Posted by Tony on 08/05/07 04:52

On Mon, 09 Jul 2007 04:44:03 -0700, 100246.2055@compuserve.com wrote:

>On Jul 9, 1:06 pm, Tony <trusso11...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> On Tue, 03 Jul 2007 17:47:56 -0700, Argo22 <mar...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Archiving to DVD is an oxymoron. It is like archiving S-VHS to CD-R or SLP VHS. Copy to MiniDV.
>
>
> Why?
>
>The quality on DVD is substantially better than U-Matic SP
>provided that the DVD is recorded at the "! Hour" or Highest
>Quality on the DVD recorder.

NOTHING is better quality than the original, which, in your case, is U-matic. If you copy to DVD,
you are massively compressing the signal (maybe 100:1 or more). DV is 5:1. So, miniDV will give you
waaaaaay better quality archive than DVD. DVD is not an archive medium. Tape is. I do not care if
you are recording at Super HQ to only fit 1 HR on DVD. It is far inferior compared with miniDV. That
is why no one in their right mind would use those crappy miniDVD cameras for anything serious. It's
all low qualitt crap. Keep in mind that one scratch on that DVD will cause you to lose the info
forever. Tape is, and has always been, the most reliable backup. If a tape gets eaten or breaks, you
splice it and you lose a few seconds. If you scratch that DVD, it's over.

BJs sells 10 Sony mini DV tape for $25. That's $2.50/tape. Doesnt get much cheaper than that. Did
you hear the soundtrack from the Beatles LOVE Vegas soundtrack? Sounds like it was recorded
yesterday. They went back to the original multitrack tapes and remixed everything. Those magnetic
tapes are over 40 years old. Nothing digitally recorded ever sounded as good as that. Do you think
for one second that record companies do not store their recordings on tape, even if they were
recorded on Pro Tools? Digital is cleaner and easy to edit but there is no evidence that it's media
lasts as long as tape. We do know that tapes recorded nearly 100 years ago are still going strong.

DVD is not a good way to archive your shows unless you will never need to edit them again.
Otherwise, you are saving junk.

Tony


>
>The quality on DVD at SLP rates is poor for certain but you
>are mot trying to get 3 hours+ on a DVD!
>
>There will certainly be no degradation of the picture quality
>from that on the U-Matic .
>
>U-Matic uses a "Colour Under" system with extremely degraded
>colour bandwidth compared to the original signal. In other words it's
>poor quality to start with compared to true studio formats.
>
>The typical DVD recorder has a good adaptive decoder and records
>a component MPEG compressed signal on the DVD. It is capable
>of much better than BVU U-Matic and far better than VHS.
>
>Using the HQ setting gives a constant bit rate of some 10Mb/s
>which will give broadcast quality or essentially is transparent.
>
>Using DV uses a 20Mb/s rate for compression but is a poor
>choice for archiving as it is still a tape format using rotating
>heads. All the possibilities of interchange problems between
>machines are suddenly back with a tape based format.
>
>The cost of GOOD DV tapes is also high compared to that
>of quality blank DVD's.
>
>there are also other obvious advantages of DVDs .
>
>Small storage space required.
>Easy to make a copy for preview.
>Easy to copy to a new DVD digitally after 10 years or so
>to guard against deterioration of the DVD as against the
>probability that you won't be able to play the DV at all in
>10 years time unless stored in perfect conditions.
>
>After a long investigation the SMPTE found the best medium
>for archival storage was digital stored in optical form.
>
>Any tape format is just not the way to go!
>

[Back to original message]