What is better DVD or MiniDV?

Thank you! I will take that into consideration. Doesn't it take a long time to put the video from the minidv onto the computer though? I read that somewhere. Thanks again!

miniDV video onto a computer. It depends somewhat on how fast the computer is. Mine takes about 60 minutes.

The advantage is that you don't lose any video, and you get the highest quality of video to work with on the computer. MiniDVDs frequently lose the entire recording, and put the lowest quality video on the computer.

When it works, it's faster.

Thanks. I guess MiniDV is the way to go? I guess it is okay if it takes that long. I am a stay at home mom. I just don't want to loose recordings. I have heard that it seems to happen quite often. So, basically the only problem is speed (time).

So, which one is better? We have been looking at Canon HV10, Canon Elura100, Canon DC50 and Sony DCR DV96 (I think that is the number?). Is there one that is superior to the rest? There are so many I get confused. I want good quality, compact, and user friendly. Also, I would like to be able to record indoors (sometimes a little lower light). Any help would be GREATLY appreciated.

Can you use a Canon HV10 (being it is high def) and watch it on just a normal tv (for now)?

will downsample the video so that the output is Standard Def. That means you can shoot in high def (to be used in the future), but still work with standard video for the present.

Why the HV10 rather than the HV20? The HV20 is an improved camera. I haven't used it, but I have seen mostly positive comments. Some folks have complained about small issues like how tightly the battery fits.

I don't know anything about the other models you mention.

You obvious you do not understand much about computers & video. There is not a single manufacturer who will tell you that tape is a better storage media for video data. Right now, tape is used as a cheap archive media, not the best but the cheapest by a large margin. To archive a 60 min. tape requires at least three DVD's (saved at the same resolution as the tape.) I know, I know, three DVD's are much, much cheaper than tape. Except that someone has to record the video to the DVD's and labor IS expensive. And remember that the material is already on a tape that could be filed. So anyone maintaining a tape library does so because tape is their acquisition medium. Currently, high-end productions are transitioning from tape/film to digital storage media (blu-ray, solid state memory (P2 cards), hard drives and the like.)

Here's the low down on videotape. Stored properly, quality tapes will maintain signals for about ten years. Tapes must be stored on edge, in climate controlled conditions. Tapes should be retensioned (FF to end & RW) on a yearly basis. And even then, significant quality losses are not uncommon. The main problem is that the oxide coating loosens and falls off with your video. DVD's are rated (by simulated aging processes) as archival for around 100 years. But for both media choices, starting out with good quality, name-brand media insures the best long term results. And please do not forget that videotape is damaged by every pass through a machine. The more it is played, the more the signal is rubbed off. DVD's have no wear from playback.

Now let's discuss the reliability issue. Just peaking inside the "tape hole" of any VCR should tell you it is filled with all kinds of moving parts. Any engineer will tell you reliability decreases as the number of moving parts increases. Thinking a tape recorder does a better job than either the DVD, hard drive or solid state because it has been around longer makes no sense at all. In fact, reliability issues have a great deal to do with why DVD's, hard drives or solid state recordings are becoming popular. Tape is very fragile, if one trip in a deck goes awry, that video is permanently damaged. And it is in danger every time it plays back. So it should come as no surprise that other storage mediums are much more sturdy. But anything with moving parts will have problems when jarred or bounced. Tape cameras record extremely distorted video when jarred, but recording to computer media, most systems have buffers & checksums to insure all the data is properly recorded. Still, solid state systems are the most resistant to vibrations. No moving parts equates to most reliable.

Finally let me toss in my opinion/advice to the couple, albeit too late to matter. I expect you will be using the camera to record important family events, personal things. Image quality doesn't matter once you reach the limits of your viewing device. The standard DVD disc has done that. The video recorded on miniDV tape is quite a bit better in quality than our TV's display. (It is also quite a bit less than HD video quality.) The quality of the mini DVD's is also greater than our TV's display. Since our couple will be watching a TV, then image quality for archiving is functionally the same. So the real questions are how much editing do they really want to do? Do they plan on creating productions or videotaping events? Are they planning on cutting out the blurry or shaky bits, or is there a script determining the editing? Since they didn't ask about camera features, only format advice, they are not going to be producing programs. So basing arguments on image quality issues is just beating a dead horse.

After working directly with amateurs & video neophytes for 25 years, here's my advice. You have one simple decision to make. How much video do you need to record before going home? If you are planning on taking vacations and recording video for a couple of weeks before storing it in the computer, you'll need a format where storage is expandable. So I'd recommend the DVD camcorders because you can buy discs anywhere tourists frequent. However the best camcorder for the family video enthusiast are the hard drive recorders. You shoot to a hard drive, then hook it to your computer as you would any other external hard drive. Then you can transfer files for editing later, or edit from the camcorder and save it to the computer for burning a DVD. Once you have what you want on your computer (or your DVDvideo disc) the drive is erased and used again. So even if you are carrying a portable hard drive and/or laptop, when you have a great vacation, I guarantee you'll run out of memory. The real advantage to DVD & miniDV recorders is they store the video on removable media (that is always sold all over the world.)

I will say that the external memory problem already has a number of solutions and as the price of memory (hard drives & especially solid state, ie. SD memory cards) continues to drop, the best solution to the problems encountered by home video enthusiasts will be recording to a memory devices. As for HD video, home video is made MUCH, MUCH more difficult with any foray into HD. Until everyone you know either has or is considering getting an HDTV with a Blu-Ray or HDVD disc player, HDV is useless. Current equipment records & plays at a quality level limited by your television set. And don't forget, you can still watch your standard def videos on HDTV's. Keep it simple until you see the need to change.

Sorry I went on for so long. I just hate seeing factual errors passed off as truth. And making ridiculous claims even if you admit to having nothing to support them is rude, crude and needs to be pointed out. (By the way, I am an independent video professional. I use a variety of formats, depending on the job. Since I shoot mainly for cable distribution, I mainly use miniDV for the issues mentioned above.)

Hey, I don't claim to be an expert on media storage, but I know what I have read from both articles on CNET and elsewhere. Lots of folks make the claim that tape is a better long term storage medium than home-burnt DVDs and/or CDs.

Second, I doubt that my home-built computer would agree with you that I "...obviously do not understand much about computers & video." I sincerely believe you could have found a better (i.e. more polite) way to suggest that I was/may be incorrect about some of my statements. We are all here to help; not belittle.

Ultimately I appreciate your view point, but would claim that it is just as much your opinion as my statements were my opinion.

I do agree that we cannot assume one format lasts longer than another since they haven't even been around long enough to verify everyone's claims. How can someone say one format lasts longer than another without using time itself to prove it? Let's face it, neither tape nor DVD have proven to be a guaranteed storage medium. Although, who knows what the future holds...

Tape has been around for decades, and there are quite reliable estimates for a minimum expected life. There is also information available about DVDs as well as what we can observe in our experience with them. A scratch in the wrong place, and they are history. Use them too much, and you increase the odds of failure. They are FAR more chancy and unreliable than tape.

Tape not for Archiving (c.2002): http://www.minidisc.org/dat_archiving.html
Tape for Archiving (c.2004): http://www.nicholsimaging.com/faq_video_transfer.htm

DVD and Tape Life Span (2004-2006): http://www.larryjordan.biz/articles/lj_dvd_life.html
http://www.zenera.com/dvtape.html
http://www.osta.org/technology/dvdqa/dvdqa11.htm

Notice something strange? Of course, each article says something different. Why? Not because one or two websites are outdated (dates provided), but because nothing yet has been proven with cold, hard facts.

Yes, analog tape has been around for decades, but since digital tape is our area of focus, I found this article that says DV was introduced in 1995 (scroll down to bottom). According to my aging math skills, this is a little over one decade.

I guess all those tape units used in various ways by computers were just a myth then? I even got suckered into buying a few of those units myself.

Just think. All those decades, and no one ever knew the technology didn't actually exist.

If you seriously think that there is any possibility that DVDs are more reliable storage than tape, I've got a great deal on a bridge in Brooklyn that's for sale. The next thing we'll hear is that digital doesn't actually exist. Yes, that's been said here as well.

You can find anything on the web. That doesn't make it so, but sources like minidisc.org and larryjordan.biz would not be at the top of my list.

Modern, digital tape formulations are rated for a minimum of 10 years. No one that I have ever heard of would back them up on DVDs.

Please cite your source for a 100 year life for DVDs. There are archival disks that use gold as their reflective layer that are rated for 100 years, but they cost better than $3.00 apiece. Even then, a scratch in the wrong place, or poor storage techniques and they are history. How many people are using disks that cost more than $3.00 apiece? Are there any archival disks that can be used in a DVD camera? Not to my knowledge.

Video stored on DVDs is highly compressed. It is not a good candidate if you wish to edit the video. DVDs cannot begin to compare to the quality of the video that comes from tape.

However, here's a quick test so that you can demonstrate your knowledge. Cite the prosumer level ($4,000 and above) video cameras that are DVD based. Can you name one? Do I need to cite the cameras in that category that a tape based?

I have been using a Cannon Optura 30 for two years, downloading with a Firewall 1394 to the computer. I have no problems with the time it takes to download. I use Pinnacle Studio 9 to edit and the Quality is excellent at 740-480 6000Kbs.I output to Jpeg-2 and burn my DVD's with Click to DVD. All of the above were on my Sony RB30 computer. The technology has improved since I started but this has served me well,good luck.