| Author |
Thread: MiniDV camcorder versus DVD camcorder, |
    
|
| Posted on Friday, March 25, 2005 - 07:11 pm: |
|
I don,t know whých one to buy--miniDV camcorder or a DVD camcorder. Which ones are better? Is the amount of pixel important for the video recordings or just for the still pictures? Thank you. |
|
|
|
Bellingham Unregistered guest |
| Posted on Saturday, April 30, 2005 - 12:57 pm: |
|
MiniDV is more established while DVD camcorder is a new transition step to hardware only (mini-HD) media storage. DVDcamcorders use USB for video while miniDV camcorders use firewire for video (some capture/editing software like Adobe Premiere does not support video capture by USB and professionals look down on USB since old USB 1.0 was not fast enought for video) DVDCamcorder has already compressed your video to MPEG-2 (only 1 in 15 frames are "real", the others are calculated as part of the compression) while miniDV uses M-JPEG (only 1 in 6 frames are "real, the others are calculated as part of compression). The new MPEG-4 will become standard as High-definition replaces NTSC making both your choices obsolete.
I go by usage. If I am looking for a camera to make video productions that I will edit on my computer, I prefer my miniDV camcorder. If I am looking for an all-in-one camera I can take on a cruise and instantly make DVD's, I go for my DVD camcorder. You are right, the number of pixels is only relevant for still. However, there are 1-ccd and 3-ccd video camcorders. Generally speaking, 3-ccd camcorders are better for video to prevent less red-bleed. |
Bronze Member Username: Gromit
Post Number: 93
Registered: Mar-05
|
| Posted on Sunday, May 01, 2005 - 07:15 pm: |
|
Bellingham, I was interested to read your comment "only 1 in 6 frames are real" for DV. Actually, I ws rather under the impression that DV format had NO inter-frame compression, in order to make editing more straightforward. Here is a website (which I can't vouch for personally) stating that DV is intra-frame compressed only. Some of the terminology is a little different to your post, by the way (e.g. DV25/DCT versus M-JPEG)
Well, if you have a few minutes to spare, would appreciate your comments.
Cheers. |
|
| Posted on Thursday, June 16, 2005 - 12:01 pm: |
|
You can use Adobe Premiere after you change it to MPEG 2 |
Unregistered guest |
| Posted on Saturday, July 16, 2005 - 08:05 pm: |
|
Hello Friends,
Even I have the same confusion whether to buy a miniDv based handycam or a DVD based one. I am trying to finalise on PVGS 150/250 and Sony's DCR DVD 403.
PVGS have a 3CCD while Sony's DCR DVD is only 1 CCD. However from mega pixel point of view both PVGS 250 and DCR DVD 403 are 3 Mega pixel and hence comparable. So what do I do? I need to buy for my home usage only, to shoot for my daughter. Some say the 3CCD will give great colors which 1 CCD sony may not. However I am also fascinated by the convinience of a DVD and would be looking at ease of use and good pictures/video rather than any editing or so.
Please advise more from the usability point of view. It should not happen that I buy the camera and then the miniDVs keep accumalating.
Regards and thanks in advance.
|
|
| Posted on Sunday, July 24, 2005 - 11:29 pm: |
|
Remember - The DVD discs at full quality can only hold about 20 mins. of video. Mini DV, on short play record 1 hour. |
NTaylor26 Unregistered guest |
| Posted on Thursday, September 22, 2005 - 09:39 am: |
|
Since the DVD only records 20min, would I be able to purchase additional memory for the DVD? |
|
| Posted on Tuesday, October 04, 2005 - 12:01 am: |
|
I was torn between the 250 and the 403 as well. I broke down and purchased a returned 403 (30%off). The quality is good and the unit is easy to use. No longer will I wait for a tape to fast fwd/rwnd. I can pack many more disc when I travel out of the country. The 403's flaw is the editing software (Pict Package). XP comes with better video effects and transitions. I'm searching for better editing software. |
|
| Posted on Monday, November 14, 2005 - 01:02 pm: |
|
Hi,
Can someone tell me this regarding a Mini DV, a DVD, and a VHS Camcorder. I want one just to shoot home movies. My question/concerns are: If I buy a VSH can I feed it directly from my camcorder to my TV And record it to a DVD with a DVD recorder? If I get the MiniDV Can I do the same? Will a DVD Camcorder disk play in a DVD player? Thanks for your help! |
|
| Posted on Thursday, December 29, 2005 - 03:59 am: |
|
ok this is kind of confusing. I did a search online for a friend because she was sking me the difference and I came accross this post. Now I have a question. Ntaylor26 says that the DVD only records 20 min of video. How is this so? A DVD is 4 gigs of space on the disc. I have over an hour of video that takes up less than 1 gig on my PC. Its windows media and not sure of its compression. Mpeg 2 is the same compression that Satalites such as Direct and Dish use and if Mpeg2 compression has 20 min for 4 gigs worth of video the sats wouldn't work like they do. Just to big to stream video because download speeds for the dishes isn't very good considering the Sat interent DL speeds stink. So if I could get some clerification of the real ammount of video that can fit onto a DVD it would be great. |
David K the second Unregistered guest |
| Posted on Saturday, December 31, 2005 - 05:04 am: |
|
Hi,
I also(!) was directed to this thread while trying to find the difference between miniDV and DVD. Here is an extract from a pcw review of a Panasonic DVD camera
"Panasonic DVD camcorders will only write to 8cm DVD-R and DVD-Ram discs. DVD-R can only be used for capturing video and, because it’s a write-once format, you can’t edit or delete footage.
The DVDs also have to be finalised before being compatible with a DVD player – a process that can take up to 20 minutes for a 1.4GB disc.
DVD-Ram is more versatile. Using this format you can edit, delete and re-record over footage as much as you like. However, these discs cost around £5 each and will only play in DVD-Ram-compatible DVD players.
Three quality modes are available, each allowing a specific amount of recording space on a disc. However, the most you’ll get from a 1.4GB disc is 30 minutes – DV tapes can hold one hour."
I presume the pcw review is correct. I'm not sure if applies to other makes/models
I am still trying to find a definitive comparison webpage that is easy enough to understand without knowing all about the differences beforehand
David
|
New member Username: Oldbuck
Post Number: 1
Registered: Jan-06
|
| Posted on Tuesday, January 03, 2006 - 08:39 pm: |
|
Gromit - You are correct. miniDV uses intraframe compression only. In MPEG parlance, every frame is an 'I' frame.
J-Bo - the mini DVD's used in the camcorders are only 1.4GB. Your correct in stating Sat xmission is MPEG2 and streams at ~4Mbps per chnl. The wmv files on your PC are a precursor to what became H.264 - MPEG4ish if you will, and the quality is extremely variable as are the file sizees and data rates.
hope that helps,
-o |
New member Username: Oldbuck
Post Number: 2
Registered: Jan-06
|
| Posted on Tuesday, January 03, 2006 - 09:01 pm: |
|
We should also note that when making a decision regarding miniDV vs. DVD camcorders, it's hard to imagine a video shoot that won't require some editing (although thats what many of us did in the VHS days).
DVD's MPEG2 format is a 'lossy' compression scheme, meaning many frames are predicted based on previous frames. If you plan to do any editing your final video will suffer generational losses as your using predicted frames to generate more predicted frames.
miniDV is a lossless compression scheme. There are no predicted frames in the miniDV format. You can edit as many times as you wish without suffering and quality degradation.
There are other inherent differences between miniDV and DVD such as sampling where miniDV uses a 4:1:1 vs dvd's 4:2:0.
It all comes down to what you want to do with the final video.
-o
|
