How much of a difference is there going to be if one chooses to record min-DV straight to a hard drive instead of tape. I’ve done some great looking work on Fuji DVC mini-DV tape using frame mode but wonder if I can’t get much more noticeably better results without the tape compression? Of course, I'm planning for a film look. I am planning on showing this short not only on a TV set, but blown up on a projection screen too.

Thanks!

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Thinkingman,

It depends on the camera, but the tapes do not compress the video. There would only be an advantage if you can find a camera which can save to a lossless format, instead of DV.

Digital video is all ones and zeros. The data is either there or its not. You're not going to get a "more crisp" picture or better color reproduction--all you'll be doing is reducing the risk of frame dropouts.

Actually, dropouts could be more of an issues if you're using a hard-drive that's getting moved around.

You gotta look at what the quality bottleneck is. So, if you use the hard disk recorder coming from the firewire port on the camera, it's already been digitally converted to the quality that's going to tape.

Now, there are companies now that are creating 'hacks' on cameras letting them output the video before it is compressed. Andromeda is the big name right now. But that requires someone to physically open your camera up and alter it ... and is costing $3K after you buy the $3K DVX100 and the $2-3K laptop needed for recording. Not cheap.

Actually $9K for an HD cam that usually gives you better numbers than HDV for the same price ain't too bad. The camera and the Andromeda are pretty expensive, but someone had it hooked up to a Mac Mini which probably only set them back another five hundred. I mentioned this in another thread and didn't get a response, but I really wonder what would happen of those guys got ahold of one of the new HDD camcorders, I honestly think it'd help with their problem of a portable harddrive.

elliott...

Yes, it's not that expensive considering. But you still have a computer/hard drive tethered to the camera. And when you're speaking in the the realm of just adding a hard-drive to improve quality, it is considerably more than that.

I saw your earlier post. Unfortunately, many of the new HD cameras are already using the pixel shifting technology to get to HD. Panasonic has been very hush hush about the native pixel resolution of the hvx200 because (IMO) it's not going to be native HD resolution. Which is actually better, because with pixel shifting, you won't loose any quality at 4:2:2 color space. Plus with fewer pixels, you're gonna get better light sensitivity. But, that's pretty much rendering the Andromeda add ons less useful. Plus, if you go higher than HD resolutions, how are you going to edit, distribute, etc? Of course it's possible, but you're looking at a transfer to film or 2k or better digital projector. Of course it would be rad to have a higher than HD camera for $15k, but the rest of the post workflow will cost tons more, and fewer people could use it. I'd rather wait for the Varicam2 (which will be cheaper) than try to modify consumer level equipment.

quote:

Originally posted by joren:
I'd rather wait for the Varicam2 (which will be cheaper) than try to modify consumer level equipment.

Does Canon have anything in this class of camera that competes with the Panasonic Varicam2?

umm, not that I know of. Once you get into the procamera line, Cannon does make several lens to go onto the varicam. At that level, the lens' cost as much as a complete HVX200 with 2 8GB P2 cards. To be clear, I meant to say the Varicam2 should be cheaper than the varicam, not the hvx200.

quote:

Originally posted by joren:
Plus, if you go higher than HD resolutions, how are you going to edit, distribute, etc? Of course it's possible, but you're looking at a transfer to film or 2k or better digital projector.

Sorry to resurrect the dead (post) here, but I just thought of something. The reason you'd want to go to higher than HD resolutions when filming would be for the same reasons one would choose film over DV at all; good in/good out, higher filmed resolution equals better overall quality even if you are just ending up on DVD or broadcast TV etc. I'm not certain that these guys did edit higher than HD resolution footage, but they did edit something which leaves me to guess that it is a viable option.

I dunno, I guess I care so much because my biggest concern right now is that HDV or any HD that's 1080x(?) or below will become the norm like MiniDV, and soon people will respect the quality as little as they do MiniDV. If there's a chance I can get a 1920x(?), or higher even, resolution on an inexpensive homemade/hacked/whatever camera, I want to take it.

elliott...

"I dunno, I guess I care so much because my biggest concern right now is that HDV or any HD that's 1080x(?) or below will become the norm like MiniDV, and soon people will respect the quality as little as they do MiniDV."

-You can shoot on practically any format and if your film is well shot, well lit, and you produce within the realms of the limitations of the equipment you are loosing, and use all of the potential of your gear, you will loose no respect. What people respect is good production values... the bigger picture, not image resolution.

keep in mind, citizen kane is STILL classed to be one of the best american films of all time, yet i have never seen a video, dvd or screening of it with a decent print.