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

MiniDV video transfer size

Jan 14, 2005 1:23AM PST

Hi,

I have a Sony Digital 8 camcorder (DCR-TRV260) with a CCD imager size of 290K (effective) pixels. 60 minutes of video transferred to my PC is only about 12.4 GB. I plan to buy another MiniDV camcorder (probably DCR-HC85 with a CCD Imager size of 1080K effective pixels). Does anyone have any idea how much hard drive space it would take to transfer 60 minutes of video with such a MiniDV camcorder? Many thanks.

Discussion is locked

- Collapse -
Just asking...
Jan 14, 2005 1:54AM PST

What math is being used to get 1080K effective pixels into NTSC or PAL video?

My answer to your question is... About the same as before.

Bob

- Collapse -
I thought...
Jan 18, 2005 12:42AM PST

Thanks, Bob.

I am not family with gross(effective) pixels and the math behind them. What I know is: 1080k should be much better than 290k. And I thought it should be a bigger file to get that better video.

A forum is valuable when there are knowledgeable people like to offer help to others. Appreciate it!

Do you have any links for me to learn more about those issues? Thanks again.

- Collapse -
Must be a marketing ploy.
Jan 18, 2005 12:53AM PST

NTSC or PAL has limits. If they won't explain the term they made up, then let's focus on the video. My answer is that for NTSC/PAL, the resulting video filesize will be about the same as before with similar capture settings.

Bob

- Collapse -
Then what makes the difference?
Jan 18, 2005 1:08AM PST

Thanks again.

My Sony DSCS85 digcam can record movie clips of 16 fps 320x240. Those clips are bearly viewable on PC. But file sizes are very small too. My Sony V3 can do much better: 30 fps 640x480. I can burn those clips into a DVD and view it on a TV. But the file sizes for those clips are huge: a 1 GB memory stick only 12 minutes video.

My question is: better video, bigger file. If 1080k video has the same file size with 290k video, what makes 1080k video better?

Thanks.

Abry

- Collapse -
50 years ago...
Jan 18, 2005 1:56AM PST

NTSC and PAL are 50 year old "standards". Many are getting quite confused by marketing that tries to push these new terms and numbers.

About your camera. That's not video. It's a digital camera and the "video" you noted is certainly not a standard for use on a TV.

Maybe it will take a while for what I've written to sink in, but the answer is simpler than it seems. If you are capturing a NTSC or PAL video, then the "quality" is fixed in a 50 year old standard. Which also fixes the filesize given the same capture settings.

Bob

- Collapse -
50 years of no-innovation?
Jan 18, 2005 2:09AM PST

I used digcam as an example to explain file size and video quality. probably not a good example.

I learned a fews things and there are still lots to learn. I will try to dig more on this 50 years puzzle...

Thanks again.

Abry

- Collapse -
That's right.
Jan 18, 2005 2:28AM PST

It's why the push to HDTV. NTSC and PAL video are standards that have not changed in decades.

Bob