View Full Version : which miniDV camera (you got 2 choices)

2nd February 2003, 05:21
- Canon GL2
- Panasonic AG-DVX100 (is more expensive than the GL2)

originally the Sony DCR-VX2000 was a choice, but it only has progressive scan for 15 fps.

The canon GL2 offers progressive video @ 30 fps

and, the panasonic AG-DVX100 offers progressive video @ 24 fps (yes, I know!!) and at 30 fps.

by no means is progressive scan the only thing that I am basing my decision on, but I really just don't know where to go from ehre with my limited knowledge of miniDV cameras.

Another question:
let's say I take a 30 fps (or 24 fps) progressive stream, transfer it through my firewire card, edit the footage, and export the final product back to a DV file. Now I want to do 2 things:

1) Leave the video progressive @ 30 fps (or 24 fps, depending on which camera I get) and distribute it on the web.

2) Put the video on DVD-R (or svcd, depending on what is available to me.) only tihng is, I probably would want to make it interlaced, right? because when viewing it on TV displays, progressive video would have a stuttering effect, rightt? so how would I accomplish this? and what framerate would the video have to be in this case? I know that on DVDs, they can be encoded progressively, and have "programming" in them so to speak, that could add interlacing and make the stream 30 fps, so the video won't flicker on interlaced displays? can this only be done with 24 fps progressive streams, or 30 fps too? and is this possible to do with a miniDV camera in the scenario that I have described?

thanks much! and sorry about all the questions!

4th February 2003, 21:34
From my experience (which is limited to two consumer devices) panasonic sucks. My panasonic SVHS player and my panasonic miniDV camera both broke down just before the warranty period. I lost the receipt on the miniDV camera. I didn't drop them or do anything to them, heck I barely used to the miniDV camera. I didn't even use it for editing, just copying content to my computer for conversion to DVD-R.

Now i'm in the market for a new miniDV camera...I'm not sure what to get.

6th February 2003, 12:56
2) Put the video on DVD-R (or svcd, depending on what is available to me.) only tihng is, I probably would want to make it interlaced, right? because when viewing it on TV displays, progressive video would have a stuttering effect, rightt? so how would I accomplish this? and what framerate would the video have to be in this case?

If you shoot progressive video, there's no way to make it interlaced later. You can make interlaced progressive by deinterlacing but not vice versa. Compared to interlaced, progressive video has lower temporal resolution, which makes the video look jerky. You don't need any processing to display 30p DV on a normal NTSC television, but 24p needs 3:2 pulldown. Pulldown can be done by the DVD player if the video stream is properly flagged (pulldown.exe).

6th February 2003, 22:42
but what about when films (professional movies) are being shot with 32mm film cameras.. they are being shot @ 24p, they they could be made interlaced when put on a DVD.. am I missing something? thanks!

7th February 2003, 08:14
Originally posted by midiguy
they are being shot @ 24p, they they could be made interlaced when put on a DVD..
You'll find that film is sometimes phase-shifted, but not truly interlaced (else you'd need to shoot at 48p). Real interlaced DVDs are usually shot on (interlaced) video.


12th February 2003, 23:41
the Panasonic AG-DVX100 will take 24 frame progressive, 30 frame progressive, OR 30 FRAME INTERLACED (normal ntsc) for display on a standard television. so that might be your best bet (big price tag though).

i guess the only perfect solution would be a camera that takes 60 frame progressive so you could display the exact same source as 30 progressive or 30 interlaced without any jerkiness or loss due to deinterlacing.

shoot, while were dreaming, IDEAL would be 120 frames progressive because it could also be displayed at perfect 24 frames progressive.

13th February 2003, 07:08
If 16:9 is an issue for you, then I'd buy the Canon (better than most other cams in that discipline).


13th February 2003, 20:00
The miniDV camera I'm borrowing has 16:9 mode, but all that seems to do is show a stretched image when i import the video.

anyone know how to import 16:9 video and make it letterbox on a 4:3 set?

13th February 2003, 21:24
You mean if you connect the cam directly to the TV set? If you're encoding to a CD/DVD format you can simply resize and/or add borders.


13th February 2003, 22:27
I just thought of something after reading about aspect ratios on this site.

The miniDV camera, actually compresses the image horizontally to make it fill the 4:3 display (when you shoot in 16:9 mode).

But if you encode that to mpeg-2 and set the stream to DAR 16:9, i believe it will automagically expand it back out and display it correctly on a TV set or POWER DVD player.

I can't wait to try this. damn it, i wish i wasn't at work now hehe

15th February 2003, 00:49
Aren't both these digital camcorders overkill. Does the difference in quality justify the extra $2000? What's wrong with interlaced DV?

15th February 2003, 11:27
Originally posted by yg1968
What's wrong with interlaced DV?
Nothing, provided that you don't need to encode to a format, where progressive source is necessary or at least recommended (e.g. DivX, SVCD), and you don't want to watch the film on a progressive device (PC monitor). For DVD encoding there's enough bitrate available, so you can encode interlaced.

If you need progressive display or encoding, then a progressive scan camcorder is the best choice, because you don't need to de-interlace, which decreases quality. Unfortunately progressive scan is not a feature for cheap camcorders...


19th February 2003, 06:08
Originally posted by yg1968
What's wrong with interlaced DV?
I'll tell you: deinterlacing. recording progressively is important to me because my intention is to release films (amatuer films) over the internet from a website. and I refuse to deinterlace and destroy the image. so yeah, progressive scan is a must for me. I think I am leaning more towards the Canon GL2. nooot sure yet!!!

22nd May 2003, 19:14
The GL2 is not a progressive scan camera. I own the AG-DVX100 and after talking with numerous TV broadcast professionals and amateur videographers, I was very assured that it is the best buy.

The only reason to buy a canon camera over the ag-dvx100 would be the XL1s's ability to have different lenses attached. Aside from the fact that a new lense is almost as much as the camera (normally from $1,000 - $2000 for a cheapy), it's a good camcorder. However - it is not a truly progessive camera - it uses a "frame" mode instead of progressive. I don't know exactly why that's bad, but lots of professionals don't like it, and Canon never claims progressive anything. Who knows what they are doing with that.

However - if your budget doesn't allow $3,500, go with the Canon GL2 or the Sony 950x. They are both great cameras too... but you'll be stuck in the interlaced world.

Oh - and by the way - you watch material that was filmed at 24 fps all the time on your tv - almost all the movies, and they look fine, right? choppiness my butt... :)

23rd May 2003, 16:50
Deinterlacing, if done correctly has a negligable affect on quality.
I deinterlace PAL free to air TV and DV video and the result is so close to the interlaced original that it just dose not matter.
Even when displayed on high quality Sony 21" monitor and on a calibrated Toshiba rear projection TV.
The thing I notice the most with video is that 540 DV lines, or 576 PAL TV lines, dose not look to good on a large computer monitors when viewed at normal distance from screen.
This has nothing to do with interlacing. It's just not enough resolution.
I have to feel bad for the NTSC people with only 480 lines.
I can see why High Definition TV is big in the US.
There is no way that video for internet distribution is of high enough quality to show the very small loss caused by deinterlacing.
It seems to me that high priced progresive DV cameras have there place for semi pro usage. But you dont get much more resolution for the money.
The real breakthough is with High Definition cameras.
Thats a differance you can really see.
(End of rant)



23rd May 2003, 17:01
Of course interlaced material will always look good on tv's. That's what they show best. However - when it comes to working with the video, especially if bluescreening or adding affects, it's a lot higher quality with progressive footage.

And interlaced material usually looks of poor quality on a computer screen, because of the jagged edges, even after good deinterlacing. The resolution is a problem too, but the biggest artifacts come from the deinterlacing process. And then there's always the CCE problem of upper field first - and being my encoder of choice, I feed it progressive frames to avoid that.

If you plan on ever viewing your footage on anything but a tv, I suggest progressive video to start. That way, it can look good on both. Of course 48p or 60p would be best, but that's a bit pricey even for the prosumer.

All of this, of course, unless you don't care about how it looks. If this is just home movie stuff for your kids or something - buy a compactVHS for $200 and a $50 ATI capture card and be done with it.

31st May 2003, 05:54
here is what the canon website says about the gl2

Frame Movie Mode
Unlike Normal Movie Mode, where video is captured using interlaced frames, in Frame Movie Mode video is captured by the GL2 in a non-interlaced form at the rate of 30 frames per second. This delivers spectacular clarity -- perfect for those who need to grab high-quality images from videos for making prints, adding website content, or sending images over the Internet.

so then what is NON interlaced? isnt that progressive?

31st May 2003, 18:35
I've actually wondered the same thing - I've seen this topic debated over and over on forums. I don't know why they call it frame mode, and why they don't claim that they are progressive, but it's different somehow. Maybe the shutter isn't adjustable, set at 1/30 and that's that. I'm not sure on that, but that alone would make me not want the camera. I should do more research, but most people use the GL2 in interlaced mode because they don't like the "frame" mode results. Maybe they don't like the cine-like feel of progressive or something. Anyone with an answer on why Canon doesn't claim progessive? How is "frame" mode different?

By the way - I just did some progressive blue-screen work with my dvx100, BEAUTIFUL. Love it. Buy it. Caress it.

31st May 2003, 20:29
@ mikecito..

Don't discount that statement just yet. Why don't you just go out
and try it yourself, THEN discount it IF your (or others) was true.

But, here is what I think that statement ment.., but rather deceatfully
It's Interlace during the shooting, but w/ the trick of the CCD or
Weaving in the two fields into one frame, hence the use of, "Frame Mode"
Ok, so they claim that it's High-Quality.. But, maybe the Interlace
is not the same Interlace that is used in many other DV cams, that
when they "do" perform an Weave of two fields, but that you would
probably notice some artifacts.

So, my point is this.. try it first, and see for yourself. Might be
just the cam you were looking for :)

My two cents.

31st May 2003, 20:38
oh, almost forgot..

@ atreides93..
By now, you should have discovered that when footage is shot in the
16:9 mode, and then finally encoded in say, TMPG with:

* Video Tab/..Size: [720] x [480]
* Video Tab/..Aspect ratio: [16:9 Display]
* Advanced Tab: Source aspect ratio: [4:3 525 line]
* Advanced Tab: Video arrange method: [Full screen] ***

This would display your 16:9 w/ correct letterboxing.

This works for me.

*** you should experiment w/ the settings in this box to match
your expeirence.

The only size-effect that I've noticed with 16:9 shooting, is
that it leaves zigzag's around contours or edges or straight lines
etc. I believe that it may have to do w/ your cam and 16:9 wide
mode, but I'm debating on running an experiment w/ a "real" 16:9
lens and seeing if I suffer from these same issues.

@ atreides93..
Are you suffering from this zigzag issue too ??


1st June 2003, 07:41
is there anyway to view any thread all at once... not in multiple pages.... i want to save the whole thread but not have pages of it... i am using Save as in IE and it works good cause i can go back and get the info i need but it sucks when there are more than 1 page. but i can deal if i have to would be nice though if it could be all on one page... i could manually eidt then together in dreamweaver also...

and my reply is the first one to goto two page but i knew it was going to happen soon anyway!

:D :D :D

Thanks no need to reply again and make it longer!

1st June 2003, 08:04
Click on "Show Printable Version" at the bottom of this page, then at the top or bottom of that page, click on the link that says "Show all ## pages of this thread on one page" or something like that. That should do it for you, and it's more printer/editer friendly. :)