Video camera and Dvd's

[lepper boy]

Looking for a good Video camera (1st baby is on the way in a month) But I want to put it on dvd instead of vhf.. (makes sense enough??))


anyway... I'm looking for a decent camera that will do good quality when it is transfered onto a dvd..

what do you recomment? and or have? program you use to convert it? what file format does it need to be in?

probably looking around 500$ for camera.. but am willing to go more and less.... 500$ just sounds like a good ball park figure to start with..

thanks!
d

 

[kini62]

There are a number of DV (digital video) cameras in that price range. DV offers the best quality. Stay away from the cameras that record directly onto DVD media- you cannot easily edit them in software.

Adobe Premeire Elements, Photoshop Elements combo (about $125) is a great program as you'll be wanting to take plenty of stills as well.

Both programs are very easy to use.

Be advised that you'll need a decent amount of HDD space as DV takes about 13GB/hour of space plus figure in double that for editing and rendering/encoding. Plus rendering and encoding (to MPEG2/DVD) is very CPU intensive and is painfully slow on lesser PCs.

Good luck.

 

[lepper boy]

Are DV cameras rated similar to the regular digital camera?? as in there are certain mega-pixel's a guy would want to get a decent picture?

Hard drive space isn't going to be an issue.. I figure I'll throwin a 2nd hard drive round 80 gig or so.. just for the editing..

d

 

[kini62]

Yes, the CCD size in DV cameras vary. More money gets you a larger (or more) CCD (more mega pixels). Which in turn "usaully" gets you better low light performance and color. That said, Panasonic makes a very nice 3 CCD camera in that price range.

http://www.camcorderinfo.com

Also, 80 gigs will do a couple of hours of DV with no problem. When you're done just delete them and defrag or better yet format the dirve so it's fresh for the next capture edit.

 

[lepper boy]

So what is the miniumim CCD you would recommend to go with, to get a really quality picture on your tv when you watch it?

dave

 

[kini62]

Check out the link I gave. They have a very comprehensive list of reviews.

There is no "magic" CCD size. Based on your budget, the Panasonic 3 CCD cameras would be the best choice.

I have a 5 year old JVC DV camera that has about 680k CCD. Video shot in well lit conditions is good, low light performance is not so good. It's an old camera but still works well for my use.

If I were upgrading I'd be looking at one of the 3 CCD Panasonics. My brother has one and it shoots great footage. Focus is fast, color is very good and low light performance is muh improved over my camera.

Also, any video you convert to DVD well be of lesser quality than the original DV footage. DV has to be compressed using MPEG2 to be played on a DVD player.

 

[lepper boy]

I have been reading the link non-stop for a while now.. thanks for that..

When you say lose quality, how much will you lose? I've never seen a video shot with one of these. Does it look like your watching Cable television?

I want it to look decent if i'm going to be recording my 1st born kid on these so I can pull them out in 10 yrs and embarress the crap out of her..

d

 

[kini62]

Analog cable is fairly low res. Digital cable/satellite is very good. DVD using component video or S-video input is slightly better than a GOOD digital signal. DV or actually it's called Mini DV is better than either. It's at 720x480. I think DVD is 640x480. Mini DV watched on a large screen TV is very clear, at least from my experience.

Also, using most consumer apps for compression of mini DV to MPEG2 don't do as good a job as the ones used by pros and movie studios. So your home DVD usually won't look as good as a commercial one. That said, it will be WAAAAAAAY! better than VHS.

What I am doing (slowly) is editing down the footage to put just some on DVDs (most people aren't going to sit thru 2 hours of baby video). I'll probably use at least 6 or 7 hours of tape for a 1-2 hour DVD. Even that will probably too much.

 

[gsellis]

Originally posted by: kini62
Analog cable is fairly low res. Digital cable/satellite is very good. DVD using component video or S-video input is slightly better than a GOOD digital signal. DV or actually it's called Mini DV is better than either. It's at 720x480. I think DVD is 640x480. Mini DV watched on a large screen TV is very clear, at least from my experience.

Also, using most consumer apps for compression of mini DV to MPEG2 don't do as good a job as the ones used by pros and movie studios. So your home DVD usually won't look as good as a commercial one. That said, it will be WAAAAAAAY! better than VHS.

What I am doing (slowly) is editing down the footage to put just some on DVDs (most people aren't going to sit thru 2 hours of baby video). I'll probably use at least 6 or 7 hours of tape for a 1-2 hour DVD. Even that will probably too much.

Minor stuff - In the US (NTSC), DVD is 720x480 for MPEG-2, the same as DV. Mini-DV is a tape format, but both Mini-DV and Digital 8 are DV (Standard Definition). Because of the MPEG-2 compression, DV displayed directly on the set will be much clearer.

On the camera, as a general rule, the more Megapixels it says for still quality, the worse it does in low light. The best color usually comes from 3CCD cameras. The Panasonic "120" is the cheapest one, but it is not a low-light champion. BUT the color is good. Also But, I have the low-light champion, so I am a bad person to compare what "low-light" is

An advantage the Panasonics have over others (including the 1 CCD ones) is top loading tapes. If you have a quick release for a tripod mounted on some camcorders, you have to remove it to change tapes. Trust me, unless you have optical stabilization and even then..., you want to try to shoot on a tripod when you can. Otherwise, all of your first videos will look like The Blair Witch Project where they are running.

 

[kini62]

On the camera, as a general rule, the more Megapixels it says for still quality, the worse it does in low light.

I don't quite agree with this. It may be true if the physical size of the CCD does not increase, which is the case with a lot of the lower priced camcorders/cameras. But an increase in megapixels and CCD size will/should give you better low light performance as well as an increase in other areas of performance. Of course it will cost a lot more too.

Again, based on your budget (OP) the you will be happy with the Panasonic in your price range. You'll need to go above $1000 to actually see much difference in the output.

Image stabilization is OK in sime situations such as at high zoom levels, but remember when using it, with most camcorders it decreases the amount of pixels the CCD has available. For example my camera has a 680k CCD, with image stabilization on it reduces the effective amount to 480k. I may be wrong about this as it pertains to the newer cameras though. Just check the specs of the camera you are interested in to see what type of image stabilization it uses.

 

[gsellis]

Originally posted by: kini62
Image stabilization is OK in sime situations such as at high zoom levels, but remember when using it, with most camcorders it decreases the amount of pixels the CCD has available. For example my camera has a 680k CCD, with image stabilization on it reduces the effective amount to 480k. I may be wrong about this as it pertains to the newer cameras though. Just check the specs of the camera you are interested in to see what type of image stabilization it uses.

For this price range, this is true. This is not true when you get to optical image stabilization.