High quality DVD using video from a FLIP?

[Scott Race]

Thanks for the reply. I’m guessing then if the HD quality is descent, I should be able to at least get better quality than from my mini-DV Canon DV90 camcorder?

And what media do you use instead of DVD?

Thanks.

[John Rofrano]

> Thanks for the reply. I’m guessing then if the HD quality is descent, I should be able to at least get better quality than from my mini-DV Canon DV90 camcorder?

I’m not so sure… I’m guessing that the variable focus glass lens on your Canon DV90 is way better than the fixed focus plastic lens on the Flip. What many of these cheap camera manufactures do is record at a quality that is barely above acceptable so that it looks great if you just shoot-n-watch, but as soon as you need to re-render, it falls apart because the quality was right at the threshold of being good. These are great YouTube cameras but not for serious editors.

If you want cheap HD for less than the price as the Flip HD I would suggest that you look into the Sony Webbie HD (HD 1440x1080p, built-in LED light, with a street price of $170. A way better deal than the Flip HD) or for a little more, step up to the Sony HDR-CX100 for $380 street price. At least you will have a variable focus / optical zoom lens that is made by a company that knows a thing or two about cameras.

~jr

http://www.johnrofrano.com
http://www.vasst.com

[Dave Haynie]

A couple of things to consider.

For one, watch your DVD bitrate. Assuming you’re really authoring MPEG-2 bog standard DVD-Video discs (eg, via DVDA), you want to keep a fairly healthy bitrate. There’s no need to run at the maximum 9Mb/s or whatever the “NTSC DVD” preset would have you use, but for an 1-1.25 hours of video on a DVD, I have a preset that does a variable bitrate encode, 5Mb/s average, 7.5Mb/s peak… works good. Use AC-3 audio, separately rendered, and do check that DVDA is not re-rendering.

Obviously, DVD isn’t going to look as good on the computer as your original video… make sure you preview it on a real TV. If it still looks bad there, something is screwy… the Flip HDs are no prizes, but they should produce acceptable video, as long as you have good lighting. And while what you see on DVD will certainly be downrezzed versus 720p, it should look decent, if not necessarily comparable to professional mastered DVD video viewed on the same rig.

With that said, I’m no fan of the Flip camcorders. They use relatively tiny sensors, poor lenses, and low bitrates for encoding. Their HD models (MinoHD, UltraHD) only shoot 1280×720/30p video, encoded at around 8.8Mb/s. I’d be much happier with 12Mb/s or more, even for 720/30p… most “real” camcorders these days do AVC at 17-24Mb/s, at least as a high-quality option.

The big issue I have is the lens… take a look at any camcorder, where you think the lens ought to be. If it’s all glass there, all lens… good, you have a real camcorder, at least by one metric. If there’s a plastic ring inset, and a tiny lens down in there, you have some kind of toy.

Now, if you need something like a Flip that fits in a shirt pocket, go for it… though the similar Kodak Zi8 delivers better quality video and full 1080/30p or 720/60p video, though it’s still sporting a fixed, pinhole lens, just like the Flips (it’s very clearly a clone, but for this market segment, a good one).

My favorite “cheap” HD camcorder this month is the Sanyo VPC-FH1, just over $400 — sure, about twice the price, maybe a bit more. Cheap is a matter of prespective. This is a real camcorder… 10x optical zoom lens, video bitrates up to 24Mb/s, etc. It has an interesting 1080/60p mode, double the resolution of any Blu-Ray legal mode, great for sports video. I bought one of these so I could shoot my daughter’s JV soccer season without undue wear and tear on a profession camcorder, but it’s actually better. You can cut this down to 1080/60i, 1080/30p, or 720/60p for Blu-Ray use.

-Dave