From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

Someone here recomended that I buy this for use with my JVC SXM250U to play and converttapes on my ibook G4 (May 2005) or whatever the model was. Its a VHS-C camcorder. The video is okay, and many, many, many times superior
than thedigital video that any digital still camera I have used, and this would include the Sony Mavica (which seems to be near the top of the still camera market). But then again these are video groups, and not still picture groups. I'm sure those in the photo group can tell me if the ifnormation I
am giving is incorrect.

I did some price checking on ebay among other places, and I see that this converter will cost almost as much as a low end digiral camcorder, am I correct?

Will a low end match the features of my JVC SXM250U model? This one is nice,and I especially like the backlight.


John

Pet 3:15-But sanctify the Lord God[a] in your hearts, and always be ready
to give a defense to everyone who asks you a reason for the hope that is in you, with meekness and fear
CERM-Church Education Resource Ministries
Founder and director
http://johnw.freeshell.org/bible


--- Synchronet 3.18b-Win32 NewsLink 1.113

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

"Bible John" wrote ...

Someone here recomended that I buy this for use with
my JVC SXM250U to play and convert tapes on my
ibook G4 (May 2005) or whatever the model was. Its
a VHS-C camcorder.

The ADVC-100 has been replaced by the ADVC-110.
They are both great products that don't care whether they
are talking to a PC or a Mac. It also doesn't care whether
the source is VHS, S-VHS, VHS-C, 8mm, 3/4U, Betamax,
or any other analog format.

The video is okay, and many, many, many times superior
than thedigital video that any digital still camera I have used,

Nobody seriously expects still cameras to produce "video".
Nobody seriously expects video cameras to produce "stills".
The requirements are VERY different, and the market for
a gadget that does both well appears to be nonextant, perhaps
because it would cost way too much to be atractive.

and this would include the Sony Mavica (which seems to
be near the top of the still camera market). But then again
these are video groups, and not still picture groups. I'm sure
those in the photo group can tell me if the ifnormation I
am giving is incorrect.

I have what was at one time the top-of-the-line Mavica,
but I would never dream of trying to use it for "video".

I did some price checking on ebay among other places,
and I see that this converter will cost almost as much as
a low end digiral camcorder, am I correct?

Probably.

Will a low end match the features of my JVC SXM250U
model? This one is nice,and I especially like the backlight.

Hard to compare your JVC against a ??????.

OTOH, guaranteed that the cheapest mini-DV camera
will *record* better than the very best VHS machine
ever made. Whether a given mini-DV camcorder has a
better *camera* section can only be determined on a
case-by-case basis. There are lots of online resources
that review the imaging capabilities of camcorders.

If I were a betting man, I'd wager that you can likely
find an inexpensive mini-DV camcorder at least the
equal of your JVC VHS-C unit.

Richard Crowley in rec.video.production
--- Synchronet 3.18b-Win32 NewsLink 1.113

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

"Bible John" wrote ...

Someone here recomended that I buy this for use with
my JVC SXM250U to play and convert tapes

I agree with what Richard Crowley has told you.

I own a ADVC-300 and it does a fantastic job of what it is designed
to do; convert analogue video to digital. If you aren't interested
in converting a lot of old tapes and merely want to capture good
video, then buy a miniDV video camera. You can get one for the same
price as an ADVC-300 and it will do a far better job than your
current VHS-C recorder. Forget tryging to capture good video with a
camera designed to take still pictures.
--- Synchronet 3.18b-Win32 NewsLink 1.113