Talk:8 mm video format
|WikiProject Film||(Rated Start-class)|
- 1 Transferring 8 mm footage to a computer for editing
- 2 Problems with article
- 3 Inappropriate/debatable "new contributor" POV stuff
- 4 Confusion with PAL & NTSC Hi8 tapes
- 5 Creator / patent licensor?
- 6 Transferring to a computer
- 7 Luminance Bandwidth for Hi8?
- 8 Questions?
- 9 The future of the 8 mm video formats
- 10 The popularity of Hi8
- 11 Compatibility
- 12 Beware of Advertisers
- 13 Informational Inconsistency
Transferring 8 mm footage to a computer for editing
Counldn't it be transfered to DVD using a stand-alone DVD Recorder, and the disc created would then be PC-compatible? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 22.214.171.124 (talk) 11:08, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
Problems with article
There is something terribly wrong with this article. It does not even mention miniDV and seems to not notice video8 is at least dying if not dead. Maybe it has been copied from an old magazine and slightly updated? The mention about Digital-8 has been added by someone else than the original author. (Preceding unsigned comment made by anonymous user user:126.96.36.199 at 13:16 on 22 September 2004)
The severe abuse of hyphens is absolutely unbearable but I just don't have the energy to fix it. -dsandlund (Preceding comment made by User:dsandlund on 3 July 2005)
- As a reader (not potential contributor), this article seems to have a lot of detail which might or might not be important. It's hard to tell because it's not really organised; like a small core article's been added to without being reorganised when necessary. It reads more like a detailed analysis of Video8 for people who already know their stuff, but throws the casual reader technical details and history mixed together.
- The comparison of tape formats certainly doesn't belong in an 'overview' section, and what's with the 'new contributor edit notes' written into the text like that? Is this common stuff or POV?
- There is a detailed Digital8 section here, but also a separate Digital8 article elsewhere.
- Sorry if I sound overly critical. Anyone more knowledgable about (and into) the material care to tidy this up?
- Fourohfour 16:13, 4 October 2005 (UTC)
This article has become untidy. There is far too much discussion on minor points, particularly around audio. I don't agree with the above comment about Video8 (and by inference Hi8) being dead, new Hi8 camcorders are still readily available (late 2005). But the article does desperately need tidying. I will have a go, in a few weeks when I return from abroad, if it's not been done by then already. Also echo note above about 'new contributor edit notes' etc., this is messy. If there are two sides to a discussion, then present them both clearly and without bias. Some people get personal about these things and have to have the last word. [[User:Colin99 21:45, 9 October 2005 (UTC)]]
Problems... and solution
Okay; I'm having a go at cleaning this up, but *not* all in one go (please NO!).
I've already said I don't want to sound overly critical. The individual sentences or even paragraphs are fine when viewed in isolation; viewed "close-up", this is actually pretty decent and better than a lot of articles. However, as I plan on doing some extensive reorganisation, I feel that I should at least explain the problem before I work on it:-
The major flaw is that taken as a complete article it completely lacks organisation, structure, coherence, flow or any conception of its target audience. The ideal (IMHO) is that someone should be able to dip into the article and read up to their level of interest, being presented with the basic facts (then more depth as they read on), well-organised and split up; rather than being bombarded with detailed facts and information scattered through three different sections.
- At present...
- I can't see the woods for the trees! The information is there, but buried between less-important facts and analysis.
- Related information is scattered throughout different sections; e.g. "Camcorders" included information I'd have wanted to see together with the information in the "comparison" section. Ditto the "Enhancements to Video8".
- Once the related information is together, the article can be made more concise; it's definitely longer than necessary at present.
- Sections totally lacked focus. In fact, several sections went on to discuss something different without placing a new heading.
- Why (e.g.) is there a 'Digital8' section, but not one for 'Video8' or 'Hi8'? Since there is a separate 'Digital8' article, how is this section supposed to stand relative to that?
- Regarding the 'comparison' section...
- Lack of wikification
- Content too general for article specifically about 8mm video; it's more of a comparison between different video formats.
- Is this appropriate for Wikipedia? I think there's a slight problem with the tone, but it reads more like a standalone magazine analysis, rather than an integral part of an encyclopedia entry. I'm not planning on ditching it completely, but it needs modifying to reflect its purpose better.
- Oh.. yep, and pruning. It's too definitely too long, and needs trimming of less important sections.
- Where is mention of VHS-C or problems with full-size VHS? Oh... hang on, it's in the "Camcorders" section.
So... Wikipedia say "be bold", and that's what I hopefully plan to do over the next week or so :)
Fourohfour 01:38, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
- You're doing well, keep up the good work. I don't see anyone complaining about your changes, and nobody has reverted anything you've done. My guess is that whoever created the article or worked on it previously, they're either happy with the changes, or they've gone away. If you don't mind, I'll just watch over your shoulder and be prepared to catch any typos or grammatical errors that might sneak in without you noticing. I know how hard it is to proof-read your own work. --LesleyW 03:27, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
- Thanks. And yes, I do need someone to keep an eye on this; not just for proof-reading, but to ensure that nothing serious has been cut out. Sometimes it's hard to judge these things when you're in the middle of them.
- I do intend to remove a few overly-detailed facts, but in general I plan on consolidating the information that's already there. For example, coverage of the same aspects of audio and video is in at least two different sections, with large chunks of duplication. And if I was conservative with this stuff, I'd simply end up moving it around without addressing the fundamental problem. Fourohfour 01:08, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
Inappropriate/debatable "new contributor" POV stuff
There were quite a lot "discussion" comments in the article that should never have been placed there. I'd already commented out some, but on reflection they should have gone on this discussion page in the first place. All are taken from the 5 November version last edited by Fourohfour (me!):-
From the end of the 'overview' (this is too detailed for the overview section anyway):-
- (Edit note, new contributor, HI-FI VHS-SVHS will automatically have a redundant back up linear channel, Digital-8 apparently does not, making the audio susceptible to not coming out even if the picture is still viewable. This doesn't happen regularly, but if it does happen, you have for all intents and purposes lost your audio, whereas with VHS or S-VHS, one of either the stereo Hi-FI or linear tracks should work even if there is a recording problem.)
From the middle of 'Digital8':-
- (Edit note by a new contributor, Digital-8 appears to have less drop outs. However, today I encountered a clients Digtial-8 tape, although the picture is quite acceptable, the sound was dropping in and out. The first time I have witnessed this. It's disappointing that neither mini-dv or digital-8 have a linear cue track, "just in case". I don't think we will be able to salvage the audio. S-VHS had both HI-FI audio AND a redundant mono or stereo linear track. Inevitably, one or the other audio track would have recorded even if there was a picture related problem.)
From the end of 'Digital 8' (might be a useful sentence here if it's made more factual and less POV):-
- (edit note by a different contributor, DVD-R camera recording may be a sham because it is not a true editing format. DVD-R is a heavily compressed format and is NOT a wise choice for anyone who may want to edit their footage at a later time.)
From 'Transferring 8mm footage...' (already commented out):-
- (additional info by another contributor) Another option that is considered "horse and buggy" but is actually the best method of all would be to transfer the digital-8 to Betacam Sp. Once on Betacam SP, the video can then be color corrected and optimized faster than even in the computer. However this editing method is more costly than doing it yourself on the computer, and therefore a method to use only if money is not an issue. If money is not an issue, be aware that betacam sp editing suites can be found for as cheap as 50 dollars an hour to as much as several hundred dollars an hour. For archiving purposes, bumping to Betacam SP is superior to any other method currently on the market, including DVD.
Fourohfour 22:13, 27 November 2005 (UTC)
Another one, missed out (from end of 'Enhancements to Video8'):-
- It's important to note for those using Hi8 today, that Digital8 camcorders are not capable of accessing Hi8 PCM-audio, only the analog (AFM) audio. PCM-audio, if present, must be converted separately, at additional inconvenience to the user.
Added by Fourohfour 01:02, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
Confusion with PAL & NTSC Hi8 tapes
I was recently looking at buying some Hi8 tapes for my camcorder when I was struck thinking whether I needed PAL or NTSC tapes as my camcorder is a PAL camcorder. I was alerted to the obvious fact that the color system doesn't come into play when buying video tapes or 8mm tapes because its not the tape that is different just what is recorded.
Whilst I conceded this point I am still trying to figure out a few things about the tapes.
1) Does buying an NTSC tape to use on my PAL camcorder mean that I will able to record more on it? I used the Kodak Film Calculator and by my calculations buying an NTSC tape that states it is 90 minutes should work out to just under 108 minutes recording in PAL. Would this be right?
2) Is there any difference to the quality of tapes bought in different countries. Or are they all around the same quality? Talking more of Sony Hi8 tapes.
Lummie 05:12, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
- I would expect any given brand of tape to have consistent quality from one country to another. Sorry, can't really help on the time question, although I think you're right about PAL fitting more recording time than NTSC onto the tape, due to the different frame rate. By the way, you don't need those "br" tags to make a space, just leave a blank line and the Wiki software will interpret that as a new paragraph. --LesleyW 06:57, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
- I've seen high quality & low quality VHS cassettes, from the same brand, and they're made in different factories, different countries. They sell the low quality ones cheaper, for the cheaper markets. Or maybe, it's just fakes.DaveDodgy (talk) 04:36, 17 November 2008 (UTC)
- Oh ok, I thought there must be an easier way so cheers bro. Lummie 09:40, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
Creator / patent licensor?
Who originated the tech and owns the patents on it? Sony?
- —Hobart 18:05, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
- I have no sources on the matter one way or another, but as I understand it the 8mm design is fundamentally the same as Betamax (and Umatic before it, which Beta was based on), only miniaturized, so very likely Sony does own the bulk of the patents on the design. Kodak got in on the 8mm thing too, with their dockable MVS system (I remember looking at brochures as a kid and lusting after it, but it was bloody expensive and way not suitable for an 11-year-old), but it's hard to tell if the tape format was the same as Sony's (I think it was, but there seems to be some ambiguity). Sony pretty much has the field all to itself these days though, since there's little interest in the format anymore. I'd guess they pay a royalty or two here and there, but they probably own (perhaps bought out/were sold) the bulk of the Video8/Hi8 patent portfolio, if for no other reason than no one else has any real use for it. Haikupoet 08:21, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
Transferring to a computer
Aren't the last two methods the exact same thing? --Crnk Mnky 03:22, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
- Not really. The digitization process is pretty much the same, but there is to all intents and purposes one less piece of equipment in the second approach. There are also minor technical issues such as import codec (Digital8 would probably use DV25, a standalone A/D bridge might use an MPEG variant or something like that instead) and timecode (I don't know how that works, since I've been working in DV, without any analog conversion); there is also the issue that if you're coming from a Digital8 unit rather than an A/D bridge you have more control over the import process, since you can directly control the camera over FireWire. In all fairness, it all looks the same once it's on your hard drive anyway. Haikupoet 08:09, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
Luminance Bandwidth for Hi8?
I have looked and looked and looked, but I can not find a source to answer that simple question. Is it 5 megahertz? Someone should add the answer to the article, if it's available. - Theaveng 12:45, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
Since it is hard to find tapes nowadays, i wondering if i could record on D-8 tapes with my video 8mm camcorder ( pal - standard play ) And I wondering the same thing about Hi-8 cassettes, but i think the answer is yes because you can record on a S-vhs tape with a regular VHS videorecorder. It could be the same. What do you think about? If someone has answer could it be added to the article?
Video8 is different tape (at least quality wise, likely in the substrates as well) than Hi8 and D8. You technically _can_ record on it, but it may not be magnetized as well and likely will not hold up. --tonsofpcs (Talk) 03:32, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
The future of the 8 mm video formats
- I wondered the same thing. The section sounds more like some individual's view on the future of the technology. The entire section can probably be removed unless someone can cite a source.--Pchov (talk) 21:52, 31 January 2013 (UTC)
The popularity of Hi8
Hi8 is aprantly supirior of the original VHS format. It also uses smaller tape inside the cassette, I am not sure how wide the cassette tape is. It is also inferior quality wise than Mini DV. It does have 90 minutes of recording time, which is 30 minutes more than Mini DV. It is not to much larger than Mini DV either. I think over all I would probably shoose Hi8 over Mini DV as it has longer recording time, but it is analouge. Though I am not sure how popular Hi8 was, or how popular it's sucssesor Digital 8 is. J2F Duck (talk) 20:43, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
- Not me. I would choose Super VHS-C or Super VHS so I can play it in my tv-connected VCR. I prefer compatibility with my current equipment, and Super VHS-C provides that while having the same quality as Hi8. ---- 12:15, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
- indeed, but i would choose Hi-8 and/or S-VHS (c)than miniDv. On analog tapes you don't have compression.
- But if you would put it on computer or dvd, you could use a D8 camcorder to do the copy.
- Today i saw a technician who told me that the video 8 is better than digital camcorders.
Beware of Advertisers
All sites cited as references are businesses trying to drive traffic to their site. They are not reliable sources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.8.131.52 (talk) 13:56, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
- Perhaps someone has removed those advertisers, but the article is now totally uncited. 184.108.40.206 (talk) 15:50, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
I am by no stretch of the imagination an expert on video, Hi8, or any of the information contained on this page. However, as a interested consumer of the information, I noted an inconsistency within the page's information. I don't have the knowledge to say which of the conflicting assertions is correct, but one of them must be incorrect. I hope that someone with knowledge of this topic may be able to clarify the following.
In the top section of the entry, in the box on the right side that displays an image of a Video8 cassette, under "Capacity," the tape runtimes for PAL-format Video8/Hi8 are listed as follows: "60 minutes (PAL-SP), 90 minutes (PAL-SP), and 135 minutes (PAL-SP)," and the listed tape runtime for NTSC-format Video8/Hi8 is, "180 minutes (NTSC-SP)." However, in the adjacent "Technical Overview" section, the penultimate sentence of the fourth paragraph states, "Standard recording time is up to 180 minutes for PAL and 120 minutes for NTSC."
Clearly there is some incongruity between the information. Hopefully someone knows the truth of these matters and can correct the entry because I cannot.