OT: Never count on Video for stills

Tom Meeks · Aug 20, 2001

I just finished trying to print about 100 images for a cousin that used a Sony DCR-TRV20 to capture still images as well as video.

They were shot outdoors in Africa on a picture safari. They should have been GREAT pictures! Yet, were the worst still images I have EVER seen. Even the old 500L ran circles around the output of the Sony Digital Video camera. It was almost impossible to get a decent print out of any of them.

So, if any of your friends tell you that they are interested in buying a Sony videocamera becuase it also shoots still, send them to me and I'll send them a sample of the kind of stills it shoots.

As an aside, if you'd like to know why digital video is a BAD idea for your family videos that you expect to view in 20 years I can give you firsthand experience with that too!

I've been shooting video for more than THIRTY years and CONSUMER digital video on tape is the WORST idea I've seen in all those years. Copy. Copy. Copy!!!

Julio55869 · Aug 20, 2001

Tom Meeks said:
As an aside, if you'd like to know why digital video is a BAD idea
for your family videos that you expect to view in 20 years I can
give you firsthand experience with that too!

I've been shooting video for more than THIRTY years and CONSUMER
digital video on tape is the WORST idea I've seen in all those
years. Copy. Copy. Copy!!!

Why do you say that?

Thanks.

Tom Meeks · Aug 20, 2001

The reason I do NOT like Digital Video for long term storage is rooted in the nature of videotape itself. It's a magnetic layer bonded to a substrate. The material that the magnetic layer is bonded tends to warp and stretch over time... even when NOT being used. (Heat & Cold, dry & moist, etc.) Just the weight of the tape itself causes some stretching and warping... which is why video should NEVER be stored on its side.

This warping & stretching, along with a general deterioration of the bonding material results in what is known as 'drop-out'. On an analog tape this is seen as streaks that flash across the screen. It may not be pretty; but, only on the WORST case does it result in a complete loss of picture.

Drop-out on a digital tape, on the other hand, results in a complete loss of meaningful data. The results are usually seen as huge undecypherable blocks. The result of even small amounts of dropout can be a catestropic loss... there ARE no usable numbers from which to reconstruct the picture.

So, if you have a digital video recorder, it's EXTREMELY important to IMMEDIATELY copy the tape to an analog format... such as VHS or run it through a computer and create a DVD.

I began shooting video in 1968 and still have some of those old black & white tapes. They're pretty bad; but, at least I can see them. The same is true of ALL the VHS originals I ever shot. I've lost portions of some 8mm and Hi-8 tapes over time. But, my biggest losses have been from using the digital format and not copying immediately.

If no one believes this, just watch the news carefully. You often see the picture break up in the middle of a taped story. That's the kind of dropout I'm talking about. And, if it happens with $25,000 cameras and $15,000 TBC tape decks you KNOW it's going to happen to you sooner or later!

Julio said:
Tom Meeks said:

As an aside, if you'd like to know why digital video is a BAD idea
for your family videos that you expect to view in 20 years I can
give you firsthand experience with that too!

I've been shooting video for more than THIRTY years and CONSUMER
digital video on tape is the WORST idea I've seen in all those
years. Copy. Copy. Copy!!!

Click to expand...

Why do you say that?

Thanks.

LesDMess · Aug 20, 2001

Tom,

i've always told people that video cameras make great videos and cameras make great pictures - no doubt! However, I think that the TRV900 makes very reasonable pictures and I have not seen a camera that can make an equally reasonable video. Take a look at the picture links from the best TRV900 site at http://www.bealecorner.com/trv900/index.html Also, take a look at this lense adapter for the TRV900 as it is equally as impressive looking as the TCON300 at http://members.tripod.com/~vincent_ysc/FSK1.htm
LesDMess

Tom Meeks said:
I just finished trying to print about 100 images for a cousin that
used a Sony DCR-TRV20 to capture still images as well as video.

They were shot outdoors in Africa on a picture safari. They should
have been GREAT pictures! Yet, were the worst still images I have
EVER seen. Even the old 500L ran circles around the output of the
Sony Digital Video camera. It was almost impossible to get a
decent print out of any of them.

So, if any of your friends tell you that they are interested in
buying a Sony videocamera becuase it also shoots still, send them
to me and I'll send them a sample of the kind of stills it shoots.

As an aside, if you'd like to know why digital video is a BAD idea
for your family videos that you expect to view in 20 years I can
give you firsthand experience with that too!

I've been shooting video for more than THIRTY years and CONSUMER
digital video on tape is the WORST idea I've seen in all those
years. Copy. Copy. Copy!!!

Tom Meeks · Aug 20, 2001

Three chip cameras are in a different league than most consumers can afford; but, this camera... and the Canon 3-chip cameras do a wonderful job of video.

The big difference for the pro vs. the consumer is that the pro makes a few passes of the original tape and creates an edit master to store on the shelf. The consumer stores the original, plays the original and lays the tape around outside the case, etc... and, expects it to be there for them in 20 years. Ain't gonna happen with DV tapes.

My associate on the JVC VideoTitler software recently worked with Radio Shack to get stills from the "space station" ad that ran on Father's Day and ended up with some amazing results. But, he's a pro at image manipulation. Most consumers aren't.

I shoot digital images (although a good argument can be made for cleaner images in Hi-8 when compression is taken into account.); But, I alsways make copies within hours of shooting the original. I have a Sony EVO-9720 Hi-8 editor and I copy the digital to that and from there I make at least one VHS copy just to be on the safe side. Tape is cheap.

LesDMess said:
Tom Meeks said:

I just finished trying to print about 100 images for a cousin that
used a Sony DCR-TRV20 to capture still images as well as video.

They were shot outdoors in Africa on a picture safari. They should
have been GREAT pictures! Yet, were the worst still images I have
EVER seen. Even the old 500L ran circles around the output of the
Sony Digital Video camera. It was almost impossible to get a
decent print out of any of them.

So, if any of your friends tell you that they are interested in
buying a Sony videocamera becuase it also shoots still, send them
to me and I'll send them a sample of the kind of stills it shoots.

As an aside, if you'd like to know why digital video is a BAD idea
for your family videos that you expect to view in 20 years I can
give you firsthand experience with that too!

I've been shooting video for more than THIRTY years and CONSUMER
digital video on tape is the WORST idea I've seen in all those
years. Copy. Copy. Copy!!!

Click to expand...

LesDMess · Aug 20, 2001

I've had my TRV900 for over 2 years now and it still blows me away everytime I make a new vid, for home and work. I always wondered about the 3ccd and why there are no digital cams with it? Especially since it is touted for better color reproduction. Hmmmmm . . .

Anyway, even my video is digital and I am on my way to DVD production myself since the Pioneer is under $800 and DVDRs are under $10 each. I guess I am just waiting for consensus on stability and compatibility.
LesDMess

Tom Meeks said:
The big difference for the pro vs. the consumer is that the pro
makes a few passes of the original tape and creates an edit master
to store on the shelf. The consumer stores the original, plays the
original and lays the tape around outside the case, etc... and,
expects it to be there for them in 20 years. Ain't gonna happen
with DV tapes.

My associate on the JVC VideoTitler software recently worked with
Radio Shack to get stills from the "space station" ad that ran on
Father's Day and ended up with some amazing results. But, he's a
pro at image manipulation. Most consumers aren't.

I shoot digital images (although a good argument can be made for
cleaner images in Hi-8 when compression is taken into account.);
But, I alsways make copies within hours of shooting the original.
I have a Sony EVO-9720 Hi-8 editor and I copy the digital to that
and from there I make at least one VHS copy just to be on the safe
side. Tape is cheap.

LesDMess said:

Tom Meeks said:

I just finished trying to print about 100 images for a cousin that
used a Sony DCR-TRV20 to capture still images as well as video.

They were shot outdoors in Africa on a picture safari. They should
have been GREAT pictures! Yet, were the worst still images I have
EVER seen. Even the old 500L ran circles around the output of the
Sony Digital Video camera. It was almost impossible to get a
decent print out of any of them.

So, if any of your friends tell you that they are interested in
buying a Sony videocamera becuase it also shoots still, send them
to me and I'll send them a sample of the kind of stills it shoots.

As an aside, if you'd like to know why digital video is a BAD idea
for your family videos that you expect to view in 20 years I can
give you firsthand experience with that too!

I've been shooting video for more than THIRTY years and CONSUMER
digital video on tape is the WORST idea I've seen in all those
years. Copy. Copy. Copy!!!

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

- - · Aug 20, 2001

Tom,

Thank you! Very timely info for me.

Aside from shooting digital video, I've been curious about taking stills from tape playback off a DVR. It always seems too "confining" for some reason compared to digital still cameras. I suppose it's being locked into 60 frames per second "shutter speed" that seems too limiting.

I had thought that the error correction on digital tape might be more robust to handle dropouts even better than analog tape, a technology improvement. Apparently digital video playback is decidedly an "all or nothing" proposition. If the bits aren't their, you get to watch a blue screen until the bit stream comes back. ... Sort of like what happens with digital satellite TV reception when there is some interference!

Regards,

David M

Tom Meeks said:
I just finished trying to print about 100 images for a cousin that
used a Sony DCR-TRV20 to capture still images as well as video.

They were shot outdoors in Africa on a picture safari. They should
have been GREAT pictures! Yet, were the worst still images I have
EVER seen. Even the old 500L ran circles around the output of the
Sony Digital Video camera. It was almost impossible to get a
decent print out of any of them.

So, if any of your friends tell you that they are interested in
buying a Sony videocamera becuase it also shoots still, send them
to me and I'll send them a sample of the kind of stills it shoots.

As an aside, if you'd like to know why digital video is a BAD idea
for your family videos that you expect to view in 20 years I can
give you firsthand experience with that too!

I've been shooting video for more than THIRTY years and CONSUMER
digital video on tape is the WORST idea I've seen in all those
years. Copy. Copy. Copy!!!

Jim N'AZ · Aug 20, 2001

Hi, Les, They did make a 2CCD Minolta SLR digital still camera about 2 years ago. Had interchangable lenses too! The only problem was that it had to split the incoming light in two (for each CCD) and the result was a maximum aperture of approx. f/5.6 and a fairly dim finder. It would suffice for a studio unit, but never took off for Minolta. Regards, Jim N'AZ

LesDMess said:
Tom Meeks said:

The big difference for the pro vs. the consumer is that the pro
makes a few passes of the original tape and creates an edit master
to store on the shelf. The consumer stores the original, plays the
original and lays the tape around outside the case, etc... and,
expects it to be there for them in 20 years. Ain't gonna happen
with DV tapes.

My associate on the JVC VideoTitler software recently worked with
Radio Shack to get stills from the "space station" ad that ran on
Father's Day and ended up with some amazing results. But, he's a
pro at image manipulation. Most consumers aren't.

I shoot digital images (although a good argument can be made for
cleaner images in Hi-8 when compression is taken into account.);
But, I alsways make copies within hours of shooting the original.
I have a Sony EVO-9720 Hi-8 editor and I copy the digital to that
and from there I make at least one VHS copy just to be on the safe
side. Tape is cheap.

LesDMess said:

Tom Meeks said:

I just finished trying to print about 100 images for a cousin that
used a Sony DCR-TRV20 to capture still images as well as video.

They were shot outdoors in Africa on a picture safari. They should
have been GREAT pictures! Yet, were the worst still images I have
EVER seen. Even the old 500L ran circles around the output of the
Sony Digital Video camera. It was almost impossible to get a
decent print out of any of them.

So, if any of your friends tell you that they are interested in
buying a Sony videocamera becuase it also shoots still, send them
to me and I'll send them a sample of the kind of stills it shoots.

As an aside, if you'd like to know why digital video is a BAD idea
for your family videos that you expect to view in 20 years I can
give you firsthand experience with that too!

I've been shooting video for more than THIRTY years and CONSUMER
digital video on tape is the WORST idea I've seen in all those
years. Copy. Copy. Copy!!!

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Ron Co · Aug 21, 2001

Hi Tom,

I agree whole heartedly with you that the tape format is a pain for longevity - but in the 3 years or so I have had my Sony PC10 and nearly 3 years (this October) I have had my TRV900 digital video tapes I have had very few drop outs -- touch wood - and I am not saying there were none nor that there won't be more to come but I have had a great deal of joy from both my cameras.

But my question on that topic is what alternative is there as a recording medium? I am longing to go solid state or some such but even a hard drive is magnetic in nature - nothing lasts forever - as soon as a better medium comes I am going to grab it - I already have a G4 Mac with iDVD capability but I assure you having made a whole two one hour DVDs it is one hell of a lot of work and time consuming too unless you are a dedicated - or professional (paid) videographer - the whole process takes hours upon hour.

Up until about two years ago they (DigVid) served as my alternatives to a still digital camera as one could pay $2000-$3500AUS for something like the Sony CDK (can't remember its name) or a mavica at near $2000 and get far inferior shots -- remember folks I am talking about the era of the dark ages --way back two to three years ago - since I got my Nikon 950 (ptooey-!) and last December my Oly E-10 (cuddle) I preferred to use the video.

As for not getting good stills from it I dread to be nasty (tongue-in-cheek) but I suggest the operator may well have been at fault - I have got excellent stills form my video - took out a Steve's DPOTD way back 2-3 times plus took a monthly prize against the still cameras of the day so it can't be too shabby - but the operator needs to also be a thinking photographer (says he ever so immodeslty

)

As an aside I have several friends with similar cameras who have never got one decent frame as a still - but then they were not photographers to start with - a little experience helps a little - a lot of experience helps more

I have a swag of stuff on stills from video on my home site - nothing world shattering but nothing to be ashamed of either

Ron Co
http://www.yp-connect.net/~macman

LesDMess · Aug 21, 2001

Jim,

Figures, "From the minds of Minolta" would come a 2 CCD! The 3ccd splits RGB . . . what did they expect to split. I guess they carried that lens to their new product ;-)
LesDMess

Jim N' AZ said:
LesDMess said:

Tom Meeks said:

The big difference for the pro vs. the consumer is that the pro
makes a few passes of the original tape and creates an edit master
to store on the shelf. The consumer stores the original, plays the
original and lays the tape around outside the case, etc... and,
expects it to be there for them in 20 years. Ain't gonna happen
with DV tapes.

My associate on the JVC VideoTitler software recently worked with
Radio Shack to get stills from the "space station" ad that ran on
Father's Day and ended up with some amazing results. But, he's a
pro at image manipulation. Most consumers aren't.

I shoot digital images (although a good argument can be made for
cleaner images in Hi-8 when compression is taken into account.);
But, I alsways make copies within hours of shooting the original.
I have a Sony EVO-9720 Hi-8 editor and I copy the digital to that
and from there I make at least one VHS copy just to be on the safe
side. Tape is cheap.

LesDMess said:

Tom Meeks said:

I just finished trying to print about 100 images for a cousin that
used a Sony DCR-TRV20 to capture still images as well as video.

They were shot outdoors in Africa on a picture safari. They should
have been GREAT pictures! Yet, were the worst still images I have
EVER seen. Even the old 500L ran circles around the output of the
Sony Digital Video camera. It was almost impossible to get a
decent print out of any of them.

So, if any of your friends tell you that they are interested in
buying a Sony videocamera becuase it also shoots still, send them
to me and I'll send them a sample of the kind of stills it shoots.

As an aside, if you'd like to know why digital video is a BAD idea
for your family videos that you expect to view in 20 years I can
give you firsthand experience with that too!

I've been shooting video for more than THIRTY years and CONSUMER
digital video on tape is the WORST idea I've seen in all those
years. Copy. Copy. Copy!!!

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

LesDMess · Aug 21, 2001

Ron,

What brand tapes do you use on your TRV900? I've been using the Panasonic professionals and have also had good luck - knock on wood.
How long to make a 1 hour DVD from 1 hour of DV material? Thanks for the info.
LesDMess

Ron Co said:
Hi Tom,

I agree whole heartedly with you that the tape format is a pain
for longevity - but in the 3 years or so I have had my Sony PC10
and nearly 3 years (this October) I have had my TRV900 digital
video tapes I have had very few drop outs -- touch wood - and I am
not saying there were none nor that there won't be more to come but
I have had a great deal of joy from both my cameras.

But my question on that topic is what alternative is there as a
recording medium? I am longing to go solid state or some such but
even a hard drive is magnetic in nature - nothing lasts forever -
as soon as a better medium comes I am going to grab it - I already
have a G4 Mac with iDVD capability but I assure you having made a
whole two one hour DVDs it is one hell of a lot of work and time
consuming too unless you are a dedicated - or professional (paid)
videographer - the whole process takes hours upon hour.

Up until about two years ago they (DigVid) served as my
alternatives to a still digital camera as one could pay
$2000-$3500AUS for something like the Sony CDK (can't remember
its name) or a mavica at near $2000 and get far inferior shots --
remember folks I am talking about the era of the dark ages --way
back two to three years ago - since I got my Nikon 950 (ptooey-!)
and last December my Oly E-10 (cuddle) I preferred to use the video.

As for not getting good stills from it I dread to be nasty
(tongue-in-cheek) but I suggest the operator may well have been at
fault - I have got excellent stills form my video - took out a
Steve's DPOTD way back 2-3 times plus took a monthly prize against
the still cameras of the day so it can't be too shabby - but the
operator needs to also be a thinking photographer (says he ever so
immodeslty )

As an aside I have several friends with similar cameras who have
never got one decent frame as a still - but then they were not
photographers to start with - a little experience helps a little -
a lot of experience helps more

I have a swag of stuff on stills from video on my home site -
nothing world shattering but nothing to be ashamed of either

Ron Co
http://www.yp-connect.net/~macman

Search

OT: Never count on Video for stills

Tom Meeks

Senior Member

Julio55869

Active member

Tom Meeks

Senior Member

LesDMess

Senior Member

Tom Meeks

Senior Member

LesDMess

Senior Member

- -

Leading Member

Jim N'AZ

Veteran Member

Ron Co

Guest

LesDMess

Senior Member

LesDMess

Senior Member

Similar threads

Keyboard shortcuts