HD sd versus SD minidv ?????

[brendanm]

As stated on a previous thread my wife lost our old Canon minidv camera. So we are now in the market for a new one.
I wanted to stick to minidv as I am use to the tapes and I believe that the picture quality is better than hard drive or memory card. My reasoning is that the write speed to tape is around 25mbps compared to hard drive or memory card at 17mbps.
Am I correct with this? Would I actually see any diference between video recorded on tape compared to the other formats on a normal crt television? Would I see any difference on a flat screen HD television?
What about HD cameras.... what is HD?
Would I want a HD camera over a SD camera (as one day I will own a HD television) and why?
Previously we were looking at a Panasonic GS330 (tape) but now my wife likes the smaller sd card type cameras, eg Panasonic SD9.
She has also given me a budget increase to 400 pounds, so what should I buy? This is a big purchase for us and we obviously want to get the best we can afford. We would be videoing the ususal holidays, parties and kids school plays.
I realise this is a lot of questions but we are rather confused. We have searched and read so many threads on here that we feel we are going around in circles.
We would love someone to reply with a dummies guide to SD vs HD etc and suggestions on what to buy and where.

[chrishull3]

Originally Posted by brendanm

As stated on a previous thread my wife lost our old Canon minidv camera. So we are now in the market for a new one.
I wanted to stick to minidv as I am use to the tapes and I believe that the picture quality is better than hard drive or memory card. My reasoning is that the write speed to tape is around 25mbps compared to hard drive or memory card at 17mbps.
Am I correct with this? Would I actually see any diference between video recorded on tape compared to the other formats on a normal crt television? Would I see any difference on a flat screen HD television?
What about HD cameras.... what is HD?
Would I want a HD camera over a SD camera (as one day I will own a HD television) and why?
Previously we were looking at a Panasonic GS330 (tape) but now my wife likes the smaller sd card type cameras, eg Panasonic SD9.
She has also given me a budget increase to 400 pounds, so what should I buy? This is a big purchase for us and we obviously want to get the best we can afford. We would be videoing the ususal holidays, parties and kids school plays.
I realise this is a lot of questions but we are rather confused. We have searched and read so many threads on here that we feel we are going around in circles.
We would love someone to reply with a dummies guide to SD vs HD etc and suggestions on what to buy and where.

You are wrong regarding the 25 and 17 mbps figures as these are hdv and hd avchd [avchd being capable of higher mpbs now and it is generaly 1980x1080 as apposed to hdv 140x1080 but i have both formats and differences are not noticeable ,mini dv generaly has the edge on standard hard drive,but i do not think you would notice it on your tv exept in fast moving shots.
You may very well regret not getting hd in the future as the difference on an hd tv is substancial between sd and hd no matter which format.

[glesgaguyav]

IMO you should go for an HD cam, even though you don't have HD TV at present, HD video is far superior to SD (with the right cam) In the future when you do have HD TV you'll kick yourself that those precious moments weren't recorded in HD.
In the meantime the HD footage can be converted down to SD (through the cam) with the quality being every bit as good as a normal SD cam.

The question then is whether you go for a tape based cam or solid state cam.
Tape based is not as versatile as solid state when it comes to editing/replaying and are only available in HDV format but as the footage is stored on tape it's easier to archive for future purposes and easier to edit on a PC although slightly more time consuming as it has to be done in real time, they also tend to be slighly bulkier than solid state cams.
Solid state (HDD/Memory stick) AVCHD cams are more versitile when it comes to editing on a PC (drag and drop) and playback of specific clips but need an up to date PC and require alternative storage media for future use.

[A n d r e w]

Originally Posted by brendanm

My reasoning is that the write speed to tape is around 25mbps compared to hard drive or memory card at 17mbps.

Chris is right: H.264 compression (used in AVCHD format by high definition camcorders recording to hard drive or memory cards) is more "efficient" - or so they say - than HDV compression (which is what tape-based high definition camcorders use). So the picture quality of a good AVCHD camcorder recording at 17mbps AVCHD can be indistinguishable from HDV @ 25mbps - though this does depend on the camera!

what is HD?

Take a look at this: High-definition video - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In simple terms, High Definition video (HD) is a higher resolution form of Standard Definition video (SD). HD uses roughly four times as many pixels as SD, in order to provide arguably sharper pictures than SD. However, all things being relative, high-end (professional) SD camcorders will still make nicer pictures than low-end (consumer) HD camcorders. But to consider the consumer market alone, there is now little reason other than budget to buy an SD camcorder.

Would I want a HD camera over a SD camera (as one day I will own a HD television) and why?

Yes, for the reason stated above. £300 tends to be the tipping point: the picture quality of a £300 (approximately) HD camcorder is better than that of a £300 SD camcorder. Even if you do not presently own an HDTV, converting high definition video by burning it to a standard DVD to watch on your standard definition TV will give as good it not marginally better results than starting with SD in the first place - plus you can archive the HD video for future use. You can also take advantage of the increased resolution of HD video (compared to SD) when viewing videos on your computer, as computer monitors have greater resolving power than SD televisions.

Previously we were looking at a Panasonic GS330 (tape) but now my wife likes the smaller sd card type cameras, eg Panasonic SD9.
She has also given me a budget increase to 400 pounds, so what should I buy?

I've tried both the GS330 and the SD9. I decided to buy an SD9. The picture quality in good lighting conditions (i.e. sunny outdoor settings) is superior on the SD9. Plus I couldn't be bothered with tapes and find memory cards more convenient. Others will differ on that.

For £400, I'd suggest looking the the SD9. Bear in mind that you'll save £50 if you buy the SD9 in-store from a dealer participating in Panasonic's current £50 "cashback" promotion.

The next step up is the Canon HF100 or HF10, both of which are around the £480-£500 mark (at Amaz*n, anyway: the HF10 is normally considerably more expensive than the HF100 and not worth the difference. For some reason Amaz*n are running a special on it at the moment).

A good site to look at is camcorderinfo.com (though it's American so it reviews the US models which differ from the UK / Euro ones in terms of frame-rates - US = 30 frames per second also known as 60i, UK / Euro = 25 frames per second also known as 50i*). You'll see that they prefer the HF100 to the SD9. In my opinion they're a little tough on the SD9, but there you go.

I strongly suggest you try before you buy.


*60i = 30 frames per second, 2 interlaced fields per frame
50i = 25 frames per second, 2 interlaced field per frame
See Interlace - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia about "interlaced" video

[brendanm]

Thank you all for your replies. Certainly makes things somewhat clearer for us.
Andrew, you said that the Canon HF100 is around 380 - 400 pounds, is this just a typo as I cannot find it at that price?

[chrishull3]

The canon hf 100 seems about 445£ best price ,the sony tg3 is a little cheaper
http://planetprices.co.uk/c-6/p-1093...DR-TG3/compare

[A n d r e w]

Originally Posted by brendanm

Thank you all for your replies. Certainly makes things somewhat clearer for us.
Andrew, you said that the Canon HF100 is around 380 - 400 pounds, is this just a typo as I cannot find it at that price?

Sorry. I meant £480-£500. My mistake.
I've edited my earlier post to avoid getting anyone overexcited.

[brendanm]

Righto, the choices seem to be Panasonic SD9 or the Canon HF100..... choices choices.
So do I purchase now or wait until the christmas sales? Does anyone have a crystal ball and so are able to predict prices in the not too distant future?

[A n d r e w]

No.

[brendanm]

Ok then... so do I purchase the Canon HF100 or the Panasonic SD9?
Is the picture quality of the Canon 150 pounds better than the Panasonic? (american keyboard, no pound sign).
Does the Canon have 150 pounds more features than the Panasonic?
Any recommendations, and if so why?

[A n d r e w]

I own an SD9, but I'd say that the HF100 is worth the money: slightly better low light reproduction, greater control over the look of your video, better stills (if that matters). In bright light outdoors there'll not be much between them (though some will say that the SD9 tends to oversaturate and even overexpose marginally in auto).

That said, I still like the SD9, which is also good value for money. All depends on how much you can justify spending, really. Bear in mind you'll want to get yourself a nice big harddrive for archiving your video: it all adds up.

If I had no reason not to spend £500, I'd get the HF100. If I only had £350 to spend, I'd happily get the SD9.