DAVID RUETHER'S PHOTO-VIDEO
POSTS
From 8/15/2009 Through 4/24/2010, Part 4
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Twibil" <nowayjose6@gmail.com> wrote in message news:24f71ea1-ee9e-4d9d-bbf6-7e8379e43411@y10g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
On Sep 20, 7:44 pm, SkinnerOne <skinner_ph...@yahoo.com> wrote:
[Most of a great post answering "Skinner One's" post deleted ...]
> So stay way out there in that far right-wing la-la-land where you only
> have to say something for it to be true, and you're going be wondering
> why you keep losing elections until hell freezes over.
>
> Me, I think that's a bad thing; but I'm just an old-fashioned
> conservative who's shaking his head at the fact that the folks in
> charge at Republican party headquarters would apparently rather spend
> their time trying to twist reality to suit themselves than actually
> try to help govern the nation.
Great post, great summation. I'm a liberal, but I agree
with what you wrote in your post (almost) completely
(but Olbermann does tend to back up his statements
with documented facts and quotes from reputable
sources, unlike many of those on the right...;-). And I
also believe we need a viable two party system for good
governance, but that cannot long exist if one of our two
parties is busy committing suicide, as you have noted....
One has to ask what these apparently incredibly strong
pressures are (and from where they really originate)
that are being brought from behind and are sufficient to
force this self-destructiveness on the Republican party.
These people cannot be as stupid as they appear, so it
must be related to power or money, or to something
else that we don't yet understand, that is driving them.
Maybe that "church" (a house) in DC that has become
infamous lately holds a clue...
--DR
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Twibil" <nowayjose6@gmail.com> wrote in message news:dcce6462-83aa-4bd1-9f0f-0b01dd8da85f@z4g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
On Sep 21, 9:25 am, "David Ruether" <d_ruet...@thotmail.com> wrote:
[BTW, gmail and google posts fail to insert the ">" marks to
indicate earlier material that is being responded to - so I must
manually insert "--" marks to differentiate my responses...]
[...]
> One has to ask what these apparently incredibly strong
> pressures are (and from where they really originate)
> that are being brought from behind and are sufficient to
> force this self-destructiveness on the Republican party.
One doesn't have to ask if one already knows: it originated with the
Republican "Southern Strategy", and the reason they're so committed to
it is that it won them a *lot* of elections.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_strategy
The then-not-so-right saw an opportunity to grab a bunch of votes by
pandering to the folks in the deep south (dare we say "bigots"?) who
felt abandoned by the Democrats after Lyndon Johnson pushed through
his Civil Rights Act of 1964, and in search of ever-more votes it's
gone ever-farther downhill ever since then.
Now it's to the point where you see the official head of the
Republican Party actually backing down and apologising after being
attacked by Rush Limbaugh for voicing an opinion that Limbaugh didn't
care for, Bush2 stating "I'm driven with a mission from God. God would
tell me, 'George, go and fight those terrorists in Afghanistan.' And I
did, and then God would tell me, 'George go and end the tyranny in
Iraq,' and I did.", and poor McCain being saddled with great-looking
but brainless Sarah Palin who dragged his campaign straight to the
bottom just as it was beginning to look as if he could give Obama a
good run for his money.
-- Nutty, huh? And it's really sad to watch Republican leaders "act"
-- (rather badly...) as they tell or repeat discredited lies. Disgusting,
-- actually, to see what levels some will stoop to to pander to the
-- least informed and intelligent members of their constituencies. And
-- this is not just about the exploitation of race, religious, and cultural
-- differences - Carl Rove pushed anti-gay-equality as yet another
-- issue the Republicans could use to fire up their voters. UGH!
> These people cannot be as stupid as they appear, so it
> must be related to power or money, or to something
> else that we don't yet understand, that is driving them.
> Maybe that "church" (a house) in DC that has become
> infamous lately holds a clue...
Personally, I think that it's because the centrist Republicans have
lost control of their own party, don't know how to get it back, and
the RSR (Really Strange Right) who *are* in charge are inherently
unable to admit that they could possibly be wrong about *anything*;
and so refuse to change.
--I think you have "hit the nail on the head".
The whole thing reminds me of the guy who was applying for a job in a
railroad control tower.
The examiner asked him, "What would you do if you saw a freight train
approaching from one direction and a passenger train from the other?"
The applicant replied, "I'd throw the switch that put the freight
train onto the siding!"
And the examiner said, "But what if the switch lever broke off?"
And the applicant said, "I'd run down to the tracks and throw the
switch by hand!"
So the examiner said, "But what would you do if the switch was frozen
shut?"
And the applicant said, "I'd grab a flare in one hand, a red flag in
the other, run down the tracks and flag the trains down by hand!"
But the examiner said, "But what if you had no flares or flags? What
then?"
And the applicant said, "Why I'd telephone my wife!"
"Your WIFE?!", said the examiner; "Why on Earth would you call your
wife?"
"Because", said the applicant, I'd tell her, "Honey, look out the
window; 'cause there's about to be the God-damndest train wreck you've
ever seen!"
-- I didn't remove the above story in this post, since I think it is
-- too prophetic and important to have done so... 8^(
--DR
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"SkinnerOne" <skinner_photo@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:qcchb593bk4ut55jk7c5pfdgdbmooejejv@4ax.com...
> How about a two party system without the influences of the lobbists
> and the corruption of personal ambition.
>
> Maybe we could have a two party system that allows a man of principal
> to prosper instead of forcing him into the mold of a vote-monger in
> the constant scramble to ge tre-elected?
>
> Term limits.
>
> Re-structuring the political donation system.
>
> Maybe even parties that seek out their candidates instead of
> individuals that pander to popularity.
>
> Oh Here is a good one. FORCE congress to live with it's own laws. Take
> away their right to exclude themselves from the programs they force on
> the rest of the country.
>
> We have a congress that is out of control regardless of WHICH party is
> in control. We the governed who alow them to govern need to remind
> them that they work for us.
Hey, great ideas - at least in an ideal world, with saints as
citizens...;-) Your ideas are good - but what often dooms
utopian societies is that their founders failed to take into
account human nature. Successful societies are generally
very "messy", without clear and simple organization, and
with many loose ends that must constantly be attended to.
--DR
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Walter Banks" <walter@bytecraft.com> wrote in message
news:4AC0E4AD.BD353655@bytecraft.com...
> Neil Harrington wrote:
>> "Chris H" <chris@phaedsys.org> wrote in message
>> > So what is your suggestion for helping the US economy?
>> Cut taxes. Cut wasteful government. Stop earmarks. Get rid of the millions
>> of illegal aliens who are draining the economy in some parts of the country.
>> Stop meddling abroad. Dumping the corrupt and mostly worthless UN
>> wouldn't be a bad idea either.
> My list from the outside looking in would be
>
> 1) Reform health care with the objective that everyone 100% is covered at a
> cost of 10% of GDP instead of currently using 16% of GDP to cover about
> 85% of the population. Heath care is about making the country competitive.
> This will take 15 years to implement and long term be essentially revenue neutral
>
> 2) Look at the growth in educated people in third world countries that the US
> is competing with for manufactured goods and establish educational goals to
> compete commercially in 2030. It will take 20 years to implement and have a
> GMROI of about 35%
>
> 3) Use the UN and its multilevel internal structure to deal with some of the very
> real security concerns the US has. Marshall world political support for security
> objectives and military support through NATO to reduce security costs back to
> that most industrialized nations need. The US has permanate seat in the security
> council use the bully pulpit for force diplomacy and use the veto as fine edged
> tool and not a blunt object. Other permanate seats in the security council would
> take the US lead.
>
> 4) Address the very real competitive issue of how to compete with the EU. The
> EU as a block has a similar GDP to the US. Form economic alliances with the
> America's, Canada, Mexico, Brazil, Argentina and (yes) Venezuela, Chile and
> Cuba. If the US can deal with China then Cuba should be a no brainer. Each of
> those countries has something to offer. For example Cuba could help a lot with
> inner city health care implementation.
>
> 5) Reduce the dependency in Foreign oil. Right now it is a $1B/day problem in
> the US
>
> 6) Map a plan for relations with China in 2050. China will be an economic force
> and could become a political force in the world. Something like the Towards the
> year 2000 papers that were written in the 70's outlining the relationship with Japan.
>
> 7) Move low level manufacturing back to the US and treat the inner cities as if
> they were a third world country.
>
> Comments on the alternatives
>> Cut taxes.
>> Cut wasteful government.
>> Stop earmarks.
> How much would this save? How would it make life in the US better for the
> individual?
>> Get rid of the millions of illegal aliens who are draining the economy in some parts
>> of the country.
> There doesn't appear to be the economic will to prevent them from working in
> the US. Collectively the US has decided that they are worth more in the US than
> out of the US. At this point the illegal aliens are political scapegoats
>> Stop meddling abroad.
> This is far more complex than not. Iraq has been seen externally as a military
> adventure. Afghanistan had a lot of international support when it was started. Iraq
> directly and indirectly cost the US a lot. The real impact of 9/11 was economic.
> It was a horrible attack but much of the economic impact the US let happen and
> was un-necessary. The US has spent a lot on internal security that is marginally
> effective. Of all the Government programs this is the only one I have seen that is
> significantly wasteful
>> Dumping the corrupt and mostly worthless UN wouldn't be a bad idea either.
> The UN and several other world organizations could be used much more effectively.
> The World Court in the Hague for example.
>
> Boy will I need a new fire proof coat on this one
>
> w..
I WOULD HOPE NOT!!!! You write nothing but intelligent, informed, and
well thought out good sense. This is AMAZING! (And I would be happy to
supply you with a fireproof coat should you need one - but that need would
be a very strong indication that some are still incapable of clear thought, a sad
thing, really...;-)
--DR
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Troll Troll Troll Your Goat ..." <tttyg@tttyg.org> wrote in message news:712ia51r0gob3lumfogj2imgp5po96itll@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 10 Sep 2009 06:08:23 -0400, "Larry Thong"
> <larry_thong@shitstring.com> wrote:
>> <some troll's political crap>
> I think I'll go post about cameras and photography in the political
> newsgroups. I bet that's what they discuss over there. If their subscribers
> are as idiotic as the populace of trolls in these newsgroups then they
> must.
Sometimes there are more important things going on than the minutia
of photography, and although the topic may be very OT, it just may be
worth exploring anyway...
--DR
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Allen" <allent@austin.rr.com> wrote in message news:s7ednRpYKoPgNy7XnZ2dnUVZ_gednZ2d@giganews.com...
> Don Stauffer wrote:
>> David J Taylor wrote:
>>> New newsgroup....
>>>
>>> rec.photo.digital.politics
>>>
>>> At least, I feel we would benefit for a separate place for all the
>>> political discussions! They are out of place here, I feel.
>>>
>>> David
>> Amen!
>>
>> So many folks have left because of the spam. These endless political
>> discussions will drive more away!
>>
>> I tried the Yahoo group- wasn't to satisfied, so I came back. But the
>> group sure isn't what it used to be.
> On the positive side--
> Threads like the current (eternal?) "the value of..." thread give an
> excellent chance to evaluate the real knowledge vs. the oes who can only
> take the "somebody said..." approach and can be profitably used to fill
> a killfile.
> Allen
Why not just ignore the headers you're not interested in and not
open the connected threads, as we do for any other subject here?
Simple, huh? ;-)
--DR
~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Alan Browne" <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote in message news:zfOdnR9-iqX0QjbXnZ2dnUVZ_vxi4p2d@giganews.com...
> Back to photography, anyone?
Naw - this is far too (relatively) interesting and far more likely
to affect us all in the end than (mere) photography...;-) 'Sides,
any unwanted headers can be ignored or their (and their
contents) deleted - or the headers' threads need not be opened,
or all or any parts of their contents can be deleted, marked as
read, or blocked. No problem...;-)
--DR
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Doug McDonald" <mcdonald@scs.uiuc.edu.remove.invalid> wrote in message news:hadh6f$2h5$1@news.acm.uiuc.edu...
> xendor@spiritline.co.uk wrote:
>> And there are indeed trolls of all nationalities, but it does worry me a
>> little when a country feels bound to go to war over a country where the
>> French were so soundly thashed at Dien Bien Phu, only to get so many of
>> their own young men killed with no result,
> in case you don;t know ... which is apparently true ...
> we (the USA) WON the Vietnam war quite decisevely ... their generals
> have since made this quite clear. They (the North Vietnamese)
> we defeated, done, finished. They (the generals) were delighted
> when, this done, we simply left and allowed them to come back and win.
> They were in fact stupefied ... they though us utterly stupid
> to do that (we win and then simply leave and allow then to come
> back and they win). They were, of course, right .... the left
> wing in the US was and is stupid.
>
> Doug McDonald
[Stupidly rising to the bait of what is likely a troll, or sarcasm...;-]
That sure is an "interesting" view of history! Glad I was not one
of the last to "willingly" leave Saigon when the "defeated" generals
(and their armies) were advancing through the city... But, I do
think that the Vietnam War (and the resultant subsidiary wars) and
the Iraq War (and, heck, the Spanish-American War) were rather
stupid and foolish endeavors, not at all worth the costs. As far as
Afghanistan is concerned, this now looks like a very difficult situation,
but one that can be justified fighting given that an attack was launched
on the US from there. Too bad "W" dropped the ball (while having
the Taliban and "friends" on the run) when he stopped to invade Iraq
instead of relatively easily finishing the job in Afghanistan. The
"xxxx-xxxx" (a very nasty name I call him in private, deleted...)!
--DR
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Chris H" <chris@phaedsys.org> wrote in message news:hApOGjK5IwyKFA3f@phaedsys.demon.co.uk...
> In message <i9ZeJnD7avyKFAFp@phaedsys.demon.co.uk>, Chris H
> <chris@phaedsys.org> writes
>>In message <hadjnm$hhu$1@ruby.cit.cornell.edu>, David Ruether
>><d_ruether@thotmail.com> writes
>>>Too bad "W" dropped the ball (while having
>>>the Taliban and "friends" on the run) when he stopped to invade Iraq
>>>instead of relatively easily finishing the job in Afghanistan.
>>Problem was the US trained the Taliban and Al-qeada in the first place.
> And for that matter the USA trained the 9/11 pilots too.....
> --
> \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
> \/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/
> \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
Yes - talk about ironies, and unintended consequences when one
militarily interferes in others' affairs. Who was an "enemy" one day
(or for decades...) may turn out to be the "friend" - and the former
"friend" may become the "enemy". It would be REALLY nice if
militaries were limited in use to protecting against "clear and present
dangers" instead of as instruments for international power politics,
or worse yet, for territorial acquisition. The problem, I guess, is both
the "competitiveness" of human nature, and the need to prepare and
decisively act in the face of events and trends that are not at all clear
at the time such are needed to insure eventual success. A really good
functioning crystal ball would be SO useful! 8^)
--DR
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Savageduck" <savageduck@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote in message news:2009100609264075249-savageduck@REMOVESPAMmecom...
> He missed the fact the British rearmed the Japanese to police
> Indo-China. The French in Indo-China were seen as Vichy collaborators
> That organization headed by Ho was the Viet Minh which had been
> fighting the French before WWII. During the War they were our allies
> assisted by the OSS in the fight against the Japanese. After WWII The
> Viet Minh occupied Hanoi and declared a provisional government in
> September 1945.
> The Provisional French Republic sent the French Far East Expeditionary
> Force to relieve the British administration and to put the liberation
> movement down and reclaim the colony. This resulted in the
> French-Indo-China war which lasted until 1954.
> After Dien Bien Phu there was a negotiated ceasefire and the North and
> South were separated. The North was the Democratic Republic of Vietnam,
> and the South reverted to the control of the Emperor Bao Dai.
> The US with the wiles of the brothers Dulles as members of the
> Eisenhower Administration plotted the overthrow of Bao Dai and
> established and supported Ngo Dinh Diem, the Catholic Prime Minister.
> (the start of the age of the Ugly American.)
> The original 1954 Geneva agreement mandated nation wide elections by
> 1956, but Diem, supported by the US, refused to hold them, or even hold
> talks with the North.
> The escalation of American involvement starting with advisors sent by
> the Eisenhower Administration, reached 15,000 by the time JFK reached
> the Whitehouse. JFK recognized the potential quagmire and was planning
> withdrawal after the Buddhist monk protests and self immolations.
> However in 1963 there was the first of the coups by the Southern
> generals and Diem and his brother Nhu were killed. Six weeks later JFK
> was dead and LBJ was headed to the theatrics of the Gulf of Tonkin
> incident.
>
> The 1973 Paris Treaty basically reverted to the 1954 Geneva Agreement
> which got most of the US troops withrdawn by April 1973. The fly in
> this ointment was Thieu who maintained the Republic of Vietnam was not
> represented at Paris and he was not bound to hold to the agreement
> between the North and the US in Paris. We get to 1975 and the great
> embarrassment, but guess what, Vietnam was finally liberated from
> French colonialism.
> --
> Regards,
>
> Savageduck
I thank you for this thorough and useful account.
--DR
~~~~~~
[copied post excerpt]
>> I thank you for this thorough and useful account.
>> --DR
> My thanks too, Savageduck, whoever you might be. The issues of Vietnam
> have been so distorted by some politicians that many people have no
> clue about what happened. It is a story that has been repeated too many
> times--"solutions" to issues just keep accumulating until the result is
> outright war. And we just can't make ourselves believe that learning
> from history prevents repeating the same mistakes, and that if you have
> a tiger by the tail you can't let go.
> Allen
Agreed, the post WWII 1950's along with Korea and the "Red Scare" led
us into Dulles diplomacy which saw support of coups and corrupt regimes
around the World. There was Somoza in Nicaragua, Duvallier in Haiti,
Batista in Cuba, Trujillo in the Dominican Republic, etc, etc.. Just
think of the overthrow of Mossadegh and the installation of the Shah in
Iran with Operation Ajax, an Eisenhower plan, and where that has lead
us.
Vietnam was the result of our misguided foreign policy just as our
current predicament is misguided.
We were seen as "The Ugly Americans" in the 50's because of our
meddling and manipulating in the name of freedom or defense, and we are
right back to 1956 in the way we are handling things now.
--
Regards,
Savageduck
~~~~~~~~~
"Allen" <allent@austin.rr.com> wrote in message news:Z8ydnTziWvOdGlbXnZ2dnUVZ_smdnZ2d@giganews.com...
> Savageduck wrote:
>> US involvement started with Ike, manipulated by the brothers Dulles,
>> John Foster and Allen. JFK was caught in the squeeze with the advisors
>> (15,000) when he entered the Whitehouse and supporting the
>> anti-communist Diem regime.
>> Enter LBJ and the Gulf of Tonkin incident and the rest is history.
>> Technically our role in the war was done in 1973 after Paris. The 1975
>> embarrassment was unavoidable due to the Nixon Vietnamization program
>> and Kissinger's work in Paris. That was the idea, to to stop the
>> political damage of US military dying in a war supporting a corrupt
>> government. In that Nixon and Kissinger were successful.
>> Congress just saved Ford from putting us back into a mess to support
>> Thieu, after it had taken 7 years to negotiate our way out.
> I don't know who you are, but I hope that you are a history prof
> somewhere; if not, you should be.
> Allen
I second that!
--DR
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Chris H" <chris@phaedsys.org> wrote in message news:sS9tCOPoezyKFAHr@phaedsys.demon.co.uk...
> In message <MPG.2534f00a2c6bf02c98985b@news-east.giganews.com>,
> Giftzwerg <giftzwerg999@hotmail.com> writes
>>In article <rgAMeJLfYwyKFA1b@phaedsys.demon.co.uk>, chris@phaedsys.org
>>says...
>>> It think the US's first choice of president for Iraq was some one the
>>> Jordanians said they would arrest or get arrested if he came anywhere
>>> near any county they had an extradition agreement with! The man was
>>> apparently a blatant crook.
Chalibi, or some such, as I recall. What an obvious con-man!
>><laughter>
>>
>>Apparently the supply of honest, liberal, enlightened raghead
>>politicians falls into that "world's thinnest books" category.
> Only in the USA.
> --
> \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
> \/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/
> \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
Why do I generally agree with your posts, "Chris H"? Maybe
'cuz you know more than a bit, and, <gasp!>, take the "long"
view of things? Could be.....8^)
--DR
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"AL" <atlieb@gmail.com> wrote in message news:349a3fbf-97e2-4bc0-8687-ed9e6df46375@y42g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
>I recently got a plane ride of a lifetime. I was asked if I wanted to
> video formation flight from the air. While enroute, we did some
> aerobatic maneuvers.
>
> I would love to get insight on how I can improve my videos (I may get
> a second chance at this) and also get some insight on my suggestions I
> shared with other pilots below my name on how to video these events
> from the cozy confines of a plane. Cameras used were point and shoot
> flavors, Casio and Kodak Easy Share, videos edited with Windows Movie
> Maker..
> Aerobatics http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5ami-dqDiRk
The YouTube results look better than I would have expected
from these cameras. You give a very good "flavor" for what
it's like to be in this plane, and to fly in it during acrobatics. If
anyone has ever seen a "hammerhead stall" done from outside
of the plane, it is amazing you "retained your cookies" during
the maneuver! The "near pylon" maneuver near the end made
me a bit nervous since it was so near the ground (with little
room to correct a spin).
> Formation Flight http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B96gfcxci60
>
> Allen
You caught these four planes very well. BTW, I can't watch the
Blue Angels - wing-tip to wing-tip formationa are just WAY too
scary in jets! Nice work! Just goes to show that good work CAN
be done with simple video resources. Bravo!
> Below is what I shared with other pilots if you can add, I would most
> appreciate this!
>
> Soooo, for those following this thread and ever get this once in a
> life time opportunity.... Video tips that may be worthy of
> printing :-)
>
> Don't let the excitement overcome your videoing!
Or, don't let your video making "steal" the experience from you,
if you are unlikely to have another opportunity for a similar one.
Things are best seen directly, rather than through a viewfinder...;-)
> KNOW YOUR EQUIPMENT. I lost audio on my recorder because I
> failed to consider using the "hold button" I realized I was losing audio as
> I had my recorder in my camera bag and something kept hitting the stop
> button. Had I used that hold button, this would have disabled the
> buttons and this would not have happened.
Good advice for and type of shooting - but especially in "high drama"
ones...;-)
> Study up on formation flying before hand. The more prepared you are
> before, the better of you will be. I was very fortunate to have four
> chances to learn the moves and transistions. It would have been nice
> if I would have at least watched a video or two before hand. Of
> course your position is everything and what looks simple on the
> ground is incredibly complex in the air. Try to be situationally aware if
> you are doing lazy eights. Allows you to anticipate.
>
> Take a wide angle lens if you have one as you can't capture all
> planes
> in the formation when tight. There were times I could not get the
> whole plane in when I was zoomed OUT we were that close.
Um, I tend to prefer leaving a good WA on at all times...;-)
> Take extra batteries or an extra camera is even better (I used the
> second camera in the flight formation video since my newer camera
> battery was nearing it's life)
> Stay focused on the plane (or planes) for at least 10 seconds before
> panning to your next shot. This becomes important for editing later.
> I have two "point and shoot" digital cameras (Casio and Kodak Easy
> Share). As we all know, confines of an airplane are tight, it's even
> tighter in a tailwheel and camcorder may be bulky since the canapy
> narrows big time in the back.
>
> I had a small camera bag with easy access to everything. Think small,
> there is no room in the rear and you CANNOT have anything on the
> floor since controls are running through there and the rear rudder pedals
> move constantly. Everything must work from your lap. THINK SAFETY
> as you are strapped in for the ride and your mobility is not the same as
> a 4 passenger plane. Do not keep any loose items on your lap as the
> breaks are extremely sharp responses that I have never felt in a
> plane before.
Good advice, all!
> Shoot with the canopy open if the pilot allows it. I had no clue
> what to expect so I closed the canapy as I was thinking "wind noises"
> would be rediculous. Take the wind noise and you can edit it later. I
> can't do the reverse now. Reason you want the canopy open is to
> eliminate reflections that you see in my video.
>
> Pilot I was with was great, during the acro video, he did duplicate
> so I could get the wing and front view. Think backwards! I like the
> view with the camera panned on me. Unique touch to it. If time
> permits, I would suggest doing each routine three times, once out the
> front, side and back. This way if you mess up one, you still have
> two to go with for the final video cut.
Thanks for the post and the videos. BTW, if anyone complains about
the lack of smoothness in the images, you know they have not tried
to shoot video hand held from a light plane or a helicopter - it is darn
near impossible. One needs a floor-mounted gyro mount on a jet
helicopter to get it right - but that wasn't the point of your videos...;-)
--DR
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Jay Patrick" <no@nospam.com> wrote in message news:h8ivrr$dl9$1@news.eternal-september.org...
> Ok, folks, based on some advice here, before I invest in the AVCHD camera, I
> have been experimenting with some AVCHD files in Sony Vegas. Bascially, all
> I'm trying to do at this point is to convert the incoming .m2ts file into an
> uncompressed AVI with the same settings (video size, aspect ratio, etc) as
> the original. So far, I'm not having too much success. The biggest problem
> is that the aspect ratio of the new file comes out differently, even if I
> specify in the Vegas rendering to render the same aspect ratio as the source
> file. If the original is 1.333, it comes out with a black border at the top
> and bottom and the border doesn't go away if I try to play the file at the
> original 100% size. Any idea what's happening and am I missing something
> here? I had this same problem before when I actually had an AVCHD camera at
> one point and now I remember why I abandoned the format. All I want is for
> the source and destination files to be the same except the destination as an
> uncompressed AVI, so I can use it in virtually every other program i have
> here.
>
> Thanks,
> Jay
Then, if I'm understanding this correctly, you may want to choose square
pixels, 1:1. The other choice is likely for conversions from 16:9 1440x1080
HDV to other formats which are 16x9 1920x1080, etc.....
--DR
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Jay Patrick" <none@nospam.com> wrote in message news:h8ljht$mmk$1@news.eternal-september.org...
> Another issue I've been dealing with when working with interlaced AVCHD
> files. I like to apply effects to files before I render them (color
> corrections, sharpening, etc). Vegas appears to deinterlace upon rendering,
> but what is the best recommended method? At least with one I tried, even
> after deinterlacing, if I then applied an unsharp mask I could see lines
> start to appear in the video. This isn't good and I hope there's a way
> around it.
>
> Thanks,
> jay
Another guess, but... It may be that you have specified the
wrong field order for your format, or have reversed the
video play direction. And, generally with HD, the field scan
lines are so small that you don't see them at all unless something
is wrong. BTW, you can leave deinterlace type as "interpolate
fields", but this won't actually apply while rendering unless you
specifically choose to export a "progressive" (non-interlaced)
file. It is generally best to stay in the original format and only
apply deinterlacing if there is a real reason to. Also, try to apply
ALL filters and other changes BEFORE the video rendering
and export of HD to reduce damage to the image quality from
multiple compression passes. Another thought. Depending on
your preview window size and quality setting (ideally 960x540,
at least for NTSC[?] at "Best/Full" for highest quality image,
but this still probably uses half the scan lines - but they should
not be generally visible).
--DR
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Richard Crowley" <rcrowley@xp7rt.net> wrote in message
news:7h82fsF2s55t0U1@mid.individual.net...
> "liu" wrote ...
> Here at the office I typically send people out to shoot their casual
> internal business video stuff (much as you describe) with a $5 clip-
> on "computer mic".
>> How long a distance it can be away from Mic.
> With proper (i.e. balanced, shielded) mic cable, 25-50 feet is no
> problem at all. I have used mic lines many 100s of feet long.
10-12' is certainly practical (and long enough for interviews) using
simpler unbalanced line extension cable - but just be VERY sure it
is not "headphone" or "speaker" extension cable, which are not
properly shielded for microphone use. This is also available at
Radio Shack, and quite cheap.
--DR
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Richard Crowley" <rcrowley@xp7rt.net> wrote in message news:7hd059F2t2559U1@mid.individual.net...
> "Martin Heffels" wrote ...
>> "Richard Crowley" wrote:
>>>Yes, that is a viable alternative when you have a workflow that
>>>accomodates laying back separate sound tracks.
>> And it looks like the OP doesn't have that.
>>
>> Most of these devices can record for hours, so why would you switch
>> them off? Especially if they have timecode. Set the timecode to the
>> clock, and write down the time when the camera starts rolling.
> Even if you DO have timecode (and especially if you DON'T)
> starting and stoping the audio recorder *automatically* breaks
> the audio recordings into "shots" which correlate to the video
> from the camera. That has the potential to save a LOT of
> time in post-production.
A "clapper" can be used to synchronize picture and sound for each
take, but more time and complication would be saved by running two
mics hard-wired (with fairly short unbalanced lines) to the camera
using a cheap RS 1/8th inch "dual mono to stereo" adapter and later
mixing the interviewer/interviewee as desired during editing...
--DR
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Paul Furman" <paul-@-edgehill.net> wrote in message news:h94698$kqo$1@news.eternal-september.org...
> Update:
> Yes, that was just lucky that I was able to make 720x480 files in 3:2
> ratio. I don't have the pro version and that's the largest output Vegas
> Movie Studio will produce. Apparently Platinum will do HD :-( I learned
> this after many hours of processing my time lapse jpegs to what a quick
> google said was a max size for youtube of 854x480 HQ then discovered
> that I cannot produce video at that size.
Movie Studio Platinum 9 will export the HD formats, is around $75,
and may be cheaper than that as an upgrade from what you have...
> FormatFactory which I've been
> using to compress can fake that up to 1280x720 and when uploaded, that
> goes down again to 854x480... which is actually what I wanted but a
> strange way to get there...
That it is, since you are upsampling SD to faux HD, then reversing the
process - not the best way to go...
> man, what a minefield this video processing
> is! If I try uploading the 854x480 version, youtube puts it in a
> super-ridiculous wide frame downsized to about 854x361... what the heck
> is that? Was I one pixel over to trigger that? And Why did it downsize
> my 720p version? Oh well...
It "sees" anything that is 480 high as SD and scales it down. It
also scales HD down, but to a larger final size...
> BTW, I looked at trying to smush my files into anamorphic asymmetrical
> pixels but apparently that only works on TVs with actual asymmetrical
> pixels.
In the correct proportion for what you/they are doing...
> I know it's lame but youtube is my current outlet but dang if
> they don't use weird standards! See, I'm not the only one to want to do
> weird file sizes :-)
Black-bars, black-bars, black-bars...! ;-) Again, TV is either 4:3 or
16:9. All else is presented with black bars either at the sides or at
the top and bottom. Even super wide-screen movies are presented on
16:9 HDTVs with bars (as is 4:3 SD programming). But you can
"stretch-to-fit" material, if you are willing...;-)
>>>> it seems that you can do this. BTW, I would edit in HDV 1080i and
>>>> convert to 720p
I can't remember if YouTube requires the conversion, or if it can handle
the conversion...
>> More scenarios:
>>
>> 1080 high might be ideal if I didn't want to crop and wanted them to
>> play nice on a dvd player. That would be 1623 wide.
1080 is easily converted to 480 DVD format for authoring DVDs, and it
looks good. But you can also convert 1080 HDV to 1080 AVCHD
(a "pain", though...) and author/write cheap standard red-laser DVDs using
standard DVD writers for cheap HD, but these disks play only on (most)
Blu-ray players (and the PS3). Harder to edit, but you can also work
directly in AVCHD 1080 to make your originals.
>> 1920 x 1200 would be nice because it would fill a wide computer screen
>> but that would be yet another odd crop so probably not worth bothering
>> with. I don't even have a player that does full screen for that. The
>> crop would be very small though, just 78 pixels.
>>
>> 1920 x 1080 is a big crop of 198 pixels.
>>
>> I guess it's just coincidence that the old DVD standard of 720 wide has
>> the same number as medium HD at 720 high.
Yes. It is meaningless in practice.
>>>> for sending material to YouTube for best quality, which
>>>> is what I do now. If while preparing your photos you crop them to
>>>> 1920x1080 using the full width, or stretch them to exactly fit without
>>>> bars - then working with them in Vegas will be very easy. Or, in Vegas
>>>> you can click on the little "Pan/Crop" symbol near the right edge of the
>>>> clip/photo on the timeline, click on the "Lock Aspect Ratio" button to
>>>> disable it in the Dialogue Box that comes up (or you can hold down the
>>>> "Ctrl" key while reproportioning), and change the values to 1440x1080
>>>> (width x height for HDV...) in the "Position" location - or leave that
>>>> alone and enlarge the image enough to lose the bars (you can recenter
>>>> the image as you wish). You will probably want to use the keyframing
>>>> to keep the image centered (unless you want to move it with time...;-).
>>>> Simpler is to import photos in the correct proportion, whether cropped
>>>> to 1920x1080, or stretched to 1920x1080...
>>>> --DR
> --
> Paul Furman
Easiest, if you can stand the stretching, is to let Platinum 9 stretch-to-fit
the images to the 1920x1080 frame (which is what both HDV and AVCHD
at highest HDTV resolution use).
--DR
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Paul Furman" <paul-@-edgehill.net> wrote in message news:h95og9$tvp$1@news.eternal-september.org...
> David Ruether wrote:
>> Paul Furman wrote
>> Movie Studio Platinum 9 will export the HD formats, is around $75,
>> and may be cheaper than that as an upgrade from what you have...
> $85, the upgrade is $75
> http://www.sonycreativesoftware.com/buy/moviestudiope
> http://www.sonycreativesoftware.com/upgrade/moviestudiopp
Try here - a new copy is $67, including shipping --
http://www.amazon.com/Sony-Vegas-Movie-Studio-Platinum/dp/B001CPFWI2/ref=sr_1_4?ie=UTF8&s=software&qid=1253469384&sr=8-4
> I paid $56 for movie studio more than a year ago, I didn't even know
> what HD was way back then in the dark ages <g>.
But, NOW you do.......! 8^)
>>> man, what a minefield this video processing is! If I try uploading the
>>> 854x480 version, youtube puts it in a super-ridiculous wide frame downsized
>>> to about 854x361... what the heck is that?
> Just to be clear, it downsizes to around 630x360, with black bars out to
> about 854 to accommodate the super-wide format. Poking around in the
> youtube help forums, it seems like this changes weekly <g>. They have
> also made it harder to get anything to show above that size... who knows
> what algorithms they use to decide...
I would start out with whatever they specify for "HD"...
> BTW, it's possible to force the larger screen by appending "&fmt=35" or
> "&fmt=18" in the address bar, now that the HQ button is gone, for some
> videos...
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CoITqb-dYaI
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CoITqb-dYaI&fmt=18
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CoITqb-dYaI&fmt=35
>
> HQ35, HQ18, 780x480, 856x480, 640x480
One could even before "HD" 16:9 get better playback on YouTube
with SD by adding "&fmt=18" - the same quality as when the "HQ" button
appeared and was clicked on.
> I would be happy if the smushed pixels worked. I guess it should work in
> a DVD player, and perhaps on a computer when formated as a DVD (not avi,
> wmv, etc) but it does not work on the web, in particular youtube.
> --
> Paul Furman
Non-square pixels are used with DVDs and Mini-DV (720x480->640x480,
with enhanced resolution) and HDV to HD (1440x1080->1920x1080, with
larger picture area) - but these require "translating" software to recognize the
source characteristics, what needs to be done with them to supply 4:3 or 16:9
standard TV-format images, and also to produce the new images. This would
be a bit much for web-based material - it's hard enough to just stream it
successfully. Remember when streamed video looked like about five soft
blobs bobbing about in a 1"x1.25" window...? ;-)
--DR
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Paul Furman" <paul-@-edgehill.net> wrote in message news:h95vel$6bc$1@news.eternal-september.org...
> David Ruether wrote:
[For YouTube...]
>> I would start out with whatever they specify for "HD"...
> 1280x720 or 640x480
> http://www.google.com/support/youtube/bin/answer.py?answer=132460&topic=16612&hl=en-US
> So I guess that's what I'll be doing for now. I suspect my machine is
> not really up to 1920x1080, at least not comfortably. I am processing
> the jpegs at that size though.
Your machine should be able to handle 1920x1080i just fine if it
can handle 1280x720p...
> So... Platinum 9 is a lot smoother editing than the basic v8, even at
> the larger 1280x720 size, though I haven't figured out how to get the
> preview window full size but maybe that's a good thing. Movie Studio 8
> choked previewing even 720 wide...
Best to set the Preview Window for standard-proportion TV at 1/2
dimension with "Best/Full" if you can (an even fraction of the original
will likely run the most smoothly[?]) so you can really see what the
image looks like. If your machine is too slow to preview transitions
properly, and if you don't want to bother making preview files, and if
you have a gig of RAM to spare (3+ total on the machine with XP),
you can assign it to making short RAM previews (go to "Options",
"Preferences", the "Video" tab, and replace "128" with "1024" in the
"Dynamic RAM Preview max (MB)" box).
> A small test clip came out on youtube at 854x480, which is what I was
> shooting for. No guarantee that the much larger full version will
> survive, or even be small enough to fit the 2GB max. Hmm in their
> recommended mpeg2, 13 seconds makes a 33MB .m2t file so the 2:45 video
> will be about 500MB, so it should work. If I spend 12 hours redoing this
> & it comes out the same size, I'm gonna be grumpy ;-)
>
> 13-second test clip that I'll probably delete when I get the final up:
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F69F8pqnyAw
This looks GOOD! ;-)
> a lot better than 630x360 with funky black bars:
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CoITqb-dYaI&fmt=35
This looks TERRIBLE! ;-) It also looks darker.
> ...bunch of cleanup work to correct exposures, crops, etc...
A tripod and either a cloudless or evenly overcast day would help...
--DR
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Paul Furman" <paul-@-edgehill.net> wrote in message news:h98k18$d1b$1@news.eternal-september.org...
> David Ruether wrote:
>> Best to set the Preview Window for standard-proportion TV at 1/2
>> dimension with "Best/Full" if you can (an even fraction of the original
>> will likely run the most smoothly[?]) so you can really see what the
>> image looks like.
A layout is here --
http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/video-editor-screens.htm, and here --
http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/SONY-NUMBERED-LAYOUT.htm
And instructions for resizing windows in the program are within
the Vegas editing article, at --
http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/Sony-editing.htm
> It gives 2 options:
> OHCI Compliant IEEE 1394/DV
> -from there, choose:
> NTSC DV, NTSC DV Widescreen, PAL DV, PAL DV Widescreen
> Windows Secondary Display
> -dual monitors, I chose the 1280x800 laptop screen size
>
> and I figured out how to get it full size, nice!
If you want to edit using your 24" 1920x1200 screen (see a layout on
one with Vegas with a 16:9 HD project - with HDV, but the preview is
1/2-dimension of 1920x1080), see above. If your video card has a
second head, you can connect a monitor or TV to it and click on the
small "TV" icon near the upper left corner of the Preview Window, and
the preview will also appear on the second monitor or TV, in the correct
proportion and in full size if the monitor or TV supports it. You may
notice, though, that a 1/2-sized Preview Window looks better than what
is on the smaller secondary computer monitor, even though it is shown
full size...
>> If your machine is too slow to preview transitions
>> properly, and if you don't want to bother making preview files, and if
>> you have a gig of RAM to spare (3+ total on the machine with XP),
>> you can assign it to making short RAM previews (go to "Options",
>> "Preferences", the "Video" tab, and replace "128" with "1024" in the
>> "Dynamic RAM Preview max (MB)" box).
> Thanks, I try that, I've got 4GB RAM, of which vista sees a bit more
> than 3. Upgrade to Windows 7 in October, my darn HD is full and it's
> time to clean things up. WMP is broke and the recommended fix is to
> reinstall windows :-(
>>> 13-second test clip that I'll probably delete when I get the final up:
>>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F69F8pqnyAw
>> This looks GOOD! ;-)
>>> a lot better than 630x360 with funky black bars:
>>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CoITqb-dYaI&fmt=35
>> This looks TERRIBLE! ;-) It also looks darker.
> Ya, like I said, lots of cleanup to do. It's uploading now... if it
> makes it, that'll be here:
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jcw8NSHuxW0
It may be good to learn how to use the keyframed video filters in
Vegas. With "contrast/brightness" you can adjust brightness to
smooth out variations (using contrast to compensate when blacks
start to go away from excessive brightening). Right-clicking on the
control points and choosing "smooth" reduces abruptness of changes
(adding more points also helps - and the same applies to audio
keyframing).
>>> ...bunch of cleanup work to correct exposures, crops, etc...
>> A tripod and either a cloudless or evenly overcast day would help...
> Ya, the sun moved right into the frame, subject in & out of shadows,
> etc. Ideally I'd be sitting beside the camera with a light meter
> adjusting the exposure incrementally on the big tripod, and/or shoot
> raw. Canon's small raw files would be good for this.
> --
> Paul Furman
This all looked fairly easy to correct in post...
--DR
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Paul Furman" <paul-@-edgehill.net> wrote in message news:h9llj0$5g3$1@news.eternal-september.org...
[...]
> The only thing I can open them with is divx and Vegas. Divx messes them
> up sometimes. Somehow WMP got hosed on my vista system and the
> recommended solution is to reinstall the OS (ha ha). Divx is a bit
> clunky and seems to be buggy playing them sometimes, irfanview would be
> nice, virtualdub won't even open them. I tried downloading a free codec
> but have no clue how that's supposed to work, probably for WMP. WinDVD
> is what I play rented DVD movies with and it won't open them. The files
> are .m2t generated with Vegas and I chose that because that's what
> youtube recommends. I'm sure it's a good format, I just can't hardly
> play the darn things.
> --
> Paul Furman
Are you sure you're converting the files to standard HDV (1440x1080i,
NTSC 29.97 fps, upper field first, 25 Mbps - or 1280x720p, NTSC
29.97 fps, non-unterlaced, 18.3 Mbps)? In Vegas, you can choose the
appropriate template ("HDV 1080-60i" for NTSC) or ("HDV 720-30p
for NTSC) or and you can also customize the templates, if you dare...;-).
--DR
~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Paul Furman" <paul-@-edgehill.net> wrote in message news:h9luh9$ah0$1@news.eternal-september.org...
> David Ruether wrote:
>> Are you sure you're converting the files to standard HDV (1440x1080i,
>> NTSC 29.97 fps, upper field first, 25 Mbps - or 1280x720p, NTSC
>> 29.97 fps, non-unterlaced, 18.3 Mbps)? In Vegas, you can choose the
>> appropriate template ("HDV 1080-60i" for NTSC) or ("HDV 720-30p
>> for NTSC) or and you can also customize the templates, if you dare...;-).
> Project properties:
> Deinterlace method: Blend fields.
> HDV 720-30p (1280x720, 29.970 fps)
> Frame rate: 29.970 (NTSC)
>
> I don't know about Mbps?
> It's 4:47 minutes (287 sec) long and 675MB so that's 2.35 MB/sec
Even though Vegas takes care of the deinterlacing on its own without
specifying anything when going to a non-interlaced format from an
interlaced one (from what I gather), I would still leave "Interpolate fields"
always set (it isn't active with interlaced export). It looks like you have
managed to export non-standard HDV, which would likely give playback
problems. The correct data rate for 720p NTSC is 18.5 MB/sec. If
you select the "HDV 720-30p" template for export, then click on the
"custom" button, then the "video" tab, you can change things, but it should
originally show 1280x720 frame size and 18.3 Mbps data rate there.
> Render settings:
> MainConcept MPEG-2 (*.mpg, *.m2v, *.m2t, *.mpa)
> Template:
> HDV 720-30p (Custom button is grayed out)
> Description:
> Audio: 384 Kbps, 48,000 Hz, Layer 2
> Video: 29.97 fps, 1280x720
> Use this setting to create an HDV 720-30p
This should have worked...
> Here's what the damage looks like:
> http://www.flickr.com/photos/edgehill/3956076245/
UGH! Looks like macroblocking and maybe interlacing problems
galore!
> Here's the downsized result, not that it matters <g>:
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1TSGaxOa1nM
> --
> Paul Furman
Except for the odd proportions, it now looks good...(why?).
--DR
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Paul Furman" <paul-@-edgehill.net> wrote in message news:h9oddl$frt$1@news.eternal-september.org...
> Perhaps if I burned out an uncompressed avi with vegas and used one of
> those like "Super" or I've used FormatFactory before. I like using vegas
> for all the many editing possibilities though.
It *should* work for almost anything you want to do (the Platinum 9
version now handles HD, unlike previous VideoStudio versions).
> BTW, I got WMP (windows media player) working again, it was just the
> shortcut launch item that was fouled by an update somehow... anyways it
> plays the vegas .m2t file just fine (after some balking at the m2t
> extension) so I think the problem was maybe an old version of divx
> and/or my computer having trouble keeping up. WMP lets me show it full
> screen too, which irfanview can't do with the WMV version that I tried.
BTW, for viewing, you can change the ".m2t" file ending to ".mpg"
(just remember to change it back...!).
> Youtube is now showing the uploaded versions at full 1280x720 HD, but
> only if you go into full-screen mode. Before I got WMP working, youtube
> was the only way to get that <g>. Youtube lets me download their small
> .mp4 file when I'm logged in. That's MPEG-4 which vegas platinum 9
> doesn't offer for output and WMP, irfanview & Quicktime choke on. I can
> only view it in vegas <g>. I'm curious what the file size is for their
> .mp4 at 720 HD, probably not the 675MB size I uploaded.
> --
> Paul Furman
????? (You lost me...;-) Vegas can export AVC, which is
MPEG-4/AVCHD. After placing the blue "Loop region", either hit "Ctrl+M"
or go to "File", "Render as", and select "MainConcept AVC/AAC (*.mp4)".
Be sure to go to "Custom", then "Video" and enter "1920x1080" or
"1280x720" and leave the other things alone except for the "bps" settings.
Adjust these to get the best quality file that fits within the time and size
limits that YouTube establishes (you will need to experiment - and I would
probably use "Variable bit rate", "Two-pass" for what you are doing). The
defaults are likely to be WAY too low - try "14,000,000 max", "10,000,000
ave" to start and see what the resulting file size is.
--DR
~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Paul Furman" <paul-@-edgehill.net> wrote in message news:h9p6q1$jrn$1@news.eternal-september.org...
> David Ruether wrote:
>> Vegas can export AVC, which is
>> MPEG-4/AVCHD. After placing the blue "Loop region", either hit "Ctrl+M"
>> or go to "File", "Render as", and select "MainConcept AVC/AAC (*.mp4)".
> Ah, OK, AVC/AAC means nothing to me and I missed: (*.mp4)
"MainConcept AVC/AAC (*.mp4)" is not one of the available
templates when you go to render or export?
>> Be sure to go to "Custom",
> Again, like .m2t, I can't do custom, that's grayed out,
> and the only options are AAC:
>
> default template 320x240
> apple ipod 320x240
> apple ipod 640x480
>
> I guess that's a platinum/pro difference...
> --
> Paul Furman
Maybe so - but I'm surprised if it is... Too bad, if so. Darn!
Guess that's why P-9 is $75 and Pro-8 was $600... :-(
If you want to do more of this, and this feature is important,
the Pro-8 upgrade is $123 here --
http://www.amazon.com/Vegas-Pro-8-Boxed-Upgrade/dp/B000VVDRMG/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&s=software&qid=1254144744&sr=8-3,
or directly from Tiger Direct, at --
http://www.tigerdirect.com/applications/searchtools/item-Details.asp?EdpNo=3438420&sku=S206-1016&srkey=sony%20vegas%20pro%208%20upgrade.
Afterward, make sure you have the latest (8c) update (free)
from Sony installed. Not a bad idea to see if this upgrade
version will actually upgrade from Platinum 9 and not just
an earlier version of Vegas Pro (I did mine from Pro-5 that
I got for $100) by checking with Sony.
--DR
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Alan Browne" <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote in message news:qtGdnVSMq7n-viDXnZ2dnUVZ_tKdnZ2d@giganews.com...
> Finally got around to testing these lenses against each other at the
> same aperture.
>
> On the left: Sony (Carl Zeiss design) 135 f/1.8 near minimum focus.
>
> On the right: Hasselblad (Carl Zeiss build) 120 f/4 Makro.
>
> Both shot on a Sony a900: f/8, 1/250, ISO 200 (flash: constant
> power/sync).
>
> The Sony appears a little less sharp than the Hassy lens, and the colour
> of the Hassy shot seems a little more pleasing.
>
> http://photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=9825952&size=lg
>
> (Image is 1500 pixels wide (vignette in the middle is one of the two
> shots "as shot" before cropping).
>
> note: Per a res test chart on photozone.de, the sweet spot of the Sony
> is f4 - f/5.6 (As I shot the previous test).
As everyone has noted, there are problems with the focus.
I am surprised, though, that the 135mm f1.8 did as well as
it did used as a macro lens - most speed lenses not designed
specifically for macro work are quite poor when used for
close-up work...
--DR
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Alan Browne" <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote in message
news:E_mdnYvuLOEJpiPXnZ2dnUVZ_hednZ2d@giganews.com...
> David Ruether wrote:
>> As everyone has noted, there are problems with the focus.
>> I am surprised, though, that the 135mm f1.8 did as well as
>> it did used as a macro lens - most speed lenses not designed
>> specifically for macro work are quite poor when used for
> There is no serious problem with the focus *other than it being at a
> slightly different spot on the coin*.
*Ahem...! ;-)
> I was shooting at a slight oblique
> and it was very awkward to focus as I was set up. With a focusing rail
> and a step ladder (so wouldn't be contorted while focusing), the focus
> point would have been much closer/the same on the coin face. As
> Stephanie rightly pointed out, where the focus is sharpest on the coin,
> the detail appears every bit as sharp with both lenses.
They are hard to compare *exactly* - but they do look close.
To me, though, the 135mm image looks slightly darker, which
would also affect sense of sharpness...
> Further, as mentioned, the sweet spot of the 135 f/1.8 is at f/4 or so.
> So add that as well as its supposed better far field performance (as
> well as the fact that the 120 f/4 Makro is known to be a little soft in
> the far field - which isn't fair!) and the results should favour the
> Sony - but possibly not so much that one would notice in such a test.
The 135 is very impressive - and for use under a wide range of focus
distances, likely superior (and certainly "good enough" ;-).
> This puts to rest, IMO, the nonsense opinions of some that Sony
> (ex-Minolta lens works) can't build a Carl Zeiss design to Carl Zeiss
> quality.
Heck, Cosina builds some "Leica" lenses of very high quality
as I recall (along with very good "Voightlander" lenses), Sony
builds "Zeiss" lenses for camcorders that are very high quality,
and then there are the Panasonic "Leica" lenses...;-) 'Course,
back in the film SLR days, Leica just rebranded some Minolta
lenses and sold them for FAR more than the originals (and some
of these were not stellar performers compared with the offerings
of some other companies...).
--DR
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
<stephe_k@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:h9lt75$pl9$2@news.albasani.net...
> Alan Browne wrote:
>> David Ruether wrote:
>>> Heck, Cosina builds some "Leica" lenses of very high quality
>>> as I recall (along with very good "Voightlander" lenses), Sony
>>> builds "Zeiss" lenses for camcorders that are very high quality,
>>> and then there are the Panasonic "Leica" lenses...;-) 'Course,
>>> back in the film SLR days, Leica just rebranded some Minolta
>>> lenses and sold them for FAR more than the originals (and some
>>> of these were not stellar performers compared with the offerings
>>> of some other companies...).
>> And now Hasselblad H series lenses are made by Fujinon, not CZ.
> The Fujinon lenses I have used were absolutely amazing. Their medium
> format range finder optics on their 6X9 are just as sharp as some of the
> best 35mm stuff!
Yes, as were the few Pentax 6x7 and Pentax 6x4.5 lenses I've
owned. Both the (35mm-format) 28mm equivalent lenses were
very sharp to the corners even wide open, something that very
few 28mm lenses on 35mm ever were... Fuji lenses for 4x5
also have a good reputation, but I've owned only Nikkors and
Schneiders for that format. One thing that has always surprised
me is that (unexpectedly, to me...) larger format lenses can often
keep up with smaller format ones in "resolution per unit area
covered" - and I first ran across this effect when using an old
202mm lens (that would cover 5x7) on a camera with a 35mm
film back, and the images taken with it were very sharp.
--DR
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Alan Browne" <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote in message
news:yuudnS6qctOMxSPXnZ2dnUVZ_jidnZ2d@giganews.com...
> David Ruether wrote:
>> "Alan Browne" <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote in message
>> news:E_mdnYvuLOEJpiPXnZ2dnUVZ_hednZ2d@giganews.com...
>>> David Ruether wrote:
>>>> As everyone has noted, there are problems with the focus.
>>>> I am surprised, though, that the 135mm f1.8 did as well as
>>>> it did used as a macro lens - most speed lenses not designed
>>>> specifically for macro work are quite poor when used for
>>> There is no serious problem with the focus *other than it being
>>> at a slightly different spot on the coin*.
>> *Ahem...! ;-)
> It's of no real issue and (ahem) you know it.
Don't neither! ;-) You cannot compare sharpness directly in what are
essentially two different subjects (the differing sharp areas of the
subjects shot with the two lenses).
>> They are hard to compare *exactly* - but they do look close.
Which was the point of the "test", and there were still reasonable
conclusions to be drawn from looking at the results.
>> To me, though, the 135mm image looks slightly darker, which
>> would also affect sense of sharpness...
> It's lighter, actually.
> And yes, darker appears to be more contrasty
> which suggests (but isn't necessarily) sharper.
On my monitor (that changes little left to right, but much top to
bottom...), with switching the coin positions and looking at their
general brightnesses and comparing the brightnesses of the wood
area upper lefts and lower lefts, the left photo appears to be slightly
darker, which with this subject, would (slightly...) favor a sense of
slighter greater sharpness on the left (but I agree that it would
likely be only a matter of perception here...;-).
--DR
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Alan Browne" <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote in message
news:MYSdnaAFFYs-HiPXnZ2dnUVZ_rli4p2d@giganews.com...
> David Ruether wrote:
>> "Alan Browne" <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote in message
>> news:yuudnS6qctOMxSPXnZ2dnUVZ_jidnZ2d@giganews.com...
>>> It's of no real issue and (ahem) you know it.
>> Don't neither! ;-) You cannot compare sharpness directly in what are
>> essentially two different subjects (the differing sharp areas of the
>> subjects shot with the two lenses).
> FOOD FIGHT!!!!
....< SPLAT!!! >.... 8^)
>> On my monitor (that changes little left to right, but much top to
>> bottom...), with switching the coin positions and looking at their
>> general brightnesses and comparing the brightnesses of the wood
>> area upper lefts and lower lefts, the left photo appears to be slightly
>> darker, which with this subject, would (slightly...) favor a sense of
>> slighter greater sharpness on the left (but I agree that it would
>> likely be only a matter of perception here...;-).
> The subject is the coins, not the wood ...
But the wood backgrounds help us establish if we are really comparing
the proverbial "apples with apples" with the coins, or instead comparing
"apples with slightly more orange-like apples"...;-)
--DR
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Brian" <bclark@es.co.nz> wrote in message news:daetb555utm2cr19ggv4c30bdb1hu2b4pj@4ax.com...
>I need to extend the last frame of a clip by a few seconds.
> The Adobe Premiere elements 7 manual is not clear in exactly how this
> is done. It says to use a Mark in or Mark out on the frame I want to
> extend. It also says that the whole video clip can replaced with a
> single video frame which is not what I want. Do I set the mark in and
> mark out markers to the same video frame?
> If I make a mistake then I might destroy the work I've put into
> setting up the video clips and I don't know if I can successfully undo
> a mistake.
> I know a few people that read this news group use Adobe Premiere
> Elements and those that use the CS3 or 4 version then chances are that
> the actions for extending a frame will be the same.
>
> Hoping for a reply
>
> Regards Brian
Export the last frame as a still, import it and add it to the end of
the clip and pull the still out to the length you want it on the timeline.
--DR
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Brian" <bclark@es.co.nz> wrote in message news:bj40c51oedsjl33b7alh3mppi06lff7emm@4ax.com...
> I would avoid saving and importing a still frame as it means a loss in
> picture quality and could mean a noticeable change in the frame
> (colour, brightness, sharpness etc) compared to the previous frames.
> There is an option in Adobe Premiere to make all the frames in a video
> clip the same so I might try Richards idea of copying a few seconds of
> the video clip then making the frames the same.
>
> Regards Brian
I used to use this method of export/import of a still all the time to
add still segments to the ends of motion segments. If you use a
file type that the program can both export and import without
losses (BMP, PSD, TIF, etc.), you will see no difference.
Heck, even with exported/imported JPGs you will see no
difference - and this method is very simple/straight-forward.
Try it - you will like it! ;-).
--DR
~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Brian" <bclark@es.co.nz> wrote in message news:rel2c51d694ftfmvbgfi161dl62b0u1f0n@4ax.com...
> Thanks for the advice Arny.
> I like the idea of saving to a GIF file.
>
> Regards Brian
I would not generally save a photo as a GIF file since GIFs
generally don't handle gradient tones very well. Use TIF,
BMP, PSD, or possibly JPG (if the compression rate isn't high
enough to do visible damage to the image). I reserve GIFs
for highly compressed text, which looks better in that than
in highly compressed JPGs.
--DR
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Brian" <bclark@es.co.nz> wrote in message news:h3lac599en30gpi5aq0sue76m725h7n4lt@4ax.com...
> I was thinking the other day how to cure the shaky camera problem
> and came up with the following solution.
[...]
I use the home-made multi-point brace described and shown
here for my small and light HV20 HD camcorder, at --
http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/brace.htm. Combined
with a good camcorder internal stabilizer, some intentional
continuous motion, and editing out of the worst parts (and
sometimes with Mercalli software stabilization added to
individual clips after editing and pre-sharpening them), I can
get good smoothness. I never attempt to show "video stills",
since I don't like them, and making them steady with a hand
held camera is nearly impossible (I dislike tripods...;-).
--DR
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Brian" <bclark@es.co.nz> wrote in message news:qg3dc5p1274rej8t4suo05nslgos740fqp@4ax.com...
> "David Ruether" <d_ruether@thotmail.com> wrote:
>>"Brian" <bclark@es.co.nz> wrote in message news:h3lac599en30gpi5aq0sue76m725h7n4lt@4ax.com...
>>> I was thinking the other day how to cure the shaky camera problem
>>> and came up with the following solution.
>>[...]
>>I use the home-made multi-point brace described and shown
>>here for my small and light HV20 HD camcorder, at --
>> http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/brace.htm. Combined
>>with a good camcorder internal stabilizer, some intentional
>>continuous motion, and editing out of the worst parts (and
>>sometimes with Mercalli software stabilization added to
>>individual clips after editing and pre-sharpening them), I can
>>get good smoothness. I never attempt to show "video stills",
>>since I don't like them, and making them steady with a hand
>>held camera is nearly impossible (I dislike tripods...;-).
>>--DR
> I prefer a monopod than using a tripod as they are great when filming
> with a crowd of people such as filming a street parade. They are quick
> and easy to set up and light to carry around.
>
> Regards Brian
Monopods can help, especially with long takes, but my shooting
is more "explorative moving-camera" type, with short takes. One
problem/advantage with monopods is that they don't resist horizontal
rotation of the camera. There are monopods, though, that have short
nearly horizontal "legs" that can be deployed at the bottom. BTW,
I was VERY unimpressed with the stabilizer built into Elements...
--DR
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Brian" <bclark@es.co.nz> wrote in message news:1dpec5hs7roa6q6udqs9ha3egccapqp9kk@4ax.com...
> Martin Heffels <goofies@flikken.net> wrote:
>>On Sat, 03 Oct 2009 12:16:18 +1200, Brian <bclark@es.co.nz> wrote:
>>>Another quick and easy method is to freeze frame an object if it's a
>>>still object and keep the sound track the same.
>>Very ugly this.
>>
>>-m-
> I know what you mean as it can be difficult to fake this.
> One suggestion is to have a few frames of the object blurred at the
> start so it looks like the camera focused on an object in the
> distance.
>
> Regards Brian
Ah, substituting one visual problem for another, huh...? ;-)
Unless you need the motion within the image, you could use
the "Ken Burns" approach and shoot stills, import these, and
"navigate" around within these (and also apply effects like
B&W, various transitions, picture-in-picture, picture moving
over picture, etc.). Some of these are hard to do well in SD,
though, due to aliasing problems with the Mini-DV format...
--DR
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Smarty" <nobody@nobody.com> wrote in message news:ha2fve$10u$1@news.eternal-september.org...
> "David Ruether" <d_ruether@thotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:ha0gam$18k$1@ruby.cit.cornell.edu...
[Here we go again, with "Smarty"...]
>> Good advice, I think (much as I love HD - and HDV can be reasonably
>> cheap and easy to deal with) - but editing material from memory cards
>> can be more of a challenge than working with Mini-DV tapes. I would
>> stick with tapes...
>> --DR
> For those of us who have edited material from both tape and memory cards, I
> strongly feel that memory card editing is much easier to work with, not
> "more of a challenge" as David stated.
>
> Memory card editing allows random access with no waiting time to get to a
> specific clip, and very easy transfer at a hugely faster speed than tape
> transfer. The last clip is accessed as quickly as the first. Try that with
> tape.....
While editing tape, a program is used to automatically chop up the material
by takes into clips. Once this has happened, the clips are moved within the
computer and editing program as easily as any other file type, whether from
a tape or from a memory card source.
> I have my entire clip collection moved from camcorder to computer in seconds
> or maybe a minute. Tape will take as much as an hour. Students doing editing
> will very very much appreciate the speed difference.
> Smarty
While what "Smarty" says above is a reasonably accurate description of the
advantages of memory card use, he fails to point out that with the modest
computers likely to be used in the situation described by the OP, editing HD
with smooth previewing (which is kinda necessary in editing, no? ;-) is
very unlikely to be possible, at least with a high quality previewing image.
In other words, input, shuffling, and export of memory card video IS easier,
but editing it is NOT as easy as editing Mini-DV tape-format video, and this
can lead to much frustration, especially with beginning editors. There is also the
matter of archiving. Students who own their tapes (under $3 each) can have
reasonably permanent copies of what they shoot and choose to keep - and
also of their finished work when it is put back to tape (DVDs should generally
not be considered archival). Once again, "Smarty" has failed to look at the
context within which the advice needs to be given (we don't all own
"giganzo" computers...).
--DR
~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Smarty" <nobody@nobody.com> wrote in message news:ha30st$nv8$1@news.eternal-september.org...
> David,
>
> You have stepped in it once again, this time for a simple question regarding
> video editing for 5th graders.
>
> You apparently are either unaware of, or failed to consider the choice of
> low cost standard definition camcorders, some of which cost as little as
> $28, like the Snapp 3000 or numerous other very inexpensive, nearly
> disposable camcorders exquisitely suited for 10 year olds.
>
> You leap to the absolutely WRONG conclusion that memory card = high
> definition AVCHD.
>
> In conflating the two entirely unrelated topics, and offering the original
> poster the wrong impression that SD cards present "more of a challenge", you
> once again demonstrate an utter lack of balance and understanding.
>
> SD card camcorders use MJPEG (like the Snapp) or other very simple to edit
> formats. You presume that a high end computer is required. It isn't.
>
> Smarty
Oh great and magnificent all-knowing master of these rec.video newsgroups,
I most humbly beseech your most high personage to hear the unworthy
words of your humble and obedient servant as he prays that your worship
accept my most sincere apologies for having yet again offended your highness,
the god of these video NGs. I take a low <virtual> bow in respect for your
largess in expressing your always kindly corrections to my most erroneous,
foul, egregious, and annoying posts, which your magnificence does most
properly deign to repeatedly castigate. Oh yea, would that I had not been
perhaps asleep when I dared make such a dreadful post as that made by
me earlier in this thread! What could I have been thinking!? But of course
your highness is correct that SD low resolution memory card video can be
shot and edited easily, and it was I who took the OP, having mentioned HDV,
to be perhaps interested in a quality level above what most still cameras and
a few low end video cameras now shoot on memory cards, with results that
are then easily edited. (I also took the OP to be considering Mini-DV, a format
with many advantages.) So, may it please your noble personage to accept my
sincerest apologies and my expressions of enormous and heartfelt guilt for
having dared to express my inexcusable errors and also my opinions that are
in terrible conflict with those of your magnificence, whose words are as the
laws of nature and are almighty, not to be disputed...
--DR
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Mike Kujbida" <kXuXjXfXam@xplornet.com> wrote in message news:7il6nsF322rkjU1@mid.individual.net...
> Smarty wrote:
>> "David Ruether" <d_ruether@thotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:ha358n$2kd$1@ruby.cit.cornell.edu...
>>> "Smarty" <nobody@nobody.com> wrote in message
>>> news:ha30st$nv8$1@news.eternal-september.org...
>>>> David,
>>> in terrible conflict with those of your magnificence, whose words are
>>> as the
>>> laws of nature and are almighty, not to be disputed...
>>> --DR
>> David,
>>
>> If you would like to dispute the facts, I would welcome that discussion.
>> Can you please give me a single reason why a common video format such as
>> found on dozens of digital still cameras (640 by 480 VGA) as well as
>> many low cost memory card camcorders would be, to use your exact
>> description, "more of a challenge than working with miniDV tapes"?
>>
>> Smarty
READ my COMPLETE post above MORE CAREFULLY!
You DO like to excerpt my posts in ways that "prove" me wrong and
your response correct by leaving out the parts of my posts that agree
with yours...;-) That is a dishonest, and you know it! As I have pointed
out many times, I respect your knowledge (and do wish to be corrected,
*respectfully*, if I *really* do make a mistake - and from this we can all
learn), but I do not respect your manner here (the word "jerk" unfortunately
too often comes to mind...).
> David, as much as I'm sure you hate to admit it, Smarty is right.
> I'm dealing with more and more footage from hard drive and card-based
> cameras these days and, as long as it's not AVCHD, the (really) cheap
> core 2 Duo Dells I use have no problems whatsoever with the footage -
> and the students love the fact that "transfer time" is no longer an issue.
>
> Mike
I don't hate to admit it - he *was* right (as was I, saying the same thing...).
And I quote part of my own post, with emphases added since these parts
were apparently missed (and with some expansion of points added that
should have been obvious...), "But of course your highness is correct that
*SD low resolution memory card video* [as in 640x480, slow frame rate
or normal] can be shot and edited easily, and it was I who took the OP,
having mentioned HDV, to be perhaps interested in a quality level above
what *most still cameras and a few low end video cameras now shoot on
memory cards, with results that are then easily edited*. (I also took the
OP to be considering Mini-DV, a [superior to this] format with many
advantages [like higher resolution, easier complex editing, and better
archiving].)" It is clear that there are about three levels of quality and
acquisition types involved (low-end SD card, Mini-DV tape, and HD
card or tape, only two of which were mentioned by the OP: SD Mini-DV
tape and HD HDV tape) - but for beginning 10-11 year olds, certainly
the lowest quality option *would* be worth considering and likely
entirely adequate. [BTW, I wrote the above while fighting a "black
scintillating scotoma" - look it up, if you want... :-( ]
--DR
~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Smarty" <nobody@nobody.com> wrote in message
news:ha5rci$qnu$1@news.eternal-september.org...
[...]
[Sorry to waste readers time on a personal and OT post - I prefer
not to write these, but I have also always been inclined to stand up
and defend myself against bullies. Here it is "Smarty", with his constant
negative responses to my posts, often based on misleading excerpts,
misrepresented meanings, etc., and when called on this, he follows
up with either insulting posts or name-calling - and when called on
this, he sometimes follows up with nice-sounding-but-disingenuous
posts like the last. He has also been known to create "poster aliases"
to help support his views, a rather dishonest thing to do. He has been
asked to stop these practices both here in the video NGs and on at
least one major web forum. As I have stated several times in the past,
I respect and welcome "Smarty's" knowledge (and corrections when
appropriate, from which others can learn), but not his manners. I now
suggest as a solution that "Smarty" refrain from responding directly or
indirectly to my posts (and also to never refer to me by name), and
instead write parallel posts attached more directly and appropriately
to posts above mine in a thread if he *truly* disagrees with something
I have written (and is not just taking offense at me or at "ghosts"...;-).
I also suggest that he block or ignore my posts, as he has promised
to do in the past - but then he has failed to keep his promises to do
so. Again, my apologies to others for the above - but if successful, it
may result in less "noise" in the video NGs, a worthwhile result.]
--DR
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Smarty" <nobody@nobody.com> wrote in message news:ha7p5m$egm$1@news.eternal-september.org...
[...]
I choose not to reply in full to someone with a short memory
of his own deceptions (and their consequences), and who
insists on misreading my posts, then taking exception to them.
POST PARALLEL RESPONSES - AND IGNORE MINE!
I shall try to do the same with yours. <PLONK!>
--DR
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Brian" <bclark@es.co.nz> wrote in message news:7gcmc5l8uis3gadbngmiepg8deatp89v9b@4ax.com...
>I have prepared a video in Adobe Premiere Elements 7 that I want to
> upload YouTube. I tried to compile the file as a flash video with the
> .flv extension as most files on YouTube have this extension but
> YouTube refuses this file.
> I also used the build-in upload to YouTube that this video editor
> offers but the quality of the video is not good, especial during
> transitions. Is there some way of deleting the poor quality video
> that's been uploaded to YouTube to replace it with a better quality
> video once I find a suitable format that YouTube will accept?
>
> Any suggestions would be welcome from anyone who has uploaded a good
> quality video to YouTube.
>
> Regards Brian
Check around the YouTube site for their recommendations for
both SD and HD uploads, and stay within their length and file
size limitations (but approach these as closely as possible for
highest quality). Almost all videos uploaded to YouTube are
reformatted by YT, so they will almost always be lower quality
and/or smaller than the originals (so it is practical to stream them),
but you can get surprisingly good quality if you upload the best
material you can. As I recall, you can "dump" existing videos and
replace them with new ones (but your "hit counters" will not carry
over to the replacement videos, even if the names and descriptions
are the same). BTW, I have several on YT - search "drbob3"
(some are "HD", but most are "SD" and preceded the time when
YT offered "HD" playback). Be sure to hit the "HQ" or "HD"
buttons! ;-)
--DR
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"RN" <rnmehrotra@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:38ba2dc0-107e-40ac-a7cb-d95194cb807e@w36g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
> From my cannon XHa1 I want to transfer HDV recording to my HP laptop
> with windows vistas installed. I have the Console software CD
> available. However the firewire (connecting cable) is not specified.
> Please tell what ports are to be used.
> RNMehrotra.
There is a free, well-written, easy-to-use HDV capture program
(that also can accurately chop up the incoming video into the
individual camera takes as separate clip files) called "HDVSplit",
found at --
http://strony.aster.pl/paviko/hdvsplit.htm.
You do not need the viewer part that is also available there - just
use your camcorder's viewing screen for that. Use FireWire between
the camcorder and the computer for transfer in either direction (but
some now recommend shutting down the computer and camcorder
before making the connections, then starting up the computer and
opening the capture or export software (generally the editing program)
before the camcorder, at which time the software should recognize the
camcorder. Any available FireWire ports can be used.
--DR
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Thought you might like these - although toward the end of the
45 photos, some are "digitally over processed" or not correctly
exposed (but these photos are mostly "whiz-bangers" in roughly
the first half of the group, with some also later on). The slide show
is at: http://wilderness.org/content/stunning-wilderness-photography
--DR
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````````
"Bruce" <docnews2011@gmail.com> wrote in message news:5jigd5lco41nvgtchggqlnf25c0j72n02a@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 15 Oct 2009 23:59:49 -0700, Paul Furman <paul-@-edgehill.net>
> wrote:
>>Here's a cool little camera I got off craigslist for $40:
>>http://www.flickr.com/photos/edgehill/4016300342/in/set-72157622595498100/
>>The camera does aperture priority, meaning you turn the aperture ring &
>>it picks a shutter speed. There is a limited exposure compensation
>>button that adds two stops for backlit conditions. It also has M90 mode
>>which just uses 1/90 second shutter speed if the battery is dead. It
>>makes a little beeping sound when the shutter speed is dangerously slow.
>>The viewfinder is huge, much bigger than the D700 it's shown beside. You
>>do have to take your glasses off or move around to see the whole thing
>>though. I'd like to see one beside a D5000 or whatever is smallest these
>>days.
>>
>>The lens is a compact 'pancake' form of supposedly the same optics in
>>the current 50/1.8 AF with a lesser coating and no AF. It's a Series-E
>>considered a cheapo at the time but in fact a nearly flawless lens and
>>darn fast. It doesn't focus very close though, about 2 feet.
>>
>>I gave it to a kid to use with a few rolls of whatever Kodak 400 color
>>film from walgreens. The rewind arm is broken off so I fashioned a
>>little metal chuck on a string for that <g>.
>>
>>This is partly a response to the comments on this image that I've
>>received over the years: http://edgehill.net/Misc/photography/cameras/pg1pc4
>>That's the kid who is now in possession of the EM, holding my old broken
>>Canon AE-1. He is very creative & clever with a camera, I'm hoping it's
>>not too complicated and he actually learns the craft of photography with
>>it. Just turn the aperture ring & watch the shutter speed. Split screen
>>focus aid.
> The EM is a delight to use. It was supposedly aimed at women, being
> very small, light and simple to use. Whatever, it is a seriously good
> camera.
>
> It's a pity that the winder broke off, because the EM has the
> silkiest, smoothest film transport of any Nikon 35mm SLR. It shares
> the ball-bearing system from the Nikon F3.
>
> The EM only has one exposure mode, aperture priority, and there is no
> exposure compensation other than by adjusting the film speed dial. But
> it has an extremely useful backlight button on the back which
> increases exposure by 1.5 stops by lengthening the exposure time.
>
> The outside may be plastic but the chassis is sturdy, made from the
> same die cast magnesium alloy as Nikon's professional SLRs.
>
> The lens pictured is one of the last Series E 50mm f/1.8 optics. The
> earlier versions had an inferior coating, but the later versions had
> the same full multi-coating that was given to Nikkors. In fact the
> 50mm f/1.8 "pancake" Nikkor was optically identical - the Series E was
> such a good design that it was also adopted as a Nikkor. As you say,
> it carried over into the AF line and has been given even better
> multi-coating. It is one of the sharpest lenses ever made, of any
> brand, but it has very harsh bokeh.
>
> The Series E lenses include some real gems, and no bad performers.
> They were made under contract by Cosina and Kiron, and included such
> gems as the 75-150mm f/3.5, which (like all Series E zooms) has a
> constant maximum aperture and one of the very best combinations of
> sharpness and smooth bokeh of any zoom lens ever made. Many
> professional Nikon users kept one in their bag, and many of them
> pleaded with Nikon to make a full AIS Nikkor version. Alas, Nikon
> never did.
>
> The 28mm and 35mm Series E lenses were competent but unexceptional,
> with the 28mm going forward to become the optical design for the 28mm
> f/2.8 AF Nikkor. The 100mm f/2.8 is one of Nikon's best portrait
> lenses, almost the equal of the legendary 105mm f/2.5 Nikkor, with a
> strong combination of sharpness and smooth bokeh.
>
> The 70-200mm f/4 was a very good, sharp lens. Its optics were used
> for the 70-200mm f/4 AF Nikkor, which was later replaced by a far
> inferior f/4-5.6 version. The later variable aperture lens sold like
> hot cakes on the basis of one good review (Pop Photo?) but anyone who
> tested it themselves, rather than taking a magazine review on trust,
> found it to be a mediocre performer.
>
> Keep looking for Series E lenses. They sell for next to nothing and,
> with the EM body, will make a very good outfit for that kid. ;-)
You sure hit a lot of "nails on the heads" with your lens info (being
an inveterate lens checker, I came up with the same conclusions
in my Nikkor lens evaluations list, at --
http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/slemn.html. BTW, there were
a few good samples of the 35mm f2.5 around, and I found one good
one of the 28mm f2.8 E and the one good early AF version of the
same, but generally these were so-so at best, as you say. The E 50mm,
100mm, 135mm, and 75-150mm were exceptionally good, and the
70-210mm and 36-72mm were very good, and I agree with your
assessment of the variable-aperture version of the 70-210 (WHY did
Nikon do that???). As far as bodies, I still have a Nikon FG (based
on the EM, but it looks and feels nicer, and has M-AP-SP-P exposure
modes (with compensation available) and TTL flash control. BTW,
I have it and some E/AF-version lenses for sale...
--DR
d_ruether@hotmail.com
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Bruce" <docnews2011@gmail.com> wrote in message news:p7nhd59sflbod8ore6qc6u1ru2ac6h1snp@4ax.com...
>>"David Ruether" <d_ruether@thotmail.com> wrote in message news:hba08d$en7$1@ruby.cit.cornell.edu...
>>I forgot to mention the very good 36-72mm f3.5 (constant). BTW, I
>>have (mint) FG, 28mm AF (a rare sharp one), 36-72mm, 100mm,
>>and 70-210mm [f4 constant] for sale (not cheap, but given their condition
>>and their having been thoroughly tested/selected, reasonable....;-).
> Thanks for the kind words, David. We rarely disagree on things Nikon,
> and I am always happy to refer to your lens evaluations for lenses I
> am not familiar with. For the avoidance of doubt, that's praise
> indeed. ;-)
Thanks! ;-)
It's at - http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/slemn.html (a "plug"...;-).
> The reason Nikon replaced the AF Nikkor 70-210mm f/4 (E Series optics)
> with the very inferior f/4-f/5.6 version was that Kiron withdrew from
> making the lenses. It was already due for a refresh from AF to AF-N,
> mainly to change the hard, thin focusing ring to something wider and
> rubberised. The contract for the new lens went to Tokina, whose staff
> complemented included several ex-Nikon designers and production
> engineers. Whether Kiron bid for the contract I do not know.
>
> The 36-72mm f/3.5 Nikon Series E was indeed a very good lens. The
> focal length was actually 35-70mm but the lens would have been
> confused with the larger, heavier and far more expensive AIS Nikkor
> 35-70mm f/3.5. The AIS was a superlative lens, as is its AF(-D)
> Nikkor 35-70mm f/2.8 successor, which is still one of my favourites,
> and this tended to overshadow the Series E lens, which was more than
> good enough for photojournalist work and would have put less stress on
> PJs' shoulders. ;-)
>
> The Series E lens had the virtue of being compact, light and decently
> sharp, but suffered from light fall-off when used wide open or stopped
> down to f/5.6. At f/8 the illumination was more or less even. Flare
> resistance was poor without a hood because the front element was not
> recessed, but the delightful clamp-on dedicated lens hood (the only
> accessory metal hood in the whole Series E range) gave excellent
> shading.
>
> I used one on my Nikon FA body and was pleased with the results, but I
> also had an AIS Nikkor 35-70mm f/3.3-4.5 whose handling I preferred on
> account of its two touch zoom/focusing. That was a good lens, but not
> quite as sharp as the Series E.
Thanks for the plethora of info! The AIS 35-70 f3.3-4.5 was for me
one of the easiest wide angle zooms to focus, but I found it (and others
of the same range) not wide-range enough to be satisfactory. The later
28-70mm f3.5-4.5 AF was very good, small, and light (and now FS...;-),
but I have since replaced it with the excellent 24-85mm f3.5-4.5
(although at that point, I stopped shooting much of anything - and I also
have a mint FA body FS...).
> Cosina also made a so-called "AIS Nikkor" for the FE-10/FM-10 that
> looked much the same but it gave atrocious results. It could be
> identified by the f/3.5-4.8 maximum aperture. It was probably the
> worst optic ever to carry the Nikon brand. :-(
It could not have been worse than the early version of the 43-86mm
f3.5 (the later version was MUCH, MUCH better!) - the early one was
a true "pop-bottle bottom"! ;-)
--DR
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Bruce" <docnews2011@gmail.com> wrote in message news:ai2nd5l0v925n77ahokbvsgl76emb0a67j@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 17 Oct 2009 09:55:11 -0400, "David Ruether"
> <d_ruether@thotmail.com> wrote:
>>The later 28-70mm f3.5-4.5 AF
>>was very good, small, and light (and now FS...;-),
> Indeed, a surprisingly good lens for its low price. It was designed
> for use with the F601 (N6006) SLR, which had a built-in flash. The
> compact dimensions of the lens were chosen to avoid obscuring the
> flash at closer focusing distances. This compromise meant that there
> was a little more light fall-off when the lens was used wide open, but
> it was otherwise quite a sparkling performer.
I once compared the Nikkor 28-70mm f3.5-4.5 at f5.6 with the
Nikkor 28mm f2.8 AIS, the Nikkor 28mm f1.4 AF, and the Nikkor
28mm f4 PC shooting trees and city-scape with the same back-lit
framing, taken aimed toward a hazy-bright sky. For various reasons,
I would have expected the f2.8 to have "won" for sharpness and
brilliance, but the "winners" were the 28-70mm zoom and the 28mm
PC(!). I was surprised...
>>but I have since replaced it with the excellent 24-85mm f3.5-4.5
>>(although at that point, I stopped shooting much of anything...)
> That's a lens I haven't tried. The previous 24-85mm f/2.8-4 was
> optically something of a disappointment, but the verdict seems to be
> that the later f/3.5-4.5 version is very much better.
It is quite remarkable, being sharp to the corners full-frame at all
FLs and focus distances (DIFFICULT to get in a zoom!). In addition,
it is as good as the excellent 24mm f2.8 Nikkor at the same stops, and
its performance continues evenly through the rest of its range (which
means that as the FLs get longer, performance falls ever more behind
the ever better non-zooms in its range). Compared with the 35mm f2
AF, the 35mm is somewhat better, the 50mm f1.4 is noticeably better,
and the superb 85mm f1.8 AF is quite noticeably better. BUT, none
of those are zooms, and the zoom really is a very good one. Its only
major flaw is rather severe linear distortion...
>>It could not have been worse than the early version of the 43-86mm
>>f3.5 (the later version was MUCH, MUCH better!) - the early one
>>was a true "pop-bottle bottom"! ;-)
> Once again, the early 43-86mm isn't a lens I have used, although I
> have bench test results for one that are very poor indeed. It is
> often said to be the zoom lens that gave all zoom lenses a bad name.
>
> ;-)
Yes. It was a very early compact zoom that was popular with
photojournalists (who[m ;-] I often accused of caring little about
image quality...;-), but its performance was truly disgusting. I don't
remember what the first Nikkor (or other) WA zoom was that had
good performance (maybe the 35-70mm f3.5? Or 28-45mm f4.5?).
I just looked up the URL on my own web site that lists URLs for other
sites (at http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/Nikon-URLs.htm), which
includes one that lists introduction dates for the various Nikkors (at
http://www.photosynthesis.co.nz/nikon/serialno.html). It looks like the
earliest good Nikkor zoom was the 28-45mm f4.5, introduced in
Sept. of 1975. It wasn't a great zoom (or very wide range or fast),
but it was good, and FAR better than the earlier-version 43-86mm.
--DR
~~~~~~~~
"Bruce" <docnews2011@gmail.com> wrote in message news:49oqd5t5mfjfjmdlnsafoks2i56qarq7qi@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 19 Oct 2009 10:12:54 -0400, "David Ruether"
> <d_ruether@thotmail.com> wrote:
>>"Bruce" <docnews2011@gmail.com> wrote in message news:ai2nd5l0v925n77ahokbvsgl76emb0a67j@4ax.com...
>>> On Sat, 17 Oct 2009 09:55:11 -0400, "David Ruether"
>>> <d_ruether@thotmail.com> wrote:
>>I once compared the Nikkor 28-70mm f3.5-4.5 at f5.6 with the
>>Nikkor 28mm f2.8 AIS, the Nikkor 28mm f1.4 AF, and the Nikkor
>>28mm f4 PC shooting trees and city-scape with the same back-lit
>>framing, taken aimed toward a hazy-bright sky. For various reasons,
>>I would have expected the f2.8 to have "won" for sharpness and
>>brilliance, but the "winners" were the 28-70mm zoom and the 28mm
>>PC(!). I was surprised...
In other comparisons with multiple samples, the Nikkor 28mm f2 at
f5.6 was a tad sharper overall than the MF 28mm f2.8, but at wider
stops the results moved toward reversal...
> The 28mm PC lenses have long been known as the best 28mm Nikkors and
> among the best performing 28mm lenses of any brand. The pre-set
> aperture is a pain in the a**, though.
I found it rather easy/intuitive on the F3 body, which was the only
one that didn't require the lens to be centered (with an "E" screen)
for metering unless an extreme shift was made with vertical framing.
Just select the most reasonable shutter speed for conditions, place in
the large VF circle a good representative distribution of subject tones,
and then center the meter with the diaphragm (without setting the
preset mechanism). Easy! ;-)
>>>>but I have since replaced it with the excellent 24-85mm f3.5-4.5
>>>>(although at that point, I stopped shooting much of anything...)
> You can't have it all, unless you buy Leica glass. And I don't think
> even Leica could make a perfect zoom lens.
The 80-200mm f2.8 comes close to being a perfect zoom, and by
reputation, so do the 35/28/24-70mm f2.8s (but I have not tried
these). The 17-35mm f2.8 is one heck of a lens, and by reputation
and photos I've seen, the Nikkor 14-24mm is an "impossibly" good
zoom...;-) If it weren't for the prices/sizes/weights of these, one really
could replace many non-zooms in their ranges.
--DR
~~~~~~~~~~~
"Bruce" <docnews2011@gmail.com> wrote in message news:4igod5d8o2rl4t63nm8mc573lcuiib6qtk@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 19 Oct 2009 08:00:33 +0800, "Gerrit" <gthart@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>>I wish to buy a set of rings to give macro capability to my camera.
>>I have a Nikon D50 body married to a Tamron AF LD 28-200 lens.
>>My question to all you knowledgeable people is this: would a Kenko Automatic
>>Extension Tube Set DG for Nikon AF be suitable and would all the functions
>>on the D50 be enabled?
> Yes, this should work. But the lens will not be capable of producing
> good, sharp results with the extension tubes. A dedicated macro lens
> would give much better results.
The above is correct, but ***sometimes*** some combinations
of a ***good*** zoom and an achromat (a 2-element close-up
lens attached to the front of the lens), when used at some FLs, and
with the lens stopped down quite a bit (and either on a tripod or with
flash to make that possible) can produce good sharpness with a
zoom for taking macro photos. With the Tamron, playing with its
zoom range, focus, and aperture settings ***may*** produce a
combination with a not-too-strong achromat that is reasonably sharp
for the OP's purposes - but a dedicated macro lens would be an
easier (and likely better) solution. BTW, if an auto diaphragm is not
needed, old enlarger lenses adapted to tubes or a bellows can be
an inexpensive way to making sharp close-up images...
--DR
~~~~~~~~
"Bruce" <docnews2011@gmail.com> wrote in message news:5adpd5lpjelhmja0njpgeatanl17n3mju2@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 19 Oct 2009 09:25:24 -0400, "David Ruether"
> <d_ruether@thotmail.com> wrote:
>>"Bruce" <docnews2011@gmail.com> wrote in message news:4igod5d8o2rl4t63nm8mc573lcuiib6qtk@4ax.com...
>>> On Mon, 19 Oct 2009 08:00:33 +0800, "Gerrit" <gthart@hotmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>>I wish to buy a set of rings to give macro capability to my camera.
>>>>I have a Nikon D50 body married to a Tamron AF LD 28-200 lens.
>>>>My question to all you knowledgeable people is this: would a Kenko Automatic
>>>>Extension Tube Set DG for Nikon AF be suitable and would all the functions
>>>>on the D50 be enabled?
>>> Yes, this should work. But the lens will not be capable of producing
>>> good, sharp results with the extension tubes. A dedicated macro lens
>>> would give much better results.
>>The above is correct, but ***sometimes*** some combinations
>>of a ***good*** zoom and an achromat (a 2-element close-up
>>lens attached to the front of the lens), when used at some FLs, and
>>with the lens stopped down quite a bit (and either on a tripod or with
>>flash to make that possible) can produce good sharpness with a
>>zoom for taking macro photos.
> I agree. I usually carry a B+W +1, +2 and +4 dioptre close-up set
> with me for use only with fixed focal length lenses. But in general,
> they don't tend to produce good results with 28-200mm lenses, which
> tend to be at the edge of acceptability at the best of times (with the
> sole exception of the Kiron 28-200mm).
Yes.
>>With the Tamron, playing with its
>>zoom range, focus, and aperture settings ***may*** produce a
>>combination with a not-too-strong achromat that is reasonably sharp
>>for the OP's purposes -
> Perhaps, if the lens is stopped down to f/8 or f/11. it might be
> *almost* acceptable.
I would say "f11-f16" or more...;-)
BTW, I've had excellent results with the Nikkor 200mm f4 (compact
version - non-zoom, non-macro, stopped well down) on tele converters
and/or with tubes and/or with an achromat on the front. Good for up to
3X on full-frame (it is hard to tell from this small photo, but it is VERY
sharp, www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/web_photos/phun_fotoz/bugs/b55.jpg).
>>but a dedicated macro lens would be an
>>easier (and likely better) solution.
> Always! ;-)
No disagreement here (at least with a zoom...;-)! 8^)
> Plus, there are some very cheap used AIS 55mm f/2.8 Micro-Nikkors
> out there.
Watch out for the common oil-on-diaphragm syndrome with these,
though... The AF 55 or 60 would be better since the front elements
are not as recessed, making lighting less of a problem. BTW, the
compact MF 90mm f2.8 Sigma was a very competent macro lens
(and I "stole" its close-up lens for use on the 200mm for taking the
fly photo, likely with added tele converter and tubes, hand-held with
flash [my hands were ***_FAR_*** steadier back then!]).
>>BTW, if an auto diaphragm is not
>>needed, old enlarger lenses adapted to tubes or a bellows can be
>>an inexpensive way to making sharp close-up images...
> I doubt that many younger photographers, brought up on a diet of
> program exposure and autofocus, would know where to start. :-(
I think you are right......;-)
--DR
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Mike Benveniste" <mhb@murkyether.com> wrote in message news:7k3cj4F34h601U1@mid.individual.net...
> "Bruce" <docnews2011@gmail.com> wrote in message news:p7nhd59sflbod8ore6qc6u1ru2ac6h1snp@4ax.com...
>>"David Ruether" <d_ruether@thotmail.com> wrote in message news:hba08d$en7$1@ruby.cit.cornell.edu...
>>> Cosina also made a so-called "AIS Nikkor" for the FE-10/FM-10 that
>>> looked much the same but it gave atrocious results. It could be
>>> identified by the f/3.5-4.8 maximum aperture. It was probably the
>>> worst optic ever to carry the Nikon brand. :-(
>> It could not have been worse than the early version of the 43-86mm
>> f3.5 (the later version was MUCH, MUCH better!) - the early one was a
>> true "pop-bottle bottom"! ;-)
> I'd rank the 60-180mm f/4.5~5.6 IX-Nikkor in between the Cosina 35-70
> and the 1st generation 43-86mm in the race to the bottom.
Hmmm...8^) (I have never tried any of the Nikkor "Icks" lenses...;-)
> Deciphering keiretsu agreements is well beyond my ability. Nikon
> has consistently denied that any AF lenses were manufactured
> "out of house," but the 70-210mm f/4 -E and -AF lenses are both
> very close cousins of the 80-200mm f/4 AI-S, and Nikon could have
> easily continued production in house. The decision to downsize
> the 70-210mm was also made with the knowledge that a new 80-200mm
> f/2.8 AF was "in the pipeline."
Yes. And look how popular the excellent Canon f4 lens in the same
range now is...! Sometimes one wonders about Nikon marketing... :-(
> So I believe the decision to downsize the 70-210mm was marketing-
> based rather than contractual and based on the same "AF is for
> amateurs" mentality that nearly doomed Nikon.
> --
> Michael Benveniste --
Likely true, I guess, even if at the long end the lens had a ridiculously
slow maximum aperture for a relatively short tele of f5.6...
--DR
~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Paul Furman" <paul-@-edgehill.net> wrote in message news:hbjkbh$9n4$1@news.eternal-september.org...
> David Ruether wrote:
>> I once compared the Nikkor 28-70mm f3.5-4.5 at f5.6 with the
>> Nikkor 28mm f2.8 AIS, the Nikkor 28mm f1.4 AF, and the Nikkor
>> 28mm f4 PC
> I almost put a 28mm f/2 on the EM.
In other checks with these, at f5.6 (with my usual infinity target),
the Nikkor 28mm f2 was a tad sharper than the f2.8 - but at
f2.8, the results reversed (with multiple samples).
> Or the 24/2.8 but little chance to experiment with DOF.
> --
> Paul Furman
Oh, so you did not take the risky EM/FG20/FG DOF-checking
move of partially unbayonetting the lens until the aperture stopped
down, huh? 8^)
--DR
``````````````````````````````````````````````````````````
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Alfred Molon wrote:
> In article <6igcd5dqebhoqfaass8777aok6t450mcrt@4ax.com>, John Navas
> says...
[About use of your materials online without permission.]
>> To be taken seriously, you need to send a formal DMCA notice that
>> conforms to the law.
> What is a DMCA notice?
What you need to send the ISP is a Digital Millennium Copyright Act
infringement notice, also called a take down notice. You can find
software to create your own online, or hire an attorney to have one
prepared and sent to Multiply.com.
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
"eNo" <grandepatzer@gmail.com> wrote in message news:118c368c-8f46-418e-8b7a-6ed4c7e3b0c1@l2g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
> http://esfotoclix.com/blog1/?p=744
> ~~~
> eNo
> http://esfotoclix.com
This 85mm 14-element (one ED) Nikkor compact and light AF-S DX
VR macro (to 1:1) lens looks VERY interesting...! ;-)
http://www.dpreview.com/news/0910/09101401nikon85mmmacro.asp
--DR
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Justin" <justin@nobecauseihatespam.com> wrote in message news:hatmqk$ql9$1@news.eternal-september.org...
>I see all these new camcorders with hard drives and DVDs. Will we ever
> see the day when the MiniDV format goes the way of VHS?
> I like tapes because they're fairly reliable.
> I have been working on computers since 1996 and I see too many hard
> drives go bad without warning. Even with the fancy shock detectors,
> SMART, and whatnot - I would hate to be on the field somewhere and have
> the hard drive in the cam quit on me. Same with DVD. If the camera
> takes a hit while recording I can see the DVD being corrupted.
> When a MiniDV cam takes a hit, there may be some dropout a few seconds
> of scrambled footage but eventually it comes back and records.
>
> I an old fashioned guy? Is my thinking flawed?
Nope. ;-)
But as memory cards get larger and cheaper, and computer
"horsepower" grows sufficiently large to grapple with the greater
difficulties of easily editing memory-card recorded *HD* (why
would anyone who is serious about video buy into anything short
of that these days...? ;-), the memory card attractions of freedom
from drop-outs and quick and easy transfer of material to/from
the computer become more appealing. I would dismiss camcorder
hard-drive and DVD drive as in-camera recording methods for
serious recordings for the reasons you gave. One advantage of
tape, though, is that it is easier to reliably archive edited video long
term, and it is far easier to archive source material long term with
it. In terms of dropouts, though, in SD Mini-DV, dropouts are
generally minor and mostly go unnoticed unless severe - but in HD
Mini-DV based HDV (although relatively easier to edit than HD
memory-card based AVCHD), a one-frame drop-out will cause a
1/2-second image freeze, not pleasant. So, "yer tayks yer cherce"...8^)
--DR
~~~~~~~~~
"Gary Templeman" <gtempleman1@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:Oaqdne9kEvktEE7XnZ2dnUVZ_oCdnZ2d@newedgenetworks.com...
> "David Ruether" <d_ruether@thotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:havhnh$9c$1@ruby.cit.cornell.edu...
>> In terms of dropouts, though, in SD Mini-DV, dropouts are
>> generally minor and mostly go unnoticed unless severe - but in HD
>> Mini-DV based HDV (although relatively easier to edit than HD
>> memory-card based AVCHD), a one-frame drop-out will cause a
>> 1/2-second image freeze, not pleasant. So, "yer tayks yer cherce"...8^)
>> --DR
> Could you explain why that happens? A lay person like me would assume a
> frame is a frame, and would translate into a 1/30th (or 1/24th, etc) image
> freeze.
>
> GaryT
The others have explained it well - but what maybe most often happens
with a dropout is that only a small part of an individual frame is "messed up".
With SD Mini-DV, with its frame-by-frame relatively low 5:1 compression
and automatic error correction, the bad part of an individual frame can be
"repaired" by substituting the same part from the previous frame for the
damaged part. If the material is similar enough and the damaged part of the
frame is small, only a sharp-eyed viewer may spot it. A relatively severe
larger-part, multi-frame dropout would cause a very visible band, etc. to
appear (but in 300+ SD Mini-DV tapes shot, I never saw more than the
first effect). With HD recorded on Mini-DV tape, the compression for each
"real" frame is much higher than for SD Mini-DV and only one frame in 13
is "real" and the others are "derived" in order to get the same recording time
on the same tape with far more recoverable information. As you can imagine,
damage anywhere, no matter how slight, will result in a visible effect lasting
about 1/2 second. My HDV camcorder "minimizes" this by freezing the last
good frame (yuh, like THAT looks good...! 8^), but not all is necessarily lost.
While editing, one can often cut out the offending frame or two and then all
is well, especially if the bad frames are near the end of the clip and the
whole end of the clip can be removed without significant loss.
--DR
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Brian" <bclark@es.co.nz> wrote in message news:roe7d5ldqrlj345vk13n2aqkp2p0n56pnr@4ax.com...
> Justin <justin@nobecauseihatespam.com> wrote:
>>I see all these new camcorders with hard drives and DVDs. Will we ever
>>see the day when the MiniDV format goes the way of VHS?
>>I like tapes because they're fairly reliable.
>>I have been working on computers since 1996 and I see too many hard
>>drives go bad without warning. Even with the fancy shock detectors,
>>SMART, and whatnot - I would hate to be on the field somewhere and have
>>the hard drive in the cam quit on me. Same with DVD. If the camera
>>takes a hit while recording I can see the DVD being corrupted.
>>When a MiniDV cam takes a hit, there may be some dropout a few seconds
>>of scrambled footage but eventually it comes back and records.
>>
>>I an old fashioned guy? Is my thinking flawed?
> I's sure that sometime in the future CD's DVD's etc will be replaced
> with memory cards. portable CD players were replaced with portable mp3
> players that use memory cards. The same is likely to happen to video
> camera's.
>
> Regards Brian
Note, though, that in this case, convenience often trumps quality...;-)
"Sound" familiar...? ;-)
--DR
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Matt" <someone@microsoft.com> wrote in message news:hb1ur4$80i$1@news.eternal-september.org...
> Which is more important in your opinion... a larger monitor or one with a
> faster response time and higher contrast ratio? I'm on a tight budget due to
> this wonderful economy and I have a choice between a Samsung 22" (what I
> consider to be a high quality monitor) and a Hanns-G 25" (with smaller
> contrast ratio and slower response time). If it matters I'm editing in Adobe
> Premiere and I'm currently using a 17" widescreen so anything would be an
> improvement.
It used to be that 22" monitors tended to use the worst for color accuracy
(but fastest) of three LCD types - but "speed" is not needed for video
editing, and nothing faster than 8 millisecond refresh rate is needed for
even HD TV viewing. As far as rated contrast ratio is concerned, the
specs are essentially meaningless in practice. I prefer a 24" LCD of good
quality (the very expensive best is not needed), with 1920x1200 resolution
(NOT 1920x1080!) for best layout of many current editing programs, with
a 1/2-sized HD preview window, room for three video/audio tracks open
at once, and also room for various other windows (see some layouts at --
http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/video-editor-screens.htm). BTW,
online stores carry many good 24" 16:10 proportion monitors for $225
or less.
--DR
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"GaryT" <gtempleman1@comcast.net> wrote in message news:hb0s42$aob$1@news.eternal-september.org...
>I have some hand held shots from a Canon HV30 captured with HDVSplit. I
> thought I would experiment a bit with some copies of the clips to see the
> effects of the deshaker filter but am not quite sure how to get vDub to load
> the file. Changing the extension to .mpg allows it to play in various media
> players such as WMP, but VirtualDub still gives an "unknown or unsupported
> file type" error. I also read that sometimes changing the extension can
> corrupt a m2t file (why I did so on a copy).
>
> So far I have tried MPEG Streamclip, but the conversion to mpg still would
> not load in VirtualDub. Converting to .avi did, but the resulting file
> processed through the filter was horrible. When played back in WMP the sound
> was totally hosed and the image was even worse. One time it had a grid
> overlay of (mostly) white dots/lines on it, the second time with different
> parameters the playback showed a few intermittent frames with the rest
> labeled that they were not processed in pass 1.
>
> I guess the first question is whether my workflow in VirtualDub is correct?
> First, after opening the file I went to Video_Filters and add Deshaker 2.4.
> Left things at the defaults the first time, changed to a rolling shutter the
> second (since the earlier model HV20 was mentioned as using that on the
> Deshaker site)
> Then used "Save as AVI" and the file appears to be run through the filter.
> The resulting AVI is about 5-6 times the size and like I said, horrible.
>
> Am I better off trying my experiments with the Mercalli trial and forgetting
> about Deshaker and vDub?
>
> Gary T
I was under the impression that Deshaker does not work with .m2t files,
but I may well be wrong, gasp! ;-). Mercalli does work with HDV (see --
http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/Mercalli.htm for some hints on using it
(but I will soon add, "it works better if you can remove especially shaky
footage from clips before processing - but since this often occurs near
the ends of clips, this may not be much of a problem").
--DR
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Brian" <bclark@es.co.nz> wrote in message news:infod5prdvo4hr97f5vhq0spg6503cqsh6@4ax.com...
> "Richard Crowley" <rcrowley@xp7rt.net> wrote:
>>Justin wrote:
>>> I ordered two 80 minute MiniDV tapes off ebay and they're working
>>> fine. My question is, why are these so uncommon? Is there a reason
>>> people tend not to use the 80 minute tapes? Are they fundamentally
>>> flawed across all brands?
>>Thinner is thinner. Across all brands.
>>> I was told the tape is actually thinner and more prone to breaking.
>>Indeed. Until it breaks you probably won't see any difference
>>from regular 60-minute tapes. It certainly isn't something I would
>>want to re-use more than once or twice.
>>> Couldn't they just make the center spool smaller?
>>No. First, the inside of the hub has to fit all the existing equipment
>>because it is a standardized size, and there isn't that much diameter
>>to play with. Second, if you change the hub OD, it will confuse the
>>equipment which uses the RPM to determine when you are getting
>>to the end of the tape.
> It reminds me of the 120 minute audio cassette tapes which use to
> tangle in the player and break due to the thinness of the tape.
>
> Regards Brian
I sometimes used to use 80-minute Mini-DV tape (even in LP mode,
for a 2-hour recording when needed) when I was recording something
that was potentially long from a single camera location (and single camera)
with no time to switch tapes. I never had a problem, and it may be that
there were fewer dropouts due to the thinner tape lying closer onto the
heads (but that last is only a theory...;-). I may try one of those tapes to
see if it reduces my dropout rate with HDV.
--DR
~~~~~~~~
"Frank" <frank@nojunkmail.humanvalues.net> wrote in message news:8pood5d9tmj4jp4l30p7nlffcccan0j9jd@4ax.com...
> As far as 80-minute DV tape is concerned, I don't know when it was
> introduced, but I think that it was only about a year or so ago that I
> first noticed it being offered. Personally, I wouldn't touch it with a
> 50-foot pole.
It has been available for many years (possibly *almost* as long as
standard 60 minute tapes...). I have used it at least as long as 10
years ago... (again, without problems - but only Sony tape in Sony
Mini-DV cameras, with tape brands NEVER switched). Sony
Mini-DV tape transports did appear to be very reliable, though...
--DR
~~~~~~~~~
"Frank" <frank@nojunkmail.humanvalues.net> wrote in message news:ba7pd5de10ob5gv3hiega74l59p98ev92a@4ax.com...
> BTW, if you're experiencing dropouts shooting HDV, maybe you should
> try, despite the cost increase over what you're presently using, one
> or two of the Sony DigitalMaster cassettes and see what happens. I
> have almost never heard of dropouts happening with the DigitalMaster
> tapes.
> --
> Frank, Independent Consultant, New York, NY
Thanks. I suspect that, much as I like the Canon HV20, it is unusually
susceptible to dropouts (I gather this from reading others' experiences
with it). Since the number of dropouts are 1-4 per tape, I no longer
shoot "critical" material, I can often edit around the bad frames (and I
have already invested in about $400 in HDV-specific tape, about a
third of which has dropout faults at the same location in all the tapes
and they are not returnable at this point), and I shoot almost nothing
anymore, I will likely not worry about it at this point - but thanks for
the information.
--DR
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Justin" <justin@nobecauseihatespam.com> wrote in message news:hbikr8$3gf$2@news.eternal-september.org...
> David Ruether wrote:
>> "Frank" <frank@nojunkmail.humanvalues.net> wrote in message news:8pood5d9tmj4jp4l30p7nlffcccan0j9jd@4ax.com...
>>> As far as 80-minute DV tape is concerned, I don't know when it was
>>> introduced, but I think that it was only about a year or so ago that I
>>> first noticed it being offered. Personally, I wouldn't touch it with a
>>> 50-foot pole.
>> It has been available for many years (possibly *almost* as long as
>> standard 60 minute tapes...). I have used it at least as long as 10
>> years ago... (again, without problems - but only Sony tape in Sony
>> Mini-DV cameras, with tape brands NEVER switched). Sony
>> Mini-DV tape transports did appear to be very reliable, though...
>> --DR
> Aw crap... I've been using Sony HDV tapes in my Canon HV30.
> Should I keep using it? Switch to Canon HDV tapes?
> Will the tape fairy kill me in my sleep tonight?
> Will I be lynched by Canon engineers?
> " " Sony engineers?
Nope! 8^) All that matters (if it really does at all - there are differing
opinions about that) is that you not switch around tape brands and
"models" (there is apparently one "fancy" version of Panasonic tape
that can certainly get you into trouble, at least). It once was (and may
still be...) that all tape brands were made by only two makers, Sony
and Panasonic - but who knows what is what...? ;-) Feel free to use
Sony tape in a Canon camcorder...
--DR
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Justin" <justin@nobecauseihatespam.com> wrote in message news:hbiku4$3gf$3@news.eternal-september.org...
> David Ruether wrote:
>> I suspect that, much as I like the Canon HV20, it is unusually
>> susceptible to dropouts (I gather this from reading others' experiences
>> with it). Since the number of dropouts are 1-4 per tape, I no longer
>> shoot "critical" material, I can often edit around the bad frames (and I
>> have already invested in about $400 in HDV-specific tape, about a
>> third of which has dropout faults at the same location in all the tapes
>> and they are not returnable at this point), and I shoot almost nothing
>> anymore, I will likely not worry about it at this point - but thanks for
>> the information.
>> --DR
> I wonder if the HV30 is susceptible to the same thing.
> I haven't heard about it on the forums.
They use the same transports. When I brought up the issue a
good while back, everyone responded with, "Gee, I never have
any dropouts..." And, you certainly cannot miss them with HDV
unless you are blind and deaf - so I wondered about defective
tape (although my tape was from a batch and type that had
shown a VERY low dropout rate with Mini-DV - and I knew
what to look for with that...;-). The one batch of the new
expensive tape I bought *was* defective (a dropout would
happen at the same location on several tapes). But then I ran
across a forum discussion (location since lost...) on the HV20
and dropouts... (but I just did a search on Google for "hv20 and
dropouts" that was fruitful). Shooting to memory cards is more
reliable, but I don't want to deal with their disadvantages for
what I do...
--DR
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Brian" <bclark@es.co.nz> wrote in message news:dpsqd5pk7s26gngl68jtrptpr6rb89t31c@4ax.com...
> Are Blu-ray reusuable discs available yet (like DVD-RW)?
They have been for some time... I bought a Blu-ray writer and
two RW disks quite a while back, but I have not bothered to
write any BR disks. One can write surprisingly high quality HD
video to standard cheap red-laser disks using stand writers if
good appropriate conversion files are made for the purpose.
--DR
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> "VistaSee" <VistaDew@VistaCee.com> wrote:
>>I'm currently using LaCie drives, 3 x 1TB for
>>archiving clips & footage to transport between
>>home & office.
>>
>>Not too happy with LaCies' performance;
>>2 of 3 drives have crashed & burned in 2 yrs
>>
>>Has anyone any recommendations for high-quality
>>external storage drives, pref readable by Mac/PC ?
>>
>>A friend recommended Western Digital, and have
>>had ancient experience w Seagate (SCSI's), but
>>not sure what other videographers are using ...
>>
>>any thoughts?
>>
>>thanks much,
>>
>>Vince
Maybe best is a good physically full-sized (desktop-type)
drive in an external case. These likely store shelved better
than the compact drives. When in use, I run these without
the enclosure cover for better heat dissipation.
--DR
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Mark" <i@dontgetlotsofspamanymore.invalid> wrote in message news:7jhtd5pt5vn4i6klodahtb2r6g92fubj6d@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 20 Oct 2009 12:20:01 -0700, "Richard Crowley"
> <rcrowley@xp7rt.net> wrote:
>>"Bob Fleischer" wrote ...
>>> What are the archival characteristics of flash memory?
>>They are claimed to be "very good". But personally, I remain to be
>>convinced. "They" said the same thing about CD-R and DVD-R,
>>and I have ZERO faith in them as archival media.
>>[Granted: it was a different "they".]
>>
>>Of course, until the price of flash comes down another couple of
>>notches, it is pretty much an academic question.
> There are already SSD based camcorders on the market. Samsung do
> several for example.
But, it appears that "RC" has already pointed out the possible
limitations for archiving footage with memory cards (cost and
reliability). With the additional difficulties with editing HD in the
format from cards (AVCHD) compared with HD in the format
from tape (HDV), I still prefer tape even with the potential for
dropouts. (But, WATCH OUT! Here come the brickbats from
"Smarty" again on this last issue of the relative editing ease with
HD material recorded on the two formats, even though he has
said the same thing! ;-)
--DR
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"John Williamson" <johnwilliamson@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:7mvpguF3js7mqU1@mid.individual.net...
> As far as I can tell, the resolution of 16mm and 35mm film is still
> better than most digital formats, if you count it as pixels. It's not
> *quite* so clearcut as the examples below, as the contrast of film
> decreases as the number of lines per mm increases.
>
> I'd guess that consumer level HD is now roughly equivalent to Super 8
> film for picture quality, with compression artifacts replacing film grain.
Regardless of the specs, I can tell you that 1080 HDV shot with
a good camcorder (the lowly Canon HV20...) looks better on a
good 42" LCD 1080p screen viewed at 6.5' than I ever remember
8, super-8, or even 16mm film looking at a proportional viewing size
and distance. It is just plain sharper and smoother (if shot in good
light). A further indication that this is true is that the various sub-35mm
film format transfers to video intended to become part of professional
productions also look inferior to the output of the HV20, and even
broadcast 35mm movies are roughly on a par with the HDV20 level
of image quality as viewed on that 42" LCD. As to compression
artifacts, I have (surprisingly) *never* been able to detect any with
the HV20 unless its low light limit is approached, or unless the footage
is edited using a program that is not kind to HDV (such as Adobe
Premiere...).
Time to update your gear...;-)
--DR
~~~~~~~~
"Richard Crowley" <rcrowley@xp7rt.net> wrote in message news:7n0qreF3jqtetU1@mid.individual.net...
> "Martin Heffels" wrote ...
>> "Richard Crowley" wrote:
>>>"Martin Heffels" wrote ...
>>>> There is no difference between 16mm and 35mm filmstock.
>>>> They both have the same characteristics.
>>>Resolution. Bigtime.
>> Yes of course :-) But I thought you were more talking about the
>> dynamic range. Maybe I misunderstood you.
> They cut and perforate the same stock for whatever size you
> want: 70mm, 65mm, 35mm, 16mm, 8mm, etc. (Where "they"
> is whomever is left making the stuff. Not Kodak anymore.)
>
> But clearly when you say "16mm" or "35mm" you are refering
> to a particular frame size and I believe that 35mm is >2x in
> both height and width of the image area = >4x the number of
> equivalent pixels.
>
> My understanding is that when they scan film (camera negatives
> or whatever), the two standard resolutions are "2K" (2048 x
> 1536) or "4K" (4096 x 3072) I heard that "4K" was selected
> to be slightly higher resolution than the best 35mm film available.
> There is evidence that they scan 65mm (camera negative) at "8K".
Again, just going on appearance (and an assumption or two...;-),
I was somewhat disappointed in a recent purchase of "Chronos"
(a transfer to Blu-ray presumably from 65mm IMAX film original)
compared with what the "lowly" little/cheap Canon HV20 can
look like (with careful picture adjustments - and exposure since
its latitude is considerably less than that of film negative material...).
The IMAX transfer wasn't worse - it just (surprisingly) wasn't better.
--DR
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"dj_nme" <dj_nme@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:4af3691e$0$16741$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au...
> David Ruether wrote:
>> "eljainc" <eljainc@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message news:6daab671-e7c2-48ed-9995-ba6dbfc87dbc@o13g2000vbl.googlegroups.com...
>>> I am looking for the proper specification of lens to put on a 1/2" CCD
>>> camera. I would like to be able to focus and capture an object that is
>>> 18" to 24" away. The size of the image is 17" x 14".
>>>
>>> The camera vendor said that a Computar c-mount lens (M0814-MP) with a
>>> focal length of 8mm (f 1.4) would work. However when we attached it to
>>> our camera, it couldn't properly focus on the object that was 2 feet
>>> away. It only focuses on nearer objects (1 inch to about 10"). What
>>> focal length lens do we need for this 1/2" camera sensor?
>> This may work...
>> Fuji TV-lens (for 2/3rds inch?), with what appears to be a "C" mount
>> (changeable, I think), 16-160mm at a constant f1.8, rather large and
>> heavy, nice condition, $80. There is a photo of it down the page at --
>> http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/fs-misc-video-audio.htm. With
>> zoom lenses, you can put an achromat (2-element close-up lens) on
>> the front, and then zoom to adjust magnification (use a medium-small
>> stop for best sharpness).
>> --DR ("d underscore ruether at hotmail dot com")
> What you may want to be careful of is whether your camera has a C-mount
> or a CS-mount.
> CS-mount cameras have a 5mm shoter distance from mount-to-sensor than
> C-mount cameras, but the mounts are otherwise identical.
> CS-mount lenses are used on all security cameras and on some of the
> early home video cameras.
>
> Eljainc may have been sold a CS-mount lens to put on his C-mount camera,
> so found that it would only close/macro focus.
>
> That "Fuji TV lens" may actually be a CS-mount lens, unfortunately
> there's no way to tell without either looking at the engravings on the
> lens (and checking for yourself) or mounting onto your camera.
>
> I would suspect that unless a C-mount lens actually has "for 16mm film
> camera", "cine lens" or something simliar engraved on the lens-barrel,
> then there is a distinct possibilty that it's really a CS-mount lens.
Thanks - good points. Since the lens is so fast and wide-range for
zooming (and large/heavy), it seems unlikely to have been intended
for either home video or security cameras - but it is marked "Fuji
TV Lens". At a longish FL, the extra 5mm would be less significant,
and at some zoom position, it may well cover the desired field area,
but likely not at the desired distance if it is a CS mount...
--DR
~~~~~~~~
"dj_nme" <dj_nme@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:4af804ed$0$5421$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au...
> The odds are that the camera that this "TV lens" was designed for may
> not have had a full 16mm cine sized sensor, more likely it has a much
> smaller one.
> So that when it's mounted on the correct camera (which likely has a
> CS-mount [which does not have the same back focus distance as a
> C-mount lens]), it covers the sensor.
The intended sensor size may be 1/3rd", and the likely use for
the lens was for surveillance - so I will be changing my listing at --
http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/fs-misc-video-audio.htm to,
"Fuji TV-Z lens, with what appears to be a "C" mount (or "CS"
mount - not sure), 16-160mm at a constant f1.8 widest stop,
rather large and heavy, nice condition, $80." Thanks.
--DR
~~~~~~~~~
"dj_nme" <dj_nme@optusnet.com.au> wrote in message news:4afb4b10$0$5424$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au...
> David Ruether wrote:
>> "dj_nme" <dj_nme@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:4af804ed$0$5421$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au...
>>> The odds are that the camera that this "TV lens" was designed
>>> for may not have had a full 16mm cine sized sensor, more likely it
>>> has a much smaller one.
>>> So that when it's mounted on the correct camera (which likely
>>> has a CS-mount [which does not have the same back focus
>>> distance as a C-mount lens]), it covers the sensor.
>> The intended sensor size may be 1/3rd", and the likely use for
>> the lens was for surveillance - so I will be changing my listing at --
>> http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/fs-misc-video-audio.htm to,
>> "Fuji TV-Z lens, with what appears to be a "C" mount (or "CS"
>> mount - not sure), 16-160mm at a constant f1.8 widest stop,
>> rather large and heavy, nice condition, $80." Thanks.
>> --DR
> No problem ;-)
> I ran into the odd world of c-mount lenses about ten years ago when I
> tried to stick a c-mount onto a p&s camera.
> Half the lenses didn't say whether they are c or cs mount and working
> out if a nice looking fast "c mount" lens on eBay was usable on my
> kludge camera ended up being more trouble than it's worth.
A friend sold it to me (for more than I'm asking...;-), and I bought
it with similar intentions to yours, thinking it probably covered a
much larger pro-TV sensor size, but......................
--DR
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Matt" <someone@microsoft.com> wrote in message news:hcru55$gih$1@news.eternal-september.org...
> "David McCall" <mccallmail@verizon.net> wrote in message
> news:hcqjnd$27l$1@news.albasani.net...
>> "Matt" <someone@microsoft.com> wrote in message
>> news:hcq8n2$mok$1@news.eternal-september.org...
>>>I currently have an older edit suite running a Decklink SP card. I am
>>>building a new edit suite and need some suggestions on a new Decklink
>>>card. Currently I shoot on a Sony PD-170 producing 30 second TV
>>>commercials and the occasional 5 to 10 minute marketing video. I have to
>>>drop down to BetaSP on a UVW1800 for distribution to the network stations
>>>in 2 different markets. I'm going to upgrade to a Canon XL-H1s but I'll
>>>still need to drop down to SD to my BetaSP for distribution until the
>>>local stations make their upgrades. I'd also like the ability to move my
>>>current footage over to my new edit suite for various ongoing projects. My
>>>question is do I need to spend a ton of money on an HD Extreme or can I
>>>get away with just a Studio or even an Intensity Pro? Part of my problem
>>>is that no one at any of the TV stations can tell me what or how they will
>>>take future content, and I still need to output to BetaSP for the
>>>meantime. Oh and I'm editing with CS4 if it matters...
>> I don't deal with any local stations so this may not be of any value.
>> We've been doing shows that play at the various cable conventions
>> on the surrounding hotels systems. Much of our content, both ads and
>> segments have started to show up as data on DVDs. Some of the
>> ads have been delivered by FTP or file transfer services. It's been a
>> pretty good way to transfer material without the use of analog tape.
>> It also makes dealing with the many different formats much easier.
>>
>> David
> I am tentatively planning on DVD's as my output medium at the moment. I have
> asked the stations about FTP and only one currently offers the service but
> they charge a monthly fee. I've also thought about using the smaller flash
> drives but the majority of the stations in my area don't even really want a
> digital file at the moment. They are just not set up to take them in their
> traffic department. They complain that they'll have to interrupt their
> production department in order to utilize their edit suites to drop the file
> down to something traffic can use. They all say they simply can not upgrade
> at the moment due to the economy. Of course I know there's at least 2
> stations who's parent company is in the process of filing bankruptcy.
It looks like you are in a "holding pattern" for delivery format for
now, but here is a suggestion: shoot and edit in HDV, and down
convert it for BETA-SP delivery. It will look better than using
Mini-DV source material. Also, use some other program than CS4
for editing the HDV, since it doesn't handle it very well (see --
http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/hdv-editing.htm for a bit more).
CS4 recompresses ALL footage at HDV export, and it doesn't do
it very well (serious image degradation is common in the final result).
It also cannot reexport the same file without recompressing it, so later
exports must either begin with retained project and source files, or
suffer further degradation. Sony Vegas has neither of these problems,
and even the cheap Vegas Platinum 9 works well for editing HDV.
--DR
~~~~~~~~
>> It looks like you are in a "holding pattern" for delivery format for
>> now, but here is a suggestion: shoot and edit in HDV, and down
>> convert it for BETA-SP delivery. It will look better than using
>> Mini-DV source material. Also, use some other program than CS4
>> for editing the HDV, since it doesn't handle it very well (see --
>> http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/hdv-editing.htm for a bit more).
>> CS4 recompresses ALL footage at HDV export, and it doesn't do
>> it very well (serious image degradation is common in the final result).
>> It also cannot reexport the same file without recompressing it, so later
>> exports must either begin with retained project and source files, or
>> suffer further degradation. Sony Vegas has neither of these problems,
>> and even the cheap Vegas Platinum 9 works well for editing HDV.
>> --DR
> Great... and I have no money left over for another software package... Well
> do you have any expericence with Balckmagic products? They are suggesting
> the Studio for my suite... but if I can get away with the Intensity Pro (of
> which I have no experience with) then I might have enough left over to
> purchase Vegas.
Sony Vegas Movie Studio Platinum 9 is currently selling new for a
"whopping" $64.99 with free shipping from Amazon, at --
www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_ss?url=search-alias%3Daps&field-keywords=Sony+vegas+platinum+9
That should not break the bank, and it is a remarkably "able" program,
very similar to Vegas Pro (but not $600+!). For more on it, go here --
www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/Sony-editing.htm. That is a basic instruction
manual I wrote for it - and it includes the URLs for online video tutorials
on the Sony site. The program itself also includes tutorials that guide you
through the steps to accomplish various tasks you want to do. It's a neat
program, and it handles HDV very well.
--DR
~~~~~~~~~~~
"Matt" <someone@microsoft.com> wrote in message news:hcs54o$fc8$1@news.eternal-september.org...
> Great... and I have no money left over for another software package... Well
> do you have any expericence with Balckmagic products? They are suggesting
> the Studio for my suite... but if I can get away with the Intensity Pro (of
> which I have no experience with) then I might have enough left over to
> purchase Vegas.
Also, why do you need to use anything but a FireWire port plus
HDV editing software to do what you want? Capture your raw
footage to the computer with the free and excellent HDVSplit
(the download URL is in my article), which splits up the takes
into numbered clips. Once in the computer, edit the material and
export a finished file of the video. Export that to your camera, then
use its audio and video ports to export the video to a BETA-SP
deck, or whatever else. Nothing fancy or expensive is required,
so long as the computer is a reasonably fast one with at least a
dual-core processor.
--DR
~~~~~~~~~~
"Matt" <someone@microsoft.com> wrote in message news:hcslcq$94o$1@news.eternal-september.org...
> "David Ruether" <d_ruether@thotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:hcsiln$l4h$1@ruby.cit.cornell.edu...
>> Also, why do you need to use anything but a FireWire port plus
>> HDV editing software to do what you want? Capture your raw
>> footage to the computer with the free and excellent HDVSplit
>> (the download URL is in my article), which splits up the takes
>> into numbered clips. Once in the computer, edit the material and
>> export a finished file of the video. Export that to your camera, then
>> use its audio and video ports to export the video to a BETA-SP
>> deck, or whatever else. Nothing fancy or expensive is required,
>> so long as the computer is a reasonably fast one with at least a
>> dual-core processor.
>> --DR
> Ahh... sorry, I overlooked the Movie Studio version of the software, I see
> it now in your original post. The main reason I need a new Blackmagic card
> is that we want to keep our old edit suite up and running for various
> smaller projects and we want the ability to transfer footage and files
> between the two systems... just in case... so I will need some form of
> Blackmagic card in the new system. Also a lot of my commercials are
> extremely last minute and any step I can elimate helps me immensly so if I
> can spend $200 on a card to be able to skip mastering back to the camera and
> then to the deck I feel it's worth it... plus it's a little less wear and
> tear on the camera.
If you do get the Sony software, make sure it is the Platinum *9*
version of Movie Studio. The plain Movie Studio doesn't handle
HDV. BTW, there would not be much wear on the camera if you
export all your takes to the computer at one time (and make your
selections afterward) rather than selecting them first and shuttling
tape in the camera to export points. Same with the return of
material to the camera, which is automatic once a place is chosen
on the tape to begin recording.
--DR
~~~~~~~~~
>> If you do get the Sony software, make sure it is the Platinum *9*
>> version of Movie Studio. The plain Movie Studio doesn't handle
>> HDV. BTW, there would not be much wear on the camera if you
>> export all your takes to the computer at one time (and make your
>> selections afterward) rather than selecting them first and shuttling
>> tape in the camera to export points. Same with the return of
>> material to the camera, which is automatic once a place is chosen
>> on the tape to begin recording.
>> --DR
> Thanks for the tips! I guess there's no chance that camera allows pass
> through...
Worth a try - who knows...;-) It would probably be in the complete
specifications if it did, though...
--DR
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Tony Yarwood" <tony.yarwood@XXXclara.co.uk> wrote in message news:004db13c$0$3408$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com...
> On Thu, 05 Nov 2009 16:50:29 +1200, Brian <bclark@es.co.nz> wrote:
>>There's always Adobe Premiere Elements
>>
>>Regards Brian
> With a special on at the moment looks like a good deal :)
> Many thanks guys for your time and trouble.
> Best regards
> Tony
If you want to go cheap and use the program for HDV,
avoid any Adobe solution (they don't yet use "Smart
Rendering" for it, and their codec appears to produce
inferior results with HDV). Try Sony Vegas Movie
Studio Platinum 9 (make sure that "9" is in the name!).
It is currently about $56 from Amazon including
shipping, and it is surprisingly similar to Sony's Vegas
Pro ($600+). For more on it, see the Sony video
tutorials at the URLs listed in my beginner's manual, at
http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/Sony-editing.htm.
BTW, the program includes nifty step-by-step
internal tutorials, too...;-)
--DR
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Mr. INTJ" <mr.intj@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:48073474-cfb0-4f97-968a-9a7ea6b595f0@s31g2000yqs.googlegroups.com...
> I'm brand new to desktop video, and I'm trying to understand my
> options in terms of equipment. Googling for this information had
> proven unproductive so far, so maybe someone can point me to a
> resource...
>
> I have a new shop tool, and I want to send some videos of it in action
> to a friend. Because of the close-up nature and rapid movement of the
> subject, I'm thinking a camcorder would be a better choice than a web
> cam (frame rates, macro focus, resolution, etc).
>
> I was thinking I'd get a used digital camcorder with firewire output -
> my assumption here is that I'll be able to use it as a "live feed",
> and record video on my PC for later editing. Is that a fair
> assumption, or do some of these digital camcorders only output during
> playback?
>
> Thanks
>
> -INTJ
The simple answer is, "Yes, you can do this". With Windows
Movie Maker on a PC or iMovie on a Mac running, you
can "live capture" through a FireWire connection to the
computer from a DV camcorder. But, why bother limiting
yourself with a wire connection between the two while
shooting when you can shoot to tape and transfer the video
material later when you want to edit it?
--DR
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Gary Eickmeier" <geickmei@tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message
news:4af6ed6b$0$1611$9a6e19ea@news.newshosting.com...
> Here is an apparent anomoly for me. I just wanted to level my tripod so that
> I could pan 360 degrees without the horizon tilting. Should be simple,
> right? Well I'm here to tell ya that it ain't.
>
> I bought a circular bubble level to place right on top of the camera, to
> make certain I was using the flattest and most important reference point. I
> carefully leveled the tripod. Then when I rotated 90 degrees, the level was
> off again. I re-levelled at that position, and same result. No matter how
> you do it, you can't get it to stay level through a full circle.
>
> So, I reason that it must be that the vertical axis of the video head is not
> vertical, and is following a conic path around, rather than a straight
> vertical line. But what can I do about that? Perhaps the panorama still
> photography people have special heads that are made for this purpose, and
> can be leveled so that their axis is perfect. Not sure what to look up on
> this, or if it would be suitable for video work.
>
> Has anyone run into this problem before? Maybe my tilt of the pan/tilt head
> is not right, and I am leveling a tilted camera. I thought I checked for
> that, but perhaps there is a better technique or procedure to follow. One
> problem is a lack of flat reference surfaces on a tripod head to begin
> with.
>
> Gary Eickmeier
The only way I have been able to do this is to level the tripod
using the video camera image itself referenced to horizon lines,
building verticals, doorway verticals, etc. with rotation over the
desired angular range. A royal PITA to accomplish, but better
than trying to use inaccurate bubble levels (mounted on "iffy"
surfaces...). At least with the actual camera in place, all the
variables are taken care of (except for the possibility of a slightly
rotated viewfinder image relative to the camera output, but that
should have been checked upon purchase of the camera - and
an electronically-generated grid over the image does help
considerably). What you want to do *is* surprisingly difficult...:-(
--DR
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Brian" <bclark@es.co.nz> wrote in message news:o22ae51d6964g0708ms406kcau7l403qd5@4ax.com...
> I remember that when they made a professional recording for TV
> broadcast the sound was recorded on to a separate unit (small reel to
> reel tape deck) rather than record it on the camera. I think they
> might have used 16mm film (rather than tape) in the 1970's so this
> would be the reason for having separate sound. I'm not certain how
> they managed to keep the sound in Sync all the time, maybe they made
> short recordings from different angles.
>
> Regards Brian
For semi-pro work with 16mm, a separate deck was used for
ambient audio (it could be synchronized with a "clap stick", or
by using synch signals from the camera if it could provide them).
The deck was often a (relatively...;-) compact, (RELATIVELY)
light, quite expensive Nagra. Additional sound could be added
later during editing, for which (with low-end work) a ganged
synch block was used with parallel sprocketed film and audio
wheels to keep things in synch while editing, with a viewer for
picture and a magnetic head with amplifier + speaker for sound.
For less "semi-pro" work, one could use magnetic-striped 16mm
stock, and for more "pro" editing, a Steenbeck editing table
with multiple synchronized video and audio platters and a large
viewing screen could be used. Once the 16mm work print and
16mm magnetic audio tapes were made, the work was edited
and sent to the printer, who "timed" the scenes to match them
(or to any requested changes) while the master negative was
made. From the master, release prints were produced with an
optical audio track down one side of the film (which displaced
the sprocket holes that would normally run down that edge of
the film). Now, let's not hear any complaints about how hard
it is to use digital editing suites, hear?!!! 8^) They are the best
thing to have appeared since sliced bread...! ;-)
--DR
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Richard Crowley" <rcrowley@xp7rt.net> wrote in message
news:3fKdnU8qMY9p1HHXnZ2dnUVZ_rqdnZ2d@posted.pcez...
> Perhaps you are thinking of "Barry Lyndon":
> http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0072684/
> He used special Zeiss F/0.70 super-fast prime lenses (which were
> made for NASA moon landings) to be able to shoot amazing things
> like interior night-time scenes lit by candle-light (or so they want us
> to believe.)
This reminds me of my days shooting weddings (both stills and
videos). I preferred to avoid the look of artificial light (but with
stills I would add a bit of fill light - and I got good at hand-holding
a 35mm f1.4 at f1.4 and 1/4-1/8 second...). 'Course the brides
often preferred "atmospheric" lighting during the receptions
(consisting of the chandeliers turned down almost to extinction
and single candles in the centers of each of the large circular tables
in huge ballrooms). And of course gentle reminders to the bride
that "photography" literally meant, "the recording of *light*" would
result only in temporary increases in the general room light level...:-(
The amazing Sony VX2000 got me through it, though, since it
could shoot reasonably good video in ridiculously low light
levels. The results were not any where near that of professional
movie level requirements, but they did serve well enough for
their intended purpose.
--DR
~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Frank" <frank@nojunkmail.humanvalues.net> wrote in message
news:nv0pe55pbjflrosepnjbrglpo0m0bhreph@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 31 Oct 2009 12:26:45 -0400, in 'rec.video.desktop',
> in article <Re: Some questions on the old days of making movies.>,
> "David Ruether" <d_ruether@thotmail.com> wrote:
>>"Richard Crowley" <rcrowley@xp7rt.net> wrote in message
>>news:3fKdnU8qMY9p1HHXnZ2dnUVZ_rqdnZ2d@posted.pcez...
>>> Perhaps you are thinking of "Barry Lyndon":
>>> http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0072684/
>>> He used special Zeiss F/0.70 super-fast prime lenses (which were
>>> made for NASA moon landings) to be able to shoot amazing things
>>> like interior night-time scenes lit by candle-light (or so they want us
>>> to believe.)
>>This reminds me of my days shooting weddings (both stills and
>>videos). I preferred to avoid the look of artificial light (but with
>>stills I would add a bit of fill light - and I got good at hand-holding
>>a 35mm f1.4 at f1.4 and 1/4-1/8 second...). 'Course the brides
>>often preferred "atmospheric" lighting during the receptions
>>(consisting of the chandeliers turned down almost to extinction
>>and single candles in the centers of each of the large circular tables
>>in huge ballrooms). And of course gentle reminders to the bride
>>that "photography" literally meant, "the recording of *light*" would
>>result only in temporary increases in the general room light level...:-(
>>The amazing Sony VX2000 got me through it, though, since it
>>could shoot reasonably good video in ridiculously low light
>>levels. The results were not any where near that of professional
>>movie level requirements, but they did serve well enough for
>>their intended purpose.
>>--DR
> According to Vincent Laforet, come December there will be no longer be
> any need for fancy F/0.70 lenses or Sony camcorders as the "paradigm
> shift" Canon EOS-1D Mark IV DSLR will be available to every Tom, Dick,
> and Harry with a few dollars to spare.
>
> Lights Out, Camera, Action < Vincent Laforet's Blog
> http://blog.vincentlaforet.com/2009/10/19/lights-out-camera-action/
>
> His "Nocturne" video on Vimeo has been temporarily taken down at the
> request of Canon, but can still be seen on YouTube.
>
> YouTube - Nocturne
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=48Ig59zgQkM
>
> "Nocturne" doesn't have all of the slickness of his earlier "Reverie"
> video, shot on a Canon EOS 5D Mark II (aka the "Presidential camera")
> and variously described as a cologne commercial or a clip from a music
> video, but I'm probably even more impressed with "Nocturne" than I was
> with "Reverie".
>
> Reverie on Vimeo
> http://www.vimeo.com/7151244
>
> --
> Frank, Independent Consultant, New York, NY
NEAT! 8^)
And, I agree on which I prefer...;-)
--DR
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Matt" <someone@microsoft.com> wrote in message news:hdus9e$jcr$1@news.eternal-september.org...
> I'm currently shooting on a PD-170 but I want to upgrade to something in the
> HDish family. I was considering a Canon XL-H1 for my needs... mainly because
> the owner of the company is a bit of a pack-rat and always demads a back up
> of all footage shot no matter what, plus I still have a lot of mini-dv tapes
> laying around. For the most part I'm just shooting 30 second commercials so
> I figured that the "older" tape style of this camera really wouldn't hurt me
> too much, but every single sales person I talk to pretty much implies that I
> am an idiot for trying to go with this camera. I am at a point of where I
> need to purchase and I'm starting to wondering if I am really making a bad
> decision with this camera. Unfortunately I haven't done a lot of research
> into any other cameras after I chose the Canon but based on what everyone is
> telling me I'm thinking I really need to switch to a card based camera.
> After a quick glance I'm thinking about a Sony PMW-EX3, but that's a bit
> more expensive than the Canon so I thought I'd check in here to see what you
> all might suggest.
There are a couple of differences of note between tape and card based
HD - ease of archiving and ease of editing. Tape still serves well for long
term archiving of all the source material plus edited video (but tape risks
dropouts - and these cause picture freezes and sound loss for about 1/2
second with HD). HDV (tape) can also be edited easily using computers
of modest "umph". Card-sourced video using the AVCHD format
(MPEG-4) requires either a "hefty" computer or transcoding to an
intermediate format (with its associated disadvantages) for efficient editing.
But, it appears the Sony PMW-EX3 uses MPEG-2, likely less difficult to
edit with using less than "bleeding-edge" computers. For back-up, files can
be written to two or more drives.
--DR
~~~~~~~~~
"Matt" <someone@microsoft.com> wrote in message news:he0r0l$rsk$1@news.eternal-september.org...
> "Matt" <someone@microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:hdv51f$hto$1@news.eternal-september.org...
>> "David Ruether" <d_ruether@thotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:hduue2$brl$1@ruby.cit.cornell.edu...
>>> "Matt" <someone@microsoft.com> wrote in message
>>> news:hdus9e$jcr$1@news.eternal-september.org...
>>> There are a couple of differences of note between tape and card based
>>> HD - ease of archiving and ease of editing. Tape still serves well for long
>>> term archiving of all the source material plus edited video (but tape risks
>>> dropouts - and these cause picture freezes and sound loss for about 1/2
>>> second with HD). HDV (tape) can also be edited easily using computers
>>> of modest "umph". Card-sourced video using the AVCHD format
>>> (MPEG-4) requires either a "hefty" computer or transcoding to an
>>> intermediate format (with its associated disadvantages) for efficient editing.
>>> But, it appears the Sony PMW-EX3 uses MPEG-2, likely less difficult to
>>> edit with using less than "bleeding-edge" computers. For back-up, files
>>> can be written to two or more drives.
>>> --DR
>> Ahh, but then don't I face the problem of just having to store a bunch of
>> hard drives with their own potential failure problems? I guess there's
>> just no easy answer to archival at the moment.
Note that I said, "two or more hard drives". Best may be full-size drives
that either hot-swap or can be used in external enclosures. The key is to
have two or more (good) drives with everything *identically* backed up
on them. If one dies, replace it and copy over all the material from another
drive...
>> Actually my edit suite is fairly "bleeding-edge" (or at least it will be
>> when I get all the parts in and build it) so I'm not super concerned with
>> my ability to edit the footage... easy reliable backup is my main concern.
>> Well that and cost :-)
>>
>> I guess I'll look into external drive enclosures that allow drive hotswaps
>> and take that route with a Sony PMW-EX1R that Frank recomended.
>>
>> Thanks
This is a relatively cheap and reliable solution when you have no tape
source and duplicated edited-material system.
> Well the owner doesn't like the idea of storing footage on an external hard
> drive because if the drive fails we have the potential of loosing several
> projects at once.
See above...
> I'm thinking about backing up an entire project on a dvd
> or blue ray disk (depending on project size)... other than cost does that
> seem like a workable idea?
NO!!! Optical disks are generally NOT reliable! (Think "organic dyes
and color prints"...;-) With good blanks, careful storage, and luck, they
*may* last long enough.
--DR
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Larry" <willandlarry@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:d6323cba-8bba-4461-921c-51cc0fd66c69@p35g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...
>I have a Sony TRV900 which is the best video camera I have ever had
> but, like me, it is getting old and frail. Is there any video camera
> made today that is an equal to the TRV 900 videowise and that can also
> take stills at a higher resolution than the TRV900 whose stills are
> less than 200 kb in size? I do not print stills but instead use them
> in virtual albums so files of around 1 to 1.5 Mb would be ideal. A few
> manual features like a focus ring on the lens would mean a lot more to
> me than touch screens and other assorted bells and whistles that I see
> on the current drop of cameras.
This one is easy (sorta...;-). I have owned several TRV900s and the
better VX2000s, but then I found a small camcorder that produces
INCREDIBLY fine *video* images (Canon doesn't seem to get
0n-board sound as right as Sony does, so an accessory mic is likely
required). This camcorder also should almost never be focused
manually (although it does have a focus ring) since in its "I-AF" mode,
focus is perfect almost all of the time (and in HD, this is IMPORTANT!).
The wonder camera is the Canon HV20/30/40 (all are almost the same),
reviewed at - http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/Canon_HV20-HV30.htm.
It can shoot good stills to memory cards, but it shoots HD video to
Mini-DV tape as "HDV", which is much easier to edit than memory
card based HD camcorders that shoot equivalent image quality (24 Mbps
AVCHD). If you are not yet ready to switch to HD (but why not - it
can be converted to SD and put on DVDs that look very good), I have
one of the last, best 1.5 megapixel Mini-DV camcorders FS on my
web site, at - http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/fs-camcorders.htm,
second item down (the TRV-30 is compared with other Sony camcorders
at - http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/camcorder--comparison.htm),
and it has no touch screen (I also dislike them).
--DR
~~~~~~~~~
"Frank" <frank@nojunkmail.humanvalues.net> wrote in message
news:292bg597vjtbrdkgr2fi5blbhc0oge93oi@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 19 Nov 2009 12:40:50 -0500, in 'rec.video',
> in article <Re: Seek video camera equal to Sony TRV 900>,
> "David Ruether" <d_ruether@thotmail.com> wrote:
>>"Larry" <willandlarry@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>news:d6323cba-8bba-4461-921c-51cc0fd66c69@p35g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...
>>>I have a Sony TRV900 which is the best video camera I have ever had
>>> but, like me, it is getting old and frail. Is there any video camera
>>> made today that is an equal to the TRV 900 videowise and that can also
>>> take stills at a higher resolution than the TRV900 whose stills are
>>> less than 200 kb in size? I do not print stills but instead use them
>>> in virtual albums so files of around 1 to 1.5 Mb would be ideal. A few
>>> manual features like a focus ring on the lens would mean a lot more to
>>> me than touch screens and other assorted bells and whistles that I see
>>> on the current drop of cameras.
>>This one is easy (sorta...;-). I have owned several TRV900s and the
>>better VX2000s, but then I found a small camcorder that produces
>>INCREDIBLY fine *video* images (Canon doesn't seem to get
>>0n-board sound as right as Sony does, so an accessory mic is likely
>>required). This camcorder also should almost never be focused
>>manually (although it does have a focus ring) since in its "I-AF" mode,
>>focus is perfect almost all of the time (and in HD, this is IMPORTANT!).
>>The wonder camera is the Canon HV20/30/40 (all are almost the same),
>>reviewed at - http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/Canon_HV20-HV30.htm.
>>It can shoot good stills to memory cards, but it shoots HD video to
>>Mini-DV tape as "HDV", which is much easier to edit than memory
>>card based HD camcorders that shoot equivalent image quality (24 Mbps
>>AVCHD). If you are not yet ready to switch to HD (but why not - it
>>can be converted to SD and put on DVDs that look very good), I have
>>one of the last, best 1.5 megapixel Mini-DV camcorders FS on my
>>web site, at - http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/fs-camcorders.htm,
>>second item down (the TRV-30 is compared with other Sony camcorders
>>at - http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/camcorder--comparison.htm),
>>and it has no touch screen (I also dislike them).
>>--DR
> Like David, I was going to suggest that you consider the Canon HV40.
> This assumes that you wish to stay with magnetic cassette tape as your
> recording medium.
>
> --
> Frank, Independent Consultant, New York, NY
> [Please remove 'nojunkmail.' from address to reply via e-mail.]
> Read Frank's thoughts on HDV at http://www.humanvalues.net/hdv/
> (also covers AVCHD and XDCAM EX).
As we both have pointed out, tape offers a good direct method of
archiving both raw and edited footage (in this way it is superior to
memory card recording), but with HD, there is the hazard of dropouts
and the resulting half-second image and sound gaps. Memory card
recording does offer freedom from this problem, but as I pointed
out earlier, editing it in highest quality HD is not so easy as it is with
HDV. Unless the OP has the computer "horsepower" to edit 24 Mbps
AVCHD, or is willing to transcode the raw footage to another format
that is easier to edit directly (but with losses...), and if the OP is
interested in making high quality videos with a minimum of frustrations,
HDV (tape) may be the better way to go for now, tempting as the
alternative may be at first look...
--DR
~~~~
"David Ruether" <d_ruether@thotmail.com> wrote in message
news:he47q9$l4s$1@ruby.cit.cornell.edu...
> As we both have pointed out, tape offers a good direct method of
> archiving both raw and edited footage (in this way it is superior to
> memory card recording), but with HD, there is the hazard of dropouts
> and the resulting half-second image and sound gaps. Memory card
> recording does offer freedom from this problem, but as I pointed
> out earlier, editing it in highest quality HD is not so easy as it is with
> HDV. Unless the OP has the computer "horsepower" to edit 24 Mbps
> AVCHD, or is willing to transcode the raw footage to another format
> that is easier to edit directly (but with losses...), and if the OP is
> interested in making high quality videos with a minimum of frustrations,
> HDV (tape) may be the better way to go for now, tempting as the
> alternative may be at first look...
> --DR
A follow-up for the OP --
If you are using a PC and are going with HDV (tape for HD), Premiere
does not handle HDV well. Sony Vegas does, and its cheaper version
(with almost all the main features of the $600 version, but around $75
at Amazon for the "Platinum 9" version) is quite good. For more on
this, look at - http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/hdv-editing.htm,
and - http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/Sony-editing.htm.
--DR
~~~~~~
"Larry" <willandlarry@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:10b52049-cc5a-49f0-90b1-dc6642e3aee8@m38g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
> Many thanks to you for your information. You are obviously more
> competent than I, an amatuer, in your evaluations of what might aid me
> in my search. I read reviews of the Canons and liked what I saw except
> for a couple of things:
> 1) Viewfinder - A minor omission of Canon is a non-movable viewfinder
> which, for me, becomes major since I use the viewfinder exclusively
> and wearing glasses, appreciate a rubber mount, and a tiltable
> viewfinder so I can place the camcorder at a low level and catch
> forground in a shot - especially stills.
I also prefer to use the eyepiece VF, but I manage with the fold out
screen when necessary, and I placed small circles of sticky-backed
soft material (like felt) at the upper two corners of the hard Canon
VF surround.
> Also, doesn't the lack of an
> extendable viewfinder hamper the user if he chooses to opt for a
> thicker battery thereby causing some distance between the viewfinder
> and his eye?
There are three "small" battery options that don't interfere with seeing
the VF easily (the one that comes with the camera is the middle one,
and I use it and the next larger). The largest (beyond these three) that
will fit makes the VF unuseable...
> Does the viewfinder remain uncluttered when manual
> functions are selected?
Not really, but it is not too bad - and you can clear the field with an
external button push. But, overall, Sony does a better job with its
eyepiece finders (but I dislike the touch-screens) and the built-in
mic - but, oh the picture quality on the Canon (with a careful set-up
using the picture-modification controls)!
> 2) HD versus SD - Would I be able to edit HD footage with my old
> Pinnacle Studio system as I edit SD now or would I have to get some
> other editing software?
It depends on the version, but if an update is needed, the answer is
simple. For $75 including shipping from Amazon.com, Sony Platinum
*9* software is more stable, and results with it are excellent with HDV.
For more, see -- http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/hdv-editing.htm,
and especially -- http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/Sony-editing.htm.
If you get overwhelmed by this - look at the tutorial videos on the Sony
web site (the URLs are in this last site). Platinum 9 also has really nifty
step-by-step tutorials within the program.
> 3) Stills - The one thing I didn't like with the TRV900 was the time
> it took to switch from video mode to still mode. Many times, the shot
> I was after was no longer there by the time the camera was ready. I
> read that the HVs can take a still while in the video mode and record
> it to an SD card at a resolution of 1920 x 1080 (is that true?) which
> would be fine for my purpose. Is it better to always switch to still
> mode for higher resolution stills? Is the transition time when
> switching between the two modes short?
I have never used this function, but reading the specs and features list
on the Canon site for the HV40 should tell you what you want to know.
I think it will work as you want, but I'm not sure. It appears from the
descriptions that the 2 megapixel stills shot while videoing are
1920x1080, but in still mode the stills are 3 megapixels. Switching
modes on the camcorder is not instantaneous by any means...
> 4) Is it a factor at all to try and find cameras with 3 CCDs versus 1
> CCD?
Oddly, this is the first camera I have used where, *in good light and
with good set-up of picture characteristics* (more on that is in my
review), the image quality appears to be (generally) as good as
that of a good 3-chipper. A more expensive camera does offer
more control over tonal response and greater low-light range, but
when there is enough light for the small Canon (medium-bright interior
to bright daylight exterior), it is hard to beat the picture quality.
> With these few caveats in mind, would you still recommend the Canons?
> If so, I will start my search today!
YES! But you will almost certainly want a better microphone. Start
searching for the discontinued Sony 908C and get a Rode DK-1
"Deadkitten" wind shield for it (and also, if you can find something
that would work, a compact suspension system for the mic). Get the
next size up from the supplied battery (NOT the NB-2L24-H!), and
maybe a 43mm UV filter (I prefer Hoya "single coated", UV or
plain). For wide angle, the Raynox HD .66X with 43mm thread
works very well from the widest zoom to slightly longer than 1/2
the way on the VF zoom scale toward tele. I like B&H as a dealer
(good prices, and if something is wrong in the first couple of weeks,
returns/exchanges are easy). If you get a good deal on the HV-30
versus the HV40, save the money difference. TEST everything on
the camera as soon as you get it and shoot at least an hour's worth,
even if it is "junk" footage. Have fun with it - and if you have a good
1080p HDTV (especially if it is not a projection type), you will be
astonished!
> Thanks again for your help. Larry
No problem...;-)
--DR
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Sjeef" <sjeeef@(REMOVETHIS)gmail.com> wrote in message
news:4b06381c$0$22918$e4fe514c@news.xs4all.nl...
> Brian wrote:
>> Does anyone have any tips, advice, or suggested equipment for keeping
>> a hand held video camera steady when zooming in on the action?
>> I know the best way is to use a propod or a monopod but there are
>> times when I find yourself holding the camera in my hands and trying
>> to get a steady shot.
>>
>> Regards Brian
> An old trick.
> Use a nylon line, with a loop onder your foot, and the camera.
> --
> Regards,
>
> Gerard Schaefers
This is a useful (and compact) solution. One I use is to restrict
myself to wide-angle (with a .66X WA lens converter added)
to "normal" views (the reduced image angular motion resulting
from my shakes produces smoother video). I also use a brace
I came up with after many tries (it is described and shown at -
http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/brace.htm). Of course the
camcorder stabilizer is also turned on...
--DR
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"PTravel" <ptravel@travelersvideo.com> wrote in message
news:7km6o1F3arhrvU1@mid.individual.net...
> "Brian" <bclark@es.co.nz> wrote in message
> news:coo0e5htvoamhpgp5raj7s5drecnqus68a@4ax.com...
> I believe it was sometime in the '40s that 8mm film
> was introduced as a strictly amateur format. It consisted of a small spool
> of 16mm that was was exposed on one side, flipped, exposed on the other,
> then split down the middle during processing.
I remember that my father had some 8mm Kodachrome movies that
dated from the late 1930's (oh, I wish I had taken better care of these
and still had them!!!).
>> I'm trying to remember how many minutes (I think it was 3 minutes) did
>> a small camera spool of film last.
About three minutes, depending on how much footage you fogged
while loading, flipping, and unloading the film...
--DR
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"mpp" <sandyprice@harbornet.com> wrote in message news:2df49f9f-1367-41f5-91e1-46cb3a397e21@f18g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>I create many 360 degree panoramas with my DV Camcorders still-photo
> capabilities. Early on I discovered the difficulty of keeping all the
> photos on the same horizon line.
>
> I solved the problem by purchasing a Manfrotto 3416 leveling head,
> made specifically for this purpose.
>
> A Google search for this device will show you a photo of it, which is
> easier than me trying to describe it. It costs about $100. It is all
> metal, probably steel, so it is a heavy brute, but a solid performer.
>
> You first rough-level the tripod with the tripod legs, then fine-level
> the tripod head with the 3 leveling screws on the 3416, using the
> level bubble built into the 3416. Next use a small torpedo level set
> on the tripod camera mounting plate to set and lock the "tilt" angle
> to level. Then verify that everything is level by rotating the tripod
> head 360 degrees. If the torpedo remains level thru the entire
> revolution, the camcorder or camera will maintain a constant horizon
> line.
>
> Once the head is level all around, you can tilt the head to any angle
> above or below horizontal, and all photos taken at that new tilt angle
> will line up on the same new horizon line. I wouldn't be without it,
> regardless of the weight.
>
> HTH,
>
> Mike
I also eventually gave up on the "a little less/more length on this or
that leg, then try the next leg" method and bought one of these. It
did work well.
--DR
~~~~~
[...]
I also found this device very helpful, even with its rather
considerable weight and noticeable price...
--DR
~~~~~~
"Gary Eickmeier" <geickmei@tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message
news:4afcb579$0$1612$9a6e19ea@news.newshosting.com...
> As I mentioned elsewhere in this thread, I got the 438 leveling head
>
> http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/554093-REG/Manfrotto_by_Bogen_Imaging_438_438_Compact_Levelling_Head.html
>
> Which is similar to the 3416, just a different mechanism. There is but a
> single lever that is loosened or tightened to level or lock down the tilt
> setting. What I am not sure of at this point is whether I needed it at all!
> Should be no difference in levelling with the tripod legs or the leveling
> head. All you need do is level the video head. My video head has a bubble
> level in it, and that has proved to be the most reliable reference. The
> spirit level I bought to put on top of the camera just did not work out.
> Caused all this confusion. I have since ordered a 2-axis spirit level that
> mounts in the camera hot shoe, but I have no idea if the hot shoe is level
> in the first place.
>
> Anyway, I think I have it solved now. Thanks to all.
>
> Gary Eickmeier
G - o - o - d luck! ;-) The problem I see with this solution is that
it is hard to get it adjusted just right in two directions at once (using
what is essentially a ball head), and unless your tripod legs release at
their top ends, getting them to agree while not being able to see the
level as you adjust them is a "pain" - and a single bubble-level isn't
very accurate viewed from the side even if you can both see the level
and adjust the legs at the same time. For a bit more money, the
3-screw device (Manfrotto 3416) is far easier to set up accurately.
--DR
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Robert Coe" <bob@1776.COM> wrote in message
news:p5tfg551m8df7lu04ad9sgcngs2iq9lucl@4ax.com...
> Well, it finally happened. I did a mediocre job on an assignment to photograph
> a building the other day because I don't have a wide enough lens to do it
> right. I've been hoping to get the Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8, but both B&H and
> Adorama have had it back-ordered for months. Is the Tokina factory ever going
> to get caught up, or should I settle for the Sigma 10-20mm f/3.5? The reviews
> I've read seem to favor the Tokina by a noticeable margin; and while I've had
> good results with my Sigma lenses, I realize that my experience hasn't been
> universally shared.
>
> Since I hadn't completely made up my mind, I didn't actually put myself on
> B&H's waiting list until recently. Does anyone here have a sense of how long
> that waiting list currently is?
>
> Or am I being silly not to just buy the Sigma? When it was first announced, I
> could hardly wait to get my order in. Then when the reviews started coming
> out, they seemed lukewarm, so I started thinking about the Tokina instead.
>
> All advice gratefully received.
>
> Indecisive Bob
I compared one sample of a Sigma 10-20mm (same model?) and
a sample of a Nikkor 12-24mm. Neither showed obvious optical
misalignment problems. I didn't like either but for different reasons,
and considered them "equal-but-different". Neither had really good
corner sharpness at infinity, the Sigma showed more illumination
fall-off, and one showed better corner resolution but more chromatic
problems than the other (I don't remember which - but I would not
have been happy with either for critical work). If you can wait, I'd
go for the Tokina from B&H based on early reviews, since B&H
so "cheerfully" accepts returns for replacement or refund if you
don't like what you get. As always, test for alignment problems
immediately upon receipt. These may be useful, although they were
developed primarily for use with Nikon pro full-frame film bodies --
http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/lens-testing.htm
http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/checking_body_alignment.htm
--DR
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"David J. Littleboy" <davidjl@gol.com> wrote in message news:59udnfUuP7uDwnnXnZ2dnVY3goudnZ2d@giganews.com...\
> Somewhat off topic, but since Adams gets mentioned here occasionally...
> http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/books/2009/10/ansel-adams-in-color.html
> I've not seen the book, but I wonder about the comment "The photographs are
> beautiful and arresting, and one aches for what Adams would have been able
> to do with the technology of today."
I have seen some Adams photos (and MANY B&Ws) and my
impression is that Adams was as far out of his comfort zone with
color as he was with "people pictures". These tended to be rather
trite and conventional, especially compared with his generally superb
B&W work. Of the three examples shown, the first is nice (but not
up to his similar-subject B&W work), the second is DULL..., and
the third is technically deficient (with its overly darkened upper
corners).
> Adams died in 1984, so he had lots of time to work with Ektachrome and
> Kodachrome. While landscape types since then tend to prefer Fuji Velvia, I
> doubt that there's anything today, digital or otherwise, that is any better
> than, say, Ektachrome in 11x14.
> --
> David J. Littleboy
> Tokyo, Japan
Much of Adam's work was shot with an 8x10 and printed using an
enlarger (or contact printer?) he devised (that had an array of light
bulbs on the other side of a diffuser with bulbs switchable on/off,
as I recall). He also used a considerable amount of hand burning
and dodging and toning while enlarging. His B&W work rarely gave
away the "tricks" since he was a skilled "photo-painter", and I think
he would have loved Photoshop...;-)
--DR
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Bruce" <docnews2011@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:8kb9e5p1td8kgfsk7tjuofsijh5qctcemk@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 25 Oct 2009 12:30:27 -0400, "David Ruether"
> <d_ruether@thotmail.com> wrote:
>>"David J. Littleboy" <davidjl@gol.com> wrote in message
news:59udnfUuP7uDwnnXnZ2dnVY3goudnZ2d@giganews.com...\
>>> Somewhat off topic, but since Adams gets mentioned here occasionally...
>>> http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/books/2009/10/ansel-adams-in-color.html
>>> I've not seen the book, but I wonder about the comment "The photographs
>>> are beautiful and arresting, and one aches for what Adams would have been
>>> able to do with the technology of today."
>> I have seen some Adams photos (and MANY B&Ws) and my
>> impression is that Adams was as far out of his comfort zone with
>> color as he was with "people pictures". These tended to be rather
>> trite and conventional, especially compared with his generally superb
>> B&W work. Of the three examples shown, the first is nice (but not
>> up to his similar-subject B&W work), the second is DULL..., and
>> the third is technically deficient (with its overly darkened upper
>> corners).
> Ansel Adams was a 'full service' professional photographer. He worked
> in every genre that his customers were prepared to pay for.
>
> He is primarily known as a black and white landscape photographer
> because that is where he showed a significant advantage over his
> peers; they were simply not prepared to go to the same lengths, and
> take the same amount of time, to obtain incredibly well-judged
> landscape shots in perfect weather and lighting conditions.
And to print them with as much care and skill...
> But Adams was also a wedding and social photographer. His weddings
> were technically perfect, but didn't show the same superiority over
> other photographers as his landscapes, because others were prepared to
> put in comparable effort. But that didn't mean that he was in any way
> a less than accomplished photographer. The same was true of his
> architectural work.
Yes, of course. I was just pointing out (as I think you are too) that
Adam's photographic work in other areas was not as outstanding
as it was in the areas for which he was best known...
> However, where Adams did show true excellence as a social photographer
> was in his treatment of a subject that (arguably) hasn't received the
> publicity it deserved. His studies of one particular social group
> were outstanding both technically and artistically.
>
> The reason for the lack of publicity was that this social group
> consisted of Japanese-Americans who were interned at Manzanar, CA, USA
> during World War 2. One can understand why this wasn't a subject that
> inspired the average American, certainly not in the way that Yosemite
> landscapes might. But put to one side the (understandable) prejudice,
> and his work with these Japanese-American internees was (arguably) of
> at least equal artistic merit.
>
> Like most photographers, and people in general, I find Adams'
> landscapes inspirational. But my particular personal interest is in
> social photography, and Adams work on the interned Japanese is even
> more of an inspiration ... they are outstanding "people pictures"!
>
> Go to:
> http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/collections/anseladams/
Thanks for the references and URL - and you may well be right. I admit
certain prejudices (but NOT against the particular social group so badly
wronged during WWII!), but against "social commentary" photos
(although many are superb) since at one point shows of very mediocre
photos (in subject-handling, content, and image technical quality) of
that type tended to crowd out much more accomplished work in
publications and on museum walls (remember the poor-but-popular
"Family of Man" show and book...?). It got so bad that if there was a
person in front of the camera when the shutter was released, the
resulting photo must then have "revealed" something "important"
about the subject/society/life (take your choice...;-).
--DR
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Bristolian" <net@hereany.more> wrote in message
news:a41Fm.56878$mz7.44313@newsfe07.ams2...
> RichA wrote:
>> But pound for pound, metal is FAR superior.
> Ah, but there you're wrong. For a metal body to be as light as a plastic
> one it would have to be extremely thin and, as a consequence, far more
> easily damaged both by impact and crushing.
> --
> Regards
>
> Bristolian
I used to buy/sell cameras and one example of the above is
that when I ordered replacement bottoms for metal-clad
cameras (like the FM or F3) that were mint otherwise but
for a dent or two in the bottoms, they often arrived slightly
bent. It was easy to reshape them using only my fingers. The
same could not be said for the plastic bottoms of cameras
like the N8008. They would not permanently deform unless
pushed hard enough to break (which would be hard enough
to bend any metal bottom in half).
I must admit that when I saw the first plastic-clad Nikon
bodies, I turned my nose up at them - but I now proudly
own several examples (FG, N2000, FA, N8008, F100),
and these have proved to be very durable.
--DR
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"celcius" <celcius38@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:hebvne$jqr$1@celcius.motzarella.org...
> Not a big deal, but I always thought that what we see through our eyes is
> equivalent in size to what we see through a 50mm lens.
> The other day, I was out taking pictures with my 5D Mark II with a Canon
> Zoom EF 70-300 mm 1:4-5.6 IS USM.
> Unless I'm grossly mistaken, at 70mm, the object I was aiming at looked a
> wee bit smaller with the lens at 70mm than with my eyes without the glass.
> Any explanation, please?
> Tyanks,
> Marcel
The others have pointed out that the difference in magnification you
see relative to "reality" is an arbitrary choice made by the designer
of the camera's viewing optics, but there is much more involved
when it comes to what we see. We can see from more than 180
degrees in width, or pay close attention to far less than 1 degree.
Much more on how our vision is different from photography is on
my web site, at --
www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/seeing_and_perspective.htm
www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/eyes-view.htm
www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/lens_perspective_types.htm
www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/lens-angle-of-view-and-perspective.htm
www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/lens_distortion_types.htm
www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/brilliance-and-contrast.htm
Basically, it is not possible to accurately duplicate in a photograph
(or to capture in a photograph) much at all about "reality" except
in VERY rare (and uninteresting) cases. And, as a "lead-in"
tidbit for the above articles, few people realize that we actually
see in fisheye (curved) perspective, but it is easy to both prove
and to show that we do...;-)
--DR
~~~~~~~
"celcius" <celcius38@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:hegisu$pd1$1@celcius.motzarella.org...
> I don't know whether I was clear enough but I wasn't referring to field of
> view, which I understand is much wider with the naked eye that even with a
> 24mm lens.
> When I reflected upon this, I was aiming at a stop sign and such other
> items. Looking through the 70mm lens, the stop sign was a bit smaller than
> looking at it with the naked eye. I didn't have my glasses on and wasn't
> interested in how clear I could see it, simply the overall size of it.
> In your last post, You said that "75mm matches the perspective I see with
> bare eyes". This verifies to almost a iota what my experience was (a tad
> smaller with a 70mm, of course about the same size with a 75mm. Can we say
> then, that the size of an object as seen through the naked eye is the same
> as with a 75mm lens (with a full size sensor)?
> Regards,
> Marcel
NO! Again, as many now have pointed out, the magnification as defined
by the camera designer establishing what focal length lens "matches" the
VF. It could be anything - 50mm, 72mm, 43mm, 107mm, whatever...
The original source of set-ups was the early Leica rangefinder, which,
having a narrower body depth, made the use of a good symmetrical
50mm f2 practical (longer than the 35mm format 44mm diagonal, but
still a good compromise). With that established, the VF "window" or
detachable VF could be made to match reasonably closely, giving
nearly 1:1 relationship with the direct view. With much wider or longer
lenses, this becomes impractical, but with some pro level Nikons, there
were VFs that featured nearly 1:1 viewing with a 50mm lens, 100%
image area coverage, and high "relief" permitting good viewing distances
between the eye and the VF (sometimes with accessory "sports finders").
Also, as others have pointed out, cheaper cameras tend to have worse
VFs in the above respect (and also in sharpness, brightness, and freedom
from linear distortion).
--DR
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
<sligoNoSPAMjoe@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:pusqe5tlqjnqucj03arovtk9b7r6ass1tt@4ax.com...
[...]
> ...there was little or no of what I would consider trully geat portraits.
> For examples of some of what I would consider great work,
> check out the work of Karsh. Often some of his best work was done
> with nothing more than the artist inside him and minimal equipment. My
> favort is the Churchill photo.
Sorry, but for me, Karsh represents the very worst in "people
picture" pretentiousness. His cloying, ordinary, often clichéd,
often defective (as with Khrushchev in a parka, sweating...)
"portraits" reveal little about their subjects (after all, what
photograph really can do that...?). Karsh photos just give
me the "willies" and cause me to cringe... Their are VAST
numbers of photographers who are VASTLY more able
"people photographers" than was Karsh.
--DR
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Dudley Hanks" <dhanks@blind-apertures.ca> wrote in message
news:SKkHm.50163$Db2.41450@edtnps83...
> "David Ruether" <d_ruether@thotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:hck3h9$1ql$1@ruby.cit.cornell.edu...
>> <sligoNoSPAMjoe@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:pusqe5tlqjnqucj03arovtk9b7r6ass1tt@4ax.com...
>> [...]
>>> ...there was little or no of what I would consider trully geat portraits.
>>> For examples of some of what I would consider great work,
>>> check out the work of Karsh. Often some of his best work was done
>>> with nothing more than the artist inside him and minimal equipment. My
>>> favort is the Churchill photo.
>> Sorry, but for me, Karsh represents the very worst in "people
>> picture" pretentiousness. His cloying, ordinary, often clichéd,
>> often defective (as with Khrushchev in a parka, sweating...)
>> "portraits" reveal little about their subjects (after all, what
>> photograph really can do that...?). Karsh photos just give
>> me the "willies" and cause me to cringe...
>> --DR
> I'm a big fan of Fuzzy Duenkel. He works with a lot of seniors, and much of
> his time is spent at the client's home, in the garage.
>
> He opens up the big door, and instantly has access to an assortment of props
> that are near and dear to the subject.
>
> He's done some really interesting work.
>
> Take Care,
> Dudley
Not bad..., but look at Harvey Ferdschneider (who can make
skin tone look absolutely beautiful in his B&W prints!). Some
samples are here -- http://www.editionq.com/ImagesE-K.html.
Also here is a collection of rather good work using male subjects,
beginning at http://www.editionq.com/default.asp. Included are
Richard Avedon, Lyn Bianchi, Margaret Bourk-White, Marsha
Burns, Paul Cadmus, Henri Cartier-Bresson, Imogen Cunningham,
Robert Doisneau, Greg Gorman, Robert John Guttman, Michael
Kenna, Stephan Lupino, Sally Mann, Robert Mapplethorpe,
Ralph Eugene Meatyard, Tom Millea, Robert Miller, Eadweard
Muybridge, Erwin Olaf, Ernestine Ruben, Arthur Tress, Edward
Weston, Minor White, Gary Winogrand. This list does not include
a rather unique "people photographer", Les Krims, though...;-)
Since this show was very specific, it did not include many other
fine "people" photographers - nor could it include every fine
photographer within its narrow category.
--DR
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
There are branches of psychiatry, and while
any psychiatrist with an MD or DO degree can prescribe medication,
psychoanalysts do more listening and prompting than they do
prescribing. The psychiatrist would be trying to figure what the cat
represents so you can understand why the cat bothers you.
The psychologist spends more time talking to you than listening to
you. His job is to help you deal with the cat in your life and to
basically ignore the cat.
--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Rich" <rander3127@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:6771ad72-348f-4c70-85d6-871d4842c27a@g26g2000yqe.googlegroups.com...
On Dec 3, 3:02 pm, Mac Lynch <mackn...@ihug.co.nz> wrote:
> Kia Ora
> I am using Adobe Premiere Elements 3.0 on an XP o/s & Sony RM-ADU006 DVD
> player. Edited R+ R/W discs from my Sony DVD Digicam play ok, but when I
> add Excerpts from R- R/W disks they appear Ok in the Editing program,
> but do not appear after being burnt to the DVD and played on the Sony
> DVD player, neither do still images that I have added.
> The completed DVD plays fully on my Toshiba Satellite Notebook DVD
> Player/burner.
> Any ideas for a remedy please? Thanks
Stand-alone players deliver (if they are any good) the best Blu-ray
and DVD images and sound, but they are woeful when it comes to
handling various files. Better to get a computer and use it as an
entertainment driver for these things.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
This depends on the player... Our Panasonic BD-25 Blu-ray
player has a card slot, and the image results on a 42" LCD
screen viewed close in (with good source material, of course! ;-)
are spectacular. Since the player also plays AVCHD red-laser
disks, it likely plays still images from a CD/DVD (but I haven't
tried it yet - but I will do that right now...! ;-). Back......;-) I tried
a CD with various folders with two different resolutions of JPG
images (the original LARGE ones at 72dpi, and ones at roughly
3"x4" at 300dpi) and both sizes looked great on the screen.
This is a MUCH better still-display system than 35mm slides
projected onto a screen, in every way!
--DR
~~~~~~~~~
"John McWilliams" <jpmcw@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:hfbca7$jos$1@news.eternal-september.org...
> David Ruether wrote:
>> This depends on the player... Our Panasonic BD-25 Blu-ray
>> player has a card slot, and the image results on a 42" LCD
>> screen viewed close in (with good source material, of course! ;-)
>> are spectacular. Since the player also plays AVCHD red-laser
>> disks, it likely plays images from a DVD (but I haven't tried
>> it yet - but I will do that right now...! ;-). Back......;-) I tried a
>> CD with various folders with two different resolutions of JPG
>> images (the original LARGE ones at 72dpi, and ones at roughly
>> 3"x4" at 300dpi) and both sizes looked great on the screen.
>> This is a MUCH better still-display system than 35mm slides
>> projected onto a screen, in every way!
> "Different resolutions" of JPEGs viewed on an HDTV don't mean a thing,
> unless there are too few pixels.
Agreed...;-)
> David, try this: crop some landscape photos to the exact pixel count of
> your screen, and take a look. Results should be nothing short of superb.
> I've set up a macro to crop to my 58" Samsung's pixel count, but haven't
> converted that many yet. (It's pixels, not dots, btw.)
> --
> john mcwilliams
I have seen no need to do this - even high aerials taken of our
medium-small city (including most of the buildings in it) show
very fine detail for each of the many buildings in it. Also, I recently
worked on and submitted the photos used for the check on the
TV, and there was all the fine detail of the originals evident (as in,
WOW! 8^). And, ah yes, the 300dpi was for a publishing request,
but I should have said "pixels", I guess...;-)
--DR
~~~~~~~
"Mac Lynch" <macknife@ihug.co.nz> wrote in message news:20091203-200220.727.0@Mac-Lynch.News.ihug.co.nz...
> I am using Adobe Premiere Elements 3.0 on an XP o/s & Sony RM-ADU006 DVD
> player. Edited R+ R/W discs from my Sony DVD Digicam play ok, but when I
> add Excerpts from R- R/W disks they appear Ok in the Editing program,
> but do not appear after being burnt to the DVD and played on the Sony
> DVD player, neither do still images that I have added.
> The completed DVD plays fully on my Toshiba Satellite Notebook DVD
> Player/burner.
> Any ideas for a remedy please? Thanks
[....]
"Dave Cohen" <user@example.net> wrote in message news:hfe00u$gcp$1@news.eternal-september.org...
> Am I missing something here. I thought he couldn't play the cd on his
> player after adding content to existing material.
Maybe we all went astray from the OP's issues...;-) It appears
his source materials are camera-shot SD DVD+R/RW discs
with pieces of DVD-R/RW material and also stills (presumably
of file types compatible with with Premiere since they import)
later-added to the Premiere Elements timeline. He is presumably
then editing the material (with Elements 3) and exporting it as a
single video to DVD. That DVD will play properly on some
players, but is apparently missing parts on others. Possibly the
solution is to export the whole edited video from the timeline
to his hard drive as a single DV-AVI file, then to bring that into
a Premiere project and export that to DVD. That would force
all the material on the timeline to be in a format compatible in
all its parts with all players...
--DR
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~