digi versus oldschool camcorder...

[leandro7]

hi,
like many i am in a tight budget.
so the cituation leads me to the question,
since non-digital camcorders are much cheaper nowadays....
i am wondering if there is a low cost method of imputing its info into the pc.
could i plug one of these into a 'video in' on my graphics card?
any special software needed to convert it into a supported format (avi.mov.mpjg.whatever)

if the camaras are not able....is there maybe some kind of loading deck that could be bought (cheap) seperatedly?

waddayaguysthink?
thanks for your time
Leandro

also....any models for recomendation?

[LEVLHED]

the picture quality of a digital camcorder is much better than an analog...however, that doesn't mean an analog camera is junk...yes, you can use a video capture card (video-in) to bring analog material into the computer...it wont be as high rez as with a digital brought in via firewire, but a "cheap" capture card can give satisfactory results....look at it this way...most vj softs work best with clips that are 320x240 anyway, which is well within the capabilities of even the cheapest video-capture cards...most capture cards already encode to avi or mpeg as its brought in...just understand that once these clips are in, thats as good as they get, once you start editing/compositing/adding effects/etc you will start seeing artifacts/noise that can increase exponentialy with each render...if you can, try to get a capture card/computer setup that can capture your footage at 640x480, which will give you enough resolution to work with as you effect/edit/re-render down to decent 320x240 clips...
in my opinion, one area that an analog camera is nicer than a digital is when you do video feedback.

[Amukidi]

It seems churlish to me to skimp on this one - the crossover between the cost of cheap DV and analogue is getting closer by the day. A good possible alternative is to go for a Digital 8, you have all the advantages of digital whilst some of the models are around the same price as some analogue. If you are going to manipulate your footage, you have more scope with a digital camera as the source material is significantly better than analogue - you can always "mess up" digital clips, but you cant refine analogue ones.

[LEVLHED]

that is a good point, though...the cheaper/lower model Digital8 cameras aren't that expensive anymore..especially if you look at even the used/refurbished/store demo options...
the difference in picture quality between digital and analog camcorders IS significant...more so than with still cameras.

I have a Sony DCR-TRV510 digital8, I got it used off ebay for a steal a couple of years ago...its the "first generation" of their digital8's and has a relatively massive LCD screen compared to the stuff they put out now! I love it.

[KillingFrenzy]

While Digital 8 is a lower-budget alternative to DV it has some serious disadvantages.

1) Digital 8 works by taking a Hi-8 tape (decent looking format, but prone to dropouts, tape stretching and motor problems) and running it at twice the normal speed to get all the data it needs to store the same stream as a DV tape. So, you're taking a motor and tape that were built to work at one speed, and constantly running them at twice their intended rate. Sounds like a recipe for disaster to me.

2) Though many post-houses and shops will deal with Digital 8, DV is much more widely supported. The tapes are smaller, designed better than Hi-8 tapes, and in my experience much less prone to damage. You'll find it easier to share footage with other people, and if you need to send someone a submission then DV is much more likely to be on the list of acceptable formats.

Save up the extra cash and get yourself at least a decent mid-range camera. The low-end ones tend to skimp on things like smoothness of zooming, carriage loading devices and other things that you'll end up suffering with on a daily basis. Better to invest in something you can use for a long time. Cameras don't devalue the way computers do, so a good investment now should last you until you actually want to get into an additional camera.

[bassy]

Originally posted by LEVLHED
in my opinion, one area that an analog camera is nicer than a digital is when you do video feedback.

Lev,
U mean putting your stuff back on tape, by using your camcorder??
If you mean that, you also can do it with lots of Sony Hi8 types.
Search on the net, there are lot of progs. for probably all the types, wich are kinda like drivers. Normally you can't send your information back to your camcorder, by this programms you can. (ok this progrs are not very legal,...)
And I'm sure the DV-type: Sony VX-1000E is also capable to do so, but herefor I had to give it to the local Sony dealer, for about ?125 he could change something inside, wich enables the option to send info back on tape by your cam. The reason why it's not standard, is that when you can send info back, you have to pay lots more import taxes.

If you don't meant that, sorry for the interuption.
Bassy

[LEVLHED]

I didn't mind the interuption, actually I'd like to know more about what you're talking about.
I'm refering to video feedback as the time-honored, old-school, garage-days rerevisited method of pointing your camera straight at a projection screen or tv or whatever which is beaming the output of the camera...the effect is this vortex tunel of bolbby undulating swirly masses as the camera is seeing its own output and resending it back thru the loop.

what did you think I meant?

[KillingFrenzy]

I think I understand the confusion.

In Europe (u.k. especially, correct me if I'm wrong) most digital camcorders have undergone an interesting taxation attack that us US citizens haven't had to deal with. Essentially, somebody figured out that a direct digital copy of a digital source was "perfect". It has no generation loss. They decided that since DV devices could then in fact produce "perfect" copies, that digital recording devices would then haved to be taxed with insane taxation rates. For example the same DV camera you'd pay $1000 for in the US would get taxed $300 or more, not including regular taxation. This meant that an SVHS camera that cost $2000 cost $2000, a DV camera that cost $2000 cost $2500. Pretty silly. The result was that manufacturers (not wanting their new digital cameras to be perceived as incompetitive with analog) created new devices that didn't have "copy" capabilities. The cheapest way to do this was just to disable the internal softwar efor external recording on their digital devices. So, for $2000 you could buy the same camera as listed above, but with the external DV record option disabled. Fucking ridiculous if you ask me.
Much like banning alcohol in the US during prohibition, immediately somebody figured out how to break the system. A little twiddling with internal menus and the the camera you bought for $2000 now can record from an external source. All the poor electronics repairmen that have been dropping off from lack of clients in the US, managed to struggle a few more years in these countries by selling mods to cameras for $100. Sort of the same as Mod-ing a console to play backups, or Mod-ing a DVD player to play any region.
The really foolish part is that anybody that is a professional in media knows that though DV is capable of making a nice DV to DV clone, you can't copy "anything" and make a multi-generation copy. DV is highly compressed, and the concept that the ability to make a clone of a DV tape is somehow enabling thieves more than just being able to make an analog copy of a VHS tape is ludicrous.
I'm glad the US got to miss out on this fiasco, but I can't help think that the countries that had to deal with this really were hampered in their exploration of a new technology. Low-end, home users were the most impacted since they either had to pay more for the same technology as other countries that didn't have the restrictions, stick with crappy technology like Hi-8, or just generally not have enough to afford new technology. Pretty lousy logic, all based on being fraidy cat about duplication. Net distribution of shitty quality copies (DIVX rips, etc.) should have eliminated any concerns people had about quality keeping people from dubbing.

On the flipside,
I think that LEVLHED is saying that if you aim an analog video device at another device and create a loop, you get a different effect than if you use digital. I agree. Just like audio, the soft and "rich" feel of an analog source can really shine when used in a feedback loop or other method that doesn't strip away the subtlety of its unquantified nature. ERm... analog feedback is much more soupy and complex than the jaggy, structured stuff you get from digital.

[Ollie]

Killing Frenzy is absolutly right, here in europe any video camera that can record a video source (bypassing the lens) is also considered a video recorder (well duh you might say), and thus subject to the taxes that apply to video camera's and to video recorders.
So the more bells and whistles they put on technology, and the more functions it can do, the more tax the EU gets, hhuummmmm... i agree with KF again, things like this inhibit our technological progression, and plain and simply means people end up with less tech for more dosh, than the rest of the people in the world, just another thing to add the list of where govenrments work against us instead, of for us!!!
For future reference anyone needing to enable the DV/analouge in funciotn on their camera, the devices are called 'widgets', or you can get a shop to do it.

Peace

[krokodril]

'N Xtra thing to consider when you 'mod' your dv in europe(get a widget) is that most companys, and sony in any case, have decided that you loose all guarantee on the camera
so if your digital 8 tapedeck breaks down within the guarantee period youre fucked
(anyone wants an old dv8 without deck.... sigh):grrr: