|
|
Posted by Richard Crowley on 04/16/06 16:19
"Bible John" wrote ...
> 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.
Yes, there are likely millions of others using analog cameras.
But you have to ask yourself, "for what?" For shooting home
movies of the kids playing in the wading pool in the back yard
and the trip to the Grand Canyon? Or for video production
where there will be several steps of post-production before
the release format?
> 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.
Video and audio tapes are basically the same kind of
thing, a thin magnetically sensitive coating on a plastic
substrate. Note, however that video is much more
demanding than audio. You can see defects more readily
than you can hear them, and most particularly, because
video uses very high-speed rotating heads to get the
bandwidth required for video recording. This makes the
expected lifetime of video tapes somewhat less than for
audio.
>> 13.7 gigabytes per hour.
> How about per minute?
13.7 GB/hour / 60 min/hour = 228.3 MB/min
Remember that this is the standard DV codec.
> My Kodak Digital still camera cant even compare to my
> analog JVC camcorder. But anyways files are about 20
> megs a minute with that at 320x240 pixels.
You are comparing the novelty "video" from a still
camera to a real video camera. There are LOTS of
different codecs for video. You comparison is not
particularly meaningful.
> They used to make VHS camcorders, and I believe
> that newspeople still use them.
No, newspeople *never* used VHS, except maybe in
Hoople, North Dakota or somewhere in the back woods.
They started out with 16mm film, then went to 3/4"
U-Matic, then Betacam, and slowly converting to DV
as their Betacams die.
> Perhaps this was a better format than DVD.
VHS and DVD are roughly equivalent. 8mm video
is slightly better. Any of the proper digital video
formats are very significantly better.
The novelty "video" produced by still cameras is
not even in the same category and is not comparable.
See Adam Wilt's "arrogant" rank scale for formats...
http://www.adamwilt.com/DV-FAQ-tech.html
> 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,
Your Zire gadget produces HIGHLY COMPRESSED
video files. You are comparing apples and kelp.
Your Zire gadget would likely rank 1.5 or lower on
Adam Wilts scale of 1 to 10.
> 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.
You appear to be suffering from the confusion that
still cameras that produce novelty "video" are some-
how comparable to real video cameras. They are not.
The cheapest $150 mini-DV camera will run rings
around a $1500 still camera that makes "video".
> 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.
Those are all still cameras. They produce "video"
only as a marketing novelty. Nobody shoots real
video on still cameras. They are FORCED to
compress the life out of the video because they have
such a limited amount of space to store the data.
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|