Posted by Richard Crowley on 01/11/66 11:49

martin_loebbing wrote ...

> I produced a (very) low budget TV show for community TV a few years
> back. The whole thing was shot on a fairly cheap MiniDV camcorder.
> The
> quality was, as you'd expect, acceptable but not great. However, the
> camera appeared to my untrained eye to be able to record quite well
> through its video input. If I recorded a direct TV broadcast for
> example, I wouldn't be able to notice much difference between the
> original and the playback. So, for the next series I am thinking of
> getting one of those old analogue shoulder mounted cameras (I can get
> decent ones
> quite cheaply) and recording it through the MiniDV camera. So, before
> I
> go and fork out for the camera, is this a dumb idea?

Not really a dumb idea. The quality of modern DV
recording equipment (even cheap camcorders) is
significantly higher than any of the previous generation
analog recording formats. A list of rank quality...

D-5 (10-bit uncompressed digital) = 10
D-1 (8-bit uncompressed digital) = 9.9
Digital Betacam, Ampex DCT = 9.7
D-9 (Digital-S), DVCPRO50 = 9.6
DV, DVCAM, DVCPRO (D-7), Digital8 = 9.0
MII, Betacam SP = 8.9
1" Type C = 8.7
3/4" SP = 6.5
3/4", Hi8, SVHS = 5.5
Video 8, Betamax = 4.0
VHS = 3.5
EIAJ Type 1, Fisher-Price Pixelvision = 1.0

http://www.adamwilt.com/DV-FAQ-tech.html

> And is the recording camera going to need an S-video
> input to make it worthwhile?

No question that Y/C ("S-video") is preferable to plain
old composite. It is quite likely that you could see the
difference.

[Back to original message]