Film or HDD for your camera(s)?

[Eunuch Provocateur]

Which method do you prefer? It seems like tape would be really expensive considering how much footage you guys lay down.

[SharkTums]

We still use tape at the moment. Too many of the Hard Drive cameras compress the footage as they record, they are not stable enough to bring on coasters, and we would have to download footage every other night on long trips and put it on hard drives.

[Hercules]

Not that you were asking me or anything, but, I still use tape as well pretty much for the same reasons as Elissa pointed out.

[darklingscribe]

I've tried out some HDD camcorders and the problem is the hard drive skips and stops the recording if the camera is jerked about. I'd wait a couple of years until Flash memory camcorders become standard (flash memory has no moving parts so it won't skip).

 

As it is MiniDV tapes are getting really cheap. I can get a pack of ten tapes for about $20.

[Edward]

I use a Flash card cam. Got a good buy for it... 1GB and batteries for only 4000 SEK (plus got to keep the 16mb card that was already in there).

Now HDD cams sound like a fun idea for hours of film, except for (as you say) the moving parts and any jerky movements that might or will happen. But would be cool with High Speed writing/encoding for any Slow Motion and detailed effects.

Oh well, can't have them all.

[spaceace12]

I got a JVC Everio HDD camera, but it also has a option to record to sd card. I know when recording to HDD, at my current way I record, I only get 7 hours on a 30 gigs. The reason why my videos look bad is because I figured out how to compress down to mpeg and avi format after I had already compressed down to mpeg. Also, my camera has a shock detection and shut down to protect the hd. I have yet to take mine on a coaster because I paid 400 for it last year and don't want to ruin it.

[coastercrazed49]

Too many of the Hard Drive cameras compress the footage as they record, they are not stable enough to bring on coasters

 

Thats not good to hear because we are probably getting a hard drive camera and I was hoping to get on ride footage when we go to Disney World next year.

[spaceace12]

I don't know, but I have some Sheikra video that a friend took in Florida with the next model up from mine. He jsut took it from the file on the camera to a AVI, then I took it down to WM file. Here is the video, If I would have taken it down to some bigger format, it probalby would have been better. I know the raw video I have is pretty good. I mean good enough to be broadcasted on tv.

 

[mcjaco]

I wouldn't lump anything into "as good to be broadcast on TV." They've been known to play same large heeps of poo.

 

I'm in the market for a new camera myself. I know Robb uses tape, so that's what I've been focused on.

[spaceace12]

When I say good enough to broadcast, I know what I mean. I work at a tv station and the raw video is good enough in the avi format it is in to be on tv, and just as good as some of the video the photographers bring back.

[Jew]

^Since you work at a TV station, I assume you took the amazing raw footage your friend shot and looked at in on one of the stations properly calibrated monitors, used their vector scope and waveform monitor, etc. to accurately state that it was as good as broadcast footage.

[spaceace12]

Actually, he did. He edits commercials for the station.

[Carnage]

Isn't being good enough to broadcast on PBS kind of like being good enough to win gold at the special Olympics?

[spaceace12]

I seriously give up, the video was better than some of the video the chief photographer comes back with sometimes. I have high standards for what video I like and I loved this video (I don't like the video I get with my video camera once I compressed it up until recently).

 

If I had a source to upload a 1 gig file without major compression, I would show you.

[Gnome]

^Since you work at a TV station, I assume you took the amazing raw footage your friend shot and looked at in on one of the stations properly calibrated monitors, used their vector scope and waveform monitor, etc. to accurately state that it was as good as broadcast footage.

Sometimes... man.. I just read your posts and wonder about you... just some times....

 

Anyways... I use a Canon HG10. It's an HD-HDD and I funking love it. Of course. Canon does also sell a mini-dv tape HD camera for about a $100 less then the HDD model. EIther way you can't go wrong. But the thing is... HDD transfers much faster then sitting through a tape watching it in real time. It's kind of confusing to work with at first but once you figure it out, it's eazy breazy. Of course, you'll also need the right software to interpret it, though I heard Sony offers are relatively inexpensive piece of software (like $150) which rivals Adobe Premier Elements, but it supports the codec and it has various other feautures on top of that which give it more of an edge.

[mcjaco]

^Since you work at a TV station, I assume you took the amazing raw footage your friend shot and looked at in on one of the stations properly calibrated monitors, used their vector scope and waveform monitor, etc. to accurately state that it was as good as broadcast footage.

Sometimes... man.. I just read your posts and wonder about you... just some times....

 

 

It's a perfectly legitimate statement. If you make a bold statement that your footage if "broadcast quality" Joey's got the right motive for posting that.

[Jew]

^^Sorry I find it hard to believe that a guy who had trouble figuring out how to properly compress his video contest entry is an expert on what qualifies as "broadcast quality."

 

The problem with proclaiming something to be "broadcast quality" is that "broadcast quality" is extremely subjective. I guess technically you could say that anything that can produce a NTSC or ATSC image can be put on the air (which pretty much all cameras can do), but that doesn't mean stations are going to go out and use the JVC or Canon HDD cameras as their primary ENG cameras just because their footage can be put on the air.

 

FWIW, I'd recommend sticking with miniDV or HDV for the time being. All the hard drive/flash drive codecs are still in their infancy, and can't yet match those more proven codecs when it comes to motion/artifacts/etc. They will...just not yet. Plus, those are the only two standard formats you can be sure everyone will support. With HDD/Flash cameras, manufacturers are still messing around with a bunch of different codecs (though AVCHD seems to slowly be winning out). Plus the cheaper costs of media and no hassle to archive everything is probably better for us "amateur" video people.

[spaceace12]

^^Sorry I find it hard to believe that a guy who had trouble figuring out how to properly compress his video contest entry is an expert on what qualifies as "broadcast quality."

 

3 years in a technical school for broadcasting, plus working in the industry for almost 7 years, just because I am not a expert on home video equipment doesn't mean I don't know what high quality video looks like. I personally prefer tapes, but only because broadcast quality tape cameras are way out of my price range, I got what I got. I would love to have a Canon xl2 for a mid sized camera. But what I really want is somethign similiar to what we use here at the station, 40 plus pound cameras with 20 pound tripods.

[SharkTums]

Let's try to keep this back on topic, okay guys?

 

Thanks.