By Michael G. Gay
I have been videotaping depositions since 1992. Over the years, I’ve incorporated many technical enhancements into the methods I use to record a deposition. The most significant enhancement has been converting from an analog recording format to a digital recording format. Replacing my VHS/S-VHS camcorder with a digital camcorder by far has been the most distinct quality enhancement I have made.
For those of you who might be contemplating an analog to digital equipment upgrade, the first and probably most crucial decision is which type of digital video camcorder to purchase. When I first got into the video business, choosing the type of camcorder to purchase was easy: it was either a VHS or S-VHS (Super VHS) camcorder. I purchased a camcorder that had the capability of recording in either format. Today, the choice is more complicated.
Most depositions are videotaped using one of three different types of digital camcorders – DVCAM, DVCPRO or MiniDV. These camcorders are the most widely used because of their practicality. They are relatively small in size and light in weight, they work very well in low lighting conditions, and they produce superior picture quality that is unquestionably better than VHS (analog) format.
There are basically two classification of digital video, both professional and consumer. Both DVCAM and DVCPRO are considered professional format, whereas MiniDV is considered to be a consumer digital video format. DVCAM and DVCPRO camcorders are widely used in the news gathering industry and for other applications, such as television production, that require substantial post-production editing. DVCAM was developed by Sony, and DVCPRO was developed by Panasonic. Both of these camcorders record on full-size digital videotapes with recording lengths of two-plus hours.
DVCAM and DVCPRO tapes are about half the size of VHS tapes. Just about all camcorder manufactures produce MiniDV camcorders for the consumer market. Canon, JVC, Panasonic, and Sony also produce “prosumer” MiniDV camcorders that are designed for everyday use in industries that are less demanding than the news gathering industry, Most prosumer camcorders are high-performance cameras with many of the same operating features as professional camcorders. They are well balanced, lightweight, much smaller in size, and highly reliable. MiniDV tapes are approximately one-sixth the size of VHS tapes, and, like the other digital video-tape formats, they produce dramatically better picture quality than VHS. MiniDV tapes have a maximum record time of 90 minutes.
When contemplating upgrading from analog-based tape acquisition to digital-based tape acquisition, the process of purchasing a new digital camcorder should include a thorough operating cost analysis. Developing a complete cost equation for the purpose of determining operating cost will give you a relative idea of how much per hour it costs to record in whichever format you finally choose to purchase. Initial cost is only one variable. Other variables include the cost of upgrading our postproduction editing and duplicating equipment and the actual cost of digital tape stock. The cost difference between DVCAM, DVCPRO, and MiniDV tapes is quite substantial. MiniDV tapes can generally be purchased for about $4 to $6 per tape, whereas DVCAM and DVCPRO cost $25 to $30 per tape. The difference can substantially affect operating costs, which affects your profit margin.
This article presents only a basic overview of the three different digital video camcorders used by today’s legal videographers. Space does not permit a detailed discussion of various technical differences and similarities among the three formats. Thus, I will summarize why I chose to upgrade to a prosumer MiniDV camcorder.
One of the most important facts to realize when comparing DVCAM, DVCPRO, and MiniDV is that all three formats are based on the consumer DV format developed by a consortium of 10 major electronics manufacturing companies and standardized by the International Electrotechnical Commission in the early 1990s.
The video data recorded in all three formats is essentially identical. All three formats use the same basic video-encoding algorithm. There are minor differences, but the quality of recorded images of each format is essentially the same.
The prosumer camcorder that I purchased has many of the same professional operating features found on professional DVCAM and DVCPRO camcorders, such as 3-CCD imaging system, SLR line/mic inputs, color bar generator, zebra pattern indicator, and white balance controls. However it is smaller in size, lighter in weight, and considerably easier to maneuver. A high percentage of the depositions I videotape are recorded in the small constraints of doctor offices. I found using a smaller camcorder to be much less intrusive. This particular aspect was one of the key factors that accounted for choosing a MiniDV camcorder.
Another factor that weight heavily in my decision process was videotape cost. The majority of my income is derived from videotaping depositions, and I use a lot of videotape. MiniDV tapes cost about one-fifth as much as DVCAM or DVCPRO. As mentioned earlier, the recording quality of all three tape formats is essentially the same, so I had no reservations relating to issues of picture quality.
One issue of concern with MiniDV is recording durations. As mentioned earlier, MiniDV tape has a shorter record time than both DVCAM and DVCPRO tape. MiniDV tapes recorded in LP mode have a maximum record time of 90 minutes. I have never received any complaints bout having to take a break during a deposition to change tapes after recording for an hour and a half. Furthermore, I haven’t’ met one court reporter yet who enjoys writing for two hours without a break.
I upgraded to digital video around three years ago. My camcorder’s hour meter reads close to 1,000 hours of use. At about 750 hours, my camera displayed its ‘dirty head’ warning light. To date, I have not had any other problems with my camcorder, nor have I received any complaints pertaining to MiniDV picture quality. When comparing VHS to DV, most people realize that the improvement in picture quality that digital video offers is dramatically better.
Legal video is a specialized profession in which there is not much room for error. I have always felt that offering my clients a superior product was my paramount business credo. In embracing new technologies, I feel that I am adhering to this belief. Digital video format is unquestionably a superior format when compared to the analog VHS format. As the tide of digital media continues to wash over analog video recording technology, recording in VHS format will be considered an antiquated method for recording legal video depositions.