My DV camera that I have had for many years seems to be on it's last leg. I went to a large electronics store this week that had about 25 camcorders on display, of those 2 were tape..I recall one cost less than $100. The other cameras were either HD or SD, Flash or Hard Drive. The HD cameras were out of my price range so I settled on SD and after speaking with the sales person I chose a Canon FS200 flash camera.

Over the weeked I had a chance to use the camera and have now tranfered the video to my comptuer. After looking at video and comparing it to video from my old DV camera that has been tranfered to my computer I am somewhat disapointed in the quality of video from the FS200, the colors aren't nearly as vibrant as the DV video. The new video also doesn't seem as sharp as the DV video.

The fact that there was only one 2 DV cameras at the store lead me to believe that they are on the way out so now I wonder if I will just need to settle for the quality of video that I have or maybe the camera is not set up correctly...any thoughts or suggestions?

Mike

I wouldn't blame the flash media. It's only a way to offload the A/V data from the sensor. It may be an issue with the lens/sensor system... or it could even be an issue with the settings you are using. Try playing with the settings and see if you can get better results.

Tapes are most definitely on their way out. Give it another year and you won't see a single camera for sale that runs on Mini DV tapes. I'm sorry to hear that you are unhappy with you purchase so far.

P.S. How much did you pay? You said the HD camcorders were way out of your price range. I would suggest going to TigerDirect and picking up the Canon HF10 HD camcorder for $500 (refurbished, but you would never notice a difference). That's what I did!

I paid about $300 for the camera. Should I expect similar quality from this camera as I got from my DV camera?

Mike

Price does not linearly reflect quality. There are all kinds of factors, mainly being the lens and sensor of the camera. I will say that Canon has among the VERY best optics out of any other camcorder manufacturer. I'm truly surprised that you are getting worse results... but then again their lower-ends may be of subpar quality. It's really tough to say.

For now I'd suggest playing with the settings to see if that makes a difference. You may be recording on a lower-quality video capture.

SD MPEG2 camcorders will usually give you much worse picture quality than Mini DV camcorders if most other things are about equal.

Something like the Sanyo HD1010 will only cost about $50 more than that FS200 and it’ll give you significantly better picture quality. Even the video mode from a still camera like the Panasonic ZS3 will give you far better picture quality.

SD MPEG2 camcorders will usually give you much worse picture quality than Mini DV camcorders if most other things are about equal.

Something like the Sanyo HD1010 will only cost about $50 more than that FS200 and it’ll give you significantly better picture quality. Even the video mode from a still camera like the Panasonic ZS3 will give you far better picture quality.

Totally agree, a new DCR-SR45 (MPEG2 SD on hard drive) is much much much worse than my 10 year old DCR-TRV900 (DV).

I have a Sony PC110E PAL mini DV 'corder and I replaced it with a Canon HF100 SDHC unit.

After using it, seeing the quality that the HF can produce and the ease of transfering things at greater speed than the 1:1 of firewire mini DV, there is no effing way on earth that I would go back to the dark ages that is tape. The only slight grey cloud in the sky is the spotty night time performance of the 100.

Look for a better unit and, IMHO, stay away from tapes......

Seggers

Look for a better unit and, IMHO, stay away from tapes......

Seggers

I agree with that, but to get decent image quality on consumer camcorders that don't use tapes, is to go AVCHD. The low bit rate MPEG 2 on SD camcorders with HDD, is horrible. I would take DV over that any day.

Get a Canon HV40- it uses DV tape to record high def in the HDV forum. If you want to get better pq with avchd, you'd better get a lot of memory chips for your next vacation and memory is a heck of a lot more $ than dv tapes.Another plus is that you get a viewfinder, something that Canon's avchd cams lack.

HDV is mpeg-2 also, it is a misconception that HDV is just DV codec in HD...because it is MPEG, it doesn't have the qualitiy of good old DV (which is MJPEG with every frame a key frame) neither the possibility to edit it without the loss of quatity like you could with DV

so HDV will not help quality the way DV did, getting an AVC(HD) camera is much better choice since AVC (h.264) is much more efficient (but is hard to edit effortlessly on slower computers) whereas DV's simplicity (with high bitrate hit however) could be worked with on any computer, the only problem being the drive's throughput...

What would have resolved the issue is if the FS100/FS200 used AVCHD instead of MPEG2. That would have fixed a lot of issues that I currently have with my FS100. I still don't know how to properly deinterlace the image under Sony Vegas.

I'm hoping Canon does release a 720p AVCHD equivalent of the FSx00 series some day. The form factor is fantastic, but the line really needs improved image quality to keep it alive what with 1080 HD taking over the mid-range to high-end market.

As far as DV is concerned, I've only tried HDV via my HV20. And I simply don't want to deal with tapes anymore. I've already had one catastrophic issue with one tape not recording all of my material. Good thing it was something that was easy to reshoot.

I guess the point of keeping them SD is to make them cheap. They could still use the AVC codec for SD, but nobody seems to do that. Perhaps they should offer a mid-range AVCHD-Lite (720p) range. But I guess they figure there is not enough demand, and it's better to offer lesser featured 1080i models as the mid range: (less recording space, smaller image sensors etc).

There's so many advantages in working with 720p over 1080i.


You can play back and edit the footage on just about any computer out there, including a netbook.
Battery life and storage space are much greater due to the lower demands of 720p over 1080i.
Camcorders can still be small and easy to use.
720p image quality potentially excellent even on a big screen.
Lower resolution may do a better job of masking noise and artifacts.
Directly uploadable to YouTube.


I'm really hoping Canon comes out with a decent 720p upgrade for the low end. Even though the image quality on the FSx00 series is a bit sub-par, it's still better than many other Flash based SD camcorders out there. And the sound quality is simply outstanding for such a small camcorder!

Here's an example of what's possible with the FS100. Do note that YouTube may screw up the frame rate.

bGTb5XO-Vy0

If they can make 720p at the same pic quality (not resolution, quality :D), they can make 1080i IMHO...1080i pixel rate is just a fraction higher than 720p (remember, it's actually 1920x540 60 times a second, 720p is 1280x720 60 times a second - the difference is measly 100k-ish pixels)

and the chip needn't be 2mil pixels but half that since it records interlaced, so 1.2 mil pixels should be just fine at the same size of the current chip and only 2x increase in pixel count....

on the other side, unlike mpeg-2 and especially DV, it's true AVC is a hard hitter for a computer's processor (not harddisk), because current editing software do not (on purpose or due to lack of vision)employ the power of current run-of-the-mill gfx cards that can ALL decode AVC in hardware...you can play AVCHD with 2% proc usage by using Media Player Classic Home Cinema with DXVA decoding and a cheap ATI gfx card...

Well i have been using tape since 81, i had an avchd cam for a while but back to the superior HV30, all my well over 200 tapes play pefectly they are on external drives as well, the hdv also BLU RAY,manufactuars are bullying everyone to go tapeless whether they want to or not, before everyone comes in with cost its still bullying.

Flash cards are superior to tape in any regard, they just need to drop down in price for highre capacities to become really competitive to cheap tapes...

A 60 minute tape may be only a few bucks, yes. But you only get an hour's worth of recording. You also have to factor in the size, the time to offload onto a PC, and the fact that there's fragile moving parts. A 32GB SDHC can be had for $50. That's about ~4 hours of HD recording... many many more for SD. I think the price is just fine.

The point is completely missed if you are comparing the cost of flash cards against tape. Flash memory is a very short-term storage media, where data is moved from it onto hard disk generally very quickly. You don't store video on flash media long term and dump the chips into a shoe box as people do with tape. The price of HDD is about $85/TB right now, which is shockingly lower than storage costs on miniDV tapes, especially those with HDV quality.

A 60 minute tape may be only a few bucks, yes. But you only get an hour's worth of recording. You also have to factor in the size, the time to offload onto a PC, and the fact that there's fragile moving parts. A 32GB SDHC can be had for $50. That's about ~4 hours of HD recording... many many more for SD. I think the price is just fine.

Your figures are a bit off. A 32g card for $50? Maybe a no name card with questionable quality that might crap on you, but definitely not a reliable name brand like Sandisk. DV tapes cost around $3 each and you can use them for archiving.
For me, memory chip cams make no sense because I usually go through 10 hours of tape during a trip. This would cost me a few hundred $ in memory. I am sure memory will drop in a few years to make tape vanish, but for now, no.
As for the claim that avchd looks better edited, that is false. It also has to be turned into a codec that can be edited.HDV is a great format, a great looking format that is still in use professionally, with a number of shows still shot with it (like the "Deadliest Catch"). As for the claim that 720p can look good on the big screen, this is true. I also have a Panny lumix 35 and the video (highest setting on avchd lite) does look good with great detail and great color. However, compared to HDV, it is inferior. I have seen some noticeable compression artifacts, "blockiness" with it. I am sure that a handheld dedicated cam running 720p at 17mps compression would have similar issues.
I am sure these artifacts would be gone if I was able to shoot with 24mps compression, but that would greatly increase the cost of memory, especially if the the cam requires faster read chips.If I was a rich person, I'd have no qualms about getting a Canon, $1k in memory and shooting 24mps. But, I am not a rich man, so HDV is the deal, at least for the next three years, after which you will probably be able to get a high speed SDHC 32g card for $10 at the local drug store.

I got a 32GB Sandisk for $52 for my soon to be Canon Vixia HF10.

Yes, it's possible, you just need to look for good deals.

The fact of the matter is that the market is shifting to flash media. New technology is always more expensive, but in the long run, it helps push things forward. Eventually we will have 500GB SSDs in our camcorders and it will be dirt cheap.

Memory cards are not for archival, that's true. But as bernhtp stated, the long-term storage comes in the form of hard discs. More permanent archives can be burned to bluray discs.

And yes, I know this is a more expensive way to go about things... but weren't DVDs more expensive than VHS?

As for the claim that avchd looks better edited, that is false. It also has to be turned into a codec that can be edited.HDV is a great format, a great looking format that is still in use professionally, with a number of shows still shot with it (like the "Deadliest Catch"). As for the claim that 720p can look good on the big screen, this is true.

This is a misconception about HDV - it is as lossy in editing as AVCHD, because HDV IS NOT DV-based, it's plain old mpeg-2, its only they managed to create the illusion that it is losslesly editable by incorporating "native" HDV support into editing softwares...HDV is 1440x1080 so they managed to make it look somewhat superior to 17mbps AVCHD (HDV is cca 25 mbps)...but 25mbps AVCHD, as you say, is more than a match to HDV and is here to stay...I give HDV a year to vanish completely...

P.S. I had an "honour" to do keying and compositing on HDV footage - a horrible experience...

as per professional usage, some hi-end HDV cameras have SDI outputs, so while they do record HDV to tape, in pro- usage they actually record to a separate HDCAM recorder via SDI...so no HDV anywhere, just camera's optics and electronics...

This is a misconception about HDV - it is as lossy in editing as AVCHD, because HDV IS NOT DV-based, it's plain old mpeg-2 with , its only they managed to create the illusion taj it si editable by incorporating "direct native HDV support" into editing softwares...HDV is 1440x1080 so they managed to make it look somewhat superior to 17mbps AVCHD (HDV is 28 mbps)...but 25mbps AVCHD, as you say, is more than a match to HDV and is here to stay...I give HDV a year to vanish completely...

P.S. I had an "honour" to do keying and compositing on HDV footage - a horrible experience...

PS this is where we all differ i had an avchd SR 12 for a year ,


My present HV30 gives better PQ and i prefer it but unlike most tapeless users i dont get pleasure slagging off your format.

PS this is where we all differ i had an avchd SR 12 for a year ,


My present HV30 gives better PQ and i prefer it but unlike most tapeless users i dont get pleasure slagging off your format.

hasn't it occured to you that optics and chip may have something to do with this??? I'm just trying to convey the idea that AVC as a video compression format is intrinsically superior to HDV, it just needs some more time to "get there"...

I'm talking about compression format, not actual cameras...I don't think I'd get any more luck compositing with AVCHD, it's HDCAM SR or nothing, baby...:D

Well i have been using tape since 81, i had an avchd cam for a while but back to the superior HV30, all my well over 200 tapes play pefectly they are on external drives as well, the hdv also BLU RAY,manufactuars are bullying everyone to go tapeless whether they want to or not, before everyone comes in with cost its still bullying.

I wouldn't say manufacturers are bullying anyone. They are doing what the consumer wants. I'm just an average consumer and have an older mini dv recorder. I want an HDD or flash based camera now. It is SO much easier to get it from the camera to the pc. I hate waiting around for an hour to transfer one hour of video. I also wouldn't have to travel around with tapes anymore and worry about running out and switching.

hasn't it occured to you that optics and chip may have something to do with this??? I'm just trying to convey the idea that AVC as a video compression format is intrinsically superior to HDV, it just needs some more time to "get there"...

:D

That's what I am talking about. HDV looks better than 17 mps AVCH, which is what most of those machines top at. However, 24mps AVCHD looks better. The cost of memory now is what keeps HDV competitive.
The manufactors have pushed this codec because tapeless machines are cheaper to make and more profitable. Go check out some of the machines on camcorder row and you'll agree that they skimp on quality and features. For example, most don't even have a viewfinder! Give it a few years and the consumer camcorder will be dead; you will have a choice between cheap $200 HD cams or point and shoot/dslr cams that also have avchd.

About the difference between HDV and AVCHD. The camcorder shoot-out I did not too long ago combines the footage from three different camcorders, namely the HV20, the HF200, and the Sanyo VPC-TH1.

I'll be honest. It was hard to tell the difference between the HV20 and the HF200. The HV20 MAY have had slightly less detail due to its lower resolution, but I'd be hurting my eyes if I tried too hard to see any kind of difference.

My editing suite is Sony Vegas, which doesn't convert any of the original footage for editing. The only transcoding that occurs happens when you perform the final render.

My preference is still for a tapeless system. The camcorders are so small that I can easily do spy recordings with them, and still maintain a high level of picture quality.

HDV is mpeg-2 also, it is a misconception that HDV is just DV codec in HD...because it is MPEG, it doesn't have the qualitiy of good old DV (which is MJPEG with every frame a key frame) neither the possibility to edit it without the loss of quatity like you could with DV


You're a bit off there. Yes, HDV is MPEG-2 encoded. However, MPEG-2 encoding was a fully mature technology when HDV debuted. Just as a DVD's encoding can produce better quality than what you get out of many DV camcorders, HDV will, in general, deliver dramatically better video than DV.

You can also edit quite handily without recompression on a modern NLE. The same reasons you can for DV... nothing that special about the format, it's the fact that your editor understands that format, and won't re-encode video that hasn't changed. Furthermore, there's delivery.. you can't put DV down on DVD and release it.. you have to convert to MPEG-2. You actually can put MPEG-2 from an HDV camcorder down on Blu-Ray as-is... Blu-Ray's standard format is even MPEG-2 TS... no requirement to change that.


so HDV will not help quality the way DV did, getting an AVC(HD) camera is much better choice since AVC (h.264) is much more efficient


AVC certainly has higher coding efficiency than MPEG-2, just as MPEG-2 has higher encoding efficiency than DV... that doesn't mean an AVC camera will automatically be better or worse.

In fact, AVC was a fairly new thing when MP4 and AVCHD camcorders hit the market. As a result, it's getting better every year... but still has a ways to go. 2009 is about the first year you can claim AVCHD is generally as good (which means, sometimes better, sometimes less so) as HDV... older cameras had far more compression artifacts. And still do, when pushed hard. It's not simply that we don't know how to record AVC well, it's the additional problem of doing it in realtime, on a camera only drawing 3-5W of power. That's the real trick.


(but is hard to edit effortlessly on slower computers) whereas DV's simplicity (with high bitrate hit however) could be worked with on any computer, the only problem being the drive's throughput...

You really shouldn't edit in AVCHD or MP4... it's just the wrong answer. But it's fine for squeezing stuff onto a flash card, just include "transcode to something else for editing" in your toolchain, and it's comfortable enough. You'll find AVC is difficult at best to play back in realtime on many PCs... particularly without using GPU-based video acceleration and/or a multithreaded player like Splash or Nero Showtime. Now consider that most video editors don't do GPU acceleration or multi-CPU rendering for edits (many do the latter for final rendering, of course).

HDD speed for DV editing hasn't been an issue since the early 1990s, and then, only for people using programmed I/O hard drives (early IDE/ATA modes).

Hmmm, can't say I agree with you there.

I can drop my AVCHD files, from my Canon HF100, directly onto a BD too. But I tend not to as my PS3 will read AVCHD natively and I can stream the stuff from my PC too.

And why not edit in AVCHD? I shot in AVC, I want to edit in AVC and not have to go through the CPU intenstive process of converting it (and loosing quality) to something else, only to convert it back (and again loosing quality).

And most modern editing software will allow you to do that without rendering the lot.

Decent PCs can be had for cheap these days, and if you're going to invest money on a good HD cam, then spend a few hundred more and get a more modern PC. Just buy the box if you have all the rest. Company's like Dell, or BB, will allow you to do that.

And for the record, my fairly recent single core Celeron laptop with 3Gb of RAM running XP Home does a fairly passable job of playing my AVC HD files. Not the best, but good enough.

Seggers