The Video Camera Thread

jfriend

I'm looking to extend my image capture from photos to video and I'm pretty uneducated about the video choices out there today. I think I want a hard disk-based HD video camera. I want quality so I'm willing to pay and I don't need something super small, but I doubt I'd want want one of the larger pro-style cameras either.

This Sony HDR-SR7 is the kind of camera I was considering (10x zoom, AVCHD format, 60GB hard drive):



When I looked into this a few months ago, it seemed like the newest HD hard-disk based cameras recorded in AVCHD which is the H.264 video codec. But, when I talked to some videographers, they were skeptical about the ability of these cameras to record this format to hard disk in real-time and have good quality (they still shoot cameras that record to tape).

Further, when I last looked into it, it seemed like many of the programs one might use to manipulate your videos didn't support H.264 yet. I was wondering if it's still a bit too early for this format or if there are better choices?

So, what would folks recommend for a quality, HD, hard-disk-based video camera? For now, my main target for these videos would be viewing on my HD TV at home and sharing with some family members on HD disks.

Once I get HD videos onto the PC hard disk, I'm also wondering how to best display them on my HDTV (at the other end of the house). I own a Tivo Series 3 (but don't know if that can do HD video from my PC or not).

wxwax

I chose the Canon HV20.

Two reasons: Better picture quality (according to the reviews.) Picture quality rules. I'll put up with an inferior interface and fewer features for better video, since I use it for work.

Tape, not disk. Reason? Disc technology not mature. Tape a known and safe factor. We have tape machines at work.

My next camera will probably have flash or disk memory, because it's so convenient for importing. But not this go 'round.

FWIW, I'm pleased with my selection. Downsides are it's plasticky, build doesn't inspire confidence. Images need saturation etc. boosting. Upsides are excellent image quality given the size of the lens, good low light performance, and enough manual controls to allow shallow depth of field and a degree of iris control.

Baldy

Wxwax is far more currrent than me and he does it for a living. I only shoot grandkids.

However, I hate tape... It's just so slow to access and such a pain when there's a time code glitch. I'm determined to go hard disk.

Also, I love the idea of h.264. The potential of it boggles for viewing online and on small devices. I'm really interested in this camera or at least its potential.

jfriend

wxwax wrote:

I chose the Canon HV20.

Two reasons: Better picture quality (according to the reviews.) Picture quality rules. I'll put up with an inferior interface and fewer features for better video, since I use it for work.

Tape, not disk. Reason? Disc technology not mature. Tape a known and safe factor. We have tape machines at work.

My next camera will probably have flash or disk memory, because it's so convenient for importing. But not this go 'round.

FWIW, I'm pleased with my selection. Downsides are it's plasticky, build doesn't inspire confidence. Images need saturation etc. boosting. Upsides are excellent image quality given the size of the lens, good low light performance, and enough manual controls to allow shallow depth of field and a degree of iris control.

Thanks for the thoughts. This sounds consistent with what the videogrpahers I talked to said, but I really couldn't tell if they were just saying that because they were comfortable with the technology they'd had for years or whether it was real. I remember how audiphiles poo pooed CDs when they first came out and then later other forms of digital audio. Some of of the early digital audio criticism was real but much of it was not. I wasn't sure which was the case with the hard-disk, digital video skepticism.

Can you point me to any of those reviews that compare the video quality of the HD hard disk cameras vs. HD tape cameras? I agree that quality is the point of an HD camera in the first place. I also figure that hard-disk technology will be there at some point (if it isn't already) and I just have to figure out the right time to jump in.

jfriend

Baldy wrote:

Wxwax is far more currrent than me and he does it for a living. I only shoot grandkids.

However, I hate tape... It's just so slow to access and such a pain when there's a time code glitch. I'm determined to go hard disk.

Also, I love the idea of h.264. The potential of it boggles for viewing online and on small devices. I'm really interested in this camera or at least its potential.

I really, really want to go with digital storage (probably hard disk), for a whole bunch of reasons (not the least of which is random access to the clips in the camera). I'm just trying to figure out if the technology is ready yet.

h.264 sounds interesting to me too. I found out that my Tivo Series 3 uses h.264 for it's own HD storage so hopefully, I could use my Tivo as my interface to my TV too. h.264 is also supported in both Blu-ray and HD-DVD players. Adobe announced beta support for it in their flash player, etc... Now, just need to find a good camera that produces quality h.264 video that won't be obsolete in 3 months.

wxwax

Tape is a dinosaur, no question.

But it's also dead reliable.

I understand completely the appeal of non-linear and don't blame you for making it a priority.

I'm willing to wait a generation. I'm also probably willing to buy my next camera a lot sooner than you are.

wildviper

Two weeks ago or so I did this research for a friend of mine who was getting a good deal on a Hard Drive based Sony videocamera.

Here are some points from the email I sent him. Please note, if I am referring to specific features, it is based on the model he had given me. General ideas should be good though.

Here are some sacrifices/points that you need to be aware of:

2. The battery life is 90 minutes in real-world usage. Not sure what others are at.


4. The videos are compressed already when saved to your HD. A little loss of quality happens there. If you want to further edit, more quality loss will occur. If you are like me and need sharpness, this maybe a concern for you.

5. By the way, if your Harddrive is full on this camera, where are you going to store the captured video? Give you an idea of what I am talking about:

- Full camera means 60 Gigs of storage space you need. All regular DVDs take upto 4gigs. So you will need 15 DVDs to burn. Maybe not a big deal, but something to be aware of.
- Alternatively you can buy a external HD for your laptops and transfer the stuff there. Remember, 1 hour of video equals 4gigs on this camera.
- All of the above will take lots of time. a 1 hour video will take 1 hour to transfer to computer.

6. Harddrives can and do fail. You have to remember that. If you drop the camera, there are shock absorbers, but obviously they can protect against all drops. You would loose everything on the HD if something like that happens.

- Also, HD can crash without warning and without any rhyme or reason. Like my recent experience of 2 HDs crashing at same time.

7. Night time video isn't that good. Most cameras are lacking here anyways. Just a FYI.

I think of all the things above, I would be concerned about HD crashing and storage. With tapes, I don't have to transfer it to a computer or DVDs to be able to be ready for next shoot. I can just leave it on the tape and buy a new blank tape. Tapes are safe against drops as well.

Some food for thought.

DavidTO

It takes an hour to transfer 4GB of data?

jfriend

wildviper wrote:

All of the above will take lots of time. a 1 hour video will take 1 hour to transfer to computer.

Thanks for sharing your thoughts from the prior investigation, but I'm not understanding some of your conclusions.

I don't know what these cameras are actually delivering in terms of transfer rate, but Firewire 400 is capable of 400 Mbit/s which is 50MB/s (divide by 8 to convert bits to bytes) which could transfer 4GB of video in 4*1024/50 = 81 seconds. Firewire 800 is capable of going almost twice as fast. Even if the camera delivered only the slowest Firewire 400 rate which is 100 Mbit/s, you could transfer 4GB of video in 5-1/2 minutes.

A good USB 2.0 implementation apparently does about 30MB/s which could transfer 4GB of video in just a little over 2 minutes.

Going by the specs on the Sony HDR-SR7, one hour of their HD video would be about 7.5GB at the highest HD quality level (they claim 8 hours of capacity with 60GB of storage at their XP quality level which is the highest quality).

So, even if we got half of a good throughput, we'd be talking about 4-6 minuutes to transfer 4GB of video or maybe 8-12 minutes to transfer an hour of max quality HD video.

These are very, very different transfer times than you seem to relate. Any idea on why the disconnect? You say an hour to transfer an hour of video? Isn't that what happens with tape, but not with hard disks?

wildviper

You maybe right. Since I do not have a HD camera, my experience has been with DV Tapes. I guess I forgot that with Hard Drives, you could potentially pick up the file and copy it over.

Ooops, my mistake..so ignore the time transfer bit.

claudermilk

Wow, what a timely thread. I'm just starting to look at video cameras again. My trusty old Sony Handycam was on loan witha friend whose home got burglarized. Guess what one of the things that disappeared was? :cry Eventually there will be an insurance payout & I get to upgrade finally (I was waiting for the thing to break, but it seemed to be one of the last truly reliable Sony products...).

Debating between tape & HDD--the reliability of tape is attractive, but I worry about getting in the same boat with the new tape as I was with the old 8mm--no place to get it; I stocked up when Tower closed down the local store & that was the last place I could get tapes. Once those were used up the camera was slated to become a doorstop. HDD is attractive to the simplicity of use & lack of need for tapes, but I do worry a bit about data storage & transfer times.

HD would be nice, but I'm not sure if that wil be in the budget. Overall I'm so far out of the loop on these things I don't even know what specs to look for & what would be better.

wxwax

FWIW, I find flash drives a lot more attractive then hard drives.

Less fragile, good storage, replaceable, known technology - what's not to like?

Prosumer cameras are already using them. Seems like the hardiest solution to me.

The new Sony professional camera will apparently burn to a disc somewhat like Blu-ray. Interchangeable, of course.

wxwax

My choice in the $1000 HD video cameras was picked #1.

The Canon HV20.

TylerW

claudermilk wrote:

Debating between tape & HDD--the reliability of tape is attractive, but I worry about getting in the same boat with the new tape as I was with the old 8mm--no place to get it; I stocked up when Tower closed down the local store & that was the last place I could get tapes. Once those were used up the camera was slated to become a doorstop. HDD is attractive to the simplicity of use & lack of need for tapes, but I do worry a bit about data storage & transfer times.

For what its worth, consumer grade HD (Or HDV, as its properly known) records onto standard DV tapes. You can buy 'em at grocery and thrift stores and the tape format doesn't seem to be going anywhere in a real hurry. They're reasonably robust too - if you see the format as a write once, read many medium and keep them in a place reasonably protected from magnetic interference, the signal on these tapes can have a very long shelf life, at least 7-8 years.

jfriend

TylerW wrote:

For what its worth, consumer grade HD (Or HDV, as its properly known) records onto standard DV tapes. You can buy 'em at grocery and thrift stores and the tape format doesn't seem to be going anywhere in a real hurry. They're reasonably robust too - if you see the format as a write once, read many medium and keep them in a place reasonably protected from magnetic interference, the signal on these tapes can have a very long shelf life, at least 7-8 years.

If you want to transfer the video to a hard disk, how do you do that with tapes? How long does it take to transfer 30 mins of video from a tape? What video format is it in on the hard drive after the transfer?

wxwax

jfriend wrote:

If you want to transfer the video to a hard disk, how do you do that with tapes? How long does it take to transfer 30 mins of video from a tape? What video format is it in on the hard drive after the transfer?

Tape transfer is real time. 30=30.

I'm not a technical guy, but I believe all you need is the right codec to read the camera's information. You can make the files into any format your software is capable of, once you've imported it.

TylerW

jfriend wrote:

If you want to transfer the video to a hard disk, how do you do that with tapes? How long does it take to transfer 30 mins of video from a tape? What video format is it in on the hard drive after the transfer?

You'll use editing software, either your own or whatever came with the camera, or even what came with the computer (iMovie/Windows Movie Maker) via a FireWire interface. Capturing the video to hard disk is realtime, so 30 mins takes 30 mins. Standerd Def MiniDV goes into a DV Codec .avi file on a PC, or a similarly codeced Quicktime on the Mac. As for HDV, on a PC it gets handled a few different ways, usually govenred by software. Usually it gets converted to mpeg-2, sometimes h.264. I'm not familiar with HDV on a Mac from a technical standpoint, but I imagine it does soemthing similar, but in a quicktime flavor.

Hope that helps.

jfriend

TylerW wrote:

You'll use editing software, either your own or whatever came with the camera, or even what came with the computer (iMovie/Windows Movie Maker) via a FireWire interface. Capturing the video to hard disk is realtime, so 30 mins takes 30 mins. Standerd Def MiniDV goes into a DV Codec .avi file on a PC, or a similarly codeced Quicktime on the Mac. As for HDV, on a PC it gets handled a few different ways, usually govenred by software. Usually it gets converted to mpeg-2, sometimes h.264. I'm not familiar with HDV on a Mac from a technical standpoint, but I imagine it does soemthing similar, but in a quicktime flavor.

Hope that helps.

My understanding is that the latest hard disk HD video cameras (like the Sony HDR-SR7) record on their own hard disk in h.264 so when you transfer to the PC, there's no conversion necessary, you just do a file transfer in h.264 and that makes the transfer much, much faster both because you're reading off a hard disk and because there's no re-encoding needed. Then, editing programs can just deal with the h.264 file directly. At least that's the promise of the latest technology - I don't know if the promise is fully delivered yet.

wxwax

To load video from a tape... you have to play the tape. Real time. No other way.

To load video from a hard drive/flash drive, you drag and drop the file. Same as moving a file on your computer.

Is this addressing what you're talking about?

devbobo

jfriend wrote:

My understanding is that the latest hard disk HD video cameras (like the Sony HDR-SR7) record on their own hard disk in h.264 so when you transfer to the PC, there's no conversion necessary, you just do a file transfer in h.264 and that makes the transfer much, much faster both because you're reading off a hard disk and because there's no re-encoding needed. Then, editing programs can just deal with the h.264 file directly. At least that's the promise of the latest technology - I don't know if the promise is fully delivered yet.

John,

Any reason you are looking at the Sony HDR-SR7 over the Canon HG10 ? I'm thinking about picking something up next time I am in the US, but since they are both fairly new it's kinda hard to get my hands on one here.

Cheers,

David

jfriend

devbobo wrote:

John,

Any reason you are looking at the Sony HDR-SR7 over the Canon HG10 ? I'm thinking about picking something up next time I am in the US, but since they are both fairly new it's kinda hard to get my hands on one here.

Cheers,

David

No good reason at all. I tend to favor Sony products and I tend to not favor Canon products. If I get serious about buying something, I will look seriously at the Canons.

jfriend

wxwax wrote:

To load video from a tape... you have to play the tape. Real time. No other way.

To load video from a hard drive/flash drive, you drag and drop the file. Same as moving a file on your computer.

Is this addressing what you're talking about?

Yep, I just didn't know if tapes could be "read" at a speed faster than normal playback speed. It sounds like they can't.

bwg

I'm probably a horrible test case for HD video, considering that I don't yet have a HDTV. That being said I just purchased a Canon HG10 and am thus far pleased with the results. It's Canons latest HD cam w/a 40GB Hard drive. Like Waxy said, the images are of very high quality but do need a saturation boost, especially in less than ideal lighting conditiions.

Importing into iMovie is slower than I expected. I contribute this to the decoding of the AVCHD compression into whatever it is iMovie wants to work with. Fortunately, i'm doing mostly short (< 2min clips) and ability to jump from clip to clip makes up for it. The HG10 will record in full 1080p, but I don't have a screen big enough to view that on :-) so i've been doing 720p.

One thing to keep in mind is not many programs do AVCHD yet, I'm not sure if windows movie maker does or not. You may be stuck with the Sony/Canon bundled software or have to purchase another program. On the Mac, only the most recent iMovie08 will handle AVCHD.

I'll see if I can find someplace to host the movies and show you some samples if you're interested.

DavidTO

BWG,

You might try VisualHub. It will output iMovie ready files, and it's really fast. It might get you around the long import times into iMovie.

bwg

DavidTO wrote:

BWG,

You might try VisualHub. It will output iMovie ready files, and it's really fast. It might get you around the long import times into iMovie.

You following me tonight?

Thanks, i'll give it a peek.

DavidTO

bigwebguy wrote:

You following me tonight?
.

Similar interests.

wxwax

jfriend wrote:

Yep, I just didn't know if tapes could be "read" at a speed faster than normal playback speed. It sounds like they can't.

Yeah, that's correct, they can't.

Makes loading video from tape a real pain in the butt, when you have a lot of it.

From a professional point of view, some of the appeals of hard drive/flash recording are:

1/ Non-linear preview/logging/editing from the get go.
2/ Ease of transfer (huge time savings, a very, very big deal.)
3/ Robustness (flash and disc, not hard drive.) The fewer moving parts the better. Tape requires a lot of moving parts.

I hope that by the time I buy my next consumer video camera (which is good enough for air, BTW) that it has flash memory.

jfriend

bigwebguy wrote:

I'm probably a horrible test case for HD video, considering that I don't yet have a HDTV. That being said I just purchased a Canon HG10 and am thus far pleased with the results. It's Canons latest HD cam w/a 40GB Hard drive. Like Waxy said, the images are of very high quality but do need a saturation boost, especially in less than ideal lighting conditiions.

Importing into iMovie is slower than I expected. I contribute this to the decoding of the AVCHD compression into whatever it is iMovie wants to work with. Fortunately, i'm doing mostly short (< 2min clips) and ability to jump from clip to clip makes up for it. The HG10 will record in full 1080p, but I don't have a screen big enough to view that on :-) so i've been doing 720p.

One thing to keep in mind is not many programs do AVCHD yet, I'm not sure if windows movie maker does or not. You may be stuck with the Sony/Canon bundled software or have to purchase another program. On the Mac, only the most recent iMovie08 will handle AVCHD.

I'll see if I can find someplace to host the movies and show you some samples if you're interested.

I'd definitely be interested in seeing some movies recorded with it if you find some place to put them in their original resolution.

Thanks. The lack of editors for AVCHD encoded content was one of the reasons I put off buying something 6 months ago. I presume that problem is getting solved some point in the next year, but it's still a real problem. Windows Movie Maker for Vista doesn't support it. The version of Adobe Premiere Elements that was just released doesn't support it. Sony's Vegas software (the more advanced version) does. Pinnacle v11 does.

This wikipedia article was a useful read on AVCHD and who has what kind of support for it.

And this is an interesting roundup of what software packages support AVCHD and how they implement the support.

wxwax

jfriend wrote:

No good reason at all. I tend to favor Sony products and I tend to not favor Canon products. If I get serious about buying something, I will look seriously at the Canons.

Me too. My previous videocam was/is a Sony, very happy with it. Took quite a bit of thought to buy a Canon.

Superior picture quality of the HV20 won the day.

Pupator

Just FYI from Dealhack:

Get the Panasonic HDC-SD1 AVCHD High Definition Digital Camcorder for $1300 - $500 instant savings = $800 at B&H Photo. The super compact SD1 features 3 CCD image capture for optimum color, Leica lens with 12x optical zoom, big 3-inch rotating LCD screen, optical image stabilization, 1920x1080 resolution recording, and Secure Digital Card slot for recording (supports both SD and SDHC Cards). It records in the AVCHD format and includes HDMI, component, and RCA/composite video outputs and a USB 2.0 port for direct data transfer from the camera. The camera ships with 4GB SDHC Card, battery & charger, USB & AV cables, IR remote control, and a B&H exclusive DVD guide for shooting better videos. The camcorder carries a full year Panasonic warranty.

bwg

Pupator wrote:

Just FYI from Dealhack:

I was looking at that one too...the reviews were not that favorable wrt the Sony and Canon camcorders.