How do current consumer camcorders stack up against ones from the 90s and 80s?
 

I recently purchased a Panasonic X920 in frustration of all the issues that digitzing VHS brought, however, watching the new HD footage and comparing to the captured VHS footage, I can see the difference between SD and HD, but there is a less than authentic feeling when comparing the new to the old.

I haven't come to a conclusion whether or not analog or digital is better. There seem to be many pros for both, although digital seems to be much more accessible to the average person. Analog seems to capture colors better, and I imagine probably does better in the dark and doesn't suffer from compression issues, yet the faults of analog recording such as signal instability are always present.

Sony is realeasing a $2k 4k camera in two weeks. Is it massively better than my Panasonic VHS-c camcorder from the 90s? May sound dumb to some, but I think its definitely worth some thought.

80s-90s VHS was lousy, but had a certain look about it not found on modern cameras. It's hard to describe.

Detail is better -- but how "better" depends on the lens and sensor size. Colors are generally better, because it doesn't suffer from color bleed, chroma noise, and the color-under method of VHS/S-VHS. Yes, the darks can actually be inferior to VHS -- again, it depends on the sensor. Same for artifacts (compression). Digital media can be unstable too; it just looks difference (colored blocks).

A camera is only as good as its lens (and sensor for digital). A $2k 4K camera honestly sounds so-so. A quality lens alone usually run $1-2k.

I guess every camera will have its own quirks...while some cameras still use tape, it sounds like all video work is digital in some respect, makes a lot of sense for editing.

Here is a very rough comparison of an 80s camcorder vs. something semi-modern. Both are shot with the same lighting.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4aW0cBV2_p4
A Sears branded "lo lux" Hitachi VM-3100 camcorder. This uses a first generation solid state MOS image sensor and was the most popular consumer camcorder sold in 1987-88. It broke the $1000 price barrier and was sold under the RCA, Realistic (Radio Shack), LXI Series (Sears), etc. brands. Looking on YouTube, a crap ton of home movies were filmed on these.

This camcorder line is even famous, it appears on the TV show "The Goldbergs".

http://www.digitalfaq.com/forum/imag..._01_i001-1.jpg

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FxtyTEFr6Xc
A Canon HV20 HDV camcorder from 2007. Note the difference in light levels. Hard to believe, isn't it?

Pretty ridiculous, thanks for the sample!

As always, neat videos NJRoadfan!

LOL - and I was trying to compare it with my new cam:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CDe5tHbnr3c
Comparison speaks for itself. It was actually on sale for $700 this week, which I think is a steal.

It brings me to another question - are new HD camcorders better than old production SD cameras? More pixels, better picture?

Not necessarily. More pixels doesn't automatically mean a better picture -- it just means more pixels. The cameras lens, sensor, etc, must be considered as well. A professional SD camera (Canon GL2, for example) can only be beat by a really good HD camera. The GL2 still fetches anywhere from $500 beat-up to $2k+ new.

With 4k coming out, SD vs. HD vs. UHD is very subjective in terms of quality. I recently went to Best Buy and checked out a 4k TV. The TV looked great, the 60p framerate made it look real, and it was clear, but there's still something to be said for good SD.

At the same price point, current camcorders produce better images and are more noise free, with no generation loss when making copies to give others.

Analog, as in VHS, S-VHD, 8mm, Hi-8, Beta, took a dive with the first analog copy. The consumer formats were also resolution limited, especially the color portion of the image. And they do not hold-up well on the large, high resolution displays common these days. But the were a reasonable match to 27" dtube type TVs of their era.

One issue with any camcorder is what sort of image the mfgr wanted to provide. I've used a Pana TM700, and found the image colors to be oversaturated, and somewhat over processed lacking "texture" compared to other camcorders. The factors of lens, sensor, and internal digital signal processing are key. (The most important factors of course are the skill of the shooter, editor, and story teller.)

Analog video basically ended with VHS/S-VHS/8mm/Hi8. The later consumer tape formats including MiniDV and the short lived Digital8 were digitally encoded information recorded on tape, not analog. The only losses were due to drop-outs.

Is 4K worth it? At least for home use, not yet. Ask again in a couple years. Consider how many still use DVDs - and how small the differnce is between a good DVD in a good upscaling player and Blu-ray for most home viewers.

The technology wins if you are just looking at the image, but not if you are following the story being told.