 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| PhotoKB HomeDiscussion Groups Digital Photography Digital PhotoDSLR CamerasZLR CamerasPoint & Shoot CamerasFilm Photography 35 mmLarge FormatMedium formatDarkroomFilm and LabsOther EquipmentPhoto Technique Nature PhotographyPeople PhotographyTechnique GeneralGeneral Photo Topics General TopicsAustralian PhotographyUK PhotographyDirectoryPhoto Clubs |
Photo Forum / Digital Photography / Digital Photo / March 2008What about HD Camcorders
What exactly to you do with what you record on an HD camcorder? I know you can play it on an HD TV. But there is no HD DVD recorder or can you use a Blu-Ray DVD recorder? That seems expensive especially the blank discs. Or can you transfer your video to a PC and burn HD DVDs? I don't think that's possible. Wo for those of you with HD camcorders, how do you save your media? ______________________________________________________________________ : the next generation of web-newsreaders : http://www.recgroups.com > What exactly to you do with what you record on an HD camcorder? I know > you can play it on an HD TV. But there is no HD DVD recorder or can you [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Wo for those of you with HD camcorders, how do you save your media? Off topic (try rec.video.desktop or rec.video.production), but since I'm also into video, and lately into HD video, here goes. One of the reasons for buying a tape-based HDV HD camcorder (other than for the superior image quality compared with DVD/HD/memory-chip recording systems) is that you can easily record back to tape your edited HD video - and tape is also the most reliable and convenient long term storage medium for video. HD-DVD is a dying format, but you can, using some inexpensive video editing programs save the edited video to Blu-Ray disk (and/or back to tape - or in reduced resolution, to any other video format you want, even Flash). For a review of my favorite HD camcorder (a cheap "little wonder"!), see -- www.donferrario.com/ruether/canon_hv20.htm, and for more on editing programs, see -- www.donferrario.com/ruether/hdv-editing.htm  SignatureDavid Ruether d_ruether@hotmail.com www.donferrario.com/ruether > > What exactly to you do with what you record on an HD camcorder? I know > > you can play it on an HD TV. But there is no HD DVD recorder or can you [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > www.donferrario.com/ruether/canon_hv20.htm, and for more on editing > programs, see -- www.donferrario.com/ruether/hdv-editing.htm You're right about the OT comment. This was the closest thing on my group list (I use recgroups.com). I am basically trying to know how to get HD video stored on a DVD for archiving and/or viewing. It doesn't sound cheap or easy at this time. ____________________________________________________________________ : the next generation of web-newsreaders : http://www.recgroups.com >> "pantsonfire" <a3af257@webnntp.invalid> wrote in message > news:ufavb5xa1b.ln2@recgroups.com... >> > What exactly to you do with what you record on an HD camcorder? I know >> > you can play it on an HD TV. But there is no HD DVD recorder or can you [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >> > >> > Wo for those of you with HD camcorders, how do you save your media? >> Off topic (try rec.video.desktop or rec.video.production), but since I'm >> also into video, and lately into HD video, here goes. One of the reasons for [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >> www.donferrario.com/ruether/canon_hv20.htm, and for more on editing >> programs, see -- www.donferrario.com/ruether/hdv-editing.htm > You're right about the OT comment. This was the closest thing on my > group list (I use recgroups.com). If you use Outlook Express, or similar, they have newsreaders built in... > I am basically trying to know how to get HD video stored on a DVD for > archiving and/or viewing. It doesn't sound cheap or easy at this time. DVDs should not be regarded as a good archiving medium - the homemade ones use dye, with all that that implies (dark, cool, dry storage, with the disks upright - but their life is still unfortunately limited...). Blu-Ray is the only option for HD disks, now that HD-DVD is going away, though you can downconvert to standard definition (bleah!) and write DVDs in that (or write the edit back to a couple of tapes for safety and for showing from the camcorder, keeping one or two for archiving - or show the edit from a computer...). I prefer to make multiple copies of edited videos and play to the TV from the camcorder for showing. If you keep a simple log of where on the tape each video is, this method is quick and easy... SignatureDavid Ruether d_ruether@hotmail.com www.donferrario.com/ruether There are a number of programs that can down convert the HD to a 16:9 regular DVD format compatible with standard DVD players once you dump your camera contents into your computer. Seek/Google and ye shall find. Unfortunately the conversion process does not always go smoothly, e.g. picture and sound unsynch, and can take forever depending on the length of your video. Otherwise you have to pony up for a Blu-Ray recorder or be content to watch the videos you download to your computer on your computer monitor. Which is not necessarily a bad option. Blu-ray recorders will likely approach the $200 mark very soon. However recordable media is likely to remain ungodly expensive for the foreseeable future. > There are a number of programs that can down convert the HD to a 16:9 > regular DVD format compatible with standard DVD players once you dump your [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > recordable media is likely to remain ungodly expensive for the foreseeable > future. Let's not overlook the option of a Home Theatre PC. In that case, all your videos can be stored on disk and watched in their HD glory on your HDTV. Dan (Woj...) > > There are a number of programs that can down convert the HD to a 16:9 > > regular DVD format compatible with standard DVD players once you dump your [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > Dan (Woj...) I like that a lot and it appears that HDD drive cost is cheaper (than Blu-Ray) right now by the GB. Just need a camcorder with HDD and firewire and I'm set. Thanks for the ideas guys and sorry to intrude on a still camera forum. Just a sidenote, I had a Coolpix 880 and the lens stayed stuck out. Now it doesn't power on without an error message. I can hear the cheap plastic gears grinding over themselves. Back to Canon for me (love the swivel screen). --- : the next generation of web-newsreaders : http://www.recgroups.com >> > There are a number of programs that can down convert the HD to a 16:9 >> > regular DVD format compatible with standard DVD players once you dump your [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >> > the videos you download to your computer on your computer monitor. Which is >> > not necessarily a bad option. Um, not as good as seeing them on a good HD TV, since computer monitor screens are non-interlaced, if 1080i the HD is, and then there are the gamma and size differences. Viewing edited tapes directly from the camcorder hooked to the HDTV (or from Blu-Ray disks in a player hooked to the HDTV - or from a computer through FireWire and then on to the HDTV) is still the best way to go. >> > Blu-ray recorders will likely approach the $200 mark very soon. However >> > recordable media is likely to remain ungodly expensive for the foreseeable >> > future. >> Let's not overlook the option of a Home Theatre PC. In that case, all >> your videos can be stored on disk and watched in their HD glory on >> your HDTV. >> >> Dan (Woj...) > I like that a lot and it appears that HDD drive cost is cheaper (than > Blu-Ray) right now by the GB. Just need a camcorder with HDD and firewire > and I'm set. I would rethink anything but tape for HD camcorders if you care about best image quality and best archival durability, lowest expense, and greatest convenience (the Canon HV20/30 appears to be the best of these in the low price range - see my review of this "gem", at -- www.donferrario.com/ruether/canon_hv20.htm). > Thanks for the ideas guys and sorry to intrude on a still camera > forum. Ah, some of us have more than one "mania"...;-) --DR >What exactly to you do with what you record on an HD camcorder? I know >you can play it on an HD TV. But there is no HD DVD recorder or can you >use a Blu-Ray DVD recorder? That seems expensive especially the blank >discs. Or can you transfer your video to a PC and burn HD DVDs? I don't >think that's possible. Is there any reason you can't create HD-resolution video in a suitable format (using whatever codec is normally used for Blu-Ray or HD-DVD content) but write the files on an ordinary DVD? You'll get something like 20 minutes of playing time instead of a couple of hours, but if that's enough for your content, why not? For playback on a computer, both DVD and HD-DVD/Blu-Ray discs are just data containers, and the player software shouldn't care about seeing HD content on a DVD any more than it would object to HD content on the local hard disk. And DVD data drives should have enough bandwidth to handle the higher bit rate of HD, at least most of the time. A commercial HD-DVD or Blu-Ray player might be surprised to find HD-resolution content on DVD media, or it might work too... I haven't tried the above; I don't have either HDDV camera or HD player. But it's worth a try. Dave > >What exactly to you do with what you record on an HD camcorder? I know > >you can play it on an HD TV. But there is no HD DVD recorder or can you [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > I haven't tried the above; I don't have either HDDV camera or HD player. > But it's worth a try. I have done exactly the same with SD video. It's called a mini DVD. It's a regular cd burned with the DVD standard. Its duration is 10 mins. Would be a waste to use a dvd for just 10 mins... -- Tzortzakakis Dimitrios major in electrical engineering mechanized infantry reservist hordad AT otenet DOT gr >> >What exactly to you do with what you record on an HD camcorder? I know >> >you can play it on an HD TV. But there is no HD DVD recorder or can you >> >use a Blu-Ray DVD recorder? That seems expensive especially the blank >> >discs. Or can you transfer your video to a PC and burn HD DVDs? I don't >> >think that's possible. >> Is there any reason you can't create HD-resolution video in a suitable >> format (using whatever codec is normally used for Blu-Ray or HD-DVD [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] >> I haven't tried the above; I don't have either HDDV camera or HD player. >> But it's worth a try. > I have done exactly the same with SD video. It's called a mini DVD. It's a > regular cd burned with the DVD standard. Its duration is 10 mins. Would be a > waste to use a dvd for just 10 mins... > -- > Tzortzakakis Dimitrios I tried writing a short video in Blu-Ray format to a standard DVD blank, but it didn't work. I gather that it can be done with the HD-DVD format, but that is a dying "breed"... --DR [A complimentary Cc of this posting was sent to pantsonfire <a3af257@webnntp.invalid>], who wrote in article <ufavb5xa1b.ln2@recgroups.com>: > What exactly to you do with what you record on an HD camcorder? I know > you can play it on an HD TV. But there is no HD DVD recorder or can you > use a Blu-Ray DVD recorder? That seems expensive especially the blank > discs. Or can you transfer your video to a PC and burn HD DVDs? I don't > think that's possible. [Disclaimer: I do not own a camcorder myself.] As far as I understand, the current generation HD camcorders (those below $10K) cannot resolve more than 600 single lines in vertical direction. Which, essentially, means that downconverting to the DVD (e.g. 720x576) format would lose only a minuscule amount of video quality. Judging by what you wrote, your video playback hardware does not support playing higher-than-DVD-resolution MPEG4. So, for the time being, you better store the original contents (until you upgrade your MPEG4 player), AND store the downconverted DVD for playback NOW. Hope this helps, Ilya > [A complimentary Cc of this posting was sent to > pantsonfire [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > Hope this helps, > Ilya The ones I have been looking at have 2M pixels still picture and a claimed 1920x1080 CCd. I had presumed that this type of camera is a true HD camera. A 40G HDD has around 2 hours of HD recording. This seems to fit with real HD. Am I wrong here? ------- RecGroups : the community-oriented newsreader : www.recgroups.com <snip> > The ones I have been looking at have 2M pixels still picture and a claimed > 1920x1080 CCd. I had presumed that this type of camera is a true HD > camera. A 40G HDD has around 2 hours of HD recording. This seems to fit > with real HD. Am I wrong here? The resolution of the recorded footage may very well be HD in terms of pixels recorded. The problem is that if it's got a dinky little fixed-focus (or two-step macro/normal) lens (like the Aiptek and Mustek digicams) your video footage will look fuzzy at full resolution and the still pictures will look horrible. [A complimentary Cc of this posting was sent to pantsonfire <a3af257@webnntp.invalid>], who wrote in article <v903c5xv6o.ln2@recgroups.com>: > > As far as I understand, the current generation HD camcorders (those > > below $10K) cannot resolve more than 600 single lines in vertical [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > 1920x1080 CCd. I had presumed that this type of camera is a true HD > camera. A "true HD" prosumer camera of today STILL produces images only slightly better than what a DVD can store. As you know, the sensor size gives no information about the image quality. The data point of resolving 600 single lines per picture height is what matters (I took it from the reviews of below-$10K cameras of 2007). Remember that with a good up-converting a DVD image may "look extremely good" (whatever this means ;-). And yesterday, inspired by this thread, I found that "Planet Earth" (which everybody is raving about as a reference point on "how good HD could be") was shot mostly with 1280x720 and 1024x576 sensors (but they were 3ccd 2/3"). Hope this helps, Ilya > [A complimentary Cc of this posting was sent to > pantsonfire [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > Hope this helps, > Ilya Thanks, I guess the best thing to do is try to actually capture some video (eg. at the store) and and bring it home on media to see how it looks on my TV or even better yet, get the camera I want home for a test drive before buying. In the end, I suppose that DVD quality 720x480 if shot well should be just fine for most home video situations. ____________________________________________________________________ : the next generation of web-newsreaders : http://www.recgroups.com > Thanks, I guess the best thing to do is try to actually capture some video > (eg. at the store) and and bring it home on media to see how it looks on [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > In the end, I suppose that DVD quality 720x480 if shot well should be just > fine for most home video situations. There are standard DVDs and then there are standard DVDs... (and differences in upsamplers, too...). You are right that well-shot Mini-DV (preferably with something as good as a 3-chip Sony VX2000 rather than a cheap mediocre 1-chipper), output to SD DVD can suffice for casual shooting where image quality may not matter much - but it will look NO WHERE NEAR as good as commercially made SD DVD movies upsampled well for viewing, or the output of the Canon HV20 HD camcorder which will look better than any of those. 720x480 Mini-DV has inherent image problems that you can't get around (mainly aliasing with motion) that can look quite ugly. Oddly, the softening effect of transferring Mini-DV to DVD can reduce this - but this process can introduce its own problems (mainly compression artifacts), and home-made SD DVDs don't look as good as commercial ones. The best broadcast HD and commercially made Blu-Ray disks can look consistently better, and the HDV Canon looks very close to these (in other words, quite a bit better than anything in SD). There is MUCH more to what video actually looks like than just the resolution numbers. For examples of image problems you can have with Mini-DV, see some examples at -- www.donferrario.com/ruether/vid_pict_characts.htm SignatureDavid Ruether d_ruether@hotmail.com www.donferrario.com/ruether [A complimentary Cc of this posting was sent to David Ruether <druether@twcny.rr.com>], who wrote in article <47efd3cb$0$30673$4c368faf@roadrunner.com>: > its own problems (mainly compression artifacts), and home-made > SD DVDs don't look as good as commercial ones. Could you explain what do mean exactly by the last phrase? I take a blu-ray disk, and downsample it to 720x576 mpeg2 AT HOME (using, e.g., mencoder). Did you say it is going to look worse than a "commercially made DVD"? Puzzled, Ilya > <druether@twcny.rr.com>], who wrote in article <47efd3cb$0$30673$4c368faf@roadrunner.com>: > [A complimentary Cc of this posting was sent to > David Ruether [I used to do this, but found some people were annoyed when I did it - but I never understood why, and I still don't...;-] >> its own problems (mainly compression artifacts), and home-made >> SD DVDs don't look as good as commercial ones. > Could you explain what do mean exactly by the last phrase? > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Puzzled, > Ilya Sorry - I was thinking of the case of taking "normal" SD (even very good SD, but short of the quality of professionally shot movies) and transferring it to SD DVDs, which never look "pro", but are always somewhat soft and often have other visible shortcomings, unlike commercial SD DVDs. Studio-made SD DVDs are usually quite good, but these are still noticeably short of good HD, even with good upsampling for viewing on an HD display. If you improve the input quality in any imaging system, though, you almost always improve the quality of the output product (the concept that one of two resolutions involved is a limiting resolution is false - with an input resolution and an output resolution, the resulting quality will always be lower than either, but improving either will improve the quality of the output quality - so a Blu-Ray source (or good HD broadcast, or of the Canon HV20 HD camcorder output) transferred to SD DVD will generally look better than regular SD transferred to SD DVD (and maybe quite good) - but of course, HD transferred to HD tape or Blu-Ray will look much better yet. As for transferring Blu-Ray to SD DVD, I have not tried it (maybe you can tell us the result?), but my guess is that its image quality will not be up to that of commercially made SD DVD movie disks... SignatureDavid Ruether d_ruether@hotmail.com www.donferrario.com/ruether [A complimentary Cc of this posting was sent to David Ruether <druether@twcny.rr.com>], who wrote in article <47f0137e$0$16656$4c368faf@roadrunner.com>: > good upsampling for viewing on an HD display. If you improve the > input quality in any imaging system, though, you almost always > improve the quality of the output product (the concept that one of > two resolutions involved is a limiting resolution is false Could not agree less. > - with an input > resolution and an output resolution, the resulting quality will always > be lower than either, but improving either will improve the quality > of the output quality This is not what I observe. When the resolution of the source is the same or better than the resolution of the destination, the only thing which matters is the ratio of MTF to the spectrum of noise - INSIDE the range of spacial frequencies representatable by the target. If you improve the input resolution without improving that ratio, this is not going to be seen after downscaling. (Quite often an increase in resolution ALSO improves the MTF at lower spacial frequencies; ONLY if this holds your reasoning works. But it will also hold if one improves MTF without improving the resolution. In short, AFAIU, when your observation is applicable, it is applicable by DIFFERENT reasons than what you state.) > Blu-Ray to SD DVD, I have not tried it (maybe you can tell us the > result?), but my guess is that its image quality will not be up to that > of commercially made SD DVD movie disks... All I know is that when I transcode DVD to MPEG4, starting from some level of compression I do not see ANY visible decrease in quality. (For my viewing skills, the threshold is somewhere about 1Mb/sec vbitrate.) From this I deduce that (with yet lower bitrate!) a better source will produce as good a result as the original DVD. [Most of the hardware in this house is not good enough to show 2MP/30fps without serious degradation, so I did not try transcoding the HD input (especially since, AFAIK, it is hard to find non-mediocre stuff in HD; a lot of good films are STILL not available in reasonable-quality DVD). Judging by the "Planet Earth" observation, I do not expect that a lot of HD material deserves more than 1MP for storage. Please! - proof me wrong. ;-] Yours, Ilya |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.