Author Topic: Digital camera movie clips versus MiniDV camcorder clips (Read 689 times)

eskimo2 · « **on:** December 27, 2005, 07:00:24 AM »

I almost bought my wife a cheap MiniDV camcorder (Canon ZR100 for $229)). In the store I inspected the owners manual first and found that the resolution in 320 by 240. That’s the same resolution that my Canon S400 PowerShot pocket camera takes. I also noted that the manual said that additional equipment would be needed to download the movies to a computer. That pretty much killed the idea; I want to be able to edit the clips on my PC and make them available for family members to download from my site. Although my S400 shoot has a limit of 3 minutes per clip, (which is really fine by me) and its frame rate is 15 frames per second (versus 30), it seems like it would be a step back to get a cheap MiniDV camcorder.

I’m wondering if still cameras with decent movie modes would make a better “camcorder” than a dedicated camcorder. I have no desire to shoot long clips or events. A 512 card can hold about 33 minutes of 320 x 240 clips (at 15 fps). The Canon PowerShot S2 IS (still cam) can shoot at a 640 x 480 mode and 30 frames per second. I figure with 4x the pixels and twice the rate it would probably fill a 512 card in about 4 minutes.

Anyway, enough of my silly ideas. Who out there has a digital camcorder that can interface with a PC out of the box? What’s the best mode that it can shoot, how does it store data (MiniDV tape?) and what did it cost? Are 320 x 240 camcorder clips better than 320 x 240 digital still camera clips (beyond doubling the frame rate)? I know that Canon’s better than cheapest camcorders offer a better resolution (640 x 480), but for the price I think that I’d rather have a better still camera as well (which is usually my first choice in shooting). BTW, ads for camcorders and still cameras almost seem to hide the resolution.

Please, no recommendations over $500.

Thanks,
eskimo

MrRiplEy[H] · « **Reply #1 on:** December 27, 2005, 07:10:23 AM »

If larger size doesn't bother you, get a Digital-8 DV camcorder. They store the video to cheap Hi-8 tapes instead of expensive mini-dv tapes.

The machines themselves are extremely inexpensive and produce a good image quality, very good bang for buck ratio. Downside is the large size and weight compared to mini-dv cams.

I bought a sony DCR-TRV800 series 5 years ago when mini-dv was over double the price (same res, same capacity) and it still runs strong.

You can find a full blown DV cam from the DCR-TRV series for under 500 bucks.

Plug the sucker in through firewire, kickstart the Adobe Premiere and let the editing begin!

Just beware that thing will eat HOURS and HOURS.

Using a still cam for video is not a viable option for anything than emergency captures. 15fps in grainy resolution only makes you cry afterwards for not bringing a real camera instead. Been there done that (back then Canon Powershot G3 as the cam).

eskimo2 · « **Reply #2 on:** December 27, 2005, 08:12:44 AM »

Isn’t FireWire a Mac thing? My PC doesn’t have it.
It seems that the only output for a lot of these things is FireWire, which is weird because most folks use PCs.

I’m sure that Adobe Premiere is considerably better than Windows Movie Maker, but doesn’t it cost about $100? Windows Movie Maker does pretty much everything I would ever want to do anyway. Or does it?

Boroda · « **Reply #3 on:** December 27, 2005, 08:13:11 AM »

MiniDV cassetes are about $3 for an hour now? It can be compared to a roll of a good photo film.

All DV cameras I saw transfer video to PC in PAL resolution, 720x576x25FPS. NTSC should have lower resolution at 30 FPS. Nothing like 320x240, this resolution is used in "preview" mode.

All you need to connect a DV camera to PC is a Fire Wire (IEE1394) port. PCI 1394 card costs $6-$12, and doesn't need any drivers in W2K or XP. 6/4 cable costs additional dollar or two. That's all you need to transfer video to computer.

Data transferred from DV to PC is uncompressed AVI, you can edit it as you want without quality loss, while digital still cameras record video in MPEG that's hard to edit.

Boroda · « **Reply #4 on:** December 27, 2005, 08:14:45 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by eskimo2
Isn’t FireWire a Mac thing? My PC doesn’t have it.
It seems that the only output for a lot of these things is FireWire, which is weird because most folks use PCs.

$6-$10 for a FireWire port if your PC doesn't already have it.

eskimo2 · « **Reply #5 on:** December 27, 2005, 08:47:38 AM »

Thanks Baroda

I'm still concerned that the $229 Canon ZR100 only shoots at 320x240, because that's what I saw in the manual. Are the frames picture quality sharper than those from my Canon S400 (also 320x240, but 15 fps)?

Perhaps I read wrong, but enven at the Canon site I can't find what the video resolution output is:

Canon ZR100

Boroda · « **Reply #6 on:** December 27, 2005, 09:01:49 AM »

Television System EIA standard (525 lines, 60 fields) NTSC color

Image Sensor 1/6-inch CCD, approx. 680,000 pixels Effective pixels: approx. 340,000 pixels

It should transfer standard NTSC resolution in 30fps. I didn't find anything about 320x240 video there, still looking for it.

Good choice, I wish PAL version could cost the same sum here.

eskimo2 · « **Reply #7 on:** December 27, 2005, 09:32:41 AM »

So is the image sensor the main measure of potential resolution and quality?

Here are the image sensor stats from the low end of their line:

Canon ZR 100, 200 & 300:
Image Sensor 1/6-inch CCD, approx. 680,000 pixels
Effective pixels: tape: approx. 340,000 pixels (4:3)
approx. 450,000 pixels
(16:9/Image Stabilizer Off)
card: approx. 450,000 pixels

Canon ZR 400
Image Sensor 1/4.5-inch CCD, approx. 1,330,000 pixels
Effective pixels: tape: approx. 690,000 pixels (4:3)
approx. 750,000 pixels
(16:9/Image Stabilizer Off)
card: approx. 1,000,000 pixels

Elura 80, 85, 90
Image Sensor 1/4.5-inch CCD, approx. 1,330,000 pixels
Effective pixels: tape: approx. 690,000 pixels (4:3)
approx. 920,000 pixels
(16:9/Image Stabilizer Off)
card: approx. 1,230,000 pixels

Optura 50 & 60
Image Sensor 1/3.4-inch CCD, approx. 2,200,000 pixels
Effective pixels: tape: approx. 1,230,000 pixels (4:3)
approx. 1,500,000 pixels (16:9)
card: approx. 2,000,000 pixels

StSanta · « **Reply #8 on:** December 27, 2005, 09:45:45 AM »

Depending on the application, consider lenses and filters you are likely to use.

Some skydivers here bought a bullet camera thingy with MiniDV. All nice and cool - all that ya have on yer helmet is the lens box more or less instead of a big camera that can get riser slapped to pieces, give ya neck injuries from hard openings etc.

They are however useless for the application of skydiving since they cannot be fitted with wide angle lenses. No filters can be added either.

For home use, they're handy. It really depends on what ya intend to do with it.

moot · « **Reply #9 on:** December 27, 2005, 09:52:25 AM »

You can't fit wide angle lenses or filters to the lens-box because?

Gunslinger · « **Reply #10 on:** December 27, 2005, 09:54:09 AM »

Eskimo,

I got this for christmas http://www.bestbuy.com/site/olspage.jsp?skuId=6988496&type=product&id=1099390045731

It's a pretty cool camer but I couldn't tell you the resolution. It does use firewire wich I had to buy a pci card for but it works great.

One of the really cool featurs is that I can insert an SD card in it as well as the DV tape and record stills and short vids to the memory card for quick import through USB 2.0.

Other than that the fire wire is pretty quick and controls the camera. The software included lets you "edit on the fly" or just record the video off the camera.

MrRiplEy[H] · « **Reply #11 on:** December 27, 2005, 10:20:36 AM »

For any serious editing you'll want a progressive cam though and that is hard to find for $500. Interlaced picture is horrible with movement and deinterlace usually doesn't actually improve the sharpness.

eagl · « **Reply #12 on:** December 27, 2005, 10:39:57 AM »

Buy cheap now and upgrade later... Sony and others have recently released HD recording camcorders. They're still priced well above $1000 but that should drop fast as soon as the new HD DVD format players/recorders hit the street. The CCD sensors are cheap enough that the only thing keeping HD camcorders from getting cheap are marketing strategy and the recording media format. Everything else, from the electronics to the lenses are more than good enough already.

As for hooking up to a computer... Many new Nvidia chipset mobos have firewire ports built in, and some soundcards like certain soundblaster audigy2 cards also have a firewire port. If not, like boroda said you can buy an inexpensive firewire expansion card.

Gunslinger · « **Reply #13 on:** December 27, 2005, 11:14:54 AM »

From my experience (yesturday) the cable is more expensive than the card.

eskimo2 · « **Reply #14 on:** December 27, 2005, 11:19:16 AM »

Quote

Originally posted by Gunslinger
Eskimo,

I got this for christmas http://www.bestbuy.com/site/olspage.jsp?skuId=6988496&type=product&id=1099390045731

It's a pretty cool camer but I couldn't tell you the resolution. It does use firewire wich I had to buy a pci card for but it works great.

One of the really cool featurs is that I can insert an SD card in it as well as the DV tape and record stills and short vids to the memory card for quick import through USB 2.0.

Other than that the fire wire is pretty quick and controls the camera. The software included lets you "edit on the fly" or just record the video off the camera.

So, like Baroda said, just install the PCI card in your PC and it was plug and play? Or did you have to troubleshoot and monkey around to get it to work? What did your card and wire cost?

On your camcorder, when you play clips on your PC how big are they and hows the quality? Do you have anyway of posting even a 10 second sample clip?