Is there a point to non-HD HDD camcorders?

[Colmino]

Maybe a little off-topic but there doesn't seem to be a forum devoted to camcorders in general.

From what I can tell, every last specimen of non-HD camcorder out there which possesses a HDD can only record video as MPEG2 at a bitrate which caps out at 9 mbps. There does not seem to be a way of forcing this already-encoded video onto a DVDR without re-encoding it, which is of course very bad. The same thing goes for the plentiful HDD+DVD camcorders out there (at least according to what I have read). Burning MPEG2 data on the HDD to the built-in DVD burner involves a second encode.

So, what gives? Realtime MPEG2 at no more than 9 mbps is already pretty miserable compared to DV at 25 mbps, but then if said video has been stored on a camcorder's internal HDD, it will eventually have to be RE-encoded for permanent storage. Even Joe Consumer must then be able to identify just how poor the result of such a procedure has to be.

Is there a SD HDD camcorder out there that can record DV, or MPEG2 at 20+ mbps? It's pretty rare, if it exists.

[edDV]

The Panasonic HVX-200 can record a few minutes of DV to expensive P2 flash cards (come in 4, 8, 16, 32GB sizes).

Look at the Firestore FS4 external hard drive. It records many hours of DV over Firewire. Then you can edit direct from the drive without camcorder transfer.
http://www.videoguys.com/FireStore.html

[Colmino]

Thanks for the links. Those prices are pretty astonishing, I must say. I guess the barrier when it comes to flash ram is the write speed. Or else the prices for P2 flash ram are arbitrarily excessive.

It's pretty amazing to me that when camcorders began making the move to HDD storage, they took a universal step backwards in quality. The result is literally that one must attend to 13-year-old technology if they want the best affordable NTSC video. A frustrating conundrum.

[Richard_G]

You're missing the point of these HDD and MiniDVD camcorders. They are for Joe Public who has no interest in editing or anything and only wants convenience. Rather than save in DV format so that the footage has to be encoded later (by whatever means) to mpeg2 (assuming a DVD is the final result required), the encoding to mpeg2 is done on the fly. This will not need to be re-encoded as it is already DVD compliant and will only require authoring. As the mpeg2 files are smaller, it also means that more footage can be fitted on the hard drive.

At the end of the market these devices are aimed at, quality isn't important. Small size, light weight and ease of use are what they are aiming for. They will also have tiny little lenses (often made of plastic), so the optical performance is pretty dire too.

[classfour]

The first advantage of HDD recording is simple: No dust, no long term degradation of recording media due to environment.
Downside: It's a Hard Drive, and will fail eventually - in the case of JVCs, a small expensive hard drive.

Second: Ease of authoring - once you have the video onto your computer, you can cut, insert chapters, produce a decent DVD with the right software.

I have one of the small JVCs that record onto SD or CF media, and for portability and convenience you can't beat it. You can record 1hr (best), 2hr (just less than DVD), up to 5hr of video on a 4GB CF card (only up to 2GB SD). The 5hr looks like VCD quality - I won't use it.

The nice thing is this: As long as I have batteries and extra CF media (I stopped using the microdrives due to battery consumption), I'm shooting - you do have to watch the battery meter as these don't last like a regular camcorder.

Back at the computer I can transfer the .mod (mpg) files to a folder and open them with TDA and author. If there's not much editing (like my son's basketball games), I can kick out a DVD in less than an hour.

[Colmino]

Second: Ease of authoring - once you have the video onto your computer, you can cut, insert chapters, produce a decent DVD with the right software.

I have one of the small JVCs that record onto SD or CF media, and for portability and convenience you can't beat it. You can record 1hr (best), 2hr (just less than DVD), up to 5hr of video on a 4GB CF card (only up to 2GB SD).

One hour for 4GB is pretty good. A quick calculation pegs the bitrate at roughly 9mbps, which is essentially the highest I've heard about for any MPEG2-based camcorder solution. The note about ease of authoring should be applicable to DV footage once it has been acquired from the MiniDV tape. I have in fact found MiniDV to be a much more forgiving video format to work with in authoring software owing to the fact that it doesn't need to be a corruption-free file from beginning to end.

Back at the computer I can transfer the .mod (mpg) files to a folder and open them with TDA and author. If there's not much editing (like my son's basketball games), I can kick out a DVD in less than an hour.

Here's the hangup I have with the current implementations of MPEG2 video in, evidently, all NTSC camcorders. They max out at 9mbps, including on the HDD. The actual quality of realtime, single-pass MPEG2 is comparable to DV only when the bitrate is roughly the same (25mbps flat) - anything less, and there is a harsh artifact threshold, where non-idealized footage suffers greatly, and indeed visibly, from things like macroblocking.

The question I put forth in the first post of this thread focuses on the fact that any first-gen MPEG2 generated by such camcorders which is not automatically stuck on a mini-DVD must eventually be reencoded. DV video endures reencoding very well because it defaults to a level of bandwidth which takes all imagery in admirable stride. As for MPEG2, well. I've seen my share of re-encoded DVDs, and these are projects produced under hypothetically ideal conditions, with maximally pristine source MPEG2 and multiple-pass second-gen MPEG2. The result is, nonetheless, never good.

Still, Richard_G layed it out pretty plainly already. The MPEG2 camcorders are aimed at people who don't really have quality as one of their top five concerns. This doesn't contradict with my conviction that all MPEG2 camcorders, including HD varieties which max out at around 20mbps, are a step backwards, and a little disheartening. It would have been nice to learn of an MPEG2 camcorder which could encode at 25+ mbps.

[Richard_G]

I'm still a little puzzled over some of your logic here, what is the problem with an mpeg2 camcorder encoding to 9Mbs?

There's two ways of converting camcorder footage to DVD, depending on the source.

If you shoot footage on a MiniDV camcorder it's saved on the tape as DV format avi at 25Mbs. It is then transferred to computer, any editing done and then it is encoded to mpeg2 (usually at around 9Mbs) before being authored and burnt to DVD.

If you shoot the same footage on a HDD camcorder, it is encoded to mpeg2 in the camcorder. Transfer that file to computer, do any editing and then author before burning to DVD.

The only difference is when the encoding takes place. Admittedly, mpeg2 is not an editing format and to edit in DV avi is a far better way of doing it, but, how much editing is the average buyer of one of these camcorders going to do? They might chop out some of the rubbish but that is about all. The file will not need to be re-encoded as it is already DVD compliant. This will speed up the authoring process (usually done with a one click solution supplied with the camcorder) and give Joe Public what he wants, the footage of his kids on DVD.

MiniDVD are much worse in terms of quality. They use the small discs for convenience but these only hold 1.4 Gb of data and most camcorders of this type limit the recording time to 30 minutes. Even then, that's a bitrate of just under 6 Mbs, probably acceptable for low motion, tripod shot footage, but horrible for the sort of shakey rubbish that comes out of this type of camcorder.

[Colmino]

I'm still a little puzzled over some of your logic here, what is the problem with an mpeg2 camcorder encoding to 9Mbs?

Nothing more than the fact that single-pass 9mbps MPEG2 is only visually comparable to 25mbps DV during idealized moments. It is a low bitrate for that combination of codec and application. The heavy artifacting which will inevitably occur during less idealized footage moments will be more than doubled by the regrettably futile efforts of MPEG2 to re-encode all of those artifacts again at 9mbps (or whatever) for the DVD media.

[Richard_G]

The heavy artifacting which will inevitably occur during less idealized footage moments will be more than doubled by the regrettably futile efforts of MPEG2 to re-encode all of those artifacts again at 9mbps (or whatever) for the DVD media.

I agree with you entirely that quality is going to suffer if the footage is re-encoded, my question is, why would it ever need to be? It is already DVD compliant so should never need, and is highly likely never to be, re-encoded. This is particularly true when you look at the market sector these camcorders are aimed at.

[Colmino]

I agree with you entirely that quality is going to suffer if the footage is re-encoded, my question is, why would it ever need to be? It is already DVD compliant so should never need, and is highly likely never to be, re-encoded. This is particularly true when you look at the market sector these camcorders are aimed at.

I know it may seem to make sense that video encoded as MPEG2 ought to be transparently transferrable to DVD media without the need to reencode, but this is not, to the best of my not inconsiderable knowledge, possible in this case, or indeed any case I have yet experienced. Forums which discuss HDD+DVD camcorders seem rife with lamentation over this very issue. My conclusion is that MPEG2 was used in these camcorders not because of any possible compatibility with fullsize DVD media but rather because MPEG2 is a tried and true (albiet aged) and, above all, flexible codec which could in theory enable adequate quality at the low bitrates required by the low-budget agendas of the camcorder developers.

[thecoalman]

I know it may seem to make sense that video encoded as MPEG2 ought to be transparently transferrable to DVD media without the need to reencode, but this is not, to the best of my not inconsiderable knowledge, possible in this case, or indeed any case I have yet experienced.

Depends on the software you are using, Womble and Cutterman are two MPEG editors that will do this, all the Ulead products will as well and another poster mentioned TDA supports this too. There's plenty of products for working with MPEG, you have to use the right tools. The only parts that get reencoded are cuts between I-Frames(some editors only support cuts on I-Frames) and anywhere you have changed anything such as adding a title... Not only does it maintain the quality but it speeds the encoding time up significantly.

Going back to your oiriginal post:

but then if said video has been stored on a camcorder's internal HDD, it will eventually have to be RE-encoded for permanent storage.

I'm not completely familiar with these devices however it's just a matter of transferring the file.... This is actually one of the pluses of such devices as the transfer rate is not limited to real time like a DV cam.


I basically agree with your sentiment, I for one will never purchase a DVD camcorder. As mentioned above they are marketed to the masses who want decent results as fast as they can get them.

[metallifreak27]

i am new to this forum, but i need to ask this question

i am looking at buying a cam, but am confused, especially after reading this thread

hard drive or mini dv?????

which way should i go?

[ron spencer]

dv is always the way to go....it gives you flexiblity for editing and for future in case you want to make hi-def from your DV. HDD camcorders are useless unless you are lazy and do not want quality. They have never and will never compete with DV. Now....I wish someone would make a HDD DV camcorder with an HDD you could replace....now that would be good.

get a good DV camcorder and do not waste your time with HDD camcorders. they are prevasively junk....

ugggg......