Have you checked to see if there's any difference if you record to tape first, then capture?

No special reason - just thought it'd be worth a check to see.

Looking at the picture directly from the camera on a monitor without passing through the DV compression can be deceiving. Your situation reminds me of a music video I made maaaany years ago on S-VHS. We lit the studio, had a look at the monitors directly from the cameras, liked what we saw and then recorded to tape. Do I need to say it hurt a lot in post? What the cam sees and what the DV compression does to what the cam sees are two different things. Although you did not record to tape in this case the data will be compressed to meet the DV25 standard in order to be captured to disk.
Best/Tommy

didn't mean to delete, only meant to correct a typo. Apologies.

C'mon SPOT. Re-Post. You know we would like to see what your thoughts are on this topic.

On our next shoot we will do a capture to tape and a direct to disk capture and compare. We have an ongoing project/product so we do a shoot @ every 2-3 weeks.

I will Post my findings.

Lamont

Three main points I'd made, Lamont..
1. Gamma is different pre/post compression and on NTSC vs computer monitor. If your camera's output is pre-DV (most are) then you'll have diff images.
2. I commented STRONGLY on the Avid issue, your Avid buddies are full of sh**. DV is DV in terms of what the computer sees. Avid sees what comes out of any DV cam EXACTLY the same way as Vegas does. The quality of the compression is dependent on the DVC. If you want images to more nearly exactly match the output of the lens, then get a Laird or other high end DVC. That said, dare your buddies with the Avid to get their codec to render more than 10 renders and hold the same integrity that Vegas holds. I've done it, the results are posted on the DMN. Chienworks render tests bear this out as well.
I don't recall the third point, but you'll find the tape looks exactly like the disk image. If it doesn't, it's a problem with your hardware, not Vegas. I assure you, Vegas has nothing to do with what's going on here. Vegas does nothing to the incoming image, it's a data transfer only. Same with Avid. For anyone to EVER say Avid, Premiere, Ulead, Roxio, FCP, Edition looks better (or worse) than Vegas in terms of unedited footage is ignorant as can be, and foolish. It's like the morons that tell me that ProTools 'sounds' better than Vegas. It's digital data. It has NO SOUND personalities or quality like analog gear does. It's all in the conversion from analog to digital. Nothing else. The main thing that separates a crappy cam from a good cam is the quality of the CCD's and the glass, virtually nothing else matters. It's compressed on the tape, which is nothing more than a direct data transfer to the hard drive. I regularly shoot to hard drive with a tape backup, and I assure you, it looks the same. www.nnovia.com to see the hard drive I use, or www.adstech.com to see the other hard drive I use. Both go on my belt. Shooting this way, I don't capture, it's just a hard drive to Vegas.
hope this helps...but doubt it does. I think you knew all of this already.

Firstly what SPOT has to say is 110% true. Anyone who tries to tell you that there's a difference between what's on the tape and what's in the computer has anything to do with the NLE should be treated with total contempt.

Secondly the rendered output from Avid systems working with DV will 'look' better than that from VV or FCP because they apply some degree of smoothing in an attempt to remove the DV artifacts. Problem is repeating this process over multiple generations has serious implications for image quality.

Thirdly, none of this solves your problem. As has been pointed out you are monitoring the analogue signal prior to compression. What you need to do is monitor AFTER DV compression so you don't get any expensive surprises. If you're serious about this spend some serious money and get a studio monitor with DV in. Sony offer this as an option on some of their monitors. It isn't cheap. Another option would be an D/A converter feeding a monitor. Either way it's got to give more accurate results than taking the composite feed from the camera.

Laird CapDiv- Direct DV Recorder: <-- So by using this, you feel that what we are capturing is more like what we are monitoring?

Do any of you know of any DVC's that will allow you to monitor what you are capturing? -I'm having a hard time explaining what it is that I'm trying to ask.-

It would be optimal to have a DVC that would allow me to connect the camera to one side & the computer to the other. This way we could monitor our input and be able to make the neccessary Color adjustments, F-stop, etc., before we capture (and not in post) and capture as close to what we want to use in our final product. Hopefully this would cut down on the 'color correction' that we are having to do in post. As of yet I'm having to do extensive color correction. Just hoping to remedy this. Plus, I'm not the best color corrector.

Thanks to all! -Spot, I should put you on our payroll.Your DVD's, book, and your answers from this forum have helped me explain a lot to my boss about DV. And as you know, it's hard finding the words to explain something to someone that doesn't even have basic knowledge.

Lamont

If you wanted it post-compression at the time of capture, you could
use a split firewire I/O where you are feeding both computer and conversion device at same time. This would allow the monitor to only see what's coming from the camera AFTER the compression, but would require another conversion device.
I just can't imagine your loss being that significant though, to where it's much to worry about. Granted, it's different post compression, but if it's managed well and lit well, it should look pretty close, just not as saturated.