Results 1 to 10 of 10

Thread: Mini DV and DVC - Whats The Difference?

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    San Diego, Ca, USA
    Posts
    148

    Default Mini DV and DVC - Whats The Difference?

    I know that most DV cameras can use both but whats the difference?

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    Kent
    Posts
    11,526
    Blog Entries
    24

    Default

    Do you mean DVC, DVC Pro or DV cam? I understand that DVC is an acronym for Digital Video Cassette. In that respect a DV camcorder will play DVCs. Mini DV is the format, DVC is the media.

  3. #3

    Default

    Pretty simple simple math (and finally viewable math)
    If you got a 4:2:0 sampling which is digitally transfered to 4:1:1 the source "2" will be sampled to the target "1" and the source "0" (non existent sampling) will be sampled to a target "1" sampling which results in 0 again as there was nothing within the source.
    Same other way round.

    Sure there are ways to re-sample sources to get 4:2:2 sampling from either of those sampling rates, but as with any re-sampling this is always a best guess.
    As far as I know the 4:1:1 sampling was used to be more compatible within mixed environments with analog and SD digital during life cuts - like with sports, news etc. This is meanwhile not needed any more - I think.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Bristol uk
    Posts
    8,938
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Wikepedia is your friend - DV - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

  5. #5

    Default

    If you say 'most cameras can use both' then I assume you must be meaning DV and DV CAM?

    Quote Originally Posted by vnvnvn2000 View Post
    Pretty simple simple math (and finally viewable math)
    If you got a 4:2:0 sampling which is digitally transfered to 4:1:1 the source "2" will be sampled to the target "1" and the source "0" (non existent sampling) will be sampled to a target "1" sampling which results in 0 again as there was nothing within the source.
    Is this not only the case though if you are shooting DV CAM (4:1:1) on something like a Z1 which samples at HDV (4:2:0)? I thought something like a pd150 there is no transfer as if it's not HDV ie MPEG2 it will just be sampling at 4:1:1?

    Gotta laugh at wikipedia - the most important aspect of the difference between DV and DV CAM etc is the chroma subsampling but they manage to avoid using the term 'chrominance' throughout that section, refering instead
    to luminance and colour ('Since human vision has greater acuity for luminance than color...' - do they mean the luminance of that colour or the chrominance of that colour???) This is why I HATE wikipedia - half arsed info posted by half arsed idiots, and often totally misleading.

    If you are interested in this side of things, here's a bit more info on it:

    As wikipedia were trying (and failing) to say, the eye is more sensitive to the luminance (luma) of a colour than to the chrominance (chroma). Luminance is like the brightness, chroma is the hue. Sampling rates take advantage of this then by sampling the luma more often that the chroma.

    In the numbers above, the first refers to luma (called Y), the second two to chroma (called Cr for Red-Y and Cb for Blue-Y). So the RGB signal is converted to a YCrCb signal.

    A sampling rate of 4:1:1 indicates then that the luma is sampled for every pixel (a base of 4 was decided upon for this), and the Cr and Cb info are sampled at every fourth pixel. There are varying ways of doing this eg:

    YCr - Y - YCb - Y - YCr - Y - YCb ........
    or
    YCrCb - Y - Y - Y - YCrCb

    And other more complex iterations.


    MPEG2 (HDV) sampling will be 4:2:0 as opposed to 4:1:1 (4:2:0 actually means 4:2:0 on the first line, 4:0:2 on the second line etc.)

    Pretty confusing stuff at first but I think it's good to get your head around it.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Bristol uk
    Posts
    8,938
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    ^^^ random wiki hate or what???

    Why dont you do something constructive and correct the article ??

    There again it was crystal to me...

  7. #7

    Default

    Wikipedia is ok for factual stuff like if you want to find out the population of Belgium, but as soon as you get into specialised areas it is thoroughly unreliable. I once tried to edit a page and some wiki nazi removed it saying my citation was insufficient. It came from quite an obscure book and was on an obscure subject matter (alchemical interpretations of Max Ernst's paintings) so rather than check my reference they removed my post. Then I started looking through the forum things and saw the unbelievable power mongering that goes in with the wikiholics constantly revising one another's corrections.

    Also, some friends of mine went to one of these new Universities (the kind that give you multiple choice tests in your third year and let final year students have their essays spell-checked by the library. Seriously.) They were told by their uni that wikipedia was a good source of research! This was the final straw and I've been a confirmed wiki-hater ever since. I've actually posted mis-information on it from time to time and then emailed the link to my mates, just to prove a point.

  8. #8

    Default

    Just thought I should also add the less technical answer in case that's what you're after - DV Cam is better. If your camera shoots DV Cam then 99% of the time you should be shooting DV Cam. Only time I wouldn't is if eg I was shooting a really long take that was going to be massively sped up in post.

    A 60 min mini-dv tape will only record 40 mins in DV Cam.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Bristol uk
    Posts
    8,938
    Blog Entries
    1

    Default

    Even wikipedia gets this right - DVCAM is NOT better - it is exactly the same data stream. DVCAM aims to reduce compatability problems between machines by using a greater tape pitch and 'may' reduce drop outs - not usually a problem on well maintained stuff so meh really.

    cdf - best go read the wiki article after all eh - cackle cackle cackle -

  10. #10

    Default

    Interesting - I couldn't sleep the other night and was actually lying in bed thinking about this. I was wondering how if the sample rate is 4:1:1 on DV and DV CAM, how come DV CAM only gives 40 mins rec time whereas DV gives 60 mins. (These thoughts didn't help me get to sleep by the way.)

    So I new I must have been missing something and yes it turns out that it's the tape pitch that makes DV CAM take up more space than DV rather than sample rate or 'quality'. I had always been told DV CAM was 'best' and never really questioned it.

    The compatability logic seems a weird one cos I've certainly never had any issues with DV compatability (as long as it's not been recorded LP).

    So would you extend this logic to say that if you are going to be eg recording and digitising from the same camera, that it is actually better to shoot DV as opposed to DV CAM?

Similar Threads

  1. difference between fla and swf?
    By abigale105 in forum General video editing software help and advice
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 08-03-2008, 12:19 PM
  2. Difference between Mac and PCs
    By mantis87 in forum Forum Announcements and News
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 05-04-2008, 06:01 PM
  3. Why the difference?
    By Soporose in forum General video editing software help and advice
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 05-02-2007, 12:45 PM
  4. I dont get it, whats the difference between these?
    By TWIY in forum Sony Vegas video editing apps
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 10-28-2006, 03:27 PM
  5. The Difference
    By ritsoccer86 in forum Technology advice and tips
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 06-30-2006, 11:18 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •