VideoHelp Forum

Try DVDFab and download streaming video, copy, convert or make Blu-rays,DVDs! Download free trial !
+ Reply to Thread
Page 2 of 2
FirstFirst 1 2
Results 31 to 56 of 56
Thread
  1. Member thecoalman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Search PM
    Originally Posted by dfluke
    Sorry, I thought this was a video forum..
    Yes but discussions such as this one can cross many forms of media perticularly when the subject matter is so narrow.

    Originally Posted by dfluke
    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.
    Compression or no compression VHS is hardly comparable to DVD. VHS has a limited resolution, DVD can use it all fully.
    Quote Quote  
  2. - A good analog camera is better then a poor digital camera.

    - DV is the worst digital acquisition format, but it is an affordable option for the better ones. It is good only with expensive cameras. Needless to say, analog formats (Betacam SP, SVHS and Hi8) are also good with the same expensive cameras. Professional vidographers are paid more when they use Betacam SP cameras instead of DV, DVCam or DVPro cameras.

    - VHS is the worst video format and it is dead for good.

    My equipment: Sony-DSR300A(DVCam), Sony UVW 1800(Betacam SP), Sony DSR-11(DVCam), Sony DCR-TRV900(DV), Mac with superdrive.
    Quote Quote  
  3. BTW, for those of you comparing CDs vs LPs, make sure that you are comparing the same thing. Playing an audio CD through a crappy hi-fi does not do justice to the quality of the audio that is on the CD itself.

    It is fair to say that LPs and CDs sound somewhat different, but not everyone would agree that LPs sound "better". When you are talking about the "mellow" or "rounded" nature of a LP, you are actually talking about some of the analogue artifacts introduced by the nature of the physical medium. In terms of fidelity, a CD is probably better.

    Regards.
    Michael Tam
    w: Morsels of Evidence
    Quote Quote  
  4. Member vhelp's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2001
    Location
    New York
    Search Comp PM
    I am convinced that the MPEG Encoder is the deciding factor in quality
    reproduction here. Weather the source is Analog or DV (though yes, Analog
    will always win in terms of quality) DV, in most cases is just as good as
    Analog, *given the MPEG encoder* in use, and the skill of the user behind
    it !!

    Sometimes, all it is, is the CODEC in-between, that causes the failure in
    reproduction of the video source, when during the capturing phase.
    Other times, it's just the matter of the source itself (where the source
    came from, in terms of Camera and User handling/operation/footage_taking)
    that can make a conversion tern out in quality, good or bad, and *not*
    the Type ( ie, Analog vs. Digital (DV) )
    .
    I mean, look at your DV cams. (those that have one, and have good experience
    with it, *and* in comparison to your "older" VHS type cams) Have you transfered
    it to MPEG-2 and seen the difference in quality ?? Dispite the 4:1:1 of DV,
    if the dv CAM is good, coupled with a quality LENS, and a good built-in DV
    Codec (encoder/decoder) (ie, my Sony TRV22 outputs great quality, from the
    LENS to the Firewire) the 4:1:1 -to- 4:2:0 MPEG-2 will turn out great, though
    depending on the user and his/her skills in everything.
    If you didn't have to deal with Interlace, and/or if you had your DV cam on
    a tripod and let it take footage, and then you processed it to a DVD, you'd
    probably be surprised at the quality you can get from a DV source camera.
    I did just such an experiment (many times) and am still amazed at the quality.
    .
    Todays broadcasters are using DV cams in many of their footaging.., even made
    to tv stuff. Then, they master it to DVD (just a guess here) for airing (or
    not) and when we see it, we think its a 4:2:2 source, though it's not. (yes,
    another guess here) Then, we capture this "original DV" (from our Cable or
    Antenna or Satellite) and turn up some good quality reproduction.
    .
    So, I would say that DV is just as good a source as Analog video (from an
    analog camera) in most cases. It just depends on the quality of the device
    and the quality (I mean) users skills level *and* techniques used to produce
    a good MPEG out of it all.

    Stop shooting footage in the dark !! ......Anyways.

    On the Audio of things ...

    I think the question (some posts up) was about the Audio's quality on the VHS
    is *not* compressed. Rather stored as-is, on the tape. The only degration
    is the Tape's hiss and other factors regarding the VCR, etc. And, the Audio
    on the DVD, is compressed. The audio on the VHS tape is Analog, and at it's
    highest quality. But, again the hiss doesn't excape us. So, w/ respect to
    DVD's, the audio *is* superior to that of VHS.., no matter what remastering
    is done to the tape.., even Commerial tapes. FWIW.. I can't hear the hiss
    on the Tape, when it's played on my VCR. When I capture a given Commercial
    vhs tape to my DV device (48k) I hear nothing but *Great* quality. And, that
    in itself, if digital.., and *could* almost be compared to DVD's audio.., as
    long as it's not 5.1 suround or whatever. I'm talking in terms of Stereo and
    or 2.0 Suround ...FWIW. But, I agree, that DVD audio is better quality than
    that of VHS.

    -vhelp
    Quote Quote  
  5. Twenty years ago I used to make training videos using an industrial VHS edit suite. The master quality was great until we started copying tape-to-tape to edit. When S-VHS came along, I couldn't see a great deal of difference really.

    I had a nice Video 8 camcorder in 1989. Recently I have been transferring all those tapes and my Hi8 made with a Canon Hi8 camcorder that cost £1000 ten years ago. Captured to PC or recorded straight to DVD using a DVD recorder often I have to check back whether the footage originated on Video 8 or Hi8. I can't tell.

    For a long time I've been convinced that each time a new format comes along, the previous formats are downgraded slightly to create more of a quality gap.

    Exposure accuracy and use of manual settings of the original tapes makes an enormous difference too. As does the lens. There was a time a decade or two ago when just about every camera had a decent lens. Now manufacturers put 'bottle bottom' lenses on the cheapest equipment, again to create more of a quality difference.
    Quote Quote  
  6. Video Restorer lordsmurf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    dFAQ.us/lordsmurf
    Search Comp PM
    Originally Posted by rgs_uk
    Twenty years ago I used to make training videos using an industrial VHS edit suite. The master quality was great until we started copying tape-to-tape to edit. When S-VHS came along, I couldn't see a great deal of difference really.

    I had a nice Video 8 camcorder in 1989. Recently I have been transferring all those tapes and my Hi8 made with a Canon Hi8 camcorder that cost £1000 ten years ago. Captured to PC or recorded straight to DVD using a DVD recorder often I have to check back whether the footage originated on Video 8 or Hi8. I can't tell.

    For a long time I've been convinced that each time a new format comes along, the previous formats are downgraded slightly to create more of a quality gap.

    Exposure accuracy and use of manual settings of the original tapes makes an enormous difference too. As does the lens. There was a time a decade or two ago when just about every camera had a decent lens. Now manufacturers put 'bottle bottom' lenses on the cheapest equipment, again to create more of a quality difference.
    That's an awful big conspiracy theory.
    Want my help? Ask here! (not via PM!)
    FAQs: Best Blank Discs • Best TBCs • Best VCRs for capture • Restore VHS
    Quote Quote  
  7. It really depends on the resolution of any format, A OR D. And vinyl is the VHS of audio. No shit. Think you're getting >22k on a record? Test it. Not many mics, phono needles, OR tweeters have anything going on up there. And the ones that do don't have it after you play the record a dozen times. Want good analog? Get a 1/2" half track open reel.

    96k or 192k is nice for ease of filtering, but there's a lot of wackiness in audio people over the hearability of it. On AWESOME systems in GREAT environments, OK. But normally...

    24 bits makes more sense, at least for recording. Higher bit depth gives FX transforms more accuracy and gives lots of fudge factor for level/dynamics maniputaion. But as a delivery medium for modern music in normal rooms, 16 bit is pretty durn good. 24/96 would be nice, but IMO it's a very slight improvement and not worth the outlay.

    And BTW, vinyl/CD tests are invalid by their nature. The media were mastered differently. The vinyl was likely compressed more. Were the levels of the test sytem matched to .1dB? You'd need to obtain specially made test pairs to do this right.
    Quote Quote  
  8. Originally Posted by lordsmurf
    That's an awful big conspiracy theory.
    Maybe... Or just the cynical age we live in? What is the actual cost difference between a good lens and a bad one to the manufacturer?
    Quote Quote  
  9. Why is it that the digital camcorders are so BAD when it comes to recording in a poor light?

    Is there anything that can be done to improve it?

    I mean, is there anything that can be done to make the digital camcorder to record the "dark" as "dark" without the video noises that come out as a "fog" or "snow"?

    The analog camcorder seems to be soooooo much better in this departament.
    Quote Quote  
  10. Member thecoalman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Search PM
    Originally Posted by waldi

    Is there anything that can be done to improve it?
    .
    Yea buy a better camcorder :P This is from my Canon GL2 using the spotlight preset which is specifically for situations like this. Although I didn't record any footage without the spotlight function I did view it in the preview beforehand. There is a signifigant improvement.... It may be a few years before you see quality like this in consumer cams but it will arrive.


    Quote Quote  
  11. Originally Posted by waldi
    Why is it that the digital camcorders are so BAD when it comes to recording in a poor light?

    Is there anything that can be done to improve it?

    I mean, is there anything that can be done to make the digital camcorder to record the "dark" as "dark" without the video noises that come out as a "fog" or "snow"?

    The analog camcorder seems to be soooooo much better in this departament.
    Are we talking about a NEW analog cam or an old one? Old ones were big, and so they had big lenses and big CCDs. They may not have had great resolution, but a lot of light hit that sensor. Now everyone wants a cam that'll fit in your pocket. Fine, but low light performance will suck.

    You need a big CCD (preferably 3 of them). The GL2 rocks. Or Sony's VX2000 or 2100.
    Quote Quote  
  12. Member thecoalman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Search PM
    Are we talking about a NEW analog cam or an old one?
    I think this whole thread is very subjective to what your comparing. There's no consumer analog cam on the markey at least that I'm aware of that will compare to the Canon GL2 or similar digital cams. Yet a Betacam will probably eat them for lunch, I say probably because I don't know much about them. I'll guess they have low and high end models just like others. Anyway I'm very happy with the Canon, expensive but not exobitantly expensive. Give it a few years and you'll see better ones for 1/4 the cost.
    Quote Quote  
  13. Originally Posted by thecoalman
    Are we talking about a NEW analog cam or an old one?
    I think this whole thread is very subjective to what your comparing. There's no consumer analog cam on the markey at least that I'm aware of that will compare to the Canon GL2 or similar digital cams. Yet a Betacam will probably eat them for lunch, I say probably because I don't know much about them. I'll guess they have low and high end models just like others. Anyway I'm very happy with the Canon, expensive but not exobitantly expensive. Give it a few years and you'll see better ones for 1/4 the cost.
    You're right, but I was assuming at least the same class of product. I doubt anyone was thinking Betacam vs. $500 cheapo DV.

    I dunno about your assessment of quality, though. Some tweaks are definitely still happening, but CCD technology is fairly mature and you can't really get around physics. That's why the small handheld cams still don't have great vid quality in low light, and they've been out for years. The $1000 cams of today don't really beat the $1000 ones of 5 years ago, though they have a ton more features, and the VX2000 and TRV900 haven't been topped in their price ranges yet. Again, from a purely quality perspective.

    Of course, I'm sure new tech is on the way to supplant the CCD and rewrite the book...
    Quote Quote  
  14. I have 3CDD Panasonic PV-DV953, and the picture quality in a poor light conditions are awful.

    Even pictures recorded in room at night with the regular light come out grainy.
    Quote Quote  
  15. That is because those CCD's are small. Camera with only one, but biger CCD will give you better quality of the picture in low light conditions.
    Quote Quote  
  16. Video Restorer lordsmurf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    dFAQ.us/lordsmurf
    Search Comp PM
    To add on what zorankarapancev just said...

    Quality means more than quantity or size.
    This translates to still cameras too.
    You need to find a good one, that is all.

    Generally, lesser money will equal lesser quality.
    And more often, larger CCDs and more of them are better.

    But it's still about the quality of the hardware, and nothing else.

    I've seen several of expensive, 3 CCD and "large" CCD cameras
    that were no contest to a single "small" CCD in terms of quality.

    Still cameras have "megapixel" mumbo-jumbo to
    overcome too.
    Want my help? Ask here! (not via PM!)
    FAQs: Best Blank Discs • Best TBCs • Best VCRs for capture • Restore VHS
    Quote Quote  
  17. Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Fairfax County, VA, USA
    Search Comp PM
    i cant believe this argument is still going on...

    basically: under the right circumstances (meaning the controls are the same [CCD size, distance of mic from motor]), digital will be better than analog.

    analog captures at a lower resolution and sampling rate than digital.

    however, if you have a crappy digital camcorder, you will get better visuals with an analog.

    the bottom line comes down to the money:

    if you are on a tight strapped budget, go get an analog camcorder because (1) a cheap DV camcorder will give you extremely bad quality video [which would be like a bad analog camcorder already] (2) analog camcorders are priced lower, so you would get a better deal (in terms of light sensitivity, not visual resolution) with the money.

    if you have alot of cash that you can just spit out, get a digital camcorder because (1) you get the benefits of the better sampling rates and resolution and (2) the CCD will be big enough to give you the light sensitivity benefit as well. and if you're smart, you would get a prosumer model with that cash.


    OR IF YOU CAN WAIT LONGER:

    wait until the HDV camcorder prices drop and get those. pseudo-1080i HDTV resolution (1440x1080 instead of broadcast 1920x1080), native 16:9 video. all of what a HDTV enthusiast would want.

    OR IF YOU CAN WAIT 60 YEARS:

    get a UHDV camcorder. 7680x4320i, 22.2 audio (22 speakers, 2 subs), 16:9, 60fps....

    wtf is UHDV? here: http://www.nytimes.com/2004/06/03/technology/circuits/03next.html
    Quote Quote  
  18. Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Location
    Toronto
    Search Comp PM
    Guys, you have to know how to make comparisons 8)

    That is, you cannot make a fair analog vs. digital comparison unless you're talking about roughly the same resolution. Of course a digital postage-stamp-sized MPEG video looks worse than an analog VHS video, of course a printed www-sized JPEG looks worse than a photograph taken with a good-old photo camera, of course DVD-video looks worse than the celluloid film played in cinemas, ..., and of course vinyl sounds better than AudioCD! So, what?

    A fair comparison must be made between sources of comparable resolutions: DV/DVD vs. Hi-8, or 5+ megapixel photo vs. "good" analog film photo. HDTV is getting "close" to celluloid film, and DVD-Audio/SACD are getting "very close" to vinyl. This doesn't mean digital formats are inferior: in theory, nothing prevents anyone for making 4000x3000 pixel, better-than-Hollywood videos. I suspect the future Blu-Ray-Audio will also surpass vinyl.

    So analog is good and cheap. The trouble with analog is that it's non-deterministic, has little or no error correction (error correction is a BIG feature of digital sources that most of us ignore), and degrades in time.
    Cosmin
    Quote Quote  
  19. All I wanted to get from starting this thread, is a consensus that buying a cheap ($400-$800 range) digital camcorder will NOT give you BETTER results than good quality analog s-video camcorder.

    ... and that there are no real benefits (except the size) with going digital with the above example since you could also get a good capture card and capture the analog s-video in digital format and do rest (editing, compressing, authoring etc) as you would do it with digital camcorder.

    ... and that all these poor folks out there bought into this cheap digital crap thinking that it will allow them to download a movie to a PC for editing etc. without realizing that they could have done the same thing with their good old analog camcorder and a capture card

    A lot of people out there think that digital camcorder is like a digital camera: you take pictures and download them to a PC, delete what you don't need, and you are ready to take more.

    ... but it is not

    1) you record to a tape not a disk (which may stretch and go bad after a while - I know a lot of people record only once and keep buying new tapes)

    2) you can not just simply download the movie as a file to PC as you would do with digital picture, you have to re-capture the movie or whatever you want to call it (play it back and capture)

    3) and that you will be forced to upgrade your PC (hard disk for example)if it too slow to capture the movie which you don't have to do in case of digital picture (your PC can be ancient but it will still work)

    etc, etc.

    ... so again in the end (but I will rephrase my question)

    "Is good Analog better than cheap Digital?"
    Quote Quote  
  20. All depends on so many factors!

    I can only tell from my own experience:

    I have bought a week ago a mini-DV videocamera (Samsung VP-D130).
    It has 800.000 pixel resolution. (price was 349 euro's) The recordings from that camera are recorded digital by connecting the camera to my dvd-recorder using the S-VHS connection (sadly I don't have an I-link connector on my dvd-recorder). I record using the best mode (1 hour) which uses 9mbit/sec datarate.
    The endresult is FAR out better than my old recordings which I recorded with my old video-8 camera and were transferred to tape with a standard VHS-videorecorder.
    Also though there is a bit of difference in horizontal lines (DVD has 500 lines, S-VHS a bit less), I cannot see any difference when I compare the original DV recording with what was recorded on DVD.
    Compared to the recordings done by a neigbour with a Hi-8 camera, my recordings are much better (sharper).
    So for me mini-DV has many positive points: sharper, smaller camera, smaller tapes, in combination with a dvd-recorder the results are very good!
    So in my case the answer is NO, my digital combination is FAR better than the analogue system which I had in the mid-ninetees!
    Quote Quote  
  21. proton,
    this is not really a fair argument. You compare the NEW and ADVANCED technology that we have today with the OLD one from ten or fifteen years ago!
    Quote Quote  
  22. yes ofcourse! But's THAT is analogue! An old system, Hi-8 is newer, and I have compared that too, the camera of my neighbour is only 2 or 3 years old. That is what this topic is about remember? analogue versus digital, ergo: old versus new.
    Quote Quote  
  23. Let me remained you what waldi said:

    “All I wanted to get from starting this thread, is a consensus that buying a cheap ($400-$800 range) digital camcorder will NOT give you BETTER results than good quality analog s-video camcorder.”

    The consensus is:

    Yes, the cheap digital camcorder will NOT give you necessarily BETTER results then good analog camcorder.

    And just to be clear, I will add: this is true under the presumption that both camcorders use the same quality of lenses and electronics.
    Quote Quote  
  24. Ofcourse it's logical that when you buy an 300 euro mini-DV camera then it will problably give the same or less quality pictures as an 1000 euro Hi-8 camera, because just as with digital photocamera's the lens for instance will be better, or the CCD-chip inside.

    A proffesional betacam camera is miles better than any hi-8 or Digital equipment! And that is also analogue. So you have to compare within certain lines to keep it fair.
    So you have to compair camera's in equal price range.
    Quote Quote  
  25. HI all,

    I have read this entire thread and I have to say it is very interesting. BUT...the one thing noone mentioned at all is that it is not up to us "the public" on what we can buy and what we can't or what is better and what is not. Digital came out because basically it was cheaper to produce and make. Look at cd's....if you can buy them for .05 a piece imagine what the industy gets them for. A lot cheaper than an album. Belive it or not these cams are so small becuase of how chep it is too make them. It's all hard plastic casing surrounded by cheap didgital features. Shipping costs are way lower because they are lighter and smaller. NOw I know the discussion is what is better....but bottom line...does it really matter anymore if the industry is now marketing this and discontinuing all the rest. Remember the Chevy 350 engine. It was the ultimate engine for a car. Chevy had to discontinue this engine...why ...becuase it was TOO effecient. (for it's day). Once again the industry dictates what we use not us. It's sad but true. Basically if you take the large ccd's of old and the technology of new you would have some camcorder. that's my 2 cents. Thanks everyone.

    Marc
    Quote Quote  
  26. Originally Posted by kissvid
    Remember the Chevy 350 engine. It was the ultimate engine for a car. Chevy had to discontinue this engine...why ...becuase it was TOO effecient. (for it's day).
    Don't you mean inefficient. The 350 was a gas hog.
    Quote Quote  



Similar Threads