Compare Digital 8 vs Hi8 vs DV
Вставка
- Опубліковано 21 бер 2021
- Digital 8 was a crippled format from the get go. look at the quality and how Hi8 and Mini DV kicked the crap out of the format.
Remember it was not the tape format, it was the camera section they crippled. - Наука та технологія
this video is so late 2000s youtube lol. I love it
MicroMV was DVD-quality with 12.5 Mbps bitstream, or half the 25 Mbps for Digital8/MiniDV/DVCAM/DVCPRO (DV25). That was a very interesting and nice video! I have old Super VHS, Betacam SP, Betacam SX, Digital Betacam SD equipment. Also I have HDCAM, and HDCAM SR video equipment and it's still a bit pricey at the moment compared to the SD counterparts.
I got rid of my pro hi8, and betacam gear years ago. I still have an HDRFX1 3CCD HDV camera and a JVC GYDV500
MicroMV was MPG2 IPB, same as HDV format, but HDV did it at 25mbits.
I just did some research on the sensors used in the first-gen D8 cameras (I have 2 DCR-TRV310) and they use a ICX089AK sensor. The crazy thing is this sensor is made for PAL cameras. Before cropping and scaling there are 724 x 582 (420k) usable pixels. If they gave you an option to use the entire sensor when you disable SteadyShot I presume it would look much better. There would still be lower color resolution but that's certainly fine for a consumer camera.
Even with steadyshot off it doesn't use the full count. Remember that is gross count right. With the color seperation filter the count is much lower. They use typically 2 green 1 yellow and 1 magenta to generate color. With a pixel count that low the color resolution is very low. I remember canon used to use 3x 250k chips on cameras like the gl1 and claim by offsetting the green by 1/2 pixel that the resolution would achieve 500 lines. Bullshit i had a gl1 and a vx1000. The vx1000 used 3x680k chips and it blew away the canon. Both these cameras used optical stabilization too so no understanding the chip for that.
In your opinion whats the best way to go about acquiring function Hi8 cameras? Ive been thrifting and using ebay. I have a decent collection but I was wondering if there was a route I wasn't taking.
Thank you for the informative video!
Superb video! - You added a lot of value to that short video putting the demos in perspective with your experience and running commentary. I wonder if there was ever a Digital 8 camera which had a good front end, that wasn't crippled? Like perhaps a early model before they instituted their miniDV protection campaign.. or so late that it didn't matter they produced one last batch with whatever they had on hand and used a high end CCD front end?
No all the digitally cameras sucked. The footage I showed here was from the DCR TRV 110 which was the first digital 8 camera Sony released. The hi8 cameras produced from the introduction of high eight right to when DV was released produced a superior picture. In other words models such as the CCD v5000 CCD TR 81 and CCD vx3 we're Superior in the consumer lineup. The evw300 that I showed in the second shot was considerably better as its intended market was news gathering for broadcast. Once mini DV cameras hit the market the pixel count on the analog cameras dropped substantially so that there was a noted increase in picture quality apparent on TV models to drive sales. I used to plug my evw300 camera section into my DCR TRV 110 to use the digital 8 tape transport which resulted in even a better picture. Typically VHS and standard 8 mm cameras had an image sensor of approximately 250k. Hi8 and svhs had sensors with around 480k pixels. Mini DV 680k gross. Remember though there is a buffer zone for digital image stabilization in there.
Active pixels hi8 430 and DV 630. Digital 8? 250k active!
There were some high-end Digital8 Handycams with a Megapixel image sensor, same as used in MiniDV Handycams at the time, but they were only on the market for two years (2001-2002). And the later Digital8 models with the standard CCD did improve the sharpness of the image quite a bit compared to the first-generation models. In fact I think they looked better than Sony's low-end MiniDV camcorders at the time, because the lens is larger. For example, the DCR-PC55 -- the smallest MiniDV camcorder ever made -- has really terrible video quality, even worse than the first-gen Digital8 models.
I never had any of those. I had pro gear here as that is what set my videos apart form the competition.
Sony basically gave Digital 8 the shaft even compared to their consumer MiniDV units. They kept the same 1/6in CCD they used in their Hi-8 camcorders in most of the Digital 8 models. The MEGAPIXEL models came with a 1/4in sensor that was shared with a few of their consumer MiniDV camcorders.
@@12voltvids So you aren't a professional or competing with professionals then, if using pro gear made you unique? ;)
@@bangerbangerbro
I was a professional producer. For that matter i still am. I did high end weddings, corporate videos, commercials, music videos and news gathering. Over the years I used various formats. 3/4", betacam, hi8, DV and HDV. Even though height and DV were never considered broadcast formats, there were many shows and productions that were shot on that very equipment and the manufacturers knew this and made high-end cameras in these formats. My comments about digital 8 were that Sony did not want digital 8 being used for pro productions and limited the quality on the camera that it could produce by putting a low pixel count sensor. They could have put a great three CCD camera on a digital 8 deck and it would have looked fantastic because digital 8 had the same quality as DV, in fact they could have made an 8 mm digital camera that had even more bandwidth then DV because of the larger tape. They didn't. It was a consumer format, and there was much more money to be made in the proformats of the day like betacam which was the industry standard for production.
@@12voltvids What I meant was wouldn't pretty much every other professional also be using pro gear?
Im curious if those same cameras were bought in Japan instead of USA would there be a difference...Now days it been shown that tools made for Japan market vs Us market are of superior quality.
Same models sold in both regions afaik for the most part. Euro machines are higher res though.
In the tapes, was that some of the flower and park footage shot at Butchart Gardens and Queen Elizabeth Park by chance in BC Canada? I am from the USA but I have been to those places when Canada used to be open to tourists before the pandemic.
It was QE park
Unfortunately, my kids first 4 or 5 years were captured using a Sony Digital8 camera. I'm in the process of RE-capturing about a dozen or so video tapes and converting to hard-disk for editing. My question is this: Can anything be done to improve this footage? I'm a video novice, but hope to find a workflow to allow me to clean up these old videos and make them a bit more palatable. I've downloaded Davini Resolve--hoping I can use this as part of a workflow. Any suggestions appreciated!
Get it to a computer in its unmutilated format via Firewire. Then you can play with it: deinterlace, upscale, denoise, correct color, etc.
so crazy the differences between the Digital 8, Hi8, and DV. very overwhelmed with the amount of information as the whole format is so foreign to me. im 19 and was never able to use any camera that shot tape.
i find researching older technology very interesting, especially because im a fulltime photographer/videographer now. glad i found your channel. i think itd be fun to take a step backwards and pick up a camcorder. currently looking at the sony handycams, not sure if theyre good. is there any camera you'd suggest thats reliable and not bad resolution? dont need anything top of the line, just would prefer it not to be too pixelated when i digitize if possible. also would like it to be somewhat smaller and portable. so many options on ebay
appreciate your expertise.
Well, if you can, try find a PAL camera, rather NTSC, they are much better, nicer colour rendering and higher resolution. Digital 8 are good if you get a megapixel one, or one with a 1/4 or 1/4.7 inch CCD instead of 1/6 inch one. The DCR-TRV740E is a good model or 730/830 too.
The best thing with Digital 8 is that the tapes are metal particle, which means they are very strong and will not wear out or develop drop outs and pixelation, where as miniDV is notorious for it because they use a metal evaporative tape instead of metal particle tape.
The difference: think of ME tapes like a plastic tape with metal "dust" on it; is metal evaporative and a fully metal tape is a metal particle one, MP. These two types of tapes DO NOT affect video quality in *digital* formats, however they do in analogue formats. So if you film on 8mm/Hi8, use ME tape, but with Digital 8, use a MP hi8 cassette instead of ME ones; note that ALL actual Digital 8 tapes are inherently MP.
That said MP last much longer, for play back and recording, in a nut shell, if the camera is Digital 8, only ever use MP, as there is no benefit to use ME, and ME are also much more expensive than MP, but if you use analogue, I would shoot on a new ME, then use a Digital 8 to play it back and archive a digital copy of onto a MP digital 8 cassette of archiving. (This way, you will get the crisp, new analogue "ME quality" of the 8mm/Hi8 recorded video and then have the digital 8 capture that onto a MP tape in the digital 8 format, for long term use/archive; so you will get the best of both worlds (tape types and formats) ;)
This is all entirely theoretical man, depending on what you want to do and how far down the "video tape era" rabbit hole you want to go with your hobbies or work.
This was a big debate then, let alone now lol
MiniDV cassettes are crap, but did have good 3CCD on some models, but even the tapes used different incompatible lubricants between different brands which caused clogged or damaged heads, wind up/chewed tapes etc, Digital 8 NEVER had that problem.
That said, don't expect crazy resolutions from these cameras, even when you find one, like it for what it was then, and just consider that that was the best video quality we had back then, when you were still bogging a pile of logs in your nappy mate haha; just like retro stuff, it's fun getting modern videos on old lower quality formats. The other day I suddenly pulled out my whopping 2 megapixel digital camera to take some photos, the novelty of that, and reminiscing can't be beaten. 👌🏻
If you record footage from a digital8 camera onto HI8 tape can you then play the footage back on a HI8 only camera?
No. Digital 8 cameras record a DV transport stream onto an 8mm tape. They will record on either 8mm or hi8 tapes. Same quality. I used to use regular 8mm tape.
It is a digital recording. Exactly the same as mini DV and dv-cam. They all use the same format. Hi8 on the other hand is an analog format. Many digital 8 cameras will play analog tapes however there were a few that did not play analog tapes at all.
thank you for this video
You taught me something today I did not know. Thanks!
Pretty Awesome
Yes, I was very disappointed in my D8 DCR-TRV270 in 2005 when I first saw its picture on my computer monitor. It was fine on an SD CRT TV, but very pixelated on any higher resolution displays. A second hand, higher grade Hi8 camcorder for the price of my new D8 probably could have been a better buy. A few Hi8 models were still available when I bought my D8 in 2005, but those late models had even lower pixel count CCDs in them compared to my D8.
Yes I know. They didn't want to undermine the DV and now HDV market.
Another thing they did with their consumer DV camera vs the professional camera was locked vs unlocked audio.
My JVC professional DV for example has locked audio 48KHz 16 bit audio locked to the video clock. The DCR VX1000 for example used 32KHz 12 bit sampled audio and the audio clock was not locked to the video clock. Playing the tape everything was fine, but dump the tape into NLE and the bloody audio would start to drift. For short clips not a problem, but long for audio and after 10 minutes your audio was close to a second out of sync and there was no real way to stop it from drifting. This was intentional so consumer cameras would not be used by broadcast operations. It still was, the producers just ran a seperate audio recorder and synced up in post.
I recorded my sound on the GYDV500 and just used the vx1000 as my second camera and synced the picture to my reference. Oh the fun and games. I am going through old tapes looking for buried treasures and have found a few I might share. Just found an old news footage tape I shot of a condo fire that was aired on the local news.
Shot at QW park eh?
I receive Hi8 and Video 8 cassettes and i can not transfer video on PC on usual Hi8 player, because on sony trv-270 been recorded on all this cassettes in format Digital 8. Camera is fault, problem with press roller.
Were you talking about CHEK-6 in Victoria BC?
Yes, that's were my evw300 came from.
Hey there, nice video.
I’m getting into camcorders and noticed my digital8 DCR-TRV265E looked pixelated as well.
Do you think if I bought a CCD-TRV138 it would look better?
All the digital 8 were pixelated. Sony used low resolution chips on the digital 8 camcorders intentionally. The tape transport records exactly the same resolution as the DV format. It has to record the same because it's the same data structure. It doesn't matter whether you record it on a 6 ml 8 mm or half inch tape the data structure is identical therefore the picture quality will be identical. The only way you can limit the picture quality is limit the input going into it. To do this they use a shitty front end. Even the so called megapixel sensor was only a megapixel sensor when you were taking still pictures and saving them to the memory stick. I have a DCR TRV 720 with the megapixel image sensor and it only uses all of the pixels when you snap stills which still look like crap. when you're using it in video mode it's like 250k. Again done intentionally because Sony did not want to undermine sales of their more expensive mini DV cameras. The same with the mini DV format it's resolution was limited because they didn't want to undermine the sales of their betacam SX series and digital betacam series camcorders. I just picked up a betacam SX just to play with and take apart on my channel. The resolution off of it is amazing for standard definition it encodes as an MPEG2 data stream at a color space of 4:2:2. Consumer DV and digital 8 used 4.1.1 color space and a five to one fixed Mjpeg compression algorithm. When HDV came out they switched to MPG 2 but used a color space 4:2:0 again so it's not to look too good and not compete with their HD betacam which used a full color space of 4:4:4
That was Sony for you, protecting their professional line of cameras which sold for 30 to 100,000 per camera. They didn't want TV producers running around with little $3,000 cameras looking as good as the $30,000 variety so they intentionally crippled them so that they wouldn't look as good. On the consumer front digitally was exactly the same they didn't want the cheap digitally cameras looking as good as the more expensive mini DV so they crippled them. If you plug a professional camera using the S-Video out into one of those digitally decks you will see how good it really can look as I did that. I plugged my broadcast camera into a DCR TRV 110 and use the digital tape as the transport and it looked fantastic
@@12voltvids So the hi8 models look better? specifically the CCD-TRV138
@@curtisnicotra hi8 can look better if you have a great camera on it such as the ccdvx3
i find that the footage from my DCR TRV110E looks fantastic, (400K effective pixel count the manual claims) im no professional but i think it does look better than my Video8 XR handycams and Hi8 handycam.
I’ve a vx1000 which has audio drop outs. I’ve cleaned the heads and as much of the tape transport as I can, it’s always the same drop out…. Any suggestions?? Thanks guys
If the picture is fine then it's not the heads.
Don't have a clue what would be the cause. Back when those were serviced it was either a board swap or full transport swap.
Dirty tape? It could help a lot to clean but I with video I never tried. I saw in YT there is clip showing.
The DV footage is stunning.
I would hope so, it was a 7500.00 camera that shot it.
It was great back then
As you said in the description, there is nothing wrong with the digital8 format, just the camcorders, so why bother saying that it is an inferior format in the first place?
The digital 8 format was great. The tape itself would record 500 lines of resolution, exactly the same as mini DV and dvcam which was Sony's professional DV format by the way. The difference between consumer DV and dvcam was the tape speed and the track pitch. Dvcam used a wider track pitch and therefore was less prone to drop oats. But other than that the video was recorded in exactly the same format. Dvcam, DV and digital 8 use the exact same codec. The difference was the camera itself. The digital 8 camera was a very low resolution sensor. Hi8 cameras had a better sensor. This was done by marketing so that pros looking for better picture would not buy digital 8 cameras. As I was migrating to digital I was shooting using my evw300 high camera front end and plugging it into a DCR TRV 110. I was using my $12,000 camera and using my little digital 8 as an outboard recorder. That way I was getting all the detail from that great three CCD hyper had front end and getting those details onto a digital tape. It blew away my second camera which was a DCR vx1000, also a three chip camera but the big camera had a better front end and a much better lens and it showed.
@@12voltvids Interesting info - dig8 camcorders have good analogue video capture even cheap then? But it doesn't answer the question I asked, why bother saying it was a crippled format when it has nothing to do with the format?
@@bangerbangerbro not too many people would have bought digital eight just to haul it around as an external recorder to get the quality they needed. It was a crippled format because Sony chose to put a low resolution sensor that barely captured 200 lines of resolution on the front end. They could have used the same sensor that they used on their DV cameras and they would have looked identical however this would have hurt the sale of their DV cameras. Think for one minute, if digital 8, from the camera looked as good as a DV camera why would someone by into DV? After all the digital 8 cameras could play back analog tapes. That was the whole point, move to digital but still play your old analog tapes. DV on the other hand was marketed as a better quality format, higher resolution better color everything. Now had they put that same high resolution sensor or a three chip front end on a digital 8 transport, there would be no reason for someone to buy a new DV camcorder. Sony did not want to hurt their DV sales are there professional sales, so they intentionally put a shitty sensor, one that was barely good enough for a standard 8mm or VHS camera on their high resolution transport. If that's not crippling the camera then I don't know what your definition of crippling is.
@@bangerbangerbro it wasn't just digital 8. DV was also limited in its implementation. DVC pro for example uses 4:2:2 color space but the consumer version used 4:1:1 in NTSC markets and 4:2:0 in pal markets to make it inferrior to the format that was being sold to broadcast markets. The reason, so broadcasters wouldn't use a 3,000 camera over a 30,000 camera. It's all about money and protecting your higher end market.
@@12voltvids Ok. Why does it matter what format they are selling so long as they are selling their cameras?
Oh you mean it is not actually crippled, but crippled in the marketplace?
To reiterate what you've said, Digital8 and DV is the same format. It uses 4:1:1 color subsampling in NTSC. The original video was interlaced, you converted it to 30p. Red suffers first, and red sampling errors are the most visible, from Umatic, which was notorious for its bad rendition of red, to HD. I have a 1080 HD camcorder, and at times it breaks apart on shots of red color. So, this red flower pistil looks totally par for the course, be it Digital8 or DV or HD. If you look at the red flower at 5:15 shot with the VX, you can see red streaks on the petals, they are caused by 4:1:1 subsampling and by you converting it from 30i to 30p. You should have converted this video to 60p using high-quality deinterlacer before uploading to UA-cam.
The VX3 is nice. Do you know why Sony agreed to switch the VX3 mechanism from 8-mm to MiniDV instead of simply switching the codec from analog to DV? After all, Sony did release Digial8 five years after the debut of DV, so there were no technical impediments for doing that. Also, why DV needed new cassettes? Why DV could not use the same 8-mm cassette, which is the same size as DVCPRO cassette, and they could make a smaller one like MiniDV and a larger one like full-size DVCAM? Why creating a completely new cassette with narrower tape? Seems like a waste to me.
First of all you're completely wrong on converting to 30p. The video was captured at 60i and it was rendered out at 60i. Any conversions to 30p would have been done at the UA-cam level as I did not deinterlace or convert anything on this end for the analog recordings. UA-cam is bad for that. the red color suffers the most on all analog recordings be it VHS beta 3/4-in and 8 mm-high 8 because the red color on color under recorders is recorded at the lowest frequency and it's much more subject to noise actually the blue is just a subject to the same noise however the eye is more sensitive to the noise in the red. If you measure the chroma from any other color under analog system you will find that the signal to noise ratio is the same for both the red and the blue but the human eye is more sensitive to red color than blue therefore you see the noise in the red color. Dvpro and 8 mm do not use the same size cassette. All DV tape regardless whether it's mini DVD DV cam and DVC pro use the same width of tape which is 6 mm or 1/4 in. They all use a metal evaporated tape as well. The reason that digitally even existed was because Sony wanted to give their existing 8mm customers a way to move to digital without abandoning the existing tapes they had. It was a brilliant marketing scheme. They didn't already have a camcorder or a collection of tapes the salespeople would be pushing mini DV on those customers and pushing it for the size of the camcorder and the compatibility across all manufacturers platforms there was no VHS versus 8 mm all the manufacturers were on board with mini DV.
Some five years later so smart engineers at Sony thought hey wait a minute what if we double the speed of the tape and increase the drum speed substantially so that we can write a DV type signal to an 8mm tape. That way they can make a machine that could play back existing analog recordings and allow the purchaser to make new recordings in the new digital format without losing access to the tapes that they had already recorded on the previous generation of camcorder. That was the idea behind digital 8. It was not to replace DV it was to replace 8 mm and high eight as the camcorders existing we're starting to break down and people were looking to replace them. People wanted to go to digital because of all the advantages of recording in digital such as easy transfer to computer over firewire but they also had existing tapes that they had made with their previous camcorder that is now broken. That was the market for the digital 8 camera. Now Sony initially could have just released digitally and not bothered with DV however the manufacturers that were not currently supporting 8 mm would have never been on board to build a digital 8 camcorder. JVC and Panasonic would have just gone and produced another format and there would be another format war. So by co-developing DV with Sony Panasonic JVC Canon Hitachi everyone got together on the same page and produced a format that was compatible with each other. The VHS camp didn't need to worry about their tapes not being playable because they were compatible with VHS so people using vhsc cameras with just as easily go to mini DV and not have to worry about playing their old tapes but the 8mm camp that was a real concern and that's why digital 8 was initially released with 8 mm analog playback capabilities and then they released at the end a cheaper digital 8 which had no analog playback capabilities. It was sold cheaper $100 or so cheaper then the camera that had analog playback capability and those were marketed to people that did not have analog tapes to play but didn't want to spend the extra money to go to mini DV. The color subsampling on mini DV was chosen at 4.1.1 not because they had to but because Sony did not want to undermine their professional betacam SX market which was using the broadcast standard 422 and of course the digital betacam which used 444 color sampling. There's no reason that mini DV could not have had 422 other than the fact that they wanted to protect the professional market. Even dvcam which was a format that saw you in broadcast still used 411 color sub sampling again because that was marketed to small market stations like they marketed the professional High eight. They wanted the larger markets to go to the full 422 or 444 systems which cost substantially more money. I'm going to do a video in the coming days or I will capture video using multiple different devices. I will capture using composite, S-Video, component, firewire, and HDMI using converters. It will all be uprest to 1080 p 60. I'm going to compare a Sony gvc7000 as a digitized source. A Hauppague HD capture box, a digital 8 camera digitizing, and the cloner alliance hd stand alone box, I will use that for both analog component and HDMI captures. It does not have an S-Video in however I'm going to take S-Video out from an svhs and high eight player and run it into a comb filter and be modulator to turn this video into component which will then allow me to capture it using the component input. It will be interesting to see which analog and digital tapes look better and which equipment digitizes better. The hauppague will be used to turn out both 480i and 1080i captures. The cloner alliance turns out everything as 1080p so all the other footage will be scaled to 1080p in my editing software and the resulting output will be a high resolution high bandwidth 1080p stream that will be uploaded. I just have to find some tapes that are suitable that I can show I have lots I just have to go through and find stuff that I can actually show.
It's a very interesting video, as it seems the actual available technology still shows the same bottlenecks: you can have high quality digital encoding and recording system now, but it's always in the lens part and digitizer you can mostly find technological and price gaps. Even if you can now find 2k camcorders for less than 100$, the quality is nothing compared to real high end quality material. Lens quality, and "analog zoom" is first, then comes details that matters, like captor sensitivity, processing speed, image stabilization and many other things including the audio part. And these low cost camcorders are rapidly showing their limits in the same manners: shitty and grainy image, inconstant white balance, bad gamma... Surprisingly, when you have 8k cameras hitting the market, they are not necessarily neither the first target for professional use...
The problem is not Digital 8, the problem is NTSC, my PAL Digital 8s are far better than that
Is exactly like what 12voltvids said in another comment saying that these cams are 4:1:1 color space, this is for NTSC while PAL uses a 4:2:0 format wich is obviously better.
Compared to a smartphone camera in 2021....the phone cameras are better ?
Where is the fun there. No tapes to get eaten, or heads to clog up.
@@12voltvids How did the Canon DV camcorders fair against the Sony? I am thinking GL1/GL2 and the Xl1/XL2 models. The weakness seems to be the cassette mechanism. I still use a XM2 (GL2) to film on. It would almost be perfect except for having some lens fungus which shows up in bright conditions. The camcorder seems ideal for indoors and low light.
@@AvidRetro I used to have a GL2. Dumped it and went back to Sony. Canon had a hard on of using low resolution chips on their 3ccd and offsetting the green 1/2 pixel to increase resolution. Sony used 3 full resolution CCDs amd still offset the green by 1/2 pixel to give an even sharper picture. If you want a great DV camcorder find a Sony HDR FX1. That will shoot in DV and in HDV High definition. Its a 3CCD and is as good as any DV camera (and HDV for that matter) ever got. I have one and it really looks great. Pretty big tough.
@@12voltvids I see that the Sony 3 CCD camcorders were the one to have. The HDV lineup of Sony camcorders quickly switched over to 3 CMOS where I guess the early CCD ones still outperformed them.
@@AvidRetro
I wouldn't say that. CMOS are far more sensitive and the processor is on chip. Ccd requires much more control and processing. Ccd are global shutter whereas CMOS usually are rolling shutter but are available as global shutter as well. Early CMOS were inferior but not anymore.
Megapixel digital 8's, PAL put out 540 lines of horizontal resolution
Soo... Ur saying that buying a hi8 in 2003 was a better choice than digital 8 at the time?
By 2003 most hi8 cameras had a relatively soft ccd. An earlier hi8, like the ccdv5000 or ccdvx3 3ccd camera would blow the doors off any of the digital 8 camera section. The digital 8 tape section was better though as the data format is the same as DV and dvcam. The best hi8 camera ever made was the evw300. Pair that with a digital8 external recorder and you have a fantastic set up. I use that set up for a few years.
The decline of all the 8mm cameras started the same year that miniDv hit the market. Minidv needed to look much better than. Any of the other formats so people would see the advantage in spending much more to get it. So they literally crippled the other cameras by putting in a low grade sensor. That's how business works. You might not like it but that's how it works.
@@12voltvids ah, good info. i was just curious, ive got a Sony CCDTRV318 Hi8 im gettin ready to tear down and clean up, its my old camera from 2003 i believe.
J avais un caméscope digital 8 belle qualité d image mis en DVD blu ray clés USB disque dur. L image est exactement identique à l original. Le hi8 aussi vive le numérique. Merci de la video
IMHO Digital8 is probably Sony's Wednesday child. Its purpose is only to squeeze out the last bit of money from video8 format before being totally abandoned at the end. So only moderate amount of effort being poured in to make it "just work" and get some sales.
No, incorrect. Digital 8 was introduced as a way to wean prople off analog and into digital. They brought out digital 8 as a way for existing 8mm and hi8 users to make the move to digital while still being able to play their existing tapes, and had they not crippled the chip it would have been even more successful than it was. At the same time they did not want to make it too good, because they didn't want to harm their mini dv and professional market.
@@12voltvids So that's quite the purpose - filling the (small) market gap between video8/hi8 and miniDV until it dried out in mid 2000's.
As far as I remember the 2nd-3rd gen of D8 handycam was quite capable - megapixel sensor, still image, tons of (crappy🤣) digital effect, av>dv function, analog tape playback, and even 50i&60i D8 playback! Almost as capable as midrange miniDV counterparts.
But the very last D8 was another story. No still image, no av>dv, nothing - it couldn't even play analog tape.🙄 So it defeats its intended purpose in the first place and of no use today - at all.
@@Nantawat_Kittiwarakul Except that if someone had a digital 8 and made all their recordings in digital as that is all it could record. Then a digital8 only player is all that is needed to play those tapes, but other than that useless.
But miniDV is a nightmare for transferring to digital, always so many dropouts, even in SP mode. Never had any problems with 8mm and I transferred hundreds of them.
I guess you didn't have the bad sony 8mm tapes that clog the heads every 5 minutes.
@@12voltvids Maybe it helps that Im using sony 8mm camcorder. Or I just didnt have those bad tapes yet.
Another issue is that miniDV camcorders are so small its impossible to repair unless you are watchmaker. I guess thats why there are no videos on YT for miniDV camcorders repair.
@@jarecki83 I used to fix mini dv. All electrical problems were full board replacement.
MiniDV are far worse for drop outs and blocked heads, they are smaller and are all metal evaporative, that doesn't help either, where as most 8mm/Hi8 and all digital 8 tapes are metal particle.
why is the video only 480p... I understand the low-end cameras can not go higher, but the better cameras - you killed their quality with this video. No? So not so good for comparison.
To get around the UA-cam compression, I usually export in 4K
I still use my HDV camcorder as my main camcorder.
I shot a video on HDV not that long ago and had so bloody many dropouts. Could never go back to shooting on tape except as a novality. File based is all I will shoot with now.
I thought this was made in like 2006 until you said "vintage".
Late 90s thru 2000
Digital 8 still better than my phone camera
You must have a shitty phone.
Digital 8 is much better than a phone camera, as these let in more light, granted that they are orders of magnitude lower resolution, but a phone has such high resolution to the point it's useless with a pin prick for the lens and the distort the hell out of the image, especially people's faces.
@@aaronfitzgerald9109 digital 8 in theory could produce the same picture as mini dv.
I say in theory because the data format is identical but all the digital8 cameras has terrible sensors that would have been just fine for VHS but not anything more. Your phone camera is a much better camera. Don't let the lens size fool you. The sensor is much smaller and this does not require a big lens. When you compare the sensor size on a camera to the sensor size on digital 8 cameras of the day there is not much difference. Digital 8 and for that matter all cameras of that vjbtage used a ccd which was bloody huge compared to the back illuminated cmos that modern cameras and phones use. If your phone isn't producing a far better picture than any of those old tape based shit cameras then you need a new phone as anything made in the past 5 years will run circles around any tape based cameras.
Good 🤍📽🐰
my camcorder sony ccd vx1 may be hi8 lower quality video but has better image sensor and much nicer colors than these mini dv digital camcorders
Of course the vx1 or vx3 has nicer colors. 3CCD. My HDRFX1 3HHD HD camera has a fantastic picture. Perhaps this year when the weather is nice and the flowers are out I will drag out my FX1 and my AX100 4K camera. Put it in HD mode and shoot a comparison video. Then for fun kick the FX100 into4K mode and watch it destroy the HDV camera. Or will it?
@@12voltvids Go out and try the camcorder if the weather is nice, Sony camcorders are all so special and great, especially the AX100 4K model the only downside to these digital cameras is the compressed audio in 320 quality mp3 format and maybe lower 256, while the preferred audio format is flac, wav high quality audio, and also their sound from the microphones is very loud with a lot of trembling that scratches your ears, compared to analog video 8, Hi8 have different microphones old camcorders the sound is warmer soft and soft to the ear also the sound of the videotape is uncompressed can reach the quality of a digital CD 16 bit
@@amatorev 8mm and hi8 used companded AFM audio. VHS used linear am radio quality sound. 8MM could use 8 bit 32Khz sample PCM.
The HD and 4K cameras do not use mp3 audio. The use AAC for audio and AVC for video (AVCHD) The newer cameras can also use HEVC for the codec. All are much better than old MPG1 which MP3 is based on. The microphone is of high quality. If you leave the audio set to auto it can be loud, but they all have manual level where you can ride the level manually. I typically don't/ I leave it set to auto because I can't be bothered monitoring audio while I am working.
Sorry but Sony should give a refund for this BS ! i paid a lot of money for the camera !
That's what it was. Better cameras cost more.