"ruview". Nicely done. I actually like the ruvi's design. If someone put a backlit LCD, made the video cartridges digital storage (2GB and the like), and made the quality a little better, it would be pretty good. (Of course some of that tech was either impractical or impossible to use for a camcorder yet)
I have one of these, the European model as I'm in the UK. Bought it in '99 and was really impressed with the video quality for such a small camera. We got it quite cheap because it was on offer, probably because they weren't selling well. It was a great little camera for holiday videos but its main drawbacks were that LCD and the 30 minute recording limit on the cartridge. My cartridge failed and a replacement would have cost over £60 (about $120 US at the time). I think we only paid £130 for the camera brand new so we ended up getting an 8cm DVD handycam which I also still have and use.
Sony and their proprietary formats, i swear. they have a serious affinity for those. the camera is neat, but the expensive tapes remind me of the expensive proprietary memory cards for the PS Vita. just doesn't make sense when people will just go for cheaper media anyway.
***** I never used portable CD players as a teen, I used to stick with cassette Walkmans, as anti shock players were expensive and I had no computer worth beans to make CD-Rs anyway. The idea of taking your original albums out and about filled me with dread. Mixtapes were cheap and so were the players back then..
+lmull3 I think this is slightly missing the point- the Wikipedia article describes the tape/head cartridge as a semi-permanent "service part" that isn't meant to be swapped in and out during normal use. I assume it's intended that you dub the content to another source, so the fact it's proprietary is irrelevant. On one level, the design is quite clever. On the other hand, video tapes wear and are subject to damage in *normal* use... the fact that the spool of tape here is a semi-permanent built-in part that will be constantly reused and subjected to repeated wear, yet can't be replaced separately from the expensive head assembly is just.... horrible, reminiscent of Apple's non-replaceable battery on the iPods et al.
I'm actually impressed that they could get a Hi8 camcorder and tape mechanism to run with just two AA batteries. Digital cameras of that time usually needed 4 AAs and would crap out after 40 or 50 pix.
I had one of these and it was really awesome. I used it for skydiving video and it had several major advantages, and one or two disadvantages. At the time it was a great idea as a solution to affordable pocket-sized video, and was really easy to mount on a helmet. Remember, film was the mainstay still, and solid state memory was still not useful. It is only with hindsight and things like Go Pros that it seems weird. It was a good attempt at shaping the future. It just happens that the future turned out differently.
The video quality on this is great, we had a first gen Mavica in early 1998, the pinnacle of digital camera technology at the time that used a floppy drive for storage. The quality of the shots though were absolutely horrid compared to the images captured off the video on Ruvi. I don't think Sony ever stopped their love affair with proprietary storage media.
Sony seems to love making impractically small products just for the hell of it. They made a Discman that was just slightly bigger than a CD single, which meant regular sized CDs stuck out of the sides, and I think they also made a Walkman that was smaller than a cassette, and had to be pulled apart for the cassette to fit inside it.
The Ruvi camcorder is actually mentioned in the Dan Brown book Angels And Demons. I can't remember when the book was written, but I have it on audio CD. I thought the Ruvi camcorders were like the pocket digital video camcorders like the Flip HD camcorders. Interesting product, I do like the fact that it can run on 2 AA batteries.
WHY does Sony insist on using proprietary stuff so much? Ruvi camcorder, Sony PSP, PlayStation Vita, etc...so many Sony products using proprietary formats that cost alot of money to buy storage (or video cartridge) for that could have simply used "standard" formats to keep costs down. If Ruvi used standard 8mm tapes, it may have done a LITTLE better (but been a bit bigger)....although there was still plenty wrong with it to keep it from being a successful product
Super late reply, but I've always used the font "VCR OSD Mono" for that kind of look, pretty sure Hi8 timestamps were that font with a thin black stroke on the outside.
That's a very interesting camcorder, albeit one with a mixture of nonviable technologies. The cassette is certainly interesting. What a far-fetched idea, to make what's basically the complete tape deck a consumable part.
Considering the time when the camera was on sale, the video quality and the camera features aren't that bad! 1998 people still play VHS tapes, so quality of the recorded video was actually comparable to the VHS quality. Nice camera though.
I don't suppose you have any Video 8 camcorders you're looking to part with, right? I found a bunch of unused video 8 cassettes that I would love to experiment with. They are excruciatingly hard to find where I'm from.
I bought this camera as soon as I saw it (Spain), it was the smallest in those times, and used a lot. I still keep it in my parents home and it works. The viewer was very poor because it uses retro illumination so it did not eat much battery on the display.
hi, well, not only the tape is in the cartridge, I believe that also the machinery (such as reading/recording heads) is inside the cartridge. First thing I did was to order an extra cartridge. That was very handy so I did not have to transfer immediately after the cartridge was full. Also the cartridge suffered half the wearing. Replying to your initial question, I did not notice any problems due to the reusable nature of the system... but when I said that I used it a lot, I don't mean on a daily basis, I mean that I took several videos and it was my only camera for 2 or 3 years. regards
fmoros Thanks for the reply- yes, that was my point. From what I'd read, the head/tape cart wasn't meant to be swapped in and out. It was meant as a "service part", i.e. effectively built-in but still able to be replaced when it did break down. My thought was that it *would* break down because video tape wears out and gets damaged and this design effectively forces the use of the same single piece of tape over and over again! I bet I couldn't have got 3 VHS cassettes for £5 from my local Superdrug store if they'd each had a recording head built in!! :-) It's a clever design in its way, but it also seems horrible to me in its wastefulness...
I take it, the "Backlight" button was used to activate a mode for filming dark locations? Oddly enough the cartridge reminds me of some old MFM hard drives I used to have. they were shaped like that, but larger
thanks for the info, I thought it might have been something like that, you likely described it in the video and I missed it, still a shame, it would have been truly something if it had a backlit display
There's a special place in hell reserved for LCDs without screen lighting. Was that a CCD-TRV87 on the desk next to the CDs? The video was about what I expected, but the audio really wasn't. I was expecting it to be much clearer than what it was.
MrMaguire Yes, that's my TRV87. The Ruvi's audio is comparable to most Video8 or Hi8 camcorders with mono audio. The "Hi-Fi Stereo" models like the TRV87 sounded much better.
Here is a camera I need to find. I have that exact computer I did a video on already. Would be nice to find a period correct camera to go with it. Cool!
Hobert McFarland I made it from two broken ones. I got one JVC with a bad lens and another with a broken LCD, and I put together the good parts of both.
Strangest camera ever meet. The one that I have found have a blocked cartrige that cause a C32:40 error. The good part: It seems that the IR blocking filter is missing by strange design. I did not find the way to setup the date / time. :-( . Passive LCD screen made by SHARP. In the place of backlight is a piece of rubber :-)
Quality actually looks ok on this for the time note computers did not have massive screens back then like 24 to 27 inch ones. But in the youtube window it looks OK.
Wow, that thing has really good quality, especially for the time. I must say that the proprietary stuff though is kind of a turn off to buy it. But I wouldn't have minded having one back in the day. I always love your videos, but especially your camcorder reviews, they're so thorough and easy on the eyes to watch. This *is* a pretty cool little piece of electronics though. Too bad it didn't take off better, but sony is known for having non-compatible proprietary hardware. Nonetheless, totally enjoyed, thank you!!
dalekman tardis Hi8 is analog and Digital8 is, as the name suggests, digital. Most Digital8 camcorders can play Hi8 tapes, but Hi8 camcorders cannot play Digital8 tapes.
jamie marchant Most tape camcorders, regardless of format, have some audible tape motor noise... they were almost all like that, and people just accepted it.
Creepy Bob makes a cameo appearance! The quality isn't as good as a real Hi-8 camcorder. With that limited feature set, I'm surprised it wasn't marketed as a "My First Sony" kiddie toy. Sony did offer a way to use AA batteries with regular Handycams, I have an InfoLithium L adapter that takes 6 AAs. I'm sure the run time is just as deplorable as with the Ruvi.
A few days ago, I found a PAL unit at some flea market for 5 bucks. I didn't know if it worked, but it did come with a video cartridge. Unfortunately the film is worn out and you can only watch the video on the LCD. It seems to work though, I just need to find a new cartridge and a PAL to NTSC converter. I do have the AV cable but since it's PAL, it will not display on any US TV. Oddly with PAL Hi8, you get less time for recording than NTSC, which VHS is the opposite. :P
I found a different camcorder that appears to have came out at around the same time: Sharp VLE630U 8mm Viewcam Camcorder It uses 8mm tape and appears to be the same size as the Ruvi.
wow, the tape head takes up most of the space. since head cleaning is not an option, these would have to rely on the Cue/review method of cleaning, lookes like the tape never unloads from the head either
It's almost... almost... acceptable in outdoor lighting, it's a disaster indoors. This just shows what a mess Sony's become. Too many divisions releasing too many products. Did the Cybershot line have video recording back then?
Steven Smyth The older Cybershot cameras could record video, but most were limited to 15-second clips and/or had no audio, to avoid competing with Sony's camcorders.
It depends on your graphics driver. Try watching full-screen, as that usually causes RUclips to use hardware acceleration instead of software rendering.
Yes, I guess 1998 was an awkward time in technological terms. I've been looking at that camcorder model myself, and thinking "too early for compact digital storage of sufficient, practical, capacity. They were forced to use tape. It's like the Sony digital cameras that used mini CDs for storage."
+Stephen Clementson It's great on one level, yet having to design it around that repeatedly-reused and hence wear-and-damage-prone tape as a semi-permanent part (that couldn't be replaced separate from the expensive head assembly) was the horrible result.
NotATube One thing's for sure...I didn't have anything that could shoot video, prior to the advent of solid state memory with a capacity sufficiently large to supplant mechanical devices. And that is in spite of the fact that I was already in my mid twenties when the first ever camcorder was produced. Then unconvinced of its advantages, I'd simply purchased a point-and-shoot camera that could double as a mediocre camcorder. The results were as bizarre as they were unexpected, and resulted in a completely unpredicted, and somewhat unorthodox, use for video.
Stephen Clementson Yeah; my mid-2000s digital camera can "do" video for values of low-res and/or framerate. :-/ Could have got one with better video to be fair, but the higher-up model didn't get as good reviews as a still camera. Camcorders came out when I was about 8 or 9 and I always wanted one growing up. Now that I could get something dirt-cheap that'd smoke those mid-80s camcorders, I'm indifferent. :-/
+NotATube The strange thing is that the camcorder I like the best isn't actually a camcorder. It's a Fujifilm Bridge camera. It is a good physical shape for steady hand-held shots, has an electronic view finder, good zoom, and runs on three different types of AA cell. But it also has disadvantages, such as not having a cooling fan. It can't take HD videos longer than 29 minutes at a time, because the chips will overheat. It also shoots 1080i, rather than 1080p. Fortunately, that is backwards compatible with 1080p, but I have to convert it with Windows Movie Maker. My Canon camcorder has internal cooling, but it suffers from chromatic abberations at high zoom levels and has no viewfinder, just an LCD screen (which is awful in bright daylight). My Panasonic pistol camcorder has a limited battery capacity, and is difficult to hold steady.
Stephen Clementson My Nikon D5100 DSLR has the same issue with overheating limiting HD video times. In bright light it can also produce "stuttery" video, ironically because the shutter speed (for each individual frame) is set too short and thus doesn't give the motion blurring that's- ironically- required to give the impression of smooth movement. (This is normally recommended to be half the frame rate, i.e. for 25fps, shutter speed should be 1/50s, etc.) It'd be okay if it either chose intelligent defaults itself or offered the user proper control over the video shutter speed settings, but while there are tricks to coerce it in the right direction, that's still a half-baked, not entirely reliable solution. Not to mention that 25fps or 30fps, while okay for film, is less satisfactory for everyday video use that would be better with 50 or 60 fps anyway. Apparently some of the later Nikons offer this.
That 5 seconds of audio thing is kinda like Apple's live photo, or whatever the MS version was called. Although even more useless since it's just a still photo.
tbh this sucks and I see why it was a failure, the video quality isn't nearly as good as what Sony's other cameras could do at the time and it was way more expensive, but it's still cool to see the technology
"ruview". Nicely done.
I actually like the ruvi's design. If someone put a backlit LCD, made the video cartridges digital storage (2GB and the like), and made the quality a little better, it would be pretty good. (Of course some of that tech was either impractical or impossible to use for a camcorder yet)
Digital storage? Who the hell wants digital storage?
… and the speakers.
I have one of these, the European model as I'm in the UK.
Bought it in '99 and was really impressed with the video quality for such a small camera. We got it quite cheap because it was on offer, probably because they weren't selling well.
It was a great little camera for holiday videos but its main drawbacks were that LCD and the 30 minute recording limit on the cartridge. My cartridge failed and a replacement would have cost over £60 (about $120 US at the time). I think we only paid £130 for the camera brand new so we ended up getting an 8cm DVD handycam which I also still have and use.
That cartridge looks like a mini IBM hard drive in its form. Kind of funny in my opinion.
Sony and their proprietary formats, i swear. they have a serious affinity for those. the camera is neat, but the expensive tapes remind me of the expensive proprietary memory cards for the PS Vita. just doesn't make sense when people will just go for cheaper media anyway.
I know, look their silly AMTRAC format that went up against mp3....
***** oh yeah, typo. That really held them back for a while in portable audio
***** I never used portable CD players as a teen, I used to stick with cassette Walkmans, as anti shock players were expensive and I had no computer worth beans to make CD-Rs anyway. The idea of taking your original albums out and about filled me with dread. Mixtapes were cheap and so were the players back then..
Bill bill at least their audio isn't proprietary anymore
+lmull3 I think this is slightly missing the point- the Wikipedia article describes the tape/head cartridge as a semi-permanent "service part" that isn't meant to be swapped in and out during normal use. I assume it's intended that you dub the content to another source, so the fact it's proprietary is irrelevant.
On one level, the design is quite clever. On the other hand, video tapes wear and are subject to damage in *normal* use... the fact that the spool of tape here is a semi-permanent built-in part that will be constantly reused and subjected to repeated wear, yet can't be replaced separately from the expensive head assembly is just.... horrible, reminiscent of Apple's non-replaceable battery on the iPods et al.
I'm actually impressed that they could get a Hi8 camcorder and tape mechanism to run with just two AA batteries. Digital cameras of that time usually needed 4 AAs and would crap out after 40 or 50 pix.
I had one of these and it was really awesome. I used it for skydiving video and it had several major advantages, and one or two disadvantages. At the time it was a great idea as a solution to affordable pocket-sized video, and was really easy to mount on a helmet. Remember, film was the mainstay still, and solid state memory was still not useful. It is only with hindsight and things like Go Pros that it seems weird. It was a good attempt at shaping the future. It just happens that the future turned out differently.
Have this same camera, love the thing, so many home videos filmed on it and still need to be transferred. Got to love the Palm camera :)
The video quality on this is great, we had a first gen Mavica in early 1998, the pinnacle of digital camera technology at the time that used a floppy drive for storage. The quality of the shots though were absolutely horrid compared to the images captured off the video on Ruvi. I don't think Sony ever stopped their love affair with proprietary storage media.
Still have my Ruvi great little camera. Enjoyed the review thank you.
And do you still use it? If yes, do you transfer your recordings to digital?
I still have it , too
Video Quality is excellent, Defiantly ahead of it's time . It rivals the quality I get from my Sony DCR-TRV280. Again, Very nice camera/camcorder.
Sony seems to love making impractically small products just for the hell of it. They made a Discman that was just slightly bigger than a CD single, which meant regular sized CDs stuck out of the sides, and I think they also made a Walkman that was smaller than a cassette, and had to be pulled apart for the cassette to fit inside it.
Seems like an interesting concept and seems to work great! Obviously digital flash based memory cameras made this sort of camera obsolete.
Great video!! Keep them coming, Enjoy seeing that old technology.
The Ruvi camcorder is actually mentioned in the Dan Brown book Angels And Demons. I can't remember when the book was written, but I have it on audio CD. I thought the Ruvi camcorders were like the pocket digital video camcorders like the Flip HD camcorders. Interesting product, I do like the fact that it can run on 2 AA batteries.
Has anyone said you sound like Ray Ramano?
WHY does Sony insist on using proprietary stuff so much? Ruvi camcorder, Sony PSP, PlayStation Vita, etc...so many Sony products using proprietary formats that cost alot of money to buy storage (or video cartridge) for that could have simply used "standard" formats to keep costs down. If Ruvi used standard 8mm tapes, it may have done a LITTLE better (but been a bit bigger)....although there was still plenty wrong with it to keep it from being a successful product
DvdXploitr So Sony could charge people more money.
In many ways, Sony was Apple before Apple.
I've always wondered the font used in 8mm/Hi8 for the date, like at 20:10-21:11
update: fontstruct.com/fontstructions/show/1646448/sonycam-original
Super late reply, but I've always used the font "VCR OSD Mono" for that kind of look, pretty sure Hi8 timestamps were that font with a thin black stroke on the outside.
i leave a comment to screenshot this later cause i was also wondering
someone recreated the font used in sony handycams at the time: fontstruct.com/fontstructions/show/1646448/sonycam-original
That's a very interesting camcorder, albeit one with a mixture of nonviable technologies. The cassette is certainly interesting. What a far-fetched idea, to make what's basically the complete tape deck a consumable part.
That zoom looks awesome
Interesting camera, It actually takes pretty darn good videos.
Nice review. I think the resolution on the Ruvi looks better that the camera you were using at the start of the video.
>:o its Ruview >:o
Considering the time when the camera was on sale, the video quality and the camera features aren't that bad! 1998 people still play VHS tapes, so quality of the recorded video was actually comparable to the VHS quality. Nice camera though.
I don't suppose you have any Video 8 camcorders you're looking to part with, right? I found a bunch of unused video 8 cassettes that I would love to experiment with. They are excruciatingly hard to find where I'm from.
Please, where Is located the backup battery to replace It? Many thanks.
Interesting gizmo. ...the noise from the motor on the video would have bugged me :(
I bought this camera as soon as I saw it (Spain), it was the smallest in those times, and used a lot. I still keep it in my parents home and it works. The viewer was very poor because it uses retro illumination so it did not eat much battery on the display.
+fmoros Did the fact that the tape was built-in (and hence constantly reused and subject to wear) cause any problems for you?
hi, well, not only the tape is in the cartridge, I believe that also the machinery (such as reading/recording heads) is inside the cartridge. First thing I did was to order an extra cartridge. That was very handy so I did not have to transfer immediately after the cartridge was full. Also the cartridge suffered half the wearing.
Replying to your initial question, I did not notice any problems due to the reusable nature of the system... but when I said that I used it a lot, I don't mean on a daily basis, I mean that I took several videos and it was my only camera for 2 or 3 years.
regards
fmoros
Thanks for the reply- yes, that was my point. From what I'd read, the head/tape cart wasn't meant to be swapped in and out. It was meant as a "service part", i.e. effectively built-in but still able to be replaced when it did break down.
My thought was that it *would* break down because video tape wears out and gets damaged and this design effectively forces the use of the same single piece of tape over and over again!
I bet I couldn't have got 3 VHS cassettes for £5 from my local Superdrug store if they'd each had a recording head built in!! :-)
It's a clever design in its way, but it also seems horrible to me in its wastefulness...
Picture quality is pretty decent for 1998 camcorder, even though it seems like a VHS footage from cameras dated 2 or 3 years before.
I take it, the "Backlight" button was used to activate a mode for filming dark locations? Oddly enough the cartridge reminds me of some old MFM hard drives I used to have. they were shaped like that, but larger
www.elinetechnology.com/definition/712496-blc-back-light-compensation
thanks for the info, I thought it might have been something like that, you likely described it in the video and I missed it, still a shame, it would have been truly something if it had a backlit display
What camera were you using to film this?
A JVC Everio GZ-MS120.
Love the pun in the title, Kevin. :)
Man, I'd love to see the inside of that video cart. ! :)
www.totalrewind.org/misc/photos/ruvi_int.jpg
Ruveiw by vwestlife coming soon to BBC1
There's a special place in hell reserved for LCDs without screen lighting. Was that a CCD-TRV87 on the desk next to the CDs?
The video was about what I expected, but the audio really wasn't. I was expecting it to be much clearer than what it was.
MrMaguire Yes, that's my TRV87. The Ruvi's audio is comparable to most Video8 or Hi8 camcorders with mono audio. The "Hi-Fi Stereo" models like the TRV87 sounded much better.
Here is a camera I need to find. I have that exact computer I did a video on already. Would be nice to find a period correct camera to go with it. Cool!
30min is kinda less for video recording but doesn't the Ruvi have recording speeds in the ruvi's menu? that way the tape can hold longer footage.
Network Games 1000 Only one speed. It's probably already running at LP speed.
oh ok i get it so it only has one speed on the camera
The camera makes the world look 90's again.
***** So, where'd you get the JVC camera?
Hobert McFarland I made it from two broken ones. I got one JVC with a bad lens and another with a broken LCD, and I put together the good parts of both.
how do you playback videos and photos on the camera screen?
I showed how to do it in the video!
OOOH! Stupid me, I could of just used my ears to listen to what you were saying :)
Strangest camera ever meet. The one that I have found have a blocked cartrige that cause a C32:40 error.
The good part: It seems that the IR blocking filter is missing by strange design.
I did not find the way to setup the date / time. :-( .
Passive LCD screen made by SHARP. In the place of backlight is a piece of rubber :-)
Quality actually looks ok on this for the time note computers did not have massive screens back then like 24 to 27 inch ones.
But in the youtube window it looks OK.
More content like this im so hype on camcorder this days hehe
Wow, that thing has really good quality, especially for the time. I must say that the proprietary stuff though is kind of a turn off to buy it. But I wouldn't have minded having one back in the day. I always love your videos, but especially your camcorder reviews, they're so thorough and easy on the eyes to watch. This *is* a pretty cool little piece of electronics though. Too bad it didn't take off better, but sony is known for having non-compatible proprietary hardware. Nonetheless, totally enjoyed, thank you!!
I've never heard of these before. Seems like a nice item but a bit convoluted in it's design. Still very interesting to watch. Thanks for sharing !
Is hi8 the same as digital 8? If not, are they compatible with eachother?
dalekman tardis Hi8 is analog and Digital8 is, as the name suggests, digital. Most Digital8 camcorders can play Hi8 tapes, but Hi8 camcorders cannot play Digital8 tapes.
Esrin Caad On purpose. :-)
Nice review, is it just me or was there a faint buzzing sound in all of the Ruvi clips?
That's the tape motor.
vwestlife
Is that problem common to most Hi8 camras or is that a flaw of this cammra?
jamie marchant Most tape camcorders, regardless of format, have some audible tape motor noise... they were almost all like that, and people just accepted it.
vwestlife Uh I see.
Anybody knows how many seconds of audio do we get with a still photo?
He says 5 seconds.
That warranty card looks like the same one from my Sony MDR zx110 headphones from 2015
Creepy Bob makes a cameo appearance!
The quality isn't as good as a real Hi-8 camcorder. With that limited feature set, I'm surprised it wasn't marketed as a "My First Sony" kiddie toy. Sony did offer a way to use AA batteries with regular Handycams, I have an InfoLithium L adapter that takes 6 AAs. I'm sure the run time is just as deplorable as with the Ruvi.
Can't find a single model for sale. Must be a very rare camera.
A few days ago, I found a PAL unit at some flea market for 5 bucks. I didn't know if it worked, but it did come with a video cartridge. Unfortunately the film is worn out and you can only watch the video on the LCD. It seems to work though, I just need to find a new cartridge and a PAL to NTSC converter. I do have the AV cable but since it's PAL, it will not display on any US TV. Oddly with PAL Hi8, you get less time for recording than NTSC, which VHS is the opposite. :P
Gruvi!
i still have 4 sony disc mans they all work. one says refurbished on the bottom. never heard of ruvi though. good reason i guess
I found a different camcorder that appears to have came out at around the same time:
Sharp VLE630U 8mm Viewcam Camcorder
It uses 8mm tape and appears to be the same size as the Ruvi.
SCK The Kai-Ken The Sharp Viewcams are much larger. The Ruvi is about the same height as an 8mm tape just by itself, and an inch wider.
I guess the picture I saw made it look smaller than it really was.
I love your car!
Can u buy still
Im here because of Dan Brown's Angels and Demons Novel😁
can you tear down one of those carts? be an interesting experience
Here's a photo of one with a clear cover, so you can see what's inside:
www.totalrewind.org/misc/photos/ruvi_int.jpg
wow, the tape head takes up most of the space.
since head cleaning is not an option, these would have to rely on the Cue/review method of cleaning, lookes like the tape never unloads from the head either
It's almost... almost... acceptable in outdoor lighting, it's a disaster indoors. This just shows what a mess Sony's become. Too many divisions releasing too many products. Did the Cybershot line have video recording back then?
Steven Smyth The older Cybershot cameras could record video, but most were limited to 15-second clips and/or had no audio, to avoid competing with Sony's camcorders.
Ruview
Ruview
Ruview
I'm noticing some tearing in the video. Is this your camera or is that my computer?
It's RUclips's fault. It is impossible to have frame tearing on an analog camcorder.
Have you noticed tearing in youtube on other videos?
It depends on your graphics driver. Try watching full-screen, as that usually causes RUclips to use hardware acceleration instead of software rendering.
I really loved my little Ruvi - went all over with me
love the video
Nice pun.
Cool video
can this take photos?
Yes, onto tape.
Yes, I guess 1998 was an awkward time in technological terms. I've been looking at that camcorder model myself, and thinking "too early for compact digital storage of sufficient, practical, capacity. They were forced to use tape. It's like the Sony digital cameras that used mini CDs for storage."
+Stephen Clementson It's great on one level, yet having to design it around that repeatedly-reused and hence wear-and-damage-prone tape as a semi-permanent part (that couldn't be replaced separate from the expensive head assembly) was the horrible result.
NotATube
One thing's for sure...I didn't have anything that could shoot video, prior to the advent of solid state memory with a capacity sufficiently large to supplant mechanical devices. And that is in spite of the fact that I was already in my mid twenties when the first ever camcorder was produced. Then unconvinced of its advantages, I'd simply purchased a point-and-shoot camera that could double as a mediocre camcorder. The results were as bizarre as they were unexpected, and resulted in a completely unpredicted, and somewhat unorthodox, use for video.
Stephen Clementson
Yeah; my mid-2000s digital camera can "do" video for values of low-res and/or framerate. :-/
Could have got one with better video to be fair, but the higher-up model didn't get as good reviews as a still camera.
Camcorders came out when I was about 8 or 9 and I always wanted one growing up. Now that I could get something dirt-cheap that'd smoke those mid-80s camcorders, I'm indifferent. :-/
+NotATube The strange thing is that the camcorder I like the best isn't actually a camcorder. It's a Fujifilm Bridge camera. It is a good physical shape for steady hand-held shots, has an electronic view finder, good zoom, and runs on three different types of AA cell. But it also has disadvantages, such as not having a cooling fan. It can't take HD videos longer than 29 minutes at a time, because the chips will overheat. It also shoots 1080i, rather than 1080p. Fortunately, that is backwards compatible with 1080p, but I have to convert it with Windows Movie Maker. My Canon camcorder has internal cooling, but it suffers from chromatic abberations at high zoom levels and has no viewfinder, just an LCD screen (which is awful in bright daylight). My Panasonic pistol camcorder has a limited battery capacity, and is difficult to hold steady.
Stephen Clementson
My Nikon D5100 DSLR has the same issue with overheating limiting HD video times.
In bright light it can also produce "stuttery" video, ironically because the shutter speed (for each individual frame) is set too short and thus doesn't give the motion blurring that's- ironically- required to give the impression of smooth movement. (This is normally recommended to be half the frame rate, i.e. for 25fps, shutter speed should be 1/50s, etc.)
It'd be okay if it either chose intelligent defaults itself or offered the user proper control over the video shutter speed settings, but while there are tricks to coerce it in the right direction, that's still a half-baked, not entirely reliable solution.
Not to mention that 25fps or 30fps, while okay for film, is less satisfactory for everyday video use that would be better with 50 or 60 fps anyway. Apparently some of the later Nikons offer this.
Where I can find it?
At the same places where you can find any other used electronics from the 1990s.
VWestlife At the thrift store?
Simon Han at your local dumpster
Sweetness :) QC
That 5 seconds of audio thing is kinda like Apple's live photo, or whatever the MS version was called.
Although even more useless since it's just a still photo.
Is the title a bad pun?
DaPajamas Yes.
Am I the only one that notices that it says "ruview" in the title?
the compaq nerd No.
+vwestlife
Cool
+vwestlife It says "ruview" in the title, is it supposed to do that?
the mre nerd
Yes, it's a pun on the Sony Ruvi name.
vwestlife Ok, thought so but I wasn't sure.
"Ruview"?
It's a pun.
Gruvi :)
That's a punny title!
tbh this sucks and I see why it was a failure, the video quality isn't nearly as good as what Sony's other cameras could do at the time and it was way more expensive, but it's still cool to see the technology
That's the Mozart Sinfonia concertante for Violin & Viola in the background!
you wrote ruview
I know. That was a pun.
the ruvi does not even look like a camcorder it looks like a camra
I have Sony handycam which uses Mini DVD Disc unboxed item
that me
"Ruview" womp womp womp
As cool as it seemed back on the day, I can see why it flopped.
ha