DAVID RUETHER'S PHOTO-VIDEO POSTS
 

From 1/23/2009 Through 8/15/2009, Part 1

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


rte80west@aol.com

--Hi 

I have spent a LOT of time on the internet trying to find answers to my questions and am VERY GLAD I stumbled across your site because it seems like some of the things you have "played around" with are issues 
I currently face. Let me cut to the chase... 

I have owned a Canon XL-1 (3 CCD camera) since around 2000. I have never serviced it. I never had issues with it but recently shot a wedding and I noticed the sharpness seemed a little off. After finishing the editing (and sharpening the images with my editing equipment), I played it back on my crappy Sony 4:3 non hi def TV and it looked fine. Then I played it back on a Samsung HD tv and it was not nearly as good. Colors seemed to run, it was grainy, especially in slo-mos and it just didn't seem that good at all- certainly not what you'd expect from a camera like the XL-1. 

--I was never very fond of the XL-1, especially compared with Sony's VX2000/2100/PD150/PD170 (all are similar to each other, and to a couple of shoulder-mount cameras that used the same "guts"). See: http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/camcorder-comparison.htm, and 
http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/vid_pict_characts.htm, in which the XL-1 image does not stand up well against these cameras, or even the earlier VX1000. The only advantages for the XL-1 were the more "liquid" action of the stabilizer (with the downside of much increased "bouncing ball" effect when stressed) and the better-sounding audio under some conditions. For color depth, sharpness, size, ease of handling, etc., 
the XL-1 was not favored by me... 

So then I got to thinking, well maybe you need to shoot in HD to play stuff on an HDTV. 

--Ta-DAH!!! 8^) Upsampled Mini-DV looks TERRIBLE on HD, unlike upsampled commercial DVDs (which can look great) - and even Mini-DV transferred to DVDs and upsampled doesn't look TOO bad... (I think the softening effect of the MPEG-2 conversion helps to lower the effects of the rigid blowing up of too few pixels, which even with a good SD CRT TV can look bad on contrasty tilting edges...). 

So I played back some old footage of stuff I shot on a Sony digital handheld cam- FAR INFERIOR to the XL-1 and it actually looked better! 
So I guess my main question is why. 

--Was your assumption of "far inferior" based on observed image quality or price/size/features? I suspect the latter (see: http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/camcorder--comparison.htm). Even the lowliest of these could produce quite pleasant images, with the differences mostly in color depth, ultimate sharpness, and low-light 
reach (for the last, see: http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/camcorder--comparison.htm, and even here, the 
1-chippers weren't terrible - but the VX2000/VX2100 still stands alone for low light ability). 

Canon claims service isnt needed unless your camera is broken, although I still say it makes sense to me that yearly or every few years service should be needed. 

--Canon service is, well, sometimes, er, ah...;-) But Sony's is expensive on these camcorders. But, I think they are right abou t servicing. If it ain't broke, don't fix it. Use a GOOD cleaning tape BRIEFLY before every important job (IN VCR MODE, play it 5 seconds only, wait 30 seconds, then 5 seconds only again if there were no obvious problems - and to avoid those, use only one brand and type of tape EVER! Get a good strong hand blower [no brush, and not "canned air"] and blow out the interior with the camera upside down before using a cleaning tape. Those should suffice...). BTW, I had a service contract on my VX2000s with GE, and their work and yearly cleanings were SUPERB (they even removed the minor marks in the rubber parts - replaced?), and it turned out to be a good deal at $180 for three years (the one minor repair would have cost over $300 from Sony!). 

Why on earth the cheaper camera yielded better footage on the HDTV blows my mind. No idea on that one. 

--See above, but there is more to it than price, how big the camera is, number of chips, name on the front, etc. The quality of the design counts most of all, and I never saw a Canon Mini-DV camcorder that I preferred to almost any Sony. This has changed with HDV, and Canon now generally makes the best image-makers out there, except for the $3200 Panasonic AVCHD (but that is a format that is generally to be avoided, though...) and the Sony $3400 HDV camcorders. 

And I read in one of your writings that a 1 chip Can on HD camera may look better than a 3 chip non HD camera on HDTV. OK, why? 

--Not "may", but WILL! Mini-DV always suffered from low pixel count aliasing in the images, but low sharpness CRT displays and/or low sharpness camcorders could mostly conceal it. With a 1920x1080 pixel image instead of a 720x480 pixel image, the aliasing is just about invisible (the image is smooth, even with motion), and with a sharp camera lens and LCD/plasma display, the results can be amazing. The three chip advantages in low light range and in recordable tonal range still hold, though. 

I mean you pay for the 3 chips, if that doesn't produce a better picture than what on earth are you paying for? 

--Both the format (Mini-DV) and the camera design quality are also limiters... 

I, like you have a lot of footage on miniDV tapes (shot on my XL-1) and I'd like to "stay modern" and want to ensure my work will project well on an HDTV. 

--I tried some experiments with this, at: http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/MiniDV-to-HDV.htm, with little success, unfortunately. 

Should my XL-1 footage look better on a HDTV and does it seem like there are just issues with the camera? 

--Even the raw VX2000 footage looks terrible on my upsampling 1080p TV... 

Would you recommend buying a 1 chip HD cam over a20supposedly superior 3 chip camera like the XL-1? 

--In bright light, the results (with careful setting of the HV30's picture controls, and with carefull attending to the exposure as seen in the eyepiece viewfinder, modified manually as needed - see: 
http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/Canon_HV20-HV30.htm), the results WILL be like "night and day" different, with no reasonable comparison between the two at all possible. BUT! I would never choose to use the HV30 for weddings or event work due to the poor low light range (good only to medium bright room light, below which things get suddenly very nasty). For that, there is a Sony 1000 (model?) $3200 HDV camcorder (rather heavy, though) that can get within a half stop of the range of the VX2000, and the Panasonic 150 (model?) $3400 AVCHD camcorder (much lighter, but not smaller) that is worth looking at (it uses memory cards for recording video) **IF** you can deal with the LARGE difficulties of editing, outputting, and writing to disk the 24 Mbps AVCHD files (NOT easy - this process is still very early in its development!). What I do is shoot and edit HDV (easy and good, using Sony Vegas Pro 8 or the far cheaper Platinum 9), then for handing out disks, I convert the edited files to either SD DVDs (surprisingly good) or I convert the files to 16 Mbps AVCHD in Vegas (it takes a long time...) and author red-laser (cheap) DVDs in HD using a (cheap) standard DVD writer with Ulead's (cheap) VideoStudio 11+ which will play in full HD in recent Panasonic and Sony Blu-ray players (notice that "cheap" theme - I don't like paying $12/disk for Blu-ray, even though we already had a Blu-ray writer...;-). 

Any input or advice you could give would be greatly appreciated. I have shot weddings and the like for years but have an intolerance for the tech side of stuff sometimes and want to make sure I'm up to speed. 

--I would recommend tape HDV format for its practicality (even though it risks dropouts, but usually cutting out the one bad frame takes care of the resulting 1/2 second pause on playback). It is a fully developed rigid system, unlike AVCHD, and less taxing on gear resources - but avoid any version of Premiere for editing it (see: http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/hdv-editing.htm for why). 

Again, any time you could give me really is a greatly appreciated. 

Best, 
John 

--I trust this helps. 
--DR 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


Hi again. Thanks so much for taking the time to respond. Your input is greatly appreciated. My head is about to explode from all this tech talk. I have a few more questions if you have the time. Forgive me if they are somewhat redundant.

--They are, but here goes anyway...;-)

Can a std def camera using mini-DV tapes w/ footage then transferred to DVD yield a picture quality that looks as good on an HD TV as it does on a std def TV? 

--Yes.

If not, is there software to "treat" the footage to make it look better on an HDTV? 

--No. See my article on an attempt to do that (with upsampling SD Mini-DV to HD).

Is there no way to make standard def footage transferred to DVD look acceptable on an HDTV? 

--As I pointed out before, SD Mini-DV taken to DVD often looks a little better than Mini-DV shown directly (maybe because the image is softened slightly, enough to reduce aliasing - and maybe that is why the XL-1 is a bit soft in the first place...). HD AVCHD files can look much better, though, on standard SD DVDs.

Does standard def footage played on a miniDV and projected on a HDTV look worse than if that same footage is first transferred to a DVD before being played on an HDTV? 

--Yes.

And if transferring to DVD first makes a difference must it be a HD DVD writer and/or player?

--No. This didn't appear to offer any advantage (see my article on SD to HD conversions...).

Similarly,20can a HD camera using mini-DV tapes w/ footage then transferred to DVD yield a picture quality that looks as good on a std def TV as it does on a HD TV?

--Yes, if shot in HD. The results are good, but not HD of course.

Your prior response seemed to indicate the PRIMARY advantage of a std def camcorder (even a 3 chip one) over a 1 chip HD camera is PRIMARILY low light shooting. Is that correct? 

--Yes, and no. A ***GOOD*** 3-chip camera will do better in low light (and with tonal range) than a 1-chip camera within either type (SD or HD), but the SD camera will always produce inferior footage unless the HD camera's low-light range is exceeded). As with SD, there are good cameras and not so good ones, 3-chip or 1-chip, in HD...

And if it IS correct then a 3 chip HD vcam is the best way to go, but are there any tech issues with that as far as recording HD footage on miniDV, transferring to DVD, then playing on non HD TVs?

--No. See above (and not all 3-chip cameras are good, and not all software does a good job of making the file conversions).

You indicated a preference for Sonys - you listed a few models but do you think the SONY 1000 is the best offering in the $3k range? 

--I don't know. Some people like the Canon, some the very recent Sony, many the recent Panasonic - but the last is AVCHD, which I wouldn't touch with a very long pole...;-)

And it's HD with 3 chips? Performance/features in your opinion exceeds or at least equals the XL-1 (discounting the obvious HD advantage). 

--The new cameras have more picture controls. But, good HD is such a BIG improvement (here HTML would be useful for making that 36 pt. blinking red...! ;-) over SD that even the very limited HV20/30 1-chip Canon looks better than ANYTHING SD (assuming enough light to shoot with).

Finally, I came across this posting and it mirrors a lot of my questions and concerns if I start to travel down the HD footage path. Just=2 0wanted to get your thoughts on the excerpt below:

“I have a Sony Hi-Def camcorder (which writes to miniDV tape) which I always use on the Hi-Def setting (1080i). When I transfer the video to a computer (via firewire and a commercial software program) and then burn to a DVD (which is then played on a standard up-convert DVD player), the resulting video image is 
less than satisfactory, regardless of whether I play the DVD on my Samsung Hi-Def (1080p) TV or my 
standard-definition TV. 

--It will never look better than somewhat soft on an HD TV - BUT, commercial movie DVDs, being from higher-quality sources (with better processing) can look very good upsampled (near-HD on my gear - enough that Blu-ray isn't very interesting to me...).

(The DVD also looks crumby on every other DVD player I have tried it on, with both HDTVs and standard-def TVs.) 

--I must wonder about this, and about how it's being processed...

My assumption is that to get the desired result with a DVD, I would have to have (1) a Hi-Def DVD burner and (2) a Hi-Def DVD player (neither of which I have or am willing to buy right now). 

--Fully-HD disks can be authored on cheap standard DVD blanks using standard red-laser writers using HDV files converted **by good processing at a high enough data rate** (16 Mbps CBR seems to work fine in Sony Vegas). These can be played on recent Panasonic and Sony Blu-ray players (but not all players will play them...).

Even that would not be a perfect option because I wouldn't be able to share such high-quality DVDs with my children or other relatives unless they also had Hi-Def DVD players. 

--As pointed out earlier, HD files converted to MPEG-2 for writing to SD DVDs can look surprisingly good (but not HD...).

To finish this particular line of discussion, if I record in Hi-Def mode (which I always do, as above noted), I've not been able to find a way to make the camcorder output a standard-definition signal when I transfer the video to my computer. 

--You don't want to - it looks TERRIBLE!!!!!!! 

(One of my daughters has a standard-video Sony digital camcorder which yields very good DVDs when recorded and burned through my computer.) 

--Quite possibly. See above...

Consequently, I suspect that I could get a more satisfactory image if I simply record in standard-def mode on my camcorder, but I've never experimented with that. 

--No. See above.

Whenever I am shooting what at the time seems like important footage (and all of it seems important), I hate to not record in hi-def mode, thinking that I'll regret it in the future (and so will my children and grandchildren). If anyone has a solution for my own video recording dilemma (short of buying new HD burning and playing equipment), I'd love to hear it.”

--See above....

Thank you once again for trying to enlighten someone who is very confused and frustrated by all of this.

Best, 
John 

--DR

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"Richard Crowley" <rcrowley@xp7rt.net> wrote in message news:6u9nrdFecacjU1@mid.individual.net...
> "David Ruether" wrote...
>> "Richard Crowley" wrote ...

>>> People read through science-fiction books and write patent
>>> applications for things nobody knows how to do with current
>>> technology. They probably have 10 patent applications for
>>> mollecular transporters (the fictional teleportation device from
>>> Star Trek).

>> There is also the reverse effect, as in, a patent for a good new
>> idea can be stolen by using the services of a skilled lawyer.

> Common sense has been eliminated from governmental policy.

Sense may be coming back - it appears to me that just about 
every one of Obama's selections for his cabinet and other 
important posts has been brilliant. These are people who are 
intelligent (wow, what a change!), interested more in the national 
wellbeing than in improving their own economic and/or power 
positions (wow, what a change!!), and who actually may have 
some chance of figuring out ways for getting us out of this mess 
(wow, what a change!!!) if they are not hampered too much in 
their efforts by the actions of the leftover 'Bublicans and other 
right wing obstructionists - the ones who got us into this mess in 
the first place with their "less government regulation" philosophy.

> But our new president declares that "government is the solution". 

Perhaps "necessarily more of a solution, given the enormous 
extent of our current situation" would be more accurate... (think, 
"Roosevelt vs. Hoover" - we could still be in the Great Depression, 
or at least its remnants, if drastic and wide spread action had not 
been taken by Roosevelt to move us toward recovery). Government 
is not the enemy, but poor government is - and we are now suffering 
the consequences of giving inadequate attention to economic issues, 
food safety, education, medical care, infrastructure maintenance, 
environmental protection, etc., while in the meantime, vast amounts 
of our resources have been wasted (and continue to be wasted) 
on a foolish war, insufficient resources are available for a far more 
important war, we look like the ineffectual fools we are when it 
comes to diplomacy and following treaties that we signed - and 
we have not even been following our own constitution, a disastrous 
practice for a constitutional democracy to engage in. This last 
administration (although one espousing "less government", or maybe 
because of that), has been a disaster for our country and the world. 
How's that for a "common sense" approach to government? (But, 
I think I prefer intelligence and careful consideration of issues and 
ideas and the thoughtful implementation of policies to "common 
sense" any day...;-)
--DR

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"Richard Crowley" <rcrowley@xp7rt.net> wrote in message news:6uccodFeniu8U1@mid.individual.net...
> "RF"wrote...
>> Richard Crowley wrote:
>>> "David Ruether" wrote...

>>>> Sense may be coming back - it appears to me that just about
>>>> every one of Obama's selections for his cabinet and other
>>>> important posts has been brilliant.

>>> We will have to leave that at violent disagreement. Before this
>>> is all over the USA will be a failing socialist bannana republic.

>> I think many people would prefer a socialist banana republic to the mess 
>> we now have.

> Only the people who have never lived in a real socialist
> bannana republic. My friends who escaped from behind
> the Iron Curtain to come to the US are appalled at the
> new regime. 

If this is true, I think they have EXTREMELY little ability to 
discern the differences between very oppressive regimes and 
the enlightened and intelligent government we appear to have 
now. While being a very noticeable improvement from the 
previous 8 years we have had in terms of associated personnel 
and policies, even the last administration was, of course, FAR 
better than what your friends left. But, if they cannot distinguish 
subtleties, let alone gross differences in comparisons, their 
reasoning and observational abilities must be seriously 
questioned...
--DR

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"David McCall" <mccallmail@verizon.net> wrote in message news:zUigl.623$N5.513@nwrddc01.gnilink.net...

> This is not a political forum.
> If it were I'd be arguing with you.
>
> David

8^)
--DR 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"Ken Maltby" <kmaltby@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message news:z42dnTBiYaLUUhzUnZ2dnUVZ_sudnZ2d@giganews.com... 
> "David McCall" <mccallmail@verizon.net> wrote in message 
> news:zUigl.623$N5.513@nwrddc01.gnilink.net...

>> This is not a political forum.
>> If it were I'd be arguing with you.
>>
>> David

> As would I.

> Luck;
> Ken 

Thanks. It amazes me sometimes how people who can be 
so knowledgeable and skillful in some fields can at the same 
time be such dunderheads in others...;-) I guess it is 
attributable to being human...;-)
--DR

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"Richard Crowley" <rcrowley@xp7rt.net> wrote in message news:6ueaf6Ff059pU1@mid.individual.net...
> "David Ruether" wrote ...

>> Thanks. It amazes me sometimes how people who can be
>> so knowledgeable and skillful in some fields can at the same
>> time be such dunderheads in others...;-) I guess it is
>> attributable to being human...;-)

> You do realize that your statement is completely symmetrical. 

Natch! ;-) You did note the ";-)" marks, didn't you? ;-) But 
which way 'round the reader wants to take its meaning is up to 
the reader...;-) In this instance, I know which way I take it...! ;-)
--DR


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"Alan Smithee" <me@privacy.net> wrote in message news:gt-dnUxzMYTWZBzUnZ2dneKdnZydnZ2d@pipex.net...

>I want to save some original Mini DV video footage to hard drive. What's 
> the best format for the highest quality and future compatibility?

> I am thinking of saving them as DV AVI's at the moment. 

Save both the original tapes (stored carefully) and the files as 
DV-AVI on hard drive(s), which is the same as what is on 
the tape.
--DR

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"Luis Ortega" <lortega@ntlworld.com> wrote in message news:KThhl.5033$nx.2572@newsfe10.ams2...

> Thanks, Smarty.
> That looks like an excellentt option, and not much more expensive than 
> the original TRV 900 price point.

While that camera (the Panasonic AG-HMC150) is a superb camcorder 
by all accounts, it is not without some drawbacks (which "Smarty" will 
be annoyed by my pointing out...;-). It is no where near the price range 
of the TRV-900 (it is $3200-3400 in the US compared with the $1500 
or so of the TRV-900 when current, but its MUCH greater capabilities 
*are* worth the difference in price, if you can afford it). More important 
to some of us are the difficulties with editing AVCHD (especially the 
higher data rate of 24 Mbps that camcorder is capable of), the exporting 
of files with that data rate retained, the authoring of disks that can keep the 
quality of that data rate, use full frame rate instead of being limited to 24p, 
and which can be played on common players. No small limitations at this 
point unless you are willing to jump through some rather high "hoops". 
(Here is where "Smarty" is ***really*** going to respond with a 
"vengeance"...! ;-). HDV (on tape) does risk occasional dropouts, but 
editing it is considerably easier - as are archiving edits and authoring disks 
in a standard format that is read by all Blu-ray players (or by some 
players if you choose at the tail end to convert files to AVCHD and author 
red-laser disks on cheap standard DVD blanks using standard writers).
I've owned MANY TRV-900s and several of the superior VX2000s, 
and even the cheap Canon HV20/30 is superior to those for image 
quality in every respect but one: low light range - and it has many picture 
adjustment controls (more than you mention...). You can find my review 
of this remarkable little and cheap camcorder at: 
www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/Canon_HV20-HV30.htm. BTW, for 
a comparison of the image quality of the more common (and *somewhat*
easier to handle) AVCHD data rate of 17 Mbps in the Canon HG-10 
with that of the HDV HV30 (which uses the same lens and sensor, so 
only the format abilities are being compared), go here:
www.camcorderinfo.com/content/Canon-HG10-Camcorder-Review-33146/Performance.htm#
(you need to click above to get rid of the annoying advertisement...).
This comparison shows problems with 17 Mbps AVCHD compared 
with 25 Mbps HDV even with the (potentially) superior compression of 
AVCHD (but AVCHD "drags along" all of its other negatives, although 
AVCHD does offer speedy and easy file transfers between the camcorder 
and computer - but then the troubles begin...;-). There are also fancier 
HDV camcorders several other makers that are more "pro" than the HV30 
and which offer far greater low light range. OK, I must now quickly 
duck to avoid being too severely injured by "Smarty's" soon to be thrown 
brickbats...! 8^)
--DR

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"Luis Ortega" <lortega@ntlworld.com> wrote in message news:w27hl.8367$v6.4090@newsfe25.ams2...

>I have a Sony TRV 900 camcorder that is about 10 years old now and still 
> working fine, but it won't last forever and I am looking for a possible 
> replacement.

> The TRV 900 was a great camcorder with 3 ccds, manual exposure and audio 
> levels, and both analogue and DV in/out, and I am looking for something 
> with similar features.

> The new crop of camcorders today seem much more limited in terms of full 
> manual controls unless you are willing to spend several thousand pounds.

Some relatively cheap small HD camcorders, especially the Canon HV30, 
offer FAR superior picture to the TRV-900 and essentially all of the 
manual controls (plus more) of the TRV-900, and the HV30 is priced 
about half what the TRV-900 was when new. For my review of this 
camcorder, see: www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/Canon_HV20-HV30.htm.

> I think that the AVCHD and memory card recording format sounds like the 
> best choice for the next generation of camcorders, based on what I read, 
> so I am looking for something that uses that. I don't think that hard 
> drive camcorders are robust enough and the mini dv tape ones appear to 
> be using aging technology.

For a comparison of the picture quality of HDV and the most common 
AVCHD data rate of 17 Mbps (using camcorders with the same lenses 
and sensors), go here: 
www.camcorderinfo.com/content/Canon-HG10-Camcorder-Review-33146/Performance.htm#
(you need to click above to get rid of the annoying advertisement...).
This comparison shows problems with 17 Mbps AVCHD compared 
with 25 Mbps HDV even with the (potentially) superior compression of 
AVCHD (but AVCHD "drags along" all of its other negatives of the 
format, such as the greater challenges editing and archiving it and the even 
greater challenges dealing with the higher quality 24 Mbps version of 
AVCHD, although it does offer speedy and easy file transfers between 
the camcorder and computer - but then the troubles begin...;-( I would 
not assume that tape is dead (or even dying), at least until we all have 5 
Ghz 8-core editing machines with 64 or 128 bit software (that all runs 
properly...;-) and players have advanced somewhat to natively include 
some unusual new formats...

> Can anyone please suggest some camcorders around the 1500 pound price 
> point that might be comparable in manual control features to my great 
> TRV 900 and use the memory card/AVCHD format?
> Obviously, image and sound quality are critical, too, but I definitely 
> need good manual controls for exposure and audio levels.

> Thanks a lot for any advice.

For more expensive (and larger and complex) camcorders, look 
especially at the $3200 or so entries by Panasonic (AVCHD - so, 
umm, watch out!), Canon, and Sony (the new Sony is particularly good 
in low light...). The last two are HDV, but personally, I wouldn't touch 
AVCHD (yet) "with a 10' pole". OK, if "Smarty" is reading this, I must 
now quickly duck to avoid being too severely injured by his soon to be 
thrown brickbats...! 8^)
--DR

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"Luis Ortega" <lortega@ntlworld.com> wrote in message news:iwlhl.7651$Nn6.4818@newsfe03.ams2...

> Thanks for your input.
> Are you suggesting that the AVCHD format is not the best to go for at 
> this time?

That had been my impression due to various difficulties with it...

> I am open to suggestions here. I reasoned that mini dv is on its way out 
> and that hard drive camcorders are too delicate, so I was focusing on 
> the flash memory camcorders as the best option, but I am not very well 
> versed on the latest recording formats.

AVCHD does look attractive for shooting and transferring convenience, 
but it can apparently come up short in the image quality area compared 
with HDV unless working with it in 24 Mbps form, which is usually quite 
difficult (or even impossible with most hardware and software). 

> I use an 8 core Mac Pro with fast sata video drives and 10 gb ram for 
> video editing. Would that be good enough to work with the AVCHD format? 

Likely, and see "MK's" quote from someone who apparently uses sufficiently 
able hardware and software to edit AVCHD, "I now use FCP which 
converts the AVCHD into Apple ProRes in faster than real time at import. 
I can then edit without all the problems discussed in this thread, and others, 
about transcoding because it has already happened. Of course there is a 
downside as the files grow by a factor of around 10X but the results are 
definitely worth it." I do wonder what one then does with the resulting 
video after editing it - and why one bothers to spend all that money and 
effort when a much simpler/cheaper approach is available using another 
format, especially since it gives comparable quality at output...
--DR

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"Smarty" <nobody@nobody.com> wrote in message news:Kethl.531$N02.450@nwrddc02.gnilink.net...

[...]
> At the exchange rate of pounds for dollars being quoted this minute, the 
> budget Luis asked for translates to about $2200. While it is true that the 
> Panasonic is being sold in the U.S. starting at about $500 more, 

From reputable dealers, at "real" prices that one can actually obtain the 
camera at??? Not from "bait-'n'-switch" dealers, or in overpriced 
"package" deals? B&H *is* a reputable dealer, with good prices, and 
here is their price on the Panasonic 150 AVCHD camcorder --
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?ci=0&shs=panasonic+ag-hmc150&sb=ps&pn=1&sq=desc&InitialSearch=yes&O=jsp%2Fproductlist.jsp&A=search&Q=*&bhs=t&Go.x=16&Go.y=15

> I used my 
> TRV900 purchase price 10 years ago as a frame of reference (as I believe 
> Luis also did in citing his 10 year old TRV900) and this was literally above 
> $2200 in 1997 when I purchased mine. In fact, I sold mine used for just 
> slightly under $2000...........

I don't recall the TRV-900 EVER selling for anything near this price 
(that is closer to the price of the much more able VX2000). I bought 
my last new TRV-900 for $1500 from B&H, and I've owned 6 or 7 
(the VX2000 cost $2200 to $2500 when I bought them new, also 
from B&H...). Most of my TRV-900s sold for under $1000, most in 
very nice (LN) condition, when I parted with them long ago - but all this 
is really irrelevant...

> Thus I still suggest that the Panasonic is roughly equivalent in today's 
> terms to a TRV900 in the time frame when Luis and I bought 
> ours..............

Hmmm...;-)

> If indeed the Panasonic is beyond the budget Luis wishes to establish, I 
> apologize for overshooting by 10 or 20%......

As I pointed out, though, its capabilities are well worth the price difference, 
and it appears from what "LO" describes as his editing gear that he has 
money to burn, so that camera is likely not beyond his reach if he chooses 
the AVCHD route (or one of the excellent top prosumer HDV models 
instead).

> Now, as regards HDV versus AVCHD....

> David, a hammer if ever there was one, sees the world as being absolutely 
> full on nails.

> If you ask him which screwdriver to purchase, he will always insist that a 
> hammer is better, and will, effectively drive screws with his hammer since, 
> after all, the fastest way to get a screw in place is to whack it with a 
> hammer.........

> Perhaps a lousy metaphor, 

If ever there was one...! 8^)

> but my point is that David, who has never owned or 
> used an AVCHD camcorder or any software with AVCHD, 

I *have* experimented with AVCHD, using two editors that handle 
it that I own, and I have authored AVCHD disks...

> ALWAYS provides the 
> same, stock answer, which is to forget AVCHD and instead get an HDV 
> camcorder. 

I offer reasons why, at this point in time, there are REAL reasons 
for the *current* superiority of HDV for most people, but you 
insist on supporting a format that continues to have real limitations 
(this will likely change in the future, but why suffer these now when 
it is not necessary?). I also point out where AVCHD can be useful 
now, in the making of high quality cheap red-laser disks with standard 
DVD writers from edited HDV videos that can be used with many 
Blu-ray players.

> I have asked him more than once to get some AVCHD experience 
> personally before making this same HDV proclamation over and over again each 
> time this issue arises.

I have. 

> Luis, I am here to tell you that I own the very same camera David raves 
> about, the Canon HV20, and have owned a total of 4 other HDV camcorders 
> including the 3CCD Sony FX-1 (for $3500), and I now exclusively shoot and 
> use AVCHD format. My HV20 and other HDV stuff no longer get used. I dumped 
> my other HDV camcorders literally years ago.

That is your choice, and you apparently have the resources to handle 
the difficult 24 Mbps AVCHD (as it appears "LO" also does), but it 
still is a mystery to me if you can output at that full data rate with full 
normal frame rate (not 24 fps...) and write disks without significant 
loses and at a full frame rate that are readable on most Blu-ray players 
(without playing "tricks" that make for incompatibilities). Tell me you can, 
please...;-)

> There are, to be sure, computer resource issues for AVCHD, but my latest 8 
> core 3.0 GHz MacPro and Final Cut Pro did handle the format without 
> complaint as did iMovie 08. I only had 4 GB of RAM. It would not be my first 
> choice for authoring AVCHD / BluRay disks, although the very recently 
> released Toast 10 Platinum (released on January 4, 2009) does handle these 
> tasks for the princely sum of around $80. I have not used it personally so I 
> can't offer an opinion.

> David probably can tell you all about it.

8^) Yuh...

> Smarty

Look, I don't care what anyone wants to use, but it can be useful to 
point out alternatives when someone asks a question and they appear 
to be about to "go off the deep end" without knowing pitfalls they will 
likely run across in the process. So, you are saying we should all stand 
around and provide no warnings of likely difficulties or tell about any 
advantages provided by alternate solutions? Or should we only wait 
(and wait, and wait...) for you to do that...? But, you have already 
decided on the answers (for you...), but they are ones that may not be 
practical or ideal for most others - and you do not seem very happy 
when others offer alternative comments to yours...
--DR

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"Smarty" <nobody@nobody.com> wrote in message news:EwFhl.781$eK2.740@nwrddc01.gnilink.net...
> "David Ruether" <d_ruether@thotmail.com> wrote in message 
> news:gm7406$3so$1@ruby.cit.cornell.edu...

[...]
>> Look, I don't care what anyone wants to use,
[...]

> Obviously!

If you are going to take something so far out of context as 
this, you'd better add a big, hefty "smiley" to your comment 
to indicate that you're doing it facetiously. To have any other 
intent is wasting people's time - and I will not argue with you 
just for the sake of arguing. You have much to offer here about 
video derived from your obviously extensive experience, so why 
weaken your offerings by including petty personal comments? 
And, others here, even if with less experience than you, also 
have things to offer that may be of value to others. You just 
may want to learn to respect that...
--DR

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"Smarty" <nobody@nobody.com> wrote in message news:HfOhl.757$N02.60@nwrddc02.gnilink.net...
> "David Ruether" <d_ruether@thotmail.com> wrote in message 
> news:gm7gcu$6c$1@ruby.cit.cornell.edu...
>> "Smarty" <nobody@nobody.com> wrote in message 
>> news:EwFhl.781$eK2.740@nwrddc01.gnilink.net...
>>> "David Ruether" <d_ruether@thotmail.com> wrote in message 
>>> news:gm7406$3so$1@ruby.cit.cornell.edu...

>> [...]
>>>> Look, I don't care what anyone wants to use,
>> [...]

>>> Obviously!

>> If you are going to take something so far out of context as
>> this, you'd better add a big, hefty "smiley" to your comment
>> to indicate that you're doing it facetiously. To have any other
>> intent is wasting people's time - and I will not argue with you
>> just for the sake of arguing. You have much to offer here about
>> video derived from your obviously extensive experience, so why
>> weaken your offerings by including petty personal comments?
>> And, others here, even if with less experience than you, also
>> have things to offer that may be of value to others. You just
>> may want to learn to respect that...
>> --DR

> David,

> For the final time (I promise):

Ah, but you have promised this before....! 8^)

> People come here with specific questions and you ignore their question and 
> provide an answer which fulfills your need to re-direct them, often on a 
> wild digression.

Hmmm. To give an illustration, suppose that someone comes 
here and asks, "Can I get great video footage of my cat by aiming 
my very fancy garbage can directly at it and rapidly drawing 
successive images of it in the inside using my finger in the glop 
that I find there, and then transfer them by garden hose to the 
inside of my old XT computer, and use Final Cut Pro to make 
Blu-ray disks of the resulting edit?" 8^) So, you would have me 
directly answer every part of this without considering that there 
may be better alternatives to consider along the way? 8^) 
(Except maybe AVCHD, of course...8^) I think that is what 
you are telling me to do (nay, *insisting* that I do - although 
it is not your place to do that...). I will post as I wish, and you 
may post as you wish - but you MAY NOT tell me how or 
what to post! You may, of course, post material that does not 
agree with mine - but to insist on a certain posting approach 
(yours...) for anyone here is unacceptable.

> In the prior case, the specific question very explicitly posed a question 
> regarding the use of Premiere Pro with AVCHD.

> In the present case, the specific question very explicitly states "Can 
> anyone please suggest some camcorders around the 1500 pound price point that 
> might be comparable in manual control features to my great TRV 900 and use 
> the memory card/AVCHD format?" and precedes this by very explicitly stating 
> "I think that the AVCHD and memory card recording format sounds like the
> best choice for the next generation of camcorders, based on what I read, so 
> I am looking for something that uses that."

> Either you cannot read, have no respect for others, or are so blatantly, 
> stubbornly convinced of your HDV solution for everybody that you, once 
> again, entirely ignore the original question.
[Much further "grumpy" response deleted...]
> Smarty

See above. If it is rather common knowledge that the 24 Mbps 
AVCHD format still has issues, and since a MUCH superior 
format in terms of ease of working with it exists, why would 
you think it not appropriate to point this out??? You seem to 
be the one with "a single solution", even though it has proven 
inferior to HDV at lower data rates (and is also harder to edit 
even then than HDV), and it presents some high hurdles for 
most of us to edit at data rates that make it comparable to HDV 
quality. I do read - and I also consider options beyond the 
writer's exact request that he may not have considered. I think 
it appropriate to think about, and explore, extensions from the 
original posts - especially with few indications of his knowledge 
and of his gear/software often being given in early-on posts in 
a thread. I, too, think we have "killed" this topic, and enough 
has been written on it before repetition becomes too severe...;-)
(But, "Smarty" *will* respond anyway...8^)
--DR

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"Smarty" <nobody@nobody.com> wrote in message news:ByDhl.739$eK2.725@nwrddc01.gnilink.net...
> "Luis Ortega" <lortega@ntlworld.com> wrote in message 
> news:Iyrhl.16401$E93.14627@newsfe11.ams2...
>> David Ruether wrote:

>>> AVCHD does look attractive for shooting and transfering convenience,
>>> but it can apparently come up short in the image quality area compared
>>> with HDV unless working with it in 24 Mbps form, which is usually quite
>>> difficult (or even impossible with most software).

>> Thanks, I wasn't aware that it compared worse than HDV in terms of image 
>> quality. I will have to look into these formats more closely.
>> I assume that HDV camcorders also come in different media formats, such as 
>> flash memory, hard drive, mini dv tape?
>> I still like the idea of flash memory cards as the media for storing 
>> footage since it sounds more robust than hard drives and uses fewer 
>> operating parts than tape camcorders.

> Luis,

> Here is some raw footage if you want to experiment with 24 Mbit/sec pro 
> Panasonic AVCHD from the HMC150:

> http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/panasonic-avccam-camcorders/142780-hmc150-footage-available-download.html

> Smarty 

I just downloaded all the files at this site (whew, is that server 
S - L - O - W ! ! !). How do you know that these files were 
shot at 24 Mbps? (Most don't look astoundingly sharp...), 
but if they are at 24 Mbps, they play just fine on my computer, 
and editing with these files should be easy if this represents 
what 24 Mbps is like without using proxy files (which would 
be too unsharp for my liking). If these files are at the higher 
data rate - and if Blu-ray disks, or HD files of edited video, 
or card transport and playback from the camera are OK, 
then AVCHD 24 Mbps may be quite practical. BUT, I 
have been unable so far to figure out a way to export AVCHD 
files with Sony Vegas Pro 8 with 24 Mbps data rate. Without 
that, nothing (for me...). The clips do show that the low light 
range of the Panasonic 150 is quite good, but the test clips 
for 24p and 30p compared with 60i do make me wonder,
once again, what the appeal of jittery slow frame rate "p"
mode video is...
--DR


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"Luis Ortega" <lortega@ntlworld.com> wrote in message news:Iyrhl.16401$E93.14627@newsfe11.ams2...
> David Ruether wrote:

>> AVCHD does look attractive for shooting and transfering convenience,
>> but it can apparently come up short in the image quality area compared
>> with HDV unless working with it in 24 Mbps form, which is usually quite
>> difficult (or even impossible with most software).

> Thanks, I wasn't aware that it compared worse than HDV in terms of image 
> quality. I will have to look into these formats more closely.
> I assume that HDV camcorders also come in different media formats, such 
> as flash memory, hard drive, mini dv tape?

No. It is a rigidly-specified (an advantage) tape-based system only.

> I still like the idea of flash memory cards as the media for storing 
> footage since it sounds more robust than hard drives and uses fewer 
> operating parts than tape camcorders.

These may be advantages during shooting (but flash cards are not 
totally reliable, either). In practice, there may be little difference, 
except that tape offers good long term storage ***IF*** stored 
properly (with multiple copies), and hard drives can also be good 
***IF*** the material is on multiple drives and the drives are run 
regularly. DVDs and flash memory may be less reliable for long term 
storage (although some claim good results for Blu-ray - but few do 
for standard DVDs...).
--DR

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

<mkujbida@gmail.com> wrote in message news:d9bc2399-900c-4a42-ba04-6a8b6d5783bd@r38g2000vbi.googlegroups.com...
> On Feb 1, 6:11 pm, "David Ruether" <d_ruet...@thotmail.com> wrote:

> > snip <
>> But, I do wonder what one does with the resulting
>> video after editing it - and why one bothers to spend all that money and
>> effort when a much simpler/cheaper approach is available using another
>> format, especially since it gives comparable quality at output...
>> --DR

> The thread I referred to on the Sony Vegas forum is titled "Would you
> use AVCHD PROFESSIONALLY?" and can be found at http://tinyurl.com/afek36
> I suggest anyone thinking about this particular format read it to find
> out the yeas and nays for themselves.

> Mike

Thanks. "LO" should definitely have a look at this...;-)
--DR

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


"Luis Ortega" <lortega@ntlworld.com> wrote in message news:nRIhl.16942$NV1.13381@newsfe01.ams2...

> Thanks a lot, guys!
> Both of you have given me a lot to think about and useful information as 
> well.
> I must point out, though, that just because I have a nice Mac Pro, I 
> don't have money to waste!

Ummmm.....8^) 
[ ;-)]

> The pricing of the TRV900 new for me about 10 years ago was 1600 pounds, 
> and that was the best price I could find in London at that time. I found 
> the Panasonic AG-HMC150 camera that was discussed for 1800 pounds here, 
> so the price differential is not great, 

It is "microscopic", given the quality and capability difference! ;-)

> and I would consider it if it 
> proves to have at least the same level of manual control as my TRV900.

It has much more.

> I have the luxury of being able to wait until my TRV900 bites the dust 
> because I can use a fall back camera from work if it were to die 
> suddenly, so I want to find out as much as I can about the new and up 
> and coming formats before making a purchase for that amount. If the next 
> camcorder proves to be as good as my first two, I will be very happy. My 
> first one was a shoulder mount JVC GRS707 svhs which had full manual 
> controls and served me well during the 90s until I bought the TRV900. 

The 900 was certainly a step up, if for no other reason than for the 
ease of editing and the lossless copying of the Mini-DV material compared 
with VHS - and image quality was almost certainly higher, too. BTW, 
whichever format you go with, make sure your editing software uses 
"smart rendering" (which copies unchanged video footage rather than 
recompressing it all - which Premiere unfortunately does with HDV).

> It seems that the camcorder manufacturers are no longer offering the 
> same level of manual control at the price points of these two venerable 
> camcorders. I can't afford the 2500+ pounds that the current crop of 
> well specified camcorders cost, and I am not interested in getting a 
> consumer model without manual control. I was under the impression that 
> the Canon hv20/30 models aren't really full manual control so I haven't 
> been considering those.

You are assuming incorrectly, although some controls are somewhat 
awkward to use. The picture can be modified slightly for contrast, 
brightness-bias, saturation, and sharpness - and the camera can be 
operated beyond full auto in program, shutter-priority, or aperture 
priority modes. And, the exposure additionally can be locked and 
shifted as desired for special needs. What more do you want? The 
manual focus is admittedly so-so, but the I-AF autofocus is excellent 
and generally quite reliable for most purposes. You can also use a 
skin-tone smoothing mode, ""film" response mode, and 24p mode.
Again, what else do you want? ;-) And, it's cheap and small and 
light - with an excellent optical stabilizer (that even works with my 
tremor, unless that gets too violent...). It doesn't look "pro", but it 
can produce very high quality results if light levels are sufficient, and 
if you do not zoom too far toward the tele end (at the wide half of 
the zoom range, even with the .66X Raynox on, even in the corners 
wide open the picture is sharp and free of chromatic problems).

> My storage medium would be multiple dvd backups and maybe blue ray 
> copies later on, so the archival durablity of flash memory cards is not 
> an issue for me.

Don't consider DVDs archival...

> I am truly tired of logging and capturing from tapes and would love 
> being able to access from a digital file like on a hard drive or memory 
> card for editing, so if HDV is strictly tape based, then it is a serious 
> minus for me.

That is a consideration, and the Panasonic camcorder is certainly 
excellent and brings with it the advantages you mention - but I hope 
you read the Sony forum on the difficulties and limitations of using 
AVCHD at this point. You could be in for a rather unpleasant time 
trying to handle those files afterward. Paraphrasing someone there 
(and almost the consensus among the MANY posts there), AVCHD 
24 Mbps is great for shooting, but then the troubles begin..." They 
are anything from running up against the DVD data rate that is much 
lower than 24 Mbps, through the limition at input and/or output to 
lower data rates, and if you use a lower data rate when shooting to 
get around these problems (including "slow as mud" processing 
speeds), the image quality may drop noticeably below the easier 
to use HDV. If it is all up to the camera choice, the Panasonic looks 
great, but if you add in everything else and balance everything out, 
you may want to rethink it. But, you do at least have a good start 
with your computer editing software/hardware, and with some bit 
more money, as "Smarty" points out, and probably working out 
some problems that are likely to come up, you can make Blu-ray 
disks (expensive as they can be if you make very many...). 

> That might mean that I am limited to AVCHD and a flash memory card 
> system because I don't plan to invest in a hard drive camcorder.

> I am going to read that other thread that was suggested on the Vegas forum.

Do - it's an "eye-opener"...;-(
But, watch out for that "hokey" Panasonic add that is sited - I don't 
know where P. got such a terrible HDV camcorder from for making 
AVCHD look better (trust more the camcorderinfo comparison 
that is more "apples and apples") - I have NEVER seen macroblocking 
or any other failure of the HDV compression with my HV20, and 
I have "pushed" it with situations that should have shown it if there 
were a problem with it.

> My NLEs are FCP studio 2 and also Premiere Pro CS3, although I plan to 
> move to the CS5 adobe suite if they finally add true support for 
> multiple cores and more ram. The CS4 apps still can't exploit the 
> multiple cores and large amounts of ram in the Mac Pro. I understand 
> that the next Mac OS, Snow Leopard, will add a lot of functionality in 
> these areas and will feel like I have gotten a hardware boost by moving 
> to that OS.

Good luck - and TRY to have fun with it! 8^)
--DR

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"Luis Ortega" <lortega@ntlworld.com> wrote in message news:m1Lhl.7979$pR5.6793@newsfe24.ams2...
> David Ruether wrote:

>> You are assuming incorrectly, although some controls are somewhat
>> awkward to use. The picture can be modified slightly for contrast,
>> brightness-bias, saturation, and sharpness - and the camera can be
>> operated beyond full auto in program, shutter-priority, or aperture
>> priority modes. And, the exposure additionally can be locked and
>> shifted as desired for special needs. What more do you want? The
>> manual focus is admittedly so-so, but the I-AF autofocus is excellent
>> and generally quite reliable for most purposes. You can also use a
>> skin-tone smoothing mode, ""film" response mode, and 24p mode.
>> Again, what else do you want? ;-) And, it's cheap and small and

> I guess what I am referring to is that I have seen some camcorders that 
> offer manual exposure control but still use some sort of automatic gain 
> control so that as you pan across a scene with different light levels, 
> the picture blooms as it re-adjusts to the light changes.

I have seen none of these. "Manual" is manual...

> For me, manual exposure means that I can pick the shutter speed or the 
> aperture and set it and the camcorder will record exactly that way. 

The Canon HV30, while not easily permitting selection of *both* 
aperture and shutter speed at the same time, *does* permit locking 
the exposure at a chosen aperture or the shutter speed at a chosen 
shutter speed **and** then simultaneously locking the exposure 
overall (gain, aperture, and shutter speed) - and you can then apply 
any shift in the locked exposure that is desired in partial stop 
increments. This is done easily (once one has become used to the 
finicky joystick operation), but it cannot be done during taping. 

> Also, I can set the audio recording levels and the camcorder and record 
> audio as set without any automatic audio gain.

The same control is used to "lock and shift" the audio level to many 
available levels, and once this is engaged, the automatic audio gain 
control is defeated (which doesn't work all that well, anyway...). 

> Obviously, manual focus and external mic input is expected, 

With these cameras, especially with HD, you will soon appreciate 
the better job "I-AF" can do compared with manual focus.

> and a manual zoom ring, as opposed to the rocker switch that 
> limits control of the zoom speed, would be very welcome. 

I prefer the rocker of the TRV-900 (more range, without running 
out of "twist" range). I never used the ring on my VX2000s, preferring 
the rocker. The zoom controls of all types on newer camcorders 
are motor-driven, not directly connected (until you get into separate 
pro lenses). BTW, the HV30 does something neat. Its slowest 
of three zoom speeds is unusually slow for a camcorder, and **that 
speed can be made the ONLY speed**, so you can "mash" the 
(rather poor) zoom control, and it gives the nice smoothly 
starting/stopping zoom "crawl" that I prefer. You can also lock in 
either of the other two speeds, or leave the zoom variable, if you 
want.

> Ideally, it would also have analogue AV in/out 

AV out, but I don't know of any HD camcorder with an input 
other than FireWire (or USB for AVCHD).

> as well as dv or hdv in/out.

FireWire out for transferring files, and HDMI for sound+video 
out to a TV. There is a mic input, but unfortunately, no Lanc port.

> I don't really care much for built-in preset effects in a camcorder 
> since I can do any of that in editing later.

Agreed!!! 8^) (I ignore them.)

> I would gladly consider any camcorder that offers that sort of manual 
> control. The TRV900 uses the zoom rocker switch and I have never liked 
> that feature. My old JVC GRS 707 had the manual zoom ring in addition to 
> everything else mentioned.

See above. 

> What makes it hard is that the published specs on some camcorders don't 
> state clearly whether the manual exposure controls offer a full manual 
> or the modified manual controls. Sales persons are next to useless 
> because they will tell you anything that you want to hear, and often 
> they don't even have a clue. That's why these forums are so important, 
> but once I can narrow the choices down to a few options then I start 
> hitting the stores and asking to actually handle the camcorders to 
> confirm things for myself. 

Also add looking at reviews, although many cover "where the buttons 
are" and leave out performance, or worse, include gushing ad hype. 
I try to be thorough with my reviews, and include the good and bad.

> Are you saying that the Canon hv 20/30 models offer this level of manual 
> controls? 

Essentially I'm saying that it offers what a TRV-900 did, but with a 
FAR better picture. It is NOT perfect (but then what is...? ;-), and it 
is NOT as good as the Panasonic of interest to you, but consider 
that one in a different way...;-) What if someone GAVE you the best 
portable 35mm wide-screen camera. Then you shoot some great 
footage with it. Now what? Can you edit it at all? If you manage to 
do so, can you retain much of the original quality? Do you then have 
a way to distribute cheaply the product? THAT is what I have been 
trying to get at, NOT that I'm recommending the HV30 specifically 
for you. I'm recommending that you look at the formats and their 
advantages and disadvantages BEFORE choosing the camera. You 
may still return to your first choice, but you will be better informed 
about the pitfalls of your choice...
--DR

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"Luis Ortega" <lortega@ntlworld.com> wrote in message news:nZ%hl.46006$OP2.25920@newsfe29.ams2...

> Thank you. I think that I am going to have to get to a store to handle 
> the HV30 and see how the manual controls work.

[I will add a comment for "Smarty" elsewhere, but I'm writing 
this to you first...;-]
I just downloaded many clips taken with the Panasonic (from a 
VERY slow server, unfortunately, but it was worth it). I don't 
know if the clips were shot at 17 Mbps or 24 Mbps (they don't 
look astoundingly sharp...), but they do play smoothly on my 
computer, making editing practical for me (if this represents 
what 24 Mbps is like without using proxy files, which are 
too unsharp for me). If these clips, at --
http://www.tulsaweddingvideos.com/HMC150preview/index.php 
are at the higher data rate - and if Blu-ray disks, or HD files 
of edited video, or card transport and playback from the 
camera are OK, then AVCHD 24 Mbps does appear to be 
quite practical, and you may want to look further into the 
Panasonic camcorder you first mentioned. It certainly can 
shoot in much lower light than the HV30, if nothing much else. 
(BTW, the clips compare 24p, 30p, and 60i - and I will 
never understand the appeal of the jittery slow frame rate "p"
modes...! ;-)
--DR

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

[To Marilyn R...]
With Sony Vegas Pro 8, with AVCHD 24 Mbps 1080i files, 
I get smooth playback from the timeline at full resolution on 
my computer, and can edit the 24 Mbps files, BUT, I cannot 
export the edited material at that data rate (actually VBR, from 
about 15 Mbps to 24 Mbps peaks...) so I must use either of 
two options: CBR 16 Mbps (which looks VERY slightly 
softer than the original), or 25 Mbps Blu-ray files, which I 
cannot return to the Vegas timeline. In both cases, since the 
data rates do not match exactly the original material, "smart 
rendering" is defeated and as a result, all the material gets 
transcoded (not a good thing...). Out of curiosity, I looked 
at Apple ProRes 422 to see how it works. With a "hefty" 
computer, this does make some interesting things possible, 
but at a cost: it recompresses everything at input (with some
damage at that point), but after that point, pretty much 
anything can be done with the files without further damage. 
I guess HDV, using editing software that uses "smart rendering" 
(which just copies, with no recompression of unchanged 
footage), is still better than edited AVCHD 24 Mbps unless 
multiple footage change passes are made with the HDV 
material ('course, AVCHD also avoids the potential dropout 
problem of HDV...;-). I guess I will be staying with HDV for 
now for what I want to do, since in bright light with the HV20 
zoomed only in the short half of its range (and with the picture 
saturation, exposure, and contrast set to "-" and the occasional 
use of exposure override), even with a .66X WA attached, I 
get very fine image quality. The Pan. 150 samples shot in a 
low light wedding reception did look exceptionally good, 
though...;-)


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"Smarty" <nobody@nobody.com> wrote in message news:vuOhl.762$N02.373@nwrddc02.gnilink.net...

> Both the Canon HV20 and HV30 use a tiny joystick and menu system which 
> makes exposure control very awkward, and settings of audio gain, video gain, 
> neutral density filters, etc. are not available. Audio AGC cannot be 
> defeated [...]. 

Gee, I thought you would know your camera better...;-) It does have 
manual control of audio level (plus a selectable input mic pad), and 
the AGC is defeated when manual control of the audio level is 
selected, just as the auto video exposure (and gain) is disabled when 
manual override of the exposure is selected.

> David loves his HV20. Mine is on craigslist for $400 or best offer.

> Smarty

It's a "steal", if in good shape! ;-)
--D



~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"Paul Furman" <paul-@-edgehill.net> wrote in message news:Nhphl.9758$hc1.2503@flpi150.ffdc.sbc.com...

[...]
> Teleconverters only make sense on the very long end for reasonably fast 
> lenses like 300mm f/4 to f/2.8 or maybe a macro prime lens like 100mm 
> f/2.8 as a way of getting more working distance for timid butterflies 
> but not so great looking for getting more magnification at extreme 
> closeup. Long lenses used for birding where you would need to crop 
> without teleconverter, that's where it makes the most sense. 
> -- 
> Paul Furman

I used to find adding teleconverters an excellent way to increase 
magnification for extreme close-ups (along with adding front diopters, 
and sometimes rear extension tubes) with using flash for the resulting 
very small effective f-stops possible for getting good DOF and lens 
performance. For examples, see -- 
http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/phun.html, numbers 4, 5, 6, 9, 11,
especially (unfortunately, most of these web images date back to when 
I used small CRT monitors and oversharpened the photos too much...).
--DR

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"David" <d33licious@gmail.com> wrote in message news:4e3a065e-faf5-4f4a-92f3-00b28f512ae4@35g2000pry.googlegroups.com...

> I was wondering, what version of Creative Suite (CS) do you currently
> use and are you upgrading to CS4. Are there any alternatives to CS4
> that you have tried and what do you think about them?

> I am currently looking into buying this software and want to know
> which version to get (there are some used CS3 versions available).

> Also it will be helpful to know, if someone is on CS3, what's the
> learning curve to fully get comfortable with CS4. It will really help
> me decide what to get. Thanks for your help!

> - D

You don't say what format video (Mini-DV, HDV, AVCHD, etc.) 
you are going to edit. If you stay with Mini-DV, I think the cheap 
Premiere Elements 4 is hard to beat, but it (and the expensive 
versions) did not have "smart rendering", an almost essential feature 
for editing HDV since without it, ALL footage on the timeline is 
recompressed (and damaged) and there is no resultant file and 
way to use it in the future for easy export of the video back to the 
camcorder. You may want to look into Sony Vegas Platinum 
Edition 9 (cheap and good for most things), Sony Vegas Pro 8 
(with more features but much more expensive), or, for simple 
things, Ulead VideoStudio (cheap, limited, and with a terrible 
interface - and I hate that program, but if you get into it, you may 
get along with it). BTW, likely all editing software programs have 
30-day downloadable trial versions available. Also BTW, I review
some programs here (with the very good, good, bad, and ugly 
revealed...;-), at - www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/hdv-editing.htm
--DR

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"Bugsy1957" <spam.spam@spam.com> wrote in message news:EbKdndAOE819FhTUnZ2dnUVZ8uSdnZ2d@bt.com... 
> "Dwij" <dwijgarg@gmail.com> wrote in message 
> news:a478df36-9881-415c-8e9a-5c121c48fc70@t26g2000prh.googlegroups.com...

>> I was wondering, what version of Creative Suite (CS) do you currently
>> use and are you upgrading to CS4. Are there any alternatives to CS4
>> that you have tried and what do you think about them?

> I am forunatte enough to have Production Studio CS3 (I think that is is 
> name!) which contains Premier CS3

> I have been editing AVCHD footage from a Sony HD camcorder for some time now 
> but had to use a plug in from mainconcept to get Premier to work with this 
> format

> I believe that CS4 supports AVCHD natively and if it reduced the rendering 
> time by a major percentage that would persuade me to consider it further

Good to know would be what the maximum editable data rate 
AVCHD files can be with it, the maximum exportable data rate 
in files, and whether or not the program uses "smart rendering" 
(to preserve quality in unchanged footage and to speed processing 
at export), which CS3 cannot do with HDV. It would be unfortunate 
if the program cannot handle 24 Mbps AVCHD material (as Sony 
Vegas apparently cannot, except possibly if the export format 
is Blu-ray...), since this locks you out of using AVCHD camcorders 
that have the higher data rate available in a mode that can equal 
the image quality of the good, cheap (lowly...;-) Canon HDV 
HV30.

>> Also it will be helpful to know, if someone is on CS3, what's the
>> learning curve to fully get comfortable with CS4. It will really help
>> me decide what to get. Thanks for your help!
>>
>> - D 

30-day free downloadable trial versions are available for all the 
Adobe video editing programs (although your exported footage 
will have an occasional superimposed logo...;-).
--DR

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"Rich" <none@nowhere.com> wrote in message news:k-6dndVH5t9yJxXUnZ2dnUVZ_uKWnZ2d@giganews.com...

>I feared this. Bringing high-end audio into a discussion about cameras. 
> This opens up the flood gates for every scientifically-illiterate kook 
> imaginable. Are we going to see "Shakti Stones" sitting on top of 
> platforms mounted on hotshoes now? Or argue about the merits of using 6-
> nines copper in USB cables used for image file transfers? Or lament the 
> lack of good quality polystyrene capacitors in the electronics of DSLRs??
> Just because some can't properly quantify what they are seeing is no reason 
> to bring voodoo into photographic equipment realm.
> There is no subjectivity concerning image quality. Resolution, sharpness, 
> colour rendition, noise control, tonality, dynamic range and control of 
> aberrations, that is it. 
> http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/eyes-vs-numbers.shtml

It appears to be an excellent and balanced article to me, which 
argues (correctly, I think) that quality evaluations made only "by 
the numbers" will often arrive at erroneous conclusions. Even if 
the numbers are correct, an evaluation consists of a weighting of 
the relative importance of the many characteristics that are a part 
of the whole, and this weighting itself is subjective. Long ago 
(1995), I began my "SUBJECTIVE Lens Evaluations (Mostly 
Nikkors)", at -- http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/slemn.html,
and I state in the material preceding the charts and each group 
of lens type what my standards are (which would likely be different 
from those used by others, but they produce relative quality 
values which correlate well for me with how lenses perform for 
the way I use them - but others may well agree or disagree with 
my judgments). Image quality is VERY subjective, but as you 
point out, that realization can encourage the "nutty fringe" to get 
somewhat carried away. I'm an audio nut, but my interconnect 
wires are cheap RS ones (I figure that if they can carry TV signals, 
then audio signals should be easy...;-), but I know why my speaker 
cables are heavy-gauge (but cheap...;-), and I don't bother with 
gold connectors. And, I once had to violently suppress laughing 
when someone I know seriously advised me to put bricks on 
top of my amplifiers for better sound(!!!), so I know what you 
mean in terms of subjectivity potentially going too far astray...
--DR

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"bowzer" <its@bowzah.ukme> wrote in message news:tqfkl.202$X6.110@bos-service2b.ext.ray.com...
> "David Ruether" <d_ruether@thotmail.com> wrote in message 
> news:gmcdtp$84j$1@ruby.cit.cornell.edu...

>>> http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/eyes-vs-numbers.shtml

>> It appears to be an excellent and balanced article to me, which
>> argues (correctly, I think) that quality evaluations made only "by
>> the numbers" will often arrive at erroneous conclusions. Even if
>> the numbers are correct, an evaluation consists of a weighting
>> of the relative values of the many characteristics that are a part
>> of the whole, and this weighting itself is subjective. Long ago
>> (1995), I began my "SUBJECTIVE Lens Evaluations (Mostly
>> Nikkors)", at -- http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/slemn.html,
>> and I state in the material preceding the charts and each group
>> of lens type what my standards are (which would likely be different
>> from those used by others, but they produce relative quality
>> values which correlate well for me with how lenses perform for
>> the way I use them - but others may well agree or disagree with
>> my judgments). Image quality is VERY subjective, but as you
>> point out, that realization can encourage the "nutty fringe" to get
>> somewhat carried away. I'm an audio nut, but my interconnect
>> wires are cheap RS ones (I figure that if they can carry TV signals,
>> then audio signals should be easy...;-), but I know why my speaker
>> cables are heavy-gauge (but cheap...;-), and I don't bother with
>> gold connectors. And, I once had to violently suppress laughing
>> when someone I know who seriously advised me to put bricks
>> on top of my amplifiers for better sound(!!!), so I know what
>> you mean in terms of subjectivity potentially going too far astray...
>> --DR

> Bricks? Seriously? I hate to ask, but what was that theory?

Durned iffin I no...! 8^) Mebbe it keepz th' ee-lek-tronz frum 
a-shakin' tu much...? 8^) Dunno...! But it sure was hard to suppress 
my laughing! ;-)

> And yes, any 12 guage multi-stranded copper wire is fine. You don't need 
> welding cable to drive speakers. I read a story once about Fabio (the 
> Italian model) and his audio system, which costs over $100K. He spend 
> nearly $15K on cables alone. Haven't stopped laughing over that one yet. 

Yes. I once did a demo at a Seattle Audio Society meeting showing 
the differences on a 1k square wave shape (and therefore the frequency 
response) with various things hung on the output end of speaker wires, 
with nothing, a 10 ohm resistor, a 10 ohm resistor paralleled with a 
.1 mfd capacitor (to roughly approximate my electrostatic speakers), 
and a two-way dynamic speaker (with the usual impedance curve bass 
and mid-range bumps and HF rise) using various gauges of wire (and, 
of course, the length also counts...). The differences in the square waves 
were all different enough to be clearly visible, even with a high damping 
factor amplifier. And, yes, one can easily hear 1/8th db broad-band 
differences in frequency response, even with poor speakers. This is not 
to say that low damping factor amplifiers and skinny speaker cables may 
not sound better in some instances, but I do say that expensive cables 
are likely to be a waste of money (it is the proper matching of the parts 
for the best outcome that matters...). BTW, for more on my audio, 
see -- http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/Audio.html
--DR

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"john" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message news:00158f3d$0$32679$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com...

> Isn't overscan (cuts off 3 to 5% of the 4 edges) a legacy features due to 
> analog TV not able to display edges nicely?

> Why do HDTVs need overscan? The technology to display 100% of a digital 
> video frame has been around for many years.

Both of my Westinghouse HDTVs appear to show 100%, which can 
be annoying when the cable company and/or cable box decenters the 
picture a bit, showing such things as closed-captioning code at the top, 
a thin vertical line at the left when a "bug" is on the screen, narrow dark 
bars at picture edges where they shouldn't be seen, and all too commonly, 
the corners of a lens shade in the image when the videographer has not 
been careful to check for that. Sometimes I use the TV's "fill" feature to 
enlarge the picture somewhat to get rid of the junk - but I would prefer 
5% or so cutoff all the time (but for evaluating my own HD footage on 
TV, it is useful to see 100% - especially since my camcorder's viewfinders 
show only about 80%).
--DR

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"Don Stauffer" <stauffer@usfamily.net> wrote in message news:498da639$0$16048$815e3792@news.qwest.net...

> I guess I don't understand the meaning of overscan on an LCD or other 
> mosaiced display. Since HD is already in the format of an array, and 
> the screen has an array, why isn't the mapping of broadcast 720 onto a 
> 720 set a one to one thing?

Others will come up with a more "underlying" answer, but 
it surprises me that "720p" displays are actually 768 pixels 
high, and that 720 must be interpolated up (or 1080, down)
to fit - or that most 1080 displays cut off a bit to cover the 
"garbage" at the edges, but mine show everything...;-( 
Perhaps that is partly why mine seem so sharp - there really 
is a 1:1 pixel representation on them without any softening 
interpolation involved (for 1080), however slight...
--DR

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"les" <ideas@localnet.com> wrote in message news:26WdnSkFSbHzhBbUnZ2dnUVZ_tCWnZ2d@posted.localnet...

> A few years ago I saw some software to recrop and stabilize an
> unfortunate front-end error, but since have forgotten who made it.
> I was wondering if anyone remembers it, and knows if it can handle
> (now) an HD image.
> I'd appreciate comments or recollections on this app, or something similar.
> Thank you.
>
> Les

If you are working on a PC, ProDAD Mercalli works beautifully
and is easy to use (a sample streaming HD video of mine that
used it is here -- http://exposureroom.com/ruether-bean --
view it twice to fill the buffer for smooth playback).
--DR

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

<mkujbida@gmail.com> wrote in message news:44419c64-f73b-495d-bea4-d045e7c5dd2d@k1g2000prb.googlegroups.com...
> On Feb 5, 12:24 pm, Ty Ford <tyreef...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> On Wed, 4 Feb 2009 16:57:21 -0500, Mike Kujbida wrote
>> (in article <6uuha6Fh88g...@mid.individual.net>):

>> > This technology exists on a computer screen which is deliberately set to
>> > show the entire image.
>> > It would be fairly easy to build all the height, width, etc. controls
>> > into a modern LCD or plasma set but then you'd get everyone playing with
>> > them because "it doesn't look right but I can fix it".
>> > We've all been to other people's houses and seen what happens when you
>> > give end users controls like brightness,contrast, hue and saturation.
>> > Imagine what the picture would look like if we gave them even more
>> > controls to play with :-(
>>
>> > Mike

>> You mean not everyone has a tan and George Hamilton is not of African
>> ancestry!!!?
>>
>> Ty Ford

> Sorry Ty but no!!
> And, as much as I'd like to, I don't sound like James Earl Jones
> either :-(
> Hey, that sounds like a great idea for an audio plugin :-)

> Mike

8^)
I have often wondered about JEJ's voice. Nice as it is, I've 
wondered if it essentially does use "an audio plug-in", since 
a technique that can be useful for some stutterers (Both JEJ 
and I are stutterers...) is to speak in a different "character", 
with a different-sounding voice ("Mickey Mouse" or "Daffy 
Duck" can work, but the "JEJ" voice sounds MUCH nicer...8^). 
--DR

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

<mkujbida@gmail.com> wrote in message news:f194d54c-7711-45ec-877b-d2b865c80630@v39g2000pro.googlegroups.com...
> On Feb 6, 10:59 am, "David Ruether" <d_ruet...@thotmail.com> wrote:
>> <mkujb...@gmail.com> wrote in messagenews:44419c64-f73b-495d-bea4-d045e7c5dd2d@k1g2000prb.googlegroups.com...

[...]
>> > And, as much as I'd like to, I don't sound like James Earl Jones
>> > either :-(
>> > Hey, that sounds like a great idea for an audio plugin :-)
>>
>> > Mike

>> 8^)
>> I have often wondered about JEJ's voice. Nice as it is, I've
>> wondered if it essentially does use "an audio plug-in", since
>> a technique that can be useful for some stutterers (Both JEJ
>> and I are stutterers...) is to speak in a different "character",
>> with a different-sounding voice ("Mickey Mouse" or "Daffy
>> Duck" can work, but the "JEJ" voice sounds MUCH nicer...8^).
>> --DR

> David, that makes at least two of us (stutterers) on this NG.
> I started around age 4 and didn't seek professional help for it until
> my mid 20s.
> It took about 2 years to get me to a "normal" speaking ability and,
> under stress, I will still stutter a bit.
> You're right about different voices as I don't stutter when I whisper,
> yell or sing.
> Too bad I can't yell all the time :-)

> Mike

WHY NOT???!!! 8^) HUH?!?!?! 8^) TELL ME!!! 8^)
At least I don't stutter while hollering nasty things at my 
computer while it is being uppity by refusing to do what 
I want...! ;-) Unfortunately, doing that doesn't make the 
computer cooperate, darn it!. ;-) Anger, getting down 
on all fours, and other odd things can interrupt stuttering, 
but.....;-) I acquired it about 5 years ago along with a 
mass of other neurological "ickies" - and I "lose it" when 
even slightly tired or stressed, with the ability to speak 
(among other things) going away. 
Un-fun. :-( 
--DR

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"Gene E. Bloch" <not-me@other.invalid> wrote in message news:2salahc65wxq.1n6eyg7uinjn3$.dlg@40tude.net...
> On Fri, 6 Feb 2009 09:44:24 -0800 (PST), mkujbida@gmail.com wrote: 
>> On Feb 6, 10:59 am, "David Ruether" <d_ruet...@thotmail.com> wrote:

[...]
>>> 8^)
>>> I have often wondered about JEJ's voice. Nice as it is, I've
>>> wondered if it essentially does use "an audio plug-in", since
>>> a technique that can be useful for some stutterers (Both JEJ
>>> and I are stutterers...) is to speak in a different "character",
>>> with a different-sounding voice ("Mickey Mouse" or "Daffy
>>> Duck" can work, but the "JEJ" voice sounds MUCH nicer...8^).
>>> --DR

>> David, that makes at least two of us (stutterers) on this NG.
>> I started around age 4 and didn't seek professional help for it until
>> my mid 20s.
>> It took about 2 years to get me to a "normal" speaking ability and,
>> under stress, I will still stutter a bit.
>> You're right about different voices as I don't stutter when I whisper,
>> yell or sing.
>> Too bad I can't yell all the time :-)
>> 
>> Mike

> I'll go a bit further off-topic :-)

> One of my friends has essential tremor, always has since childhood. So he
> shakes like I used to before I realized how much coffee I was drinking.
> It's pretty tricky for him to drink a cup of that coffee if it's too full.

> I had chance to encourage him the other day by telling him of a news piece
> I heard on the radio about a guitarist who also has essential tremor and
> feared going professional. But it turns out that when he's playing, the
> tremor vanishes.

> I have no idea if the bases of those two difficulties (tremor and
> stuttering) have any underlying similarities. 
> -- 
> Gene E. Bloch letters0x40blochg0x2Ecom

Interesting. I don't know the answer to that, but along with 
all the other "glop" that came along about 5 years ago was 
a tremor (and, yes, drinking from a full glass, keeping things 
on a fork, eating a messy sandwich, or hand-holding a video 
camera steady can be, um, "challenging" - but I hold a glass 
with two hands [and NEVER try to eat soup out of a bowl!], 
use a large spoon pretty much as my only eating utensil, and 
make 3 or 4 contact-point braces for use with my HD 
camcorder for help [when I'm in a relatively "steady" state]). 
Different types of tremors do have different characteristics 
(surprise! ;-), and times when they are worse or better. 
Parkinson's tremors can be quieted somewhat with 
intentional motion; mine are worst when I try to move or 
I am stressed or tired, but they can be present when I'm 
doing nothing; I don't know about the characteristics of 
essential tremors (or what mine are, except that they are 
unlikely Parkinson's and closer to the "essential" type, 
along with a bit of "dystonia" thrown in). I had given up 
my commercial work as an event/group/wedding 
photographer (I used to be able to fairly reliably hand-hold 
a 35mm f1.4 lens at 1/8th second shutter, but 1/250th 
is more like it now, not good for low-light shooting) and 
for an event and wedding videographer (no one wants 
shaky stills or videos, and tripods get in the way with both). 
I sold much of my still gear and most of my video gear, but 
later the appeal of using a digital camera for my own still 
"fun" work (it is useless in low light) and the compact, cheap, 
and wonderful Canon HV20 for my own "fun" videos (it is 
also useless in low light...) lead me back into doing some 
work that did not require "standards" other than my own to 
be met, or to work on a schedule that could be impossible 
to meet (I cannot drive, and I have frequent seizures [which 
are not exactly popular with wedding or event participants!]). 
Too much "blabbing" and "whining and complaining", but 
there it is. I trust your friend finds a way to do what he 
wants - and sometimes it helps to get encouragement, and 
(in a perverse way...;-) to know others who are far worse 
off, as I do...
Have fun (while you can...;-)!
--DR

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"Gene E. Bloch" <not-me@other.invalid> wrote in message news:1xao72zvzj7e6$.1pu4g2y28twgr.dlg@40tude.net...
> On Fri, 6 Feb 2009 15:47:25 -0500, David Ruether wrote:
[...]
>> Have fun (while you can...;-)!
>> --DR

> I recall when you stopped posting for a long time; looks like the above
> story explains it - and we on this NG were glad to see you back. But you
> have never seemed to whine about the problem, just an occasional allusion
> (keep it that way!). 

8^) I will try, I promise! 
I didn't write from about mid 2004 through mid 2005 since 
I felt that my "faculties" were still rather limited, and I didn't 
know how to judge my more limited abilities against the 
need for being able write other than foolish material... (that 
doesn't cover it very well, but...;-).

> And it's nice that you can function enough to continue
> to have fun. I have developed weird legs, and my hobby is folk dancing.
> Like you, I do what I still can, and don't (read: try not to) worry about
> the things beyond my current abilities.

That is good, and the best one can do - but I sometimes 
forget. I know people who have stretched their boundaries, 
though (MUCH beyond my lazy capabilities!!!), and they 
impress me greatly. One (with CP, with great movement 
and speech problems) holds a full time job and gives workshops 
and lectures(!!!). NOTHING stops him, even weight-lifting! 

> My friend has always had his problem; by "essential" the doctors mean it's
> part of his essence, i.e., his being. In short, they don't know the cause
> or the cure, but it seems to be harmless (it's awkward, but it's not
> life-threatening). 

I looked it up, and it can be progressive, alas... Scared me, 
anyway!

> He does what he wants, but watch repair is *not* among his hobbies :-) 

That reminds me that I once took a watch in for a repair, 
and the repairman "shook like a bowl full of jelly". I did 
leave the watch, though, to my credit...;-)

> For some delicate tasks, his wife takes over. 
> -- 
> Gene E. Bloch letters0x40blochg0x2Ecom

As does my friend. He fills out papers, does dishes (though 
I can often do them, but turning plates can be difficult), 
drives, etc. I am thankful. And, thanks for your comments.
--DR

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"John" <john35o@verizon.net> wrote in message news:dh7no4lr4q9cfq8igvf9erll646isuqnrv@4ax.com...

> I have a Nikon D300 with 18/200 mm and a 70/300 mm lenses. I
> occasionally need more telephoto capability. I am considering either
> a Nikkor 500 mm or perhaps the 1000 mm mirror reflex lenses since they
> are light, compact and relatively inexpensive.

The older 500mm f8 Nikkor mirror is really excellent 
(sharp and contrasty near infinity focus, with good 
exposure evenness across the frame). The newer 
version is smaller, but not quite as good near infinity. 
I did not like the Nikkor 1000mm performance, and 
it is quite large and difficult to use (and the older 
500mm + TC14/14B is better - and that cures 
illumination problems). Avoid cheap mirrors except 
maybe Tamrons, which can be OK (my 300mm 
Tamron is surprisingly good, but most 500 mirrors 
are terrible). The older Nikkor in nice condition should 
be about $300 (here is one FS that looks good, at -- 
http://www.keh.com/OnLineStore/ProductDetail.aspx?
groupsku=NK06999017206R&brandcategoryname=
35MM&Mode=searchproducts&item=0&ActivateTOC2=
false&ID=&BC=NK&BCC=1&CC=6&CCC=2&BCL=
&GBC=&GCC=&KW=500mm). 
(And, KEH takes returns for refunds if you don't like 
the lens - it is a very good company to deal with.) 
BTW, avoid the very earliest version that has a focus 
ring instead of turning the barrel to focus - and the 
barrel-focus one should be multi-coated. It is worth 
a call to make sure that the above is the right one, and 
that it has all the stated parts with it, especially the 
UV rear filter.

> I have read that claim that the outer edge of the image tends to be
> dark with the center light. Is this universally true or only in
> selected circumstances.

> Since the D300 sensor is not a "full frame" sensor the resulting
> image excludes some of the outer edge problem that would be visible
> with film or "full frame" cameras.

True. It is unlikely to be much of a problem with the 
D300, although it would still be there somewhat. 

> Any Ideas as to the problems one might expect with using the mirror
> lenses?

> John

Others have pointed out some not insurmountable ones, 
but I did measure the older 500mm, and the mount itself 
should offer no problems with an AI or AF body (but 
check with Nikon to be sure, or a reliable lens/body 
compatibility list - there is one on my web page at -- 
www.David-Ruether-Photography.com). The rear of my lens 
consists of a cylinder which is 1/2" long and slightly 
larger than the chrome bayonet fitting, after which 
it bumps out suddenly 3/8" all around the cylinder. It 
may, or may not, clear the prism and flash housing (my 
guess is that it will...). I used to leave the TC on all the 
time with mine, in which case, it would definitely clear 
everything. Also keep in mind that mirrors are about 
1/2 stop slower than rating. I LIKE mine...!;-)
--DR

~~~~~~~~~~~

"Rich" <none@nowhere.com> wrote in message news:n9OdnU0dd88lARHUnZ2dnUVZ_v7inZ2d@giganews.com...
> John <john35o@verizon.net> wrote in 
> news:dh7no4lr4q9cfq8igvf9erll646isuqnrv@4ax.com:

>> I have a Nikon D300 with 18/200 mm and a 70/300 mm lenses. I
>> occasionally need more telephoto capability. I am considering either
>> a Nikkor 500 mm or perhaps the 1000 mm mirror reflex lenses since they
>> are light, compact and relatively inexpensive.

> The Nikkor and Tamron 500mm mirrors are truly awful. Rotten optically.

Nonsense, with the larger, earlier version of the 500mm f8 Nikkor 
(but with barrel focusing rather than ring focusing - but the latest version 
is almost as good). It equals good non-mirrors, and is so good that it 
is still fine on the TC14 or TC14B (for 700mm). This image is small, 
but the original is SHARP! See -- 
http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/500mm-Nikkor.htm. 
This is with the TC14 attached, with things about 3 miles away, and 
it still very good in the original. See -- 
http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/500mm-Nikkor-plus-TC14.htm. 
OK, this combination of the Nikkor 500mm f8 mirror, TC14, and 
TC200 isn't exactly razor-sharp, but, who cares with this one? ;-)
http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/500mm-Nikkor-plus-TC14-plus-TC200.htm

> The Tamron 350mm f5.6 if you can find one, it is far better. 

That one is very good (and compact - I have it), but many fairly 
inexpensive zooms also are about as good...
--DR

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"Rich" <none@nowhere.com> wrote in message news:_NCdnapMZoPeERLUnZ2dnUVZ_qPinZ2d@giganews.com...
> "David Ruether" <d_ruether@thotmail.com> wrote in
> news:gmi97h$jod$1@ruby.cit.cornell.edu: 
>> "Rich" <none@nowhere.com> wrote in message
>> news:n9OdnU0dd88lARHUnZ2dnUVZ_v7inZ2d@giganews.com... 
>>> John <john35o@verizon.net> wrote in
>>> news:dh7no4lr4q9cfq8igvf9erll646isuqnrv@4ax.com:

>>>> I have a Nikon D300 with 18/200 mm and a 70/300 mm lenses. I
>>>> occasionally need more telephoto capability. I am considering
>>>> either a Nikkor 500 mm or perhaps the 1000 mm mirror reflex lenses
>>>> since they are light, compact and relatively inexpensive.

>>> The Nikkor and Tamron 500mm mirrors are truly awful. Rotten
>>> optically. 

>> Nonsense, with the larger, earlier version of the 500mm f8 Nikkor
>> (but with barrel focusing rather than ring focusing - but the latest
>> version is almost as good). It equals good non-mirrors, and is so good
>> that it is still fine on the TC14 or TC14B (for 700mm). This image is
>> small, but the original is SHARP! See -- 
>> http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/500mm-Nikkor.htm. 

> I've tried two Nikon 500mm mirrors recently. They both sucked. If you 
> like, I can do another test and post shots. The only old mirror lens I've 
> used (outside of something from Questar Corp) that is decent is Tamron's 
> 350mm f5.6. I've also tested the Sigma 600mm f8 which is pretty common on 
> Ebay. It's another dog. None of them come close to modern ED refractive 
> optics.

Keep in mind that focus MUST be exact with mirrors (there is 
no diaphragm to stop down to cover error) and that air quality is 
CRITICAL, as is what is under the light path you are shooting 
through. Heat waves, air crud, etc. WILL soften the result (as 
can even focus distance) - as will an inadequate tripod, and not 
using a pre-released mirror (unless you are hand-holding, which 
can produce superior results in very bright light due to the better 
damping of hand-holding). It is not as simple as "this lens is not 
sharp" with mirrors - successful long-lens shooting of terrestrial 
subjects depends on the relatively rare convergence of *several* 
conditions (and refractors do generally have the advantages of 
greater mass and physical length, which help). I've owned a couple 
of 300mm f2.8 and 400mm f3.5 Nikkors, and the older 500mm 
Nikkor mirror's performance was about equal to those at f2.8/3.5,
which is to say, excellent. Or, to put it another way, it is VERY 
easy to get soft photos using that mirror, without it being the fault 
of the mirror... (although the touted Vivitar Series I 600mm, 
Tamron 500mm f8, Nikkor 500mm f5, Nikkor 1000 f11, and 
MTO 1000mm f10 I tried were no match for the older Nikkor 
500mm f8 [or Tamron 350mm f5.6] mirrors [but the newer 
Nikkor 500mm f8 was close]). Also worth considering is if the 
mirrors were damaged or not, and if they have clean mirrors 
and other optical surfaces, including the tiny (internal) rear 
element and the rear screw-in filter, which must be in place...
--DR

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"John" <john35o@verizon.net> wrote in message news:u3juo4lgr5kp3kkpqpo57cojsij3rqmnbq@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 06 Feb 2009 02:24:17 GMT, John <john35o@verizon.net> wrote:

>>I have a Nikon D300 with 18/200 mm and a 70/300 mm lenses. I
>>occasionally need more telephoto capability. I am considering either
>>a Nikkor 500 mm or perhaps the 1000 mm mirror reflex lenses since they
>>are light, compact and relatively inexpensive.
>>
>>I have read that claim that the outer edge of the image tends to be
>>dark with the center light. Is this universally true or only in
>>selected circumstances.
>>
>> Since the D300 sensor is not a "full frame" sensor the resulting
>>image excludes some of the outer edge problem that would be visible
>>with film or "full frame" cameras.
>>
>>Any Ideas as to the problems one might expect with using the mirror
>>lenses?
>>
>>John

> Thanks for the input. I am going to get the 500mm reflex and expect a
> lot of duds anf hopfully a few winners.
> John

"With the larger, earlier version of the 500mm f8 Nikkor (but with 
barrel focusing rather than ring focusing - but the latest version is almost 
as good)" there is both good performance and good consistency 
(I've had a few...). I would recommend this one, if it is still available: 
http://www.keh.com/OnLineStore/ProductDetail.aspxgroupsku=NK06999017206R&brandcategoryname=35MM&Mode=searchproducts&item=0&ActivateTOC2=false&ID=&BC=NK&BCC=1&CC=6&CCC=2&BCL=&GBC=&GCC=&KW=500mm
since KEH is conservative in their ratings, fair in their prices, and they 
will take things back for a full refund if you don't like them. Stay with 
this particular brand, version, and seller and you should be OK.
--DR

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

$&%#!!! I hate web addresses that fight one! I guess you will need to
navigate KEH's none-to-simple web site to find this lens (under "store",
"Nikon manual focus", "lenses", "500mm" [or whatever it takes], and
look for the one in "Ex" condition as I recall, for $320(?) with all the
parts [shade, caps, and set of rear filters]).
--DR 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"Don Stauffer" <stauffer@usfamily.net> wrote in message news:49a95282$0$87065$815e3792@news.qwest.net...
> sligoNoSPAMjoe@hotmail.com wrote:
>> On Fri, 27 Feb 2009 09:31:10 -0600, Don Stauffer
>> <stauffer@usfamily.net> wrote:

>>> My wife and I both have zooms that go out to 300mm, but occasionally 
>>> we'd like a longer option. I don't want to spend a lot of money, 'cause 
>>> we wouldn't use it that often.
>>>
>>> Which do folks think would have better performance- a 2X converter, or 
>>> one of those 600mm "mirror" lenses?
>>>
>>> Does anyone know what optical configuration those mirror lenses are- are 
>>> they Cassegrains, or Newtonians (flat folding lens), or something 
>>> entirely different?

>> They are Cassegrain. Unless you are going to go for an rather
>> expensive one, I would not bother with a 2X converter. Most just
>> don't have the quality to work well with a converter. 

> What I meant was one or the other. That is, a 2X converter with my 
> 300mm lens, or a 600mm mirror lens. Which would have the best optical 
> performance?

Only the very best non-zoom (or perhaps one or two 
zooms, like the Nikkor 200-400mm f4, which you do 
not own...) work well on a 2x, and then only if the 
converter is VERY high quality (like Nikon and Canon 
top-end converters) AND a good match for the lens 
(like Nikon and Canon top-end fast tele lenses - but the 
Nikon 300mm f4.5 ED non-IF also worked very well 
on a TC300...). Otherwise, the very few best mirrors 
(like the Nikon older-version barrel-focus 500mm f8) 
will be superior - if used with understanding and care. 
Keep in mind also that a decent 400mm (or good zoom 
that includes 400mm) with a good 1.4X will also likely 
be superior to a 300mm with a 2X. If you use Nikon, 
look for the 500mm f8 Nikkor mirror described (it is a 
"gem"), and put up with its "bad bokeh" (which actually 
helps to make its images look sharper and more 
contrasty). Most other mirrors are not very good, but 
there are interesting exceptions, like the 350mm f5.6 
Tamron and the 250mm f5.6 Minolta - but these 
don't get you the length you are after, although they do 
have the advantage of being very compact. BTW, all 
mirrors are "slower" than rating (and they are mostly 
slow to begin with...), but adding a TC14/14B to the 
Nikkor mirror gives a still-sharp 700mm "f11" (too slow 
to hand-hold except in unusually bright light, but I've 
gotten good images with it with sun reflected off ice 
and water with people/boats/etc. in silhouette and with 
sky events - or other things by using a tripod).
--DR

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"Don Stauffer" <stauffer@usfamily.net> wrote in message 
news:49aabf85$0$33228$815e3792@news.qwest.net...
> David Ruether wrote:

>> If you use Nikon,
>> look for the 500mm f8 Nikkor mirror described (it is a
>> "gem"), and put up with its "bad bokeh" (which actually
>> helps to make its images look sharper and more
>> contrasty). 

[The one recommended is the earlier, larger version, but 
with "barrel" rather than rear ring focusing - although the 
more compact later Nikkor is almost as good for distance 
shooting, and a tad better at closer focus distances.]

> I was wondering about that. Theoretically, a lens with a central 
> obscuration like a Cassegrain should have an MTF peaking effect 
> at high spatial frequencies, at the expense of losing some shading 
> nuances. 

From what I've seen, a very few mirrors (the Nikkor 500mm 
f8s, the Minolta 250mm, and maybe the Tamron 350mm f5.6) 
are good (but there may be others). I did not like any other I 
tried (Vivitar Series I 600/800mm, Tamron 500mm, Nikkor 
500mm f5, Nikkor 1000mm, MTO 1000mm, and likely some 
others I've forgotten. The Nikkor 500 seems to have "extra DOF" 
due to its high contrast, and it is *relatively* easy to focus (but 
of course, atmospheric effects and camera-lens steadiness can 
spoil things, even if focus is correct). Here is an example of a 
"deep" subject that appears to be entirely covered by the DOF 
with this mirror, at - 
http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/500mm-Nikkor.htm 
BTW, this is a bit of a monster, but the 100-500mm Cosina is 
very impressive (but SLOW!) 100-400mm, and decent out to 
500mm, and the Nikkor 300mm f4.5 ED-*non-IF* (rare, but 
much better than the 300mm f4.5 ED-IF) is really excellent on 
the TC300 2X converter, but neither of these is compact. The 
best combination of performance, price, availability, and 
portability is, I think, the Nikkor 500mm mirror described 
above.
--DR

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"Paul Furman" <paul-@-edgehill.net> wrote in message news:mICql.21422$Ws1.14643@nlpi064.nbdc.sbc.com...
> David Ruether wrote:

>> Here is an example of a
>> "deep" subject that appears to be entirely covered by the DOF
>> with this mirror, at -
>> http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/500mm-Nikkor.htm

> That triggered my Escher meter... I guess it's just optical illusions; 
> the small window above and stone wall joints appear to be tilted a bit.
> -- 
> Paul Furman

Relative to each other? It does appear that I have the 
window sides not quite vertical relative to the frame 
edges, and some of the vertical stone mortar joints 
lean a bit more the same way, but I suspect the latter 
is due to the sun angle across stones with noticeable 
depth (they are not flat) - maybe...;-) Or, is it the little 
window at the top that doesn't appear to be in the 
same plane? Dunno on that one. It has a frame that 
makes some of its visible vertical lenght appear to be 
tilting - maybe...;-) But, for 500mm at not an enormous 
distance, look at all that DOF, going from the shingles 
w-a-y back in the upper left all the way forward to the 
right edge of the visible stone wall - and no tilts/swings 
were needed and no stopping down was possible...;-)
--DR


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"mianileng" <mianileng@invalid.invalid> wrote in message news:gmkm5u$7fo$1@news.motzarella.org...
> Rich wrote:
>> "mianileng" <mianileng@invalid.invalid> wrote in 
>> news:gmkg27$6vd$1
>> @news.motzarella.org:

>>> Last summer and this winter have been particularly mild. The
>>> thermometer on the porch of my unheated house never went below 
>>> 12 deg C (53.6 F) when I read it in the small hours of the 
>>> morning on what felt like the coldest nights of this season. It was 
>>> about 15 C (59 F) at 2:40 am last night. And it seldom touched 30 
>>> deg (86 F) last summer.
>>>
>>> It will be interesting to learn what the rest of the world has
>>> been like over the past one year. Anyone willing to provide 
>>> some
>>> inputs?

>> In the Northeast U.S., freezing, temps in the 0-10F region for 
>> most of the last three months with snow on the ground solid since 
>> late Nov.

> Brrrrrr. Makes me shiver just thinking about it. It's past 
> midnight here (eastern corner of India) now and I just had a look 
> at the thermometer outside. It reads 60 F but it's warmer inside 
> and I'm quite comfortable with pajamas and an old jacket. I've 
> never seen snow outside of a TV screen. Must be beautiful.

Here (also US NE), we have had a few lows of -10 F and lower, 
and highs in the mid 40's F, with light snows that are pretty for 
a very short time, then turn grey, black, and then into mud (and cars 
look bad with their coats of salt, rusting edges and holes, and paint 
that is peeling due to acid rain). And then there are the road potholes. 
Winter - YUCK! 8^( Summer brings 85+ degees and 85+ percent 
humidity - also YUCK! Spring is beautiful, but brief, and fall can be 
nice - and about one in twelve years there is beautiful fall color (this 
last one was a rare one, and I shot 2 hours of HD video with 423 
clips of it to edit now on the computer). If it weren't for the wonderful 
scenery (hundreds of waterfalls, many gorges and glens, rolling hills, 
many forests, and mostly open land - with a major university here 
with all that that brings), I would have moved away long ago... 
--DR

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"Paul Furman" <paul-@-edgehill.net> wrote in message news:Bzmkl.4102$PE4.2312@nlpi061.nbdc.sbc.com...

> Any recommendations for an extreme macro lens to use on a bellows? 
> Working distance is not as much of an issue for this, I'm planning to 
> use it on an optical bench/bellows setup so as long as the lens doesn't 
> run into the subject I'd actually prefer a shorter working distance.

> I picked up an old Spiratone 35mm f/3.5 bellows lens, supposedly it's 
> actually just an enlarger lens... T-mount... and it doesn't really hold 
> up to extreme magnifications like 1:8 shown here:
> http://www.flickr.com/photos/edgehill/3269645301/

> I've read Bjørn Rørslett's take on this and he recommends some very 
> expensive & rare short focal length lenses for this application:
> http://www.naturfotograf.com/lens_spec.html
> One possiblity there is the olympus 38mm f/2.8 although it's probably 
> near impossible to find. There is one on ebay.ca in French, located in 
> Australia...

> I'm shooting with a Nikon D700 & D200 so the Canon 60mm MP-E isn't an 
> option. Maybe I should be looking at microscope objectives?
> -- 
> Paul Furman

Ah, sigh...
A) I had the chance to buy a bunch of Nikkor 55mm f1.2 CRT lenses 
(superb for macro) for "practically nothing" (relatively speaking...;-),
but not knowing how good they were in advance, or if there would 
ever be a market for them, I bought only two (which sat in a drawer 
for a long time).
B) I sold first one, then the other, for a "modest multiple" of the original 
"purchase pittance price".
C) NOW that their capabilities are better known, they are considered 
"rare and valuable"...;-(
D) And, here you are.....;-)
E) But, with time and searching, you may still turn up some of these (or 
good alternatives) at reasonable prices. BTW, a good place to look 
is around university labs that are selling off old gear - a friend here 
makes fortunes with buying and selling literally tons of surplus gear 
from the local university (after checking it out, making suitable repairs, 
and listing it on, UGH!, eBay...). And, he's had scads of Nikkor and 
Zeiss micro lenses that are on BR's list...
--DR

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"Paul Furman" <paul-@-edgehill.net> wrote in message news:dRpkl.16562$yr3.7119@nlpi068.nbdc.sbc.com...
> David Ruether wrote:
>> Paul Furman wrote:

>>> I've read Bjørn Rørslett's take on this and he recommends some very 
>>> expensive & rare short focal length lenses for this application:
>>> http://www.naturfotograf.com/lens_spec.html

>> Ah, sigh...
>> A) I had the chance to buy a bunch of Nikkor 55mm f1.2 CRT lenses
>> (superb for macro) for "practically nothing" (relatively speaking...;-),
>> but not knowing how good they were in advance, or if there would
>> ever be a market for them, I bought only two (which sat in a drawer
>> for a long time).
>> B) I sold first one, then the other, for a "modest multiple" of the original
>> "purchase pittance price".
>> C) NOW that their capabilities are better known, they are considered
>> "rare and valuable"...;-(
>> D) And, here you are.....;-)

> Oh, thanks a lot David.

> <SMACK!>

> :-)

8^), I think...;-)

>> E) But, with time and searching, you may still turn up some of these (or
>> good alternatives) at reasonable prices. BTW, a good place to look
>> is around university labs that are selling off old gear - a friend here
>> makes fortunes with buying and selling literally tons of surplus gear
>> from the local university (after checking it out, making suitable repairs,
>> and listing it on, UGH!, eBay...). And, he's had scads of Nikkor and
>> Zeiss micro lenses that are on BR's list...

> Send me a link to his outfit? I've run into quite a few similar 
> liquidators but they don't know what they are selling or whether it's 
> functional or not, here's an example:
> http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&ssPageName=STRK:MEWAX:IT&item=200150168356 
> I'm a sucker for that kind of stuff. 
> -- 
> Paul Furman

Unfortunately, he DOES know what he is selling and what it's worth, so 
he gets top prices most of the time (hence his often large profits...;-). 
I will pass along your email address to him, though, and you can see 
if a deal is to be made...
--DR

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"Paul Furman" <paul-@-edgehill.net> wrote in message news:5Rvkl.10389$8_3.8551@flpi147.ffdc.sbc.com...
> Richard J Kinch wrote:
>> Paul Furman writes:

>>> I'm shooting with a Nikon D700 & D200 so the Canon 60mm MP-E isn't an 
>>> option. Maybe I should be looking at microscope objectives?

>> (Just what is an "extreme" macro lens?)

> I'm looking at about 1:5 [5:1] now (1:8 [8:1] stated earlier was a mistake), 
> which looks interesting. I'm not sure how that translates into microscope 
> magnification _x. That's a 7mm wide photo, about a quarter-inch on a 
> 36mm wide sensor. That should enlarge nicely to a 19 or 24" wide print 
> which works out to about 25x original size. I don't know how that math 
> translates to microscopy.

To quote myself (better than relying on my now terrible memory...! ;-) in 
http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/slemn.html for the 55mm f1.2 CRT 
Nikkor, "Leica thread; no focus; f11 minimum aperture, 8 elements and 
6 groups, optimized for 363mm focus distance; wonderful reversed on 
tubes/bellows for around 5X magnification". Bjorn Rorslett also has more 
on it, but its performance was quite good within its design focus ranges 
(but it would not cover very well FF for distance shooting). 
--DR

~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"Paul Furman" <paul-@-edgehill.net> wrote in message news:5Rvkl.10389$8_3.8551@flpi147.ffdc.sbc.com...
> Richard J Kinch wrote:
>> Paul Furman writes:

>>> I'm shooting with a Nikon D700 & D200 so the Canon 60mm MP-E isn't an 
>>> option. Maybe I should be looking at microscope objectives?

>> (Just what is an "extreme" macro lens?)

> I'm looking at about 1:5 [5:1] now ([8:1] 1:8 stated earlier was a mistake), which 
> which looks interesting. I'm not sure how that translates into microscope 
> magnification _x. That's a 7mm wide photo, about a quarter-inch on a 
> 36mm wide sensor. That should enlarge nicely to a 19 or 24" wide print 
> which works out to about 25x original size. I don't know how that math 
> translates to microscopy.
> -- 
> Paul Furman

It just dawned on me that if you do not need a wide aperture (and the 
equivalent of f32 to f45 is OK), there are other solutions. I based my 
1:1 to 3:1 shooting on the Nikkor compact version of the 200mm f4, 
which is quite sharp stopped down even with tubes, teleconverters, 
achromats, and (also likely) with reversed camera lenses stuck on the 
front, even with combinations of these. This solution also offers the 
advantage of having the auto diaphragm for focusing.
--DR

~~~~~~~~

"Paul Furman" <paul-@-edgehill.net> wrote in message news:UyFkl.22612$ZP4.1580@nlpi067.nbdc.sbc.com...
> David Ruether wrote:
>> "Paul Furman" <paul-@-edgehill.net> wrote in message news:5Rvkl.10389$8_3.8551@flpi147.ffdc.sbc.com...
>>> Richard J Kinch wrote:

>>>> (Just what is an "extreme" macro lens?)

>>> I'm looking at about [5:1] now ..., which which looks interesting. 
>>> I'm not sure how that translates into microscope magnification _x. 
>>> That's a 7mm wide photo, about a quarter-inch on a 36mm wide 
>>> sensor. That should enlarge nicely to a 19 or 24" wide print which 
>>> works out to about 25x original size. I don't know how that math 
>>> translates to microscopy.

>> It just dawned on me that if you do not need a wide aperture (and the
>> equivalent of f32 to f45 is OK),

> I do need a fairly fast lens in order to focus. Are those f/32-45 
> numbers figuring that the extension makes it darker? Like how some macro 
> lenses will report a smaller aperture at closest focus?

Adding a front lens (achromat or camera lens) will not slow the 
lens it is attached to (just shorten its effective FL, hence the 
"close-up" effect with its given barrel length). Adding a converter 
will slow the resulting optics (1 stop with the 1.4X, 2 stops with 
the 2X). Tubes will also slow the combination, depending on 
the length of the tube(s) compared with the effective FL of the
optics mounted on their end. The small stops may be useful both 
for improving performance with "impossible" stacking of several 
options, but also for DOF reasons. I did find it practical (although 
not easy) to shoot very tiny insects in the field with a hand-held 
rig and standard TTL flash with the head at the optics front edge, 
pointed at the target location for the rig, using the VF for focus 
and framing - but the focus should be considered fixed for any 
given high magnification hand-held combination, with focus being 
achieved by moving the rig (carefully! ;-) closer to or farther from 
the subject. 

>> there are other solutions. I based my
>> 1:1 to 3:1 shooting on the Nikkor compact version of the 200mm f4,
>> which is quite sharp stopped down even with tubes, teleconverters,
>> achromats, and (also likely) with reversed camera lenses stuck on the
>> front, even with combinations of these. This solution also offers the
>> advantage of having the auto diaphragm for focusing.

> That's a neat lens I've drooled about getting but for this setup I want 
> something really small.
> -- 
> Paul Furman

That likely limits you to mostly lenses specifically designed for 
5X (for you), and these tend to be rather slow on the required 
extensions (which may not be compact with the longer FLs...), 
and you will have no auto diaphragm, making hand-holding 
impractical. The only exception I can think of is the reversed 
55mm f1.2 CRT Nikkor, stopped down a couple of stops, if 
very shallow DOF is OK. It does perform very well that way, 
and the VF image may be adequate. BTW, another option I've 
tried in the past is using reversed movie camera lenses. You can 
now buy Zeiss and other good fast 25mm lenses intended for 
16mm movie cameras at very good prices. Here is one at KEH, 
http://www.keh.com/OnLineStore/ProductList.aspx?Mode=&item=0&ActivateTOC2=&ID=134&BC=CI&BCC=13&CC=6&CCC=2&BCL=&GBC=&GCC=
listing a Schneider(?) 25mm f1.9 Xenoplan for $53 which may 
be worth a try. It will not be as sharp as the "fancy" and carefully 
selected lenses made for your purpose, but it may be good 
enough, and KEH takes returns if it doesn't work out.
--DR

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"David Ruether" <d_ruether@thotmail.com> wrote in message news:gn1m9s$icn$1@ruby.cit.cornell.edu...

> That likely limits you to mostly lenses specifically designed for
> 5X (for you), and these tend to be rather slow on the required
> extensions (which may not be compact with the longer FLs...),
> and you will have no auto diaphragm, making hand-holding
> impractical. The only exception I can think of is the reversed
> 55mm f1.2 CRT Nikkor, stopped down a couple of stops, if
> very shallow DOF is OK. It does perform very well that way,
> and the VF image may be adequate. BTW, another option I've
> tried in the past is using reversed movie camera lenses. You can
> now buy Zeiss and other good fast 25mm lenses intended for
> 16mm movie cameras at very good prices. Here is one at KEH,
>http://www.keh.com/OnLineStore/ProductList.aspx?Mode=&item=0&Activate
TOC2=&ID=134&BC=CI&BCC=13&CC=6&CCC=2&BCL=&GBC=&GCC=
> listing a Schneider(?) 25mm f1.9 Xenoplan for $53 which may
> be worth a try. It will not be as sharp as the "fancy" and carefully
> selected lenses made for your purpose, but it may be good
> enough, and KEH takes returns if it doesn't work out.
> --DR

Reading farther on in this thread, I found this post by "Bruce", 
"I asked a lifelong friend and high magnification macro enthusiast who
worked for Olympus Europe until he retired last year. He strongly
recommended the Olympus Zuiko Auto-Macro Lens 20mm f/2 which 
was designed for magnification ratios up to 16:1. 

I have no knowledge of this bellows lens, nor any experience of high
magnification macro work, but my friend suggested this web site as a
good starting point:

http://www.alanwood.net/photography/olympus/macro-lens-20-2.html"

This looks like it may be an ideal solution for you if you can adapt 
the Olympus bayonet to the Nikon one (it should not be hard, using 
various accessories...) and if the D300/D700 have standard cable 
release sockets (or adapters), since then you could use this lens 
on your PB4 or tubes and have an auto diaphragm with a double 
cable release - and the lens is fast, so good for viewing.
--DR

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"ASAAR" <caught@22.com> wrote in message news:a575p41louohrsd3bqvovlsj28alq5b0h5@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 10 Feb 2009 13:45:01 -0800, Paul Furman wrote:

Ooops! Didn't see this, and you got there first! 8^)
--DR

> You can get high quality macro magnification by reverse mounting
> some short focal length lenses onto a longer lens, the magnification
> being the ratio of the focal lengths. Some Topsy-fied general macro
> info here, mostly discussing (but not limited to) Nikon's gear :

[some quoted comments''']
>> . . .
>> The inter-lens stop is actually a good technique any time the ratio
>> of the two lenses is less than 3:1, a 50mm in front of a 105mm or a
>> 135mm, a 50mm in front of a 70-200 when the 70-200 is set to
>> 150mm or less. You get the best sharpness...
>>> 3) Buy a used 55-200 for about $80. This could give me up to
>>> 4x magnification...
>> I've been known to use my 20mm in front of my 200mm micro-
>> Nikkor, a very solid performing combination at 10x.
>> 
>> And the coupled pair will typically deliver much higher optical
>> quality than a single reversed lens. Each lens in the coupled pair
>> is doing something like what it's built for: going from 39mm from
>> the rear element to near infinity past the font element. (The front
>> lens doesn't care that light is flowing "backwards" through it).
>> . . .
>>
>>> also note, that because you are NOT using the lens mount AT ALL
>>> (only mounting to front threads... you can use ANY brand/make of
>>> lens here. for example, if you have a 58mm reversing ring, you can
>>> mount an old konica/minolta lens or pentax lens or nikkor lens
>>> with a proper thread size. can save you lots of money if you're
>>> looking for a fast prime to use solely for this purpose.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

[Good info...]
Paul Furman <paul-@-edgehill.net> wrote:
>option. Maybe I should be looking at microscope objectives?

Incidentally, they do work rather well.

One problem is that many of them are achromatic only
when paired with a particular set of oculars, because
the compensation is spread across the pair. I've never
been able to get a particularly good list of which are
which though. Zeiss, Leitz and Olympus definitely come
in matched sets. The Nikon CF series from 1976 to
present specifically are not matched.

Another consideration is whether the objective is
designed for use with a slip cover (most are), or not
(which is better). Those for "metallurgical" scopes are
not. They commonly have the letter 'M' in the
designation, or may be specified with a tube length and
a dash, such as "160/-" where the '-' would otherwise be
the thickness of the slip cover.

It has been a long time since I've tried it, but if I
remember right 5x and 10x objectives were quite useful.
I used Unitron MPL objectives (which do happen to be
easy to find and don't cost an arm and a leg).

Of course you'll also need to manufacture a mounting
adaptor, but that isn't really all that hard to do. I
whipped one out to experiement with using just thick
cardboard with a circular hole cut into it. If you like
the results, any shop (including most home shops) can
make a metal adapter from a T-mount adapter and a small
piece of sheet metal or aluminum.

-- 
Floyd L. Davidson <http://www.apaflo.com/floyd_davidson>
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska) floyd@apaflo.com

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

[more good info, from R. Kinch]
You're really confusing the notion of "magnification", although it is 
quite confusing.

"Magnification" in {film,digital} macro photography means the ratio of 
the object size to the size on the {film,sensor}. That is, the ratio of 
the imaged object dimensions to the real object dimensions.

The same image-to-object ratio applies to microscope objectives.

"Magnification" with a handheld magnifier is a different concept. It is 
the apparent size of the viewed object compared to holding that object 
at 10 inches. This equates to the focal length of the lens divided into 
254. So a 10X magnifier is just a 25mm lens.

Magnification is *not* how big you print something or display on it on a 
screen. That is arbitrary. Magnification has to do with the spatial 
size of the original pixel sampling, not the rendering.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"Alex Singleton" <alex.singleton@gmail.com> wrote in message news:2009021100071011272-alexsingleton@gmailcom...

> I'm not a fan of those camera bags that advertise to thieves that they 
> contain valuable equipment. I sometimes use a coat with large pockets 
> as a sort of camera bag while actually doing a shoot. Do others have 
> unusual alternatives to convential bags?
> -- 
> Alex Singleton

About a half century ago(!!!), I used a US army surplus gas mask 
bag. Now I use the smallest bag that will fit the least amount of gear 
possible, with a wide strap that goes *over* my head (never could 
understand how a strap on a shoulder on the same side as the bag 
could be at all secure in any possible way ever no matter what...;-). 
If I were in an "iffy" location, I would be tempted to sew a chain onto 
the strap to discourage cutting, and make sure attachment clips don't 
operate (or exist). But, I think you have the best idea - storage with 
a "low profile".
--DR

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

<aniramca@gmail.com> wrote in message news:ad136a1a-3354-4cac-9944-8def11af721a@b38g2000prf.googlegroups.com...

[re: adapting Mamiya 645 lenses to Nikon or Canon...]
Thanks for the info. I checked at Fotodiox site and it costs approx.
$200 (converter from Mamiya 645 to fit either Nikon or Canon DSLR).
This is a great news for me, as I have a couple good M645 lenses which
now I can utilize them, rather that sitting in a storage. However, I
wish that there are more info and report from this newsgroup about the
results and quality of the picture. 

--I have now the 45mm f2.8 and 70mm f2.8, and have owned 
the 150mm f4 - and all were excellent to the corners even wide 
open on 645. Since they were designed for a larger film format 
than 35mm, they *may* appear somewhat less good with the 
smaller format (I have not tried this with these lenses - but I have 
seen even some lenses designed for 4x5 and larger film formats 
look good with 35mm).

I notice that the converter
(placed between the camera and the lens) creates a "gap". I wonder if
this affect the focusing of the lens.

--No. The back focus of the 645 lenses is greater than for 35mm 
or sub-35mm format lenses due to the need to accommodate a 
larger swinging mirror. The adapter will include the extra spacing 
needed.

While searching the web, I do find interesting discussion at
http://www.flickr.com/groups/365610@N21/discuss/72157605106176591/

Once again, thanks for the info. Would like to hear more comments from
others who actually used it, and sample photos would be great!

--DR

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[suppliers of cheaper versions of the Mamiya-Nikon adapter]

If you only really need the Nikon option, $200 is a bit pricey.
From China...
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=200308411679

From USA (but probably the same Chinese adapter)...
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=260360021217

A more expensive one from China...
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=310122765625

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"manitou" <manitou910@rogers.com> wrote in message news:be6f629a-c717-4e15-a813-73ec71f75a97@r15g2000prh.googlegroups.com...

> Can anyone here recommend a DVD recorder with firewire I/O for dubbing
> DV/DVCAM tapes?

> Thanks, in advance.

> Charles

Watch out for one possible problem - the DVDs are 704x480 
rather than the 720x480 resolution of a computer-generated DVD, 
and it shows as looking softer...
--DR

~~~~~~~~~~~

"David Ruether" <d_ruether@thotmail.com> wrote in message news:gn97dn$st7$1@ruby.cit.cornell.edu...
> "manitou" <manitou910@rogers.com> wrote in message news:be6f629a-c717-4e15-a813-73ec71f75a97@r15g2000prh.googlegroups.com...

>> Can anyone here recommend a DVD recorder with firewire I/O for dubbing
>> DV/DVCAM tapes?
>>
>> Thanks, in advance.
>>
>> Charles

> Watch out for one possible problem - the DVDs are 704x480
> rather than the 720x480 resolution of a computer-generated DVD,
> and it shows as looking softer...
> --DR 

Too early in the morning...;-) More...:
The DVD recorder will not copy D25 format, but will 
convert it to MPEG-2 before writing it (at lower resolution, 
for the two recorders I've seen) to DVDs, which, BTW, are 
not as long lasting as carefully stored tape unless relatively 
expensive specialty DVD blanks are used. If you try to 
further edit the DVD-stored files, quality will further reduce. 
Better to keep copies of D25 on a couple of hard drives 
plus a couple of tapes (there will be no quality losses from 
making these copies).
--DR

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"manitou" <manitou910@rogers.com> wrote in message news:0d34368a-0103-45fb-94aa-e75f75271f17@n21g2000vba.googlegroups.com...
On Feb 14, 10:08 pm, "blackbu...@aol.com" <blackbu...@aol.com> wrote:
> On Feb 14, 9:41 pm, manitou <manitou...@rogers.com> wrote:

> > Can anyone here recommend a DVD recorder with firewire I/O for dubbing
> > DV/DVCAM tapes?
> Almost all DVD recorders have firewire in. I recommend any Sony.
> However, all of them disable the output function, so you can't dub
> FROM DVD to anything else via firewire.

Would this model be appropriate..?....:
http://www.sonystyle.ca/commerce/servlet/ProductDetailDisplay?storeId=10001&langId=-1&catalogId=10001&productId=1005061&navigationPath=n100421n47000
For editing, I still have an older (1999) Adid Xpress Deluxe (using
DVCAM deck and SDI I/I). I'll likely upgrade this in another year or
(not doing much video work just now, but expect to get back).
For now, my concern is tape deterioration and wanting to preserve good
footage for possible future use.

--The two stand-alone DVD recorders that I have seen 
--have a resolution of 704x480 instead of the standard 
--DVD resolution of 720x480, which results in a softer 
--looking picture. Also, contrary to what you may expect 
--with the FireWire cable input socket on the recorder, 
--the DVD recorder will not copy D25 format, but will 
--convert it to MPEG-2 before writing it at the lower 
--resolution to DVDs. These disks, BTW, are not as 
--long lasting as carefully stored tape unless relatively 
--expensive specialty DVD blanks are used. If you try 
--to further edit the DVD-stored files, quality will further 
--reduce. It's better to keep copies of D25 on a couple 
--of hard drives plus a couple of carefully stored tapes 
--(and there will be no quality losses from making these 
--copies).
--DR

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

<woodenflutes@yahoo.ca> wrote in message news:317cd722-ac8e-4064-ad8f-9952def9c9ba@v15g2000vbb.googlegroups.com...

> I want to buy a decent entry level video editing application. I'm
> looking at Sony Vegas. There seems to be TWO almost identical entry
> level products by SONY and reading the specs I can't see ANY
> difference. Does anyone know what the difference is:

> Sony VEGAS MOVIE STUDIO 9 as seen here:

> http://www.sonycreativesoftware.com/moviestudio

> and SONY Vegas Movie Studio + DVD as seen here:

> http://www.amazon.com/SONY-Vegas-Mov.../dp/B0002QNDKG

> Seem to be the same to me, but they have different names! According to
> the Vega 9 site, it can author and burn DVDs just like the "+ DVD"
> software can.

> I'm guessing that version 9 of Movie Studio just integrates "DVD
> Architect" that used to be a seperate app?

> Some stores (like "Staples") have the "+DVD" version, while
> "TigerDirect" has the "Vegas Movie Studio 9" version.

> So, I'm confused.

As "MK" pointed out, the "*Platinum Edition 9*" versions are 
able to handle HD editing, at least the HDV type. It handles 
HDV editing well with a moderately good computer, but I 
suspect that it (as with Sony's top end Vegas Pro 8), cannot 
handle the AVCHD type of HD very well, if at all. In addition, 
they includes the important "Smart Render" feature, which some 
other editing software does not for HD. See my article on 
Vegas Pro 8 for more on this, at - 
http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/hdv-editing.htm, since 
Platinum 9 is surprisingly similar to Pro 8 (but it sells for FAR 
less [well under $100 at Amazon rather than close to $600 
for the Pro 8 version...!]). The Sony Vegas Movie Studio 
Platinum 9 is the software that I highly recommend for both 
Mini-DV and HDV, and it does come in two versions, a slightly 
cheaper one without "extras" (that may or may not be of use), at 
www.amazon.com/Sony-Vegas-Movie-Studio-Platinum/dp/B001CPFWI2/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&s=software&qid=1234896433&sr=1-2 
and www.sonycreativesoftware.com/moviestudiope, and the 
other version, at 
www.amazon.com/Sony-Vegas-Movie-Studio-Platinum/dp/B001CPHTAQ/ref=dp_cp_ob_sw_title_0 
and www.sonycreativesoftware.com/moviestudiopp.
--DR


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"webpa" <webpa@aol.com> wrote in message news:46cdcfbd-6602-4160-85ca-99d532cb1752@r37g2000prr.googlegroups.com...

>> It seems unlikely that field-burnable CDs are significantly
>> more stable than field-burnable DVDs. I don't consider
>> ANY kind of field-burnable optical disc to be trustworthy
> for more than 2-3 years. And hard drives are hardly any
>> better. Digital mag tape is the archive medium of choice
>> for virtually all of this planet's most valuable data.

> Deposited and carved stone, ink (carbon-based) on skin, and metallic
> silver in gelatin are the only media actually demonstrated to be truly
> archival. If you think ANY magnetic "tape" is "archival", you have a
> very short attention span. 

Well, even these have problems, alas... 
--Many tombstones and other stone carvings, far less than 
a century old, can show significant degradation unless well 
protected by external means.
--Ink on skin (tattoos) commonly stretches and deforms with 
aging and may need renewal for preservation of something 
like the original image.
--Metallic silver in gelatin (silver-gelatin photographs) are 
subject to many degrading influences (atmospheric gasses 
on the silver; physical deformation, tearing, or decomposition 
of the substrate; the effects of common mold on gelatin; 
improper processing of B&W materials [insufficient or
excessive fixing, insufficient or excessive washing]; 
contamination of surfaces by touching them; contamination 
of the processing chemicals, etc.).
Unfortunately, little is permanent (maybe carbon ink on 
parchment?), and about the best one can do is eliminate 
the least stable media, choose the best from among those 
that remain, and try to ameliorate the archival characteristics 
of the best of those (which likely includes tape...). Or, maybe 
we should introduce a new medium using thick stainless steel 
disks with very low data capacity so that the digital pits can 
be large and difficult to damage...8^) 
--DR

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"Pete D" <no@email.com> wrote in message news:499bf271$0$670$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au... 
> "Paul Furman" <paul-@-edgehill.net> wrote in message 
> news:yRMml.7369$jZ1.3678@flpi144.ffdc.sbc.com...
>> The faster ones can be useful but 1.8 is darn close and a great value. 
>> It's nice to see a fast normal again.

> Maybe I am a bit jaded cos Pentax already has three lenses in that range and 
> none are what I want...:-(

> I have high hopes for the DA*30 F1.4 though if they could just get it off 
> the road map and on to the shelves. :-) 

Nikon has three excellent 35mm f2/f1.8 lenses, the 35mm f2 
AIS (MF), the 35mm f2 AF (screw-type AF), and now the 
35mm f1.8 AF G (with internal focus motor - but it covers 
only DX, unlike the other two that cover FX well, even at 
wide stops). Also, the various Nikkor 28mm lenses (they all 
cover FX) can be used as 42mm equivalent lenses ("short 
normals") on DX bodies they are compatible with.
--DR

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

<mkujbida@gmail.com> wrote in message news:9abd5fbc-b83a-413a-b8cf-9a76592b25ec@x38g2000yqj.googlegroups.com...
> On Feb 20, 9:55 am, Don Stauffer <stauf...@usfamily.net> wrote:
>> mkujb...@gmail.com wrote:

>> > She could start using Vegas as it's audio waveform display is very
>> > clean and can be zoomed in a lot.
>> > I know, it's not an option but I had to throw in a plug for my
>> > favourte NLE :-)
>>
>> > Mike

>> Yes, she is considering that. People where she works are starting to
>> switch to that.

> My comment was meant as "tongue in cheek" so I wasn't expecting to
> hear you say that.
> Do you know if it's a Movie Studio (aka Vegas lite) version or Vegas 8
> Pro (the full version)?
> I've known a few Premier users who have switched to Vegas and, other
> than the terminology and shortcut key differences, have had no
> problems doing so.

> Mike

I've gone through several editing programs (Premiere 4, 5.1, 
6, 6.5, Elements 4, a trial version of CS3; Ulead Video Studio; 
Sony Vegas Pro 8, a trial version of the surprisingly similar but 
cheap Vegas Platinum 9) - and while all (except, for me, the 
troublesome Ulead) operate similarly, keyframing the Vegas 
audio track can be more than a little mysterious (possibly since 
so many different ways of doing it are included in the program ;-). 
I also prefer Vegas over all others if HDV editing is to be 
included, since it uses "Smart Rendering" with HDV, unlike 
Premiere, and it is basically (mostly) a straight-forward program 
to use, with (mostly) good help files and tutorials included. I 
included some comments and screen-grabs of various editing 
programs here - www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/hdv-editing.htm. 
At www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/video-editor-screens.htm, you 
can see that with Ulead, you can see either the video or the 
audio, but not both at once; with Elements 4, the audio track 
is small, and low-amplitude material is not visible; with Vegas, 
the audio track is large and easy to see.
--DR

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

<mkujbida@gmail.com> wrote in message news:0d8154ac-d91f-4dea-8bcd-aac3ed991b81@e6g2000vbe.googlegroups.com...
> On Feb 20, 1:57 pm, "David Ruether" <d_ruet...@thotmail.com> wrote:

>> snip <
>> keyframing the Vegas
>> audio track can be more than a little mysterious (possibly since
>> so many different ways of doing it are included in the program ;-).

> David, I don't think keyframing audio is "mysterious" at all.
> Let's assume you want to lower the music track to make room for the
> announcer.
> Click to select the music track, press the 'V' (for Volume) key and
> double-click the line that comes up at two locations before the
> announcer starts and two locations afterwards.
> Place the cursor between points 2 & 3 and drag the line down to the
> desired level.
> You can play with the locations of any of the points so that you end
> up with a quick fade in/out, a slow fade in/out or any combination you
> want.
> You can also grab Edward Troxel's free "4points" script (I REALLY like
> using scripts) which automates all of this for you :-)

> Mike

'Tis not "mysterious" if you know how...;-) In any other 
program, you double click on the audio track level-controlling 
"rubber band" (at the very top of the audio track in Vegas), 
but that doesn't work here. So you quickly figure out that you 
can reduce the audio levels for individual clips by dragging 
down from the tops of the audio tracks; that you can control 
the overall individual track audio levels and channel balances 
using the controls at the left ends of the tracks; that you can 
control the overall project audio level and channel balance 
with the sliders associated with the meters; that you can 
introduce fade-ins/outs by approaching the audio track upper 
corners and pulling/pushing left/right when the curved symbol 
appears; and that you can (I haven't tried this yet...) bring up 
the audio mixer interface and manually control things in real 
time (UGH! ;-). In addition, you can bring up an overall track 
keyframable blue "rubber band" by selecting an audio track 
and hitting "Shift-V" (removing it by hitting "V" when desired), 
but its keyframes do not appear to "stick" with clips if these 
are moved or modified unless "Lock Events To Envelopes" 
has been selected. Keyframes can then be applied to the 
clip's rubber band by double clicking on it, and these can 
be moved left/right/up/down for control of audio levels and 
timing, as can be done more directly with other programs. 
I tried many times to find help in the usually helpful help files, 
and in the usually excellent tutorials, but to no avail - so, yes, 
figuring out how to make and adjust the Vegas rubber band 
audio control points can be more than a bit mysterious, 
especially if one is used to how easy this is with any other 
editing program. And, if one doesn't "happen" upon something 
useful in the help files (I didn't...), it can remain mysterious 
for quite a while. Still, I wouldn't use any other program for 
HDV now (but for SD only, I still recommend Premiere 
Elements - but its handling of HDV is poor ...). 
--DR

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"RichA" <rander3127@gmail.com> wrote in message 
news:a94f975c-d23b-4661-a6cc-2db557c8b1be@m24g2000vbp.googlegroups.com...
PDN:

http://tinyurl.com/c4jq2t

Robert Taylor was arrested February 12 after taking this photograph of
a 2 Train in The Bronx.
Last week in New York City, a fan of trains was arrested for
photographing a train. It might be funny if it didn’t keep happening.

Robert S. Taylor of Brooklyn was taking photos for fun last Thursday
in a subway station. Police saw him and cited him for unauthorized
photography, disorderly conduct/unreasonable voice and impeding
traffic.

The charge of unauthorized photography – a crime that doesn’t exist –
has already been dropped, Taylor says.

[...]

In 2004, the MTA proposed a ban on photography in the subway,
justifying it as a way to protect the subway from terrorists. The
proposal died after an outcry from photographers and the public.

[...]

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

While alone on a raised subway platform near NYC in the 
late '60's, I was struck by the sight of tall, closely-spaced grave 
stones in a nearby graveyard that resembled a view of a large 
city with many tall buildings. I got out my 35mm camera, put 
a 200mm lens on it, and while shooting a few frames, I heard 
footsteps approaching. Almost immediately, I was asked to 
stop taking pictures by a policeman who informed that doing 
what I was doing was illegal. Hmmm, perhaps it was my use 
of a compact tripod to help steady the camera what dunnit...;-)
--DR

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"Martin Trautmann" <t-use@gmx.net> wrote in message 
news:slrngqdm50.vfo.t-use@ID-685.user.individual.de...
> On Wed, 25 Feb 2009 22:06:04 +0000, Bruce wrote:

>> >The same as for Pentax?
>> >http://kmp.bdimitrov.de/lenses/primes/short-tele/FA100f3.5-Macro.html

>> Yes, it was basically the same lens. Decently sharp, and very cheap,
>> but it had horrible background bokeh. 

> You think so?
> http://www.dyxum.com/columns/articles/lenses/cosina_100_35_macro/cosina_100_35_macro_review.asp
> does look sufficient to me

> I remember that the manufacturer itself again was someone different to
> Cosina, but I do no longer find this info.

> - Martin

Kiron?
BTW, no one has mentioned the rather good Vivitar Series I 
90mm f2.5 that could get to 1:1 sharply with its close-up 
rear converter...
--DR

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"Dudley Hanks" <photos.digital@dudley-hanks.com> wrote in message news:cfksl.15639$Db2.5422@edtnps83...

> Sorry for the O/T post, but my daughter wants to buy a video cam, probably 
> somewhere between $350 - $500(CDN).

> We're just talking basic cam, probably SD card media, with small size and 
> light weight.

> Anyone use a cam that fits the bill and they absolutely love?

> Thanks,
> Dudley

This response may be "OT" for this OT post (there are a couple 
of still-active video NGs out there...;-), but here goes... For a bit 
more in the budget (about $750 US), you can get a superb HD 
camcorder, the Canon HV30 (I review it here, at - 
http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/Canon_HV20-HV30.htm, 
with some editing software programs also reviewed on the same 
site, at - http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/hdv-editing.htm).
BTW, be aware that editing AVCHD-format HD video from 
memory cards is no fun, and the difficulties FAR outweigh the 
apparent convenience of using hard drives and memory cards 
for capture, let alone the lower quality from in-camera DVDs.
I offer this idea since this camcorder's output is MUCH better 
than even the best standard definition cameras *of any price*, 
so why stop so far short in quality when close to the best is so 
cheap. Even if you do not have an HDTV yet, you can still shoot 
(on Mini-DV tapes) and edit the HDV HD format and also play 
it from the camera in Mini-DV (SD) format and write quite good 
SD DVDs (in addition to Blu-ray or AVCHD HD red-laser disks 
later, if you want). Also, BTW, the HV30 is quite compact and 
light (and look at www.B&Hphotovideo.com - they ship reliably 
internationally, and their prices are good...). For editing, I 
recommend Sony Vegas *Platinum 9*, currently under $75 at 
Sony or Amazon...
--DR

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"Me" <user@domain.invalid> wrote in message news:gous4u$oa7$1@news.albasani.net...
> RichA wrote:

>> Amazing how old designs (Zeiss, Olympus OM) score so well against
>> "some" modern ones.
>> 
>> http://www.16-9.net/lens_tests/best19_21.html

> Very conspicuous by absence - the Nikkor 14-24.
[...]

Try this, and further links - 
http://www.16-9.net/lens_tests/nikon_14_24mm_1/nikon14_24mm_a.html 
(the 14-24mm f2.8 Nikkor is astonishing, bested only, it appears, by the 
Zeiss 21mm f2.8 at 21mm - but that one is rather bluish, apparently, from
the description...).
--DR

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"David J. Littleboy" <davidjl@gol.com> wrote in message news:Nt2dnfT9V6Y20CvUnZ2dnVY3goSdnZ2d@giganews.com... 
> "Chris Malcolm" <cam@holyrood.ed.ac.uk> wrote:
>> David J. Littleboy <davidjl@gol.com> wrote:

>>> Sure, the Nikon 14-24 is real nice (flipping amazing, even wide open), 
>>> but in real life, one shoots way stopped down for wide things, since more
>>> foreground comes into view the wider you go. So the Stigma 12-24 (with 
>>> its superb geometric correction) at f/11 and f/16 (on a sturdy tripod) 
>>> produces superb images with the 5DII. Unfortunately, while my copy 
>>> of the Stigma 12-24 is excellent out to the corners at all focal lengths 
>>> at f/11 and f/16 _for interiors_, it is good out to the corners only at 
>>> 14 and 15mm at infinity focus; Sigh.

>> Is that because it has a curved plane of focus which is closer at the
>> edges? If so, that's rather handy for interiors. Is it impossible at
>> any aperture to focus distant edges?

> In my testing, I wasn't able to get sharp corners at infinity whatever I did 
> (at 12mm or 17mm or longer). It looked to be more a matter of the lens not 
> resolving (smearing the image) than a focus problem. The DoF formulas tell 
> you that you should see a lot of DoF at 15mm (the f/16 hyperfocal distance 
> is a tad under 1 meter), but with such an extreme retrofocus zoom, life 
> seems a bit more complex than the DoF formulas predict. (It's only recently 
> that I did the tests to figure out how to get sharp corners at infinity, and 
> I haven't done much outside with the lens since then (and I haven't 
> determined how far I can defocus from infinity at 15mm and f/11 and f/16 and 
> still get sharp images across the frame at infinity). There is the point, of 
> course, that if the plane of focus is actually a plane, then the "distance" 
> from the lens to the stuff at the lower corners with an extreme wide angle 
> lens is actually very very short (a point which was implicit in your 
> question).)

> For interior work, even at 12mm at f/16, getting both the far wall of a 
> large room and the carpet close at hand in focus requires care. (For a CoC 
> of 0.018 mm, the hyperfocal distance should be 1.7 feet, so just leaving 
> focus set to 1 meter should cover all interior sins, but it doesn't.)

> Lots of people seem happy with the 12-24 and don't seem to (or say that 
> they) have the difficulties I do. Even with the difficulties, though, it's 
> great for interiors and is still the cheapest 15mm lens around for 
> landscapey things.

> (I just shot the interiors of a couple of 1843 Beacon Hill (Boston, the one 
> in the US<g>) row houses, and used 12mm for just about everything. I haven't 
> had time to process the images, and I'm a bit afraid that all that 12mm 
> stuff is going to get real old real quick when I show them to people.)

> -- 
> David J. Littleboy
> Tokyo, Japan

This little lens has been surprisingly good: the tiny 12mm f5.6 
Voightlander (made for Bessa rangefinder or Nikon reflex 
bodies). Its performance peaks around f8, but it is similar at 
all other stops - and its sharpness into the corners is remarkable 
(although overall it is not the equal of the 14-24mm f2.8 Nikkor). 
There is no reflex viewing with it, but the optical finder supplied 
with it is accurate for framing (but that does have rather extreme 
barrel distortion, although the lens has essentially no distortion). 
There is also a useful side-view leveling bubble. The main failing 
of this lens is illumination roll-off toward the corners, but that 
often doesn't show in images, and it can be at least partially 
removed if it does. For a photo of it, and one made with it, go 
here: http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/fs-misc-photo.htm.
--David Ruether
www.David-Ruether-Photography.com
d_ruether@hotmail.com


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"john" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message news:00a8c213$0$31715$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com...

> When DV or HDV video is transferred from a camcorder to a 
> PC via 1394, it is done in real time (1 minute of video takes 1 
> minute to transfer) and can lose frames if the computer is too slow.

> Does AVCHD video have the same problem, or is the transfer 
> more like a file copy -- no lost frames regardless of how slow 
> the computer is? 

Assuming that the computer is anything like current (made within the 
last 10 years or so...), it is unlikely that you will "lose frames" due 
to the speed of the computer since the copied data rate is the same 
as for Mini-DV, a "leisurely" 25 Mbps. If your computer is too 
slow to make the transfer via FireWire from the camcorder to the 
computer at 1:1, it is WAY too slow to use for editing HDV (and 
FAR too slow for editing AVCHD). Also, if you did manage to 
really drop an "I" frame of HDV (or capture a corrupted frame), 
you would lose about 1/2 second of video (but you can often recover 
from a corrupted frame by cutting it out and editing around it). 
AVCHD does have the advantage of faster transfer of files (and 
without tape dropouts, of course), BUT, then the "fun" begins, trying 
to edit the files efficiently - and very little hardware/software is yet 
really capable of editing the newer 24 Mbps AVCHD files properly. 
HDV looks better than 17 Mbps AVCHD, and it is much easier 
to work with HDV and to archive the edited results...
--DR

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"Darrell A. Larose" <ad607@ncf.ca> wrote in message news:gpb31k$3o1$1@aioe.org...

>I really miss Kodak Ektalure "G" paper! I printed a lot of stuff on it, it 
> was just a nice portrait paper, slightly warm (Ivory) base and a warm tone. 
> Does anyone here have an inkjet match for it?

> Darrell Larose
> Photo Technician

As a printer who enjoyed brilliance and sharpness in prints, 
I detested that "bubbly-surfaced" black-and-white-free paper 
that made everything look like the prints had aged badly - and 
I could never figure out why anyone would want to use it...! 8^)
--DR

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"George Kerby" <ghost_topper@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:C5DEBCFD.247CC%ghost_topper@hotmail.com... 
> On 3/12/09 10:56 AM, in article gpbbc4$hgf$1@ruby.cit.cornell.edu, "David
> Ruether" <d_ruether@thotmail.com> wrote: 
>> "Darrell A. Larose" <ad607@ncf.ca> wrote in message
>> news:gpb31k$3o1$1@aioe.org...

>>> I really miss Kodak Ektalure "G" paper! I printed a lot of stuff on it, it
>>> was just a nice portrait paper, slightly warm (Ivory)
>>> base and a warm tone. Does anyone here have an inkjet match for it?
>>> 
>>> Darrell Larose
>>> Photo Technician

>> As a printer who enjoyed brilliance and sharpness in prints,
>> I detested that "bubbly-surfaced" black-and-white-free paper
>> that made everything look like the prints had aged badly - and
>> I could never figure out why anyone would want to use it...! 8^)
>> --DR 

> That's why there is more than vanilla...

[Note the "8^)"...;-]
But, why would anyone want "BAD" when "GOOD" is available, 
and no more expensive...??? ;-) I guess maybe someone somewhere 
really would want to use "raspberry-royal (red streaks) with chocolate 
chunks (brown splotches)" paper if it were available, huh?... 8^) 
But, really, if one starts with neutral coloring and the best possible 
blacks and whites in a print paper, one can then do anything else - and 
anything less than that is very limiting... (which is not to say that I did 
not start out with a warm-toned "silk"-surfaced paper when I began 
making paper prints ever so ridiculously long ago - and two of them are 
[embarrassingly] in the collection of the Museum of Modern Art... 8^). 
--DR

~~~~~~~~~~

"George Kerby" <ghost_topper@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:C5DEDF26.247F6%ghost_topper@hotmail.com... 
> On 3/12/09 3:08 PM, in article gpbq3q$j5o$1@ruby.cit.cornell.edu, "David
> Ruether" <d_ruether@thotmail.com> wrote: 
>> ....if one starts with neutral coloring and the best possible
>> blacks and whites in a print paper, one can then do anything else.
>> Anything less than that is very limiting... (which is not to say that I did
>> not start out with a warm-toned "silk"-surfaced paper when I began
>> making paper prints ever so ridiculously long ago - and two of them are
>> [embarrassingly] in the collection of the Museum of Modern Art... 8^).
>> --DR 

> I dunno about all of that, but one paper that most people hated when I was
> working at a "Camera Store" in the late 70's was called "E" surface. It had
> a raised surface resembling a fine 'mesh', much like a screen on a window.
> It was universally hated by my customers, but Kodak was using it, I guess to
> make copies of the prints more difficult, since the irregular surface
> produced myriad of reflections.

Yup, that was the surface I used, but made by Luminos...8^( 
I also likely over washed those prints - so now metallic silver 
has probably migrated to the paper surface, spoiling them
even further, sigh...! I liked the Luminos E surface at the time 
for the deep blacks without the need for a high gloss to get 
them. Much better papers arrived later, though...
--DR

~~~~~~~~~~

<tmonego@wildblue.net> wrote in message news:e9930d13-5789-4323-88c3-7d602768b6ee@t7g2000yqa.googlegroups.com...
On Mar 12, 9:35 am, "Darrell A. Larose" <ad...@ncf.ca> wrote:

> I really miss Kodak Ektalure "G" paper! I printed a lot of stuff on it, it
> was just a nice portrait paper, slightly warm (Ivory) base and a warm tone.
> Does anyone here have an inkjet match for it?
>
> Darrell Larose
> Photo Technician

For an Inkjet printer try Epson Semi Matte, much flatter than Luster,
work on your toning skills in Photoshop and you will have close to a G
surface.
For David, after years of not being able to use anything but a matte
paper with pigment inkjets there is a definite push against glossy
papers, the main argument being too much glare. After not being able
to put a darkroom in where I live now, I have been revitalized by the
current quality of upper end pigment inkjet printers and the new
baryta papers. Two especially are very close to air dried Ilford
Fiberbased gloss. Ilford Gold Fiber Silk, slightly warm and Hahnemuhle
Photo Rag Baryta which is neutral.

Tom

--Thanks for the advice.
--
--DR

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


"Harout S. Hedeshian" <harout@hedeshian.net> wrote in message 
news:c9d1360d-6aa1-436e-841b-00bdbe08a627@33g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...

> I am in the market for a new DSLR within the next 18 months or so in
> preparation for a big trip. I am by no means a professional
> photographer, as such I am well aware that these are not consumer
> DSLRs. Here comes the dilemma: I've grown up on Nikon cameras, I own
> an FG and an F3 film camera which I've "inherited" from my father. I
> don't mind shooting film, but it can be troublesome going overseas. I
> own a Samsung NV11 for my point and shoot purposes, which I really
> like. I was dead set on the Nikon D700 (I'll go into why in a little
> bit) until I saw that the 5D Mark II can record video in 1080P. This
> video recording feature strikes the consumer chord in me and now might
> make the 5DMII a serious consideration.

As others have pointed out, shooting even HD video with a still 
camera is not the best way to go. Lack of AF and AE will drive 
you nuts with video (unless you don't move the camera and your 
subjects don't move around, but then you would still be better 
off with shooting stills since they will be sharper). Then, there is 
the miserable sound... BTW, stills shot on (or transferred to) 
memory cards can look GREAT on a 1080p TV! If you want top 
quality 1080 HD, the superb $600 Canon HV30 can produce 
it (see my review of it here: 
http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/Canon_HV20-HV30.htm).

> In any case, I like the D700 because it has a full frame sensor. This
> means I don't need to relearn my focal ranges. (**shudder it's like
> teaching an American the metric system**). 

This is definitely nice, especially if you like using wide angles (but 
if not, it doesn't make much difference - and the smaller sensor 
gives you more "tele"...;-).

> Low light is an issue
> because I tend to shoot indoors without a flash. The D700's noise
> reduction appears to be superior especially at high ISOs which is
> important to me. Furthermore, as a consumer, I'm finding that the
> pricing on the D700 in the long run will cost me about $1000 to $1500
> less than a 5DMII.

A good point. Also remember that for traveling, a D700 is HEAVY, 
a D300 is fairly heavy, and a D90 isn't very bad at all for weight... 

> Besides those practical points, the only other thing holding be to
> Nikon is familiarity with Nikon, and Nikkor lenses. I don't plan on
> reusing my existing lenses because they are manual focus; they may not
> even mount on the D700 for all I know.

If they all mounted on the FG, they will all mount on the current 
bodies mentioned here. You can use the viewfinder for focusing, 
or *MAYBE* the focus indicators (I've never been much of a fan 
of this method, though). Both the D300 and D700 can meter with 
manual focus lenses. Depending on what you have now in lenses, 
you may already have some fine lenses (and there is a widespread 
feeling that with a few notable exceptions on both sides, that short 
to medium-long Nikkors tend to be at least slightly better than the 
equivalent Canons, sometimes spectacularly so, as with the Nikkor 
14-24mm f2.8 and 17-35mm f2.8 lenses (and the 35-70mm f2.8, 
28-70mm f2.8, and 24-70mm f2.8 Nikkors are also excellent if 
you have the money and the strength to buy and carry these ;-). For 
more on some Nikkors you may have now, see my evaluation list, 
at - http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/slemn.html.

> So here is what I want to ask the camera gurus:
> Is the HD video capture on the 5DMII really worth it? I imagine the
> image performance on the 5DMII is much better than a $500 consumer
> camcorder.Does the 5DMII have a mic, or an option for an external
> mic?

Unless you really don't care about getting the best results, I wouldn't 
go this way... The little Canon HV30 camcorder is really wonderful. 
BTW, DO NOT BE TEMPTED BY MEMORY CARD OR HARD 
DRIVE BASED CAMCORDERS! The ones with lower data rates 
(most) produce inferior picture quality, and the recent few just out 
that have a higher data rate and can look almost as good as HDV 
tape types are VERY, VERY hard to deal with when editing.

> It also seems that the lenses for Canon are quite expensive. I would
> like to buy a wide angle prime with a large aperture for the low light
> conditions as well as a general 25~100mm ish zoom.

I have a good Nikkor 35mm f2 AIS MF FS that is excellent FF wide 
open, but there is little else out there that is good wider than maybe f4, 
or shorter than this except the super wide Nikkor zooms mentioned 
above, and the excellent Canon 24mm f1.4 (plus the Zeiss 21mm f2.8). 
There are a few others here and there that are also good, but.........;-)

> Note: megapixels, or "bling", is not an issue for me. The pictures
> just need to be sharp and clear. I don't intend to make giant (greater
> than 11x17) prints out of these. Even 11x17 is pushing it.

I would think that the Nikon D90/D300/D700 could all do that 
well enough...

> Since I am not very familiar with Canon in general, how would people
> say Canon line of lenses compare to Nikkor in durability and
> longevity? I am hoping this camera will last me as long as the FG and
> F3 have lasted me and my father (i.e. measured in decades).

To think that I regarded the Nikon FG and FA as "plastic 
pieces of crap" when they first came out, and now I really like 
both of mine! ;-) And they both "wore" well and still look like new.

> That said, I've seen consumer CCD based cameras start developing stuck
> pixels after ~4 to 5 years. In point: my Olympus C3000 (which is a
> turn-of-the-millennium i.e. ~9 year old camera) has several bright
> green spots that appear on every picture and low light conditions have
> gotten so bad that shooting indoors without a flash looks like someone
> used the color noise filter on Photoshop, I mean severe noise, messes
> with your head to look at. It wasn't this bad when new. I know CCD
> technology has improved significantly over the past decade but I'm not
> too sure how age affects modern CMOS sensors in the D700 and 5DMII or
> if the degradation experienced in CCDs is applicable to CMOS sensors.

> All feedback is appreciated.

> Harout Hedeshian

On the last, I'm interested in comments, too. I will say that with my 
Sony 1 and 3 CCD video cameras, I always had to accept some 
bright pixels at maximum gain and 1/15th shutter speed (so long as 
they disappeared at 1/30th). With the little Canon camcorder, the 
CMOS chip shows no bright pixels under any conditions. Also, I know 
someone who went through three D80s and had to settle for a few 
bright pixels on the CCDs with three second exposures with the lens 
cap on, but a friend's new D700 with a CMOS chip shows no bright 
pixels under the same conditions. Keeping a sensor clean is also a 
consideration with digital cameras, which makes some of us wary 
of using non-zooms, even though most perform noticeably better than 
most zooms. Another consideration with CMOS chips is "rolling 
shutter distortion", but it is not often seen...;-)
--David Ruether
www.David-Ruether-Photography.com
d_ruether@hotmail.com

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"Harout S. Hedeshian" <harout@hedeshian.net> wrote in message news:c95b7f3b-8841-40b6-8ac2-3a287a6b504e@p20g2000yqi.googlegroups.com...
David Ruether blabbed...

Thanks everyone for your thoughts, it's pretty much helped me confirm
what I was originally thinking.

> As others have pointed out, shooting even HD video with a still
> camera is not the best way to go. Lack of AF and AE will drive
> you nuts with video (unless you don't move the camera and your
> subjects don't move around, but then you would still be better
> off with shooting stills since they will be sharper). Then, there is
> the miserable sound... BTW, stills shot on (or transferred to)
> memory cards can look GREAT on a 1080p TV! If you want top
> quality 1080 HD, the superb $600 Canon HV30 can produce it
> (see my review of it here:
> http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/Canon_HV20-HV30.htm).

This is pretty much the answer I was looking for. I don't see my self
shooting HD video very often. 

--If you have a good 1080 HDTV and saw the output from that 
cheap little Canon HV30, you might change your mind! It is really 
amazing - and I'm tempted to take it on the next trip (as I did the 
last one) and leave the still gear at home.

As such, I was thinking that the HD
video feature on the 5D2 would be more like a bonus, and that if it
worked better than a $500 camcorder, then it might just have been
worth it. I fully understand the point everyone is trying to make,
that buying a still camera for HD video doesn't make sense, but that
wasn't the intention. I guess I came off like a complete noob hehe ;)

--Nope - just like someone asking a question, for which several 
of us had an answer...;-)

> This is definitely nice, especially if you like using wide angles (but
> if not, it doesn't make much difference - and the smaller sensor
> gives you more "tele"...;-).

And I do! My favorite lense by far is my 35mm focal length. In
retrospect it seems I overuse it. In any case, if I got the D300 with
the smaller CCD, I would effectively be losing the wide angle, no?

--There are good wider lenses that with the 1.5X magnification 
effect would be good, at least stopped down a bit - but the crop 
factor may effectively remove the areas that are sub-standard at 
wide stops.

Which means I'd have to spring for a 25mm, anything less than that 
and I'm in the fisheye category which I definitely don't want. 

--Both the 20mm f2.8 and 24mm f2.8 Nikkors are very nice on 
FF by f5.6 - and on a cropped frame, they should be nice by f4, 
and usable at f2.8. The equivalent FLs would be 30mm and 36mm, 
of course, on a crop sensor... 'Course, if you've got the bucks, the 
14-24mm f2.8 is excellent on FF even at f2.8, giving a 21-36mm 
equivalent high quality zoom on the cropped sensor. It does appear 
that if you use your old lenses, the D300 would be a good choice 
if WA is less important than lower weight/price/size, and both will 
meter (but not AF) with your older lenses.

The other
kind of shots I frequently take is marcos. I use my 50mm in
conjunction with extender tubes and if I want really close, I toss a
doubler in there. Do you know if I can use my extender tubes with an
AF-S lense? I know I would lose the AF functionality, the tubes don't
have the contacts necessary to drive the AF motors. Macro lenses are
pretty much out of consideration for cost reasons. 

--This should work, but it will work better with the 50mm f2/1.8 
rather than the f1.4, and you will still need to stop down quite a bit 
for best performance. Less magnification, but consider looking 
for a Nikon TC14A or a newer one with glass that still clears your 
lens' rear elements (some won't). If you stop down, front achromats 
can also work very well and are about $40.

> A good point. Also remember that for traveling, a D700 is HEAVY,
> a D300 is fairly heavy, and a D90 isn't very bad at all for weight...

Compared to the FG, I'd say the F3 with the motor drive is pretty
heavy... No problems in this department ;) 

--Um, try hoisting a D3 with a fast zoom on it...! ;-) I had an F3 
and often used it with a motor, and (maybe 'cuz I'm weaker now) 
the new cameras, from the D200 on, seem much heavier and they 
are too heavy for me to use easily.

> I would think that the Nikon D90/D300/D700 could all do that
> well enough...

Agreed, especially in the pixel count department. I was considering
the D300, it has the complete feature set I am looking for, just not
full frame sensor. I figure for the price difference, since the D300
is already a fairly expensive camera, I'll eat ramen for a month and
grab the full frame sensor D700.

-- 8^) It may be worth it...;-)

> To think that I regarded the Nikon FG and FA as "plastic
> pieces of crap" when they first came out, and now I really like
> both of mine! ;-) And they both "wore" well and still look like new. 

The only problem I've had with my FG is that the latch for the door
got loose. I've lost a roll, and a half of a different roll by the
door accidentally opening. It's quite annoying. A pair of needle nose
pliers fixed that! 

--I used to buy a lot of used gear, and sometimes with the 
FA/FM/FE/FG I would see that, but it was easy to fix, as you 
point out...;-)
--DR

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"slats1" <slats1@fuse.net> wrote in message news:c1067fcf-ceec-445c-9f76-b562f9f88f0e@w9g2000yqa.googlegroups.com...

> I need a new computer for video editing with Premier 6 
> or Avid. Can anyone give me some specs on what I need 
> in a fast powerful computer. I'm not going to build one, 
> but I'd like to know what to look for. Hard drive size, 
> processor, graphics card, sound card, etc. 

Almost any new computer these days has capabilities FAR 
above the minimum for Premiere 6. To whatever computer 
you get, I would add at least one additional hard drive, and 
with Premiere 6, a second monitor is useful (most newer 
programs lay out nicely on a single 24" LCD, though - see 
http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/video-editor-screens.htm 
for some screen -grabs of three programs). Unless you intend 
to edit 24 Mbps AVCHD HD video (only a few editing 
programs will handle it), you do not need expensive "bleeding 
edge" gear to edit 25 Mbps HDV or 17 Mbps AVCHD HD 
(but I would buy gear that would handle these easily, even if 
you are not yet shooting HD). An Intel quad-core machine 
with 3-4 gigs of RAM and almost any (current) size drive(s) 
should be sufficient (and you can "cheat" a bit on the processor, 
with a dual-core and/or AMD, if reduced performance at a 
reduced price is an OK trade for you... 
--DR

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"Rich" <none@nowhere.com> wrote in message news:_tCdnfpPjNpLX1rUnZ2dnUVZ_uCdnZ2d@giganews.com...

> If Canon can make a good one, anyone can.

> http://forum.manualfocus.org/viewtopic.php?id=13516

It looks like the test was flawed - possibly by poor focus, 
possibly by the noted problem with an internal element in 
the Nikkor 180mm. I know the 180 AF Nikkor to be (at 
least with a good sample) one of Nikon's best lenses - and 
I would be surprised if the Leitz were also as bad as it 
looked in this comparison. The Canon 70-200mm f4 
looked (and is, by other accounts) an excellent lens. It 
would be interesting to know why the other two lenses 
didn't look as good...

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"Rich" <none@nowhere.com> wrote in message news:xfudnQyJK_73SVTUnZ2dnUVZ_q7inZ2d@giganews.com...
> "David Ruether" <d_ruether@thotmail.com> wrote in
> news:gq8idr$frc$1@ruby.cit.cornell.edu: 
>> "Rich" <none@nowhere.com> wrote in message
>> news:_tCdnfpPjNpLX1rUnZ2dnUVZ_uCdnZ2d@giganews.com... 

>>> If Canon can make a good one, anyone can.
>>>
>>> http://forum.manualfocus.org/viewtopic.php?id=13516

>> It looks like the test was flawed - possibly by poor focus,
>> possibly by the noted problem with an internal element in
>> the Nikkor 180mm. I know the 180 AF Nikkor to be (at
>> least with a good sample) one of Nikon's best lenses - and
>> I would be surprised if the Leitz were also as bad as it
>> looked in this comparison. The Canon 70-200mm f4
>> looked (and is, by other accounts) an excellent lens. It
>> would be interesting to know why the other two lenses
>> didn't look as good...
>> --DR 

> Canon is good at longer lenses because frankly, they aren't hard to make 
> good. Unlike wides and wide zooms that have far greater production 
> difficulties associated with them.

While I (sorta...;-) agree with this, it doesn't explain the 
anomalies in the OP's test results. The Nikkor 180mm 
f2.8 AF is one VERY sharp lens (and it is among Nikon's 
top 3 or 4 best, which is saying something!), and unlike 
many fast lenses, its performance holds up at any focus 
distance.
--DR

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"Timmo" <me9@privacy.net> wrote in message news:FdWdnRUveJGwgEvUnZ2dnUVZ8tidnZ2d@pipex.net...
> "Eric Miller" <miller_nospam_eric@bellsouth.net> wrote in message 
> news:sXnBl.24098$9a.12517@bignews1.bellsouth.net...

>> Is anyone using an online backup service to store images? I have been 
>> looking at the Carbonite service and thinking about giving it a try. Tales 
>> of good or bad experiences and recommendations for alternate providers 
>> would be appreciated.

> Quite often they sound good in theory, but it depends on the file sizes of 
> your images. If for example, you keep RAW, TIFF and JPEG versions of your 
> files, then that's a lot of file size per photo and so it's something you 
> need to consider when choosing a service. Also think about whether it would 
> be more cost effective to use external hard drives for backup and store them 
> in a safe off-site location.

I heard of one instance where the online storage company went out 
of business with short notice, and many people lost their images. With 
external HDs, I would use multiples with identical sets of files on them, 
and run them periodically to keep the drives in good operating condition. 
Some people say that archival-type DVDs are good, CDs are better than 
average-quality DVDs (but without much capacity), and that Blu-ray 
disks may be reasonably archival (I find that last hard to believe...;-). 
Maybe photographically copying your best work is best? (Just joshing! 8^)
--DR


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"jazu" <nofreakingspam@nospam.com> wrote in message 
news:ltrBl.86$LA7.77@newsfe20.iad...

> I did some HD video from still images.
> I used Sony Vegas 7. Images are 8MP
> http://www.vimeo.com/3752979
> I don't know, why I have so many pixelation on the skies?
> I rendered to the bast quality 

The problem is not pixelization (unless from SD Mini-DV, but 
that's a different issue...), but banding likely caused by too little 
bit depth in the highly compressed form the video is converted 
to by Vimeo for streaming. But, D. McC's suggestion of adding 
some noise may be worth a try. Let us know if it works! BTW, 
here are two versions of one of my videos using HD source 
material. The first is as it would normally appear on YouTube 
(the banding and other compression artifacts are horrendous!), 
at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pPhPA8IP_ig. The second 
is from the identical video upload to YouTube, but the added 
URL suffix "&fmt=18" tricks YouTube into playing this better 
looking version (with much reduced banding and artifacting), 
at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pPhPA8IP_ig&fmt=18.
It may be that Vimeo compression may look better with an 
alternative resolution, frame rate, or original compression 
method used to upload the video - or there may be a method 
to cause Vimeo to stream the video at higher quality...
--DR

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"gerry" <mwebsurfer@verizon.net> wrote in message news:CFTBl.1692$Q52.382@nwrddc02.gnilink.net...

> I'm looking for info on programs to burn HD video to standard dvd's
> that will play in bd players. I understand Roxio 2009 can do this
> and am looking for those who have used this method or some other
> program to do this. I know recording time will be less but BD disks
> and burners are too expensive. Anyone have any suggestions?

It can work very well, and I get about 45+ minutes of essentially 
original HDV-quality video (with "button" menus) on single-sided 
standard DVDs using standard DVD writers (but, as pointed out, 
these do not play on all Blu-ray players). I tried using Ulead to make 
the file conversions to AVCHD and write the disk in one pass, but 
I was not happy with the results (compression artifacts and detail 
loss were unacceptable when compared with the original HDV). I 
tried converting the HDV files to AVCHD individually using Vegas 
Pro 8, and even though the maximum possible data rate with that 
method is a constant 16 Mbps, the results appeared to be at least 
as good as with camcorders that shoot AVCHD natively at 17 
Mbps, and VERY close to the original HDV. I then used Ulead to 
author the disks, using the AVCHD files made in Vegas. The file 
conversions do take a long time, though... BTW, red-laser DVD 
disks are limited to 18 Mbps data rate, Blu-rate can reach 25 
Mbps, and a few recent AVCHD cameras can record at 24 Mbps 
(compared with HDV's 25 Mbps, but the better compression type 
used by AVCHD ***potentially*** offers some relative advantages, 
but editing it IS NOT FUN!!!). The red-laser solution to HD is a 
good one, I think, but making the master disk can take a LOT of 
time (but copies after that are cheap and easy enough to make that 
you can hand them out - or use them as "Frisbees"...8^). Also BTW, 
look into the very cheap Sony Vegas Platinum 9 to see if it can 
make the same or higher data rate AVCHD conversions (I may 
look into that later today...).
--DR

~~~~~~~~

"David Ruether" <d_ruether@thotmail.com> wrote in message news:grb15a$s1f$1@ruby.cit.cornell.edu...

[...]
> BTW, look into Vegas Platinum 9 to see if it can make the same or higher
> data rate AVCHD conversions (I may look into that later today...).
> --DR 
It, as with Vegas Pro 8, can make AVCHD files with a maximum 
data rate of 16 Mbps, which is sufficient for excellent results...
--DR 


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"Smarty" <nobody@nobody.com> wrote in message news:PT8Cl.1839$Q52.362@nwrddc02.gnilink.net...
> "David Ruether" <d_ruether@thotmail.com> wrote in message 
> news:grb15a$s1f$1@ruby.cit.cornell.edu...
>> "gerry" <mwebsurfer@verizon.net> wrote in message 
>> news:CFTBl.1692$Q52.382@nwrddc02.gnilink.net...

>>> I'm looking for info on programs to burn HD video to standard dvd's
>>> that will play in bd players. I understand Roxio 2009 can do this
>>> and am looking for those who have used this method or some other
>>> program to do this. I know recording time will be less but BD disks
>>> and burners are too expensive. Anyone have any suggestions?

>> It can work very well, and I get about 45+ minutes of essentially
>> original HDV-quality video (with "button" menus) on single-sided
>> standard DVDs using standard DVD writers

> This requires a dual layer disk.

Glad to see you back! But, it was single-layer...

>> I tried converting the HDV files to AVCHD individually using Vegas
>> Pro 8, and even though the maximum possible data rate with that
>> method is a constant 16 Mbps, the results appeared to be at least
>> as good as with camcorders that shoot AVCHD natively at 17
>> Mbps, and VERY close to the original HDV.

> Not true whatsoever in my experience. If you have an AVCHD camcorder and 
> make the comparisons I have done for literally 200 or more disks both using 
> both Canon HDV and Canon AVCHD camcorders, the results are entirely the 
> opposite of what you claim.

Here we go, again......! ;-) What better comparison than this one, 
pitting two camcorders with the same sensors and lenses against 
each other, shooting the same material, one shooting 17 Mbps 
AVCHD, the other 25 Mbps HDV - see: 
www.camcorderinfo.com/content/Canon-HG10-Camcorder-Review-33146/Performance.htm# 
The HDV image is clearly sharper in this comparison, which I'm 
inclined to believe having heard many other comments from good 
sources that place 17 Mbps AVCHD image quality inferior to HDV. 
You may believe (and report) what you want...;-)

> Do you have an AVCHD camcorder? Do you make such comparisons? If so, you 
> are doing something very wrong in your workflow to encounter and then report 
> these opinions......

See above. But I have downloaded samples of good 24 Mbps AVCHD, 
and *that* does appear to be very good - roughly equal to good HDV. 
But, in any case with 24 Mbps AVCHD, I cannot edit it with my 
current software, and it is PAINFUL (and expensive!) to edit it with 
software/hardware capable of editing it in any practical way. So, for 
no great improvement in quality, why bother with AVCHD except as 
a means for outputting cheap HD disks? Matters should improve in the 
future, but for now, AVCHD doesn't make sense for most.

>> BTW, red-laser DVD
>> disks are limited to 18 Mbps data rate, Blu-rate can reach 25
>> Mbps, and a few recent AVCHD cameras can record at 24 Mbps
>> (compared with HDV's 25 Mbps,

> This is simply not true either. I have many AVCHD disks authored from 24 
> Mbit/sec content to 24 Mbit/sec AVCHD disks which play just fine on BD 
> players I have here and elsewhere.

This is counter to everything I have read about this... Interesting! 

> Have you made 24 Mbit/sec AVCHD disks? Have you played them without success? 
> How have you made them? What player(s) cannot play them??

As I pointed out, Vegas is limited to 16 Mbps data rate, so I cannot 
go beyond that in making export files (and I cannot edit 24 Mbps AVCHD 
with it, either). 

> (The 18 Mbit/sec limitation you incorrectly cite in the AVCHD spec only 
> refers to built-in recording on DVD blanks used in one AVCHD camcorder which 
> captures on miniDVDs.)

Thank you for the information. 

>> but the better compression type
>> used by AVCHD ***potentially*** offers some relative advantages,
>> but editing it IS NOT FUN!!!).

> Get the right hardware and AVCHD editing is no more or less "fun" than HDV, 
> DV, MJPEG, or any other video format.

>> --DR

So, how much for the eight-core Mac plus latest FCP plus the add-ons 
required to get the system working to do this...? Yet, HDV can be well 
handled using cheap hardware and software... (and the output quality 
is virtually identical to 24 Mbps AVCHD. So, why bother???

> Sony's AVCHD encoders are not the ultimate test / determinant of how AVCHD 
> can look if transcoded from HDV as you are doing it. Apples "Compressor" 
> with Final Cut Pro HD or the Edius encoder are 2 consumer / prosumer 
> alternatives which would allow you to make and then report in a meaningful 
> way.

If I cannot see, with a careful frame-by-frame comparison between 
the original HDV and the AVCHD transcoded copy, any significant 
differences, then the above is meaningless.

> More to the point........

> Capturing in mpeg2, then transcoding to h.264, is NOT a good workflow. Those 
> of us with large HDV and HD-DVD collections are, no doubt, tempted to find a 
> good solution to bring our large collections of content from the defunct 
> HD-DVD world of mpeg2 to the newer and better h.264 realm compatible with 
> BluRay players.

> In fact, authoring mpeg2 AVCHD disks without transcoding can be done with 
> some effort and avoids the transcode entirely. This is not a widely 
> supported playback format but many players will handle it. If retaining 
> quality is the goal, and HDV is the original format, and compatibility is 
> the issue, then authoring BD-R or BD-RE disks is the correct solution.

> Smarty 

But, the point of this thread is writing cheap red-laser disks using standard 
DVD writers using software that essentially maintains the quality of the 
original HDV, with disks that are compatible with most players. Read the 
OP's post...;-) There is cheap gear and software that will handle HDV 
efficiently, and one can then make cheap HD disks from the results. Why 
bother with more than that, especially if it is still a "pain" to do so...? 
Maybe in a few years I will be more enthusiastic about AVCHD, but not 
yet!
--DR

~~~~~~

"Smarty" <nobody@nobody.com> wrote in message news:a6iCl.1968$Q52.930@nwrddc02.gnilink.net...

[...]
> ..................................... You are entirely full of shit !!
[...]
>
> Smarty 

"Grumpy", as usual, I see... 
I report my observations and experiences in posts that are relevant 
to another poster's questions. I do use care in my observations 
(and logic in my writings, which you may sometimes not believe...;-). 
I sometimes base opinions on the work of others when that appears 
reputable, especially when it is mainstream and not quirky (why 
"reinvent the wheel"?). I respect the extent of your knowledge, but 
sometimes its use does appear to be beyond the practical needs at 
hand, and to be for purposes other than helping. Do take a tranquilizer 
once in a while - it may help...
--DR

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"Smarty" <nobody@nobody.com> wrote in message news:1424822485260734153.572228nobody-nobody.com@nntp.motzarella.org...
> "David Ruether" <d_ruether@thotmail.com> wrote:
>> "Smarty" <nobody@nobody.com> wrote in message
>> news:a6iCl.1968$Q52.930@nwrddc02.gnilink.net...

>> [...]
>> > ..................................... You are entirely full of shit!!
>> [...]
>> >
>> > Smarty

>> "Grumpy", as usual, I see...
>> I report my observations and experiences in posts that are relevant
>> to another poster's questions. I do use care in my observations
>> (and logic in my writings, which you may sometimes not believe...;-).
>> I sometimes base opinions on the work of others when that appear
>> reputable, especially when it is mainstream and not quirky (why
>> "reinvent the wheel"?). I respect the extent of your knowledge, but
>> sometimes its use does appear to be beyond the practical needs at
>> hand, and to be for purposes other than helping. Do take a
>> tranquilizer once in a while - it may help...
>> --DR

> I am indewd grumpy David when half-truths, distorted facts, and
> misleading information is dished out to people seeking clarity and
> knowledge in a complex subject.

> You have resorted to name calling now on 3 separate occasions when your
> "facts" were challenged.

> Pathetic.......

> Smarty

Indeed...;-) I know I shouldn't pursue this, but, heck, in the interests 
of truth, facts, accurate information, clarity, and knowledge, do tell 
us when I have ever called you a name you have not called yourself 
(namely, "grumpy" - one that does appear to be quite apt...;-). But, 
to get back on topic, I did supply the OP an answer for his question 
that was true, factual, informative, clear, and sufficient for him to 
carry out his intent in a straight forward way that would result in a 
high quality outcome at relatively low cost. 
Did you?
But, enough of this petty nonsense... If it were not for your knowledge 
and willingness to freely impart it (and to correct the mistakes of others, 
including myself, when the correction is to the point and done with at 
least *some* grace...), you would have received a "*PLONK!*" from 
me long ago.
--DR

~~~~~~~~~~~~

"Smarty" <nobody@nobody.com> wrote in message news:_7ICl.2196$6n.41@nwrddc01.gnilink.net...

> I did, not too long ago, make a comment to David that I was complaining 
> about his often irrelevant posts for the very last time, since my prior 
> complaints to him had very obviously fallen upon his deaf ears. I had 
> exhausted my efforts to try to urge him to spare all of us his particular 
> form of fact/opinion hodge-podge.

> I should have remembered and kept this promise, since it is clear that he 
> just does not get it.

> Smarty 

I guess we should simply ask "gerry", the OP in this thread, who 
provided the most useful information for accomplishing what he 
sought to do... (a revolutionary idea, isn't that - instead of quibbling, 
squabbling, insulting, posturing, name-calling, and all the other 
OT nonsense that you have been guilty of in this thread?). I seek to 
help people, not to argue in a destructive way with others here - but 
I'm always willing to accept corrections to errors that I've made that 
are done with a positive intent to advance solutions to the questions 
at hand, and to discuss differences rather than getting into the "I'm 
right!" authoritarian position that you often place yourself in here. And
often you jump to conclusions about what I meant without offering 
the opportunity for a reasonable discussion that could clarify the issues 
(and possibly result in an outcome somewhat different from your 
original declaration, once the variables and possibilities are presented 
in a rational and respectful manner by each). So, if you are not willing 
to proceed in that spirit, and are willing to stop trying to direct what 
I can, and cannot, write about here, it would be with regret that you 
would receive my first "PLONK!" in 14 years of writing many 
thousands of posts in the NGs on the 'Net. I would be sorry to lose 
your obviously extensive expertise, but NOT your unwillingness to 
recognize that others may have advice of value to offer that may 
differ from yours, and also your often rather extreme rudeness in 
posts here!
--DR

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"Smarty" <nobody@nobody.com> wrote in message news:XkNCl.2246$Q52.2017@nwrddc02.gnilink.net...
> "David Ruether" <d_ruether@thotmail.com> wrote in message 
> news:grfpec$788$1@ruby.cit.cornell.edu...

>> I guess we should simply ask "gerry", the OP in this thread, who
>> provided the most useful information for accomplishing what he
>> sought to do... (a revolutionary idea, isn't that - instead of quibbling,
>> squabbling, insulting, posturing, name-calling, and all the other
>> OT nonsense that you have been guilty of in this thread?). I seek to
>> help people, not to argue in a destructive way with others here - but
>> I'm always willing to accept corrections to errors that I've made that
>> are done with a positive intent to advance solutions to the questions
>> at hand, and to discuss differences rather than getting into the "I'm
>> right!" authoritarian position that you often place yourself in here. And
>> often you jump to conclusions about what I meant without offering
>> the opportunity for a reasonable discussion that could clarify the issues
>> (and possibly result in an outcome somewhat different from your
>> original declaration, once the variables and possibilities are presented
>> in a rational and respectful manner by each). So, if you are not willing
>> to proceed in that spirit, and are willing to stop trying to direct what
>> I can, and cannot, write about here, it would be with regret that you
>> would receive my first "PLONK!" in 14 years of writing many
>> thousands of posts in the NGs on the 'Net. I would be sorry to lose
>> your obviously extensive expertise, but NOT your unwillingness to
>> recognize that others may have advice of value to offer that may
>> differ from yours, and also your often rather extreme rudeness in
>> posts here!
>> --DR

I know the following is a waste of time, but what the heck...;-)

> David,

> I certainly welcome the comments of "gerry" but this issue is a much more 
> chronic matter not specifically determined by whether "gerry" found your 
> reply less or more useful. In fact, I have had very little to offer in this 
> particular topic to "gerry" but will be glad to offer him a great deal more 
> detail if in fact that is what is desired.

I offered him a workable solution consistent with his request, which 
you did not. You offered instead essentially useless material, including 
insults and name-calling...

> If you, for example, tell "gerry" that you can record 45+ minutes on a 
> single layer red DVD with 16 mb/s AVCHD, I will yell "WRONG". This is 
> because you have made a factual error and misled a newbie.

Perhaps it is from a misunderstanding... I can author onto a single 
layer DVD about 45 minutes of material using AVCHD files transcoded 
from HDV using Sony Vegas at its maximum data rate of 16 Mbps, 
authored to a standard DVD using Ulead 11+. The results look fine. 

> If you tell others that transcoded HDV into AVCHD looks indistinguishable 
> from the original HDV, especially at 16 mbit/sec constant bit rate encoding, 
> I will also say you are wrong because it is just NOT true.

It is true, and I'm a careful observer... You can believe it or not. As 
I pointed out, using the Ulead software for the transcoding produced 
unacceptable results. The Vegas transcoded files are so good that only 
with extremely careful observation of the VERY most difficult material 
can one SOMETIMES fleetingly detect ANY differences, and these 
are very subtle and not of practical significance. Hence the statement 
is essentially true.

> If you go on, as you ALWAYS DO..........to tell your HDV story about why 
> AVCHD is "not fun", doesn't look good, or otherwise is inferior, I will say, 
> very loudly now since you apparently did not hear me say it softly, that you 
> are ENTIRELY FULL OF SHIT.

Hmmm.... Let's see. AVCHD on a given computer previews less well, 
renders more slowly, and requires editing software (for best results) 
generally outside the mainstream. HDV can be edited efficiently with 
almost any recent computer using common ordinary software. So... 
And, BTW, I did try editing 24 Mbps AVCHD using Vegas Pro 8 
(the program I will be staying with for editing). It doesn't work.

> Don't you understand that taking an already encoded file such as HDV and 
> then making it into another encoded format has both time and quality 
> consequences? Doesn't it seem even slightly apparent to you that starting 
> with 25 mb/sec HDV and then recompressing it to 16 mbit/sec AVCHD is 
> entirely different from encoding video in the camcorder at 16 mb/s in AVC 
> format directly?

Theory is one thing, observation quite another. Things that "should 
not work" often work well, and the reverse is also true...

> I could care less if the misconceptions were strictly your own, but you 
> present them as gospel. And surround them with anecdotes which, to the 
> newbie, appear plausible.

What are we to do here but base (as you claim you do) our advice on 
experience and that of others? That, and ***REASONABLE*** 
interaction and discussion, is how we learn and proceed - not by dismissing 
someone's experience or observations, or by calling the offerer "full of shit"! 

> Rest assured, however, that if you are going to be making incorrect 
> statements in the newsgroups I frequent that I will aggressively respond as 
> I have already, to spare your victims the damage of your misleading comments 
> and opinions.

As I have said many times before, I welcome ***FACTUAL*** corrections, 
and different *opinions*, IF NOT PRESENTED AGRESSIVELY!!!!!!!
You do appear to be an "emperor" of sorts, though, incapable of conducting 
a discussion rather than an attack (often personal), or of considering a different 
viewpoint or conclusion from your own - and that makes whatever you offer 
(which is often quite good otherwise), spoiled and unnecessarily unpleasant. 
Perhaps taking a good course in anger management (or the occasional 
tranquilizer, as I suggested earlier...;-) would make it more possible to interact 
with you in a beneficial way for all...;-)

> Once again, I urge you to get some AVCHD experience and begin to understand 
> the differences more fully with the proper BluRay player, AVCHD authoring 
> tools, camcorder, etc. The cost of entry is very low, well below $1000 for 
> the camcorder, the burner, and some software, so this is not a rich man's 
> sport.

What makes you think I have not done much of what you suggest? Is it 
because I (reasonably...) come to conclusions different from yours?
That, of course, cannot be tolerated! ;-)

Have fun, and do try to get out more often and away from your video 
toys, which you seem to buy in bulk and test endlessly. Or, to be 
unnecessarily snide (my apologies in advance...), "get a life", please!

--DR

[Ducking the expected brickbats now...! 8^]

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"Smarty" <nobody@nobody.com> wrote in message news:6PQCl.2271$Q52.1525@nwrddc02.gnilink.net...
> "David Ruether" <d_ruether@thotmail.com> wrote in message 
> news:grghdd$4k3$1@ruby.cit.cornell.edu...
>> "Smarty" <nobody@nobody.com> wrote in message 
>> news:XkNCl.2246$Q52.2017@nwrddc02.gnilink.net...
>>> "David Ruether" <d_ruether@thotmail.com> wrote in message 
>>> news:grfpec$788$1@ruby.cit.cornell.edu...

>>> I certainly welcome the comments of "gerry" but this issue is a much more 
>>> chronic matter not specifically determined by whether "gerry" found your 
>>> reply less or more useful. In fact, I have had very little to offer in 
>>> this particular topic to "gerry" but will be glad to offer him a great 
>>> deal more detail if in fact that is what is desired.

>> I offered him a workable solution consistent with his request, which
>> you did not [at the time]. You offered instead essentially useless material, 
>> including insults and name-calling...
[...]
>> Have fun, and do try to get out more often and away from your video
>> toys, which you seem to buy in bulk and test endlessly. Or, to be
>> unnecessarily snide (my apologies in advance...), "get a life", please!
>> --DR
[...]
The above was "excessive" on my part, and I apologise - but after a while, 
your unwillingness to try "discussions" rather than "pronouncements", and 
not respecting the posts of others can eventually evoke an inappropriate 
response... BTW, I suspect that anyone bothering to read this thread to 
this point will have a clear idea of which of us generally writes in anger 
and which does not...;-)

>> I did try editing 24 Mbps AVCHD using Vegas Pro 8
>> (the program I will be staying with for editing). It doesn't work.

> If anyone here wants to try it for themselves, here are typical 24 Mbit/sec 
> samples: 
> http://www.megaupload.com/?d=E3PCHMKC 

I did, and the program was unable to export 24 Mbps files, a requirement (for 
me) for being able to edit with files of the given characteristics - otherwise 
what's the point? Yes, I could import the files, cut them up, shove them around, 
and play them - but, then what? Without AVCHD 24 Mbps file export ability, 
Pro 8 "doesn't work" for editing that file type, as I said. 

> If you were trying to state that the current provided templates in Vegas 
> only allow 16 Mbit/sec final rendering to take place, then I would agree 
> with you. But that is not what you said.

Golly gee whiz, "Smarty", yuh got me! 8^)

> I would expect Sony to release this 24 Mbit/sec template when they (Sony) 
> introduce their own new 24 Mbit/sec camcorder series, rumored to be soon 
> forthcoming.

> Smarty

***AT THAT POINT***, shooting AVCHD becomes MUCH more 
interesting, but until then (and until Sony fixes the bunch of bugs that would 
likely follow, if past experience is any guide), my current mode of operating 
is practical, and it results in excellent quality.

OK, to cover some past ground, but in a possibly more orderly manner:
I *did* "get" what you were obviously (and repeatedly) saying (that there 
will always be losses with any transcoding step) - but you did not appear 
to "get" what I was saying (that it may not matter, if the results of the 
transcoding are close enough to the original used as reference so as to 
be indistinguishable in any meaningful way even with careful inspection). 
Heck, even FCP depends on this when it transcodes ALL material to 
ProRes 422 at import (with the quality loss that Apple graphically 
describes). Theoretical losses are one thing; practical results that one 
finds that result from experiments to test the theory may prove the theory 
techniically correct, but irrelevant in practice. An anology to this is my 
experience with making good red-laser disks from HDV files, using this 
process:
--Shoot even difficult high-quality HDV, such as finely-detailed material 
in motion occupying most of the frame, but with significant parts of the 
frame low in color and tonal contrast, and with some in shadow but with 
some detail still showing (BTW, I know that as with all but uncompressed 
video, the raw image material is transcoded at this point in the camera, 
with HDV *and* AVCHD, which includes severe compression for both).
--Edit the material. This step is easier/faster with my hardware and chosen 
software (Vegas) using HDV rather than AVCHD source material. (Yes, 
I've tried both - and all but you report superior image quality with the best 
HDV camcorders compared with the best 17 Mbps AVCHD camcorders, 
so why would I bother with those?)
--Export the edited material. (At this step, Adobe software fails with the 
original conditions given above, with areas of very fine detail often causing 
the compression to fail badly at export and to be unacceptable visually. 
And, this step is not possible with 24 Mbps AVCHD files with Vegas, 
making the use of 24 Mbps AVCHD camcorders impractical for me now.)
--Transcode the edited and exported HDV files to AVCHD using Vegas 
at the maximum available data rate of 16 Mbps. (The results, compared 
on the timeline frame-by-frame with the HDV files, are, contrary to what 
theory may predict, essentially indistinguishable even with the most difficult 
material and closest observation. This is NOT true for files transcoded 
using Ulead - its AVCHD files show serious compression failures that are 
VERY easy to spot! I do know where the compression failure "skeletons" 
hide...;-)
--Author the Vegas-transcoded AVCHD files to standard DVD blanks, 
including menus, with about 45+ minutes of recorded time available on 
a single-sided disk using Ulead (it's easier to use than the Sony disk writer).
(That time on the disk is available, by whatever means, and the visual 
results of playing the disk are *essentially* identical to the original HDV 
material as viewed on a good 1080p 42" LCD at 6.5' - with no obvious 
artifacts or loss of resolution evident.)
Believe it, or not...;-)

But, now I expect you will reply with your usual gentlemanly "YFOS" 
comment...8^)

> P.S. to "gerry":

> Should you wish to learn more about TSMuxer and BD5/9 methods of directly 
> producing mpeg2 disks to play in BluRay players, please reply and I will be 
> delighted to help you.

> Smarty

This could be interesting to all of us.
--DR

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"Smarty" <nobody@nobody.com> wrote in message news:CX3Dl.2398$6n.566@nwrddc01.gnilink.net...

> David,

> I have decided to PLONK you. I seldom do this, but your babble 
> just makes me sick.

> Smarty

Ah, thanks. That makes things easier for me, not having you 
dispute everything I write, whether rightly or not (or on some 
nit-picking points that are basically irrelevant). I trust this 
means that you will not respond to my posts, including this 
one, even if they are discovered indirectly (at least I can hope 
so...). So, if you do not respond to this, good (but I know you 
will...! 8^) - and that means you may actually be leaving me 
able to write advice to people who may find it useful without 
receiving your often obnoxious and unproductive interference 
(although, as I have pointed out many times before, I do 
respect the extent of your knowledge, but not your manners - 
and we need not always agree on the matters at hand in a 
thread, but such disagreement should be considered a 
normal part of discourse, and not the basis for a "cat fight"...8^)
Good luck, and have fun!
--DR

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"gerry" <mwebsurfer@verizon.net> wrote in message news:OnUCl.2311$Q52.1704@nwrddc02.gnilink.net...
> David Ruether wrote:
>> "David Ruether" <d_ruether@thotmail.com> wrote in message news:grb15a$s1f$1@ruby.cit.cornell.edu...

>>>BTW, look into Vegas Platinum 9 to see if it can make the same or higher
>>>data rate AVCHD conversions (I may look into that later today...).
>>>--DR

>> It, as with Vegas Pro 8, can make AVCHD files with a maximum
>> data rate of 16 Mbps...
>> --DR 

> To Everyone who has replied:
> I have used Adobe Premiere Elements 4 to work on my video. Can I 
> export it to Roxio 2009 to make a dvd that will play in my BD player?
> Has anyone actually used Roxio to make a BD compatible dvd on a
> std dvd? This is what I would like to know. I'm not that proficient
> with all these other solutions.
> Gerry

A quick look at Roxio on Google indicated that it cannot write HD 
files to DVD, only SD DV format - but maybe all is not lost...! ;-) 
Look around in Elements and see if it can export AVCHD files with at 
least 16 Mbps data rate (or just try the maximum data rate, if any is 
available,), and can make DVDs using these (I can't remember if it can 
or not, or if so, at what quality). You can convert the files to standard 
DV and write these to DVDs, and the quality, while not as high as HD, 
is fairly good. Ulead's VideoStudio 11.5+ is available from Amazon.com 
for $39.99, and this can be used to author HD disks with standard DVD 
blanks and writers using AVCHD files. Perhaps "safer" is Sony Vegas 
Movie Studio Platinum 9 for $48.95, since I know its file conversions 
to AVCHD (or are your edited files already AVCHD?) are good - and 
you can use both programs as described in my last post in this thread if 
you are starting with HDV. "Smarty" *may* have a better solution (if 
he doesn't get bogged down in disputing what I write and keeps his 
attention on offering a solution for your question...;-), or maybe 
someone else will offer one that works and that is cheap and easy to 
use...
Good luck with it.
--DR

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"David Ruether" <d_ruether@thotmail.com> wrote in message news:gribbi$33$1@ruby.cit.cornell.edu... 
> "gerry" <mwebsurfer@verizon.net> wrote in message news:OnUCl.2311$Q52.1704@nwrddc02.gnilink.net...

>> I have used Adobe Premiere Elements 4 to work on my video. 
>> Can I export it to Roxio 2009 to make a dvd that will play in my 
>> BD player?
>> Has anyone actually used Roxio to make a BD compatible dvd on a
>> std dvd? This is what I would like to know. I'm not that proficient
>> with all these other solutions.
>> Gerry

> A quick look at Roxio on Google indicated that it cannot write HD
> files to DVD, only SD DV format - but maybe all is not lost...! ;-)
> Look around in Elements and see if it can export AVCHD files with at
> least 16 Mbps data rate (or just try the maximum data rate, if any is
> available), and can make DVDs using these (I can't remember if it can
> or not, or if so, at what quality). You can convert the files to standard
> DV and write these to DVDs, and the quality, while not as high as HD,
> is fairly good. Ulead's VideoStudio 11.5+ is available from Amazon.com
> for $39.99, and this can be used to author HD disks with standard DVD
> blanks and writers using AVCHD files. Perhaps "safer" is Sony Vegas
> Movie Studio Platinum 9 for $48.95, since I know its file conversions
> to AVCHD (or are your edited files already AVCHD?) are good - and
> you can use both programs as described in my last post in this thread if
> you are starting with HDV. "Smarty" *may* have a better solution (if
> he doesn't get bogged down in disputing what I write and keeps his
> attention on offering a solution for your question...;-), or maybe
> someone else will offer one that works and that is cheap and easy to
> use...
> Good luck with it.
> --DR 

More information: I just looked through Premiere Elements 4 and 
I did not find a way to export a 1920x1080 AVCHD file using 
that program (and, as I pointed out above, Roxio appears to be 
usable only with SD 720x480 files for making DVDs anyway). 
So, it is my (ever so humble...;-) opinion that the Sony Vegas 
Platinum 9 software offers the best quality/price solution for making 
AVCHD conversions from what must be HDV files (if made in 
Premiere in HD...), although this is very time-consuming. Once you 
have the files, you can then author HD disks using standard DVD 
blanks and writers. I prefer using Ulead's VideoStudio 11.5+ for 
doing this, although I do not like that program for editing or making 
file conversions - but for HDV editing it does have advantages 
over Premiere in that it does not recompress (and sometimes 
visibly damage) unchanged footage, and it also generally exports 
HDV files faster than Premiere...
--DR

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"NadCixelsyd" <nadcixelsyd@aol.com> wrote in message news:8b3760b8-0952-49c2-8aa7-658887fb6f79@e21g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...

> On eBay, I can buy a Hoya UV filter in the $15-$20 range. However,
> the "multi-coated" filters are priced over $30. What's the
> advantage? Is it significant?

Look here for new, from a VERY reputable dealer with good prices: www.bhphotovideo.com/c/shop/12810/Standard_Filters_UV_Haze_Protection.html.
Hoya is an excellent brand of filters and are of sufficient quality for 
any normal photographic purpose. Except under unusual conditions, 
multicoated front filters are generally a waste of money. A proper lens 
shade is a useful addition to the filter. 
--DR

~~~~~~~~~~

"Michael Benveniste" <mhb@murkyether.com> wrote in message news:73urj2F10nfi2U1@mid.individual.net...

> The numbers I see are quite different. First, remember that
> reflection occurs at both air-glass surfaces. Second, coating
> effectiveness changes with angle and light frequency.

> An uncoated filter made of optical glass will typically reflect
> away about 9% of incoming light. Cheap ones made from soda-ash 
> glass (AKA window glass or "green" glass) will reflect a little 
> bit more.

> Single coated filters cut that in about half (4%). Under optimal
> conditions, a multicoated (BBAR) filter can cut the overall loss 
> to about 0.5%, but in real world conditions it typically works out
> to between 1 and 2%.

> Here's one good page showing this.
> https://www.omegafilters.com/index.php?page=tech_app_notes

> Any filter will increase the overall likelihood of flare, but
> multicoated filters increase it less. A lens hood will decrease
> the overall likelihood of flare with minimal downsides.

> In addition, most UV filters block an additional few percent of
> violet light. It isn't a huge negative, but with most modern
> gear there's no advantage to offset it. Not only do the vast
> majority of dSLR's have a filter in front of the sensor to block
> UV, but the coatings and cement used in modern lenses blocks most
> of it as well.

> The use of protective filters is controversial beyond any reason.
> Suffice it to say that some people use them all the time, some
> never use them, and some use them only in adverse environmental
> conditions. I'll only say it's a personal choice.

> But if you elect to use a full-time protective filter with a dSLR,
> I'd recommend a multicoated, clear protector like the Hoya Clear Pro
> 1 Digital, B+W #007 MRC, or Nikon NC. (This is _not_ meant as
> a complete list). 
> -- 
> Michael Benveniste -- mhb@murkyether.com (Clarification required)
Nice post - thanks!
--DR

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"Richard J Kinch" <kinch@truetex.com> wrote in message news:Xns9BE61B4A1F540someconundrum@216.196.97.131...
> Wolfgang Weisselberg writes:

>> What do you want an UV filter for?

> The typical "UV filter" is just a cheap piece of ordinary glass.

Not really, if you really want to take pictures through it..., really! ;-) 
It must be very flat on both sides, of the appropriate color (this 
can vary somewhat), and preferably at least single-coated and 
mounted in a suitable rim (usually preferably made of metal, and 
relatively thin) of the desired thread size. A chunk of "winder glas" 
just won't do...;-)
--DR


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"Michael Benveniste" <mhb@murkyether.com> wrote in message news:741b0qF11b5a8U1@mid.individual.net...
> "David Ruether" <d_ruether@thotmail.com> wrote:

>> A chunk of "winder glas" just won't do...;-)

> You're both right. Yes, a chunk of green glass is ineffective
> as a UV filter. Yes, in at least one test some of the 
> inexpensive generic UV filters appeared to be nothing more
> than uncoated window glass:

> http://photo.net/equipment/filters/

> -- 
> Michael Benveniste -- mhb@murkyether.com 
> (Clarification required)

Good article, and good to see something by Bob Atkins 
(I remember him from my early days of posting...;-). Only 
quibble is his preference for any Tiffen filter (unless things 
have changed...) - these seemed to "self-fog" and needed 
cleaning every couple of months, and the rims were very 
poor, especially for use on wide-angle lenses. It would have 
been interesting to throw a Nikkor UV into the pile, but not 
really necessary...;-)
--DR


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


"Paul Furman" <paul-@-edgehill.net> wrote in message news:sqUCl.24025$Ws1.21509@nlpi064.nbdc.sbc.com...

> Long post, should be of interest in regards to optics for even 
> photographers who do not wear glasses (yet).
Sorry if any of this repeats anything covered earlier..., and also 
sorry if some comments offend (I *do* have my strong opinions 
on glasses, and how they SHOULD be made...! ;-). See 
http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/4-distance-glasses.htm 
for my approach...

> I got new eyeglasses today, progressive bifocals (no line) 

I detested "no-lines", with their poor peripheral sharpness and 
"depends on the tilt" focus - bleah! I had made four distance lens 
corrections (as described in the article above), with the bifocal 
insets made smaller and lower than usual (for good "ground 
visibility". The flat-tops were properly angled to be invisible 
(helped by the nearness of the two powers within a frame side).

> and the 
> auto-tint sunglasses thing this time (Reactint grey poly). 

Ugh! Sorry! (I could never understand the appeal of "sun" glasses 
since they tend to modify colors away from natural, and unless dense, 
polarized, UV-filtering, and multicoated, there is little to no "protection".

> Vision is 
> very important to me and I asked a lot of questions, so this is my 
> summary to share and I would like to know anything folks here have to 
> add, confirm, dispute, or comment on.
Um, I did warn you......! ;-)

> The appointment was at the chain store Lens Crafters (EyExam of 
> California) and I was a bit concerned about the rushed factory precision 
> with which my exam was executed... I know I'm being picky but it seemed 
> my questions were an unwelcome intrusion in their system... anyways, 
> that's just a personal annoyingly picky observation - 

I've had exams and also glasses made at such places and I would 
say the work was about 50% OK, 50% useless. One time, I met 
someone else wandering around the mall also "lost", and we quickly 
established that we had come from the same optical place with the 
same problem - the glasses were obviously wrong! I went through 
their "rote - no questions permitted" exam three times, with the same 
wrong outcome! Another place, when I requested to have a pair of 
reading/computer glasses made (I usually set these for 1.5 and 2 
foot distances), they put the distance prescription in one side, and 
gave me the usual nonsense, "Wear them a while - you will get used 
to them". Golly, gee!!!

> the price was 
> right, fast convenient service and pointed glam treatment like I was a 
> movie star coming in for a face lift. That is obviously part of the 
> emmployee training. I only got glasses the first time 3 years ago at the 
> same place so this is only my second such appointment ever. No 
> insurance. $600 including $100 more for somewhat 'designer' frames, 
> progressive bifocals & auto-tinting sunglasses effect. 

Yuh wuz took! 8^(

> I tend to avoid 
> doctors, dentists & such and do not generally trust them.
I understand, but there are good ones around - and for doctors, 
ask friends, for dentists, do the same plus anyone you see with 
good teeth, and for optometrists, the same...;-) THE VERY BEST 
eye person I've been to was --
A) VERY thorough, and took his time (and did testing beyond the 
usual, like red/green astigmatism)
B) Let me control the apparatus when I wasn't sure of a setting
C) LISTENED TO ME!!! (I wanted those unusual 4-distance glasses) 
D) Didn't insist I had some weird disease I knew I didn't (one 
big-time doctor did...)
E) Easily spotted the "fixed" floaters in my focus that bother me 
(the big-time doctor couldn't see them...)
F) Let me take diopters outside with my camera (which had no 
adjustable eyepiece diopter) to check camera focus
G) Was nice, completely accommodating, and the work was excellent
H) The prices were a fraction of yours 
I0 Is in my home town, and easy to get an appointment with

> It's nice to have a new prescription, it really matters to me to be able 
> to see everything clearly. I lost one lens out of the old pair & have 
> been struggling with makeshift walgreens reading glasses & such for a 
> week (UGH!). The last set was uneven for left & right for a reading 
> distance of what I'm now told is tested at 16-inches, 

Too close, if you read on your lap or use a computer, but you can 
have a second cheap pair made for that.

> this exam came out 
> the same for both eyes. Testing them now... looks like the right eye is 
> not as sharp at that 16-inch distance... hmm... OK that's my first 
> intuitive test, now I see that tilting up fixes the problem in the right 
> eye but not symmetrically.

> Here's the (confusing) data:

> 2006
> sph cyl axis prism add (add for distance)
> +1.00 -0.50 157 +1.25 (right)
> +0.50 -0.50 077 +1.25 (left)

> 2009
> sph cyl axis prism add (add for reading)
> +025 PS +1.50 (right)
> +025 PS +1.50 (left)

> Note the difference: (add for distance)/(add for reading)
> -perhaps I wrote it down wrong in 2006?
> For this one I confirmed the math for reading glasses:
> +025 distance plus +150 = +1.75 (in walgreens reading glasses terminology).
This doesn't look right at all between the two times. I would consider 
having the test done by someone good, then taking the results back 
and requesting a refund.

> Last time, I was told I had an astigmatism in one or more eyes, I don't 
> recall. That seems to be the cyl/axis data? My observations above about 
> tilting and asymmetry suggest an asymmetry for which I don't have the 
> knowledge to describe properly. Do the 2006 numbers explain that or some 
> other situation? Should I complain that this exam was not accurate 
> enough, or just pay more for a more custom service next time? 

The former, not the latter...

> They said 
> something about a free adjustment appointment in a month or something 
> like that...
There is nothing to adjust here - and they mean the fitting of the 
frames, not what really needs doing!

> I didn't like the quick lens switcharoo testing method, I would have 
> preferred a focus ring that I could control. 

The final lenses are supplied in incremental powers, so an infinitely 
adjustable testing gizmo would not be useful - and sometimes 
quick changes are better so your eye/brain doesn't accommodate 
too much...

> Sometimes I need to focus 
> (mentally) on different aspects of the experience, and coordinate with 
> the optician's timing which was a bit of a struggle and I wasn't always 
> convinced that the test was nailed in such a fast-paced one-chance 
> interaction. 

They should have permitted "redoes" when unsure...

>I would have liked to understand better when we were 
> looking for astigmatism or whatever it was, rather than just answering 
> yes/no. I would offer to tip them $50 or whatever... to go a little 
> slower <g> if it helped.
"Slower" should be available in terms of repeats.

> Distance acuity is measured at about 20 feet, through a mirror in a 
> 10-foot room. Infinity is considered close enough to that, so it's not 
> worth testing or perhaps impractical indoors. Those are the only 
> distances tested. Anything else can be accomplished by tilting the 
> progressive bifocals. I asked about closer distances, the reply seemed 
> to be that was just impractical plus my bone structure places my eyes 
> relatively far apart and in a cross-eyed test I was unable to align my 
> eyes any closer than about 16 inches. This was a noticeable 'fail' in 
> the test sequence. 

You may need (and I prefer) to have the near distance setting placed 
further out...

> The question was asked if I sometimes see double 
> (yes). I have a very difficult time viewing stereo pair photographs, 
> it's near impossible for me without some kind of aid.

> I asked, "what about optimizing for photography and or computer work, 
> because that's super-important for me?" I edit photos on a 26-inch 
> monitor at 20 to 34 inches away, and it's my understanding that an SLR 
> camera simulates a focal distance of about 30 inches. 

One meter...

> And what about 
> closer viewing, like examining plant specimens for identification? At 
> 45, I miss not being a little kid with razor sharp vision :-( The reply 
> was that I could get another pair of glasses optimized at that range, 
> even progressive bifocals between that range.
Or use a hand magnifier. I once tried frames with a second set of lenses 
that flipped down, but without multicoating, the reflections were excessive.

> My right eye is dominant. I guess that's normal for right-handed people. 
> The asymmetry however seems to give a sharper image at the 30-inch range 
> in my left eye which seems unfortunate. One interesting test result 
> regarding eye dominance was the peripheral test where you stare at a dot 
> and click a button when you detect the machine's twitching subtle 
> peripheral flashes... on the left eye, the right part of my field of 
> vision blacked out sometimes. Apparently this is not unusual, blinking 
> restores the black area. What's going on is my mind says the left eye 
> doesn't need to worry about the right side so it literally blacks it 
> out. It's fascinating how much of our vision is the result of our 
> brain's interpretation. It's hard for me to judge things sometimes 
> because my brain is messing with reality & making all sorts of 
> assumptions & corrections that I'm not aware of. Interesting.
See various articles on my web page...;-)

> Last time we talked about anti-scratch coatings because I work outside 
> with muddy hands all the time. I don't know what I got this time. I 
> asked about glass versus plastic again, because glass is more durable. 

Don't make this assumption anymore. The newer plastics are VERY 
durable, and lighter and safer than glass. I would never go back to 
glass again.

> The warning was even more severe this time about glass being a hassle 
> for them and the risk of eye injury in an accident if they broke into 
> shards. I'd be willing to risk that for better optics, I scratch them to 
> hell in no time and that's no fun to look through scratched glasses or 
> replace every 6 months. 

If you need to do this, uncoated simple bifocals may be the way to 
go (cheaper).

> I wonder about anti-glare coatings too, now that 
> I think of it. That's a big deal on camera lenses. I'm not independently 
> wealthy but my vision is extremely important to me and I'd be willing to 
> pay for improvements on my eyeglasses. Maybe I can keep these for backup 
> and dirty work and get a better custom pair as a more informed consumer?
As with front filters on camera lenses, I'm not convinced that 
multicoating on glasses offers much of value... 

> I brought my camera in, explaining that was something important to my 
> needs and met confused blank stares from both people I talked with. I 
> could have tested the text size charts with the camera for hours to get 
> it right <g>. Maybe there's a way to come up with eyeglass prescription 
> data myself?
> -- 
> Paul Furman
> www.edgehill.net
> www.baynatives.com
Good luck! 
David Ruether
www.David-Ruether-Photography.com

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

From: "Pat":

[....]
> Go to Canada. Get Lasiks. Slightly more expensive up front. Much
> cheaper in the long run.

I'm not fond of the idea of this since damage is possible, and if 
corrections are made for your current vision, aging leaves you 
with a tendency to move toward farsightedness, harder to deal 
with than the reverse since NOTHING can then be in focus 
without aid.

> Get dominant eye tweaked for distance. Get non-dominant eye tweaked
> for reading. No glasses. No problem. Works great.

I recommend the reverse unless the camera eyepiece adjustment 
can compensate properly for the miscorrection. Also, unless the 
monovision is set not too far different in the two eyes, stereo 
vision is lost, and some people can't adapt. A solution which 
keeps the monovision differences relatively slight is described 
here: http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/4-distance-glasses.htm. 
THAT works, and it gives excellent continuous sharpness over 
the range from under 1.5' to infinity (and I'm approaching 67, and 
have used glasses since grade school...). This solution solved my
glasses-related vision problems - but I do use a second pair of 
glasses corrected for 1.5' in one eye and 2' in the other for 
computer use (I may extend these distances out slightly with the 
next pair, since I now have a 24" monitor...;-).
--DR

~~~~~~~~~~~~

"ray" <ray@zianet.com> wrote in message news:746t8jFurt9sU4@mid.individual.net...
> On Thu, 09 Apr 2009 13:47:22 -0400, David Ruether wrote: 
>> I'm not fond of the idea of this since damage is possible, and if
>> corrections are made for your current vision, aging leaves you with a
>> tendency to move toward farsightedness, harder to deal with than the
>> reverse since NOTHING can then be in focus without aid.

> I believe you're misinformed. "NOTHING can then be in focus without aid" 
> - I've been farsighted all my life. Aging has put me into 'presbyopia', 
> but my distance vision is still fine. Without the farsightedness, I'd 
> probably be needing trifocals by now. As it is, I get by with bifocals - 
> top for computer distance, bottom for reading distance. If I need more 
> 'close up' than that, I use a pair of $15 reading glasses.

??? With LASIK surgery, the point is to bring sight to a high 
level for distance viewing without the further use of aids such as 
glasses (which, with age, may still require glasses for viewing 
close things). *In addition*, with age, there is often a tendency 
for good distance focus to move gradually "outward" (and finally 
even beyond infinity...;-), causing farsightedness that prevents 
sharp unaided focus *at any distance*. THAT can be one of the 
unfortunate results of LASIK. If you start with nearsightedness 
corrected with aids, this result is much less likely to happen (of 
course, if you start off with farsightedness, relatively nothing is 
lost...).
--DR

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"Pat" <groups@artisticphotography.us> wrote in message news:6fdbee41-8d54-40a0-980f-84d7612fd7c4@m24g2000vbp.googlegroups.com...
On Apr 10, 8:19 am, "David Ruether" <d_ruet...@thotmail.com> wrote:
> "ray" <r...@zianet.com> wrote in messagenews:746t8jFurt9sU4@mid.individual.net...
> > On Thu, 09 Apr 2009 13:47:22 -0400, David Ruether wrote:

> >> I'm not fond of the idea of this since damage is possible, 

National Institute for Clinical Excellence (UK): "Regarding the 
procedure's safety, NICE reported that "there are concerns about the 
procedure's safety in the long term and current evidence does not appear 
adequate to support its use within the NHS without special arrangements 
for consent and for audit or research". Some specific group websites 
are sited for people with bad results with LASIK, at 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LASIK#LASIK_surgery_results. Also, 
"Current evidence on LASIK for the treatment of refractive errors 
suggests that it is effective in selected patients with mild or moderate 
short-sightedness," but that "evidence is weaker for its effectiveness in 
severe short-sightedness and long-sightedness". (Both from Wikipedia).

> >> and if
> >> corrections are made for your current vision, aging leaves you with a
> >> tendency to move toward farsightedness, harder to deal with than the
> >> reverse since NOTHING can then be in focus without aid.

I remember reading about this, but I could, in a search just now, 
find no support for what I had written...
Sorry for the misleading post.
--DR


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


"Paul Furman" <paul-@-edgehill.net> wrote in message news:q3BDl.11876$jZ1.5837@flpi144.ffdc.sbc.com...
> David Ruether wrote:
> > Paul Furman wrote:

> > Sorry if any of this repeats anything covered earlier..., and also
> > sorry if some comments offend (I *do* have my strong opinions
> > on glasses, and how they SHOULD be made...! ;-). See
> > http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/4-distance-glasses.htm
> > for my approach...

> Reading again about your custom setup... The asshole optician I 
> talked to today for a redo... said there was nothing he could do custom 
> with their system. Fair enough, I was actually referred there by a friend 
> saying the price was good... that's how chains work, there are efficiencies 
> but a price to pay for that too.

A rather severe and basic one, it appears, if the requirement is to
get good service and accurately-made glasses...

> I asked if the progressive bifocals could be set up so that the center was 
> at 2 to 3 foot focus, that matches my computer use and the simulated 
> camera focal distance. That's when he said no, it's measured at 16 inches 
> and at 20 feet, the middle is going to be somewhere between there. I 
> asked could they adjust the numbers so the bottom is further than 16 
> inches so the center would align better at my optimal need at around 
> 30 inches?

Of course they can, but they don't want to spend the time doing
it, and as you point out in another post, the proportions they are 
stock for them and doing what you want would require a special 
order for the lenses. I would go no further with them, if possible, 
since you are not getting what you want - and they are not cheap. 
Most reputable places will refund your money if you are dissatisfied 
and then you can start over at a better place that is more responsive 
to your needs/desires...

> My problem with the lenses I brought home 2 days ago was the right 
> eye was out of focus unless I raised my head to an uncomfortable angle. 
> That's because the right eye is different and they rounded off the numbers 
> out of impatience or a commission based on prescribing round numbered 
> corrections to simplify inventory :-(

This was unacceptable(!!!!!!). It also cause for them to lose their 
license, if that is the way they work.

> The new pair is better but I still don't know...

Ask for a refund then... Go with someone (NOT a chain!) that
provides quality service. They DO exist.

> Realistically, they could not test 30 inches, their machines only do 16 
> inches so whatever in between was a guess.

They should be able to figure out the diopter differences for the two
eyes, but you have figured out the "real" reason they "can't" do that...

> It's not that hard though to just try different diopters over my eyes using 
> a tape measure and a newspaper. I got a little more detail about how they 
> figure things though... First they look at the distance & balance the two 
> eyes, then they look for a correction for reading distance, which appears 
> not to accommodate differences between left & right or astigmatism. I think 
> they worked the other way around last time so the add-factor was from 
> closeup to distance... I don't know.

Not much of the above makes sense... Normally, the eyes are 
separately prescribed for the distance setting, and then a correction 
is made to the prescriptions for the chosen close prescriptions, and 
once made, a decent optometrist would then let you check the close 
results for accuracy. Astigmatism, etc., would not change between the 
two distances (maybe that is what you said...? ;-).

> >> I got new eyeglasses today, progressive bifocals (no line)

> > I detested "no-lines", with their poor peripheral sharpness and
> > "depends on the tilt" focus - bleah!

> I like that any distance can be focused by tilting. 

With my arrangement, no tilting is necessary for any distance 
(http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/4-distance-glasses.htm). 
Weird, though, that a solution that can work so very well (for 
many, but not all...), has never, to my knowledge, been used by 
anyone else. I feel kinda like I placed golden eggs in a public 
place for anyone to take, and people ignor them and take the 
wooden ones instead...8^)

> My scrip is weak though, not a big range, thin glasses anyways.

That's nice...

> > I had made four distance lens
> > corrections (as described in the article above), with the bifocal
> > insets made smaller and lower than usual (for good "ground
> > visibility". The flat-tops were properly angled to be invisible
> > (helped by the nearness of the two powers within a frame side).

> >> and the auto-tint sunglasses thing this time (Reactint grey poly).

> > Ugh! Sorry! (I could never understand the appeal of "sun" glasses
> > since they tend to modify colors away from natural, and unless
> > dense, polarized, UV-filtering, and multicoated, there is little to no
> > "protection".

> They said it was UV. It's too much hassle for me to carry extra sunglasses 
> so I appreciate even the little relief it gives. I agree it's not much.

Marketing, again, is my guess. I "boil" whenever I see those adds 
on TV for "auto" sunglasses. A proper pair (not that most people 
need them most of the time) are very different in characteristics.

> >> Vision is very important to me and I asked a lot of questions,
> >> so this is my summary to share and I would like to know anything
> >> folks here have to add, confirm, dispute, or comment on.

> > Um, I did warn you......! ;-)

> I kind of remember your trick bifocal setup... :-)
> I'll remember this time, only my second visit in my life.

> >> The appointment was at the chain store Lens Crafters...

> > I've had exams and also glasses made at such places and I would
> > say the work was about 50% OK, 50% useless.

> Ya.

> Got any local referrals for me? 

I live in a very different part of the country - and I don't recommend 
any "chain" for this. Ask friends/acquaintances/relatives/customers if 
they have an INDEPENDENT optometrist (not optician) they have 
used for years and can highly recommend. You will likely find a good 
one this way. But, avoid the "style" shops - you want good work that 
doesn't cost a fortune.

> As a businessman in SF, I know it ain't cheap to run a small shop here. 

Yes - I'm surprised you can do it at all... Try going out of the city - that 
may cut costs.

> I have one personal referral lead but sounds expensive based 
> on the source. I should check & see though.

I'd look for at least several good referrals, then start making calls for 
more information. Meanwhile, get your money back, so you can go 
to a better source.

> Theoretically the center could be optimized for cumputer and only the 
> top & bottom are used for distance and closeup. That's what I think 
> would suit me. I talk to people at computer distance and like to see 
> them clearly, The camera is near there, distance is important too but 
> not as critical since my distance vision is pretty good without glasses.

I would avoid the "lineless" type (I call them the "almost always 
wrong" type...;-) altogether. If you really can see well at infinity 
(enough to enjoy scenery and be able to do night driving without 
glasses), consider half glasses for the nearer seeing - ones with 
flat tops that permit you to look over them comfortably, but with 
the lower lens part large enough to see people, etc.

> > This doesn't look right at all between the two times. I would consider
> > having the test done by someone good, then taking the results back
> > and requesting a refund.
> I may still do that.

I wouldn't bother at this point. Just ask for your money back 
and move on to people who are more competent and 
accommodating...

> >> It's hard for me to judge things sometimes because
> >> my brain is messing with reality & making all sorts of assumptions
> >> & corrections that I'm not aware of. Interesting.

> > See various articles on my web page...;-)

> Ya, interesting stuff, perception.

8^)

> > If you need to do this, uncoated simple bifocals may be the way to
> > go (cheaper).

> Makes sense.

I use these, and even though I use paper towels and 
toilet paper to dry them after washing the lenses, in two 
years+ (sometimes 4+) between lens changes, scratches 
are nonexistent to minimal (a few hairlines, invisible in use).

> >> I wonder about anti-glare coatings too, now that I think of it.
> >> That's a big deal on camera lenses. I'm not independently wealthy
> >> but my vision is extremely important to me and I'd be willing to pay
> >> for improvements on my eyeglasses. Maybe I can keep these for
> >> backup and dirty work and get a better custom pair as a more informed
> >> consumer?

> > As with front filters on camera lenses, I'm not convinced that
> > multicoating on glasses offers much of value...

> I don't use filters but understand coatings to be very important in 
> lenses to reduce flar & increase contrast.
> Paul Furman

True with many elements and airspaces, but try an uncoated 
4-element Tessar-type camera lens sometime. The results are 
fine. Good luck.
--DR

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


"Paul Furman" <paul-@-edgehill.net> wrote in message news:aHcGl.16536$D32.1502@flpi146.ffdc.sbc.com...
> Neil Harrington wrote:
>> Paul Furman wrote:

>>> My nice +2 diopter 2-element chromatic-aberration-corrected closeup lens 
>>> for attaching to the front of 35mm camera lenses produces incredible 
>>> vision at 15 inches for my left eye, at 18 inches on the right.

>> It's easy to calculate that sort of thing for positive diopters. One diopter 
>> = focal distance of one meter. To find the focal distance for any diopter 
>> value, just divide one meter (or 1000 mm) by the diopters. So a +2 diopter 
>> closeup lens has a focal distance of 500 mm, or about 19.7 inches.

> Thank you!

And I thank you, too, for this good piece of information...;-)

> Yeah but I'm super-picky about my vision :-)

Um, then get rid of those "sharp-only-in-the-center-sometimes" 
progressive lenses...

>> I've never used progressives, may try a pair next time. Basically I'm very 
>> content with traditional bifocals though. They take a little getting used 
>> to, after single vision glasses, but once that's done it's done.

They can be improved upon for general use by not having the 
inset lenses prescribed for the ridiculously close focus that is 
usually used (18"-22+" works better than 16"), by having the 
insets placed lower than normal to avoid unpleasant and 
unnecessary intrusion into the distance-corrected lenses, by 
making the insets as small as possible to give the best possible 
"ground vision" when walking, using stairs, and by having the 
inset flat-tops tops angled to be on axis with the eye for least 
visibility. I also prefer to have the four available lens powers 
set for infinity, 5', 2+', 1.5' to give the greatest range of sharp
vision while maintaining the best possible peripheral vision. I 
hated "progressives" when I tried them.

[...]
>> That makes me wonder if the lenses are centered properly, i.e. if the pupil 
>> distance is set correctly. With the traditional button-type bifocals it's 
>> easy to measure the distance between their optical centers, and you could 
>> measure your own interpupillary distance with a metric ruler and a mirror 
>> and then compare them. But I don't see any way you could do that with 
>> progressives.

At least with standard type lenses, an optician showed me how to find 
the centers by breathing on the lenses (matte spots appeared at the 
optical centers...).

> The last three exams I had, the optician mentioned my eyes are rather 
> widely spaced and they all spoke a number but that number doesn't appear 
> on my prescriptions. This is a problem. I checked again just now.

> If that number was on the prescription, the cutting machine should be 
> able to include that in the cut.

There are spaces (at L, R, ADD-L, ADD-R) for values for spherical, 
cylindrical, axis, prism, and base on my prescription forms. If your base 
measurement was unusual, that should have been noted.

>>> The progressives apparently only have the center in focus, the edges are 
>>> basically crap.

True, in my experience.

>> That's interesting, and not encouraging. My regular bifocals are clear from 
>> edge to edge.

Same here, and I prize good peripheral vision in all possible directions.

> I should be able to order some straight bifocals online for cheap to see 
> for myself how it works. The bummer is waiting since my old glasses are 
> missing a lens. That's where LC's 1-hour service was nice. Because they 
> stock a pretty decent range of blanks... I guess...

But, maybe not... Nothing beats accurate filing of an accurately made 
prescription, and the accurate fitting of the lenses to good (NOT those 
squinty little fashionable...) frames. Good sight is the point of having 
good glasses!

>> Do you know what your pupil distance is? It probably doesn't give that on 
>> your eyeglass prescription since they usually leave that for the oculist to 
>> measure. The oculist isn't likely to volunteer that information but should 
>> give it to you if you ask. Determining the optical centers of eyeglass 
>> lenses requires a special piece of equipment, but I should think the 
>> eyeglass seller would have that. This would be a way of checking whether the 
>> lenses (even if they're the right Rx) may have been cut wrong for the 
>> frames.

Good advice. And, why I avoid "cheapo" chains (and good optometrists 
can be found that cost no more...).

>>> http://zennioptical.com/

>> Yep, that's the place. Their prices are unbeatable and their work is top 
>> notch as far as I'm concerned. My most expensive pair of glasses from them 
>> (their higher priced acetate frames, bifocals with anti-reflection coating 
>> added) were about $41 plus $4.95 shipping, and they're just about as good as 
>> the $340 pair (without AR coating) I bought at the optometrists' connected 
>> to my ophthalmologist's offices. The only reason I bought that pair is that 
>> Medicare picks up most of the tab for new glasses after cataract surgery on 
>> both eyes. Even at that, it was $95 out of pocket.

Very interesting. One would need the intraocular measurement, though, 
and would unlikely be able to get the custom features I appreciate, but 
for cheaps (for a second pair), the prices are right. I prefer frames with 
larger lens areas (for obvious reasons), thin side bars (for best side vision), 
and to avoid the high-index lenses (to minimize chromatic problems). 
Since PF's prescription is relatively weak (as I recall) and if plastic is 
used instead of glass (I prefer that anyway, for other reasons), then 
good, large-lens glasses that weigh almost nothing can be made.

>> From the aggravation you've described at Lens Crafters, I certainly wouldn't 
>> go back there.

I HEARTILY AGREE!!! Just go back to get your money back, 
though...;-)
--DR

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"Neil Harrington" <secret@illumnati.net> wrote in message news:Y9adnVo3KPGllnfUnZ2dnUVZ_oWdnZ2d@giganews.com...
> David Ruether wrote:
>> "Paul Furman" <paul-@-edgehill.net> wrote in message
>> news:aHcGl.16536$D32.1502@flpi146.ffdc.sbc.com...
>>> Neil Harrington wrote:
>>>> Paul Furman wrote:

[Bifocals...]
>> They can be improved upon for general use by not having the
>> inset lenses prescribed for the ridiculously close focus that is
>> usually used (18"-22+" works better than 16"), by having the

> I think 16" is a little close, yes. I've tried reading additions of +2.00 to 
> +2.50, and find that +2.25 is ideal for me. That's a focal distance of about 
> 17.5". Much younger people undoubtedly would be better off with a longer 
> distance since their eyes still can manage some accommodation, which mine 
> cannot.

I now view a 24" monitor, and I now tend to lean toward it from 
my unusual viewpoint (there is a MIDI keyboard between it and the 
computer keyboard, plus there is a "track" for the cat in front of the 
computer keyboard - otherwise the glasses would be fine...;-).

>> insets placed lower than normal to avoid unpleasant and unnecessary 
>> intrusion into the distance-corrected lenses, by
>> making the insets as small as possible to give the best possible
>> "ground vision" when walking, using stairs, and by having the
>> inset flat-tops tops angled to be on axis with the eye for least
>> visibility. I also prefer to have the four available lens powers
>> set for infinity, 5', 2+', 1.5' to give the greatest range of sharp

> I'm not sure I follow you here. Are you saying you have those four powers 
> all in the same lens, with the conventional inset-type bifocal (or 
> quadrifocal in this case) arrangement?

See here - www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/4-distance-glasses.htm, 
but briefly, since with bifocal glasses one has potentially 4 distance 
settings to work with, why not make use of that with slight monovision? 
For camera use, I set the non-predominant eye distant lens at infinity, 
the other eye main lens at one meter (the VF distance for the camera), 
the non-predominant eye bifocal at 2+', and the predominant eye 
bifocal at 1.5+'. Since the "errors" are small, the results are a smooth 
coverage of all distances (with the bifocal physical properties of the 
glasses modified as described earlier, above). This works, and it does 
so VERY well! ;-) There is no soft "overlay" of the image from the 
slightly "miss-set" eye corrections, but it can take a couple of weeks 
to get night driving right all the time (but when vision occasionally 
gets a bit fuzzy then, closing the predominant eye for a moment 
corrects it - and very soon, there are no problems at all...

>> vision while maintaining the best possible peripheral vision. I
>> hated "progressives" when I tried them.

> You've convinced me. I thought I might try progressives just out of 
> curiosity, but your and Paul's experiences with them have more than 
> satisfied that curiosity.

I think most people don't care about the quality of their peripheral 
vision, but being a wide-angle nut, I like to see as well as possible 
a wide view...;-) And, I've learned how to see away from the axial 
point of attention, which is all that most people use for seeing things 
other than motion...

>> At least with standard type lenses, an optician showed me how to find
>> the centers by breathing on the lenses (matte spots appeared at the
>> optical centers...).

> I just tried that and got nothing. Maybe they have to be new lenses, with a 
> remaining trace of the original factory markings or something?

I don't know. When I fog my lenses now, I don't see the spots, but 
with careful examination in the past, I could. I just tried it with my 
computer glasses, with no luck...

>> Nothing beats accurate filing of an accurately made
>> prescription, and the accurate fitting of the lenses to good (NOT
>> those squinty little fashionable...) frames. Good sight is the point of
>> having good glasses!

> Yes. I think there's a happy medium, and for me it's a lens height of 
> roughly 35 mm. I wouldn't want to go back to those humungous glasses of the 
> 1960s or so that covered half the cheek (the in style of those days), 

Mine are asymmetrical ovals, more than 2" max. height, but these just 
barely accommodate the minimum-sized flat-top insets set low, with, 
barely a bit of distance lens under most parts of them for good ground 
vision. Better good function for me than "style" any day...! ;-)

> but I 
> wouldn't want to have the more recently stylish glasses that are little more 
> than horizontal slits either. I did get a pair of reading glasses from Zenni 
> that are pretty narrow, about 25 mm lens height, which are nice because they 
> are extraordinarily light and for reading I don't need much vertical range. 
> But I wouldn't want glasses that narrow for all-around use. I don't think 
> they'll make bifocals in a lens height less than 30 mm or so anyway, and I 
> wouldn't want bifocals that narrow.

I agree. 

>> I avoid "cheapo" chains (and good optometrists
>> can be found that cost no more...).

> Very true. Before I started buying glasses online I went to a small local 
> place, just a one-man shop, and he did good work. The only chain I ever went 
> to was the one (I forget its name) in Wal-Mart. In that place they had one 
> fairly old guy who did very good work, and a number of young girls who were 
> much prettier to look at but mostly did a half-assed job on glasses. And 
> their staff turnover was quite high, not generally a good sign.

I think that's where they put the distance prescription in the bifocal in 
one eye, with the, usual "Try them for a while, you'll get used to them" 
advice when they are clearly wrong...;-(

>>>>> http://zennioptical.com/, also, www.goggles4u.com

>> Very interesting. One would need the intraocular measurement, though,
>> and would unlikely be able to get the custom features I appreciate,
>> but for cheaps (for a second pair), the prices are right. I prefer frames
>> with larger lens areas (for obvious reasons), thin side bars (for best
>> side vision), and to avoid the high-index lenses (to minimize chromatic 
>> problems).

> The refractive index of Zenni's standard polycarbonate lenses is 1.57, and 
> that seems high enough for the average user, i.e. those lenses are thin and 
> light enough. Their extra-cost options of 1.61 and 1.67 index I presume are 
> chiefly for people with very strong prescriptions, to keep the thickness and 
> curvature of the lenses within reasonable limits. 

Yes. The nearsighted prescription for my left eye is moderately strong, 
making the lens thick at the frame edge (maybe 3/16"...?), but they are still 
light with the plastic lenses (which have been very durable), and I see no 
chromatic problems with them...
--DR

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"Neil Harrington" <secret@illumnati.net> wrote in message news:NemdnYrl8bC6wXPUnZ2dnUVZ_r2dnZ2d@giganews.com...

> "David Ruether" <d_ruether@thotmail.com> wrote in message 
> news:gsf6f4$fp7$1@ruby.cit.cornell.edu...
>>
>> "Neil Harrington" <secret@illumnati.net> wrote in message 
>> news:Y9adnVo3KPGllnfUnZ2dnUVZ_oWdnZ2d@giganews.com...
>>> David Ruether wrote:

> [ . . . ]
>>>> insets placed lower than normal to avoid unpleasant and 
>>>> unnecessary intrusion into the distance-corrected lenses, by
>>>> making the insets as small as possible to give the best possible
>>>> "ground vision" when walking, using stairs, and by having the
>>>> inset flat-tops tops angled to be on axis with the eye for least
>>>> visibility. I also prefer to have the four available lens powers
>>>> set for infinity, 5', 2+', 1.5' to give the greatest range of sharp

>>> I'm not sure I follow you here. Are you saying you have those four powers 
>>> all in the same lens, with the conventional inset-type bifocal (or 
>>> quadrifocal in this case) arrangement?

>> See here - www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/4-distance-glasses.htm,

> Ah! I see what you mean.

[...with a few changes/additions/clarifications added below...] 
>> Briefly, since with bifocal glasses one has potentially 4 distance
>> settings to work with, why not make use of that with *slight* monovision?
>> For camera use, I set the non-predominant eye distant lens at infinity,
>> the other eye main lens at one meter (the VF distance for the camera),
>> the non-predominant eye bifocal at 2+', and the predominant eye
>> bifocal at 1.5+'. **Since the "errors" are small for given ideal distances 
>> for each eye**, the result is a smooth coverage of all distances (with the 
>> bifocal physical properties of the glasses modified as described earlier, 
>> above). This works, and it does so VERY well! ;-) There are no soft 
>> "overlays" on the image from the **slightly** "miss-set" eye corrections, 
>> but it can take a couple of weeks to get night driving right all the time 
>> (when vision occasionally gets a bit fuzzy then, closing the predominant 
>> eye for a moment corrects it - and very soon, there are no problems at 
>> all...).

> That's a clever idea indeed and I'll think about using it myself. My eye 
> doctor told me once that in Europe it's a frequent practice to make 
> single-vision "bifocals," i.e., one eyeglass lens for distance and the other 
> for reading. I can see that this would work 

I experienced this before getting my first glasses, and the miss-match 
was too great for ideal vision and good stereo perception. My system 
keeps the monovision slight...

> since at one point my 
> uncorrected vision was that way -- as hyperopia developed with age as it 
> normally does, my right eye became good enough at distance while my left eye 
> was still nearsighted enough for reading, so I could get by nicely without 
> glasses at all.

A-HAH! ;-) That is where I heard about focus shift toward infinity with age 
(from my eye doctor), and that is why I would think about 17 times before 
considering LASIK surgery. I would hate later in life to be unable to see 
at any distance without corrective devices...

> That was nice for a while, but gradually the hyperopia increased and I 
> needed correction for both eyes again. But your four-distance method, which 
> seems a refinement on the European method, looks very interesting indeed and 
> I can see that the distances you mention would be just about perfect.

>>>> I avoid "cheapo" chains (and good optometrists
>>>> can be found that cost no more...).

>>> Very true. Before I started buying glasses online I went to a small local 
>>> place, just a one-man shop, and he did good work. The only chain I ever 
>>> went to was the one (I forget its name) in Wal-Mart. In that place they 
>>> had one fairly old guy who did very good work, and a number of young 
>>> girls who were much prettier to look at but mostly did a half-assed job 
>>> on glasses. And their staff turnover was quite high, not generally a good 
>>> sign.

>> I think that's where they put the distance prescription in the bifocal in
>> one eye, with the, usual "Try them for a while, you'll get used to them"
>> advice when they are clearly wrong...;-(

> When the girls there made a pair of glasses for me, one lens was very 
> clearly the wrong Rx. I brought them back with this complaint, they agreed 
> it was wrong, and cut a new lens. The new lens was the right Rx all right, 
> but the top of the bifocal inset was a couple of mm higher than on the other 
> lens. So again I brought them back; the girl who appeared to be the manager 
> said, "I can fix that," took the glasses for a few minutes and brought them 
> back with the frame TWISTED so that high lens now sat lower and was at the 
> right height, but of course the frame was crooked on my face. (Can you 
> believe it, she actually expected me to be satisfied with that!) When I said 
> that this was clearly unacceptable, she rather grudgingly agreed to cut yet 
> another lens for me, but said that was the last adjustment she would make.

B-A-A-A-D service ! ! ! But, unfortunately, this was not unusual in my 
experience with the chains...

> Fortunately they finally got it right, but that was my last visit to the 
> vision center at Wal-Mart. 

I will not go anywhere now but to my (EXCELLENT!!!) regular place 
here (and the prices happen to be still "right"...;-).
--DR

~~~~~~~~~~~~

"Savageduck" <savageduck@savage.net> wrote in message news:200904220850307987-savageduck@savagenet...

> Hyperopia does not develop with age. Hyperopia and myopia are somewhat 
> constant throughout life, with a few minor changes.
> What you perceive as hyperopia is presbyopia. 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presbyopia This is due to the changing 
> refractive index and flexibility of the crystalline lens due to age. 
> This restricts the ability of the aging eye to accommodate or focus to 
> its youthful near point of vision. The effect is an increase in reading 
> distance. This is not an increase in hyperopia. For the myopiics, it is 
> not a change from myopia to hyperopia only a change in ability to focus 
> to that old reading distance. The levels of hyperopia, myopia and if 
> you have them, astigmatism will for the most part remain the same.
> -- 
> Savageduck

Ah, after looking at my prescriptions from '02, '05, and .'08, there 
were some variations, but not a lot to get excited about, except for 
one sudden shift of .5 diopter in one inset...
--DR

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

[posted later...]

"Savageduck" <savageduck@savage.net> wrote in message 
news:200904220850307987-savageduck@savagenet...
> On 2009-04-21 16:51:29 -0700, "Neil Harrington" <secret@illumnati.net> 
> said:
>> "David Ruether" <d_ruether@thotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:gsf6f4$fp7$1@ruby.cit.cornell.edu...
>>> "Neil Harrington" <secret@illumnati.net> wrote in message
>>> news:Y9adnVo3KPGllnfUnZ2dnUVZ_oWdnZ2d@giganews.com...
>>>> David Ruether wrote:

>> [ . . . ]

>>>>> insets placed lower than normal to avoid unpleasant and unnecessary
>>>>> intrusion into the distance-corrected lenses, by
>>>>> making the insets as small as possible to give the best possible
>>>>> "ground vision" when walking, using stairs, and by having the
>>>>> inset flat-tops tops angled to be on axis with the eye for least
>>>>> visibility. I also prefer to have the four available lens powers
>>>>> set for infinity, 5', 2+', 1.5' to give the greatest range of sharp

>>>> I'm not sure I follow you here. Are you saying you have those four 
>>>> powers all in the same lens, with the conventional inset-type bifocal 
>>>> (or quadrifocal in this case) arrangement? 

>>> See here - www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/4-distance-glasses.htm,

>> Ah! I see what you mean.

>>> but briefly, since with bifocal glasses one has potentially 4 distance
>>> settings to work with, why not make use of that with slight monovision?
>>> For camera use, I set the non-predominant eye distant lens at infinity,
>>> the other eye main lens at one meter (the VF distance for the camera),
>>> the non-predominant eye bifocal at 2+', and the predominant eye
>>> bifocal at 1.5+'. Since the "errors" are small, the results are a smooth
>>> coverage of all distances (with the bifocal physical properties of the
>>> glasses modified as described earlier, above). This works, and it does
>>> so VERY well! ;-) There is no soft "overlay" of the image from the
>>> slightly "miss-set" eye corrections, but it can take a couple of weeks
>>> to get night driving right all the time (but when vision occasionally
>>> gets a bit fuzzy then, closing the predominant eye for a moment
>>> corrects it - and very soon, there are no problems at all...

>> That's a clever idea indeed and I'll think about using it myself. My eye
>> doctor told me once that in Europe it's a frequent practice to make
>> single-vision "bifocals," i.e., one eyeglass lens for distance and the other 
>> for reading. I can see that this would work since at one point my
>> uncorrected vision was that way -- as hyperopia developed with age as it
>> normally does, my right eye became good enough at distance while my left 
>> eye was still nearsighted enough for reading, so I could get by nicely 
>> without glasses at all.
>>
>> That was nice for a while, but gradually the hyperopia increased and I
>> needed correction for both eyes again. But your four-distance method, 
>> which seems a refinement on the European method, looks very 
>> interesting indeed and I can see that the distances you mention would 
>> be just about perfect.

> This is a misconception.
> Hyperopia does not develop with age. Hyperopia and myopia are somewhat 
> constant throughout life, with a few minor changes.
> What you perceive as hyperopia is presbyopia. 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Presbyopia This is due to the changing 
> refractive index and flexibility of the crystalline lens due to age.

No, that's something else entirely. I assure you, throughout my youth and 
early adulthood I was myopic. My distance vision was quite poor. This was 
the case for many years, but by age 65 or so I could see clearly at a 
distance (with my right eye at least) which I never could do when I was 
young.

> This restricts the ability of the aging eye to accommodate or focus to its 
> youthful near point of vision. The effect is an increase in reading 
> distance. This is not an increase in hyperopia.

What you *describe* is not hyperopia, that is true. Nevertheless, the 
tendency much later in life is for the eyes' focus to move in the direction 
of hyperopia. This is entirely separate from the loss of accommodation which 
also gradually occurs with age.

> For the myopiics, it is not a change from myopia to hyperopia only a 
> change in ability to focus to that old reading distance. The levels of 
> hyperopia, myopia and if you have them, astigmatism will for the most part 
> remain the same.

That simply is not true about myopia, and it's not true about astigmatism 
either. Astigmatism does change; my ophthalmologist told me many years ago 
that the tendency is for the axis to move toward the vertical, and that has 
been the case with my eyes. Its value changes as well.

If what you say about these things were true, one would rarely if ever need 
a change in Rx for distance. That is just not the case. I have often picked 
up an old pair of glasses (one of my faults is that I don't throw out old 
junk nearly as often as I should) and tried them on out of curiosity, and 
found them perfectly useless at *any* distance. And I am speaking of before 
my cataract surgery, of course.


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"PhotoPro" <scott@photopros.com> wrote in message news:gs60hk$duo$1@news.motzarella.org...

>I am trying to make a final decision regarding the purchase of an HD 
> camcorder and have narrowed it down to 2 models, one an AVCHD format and the 
> other HDV. The AVCHD camcorder (Canon HFS10) has very noticeably superior 
> image quality (1920 by 1080) whereas the HDV format model only does 1440 by 
> 1080. The additional detail and clarity is very noticeable. 

Do not compare "apples and oranges" - the best HDV (25 Mbps data rate, 
but using the older-but-still-visually-good MPEG-2 compression type of the 
Canon HV20/30/40) is still excellent (better than 17 Mbps AVCHD in
both stationary and motion video, regardless of the chip resolutions, and 
about equaled by *good* 24 Mbps AVCHD), and it provides some direct 
and peripheral advantages. Also remember that you can't "go by the numbers" 
and logic in coming to conclusions - direct, careful comparisons are more 
useful (HDV and AVCHD camcorder models both vary in motionless/motion 
image resolutions in addition to color, light-level range, and tonality 
characteristics).

> Both cameras do 
> extremely well in the range of comparisons I have done in the shop, but I 
> have had very little ability to really put both cameras through very 
> extensive testing. I especially like the AVCHD model because it is light, 
> very easy to transfer video at much faster rates than tape, and is likely to 
> withstand shock better because it does not have rotating heads and a tape 
> mechanism.

These are the "mechanical" advantages of AVCHD, but....;-)

> As a professional photographer for many years and based on quality 
> and ease of use, the decision would be very simple and that would be to buy 
> the AVCHD model. My fear is that the AVCHD format is much more difficult to 
> edit and process, and this is where my reservations become an issue. Will my 
> Core 2 Duo laptop handle the AVCHD editing? Will I be able to edit with the 
> same capabilities as if I got an HDV model? The salesman is pushing the HDV 
> model saying it is much easier to edit. 

Now you are hitting one of the advantages of HDV - it can be edited easily 
with many cheap programs quite efficiently using "low-power" computers. 
This is not true with 24 Mbps AVCHD (and many common programs 
will not even import/export it at full data rate). The top version of Ulead 
apparently will, and it can make "proxy" files (low resolution files that 
make previewing easier, if not very pleasant or accurate for judging picture 
sharpness) for editing with lower-power computers. But another advantage 
of HDV is that you can make multiple tape copies of finished edits for archiving 
(these, contrary to much popular opinion, can be reasonably archival if 
stored properly, especially if duplicates are made).

> I do not want to go to the HDV 
> format for quality reasons, but may have to take his advice if it is 
> correct. 

I think it is - and I think you are jumping to conclusions about the quality 
differences...

> Does anybody here know if there is any truth to this opinion or is 
> there some other way to judge?

As others have suggested, try downloading footage and some trial versions 
of editing software...

As for the Canon HFS10 specifically, I have two serious reservations.
It has no eyepiece viewfinder (if you use camcorders seriously, especially 
in daylight, you will immediately know your loss - but the Canon "21" 
model does have one [but it uses both cards and a hard drive - which 
can be both less reliable than tape with rough handling, and noisier]).
Also, the Canon HFS10's external focus sensor is within the front 
attachment threaded area, making adding wide-angle lens converter 
attachments difficult or impractical. 

Unless you envision a considerable upgrade in your computer (and can 
deal with the still relatively less-than-"fun" aspects of editing 24 Mbps 
AVCHD), and have some reliable backup system[s] for your edited 
products), the excellent Canon HV30 or HV40 may still be the best way 
to go as part of a "system" HD solution, and the HV30 is astonishingly 
cheap right now... (about $600 from bhphotovideo.com and others). 
Some day, I will probably move to 24 Mbps AVCHD when the format, 
equipment, and software is mature enough to offer real advantages and 
sufficient ease of use, but that day has not yet come for me...

[But watch out for "Smarty" to jump in now and say rather nasty things 
about me and what I just wrote. He does seem to "violently" disagree 
with almost any opinion I have, no matter how reasonable, based on 
my specific experience or sometimes the use of reliable secondary 
sources - and he does seem to be rather "attached" to AVCHD at the 
moment as a solution for all needs, regardless of the specifics and 
practicalities involved for a given poster...;-]
--DR

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"Smarty" <nobody@nobody.com> wrote in message news:b7ZFl.599$N5.202@nwrddc01.gnilink.net...
> "David Ruether" <d_ruether@thotmail.com> wrote in message 
> news:gs7ei6$4uo$1@ruby.cit.cornell.edu...
>> "PhotoPro" <scott@photopros.com> wrote in message 
>> news:gs60hk$duo$1@news.motzarella.org...

>>>I am trying to make a final decision regarding the purchase of an HD 
>>>camcorder and have narrowed it down to 2 models, one an AVCHD format and 
>>>the other HDV. The AVCHD camcorder (Canon HFS10) has very noticeably 
>>>superior image quality (1920 by 1080) whereas the HDV format model only 
>>>does 1440 by 1080. The additional detail and clarity is very noticeable.

>> Do not compare "apples and oranges" - the best HDV (25 Mbps data rate,
>> but using the older-but-still-visually-good MPEG-2 compression type of the
>> Canon HV20/30/40) is still excellent (better than 17 Mbps AVCHD in
>> both stationary and motion video, regardless of the chip resolutions, and
>> about equaled by *good* 24 Mbps AVCHD), and it provides some direct
>> and peripheral advantages. Also remember that you can't "go by the 
>> numbers"
>> and logic in coming to conclusions - direct, careful comparisons are more
>> useful (HDV and AVCHD camcorder models both vary in motionless/motion
>> image resolutions in addition to color, light-level range, and tonality
>> characteristics).

>>> Both cameras do extremely well in the range of comparisons I have done in 
>>> the shop, but I have had very little ability to really put both cameras 
>>> through very extensive testing. I especially like the AVCHD model because 
>>> it is light, very easy to transfer video at much faster rates than tape, 
>>> and is likely to withstand shock better because it does not have rotating 
>>> heads and a tape mechanism.

>> These are the "mechanical" advantages of AVCHD, but....;-)

>>> As a professional photographer for many years and based on quality and 
>>> ease of use, the decision would be very simple and that would be to buy 
>>> the AVCHD model. My fear is that the AVCHD format is much more difficult 
>>> to edit and process, and this is where my reservations become an issue. 
>>> Will my Core 2 Duo laptop handle the AVCHD editing? Will I be able to 
>>> edit with the same capabilities as if I got an HDV model? The salesman is 
>>> pushing the HDV model saying it is much easier to edit.

>> Now you are hitting one of the advantages of HDV - it can be edited easily
>> with many cheap programs quite efficiently using "low-power" computers.
>> This is not true with 24 Mbps AVCHD (and many common programs
>> will not even import/export it at full data rate). The top version of 
>> Ulead
>> apparently will, and it can make "proxy" files (low resolution files that
>> make previewing easier, if not very pleasant or accurate for judging 
>> picture
>> sharpness) for editing with lower-power computers. But another advantage
>> of HDV is that you can make multiple tape copies of finished edits for 
>> archiving
>> (these, contrary to much popular opinion, can be reasonably archival if
>> stored properly, especially if duplicates are made).

>>> I do not want to go to the HDV format for quality reasons, but may have 
>>> to take his advice if it is correct.

>> I think it is - and I think you are jumping to conclusions about the 
>> quality
>> differences...

>>> Does anybody here know if there is any truth to this opinion or is there 
>>> some other way to judge?

>> As others have suggested, try downloading footage and some trial versions
>> of editing software...

>> As for the Canon HFS10 specifically, I have two serious reservations.
>> It has no eyepiece viewfinder (if you use camcorders seriously, especially
>> in daylight, you will immediately know your loss - but the Canon "21"
>> model does have one [but it uses both cards and a hard drive - which
>> can be both less reliable than tape with rough handling, and noisier]).
>> Also, the Canon HFS10's external focus sensor is within the front
>> attachment threaded area, making adding wide-angle lens converter
>> attachments difficult or impractical.
>>
>> Unless you envision a considerable upgrade in your computer (and can
>> deal with the still relatively less-than-fun aspects of editing 24 Mbps
>> AVCHD), and have some reliable backup system[s] for your edited
>> products), the excellent Canon HV30 or HV40 may still be the best way
>> to go as part of a "system" HD solution, and the HV30 is astonishingly
>> cheap right now... (about $600 from bhphotovideo.com and others).
>> Some day, I will probably move to 24 Mbps AVCHD when the format,
>> equipment, and software is mature enough to offer real advantages and
>> sufficient ease of use, but that day has not yet come for me...
>>
>> [But watch out for "Smarty" to jump in now and say rather nasty things
>> about me and what I just wrote. He does seem to "violently" disagree
>> with almost any opinion I have, no matter how reasonable, based on
>> my specific experience or sometimes the use of reliable secondary
>> sources - and he does seem to be rather "attached" to AVCHD at the
>> moment as a solution for all needs, regardless of the specifics and
>> practicalities involved for a given poster...;-]
>> --DR

> Thanks to all for replying. I have downloaded the suggested samples and the 
> trial version of Corel and think the software is usable on my laptop without 
> upgrading.

> The AVCHD camcorder picture quality is really superior for all of the tests 
> I have conducted. I am a critical user with mostly Hasselblad equipment and 
> this is my first venture into video. I am not basing my preference on 
> numbers but only on what I have seen in my own testing. When I consider the 
> numbers it would also seem to me that Canon must use relatively similar 
> lenses and pick up sensors in both types of camcorders and that the camera 
> which records more detail should look better, and to me the AVCHD camera 
> most certainly does.

> I am going back today and purchasing the HFS10.

Hmmm.... Are we to conclude from the "From" designation in the browser 
NG reader that shows "Smarty" as the sender of the above that the OP was 
in reality "Smarty" writing as a troll posing as a real poster ("PhotoPro") with 
a real question so that a purportedly real response supporting a prejudice 
held by "Smarty" could be given above? Gee, "Smarty", and here I thought 
you had "plonked" me so that you could no longer read my posts! Dang! 
You lied! (And, throwing in that, "it would also seem to me that Canon must 
use relatively similar lenses and pick up sensors in both types of camcorders" 
was a nice touch for trying to throw us off your scent, since we all would 
likely know that you would know that the HFS10 and HV30/40 camcorders 
use different sensors and lenses.) Bad show, "Smarty"! 
--DR 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"james" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message news:gshvd3$6a9$1@aioe.org...

>> You seem to hung up on imaging device size here and it sounds like it
>> is leading you off on the wrong path. What is your bottom line question
>> here? Are you trying to select a camera? Especially these days, don't
>> think that the size of the imaging chip(s) has much to do with either 
>> light
>> gathering ability or "quality".

> The bottom line question is how to compare two camcorders and make an 
> educated guess as to which one has the better video quality, especially when 
> comparing 1-chip to 3-chip camcorders. Sometimes you can get this 
> information from reviews, sometimes not (e.g. very new model). Sometimes I 
> find conflicting reviews, one says a camcorder has great low-light 
> performance, another review says it has terrible low light performance. I 
> just want a quick and dirty way to gauge them. 

There is no "quick and dirty" way of gauging them. Best is trying the 
camcorders of interest, preferably when compared shooting the same 
material under the same lighting conditions. BTW, there is FAR more 
to evaluating results than resolution ("by the numbers", or by the on 
screen results), low-light range, etc. Color quality, tonal range, 
general exposure accuracy, etc. may in the end tilt the choice away 
from the first choice made on the basis of one or two characteristics. 
As an example, I bought a Sony TRV-950 untried based on my 
general liking for how Sony designed Mini-DV camcorders having 
liked their TRV-900 and VX2000 3-chippers and several Sony 
1-chippers I had owned compared with my experience with the 
camcorders of other makers. That small-chipped 3-chip camera was 
not very good, and I immediately sold it (its images had VERY poor 
tonality, being much too high in contrast...). As another example, the 
1-chip Canon HV20 has generally better image characteristics than 
even the excellent 3-chip relatively large-chip Sony VX2000. But, 
there is no contest between them in terms of low light range... For 
my reviews of many camcorders, go here -- 
http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/articles.html#video
--DR

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

<mkujbida@gmail.com> wrote in message news:824cec6e-953c-41f7-9940-72f391e8538b@g37g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...

> In case anyone is interested, the release date is scheduled for May
> 11.
> Some details are at http://www.sonycreativesoftware.com/vegaspro9?keycode=64214
> Edward Troxel's newsletter at http://www.jetdv.com/vegas/forum/viewtopic.php?t=3514
> is a fairly good review of some of the new features.

> Mike

Thanks. An introductory "pre-release" price "special" is offered, which 
includes the choice of one of three additional items plus $50 off, but then 
the price of the update is still a hefty $250, not very tempting for me 
given that the upgrades/new-features included are mostly not all that 
useful (for me). I also looked everywhere in the listed features, specs, 
etc. and I could find no reference about whether it would (or continue to 
not) fully support 24 Mbps AVCHD at export, with or without "Smart 
Rendering". Then there is that "small" matter of the common Vegas 
early-release set of bugs that seem to take a long time to (mostly) get 
fixed. I do like Vegas, but I will be staying with Pro 8c for now...;-)
--DR

~~~~~~~~~~~~

"Mike Kujbida" <kXuXjXfXaXm@xplornet.com> wrote in message news:759b3hF16v2kaU1@mid.individual.net...
> David Ruether wrote:
>> <mkujbida@gmail.com> wrote in message news:824cec6e-953c-41f7-9940-72f391e8538b@g37g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...

>>> In case anyone is interested, the release date is scheduled for May 11.
>>> 
>>> Some details are at http://www.sonycreativesoftware.com/vegaspro9?keycode=64214
>>> Edward Troxel's newsletter at http://www.jetdv.com/vegas/forum/viewtopic.php?t=3514
>>> is a fairly good review of some of the new features.
>>>
>>> Mike

>> Thanks. An introductory "pre-release" price "special" is offered, which
>> includes the choice of one of three additional items plus $50 off, but then
>> the price of the update is still a hefty $250, not very tempting for me,
>> given that the upgrades/new-features included are mostly not all that
>> useful (for me). I also looked everywhere in the listed features, specs,
>> etc. and I could find no reference about whether it would (or continue to
>> not) fully support 24 Mbps AVCHD at export, with or without "Smart
>> Rendering". Then there is that "small" matter of the Vegas early-release
>> set of bugs that seem to take a long time to (mostly) get fixed. I do like
>> Vegas, but I will be staying with Pro 8c for now...;-)
>> --DR 

> David, the $50 discount is applied after you start the order process so 
> the final price is $200 or less. 

This was not clear from discussions on the forums, and I got the 
impression from posters that $250 included the discount - but this 
could easily be incorrect at this early date. Have you tried ordering 
it? 

> BTW, this offer is good until June 30 so you'll have time to download 
> the trial and play with it. 

Good point, and I may do this (although knowing whether or not it will 
handle 24 Mbps AVCHD well is just out of curiousity for me at this point).

> Other than the review I linked to and what's been discussed on the 
> various Vegas forums, we'll have to wait until it ships before we know 
> what's really "under the hood".

> Mike

True - but the multiple Sony descriptions were quite thorough on most 
points, while leaving others mysteriously not well defined...;-( Even so, 
even if $200, the extras offered and the stated upgraded features are not 
very interesting to me at this time for the price (but it may be for others, 
of course...;-).
--DR

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"Hal" <feedback@halowe.com> wrote in message news:9jo8v4hlo9r9s2ftqia9l2tkde42uufheo@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 22 Apr 2009 09:52:16 -0400, "David Ruether"
> <d_ruether@thotmail.com> wrote:
>><mkujbida@gmail.com> wrote in message news:824cec6e-953c-41f7-9940-72f391e8538b@g37g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...

>>> In case anyone is interested, the release date is scheduled for May
>>> 11.
>>> Some details are at http://www.sonycreativesoftware.com/vegaspro9?keycode=64214
>>> Edward Troxel's newsletter at http://www.jetdv.com/vegas/forum/viewtopic.php?t=3514
>>> is a fairly good review of some of the new features.
>>>
>>> Mike

>>Thanks. An introductory "pre-release" price "special" is offered, which
>>includes the choice of one of three additional items plus $50 off, but then
>>the price of the update is still a hefty $250, not very tempting for me,
>>given that the upgrades/new-features included are mostly not all that
>>useful (for me). I also looked everywhere in the listed features, specs,
>>etc. and I could find no reference about whether it would (or continue to
>>not) fully support 24 Mbps AVCHD at export, with or without "Smart
>>Rendering". Then there is that "small" matter of the Vegas early-release
>>set of bugs that seem to take a long time to (mostly) get fixed. I do like
>>Vegas, but I will be staying with Pro 8c for now...;-)
>>--DR 

> David,

> I upgraded thru an e-mail that I received from Sony. The price was
> $184 plus the free gift, FWIW.

> Hal.

Thanks for the info. My Sony email said $250, which included $50 
off - but it wasn't clear if that made it $250 or $200. Plus the choice 
of one "extra" was included. It is now obvious that the price is 
$200 for the boxed version with a "pressed" disk and the extra, and 
$185 for the download version. That makes it more tempting, but 
even more tempting is buying the Pro 8 upgrade now (even though 
I already have it) for $100 and then get the Pro 9 upgrade for free 
(if the timing is right, but without the extra, but with a "pressed" disk). 
'Course, there is always doing nothing, since I'm happy enough with 
Pro 8... Ah, which choice to take...? ;-)
--DR

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"Mike Kujbida" <kXuXjXfXaXm@xplornet.com> wrote in message news:75kfatF18subvU1@mid.individual.net...
> jcraneski@gmail.com wrote:

>>> Hi Def content can be authored on standard (red laser) 4.7 GB DVDs using
>>> either AVCHD, BD5, or HD DVD formats. Depending on the specific codec
>>> employed (mpeg2 or h.264/AVC) the recording time for a disk is nominally
>>> around 23 minutes for 25 Mbit/sec

>> Will regular DVD player deliver hi def to HDTV?

> Nope, SD (standard definition) only.

Technically, this is correct - but if either the TV or DVD player 
can upsample well, and if the player has RGB or HDMI output, 
the SD picture from a disk can be very good (so good that I 
find no need to replace my standard DVDs with Blu-ray versions, 
or to avoid buying standard SD DVDs instead of Blu-ray versions).
Side-by-side comparisons between the SD and HD versions of 
the same movie showed me that the HD version does have a bit 
more real detail, especially during motion, and smoother motion, 
but not enough to pay nearly $30/disk vs. under $5 for pre-viewed 
SD DVD copies, for me... (but there are some $10/disk Blu-ray 
bargains around, and I do buy these).

> Regular DVDs can hold a limited amount of HD material which will work on 
> a PS 3. 
> Not sure about other HD players.

> Mike

Many other Blu-ray players apparently can play AVCHD written 
on standard DVD blanks in addition to BD material ... 
--DR

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"Mike Kujbida" <kXuXjXfXaXm@xplornet.com> wrote in message news:75mtrsF18pt9uU1@mid.individual.net...
> jazu wrote:
>> "Mike Kujbida" <kXuXjXfXaXm@xplornet.com> wrote in message 
>> news:75kfatF18subvU1@mid.individual.net...
>>> jcraneski@gmail.com wrote:

>>>>> Hi Def content can be authored on standard (red laser) 4.7 GB DVDs using
>>>>> either AVCHD, BD5, or HD DVD formats. Depending on the specific codec
>>>>> employed (mpeg2 or h.264/AVC) the recording time for a disk is nominally
>>>>> around 23 minutes for 25 Mbit/sec

>>>> Will regular DVD player deliver hi def to HDTV?

>>> Nope, SD (standard definition) only.
>>> Regular DVDs can hold a limited amount of HD material which will work on a 
>>> PS 3. [and many other Blu-ray players - test ones of interest to be sure]

>> So in this case when you have HD material on 4.7DVD disk, computer is the 
>> only device you can watch HD footage?
>> I don't think you can stick 4.7GB into blueray player, do you? 

> That's what I was saying you can do so the answer is yes.
> Folks on the Vegas forums are doing this all the time if they don't want 
> to spend the money on Blu-Ray blanks.

> Mike

You also save money by not needing a Blu-ray writer to write 
HD disks (but a Blu-ray player is necessary to play the disks). 
I take my edited HDV files and convert them to AVCHD in 
Vegas at the maximum available data rate of 16 Mbps (Vegas 
doesn't specify whether CBR or VBR, but since I can get about 
45 minutes on a single-sided DVD, it is likely VBR) and author 
the resulting files to red laser disks. The results are excellent, 
but the file conversions can take a considerable amount of time. 
Once the price of Blu-ray blanks drops far below what it is now 
(and much closer to the price of DVD blanks), I will switch to 
using those - but not yet...
--DR


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"Mark" <i@dontgetlotsofspamanymore.net> wrote in message news:spuav49b9bif8is74r77ta76or05im98ki@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 25 Apr 2009 08:05:26 +0200, "Richard Crowley"
> <rcrowley@xp7rt.net> wrote:

>>> I'm using Pinnacle Studio 10 software

>>Your presenting symptoms (lower quality) likely have little or
>>nothing to do with the particular software you are using. The
>>problem is a fundamental difference between "DVD quality"
>>and "DV quality".

> DVD quality is poorer than DV quality. However there is a difference
> between MPEG2 encoders. I found the one in Pinnacle Studio
> considerably worse than TMPGenc or Sony Vegas.

Yes. And there is an interesting effect that *can* make a DVD 
look better than the original DV *under some conditions* (as with 
using a superior codec, with a maximum recorded time per single 
sided disk of one hour...). Converting the material from D25 to 
MPEG-2 can smooth out the "jaggies" (the "bane" of Mini-DV), 
with minimal perceived effect on resolution - so the results can look 
better on a large upsampling LCD HDTV from the DVD copy than 
from the DV original. 

>>> I've noticed that the quality of the DVD is noticably poorer that the
>>> original tape (when played back on the same TV through S-Video). Main
>>> degradation is in color (looks washed out), but also some in
>>> resolution.

There should be little perceived difference in color or resolution 
unless something is set wrong or the codec is not very good.
[...]
--DR

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"Gary T" <gtempleman1@comcast.net> wrote in message news:gt5ou3$s0d$1@news.eternal-september.org... 
> "HerHusband" <unknown@unknown.com> wrote in message 
> news:Xns9BFA48AD81736herhusband@85.214.105.209...

> <snip>>
>> But, I agree with you it's a personal decision. My recordings are just
>> old home movies, not some theatrical masterpiece. Before I settled on
>> MPEG2 as my final format, I balanced storage costs, ease of access, and
>> past and future support for the encoding format. I also tried reencoding
>> my videos to other formats several times to make sure the quality loss
>> was acceptable to me and the format would be supported by future
>> software. I've been using a high bitrate (9000kbps) MPEG2 for at least 8
>> years and have not regretted that decision at any time. In fact, I now
>> archive my HD footage as high bitrate (25000kbps) MPEG2 also (HDV).
>>
>> Anthony

> Don't sell those old home movies short. There are millions of people who 
> would pay big bucks for a few minutes of video or audio of their parents or 
> grandparents, etc. What is *just* a home movie to you may be something very 
> precious to generations down the road.

> Gary T 

I know that one only too well...:-( 
I have some memories of 70 year old (and newer, of course...) home 
Kodachrome 8mm movies (that were lost to mold from a flood) that 
I would pay big bucks to have in original condition - but all I have 
are some splotchy, scratched bits badly transferred to VHS and copied 
by a relative to my VHS tape (mostly of the "less-than-prime" material 
that was once available). Heck, I don't even know what *I* looked like 
for much of my life, let alone others... 
Consider such footage VALUABLE, even if you do not currently value 
it highly!
--DR


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"infiniteMPG" <57classic@gmail.com> wrote in message news:ea39bae9-20e8-42b5-b70f-81faf9fb350f@i28g2000prd.googlegroups.com...

>I have a Sony Alpha A100 and my standard lens is my Tamron AF
> 18-250/3.5-6.3 DI II Macro Lens. The stock strap that came with the
> A100 is narrow, pretty slippery and not the most comfortable of straps
> on my shoulder all day. Was looking at some different straps like the
> Lowpro "Speedster" but wanted to see what shoulder straps people would
> recommend for the A100.

> Also, with the Tamron 18-250 attached, the lens tries to pull the
> camera down but the strap clip locations are on the top back edge of
> the body, so the camera sits kinda hangs half-way between horizontal
> and vertical. Would much prefer the camera to hang from my shoulder
> with the lens straight down but don't think this would happen without
> duct-taping a brick to the end of my lens. Anyone have any secret
> ways to shoulder carry a camera like this and not have it sticking out
> banging your arm while you hike?

> Thanks/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/

I have detested camera shoulder straps since I began photographing 
almost a half century ago. I could never figure out why anyone 
would tolerate a noticeably heavy odd-shaped object bobbling 
against themselves, especially if suspended by a strap insecurely
not placed over the head, but somehow balanced on a shoulder. 
A real mystery.....;-) My solution has always been to place the 
camera (with a shoelace wrist strap) and attached lens in a bag 
with easy access (with the top left unlocked when shooting). I add 
a wide pad to the strap at the area of contact. I have never felt that 
I have "missed a shot" as a result of doing this, and when it is time 
to quit shooting, the gear is essentially "prepacked" in a case that 
also holds an additional lens or two plus whatever other minor 
items that may be needed for that day's shooting.
--DR

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"infiniteMPG" <57classic@gmail.com> wrote in message news:4898eaa3-d320-41b5-96f2-88afcabae2d0@x31g2000prc.googlegroups.com...

>>>My solution has always been to place the camera (with a shoelace 
>>>wrist strap) and attached lens in a bag with easy access (with the top 
>>>left unlocked when shooting).

> Always open to suggestions so could you expand on your suggestion and
> tell me what kind of "bag" you're referring to? 

A canvas bag of an appropriate size and proportion to hold what you 
want (NOT everything you own! ;-) with quick and convenient access 
to anything you want works well for me...

> A backpack kind of
> bag or a waist pack kind of bag? 

The conditions above preclude use of a backpack or "stuffed" waist 
bag. Take only what you want for the day - it generally doesn't really 
need to be much (at least for me). Limit yourself to one or two lenses 
with one body, and you may be happier walking/hiking...

> Often when I am walking I also have
> on either my Camelbak M.U.L.E. or a fully loaded gear back pack. 

Yikes! ;-) 

> I also have hunting knife, GPS, PDA (we geocache a lot) and other items
> hanging from my belt. 

YIKES! But, what about the "kitchen sink"...? 8^)

> Can't put the camera over my neck as it would
> be whacking me in the chest constantly. If it was smaller then that
> would be an option, but a full sized DSLR with zoom lens is a load to
> have bouncing.

I have n-e-v-e-r tolerated the "bouncing camera" feeling - and it it 
a good way to get it damaged, or at least very dirty/dusty.

> I like the idea of a pack as we're in Florida so the sun becomes an
> issue baking an exposed camera so the "bag" idea caught my attention.

Yes - and it also can protect things from sudden rain if a thin plastic 
bag is tucked somewhere in the bag (BTW, do avoid those fake 
"leather" bags - they are water-sponges, being FAR from waterproof).

> And thanks to all for the strap suggestions, will most definitely shop
> around before I buy. 

Think about what you want - it took a LONG time for the general 
camera-toting population to get past those "never-ready" leather camera 
cases and "vault-like" gigantic heavy leather camera bags that were once 
so popular. I dropped the "camera on a dangling-get-in-the-way" shoulder 
strap with those terrible "quick release" clips many decades ago in favor 
of a simple/cheap/better shoestring wrist strap plus small side bag to drop 
the camera into or grab it from. But, whatever...8^)
--DR 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"frank" <dhssresearcher@netscape.net> wrote in message news:7c398c0c-3b99-4dc7-ba0d-215102a9df03@s21g2000vbb.googlegroups.com...
On May 1, 8:48 am, "David Ruether" <d_ruet...@thotmail.com> wrote:

> Think about what you want - it took a LONG time for the general
> camera-toting population to get past those "never-ready" leather camera
> cases and "vault-like" gigantic heavy leather camera bags that were once
> so popular. I dropped the "camera on a dangling-get-in-the-way" shoulder
> strap with those terrible "quick release" clips many decades ago in favor
> of a simple/cheap/better shoestring wrist strap plus small side bag to drop
> the camera into or grab it from. But, whatever...8^)
> --DR

I'd think you'd want one of those holster type camera bags, one lens
on the body, somewhat padded.Lowepro makes them. 

-- That could work, but I would want quick access, without the 
-- possibility of the camera slipping out if I sat down...

In the environment you're talking about, regular just non padded bags wouldn't 
be a good idea. 

-- I agree. All of my many bags (for different gear choices) are 
-- padded except my very small travel-kit bag, which can hold a 
-- Nikon FA with folding handle, 85mm f2 MF (tiny), 35mm f2 MF 
-- (same size), 20mm f2.8 MF (smaller yet), and sometimes the 
-- compact 16mm f3.5 - plus 20 36-exposure rolls of film (I will not 
-- claim that this bag is convenient in use, but it does hold an amazing 
-- amount of gear in an amazingly small package, making plane travel 
-- more pleasant - and at the destination, the bag can be partially 
-- unloaded, with a couple of items left out, if desired). If I ever switch 
-- to digital for travel, I will need to rethink the kit, of course...;-) 

There are probably others 3rd party. You might want to look at
REI and see what they have even if its NOT a camera bag. 

-- My first bags were army surplus gas mask bags...;-) I have also 
-- used coolers with typewriter/large-mouse-pads for separators for 
-- carrying camcorders.
-- DR

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"Ron Hunter" <rphunter@charter.net> wrote in message news:eOSdneliKv3XzWHUnZ2dnUVZ_qCdnZ2d@giganews.com...
> J. Clarke wrote:
>> ray wrote:
>>> On Fri, 01 May 2009 22:11:05 -0400, Dave Cohen wrote:

>>>> Take a look at this:
>>>> http://tinyurl.com/6nnehk
>>>> I don't know how it's done (suggestions welcome), but I thought it
>>>> was quite impressive.
>>>> Dave Cohen

>>> Footnote indicates it's a 'flash'. I'd be more impressed if he just
>>> brought the damned picture up instead of wasting my time and bandwidth
>>> with the animation.

>> Kind of hard to do a 4 pi steradian view with zoom by just "bringing up the 
>> damned picture". While I'm no fan of Flash that's one example of 
>> appropriate use IMO. 

> Indeed it is, and pretty well done in this case.

Yes, superb. Scalable, navigable, whatever you want to do in the image, 
and it remains remarkably sharp everywhere. For a hint (maybe...) for 
how it was produced, navigate dead center and straight down, then enlarge 
the 360x360 degree fisheye view that you find there...;-)
--DR

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"David Ruether" <d_ruether@thotmail.com> wrote in message news:gtn3ba$4q1$1@ruby.cit.cornell.edu...

> Yes, superb. Scalable, navigable, whatever you want to do in the image,
> and it remains remarkably sharp everywhere. For a hint (maybe...) for
> how it was produced, navigate dead center and straight down, then enlarge
> the 360x360 degree fisheye view that you find there...;-)
> --DR 

Well, OK, 360x180...? 8^)
BTW, it loads fast with a cable 'Net connection and it worked immediately 
in I.E. for me (with navigation working well by just grabbing something in 
the image with the mouse and moving it). Nifty!
--DR

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"Bob Larter" <bobbylarter@gmail.com> wrote in message 
news:49ff302e$1@dnews.tpgi.com.au...

> If you've got a scroll-wheel on your mouse, you can zoom with it too.

Works without a scroll wheel too.

PC running XP
Shift Zooms in
Ctrl Zooms out

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"Yves" <tychonREMOVETHEOBVIOUS@pt.lu> wrote in message news:1241195343_53@vo.lu... 

> no, I don't want a digital picture frame. The point is that, up to now, I 
> still use a SLR analogue camera with slide films, eventually shown with a 
> slide projector on a screen.

> As slide films will be getting increasingly difficult to get, I wonder if I 
> will switch to digital altogether. I already use a compact digital Ixus, and 
> while I find the pics pretty good on the computer monitor or on prints, I am 
> not happy with the same pics when shown via CD on a plasma tv (not HDTV, I 
> must admit). So that is why a video projector might be a suitable follow up 
> option for the old-fashioned slides, but on the other hand, I would not want 
> the whole system to be more complicated than my present analogue stuff...

It is worthwhile to spend the money now on a good LCD 1080p TV (they 
are getting reasonably cheap), especially if it has an SD slot, and if it is 
42+" viewed reasonably close in - about 6'-7', NOT W-A-Y over THERE 
over the fireplace!!! (That is a common mistake, and the advantages of 
having a very sharp large image are lost - and some LCDs also lose 
picture brilliance and best color when viewed much off axis.) Properly set 
up, the results can be astonishing - and they are also without the trouble of 
setting up for viewing slides, and without the annoying projector-lens/slide 
field flatness issues. You can easily move in your computer images to a 
compatible card type for use in the TV (or, as we do, for use in our Blu-ray 
player).
--DR 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I just uploaded a video to YouTube comparing five microphones on a 
Canon HV20. The microphones were the Rode Stereo VideoMic, Canon 
ZM-100, Sony 908C, Sony ZM-157 (x2), and Sennheiser MKE-300. It's 
at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dFQDItWK4Ng (click on the "HD" 
button if you care, but the visuals are "throwaway"...;-). There are some 
comments included about sensitivity to wind and camcorder handling noises. 
I think the conclusion for me is that the most trouble free mic under different 
conditions is the Rode, but I slightly prefer the sound of the Canon ZM-100 
and the Sony 908C microphones (I was surprised by how nearly alike these 
five microphones sounded, though...).
--DR

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"Wilko Finke" <usenet_trashcan_NOSPAM@toxic-inc.de> wrote in message 
news:4a01d321$0$3283$af665b99@news.htp-tel.de...
> David Ruether schrieb:

>> [...]
>> Canon HV20. The microphones were the Rode Stereo VideoMic, Canon

> Well I think that Rode Micro sounds best IMHO. And I like that something 
> else guy! ;)) 

8^)

> On that Canon ZM-100 is a little humm at the end... caused 
> by a mobile? 

Actually, it is throughout, but changes with level, being louder with louder 
sound and softer with quieter - but I can hear it only on my computer 
speakers (PSB Alphas) and not my wider-range main TV system, oddly...;-). 
I think it is likely resulting from using an aged 6v. battery with it (I will replace 
it soon and try the mic again). I assume you read my lengthy notes with the 
video at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dFQDItWK4Ng?

> But that Sony 908C sounds also nice! 

Yes - it has long been a favorite, 'cept for its tendency to pick up mechanically 
transferred noise and wind noise. It, and the Canon, sound "right" to me under 
a variety of conditions, with a variety of source material. The Rode has a 
"crisper", less "sweet" sound, with some annoying tendency to brightness 
or even sibilance with some voices - but I appreciate its freedom from 
mechanical and wind noise pickup. Without the hum, the Canon overall 
would likely be my favorite (and it is much lighter and smaller than the Rode 
even with its battery box stuck with Velcro to the side of the mic).

> Thanks for your work man.

> Cheers

> Wilko 

I thank me, too, since I wanted to see how these five mics compared, 
partly to see if I wanted to keep the Rode (I guess I will...;-).
--DR

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

<panteltje@gmail.com> wrote in message news:6039afd2-7448-4987-a617-841c5c2dc2cc@m24g2000vbp.googlegroups.com...
On May 5, 3:57 pm, "David Ruether" <d_ruet...@thotmail.com> wrote:

> I just uploaded a video to YouTube comparing five microphones on a
> Canon HV20. The microphones were the Rode Stereo VideoMic, Canon
> ZM-100, Sony 908C, Sony ZM-157 (x2), and Sennheiser MKE-300. It's
> at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dFQDItWK4Ng(click on the "HD"
> button if you care, but the visuals are "throwaway"...;-). There are some
> comments included about sensitivity to wind and camcorder handling noises.
> I think the conclusion for me is that the most trouble free mic under different
> conditions is the Rode, but I slightly prefer the sound of the Canon ZM-100
> and the Sony 908C microphones (I was surprised by how nearly alike these
> five microphones sounded, though...).
> --DR

The Rode has by far the best stereo picture.
That makes it easier to associate the sound to the people in the
video.

--Yes, but I would attribute some of that to its relative brightness...
--I like the mic, but I prefer mics that sound a bit more natural and 
--which do not annoy with some exxagerations that do not "sit well" 
--with some source sounds. Also keep in mind in terms of imaging 
--that two of the mics were short shotguns, which are mono.
--DR

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"Richard Crowley" <rcrowley@xp7rt.net> wrote in message news:76j9h3F1dbjtgU1@mid.individual.net...
> "David Ruether" wrote ...
>> <panteltje@gmail.com> wrote ...
>> "David Ruether" wrote:

>>> I just uploaded a video to YouTube comparing five microphones on a
>>> Canon HV20. The microphones were the Rode Stereo VideoMic, Canon
>>> ZM-100, Sony 908C, Sony ZM-157 (x2), and Sennheiser MKE-300. It's
>>> at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dFQDItWK4Ng (click on the "HD"
>>> button if you care, but the visuals are "throwaway"...;-). There are some
>>> comments included about sensitivity to wind and camcorder handling 
>>> noises. I think the conclusion for me is that the most trouble free mic under 
>>> different conditions is the Rode, but I slightly prefer the sound of the Canon 
>>> ZM-100 and the Sony 908C microphones (I was surprised by how nearly 
>>> alike these five microphones sounded, though...).
>>> --DR

>> The Rode has by far the best stereo picture.
>> That makes it easier to associate the sound to the people in the
>> video.

> Since each mic was recorded serially, (vs. concurrently) there
> were different conditions in what the sound landscape sounded
> like between microphones.

> To my ear, they were similar enough that I could live with any
> of them for casual ambient recording, and it would depend on
> price and availability. 

Yes, I agree (and I stated this in the "verbiage" that was with the 
video, and here above - and some were mono mics, and some stereo 
mics), but there were subtle tonal differences that also held in other 
listening situations, as with having a TV on inside with a fan going (with 
the "something person" also in each), etc. The Rode does edge slightly 
more toward "the nasty for me" character than the others, though (I 
hate anything that approaches edgy/shrill/overly-bright sound, and prefer 
"sweet/full/spacious" if I must make a choice), but they are all similar 
enough to use (but there are times when the Rode does sound less 
preferable to the others with specific material, unfortunately - but for 
general ambience recordings I need a mic with good resistance to wind 
and mechanical noise pickup, and it is the best of the bunch in that 
way). The video test was definitely "quick and dirty", but I think it does 
show the subtle tonal "character" differences between these mics.
--DR


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"Wilko Finke" <usenet_trashcan_NOSPAM@toxic-inc.de> wrote in message news:4a01d321$0$3283$af665b99@news.htp-tel.de...
> David Ruether schrieb:

>> [...]
>> Canon HV20. The microphones were the Rode Stereo VideoMic, Canon

> Well I think that Rode Micro sounds best IMHO. And I like that something 
> else guy! ;)) On that Canon ZM-100 is a little humm at the end... caused 
> by a mobile? But that Sony 908C sounds also nice!

> Thanks for your work man.

> Cheers

> Wilko

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Wilko Finke" <usenet_trashcan_NOSPAM@toxic-inc.de> wrote in message
news:4a01d321$0$3283$af665b99@news.htp-tel.de...
> David Ruether schrieb:

>> [...]
>> Canon HV20. The microphones were the Rode Stereo VideoMic, Canon

> Well I think that Rode Micro sounds best IMHO. And I like that something else guy! ;))

8^)

> On that Canon ZM-100 is a little humm at the end... caused by a mobile?

Actually, it is throughout, but changes with level, being louder with louder
sound and softer with quieter - but I can hear it only on my computer
speakers (PSB Alphas) and not my wider-range main TV system, oddly...;-).
I think it is likely resulting from using an aged 6v. battery with it (I will replace
it soon and try the mic again). I assume you read my lengthy notes with the
video at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dFQDItWK4Ng?

> But that Sony 908C sounds also nice!

Yes - it has long been a favorite, 'cept for its tendency to pick up mechanically
transferred noise and wind noise. It, and the Canon, sound "right" to me under
a variety of conditions, with a variety of source material. The Rode has a
"crisper", less "sweet" sound, with some annoying tendency to brightness
or even sibilance with some voices - but I appreciate its freedom from
mechanical and wind noise pickup. Without the hum, the Canon overall
would likely be my favorite (and it is much lighter and smaller than the Rode
even with its battery box stuck with Velcro to the side of the mic).

> Thanks for your work man.
>
> Cheers
>
> Wilko

I thank me, too, since I wanted to see how these five mics compared,
partly to see if I wanted to keep the Rode (I guess I will...;-).
--DR 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"Scubajam" <jmcgauhey@usa.net> wrote in message 
news:53b7c0f2-9fdd-40f2-85ca-359714359bbb@w35g2000prg.googlegroups.com...

>> I need a mic with good resistance to wind
>> and mechanical noise pickup, .
>> --DR-

> Here's a video that shows wind noise reduction and an interesting bit
> on covering switches and the XLR connector at the back of the mic. 
> http://juicedlink.com/index_files/LC_Aud_wind_noise.htm 
> Many of you probably know this already, but it was news to me. The
> straw seems a good way to test wind reduction. 

This was news to me, and a very good demo. Thanks. 

> I'd be very
> interesting in inexpensive fuzzies and good ways to reduce wind noise
> and whether an animal fur, or fabric works better and how to rig.

As the video indicates, there is a clear hierarchy for the efficacy of 
various solutions for suppressing wind noise - but with one of my 
mics (the Canon ZM-100), it took only a wrap of open cell 
air-conditioner filter foam clipped around the mic to make that mic 
about equal to the Rode with its furry on ($24 for mics it will fit, 
like the Canon ZM-100 and Sony 908C). The Sennheiser took 
a Rycote ($55?) over its foam screen for it to do well. My old Sony 
VX2000's on camera mic was excellent for nearly everything but 
distant sources, with only a cheap Radio Shack foam wind screen 
added.

> As for the mics, I couldn't tell much difference, and really wouldn't
> be much interested in recording a group of people distant from the mic
> where most where facing away from the mic. I thought the "talent"
> giving the mic tests really wasn't cooperative like saying a paragraph
> with explosives and ss sounds with enough words to make a good test. 

It was a VERY casual test...;-) I merely sat down near a bunch 
of people and recorded some while changing mics. There are 
some videos on YouTube shot close in in interiors with the Rode SVM 
that sound "insufferable", "bright", and "hard", which none of the other 
mics I used ever did - which is why I ran the check (to decide whether 
or not to return the Rode...).

> I would be interested in a similar test of mics with better,
> duplicated, conditions, even understanding this was for field, not
> studio, conditions. 

Ideally, there should be a mix of conditions for testing, since the 
recording environment can make a BIG difference in the outcome, 
as can the distance between the source and mic. The best way is 
to compare mics in an environment most like the one you will most 
commonly use, recording material that is nearest to the type you 
most often record, and recording at the distance you are most likely 
to use. For me, it is exterior ambient sound, often distant - but even 
when I shot weddings, my most often used mic was the one built 
into the VX2000. With a little "help" during editing (and use of a 
wireless lav. on the groom during the ceremony), I could capture 
surprisingly well the rehearsal, pre-ceremony talking, ceremony 
ambience and vows, post-ceremony talking, and the reception 
and dinner, all with very simple gear. (I'm NOT a studio 
recordest...! ;-)

> I understand recording outside and eliminating
> wind noise, and sometimes a group such as family or friends
> disregarding the camera or the mic, but if something important is said
> I'd have it repeated under better sound conditions, even if just
> closer to and facing the mic. If it's an impromptu funny something,
> it would be more about the content than the mic, at least to me. Of
> course, any reasonable mic is better than camcorder mic.

> Jim McGauhey
> Washington State

Not necessarily - but in the case of the Canon HV20, that is true. 
Oh, I forgot to say: a good trick for getting good sound without 
"repeats" or other techniques that may interfer with an event is to 
use a wide angle on the video camera (it allows you to get closer). 
For more distant things, a short shotgun is good (I like the Sennheiser 
for that, but it is mono - but that can be modified a bit by using a 
technique, described at - 
http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/mono-to-stereo.htm ).
--DR

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

>"Wilko Finke" <usenet_trashcan_NOSPAM@toxic-inc.de> wrote in message

The something else guy was great. He looked like he was dragged into 
your mic test and would rather not be on camera. He should be on Letterman 
as, well, the something else guy. He is so funny, in such a dry way. Tell him 
he made my night. 

Tony

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"Steve King" <steveSPAMBLOCK@stevekingSPAMBLOCK.net> wrote in message news:gu1d4h$9m7$1@news.albasani.net...
> <davesvideo@aol.com> wrote in message 
> news:671bb10a-2e1f-4ed1-910e-22a363e00eb5@r3g2000vbp.googlegroups.com...

> | I'm making a tourism video which is pretty much done except for
> | narration. The voice I have used before is a rich baritone, but, I
> | think it has a bit of a somber tone. Is there any feeling as to what
> | tonal quality is good for evoking a welcome feeling? Is there a male
> | vs female distinction? Any thoughts on picking a narrator.

> As a long time narrator and a not-so-long-a-time producer of corporate and 
> documentary video, I don't think 'tonal quality' is what you should be 
> focused on. With my producing hat on, I look for a narrator that can tell 
> my story, can connect with the audience. I want to believe that he or she 
> is talking to me, that he or she is really engaged in the story. If I get 
> the sense that he or she is doing a nice 'read' of my script, that's 
> probably not who I would choose. I want a narrator who is able to turn my 
> script into his or her voiced stream of thought, a storyteller who gives me 
> the sense that he or she can sense how the audience is responding to the 
> narrative, who makes the audience part of the experience. The voice can be 
> pitched low or higher, gruff or smooth, younger or older. To a certain 
> extent the copy suggests which of these to choose, but not necessarily. 
> Going against the grain is sometimes the more interesting choice. I guess 
> what I'm saying is that there is no formula. You go with what moves you.

> Steve King 

It's always a pleasure to read such a sensible and informative post.
Thanks! 
--DR

[more...]

Most voices sound more pleasing, when speaking softly. Only the richest 
most resonant voices sound good speaking loudly. Of course, one could make 
the case that Billy Mays has been very successful with his naturally higher 
pitched voice, and goodness gracious he is loud. However, video narration 
is different from an infomercial harangue. Also, many non-professionals 
speak slowly in an attempt to be more precise, I suppose. By keeping the 
pace up, one can speak softly, speak more one-to-one, yet still convey 
energy and enthusiasm. If the video is pretty, pauses in the narration 
supported by music is good. Why did you budget your project without 
allowing for a professional narrator? That human being engaging and 
directing the attention of the mind and emotions of the viewer is at least 
50% of the impact of the video IMO. Of course, I would think that wouldn't 
I?;-) But, it is true. And the cost is usually a small fraction of the 
acquisition and editing costs of production.

Steve King

[even more...]

Crowley's suggestions are good ones particularly about using local 
personalities. I might modify what he said, though. Pick a few topics in 
your script. Formulate a question or two for locals designed to elicit the 
information you've scripted, i.e., instead of narrating about local fishing 
and hunting, go record audio of a local fisherman and a hunter offering 
their advice for tourists with that interest. Edit judiciously and weave 
those comments into your story. Same for the arts. Get a quote or two from 
gallery owners and the director of the community theater group. Someone 
else to talk about restaurants. The county forester or extension agent to 
talk about sight seeing. Narrate a name credit for each insertion, "John 
Jones's been fishing inTioga County for forty years," or some such. You may 
only end up with only a minute or so of quotes in a six or seven minute 
program, but you will be amazed at how those quotes jazz up the story. 
Obviously, a few seconds of each on camera would be nice, but at this stage 
of the game audio only may be easier to do.

Steve King 

[and even more...]

If "tourism video" means something to promote the home town (etc.)
then perhaps a local "celebrity" such as a radio or TV personality or
politician, someone with an organic connection to the town/area.
Someone who has been there, done that can come off as more
credible than a studio actor. Especially if it is set up (even if just
with one scene) with the narrator doing an on-screen stand-up intro,
etc. to establish their "credentials" as someone who can guide viewers
through the area.

OTOH, if it is a doco about a foreign locale, I like using someone
who speaks the target language (English?) well, but has an audible
accent from the foreign land. Especially when it comes to pronouncing
foreign names properly (etc.) A "foreign accent" usually carries
something of a "cachet" or novelty. 

Richard Crowley

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Sony Vegas Pro 9 is now available for a 30-day trial download. 
One disappointment evident from a quick look is that the maximum 
exportable data rate for AVCHD files is still 16 Mbps - and most 
AVCHD cameras shoot "lowly" 17 Mbps files, and the better ones 
can shoot at a 24 Mbps data rate. Unless I'm missing something, 
Vegas doesn't look like a good program to use for editing AVCHD 
(Corel's latest, VideoStudio Pro X2, may be able to handle the higher 
data rate files - but I don't know if it can use "Smart Rendering" with 
them, a VERY useful feature present in both Vegas and VideoStudio 
when editing HDV...).
I guess I will stick with Vegas Pro 8C for now. It works well for 
me with HDV, Premiere is not very good with HDV, and I dislike 
working with VideoStudio due to its interface - and AVCHD is yet 
another can of worms I don't wish to deal with now...
--DR

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"Richard Crowley" <rcrowley@xp7rt.net> wrote in message news:76u59dF1enqiaU1@mid.individual.net...
> "les" wrote ...

>> I'm considering an online purchase of a camera from Bingo Cameras, but
>> don't know what reputation they have with the video community.
>> Does anyone know a reputable site that might collect complaints or
>> comments about online dealers?

> http://www.resellerratings.com/store/Bingo_Cameras

> IMHO it is worth the few extra $$$ to buy from a repuable
> company like http://www.bhphotovideo.com/
> http://www.resellerratings.com/store/B_H_Photo_Video_Pro_Audio 

I second that most emphatically! B&H has been a top-class 
dealer for decades, with good *real* prices (and never with 
"come-on" sucker pricing or pressure to buy accessories 
to make a deal "happen"), things that are as described and 
truthfully listed as in or out of stock and whether US or 
"grey" import. Shipping is cheap and swift. Returns for 
problems or even just dissatisfaction are easy and trouble 
free. That kind of service and security are WELL worth 
paying extra for, I think!
--DR

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

<piotrekwas@interia.pl> wrote in message 
news:e0418b5f-c315-429d-81cb-354149db7cae@r3g2000vbp.googlegroups.com...

> Auto Travel across the USA

> www.photopio.com

> Piotr Was

VERY nice photos, with some the nicest I've seen of areas I'm very 
familiar with (although some are near duplicates, there may be an excess 
of photos of you two [but they are sometimes also useful for scale] and 
the car, and Flash may not be ideal...), and you got to many places others 
often miss, like some of my favorites, the Black Canyon of the Gunnison, 
Goosenecks, Canyon de Chelley, the slot canyons, and some of the high 
areas in Zion. It was amusing to see an "aerial" of that lonely bed and 
breakfast in the Valley of the Gods (and I hope you did not have any 
near misses on the narrow switch-back dirt road that climbs that high 
cliff, used by tractor-trailer trucks!!!). Without captions, one could not 
tell that those scrubby looking shrub-like things may be some of the oldest 
trees on earth. Great weather, too (in spring?), during your trip in the 
South West. Thanks for the excellent photos! 

As for the list of locations for your next trip, these are my favorites:

2. Yellowstone National Park (Wyoming).
4. Glacier National Park (Montana).
6. Mt. Rainier National Park (Washington). 
Maybe my favorite national park, but watch out - it is *very* 
easy to get into trouble here!!! (We once did, taking an 
"innocent" short walk...) 
9. Mt. St. Helens National Volcanic (Washington).
11. Redwood National Park (California). (See also the 
related state parks and the Rockefeller Woods, especially.)
13. San Francisco City (California). (Ride the cable cars in the 
evening - WOW! ;-) Also, walk Grant St. from Market St.
to the water at the north - it passes through several *interesting* 
neighborhoods. From Grant on the way, detour toward Coit 
Tower, take mysterious "hole-in-the-sidewalk" streets that 
go off VERY interestingly over cliffs and through hidden 
gardens down the hill to the east.) If you can take the time, take 
route 1 south from San Francisco to see some beautiful coastline 
(the "good stuff" starts just south of Monterey, where Pt. Lobos, 
Edward Weston's hang out was). Start in the hills south of SF on 
Skyline Drive past the reservoirs, though (there are neat rolling 
hills with golden grass and redwood groves here and there). Driving 
across the Golden Gate bridge is also a "hoot", especially with a 
sun roof so you can look up. Stop at the overlook at the north end, 
which has a great view of the bridge and city (after a very short 
drive).
25. Niagara Falls (The view from the Canadian side is best, but 
there is not much of interest in the city. Consider the Cave of the 
Winds and Maid of the Mist tours - but you WILL get WET! 
Be careful of passports - travel across the border isn't as casual 
as it once was, darn! Close to the Falls area on the Canadian side 
is an interesting butterfly conservatory.) 

Since you appear to go through Chicago, I suggest trying to stop at 
Millennium Park to see the huge mirrored "Chicago Bean" (I have a video 
of it here - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pPhPA8IP_ig&fmt=18), the 
nearby glass towers, and the Frank Gehry amphitheater - all very worthwhile, 
and definitely "fun"!

BTW, it looks like you may go near Ithaca, New York on the route map. 
There are some wonders here (Taughannock Falls, the highest free falls in 
the E. US, Buttermilk Falls Park glen, upper Treman Park trail, and the 
nearby Watkins Glen Park in the city of Watkins Glen - a favorite narrow 
winding glen with many waterfalls, two of which you walk behind). BTW, if 
you were not going to Niagara Falls (but do! ;-), I would suggest crossing 
the south-western half of New York and then into Pennsylvania on the main 
highway there - it is bee-yoo-ti-ful, with nothing but rolling hills, forests, 
lakes, streams, meadows (but by August, it may not be at its best unless we 
have a wet spring and early summer...). If you do travel up along Lake Ontario 
to Rochester (more fun than the Throughway), try the local (ripe) peaches if 
in season, sold at farmers' stands. You will then know what a peach SHOULD 
taste like! ;-) If you do hit Ithaca, maybe I can show you around here. Oh, 
and for parts of the trip in the SW and South, I do trust you will have 
operating air conditioning in the car (you WILL need it!!!).

Sigh...! Have fun!
--DR (d_ruether@hotmail.com)

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"piotrekwas" <piotrekwas@interia.pl> wrote in message news:81c65cba-78fe-4d45-b53f-ffa5264e55ba@g20g2000vba.googlegroups.com...
On May 13, 10:36 am, "David Ruether" <d_ruet...@thotmail.com> wrote:
> <piotrek...@interia.pl> wrote in message

Thank you very much for giving us so many tips, especially about
visiting cities. We are still making plans for our journey so we will
take your advices for sure. We also think that Glacier National Park,
Yellowstone and Mt. Rainier are going to be the best places in our
trip. By the way we are curious what happened in Mt. Rainier National
Park???

<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

We weren't doing anything we thought dangerous or unusual (and we 
made NO attempt to climb - this should be done ONLY with guides, 
and even then, MANY people have been killed on this mountain). We 
went for a short walk in the snow from Paradise(?) Lodge, on an easy,
nearly level, and quite short trail which leads to the edge of a high cliff 
with a view across a major glacier (so large that if you manage to spot 
people on it, they are the tiniest of tiny pin pricks - which makes you 
realize how enormous the "cracks" in the glacier are, and how large it 
is!) and up to the peak of Mt. Rainier. This was at a time when the 
ground was covered with snow (but later, this area has amazing Alpine 
wild flowers). We noticed a "cloud" beginning to spill over the top of 
the mountain, but didn't think much of it. Rapidly it engulfed us and we 
could see only a couple of feet away (not fun when next to a cliff!). Since 
the trail was criss-crossed with foot prints, we could not identify the 
true trail, so we waited a bit hoping the fog would clear. Fortunately, 
we soon heard voices, then saw yellow-garbed climbers coming by in 
a group, which we followed back to the Lodge. When we got back, 
we were surprised to find that we were badly sunburned, although it 
had been cloudy all day and we had not been out long. BTW, there is 
another great viewpoint from a short hike (sorry, I can't tell you how to 
get to it, but maybe asking there will get you there) that has a sweeping 
view down into a deep valley and then up the entire height of the 
mountain! WHEW!!! (BTW, Mt. Rainier, surprisingly, is the highest 
mountain in the world from its *visible* base to its peak, making it one 
HECK of a sight! One time while near this viewpoint, we heard soft 
"whistling" sounds, then saw high-performance gliders going back and 
forth between us and the mountain. Also, watch for birds that will sit 
on your head/hand/anything and grab food from you whether it is 
offered or not! 8^)

Also, heed the warnings in Yellowstone - you can easily get scalded, 
and moose can kill people, as can bears (DO NOT open car windows 
when near bears, and have ALL food in tightly sealed containers!). 
And, of course, do not approach buffalo.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Yes, we traveled to South-West during the spring (May/June). The
weather was excellent. And we also lived in Chicago, so we know
Millennium Park and other attractions very well J

Once again, thanks for your time.

<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

Have fun on the trip!
--DR


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"Smarty" <nobody@nobody.com> wrote in message news:CqWOl.1231$5F2.176@nwrddc01.gnilink.net...

> Just a brief post to report that the new Vegas 9 now provides "no 
> recompression" smart rendering and also creates full 24 Mbit/sec disks when 
> smart rendering is applied.

> The rendering times have been drastically reduced by this enhancement, and 
> the final published disks have absolutely identical quality to the original 
> pristine 24 Mbit/sec AVCHD content.

> There are numerous caveats associated with these features, in particular the 
> method which Sony uses to decide when smart rendering will and will not be 
> applied. Also, the full 24 Mbit/sec bit rate output is only available under 
> some circumstances, so it cannot be offered as a complete 24 Mbit/sec 
> solution yet. Clearly a lot of progress has been made in these directions 
> since version 8.

> I can also only confirm this performance for the Canon HFS10, but I presume 
> other 24 Mbit/sec AVCHD content will perform similarly.

> Smarty

The above is technically true, but if one tries to export an AVCHD 
computer file for archiving, etc., the data rate is still limited to 16 Mbps,
the same as it is with Pro 8, and that is presumably the same as it also 
is for any changed footage on the timeline that is exported to disk. This 
is certainly an improvement over Pro 8c's handling of AVCHD (at least 
when exporting to disk, and in terms of using "Smart Rendering"), but 
given that "good" AVCHD camcorders now use the 24 Mbps data 
rate, Pro 9 is, as you point out, not yet a complete 24 Mbps solution 
for editing AVCHD. Perhaps with an update, it will become so, but it 
is unfortunate that Pro 9 does not do what it should have done "out of 
the gate"...
--DR

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"Smarty" <nobody@nobody.com> wrote in message news:FflPl.1534$5F2.663@nwrddc01.gnilink.net...
> "David Ruether" <d_ruether@thotmail.com> wrote in message 
> news:gua4l7$st9$1@ruby.cit.cornell.edu...

>> Sony Vegas Pro 9 is now available for a 30-day trial download.
>> One disappointment evident from a quick look is that the maximum
>> exportable data rate for AVCHD files is still 16 Mbps...
>> --DR

> Not true !
'Tis too! Nyahhhh! 8^) 
See my posts below for more on this limitation of Vegas Pro 9 when 
handling 24 Mbps AVCHD files...
--DR

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"David Ruether" <d_ruether@thotmail.com> wrote in message news:guhtvi$ei7$1@ruby.cit.cornell.edu...
> "Smarty" <nobody@nobody.com> wrote in message news:CqWOl.1231$5F2.176@nwrddc01.gnilink.net...

>> Just a brief post to report that the new Vegas 9 now provides "no recompression" 
>> smart rendering and also creates full 24 Mbit/sec disks when smart rendering is 
>> applied.
>>
>> The rendering times have been drastically reduced by this enhancement, and the final 
>> published disks have absolutely identical quality to the original pristine 24 Mbit/sec 
>> AVCHD content.
>>
>> There are numerous caveats associated with these features, in particular the method 
>> which Sony uses to decide when smart rendering will and will not be applied. Also, 
>> the full 24 Mbit/sec bit rate output is only available under some circumstances, so it 
>> cannot be offered as a complete 24 Mbit/sec solution yet. Clearly a lot of progress 
>> has been made in these directions since version 8.
>>
>> I can also only confirm this performance for the Canon HFS10, but I presume other 
>> 24 Mbit/sec AVCHD content will perform similarly.
>>
>> Smarty

> The above is technically true, but if one tries to export an AVCHD
> computer file for archiving, etc., the data rate is still limited to 16 Mbps,
> the same as it is with Pro 8, and that is presumably the same as it also
> is for any changed footage on the timeline that is exported to disk. This
> is certainly an improvement over Pro 8c's handling of AVCHD (at least
> when exporting to disk, and in terms of using "Smart Rendering"), but
> given that "good" AVCHD camcorders now use the 24 Mbps data
> rate, Pro 9 is, as you point out, not yet a complete 24 Mbps solution
> for editing AVCHD. Perhaps with an update, it will become so, but it
> is unfortunate that Pro 9 does not do what it should have done "out of
> the gate"...
> --DR 

More...
I just tried placing two 24 Mbps clips (from a Panasonic 150) on the Vegas 
Pro 9 timeline. I first tried exporting part of one of the files, without change, 
to a file on the desktop. It went very quickly, indicating that it was being 
copied and not recompressed. I then chopped the clips into several pieces, 
removing some small pieces, and overlapping the ones that remained (adding 
a different transition type to one of the overlaps). I also cut one clip to move 
a section to a track above where I extended its ends, applied a color change, 
then brought it back down to join (with overlaps) its original clip. Remaining 
were several relatively unchanged parts. I then added audio and video 
fade-in/outs at the ends and included an "empty" leader and tail. Exporting 
this to a file required about 6:15 for 40 seconds of material with a dual core 
CPU, and that plus the "stepped" preview image progress indicated that 
none of the timeline material was merely copied once part of the timeline 
material had been modified. I compared the exported video frame-to-frame 
with the original, and while it was very close, it wasn't quite as good. Also, 
at no time with any 1/2 sized preview window setting was playback of 24 
Mbps AVCHD material smooth on this computer. Hooray for HDV! It 
works, and AVCHD doesn't appear to yet work with Vegas, and it is still 
a "pain" to use unless the hardware resources are extraordinary. I will be 
staying with HDV and Vegas Pro 8 for a while longer, it appears...
--DR

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"Smarty" <nobody@nobody.com> wrote in message news:ZllPl.1536$5F2.843@nwrddc01.gnilink.net...
> "David Ruether" <d_ruether@thotmail.com> wrote in message 
> news:guk88v$1eb$1@ruby.cit.cornell.edu...

>> More...
>> I just tried placing two 24 Mbps clips (from a Panasonic 150) on the Vegas
>> Pro 9 timeline. I first tried exporting part of one of the files, without change,
>> to a file on the desktop. It went very quickly, indicating that it was 
>> being copied and not recompressed.

> Yes indeed, and these files can be exported, archived, and used directly 
> from Vegas 9 as 24 Mbit/sec files.

Only if NOTHING is changed in the timeline material, otherwises Vegas 
9 recompresses EVERYTHING at 16 Mbps instead of 24 Mbps, not 
very useful when editing and exporting 24 Mbps material to files...

> I thank you for actually trying Vegas 9 with 24 Mbit/sec content. You are 
> beginning to now (finally) understand what it actually can and cannot due, 
> unlike your prior two posts.

??? They either agreed with what you wrote, or with an expanded version 
I placed on the Vegas Forums - which was followed up with responses 
from several others who know what they are doing and who agreed with my 
observations. Nothing I wrote earlier about Vegas 9 contradicts that - so, 
stop being silly...

>> at no time with any 1/2 sized preview window setting was playback of 24
>> Mbps AVCHD material smooth on this computer. Hooray for HDV! It
>> works, and AVCHD doesn't appear to yet work with Vegas
>> --DR

> Get yourself a quadcore for about $650 and stop moaning and making false 
> statements. AVCHD works absolutely fine with Vegas, both version 8 and now 
> version 9. What "doesn't appear to work with Vegas" is your dual core.

I tried it on a convenient dual-core machine, but AVCHD still runs poorly 
on my quad-core compared with HDV. Why bother trying to run something 
that doesn't work well when a better alternative is available (especially if 
one cannot export *edited* files at the highest source-camera quality at all 
with the program)?

> Your "facts" and opinions are a train wreck when it comes to AVCHD.

> Smarty 

Yuh, right. See above. Methinks you may not always "know it all", but 
what is true is that you are always rude in your posts following mine...;-) 
I suggest that you really do "PLONK!" me this time, instead of just lying 
about doing it.
--DR


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"Smarty" <nobody@nobody.com> wrote in message news:hglPl.1535$5F2.1220@nwrddc01.gnilink.net...
> "David Ruether" <d_ruether@thotmail.com> wrote in message 
> news:guhtvi$ei7$1@ruby.cit.cornell.edu...

>> The above is technically true, but if one tries to export an AVCHD
>> computer file for archiving, etc., the data rate is still limited to 16 
>> Mbps, the same as it is with Pro 8
>> --DR

> Again, not true, 

It is true. If you change ANYTHING in the material on the Vegas 9 
timeline, it will ALL rerender as Main Profile (16 Mbps), not High 
Profile (24 Mbps) when exporting a file. If you don't change anything 
in the material on the timeline, you aren't editing, which seems kinda 
pointless...8^) 
[And, hey, I thought you said you had "PLONKED!" me...! 8^]
--DR


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"Richard Crowley" <rcrowley@xp7rt.net> wrote in message news:yKydnY7dKpqo3pPXnZ2dnUVZ_iydnZ2d@posted.pcez...
> "Smarty" wrote ...

>> I only read your original post, I and others would be led to believe
>> that Vegas 9 does not handle 24 Mbits/sec, does not allow export of 24 
>> Mbits/sec, and does not handle AVCHD well. These three "facts"/opinions 
>> were wrong, are wrong, and no amount of back-pedaling on your part will 
>> make them less wrong.

> Just to clarify things here for the confused, under what conditions
> DOES V9 export 24MB/sec edited video? 

ONLY when ABSOLUTELY NOTHING has been changed in ANY of 
the footage on the timeline that is exported into a file, and IN THAT CASE 
ONLY, Vegas 9 will not only export a 24 Mbps file (High profile), but it 
will do it using "Smart Rendering" - but that functionality doesn't appear to 
me, at least, to be very useful for editing video. Otherwise, if ANY footage 
is changed on the timeline, export of it as 16 Mbps (Main profile) is forced 
by the program, not what we want. To confirm this again yesterday, I 
took the same 40 second edited stretch of timeline with the material in it 
described above, and rather than using a "Ctrl + M" export (limited to 
16 Mbps max in the available selections), I used "Render as", and while 
there is a 24 Mbps selection choice available, the render time, lack of 
use of "Smart Rendering", resulting file size, and appearance of the 
resulting file were identical to the 16 Mbps exported file (if it walks like 
a duck, and talks like a duck...;-). I also tried exporting the same 40 
seconds as a Blu-ray file (30 Bps max, 25 Mbps ave, 20 Mbps min, 
2 pass), and that took 2/3 the time it took to export the other two files, 
but I could then not import the file into the project for checking it 
against the others. As someone pointed out in response to my original 
post on the Sony Vegas Forum, "I'm not sure Vegas WILL ever work 
at that bit rate. That's HIGH profile avchd (to a max of 24Mb/s) that 
Panasonic uses, while Sony has made it pretty clear that they have no 
interest in this profile. Sony Cameras operate on MAIN profile avchd 
(which has a max bitrate of 17Mb/s) and as can be seen in Vegas the 
max setting for avchd is 16Mb/s. I think Sony's philosophy is pretty 
clear on this subject (so far anyway) and that is that avchd is strictly a 
consumer level format and should be operated at main profile levels." 
And another person commented, "You can either throw that (24 Mbps 
AVCHD) on the timeline as it is or convert it over to cineform for easier 
editing if you need... but you should render that out as mpeg2 at 1920x1080 
at a vbr bitrate of 20/25/30 (there is a blu ray template already made and 
outputs a M2V for dvda). You'll only get about 1:45:00 on a blu ray disk 
but then the quality will be a hell of a lot better than rendering out as avc 
at 16Mb/s." Too bad that Vegas 9 still cannot properly handle 24 Mbps 
AVCHD...
--DR

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


"David Ruether" <d_ruether@thotmail.com> wrote in message news:gumf0l$qrg$1@ruby.cit.cornell.edu... 
> "Richard Crowley" <rcrowley@xp7rt.net> wrote in message news:yKydnY7dKpqo3pPXnZ2dnUVZ_iydnZ2d@posted.pcez...
>> "Smarty" wrote ...

>>> I only read your original post, I and others would be led to believe
>>> that Vegas 9 does not handle 24 Mbits/sec, does not allow export 
>>> of 24 Mbits/sec, and does not handle AVCHD well. These three
>>> "facts"/opinions were wrong, are wrong, and no amount of back-
>>> pedaling on your part will make them less wrong.

>> Just to clarify things here for the confused, under what conditions
>> DOES V9 export 24MB/sec edited video?

> ONLY when ABSOLUTELY NOTHING has been changed in ANY of
> the footage on the timeline that is exported into a file, and IN THAT CASE
> ONLY, Vegas 9 will not only export a 24 Mbps file (High profile), but it
> will do it using "Smart Rendering" - but that functionality doesn't appear to
> me, at least, to be very useful for editing video. Otherwise, if ANY footage
> is changed on the timeline, export of it as 16 Mbps (Main profile) is forced
> by the program, not what we want. To confirm this again yesterday, I
> took the same 40 second edited stretch of timeline with the material in it
> described above, and rather than using a "Ctrl + M" export (limited to
> 16 Mbps max in the available selections), I used "Render as", and while
> there is a 24 Mbps selection choice available, the render time, lack of
> use of "Smart Rendering", resulting file size, and appearance of the
> resulting file were identical to the 16 Mbps exported file (if it walks like
> a duck, and talks like a duck...;-). I also tried exporting the same 40
> seconds as a Blu-ray file (30 Bps max, 25 Mbps ave, 20 Mbps min,
> 2 pass), and that took 2/3 the time it took to export the other two files,
> but I could then not import the file into the project for checking it
> against the others. As someone pointed out in response to my original
> post on the Sony Vegas Forum, "I'm not sure Vegas WILL ever work
> at that bit rate. That's HIGH profile avchd (to a max of 24Mb/s) that
> Panasonic uses, while Sony has made it pretty clear that they have no
> interest in this profile. Sony Cameras operate on MAIN profile avchd
> (which has a max bitrate of 17Mb/s) and as can be seen in Vegas the
> max setting for avchd is 16Mb/s. I think Sony's philosophy is pretty
> clear on this subject (so far anyway) and that is that avchd is strictly a
> consumer level format and should be operated at main profile levels."
> And comments from another, "You can either throw that (24 Mbps 
> AVCHD) on the timeline as it is or convert it over to cineform for easier 
> editing if you need... but you should render that out as mpeg2 at 
> 1920x1080 at a vbr bitrate of 20/25/30 (there is a blu ray template 
> already made and outputs a M2V for dvda). You'll only get about 1:45:00 
> on a blu ray disk but then the quality will be a hell of a lot better than 
> rendering out as avc at 16Mb/s."
> Too bad that Vegas 9 still cannot properly handle 24 Mbps AVCHD...
> --DR

Well, to confuse the issue further (while trying to clarify it with some simple 
tests I was going to suggest...), this morning I took only original 24 Mbps 60i
footage and placed it in a new project. I then tried to duplicate what I had 
done yesterday, but I was unable to export using "Smart Rendering" or to 
export using "Render as" with the indicated "High profile" set at 24 Mbps (it 
maxed out today at 20 Mbps using the custom settings - not 24 Mbps), but 
as before, using Ctrl + M, the file could be exported at a maximum data rate 
of 16 Mbps even though the profile type was listed as "High". And as before, 
a 25 Mbps (ave) Blu-ray file could be made - but then it could not be used 
within the project. I think I will give up on this soon... 8^) Or, possibly 
"Smarty" will deign to spell out a procedure for us whereby it is possible and 
practical to export edited 24 Mbps *AVCHD* files from the Vegas Pro 9 
timeline - and it would be nice if this process were to include "Smart 
Rendering". I won't hold my breath, though, until it appears...8^)
--DR

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"David Ruether" <d_ruether@thotmail.com> wrote in message news:guko9t$ruj$1@ruby.cit.cornell.edu... 
> "Smarty" <nobody@nobody.com> wrote in message news:hglPl.1535$5F2.1220@nwrddc01.gnilink.net...
>> "David Ruether" <d_ruether@thotmail.com> wrote in message news:guhtvi$ei7$1@ruby.cit.cornell.edu...

>>> The above is technically true, but if one tries to export an AVCHD
>>> computer file for archiving, etc., the data rate is still limited to 16 Mbps, 
>>> the same as it is with Pro 8
>>> --DR

>> Again, not true,

> It is true. If you change ANYTHING in the material on the Vegas 9
> timeline, it will ALL rerender as Main Profile (16 Mbps), not High
> Profile (24 Mbps) when exporting a file. If you don't change anything
> in the material on the timeline, you aren't editing, which seems kinda
> pointless...8^)
> [And, hey, I thought you said you had "PLONKED!" me...! 8^]
> --DR 

I do now offer some corrections to the above although they appeared 
to be true at the time I tried these things... You can do a "Render 
as" export of 24 Mbps edited material from the timeline by setting 
the data rate to the maximum available rate of 20 Mbps (still not 24 
Mbps, though...) in the custom settings (and "Smart Rendering" doesn't 
work). Also in the settings, the default, even with a "Ctrl + M" export 
(which has a maximum available data rate of 16 Mbps) is listed as 
"High", rather than "Main". The only way to export higher data rate 
files is to use the Blu-ray format, but I was unable to import these back 
into the project. Again, why bother with all this nonsense when an
excellent alternative is available with HDV? It seems to me that this 
whole AVCHD 24 Mbps thing is like trying to use a "monster truck" 
as a race car...8^) 
--DR

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"Smarty" <nobody@nobody.com> wrote in message news:2yPPl.1855$5F2.54@nwrddc01.gnilink.net...

>... DVD Architect, an integral part of the Vegas suite, can be used 
> to take full rate 24 Mbit/sec edited content and deliver a total 24 Mbit/sec 
> final disk.

> I will agree that Vegas itself, the editor portion of the suite, is indeed 
> limited by its current template / profile to 24 Mbits/sec under some 
> circumstances, 

I could find no AVCHD 24 Mbps template anywhere in Vegas 9 - only 
one with 20 Mbps, although one can export 25 Mbps Blu-ray files...

> 20 Mbits/sec under some, and that the present situation is 
> badly lacking for those who own the Vegas suite but do not have other tools 
> at their disposal. 

This is what I have been pointing out - that Vegas Pro 9 cannot, itself,
export edited 24 Mbps AVCHD files. For a VERY recently updated editing 
software product, with a growing base of camcorders now out there that 
operate using this format, one does wonder about the value for most of 
upgrading to this product (although it does have some particular new 
capabilities of interest to a few people).

> These caveats were alluded to in my original post. For 
> those of us who do edit 24 Mbit/sec content, very competent editing tools 
> such as TMPG Express 4 do the job very handily.

But the discussion is about the capabilities of Vegas Pro 9...

> To be more specific, not one but two hardware acceleration methods have been 
> added to TMPG Express, one using the CUDA/ATI graphics card as a rendering 
> platform added last year, and more recently a second, blazingly fast AVCHD 
> accelerator using Toshiba's SpurEngine hardware. These make AVCHD editing 
> extremely quickly for all types of rendering.

> http://tmpgenc.pegasys-inc.com/en/product/te4xp.html

> I do not want to digress from the original Vegas suite any further, but 
> point this out to further clarify and explain that your approach to 
> understanding AVCHD and describing is is very shallow, and extremely 
> prejudicial.

Again, the discussion is about the capabilities of Pro 9 itself. While it is 
useful to know about alternatives in both software and hardware, that 
is not the point. (Look at the title of this thread...;-)

> Had you merely missed the true functionality and left it at that, I would 
> still complain. But you insist on punctuating your "reviews" and "findings" 
> with the gleeful, childish comments which inevitably attempt to bolster your 
> original false hypothesis that AVCHD is somehow inferior to HDV.

By agreement among most, the best 17 Mbps AVCHD is, as a medium, 
inferior in image quality to the best HDV. Only with the best 24 Mbps 
AVCHD does the image quality approach or equal the best HDV. While 
AVCHD is more convenient to shoot and transfer than HDV, what matters 
for many is the ultimate quality, the ability to easily and cheaply edit the 
material, and the ability to archive it in a reasonably durable way. Vegas 
Pro 9 does not easily satisfy those requirements with 24 Mbps AVCHD 
(although the edited material can be transcoded and exported as Blu-ray 
files and saved on Blu-ray disks and/or on hard drives).

> Through the lens of someone who does not routinely author and edit in AVCHD, 
> your comments neither serve the newsgroup community accurately nor do they 
> reflect a balanced understanding of how tools can and are used together to 
> achieve AVCHD workflow.

> I will not even attempt to elaborate on the methods being used to create and 
> author even higher bitrate (greater than 24 Mbit/sec) AVCHD disks using 
> BluRay BDMV folders with patch programs and hex editing of the index files. 
> Suffice it to say that those who are working with AVCHD and h.264 on a 
> routine basis are not sitting still waiting for Sony or anybody else to make 
> a "template". As broadcast/ENG and AVC-Intra gain traction, these tools 
> will, no doubt, increase. Although Sony may be a slow starter in the high 
> end AVCHD markets for both consumer and pro users, I am altogether certain 
> that the market share being garnered by Canon and Panasonic in the camcorder 
> arena has not been unnoticed by Sony management. Their recent, stunning, 
> 1.26 billion dollar loss, their first in 14 years, will no doubt drive them 
> back into competition in this very rapidly growing market.

> http://g4tv.com/thefeed/blog/post/695547/Sony-Reports-Billion-Dollar-Loss.html

> Further......AVCHD Lite, yet another variant which has been introduced in 
> the last 6 months for movie making on lower cost consumer still image 
> cameras, now shows up on low cost consumer digital cameras. With cheaper 
> cameras making AVCHD in the mass market space where all of the digital 
> camera makers and consumers play, an inevitable flood of new software for 
> AVCHD editing will add to the dozen or so programs already on the market 
> which handle AVCHD editing and authoring.

> Smarty

The above is interesting overall and possibly useful speculation at the low 
end, but at the high end it reminds me of something like, "I just bought a 
$600 motor scooter, and I want to go 90 MPH on it - so I bought a Harley 
Davidson motorcycle and a side car and modified the side car (with many 
new components) so the scooter could be placed in it, and now, with the 
help of someone to operate the motorcycle, I can actually ride my motor 
scooter while it is going 90 MPH!". 8^) 
Think "practical, inexpensive, and straightforward"...;-)
--DR


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


"Martin van derPoel" <martinvdp@iinet.net.au> wrote in message news:4a114f4e$0$24356$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au... 
> "Smarty" <nobody@nobody.com> wrote in message 
> news:Wj2Ql.1990$5F2.888@nwrddc01.gnilink.net...
>> "David Ruether" <d_ruether@thotmail.com> wrote in message 
>> news:guph64$2nq$1@ruby.cit.cornell.edu...
>>> "Smarty" <nobody@nobody.com> wrote in message 
>>> news:2yPPl.1855$5F2.54@nwrddc01.gnilink.net...

>>> I could find no AVCHD 24 Mbps template anywhere in Vegas 9 - only
>>> one with 20 Mbps, although one can export 25 Mbps Blu-ray files...

>>>> 20 Mbits/sec under some, and that the present situation is badly lacking 
>>>> for those who own the Vegas suite but do not have other tools at their 
>>>> disposal.

>>> This is what I have been pointing out - that Vegas Pro 9 cannot, itself,
>>> export edited 24 Mbps AVCHD files.

>> Vegas, like Nero Vision, Power Director, and other programs which provide 
>> 'smart rendering' does not have an explicit 'template' or other setting to 
>> export 24 Mbit/sec content. However.......they ABSOLUTELY DO output 24 
>> Mbut/second output when the content they are smart rendering is 24 
>> Mbit/sec content. Smart rendering is, by definition, the same bit rate out 
>> as in, and it is extremely obvious that the render time is 15 times 
>> shorter, the Vegas program displays the message "No Recompression" and the 
>> player bitrate indicator shows exactly the same speed output as the input 
>> file contained.
>>
>> As should be pretty intuitively obvious, any input at 24 Mbits/sec once it 
>> has been smart rendered will, in fact, remain 24 Mbits/sec.

This would seem to be logical (and this did appear to be true *until* I 
changed *some* 24 Mbps footage on the timeline, then tried to 
export it again - when it would no longer "Smart Render" *any* part 
of the timeline). This led me to believe (with some justification, I think), 
that I was not exporting 24 Mbps AVCHD from the timeline. From a 
discussion about this on the Vegas Pro 9 forum, I learned that others 
had also experienced this behavior in the program, and unlike with 
HDV, while it may actually be exporting 24 Mbps files, Pro 9 handles 
cut or changed AVCHD files GOP very differently, and it may leave 
long stretches (up to around 300 frames) around a change (or even 
within an unchanged long stretch of unchanged footage at random places) 
where it does not perform "Smart Rendering". Since my test footage 
consisted of short clips, this would explain my test experience with 
24 Mbps in Vegas Pro 9. Since I (and others) use many short clips 
in videos (or clips with short additions of filtration, etc.), this does 
represent a shortcoming compared with editing with HDV - but at least 
I now know that 24 Mbps editing and export can be done (with slower, 
less smooth previewing and recompression of relatively more material 
on the timeline). 

>> The fact that you "could find no AVCHD 24 Mbps template anywhere in Vegas 
>> 9" shows me two significant things:
>>
>> first, that you have never used smart rendering programs of any type 
>> including Vegas 9 with 24 Mbits/sec AVCHD content
>>
>> and also,
>>
>> that you may not even comprehend how such programs should work in 
>> performing smart rendering.
>>
>> Had you used Vegas 9 or any other program to do smart rendering, this all 
>> would have been extremely obvious. Looking for a template setting is 
>> entirely unneccesary in Nero Vision, Power Director, Vegas, DVD Movie 
>> Factory, Video Studio Pro X2, ........... since there is not specific 
>> setting of this type in ANY OF THEM. Yet all of them smart render.
Aw, cummon, "Smarty", you know better...;-) I've been editing HDV in 
Pro 8 for some time, and for a short time before that in Ulead VideoStudio 
(as you know), both of which use "Smart Rendering". I kinda do know 
how "SR" is *supposed* to work, if it is working well...;-)

[...]

> I have been following this post.

> I have some advice for "Smarty".
> Get rid of the HUGE chip on you shoulder and start to apply your knowledge 
> in a more productive way.
> If you are unable to do that, go somewhere else and stop wasting our time.

> I for one is sick and tired of your rantings.

> You might have noticed that no one else is replying to your petty arguments, 
> only David, but he is just about obliged to defend himself (poor bastard).

> My advice to David is: don't bother with further replies, "Smarty" is not 
> worth it.

> Martin 

Thanks for the comments. I do value "Smarty's" experience and knowledge 
and his willingness to share it - but that "plus" is often unfortunately spoiled 
by the manner of his delivery and his apparent inability to engage in civil 
discourse. When I think that there is ***SOME*** hope for advancement 
in my (or other's) knowledge on a topic, I do try to stick with a thread, even 
though "Smarty" appears to go out of his way to personally insult me (he is a 
lousy teacher...). I am always willing to be proven wrong (that's can be how 
we learn best), but name calling or simply disputing something I say without 
proof is not the way to do it. We are ALL here to learn things, not engage 
in petty squabbles... Again, thanks for your comments - they are very much 
to the point.
--DR

~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"Smarty" <nobody@nobody.com> wrote in message news:pyfQl.2072$5F2.283@nwrddc01.gnilink.net...

> David,

> I offer you the same challenge. Please go back to these earlier posts and 
> cut and paste those "durn nasty" personal insults I have supposedly made to 
> you. Let's see them !!!

> I have, no doubt, repeatedly and forcefully challenged your erroneous 
> statements, and I have called "bullshit" some statements which are just 
> plain factually wrong, but I would like to see where I have attacked you 
> personally. My attacks have been to your mistakes and most of all your 
> conflation of two independent issues....encoding methods (AVCHD/HDV) and 
> specific camcorders.

> In fact, David, I recently___ REMINDED YOU____ that calling me a grumpy old 
> man had taken the discussion from being technical and factual, and had, at 
> your initiative, turned it into a personal attack on me. I despise ad 
> hominem attacks.

> Let's see your proof and Martin's please......

> Smarty 

This isn't worth my time, really, but anyone who has read your 
responses to just about any of my posts in the video NGs will find 
them full of personal insults, falsehoods, and expressions of general 
disrespect (but I kinda did like that description of late of some of my 
posts as "train wrecks" 8^). As for my referring to you as "a grumpy 
old man", need I remind you that that was your self description, one 
that is obviously apt, and one that I seem to recall I applied to you 
with some degree of humor...? ;-). My advice to you is to "lighten 
up" - it is not healthy to live so much of the time with anger...
--DR


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"Ken Maltby" <kmaltby@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message news:_6ydnYCasJ9W6ozXnZ2dnUVZ_s2dnZ2d@giganews.com... 
> "Martin van derPoel" <martinvdp@iinet.net.au> wrote in message 
> news:4a1172e0$0$24383$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...

>> Hi Smarty,
>> All I was trying to point out was that your manner of speech was not 
>> helping the debate.
>>
>> I am not disputing how good you are, how much you know, etc. your post 
>> will talk for themselves.
>>
>> Stick with the facts, forget the name calling (name calling is opinion, 
>> not facts) and we will all be the better for it.
>>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Martin van der Poel

> ?Name calling?? I just re-read Smarty's posts in this thread
> and could find no name calling. There is plenty of disagreement
> with David's postings, but I can't see where he called him any
> name.

> Your objection to Smarty's "manner of speach" seems more the
> distraction than anything either poster is saying. You wouldn't be
> Cannadian would you? No that .au would indicate otherwise.
> Still, you seem to equate lack of agreement as "name calling",
> those of us with thicker skins, can tell the difference.

> Luck;
> Ken

I guess you have missed some of "Smarty's" responses to me in 
other threads, then? ;-) He has gotten purdy durn nasty at times 
(kinda like an angry kid jumping up and down and hollering swear 
words at me...8^). Fortunately, unlike "Smarty", I don't get angry 
with people, and I do try to make my responses in threads civil. 
And, I'm eager to learn and to accept corrections that are made 
in a spirit of being helpful, especially if they contribute to our 
understanding of related subjects here - and if I spot a mistake 
I've made, or have changed my mind on something, I see no 
reason for my avoiding posting this as soon as possible (I have no 
egotistical reasons for not doing so...;-).
--DR

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"Paul Heslop" <paul.heslop@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote in message news:4A1179B0.6E0CBBB1@blueyonder.co.uk...
> Ron Hunter wrote: 
>> Paul Heslop wrote:
>> > ray wrote:
>> >> On Sun, 17 May 2009 20:02:43 -0400, Bowser wrote:

>> >>> Maybe it's me, but there's something just wrong with this statue in
>> >>> front of the library in Beaufort, SC.
>> >>>
>> >>> http://www.manzi.org/pix/wrong.jpg
>> >> You're right - it's just you.

>> > obviously not :O)

>> 'Wrong' is in the eye of the beholder, like beauty. I see nothing wrong
>> in the picture. Perhaps it is your mindset, when you viewed the image.

> I find it funny, not 'wrong'
> -- 
> Paul (We won't die of devotion) 

Hmmmm........, after much observation, consideration of the depiction 
in all its possible respects, much thought, and much soul-searching, 
I heartily agree with you! 8^)
--DR

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"Alan Browne" <alan.browne@Freelunchvideotron.ca> wrote in message 

[...]
> I'd need to build a bracket to mount two strobes to the sides with large 
> diffusing areas. Then shoot at f/16. Even then, the DOF would not be 
> dramatic.

This would produce lighting that is MUCH too soft, and it risks 
unnatural double shadows. A single flash is already the equivalent 
of a soft-box due to the relative sizes of the tiny subject and relatively 
large flash head if that is placed at the end of the lens (using an adjustable 
bracket rig and remote TTL cord), and the light is easily enough to 
get any stop you want.

> Or, I can simulate the APS-C by simply backing up a bit and cropping the 
> result. 24.6 Mpix is a lot to play with to end up with a 1 Mpix image 
> (as presented).

Um, something seems just wrong with this plan...;-)

> See Bret's recent "fly" on the rpe35mm group. Stacked DOF macro. 
> Fantastic detail.

If this is what I think it is, results are amazing (so long as the subject 
doesn't move...;-).

>> I'd heard stories that professional macro shooters do things like putting
>> the insects in a freezer to slow them down and then "posing" them to their
>> liking before imaging them.

> Yep. But not always.

Supposedly, one can "spot" this having been done, if one knows 
insects well enough...

> I saw a program on french television a few weeks ago with video of 
> spiders doing their thing (basically: hunting, web spinning, eating and 
> fornicating) and the photography was ultra detailed and sharp. (There 
> is even a male relative of the black widow that ties down the legs of 
> the female before mating, kinky bugger. And they get away 4 times in 5 
> without the female getting them, too.)

> "The" male black widow on the other hand offers himself to the female as 
> a post coital snack. Ah, love.

8^)
Here is a TINY fly shot around 3X ("hand-held", with flash the SB-24 
flash head mounted at the lens end, pointed down at the subject center), 
using a standard Nikkor 200mm f4 + TC14 (TC200 + tube?) + an 
achromat from a Sigma 90mm macro lens, at an effective aperture of 
around f45, as I recall. It is hard to tell in this small image, but it is quite 
sharp, with plenty of DOF. It is at - 
http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/web_photos/phun_fotoz/bugs/b55.jpg
--DR

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"David Nebenzahl" <nobody@but.us.chickens> wrote in message news:4a2184af$0$2704$822641b3@news.adtechcomputers.com...
> On 5/30/2009 11:50 AM Bob Larter spake thus: 
>> Savageduck wrote:
>>> On 2009-05-27 06:13:18 -0700, Annika1980 <annika1980@aol.com> said: 
>>>> On May 25, 7:36 pm, Rich <rander3...@gmail.com> wrote:

>>>>> Interesting, convoluted story, sounds like a lot of effort needed (and
>>>>> money) for not much gain except to preserve a dead format. 

>>>> Maybe after those guys solve the Polaroid issue they can tackle more
>>>> pressing issues .... like reviving the 8-track tape.

>>> Wax cylinders.

>> A friend I went to school with actually owned a wax cylinder dictation 
>> machine, & a box of wax cylinders to go with it.

> You're one up on me. Closest I came was having a friend who had 
> something to do with someone who owned an old building in downtown 
> Chicago that was about to be demolished/rehabbed. We got to go through 
> the basement, where we found a treasure trove of dozens of wire 
> recorders and parts thereof. We each took a couple home. (Websters, I 
> believe.)

"Webber"? (Just guessing...;-)

I knew someone in Seattle who scoured old movie theater basements. etc. 
for antique Western Electric theater sound gear (giant wooden horns, big 
electromagnetic horn drivers, and tube amps) for the Asian market. (The 
Japanese often actually jammed these things into tiny apartments!) One 
client had a standing order for 20(? - no less, no more per year of the 
horn drivers at $800 each. He usually found them for $25-$30 each, but 
one year he was short one, and I knew someone who had one - and with 
a little "grease", one "slipped" through my hands with considerable profit 
for me at a time when I was broke. ;-)
I also know someone who does things "in the extreme", and he reproduced 
the original Edison machine accurately, right down to the machining marks. 
Afterwards, we formed a "listening panel" for a very thorough "test report" 
he wrote in the style of Audio magazine gear test reports of the time. It 
was published in Audio about 30 years ago, with my 4x5 color photo of 
the recorder/player on the cover. (The sound was terrible...8^)
--DR

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"James Goode" <james@jgoode.co.uk> wrote in message news:h0g391$aiv$3@aioe.org...

> If I had to choose a single-focal-length lens, it would be the 25mm (for 
> Olympus, equiv. 50mm), because it is close to what we see.

Actually, a "normal" focal length lens has nothing to do with simulating 
what we see, but just that it approximates the length of the diagonal 
of the sensor, and as such, it was originally the widest lens that could 
be easily designed without resorting to unusual formulations. It was 
also the easiest lens later to be designed with "speed" (a wide aperture). 
As we became used to referring to it as the "normal" lens (as opposed 
to wide angle or long-focus/telephoto), people associated it with being 
"how we see", but it isn't. We see in both extremely wide angle (a bit 
wider than 180 degrees) fisheye perspective, and at the same time in 
extremely narrow angle (the equivalent of hundreds or even thousands 
of mm of focal length on a 35mm camera format). You may find these 
articles interesting about this and related things that are on my web site --
http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/seeing_and_perspective.htm
http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/lens_perspective_types.htm
http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/lens-angle-of-view-and-perspective.htm
http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/lens_distortion_types.htm
--David Ruether

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"Brian" <bclark@es.co.nz> wrote in message news:nors25hraedai0j6v3cankcad8eb76k55a@4ax.com...

> Is Adobe Premiere Elements 7 a good choice for a low cost video
> editing program or are there better low cost editors on the market? 
> Regards Brian

For SD, Premiere Elements 4 or 7 are fine programs, but with a few 
annoying quirks (but all editing programs have these, and this one has 
fewer than most). BUT, for editing HD HDV, I would avoid this 
program like the plague - it does not have "Smart Rendering" which 
forces the recompression of ALL footage on the timeline instead of 
just copying unchanged footage, and this makes for slow file exporting 
and noticeable damage to very sharp source material. Worse, you 
cannot simply import an edited HDV video file to a new project and 
export it to tape for archiving without the program recompressing the 
whole thing(!). And, in general, don't even think about trying to edit the 
best (but not better than HDV...) quality AVCHD. If you want to get 
into HD (HDV!) on a budget, look at Sony Video Studio 9 Platinum 
Edition, which handles both SD and HD nicely. You may want to go 
here for more -- 
http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/hdv-editing.htm
http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/Canon_HV20-HV30.htm 
(about a good little cheap HDV camcorder)
http://www.sonycreativesoftware.com/forums/ShowTopics.asp?ForumID=4
(a forum about Vegas Pro, which is surprisingly similar to Platinum 9)
http://www.sonycreativesoftware.com/forums/ShowMessage.asp?MessageID=658595&Replies=5 
(a forum about Movie Studio)
--DR

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"Brian" <bclark@es.co.nz> wrote in message news:au4u2590d6t7jlnravvb34gihko220t0j0@4ax.com... 
> "David Ruether" <d_ruether@thotmail.com> wrote:
>>"Brian" <bclark@es.co.nz> wrote in message news:nors25hraedai0j6v3cankcad8eb76k55a@4ax.com...

>>> Is Adobe Premiere Elements 7 a good choice for a low cost video
>>> editing program or are there better low cost editors on the market?
>>> Regards Brian

>>For SD, Premiere Elements 4 or 7 are fine programs, but with a few
>>annoying quirks (but all editing programs have these, and this one has
>>fewer than most). BUT, for editing HD HDV, I would avoid this
>>program like the plague - it does not have "Smart Rendering" which
>>forces the recompression of ALL footage on the timeline instead of
>>just copying unchanged footage, and this makes for slow file exporting
>>and noticeable damage to very sharp source material. Worse, you
>>cannot simply import an edited HDV video file to a new project and
>>export it to tape for archiving without the program recompressing the
>>whole thing(!). And, in general, don't even think about trying to edit the
>>best (but not better than HDV...) quality AVCHD. If you want to get
>>into HD (HDV!) on a budget, look at Sony Video Studio 9 Platinum
>>Edition, which handles both SD and HD nicely. You may want to go
>>here for more --
>>http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/hdv-editing.htm
>>http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/Canon_HV20-HV30.htm
>> (about a good little cheap HDV camcorder)
>>http://www.sonycreativesoftware.com/forums/ShowTopics.asp?ForumID=4
>> (a forum about Vegas Pro, which is surprisingly similar to Platinum 9)
>>http://www.sonycreativesoftware.com/forums/ShowMessage.asp?MessageID=658595&Replies=5
>> (a forum about Movie Studio)
>>--DR
> Thanks David for your reply.
> I think you may be thinking of version 4 of Premiere Elements as
> version 7 have overcome some of the limits you are told me about.
> Version 7 imports AVCHD and HDV video as well as other formats.

Elements 4 imports HDV just fine, but neither 4 nor the very similar 
7 do the necessary "Smart Rendering" which avoids the considerable 
negatives of using these programs with HDV. My comment about 
AVCHD was a blanket one, since NO program (without a large 
investment in hardware), will (only adequately...) handle the best 
AVCHD (which is no higher in quality than HDV, so why bother?). 
Since you indicated that you wanted to stay with low cost, and if you 
later want practicality and the best quality with HD, I would NOT 
recommend Premiere. Sony Video Studio 9 Platinum Edition, for 
about the same price, can handle both SD and HD quite well. In a 
pinch, Corel VideoStudio can also do this, but I personally hate the 
user interface of that program (but it will do 5.1 audio). 

> I'm not certain about the smart rendering as I'm new to this program
> but I read that it can render a part of the video so you can check out
> effects adding to the video.

Premiere cannot do "Smart Rendering" at all with HD (the straight 
copying of unchanged footage from the timeline into the exported file, 
avoiding recompression of the already highly compressed HDV format). 
Premiere (and every other editing program) does do this with Mini-DV, 
though, and I do like Elements 4 for that (only!). Also, all programs 
permit the making of preview files to see what effects and transitions 
look like, but Sony permits these to be made to RAM, which is more 
efficient.

> It does not have 5.1 sound editing but it does have smart tagging
> which helps speed up the editing. Smart tagging analyzes each video
> clip and applys text tags such as shaky camera, dark scene etc.

> Regards Brian

Elements has some remarkable features hidden away in the menus 
and not obvious at first - but my main reservation about recommending 
it to anyone anticipating moving to HD is that it handles that very 
poorly.
--DR 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"Brian" <bclark@es.co.nz> wrote in message news:jf0735l46j5hvqsijseuhqsibir00hdesk@4ax.com...

> Often needed in a movie is a close up of someones head as a cut away
> effect so that somthing can be cut out of the movie without a sudden
> jump in the movie. If you don't have closeups of someones head then I
> thought of the idea of cropping the movie to a persons head (using a
> video editor) but that usually results in the movie looking like it
> has been magnified. Is there a way to avoid the close up of the head
> from having that magnified look by using video filters?

> Regards Brian

No, but that is why two (or more) cameras are often used, or if that 
is not possible/practical, why one shoots additional material than can 
be used for cut aways during editing. Often that can be simple generic 
(but related) material (such as for weddings, footage of the musicians, 
details or overall images of the church interior, close-ups of talking 
guests at the reception, etc.). Transitions (sometimes using still frames of 
the material you are using) with "J" and "L" audio edits can also get you 
through - or use the quick white soft-edged wipe often used in broadcast 
interviews to "jump" time fairly gracefully through what would otherwise 
be a jump cut.
--DR

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"Brian" <bclark@es.co.nz> wrote in message news:ali935ttj964jcdplvdr20cuhvl84ald6f@4ax.com...

> Now I'm starting to get interested in video editing again I'm thinking
> of upgrading my computer monitor. I currently have a 17 inch Philips
> LCD monitor and when using the program Adobe Premiere Elements I
> sometimes have problems in seeing details on the timeline.
> What size monitor do others use when editing a video?
> I read that 22 inch is a popular size for a computer monitor.

> Regards Brian

A 24" LCD (about $300 for an Acer) works very well with most 
editors, giving plenty of room for a 1/2 sized preview window and 
several tracks. For some screen-grabs of some program layouts, go 
here - http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/video-editor-screens.htm 
Both Sony and Adobe Elements layout very well on a single 24" LCD. 
With a dual head video card, you can also additionally run an HD TV 
with Sony.
--DR

~~~~~~~~~~

"Brian" <bclark@es.co.nz> wrote in message news:pnpb35hk5b545rv4bu55i0bj8tejvb1u8b@4ax.com...
> Martin Heffels <goofies@flikken.net> wrote:
>>On Sun, 14 Jun 2009 14:35:59 -0700, "iws" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote:

>>>I have a 22" monitor that I very much like. 

>>22" is a nice size on which you can do a lot of things, Make sure you
>>read some tests. I almost bought a 24" the other day (a Samsung),
>>touting it's high contrast ratio. But I'm glad I didn't buy it when I
>>saw it, because the contrast ratio is achieved dynamically, which is
>>not what you want if you want to do some colour-correction on your
>>video/stills.
>>
>>cheers
>>
>>-martin-

> Thanks Martin.
> I understand contrast range but I don't understand Dynamic range. I
> saw a Viewsonic monitor recently with a Dynamic range of 20,000:1 is
> that good or bad?

> Regards Brian

"MH" is correct that a monitor with "dynamic contrast" is undesirable 
for editing photos and video*unless* that feature can be turned off. 
A purpose for using a "monitor" is partially to offer some reference 
for judging contrast/brightness in images for printing or for use on TV, 
and if a variable is added like "d-c", there goes the reference... As far 
as choice of size, there are a few things to consider. One is color accuracy. 
As I understand it, there are three basic LCD types, with the cheapest 
having the least accurate color but fastest refresh (good for gaming), and 
most 22" are of that type. The 24" tend to be of the middle, better type, 
and the VERY expensive ones tend to be of the type best for color 
accuracy (good for high end photo editing), but the last is not good for 
gaming or video viewing. Also, most editing programs now lay out best 
on the 1920x1200 native resolution of the 24" monitor size (using 
non-native resolutions with smaller monitors produces image problems). 
This resolution permits a full 1/2 sized properly-proportioned HD monitor 
window (for highest quality, smoothest-running preview image) in addition 
to plenty of "real estate" for several timeline tracks and the additional 
required editing windows (see layouts here, at 1/2 actual size, of a few 
popular editing programs - 
http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/video-editor-screens.htm). Do 
yourself a favor and spring for the few extra bucks and get a monitor 
that will match your editing needs, which I think is a 24" with at least 
defeatable dynamic contrast. BTW, manufacturers make wild claims 
for dynamic range, but if you actually look at the screens, you can 
usually see a difference only with the very worst, or the very best with 
dynamic contrast turned on... Again, take a look at the Acer 24" - it is 
a decent low end 24" that works well for video editing.
--DR

~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"Richard Crowley" <rcrowley@xp7rt.net> wrote in message news:PJ-dnRxZ5thW9avXnZ2dnUVZ_jOdnZ2d@posted.pcez...
> Dave S. wrote:
>> David Ruether wrote:

>>> Again, take a look at the Acer 24" - it is
>>> a decent low end 24" that works well for video editing.
>>> --DR

>> Is there a particular model of Acer 24" that you like?
>> The review of AL2416WD at
>> http://products.howstuffworks.com/acer-al2416wd-24-inch-lcd-monitor-review.htm
>> states:
>> "Image quality and color fidelity won't satisfy graphics
>> professionals"

> Video professionals don't make qualitative evaluations
> of the image when viewed on a computer screen. A
> real television monitor is required for that. 

That is true, but reasonable adjustments can be made with a 
relatively inexpensive monitor for other than top professional 
work (I wouldn't hesitate to use my monitor for wedding work, 
for instance, once I checked it against a good TV and made 
the best adjustments with the monitor that I could - but for ad. 
work, "real" movie production, broadcast programming, etc., 
of course I would use a real, calibrated video monitor while 
editing). From "Brian's" earlier posts, it appeared evident that 
he was not doing top-end work, and was willing to settle for less 
than the best monitoring. I was encouraging him to spend the 
money for at least an adequate (for color, resolution, size, and 
refresh rate) 24". The least expensive Acer (and possibly others) 
would suffice, and be a relative pleasure to work with compared 
with any 22" - and Premiere Elements (which he had mentioned 
earlier) lays out VERY well on this size monitor. BTW, for HDV, 
if he goes there, Elements is not a good choice. I'd recommend 
Sony Video Studio 9 Platinum Edition, since it handles SD well 
(as does Elements), but also HDV well (which Elements doesn't). 
(See http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/hdv-editing.htm for more.)
In addition, with VS-9, with a dual head video card, a monitoring 
TV can be used at the same time while editing. For "Brian", very 
few LCD monitors satisfy graphics professionals, and as I pointed 
out before, the ones that do range from good to excellent (but not 
perfect...), and cost from "a lot" to "one heck of a lot" - and they 
trade refresh rate for accuracy - but they may be too "slow" to 
display video properly, and will be too slow for gaming. The 
middle type of LCD (likely 24", much less likely 22") is a good 
compromise for price, size, image quality, and refresh rate. But, 
of course, always check your work on at least a good TV. 
--DR

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"Brian" <bclark@es.co.nz> wrote in message 

news:1e9n35pmjtm7ihpg52oe750cs5kkaju8k6@4ax.com...

> What resolution would I have to change digital photos to in order to
> display them on a wide screen TV as a slide show created as a video?
> In my early attenpts peoples heads get cut off when displaying the
> photo on a wide screen TV as the picture resolution is wrong.

> Regards Brian

16x9 proportion, horizontal, but the pixel count to ideally fill the 
screen at its full resolution would depend on its format, so more 
information is needed. BTW, HD TVs with card slots (or Blu-ray 
players with them) do a wonderful job with showing digital still 
images, and they can resize the images to fit the TV properly. 
--DR

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"Brian" <bclark@es.co.nz> wrote in message 
news:oj9n35dg46te3ngn4ek1mfh9p7stnnv1ut@4ax.com...

> I'm using Adobe Premiere Elements and want to know if there is a way
> using keyframes to turn on and off an effect.
> If for example I want to apply the ripple effect but I find that it
> gets applied to the whole video clip and not just the part of the
> video clip that I want. I'd like to have a ripple effect to start 1
> minute into the video clip and have the ripple last for 5 seconds then
> have the rest of the video clip normal.
> I know I could split the video into parts and have the ripple effect
> work on a part of the video clip but that causes a problem when I have
> more than one effect working on the video clip and the other effect
> could last longer then 5 seconds.

> Any suggestions would be most welcome.

> Regards Brian

Copy the clip, place it over the first one in synch, apply the effect 
to the new clip, and key-frame the effect on that clip (you can trim 
away parts that have the effect set at "0" if you want, but it's not 
necessary - and leaving the whole copy makes resynching it much 
easier, if that becomes necessary...). You can repeat this process 
with several differently key-framed filters for the clip, opening 
new tracks as needed.
--DR

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"Brian" <bclark@es.co.nz> wrote in message 
news:93bn359vf07ltp4a0ah1j6go37b46g4nt5@4ax.com...

> I'm using Adobe Premiere Elements 7 and find when using keyframes on
> the time line for different effects the effects line gets vrowded with
> keyframes. Id there somewhere in thr program that I can show keyframes
> for an effect selecting one effect at a time. For example showing on
> the timeline all the keyframes only for the brightness effect on the
> timeline. 
> Regards Brian

This is one reason why working with effects on separate tracks is 
desirable - but you found (as indicated in an email response to me) 
a means in Elements to switch filters off/on without removing them 
so you can show only the key-framing of the filter of interest. BTW, 
in the Sony editing products, each effect and transition has its own 
key-framing timeline and bypass switch, making this also very easy. 
--DR

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"Brian" <bclark@es.co.nz> wrote in message news:sc3r35990idtodiogf17aardt2t01ounbu@4ax.com...
> "David Ruether" <d_ruether@thotmail.com> wrote:
>>"Brian" <bclark@es.co.nz> wrote in message
>>news:93bn359vf07ltp4a0ah1j6go37b46g4nt5@4ax.com...

>>> I'm using Adobe Premiere Elements 7 and find when using keyframes on
>>> the time line for different effects the effects line gets vrowded with
>>> keyframes. Id there somewhere in thr program that I can show keyframes
>>> for an effect selecting one effect at a time. For example showing on
>>> the timeline all the keyframes only for the brightness effect on the
>>> timeline.
>>> Regards Brian

>>This is one reason why working with effects on separate tracks is 
>>desirable - but you found (indicated in an email response to me) 
>>a means in Elements to switch off/on filters without removing them 
>>so you can show only the key-framing of the filter of interest. BTW, 
>>in the Sony editing products, each effect and transition has its own 
>>key-framing timeline and bypass switch, making this also very easy. 
>>--DR

> Hi David
> The problem is in switching the effect on when its required as I can
> switch a effect on and off during editing but this won't work when
> compiling the video. I want to have control on a effect and be able to
> turn it on at a certain place in the video clip. I like your
> suggestion of copying the part in the video clip where I wanted to
> apply the effect and move this part to a higher video track. The only
> problem with this is that it might mask out any other effects that I
> might have for the video clip. 
> Regards Brian

???
Maybe I'm not understanding this, but filters ("FX") are cumulative 
in their effect on the video. Temporarily turning off other track FXs 
permits controlling an individual FX more easily, and then it (and 
others) are turned off to adjust yet another FX. For export, all are 
turned back on (and previewed to see if all the FX "get along"...), 
then the video is exported. In the key-framing, points and stretches 
at "0" mean complete transparency of the FX (it doesn't show at all). 
In other words, you can run the FX as much as you want with the FX 
key-framing line at "0", and bring it up only where you want an FX to 
show - and you can also control by how much you want it to show 
by setting the height of the control points...
--DR

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"Brian" <bclark@es.co.nz> wrote in message news:putu35dcq6uu3h1spq5uskqki6l0cc8336@4ax.com...
> "David Ruether" <d_ruether@thotmail.com> wrote:

>>???
>>Maybe I'm not understanding this, but filters ("FX") are cumulative
>>in their effect on the video. Temporarily turning off other track FXs
>>permits controlling an individual FX more easily, and then it (and
>>others) are turned off to adjust yet another FX. For export, all are
>>turned back on (and previewed to see if all the FX "get along"...),
>>then the video is exported. In the key-framing, points and stretches
>>at "0" mean complete transparency of the FX (it doesn't show at all).
>>In other words, you can run the FX as much as you want with the FX
>>key-framing line at "0", and bring it up only where you want an FX to
>>show - and you can also control by how much you want it to show
>>by setting the height of the control points...
>>--DR

> Hi David.
> In the case of the Wave FX I can't find anyway to turn it off for the
> frames that I don't want this effect on. There is a transparency
> control but this seem to fade the whole video clip.

> I'll take another look at the wave effect as I might have missed
> something. 

> Regards Brian

If nothing else works, copy the clip (with all filters applied) and paste 
it in a track above and in synch with the original track (below). Apply 
the new FX to that, then key-frame as desired (or use the clip fade-in/out 
switches - find them by right clicking on the clip after you have trimmed 
the clip down to where you want it...). Best overall bit of advice is - 
E X P E R I M E N T (and look through and become familiar with the 
menus). Best to try lots of different things and write notes before 
attempting to produce a "good" video, or you are likely to be lost rather 
often...
--DR


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"Martin van derPoel" <martinvdp@iinet.net.au> wrote in message 
news:4a3baaf2$0$32350$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
> "Brian" <bclark@es.co.nz> wrote in message 
> news:1e9n35pmjtm7ihpg52oe750cs5kkaju8k6@4ax.com...

>> What resolution would I have to change digital photos to in order to
>> display them on a wide screen TV as a slide show created as a video?
>> In my early attenpts peoples heads get cut off when displaying the
>> photo on a wide screen TV as the picture resolution is wrong.
>>
>> Regards Brian

> 16 x 9, or 1600 pixels by 900, or something like that.

It depends on the TV resolution and proportion (16x9 for HD 
or wide-screen SD, 4x3 for standard SD - except that Mini-DV 
and DVDs get extra sharpness by adding to the horizontal resolution). 
Keep in mind the vertical pixel count (1080, 720, or 480 NTSC 
[576 PAL?]) and the corresponding horizontal pixel count (1920, 
1280, (?), or 640 [720 with Mini-DV/DVDs?]) of the screen, or just 
use a card reader with the photos on a card if the TV or Blu-ray 
player has a card slot or USB port. The electronics would then take 
care of the scaling and proportioning, and the results can be excellent. 
BTW, in a photo editor, you can make two images that match the 
resolution of your screen, one with a circle in the middle but *nearly* 
touching the frame edge, the other a square (also not touching the 
frame edge, but allow more space to compensate for scan error if 
using a CRT screen TV). Import/export these to/from the timeline 
and play them back on your TV. You will immediately see if you got 
it right/wrong...;-)
--DR

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


"Brian" <bclark@es.co.nz> wrote in message news:iub04557qp1uomccqj3n3ko3bkpbfqqr6k@4ax.com...

> I try to made a DVD recording of the DV tape as soon as I'm able to
> using a DVD recorder so if anything did happen to the tape then at
> least I have the DVD recording.

A MUCH more reliable and satisfactory way to copy important 
tapes is either to connect two camcorders together with FireWire 
and play one while recording on the other (you can also have a 
second recording camera FireWire-attached to the primary one 
while shooting...;-), or input the tape to a computer (and keep the 
copy of the material there, if you have enough storage space) and 
then feed it back out to the camcorder to make another tape copy. 
But, I have never found any of this necessary... Also, a DVD copy 
made with a stand-alone DVD writer makes a copy that is neither 
very permanent nor very high quality (maybe slightly better than 
VHS, at best). Mini-DV is 720x480 (NTSC), but the recorder is 
704x480 - plus the on-the-fly single-pass MPEG transcoding also 
takes its toll on image quality... 
--DR

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"Brian" <bclark@es.co.nz> wrote in message news:qh804593309kjmjthn7it51t7mcb7mkui7@4ax.com...

[...]
> Also I found with Adobe Premiere Elements if I choose widescreen for a
> new project and turn on the safe margins I can see what will be
> visible within the margins.

> Regards Brian

Ummm, I'm assuming from this that you are editing this in SD. 
(Oh, photos look SO much better shown in HD! ;-) If so, be 
prepared for another "gotcha" (although a minor one...;-). HD 
non-CRT screens require little or no "safe margins" since they 
display close to 100% of the video image, so you will see the 
areas outside the safe margins. If this varies, it can be annoying, 
but you can apply a mask to the whole video so that the framing 
is consistent at the screen top and bottom...
--DR

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"Richard Crowley" <rcrowley@xp7rt.net> wrote in message 
news:7adanvF1urbshU1@mid.individual.net...
> "Brian" wrote ...
> The original camera tape is the best archival media availble to you
> (or to me).

>> I like the idea of copying from camera to camera, never
>> thought of doing that. I only have one DV camera but could borrow a DV
>> camera. It could also be done on the spot if a friend recorded a shot
>> that I missed then I could record it from his camera to mine.

> As Mr. Ruether suggested, you can make a LOSSLESS exact
> clone of a DV tape by transferring it to a hard drive file and then
> writing it back out to another tape using your camcorder. Only
> one tape machine/camcorder required, and practically free. It
> doesn't come much more bang for the buck than that. 

This works well, and using a second "borrowed" camera of unknown 
characteristics (tape types previously used, head condition/alignment/etc.) 
could easily result in a copy that is not exactly the same, but I used to 
own many Mini-DV cameras, all checked against each other for 
record/playback in LP mode and only one brand of tape was ever used 
in any of them. In that case, FireWired together cameras could produce 
lossless tape copies - but for "Brian", the computer route does look like 
the best option...
--DR

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"Chris Malcolm" <cam@holyrood.ed.ac.uk> wrote in message news:7a6fb1F1tlamiU1@mid.individual.net...
> Jim <jj.n@nospam.com> wrote:

>> The cos^4 law was discovered a very long time ago (perhaps in the late 19th 
>> century).
>> 
>> This law operates on all lenses of whatever focal length. But, the 
>> reduction in intensity of the light is only important for wide angle lenses.
>> Jim 

If you are referring to light intensity reduction due to the additional
relative distance from a theoretical lens center to the format corner 
compared with the axial distance, this is not necessarily true with 
lenses with designs that depart from strictly symmetrical simple 
designs. One advantage of a well-designed retrofocus wide angle 
(one with generous front and rear glass sections in addition to other 
design efforts to even out the lens illumination) is that it may illuminate 
a sensor quite evenly. 'Course, one can still run afoul of off-axis 
light-blocking edge sensor structure (commonly, a lens front, rear, or 
internal structure that shades outer parts of the image) at wide stops, 
even with "normal" and long lenses (especially ones of "telephoto" 
design).

> But there must be more to vignetting than that, since the lens I have
> with the greatest amount of vignetting is a 500mm f8 catadioptric lens
> (fixed focal length and aperture, Sony version of a Minolta
> design). 

I'm not so sure that it is a Minolta design...;-)

> Not only is it long in focal length, but the rear lens is
> positioned quite a distance away from the flange, well up in the body
> on the lens. So the angle of approach of the rays to the sensor can't
> be the culprit in this case. It's a well known vignetter. 
> -- 
> Chris Malcolm

All mirror lenses have a "hot spot" in the middle, which can be 
conversely thought of as vignetting...;-) BTW, adding a TC14 or 
TC14B to the older (non-compact, but with barrel rather than rear 
focus) Nikkor 500mm f8 results in better illumination evenness and 
a remarkably sharp 700mm compact mirror (but it is slow, very 
s l o w . . . . ). An image taken with this combination is at -- 
http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/500mm-Nikkor-plus-TC14.htm
--DR

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"Chris Malcolm" <cam@holyrood.ed.ac.uk> wrote in message news:7a91bhF1sq0o7U1@mid.individual.net...
> David Ruether <d_ruether@thotmail.com> wrote:

> It does owe one remarkable feature to Minolta's technical ingenuity --
> it's the only autofocussing reflex lens on the market. That not only
> buys you speed of focus, it buys you an accuracy of focus normally
> unachievable on digital cameras in manual focus due to the lack of
> precision focussing aids compared to the best pre-autofocus film
> camera designs. That matters in lenses of such sharply critical focus
> as these cats. And since it can't use the non-central AF sensors, it's
> provided with a focus hold button in case you're using your shutter
> half press for more than focus hold.

Neat!

>> BTW, adding a TC14 or
>> TC14B to the older (non-compact, but with barrel rather than rear
>> focus) Nikkor 500mm f8 results in better illumination evenness and
>> a remarkably sharp 700mm compact mirror (but it is slow, very
>> s l o w . . . . ). An image taken with this combination is at -- 
>> www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/500mm-Nikkor-plus-TC14.htm

> Well, I suppose that illustrates even illumination, but at that size
> of image the blurriest photo I've ever taken would look sharp!
> -- 
> Chris Malcolm

Quite true! I originally made these tiny images out of fear at the time 
(around '96-7, I think) of image theft, and also in consideration for 
download times with dial-up modems. But the original shows the time 
on the clocktower and other fine detail, and it is about three miles 
away...;-)
--DR

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"Mike S." <retsuhcs@xinap.moc> wrote in message news:h1lbfi$gl$1@reader1.panix.com...

> Watch word wap on the URL.

> www.inc.com/magazine/20090501/why-circuit-city-failed-and-why-bh-thrives.html?partner=fogcreek 

I've been a very satisfied B&H customer for decades. 
Great store, and I also never bother to look elsewhere, 
especially since B&H has such a great replace/refund 
"satisfaction guarantee", which I have used, in addition 
to good "real" prices with small or no shipping charges 
(unlike the inflated charges and "restocking fees" of many 
other dealers). B&H is a "class act". There is only one 
other shop in the same class that I know of - Stellar 
Stereo, a local TV/audio shop that has also been around 
for many decades, and which considers customer 
satisfaction above all else. Seems like a good formula 
for success...;-)
--DR

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"ushere" <removethis.leslie.wand@gmail.com> wrote in message news:zpL%l.20329$y61.16139@news-

> how old are you (not being rude)? after a certain age repetitive
> movements, especially 'concentrated' ones can lead to a form of rsi. i'm
> over 60 and just had a frozen shoulder appear (and thankfully disappear)
> from nowhere. i now use a tablet instead of a mouse which was beginning
> to give me quite painful spasms across the back of my hand....

I have used a high dining room table as my computer desk, and as 
I've (one-finger...) typed MANY thousands of posts and emails, my 
hand-top/arm-top remain almost level with each other, and the same 
for the mouse I use off to the right. So far (at 15 years on the computer, 
and rather MUCH too rapidly advancing age...), I've been lucky to 
have nothing worse than a sore finger tip and painful back and, uh, 
"bottom"...
--DR

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"Richard Crowley" <rcrowley@xp7rt.net> wrote in message 
news:7aa1tuF1udl5lU1@mid.individual.net...
> "Brian" wrote ...

>> There is a trend in New Zealand and maybe other countries towards
>> widescreen TV. In time everyone will be viewing widescreen TV which
>> will make it less of a problem.

1080p TVs have come down in price, and are well worth the 
extra cost (if any), especially if they upsample *well* lower 
resolution images, and have good pictures (there is still a 
surprising amount of variation in picture quality among HD TVs). 
One hint - if you get a good one, SIT CLOSE! I see more 
people putting it W - A - Y over there, and even WAY up 
there over a fireplace. Get serious about your TV viewing, 
and a good HD TV will reward you with MUCH pleasure! 

> Yes, almost 2 weeks ago they turned off traditional analog
> TV broadcasting here in the USA and effectively all the new
> receivers are widescreen (16:9)

My friend and I still joke about the "superior" digital TV, with 
its freezes, macro-blocking, audio "dit-dit-dit-dit-dit"s, black 
outs, etc. What an improvement! ;-)

> But distributing content for high-resolution widescreen format
> remains problematic unless you can warrant the current very
> high cost of BluRay burners and discs. 
???
There are several options - 
-Self-generated HD videos, played from the camera.
-Self-generated HD videos, played from memory cards to 
HD TVs with appropriate slots.
-Self-generated edited HD videos written as AVCHD to 
red-laser (cheap) disks using normal (cheap) burners - but 
the disks do require a Blu-ray player for playback (our 
excellent Panasonic player cost a reasonable $205...). 
-Cable service, which offers many HD networks (ours charges 
no extra for HD), and it also offers pay-per-view for HD 
movies (but there are too many free ones of interest at any 
given time to bother with those).
-Satellite service, which also offers many HD networks.
-Redbox offers just-released SD disks for $1/day, and with a 
player/TV that upsamples well, the differences between 
*commercial* SD DVDs and Blu-ray disks are minimal (I 
have both, and have directly compared them - the differences 
are there but are much more subtle than one would expect, 
given the "Blu-ray hoopla..." ;-). 
-Netflix, which offers low-cost mail-order rentals of SD disks 
(and I think it also offers Blu-ray disks...).
-Previewed wide-screen commercial SD DVDs are also fine 
(I've never had a bad one), and can be very cheap (about 
$2.50-$10 each) at video stores.
-New copies of Blu-ray disks can be found for $10 each 
(Wal-Mart has many titles), and some for $15... 
-Various places offer new copies of SD DVDs for about $5 
(check to make sure they are "wide-screen" before buying). 
-Look around Amazon.com (SD widescreen really can look 
good, and I don't hesitate to buy these! ;-).
Pretty soon, as with me, you will be looking around for yet 
more appropriate shelves to hold an ever-growing collection 
of disks. ;-)
--DR

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"HobbyDocumentary" <emailmianwali@gmail.com> wrote in message 
news:45b3e861-bf6e-4536-9141-e673abf4ee0d@h2g2000yqg.googlegroups.com...

> Although an old topic but newer versions keep it alive.Pinnacle has
> been rejected on this forum for crashes so I keep it out of
> comparison.Can anybody compare the three Ulead (latest editor perhaps
> X2 Pro, some say it is now Corell not Ulead) Adobe Elements and
> CS4Pro
> on the following areas:
> 1) Which one is the best for a professional or an average enthusiast
> and why?
> 2) Ease of use
> 3) Built-in video effects
> 4) Built-in audio filters
> 5) speed of rendering to mpeg2
> 6) Which has built in encoder and DVD-burner
> Note: Blue ray and HD not important so don't consider these. Don't
> count the price factor.
> I'll be grateful

I have a comparison of the very similar Ulead VideoStudio (to 
the Corel X2 Pro), Adobe Elements (surprisingly similar for basic 
work to the FAR more expensive CS4, although the interface 
is nicer with Elements), and Sony Vegas Pro (surprisingly similar 
to the FAR cheaper Platinum 9), at - 
www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/hdv-editing.htm. (More articles on 
video are here - www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/articles.html#video.)
The article was on editing HDV, but it is applicable to SD (the Adobe 
products are not ideal for use with HD, for reasons covered in the 
article). If you stay with SD, it is hard to beat the inexpensive Elements, 
but if you ever want to move into HDV (it is too early for AVCHD 
for most to edit 24 Mbps material comfortably...), Sony Platinum 9 
works well for both SD and HDV (and it's cheap). Speed of 
rendering depends on what you are rendering to what (and if "Smart 
Rendering" is available), and also your CPU speed and number of 
available threads. You don't give enough information about what you 
want to do, but both Elements and Platinum 9 should suffice for most 
things (with Platinum 9 permitting you to move on to HDV in the 
future). BTW, I'm working on a beginners manual for editing with 
Sony Vegas and Platinum 9. Watch for it in the "video articles" 
index on my web site...
--DR

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"Matt Clara" <mattclara@gmail.com> wrote in message 
news:5a0498fb-fc6d-4a28-bdc4-6fbdbf41c7c7@f10g2000vbf.googlegroups.com...

> http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/find/newsLetter/Angles-of-View.jsp
> Many of you probably received the same email I did with a link to the
> above article, but for those who did not, you may find this of
> interest. 

Thanks. It does not compare lens FLs with specific sensor sizes, but my 
http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/lens-angle-of-view-and-perspective.htm 
does go into other related things...
--DR

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"Richard Crowley" <rcrowley@xp7rt.net> wrote in message 
news:zK-dnW8yF60kJdnXnZ2dnUVZ_vCdnZ2d@posted.pcez...
> les wrote:

>> I'm in the transition of moving on to HD, having bought the camera,
>> and reworking the computer needed.
>> A question came to me regarding whether the new 1080i program
>> will transfer in full resolution to a standard DL-DVD, or will I next
>> need to consider BluRay disks for distribution?

> I am approaching a similar transition to HD and was going to research
> the same question. I was going to start by going to websites like
> www.videohelp.com and www.doom9.org and www.dvinfo.net
> because I'm sure that we aren't the first to ask this question (and have
> it answered). But maybe someone here has already found out.

> I just got a Sony PMW-EX1 camcorder and Vegas 9 Pro and a
> Pioneer BDR203 drive, but still wanting to investigate distribution
> of short subjects on regular video DVD discs as BD are still around
> $10 each. Of course DVDR were $10 each at one time and I
> expect that BD will drop to something closer to $1 each at some
> point. (Hopefully). 

I have made red-laser HD DVDs on cheap standard DVD blanks 
using a standard writer (but a compatible Blu-ray player is needed to 
play them) that are essentially indistinguishable from excellent original 
HDV material, using the following method. I first convert my edited 
videos to CBR 16 Mbps AVCHD files in Vegas, then I author disks 
in Ulead VideoStudio (that is easier for me to use, but Sony's DVD 
Architect could also be used...;-). The results look great in every 
respect, although file conversion times can be rather lengthy...
--DR

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"David Ruether" <d_ruether@thotmail.com> wrote in message 
news:h22oos$9cn$1@ruby.cit.cornell.edu... 
> "Richard Crowley" <rcrowley@xp7rt.net> wrote in message
> news:zK-dnW8yF60kJdnXnZ2dnUVZ_vCdnZ2d@posted.pcez...
>> les wrote:

>>> I'm in the transition of moving on to HD, having bought the camera,
>>> and reworking the computer needed.
>>> A question came to me regarding whether the new 1080i program
>>> will transfer in full resolution to a standard DL-DVD, or will I next
>>> need to consider BluRay disks for distribution?

>> I am approaching a similar transition to HD and was going to research
>> the same question. I was going to start by going to websites like
>> www.videohelp.com and www.doom9.org and www.dvinfo.net
>> because I'm sure that we aren't the first to ask this question (and have
>> it answered). But maybe someone here has already found out.
>>
>> I just got a Sony PMW-EX1 camcorder and Vegas 9 Pro and a
>> Pioneer BDR203 drive, but still wanting to investigate distribution
>> of short subjects on regular video DVD discs as BD are still around
>> $10 each. Of course DVDR were $10 each at one time and I
>> expect that BD will drop to something closer to $1 each at some
>> point. (Hopefully).

> I have made red-laser HD DVDs on cheap standard DVD blanks
> using a standard writer (but a compatible Blu-ray player is needed to
> play them) that are essentially indistinguishable from excellent original
> HDV material, using the following method. I first convert my edited
> videos to CBR 16 Mbps AVCHD files in Vegas, then I author disks
> in Ulead VideoStudio (that is easier for me to use, but Sony's DVD
> Architect could also be used...;-). The results look great in every
> respect, although file conversion times can be rather lengthy...
> --DR

These cheap disks are full 1920x1080 resolution...
--DR

~~~~

> These disks are full 1920x1080 resolution...
> --DR 

And I can also include menus and buttons on the disks...
--DR


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


>>As I understand it, the angle of ray arrival is what increases 
>>vignetting with wider angle lenses on full frame sensors.
>>
> If the angle of the incident ray is what increases the vignetting then 
> you can measure the effect without a lens at all - just get a collimated 
> source (a small source like a 3mm white LED some 10m away is more than 
> adequate, but putting a collimating lens in front of the source will 
> produce a higher light level) and take a number of shots in an otherwise 
> darkened room as you change the angle of incidence on the sensor.

> Having gone through that exercise several years ago I found that the 
> sensor in the original Canon 5D was actually *less* sensitive to angle 
> of incidence than film was. Feel free to search the archives of this 
> newsgroup for the data, which I reported at the time. I have never felt 
> the need to repeat the measurement and now shoot with confidence knowing 
> that any vignette in the image is not caused by the FF sensor. ;-)
> -- 
> Kennedy

~~~

>>For a 20mm lens on a FF sensor the angle to the side is about 45 
>>degrees. Towards the corners, it is more.
>>
> Not necessarily, and certainly not on any lens that works properly with 
> an SLR, which must leave room for the mirror - a retrofocus or 
> telecentric design. With a perfectly telecentric 20mm lens the angle to 
> the corner of the image is exactly the same as the angle to the centre: 
> 0deg. Difficult to achieve with FF and existing lens mounts, especially 
> with fast apertures, but close enough can be achieved so that the 
> problem you are referring to does not arise.
> -- 
> Kennedy

~~~

>>> The reduction of light in the corners is actually the fourth power of the
>>> cosine of the angle of incidence of the light.
>>> Jim

>>As I said in another post would you please back that up.

> There are 3 steps to this, as follows:
> 1. The apparent area of the focal plane is proportional to the cosine of 
> the angle of incidence. eg. a flat piece of paper has area AxB when 
> viewed perpendicularly, but has apparent area Ax0 when viewed at grazing 
> angle from side A. The angle between perpendicular and grazing is 
> 90deg, and cos(90)=0.

> So the number of photons incident on the focal plane is proportional to 
> the cosine of their angle of incidence.

> 2. The apparent size of the lens aperture is proportional to the cosine 
> of the angle - for the same reasons as 1.

> 3. The distance from the centre of the lens to any point on the focal 
> plane is inversely proportional to the cosine of the angle, and the 
> intensity of image is inversely proportional to the square of the 
> distance. ie. the intensity of the image is proportional to cos^2.

> Multiply these three terms up and you get the well known, but vastly 
> overgeneralised, cos^4 law.

> In most photographic lenses the rays which form the image at any part of 
> the focal plane do not originate from all of the rear element of the 
> lens, and this leads to a significant departure from the cos^4 law. The 
> rays from, say, the central 20% area of the rear element may form the 
> central part of the image, while the rays from a similar 20% area closer 
> to the edge of the rear element may form the image in the appropriate 
> corner. This is particularly true of wide angle retrofocus and 
> telecentric lens designs. As a consequence of this, the angle of 
> incidence in the corners is not the same as the angle from the corner to 
> the centre of the rear element, and hence the "cos^4" law fails in terms 
> of using the field size and focal length.

> In detail it still holds true for each element of the lens area which 
> contributes photons to each part of the image, but that requires much 
> more computation than a simple "cos^4".
> -- 
> Kennedy

~~~

"Kennedy McEwen" <rkm@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote in message 
news:9XZAX6Jms7QKFwke@kennedym.demon.co.uk...
> In article <OumdnScS4NlgKaTXnZ2dnUVZ_tli4p2d@giganews.com>, 
Alan Browne > <alan.browne@Freelunchvideotron.ca> writes

>>To be clear, since each sensor site is "3D", then at an angle some 
>>photons will not make it into the wells towards the corners... (v. film 
>>which is a lot flatter).

> Wrong way round Alan. :-(
> Think of film as being made up of flat crystals. As you view it from an 
> oblique angle, the crystals appear smaller - just as any 2D object 
> would. The apparent size is proportional to the cosine of the angle of 
> incidence.

> Now consider a sensor made up of sections of small tennis balls, a 3D 
> structure. No matter how oblique an angle you view a ball from, it 
> still has the same apparent size. With an array of such balls, the only 
> reason that they would apparently reduce in size is due to each being 
> obscured by the balls in front. By choosing the appropriate size of 
> ball segment and their separation you can view at very oblique angles 
> without any loss of apparent size.

> The microlenses are very similar to segments of small balls. Within a 
> reasonable range of angles they have less light fall off than a flat 
> surface.

> In general, more surface area is exposed on 3D structures than on 2D 
> flat areas - one reason why plants and trees grow vertically to catch 
> the sun rather than just grow flat on the ground. Just the same with 
> sensors. ;-)
> -- 
> Kennedy
> Yes, Socrates himself is particularly missed;
> A lovely little thinker, but a bugger when he's pissed.
> Python Philosophers (replace 'nospam' with 'kennedym' when replying)

I LIKE THE WAY YOU THINK...!!! 8^)
--DR

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"Scubajam" <jmcgauhey@usa.net> wrote in message 
news:64e01d47-095e-4ffe-b30e-2a3b38f132b2@r10g2000yqa.googlegroups.com...
On Jun 26, 1:12 pm, "David Ruether" <d_ruet...@thotmail.com> wrote:

> >> I have made red-laser HD DVDs on cheap standard DVD blanks
> >> using a standard writer (but a compatible Blu-ray player is needed to
> >> play them) that are essentially indistinguishable from excellent original
> >> HDV material, using the following method. I first convert my edited
> >> videos to CBR 16 Mbps AVCHD files in Vegas, then I author disks
> >> in Ulead VideoStudio (that is easier for me to use, but Sony's DVD
> >> Architect could also be used...;-). The results look great in every
> >> respect, although file conversion times can be rather lengthy...
> >> These disks are full 1920x1080 resolution...
> >> And I can also include menus and buttons on the disks...
> >> --DR

********************************

Could you elaborate a little more? You are talking about making menu
on data disc? So this does not need Video Studio, as that would make
a BD video disc. I thought making a AVCHD render, then just copy file
as a data disc plays on most BD players, but did not know menus and
buttons could be included. I'm very interested in how you do this. I
thought this was the major difference between a video disc and a data
disc. A AVCHD data disc would not only play on a BD stand-alone
player, but also can be copied into most computers and played without
a BD player or special BD video player software. Most players
incorporated into computers now will play AVCHD data as that is the
most common file used on flash based camcorders. I'm experimenting
with this with a TX1 camcorder, so it is very interesting to me. I
appreciate any info.

Jim McGauhey
Washington State 

******************************** 

I make individual transcoded files of my short HDV edited videos 
to 16 Mbps AVCHD files using Sony editing software (these do 
take a long time to make, but the quality is VERY high, unlike 
when I have used Ulead to do this). I then use Ulead to author a 
disk with menus (buttons and a background - and music if desired) 
which is written on a standard DVD blank using a standard writer. 
The results are excellent, and about 45 minutes can be fitted on 
a disk (although "Smarty" disputes this...). My Panasonic player 
(BD30) plays them fine, as does a friend's BD10. Since you are 
likely starting out with fairly low data rate AVCHD files, it is 
well worth dropping them into Ulead and trying to author a disk 
with them. As pointed out earlier, you can download a 30-day trial 
copy of Ulead (now Corel) and see if this works. 
--DR

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"Smarty" <nobody@nobody.com> wrote in message news:6cJ1m.1688$NF6.222@nwrddc02.gnilink.net...
> "Richard Crowley" <rcrowley@xp7rt.net> wrote in message 
> news:zK-dnW8yF60kJdnXnZ2dnUVZ_vCdnZ2d@posted.pcez...
>> les wrote:

>>> I'm in the transition of moving on to HD, having bought the camera,
>>> and reworking the computer needed.
>>> A question came to me regarding whether the new 1080i program
>>> will transfer in full resolution to a standard DL-DVD, or will I next
>>> need to consider BluRay disks for distribution?
>>
>> I am approaching a similar transition to HD and was going to research
>> the same question. I was going to start by going to websites like
>> www.videohelp.com and www.doom9.org and www.dvinfo.net
>> because I'm sure that we aren't the first to ask this question (and have
>> it answered). But maybe someone here has already found out.
>>
>> I just got a Sony PMW-EX1 camcorder and Vegas 9 Pro and a
>> Pioneer BDR203 drive, but still wanting to investigate distribution
>> of short subjects on regular video DVD discs as BD are still around
>> $10 each. Of course DVDR were $10 each at one time and I
>> expect that BD will drop to something closer to $1 each at some
>> point. (Hopefully).

> Richard,

> With an XDCAM like the EX-1 shooting HDV at 35 Mbits/sec, my opinion is that 
> transcoding to AVCHD format red laser disks is a mistake for 4 reasons. The 
> first is that you will definitely sacrifice video quality, the second is 
> that you will spend an inordinate amount time in transcoding, thirdly you 
> will not save very much money in the process, and the fourth is the 
> significant reduction in play time when compared to blue media.

> To elaborate a bit, I am not aware of any conventional / easy method to make 
> AVCHD red laser disks above the maximum specified AVCHD data rate of 
> 24Mbits/sec. Transcoding to this lesser rate is a noticeable compromise from 
> an EX-1, both in the recompression required going from mpeg2 to mpeg4 AVC 
> and from the data rate reduction. Also, since BD-RE disks can now be had for 
> under 3 dollars apiece, the economic argument for red laser is weakened 
> further. With about 23 minutes of recording time for single layer red laser 
> disks at the diminished 24 Mbit/sec transcoded rate, the compromises are, in 
> my opinion, too severe.

> While it is possible to make AVCHD disks at higher rates, it takes a lot of 
> screwing around, only to discover that the vast majority of BD players will 
> stutter due to buffer overflows, since they cannot unload the playback 
> buffer fast enough even though their laser, optics, and servos are fast 
> enough to fill it at higher 35 Mbit/sec rates. (The Playstation 3, with its 
> exceptional graphics processors, can handle the playback rate.)

> There are some people with EX-1s who have been experimenting with so-called 
> BD-5 and BD-9 format disks on red laser media. These enjoy the advantages of 
> no transcoding (retention of mpeg2 contact intact), 35 Mbit/sec mpeg2 
> playback (which BD players ***ARE*** capable of doing without stutter) and 
> cost savings, but they will still suffer even worse playback time 
> limitations of about 16 minutes playback time on a single layer red disk. 
> (The EX-1 does use VBR at the 35 Mbit/sec rate so this time may vary 
> somewhat.)

> Note also that the EX-1 does full 1080p and transcoding to AVCHD loses the 
> progressive frames to interlacing.

> The low cost BD-R disks I refer to can be found at: 
> http://www.buy.com/retail/product.asp?sku=208285966 
> and elsewhere.

> Smarty

All of this makes perfect sense... Thanks.
--DR

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"Dh" <Dh@home.invalid.tv> wrote in message news:5vz2m.2057$Wj7.1198@nlpi065.nbdc.sbc.com...

> http://createdigitalmotion.com/2009/06/30/magical-3d-warping-techniques-steadies-your-videos/

Very interesting, with VERY smooth results, BUT, two comments: 
- The originals were very likely intentionally unusually shaky (I have 
a tremor and even with that, my footage is FAR smoother than the 
samples, although I do use a brace with my tiny HD Canon HV20 
and it also has internal stabilization which helps).
-The cropping done while processing is rather extreme (somewhere 
between 1/4 and 1/3 of the frame's dimensions are lost), with the 
resulting loss of resolution when the frame size is restored. 
Thanks - it's stabilization ability is very impressive, but I will stick 
with ProDAD's Mercalli when software stabilization is needed...
--DR

~~~~~~~~~~

"David McCall" <mccallmail@verizon.net> wrote in message news:62K2m.192$P5.117@nwrddc02.gnilink.net...
> "David Ruether" <d_ruether@thotmail.com> wrote in message 
> news:h2fmoh$s6p$1@ruby.cit.cornell.edu...
>> "Dh" <Dh@home.invalid.tv> wrote in message 
>> news:5vz2m.2057$Wj7.1198@nlpi065.nbdc.sbc.com...

>>> http://createdigitalmotion.com/2009/06/30/magical-3d-warping-techniques-steadies-your-videos/

>> Very interesting, with VERY smooth results, BUT, two comments:
>> - The originals were very likely intentionally unusually shaky (I have
>> a tremor and even with that, my footage is FAR smoother than the
>> samples, although I do use a brace with my tiny HD Canon HV20
>> and it also has internal stabilization which helps).
>> -The cropping done while processing is rather extreme (somewhere
>> between 1/4 and 1/3 of the frame's dimensions are lost), with the
>> resulting loss of resolution when the frame size is restored.
>> Thanks - it's stabilization ability is very impressive, but I will stick
>> with ProDAD's Mercalli when software stabilization is needed...
>> --DR

> Doesn't the amount of cropping depend totally on the amount of shake?

Um, likely so...;-) So for a reasonably steady original (*at all times...*),
the frame edge losses would probably be less(?), resulting in a sharper 
result than the samples would have...
--DR

~~~~~~~~~~~~

"Martin Heffels" <goofies@flikken.net> wrote in message 
news:7hin45p7lq8ti45edeu4a34ri7in73hcpf@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 1 Jul 2009 10:34:53 -0400, "David Ruether"
> <d_ruether@thotmail.com> wrote:
>>"David McCall" <mccallmail@verizon.net> wrote in message 
news:62K2m.192$P5.117@nwrddc02.gnilink.net...

>>> Doesn't the amount of cropping depend totally on the amount of shake?

>>Um, likely so...;-) So for a reasonably steady original (*at all times...*),
>>the frame edge losses would probably be less(?), resulting in a sharper
>>result than the samples would have...

> Indeed. Best is just to use a tripod ;-)

> I saw Michael Moore's Slacker Uprising the other day. In part of the
> footage they certainly used stabiliser software. You could see these
> bizar blurs in the footage. I don't like it.
> While it is a nice tool, best is to simply provde steady footage to
> begin with :-) 
> cheers 
> -martin-

It depends on the style, end result wanted, and related practicality 
whether one goes hand-held or with a tripod. For me, I will almost 
never use a tripod since I believe a video is about a MOTION 
image, and the tripod restricts the framing, frame movement, and 
subject/composition exploration FAR too much for my tastes. I 
am also now unable to carry my big pro fluid-head tripod outside, 
let alone along a trail - and my camera doesn't have a Lanc socket 
anyway, which would at least help while shooting with it. In other 
words, no one bit of advice fits all - a GOOD tripod with a Lanc 
controller is great for "static" shots (for better or worse...;-), but 
for spontaneous-looking, free-flowing video imagery, GOOD 
hand-held work - with braces, camera internal/external 
stabilization, and, if necessary, software stabilization, is better. 
The type of shooting, whether highly-paid "pro" vs. "trip-record", 
"family", "personal-explorations", "art", "story", etc.) would also 
help determine the shooting method(s) used. It's all in the 
appropriate choices for the intent, and acceptable compromises...
--DR

~~~~~~~~~~~~

"Martin Heffels" <goofies@flikken.net> wrote in message 
news:13aq45d5sufmdp68hgk5t4b9665n43gffr@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 2 Jul 2009 09:25:52 -0400, "David Ruether"
> <d_ruether@thotmail.com> wrote:

>>It depends on the style, end result wanted, and related practicality
>>whether one goes hand-held or with a tripod.

> Indeed. For free work, a tripod will be a nuisance and severly limit
> your work. However, there is lots you can achieve with tripod, so to
> have a good, steady base, is important I think. 

Yes. Back in my commercial-work days, I would often leave 
a camera running unattended on a tripod aimed at the "action", 
and occasionally pass by and change things a bit (zoom, pan, 
etc.) while walking around with a second camera hand-held 
(when I was MUCH steadier...). Or, I would take my "pro" 
tripod with its great fluid movements and use a Lanc controller 
if I was using a single camera. But now, all my video work is 
for my own entertainment, although the requirements of HD 
vs. SD do encourage more attention to image steadiness!

> If you are going walkabaout with your camera, make sure you have a few
> helpers with you to carry your tripod ;-) 

Ah, yes, but I can no longer drive, and the person who does (if 
interested in going to the same location, and willing to be bored 
while I shoot, is available - and if the weather is good, the 
material is in a good state, and the wind is not too strong...) 
is willing to drive when I want to go - but that tripod is HEAVY, 
and carrying it around is too much to ask of anyone... [I'm writing 
this after trying to sort out Medicare B, Medicare D, Medigap, 
Medicare Advantage, NYS Epic - and wondering why right now 
my drug coverage is not being recognized by the pharmacist, etc., 
etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc., etc......., after 
I had thought that after MUCH confusion, and MUCH research, 
all this had been straightened out, optimized, and paid for. Yuh, 
right........ Let's hear it for a GOOD single-payer medical system!!!]

> Have you tried a mono-pod?
> They are quite a big help and better than nothing IMHO.

> -martin-

I have never been able to use a monopod successfully (but others 
do, and certainly with big, heavy, fast long teles for still cameras 
in fairly fixed locations like football sidelines, they are essential). 
I've owned various types, including one with bottom legs, but I 
still rotate them almost uncontrollably - and they limit freely tilting 
and "wandering" while "filming", which I often do... *My* best 
solution (with my conditions, and for how I like to shoot with a 
light camera) is to use an aid I cobbled together made from a 
longish bar with a large-diameter foam handle that extends to the 
camera left, with a folding "L" camera flash bracket attached to it 
that when unfolded rests on my left shoulder (all with a quick 
release for attaching it to the camera). That, combined with the 
right-hand camera grip and the top of the camera resting against 
my eyebrow area, plus the camera's internal stabilizer (plus 
further help from software, if needed), kinda gets me acceptably 
steady HD footage (and I also edit around unacceptably bad 
footage...;-). 
--DR

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"HerHusband" <unknown@unknown.com> wrote in message news:Xns9C3C4AC71BEA1herhusband@188.40.43.213...

[...]
> I am strictly an amateur, but I usually use a combination of tripod, 
> monopod, and stabilization software to achieve the results I'm after. 
> Even then, there's always some footage that just can't be saved. I 
> usually just keep the camera rolling and pick out the usable parts when 
> editing. You can see a few examples of my videos at 
> www.mountain-software.com/videos.htm.

> Anthony

I had seen one of these videos before, and the smoothness is 
impressive. For what the video is for, the occasional "oopser" 
along an edge is OK, I guess (the seeing of an artifact of the 
steadying software not being permitted to crop frames to 
remove all "loose" edges in order to maintain best sharpness). 
--DR

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"HerHusband" <unknown@unknown.com> wrote in message 
news:Xns9C3D517C2CEACherhusband@188.40.43.213...

>>> You can see a few examples of my videos at
>>> www.mountain-software.com/videos.htm.

>> I had seen one of these videos before, and the smoothness is
>> impressive. For what the video is for, the occasional "oopser"
>> along an edge is OK, I guess (the seeing of an artifact of the
>> steadying software not being permitted to crop frames to
>> remove all "loose" edges in order to maintain best sharpness).

> I use Deshaker's ability to extract information from past/future frames to 
> fill in the edges. This lets me keep the full resolution (1920x1080 in the 
> original HD), while not losing sharpness due to zooming. While the edge 
> corrections are sometimes visible on a computer monitor, they're not 
> usually seen on a TV because of overscan. So, keeping the detail is more 
> important to me than maintaining perfect edges.

> Anthony

Ah, but my 42" doesn't appear to have any overscan, so 
I get to see all the frame-edge "crud" (interframe closed
captioning, frame edge vertical lines, the severe vignetting 
that some cameramen permit, sometimes-decentered 
picture...). With Mini-DV, one could easily overlay a 
frame to hide such stuff, but with HDV, there is potential 
for hurting image quality if that is done.
--DR



~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"Don Wiss" <donwiss@no_spam.com> wrote in message news:2e2l45hpseuu2ruo7f7qe98j01b29qqfno@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 30 Jun 2009 11:00:02 -0700, Jürgen Exner <jurgenex@hotmail.com>
>>Don't you learn that in driving school? When I got my license it would
>>be limited to "Automatic transmission only" unless you either took the
>>practical test with a manual transmission or the driving instructor
>>certified that you had at least 8(?) hours of instruction in a car with
>>a manual transmission.

> Not in Massachusetts, which is where I took driving school. In NJ, which is
> where I was licensed when I reached 17, no driving school was required, and
> there is nothing about transmission on one's license. My guess is this is
> true throughout the US. If you go to a driving class insurance probably
> gives you a discount.

> The way it works is you get a learner's permit after passing a written
> test. Age depends on state. A common age is 16 or 17. Then your family or
> friends teach you how to drive. A licensed driver must be in the car with
> you. Then you go for the driving test. Many (most?) high schools do offer
> driving classes, but they are not required.

> Now some states have restrictions, like you can't drive at night until you
> are a couple years older.

> Now I presume you know that manual transmissions are rare in the US. In
> general you will only find them in sports cars and larger trucks.

> Don <www.donwiss.com> (e-mail link at home page bottom). 

I think all the above is true, but I will add a note that around 
here (central NYS), some give any car with a Massachusetts 
plate the widest berth possible since their operators are so 
often "car-ay-zee" drivers... :-( BTW, I was watching a TV 
show about driving in Finland(?), and driver-ed took YEARS 
(where ever it was...;-). 
--DR

~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"Jürgen Exner" <jurgenex@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:kbsm45ter32qm6ivd8l45sr9dsqcaj3nq9@4ax.com...
> Don Wiss <donwiss@no_spam.com> wrote:

>>Then your family or friends teach you how to drive. 

> Promulgation of bad habits, that explains quite a lot :-(

> jue

Yes. Like the annoying swinging wide right to make a left turn 
(or the reverse) even with a compact car (and often with no 
signaling of the turn), freely crossing/driving-across no-drive 
areas and double yellow lines that are clearly painted on the 
pavement, flinging open car doors into narrow traffic lanes 
without looking for car traffic or bikes coming from the rear, 
making a left turn into a fully occupied lane just as the signal 
changes and then blocking cross traffic that then has the green 
light, not stopping at stop signs, stopping for a signal in the 
middle of an intersection or on the railroad tracks (the former 
is inconsiderate, the latter is clearly stupid, and both are 
illegal) and following much too closely are some of the many 
commonly-seen/experienced bad driving habits around here. 
Then there is the more understandable lack of skill getting 
started on a steep hill with a manual (or even automatic) 
transmission (we have many steep hills), and the ignoring (if 
new to the area ONLY) of combined overhead and 
street-painted lane markers when a lane ends (the results 
often resemble an aggressive video game with people 
jockeying to get ahead). It's a wonder we (mostly...) survive 
as drivers of, or passengers in, cars...
--DR


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"vidguy40" <vidcomm46@gmail.com> wrote in message 
news:515928ec-5f29-4d0e-af58-40c38cb31e33@h18g2000yqj.googlegroups.com...

ATTORNEY GENERAL CUOMO SECURES AGREEMENTS 
WITH SEVEN ELECTRONICS COMPANIES IN NEW YORK 
FOR USING ILLEGAL ONLINE BUSINESS PRACTICES TO
SCAM CONSUMERS NATIONWIDE

[....]

Y-a-a-a-a-y!!
Companies like these gave "mail order" a bad name, and I'm 
happy to see this action happen. The NYS Attorney General's 
Office has been a strong positive entity for a long time - and 
I've personaly made use of it to shake a promised rebate out 
of even Sony(!). Funny how fast things got settled once the 
NYS AG got involved...;-)
--DR

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"Bob Fleischer" <bobfnospam@duxsysnospam.com> wrote in message 
news:h2dsa3$fea$1@rjf7r.motzarella.org...
> Juan Samwells wrote:
>> "Kevin McMurtrie" <kevinmcm@sonic.net> wrote in message 
>> news:4a27659e$0$95518

>>> I've used JES Deinterlacer on a Mac to remove interlacing and telecine.
>>> It's the best I've seen at deinterlacing but the quality is still
>>> unacceptable. 

Why would one want to deinterlace interlaced video except for 
exporting stills? Interlacing provides much smoother image motion 
by essentially doubling the "half-frame" video rate (with NTSC, 
what would have been a "juddery" 30fps becomes a MUCH 
smoother-looking 60fps with the same data rate).

>> I still wonder why in the world they came up with interlacing in the first 
>> place. If it was a tactic to save space, that was definitely a poor way to 
>> do it.

See above... As "Bob" pointed out below, there really is no other 
option but doubling the data rate.

>>> The correct solution is not to buy a video camera that uses interlacing.

They all do, except for fairly unusual ones which offer "p" mode, 
and I still find their motion video in that mode unacceptable at the 
video format fixed frame rates of 30fps or 25fps. If you like flicker, 
go for it! 8^)

>>> Current HD camcorders are poor performers so you might want to wait.
?????
You have GOT to be joking! Try a $600 Canon HV30 if you 
want to see how wrong that is ( go here for a review --
http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/Canon_HV20-HV30.htm).

>> Both the Sanyo and Aiptek ones I tried have progressive modes which doesn't 
>> produce those darn interlacing lines. I ended up keeping the Sanyo because 
>> almost all the settings offer manual adjustment also.
>> 
>> Still amazes me how we have this great technology and yet it's hard to find 
>> a decent camera out of the bunch.
>> 
>> Juan

If you are only going to "scrape the bottom of the barrel" while 
looking, I guess you could come to that conclusion - but you 
have not drawn that conclusion from trying a very good sample 
of available camcorders...

> Interlacing was a technique to save bandwidth -- actually a compromise 
> to generate a viewable picture with limited bandwidth. Sending 
> alternating half-images produced a more viewable picture than sending 
> full images at the same bandwidth (which would either have terrible 
> flicker or much less detail).

> It made sense nearly a century ago!

> (Interlacing was invented by the same Leon Theremin who invented the 
> musical instrument by his name.)

> Bob

The above is true, but as I pointed out earlier, interlacing, except 
when capturing stills from the video, really has no practical 
downside for motion video - although maybe a progressive 
mode with a frame rate of 60fps or especially 120fps+ could 
conceivably look better. But then, I've never understood the 
appeal of 24fps progressive "film-look" - the last thing that any 
movie cameraman wants to struggle with is the unfortunate 
artifacts of camera/subject motion with a too-slow frame rate, 
and these artifacts still often show in movies shot on film. BTW, 
I have some minor contact with the history of the Theremin. 8^)
--DR

~~~~~~~~~~~~~


"Kevin McMurtrie" <kevinmcm@sonic.net> wrote in message 
news:4a506148$0$95560$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net...
> In article <h2ntue$q5a$1@ruby.cit.cornell.edu>,
> "David Ruether" <d_ruether@thotmail.com> wrote: 
>> "Bob Fleischer" <bobfnospam@duxsysnospam.com> wrote in message
>> news:h2dsa3$fea$1@rjf7r.motzarella.org...
>> > Juan Samwells wrote:
>> >> "Kevin McMurtrie" <kevinmcm@sonic.net> wrote in message 
>> >> news:4a27659e$0$95518

>> >>> I've used JES Deinterlacer on a Mac to remove interlacing and telecine.
>> >>> It's the best I've seen at deinterlacing but the quality is still
>> >>> unacceptable.

>> Why would one want to deinterlace interlaced video except for
>> exporting stills? Interlacing provides much smoother image motion
>> by essentially doubling the "half-frame" video rate (with NTSC,
>> what would have been a "juddery" 30fps becomes a MUCH
>> smoother-looking 60fps with the same data rate).

> First, consumer-grade software does not handle interlacing correctly. 
> What comes out is a mess of torn rasters that looks bad and won't 
> compress well. Professional software costs more than these consumer 
> cameras do.

I have never seen/heard-of this before...

> Second, interlacing can not be displayed on large TVs because it becomes 
> visible. Real-time deinterlacing in even the best 2009 TVs is prone to 
> some visual flaws. There's a reason that there's a push to move 
> everything to 1080p.

Again, I have never seen/heard-of this before. With a very sharp 
1080p 42" LCD viewed at 6.5', with interlaced material, there 
are no visible scan lines with 1080i (which would be there also 
with 1080p...). 

>> >> I still wonder why in the world they came up with interlacing in the first 
>> >> place. If it was a tactic to save space, that was 
>> >> definitely a poor way to do it.

>> See above... As "Bob" pointed out below, there really is no other
>> option but doubling the data rate.

>> >>> The correct solution is not to buy a video camera that uses interlacing.

>> They all do, except for fairly unusual ones which offer "p" mode,
>> and I still find their motion video in that mode unacceptable at the
>> video format fixed frame rates of 30fps or 25fps. If you like flicker,
>> go for it! 8^)

>> >>> Current HD camcorders are poor performers so you might want to wait.

>> ?????
>> You have GOT to be joking! Try a $600 Canon HV30 if you
>> want to see how wrong that is ( go here for a review --
>> http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/Canon_HV20-HV30.htm).

> I have a Canon HG10. I'm about ready to put it outside with a "Free" 
> sign. It's rated "1920x1080" but has a 1440x1080 sensor that's as 
> blurry as 720p. 

Actually, it has a 1920x1080 chip (same lens and chip as the HV20), 
but it uses 17 Mbps AVCHD for compression, which is inferior to the 
HV20's 25 Mbps HDV, and there is a comparrison between them 
here (they use the same sensor and lens...) - 
www.camcorderinfo.com/content/Canon-HG10-Camcorder-Review-33146/Performance.htm# 
The HG10 is very noticeably less sharp...

> There are QuickTime and MacOS logos on the box yet 
> absolutely zero video support for them included. MPEG4 motion detection 
> doesn't seem to be implemented because the picture turns to patchy blobs 
> when panning slowly. 

Blame the format for this - this is not true with HDV and the HV20, 
even with rapid motion and difficult subject matter for compression.

> The microphone is aimed straight up in the air 
> where it records wind, birds, airplanes, echoes, HVAC vents, the sound 
> of the operator breathing, and everything else but the subject right in 
> front of the lens. 

Canon mics on their small camcorders have always been terrible. 
Sony has gotten this right for a very long time, so why doesn't 
Canon just copy Sony's micing...? ;-)

> Autofocus throbs when zoomed fully in. It would do 
> great as a SD camera (except for the audio) but there's little "High 
> Definition" about it.

See above. The HV20/30/40 picture is spectacularly good. And 
HDV is easier to edit than AVCHD... Don't blame "interlacing" 
for what you see that you don't like, when it is the fault of the 
HD recording compression format.

>> >> Both the Sanyo and Aiptek ones I tried have progressive modes which 
>> >> doesn't produce those darn interlacing lines. I ended up 
>> >> keeping the Sanyo because almost all the settings offer manual adjustment 
>> >> also.
>> >>
>> >> Still amazes me how we have this great technology and yet it's hard to 
>> >> find a decent camera out of the bunch.
>> >>
>> >> Juan

>> If you are only going to "scrape the bottom of the barrel" while
>> looking, I guess you could come to that conclusion - but you
>> have not drawn that conclusion from trying a very good sample
>> of available camcorders...

>> > Interlacing was a technique to save bandwidth -- actually a compromise to 
>> > generate a viewable picture with limited bandwidth. 
>> > Sending alternating half-images produced a more viewable picture than 
>> > sending full images at the same bandwidth (which would 
>> > either have terrible flicker or much less detail).
>> >
>> > It made sense nearly a century ago!
>> >
>> > (Interlacing was invented by the same Leon Theremin who invented the 
>> > musical instrument by his name.)
>> >
>> > Bob

>> The above is true, but as I pointed out earlier, interlacing, except
>> when capturing stills from the video, really has no practical
>> downside for motion video - although maybe a progressive
>> mode with a frame rate of 60fps or especially 120fps+ could
>> conceivably look better. But then, I've never understood the
>> appeal of 24fps progressive "film-look" - the last thing that any
>> movie cameraman wants to struggle with is the unfortunate
>> artifacts of camera/subject motion with a too-slow frame rate,
>> and these artifacts still often show in movies shot on film. BTW,
>> I have some minor contact with the history of the Theremin. 8^)
>> --DR

--DR

~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"Kevin McMurtrie" <kevinmcm@sonic.net> wrote in message news:4a50fe14$0$95572$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net...
> In article <h2q8i0$jj6$1@ruby.cit.cornell.edu>,
> "David Ruether" <d_ruether@thotmail.com> wrote:

>> > I have a Canon HG10. I'm about ready to put it outside with a "Free"
>> > sign. It's rated "1920x1080" but has a 1440x1080 sensor that's as
>> > blurry as 720p.

>> Actually, it has a 1920x1080 chip (same lens and chip as the HV20),
>> but it uses 17 Mbps AVCHD for compression, which is inferior to the
>> HV20's 25 Mbps HDV, and there is a comparrison between them
>> here (they use the same sensor and lens...) -
>> www.camcorderinfo.com/content/Canon-HG10-Camcorder-Review-33146/Performance.htm#
>> The HG10 is very noticeably less sharp...

> The HV20 is also 1440x1080 anamorphic. Canon can lie all they want but 
> anybody who has checked the file format knows better.

The file format can potentially be anything at all, and even very 
different from the actual sensor resolution (I seem to recall 
that one compact camcorder even had an 8 megabyte 
sensor, disastrous for sensitivity and noise performance), 
In any case, even if the HV20 sensor were 1440x1080, 
which it isn't, its picture is VERY sharp, and without 
artifacting on contrasty edges, gradient tones, etc. I have 
NEVER seen any artifacting that originated in the camera 
except that the camera does soften the image a bit with fast 
motion to keep the input data rate to the HDV compressor 
at an acceptable level to prevent overrunning its capabilities. 
The same does not appear to be true for 17 Mbps AVCHD 
(which is not as sharp, and which shows more artifacting), 
but 24 Mbps AVCHD appears to be about as good as 
HDV - but good luck trying to edit that stuff...! :-(

> As for the blurriness, it seems to be a low quality H.264 encoder. I've 
> found that the HG10's video can be recompressed in software at 4 Mbps 
> with no noticeable loss of quality. Since panning suffers most, I'm 
> betting that Canon cut costs by not implementing motion compression. 
> [snip]

I kinda doubt the last - but I suspect that either in-camera 
17 Mbps AVCHD compression will improve, or time will 
bring the monster computers needed to efficiently (without 
transcoding everything first, hardly a good solution...) 
edit 24 Mbps AVCHD down to affordable prices. For now, 
I think it is better for most to just avoid shooting AVCHD.
--DR



~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"Richard Crowley" <rcrowley@xp7rt.net> wrote in message 
news:-8adnerTwJ1bss3XnZ2dnUVZ_gOdnZ2d@posted.pcez...
> Ken Maltby wrote:

>> "... And remember,
>> while Richard mentioned non-linear, I think the operative term is
>> actually non-destructive; and all the NLE's I know of are both non-
>> linear and non-destructive.

> Yes I also assumed that all NLE apps were also non-destructive
> by definition.

> Good riddance to the days when it was a hair-pulling, nail-biting
> exercise to cut the original camera negatives. It took a very speccial
> kind of person to do that job where there was no room for error.

I date back to the time when I hot-spliced my first (and almost 
last...;-) 16mm "film" assembled with the aid of a gang gizmo that 
kept tracks in synch and that ran one film track under a small 
Zeiss magnifier to see the picture - and the sprocketed magnetic 
track had a flip-down head for listening to the audio. Direct, 
and very much "hands on" (and pretty much the same even with 
the later fancy Steenbeck[?] editing tables a friend used in his 
video production business), but there is no contest between that 
and NLEs, no mater how user unfriendly one may be... (BTW, 
I'm writing a basic Sony editing instruction manual, intended for 
beginners).
--DR

~~~~~~~~~~~~

"Ken Maltby" <kmaltby@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message 
news:47ednRr0b91hlM7XnZ2dnUVZ_g-dnZ2d@giganews.com... 
> "Brian" <bclark@es.co.nz> wrote in message 
> news:o5t555pnqlgnrs8gc8e6rrlvj1ojccbhgm@4ax.com...
>> ushere <removethis.leslie.wand@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>Martin Heffels wrote:

>>>> Ha, when I was young, we used to carve our stories in the rocks in a
>>>> cave.
>>>>
>>>> -m-

>>>when i was young we hadn't been around long enough for any stories to be
>>>told....

>> Do you remember the days of the hand cranked cameras?
>>
>> Regards Brian

> I might suggest that you all keep your day jobs.

> Luck;
> Ken

What day jobs????? 8^)
--DR

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"Brian" <bclark@es.co.nz> wrote in message 
news:qi0455lf6dlmguoacjvaas87u7c5du1pl3@4ax.com...

>I have a feeling that a large amount of video effects (and
> transitions) that are added to video editors are to make them sell
> better. When looking at some of the effects such as Spherize, Twirl,
> Wave warp, Lens distortion, Emboss, Solarize, Posterize, Ripple, Bend,
> Blur, etc I can't find any possible use for them unless I'm making a
> fantasy movie. Has anyone used any of the effects I've listed to
> improve their video? Some effects that adjust lighting and colour are
> useful, but I'm sure that many others are never used.

Make that "rarely used", and I would agree. But it is nice to 
have these for the occasions when they are useful. The simple 
dissolve (cross-fade) is very often useful in some types of 
videos, the wipe is often useful, and others, like 3D picture 
motion transitions can be used to move from one part of 
some kinds of videos to other parts. I find many of the other 
transitions and effects useful when applied to title text to 
animate it. And, I once used a "wavy" transition to get into 
and out of a dream sequence. Be happy they are there, think 
of ways they can be useful, but just don't overuse them...

> If anyone found a use for any of the special effects I have listed
> then I'd be interested in knowing how you used it in your movie.

> I've come across some good demo's on Youtube of the blue (or green)
> screen effect used in home movies when searching for Premiere
> Elements. 

> Regards Brian

--DR

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"Arny Krueger" <arnyk@hotpop.com> wrote in message 
news:H7WdnSri47PC1c7XnZ2dnUVZ_hKdnZ2d@giganews.com...
> "Brian" <bclark@es.co.nz> wrote in message
> news:qi0455lf6dlmguoacjvaas87u7c5du1pl3@4ax.com
>> Some effects that adjust
>> lighting and colour are useful, but I'm sure that many
>> others are never used.

> Different strokes for different folks.

> Problem is that video is a big area and there aren't a lot of people who 
> "do it all". What seems to be useless to you might be gold for others.

Indeed. I made the video, "SQUARES" (Available in 720p HD, 
at - http://exposureroom.com/ruether-squares ) using 1920x1080 
resolution still "panels" I made in a photo-editing program which I 
then animated entirely with video transitions in Vegas, using HDV. 
--DR

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"Scubajam" <jmcgauhey@usa.net> wrote in message 
news:32c83f74-7a73-4ee7-9008-a4cc394e7733@y28g2000prd.googlegroups.com...

[...]
> Indeed, MOST, but not all, is for marketing to newbie consumers.
> Fancy transitions are perceived to be a "feature" and the more there
> are, the higher the perceived value of the software. Looking at
> commercially successful productions, i.e. movies and TV shows, 
> see how many of these fancy transitions they use - None! Well, 
> almost always. Rule is - if your content is good, just use cuts and 
> fades. 
[...]

Hmmm....... Have you seen "pretty", visually beautiful TV shows 
out now in HD, like "Pushing Daisies" and "Ugly Betty", where 
the image transitions are an integral part of the "message"? Each 
genre may "tilt" the selection of the visual style one way or 
another (a documentary may lean toward using straight cuts and 
dissolves only, as certainly would an under-sea production - but 
with "story-telling", even with a recounting of a true story, there is 
now room for a much wider range of approaches...). 
Dinner is ready...;-)
--DR


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"Brian" <bclark@es.co.nz> wrote in message 
news:r6t3559d6j6n15jlb0isuk438oa6lqrfni@4ax.com...

> I've tried using a few video editors in the past and wish there was a
> feature for quickly and easily removing a unwanted sound, unless
> someone knows of an easy method.

> At the moment to remove a short sound such as a loud bang you can
> cause the sound level to drip by adding four key frames to the sound
> volume adjustment line. You can also cut the video clip at the start
> and end of the unwanted sound and reduce the sound on the cut piece of
> video. It's easy but you can end up with a lot of cuts to the clip if
> there's a many sounds to be removed such as a dog barking.
> It would be nice if there was an option to mark the start and end of a
> unwanted sound and a button you could clip to silence (or reduce) the
> sound.
> I often find myself having to reduce or mute the sound volume in parts
> of a video clip for reasons such as filming a concert on stage and
> picking up someone's loud voice screaming with excitement. Dog
> barking, person coughing, gate loudly shutting, something knocked
> over, unwanted talking, etc are other reasons. 

> Regards Brian

Um..., it's called "editing"...;-) It's what we do. Back when 
I shot weddings, during the vows a bride that would "boom" 
during the rehearsal would almost invariably whisper, unlike 
the groom, and I would need to do serious word-to-word 
audio level editing of her to get her audible. I got pretty good 
at digging her words out of the background...;-) BTW, you 
may not want to go for absolute "clean" perfection, since in 
the process, you may do more damage than what was there 
before. Reduce (usually not remove, especially with cuts 
unless you are willing to replace audio and blend ends) 
what is the most offensive, and live with the rest - after all, 
that was there in the original experience.
--DR

~~~~~~~~~

"David Ruether" <d_ruether@thotmail.com> wrote in message 
news:h2t5ih$a6k$1@ruby.cit.cornell.edu... 

> Um..., it's called "editing"...;-) It's what we do. Back when
> I shot weddings, during the vows a bride that would "boom"
> during the rehearsal would almost invariably whisper, unlike
> the groom, and I would need to do serious word-to-word
> audio level editing of her to get her audible. I got pretty good
> at digging her words out of the background...;-) BTW, you
> may not want to go for absolute "clean" perfection, since in
> the process, you may do more damage than what was there
> before. Reduce (usually not remove, especially with cuts
> unless you are willing to replace audio and blend ends)
> what is the most offensive, and live with the rest - after all,
> that was there in the original experience.
> --DR 

I forgot to add that sometimes using noise-reduction and 
compressor/expander filtering on a track can help, but if not 
used carefully, there can be unfortunate artifacts. 
--DR

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


"Richard Crowley" <rcrowley@xp7rt.net> wrote in message 
news:cpydnXey48nod8jXnZ2dnUVZ_tudnZ2d@posted.pcez...
> Trev wrote:

>> Post lip sync will be a pain even if you well up on Video
>> and editing so Forget the Separate devise.

> That is the opposite of my experience. Even multi-camera
> productions of live music are quite easy to "pull-up" the
> video to match the audio track. Especially for short shots
> such as the OP is suggesting, using a separate sound recording
> seems like an excellent way of working around the problem of
> a camera without a mic input. I use that very technique quite
> regularly.

I agree. A suggestion: for each scene/take, use the 
old-fashioned film "trick" of using a "clapper" (one 
stick hinged on another or on a board that something 
can be written on) at the beginning. The closing of the 
gap between the clapper parts and the spike in the 
audio track from the resulting sound can be easily 
synchronized in a high magnification view of the 
timeline in a video editor. 

>> The Camcorder you have Is Not very good Quality.

> But try it with really good lighting before deciding it isn't
> good enough for what you need to do.

Again, I agree. But since YouTube now permits 16x9 
"HD" (well, kinda.....;-) images that are surprisingly 
decent, it may be worth getting, at least eventually, an 
HD camcorder to shoot this (especially if reasonably 
high quality stills are to be included).
--DR

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"Gary Smith" <vkthree@gmail.com> wrote in message 
news:h33p27$7vd$1@news-01.bur.connect.com.au...

> Hi all, i am playing around with some video cameras here and want to mod the 
> batteries. First, i have a sony digital 8 DCR-TRV265E and a JVC Mini DV 
> GR-D350AA.

> I am going to buy 2 SLA batteries, 12v 7Ah, connect them to a voltage 
> regulator circuit to reduce to 7.2v. The SLA's should run for ages. then i 
> won't have to worry about changing/carrying/charging heaps of batteries. One 
> of my questions is, The Sony has 3 terminals on it's battery (NP-FM30) and 
> the JVC has 4 (JVC BN-VF707U). The JVC has +, -, T and C. I was wondering if 
> anyone knows what these extra terminals are for (there would have to be one 
> for reporting battery charged state i guess). As i will probably need to 
> "trick" the cam somehow. ANY and ALL comments appreciated.

> BTW i will be shooting for 2 full days with hopefully 3+ cams hence the need 
> for minimal batteries. And if anyone has any suggestions on how to do 
> similar thing reguarding tapes i'm all ears (and eyes) lol.

> Gary 
The Sony NP-F970 (7.2v., 6.6Ah) has the three contacts for 
the Sony camcorder, and you may be able to make an adapter 
for the camera using a suitable cord (if the camera has a power-in 
socket) and a "sled" for the battery. You will lose charge-state 
readings in the VF (but I've never found these very accurate 
anyway). DO NOT CONFUSE THE POLARITY IN ANY 
WIRING, AND TAKE "HEROIC" STEPS TO AVOID ANY 
POSSIBILITY OF SHORTS!!!!! Likely, the same is true for 
adapting to the JVC. These batteries do "last forever"...;-) As for 
tape, there are 80-minute Mini-DV tapes that can be run in LP 
mode for two hours on a tape, and I seem to remember there 
being extra-long Hi-8 tapes, also, for the D-8 camera.
--DR

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"Robert Coe" <bob@1776.COM> wrote in message news:ik3d55hdffi67r44l9msdfrf9ccietii88@4ax.com...

> There's a rumor abroad in the land that the Sigma 10-20mm f/3.5 lens will
> finally be out in August (a measly five months after it was announced). B&H
> still doesn't mention it; but as of today, Adorama is taking orders ($650 US).
> So if anybody reads or hears of a reputable review of said lens, please post a
> link forthwith!! :^)

> Bob

OT, but Nikon now has a 10-24mm f3.5-4.5G ED-IF S available for 
not a lot more money...
http://www.nikonusa.com/Find-Your-Nikon/Product/Camera-Lenses/2181/AF-S-DX-NIKKOR-10-24mm-f%252F3.5-4.5G-ED.html
--DR

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"Me" <user@domain.invalid> wrote in message news:h36546$dve$1@news.albasani.net...

> Canon's 16-35 II isn't so much different from Nikon's 17-35. The raving 
> about how much better the Nikon lens was starting disappearing from 
> forums when the D3 was released, and seem to have gone completely now.
> Anyway, if you've used that focal length on Fx (or equivalent on Dx), 
> then you'd realise that edge sharpness truly isn't important much of the 
> time.

WOW!!! So you don't mind paying a lot for a big and heavy lens that 
has so much DOF that at almost any aperture its edge sharpness (or 
lack thereof) is instantly evident??? Amazing. For me, at least, a lens 
that is not sharp *to the corners* at stops of interest is worthless at 
any price - it is too limiting and it just isn't a good-quality general-use 
lens. Why bother with such a lens unless you always consider the 
"subject" only whatever you plunk in the middle of the frame, and 
not *everything* within the frame that makes up the photo and its 
composition, including textures (which require that the lens be sharp)? 
For me, grass, gravel, foliage, trees, bricks, distant buildings, etc. 
that "fuzz-out" toward corners are distracting and they detract from 
a photograph unless the effect was intentionally used. I prefer to use 
lenses that truly cover the format they were designed for...
--DR

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"Paul Furman" <paul-@-edgehill.net> wrote in message news:h38ttp$mut$1@news.eternal-september.org...
> David Ruether wrote:

>>> OT, but Nikon now has a 10-24mm f3.5-4.5G ED-IF S available for
>>> not a lot more money...
>>> http://www.nikonusa.com/Find-Your-Nikon/Product/Camera-Lenses/2181/AF-S-DX-NIKKOR-10-24mm-f%252F3.5-4.5G-ED.html

> $830 street price is not cheap.

But neither is the price for the Sigma...

> The commenter on the following page says it's soft in the corners:
> http://reviews.photographyreview.com/blog/nikon-af-s-dx-nikkor-10-24mm-f35-45g-ed-lens/
> -- 
> Paul Furman

The samples given of the results at f8 from four lenses all shot 
at 12mm would appear to support the conclusion that the 
Nikkor is soft in the corners, and softer than the others - but 
the comparison has some problems. Nikon, like others, does 
make some relatively poor individual lens samples (and also 
lenses - but fewer than with other brands ;-). This one could have 
been a poor sample (ALWAYS check a newly purchased lens!). 
The lens test distance was far different than that of the others 
from the brick wall, and focus distance with wide angle zooms 
generally makes a big difference in performance (I prefer to 
test with finely detailed infinity subjects, where slight parallelism 
errors can have no influence and where I will use a wide angle 
most of the time. Also, the Nikkor was shot using very low 
contrast lighting on the brick wall, whereas the others were shot 
under contrasty sunlight. This can make a BIG difference in the 
appearance of sharpness with any lens. Shot under the worst 
possible conditions (except for aperture) for any wide angle 
zoom, it is not surprising to see such poor-looking performance. 
I would still want to see the results from another sample, shot 
under the same conditions as the other lenses, and then with all 
used to shoot distant material with the same very detailed 
material in the corners. I would also like to see "10mm 
compared with 10mm", since lens performance varies with 
zooming. A good example is here, where the sample of the 
excellent Nikkor 17-35mm unexpectedly "fell down" at 28mm. 
See: http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/wa-zooms.htm
While there, compare the 5' results with the infinity results 
(the corners are noticeably worse at the same stop...). While 
it is difficult to check lenses reliably, I've found the method I've 
used here to be good (and while it was used for FF film lens 
checking, it is easily adapted to digital photography) - see:
http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/lens-testing.htm
--DR

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"john" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message news:h3dg1t$klg$1@aioe.org...

> Many reputable mail order camera stores accepts return within a few days of 
> purchasing.

> If someone mail orders a camera, opens it and plays with it for a few 
> minutes and then returns it, what does a reputable store do with it? Sell it 
> as new again, send it back to the manufacturer, or sell as open box? Is 
> there any law governing their options (let's use NY for example)?

> If the store sends it back to the manufacture, I assume the store eats the 
> cost of shipping, and the manufacturer eats the cost of repacking the camera 
> (e.g. replace torn bags, missing packing material, or a wrinkled manual).

> The reason for asking is because once in a while I would order a new item 
> and receive what appears to be opened box item. If it's trivial like a small 
> scratch or oily fingerprint on the item, sometimes I let it slide because 
> returning item is a hassle.

> I'd like to know why this happens and how to avoid it. Buying from a 
> reputable store is not the solution because I already am dealing with the 
> most reputable stores. 

What "reputable" stores do you buy from? I expect "new" to 
be NEW - with no scratches of any kind, no oily fingerprints, 
nor any other sign of use. I'm admittedly nutty about this, but 
I keep my gear clean and free of marks, and I prefer it to 
start life in that state. I certainly do check out purchased gear 
immediately upon arrival, and I do return for exchange (or 
refund, if exchanges don't eventually result in a good sample) 
anything that I find fault with (which is more often than one 
would hope), and the dealer I use is very good about this. 
But, in answer to your question, I think you have indicated 
the answer yourself - the dealers you use sell "open box" 
items as new, and if this bothers you, find a truly reputable 
dealer that does not (and stay with it...).
--DR

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"Doug Jewell" <ask@and.maybe.ill.tell.you> wrote in message 
news:4a5a55ef$0$9734$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...
> john wrote:

>> Many reputable mail order camera stores accepts return within a few days of 
>> purchasing.

> There's the answer to your question - buy from a store that 
> doesn't allow returns.
> I'm afraid you can't have your cake and eat it too - if you 
> want the security of knowing you can return it if you don't 
> like it, then you have to accept that there is a possibility 
> that someone may have already done that with the product you 
> buy.

This is not true. Some (or at least one...) mail order dealer
with good prices sells only new (unopened, and NOT 
repackaged or refurbished gear unless clearly marked as such). 
The reason for using such a dealer is that ALL gear should 
be checked out upon receipt (the defect rate is well above 
zero, especially with lenses), and if necessary, it should be 
returned for exchange (or refund, if a subsequent sample is 
also defective or just not very good). If you cannot return 
a defective item, or the store has a "restocking" fee, pass 
them by no matter what their price is. Getting gear repaired 
satisfactorily, especially lenses, can be a nightmare if you 
care about the quality of your gear.
--DR

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"Perspective" <perspective@s.com> wrote in message news:frmk55lfqjc5b87lnl9k3tk39sul10jkd6@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 12 Jul 2009 16:31:08 -0400, "David Ruether"
> <d_ruether@thotmail.com> wrote:

>>What "reputable" stores do you buy from? I expect "new" to
>>be NEW - with no scratches of any kind, no oily fingerprints,
>>nor any other sign of use. I'm admittedly nutty about this, but
>>I keep my gear clean and free of marks, and I prefer it to
>>start life in that state. 

> So, wipe off that [scratch or] fingerprint that you found. Good as new.

Not quite... Often a return is made for the same reason I make 
them, which is as a result of finding a defect. I have bought and 
returned a surprising amount, since I test everything I buy. I am 
astonished that other photographers don't check their new gear, 
then discover a major flaw well beyond the return or warrantee 
period. Also, I make it a policy now NEVER to buy "refurbished" 
gear since EVERYTHING I've bought that way has been defective 
(after all, refurbs were originally the returns made by others). And, 
when it comes time to sell gear, condition counts for more than 
anything else. If you keep your gear in great shape, you pay 
yourself for doing that at sale time. Badly worn gear has only a 
fraction of the value of gear in fine condition.

> I take good care of my cameras too, but the scuffs and scratches they have
> now for how many rugged places I've taken them are worn like medals of
> honor. I'm proud of how the symbols and numbers have been worn off in
> spots, or how that edge shows right through to the bare metal, the slight
> crack around a screw-hole. I recall the time I slid down a precarious
> rock-slide that caused that minor crack, and still managed to save my
> camera. 

And this indicates you take care of your cameras how??? ;-) 
It is easy to provide simple methods to avoid even slight damage 
while providing quick and easy access to gear (a pet "peeve" of 
mine is seeing someone walking around with two or three cameras 
slung around the neck [like "badges...;-], all banging together, and 
then watching the awkwardness with which the camera is raised to 
the eye while trying to keep straps free from obscuring viewfinders, 
controls, etc.). Also, a clean camera is generally preferable to a 
dusty one, especially in the digital age... I have discovered that 
there are two types of photographers. Ones who wear several 
"beaters" slung around their necks who oddly consider all the 
damage and dirt "medals of honor", and those who take better 
care of their gear, making it last longer, be more reliable, and 
have considerably higher resale value. 

When I used to buy used gear from individuals over the 'phone, 
I discovered that there were two types I would not buy from 
since they had no concept of what "mint condition" meant. 
Photojournalists figured that if everything wasn't falling off and it 
still kinda worked (even though there wasn't much paint left and 
the scratches and dents were legion...), it was "mint" (which 
was beyond laughable (moving into deceptive) when its condition 
was seen after arrival - as in, "But, golly gee, it still works...!"). 
And, someone with an "old voice" who had generally left the gear 
sitting in the back of the closet for years and had long forgotten 
its real condition (like from the time the lens went rolling down 
the street or was dropped into the lake). So, 
bottom line is, don't ever try to sell gear to me...;-)

> People who carry pristine cameras say much about their talent and
> experience with them. It's their "functional" jewelry, nothing more. 

Funny you should mention that. I have bought and sold MUCH 
gear over the years, and I USE IT - and some of my gear is over 
30 years old and still in perfect condition (and I used to average 
about 10,000 film frames per year for my own work plus about 
the same for local commercial work). My digital camera hit 
10,000 frames in its first year, too. In the short time I was showing 
in museums and galleries, I had about 50 major shows, and had
purchases of work by "minor" museums like the Museum of 
Modern Art, The George Eastman House, and The Philadelphia 
Museum. The cameras stayed "pristine"...;-) The extent of gear 
abuse does NOT indicate a photographer's talent (what an odd 
concept...! ;-). And I don't think that clients think, "Gosh" that 
camera/lens does/doesn't look like new", so...". Heck, if the gear 
was purchased especially for the client's job, that in itself should 
be impressive to the client. Should one then "scuff it up to make 
a better impression"? ;-)

--DR

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"Matt Clara" <none@myexpense.com> wrote in message news:MON6m.1632$ho.1553@newsfe02.iad...

> http://marketingphotos.wordpress.com/2009/05/13/bill-jay-1940-2009/
> http://www.billjayonphotography.com/
> I came to know his work, mostly his writing, through his column in Lens 
> Work. When I started, I thought, I don't have time for this guy's 
> ramblings. By the time of his death, I found his End Notes the best part of 
> the publication, and I'd often turn to them first. He was a damn fine 
> photographer, too. 
> -- 
> www.mattclara.com 

He was unknown to me, but it did not take long looking at his work 
to realize what I had been missing. As you said, he was a fine writer, 
and a damn fine photographer, too. Portrait work is far from my 
favorite form of photography, but greatness is easily recognized.
Thanks.
--DR


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"Wow - at last - they're catching onto the art of photography." <nocontact@noaddress.com> 
wrote in message news:v7sq55hhv87h88kioe5f1iefaoo713pkfl@4ax.com...
> On 15 Jul 2009 05:50:57 GMT, rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote: 
>>RichA <rander3127@gmail.com> wrote:

>>>It is a bore, photographically.
>>It's a poor phographer who cannot find anything interesting to
>>photograph in Hawaii, or in any other state for that matter.

> This used to always infuriate my apprentices. I would always give them a
> challenge to outdo me, after they learned the remedial basics. "Okay, you
> see that tree over there? And that rock over there? (Outlining an area with
> my pointing.) You have to find a photograph worth printing within this
> area's limits. I'll do the same. Ready? Go!"

> It's a fun challenge to show someone how to become a photographer.

> I can find a photo worth printing anywhere. If someone else cannot, they
> still have a *helluva* lot of work to do. Little of that work involving
> their camera and how to use it, but their mind. Something that most can't
> fathom and never will. There's no explaining this to bit-heads. It's beyond
> their comprehension.

> It's not only a "poor photographer that blames his tools", but it's also a
> "poor photographer who can't find something interesting, anywhere."

I agree. I used to teach photography, and in addition to the above, 
I insisted that EVERY piece of B&W paper that was exposed 
under the enlarger by a student be fixed, washed, and brought to 
class, no mater how "poor". One of the most difficult things to get 
students past was their conception of what constituted a "good" 
photograph, which was generally formulaic at first. In the classes, 
the "mistakes" often showed kernels of fine ideas which could be 
developed later. I required only two things of each student to pass 
the course: attendance, and the hanging of two photographs in 
a show. I was always amazed by the results after only one term 
from all of my students.
Or, everything is potentially subject material for photographs...;-)
--DR


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"Dewittian" <dewittian@gmail.com> wrote in message 
news:1e1ec133-7244-47a2-ab08-3debd62c815e@q11g2000yqi.googlegroups.com...

> I've found a lot about making a slide show from still pictures in Sony
> Vegas but I'm trying to do the oppsite. I want to take a single frame
> and export that as a jpeg to use as an 4 x 4 CD cover for a band. I'm
> also going to have to use it at about 300DPI at 1x1 for online record
> sales.

> Can anybody help?

Set the Preview Window for "Best/Full" along the top bar over 
the PW. Find the frame you want by moving along the timeline 
at high magnification and using the keyboard "Left/Right" arrow 
keys (the frames will often vary slightly in sharpness...). Then 
click on the "Floppy Disk" icon over the Preview Window to 
save the frame. BTW, I've mostly finished a basic guide to 
editing with Vegas, at --
http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/Sony-editing.htm
--DR

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"Dewittian" <dewittian@gmail.com> wrote in message 
news:e83e0696-f58d-40e5-b743-341dd61a4508@m11g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...
On Jul 17, 8:59 am, "David Ruether" <d_ruet...@thotmail.com> wrote:
> "Dewittian" <dewitt...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1e1ec133-7244-47a2-ab08-3debd62c815e@q11g2000yqi.googlegroups.com...

> > I've found a lot about making a slide show from still pictures in Sony
> > Vegas but I'm trying to do the oppsite. I want to take a single frame
> > and export that as a jpeg to use as an 4 x 4 CD cover for a band. I'm
> > also going to have to use it at about 300DPI at 1x1 for online record
> > sales.

> > Can anybody help?

> Set the Preview Window for "Best/Full" along the top bar over
> the PW. Find the frame you want by moving along the timeline
> at high magnification and using the keyboard "Left/Right" arrow
> keys (the frames will often vary slightly in sharpness...). Then
> click on the "Floppy Disk" icon over the Preview Window to
> save the frame. BTW, I've mostly finished a basic guide to
> editing with Vegas, at --http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/Sony-editing.htm
> --DR

Can I stack text and other visual things on tracks above or below the
single frame and still export.

BTW Thanks for the link.

>>>>>>>>>>>

I think you can - just try it. If it doesn't work, choose a short 
section that includes the frames of interest with the grey 
"Loop Region" bar, hit the "Ctrl + M" keys simultaneously, 
and a new video piece combining everything will appear above 
the other tracks. Take your stills from this (but the other way 
should work...).
--DR

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"Brian" <bclark@es.co.nz> wrote in message 
news:fvgv55tqu7t2m1hpvug5vo5jo6b5rioqkc@4ax.com...

> This is a problem that I'm sure every video editor has come across.
> When you don't have a suitable cut away how do you fix the problem of
> joining two shots together and avoid sudden movement between the shots
> such as the persons arm is in a different position on the second shot.
> This problem can occur if you want to cut out a few frames from the
> middle of a scene for example someone has walked in front of the
> camera or for some other reason. The aim is avoiding a jump in the
> video when joining two parts of a scene.
> The only ideas I can think of is zooming in on a still part of
> the picture and zooming back again, chopping to something not moving
> in the picture, adding a few black frames, superimposing.
> I did ask a similar question earlier in this newsgroup and
> someone suggested doing a cross fade to white which could work in some
> cases but I'm also looking for more suggestions. 

> Regards Brian

There is no easy way to cut out just a few frames gracefully, but *IF* 
you can cut ends back far enough, you can use a quick horizontal 
wipe (if it is also used in other places...), a quick flash to white (also
if used in other places to indicate an unshown time interval passage), 
or anything else that is not too obtrusive. I've even seen the image 
mirrored (switched left to right) between short interview segments 
with the same camera angle (whew! ;-). Use your imagination...
--DR


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"Brian" <bclark@es.co.nz> wrote in message 
news:o9gv55d50gu3ep26agku6adgms2f946i6s@4ax.com...

> I recorded a stage show where teenagers would wear fancy dress
> of their favorite character. The announcer stood on the right of the
> stage and introduced each person. The person wearing the fancy dress
> costume would move to the center of the stage and pose, then walk off
> stage. I followed each person panning with the camera and then did a
> right pan back to the announcer for the next person.
> My problem is if I do a cut from the teenager leaving the
> stage and announcer (so the pan back to the announcer is not shown)
> then I loose the clapping after the teenager has left the stage.
> Is there some way around this problem? I was thinking of frame
> freezing the announcer while there was clapping before the announcer
> announced the next person but this might not look good. I don't have
> any cut aways to show audience as I was recording the show sitting
> with the audience who was in the dark.

> Regards Brian

It's called "sound editing..." Except when you are on the announcer, 
you can do anything you want with the sound track, moving 
and/or mixing the applause. I don't know the specifics, but you 
likely don't need to show all of the announcer's bit, and definitely 
not the pan back to the announcer except maybe for where 
he is talking, with a dissolve or other transition. Hey, you're the 
*editor* - just make the material make sense and look/sound 
good and plausible (it does not need to be "real-time" accurate, 
and in fact probably shouldn't be). Use your extra sound tracks 
for mixing in audio where it needs to be.
--DR

~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"Brian" <bclark@es.co.nz> wrote in message news:v55965tgml1hv8l23hk7ep6b5kstk7ffap@4ax.com...
> Martin Heffels <goofies@flikken.net> wrote:
>>On Sat, 18 Jul 2009 17:23:54 +1200, Brian <bclark@es.co.nz> wrote:

>>>In trying to unserstand what you have suggested, do you mean have the
>>>applause for the last teenager on stage continue while the announcer
>>>is announcing the next person. The problem is that the applause comes
>>>loud ans is enjoyable to listen to as you know the audience really
>>>enjoyed the teenager on stage in costume. Maybe I should freeze the
>>>stage when the teenager has left the stage until the applause dies
>>>down and cut to the announcer.

>>You can lower the level of the applause as soon as the speaker starts
>>to speak and then quickly fade it out.
>>Well this is how I would solve it, but you might not like it. I would
>>not use the freezeframe because it looks like there is a problem with
>>the video. People might think their DVD is dodgy ;-)
>>The other thing you could do is superimpose a title over a frozen
>>frame with the name the next teenager to cover-up the pan.
>>
>>cheers
>>
>>-martin-

> Thanks Martin for the advice.
> You're right as the audience would think there is a camera problem for
> a freeze frame. Do you think a short black out when the audience is
> clapping would work. I don't want to loose any of the audience
> applause as it shows how much the audience liked the person's custom.

> Regards Brian

Think of what you would think if you saw a video that had in it 
some of the things you have suggested...! ;-) You are the editor - and 
it is up to you to make things work in a smooth, pleasant, logical way. 
If your experience doesn't lead you quickly and easily to solutions 
(join the club...;-), remember that you can try out many different ways 
in NLEs and back out of ones that don't work. You can also export 
experiments to tape and watch them on TV to see what does and 
doesn't work well. As I understand your situation, you have an announcer 
(with synchronized sound), bad footage panning to the announcer, the 
costumed people, and the sound of the applause (which does not need 
to *exactly* synchronize with anything). These are the "building blocks". 
Sequence them (and adjust the applause positioning and volume levels 
as needed relative to the picture - and, do you really need ALL the 
applause [a little goes a long way...;-]). Freeze frames, black with sound 
over, etc. are unnecessary unless I'm missing something rather large... 
BTW, I was hired once to shoot stills of a wedding, and later, "Since 
Grandma can't make it, would you also shoot video so she can see 
and hear the wedding?" I did it this way: I left the camcorder on a tripod 
at the front-side, over the first couple of pews. As I moved around 
shooting stills, when there was a lull in the "action" or speakers were going 
to/from the front, I went to the camcorder and changed the zoom and 
aim somewhat. During editing, I had no problem piecing together the 
bits, taking out what wasn't needed and dissolving between "the good 
stuff" - and I had the whole ceremony on tape (even if a bit shorter than 
real time...;-). Not bad for one photographer/videographer (and the client 
was happy).
--DR

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

<LRESA500@aol.com> wrote in message news:7e4b02b7-10bc-4f4f-a312-077a7b2d5093@b14g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...

>I thought for sure this would be the year we would see a proliferation
> of Blu-Ray stand-alone recorder/player units for the home. It has not
> happened. Why is this technology being held up? Thanks

'Cuz it ain't easy to real-time encode Blu-ray? Even standard-definition 
DVD recorders often do an inferior (and lower than standard DVD 
resolution) job of recording real-time. There is a reason transcoding 
files on a fast computer still takes considerably longer than real-time. 
You get better results with variable bit rate, dual-pass encoding using 
the format's full true resolution.
--DR


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


After many weeks of struggling, I hope that I have finally 
produced a good guide for basic video editing, intended 
to get the beginner started and more comfortable with the 
video editing process. While it is mainly based on Vegas, 
much of it should be adaptable to some other timeline 
based video editing programs. It is here --
http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/Sony-editing.htm
Comments, corrections, and suggestions are welcome. 

--David Ruether
d_ruether@hotmail.com

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"videoguys" <gary.broadfield@gmail.com> wrote in message 
news:a98aebd7-d2ac-4c2e-b931-e761b55aa535@p36g2000vbn.googlegroups.com...
On Jul 17, 3:02 pm, "David Ruether" <d_ruet...@thotmail.com> wrote:

>> After many weeks of struggling, I hope that I have finally
>> produced a good guide for basic video editing, intended
>> to get the beginner started and more comfortable with the
>> video editing process. While it is mainly based on Vegas,
>> much of it should be adaptable to some other timeline
>> based video editing programs. It is here -- 
>> http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/Sony-editing.htm
>> Comments, corrections, and suggestions are welcome.
>>
>> --David Ruether
>> d_ruet...@hotmail.com

> Nice Job. I think it would help if you were able to add a few screen
> captures.
>
> Gary

Thanks. I was hoping to get away with th' 'ol' "up thar inna 
upper rt. corner" ploy, but I may add some screen captures 
in the end (maybe after getting feedback on where people 
are most confused...). BTW, while teaching the use of editing 
programs locally to individuals (with both of us feeling frustrated 
by, "WHERE?!"), it finally dawned on me that having two mice 
connected to the computer at the same time could make things 
MUCH easier all around! That's hard to do long distance, 
though, and this guide came out of attempts to get a friend 2/3 
of the way across the country going with editing. ;-)
--DR

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"Richard Crowley" <rcrowley@xp7rt.net> wrote in message 
news:7cmit4F28leoeU1@mid.individual.net...
> "David Ruether" wrote ...

>> More revisions, additions, corrections, PLUS there is now
>> a printable version of the guide available there (23 pages...).

> When are you going to stop changing it so we can print it? :-) 

8^)
Oh, how I do wish I could...!!! (If you really want to print it -- but 
I suspect your editing skills/knowledge are far beyond the purview 
of this guide...;-) 
--DR

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"ushere" <removethis.leslie.wand@gmail.com> wrote in message 
news:krr9m.6552$ze1.3480@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
> David Ruether wrote:
>> "Richard Crowley" <rcrowley@xp7rt.net> wrote in message 
>> news:7cmit4F28leoeU1@mid.individual.net...
>>> "David Ruether" wrote ...

>>>> More revisions, additions, corrections, PLUS there is now a 
>>>> printable version of the guide available there (23 pages...).

>>> When are you going to stop changing it so we can print it? :-)

>> 8^) Oh, how I do wish I could...!!! (If you really want to print it 
>> -- but I suspect your editing skills/knowledge are far beyond the 
>> purview of this guide...;-) --DR 

[There have been several very minor changes since writing the 
above - they never seem to end........;-]

> excellent work. jolly well done. my only complaint is not enough screen
> captures.... but hey, it's a work in progress eh!? thanks again for a
> great resource.

Thanks. It is now slightly expanded toward including comments 
about other programs (but these were mostly included in my brief 
reviews and comparisons of several video editing programs, at -- 
www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/hdv-editing.htm).

> not sure who you're aiming this at - but if it's for teaching, please
> feel free to rip my notes....

> http://www.lesliewand.com.au/

Hey, thanks! Too bad your site uses "frames" - otherwise I'd 
include URLs for some parts on my site... This guide began while 
struggling to teach a friend first how to use Ulead VideoStudio, 
then Sony Platinum 9, long distance by 'phone. Frustrating and 
hopeless... Even sitting next to the "learner", it was difficult until 
I discovered that a computer can have two mice. Then instruction 
was fast and easy. Another inquiry resulting from my having 
mentioned here that I had written a VERY brief (and, "Holy 
inadequate, Batman!" ;-) set of instructions tripped the beginning 
of the slogging, weeks-long effort to produce this new guide...
--DR


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"Gary Eickmeier" <geickmei@tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message news:4a63713c$0$19673$9a6e19ea@news.newshosting.com...

> Any of you messed around with these little HD pocket cameras, like the Flip? 
> I have tried the Flip and the Kodak ZX1, and it is really a mystery what 
> they are doing with these things. The Flip makes MP4 files, until you edit 
> them with the included software, then they become WMV files. The Kodak makes 
> MOV Quicktime files. These are both 720p, but the Kodak can go 60 fps as 
> well. I'm not sure how to take full advantage of that, because it seems to 
> get reduced back to 30fps when you edit. The Sony version shoots 1440 x 
> 1080i.

> There is a lot of work left to do in analyzing the capabilities and 
> differences, none of which you can read about in any review. Any thoughts, 
> experience, opinions?

> Gary Eickmeier 

Just thoughts...;-)
While 1080i would seem to be superior to 720p, the lenses 
on these don't appear to be very good, especially since they 
are fixed focus. At least a 3x optical zoom would be superior 
to any digital zoom. Someone I know has the Flip, and found 
that the image looked sharper once he had adapted a Sony 
30mm(?)-threaded WA converter (it likely increased DOF, 
stretching it far enough to cover the fixed-focus misfocusing). 
The format the camera shoots in is relevant to how easily the 
files are edited, and how compatible they are with other files 
you may want to combine them with without transcoding 
losses (and with the final software you may want to use...). 
Conceptually, these cameras are attractive, but I think I would 
rather have higher quality, better compatibility, and greater 
versatility.
--DR

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

On Jul 20, 2:19 pm, Dewittian <dewitt...@gmail.com> wrote:

> I have Sony Vegas 6 and I'm trying to make a music video. I did the
> shot in front of a white sheet in the background. The only Thing in
> the frame is my head and a little of my shoulders. Behind me about 2
> feet is a white sheet.
>
> I'm wondering if I could turn the white sheet into a green color and
> then be able to put what ever I want behind my head. Is this software
> to cheap for that kind of editing? If it can be done what software
> and approxametly how much would it cost to do that kind of editing?
>
> I'd appreciate some guidance or help.
>
> Also, I'm a professional musician looking for someone who I could work
> with to do short movies.
>
> Thanks,
>
> http://dewittian.com


Vegas 6 is more than capable of doing what you want - and you can do
it with the white sheet as it is.
Place the clip of you on track 1 and anything else on track 2.
Click the Event FX icon on the clip of you and select the ChromaKey FX.
Click the eyedropper tool and drag it out over as large an area of
white as you can.
You'll need to play with the blur amount and low & high threshold
tools to get the key as clean as possible.
There's an excellent tutorial called " Using Chroma Key and Chroma
Blur in Sony Vegas" on how to use the chroma keyer and all the various
tools at http://amediaprof.com/content/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=21&Itemid=27
I strongly recommend reading it as he goes through the steps necessary
to get a clean key in Vegas.

Mike Kujbida


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"Don Stauffer" <stauffer@usfamily.net> wrote in message news:4a5dd4f2$0$1334$815e3792@news.qwest.net...

>I can remember when this was a relatively young newsgroup. By far the 
> majority of the messages involved arguments about which was better, 
> digital or film.

By then, this NG was quite old and "creaky"...;-) It was Nikon 
vs. Canon earlier, and digital was but a twinkle in some engineers 
eye, for use with P&S cameras using floppy disks. Who then would 
have taken digital imaging seriously? ;-)

> The good news is that those arguments have finally died out.

> The bad news is that they have been replaced with the SLR vs P&S! Why 
> is it so important for some folks to WIN that argument. What great 
> prize goes to the winner?

Dunno........;-) 
--DR

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"rd" <Hd@invalid.invalid.net> wrote in message news:h4g5v1$e8m$1@news.eternal-september.org... 
> "Gary Eickmeier" <geickmei@tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message 
> news:4a6b9899$0$19646$9a6e19ea@news.newshosting.com...
>> "rd" <Hd@invalid.invalid.net> wrote in message 
>> news:h4dpha$ann$1@news.eternal-september.org...

>>> Hi Gary... I want to verify one thing. You said earlier that mp4 into 
>>> Elements 7 gives you WMV output files. Assuming all cuts... does the 
>>> video get re-sampled?'

>> What do you mean "all cuts"? Are you thinking you can't edit freely in 
>> Elements? Indeed you can do any editing you want, and output to any format 
>> or medium that Elements includes, such as Blu-Ray or WMV. I think any 
>> program would recompress the files to the output format, but I am no 
>> expert.
>>
>> Gary Eickmeier

> In the DV world... as long as you captured via firewire and all edits were 
> cuts... the output DV file had no generation loss. If you did a dissolve etc 
> there would be some quality loss.

In Mini-DV this is true if you are not transcoding to another file type, 
and in HDV this is also true with some programs (ones that use "Smart 
Rendering" with HDV or other file types), but not all. Adobe recompresses 
ALL the HDV on the timeline, not just changed footage, a distinct 
disadvantage - so it's likely it would recompress all other footage, whether 
the file type is changed or not (except Mini-DV).
--DR 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


"Gary Eickmeier" <geickmei@tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message news:4a6b97b2$0$19647$9a6e19ea@news.newshosting.com... 
> "Ken Maltby" <kmaltby@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message 
> news:ELqdnUH-zLNBAPfXnZ2dnUVZ_s-dnZ2d@giganews.com...

>> To add to Smarty's report, the files I downloaded from
>> the link you posted import and function properly in a
>> number of programs that I've tried them in, including
>> inexpensive programs like Magix Movie Edit Pro 14+.
>> The Core, Elecard, and MainConcept decoders handle
>> them well.
>>
>> The not too reliable MediaInfo utility Ids them as:
>> Sony PSP with a "MSNV" Codec ID.
>> The video Codec ID is shown as "avc1"
>> (By the way the language tags are set to "Japanese")
>>
>> A Google for the MSNV codec id led me to this:
>> http://forum.soft32.com/windows/edit-mp4-files-Flip-Mino-HD-Movie-Maker-ftopict381795.html
>>
>> I have a number of means of converting/transcoding these
>> files to many formats, is there any format you are most
>> interested in?

> I have spent today trying to figure out what format the files from my Canon 
> HV-20 are. As you may know, it is an HDV camera. That is what I would like 
> to convert the Flip files to. Near as I can tell, the native files for the 
> Canon are 1920 x 1080, 40mps, with an AVI wrapper. In any case, all I want 
> to do is batch convert the files so that they are still individual shots 
> (clips) and can be imported by CS3 and edited together with my HDV files. 
> The Cineform can't handle it, and the Flip converter is totally inadequate. 
> The shareware that comes with the Flip is a good enough converter, but I 
> would have to do them one file at a time.

> I hope you do understand that I can import the Flip files to Adobe Elements 
> 7 and edit them just fine. But I want to use CS3 and mix them with my 
> captures from my Canon.

Can't you just export the Flip files as "HDV" if Elements
will read them? (BTW, HDV is 1440x1080...). 
--DR

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"Gary Eickmeier" <geickmei@tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message 
news:4a6bcd20$0$3178$9a6e19ea@news.newshosting.com... 
> "David Ruether" <d_ruether@thotmail.com> wrote in message 
> news:h4g93s$o3i$1@ruby.cit.cornell.edu...

>> Can't you just export the Flip files as "HDV" if Elements
>> will read them? (BTW, HDV is 1440x1080...).

> No - there is no setting for that. And I believe that if I look at the 
> Properties of my camera files from the Canon it says they are 1920 x 1080. 
> Probably something I don't get here.

> Gary Eickmeier 

Yes - while the display (output) pixel format for HDV is 1920x1080, 
it is actually 1440x1080 while existing as a file (probably none too 
clear...;-), just as DVDs are displayed in 4:3 even though they exist 
as 720x480 (NTSC) files. BTW, I tried to output HDV in Elements 
even using an HDV source using "Share", then choosing a template, 
and I failed(!). Vegas can be confusing, but at least it gives one 
LOTS of output options which can be specified, and which can also 
be customized...
--DR

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"Gary Eickmeier" <geickmei@tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message 
news:4a692225$0$19661$9a6e19ea@news.newshosting.com...

> Man this thing is tough to work with. The MP4 files are not directly 
> editable in CS3. I can convert them with the native Flip software, but it 
> would take forever to do them one file at a time. I asked Videoguys if the 
> Cineform could convert the files to editable AVI, and they said it can work 
> with h264 AVCHD files, but not with the Flip MP4. I bought the less 
> expensive Flip Data Converter program, and no matter which of its codecs I 
> choose, the output is crap. I can edit or convert in Elements 7, but the 
> output is WMV compressed files. They are pretty good, but I don't want to 
> convert individual shots one at a time that way. What I'm trying now is to 
> put several shots on the timeline with no transition, then render them out 
> to the WMV file, import that into CS3 and then I can edit and combine with 
> video from my larger Canon HDV camera.

> If anyone has some ideas out there, I would appreciate it.

> GAry Eickmeier 

For your information... I was curious, so I downloaded the "Coconut" MP4 
Flip clip from the 'net, put an HDV file on a Vegas 8c timeline, split it, dropped 
the AVC "Coconut" file between the two HDV pieces, pulled those over the 
"Coconut's" ends to make dissolves between the three clips and exported 
the file as HDV. No problem... Direct comparison of the original MP4 
file and the HDV conversion showed little if any difference. It may be worth 
getting the inexpensive Sony Vegas Platinum 9 - it should also be able to 
edit these file types together on one track without needing to transcode 
anything first.
--DR

~~~~~~~~~~

"Gary Eickmeier" <geickmei@tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message news:4a6cf683$0$19628$9a6e19ea@news.newshosting.com... 
> "David Ruether" <d_ruether@thotmail.com> wrote in message 
> news:h4i9r0$pud$1@ruby.cit.cornell.edu...

>> For your information... I was curious, so I downloaded the "Coconut" MP4
>> Flip clip from the 'net, put an HDV file on a Vegas 8c timeline, split it, 
>> dropped
>> the AVC "Coconut" file between the two HDV pieces, pulled those over the
>> "Coconut's" ends to make dissolves between the three clips and exported
>> the file as HDV. No problem... Direct comparison of the original MP4
>> file and the HDV conversion showed little if any difference. It may be 
>> worth
>> getting the inexpensive Sony Vegas Platinum 9 - it should also be able to
>> edit these file types together on one track without needing to transcode
>> anything first.

> David,

> Thanks but I want to make it clear again that I can edit and combine just 
> fine with Elements 7, but that is not what I want to do. I want to edit with 
> my CS3, which does not accept AVCHD. Maybe I'm just being difficult, but I 
> have a little experience with CS3, and it can capture with scene detect to 
> split up all shots as separate clips with my HDV, which is very necessary 
> and I'm not sure if Elements can do that yet. 

Elements can split up HDV, but I do not recommend Elements for 
editing HDV since it does not have "Smart Rendering" and therefore 
recompresses *all* HDV on the timeline (whether changed or not) 
at export, unlike Vegas...

> SO - if I could just make the 
> Flip files compatible with CS3 life would be simpler. These will be mostly 
> just family vacation stuff, but could be some of my wife's travel business 
> as well.

> Gary Eickmeier 

I think there are easier, and possibly higher quality (since there may 
be fewer transcoding/recompression steps), ways to do this... 
--DR

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"Gary Eickmeier" <geickmei@tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message news:4a6b97b2$0$19647$9a6e19ea@news.newshosting.com...

> I have spent today trying to figure out what format the files from my Canon 
> HV-20 are. As you may know, it is an HDV camera. That is what I would like 
> to convert the Flip files to. Near as I can tell, the native files for the 
> Canon are 1920 x 1080, 40mps, with an AVI wrapper. In any case, all I want 
> to do is batch convert the files so that they are still individual shots 
> (clips) and can be imported by CS3 and edited together with my HDV files. 
> The Cineform can't handle it, and the Flip converter is totally inadequate. 
> The shareware that comes with the Flip is a good enough converter, but I 
> would have to do them one file at a time.

> I hope you do understand that I can import the Flip files to Adobe Elements 
> 7 and edit them just fine. But I want to use CS3 and mix them with my 
> captures from my Canon.

> Gary Eickmeier 

Why not try Sony Vegas Platinum 9? It is well under $100, a very 
versatile editing program, and both the AVC Flip files and HDV 
HV20 files can be put on the same timeline and edited together 
without first transcoding files. It can then be exported as HDV (or 
anything else you want). In addition, **UNLIKE PREMIERE**, 
the resulting ".m2t" file is a simple (lossless) copy of all HDV 
footage on the timeline that is unchanged (there are no 
recompression losses at export with unchanged footage, as there 
are with Premiere with HDV since it recompresses EVERYTHING 
on the timeline at export), and this also speeds export. Also, once 
the ".m2t" file exists of the edited video, further exact copies can be 
exported from Platinum 9 (or any other program that uses "Smart 
Rendering" with HDV) without recompression, unlike with Premiere 
(unless the original Premiere project and all the materials originally 
used in it are saved - but this is very cumbersome, and unnecessary 
with Platinum 9). I think Adobe video editing programs are a very 
poor choice for editing HDV for export quality and export/reexport 
efficiency reasons...
--DR


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"Tippi" <aa172@torfree.net> wrote in message news:9dd238b4-4c73-4bdf-8a7d-812f739acffc@s15g2000yqs.googlegroups.com...

> Hi, I'm interested in the JVC Everio HM200BU HD Camcorder. Amazon.com
> give it pretty good reviews, but I have some techinical questions. 
> http://www.jvc.ca/en/consumer/product-detail.asp?model=GZ-HM200BU 
> - what is 1920x1080/60P - does that mean it is not interlaced?

1920x1080i = interlaced, 1920x1080p = progressive (which is unusual 
at 60fps, but interesting if true...;-). 

> - how easy are AVCHD files to work with if I want to make a DVD?

The highest data rate of 24 Mbps that the camera appears capable of 
shooting at, while potentially roughly equaling HDV quality (all else 
being about equal - how's that for being definite? ;-) is as yet VERY 
awkward to edit (unlike HDV), but once edited, you can easily make 
cheap red-laser DVDs using standard writers (although this data 
rate may exceed the DVD's capability...[?]) that play on most Blu-ray 
players. You can, of course, write Blu-ray disks, and you can transcode 
the files to standard SD DVD MPEG-2, which can make good SD 
DVD versions.

> - roughly how much footage will fit on an 8GB SD card?

It depends on the data rate you shoot at, but a guess is that at 24 Mbps 
60i, about 35+ minutes would fit (based on guessing using 25 Mbps HDV 
fitting 1 hour per about 12.5 GB of tape). Using the next slower recording 
speed (likely 17 Mbps) would both extend the recording time some and 
make editing easier (and there would be no problem authoring red laser 
disks with this data rate), but at the cost of reduced image quality.

> Currently I'm using a Jazz HD camcorder. It does a reasonable job in
> good light, what bugs me the most is no optical zoom. The main reason
> I'm thinking about the JVC is for an upcoming Mediterranean cruise
> cruise and I can get this camera with just loyalty points (Airmiles)
> and not paying a cent. Since I can't make blu-ray Discs now, I'll
> mainly view the files on a PS3 or make DVDs. Should I even upgrade now?

Dunno.....
--DR

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"SteveB" <oldfart@deepends.com> wrote in message news:8hp6k6-1jp.ln1@news.infowest.com...

>I just got handed a job. That of videoing commercials. I have a month to 
> learn it. Equipment is a Sony HVR-HD 1000, big new computer, Avid Liquid 
> program, lights, tripod, stands, extraneous stuff. I have photography 
> background, and some photo editing, but that is of stills.

> I went and filmed some stuff this morning, and downloaded it all to a file 
> in the Avid program.

> Am I correct in assuming that videos are made up of clips and snippets cut 
> and pasted together? I have a lot of scenes in this bulk of footage I want 
> to use, but will have to cut them out, paste them together, then do a voice 
> over to tell the story?

> I am using the instructions, but as this is my first try, they are 
> complicated and hard to grasp quickly.

> Do I open up a new file, and then start filling it with the snippets and 
> clips from file footage and other sources?

> What's some hints on shortening the learning curve? I've put out an alert 
> for anyone with experience who can come and help me.

> TIA

> Steve 

OUCH!!! A month to learn the skill (let alone the art) of making a 
technically good, interesting, engaging, sales-worthy video ad?!?!?! 
Yuh gotta be joking! What (um, "idiotic" comes to mind ...;-) sort 
of person in what sort of capacity would dump reasonably OK gear 
on a novice and expect usable results in a month? There are certainly 
others in the business that could do it (but at a price likely FAR 
higher than this person probably wants to pay...). 
There are some mysteries in this story......
BTW, if you are serious, I have just (a half hour ago) put up the 
latest version of my Vegas editing guide (much in it is transferable 
to other programs), which now includes a program screen capture 
with 49 numbers in it that are referenced in the guide's text. It is 
intended to help those beginners who have no knowledge at all of 
how to use such software, so it looks like it may be a fit for you? 
Or, not.............;-)
--DR

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"Richard Crowley" <rcrowley@xp7rt.net> wrote in message 
news:7dc4g5F2bh7f8U1@mid.individual.net...
> "David Ruether" wrote ...

[...]
>> BTW, if you are serious, I have just (a half hour ago) put up the
>> latest version of my Vegas editing guide (much in it is transferable
>> to other programs), which now includes a program screen capture
>> with 49 numbers in it that are referenced in the guide's text. It is
>> intended to help those beginners who have no knowledge at all of
>> how to use such software......

> Mr. Ruether appears to have been so modest he didn't even include
> the URL to his tutorial...
> http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/Sony-editing.htm 

8^)
Thanks! We do get forgetful as we age, alas.....! ;-) 
(Which is maybe partly why writing that guide has been so 
difficult - with what was written one day looking so bad the 
next, and in need of serious revision..., repeatedly....., again 
and again........., and again.....................) BTW, today's 
revision is to redo the printable version, which is now quite 
different from the web version (and I hope that task takes 
less than 3-4 days.....).
--DR

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"iws" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message 
news:pa8cm.36494$8l4.1601@newsfe10.iad...

> Most video editing programs have some sort of tutorial to 
> guide you through the basics. Basically what you do in 
> NLE ["Non Linear Editing"] programs is import video, 
> still, and sound files and arrange them in an appropriate 
> order. When you cut, paste and delete within the [video 
> editing program's] work space, you are not really changing 
> the raw footage, but just "assembling" bits and pieces 
> which will at the end of the day be "rendered" into a single 
> video file. That's why the [NLE] work file you "save" is a 
> proprietary format and fairly small in size: it's not a video 
> file, just a description of all the bits and pieces, where 
> they are cut and how they are ordered. Once you have 
> that the way you want, you render to a preferred video 
> file format. But none of the raw video files are actually 
> changed in any way by the process. Typically, as others 
> have said, you work on a timeline where there may be 
> multiple sound and video files laid out in parallel as well 
> as sequentially.

What a great summation! (Pardon the minor additions...;-) 
--DR 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"SteveB" <oldfart@deepends.com> wrote in message news:jrl8k6-mmn1.ln1@news.infowest.com...

>I have problems holding the camera still, mostly from balance problems and 
> surgeries. Do you use a monopod?

> Steve 

I hate tripods. They limit reframing far too much. I like to explore 
with both video and still cameras, poking them under things, and 
moving video cameras around things. Using a tripod is A), a 
pain to carry (for a worthwhile one that is sturdy and has smooth 
movements) and B), very limiting in terms of camera point-of view 
location possibilities. A monopod has some of the same limitations, 
but also doesn't do much for improving steadiness over hand-holding. 
The best I've found for shooting as I want (and I do have a tremor...) 
is combining a good camera internal optical stabilizer with a home brew 
brace made up of bits and pieces of commercial gear. It has a long 
arm with a large diameter soft handle that goes out from under the 
camera to my left hand, a folding "L" flash bracket attached to that 
that goes over my left shoulder, and a quick release (and the whole 
thing is light, and compact when folded). The camera strap on the 
right hand and the camera top against my forehead all provide several 
points of contact so that I can minimize the effects of the tremor 
(and adding Mercalli software stabilization, if necessary). Even so, 
this is good only for short takes - and for long ones from a fixed 
position, I would eagerly return to using a tripod (and MAYBE a 
monopod, in a pinch...). BTW, there are monopods with feet that 
extend that may be worth looking into...;-)
--DR

~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"Steve King" <steveSPAMBLOCK@stevekingSPAMBLOCK.net> wrote in message news:h4t1ar$jq8$1@news.albasani.net...
> "David Ruether" <d_ruether@thotmail.com> wrote in message 
> news:h4svn7$5pc$1@ruby.cit.cornell.edu...
> | "SteveB" <oldfart@deepends.com> wrote in message 
> news:jrl8k6-mmn1.ln1@news.infowest.com...

> | >I have problems holding the camera still, mostly from balance problems 
> | > and surgeries. Do you use a monopod?
> | >
> | > Steve
> | I hate tripods. They limit reframing far too much. I like to explore
> | with both video and still cameras, poking them under things, and
> | moving video cameras around things. Using a tripod is A), a
> | pain to carry (for a worthwhile one that is sturdy and has smooth
> | movements) and B), very limiting in terms of camera point-of view
> | location possibilities. A monopod has some of the same limitations,
> | but also doesn't do much for improving steadiness over hand-holding.
> | The best I've found for shooting as I want (and I do have a tremor...)
> | is combining a good camera internal optical stabilizer with a home brew
> | brace made up of bits and pieces of commercial gear. It has a long
> | arm with a large diameter soft handle that goes out from under the
> | camera to my left hand, a folding "L" flash bracket attached to that
> | that goes over my left shoulder, and a quick release (and the whole
> | thing is light, and compact when folded). The camera strap on the
> | right hand and the camera top against my forehead provide several
> | points of contact so that I can minimize the effects of the tremor
> | (adding Mercalli software stabilization, if necessary). Even so, this
> | is good only for short takes - and for long ones from a fixed
> | position, I would eagerly return to using a tripod (and MAYBE a
> | monopod, in a pinch...). BTW, there are monopods with feet that
> | extend that may be worth looking into...;-)
> | --DR

> There are times, when hand holding and other support devices are essential. 
> But, there is a reason that every professional shooter I've ever worked with 
> disagrees with you in principle. If you want to call attention to your 
> camera work, do as you say. If you want to tell the story of the subject, 
> put the camera on sticks or another solid support. 

I think this cannot be said as a universal truth. The choice of support 
depends on many factors, such as the type, style, and what you are 
shooting. If you are shooting things like a speaker at lectern from 
a fixed location 50-60 feet away, nothing will do but a sturdy tripod 
with a good fluid head, preferably with a wired camera control unit. 
If you are shooting sideline sports, a tripod would get in the way, and a 
monopod would likely be appropriate. If you are shooting "run-'n'-gun" 
journalism, both would just get in the way. If you are shooting movies, 
pro tripods, dollies, steadicams, tracks, and cranes are in order. If you 
are shooting "visual exploration" videos, where freedom of movement 
is very important, then the device I described may be the way to go. If 
you are just shooting birthday parties or "memory" trip videos, skip 
all the above and use just the bare camera (with internal stabilizer). 
But, another way of looking at this is, do you prefer to use a long or 
a short focal length lens? If long, solid support becomes at least very 
desirable (but that limits your movements, but with a long lens, unlike 
with a short one, viewpoint shifts forward/backward, side-to-side, 
up/down while shooting don't much affect the appearance of the image 
anyway). I prefer using a short FL lens for the movement freedom it 
gives me to make quick changes in the "look" even while shooting, 
and to "roam" around subjects and explore them. By this means, you 
can also "tell a story" (and it's best not to limit ones vocabulary while 
telling a tale, I think...;-). BTW, results usually look smoother if one 
intentionally continuously moves the camera a bit (with a wide angle) 
than if one tries to hand-hold "steady framing" (heck, for that you may 
as well shoot stills and drop them onto a video timeline and add an 
audio track, if that's what you want - it's simpler...! ;-), which is durn 
near impossible hand held with a long lens, and hard enough (but far 
easier) with a short one due to its reduced angular magnification. 
(I never could understand why people like long lenses - they are such 
a relative "pain" to use, and are so relatively unrewarding in terms 
of control they permit over the image appearance. ;-)

> Sometimes I have felt it 
> necessary to use the internal stabilizer on cameras. I hate the result. I 
> can see it and so can you. 

Um, no I can't... The only "bad" camera stabilization I've seen is some 
that robbed considerable resolution (Panasonic Mini-DV), made the 
image "swim" if the camera was touched while on a tripod (Canon 
XL-1), or produce a "bouncing ball" effect with extreme camera motion 
(Sony VX1000). Just about everything made since then has had good 
internal stabilizers. 

> Sometimes I have used software to stabilize a 
> shot. I hate it, when I do and have no other choice. I can see the 
> softness that results. So can you. We are obviously looking at different 
> criteria for quality video.

> Steve King 

Um, I find it depends A LOT on how the software stabilization is 
applied (I use Mercalli, with Vegas and HDV). 
A), I shoot multiple takes, if possible.
B), I select only clips that are good for the video, *and from these* I 
process *only* ones that really need stabilization.
C), Usually the worst parts are at the clip head and tail ends, and I cut 
these off, preserving as much good footage as possible - this then 
requires less cropping during processing, improving results.
D), I presharpen the clips (short of introducing noticeable artifacts), the 
amount being arrived at by experimentation (Mercalli previews quickly).
E), All filters that are to be applied to the clip (including Mercalli) are 
applied at one time, and the clip is then exported as HDV for inclusion 
as a clip in the edited video. 
F), I use HDV clips only in editing programs that have "Smart Rendering" 
(which excludes Premiere...) in order to minimize the number of 
recompressions (only one for the stabilized clips, except for transition 
areas). 
The stabilized results can look essentially as good as the original material, 
but smoother, and with only slight cropping. I do accept some compromise 
in that I stop short of "dead steady" results since this degrades the image 
too much, and it is unnecessary/undesirable since this result is also not 
what I'm looking for. BTW, with my brace, I have felt the need to stabilize 
no footage. I have used it for only some footage shot without the brace with 
my small and light Canon HV20...
--DR

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"Steve King" <steveSPAMBLOCK@stevekingSPAMBLOCK.net> wrote in message news:h4v2cg$fin$1@news.albasani.net...
> "SteveB" <oldfart@deepends.com> wrote in message 
> news:k7k9k6-siq2.ln1@news.infowest.com...

> | Well, I guess I worked at it about five hours today.
> |
> BIG SNIP|
> | All in all, a very interesting day, and I learned a lot. The final 
> version
> | came out pretty good, but I hadn't added audio or special effects on the
> | track transitions. It really looked good. |

> Congrats. Little steps... and all that.

But it does look like the OP, as others have mentioned, really needs 
to know how to save projects immediately, and how to export video 
files in HDV (which I think is what he is using...) later (and that 
multiple resaves of HDV are a VERY bad idea...). 

> | PS: I also noticed a lot of things that I will do differently next time,
> | first one being camera stabilization.

> I hope you mean to turn off camera stabilization. If you have the camera on 
> sticks with a good fluid head, the camera stabilization can cause more harm 
> than do good, such as causing a bobble with the start of every pan or tilt. 
> Yes, if you are hand holding camera stabilization can sometimes be useful, 
> but it will soften the image... at least that's the way it looks to me.

> Steve King 

I agree with all but the last. I suspect that you have owned Panasonic 
camcorders with digital rather than optical stabilization...? Those often 
softened the image horribly. The best optical stabilizers now do what 
one would hope they would, but without negative effects (I even leave 
mine on when on a tripod to remove minor handling motions, which is 
OK *if* pans and tilts are started/stopped very smoothly).
--DR


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"iws" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message news:cQrcm.994$L07.344@newsfe01.iad...
> "SteveB" <oldfart@deepends.com> wrote in message 
> news:9ik9k6-mpr2.ln1@news.infowest.com...

> | The computer I got with this setup has a 250 gig HD. I know that will not
> | be enough, and will fill up fast. What is a good sized unit to get, or
> | would that be unit(s)? I haven't been to Fry's in a while. Last time
> | there, they had terabyte externals. Are they bigger now? What size 
> storage
> | capacity should I have?
> |
> | Steve

> Fry's often has 1 TB USB drives for around $90 on special. They also have 
> 1.5 TB internal drives for about $115 which is another option you might 
> consider i.e. a second internal drive devoted to video. 

I'd go for the internal (and physically standard-sized) drive over 
a compact USB external drive for greater reliability, from what I 
have gathered here... It is very easy to install internal drives, and 
most desktop computer boxes have room for additional ones.
--DR


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"SteveB" <oldfart@deepends.com> wrote in message news:6dk9k6-nlr2.ln1@news.infowest.com...

>I need a couple. I got a BeachTek DXA-2s compact xlr adapter with this 
> stuff. Is there a question of compatibility with a common set of mikes? 

At the receiver (camera) end, it seems unlikely that you would need 
phantom power, and the transmitter would provide what the mic 
needs, so the BeachTek would be OK - BUT, if you are close 
enough to people, why not just hard-wire lavs? But for these, you 
may need phantom power...

> I have googled them, and they seem to be about $120 a pair. Suggestions about 
> ones to look for and ones to stay away from would be appreciated.

> Steve 

As others have indicated, cheap = anything from terrible to decent 
but unreliable (regardless of the brand name on the parts). If done 
carefully, you can hard-wire mics 20-30 feet from the camera.
--DR

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"SteveB" <oldfart@deepends.com> wrote in message news:29vck6-v5k2.ln1@news.infowest.com... 
> "Richard Crowley" <rcrowley@xp7rt.net> wrote in message 
> news:7dgidvF2bo2rkU1@mid.individual.net...
>> "Steve King" wrote ...

>>> You can hard-wire mics hundreds of feet from the camera not that you
>>> probably need to very often. Even many condenser mics that require 
>>> phantom
>>> power draw so little current that the resistance of a few hundred feet of
>>> copper wire is not a problem.

>> Most certainly. I regularly run mic cables several 100s of feet long.

> Well, I can certainly see that corded is the way I'll probably go. I also 
> have a great friend who is an electrician who gets me a lot of "stuff" for 
> beer and bass fishing trips.

> Steve 

Use proper wire (two leads plus shield, low capacitance, very 
flexible and resistant to internal/external wear). Probably best is 
to buy ready-made wire with XLR connectors (rather than making 
your own), unless you know what you are doing. BTW, others 
will be horrified by this, but if your camera has a 1/8th" mic input, 
it likely also supplies low voltage phantom power for suitable 
mics (skipping the bulky XLR connectors and XLR mics which 
may need phantom power which you will not have with your 
adapter). With short runs (10' or so), I've never had a problem 
doing this...
--DR

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"Richard Crowley" <rcrowley@xp7rt.net> wrote in message news:7dog6sF2cne84U1@mid.individual.net...
> "David Ruether" wrote ...

>> Use proper wire (two leads plus shield, low capacitance, very
>> flexible and resistant to internal/external wear). Probably best is
>> to buy ready-made wire with XLR connectors (rather than making
>> your own), unless you know what you are doing. BTW, others
>> will be horrified by this, but if your camera has a 1/8th" mic input,
>> it likely also supplies low voltage phantom power for suitable
>> mics (skipping the bulky XLR connectors and XLR mics which
>> may need phantom power which you will not have with your
>> adapter). With short runs (10' or so), I've never had a problem
>> doing this...

> And I've never had a problem even with runs of 100 feet. I have
> videotaped many musical concerts with a good stereo mic on a
> tall stand at the front of the hall and a 50-ft or 100-ft cable back
> to the camera, connected through a simple, passive XLR to mini
> phone adapter. I make my own adapters and have documented
> the circuit online here...
> http://www.rcrowley.com/CamAdapt.htm 

As I think back, I recorded the Seattle Youth Symphony a couple 
of times using my pair of home-brew omni mics on very high stands 
with unbalanced mic lines of about 30+'(?) running to the mic preamp 
(home-made), and then to the recorder back stage (50' or so, again 
with unbalanced lines). No problems. ;-) My point for the OP, though, 
is that since his cables can likely be relatively short, and since he does 
not have 48 v. phantom power (but may have low voltage phantom 
power, since most camcorders with 1/8" mic inputs have it), a suitable 
mic that directly fits the mini socket on the camcorder may be the best 
solution, and I have successfully used this for recording everything 
from an opera with full orchestra to a lecture given by a famous 
scientist sitting at a table next to me who did not feel up to traveling 
to Central America to give the talk in person (it was a REALLY 
interesting talk, with a REALLY interesting premise! ;-). 
--DR


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"Frank" <frank@nojunkmail.humanvalues.net> wrote in message news:ppn775hnj8ca16376g7l62ajnqs1gulp8n@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 31 Jul 2009 23:32:58 -0400, in 'rec.video',
> in article <Re: Enabling LANC on new Sony camcorders>,
> "David Ruether" <d_ruether@thotmail.com> wrote:
>>"mofo22" <onboardtv@gmail.com> wrote in message news:ba4e6b03-8f06-4530-8155-b218b6af9a8d@d32g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...

>>> Thought I'd share with you something I only found out recently. I had
>>> been using my old Sony DCR-PC5 camcorder for years, in a helmet camera
>>> setup to film my ATV rides. Recently I had an "incident" in which the
>>> PC5 did not survive... So I went shopping for a new camcorder to use
>>> with my bullet camera, but it appears that many camcorders nowadays do
>>> not have support for a LANC remote control or even A/V IN connections.
[...]
>>> But then I found a company who makes an adapter cable which connects
>>> to the new Sony camcorders via the weird D-shaped connector, and lets
>>> you hook up a LANC remote AND gives you RCA jacks to hook up the
>>> external camera and mic. It's not cheap $50 but works like a charm
>>> http://www.prolanc.com 
[...]

>>I inquired there about the possibility of a Canon HV20/30/40 Lanc 
>>adapter (it REALLY needs one!), but alas, none is anticipated....
>>--DR

> I'm not sure how someone could design a LANC adapter for a camcorder,
> such as the Canon HV20/30/40 series, that doesn't support LANC
> protocol.

Apparently, it is not possible, darn (but the Sony story above was promising 
and worth pursuing, since I think earlier Canon camcorders also supported 
Lanc.

> Sony does offer a very inexpensive wired remote controller for use
> with select models of its consumer camcorders including the HDR-CX12.
> It's called the RM-AV2, has a 59-inch-long cord, and sells for just
> $38.95 at B&H.

> http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/540091-REG/

I have this one, but with the "mini-mini" plug on the cord. It works well.
Canon also makes the fancy ZR-1000 with the same cord end ($175 at http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home?ci=0&shs=canon+lanc&sb=ps&pn=1&sq=desc&InitialSearch=yes&O=jsp%2FRootPage.jsp&A=search&Q=*&bhs=t&Go.x=17&Go.y=11) 
with five fixed zoom rates plus variable rate. I may sell mine, since I no 
longer have a camera it fits that I use.
--DR



~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
INFO -- RCA DRC8000N DVD Recorder
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"Richard Crowley" <rcrowley@xp7rt.net> wrote in message 
news:7de5iuF2b33jqU1@mid.individual.net...
> <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote...
>> VOB files on commercial DVDs are almost always copy protected.
>>
>> The two easiest options are to get a utility like DVD Decrypter, or
>> a capture box like the Canopus ADVC-100 (it must be this model,
>> as later models such as the ADVC-110 cannot strip copy protection).
>
> The ADVC-300 (the more expensive one with the built-in TBC)
> still has the option to defeat Macrovision. At least it did last time
> I checked. I had to download new firmware for the ADVC-300
> to enable it to ignore Macrovision. And the instructions were not
> posted on the vendor's official wibsite. But it coppied just fine.
> [This was for an official job where we had express written
> permission to copy the old VHS tape!]
>
> And the ADVC-300 is more suitable for capturing from old VHS
> tapes, whether commercial copy-protected or not.
>
> Not clear how an extra step of copying from tape to DVD
> actually ends up saving any time at the end of the workflow?

There was a period of time when you could buy refurbished
DVD Recorders that had been high end products when DVD
recording at home was a new and rare thing. These units were
built with the expectation of recording from VHS tape sources.
They had TBC and noise correction built-in. I was lucky to get
an RCA DRC8000N from Geeks.com for <$180. I still use it
as both a DVD Player and as a means to pass Laserdisc and
VHS signals through the TBC and NR as well as provide
progressive scan analog Component output.

If you can find such a DVD Recorder with TBC and NR from
that period, you get all four of the correction functions needed.
First a "Line TBC", second a "Frame TBC", third tape video
noise reduction, and lastly color corection. In addition to that,
just the digitizing process, to create DVD compliant MPEG2,
alone stabilizes and indexes the video and audio streams.
These high end DVD Recorders were engineered to take
advantage of the benefits inherent in applying this signal
processing in a coordinated and mutually supportive manner.

The bad news is that these machines are first a little hard to
identify, and second getting very hard to find.

------------------

As to getting the video off of a DVD the best way is to
extract the titles from the DVD - NOT try to extract and
join (or combine) the individual .vob files.

You mentioned using VideoReDo, if you can try the new
TVSuite version, it has a "File" tab function to "Open Title
from a DVD ...". This will let you select a title to extract,
and a video and audio stream from the title to open in VRD.

If what you are encountering might be from copy
protection you might try "AnyDVD" from SlySoft
http://www.slysoft.com/en/ It has been worth the
price even though I have rarely used it, to copy
any protected DVDs. It seems to improve the
disk reading function a little, it may be helping to
read marginal CDs and DVDs.

Luck;
Ken

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"Richard Crowley" <rcrowley@xp7rt.net> wrote in message news:AfudnUkLvJ6GauvXnZ2dnUVZ_h-dnZ2d@posted.pcez...
> Gary Eickmeier wrote:

>> Just got back from my Disney Cruise. I took my Canon HV-20 HDV
>> camera. A vacation is no place for headphones and all of the usual
>> paraphernalia,

> iPod style earbuds. Minimum.

> "Recording audio without monitoring is like shooting video
> without looking at the viewfinder."

Hmmm, yes...;-) I got "caught" in a slightly different way using 
the HV20. I always leave the audio level meter on, but in the 
"fun" of the moment (well, a whole bunch of moments, actually, 
that made up much of a little video...), I ignored the meter and 
didn't notice that sound was clipping (the HV20's AGC doesn't 
work very well, and it is all too easy to get clipped audio with it).
BTW, I NEVER leave the HV20 in "P" mode - it takes real 
control over its picture characteristics to get the most out of it 
(and that can be quite wonderful!), but it is very easy to confuse 
its manual sound level and manual video exposure level controls 
since they are on the same tiny "joystick" and run in sequence 
(UGH!). 
--DR

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"Gary Eickmeier" <geickmei@tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message news:4a767ba3$0$2864$9a6e19ea@news.newshosting.com... 
> "David Ruether" <d_ruether@thotmail.com> wrote in message 
> news:h4se7s$6v4$1@ruby.cit.cornell.edu...

>> Why not try Sony Vegas Platinum 9? It is well under $100, a very
>> versatile editing program, and both the AVC Flip files and HDV
>> HV20 files can be put on the same timeline and edited together
>> without first transcoding files. It can then be exported as HDV (or
>> anything else you want). In addition, **UNLIKE PREMIERE**,
>> the resulting ".m2t" file is a simple (lossless) copy of all HDV
>> footage on the timeline that is unchanged (there are no
>> recompression losses at export with unchanged footage, as there
>> are with Premiere with HDV since it recompresses EVERYTHING
>> on the timeline at export), and this also speeds export. Also, once
>> the ".m2t" file exists of the edited video, further exact copies can be
>> exported from Platinum 9 (or any other program that uses "Smart
>> Rendering" with HDV) without recompression, unlike with Premiere
>> (unless the original Premiere project and all the materials originally
>> used in it are saved - but this is very cumbersome, and unnecessary
>> with Platinum 9). I think Adobe video editing programs are a very
>> poor choice for editing HDV for export quality and export/reexport
>> efficiency reasons...

> I have the Matrox system with a big 26" output monitor to view my editing as 
> I go. This only works with my CS3. Plus, of course, the capabilities of CS3 
> go beyond most $100 editing programs.

The very cheap Platinum 9 is surprisingly only a bit more limited than 
the $600 Vegas version (it's Sony's "gift" to HDV editors, I think...;-). 
It certainly includes everything needed for good basic editing, plus 
a good bit more.

> I haven't noticed any major degradation of the video exported from CS3 or 
> Elements.

> Gary Eickmeier 

Platinum 9 does also have the "Smart Rendering" feature which Premiere 
does not, essential for editing HDV (read my experiences with the HV20 
using various editing programs, at - 
www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/hdv-editing.htm). With highly detailed 
contrasty material in motion, the Premier image was a disaster. Fine 
bare tree branches "rained" down the image, and cross-lit gravel 
disintegrated into a useless artifacted mess - but all was well (even 
through transitions using the same source material) using Vegas, since 
unchanged exported footage is identical to the source footage since it 
just gets copied. Also, Premiere recompresses ALL HDV on the timeline 
at export (the cause of its visual problems...), taking much longer to 
render the video (except for your rather pricey CS3-Matrox combo). In 
addition, with "Smart Rendering", there is no need to keep the project 
and source files if you want to export the video to tape again later - but 
if you try to do that with Premiere using a fresh project and the exported 
computer file or imported copy of the tape of the finished edited video, 
you suffer yet another compression pass on the material. For such a big 
graphics company, it is surprising that Adobe sure "missed the boat" 
with HDV - although I do like Elements for editing Mini-DV...
--DR 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"eNo" <grandepatzer@gmail.com> wrote in message news:35921c1f-8d51-4141-a166-f357433428e5@y4g2000prf.googlegroups.com...

[...most of a nice post removed, to use this part...]
> I would say
> that if post-processing was good for Ansel Adams, it’s good enough for
> me. His maxim was “Expose for the shadows; develop the highlights.”
> [This write-up was copied from http://esfotoclix.com/blog1/?p=186]

This reminds me of a technically extreme switch I made at one point. 
I had been pushing very slow film to reduce its range to about 5 stops 
so that I could use its graphic simplifying ability (see samples at -- 
http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/aht1.html, and --
http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/aht2.html). I heard about a 
VERY low contrast developer designed for aerial work that would 
permit photographing sunlit and shadow areas simultaneously 
(called POTA). I got the two ingredients and brewed some up, 
and experimented with Tri-X, finally settling on rating it at 25 
ASA. I loved the soft tonality and the film's ability to show detail 
EVERYWHERE in front of the camera, from the sun in the sky to 
building interiors and even under dark bushes, all at once. I figured 
it had a range of about 25 stops - and the negatives were so flat 
that I often had to print them to see what was on them. Graphic 
interest in the photographs that resulted was out, of course, so I 
often just loosely aimed a Nikon F with a compact 21mm f4 on it 
without looking in the VF. A show resulted that went to 25 museums, 
and there was also a book (but the crated show now holds up our 
27" CRT TV...;-). Most photographers didn't like the photos, though, 
since they were "rather grey"...;-)
--DR

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"Nicko" <nervous.nick@gmail.com> wrote in message news:83c3bff8-f981-43a2-ac0c-f929479991da@24g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
On Aug 4, 9:48 am, "David Ruether" <d_ruet...@thotmail.com> wrote:
> "eNo" <grandepat...@gmail.com> wrote in messagenews:35921c1f-8d51-4141-a166-f357433428e5@y4g2000prf.googlegroups.com...

> [...most of a nice post removed, to use this part...]
> I would say
> that if post-processing was good for Ansel Adams, it’s good enough for
> me. His maxim was “Expose for the shadows; develop the highlights.”
> [This write-up was copied fromhttp://esfotoclix.com/blog1/?p=186]

> This reminds me of a technically extreme switch I made at one point.
> I had been pushing very slow film to reduce its range to about 5 stops
> so that I could use its graphic simplifying ability (see samples at --
> http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/aht1.html, and --
> http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/aht2.html). I heard about a
> VERY low contrast developer designed for aerial work that would
> permit photographing sunlit and shadow areas simultaneously
> (called POTA). I got the two ingredients and brewed some up,
> and experimented with Tri-X, finally settling on rating it at 25
> ASA. I loved the soft tonality and the film's ability to show detail
> EVERYWHERE in front of the camera, from the sun in the sky to
> building interiors and even under dark bushes, all at once. I figured
> it had a range of about 25 stops - and the negatives were so flat
> that I often had to print them to see what was on them. Graphic
> interest in the photographs that resulted was out, of course, so I
> often just loosely aimed a Nikon F with a compact 21mm f4 on it
> without looking in the VF. A show resulted that went to 25 museums,
> and there was also a book (but the crated show now holds up our
> 27" CRT TV...;-). Most photographers didn't like the photos, though,
> since they were "rather grey"...;-)
> --DR

I know this is very OT but...

That's a compensating developer, IIRC.

I used the phenidone POTA developer with Technical Pan for some b/w
architectural stuff. 

-- 30grams phenidone + 120 grams of sodium sulfite per quart of 
-- water(?), as I recall (poorly...).

Without going into details, Tech Pan is an
extremely fine grained, but (with normal developing) inherently very
high contrast film, but this developer tamed the heck out of the
contrast.

Unfortunately, most of this work was lost so I have few examples, but
if your agitation technique was spot on 

-- It was VERY difficult to get it right, since you were essentially 
-- vastly underdeveloping the film...

you were able to squeeze some
mighty wide DR from that specialized film at ASA 12-25. And there was
no lens that could match the resolution of that film, so your res was
limited only by your glass.

-- image resolution is always a function of both lens and film 
-- resolutions, but improving either improves the final resolution...

Wonderful technique, but a pain in the ass to use. 

-- Indeed!!! ;-)

examples:

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3025/3091834026_768a86cbf8_o.jpg

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3111/3091824406_1370268a32_o.jpg

-- Very nice, thanks! Maybe someday I will copy some of the 
-- images out of "Soft Images" to put on my web site...
-- DR


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


"PTravel" <ptravel@travelersvideo.com> wrote in message news:7du459F2alovnU1@mid.individual.net...

> Travel videos, like any video, should have a story arc, i.e. a beginning, 
> middle and end to each sequence, and overall beginning (arrival? 
> preparation? research?), middle (you're there) and end (you leave). What's 
> your attitude about where you went, and does it come through in the video?

> Pick a recurring theme -- whether it's "wierd pets we encountered," or, 
> "expensive art we can't afford," or, "yet another search for a restroom," 
> etc., and work it into the final production. Needless to say, this is not 
> something you can pick ahead of time, so stay alert and shoot LOTS and LOTS 
> of video as you go.

> To accomplish this, you need to shoot B-roll, i.e. background shots to which 
> you can cut for continuity. You also need POV shoots, reaction shots, etc. 
> just like any commercial movie.

> Don't rely solely on wide shots. Do close ups and two shots of the "stars." 
> Find interesting little details in the environment. Put depth in your shots 
> by including foreground elements -- don't just shoot beautiful vistas.

> To the extent that you're able (and it can be difficult with consumer 
> cameras) vary depth of field, i.e. the background doesn't always have to be 
> in sharp focus.

> Also, it is critical that you concern yourself with pacing. Most amateur 
> travel video uses shots that are far too long. For example, the HV20 has a 
> 10-second timer for shots. I hardly ever use a shot that is more than 4 
> seconds, and most of them are in the 3-second range. Mix up your shot 
> length, but keep overall pacing in mind.

> Be selective when you edit. Everything doesn't belong in the final 
> production. Decide what shots are important, which are redundant, and which 
> are unnecessary. Only use the important shots and, once you've selected 
> them, go through them again to weed out the chaff.

> When traveling, people are generally more interesting than scenery. You're 
> trying to capture the experience of the trip, not a series of postcards.

> Use music (buy local CDs) to set the mood, establish rhythm, define 
> atmosphere, etc.

> DON'T use a bunch of special effects. 99.99% of your transitions should 
> either be straight dissolves or cuts. However, DO use L- or J-cuts in which 
> the sound of the previous or subsequent scene is carried into the shot.

> Practice good hand-held technique to get the steadiest video possible. 
> Shaky video looks awful.

Very nice piece (although for some other types of videos, I may 
not agree with everything here...;-). I would like to use it, if possible 
(credited, of course), in my Basic Editing Guide, which is here -- 
www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/Sony-editing.htm 
Let me know. Thanks. 
--DR

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"PTravel" <ptravel@travelersvideo.com> wrote in message news:7e0g0gF2e4tggU1@mid.individual.net... 
> "David Ruether" <d_ruether@thotmail.com> wrote in message 
> news:h5eq57$5at$1@ruby.cit.cornell.edu...
>> Also, what did you mean by, "...two shots of the "stars"...?
>> Thanks.
>> --DR

> "Stars" refers to those family members or travel partners to whom you're 
> always saying, "Wait a second . . . I wanna get a shot of this!"

> "Two shot," means two people in the frame shot from the waist or chest up. 
> Example:

> My wife (close up -- in train station): "I'll ask that conductor when the 
> next train will be coming."

> Wide shot: (Wife crossing Gare du Nord train station)

> My wife (two shot -- wife and conductor): "Excuse me, when is the next train 
> Vichy?"

> Conductor (close up): "Cochon Americain, je ne parle pas Anglais. Allez!"

> Conductor (wide shot from behind, walking away)

> Wife (reaction shot): "Did he just call me an American pig?"

Aaaaah....! ;-) 'Course, various tidbits (including a rewriting of the 
first paragraph and various fixes in indexes in the site) were uploading 
when I saw this, and I didn't have a chance to add a clarifier of some 
sort, like "two shot", or two-shot, or two person shot, or...? ;-) Or, 
leave it - it's jes' fine! ;-) Thanks, again. (Oh, did I get your name, 
from memory, right? At www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/ptravel.htm. 
BTW, Robert Thrush kindly made a PDF version (minus the latest 
minor changes) which is now at
www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/PDF/Sony-Editing-PDF.pdf. 'Course, 
after all this, I discovered the Sony video tutorials on the Sony site, at 
www.sonycreativesoftware.com/support/trainingvids.asp?prod=vegaspro, 
but this compliments what I have done (I think...;-) rather than replaces 
it (maybe...;-).
--DR


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"Brian" <bclark@es.co.nz> wrote in message news:a0pk755pct2a63akjptim98b7mdna2io13@4ax.com...

> I've used Ulead DVD factory 5 in the past but I'm interested in
> knowing what other DVD authoring programs are available. I did a
> search on the interenet but could not find a list of program names for
> DVD authoring.
> What I'm looking for is a program that will handle a wide range of
> video formats, is fast and offers options on the final output. Some
> basic video editing could be useful as well.

> Regards Brian

Gosh, you already pretty much have what you are looking 
for (if DVD Factory was part of VideoStudio, much as I do 
dislike using that program, though, and it doesn't seem to 
be very good for doing the highest quality video transcoding). 
I like to use the Ulead (Corel) DVD authoring program in 
combination with Vegas (the Platinum 9 version is cheap 
and can handle different file types well, including HDV). 
BTW, I use Vegas to transcode HDV to either MPEG-2 
SD or AVCHD HD for authoring to standard DVD blanks 
with standard writers using Ulead (it works quite well...). 
You can also download free menu backgrounds, or make 
your own for use in the program.
--DR

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"Brian" <bclark@es.co.nz> wrote in message news:iteo75l1h5a2dv9dh3c51l5ovseo3p57p5@4ax.com...

> I don't fully agree with you that all inexpensive consumer video
> editing programs are limiting and cause video and sound to go out of
> sync as there has been many improvements in programs such as Adobe
> Premiere Elements. 

Agreed...

> I have recently changed to
> Adobe Premiere Elements and find using a Dual processer with Vis[t]a 
> that my compiling time is a lot faster than it use to be. 

It would generally be much faster yet with HDV HD using a program 
that has "Smart Rendering", and the output quality would be anywhere 
from slightly to significantly better, since unchanged footage would be 
simply copied at export rather than recompiled...

> There are also
> many powerful features in Premiere elements that make it suitable for
> a professional editor to use as well as a beginner. I've compared the
> features listed in the manual for Adobe Premiere CS4 and compared them
> with Premiere elements and find most of the useful features used in
> Premiere CS4 also in Premiere elements. 

Agreed... (I think CS4 is often a waste of money). With Sony software, 
the cheap Platinum 9 also has most of the most useful features of the 
expensive Vegas Pro, but that one does has some interesting features 
not available in Platinum 9 or Premiere.

> Also Premiere Elements supports HD video, 

Um, not very well..., but then, neither does CS4.

> even Blu-ray disc is supported.
> I've seen some great videos on YouTube that have used the special
> effects of Premiere Elements to create impressive videos such as
> objects floating around the room. Some video editors have a limit of 1
> video track but Premiere Elements offers 99 video tracks as well as
> many audio tracks etc.

> Regards Brian 

I like Premiere Elements for most things SD, but not HD, alas (it is a 
pleasant program to use - but too bad Adobe never got around to putting 
"Smart Rendering" into it for efficient HD editing). In its present form, I 
consider it "crippled" for some common uses. For the fun of it, especially 
with HDV, you may want to give a 30-day trial version of Sony Vegas 
Movie Studio 9 Platinum Edition (now THAT'S a mouth full! ;-) a try. 
Lest you become lost in it, there is a good beginner's VIDEO tutorial at - 
http://www.sonycreativesoftware.com/support/trainingvids.asp?prod=moviestudio, 
and a similarly good one for the similar Vegas Pro (except "Project" is 
called "File" in that one) at - 
http://www.sonycreativesoftware.com/support/trainingvids.asp?prod=vegaspro.
'Course I discovered these after slogging through the writing of my basic 
guide to video editing with Sony software (but it does cover a few more 
things), at - http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/Sony-editing.htm.
--DR

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

(8/12/09)
A Basic Guide To Editing (With Sony Software, Mostly) Is FINALLY Done, Really...! ;-)

After about two months of work and MANY rewrites, corrections, modifications, 
additions, etc., "Editing HDV Video With Sony Platinum 9, Plus More..." is finally 
complete. It includes a numbered referenced screen-capture, a printable version, 
a PDF copy (with thanks to RD Thrush for providing it), and numerous URLs for 
video editing guides, editing instructions, and video-making advice. While aimed 
at the beginner using Sony software, there is likely to be material of interest to others. 
Have fun with it! (Oh, it is at http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/Sony-editing.htm! 8^)
--David Ruether 


But wait, there's more...8^) After about two months of work and MANY rewrites, 
corrections, modifications, additions, etc., the Guide really is now finally complete. 
It includes a numbered referenced screen capture, a printable version, a PDF copy, 
and numerous URLs for video guides, editing instructions, and video-making advice. 
It is at [link=http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/Sony-editing.htm]. 
--DR

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"SteveB" <oldfart@depends.com> wrote in message news:8aacl6-eem2.ln1@news.infowest.com...

> Got a college senior coming over Saturday to give me a crash course in Avid. 
> He says he can teach ANYONE this in one day. I told him not to book Sunday. 
> And to stay available next weekend, too.

> We'll see.

> Steve 

Good luck with it! BTW, I found something that helps local 
teaching A LOT, and that is adding a second mouse to the 
computer so that you each have one. 
--DR

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"Brian" <bclark@es.co.nz> wrote in message news:pjga8552dflt2pilrvptr0tev5iuqbpjeu@4ax.com...

> When it comes to video editing I'm still learning and got an idea to
> film myself making a cup of tea. I took medium and close up shots
> using a single camera on a tripod then put it all together in the
> right order and did a lot of trimming until I was happy with the
> result. I find it's better to start on something simple to get some
> experience on editing. The end result is 90 seconds of video.

> Regards Brian

Thar ye goe...! 8^) From my basic editing guide, at --
http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/Sony-editing.htm, 
"I suggest rather than reading through this guide and 
trying to learn it, or trying to use it immediately to edit 
a finished video, that you use a short piece of test 
footage (with maybe three or four scenes in it) to run 
through all the operations described below." It is 
often difficult to discourage people from just jumping 
in and doing a major project right from the start - but 
what you describe above is a good way to "get your 
feet wet" first, and begin to feel more at home in your 
editing environment...
--DR

~~~~~~~~~~

"Brian" <bclark@es.co.nz> wrote in message news:fn8c8591164q8h83jk16j9tbd79umpt9mk@4ax.com...
> "David Ruether" <d_ruether@thotmail.com> wrote:
>>"Brian" <bclark@es.co.nz> wrote in message news:pjga8552dflt2pilrvptr0tev5iuqbpjeu@4ax.com...

>>> When it comes to video editing I'm still learning and got an idea to
>>> film myself making a cup of tea. I took medium and close up shots
>>> using a single camera on a tripod then put it all together in the
>>> right order and did a lot of trimming until I was happy with the
>>> result. I find it's better to start on something simple to get some
>>> experience on editing. The end result is 90 seconds of video.
>>>
>>> Regards Brian

>>Thar ye goe...! 8^) From my basic editing guide, at --
>>http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/Sony-editing.htm,
>>"I suggest rather than reading through this guide and
>>trying to learn it, or trying to use it immediately to edit
>>a finished video, that you use a short piece of test
>>footage (with maybe three or four scenes in it) to run
>>through all the operations described below." It is
>>often difficult to discourage people from just jumping
>>in and doing a major project right from the start - but
>>what you describe above is a good way to "get your
>>feet wet" first, and begin to feel more at home in your
>>editing environment...
>>--DR

> Thanks David.
> Good to see that you are supporting beginners.
> I also took a look at your review on Adobe Elements 7
> and tend to disagree with the following...

> <start of review text>
> Unfortunately neither PE-4/7 nor CS3/4 offers "Smart Rendering", a
> VERY IMPORTANT SHORTCOMING with HDV rendering - and the resulting
> recompression of the whole timeline can make for very long...
> <end of review text>

> With PE7 it's possible to render part of the video (useful for a part
> of the video that has many effects as playing back without first
> rendering can cause jumps in the video as PE7 try's to render in real
> time. If you choose to render parts of the video then these rendered
> parts are kept as files in a folder and when you render the whole
> video then the folder is checked for rendered portions of the video
> and if found the rendered files in the folder are used so that parts
> of the video don't have to be rendered again.
> There is an option to delete the rendered part files found in the
> folder if you want to save hard disc space.
> This information comes from the PR7 manual.

> Regards Brian

I think you are not understanding "Smart Rendering", which 
Adobe software doesn't have with HDV (but does with 
Mini-DV, as do all other programs). What you describe 
can be done with any other program of course, but there 
is one ***BIG*** difference between Premiere and Sony
Vegas, Ulead VideoStudio, etc., and that is that footage 
*that has not been changed* exports as a simple copy, with 
**NO** rendering at all. This saves the visible damage to 
the image that occurs with exporting HDV from Premiere 
(which varies from very slight to terrible, depending on the 
original image characteristics), the time to rerender 
*everything* on the timeline, and the inability of Premiere 
to export finished edited m2t files after the project and 
source files have been dumped (Premiere rerenders 
these, which programs with "Smart Rendering" don't). I 
would like to be wrong about this, but that has been my 
experience with using Elements and CS3. If Elements 
had "Smart Rendering", it would be one heck of a cheap 
editing program for HDV, but it very unfortunately doesn't. 
BTW, you may be interested in my further comments on it, at 
http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/hdv-editing.htm#premiere.
--DR


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"Justin" <justin@nobecauseihatespam.com> wrote in message 
news:h65k70$aoo$1@news.eternal-september.org...

>I made my own car camera mount, and I am currently using a "knuckle" to 
> mount the camera. The problem is I have to unscrew it everytime.
> I would like something with a tripod style top, so I can have a few of 
> those plastic pieces on different cameras and easily swap them out.
> What would one of those things be called?

A "quick release". A small part attaches to the bottom of the 
camera using the tripod mounting hole, and this slides/clamps 
onto the main part of the mount (which is attached to whatever 
you want - usually using the tripod mounting hole in its bottom).
--DR

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"Martin Heffels" <goofies@flikken.net> wrote in message news:sa9d855scdpoolsiu4q8pqkdftjk78eim7@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 13 Aug 2009 12:49:59 -0700, "Richard Crowley"
> <rcrowley@xp7rt.net> wrote:

>>I decided last night that it would be foolish of me to try to edit our
>>48-hour film this weekend on Vegas because the UI is just too
>>different from Premiere for use on a project with such a deadline.

> That's my thought as well. I wanted to edit a project with Vegas
> before, but given the short deadline, decided against it. I know, lots
> of people here happily use it, but the GUI was strange to me. I am a
> keyboard-shortcut type of editor, and that's what makes me love Avid
> :-)

I just counted 263 keyboard shortcuts in Vegas (not counting 
different ones for the same functions, but possibly recounting 
repeatedly listed functions[?]). FAR, FAR more than I would 
ever learn! I'm (mostly) a "mouse pointer/clicker", but there are 
some keyboard shortcuts that even I find handy in Vegas...;-)
--DR


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~