HDD Vs MiniDV

londonr · 12-02-2007, 1:09 PM

Maybe this debate has been done? But I would like to know what you think.
This is not about which technology will be around longer, or what is coming next, but more of a practical discussion.

For instance, my main concern is longevity - When I want to look back at my family in 20 years time, how will I do that if all my footage is on miniDV and I no longer have a miniDV cam?

Most people say, dump it onto DVD or hard disk now - And then in that case why not buy an HDD camcorder now?

Before you ask, I don't really do much editing, so that is not my main concern.

Your views please?

andypandy · 12-02-2007, 1:43 PM

"Most people say, dump it onto DVD or hard disk now - And then in that case why not buy an HDD camcorder now?"

I suppose it comes down to price at the top end of recording home movies these days. If you can afford Hi-def recorder - go for that. otherwise go for mini-dv tapes and then copy off onto a blank dvd. otherwise writing direct to hard disk, but still onto a blank dvd. So I suppose it's the same thing. The other question should be what is going to give you better pic quality - machines that write to a hard disk or to a tape. I know if you try and bypass both those types and purchase a machine that writes direct to dvd's then PQ will suffer.

redsox_mark · 12-02-2007, 1:54 PM

Longevity: As you said, you can copy to HDD or DVD or other removable media (Blu-Ray, etc).

why not buy an HDD camcorder now?

For many buying a HDD camcorder now is the right choice. Especially if you only want to do limited editing, HDD then really shines as you can edit out what you don't want on the camcorder itself, and avoid having to capture to a PC and edit there. Other advantages is you can shoot for hours without need to change tapes, and of course you don't need to buy tapes.

DV still has some advantages though:

- Generally better quality at a given price point. The gap is getting less, but pound for pound you'll find the best quality with DV.

- Better for editing: less compressed format; can render multiple generations without quality loss. But MPEG editing support is good these days, and if you only need one generation for your edits the quality loss is not significant.

- If you are on a long trip and fill your HDD, you are stuck (unless you travel with a PC). With DV you can just go and buy more tapes.

- Tape is a reliable format for archive, so when you shoot tape you have a "backup" instantly. (Though you will need to keep a device to play it).

londonr · 12-02-2007, 2:40 PM

I guess my real question is the 20 year playback question. I mainly shoot holidays and the kids, the cam is for "memories" treasured memories, something I want to be able to view in 20 years time. I want the format I use to be accessible and not degrade over 20 years! Given that, what format would you choose?

Yes I would like the best quality for the price I can get, but the above is my main concern.

redsox_mark · 12-02-2007, 2:58 PM

Well I'd look at it this way. Whatever backup/archive strategy you use with a HDD cam you can also use if you shot from tape (and copy to HDD), plus you can archive the tape. So the only difference is if you shoot HDD you don't have option of a tape archive.

DV tapes if stored properly should last 25+ years; it is more reliable than DVD. But as you say in 20 years if your DV camcorder breaks it may be hard to get a replacement. I'm guessing we'll still have DVD players in 20 years.

That probably doesn't help too much... the truth is long term storage is a concern whichever way you go. But if you take multiple copies you can manage it. If you go HDD, archive to DVDs but make a couple of copies. Every 5 years or so test them and maybe make an additional copy. That's a hassle, but if you have a single copy, be it tape, HDD, or DVD, there is a chance you will lose it.

londonr · 12-02-2007, 3:15 PM

I see your point; I guess it is also the convenience factor. I can really "dump" directly from HDD to PC or DVD, where with minidv each tape would need to be copied in real-time - If you have kids, you will know "real-time" has a whole new meaning!

I am interested in quality, but only to a point. When I stated looking to replace my busted Sony I was looking at the Canon mx 930. Is there an equivalent quality cam in HDD format?

redsox_mark · 12-02-2007, 4:39 PM

JVC MG-77 or Sony SR50/52 would provide roughly similar quality to the MV930, but at £400 or so (instead of £200 for the MV930). Note the SR50 is being replaced with the SR52

andypandy · 12-02-2007, 5:04 PM

Just to add further, I think dvd's should last between 20-100 years ! But this would depend on the dye that's used - which is organic and does eventually decay. Storage is thus also important. Not forgetting the fact most people don't handle dvd's very well, which then leads on to people cleaning them and then subsequently scratching them, etc So multiple copies are important - master (locked away in a fire safe/kept with a friend/relative) and frequent use version. We all do backups (well most of us !), but what happens if the good old house goes up in a puff of smoke ?

redsox_mark · 12-02-2007, 5:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by londonr

If you have kids, you will know "real-time" has a whole new meaning!

I do have kids...

Again I think the key is how you edit (or not). If you don't do much editing, then HDD gives you a lot of convienence and speed. For me, I generally edit, and I will spend quite a lot of hours planning and editing a production. The first thing I need to do is watch all the footage through once and make initial notes about what I want to keep and cut, how I want to approach it, etc. I do that the same time as the capture, so this doesn't add additional time (and the capture time is so small relative to the editing time).

If I want to create a DVD quickly I use my DVD recorder (connect the camcorder via DV/firewire to it). This is also real time but you can do other things at the same time.

Given that you aren't into editing much, I think HDD is probably right for you; and you can get good quality, just need to pay a bit more.

**senu** · 12-02-2007, 11:18 PM

HDDs are gennerally reliable but not 100%. This applies to HDD on the camcorder , in the PC and External HDDs.

This is not paranoia, ( I do love the idea of an HDD camcorder)

More than one backup strategy is always a good idea. In Nov 2006, 2 of my 300Gb HDDs went up in smoke with all thier Data

londonr · 13-02-2007, 11:56 AM

Okay, ok I admit defeat! I am just kidding, I have taken all your objective views on board, and I concur, back up is important. Given this important factor, this means I will be making multiple copies and as you say I can dump to my DVD recorder directly so maybe the quality and robustness of tape (and price per pixel) means that MiniDV probably is the option, for the next few years anyway.

Having put in the research I had decided that the MV 930 was the way to go on DV (would like the MVX 460 but a little out of my budget). Unless anyone can offer an alternative to the 930, I will purchase. Only question then is where? Purley Gadgets looks like a good reputable (and cheapest) site, that deliver to Ireland - anyone else I should consider?

Thanks for your help guys.

redsox_mark · 13-02-2007, 12:39 PM

Amazon? There customer service is pretty good, and they will delivery anywhere.
http://www.amazon.co.uk/Canon-1210B0...&s=electronics

londonr · 13-02-2007, 2:15 PM

OK - last question, and it has to do with the 3 CCD question. Is 3 always better than 1 (when they are same size CCD)?

How do you rate the Panasonic NV-GS180B against the Canon 930?

Thanks again

redsox_mark · 13-02-2007, 2:34 PM

All being equal 3 is better than 1; but when comparing 2 camcorders they are never equal in all aspects; e.g. the 1 CCD model may have a better lens or other factors.

I'd rate the GS180 above the MV930 - and that should be expected, it costs more. The GS180 is comparable with the MVX460 in overall quality. The only thing I don't like about the GS180 is that in widescreen mode the image stabilisation isn't available. And it doesn't have a widescreen LCD.

londonr · 13-02-2007, 4:10 PM

Ah but would you rate the gs 180 above the MV 960?

redsox_mark · 13-02-2007, 4:21 PM

Yes - the MV930 and MV960 are the same in terms of quality. It is the AV-input feature of the MV960 that costs the extra pounds/euros.

the_stalker · 18-02-2007, 11:51 PM

okay let me get this straight:

mini dv - got better pictures quality?

DVD/HDD easy to transfer to pc but pictures quality not as good to mini dv?

So to me the mini dv is to go for - for pictures side but do you lose quality when transfer mini dv to pc hdd ready to put on blu-ray/hd-dvd or back up?

In future its will be on blu-ray/hd-dvd when the war/the price to come down on writer.

redsox_mark · 19-02-2007, 8:31 AM

At a given price point you can generally get better quality with mini DV. But a top of the range HDD cam can be better than a entry level DV cam.

So to me the mini dv is to go for - for pictures side but do you lose quality when transfer mini dv to pc hdd ready to put on blu-ray/hd-dvd or back up?

Copying DV files to the PC is a lossless digital copy. And if you want to back those files up in their original format onto any media (blu-ray, hd-dvd, or ordinary DVD) as a "data disc" then that too is just a digital copy.

If you want to create a DVD video disc which you can play on a set top player then the file will need to be encoded into MPEG2 (for SD DVD). For blu-ray or hd-dvd you will also need to encode it into a format which the set top players can play. There is a theoretical loss here, but with good software you should not see a hit if you use a good bitrate (don't try and fit too much on a single disc).

StormHD · 19-02-2007, 2:37 PM

Please excuse my butting in, but I've got a quick question.

I'm on the verge of either buying the Sony HC27 or the Canon M930. I would've previously considered a HDD based camcorder but I've been put off by what has been described in my research as "lower quality when compared to MDV" and "Difficult to edit MPEG2 Video".

The ability to record around 7 hours of video is fantastic, I'd also assume that it's quicker to get the data from the camcorder to the PC (as again I read somewhere that DV tapes can only be copied over in real time). However, is their really that much difference in quality, and is it really that difficult to edit MPEG2 video (I can't understand why it's any different).

I have tried to find these answers for myself, but I keep ending up with more questions.

Some info that may have an affect on any possible responses: I plan on using the camera for home videos, and I'm attracted by features such as small size, good quality screen, the ability to record clear images in low light conditions (indoor/interior lighting) and of course good quality video. What I'm trying to say is I'm far from professional, but I'd like something that's not naff. Oh, and I've a limited budget of around £200.

redsox_mark · 19-02-2007, 2:52 PM

I'll address you last point first - with a budget of £200 a HDD cam is not an option (even the cheapest JVC-MG21 is closer to £300).

Addressing your questions:

Quality: Pound for pound you get better with DV today. E.g. a Canon MV930 video quality is better than a MG21, and it is cheaper.

"Difficult to edit MPEG2 Video"
I've probably used those words myself, but a better statement is "DV is a better format for editing". The reason: It is far less compressed, and all the information is contained in a single frame. MPEG2 uses inter-frame compression. Now in the old days "hard to edit" meant that it could be very sluggish to edit on a PC (as the PC has to process this extra compression). With a decent PC today this is no longer an issue. But DV is still better for editing if you want to do advanced editing; for example with DV you can render multiple generations with no quality loss, not so with MPEG2.

For the "average" user, you can disregard this point.

You are correct that DV can only be copied in real time, and copying MPEG2 from HDD will be quicker.

StormHD · 19-02-2007, 3:38 PM

Thanks Mark,

I really appreciate that response, it's cleared everything up. I now know that I'm making the right decision with a mini DV purchase (it helps that HDD is way out of my price range!). I also understand now why compression can be an issue when it comes to editing. Excellent.

I've now just got to decide between the Sony and the Canon.

Thanks once again.

redsox_mark · 19-02-2007, 3:59 PM

I haven't seen reviews of the new Sony range (HC27 is a new model), but with the old range of Sony the Canon models were better. On spec, the MV930 still has advantages over the HC27 - it shoots true widescreen and it has memory card/USB support for stills.

There are also the new Canon MD160 and MD101 coming out any day now.
(Haven't seen reviews of these either).

the_stalker · 19-02-2007, 10:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by redsox_mark

At a given price point you can generally get better quality with mini DV. But a top of the range HDD cam can be better than a entry level DV cam.

So to me the mini dv is to go for - for pictures side but do you lose quality when transfer mini dv to pc hdd ready to put on blu-ray/hd-dvd or back up?

Copying DV files to the PC is a lossless digital copy. And if you want to back those files up in their original format onto any media (blu-ray, hd-dvd, or ordinary DVD) as a "data disc" then that too is just a digital copy.

If you want to create a DVD video disc which you can play on a set top player then the file will need to be encoded into MPEG2 (for SD DVD). For blu-ray or hd-dvd you will also need to encode it into a format which the set top players can play. There is a theoretical loss here, but with good software you should not see a hit if you use a good bitrate (don't try and fit too much on a single disc).

thanks I trying make my mind up on the HD cam - sony I think I go for just looking on dv and hdd/dvd one.

redsox_mark · 20-02-2007, 7:08 AM

With HD (assume you mean High Definition) the choice is different. It is between HDV, AVCHD, and the new JVC HD7 which is unique. All of these use MPEG2, so they all use inter-frame compression. HDV and HD7 uses MPEG2, which as widespread editing support. AVCHD (for HDD and DVD) uses a version of MPEG4 which today has virtually no editing support but will soon. Comparing HDV and AVCHD for quality there is not much difference. AVCHD is a more advanced codec so in theory could be better than HDV, but with today's models HDV is as good or better for quality.

laser · 21-02-2007, 6:38 PM

I recently went back to 6 DVD's I created in 2001 to make some copies for my parents. Every DVD failed, they would not play. I could see the files on the DVD in a PC but could not copy them to the HDD or play them back in a DVD player. Three different types of DVD were used as well. Lukily I still had the tapes for 5 of the DVD's and they worked perfectly when I recaptured the footage using a different camcorder.

I have serious doubts over the longevity of DVD-R's. I'm sure newer DVD's probably have a better substrate than they used to, but it is worrying. Although people say back up your DVD's periodically, do I really have the time to back up 150+ DVD's every few years, especially when the collectioni s growing by 30+ DVD's per year. It's not ideal is it

For all it clunkiness, tape at least seems to be fairly reliable and more certainly more durable than DVD-R. Hopefully my experience was just a one off but I need to check everyone of my DVD's to ensure more haven't failed.

andypandy · 21-02-2007, 6:56 PM

[QUOTE=laser;4348489]I recently went back to 6 DVD's I created in 2001 to make some copies for my parents. Every DVD failed, they would not play. I could see the files on the DVD in a PC but could not copy them to the HDD or play them back in a DVD player.
QUOTE]

What software did you use to make the burn the dvd's? Did you verify the backups after burning them in 2001 ? I presume you watched them originally after burning them back in 2001? Do you now have a diiferent dvd player , what about dvd writer ? What make was the dvd ? What were the dvds stored in ?