JVC VHS-C Video Camera GR-AX338e "VideoMovie"

Belnahua

Hi,

Does anyone have any ideas where I can get the manual for this video camera please?

I've been round all the usual manual sites, and this model just isn't listed; and I don't think it's even a UK model! Although it is at least PAL...

It's like this model never existed! Even JVC's website doesn't recognise the model!

Thanks.

penrhyn

Its got to be around 20 years old, what do you want to do with it?

Belnahua

penrhyn wrote: »

Its got to be around 20 years old, what do you want to do with it?

Use it!

It works perfectly fine, it's hardly been used.

Why should I waste money on a new camera, when I've been given one free?

weegie.geek

Belnahua wrote: »

Use it!

It works perfectly fine, it's hardly been used.

Why should I waste money on a new camera, when I've been given one free?

True, but the battery life and recording quality will be atrcious compared to even the cheapest digital one you can find today.

It'll also be a headache if you want to put the recordings on DVD, or edit them.

Not necessarily saying you shouldn't use it of course.

Belnahua

No, actually the quality is quite good. The batteries are not too bad either, and it's come with 7 heavy duty ones, and battery reconditioner/charger. I already had a VHS-C adaptor.

I also already have a video capture card on my PC - won that in a competition, so that cost nothing. So that's no problem.

However digital video cameras just aren't the same quality as analogue. A good quality analogue recording is far superior to an average digital recording.

Doesn't matter what you say, you always get compression fuzziness with the average home digital equipment especially in fast moving scenes; analogue will always win over unless you use professional digital equipment.

I did actually borrow a digitial video camera, as my Hi8 is broken, and I have to say, the quality was not that good at all. My Hi8 was far superior!

Anyway I thought this site was money SAVING expert, not let's blow it on the latest gadget expert?

weegie.geek

Belnahua wrote: »

No, actually the quality is quite good. The batteries are not too bad either, and it's come with 7 heavy duty ones, and battery reconditioner/charger. I already had a VHS-C adaptor.

Fair enough. Looks like you got a lot of kit for free.

I also already have a video capture card on my PC - won that in a competition, so that cost nothing. So that's no problem.

However digital video cameras just aren't the same quality as analogue. A good quality analogue recording is far superior to an average digital recording.

Sorry, that's nonsense of the highest order. Hi8 has a slightly lower resolution than DV. 8mm and VHS/VHS-C are considerably worse than DV. DV's audio recording capabilities are better than any of those analogue cameras' capabilities as well.

Doesn't matter what you say, you always get compression fuzziness with the average home digital equipment especially in fast moving scenes; analogue will always win over unless you use professional digital equipment.

Are you confusing watching interlaced material without deinterlacing it with compression fuzziness? The fact you describe it as fuzziness instead of, say, blockiness (which would be a compression artifact) makes me think you are.

To say that analogue will always win is just crazy.

I did actually borrow a digitial video camera, as my Hi8 is broken, and I have to say, the quality was not that good at all. My Hi8 was far superior!

Anyway I thought this site was money SAVING expert, not let's blow it on the latest gadget expert?

I didn't suggest blowing money on anything, I said that even a cheapo DV camera would outperform a VHS-C camera in terms of useability and quality.

Belnahua

No analogue is always my preferred medium, when it comes to fine detail and fast action. And to say digital is far superior to analogue is equally as crazy...

I found a Wikipedia article that backs me up! As this is exactly what I cannot stand about digital video.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Camcorder#Analog_vs._digital

Quote - "although some users still prefer the analog nature of Hi8 and Super VHS-C, since neither of these produce the "background blur" or "mosquito noise" of Digital compression. In many cases, a high-quality analog recording shows more detail (such as rough textures on a wall) than a compressed digital recording (which would show the same wall as flat and featureless)."

weegie.geek

Belnahua wrote: »

No analogue is always my preferred medium, when it comes to fine detail and fast action. And to say digital is far superior to analogue is equally as crazy...

I found a Wikipedia article that backs me up! As this is exactly what I cannot stand about digital video.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Camcorder#Analog_vs._digital

Quote - "although some users still prefer the analog nature of Hi8 and Super VHS-C, since neither of these produce the "background blur" or "mosquito noise" of Digital compression. In many cases, a high-quality analog recording shows more detail (such as rough textures on a wall) than a compressed digital recording (which would show the same wall as flat and featureless)."

You can have all the fine detail you want if you don't mind your fine detail being at half the resolution of DV... The wikipedia article is pretty flawed, since it seems to imply that all digital recordings suffer from background blur and mosquito noise, and it implies that all analogue recordings suffer from colour bleeding, jitter, or fade.

Anyway, DV isn't a harsh compression. DVD cameras that use MPEG2 I completely agree with, they're awful. One-pass encodes at CBR wont cut it.

The wiki article mentions high quality analog recording, but doesn't specify what high quality analog is. I'd be inclined to suggest it's on about 16mm or something like that, film rather than video.

• 350×240 (250 lines): Video CD
• 330×480 (250 lines): Umatic, Betamax, VHS, Video8
• 400×480 (300 lines): Super Betamax, Betacam (professional)
• 440×480 (330 lines): analog broadcast
• 560×480 (420 lines): LaserDisc, Super VHS, Hi8
• 670×480 (500 lines): Enhanced Definition Betamax
• 720×480 (500 lines): DVD, miniDV, Digital8, Digital Betacam (professional)
• 720×480 (400 lines): Widescreen DVD (anamorphic)
• 1280×720 (720 lines): D-VHS, HD DVD, Blu-ray, HDV (miniDV)
• 1920×1080 (1080 lines): D-VHS, HD DVD, Blu-ray, HDCAM SR (professional)

Granted these are NTSC resolutions, but PAL resolutions aren't significantly larger, and they're all proportionately larger anyway so the theory's still solid...

VHS-C isn't listed there, but it has a resolution the same as VHS. It's VHS in a smaller package.

At less than half the horizontal resolution of DV, there's no way the quality is comparable. Resolution-wise it's the difference between VHS and DVD.

Belnahua

I did start my career in the radio & tv industry and moved into computers when digital TV came along in the early 90's as it was getting boring. As it was all going to be digital and fibre optics, gone all the RF tuning and calibration - all the fun stuff!

So I appreciate all that you're saying, but for me, my Hi8 is and will for always be better than a digital recording. (Not including HD in this discussion, as I've never seen the point of HD until more programmes are made and TV's are better and cheaper).

In the light of my Hi8 being broken, and given a free VHS-C camcorder - I know what I'll do!

However it'll be nice to have a manual, as some of the symbols are not clear!