|
pc
newsgroups
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Tapeless recording devicesWhat do you all think of the small video recorders that record to SD
cards? I only ever record about 10mins max on any day and I've been thinking of a Panasonic SV-AV25. Any comments are welcome. How will it look if I record the video to DVD? Thanks, Floyd Floyd <fl***@smellyhound.com> wrote in news:dri8lm$6fg$1
@news7.svr.pol.co.uk: > What do you all think of the small video recorders that record to SD As far as I know, only the SV-AV100 [discontinued, but still able to be > cards? I only ever record about 10mins max on any day and I've been > thinking of a Panasonic SV-AV25. Any comments are welcome. How will it > look if I record the video to DVD? > > Thanks, > > Floyd found] recorded in mpeg2, making more or less direct transfers to dvd quite trivial [with very high quality]. All the others use mpeg4 compression, so making a 'normal' dvd will suffer both the original mpeg4 compression and losses when converting to dvd-standard mpeg2. [I usually carry an av100 in my pocket every day...] "Floyd" <fl***@smellyhound.com> wrote in message Pretty bad. Consumer camcorders, other than miniDV, rely on extensivenews:dri8lm$6fg$1@news7.svr.pol.co.uk... > What do you all think of the small video recorders that record to SD > cards? I only ever record about 10mins max on any day and I've been > thinking of a Panasonic SV-AV25. Any comments are welcome. How will it > look if I record the video to DVD? on-the-fly lossy compression to store video on hard disks, memory cards and miniDVDs. If you care about quality, stick to miniDV. Show quote Thanks folks. Think I'll have my miniDV repaired an stick with it until
technology moves on a bit. Floyd "PTravel" <ptra***@travelersvideo.com> wrote in Don't generalize. Panny sv-av100 mpegs [which can go direct to dvd without news:_u9Df.22989$F_3.16105@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net: > > Pretty bad. Consumer camcorders, other than miniDV, rely on extensive > on-the-fly lossy compression to store video on hard disks, memory > cards and miniDVDs. If you care about quality, stick to miniDV. > > recompression] look every bit as good as dv written directly via 1394 to a set-top dvd recorder, and as good as dv captured to pc and single pass authored to dvd. If you care not to worry about moisture, drop-outs, mixing wet vs dry tapes, tapeless is very usable -- WITH quality -- if you pick the right hardware. SamSez wrote:
Show quote > "PTravel" <ptra***@travelersvideo.com> wrote in According to:> news:_u9Df.22989$F_3.16105@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net: > > > > > > Pretty bad. Consumer camcorders, other than miniDV, rely on extensive > > on-the-fly lossy compression to store video on hard disks, memory > > cards and miniDVDs. If you care about quality, stick to miniDV. > > > > > > Don't generalize. Panny sv-av100 mpegs [which can go direct to dvd without > recompression] look every bit as good as dv written directly via 1394 to a > set-top dvd recorder, and as good as dv captured to pc and single pass > authored to dvd. If you care not to worry about moisture, drop-outs, > mixing wet vs dry tapes, tapeless is very usable -- WITH quality -- if you > pick the right hardware. http://reviews.cnet.com/Panasonic_D_Snap_SV_AV100/4505-6451_7-30527068.html this thing records using compressed video in mpeg2 and mpeg4 format stored to SD cards. Of course it uses compression, and at a much higher rate than miniDV. It will not produce quality remotely close to a decent consumer miniDV camera. Here's a quote from the page: The bottom line: The SV-AV100 shoots better MPEG-2 movies than most cameras this small, but overall video quality and storage limitations disappoint. And from the fuller review: "For such a tiny device, the SV-AV100 shoots exceptional MPEG-2 movies, but a typical MiniDV model will still do better." ptra***@travelersvideo.com wrote in
Show quote news:1138692203.952064.48430@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com: You are missing the point [is that intentional?]> > SamSez wrote: >> "PTravel" <ptra***@travelersvideo.com> wrote in >> news:_u9Df.22989$F_3.16105@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net: >> >> >> > >> > Pretty bad. Consumer camcorders, other than miniDV, rely on >> > extensive on-the-fly lossy compression to store video on hard >> > disks, memory cards and miniDVDs. If you care about quality, stick >> > to miniDV. >> > >> > >> >> Don't generalize. Panny sv-av100 mpegs [which can go direct to dvd >> without recompression] look every bit as good as dv written directly >> via 1394 to a set-top dvd recorder, and as good as dv captured to pc >> and single pass authored to dvd. If you care not to worry about >> moisture, drop-outs, mixing wet vs dry tapes, tapeless is very usable >> -- WITH quality -- if you pick the right hardware. > > According to: > > http://reviews.cnet.com/Panasonic_D_Snap_SV_AV100/4505-6451_7-30527068. > html > > this thing records using compressed video in mpeg2 and mpeg4 format > stored to SD cards. Of course it uses compression, and at a much > higher rate than miniDV. It will not produce quality remotely close > to a decent consumer miniDV camera. > > Here's a quote from the page: > > The bottom line: The SV-AV100 shoots better MPEG-2 movies than most > cameras this small, but overall video quality and storage limitations > disappoint. > > And from the fuller review: > > "For such a tiny device, the SV-AV100 shoots exceptional MPEG-2 > movies, but a typical MiniDV model will still do better." > > The OP said "GO TO DVD". If you are going to dvd, you are going to mpeg2 ANYWAY, so if you are satisfied with single pass mpeg conversion, you are going to get essentially the SAME compression in the sv-av100 via hardware as via software in a PC going to dvd from dv or via hardware in a set-top dvd recorder going to dvd from dv. Yes, a dv played back directly on a tv from the camera may look better than an sv-av100 played back directly on a tv from the camera -- but a dvd made from either source [single pass conversion] will look 'about the same'.
Show quote
"SamSez" <samthe***@verizon.net> wrote in message The OP said, "what do you think about this video camera that records to SD?"news:Xns975C5C538C6E1samthemanverizonnet@199.45.49.11... > ptra***@travelersvideo.com wrote in > news:1138692203.952064.48430@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com: > > > > > SamSez wrote: > >> "PTravel" <ptra***@travelersvideo.com> wrote in > >> news:_u9Df.22989$F_3.16105@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net: > >> > >> > >> > > >> > Pretty bad. Consumer camcorders, other than miniDV, rely on > >> > extensive on-the-fly lossy compression to store video on hard > >> > disks, memory cards and miniDVDs. If you care about quality, stick > >> > to miniDV. > >> > > >> > > >> > >> Don't generalize. Panny sv-av100 mpegs [which can go direct to dvd > >> without recompression] look every bit as good as dv written directly > >> via 1394 to a set-top dvd recorder, and as good as dv captured to pc > >> and single pass authored to dvd. If you care not to worry about > >> moisture, drop-outs, mixing wet vs dry tapes, tapeless is very usable > >> -- WITH quality -- if you pick the right hardware. > > > > According to: > > > > http://reviews.cnet.com/Panasonic_D_Snap_SV_AV100/4505-6451_7-30527068. > > html > > > > this thing records using compressed video in mpeg2 and mpeg4 format > > stored to SD cards. Of course it uses compression, and at a much > > higher rate than miniDV. It will not produce quality remotely close > > to a decent consumer miniDV camera. > > > > Here's a quote from the page: > > > > The bottom line: The SV-AV100 shoots better MPEG-2 movies than most > > cameras this small, but overall video quality and storage limitations > > disappoint. > > > > And from the fuller review: > > > > "For such a tiny device, the SV-AV100 shoots exceptional MPEG-2 > > movies, but a typical MiniDV model will still do better." > > > > > > You are missing the point [is that intentional?] > > The OP said "GO TO DVD". If you are going to dvd, you are going to mpeg2 > ANYWAY, so if you are satisfied with single pass mpeg conversion, you are > going to get essentially the SAME compression in the sv-av100 via > hardware as via software in a PC going to dvd from dv or via hardware in > a set-top dvd recorder going to dvd from dv. My response: it produces crappy video. And that is correct. > Transcoding miniDV in a computer with a decent transcoder and then burning> Yes, a dv played back directly on a tv from the camera may look better > than an sv-av100 played back directly on a tv from the camera -- but a > dvd made from either source [single pass conversion] will look 'about the > same'. the DVD will produce far better results than anything this camera can produce. All of my video winds up on DVD, and I guarantee you that, the day I turn out a DVD that looks like it came from an sv-av100 is the day I need give up doing anything with video. Show quote > > >
Show quote
"PTravel" <ptra***@travelersvideo.com> wrote in Thanks for proving you have never seen the output, let alone owned one.news:ZBMDf.20397$Yu.14098@newssvr27.news.prodigy.net: > > "SamSez" <samthe***@verizon.net> wrote in message > news:Xns975C5C538C6E1samthemanverizonnet@199.45.49.11... >> ptra***@travelersvideo.com wrote in >> news:1138692203.952064.48430@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com: >> >> > >> > SamSez wrote: >> >> "PTravel" <ptra***@travelersvideo.com> wrote in >> >> news:_u9Df.22989$F_3.16105@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net: >> >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> > Pretty bad. Consumer camcorders, other than miniDV, rely on >> >> > extensive on-the-fly lossy compression to store video on hard >> >> > disks, memory cards and miniDVDs. If you care about quality, >> >> > stick to miniDV. >> >> > >> >> > >> >> >> >> Don't generalize. Panny sv-av100 mpegs [which can go direct to >> >> dvd without recompression] look every bit as good as dv written >> >> directly via 1394 to a set-top dvd recorder, and as good as dv >> >> captured to pc and single pass authored to dvd. If you care not >> >> to worry about moisture, drop-outs, mixing wet vs dry tapes, >> >> tapeless is very usable -- WITH quality -- if you pick the right >> >> hardware. >> > >> > According to: >> > >> > http://reviews.cnet.com/Panasonic_D_Snap_SV_AV100/4505-6451_7-305270 >> > 68. html >> > >> > this thing records using compressed video in mpeg2 and mpeg4 format >> > stored to SD cards. Of course it uses compression, and at a much >> > higher rate than miniDV. It will not produce quality remotely >> > close to a decent consumer miniDV camera. >> > >> > Here's a quote from the page: >> > >> > The bottom line: The SV-AV100 shoots better MPEG-2 movies than >> > most cameras this small, but overall video quality and storage >> > limitations disappoint. >> > >> > And from the fuller review: >> > >> > "For such a tiny device, the SV-AV100 shoots exceptional MPEG-2 >> > movies, but a typical MiniDV model will still do better." >> > >> > >> >> You are missing the point [is that intentional?] >> >> The OP said "GO TO DVD". If you are going to dvd, you are going to >> mpeg2 ANYWAY, so if you are satisfied with single pass mpeg >> conversion, you are going to get essentially the SAME compression in >> the sv-av100 via hardware as via software in a PC going to dvd from >> dv or via hardware in a set-top dvd recorder going to dvd from dv. > > The OP said, "what do you think about this video camera that records > to SD?" > > My response: it produces crappy video. > > And that is correct. > > >> >> Yes, a dv played back directly on a tv from the camera may look >> better than an sv-av100 played back directly on a tv from the camera >> -- but a dvd made from either source [single pass conversion] will >> look 'about the same'. > > Transcoding miniDV in a computer with a decent transcoder and then > burning the DVD will produce far better results than anything this > camera can produce. All of my video winds up on DVD, and I guarantee > you that, the day I turn out a DVD that looks like it came from an > sv-av100 is the day I need give up doing anything with video. > > Plonk. I own two Panasonic camcorders. One is the classic miniDV prosumer 3CCD
PV-GS400, and the other is the very new 3CCD SDR-S100 model that is essentially the successor to the SV-AV100. I make family DVDs with the output of both cameras. Both of these cameras produce video with great color and clarity. The GS400 is a bit more capable, and its image quality under some circumstances is superior to the SDR-S100. The SDR-S100 is not as good in low light. In fact, in low light it's very similar to the PV-GS200, which I also once had. I have also owned the SV-AV10 and the SV-AV30. Now that you could call crappy video. However, I have some priceless footage of my one granddaughter taken with the SV-AV10 the day I went to pick her up from kindergarten that I wouldn't have at all if it weren't for the fact that these SD cameras can be carried in a belt pouch and be ready to shot at a moments notice. So, no, SD camcorders are not all crappy. The models below the SV-AV100 are noticably lower in quality. The newer SDR-S100 is every bit as good as most miniDV camcorders. When it's an event shoot (ex: school play) I bring the GS400 and my shotgun microphone, along with spare tape and batteries. For just a visit, I wear my SDR-S100 on my belt. Yes, I have a lot of family videos. Bye. "SamSez" <samthe***@verizon.net> wrote in message Let me guess -- you bought one of these things, and now you're trying to news:Xns975CC0DBF9BE4samthemanverizonnet@199.45.49.11... > Thanks for proving you have never seen the output, let alone owned one. > > Plonk. justify your purchase. Sorry, but this is simple physics. Most people can understand that lossy compression produces poorer video at higher compression rates. Unfortunate that you cannot. Show quote >
Show quote
"PTRAVEL" <ptravel88-use***@yahoo.com> wrote in Ah, now I get it -- you apparently think that native dvd mpeg2 is something news:44c4jmF1dhn8U1@individual.net: > > "SamSez" <samthe***@verizon.net> wrote in message > news:Xns975CC0DBF9BE4samthemanverizonnet@199.45.49.11... > >> Thanks for proving you have never seen the output, let alone owned >> one. >> >> Plonk. > > Let me guess -- you bought one of these things, and now you're trying > to justify your purchase. > > Sorry, but this is simple physics. Most people can understand that > lossy compression produces poorer video at higher compression rates. > Unfortunate that you cannot. > >> > > other than lossy compressed video. Your wisdom speaks for itself. [p.s., please supply us with the rest of your posting aliases, so we can kill-file them all at once instead of one by one. As for now, this alias is off to join your previous address in the plonk bucket.]
Show quote
"SamSez" <samthe***@verizon.net> wrote in message "native dvd mpeg2"? There's no such thing.news:Xns975DCBE10A0FCsamthemanverizonnet@199.45.49.11... > "PTRAVEL" <ptravel88-use***@yahoo.com> wrote in > news:44c4jmF1dhn8U1@individual.net: > >> >> "SamSez" <samthe***@verizon.net> wrote in message >> news:Xns975CC0DBF9BE4samthemanverizonnet@199.45.49.11... >> >>> Thanks for proving you have never seen the output, let alone owned >>> one. >>> >>> Plonk. >> >> Let me guess -- you bought one of these things, and now you're trying >> to justify your purchase. >> >> Sorry, but this is simple physics. Most people can understand that >> lossy compression produces poorer video at higher compression rates. >> Unfortunate that you cannot. >> >>> >> >> > > Ah, now I get it -- you apparently think that native dvd mpeg2 is > something > other than lossy compressed video. Your wisdom speaks for itself. DVD-compliant mpeg2 (which is what you're probably referring to) does not look as good as DV-25, which is the standard for miniDV. It uses a much higher compression rate, and its bit rate is far lower, i.e. around 9k for DVD-compliant mpeg2 versus 25k for DV-25. You didn't know that? Not surprising. > I don't use multiple aliases. I always and only post as PTRAVEL. Feel free > [p.s., please supply us with the rest of your posting aliases, so we can > kill-file them all at once instead of one by one. to killfile anyone who states facts that you don't like. I'm sure you'll learn a lot that way. Show quote > As for now, this alias > is off to join your previous address in the plonk bucket.] SamSez <samthe***@verizon.net> writes:
>Ah, now I get it -- you apparently think that native dvd mpeg2 is something You seem to think that there is a single "native DVD MPEG2" and that>other than lossy compressed video. Your wisdom speaks for itself. tapeless recording devices produce it. But not all MPEG2 content is the same, even at the same bit rate. The MPEG2 on most commercial DVDs is the result of a high-quality transfer from film, probably recorded in a lossless video format like D1 at about 165 Mbits/sec. It's then encoded to MPEG2 using a 2-pass non-real-time encoder, possibly with human supervision to tweak the bit rates as required to get the best quality that will fit. The closest to this that you can get with consumer equipment is to record moderatly-compressed DV video (25 Mbits/sec), followed by a 2-pass non-real-time encoder. A camera that records directly to MPEG2 is certainly *convenient*, because there's no encoding step, but you can't expect the real-time one-pass encoding done by these cameras to equal what you can produce using a better non-real-time encoder. This is true even if you do no editing of the MPEG-2 content at all. If you edit, particularly doing anything like effects or titles that requires every frame to be decoded, processed, and re-encoded, you should expect further loss from the process. Then it's even more important to start with the highest quality source recording you can get your hands on. Dave da***@cs.ubc.ca (Dave Martindale) wrote in
Show quote news:ds2v79$243$1@swain.cs.ubc.ca: If you read all the posts in the thread, I made it quite clear that the > SamSez <samthe***@verizon.net> writes: > >>Ah, now I get it -- you apparently think that native dvd mpeg2 is >>something other than lossy compressed video. Your wisdom speaks for >>itself. > > You seem to think that there is a single "native DVD MPEG2" and that > tapeless recording devices produce it. But not all MPEG2 content is > the same, even at the same bit rate. > > The MPEG2 on most commercial DVDs is the result of a high-quality > transfer from film, probably recorded in a lossless video format like > D1 at about 165 Mbits/sec. It's then encoded to MPEG2 using a 2-pass > non-real-time encoder, possibly with human supervision to tweak the > bit rates as required to get the best quality that will fit. > > The closest to this that you can get with consumer equipment is to > record moderatly-compressed DV video (25 Mbits/sec), followed by a > 2-pass non-real-time encoder. > > A camera that records directly to MPEG2 is certainly *convenient*, > because there's no encoding step, but you can't expect the real-time > one-pass encoding done by these cameras to equal what you can produce > using a better non-real-time encoder. This is true even if you do no > editing of the MPEG-2 content at all. > > If you edit, particularly doing anything like effects or titles that > requires every frame to be decoded, processed, and re-encoded, you > should expect further loss from the process. Then it's even more > important to start with the highest quality source recording you can > get your hands on. > > Dave > OP would be happy >IF< he would be happy with single pass encoding, which is clearly enough [looking at the marketplace for set-top dvd recorders and direct-to-mpeg pc capture devices] for many users. This as an answer to that original poster asking '...gee, should I get my old camcorder fixed, or should I look at a solid state recorder...' -- and >NOT< in answer to someone wanting to produce the best possible release quality masters! Do you want everyone to buy what they don't need, or do you try to respond to the question asked? The specific quote you included above was to an off-topic responder who apparently didn't think that mpeg itself is a lossy compression format and/or [not clear] that what is on a dvd is lossy compressed video.  |
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Other interesting topics