DAVID RUETHER'S PHOTO-VIDEO
POSTS
From 8/15/2009 Through 4/24/2010, Part 5
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Allen" <allent@austin.rr.com> wrote in message news:15mdnT02ycFBx4TWnZ2dnUVZ_ridnZ2d@giganews.com...
> Dudley Hanks wrote:
>> http://www.snaps.blind-apertures.ca/images/EdmontonHockeyFull.jpg (Full
>> size image)
>>
>> http://www.snaps.blind-apertures.ca/images/EdmontonHockeySmall.jpg (Quick
>> loading)
>>
>> I took this picture with a lens I dropped during the summer...
>>
> <snip>
> Dudley, I enjoyed this picture very much. I know little about hockey,
> but was the Oilers' opponent the Penguins? (I think there's a team named
> that.) The goalie is very penguin-like.
>
> I want to say that I have great admiration for you, the way you continue
> to pursue something that is very dear to you, despite worsening
> problems. My greatest love (other than people) is music. Neurological
> problems which I acquired 73 years ago kept me from pursuing music,
> other than listening; I wish I had your determination. Pay no attention
> to the yahoos who ridicule you--they are the ones who deserve ridicule.
> Allen
I was curious about "DH's" problems, so I searched and found this --
http://www.helium.com/items/1217483-extreme-photography. The
story is quite remarkable. And, BRAVO to Dudley!
As some small asides, after a period of shooting in highly graphic
5-stop range B&W, I found a method for recording on film about a
20 stop range in one exposure. Needless to say, graphics went out
the window, to be replaced by subtle tonality and the ability to record
everything within the shooting field of view of the camera in each frame.
Aiming the camera using a viewfinder was therefore close to useless,
so I generally used an old 21mm Nikkor without its viewfinder on a
Nikon F body and just aimed "wherever". The results were often very
satisfying. Also, I've been disabled for the last 7+ years (neurological
problems...) and now shoot HD video (when I can), using braces and
other "tricks" to shoot fluid motion (I hate tripods...;-). Ah, fun! ;-)
--DR
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Jim Bob" <JB@whatever.com> wrote in message news:d-mdnSkej5j4oL_WnZ2dnUVZ7rWdnZ2d@pipex.net...
> Winner of a student photo competition:
[ http://www.harman-inkjet.com/competitions/page.asp?n=177 ]
> Maybe I'm being over-critical, however is poor composition and post process
> blur (not even nice blur) the standard required to become a competition
> winner?
Tastes vary (and the "digital age" may have made what I
sometimes consider "over-processing" relatively easy and
common in photo images), but I saw nothing here that fits
your description - for me...;-).
--DR
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Argo22" <markrc@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:294498f3-22d4-431b-a53b-c1a7a5dc6c6d@d10g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...
> Looking to buy a prosumer camera for some webcasts we are doing and
> found a Sony PD-150. I have heard that the audio hiss problem may be
> something to watch out for, however wondering what else i should look
> for. What are reasonable hours to work with on this unit? Also, is
> this still a reasonable quality camera to buy now? I have read some
> older posts however they were a few years old. is it sill worth
> getting and is $1000 a reasonable price to pay for this? Again the
> main use of this would be for high quality webcast streaming but want
> something better quality than the little handycams.
The "noisy" audio of the VX2000/PD150 was always a myth, in my
opinion - and I "pine" for the heady days of doing care-free sound
recording with the VX2000's excellent mics and AGC (and excellent
wind resistance using a simple added RS foam cover for the mics,
and inherent freedom from pickup of camera handling and mechanical
sounds). The PD-150 (by reputation) had a slightly quieter audio section,
added XLR connections, and came with a mono short shotgun mic
instead of the stereo mic of the VX2000. As far as the picture quality
is concerned, it was "top-o'-th'--heap" for *Mini-DV/D-25*, and it
could shoot in lower light levels than anything else of its type. There is
much more on it (and it compared with others) here --
http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/sony_dcr-vx2000.htm
http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/camcorder-comparison.htm
http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/WA-converters.htm
http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/dim.htm
http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/vid_pict_characts.htm
BUT, if you have enough light to work with, and you are looking for
the VERY highest source image quality, HD is "night and day" better
than Mini-DV/D-25, and small cameras are relatively cheap and some
shoot the relatively easy to edit HDV (Mini-DV tape) format. A good
example is the Canon HV40, reviewed here --
http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/Canon_HV20-HV30.htm, but
an external microphone is a basic needed addition for this camera.
As for your other questions, I would try before buying, or buy with a
firm return ability (ANY repair used to be $300...), buy a head cleaning
tape (use it CAREFULLY, ONLY IN VCR MODE, with one 7 second
play, then a 30 second wait, followed by only one more 7 second play,
then eject). Choose a good tape (I liked Sony) and stay with just that one.
Try recording a whole tape (hour? 1.5 hours?) in LP mode and see if the
whole tape plays properly (worn or misaligned heads will cause playback
problems, and you should see none easily in the whole tape). Since this
was (and is) a top-grade Mini-DV format camera, if the format is OK
for what you want and the camera is in good shape, the price seems
reasonable. Likely it would serve very well for your purpose.
--DR
~~~~~~~~~
"Argo22" <markrc@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:7c9b7baa-bd56-4c03-ba31-55fa5f8db22e@p36g2000vbn.googlegroups.com...
I am currently doing some webcast work for local sports events and
looking at slowly upgrading my gear. I do this as a hobby with a few
friends. Every paid gig I do goes towards gear. Right now I have a PV-
GS180 and a Canon GL1 that I use in conjunction with a Panasonic WJ-
MX12 switcher. I have been offered a PD150 for $1000. I was thinking
about phasing out the PV-GS180 or use it only as a deck, and use the
Canon GL1 and PD150 together, for a more professional looking product.
Would the PD150 be a good choice for this use and for this price, or
should I get something HDV capable. Right now I can’t really justify a
more expensive camera since the webcast work is very sporadic.
I know there are HDV cameras such as HV20/30/40s, etc but I would like
a more professional look and feel as well. Plus I like the physical
feel of the bigger cameras, even though they maybe overkill for what I
use them for.
Any advice would be greatly appreciated.
"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
As far as the picture quality is concerned, the Sony VX2000/PD-150
was (and still is) "top-o'-th'--heap" for *Mini-DV/D-25* (and very
noticeably better than the two Mini-DV camcorders you currently
use), and it could shoot in lower light levels than anything else of its type.
It also had excellent AF, useful for sports. There is much more on it
(and it compared with others) here --
http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/sony_dcr-vx2000.htm
http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/camcorder-comparison.htm
http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/WA-converters.htm
http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/vid_pict_characts.htm
BUT, if you have enough light to work with, and you are looking for
the VERY highest source image quality, HD is "night and day" better
than Mini-DV/D-25, and small cameras are relatively cheap (and why
care what they look like if they are excellent? ;-) and some shoot the
relatively easy to edit HDV (Mini-DV tape) format. A good example
is the Canon HV40 (but this may be overkill in terms of picture quality,
and it will not "fit" your switcher), reviewed here --
http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/Canon_HV20-HV30.htm (but
an external microphone is a basic needed addition for this camera).
As for your other questions, I would try before buying, or buy with a
firm return ability (ANY repair used to be $300...), buy a head cleaning
tape (use it CAREFULLY, ONLY IN VCR MODE, with one 7 second
play, then a 30 second wait, followed by only one more 7 second play,
then eject). Choose a good tape (I liked Sony) and stay with just that
one. Try recording a whole tape in LP mode and see if the whole tape
plays properly (worn or misaligned heads will cause playback problems,
and you should not easily see any in the whole tape). Since this was (and
is) a top-grade Mini-DV format camera, if the format is OK for what
you want and the camera is in good shape, the price seems reasonable.
Likely it would serve very well for your purpose, especially if you are not
editing the results for professional use, and are only streaming (and if the
transport is non-functional, the camera should be still usable for what you
want, and it should be much cheaper yet...).
--DR
~~~~~~~~~
"Richard Crowley" <rcrowley@xp7rt.net> wrote in message
news:7o3473F3oq3h9U1@mid.individual.net...
> "David Ruether" wrote...
>> The "noisy" audio of the VX2000/PD150 was always a myth,
> Seems unlikely that Sony would have spent several hundred thousand
> dollars "reparing" those cameras if it was just a "myth"?
I owned three of the "mythically" noisy VX2000s, and none was
noisy when used appropriately. They could be made to appear
noisy by improper matching of mic and camera gains, or by doing
some basically silly "tests", but in general, their audio was excellent.
For much more on this, see the audio part of my VX2000 review, at
http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/sony_dcr-vx2000.htm, which
includes info on gain mismatching, (mis)judging inherent noise level
with an open mic input, and the misleading characteristics of the
camera's HF-peaked headphone amp. Likely the PD-150's audio
section was improved to make it less "touchy" in use (and likely
quieter yet to match its "pro" image) - but that should have required
far less than "several hundred thousand dollars" to accomplish unless
the designers were "klutzes" (heck, even I can whip out a low noise
mic preamp in almost no time...;-).
--DR
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"mpp" <sandyprice@harbornet.com> wrote in message
news:7d6a8b6c-dddc-478a-bfc8-2b056fefeefd@13g2000prl.googlegroups.com...
On Nov 19, 3:25 pm, Brian <bcl...@es.co.nz> 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
Several posters have suggested DIY steadycams. Several years ago I
purchased two Steadicam JR's and modified them to operate most any
Sony and some Canon camcorders, (with LANC ports), using modified Sony
LANC pistol grip controllers, in place of the plain handle which came
with the Steadicam JR.
Since the LANC controller handle was isolated from the camcorder by
the gimbal joint between the handle and the Steadicam camcorder
platform, (except for the soft LANC control wire), the camcorder could
be play/paused, zoomed in/out, without touching the camcorder itself,
this provided a relatively smooth zoom whether zooming the camcorder
or moving toward the target, or both at the same time.
It worked very well with my VX1000, TRV900, and my PC 120BT. More
recently, I purchased a Canon HV20, only to discover that it did NOT
have a Lanc port. This was very disapointing, as I believe that Sony
bought the rights to use LANC from Canon (the original patent holder).
I even tried to get Sony to start manufacturing the Pistol Grip LANC
controller again, but they wouldn't even email a response ;-(
Mike
'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''
I also was disappointed that the HV20 did not have a Lanc port - it
is really needed for smooth recording start/stop even without the
camera being on a steadycam device. Too bad you didn't post this
sooner - I recently almost gave away what you are looking for since
it had been around here unused for several years...;-(
--DR
~~~~~~~~~~
"Brian" <bclark@es.co.nz> wrote in message
news:veumh5lclup99t30pogafqd19hvub3lbtl@4ax.com...
> Is there software that can remove parts of a video file without having
> to recompile the video file and if so what format does the file need
> to be (mpg, avi, mov, wmv...).
>
> Regards Brian
Ken Maltby has it - but if you are using Mini-DV (DV-AVI), I
don't know of any program that still "recompiles" it with straight
cuts only when exporting a new file of edited footage...
--DR
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"DW" <davidwess@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:0a33575e-d939-4376-ac98-94c0af246c86@g1g2000vbr.googlegroups.com...
>I am looking to transfer hidef video from my Sony HDR.HC3 camcorder to
> my computer, for archival and further editing. I will eventually burn
> blu-ray, export for web presentations, etc. Which format should I
> capture (MPG, AVI, etc) to maintain the best qualify for my further
> edit projects?
>
> For example, I tried Cyberlink Power Producer (which came with my blu-
> ray recorder) but it seems to capture only in mpg format. I tried
> Windows Movie Maker, which uses a different format. Ideally, I would
> like to simply transfer the bits from my camcorder to my computer with
> nothing added or subtracted, and do any further processing on my
> computer.
>
> Could someone give me some general advice as to which format to use,
> and possibly even which software I should use to transfer my videos
> from my camcorder to my computer (running Windows 7 Ultimate)? Thanks.
?????
To do what you want, always transfer in the camcorder's native format
and edit and archive that (on hard drive*S* - and also on tape[s] with
HDV) without transcoding, if practical (24 Mbps AVCHD may require
transcoding to another file type to make editing practical, but by definition,
that involves losses). Since your camera shoots in HDV format (.m2t files,
a type of MPEG-2), stay with that. The easiest way to capture it is to
hook your camcorder to the computer using FireWire and using a great
free program called HDVSplit to download and split the footage into
individual scene files, ready for importing into your editing software. It can
be downloaded at --
http://strony.aster.pl/paviko/hdvsplit.htm
I did not need a driver for the camera, nor did I download the viewer (the
camcorder's viewfinder serves for this). Close down all other programs
while importing/exporting footage. BTW, for viewing the footage on your
computer, you may need to change the ".m2t" ending to ".mpg" - BUT,
be sure to change the file endings back afterward! Um, for more on editing
programs, go here --
http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/hdv-editing.htm
and here --
http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/Sony-editing.htm (Sony makes an
excellent cheap editing program for HDV, Vegas Movie Studio Platinum 9,
but the free Windows Movie Maker should work for simple editing.)
--DR
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Harry Putnam" <reader@newsguy.com> wrote in message news:87tyw3occ5.fsf@newsguy.com...
> [I'll apologize in advance for getting a bit windy on this but I've
> been pondering about this stuff for a while and am somewhat frustrated
> by not understanding what I see on line about the subject]
>
> I'm really sick of not having enough room to easily work from tools
> like Photoshop, premiere and After Effects or Edius, vegas .. etc.
> comfortably.
>
> I know that `serious' editors use a double monitor.. both large. But
> that isn't an option for me. I am serious about editing.. but not a
> commercial player.
>
> My hardware isn't antique but is weak compared to todays' stuff.
>
> P4 3.2ghz with 3gb ram has trouble with modern tools like CS4 tools.
> They run but there is always some kind of grief. So I really need to
> upgrade but again that isn't an option either.
It's slow for HD, but should be OK for Mini-DV...
> My video card is Nvidia FX 5700. Now that, I might possibly be able
> to upgrade but it would have to be a model that won't tax the
> other hardware. And if its even possible something that would work
> with upgraded more current hardware.
Video card slot types have been changing, but you should be able to
find a card that will work with a 16:*10* LCD panel (NOT 16:9!)
at 1920x1200. You need only one monitor for current software,
preferably a 24" (or larger - but 24" is fine, and now cheap).
> What I want to do right now is get a nice big monitor...
>
> That is where I need advice. Like is it likely that my video card
> would have trouble with something like a 26 in (higher end) monitor?
>
> Further. what specs would be suitable for video editing. I've lost
> all track of what is going on with monitors. I've been using a 17
> monitor for quit a few yrs so something like 26" will seem huge, at
> least for a while. I also plan to get a TV card but I've been planning
> that for a very long time.
From what I gather, there are three color-quality grades of LCD
monitors. Cheap ones are 22" and smaller (with exceptions), middle
grade ones (good enough for video editing and viewing, but short of the
best for high end photo work) are found around 24", and the very best
are very expensive large monitors (save your money unless you are
doing critical photo work for reproduction...).
> I see many monitors that say they are LCD which in my mind means it
> will suck... but maybe that's from an antique mind set from yrs ago
>
> I'd like the monitor to be fairly high res and will be willing to
> spend something like 300-400 on it, but only if my current hardware
> will handle it. (and like I said I might plop down another 150 or so
> for a more powerful video card).
Both should cost less ($225 for the 24" monitor, plus $100 for the
card, if needed). BTW, for video (and certainly for stills), an 8 ms.
refresh is sufficient, the dynamic range specs are generally useless, and
for monitoring, if there is a dynamic black level feature, you must be
able to defeat it.
> At least the monitor needs to be versatile enough to work well with
> upgraded hardware when ever I get to that... The video card too if possible.
>
> That brings me to the other questions:
>
> Will a video card with more of its own ram make much difference in
> editing? I have no need of gaming style video... but if more video
> ram will help run CS4 tools then I'll get it.
I put the bucks into a card with a lot of RAM on it, and saw no difference
in performance with my software (Sony Vegas).
> My current card has 250 (MB I guess?) and I see cards with as much as
> 1gb which would be a 400 % increase... But will it really matter that
> much.
Unlikely. Mine was also 250 MB before changing it...
> I've never really known how much of a role the video card plays in
> running applications.
>
> I do know that for example... I have to turn off hardware acceleration
> to even run Encore CS4 (that may be an Nvidia related problem or so
> I've seen googling around.)
>
> So, anyone who can throw some light on these somewhat vague and
> somewhat poorly worded questions please let me know your thoughts.
> I'd especially like to hear from people running similar
> hardware... and what video cards and monitors they use.
>
> What I want: Big wide crisp monitor.
> A video card that will help run tools like Adobe CS4
If you get a good monitor (not expensive...), a good card (not expensive...),
and run the LCD panel at its native resolution, you will be surprised how
much sharper it is than your 17" CRT...;-) For some screen layouts on a 24"
monitor of three editing programs, go here --
http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/video-editor-screens.htm
--DR
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Harry Putnam" <reader@newsguy.com> wrote in message news:87ws0wm9wl.fsf@newsguy.com...
> "David Ruether" <d_ruether@thotmail.com> writes:
> [...]
>> It's slow for HD, but should be OK for Mini-DV...
>>> My video card is Nvidia FX 5700. Now that, I might possibly be able
>>> to upgrade but it would have to be a model that won't tax the
>>> other hardware. And if its even possible something that would work
>>> with upgraded more current hardware.
>> Video card slot types have been changing, but you should be able to
>> find a card that will work with a 16:*10* LCD panel (NOT 16:9!)
>> at 1920x1200. You need only one for current software, preferably a
>> 24" (or larger - but 24 is fine, and now cheap).
> Thanks for the input... I saw a 26" Computer monitor for just under
> $300 I believe it was 1920 X 1200. I was surprised it was that cheap.
>
> Thing about, it doesn't really look much taller than my 17" .. but way
> wider. Is that how they mostly are now...
>
> One thing you always need in After Effects is a taller monitor, when
> you need to have open several layers with most of the twirlies open
> too. I wondered if these miss proportioned monitors I see now really
> have much more headroom..
That is why I recommended a 16:10 (1920x1200) rather than a
16:9 (1920x1080) - it gives more vertical space for multiple
timeline tracks and a good-size (preferably 1/2 sized) preview
window - plus plenty of room for menus, etc. Current monitors
do tend to be "wide screen", which with current editing programs,
means less need for running secondary monitors. But, it may be
that AE, you still may need that second monitor (I run a 24"
straight ahead of me, with a cheap 19" off to the side at an angle
when needed - which was VERY handy when I was writing the
Sony editing guide...;-).
> Thanks for those bits... I figured as much but really wanted to here
> from someone with experience.
It can help...;-)
> "Richard Crowley" <rcrowley@xp7rt.net> writes:
>> If you are worried about colorimetry, buy a new HD TV receiver. Almost
>> all of them have RGB inputs that run directly from your current video card.
>> As a bonus(?) you can watch mindless broadcast TV while waiting for your
>> own video to render. :-)
> Couldn't tell if your serious here. I wondered about doing that very
> thing. In fact about 1.5 yrs ago... I bought an lcd monitor/tv for
> that purpose... but it was a terrible picture... colors look awful
>
> It was a Samsung LT P1745. I retired it to the basement where it is
> rarely used.
>
> The picture is not clear compared even to an ancient tv from somewhere
> in the 80s. That might be where I got the notion that lcd was not so
> good.
>
> You are dead right when you say (about lcd) `compared to what?' They
> all are lcd.
There are a few possible problems with using an LCD TV as a
monitor - the resolution is limited to 1920x1080 (or 1280x720),
not enough, really (and the resolution is limited to the display's
native resolution for best results); it may have a non-defeatable
auto black-level (this makes exposure evaluations impossible,
and these are hard enough on LCDs which change brightness
with changes in viewing position); and the TV may be too large
for comfortable viewing on a desktop (the minimum-sized
1920x1080 display was 32", last I knew...). But "RC's" last
comment was a good one! 8^)
> "Arny Krueger" <arnyk@hotpop.com> writes:
>> "Harry Putnam" <reader@newsguy.com> wrote in message
>> news:87tyw3occ5.fsf@newsguy.com
>>
>>> P4 3.2ghz with 3gb ram has trouble with modern tools like
>>> CS4 tools.
>>
>> Other than not having a fast enough CPU to be really nice to use...
>>
>> The latest quad core processors can be really nice to use. They'll do
>> full-resolution rendering of DVD quality files in a fraction of real time.
>
> Thanks for some knowledgeable input.. I've been wondering how much
> different things would work with one of those i7 setups.
Quad-core machines are now quite cheap, and unless you are
editing 24 Mbps AVCHD, these are quite fast enough for doing
anything else. I've never been a believer in buying "bleeding edge"
computer gear unless there is both a budget for it (not provided by
me...;-) and a real need, since within a remarkably short time, the
expensive "B-E" gear becomes "outmoded"...;-( BTW, unlike in
the past where doubling CPU speeds, moving up a model in the
CPU, and adding RAM bought you remarkably "niggling"
performance increases, once you go from a P-4 to a dual-core,
then again to an ordinary quad-core, the computer speed increases
are VERY noticeable (more than 2X speed with each step,
especially if your software can make use of CPU multithreading).
> Thanks folks for the good input.
I'm sure we are all happy to try to help...! ;-)
--DR
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Terry Quinn" <The_Quinns@pobox.com> wrote in message news:fae1d661-b17d-4228-893c-13c836277f57@k4g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
> As my Sony D8 camcorder appears to be at end of life, I'm trying to
> find a replacement. I do a lot of editing, and am intrigued by the
> flash memory card camcorders, simply because most of my past problems
> have been due to tape or tape transport.
>
> But as I've looked at Sony, Canon, and JVC sites, it seems that none
> of these come with an eyepiece viewfinder. They are all going to LCD
> screen only. Since some of what I shoot are sports scenes, I find the
> optical viewfinder easier to make good videos.
>
> I'd appreciate any help on this (i.e. cameras with viewfinders, or
> thoughts on shooting quality through LCD screens).
>
> Terry
The Canon HG21 still has an eyepiece VF, but it is barely adequate.
Sony makes the HDR-XR-500V. BTW, watch out for CMOS sensors
(both of these have them) with sports or other fast action (rolling shutter
distortion), and trying to edit 24 Mbps AVCHD (it ain't easy compared
with HDV tape...). I cannot shoot video as steadily (let alone seeing
well outdoors what I'm shooting) using a fold-out panel VF. I also prefer
a GOOD eyepiece VF (as Sony cameras used to have, along with
better audio than Canon had in their small camcorders).
--DR
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
"J. Clarke" <jclarke.usenet@cox.net> wrote in message
news:hfgfum02fmn@news6.newsguy.com...
> David Ruether wrote:
>> I also was disappointed that the HV20 did not have a Lanc port - it
>> is really needed for smooth recording start/stop even without the
>> camera being on a steadycam device. Too bad you didn't post this
>> sooner - I recently almost gave away what you are looking for since
>> it had been around here unused for several years...;-(
>> --DR
> FWIW, there's a workaround of sorts at
> http://yousillyman.blogspot.com/2007/05/hv20-non-lanc-controller.html, and a
> different version
> http://www.dvinfo.net/forum/canon-vixia-hv40-hv30-hv20-hv10/95585-how-make-real-hv20-wired-lanc.html
> (the first one uses a lightpipe on the infrared remote, the second extends
> the remote's emitter on copper wires).
>
> If you google "HV20 LANC" you'll find several other variations on these
> themes.
THANKS!
--DR
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
"Larry Thong" <larry_thong@shitstring.com> wrote in message news:yPSdndov5ssc12rXnZ2dnUVZ_rZi4p2d@supernews.com...
> Tried to do the first oil change on my new Lincoln MKX AWD today and boy
> was I in for a big surprise! Bought a Fram PH3600 as the book suggests.
> Sure enough, I tried to screw the new filter on and FUCK!! The FUCKEN'
> thing doesn't fit. It seems the original filter has Mexican threads and
> the Fram isn't compatible. Tried two auto parts stores and no go! An oil
> filter a dealer item? FUCK YES!!! I can expect this proprietary crap
> from Nikon and Canon, but Ford/Lincoln? At least with Nikon and Canon
> they let you buy aftermarket batteries.
>
> Well, I had enough of Mexican made assembled in America pieces of shit!
> FUCK Detroit and the union slobs, I'll be buying Mercedes this spring, a
> GL350. Obama made a big mistake bailing out GM and Chrysler!
A doctor friend of mine bought one of those Mercedes "pocket SUVs",
and soon after, the rear struts needed replacing. About $6,000 later,
he sold it. Another friend had a Mercedes and the alternator gave out.
Could he just buy the brushes and repair it himself? No. He bought a
new alternator, then sold the car...
Jes' sayin', yuh no...;-)
--DR
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"swandy" <swandy@si.rr.com> wrote in message
news:070nj5p2umujoqj9kugispq969sqmlqn17@4ax.com...
>I have someone shipping me two versions of the Olympus Zuiko 50mm f1.4
> lens to purchase one of. (For use on an EP2 - currently have an Oly
> 50mm f1.8 but not happy with the focusing of it.)
> One lens has - according to the seller - "very minor hazing on the
> outer edges of an inner element". Since - based on what he as said
> about the other aspects of the two lenses - this is the one I would
> normally prefer, what do I look for in testing the lens? Especially as
> far as image quality being effected - what types of shots should I
> take and what should I look for in the shots?
>
> Thanks for any advice,
> Steve
Compare them for sharpness at the widest four stops, to the
corners, as you would with any two similar lenses you are
comparing, and choose the sharper if there is a difference.
Next, compare them at the widest three stops with strong
subject backlight for differences in contrast and brilliance in
the images. Also examine the lens to see if the haze is barely
visible with strong light (like sunlight) shining through the lens,
viewed off axis (and rotate the lens), or much worse. See if
the haze appears to be caused by element separation (not
good) or by oil on the glass surface (very not good). In
general, choose optical quality and performance over
physical characteristics, especially if the price is right...
--DR
~~~~~~~~
"David Ruether" <d_ruether@thotmail.com> wrote in message
news:hhg306$ism$1@ruby.cit.cornell.edu...
> "swandy" <swandy@si.rr.com> wrote in message
> news:070nj5p2umujoqj9kugispq969sqmlqn17@4ax.com...
>>I have someone shipping me two versions of the Olympus Zuiko 50mm f1.4
>> lens to purchase one of. (For use on an EP2 - currently have an Oly
>> 50mm f1.8 but not happy with the focusing of it.)
>> One lens has - according to the seller - "very minor hazing on the
>> outer edges of an inner element". Since - based on what he as said
>> about the other aspects of the two lenses - this is the one I would
>> normally prefer, what do I look for in testing the lens? Especially as
>> far as image quality being effected - what types of shots should I
>> take and what should I look for in the shots?
>>
>> Thanks for any advice,
>> Steve
> Compare them for sharpness at the widest four stops to the
> corners, as you would with any two similar lenses you are
> comparing, and choose the sharper if there is a difference.
> Next, compare them at the widest three stops with strong
> subject backlight for differences in contrast and brilliance in
> the images. Also examine the lens to see if the haze is barely
> visible with strong light (like sunlight) shining through the lens,
> viewed off axis (and rotate the lens), or much worse. See if
> the haze appears to be caused by element separation (not
> good) or by oil on the glass surface (very not good). In
> general, choose optical quality and performance over
> physical characteristics, especially if the price is right...
> --DR
I should have added that a VERY light haze, even if over a
whole lens surface (but one only...) rarely affects the image, and
when checking the lens with sunlight, do it with the lens off the
camera and the diaphragm wide open. Unlike what the other
poster wrote, I have sometimes found it quite practical to
clean an internal glass surface - but I don't recommend it unless
there is no other option or the lens has little value (reassembling
a lens can be "interesting"...). If the haze is caused by oil, curing
the source is necessary before cleaning the lens or the problem
will quickly return...
--DR
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Richard Crowley" <rcrowley@xp7rt.net> wrote in message news:7okap5F3po6t5U1@mid.individual.net...
> As for -R vs. +R, www.videohelp.com says (from 1st hand user
> reports) that 4634 players of 4935 tested (93.9%) will play DVD-R
> vs. 4096 of 4495 tested (91.1%) will play DVD+R.
> http://www.videohelp.com/dvdplayers
>
> I don't think this shows a significant advantage of one or the other.
> I have probably distributed >700 DVD+R since I switched to T-Y
> and I can't remember that any of them have come back with any
> problem. The quality of the disk (T-Y vs. others) appears to be a
> much more significant issue than -R vs. +R. At least IMHO.
>
> As for speed, I am using 8x but my computers seem to burn at
> about half that speed (using www.imgburn.com). There is no
> advantage (and probably a significant disadvantage in image
> quality) by using faster disks unless you are actually burning
> them at that speed.
>
> As for printing surface, that is a cosmetic issue (and maybe a
> compatibility issue depending on printer?) that you will have to
> decide for yourself based on your circumstances. I have not
> yet tried the water shield discs, mostly because I'm too cheap.
>
> As for BD vs DVD, that is a matter of what your program is
> and who your audience is. If you want to distribute wide-
> screen HD with maximum screen resolution, then BD is certainly
> superior. But your audience may have a very low percentage
> of BD playing capability? Only you can make that decision. Of
> course BD players will play DVD and lots of content doesn't
> warrant wide-screen or HD.
Just to add a bit...
Depending on the Blu-ray player used and editing software used, it is
possible to use either CBR 17 Mbps AVCHD camcorder files or HDV
transcoded to this format, and to record these files (or even to author
them) to standard red-laser blanks - and to write the disks using standard
red-laser writers, and to play the resulting disks in 1080x1920 HD in
very high quality. The only real "hitches" are that standard disks will not
hold a full hour of material, and if transcoded, the HDV will take a long
time to do this, and (depending on the codec quality used for transcoding),
there may be visual losses ranging from VERY subtle to "egregious".
--DR
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Richard Crowley" <rcrowley@xp7rt.net> wrote in message news:7okb1kF3p1f5vU1@mid.individual.net...
> "Rick Stone" wrote ...
>> I'm working on some instructional guitar videos in my VERY small home
>> studio.
>>
>> Right now I capture from a Sony HDR-HC7 directly to a Windows XP
>> machine with HDVSplit, record audio on a second XP machine with a
>> FirePod and Samplitude. Then mix the audio to a stereo WAV, copy it
>> to the first machine (that I'm doing the video on) and edit with Sony
>> Vegas Studio Platinum 9.
>>
>> I'd like to add a second camera to this setup, but shudder to think of
>> having another PC running to do the capture (more noise, more heat in
>> the room, more time to transfer files from one machine to another).
>> Wish I could get ALL of this to run on a single machine but can't seem
>> to find any software/hardware that allows capturing from multiple
>> cameras in Windows (maybe it's time to get a Mac?).
>>
>> Is there any way to capture two HDV video streams on a Windows machine?
> Some people still record on tape and then capture after shooting. :-)
You "hit the nail on the head" again, I see...;-)
The OP could shoot multiple takes from differing positions with
differing close-to-far viewpoints/zooming, including maybe giving a
voice description of the location in the music for rough synchronization
with each take (using a single camera) for use later during the editing.
"Non-linear" editing makes doing this sort of thing SO much easier in
some ways...;-)
--DR
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"clw" <clw@ohsu.gov> wrote in message
news:clw-79A4D5.07374918122009@news.isp.giganews.com...
> Anyone here use a DSL cameras video function?
>
> Is it any good or should I just get a separate video camera?
This is in many ways "a can of worms". But, *in general*, for HD,
the still cameras may have limited functionality for video (such as
no external mic input, mono-only sound, no good wind screen,
pick up of internal noises and handling noises, maybe no AF and/or
no auto exposure while shooting video, and maybe no stabilization
of the video image - and the video formats used are often far less
than easy to edit for anything more than simple cuts with a title, if
even that). I have just been editing Panasonic FZ35 footage shot
by two friends, and the raw footage has obvious stabilization and
compression-failure problems, and even with my fast quad-core
computer with 3-gigs of RAM, editing was no fun even with the
"low" file data rate of 17 Mbps.
Get a separate video camera unless your video needs are specific
and simple and can therefore be handled by what is available
(although things are easier if you stick with [UGH!] SD instead of
HD) - although there are some fancy cameras that do shoot good
HD video if you can afford them, and if you can afford what is
necessary to edit the results adequately.
If you do go with a separate HD camcorder, I strongly recommend
avoiding those that write to memory card or hard drive, unless your
standards are low (and you write at a reduced data rate for easier
editing), or you have the resources to handle the hard-to-edit higher
data rate files. This format does offer the advantages of freedom from
tape dropouts and easy export of files to/from the computer - but,
what then......?
HDV tape offers both easier editing and automatic good archiving
of raw footage - and the finished footage has pretty much the same
image quality as the highest data rate memory card file footage.
More on this (and much more...;-) is at --
http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/articles.html#video
--DR
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@sonic.net> wrote in message
news:4b2d24d3$0$1652$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net...
> Lucas <cauwels@xs4all.nl> wrote:
>>"clw" <clw@ohsu.gov> schreef in bericht
>>news:clw-79A4D5.07374918122009@news.isp.giganews.com...
>>> Anyone here use a DSL[R] cameras video function?
>>>
>>> Is it any good or should I just get a separate video camera?
>>Canon claims that their 5D Mark II is used as HD-video camera for several
>>scenes in Hollywood productions... can't be all that bad... At a seminar
>>they showed some footage....it was quite impressive!
> It's not the quality of the video that's the question. If you use an
> external mic, don't need to rely upon autofocus, and put the camera on
> a tripod then you bet you can get nice results. But a lot of what
> makes a consumer-grade video camera is missing or different.
> --
> Ray Fischer
> rfischer@sonic.net
The above is likely true, especially since I have NEVER, under
ANY circumstance, no matter how taxing for the HD compression
system, caught the Canon HDV (HD) HV20 camcorder showing
ANY indications of image compression failure. The same was not
true for the Panasonic FZ25 still camera shooting lower resolution,
lower data-rate HD video. It often showed major compression
artifacts with motion, and even with the camera still and on a tripod,
weird compression effects were sometimes visible (as with keys
on a piano that are not being played "flickering" among different
tones).
--DR
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"MikeWhy" <boat042-nospam@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:hgjngv$2u2$1@news.eternal-september.org...
> "David Ruether" <d_ruether@thotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:hgjgme$o89$1@ruby.cit.cornell.edu...
>> "Ray Fischer" <rfischer@sonic.net> wrote in message
>> news:4b2d24d3$0$1652$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net...
>>> Lucas <cauwels@xs4all.nl> wrote:
>>>>"clw" <clw@ohsu.gov> schreef in bericht
>>>>news:clw-79A4D5.07374918122009@news.isp.giganews.com...
>>>>> Anyone here use a DSL[R] cameras video function?
>>>>>
>>>>> Is it any good or should I just get a separate video camera?
>>>>Canon claims that their 5D Mark II is used as HD-video camera for several
>>>>scenes in Hollywood productions... can't be all that bad... At a seminar
>>>>they showed some footage....it was quite impressive!
>>> It's not the quality of the video that's the question. If you use an
>>> external mic, don't need to rely upon autofocus, and put the camera on
>>> a tripod then you bet you can get nice results. But a lot of what
>>> makes a consumer-grade video camera is missing or different.
>>> --
>>> Ray Fischer
>> The above is likely true, especially since I have NEVER, under
>> ANY circumstance, no matter how taxing for the HD compression
>> system, caught the Canon HDV (HD) HV20 camcorder showing
>> ANY indications of image compression failure. The same was not
>> true for the Panasonic FZ25 still camera shooting lower resolution,
>> lower data-rate HD video. It often showed major compression
>> artifacts with motion, and even with the camera still and on a tripod,
>> weird compression effects were sometimes visible (as with unplayed
>> keys on a piano "flickering" among different tones).
> Can they be antialiasing artifacts from downsampling to video size? The 7D
> has a minor problem with that in 720p video. I haven't seen a hint of it at
> 1080p.
Maybe... The HV20 does downsample from a 1080x1920 sensor to
HDV's 1440x1080, but without problems (ever). The Panasonic FZ25
starts with a FAR higher resolution and downsamples it to 1280x720 for
video - and ANY motion in the image may cause obvious image problems,
and much motion may cause major image problems (such as large patches
in the image changing color and/or tone in one or more frames). I suspect
that both tape type HD HDV is easier to compress/uncompress (it
certainly is during editing) than memory-card type HD AVCHD and its
variants, and also that Canon uses a superior codec for the compression
in its still cameras and camcorders. (I remember when Panasonic was
touting the image superiority of its MPG-4 24 Mbps AVCHD vs. MPG-2
25 Mbps HDV, and of course, the AVCHD "won" in the samples - BUT,
in practice, I have seen no appreciable difference in raw footage image
quality between the two file formats, but there is a BIG difference in how
easily the material can be edited, with AVCHD being the loser - and if
17 Mbps AVCHD is added to the mix, that also loses in image quality
compared with HDV...)
--DR
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"muzician21" <muzician21@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:cc2d17c5-29a5-48f5-95ae-06f07ae3353c@m3g2000yqf.googlegroups.com...
> I've got a P4 2.4 gig machine now running XP, largely want to improve
> rendering speed for video editing, how much processor do I need in the
> Core 2 Duo realm to realize a healthy jump in speed? Not too proud to
> go used, can't afford the latest greatest, but would like to see a
> "significant" jump in speed.
>
> What kind of numbers should I be looking for, and any suggestions on
> pieces to look for or avoid?
>
> Thanks for all input.
Go quad-core at a speed that is below max (but close enough,
such as 2.83 GHz), since the price is not that much higher, and
the speed will likely more than double again. With XP (a good
choice) and two (or three - more does not help with XP) gigs of
RAM, the cost is not high to upgrade, especially if you buy a good
motherboard, CPU, and heat-sink/fan combo already assembled
so you can exchange it in your current case. Make sure the slot
type will fit your video card - but excellent video cards can be had
cheaply that fit newer slot types. Also make sure that there are
board connectors for your drive types. Buy only best-quality RAM
of the correct type - RAM is amazingly cheap. This is the cheapest
way to go, but desktop quad-core "store-boughten" computers are
fairly cheap these days with Windows 7 installed (swap out the
monitor that comes in a "package" for a 24" 1920x*1200*, NOT
1920x1080, LCD - you will be glad you did). You did not say
what format you want to edit, though. With a dual-core, SD would
be easy but HD HDV would be only OK and HD AVCHD would
be a royal PITA to work with. With a quad-core, SD would be
about twice as fast, HDV becomes easy, and AVCHD 17 Mbps
is still a PITA, but doable (but 24 MBPS AVCHD remains difficult,
so look to an i7 for that...). BTW, if you are editing HDV, I think
the best choice is the cheap Sony Vegas Platinum 9 software, and
I would avoid Premiere for this format...
--DR
~~~~~~~~~~~
"muzician21" <muzician21@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:458d5b2b-5474-4f89-be20-a5842c662fc5@d20g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...
On Dec 21, 10:44 am, "David Ruether" <d_ruet...@thotmail.com> wrote:
> You did not say
> what format you want to edit, though. With a dual-core, SD would
> be easy but HD HDV would be only OK and HD AVCHD would
> be a royal PITA to work with.
At the moment only anticipating doing some editing on SD - all DV AVI.
Maybe at some point would explore the HD realm but it's not in the
immediate plans. I've got a big pile of Digital8 theme park video I'm
trying to plow through - probably a TB or more. The bulk of the work
is doing de-shaking and other tweaking with VirtualDub and then
editing and rendering the whole mess to many DVD's. Right now I'm
using Pinnacle Studio 9 for the DVD rendering. I would consider
switching apps if PS9 doesn't take advantage of dual core technology.
My 2.4 gig P4 gets the job done, but I'd like to cut down the amount
of time the whole thing is going to take with the two machines chewing
away at it.
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
Ah, this is useful information. If you have been disappointed in the past
with doubling CPU speed only to find that the rendering speed is only
minimally improved, going to a dual core CPU (with software that can
use it) will about halve the render times, and going to a quad-core will
halve the times again(!). A quad-core also gets you ready for HD
HDV editing with suitable software (I highly recommend the $75 Sony
Platinum 9 for use with either SD DV-AVI or HD HDV...), and it is not
that much more expensive (and it can handle 4 threads) than a dual-core.
--DR
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
When Sony Vegas 9 came out, I resisted buying it on the $200 special
for the upgrade from Pro 8 (including a $50 additional item, with choice
among three possibilities) since the list of new features did not appear to
be exactly overwhelmingly useful for my purposes, since Pro 8 required
subsequent updates to run properly, since people had been reporting
bugs, since none of the additional items were very important to me, and
since my Pro 8c was running just fine. As expected, the price for the
upgrade rose - and I didn't really care...;-) But then, for version 9c, a
deal arrived in an email from Sony that was interesting. Any version of
Vegas Pro could be upgraded for $150, and it included the DVD Pro 9
Seminar Series and 6 months of free email/'phone support (worth about
$380+, if all parts were useful...;-). I "hemmed-'n'-hawed" for a couple
of days, then "bit" (heck, they even included shipping, and there was no
tax). If for nothing else, I've been thinking that it would be fun to "roam"
around in high-resolution stills (up to 4096x4096 pixels) and still get
HD-quality video images. The offer is good only through December 30,
the order must originate from links within the email, and some version of
Vegas Pro must be installed on the computer (or at least it auto-filled
the box for the serial number when I ordered it). Anyway, just letting
people know...
--DR
~~~~~~~~
"Doc" <docsavage20@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:e5ff1793-c16f-4b1e-8371-9a9eb5ee19a9@s31g2000yqs.googlegroups.com...
On Dec 23, 10:33 am, "David Ruether" <d_ruet...@thotmail.com> wrote:
> When Sony Vegas came out, I resisted buying it on the $200 special
> for the upgrade from Pro 8 (including a $50 additional item, with choice
> among three possibilities) since the list of new features did not appear to
> be exactly overwhelmingly useful for my purposes, since Pro 8 required
> subsequent updates to run properly, since people had been reporting
> bugs, since none of the additional items were very important to me, and
> since my Pro 8 was running just fine.
Hmm. This makes me wonder. I just went for this on ebay
http://tinyurl.com/y9fcys8
Are you saying there's something else that I have to pay for that I'll
need to make it run?
,,,,No. Sony is very good about supplying free updates for
their programs that have valid serial numbers and are registered
with Sony. After installation, go to the Sony site and download
the Pro 8 updates (currently ver. 8c) and install them.
I've got a demo version of Vegas Platinum Pro 9, the interface looks
very similar, I was under the impression they were close to being the
same program.
,,,,They are similar, although 9 does have some added features
that you may, or may not, find interesting...
--DR
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Alan Browne" <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote in message news:JbednWTIvbTCv7jWnZ2dnUVZ_oEAAAAA@giganews.com...
> On 09-12-13 10:40 , C J Campbell wrote:
>> On 2009-12-13 01:36:03 -0800, Henry <theeight@not.co.uk> said:
>>> Before I launch myself into the wonderful world
>>> of search engines, which I understand little of, I
>>> thought I would be better advised first of all, to
>>> start by asking those who may know more about
>>> digital cameras and lenses it than I do. Some of
>>> you may have used such lenses, assuming
>>> they exist!
>>> Henry.
>> DOF indicators are going out of style, much to the frustration of many
>> photographers. Nearly all the lenses that have them are older models
>> that are likely to be discontinued.
>>
>> Grab 'em while you can. Otherwise you are left with the DOF preview button.
> I find DOF preview to be more notional than "correct". When working
> with the old Hasselblad lenses, it's great. My newer Minolta/Sony
> lenses do not have very useful DOF scales.
I've been an "unbeliever" when it comes to DOF scales...
Notice that when they exist on lenses (or in charts), they
symmetrically place on either side of the "correct" focus
point at a given aperture both the nearer and farther focus
points within which a selected range of "misfocus" supposedly
is permissible before the image becomes visibly soft - or the
distance range around the correct focus within which all is
supposed to be "hunkey-dorey". Baloney!;-) OK, here's why.
Imagine (or shoot) a landscape with a tree with leaves at a
great distance. Include the same type of tree much closer to
the camera. Now, using DOF scales and aperture, select the
distance setting on the lens that the DOF scale says will just
produce both good sharpness for both trees and also equal
sharpness for both trees. Print the image. You may notice that
the more distant tree that was photographed doesn't look as
sharp as the nearer one. In fact, it may look down-right fuzzy
in comparison! This is easy to explain. The "blob" size used as
a standard for "sharp point rendition" is the same in both cases,
but for the distant tree, the "blob" size represents a much
larger proportion of its size, making it appear softer. Beware
of this effect when including near-infinity landscape features.
"Almost-sharp" horizons and distant features generally don't
look very good, and you may need to "fudge" the focus a bit
toward infinity-focus and also use a smaller stop than indicated
by the DOF scales to really have good DOF coverage. BTW,
I always considered that DOF indications cheated by about a
stop..;-)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"C J Campbell" <christophercampbellremovethis@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:2009121505223916807-christophercampbellremovethis@hotmailcom...
> On 2009-12-13 11:52:40 -0800, "David Ruether" <d_ruether@thotmail.com> said:
>> I've been an "unbeliever" when it comes to DOF scales...
>> Notice that when they exist on lenses (or in charts), they
>> symmetrically place on either side of the "correct" focus
>> point at a given aperture both the nearer and farther focus
>> points within which a selected range of "misfocus" supposedly
>> is permissible before the image becomes visibly soft
> It is not symmetrical at all. You may have noticed that you have to
> turn the focus ring less as distance increases? Thus background depth
> of field is properly shown as greater than foreground depth of field.
> --
> Waddling Eagle
Yes, of course, but you missed the point. The DOF marks on the
lens ARE symmetrically placed either side of the focus indicator
on the lens, and since the focus distance intervals are progressively
smaller moving toward infinity on the focus ring, what you said is
true (plus more, when choosing DOF hyperfocal settings), but what
I was saying is that following this (or using DOF tables) results in
visually incorrect results in the photo (nearer-infinity image parts
look less sharp than closer-to-camera image parts). The reason for
this is simple. The "acceptable" blur for rendering a point out of focus
is judged by these methods to be equal for near and far subject parts,
and therefore, supposedly using this method results in an equal sense
of sharpness near to far in the image - but it doesn't work perfectly
in practice for the reason I gave (and "illustrated") --
"Imagine (or shoot) a landscape with a tree with leaves at a
great distance. Include the same type of tree much closer to
the camera. Now, using DOF scales and aperture, select the
distance setting on the lens that the DOF scale says will just
produce both good sharpness for both trees and also equal
sharpness for both trees. Print the image. You may notice that
the more distant tree that was photographed doesn't look as
sharp as the nearer one. In fact, it may look down-right fuzzy
in comparison! This is easy to explain. The "blob" size used as
a standard for "sharp point rendition" is the same in both cases,
but for the distant tree, the "blob" size represents a much
larger proportion of its size, making it appear softer. Beware
of this effect when including near-infinity landscape features.
"Almost-sharp" horizons and distant features generally don't
look very good, and you may need to "fudge" the focus a bit
toward infinity-focus and also use a smaller stop to really have
good DOF coverage. BTW, I always considered that DOF
[lens or tables] indications cheated by about a stop..;-)"
--DR
~~~~~~~~~~
"Wilba" <usenet@CUTTHISimago.com.au> wrote in message
news:00b98e9d$0$15657$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com...
> Merklinger explores how resolution of distant detail affects sharpness in
> the image (e.g. http://www.trenholm.org/hmmerk/Resintro.htm). He explains
> why hyperfocal shooting fails to deliver sharply resolved distant detail.
>
> I've played around with his stuff and come to the conclusion that distant
> detail appears at the sensor effectively blurred to twice the size of the
> circle of confusion, so to make hyperfocal deliver on it's promise you need
> to halve your COC (or just focus at double the standard hyperfocal
> distance).
See my post, above (12/15/09).
> If you are focussing that far out, you may as well just auto-focus on the
> furthest thing you want to be sharp (with a small enough aperture to resolve
> foreground detail), and not bother with all that tedious mucking about in
> hyperfocal space.
Maybe better yet, "fudge" the use of the DOF scale, maybe placing the
farthest point of interest at the next-widest-aperture DOF scale mark
on the lens for the selected stop, and checking to see if this also covers
the nearest point (or, use the DOF scale markers for a stop one wider
than you intend to use, and then fudging the focus a bit more toward
infinity focus). And, "for good measure", you may want to stop down
the aperture even one more stop (diffraction is the great "leveler"...;-).
--DR
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Dudley Hanks" <dhanks@blind-apertures.ca> wrote in message
news:AglWm.57895$PH1.702@edtnps82...
> Mich gets going...
>
> He gets a funny look in his eye, and people just kind of clear out of our
> way.
>
> One trainer we worked with in San Rafael said it was kind of like the
> parting of the red sea when we got in crowded areas...
>
> http://www.snaps.blind-apertures.ca/images/MeanBusinessLarge.jpg (full
> size)
>
> http://www.snaps.blind-apertures.ca/images/MeanBusinessSmall.jpg (quick
> loading)
>
> Comments welcome...
>
> Take Care,
> Dudley
Scary dog! 8^)
I had dinner with a fine, friendly pooch yesterday (I'm not generally
a dog lover, but this 9-year-old-as-of-yesterday bee-yoo-ti-ful,
friendly yellow lab seeing-eye dog was a gem!). I kept track of his
location for his owner while he ate (and I got George's food and drinks
for him at the crowded buffet dinner). "Cringle" got MUCH attention
from many there, and he appeared to like it, even rolling over onto his
back for a rub with the harness and handle still on (although normally
a seeing eye dog should not be petted, etc. while the "gear" is in place,
since that indicates to the dog that he is in "working" mode - but the
owner broke the rules for the Christmas dinner...;-).
--DR
~~~~~~~
"Dudley Hanks" <dhanks@blind-apertures.ca> wrote in message
news:F5uWm.57962$PH1.50659@edtnps82...
> "David Ruether" <d_ruether@thotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:hgdkpk$c4l$1@ruby.cit.cornell.edu...
>> "Dudley Hanks" <dhanks@blind-apertures.ca> wrote in message
>> news:AglWm.57895$PH1.702@edtnps82...
>>> Mich gets going...
>>>
>>> He gets a funny look in his eye, and people just kind of clear out of our
>>> way.
>>>
>>> One trainer we worked with in San Rafael said it was kind of like the
>>> parting of the red sea when we got in crowded areas...
>>>
>>> http://www.snaps.blind-apertures.ca/images/MeanBusinessLarge.jpg (full
>>> size)
>>>
>>> http://www.snaps.blind-apertures.ca/images/MeanBusinessSmall.jpg (quick
>>> loading)
>>>
>>> Comments welcome...
>>>
>>> Take Care,
>>> Dudley
>> Scary dog! 8^)
>> I had dinner with a fine, friendly pooch yesterday (I'm not generally
>> a dog lover, but this 9-year-old-as-of-yesterday bee-yoo-ti-ful,
>> friendly yellow lab seeing-eye dog was a gem!). I kept track of his
>> location for his owner while he ate (and I got George's food and drinks
>> for him at the crowded buffet dinner). "Cringle" got MUCH attention
>> from many there, and he appeared to like it, even rolling over onto his
>> back for a rub with the harness and handle still on (although normally
>> a seeing eye dog should not be petted, etc. while the "gear" is in place,
>> since that indicates to the dog that he is in "working" mode - but the
>> owner broke the rules for the Christmas dinner...;-).
>> --DR
> Actually, looks are deceiving ... Mich is a real teddy bear; I've never
> had a shepherd who likes to cuddle as much as he does. The pic doesn't do
> his personality justice...
Ah...! 8^)
> The "rule" about not petting a guide dog is also a bit deceiving --
> depending largely on what school the dog graduated from.
>
> AT GDB, how the dog is to be treated varies a bit from dog to dog, resulting
> a bit from how focused the dog is, and what breed it is.
>
> In the case of shepherds, petting is, of course, discouraged when the dog is
> actually guiding, but there isn't a problem if the handler is standing or
> sitting around, even if the dog is in harness. Hence, I generally allow
> people to give Mich a pet when we're riding on a bus, waiting at bus stops
> etc, or seated in a restaurant.
>
> When you're working with shepherds, the dog can become protective if it does
> not have contact with others, so getting attention from the public helps the
> dog remain properly socialized.
>
> And, of course, we wouldn't want Mich to go Cujo, would we?
>
> Take Care,
> Dudley
Nope! And, thanks for the info. BTW, I forgot to mention that I
have a "service" cat of sorts...;-) She normally is not cuddly at all,
and she is far from being a lap cat - but when I'm having an episode
of being "out", she often jumps on top of me and stands on my side
until I start to come out of it. Weird...;-) Others can take a look at
this small 16-year-old, at -- www.David-Ruether-Photography.com.
--DR.
~~~~~~~~~~~
"Dudley Hanks" <dhanks@blind-apertures.ca> wrote in message
news:X_jXm.56632$Db2.26132@edtnps83...
> "MikeWhy" <boat042-nospam@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:hgkhkt$50n$1@news.eternal-september.org...
>> "Dudley Hanks" <dhanks@blind-apertures.ca> wrote in message
news:v_iXm.56628$Db2.23878@edtnps83...
>>> "MikeWhy" <boat042-nospam@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:hgkb6q$pp3$1@news.eternal-september.org...
>>>> "Dudley Hanks" <dhanks@blind-apertures.ca> wrote in message
news:MgWWm.58233$PH1.40229@edtnps82...
>>>>> If you can't find anything worth your time to criticize about the
>>>>>image, I'll take it as a thumbs up...
>>>> If you really must... It's most of a dog's head with a lolling
>>>> tongue, half framed entering a field of featureless and
>>>> uninteresting black, with the foreground highlights blown to
>>>> pure white by the harsh flat lighting of an improperly set in-axis
>>>> on camera flash. There is no context for the photo, and I call
>>>> it a photo only for lack of a different word to describe
>>>> something that evidently came out a camera. No evident thought
>>>> went into the creation of the image other than "take a picture
>>>> of Mich as he walks by!", which you *still* managed to not do, as
>>>> simple a mandate as that was. The composition is for shit;
>>>> the technical merits ended with opening the box the camera came
>>>> in and finding the on switch. If you're looking for art, give a
>>>> child a crayon and instruct her to draw a dog's head with a lolling
>>>> tongue. Whatever she hands back will, guaranteed, be more
>>>> frameworthy. I can't possibly imagine what comments you can
>>>> be seeking. (In smaller words: thumbs down. Try harder.)
>>> Well, you're off on a few things...
>>>
>>> First of all, Mich wasn't walking by. He was working in harness,
>>> and I took the pic with one hand while we were working down a
>>> sidewalk. This means I had to crouch down beside Mich as we were
>>> walking along. Given the speed Mich and I travel, it would be
>>> tough enough for a sighted person to crouch down beside him and
>>> take a pic, try it when you have to worry about tripping over
>>> chunks of snow you can't see, and doing your best to offset the pull
>>> of a 100 lb. dog straining the harness in your other hand.
>>> Try it sometime, you might find it tougher than you think.
>>>
>>> Next, I'm not sure what highlights your saying are blown to white,
>>> but if you're referring to the lighter patches of Mich's
>>> fur, well, they're pretty much white. He's an odd coloured Shepherd,
>>> very bleached in the "tan" areas and sable / grey in the
>>> "black" saddle area.
>>>
>>> You say there's no context for the photo, but you're ignoring the
>>> context: a guide dog guiding a blind person. Thus, the black
>>> background is highly appropriate. It symbolizes the trust the handler
>>> places in his dog guide, the dark unknown which only the
>>> dog can see into.
>>>
>>> Mich's tongue isn't just lolling. It's a habit he has when
>>> he's concentrating on his duties. In fact, the habit was so
>>> pronounced during training his lips got quite chapped and we
>>> had to give him extra affirmation in order to get him to relax.
>>> Thus, it is quite proper to include in a portrait of him.
>>>
>>> The reason you see nothing is you're mind is set against my work,
>>> so you can't relate to it. You have decided a blind person
>>> can't produce visual art, so your mind facilitates your biased attitude.
>>>
>>> In short, beauty is not in the eye of the beholder, it is in
>>> the mind, as is intolerance and jealousy.
>>>
>>> What I wanted to do with this shot is to symbolize the teamwork
>>> of a guide dog / human partnership.
>>>
>>> The dog handles the visual part of the relationship, hence the dog
>>> is what is visible. People see the dog, and they appreciate
>>> the work that it does, but most have a rather simplistic appreciation
>>> of the dogs work. They don't understand the high degree of
>>> stress and strain the dog must cope with in order to fulfill his / her
>>> part of the partnership. They have a more pastoral,
>>> stylized image of the typical, angelic guide dog. I wanted my
>>> portrayal to be somewhat more stark / frank.
>>>
>>> On the other hand, the handler is completely aware of the dog,
>>> every subtle nuance of the dog's movements, vocalizations and
>>> enthusiasm (as conveyed to the handler through the harness handle).
>>> But, the world outside that partnership is completely out
>>> of view to the blind person, as is the blind person to the general
>>> public. The public focuses on the dog and doesn't normally
>>> place much emphasis on the human half of the team.
>>>
>>> The most visible part of the team is the dog.
>>>
>>> If parts of the dog are somewhat too bright, it is both appropriate
>>> to the message being conveyed, and is one of the hazards of
>>> trying to take a pic on the street, using the light from a single,
>>> on-camera flash being held at the dog's level.
>>>
>>> Once again, the reason you have trouble with my work is that
>>> you cannot place yourself within the context of my situation. A
>>> very thoughtful art instructor once told me that a successful artist
>>> always leaves a piece of himself in every work he produces.
>>> I think it's safe to say that there is a large chunk of both myself
>>> and Mich in this shot.
>> I see. So your photo was an image of your blindness and handicap,
>> not of a dog. Again, I fail to see the message you wished to
>> convey. Again, thumbs down, and do try harder. You do yourself
>> a misjustice by excusing yourself so easily by miscontruing your
>> instructor's remark. Good luck to you.
> This is the problem: to you, a photograph is just a photograph,
> nothing more, nothing less.
>
> You don't have enough creative / abstract thought to appreciate
> the message, just the pixels.
>
> This is why you don't post; you don't have enough imagination to
> create, nor the cognitive cabability to understand.
>
> Must be rough...
>
> Take Care,
> Dudley
Thanks for a "neat" post. It reminded me of a lesson I used to teach
in my photo course at Wells College too long ago...;-) I would show
a B&W photo of a lemon on a black background with a wide white
border and ask the class what it was that I was holding in my hand.
The response from everyone was the expected, "a lemon". Next I had
students describe in detail as many features of the "lemon" as they
could, and I would write the 30-35 or so that resulted (sometimes
with a little prompting...;-) on the blackboard as a list. This list would
include things like shape, weight, color, thickness, etc. I would then
bring out a real lemon and ask for a corresponding description of it
and write that list next to the original list. NOTHING in the two lists
corresponded, AT ALL! 8^). So then I would go back to the original
"lemon" and ask what it was. The conclusion was that it was a photograph
of a lemon - a VERY imperfect copy of a lemon that merely suggested
characteristics of a lemon, and also that the photograph was not just the
part that reminded one of a lemon, but the WHOLE image, including the
"background" (named that although all parts of the photo were essentially
in the same plane, without true "foreground" or "background"), forming a
graphic entity...;-) This may be somewhat counter to what you were
saying about your photograph - but there are several different valid ways
to consider what a photographic image is, and therefore what sorts of
information or communication it may contain...
--DR
~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Dudley Hanks" <dhanks@blind-apertures.ca> wrote in message
news:HftXm.58445$PH1.19747@edtnps82...
> "David Ruether" <d_ruether@thotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:hglkda$2im$1@ruby.cit.cornell.edu...
>> Thanks for a "neat" post. It reminded me of a lesson I used to teach
>> in my photo course at Wells College too long ago...;-) I would show
>> a B&W photo of a lemon on a black background with a wide white
>> border and ask the class what it was that I was holding in my hand.
>> The response from everyone was the expected, "a lemon". Next I had
>> students describe in detail as many features of the "lemon" as they
>> could, and I would write the 30-35 or so that resulted (sometimes
>> with a little prompting...;-) on the blackboard as a list. This list would
>> include things like shape, weight, color, thickness, etc. I would then
>> bring out a real lemon and ask for a corresponding description of it
>> and write that list next to the original list. NOTHING in the two lists
>> corresponded, AT ALL! 8^). So then I would go back to the original
>> "lemon" and ask what it was. The conclusion was that it was a photograph
>> of a lemon - a VERY imperfect copy of a lemon that merely suggested
>> characteristics of a lemon, and also that the photograph was not just the
>> part that reminded one of a lemon, but the WHOLE image, including the
>> "background" (named that although all parts of the photo were essentially
>> in the same plane, without true "foreground" or "background"), forming a
>> graphic entity...;-) This may be somewhat counter to what you were
>> saying about your photograph - but there are several different valid ways
>> to consider what a photographic image is, and therefore what sorts of
>> information or communication it may contain...
>> --DR
> Actually, I think we're pretty much on the same page...
>
> A photo is just that, a photo, as you said, an imperfect rendition of
> something in the real world.
>
>What we get from the image depends largely on the viewers interest and
> experience, not the artist's blood, sweat and tears, nor his intention.
>
> However, the more the viewer knows about the artist, the greater is the
> likelihood the viewer will grasp the artist's message.
>
> Take Care,
> Dudley
Yes. I've always had two opposing feelings about this. On one side,
I prefer not to know anything about the artist/composer/writer so
that I can see/enjoy/judge a piece on its own merits, with "external"
influences removed (I used to dislike even the information that titles
and short descriptions gave on tags with photos in shows - and I never
had any in my shows). On the other side, having more information
can "open up" one's awareness of what is being displayed (a recent
example for me was watching/listening-to excerpts from Daniel
Barenboim's master classes on some Beethoven piano sonatas, which
was a revelation for me about how much thought and consideration
goes into EVERY little bit and its relationship with all others in the
music to make it "work" as a whole - and this was amazing!). Some
wonderful British literature courses also had this positive effect - and
the skillful professor did not dissect the works and "leave the pieces
quivering on the floor", but instead illuminated the context of the times
during which they were written, provided interesting and relevant
particulars about their authors, and also demonstrated the high points
of the works, all while leaving them still wonderful and undamaged
by excessive analysis. Whatever works...! 8^)
--DR
~~~~~~~~~
"Dudley Hanks" <dhanks@blind-apertures.ca> wrote in message
news:LOuXm.58450$PH1.2344@edtnps82...
> "David Ruether" <d_ruether@thotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:hglq9m$ast$1@ruby.cit.cornell.edu...
>> Yes. I've always had two opposing feelings about this. On one side,
>> I prefer not to know anything about the artist/composer/writer so
>> that I can see/enjoy/judge a piece on its own merits, with "external"
>> influences removed (I used to dislike even the information that titles
>> and short descriptions gave on tags with photos in shows - and I never
>> had any in my shows). On the other side, having more information
>> can "open up" one's awareness of what is being displayed (a recent
>> example for me was watching/listening-to excerpts from Daniel
>> Barenboim's master classes on some Beethoven piano sonatas, which
>> was a revelation for me about how much thought and consideration
>> goes into EVERY little bit and its relationship with all others in the
>> music to make it "work" as a whole - and this was amazing!). Some
>> wonderful British literature courses also had this positive effect - and
>> the skillful professor did not dissect the works and "leave the pieces
>> quivering on the floor", but instead illuminated the context of the times
>> during which they were written, provided interesting and relevant
>> particulars about their authors, and also demonstrated the high points
>> of the works, all while leaving them still wonderful and undamaged
>> by excessive analysis. Whatever works...! 8^)
>> --DR
> Yes, "whatever works."
>
> The first approach, that of not knowing anything about the artist or his /
> her intentions / goals, allows the viewer to enjoy the piece "on its own
> merits," or as I would contend, according to the viewer's pre-existing
> demands / esthetic standards.
>
> This is to say that the viewer establishes the parameters within which he /
> she is willing to approve of the characteristics he / she consciously
> considers -- allowing the viewer to become very much attached to the
> piece, or to disregard it entirely.
>
> The second approach entails a bit more work on the part of the viewer and
> affords no greater reward than the satisfaction of appreciating a bit more
> fully what the artist envisioned as he / she worked on the piece, and to
> possibly have certain less evident details brought into consideration
> throughout the investigation. The drawback to the approach is that it
> perhaps keeps the viewer at a greater emotional distance from the work under
> consideration.
>
> Some would say that this approach is a more satisfying, even a more mature
> way to view art than simply seeing and sauntering, since it demonstrates a
> greater willingness on the part of the viewer to consider other points of
> view than those he / she subscribes to.
>
> Personally, most of my appreciation of art has stemmed more from the latter
> school than the former, as I really enjoy learning how others have
> approached conveying their ideas.
>
> Regardless of the merits of either approach, though, it ultimately comes
> down to the individual and "whatever works" for that person.
>
> Take Care,
> Dudley
Yes - which is why I have held both views, choosing between them
as appropriate (for me) for the material and my inclination at the time
(and there is SO MUCH to enjoy, using either approach!). I don't
consider either "better" than the other...;-)
--DR
~~~~~~~~~
"egbert_no_bacon" <egbert_no_bacon@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
news:70ae2409-1605-45d5-8b20-70e9a5e505e0@g26g2000yqe.googlegroups.com...
On Dec 17, 7:41 am, "Dudley Hanks" <dha...@blind-apertures.ca> wrote:
> Mich gets going...
> He gets a funny look in his eye, and people just kind of clear out of our
> way.
>
> One trainer we worked with in San Rafael said it was kind of like the
> parting of the red sea when we got in crowded areas...
>
> http://www.snaps.blind-apertures.ca/images/MeanBusinessLarge.jpg (full
> size)
>
> http://www.snaps.blind-apertures.ca/images/MeanBusinessSmall.jpg (quick
> loading)
>
> Comments welcome...
>
> Take Care,
> Dudley
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
so, canon eos rebel @ 20mm/f11/ 200/sec?
where is the focus?
there is none
one of the worse pics i ever seen in my life
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
hyuh!
goll-lee gee wiz ('HICK!'), ah a-gess yoo reely a-gitz
wut dudley wuz a-try-in t' doo, huh?
NOT!
wul I a-seen pics thet 'r' MUCH werser!
yah, MUCH, MUCH werser...!
('HICK!') (skyooz mee...)
anna ah kinna lyk th' pic, sew ther!
--DR 8^)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Desmond" <otuatail@googlemail.com> wrote in message
news:2564fad2-2794-4816-9b7d-2c34b2e2c24e@m26g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
> Hi can anyone help on tech talk. I was looking at a range of fish eye
> lens. for Sony A200.
> I am comming across .18x .42x also HD
>
> Can someone explain these please
>
> Desmond.
Anything marked ".**x" is telling you the "multiplier", as in,
a ".42x" multiplies the focal length of the lens by .42
(.42xFL=new-FL with the attachment on). Anything below
"1x" indicates a wide-angle attachment, and the lower the
number, the wider (and anything below .42x is very unlikely
to cover the full frame). These generally introduce considerable
"barrel" distortion, even if only moderately wide (the .66x
Raynox [their best one] is the only near-exception I know
of), which increases as the ".**x" number gets smaller. These
attachments vary widely not only in inherent quality but in how
well they match the particular lenses they are installed on,
making selection without trying before buying difficult. "HD"
indicates that (if true!) that the wide-angle lens converter is
a high quality one, intended for HD video cameras - BUT,
camcorder WA converters are rarely very good on high
resolution still cameras unless the ".**x" number is small
(and will produce a round fisheye image).
--DR
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Charles" <charlesschuler@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:hgeji3$lq6$1@news.eternal-september.org...
> http://www.clarklittlephotography.com/gallery/
>
> Lots of post-processing here.
>
> What do you folks think?
Maybe there is too much manipulation, and maybe
there isn't - but I will allow it. 8^)
--DR
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"egbert_no_bacon" <egbert_no_bacon@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
news:59ce6c6d-8b34-48f3-aaea-04e69a04302a@v30g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
> what is diffraction, and do you have an example or know where an image
> of such is posted for me to see please
If a lens were optically perfect with no manufacturing or design flaws
(which is impossible, although some process lenses used for printing
tiny circuits approach this), stopping down the aperture from wide open
would progressively soften the image due to diffraction. Since lenses are
compromises and stopping them down can help overcome some image
flaws seen mostly at their wide stops, there are two conditions that
therefore intersect - most lenses improve in performance as they are
stopped down (and their flaws are progressively overcome) until the
diffraction limit for a given stop is reached (after which diffraction
progressively worsens the image quality with greater stopping down).
The stop at which this occurs depends on the quality of the lens at its
wider stops (stopping a very high quality lens below maybe f4 would
begin to show diffraction softening with further stopping down, but
putting an aperture in front of a simple magnifying glass may never
show serious diffraction effects since other image faults would swamp
diffraction).
As for what diffraction is, it is the tendency of light to be bent as it
passes an edge. The ideal purpose of a lens is to focus entering light
rays coming from points in the subject to corresponding points on
the sensor. If the aperture is wide, most of the area of the lens passing
light has proportionally little diffraction effect on the light passed. With
stopping down, a far higher proportion of the light passing through the
lens will be affected by the diaphragm edges of the lens, causing
the image points to become larger, resulting in a less accurate rendering
of subject points on the sensor (and image resolution loss).
For samples shot with a range of f-stops that show the difference
diffraction changing with aperture can make in an image, go here --
http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/diffraction.htm
--DR
~~~~~~~~~
Hi--
> Sorry I was careless & didn't read the text on that page saying those
> were full size video frames but I still cannot see a significant
> difference with those all lined up in photoshop at 400%.
> See attached.
> --
> Paul Furman
By increasing to 400%, I think you are "missing the forest for the trees"...;-)
The differences are subtle (as expected...), but quite obvious with careful
viewing with all three sets, even at 400%. The sharpness (and contrast) is
lowest at f2 and f11, with best sharpness about f5.6. It is easy to see with
the bushes and distant buildings, but harder to see with your first set
(although in that one, the trees appear to peak around f4). In the full frames,
there is another problem that shows at f2 (corner illumination roll off, but
this helps sharpen the corners more than they otherwise would be).
Thanks for your effort, though...
--DR
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Chris Malcolm" <cam@holyrood.ed.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:7pca5aFaljU1@mid.individual.net...
> David Ruether <d_ruether@thotmail.com> wrote:
>> "egbert_no_bacon" <egbert_no_bacon@hotmail.co.uk> wrote in message
>> news:59ce6c6d-8b34-48f3-aaea-04e69a04302a@v30g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
>>> what is diffraction, and do you have an example or know where an image
>>> of such is posted for me to see please
>> If a lens were optically perfect with no manufacturing or design flaws
>> (which is impossible, although some process lenses used for printing
>> tiny circuits approach this), stopping down the aperture from wide open
>> would progressively soften the image due to diffraction. Since lenses are
>> compromises and stopping them down can help overcome some image
>> flaws seen mostly at their wide stops, there are two conditions that
>> therefore intersect - most lenses improve in performance as they are
>> stopped down (and their flaws are progressively overcome) until the
>> diffraction limit for a given stop is reached (after which diffraction
>> progressively worsens the image quality with greater stopping down).
>> The stop at which this occurs depends on the quality of the lens at its
>> wider stops (stopping a very high quality lens below maybe f4 would
>> begin to show diffraction softening with further stopping down, but
>> putting an aperture in front of a simple magnifying glass may never
>> show serious diffraction effects since orther image faults would swamp
>> diffraction).
>>
>> As for what diffraction is, it is the tendency of light to be bent as it
>> passes an edge. The ideal purpose of a lens is to focus entering light
>> rays coming from points in the subject to corresponding points on
>> the sensor. If the aperture is wide, most of the area of the lens passing
>> light has proportionally little diffraction effect on the light passed. With
>> stopping down, a far higher proportion of the light passing through the
>> lens will be affected by the diaphragm edges of the lens, causing
>> the image points to become larger, resulting in a less accurate rendering
>> of subject points on the sensor (and image resolution loss).
>>
>> For samples shot with a range of f-stops that show the difference
>> diffraction changing with aperture can make in an image, go here --
>> http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/diffraction.htm
> And of course if you deliberately want to provoke more diffraction at
> wide stops normally free of diffraction effects, change the shape of
> the aperture restriction to one with a high edge to area ratio.
> --
> Chris Malcolm
Such as a slot - but rarely does a lens designer seek to worsen
diffraction effects...;-) There are functional reasons for doing so,
though. If you look at the shape of the iris of a cat's eye, it is
designed to minimize diffraction effects in one orientation at
the expense of worsening it in the one at 90 degrees rotation
from it. This allows the cat better night vision sharpness for
horizontal lines and vertically moving things compared with the
alternative and also compared with the acuity of its eye at wide
stops if the iris were round.
--DR
~~~~~~
"David Ruether" <d_ruether@thotmail.com> wrote in message
news:hgr9u8$bp3$1@ruby.cit.cornell.edu...
> "Chris Malcolm" <cam@holyrood.ed.ac.uk> wrote in message
> news:7pca5aFaljU1@mid.individual.net...
>> And of course if you deliberately want to provoke more diffraction at
>> wide stops normally free of diffraction effects, change the shape of
>> the aperture restriction to one with a high edge to area ratio.
>> --
>> Chris Malcolm
> Such as a slot - but rarely does a lens designer seek to worsen
> diffraction effects...;-) There are functional reasons for doing so,
> though. If you look at the shape of the iris of a cat's eye, it is
> designed to minimize diffraction effects in one orientation at
> the expense of worsening it in the one at 90 degrees rotation
> from it. This allows the cat better night vision sharpness for
> horizontal lines and vertically moving things compared with the
> alternative and also compared with the acuity of its eye at wide
> stops if the iris were round.
> --DR
Hmmm.... The above works better with the cat's iris in *bright*
light and *smaller* "stops"...;-) Sorry for the confusion (my cat
corrected me last night...;-).
--DR
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"UC" <uraniumcommittee@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:f5a4293d-375c-4059-b6a1-9d5bbfa753ca@22g2000yqr.googlegroups.com...
> anyone here own it?
>
> I have a smallish file that I have to use large in a calendar. It has
> obvious pixellation. Is anyone willing to help me process this into a
> larger size?
>
> Thanks
Ah, that brings back memories - I used to enjoy playing with it.
If you had the original program and knew the parameters you
had fed into it, it may be possible to generate a new similar image
with a higher resolution - but, sorry, I can't help...
--DR
~~~~~~~~~
"David Ruether" <d_ruether@thotmail.com> wrote in message
news:hgu0kc$dru$1@ruby.cit.cornell.edu...
> "UC" <uraniumcommittee@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:f5a4293d-375c-4059-b6a1-9d5bbfa753ca@22g2000yqr.googlegroups.com...
>> anyone here own it?
>>
>> I have a smallish file that I have to use large in a calendar. It has
>> obvious pixellation. Is anyone willing to help me process this into a
>> larger size?
>>
>> Thanks
> Ah, that brings back memories - I used to enjoy playing with it.
> If you had the original program and knew the parameters you
> had fed into it, it may be possible to generate a new similar image
> with a higher resolution - but, sorry, I can't help...
> --DR
Ah, sorry, I was thinking of a different program, although I
do own Genuine Fractals also (wanna buy it? ;-). I've been
able to get decent horizontals for DVD covers from SD
video frames, but for anything larger than about 1.5x (with
compatible image material), the results are not great - and
your photo does not look like it would work well trying
to do anything with this program... You may be able to get
around this by having a graphic artist turn the image into an
illustration based on the photo (which would also likely
result in a "prettier" image for the calendar...).
--DR
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Twibil wrote:
> On Dec 23, 12:45 pm, John McWilliams <jp...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> I am headed down to the desert, Palm Springs, California next week, and
>> I wondered if there were any recommendations for a side trip on the way
>> down from the SF Bay area. I am familiar with Joshua Tree Nat'l
>> Monument, but not much to the North of PS.
>>
>> I have thought about Big Bear, Lake Isabella, the Southern Mojave
>> Desert, but don't know what might afford interesting landscapes or
>> materials (such as abandonned structures). Any tips out there?
> #1. Take the tram (if it's running) from west Palm Springs up to Mt.
> San Jacinto. Amazing ride: Arid desert to alpine mountaintop in about
> 15 minutes with some truly spectacular views along the way.
>
> #2. There's a really nice drive to be had from Palm Springs southwest
> on State Highway 74 (up "7-level hill") and thense to State Highway
> 371 through Anza. (Look for the dancing dinosaur atop the house on the
> right side of the road west of Anza: it's one-of-a-kind.) Then turn
> left (east) when 371 dead-ends into hIghway 79. In a few miles you'll
> get to Oak Grove, site of the old 1850's Butterfield Stage Stop (still
> standing) and the barn associated with same (barely still standing).
> http://www.flickr.com/photos/33885727@N03/3991291996/sizes/l/
>
> From there, proceed along 79 through Warner Springs; noting the
> sailplane airport just west of town. I got a *great* picture there
> once of a light plane parked under a huge oak tree branch that was
> being used as a support for the winch that was lifting the plane's
> engine out.
>
> From Warner Springs, head southwest to State 79, turn right, and then
> turn right again on S-7 in a few miles. This will take you along the
> east ridge of the Palomar Mountains, where great views are
> everywhere.
> http://www.flickr.com/photos/33885727@N03/3991293600/sizes/l/
> http://www.flickr.com/photos/33885727@N03/3991297138/sizes/l/
>
> S-7 will also eventually take you to the big Palomar Observatory,
> which is worth a look.
>
> From there, head down S-6 (neat switchbacks) to State 76-79, turn
> left, and retrace your path towards Warner Springs, but turn right on
> S-2 before you get there. This will take you east towards Borrego
> Springs (veer left onto S-22 when you get to it) and through some
> spectacular desert scenery along the way. From Borrego Springs,
> continue following S-22 east through the badlands (More spectacular
> desert scenery. Yawn.) until you reach State Highway 86 which will
> take you northwest back towards Palm Springs.
>
> This is a full afternoon's drive, but it takes you through some
> *wildly* contrasting southern California scenery with all sorts of
> photo ops along the way.
>
> Have fun if you try it!
~~~~~~~~
"Twibil" <nowayjose6@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:cb078db5-f9d6-42fe-81c8-f665d2fdc733@f20g2000prn.googlegroups.com...
On Dec 23, 4:44 pm, John McWilliams <jp...@comcast.net> wrote:
> I also hope someone might be able to do similar for the area North or
> North West of PS.
I live there (40 miles west).
Only thing worth mentioning north of P.S is Death Valley, and it's
loooong drive.
~~But, WELL WORTH IT, of course (but one needs DAYS
to explore it) - and winter is a good time (it does get HOT!!!
there in the summer...!!!).
Immediately to the West of P.S. is Cabazon; with a million mall-outlet
stores and a single Creationist Dinosaur Museum.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/33885727@N03/3387097234/sizes/o/
Depending upon your religious beliefs -and how well your sense of
irony is developed- it can be either rewarding or hysterically funny -
althought the owners frown on outright laughter.
~~ ;-)
The gay rainbow flag outside the museum also raises certain questions:
are they *really* looking to attract the well-known and lucrative Gay
Fundie Paleontologist crowd from Palm Springs?
All one of him?
~~ 8^), 8^), 8^) !!!
~~DR
~~~~~~~~~~~~
"clw" <clw@ohsu.gov> wrote in message
news:clw-1005BC.09115024122009@news.isp.giganews.com...
> In article <hh04cj$ea4$1@ruby.cit.cornell.edu>,
> "David Ruether" <d_ruether@thotmail.com> wrote:
>> Only thing worth mentioning north of P.S is Death Valley, and it's
>> loooong drive.
> Not true. Josuha (sp) Tree is close and quite nice. Just not the vast
> expanse and mountains of DV.
[You misattributed your post to me (please be more careful...).]
DV does have a VERY wide variety of features, unlike almost
anywhere else, and it is not just a great expanse and mountains.
Polychrome formations, ruggedly textured salt flats, the lowest
point in the US (with a bad-water body associated with it), a
surrounding of high mountains for 1-mile elevation differences
(the son of a friend was in a bicycle race from the floor of DV
[which can hit 115+ degrees in summer] to Whitney Portal
[which can have snow in the summer] and back, and he not only
survived [WHEW!], but won!), huge sand dune areas, an oasis,
numerous historical sites, an interesting colorful crater with an
unusual name (Ubehebe ;-), black volcanic rock areas, etc.
There is no comparison at all between these locations for
the number of interesting features and experiences - especially
if you are stupid enough, as I was on my first trip there, to start
up a shiny silvery feldspar hillside without taking water with
me, following an old mining tram's series of elevated cables
(thinking that the end would be "just a little farther..."). I at
least had enough sense to not enter the mine shaft more than a
few feet after I finally found it. I did drive on "four wheel drive
vehicles only!" roads, firmly holding the steering wheel of my '58
Rambler (pink, white, and black, with tail fins - with high road
clearance so with care I did not drop into the deep ruts), and
I let the seats down that folded to make a bed and camped in it
"out back" in DV. Another time with another car, I entered the
40-mile one-way VERY narrow Titus Canyon, and just after
reaching the shear high cliffs running close to each side of the
car, the muffler separated from the engine...... UGH! In that
contained space, it felt like the roar of the engine would bring
rocks down on me (but it didn't...;-). Ah, the luck of stupid
youth...! ;-)
--DR
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Paul Ciszek" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:hhtrab$bve$1@reader1.panix.com...
> I came across this site: http://photo.net/equipment/filters/
> The author used a UV/Visible spectrophotometer to compare different
> UV/Haze filters. It shows four filters doing no serious attenuation
> down to 350nm (which was as far as their instrument would go). The
> "B+W" UV filter looks the best to me, with a flat transmission curve
> across the visible and abrupt absorption beginning in the high 300's;
> I wish the article identified the "B+W" filter more specifically.
> The Hoya filter looks to me like it would interfere with color balance
> in the visible range.
>
> Since I live in Colorado and will probably be taking most of my pictures
> at high altitudes, a good UV filter is necessary. Has anyone here
> compared different UV filters? My camera is a Lumix FZ35, which takes
> 46mm filters.
Even with transparency film, the effects of UV on images at
elevations to at least 11,000 feet are negligible - and any that
you may encounter with digitial can be removed later, or by
auto-white balance in the camera while shooting. Also, most
multi-element lenses themselves absorb quite a bit of UV. If
you want a good UV to just cover the lens with, I like the
Hoya single coated UV or clear filters - but I avoid Tiffen
filters "like the plague".
--DR
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"muzician21" <muzician21@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:ea97995a-24ee-49e8-a801-7501b99af30a@m26g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
> The last monitor I bought is my MAG CRT monitor. It still works great
> but getting another computer. Obviously things have changed in the
> last few years. Everything is widescreen LCD now. What are some
> considerations when looking for a monitor? What shortcomings am I
> going to find with an $99 boxmart 20" unit over something else? Which
> specs are marketing gimmicks and which really count?
The LCD quality (which is generally refresh rate vs. color quality) is
important, but for a reasonable price, you are not going to get the best
color quality available (and you don't need it for video editing), but you
can get a good compromise with an 6-8 ms refresh rate. Generally, the
dynamic range spec is worthless, but if you get a monitor with auto
dynamic range enhancement, make sure you can turn it off for monitoring.
> Someone advised I should look at 1920x1200, not 1920x1080 but they
> didn't elaborate why. Any input on this?
I advised this, since every bit of vertical "real estate" is valuable while
editing so you can have a half-sized HD preview window open at the
same time as 3+ video/audio tracks. If you don't get this and often work
with multiple tracks plus title tracks plus maybe extra audio tracks, you
will soon regret not going this way. BTW, three popular editors are
laid out on a 1920x1200 monitor (24") here --
http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/video-editor-screens.htm. With a
sharp LCD, the often-tiny details in the program can be easily seen on
this size monitor.
> One of my gripes about LCD's is that they don't look consistent when
> viewed from different angles. You pretty much have to be dead center
> in front of them to get optimal/even brightness.
So - set it up at the correct left/right/up/down angle for best viewing...
There is a trade off between the LCD's superior sharpness and accurate
rectangularity and the CRT's superior color and image brightness evenness.
With a dual-head card (cheap, if the new computer doesn't come with one),
you can run either, or both monitors at the same time, if you want to.
> Primary usage will be some video stuff - so some kind of accuracy of
> the image would be great, might do a little gaming but I'm not a big
> game player.
So 1920x1200 at 4-8 ms refresh with a 24" would seem to be ideal,
but you may not be able to get the faster refresh along with the other two
AND good color for "cheaps"...
> Obviously looking to get a good bang/buck ratio. Under $200 would be
> nice. Might go higher if there's some feature that absolutely makes a
> major difference. Not too proud to go used/Ebay.
UGH! ;-) Go to newegg.com, amazon.com, b&hphotovideo.com, etc...
> Any recommendations both of models/brands to look at and to avoid?
>
> Thanks for all input.
I like the cheapest Acer. It has generally served me well, although others
are likely good, and many are under $250, with free shipping. I would skip
(the terrible) built-in speakers (any cheap stereo system would likely be far
better). You do not need to spend much to get a good monitor for video
editing that will also serve adequately for other purposes, even those with
conflicting preferences (I've used the Acer successfully, although not ideally,
for photo work, and a friend uses one for playing World of Warcraft and
it works well even though its refresh rate is only 8 ms - and for TV use, it
also has a sufficiently fast refresh rate...). For $5.000, you can buy a better
monitor, but..............;-)
--DR
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"muzician21" <muzician21@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:dcaafbed-5312-4ad0-92bb-f3eca98fb469@u7g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
On Dec 21, 10:44 am, "David Ruether" <d_ruet...@thotmail.com> wrote:
> (swap out the
> monitor that comes in a "package" for a 24" 1920x*1200*, NOT
> 1920x1080, LCD - you will be glad you did).
Why is 1920x1200 better?
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
EVERY bit of vertical "real estate" is valuable while editing so you can
have a half-sized HD preview window open at the same time as 3
video+audio tracks. If you don't get this and often work with multiple
tracks (if not now, you will...) plus title tracks plus maybe extra audio
tracks, you will soon regret not going this way since you will be forced
to scroll to see all tracks or to use a tiny preview window. BTW, three
popular editors are laid out on a 1920x1200 monitor (24") here --
http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/video-editor-screens.htm. With a
sharp LCD, the often-tiny details in the program can be easily seen on
this size monitor (some of these are getting smaller and harder to "catch"
with a mouse).
--DR
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"MikeWhy" <boat042-nospam@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:hi1jbr$ohj$1@news.eternal-september.org...
> "Neil Harrington" <never@home.com> wrote in message
> news:_-6dnU8SHdcA2NnWnZ2dnUVZ_t2dnZ2d@giganews.com...
>> In well over 50 years of amateur photography I have NEVER used a filter
>> "to protect the lens," though I have used them for their design purpose,
>> filtering.
> I would only add that the few times I wondered if a haze filter wouldn't
> help cut through and improve contrast even marginally in the late afternoon
> high altitude mountain haze, the said Tiffen Haze1 was more than 1000 miles
> away, safely tucked in the lens drawer, forever unused. I might never know
> firsthand if they really do anything useful. "Storing" it on the lens might
> not be such a horrible idea, even though I confess to wondering if haze
> filters weren't named for the lost of contrast they contribute the rest of
> the time.
I had a job almost ruined by forgetting to clean my color correction
Tiffen filters before use (they tended to "self-fog" in less than 3 months
of storage on both sides, and always needed cleaning before use - and
none of my other filters had this problem, stored in the same cases...),
thus my low opinion of Tiffen filters. It may be that you saved yourself
from adding haze TO the photos - but I've never found a "haze" filter to
work as advertised in those advertising sample pictures! ;-) But, on the
other side, I do use good (Hoya and Nikkor) filters to keep lenses clean
(cleaning multicoated surfaces completely is very difficult, and I would
rather scrub a filter, which I can also wash, than a lens surface...). I
also use shades when they contribute (which is not always - and when
they don't, I prefer the simplicity and compactness of leaving them off).
BTW, I once had a wide angle grabbed, and the filter got scratched
badly in the process, so I prefer to use "protective" filters when possible.
Also, a friend sent me some samples from her new Panasonic FZ35
since she had been complaining about "white spots" in the images shot
against the light (and she insisted her lens was clean...). But, there was
the evidence in her images of spots on the lens - which would have been
FAR easier for her to see and to remove had they all been on a filter...
--DR
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Paul Ciszek" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:hi367t$lbk$3@reader1.panix.com...
> In article <hhu11a$cge$1@ruby.cit.cornell.edu>,
> David Ruether <d_ruether@thotmail.com> wrote:
>>Even with transparency film, the effects of UV on images at
>>elevations to at least 11,000 feet are negligible - and any that
>>you may encounter with digitial can be removed later, or by
>>auto-white balance in the camera while shooting. Also, most
>>multi-element lenses themselves absorb quite a bit of UV. If
>>you want a good UV to just cover the lens with, I like the
>>Hoya single coated UV or clear filters - but I avoid Tiffen
>>filters "like the plague".
> May I ask why? I was given a Tiffen filter with the camera.
The answer is in another post of mine, below - but briefly,
they appear to be uncoated, and they "self-fog" over short
periods of time and therefore require cleaning (on both sides)
before use, plus the rims are thick, which can cause vignetting
with some lenses at some settings. "Bottom of the barrel" quality,
but they do have one plus that makes them desirable to some
professionals, especially motion-film cameramen - Tiffen offers
a wide range of colors in thread-mount glass filters... (but
otherwise, YUCK!).
--DR
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"rwalker" <rwalker@despammed.com> wrote in message
news:etfak5lvh3gsfcp6v253e5manpencsir12@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 6 Jan 2010 09:37:08 -0500, "David Ruether"
> <d_ruether@thotmail.com> wrote:
> snip
>
>> But, on the
>>other side, I do use good (Hoya and Nikkor) filters to keep lenses clean
>>(cleaning multicoated surfaces completely is very difficult, and I would
>>rather scrub a filter, which I can also wash, than a lens surface...)
>
> snip
> That is the primary reason I have UV filters on most of my lenses.
> I've shot without and with the filters, and the difference is not
> noticeable to me. And since I only shoot for me, that's all that
> matters. And, as you say, I'd rather clean the filter than the
> actual lens. I don't have any illusions that the filter is magically
> going to protect the lens from breaking in a high impact accident.
I have also made comparisons of lens performance with/without
UV filters (including using a 400mm f3.5 on a good distant subject
with multiple refocus exposures for accuracy, with no filter, only the
rear UV, only the front UV, and with both UV filters in place - with
no differences noted). I also don't find multicoating on filters very
useful. The exception to the above can happen when shooting nearly
directly toward a relatively very bright and smallish light source, when
a reflection off the sensor/film may be bounced back to the front filter,
and then imaged again, but.........;-)
--DR
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"whisky-dave" <whisky-dave@final.front.ear> wrote in message news:hi4rvf$99e$1@qmul...
> "rwalker" <rwalker@despammed.com> wrote in message
> news:etfak5lvh3gsfcp6v253e5manpencsir12@4ax.com...
>> On Wed, 6 Jan 2010 09:37:08 -0500, "David Ruether"
>> <d_ruether@thotmail.com> wrote:
>> snip
>>
>>> But, on the
>>>other side, I do use good (Hoya and Nikkor) filters to keep lenses clean
>>>(cleaning multicoated surfaces completely is very difficult, and I would
>>>rather scrub a filter, which I can also wash, than a lens surface...)
>>
>> snip
>> That is the primary reason I have UV filters on most of my lenses.
>> I've shot without and with the filters, and the difference is not
>> noticeable to me. And since I only shoot for me, that's all that
>> matters. And, as you say, I'd rather clean the filter than the
>> actual lens. I don't have any illusions that the filter is magically
>> going to protect the lens from breaking in a high impact accident.
> I've always concidered the filter to be protection from dust and grime
> but what I found strange was that some people/photographers didn;t
> consider the fact that cleaning a filter quickly i.e without care because
> it's cheap and replaceable will degrade the quality of the image. This
> was in the days of film. So my thoughts were that if a filter gets
> scratched/damaged then it should be changed but I've rarely heard
> of people actully doing this and prefer to just keep using the
> 'protective' and somewhat scoured filter.
8^) And, remember the days when "pros" used to "clean" their lenses
with quick swirls of their neckties on them? Those lenses were soon
good for little more than taking "moody portraits"... :-( I agree that
anyone concerned about optimizing the performance of their gear
should examine it and replace it as needed - but it is surprising how
many *barely visible* scratches an optical surface can have without
impairing its optical qualities.
--DR
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"jean-daniel dodin" <jdd@dodin.org> wrote in message
news:4b4621d7$0$29883$426a74cc@news.free.fr...
> Le 07/01/2010 18:45, Neil Harrington a écrit :
>> Not in my personal experience, but I have read that even a fairly deep
>> scratch is unlikely to make any visible difference in imaging.
> urban legend... may be related to the focal length.
Yes. A relatively long focal length lens with a relatively large
sensor area would probably show little or no ill effect from
a fairly deep scratch even at a smallish stop with textured
subject material - but with a good WA converter on a good
1/3rd" CCD video camera set at WA, even the tiniest, barely
visible pin-prick sized "tick" in the front element glass can
show in side and back lighting conditions.
> put a hair on the lens of a smartphone, you can see it (or it's
> shadow). Try the same on a better lens with different aperture. after
> all, experimenting is easy with digital cameras
>
> jdd
Yes - this is one of the downsides of compact cameras. Even
a friend's Panasonic FZ35 had spoiled pictures likely resulting
from "spit marks" or condensation on the front element that
were difficult to see.
--DR
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Outing Trolls is FUN!" <otif@trollouters.org> wrote in message
news:sk3gk518841r5i3b90748r6ullvn7miu9b@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 7 Jan 2010 14:17:06 -0500, "David Ruether"
<d_ruether@thotmail.com> wrote:
>>"jean-daniel dodin" <jdd@dodin.org> wrote in message
>>news:4b4621d7$0$29883$426a74cc@news.free.fr...
>>> Le 07/01/2010 18:45, Neil Harrington a écrit :
>>>> Not in my personal experience, but I have read that even a fairly deep
>>>> scratch is unlikely to make any visible difference in imaging.
>>> urban legend... may be related to the focal length.
>>Yes. A relatively long focal length lens with a relatively large
>>sensor area would probably show little or no ill effect from
>>a fairly deep scratch even at a smallish stop with textured
>>subject material - but with a good WA converter on a good
>>1/3rd" CCD video camera set at WA, even the tiniest, barely
>>visible pin-prick sized "tick" in the front element glass can
>>show in side and back lighting conditions.
> That's because at wide-angle everything from the front lens surface to
> infinity is in focus you idiots. I have a fish-eye lens where I have to
> keep the front of it in pristine condition or it will put any dust on that
> lens in focus. This is NOT true for the average focal-lengths that all
> others use, nor any filters placed in front of those lenses.
Your response is inappropriate - and inaccurate. It is all relative,
as I (and others) pointed out. Example: while the video camera
example I gave is true, an 8mm (or even 6mm) fisheye lens on a
35mm camera does not show similar image problems with dust
or minor defects on its front surface. The likely reason is that DOF
is less with the larger "sensor", and the front element is relatively
huge compared with the area of the dust or defect. A wide angle
for a sheet film camera will unlikely ever show ill effects from dust
or defects unless either is extreme. Also a factor is the lighting,
as I pointed out. With front lighting and textured subject matter,
it is less likely that lens defects will be seen in the image unless
the lens itself is side-lit and the subject is smooth and either dark
or light, depending on the fault type. Properly shading the lens
surface may reduce or remove this effect, though. Be careful who
you call "idiots". The term may easily be thrown back at you,
especially if you oversimplify...;-)
--DR
~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Outing Trolls is FUN!" <otif@trollouters.org> wrote in message
news:i03gk5h1l2qss902an5jts9dg8d88vqc0i@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 7 Jan 2010 12:04:53 -0500, "David Ruether"
<d_ruether@thotmail.com> wrote:
>>... And, remember the days when "pros" used to "clean" their lenses
>>with quick swirls of their neckties on them? Those lenses were soon
>>good for little more than taking "moody portraits"... :-( I agree that
>>anyone concerned about optimizing the performance of their gear
>>should examine it and replace it as needed - but it is surprising how
>>many *barely visible* scratches an optical surface can have without
>>impairing its optical qualities.
>>--DR
> All bullshit. A common idiot's tale told and passed down on the net by
> pretend-photographers. A lens can even have some bubbles in the glass and
> still perform admirably. Any large scratches in any filter can be
> blacked-out with a sharpie with no perceivable performance lost. One of my
> favorites for Fall photography is an antique filter I found in a junk-box
> one time. I cannot find a filter today with the same band-pass profile. A
> large conchoidal fracture on one edge and several large scratches in it.
> All defects blacked out with a sharpie and it performs admirably.
>
> A large research-telescope mirror was shot at with a high-powered rifle by
> someone with an unstable agenda and left huge divots in the mirror. They
> were patched over and blacked out, with hardly any performance lost.
> (Perhaps someone can find that link to show these idiots they are idiots.)
>
> Stop parroting net-nonsense invented by armchair-photographer trolls.
Well, you are looking more and more like one of those.... I do remember
when photographers shot with 4x5 Graflexes, and wiped their lenses with
neckties - and I did see the fronts of their uncoated lenses (with soft glass)
turned into what was approaching diffusing surfaces (I bought and sold
gear, and I early on I learned to avoid gear if the seller mentioned being a
"pro" ["mint condition" to them meant that the gear sorta worked even if
it looked a mess] or if his voice sounded old [they unfortunately tended to
remember only what the gear was like when it was nearly new...]). BTW,
nothing in your post substantiates your description of what I, or anyone
else, has written as "all bullshit". But, put some of those "fixed" or "special"
filters you have described on a wide angle lens on a suitably sensitive
format size and try to shoot with it - yuh, just try...! ;-) Look who is really
writing mostly BS (and you know you are, which is really, really odd...! ;-).
(But I guess I'm just feeding the troll with the above, so, "BUH-BYE"! ;-)
--DR
~~~~~~~~~
"John McWilliams" <jpmcw@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:hia8ds$qck$1@news.eternal-september.org...
> David Ruether wrote:
>> (But I guess I'm just feeding the troll with the above, so, "BUH-BYE"! ;-)
> Easy enough to do at first. But the more we resist, the less he'll persist.
> --
> john mcwilliams
Yes, of course - but it took me a while to spot him, sigh...! ;-)
I guess the name-calling should have been the give-away, though.
--DR
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"eNo" <grandepatzer@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:35765fab-889c-4932-afb5-f227842064d9@r24g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
While we're all speculating, here's something I dreamed up on my blog:
http://esfotoclix.com/blog1/?p=954
[.....]
There would be one other challenge for Nikon: lens availability for
the FX format, as in affordable, practical lens availability. Most of
us have the impression that FX means heavy and expensive lenses, and
that would certainly defeat the advantage of a small, light FX body.
Nikon could point out the few affordable FX lenses it offers, such as
the 24-85 f/2.8-4 and 70-300 VR, but a better move would be to
announce a couple of relatively low cost FX AFS lenses, including an
affordable super wide and a kit lens that matches the long-in-the-
tooth 24-85 f/2.8-4. Can Nikon manage to pull out a small FX body plus
a couple of lenses out of its magical hat? I think so.
[...]
eNo
There already *was* a good zoom lens choice - the excellent
compact 24-85mm f3.5-4.5G AF-S (plus the many good
AF lenses). If such a compact body with a full-frame 12 MB
sensor (or better yet, one of 24x30mm for 4:5 proportion)
were to add metering with older AI/AIS lenses so that
several excellent scale-focusable MF wides could be added
to the list, such as the 16mm f3.5, 20mm f2.8, 24mm f2.8,
and 28mm f4 PC (I never was very fond of trying to use that
"focus confirmation" thingy while shooting...;-), and the
price were kept reasonable, this could be quite a desirable
camera!.
--DR
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Paul Furman" <paul-@-edgehill.net> wrote in message
news:hit0su$svn$1@news.eternal-september.org...
> David Ruether wrote:
>> eNo wrote
>> While we're all speculating, here's something I dreamed up on my blog:
>> http://esfotoclix.com/blog1/?p=954
>>> There would be one other challenge for Nikon: lens availability for
>>> the FX format, as in affordable, practical lens availability. Most of
>>> us have the impression that FX means heavy and expensive lenses, and
>>> that would certainly defeat the advantage of a small, light FX body.
>>> Nikon could point out the few affordable FX lenses it offers, such as
>>> the 24-85 f/2.8-4 and 70-300 VR, but a better move would be to
>>> announce a couple of relatively low cost FX AFS lenses, including an
>>> affordable super wide and a kit lens that matches the long-in-the-
>>> tooth 24-85 f/2.8-4. Can Nikon manage to pull out a small FX body plus
>>> a couple of lenses out of its magical hat? I think so.
>> There already *was* a good lens choice - the excellent
>> compact 24-85mm f3.5-4.5G AF-S
> Oh, that's AF-S so would actually work on such a body.
Yes, the "S" lenses work without needing the "screw" focus.
> And the 24-120 with or without VR.
The non-VR needs the "screw" (which the D90 has...), and
the VR version (which doesn't seem to be as good, darn!)
AFs without it...
>> (plus the many good AF lenses).
> But none of those would work, in a D90 boxsize body, there's no room for
> AF motor. That would be frustrating.
They AF on a D90, though, so, can it be that big a deal to
include it...?;-)
>> If such a body would add metering with older
>> AI/AIS lenses, [then] several excellent scale-focusable MF
>> wides is added to the list, such as the 16mm f3.5, 20mm
>> f2.8, 24mm f2.8, and 28mm f4 PC
> Yes it seems not a big deal to allow metering.
Maybe this would be due more to marketing decisions than
anything else - and I suppose, even with a fairly high price, this
"camera" would need to stay beneath the D700 in features,
even if they are pretty basic. I hate "marketing"! ;-).
>> (I never was very fond
>> of trying to use that "focus confirmation" thingy while
>> shooting...;-).
> It would probably have a smaller viewfinder than the D700 which is
> already not that big and not 100%, so manual focusing wouldn't be easy.
> --
> Paul Furman
It is VERY easy for reasonably distant subjects using MF
wide angle lenses to focus accurately and quickly using
accurate (checked) focus scales with reasonable distance
marking spacings and not-too-fast focus ring turn. I do like
large and SHARP eyepiece viewfinders, though (remember
how good the F/F2/early-F3's were? ;-).
--DR
~~~~~~~
"Paul Furman" <paul-@-edgehill.net> wrote in message
news:hivm96$cvs$2@news.eternal-september.org...
> David Ruether wrote:
>> I do like
>> large and SHARP eyepiece viewfinders, though (remember
>> how good the F/F2/early-F3's were? ;-).
> I never used those
Sharp to the corners, without linear distortion, bright, 100%,
and VERY easy to focus with *WITHOUT* the distracting
"focus aids" (B-screen) - and a good unobtrusive (E) screen
was available, also with a matte center. Also, it was easy to
see the whole frame with glasses even with the non-HP
standard prism - but the HP finders and "sports" finders
gave even more eye-relief.
> but just got another Nikon EM (gave the first away to
> a kid, who's father promptly lost it :-( ...which has a huge
> viewfinder and useful split prism. The viewfinder doesn't work as well
> with glasses, you need to move around to see the whole thing but it's
> still a treat. All that in the smallest 35mm camera Nikon ever made.
> --
> Paul Furman
I really like the same-sized (but with MANY more features)
FG. In terms of sharp central VF focusing ease, it is hard to
beat a "B" screen in an FA, FE, or FM - the magnification is
quite high (at the expense of easy edge viewing with glasses,
though...). The soft shutter release of the FA combined with
its small size and ease of hand-holding made it my favorite
film camera for travel - and the accuracy of the VF and
great metering of the F3 made it my favorite for "slow" pro
work. But then there was the N2000, basically an FG
upsized a bit to include a motor which "sipped" battery life
(the 4 AAAs seemed to last forever). 'Course, I also liked
the N8008 for "fast" pro work since the flash control with
the fast-recycling SB-24 was excellent. And fortunately, as
I unfortunately began to need AF, the F100 arrived with
excellent AF plus everything else I needed. I still have most
of these cameras sitting on my shelves - but I exercise their
shutters every couple of months...
BTW, if you get a rubber eyecup that fits the EM/FG20/FG/
N2000/N2020 and carefully cut off the "cup", you can reverse
it and place it on the above cameras (plus several others) to
offer glasses protection from the hard VF surround material.
--DR
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Larry B" <lbblock@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:YY6dndPyY41rf9XWnZ2dnUVZ_jOdnZ2d@earthlink.com...
>I recently had some VHS tapes digitized and it was supplied to me as an AVI
> (video only) and 2 WAV files, due to AVID processing . Don't ask why, beyond
> my control. I now have the task of creating the DVD's from them.
>
> With time constraints in mind, I was wondering if regular consumer video
> editing software (the typical $100 type) would combine the files (without an
> additional rendering stage), allow for color correction (color temp issues)
> and provice basic authoring and burning tools. I have used Ulead Video
> Studio in the past, for example, and it seems to work well (but that was
> from a DV camcorder source)?
>
> Thanks.
As Ken said, "yes" - but if you apply filtering (as with color correction,
etc.), you will need to render the changed material (a relatively minor
thing with newer computers with SD DV-AVI). I like the $75 Sony
Vegas Platinum 9 for both DV-AVI and HD HDV editing, but Premiere
elements (about the same price) is fine for DV-AVI. Both include the
ability to author and burn DVDs. For a comparison of some editing
programs, go here -- http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/hdv-editing.htm.
For a written guide to editing with Vegas, go here --
http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/Sony-editing.htm. For an "easier"
view of how to use Vegas, go to the video guides, here --
www.sonycreativesoftware.com/support/trainingvids.asp?prod=moviestudio.
BTW, while I don't like VideoStudio for much, I do like its DVD authoring.
--DR
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Richard Crowley" <rcrowley@xp7rt.net> wrote in message
news:7rh37nFc8eU1@mid.individual.net...
> "nestwasright" wrote...
>> I have multiple mini dv brand tapes and material was recorded on them
>> using different types of cameras. I'm asking for suggestions for the
>> best player to use that will play all of these tapes for me to load
>> them and begin editing. Some of these tapes were recorded up to 8
>> years ago. When I try playing some of them on an RCA CC9370, they
>> either won't play or the head would come up dirty. Thanks for your
>> help.
> The "best" player would be the device that they were recorded on.
> Not clear from your symptoms whether you are experiencing
> interchange problems (because your playback machine and/or the
> recording machine were out of alignment)? Or whether you are
> seeing the kinds of issues from some older tape formulations
> caused by switching between "dry" and "wet" lubricant. Using a
> "head cleaner" cassette has been recommended to counteract
> the effect of switching between wet and dry lubricant tapes.
> This is a major reason for the recommendation to select one
> brand of tape and stick with it.
Well put. Just to add a bit --
Best to collect all the tapes into batches of types to minimize
the number of head cleaning passes on the camcorder's heads
(Mini-DV cleaning tapes are abrasive). The technique I use
with my Sony head cleaning tape is (***IN VCR MODE
ONLY!!!***) running the tape for five seconds only, then
I wait 30 seconds before running it again for only one more
five second pass. If you have access to a professional Mini-DV/
DVCam deck (the ones that play small and large cassettes
and cost a small fortune...;-), these will often play tapes that
cheap camcorders will not. Look for a local video public
access station, school, or pro that may be willing to let you
use one.
--DR
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"nestwasright" <nestamicky@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:40fd4b00-a1a7-40af-81dd-002a63c8d26e@m26g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
> On Jan 18, 1:53pm, Gene E. Bloch <lett...@someplace.invalid> wrote:
>> On 1/17/10, nestwasright posted:
>> > I have multiple mini dv brand tapes and material was recorded on them
>> > using different types of cameras. I'm asking for suggestions for the
>> > best player to use that will play all of these tapes for me to load
>> > them and begin editing. Some of these tapes were recorded up to 8
>> > years ago. When I try playing some of them on an RCA CC9370, they
>> > either won't play or the head would come up dirty. Thanks for your
>> > help.
>> To add to Richard's and David's remarks, miniDV tapes recorded in
>> long-play mode have often (but not always) been reported to be
>> unplayable except on the original device.
> Can someone please explain why this is the case between LP and SP. I
> don't even know which some of these tapes were recorded...so it looks
> like I'm in bigger trouble.
Head alignment matching is critical among record/playback units
for successful playback across recorders even for SP, although
most makers manage to get this right. With LP mode, it is not
uncommon for there to be enough error for LP recordings made
with one camcorder to not play well in another. I have owned
MANY Sony Mini-DV camcorders, some bought new and some
bought used, and I always used to check LP compatibility of a
new purchase with previous ones to check head alignment. All
were compatible but one cheap "beater", but the price was right
enough to use it only in SP mode. BTW, in the instruction books
you may find warnings about LP-mode incompatibilities among
different camcorders...
>> I don't know if that issue would apply to a stand-alone deck, compared
>> to a different camcorder.
>> --
>> Gene Bloch
I think DVCam/Mini-DV stand-alone decks may not play LP
mode Mini-DV anyway (they were considered "pro" gear...;-).
--DR
~~~~~~~~~
"GMAN" <Winniethepooh@100acrewoods.org> wrote in message
news:Vhp6n.113456$IU1.8207@en-nntp-04.dc1.easynews.com...
> In article <bn1il5ligpiv22tcr2kli9u8t6npr872tu@4ax.com>, trusso11783@yahoo.com wrote:
>>On Mon, 18 Jan 2010 12:53:57 -0800, Gene E. Bloch <letters@someplace.invalid>
>> wrote:
>>>On 1/17/10, nestwasright posted:
>>>> I have multiple mini dv brand tapes and material was recorded on them
>>>> using different types of cameras. I'm asking for suggestions for the
>>>> best player to use that will play all of these tapes for me to load
>>>> them and begin editing. Some of these tapes were recorded up to 8
>>>> years ago. When I try playing some of them on an RCA CC9370, they
>>>> either won't play or the head would come up dirty. Thanks for your
>>>> help.
>>>To add to Richard's and David's remarks, miniDV tapes recorded in
>>>long-play mode have often (but not always) been reported to be
>>>unplayable except on the original device.
>>>
>>>I don't know if that issue would apply to a stand-alone deck, compared
>>>to a different camcorder.
>>I have a JVC BR-DV3000U DV\Mini DV unit that I bought in January 2005. Not sure
>> what is meant by a
>>small fortune but it only cost $1500 at the time. I stick with one brand of
>> tape because of the
>>reasons described above but when people want me to edit stuff for them, I have
>> no choice of the
>>tapes they already recorded. I never had a problem playing all different brands
>> in my deck. I can
>>confirm that my deck does not play LP recorded tapes. If they were recorded
>> that way by my client, I
>>made them bring in their camera and used theirs to transfer via firewire.
>>
>>Tony
> My portable deck, a Sony GV-D300 Video Walkman Mini DV does both LP & SP
The original "pro" DVCam/Mini-DV decks that would also be able to play
the large cassette sizes would (as I recall...) not play Mini-DV LP mode, but
would play the two cassette sizes in normal or fast (DVCam) speeds, and
these decks seemed less sensitive to problems from mixing tape types. They
also cost $3-5 kilobucks each when I encountered them. Your deck uses a
standard Mini-DV transport mechanism...
--DR
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"mmyvusenet" <mmyvusenet@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
news:7s3kmjFtnkU1@mid.individual.net...
> According to yours appreciations, Is there a lot of difference of quality
> between HD and Full HD?
>
> Because I am thinking about buying a new one camara digital and wanted also
> to take advantage of the video option.
>
> Thanks for your comments.
>
> --
> MMYV
There are three main amateur HD formats (although pros have
used all three...), 1280x720p, 1440x1080i, and 1920x1080i.
There is a fairly obvious difference between the first two if you
know what to look for, but little between the next two visually,
all things being equal (which they often aren't, since 1920x1080i
can be supplied with several different data rates - and qualities).
I consider "full HD" as more of a marketing term than an actual
indicator of image quality - and there are also other factors that
can contribute to quality, or detract from it. In addition, if your
computer is not especially fast, editing HD AVCHD (memory
card or hard drive) video files can be more difficult than editing
tape-based HDV HD files. But, it just dawned on me that you
may be asking about shooting HD video with a still camera. The
above is still true (with only memory card capture available...),
but doing this will result in lower quality than using a video
camera, and shooting video with a still camera will be more
difficult. There goes that misleading marketing again...! ;-)
--DR
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Frank" <frank@nojunkmail.humanvalues.net> wrote in message
news:9t1sl5lh7bfrv3e1c5dgm9brn00eujbmkk@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 25 Jan 2010 23:00:16 +0100, in 'rec.video',
> in article <Re: Digital Camcorder recommendation?>,
> Neil Jones <myself@dev.null> wrote:
>>Frank,
>>
>>Thanks for this input. Yes, I should have mentioned my budget too. It
>>is $500 and $800. Certainly, I would be making mostly home/vacation
>>videos. Within that category, I would like to go to the high end HD
>>camcorder. Probably I am asking too much without knowing the field well.
>>
>>Any recommendation within that budget would be great.
>>
>>Thank you once again.
>>
>>NJ
> So I guess that a $100,000 Sony SRW-9000 is completely out of the
> question?
8^)
> Okay, would you settle for a $699 Canon HV40? It's a 25 Mbps cassette
> tape based palmcorder-sized DV/HDV camcorder and offers fairly decent
> image quality for the price and you'll have money left over for
> accessories.
I second this choice not only because that camcorder is good (see my
review at http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/Canon_HV20-HV30.htm),
but, given your camera budget, it is unlikely that your computer resources
are sufficient to edit any HD video material of equal quality (to that
produced by the tape-based HV40) which is written to memory cards
or hard drives. BTW, for editing this material, I like Sony Platinum 9
software (see my http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/hdv-editing.htm
and http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/Sony-editing.htm for more on
this versatile under $100 editing program - although others may have
alternative favorites...).
--DR
> Or perhaps someone else will have some other suggestions for you.
>
> Good luck!
>
> --
> 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 (including AVCCAM & NXCAM) and XDCAM EX].
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"HobbyDocumentary" <emailmianwali@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:9b699406-dd9e-4c0a-8697-f40f30a85cb6@k35g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
>I am stuck with my video project for months now.It rendered well but
> when I used a built-in audio filter throughout my one hour video it
> refuses to render fully and goes for error half way. I have read that
> there is a bug in Premiere that does not allow an audio filter or a
> auto color correction filter to be used beyond a certain length of
> video.Is this correct? if yes then is the bug gone in CS4? Any
> solution idea would be great.
>
> My System
> P-IV 3.0 GHz
> 2 Gb RAM
> Windows XP
> Premiere CS3
I'm assuming that you are rendering Mini-DV...;-) I don't know
of any bug in CS3 that would do this (it seems unlikely, although
there may be some limited number of shifts available for auto color
correction, if it can do that at all...), but there is an easy work
around. Export the video as files in roughly thirds of the original
(avoiding color shifts at the file end points so the color doesn't shift
suddenly when these parts are rejoined later), then reimport these
parts and place them on a timeline. They should then export to a
camera, or as a single file. If you cannot avoid color filtering at the
part ends, extend these considerably so that you can make VERY
slow dissolves where the parts are rejoined, in synch. I don't know
if Premiere's auto-correction filters can shift-as-they-go on changing
material, or if they just find a reasonable average and attempt to
apply that to the whole video. If the latter, unless all your material is
shot identically, and under identical conditions, expecting an overall
color correction to work very well may not be reasonable and you
may need to color correct at the clip level. Good color correction is
a bit of an art, often ignored in documentaries to the detriment of
the quality of the final products.
--DR
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"geronimo" <Jamesw@grandecom.net> wrote in message
news:obi3m5ljk2mg5n056pap0ac7vsj47hlvg4@4ax.com...
> I have used Vegas Video 8 with my present mini-DV camcorder which
> connects to the PC and Vegas via a firewire connector. Works fine.
> If I get a Canon hi-def flash drive camcorder which has no firewire
> and uses a USB2 connection, is this Vegas compatible with USB2
> capture? Isn't firewire a little faster than USB 2.0? I am not sure
> when, if ever, I might want to shoot in hi-def, definintely not at
> first. Thanks.
If you are using Vegas Pro 8, you can (sorta...) edit the likely HD
file type from the still camera, but unless your computer hardware
is recent and really "umphy" (a technical term...;-), the process of
editing these HD files may not be very pleasant. With Mini-DV,
DVCam, D8, and HDV (HD), the transfer of material is made in
relatively slow real time from tape to/from the computer using
FireWire - and editing the resulting files is relatively easy. With
AVCHD video files from still cameras and some camcorders,
the transfer is made rapidly using USB - but editing it is relatively
more difficult. These things have nothing to do with the speed of
FireWire versus USB transfer, but it has to do with the
characteristics of the video format types.
--DR
~~~~~~~~~~~~
"geronimo" <Jamesw@grandecom.net> wrote in message
news:p646m5te2j3tv4en58lkr9vve4900c7msf@4ax.com...
> Ok...well that is all very helpful info. But no one really addressed
> specifically how Vegas 8 works with the footage brought into the
> editing PC from a flashdrive camcorder. I think I get it....there
> really is no "capture" process involved. It just copying the files on
> the flash drive to the hard drive. Well, I know Vegas 8 recognizes
> AVI, MPEG, and a couple of other movie file types....but what about
> the flashdrive files? Do the AVCHD files/ movie clips have to be
> converted before Vegas 8 can import and work with them? If so then
> the advantage of not having to do a real-time capture of footage might
> be outweighed by tedious file conversion time. I think Vegas 8 dates
> back prior to the advent of flash drive camcorders, doesn't it?
I thought I had addressed this earlier with, "If you are using Vegas *Pro*
8, you can (sorta...) edit the likely HD [AVCHD] file type from the still
camera, but unless your computer hardware is recent and really "umphy"
(a technical term...;-), the process of editing these HD files may not be
very pleasant." If you shoot lower-resolution video files, editing memory
card files becomes easier. You do simply transfer files through USB
to the computer, and these are ready to import into suitable editing
programs. You were not very specific about which Vegas version you
have, and some will handle HD, and others won't. BTW, the best
"bang-for-the-buck" with Vegas is currently Platinum 9 - but if you
have Pro 8, it *should* work... Again, unless you have a very powerful
computer, editing 1080 AVCHD, especially the 24 Mbps version, is
no fun (I've "ranted" in the past about the appeal of the seeming
simplicity of AVCHD, but then reality can strike a cruel blow when it
comes time to editing some of the better AVCHD versions in terms
of quality). Try importing files into the program you have, put one onto
the timeline, see if playback in the preview window is OK, make a few
edits with transitions, and try exporting the test video in the same format
as the original. If all that works, you have answered your own questions...
--DR
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"reqluq" <scredcropshonnospam@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:1_ydnTlbp-dwx_fWnZ2dnUVZ_tudnZ2d@supernews.com...
> I need a cam to make videos of my band to put on tv etc.. what is best
> cam for around $1000 to $1500 for this...
For $1500, how 'bout two cameras, so you can cut between them
and make a more interesting video - and do it in HD, to boot! ;-)
That amount should cover a pair of discount-priced Canon HV40s
(reviewed here --
http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/Canon_HV20-HV30.htm), and
add an under-$75 editing program (see --
http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/hdv-editing.htm, and --
http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/Sony-editing.htm). This is
assuming you shoot under good light levels, and have reasonably good
shooting technique. The HD edited video can be reduced to good
quality SD, if needed (better than if it had been shot originally in SD
Mini-DV).
--DR
~~~~~~~~~
"reqluq" <scredcropshonnospam@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:o7Sdndb-_vDeQPHWnZ2dnUVZ_h2dnZ2d@supernews.com...
> "Frank" <frank@nojunkmail.humanvalues.net> wrote in message
> news:kkbpm5pfeof3j6ass248ih6ev5n1aije87@4ax.com...
>> On Fri, 5 Feb 2010 16:25:40 -0500, in 'rec.video.production',
>> in article <Re: Cam for taking band videos>,
>> "reqluq" <scredcropshonnospam@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>http://www.camcorderinfo.com/content/Canon-Vixia-HV40-Camcorder-Review-37194.htm
>>>*Also, how in the heck can they charge $1000 for hdv. This used to be the
>>>inexpensive HDV camera of the bunch. I could buy a much better camera for
>>>just a few hundred more????*
>>>Ok they say it's around $800 but, could a grand or even 1200 get a *much
>>>better* cam?
>> To use B&H prices as an example, the Canon HV40 is currently going for
>> $699 with free USA shipping.
>>
>> As far as I'm concerned, the next step up is the Sony PMW-EX1R XDCAM
>> EX camcorder for $6299.
> If you are aying taht the next step up from the HV40 at 699 is the sony at
> 6299 I'm impressed and will but one tomorrow..the Hv40 thaty is
> Thanks
> req
As I originally pointed out in the first response to your question, for your
given limit of $1500, you could get two HV40s, and there are two good
reasons for doing so: 1), a two-viewpoint shoot (with maybe one camera
showing the overall view of the band, and the other either hand-held and
wandering, or also tripod-mounted with a different view - maybe close-in,
or whatever) makes for a FAR more interesting video when these two are
edited together - and, 2), tape is subject to dropouts, and the second
view gives you cut-away "cover" material if you are not shooting multiple
takes (but multiple takes can serve with a single camera, if done well).
Accessories should include maybe one next-size-up battery for each
camera, a decent stereo mic (at the low end, I like the Sony 908C, under
$100 but unfortunately recently discontinued - but you may be able to
still find them), and a good editing program (I like Sony Platinum 9,
under $75 PP from Amazon). See my first post above for URLs for
more on these. For not much more than your upper limit (and some
experience...), you should be able to produce some high grade results
in either SD or HD, on tapes or on SD or HD DVDs on a tight budget.
>> At the high-end, there's the Sony SRW-9000 for about $75,000 which,
>> obviously, is what any self-respecting band would use. :)
>
> hehe
Naw - what he needs is the Red 1 camera and Nikkor lenses...!
8^)
--DR
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Keith W. Blackwell" <keith.blackwell@homemail.com>
wrote in message news:hkssft$pen$2@usenet01.boi.hp.com...
> Mike Kujbida <kXuXjXfXam@xplornet.com> wrote:
>> Don't forget that the audio on these units is generally pretty bad.
> Do people shoot "music videos" these days with live audio?
> I can see why they might for a great live performance, especially
> when said performance is being marketed as the audio product as well,
> but isn't it usually about using a studio track? And in that case,
> you'll only use camera audio to help sync video to the *real* audio.
> Same could be said for when using separate audio recorder, which
> even low-budget film-makers do. Right? And there again, even if
> the music video is to use the live performance audio, wouldn't you
> want that to be mixed and recorded separately from the camera? I
> am pretty sure that I would. I certainly wouldn't want to use a
> camera's built-in mic or any on-camera mic to try to capture the
> music that would be the final music video's sound track! Of course,
> sometimes, you just gotta do what you gotta do...
>
> But what do I know? I'm just a software engineer posing as an
> audio tweaker with hobbiest tendencies in the video realms.
>
> --
> Keith W. Blackwell
> (my employer has nothing to do with this)
You make several good points - but I gather from the OP's
posts that his approach to making videos is rather casual and
non-pro oriented, using a short budget...
--DR
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"reqluq" <scredcropshonnospam@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:LLidnb3sQqLv-u7WnZ2dnUVZ_sednZ2d@supernews.com...
> "David Ruether" <d_ruether@thotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:hkk191$6kg$1@ruby.cit.cornell.edu...
>> As I originally pointed out in the first response to your question, for your
>> given limit of $1500, you could get two HV40s, and there are two good
>> reasons for doing so: 1), a two-viewpoint shoot (with maybe one camera
>> showing the overall view of the band, and the other either hand-held and
>> wandering, or also tripod-mounted with a different view - maybe close-in,
>> or whatever) makes for a FAR more interesting video when these two are
>> edited together - and, 2), tape is subject to dropouts, and the second
>> view gives you cut-away "cover" material if you are not shooting multiple
>> takes (but multiple takes can serve with a single camera, if done well).
>> Accessories should include maybe one next-size-up battery for each
>> camera, a decent stereo mic (at the low end, I like the Sony 908C, under
>> $100 but unfortunately recently discontinued - but you may be able to
>> still find them), and a good editing program (I like the Sony Platinum 9,
>> under $75 PP from Amazon). See my first post above for URLs for
>> more on these. For not much more than your upper limit (and some
>> experience...), you should be able to produce some high grade results
>> in either SD or HD, on tapes or on SD or HD DVDs on a tight budget.
> I have the music recorded in sonar I will export it and sync it in vegas 8..
> so no good mic really needed.
If you are synching others' work to your images and publishing it
(as in, showing it on TV) without credit for the music and permission
to use it, you could get into trouble with copywrites (which can get
expensive...).
> And why can't I do the two shoots with one cam,first one angle and then
> another
> Thanks
>
> req
For what you are now describing, this would work fine - and you
can use the actual recorded tracks for synchronizing the clips while
editing...
--DR
~~~~~~~~~~~~
"reqluq" <scredcropshonnospam@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:jNKdnYgz_NI1S-XWnZ2dnUVZ_jmdnZ2d@supernews.com...
> "David Ruether" <d_ruether@thotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:hl13o9$ivk$1@ruby.cit.cornell.edu...
>> "reqluq" <scredcropshonnospam@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:LLidnb3sQqLv-u7WnZ2dnUVZ_sednZ2d@supernews.com...
>>> "David Ruether" <d_ruether@thotmail.com> wrote in message
>>> news:hkk191$6kg$1@ruby.cit.cornell.edu...
>>>> As I originally pointed out in the first response to your question, for your
>>>> given limit of $1500, you could get two HV40s, and there are two good
>>>> reasons for doing so: 1), a two-viewpoint shoot (with maybe one camera
>>>> showing the overall view of the band, and the other either hand-held and
>>>> wandering, or also tripod-mounted with a different view - maybe close-in,
>>>> or whatever) makes for a FAR more interesting video when these two are
>>>> edited together - and, 2), tape is subject to dropouts, and the second
>>>> view gives you cut-away "cover" material if you are not shooting multiple
>>>> takes (but multiple takes can serve with a single camera, if done well).
>>>> Accessories should include maybe one next-size-up battery for each
>>>> camera, a decent stereo mic (at the low end, I like the Sony 908C, under
>>>> $100 but unfortunately recently discontinued - but you may be able to
>>>> still find them), and a good editing program (I like the Sony Platinum 9,
>>>> under $75 PP from Amazon). See my first post above for URLs for
>>>> more on these. For not much more than your upper limit (and some
>>>> experience...), you should be able to produce some high grade results
>>>> in either SD or HD, on tapes or on SD or HD DVDs on a tight budget.
>>> I have the music recorded in sonar I will export it and sync it in vegas
>>> 8.. so no good mic really needed.
>> If you are synching others' work to your images and publishing it
>> (as in, showing it on TV) without credit for the music and permission
>> to use it, you could get into trouble with copywrites (which can get
>> expensive...).
> It's my band..my music, my lyrics, copyrighted to me..... my images.... all
> mine mine mine ......mine...... all credits are mine. sheesh
Just a bit of advice... Your "behavior" here after your first post suggested
that you were a troll, so I stopped responding to you until it looked like you
were serious, if somewhat inexperienced with the use of good manners.
We all try to help those who genuinely seek aid, but bad attitudes are not
appreciated, especially if an OP appears to be becoming upset since we
have failed to be mind readers (in lieu of specific information having been
provided...) and we have made assumptions of possibilities in order to make
potentially useful points or to provide potentially useful information...
>>> And why can't I do the two shoots with one cam,first one angle and then
>>> another
>>> Thanks
>>>
>>> req
>> For what you are now describing, this would work fine - and you
>> can use the actual recorded tracks for synchronizing the clips while
>> editing...
>> --DR
>
> Thanks
--DR
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Wim" <wim.eising@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:73f27750-9ffe-4a65-b00a-1a4b103307b6@l26g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
> You're right: HF200 is my model... HD indeed
> I've got a ACER Intel 2.5GHz Quad Core + 4GB + W7 64 bit, so I think
> that'll do the job....
This model can record HD in many data rates, with 17 Mbps and 24 Mbps
being the highest. Try both with your computer and software to see if you
can get sufficient smoothness of playback in the Preview Window using
at least *some* quality setting for playback in Vegas while editing (24 Mbps
will be a challenge...). Also make sure that you can export edited video in
the same format (data rate) it was shot in to maintain original quality, and
that your software does not recompress unchanged footage (which results
in loss of quality if it does). You need only a few short clips to find these
things out. BTW, my 2.83 Ghz quad-core with three gigs of RAM with
32-bit XP is not capable of editing 24 Mbps AVCHD "comfortably" (read,
"at all"...), since the playback quality is inadequate for reasonable previewing.
If you are using a 64-bit OS with Vegas 9 64-bit, you may have a chance...
(playback quality with Vegas depends neither on system RAM quantity nor
on video card RAM quantity, above a lesser amount than you have).
--DR
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Worn Out Retread" <newdoverman@yahoo.ca> wrote in message
news:hm10h5$i0a$1@news.datemas.de...
> Thank you all for your suggestions and comments.
>
> I will be downloading the trial versions of Sony Movie Studio 9 Platinum and
> Cyberlink Power Director 8 Ultimate.
>
> Some questioned the price point but as a pensioner on a fixed income price
> is a BIG point. I have been using computers for 30 years and I don't want to
> spend a lot of time and frustration trying to learn a program whose
> documentation is barely recognizable as pertaining to the product being
> used. Corel has frustrated me enough already so being "user friendly" is a
> must.
I began with Ulead/Corel, and although it is supposed to be a "basic"
editor, once I had gotten used to "real" editors, like Sony's and Adobe's,
I found the Ulead/Corel's interface REALLY annoying/frustrating (see
my comparison of three editors [plus related ones] at --
http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/hdv-editing.htm for more, and my
[rather unfortunately unclear...;-] Sony basic guide at --
http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/Sony-editing.htm, and the [very
clear] Sony video tutorials on the Sony site at --
www.sonycreativesoftware.com/support/trainingvids.asp?prod=moviestudio).
The Sony products include great interactive tutorials (IF you can figure
out what Sony is likely to call the operation you want to do...;-).Note that
Adobe software appears to be a poor choice for editing HD, though, for
reasons given in the above...
> I have discovered that some of my first digital projects can no longer be
> played in today's DVD players....either stand alone or on new computers.
> They will still play on old computers though and that isn't a great
> situation to find one's self. There are converters available but I haven't
> found the results to be worth the trouble. Luckily, I have the original
> tapes to use for re-doing the projects to a more modern standard, while I
> still have a camera that can do the transfer to computer.....time and
> technology wait for no one.....not even me.
Keep the tapes and a working camera - they may outlive any other means
for archiving video, except possibly using special (expensive) disks and/or
the use of multiple hard-drives for copies.
> My next problem will be how to archive my tapes so that years down the road
> they will be useable either by me or my family....tape format isn't going to
> be around for ever and neither is my old camera :-(
So far, tape is still pretty reliable for archiving (standard DVDs and small
external HDs aren't...).
> Thanks, you guys are great.
>
> Ron P
Yup! 8^)
--DR
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"james" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:4b8d57f6$0$14750$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com...
> There are many software to do video stablizing after the video is shot. They
> basically shift and rotate the image. This results in dancing black edges
> around the video. The most common solution is to zoom in the video to avoid
> showing this black edge. But I don't like this solution; it lowers the
> resolution and causes the video to become blurry.
>
> Since the edge usually contain static background material, it should be
> possible to fill these black edges with video clips before or after the
> current frame. A smart plug-in would not just find a frame that fill up the
> black edge, but should be able to align and blend the scene, just like
> photo-stitching software.
>
> Does such software exist?
You do not say if you are working with SD or HD. I have
used Mercalli with HD and a bit of presharpening combined
with editing out especially shaky clip ends (description at --
http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/Mercalli.htm), and this
works well. Others prefer other solutions...
--DR
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"NadCixelsyd" <nadcixelsyd@aol.com> wrote in message
news:de3c58f6-6bdc-4521-882e-4157e5c632f4@y17g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
> I'm about to purchase my first video camera in 18 years. Rather than
> ask for recommendations here, I'm asking for recommendations for sites
> that review camcorders. Specifically, I'm looking for a camcorder
> that will do HD (720P is OK), but time-lapse is a requirement. I'm
> also looking for recommendations/sites that review video editing
> software.
I do both, here --
http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/articles.html#video.
Sometimes I like Camcorderinfo.com's reviews also.
BTW, for stop-motion video, you may be better off shooting
sequences with a small still camera and dumping the images
onto a video editor's timeline. Also BTW, few (compact)
video cameras that shoot 720p have stabilizers - and more
"serious" (although still fairly cheap) video cameras shoot
1080. For its price, it is hard to beat the tape-based Canon
HV40 for image quality and ease of editing (although sound
is another matter - see my review for more on this). Also
for the price, it is hard to beat Sony Vegas Platinum 9 editing
software for price and versatility (see my comparison of
editing programs - and note the important shortcoming of
Premiere for editing HD). Have fun with this - recent cameras,
software, and camcorders have made making surprisingly high
quality videos amazingly easy (although maybe not at first...;-).
--DR
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Bob Ford" <imagesinmotion@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:fl7op5h68kaopio66cgbickd5g3itggiku@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 14 Mar 2010 00:12:00 +0100, "Alfred Bovin"
> <alfred@bovin.invalid> wrote:
>>First of all I should say that I'm a complete video making rookie. I'm
>>however a musician and composer and I've got the idea that videoes to some
>>of my tracks may help a bit on the exposition of them, so I want to try out
>>if I can do something in this area.
>>
>>At the moment I think I'm mostly into some animated stuff, and I've a bit
>>with Ulead Videostudio but my main problem is to get it synchronized
>>correcly to the video. That is: I find it difficult to make the
>>animations/still images change at specific beats in the music track and so
>>on.
>>
>>Do you have any advice regarding software or something else that will help
>>me in this process?
> I don't do much NLE editing but when I do, I use Adobe Premiere
> Elements V7.0. I'm pretty sure it has a built in function to enable
> cutting on the beats of an audio track.
>
> Bob Ford
My Premiere Elements 4 has it. My only caveat is the usual:
Premiere isn't a very good program for editing HD (see my
http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/hdv-editing.htm for why...),
but it is fine for SD.
--DR
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Longfellow" <not@this.address> wrote in message
news:3KednR1gDMyk7AHWnZ2dnUVZ_o-dnZ2d@posted.olypeninternet...
> The system is all put together, ready for software. I was about to by
> CS4 today, and get on with things. But questions arose:
>
> CS5 is due out fairly soon, and it is supposed to be better set up for
> 64 bit systems. Which means I may very well want to upgrade.
>
> So, the question: How well (or poorly) does Adobe software upgrade?
> I'd really rather not have to buy the entire CS5 if I decide upgrading
> is worth the effort, but if "fresh installation" is really preferable
> with Adobe software, I may be better advised to wait for CS5.
>
> Anyone have that sort of experience with Adobe products? If so,
> comments would be appreciated.
>
> Thanks for reading.
>
> Longfellow
Relevant only to video editing and HD, but there are better editors
for HD than Adobe's, although that is fine for SD (see my
http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/hdv-editing.htm for why...)
--DR
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"fallai" <rynato@gmail.com> wrote in message news:1578909a-b77c-4c1a-a99f-bc2cdaf5bb9e@l11g2000pro.googlegroups.com...
> Hello all. I have a home studio which I'm upgrading to HDTV - I've got
> the computer and software tools, I'm adding an EX-1 for shooting and
> some routing to send the video to an HDTV from my editing setup.
>
> I'm looking for a decent 42" HDTV unit which is suitable to
> professional use as far as viewing footage, motion graphics and edited
> programs. If I were only buying for home viewing, I'd probably get a
> Samsung. Just wondering if there are any models which are particularly
> suited to professional use? Perhaps because of the color quality, fine
> control over the picture, or inputs???
I've found that if you look casually at many "good" 1080p HDTVs, they look
more alike than different (excepting the occasional one with off-color balance),
regardless of specs. BUT! If you look carefully, they do vary in important ways.
Some have uneven illumination (and I was surprised to see very noticeable
illumination roll-off in the outer two inches of a Sharp LED-illuminated Aquos),
and if using the TV as a monitor, it must have defeatable auto corrections,
especially for dark tones. If you look critically at white text on black background,
you will see many flaws (a ringing "halo", stairstepping, ghosting, smearing, etc.
[I've seen only one TV that is free of all these, mine, but........;-]). Look for skin
color without hints of "lobster" or green. and with accurate-looking foliage
greens, blue sky, and neutral clouds. BTW, I've never been happy with the
adequacy of viewing HD even on a good 24" 1920 LCD computer monitor.
--DR
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"c_atiel" <fac_187@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:ho81ab$2hqf$1@adenine.netfront.net...
> Photoshop and video editing are more dependent on sheer processor power than
> anything else, secondarily on multiple cores.
> That is why Apple's woefully underpowered/overpriced boxes are really beside
> the point, unless you like staring at a cursor. Check the specs and you sill
> see that Apple innards are largely last generation notebook parts.
> People still buy Toyotas for their perceived quality too.
> Why you would want to pay a premium for Sony is your choice: there is far
> better bang for the buck from mainstream vendors like Dell, HP and Acer. Go
> a little further off the beaten track and you would be astounded at what you
> can get for the same $.
> If you want to do quality, color managed printing you need a separate
> monitor than can be properly calibrated for light and dark tones. This is
> nearly impossible on all in one machines, particularly Apples.
> Don't take my word for it, and particularly do not take the work of Apple
> users, read the literature on monitor calibration.
> Buy into the most powerful Intel I series multicore processor with a
> non-motherboard/separate graphics card that is at least Direct X9 compatible
> that you can afford. If video editing is important to you there is a slight
> speed bump with a few programs that use Nvidia's proprietary GPU algorithms,
> although a more universal GPU process is pending.
> Photoshop does not use multiple cores for most processes, which is why it is
> dependent on brute CPU power. CS4's GPU use is negligible but may improve in
> CS5.
When I did a modest upgrade of RAM and buss speeds with a new
motherboard (with a very modest CPU clock speed increase) when
going from a dual core to a quad core Intel CPU, I got almost exactly
the expected increase in speed when rendering changed HD HDV video
(the computer was 2.17X faster using Vegas Pro editing software, which
can use multiple threads and cores). Editing 1920x1080 AVCHD video
material (from memory card or hard drive sources) is still painful, though,
since previewing the video while editing is not smooth, large enough, or
sharp enough (all together) to be practical yet on my computer. New
video card types should cure this problem...
--DR
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Argo22" <markrc@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:c1b33924-e7ed-4c5b-acb5-885492025e09@g28g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...
> Recently bought a Mac Pro for editing HDV footage. Here are some of
> the specs:
>
> 2 x 8core Xeon Processors
> 6GB Ram
> Nvidia Geforce GT 120 (dual head video card)
> Final Cut Studio
> Canon Vixia HV40 (to use as ingest deck)
> Canon XH-A1 camera for shooting
> 1 TB Western Digital (Black)
>
> I would like to have realtime HD output of my time line. Since putting
> this machine together, i have discoverd that this cannot be done via
> firewire. What options do i have? would a BlackMagic Intensity card
> work, or something else?
>
> Also, still getting RT issues playing timeline. Would a stripe raid
> help in this issues? If so, how reliable is software raid through Snow
> Leopard. Apple wants $800+ for a raid card for the mac pro, so for me
> right now that is out of the question.
>
> Any suggestions?
> Thanks
Bits of information: my PC with a single dual-core 2.66 would play the
HDV timeline smoothly at full resolution, but not with any filters applied
unless the material was prerendered. My slightly faster clock speed
quad-core (neither was used with the fastest available MB and RAM,
and both with a good Nvidia card - but RAM amount on this proved
irrelevant since it is the CPU that determines playback smoothness [my
drives are old, slower, and not in RAID - and are just fine...]) will play
the HDV timeline with one added filter without prerendering. I use
Sony Vegas Pro, which can simultaneously play the timeline in the
software, and also export it to an HDTV with a dual-head card with the
appropriate video connectors. You may also be able to export the timeline
to the HV40 by FireWire, then use its analogue outputs to show it (in
lower quality) on a TV, but I'm not sure... (BTW, for PC, there are a
couple of Vegas HD editing programs that are under $100 and have the
TV-select viewing option - Movie Studio HD and Movie Studio Platinum.
Fast PCs can also be relatively quite cheap...)
--DR
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"W" <persistentone@spamarrest.com> wrote in message
news:Rd6dnSNHHvy69yTWnZ2dnUVZ_s6dnZ2d@giganews.com...
> "fallai" <rynato@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1578909a-b77c-4c1a-a99f-bc2cdaf5bb9e@l11g2000pro.googlegroups.com...
>> Hello all. I have a home studio which I'm upgrading to HDTV - I've got
>> the computer and software tools, I'm adding an EX-1 for shooting and
>> some routing to send the video to an HDTV from my editing setup.
>>
>> I'm looking for a decent 42" HDTV unit which is suitable to
>> professional use as far as viewing footage, motion graphics and edited
>> programs. If I were only buying for home viewing, I'd probably get a
>> Samsung. Just wondering if there are any models which are particularly
>> suited to professional use? Perhaps because of the color quality, fine
>> control over the picture, or inputs???
> I don't have a solution for you (I am currently looking for a replacement
> HDTV 42" myself), but I can tell you some things to watch for:
>
> 1) We started out with the Westinghouse LVM-42W2 monitor, which does
> 1920x1080p. Unfortunately, we found out the entire Westinghouse LVM
> product family suffers from a fatal flaw: when you switch a video source
> from 1080i to 1080P, the monitor loses synchronization and goes crazy. You
> have to power off and back on, and even then sometimes that won't reset the
> image.
Hmmmm.... We have the same 42", and it is truly excellent, once one
adjusts *everything* to optimize the picture (the factory settings are
WAY off...), and once one realizes that the picture is sharper than most,
but only when viewed on axis (best from about 6.5'), where the color
and picture brilliance are also optimized (the vertical viewing angle is
very limited, but good horizontal viewing extends to one couch cushion
on either side of the optimal center position - and the payoff for this is
that sharper-than-usual picture, at least when viewed from the center
couch cushion...;-), and the room lighting level must be adjusted to
optimize the blacks... An early discovery for us was that this TV had
no 1080p on the HDMI input(!) - one must use the DVI input for
connecting a Blu-ray player (which puts out 1080p) and the HDMI
input for the cable box (which puts out 1080i, never 1080p), unless in
a slightly later version they attempted to "correct" this, causing
problems (we never see the synchronization problems you report on
our LVM-42W2 or on our Westinghouse 32" 720p (which also accepts
different resolutions without problems). BTW, for our *particular*
LVM-42W2, these are the settings I prefer for both HDMI and DVI
inputs -- Brightness - 39, Contrast - 80, Saturation - 46, Hue - -3,
Color temp. - Neutral, Sharpness - 8, Backlight - 0. The picture is
excellent in every way (and I'm a nut about this - visiting BB or Sears
brings out the worst in me as I point out the deficiencies of what is on
display...;-). Also BTW, there is no auto dark-tone, so this TV can be
used as a monitor - and it has no tuner, so it must be used as a monitor.
> 2) Given your objective is higher end videography, you should probably look
> for a monitor that supports 1080P at 24Hz. Some movies are recorded at 24
> Hz, which gives a more fluid motion in action sequences. Most DVD players
> will play that back at 60Hz. If you have a DVD that supports 24Hz playback
> and your DVD player supports it, and the monitor supports it (all three have
> to support the standard), then you will get a much more fluid motion playing
> back video sequences. I have no idea if common video editing applications
> will support that standard, but probably you should look for a monitor that
> supports 24Hz playback just to give yourself options to experiment with
> that.
Many TVs will convert normal material to 24P if it was shot that way,
with varying degrees of success - but I have ALWAYS been mystified
by the desire to use such a deficient frame rate. It results in "judder"
and other undesirable artifacts, like wheels spinning backwards, and it
was the bane of movie cameramen who were essentially forced to pan
in one direction only and as slowly as possible to attempt to minimize
the ill effects. If one could shoot and view in 240 fps *interlaced*, one
would get a MUCH smoother picture with motion than shooting at
24p, which is simply a remnant of the bad old days of motion shooting.
> If someone would like to recommend specific manufacturers and product
> families that support:
>
> 1) high quality images
> 2) 1920x1080p native resolution
> 3) excellent ability to switch 1080i to 1080p based on switching the video
> source to the monitor on a single uplink (as when the video sources go
> through a common receiver)
> 4) support of 1080P24 standard
>
> we would appreciate the recommendations.
> --
> W
Well, the Westinghouse LVM-42W2 satisfies "1" (with adjustments of
the picture controls), "2" (with DVI used for 1080p, HDMI for 1080i),
"3", and also "4" (but consider the inherent deficiencies of this frame rate,
but movies shot in 24fps film on both standard commercial DVDs and
on Blu-ray still look VERY good on this TV...). VHS looks "sloppy",
though (it looks much better on the 32" viewed at 10'), but I use these
settings for the AV input of the 42" - Br. 40, Con. 53, Sat. 58, Hue 4,
C.T. Normal, Sh. 6, Back. 0. Blu-ray and upsampled SD DVDs look
surprisingly close, but VHS is a VERY distant 3rd. On the much inferior
Westinghouse 32" (even with all three color adjustments available, I
cannot get the color and contrast accuracy and consistency across
various inputs and sources of the 32" that the 42" has), but it is adequate
for a little-used bedroom TV, and VHS does look surprisingly good on
it - and its built-in sound is adequate (I use a second sound system with
the 42" to get excellent sound since its built-in sound is terrible).
--DR
~~~~~~~~~~~~
"W" <persistentone@spamarrest.com> wrote in message
news:YM-dneKsf4d4HSfWnZ2dnUVZ_rydnZ2d@giganews.com...
> "David Ruether" <d_ruether@thotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:hpcvgg$h6n$1@ruby.cit.cornell.edu...
>> "W" <persistentone@spamarrest.com> wrote in message
>> news:Rd6dnSNHHvy69yTWnZ2dnUVZ_s6dnZ2d@giganews.com...
>> > "fallai" <rynato@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1578909a-b77c-4c1a-a99f-bc2cdaf5bb9e@l11g2000pro.googlegroups.com...
>> >> Hello all. I have a home studio which I'm upgrading to HDTV - I've got
>> >> the computer and software tools, I'm adding an EX-1 for shooting and
>> >> some routing to send the video to an HDTV from my editing setup.
>> >>
>> >> I'm looking for a decent 42" HDTV unit which is suitable to
>> >> professional use as far as viewing footage, motion graphics and edited
>> >> programs. If I were only buying for home viewing, I'd probably get a
>> >> Samsung. Just wondering if there are any models which are particularly
>> >> suited to professional use? Perhaps because of the color quality, fine
>> >> control over the picture, or inputs???
>> > I don't have a solution for you (I am currently looking for a replacement
>> > HDTV 42" myself), but I can tell you some things to watch for:
>> >
>> > 1) We started out with the Westinghouse LVM-42W2 monitor, which does
>> > 1920x1080p. Unfortunately, we found out the entire Westinghouse LVM
>> > product family suffers from a fatal flaw: when you switch a video source
>> > from 1080i to 1080P, the monitor loses synchronization and goes crazy.
>> > You have to power off and back on, and even then sometimes that won't
>> > reset the image.
>> Hmmmm.... We have the same 42", and it is truly excellent, once one
>> adjusts *everything* to optimize the picture (the factory settings are
>> WAY off...), and once one realizes that the picture is sharper than most,
>> but only when viewed on axis (best from about 6.5'), where the color
>> and picture brilliance are also optimized (the vertical viewing angle is
>> very limited, but good horizontal viewing extends to one couch cushion
>> on either side of the optimal center position - and the payoff for this is
>> that sharper-than-usual picture, at least when viewed from the center
>> couch cushion...;-), and the room lighting level must be adjusted to
>> optimize the blacks... An early discovery for us was that this TV had
>> no 1080p on the HDMI input(!) - one must use the DVI input for
>> connecting a Blu-ray player (which puts out 1080p) and the HDMI
>> input for the cable box (which puts out 1080i, never 1080p), unless in
>> a slightly later version, they attempted to "correct" this, causing
>> problems (we never see the synchronization problems you report on
>> our LVM-42W2 or on our Westinghouse 32" 720p (which also accepts
>> different resolutions without problems). BTW, for our *particular*
>> LVM-42W2, these are the settings I preferred for both HDMI and DVI
> By your own description, you put different inputs on different connectors,
> so how could you see the problem I am reporting? The problem with
> synchronization is happening when a *single input* changes from 1080i to
> 1080P.
>
> We have a LVM-37 in another room attached by DVI1 to a Windows XP computer
> runnning native 1080P, and we exactly duplicate this synchronization issue
> just by booting the PC alone. The screen goes crazy as soon as the Windows
> XP initial full resolution screen presents. Turning the monitor off and on
> corrects this.
>
> I can also duplicate this problem on either monitor by going into our high
> end Blu-Ray player and changing the video output from 1080i to 1080P.
> About six times out of 10, that will fry the screen and going back to 1080i
> the image corrects.
>
> I'm very happy with picture quality on the Westinghouse. I'm very annoyed
> I cannot get synchronization to work.
>
> --
> W
Dunno...
It would seem that if synchronization works by switching inputs on that
TV (using DVI for 1080p and HDMI for 1080i [the HDMI input on
this TV doesn't display 1080p anyway...]), that this is an easy solution,
and it is the one we use... With the 37", why not turn the TV on after
the computer has booted? BTW, the audio from all sources in our
setup goes to a switcher (with passive volume control for use with
things that have no built-in volume controls, like the Blu-ray player
and VHS deck - but I suppose an AV receiver would also work),
before going to the power amp (the built-in sound quality of the
LVM-42W2 is, uh, "less than stellar", unlike its picture...).
--DR
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Rex256" <NoJunkMail@invalid> wrote in message
news:fc8uq5p5ioi142cmr2vjcqqs420nh2ip7i@4ax.com...
> I've looked everywhere but I don't see where I can add a box** or
> circle** around an element in a film. Does anyone know how to do that
> in V V? I imagine it doesn't matter which version of Vegas Video
> being used, the technique should remain similar between versions, I
> imagine ...
>
> ** i.e., if you were in MS Paint, when you'd open an image and then
> choose rounded rectangle and no fill and drew it around an object in
> the image as a way to make it stand out. I'd like to do something
> similar in V V. I need to put a rounded rectangle around a face in
> the video and to underline some of the text after it pans down to the
> bottom of the image (the image has graphics and text and need to make
> a particular picture and text stand out).
Take a look here at "Pan and Scan Techniques" and "Track Motion" -
www.sonycreativesoftware.com/support/trainingvids.asp?prod=vegaspro.
You *may* be able to use no magnification, but place a crop edge where
you want it, and adjust the edge characteristics (but I've never done this
in Vegas - but it used to be easy in Premiere 6 using masks...). You may
also find something useful here -
www.sonycreativesoftware.com/support/trainingvids-stroud.asp, especially
at - www.sonycreativesoftware.com/video/video.asp?file=training/stroud/CroppingAnImage&title=Training+%2D+Les+Stroud%3A+Cropping+an+Image&VideoPref.
--DR
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"mike" <mkujbida@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:dc261932-6f22-42ef-b316-618fb19baff3@5g2000yqj.googlegroups.com...
On Apr 7, 2:54 pm, cam35pilot <cam35pi...@aol.com> wrote:
> On Apr 6, 5:20 pm, Mike Kujbida <kXuXjXf...@xplornet.com> wrote:
> > cam35pilot wrote:
> > > I hadn't used Vegas in a few months, then started a project a
> > > couple of weeks ago. Now simple cross-fades are really jittery and
> > > jumpy. For instance, a scene of a hangar door opening slowly, where I
> > > cut it and did a cross fade with the door further open has frames
> > > where the earlier scenes "jump" into the cross-fade.
> > > Could I have hit some setting that I don't know about, do you
> > > think, or could the software be corrupt and need re-install? I haven't
> > > seen any other problems, regular fade-to-blacks are smooth, it's only
> > > when cross-fading. Any help is appreciated.
> > > I think I'll upgrade soon, but I wanted to finish this project
> > > first, as it's for a friend.
> > > Rich
> > What OS?
> > What's your CPU?
> > How many hard drives?
> > What kind of footage is it?
> > Mike
> It's a pretty fast system, and I've had the slave HD for 2 years,
> never had a problem before (I keep the capture footage on the slave
> HD, the Vegas software on "C" ("C" is only 80 GB, 60% full, slave "E"
> drive is 280 GB, 50% full)). XP Home Ed, SP 3, Pentium4, 3.2 GHz with
> 3 GB of RAM. HD footage from Sony FX-1, like all that I do.
>
> I guess the software is corrupt, but I'm upgrading to Vegas Pro 8 next
> week (have 6 now), which is supposed to be easier on resources, from
> what I've read.
>
> I was just curious if there was some kind of setting that would
> create a "jumpiness" in transistions. With all the crazy video effects
> now, i wouldn't be surprised. I just want a nice cross-fade to move
> ahead in the door-opening sequence.
>
> I've tried some other captures just as a test, and same deal, so it's
> not the actual footage/capture that's corrupt.
>
> Thanks for your input.
>
> Rich
Sorry Rich but a Pentium4, 3.2 GHz doesn't come close to qualifying as
a "pretty fast system" these days.
I'm forced to use one at work (no upgrade money) and it struggles with
plain old miniDV footage.
A machine with an i7 processor, Windows 7 64-bit, two drives and loads
of RAM is cheap these days so I would strongly recommend an upgrade.
Mike
I agree - but I'm mystified why the P4 ever smoothly displayed
any transition with HDV unless the preview window was at a
small size and set for its lowest quality (and once rendered, its
footage should be smooth anyway). I don't know if Vegas 6
had the RAM-render feature (Pro 8 does) where up to 1024
megs of RAM can be assigned to previewing (long enough for
a short timeline segment (like a long transition plus a bit more,
viewed at 1/2 size at highest quality). Look under "Options",
"Preferences", "Video", "Dynamic RAM Preview max (MB)"
and set the "Max available" number given there (if this exists
in Pro 6). This will give quick smooth previewing of what is
under the work bar when you hit the "Enter" key, and the bar
will shorten automatically when it is finished rendering if you
made it too long for the available RAM (moving the work bar
destroys the RAM preview...).
--DR
~~~~~~
"David Ruether" <d_ruether@thotmail.com> wrote in message
news:hpkktr$cnk$1@ruby.cit.cornell.edu...
> "mike" <mkujbida@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:dc261932-6f22-42ef-b316-618fb19baff3@5g2000yqj.googlegroups.com...
> On Apr 7, 2:54 pm, cam35pilot <cam35pi...@aol.com> wrote:
>> On Apr 6, 5:20 pm, Mike Kujbida <kXuXjXf...@xplornet.com> wrote:
>> > cam35pilot wrote:
>> > > I hadn't used Vegas in a few months, then started a project a
>> > > couple of weeks ago. Now simple cross-fades are really jittery and
>> > > jumpy. For instance, a scene of a hangar door opening slowly, where I
>> > > cut it and did a cross fade with the door further open has frames
>> > > where the earlier scenes "jump" into the cross-fade.
>> > > Could I have hit some setting that I don't know about, do you
>> > > think, or could the software be corrupt and need re-install? I haven't
>> > > seen any other problems, regular fade-to-blacks are smooth, it's only
>> > > when cross-fading. Any help is appreciated.
>> > > I think I'll upgrade soon, but I wanted to finish this project
>> > > first, as it's for a friend.
>> > > Rich
>> > What OS?
>> > What's your CPU?
>> > How many hard drives?
>> > What kind of footage is it?
>> > Mike
>> It's a pretty fast system, and I've had the slave HD for 2 years,
>> never had a problem before (I keep the capture footage on the slave
>> HD, the Vegas software on "C" ("C" is only 80 GB, 60% full, slave "E"
>> drive is 280 GB, 50% full)). XP Home Ed, SP 3, Pentium4, 3.2 GHz with
>> 3 GB of RAM. HD footage from Sony FX-1, like all that I do.
>>
>> I guess the software is corrupt, but I'm upgrading to Vegas Pro 8 next
>> week (have 6 now), which is supposed to be easier on resources, from
>> what I've read.
>>
>> I was just curious if there was some kind of setting that would
>> create a "jumpiness" in transistions. With all the crazy video effects
>> now, i wouldn't be surprised. I just want a nice cross-fade to move
>> ahead in the door-opening sequence.
>>
>> I've tried some other captures just as a test, and same deal, so it's
>> not the actual footage/capture that's corrupt.
>>
>> Thanks for your input.
>>
>> Rich
> Sorry Rich but a Pentium4, 3.2 GHz doesn't come close to qualifying as
> a "pretty fast system" these days.
> I'm forced to use one at work (no upgrade money) and it struggles with
> plain old miniDV footage.
> A machine with an i7 processor, Windows 7 64-bit, two drives and loads
> of RAM is cheap these days so I would strongly recommend an upgrade.
> Mike
>
> I agree - but I'm mystified why the P4 ever smoothly displayed
> any transition with HDV unless the preview window was at a
> small size and set for its lowest quality (and once rendered, its
> footage should be smooth anyway). I don't know if Vegas 6
> had the RAM-render feature (Pro 8 does) where up to 1024
> megs of RAM can be assigned to previewing (long enough for
> a short timeline segment (like a long transition plus a bit more,
> viewed at 1/2 size at highest quality). Look under "Options",
> "Preferences", "Video", "Dynamic RAM Preview max (MB)"
> and set the "Max available" number given there (if this exists
> in Pro 6). This will give quick smooth previewing of what is
> under the work bar when you hit the "Enter" key, and the bar
> will shorten automatically when it is finished rendering if you
> made it too long for the available RAM (moving the work bar
> destroys the RAM preview...).
> --DR
[Just to pick a nit... In both posts and email, I detest gmail's and
AOL's inability to keep the proper (and therefore clear) posting
order and separation of posts by means of adding ">" markers
to the left of all the lines of all previous posts. The result is the
above, where, if Mike had not "signed" his post, his would have
been (not perfectly logically...;-) included as an indestinguishable
part of mine. This also renders "interleaving" of comments in posts
impractical, or if attempted, thoroughly confusing to the reader.
UGH!]
--DR
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Gene E. Bloch" <not-me@other.invalid> wrote in message
news:1n8hlwle4ac48$.vgido74gqqh1$.dlg@40tude.net...
> On Wed, 7 Apr 2010 09:50:05 -0400, David Ruether wrote:
>> "Gene E. Bloch" <not-me@other.invalid> wrote in message
>> news:5dv24jgq3wdj$.xj36r4cfquhz$.dlg@40tude.net...
>>> I had assumed it was real, to tell the truth, but since I was enjoying this
>>> little surrealistic thread, I wanted to continue in a related vein.
>>>
>>> Sometimes, I get the joke, but don't act like it - even in face-to-face
>>> situations. Of course, sometimes I don't get the joke. It can be a
>>> challenge for my friends :-)
>>> --
>>> Gene E. Bloch
>> Hmmm, maybe you are a fellow "Aspie"? 8^)
>> --DR
> I have speculated on that. I come from a generation (or several) before
> people talked about that or the related syndromes, and no one has even
> thought about actually (and formally) diagnosing any such thing in me.
>
> Besides, most of my engineer (or other tech) friends and even my brothers
> can be quite similar.
>
> Mostly, I think the humor thing I mentioned relates to (a) the often
> surrealistic or whimsical nature of my humor, and (b) an excellent poker
> face.
>
> On the receiving end, I will often riff on a serious aspect of a joke,
> which is one thing that leads to people thinking I missed the joke.
>
> And as I said, I definitely do miss a few :-)
>
> --
> Gene E. Bloch letters0x40blochg0x2Ecom
It was a "big bang" realization for me when I read about the
diagnosis of a childhood-friend-who-became-a-neurologist
of this for me in his notes - especially after I looked up the
many possible characteristics (I had most...) of Asberger's
Syndrome (gee, I wasn't just "odd", but instead I had a
"syndrome" that included a LOT of my multitude of
"peculiarities"...;-). It was a great relief to find this out and
to understand more about why I am the way I am. But, being
an "Aspie" can have both advantages and drawbacks...
--DR
~~~~~~~~~~
"Gene E. Bloch" <not-me@other.invalid> wrote in message
news:xbtypgaxfoox.1m9s856x8mxi3$.dlg@40tude.net...
> On Thu, 8 Apr 2010 17:48:51 -0400, David Ruether wrote:
>> But, being
>> an "Aspie" can have both advantages and drawbacks...
> Being a human (and you *are* one!)
Are you sure? Sometimes I wondered......;-)
(I used to think of myself as a "Martian". 8^)
> can have both advantages and drawbacks...
>
> Enjoy the former and deal with the latter :-)
>
> --
> Gene E. Bloch letters0x40blochg0x2Ecom
Easy for you to say! But, in practice, well.....
...................................................................
........................................................! 8^)
--DR
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"David McCall" <mccallmail@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:hprg2a$n66$1@news.albasani.net...
> "Ken Maltby" <kmaltby@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
> news:xIudnXxcXImAUl3WnZ2dnUVZ_oqdnZ2d@giganews.com...
>> "David" <postings@REMOVE-TO-REPLYconfidential-counselling.com> wrote in
>> message news:postings-1E5DC8.10080210042010@news.bigpond.com...
>>> A very good friend has always wanted to be a ballet dancer, but due to a
>>> injury had to give up dancing when she was about 9.
>>>
>>> As a gift I would like to make her a dvd with her dancing swan lake - so
>>> I need a video application that will allow me to put her face onto one
>>> of the dancers in a clip I have.
>>>
>>> Not intending to publish it or anything - just for her amusement
>>>
>>> Any suggestions about an application that will do that? Preferably for
>>> the Mac, but can use Windows xp if I have to
>>>
>>> David
>> That sounds like it could end up an exercise in cruelty. Both for
>> your friend and yourself.
>>
>> Research "Traveling Mattes". Practice with Wax or Wax2 (both free)
>> You may also want to check out the listing here, for Mac compatable
>> programs:
>> http://freeframe.sourceforge.net/
>>
>> Luck;
>> Ken
> Just as Ken said, this could backfire on the both of you.
> I would hesitate to attempt it without her approval AND participation.
>
> Pasting a face onto moving video would be extremely difficult at best.
> 2 solutions come to mind?
>
> The first would be to film a dancing body double that is made up to look
> like the original subject, but you would try to avoid her face as much as
> possible.
> then you would shoot the face and/or upper body of the real person moving
> in similar ways in the same environment. Even if she was in a wheel chair.
> Then you cut the 2 together avoiding the face of the dancer, and avoiding
> most of the body of the real girl. Can you say "Flash dance"?
[...]
>
> David
I saw this done on both The Golden Girls (with Betty White doing
some pretty astounding dance moves...;-) and on That 70's Show,
with one character roller-skating "impossibly" well. ;-) It was funny
both for knowing that it was impossible, and for knowing (with close
viewing) that it had been done with substitutions.
--DR
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Alan Lichtenstein" <arl@erols.com> wrote in message
news:4bc31147$0$4976$607ed4bc@cv.net...
>a couple of months ago, I posted a question regarding editing programs.
> As a pretty much rank amateur, I considered making an investment in
> one, as I thought I ought to learn how to properly edit for better
> artistic quality. I received a lot of good advice from everyone here,
> and for the most part, what I really learned is that I didn't have a
> clue about HOW any of these programs work. My needs were really far
> more basic than I imagined. So, based on what I learned from everyone
> here, I decided to begin at the literal bottom and just tinker with what
> I already have and really become familiar with how the rudimentary
> programs work, and then make my choice to one of the better programs
> that I was given so much advice about.
>
> So, to all of you, I offer my sincere thanks for your advice. You have
> all helped me in really understanding the limits of my abilities and
> what steps I should take to improve them in a logical learning curve. I
> intend to continue to lurk here to get the benefit of all you
> experiences and of course, your opinions.
I wrote this comparison of some basic editing programs
(with comments on some of their more "pro" variants), at -
www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/hdv-editing.htm, but after
having a friend buy the most basic Ulead/Corel software,
I realized that I could not teach its use long distance to him
over the 'phone since I disliked (and had so much trouble
with) its user interface. I did not recommend to him the
Adobe Premiere Elements editing program with its excellent
user interface, since he was going to be editing HDV HD
material, and Premiere is a poor choice for that. That left
(among the ones I was familiar with), Sony's Vegas Movie
Studio Platinum 9 (or now, "Movie Studio HD") for editing
either SD or HD. This program is somewhat more complex
(and capable), and it proved difficult to teach over the 'phone.
I therefore spent about 2 1/2 months writing a basic editing
guide for it (including basic "concept" info that you may find
useful), at - www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/Sony-editing.htm.
While writing it (it also includes the choices I recommend for
the many settings found in this program), I discovered the
Sony video tutorials that are on their web site, at -
www.sonycreativesoftware.com/support/trainingvids.asp?prod=moviestudio,
which make basic editing look very simple, and I recommend
these (NOTE: I have not mastered all of these - I use
whatever features I need in the program and don't bother
with the rest until I feel a need/desire to use them). Also, the
program has excellent step-by-step tutorials built into the
program, provided you can figure out what quirky name Sony
uses for the process you want to use...;-) If you read just the
first two paragraphs of my guide, they suggest starting with
a few clips (which can be made by cutting up a larger one) and
"jes' messin' 'roun'" with them. Do not attempt to "finish edit"
material immediately. And, KEEP NOTES (what you think
you will remember forever will last 10 minutes maximum at
first...;-). And, do try to have fun with it - video editing is like
making TV "sculptures" using your available "building blocks"
and the available techniques for "gluing them together". You
can use your imagination for doing this, even if the intended
result is a documentary in which the medium is not supposed
to take center stage. There is no "right" way to do things, and
you are free to break any rule you want to...;-)
--DR
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Professor Bubba" <bubba@nowhere.edu.invalid> wrote in message
news:210420101342003706%bubba@nowhere.edu.invalid...
> In article <hqncf0$s34$1@solaris.cc.vt.edu>, <ranck@vt.edu> wrote:
>> So, can anyone tell me what is "special" about 3D televisions?
>> I mean, what do they have to do to make it compatible? I've
>> seen 3D broadcast on regular old 4:3 color TVs back in the
>> 1970s or 80s. It seems to me that any TV with sufficient
>> resolution can handle the 2 color separation type of 3D, so
>> what is it with these new TVs that has to be different?
>>
>> As far as I can tell it's still just 2 sets of color images
>> filtered through colored lenses to give a stereoscopic view,
>> right?
> No. To answer your questions, read through these:
>
> http://www.popsci.com/gadgets/article/2010-01/its-about-time-3-d-comes-home
>
> http://www.3dtvscreen.com/
>
> http://electronics.howstuffworks.com/3d-tv.htm
I was recently surprised by two things regarding 3D TV --
1) I liked it (I hated the old two-color 3D technique - it
didn't work very well, and it spoiled the color). The
new system works very well and is pleasant to watch.
2) I already spotted some programming material on the
free HD on demand local network(!).
--DR
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Peter" <peternew@nospamoptonline.net> wrote in message
news:4b61a53e$0$30938$8f2e0ebb@news.shared-secrets.com...
> "Charles" <charlesschuler@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:hjqi81$hmb$1@news.eternal-september.org...
>> The OP asked about only two brands, but I certainly agree that Sony,
>> Pentax, Olympus and others are worth considering. This is more skill
>> limited than equipment limited ... a good photog with an average camera
>> will outdo a newbie with the latest rig 95% of the time.
> Yup! A more expensive camera does not make one a better photographer. If you
> have the need for a feature then you should get that camera, if you can
> afford it. Interestingly, Thom Hogan's review of the D3x makes it clear that
> camera is not for beginners. He points out that your results will be worse
> if you don't know what you are doing.
>
> http://www.bythom.com/nikond3xreview.htm
>
> --
> Peter
Of course, but we all know that the Nikopentasonolympunon will
out perform all the others, and it will cost less, too! 8^)
--DR
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~