I am sure that everyone is tired of this question, but I have seen so many conflicting posts that I am thoroughly confused; MY QUESTION IS.... when a mini DV is transfered to a DVD using a stand-alone burner via FIREwire, is the video still compressed via MPEG-2? If so, isn't the end result that the video quality is the same as it would be if shot on a DVD camcorder? I have no real desire to edit, and am aware of the media costs/differences/recording time, etc., but I just want to shoot my daughter's volleyball and basketball games and play them back in the best possible quality in slow motion. I would appreciate everyone's input on this. If the end result is the same, I personally prefer to have a DVD camcorder; I love the convenience. Thanks in advance.

Yes. MPEG2 is the standard file format for DVD's.

Generally yes, if you get a good DVD camcorder like the Sony DCR-403 which appears to be very popular, or possibly the newer Sony models which are replacing it such as the Sony DCR-DVD405 or 505. There are other manufacturer models, based on the forums here they do not seem to be as popular.

Then you should get a DVD camcorder.

Rich

__________________
FireWire Survey

I have to disagree with Rich on this point. Most DVD cams I know of (I don't have any but have read about them) have several quality settings. At the lowest setting you will definitely get lower quality than if you authored and burned a DVD yourself. At higher quality settings you may or may not be able to do better with a computer than with the DVD cam. I just don't know what settings the cams use.

But it's all moot, as Rich says, if you don't want to edit video and don't care about the short record times with DVD cams. Just get a DVD cam and shoot at the highest quality setting.

Good luck.

Dennis

Yes, because the DVD stardard is MPEG-2. DV video must be compressed in fit in the 4.35 GB of DVD.

Yes, it is.


Then DVD is the best choice for you then.

Yes, it would be pretty much the same if you use a stand alone dvd recorder.

Why does the final product have to be on dvd??
Couldn't you play back directly from a mini-dv camcorder in slow motion??

Good point, just a matter of not being set up with a TV/display that accepts Firewire right now. I am assuming that playback through the composite video cable lowers the resolution from what it was originally shot onto the tape, at least that's what Home Theater mag says...

Technically the composite video cable may lower the resolution or I should say the video quality from what it was originally shot onto the tape, but in many cases it may not be noticeable. There are many factors which can affect the video quality. Are you going to have perfect illumination of the area you are going to be shooting? I don't know what the percentages of DVD players do not use composite video cables but all mine do and everyone of my family members (5) use composite video cables. I'm not sure what your final objective really is.


Rich

__________________
FireWire Survey

What about making DVD copies to send to other family members. Who makes a camera that uses dvds that can be EASILY burned or copied??
TIA
John

we are talking realy different issues here. The difference in quality between composite and y/c and the other component formats on pro equipment are all variations on the same theme. getting the data from point A to point B. In the analogue domain, we are talking about two separate channels of information - essentially brightness info, where the real quality is, and the colour information for making red, red and blue, blue etc. The critical factors are fixed. 30frames (or 25 over here) a second, and the frequency response, as in a hi-fi, but this time the video response. if it is a bit low, then fine detail vanishes. The colour information isn't quite as critical. y/c connections keep the colour and brightness (chrominence and luminence) separate for the distribution and then put it back together at the display end. A composite system combines the two, and filters them apart at the other end. If you plug a composite camera into a composite mixer then out composite to the monitor, then it gets separated, mixed and recombined in the mixer, then split apart at the display. this repeated combining and filtering isn't good for quality - so y/c does have an advantage. Sometimes small, but always there.

Now digital. frequency response isn't the real issue here - it is data compression. at full bandwidth, it is simply too much data for recording on tape, or DVD - hard drives can manage, but fill up quickly. To get around this digital systems use compression, which in the milder forms is still pretty good, or the worst, data reduction, where data is simply thrown away - with the system covering for this by repeating data that already exists. This still looks ok to many people. The snag for most of us who want to do things with video, is that once gone, it is gone for good - so editing becomes more difficult. instead of 30 (25) different pictures a second, the editor can't actually use all of them - it needs the new 'keyframes' that hold all the data, not just bits that have changed. The editor will, if you tell it to, try to output very high quality video, much of this has also been compressed and reduced, and then we stick it onto DVD which does it again. No wonder sometimes the final result looks so poor.

So if the real am is to maintain quality throughout the entire process, record at the highest data rates and use firewire, or USB2 - for any amalogue transfers use y/c.

On the net are various test charts. print them out and shoot them with your camera, then play back and see what has happened. transfer to your computer and back to tape, try it again, make a dvd and do it yet again. You will then see differences - some small, some huge. This is with a still image.try a similar thing with fast moving objects and have a really good look. You can then decide which will 'do' for each project you carry out. If you have different cameras, try them all. My consumer mini-dv, and my pro mini dv are both JVC and with bright outdoor lighting are very, very close on a wide angle fairly static shot - my older pro Betacam SP cameras also look very similar. you can happily cut between them and it is sometimes guesswork which is which. Most degradation comes from working in lower light, with poor control of exposure, then compressing and data reducing.

My wife records tv programmes on our pretty dreadful aerial signal, records it in 6 hour mode on a dvd recorder and is quite happy with the disgusting picture she sees - the jittery, blocky mess is by any standard unwatchable, but she just doesn't notice!