|
|
Posted by PTravel on 01/07/07 13:41
"Jim S" <Jim S@jimsplace.com> wrote in message news:45a0a085@clear.net.nz...
>
> "Mike Kujbida" <kujfamNoSpam@xplornet.com> wrote in message
> news:50b9msF1fcmgcU1@mid.individual.net...
>>
>> maks71@gmail.com wrote:
>>> I am in market for digital cam corders and Have following questions
>>> regarding DVD Camcorders. Will appreciate your inputs.
>>>
>>> 1) How bad/good(noticable) are seek time delays.. e.g. I took few
>>> minutes of video then either switched off the camcorder or reviewing
>>> the video in playback mode. How long DVD players takes find the next
>>> recording position? How long are these delays in SONY/ Canon brands?
>>>
>>> Is there any other negatives of DVD players besides compatibilty on
>>> normal DVD players etc?
>>>
>>> Thanks in advance for your help.
>>>
>>> Mak.
>>
>>
>> IMO, DVD camcorders should never have been allowed to come to market.
>> If all you ever want to do with it is shoot and archive, be my guest.
>> If you any thoughts of doing editing though, buy a miniDV camcorder
>> instead
>> and save yourself a lot of grief.
>>
>> Mike
>
> However, it's still possible to satisfactorily edit video that is not on
> miniDV,
It depends on what you mean by, "satisfactorily edit." It's not possible to
satisfactorily edit DVD video if you want to do significant color
correction, compositing, elaborate transitions, etc.
> I've just done some editing from video taken on the memory card of a
> friend's digital still camera. The results were surprisingly good for
> viewing on a relatively small screen. But not so good if you want to
> project the film on to a 100 inch screen with a video projector. Even my
> miniDV (once edited and put on to a DVD) doesn't go too well on very large
> screens, it's not as good as commercial DVDs, for example.
You must have a pretty crappy miniDV camcorder, then. Commercial DVDs have
a data rate limited to under 10 megabits per second, whereas DV-25 (which is
the standard use by miniDV) has a data rate 2.5 times as great.
>
> People say that you need to use miniDV for the best results, but they then
> go and make a DVD of their film and compress a 12 gig file down to 4 gig.
> After all, it's convenient to make a DVD of your results so that you can
> get the benefit of chapters etc. But to get the full benefit of miniDV,
> IMHO, after editing, you need to make an avi file, not an mpg file. As
> soon as you make an mpg file for use on a DVD, you have compressed your
> video considerably, so the final result wouldn't be much better than
> editing video that was taken on a DVD camcorder.
DVD camcorders do single-pass on-the-fly transcoding. Producing an mpeg
file from a DV-codec-encoded AVI can be done in software, can be
multiple-pass, not constrained to real-time, etc. Yes, the end result is
the same amount of compression. The quality of the video will vary
dramatically.
>
> And then if you want to play your avi file back, you need to connect your
> computer or your camcorder to your TV, because your DVD player doesn't
> recognise avi files. So there are some advantages to using DVDs for
> showing your movies, particularly for home use and with screens no larger
> than, say, 32"
The difference between a DV-codec-encoded avi and a DVD are visible on my 9"
monitor.
>
> I guess when we all get high definition camcorders and blu ray discs and
> recorders, then there probably won't be a need to compress the video so
> that it fits on the DVD. But in the meantime, I can't see much wrong with
> DVD camcorders for people who are not wanting to project the results on to
> very large screens!
Provided these people also don't have any interest in doing editing beyond
simple cuts and don't care about the quality of the result.
>
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|