So I changed the name up a bit. Heh. For the "guide" check:

http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthread.php?t=51632

Though, techincally, it really might not be all that "low-budget" since you need two DV cameras.

Now for the WMV I uploaded.

http://saqib.ymma.net/movies/camera_vs_memory_640.wmv
5.01 MB | 0:31 minutes

The quality is dull and colorless NOT because I'm going from digital to analog to digital. It's cuz I'm not using cameras with 3CCDs.

A rundown:

1) Filmed my little brother (hehe) in the standard CAMERA Mode, which gives you your typical 480i picture. He moves his head in all sortsa directions so I could get some movement into the frame.

2) Filmed him doing pretty much the same thing but this time in MEMORY Mode, which is a 480p picture. As for FPS, TECHNICALLY it's 29.97 cuz it's just the MEMORY Mode output to another DV Camera, but it's just recording at 29.97fps. I'm not sure what the initial fps for the MEMORY Mode is, maybe someone who is more 1337 than me on this can tell. Seems too fluid for 15p, could it be 24p???

Enjoy,
Saqib

Edit:

Here are some pics of from the DV-AVI version of the WMV I linked up above:

1. http://img301.imageshack.us/img301/4628/9262005518pm00010hy.jpg

- This is the Interlaced image, from CAMERA Mode. Notice the blurriness on the face, and also, notice all the grain and low quality-ness of the picture. Almost looks like a VHS capture or something.


2. http://img301.imageshack.us/img301/8505/9262005518pm100023sb.jpg

- And this is the MEMORY Mode Progressive image. The face is still blurry, but it looks like a single frame, not too mashed together. Also, all that graininess and artifacting is gone. And the thing I really like the most is the deeper, richer black on his shirt. In the other image it seems all speckled and the black is more of a dark dark grey. Here, it's a black shirt.

I sure it looks better without the compression, but... to my eyes there is not that much of a difference. Thanks for posting though.

Anhar

I guess it's cuz I had my little brother moving his HEAD. Hehe, greeaaaat action shot there.

Try playing the wmv frame by frame. In Windows Media Player go to

View > Enhancements > Play Speed Settings

And use the arrows to see the motion when my brother's face is moving. You'll see a difference. But yeah, it's probably the compression, too.

I think I'm only getting half of the clip. It comes through @ 2.3 megs instead of 5. It says "interlaced", and then that label dissapears, but it never says "progressive".

I get the same problem. Only see the interlace section, not the progressive.

I tried playing with both media player and divx player, same thing.

Wayne.

Yeah, I think my FTP crashed halfway through the upload. Try now. Kinda lame that I hype up the Progressive shot and then it doesn't even load, hehe.

Should be working now.

Eeeeeehhhhh I don't know. I guess it's a small improvement for people with lower-end cameras. But you'll still need some kind of tapeless capture like a laptop or firestore, and I'd rather save up for a DVX or a XL1s before I'd invest in something that expensive.

Right. Don't go out and buy a second MiniDV Handycam. The only reason I tried this out is because I'm borrowing a second one from my friend.

As for the small improvement, I blame the compression on the WMV file. There is a much notable improvement from what I see on the raw DV itself and I will definitely try to use this method for any film project I go for, since it technically costs nothing because I'm borrowing the Handycam.

But, what about the possibility of getting a HD output by firewire, or the component on some cameras, if that is possible, that would make it worth it.

As Wayne suggested, perhaps a combination of this method and a HC1 over firewire. Any HC1 owners willing to try it out?

Yes, that would be good, but I also meant get the native resolution of the still from a MiniDV camera in a a better quality format.

The quality is dull and colorless NOT because I'm going from digital to analog to digital. It's cuz I'm not using cameras with 3CCDs.

A rundown:

1) Filmed my little brother (hehe) in the standard CAMERA Mode, which gives you your typical 480i picture. He moves his head in all sortsa directions so I could get some movement into the frame.

2) Filmed him doing pretty much the same thing but this time in MEMORY Mode, which is a 480p picture. As for FPS, TECHNICALLY it's 29.97 cuz it's just the MEMORY Mode output to another DV Camera, but it's just recording at 29.97fps. I'm not sure what the initial fps for the MEMORY Mode is, maybe someone who is more 1337 than me on this can tell. Seems too fluid for 15p, could it be 24p???


Been busy, I have just got around to looking through the pictures, and there is a staggering worthwhile difference there. But I can answer some questions. Your brothers glasses frame is jagged, this reminds me of the output of the JVC GR-DV3000 some years ago, looks like line combining. I think it deliberately downgrades the picture from the av ports if your camera is in camera mode, but this won't be recorded to tape, can you do a capture of the same frames from tape to compare?

Edit: Had a closer look at the picture and found around the same amount of noise in each, but it looks like the memory mode blurs out the picture and hides the noise (look at the pattern on the cushions). There appears to be a slight DV compression ringing artifact around your brother's head in the camera mode, and both modes appear to natively use different exposure settings (making some more difference). Your discovery is still significant, so worth looking into further.

I agree. I think you are seeing less noise in the "progressive image" because it is not exposed quite as brightly. Try matching the exposure (in terms of resulting brightness), and then see if there is any less noise, and try adjusting the files to see if there is any more color information.

this "memory mode" Im sure isnt truly proggressive...i would guess its like a gl2s frame mode which in my opinion is horrible.