Am I glad I don't earn a living in this game!

All the hype, vitriol and wasted words, surely in the time it took to write half of these posts someone could have grabbed a camera and tried to reproduce d1s results.

Thats how its done in the scientific community.

I cannot really do it here as I only have access to the PAL verions of the PD150 and guess what, I doesn't have the ability to change setup. Maybe thats where D1 got caught out?

I was also led to believe that the digital stream recorded on NTSC cameras is different between DV and DVCAM, 4:2:2:0 versus 4:2:2:1. This doesn't apply to a PAL camera so again I cannot test it myself.

So here are two theories waiting for scientific analysis, anyone care to conduct the experiments?

Maybe someone has tried these tests on a PAL camera and really cannot get a difference?

Again I say the whole tone of this thread does nothing to enhance the image of the industry, posts here can and are read outside this community.

your right farss people outside do read these posts

Hello again d1editor,

I see this thread is still going! I've been to busy to check it out, if I'd known it was going so strong I might have clarified my earlier comment, especially as I suspect that a word I used ("troll") seems to have offended you.

I've also noticed that there are at least two sub-threads to this thread - the original matter at hand (what's the real difference between DV and DVCAM?) and the issue of polite/professional condust on this forum. These two issues seem to have been mixed together, confusing things, so I'd like to unmix them, First, the less important part - the issue of politeness...

POLITENESS
d1editor, you SEEM to be genuinely unaware that your second and third posts on this thread were a bit on the rude side. No really - they were. Don't take my word for it, just look at the reactions they caused. That's why I said, in my first reply to you, that you might be a "troll".

(In case you're unfamiliar with the term "troll", it's an old usenet term that refers to people who reply to a thread just for the fun of it, saying things in a deliberately controversial or antagonistic way in order to get a spirited or hostile response from others. That's all I meant when I said you might be a troll! :-) Your first post contained an erroroneous assumption (more on that in a moment), but your second and third posts were just plain hostile - and this was BEFORE anyone had started to criticize you. Go back up the thread and see for yourself if you don't believe me.)

In the spirit of being honest with you, I'm still not sure if you're a troll or not - that is, I'm not sure if you are just having fun, calling people names and then pretending to be offended when they bite back. Maybe you're not a troll and you really are unaware of the way your posts sound to everyone else. I'm not sure which is worse, being a cheeky troll or someone who unwittingly annoys others - you pick! :-) So that's enough of that - I'm not going to pick through your posts to show that you were rude first, I'm far more interested in the DV vs MiniDV issue.

DV VS DVCAM
For some reason I am compelled to explain this to you so that you understand. I don't mind your hostility and rudeness that much, so feel free to insult me, it's just the way you cling to your misunderstanding of the issue that intrigues me! :-) Your first post said:

* I hate to disagree.... we shoot a weekly TV
* show and we wanted to conserve tape, so one
* day we shot in the DV format (60 minutes) on
* our PD 150... the blacks and chroma were
* lacking...visually the picture was not as
* rich and YOU CAN tell the difference easily!
* We no longer shoot in the "DV" format...

That's it - that was your whole post. So, given the subject matter under discussion, it was pretty clear that you were saying that MiniDV (that is, the process of laying the DV stream down in MiniDV format) has inferior colour and blacks compared to DVCAM. This was incorrect, and it's STILL incorrect. If you had said:

* The PD150 shoots lower quality colour and
* blacks when shooting in MiniDV mode compared
* to DVCAM mode, so we only shoot in DVCAM
* mode on the PD150!

Then that would have been an interesting, though slightly off-topic, contribution to the thread. We could have discussed why on Earth Sony made the PD150 that way, etc etc. But you didn't say that, instead you strongly implied that you thought the difference was due to the change in recording format itself. In fact, in your third post you made it clearer (when you weren't being sarcastic) that you really DO think that the way colour and blacks are encoded to MiniDV and DVCAM are somehow different.

Let me assure you, there is NO difference. I'll be precise - there is NO difference in the way colour and blacks are dealt with between the MiniDV and DVCAM formats, as they are defined. In fact, once the signal has been converted into a DV stream by the camera head, it makes no difference if that stream is then recorded to MiniDV, DVCAM, DVCPro, Digital8, or even printed out on paper in 1's and 0's - all of them will be identical in content, quality, colour, blacks, contrast, the lot (assuming no errors in the medium of course - such as dropouts etc). If Sony has decided to deliberately (I assume it was deliberate) cripple the encoding of colour and blacks when the PD150 is in MiniDV mode - take it up with Sony.

Your opnion on this topic is based on your extensive experience using cameras rather than testing on a wider range of equipment or even reading some technical specs. Your extensive but limited-in-scope experience usually serves you well, but on this topic it has led you to make some erroneous assumptions about how things work. Happens all the time, don't get bent out of shape about it. Just recognise that you made a boo boo and move on with your life. If I got as defensive as you everytime I made a mistake, I'd be in a padded cell by now. :-)

* As far
* as not understanding the difference in the
* fundamentals of digital versus analog, I take
* exception to that comment.

You really do give that impression, you know - you really do semm a bit fuzzy on the distinction between what encoding is all about in the analog vs digital worlds. I'm no expert in these matters but even I can tell, by the significantly flawed analogies that you use, that you are operating under a few false impressions. Stay calm and be slower to take offence, you just might learn something new - or do you have nothing new to learn? :-)

* The premise I made
* were for two separate ideas, one analog and one
* digital. VHS and Beta SP are both analog formats,
* and as you stated- the data is the same regardless
* of tape formats, so why should I see any difference?

The data is NOT the same between VHS and BetaSP - that's WHY you see a difference!

The data IS the same between MiniDV and DVCAM, that's WHY you CAN'T see the difference!

The fact that you would even make this comparison indicates that you're a bit fuzzy on this issue. No big deal, I used to be too. There's no shame in being wrong, only in not seeing it when it's pointed out to you! :-)

* My assertion is the format makes a difference-

Not in the MiniDV, DVCAM world it doesn't, not to colour and blacks.

* VHS
* and Beta can receive the same data (composite for
* this example) and the format will dictate quality
* via lines of resolution, s/n ratios (Luma and
* Chroma), bandwidth (Luma and Chroma) ...

Your example is correct, but only in the analog world - it has NO BEARING on the MiniDV vs DVCAM debate. None at all. When you understand this topic more fully, you'll see that for yourself, honest you will. When you do understand, and you look back at what you wrote above, you'll slap your forehead! :-)

* it was
* an over simplified statement based on your comment
* about tape format. That’s all. I NEVER said DV and
* DVCAM video streams are different…

True, you didn't actually say that. You said something even stranger - that laying the SAME stream down to tape in a different format makes a difference to the data's colour and blacks! It's one thing to believe that MiniDV and DVCAM are actually different streams (a common misconception), but you seem to be claiming that the same digital stream can look different when layed down on tapes using different track widths! Can you see how this is mistaken yet?

* that was your
* assumption of my comments- shame on you!

R E L A X ! :-)

* I STATED
* formats can make a big difference – responding to
* your comment that tape formats do not make a
* difference and I should have no earthly reason
* for seeing a difference!

And in the context of MiniDV vs DVCAM, the formats do NOT make a difference in the areas YOU cited (colour and blacks). Only in the reliability of the encoding (less prone to the effects of drop outs).

* Many people seem to think digital is digital is
* digital- that too is an incorrect assumption. Bit
* sampling, quantization, compression algorithms all
* play factors into signal quality.

And these things all happen BEFORE the stream is laid to tape, hence the tape format makes no difference to colour and blacks.

* Beta SX is not
* the same as Digital Beta is not the same as
* DV/DVCAM… even if and when they receive the
* same exact signal! So don't even go there!

You mean they are different to each other when they receive the same analog or camera-head signal? Of course they are! They have different encoding algorythms and data rates! Surely you know this? It's when you say things like this that I begin to suspect that you're just having fun being a troll! :-)

It's not the way these digital formats are laid to tape that makes a difference to their colour reproduction, it's the encoding that happens beforehand! Do you see it yet? Once the encoding has occured you could (hypothetically) lay DigiBeta down to any format that could handle the data-rate, or even print it out on paper using numbers and ink, and the resulting data would be IDENTICAL in colour and blacks (assuming you could find a way to play back that paper copy!).

<SNIP>
* my comment about consumerism
* was based on “sounds like Sony marketing” directed
* at my input- and I was only trying to help

Irony - it looks like you're the victim of a Sony marketing decision - to cripple the PD150's MiniDV mode. Talk to Sony.

<SNIP>
* As I
* stated, we wanted to conserve tape and increase
* profits…we conducted a test in which we had 2
* separate tapes. One recorded in the MiniDV format
* and one DVCAM… we shot several 10 to 20 second
* scenes changing tapes each time…so it was not 20
* minutes on one tape and then 20 minutes later
* re-shot the scenes. It was controlled as much as
* possible. There was a noticeable difference between
* the 2 tapes.

Do you see the flaw in your experiment yet? You're assuming that the camera in question used the same encoding in both MiniDV and DVCAM mode. This flawed assumption led you to the erroneous conclusion that, since the only apparent change was the way the data was laid to tape, something happens when the stream is laid to tape that degrades the colour and blacks when in MiniDV mode.

No. If the colour and blacks are degraded on the PD150 when in MiniDV mode, then they are degraded before or during the encoding process. Once it's a DV stream, it's just a stream of numbers that cannot be affected by the way they are laid to tape (unless the tape can't handle the bandwidth or has too many dropouts, in which case you just get errors, not different colours and blacks).

Am I being clear? It's so hard to explain some things using text only - some diagrams would be nice around now! :-)

* I understand everything you stated,
* but the proof was in the results…perhaps the tape
* speed, maybe the video gods!

Doesn't it bother you that the specs contradict you? Doesn't it make you wonder WHY you saw a difference? Did it not occur to you that the specs were RIGHT and maybe something else was going on in the encoding in that camera? For example, if you'd transferred sections of both test tapes to a single DVCAM tape, and again to a single MiniDV tape, you would have seen the same differences in each segment on each tape, thereby proving that it can't be the format, it must have been the camera.

* All I know is what I
* saw and I mentioned that in the forum and all hell
* broke loose assuming that I must be an idiot or
* crazy since the technical specifications cannot
* answer or show the results we attained.

Actually, I didn't see hell breaking loose. The agro you received was well deserved not because you made a mistake, but because of the arrogance you displayed.

* All of you went right off the deep end and slammed
* my comments since your technical gospel claims this
* cannot happen… do the test yourself! We did and
* decided to sacrifice the tape for the observed
* quality we gained.

You didn't test it thoroughly enough, under controlled conditions. You left a major variable (the encoding of the camera) out of your test. By transferring existing footage from one DV device to another using firewire, you would have a better test. You would probably have discovered that the MiniDV mode in the PD150 is crippled
(or you imagined the difference!). :-) On that camera, stick to MiniDV and curse Sony under your breath. ;-)

* I also take exception to being called a “cowboy”,
* “troll” and various other comments and names!

I only said you MIGHT be a troll! So stop acting like a troll then. :-)

<SNIP>
* Funny thing is- I
* agree with you! I have known many so called professionals
* who have been doing things wrong for the entire time-
* like taking for granted specifications and never testing
* concepts for yourself …we would never have the helicopter
* if everyone simply believed what they were told.

Good outlook. So... Can you see how the format differences between MiniDV and DVCAM make no difference to the colours and blacks?

* This is a ridicules argument and I am not sure why I
* ended up taking it so personal. Perhaps it was because
* I was honestly trying to help and most of you decided
* that you are all better, smarter, DV Gurus and masters
* of the edit world and had no problem slamming someone
* who disagrees with your sacred technical manual….

You were slammed for your attitude, not your error. I bear no ill-will towards you for getting the subject matter wrong - how could I? I did comment on your rudeness though, and if you chack back through the thread you really will see that you started the whole "slamming" approach. Being in error is fine, being rude isn't.

But you ARE in error. Can you see it now?

Your next post was also full of name-calling, which I'll try to snip out as it doesn't interest me:

<SNIP>
* your sacred manual MUST not be wrong-
* therefore anyone who makes comments must be be the
* interface problem between a computer and the keyboard!

It's just a cute way of saying that you got it wrong, relax! 99.999 times out of 100, if you see something that contradicts the published specs, then the specs are right and you've made an error in your observations or in your thinking. Bitter esperience has toaught me this!

<SNIP>
* I did state I agreed with what others stated about
* DVCAM and DV, BUT I could see a difference between
* the two formats...put the tapes on a scope and I know
* you will see a difference-

But I think you can see now that the scope approach only works when the footage you're comparing is coming from an IDENTICAL source, not two different encoding modes on the same camera. Feel free to test my assertions! I already have - I recorded test patterns and footage from one DVCAM cassette to another cassette in both DVCAM and again in MiniDV mode. NO DIFFEENCE. This test is better than yours as there is no issue with different encoding settings or re-encoding going on - just a straight digital transfer from one device to another, the only difference is the way the copy was laid to tape. NO DIFFERENCE in the image at all (though I predict the MiniDV copy will suffer more over time from the effects of drop outs).

<SNIP>
* I made negative comments
* only after a comment about "Sony marketing" got me
* going.

Huh? This was a comment that was not directed at you and was not critical of your position! You need to relax! :-)

* As far as I am concerned- the test was legitimate...
* a single camera, lockdown for each shot tested, and
* there were several. The camera was a constant,

But was the encoding a constant? There's no way of knowing unless you use footage that has ALREADY been encoded and then transfer it to different formats. That way only the tape format changes, and it's a controlled test. I hope you see this now.

<SNIP>
* The only thing I can say is perhaps tape speed and the
* tape itself plays a major role in what I saw.

No, only in the analog world, not in the digital one. Either the bits are recorded robustly enough to be reliably read back, or they aren't. Not a lot of grey area there.

* You badger
* me because I have no answer- neither do you.

I do! :-)

* Oh yes I
* forgot- your precious manual and white paper seem to
* indicate this cannot be true! I don't care what anyone
* stated- there is a difference- do what you want, it's no
* skin off my nose

Doesn't it bother you that your assertion (that the way the DV numbers are recorded to tape can change the colour and blacks of the encoded video signal) contradicts all the standards and makes no sense? Doesn't the contradiction make you curious? Especially when there is such an obvious explanation for the difference that you see - the PD150 cripples its DV encoding when in MiniDV mode.

<SNIP>
* no matter what- please ignore
* my username from now on and make us both happy!

Breathe in slowly and deeply... hold... breathe out. Do this ten times before responding to any forum posts that make you angry. You'll live longer and look smarter! :-)

Then farss said:

* All the hype, vitriol and wasted words, surely in
* the time it took to write half of these posts
* someone could have grabbed a camera and tried to
* reproduce d1s results.

* Thats how its done in the scientific community.

Scientists are usually a bit better about controlling their variables. And responding to robust criticism! :-)

<SNIP>
* So here are two theories waiting for scientific analysis,
* anyone care to conduct the experiments?

* Maybe someone has tried these tests on a PAL camera and
* really cannot get a difference?

I have, but the issue isn't best tested by shooting footage on a camera in two different modes - that introduces too many extra variables. Just transfer an already encoded signal from one DV device to another via firewire in both modes. That way only the tape formats change. There will be no differences in colour or blacks. I do exactly this quite often, MiniDV to DVCAM, DVCAM to MiniDV, and I never seen a difference (and in the early days I looked for it).

* Again I say the whole tone of this thread does nothing
* to enhance the image of the industry, posts here can
* and are read outside this community.

Agreed. I'm not in the habit of suggesting that people might be trolls, especially when I'm posting under my own real name (Skevos is not a handle). But d1editor's comments were so over the top in their hostility that I felt compelled to say something.

This post is long enough. Stopping now... :-)




Skevos Mavros
mavart@mavart.com
http://www.mavart.com

Oops:

1. Forget any mention I make of DVCPro in my post - one accidental reference slipped through and probably doesn't apply.

2. This sentence:
On that camera, stick to MiniDV and curse Sony under your breath. ;-)
Should have been:
On that camera, stick to DVCAM and curse Sony under your breath. ;-)


Skevos Mavros
mavart@mavart.com
http://www.mavart.com

From the practical low-budget film world, one other observation: I had a director who shot a short film for me last year, and unilaterally decided she would rent a PD 150 PAL camera and shoot in DVCAM mode instead of MiniDV. Now I can't recapture and recut the film unless I re-rent the exact same type of camera! Arrgh! (Instead I have a DVX100 which shoots 24p, and which, by the by, blows the doors off PAL DV video no matter how much the latter is enhanced for a 'filmic' look.)