Posted by DanR on 06/10/06 01:54

Richard Crowley wrote:
> 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

Subjectively I would rate Beta SP and 1" higher than DV.

> 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]