What cheap capture devices are YOU using?

John Britt · October 15th, 2003, 10:17 PM

*EDITED* because I was giving completely incorrect information. Another reason to stop posting so late :) Look below for the proper answers...

Barry Green · October 16th, 2003, 12:09 AM

Are you sure? I haven't seen a camera yet that doesn't allow for firewire-to-analog passthru. It's quite rare to find one that does analog-to-firewire passthru, but even my old TRV7 and TRV8 did firewire-to-analog.

The exception is PAL cameras that have DV-input disabled. But just about any other camera should allow realtime conversion of the firewire input to the analog outputs.

John Britt · October 16th, 2003, 07:04 AM

Whoops.

Barry, you are right. I was confusing topics -- I was thinking of analog video pass-through into the computer, which many consumer cams do not support. Big apologies and many thanks for pointing that out.

From the computer to the TV, though, should work. As I sit here, I have video going from my computer through firewire to the DV53 and out to my TV via the analog out.

Nick, do you have your camera set to VCR? That seems to be the only necessary requirement for me to view the video out.

Nick Medrano · October 16th, 2003, 10:46 AM

Hi John,
I'm not having any luck. I am wondering if you are using Premiere Pro? If not, then maybe that's why yours is working because according to the Adobe Premiere Pro Website, the Panasonic DV53 is not compatible.

I also tried running color bars from Premiere-->Camera-->TV and no luck.

John Britt · October 16th, 2003, 11:03 AM

<<<-- Originally posted by Nick Medrano : Hi John,
I'm not having any luck. I am wondering if you are using Premiere Pro? If not, then maybe that's why yours is working because according to the Adobe Premiere Pro Website, the Panasonic DV53 is not compatible.

I also tried running color bars from Premiere-->Camera-->TV and no luck. -->>>

Are you referring to this page for Prem. Pro?

http://www.adobe.com/products/premie...sonic&x=14&y=2

If so, I'd take that information with a gain of salt. I am using Premiere 6.5, but the neither the DV53 nor the DVC80 were specifically listed on the 6.5 compatibility chart. Regardless, I use both camera very successfully with Premiere 6.5.

Are you having any other troubles using your DV53 w/ Prem. Pro (besides not seeing the image on analog out)? If you can capture from your DV53 and record back to miniDV (from your computer to the cam), then I'd think that you'd be able to see it on screen as well. I don't know how Premiere could affect that... Have you tried different device capture settings? Again, I would think that sending the signal from your camera to the TV would be only under your camera's control, but you never know... I assume that you are able to successfully watch your recorded miniDV tapes on TV via the cam's analog out?

But I don't have Premiere Pro, so take my words with a grain of salt, too!

Nick Medrano · October 17th, 2003, 12:31 PM

Ladies and gentlemen....the idiot is in the house! Yes, that's right, I had the A/V plug going into the wrong HOLE in the camera.....

Case closed. The issue has been solved. The camera now works beautifully with Premiere.

Good bye as I go hide in a dark corner!

Stefan Susini · October 21st, 2003, 03:11 PM

I quote Nick Medrano: "Okay, we all know that using your DVX100 camera as a playback/capture device to your NLE system is a bad idea...so what capture device do you use?"

I'm a pal DVX100 user and i do use the DVX to capture tapes through firewire to Adobe Premiere 6.

Can somebody explain me why using the DVX100 is a bad idea?
Why should a transfer bit per bit through firewire from the DVX to my PC be a bad idea? I don't understand and can't find on the forum another thread explaining this...

Thanks for your reply!

See you soon...

Stefan

Darrell Hinton · October 21st, 2003, 04:19 PM

I think he meant it is a bad idea to use the DVX for capture because it increases wear on the DVX heads. I don't think he meant that it gives bad quality or anything like that.

Stefan Susini · October 22nd, 2003, 06:52 AM

Thank you Darrell, i hope it is what he meant, would be great if he can confirm.

Reassuring answer anyway...

See you,

Stefan

Nick Medrano · October 22nd, 2003, 08:35 AM

HI,
I meant exactly what Darrell is saying. It's okay to use your DVX100 as playback, but some of us are just real picky about using the video heads a little too much.

Stefan Susini · October 23rd, 2003, 04:02 AM

Hi Nick, thank you for the clarification, i suddenly had doubts about my knowledge of binary data transfer through firewire.... he he...

Thanks to all of you...

Stefan

Stefan Susini · October 23rd, 2003, 04:02 AM

Hi Nick, thank you for the clarification, i suddenly had doubts about my knowledge of binary data transfer through firewire.... he he...

Thanks to all of you...

Stefan

Kevin Beswick · November 14th, 2003, 04:39 PM

Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but the idea of capturing the footage from the dvx with a cheaper camera seems very risky. I always was told that a system is only as good as its weakest link. I can't help but think the quality of the heads on the dvx are far superior to the heads on a $400.00 camera. Wouldn't the signal to noise ratio be worse, and wouldn't you have the higher possibility of drop outs from different head alignment? It seems to me that the heads you recorded on would be the best heads to capture on also. I know that of course head wear will be an issue, but really, if I'm busy enough to wear out the heads in the course of 3 or 4 years, I'd think buying a new camera would certainly be in the budget. Are there any other reasons for this? I have an old original Canon Optura, which still works remarkably well, and i'd be able to capture on it, but I can't help but think i'd be losing something in the translation. Any thoughts?

Josh Bass · February 3rd, 2006, 03:58 AM

I use a Canon ZR80 (almost bottom of the line consumer miniDV cam) I got off ebay for around $200. It hath not done me wrong yet.

Andrew Khalil · February 3rd, 2006, 09:49 AM

Kevin, the only thing the tape system does when playing back a tape is read the data already on it. While professional cameras usually have more robust tape mechanisms, the way they read/write data is pretty much the same. It's still better to use a cheaper camera for capture to preserve those heads because they'll cost you more to repair and in some cases, a camera is cheaper.
If you do heavy work on a regular basis, buying a deck is the best route because while initially more expensive, it has more room in it for an even more robust tape system which makes it a lot more durable and reliable.

October 21st, 2003, 03:11 PM	#37
Stefan Susini New Boot Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: EDENA Company, GENEVA, SWITZERLAND Posts: 13	DVX100 inadequate for capture ???? I quote Nick Medrano: "Okay, we all know that using your DVX100 camera as a playback/capture device to your NLE system is a bad idea...so what capture device do you use?" I'm a pal DVX100 user and i do use the DVX to capture tapes through firewire to Adobe Premiere 6. Can somebody explain me why using the DVX100 is a bad idea? Why should a transfer bit per bit through firewire from the DVX to my PC be a bad idea? I don't understand and can't find on the forum another thread explaining this... Thanks for your reply! See you soon... Stefan

October 22nd, 2003, 06:52 AM	#39
Stefan Susini New Boot Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: EDENA Company, GENEVA, SWITZERLAND Posts: 13	Good news... Thank you Darrell, i hope it is what he meant, would be great if he can confirm. Reassuring answer anyway... See you, Stefan

October 23rd, 2003, 04:02 AM	#41
Stefan Susini New Boot Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: EDENA Company, GENEVA, SWITZERLAND Posts: 13	Got it Hi Nick, thank you for the clarification, i suddenly had doubts about my knowledge of binary data transfer through firewire.... he he... Thanks to all of you... Stefan

October 23rd, 2003, 04:02 AM	#42
Stefan Susini New Boot Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: EDENA Company, GENEVA, SWITZERLAND Posts: 13	Got it Hi Nick, thank you for the clarification, i suddenly had doubts about my knowledge of binary data transfer through firewire.... he he... Thanks to all of you... Stefan

February 3rd, 2006, 03:58 AM	#44
Josh Bass Slash Rules! Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: Houston, Texas Posts: 5,472	I use a Canon ZR80 (almost bottom of the line consumer miniDV cam) I got off ebay for around $200. It hath not done me wrong yet. __________________ The Bass' camerawork The Bass on IMDB

October 15th, 2003, 10:17 PM	#31
John Britt Major Player Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: Atlanta, GA Posts: 621	EDITED because I was giving completely incorrect information. Another reason to stop posting so late :) Look below for the proper answers...

October 16th, 2003, 12:09 AM	#32
Barry Green Barry Wan Kenobi Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: North Carolina Posts: 3,863	Are you sure? I haven't seen a camera yet that doesn't allow for firewire-to-analog passthru. It's quite rare to find one that does analog-to-firewire passthru, but even my old TRV7 and TRV8 did firewire-to-analog. The exception is PAL cameras that have DV-input disabled. But just about any other camera should allow realtime conversion of the firewire input to the analog outputs.

October 16th, 2003, 07:04 AM	#33
John Britt Major Player Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: Atlanta, GA Posts: 621	Whoops. Barry, you are right. I was confusing topics -- I was thinking of analog video pass-through into the computer, which many consumer cams do not support. Big apologies and many thanks for pointing that out. From the computer to the TV, though, should work. As I sit here, I have video going from my computer through firewire to the DV53 and out to my TV via the analog out. Nick, do you have your camera set to VCR? That seems to be the only necessary requirement for me to view the video out.

October 16th, 2003, 10:46 AM	#34
Nick Medrano Major Player Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: San Antonio, TX Posts: 331	Hi John, I'm not having any luck. I am wondering if you are using Premiere Pro? If not, then maybe that's why yours is working because according to the Adobe Premiere Pro Website, the Panasonic DV53 is not compatible. I also tried running color bars from Premiere-->Camera-->TV and no luck.

October 16th, 2003, 11:03 AM	#35
John Britt Major Player Join Date: Sep 2003 Location: Atlanta, GA Posts: 621	<<<-- Originally posted by Nick Medrano : Hi John, I'm not having any luck. I am wondering if you are using Premiere Pro? If not, then maybe that's why yours is working because according to the Adobe Premiere Pro Website, the Panasonic DV53 is not compatible. I also tried running color bars from Premiere-->Camera-->TV and no luck. -->>> Are you referring to this page for Prem. Pro? http://www.adobe.com/products/premie...sonic&x=14&y=2 If so, I'd take that information with a gain of salt. I am using Premiere 6.5, but the neither the DV53 nor the DVC80 were specifically listed on the 6.5 compatibility chart. Regardless, I use both camera very successfully with Premiere 6.5. Are you having any other troubles using your DV53 w/ Prem. Pro (besides not seeing the image on analog out)? If you can capture from your DV53 and record back to miniDV (from your computer to the cam), then I'd think that you'd be able to see it on screen as well. I don't know how Premiere could affect that... Have you tried different device capture settings? Again, I would think that sending the signal from your camera to the TV would be only under your camera's control, but you never know... I assume that you are able to successfully watch your recorded miniDV tapes on TV via the cam's analog out? But I don't have Premiere Pro, so take my words with a grain of salt, too!

October 17th, 2003, 12:31 PM	#36
Nick Medrano Major Player Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: San Antonio, TX Posts: 331	Ladies and gentlemen....the idiot is in the house! Yes, that's right, I had the A/V plug going into the wrong HOLE in the camera..... Case closed. The issue has been solved. The camera now works beautifully with Premiere. Good bye as I go hide in a dark corner!

October 21st, 2003, 04:19 PM	#38
Darrell Hinton Regular Crew Join Date: Aug 2003 Location: Nashville, TN Posts: 77	I think he meant it is a bad idea to use the DVX for capture because it increases wear on the DVX heads. I don't think he meant that it gives bad quality or anything like that.

October 22nd, 2003, 08:35 AM	#40
Nick Medrano Major Player Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: San Antonio, TX Posts: 331	HI, I meant exactly what Darrell is saying. It's okay to use your DVX100 as playback, but some of us are just real picky about using the video heads a little too much.

November 14th, 2003, 04:39 PM	#43
Kevin Beswick New Boot Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: Kentwood, MI Posts: 12	Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but the idea of capturing the footage from the dvx with a cheaper camera seems very risky. I always was told that a system is only as good as its weakest link. I can't help but think the quality of the heads on the dvx are far superior to the heads on a $400.00 camera. Wouldn't the signal to noise ratio be worse, and wouldn't you have the higher possibility of drop outs from different head alignment? It seems to me that the heads you recorded on would be the best heads to capture on also. I know that of course head wear will be an issue, but really, if I'm busy enough to wear out the heads in the course of 3 or 4 years, I'd think buying a new camera would certainly be in the budget. Are there any other reasons for this? I have an old original Canon Optura, which still works remarkably well, and i'd be able to capture on it, but I can't help but think i'd be losing something in the translation. Any thoughts?

February 3rd, 2006, 09:49 AM	#45
Andrew Khalil Major Player Join Date: Jun 2005 Posts: 424	Kevin, the only thing the tape system does when playing back a tape is read the data already on it. While professional cameras usually have more robust tape mechanisms, the way they read/write data is pretty much the same. It's still better to use a cheaper camera for capture to preserve those heads because they'll cost you more to repair and in some cases, a camera is cheaper. If you do heavy work on a regular basis, buying a deck is the best route because while initially more expensive, it has more room in it for an even more robust tape system which makes it a lot more durable and reliable.