DV versus Super-8, the Official Flame Thread...

[crimsonson]

sorry S8Booster it will take more than an article from a website that is obviously for the advancement of MD to convince me or almost every pro around the world.

So far that is the only site I know that says MD is better than DAT (in a very NARROW sense), from an engineer who obviously is part of the MD R&D.

Second MD like MPEG is a variable compression scheme, meaning some parts will not be as good as others. Definetely a no no for pro use.

Third MD gets this kind Dynamic range because its compresses the signal!! 16 bit means jack if you are not quantifying 100% of data.
Its like DV' 8 bit color quality - just like DigiBeta but its a 4:1:1 compression compared to 4:2:2 of D -beta. That is a 2:1 data difference. With MD and DAT the difference is bigger since MD ATRAC throws away as much as 5:1.

Fourth MD is susceptible to skips- no doubt about it. Even at 40 sec buffer pros are afraid to use it. I mean why put your reputation on the line for a missing sound less than a half a second (or worst)? Hmmm its like using a camera that might give you flash frames in the middle of a shoot. Hey its only 1 frame out hundreds right ?

Fifth MD compression scheme will actually make certain sound that is extremely loud/soft level even out in order to fit in its 2.8 bit limit. So you get a "flatter" recording. Teh sound quality that analog HiFi freaks hate about digital sound!!


Lastly the ATRAC it talks about is version 3.5. Current consumer and many pro MD ear is still in this version. I have only seen a very small (Ok 1 or 2 pro stuff) handful gear that is using ATRAC 4. So it might have been 7 years but MD is still (or at least mostly) using old tech.

[crimsonson]

"If we stick to consumer/prosumer Video cams MANY OF THEM creates a heavy video drum noise that makes the audio useless for other than useless footage."

Hmmm - please give me a specific model. I have used about a dozen Sony Digital 8 cameras, miniDV and prosumer DV - NOT one produced drum noise. Of course the mic qualit is another story. Even the lowest min DV camera is quiet. this is no contest.

"S8 wins this battle if you want to by using a separate recording system."

I dont see why unless you are not allwing video to use a sperate one also to even out the playing field.
but video wins again. miniDV sound quality is uncompressed digital audio - same as DAT (the format used for feature film production). Second - video does not need a crystal sync.

"By the way: 100:1 ratio seem a result of no planning at all? Does it produce better Docs? I doubt it. "

Yes it does! - because the best part of every doc is when it captures a moment that was not initiated by director saying "Action!"
This is a standard fare in documentaries. What you have to keep in mind is when shooting a current event type situation - you just have to keep the camera rolling since you do not know when the "event" will actually occur. Try to remember the last contemporary doc you have seen that was shot in film? You can ask any documentarian and they will tell you the same. The Hoop Dreams was shot in seven years (or was it 5)!!!
When We Where Kings was a collection of literally hundreds of hours of old (film) footage - cut down to a 2 hour movie.

[Alex]

Pretty much ALL one chip DV cameras produce unnacceptable noise levels.

Any Digital one-chip camera that has no external mike input usually produces too much camera noise. JVC, Panasonic, I don't know about Sony.

A cinematographer/producer had to reschedule video editing time with me because the interview he did in a small room with perfect accoustics was deemed unusuable because onboard camera microphone picked up the buzzing of the camera. It was really loud.

The camera in question was a one-chip digital camera made by JVC. Apparently, this poor audio quality has been INTENTIONALLY designed to thwart videomakers from using a one-chip camera in place of a 3-chip camera.

By the way, I like mini-dv, and I see a lot of nice imagery that comes from it. I just find it surprising that once somebody shoots in digital, they somehow develop a superiority complex over film.

It's bizarre.

Even the VX-2000 has a faulty external microphone input feature. I've not tried it personally but if you plug in an external microphone I have been told that the audio track gets contaminated with a buzz.

Also, there was some kind of mix-up with the gain structure on the VX-2000, if you put it in manual mode, you got worse audio than if you had kept the camera in auto mode. They may have fixed future versions of the camera.

I think certain projects, such as music videos and commercials, make way more sense shot in film, Unless you really need to show every bit of performance imaginable. Documentaries make more sense in video IF you plan on having a large ratio of footage to final product.

A documentary that is exploring it's topic for new angles should probably be done in video, especially if on a low budget. However, if one knows their topic and knows the voice-over that they will be using in the final product, film can be a viable and logical option.

Corporate Image Videos make sense for film, since the message is already known before the footage is shot.

<font color="#a62a2a" size="1">[ August 04, 2002 10:57 PM: Message edited by: Alex ]</font>

[TA152]

MD: Still only refering to "old truthts"?
Read the site again and try to understand teh technology design.
Even at ATRAC 3.5 the dynamic range and the ability to record and playback subtle details are superior for the MD whatever other factor you mix in and I am pretty sure that the MDs are still slammed by by the PROs due to the "bad start" the MD got.

Another factor is the much misunderstood compression method. The compression used here is different from the one used for DV or digital images.

Example. a digital JPEG picture:

A standard picture can be compressed heavlily before your eye notes the difference between the original uncompressed and the reasonably heavy compressed one.

It is impossible to see the difference before you magnify the image significatly.

It s not possible to magnify the "compressed" or rather coded MD sound the same way to make the human ear hear the diffrences and can comparably be seen by the eye.

Why is that?
The Digital image can be magnified of 2 or basically 3 axis (including colour bit depth).

For comparisation the MD file can not be magnified over more than one axis or be played back at ultra slow speed to "magnify" the sound to make the ear detect any defects from the compression.

Additionally, if you look at the D/A conversion the curcuits are designed to optimise and recreate the original coded waveform.

Additionally for film sound recording most of it will be human conversation and most sounds will be in the range of up to 3.5 kHz (you may double or triple that for 2nd and 3rd harmonics to cover it all) and in this context it would be impossible to differ between a linear 16 bit and the MD/ATRAC CODED sound recording whatever.

As you will see the resolution of the DAT/Mini DV may drop to 12 bis as the MD always retains the true 16 bit resolution, a tremendous difference actually.

PRO portable MD Recorder: http://users.aol.com/fmgp/pmd.htm


R

<font color="#a62a2a" size="1">[ August 05, 2002 04:45 AM: Message edited by: S8 Booster ]</font>

[kator]

I've always liked applying the art analogy to film vs video. DV is like acrylic paints vs oil paints. When the first acrylic paints came out, the death of oils was forcasted by many. Oils, like film, were expensive, required skill to work with, took long periods to dry, and were the traditional way to work. Acrylics have improved a great deal, but it is still difficult to make an acrylic painting look like an oil one. In general, they just don't have the sheen, or the ability to layer quite as well. I think DV is a great tool, but I see a lot of bs surrounding it as well. On one hand, I have to appreciate it because it has helped super8 remain a legitimate option for those working with film on a budget. On the other hand, it has done a lot to hurt 16mm and super8. Film and video are just different mediums. I hate it when you see people promoting video as not needing mics, lighting, tripods etc. Many of the video producers not using this equipment are opting to do so because they want "that video look" they same way we want "that film look." I think that the whole desire to push video now as "digital" is that it never got any respect before because of its low quailty, workhorse nature. What will happen to film in the next few decades remains to be seen, I appreciate HD, but think it is overrated. I'm afraid that the hype over it will inevitably lead to film development stagnating. 35mm had stagnated for decades. Check out www.mv48.com. This system allows film to be shot at 48fps or 24 on the fly. Uses a bigger frame than standard 35mm, has provisions to keep the film from wearing in the gate, controls to prevent motion jitter. Unfortunately, it is more expensive than regualr 35mm, but not even twice as much so. Its also backward compatible, and only involves changing the gate to upgrade. Picture quality is supposed to be close to 70mm, and even IMAX only runs at 24fps and has the same motion artifacts as 35mm. Will we see this tech? We might not. Kodak has been pretty silent about it, even though its been recommended alot, they just spent a fortune on their digital projection equipment, and this would break compatibilty with 24 HD, which can barely be achieved right now with massive compression...

[crimsonson]

"It s not possible to magnify the "compressed" or rather coded MD sound the same way to make the human ear hear the diffrences and can comparably be seen by the eye."


Yes you can. Each speakers have certain capabilities. Liek you said technical specs is not the complete picture. For example you buy $100 computer speakers and $10,000 speakers system. I bet you can hear and differentiate certain timbre much better with the $10,000 even though they have the same frequency response of 20-20K.

That is why musicians and sound engineers use high quality loud speakers. That is why movie theaters sound system needs to meet certain standards (like THX). Speakers like video monitors can show weakness in compression. Espcially when you magnify the resolution (pixel count for video and Volume Unit for audio).
Show a compressed JPEG on a TV and it looks great. Show the same image on a same size pro monitor and it aint so hot. Same with speakers and sound.

[TA152]

Getting back to the MD / DAT / TAPE issue later, just posting some info:


<BLOCKQUOTE><font size=2 face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><table border="0" width="90%" bgcolor="#333333" cellspacing="1" cellpadding="0"><tr><td width="100%"><table border="0" width="100%" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="2" bgcolor="#FF9900"><tr><td width="100%" bgcolor="#DDDDDD"><font size=2 face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif"> MD RELIABILITY

I'd like to move on to the area of reliability - obviously something that people are concerned about when it's their own music. There have been difficulties with mechanical reliability with some consumer DAT machines. How does MiniDisc reliability compare with DAT?

"The MDMX4 uses a device which has also been used on MD Audio decks for a long time. This is mechanically very reliable, because we have long experience of this type of machine."

But there is error correction built into the system, so that it can recover from any data loss. One aspect of this is that with DAT, error correction circuitry is sometimes so good that recordings have seriously deteriorated before audible effects occur. Does this also apply to MiniDisc?

"Of course, the error correction system is not exactly the same as that of a DAT machine, but it is similar in a MiniDisc recorder. There are two major advantages compared to DAT: the first is that it is possible to retry for the signal, as the tape has not gone past, because we use a random access memory and compression system, whereas DAT is a linear recording. Also you don't have any physical contact like that between DAT tape and the heads, so there is no long-term wear involved. The possibility of errors is very small, and fortunately, we have several chances to re-read any that occur."

Many SOS readers have concerns over the differences between consumer and professional machines. In the past, some DAT recorders have been bought by recording studios, but they have purchased so-called 'consumer' machines, and they found it difficult to get any technical problems repaired under guarantee. Machines that are only used a few hours per week, but still classed as 'consumer', fall into a grey area, and dealers sometimes say that they cannot then support them, because they have not been used solely in the home. If a professional musician bought an MDMX4, what are the support implications?

"The main target for the MDMX4 is, as I mentioned previously, consumer musicians. Of course, some professional people would use this as a professional machine - the quality is good enough - but the main target is the consumer. We don't propose that the professional musician uses it for his job."
</font></td></tr></table></td></tr></table></BLOCKQUOTE>

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size=2 face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">quote:</font><table border="0" width="90%" bgcolor="#333333" cellspacing="1" cellpadding="0"><tr><td width="100%"><table border="0" width="100%" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="2" bgcolor="#FF9900"><tr><td width="100%" bgcolor="#DDDDDD"><font size=2 face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">
DAT Do's and Don't's
The following was posted by Art Munson, who has the following initial comments:

I scanned the following article, TOP 20 DAT RECORDING DO'S and DON'TS, out of the latest TASCAM users guide. No author was listed so I don't know who to give credit to. For those of you new to the DAT world it contains some valuable information. Those of us not so new can probably learn something or at least be reminded of some things about this format. I was particuarly interested in the tip #1 as it's something I have been harping on for the last 6 months or so, also tip #4 on their comments on cleaning the heads. I found tips #13 and #18 interesting also.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The DAT miracle must face the practical realities of tape-based recording.

The DAT (Digital Audio Tape) recorder is a project studio owner's dream come true. Not only does it deliver CD - quality (or better) sound in a recordable, compact, taped-based format its near-universal adoption as a mastering and audio backup standard makes it easy to exchange tapes with other studios and musicians.

However, digital tape is not the same breed as analog tape. DAT has a few surprises up its sleeve, and to get the most out of this medium you need to observe some important do's and don'ts.

Following are 20 tips that can help give you a better sound as well as more reliable operation. Remember, although DATs sound miraculous, they are still taped based. Most of the cautions that apply to analog apply just as much, if not more so, to DAT.

1. Do fast forward new DAT tapes (or analog tapes, for that matter) all the way to the end, then rewind to the beginning before using. This "unpacks" the tape and disperses any lubricant more evenly over the tape surface.
2. Listen to a tape after recording to verify that there are no glitches. However, note that some top-of-the-line DAT decks, such as TASCAM's DA-60, let you monitor off the tape as you're recording. These machines are more costly because they use 4 heads, but being able to verify that signals are being properly recorded on tape can be invaluable, especially for live recordings.
3. Don't overuse "cue" and "review" modes. These modes are similar to rewind and fast forward, but maintain contact between the tape and head so you can hear what's on the tape as it whizzes by. You usually enter these modes by pressing rewind or fast forward while the tape is playing instead of pressing stop first. Cue and review speeds are slower than rewind and fast forward but faster than normal playback; although the monitored sound won't be high fidelity, it will be good enough to let you know where you are on the tape. The down side of these modes is that the continued tape contact causes head and tape wear, so unless you absolutely need to monitor the sound as it goes by, press stop before selecting rewind or fast forward to disengage the tape from the heads.
4. Do clean the DAT heads periodically (the manual should mention how regularly this needs to be done), or if there seems to be an increase in errors. DATs can be cleaned with commonly available dry-cleaning cassettes; never use wetting agents of any kind, or do analog tape recorder cleaning techniques. If you experience any problem with a rotating head-based machine, first run a cleaning cassette and see if the problem fixes itself. This will provide a solution in most cases; if not, take the DAT deck to your local authorized service center for professional cleaning and inspection.
5. Don't write on DAT labels with pencil or ball point pens. You don't want graphite or ink particles flaking off of the DAT machine transport; use a felt-tip marker that doesn't leave any solid residue. Do back up your tapes. It's as important to make DAT copies as it is to make safety copies of analog tapes. It's best to do digital transfers, but if it isn't possible, analog copies still sound fine. If at all possible, keep an additional set of tapes offsite in case of fire, flood, earthquake, volcanoes, or UFO visitations.
6. There is a major caution concerning digital copies: "consumer" grade DAT recorders often include SCMS (Serial Copy Management System), which is designed to thwart unauthorized digital dubbing and piracy by inserting "flags" in the digital data stream. You can generally make one copy of a tape, but you can't make a digital copy of that copy. (SCMS does not affect the analog inputs and outputs.) Why is this a problem? Suppose you mix down several tunes to a DAT, then "assemble" these tunes in the proper order by copying them to a second DAT. If you try to make a backup copy of the master, SCMS will prevent this. Pro decks either dispense with SCMS entirely, or provide some means to defeat it. Which brings us to...
7. Do defeat SCMS on the DA-30. There's no reason for professionals to have to put up with SCMS, since pros often need to make copies of their own music. The basic procedure is to unplug the DA-30, remove the top cover, and locate the digital printed circuit board (looking from the front of the unit, this is the large green board to the right of the transport). Locate a short jumper wire labeled W-402, then use a small diagonal cutters to clip this wire (or, desolder the wire and install a switch if you want to be able to choose between enabling and disabling SCMS). Put the cover back on and you're done. For more details on how to do this simple modification, see Issue #8 (Spring/Summer 1992) of the TASCAM Users Group guide.
8. Don't overlook the fact that DATs are compatible with many hard disk recording systems. If you don't have two DATs to make backups, you can copy the data from the DAT to the hard disk recorder, then load in a second DAT tape and bounce the hard disk data to it.
9. Do use the write protect tab to differentiate between a "current" and "old" backup. Many pros keep two backups. Only one is updated at a time; that way if a problem happens during the backup process, the older backup is still available. On the next backup, the older backup is updated. protect the current backup and unprotect the older backup so that the next time you back up, there won't be any mistaking which tape should be backed up to.
10. Do keep DAT tapes in proper environmental conditions: dust-free, low humidity, and cool. Since DATs aren't very big, you may be able to store back-up copies in a climate-controlled office environment, which gives the additional advantage of off-site redundancy. Humidity and heat are particularly bad; moisture can rust or corrode metal tapes.
11. Do record at 44.1 khz if you expect your material to end up on CD. Although DAT's 48 khz sampling frequency theoretically gives better high frequency response than 44.1 khz, the real world difference is negligible. Material recorded at 48 will have to undergo a sample rate conversion to 44.1 khz prior to appearing on CD, which costs between $5O and $100 and can degrade the sound to a minor degree.
12. Don't be too afraid to go over 0 VU. No, that's not a typo! Granted, 99.9 percent of the time you'll want to avoid overload like the plague. But on tunes where extremely short percussive transients are the reason for the overload, they can be slightly clipped. This allows for a higher average signal level without compression, assuming of course that the duration of any distorted signals are so short that you don't hear any adverse effects to the overall sound. (Tapes recorded on the DA-3O can actually sound good with a little clipping, since the DA-30's clipping characteristics are somewhat more like the "soft" clipping associated with analog gear.
13. Do date your DAT tapes. After a tape has been around more than five years or so, it's prudent to make a digital copy of it to a new tape, and keep the older tape as a backup.
14. Don't leave tapes in a DAT machine after the power is turned off. Should there be any type of problem (e.g., blown fuse) when you turn the machine on again, it may be difficult to get the tape out.
15. Do keep abreast of software changes in your machine. DATs, like most devices these days, are software-driven and occasionally their software is updated or improved. Check with the company periodically to see if any updates have been made available that are pertinent to the gear you own.
16. Don't go over and over the same piece of tape when doing final mixes. The more you use a piece of tape, the more it deteriorates and the greater the likelihood of errors. Do consecutive mixes, and note which one is the final mix. You can then do a digital transfer to another DAT deck to build up a tape with nothing but final mixes (but remember the earlier caution about SCMS-equipped gear.)
17. On a related topic, don't leave the DAT in pause mode; pause is intended for a very specific function. When stopped, DAT tape is disengaged from the transport, and is not in contact with the heads. When you enter play or record modes, it takes a few seconds to engage the tape and have it contact the head. However, in pause mode the tape remains engaged and the head remains in contact; if you then initiate play or record, the tape kicks into action much faster. Since pause mode causes head and tape wear, use this only when you need to go from a paused to playing or recording status in the minimum possible time.
18. Do leave at least a minute of blank, but recorded, tape at the beginning of a tape before laying down any of your tunes (two minutes is probably safer). Also make sure you don't record all the way to the end. With virtually all tapes, the ends are the most prone to having quality problems.
19. Don't let DAT tapes get near magnetic fields. As with analog tapes, this can erase signals on the tape.
20. Do give each tape a unique ID. DAT tapes have a way of proliferating, and it's important to be able to locate what you want quickly. Similarly, do keep a notebook of what's on each tape. Dats can hold two or even three hours of material, and that's a lot of tunes - you don't want to record over something accidentally! </font></td></tr></table></td></tr></table></BLOCKQUOTE>

R

[daveduck]

Sakes alive, has this thread heated up!

Fascinating reading, all of it.

Now, if you don't mind, I need to get back into our monthly Conspirators Against Film board meeting...we're hatching our hostile takeover of Eastman-Kodak.

[img]wink.gif[/img]

[jefury]

Soderberg used the Canon XL1-S to shoot some clips in Full Frontal. Has anyone seen the movie? From the commercials I've seen, the miniDV didn't look great. It was too grainy at night, and that quality could of been accomplished with a cheap non 3 CCD camera.

but that's just what i've seen in the commericials..

Jeffery

[pslove]

It depends on what you're doing. I just got my super 8 camera last week, to make pretty things. If I were going to make something that involved lots of improvised acting, or needed sync sound, I'd shoot on video, for money reasons of course. "The Anniversary Party" was a feature film shot on video in this way, and I could tell immediately that it was shot on video, but I thought it was great, that the acting was great. If they didn't have the money to do that on film, because that kind of shooting involves insane ratios, then I'm glad they did it on video.
I'm going to make music videos and things that don't involve sync sound, because I like the way film looks, even when it's transferred to video. To me super 8 looks better than the Anniversary Party.