Hi aaz,
DVD-RAM is a phase-change eraseable format, with an expected disk
lifetime of from 25 to 100 years. DVD-RAM is popular for computer use
because of its rewriting capability (100,000 times versus 1,000 times
for DVD-RW) and because it appears to the user just like a hard drive.
DVD-RAM is popular for DVD video recording because of the ease and
flexibility with which recordings can be edited (even on the
camcorder). DVD also offers the conveniences of not needing to rewind
and of immediate access to any recording on the disc, and avoids the
problems of head wear and tape jams.
However, DVD-RAM is still very much a minor player in the "DVD format
wars". An increasing number of DVD players can read DVD-RAM discs, but
you do need to check before you buy. You also need to check that the
DVD player can handle the smaller 8cm DVD-RAM discs used by
camcorders.
For DVD questions, a good "first port of call" is the DVD FAQ list:
DVD Frequently Asked Questions - June 9 2003
http://www.dvddemystified.com/dvdfaq.html
"The spec for DVD-RAM version 2.0, with a capacity of 4.7 billion
bytes per side, was published in October 1999. The first drives
appeared in June 2000. ... DVD-RAM 2.0 also specifies 8-cm discs and
cartridges for portable uses such as digital camcorders. Future
DVD-RAM discs may use a contrast enhancement layer and a thermal
buffer layer to achieve higher density."
Some negatives of buying a DVD-RAM camcorder are that the disc must be
handled with care when outside the camcorder, and that the physical
size of the camcorder is constrained by the size and shape of the
disc. DVD-RAM camcorders are a "late starter" in the camcorder market,
which has been dominated by various formats of tape. DVD-RAM may grow
its share of the market, or may remain a niche product - but given the
playability of the DVD-RAM media this needn't be a problem. The cost
and the newness of the technology appear to be the factors
constraining the growth of DVD-RAM camcorders. As you correctly point
out, such camcorders have been available for a few years - that's a
long time in terms of product lifecycles, but a short time in terms of
media formats.
Picture quality could be a deciding factor for you, in favor of
MiniDV. At present, the highest resolution available on a consumer
DVD-RAM camcorder appears to be 1.1 megapixels. This is exceeded by
the 2 megapixel resolution available on high-end consumer MiniDV
camcorders such as the Sony DCR-TRV70:
Sony Breaks the Mini DV Camcorder Mold
http://news.sel.sony.com/pressrelease/3114
However, you indicated that you would consider a comparison based on a
transfer to DVD or Video-CD. If Video-CD quality is acceptable to you,
then both MiniDV and DVD-RAM camcorders can far exceed that quality.
However, DVD allows for higher quality, and a 2-megapixel camcorder
has the potential to produce a slightly better picture (after transfer
to DVD) than a 1.1-megapixel camcorder.
In addition to the Hitachi and Panasonic camcorders with which you are
familiar, a line of DVD camcorders has been unveiled by Sony, due for
introduction in the "late [northern] summer 2003". Unlike the Hitachi
and Panasonic models, the Sony camcorders record to DVD-R, which has
poor editing facilities but greater compatibility with existing DVD
players:
"Sony DCR-DVD100 and DVD200 Handycams"
http://www.simplydv.co.uk/newsitems/sony_dvd2003cams.html
Sony DVD camcorder preview
http://www.masterdvd.com/sony-dvd-handycam.html
I hope this gives you some useful information to help with your
purchase decision. Please let me know if I can be of further
assistance.
Additional Links:
Compare prices and read reviews on DVD-RAM Camcorders at Epinions.com
http://www.epinions.com/elec-Video-Camcorders-All-DVD_RAM
Google search strategy:
dvd faq
://www.google.com/search?q=dvd%20faq
dvd-ram camcorder
://www.google.com/search?q=dvd-ram+camcorder
sony dvd100 OR dvd200 OR dvd300
://www.google.com/search?q=sony+dvd100+OR+dvd200+OR+dvd300
Regards,
eiffel-ga |
Request for Answer Clarification by
aaz-ga
on
10 Jun 2003 07:25 PDT
Thanks for the efforts. I have not really got a full answer on the
pros and cons of a disc video camera vis a vis (MiniDV) tape camera.
You wrote: "At present, the highest resolution available on a consumer
DVD-RAM camcorder appears to be 1.1 megapixels."
As per http://www.hitachiconsumer.com/products/sing/audio/moviec/dvdfaq.htm
Hitachi's models offer approx. 720,000 CCD pixels in movie mode.
Q1: Pl clarify which models provide 1.1 megapixels in movie mode.
Q2: What is the resolution of a video CD after miniDV is transferred
thereto? Can I have numbers to compare with please? For comparison you
may make necessary assumptions.
Q3: Pl provide editability comparisons for the three models. Which
popular editing softwares works on the three brands' models? What are
the editing limitations of SONY's new models?
Regards
PS: You need not write on durability, compatibility and infancy etc of
DVDs/disc camera. Disk's durability is a well known fact; I am not
concerned about compatibility as I mentioned in the first para of my
question; infancy is the very reason of my question.
|
Clarification of Answer by
eiffel-ga
on
10 Jun 2003 15:23 PDT
Hi aaz,
The figure of 1.1 megapixels refers to the manufacturer's claim for
the number of physical pixels on the camera's CCD imager.
Both Hitachi and Panasonic claim the same effective video resolution
from their 1.1 megapixel CCD imagers. Hitachi states that "movie mode
uses approx. 720,000 CCD pixels" whilst Panasonic states that "a 1.1
megapixel CCD array renders 720,000-pixel resolution for video".
I noticed that 720,000 is exactly 65% of 1,100,000, and I found that
other manufacturers claim this same ratio. For example, Sony's
DCR-TRV50 MiniDV camcorder claims 970,000 effective pixels from a 1.5
megapixel CCD imager - again a ratio of 65%. Presumably this is due to
the image stabilization function of modern camcorders. A stable area
of pixels can be extracted from a larger number of pixels, even in the
presence of some camera shake.
So it seems likely that there will be a small but genuine improvement
in picture quality from a 2 megapixel MiniDV camcorder such as the
Sony DCRTRV80, compared to that from a 1 megapixel camcorder.
Incidentally, even 1.1 megapixels is a big improvement from
entry-level camcorders which can have as few as 380,000-pixel CCDs.
In most consumer video equipment, each of the CCD pixels is dedicated
to a single primary color (usually with more pixels for green because
the human eye is more sensitive to green and because NTSC video
allocates more bandwidth for the green component). Through a process
of mathematical interpolation, a full-color video image is computed
from these monochromatic pixels. The results are pretty good - but it
is a mathematical approximation.
The next step up is a camcorder that has three full sets of CCD pixels
- one for each color. One such camcorder is the Sony DCRTRV950
http://products.sony.co.uk/productdetail.asp?id=11_10_2144
which has three 1.07 megapixel CCD sensors (one for each primary
color). However, it's only a small step above a 2 megapixel CCD which
could have 1 megapixel of green sensors (the ones that count the
most).
Once the image is captured, it is compressed and recorded. A variable
bit rate compression scheme such as that used by the Hitachi DZ-MV270E
and DZ-MV238E when recording to DVD-RAM (rather than to DVD-R) will
retain more image fidelity than a fixed bit rate compression scheme.
DVD with MPEG2 encoding (as used by the Hitachi, Panasonic and Sony
DVD Camcorders) has several available resolutions. For NTSC the
highest resolution is 720 pixels wide by 480 pixels high - and this
resolution is supported by the DVD camcorders.
By comparison, Video CD has a resolution of 352 pixels wide by 240
pixels high (fewer than a quarter the number of pixels of DVD).
Nevertheless, many people are happily watching it. If Video CD is
acceptable quality to you, then your concerns about the relative
resolution of MiniDV and DVD-RAM camcorders are likely to prove
groundless.
What's Video CD Quality Like? (from the Video CD FAQ):
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Forum/2496/vcdfaq.html#quality
Henrik Herranen has set up a web page showing simulations of video
images at different resolutions. Whilst it doesn't directly depict
your potential options, it provides an interesting visual comparison:
Home Video Systems Visual Resolution Comparison
http://www.cs.tut.fi/~leopold/Ld/ResolutionComparison/
Finally, when I spoke of the superior editing capability of DVD-RAM
versus DVD-R, I was referring to in-camera editing. The DVD-RAM file
format is based around an index that can be edited to change around
the video program without having to rewrite video segments on the
disk. You can do basic editing such as combining scenes, removing
parts of scenes, splitting scenes, re-ordering scenes, etc with a
resolution of a half-second or so. If you've ever used on-disc editing
with audio mini-discs you will find that DVD-RAM editing works
similarly.
Clearly, much more sophisticated editing is possible if you download
the video file to a computer instead of editing it in-camera.
This "Sony DVD camcorder preview"
http://www.masterdvd.com/sony-dvd-handycam.html
is very negative about the PC-editing potential for the raw MPEG-2
video file obtained from the Sony DVD-R camcorders (see towards the
bottom of the web page). The Hitachi web page that you quoted
http://www.hitachiconsumer.com/products/sing/audio/moviec/dvdfaq.htm
provides specific information about the PC-editing options for the
Hitachi DVD-RAM camcorders. However, an assessment of the
compatibility of popular editing software with the various camcorders
would be outside the scope of your original question, which did not
mention PC software.
I wish you well with your purchase. I suspect that either DVD or
MiniDV would prove highly satisfactory. If I were buying for myself,
I'd go for the DVD - because I prefer discs to tapes in general, and
because I have found the similar on-disc editing of audio minidiscs to
be useful and satisfying. But of course everyone has different
requirements...
Please let me know if you require any further clarification. Happy
videoing!
Regards,
eiffel-ga
|
Request for Answer Clarification by
aaz-ga
on
10 Jun 2003 19:54 PDT
This answer is more to the point. It is also very well written. I also
accept your point that comparison of video editing software is out of
the scope of my original question.
I do need the following clarifications:
Q1: You state DVD NTSC resolution is 720x480. 720x480 equals 345,600
pixels. Then how do the DVD-RAM cameras (such as Hitachi's) said to
offer 720,000 pixels in movie mode?
Q2: Do DVD-R and DVD-RAM both offer same resolution and same image
quality?
Q3: I understand DVD RAM cameras (Hitachi) use variable bit rate
compression. Do SONY's DVD-R camera use fixed bit rate compression? To
what extent would it affect the quality?
Q4: The site http://www.masterdvd.com/sony-dvd-handycam.html says SONY
DVD-R uses "… the video format [for SONY DVD camera] is MPEG-2 rather
than the DV Stream". But don't DVD-RAM cameras use MPEG-2 as well?
Then how does SONY DVD-R camera become worse off than DVD RAM cameras
for editing? What is DV stream and why it is superior? Do miniDV
camears use that? If yes,does it suggests that miniDV offer better
editing capabilities?
Q5: Do DVD RAM cameras have a superior editing capability than DVD-R
cameras ONLY for "in-camera" editing and once downloaded to PC, there
is no difference?
Best regards
|
Clarification of Answer by
eiffel-ga
on
11 Jun 2003 08:23 PDT
Hi aaz,
These are good questions.
Q1: 720 x 480 equals 345,600 - but for color images we need pixels for
each of the primary colors. If we multiply 345,600 by 3 we get
1,036,800 single-color imaging pixels, and a CCD with this many pixels
could fully-populate a 720 x 480 color image.
The 720,000 "movie mode" pixels of the Hitachi and Panasonic DVD-RAM
camcorders might be laid out as 345,600 green pixels plus 187,200
pixels each for red and blue but that's just speculation as the
manufacturer does not appear to release that information.
Kevin Borden has conducted some empirical tests, where he found that
images from a CCD with a certain number of single-color pixel sensors
were visually equivalent to images from a device that had around half
the number of tri-color pixels (in his case he used a scanner). On
this basis, 720,000 "movie mode" pixels would be roughly equivalent to
360,000 "full-color" pixels, and seems a reasonable source from which
to populate a 720 x 480 image:
Megapixel Myths: Image Resolution
http://www.megamyth.homestead.com/imageres.html
That's not to say that more pixels wouldn't be even better though.
Because MPEG compression compares sequential frames, we could expect
marginally better fidelity (and compression rates) if the raw input to
the MPEG encoder has an input resolution that is sub-pixel relative to
the eventual output resolution. Additionally, the interpolation error
caused by the fact that the red/blue/green pixel sensors are slightly
offset from each other in the CCD sensor but coincident in the DVD
video would be reduced with a greater number of CCD pixels. But we
must surely be in the realm of diminishing returns here. According to
the DVD FAQ Question 3.4
http://www.dvddemystified.com/dvdfaq.html#3.4
the encoding process shares color samples across 4 pixels anyway, so
the upper limit for chrominance (color) information is lower than for
luminance (brightness) information.
A lot more information about resolution is available here:
Television and Video Resolution
http://members.aol.com/ajaynejr/vidres.htm
Q2: Both DVD-RAM and DVD-R store the same resolution and the same
image quality. They both use the DVD forum specifications for MPEG-2
image encoding and compression. The difference lies in the physical
nature of the disc and the way in which the image is laid out on that
disc. DVD-RAM uses phase-change and magneto-optical technologies, and
writes data in sectors with defect management. DVD-R uses organic dye
technology, and has error correction but not defect management. But
the video obtained from the disc will be identical.
According to the DVD FAQ, the DVD specification allows Variable Bit
Rate whether using DVD-RAM or DVD-R (but see the next paragraph).
Q3: The Hitachi cameras can operate in Variable Bit Rate ("Extra Fine
Mode") only when writing to DVD-RAM. Perhaps they cannot handle the
peak 9 megabit per second write rate on DVD-R media, or perhaps they
are seeking maximum compatibility of DVD-R with older players.
According to the following web page
http://www.computervideo.net/june03-6.html
the Panasonic M30 DVD-RAM/DVD-R camcoder supports variable bit rate
recording to DVD-RAM (scroll down to the heading "Panasonic DVD
Recorder"). On Panasonic's specification page for their M30 DVD
camcorder (which incidentally obtains a 680,000-pixel video image from
a "megapixel" CCD)
http://catalog2.panasonic.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/ModelDetail?storeId=11251&catalogId=11005&modelNo=VDR-M30
they call the variable bit rate mode "XTRA mode".
I have no information on variable bit rate and the Sony DVD
camcorders. A Google search for
sony dvd100 OR dvd200 OR dvd300 "bit rate"
yielded nothing useful, and the recently-reorganised Sony site doesn't
seem to include specifications for these models.
Q4: I have a hunch that this may be a non-issue. Firstly, according to
the following web page
http://computervideo.net/april03-4.html
the Sony DVD camcorders offer both DV in/out sockets and MPEG-2
transfer via USB. I can't verify this directly with the Sony website
however.
Furthermore, the Panasonic website
http://www.panasonic.com/consumer_electronics/camcorder/dvdcamcorders.asp
categorically states that "the VDR-M30 records video in the MPEG2
format, which can be easily processed by a PC for advanced editing
capabilities".
The DV stream is a video signal format made available (typically
across a Firewire connection). The MiniDV FAQ
http://www.amazing.com/dv/dv-faq.html
suggests that a DV stream obtained from MiniDV has only been lightly
compressed, but without figures comparing it to a DV stream that
originated on a DVD-RAM it's not clear whether the difference is of
any consequence.
Q5: References to "superior editing capability" of DVD-RAM refer to
two things.
Firstly, a certain amount of in-camera editing is possible. These
"scene-editing" features would be enough for most "home-movie" style
editing, for example. They enable unwanted segments to be removed, new
segments to be interspersed, segements to be re-ordered, etc. Only the
disc's "table of contents" needs to be rewritten for this editing to
become effective. (The in-camera editing is of course inadequate for
movie production.) Proponents of DVD-RW (the rewritable version of
DVD-R, which can be handled by the Sony DVD camcorders) claim that it
too has in-camera editing, but it is much more limited. For example,
Sony claims that "when using DVD-RW media scenes can be previewed, and
then erased and re-shot if necessary".
Secondly, video that has been edited on a PC can be rewritten to the
same DVD-RAM disc many times. With DVD-R, you must write to a new disc
after you finish editing on a PC.
In terms of the PC editing operations that can be performed, there is
no difference between video obtained from DVD-RAM and from DVD-R. If
you can import the video into the editing program, you can do the same
operations on it whether it was previously stored on DVD-R or DVD-RAM.
So, for PC editing, you need to have:
1) A way to transfer the video into the PC, e.g. a USB connection and
compatible drivers, or a compatible DVD drive on the computer.
2) An editing program that can read ("import") the file format (e.g. a
MPEG-2 import filter).
I hope this has provided some clarification, rather than muddying the
waters further. I would conclude that MiniDV may have a slight quality
edge versus the convenience of DVD - but researching this has
convinced me that high-end specimens of both technologies have the
potential to perform very well.
Regards,
eiffel-ga
|
Request for Answer Clarification by
aaz-ga
on
11 Jun 2003 18:32 PDT
HITACHI or PANASONIC
It's a sure 5-star answer. I got more than my money's worth.
So now I have to decide between Hitachi and Panasonic DVD camcorders.
(Good "in-camera" editing capability is important for me, so, I infer
from your answer, Sony DVD-R camcorder is out.) Which one - Hitachi or
Panasonic - would you go for?
If I am asking too much, ignore the question. I gonna rate it 5-star
regardless.
|
Clarification of Answer by
eiffel-ga
on
12 Jun 2003 03:00 PDT
Thanks for your kind comments. This has been an interesting, though
time-consuming, question to research.
Which one would I go for personally? That's a difficult choice. The
important parts of the specifications seem to be comparable. It's
quite possible that these companies are licensing parts of the
technology from each other.
I'm about to buy a Panasonic DVD-RAM recorder (to replace an ailing
Panasonic VCR) and I guess if I was going to buy a camcorder I'd be
tempted to get a Panasonic too on the assumption that the two
Panasonic units would work well together. Panasonic has been voicing
strong support for DVD-RAM as a strategic format - one could almost
say they are "betting the farm" on it - so I would expect good support
for DVD-RAM from them in the future.
On the other hand, I've never had a Hitachi product let me down. My
oldest Hitachi product is a power drill that's been in heavy use since
1988 and hasn't missed a beat.
In the end I'd probably decide based on price and availability.
Happy camcording!
|
Request for Answer Clarification by
aaz-ga
on
12 Jun 2003 17:42 PDT
To Eiffel-ga: Thanks for your comment on my related question answered
by denco-ga. But I am a bit mixed up by your response on the CCD
pixels and video output. First, the relationship of 65% does not hold
for some of Hitachi's old and new models. NEW: Hitachi's new models
DZ-MV 380A and DZ-MV 350A offer same video resolution despite having
different CCDs. OLD: One of the old models DZ_MV208E with 680K CCD
pixels uses only uses 340,000 pixels (50% of CCD, not 65%).
Would you care to clarify?
|
Request for Answer Clarification by
aaz-ga
on
12 Jun 2003 18:58 PDT
Hitachi Singapore's site gives following details
DZ-MV 270 E: CCD 1.16 megapixel movie 880K pixels
DZ-MV 350 E: CCD 1.02 megapixel movie 570K pixels
DZ-MV 270 E: CCD 0.8 megapixel movie 410K pixels
There is no 65% relationship between CCD pixels and movie mode pixels.
To get the above info, go to:
http://www.hitachiconsumer.com.sg/products/sing/sing.htm
Click on 'Movie Camera' in the left column
Click on 'DVD Camera' icon
Pl note, there are PAL cameras and NTSC cameras. The above site is for
Singapore and offers PAL camera details. In Japan and the US, the
cameras are NTSC cameras.
Regards
|
Request for Answer Clarification by
aaz-ga
on
12 Jun 2003 19:34 PDT
Pl ignore the previous request. In the previous Request, there were 2
typos in the model numbers quoted. For your convenience, here is the
correct Request.
--------------------------
Hitachi Singapore's site gives following details
DZ-MV 270 E: CCD 1.16 megapixel movie 880K pixels
DZ-MV 380 E: CCD 1.02 megapixel movie 570K pixels
DZ-MV 350 E: CCD 0.8 megapixel movie 410K pixels
There is no 65% relationship between CCD pixels and movie mode pixels.
To get the above info, go to:
http://www.hitachiconsumer.com.sg/products/sing/sing.htm
Click on 'Movie Camera' in the left column
Click on 'DVD Camera' icon
Pl note, there are PAL cameras and NTSC cameras. The above site is for
Singapore and offers PAL camera details. In Japan and the US, the
cameras are NTSC cameras.
Regards
|
Clarification of Answer by
eiffel-ga
on
13 Jun 2003 09:35 PDT
Hi aaz,
I stated that I had "noticed" the 65% ratio in the models that I
checked, but didn't mean to imply that it was a universal rule.
But there does seem to be a positive correlation between the number of
"raw" pixels in the CCD sensor and the number of pixels claimed to be
used in video mode. It's unlikely that a manufacturer would
incorporate a more-expensive CCD sensor then fail to make any use of
the extra pixels that it provides.
Any increase in CCD pixels can be used to provide increased picture
resolution or increased image stabilization (or a bit of both).
You state that "Hitachi's new models DZ-MV 380A and DZ-MV 350A offer
same video resolution despite having different CCDs." I presume you
are referring to the 704x480 figure which you quoted in the question
answered by denco-ga. That resolution refers to the format laid down
on DVD rather than to how many of the CCD pixels are used to form the
video image (which is not quoted in the specifications that you
referenced for the 380A and 350A).
Incidentally, a number of sites including this one:
How Digital Cameras Work
http://www.howstuffworks.com/digital-camera37.htm
...suggest that a few CCD pixels are unavailable for imaging because
they are covered by circuitry. That would explain why digital cameras
sometimes claim slightly fewer "effective pixels" than CCD pixels for
still photos. Indeed the Hitachi and Panasonic DVD Camcorders do this
too for still photo mode. But this is a separate issue from the number
of "effective movie mode pixels" which is smaller still.
Regarding NTSC and PAL - I assumed that you are in an NTSC country and
quoted only NTSC figures (labeled as such) in my answer. For
completeness, here are the resolutions permitted by the DVD
specification for MPEG-2 encoded video:
NTSC: 720x480, 704x480, 352x480, 352x240
PAL: 720x576, 704x576, 352x576, 352x240
Both NTSC and PAL have a 4:3 image aspect ratio, so PAL pixels must be
squatter than NTSC pixels. A manufacturer could use a different CCD
sensor, or a different interpolation, on their NTSC/PAL models. So if
you are in the market for an NTSC camcorder I recommend you only
compare specs for NTSC versions.
|
Request for Answer Clarification by
aaz-ga
on
13 Jun 2003 17:31 PDT
Yes, what you say makes sense - there HAS to be a relationship between
CCDs raw pixels and the pixels used in video mode. denco-ga perhaps
didn't fully comprehend the question. But if one ends up with 704x480
on DVD, what is the use of higher pixels on CCD while shooting? They
won't be available for viewing later anyway.
I am rather surprised by the range of resolutions permitted by MPEG-2
format: from 720x480 to 352x240. You told me 352x240 is also the
resolution on VCD (see your 2nd answer). VCD uses MPEG-2 format. Does
this mean MPEG-2 and MPEG-1 may have same resolution meaning low end
DVDs are only as good as VCD?
|
Request for Answer Clarification by
aaz-ga
on
14 Jun 2003 03:28 PDT
OOps, a typo: VCD uses MPEG-1, not MPEG-2 format.
|
Clarification of Answer by
eiffel-ga
on
15 Jun 2003 12:28 PDT
Hi aaz,
"... if one ends up with 704x480 on DVD, what is the use of higher
pixels on CCD while shooting?"
MPEG compression occurs both within an individual frame and also
across consecutive frames. A higher original resolution would
presumably improve (slightly) the image quality and compression rate.
Imagine an object that is moving at 0.5 DVD-pixels per frame.
Presumably you get better results by compressing from an original
source that registers this sub-DVD-pixel movement rather than from an
original source that registers the movement as being zero pixels
before each odd-numbered frame and one pixel before each even-numbered
frame. But we are surely in "law of diminishing returns" territory
here.
720 * 480 * 3 equals 1,036,800 pixels. If we accept that we only need
as many blue and red pixels (combined) as the number of green pixels,
then we require 720 * 480 * 2 i.e. 691,200 active CCD pixels to
produce a "decent" DVD image.
This is just my "rule of thumb", and a professional analysis would
need to take account of many other factors e.g. the nature of MPEG
compression, the nature of NTSC/PAL encoding, the different
"background noise" characteristics of the various CCD sensors, etc.
But the "rule of thumb" seems to suggest that the CCD sensors included
in these camcorders are appropriate for DVD recording.
"I am rather surprised by the range of resolutions permitted ... from
720x480 to 352x240. You told me 352x240 is also the resolution on VCD
... Does this mean ... low end DVDs are only as good as VCD?"
352x240 DVD could be used for "low end" DVDs, i.e. those that have
been prepared using low-end equipment. But the main use for 352x240
video on DVDs would be for maximizing the playing time at the expense
of image quality.
The DVD specification also allows MPEG-1 format at 352x240, so it is
possible for a conforming DVD to have identical image quality to a
Video CD (but with the DVD having a much longer playing time). None of
the DVD camcorders that we've been looking at supports MPEG-1 encoding
though (and I can't think of any reason why one would want them to).
|
,
0 Comments
)