|
|
Posted by ptravel on 01/07/07 22:39
Jim S wrote:
> "PTravel" <ptravel@travelersvideo.com> wrote in message
> news:50cbk2F1eku98U1@mid.individual.net...
>
> >> 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.
>
> I don't think Sony would like my 3.0 megapixel miniDV handycam referred to
> as "crappy"!
Sony may not but, apparently, it is. 3.0 megapixel refers to a
high-density sensor for the purpose of _still_imaging_. The higher
density has virtually no effect on _video_ quality and results only in
lowering the low-light sensitivity of the camera. "High density ccds"
is marketing hype only.
> The point I was making is that, to get the full benefit of the
> miniDV format, it is best not to substantially compress your video so that
> it will fit, for example, on to a 4.7gig DVD.
Agreed.
> I think most users would agree
> that there is a difference in the quality of a movie that is played direct
> from an avi file, compared with a movie that is played from a DVD after
> compressing the avi file substantially.
>
> Nevertheless, many miniDV camcorder users are happy to compress their video
> substantially and watch it from DVDs, so top end DVD camcorders that also
> produce video on DVDs might also be acceptable to such people.
And a properly-authored DVD, transcoded using a high-quality program
like tmpgenc or Ligos, will look dramatically better than one produced
by the single-pass, on-the-fly hardware transcoder found in a DVD
camcorder.
There is also far more to video quality than compression format and
transcoder -- lens quality and electronics also come into the picture.
DVD camcorders are, without exception, bottom-of-the-line consumer
machines intended for casual shooters who don't want to know anything
about the technology of video and are interested, primarily, in
shooting video of the kids that they can send to grandma and grandpa.
These cameras have small sensors, poor glass, and the cheapest
electronics that will create the image.
This is not to say that there aren't crappy, bottom-of-the-line miniDV
machines, too, but unlike DVD camcorders, there are miniDV machines
that range all the way up to professional quality -- feature films have
been shot with miniDV.
> For example,
> see the review of this DVD camcorder:
>
> http://www.camcorderinfo.com/content/Panasonic-VDR-D300-Camcorder-Review.htm
Robin Liss tends to like everything that is sent to her for review.
The problem with camcorderinfo is it doesn't really distinguish between
target market -- it assumes all consumers are the same.
>
> New camcorder buyers might also find this article to be helpful:
>
> http://www.easycamcorders.com/content/Beginners-Guide.htm
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|