To get an HD-video camcorder or not? Need help, here

Bete

DIS Veteran
Joined
Sep 14, 1999
Messages
6,498
Actually, I have a mini DV camcorder and I usually use software to convert my video to mpeg2 or mpeg 4 through my PC.

I'm feeling like if I take a jump to a HD camcorder I'm not really gaining anything in quality, but I'm saving a step of converting my tape to HD using software. Am I not getting the concept of HD? Is there something I'm missing, here about HD camcorders?

Please help. I know this forum is mostly pictures rather than video, but I thought there would be reliable people who could shed some light here on this subject. TIA
 
Not a video expert but, may I ask what is the final product you currently aim for? DVD/etc...?

And

Not sure about your converting to HD part(What conversion and what software???) but if you could upsize SD to HD the native HD footage would indeed be much better in quality.
 
Maybe, a better question to ask: Is HD quality dictated by the resolution of the video camera and not the software to convert it to DVD? or do both factors weigh in?

There's all kind of software like Roxio or Pinnacle, etc. that will allow you to make a DVD in mpeg2 or mpeg 4 which is what I thought HD quality meant. I see a lot of HD camcorders talking about mpeg 2 and 4 as their formats; so, I'm thinking the video camera doesn't matter and the format only matters. If you can achieve the mpeg2 and 4 formats using software why do you need a higher end HD camcorder for better quality?

Also, I'm starting to research about AVCHD format and that's really confusing me. Is that just another term for mpeg4?

I like high end toys and I'm thinking about getting a HD camcorder, but I don't want to do it, if it 's not better than what I have. I don't care if I go through more steps with software to get my tape to be mpeg2 or 4 with the use of my PC; I just want better video.

Is it just easier to have a HD camcorder; because, it's already compressing the video to mpeg2 or 4 or AVCHD or is it actual better quality?

Like I said, I'm in over my head.
 
Maybe, a better question to ask: Is HD quality dictated by the resolution of the video camera and not the software to convert it to DVD? or do both factors weigh in?

There's all kind of software like Roxio or Pinnacle, etc. that will allow you to make a DVD in mpeg2 or mpeg 4 which is what I thought HD quality meant. I see a lot of HD camcorders talking about mpeg 2 and 4 as their formats; so, I'm thinking the video camera doesn't matter and the format only matters. If you can achieve the mpeg2 and 4 formats using software why do you need a higher end HD camcorder for better quality?

Also, I'm starting to research about AVCHD format and that's really confusing me. Is that just another term for mpeg4?

I like high end toys and I'm thinking about getting a HD camcorder, but I don't want to do it, if it 's not better than what I have. I don't care if I go through more steps with software to get my tape to be mpeg2 or 4 with the use of my PC; I just want better video.

Is it just easier to have a HD camcorder; because, it's already compressing the video to mpeg2 or 4 or AVCHD or is it actual better quality?

Like I said, I'm in over my head.

MY TAKE

HD is about resolution not compression. You can take HD and compress(or not) with various methods depending on how you will be viewing it.

Mpeg 2 vs 4 is only about compression. You can have low quality Mpeg 4 or you could have higher quality Mpeg 4. Taking SD video and compressing to MPEG 4 will not all of a sudden make it HD.
 

I think this is more of a software question: If everyone doesn't have a HD-DVD player are you able to take the HD camcorder footage and make DVDs for regular DVD players (at lower quality) and HD-DVD players? Thanks again.
 
I think this is more of a software question: If everyone doesn't have a HD-DVD player are you able to take the HD camcorder footage and make DVDs for regular DVD players (at lower quality) and HD-DVD players? Thanks again.

Yes most dvd burning packages will take the HD footage and convert to the needed resolution and compression required to make a DVD playable in most players.

And if you have HD-DVD burner you would also be able to burn them with that higher quality video. A regular PC DVD burner will not burn HD-DVDs.
 
First HD can mean two things in a camcorder, so let's clarify that first. There are camcorders that record video on internal hard drives that get called "HD". There are also camcorders that record high definition video that get called "HD."

I'm feeling like if I take a jump to a HD camcorder I'm not really gaining anything in quality, but I'm saving a step of converting my tape to HD using software. Am I not getting the concept of HD? Is there something I'm missing, here about HD camcorders?

Recording on a hard drive has nothing directly to do with picture quality. It does mean that the camcorder will record in MPEG2 or MPEG4. That means that it takes up less space than DV (what you get on a mini-DV) camcorder and is harder to edit. It can also be much easier to make a DVD from.

A high definition camcorder should definitely be higher quality. Once you have started watching high definition video on a reasonably good sized TV (42"+), you'll find standard definition TV much less appealing. I have found that watching standard definition home video on a large screen just looks terrible.

The problem with high definition video is that it makes everything harder and more expensive. The cameras cost much more ($1,000 for an entry level video camera). The demands on your video editing computer are much higher. It takes more storage space. Finally, output devices cost more.

If you shoot in high definition and you want to distribute your video, you have several sub-optimal options. You can burn it to an HD-DVD or a BlueRay disk. Both require expensive new hardware. Neither are in widespread use, so the person you are producing the video for is not likely to be able to watch it.

Another option is to just render a high definition .MOV or .WMV and distribute it on a DVD or over the Internet. That requires that the recipient have a computer for playback. Surprsingly, many people still don't have computers attached to any large display devices, so they'd have to watch the video on a computer monitor.

Another option would be to shoot in HD, but to render in enhanced definition (480p), which is the standard for DVDs. You still have the high definition master for when a high definition distribution format gains wide acceptance, but people can start watching the video now.


A few definitions that might help this discussion:

Standard Definition - This is what old TV's used to display. It's a picture that is 1.33 times wider than it is tall. The picture has 480 lines, but it is interlaced, which means that only 240 lines are drawn for each frame.

Enhanced Definition - This is the native format for DVDs. The picture is still 480 lines, but it is progressive, which means that all 480 lines are drawn each time. Enhanced definition generally implies that the picture will be wide screen, which is 1.85 times wider than it is tall.

High Definition - This means several possible things. It is a picture that is 1.85 times wider than it is tall. It can be 720 lines progressive, 1080 lines interlaced, or even 1080 lines progressive. Most consumer HD camcorders shoot 1080 lines interlaced, but a few shoot 720 lines progressive.

MPEG2 is a standard for compressing video. It is the format used by DVDs. MPEG4 is a newer standard that allows for better compression. MPEG4 is the standard used in most satellite and cable HD signals.

Editing MPEG2 and MPEG4 are harder than DV because it compresses each frame (single image in a video stream) in a group of about 15 frames. So decoding any one frame requires that you have information from one or more other frames.

The most common standard for consumer HD recording is HDV. This is recorded on mini-DV tapes. It uses MPEG2 compression. Most pro-sumer video editing packages can handle HDV. I'm not sure about the sub-$100 packages.

A newer standard for recording HD is AVCHD. It uses MPEG4. Because the compression is better than MPEG4, you can record more data in a smaller space or better quality data in the same space. Because it is new, it is not well supported by video editing tools, with even some of the high end packages not supporting it. It is also used only by the very lowest end of the video cameras.

Shooting HD is hard. The higher resolution means that focus accuracy must be very good. Also, HD video tends to be noisier than standard def video because the pixel density on the sensors is higher.

Camcorderinfo.com is a reasonably good site to read about video cameras.

I can't stress enough that if you can afford it, getting a high def video camera is the way to go. The picture quality is much, much better.
 
Like Mark, I'm confused by exactly which "HD" is being referred to. I believe the OP is confusing the two. For the sake of trying to make a readable post, in this message, HD refers to hard drive, high-def refers to high definition.

A couple minor points... the aspect ratio for anamorphic DVDs and native high-def is 1.77777(repeating):1, not 1.85:1, which is a theatrical format. In other words, 16:9, versus the "normal" full-screen 4:3 of regular ol' televisions.

I think nearly all (all?) HD camcorders use mpeg-4 compression, because it can squeeze in a fair amount more data in the same amount of space than mpeg-2. However, if the bitrate is not high enough, you still end up with lower video quality - and my understanding is that most HD camcorders do use very low bitrates. Also, lower bitrates especially benefit from multiple pass encoding - ie, you start with a larger, higher quality video, and the software doing the encoding will go through it one time to determine what areas require more bandwidth and which areas are fairly still and can have less, and the second time (or third, or fourth, or whichever), it uses that data to make a smaller file that has the data distributed in a way that gives optical picture quality. The problem is that, when you're recording something like, it can obviously only record it once, and so you're more likely to have problems like macroblocking if you record some fast motion.

Mini-DVD camcorders record in mpeg-2 format. This is necessary as DVD players can only play back mpeg-2 video. (If you want to pick nits, most can play back mpeg-1, and many new ones can play back AVIs that contain mpeg-4 video, these are marked as "Divx" compatible.)

HD-DVD and BluRay are more flexible - they can play back mpeg-2, mpeg-4, x264, etc - several different formats.

If you need to store high-def content, it can be compressed into nearly any form - wmv, mov, mpeg-2, mpeg-4 (avi/mkv), x264, whatever, but only a computer or an HD-DVD or BluRay player has any chance of being able to play it back.

Actual editing shouldn't be a challenge for a decent editing program. Frame-accurate editing is pretty standard nowadays, especially if you're converting into another format, in which case the key frames of the source video don't matter.

High-def camcorders are still pretty bleeding edge and I think a few of them shoot what is sometimes called "HD lite" - 1440x1080i or 1444x1080i rather than the correct 1920x1080i.

I suspect that in a couple more years, we'll see prices continue to drop, hopefully quality will improve, and what I'd really like to see happen is full 1920x1080p become the standard. This is what's finally starting to happen with high-def televisions, after years of no 1080p whatsoever. I'm looking forward to 1080p projectors becoming affordable enough for me to replace the 720p one in my home theater...
 
My HD was high definition, not hard drive. All of you helped me understand the difference between compression and higher resolution.

After doing more reading, I'm going to hold off on buying a high definition camcorder for now. As stated, most people are not equipped to take full advantage of the quality yet. Also, I'm more interested in AVCHD and I think that's just to new.

I appreciate the website referrals.

Mark I like your pictures!
 
One other thing I forgot to touch on, since you are talking HD as high-def...

In the original message, you wrote "I'm feeling like if I take a jump to a HD camcorder I'm not really gaining anything in quality, but I'm saving a step of converting my tape to HD using software."

If you're got something recorded in standard definition today, there's no need to ever convert it to high definition - you won't gain any quality, and possibly lose some if there's too much compression. It's like taking the picture from a 2 megapixel camera and blowing it up to 5 megapixel.

Similarly, DVD players that claim to do "HD upscaling" are most definitely not giving you high-definition quality, they're just resizing the existing DVD video to one of the HD resolutions - exactly the same thing any HDTV already does, the difference is that the DVD player is doing it instead of the TV.
 
High-def camcorders are still pretty bleeding edge and I think a few of them shoot what is sometimes called "HD lite" - 1440x1080i or 1444x1080i rather than the correct 1920x1080i.

I think that's closer to all of them. The HDV standard for 1080 is 1440 horizontal using 1.33 aspect ratio pixels for a 16:9 overall aspect ratio. I'm not sure about the AVCHD camcorders.

Even the consumer video cameras that do claim 1920x1080 do it with a single chip, which means that they are really using a bayer array and interpolation to achieve that resolution. I haven't seen any 3 chip cameras with that resolution.

It's a pretty minor quibble when comparing to a standard def camera. Even a 1280x720p camera will completely blow away a standard def camera in resolution. It is, however, a real difference between sub-$10,000 "professional" cameras and the $100,000+ beasts that high end studios use.

I agree with Groucho that HD is still bleeding edge. The camcorders and formats are evolving quickly. If you don't have any pressing shooting needs, I'd stick with whatever you currently have or one of those $300 disposable SD camcorders to get you through the next few years.

I jumped to HD because looking at consumer SD video on even a 50" screen looks pretty poor. Looking at it on a 110" project screen is dreadful. My kids are growing and maturing at a frightening rate and I wanted to capture some good footage of them now. I know I'll probably replace my video camera in 4-5 years, but the quality difference of the footage that I'll shoot in just the next 2 years is worth the extra cost to me. YMMV.
 
I can talk about HD all day long. HD is new in the prosumer market. It's been around for years in the pro market.

Now, you can get an HD video camera for less than 1000.00. It is a single ccd imager but will blow away any single ccd dv camera. The 3 ccd cameras are what's neccessary for great color video and approaching the appearance of pro video.

Sure, not many can play back their videos on anything but an HD camera. But, when you downconvert HD video to DVD it looks much better than SD video on DVD.

If you have 1000.00, get an HD camera. If you have less, get a 3-ccd DV camera.

The negative of the HD cameras are the low light capability. HD chips are not very sensitive to light and will not film well in dark places. If you want to capture stuff in the Haunted Mansion, an HD cam will show very little of it. Whereas a good SD cam can pick up very low light stuff without the nightshot.

If I can answer any other questions, I'd be happy to. I just wish I still worked for ABC, I'd have my Disney passes for free. :(
 
The negative of the HD cameras are the low light capability.

Good point. Just like packing more mega-pixels into a DSLR means more noise (all other things equal), the same is true for video cameras. Of course, noise is the enemy of all low light shooting.

BTW, never believe the "LUX" ratings on video cameras. They are based off of someone's subjective view of what is acceptable. For low light performance, there is no substitute for big lenses and low density sensors.
 
Good point. Just like packing more mega-pixels into a DSLR means more noise (all other things equal), the same is true for video cameras. Of course, noise is the enemy of all low light shooting.

BTW, never believe the "LUX" ratings on video cameras. They are based off of someone's subjective view of what is acceptable. For low light performance, there is no substitute for big lenses and low density sensors.

Exactly! Just like cars, no replacement for displacement. Have you used your Canon in low light yet? I just received mine today. I had a Panasonic HVX200 before this one and it was marginal at best in low light.
 
Sure, not many can play back their videos on anything but an HD camera. But, when you downconvert HD video to DVD it looks much better than SD video on DVD. :(



Is this true of the AVCHD mode? Is there software that will accept this mode and convert downward and look better than SD video?

My main fear of not buying an HD video camera now is that I'm waiting for the winner, the one that wins the prize. The one that everyone will accept. The one that will have editing tools, etc. I probably need to have one HD camera for 5 to 7 years before replacing it; so, I'm holding back right now on making the move. Most of us out there are not as savy; so, we get scared to jump in. Any advice?
 
Is this true of the AVCHD mode? Is there software that will accept this mode and convert downward and look better than SD video?

My main fear of not buying an HD video camera now is that I'm waiting for the winner, the one that wins the prize. The one that everyone will accept. The one that will have editing tools, etc. I probably need to have one HD camera for 5 to 7 years before replacing it; so, I'm holding back right now on making the move. Most of us out there are not as savy; so, we get scared to jump in. Any advice?

Well, the fear is valid all the way to the top of the HD food chain as well. Many TV stations are adopting a format and hoping it was the right one. There are many new standards out there now and many new compression schemes. The AVCHD is an H.264 compression format that is suprisingly good with very low disk usage. The negative is the processing power required to playback the format. This is improving daily.

As far as editing, there are many new software packages for editing AVCHD. Bigger names are around the corner. I don't think the format will go away, but my guess is as good as yours. If a breakthrough comes tomorrow and allows more compression with less loss, it will become more popular. That's the nature of the beast.

As for the 5-7 years, I understand the concern. 5-7 stretches any technology. But, ultimately, it boils down to whether you keep the hardware and the software you buy originally. Almost all of these software packages will allow you to convert your footage to another format, always at a little cost of picture loss. So, if you keep your equipment for 7 years, most likely you will be able to convert it to a standard that is popular 7 years from now. Obviously, without the true benefits of the new standard.

I would say, you can always hold off for the next generation of something, but then when you are ready to buy, isn't there a "next generation" around the corner? Buy the best you can afford. If it is newer compression, so be it. You will be able to convert it. A manufacturer isn't going to release a new standard or adopt one if there isn't any software companies that will adopt it either.
 
If you're mainly concerned with playback on standard-def display devices (ie, a regular non-HDTV television), I would lean towards a nice standard-def camcorder...

But it all depends on your priorities. Like all electronics, if you buy into a new technology earlier, you'll spend a lot more and get something that's probably a bit glitchy, whereas something a couple years down the line will cost dramatically less and work much better.

It was this way with DVD players (early ones were not only expensive, but very slow nagivating menus, had bugs like the notorious "chroma bug", and many would lose audio sync on some DVDs), it's this way today with first-gen HD-DVD and BluRay players. I'm also reminded of MP3 CD players... we got a pair of the Philips Expanium MP3 CD players when they were first released... $200, no FF/RW with MP3, and no info other than track number. Now, for $30, you can get a little CD player that plays MP3s as well as audio CDs and has a full display with ID3 information.

Still, if you're willing to pay the extra cost and live with the possible quibbles, it might be a worthwhile buy. You should realize, also, that the conversion from the HD format to a DVD-compliant format will be a very slow one - as in, expect your PC to be chugging away for hours. It's this way for nearly any re-encoding.
 
If you're mainly concerned with playback on standard-def display devices (ie, a regular non-HDTV television), I would lean towards a nice standard-def camcorder...
Unless you are shooting commercially, I strongly disagree with this. Capture the best you can afford now. Even if you don't render it in HD now, you'll be able to do so in the future. Believe me, once you start watching HD, it doesn't take too long before SD starts to look like @#$% and even some DVD's are unwatchable.

You should realize, also, that the conversion from the HD format to a DVD-compliant format will be a very slow one - as in, expect your PC to be chugging away for hours. It's this way for nearly any re-encoding.
I not only agree with this statement, I think it needs to be stressed. I'm using a lowly 3 ghz Pentium 4 with 1.5 gig of RAM and it takes me an hour or two to render a 1-2 minute clip.
 
Rendering is the killer of any joy in video. It is EXTREMELY time consuming as others have stated. But, there is hope. 8 processor machines are now available. Sure, they aren't cheap, but now the 2-4 cores machines are.

I edit with a Mac with dual cores and it takes me 3 hours to compress 18 minutes of video. I have a dual core 2.16Ghz processor. With 8- 3Ghz, the time comes close to 1/4 the time.
 














Save Up to 30% on Rooms at Walt Disney World!

Save up to 30% on rooms at select Disney Resorts Collection hotels when you stay 5 consecutive nights or longer in late summer and early fall. Plus, enjoy other savings for shorter stays.This offer is valid for stays most nights from August 1 to October 11, 2025.
CLICK HERE







New Posts







DIS Facebook DIS youtube DIS Instagram DIS Pinterest

Back
Top