Thank you for being a valued part of the CNET community. As of December 1, 2020, the forums are in read-only format. In early 2021, CNET Forums will no longer be available. We are grateful for the participation and advice you have provided to one another over the years.

Thanks,

CNET Support

General discussion

I miss MiniDV tapes

Mar 7, 2011 2:14AM PST

I have owned a Sony MiniDV camcorder for over 10 years. It needs a $350 repair, so it seems wise to buy a new unit. I like the quality, affordability and archiving convienence of the tapes. The industry seems to have passed me by. I do very little editing and have moved only a tiny fraction of my footage onto a computer. Now it seems my entire model for storing and saving my footage must shift. Does it make sense for me to try to cling to the tapes by either buying a new camera (If I can find one) or repairing my old one? Please convince me that I will like the PC/DVD computer-based method of archiving. What are the pros and cons of flash drives vs HD? Grumpy about progress.

Discussion is locked

- Collapse -
It depends on your requirements,
Mar 7, 2011 10:16PM PST

budget, expectations and where you shop.

In the consumer space, Canon continues the ZR960 and HV40. Prosumers and pro-grade camcorders from Sony and Canon continue using miniDV tape. For a prosumer, the Sony HDR-FX7 and Canon GL2 are in the sub-$2,000 area. Maybe $350 is OK to spend for repair... My "rule of thumb" is that if the repair costs more than the replacement, then just go to the replacement, but we don't know what your budget is.

"Convincing" you that you will like converting your archive process and method depends on your budget and computer technical capability. People generally do not like change, so you are not alone. In my opinion, the "best" method will be using a multi-drive RAID1 hard drive system connected to your computer (or as a Network Attached Storage repository). This assumes multiple hard drives won't crash at the same time, at least two drives are "mirrored" in the chassis and are "hot swappable" so when one crashes, it can be replaced and the contents of the working drive are automatically copied to the new drive. When the hard drives fill, I would replace both and store them in geographically different places. Here's my issue: In 10 years, where will the drive mechanisms and chassis be to get the data from them if needed? At some point, the video data on the drives will need to be moved to the storage of the day and copying the contents of a terabyte drive (or 4 or 5) will take time and more expense. I would not do optical disc archiving - single and double layer DVDs don't hold enough data and are not a "trustworthy", good, archive media and I don't have confidence Blu Ray will be around (since streaming is becoming more prevalent).

As for the camcorders, hard disc drive (HDD) cams have known issues with altitude and high levels of vibration - and the internal single hard drive can store a lot - but when the internal hard disc drive or the camcorder fails, you *may* have challenges recovering the video (see Drive Savers or other data recovery companies). I prefer flash memory because it is removable and there is no motor associated with the memory card use.

It is not so much the media, but the AVCHD compression used for high definition video storage. Under about $700 (for the camcorder), the amount of compression used on the video is very high. Fast motion is challenging to deal with. A new computer with lots of RAM and a new video editor are required. More compression = more discarded video = reduced video quality. The data stream for DV is 25 mbps. Many of the camcorders in the sub-$700 are capable of an anemic 17 mbps data stream. In the $1,000 improved video quality results from a 24 mbps data stream. The Canon HF S series and Sony HDR-CX500 (or higher) series are worth a look.

- Collapse -
So it is down to one consumer camcorder.
Mar 8, 2011 12:23PM PST

Thank you for your thougthful reply. I am not in the market for a prosumer level camera. So it is either the Cannon you mentioned or I bite the bullet and buy a camera with flash memory. I really only take video of my kids and very rarely edit or digitize. Moving video onto my computer has little advantage for me, but it is hard to resist the market trend. Am I alone on this one?

Do your suggestions regarding datastream speed mean that I am currently capturing at 25mbps on tape and to get close to that with a new HD flash camcorder, I will need to spend over $700.00?

What is your opinion of the Cannon ZR960 you mentioned? Is it a good unit? What hidden problems might I run into if I decide to buy this Cannon and continue to shoot to tape? I suspect eventually it will be hard to find a machine that will play the tapes.

You mentioned (but did not reccomend) optical disc and bluray storage in addition to your RAID1 strategy. Are there any other methods avaialable? What do most amatuer home-use folks do? Thanks again.

- Collapse -
well... the advantage to the
Mar 8, 2011 1:20PM PST

Canon ZR960 is that it is miniDV tape based and you can playback your current miniDV tapes. And you *could* use it to import that digital video on the digital tapes to some sort of computer-based archive system (RAID1 or otherwise). The downside is that it is an entry-level camcorder so small lenses and imaging chips won't do too well under low-light conditions common to household indoor video capture.

Assuming you go the direction of the flash memory camcorder, what are your plans for getting the video from the tape? And I guess I don't understand what you mean about "digitizing". The "DV" in "miniDV" = Digital Video. The information on the digital tape is as digital as flash memory, hard disc drive or DVD - but they all use different digital formats. If what you mean is "getting the video form the tape to the computer", then go back to the first paragraph of this particular post.

Yes, your current DV-format miniDV tape based camcorder is capturing at 25 mbps. To get to 24 mbps (or better) AVCHD compressed video on flash memory under $700, the Canon HF M series, HF S series and Sony's HDR-CX100 series gets you there. You can also stick with standard definition cams and not jump to AVCHD compression. Check the Canon FS series.

I got a Canon HF S100 last year. I got the DW100 DVD recorder with it. It works. I continue using my Sony miniDV tape camcorders and gave the HF S100 (and DVD recorder) to my son. I do not know how *most* others are dealing with archiving. I do know there are periodic posts from people here in a panic because their camcorder storage media is full and they don't know what to do... As a former IT manager, I found *best* to be the RAID1 storage (Netgear, Buffalo, D-Link, LG and several others make home/small office-systems). There are steps between "it works" and "best practice".

- Collapse -
The repair that my Sony MiniDv unit needs . . .
Mar 8, 2011 10:29PM PST

is to fix a loud hum in the tape transfer mechanisim. The camera operates just fine except for a mechancial hum it makes during shooting. (It records the sound of the hum of course) So for now we can still use this camera for playback and (less than ideal) shooting. I had not even thought about the fact that I will need to move my 30 to 40 tapes of footage onto a new storage medium once we say goodbye to this camcorder. (This moving the footage to a computer is what I meant by digitizing in my last post. I misspoke.)


Can I hook my MiniDV camcorder up to the DW100DVD unit you mentioned and expect it to burn a DVD? If yes, does the copy suffer a loss in quality? Are these units the way most casual users are approaching the archive question? I know it is not ideal and certainly not best practice. I imagine most folks are not complying with your RAID1 approach.

Why do you still use the tape camcorders? Are you moving all your tape footage onto another storage platform as a backup? Or do you just let the tapes be your archive with no backup. (I doubt it given your IT background)

Thanks again.

- Collapse -
in order...
Mar 9, 2011 7:58AM PST

"hook my MiniDV camcorder up to the DW100DVD unit"
I have not tried - but I don't think so (the DW100 has USB for the video transfer; AV-out only for playback). I can't get my miniDV tape camcorders to do USB streaming, so I did not bother trying. But it looks like the Sony VRD-MC6 and VRD-MC10 can (I have used neither - just know about them because I read about them)...
a) it is better (for video quality) to connect the camcorder's DV port to the computer's firewire port, import the DV format video, edit... then export or render to a computer file (low compression).
b) if you copy the video from the non-Canon miniDV camcorder to a DVD burner, it is generally by connecting with the analog AV cables and burning very highly compressed VOB files. Assuming the 60 minute miniDV tapes are full (they generally are not), this would translate to about 14 gig (per 60 minutes of uncompressed DV format video) when imported to a computer's hard drive. Consider that a DVD-player playable single layer blank DVD will hold up to 120 minutes of standard definition video (or up to 4.7 gig of data) and a double layer blank DVD will hold up to 240 minutes of standard definition video (or up to 8.5 gig of data) and you get a feel for how much compression is applied if the video is converted to VOB. Once in the DVD VOB format, that video is not meant to be edited - but can be ripped if needed. Dropping to analog, then compressing to VOB will reduce video quality.

If you copy the DV data files (no VOB compression, video not playable in a regular DVD player) from the computer to the blank DVDs, at 8.5 gig per double layer DVD blank, and 14 gig per 60 minutes of video, you can do the math on the number of blanks that will be needed. Increase that number - the video files won't "break" at useful DVD storage spacing.

I suspect *most* users don't do the RAID1 archiving. Honestly, I don't know what *most* do.

I use miniV tape based camcorders because DV/HDV is the least compression (in the range of camcorders I can afford), are removable storage media, and the tape is the archive. After video acquisition, the tape is locked. Then there's importing to the computer, editing, rendering to a couple of different formats (depending on the audience), and exporting the final edit of the project back to the miniDV tape (for archiving the final video). The archive tapes (whether the original video or final project export) are not used for any "day to day tape viewing" but can be used for other projects. At this point, I have about 600 tapes going back several years. No, I am not a pro - but a fairly serious hobbyist.

I am looking at terabyte NAS systems. No they are not inexpensive, which is the next reason miniDV tape is still a good deal. I shoot HDV. A single 60 minute miniDV tape can hold up to 63 minutes of high definition video. When imported to a computer, this decompresses out to about 44 gig of computer hard drive space. I get miniDV tapes at Fry's in 8-packs for about $28. MiniDV tape is still an inexpensive storage media. I agree that $3.50 per tape x 600 tapes is a lot of money, it was spent over about 5 years as opposed to a single $1,000 expense for a decent 4 terabyte RAID1 NAS.

I expect my older HDV miniDV tape camcorder will need "attention" soon. I will be in a position similar to yours. If I had to make some decisions today, I would be looking at a Canon HV40 ($649 at bhphotovideo) or maybe a Sony HDR-HC9. Just so you know, I use a Sony HDR-HC1 and HDR-FX1 today.

- Collapse -
How do you export back to MiniDV tape?
Mar 9, 2011 9:31PM PST

I suspect the camcorder is involved. Or do you own a MiniDV deck of some sort?

And one last point of clarification. If you were making the move to a non tape camcorder your new archiving strategy would no longer involve tapes or any other removable media. It would be entirely hard drive-based. No other media or storage devices involved?

Thanks agian for taking the time on all this. Great information.

- Collapse -
Exporting back
Mar 9, 2011 9:40PM PST

has the camcorder's DV port connected to the computer's firewire port - just like importing. But the video editor exports out to the camcorder. MiniDV decks are expensive.

If I went the RAID1 route, my "new archiving strategy would no longer involve tapes or any other removable media. It would be entirely hard drive-based. No other media or storage devices involved." It is based on the low probability that both drives making up the RAID1 architecture will not fail at the same time.

- Collapse -
Mbps spec?
Mar 9, 2011 10:16PM PST

I am shopping now. You mentioned the 24Mbps spec. I have pasted that spec below on a Sony camera--Model HDR-CX360V. Should I be looking at the the number in the highest quality mode? HD PS? Just want to be sure I am using the correct spec as my benchmark.

Video Mode : HD PS: Approx. 28Mbps / FX: Approx. 24Mbps / FH: Approx. 17Mbps / HQ: Approx. 9Mbps / LP: Approx. 5Mbps; STD HQ: 9Mbps

- Collapse -
I've been noticing the newer cams
Mar 10, 2011 11:33AM PST

and their video data rate. The next item to consider is how that compression happens. There is no single spec that magically makes one camcorder better than others - it is the balance and combination of several items that drives the overall video (and audio) quality.

With AVCHD, there is a "group of frames" - basically, frame 1 is the "base" and the following 7 frames are compared for differences. When the data is the same, it is discarded; when the data is different, it is kept - so you can extrapolate this to what happens with fast action impact (lots of data is different) and when NTSC standard 30 frames per second (well, 29.97, but we won't discuss that here) you can imagine what happens if one frame has an issue, all 8 frames in that group (in 30 frames in that second) will have an issue... In this case, I would suggest ALWAYS recording at the PS rate, but this is only one measure of video quality. Lens filter diameter (the HDR-CX300 series has a 30mm filter diameter) is a bit on the small side as is the 1/4 inch single imaging chip. These two items have a large impact on whether "low light" or indoor video capture will be useful or grainy.

That said, basically any camcorder can do well under good lighting conditions.

In this case, the CX360 has an MSRP of $799. For the same MSRP, the Canon HF M41 has a bigger lens filter diameter (43mm) and larger imaging chip (1/3") that the CX360 does not have. I'll take these with the 24 mbps data stream "limitation" over the CX360's 28 mbps data stream... I would also check the manuals for each to see which has manual audio gain control (both have a 1/8" - 3.5mm - stereo audio input jack for external mics).

- Collapse -
Cannon HV40
Mar 9, 2011 10:53PM PST

So you would stay with MiniDV now if you had to?

I went to the B&H site you reccomended and the reviews for the Cannon HV40 are very good. Some fault its low light capabilities. Do you have any idea how the Cannon HV40 would compare to my Sony DCR-TRV8? (It is so old I am sure you have no point of reference)

Would the Cannon unit be able to play my current collection of tapes? Conversely would my old Sony be able to play the HD tapes recorded from the Cannon? Or would it only be able to play tapes recorded in non-HD?

- Collapse -
"Had to"?
Mar 10, 2011 11:59AM PST

um... I'm not quite sure. If my HC1 dies, I still have the FX1. I've done a 3-camera shoot with them and a HF S100. Interview under good, fog-filtered daylight in San Diego. There is no way to know which camcorder captured with video (remember, good lighting). If I had to replace the HC1, I would consider AVCHD (HF S 200 series) - or even a dSLR like a Canon T2i or Sony A33 (I have a Zoom H2 and a couple of XLR adapters for handling external mic connectivity). But if I had to replace the FX1, I'd be looking at the HDR-FX1000 or HVR-Z5...

The Sony DCR-TRV8 is a great consumer camcorder. 30mm lens filter diameter, 1/4" CCD, NightShot mode, LANC port, mic jack, headphone jack...

The Canon HV40 (and Sony HDR-HC9) both have a 37mm lens filter diameter and similarly sized imaging hips. Under good lighting conditions, their video can be superior to the TRV8. But you are also comparing apples and oranges assuming you would be willing to compare standard definition video to high definition video.

If you compare standard def to standard def, under low light... or whether the HV40 can do zero light capture (the TRV8 has a built-in infrared emitter and the HV40 does not), well, it just depends on your requirements.

My apologies that this is not a simple response to your seemingly simple question. Sorry.

Will the Canon play the Sony tapes? If the TRV8 always captured video to the miniDV tape as plain old default standard definition onto the tapes that would store 60 minutes of video at plain old default SP speed, then yes, the Canon HV40 should be able to easily deal with the tapes form the Sony. If the TRV8 was set to LP speed (tom increase record time of the 60 minute tapes), there *might* be problems.

The Sony would be able to play standard definition, DV format, SP mode tapes from the Canon. The TRV8 cannot deal with HDV format video or anything not 29.97 frames per second.

- Collapse -
I am wavering
Mar 10, 2011 12:24PM PST

I really think I want to stay in the world of MiniDV tapes. I would get either of the two cameras you mentioned Cannon HV40 or the Sony HDR-HC9. (I don't think there is much other choice at my budget) I see that other recent buyers are reviewing both cameras well. Almost all of the reviews cite the tape format as a big reason for their purchase. I guess I am asking you about the wisdom of that sort of investment given market trends. Our first camera lasted us about 12 years. Any guesses if we could get another 10 years living in the MiniDV world? I would be happy to continue with our current workflow scheme. (With HD thrown in as a bonus.) Can you see yourself ever buying another MiniDV camcorder? I think I am trying to gauge how much I may be putting off the inevitable, against my desire to stick with the simplicity of what has worked. I know this is not a technical question but more of an emotional one. Part of my unease stems from my lack of disciplene with digital file management. I work in graphics, and I know how scattered a collection of resources can become. Versions and fragments and lost files proliferate all too easyily if you are not fully ontop of your digital world. A shelf of discreet tapes stays put much more easily.


By the way, very impressed with your depth of knowledge on all this. Do you have a link that shows any of your work?

- Collapse -
If my crystal ball could
Mar 11, 2011 1:02AM PST

see 10 years into the future...

At one point, Sony discontinued the HC9, but they brought it back (perhaps to counter the HV40 - I don't know for sure). For consumer grade - as you already know, these (and the Canon ZR960 are "it". Assuming people make the RAID1 investment for the current storage medium - or optical discs become magically stable - I don't know how the captured video will be around. There will be some internet storage, but I have no idea where YouTube or Vimeo or other sites will be in 10, 20 or 30 years... And the investment in the RAID1 gear will migrate to something else in a few years.

The ugly underbelly of (changing) technology means we migrate to *something* new over time. Your consternation on which to pick is understandable. You are not alone.

Prosumer and pro-grade gear is not quite as volatile as the consumer space. Many news folks continue to use Beta because it still works and the expense to repair is still less than replacing. Many use DVCPRO and DVCPRO HD and many others use miniDV DV/HDV, HDCAM and XDCAM if they are in larger markets. In 10 years I expect miniDV gear will still be usable and in use - but to what extent is unknown.

The consumer "market trend" for non-digital tape based camcorders started about 5 years ago. Had I jumped on the train then, I would not have had any tools with which to edit the video. The video editors caught up about 2 years ago.

I agree that the change in process flow needs a huge change in discipline mindset.

I am VERY obviously not a pro - there's stuff at sites like
http://vimeo.com/14300255 (I was fortunate enough to work with CalEMA and UC Davis on this - Some of the UC Davis interviews used a Sony XDCAM rig around 02:10; the outdoor UC Davis clips used the FX1 and HC1 around 02:45; the San Diego interview starting at 03:48 was shot with the FX1, HC1 and HF S100). Lots of other projects are secured or never posted (provided only to the person who asked me to do the video and editing). Sorry.
http://www.youtube.com/smallbullproductions (Note: the "Cute or Annoying" clips were captured with a Canon PowerShot SD1000. The rest are with the HDR-FX1 or HDR-HC1, many times both. All editing is done on Apple Macintosh computers using Final Cut or iMovie.

- Collapse -
Cyrstal clear
Mar 11, 2011 10:17PM PST

The quality of your videos is remarkable. You are really using all that high def to your advantage. They must look awesome on the large screen. Thank you for all you advice. I will let you know what I decide.

- Collapse -
Thanks...
Mar 12, 2011 8:59AM PST

Keep in mind the versions uploaded are very compressed and are "only" 1280 x 720 with "medium" compression plus whatever the video sharing site compresses. When "best quality" playback is required (1920 x 1080), I connect the camcorder to the HDTV and use the archived version on miniDV tape. If I render a DVD, it is in standard definition video format VOB files for their playback in a regular DVD player - unless they specifically request Blu Ray (has not yet happened). Many times, a "computer readable file" similar to the 1280 x 720 for uploading, but "high quality". And more often, the request for iPod Touch and iPhone playable files is common, and they can be connected to a HDTV for large screen viewing.

Which reminds me... with camcorders using flash memory or hard disc drive storage media, there is no "export to camcorder" option of which I am aware. I digress.

The reason for this post is to alert you that there is no "single best video rendering format". Render the final product different ways for how the playback will be done by your viewing audience. Since you cannot replace discarded video (compression discards the video data), it is always best to have "best quality" as the archive. You can always import and render downsampled versions from best quality. You cannot upsample low quality and expect a video quality improvement.

- Collapse -
Sony HDR-CX350V--What would you pay?
Mar 20, 2011 5:51AM PDT

I wonder if you could tell me if you think $474.99 sounds like a good deal for this model Sony (HDR-CX350V). My Best Buy is selling discontinued units. I see that it records up to 24 mbps. Its sensor is only .25 inch. I am just not really sure how to balance the size of the image sensor, filter size, mbps rate and price.

I also found the Sony Mini DV model sony hdr-hc9 camcorder for $849.99 on eBay. Without considering the tape vs flash difference, Which is the better camera?

General observation is that the physical construction of camcorders has become so much more flismy in the 12 years or so since I last purcahsed. (Progress!)

- Collapse -
With the pricing
Mar 21, 2011 1:38AM PDT

of consumer camcorders as volatile as it is, I have not kept up. A couple of years ago when I was shopping, I ended up with the Canon HF S100 (the one I gave to my son). The AVCHD was the downside (same with the CX350). The upsides to the HF S100 included the mic jack, manual audio control, and thumbwheel used for manual focus or zoom. The accessory shoe and viewfinder + LCD panel were bonuses.

I think you are comparing different types of camcorders. The CX350 is a mid ranged consumer cam. The HC9 is on the upper-end (even if it is a few years old). The HC9 compares to the Canon HV40. The CX350 compares to the Canon HF M series. The HDR-CX500 range is more comparable to the HC9.
From my limited research, the CX350 and the HC9 differences (aside from AVCHD vs DV/HDV):
HC9 has viewfinder + touch panel LCD screen; CX350 touch panel LCD screen only.
HC9 has a built-in infrared emitter for zero light monocrome video capture (NightShot); CX350 does not.
HC9 can play the tapes from your previous camcorder.
HC9 has a LANC port; CX350 does not.
HC9 has a headphone jack; CX350 does not.

There are probably a few others... The upside to the CX350 is that flash memory camcorders use less power resulting in longer battery life.

- Collapse -
Final 2 camcorders
Mar 22, 2011 1:23AM PDT

HC9 for $849.00
CX500V for $899.00

Could you compare the two units? Then I will make my final choice. You have been very patient and helpful. Thanks again.

- Collapse -
The biggest difference will be
Mar 22, 2011 5:01AM PDT

in my opinion, DV/HDV and backward compatibility with your existing tapes and AVCHD compression and your long-term storage process. For your use, again, in my opinion, in this price range, you would do well by either. Since we already know your computer has a firewire port, we know miniDV tape is still useful for you. What we don't know is the computer, RAM, video editing software and all that to support the AVCHD requirements. Assuming the current computing environment is robust, either camcorder will do what you want. DV/HDV has been around for a while so most editors can deal with them (assuming RAM and CPU are adequate) and the low compression rate is not quite as taxing on the computer. AVCHD's a computer-resource hog - and the video editors need to be a relatively current version (nothing in the box with the camcorder is actually useful, so please don't depend on that).

I use Macs - the reasons are many and varied - and not necessarily appropriate for this discussion. Current versions of iMovie (bundled) and Final Cut (Express and Pro - available to purchase) can deal with both HDV and AVHD (assuming the Mac has appropriate connectivity, RAM and available hard drive space on a current machine). My exposure to other operating systems' "compatibility" with firewire, HDV and AVCHD is not as in depth, but MovieMaker is basically a non-starter - leaving the usual other suspects in Sony Vegas, Adobe Premiere and several others (all available for purchase). Each of the video editor applications vendors will post *minimum* CPU type/speed requirements, operating system version, RAM and some other stuff. The best path is to exceed (rather than meet) these requirements - especially CPU, RAM and available hard disc drive space).

Imported standard definition video can use up to around 13 gig to 14 gigs of computer hard disc drive space per hour of imported video. Imported high definition video can use up to around 44 gigs of computer hard disc drive space per hour of imported video.

- Collapse -
I bought the Cannon HV 40
Mar 23, 2011 3:25AM PDT

The $849.00 price B&H had for the HC9 turned out to be transient. It was back up to $1,099.00 today. Odd. So I decided to save some money despite my 11 years as a Sony guy. Thank you so much for all your advice. I could not have made this purchase with any confidence if you had not walked me through the various pros and cons. Very psyched to get some HD memories of my kids down on tape.

- Collapse -
Congratulations!
Mar 23, 2011 7:00AM PDT

Welcome to high definition video!

Did you get one of the B&H kits or just the camcorder?

You do not need to use "special HD tapes".

Fry's Electronics
http://www.frys.com/product/4796539
online and brick/mortar pricing is the same.

In quantities,
http://www.tapestockonline.com/son60minprem.html
is reputable and responsive, but no brick/mortar store.

You won't need it immediately, but a head cleaning tape will be something to think about acquiring at some future point.

- Collapse -
Just bought the camera. No kit.
Mar 23, 2011 9:49AM PDT

I will buy my tapes in bulk as you suggest and get the tape cleaner too. Next I guess I will buy a drive or two and start transfering all my old tapes over to electronic storage so I will have backup copies of everything. I have a work laptop with plenty muscle and a gig of RAM. I have Premiere if I want to start editing. We also have a nice iMac that I think has enough guts to make it work as well. (imovie bundled with that unit.) But mostly I want to just make copies for peace of mind and eventual tape independence or migration.

Thanks again.

- Collapse -
Sounds good.
Mar 23, 2011 12:46PM PDT

Heads up: A single gig of RAM is short. Typically, 2 is minimum; 4 is better.

- Collapse -
I miss spoke
Mar 23, 2011 10:04PM PDT

My work PC has 3 gigs. The Mac has 1 gig but another empty slot. So I could ramp that up. Thanks again. I will give you my impressions of the camera once I get it.