Digital8 vs Dv

[beaker]

How are you capturing from the digital8 to your computer? Through the firewire port or through svideo?

DV is a little better than digital 8, but they both use the same compression techniques. The biggest difference would be if the dv cam is made from better parts and lenses. DV is by no way flawless(4:1:1 for example).

Good info here with a comparison between the two:
http://www.internetvideomag.com/articles1/DVvsD8vsS-video.htm

[TrenZ62]

I'm using firewire and I using the trial version of pinnacle 8. I tried premiere and it looked bad and I used the software that came with the camcorder. Pinnacle had the best results but its still not as clear as I would like. Any suggestions?

[hardev]

i too own a sony digital 8 camcorder and the quality is not that good. in fact i really regret getting it. should have saved up for a dv. :thumbsdow anyway for the time being i am using after effects to mess around with the quality.

[TrenZ62]

Yea I should have researched more into this before I bought this camcorder. I bought it for 900 not to long ago when I could've got a DV cam for the same. Now my cam is worth like 300 bucks which sucks cause I can't sell it for close to what I paid for it. I guess I'm stuck until I can afford a better cam. Thanx

[Alanbell]

Digital8 and Dv use the same codec, both of them don't look particullary good when displayed on a non-interlace computer monitor. You will need to use the firewire port on your computer and a DA convertor to see it on an NTSC.

This is a common thread in various Final Cut Pro forums.

Regards
Alan Bell

[MitchVFX]

I started with Digital8 because the cameras are backward compatible with hi8 and 8mm. The problem is that only sony makes D8 cameras and to my knowledge, they are only consumer level. I have since purchased a minidv camera that is also consumer level and the quality is about the same. The better picture quality isn't in the format but in the camera. The prosumer level cameras like the Cannon XL1S have a much better picture quality, but use the same format.

[parallax]

Exactly.
DV uses the same scheme as D8, except for, often, inferior use of lenses and stuff.
What i don't understand that in Holland, DV is often described as being 4:2:0. Whats the deal with that?

Are they two different DV schemes??

[MitchVFX]

Originally posted by parallax
What i don't understand that in Holland, DV is often described as being 4:2:0. Whats the deal with that?

Are they two different DV schemes??

That's interesting. I've never heard of that before. Of course, being in the US, why would I have :). I wonder if it's similar to the NTSC vs PAL, or something.

Mitch

[beaker]

Originally posted by parallax
Exactly.
DV uses the same scheme as D8, except for, often, inferior use of lenses and stuff.
What i don't understand that in Holland, DV is often described as being 4:2:0. Whats the deal with that?

Are they two different DV schemes??
Thats because NTSC DV is all done in 4:1:1 and PAL DV is done in 4:2:0.

Good explanation why here:
http://www.adamwilt.com/DV-FAQ-tech.html#colorSampling

[Lorecanth]

just a note on the software codec side of things. there is a difference take a look at the editDV or MotoDV codec in comparison to the microsft mini dv codec. With the microsoft codec 2 generations. ie going between the camcorder and the computer 2 times shreds the video.

Usually with the motodv or editdv codec you can do this quite a few more times. Oh and in terms of quality the apple mini dv codec is about halfway between the two.

The big thing is to remember how many times you're going to encode the thing. Add a title there it gets encoded again. After you add the title you want to add a fade in oh there goes another encode. Just be careful and remember that unless you're going lossless, generation loss is still around.

[Alanbell]

You bring up very important points. As an editor it's easy to start adding layer upon layer of simple effects and depending on the path you take towards the end product end up with a less than stellar image quality.

I'll keep you post in mind.

Thanks

Alan Bell

[Amyd]

As a side-note, adding a title, then a fade, then a lens flare ( :shame: ) inside the editing program without rendering each step to a file will not re-encode and/or degrade the quality. The key is to let the render management part of the editing application handle as much as possible internaly, by not bouncing down the tracks. That way, you can work with hundreds of layers and effects and still do only one decode/encode step, when you do the final render or export to tape.

The disadvantage is of course, that with complex timelines things can get very slow. That's why I was always for more efficient and powerful pre-rendering, proxy management and caching of layers and effects implemented within the NLEs, not only in the compositing programs.

Cheers,
Andrei

[Lorecanth]

You are right in most decent compositing applications you can do "100 layers at once" into one encode/decode. Unfortunatly not all programs follow this what one would think logical step (ahem adobe premiere < 6.5). Really it just matter of keeping your eye on the quality. 3 or more encodes with mini dv shreds any material, and you use 2 of those just getting into and out of the computer :annoyed:

[CGTalk Moderation]

This thread has been automatically closed as it remained inactive for 12 months. If you wish to continue the discussion, please create a new thread in the appropriate forum.