Tapeless acquisition -- convince me

[James Riske]

I've always been taught that direct to disk recording is better because you avoid the degradation and loss of resolution when you first record to tape and then transfer that to disk. But I see no mention of it on here as a benefit.

The benefits of saving time during transfer or not having to carry around a bunch of tapes with me doesn't concern me at this point as I'm a beginner with DV doing comedy shorts. But I'm a perfectonist with quality (within the budget that I have) and I think that hooking the FS3 (or the less expensive ADS Pryro) to my xl1 pal will give me the best signal for the buck. (later on I will use the mini35 and prime lenses too). If I hook that hard drive up to my Mac and edit directly from that and burn the DVD from that, I will avoid much of the loss in quality that others face, right?

Or is the feed on the tapes better than the output video on the xl1 anyway and enough to overcome the loss when transfering from tape to disk?

I guess what I'm trying to ask is whether there is a quality loss in tape to disk transfer and is the investment worth it if that is my only concern hooking it up to the outputs on the xl1?

[Ken Tanaka]

Welcome James,
Unlike the world of analog video recording, there is no loss of quality when transferring digital video between media. It's essentially like copying computer files, as DV is just binary data.

The value propositions of direct to disk recording are basically:
a. time savings by avoiding tape capture,
b. potential avoidance of head wear,
c. potential avoidance of tape-related problems, and
d. the opportunity to use redundant recording (tape and disk).

[Chris Hurd]

Another benefit with larger drives is the ability to record, say, six hours of non-stop video. No tape changes!

Direct-to-disk solutions really aren't about quality, as there is no change in image or audio quality, but rather for the benefits Ken outlines above.

The ability to completely bypass the tedious video capture process with edit-ready recorders such as FireStore and QuickStream is an enormous advantage, since for most people, time is a most precious comodity.

[James Riske]

Thanks for the reply.

One of you says that there is a difference in quality and the other does not. So, I'm guessing that the difference is slight and not noticeable.

James

[Jean-Philippe Archibald]

You are guessing wrong. In the digital realm, there is NO loss in quality involved while copying data from a media to another. It is only a bunch of binary 0 and 1 on both tape and hard drive.

[Chris Hurd]

<< One of you says that there is a difference in quality >>

Neither Ken nor I said that there was a difference in quality. We're both saying there is NO difference in quality. Hope this helps,

[Lou Bruno]

No loss of quality.

A HD unit, whether nNovia Qickcapture, Firestore, MCE etc. is perhaps the best way to ensure a backup system to your camera.
Of course the most significant reason is the saving of download time.

<<<-- Originally posted by James Riske : I've always been taught that direct to disk recording is better because you avoid the degradation and loss of resolution when you first record to tape and then transfer that to disk. But I see no mention of it on here as a benefit.

The benefits of saving time during transfer or not having to carry around a bunch of tapes with me doesn't concern me at this point as I'm a beginner with DV doing comedy shorts. But I'm a perfectonist with quality (within the budget that I have) and I think that hooking the FS3 (or the less expensive ADS Pryro) to my xl1 pal will give me the best signal for the buck. (later on I will use the mini35 and prime lenses too). If I hook that hard drive up to my Mac and edit directly from that and burn the DVD from that, I will avoid much of the loss in quality that others face, right?

Or is the feed on the tapes better than the output video on the xl1 anyway and enough to overcome the loss when transfering from tape to disk?

I guess what I'm trying to ask is whether there is a quality loss in tape to disk transfer and is the investment worth it if that is my only concern hooking it up to the outputs on the xl1? -->>>

[James Riske]

From what I've found, the output of the xl1 would be just fine if I firewired to a lossless edit suite directly to my computer.

The xl1 does not produce a signal of enough information to be affected by the limitations of the firewire.

When I move on to better and better cameras, then I'll get a good breakout box and direct to disk capture.

Thanks

James

[Mike Barber]

I'm trying to bone up on the tapeless workflow and archive strategies. I come from using miniDV at home and DVCAM tape in broadcast, so workflow and archiving was pretty straight forward.

As I move into documentary film making and the realm of HD and tapeless acquisition, I feel like a bit of a newbie who doesn't know where to begin with his questions.

The whole tapeless thing initially turns me off because of the, what seem to me to be, obvious PITAs:

1. [b]short record times per card[b] -- if I have to switch-out the card every 8 minutes, may as well go for film, eh!

2. [b]short record times per card[b] -- again... despite the hot swap-ability, what kind of camera shake am I going to get from swapping the cards out during a shoot?

3. [b]no intuitive or affordable archive strategy[b] -- I'm working on Project M which requires footage acquired for Project G from last year... with tape, I just go to my tape library and grab the source tape; I don't have the money or space to have a 10,000-Terabyte server to store all my footage.

These three issues alone tell me that tapeless acquisition is the dumbest thing since auto-focus. But I may certainly be wrong. It is being adopted left, right and center... so what am I missing? What are my peers using for archiving in their workshop? I'm looking for real-world solutions that someone who doesn't have NBCs budget can use as a truly viable long-term archive solution.

[Bill Ravens]

Hate to say this BUT hard drives are expendables.
Replace as needed, stack in the closet, one drive for each project.

[Mike Barber]

Originally Posted by Bill Ravens

Hate to say this BUT hard drives are expendables.
Replace as needed, stack in the closet, one drive for each project.

I have enough experience with hard drives to know their fallibility, but that aside. . . this solution doesn't sound very practical, or necessarily cost effective.

[Edward Carlson]

I'm thinking a Firestore + tape is the way to go. That way you have the tapeless part, but also have all of the footage on a tape somewhere. Going totally tapeless means using a lot of hard drives and that's not something I'm ready to do. Having a new drive for each project seems like a good practice, but in reality the budget sometimes doesn't allow for it. For a low budget production (as you said: not NBC) a Firestore with tape backup seems better than hard drives out the wazoo. I am planning on getting a Firestore soon, cause importing tapes is getting old (not that I'm ready to abandon them altogether, though.)

[Kit Hannah]

Yeah..... Time saved capturing tapes = more time to spend on other projects or with the family = more money or better quality of life. But you go ahead and spend 8 hours capturing tapes... sounds like a whole lot dof fun to me (eyes rolling).

[Nick Royer]

Originally Posted by Edward Carlson

I'm thinking a Firestore + tape is the way to go.

Agreed. That way you can instantly import it but still be able to go back a year later and get the stuff. That or you could just add an Xserve array to your closet.

[Timothy D. Allen]

First, the 8 minutes a card isn't always going to be the case. The EX1 already has a record time of 25mins, and that will get even better as the technology improves.

Secondly, I don't see any problem backing up all my video to a dual-layer Blue Ray disc. The compression suffered here isn't going to be much worse than a miniDV tape!

And I have to agree that Hard drives are expendable thought not as reliable.

I'll take solid state media over tapes any day!