Why I chose JVC DRM10S over Panny.

[gz_jeff]

I just ordered a JVC DRM10S from Amazon for $249 with free shipping. I think this is a good deal, if it works well. Supposedly they've fixed the "loading" problem. I'm hoping this is one of the newer versions.

I wanted:
1) Progressive scan
2) Firewire (DV) link
3) DVD-R and DVD-RW
4) Very good quality

I first bought a LiteOn 5005 but returned it to Costco without even opening it.

Number 2 is extremely important to me. But guess what!? There's not a Panny even close to this price range that includes one. This tells me that it's old technology. (Although my Panny TV has been excellent.) Does Panasonic not think that many people have camcorders with mini DV? This was a major show stopper for me and I didn't even consider a Panny DVD recorder. Did I miss something?

I've seen some discussion as to the best and reasonably priced DVD-R and DVR-RW brands. Is Ritek junk? What are some of the better ones.

Thanks.

-- Jeff

[lordsmurf]

www.nomorecoasters.com
As far as DVD-RW "brands", stick to TDK, Maxell, Fuji and maybe Sony.

JVC's iLINK feature will even accept from a PC's NLE timeline (Vegas, etc).

[handyguy]

"Does Panasonic not think that many people have camcorders with mini DV?"

I have a panny e30, I connect my camcorder with s-video to it & record a disk. The dvd it produces looks just like the original Hi8.....

Im sure mini dv cams must have s-video out too....

btw, just cause its a mini dvd camcorder does NOT indicate it has superior picture quality. That depends on a lot of things.

[zorankarapancev]

I have a Panasonic E60 with a DV input. After some testing and a one year extensive use of this machine, I found, beleive it or not, that a S-input gives better recordings then a DV input. That is because TBC is a part of the analogue circuits only. Personaly I can not see any picture degradation in using S-video input instead of DV, which is the best compliment that I can give to the Panasonic engineers.

Knowing that, I don't miss the DV input and I am positive that the majority of consumers will never miis it. For those who have to have that option, there are other brands that offer that.

[Synergy]

The input from DV/Firewire jack still needs to be re-encoded from DV-AVI to MPEG2 with compression, although it's digital to digital re-encoding instead of analog to digital encoding.

It has been stated by quite a few people (including the above post) that the Panasonic models seem to have better analog to MPE2 encoding than DV-AVI to MPEG2 encoding. So not icluding DV input in every model by Panasonic may be justified since it doesn't really add much. What we need is a comparison between JVC or other brands' DV-AVI to MPEG encoding vs. Panasonic's analog to MPEG encoding to make the argument meaningful. Just my two cents.

[lordsmurf]

I will be testing iLINK in coming months for Pioneer, LiteOn, and JVC more thoroughly.

[mracer]

It takes expensive chip(s) and a quality hardware DV codec to do a good job at DV-MPEG2 conversion. Standalone analog-DV and DV-analog converters typically cost $200-$500, and they don't do MPEG2 encoding.

It does not surprize me at all to find a typical DVD recorder will do a better job encoding from S-Video-MPEG2 than from DV-MPEG2. When you use the S-Video out from a Camcorder you are relying on the DV-analog converter and codec in the camcorder, which will probably be of a higher quality than the DV converter of a $139.00-249.00 DVD recorder.

I seriously doubt any consumer DVD recorder will do a better job encoding DV-MPEG2 than S-Video-MPEG2, given a decent quality DV camcorder is the source.

If someone can do a DV-DVD recorder quality test with the various methods, I bet the outcome would be:

1. DV to Canopus ADVC, s-video from Canopus to DVD recorder

2. DV camera s-video output direct to DVD recorder

3. DV direct to DVD recorder with DV input.

[ckwok1]

When you use the S-Video out from a Camcorder you are relying on the DV-analog converter and codec in the camcorder, which will probably be of a higher quality than the DV converter of a $139.00-249.00 DVD recorder.

I seriously doubt any consumer DVD recorder will do a better job encoding DV-MPEG2 than S-Video-MPEG2, given a decent quality DV camcorder is the source.

The data through the iLink are uncompressed video data at 720x480 (NTSC) or 720x576 (PAL). No "DV converter" is necessary.

If someone can do a DV-DVD recorder quality test with the various methods, I bet the outcome would be:

1. DV to Canopus ADVC, s-video from Canopus to DVD recorder

2. DV camera s-video output direct to DVD recorder

3. DV direct to DVD recorder with DV input.

Which way is better -- using digital transfer (iLink) or analog (S-video)?
I think that depends on what you want and the quality of the source video.

I am planning to archive all my DV tapes. Some of them are over 5 years old already, that is why I want to archive them on DVD. So I spent some time thinking which way is better (no experiment yet).
Here are my conclusions:

o Using digital transfer should give you the least distortion.

o If the source video is noisy (e.g. shooting with insufficient lighting), then using the S-video input of the DVD recorder may give you a better output. Two reasons:
(1) S-video input has noise reduction circuit while digital input doesn't.
(2) Noisy input requires higher bitrate. A common misunderstanding is that a low quality (noisy) video input can use low bitrate to encode. Actually, the noise uses up a lot of the bitrate and leave insufficient bitrate to encode other part of the video. Therefore, with noise reduction, it can reduce noise and leave more bitrate for encoding other part of the video. Hence you can get a higher quality output.

o A high quality video from a good DV camcorder should do better using digital transfer when noise reduction is not necessary.

Although the quality of my video is far from professional, I still decided to use digital transfer at highest possible bitrate (65 or 70 min per disc). It is because my purpose is to archive them. I can do noise reduction on the PC later if necessary. Furthermore, I shall still keep the DV tape and save the video in AVI (12G per hour) when the HDDVD-R or BluRayDVD-R is available.

Any other suggestions?

[zorankarapancev]

While I don’t agree with all of your statements, I will suggest you to keep your DV tapes if you want to preserve the best quality of the recordings for the future archiving. From my personal experience, DV to DVD conversions means only compromising the quality of the recordings with uncertain longevity of the DVD transfer.

[mracer]

The data through the iLink are uncompressed video data at 720x480 (NTSC) or 720x576 (PAL). No "DV converter" is necessary.

I am sorry but the statement quoted above is completely wrong. I know this video stuff can be complicated so please do not take my corrections personally.

The DV format is compressed approximately 5:1. There most definitely is a conversion necessary to go from DV to MPEG2. There must be a hardware DV codec present in the DVD recorder to "read" the DV format video so it can then be re-encoded into the MPEG2 format video of DVD. In addition, the NTSC DV format colorspace is 4:1:1, while the NTSC DVD format is 4:2:0. This adds additional complications to a quality NTSC DV-DVD conversion. In PAL this conversion is simpler, going from PAL DV 4:2:0 to PAL DVD 4:2:0.

I'll leave you all with this for now. Just because DV can be carried digitally over firewire to a DVD recorder does not automatically make that method a slam dunk, for all the reasons I have previously stated. I stand 100% by my previous statement, I seriously doubt ANY consumer DVD recorder can do a better job encoding from DV vs. encoding from analog s-video.

(I only edited a spelling error in the word additional)

[lordsmurf]

It takes expensive chip(s) and a quality hardware DV codec to do a good job at DV-MPEG2 conversion. Standalone analog-DV and DV-analog converters typically cost $200-$500, and they don't do MPEG2 encoding..... which will probably be of a higher quality than the DV converter of a $139.00-249.00 DVD recorder.

I agree there is much here to research.
The tests will be fun when I get to them.

But the dollar-for-dollar statement I'll totally disagree with right now. Some of those products, notably Canopus, is paying strictly for the brand name. Sony is the same way. $100's more for no real reason. Just because they can (or at least think they can).

[mracer]

So Smurf, Just so I have this straight. You are saying you don't believe the DV codec in a $1500 DV camcorder or a $250 standalone DV converter would most likely be superior to the DV codec in a $139 DVD recorder with iLink, such as the ILO DVD04?

[lordsmurf]

So Smurf, Just so I have this straight. You are saying you don't believe the DV codec in a $1500 DV camcorder or a $250 standalone DV converter would most likely be superior to the DV codec in a $139 DVD recorder with iLink, such as the ILO DVD04?

Now you've changed the story. A $1500 DV camera is totally different from a converter box or camera that costs $200-500, which is what you were talking about a minute ago.

[ckwok1]

The data through the iLink are uncompressed video data at 720x480 (NTSC) or 720x576 (PAL). No "DV converter" is necessary.

I am sorry but the statement quoted above is completely wrong. I know this video stuff can be complicated so please do not take my corrections personally.

Sorry, my mistake. Data through the iLink are undecoded DV data.

But all digital decoders (correctly implemented) give the same digital output. I don't see why the process:

DV Data -> DV Decoder -> S-Video -> Digitized data -> MPEG2 Encoder

can give a better result (in terms of distortion/error) than

DV Data -> DV Decoder -> MPEG2 Encoder

given the same DV Data and the same MPEG2 Encoder.

Unless you want to correct something (such as noise) in the video during the analog phase.

[mracer]

So Smurf, Just so I have this straight. You are saying you don't believe the DV codec in a $1500 DV camcorder or a $250 standalone DV converter would most likely be superior to the DV codec in a $139 DVD recorder with iLink, such as the ILO DVD04?

Now you've changed the story. A $1500 DV camera is totally different from a converter box or camera that costs $200-500, which is what you were talking about a minute ago.

Smurf, I never changed my story. Reading is fundamental.

[broadway]

So Smurf, Just so I have this straight. You are saying you don't believe the DV codec in a $1500 DV camcorder or a $250 standalone DV converter would most likely be superior to the DV codec in a $139 DVD recorder with iLink, such as the ILO DVD04?

Now you've changed the story. A $1500 DV camera is totally different from a converter box or camera that costs $200-500, which is what you were talking about a minute ago.

Smurf, I never changed my story. Reading is fundamental.

So, you are talking about a $1500 DV camcorder????
I highly doubt I'd be buying one of those anytime soon.

Which standalong DV converter are you talking about for $250 that will
convert DV to MPEG2? That's more in my price range.

[ckwok1]

So Smurf, Just so I have this straight. You are saying you don't believe the DV codec in a $1500 DV camcorder or a $250 standalone DV converter would most likely be superior to the DV codec in a $139 DVD recorder with iLink, such as the ILO DVD04?

(1) DV to DVD Recorder using DV codec in DV camcorder ==>

Camcorder: DV Data --> decoder --> uncompressed data --> S-video
DVDR: S-video --> digitizer --> uncompressed data --> MPEG2 encoder

(2) DV to standalone DV converter to DVD recorder ==>

Camcorder: DV Data --> iLink output
DV Converter: iLink input --> decoder --> uncompressed data --> S-video
DVDR: S-video --> digitizer --> uncompressed data --> MPEG2 encoder


(3) DV to DVD recorder using iLink

Camcorder: DV Data --> iLink output
DVDR: iLink input --> decoder --> uncompressed data --> MPEG2 encoder

The codec you are talking about in (1) or (2) convert DV data to analog data while the codec you are talking about in (3) only convert DV data to uncompressed digital video data. They should not be compared.

[mracer]

I see despite my best efforts the subject of DV camcorder to DVD recorder over firewire is still not understood. I hate to admit I wasted my time here but I cannot teach the unteachable.

[broadway]

my questions were very simple

1) were you referring to $1500 DV camcorder in your posts?
if so, as I said, that is way way way out of my price range

(2) which $250 DV to MPEG2 encoder do you recommend?
how hard to answer is that?

[Synergy]

my questions were very simple
(1) were you referring to $1500 DV camcorder in your posts?
if so, as I said, that is way way way out of my price range
(2) which $250 DV to MPEG2 encoder do you recommend?
how hard to answer is that?

If we go back to mracer's original post, I think your questions can easily be answered.

It takes expensive chip(s) and a quality hardware DV codec to do a good job at DV-MPEG2 conversion. Standalone analog-DV and DV-analog converters typically cost $200-$500, and they don't do MPEG2 encoding.

It does not surprize me at all to find a typical DVD recorder will do a better job encoding from S-Video-MPEG2 than from DV-MPEG2. When you use the S-Video out from a Camcorder you are relying on the DV-analog converter and codec in the camcorder, which will probably be of a higher quality than the DV converter of a $139.00-249.00 DVD recorder.

I seriously doubt any consumer DVD recorder will do a better job encoding DV-MPEG2 than S-Video-MPEG2, given a decent quality DV camcorder is the source.

If someone can do a DV-DVD recorder quality test with the various methods, I bet the outcome would be:

1. DV to Canopus ADVC, s-video from Canopus to DVD recorder

2. DV camera s-video output direct to DVD recorder

3. DV direct to DVD recorder with DV input.

To your second question, there is no DV to MPEG2 encoder involved, and only DV to analog converter such as a Canopus ADVC unit:

http://www.canopus.com/US/products/ADVC-100/pm_advc-100.asp

To the first question, I suppose $1500 DV camcorder is a substitute for decent quality DV camcorder, who knows, maybe a $700 one is decent enough these days. I think this is required just to make sure we have a quality video source as a start.

I think mracer's main point, which I basically concur, is that using the DV input on a DVD recorder does not necessarily generate better video quality than using the S-video input. While his hypothesis needs to be empirically tested, at least some Panasonic owners have confirmed part of it, unless Panasonic deliberately used a crappy DV to MPEG2 chipset.

What's interesting about this issue is that most people just assume the digital path is always better than the A/D path in converting DV to MPEG2, and that's why we need more empirical evidence, not more argument. Peace.

[Synergy]

So Smurf, Just so I have this straight. You are saying you don't believe the DV codec in a $1500 DV camcorder or a $250 standalone DV converter would most likely be superior to the DV codec in a $139 DVD recorder with iLink, such as the ILO DVD04?

It seems some people misunderstood, probably including me earlier, the above quote. It's basically directed toward Smurf's earlier comment:

But the dollar-for-dollar statement I'll totally disagree with right now. Some of those products, notably Canopus, is paying strictly for the brand name. Sony is the same way. $100's more for no real reason. Just because they can (or at least think they can).

So whether Sony charging $1500 for DV camcorder and Canopus charging $250 for DV/analog converter is a ripoff or high quality product is more of an individual cost/benefit argument, really has no direct impact on the fundamental empirical question raised before. Let's see some actual results instead.

[gz_jeff]

I guess I (may) stand corrected. I assumed digital transfer from our JVC DV2000 using Firewire to the DV input to the JVC DVD recorder I ordered would be of better quality. I appreciate all of the (sometimes spirited) discussion to at least make me smarter. Does the same also apply to audio? It's my understanding that S-Video is just that, only video, and I've always had to hook up the RCA jacks for sound. The digital link contains the sound.

I'm hoping for the best with the JVC (at least I got a good deal.) If not, I'll be sending it back to Amazon and looking for something better.

Thanks also to 'Smurf for the link regarding DVD quality disks.

-- Jeff

[zorankarapancev]

It is so refreshing to see, at least occasionally, reasonable comments like these last ones. I am tired of debating with people with big egos and little knowledge.

[broadway]

It is so refreshing to see, at least occasionally, reasonable comments like these last ones. I am tired of debating with people with big egos and little knowledge.

And I am tired of people who throw up their hands and take the holier than thou attitude of not being able to "teach the unteachable". I find that particular statement very offensive.

And to get back to the original question, it would appear that in certain people's opinions I would need to spend $1500 for a decent DV to MPEG2 encoder by using a camcorder or capture directly to my computer using Firewire from my camcorder and then use my computer to convert DV to MPEG2. The $250 Canopus is not really needed if we are talking about using DV.

[lordsmurf]

I think everything has been blurred.
Is this not what the conversation was about:

DV camera -> iLINK DVD recorder
vs
DV camera -> s-video DVD recorder

I thought it was that simple.

[kabanero]

It is so refreshing to see, at least occasionally, reasonable comments like these last ones. I am tired of debating with people with big egos and little knowledge.

This can be referred to you with your big ego and little knowledge...

... and with your shitty reviews of stand alone dvd recorders from magazines like Consumer Report.

[trock]

I recently had a project to do that involved recording directly into the JVC DR-10MS from professionally recorded mini-DV tapes. They were being played back in a camcorder and using the JVC's DV input.

While the visual quality was fine, the audio was fractionally out of sync with the video all the way through on the resulting DVD.

When I switched to using the analog inputs, the visual quality was also fine but the audio was now in stable sync.

[lordsmurf]

I recently had a project to do that involved recording directly into the JVC DR-10MS from professionally recorded mini-DV tapes. They were being played back in a camcorder and using the JVC's DV input.

While the visual quality was fine, the audio was fractionally out of sync with the video all the way through on the resulting DVD.

When I switched to using the analog inputs, the visual quality was also fine but the audio was now in stable sync.

What DV camera?
DVD-RAM (VR mode) or DVD-R/RW (video mode)?
Length of DVD?
Did you hit "pause" while recording? (is that even possible on iLINK?)

[trock]

What DV camera?
DVD-RAM (VR mode) or DVD-R/RW (video mode)?
Length of DVD?
Did you hit "pause" while recording? (is that even possible on iLINK?

A Panasonic PV-DV103. I've never had any sync problems with it going DV to the PC.

Video mode DVD-R.

2 hours - 3 x 40 minute miniDV's.

Yes re pause. The DVD was out of sync all the way through - very, very slightly.

[bartonarmy]

1. DV camera -> iLINK DVD recorder
vs
2. DV camera -> s-video DVD recorder

I have done both. I feel that it is a very little better with no. 2. The neat thing about using
iLINK (no. 1) is that I could control both the DVD and Cam from one remote controller and setting at one spot. I pause the DVD and play the Cam to the next spot from the same DVD remote controller. Next, pause the Cam from the DVD remote controller. Then, I hit record the DVD which started the Cam and off I go. The sound was perfect with the video. Using the DVD remote controlller was not work on the Cam but a signal is sent to the Cam by iLINK. It made things easier if you want to delete some video.

As far on my 55 inch widescreen TV, both recording were near even. For my eyes, No. 2 edge a very little better then No. 1. This was done on 2-hr length and using DVD-R.

Did you hit "pause" while recording? -- Many times over and even backup and forward the Cam.

I'm supprise that trock had problems with the sound. Did your DVD recognized your Cam?