Talk:Camcorder

	Film portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.FilmWikipedia:WikiProject FilmTemplate:WikiProject Filmfilm
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
	This article is supported by the Filmmaking task force.

Combo Digital Camera

The "combo digital camera" is a marketing term rather than an formal product classification. Since there is an increasing overlap between the fetaures of camcorders and digital still cameras, the combo digital camera is simply a camcorder (or digital still camera.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.182.66.21 (talk) 06:31, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

X-Ray Sony Camera

Would it be appropriate to include, on this page, a discussion (refutation or confirmation) of the fabeled early version of Sony NightShot which, when used during daylight, allowed viewing and recording of "x-ray" images?

This was not x-ray, rather these early models would tend to see through lightweight clothing due to the Infra Red sensitivity of the camcorder. This is still possible to some extent by the use of I.R. bandpass optical filters. Colin99 22:01, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pictures?

I think we could probably drop one of the miniDV camcorder pictures (keep the newer one?) and maybe have a newer picture of a hard disc camcorder. Also we should probably have a professional Digital Betacam picture in there. Colin99 22:02, 26 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Digital Cameras VS Camcorders

Since modern digital cameras can record sound, how about a section contrasting them with camcorders?Rlevse 12:50, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Professional Camcorders?

Why does this page only mention consumer camcorders? There is a huge range of professional broadcast camcorders that is being left out here.

The end of Camcorders???

I heard that they were going to end the selling of camcorders! Can anyone confirm this???209.12.51.207 19:16, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Digital worse than analog !?!?

In the analog vs digital section, the following is said:

Either a certain block of digital data on the tape is readable or not, which means all or nothing. This leads to one of the most significant disadvantages of digital recording - that minor disc errors can lead to corruption of the entire disc. No data from a block on the tape means a block artifact which is visible in the picture, but they can be interpolated from surrounding data like it happens in CD-Players when a read error occurs.

I'm going to remove it as it is completely wrong. Data values can be corrected with error detection-correction methods. That, with interpolation, means that you can get the data even if it was not very corrupted. Minor disc errors lead to nothing, big disc errors lead to corruption of sections, not entire disc.

Not completely wrong, dude, this has happened to me on a number of occasions - disc works fine and will actually play back on the camcorder, then disc errors corrupt the entire disc beyond recovery. Very, very frustrating for footage of an overseas trip that is permanently lost.

- Yes, this problem seems to be quite common with DVD recorders - I've had it happen several times. I'd never buy a DVD camcorder. Strictly speaking, this isn't due to it being digital, but due to the nature of the disk format - a DV tape would never loose it's whole contents like this. Algr 03:17, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- - Digital tape is no better. I don't have a DV camera, but I do have a Digital VHS vcr. A wrinkle in the tape will cause a full 2-3 seconds of video to just "disappear"; the player shows nothing but a blank screen & that scene is permanently lost. In contrast, the same tape in a Super VHS analog player registers the wrinkle as a horizontal line (again for 2-3 seconds). Although the horizontal line is somewhat jarring, at least the scene is still watchable... you can still see and hear the people you recorded... it's not a blank/black screen as is the case with a damaged digital recording. (And this is one (of many) reasons why I still prefer a S-VHS camcorder rather than a MiniDV camcorder. The analog recording will degrade, as with all tapes, but at least it will still be watchable 20-30 years from now. Meanwhile the MiniDV tape will be an unrecoverable blank.)

- - Another aspect of digital I dislike is the compression. I recently purchased a Hard Disk Drive Digital camcorder from JVC, and I was extremely disappointed with the image quality. Although it records at 9 Megabits/second for standard-definition DVD quality, it doesn't look like DVD quality. The image is extremely blurry and I can see "mosquito noise" and "macroblocking" in the background of every scene. Yuck. I'm getting rid of this HDD camera as soon as I can, and going back to the Super VHS I've always used. Theaveng 17:20, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First portible video camera

Nothing about the first arguible portible camera? The Sony Portipak? Its pretty much what started it all.

Consumer Market Edit

I usually like to inform people of my edits and why I made them. In this section it used to say that Sony is scheduled to relased a hard disk based camcorder in May 2006. It has now been released so I edited that section so it is more up to date now. Jamesters 09:14, 3 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Retail Prices

I've looked all over and found almost nothing, but if anyone had access to information regarding the retail prices of camcorders over the deacdes (other than the "the first ones were around $1500..." bit that doesn't specify which ones it means), I think that'd be a great addition.

There are lots of prices given on the Canon museum website. Colin99 12:15, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The World's first CamCorder

World's first CamCorder is not BetaMovie. VHS CamCoder was put on the market in (Perhaps)1980, and BetaCam Camcoder in 1982. See ja:カムコーダ. --Nekosuki 04:26, 2 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, not true. The first camcorder was the Betamovie. If you can find evidence of an earlier model and we can look into it in more detail. In fact they didn't even use the name camcorder until some years later, the Betamovie was described rather unimaginatively as the revolutionary "single unit colour video camera with recording capability". But revolutionary it certainly was. I think Kodak were not far behind in around 1984. Also note that you refer to this as a "BetaCam" camcorder, which is completely wrong. Betacam is a video tape format in its own right, developed from domestic Beta, variants of which are the De-Facto standard video tapes for TV studios. The Betamovie is domestic Beta format, often referred to as Betamax. Colin99 12:11, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Which should be important "first use of the name of CamCoder" and "appearance of unified style Video Camera and Recorder"? I think more important "the first appearance of unified style" than "the first use of name". The world's first Camcoder was born in 1980, and it was VHS system one. And Betacam professional format Camcoder was born in 1982 Archive of Center of the History of Japanese Industrial Technology (Before Betacam, professionals used U-format separated ENG system). And finally Betamovie was born in 1983. You may think Beta format as wonderful. But it is not right history.--Nekosuki 08:45, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, the first domestic camcorder was the Betamovie. Please produce evidence that there was a VHS one before this (because there wasn't). I agree the name is not important, but being an integrated unit is. Colin99 22:18, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

More research proves the fact, sorry it's no good just wishing JVC had invented a camcorder in 1980 and then providing no evidence. You can't re-write history like this. Instead, perhaps do some research. How about here: http://www.totalrewind.org/cameras.htm http://homepage.ntlworld.com/hamidk/betamovi.htm http://www.experimentaltvcenter.org/history/tools/ttool.php3?id=50&page=1 http://www.internetvideomag.com/articles2002/historyofcamcorders.htm http://hometheater.about.com/cs/vcrs/a/aaendofbeta.htm .. do we need to go on?

So please stop damaging this article with unsupportable claims. Colin99 22:40, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is en:Wikipedia is an English language version or an United Stetes of America version? The First of United States does not mean the first of the world. See Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/FAQ#Anglo-American focus. --Nekosuki 16:48, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In this case we are talking about the release of Betamovie models in both PAL and NTSC forms in USA and Europe. They had different model numbers of course. I'm UK based and have original flyers for the UK model. Colin99 09:14, 9 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Domestic? For Whom?

The article, and a caption, says that BetaMovie was the first domestic camcorder. Domestic for whom? It would be clearer to say it was the first camcorder sold in the USA, or sold in Japan, or sold in the UK, or whatever the case might be. I don't know the answer. Someone who does could help this article by replacing the vague "domestic."--Ewrobbel 18:51, 19 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

These models were sold worldwide with different model numbers, both by Sony (using Betamovie branding) and badge engineered by Sanyo. Colin99 19:54, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Article location...

Pardon my insolence, but which article would I go to to learn about those annoying black bars that appear on a t.v. screen when it is filmed by a cam-corder.

Wikipedia does not include "How Tos" like How do i avoid scan lines when photographing a TV set and these discusion boards are not for posting messages... but click on them blue letters for a little help.

I'm new here but why can't that be part of the discussion? It's an honest question that could be made relevant. Plus it has a simple answer, it's the monitor's refresh rate. Turn down your shutter speed to between 15 and 30 and they will go away.

Also, why doesn't wikipedia have How To's? I don't get it. I thought wikipedia was a knowledge collective. Wouldn't it benefit people to not only post facts, terminology and historie's but also information gained through experience?

FruityCheerios 12:36, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For a guideline on why Wikipedia does not include "how-to"s have a look at WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE. There is WikiHOW for finding (and putting up) "how-to"s. 69.72.7.105 05:11, 29 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

VHS Camcorder

Should some particular mention be made of VHS camcorders, the variety which recorded directly onto VHS cassettes? Specifically, how about a link to the Panasonic M5, one of the first to do so. We should push the point that these cassettes could be directly played in a VCR, without needng to connect the camcorder to the TV. Pictures can be provided. Seems to a bit of a Sony monopoly on here. c-bro 13:11, 2 September 2006 (UTC)c-bro[reply]

Probably because Sony got there (recording directly onto video cassettes) before Panasonic. VHS camcorders were not particularly popular (not in the UK at least), they were bulky and give mediocre results (VHS being a mediocre format). Hi8 machines were available by the late 1980s which made VHS unattractive. S-VHS camcorders sold in tiny numbers, but earned respect for solid performance. Colin99 19:59, 25 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree on two points: (1) Betamax has the same 3 megahertz limitation as VHS, and therefore not any better in quality. (2) VHS-C was extremely popular (because people enjoyed the ability to play them directly in their VCRs).

Camcorders before 1982?

This not meant as a jibe just a note. The first commercial video camera/camcorder and VCR came out in 1967. Video was first developed for television with the first video device being developed in 1951; but went commercial in 67 with the introduction of the Sony Portapak, which was the first handheld video camera/camcorder. It was very popular and was bought buy schools and local tv news stations but is most noteably attributed to ushering in an era of guerilla video that turned into a movement called video art. The effect was pretty revolutionary, pretty much giving anybody the ability to go out and shoot a short video. The Portapak was a reel to reel device, the first video camera to use a cassette was developed in 1971, also by Sony.

This only really applies to the history portion of the article but, it was something that kind of glossed over. I don't know, it didn't seem to be a subject raised in any discussion either. It just seemed like the article gives the impression that video was unaccessible until 82 with the Betacam, which is misleading, because there's about twenty extra years of history before that which is pretty interesting. It also applies to the media section. It wasn't only political radicals making these videos. It was performance artists, comedians and experimental filmaker's. All of there work helped to catapult video art in the 80's with artist's like Bill Viola.

As a side note, the definition of a camcorder is a portable video device to be played back on a TV or VCR. So, while these were not referred to as camcorder's at the time, in a way they are. Even if you disagree with me the history of camcorder's before 1982 is important in understanding it's development and use.

FruityCheerios 12:34, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the definition of a camcorder is an integrated camera and recorder. So the portable separates (Betamax, Umatic, CVC, VHS, V2000 etc.) would not qualify as such, making the Betamovie the first true camcorder. This article is about the camcorder, not about portables, which do get a picture and a mention at the top of the article to show what was before the camcorder. Colin99 20:25, 6 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Mini DV = Smaller Lens = Poor in Low Light

I bought a mini DV camcorder last year and was disappointed by it, compared to an old VHS C camcorder I had experimented with a couple of years prior. In low light situations in particular it seemed to perform much worse. Some guy in a camera shop told me that this was because mini DV camcorders often have smaller lenses than older analogue camcorders because they're designed to be really compact. Funnily enough I exchanged it for a Sony digital 8 camcorder that's bigger than the mini DV one, a similar size to the old VHS C one and it's brilliant, much better in low light. I'm just wondering if the article should reflect this because all you ever hear about mini DV is the resolution, so you'd think a mini DV camcorder always give you a better image than an older analogue one.. but that's not the case in my experience. Doom jester 19:28, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Lens "size" has nothing to do with light gathering. It’s all matter of focal ratio. An F2.8 lens is an F2.8 lens no matter what size it its (a smaller MiniDV camera would probably have a proportionally smaller CCD--- somebody smash one and check this out ;^)). Low light performance is usually related to the performance of the CCD and the on board image processing firmware. 69.72.2.71 16:02, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what you mean by "size" (the diameter of the front element of the lens?), but a lens is a light gathering device, so it has, um, everything to do with light gathering. First, every lens loses a certain amount of light, better-designed lenses lose less. Second, light sensitivity is mainly a function of the imager, and its size is a key factor - bigger sensors can take in more photons. Of course, there are many other factors that ultimately contribute to the low-light performance of a camera. Binba (talk) 09:32, 5 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, "size" means diameter of the front element of the lens, i.e. the objective that gathers the light. Any size lens at a given F/ratio will always give you the same amount of light per any given millimeter of imager or CCD - in other words Lens "size" has nothing to do with light gathering. Now given that - yes a larger lens with the same F/ratio means you are going to have a larger CCD to have the same angle of view. The CCD may or may not have the ability to take in more photons depending on if there are more imaging elements (pixels) added to actually receive that light. Again its the performance of the CCD and the on board image processing firmware that will be related to low light performance. 69.72.2.71 (talk) 01:47, 10 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Citation

It is against the law for a child under 12 to use a camcorder

Can someone verify this? 68.97.34.65 13:52, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First use of "Camcorder"

I recall that an American magazine writer coined the term "camcorder". Who was it? That would be a pertinent item to add to the history section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Robcat2075 (talk • contribs) 08:04, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The use of the term 'Camcorder' was actually coined by Sony although they didn't use the term directly for the Betamovie. Sony had already adopted the practice of abbreviating other products. Their range of Reel-to-Reel tape recorders were sold under the name of 'Tapecorder' and similarly, their cassette recorder range were sold as 'Cassettecorder'. Also their early reel-to-reel video recorders were sold as 'videcorder'. The term 'Camcorder' was just a logical marketing extension. 20.133.0.13 (talk) 13:57, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Uses section

What's the purpose of this section? It's a portable camera, there a million different things you can record with it. Why do these few garner special mention and what does it really add to the overall understanding of the subject?--Crossmr (talk) 01:53, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Film vs Video

I was just wondering why people say, and students are taught to use the word Film instead of Video. It is completely incorrect. I had a client tell me he had 8mm film to transfer to DVD, so I set up my 8mm projector and my transfer device and he brought me 8mm videotape. I don't get it.

Film is film. Video is video. One man I have shot video for before says film (or filming) all the time. I showed him some actually 8mm film and pointed out that you can see the images in each frame. With a straight face, he said, "I am sure if you look close enough you can see the images." He was dead serious. I didn't know what to say.

Does anyone know why people just can't call it what it is? I have been in this industry for over 30 years and it drives me crazy. Allaccesspasses (talk) 01:23, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Communications majors are not engineers. They don't understand how the stuff works. He probably genuinely believes there are tiny pictures stored on the tape. ---- Theaveng (talk) 18:26, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Damage from power loss?

"...Hard Drive ... can be damaged irreparably by power failure...."

Damage to the media due to not landing in the landing zone was corrected in PCs long ago by the inclusion of drive circuitry (or was it firmware?) that automatically parked the heads on power down. Is that not still true for the HDs used in camcorders? Or is there some other reason for that kind of damage? Else the power damage phrase should be struck. CampKohler (talk) 07:26, 16 November 2008 (UTC) CampKohler[reply]

The manual is wrong. HDD cameras use the same drives you find in laptops, and they can certainly handle power failures. ---- Theaveng (talk) 18:27, 17 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Other image

The sony dv is placed in the lead. I think this is unfair, it seems like that's the most popular/best camcorder all-round. I suggest removing the image and making several sub-sections with own image (best one for each type).

camcorder sizes + pictures to mention: large, compact and micro a comparisation of digital camcorders article can be made

The Sony cam image is there because by MOS:IMAGES every article should have a top of the page illustration or info box that matches the topic. These articles are not written for product promotion (or "de-motion") WP:PROMOTION. Covering large, compact, micro comparisons of each may be a good idea but there would have to have some sort of reference for it. 75.199.179.244 (talk) 19:08, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]