Posted by evieg on 11/15/55 11:33

evieg <evieg@noway.com> wrote in
news:Xns971EB5D8B16BCeviegnowaycom@207.69.189.191:

> John <jlwsecure-usenet5@yahoo.com> wrote in
> news:Xns971E54C1DFBCEjlwsecure@207.115.63.158:
>
>> evieg <evieg@noway.com> wrote in
>> news:Xns971B8AE321D60eviegnowaycom@207.69.189.191:
>>
>>>
>>> which Sony HandyCam do you have? I thought I would try digital over
>>> my Sony Hi8 - so I jumped ship and ended up with a JVC mini-DV model
>>> that I quickly returned. The JVC would only recognize USB for
>>> Motion JPEG's and not for any DV - needed to use the s-video or
>>> Firewire.
>>
>>
>> I have a TRV280 Digital 8.
>>
>>
>>>
>>> The first thing you need to do is learn if sound can be carried over
>>> the USB connection. On my Sony Hi8 - the S-video jack is vastly
>>> superior for video than the composite out cable - but sound is only
>>> carried via the composite cable - so both need to be connected when
>>> I capture - choosng S-video for video and line-in from the composite
>>> connection for the audio.
>>
>>
>> Sound *is* carried over the USB connection. It works fine using
>> Windows Movie maker, and the capture software that came with the
>> camera. The problem with these programs is that for some reason, the
>> captured video quality is not what I would call the best. I've come
>> *close* to having a good DVD production, but close does not count.
>>
>>
>>>
>>> If you have a Firewire port on the Camcorder - then by all means
>>> obtain a firewire card and cable to connect that way -
>>
>> The Camcorder *does* have a firewire connection. Or something called
>> iLink, which I believe is the same thing. I don't have that hardware
>> capability yet, so I want to get by with the cheapest solution
>> possible.
>
> From what I have read Sony is using proprietary software and from what
> I gather few folks are writing programs to support USB 2.0 for video
> capture. Technically USB 2.0 has a higher bandwidth capability than
> Firewire - see http://www.digit-life.com/articles/usb20vsfirewire/ -
> but the difference is negligible - and does require special software.
>
> Of course the IEEE1394 standard also requires special software - but
> it is recognized within XP as a capture device - so little is needed
> to have it run for anything. Perhaps in Vista USB 2.0 will get the
> boost it needs.
>
> That said - a poster stated a good point - a PCI firewire card is
> cheap. You can get a basic port for about $14.00 from newegg.com -
> and if you watch it closely - sometimes shipping for 99c. You will
> need a cable, which can be $5.00 - $7.00 - again watching close.
>
> Obtain a copy of Virtualdub-MPEG2 at -
>
> http://fcchandler.home.comcast.net/stable/
>
> and see if you device can be picked up within the capture settings of
> Vdub. Avery Lee who wrote the original Virtualdub program has made a
> real effort to include any device handled by a WDM driver to be
> classified as a capture device. It will not start out in that mode -
> you will need to select File> Capture AVI>Device>and then select your
> capture device.
>
> If that freeware solution does not handle your cam - then you will
> need a Firewire card - or a TV-Card. What you will find is that
> digital does not carry the true picture you remember - as it must
> compress each frame of video - 30 frames per second - with two fields
> per frame - each field being a complete "picture" - so in an
> "action/motion" shot - it simply drops frames and/or fields.
>
> For clarity you need film and/or tape to equal a DVD production as no
> frames and/or fields are ever dropped. A DVD was shot originally
> using a Movie Camera that had no fields - just took a picture of
> everything it saw and recorded to film one single photograph per frame
> times 24fps per second (on average). Our small camcorders cannot
> equal that.
>
> But a camcorder that captures according to TV-standards can do so
> nicely and play-back correctly using tape. A digital device basically
> has a small computer-chip built-in to it and when push-comes-to-shove
> cannot equal an analog camcorder. That is the main reason I returned
> mine.
>
> But if you like digital - and know that your machine is not equal to
> the $3,200 digital Sony for Broadcast TV Stations - then you will miss
> things on your captures and there is no way to compensate for that.
>
> I would guess you are probably getting the best you will ever get out
> of the Digital Cam you have - but you will not know for sure until you
> buy a Firewire Card and Cable together for about $20.00.
>
> Digital is coming - just not there yet in my humble and useless
> estimation - until it is exactly as good as analog.
>
> If you have the ability to return it and obtain an analog Sony - buy a
> TV- Card - and you will be more than pleased with DVD quality
> guaranteed. It is a gamble with digital.
>
>
> hope this helps.
>
> I just know my old black and white 127 camera from the days I was a
> kid produced vastly superior photographs than any digital still camera
> I have yet to run across - and the Sony analog I have does the same
> versus digital. Some things better - but if object is to produce a
> DVD for playback on a TV - no compettition.
>

just needed to add a point - before digital folks scream me off the
planet -

If a digital cam is connected to a computer - and you have a 7200rpm HD -
good memory - etc. Then a digital cam is wonderful. Most folks walk
around with a small device in their hand that relies on battery power.
The digital cam and analog cam say are equal. It is the spikes in
electrical power needed that cause the major difference. An analog cam
runs at a steady battery drain to handle its load. A digital cam is
constantly monitoring the battery - the run of the tape - the compression
load - etc. It predicts future movement about like MPEG does when
compressing and then adjusts itself so everything nice.

But this tiny chip has about 128kb of memory and in an emergency (to it
an emergency would be shaking the cam - moving the viewfinder so that you
moved it two inches from where it was - and required it to adjust from a
dark location to a lighter location) it freaks out and pixelates.

An analog never pixelates. You might get shake - you might lose
smoothness - you might lose light - but never pixelation. Every fram
equal to what it saw.

And if this folk wanting DVD's for TV - then an analog is needed - unless
as I stated by the new $3200 Sony Digital for TV.

My only thought is to clue in.

[Back to original message]