and I wonder if there are more people out there thinking the same thing.

Really!!! What are the advantages of a digital camcorder over a analog one + a good capture card, except maybe the size?

With digital camcorder, there is no such thing as dowloading the movie in a sense like with the digital camera "transfering of the files". You have to play the movie and capture it 1:1, and even though there is no conversion from analog to digital, it really does not save you any time compared to the analog capture in which case you have to do exactly the same, play and capture, and who cares that it converts to digital from analog at the same time since it is invisible because it does it on the fly behind the scenes.

Do you know what I mean?

And really, I can not tell the difference between the captured analog tapes and the movies captured with my digital camcorder, and I even claim to say that the analog is somehow better since there are no recorded "video noises" unlike with digital one especially with the dark footage. It even seems to be smoother too.

At this point, I would argue with anyone that would claim that the digital is better than analog. I think it could be, but there is no way in hell that if you get a cheap digital camcorder that it will be better than good quality analog S-video camcorder. Maybe the high-end digital camcorder (over $4000) can match or exceed the quality of the good analog camcorder.

I can say this because I recorded the same thing twice using my digital and analog camcorder and compared them both in DV avi format, and at the end the analog one was better.

Can someone please make me wrong!!! I want to be wrong since I've spent $1200 US on my digital camcorder.

Thanks!

[glockjs]

probably because when you captured the analog it was ran through filters as to the digital is still untouched

[waldi]

I don't think that's the case, because I've also captured the analog tapes via my digital camcorder using DVout pass-through using the same software (Adobe Premier), same settings, and the analog converted to DV avi was still better than the straigth digital one.

The quality of the digital DV avi is not bad, they are very close in quality, but it does not justify the cost.

If I knew what I know now, I would not buy the digital camcorder at all. If I didn't have anything bought, and wanted to start from scratch, I would invest in good quality S-video camcorder and a good capture card, and I think this would be still much cheaper than my digital camcorder.

Thanks for your reply!

[vandakeg]

For the most part, I agree with what you're saying. Some good analog cameras can do a very good job, and look better than some digital cameras, especially when it comes to colors.

However, in the field I'm in (Special Event Videography), I can tell you that the 'Prosumer' 3 CCD cameras are vastly superior to the 'Consumer' 3 CCD cameras. I exclusively use Sony digitals (PD-170s), and have not found a better looking picture. One of my favorite back up cameras is my Sony DCR-TRV740, it's only 1 CCD, but in good light situations it is incredible.

Unfortunately, it seems as though you've learned rather harshly that, just b/c a camera is $1200 does not make it good.

[davideck]

Very interesting post! I miss my old Panasonic SVHS full sized camcorder because it produced better images than my JVC MiniDV digital camcorder. I would suggest that the quality of the camera element has a lot to do with it. My SVHS camcorder looked MUCH better in low light conditions, had more accurate color reproduction (I ALWAYS have to select the white balance on my JVC), better auto focus, etc. In my case, the differences in tape format (analog vs. digital) are insignificant compared to the differences in the quality of the image coming from the camera itself. Now that I have converted my home videos to DVD, I am very glad that I spent the big bucks on the SVHS camcorder way back when. I love the convenience of my MiniDV unit, but I miss the picture quality of the Panasonic.

[racer-x]

Oh come on now, I think you're over exaturating a little here. It is possible that your Hi-8 may be better in low light because it has a larger ccd. It's not even a close call in good lighting though. The Panasonic dv-953 will blow the hi-8 out of the water. Your Hi-8 has roughly 300 or so lines of horizontal resolution as opposed to the dv-953's 535 lines of horizontal resolution.

I also own the Panasonic dv-953, and it is a great camera. If you're not getting good video out of it, then you're doing something wrong or it is defective and you should probably return it.

You may want to output both videos to Mpeg > burn to DVD > then view on TV before you pass judgement.

[waldi]

I didn't say the my digital recording is BAD, but I said that it didn't seem to be better than the analog.

I did hope though, that someone like you will reply to convince me otherwise so I could sleep better at night , and that I did not spent the money for nothing.

I hope you are right, but unfortunatelly I can not really test it on the TV because I don't have one (yeah, yeah, I know, I'm weird ), and as far as playing it on PC, I don't see a big difference. Analog captured to DV avi looks clean, smooth, nice colors, and it doesn't seem to be any worse than digital capture (at least on my 19' PC monitor).

[Cornucopia]

I think you just inadvertantly answered your own question.

If you don't have a TV and are using the PC's monitor, your player software is interpolating, resizing, and deinterlacing. Depending upon that software, much of the difference will be smudged over with the blurring done in the name of those 3 things I just mentioned. Particularly the deinterlacing. If Hi-8 gives you ~300 lines of resolution and DV gives you ~450 (which is a noticeable difference), but your playback software does deinterlacing and throws out/blurs one of the fields, you'll be left with both of them giving you a resolution of ~220 lines. There goes the difference.

Before you make your final decision, compare apples to apples.
Use cameras with similar Lens, Chip Elements, and Features. Capture similar footage across a range of scene types. While something that is "Analog" isn't necessarily any better or worse than something that is "Digital", I think you'll find that Digital cams do give you a better image. Resolution should almost always be better. Color Fidelity. Timebase accuracy. These won't really change as they result from the type of sampling and the way that digital coding divorces the quality of the signal from the quality of the medium.

Let us know,

Scott

[disturbed1]

To me anaolg (Hi 8)does look better than digital (mini DV).

I've 3 different Mini DV cams, JVC, Canon, and Samsung. All were in the sub $600 range, but, my $240 Canon Hi 8 looks much better, more natural.

Mini DV has a serious flaw that prevents me from using it on NTSC sources, the color space is only 4:1:1, while analog is 4:2:0. Reds, including orange, just look nasty with Mini DV.

I've captured with the built in firewire on my PC through Vegas, and Scenelizer, then encode with Canopus ProCoder Express. For Hi 8, I use either a DC30 Pro at 704x480 7.5MB/s or a BT878 card captured in YUV, then encoded at the same specs with Canopus ProCoder Express.

Mini DV does take up less space, and is faster to encode, but I perfer the quality over time.

Perhaps if I could get my hands on a multi CCD (above $2000) mini DV cam, the results would be better. I'd rather spend $240 on Hi 8, and get the results I get.

BTW, Hi 8 is 400+ lines of resolution, Mini DV is 480-500+ lines of resolution.

Hi-8mm – Representing the high end camcorder market, Hi-8 uses S-Video format with 400 line horizontal resolution. Hi-8 is different than 8mm because of the S-Video format and the fact that the Hi-8 Y signal's overall frequency range is greater. This allows for a larger overall bandwidth on which to record video information. Hi-8 also contains excellent sound capabilities due to its use of hi-fi and pulse code modulation.

In PAL land, Mini DV is far greater due to its use of 4:2:2 (or 4:2:0 ?) color space.

[garry]

I recently thought the same about all DV footage. (They all look the same)

Until using 2 dv cameras (one in the million pixels range & one lower end) for videoing similtaneously & editing together I could see the chalk & cheese.

So my next purchase will have the extra few bucks added on.

[Epicurus8a]

I look at digital video/audio much the same way I look at digital cell phones. When they work, they work well. When they don't work, they suck. There's no in-between. At least Analog has and in-between. Digital sure is easier to work with, though. Unless, that is, the equipment has those pain-in-the-butt menus to work with. Give me a knob or a button any day of the week. When you need to get something done NOW, those menus are S**T to work with.

[dfluke]

Digital is more convienent, thats about it. Analog is better because it has too store the entire video signal. Digital is stored in a compressed format. So unless its a lossless compression the digital video signal will be a lower quality than the same analog video signal.
Its the same with VHS and DVD. A DVD is better because of all the features and longevity, but out of the box, the VHS tape has a better video quality.

[disturbed1]

Digital is more convienent, thats about it. Analog is better because it has too store the entire video signal. Digital is stored in a compressed format. So unless its a lossless compression the digital video signal will be a lower quality than the same analog video signal.
Its the same with VHS and DVD. A DVD is better because of all the features and longevity, but out of the box, the VHS tape has a better video quality.

You know, at first I was going to ask if you'd share what you were smoking, because it has to some good stuff

But, that statement is somewhat true. I have seen some S-VHS tapes that rival DVD, and even a couple VHS tapes that were (re)mastered correctly that also looked good on an S-VHS player.

But just plain old VHS with composite output pales in comparision to 90% of the DVDs made in the last 2 years. That's the same comparison of cassette tape to Compact Disc. CD is in every way better than tape. Solid state compared to vacuum tube, or CD compared to vinyl is different story though :P

Now there are some crappy B flicks that were mastered by 12 year olds, which look even worse when played back on a cyberhome/apex/sony/<insert shitty dvd player here> stand alone. If you compare a block buster movie (Lord of the Rings) and play it back on a decent mid-line device (Panasonic, Toshiba, JVC), on a good 27-32" TV the DVD is far better.

DVD has hit the consumer with a bunch of junk. We have $30 DVD players, $0.10 DVD Media, and $50 DVD Burners. Almost all compliants about anything DVD include the usage of at least one of the above low cost varities. When you purchase an Escort, no one expects Mustang performance, just can't figure out why people can't make the same connection with technology and computers.

Mini DV is no different. I've seen crops of sub $350 mini DV cams popping up here recently. It's just a shame.

I too thought that VHS looked better than DVD 5 years ago. But I had a 25" console TV, and an APEX DVD player that was run through an RF switch. Of course the DVD looked like shit for the 2 hours it took me to figure out what the problem was

[NamPla]

Analog better than digital?

Vinyl is better than CD.

OF COURSE analog is better than digital. Digital will FOREVER be a facsimile of the REAL thing.

[vitualis]

Analogue is a facsimile of the REAL thing (i.e., the original audio) too...

Depending on your format, digitial can be better OR worse, but digital is usually much more consistent (i.e., it doesn't get worse in time).

Regards.

[Jester700]

Analog better than digital?

Vinyl is better than CD.

OF COURSE analog is better than digital. Digital will FOREVER be a facsimile of the REAL thing.

...oh, great. Another one of THOSE guys...

[NamPla]

Well the thing is, your EYES see in digital, but your EARS hear in analog. So maybe we should trust our ears before our sight!?

[thecoalman]

Analog better than digital?

Vinyl is better than CD.

OF COURSE analog is better than digital. Digital will FOREVER be a facsimile of the REAL thing.

Ever hear DVD audio?....

As for comparing digital to analog as far as cams go... well.....Let's see a analog cam produce quality like this.



There's others here and more to come. https://www.videohelp.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=242782

It's only a matter of time before digital quality surpasses analog on all fronts.

[junkmalle]

Make an analog copy of your analog video. Now make an analog copy of that analog copy. Repeat...

Make a digital copy of your DV video. Then make a digital copy of that copy. Repeat...

After n generations of each compare the quality...

[NamPla]

Junkmail's got it.

I still say vinyl is better than CD.

This is a RECENT thing! I used to believe CDs SHIT on LPs. But RECENTLY I found out that LPs SHIT on CDs. I compared "album" and "cd".

eg G.I.S.M. "Detestation" LP/CD
eg RUPTURE "Sex, Drugs & Rupture" LP/CD
eg MENTAL ABUSE "Streets Of Filth" LP/CD

etc...etc...

The vinyl WINS, each time.

[thecoalman]

The vinyl WINS, each time.

No argument there, I've gotten in arguments with people over that. But.... have you compared it to DVD Audio.

[NamPla]

It depends what you're listening to. Sometimes CDs shit on LPs. Sometimes LPs shit on CDs. It depends what you're listening to.

[thecoalman]

It depends what you're listening to. Sometimes CDs shit on LPs. Sometimes LPs shit on CDs. It depends what you're listening to.

DVD audio shits on them both.

[NamPla]

What are you a cat or something that can hear higher than 44.1kHz frequencies?

[Steve Stepoway]

One thing to remember is that "CD quality digital audio" (i.e. stereo 16 bit 44.1kHz samples) is the absolute minimum to be able to reproduce in some way high frequency signals (up to 22kHz). Those frequencies are the critical overtones that make a piano sound different from a guitar from a trumpet from a ... The more accurately those can be reproduced, the better the sound quality. A pristine LP played on the best equipment may well reproduce those high frequencies more accurately than a run-of-the-mill CD. An LP that's been played a few times being played on run-of-the-mill equipment, with the inevitable mechanical "wow", who knows? And talk to audio pros about how they really digitize: 24 bit samples (sometimes 32) at 96kHz or 192kHz.

Digital's big wins? No mechanically introduced wow and flutter, no generational loss, more robust recording media, and the CD sounds the same the 100th time it's played as the first (more robust media again). But is it going to sound better under optimal conditions? Who knows?

[NamPla]

[quote="Steve Stepoway"]And talk to audio pros about how they really digitize: 24 bit samples (sometimes 32) at 96kHz or 192kHz./quote]

That's all very well in the "Studio", but we listen to it as 44.1/16-bit. That's what counts. If it sounds shit, well it will sound shit.

I'm not talking about the intricacies of fine-mastering...

Tho' I wish I was!!! :P

[thecoalman]

No... The reason a record sounds better than a CD is because a CD can't store enough data to catch all the nuances. It's picky... I know but it's like comparing CD audio to MP3, same concept.

DVD audio closes that gap because it can store so much more information and has the same properties as a CD in that it will always sound the same. The best of both worlds.

Here's a article... http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/computing/personaltech/20040607-9999-mz1b7audio.html

I've only heard the sampler disc that came with my Soundcard but the difference is very noticeable. You can switch between the two, there's a orchestra composition and when you turn on the DVD audio it almost sounds like your there.

[dfluke]

Sorry, I thought this was a video forum. When it comes to audio the techology is different. A cassette was never designed for bandwidth greater than 14kHz while a CD was designed for 22kHz. Until recently even MP3 did not have lossless compression. (I think Apple's new format claims to be lossless.)

All I was saying was that for video, out of the box, a VHS tape can be better than a DVD because no compression is involved. A DVD does not have the physical space to hold a 2 hour movie without loss compression.

[lordsmurf]

A VHS tape doesn't have even close to the bandwidth of a DVD, in terms of color, resolution, etc. No contest. VHS is crap. Look at S-VHS and Betacam SP for good analog.

[Epicurus8a]

Death does not concern us, because as long as we exist, death is not here. And when it does come, we no longer exist.