Hard-drive vs. mini-dv camcorders

[robint]

We have discussed this here before, maybe a year ago, regarding the ability to edit the hard-drive videos. I remember being told not to buy one of these models (I am looking to upgrade this year, maybe). The reason given was that each of the hard-drive models must be downloaded to your computer and edited with the camcorder's own software, not downloaded into any 3rd party software, like Pinnacle, etc. The software issue was the primary issue, I think I remember.

Now, a year later, much more models are on the market, in fact if you go to Circuit City or any other electronics store here in US, 99% of what you see is now hard-drive instead of tapes. So..... has this issue been resolved? If a person is going to upgrade now, what the heck are they supposed to choose? I know most camcorders are designed for the non-diver, dangit, but what should a diver be looking at now?

I have a Sony and had planned to stay with Sony.... but with all the criticism of the HC-5 and HC-7 low-light color issues, I have been considering switching to another brand. Canon, JVC, and Panasonic models are common now. What should I be looking at?

I like the idea of hard-drive instead of tape - and doing liveaboards it would be easy to download the days videos to our laptop at the end of each day. Yes?

any comments appreciated!
robin
BTW...my new Palau videos are posted down on the Pacific Islands Forum now.

 

[drbill]

Robin, I'd be surprised if HDD camcorder footage can't be downloaded to a computer and used with standard software. Perhaps the reference was to footage saved in the AVHCD format which a number of software packages did not support at the time. Most of the majors have put out new versions that do support this.

I'd prefer not to use camcorders that store footage in compressed formats, but most of them do.

I'm one of the biggest whiners about the HC-7, at least in the lower vis waters of SoCal, but if you're diving mostly in the clear, tropical waters you may get great results.

Also, hard drives fail (a little known fact I've discovered in 40 years of computing). Tape drive mechanisms can too, but if you get a bad tape you can just put a new one in. Can you replace a hard drive while out in a remote area on a liveaboard? I'd probably take a backup camcorder myself even if it was mini-DV. Frtunately all six of my camcorders function within the same housing so that is easy for me to do.

 

[PerroneFord]

Robin, I'd be surprised if HDD camcorder footage can't be downloaded to a computer and used with standard software. Perhaps the reference was to footage saved in the AVHCD format which a number of software packages did not support at the time. Most of the majors have put out new versions that do support this.

The AVCHD format is a bit more widely supported, but it still has the same issues it had before. At least from an editing standpoint. My problem is that the maufacturers are not putting hard drives in the cameras we'd really LIKE to see them in. The closest is the Panasonic HVX200 with it's P2 cards.

I'd prefer not to use camcorders that store footage in compressed formats, but most of them do.

I am unaware of any consumer cameras that do not use compressed formats. Nearly all professional ones do also. Especially HD. The bandwidth required to process uncompressed 1080p is not trivial.

I'm one of the biggest whiners about the HC-7, at least in the lower vis waters of SoCal, but if you're diving mostly in the clear, tropical waters you may get great results.

I'm not a big Sony fan. Especially with their consumer cameras, but with that LANC connection, it seems they corner the electronic underwater housing market.

Also, hard drives fail (a little known fact I've discovered in 40 years of computing). Tape drive mechanisms can too, but if you get a bad tape you can just put a new one in. Can you replace a hard drive while out in a remote area on a liveaboard? I'd probably take a backup camcorder myself even if it was mini-DV. Frtunately all six of my camcorders function within the same housing so that is easy for me to do.

If my living depended on my getting a shot, I'd have backup hard drives, and a backup camera. That is one reason the P2 cards are so compelling. But the technology is moving on. With 750GB 3.5" drives costing less than a 8GB P2 card, HDD is really the way to go. I think the XDCam technology is silly by comparison.

 

[diversteve]

Recent post on s/w support for AVCHD (HDD) editing options:
http://www.scubaboard.com/forums/3251492-post11.html

It's improved a lot over the summer. Probably once everyone figured out that most consumers liked the convenience of the HDD models.

From what I've read the only downside of editing AVCHD files seems to be a need for more computer power/speed than the equivalent in HDV. And if you're an Adobe user, you have to import through an intermediate codec. (dafiremedic explains it in the link)

Realistically on a week long trip, given that you're shooting the HDR-SR8 (or SR5C) or it's competition, how many times will you fill that 100GB drive - once, twice? 13 hours at XP resolution, 24 hours at HQ. I've never shot more than a case of tape on any trip I've been on.

And mid-week just dump it all to the laptop and start over. Should be simple, most I've seen have USB2 connections.

One thing that truly surprised me was I looked at 4-5 HDD models from Sony, JVC, Panasonic? at Best Buy last night - conspicuously lacking on all of them - a viewfinder..including the new solid-state Sony HDR-CX7.

I did like the looks/price of the new JVC if somebody houses it. Have to be Ike or Equinox though - no LANC. If I don't go 3-chip, my next camera is going to be HDD.

 

[PerroneFord]

From what I've read the only downside of editing AVCHD files seems to be a need for more computer power/speed than the equivalent in HDV.

Yea, see... that's not really the problem. The problem is that the consumer cameras are not giving the full bitrate of AVCHD, resulting in video that is not as good as HDV, even though the possibility is there. I'll offer this nice explanation from Wiki:


AVCHD Controversy

Not all manufacturers or consumers accept AVCHD's reasons for existence. The disbelief in AVCHD format is partly encouraged by camcorder manufacturers. So far there is no equipment that utilizes full 24Mbps potential of AVCHD. Instead of using bitrates comparable to HDV and achieving better video quality, the camcorder manufacturers use reduced bitrates (~12Mpbs to ~16Mbps). Most reviewers agree, that while the resulting video quality is comparable to HDV, it is still inferior.[1]

The lower bitrate makes sense for DVD-based camcorders as well as for solid-state camcorders. Both type of media are limited in capacity and write speed. A single-layer mini-DVD holds only 1.4GB of data, which translates into 15 minutes of video at 12Mbps. The solid-state camcorders are limited by the write speed of a memory card. Presently there are three classes of Secure Digital High-Capacity cards: Class 2 (2 MB/s or 16 Mbps), Class 4 (4 MB/s or 32 Mbps) and Class 6 (6 MB/s or 48 Mbps). Using low bitrate in card-based camcorders ensures that even a slowest memory card has enough throughput for recording video without skipping frames.

There is less practical sense for using lower bitrates in case of HDD-based camcorders, which are routinely equipped with 30GB or 40GB hard drives. There are even models that boast 100GB hard drives. Realizing that file size is not an issue, JVC is marketing the HDD-based GZ-HD7 camcorder, which has 60GB HDD and records in three different types of high-definition MPEG-2 format. One of these types can be loosely called "HDV on disk".[2] Such equipment preserves compatibility with the proven HDV format, while giving an opportunity for recording onto a hard drive instead of tape.

Another controversial topic is AVCHD compatibility with high-definition players and its role in the HD optical disc format war. Currently available HD-DVD players are not capable of reproducing AVCHD content. On the contrary, Blu-Ray players accept AVCHD video without re-encoding. Further, it is possible to author and distribute high-definition material using readily available and inexpensive DVD disks. The playback time is limited to about 30 minutes, which is enough for amateur video or for business presentations.

Realistically on a week long trip, given that you're shooting the HDR-SR8 (or SR5C) or it's competition, how many times will you fill that 100GB drive - once, twice? 13 hours at XP resolution, 24 hours at HQ. I've never shot more than a case of tape on any trip I've been on.

The problem, is that I want to record the full resolution with real bitrates. HDV burns about 13gb per hour. Just a smigen less than miniDV. And that is already highly compressed. 25GB per hour is what I would expect recording quality HD level video. Professional level recorders are pushing 100GB per hour or more.

 

[diversteve]

Sure and I want a RED One in a Deep Red (Gates) housing too. If I win the lottery, I'll probably get one.

But until then for most casual videographers it's an imperceptible difference.

Thanks for posting the Wiki AVCHD description, I hadn't seen that before.

 

[PerroneFord]

LOL!!!

Well honestly, I think it's a travesty to install a HDD on a consumer camcorder, and then hobble it with a codec that COULD give equivalent quality to HDV, but instead of doing that, give in 13 HOURS of recording time? Why? Most people don't shoot that much video in a month. Why not give 4 good hours of nice quality video, with the option to do 2 hours of really nice quality stuff. The disk space is there, the codec is there...

And we ALL want a RED. Da*n what a camera.

 

[drbill]

One thing that I don't think we know is what Robin uses her videos for. Is she shooting for professional purposes, or to share with a few of her dive friends. Obviously this makes a big difference in what she needs.

When my HC-7 takes good video, I am quite pleased with the quality even on HD LCD TV's. The compression does not degrade the image quality enough for me to worry about... but then I rarely wear my eyeglasses due to vanity (or the fact that I can't find them).

 

[robint]

One thing that I don't think we know is what Robin uses her videos for. Is she shooting for professional purposes, or to share with a few of her dive friends. Obviously this makes a big difference in what she needs.

When my HC-7 takes good video, I am quite pleased with the quality even on HD LCD TV's. The compression does not degrade the image quality enough for me to worry about... but then I rarely wear my eyeglasses due to vanity (or the fact that I can't find them).

Dr. Bill, I purely use my videos for friends and posting on my website for free. If I were doing it professionally, I certainly would have upgraded long ago! Would I like for someone to pay me to dive and make videos, sure! But since I am not Howard Hall, I'll just stick with the lower end of the video spectrum.

So what other camcorder (non-sony) do you think you would have picked, if you hadn't picked the HC-7? Is there a non-HD camcorder out there that is producing exceptional quality video for my purposes?

robin

 

[drbill]

Robin... I've seen some mini-DV cameras that appear to do a better job at recording video under the same conditions than my HC-7. Some of this may be related to the housing I use, however, and I haven't done any testing to verify this yet.

For your uses I see nothing wrong with sticking it in the mini-DV format. Perhaps a good 3-CCD unit would improve on the quality of footage. I've seen a few 3-CCD mini-DV cameras out-perform my HC-7 in terms of the quality of the color.

I stick with Sony because my current housing works with camcorders that have a LANC connector. I had no desire (or the money!) to continually upgrade both camcorders AND housings, and mine has taken everything from 8mm to HDV. Now that L&M is introducing more housings that are flexible or easily adaptable in terms of camcorder models, that is not as much of an issue.

Although a good HD system wild dazzle your friends, I assume you would be converting the HD footage to something easier to stream on your web site. I could be wrong on that though.

PerroneFord... I just looked at the RED. With a sensor that captures so many pixels, I assume it would be pretty poor under low light conditions such as underwater. Am I wrong?