Problem of head on camcorder, help (by 2 users)

On Tue, 17 May 2005 23:00:29 GMT, "PTRAVEL" <ptravel88-use @yahoo.com>

I don't know the stats, but I don't know anyone who doesn't have one
nowadays.  They're about ??40 ($25) in supermarkets these days, and play
everything.

Yes, plenty of BB stores, although last time (last year) I looked there
was a small section of VHS tapes.  For sure DVD is the main player.

In message <3evbceF56rp @individual.net>, PTRAVEL
<ptravel88-use @yahoo.com> writes

Do read what I said. Your powers of comprehension are approaching those
of a lobotomised wood-louse.

You immediately discount *anything* you might say, when you invent
things that I might have said, or take them out of context.

You clearly haven't.

More rubbish. The limiting factor with Hi8 is not intrinsically the
analogue signal, but the limitations of the recording medium.

Yes you were - in fact you just have. You not only don't know what
you're talking about - you don't even know what you have just said..
LOL.

Indeed they do. Get hold of a line-res test card and look for yourself.
Since they introduced their 16-bit DSP nearly three years ago across
their miniDV range, Sony come in at 520 line resolution. Pannys are a
little behind at about 510. I haven't tried others (my video friends all
have Sonys or Pannys) but I'd speculate that they are much the same as
the Pannys.

You amaze me that you seem to believe the rubbish you come out with. Not
borne out with fact - but that clearly doesn't trouble you.



Do you know what a lux is? Or a candela? Try getting marginally clued up
about the stuff you're babbling about - you might then stop talking such
rubbish.



You couldn't explain how to punch your way out of a paper bag. I've
never encountered anyone who consistently comes out with such complete
rubbish and actually believes it.

CCDs comprise semiconductor junctions, and putting (say) 2Mpx on a
substrate of one-third of an inch square is insignificant when compared
with the construction of (say) a modern CPU where several million
junctions are masked onto a substrate of about one-tenth of an inch
square.
The knee in larger CCDs doesn't disappear on larger CCDs. And there's
exactly the same fall-off in sensitivity as on smaller CCDs.

In zero light (visible or IR) you have NO range whatsoever. Unless of
course you have some IR illuminations. If you're read a little more
carefully you'd have read the reference to the IR lamp on the front of
the "zero-lux" consumer camcorders.



You're now turning into a nit-picking pedant when you have been shown to
be talking rubbish (and now are beginning to realise it).
Are you terminally stupid? You're certainly trying hard.

Yes, but how many items have you had to return? It amuses me when
clueless folk praise the service they get when all they're doing is
box-shifting. The real test of "service" in this context is the response
you get when things go wrong. I can, however, give an example of (an
attempted) NTSC purchase here in Europe. I recently bought at nearly-new
TRV80 from a US serviceman. He tried for three months to purchase an
NTSC camcorder (in Germany where he was based) prior to his return to
the US - with no result.



Go read up on what

Yep, the last resort of the ignorant -- if the facts aren't on your side,
call names.

You can have the last word in this . . . um . . . discussion.  I've got
better things to do.

It depends on what you're doing.  I download mpeg as well when I'm
travelling and want to pull a show off my Tivo.  Everything depends on the
video quality -- full DirectTV mpeg (which is a weird, proprietary format)
takes me 12 hours for a 1 hour show over an average DSL line.  For most
purposes, though, wmv or mov are better choices -- you'll get equivalent
quality in a far more compact file.

That's an issue, though.  I have video clips on my website.  Storage is
limited, so I want the most "bang for the buck."  I assume you're running
Linux -- I can't afford the extra space to accomodate a relatively small
potential audience.  I do hope, though, that Linux grows to become a
dominant OS.  I've fooled with it some, and like it a lot more than either
Windows or Mac.

If that's what he meant, then the video quality is exactly the same as
miniDV -- as you noted, it's the DV25 spec.

Everything's relative. Three 1/3" sensors equals 1" of light grabbing
surface.  Compare that to 1/6" single-CCD sensors which are used in many of
the newer consumer camcorders -- that's 600% more surface area.

It's a function of market and marketing, I think.  If the consumer demand
was there, they'd make it.  Most consumers, though, think smaller is better,
higher-density is better and, of course, cheaper is better.

In message <3ev96bF56fm @individual.net>, PTRAVEL
<ptravel88-use @yahoo.com> writes
Snipped...

You've well demonstrated that you do not. I prefer to believe Sony
rather than someone who is clearly clueless.

If you didn't have your brain stuck firmly up your rectum, you would
have seen that I was offering just one more possibility.

--
Tony Morgan
http://www.camcord.info

I download mpeg all the time and it works fine.  It doesn't take
hours.  It's a published standard and it's viewable by all kinds of
programs that can't view those proprietary formats.  This is a peeve
of mine, I don't use Windows or Macintoshes and don't want to be
locked into any company's software to be able to view the files.  So
MPEG is what I also advise everyone to use, even if it means the files
are bigger than they'd be with some other formats.

I think he means DVCAM which is DV25 at a higher tape speed than mini-DV
(fewer dropouts/alignment probs/etc.) and with better sound sync.

Hate to say it but the VX2000/etc. uses three small sensors (1/3"),
not large ones.  By comparison, a consumer digital SLR camera (about
1/4 the price of a VX1000) has the equivalent of a single 1.4" sensor,
or 17x the sensor area of the VX2000.  Making 3-ccd cameras with large
sensors is extremely expensive because of alignment issues, but I
don't understand why nobody makes consumer camcorders with single 2/3"
or larger sensors as are common in digicams.

I have a TR-600 Hi8 machine that I used to use.  On a good monitor, it's
resolution is noticeably less than the TRV-20 which replaced it, though just
barely.  However, unlike the TRV-20, it was artifact-free (no stairsteps, no
"swimming" lines when panning, etc.).  It also had more saturated and
accurate color and, of course, the TRV-20 couldn't hold a candle (pun
intended) to its low-light performance.

So which camera produced "better" video?  It's a question of what someone
considers "better," I suppose.  If I wanted to shoot indoors, there's no
question that the TR-600 was better.  In bright sunlight, shooting subjects
without strong horizontal lines, the TRV-20 did pretty well.

Of course, neither remotely approaches what I get from my VX2000, but you
get what you pay for. ;)



Just for kicks, I slapped an infrared filter on my VX2000 to see what it
could do (I had the filter for my Canon 10D still camera).  The VX2000's
sensors are clearly filtered to eliminate infrared, but they do have some
sensitivity.  In very bright sunlight, with the lens wide-open and using a
1/30th of a second shutter speed, I can get infra-red images.  They're
pseudo-colored -- evidently each of the sensors has slightly different
infra-red response (or, perhaps, it's a function of the beam splitter).
It's an interesting effect, but not one that has much use, I think.

Interesting.  I'll admit to being less tactful than I should have been, but
his "RTFM" response to my original post answering his question about his
camcorder teed me off a bit.

Well, yes, so?  Premiere Pro has been out for quite some time now, and is
the current, supported version of Premiere.

I ran 6.5 perfectly well with 386 meg, and see no reason why Pro 1.0 and 1.5
wouldn't run as well.  All it means is that the program will use the swap
file more.  As for using Norton AV, that's a different problem altogether
and unrelated to memory.  If you're editing on a low memory machine you
should disable as many background programs as possible, including firewalls,
anti-virus software, anti-spyware, etc..  I do this even on my 512 meg
machine.

Well, of course.  "Recommended" is not the same as "required."

Your website is intended for beginners.  It gives the incorrect impression
that capture can only be done within an editor package.

You recommended avi or mpeg for web transmission of video.  Again, you
website is intended for beginners.  This information is not only wrong, but
will discourage beginners who don't understand why it takes several hours to
transmit a 5 minute video to someone else.

My comments are not sour grapes, but are less tempered than they might have
been.

Virtually all DVD players manufactured in the last few years will play
DVD-R.  That, however, is not the point.  You recommended VHS as a preferred
distribution medium because "most people" had them, but didn't have DVD
players.  As I said, I don't know how things are in Britain, but most people
in the US have DVD players.  Indeed, many of our video rental stores (you
have Blockbusters in Britain, too, don't you?) don't even rent VHS tapes
anymore.

However, that, too, is not the point.  As your own material indicates, VHS
is limited to 240 lines of resolution, less than half of what any decent
miniDV camcorder can produce.  Why in the world would anyone want to use
such a limited delivery vehicle?

Let's see -- DVD is a bad delivery vehicle because, according to you, most
players won't play DVD-R, but DVD-RAM, which is supported on a handful of
DVD machines is okay.

Have you seen the output of consumer camcorders, lately?  Most anything
priced under $500 (and probably priced under $1000) will produce garbage
compared to a comparably-priced Hi8 machine.

What is "DV professional"?  Do you mean DV-50?  Do you know any consumer
machines that use that?

miniDV is DV-25.  Calling it "inferior" to DV-50 (if that's what you meant)
without reference to an application is meaningless.  DV-25 exceeds what is
commonly accepted as "broadcast quality," at least here in the US (I know
considerably less about PAL standards).

I'm not talking about the miniDV standard vs. the Hi8 standard, but about
consumer miniDV cameras vs. consumer Hi8 cameras.  Most consumer miniDV
camcorders do not approach 520 line resolution.  Some don't even reach VHS
resolution.  Their images feature washed out color, chroma noise, and
consi

<snip>

I can see were this is all going to lead, welcome to Morgan's 'kill
file', as has happened to all on the uk group who try and educate the
guy.

Next he'll be arguing about copyright laws with you....

No, I simply know more than you.  Sony doesn't guarantee compatability
between camcorders for video recorded in LP mode.  However, there have been
very few reports of problems going from machine to machine, and, for most
people, it hasn't presented a problem.  However, specifically for Hi8,
non-guaranteed compatability notwithstanding, you'll still see something --  
perhaps audio will be off, perhaps the picture will tear, or it may be very
noisey.  If it's not working at all, it's a head alignment problem, just as
everyone else who has contributed to this thread suggested.

Well, I don't know how it seems to you.  LP mode is unreliable going between
machines, so Sony includes the warning.  What has that to do with the
condition that you described?

I think the point is that current consumer miniDV cameras have crappy
optics and electronics, which means lousy video regardless of the
recording format.  The hi-8 cameras of a few years ago were able to
make better video than today's low-end mini-DV despite hi-8's
disadvantage in recording format.

The VX2000 is a 3-ccd camera and as such does not and cannot support
Nightshot.  Which ccd would the beamsplitter send the infrared to?
Nightshot is only found on 1-ccd cameras.

It's very easy to buy PAL camcorders in the right type of big-city
retail store in the US.  The stores sell PAL cameras all the time to
foreign visitors since because of differing tax systems or whatever,
the cameras are cheaper here than in the visitors' home countries.

Interesting. If you point an infrared remote controller at a 3-ccd
camera and press the buttons, does this mean you cannot see the IR leds
flashing?

BTW, as you snipped "uk.rec.video.digital" off from the newsgroups line,
Morgan probably will not see your comments at all.

--
znark

In message <3etep1F4tfq @individual.net>, PTRAVEL
<ptravel88-use @yahoo.com> writes

Only in versions later than V6.5.

If you run with 256M with (for instance) Norton AV you'll be dropping
frames by the dozen. Adobe themselves recommend 1G of memory.

True. But will you point me to where I say otherwise?

You obviously missed the "or other video formats depending on your video
editor" - or are your comments here merely sour grapes?

You're beginning to show cluelessness as well as showing sour grapes.
I'd suggest you browse through http://www.videohelp.com/dvdpl ayers (to
which I give a link on the section in question). Many, many people have
legacy DVD players that won't play either DVD+R or DVD-R (some won't
play either).

Asking the question demonstrates your cluelessness.

Apex AS-1500, Denver DVD-158, Denver 188, JVC DR-M10S, JVCDR-M1SLE, JVC
MV1, LitOn LDV-2002, Mintek DVD-1600, Pacific DVD-1002, Panasonic
DMRE100HS, Panasonic DMR-E30, Panasonic DMR-E50, Panasonic E55S,
Panasonic DMR-E80H, Panasonic DMR-E85H, Panasonic DMR-E95H, Panasonic
DMR-ES10, Panasonic DMR-HS2, Panasonic S25, Panasonic S31, Panasonic
S35, Panasonic S47, Panasonic S75, Panasonic S97, Panasonic SC-HT850,
Tevion DVD-4000, Toshiba RD2, Toshiba RDXS32, and Toshiba SD3900.

You're now talking bollocks. While miniDV is inferior to the DV
professional and HD formats, miniDV will give 520 line resolution, while
analogue Hi8 only reaches 400 line resolution.

Again bollocks. Now you're beginning to sound as if you are terminally
clueless, blind, or both. If you are not, then put up a frame-grab shot
by a single candle to prove your absurd assertion.

Not true. It is a characteristic of (even latest technology) CCDs.
There's a knee in the response curve of CCDs which starts to linearise
at about 6 lux. The noise is introduced by the signal processor that
tries to amplify the signal to give a usable picture - resulting in
Schott and Johnson noise being amplified, resulting in poor picture
quality.

Again, you're talking bollocks and showing your cluelessness. You are
correct in your reference to infra-red, but infra-red light doesn't just
"happen". You have to have an infra-red source to allow it to be used.
Most camcorders (even your VX2000) claiming "0 lux" have an infra-red
lamp on the front of the camcorder - but it is only "strong" enough to
illuminate up to about 3 feet from the camcorder. Further, infra-red
shots give only monochrome pictures. Anyone who's used their "low-light"
camcorder feature will well know this.

On special order, perhaps. But I'd challenge you to walk into any
camcorder retail outlet in the US and purchase a PAL camcorder off the
shelf. It's the same here with NTSC - you can buy them but you have to
pre-order - with about a three week lead-time.

Again you'r

In message <3etde7F4rq2 @individual.net>, PTRAVEL
<ptravel88-use @yahoo.com> writes

Obviously you know more than Sony. I even dug out my old F330 (Hi8
analogue) camcorder manual, to confirm my recollection that even in
those far off days, there's a warning (as there is for today's digital
camcorders) about the "non-playablity" of LP tapes in other than the
original recording camcorder.

ISTM that Sony wouldn't give such a warning if it was (as you assert)
relatively rare.
--
Tony Morgan
http://www.camcord.info

On 5/16/2005, Trev managed to type:



Wish I'd thought of that! Good catch.

The OP could suggest that his customer try tapes from other
camcorders...

Gino

--
Gene E. Bloch (Gino)
letters617blochg3251
(replace the numbers by "at" and "dotcom")

 or the camera they where recoded on was out of alignment

Incidently, not to belabor a point, but I took a quick look at your website.
It's well-intentioned, but has a fair amount of incorrect information.
Specifically:

1.  Premiere is capable of time-code based scene detection on capture.
You're wrong when you say it can only import entire clips.  It also will run
on less than 512 meg of RAM.

2.  Capture can be done within a video editor, but can also be done with
specialized tools, e.g. Scenealyzer Live.  These are capable of optical
scene detection, as well as time-code-based scene detection, and can also
preview a tape to allow clip-specific captures.

4.  AVI and mpeg are particularly poor choices for sending video over the
internet.  High-compression formats, e.g. Apple's .mov Quicktime or
Microsoft's .wmv are much better.

5.  "Most people have a VHS recorder, but DVD can present problems"?  That
may be true in Britain, I don't know.  It's certainly not true in the US,
where you can buy DVD players for as little as $25.

6.  What set-top DVD players do you know that will play DVD-RAM?

7. Most miniDV camcorders do NOT provide the highest quality video.
Contemporary consumer camcorders are dismal kludges that produce grainy,
noisey video.  Most Hi8 camcorders will produce higher-quality video.

6.  "Movies" shot in low light are not grainy, etc. unless shot with
poor-quality consumer camcorders.  My camcorder is a VX2000 miniDV and it
produces brilliant, sharp, saturated non-grainy video by the light of a
single candle.  There's nothing inherent in either digital formats,
generally, or the miniDV format, specifically, that results in poor
low-light performance.  The effect that you describe is the result of
deliberate design compromises introduced by camcorder manufactures in their
lower-end consumer machines.

7.  "Nightshot" is simply infra-red sensitive videography.  It is not
limited to 3 feet and produces wonderful results with good camcorders.

8.  PAL camcorders are available from reputable dealers in the US at good
prices, e.g. B&H and Adorama, both of which are extremely ethical, reliable
and will readily accept returns and exchanges.

9.  Neither Digital8 nor MiniDV support component video as part of the spec.

matter what the manufacturer claims) results in a substantial loss of
quality."  That's utterly and completely wrong.  Have you ever seen the
output of a decent miniDV camcorder?

11. AVI isn't "uncompressed."  AVI is nothing more than a file wrapper which
can accomodate a variety of codec-encoded video formats.  HuffyUV-encoded
avi is compressed, but non-lossy.  DV-25, i.e. miniDV and Digital8, encoded
avi is most definitely encoded in lossy format at a ratio of about 5 to 1.

I don't have time to review everything else on your website.  I appreciate
your interest in helping other amateurs, but jumping in with misleading or
simply erroneo

On the contrary, there's nothing to indicate that the buyer of the camcorder
was attempting to play back LP tapes.  The default for Sony camcorders is
SP, not LP, and it takes a deliberate change to a menu setting to access LP.

All indications are that the camcorder heads are out of alignment, which is
a very, very common condition for older consumer camcorders.

And, as an aside, it is relatively rare for properly aligned camcorders to
fail to play back tapes recorded in other machines, EVEN if they are
recorded in LP.

On 5/16/2005, Tony Morgan managed to type:



You know, the OP said the camcorder he sold is Hi-8, but he didn't say
what kind of camcorders the problem tapes came from.

One can't expect a Hi-8 camcorder to read a digital-8 tape, for
instance. By design...

Gino

--
Gene E. Bloch (Gino)
letters617blochg3251
(replace the numbers by "at" and "dotcom")

In message <3ervt1F4mid @individual.net>, PTravel
<ptra @ruyitang.com> writes

Given the information that we've gleaned from the OP, ISTM that the most
likely cause is an LP recording from another camcorder.

Sony manuals state quite clearly that LP recordings from another
camcorder are likely not to replay properly.
--
Tony Morgan
http://www.camcord.info

Thank's for your anwser

"PTravel" <ptra @ruyitang.com> a ??crit dans le message de news:
3ervt1F4mid @individual.net...

Most likely, the heads are out of alignment, which will result in the
symptoms you've described.

Yes.  If it was within the alignment specification, it wouldn't have this
problem.