|
|
Posted by PTravel on 04/16/06 16:14
"Bible John" <johnw_94020@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1244p70dmk4sc6f@corp.supernews.com...
> --
> 1 Pet 3:15-But sanctify the Lord God[a] in your hearts, and always be
> ready to give a defense to everyone who asks you a reason for the hope
> that is in you, with meekness and fear
> CERM-Church Education Resource Ministries
> Founder and director
> http://johnw.freeshell.org/bible
> "PTravel" <ptravel@travelersvideo.com> wrote in message
> news:wgn0g.2086$Lm5.1864@newssvr12.news.prodigy.com...
>>
>> "Bible John" <johnw_94020@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:1243gm86l5v78cb@corp.supernews.com...
>>>I have a nice analog JVC camcorder. I know this camera cost about $700
>>>back in 2001. Its okay, and certainly captures far superior video than
>>>any Palm Pilot, cell phone or digital camera. But anyways it uses VHS-C
>>>tapes,
>>
>> VHS is limited to around 250 lines of resolution. MiniDV tops out at 525
>> lines. Sorry, but a VHS camera doesn't begin to approach the video
>> quality of middle-of-the-line miniDV machine.
>
> I know that. But since I am low on funds a VHS-C camera will do. I see
> tapes being sold nearly everywhere, so obviously there are millions of
> others who are using analog cameras.
There are miniDV camcorders for less than $300 that will produce better
video than a VHS machine.
>
> A trip to any Walmart, Target, Kmart, or many other places will prove my
> story true. Have you ever been in one of these stores and not been able to
> buy tapes of all types?
These stores are not exactly the benchmark for video.
> For audio, standard audio tapes are useful for me, since they can record
> radio, which cannot be "easily" done with a CD.
A computer can do that. However, I use an MD recorder for audio.
> But I await the day of a CD-R boombox. But then again the tapes are
> small, and I could care less about editing them. Its just when I want to
> duplicate them, I find it hard fidning 2 tape boomboxes anymore. They
> used to sell 2 tape and CD boomboxes, but know such decks are only
> available in the more expensive stereo machines.
You're duplicating radio programming? Okay, I'll spare you the lecture
about copyright infringement. However, if you have a computer, you might
want to look at a computer-based solution. Among other things, it would be
automated, so you wouldn't have to sit there and push "RECORD" all the time.
>
>>
>>> which can be easily played on my VCR with a VHS adaptor. Since VHS
>>> tapes are fear cheaper than VHS-C, I think I want to give people tapes
>>> rather than VHS-C tapes. But I am afraid, if I do this, and then erase
>>> over the VHS-C tape, the quality will deteriate. This seems to be what
>>> happens in many, but not all tapes. Will VHS-C have this effect, or will
>>> it not?
>>
>> Tape consists of particles attached by a binder to a plastic tape.
>> Repeated use of a tape causes the particles to flake off. This causes
>> drop outs. If you care about the quality of your video, you should avoid
>> re-use of tapes.
>>
>
> Is it different with video than audio? With my Microcassette recorder, I
> have taped over a tape dozens of times, and the audio still sounds clear.
Yes, it's different. Audio is slow and the recording head moves linearlly.
Video is fast and the recording head moves diagonally (technically, "helical
scan"). Video tracks are much smaller and denser, i.e. there is far more
information crammed into the same space. Because of this, drop out due to
flaking is more of a problem on video than audio.
>
>>
>>> Can it play full frame video on your Mac?
>>
>> I'm not sure what you mean by "full frame." DV-25 (the standard used for
>> miniDV) provides a frame that is 720 x 480 pixels (NTSC). If your Mac's
>> screen has that much resolution (and it's hard to imagine any computer
>> that doesn't at this point), then it will display the full frame.
>
> I bought my ibook in May of 2005.
Then it can play full frame.
>
>>
>>> I cant imagine the file sizes of such video,
>>
>> 13.7 gigabytes per hour.
>>
>
> How about per minute?
Well, I'm sure you can do the math.
> My Kodak Digital still camera cant even compare to my analog JVC
> camcorder.
If you mean at recording video, I'm sure that's the case. If you want to
record video, you need a digital camcorder. If you want to take still
pictures, you need a digital still camera. There is no single device out
there than can do both well.
But anyways files are about 20 megs a minute with
> that at 320x240 pixels.
>
>>>
>>> With digital tapes, DVD's or hard drives, can you erase and the record
>>> over without a lowering of quality?
>>
>> DVDs are write-once devices (and a poor choice for digital video,
>> particularly if you want to edit). Hard drive - based camcorders can
>> rewrite data until the drive dies. However, they, too, are a poor choice
>> if you care about quality and want to edit. MiniDV tapes can be recorded
>> over, but the more they are used, the more likely you are to experience
>> dropout.
>
> They used to make VHS camcorders, and I believe that newspeople still use
> them.
Absolutely and unequivocally not. ENG is done with DVCAM, miniDVCAM and, in
some instances Betacam and Digibeta. And the BBC uses VX2000/2001, a miniDV
machine, for ENG.
>Perhaps this was a better format than DVD.
It was not. However, you're confusing apples and oranges. VHS is both a
recording medium and a delivery medium. DVD is a delivery medium -- the
camcorders that use it as a recording medium are low-quality toys.
> I used one of these camcorders once in 1999 to film a trip to New York.
> It worked okay, but the video was not as clear nor the audio as loud as
> the Sony 8mm camcorder I purchased in 2001 for $700.
VHS and 8mm both have roughly the same resolution. Hi8, however, was
capable of 400 lines or so -- maybe that's what you had.
>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>>
>>>
>>> John
>>>
>>> PS- My JVC will work for a while, and I am not in a hurry to replace
>>> it, but perhaps one day it might be wise to get a smaller digital
>>> camcorder. I sure do hope the quality of these smaller digital
>>> camcorders, is camcorder quality, and not lame digital camera video
>>> quality. My JVC will floor my Kodak anyday for video.
>>
>> Your JVC won't approach my VX2000, which is better-than-broadcast
>> quality. Your JVC also won't approach my old TRV-20, which is just a
>> middling miniDV machine. If, by "digital camera video quality," you mean
>> the video put out by still cameras, then, yes, just about any digital
>> camcorder will do better.
>
> I know that. But my point was that my JVC camcorder produces MANY MANY
> MANY times superior video and audio than my Palm Zire 72, or any digital
> camera I have used. And this includes my old Vivitar, my current Kodak,
> my fathers Sony, the Mavica, and another Vivitar that I used.
Well, yes -- digital cameras take still pictures and camcorders take video.
Though many still cameras can produce video, and many camcorders can take
stills, the compromises necessary for their primary function preclude their
producing GOOD quality results.
>
> Of all these cameras, no question my current Kodak is the best, since the
> videos are stored in the .mov format. But for whatever reason digital
> cameras cant produce videos beyond 320x240.
I've heard of a few that go up to 640 x 480 at 30 fps, but the resulting
video is still far below even the cheapest miniDV camcorder in quality.
>
>
> John
>
>>
>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> 1 Pet 3:15-But sanctify the Lord God[a] in your hearts, and always be
>>> ready to give a defense to everyone who asks you a reason for the hope
>>> that is in you, with meekness and fear
>>> CERM-Church Education Resource Ministries
>>> Founder and director
>>> http://johnw.freeshell.org/bible
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|