Firewire vs Marvel S video jack

[VECTOR]

A newbie question here...
I just recently got a Sony DCR-TRV 720. This camera has the i.link connection so that I can take video input into my pc by a FireWire port. I also a Marvel G200. Which I can connect the camera through S video jack.

Does it make difference which way I do this?
Your suggestions and recommendations would be greatly appreciated.

- VK

[KRSESQ]

For a digital camcorder, use the firewire.

The S-Video is an analog connector for hooking the camcorder to S-video equipped VCRs for maximum quality analog reproduction. However, using this connector invariably means a generational loss of quality.

If you use the S-Video output on the Camcorder to go in to the S-Video on the Marvel, you are basically converting the digital signal to analog in the camcorder, and re-converting to digital in the Marvel. Guaranteed to cause problems with the quality of the finished product.

By keeping the signal digital as long as possible, you'll avoid any loss of quality until you're ready to render to videotape, if that's the route you're going. If you're able to use the firewire to output back to digital tape in your camcorder (check your instructions), the finished product should be indistinguishable from your raw footage.

Kevin

[SteveR]

I sometimes find the S video more convenient than DV. Eg if the final output is intended as a 320x240 MPEG for viewing on a PC then capturing a 320x240 uncompressed AVI for editing and converting is quicker than doing a software conversion from 720x576 to 320x240.

[Brian Ellis]

VK

I'll reply as a hypothetical question or two, as I'm not at all sure of what I'm about to say :-(

Is it not true that mini-DV (and presumably D8) IEEE-1394 transfer will give marginally better theoretical resolution than analogue transfer?

Is it not true that mini-DV (and presumably D8) IEEE-1394 transfer will give marginally poorer colour rendering than analogue transfer?

Is it not true that mini-DV (and presumably D8) IEEE-1394 transfer will not allow some effects (e.g. blue screen) to be used?

Is it not true that mini-DV (and presumably D8) IEEE-1394 transfer will not, in practice, look any better when the results are viewed on an ordinary TV screen which is unable to take advantage of the better resolution?

Is it not true that mini-DV (and presumably D8) IEEE-1394 transfer, when compressed to any MPG or similar codec, will have the same artefacts as with a analogue transfer?

My more pragmatic approach would be to take a short, but good, sequence that you have "filmed" and transfer it to your computer using both techniques, doing what you will to both files and viewing the results. If you do see a significant difference, use the method that pleases you better. If you do not, then use the easier of the two (probably the analogue).

FYI, I use a mini-DV analogue to Marvel set-up with excellent results, but then my camera does not have an IEEE-1394 output, so I don't have the choice.

Remember, it is possible to be more royalist than the king and I fear that some may seek the utmost perfection for viewing on a TV set which cannot cope with it.

------------------
Brian (the terrible)



[This message has been edited by Brian Ellis (edited 26 February 2001).]

[hippie91]

2 things:

blue screen works better for analogue, green is better for dv

how can your dv camcorder not have a dv out?

[Brian Ellis]

Hippie,

'Cos it's six years old. In the early days of mini-DV, no one thought that a digital output would ever be needed. It's a damn good 3-CCD camera with an excellent lens with an analogue out performance that a modern camera cannot match. Its serial number is 107! It is also at least three times the size and weight of anything on the market today and that is no disadvantage.

------------------
Brian (the terrible)

[hippie91]

it still just doesn't make sense to me to have a dv camera that can't output digital... sortta ruins the point of digital if you ask me

[Brian Ellis]

Hippie

Even as late as August 1999, JVC were marketing mini-DVs without digital out or in (I have documentary proof of it). Unless I'm much mistaken, dig I/O appeared only in late 96/early 97 on top-of-the-range cameras, at least a year after I bought mine. And if I told you how much I paid for my dig-I/O-less mini-DV camera, you would have a fit. The reason I bought it was simple: the analogue image quality was a quantum leap forward, compared with Hi-8, S-VHS etc. At the time, I was living in Switzerland and I had a friend who was a pro videographer (mainly industrial) using massive pro analogue Betamax (?) equipment. We compared the image quality between his CHF 15,000 cameras and my CHF 4,000 one, using both studio and outdoor conditions. Within one week, he had bought two analogue-out mini-DV cameras, similar to mine and scrapped his older cameras. On a TV, the difference was not great but on his studio monitors it was apparent (mainly signal/noise ratio but also slightly on resolution and colour quality).

Strangely, from what I have seen, the analogue quality of many modern mini-DV has shrunk with the size, although it is still good. I guess they are now being built down to a price and some cheaper electronics are being used.

------------------
Brian (the terrible)

[hippie91]

interesting to know... i'd just alwasys assumed that a dv camera would have dv out... but i do agree that even in analog out, dv would still be a better image (usually)