Has it finally happened? - Sony DVD handicam

[sunrise]

I just had a shit load of comercials dumping in the post. One of these was a comercial for our local consumer electronics store (much like Dixons or whatever).

Now, this featured a brand new DVD-handycam. And I don't mind that, but having read this post I sort of gained an interest an looked closer.

The text states: "Better sound and image quality".

Better then what I might ask? It doesn't say!

Now, everyone knows that MPEG2 is a heavily compressed format, so comparing with standard mini-DV is apparently not the issue here. Do they compare with VHS and S-VHS cameras? Could be, and surely the resolution of the images is higher. But what about depthness of colours and contrast? I would go for analogue anytime on that!!!

No, it's sad. Who's going to stand in the shops telling the consumer they're better of bying a mini-DV, let alone a *real* camera?

This is the sort of ignorance that forces us to defend ourselves everytime we stand up and say: I film s8...

It's really sad.

By the way, we should have a poll here at one time. How many people still listen to vinyl and not CD'S? Sort of the same argument, isn't it? Analouge have the quality, and digital heve the comfort.

sunrise

[jean]

good analogy. To be honest, in music I decided that CD (or even mp3) is good enough for me, or the way and situation I listen to music. Vinyl would be a no-no for me, or I would have to change the way I appreciate music. And probably all vinyl equipment I had was lousy, but the cheapest cd player simply was a revelation.. so, frankly, I simply will not care how or why or when vinyl is better, because I just am not an audiophile 8O

But the point, actually, is:

It is important to understand that other people have other needs. If you're not going to make a short film (or are not an enthousiastic photographer) but want to record your son's birthday and share it on th web, the convenience will make you thank the digital revolution on your knees for bringing DVD camcorders (or 1 megapixel digicams). These folks are not stupid, they just have totally different intentions.

[S8 Booster]

Hitachi has manufactured DVD CamCorders for years now.

R

[tod8]

I have been shooting film for several years and have never considered using anything else, hence my ignorance that these record-to-discs thingies have been around for 3 years or so. Although, on some occasions I wished I had some kind of 'cam' around the apartment to tape stuff on the fly which wouldn't be worth filming.
There are so many tape cameras out, plus you have to transfer them to VHS in order to show others, that I never thought about buying any. I was hoping that a straight-to-DVD thing would be great for recording quick and easy stuff and sending it straight out to friends, etc (more and more are getting DVD players now). What I would be recording wouldn't be worth all the time and effort to do any sort of transferring.

Tod

[matt5791]

Here we have, illustrated in theis topic, an example of why film is so enduring, even if it is expensive - there are so many different digital (and analogue) formats, and these are all different again depending where you are using them (pal, ntsc, secam)

This is why I think film endures, and will continue to do so even if digital image quality eventually becomes as good:

1. Film is always forward compatible. All you need to watch it is a light a lens and an electric motor.

2. Nothing comes close to matching quality in any area. Digital people are obsessed with resolution and there is a lot more to a picture than that.

3. It doesn't matter where you are in the world, if you have a 35mm film print you can always watch it. Ideal if you want to distribute a film.

4. Film prints (expecially modern ones) if stored properly, last forever.

5. Nothing matches the tangiblity of film. It is so real and unvirtual.

Just some thoughts,
Matt
Birmingham UK

[FilmIs4Ever]

Matt: You're wrong about number four. Film prints that are black and white or Kodachrome will last forever if properly stored, but this is not the case with any other color positive or negative stock. Even when stored at 50 degrees or below (its very difficult for your average Joe to get any lower than about 40 degrees without running the risk of exposing the film to too much humidity) there can be slight fading in all color stocks but Kodachrome in as little as 10 years! The instructor for my photography class was telling me about how "Spartacus", one of the first major MP's shot on Eastman Color Neg, was almost lost when they tried to restore the badly faded negatives. This film is less than fifty years old and they almost lost the negative to fading! Granted considerable improvements have been made to the longevity of the color dyes used in present day stocks, but they will still fade with time. I believe this problem with film was one of the earliest contributions to George Lucas completely abandoning it (not that any of his new Star Wars things are worth printing on 35mm anyway). In fact, to preserve films made today, big time studios often resort to having separation prints made onto three sets of black and white film because they know that color prints and negatives are not archival (this is kind of like the technique used in technicolor except copied from the master print instead of actually being shot with a beam splitter and the technicolor camera). I am just saying that even under the most ideal circumstances, color film other than K-14 will fade noticeably at the latest fifty years from time of development. In a closet or a basement or an old attic you'll be lucky if film holds true to color for a tenth of that time. This is why I stick to Kodachrome for all my serious color work.