You misunderstood my point about matching time-code.
The time-code would not be visible on the DV-CAM version, but it would match the higher resolution tape master that you also made when you did your original film transfer to video.
SO if the DV tape was broadcast quality, I assume the higher resolution master would be greater then broadcast quality? If thats the case, I don't see the point in creating a better then broadcast quality tape.
Or maybe I'm still totally missing the point. Thats probably it.
DV is quasi broadcast quality. It has 4:1:1 sampling which isn't quite the equivalent of the 4:2:2 sampling that both Betacam SP and Digital Betacam use.
Even if you believe it to be broadcast quality, DV-CAM tape is very thin and is not a reliable archiving format.
<font color="#a62a2a" size="1">[ October 30, 2003 10:07 PM: Message edited by: Alex ]</font>
Would it be possible for a lab to send me my rushes, already digitised in the form of an .avi file on a harddisk or a data DVD or something? What I really need is a way to get superior quality copys straight off the negative, that are'nt going to lose quality due to lots of analog copying. That way I can take my time to do a perfect job of editing, letting all the rushes lie on my 200gb harddisk at broadcast quality as long as is needed. What is the cheapest way to do this? Sorry, I just kind of lost the plot when you started talking about camera's. Camera's don't concern me - just some way I could get a broadcast quality representation of my super16 negatives onto my computer, edit, and take it off as some kind of broadcast quality master(s) without having lost any of the picture quality at any stage.
Thank you all
There's nothing to believe. The XL-1 is a professional camera. The whole point of this type of camera is that you can easily capture the footage and store it digitally on HDD or a CD/DVD. That's why the tapes are so cheap. I wouldn't even think of storing a final version of a film on this format alone!
I can't say I've ever used Betacam, so I may be out of my depth here, but when I looked at it it seemed like far too much costs for what it did, especially when DV gave you so much flexibilty to do alot more.
Kigo, I don't understand your previous post.
<font color="#a62a2a" size="1">[ October 31, 2003 10:44 AM: Message edited by: Alex ]</font>
I think I understand what you were saying now. But thats too complicated. Instead, I'll get the rushes on a dv format, and store them permanently on two harddisks - in case one fails. harddisks in static proof bags are gonna last a long time. Plus I'll make dvd copy's. Thats probably the best solution. Thanks
<font color="#a62a2a" size="1">[ October 31, 2003 10:30 AM: Message edited by: Peter_G ]</font>
It seems like your original topic started out about Betacam SP but then shifted to what is affordable and good enough quality to do on your own desktop.
So this really wasn't a Betacam SP versus mini-dv thread as orginally stated.
Just clarifying.
Prices for used BetaSP/DigiBeta/DV broadcast equipment were taken from http://www.lrcbroadcast.com
Transferring any old hat to BetaSP would obviously not pass the quality control but I was talking about decent DV or Hi8/Super8-footage that the studio refused not because of the quality of the footage but because of the medium and it was inherently assumed that the footage will be of inferior quality. Copied onto BetaSP it was accepted without a hitch.
When talking about "DV" I am talking about professional DV cameras. XL1, VX200 and PD150 are semi-pro machines. My camcorder is shoulder-mounted with pro XLR slots, exchangeable 14x Fujinon lens and all the bells and whistles of a pro BetaSP camera (but still only entry-level professional equipment). Qualitywise its picture is slightly better than BetaSP hence it commands a higher price in the used market than BetaSP cameras.
As for the original poster - if you want to lose as little quality as possible you need to capture your 16mm stock footage not into an *.avi or *.mov or whatever container but into a stream of uncompressed pictures (i.e. TARGA-format), edit them and then transfer each picture back onto film or onto a master DigiBeta tape. The last step can be done in professional suite, and that's were proper timecode can save you a small fortune, as Alex rightly noted. To transfer your original 16mm stock onto your computer you might either use a lab or buy the aforementioned 16mm scanner for around $1.650.- (don't have the link, maybe someone else could help?).
<font size="2" face="Verdana, Helvetica, sans-serif">If you believe your camera is better than a BetaCam sp camera you would need to dock your DV-CAM camera to a BetaCam SP recorder and record your camera signal onto the BetaCam SP recorder for actual verification of your claim.Originally posted by assyrix:
My camcorder is shoulder-mounted with pro XLR slots, exchangeable 14x Fujinon lens and all the bells and whistles of a pro BetaSP camera (but still only entry-level professional equipment). Qualitywise its picture is slightly better than BetaSP hence it commands a higher price in the used market than BetaSP cameras.
It may be that your camera is taking advantage of the latest and greatest in camera technology so when compared to a 10 year old BetaCam SP it may be slightly better.
However, I have BetaCam SP footage from the early 90's that was shot with the a top of the line camera and the stuff just rocks. Just spectacular and I doubt anyone DV-Cam recorder could beat it.
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks