|
pc
newsgroups
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Why *Lower* Optical Zoom on Higher-Priced Camcorders?
seems to hold true for Sony and other manufacturers as well. I've been helping a relative gather information to buy a DVD camcorder. In almost all cases, the more features a camcorder has to offer--USB cable (!), RW capabilities (as opposed to just -R), better still picture resolution--the LOWER the optical zoom. It isn't that I don't understand the manufacturers are trying to make a buck, but the market is flooded with a gazillion models that are, well, not good enough, when it could be flooded with maybe only half-a-gazillion that aren't top-of-the-line. What is the point to this, or this there a point? In particular, I'd like to know whether a DVD camcorder that can be edited within the camera is worth buying if a person wants to point-and-shoot...but would also like to be able to capture video sporadically onto his hard drive. Thanks. mute***@yahoo.com writes:
>I'm referring specifically to Panasonic in this case, although the case I've always assumed this was because of lower standards for cheaper>seems to hold true for Sony and other manufacturers as well. I've been >helping a relative gather information to buy a DVD camcorder. In >almost all cases, the more features a camcorder has to offer--USB cable >(!), RW capabilities (as opposed to just -R), better still picture >resolution--the LOWER the optical zoom. camcorders. If you only want an image good enough for compressed 720x480 pixel video, the image delivered to the CCD doesn't have to be all that sharp, which allows a longer maximum FL (and larger zoom range) before the image gets too bad to be usable. On the other hand, if the camera is also supposed to deliver 2 or 3 MP still images on demand, the CCD needs to have that many pixels and the lens needs to deliver much more detail to the CCD at maximum zoom. At the higher quality, the usable range is going to be shorter. For example, a 3 MP image is around 2048x1536 pixels. Maintaining decent resolution at that size requires more than 3 times higher lens resolution (in lp/mm) than standard definition video, assuming both sensors are the same size. Dave Dave Martindale wrote:
Show quoteHide quote > I almost--*almost*--understand this. If you happen to read what I'm> I've always assumed this was because of lower standards for cheaper > camcorders. If you only want an image good enough for compressed > 720x480 pixel video, the image delivered to the CCD doesn't have to be > all that sharp, which allows a longer maximum FL (and larger zoom range) > before the image gets too bad to be usable. > > On the other hand, if the camera is also supposed to deliver 2 or 3 MP > still images on demand, the CCD needs to have that many pixels and the > lens needs to deliver much more detail to the CCD at maximum zoom. At > the higher quality, the usable range is going to be shorter. > > For example, a 3 MP image is around 2048x1536 pixels. Maintaining > decent resolution at that size requires more than 3 times higher lens > resolution (in lp/mm) than standard definition video, assuming both > sensors are the same size. writing here, tell me if this is a good paraphrase: the reason why lower-end cameras can have lower optical zoom BUT other apparent freebies is because the other significant elements of the camera aren't designed to require high optical zoom. But if this is the case, why do some cheap camcorders have high optical zoom--with lots of feature-related downsides--and others have low optical zoom--with lots of feature-related upsides? See, that's the part that doesn't make sense. I can, say, choose between a Panasonic DVD recorder with 30x optical zoom and, well, nothing else, or with 10 optical zoom and great still picture resolution, etc. ? <mute***@yahoo.com> ?????? ??? ??????
Show quoteHide quote news:1150317575.370607.60880@y41g2000cwy.googlegroups.com... that's what dave is writing.The manufacturer must sacrifice the high zoom if> Dave Martindale wrote: > > > > I've always assumed this was because of lower standards for cheaper > > camcorders. If you only want an image good enough for compressed > > 720x480 pixel video, the image delivered to the CCD doesn't have to be > > all that sharp, which allows a longer maximum FL (and larger zoom range) > > before the image gets too bad to be usable. > > > > On the other hand, if the camera is also supposed to deliver 2 or 3 MP > > still images on demand, the CCD needs to have that many pixels and the > > lens needs to deliver much more detail to the CCD at maximum zoom. At > > the higher quality, the usable range is going to be shorter. > > > > For example, a 3 MP image is around 2048x1536 pixels. Maintaining > > decent resolution at that size requires more than 3 times higher lens > > resolution (in lp/mm) than standard definition video, assuming both > > sensors are the same size. > > I almost--*almost*--understand this. If you happen to read what I'm > writing here, tell me if this is a good paraphrase: the reason why > lower-end cameras can have lower optical zoom BUT other apparent > freebies is because the other significant elements of the camera aren't > designed to require high optical zoom. > > But if this is the case, why do some cheap camcorders have high optical > zoom--with lots of feature-related downsides--and others have low > optical zoom--with lots of feature-related upsides? > the quality of other elements involved in the general movie quality is high, or else keep the zoom low and the overall lens quality high.Maybe a comparison will make this clearer-in (film) SLRs, a normal lens (50 mm) can come at f 1.4 easily and with extremely high resolution, but a 70-210 zoom at f 2.8 and at moderate to low resolution (and three times the weight). >See, that's the Hope this makes it clearer,> part that doesn't make sense. I can, say, choose between a Panasonic > DVD recorder with 30x optical zoom and, well, nothing else, or with 10 > optical zoom and great still picture resolution, etc. -- Show quoteHide quoteTzortzakakis Dimitrios major in electrical engineering,freelance electrician 542nd mechanized infantry batallion dimtzort AT otenet DOT gr > In article <e6rlbr$5h***@mouse.otenet.gr>, "Tzortzakakis Dimitrios" <dimtz***@otenet.gr> wrote: Damn, beat me to the suggestion. For film cameras to have a decent zoom >The manufacturer must sacrifice the high zoom if >the quality of other elements involved in the general movie quality is high, >or else keep the zoom low and the overall lens quality high.Maybe a >comparison will make this clearer-in (film) SLRs, a normal lens (50 mm) can >come at f 1.4 easily and with extremely high resolution, but a 70-210 zoom >at f 2.8 and at moderate to low resolution (and three times the weight). (AND have a decent F-stop), the lenses become large in weight, and in size. Two qualities that you don't really want in a consumer camcorder. Most consumers you notice don't buy SLR cameras, they want small, light and easy portability. Same goes for camcorders. Au wrote:
Show quoteHide quote > In article <e6rlbr$5h***@mouse.otenet.gr>, "Tzortzakakis Dimitrios" I'm not being cranky; I'm so grateful for the responses finally coming> >The manufacturer must sacrifice the high zoom if > >the quality of other elements involved in the general movie quality is high, > >or else keep the zoom low and the overall lens quality high.Maybe a > >comparison will make this clearer-in (film) SLRs, a normal lens (50 mm) can > >come at f 1.4 easily and with extremely high resolution, but a 70-210 zoom > >at f 2.8 and at moderate to low resolution (and three times the weight). > > Damn, beat me to the suggestion. For film cameras to have a decent zoom > (AND have a decent F-stop), the lenses become large in weight, and in size. > Two qualities that you don't really want in a consumer camcorder. Most > consumers you notice don't buy SLR cameras, they want small, light and > easy portability. > > Same goes for camcorders. in. I've spent 2+ years banging my head against the wall trying to understand why the market is flooded with SUCH an unnecessary amount of models by the same manufacturers. (Maybe other, more knowledgeable users are similarly confused???) I'm beginning to understand what y'all are saying, but if what y'all are saying is true, then why does Panasonic/Sony/et al bother to make, say, five different versions of low-end cameras whose gigundous optical zoom makes the consumer feel he/she is getting tons of video accuracy? If this is a rhetorical or semi-rhetorical question-- Ignore. Tzortzie :) wrote:
> that's what dave is writing.The manufacturer must sacrifice the high zoom if (If I offended you by shortening your name, let me know!) First, as an> the quality of other elements involved in the general movie quality is high, > or else keep the zoom low and the overall lens quality high.Maybe a > comparison will make this clearer-in (film) SLRs, a normal lens (50 mm) can > come at f 1.4 easily and with extremely high resolution, but a 70-210 zoom > at f 2.8 and at moderate to low resolution (and three times the weight). engineer and reader/poster here, could you recommend an intermediate level site where ALL the elements of a camcorder are explained, and their interaction with other elements perhaps even illustrated? Thanks for letting me know I was interpreting Dave wrong. But I still am *somewhat* in the dark about this apparent (to an uninformed layperson, that is) anomaly. ? <mute***@yahoo.com> ?????? ??? ??????
Show quoteHide quote news:1150452170.686317.232870@h76g2000cwa.googlegroups.com... Maybe www.howstuffworks.com ?> Tzortzie :) wrote: > > > that's what dave is writing.The manufacturer must sacrifice the high zoom if > > the quality of other elements involved in the general movie quality is high, > > or else keep the zoom low and the overall lens quality high.Maybe a > > comparison will make this clearer-in (film) SLRs, a normal lens (50 mm) can > > come at f 1.4 easily and with extremely high resolution, but a 70-210 zoom > > at f 2.8 and at moderate to low resolution (and three times the weight). > > (If I offended you by shortening your name, let me know!) First, as an > engineer and reader/poster here, could you recommend an intermediate > level site where ALL the elements of a camcorder are explained, and > their interaction with other elements perhaps even illustrated? Thanks > for letting me know I was interpreting Dave wrong. > > But I still am *somewhat* in the dark about this apparent (to an > uninformed layperson, that is) anomaly. > Im not sure if it completely meets your requirements, but it's interesting. -- Tzortzakakis Dimitrios major in electrical engineering,freelance electrician 542nd mechanized infantry batallion dimtzort AT otenet DOT gr <mute***@yahoo.com> wrote in message
Show quoteHide quote news:1150317575.370607.60880@y41g2000cwy.googlegroups.com... See what I wrote in a previous post. Short answer: crappy consumer > Dave Martindale wrote: >> >> I've always assumed this was because of lower standards for cheaper >> camcorders. If you only want an image good enough for compressed >> 720x480 pixel video, the image delivered to the CCD doesn't have to be >> all that sharp, which allows a longer maximum FL (and larger zoom range) >> before the image gets too bad to be usable. >> >> On the other hand, if the camera is also supposed to deliver 2 or 3 MP >> still images on demand, the CCD needs to have that many pixels and the >> lens needs to deliver much more detail to the CCD at maximum zoom. At >> the higher quality, the usable range is going to be shorter. >> >> For example, a 3 MP image is around 2048x1536 pixels. Maintaining >> decent resolution at that size requires more than 3 times higher lens >> resolution (in lp/mm) than standard definition video, assuming both >> sensors are the same size. > > I almost--*almost*--understand this. If you happen to read what I'm > writing here, tell me if this is a good paraphrase: the reason why > lower-end cameras can have lower optical zoom BUT other apparent > freebies is because the other significant elements of the camera aren't > designed to require high optical zoom. > > But if this is the case, why do some cheap camcorders have high optical > zoom--with lots of feature-related downsides--and others have low > optical zoom--with lots of feature-related upsides? See, that's the > part that doesn't make sense. I can, say, choose between a Panasonic > DVD recorder with 30x optical zoom and, well, nothing else, or with 10 > optical zoom and great still picture resolution, etc. camcorders can have crappy lenses. Decent cameras require better glass. Incidently, no one can hand-hold more than 10x. Show quoteHide quote > PTravel wrote:
> Is this true for a 200+ pound guy, or true for a skinny petite woman,> Incidently, no one can hand-hold more than 10x. or (to quote Jane Austen) "a truth universally acknowledged that a stupid consumer is in need of great optical zoom-for-the-sake-of-great-optical-zoom?"
Show quote
Hide quote
"Dave Martindale" <da***@cs.ubc.ca> wrote in message Close, but not quite.news:e6pqa6$1r9$2@swain.cs.ubc.ca... > mute***@yahoo.com writes: >>I'm referring specifically to Panasonic in this case, although the case >>seems to hold true for Sony and other manufacturers as well. I've been >>helping a relative gather information to buy a DVD camcorder. In >>almost all cases, the more features a camcorder has to offer--USB cable >>(!), RW capabilities (as opposed to just -R), better still picture >>resolution--the LOWER the optical zoom. > > I've always assumed this was because of lower standards for cheaper > camcorders. If you only want an image good enough for compressed > 720x480 pixel video, the image delivered to the CCD doesn't have to be > all that sharp, which allows a longer maximum FL (and larger zoom range) > before the image gets too bad to be usable. > > On the other hand, if the camera is also supposed to deliver 2 or 3 MP > still images on demand, the CCD needs to have that many pixels and the > lens needs to deliver much more detail to the CCD at maximum zoom. At > the higher quality, the usable range is going to be shorter. First of all, a good camcorder doesn't take stills. Period. The requirements for a good camcorder are sufficiently different from a good still camera that you cannot build one camera that is good at both. Second, it's easy to build a lousy lens, far harder to build a good one. A good zoom is difficult to build, and the longer the zoom ratio the harder (and more expensive) it is to build. Crappy consumer camcorders produce crappy consumer-grade video. They don't need good lenses, so they can put on longer optical zooms that introduce chromatic aberration, distortion, lower the contrast, etc. and no one will care. That's also why they include so-called "digital zooming" which has such adverse effects on video quality as to make it completely useless. Show quoteHide quote > > For example, a 3 MP image is around 2048x1536 pixels. Maintaining > decent resolution at that size requires more than 3 times higher lens > resolution (in lp/mm) than standard definition video, assuming both > sensors are the same size. > > Dave PTravel wrote:
> And how!> First of all, a good camcorder doesn't take stills. Period. The > requirements for a good camcorder are sufficiently different from a good > still camera that you cannot build one camera that is good at both. > Second, it's easy to build a lousy lens, far harder to build a good one. A See, it's almost impossible for someone as ignorant as I am to follow> good zoom is difficult to build, and the longer the zoom ratio the harder > (and more expensive) it is to build. Crappy consumer camcorders produce > crappy consumer-grade video. They don't need good lenses, so they can put > on longer optical zooms that introduce chromatic aberration, distortion, > lower the contrast, etc. and no one will care. That's also why they include > so-called "digital zooming" which has such adverse effects on video quality > as to make it completely useless. the undoubted logic of this too-information-packed paragraph. But I'll reread it and try. Dave Martindale wrote:
Show quoteHide quote > So what would you guys recommend that someone with a burning need for a> I've always assumed this was because of lower standards for cheaper > camcorders. If you only want an image good enough for compressed > 720x480 pixel video, the image delivered to the CCD doesn't have to be > all that sharp, which allows a longer maximum FL (and larger zoom range) > before the image gets too bad to be usable. > > On the other hand, if the camera is also supposed to deliver 2 or 3 MP > still images on demand, the CCD needs to have that many pixels and the > lens needs to deliver much more detail to the CCD at maximum zoom. At > the higher quality, the usable range is going to be shorter. > > For example, a 3 MP image is around 2048x1536 pixels. Maintaining > decent resolution at that size requires more than 3 times higher lens > resolution (in lp/mm) than standard definition video, assuming both > sensors are the same size. camcorder but with a limited budget do? Don't laugh if I ask this, but is it possible to buy a Digital 8 or High 8 camera with *better* features than even a Mini*DV*? Just give some suggestions as what features are more, or AS, important as others. Or just give some model suggestions in the $300-$400 range (if you even travel the other side of the camcorder tracks, that is). <mute***@yahoo.com> wrote in message
Show quoteHide quote news:1150454032.267003.195030@g10g2000cwb.googlegroups.com... I'm not sure what you mean by "features." A camcorder, regardless of > Dave Martindale wrote: >> >> I've always assumed this was because of lower standards for cheaper >> camcorders. If you only want an image good enough for compressed >> 720x480 pixel video, the image delivered to the CCD doesn't have to be >> all that sharp, which allows a longer maximum FL (and larger zoom range) >> before the image gets too bad to be usable. >> >> On the other hand, if the camera is also supposed to deliver 2 or 3 MP >> still images on demand, the CCD needs to have that many pixels and the >> lens needs to deliver much more detail to the CCD at maximum zoom. At >> the higher quality, the usable range is going to be shorter. >> >> For example, a 3 MP image is around 2048x1536 pixels. Maintaining >> decent resolution at that size requires more than 3 times higher lens >> resolution (in lp/mm) than standard definition video, assuming both >> sensors are the same size. > > So what would you guys recommend that someone with a burning need for a > camcorder but with a limited budget do? Don't laugh if I ask this, but > is it possible to buy a Digital 8 or High 8 camera with *better* > features than even a Mini*DV*? storage medium, should record video. As I mentioned in an earlier post, extreme zoom ratios are meaningless, since hand-holding more than 10x will result in video so shakey as to be unusuable. Still imaging capabilities actually degrade video performance. What other "features" would you want? With respect to quality, dollar for dollar you'll get better video from a miniDV camcorder than a DVD camcorder. Digital 8 is a dead medium, and only the cheapest (and worst) camcorders are still available in this format. I'm sorry I can't recommend specific models -- I shoot with prosumer equipment. However, Sony and Canon tend to make better quality machines, generally. Look for the _simplest_, meaning encumbered by the fewest "features", machines with the largest CCDs that you can find. Show quoteHide quote > Just give some suggestions as what > features are more, or AS, important as others. Or just give some model > suggestions in the $300-$400 range (if you even travel the other side > of the camcorder tracks, that is). > Let me add my (slightly cynical) thought.
Whatever your first choice is, it will be wrong. What I am leading up to is this idea: just go ahead & buy a relatively inexpensive, but half-way decent, camcorder for starters. As you use it, you will learn a lot. 1. You will learn what you like in the way of features. 2. You will learn about things that don't work well - like ultra long zooms and digital zoom, for instance. 3. You will learn a lot about making DVDs for yourself and for friends (editing & authoring, in other words). 4. You might even learn that it is not the hobby for you :-) 5. You might even learn that your first camera is just right for you. So next spring, you will have saved enough money to buy a better camera, and you will have learned enough to make a pretty good choice - pretty good for *you*, and that's what counts ... Oh, BTW, be sure to set your camera for 16 bit audio and standard recording speed before you start. Show quoteHide quote "PTravel" <ptra***@ruyitang.com> wrote in news:4fg0muF1i8t22U1@individual.net: > > <mute***@yahoo.com> wrote in message > news:1150454032.267003.195030@g10g2000cwb.googlegroups.com... >> Dave Martindale wrote: >>> >>> I've always assumed this was because of lower standards for >>> cheaper camcorders. If you only want an image good enough for >>> compressed 720x480 pixel video, the image delivered to the CCD >>> doesn't have to be all that sharp, which allows a longer maximum >>> FL (and larger zoom range) before the image gets too bad to be >>> usable. >>> >>> On the other hand, if the camera is also supposed to deliver 2 >>> or 3 MP still images on demand, the CCD needs to have that many >>> pixels and the lens needs to deliver much more detail to the CCD >>> at maximum zoom. At the higher quality, the usable range is >>> going to be shorter. >>> >>> For example, a 3 MP image is around 2048x1536 pixels. >>> Maintaining decent resolution at that size requires more than 3 >>> times higher lens resolution (in lp/mm) than standard definition >>> video, assuming both sensors are the same size. >> >> So what would you guys recommend that someone with a burning need >> for a camcorder but with a limited budget do? Don't laugh if I >> ask this, but is it possible to buy a Digital 8 or High 8 camera >> with *better* features than even a Mini*DV*? > > I'm not sure what you mean by "features." A camcorder, regardless > of storage medium, should record video. As I mentioned in an > earlier post, extreme zoom ratios are meaningless, since > hand-holding more than 10x will result in video so shakey as to be > unusuable. Still imaging capabilities actually degrade video > performance. What other "features" would you want? > > With respect to quality, dollar for dollar you'll get better video > from a miniDV camcorder than a DVD camcorder. Digital 8 is a dead > medium, and only the cheapest (and worst) camcorders are still > available in this format. > > I'm sorry I can't recommend specific models -- I shoot with > prosumer equipment. However, Sony and Canon tend to make better > quality machines, generally. Look for the _simplest_, meaning > encumbered by the fewest "features", machines with the largest > CCDs that you can find. > > > >> Just give some suggestions as what >> features are more, or AS, important as others. Or just give some >> model suggestions in the $300-$400 range (if you even travel the >> other side of the camcorder tracks, that is). >> > > -- Gene E. Bloch (Gino) ... letters617blochg3251 (replace the numbers by "at" and "dotcom") PTravel wrote:
> Would the Panasonic PV-GS120? It's the bottom-of-the-barrel 3CCD.> I'm sorry I can't recommend specific models -- I shoot with prosumer > equipment. However, Sony and Canon tend to make better quality machines, > generally. Look for the _simplest_, meaning encumbered by the fewest > "features", machines with the largest CCDs that you can find. <mute***@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1150497537.505677.207680@c74g2000cwc.googlegroups.com... Panasonic's bottom-line 3CCDs represent marketing more than quality -- > PTravel wrote: >> >> I'm sorry I can't recommend specific models -- I shoot with prosumer >> equipment. However, Sony and Canon tend to make better quality machines, >> generally. Look for the _simplest_, meaning encumbered by the fewest >> "features", machines with the largest CCDs that you can find. > > Would the Panasonic PV-GS120? It's the bottom-of-the-barrel 3CCD. Panasonic knew that 3CCD machines were regarded as superior, so they've made some rather poor quality camcorders with 3 sensors to try to exploit that niche. Sensor size is everything when it comes to low-light sensitivity and, to a great extent, quality and minimal articfacting (stair-step effects on diagonal lines, vibrating on strong horizontals, etc.). The Panasonic's low-end 3ccd machines have small sensors and poor low-light performance. Both Sony and Canon manufacture single-sensor machines that readily outperform the Panasonic 3-ccd machine. Show quoteHide quote > PTravel wrote:
> <mute***@yahoo.com> wrote in message Would you recommend the Sony DCR-TRV280 Digital8 (even though I know> > > > Would the Panasonic PV-GS120? It's the bottom-of-the-barrel 3CCD. > > Panasonic's bottom-line 3CCDs represent marketing more than quality -- > Panasonic knew that 3CCD machines were regarded as superior, so they've made > some rather poor quality camcorders with 3 sensors to try to exploit that > niche. Sensor size is everything when it comes to low-light sensitivity > and, to a great extent, quality and minimal articfacting (stair-step effects > on diagonal lines, vibrating on strong horizontals, etc.). The Panasonic's > low-end 3ccd machines have small sensors and poor low-light performance. > Both Sony and Canon manufacture single-sensor machines that readily > outperform the Panasonic 3-ccd machine. you and the others said D8 is dead)? The pixel count on the CCD isn't too good, but what do I care what format is dumped onto my hard drive? Also, since my Pentium M is a class 3 (1.4), would you recommend editing on this system? (My relative has a regular old desktop with a Pentium 4, and I'm assuming P4 is still the fastest processor, no?) <mute***@yahoo.com> wrote in message
Show quoteHide quote news:1150539750.318650.277830@y41g2000cwy.googlegroups.com... As you note, Digital8 is a dead format and, for that reason, I wouldn't > PTravel wrote: >> <mute***@yahoo.com> wrote in message >> > >> > Would the Panasonic PV-GS120? It's the bottom-of-the-barrel 3CCD. >> >> Panasonic's bottom-line 3CCDs represent marketing more than quality -- >> Panasonic knew that 3CCD machines were regarded as superior, so they've >> made >> some rather poor quality camcorders with 3 sensors to try to exploit that >> niche. Sensor size is everything when it comes to low-light sensitivity >> and, to a great extent, quality and minimal articfacting (stair-step >> effects >> on diagonal lines, vibrating on strong horizontals, etc.). The >> Panasonic's >> low-end 3ccd machines have small sensors and poor low-light performance. >> Both Sony and Canon manufacture single-sensor machines that readily >> outperform the Panasonic 3-ccd machine. > > Would you recommend the Sony DCR-TRV280 Digital8 (even though I know > you and the others said D8 is dead)? recommend it. However, before I'd recommend anything, I'd need to know what you plan to use the camcorder for, and what your specific requirements are (that's two dangling prepositions). My personal requirements are for the highest-quality video possible for the travel videos that I shoot, so I'm familiar with the higher-end prosumer machines. If, on the other hand, your interest is casual and occassional shooting of events like the kids' birthdays, etc., you almost certainly wouldn't need the kind of gear that I carry. > The pixel count on the CCD isn't You don't want a high pixel count. High pixel counts are relevant only to > too good, but what do I care what format is dumped onto my hard drive? still imaging. No camcorder will produce digital stills of the same quality as even a decent point-and-shoot still imaging camera. However, the higher the pixel count, the denser the pixels, the smaller each individual sensor and the poorer the low-light response. There are some camcorders that do sub-pixel sampling and can make use of the of the higher density; however, most simply throw that information away. > Also, since my Pentium M is a class 3 (1.4), would you recommend I used to edit on an Athlon K2 machine with a 500 MHz CPU and 352 meg of > editing on this system? (My relative has a regular old desktop with a > Pentium 4, and I'm assuming P4 is still the fastest processor, no?) RAM. You can edit on your machine -- just be prepared for a longer wait to render than, for example, on my 3.2 GHz P4 with 1 gig of RAM. Also, you should check the minimum requirements for whatever software you're using. I can tell you this: if you're planning on using Premiere Pro and editing HDV, you'll need a new machine (but so would I). Show quoteHide quote > 
Other interesting topics
Mini DV Audio need your help or suggestions
Converting NTSC to Pal from hi-8 digital? Camera Buying advice: Around $1000USD Water-proof, small video camera 8mm and Hi8 question Help please: tv warble woes Recoring LD's and VHS to DVD Basic-no frills Problem with SONY Mini DV Camera which video camera? Mitsubishi TV MG1A |
|||||||||||||||||||||||
