Re: MD: MD DIscam vs. Sony DCR-PC100
May I conclude that you're using video in the semi-proffesional domain and not in the consumer domain? Cheers, Ralph School student - i do all the school's in house stuff, and if all goes well work experience at 60 mins australia. Christopher Spalding Genius, generally excellent and gifted person. (ICQ#: 43270049) __ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com - To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: MD: MD DIscam vs. Sony DCR-PC100 (off topic)
I was told by one of the mail order camera stores that in reality the PC100 has a 680,000 pixel lens-the 1,070,000 pixels applies only to still photos and then only those stored on a Memory Stick. I would hope this were not true. Does anybody know? Unfortunately it is true - and even worse than that - AFAIK, of the 680K pixels used in video mode, only a % of those are actually used for image capture - the rest of the 680K are used for image stabilisation. (I could be wrong here - it's possible that the 680K are used for capture and 'floated' on the full 1000K for image stabilisation in video mode) The PC100 will not be able to produce the same quality video as the TRV900 due to limitations of it's single CCD, compared to the three CCD's of the '900 - colour depth and contrast ratio will suffer. Also there is some concern (on DV-L) that by squeezing 1000K pixels on to a 1/4" chip the individual pixel size is very small making the PC100 less sensitive and a poor performer in low light conditions. It sounds to me like you don't know that the TRV900 and the DCR-PC100 are actually the same camera, only the PC100 has a different coloured chassis, has the buttons organised more for a more professional user and uses the DVCAM tape format ( I think you are mixing up model #'s here - the PC100 is actually a new version of the single chip PC1/PC3. It has a 'megapixel' CCD for high quality still capture to memory chip - resolutions of 1152 x 864 (PAL) are possible, compared to standard DV stills of 720 x 576 (PAL) It's the PD100 that is the DV CAM version of the TRV900. The buttons are exactly the same except for the IRE being two-stage on the PD100 and replacing the 'start/stop mode' switch. GB - To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: MD: MD DIscam vs. Sony DCR-PC100
Right. The DCR-PC100 is one of the cigarette sized box ones. It's the latest U.S. model. It appears in the latest Sony Style (the one with Milla Jovovich) on the front cover on page 91 Besides a photo of the camcorder itself with i's two and a half inch swivel screen open, a brief synopsis spells out a few highlights: Digital Video Recording First Mega Pixel CCD DV Camcorder (1/4"-1070k Pixels) (We have since learned here thanks to Graham Baker, in reality it uses only 680k for Video, the extra pixels are for still shots only which is a shame since the TRV900 has 1,140,000 total pixels, if 1,070,000 pixels on this camera were actually used for Video, quality would be very, very close to the TRV900. But they're not.) 520 Lines Of Horizontal Video Resolution (Don't know how this can be true in relation to the above. While Sony isn't exactly engaging in misleading advertising, they are certainly embellishing the truth. I think most people who buy this camera will never know they're getting only 680k pixels for Video, not the 1070k claimed by Sony.) Memory Mode With Memory Stick Digital Storage Media High Quality Mega Pixel 1152 x 864 Still Image Resolution (this is where the 1070k pixels are used) Advanced 'HAD' CCD Technology (Sounds very impressive, right? A quick glance at Sony's still digital cameras reveal they use this technology. Of course, if you didn't invesigate throughly (in this case you would have to do much more than just ask a salesperson) you would believe this applies to Video, because that is what is clearly implied, rather than still images only. It would be nice if Sony could make their digital still cameras capable of shooting and storing not just MPEG video, but MPEG2 video and you could really be off and running with a high quality camcorder. And it would be a real reason for people to move into adapting Sony's Memory Stick tecnology if real time MPEG2 video could be stored on them, transferred and edited into film any way the user desired. - To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: MD: MD DIscam vs. Sony DCR-PC100
1) A 120 minutes movie on a DVD takes less than 4GB, that comes down to less than 35MB per minute! Yep, and you'll notice that DVD videos are only consumer releases, since although they're better than VHS (which is actually the worst form of video storage, they are actually very high compression. the DVD video artifacts are hard to notice, because MPEG-2 compresses using GOP (groups of pictures), whereas I think DV is on a frame by frame basis, which is much quicker, and thus is (was if you're right about the ompression) more feasable for on the fly in camera use. Also, there is very heavy compression on the audio of DVDs, I'm sure you've heard it, whereas there is none on DV. 2) Somewhere I heard the MDCam uses the same compression as DVD Video, Well, the data size matches roughly, so that could be possible. 3) Are you sure its 10 minutes for 2 GBytes and not 10 minutes on 2 Giga Bits? Absolutely certain. I edit with it, data space is always foremost on my mind. DVD based video recorders for the home consumer are starting to be introduced. I'm sure people will accept that quality! I'm inclined to say that DV is better than DVD, but i still haven't had a chance to look at DVDs on TV, so i really can't. but once again, these releases are for the /consumer/ market. __ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com - To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: MD: MD DIscam vs. Sony DCR-PC100
=== = NB: Over 50% of this message is QUOTED, please = = be more selective when quoting text = === Right. The DCR-PC100 is one of the cigarette sized box ones. It's the latest U.S. model. It appears in the latest Sony Style (the one with Milla Jovovich) on the front cover on page 91 That would explain my confusion, sorry 'bout that folks, downunder, in our usual late releases, we have only had the PC3 for a few months. Besides a photo of the camcorder itself with i's two and a half inch swivel screen open, a brief synopsis spells out a few highlights: Digital Video Recording First Mega Pixel CCD DV Camcorder (1/4"-1070k Pixels) (We have since learned here thanks to Graham Baker, in reality it uses only 680k for Video, the extra pixels are for still shots only which is a shame since the TRV900 has 1,140,000 total pixels, if 1,070,000 pixels on this camera were actually used for Video, quality would be very, very close to the TRV900. But they're not.) 520 Lines Of Horizontal Video Resolution (Don't know how this can be true in relation to the above. While Sony isn't exactly engaging in misleading advertising, they are certainly embellishing the truth. I think most people who buy this camera will never know they're getting only 680k pixels for Video, not the 1070k claimed by Sony.) Memory Mode With Memory Stick Digital Storage Media High Quality Mega Pixel 1152 x 864 Still Image Resolution (this is where the 1070k pixels are used) Advanced 'HAD' CCD Technology (Sounds very impressive, right? A quick glance at Sony's still digital cameras reveal they use this technology. Of course, if you didn't invesigate throughly (in this case you would have to do much more than just ask a salesperson) you would believe this applies to Video, because that is what is clearly implied, rather than still images only. Don't be too sure, Sony have sued PowerHAD on their Pro video models for ages now. It would be nice if Sony could make their digital still cameras capable of shooting and storing not just MPEG video, but MPEG2 video and you could really be off and running with a high quality camcorder. And it would be a real reason for people to move into adapting Sony's Memory Stick tecnology if real time MPEG2 video could be stored on them, transferred and edited into film any way the user desired. Christopher Spalding Genius, generally excellent and gifted person. (ICQ#: 43270049) __ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com - To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: MD: MD DIscam vs. Sony DCR-PC100
May I conclude that you're using video in the semi-proffesional domain and not in the consumer domain? Cheers, Ralph [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 1) A 120 minutes movie on a DVD takes less than 4GB, that comes down to less than 35MB per minute! Yep, and you'll notice that DVD videos are only consumer releases, since although they're better than VHS (which is actually the worst form of video storage, they are actually very high compression. the DVD video artifacts are hard to notice, because MPEG-2 compresses using GOP (groups of pictures), whereas I think DV is on a frame by frame basis, which is much quicker, and thus is (was if you're right about the ompression) more feasable for on the fly in camera use. Also, there is very heavy compression on the audio of DVDs, I'm sure you've heard it, whereas there is none on DV. 2) Somewhere I heard the MDCam uses the same compression as DVD Video, Well, the data size matches roughly, so that could be possible. 3) Are you sure its 10 minutes for 2 GBytes and not 10 minutes on 2 Giga Bits? Absolutely certain. I edit with it, data space is always foremost on my mind. DVD based video recorders for the home consumer are starting to be introduced. I'm sure people will accept that quality! I'm inclined to say that DV is better than DVD, but i still haven't had a chance to look at DVDs on TV, so i really can't. but once again, these releases are for the /consumer/ market. -- === Ralph SmeetsFunctional Verification Centre Of Competence - CMG Voice: (+33) (0)4 76 58 44 46 STMicroelectronics Fax:(+33) (0)4 76 58 40 11 5, chem de la Dhuy Mobile: (+33) (0)6 82 66 62 70 38240 MEYLAN E-Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] FRANCE === "For many years, mankind lived just like the animals. And then something happened that unleashed the powers of our imagination: We learned to talk." -- Stephen Hawking, later used by Pink Floyd -- === - To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: MD: MD DIscam vs. Sony DCR-PC100
Christopher I really appreciate those calculations you made-they sound like they make a lot of sense and took a great deal of thought. No worries I am aware the 3CCD DV Cam is almost identical to the TRV900. The DVCam model however is the DSR-PD-100. The DCR-PC100 is the newest version of the smallest of the Sony DV cameras. Sorry, which one is the DCR-PC100 is it one of those cigarette-box sized ones, 'cause we're only on the PC3 here, downunder. Christopher Spalding Genius, generally excellent and gifted person. (ICQ#: 43270049) P.S. Sorry we're starting to get OT __ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com - To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: MD: MD DIscam vs. Sony DCR-PC100
Perhaps all is not lost in the prosumer movie filming world with the Sony MD Discam after reading Graham Baker's link to a story about the MD Discam yesterday that got me to thinking. Evidently the MD Discam can record movies in Quick Time via the ethernet connection. I hope you all will forgive what to some are going to seem amatuerish questions, but all of my computer owning experience is limited to WebTV. So, first off, can you download your MD film to Quick Time, assemble it from other MD film and create a longer movie by digitally splicing on the web. Once there, what would you do? Go out from the IEEE1394 Firewire Link to a Mini DV Cam and digitally duplicate DV from there? Is Quick Time quality film or does it look not much better than MPEG? If so, why bother? What kind of computer and software would be required? How much money would need to be invested in a desktop or laptop capable of all this? The other option besides the MD Discam would be the slightly older Mini DV format and the new Sony DCR-PC100. I suppose if you wanted to do what I want to do with the MD Discam you would need a DV recorder of some kind anyway and I just sold my TRV900. The PC100 has some neat features, a 1,070,000 pixel multi CCD lens compared to 1,140,000 total pixels on the 3CCD's of the TRV900. I was told by one of the mail order camera stores that in reality the PC100 has a 680,000 pixel lens-the 1,070,000 pixels applies only to still photos and then only those stored on a Memory Stick. I would hope this were not true. Does anybody know? Sony promotes the Carl Zeiss lens as being one of the best features of their Mini DV cameras. The MD Discam, since there is no mention of this, must have a Sony lens as does the TRV900. I really don't know if there's a difference all that much, does anyone here? I have to admit the Carl Zeiss name sounds impressive, but what does it really mean? The PC100 besides the advantage of being small both it and the MD Discam have over the TRV900 also has Nightshot, which does not appear on the TRV900 and appears not to be on the Sony Discam. I like this feature, although I can honestly say I never needed it, the infra red (?) capability offers a nice touch and I wish it had been on the TRV900 and added to the Sony Discam. Thanks. It sounds to me like you don't know that the TRV900 and the DCR-PC100 are actually the same camera, only the PC100 has a different coloured chassis, has the buttons organised more for a more professional user and uses the DVCAM tape format (the primary difference between DVCAM and the consumer DV is that DVCAM runs at a higher tape speed, and i think cliplink comes into it somehow, too.) So they have the same 3CCD block, and thus the same resolution, same lens, it's all very similar, and the main difference that sony pushes is the tape speed, which they say is more reliable under mobile conditions. As for your question If you can get a video file onto a computer then you can probably edit it, using Adobe Premier or Ulead Media Studio Pro, and if you have a firewire port then you could probably re-compress out to it, but i'm not sure what quality the MD camera creates the MPEG files to. I think i read somewhere that you get 20 mins per 650 MB disc, which is much lower quality than DV, in which you get 10 about mins to 2 GB (so that comes to about 32.5MB per min of MDcam Vs 204.8MB per min of DV - and that assumes that the video isn't compressed more for the conversion to QT.) By my calculations the video on the MDcam is compressed at approx 30:1, where DV is 5:1, there are artifacts which are readily noticeable on the DV when you work with it for more than 20/30 hrs, so i'd immagine that 30:1 would be pretty low quality. It is for this reason that to date, tape has still been the preferred media for aquisition, both analog and digital. Christopher Spalding Genius, generally excellent and gifted person. (ICQ#: 43270049) __ Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com - To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: MD: MD DIscam vs. Sony DCR-PC100
Christopher I really appreciate those calculations you made-they sound like they make a lot of sense and took a great deal of thought. Doesn't sound as though current MD video will convert to high quality film very well. Would it even be possible to use a standard IEEE1394 Firewire Link on that unit? Your answer and the answer from another group member who spoke about hacking a Firewire Link in seem to point out that, in all likelihood, no, the two are not compatible. Of course, if this is the case, SCMS has nothing to do with the Firewire Link being absent and I have been criticizing Sony's decision to leave it off for nothing. I am aware the 3CCD DV Cam is almost identical to the TRV900. The DVCam model however is the DSR-PD-100. The DCR-PC100 is the newest version of the smallest of the Sony DV cameras. - To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
MD: MD DIscam vs. Sony DCR-PC100
Perhaps all is not lost in the prosumer movie filming world with the Sony MD Discam after reading Graham Baker's link to a story about the MD Discam yesterday that got me to thinking. Evidently the MD Discam can record movies in Quick Time via the ethernet connection. I hope you all will forgive what to some are going to seem amatuerish questions, but all of my computer owning experience is limited to WebTV. So, first off, can you download your MD film to Quick Time, assemble it from other MD film and create a longer movie by digitally splicing on the web. Once there, what would you do? Go out from the IEEE1394 Firewire Link to a Mini DV Cam and digitally duplicate DV from there? Is Quick Time quality film or does it look not much better than MPEG? If so, why bother? What kind of computer and software would be required? How much money would need to be invested in a desktop or laptop capable of all this? The other option besides the MD Discam would be the slightly older Mini DV format and the new Sony DCR-PC100. I suppose if you wanted to do what I want to do with the MD Discam you would need a DV recorder of some kind anyway and I just sold my TRV900. The PC100 has some neat features, a 1,070,000 pixel multi CCD lens compared to 1,140,000 total pixels on the 3CCD's of the TRV900. I was told by one of the mail order camera stores that in reality the PC100 has a 680,000 pixel lens-the 1,070,000 pixels applies only to still photos and then only those stored on a Memory Stick. I would hope this were not true. Does anybody know? Sony promotes the Carl Zeiss lens as being one of the best features of their Mini DV cameras. The MD Discam, since there is no mention of this, must have a Sony lens as does the TRV900. I really don't know if there's a difference all that much, does anyone here? I have to admit the Carl Zeiss name sounds impressive, but what does it really mean? The PC100 besides the advantage of being small both it and the MD Discam have over the TRV900 also has Nightshot, which does not appear on the TRV900 and appears not to be on the Sony Discam. I like this feature, although I can honestly say I never needed it, the infra red (?) capability offers a nice touch and I wish it had been on the TRV900 and added to the Sony Discam. Thanks. - To stop getting this list send a message containing just the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
