Digital vs Analogue.

MTHall · Joined: 07 Nov 2012 Posts: 120 Location: England UK

They say you should avoid argument if you can. But I was pushed, so I pushed back. Doesn't one always? I had a sarcastic comment made against my Sony Camcorder at Woodcote Steam Rally, I won't elaborate to much on what was said, but no-one likes their gear of choice critisised, right? In essence, it was intimated, that because it wasn't digital, it wasn't any good! My reply was that all natural sources of information that the brain decodes into usable data, is analogue, ergo if you digitise it, you degrade it, the degree of degrading depending on the quality of the conversion, but the quality overall is only going to be at its best if it is also analogue. This is particularly true in audio, but not a little doubtful in video, since our eyes and camcorder sensors are sort of digital. I know my camcorder is not of the best, but I cannot stand it when someone gets snobby. criticise my work, I'll take, but leave my gear alone buddy.

Manual focus on sky shots is mandatory, Woodcote rally was overflown by the Lancaster, a spitfire and hurricane, beautifully flown in formation at a low altitude, making several passes, the last one after a heavily banked turn back towards the field. As I was in manual focus mode I was able to keep focus on the planes NOT the hedge tops and flagpoles. As a result I caught the three craft's top sides in the sun. Of the three clips, this was the most dramatic, it showed off the Lancs capabilities to a `T'. It was probably the last view a WW2 German factory worker saw of a Lancaster!

I have visited Knowl Hill (now closed) and Woodcote Steam Fair many times over the years and have photographed a lot of the exhibits. This year I video'd instead. If you photograph a machine properly, you can capture some of the dynamics, but a video reproduces the action. both go together quite well too.

GeorgeSalt · Joined: 09 Feb 2013 Posts: 336 Location: Norfolk, UK

I'm not sure how you'd go about digitising it, but I would think Hi-8 would have the image detail to give digital a hard run for its money.

MTHall · Joined: 07 Nov 2012 Posts: 120 Location: England UK

Hi 8 is a lot better than plain 8mm GeorgeSalt, I also upgraded some time ago to an early digital dvd camcorder, but apart from the longer zoom, it wasn't much of an upgrade. The Sony isn't HD by a (very) long chalk, but it is sharp enough if you keep it in it's sweet zone? It makes up for that short coming by being `quick'. It doesn't waste time when booting into standby and kicks of instantly when the button is pushed. The dvd takes upto 40 seconds to boot up and two to three seconds to get into gear when you hit the button, you can easily miss the action. Manual focus on the dvd is two button arrangement and near usless. On the Hi8 it's a thumb wheel and quite useable too. Not as good as a focus ring on a 35mm SLR, but precise enough to work.

Do you do video? The digitising of a Hi8 video is relatively simple, if you have a DVD recorder. Record the video onto a DVD, finalise it, put it into your PC's DVD drive and locate the MP4 file, or the TS file (Both biggish). If you have the right plugins, you can play them from media player or other software. you can transfer them between computers, but unless its a very short clip, they might be a bit big to put up in here!! There are many software programs you can used to edit the video to get the results you want.

GeorgeSalt · Joined: 09 Feb 2013 Posts: 336 Location: Norfolk, UK

I did some analogue video shooting a while ago, I was working in a Sony Centre and could borrow from the shelf to familiarise myself with the technology. And we had quite a good piece of kit in the shop for editing.

But the first camcorder I bought was a Sony standard definition digital model. I now generally use a Sony compact (HX20V) to shoot HD digital video.

MTHall · Joined: 07 Nov 2012 Posts: 120 Location: England UK

Sounds like heaven more than a job!! I've looked at the dvd archive I did with the Woodcote tape, and it is a folder of files of 1.34 gbytes, massive or wot? and they won't play on media player, but the DVD will, if you know what I mean? But, it is digestible for a PC, you just need the right software to manipulate it. If I did that, there's some good clips on that tape!!

So how was the Sony HD? The only HD I've messed with had very sharp framing, poor focus at wide angle zoom and very jerky motion. One thing in analogues favour is fluid motion. HD has a weakness with motion, due to the hi res framing, there's little motion blurr to hide the frame stepping and is why on video or cine that to a degree, being pin sharp isn't so critical, unless you use a very high frame rate.

GeorgeSalt · Joined: 09 Feb 2013 Posts: 336 Location: Norfolk, UK

The advantage of the Sony compact is the 50/60fps at 1080P, the frame rate really helps with motion. I started with a HX9V, and later replaced it with an HX20V (I lost the HX9V and bought the replacement model). All the samples below are the HX9V, I haven't anything finished and rendered from the HX20V.

I had terrible problems with movement in the frame, and it took me a while to realise that it wasn't the camera but the software as I rendered it from the original footage to something playable.

This one shows me working through the settings, comparing still images when Paused between the first 5 seconds and the rest shows the improvement.
www.flickr.com/photos/saltgeorge/6786846068/in/set-72157628068226925?likes_hd=1

But that's an extreme example of motion, with more usual scenes it's fine..
www.flickr.com/photos/saltgeorge/6709549049/in/set-72157628068226925?likes_hd=1

iangreenhalgh1 · Expire: 2014-01-07

When it comes to video, analogue is dead. Even the best analogue systems are vastly inferior to even 720p video, especially in chroma, you will never see colour shifts and out of synch colour with digital, but you always get it with analogue. Pro analoque systems like Betacam used a load of expensive digital electronics to fix the chroma when you transferred the video from the original tape.

Also, tape is a very inferior format for storing video compared to solid state.

I'm not saying an old analogue video camera won't do the job, but to think it's as good as modern digital is just a pipe dream I'm afraid. Even if you used brand new tapes every time and your heads were in pristine condition, it's not even a contest.

When the first digital systems appeared in the mid 90s, they revolutionised things to a huge degree, the earliest like Panasonic's MII weren't much better than the analogue systems they replaced and they were still stuck with using the same tape storage. However, the second generation - DVCPro etc made all the analogue stuff obsolete and the TV companies couldn't get rid of their analogue gear quickly enough.

MTHall · Joined: 07 Nov 2012 Posts: 120 Location: England UK

iangreenhalgh1, it's true the heyday of analogue video is passing by (not dead, yet), but my original post was largely over rude sarcasm at my use of an old tech Sony camcorder, the performance of which I am pleased with. If I chanced upon someone taking photographs with an old view camera on wet plates, I would be impressed, not sarcastic! Modern, high end digital video cameras of HD standard, will most certainly out perform my Hi8 Sony, but the budget ones won't. Video isn't all about resolution like still photography, quality of motion is paramount and more important than colour rendering. Not that the rendering is unimportant. Tape is a very fragile media, but it is always instant. DVD is more robust, but on the cheaper cameras there are operational delays when booting up and start stop times. The later card reading cameras are better, providing you use a fast card and the camcorder is fast enough to read/write them, otherwise you get a varying frame rate. Cheap HD standard camcorders are a very mixed bag, top end ones (the one I can't afford!!) are marvelous pieces of Kit.

Question, Why don't any of the camcorders (inc all of mine) I've seen have zooms that track from true wide angle? eg. (28mm equiv in 35mm lens speak) to telephoto, most all I've seen start around 45mm(35mm equiv etc) which is a normal focal length. DSLR's do and some compacts too. I find this an annoying limitation, I am reluctant to use a wide adapter as none seem good enough, unless a real soft focus is desired!

peterqd · Expire: 2014-01-04

Martin, if you've transferred the video to a DVD or a .ts file, there are lots of free open-source programs you can use to edit it
and encode it into a format you can watch on your PC or TV etc. I can help with that if you need it. BTW - it sounds like we're
not too far away from each other if we need to meet up! Smile

As a start, you might like to try downloading VLC player, which can play many formats that Windows MP can't.

http://www.videolan.org/vlc/index.html

iangreenhalgh1 · Expire: 2014-01-07

Yeah, there are a lot of idiots about who love to sneer. I've had that loads of times with other photographers I bump into, they are bearing huge plastic drainpipe zooms that cost a fortune, and I've usually got a 60-70 year old lens on my NEX.

I reckon your best bet for cheap but excellent in video is one of the Panasonic M4/3 cams that are really cheap secondhand now and stick an old zoom from a TV camera on it, you need one for a 1" sensor, Canon, Sony and Fujinon ones being the most common, they are parfocal and will far outperform anything on a camcorder. You can also use the cheaper 2/3" ones if you use the zoom feature of the Panasonic.

mo · Expire: 2016-07-30

I had an old Sony Hi8 until it got stolen Sad

I have about 16 or so tapes that need to be put on DVD so I can see what's on them.What model do you have?

MTHall · Joined: 07 Nov 2012 Posts: 120 Location: England UK

Hi Mo, it is a Sony Handycam Vision video Hi8 TRV64E PAL from 1998. Im still into tape cassette, for audio (hifi) as well as video, some would call me stuck in the mud and perverse. But at 72 aren't I entitled to be a little out of date? one of the Sony's features that caught my attention, was one that mirrored my Yamaha tape deck, it is the ORC feature that analyses the tape media and adjusts the recording settings to suit. My Aiwa tape deck too, has something similar.
Stolen gear, tell me about it, I lost a really nice Spotmatic/ Macinon 28-80 during some heating repairs in my flat, never to be seen again, worse it had a half used roll of film in, grrr!!!

Copying onto DVD is a straight forward procedure and relatively hassle free, provided you use a suitable disc and that you do `finalise' the disk, if you don't, the computer and any other DVD machine won't `see' the disc!! From the computer running suitable software, you can ruin, oops! Sorry! Manipulate your video to your hearts content.

peterqd Theale and :- virgoprestige*yahoo.co'uk?? That software might prove interesting to download too, I'll give it it a go.

No-one came back on the wide angle comment? On all of my camcorders, the widest zoom setting is the poorest performing part of the lens, it is also the end where the autofocus struggles hardest and on my Practika , fails completely. This may well explain why `they' limit their zooms to a more modest angle of view? DSLR's don't seem to suffer so much, My D50 has no proplem at 18mm. Unless the sensors are a different configuration on a camcorder? It can't be a generation thing either, as my Practika is younger than my Nikon D 50. Hmmm?

mo · Expire: 2016-07-30

I figure if it's still working and if you like it, it doesn't matter if its considered "redundant" by others. Very Happy

Those Sony's recorders still hold a good price down here, I have been looking to find a compatible one so I can copy my own tapes to disc via a friends Video/DVD player/recorder.

I think my stolen Sony was bought in the same era late 90s,I can not remember the model.Like you I was more annoyed that a tape was still in it!

visualopsins · Expire: 2025-04-11

I have a fully functional Sony Hi-8 TRV65 NTSC with Night Shot. And some tapes from a few years ago still to transfer. Confused

I also have two Panasonic JVC GR-DVF21U miniDV camcorders that cost less, have much better video quality. The lenses in those don't go any wider than the old Sony.

MTHall · Joined: 07 Nov 2012 Posts: 120 Location: England UK

It may well be that the sensors vignette to much with too short focal lengths. I seem to remember this being an issue with early hi end digital still cameras too. Funny how they've sorted it on still cameras, but as late as 2004 at least not on video cameras. using an adapter lens is futile, unless you desire a really soft focus device? Also the problem likely relates to the poor quality video at the wide end of the zoom? try it and see. zoom to the widest setting, shoot as far away as practical<100 ft roll the tape? for 30 seconds or so and stop, pick a feature in the scene you just shot and full telezoom onto it and roll for another 30 seconds or so again. Rewind, go indoors and plug it into your TV/monitor WHY. play it back and compare the two settings. On all of my camcorders there are sweet spots throughout the zoom and focus range. At some settings the results are startlingly good. The skill is remembering what and where they are and on which camera!!

MTHall · Joined: 07 Nov 2012 Posts: 120 Location: England UK

Peter,
I've downloades this and it works fine, you can even take snapshots from the video, if you don't mind a drop in quality. See below, if you watch the video on the dvd-player, it is considerably better, although it is quite obvious I wasn't using a tripod throughout the day. On a tripod, a camcorder does give much better video, even modest hand shaking is very distracting and the steadyshot robs the sensor of a chunk of pixels to work, lesening the resolution slightly.

As a start, you might like to try downloading VLC player, which can play many formats that Windows MP can't.

http://www.videolan.org/vlc/index.html[/quote][img]

[/img]

[img]

[/img]

philslizzy · Joined: 07 Aug 2012 Posts: 4744 Location: Cheshire, England

Use it proudly. The people that criticised you are snobs. Those here that tell you digital will be better are doing it because they care, not because they want you to look dumb.

Using Analogue is like film or vinyl. Yeah, theres cheaper, better, easier but theres a certain quality about them that makes it different. Like old lenses.

I have 2 video cameras. One is an old Canon Hi-8 and the other is a Panasonic 'HD 1080' camcorder recording on an SD card. The Canon gives far superior results. The number of lines means nothing, Half the lines taken on the Panny are crap. And the autofocus is rubbish. The AF on the Canon doesn't wander, and can be fixed with a fingertip while recording and the backlight is a button in the right place that doesn't need selecting from a menu. A good conversion software is all you need for tape. The zoom on the Panny is longer. But seriously who needs 56x??

But now my Nikon D3200 is my main video camera. The NEX 5 is a decent runner up. Even my little Pentax RX18 is pretty good.

MTHall · Joined: 07 Nov 2012 Posts: 120 Location: England UK

Thank you for your kind comments philslizzy, I am a bit of an analogue muffin I admit, it's obvious when yo see my hifi stack, c/w a generous vinyl and cassette library. But there's a CD library too. I suppose I was staying on course with my photography, just because I dabbled with digital didn't mean my film cameras were redundant and when my interest in camcorders and video restarted, it was a natural progression to go analogue (after a disastrous purchase of a (shudder) Practica digital nightmare!!). To be fair to digital, a solid-state recording media has strong advantages for hand/portable devices. Using a tape cassette video system has far more `no-no's' than a card. vibration, sudden movement and a change of holding grip, must NOT happen in shot, Hot weather too, tape hates heat, it stretches, kinks, sticks and can jam and tangle in the machine (fatal nowadays!!). But with all that, when it goes right, the results are rewarding and even good (sometimes) and if it floats your boat, who's to condemn? Dammit it's enjoyable!!

Digital/analogue to one side, one of the endearing features of older equipment, is the superior ergonomics. My Sony Camcorder is, by today's standards, HUGE! But while it is being deployed, it doesn't feel so big, it sits just so in the hands, its controls fall beneath a relevant digit just so. It's weight too, is just enough to assist in keeping it steady. Smaller IS NOT better, just cheaper!! (to make!!) My cannon 10D follows on from this idea, with the battery clip, it sits in the hands, either way up, in complete comfort, the buttons falling just where they're wanted. True size isn't everything, but it needs to be big enough, right?

philslizzy · Joined: 07 Aug 2012 Posts: 4744 Location: Cheshire, England

Nice reply. Larger is better sometimes .

One thing though about the Panny is that I bought a huge battery and can get 3 hours recording time. You need it when recording 2 hour concerts. Thats probably the only advantage - and the fact its 16:9. The Canon gives me half an hour max. Plenty for home movies - I was brought up on 8mm film. When you have 3mins 15secs per roll you only shoot whats necessary Wink