when comparing analog to digital you gotta take in to consideration how good the analog is when comparing it to digital. impressive for the time. Thank goodness we had it otherwise some of us wouldn't have had our childhoods captured in real time by our parents.
Another fine video, thanks for making it. I still shoot on multiple formats, they all have something unique to offer, and many of the analog tape cameras are just fun to use. I don’t really mind the less sharp picture, it is really the story and characters that people want to see, not the 4K.
The DV image is noticeably better than SVHS as it is cleaner and retains better details and color. The SVHS image by comparison is extremely oversharpened. Still, I think the bigger difference is that DV can be natively imported to a computer!
I agree. VHS and SVHS have about 4 times lower color resolution than DV. 8-mm is slightly better in this regard, but still far worse than DV. Importing DV was simple 15-20 years ago, when Firewire was supported by Intel, Microsoft and Apple. Sadly, modern computers don't have Firewire ports, and an expansion card cannot be added to a laptop, so capturing via analog output is sometimes a more convenient solution. See this document, which shows that capturing DV via SVideo is not that bad: web.archive.org/web/20000815075702/www.dv.com/magazine/1999/0599/formats0599.pdf
@@ConsumerDV I think you can use a couple adapters to go from Firewire 400 to Thunderbolt 3; tho the last time I looked into it, they were pretty expensive. Glad I still got an old iMac with Firewire 800 on a shelf!
The handicap of any analog tape format is the tape itself, Once the CCD image is processed and passed through the TBC's ADC it is converted back to analog via a DAC and recorded on the tape loosing almost 50% of its original quality. For DV or any digital tape camcorder the signal coming out the ADC after being processed by the CCD it is recorded as is on tape with no further degradation because it is 0's and 1's, hence the stable image of the DV camcorder, If you do this again using live feed from both camcorders bypassing tapes and digitize it as such from S-Video you wouldn't notice a big dfference between the two.
I like both but differently. I'm impressed with the DV footage; the colors are nice and flat, motion blur is minimal but forgiving. The VHS, I like the imperfections, the colors are more washed but it gives a more 80's/90's vibe about it. So it does bring back the nostalgic vibe about it. The DV is really good but I guess it got replaced and ignored by the market quickly.
Neither of the compared camcorders is high end, but I think this comparison shows that even a small DV palmcorder with a 1/6-inch sensor shoots better video than an SVHS camcorder with a 1/4-inch chip. DV was very popular in the late 1990s and through 2000s. XDCAM camcorders could record DV into a file. DV was a game-changer - relatively cheap but much closer in quality to professional formats. DV is still officially supported by Apple unlike, say, DNxHD or Cineform.
@@ConsumerDV My Panasonic NV-VS4EG Super VHS-C model with a 1/5" sensor looks better than that JVC camera. The only downside is that my camera is mono sound too but it got very cool manual focus, white balance and more controls and digital effects but i keep all filters including their super image stabilization disabled to get all resolution from the CCD sensor i can get and the camera keeps very steady even with it's image stabilization disabled. I do the capture process with my digital 8 camera that have analog playback and in/out analog ports with their A/D conversion. I'm not sure about the whole situation about the analog to digital to analog conversion by using the built in TBC from those cameras, i didn't notice any issue in my panasonic camera or drop in quality bu using it's built in TBC.
I think there were too many variables to make a comparison. My own camcorder observations: Back when I was using Hi-8, editing the footage was really difficult. After spending £100s on capture cards and editing software that either didn't work properly or was too difficult for me to use, I ended up just plugging the SVHS output into my DVD Recorder. When Mini-DV goes wrong is does so big time. Neither of my first two MiniDV camcorders (both JVC) will load a tape any longer so I had to buy another just to be able to play back my MiniDV tapes. With support for full HD, my ten year old Canon camera, which isn't much bigger than a couple of MiniDV cassettes is a better camcorder than any of my first three camcorders.
Thanks, I appreciate the comment! I agree, there are too many variables. Considering the same target market and similar design principles of these two camcorders, I figured that I can use them to compare if not the absolute quality but the difference in quality between the two formats. I also wanted to show how a properly deinterlaced video should look like: both of these machines shoot interlaced video only. If someone has old family recordings, it is time to digitize them before it is too late, and off-the-shelf solutions usually do not cut the mustard. None of my HDV and DV camcorders has failed (yet, fingers crossed). I bought the Canon in 2006. Did not use it much, recorded maybe two dozen tapes with it. One of the VHS camcorders clearly has something going wrong with the mechanism, it would chew tape when winding forward, it would sometimes throw an error when winding back, but so far is able to play and record. HD is better, no contest, both in terms of quality and because there are no moving parts. Solid-state, recording onto removable memory cards. Built-in memory stopped working on one of my digital cameras, you can rewrite flash memory only so many times. Another one just died after I used it to shoot on a beach - salt or sand? Or non-OEM battery? Also, modern HD cameras use CMOS sensor, so sometimes you can see rolling shutter artifacts, although they have become much better lately. DV and most VHS camcorders use CCDs, so they have global shutter. This is probably their only advantage ;-)
Quite possibly. After all, this is a low-end camcorder, which is why I renamed the video from "SVHS vs DV" to "VHS vs DV". I am planning to make another comparo with a better SVHS camcorder. Thanks for commenting!
Mind you, this is from a cheap $300 camcorder with a single 1/6-inch sensor (a good DV camcorder was $1-1.5K back then). This just shows how bad VHS was. DV was a game-changer. Thanks for watching and commenting, really appreciate it!
@@ConsumerDV Yeah especially the 1/6" Digital 8 cameras from 2004 such as the TRV260, 460, 480 where very good and they look great in low light. They even seems to perform similar or even a bit better than some Digital 8 models with a 1/4" sensor. I had a TRV140E D8 with the 1/4" and I can say it was a bit "worse" than my TRV255E with a 1/6" sensor. My TRV140E had TOO MUCH grain and noise in low light making the video unwatchable. In my channel I have a video from the TRV140E but because in the last part of the video there was a lot of light it didn't produce too much noise. I don't know if I configured the exposure settings to prevent this or I leave it automatic.
8-mm video has better color resolution than VHS. Of all color-under formats Hi8 is the best save for ED Beta, which was expensive and rare. In the early 1990s pro reporters used Hi8 camcorders. Digital8 is the same as DV.
Благодарю за видео! Было очень полезно. Знаете, я не пожалел, что остановид свой выбор на vhs. Mini DV конечно картинка более четкая, ближе к цифровой. Но у vhs есть та неповторимая желтизна и зернистость, как в детстве)) а сейчас, в этом и смысл. Что бы окунуться в те времена, во времена детства.
When you mentioned that Mini DV is close to digital quality, that's because it literally is digital video stored on a magnetic tape. Definitely much better quality than previous portable standards, including Hi8 and VHS-C!
The difference between 1080p and 576p is actually larger (5x the pixels) than between 4K and 1080p (4x). But 4K has 20x the pixels of 576p which is insane if you think about it!
Standard is still 1080p in 2024. Most people use 1080. Very few use 4k. Dont even get me started on the embarrassment of 2k, nobody uses that in video and never really has
Really good job producing this ideo. Obviously it took you quite some time. The DV image is more pleasing to my eye, while the S-VHS image is more contrasty and it's colors seem less real. You did not want to compare cameras, but that is exactly what you did. I kept wandering what the Canon DV images would really look like in S-VHS. Different cameras have different chip sizes, different lenses, and different views. I am trying to decide whether or not to buy a (used) firewire box or just work with S-VHS data from my DV camcorders. This video would indicate I'd be much happier with the DV image. The side-by-side comparisons are fun for me because you unintentionally recorded stereo pairs and I am a 3D hobbyist. With a little manipulation (resizing) I can create stereo pairs from these clips. Have a good day!
It's nicely done, but I think you are comparing a low-end DV camera with limited controls, which skews the test a little. I did a similar comparison with an SVHS and DV camera mounted to the same monopod. The results were closer than I expected, but DV was much better in low light. In bright light, SVHS may have been a touch sharper, but I would prefer DV over SVHS every day of the week and twice on Sunday. Help me understand deinterlacing. I see a lot of talk about it, but I just drop it into my editor and render at 60p, and presto it's deinterlaced. Why is it an extra step?
Yes, I am comparing to a low-end DV camcorder, but the SVHS camcorder is even worse as it have turned out, so the DV camcorder still wins. I am planning another test with a better SVHS camcorder that you can see here: ua-cam.com/video/7roJnArg1k8/v-deo.html I don't think I will be getting a 3-chip SVHS camcorder. Regarding deinterlacing, you may want to take a look at this guide ua-cam.com/video/XzY1Vo1occc/v-deo.htmlsi=sPyIwaX8R1dmaz5g just skip to 4-minute mark (the video was longer, I have cut some fat, so it may feel to start abruptly). Depending on your NLE, indeed, rendering to 60p (59.94p to be exact) may be all you need, and your NLE will correctly deinterlace for you. I use Sony Vegas, if I drop 29.97i onto timeline and select "Deinterlace: interpolate" from the project setting, then render into 59.94p, it will deinterlace correctly. In fact, this is what I usually do for HD when there is enough resolution to not care about the best quality. For lower resolution content you may want to use better deinterlacers to eek out the last bit of the resolution. QTGMC is considered the best of the free deinterlacers, it is basically a huge Avisynth script that uses other deitnerlacers, noise reducers and sharpeners. But I usually use MSU Deinterlacer filter for VirtualDub2, it is just simpler for me. MSU Deinterlacer is slightly better than Yadif in my opinion, but an order of magnitude slower.
I checked out your channel, nice stuff, I subscribed! I noticed that the HDC-HS300 video is marked as 1080/60i, while the TRV 480 video is marked as 480/30i. I presume you know that 30i and 60i is the same thing, just different notation: whether you want to talk about frame rate of interlaced video (30i), or field rate of interlaced video (60i). The videos are just four days apart, maybe you want to stick to one or another type of notation :) Usually, it is either number of lines, followed by slash, followed by field rate, like 1080/60i. Or, it is the number of lines, followed by scanning type, followed by frame rate, like 1080i30, which is the same. When you deinterlace preserving image rate, you get 60p. If you deinterlace by either combining fields of a frame, or by throwing every other field away, then you get 30p, this way you lose both temporal and spatial resolution. This was popular 10 years ago, but UA-cam supports 50p and 60p since 2014, yay! If you upload interlaced video to UA-cam, it will weave fields, so you'll see combing when there is motion. Hence, you need to deinterlace beforehand to avoid combing and ghosting.
@@ConsumerDV Thanks for the tip. I was probably running on little sleep when I said 30i. I should have said 480/60i. I never upload the raw footage by the way. Everything is rendered in 2160/60p
Awesome comparison, when you captured from the MiniDv Canon, I'd assume you imported via Firewire for this test. The VHS-C was very close in comparison for quality.
Yes, MiniDV was imported via FireWire. The original title was "SVHS vs DV", but after I made this video I found out that this camcorder has a rather low-res sensor, so not really "Super". The GR-SZ7 is much better, 570K pixels vs 220K: ua-cam.com/video/7roJnArg1k8/v-deo.html I am going to use it for another comparison.
Hello , Nice channel ! What software did you use for a good Dv treatment ? The dv footage looks smooth and i want the same quality for my Dv captured by firewire. Thanks a lot
5:37 be it inserted or dropped, these frames don't exist as new information. it's just that in "inserted" case the prev. frame was repeated to keep audio video sync. but if you load that video to vdub, and find "next dropped frame" in edit menu, you'll find them. and see they indeed are as good as dropped. i believe earler iterations of vdub didn't even differentiate (ie you just had dropped category), as there's no big need to do so.... you have 10 frames which are blank, ie system is not capturing noise that well. because noise carries no sync pulses so system sees nothing...
I haven't noticed when these frames were inserted. Were they accumulated gradually, or inserted all at once. With some video grabbers I get a dozen of inserted frames right away, then it is a smooth sailing.
@@ConsumerDV they will tend to be inserted when some noise or partial noise is in video signal. usually there will be bursts on "quasi cuts", ie noise between one and next recording on tape (for example on panasonic vhs machines recording just stops, without rewinding the tape a bit so you would get continuous video signal from tape, it just stops and resumes a bit later, when you hit rec again, and you have short period of pure noise there). also tape damage results in full or partial noise. any time video signal is noise, it can't be captured at proper frame rate. so software inserts repeats of previous frames. otoh "drops" in a new sense (after invention of achieving a/v sync by resampling audio and video) should be rare because that means video frames are coming too fast , which rarely happens. in fact it can only happen if your main clock is audio, so you wanna match fixed audio to video that's "hunting" it, by being faster or slower. but that's normally not done, makes no sense. as is, "drops" only occur when timing briefly gets out of whack, again on noise. see options under vdub capture, although those might be shaded, depending on hardware you're using. if you're capturing via tv-card and PCs sound card, vdub will resample both to keep sync. virtualdub sync was the modded version before vdub itself applied it, but it's only vfw, so a bit old... offcourse vdub in itself is old, but i doubt "newer" wdm version ever worked as good as vdub sync. today, i believe you just have usb garbage devices to do capture on, no more cards that you insert into pci slot.
Good info, thanks! Recently I have switched from VirtualDub to AmarecTV for capturing, it is touted to produce fewer dropouts. There are still expansion cards, but they get progressively more expensive. I have an AverMedia card, supposedly a professional product, here is my quick review: ua-cam.com/video/bhZyk72I9Q4/v-deo.html I bought it a couple of years ago from AliExpress for $50, at that time it was sold in the US for $100-$150. About a year ago it went up to $200, then AverMedia stopped offering this card and removed all information about it from its website, including drivers! Another card that uses the same chipset went up from $200 to $300. I am quite happy with I-O Data USB-GV2 though.
Imagine if analog video technology had a chance to be more mature developed to the point of able to make Full HD and higher resolution, but in analog way, I'll take analog video system any day. (I'm a former electronic student, so I know what I'm talking about)
I don't think you know what you are talking about. The original Japanese analog HD needed 30 MHz bandwidth to look good. In an effort to adapt it for satellite and OTA broadcast the Japanese squeezed it to 15, 12, 9 and finally to 6 MHz, the latter version was unwatchable. Higher-bandwidth variants were watchable, but the engineers had to use various analog compression schemes including 4:1 interlacing, so motion with lots of colors did not look great. Digital was the way to go.
@@ConsumerDV Well, I don't know much about history of video system development, but I understand that there's possibility. Let narrow it down to only the body of the video itself ('cause I don't know much about broadcasting system, which will complicate the point I try to make). A raw video signal that come out of an image sensor can be processing as many ways as engineers can think of, may be the engineers need to unstuck in trying to implementing, expanding, extending from the old analog scheme and come up with new method but in analog way. The way of digital converting/compression make video structurally blocky, while the analog video processing there's no block on the video image, so the output feel more natural (scanline is not a problem), while blocky videos(even high bitrate) still feel artificial, that is the thing that turned me to become disliking digital video. Another obvious thing is that it converts/compress the raw video directly since the first stage(not sure I stated this right, sorry if I'm wrong). What if they could convert the raw video signal to something else analog first(of course the new/better analog method)and then after the last stage of processing, use the best/high compression digital method to compress the data (but not on the data of raw video directly) on the final output for recording, streaming, broadcasting, etc., may be this method could get rid of those blocks and have a smooth and better video image. I personally believe it's worthy and achievable, if big corps dare to invest in it.
I don’t know man,I feel like this video is more like mini budget camcorder SVHS vs DV, rather than SVHS vs DV in its entirety.I feel like the footage from my 1990 Panasonic M9000 SVHS is way clearer than the SVHS in the video. Nice editing and video though.
I agree. Video from this cheap SVHS camcorder looks quite pitiful, it seems JVC used a low-res sensor from a regular VHS machine, maybe I should rename the video. I have a better SVHS camcorder with a larger sensor and more pixels, it looks more like it, I am going to make another comparison soon, you can see some footage here, what do you think: ua-cam.com/video/7roJnArg1k8/v-deo.html I doubt I will ever be acquiring a shoulder-mount 3-chip SVHS camcorder though.
Mind you, this comes from a cheap consumer-grade camcorder. Testing performed about 25 years ago showed that DV was very close to BetaSP, although not as good as DigiBeta. But BetaSP being an analog format cannot be copied without loss, while DV can - it is an intra-frame codec, and if all you do is straight cuts, there is no loss :)
Indeed, 576i has 20% more lines than 480i. I have a cheap PAL VHS camcorder, and it produces rather decent video considering the format: ua-cam.com/video/pCQDaFFg3QM/v-deo.html As for DV, it is even better if a camcorder can shoot in progressive-scan mode, here is a short video I shot with a Panasonic GS500 in 480p30: ua-cam.com/video/sOqlSo7atCU/v-deo.html Since then, I've got a PAL version of this camcorder, which can shoot in 576p25. Upscaled to 720p25 it looks very nice.
You can use Compact VHS (VHS-C) cassettes. They may be loaded with regular tape or SVHS tape (SVHS-C). With this camcorder you can use regular tape to record in sort of SVHS mode called SVHS-ET. Regular VHS VCRs will not play SVHS recording correctly, but some VCRs have a special SVHS Quasi Playback mode.
Handicam was a moniker for smaller Hi8 and Digital8 camcorders, there were many different models. I have a Digital8 one, which is pretty much the same as a DV camcorder. Maybe I'll make a video about it sometime. Thanks!
Obviously, DV is better than [S]VHS in every regard. Good-quality SVHS can compete in luminance resolution, but falls flat with chrominance, and you need a TBC to get rid of the jitter. OTOH, neither of the camcorders is the best in its class. Thanks for commenting!
Don't watch on a smartphone, watch on a larger screen. VHS is more coarse looking, especially color and shading. Also, many subjects I chose are rather uniform with few details. I will make another comparison using a better SVHS camcorder. Thanks for watching and commenting!
I luv the technology of yesteryear.. i could only start affording it in the mid 2000s Kids of today will NEVER realise how easy AND superbly portable they have video/photo recording technology
My workflow is described here: ua-cam.com/video/XzY1Vo1occc/v-deo.html You may also watch this test of four different A/D converters: ua-cam.com/video/ggDtXJIUVfM/v-deo.html
For sure, the sensor/aperture/shutter on the SVHS camera is better, thought the DV-image of still-captures is sharper and better, but in motion the sensor is less capable. (motion blur, dynamic range)
I make videos for an English-speaking audience. Most viewers have no problem comprehending my speech. Custom subtitles are available for most of my videos. :)
Improvements of SVHS over VHS were not significant enough to branch out into a format that could not be played on a regular VHS machine. You may want to check out my video about SVHS: ua-cam.com/video/Rr-d2bHSBoE/v-deo.html
@@skk3940 SVHS movies were released, they barely sold/rented any due to lack of demand. Likely in turn due to people being largely unwilling to buy the more expensive SVHS decks.
Я не большой специалист в этом вопросе. Если чтобы цифровать старые кассеты, то эта пойдет - у нее встроенный TBC (Time Base Corrector), картинка стабильная на выходе. В качестве камеры она едва до обычного VHS дотягивает. У меня есть другая, которая гораздо лучше - разрешение сенсора больше и объектив светлее. ua-cam.com/video/7roJnArg1k8/v-deo.html Обошлась мне в $35 на eBay. Еще лучше что-нибудь с тремя сенсорами, но это вряд ли будет $15, разве что случайно попадется, и будет она для полноразмерной кассеты. Но здесь уже оптика будет упираться в низкое разрешение по цвету.
@@ConsumerDV мне нужно наоборот, не оцифровывать, а записывать что-то, пропускать через аналог разные видеоряды для получения хорошей картинки и тому подобное. Цифровать особо нечего, мне аналог в любом случае нравится больше цифры несмотря на то, что я родился, когда про аналог уже все забыли)
Трудно ожидать хорошей картинки от VHS, пусть даже "супер", тем более за пятнашку. Все, что я могу сказать: чем больше сенсор, больше разрешение, более светосильный объектив, тем лучше.
@@ConsumerDV хорошая картинка-приятная глазу, без пикселизации. Пусть и будут помехи, но зато аналоговый сигнал физически идеально гладкий и это заметно.
Brilliant. This is how you do a demo. Well shot, well edited. Really, bravo!!!
when comparing analog to digital you gotta take in to consideration how good the analog is when comparing it to digital. impressive for the time. Thank goodness we had it otherwise some of us wouldn't have had our childhoods captured in real time by our parents.
Another fine video, thanks for making it. I still shoot on multiple formats, they all have something unique to offer, and many of the analog tape cameras are just fun to use. I don’t really mind the less sharp picture, it is really the story and characters that people want to see, not the 4K.
Thank you for the video, well edited, with good sound. I prefer the old cams aspect ratio than 16:9.
The DV image is noticeably better than SVHS as it is cleaner and retains better details and color. The SVHS image by comparison is extremely oversharpened. Still, I think the bigger difference is that DV can be natively imported to a computer!
I agree. VHS and SVHS have about 4 times lower color resolution than DV. 8-mm is slightly better in this regard, but still far worse than DV.
Importing DV was simple 15-20 years ago, when Firewire was supported by Intel, Microsoft and Apple. Sadly, modern computers don't have Firewire ports, and an expansion card cannot be added to a laptop, so capturing via analog output is sometimes a more convenient solution. See this document, which shows that capturing DV via SVideo is not that bad: web.archive.org/web/20000815075702/www.dv.com/magazine/1999/0599/formats0599.pdf
@@ConsumerDV I think you can use a couple adapters to go from Firewire 400 to Thunderbolt 3; tho the last time I looked into it, they were pretty expensive. Glad I still got an old iMac with Firewire 800 on a shelf!
@@ConsumerDV Thats why i still use Audigy 2 sound-card with Firewire connection in my PC.
The handicap of any analog tape format is the tape itself, Once the CCD image is processed and passed through the TBC's ADC it is converted back to analog via a DAC and recorded on the tape loosing almost 50% of its original quality. For DV or any digital tape camcorder the signal coming out the ADC after being processed by the CCD it is recorded as is on tape with no further degradation because it is 0's and 1's, hence the stable image of the DV camcorder, If you do this again using live feed from both camcorders bypassing tapes and digitize it as such from S-Video you wouldn't notice a big dfference between the two.
This may be true, but I wanted to compare recordings, not cameras. Thanks for commenting!
I like both but differently.
I'm impressed with the DV footage; the colors are nice and flat, motion blur is minimal but forgiving. The VHS, I like the imperfections, the colors are more washed but it gives a more 80's/90's vibe about it. So it does bring back the nostalgic vibe about it. The DV is really good but I guess it got replaced and ignored by the market quickly.
Neither of the compared camcorders is high end, but I think this comparison shows that even a small DV palmcorder with a 1/6-inch sensor shoots better video than an SVHS camcorder with a 1/4-inch chip. DV was very popular in the late 1990s and through 2000s. XDCAM camcorders could record DV into a file. DV was a game-changer - relatively cheap but much closer in quality to professional formats. DV is still officially supported by Apple unlike, say, DNxHD or Cineform.
@@ConsumerDV My Panasonic NV-VS4EG Super VHS-C model with a 1/5" sensor looks better than that JVC camera. The only downside is that my camera is mono sound too but it got very cool manual focus, white balance and more controls and digital effects but i keep all filters including their super image stabilization disabled to get all resolution from the CCD sensor i can get and the camera keeps very steady even with it's image stabilization disabled.
I do the capture process with my digital 8 camera that have analog playback and in/out analog ports with their A/D conversion.
I'm not sure about the whole situation about the analog to digital to analog conversion by using the built in TBC from those cameras, i didn't notice any issue in my panasonic camera or drop in quality bu using it's built in TBC.
I think there were too many variables to make a comparison.
My own camcorder observations:
Back when I was using Hi-8, editing the footage was really difficult. After spending £100s on capture cards and editing software that either didn't work properly or was too difficult for me to use, I ended up just plugging the SVHS output into my DVD Recorder.
When Mini-DV goes wrong is does so big time. Neither of my first two MiniDV camcorders (both JVC) will load a tape any longer so I had to buy another just to be able to play back my MiniDV tapes.
With support for full HD, my ten year old Canon camera, which isn't much bigger than a couple of MiniDV cassettes is a better camcorder than any of my first three camcorders.
Thanks, I appreciate the comment! I agree, there are too many variables. Considering the same target market and similar design principles of these two camcorders, I figured that I can use them to compare if not the absolute quality but the difference in quality between the two formats.
I also wanted to show how a properly deinterlaced video should look like: both of these machines shoot interlaced video only. If someone has old family recordings, it is time to digitize them before it is too late, and off-the-shelf solutions usually do not cut the mustard.
None of my HDV and DV camcorders has failed (yet, fingers crossed). I bought the Canon in 2006. Did not use it much, recorded maybe two dozen tapes with it. One of the VHS camcorders clearly has something going wrong with the mechanism, it would chew tape when winding forward, it would sometimes throw an error when winding back, but so far is able to play and record.
HD is better, no contest, both in terms of quality and because there are no moving parts. Solid-state, recording onto removable memory cards. Built-in memory stopped working on one of my digital cameras, you can rewrite flash memory only so many times. Another one just died after I used it to shoot on a beach - salt or sand? Or non-OEM battery? Also, modern HD cameras use CMOS sensor, so sometimes you can see rolling shutter artifacts, although they have become much better lately. DV and most VHS camcorders use CCDs, so they have global shutter. This is probably their only advantage ;-)
By the way, nice channel. You are where I want to be in a year or so. Subscribed.
I love these types of videos. Great work. I’m going to buy a DV or HD DV camera.
The S-VHS-C camcorder is overly sharpened. If they had turned down the in-camera sharpening, it would've looked much better.
Quite possibly. After all, this is a low-end camcorder, which is why I renamed the video from "SVHS vs DV" to "VHS vs DV". I am planning to make another comparo with a better SVHS camcorder. Thanks for commenting!
The mini Dv is almost too good!
Mind you, this is from a cheap $300 camcorder with a single 1/6-inch sensor (a good DV camcorder was $1-1.5K back then). This just shows how bad VHS was. DV was a game-changer. Thanks for watching and commenting, really appreciate it!
@@ConsumerDV And this talking about S-VHS-C wow. By the way I like S-VHS-C and most of these cameras have TBC/CNR wich I appreciate it.
@@ConsumerDV Even Video 8 from Sony looks better in my opinion, 8mm tapes where so good.
@@ConsumerDV Yeah especially the 1/6" Digital 8 cameras from 2004 such as the TRV260, 460, 480 where very good and they look great in low light. They even seems to perform similar or even a bit better than some Digital 8 models with a 1/4" sensor. I had a TRV140E D8 with the 1/4" and I can say it was a bit "worse" than my TRV255E with a 1/6" sensor. My TRV140E had TOO MUCH grain and noise in low light making the video unwatchable.
In my channel I have a video from the TRV140E but because in the last part of the video there was a lot of light it didn't produce too much noise. I don't know if I configured the exposure settings to prevent this or I leave it automatic.
8-mm video has better color resolution than VHS. Of all color-under formats Hi8 is the best save for ED Beta, which was expensive and rare. In the early 1990s pro reporters used Hi8 camcorders. Digital8 is the same as DV.
Благодарю за видео! Было очень полезно. Знаете, я не пожалел, что остановид свой выбор на vhs. Mini DV конечно картинка более четкая, ближе к цифровой. Но у vhs есть та неповторимая желтизна и зернистость, как в детстве)) а сейчас, в этом и смысл. Что бы окунуться в те времена, во времена детства.
When you mentioned that Mini DV is close to digital quality, that's because it literally is digital video stored on a magnetic tape. Definitely much better quality than previous portable standards, including Hi8 and VHS-C!
i'm generaly surprised by the good quality of both camera's being only 576lines. Today standard is 4K, 4x fullHD (1080) which is double of 576 lines
480 lines actually :) This is 576: ua-cam.com/video/pCQDaFFg3QM/v-deo.html
The difference between 1080p and 576p is actually larger (5x the pixels) than between 4K and 1080p (4x). But 4K has 20x the pixels of 576p which is insane if you think about it!
Standard is still 1080p in 2024. Most people use 1080. Very few use 4k. Dont even get me started on the embarrassment of 2k, nobody uses that in video and never really has
Both look very retro, but svhs wins when it comes to nostalgic looking video
Really good job producing this ideo. Obviously it took you quite some time. The DV image is more pleasing to my eye, while the S-VHS image is more contrasty and it's colors seem less real. You did not want to compare cameras, but that is exactly what you did. I kept wandering what the Canon DV images would really look like in S-VHS. Different cameras have different chip sizes, different lenses, and different views. I am trying to decide whether or not to buy a (used) firewire box or just work with S-VHS data from my DV camcorders. This video would indicate I'd be much happier with the DV image. The side-by-side comparisons are fun for me because you unintentionally recorded stereo pairs and I am a 3D hobbyist. With a little manipulation (resizing) I can create stereo pairs from these clips. Have a good day!
It's nicely done, but I think you are comparing a low-end DV camera with limited controls, which skews the test a little.
I did a similar comparison with an SVHS and DV camera mounted to the same monopod. The results were closer than I expected, but DV was much better in low light. In bright light, SVHS may have been a touch sharper, but I would prefer DV over SVHS every day of the week and twice on Sunday.
Help me understand deinterlacing. I see a lot of talk about it, but I just drop it into my editor and render at 60p, and presto it's deinterlaced. Why is it an extra step?
Yes, I am comparing to a low-end DV camcorder, but the SVHS camcorder is even worse as it have turned out, so the DV camcorder still wins. I am planning another test with a better SVHS camcorder that you can see here: ua-cam.com/video/7roJnArg1k8/v-deo.html I don't think I will be getting a 3-chip SVHS camcorder.
Regarding deinterlacing, you may want to take a look at this guide ua-cam.com/video/XzY1Vo1occc/v-deo.htmlsi=sPyIwaX8R1dmaz5g just skip to 4-minute mark (the video was longer, I have cut some fat, so it may feel to start abruptly). Depending on your NLE, indeed, rendering to 60p (59.94p to be exact) may be all you need, and your NLE will correctly deinterlace for you. I use Sony Vegas, if I drop 29.97i onto timeline and select "Deinterlace: interpolate" from the project setting, then render into 59.94p, it will deinterlace correctly. In fact, this is what I usually do for HD when there is enough resolution to not care about the best quality.
For lower resolution content you may want to use better deinterlacers to eek out the last bit of the resolution. QTGMC is considered the best of the free deinterlacers, it is basically a huge Avisynth script that uses other deitnerlacers, noise reducers and sharpeners. But I usually use MSU Deinterlacer filter for VirtualDub2, it is just simpler for me. MSU Deinterlacer is slightly better than Yadif in my opinion, but an order of magnitude slower.
I checked out your channel, nice stuff, I subscribed! I noticed that the HDC-HS300 video is marked as 1080/60i, while the TRV 480 video is marked as 480/30i. I presume you know that 30i and 60i is the same thing, just different notation: whether you want to talk about frame rate of interlaced video (30i), or field rate of interlaced video (60i). The videos are just four days apart, maybe you want to stick to one or another type of notation :)
Usually, it is either number of lines, followed by slash, followed by field rate, like 1080/60i. Or, it is the number of lines, followed by scanning type, followed by frame rate, like 1080i30, which is the same.
When you deinterlace preserving image rate, you get 60p. If you deinterlace by either combining fields of a frame, or by throwing every other field away, then you get 30p, this way you lose both temporal and spatial resolution. This was popular 10 years ago, but UA-cam supports 50p and 60p since 2014, yay!
If you upload interlaced video to UA-cam, it will weave fields, so you'll see combing when there is motion. Hence, you need to deinterlace beforehand to avoid combing and ghosting.
@@ConsumerDV Thanks for the tip. I was probably running on little sleep when I said 30i. I should have said 480/60i. I never upload the raw footage by the way. Everything is rendered in 2160/60p
30i and 60i is the same, so no biggie :)
DV is so more aesthetic , awesome comparison
Зыс из э вэри гуд видео. Сэнкью вэри мач!
The difference is marginal. Looks comparable to the difference between 2 dv cameras of a different brand.
Awesome comparison, when you captured from the MiniDv Canon, I'd assume you imported via Firewire for this test. The VHS-C was very close in comparison for quality.
Yes, MiniDV was imported via FireWire. The original title was "SVHS vs DV", but after I made this video I found out that this camcorder has a rather low-res sensor, so not really "Super". The GR-SZ7 is much better, 570K pixels vs 220K: ua-cam.com/video/7roJnArg1k8/v-deo.html I am going to use it for another comparison.
This is what i mean when i say comparison!
Same white balance, same overall settings. Were only here for the quality :D
Hello , Nice channel ! What software did you use for a good Dv treatment ? The dv footage looks smooth and i want the same quality for my Dv captured by firewire. Thanks a lot
Hi! I deinterlaced it from 30i (also known as 60i) into 60p. I also corrected color a bit to match VHS.
@ConsumerDV okey you convert from i to p 😀! Thanks
Right. Not 30p, but 60p for smoother motion.
@@ConsumerDV i will try with a old Dv footage, after to deinterlace them
@@ConsumerDV hey, i've tried with a 25 ips dv to 50, and it's work ! 😉
VHS video very life, DV not effect, but clear.
Love it 🤍📽🐰
5:37 be it inserted or dropped, these frames don't exist as new information. it's just that in "inserted" case the prev. frame was repeated to keep audio video sync. but if you load that video to vdub, and find "next dropped frame" in edit menu, you'll find them. and see they indeed are as good as dropped.
i believe earler iterations of vdub didn't even differentiate (ie you just had dropped category), as there's no big need to do so....
you have 10 frames which are blank, ie system is not capturing noise that well.
because noise carries no sync pulses so system sees nothing...
I haven't noticed when these frames were inserted. Were they accumulated gradually, or inserted all at once. With some video grabbers I get a dozen of inserted frames right away, then it is a smooth sailing.
@@ConsumerDV they will tend to be inserted when some noise or partial noise is in video signal. usually there will be bursts on "quasi cuts", ie noise between one and next recording on tape (for example on panasonic vhs machines recording just stops, without rewinding the tape a bit so you would get continuous video signal from tape, it just stops and resumes a bit later, when you hit rec again, and you have short period of pure noise there).
also tape damage results in full or partial noise.
any time video signal is noise, it can't be captured at proper frame rate. so software inserts repeats of previous frames.
otoh "drops" in a new sense (after invention of achieving a/v sync by resampling audio and video) should be rare because that means video frames are coming too fast , which rarely happens. in fact it can only happen if your main clock is audio, so you wanna match fixed audio to video that's "hunting" it, by being faster or slower. but that's normally not done, makes no sense.
as is, "drops" only occur when timing briefly gets out of whack, again on noise. see options under vdub capture, although those might be shaded, depending on hardware you're using. if you're capturing via tv-card and PCs sound card, vdub will resample both to keep sync.
virtualdub sync was the modded version before vdub itself applied it, but it's only vfw, so a bit old...
offcourse vdub in itself is old, but i doubt "newer" wdm version ever worked as good as vdub sync.
today, i believe you just have usb garbage devices to do capture on, no more cards that you insert into pci slot.
Good info, thanks! Recently I have switched from VirtualDub to AmarecTV for capturing, it is touted to produce fewer dropouts. There are still expansion cards, but they get progressively more expensive. I have an AverMedia card, supposedly a professional product, here is my quick review: ua-cam.com/video/bhZyk72I9Q4/v-deo.html I bought it a couple of years ago from AliExpress for $50, at that time it was sold in the US for $100-$150. About a year ago it went up to $200, then AverMedia stopped offering this card and removed all information about it from its website, including drivers! Another card that uses the same chipset went up from $200 to $300. I am quite happy with I-O Data USB-GV2 though.
Imagine if analog video technology had a chance to be more mature developed to the point of able to make Full HD and higher resolution, but in analog way, I'll take analog video system any day. (I'm a former electronic student, so I know what I'm talking about)
I don't think you know what you are talking about. The original Japanese analog HD needed 30 MHz bandwidth to look good. In an effort to adapt it for satellite and OTA broadcast the Japanese squeezed it to 15, 12, 9 and finally to 6 MHz, the latter version was unwatchable. Higher-bandwidth variants were watchable, but the engineers had to use various analog compression schemes including 4:1 interlacing, so motion with lots of colors did not look great. Digital was the way to go.
@@ConsumerDV Well, I don't know much about history of video system development, but I understand that there's possibility. Let narrow it down to only the body of the video itself ('cause I don't know much about broadcasting system, which will complicate the point I try to make). A raw video signal that come out of an image sensor can be processing as many ways as engineers can think of, may be the engineers need to unstuck in trying to implementing, expanding, extending from the old analog scheme and come up with new method but in analog way. The way of digital converting/compression make video structurally blocky, while the analog video processing there's no block on the video image, so the output feel more natural (scanline is not a problem), while blocky videos(even high bitrate) still feel artificial, that is the thing that turned me to become disliking digital video.
Another obvious thing is that it converts/compress the raw video directly since the first stage(not sure I stated this right, sorry if I'm wrong). What if they could convert the raw video signal to something else analog first(of course the new/better analog method)and then after the last stage of processing, use the best/high compression digital method to compress the data (but not on the data of raw video directly) on the final output for recording, streaming, broadcasting, etc., may be this method could get rid of those blocks and have a smooth and better video image. I personally believe it's worthy and achievable, if big corps dare to invest in it.
great video
Hi, are new MiniDV cassettes still being produced or is there only remaining stock to buy?
Remaining stock only. But you can re-use them, it is not film, which you use just once.
Мужик, а ты откуда родом? По акценту слышно восточную Европу
Someone knows which camcorder they use to record the miniclips in lizzie McGuire’s series?
Приятно слушать с таким акцентом😃👍
I don’t know man,I feel like this video is more like mini budget camcorder SVHS vs DV, rather than SVHS vs DV in its entirety.I feel like the footage from my 1990 Panasonic M9000 SVHS is way clearer than the SVHS in the video.
Nice editing and video though.
I agree. Video from this cheap SVHS camcorder looks quite pitiful, it seems JVC used a low-res sensor from a regular VHS machine, maybe I should rename the video. I have a better SVHS camcorder with a larger sensor and more pixels, it looks more like it, I am going to make another comparison soon, you can see some footage here, what do you think: ua-cam.com/video/7roJnArg1k8/v-deo.html I doubt I will ever be acquiring a shoulder-mount 3-chip SVHS camcorder though.
DV looks closer to Betacam SP
Mind you, this comes from a cheap consumer-grade camcorder. Testing performed about 25 years ago showed that DV was very close to BetaSP, although not as good as DigiBeta. But BetaSP being an analog format cannot be copied without loss, while DV can - it is an intra-frame codec, and if all you do is straight cuts, there is no loss :)
@@ConsumerDV That was very quick answer
@@ConsumerDV For me 576i video still looks good even at 25 Mbit/s bit rate
Indeed, 576i has 20% more lines than 480i.
I have a cheap PAL VHS camcorder, and it produces rather decent video considering the format: ua-cam.com/video/pCQDaFFg3QM/v-deo.html
As for DV, it is even better if a camcorder can shoot in progressive-scan mode, here is a short video I shot with a Panasonic GS500 in 480p30: ua-cam.com/video/sOqlSo7atCU/v-deo.html Since then, I've got a PAL version of this camcorder, which can shoot in 576p25. Upscaled to 720p25 it looks very nice.
I'm saying this because of Digital Betacam bit rate being higher
great comparison
Hi I just bought this same camera and was wondering is their any other cassette tapes I could use for the JVC camcorder?
You can use Compact VHS (VHS-C) cassettes. They may be loaded with regular tape or SVHS tape (SVHS-C). With this camcorder you can use regular tape to record in sort of SVHS mode called SVHS-ET. Regular VHS VCRs will not play SVHS recording correctly, but some VCRs have a special SVHS Quasi Playback mode.
Can you make a video of the Sony handycam if you haven’t already?
Handicam was a moniker for smaller Hi8 and Digital8 camcorders, there were many different models. I have a Digital8 one, which is pretty much the same as a DV camcorder. Maybe I'll make a video about it sometime. Thanks!
Can I use a DVHS tape on a VHS camera from the 1980s and get an HD quality footage?
No.
what do you think? Does it encode video digitaly and in 1080p?
У DV как будто динамический диапазон шире
Obviously, DV is better than [S]VHS in every regard. Good-quality SVHS can compete in luminance resolution, but falls flat with chrominance, and you need a TBC to get rid of the jitter. OTOH, neither of the camcorders is the best in its class. Thanks for commenting!
Which tape should i buy for a jvc AAV16EG?
JVC AA-V16 is a battery charger, not a camcorder.
MiniDv has sharper text. Better color.
Forse sono di parte perche amo il VHS,però hanno un buon segnale video entrambi
Don't watch on a smartphone, watch on a larger screen. VHS is more coarse looking, especially color and shading. Also, many subjects I chose are rather uniform with few details. I will make another comparison using a better SVHS camcorder. Thanks for watching and commenting!
@@ConsumerDV chiaramente ci sono apparecchiature VHS di qualità superiore a quella del video.un prossimo video lo vedrò con piacere
I luv the technology of yesteryear.. i could only start affording it in the mid 2000s
Kids of today will NEVER realise how easy AND superbly portable they have video/photo recording technology
S-VHS-C vs Hi8 when
I don't have a Hi8 camcorder, sorry.
@@ConsumerDV no worries lol
What model is that miniDV canon?
Elura 100.
Is MiniDV 60fps? (For NTSC)
30 interlaced frames per second, or 60 fields per second.
@@ConsumerDV ahh. So deinterlaced that would be 59.94p? (50p for pal)
Correct!
@@foco565759.94i*
Also how do you convert it?
My workflow is described here: ua-cam.com/video/XzY1Vo1occc/v-deo.html You may also watch this test of four different A/D converters: ua-cam.com/video/ggDtXJIUVfM/v-deo.html
Svhs is way better
For sure, the sensor/aperture/shutter on the SVHS camera is better, thought the DV-image of still-captures is sharper and better, but in motion the sensor is less capable. (motion blur, dynamic range)
It's not as simple as SVHS vs DV though, different cameras that use the same tapes can perform quite differently.
On the hole, it is better 😉
С таким акцентом лучше уж сразу на Русском говорить )
I make videos for an English-speaking audience. Most viewers have no problem comprehending my speech. Custom subtitles are available for most of my videos. :)
Русский акцент, я читал правила
Why didn't Hollywood release movies on MiniDV?? Stuck with crappy VHS for almost 20 years... ughh
DV came out at the same time as DVD. DVD made more sense for pre-recorded movies.
@@ConsumerDV well I guess I shudda asked why Hollywood didn't back svhs format?
Improvements of SVHS over VHS were not significant enough to branch out into a format that could not be played on a regular VHS machine. You may want to check out my video about SVHS: ua-cam.com/video/Rr-d2bHSBoE/v-deo.html
@@skk3940 SVHS movies were released, they barely sold/rented any due to lack of demand. Likely in turn due to people being largely unwilling to buy the more expensive SVHS decks.
Акцент русский?
Если это так, то какую недорогую б/у камеру под svhsc можете посоветовать?
Which svhsc camcorder would you buy if you had about 15$?
Я не большой специалист в этом вопросе. Если чтобы цифровать старые кассеты, то эта пойдет - у нее встроенный TBC (Time Base Corrector), картинка стабильная на выходе. В качестве камеры она едва до обычного VHS дотягивает. У меня есть другая, которая гораздо лучше - разрешение сенсора больше и объектив светлее. ua-cam.com/video/7roJnArg1k8/v-deo.html Обошлась мне в $35 на eBay. Еще лучше что-нибудь с тремя сенсорами, но это вряд ли будет $15, разве что случайно попадется, и будет она для полноразмерной кассеты. Но здесь уже оптика будет упираться в низкое разрешение по цвету.
@@ConsumerDV мне нужно наоборот, не оцифровывать, а записывать что-то, пропускать через аналог разные видеоряды для получения хорошей картинки и тому подобное. Цифровать особо нечего, мне аналог в любом случае нравится больше цифры несмотря на то, что я родился, когда про аналог уже все забыли)
Трудно ожидать хорошей картинки от VHS, пусть даже "супер", тем более за пятнашку. Все, что я могу сказать: чем больше сенсор, больше разрешение, более светосильный объектив, тем лучше.
@@ConsumerDV хорошая картинка-приятная глазу, без пикселизации. Пусть и будут помехи, но зато аналоговый сигнал физически идеально гладкий и это заметно.