Is there really a big quality differance between a Digital8 camera that uses Hi8 tapes than a Minidv camera? If the cameras are both good quality, would the recording media be that big of a factor in quality?

Both will get the job done, but yes, the resolution of DV is better than Digital8. If you only have acess to a Digital8, by all means, use it, and if all you can afford is D8, buy it, but if you can, but a MiniDV cam.
Furthermore, if you have the cash, buy a Panosonic AG-DVX100 It shoots true 24p, and can pass for 16mm film. Truly amazing.
R. Michael McWhorter

And you shall know us by the trail of dead.

"Furthermore, if you have the cash, buy a Panosonic AG-DVX100 It shoots true 24p, and can pass for 16mm film. Truly amazing."

Yep...that camera is so so so dope. My friend just bought it and it looks rad on the screen. It also has manual buttons up the yang. We're using it next month to shoot a short...I can't wait!!

So Bush has ****ed the world...Good Bye UN.

Absolutely no difference. I would go with miniDV because it's widely used. Only sony uses the Digital8. Also all 3chip cameras are minidv.

there is no differece at all. Both record DIGITAL footage, but some minidv cameras like 3-chipers will record with higher resolution. I'd suggest digital-8 for recording tv-show and video game events. The tapes are bigger, and more robust, or have less frequent drop outs..

Digital 8 records a 640 x 480 image and then outputs a digital 720 x 480 image with 80 black pixels on the side (that TVs generally crop) or interpolates the 80 pixels. MiniDV uses a 720 x 480 throughout. Both compress in 8 bit, 4:1:1 color space with EXACTLY the same codec. However, in general, digital 8 cameras have fewer lines of resolution (normally 300-400 compared with miniDV 400-500). To the discriminating eye on a video monitor, this will be noticeable.

But the story is what really matters, right?
joren

Im not really one for the very technical stuff, I just know what I see, and I see that minidv is far ahead of digital8 or Hi8. Much better quality especially shooting in the dark. My digital8 would be all pixelated(sp?) but then I discovered the joys of minidv and never went back to digital8 or Hi8 again.

As i've posted back in another question, I wouldn't touch Digital8 again with a 40ft pole.

It's as unreliable as Hi8. As has been pointed out, only Sony make it too.

Yeah, MiniDV may be more expensive but trust me the extra cash is well worth spending.

Richard Purves
One Man Band
omb@blueyonder.co.uk
http://www.omb.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/

>>"there is no differece at all."<<

>>"Absolutely no difference"<<

What are you talking about!!! You must be blind, buddies, cause yes, there is a big difference. MiniDV is a newer technology and much higer quality, as it is magnetic metal tape, which records pure digital information. It has no loss in quality if you make dubs. Hi8, HOWEVER, is linear, and is subject to the generation loss in quality on the lower quality tape. HI8 is not recognized as a profesional medium, and most TV studios dont even have HI8 Decks. Its all Beta, Beta SP, MiniDV and DVCAM these days. Hi8 was designed for consumer handycams and will soon become unused as MiniDV becomes the solution.

So check what you say next time, Mr. "There is no difference."

Peace
-J

To my understanding Digital 8 tapes, like Hi-8, have a tendency to deteriorate very quickly. They layer that stores all the information actually flakes off (Sitting on a shelf for a year is about the equivelant of 3 generations of loss in my experiences with hi-8 at least). So even though they may have the same compression ratio etc, Mini-DV is a remarkably better storage medium. Not to mention the cameras attatched to Dig-8 decks pretty much all suck (To put it bluntly).

Nota "Can shot-put a low-end MiniDV further than a Dig-8" Mono

okay, let me just say this. I have a trv-240, and it BEATS my friends sony cannon z-45 and most other small lensed cameras from panasonic or cannon.

Whoever keeps thinking that anything minidv is broadcast quality must be high. They, like digital-8 and most else is consumer grade. Your not going to spend less than $2000 (On a GL2 or MX-5000 from Japan) to get comparable to betacam-sp footage WITH natural or a powerhouse light set. (Beleive it or not, i've heard it's possible.) And who brought up HI-8? I don't use hi-8, and don't think that one year of storage would give 3 generation losses regardless. Anyway..Minidv, Dvcam, DV25,50 and digital-8 ALL use the same codec, and only some minidv cameras have higher than the usuall 500 lines of resolution(that my digital-8 BY the way also has...) I know that only like 2 people use it, but I just want to spread how good it is for entry level film makers.

So basically what I try to tell people is that if you want to spend under $700 on a camera, don't waste your money on the low end cannon minidv's. I've used lots of consumer cams around my schools media program, and beleive to know a little about sub-$1000 cameras.. Maybe some of the older digital-8 cameras aren't good, I bought mine when It came out.. (my friend has a digital-8, and he's made an award winning star wars parody with keying and the whole bit awesomely..)

I have noticed one thing about any camera I use.. With either pro-tunsen or halogen lights(Not you usual kitchen lights) and especially soft overcast outdoors lighting, you can get great results with everything..try it more often and end all the color noise problems..

i don't know much about minidv, but i did see somebody say that they have 3 ccds. they followed by saying that digital 8 also has 3. i am positive that my sony digital 8 only has 1 ccd.

i've used it a bunch for creating stuff to use in film titles, and other short, quick pieces, but i would hesitate to make a film with it unless absolutely necessary. the picture comes out good if the scene is lit well, but we all know how difficult that can be to attain.

peace,
krp

THE CCD HAS ABSOLUTLUY NOTHING TO DO WITH THE RECORDING FORMAT.

Just because it is MiniDV, doesnt mean that it is brodcast quality! The CCDs is the imaging device, in the camera. There are 3 CCD MiniDV cameras, and there are single CCD MiniDV cameras. I, however, have never seen a 3CCD Hi8 Camera. It wouldnt be worth putting a high quality imaging with poor quality recorder.

MiniDV CAN be brodcast quality, guys, but i am not refering to the MiniDV handycams that you see at best buy for sub$1000. I am refering to the pro line of MiniDVC handhelds, such as the Sony PD-150, and the Panasonic DVX-100, and maybe the Canon XL-1 is up there too. These are all in the +$3500 Price range.

J

Let's get one thing straight right now ... broadcast quality is SOLELY determined by what the broadcaster actually transmits!

Everyone keeps going on about miniDV not being broadcast quality ... well, my documentary "One Night Stand-Up" was actually broadcast on BBC 2 last year ... and that was filmed on a combination of MiniDV and Hi-8!

The other documentary assignments (which mine was part of) were also broadcast and they were filmed on ... SVHS.

Broadcast quality is entirely relative.

Richard Purves
One Man Band
omb@blueyonder.co.uk
http://www.omb.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/

I guess your right. Nowdays the actual standard of "broadcast quality" is hardly followed. I mean look at americas funiest home videos or jackass.

Broadcast quality:

it's all about lighting.

if you can get really good lighting, enough so that everything's lit, and nothing's washed out and over exposed, that's the goal (obviously) I don't have any real lighting tools, but some rooms in some houses have the perfect tone of paint, and good lights...creating a colorful, vibrant image on a GL2...at 720x480, I have a broadcast quality camera.

If you have:
- cameraman who knows what the hell he's doing

-good lighting, even with 1 chip designs (not too much, not flourescent...just good lighting (NO YELLOW unless that's what you want of course).

- a camera with at least 648x480 resolution. Although digital cable subscribers are wouldbe complainers, most cable and most tvs out are...640x480!

-sound...don't record like a dumbass

In conclusion, if you know what the hell you're doing, I truly believe you can get quality out of anything. Therefore a Digital8 could be as high a quality as MiniDV given you are educated enough.

Now you've entered into an argument i might as well inform you that i have recently seriosly studied the latest video (both digital and anologue) gear and i have to say that until you reach 3CCD MiniDV, Hi 8 supprisingly is the most underestimated and best format, i road tested my $400 hi 8 against a $1500 MiniDV and the hi 8 had better colour definition and warmth, the mini dv was overly sterile, and lacked the warmth of the second generation (s-vhs, hi 8) annologue formats.


Thats My 5 cents for ya.

These are stills taken from my film "One Night Stand-Up" (go check it out!!!! shameless plug). Judge for yourself.


This was shot with a Canon XL-1 in Frame mode by myself.

This was the reverse angle shot with a Sony Hi-8 handicam by David J. Hall (who I was working with at the time).

I think we can see how good hi-8 can be. I ended up barely using the Hi-8 stuff we'd shot apart for timelapse since the quality really wasn't up to it.

Richard Purves
One Man Band
omb@blueyonder.co.uk
http://www.omb.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/

dude, i was not comparing a handicam with one of the best semi-pro mini dv cams in the world, i agree there is no comparison, but using consumer vs. consumer gear, used properly (ie. by understanding the limits of the camera and learning how to push them) the hi8's for half the price of a mini dv camera definitly stand up to the chalenge well...

Just something to put into your mind...

- A cannon XL1 is 3CCD

unless you got yourself a rare 3CCD hi 8 handicam, there is no way a single CCD will stand up as well. And also i admit, the latest hi 8 gear, does not stand up that well in a low-light enviroment.

The TV show at school which I am associate producer on has 3 different cameras. My D8 sony (trv725) Someone's canon zr10 and a newer JVC miniDV. First of, the d8 is the easiest to handhold steady (even though we mostly use tripods) because it is bigger and heavier (which personally I like) The best quality of all three cams is the JVC for picture, and suprisingly I find the sound from my d8 more accurate (we all use the stock mic's...) The zr10 is simply a piece of ****. It always has problems, and the recording quality is sadly worse than my d8. My only qualms with my cam are that it sucks in low light, and it doesnt have manual white balance. Another plus, seeing that our school doesnt give us ANY money to produce its unique sketch comedy show, is the fact that digital 8 tapes are cheaper, which does matter in the real world. I only wish DVCPro tapes werent 30 bucks a piece, while compared to film is nothing, but its still always a punch in the gut when we need to put each episode on 3 dvcpro tapes...

Grilled Cheese