Cheap rewinders

Steve Mann wrote on 10/25/2008, 11:19 PM

NEVER use the cheap tape rewinders. They are cheap for a good reason. They do not slow down at the end of the tape, they just hope that your tape won't break from the hub when it hits the end of the rewind at full-speed.

Seriously, don't worry about wearing out the camera. If you use the camera to make money, then you should hope that you have enough business to wear them out.

The same goes for "wearing out the heads" from using the camera as a deck. Most of us who use our cameras to generate income would welcome the business volume that it would take to wear out a camera from normal use.

Comments

tcbetka wrote on 10/26/2008, 8:18 AM

Well, I agree with you about the cheap rewinders. Also, I am starting to think that maybe you're right about the longevity of the carriage on the bigger cameras. I have been reviewing this issue on the internet some this weekend, and have found a couple interesting references:

Here's a http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/hdv2-sony-hvr-a1-hdr-hc-series/77113-hdr-fx1-hvr-a1u.htmlfirst[/link] link, from the DV info net. A couple experienced posters seem to think that you should use something other than your camera to rewind the tapes; and maybe even play them back for capturing video. But in this link about the history of http://www.cytechandprofservices.com/vhistory.htmvarious tape formats[/link], the writer doesn't agree. If you look in the manufacturer's recommendations section at the bottom of the page, the 7th bullet point basically agrees with Steve's opinion about not needing specialized rewinding gear.

There were several other less-interesting references like where, for example, a reviewer of a product expressed their opinion that you should use a rewinder--or maybe that it's not needed. Suffice it to say that there really isn't widespread agreement on either position. It would be nice to see Sony's MTBF value for the FX1's carriage mechanism--or for any of their cameras' carriage systems, for that matter.

I think that people will point to common sense as the main argument in support of not using the camera for rewinding and playback; the camera is expensive, so use something less expensive (if possible) to minimize use of an expensive piece of equipment. But in spending a few hours of time reviewing about 50-60 links on the internet, I cannot really point to any objective data to support that assertion. I personally have experienced erratic operation, and overt failure, of a few VHS players over the years; especially when I used a unit to RW or FF tape a lot. Maybe this experience has biased me in this instance?

Well, there may not be a clear-cut right or wrong here, but It's an interesting topic of discussion anyway...

TB

Steve Mann wrote on 10/26/2008, 2:54 PM

There is no quantitative data, but as I said, we should hope to use our cameras enough to wear them out.

I've run a thousand tapes in my PD-150 or VX2000 in the past few years, and I haven't even run a cleaning tape for over a year. They are a long way off from wearing out.

You can find on eBay, sometimes, a used DV camcorder for under $50 that you can use as a deck. That frees up the camera to be shooting while the cheaper camera is the deck.

Since I bought my Z1's and a HVR-15 deck, I haven't even used the VX2000 or PD-150. (Maybe I should go ahead and put them on eBay or Craigslist.....)

tcbetka wrote on 10/26/2008, 3:09 PM

Wow Steve...what, are you collecting Sony cameras? Impressive collection you've got going there! I think there's a lot of truth to what you say, and it's all a learning process with regards to gathering enough information to feel comfortable that I am not abusing this equipment. Call it beginner's paranoia, I suppose.

But I must say that I really like the looks of the Sony http://www.sonystyle.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/ProductDisplay?catalogId=10551&storeId=10151&langId=-1&productId=8198552921665192187GVH-D700[/link] unit being offered now. Not only would it serve to rewind/FF tapes, but it would allow me to review footage in the field, or even stripe a tape in a pinch. And it takes the same battery as the FX1 I have now. Back home in the studio, it would also allow me to capture HDV via iLink. A neat little unit, as others have already pointed out. It's a bit pricey for me right now, considering all the gear I've recently purchased--but maybe after the first of the New Year things will be different. But back on point; I am not nearly as concerned with risking the FX1's tape mechanism as I was a week ago--as I said, it simply takes time and some discussion to separate the wheat from the chaff, so to speak.

Back to your "inventory" for a second though--my fear of course is that some day I will have as many cameras as you do now, lol. But that means not only do I have to figure out how to *pay* for them, but also to convince my wife that I need them. And seeing that I'm unlikely to ever do this for a living, that might be a tough sell!

;)

TB

riredale wrote on 10/26/2008, 3:40 PM

...which brings up another point. I really don't think you need to bother "striping" a tape. The camera puts down fresh timecode every time you record.

Actually, there IS a reason to prestripe, but not for purposes of laying down timecode. I have done it in the past to test for dropouts. Record black for the entire hour, then bring the video it into the PC using HDVSplit. If there's a dropout (i.e. capture stops prematurely), junk the tape. Premise is that dropouts are based on tape shortcomings are are repeatable. A dropout-free tape is likely to remain so, or at least until it has been used numerous times.

tcbetka wrote on 10/26/2008, 4:36 PM

So you are saying to do this with a virgin tape, or one that you've used before--to test to see if it will tolerate re-use? I think I follow what you are getting at, just not exactly sure what you mean.

I guess I thought that "striping" a tape meant to reestablish an unbroken timecode on a non-virgin tape(by blackening it, for example), but now I am not so sure that I know the true definition.

TB

rs170a wrote on 10/26/2008, 8:11 PM

I guess I thought that "striping" a tape meant to reestablish an unbroken timecode on a non-virgin tape(by blackening it, for example), but now I am not so sure that I know the true definition.

In earlier days, tapes had to be striped in order to do "insert" edits (i.e. insert a new shot over an existing one while retaining the original timecode).
NLEs changed that requirement to the point that I suspect a lot of newer shooter/editors have never even heard of the term.
Anytime I'm shooting, I always add a few extra seconds to the beginning and end of each and every shot.
This allows me to rewind and review the footage without the worry of not stopping on active video so that timecode starts all over again.

Mike

johnmeyer wrote on 10/26/2008, 8:17 PM

Steve,

I agree with your initial post completely. I think the reason people still think this way is that before non-linear editing, the tapes would take a tremendous beating, as you shuttled back and forth, assembling footage. Start. Stop. Fast-forward. Rewind. Pause. Jog-back. Step. Step. etc., etc. Now, you just push the button, let the camera cruise through the capture, and let your hard disk take the beating.

I think most people's cameras probably take ten times the beating in the field compared to what happens back at the edit bay. Also, striping is a holdover from the old days. With the proper capture software, even an interrupted timecode doesn't really cause any problems.