DAVID RUETHER'S PHOTO-VIDEO POSTS
From 4/24/2010 Through 3/22/2011, Part 7
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
--------------------------------------------------------------------
[Posted in the alt.support.stuttering NG]
This NG has been dead for quite a while (killed off by immature
kids, I suspect), so I thought I would add something now to see
what happens... As is somewhat well known, substituting a
"funny" voice for your own (like Daffy Duck's or Pee-Wee's)
can get one through a speech trouble spot. Recently I discovered
the funny videos of "Fred" on YouTube (search fred, then look for
the version of "Fred Goes Swimming" with over 43,000,000 hits
for a good start). It turns out his speech in the videos is surprisingly
easy to simulate, even without helium (my voice is normally quite
low, and my speech slow to keep going, but the high-pitched
"mile-a-minute" Fred voice is easy for me, and fun! ;-). The
problem I have with all this is figuring out how to do it when I do
get bogged down and my speech is falling apart...
--DR
--------------------------------------------------------------------
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Die Wahrheit" <diewahrheit@somewherehonest.net> wrote in message news:8duju5pprn407irrdqdm5pc446v6m72mpk@4ax.com...
> Should you travel back to the same
> source at the speed of light [or part thereof...] then all effects of time
> distortion are negated. There will be no net effect of any time change at
> all upon your return. Contrary to every interpreter of Einstein's theories
> and all sci-fi novels written to date.
How about the experiment in which two matching atomic clocks are
used, one kept "stationary" on earth, the other flown around the earth?
Upon return, the clocks no longer (exactly) agree...
> Interestingly, if anything at all in the universe is traveling away from
> the center of your own unique event-horizon at the speed of light (which
> has been proven that there are such objects in your known universe), that
> then means you are traveling away from it at the speed of light. Yes, you
> are actually traveling at the speed of light at this very moment. And what
> happens when you travel at the speed of light?
For one thing, supposedly, mass approaches infinity as one approaches
the speed of light (I'm heavy, but not THAT heavy! ;-).
--DR
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
<A1247@gmail.com> wrote in message news:truau5pgul8m2c11991svfli1o4j86mbsc@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 7 May 2010 16:25:01 -0700 (PDT), C3 <C35790@aol.com> wrote:
>> A lot of damage has been done. Not the least of which is
>> the abortion holocaust.
> "Republicans believe that life begins at conception and ends at
> birth."
> ------------------------------------------------Barney Frank
That's a great line, and it unfortunately holds too much truth!
--DR
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Savageduck" <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote in message
news:201005031719258930-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom...
[...]
> ...and as far as using the word "marriage" I'm just fine leaving that
> to the religious conservatives stuck in the dark ages. Call it what you
> will, just provide equal protection under the law to all regardless of
> sexual preference.
>
> --
> Regards,
>
> Savageduck
My first inclination was to accept "civil unions" in lieu of
"marriages" for homosexuals, but that lasted less than a day.
Anything less than full "marriage", *both* legally and in name,
represents (and is) less than full equality. Of course, if "civil
unions" became the standard for everyone, and "marriage"
were bestowed by an *additional* religious ceremony (but
only if desired), then this would be acceptable...
--DR
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Bill Graham" <weg9@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:cvOdnWeT9uVDTELWnZ2dnUVZ_r2dnZ2d@giganews.com...
> "The Royal Spam" <spamalot@dontspamme.com> wrote in message
> news:C8058807.1BD97%spamalot@dontspamme.com...
>> What has this got to do with photography?
> You may be asked to photograph a gay wedding....do you know all the proper
> protocols of carrying out such an assignment? Can you charge off your
> expenses against your income on your taxes?
8^)
--DR
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Bill Graham" <weg9@comcast.net> wrote in message news:9qCdnWRbhsWWMkLWnZ2dnUVZ_sadnZ2d@giganews.com...
> "Neil Harrington" <never@home.com> wrote in message
> news:K7GdnZS-Y65VXUDWnZ2dnUVZ_tudnZ2d@giganews.com...
[...]
>> But again, they have EXACTLY the same rights, the same "equal protection
>> under the law" as everyone else. The issue is whether they should be given
>> some new "right" that didn't exist before, and a redefinition of
>> "marriage" to mean something it didn't mean before. It is this desire to
>> corrupt the language, and to trash an important concept in traditional
>> values, that is bothersome.
["NH" just keeps repeating this nonsense...]
> The IRS did that when they added a tax table for "married couples". It is an
> indisputable fact.....This table has to be available to all citizens in good
> standing....Homosexual couple so qualify. It may take a little time, but
> eventually the US Supreme court will have to allow gays to marry. It is
> chiseled on the wall....Sorry about that.....
Unfortunately, the court has a way out, and that is to question the
"legitimacy" of homosexuality as an inherent characteristic rather than
as a choice. Given the lineup presently on the court, it could go either
way, but my guess is that it would go against equality now (a couple
of more "decent" justices are needed for this to change, I think...).
--DR
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Bill Graham" <weg9@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:eK-dnRQ104OhLELWnZ2dnUVZ_jadnZ2d@giganews.com...
> I wonder how long it will take for the religious nuts to realize that they
> are not doing themselves any favors by getting the government to give them
> extra perks. Sooner or later, they will have to back out of every one. I bet
> the "Under God" will be removed from the pledge of allegiance to the flag
> too.....I predict within 20 years. I am as good a citizen as any religious
> person. I should be able to pledge my allegiance to my flag without
> professing a belief in any god or gods. Atheism is simple common sense. It
> should not be a consignment to a lower grade of citizenship.
Agreed...
--DR
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"LOL!" <lol@lol.org> wrote in message
news:jtcvt5drl26qs19f9lvmoibutujj3sfdsg@4ax.com...
> Here's some fun you can have in the meantime:
>
> For every bit of paper currency that leaves my hands I use a waterproof pen
> and simply pen in an "S" after the words "In God ..."
>
> "In GodS we Trust" sends a powerful message to all those monotheistic
> middle-east brainwashed idiots and fools.
>
> And there's not one damn thing they can do about it!
>
> LOL!
8^)
Back in my more political days, the members of a gay
organization I was in would bring in cash (I stopped off
at the bank and got many hundreds in $50 bills), and while
other things were going on, we would use the organization's
rubber stamp to stamp in red across the bills a very
noticeable "GAY MONEY"...;-) I don't know if this helped
any, but this small city has been very "gay-friendly" for
decades...;-)
--DR
,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Albert Ross" <spam@devnull.com.invalid> wrote in message news:e1b3u51e339bsadgpn066tfde6r8eehbmf@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 4 May 2010 10:46:41 -0400, "David Ruether"
> <d_ruether@thotmail.com> wrote:
>>"LOL!" <lol@lol.org> wrote in message news:jtcvt5drl26qs19f9lvmoibutujj3sfdsg@4ax.com...
>>> Here's some fun you can have in the meantime:
>>>
>>> For every bit of paper currency that leaves my hands I use a waterproof pen
>>> and simply pen in an "S" after the words "In God ..."
>>>
>>> "In GodS we Trust" sends a powerful message to all those monotheistic
>>> middle-east brainwashed idiots and fools.
>>>
>>> And there's not one damn thing they can do about it!
>>>
>>> LOL!
>>8^)
>>Back in my more political days, the members of a gay
>>organization I was in would bring in cash (I stopped off
>>at the bank and got many hundreds in $50 bills), and while
>>other things were going on, we would use the organization's
>>rubber stamp to stamp in red across the bills a very
>>noticeable "GAY MONEY"...;-) I don't know if this helped
>>any, but this small city has been very "gay-friendly" for
>>decades...;-)
>>--DR
> ISTR the Gay Liberation Front printed sticky labels that said
>
> Homosexuals Were Here, Did You Notice?
>
> You'd find them stuck on the seats in pubs and buses etc.
>
> IMO being gay only became socially acceptable in the UK once people
> realised there was MONEY to be made from Gay Bars, Gay Clubs, Gay
> Shops etc.
"Money" does talk...! 8^)
--DR
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Chris H" <chris@phaedsys.org> wrote in message
news:yxcaayDFPD4LFAz7@phaedsys.demon.co.uk...
> In message <hrpahu$d60$1@ruby.cit.cornell.edu>, David Ruether
> <d_ruether@thotmail.com> writes
>>"Savageduck" <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote in message
>>news:201005031719258930-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom...
>>[...]
>>> ...and as far as using the word "marriage" I'm just fine leaving that
>>>to the religious conservatives stuck in the dark ages. Call
>>> it what you will, just provide equal protection under the law to all
>>>regardless of sexual preference.
>>> --
>>> Regards,
>>>
>>> Savageduck
>>My first inclination was to accept "civil unions" in lieu of
>>"marriages" for homosexuals, but that lasted less than a day.
>>Anything less than full "marriage", *both* legally and in name,
>>represents (and is) less than full equality. Of course, if "civil
>>unions" became the standard for everyone, and "marriage"
>>were bestowed by an *additional* religious ceremony (but
>>only if desired), then this would be acceptable...
>>--DR
> That is the way to go... state recognises "civil unions" and the
> religions can do what they like with their rituals None of which have
> any bearing on the state.
> --
> \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
> \/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/
> \/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
This does require, though, that a religious marriage ceremony
alone can no longer be considered legally binding... It can't
be both ways for equality - either all must have the civil union
(with an optional religious "marriage"), or all must have access
to legal marriage.
--DR
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Peter" <peternew@nospamoptonline.net> wrote in message
news:4be045f6$0$7706$8f2e0ebb@news.shared-secrets.com...
> "Neil Harrington" <never@home.com> wrote in message
> news:c_WdnZi3ybvQqn3WnZ2dnUVZ_qKdnZ2d@giganews.com...
>> "Art Warner" <artwarner9723@astalavista.net> wrote in message
>> news:tq3st51s3tcjr2kfqic06ojqsfea59ngkc@4ax.com...
>>> On Sun, 2 May 2010 18:58:31 -0400, "Neil Harrington" <never@home.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>>What EXISTING
>>>>right is denied homosexuals? They have exactly the same rights as anyone
>>>>else.
>>> Inheritance rights.
>>> Visitation rights.
>>> Insurance rights.
>>> Adoption rights.
>>> Patient-care rights.
>>> Tax rights.
>>> Alimony rights.
>>> Custody rights.
>>> Divorce rights.
>>> Pension rights.
>>> Etc. etc. etc etc. etc etc. etc etc. etc etc. etc etc. etc etc. etc etc.
>>> etc etc. etc etc. etc etc. etc etc. etc etc. etc etc. etc. ....
>> Wow, all those "rights"! They sure do go waaaaaaaaay beyond the good old
>> "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness," don't they!
>>
>> Let's take a look at a few of them. "Inheritance rights"? If a homosexual
>> leaves his property to his partner in his will, that works all right,
>> doesn't it? Where's the problem?
> You obviously know nothing about family law.
> Look up rights of dower & courtesy. Hint, most states have laws codifying
> these rights.
> Check community property states. Maybe then, you will know what is
> referred to.
> --
> Peter
I tried to make sure in my will that the house would be left to
my partner. I couldn't (he would need to "buy out" my half
upon my death, and only a complicated method of gradual
transfer *may* work). All of my "cash" assets are in both
our names, since I can't will them to my partner without
probate (not a fun, quick, or cheap process, as I understand
it). My SS will not transfer. We must file taxes as individuals.
Etc. (WITHOUT CHOICE!!!). In the end, we may not choose
to marry, BUT IT SHOULD BE ***OUR*** CHOICE!
(I'm hollering at the "dense" "NH", not you Peter...;-)
--DR
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
[....]
>>>> All of those things can be arranged in the law, at least as easily as
>>>> trying to get all the states plus the Federal government to recognize
>>>> same-sex "marriage."
>>> Really?
>>> Gee, the power of one word!
>> I guess it is a pretty powerful word at that, or perhaps "sturdy" would be
>> the better term. Look at all the immense effort that has gone into trying
>> to change it, and to what little effect.
> There is progress, which is all too slow.
> Drops of water carved the Grand Canyon.
This reminds me of the faculty meetings at the college I taught
at for several years. It would take years, or even decades, to
change single words in the faculty manual! (And this was at a time
when the survival of the college was in doubt...)
> BTW how would it hurt you if gay people were permitted to marry each other.
> --
> Peter
That is the good, basic question, isn't it?
--DR
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Steve House" <sjhouse.remove@this.hotmail.com> wrote in message news:ug53u5lldtdak4cte4pa0gqjkjrm1s6uid@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 9 Apr 2010 20:34:27 -0400, "Neil Harrington" <never@home.com>
> wrote:
>>Judges change with the political winds. Unfortunately, supreme courts do as
>>well, but nothing in the U.S. Constitution supports the notion of same-sex
>>"marriage." And I daresay it never will.
> The Constitution does not "support" same-sex marriage nor does it need
> to. What is more important is it does not PROHIBIT same sex marriage.
> But it does prohibit the Federal and State from enacting laws that
> violate fundamental human rights. Since same-sex marriage is not
> specifically prohibited by the Constitution or named as something the
> States may choose to prohibit, it must be permitted since to prohibit
> it violates the basic rights of a segment of the population.
>
> The Constitution does not grant rights to the people, it only deals
> with rights the People have given up to the State in order to provide
> for a functioning society. If the Constitution doesn't take a certain
> right away or grant the State or other governing body the right to
> take it away. the People retain it even though it is not explicitly
> named. When the Supremes rule something to the effect that same-sex
> marriage is constitutional, they are saying that the Constitution does
> not permit States to enact laws that exclude it or prohibit it. It
> does not mean they have found a dusty forgotten passage permitting it
> or have re-written the document to include it. All that is not
> prohibited must be permitted.
This is logical, but many people, including judges, may not be
logical when considering gay rights, and may still be affected by
their prejudices when arriving at decisions. It is still widely regarded
as fact by too many that homosexuals "choose" to be homosexual(!),
absurd and unproven as this is, and as much as the preponderance
of evidence indicates that this is not true. The "rub" is, though, that
it is therefore easy for these people to dismiss the rights of
homosexuals since homosexuality is believed by them to be neither
inherent nor real, and they therefore feel justified in not recognizing
gays as being an existing legitimate segment of the population whose
rights are in need of protection. The undermining of the recognition
of this group's existence does appear to be the aim of conservative
religions, right-wing politics, and the just plain bigoted. Gay marriage
hurts no one, and it can help many, but when it comes up before the
Supreme Court, I will not be surprised if the Court votes 5 to 4
against us, regardless of your excellent points. Ill will often finds a
way to counter facts and logic, alas...
--DR
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"David Ruether" <d_ruether@thotmail.com> wrote in message
news:hrsd18$53l$1@ruby.cit.cornell.edu...
> "Steve House" <sjhouse.remove@this.hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:ug53u5lldtdak4cte4pa0gqjkjrm1s6uid@4ax.com...
>> On Fri, 9 Apr 2010 20:34:27 -0400, "Neil Harrington" <never@home.com>
>> wrote:
>>>Judges change with the political winds. Unfortunately, supreme courts do as
>>>well, but nothing in the U.S. Constitution supports the notion of same-sex
>>>"marriage." And I daresay it never will.
>> The Constitution does not "support" same-sex marriage nor does it need
>> to. What is more important is it does not PROHIBIT same sex marriage.
>> But it does prohibit the Federal and State from enacting laws that
>> violate fundamental human rights. Since same-sex marriage is not
>> specifically prohibited by the Constitution or named as something the
>> States may choose to prohibit, it must be permitted since to prohibit
>> it violates the basic rights of a segment of the population.
>>
>> The Constitution does not grant rights to the people, it only deals
>> with rights the People have given up to the State in order to provide
>> for a functioning society. If the Constitution doesn't take a certain
>> right away or grant the State or other governing body the right to
>> take it away. the People retain it even though it is not explicitly
>> named. When the Supremes rule something to the effect that same-sex
>> marriage is constitutional, they are saying that the Constitution does
>> not permit States to enact laws that exclude it or prohibit it. It
>> does not mean they have found a dusty forgotten passage permitting it
>> or have re-written the document to include it. All that is not
>> prohibited must be permitted.
> This is logical, but many people, including judges, may not be
> logical when considering gay rights, and may still be affected by
> their prejudices when arriving at decisions. It is still widely regarded
> as fact by too many that homosexuals "choose" to be homosexual(!),
> absurd and unproven as this is, and as much as the preponderance
> of evidence indicates that this is not true. The "rub" is, though, that
> it is therefore easy for these people to dismiss the rights of
> homosexuals since homosexuality is believed by them to be neither
> inherent nor real, and they therefore feel justified in not recognizing
> gays as being an existing legitimate segment of the population whose
> rights are in need of protection. The undermining of the recognition of
> this group's existence does appear to be the aim of conservative
> religions, right-wing politics, and the just plain bigoted. Gay marriage
> hurts no one, and it can help many, but when it comes up before the
> Supreme Court, I will not be surprised if it votes 5 to 4 against us,
> regardless of your excellent points. Ill will often finds a way to
> counter facts and logic, alas...
> --DR
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Bill Graham" <weg9@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:YNednbzLhNdT-H7WnZ2dnUVZ_rKdnZ2d@giganews.com...
> "Neil Harrington" <never@home.com> wrote in message
> news:4JidnRbS5cBlWX_WnZ2dnUVZ_vudnZ2d@giganews.com...
>> "Steve House" <sjhouse.remove@this.hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:2265u5t906q6urs0s1uevdersp60tdu9f6@4ax.com...
>>> On Sun, 11 Apr 2010 03:57:00 -0400, "Neil Harrington" <never@home.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>>>> There is natural, rational change and there is silly change for the
>>>>>> sake of fad.
>>>>> LOL so Neil you believe homosexuality is a "fad"!
>>>>Not homosexuality, Stephanie, same-sex marriage.
So, you would also possibly be opposed to marriage between
members of other like-characteristic people who may become
"undesirables" to you and others at some other time (like blonds,
long-nosed people, short/tall people, etc.)?
>>>>Homosexuality has been around for thousands of years and that will
>>>>probably continue for as long as there are people.
Yes, so why deny them basic rights due to an inherent characteristic.
'cuz *you* and others like you maybe don't happen to approve of
them? This defines "bigotry", not a pretty thing (and that is generally
what any intelligent and fair-minded person would try to overcome...).
>>> And just exactly what is the interest of the State in denying gay's
>>> the right to marry their loved ones while permitting straights the
>>> right to do so? I suspect that deep down the real reason
>>> conservatives oppose the practice is that it effectively means that
>>> the State is acknowledging that homosexuality is morally equal to
>>> heteroexuality and not an "abnormal perversion and anathema to God" as
>>> they wish to believe and have the law confirm.
>> Homosexuality has been regarded as a perversion in most cultures for many
>> centuries, and the law has often reflected that. That's all. But certainly
>> you can look for "deep down real reasons" if you find any entertainment in
>> doing so.
One doesn't need to look very deeply to find the source of your
problems with it...;-)
> The majority in any population are want to call the minority and their
> desires a "perversion". Homosexuality can be observed even in
> animals......It continues to affect about 5 to 10 percent of the population.
> This seems perfectly natural to me.....After all, if the only sexual arousal
> occurred between people who looked like Clark Gable and Marilyn Monroe,
> where would the rest of us be? Homosexuality is the natural result of
> variation in the attraction of the members in the population for one
> another.
A good observation. BTW, anyone who has been around wild mallard
ducks will sometimes see "gay" couples (not that this is by any means
limited to ducks...;-).
--DR
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
I thought I would add a bit of levity here with some videos some may
not have seen the like of yet --
Making fun of Glenn Beck (notice the name of the subject of his tirade ;-)
http://beck.cnnbcvideo.com/?p=2742a10887503dcec49aca2c2dbe1204&id=19314-4358708-FqoKtsx
And, my recent award as 2010 Mom of the Decade! ;-)
http://news.cnnbcvideo.com/?nid=OqgbMYfQb3.xCVxNM8c0zDEyODExNTU-&first=David&last=Ruether&z=yes
--DR
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Bill Graham" <weg9@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:WtKdnV9-NLckbHzWnZ2dnUVZ_tGdnZ2d@giganews.com...
> The constitution does not have to address marriage in order for it to
> guarantee the benefits of marriage to gays. When the government mentioned
> marriage in its documents, it automatically redefined it as being a state
> that is available to all citizens in good standing. (non felons). This is
> generally true of anything, whether mentioned in the constitution or not.
> The spirit of the document gives everyone the right to anything as long as
> their exercise of that right does not infringe on the rights of anyone else.
> So the fact that marriage isn't mentioned in the constitution doesn't mean
> anything. When marriage was a church ritual, then it was not available to
> everyone. But as soon as the government recognized it, and mentioned it in
> its documents, (such as the form 1040 tax tables) it then became redefined
> as being available to all citizens in good standing. Gays are citizens in
> good standing. Therefore, gays have the constitutional right to enter into
> that state. This is perfectly logical and obvious to me, and I am not a
> lawyer. The guy in Southern California back in the 60's had the
> constitutional right to go into the cable TV business, too, even though
> cable TV was not mentioned in the constitution either. This is because going
> into the cable TV business didn't infringe on the rights of anyone else.
> When he comes to your door and asks you if he can run his cable to your
> house, you can say, "No!", and slam the door in his face. Neither you, nor
> any of your neighbors will suffer from this action. Therefore, he has that
> right. If you say, "Yes", and he runs you his cable, your neighbors will not
> suffer the loss of any of their rights either. This is why he had the
> constitutional right to operate his business, even though no one even
> imagined TV existed when the constitution was written. The same is true of
> the right of gays to marry. It doesn't infringe on anyone else's rights, so
> they have the constitutional right to do it. The constitution does not have
> to enumerate every right in the future in order to guarantee them to all
> future citizens. (and thank God for that) All such rights are granted
> automatically as long as they do not take away any rights of others. This is
> what I mean when I speak of the, "Spirit of the document". Tell me how your
> rights, or the rights of anyone else are infringed in any way by two gay
> people getting married. If you can't do that, then the rights of gays to
> marry are automatically guaranteed by the constitution. Now, this wouldn't
> be true were marriage strictly a private club's ritual and didn't have
> anything to do with government in any way. But it is not. The government has
> been screwing with it for a long time now, and has actually incorporated it
> into its tax laws, as well as other laws that affect all citizens. So the
> religious people can no longer claim it as strictly a private ritual that
> has no legal significance and therefore should not be the concern of
> government. This is why I can see no way out for you. Logically, you are
> forced to accept the rights of gays to marry. Can you give me any logical
> reason why I am wrong about this? If so, I will be glad to change my
> opinion.
Well put! Thanks. (I just hope the Supreme Court can see the issue
this directly and logically...)
--DR
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@sonic.net> wrote in message
news:4bf245e0$0$1657$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net...
> Chris H <chris@phaedsys.org> wrote:
>>It is not a "god or evolution" question.
>>
>>God created the Big Bang. Then things ran their course according
>>to god rules. Evolution being part of it.
This makes the most sense to me (and has for some time...;-).
This theory allows for "quirks" in the rules that favor what
we have, like the Big Bank "exhaust" velocity not being so
great that the proto matter just blew out, never to coalesce
into bodies, or so slow that it collected too soon and just
fell back into one big mass - and for other things like water
decreasing in density as it solidifies (if it did not, there would
be many ice worlds, including ours...). "God" just set up the
conditions for the experiment and rules for the game, then
let them play out...;-)
> But that makes too much sense for irrational crackpots who have to
> defend their cults. They need an excuse to hate, and people who
> reject their idiocy are easy to hate.
> --
> Ray Fischer
This can be an unfortunate result of human nature and human-
defined (but unsupported) theories of existence, but I think
most religions begin more honestly and with higher ideals - but
corruption is only a few "slips" away. For many, religion can
be comforting in an existence that is mysterious, but when
those who have religions try to force their precepts on me
or others, or try to limit or deny my existence and rights based
on their religious precepts, their religions have crossed a line
that is unacceptable to me...
--DR
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Neil Harrington" <nobody@homehere.net> wrote in message
news:iICdneQU9bblNaXRnZ2dnUVZ_tydnZ2d@giganews.com...
> "tony cooper" <tony_cooper213@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:j84f36ddk4oilj92feooogj2874jssr8dv@4ax.com...
>> On Fri, 9 Jul 2010 16:34:30 -0400, "Neil Harrington"
>> <nobody@homehere.net> wrote:
>>>But she *has* gone overboard on the subject of "gay rights," has made it
>>>clear that she thinks the very reasonable "Don't ask, don't tell" policy in
>>>the military is practically criminal, and in general has made it clear that
>>>homosexual interests and causes are of extravagant concern to her. So
>>>she is *that* kind of a Democrat.
>> Yeah, maybe so. The kind that believes in equal rights for all.
Yuh, weird, isn't it, that some people believe in that silly idea...;-)
> Special treatment and pandering to an activist special-interest group is not
> "equal rights for all."
Get over your prejudices, Neil, and bother to learn a few things about a truly
oppressed and unequally-treated group - or do you really think that other,
similarly "unequal" groups in our past also didn't deserve legal equality? I
guess it would be just fine with you if women couldn't own property or vote,
if Blacks couldn't vote, use the same public facilities as other citizens, and
couldn't intermarry with whites, huh? Your stupidity regarding gay issues
is monumental - or, one does wonder if you are among that "wonderful"
select group of hypocrites who feign distain for granting equal rights to gays
in order to try to hide his true sexual identity (I strongly suspect the latter...).
--DR
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Neil Harrington" <nobody@homehere.net> wrote in message
news:7q6dnWwM1ZP8JqXRnZ2dnUVZ_t-dnZ2d@giganews.com...
> "David Ruether" <d_ruether@thotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:i1aanh$mli$1@ruby.cit.cornell.edu...
>> "Neil Harrington" <nobody@homehere.net> wrote in message
>> news:iICdneQU9bblNaXRnZ2dnUVZ_tydnZ2d@giganews.com...
>>> "tony cooper" <tony_cooper213@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>>> news:j84f36ddk4oilj92feooogj2874jssr8dv@4ax.com...
>>>>> So she ]Kagan] is *that* kind of a Democrat.
>>>> Yeah, maybe so. The kind that believes in equal rights for all.
>> Yuh, weird, isn't it, that some people believe in that silly idea...;-)
>>> Special treatment and pandering to an activist special-interest group is
>>> not "equal rights for all."
>> Get over your prejudices, Neil, and bother to learn a few things about a
>> truly oppressed and unequally-treated group - or do you really think that
>> other, similarly "unequal" groups in our past also didn't deserve legal
>> equality?
> But it isn't "legal equality" you want, is it? You want special treatment,
> traditional values set aside and laws changed, all to suit your special
> case.
>
> LEGAL EQUALITY you already have, and you are not satisfied with it.
I take this to mean, as you have pointed out in the past, that homosexuals
do have the right to marry, but just not the people of their choosing. This
makes as much sense as saying that homosexuals already have the right
to marry bugs (if that were true), just not fellow humans of the same sex.
You are being stupid. Also, in addition, homosexuals do not share rights
equal to those of straight married couples since they cannot (generally)
legally marry each other (DUH!) - and the number of these rights denied is
vast. Perhaps another way of looking at it (taking a BIG step and assuming
that you do/would-have disapproved of the misogyny laws) is to think what
it would be like if Jews were legally not permitted to marry non-Jews. Yup,
there's that "special treatment, traditional values set aside and laws changed,
all to suit your special case" if they demanded their rights of equality under
the law. Oh, and BTW, Jews number about 1/2 the percentage of the US
population compared with homosexuals (about 2% compared with 4+%),
so they are an even smaller minority (hardly even worth bothering with
THEIR rights, huh?).
>> I guess it would be just fine with you if women couldn't own property or
>> vote, if Blacks couldn't vote, use the same public facilities as other citizens,
>> and couldn't intermarry with whites, huh?
> And all of that guesswork is based on what, David? I haven't indicated or
> even hinted at my feelings about any of those things, none of which have
> actually been issues for generations. You appear to be making a collection
> of all the things you think anyone can have heinous attitudes about, and
> willy-nilly assigning them all to me.
But they are so very similar to peoples' views when those were current
issues instead of being fully settled as they are now. You show the same
small-mindedness now about homosexual issues that people showed then
about those past issues. Why must each group spend vast amounts of time
and energy to get what is simply rightfully theirs, which is equality under the
law? (The answer, of course, is obvious...)
>> Your stupidity regarding gay issues
>> is monumental - or, one does wonder if you are among that "wonderful"
>> select group of hypocrites who feign distain for granting equal rights to
>> gays in order to try to hide his true sexual identity (I strongly suspect the
>> latter...).
[Neil's further irrelevant nonsense deleted.]
--DR
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Neil Harrington" <nobody@homehere.net> wrote in message
news:SoidnVzny-VhlKTRnZ2dnUVZ_tidnZ2d@giganews.com...
> "Allen" <allent@austin.rr.com> wrote in message
> news:daydnV0KpoeEXqXRnZ2dnUVZ_qmdnZ2d@giganews.com...
>> Neil Harrington wrote:
>>> "David Ruether" <d_ruether@thotmail.com> wrote in message
>>> news:i1aanh$mli$1@ruby.cit.cornell.edu...
>>>> is monumental - or, one does wonder if you are among that "wonderful"
>>>> select group of hypocrites who feign distain for granting equal rights
>>>> to gays in order to try to hide his true sexual identity (I strongly suspect
>>>> the latter...).
>>> You "strongly suspect" what you desperately would like to believe, for
>>> reasons that I don't pretend fully to understand but which appear to be
>>> rather unhealthy.
>>>
>>> How do you feel about, say, Nazis? Do you identify with them? What, you
>>> say you DON'T?! Ah, then that must mean you are only saying you don't "in
>>> order to try to hide [your] true [political] identity"! And you are
>>> really a secret Nazi lover. Eh?
>>>
>>> If the principle is valid in one case it must be equally valid in
>>> another. That's the problem with your dime-store pop psychology, David.
>>> You're getting bitten by the "equality" you claim to desire, but really
>>> want no part of.
>> I've read enough of your idiocy to not be interested in seeing any more of
>> it.
> Then why reply? Just do to me what I'm doing to you now:
>
> Plonk.
Neil is, unfortunately, completely unable to think or reason regarding
some subjects about which he is strongly prejudiced. This reminds me
of trying to have an intelligent discussion with a tree stump, since it is
equally pointless. Enough of my wasting my time trying... <PLONK!>
--DR
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"tony cooper" <tony_cooper213@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:tlfh369h5445q8kkugauhsa9vfnrd2ihc6@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 10 Jul 2010 13:05:57 -0400, "Neil Harrington"
> <nobody@homehere.net> wrote:
>>Special treatment and pandering to an activist special-interest group is not
>>"equal rights for all."
> S'funny but we only use "pandering" when we don't agree with what the
> special interest group is trying to accomplish.
>
> I feel that politicians pander to, and give special treatment to, that
> activist special-interest group who are members of the NRA. Dudley
> Hanks would not use "pander" to describe the special treatment given
> to the activist special-interest group who are members of the
> Association for the Blind.
>
> We reveal our biases by our choice of words.
>
> --
> Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
Well put! ;-)
--DR
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"tony cooper" <tony_cooper213@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:ih6i36lls624j91fkn49acvaqu55ae5v15@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 10 Jul 2010 20:50:39 -0400, "Neil Harrington"
> <nobody@homehere.net> wrote:
>>> I take this to mean, as you have pointed out in the past, that homosexuals
>>> do have the right to marry, but just not the people of their choosing.
>>Well, lots of us don't have the right to marry people of our own choosing.
>>I'd like to marry Christina Hendricks, but have no right to do so.
> You're understanding of the meaning of words is mind-bogglingly
> limited. You have the right to marry her, but not the opportunity to
> do so. She has the right to marry you, but not the interest.
>
> Gay couples, with both interest and opportunity, do not have the right
> in almost all states.
>
> --
> Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
And, even those who can marry in those few socially progressive states
that do "permit" gay marriage (what an idiotic concept - marriage is a
BASIC right, not something to be permitted, denied, or voted on in
referenda or anywhere else) do not yet have their marriages recognized
by the federal government, which can become economically important
for those who wish to file joint tax returns, to receive marriage partner
insurance and health-care benefits when one member of the couple is
employed by the federal government, and death survivor social security
benefits, all of which "straight" married couples receive without the
questioning of their right to do so.
--DR
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"tony cooper" <tony_cooper213@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:2vjj36peh99k9f4fsnckiid71o03ra5r6n@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 11 Jul 2010 09:37:03 -0400, "David Ruether"
> <d_ruether@thotmail.com> wrote:
>>Neil is, unfortunately, completely unable to think or reason regarding
>>some subjects about which he is strongly prejudiced. This reminds me
>>of trying to have an intelligent discussion with a tree stump, since it is
>>equally pointless. Enough of my wasting my time trying... <PLONK!>
> That's a bit pot-and-kettle, David. Neil is extremely prejudiced in
> this area and refuses to see anything valid about your viewpoints.
>
> But how willing are you to see anything valid about his views?
Hmmm.... Let's see..........
If someone insists that providing legal equality of citizenship to any
minority group is "wrong" and without basis in the history of the
country or of other groups that have gained their rights as citizens,
a member of one of the newer groups involved in a current struggle
should stop and consider the validity of the very views that are
contributing to that oppression????? Get real! Neil has repeatedly
contributed nothing but "brick wall" prejudice to this discussion, and
resists EVERY logical attempt to dig into that prejudice. Talk about
close-minded - he has defined the term! Why should I be expected
to "lean" a bit his way, and "see anything valid about his views" when
he has shown no reason for me to. Implacable prejudice is not a basis
for reasonable discussion!
> Also, it's rather arrogant of you to think that "intelligent
> discussion" is only possible when the other party agrees with you.
Not at all. But it does require *some* flexibility on the other side,
and Neil seems incapable of that, ignoring any and all arguments
that counter his position in any way. This is NOT what "intelligent
discussion" is about.
> I happen to view things completely opposite of the way Neil does. I
> don't have the personal agenda that you do, though. Neil may be
> irreversibly prejudiced, but that doesn't mean that he hasn't thought
> out his position.
> --
> Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
He surely fools me on that last point (and I suspect some others,
too...;-). Kicking a dead horse: as an example - if Neil believed
that the earth was flat and round, even in the face of overwhelming
indications and evidence to the contrary, and we substituted that
premise in the discussion in this thread, would you really have written
the above? I suspect not, being an evidently reasonable person.
Further, if in some way, that "flat-earther" view indirectly and directly
affected your wellbeing and citizenship rights, would you continue to
hold the views you just expressed? My advice: don't give a fool
(even possibly a dangerous fool) credibility, since that can bite you
in the end. There really are "wrong" points of view, ones which (after
brief consideration ;-), are properly assigned to the dustbin of history.
--DR
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"tony cooper" <tony_cooper213@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:dmoj36pss5r8mtel04bbfdiqtl0ilg7r61@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 11 Jul 2010 11:11:09 -0400, "David Ruether"
> <d_ruether@thotmail.com> wrote:
>>"tony cooper" <tony_cooper213@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>>news:2vjj36peh99k9f4fsnckiid71o03ra5r6n@4ax.com...
>>> On Sun, 11 Jul 2010 09:37:03 -0400, "David Ruether"
>>> <d_ruether@thotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>Neil is, unfortunately, completely unable to think or reason regarding
>>>>some subjects about which he is strongly prejudiced. This reminds me
>>>>of trying to have an intelligent discussion with a tree stump, since it is
>>>>equally pointless. Enough of my wasting my time trying... <PLONK!>
>>> That's a bit pot-and-kettle, David. Neil is extremely prejudiced in
>>> this area and refuses to see anything valid about your viewpoints.
>>>
>>> But how willing are you to see anything valid about his views?
>>Hmmm.... Let's see..........
>>If someone insists that providing legal equality of citizenship to any
>>minority group is "wrong" and without basis in the history of the
>>country or of other groups that have gained their rights as citizens,
>>a member of one of the newer groups involved in a current struggle
>>should stop and consider the validity of the very views that are
>>contributing to that oppression????? Get real!
> My views are very real. Marriage is a social convention that has been
> artificially regulated by law. Marriage has no natural function.
> There is no natural reason that marriage is necessary for a couple to
> live together, procreate, or bind themselves together.
Of course! We do not disagree on this. It is only the (artificial) legal
ramifications of denying/permitting marriage among some members
of the citizenry and not others that matters, and so long as this
exists, the right of marriage MUST be afforded to ALL people in a
society. To do otherwise is to deny equality by definition.
> Like other social conventions, people's views of what is correct and
> acceptable change over time. There is no point of change because
> there is no universal shift from one point of view to another. Neil
> has not made the shift that you think he should, and he never will.
Yes, which I have tried (I really have! ;-) to disengage with him
by the use of "<PLONK!>"s - but he keeps writing things that are
VERY hard to let pass in a civilized society (just substitute the word
"Blacks" for "homosexuals" in anything he says, and you may get some
sense for why/how what he says is so offensive to me).
> What you seem to expect is that Neil's views should change. That's an
> unreasonable expectation. Neil's views are based on emotion and an
> ingrained sense of what is right and proper to him. You will not
> change his views.
I know that, as I have said...
> You don't seem to be making any effort to understand the Neils of the
> world any more than they are making any effort to understand the
> Davids of the world.
Why should I try to understand backward and doltish views that
harm me? That seems to me to be pointless.
> You are pounding sand if you think your cause
> can be advanced by changing the thinking of the Neils of the world.
Yes, I know that - but for those who can still reason, I bother to
write on the subject in the hope that people come to understand
why this is important. Would you have told those who were (with
considerable effort) trying to convince those who were having trouble
understanding the validity and importance of the equality under the law
of Blacks in this country that there efforts were useless, and therefore
to stop trying? Yes, there still are stupid people who still don't "get it"
concerning the need for equality of rights among racial minorities in this
country, but we should all at least TRY to encourage equality under
the law!
> His views are valid in the sense that he represents a portion of the
> citizenry that oppose what you think should be done. You will not win
> over that portion the citizenry by thinking that you will change them.
> That's about as possible as them thinking that they can change you.
True - but things are slowly changing as more people in the middle are
exposed to the issues and see the value of change. Things are true
regarding gay issues now that were unthinkable only 25 years ago,
such as 5 states and DC having gay marriage, a majority of the population
in favor of openly gay people serving in the military, openly gay people
serving in congress, in other legislatures, as governors, mayors, etc.
This didn't happen by people just not bothering to try to change minds,
as it didn't with Blacks and with other groups that gained legal equality.
>>> Also, it's rather arrogant of you to think that "intelligent
>>> discussion" is only possible when the other party agrees with you.
>>Not at all. But it does require *some* flexibility on the other side,
>>and Neil seems incapable of that, ignoring any and all arguments
>>that counter his position in any way. This is NOT what "intelligent
>>discussion" is about.
> Where is your flexibility? I don't think you should be flexible, but
> I don't see why you think Neil should be either. You're as unbending
> as Neil. Don't ask for what you are unwilling to give yourself.
> --
> Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
Hmmm.... The last sentence makes little sense. So, if implacable evil
and unshakable good are facing off in a competition, it's best if "good"
moves a little toward "evil's" position on things as a gesture of good
will, huh? ;-)
I d o n' t t h i n k s o . . . . ! 8^)
Neil can be stupid in his position if he wants to be, but that doesn't mean
that I need to move toward that position in any way, as you point out
(I'm not sure why we are even having this discussion - we both know
the issues and positions, and we appear to be essentially in agreement).
--DR
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"tony cooper" <tony_cooper213@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:1apk365dmus24irt8l3mgse0161eslm24e@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 11 Jul 2010 18:20:47 -0400, "David Ruether"
> <d_ruether@thotmail.com> wrote:
>>> You don't seem to be making any effort to understand the Neils of the
>>> world any more than they are making any effort to understand the
>>> Davids of the world.
>>Why should I try to understand backward and doltish views that
>>harm me? That seems to me to be pointless.
> While I'm supportive of your aims and goals, it is the type of
> thinking that you express above where we part. Neil could write that
> same sentence because that is exactly Neil's position.
But, but, but..., while he/you may *claim* that, there is no demonstrable
harm done to him by my point of view prevailing, completely unlike
the reverse, where the harm *is* demonstrable! THAT is the difference!
>>Yes, I know that - but for those who can still reason, I bother to
>>write on the subject in the hope that people come to understand
>>why this is important. Would you have told those who were (with
>>considerable effort) trying to convince those who were having trouble
>>understanding the validity and importance of the equality under the law
>>of Blacks in this country that there efforts were useless, and therefore
>>to stop trying?
> Yes, I would have. The progress in the civil rights area was not made
> by convincing the hard core segregationists that their thinking was
> wrong. Those people didn't change, and some of them still haven't
> changed. The progress was effected by directing efforts to the more
> amenable segments of our society.
Yes, but one could argue (as I do) that the effects of trying to convince
the implacable Neils of this world of the rightness of a point of view can
"spill over" into the group of more amenable readers who may be following
this (or similar) discussions. There is less point in discussing this in front of
the convinced than the unaware or unconvinced-but-open among the
possible readers of this and similar threads. This can have indirect value
other than the obvious...
> The smarter people who want change know to pick their battles. You
> don't, and you come across as shrill and almost hysterical. What you
> need for change is a majority of opinion on your side, and that
> majority need not include only the committed. It can include people
> with some reservations, but with a sense of need for justice. You
> aren't going to convince those people by going head-to-head with the
> likes of Neil.
> --
> Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
Thanks - but we shall need to disagree on this. In other struggles for
legal equality, it was the "shrill, and almost hysterical" who took to the
streets, etc. and made their points, often annoyingly, that got things
started/moving/finished. The "polite" just sat by the wayside as things
happened and events passed them by. The "out" groups correctly, I think
history shows, got up and H O L L E R E D for their rights, and through
this, while *then* acquiring allies, they finally won. Asking people
"pretty-please, would you give me the rights that are due me" doesn't
work, at least early in the game. Power/loudness/obnoxiousness gets
the issues noticed. BTW, I do appreciate your agreement on the issues
(and supportive posts), but you do appear to be an "arm chair
politician"...;-)
--DR
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"tony cooper" <tony_cooper213@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:b8am36tebp2oqt6rosud02bsrce828e382@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 12 Jul 2010 10:13:39 -0400, "David Ruether"
> <d_ruether@thotmail.com> wrote:
>>But, but, but..., while he/you may *claim* that, there [*really*]is no
>>demonstrable harm done to him by my point of view prevailing, completely
>>unlike the reverse, where the harm *is* demonstrable! THAT is the
>>difference!
> Oh, bullshit. This kind of thinking comes from not understanding the
> Neils of the world. (Not necessarily the Neil in this group, but the
> type of person that this Neil represents.) Your cause upsets the
> principles that the Neils feel makes for an orderly and right-thinking
> society. It's a threat to them. There's a perceived harm that is
> very real to them.
I do have little patience with the view that beliefs and perceptions trump
realities. If I "rock Neil's boat", so what? The result is either neutral, or
maybe it will eventually shake him (and some others like him) into considering
the real harm his/their views do to real, live *people*, his/their "comfort zones"
be damned! When people's *beliefs* begin to tread on my rights, I properly
fight back with everything I've got, as members of other groups have, and
should, to gain what is rightfully theirs.
>>Yes, but one could argue (as I do) that the effects of trying to convince
>>the implacable Neils of this world of the rightness of a point of view can
>>"spill over" into the group of more amenable readers who may be following
>>this (or similar) discussions. There is less point in discussing this in front of
>>the convinced than the unaware or unconvinced-but-open among the
>>possible readers of this and similar threads. This can have indirect value
>>other than the obvious...
> It's my feeling that you are alienating the moderates. The choir is
> already convinced, but the ones in the middle still have reservations.
> Keep going head-to-head with the nonconvincable and the middle may
> see more points in favor of Neil's position than in yours. You can't
> win, and you may lose support. Tactically, that's a major error.
I understand your point, but I basically disagree with it. I suspect the
"direction" is toward listening to, and trying to understand, what my
end of the issues are about. The other side has held sway, unquestioned,
for a VERY long time, with relatively little heard from my side until recently.
It's past time to present the side (beyond the status-quo) of what *should*
be if legal equality is really to be achieved in this country, by any and all
means, annoying or not. I trust those capable of thinking to be able to sort
out whatever is useful to them, regardless of the "style" of the delivery of
the information. (Heck, if Dick Cheney can become pro-gay-marriage,
well....;-)
>>the issues noticed. BTW, I do appreciate your agreement on the issues
>>(and supportive posts), but you do appear to be an "arm chair
>>politician"...;-)
> What do you expect of me? I am a heterosexual married (46 years to
> the same woman) male who does not have a homosexual relative or close
> friend (to the best of my knowledge). I have no horse in this race.
You do, in so far as there is a known withholding of rights from a group
in our society based solely on sexual identity. I do understand that what
you do here may be the extent of what you feel comfortable doing, which
is *far* better than nothing. If the spirit moves you, though, supportive
letters to editors, letters to legislators and the president, and, heck, even
marching in parades, can help (but I won't expect you to do any of these
things...;-). You can also discuss the issues with friends. This often helps
the most.
> I am supportive of your cause because I think it's the right thing,
> but I have no intention of getting into the forefront of this issue.
> Be grateful for the "armchair" supporters because they are the ones
> who can change a minority to a majority when it comes time to vote
> on issues like this. They are the buffer zone that may stop the
> legislators from thinking only a minority of the voters want change.
> --
> Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
Yes.
BTW, I'm still surprised that we are having this discussion on style - it is like
disagreeing over opinions on the house paint color while watching it burn...;-)
I choose my methods - and I appreciate your comments on my style, even
though I disagree with them (and I think we are both now well aware of the
positions of the other on this), and I appreciate your support in your postings
here.
--DR
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Allen" <allent@austin.rr.com> wrote in message
news:AoydnSr57dM1qabRnZ2dnUVZ_jKdnZ2d@giganews.com...
> David Ruether wrote:
>> "tony cooper" <tony_cooper213@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>> news:qq0l36htvm25hifh4e2sqak62isn3rpena@4ax.com...
>>> The ironic aspect to how we view our constitution is that we have
>>> people who insist that we follow the dictates of our founding fathers
>>> and not deviate from the interpretation of the 2nd Amendment that
>>> there is a right to bear arms that is not linked to a well regulated
>>> militia, but would be all for adding an amendment to declare marriage
>>> to be only between a man and a woman; a concept that was not evidently
>>> even considered by those founding fathers.
>>> --
>>> Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
>> Yes, the hypocrisy of the right is monumental and oft demonstrated...;-)
>> --DR
> Leonard Pitts just this morning had a wonderful (as usual) column on
> this subject. It would probably have Neil and other RW idiots foaming at
> the mouth and demanding his execution. (Note: I assume that Neil and his
> buddies are staunch defenders of the sanctity of capital punishment.)
8^)
> Incidentally, on the subject of homosexually, I want to state that I am
> totally, completely heterosexual--so much so that I cannot fathom why
> anyone would call it a "choice". If it isn't a choice for me, why would
> it be a choice for others--except, of course, bisexuals, whose number is
> larger than supposed, and includes all those who talk about "choice".
> Allen
In the last sentence you make two good points: that sexual preferences
(poor term - "identity-descriptions" may be better...) are NOT a matter of
choice (why would *anyone* "choose" anything other than heterosexuality,
since that "choice" would simplify one's affairs considerably?! ;-), and, that
bisexuality does exist, somewhat "muddying the waters" regarding "choice",
since those toward the middle of the continuum of bisexuality instead of near
its ends are among those who really can "choose" their sexual identity. BTW,
my estimates may be out of date, but last I knew, homosexuals were about
4-5% of the population (for comparison, Jews are about 2%...), and estimates
for the continuum of bisexuals range up to about 30% (which means that
homosexuals plus predominately homosexual-leaning bisexuals may occupy a
rather large percentage of the population, far larger than Blacks, but smaller
than women). But, withal and for whatever reasons, why should any of these
and other minority groups be denied equality under the law? Doing so is
simply wrong.
--DR
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"tony cooper" <tony_cooper213@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:vltn36hjm8ucc1kdiopvk3p887a525u6ij@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 12 Jul 2010 23:25:50 -0400, "Neil Harrington"
> <nobody@homehere.net> wrote:
>>Conservatives, the "strict constructionists," should have no agenda other
>>than to rule on whether a law is or is not in accordance with the
>>Constitution *as it is written*, not as they would prefer it to be written.
>>That cannot reasonably be called an "agenda." Words mean things, and the
>>Constitution is written in plain English.
> You want it that way? Let's try it.
>
> Take the 9th Amendment which states "The enumeration in the
> Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or
> disparage others retained by the people."
>
> So, are the laws passed in Massachusetts that allow same-sex marriages
> allowable because the right to marry any person, regardless of the sex
> of either person, is an unenumerated right? The subject of marriage
> is not enumerated in the Constitution or the Amendments, so it would
> seem this is allowable.
>
> If you are a strict constructionist, then you have to say "Yes". Join
> David's parade, Neil. He has the Constitution on his side and the
> backing of the strict constructionists.
> --
> Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
Thanks, Tony... 8^)
--DR
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"tony cooper" <tony_cooper213@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:mg2s365r40add8teh1ju6c6sttuq5ldpe9@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 14 Jul 2010 13:28:16 -0400, "Neil Harrington"
> <nobody@homehere.net> wrote:
>>What you really want is for your nonesuch "marriages" to be accepted as real
>>marriages. You want this cockamamie idea to be put into law and the
>>acceptance of it *forced* on everyone else.
> Just for shits and giggles, let's say same-sex marriage became legal
> in your state. How would this "force" anything on you or force you to
> do anything? What would change in your life because of this?
> --
> Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
Ah, so now *you* are expecting Neil to reason on this issue?!
Naw - 'tain't possible... ;-) Another one you could try on him
is, "What if only same-sex marriages were permitted - what
would be the effects on you then?" Or, "Do you still believe
that misogyny laws are needed to protect your own definition
of marriage and thereby its resultant rights, obligations, and
privileges - and if not, why not?" But I do suspect that all the
above is lost on Neil...
--DR
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"tony cooper" <tony_cooper213@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:s1so369l7446jk81aeqglqof34ru0fmp0k@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 13 Jul 2010 07:15:49 -0400, "Peter"
> <peternew@nospamoptonline.net> wrote:
>>What you say sounds very much like religious beliefs, based upon a taught
>>faith rather than independent analysis. That is a concept I can understand
>>and relate to. But lets call it what it is. I have never called my own
>>religious beliefs anything but a belief. I have never attempted to impose my
>>own religious beliefs on others.
> There's a parallel in the area of religion and the teaching of
> evolution. Some very religious people oppose the teaching of
> evolution because they feel that any acceptance of evolution upsets
> their core beliefs. If evolution is what happened, then what they
> believe can't have happened.
>
> These people are not directly harmed by the teaching of evolution, but
> they feel harmed. Neil would not be directly harmed if same-sex
> marriage was universally allowed and accepted, but he'd feel harmed.
> --
> Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
Oh, gee, why do I feel so little sympathy for this I wonder...? As
I said earlier, anyone can hold any belief so far as I'm concerned,
UNLESS it *REALLY* does limit my equality under the law, and
the consequential rights due me. The Neils can believe in a flat earth,
a god that is a pink cloud hovering 13' over the earth's surface, or
any other dad-blamed nonsense they want to so long as they do not
try to teach it in schools or make it part of the laws of the land - but
that gives them no right to prevent me from achieving legal equality
'cuz it might offend their sensibilities! As I said, "get real"... And,
let's recognize that mere beliefs do not trump facts and evidence.
Otherwise we are back in the ages of magic and witch-burning...
While I applaud your inclusiveness, I don't applaud your apparent
inability to appreciate that achieving rights for a minority within a
majority that is not necessarily supportive is a struggle, and that
effort may necessarily sometimes annoy the majority to make them
more aware of a point.
--DR
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"tony cooper" <tony_cooper213@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:ru2p36ddplfaoai6mujqjt344cogf8hk1q@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 13 Jul 2010 10:54:13 -0400, "David Ruether"
> <d_ruether@thotmail.com> wrote:
>>While I applaud your inclusiveness, I don't applaud your apparent
>>inability to appreciate that achieving rights for a minority within a
>>majority that is not necessarily supportive is a struggle, and that
>>effort may necessarily sometimes annoy the majority to make them
>>more aware of a point.
> WTF does that mean? Wading through that convoluted statement the best
> I can figure out is that you think that I don't agree with annoying
> the majority in order to make them more aware of the point.
>
> My comments have been limited to your exchanges with Neil. As I see
> it, you are trying *convince* Neil to see your point...not just be
> more aware of your point. That's like giving flying lessons to a pig.
>
> You want to be appreciated for that? As you have said, "Get real".
>
> --
> Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
I don't understand the offense you seem to take with what I write,
but as "Fred" so aptly puts it, "Whatever...." 8^).
--DR
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"tony cooper" <tony_cooper213@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:qq0l36htvm25hifh4e2sqak62isn3rpena@4ax.com...
> The ironic aspect to how we view our constitution is that we have
> people who insist that we follow the dictates of our founding fathers
> and not deviate from the interpretation of the 2nd Amendment that
> there is a right to bear arms that is not linked to a well regulated
> militia, but would be all for adding an amendment to declare marriage
> to be only between a man and a woman; a concept that was not evidently
> even considered by those founding fathers.
> --
> Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
Yes, the hypocrisy of the right is monumental and oft demonstrated...;-)
--DR
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"tony cooper" <tony_cooper213@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:gmtj36pk2pe9no2l57ttn9r8ar501gvf6r@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 11 Jul 2010 12:06:23 -0400, "Neil Harrington"
> <nobody@homehere.net> wrote:
>>> Neil may be irreversibly prejudiced, but that doesn't mean that he
>>> hasn't thought out his position.
>><surprised look> Thank you, Tony.
> Don't be surprised Neil. I am perfectly capable of understanding that
> someone can think things out and still come to the wrong conclusion.
>
> Done it myself many times.
>
> --
> Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
Hmmm...., come to think of it, so have I (a few times.... 8^).
--DR
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Neil Harrington" <nobody@homehere.net> wrote in message
news:BqKdnWB7Vs9eYaPRnZ2dnUVZ_u-dnZ2d@giganews.com...
> "tony cooper" <tony_cooper213@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:mg2s365r40add8teh1ju6c6sttuq5ldpe9@4ax.com...
>> On Wed, 14 Jul 2010 13:28:16 -0400, "Neil Harrington"
>> <nobody@homehere.net> wrote:
>>>What you really want is for your nonesuch "marriages" to be accepted as
>>>real
>>>marriages. You want this cockamamie idea to be put into law and the
>>>acceptance of it *forced* on everyone else.
>> Just for shits and giggles, let's say same-sex marriage became legal
>> in your state. How would this "force" anything on you or force you to
>> do anything? What would change in your life because of this?
> Same-sex "marriage" is already legal in my state, and has been since our
> goofy state supreme court, contrary to the standards, opinions and wishes of
> the majority of people in the state, made it so. Nothing has changed for me
> in the least.
But it has for those positively affected. Do you not care about this,
or do you just care about "I've got mine, screw anyone else who
doesn't yet have what I've got"?
> Similarly, I'm sure there must be many other possible wrong rulings of the
> court which would not affect my life in the slightest. The rightness or
> wrongness of court rulings does not depend on whether or not they affect me
> personally.
So, you believe that segregation of the races is good, and that those
nasty ol' courts, "contrary to the standards, opinions and wishes of the
majority of people in the state[s]" at the time, came in and upset things,
huh? Again, PEOPLE'S BASIC RIGHTS OF CITIZENSHIP ARE
***NOT*** PROPERLY A MATTER FOR PUBLIC VOTING
OR POPULARITY!!!!!!!!!! The courts are needed to step in and
decide when withholding/granting of rights is, or is not, constitutional
(but this does not prevent legislatures from also granting those rights).
[Sorry, Tony, but this short-sighted dunderhead really does deserve
to be hollered at, since logic, facts, and reasoning have had no effect
on him at all, and he fails to see that changes that do not affect him
(now by his own admission), ***CAN*** have important positive
consequences for others and are therefore worth adopting. But, as
you indirectly pointed out, the Neils of this world are too hidebound
(read, "stupid"...) to be worth spending much time trying to convince
of the value of something that they will never *believe* in (there's
that ugly "religiosity" rearing its head, again...! Too bad some people
cannot differentiate between their own beliefs, and facts...;-)]
--DR
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Neil Harrington" <nobody@homehere.net> wrote in message
news:v4mdnRfdkNxtmqLRnZ2dnUVZ_jWdnZ2d@giganews.com...
> Thank you for your confidence, but in all modesty I would
> have had to decline. I am not a constitutional scholar. Ann
> Coulter is though, and would have made an excellent choice,
> don't you think? [As a Supreme Court justice.]
8^), 8^), 8^), 8^), 8^), 8^), 8^), 8^), 8^), 8^), 8^), 8^),
8^), 8^), 8^), 8^), 8^), 8^), 8^), 8^), 8^), 8^), 8^), 8^),
8^), 8^), 8^), 8^), 8^), 8^), 8^), 8^), 8^), 8^), 8^), 8^),
8^), 8^), 8^), 8^), 8^), 8^), 8^), 8^), 8^), 8^), 8^), 8^),
8^), 8^), 8^), 8^), 8^), 8^), 8^), 8^), 8^), 8^), 8^), 8^),
8^), 8^), 8^), 8^), 8^), 8^), 8^), 8^), 8^), 8^), 8^), 8^),
8^), 8^), 8^), 8^), 8^), 8^), 8^), 8^), 8^), 8^), 8^), 8^),
8^), 8^), 8^), 8^), 8^), 8^), 8^), 8^), 8^), 8^), 8^), 8^),
8^), 8^), 8^), 8^), 8^), 8^), 8^), 8^), 8^), 8^), 8^), 8^),
8^), 8^), 8^), 8^), 8^), 8^), 8^), 8^), 8^), 8^), 8^), 8^),
8^), 8^), 8^), 8^), 8^), 8^), 8^), 8^), 8^), 8^), 8^)!!!!!!
You have GOT to be JOSHING!!!
--DR
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Neil Harrington" <nobody@homehere.net> wrote in message
news:Rf2dnbNLlLmbs6LRnZ2dnUVZ_tKdnZ2d@giganews.com...
> "David Ruether" <d_ruether@thotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:i1n24l$g61$1@ruby.cit.cornell.edu...
>> "Neil Harrington" <nobody@homehere.net> wrote in message
>> news:BqKdnWB7Vs9eYaPRnZ2dnUVZ_u-dnZ2d@giganews.com...
> Yes, but how is it you're replying to me?
>
> You claimed to have plonked me a couple of days ago.
>
> Not only a liar and a phony, but stupid.
Maybe I *am* stupid, since I sometimes foolishly and uselessly
respond to your posts found in threads within others' posts...
Actually, I have "plonked" you twice, but your inane posts
annoyingly still appear in my reader. Perhaps I shall need to
excise them manually, unread (since their content is so rarely
interesting), as they appear. OK, I will try once again for a
<PLONKING!> of your posts to see if I can finally get rid
of you.
--DR
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Walter Banks" <walter@bytecraft.com> wrote in message
news:4BDA5E18.E6114D2F@bytecraft.com...
> Bill Graham wrote:
>> A bad rule. I had a very good dentist. When she couldn't accept the partial
>> payment my poor insurance provided, I had to drop her, even though I would
>> have been happy to make up the difference out of my own pocket....but the
>> state laws made that impossible....She was not allowed to bill me the
>> difference. So today, I have a different, (and not as good) dentist. As
>> usual, my government screws me. - So what else is new?
> Use another approach. Use the American approach buy different
> insurance that would pay for the coverage you desire or buy no
> insurance and just pay for the dentist you would prefer.
I chose no insurance, since my (good) dentist does not accept
Medicare Advantage coverage, and my dentist bills amount to
about $220 per year for cleanings and check-ups, unless I need
the very occasional greater amount of work done. Same for my
eye doctor (but he averages about $60 per year...). As you point
out, the solution is not difficult to figure out - but some people
just like to complain 'bout "th' gov'mint"...;-)
--DR
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Mark L" <markl071616@yaspamhoo.com> wrote in message news:hev3v51vsvc10af50aa1hqphu702b355pb@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 17 May 2010 18:45:05 -0700, "Bill Graham" <weg9@comcast.net> wrote:
>>Yes. And when there exists a policy of stealing money from the rich
>>(successful) and giving it to the poor (unsuccessful) the average
>>intelligence of the human race deteriorates as a result. The unsuccessful
>>just have more children, and the successful, fewer.....
> If you try to measure survival and evolutionary success in dollars you are
> sadly mistaken. For starters, intelligence and wisdom are in no way equated
> with financial wealth. Money just begets more money, with or without you.
> The trait of greed, the only way to attain more material gain than another
> human, is an anathema to survival of the species. The greedy person's only
> goal is survival of themselves, not survival of the species as a whole. The
> greedy do the utmost harm to everyone else's environment because only their
> financial wealth matters to them. They cannot even think nor reason beyond
> that concept. They often have to be forced by laws and punishment or
> threats of punishment to try to make them even consider the lives of other
> humans. They're not concerned with anyone's survival past their own
> life-span. The person who disburses their material gains amongst all
> equally are interested in survival of humanity, not survival of just
> themselves. Nor will they make decisions to harm the survival of others nor
> their environment just to gain financially. If you use financial gain as a
> yardstick for evolutionary success there will eventually be only one person
> left on the planet, whoever is the most greedy. Even your own comments
> proving that your desire for financial gain doesn't equal evolutionary
> success.
Great post! (I respond not only to thank you for it, but so that
I will include it among all the posts preserved on my web site...;-)
--David Ruether
www.David-Ruether-Photography.com
d_ruether@hotmail.com
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Bill Baka" <bbaka@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:hssrec$1qb$1@news.eternal-september.org...
> I don't have even the slightest trace of apnea or RLS. With me it is a
> chemical imbalance that won't allow me to fall or stay asleep, plus the
> hyper senses. Sometimes I go for three or four days with zero sleep.
> Prescriptions don't work on me but I am physically addicted to Xanax
> thanks to a few doctors. What does work is considered illegal, and that
> is to smoke some cannabis Indicus and then I sleep like a baby and wake
> up feeling fine. My doctor's latest idea was to give me Amitriptyline
> and that stuff gives me a drugged out feeling the next day. Even
> exercise does nothing except keep me in great physical shape. I rode my
> bicycle about 35 miles on Sunday into some serious mountain climbing and
> calorie burning but even after a nice shower and 4 or 5 hours of
> relaxation I still could not sleep.
Sorry if this post indicates I have missed (or more likely not
remembered...) things you have written in the past... It does
seem that *maybe* if you can get off all drugs for a period of
time, and *possibly* learn some self-hypnosis/trance techniques,
then ***maybe*** you can occasionally get some relief from
insomnia(???). (If it appears that there is MUCH equivocation
in the above, there is...! ;-) BTW, when I was a kid, I read an
essay about sitting on a hill and acting like an animal in that I
cleared my brain of all verbal thoughts and "lived" only in the
moment . It turned out to be easier than I thought it would be...
I rarely have insomnia, and then only for maybe an hour or so
at a time (UGH!!! My sympathies...!). BTW, my problem is
generally the reverse - almost anything "knocks me out", like
petting the cat, eating, watching TV (it doesn't matter much if
the program is exciting or dull...;-), etc. Things that used to work
for me if I had problems sleeping were leaving the TV on without
sound (if the blinking and color changes are bothersome, you can
disconnect the signal input to get just video noise), and only going
to bed when I was REALLY ready (not when "it was time" - so
that was often 2-3AM...). Good luck with this!
--DR
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"LOL!" <lol@lol.org> wrote in message news:4jfqu5h43k3bfjpulfhck44j92e032hfiu@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 14 May 2010 04:37:03 -0500, Larry Thong
> <larry_thong@shitstring.com> wrote:
>>On Thu, 13 May 2010 23:06:08 -0600, Russell D. wrote:
>>>> Even the most die hard egg lover just simply can't get enough of the
>>>> old 24/1.4G. This miracle lens never ceases to amaze.
>>>>
>>>> <http://i298.photobucket.com/albums/mm261/Ritaberk/Eggs.jpg>
>>> That's a very nice picture, but I'm confused by the out of focus area
>>> just of the inside of the nest just above the eggs. It doesn't seem like
>>> a DOF issue because there seems to be things beyond that area that are
>>> in focus. Just curious. None the less, I like the picture.
>>It's a DoF issue and the angle of the focal plane at which I was
>>shooting. I was only about 6"-8" away from the nest going between
>>branches. A 24TS would have done a better job under these circumstances,
>>but I don't have one. Of course, I could have simply stopped down to
>>about f/5.6 and that wouldn't be an issue.
> Oh dear. Yet *ANOTHER* DSLR shot with too shallow DOF due to unavailability
> of focal-lengths and that cherished larger sensor. The chance of getting a
> useful image gone forever--AGAIN.
>
> They just keep coming and coming! Yet not one of them has the sense to be
> honest with themselves on why that is so.
>
> You sure did get what you paid for, didn't you.
>
> LOL!
As was pointed out by the shooter, f5.6 would have taken
care of it - but I suspect that the shooter is still exploring
the (intentional) very limited DOF possibilities offered by
having a 24mm f1.4 combined with a larger sensor, and
shooting at f1.4, something those with P&S cameras with
their almost universal DOF cannot explore (even my Sony
707, with its sharp f2 lens, does not permit me to take such
a picture...).
--DR
~~~~~~~~~~
"Alan Browne" <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote in message news:786dnYmgFr8SDnDWnZ2dnUVZ_gudnZ2d@giganews.com...
"David Ruether" <d_ruether@thotmail.com> wrote in message news:hsjput$i51$1@ruby.cit.cornell.edu...
> "LOL!" <lol@lol.org> wrote in message news:4jfqu5h43k3bfjpulfhck44j92e032hfiu@4ax.com...
>> Oh dear. Yet *ANOTHER* DSLR shot with too shallow DOF due to
>> unavailability of focal-lengths and that cherished larger sensor. The chance
>> of getting a useful image gone forever--AGAIN.
>>
>> They just keep coming and coming! Yet not one of them has the sense to be
>> honest with themselves on why that is so.
>>
>> You sure did get what you paid for, didn't you.
>>
>> LOL!
> As was pointed out by the shooter, f5.6 would have taken
> care of it - but I suspect that the shooter is still exploring
> the (intentional) very limited DOF possibilities offered by
> having a 24mm f1.4 combined with a larger sensor, and
> shooting at f1.4, something those with P&S cameras with
> their almost universal DOF cannot explore (even my Sony
> 707, with its sharp f2 lens, does not permit me to take such
> a picture...).
> --DR
>> As was pointed out...
> This is a no troll reply zone....
Me feeeble brane jes' cain't keep trak o' hoo iz da trolz,
an' hoo ain't...! ;-) And, I thought the response I gave
may be useful for someone, anyway...
--DR
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Jeff Jones" <jj197109671@mailinator.com> wrote in message
news:k3rov5pjopf7r7f1n55b9tgiqscfq6b62u@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 25 May 2010 21:48:22 GMT, "Dudley Hanks"
> <dhanks@blind-apertures.ca> wrote:
>> http://www.blind-apertures.ca/LatestPics/Newton1.jpg
>>
>>Take Care,
>>Dudley
> Have someone else preview these before you upload them. Let them waste
> their time telling you if you got the subject properly framed or not. Or
> did they get tired of doing your photography for you too?
It *IS* properly-framed, at least to me...
(I like the photograph.)
--David Ruether
www.David-Ruether-Photography.com
d_ruether@hotmail.com
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Jeff Jones" <jj197109671@mailinator.com> wrote in message news:eatov59qrbhktr2f25vgdo1oerul2v5635@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 26 May 2010 00:43:36 GMT, "Dudley Hanks"
> <dhanks@blind-apertures.ca> wrote:
>>My daughter did preview this photo, but my close family members are
>>instructed to only answer yes or no to my very specific questions in order
>>to cancel out as much as possible their personal bias / desire to not
>>offend.
> I suggest you make up a new list of questions. The kind of questions that
> any great artist would ask themselves of their own work. That's what makes
> them great artists. What's that? You don't even know what those questions
> might be? (that's obvious from your posted examples) That's precisely why
> you are no artist of any sort. Heaven forbid that they told you that you
> created yet another ass-terpiece. They wouldn't want to offend your failed
> life, now would they. You have enough problems just dealing with your loss
> of eyesight and what it has brought into your family troubles, they
> wouldn't want to have to be honest with you too at this stage of the game.
Are you always this much of a jerk? And, BTW, I had about
50 museum shows (before I quit showing), several museum
purchases, and I taught photography at the college level for
several years - and I *do* find Dudley Hanks work often quite
good, or at least interesting.
--David Ruether
www.David-Ruether-Photography.com
d_ruether@hotmail.com
~~~~~~~~~~
"Peter" <peternew@nospamoptonline.net> wrote in message
news:4bfd90a9$0$5498$8f2e0ebb@news.shared-secrets.com...
> "David Ruether" <d_ruether@thotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:htk2n0$b7t$1@ruby.cit.cornell.edu...
>> "Jeff Jones" <jj197109671@mailinator.com> wrote in message
>> news:k5tov55jkb8p56gij9c364c74m3tojdskg@4ax.com...
>>> On Wed, 26 May 2010 00:43:36 GMT, "Dudley Hanks"
>>> <dhanks@blind-apertures.ca> wrote:
>>>>"Jeff Jones" <jj197109671@mailinator.com> wrote in message
>>>>news:k3rov5pjopf7r7f1n55b9tgiqscfq6b62u@4ax.com...
>>>>> On Tue, 25 May 2010 21:48:22 GMT, "Dudley Hanks"
>>>>> <dhanks@blind-apertures.ca> wrote:
>>>>>> http://www.blind-apertures.ca/LatestPics/Newton1.jpg
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Take Care,
>>>>>>Dudley
>>>>> Have someone else preview these before you upload them. Let them waste
>>>>> their time telling you if you got the subject properly framed or not.
>>>>> Or did they get tired of doing your photography for you too?
>>>>I submit that there is no such thing as "properly framed," only
>>>>"traditionally framed," "conventionally framed" or "normally framed."
>>>>
>>>>Most good / exceptional artists ignore convention and do their own thing;
>>>>it's what makes them great.
>>> Yes, all great "artists" cannot even see their art, that's what makes
>>> them
>>> great artists, right?
>>>
>>> You're not only blind physically, you've blinded yourself mentally.
>> Are you always this much of a jerk? And, BTW, I had about
>> 50 museum shows (before I quit showing), several museum
>> purchases, and I taught photography at the college level for
>> several years - and I *do* find Dudley Hanks work often quite
>> good, or at least interesting.
> I decided to stop feeding the troll. Dudley more than adequately exposes the
> troll for the jerk he is.
> While I generally agree with you on the level of Dudley's work, the level is
> not important. What is important is his example of not becoming a "poor me,"
> person who is down on himself. I think Dudley's attitude is inspiring.
> --
> Peter
I agree - it is. I am now somewhat disabled - and I "whine-'n'-complain"
about it FAR more than Dudley ever appears to do (and I'll take my
disabilities any day over his!). Thanks for the comments.
--DR
~~~~~~~~~
"Dudley Hanks" <dhanks@blind-apertures.ca> wrote in message
news:6hgLn.5053$z%6.4031@edtnps83...
> "David Ruether" <d_ruether@thotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:htk1np$9rf$1@ruby.cit.cornell.edu...
>> "Jeff Jones" <jj197109671@mailinator.com> wrote in message
>> news:k3rov5pjopf7r7f1n55b9tgiqscfq6b62u@4ax.com...
>>> On Tue, 25 May 2010 21:48:22 GMT, "Dudley Hanks"
>>> <dhanks@blind-apertures.ca> wrote:
>>>> http://www.blind-apertures.ca/LatestPics/Newton1.jpg
>>>>
>>>>Take Care,
>>>>Dudley
>>> Have someone else preview these before you upload them. Let them waste
>>> their time telling you if you got the subject properly framed or not. Or
>>> did they get tired of doing your photography for you too?
>> It *IS* properly-framed, at least to me...
>> (I like the photograph.)
>> --David Ruether
>> www.David-Ruether-Photography.com
>> d_ruether@hotmail.com
> Thanks, David, it was just a practice macro shot. I wasn't trying for
> anything fancy, just to get the Newton in the frame, preferably a bit low
> and to the right.
>
> The main thing I was after was to see how the SX120 exposed the colour of
> the Newton on the light plate. From other feedback I've received, it sounds
> like it came out a bit darker than it should have, but not too much.
>
> Once again, thanks for the comment.
>
> Take Care,
> Dudley
I meant what I said, above. I like the photograph, as it is now.
--DR
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Larry Thong" <larry_thong@shitstring.com> wrote in message
news:zsOdnWVaCuloJmDWnZ2dnUVZ_vudnZ2d@supernews.com...
> And the old 500/4 was there to capture all the action! The 70-200 VRII was
> there as well but didn't come out of the bag. It was a great show and a
> nice bike ride getting there, even with the temp being 94° in the shade.
> The best part of all I didn't have to suffer with traffic or parking.
>
> Of course, it had to be hazy and the 2:00 sun didn't help much either.
>
> http://i298.photobucket.com/albums/mm261/Ritaberk/In_The_Bag.jpg
>
> http://i298.photobucket.com/albums/mm261/Ritaberk/Mirror.jpg
Nice pictures!
And today in this NG, I "PLONKED" four trolls, a record! ;-)
(In my previous 15 years of posting I had made it only to three
"PLONKS" before today, the third being very recently - but
today they were "coming out of the woodwork", like roaches.
What gives? ;-)
--DR
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"M J Wyllie" <mjwyllie@optusnet.com.au> wrote in message
news:4c00b123$0$77547$892e0abb@auth.newsreader.octanews.com...
> Firstly, thanks to everyone who replied & offered some advice. I have had a good look through the
> pics I took at my sons last tournament & found that the majority of shots were taken between 50mm &
> 70-75mm. This was with my 28-135 IS lens. So i'm thinking that I really should opt for the 24-70L.
>
> Just for interest, here are 2 of the pics taken, this one at 50mm
>
> www.members.optusnet.com.au/mjwyllie/MA-EXAMPLE1.jpg
>
> this 1 at 75mm
>
> www.members.optusnet.com.au/mjwyllie/MA-EXAMPLE2.jpg
Notable are the poor compositions (in "1", the person [stationary] could show more [or less]
of his body/head included; in "2", same comment for the "decapitated" person on the right,
the "head-split" one in blue, and the one on the left could use a tad more frame width). When
in doubt, shoot slightly wide and crop later. Also the lighting and exposures are very poor.
I assume there is no low overhead neutral-colored ceiling to bounce off(?). Otherwise try
something like Styrofoam milkshake containers attached big end to big end with crinkled
aluminum foil rubber cemented to the "back" insides. Cut a hole in one end so they will
press-fit over the top of your upturned flash (oriented so it can be flipped for vertical or
horizontal - or left at 45 degrees to cover both). This will provide a softer light from a larger
light source, from a reasonably high angle. Adjust your exposures higher with compensation
(and add as much ambient light to the mix as you dare - a little motion, especially with a
rear-curtain flash synchronization, can look good...).
--David Ruether
www.David-Ruether-Photography.com
d_ruether@hotmail.com
>>>>>>>>>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
<aaronep@pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:e998f827-a5ac-4e5c-9f1b-d03546b04ce0@v12g2000prb.googlegroups.com...
> Can someone tell me why digital camera makers are no longer offering
> optical viewfinders on their cameras?
>
> One salesman in retail shop claimed they are not necessary because LCD
> screens are now brighter than in previous years and obviate the need
> for optical viewfinders.
>
> My own experience has been that Cameras with only LCD screens are
> extremely difficult to use in bright sunlight.
>
> Aaron
I agree, and I also prefer an optical eyelevel finder (and it is also
easier to hold the camera steady with these). There is a possible
solution (but not for those who favor "compact" over "good
functionality") with something like the Hoodman LCD loupes (see --
http://www.amazon.com/s/?ie=UTF8&keywords=hood+loupe&tag=
googhydr-20&index=aps&hvadid=2966091661&ref=pd_sl_173vx3hgfi_b
for some). Also see -- http://www.hoodmanusa.com/products.asp?dept=1024
and other solutions at -- http://www.hoodmanusa.com. Not perfect,
but better than peering at that dark screen out there at the ends of
your arms...! ;-)
--David Ruether
www.David-Ruether-Photography.com
d_ruether@hotmail.com
>>>>>>>>>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@sonic.net> wrote in message
news:4c015370$0$1646$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net...
> Heh. A few days ago I was with a bunch of school kids in a cave and
> took some pictures. The only illumination was their flashlights, and
> the only way I could take pictures was to set the camera on a rock and
> do a five second exposure. Since it was so dark viewfinders (both
> kinds) were next to useless, but since it was an SLR I could see where
> the lens was pointed.
> --
> Ray Fischer
With the Sony 707 (and 717), so long as the items of interest
were not too distant for the camera's built-in IR illumination,
the camera could be set up for viewing in the dark with IR, but
switching to color at the instant of shooting (with flash). It
worked well...;-)
--DR
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Robert Spanjaard" <spamtrap@arumes.com> wrote in message
news:ce880$4c023c08$546ac3cf$1395@cache60.multikabel.net...
>A couple of flower macros for you to enjoy (and/or critisize).
>
> They might do well in the Wallpaper Shootin too, especially 4 and 5.
> But I already submitted a different shot.
>
> http://www.arumes.com/temp/macro/
>
> --
> Regards, Robert http://www.arumes.com
I like number 4 the most. Nice forms/colors/massing/composition/
color-distribution/balance/choice-of-limited-plane-of-focus/etc.
Nice!
--DR
~~~~~~~~
"John McWilliams" <jpmcw@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:hu23jf$1b6$2@news.eternal-september.org...
> Pete wrote:
>> On 2010-06-01 01:20:57 +0100, John McWilliams said:
>>> Robert Coe wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 31 May 2010 15:52:51 -0700, John McWilliams
>>>> <jpmcw@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>> : Pete wrote:
>>>> : > "A couple of flower macros for you to enjoy (and/or critisize)."
>>>> : > : > I enjoyed them (thanks Robert S).
>>>> : > : > This is a photography newsgroup not an English lesson.
>>>> : : : There should be an apostrophe after the word
>>>> : : : "newsgroup"....! :-)
>>>> Actually, the word you were groping for there is "comma".
>>> No groping at all: Just seeing if anyone knew the difference and was
>>> paying attention; I wasn't! .... :-)
>> I should've groped for that comma. I get in a muddle, I thought comma
>> groping was something I ought to stop doing.
>>
>> You could've written: there should be a catastrophe after the word
>> "newsgroup" :-)
> I guess that's in the unspoken word regarding most NGs in this century.
>>> Besides, you left out the more interesting target:
>>> > Not to criticalicate anything, though....
>> An excellent word. No results from Google, which must be a first.
> Bob came up with a good'un, too.
> --
> John McWilliams
All the new words were "perfectly cromulent", as Lisa Simpson
would have pointed out...;-)
--DR
~~~~~~~~~
"Savageduck" <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com>
wrote in message news:2010060108592878840-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom...
> On 2010-06-01 07:43:18 -0700, "David Ruether" <d_ruether@thotmail.com> said:
>> All the new words [here] were "perfectly cromulent", as Lisa Simpson
>> would have pointed out...;-)
>> --DR
> You have just embiggened this whole debate.
> --
> Regards,
>
> Savageduck
8^), 8^), 8^) !!!
--DR
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"infiniteMPG" <57classic@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:b2c87357-f2ee-4be0-90bc-39c004f57883@40g2000vbr.googlegroups.com...
> I have a Sony A-100 and have had good luck with my Tamron 18-250 and
> also with my Tamron 90 (with 2X doubler for tight macro shots). I
> have been wanting to occasionally shoot some distant stuff like an
> eagle's nest that is not far from my home, so I shopped for something
> inexpensive to do this with occasionally. I found a Rokinon 800mm
> f8.0 mirror lens with an adapter to my Sony (Minolta) mount. I have
> not had much time to play with this but did last night.
>
> It was still sunny out so no problem with light. I had this mounted
> on my tripod and noticed that even the slightest motion would cause
> the lens to bounce around. I was using shutter only as no adjustment
> for f-stop available, fixed f8.0. I would get images locked in thru
> the viewfinder and would tweak as to get the focus as crisp as
> possible, snap the picture, replay it on the camera and zoom in to see
> everything blurry. No matter what I tried or how fast I made my
> shutter, same thing. Thought the viewer might be out a tad so played
> with pushing the focus to the edges of the focal view and just got
> worse.
>
> Then I set the camera to do the 2 second delay which I assume opens
> the mirror, lets the camera settle for 2 seconds and then capture the
> image. Not really any difference.
>
> Since what I am SEEING thru the viewfinder is crisp and clear I am
> thinking I should be able to capture it at least as clear as I see
> it. So what I am wondering, is this possibky my tripod vibrating the
> camera just a tad when the mirror opens and even the 2 seconds isn't
> enough time to let it settle???? My tripod isn't massively rigid but
> I've never had a problem with it with my regular lenses. The 800mm is
> a beast and the overhang makes the tripod less steady to start with.
> In fact I have to flip the top around 180-degrees because the quick
> release lock is on the back and with the lens hanging off the front it
> pulled away from the latch making me a bit nervous having this hang
> off the front.
>
> Don't want to invest in an expensive tripod but I am starting to think
> that I should be able to get clean shots with this but have not been
> able to so far.
>
> All help is appreciated and if you start to reply with comments that I
> wasted my money on the lens then please keep them to yourself. I got
> this lens for limited use and to play with. Just trying to make the
> best of it.
>
> Thanks!
Most inexpensive (and even expensive...) mirrors are not very sharp.
A Tamron 300mm f5.6, a Minolta 250mm f5.6, and my favorite,
the older (middle of three versions) Nikkor 500mm f8 (this one is even
sharp on the Nikkor TC14!) are the only exceptions I have seen so far.
I did not like the Sigma 600mm or the Vivitar Series I mirrors, the MTO
1000mm f10, or the Nikkor 500mm f4 or 1000mm f11 mirrors. Chances
are, therefore, that your mirror is just not very crisp at anything above
minimal enlargement. As others have pointed out, though, the tripod
AND HEAD are critical, as is technique. Many into using very long lenses
favor a really pro-grade ball head (above Manfrotto level) or a more
convenient to use "sling" type of mount. Not understood by most is
that very rigid tripod legs can work against you (try lightly placing a finger
on the tripod top, then tapping a leg - that l o n g vibration that follows
is what you do not want, but instead a tripod that favors better damping
over rigidity/strength [why I don't like Manfrotto tripods...]). I assume you
have tried mirror-up with a *very flexible* cable release? You can also try
weighting down the whole thing with something heavy hanging from the
tripod top. Maybe most important (you can spot this in the viewfinder)
is the condition of the atmosphere between you and your subject. If
you are shooting very far away, there will be only rare times when this
will be successful due to "undulating" air effects. Also, surprisingly, I've
had my best luck shooting with my 500mm mirror hand held (damping...;-).
With 500mm alone www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/500mm-Nikkor.htm
500mm+1.4X+2X=1400mm 8^)
www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/500mm-Nikkor-plus-TC14-plus-TC200.htm
Oh, also don't forget that mirrors are about 1/2 (or more) stop than rated,
robbing shutter speed.
--David Ruether
www.David-Ruether-Photography.com
d_ruether@hotmail.com
~~~~~~~~
"infiniteMPG" <57classic@gmail.com> wrote in message news:73be7c86-c86e-4608-a125-36b76583b7a1@e21g2000vbl.googlegroups.com...
Oooops! I left out a word... That last should have ended with,
"Oh, also don't forget that mirrors are about 1/2 (or more) stop
*slower* than rated, robbing shutter speed." Also, Paul Furman
had some good suggestions with increasing the ISO, using a table
top, car top, wall, concrete block, etc. with a bean bag.
>I think what I'll do first to try is weigh down my existing tripod. I
> do have the center hanger hook so that won't take much to try. Good
> suggestion. Before I go spending money on better tripods I want to be
> sure I can even get decent pictures if the camera/lens are totally
> stable.
Good plan. Watch out for that air quality, though!
> I was kind of thinking that the clarity I see thru the SLR is the
> image coming thru the lens so didn't see why the CCD couldn't capture
> it as crisply as I'm seeing it. After all, I am "looking" thru the
> lens when I look thru the viewfinder.
That depends on the VF magnification (and VF images often look
sharper than what you finally get...). Also, moving air may give
you a sharp-looking image moment-to-moment, but not one
that is sharp during an extended exposure. The success of long
lens long-distance shooting for me was most often limited by air
quality. Also, it is VERY hard to keep a long lens still enough on
a tripod with any wind at all. I used to use the lens mounted on the
tripod with a monopod attached to the camera, going to the
ground with a little extra upward "push" applied.
> Also, let a little tidbit out. I have a wireless remote on my camera
> so I'm not touching the camera or the shutter button at all when I
> shoot.
Good! You will generally need some mirror "prerelease", though,
and some cameras can do this using the self-timer (or another
specific mirror prerelease method).
> Thanks for the suggestions!
You're welcome. I hope some of them help out.
--DR
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Grimly Curmudgeon" <grimly4REMOVE@REMOVEgmail.com> wrote in message news:6kag06lia29caukqvbv1vchn51b2q4jp4a@4ax.com...
> We were somewhere around Barstow, on the edge of the desert, when the
> drugs began to take hold. I remember infiniteMPG <57classic@gmail.com>
> saying something like:
>>I was kind of thinking that the clarity I see thru the SLR is the
>>image coming thru the lens so didn't see why the CCD couldn't capture
>>it as crisply as I'm seeing it. After all, I am "looking" thru the
>>lens when I look thru the viewfinder.
> Very real possibility the viewfinder screen isn't in perfect register
> with the sensor plane. On most cameras this can be adjusted by shimming
> it, if you're brave enough.
> This rears its head with manual focus lenses because the camera in AF
> mode simply does its own thing, so the discrepancy isn't noticed.
This effect is more noticeable with short lenses than with long.
Short lenses have greater DOF, but are more sensitive to lens
distance-to-screen/sensor errors, as with an error of 1mm with
a 10mm lens is a 10% error (very noticeable), but the same
screen placement error is only .1% for a 1000mm lens (difficult
to see). Therefore, I always check focus and alignment with a
good wide-angle of known quality and focus accuracy (easier
to do with MF lenses that may have accurate focus infinity stops
and tighter focus mechanisms). BTW, for the OP, I trust that
you are not scale-focusing the mirror (unlikely, but...;-) since
these (and ED lenses) can change focus with temperature, and
they also focus "beyond infinity" (an interesting concept...;-).
--David Ruether
www.David-Ruether-Photography.com
d_ruether@hotmail.com
~~~~~~~~~
"infiniteMPG" <57classic@gmail.com> wrote in message news:9afec37c-f752-42f8-b421-70ecaa1584f3@i28g2000yqa.googlegroups.com...
> Thanks for the info and similar conclusions as I am drawing,
> especially the eBay one. I wanted the lens mainly for tripod use for
> things like some nearby eagle's nests.
So long as the light is bright enough, you are close enough, the
tripod is steady enough through the exposure time, the lens is good
enough, and you can focus well enough, this, ahem..., *should* work...;-)
> Not much use to me as a lens
> to carry and hand hold, too bulky and too big a focus ring to hold by
> hand and focus. I'll push the ISO and see what I can do with that.
> When I do macro I do aperture and it works great but with fixed it's a
> whole new game. How would I use aperture priority with a fixed
> aperture lens?
Usually the camera defaults to a given (not necessarily specified)
aperture with a mirror which has no diaphragm or aperture connections
to the camera's mechanics/electronics (with Nikon, the default is f5.6...).
In aperture mode, the camera then adjusts the shutter-speed/ISO for
correct exposure given the light level sensed through the lens (same for
manual exposure - you adjust shutter-speed, and/or aperture, and/or
ISO setting for correct exposure, however this is indicated by your
camera's metering system). It doesn't matter what the actual aperture is,
except in terms of the other two parts of the exposure triad required to
get it right without going outside of the range of practical values.
> Another thing I was curious about is if the view finder is focused
> properly for my eyes. Since how my eye is seeing something in focus
> and how the CCD sees it might be two different things. Since this is
> very focus intense I am wondering if small differences there can make
> a difference. How do you assure that the view finder is focused
> correctly? With manual focus lenses I can see this being extremely
> critical.
>
> Thanks again.
Agreement between VF focus and sensor focus is not so critical with very
long lenses as it is with very short lenses (long lenses have relatively little
DOF, but relatively great depth of focus, which can cover small errors - but
the reverse is true with wide-angles, which have relatively greater DOF,
but relatively far less depth of focus, so the agreement between the sensor
focus and screen focus with WAs is more critical for good manual focusing).
Also, if you see a sharp eye-level screen image on the ground-glass VF area,
your eyepiece focus adjustment is properly made (I prefer using wide-angle
lenses for making this adjustment, and also for checking screen/lens/camera
body alignments).
--David Ruether
www.David-Ruether-Photography.com
d_ruether....@....hotmail.com
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"infiniteMPG" <57classic@gmail.com> wrote in message news:ce98d6fd-1a70-42c9-9e15-a8f4869abdfd@i31g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
>> Can you please upload those pictures? Shooting the moon is a good
>> benchmark for lenses.
> Did that but that's where I started seeing lack of detail no matter
> what I did. I think my experiment is about over with the 800mm. This
> is what I set up a few days ago and tried.
>
> I rolled my big arsed gas grill over to the door of my back porch,
> nice sunny afternoon so plenty of light. I set the camera and lens on
> the rigid side table on top of a bag of mortar mix I had sitting
> there, this allowed me to form a nest for the camera and lens. I then
> laid weight on top to keep things steady. I aimed at a tree about 100
> feet away so I had good distinct lines in the bark and the edge of the
> tree. Using my remote I took several pictures and regardless of
> shutter speed I got blurry edges on every shot. I tried different
> settings but couldn't get crisp focus on anything. I then turned my
> focus on a fence post corner about 150-feet away. Same kind of
> results.
Air quality can affect results even at these "close" distances. Also, if
*you* move at all on the porch during the exposure, that also could
easily spoil results. Also, as I pointed out earlier, few mirrors are
actually very good, and even the likely best vary considerably...
> I had ordered a 2.3X view finder magnifier which I had also just
> received and I tried that thinking I could focus better but since this
> is an 800mm lens, I could not get this to bring the image in the view
> finder in to focus. I am thinking that it's not meant for such long
> lenses so I'll play with that later.
It should make no difference - but this is a good indication that the
mirror itself is poor (among other possibilities). BTW, most SLR
eyepiece camera viewfinders have low magnification (well below 1:1),
so things can look sharper in the finders than they are in reality.
> Looking thru the view finder with the 800mm I was seeing a totally
> crisp image, well defined edges, but what I ended up with pictures of
> was fuzzy shots with no crisp edges.
See all the above...
> So if someone has some settings to try like if I should be working in
> just shutter speed or fully manual or what settings to try I'll be
> more then happy to try before I stick a fork in this. I think
> aperture mode is useless since this is a fixed f8.0 lens.
Aperture-priority or manual mode is usually appropriate for mirrors since
they have no adjustable apertures.
> ANY SUGGESTIONS or this experiment will soon draw to a close. If I
> can't get clear shots on a sunny day with tons of weigh holding the
> lens steady I sure don't think sticking it on a tripod or manually
> holding it will ever work.
>
> Thanks :O/
You may be surprised with hand-holding, *IF* the mirror is sharp,
*IF* the subject is reasonably close (and the air quality is EXCELLENT,
which means shooting early in the day with CLEAR air, and not over rooftops,
paving, etc.), and *IF* you can focus well and hand-hold this rig steady
(it may take many tries with the same photo...). Try chimney bricks and
roofing materials in bright light with the ISO set as high as you dare to see
if you can get your first sharp image. If not, there may be a buyer on eBay
for the mirror...;-)
--DR
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Bruce" <docnews2011@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:n6te06h2545caps1a21vm9jgn35jn5b3r3@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 02 Jun 2010 21:41:26 -0400, Robert Coe <bob@1776.COM> wrote:
>>What do the denizens of this newsgroup (those in the Canon world anyway) think
>>of the Canon 17-40mm f/4 L lens?
> I used one on my 5D bodies (now both retired). It was a better lens
> than the 16-35mm f/2.8L but the current Mark II version of the latter
> comprehensively beats the 17-40mm f/4.
>
> As others have suggested, the 17-55mm f/2.8 IS is probably a better
> choice. The IS, extra stop of speed and extra 20mm on the long end
> are very useful attributes.
>
> Or you could do what I did and change to Nikon. <g>
>
> In most areas, Nikon and Canon lenses compete. But in wide angle
> lenses, whether fixed focal length or zoom, Nikon is a long way ahead
> of Canon. I use the AF 20-35mm f/2.8D and AF-S 14-24mm f/2.8G ED,
> both of which perform better than all the fixed focal length Nikkors
> within their zoom ranges, and the new AF-S 16-35mm f/4G ED VR.
>
> What need is there for VR (Nikon's IS) on a 16-35mm, I hear you ask?
> It is ideal for candid shots at weddings and other social events and
> is perfect for available light shooting at very slow shutter speeds.
> My assistant is the main user of this lens. She regularly shoots at
> 1/4 sec and gets pin sharp results - provided that the subject doesn't
> move!
If the OP were willing to adapt the Nikkor 14-24 (an astonishingly good
lens), 16-35, 17-35, or 20-35 (the last mostly for crop-frame since its
edges FF at wide stops aren't too great...), the results would generally be
sharper even with FF than the Canon equivalents, even at wide stops.
Many people do this, although one then gives up the auto features ('course,
one could buy a Nikon body to work well with the lens[es]...;-).
--DR
~~~~~~~~~~~
"Bowser" <Canon@Nikon.Panny> wrote in message
news:lfji06t6ccaji472okk6q17cvv1fg2o8bt@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 03 Jun 2010 14:50:22 +0100, Bruce
<docnews2011@gmail.com> wrote:
>>On Thu, 3 Jun 2010 09:09:01 -0400, "David Ruether"
>><d_ruether@thotmail.com> wrote:
>>>If the OP were willing to adapt the Nikkor 14-24 (an astonishingly good
>>>lens), 16-35, 17-35, or 20-35 (the last mostly for crop-frame since its
>>>edges FF at wide stops aren't too great...), the results would generally be
>>>sharper even with FF than the Canon equivalents, even at wide stops.
>>>Many people do this, although one then gives up the auto features ('course,
>>>one could buy a Nikon body to work well with the lens[es]...;-).
>>Goof idea, but I really can't see the OP doing this. Diehard Canon
>>fans don't like to admit that "their" brand cannot produce wide angle
>>lenses that compete with the best.
> Funny typo: "Goof idea..."
>
> I prefer using a Canon on a Canon body for the obvious reasons: AF,
> metering, etc. I simply can't focus manually on modern SLRs, so
> whatever sharpness advantage the Nikon lens has would likely be lost
> due to focusing issues.
As for AF, I've found that with very short FL lenses, **IF* the
focus markers are accurate and the zoom doesn't shift focus a bit
with zooming, I prefer to scale focus anyway - it is fast, easy, and
accurate. I have no problems using my 28mm PC, 20mm, 16mm,
15mm, and 8mm this way. It is true, though, that the wonderful
SHARP-everywhere-in-the-field, low-distortion "F-series" Nikon
VFs are almost a thing of the past (with these, focusing even an
8mm on a plain matte screen was relatively easy - and framing
was easy with the relatively brighter screen with higher than usual
"eye-relief"). Ah, "progress"... :-(
--DR
~~~~~~~~
"Robert Coe" <bob@1776.COM> wrote in message news:12rk06l51jh6n42rpt75frnv0pajkco1ij@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 5 Jun 2010 10:56:38 -0400, "Peter" <peternew@nospamoptonline.net> wrote:
> : "Robert Coe" <bob@1776.COM> wrote in message
> : news:ldfk06pmh4sg1eql2oif4c9nqod7gpj4pe@4ax.com...
> : > I wouldn't have gone near [the Canon 17-40mm f/4L] for $1000. B&H sells
> : > it for $750 and has it marked down to $700 this month. But from what
> : > [Rich A] and others have told me, I conclude that its lack of sharpness
> : > at the edges keeps it from being an improvement over lenses I already
> : > have.
> : If you are using a FF lens on a crop camera you won't see the difference.
> : I use the Nikon 70-200, a FF lens, on my D300, a crop camera. On a FF
> : camera there will be some edge softness. However, I have never seen edge
> : softness with that lens on my D300.
> You're alluding to one of the fundamental questions of modern digital
> photography: Is a FF camera worth buying for general use, or is it a niche
> tool for which even many professionals will never actually feel the need? It's
> becoming clear to me (about time, some may say) that the additional cost of FF
> isn't just that the body costs twice as much; it's also that if you insist on
> lens performance comparable to that of a crop camera (and why wouldn't you?),
> you'll be limited to a rather small subset of very expensive options.
>
> In effect, I've just rejected a lens I might otherwise have bought, on the
> grounds that its performance on a FF camera is reportedly inadequate. But I
> don't own a FF digital camera, and the likelihood that I ever will is remote.
> My next camera, if there is one, will probably be a 7D, not a 5DII.
>
> So what is the role of the FF camera in the toolkit of the serious amateur?
> Some, myself included, thought a few years ago that FF was clearly the wave of
> the future and that crop cameras were a holding action until the major
> manufacturers (especially Nikon, in those days) got their act together. Now I
> think that scenario is much less obvious. What do the rest of you think?
>
> Bob
I think you make a very good point. A FF body is tempting for me
since I have shelves full of selected older (mostly MF) FF lenses,
and a FF body would make best use of these. Until recently, the
selection of *good* super-wides for the crop-framed cameras
was VERY limited - but this has changed. Also, even the more
useful crop-frame bodies in terms of (Nikon) compatibility with
MF lenses are rather expensive (and heavy) for me to deal with
at this time (there is no FA/N8008/F100/F3 equivalent in digital
yet, so I'm still waiting - although the D90 is tempting...;-).
Meanwhile, my Sony 707 (with a good .8X converter for WA)
satisfies my current limited needs...
--DR
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Bowser" <badda@bing.com> wrote in message
news:gz9On.282$5N3.161@bos-service2b.ext.ray.com...
> "RichA" <rander3127@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:6933c9b8-147e-49fb-949a-fb3c63c82055@z10g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
>> Could probably get away with the 16mm at f2.8 in a pinch, but it isn't
>> in the same league as better micro 4/3rds lenses. There is a limit of
>> what you can do with a set amount of funds, and Sony needs to spend
>> more and make the 16mm more expensive so it can do a proper job.
>> There is a reason a Zeiss 21mm for a FF camera costs what it does.
>> The Sony lens at f8.0 is passable, but the CA is severe and not
>> correctable in software, IMO. The blurring at f2.8 at the edges is
>> also bad, enough so you'd clearly see it on any decent sized print.
>> IMO, this lens will be used like the crappy Sigma 30mm f1.4-centrally,
>> and not for work requiring good edge definition. But again, bear in
>> mind the camera and lens are very inexpensive.
>>
>> [URL deleted - it didn't work...]
> Man, that is amazingly bad for a fixed focal length lens. Maybe Sony shoulda
> stayed in bed with Zeiss.
Even a good maker can have a "bad day"...;-( Nikon replaced their
unequivocally wonderful 16mm f3.5 FF MF fisheye (it's "snappy" and
sharp to the corners wide open with no illumination roll-off at infinity
focus - and it is even first-rate on the TC14A stopped down only one
stop), with the relatively very poor 16mm f2.8 FF MF/AF fisheye (it's
soft at the edges/corners until nearly f11, although it is tad wider...;-).
The MF 16mm f3.5 and the 28mm f4 PC Nikkors would be the last
of my many lenses if I ever sold most of them off (although I do also
like very much some other Nikkors I have...;-). There is more on this
here -- www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/slemn.html.
--David Ruether
www.David-Ruether-Photography.com
d_ruether@hotmail.com
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"C3" <C35790@aol.com> wrote in message
news:07d0e7d5-f200-44d4-afb4-ad719b622927@c20g2000prb.googlegroups.com...
> Does the Dali Lama sleep? What does he dream about? I'd like to
> know.
>
> C3+
8^)
Yes, the Dalai Lama does indeed most likely sleep (having
very much a human side...;-). And, he undoubtedly dreams
of electric sheep (long story...;-). BTW, his North American
headquarters is located in our small city, and he is occasionally
seen about town (see http://www.namgyal.org).
--DR
~~~~~~~~~~~
"GB" <NOTsomeone@microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:4bd5ad5a$0$28006$db0fefd9@news.zen.co.uk...
> David Ruether wrote:
>> Ooops! That should have been, "Dalai Lama"...;-)
>> --DR
> It was a completely surreal question, so the original spelling
> was probably correct.
Perhaps so... 8^)
--DR
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"GB" <NOTsomeone@microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:4c0fabee$0$2524$da0feed9@news.zen.co.uk...
> C3 wrote:
>> Is death similar to sleep. i have faith as a believer but I've been
>> suffering from sleep issue and depression.
>>
>> The paradox goes like this:
>>
>> You won't know what death is until you die and then it's too late.
>> I'm totally opposed to suicide as a prolifer.
>>
>> Please respond to this message with love.
>>
>> C3+
> This question has been answered previously:
>
> To die: to sleep;
> No more; and by a sleep to say we end
> The heart-ache and the thousand natural shocks
> That flesh is heir to, 'tis a consummation
> Devoutly to be wish'd. To die, to sleep;
> To sleep: perchance to dream: ay, there's the rub;
> For in that sleep of death what dreams may come
> When we have shuffled off this mortal coil,
> Must give us pause: there's the respect
> That makes calamity of so long life;
> For who would bear the whips and scorns of time,
> The oppressor's wrong, the proud man's contumely,
> The pangs of despised love, the law's delay,
> The insolence of office and the spurns
> That patient merit of the unworthy takes,
> When he himself might his quietus make
> With a bare bodkin? who would fardels bear,
> To grunt and sweat under a weary life,
> But that the dread of something after death,
> The undiscover'd country from whose bourn
> No traveller returns, puzzles the will
> And makes us rather bear those ills we have
> Than fly to others that we know not of?
Ah, a good bit o' "Shake-ass Pierre", that! 8^)
But, having pondered on the above a bit, I've
concluded that we can think when we are awake
(well, some people can, anyway...;-), perhaps
sometimes dream when we are asleep, but after
death, there is nothingness. Having been "put
under" a couple of times while being "jolted" back
to a regular heart rhythm, there was memory of
nothing but blackness (except during one of the
times when the Versed dose was not sufficient
to block memories of a sudden white light and a
loud "BANG!" at the time of the electrical "jolt").
Since the physical bodily functions needed to
sustain consciousness are removed at the time
of death, nothing remains of that consciousness
after death - and this may be viewed as a good
thing. Imagine the incredible crowding of the
"wherever" if all the consciousnesses of all the
beings that ever existed were stuffed into it!
YIKES - chaos! (Or at the very least, eternal
discomfort for all...;-). Methinks logic predicts
that we all eventually end (with physical death),
hard as that is for some to accept...
--DR
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"GB" <NOTsomeone@microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:4c10e57e$0$28003$db0fefd9@news.zen.co.uk...
> David Ruether wrote:
[...]
>> Ah, a good bit o' "Shake-ass Pierre", that! 8^)
> It's a bit long-winded, really. It can be summed up as: Life's a bitch, but
> I'd better not kill myself in case there's an after-life which is worse than
> this one. That's truly negative thinking, and poor Hamlet really needs
> counselling. Instead, it all ends rather badly.
8^)
That's much briefer, but I think I prefer Shakespeare's wording...;-)
(I've been on a Hamlet "kick" lately. Just got two versions. One
is the amazing BBC/Royal Shakespeare production with a doctor
from "House", Captain Picard from "Star Trek", and most surprising,
David Tennant from "Dr. Who", who is SUPOIB! [Edge-of-your-seat,
hold-your-breath good!] Everyone gets done-in in the end, so I wonder
who took over the kingdom afterward...8^)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"GB" <NOTsomeone@microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:4c11402d$0$28002$db0fefd9@news.zen.co.uk...
> David Ruether wrote:
>> Everyone gets done-in in the end, so I wonder
>> who took over the kingdom afterward...8^)
> Fortinbras is the big winner.
Ah, thanks...;-)
--DR
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> David Ruether wrote:
"GB" <NOTsomeone@microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:4c11402d$0$28002$db0fefd9@news.zen.co.uk...
>> Methinks logic predicts
>> that we all eventually end (with physical death),
>> hard as that is for some to accept...
>> --DR
> Methinks that too.
>
> --
> Murphy's ultimate law is that if something that could go wrong doesn't,
> it turns out that it would have been better if it had gone wrong.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Wayne E. Amacher" <wamacher@invalid.mauve.rahul.net> wrote in message
news:hupj88$5d5$1@blue.rahul.net...
> Bill Baka <bbaka@comcast.net> wrote:
> : On 06/08/2010 09:27 PM, C3 wrote:
> :> Is death similar to sleep. i have faith as a believer but I've been
> :> suffering from sleep issue and depression.
> :>
> :> The paradox goes like this:
> :>
> :> You won't know what death is until you die and then it's too late.
> :> I'm totally opposed to suicide as a prolifer.
> :>
> :> Please respond to this message with love.
> :>
> :> C3+
> : Good question.
> : I have been technically 'dead' twice on the operating table, but never
> : "Saw the Light", just nothing until I woke up from surgery.
> : 6 months in the hospital after a nasty car crash. I made it, but the car
> : had to be picked up in pieces.
> : Been there, done that, still no answers.
> : Bill Baka
> Now this discussion is getting interesting! About 30 years ago, I fell
> through the side of a glass shower. Cut myself mortally. In the
> hospital, on the operating table, I was transported faraway, it seemed,
> into utter blackness. I then realized that I was about to do a "memory
> dump"; everything that I was, my personality, my foibles, was about to be
> erased forever; I would no longer exist.
> Absolute blackness.
This is interesting - it seems to refer to the "my life flashed before me"
comments of others with near-death experiences...
> But I
> woke up freezing cold, still on the operating table. When I said I was
> freezing the doctors said that they had just pumped two units of blood
> into me straight out of the freezer. Then they anesthesized me and sewed
> me up.
>
> About three days later, I was going to clean up a bit and shave. It was
> then that I realized that I had come into the hospital naked and had
> nothing to wear or to shave with. So, I've kept a beard ever since to
> remind me that the rest of my life is free and little else matters because
> I might not be alive now. In fact this is a good time in my life to be
> reminded of that experience. Death need not be feared. You just cease to
> exist, the same as before you were born. That makes sense and matches the
> reality that we can observe.
Yes. I don't fear death, but only the process of dying...
> When I went back to work, it was stormy and rainy. Someone looking out
> the window said, "What a miserable day". I said to myself, how can it be
> miserable, it came! That attitude stayed with me a long, long time.
Neat! I enjoy weather that others don't (EXCEPT hot-humid weather, since
I'm physically miserable in it). Rain/snow/wind/clouds/sun/cold are "interesting"
experiences for me that are also sometimes "intense". Unfortunately, I'm now
stuck in the house most of the time, so these experiences are less common...
> Most people don't iterate this experience, but it is nice to have company.
> Now -- Let's get back to sleep disorders.
>
> Wayne
OK, sometimes I use memories of sailing a Sunfish, or gliding, or... to
help with sleep if it escapes me for very long...
--DR
~~~~~~~~
"Wayne E. Amacher" <wamacher@invalid.mauve.rahul.net> wrote in message
news:huse6a$p0d$2@blue.rahul.net...
> David Ruether <d_ruether@thotmail.com> wrote:
> Wayne wrote:
> :> Now this discussion is getting interesting! About 30 years ago, I fell
> :> through the side of a glass shower. Cut myself mortally. In the
> :> hospital, on the operating table, I was transported faraway, it seemed,
> :> into utter blackness. I then realized that I was about to do a "memory
> :> dump"; everything that I was, my personality, my foibles, was about to be
> :> erased forever; I would no longer exist.
> :> Absolute blackness.
> : This is interesting - it seems to refer to the "my life flashed before me"
> : comments of others with near-death experiences...
> No, no, no! "Life flashing before me" is for movies and TV shows. You
> simply proceed to blackness, a void. There are no white lights, no
> tunnels. It's quick and painless. I have seen a tv show where six or
> eight people claimed to experince tunnels, lights, and relatives
> approaching. I flat out don't believe them! On the same show there was
> one person with an experience like mine. He was completely ignored. No
> theatrics. However, it's him that I believe. Remember, I was there.
>
> Wayne
I suspect that experiences may vary during dying due to differences in
blood supply cut-off rates to the brain. I have experienced the "encroaching
darkness from the edges" effect during feinting and migraine auras, and the
"white light" effect during intense sex (ahem, long ago....;-). Others claim
"out of body" experiences, which I tend to believe (as perceptions, not as
reality...). There is also good support for the truth of other perceptions
and experiences such as waking sleep-paralysis, and associated unpleasant
visions and perceived experiences (I sometimes experience daytime waking
paralysis - perhaps it is cataplexy, with narcolepsy[?]). I also "see" temporary
visual effects (that I know are not "real") due to blood supply changes to my
visual cortex. I agree with you, though, that sudden death likely leads directly
to ("black") nothingness...
--DR
~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Bill Baka" <bbaka@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:hupkd5$qbi$1@news.eternal-september.org...
[...]
> I have to relate one more item since you fell through a glass shower.
> My mother lost an uncle to the exact same thing. He (Norman) managed to
> cut his own throat falling through his shower door. By the time his wife
> noticed he was taking a very long shower he was dead. Not sleeping is a
> pain, but dying from a glass shower is just such a waste of a life.
[...]
> Bill Baka
Ugh! Maybe it is time to get rid of our glass shower door (but
we JUST got around to making it stop leaking after 16 years...! ;-).
I know someone also who went through one - why are the doors
not made of glass that shatters into tiny pieces, or made of thick
Plexiglas?
[Current ones are made with tempered glass that shatters.]
--DR
~~~~~~~~~~
"Sue Morton" <867-5309@domain.invalid> wrote in message
news:hutgs5$orm$1@appyface.eternal-september.org...
> "David Ruether" <d_ruether@thotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:hutf3p$2lj$1@ruby.cit.cornell.edu...
>> I suppose that installing
>> (ugly) tub-bottom rough sticky-backed material would also help...
> Yes the textured/non-slip stuff would help. As well as the ugly rails
> like those seen hospitals and public restrooms. These additions to your
> shower/tub really ARE lifesavers in every sense of the word. If you
> want to live on then you might like to consider installing things like
> this. Otherwise you just might 'go out' a bit sooner -- but your
> bathroom will still look stylish once they remove the blood stains. :-)
> --
> Sue Morton
8^)
Thanks - the idea of installing the rail hadn't dawned on me (as much else
also doesn't these days). Now to overcome my great inertia and do it.......! ;-)
--DR
~~~~~~~~~
"GB" <NOTsomeone@microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:4c127484$0$12156$fa0fcedb@news.zen.co.uk...
> David Ruether wrote:
>> Thanks - the idea of installing the rail hadn't dawned on me (as much
>> else also doesn't these days). Now to overcome my great inertia and do
>> it.......! ;-) --DR
> On the other hand what happens if you slip anyway? You don't want the
> paramedics thinking you don't have a stylish bathroom? ;-)
Hey, it just dawned on me that if I installed the tub-bottom
material, the wall rail, and an additional rail inside the doors
(necessitating ducking under it to enter the tub - but, hey, it's
for safety, so worth it!;-), and then took only sit-down baths,
I should be safe (unless I "conk out", and the water is too
deep...). Hmmm.... Maybe I will just quit bathing.... (not that
I do much of that now anyway...;-). 'Course, I could just
remove the doors and sit in my own gunk while taking a bath,
but..., well..... ;-)
--DR
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"brassplyer" <brassplyer@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:b0d55d46-91da-484e-a9b5-11546ff855f3@g23g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
On Mar 30, 5:02 pm, "Steve King"
> I'm not a video engineer, but my understanding is that cameras capture
> either a full frame (progressive scan) or a half-frame (interlaced... every
> other scan line) at specific frame rates. There is no such thing as a
> 'continuous' stream of video data that can be chopped up at whatever frame
> rate one likes.
What about the raw "live" signal coming out of a cam, i.e. not what
gets laid onto the tape, internal camera drive but what you see
through the viewfinder or what goes through the output jack? I was
under the impression it is a continuous live stream as if you were
looking through a pair of binoculars or telescope and the camera
whether analog or digital takes it's "samples" or frames/fields from
this.
,,,,,,,,,,,,,
Unlikely. One indication of this is that you can directly connect
a camcorder (without recording medium in it) to a TV and you
will see the image properly (so long as the system types are the
same, as with PAL with PAL or NTSC with NTSC camcorder
and TV combinations). Otherwise, they would not synch properly.
--DR
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Frank" <frank@nojunkmail.humanvalues.net> wrote in message
news:7kr2t5debbbsskka5cscu11n36keis76kh@4ax.com...
> HDVSplit utility for HDV capturing with scene split - HDV capture
> utility
> http://strony.aster.pl/paviko/hdvsplit.htm
>
> Since HDVSplit has been known to work on systems where full-blown (and
> costly) NLE programs have failed to properly ingest HDV footage, maybe
> it will work for you.
> --
> Frank, Independent Consultant, New York, NY
HDVSplit does work better than the built-in utility in Vegas Pro 8
for accurately and cleanly capturing HDV (only!) from my Canon
HV20.It has been a superb, easy-to-use little program for my use...
--DR
~~~~~~~~~
"les" <idea@localnet.com> wrote in message
news:p-qdnZNEM7yUIkrWnZ2dnUVZ_hadnZ2d@posted.localnet...
> Thank you for all your wonderful insight and help.
> This will take me a few days to digest and test, but I can say for the
> moment that
> I did run my first tests with both cams running in HDV mode, and I really
> did not
> test anything in just DV mode. I agree this would have been a logical order
> to
> proceed in. However, the HDVsplit app did not work on either.
> The jury is still out on the HV20, pending your great suggestions on further
> tests
As Frank asked, did the tapes you tested HDVSplit with have ONLY
HDV material on them (especially on the parts you were trying to import)?
As has been pointed out, HDVSplit is for HDV *only*, and for everyone
who has reported so far except you, it has been a reliable, simple-to-use
program - but I do understand the frustrations surrounding, "Gee, it works
a peach for me, so it must be something you are doing wrong or something
wrong with your equipment", I spent a miserable 7 months(!) struggling
with Vegas Pro 8, only to have Sony finally admit there was a problem and
offered a fix that solved it for the relatively few of us who encountered it...
--DR
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Brian" <bclark@es.co.nz> wrote in message
news:gshav5ti5mbdduuc0on97epfminroop3nc@4ax.com...
> I saw a great video shot on TV recently. It was of a person walking in
> the garden and the camera was in a front side location tracking her
> movement as she walked with shrubs between her and the camera that
> gave it a more 3D effect as the shrubs moved pass the camera. The
> tripod would be on some kind of tracks
Pros do lay down tracks for this, and the camera (and often the
cameraman) are on a cart that moves on the tracks, pushed by
one or two assistants...
> but I was thinking sometime
> someone will invent a better way of the having the camera move with a
> person without any camera shake.
Pros use the Steadycam for some "hand-held" scenes in big movie
productions, and there is a Steadycam Junior for those without a
fortune to spend. Below this are various grips and braces (one of
mine is here, http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/brace.htm , and I
can often shoot very short takes that are steady with it - but I shoot
several takes and choose the best, then apply Mercalli software
stabilization if necessary). Mike Price generously provided me with
another type of brace that looks like it will work well (I have muscle
control problems and a tremor). It consists of a neck strap that holds
the base of a short monopod with adjustable length and camera
mounting angle. BTW, some camera motion, if smooth, can be
desirable for adding interest (fixed framing appears dull to me, and
I prefer a bit of unintended motion to that...).
> I wonder if you can tie the camera to
> a gas balloon <just kidding>.
>
> Regards Brian
I once owned a gyroscopic camera mount - great for getting a steady
image, but it was noisy and it vibrated (bad for Hi-8, probably OK
for current cameras, though...).
--David Ruether
www.David-Ruether-Photography.com
d_ruether@hotmail.com
~~~~~~~~~~
"Brian" <bclark@es.co.nz> wrote in message news:2htgv59r7hkpfbhvtsh8m26vtff17rrk7i@4ax.com...
> "David Ruether" <d_ruether@thotmail.com> wrote:
>>"Brian" <bclark@es.co.nz> wrote in message news:gshav5ti5mbdduuc0on97epfminroop3nc@4ax.com...
>>> I saw a great video shot on TV recently. It was of a person walking in
>>> the garden and the camera was in a front side location tracking her
>>> movement as she walked with shrubs between her and the camera that
>>> gave it a more 3D effect as the shrubs moved pass the camera. The
>>> tripod would be on some kind of tracks
>>Pros do lay down tracks for this, and the camera (and often the
>>cameraman) are on a cart that moves on the tracks, pushed by
>>one or two assistants...
>>> but I was thinking sometime
>>> someone will invent a better way of the having the camera move with a
>>> person without any camera shake.
>>Pros use the Steadycam for some "hand-held" scenes in big movie
>>productions, and there is a Steadycam Junior for those without a
>>fortune to spend. Below this are various grips and braces (one of
>>mine is here, http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/brace.htm , and I
>>can often shoot very short takes that are steady with it - but I shoot
>>several takes and choose the best, then apply Mercalli software
>>stabilization if necessary). Mike Price generously provided me with
>>another type of brace that looks like it will work well (I have muscle
>>control problems and a tremor). It consists of a neck strap that holds
>>the base of a short monopod with adjustable length and camera
>>mounting angle. BTW, some camera motion, if smooth, can be
>>desirable for adding interest (fixed framing appears dull to me, and
>>I prefer a bit of unintended motion to that...).
>>> I wonder if you can tie the camera to
>>> a gas balloon <just kidding>.
>>>
>>> Regards Brian
>>I once owned a gyroscopic camera mount - great for getting a steady
>>image, but it was noisy and it vibrated (bad for Hi-8, probably OK
>>for current cameras, though...).
>>--David Ruether
>> www.David-Ruether-Photography.com
>> d_ruether@hotmail.com
> Thanks David for the link.
> I've noticed that some hollywood type movies have camera shake, such
> as the action movies or the if camera sees what the actor sees
> (persons viewpoint).
I recently saw an excellent BBC/Royal-Shakespeare production of Hamlet
that included actual handheld HD footage shot by David Tennant (the actor
of Hamlet) while in the play. It was later "doctored" to supposedly look
like the footage that would have been produced by the 8mm film prop
camera he was shown using in the movie (with added scratches, dust,
hairs, color and saturation problems, shake, etc. ;-).
[If I messed up the above, it is because I'm currently experiencing a
scintillating-edge black scotoma in the center of my vision, and I can't see
what I'm writing just now...]
> I was watching a movie in a contest which started
> out good with a steady picture but when there was later on camera
> shake it made the movie look very amateurish and it started to become
> less enjoyable to watch.
Ideally, all "effects" should be appropriately used...;-)
> If I'm recording a sign with some interesting
> text while hand holding the camera I create a still frame for a few
> seconds when I edit the movie which removes the camera shake. In some
> cases I freeze frame the start and the end of a pan or zoom. However
> using a grip or brance would reduce a lot of editing work afterwards.
>
> Regards Brian
This can help - but even with the brace and selecting takes, I expect
I will need to cut the shaky ends from the clips that I use, and sometimes
to apply Mercalli (http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/Mercalli.htm) to
some. BTW, the "Bean" example given was shot without any brace or
handle...
--DR
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"J. Clarke" <jclarke.usenet@cox.net> wrote in message news:hte62202qd0@news5.newsguy.com...
> On 5/24/2010 10:20 AM, David Ruether wrote:
>> "J. Clarke"<jclarke.usenet@cox.net> wrote in message news:htc8hk0end@news2.newsguy.com...
>>> On 5/23/2010 2:04 PM, HerHusband wrote:
>> Brian wrote:
>>>>> I've noticed that some hollywood type movies have camera shake, such
>>>>> as the action movies or the if camera sees what the actor sees
>>>> I have been surprised to see how many TV shows are obviously filmed with
>>>> handheld cameras as the view tilts and shakes all over the place if you pay
>>>> attention. For folks like me who spend a lot of time and effort to produce
>>>> steady shots, I find the "profesional" shaking irritating.
>>>>
>>>> Of course, I'm pretty sensitive to shaking video and get nauseated if it's
>>>> excessive or continues for a long time. So maybe it's a bigger deal to me
>>>> than it would be to others.
>>> Google "shaky cam". You're not alone.
>> Oh, you "wusses" - just too afraid to "fly", huh? 8^)
> Huh? I've been a licensed pilot for more than 30 years. Shakycam is
> still annoying.
Missed the "8^)", huh...? ;-)
But, seriously, a video "motion" view with stationary or nearly stationary
framing is D - U - L - L - S - V - I - L - L - E videography to me - I
like to see the camera move and explore what is shot (although preferably
without jerkiness ["shakycam"], of course! ;-). A fluid movement of the
camera (which can include slow pans/tilts/rotations/zooms) is what I like...
If you don't also appreciate this sort of viewpoint movement, it would be
hard for me to believe that you have flown much except maybe just from
one place to another...;-) <-- [Note the "smiley"...;-]
--David Ruether
www.David-Ruether-Photography.com
d_ruether@hotmail.com
~~~~~~~~~~~
"John Williamson" <johnwilliamson@btinternet.com> wrote in message news:860bedFea9U1@mid.individual.net...
> David Ruether wrote:
>> "J. Clarke" <jclarke.usenet@cox.net> wrote in message news:hte62202qd0@news5.newsguy.com...
>>> On 5/24/2010 10:20 AM, David Ruether wrote:
>>>> "J. Clarke"<jclarke.usenet@cox.net> wrote in message news:htc8hk0end@news2.newsguy.com...
>>>>> On 5/23/2010 2:04 PM, HerHusband wrote:
>>>> Brian wrote:
>>>>>>> I've noticed that some hollywood type movies have camera shake, such
>>>>>>> as the action movies or the if camera sees what the actor sees
>>>>>> I have been surprised to see how many TV shows are obviously filmed with
>>>>>> handheld cameras as the view tilts and shakes all over the place if you pay
>>>>>> attention. For folks like me who spend a lot of time and effort to produce
>>>>>> steady shots, I find the "profesional" shaking irritating.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Of course, I'm pretty sensitive to shaking video and get nauseated if it's
>>>>>> excessive or continues for a long time. So maybe it's a bigger deal to me
>>>>>> than it would be to others.
>>>>> Google "shaky cam". You're not alone.
>>>> Oh, you "wusses" - just too afraid to "fly", huh? 8^)
>>> Huh? I've been a licensed pilot for more than 30 years. Shakycam is still annoying.
>> Missed the "8^)", huh...? ;-)
>> But, seriously, a video "motion" view with stationary or nearly stationary
>> framing is D - U - L - L - S - V - I - L - L - E videography to me - I
>> like to see the camera move and explore what is shot (although preferably
>> without jerkiness ["shakycam"], of course! ;-). A fluid movement of the
>> camera (which can include slow pans/tilts/rotations/zooms) is what I like...
>> If you don't also appreciate this sort of viewpoint movement, it would be
>> hard for me to believe that you have flown much except maybe just from
>> one place to another...;-) <-- [Note the "smiley"...;-]
> Call me old fashioned if you wish...
>
> What annoys me is the recent fashion for slightly wobbly camera shots
> where the camera is allegedly focusing on a stationary subject, as if
> it's hand held. That screams "amateur" to me.
>
> Tracking a moving subject is fine, although I prefer to see enough
> motion to interest me from what's actually happening in the frame. Using
> a tracking camera to convey a point of view likewise, but for goodness'
> sake, if you're concentrating on a talking head or a tightly framed
> conversation, keep the camera(s) locked. While you're at it, if you're
> following a character's point of view, keep the movement smooth, as when
> I'm walking, I'm not consciously aware that my head is bobbing up and
> down, even though it is. Watching that sort of shot makes me feel
> queasy. If you feel the artistic need to swoop round and view the
> dialogue from all angles, that's OK as long as it looks deliberate, but
> a bit of a wobble is *not*, IMO, acceptable.
>
> I'll go back to my corner now....
> --
> Tciao for Now!
>
> John.
I think there may be both a misunderstanding, and a difference
of opinion on camera technique. I'm with those who dislike jerky
camera shake, but I'm also with those who favor smooth camera
visual exploration of a subject, or even of some movement during
an interview or tightly framed conversation. The latter is simply
more interesting videography than the "viewpoint-fixed-in-space"
locked-tripod "still-picture" view/framing, and more like the way
we look at things (if it is desired to approximate that at all...;-).
Additionally, if one is hand-holding a camera, or even using it on
a monopod, it is VERY difficult to hold it satisfactorily steady,
whereas by adding a bit of continuous movement, it is easier to
make the camera image movement appear smoother...
--David Ruether
www.David-Ruether-Photography.com
d_ruether@hotmail.com
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Steve King" <steveSPAMBLOCK@stevekingSPAMBLOCK.net> wrote in message
news:htgpgd$bd5$1@news.albasani.net...
> "David Ruether" <d_ruether@thotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:hte8e2$24q$1@ruby.cit.cornell.edu...
> | "J. Clarke" <jclarke.usenet@cox.net> wrote in message
> news:hte62202qd0@news5.newsguy.com...
> | > On 5/24/2010 10:20 AM, David Ruether wrote:
> | >> "J. Clarke"<jclarke.usenet@cox.net> wrote in message
> news:htc8hk0end@news2.newsguy.com...
> | >>> On 5/23/2010 2:04 PM, HerHusband wrote:
> | >> Brian wrote:
> | >>>>> I've noticed that some hollywood type movies have camera shake, such
> | >>>>> as the action movies or the if camera sees what the actor sees
> | >>>> I have been surprised to see how many TV shows are obviously filmed
> with
> | >>>> handheld cameras as the view tilts and shakes all over the place if
> you pay
> | >>>> attention. For folks like me who spend a lot of time and effort to
> produce
> | >>>> steady shots, I find the "profesional" shaking irritating.
> | >>>>
> | >>>> Of course, I'm pretty sensitive to shaking video and get nauseated if
> it's
> | >>>> excessive or continues for a long time. So maybe it's a bigger deal
> to me
> | >>>> than it would be to others.
> | >>> Google "shaky cam". You're not alone.
> | >> Oh, you "wusses" - just too afraid to "fly", huh? 8^)
> | > Huh? I've been a licensed pilot for more than 30 years. Shakycam is
> still annoying.
> | Missed the "8^)", huh...? ;-)
> | But, seriously, a video "motion" view with stationary or nearly stationary
> | framing is D - U - L - L - S - V - I - L - L - E videography to me - I
> | like to see the camera move and explore what is shot (although preferably
> | without jerkiness ["shakycam"], of course! ;-). A fluid movement of the
> | camera (which can include slow pans/tilts/rotations/zooms) is what I like.
> | If you don't also appreciate this sort of viewpoint movement, it would be
> | hard for me to believe that you have flown much except maybe just from
> | one place to another...;-) <-- [Note the "smiley"...;-]
> | --David Ruether
> | www.David-Ruether-Photography.com
> | d_ruether@hotmail.com
> I haven't been following this thread closely, so I may be repeating what
> others have said. To make a blanket statement that a stationary camera is
> "Dullsville" is about as goofy as making any other blanket statement.
> That's tantamount to saying one shooting style fits all.
Um, did you miss the "to me" part...? ;-)
> Like most issues in filmaking, 'it depends'.
See my later post, above. Of course, "it depends"...
> Take another look at the first scene in "Barry
> Lyndon" (or any of several other scenes in that movie and others for that
> matter): minutes long and captivating, mesmerizing.
Or "Sunrise" on TV - the camera just sits there viewing a landscape
as the sun rises in real time...;-)
> That is not to say that
> many scenes can be made more interesting by camera movement. A nice, steady
> dolly shot is a wonderful thing. A swish pan can be just right. Even a
> bobble shot can be fun in the right place. But, to make a blanket statement
> as you have done makes me think that you are more focused on technique than
> you are on the scene content and the story. Of course, if your content and
> composition is D-U-L-L-S-V-I-L-L-E........
8^) As you point out, styles/purposes/uses vary, and there is no
one way to do things. I was merely pointing out my views, often
counter to the "camera-must-be-stationary/steady" point of view...
> CMEL with instrument and glider ratings. I suppose I'd have to go back and
> read the whole thread to see what that has to do with filmaking..... naahhh!
>
> Steve King
Motion in the viewpoint...;-) And, it is often fun to "fly" the camera. I use
this technique for looking under/around/through foliage/flowers/insects,
and I used to use it at receptions with a WA or fisheye to explore a room
filled with people, picking up scraps of conversations in the process, and
for following kids-playing/people-dancing/etc. The results were FAR more
interesting than still video "set" shots that were more commonly used by
others.
--DR
~~~~~~~~~~~~
"J. Clarke" <jclarke.usenet@cox.net> wrote in message news:hth4vu0g0k@news7.newsguy.com...
> On 5/24/2010 12:10 PM, David Ruether wrote:
>> But, seriously, a video "motion" view with stationary or nearly stationary
>> framing is D - U - L - L - S - V - I - L - L - E videography *to me* - I
>> like to see the camera move and explore what is shot (although preferably
>> without jerkiness ["shakycam"], of course! ;-).
> So are you agreeing with me or are you arguing for the sake of argument?
> There's a difference between a dolly shot or a crane shot or motion
> control and shakycam.
There are maybe two approaches to two different situations. In
one, the shooter believes in steadiness/smoothness at the expense
of framing-motion/viewpoint-shifting interest (at a simple level,
with modest gear, with movement control being provided by the
shooter, possibly with the aid of simple additional gear like a tripod,
monopod, grip/brace, and/or software stabilization). *To me*, this
approach tends to result in dull video imagery. I prefer to "explore"
my subjects using shifting framing, moving view points, and other
available techniques, although this is more difficult and it requires
more work during shooting and editing (but good results with minimal
unintentional movements, but without sharp shaky ones, are possible
with this approach). The other side of this is pro work with enough
available budget to allow for tracks, cranes, assistants, etc. Different
styles, different resources, different needs, different desires for what
is wanted in the final video...
>> A fluid movement of the
>> camera (which can include slow pans/tilts/rotations/zooms) is what I like...
>> If you don't also appreciate this sort of viewpoint movement, it would be
>> hard for me to believe that you have flown much except maybe just from
>> one place to another...;-)<-- [Note the "smiley"...;-]
> Shakyhorizon is no fun. Try flying a bugsmasher in conditions such that
> a 747 pilot reports "severe turbulence" and see how you like it.
I think we agree, but are getting hung up on the terms (and maybe the
preferred style differences). No, I do not like a shaky image, but I do
like one that "flies" - including "banking", "climbing", and "diving" with
the camera...;-)
--David Ruether
www.David-Ruether-Photography.com
d_ruether@hotmail.com
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Brian" <bclark@es.co.nz> wrote in message
news:tpssv5tsqji5djdk5u0g5vj8gl9bj6fqo5@4ax.com...
> Some shots that are filmed from a person's point of view are difficult
> to do without camera shake such as walking or running down stairs,
> standing up from a chair and walking off, getting out of bed, walking
> through an open window, etc.
> One day when video camera's get very small you'll be able to strap the
> camera to your forehead so that what ever you see the camera will
> record.
>
> Regards Brian
You can do that now, with "lipstick" cameras - but that doesn't prevent
shake unless you can move VERY S-M-O-O-T-H-L-Y . . . . . ! ;-)
--DR
~~~~~~~~~~~
"Brian" <bclark@es.co.nz> wrote in message news:f6rsv5t8ij9llq7boh1234e7aeig4s36p4@4ax.com...
> It's been interesting reading the comments on this topic that I
> started. I've seen some home movies and noticed that a photographer
> going from using a still camera to a movie camera tends to use his
> movie camera like a still camera and he get static shots of objects
> instead of panning and zooming. I've noticed that if the movie is very
> interesting then you can get away with some camera shake as the
> audience is more interested in what's happening in the movie than to
> notice any slight camera shake. But walking (or running) with a hand
> held camera zoomed in on a subject is the worst camera shake that
> becomes painful to watch. I also discovered that fast pans of a room
> can cause sickness to those that watch the video.
>
> To make an object more three dimensional you need to move around the
> object with a video camera which means that the tripod would have to
> be on wheels or your holding a monopod with one hand and the camera
> with the other as had been suggested.
> The main areas where I've seen camera shake in a professional movie is
> where the camera is filming from the person's point of view (the
> camera becomes the person's eyes and we see what the person sees).
>
> I have heard of someone recording at high speed while walking through
> a building hand holding the camera then playing it back at normal
> speed which helps to reduce camera shake.
>
> Try walking down stairs while recording with a hand held video camera
> without camera shake...that's a challenge.
>
> Regards Brian
Good observations. There is also the Steadycam Jr. which helps
with smoothing small video camera shake when smooth camera
movement is desired. BTW, I knew a film student long ago (whose
name later became part of the name of a well-known camera battery
supplier...;-) who demonstrated to me a peculiar-looking slide-walk
for smooth shooting with a hand-held 16mm Bolex film camera. If
one thinks about the types of body movements needed to do what
you want, it is often possible to find a way to do it (especially since
multiple takes, unlike with film, are very cheap). A method I often
use (beyond using multi-contact-point braces) is to use wide-angle
lenses (these "magnify" movement less than do teles).
Have fun!
--David Ruether
www.David-Ruether-Photography.com
d_ruether@hotmail.com
~~~~~~~~~
"Brian" <bclark@es.co.nz> wrote in message news:bvap16t4n0kquifs7ld2q3h8gg7or18i1u@4ax.com...
> Martin Heffels <goofies@flikken.net> wrote:
>>On Sun, 23 May 2010 18:04:29 +0000 (UTC), HerHusband <unknown@unknown.com>
>>wrote:
>>>I have been surprised to see how many TV shows are obviously filmed with
>>>handheld cameras as the view tilts and shakes all over the place if you pay
>>>attention. For folks like me who spend a lot of time and effort to produce
>>>steady shots, I find the "profesional" shaking irritating.
>>I think a lot of this has to do with speeding up the recording with the short
>>turnaround times as exist nowadays. A tripod would be a hindrance, and working
>>handheld or steadicam is a lot quicker.
>>
>>cheers
>>
>>-martin-
> In this world of inventors someone sooner or later is going to invent
> a way of temporary laying down tracks that you can have a moving
> platform or moving tripod on then when you have finished with the
> tracks you can roll them up and store them away. The answer to a
> camera tracking an object or just panning sideways.
>
> Regards Brian
It's called "laying tracks", often used in productions... BTW, for "panning", a
good, pro-grade tripod with a pro-grade fluid head suffices (or a boom, with
a skilled operator, is used for getting more camera movements). For sideways
motion, tracks are used, or in cheap productions, a cart with large wheels is
often used (on a smooth floor). Otherwise a skilled pro Steadicam operator
is employed. For some of us, budgetary concerns and a desire for simplicity
combined with intentional camera movement leads us to the use of braces,
good body-movements, monopods, camcorder internal stabilizers, and
software solutions for smoother results.
--David Ruether
www.David-Ruether-Photography.com
d_ruether....@....hotmail.com
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"John Williamson" <johnwilliamson@btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:867g7uFm9sU2@mid.individual.net...
> David Ruether wrote:
>> Good observations. There is also the Steadycam Jr. which helps
>> with smoothing small video camera shake when smooth camera
>> movement is desired. BTW, I knew a film student long ago (whose
>> name later became part of the name of a well-known camera battery
>> supplier...;-) who demonstrated to me a peculiar-looking slide-walk
>> for smooth shooting with a hand-held 16mm Bolex film camera.
> Bloomin' hard work, that one. It's effective, though, if you stick to
> shortish lenses.
> --
> Tciao for Now!
>
> John.
Yes, an' me ol' bones won't permit that now - so I stay mostly
"planted" an' use me poor suff'rin back for short-tracking, boom,
an' pan/tilt combinations (and then suffer the consequences later...).
--DR
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
"Syfo-Dyas" <Syfo-Dyas@nomail.com> wrote in message
news:4566t51tg2m93o2bd3j4o5beae68m99pv3@4ax.com...
>I do not know if this is the right place to ask this question so I
> apologize if I am wrong. Here is my problem. I have several videos on
> a couple dvd-r disks that I burnt there a while ago and now I am
> wanting to put them on my hard drive. I am unable to get the files
> from the dvd-r. The drive keeps spinning and it does not put the file
> on my hard drive. It puts some of the files but not the others. So I
> cleaned the drive and then I cleaned the disk, thinking there must be
> some problem with it. However this did not work. Is there any way to
> get my video files off this disk?? I am worried since I backed up many
> files on dvd-r disks in the past. Is it possible this could happen to
> most of my archives???
>
> Thanks
Unlike commercially-made video DVD disks, home-made
ones should generally be considered temporary (although
the use of special (and more expensive) types and brands
for writing the disks originally (along with careful storage)
can greatly extend the expected life. BTW, try putting an
ordinary writable DVD in a window. Its color will change
considerably and it will become unplayable in about two
weeks(?) - or, as Kodak used to say on their color film
(the writable DVD is also a dye image...), "color dyes may
in time change" (or something to that effect...). I have no
suggestions for recovery. In general, anything I wish to
preserve gets put on two different hard drives and *maybe*
on two DVDs.
--DR
~~~~~~~~~~
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
[About recovering material lost through age and/or poor storage...]
>>Try reading with different drives, try limiting the speed of the reader.
>>If they have been burnt as standard DVDs then you may be lucky with a
>>standard DVD player, as they tend to be a little more accepting of bad
>>DVDs than some computer drives.
>>
>>Try several times, you might be lucky. If the material is of great
>>value, *some* marginal DVDs can be partially recovered sector by sector
>>by data recovery specialists, but it costs.
>>
>>Otherwise, as has been said, only ever use optically written drives for
>>the final delivery, and in future, archive everything as has been
>>regularly recommended in this and other groups.
> Well not the news I was hoping for but hey I guess I have to take the
> good with the bad.
You might be interested in:
http://www.isobuster.com/
Luck;
Ken Maltby
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
On Wed, 5 May 2010 09:47:29 -0400, in 'rec.video.desktop',
in article <saving as copy (no recompression) in Vegas Pro 9?>,
"Vic St. John" <vic60ojohn@aol.net> wrote:
>I just finished up a video and saved it with Main Concept MP4 codec. The
>resuting quality is great, but one thing I forgot to apply was a brightness/
>contrast adjustment. Is there any way I can do this in Vegas Pro 9 without
>having to apply recompression upon saving? If not, what is a possible
>workaround?
>
>Thank you,
>Vic St. John
Sorry, but there's basically no workaround.
Once you saved the file in a lossy compressed format, the only way
that you're going to apply changes is to re-open the file (which
causes it to be decompressed to its natural state), apply the changes
(a brightness/contrast adjustment or whatever), and then re-save the
file, which means recompressing it to MPEG-4 again. The double
compression will cause an unavoidable loss of quality even though
you'll be using the same codec.
One way to avoid this sort of problem in the future is to save a
lossless (master) version and then create any lossy compressed
versions from that. With regard to the lossless master copy of the
file, to save storage space consider using a lossless compressed codec
such as Huffyuv or Lagarith, either of which will yield about a 50
percent storage space saving.
Huffyuv 2.1.1 (released August 23, 2000)
http://neuron2.net/www.math.berkeley.edu/benrg/huffyuv.html
Lagarith 1.3.20 (released July 3, 2009)
http://lags.leetcode.net/codec.html
Although the actual performance of each of these codecs is
content-dependent, in general you'll find that Lagarith usually
provides a slightly better compression ratio than does Huffyuv.
--
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].
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
~~~~~~~~~~
"Bob Fleischer" <bobfnospam@duxsysnospam.com> wrote in message news:hrq2cd$jus$1@rjf7r.motzarella.org...
> I'm considering buying a camcorder that will only do HD (I'm in the
> under-$1000 price range) but I anticipate a frequent need to produce SD
> videos for friends and for local cable access.
>
> Generally, are the results of converting to SD from HD as good as a
> decent SD source? (I realize that there are aspect ratio differences,
> and it may depend upon the particular HD source.)
>
> What software does a good job of SD from HD?
>
> Thanks,
> Bob
What little experimenting I've done with this using Sony Vegas
(Platinum 9 or Platinum HD are available for under $75 or so)
indicates that the results are excellent, and superior to beginning
with an SD original.
--DR
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Brian" <bclark@es.co.nz> wrote in message
news:bcc816p48ij7qkj6singm0rhkjpuj36tpu@4ax.com...
[...]
> My camera uses the digital tape and far as I know the tape
> runs at a constant speed so the computer has to get up with the rate
> the data is being feed off the tape. If a hard drive was too slow at
> getting data then frame drop outs could occur.
Both the tape run speed and the data transfer rate are constant with
HDV (what I assume you are using...). Only the compression changes
to maintain these two conditions. The data rate is very moderate (similar
to, or the same as, what Mini-DV used, which is easily handled by any
drive made for quite a while now. Dropouts can still occur, but for
reasons other than HD data rate requirements...
--DR
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Brian" <bclark@es.co.nz> wrote in message
news:lja016d42mckh24esudrbck37a0009m3v0@4ax.com...
>I have always like Adobe products but I found out recently that Adobe
> Premiere CS5 will only operate on a 64 bit operating system, something
> that people should be aware of. It's getting that way that you need a
> dedicated computer for video editing. I'm still happy with my Adobe
> Premiere Elements 7 (but might upgrade to version 8) as it has all he
> tools I need.
>
> Regards Brian
My main reservation regarding at least earlier Adobe editors (CS3 and
before - I don't know about CS4/5) for use with editing HDV is that,
while an m2t file can be made and saved using the edited material, it
cannot be simply brought into a new project and then exported without
recompressing it (or saving the original project and source material,
and again compressing it to export it). Just about any other $50 program
can do this correctly, with a straight export...
--DR
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Martin van derPoel" <martinvdp@iinet.net.au> wrote in message
news:M_OdncE2FaH684nRnZ2dnUVZ_oKdnZ2d@westnet.com.au...
> "David Ruether" <d_ruether@thotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:huteil$1vg$1@ruby.cit.cornell.edu...
>> "Martin van derPoel" <martinvdp@iinet.net.au> wrote in message
>> news:49GdnaPq99PJ-YzRnZ2dnUVZ_tudnZ2d@westnet.com.au...
>>> Am example of a very long video of 500 MB is here
>>> http://vimeo.com/6207488
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>>
>>> Martin
>> Would you care to receive any comments on the videography
>> (privately, or here)?
>> --DR (d_ruether....@....hotmail.com - make the obvious changes.)
> Hi David,
> I think here is better as others might learn something as well.
>
> Regards,
>
> Martin
OK, here goes................
1) Thanks for shooting, editing, and uploading this video, at --
http://vimeo.com/6207488 (and the many others you have put up).
2) Keep in mind all the while that I realize that these videos
are "fun" ones, not ones intended to be "professional". Also
keep in mind (as I will also try to, with the below...;-) that
people differ in their opinions about how things should be done.
3) The exposures and compositions are generally very good, as are
the included titles and maps.
4) The slightly "jiggly slide show" feeling that first bothered
me about the video when I looked at it without sound was
considerably lessened with your excellent, often "quietly
humorous" commentary that spanned the "slides", uniting them.
5) The sound is generally well-done ('cept I don't like the music
very much - I prefer natural ambient sounds when possible,
and you did often use these (but I would "lose" the music,
except maybe under titles...). BTW, an external mic with a
"fuzzy" keeps the wind noise minimal (but you had few problems
with this).
6) As for the images, this is my taste, but I prefer a bit
smoother camera work. There are some good compact and light
folding braces that help, as does more use of a wide-angle,
which also makes it easier to "get close and personal" with
subjects to "explore" them with the camera. Moving around
more with the camera, even if it is just sideways a foot or
so (especially if there are near objects that increase the
feeling of subject depth with the parallax effects that result)
can help with visual interest by changing and varying the
camera viewpoint. BTW, holding a camera perfectly still is the
very hardest thing to do successfully, but moving the camera
slowly intentionally (perhaps with an added moderate slow pan
or tilt combined with a slow zoom) can look smoother - and at
the same time, be more interesting.
7) Transitions can easily be overdone, but they can also smoothly
link "jump cut" images. Cross-dissolves, "dip to black", and
soft-edged wipes are more subtle than the strongly graphic
types, and these can add further visual interest where
appropriate, without detracting by being distracting.
8) In this video, you have shown and talked about a nice range of
things, landscapes, and experiences. Thanks.
I hope nothing in the above offends - if so, it was unintentional.
BTW, you have a great narrator's voice! ;-)
--DR
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Martin van derPoel" <martinvdp@iinet.net.au> wrote in message
news:D9ednRsE-9dsiovRnZ2dnUVZ_sqdnZ2d@westnet.com.au...
> "David Ruether" <d_ruether@thotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:hv3263$k7a$1@ruby.cit.cornell.edu...
>> "Martin van derPoel" <martinvdp@iinet.net.au> wrote in message
>> news:M_OdncE2FaH684nRnZ2dnUVZ_oKdnZ2d@westnet.com.au...
>>> "David Ruether" <d_ruether@thotmail.com> wrote in message
>>> news:huteil$1vg$1@ruby.cit.cornell.edu...
>>>> "Martin van derPoel" <martinvdp@iinet.net.au> wrote in message
>>>> news:49GdnaPq99PJ-YzRnZ2dnUVZ_tudnZ2d@westnet.com.au...
>>>>> Am example of a very long video of 500 MB is here
>>>>> http://vimeo.com/6207488
>>>>>
>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>
>>>>> Martin
>>>> Would you care to receive any comments on the videography (privately, or
>>>> here)?
>>>> --DR (d_ruether....@....hotmail.com - make the obvious changes.)
>>> Hi David,
>>> I think here is better as others might learn something as well.
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>>
>>> Martin
>> OK, here goes................
>>
>> 1) Thanks for shooting, editing, and uploading this video, at --
>> http://vimeo.com/6207488 (and the many others you have put up).
>> 2) Keep in mind all the while that I realize that these videos
>> are "fun" ones, not ones intended to be "professional". Also
>> keep in mind (as I will also try to, with the below...;-) that
>> people differ in their opinions about how things should be done.
>> 3) The exposures and compositions are generally very good, as are
>> the included titles and maps.
>> 4) The slightly "jiggly slide show" feeling that first bothered
>> me about the video when I looked at it without sound was
>> considerably lessened with your excellent, often "quietly
>> humorous" commentary that spanned the "slides", uniting them.
>> 5) The sound is generally well-done ('cept I don't like the music
>> very much - I prefer natural ambient sounds when possible,
>> and you did often use these (but I would "lose" the music,
>> except maybe under titles...). BTW, an external mic with a
>> "fuzzy" keeps the wind noise minimal (but you had few problems
>> with this).
5A) I forgot to add here that unless you use royalty-free music, or
music that is specifically released to you (in writing), I would
hesitate to publish any video material (which putting the videos
YouTube, Vimeo, etc. is) that contained it. Copyright laws can
be "unfun" and very expensive to defend yourself from...
>> 6) As for the images, this is my taste, but I prefer a bit
>> smoother camera work. There are some good compact and light
>> folding braces that help, as does more use of a wide-angle,
>> which also makes it easier to "get close and personal" with
>> subjects to "explore" them with the camera. Moving around
>> more with the camera, even if it is just sideways a foot or
>> so (especially if there are near objects that increase the
>> feeling of subject depth with the parallax effects that result)
>> can help with visual interest by changing and varying the
>> camera viewpoint. BTW, holding a camera perfectly still is the
>> very hardest thing to do successfully, but moving the camera
>> slowly intentionally (perhaps with an added moderate slow pan
>> or tilt combined with a slow zoom) can look smoother (and at
>> the same time, be more interesting).
>> 7) Transitions can easily be overdone, but they can also smoothly
>> link "jump cut" images. Cross-dissolves, "dip to black", and
>> soft-edged wipes are more subtle than the strongly graphic
>> types, and these can add further visual interest where
>> appropriate, without detracting by being distracting.
>> 8) In this video, you have shown and told about a nice range of
>> things, landscapes, and experiences. Thanks.
>>
>> I hope nothing in the above offends - if so, it was unintentional.
>> BTW, you have a great narrator's voice! ;-)
>> --DR
> Hi David,
> I agree on most points.
What - not A-W-L ? ! 8^)
> I did play with the video on the weekend and I noticed that there is
> noticable side to side motion, at quite a few places, just after a scene
> change. It apears that the first second of each clip is not as stable as
> the following seconds, the clips are usually longer than what I show so I
> could move the start of these clips up by a second or two.
This is likely due to stopping/starting the camcorder - I cut these bits off
during editing. BTW, if your camcorder has a Lanc socket, Sony makes
a tiny Lanc controller that clips onto a finger or other convenient place
and it allows you to stop/start recording from elsewhere, and also to zoom,
if you want.
> I like the music, but part of my family (kids) do not.
I'm with them. ;-) It seems unnecessary, and I think it mostly detracts from
the video...
> I have a canon brand brace, it hangs like a collar around the neck with an
> adjustable support from beneath the camera, I use it mainly when I do shots
> of over five or ten minutes at the time. I video a lot of dance
> competitions (over 1400 uploads there).
Mike Price kindly gave me a similar one to try to help me with my current
difficulties with a tremor. It looks like an excellent design, and a good
alternative to one I developed for use with my HV20. Mine permits more
range of easy camera movement, but the new one permits longer periods
of fairly steady support (at http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/brace.htm).
Something like this combined with the neck-strap/chest-pole may offer
support, steadiness, *and* control for desired camcorder motion. Mike Price
also VERY kindly supplied an earlier version of the Steadicam Jr., but I have
not yet had a chance to try it.
> I do need to put more, wanted, motion into my camera, the XH A1s has very
> good zoom speed control, so a combined pan and slow zoom is not that hard.
Yes. Even the "lowly" HV20 permits locking in one of three zoom rates,
and the slowest is a nice "crawl", with a smooth start/stop. Too bad the
camera has no Lanc input, though. A well-chosen combined pan/tilt/zoom
can be very nice, and often works well with a cross-dissolve to the next
scene, especially if it also has (intentional, smooth) movement...
> Nearly everybody has complained about the transitions I used to mark the
> days, I should rally fix it as I am not that fond of them either.
They were not a "problem" for me - but maybe on a big screen...........;-)
> With my Australian/Dutch accent, it is a wonder that the narration coments
> are not negative.
I would, as I said, rate your narrating very high in quality. People often asked
me if I sang, or announced (I was once asked to try out for TV ads, but it was
a disaster) since I have a low (supposedly good) voice, but I have no control
over it (I know pitches absolutely when others sing, but I can't hear my own,
and the results are horrible!). For other than casual speaking (and for that not
very well now), I cannot control volume levels accurately. Worse, I've lost the
ability to be consistent with pronunciations/word-orders/word-sounds/etc.
(my speech is now a mess) - so I REALLY DO now appreciate good voice/
language/pronunciation/style/singing-ability (I've recently gotten into CDs of
read poetry I like, DVDs of Shakespeare plays, and, of course, music, sigh...;-).
I'm happy others can do what I can't.
> I do enjoy taking video, but when I go on holliday I have the holliday first
> and take video second, at least I think so, the family is of the opinion
> that there is way to much time spent on taking video.
8^). I'm definitely of the opinion that a trip/family should not primarily be
seen through the viewfinder of a camera - BUT, with that in mind, on the last
two road trips with a still film camera, I still shot ***EVERYTHING*** I
saw of even the slightest interest (then realized my mistake...). What is even
worse is that we have not even viewed the 500+ slides from the last trip taken
four years ago, and my friend with me took photos with a digital camera
and he, a complete novice, took generally better, to-the-point photos than
I was taking... Hmmmm.....................! ;-)
> Thank you for your feedback, it is appreciated, and will serve to improve
> what I am doing, and hopefully make people enjoy my labours more.
>
> My dancing videos are here
> http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=martinpoel#g/u.
>
> Regards,
>
> Martin van der Poel
I realize my words/opinions do not represent absolute truth, nor are they
those of "gawd', passed down from on high - so please use what is useful and
freely ignore what is not...;-)
Have fun!
--David Ruether
www.David-Ruether-Photography.com
d_ruether....@....hotmail.com
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Martin van derPoel" <martinvdp@iinet.net.au> wrote in message
news:D_ednRr9wZCuHorRnZ2dnUVZ_sOdnZ2d@westnet.com.au...
> "David Ruether" <d_ruether@thotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:hv5dok$qj4$1@ruby.cit.cornell.edu...
>> 5A) I forgot to add here that unless you use royalty-free music, or
>> music that is specifically released to you (in writing), I would
>> hesitate to publish any video material (which putting the videos
>> YouTube, Vimeo, etc. is) that contained it. Copyright laws can
>> be "unfun" and very expensive to defend yourself from...
> Hi David,
> You make a comment about copy right on the music used with the video.
>
> So far I have uploaded over 1400 videos of dancing competitions and
> floorshows on YouTube, WMG has muted a couple of dozen or so clips whilst
> Sony uses a couple of dozen clips to advertise their records by putting a
> little blurb at the bottom of the screen advertising the particular song,
> and that it is avaible from Itunes.
>
> I think this is a clever way of marketing by Sony, whilst WMG is not
> achieving anything, other then turning people off.
Yes. Technically, though, if music is "borrowed" for use in a videos
(maybe music "secondarily captured" while shooting dance performances
is relatively less troublesome...?), it could result in very expensive lawsuits
for which there is little effective defense. It's safer to get a collection of
royalty-free music that you like (although most of that is crap...;-), or
use a music construction program, like Sony's Acid (ugh...! ;-), at
http://www.sonycreativesoftware.com/musicstudio?keycode=64359,
or best of all, use a friend's original music (with permission! ;-).
> The canon brace I was talking about looks like this
> http://shop.usa.canon.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/product_10051_10051_162864_-1
> it does permit a reasonable amount of movement up or down and does
> stabilises the camera, it is just a pain to screw onto the camera before it
> can be used.
This is similar to the Sima one I was given, which has a quick-release built-in
for camera attachment, and also an adjustable pole length. It is excellent (it's
light, compact when collapsed, strong enough, and CHEAP at $25). See it at
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/48526-REG/Sima_SVP3_Mini_Video_Prop_Chest.html.
I'm tempted to try combining my handle with the Sima for even better stability
and control of the camera.
> Most of my dance videos over the last 12 months have been done using the
> brace, it really stops the arms from dropping off.
Yes ;-). Perhaps a monopod would be useful? Or, better yet, a pro-grade
tripod with a **GOOD** fluid head, since it appears you are not moving
your position in the dance videos. This, combined with the tiny Sony Lanc
controller clipped to the tripod's control arm, makes it easy to get smooth
images.
> With a dance comp I would take 2 to 3 hours of video over a typical Sunday,
> as well as I participate in my own events as well, sometimes doing a 10
> minute event before my own 10 minutes, and walk straight off and do another
> 10 minutes. You have to take a deep breath and try to stop the chest from
> heaving whilst your body recovers from the strenuous exercise.
I managed to shoot only about 15 minutes of video all of last year, alas...
(and my hulking too-heavy-for-me-to-deal-with-now "wreck of the Cartoni"
pro tripod has remained standing partially folded in the living room, unused
for years). Now, it is "light-and-easy", or nothing...
> Is it not funny where you can get to talking about the best format to upload
> video on YouTube?
>
> Regards,
>
> Martin
??? ;-)
--DR
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Martin van derPoel" <martinvdp@iinet.net.au> wrote in message
news:AuqdnQ5jb46_YYrRnZ2dnUVZ_tadnZ2d@westnet.com.au...
>>> Most of my dance videos over the last 12 months have been done using the
>>> brace, it really stops the arms from dropping off.
>> Yes ;-). Perhaps a monopod would be useful? Or, better yet, a pro-grade
>> tripod with a **GOOD** fluid head, since it appears you are not moving
>> your position in the dance videos. This, combined with the tiny Sony Lanc
>> controller clipped to the tripod's control arm, makes it easy to get
>> smooth images.
>>> With a dance comp I would take 2 to 3 hours of video over a typical
>>> Sunday, as well as I participate in my own events as well, sometimes
>>> doing a 10 minute event before my own 10 minutes, and walk straight off
>>> and do another 10 minutes. You have to take a deep breath and try to
>>> stop the chest from heaving whilst your body recovers from the strenuous
>>> exercise.
>> I managed to shoot only about 15 minutes of video all of last year, alas...
>> (and my hulking too-heavy-for-me-to-deal-with-now "wreck of the Cartoni"
>> pro tripod has remained standing partially folded in the living room, unused
>> for years). Now, it is "light-and-easy", or nothing...
> The problems with tripods is that people walk around you and fall over the
> legs, or if close to the dancefloor the competitors will hit them.
With a tripod (although I prefer closer-in, wider views), longer FL lens
settings can be used from a more secure location (on steps, low platform,
etc.) - but the tripod (a big, heavy one, anyway) can also be used partially
folded and still be secure, with a small "aggressive" footprint - but I'd also be
unlikely to try to use one in this situation.
> A monopod has the same problem as my brace only bigger, how do you put the
> camera down with the monopod attached? and even when not atached where do
> you put the monopod, accross the table?
With the camera on its side, with the monopod collapsed and turned toward
the rear or front of the camera...
> And when you detach and fold up
> (funny term for a telescopic item) the monopod every time it is more of a
> pain in the arse than it is worth.
Not if the sections use quick-release clamps instead of screw-down collars.
BTW, the Sima also uses this on its pole (and it is quick and easy to set up),
and it also has a camcorder quick-release (these are available separately
from many makers for use with the Canon brace or a monopod).
> The funniest thing of all is that to the people that watch my dancing
> videos, it does not matter if there is some unwanted movement in the video.
Likely true - and it isn't terrible even for the particular...;-)
> And even more interresting, the "artistic" type videos is not what the
> audience (dancers) want, they want to see themselves dance, preferably in a
> close up, full length, continous shot.
Yes, some clients just want a "boring record", I know...;-) When I shot
weddings, some appreciated what I could bring extra to the event coverage
(to both stills and video), and others just wanted everyone in the frames, in
silly poses, with good skin color - composition, lighting, and a showing of what
it was like to be at the event be damned (I tried to screen out in advance this
type of client and let others suffer this boredom, but I can tell that you have
"sized up" your dance clients well, know what they want, and are willing to
supply it...;-). Nothing wrong with that!
> The dancing that I video is mostley really a sporting event, and I mainly
> video for the competitors.
>
> Regards,
>
> Martin
Yes. Although true, it does seem so silly to engage in "competition dancing"...;-)
Sigh...! 8^)
--DR
~~~~~~~~~~~
"Martin van derPoel" <martinvdp@iinet.net.au> wrote in message
news:Y76dnZgUv6WifoXRnZ2dnUVZ_r6dnZ2d@westnet.com.au...
>> Yes. Although true, it does seem so silly to engage in "competition
>> dancing"...;-)
>> Sigh...! 8^)
>> --DR
> David, we are a long way of topic.
>
> Competition dancing is the same as a lot of other sports where you are not
> trying to go faster, or go further, like figure skating, gymnastics, etc.
>
> The dancing keeps my mind working (you never stop learning), improves the
> co-ordination and also keeps the body fit.
> I practice 3 times a week, one of these is a "sweat session" especially
> designed to improve the fitness.
>
> Regards,
>
> Martin
Ah... (but note the "smileys" - they indicate that I may not be taking my
own comments seriously...;-).
Have fun!
--DR
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Jane Galt" <Jane_G@gulch.xyz> wrote in message
news:Xns9D9CF1E03BF28JaneGgulchxyz@216.196.97.142...
> tony cooper <tony_cooper213@earthlink.net> wrote :
>> On Sat, 19 Jun 2010 20:08:44 -0400, "Neil Harrington"
>><nobody@homehere.net> wrote:
>>>I cannot understand why someone would pretend to be female when he's
>>>male, or vice versa. But I accept that some do, of course.
>> I can't understand why anyone would care if the poster is male or
>> female.
I can't either - but in earlier exchanges on the issue of gay marriage,
"N. H." revealed himself likely to be a "closet case", so I'm surprised
to see that he can now "accept that some do, of course" (understand
why someone would pretend to be female when he's male, or vice
versa). It is good to see that some people *can* become more
tolerant of others and also less fearful of being outed as a result (I'm
guessing that the consequences of "protesting too much" have become
more evident to "N. H.", perhaps...;-).
> Most people use pseudonyms on usenet anyway, to avoid things like death
> threats. Is this a surrise?
> --
> - Jane Galt
I've used my own name on several NGs since 1995, and I have been
open about my being gay, without problems...
--DR
~~~~~
"Jane Galt" <Jane_G@gulch.xyz> wrote in message
news:Xns9D9D9E9927F6CJaneGgulchxyz@216.196.97.142...
> "David Ruether" <d_ruether@thotmail.com> wrote :
>>> Most people use pseudonyms on usenet anyway, to avoid things like death
>>> threats. Is this a surrise?
>>> --
>>> - Jane Galt
>> I've used my own name on several NGs since 1995, and I have been
>> open about my being gay, without problems...
>> --DR
> I'm not talking about gay, I'm talking about politics. I post in political
> groups and have had local fools in the past who actually tried to track me
> down for my political views, and came relatively close!
>
> The far left has gotten extremely nasty in recent years and it's getting
> worse.
This is new to me. On these photo-video NGs, it is the "center-lefties"
who are considerate and can discuss issues without name-calling, unlike
most on the right. I'm surprised by what you say. Hey, it's the "lefties"
who are accused of being softies, anti-gun, etc., right?
> As Glenn Beck has pointed out, some of them have become orgasmic over the
> fact that we now have, for the first time, a President who was mentored as
> a teen, by an avowed communist ( Frank Marshall Davis ) and has surrounded
> himself with such people in the White House. There are now open calls for
> communist revolution going on in this country, using any means necessary.
YOU HAVE ***GOT*** TO BE JOKING!!!! You have just lost ALL
credibility by referencing that liar, G. B. GET REAL! He is demonstrably
a dangerous, dissembling, malevolent idiot! NOTHING he says should be
believed if you have ANY sense at all!
> If you aint watching Glenn Beck, you likely have NO IDEA this is going on.
> And like he says, it's not "conspiracy theory", it's in the open.
Yuh, r i g h t . . . BTW, if you believe that, I have a nice bridge in Brooklyn
for sale, real cheap. Interested?
[Junk deleted...]
> --
> - Jane Galt
Please learn to think critically, and to do more than just suck up the verbal
barf of someone who is a dangerous jerk, just for his own financial gain...
--DR
~~~~~~
"Jane Galt" <Jane_G@gulch.xyz> wrote in message
news:Xns9D9DA1244C617JaneGgulchxyz@216.196.97.142...
> "David Ruether" <d_ruether@thotmail.com> wrote :
>> YIKES!
>> I had no idea this NG had so many kooks! Time to grow up and
>> stop playing cowboys and indians and cops and robbers, don't you
>> think...?
>> --DR
> People are "kooks" for being into self defense?
Not necessarily, unless their first response option is "da equalizer"...
> You mentioned being gay?:
>
> http://www.pinkpistols.org/index2.html
Hmmm... At least where I live, I don't feel the need for a gun
for protection (this could be different in other locations, but given
the statistics regarding people's own guns being turned against them,
I think I'd prefer other possibilities...).
> "Thirty-one states allow all qualified citizens to carry concealed weapons.
> In those states, homosexuals should embark on organized efforts to become
> comfortable with guns, learn to use them safely and carry them. They should
> set up Pink Pistols task forces, sponsor shooting courses and help
> homosexuals get licensed to carry. And they should do it in a way that gets
> as much publicity as possible. " -- Jonathan Rauch, gay RKBA activist,
> Salon Magazine, March 13, 2000
I consider this response excessive...
> And this one is personally poignant to me.
> http://www.jpfo.org/
>
> Half my family line disappeared in Poland, yet 90% of American jews are
> pacifist and anti-gun. It nauseates and shames me to think about it.
> --
> - Jane Galt
The conditions here are VERY different from Europe in the late 1930s
and into the mid 1940s. To think otherwise is to not realistically assess
the conditions here. I think there is nothing to fear from the ever-so-
gentle American "left" (to call it "left" is to exaggerate egregiously - I
would call it the "center"), and much more to fear from an arming and
generally misinformed "right", led by those seeking mere power and money,
regardless of the damage they are causing. ***IF*** conditions were
***ANYTHING*** like those that led to the deaths of your family,
I would be with you - but they are clearly not (unless one has a very
overactive imagination fed by the venal purveyors of misinformation).
Please think more critically about what you have been fed - there is
very little truth there.
--DR
~~~~~~~~
"Jane Galt" <Jane_G@gulch.xyz> wrote in message
news:Xns9D9DA01C32498JaneGgulchxyz@216.196.97.142...
> "David Ruether" <d_ruether@thotmail.com> wrote :
>> "Jane Galt" <Jane_G@gulch.xyz> wrote in message
>> news:Xns9D9CCF18916B5JaneGgulchxyz@216.196.97.142...
>>> Tried finding any handgun ammo on the shelves at Walmart, since Obama
>>> Nation got into office? It's 18 months later and the shelves are STILL
>>> bare, people are still scared and hoarding.
>> Kinda demonstrates that stupidity is catching, I guess...
>> --DR
> Fear. When someone who was mentored by a communist gets into office,
> promising to "radically transform America" and:
>
> "I don't believe people should be able to own guns." -- Barack Obama
> --
> - Jane Galt
Let's see... Has Obama moved in any way toward limitation of
gun ownership? No? Well, then, has he moved a tad toward
favoring gun ownership rights? Yes? Then what is your complaint?
Don't believe everything you "hear" from right-wing "news" - doing
so can make you looking not very bright...
(BTW, your nonsense level is close to rising to my "<PLONK!>"
level...)
--DR
~~~~~~~~~
"Neil Harrington" <nobody@homehere.net> wrote in message
news:va2dnblz8-To6IPRnZ2dnUVZ_u-dnZ2d@giganews.com...
> "David Ruether" <d_ruether@thotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:hvlofe$h82$1@ruby.cit.cornell.edu...
>> "Jane Galt" <Jane_G@gulch.xyz> wrote in message
>> news:Xns9D9CF1E03BF28JaneGgulchxyz@216.196.97.142...
>>> tony cooper <tony_cooper213@earthlink.net> wrote :
>>>> On Sat, 19 Jun 2010 20:08:44 -0400, "Neil Harrington"
>>>><nobody@homehere.net> wrote:
>>>>>I cannot understand why someone would pretend to be female when he's
>>>>>male, or vice versa. But I accept that some do, of course.
>>>> I can't understand why anyone would care if the poster is male or
>>>> female.
>> I can't either - but in earlier exchanges on the issue of gay marriage,
>> "N. H." revealed himself likely to be a "closet case", so I'm surprised
> A "closet case" of what, exactly?
OK, you did ask...;-) The term "closet case" refers to a homosexual
who is hiding the homosexuality, often by excessive denials of it, as in,
"he who doth protest too much..." ;-) It is a common affliction, exhibited
by some founders of mega-churches, a US senator, a nominee for the
Supreme Court, among many other notable instances - so you would
not be alone. The anti-gay are often themselves gay, and trying to hide
it...;-)
>> to see that he can now "accept that some do, of course" (understand
>> why someone would pretend to be female when he's male, or vice
>> versa). It is good to see that some people *can* become more
> No, I DON'T understand that. Nor do I understand how you can misread what I
> wrote.
??? I was simply quoting your own words. So, what did you *mean*
to say that was different from those?
>> tolerant of others and also less fearful of being outed as a result (I'm
>> guessing that the consequences of "protesting too much" have become
>> more evident to "N. H.", perhaps...;-).
> You need to go back to examining your navel. Somehow the great mysteries and
> eternal truths of the cosmos are still evading you.
With time, they have become ever so clear...! 8^)
--DR
~~~~~~~~~
"Neil Harrington" <nobody@homehere.net> wrote in message
news:ibidnUrDG9EEzYPRnZ2dnUVZ_hmdnZ2d@giganews.com...
> "tony cooper" <tony_cooper213@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:53is16dkovafkbf5oqevdt2r68ql8atjn9@4ax.com...
>> Apples and oranges. At the cocktail party you have visual
>> identification with the person. You are seeing something that you
>> expect to be one thing that is represented as something else.
>>
>> A posting is gender neutral. You have no expectations based on what
>> you see.
>>
>> "Larry Thong" doesn't write things you would expect to see only from a
>> male or only from a female. When you start reading things into a
>> written post that have male or female characteristics you are making
>> assumptions that may be entirely off-base.
> Not entirely apples and oranges. I'm still curious as to why someone would
> pretend to be the gender he is not. Not making a federal case out of it,
> just curious. It *is* curious.
Perhaps more basic are questions like: why are there genders, why/how
is there such a thing as gender identity, and why/how are there gender or
other attractions. The first can be answered easily and logically, but the
other two still cannot be answered, and these commonly also show the
widest range of possible variations in people/animals who are "normal"...
--DR
~~~~~~~~~
"Neil Harrington" <nobody@homehere.net> wrote in message
news:0O-dnafqOKOT5YPRnZ2dnUVZ_qKdnZ2d@giganews.com...
> "David Ruether" <d_ruether@thotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:hvlppa$j9e$1@ruby.cit.cornell.edu...
>> Perhaps more basic are questions like: why are there genders,
> That's easy. Generally speaking, they are necessary for reproduction. If
> there weren't two genders, none of us would be here having this discussion.
Yes, I essentially said this earlier...;-)
>> why/how is there such a thing as gender identity,
> Why would there NOT be? Knowing who and what you are is a useful thing.
Agreed - but this does not mean that the mental gender identity necessarily
coincides with the physical gender identity, and it does not mean that anyone
knows *how* that identity is established/works (which was my point).
> Those who are confused about their "gender identity" obviously have a harder
> time of it as a result.
I would not use the word "confused". Those whose mental and physical
gender identities are different from each other know *exactly* what their
situation is and what/who they are.
>> and why/how are there gender or
>> other attractions. The first can be answered easily and logically, but the
>> other two still cannot be answered, and these commonly also show the
>> widest range of possible variations in people/animals who are "normal"...
> Reproduction is still the easy answer.
But it is VERY incomplete, since it doesn't answer the other questions, just
the first.
> You believe questions "cannot be answered" when you know the answers
> are really there,
Name a reliable source - even one, if you can...
> but inconvenient to your sexual politics.
It would appear that you have considered only one part of the question
of sexuality and have ignored the others - but from past exchanges with
you, this is not surprising since you refused to acknowledge the existence
of inherent homosexuality as being "real", let alone other sexual variations
(hence my surprise when you appeared to be more open in your views...).
--DR
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Jane Galt" <Jane_G@gulch.xyz> wrote in message
news:Xns9D9D95166CB51JaneGgulchxyz@216.196.97.142...
> "Neil Harrington" <nobody@homehere.net> wrote :
>> I don't, particularly, but I'm still curious as to why anyone would fake
>> his gender. If for example I were at a large cocktail party with roughly
>> equal numbers of men and women, I'd be equally at ease with all
>> regardless of sex, but probably not with a man who was there dressed as
>> a woman. Perhaps you wouldn't find such a person remarkable in the
>> least, but I would.
Ask yourself why - it can be the first step toward working through one of
your own prejudices...
> If we lived in a truly free society, people would dress any way they pleased
> and no one would care a thing about it.
>
> 60 years ago, I think women wearing pants was frowned upon, was it not?
> --
> - Jane Galt
Yes. I remember when I was a kid that women "dressed up" to go to
the grocery store (at least in the southern US). Only today, though,
I was surprised (and pleased) to see two men walking down the street
holding hands. What does it hurt anyone to simply accept people for
who they are?
--DR
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Jane Galt" <Jane_G@gulch.xyz> wrote in message
news:Xns9D9CCF18916B5JaneGgulchxyz@216.196.97.142...
> Tried finding any handgun ammo on the shelves at Walmart, since Obama
> Nation got into office? It's 18 months later and the shelves are STILL
> bare, people are still scared and hoarding.
Kinda demonstrates that stupidity is catching, I guess...
--DR
~~~~~~~~~
Better Info" <binfo@address.info> wrote in message
news:5fuq161hegj7psm9as7ld7ofhc6q8e51oc@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 19 Jun 2010 21:22:42 -0400, "Neil Harrington"
<nobody@homehere.net> wrote:
>>Read the book "Handgun Stopping Power: The Definitive Study" by Evan
>>Marshall and Edwin Sanow. They are (or were) two cops who spent years
>>evaluating actual shootings and comparing the ammunition used in terms of
>>"one-shot stops" -- actual shootings of people, not just theories about the
>>subject or blowing holes in ballistic gelatin. Their conclusion: the best
>>9mm JHP load did the job better than any .45 or other cartridge in their
>>accumulated data. Now that was their first book and they've written a couple
>>of others since, which I haven't read, so maybe that has changed.
> An inexpensive cross-bow has more stopping-power than any handgun. Plus
> it's quiet without any illegal silencer. It's the only inexpensive and
> readily available weapon that will consistently pierce a flak-jacket. It's
> due to the mass of the bolt and the inertia behind it. A little known fact
> that the "powers that be" don't want widely known. After recently
> purchasing a nice 3-9x 40mm illuminated reticle sight for my rife, I put
> the old favorite rifle-site on my cross-bow. Bulls-eyes at 75 yards every
> time. Trespassers (civilian or government) should take the "Armed Response"
> sign at the end of my driveway seriously. If they don't, their loss.
YIKES!
I had no idea this NG had so many kooks! Time to grow up and
stop playing cowboys and indians and cops and robbers, don't you
think...?
--DR
~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Dudley Hanks" <dhanks@blind-apertures.ca> wrote in message
news:I3uTn.7368$z%6.978@edtnps83...
> "David Ruether" <d_ruether@thotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:hvlqbm$k3r$1@ruby.cit.cornell.edu...
>> "Better Info" <binfo@address.info> wrote in message
>> news:5fuq161hegj7psm9as7ld7ofhc6q8e51oc@4ax.com...
>>> An inexpensive cross-bow has more stopping-power than any handgun.
>>> Plus it's quiet without any illegal silencer. It's the only inexpensive and
>>> readily available weapon that will consistently pierce a flak-jacket. It's
>>> due to the mass of the bolt and the inertia behind it. A little known fact
>>> that the "powers that be" don't want widely known. After recently
>>> purchasing a nice 3-9x 40mm illuminated reticle sight for my rife, I put
>>> the old favorite rifle-site on my cross-bow. Bulls-eyes at 75 yards every
>>> time. Trespassers (civilian or government) should take the "Armed
>>> Response" sign at the end of my driveway seriously. If they don't, their
>>> loss.
>> YIKES!
>> I had no idea this NG had so many kooks! Time to grow up and
>> stop playing cowboys and indians and cops and robbers, don't you
>> think...?
>> --DR
> It's that old "18 till I die!" mentality...
>
> Take Care,
> Dudley
Or, more likely, it's the pointless "us vs. them" mentality - the same idiocy
that engenders gang wars on the small scale, and international wars on
a much larger scale (which accomplishes nothing of value, but pointlessly
destroys much of value in the process). One can possibly attribute this
to an inherent competitive drive among individuals that had value in the
process of evolution (with survival of the fittest), but the process has now
run amuck and it is has become inappropriate in a time of mass war and
weapons of mass destruction. Even on the political level in the US now,
it has led to a stupidly counterproductive monolithic obstructionism, not
based on anything but power-seeking/holding, hardly beneficial to the
citizenry or to the country as a whole. One would hope that THINKING,
CONSIDERING LONG TERM CONSEQUENCES OF ACTIONS,
and GOOD INTENTIONS AND WORKS TO MAXIMIZE BENEFIT
would someday generally replace this short-sighted nonsense, but I'm not
sure that it ever will...
--DR
~~~~~~~~~
"Dudley Hanks" <dhanks@blind-apertures.ca> wrote in message
news:hNuTn.7372$z%6.7198@edtnps83...
> "David Ruether" <d_ruether@thotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:hvlskj$ng9$1@ruby.cit.cornell.edu...
>> "Dudley Hanks" <dhanks@blind-apertures.ca> wrote in message
>> news:I3uTn.7368$z%6.978@edtnps83...
>>> "David Ruether" <d_ruether@thotmail.com> wrote in message
>>> news:hvlqbm$k3r$1@ruby.cit.cornell.edu...
>>>> "Better Info" <binfo@address.info> wrote in message
>>>> news:5fuq161hegj7psm9as7ld7ofhc6q8e51oc@4ax.com...
>>>>> An inexpensive cross-bow has more stopping-power than any handgun.
>>>>> Plus it's quiet without any illegal silencer. It's the only inexpensive
>>>>> and readily available weapon that will consistently pierce a
>>>>> flak-jacket. It's due to the mass of the bolt and the inertia behind
>>>>> it. A little known fact that the "powers that be" don't want widely
>>>>> known. After recently
>>>>> purchasing a nice 3-9x 40mm illuminated reticle sight for my rife, I
>>>>> put
>>>>> the old favorite rifle-site on my cross-bow. Bulls-eyes at 75 yards
>>>>> every
>>>>> time. Trespassers (civilian or government) should take the "Armed
>>>>> Response" sign at the end of my driveway seriously. If they don't,
>>>>> their loss.
>>>> YIKES!
>>>> I had no idea this NG had so many kooks! Time to grow up and
>>>> stop playing cowboys and indians and cops and robbers, don't you
>>>> think...?
>>>> --DR
>>> It's that old "18 till I die!" mentality...
>>>
>>> Take Care,
>>> Dudley
>> Or, more likely, it's the pointless "us vs. them" mentality - the same idiocy
>> that engenders gang wars on the small scale, and international wars on
>> a much larger scale (which accomplishes nothing of value, but pointlessly
>> destroys much of value in the process). One can possibly attribute this
>> to an inherent competitive drive among individuals that had value in the
>> process of evolution (with survival of the fittest), but the process has now
>> run amuck and it is has become inappropriate in a time of mass war and
>> weapons of mass destruction. Even on the political level in the US now,
>> it has led to a stupidly counterproductive monolithic obstructionism, not
>> based on anything but power-seeking/holding, hardly beneficial to the
>> citizenry or to the country as a whole. One would hope that THINKING,
>> CONSIDERING LONG TERM CONSEQUENCES OF ACTIONS,
>> and GOOD INTENTIONS AND WORKS TO MAXIMIZE BENEFIT
>> would someday generally replace this short-sighted nonsense, but I'm not
>> sure that it ever will...
>> --DR
> Sadly, you are right...
>
> Part of the problem is a failure of the educational system to recognize that
> "us against them" spirit as being undesirable. Instead, it's fostered
> throughout mainy extra curicula activities: competitive sports, academic
> challenges, etc. It's even fostered within many approved subjects, such as
> current events, civics, etc.
Yes. Instead of cooperation, working toward goals that further the interests
of both individuals and groups (but not against other individuals or groups).
In addition, we need more teaching/encouragement of possibilities for
doing good for communities (like the US Peace Corps, and public service
at home). We also desperately need better teaching in the schools here
of history and civics - and most important, critical-thinking skills so that
a large percentage of the population does not easily fall victim of often
destructive nonsense (like something like 45% of 'Bublicans still believing
that Obama is not a US citizen[!], the health-reform "death panels", etc.).
> We need to pay more than lip service to "the good works" done by most
> charities and start incorporating a more cooperative spirit into our daily
> lives. Once that sort of change takes place, people will get a more
> productive approach to problem solving...
Yes.
> Instead of thinking, "Can I get to my gloc before this guy cuts my throat?"
> Perhaps they'll find it more effective to actually try to make a connection
> with the guy...
>
> They might even see the benefit in trying to root out the problem before it
> gets that far...
>
> Take Care,
> Dudley
Now that last is ***REALLY*** the way to go!!! But, some prefer to
"fight" than to think, sigh... (and to hold a silly nostalgia for the "ol' west", I
guess, even though that proved impractical and lasted only about 10 years).
--DR
~~~~~~~~~~~~
"tony cooper" <tony_cooper213@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:tjpt16930a959pnm4jiocmmugtb97s98p8@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 20 Jun 2010 23:00:50 -0500, Jane Galt <Jane_G@gulch.xyz>
> wrote:
>>Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote :
>>> Anybody using Beck as a rational source of information is on shakey
>>> ground.
V E R Y shakey ground...! (Kinda like trying to stand on Jell-O! 8^)
>>So many people bash, lie and smear about him without ever having watched a
>>single program.
> True. The more rational among us can make our determination about him
> after watching only a small portion of one of his programs. There's
> no need to watch an entire program.
>
> It's rather like spoiled meat. You don't have to eat the entire
> sandwich to know.
> --
> Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
How true! ;-) I once caught a bit of Glenn Beck "proving"
that the decorative statuary gracing Rockefeller Center was
"communist" in origin, and that therefore Rockefeller was
actually a communist(!). I quickly concluded that Glenn Beck is
an ass - which wouldn't be so bad if so many uninformed and
uncritical viewers didn't swallow his dangerous nonsense whole,
and then pass it on (as in, it is hard now not to have many daily
second-hand "Beck-contact" experiences). B L E A H . . . . ! 8-(
The fact that Beck has this influence does make me fear for the
state of a democracy that depends on an interested and involved
electorate for continued success. It is easy to lose democracy
through neglect and the spreading of misinformation, but it is VERY
hard to regain it. I will add that I don't think Glenn Beck is either
stupid or misinformed. He knows exactly what he is doing, which
is rabble-rousing-for-ratings. He risks the wellbeing of the nation
(and of its people) for his own financial gain (as does Rupert
Murdoch, Rush Limbaugh, and far too many others). I consider
such people thoroughly despicable - but perhaps they do serve
to define why right-wing politics (the "me, me, me!" attitude, the
public good be damned) is generally so morally bankrupt.
--DR
~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Dudley Hanks" <dhanks@blind-apertures.ca> wrote in message
news:ixuTn.7370$z%6.4146@edtnps83...
> "Better Info" <binfo@address.info> wrote in message
> news:kkss16pgvgcdfp00ujbdu3rrio4pq21jle@4ax.com...
>> On Sun, 20 Jun 2010 15:32:05 -0400, "David Ruether"
>> <d_ruether@thotmail.com> wrote:
>>>YIKES!
>>>I had no idea this NG had so many kooks! Time to grow up and
>>>stop playing cowboys and indians and cops and robbers, don't you
>>>think...?
>>>--DR
>> YIKES!
>> I had no idea that this NG had so many kooks! Time to grow up and learn to
>> defend yourself instead of laying dead in a pool of blood while waiting for
>> your mommy-figure and daddy-figure cops to arrive, if you managed to call
>> them at all that is. Don't you think...? At all?
Yuh, carefully and at length - and well beyond the moment...
> That's the mentality that breeds bloodshed...
>
> Take Care,
> Dudley
Yes. It is the mentality of the selfish and short-sighted (and I suspect
it has more than a little to do with the reading of that epitome of this
point of view, "Atlas Shrugged", by Ayn Rand - and what a piece of
philosophical junk that is!).
--DR
~~~~~~~~~~
"J. Caldwell" <nospam@anyserver.net> wrote in message
news:4drs16hrbra9vruuei0l7kg29bh2v5ne7k@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 20 Jun 2010 15:27:28 -0400, "David Ruether"
> <d_ruether@thotmail.com> wrote:
>>"Jane Galt" <Jane_G@gulch.xyz> wrote in message
>>news:Xns9D9CCF18916B5JaneGgulchxyz@216.196.97.142...
>>> Tried finding any handgun ammo on the shelves at Walmart, since Obama
>>> Nation got into office? It's 18 months later and the shelves are STILL
>>> bare, people are still scared and hoarding.
>>Kinda demonstrates that stupidity is catching, I guess...
>>--DR
> Actually most of the runs on ammo this year are due to them changing the
> manufacturing process, not any overthrow-the-government conspiracies
> (though it's getting there). All new ammo of any gauge is now micro-tagged.
> I only wanted to buy some LR 22s not long ago for a vintage rifle I was
> refurbishing. (Needed to lathe an internal shoulder on the worn firing-pin
> to extend its reach and give it a more solid impact, reshape the worn
> firing-pin head, and retensioning the spring a bit as well.) I couldn't
> find 22s on the net or on any store shelves. I was wondering what the hell
> was up. People have been buying out the last clean non-tagged supplies
> before Big Brother stuck their lousy noses even deeper into everyone's
> daily lives. All old stock was bought out everywhere.
Q.E.D., alas...
> Silly me, I found 8,000 rounds of LR 22s still sitting on a back shelf of
> mine that I hadn't checked. A bulk deal I got for $20 once. Decent
> Remingtons. Not one dud yet. Lack of ammo disaster averted.
Hmmmm......
So, what do you need untagged ammo for...? This extremist right-wing
feeling for the need to defend itself by arms from the "gov-'mint" is quite
stupid, I think. It is based on a mix of misleading/rabble-rousing/lying
media people on the right, economic hard times (brought about mostly
by 'Bublican over-spending, an unnecessary war, and lack of regulation
of speculative markets), and beliefs that run counter to necessary-but-
unpopular remedies that were/are needed to begin to restore the economy
(and not let it crash, as it was just about to do [would you have preferred
that?]). The "right" has so little ability to think long-term, unfortunately...
Hey, let's let the robber barons rule, huh, since we believe in the absolute
right of individuals to do as they please, the consequences to the majority
be hanged, right? We've been there, done that, and it was disastrous.
So, no thanks for a repeat.
--DR
~~~~~~~
"Gilford Brimly" <gilfordbrimly@spamless.com> wrote in message
news:b60t16t0tr5dm4200qfdl6u9i11018j08m@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 20 Jun 2010 16:46:30 -0400, "David Ruether"
> <d_ruether@thotmail.com> wrote:
>>So, what do you need untagged ammo for...?
> So what do you need tagged ammo for? The reasons are identical.
A good point, but only relevant if/when the shooting begins, which
would be a stupid/pointless thing to have happen, regardless of who
started it - but from hearing the rhetoric on the right, it seems more
likely to start there (BTW, that's called "treason" since we *vote*
what we want, or accept the point of view of the opposition if that
receives more votes - we *do not* shoot to make changes in
government unless we are ***EXTREMELY*** foolish and
short-sighted...).
--DR
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Jane Galt" <Jane_G@gulch.xyz> wrote in message
news:Xns9D9DE0C8339FEJaneGgulchxyz@216.196.97.142...
> "David Ruether" <d_ruether@thotmail.com> wrote :
>> YOU HAVE ***GOT*** TO BE JOKING!!!! You have just lost ALL
>> credibility by referencing that liar, G. B. GET REAL! He is demonstrably
>> a dangerous, dissembling, malevolent idiot! NOTHING he says should be
>> believed if you have ANY sense at all!
> You've never watched a single show, I take it.
I did try, once, but it was so rediculous that I gave up on it before
the end. It was actually funny, in a painful sort of way...8^)
> I suppose all idiots have lots of their books that are #1 NYT Best Sellers?
>
> How many is he up to now? 6? 7?
This can be misleading, even if true (and if true, this DOES NOT
INDICATE ANYTHING GOOD!!!). It just means that there are
a LOT of people sold on Beck's warped views and his "entertaining"
logic (or lack thereof) and wild conclusions ("garbage in, garbage out...").
BTW, you have heard of book-authors/sellers padding the numbers
for the effect on the NYT Best Sellers list, haven't you? Seems Palin
got caught doing this with that POS she put out for the gullible to "read".
> The left smears anyone they disagree with, I know that for sure.
> --
> - Jane Galt
Not so much smears (the center/left does appear to try to tell the
truth much more often than the right bothers with) as "calling to
account" the right for blatant misrepresentations, lying, and hypocrisy
(a specialty of the right...;-). And, golly, the center/left often actually
presents checkable facts, and then logically draws conclusions from
those facts - how "revolutionary" an idea! ;-) Anyway I guess there
is little more worth saying to anyone who relies on Glenn Beck and
his ilk for anything of value. Have fun in your "never-never" world
of make-believe...
--DR
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"tony cooper" <tony_cooper213@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:dppt165dtcn3kmbbboh0gi2rmi0onftv12@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 20 Jun 2010 22:56:28 -0500, Jane Galt <Jane_G@gulch.xyz>
> wrote:
>>tony cooper <tony_cooper213@earthlink.net> wrote :
>>> On Sun, 20 Jun 2010 15:39:21 -0500, Jane Galt <Jane_G@gulch.xyz>
>>> wrote:
>>>>"Neil Harrington" <nobody@homehere.net> wrote :
>>>>> I don't, particularly, but I'm still curious as to why anyone would
>>>>> fake his gender. If for example I were at a large cocktail party with
>>>>> roughly equal numbers of men and women, I'd be equally at ease with
>>>>> all regardless of sex, but probably not with a man who was there
>>>>> dressed as a woman. Perhaps you wouldn't find such a person remarkable
>>>>> in the least, but I would.
>>>>If we lived in a truly free society, people would dress any way they
>>>>pleased and no one would care a thing about it.
>>> It appears they do wear anything they please now. So many out there
>>> who look absolutely ridiculous in their choice of clothing and don't
>>> seem to care.
>>So? Should bad taste be illegal?
NO! (Besides, I like "bad taste"...;-)
> http://tonycooper.smugmug.com/Photography/Bikers/2010-04-24-105/853803793_LsG8H-XL.jpg
> --
> Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
Hmmm....., maybe you have given me my deserved "comeuppance" for
that last comment I made...! ;-)
--DR
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Jane Galt" <Jane_G@gulch.xyz> wrote in message
> Free and democratic are oxymoronic.
>
> Democracy is forming a mob and forcing everyone else to provide your needs
> and whims, and voting on how to oppress people in your favorite ways.
>
> It's essentially akin to two sheep and a wolf voting on what's for dinner.
>
> While with true libertarianism and/or Objectivism, the sheep is armed.
> --
> - Jane Galt
DING!, DING!, DING!, DING! (That's my "absurdity alert"
going off...) Hey, I think you might enjoy residing in Somalia
more than here, perhaps? No effective government, thus social
chaos - yum, yum, huh? Or perhaps in the time of the rapacious
robber barons (with the "wolves" who owned everything who
fed off everyone else). Enough nonsense, so BYE! <PLONK!>
--DR
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Pete" <available.on.request@aserver.invalid> wrote in message
news:2010062112311959231-availableonrequest@aserverinvalid...
> On 2010-06-13 20:19:13 +0100, Jane Galt said:
>> I'd like to consider a newer purse sized Coolpix. I have the 4500 which is
>> nice, but not exactly purse sized.
>>
>> I like to do a bit of low-light shooting without flash, so it looks like the
>> S8000 isnt up to that, though the 10x optical zoom sounds nice.
>>
>> I enjoy mostly scenery and non-flash shots of our shoulder pet birds.
>>
>> My purse cam is now a Sony Cyber-Shot DSC-S750 but the image quality isnt as
>> nice as the Coolpix. I suspect Nikon makes better quality lenses?
>>
>> So suggestions?
>>
>> I need to keep this in the under $300 street price range.
> From the way this thread has progressed I would say a Nikon is not your
> best choice. A cannon would be more suitable.
> --
> Pete
8^), 8^), 8^)
--DR
~~~~~~~~~~
"Die Wahrheit" <diewahrheit@somewherehonest.net> wrote in message
news:283026502io9nj24qge7v21l9g05jt3ss5@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 21 Jun 2010 18:30:28 -0500, Jane Galt <Jane_G@gulch.xyz> wrote:
>>Yep, and I've owned guns since moving out of my pacifist anti-gun jewish
>>parents' home around 1970. People like that are also the reason I renounced
>>judaism at around age 25, out of shame and disgust that people who could
>>say "never again!" could possibly trust ANY government to protect them, and
>>go unarmed. I see any and all unarmed jews as abject cowards, and deserving
>>of having another Holocaust inflicted on them.
This explains a lot, at least for your being so "bent out of shape" now.
I think you have taken the wrong lesson from history, though, and have
inappropriately applied to the present an approach that would have been
much more appropriately applied in a past, very different, situation...
Rigidity in perspective does not serve you well.
> It actually goes much deeper and much further back than that. Early jewish
> tribes were the first ones to invent the (unnatural) good vs. evil concept.
> There's really no such thing as "good" nor "evil" anywhere in nature, or
> indeed the universe. The closest you can get to it would be calling
> something "toxic". But if studied with respect even toxic things can be
> made into some of the most beneficial things to your own and others'
> survival. (Chemo-therapy anyone? The most toxic "cure" known.) "Good" and
> "evil" are just human values arbitrarily placed on things. In other
> religions there might be "The Creator" and "The Destroyer", but within
> those religions they are both viewed as valued parts of the whole process.
> Each to be respected and admired. The Yin-Yang symbol, for example, is not
> two contradictory halves. The symbol is ONE thing. (You can always tell who
> has been infected with this evil/good dichotomy by showing them a Yin-Yang
> symbol and asking them what they see. If the answer is "two things", they
> have been infected.) Another example: the closest you'll ever find to
> "evil" in Native Americans' original beliefs (before they were infected
> with middle-east beliefs), is Coyote "The Trickster". But even he wasn't
> "evil", he was meant to teach valuable lessons. The original jewish tribes
> found that this divisive and dichotomous good vs. evil belief, if adopted
> by others, would pit neighbor against neighbor (leaving themselves
> unscathed). As it is still doing to this very day. Judaism, christianity,
> muslims all breaking off into hundreds of warring sects, all calling the
> other sects "evil" and they themselves "good". It was a crafty
> psychological war-tactic so that only the originating tribes would survive
> this concept. Unfortunately, many millennia down the road, the jewish
> culture was eventually called "evil" by those that now thought they were
> "good". Their good vs. evil concept that they had invented as a survival
> tactic long ago had now infected, and was adopted by, the very culture that
> would turn it on themselves. Their own manipulative and unnatural dichotomy
> came back to bite them on the ass.
Thanks for this insight. It does give a good account for why the Israelis
often take actions that appear illogical on the surface and also counter to
their own long-term best interests.
--DR
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"krishnananda" <krishna@divine-life.in.invalid> wrote in message
news:krishna-902547.21505921062010@news.eternal-september.org...
> Neo-Platonists like our esteemed Ayn Rand devotee always crack me up.
> They are so sure that they are the absolute cream of the intellectual
> crop that they deserve to be the philosopher-kings dictating proper
> behavior to the little people.
>
> They seem to base their entire worldview on a few really poorly-written
> romance novels written by a Russian immigrant (!). Everyone else is to
> be spat upon, disdained, called epithets like "Communist", and generally
> derided for daring to voice an opinion different from theirs. So much
> for their cynical championship of individual achievement.
>
> For that is the crux of these Neo-Platonists: by their own definition
> everything they say is the absolute truth and everything anyone else
> says is laughable. Disagreeing with them is tantamount to mental
> retardation, treason, nazism, communism, or worst of all: small "D"
> democratic.
>
> And it all comes down to these lousy romance novels like Atlas Shrugged.
> Neo-Platonists seem to regard these texts as fundamentalist Christians
> view the bible or fundamentalist Muslims regard the Qur'an: every word
> is true and applies to the entire population of the world, whatever
> their opinion. Once you have heard the "Good News" of Libertarianism you
> have the obligation to believe it wholeheartedly.
>
> I knew a guy in high school, long ago, who's parents named him "Roark"
> because their last name was "Howard". Roark was a really nice guy and
> didn't deserve to be burdened whth that name.
>
> Of course now, in the "Tea Party" we have [Ayn] Rand Paul, who seems to
> live up to his name pretty well.
>
> Ironically, Neo-Platonists hew to their invented utopia stronger than
> any good and proper Stalinist ever did.
Ah, a good summation...! ;-)
I read "Atlas Shrugged" as a kid (I was into Sci-fi...), and even then, the
writing appeared to me to be terrible (I was used to gobbling up "pulp"
sci-fi - but even that was generally of much higher quality than "A-S"), the
plot silly, and the "philosophy" stupid and unrealistic (and the later movie
wasn't any better, being a melodramatic bunch of idiotic "slush"). 'Course,
about the same time, I also gave up religions (I *was* into trying to *think*
on my own at the time, which I'm still trying to continue to do...;-). I guess
in the end, though, I dislike religions far less than ill-conceived impractical
philosophies of governing - the first can offer comfort to the believers, but
the second delivers nothing of value, and often pain... Watching the growth
of the "Tea Party", Libertarianism, and even the rise of the more extremist
side of the 'Bublican party (if they feel that they can rename the "Democrat"
party, I feel that their name is fair game...;-) I find scary. I hope we survive
this period of much reduced thoughtfulness...
--DR
~~~~~~~~~
"Dave Cohen" <user@example.net> wrote in message
news:i07vf9$j4n$1@news.eternal-september.org...
> As for the communist bit, I assume our Jane resides on the US side of
> the pond where they wouldn't know a communist if they woke up in bed
> with one and know even less the philosophical basis of the movement.
> In fact, most can't distinguish between the terms communist, fascist,
> atheist, democracy, capitalist etc. and cavalierly throw these terms
> around to those with whom they disagree, intending such as an insult
> rather rather than any true meaning of the terms. But who cares.
How true, and, how true...! 8^)
I don't know why Americans are so often so stupid about politics, but,
as with, "I don't know anything about art, but I know what I like", many
Americans are often similar with politics, making their uninformed
comments about it useless (although potentially dangerous...).
--DR
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Savageduck" <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote in message
news:2010062123051917709-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom...
> http://www.modbee.com/2010/06/21/1219995/ansel-adams-print-sells-for-722k.html
>
> --
> Regards,
>
> Savageduck
8^), but I know you meant "722k"...;-)
A horror story: on a trip through the west in the 1970s, we stopped
at the Adams studio in Yosemite. Available were various mounted
8x10 signed Adams prints. These were made by assistants, but, they
*were* signed by Adams... The only available space for storage in
the car was under everything in the back rear window shelf, since
there were three of us, and we were tent-camping. I was not sure
that any photo would travel very well there and my money was also
very limited, so I bought only one (at $25, as in, $25!!! ;-). While the
photos available were not among Adam's most famous, but still...;-)
A few years later, I sold that photo for $850(!). Much more recently,
one was appraised on "Antiques Roadshow" for $3,000(!!!). Sigh!
Buying a bunch of those would have done better than most good
stocks.
OK, here is a sad one (maybe...). A friend has a friend who owns
a very large print of the famous "Sunrise Hernandez". Rather than
properly framing it, he attached it to a wall in his house with wallpaper
paste! U G H ! ! ! 8^(
--DR
~~~~~~~~~
"Mike Russell" <groupsRE@MOVEcurvemeister.com> wrote in message
news:ioo1ylh6fruv.dlg@mike.curvemeister.com...
> On Tue, 22 Jun 2010 11:19:05 -0400, David Ruether wrote:
>> OK, here is a sad one (maybe...). A friend has a friend who owns
>> a very large print of the famous "Sunrise Hernandez". Rather than
>> properly framing it, he attached it to a wall in his house with wallpaper
>> paste! U G H ! ! ! 8^(
> Was it a gelatin print? If so, get a skilsaw and trade your FOAF for some
> new wallboard. OTOH, many of Adam's prints were made available as posters
> rather than prints. My local bank has two very large Adams prints on the
> wall - a reason for my staying there years after they kept adding more and
> more fees.
> --
> Mike Russell - http://www.curvemeister.com
It was a silver-gelatin print - but it is likely that the photo would
span more than one sheet of wallboard (and even more likely that
it is mounted on plaster). Perhaps a good restorer could remove it...
I don't remember the particulars, but I seem to remember that the
print had some direct relationship with Adams himself.
--DR
~~~~~~~~~~~~
"N.Morrow" <none@none.com> wrote in message
news:hvrar9$8hr$1@news.eternal-september.org...
> I'm shopping for a DSLR and comparing Nikon and Canon models. The optical
> viewfinder on the Canon XS seemed to be quite a bit brighter than either the
> Nikon D3000 or D5000. I'm talking a couple of f-stops brighter. None of the
> cameras were turned on (dead batteries is a Sears demo trademark) and the
> viewing was done inside a store with flourescent lights. Is the dim
> viewfinder a characteristic of Nikon, or there something else I'm missing?
>
> -N.Morrow
If you are judging the rear screens, look for a brightness setting
in the menu. If you are looking through the eyepiece VF, make
sure the lenses are the same speed and set to the same zoom
settings. BTW, the Nikon bodies below the D80/D90 use mirrors
instead of the brighter pentaprisms. I don't know what various
models of Canons use...
--DR
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Savageduck" <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote in message
news:2010062217144829267-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom...
> I didn't limit myself to one shot on that trip. So I have a few
> different shots of the valley trying to do that Adams thing, as well as
> some different views of El Capitan, and the ubiquitous Half Dome.
> I tried all sorts of different things, but I can't kid myself, Ansel's
> work was simply amazing, and I am no Adams. :-(
>
> http://homepage.mac.com/lco/filechute/YValley_DSC0964bwfw.jpg
> http://homepage.mac.com/lco/filechute/ElCap_2bwfw.jpg
> http://homepage.mac.com/lco/filechute/Halfdome_DSC0955bwfw.jpg
>
> --
> Regards,
>
> Savageduck
Even though I had some early successes with showing and
sales of B&W prints to museums (see, for an idea of some:
http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/aht1.html,
http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/aht2.html,
http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/aht3.html, and
http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/aht4.html) but these
pages show only one of my many museum sales (and one
bunch was involved in a funny/complicated/finally-too-bad
story about their fate...). Now, though, I accept that I will
never be a famous photographer/videographer/painter/
graphics-printer/poet/writer/singer/actor/musician/etc., and
that what I can do is enjoy the works of others. It's funny how
I can approach with pleasure works that I would once have
dismissed (and this is now costing me serious money as I
collect movies, music, etc...;-).
--DR
~~~~~~~~~
"Savageduck" <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote in message
news:2010062313550591745-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom...
> On 2010-06-23 12:41:24 -0700, "David Ruether" <d_ruether@thotmail.com> said:
>> "Savageduck" <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote in message
>> news:2010062217144829267-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom...
>>> I didn't limit myself to one shot on that trip. So I have a few
>>> different shots of the valley trying to do that Adams thing, as
>>> well as some different views of El Capitan, and the ubiquitous Half Dome.
>>> I tried all sorts of different things, but I can't kid myself, Ansel's
>>> work was simply amazing, and I am no Adams. :-(
>>>
>>> http://homepage.mac.com/lco/filechute/YValley_DSC0964bwfw.jpg
>>> http://homepage.mac.com/lco/filechute/ElCap_2bwfw.jpg
>>> http://homepage.mac.com/lco/filechute/Halfdome_DSC0955bwfw.jpg
>>> --
>>> Regards,
>>>
>>> Savageduck
[With a bit of sentence-structure correction...]
>> Even though I had some early successes with showing and
>> sales of B&W prints to museums (see, for an idea of some:
>> http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/aht1.html,
>> http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/aht2.html,
>> http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/aht3.html, and
>> http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/aht4.html - but these
>> pages show only one of my many museum sales, and one
>> bunch was involved in a funny/complicated/finally-too-bad
>> story about their fate...), I now accept that I will
>> never be a famous photographer/videographer/painter/
>> graphics-printer/poet/writer/singer/actor/musician/etc., and
>> that what I can do is enjoy the work of others. It's funny how
>> I can approach with pleasure works that I would once have
>> dismissed (and this is now costing me serious money as I
>> collect movies, music, etc...;-).
>> --DR
> Very nice. The Finger Lakes and Watkins Glen were one of my stomping
> grounds in the early 70's, as were the Adirondacks between Old Forge
> and Lake Placid.
> ...but you were using a view camera. I am playing with my diminutive
> D300 sensor.
>
> BTW, the first three url's are dead.
> --
> Regards,
>
> Savageduck
Those URLs work for me (from your response post, and from my
original), although I did spot a horrible sentence-structure problem
in my post. I wonder why the first three URLs didn't (still don't?)
work for you. BTW, those were shot with a film Nikon - and I
would likely shoot with a D90 now (the D300 and D700 are too
heavy for me now... { :-[ ).
--DR
~~~~~~~
"Savageduck" <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote in message
news:201006241107319530-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom...
> On 2010-06-24 09:40:57 -0700, "David Ruether" <d_ruether@thotmail.com> said:
>> Weird-looking reader - I've never seen anything like that...
>> It has mysteriously inappropriately drawn into the ending
>> the comma which is obviously not a part of the link. Why
>> not just manually remove it when entering the URL into
>> your browser's address line (either before, or after, it fails)?
>> I will try, though, to remember to keep an empty space
>> after a URL in future posts (but I shouldn't need to do
>> that...;-).
>> --DR
> Actually Unison is a very readable client, and one of the best for Mac.
> < http://www.panic.com/unison/ >
Ah, so THERE'S the problem...! 8^)
> ...and no, it didn't mysteriously draw the comma into the ending. I
> suspect you neglected to insert a space between the end of the URL and
> the comma. A URL is not a word you know.
Yes - but for posts I've put up for 1.5 decades now, simple writing
of the URLs, including punctuation, such as www.PCsAreBetter.com,
have worked fine - and most readers do not incorrectly shove anything
unwanted into the URL (and the URL works just fine). You need a
better reader, or better yet, a PC...! 8^), 8^), 8^)
> The convenience of just clicking on the URL which then opens a browser
> window works just fine for me.
Works for me, too! ;-)
> It is still best to place a URL on a seperate line, enclosed so, <
> (space)url(space) > or;
> < http://homepage.mac.com/lco/filechute/_DNC0924w.jpg >
> --
> Regards,
>
> Savageduck
But, adding the URL as an HTML line *should* be unnecessary in a
text-only group... (Hey, if we let that in, purdy soon people will be
adding HTML visual gizmos and even photos [gasp!] here...;-)
--DR
~~~~~~~~~
"Robert Spanjaard" <spamtrap@arumes.com> wrote in message
news:c4c50$4c23c3f5$546ac3cf$24234@cache90.multikabel.net...
> On Thu, 24 Jun 2010 15:41:31 -0400, David Ruether wrote:
>>> It is still best to place a URL on a seperate line, enclosed so, <
>>> (space)url(space) > or; <
>>> http://homepage.mac.com/lco/filechute/_DNC0924w.jpg > -- Regards,
>> But, adding the URL as an HTML line *should* be unnecessary in a
>> text-only group...
> It isn't written as HTML. HTML would be:
>
> <a href="http://www.blablabla.com">blablabla</a>
>
> Enclosing a URL (or a message-id, or an e-mail address) in inequality
> signs (_without_ the spaces, BTW) is the best way to avoid ambiguities.
> --
> Regards, Robert http://www.arumes.com
Thanks for clarifying that. As Gilda used to say, "Never mind!" 8^)
--DR
~~~~~~~~
"Savageduck" <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote in message
news:2010062409300315668-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom...
> On 2010-06-24 08:52:02 -0700, John McWilliams <jpmcw@comcast.net> said:
>> To ensure the maximum "readability" of links, put each on a separate
>> line, enclosed in angled brackets < >, with a space and a c/r at the
>> end; nothing else.
> Exactly.
> --
> Regards,
>
> Savageduck
But, these *are* plain-text only NGs - so why would we think
it necessary to format URLs for rich-text/HTML groups, huh?
--DR
~~~~~~~
"Savageduck" <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote in message
news:2010062413120427722-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom...
> On 2010-06-24 12:41:31 -0700, "David Ruether" <d_ruether@thotmail.com> said:
[...]
>> (Hey, if we let that in, purdy soon people will be
>> adding HTML visual gizmos and even photos [gasp!] here...;-)
>> --DR
> ...and this from somebody open minded enough to move from view camera,
> to 35mm, to digital. I would never have taken you for a Luddite, stuck
> in the world of plaintext, and MS IT brainwashing. ;-)
> --
> Regards,
>
> Savageduck
Actually, I moved from an Argus "75" to an Olympus Pen EE
half-frame, to a Practica SLR, to an Exa I SLR, to a Nikon
F/F2/F3 (with a Rollei 3.5F added somewhere along there,
with several Rollei 35 compacts...), and along with much
Nikon 35mm gear was a 5"x7" light-weight view with three
Nikkor lenses, later used as a 4"x5", then a Fuji-Wide was
bought/sold and I still have a Mamiya 645 with two lenses
leftover plus the pile of 35mm Nikon gear. More recently,
I've dabbled in digital stills and video...;-) (Ooops! I forgot
the pinhole cameras I used to build and use...;-) I did get the
impression along the way from writing/reading here that the
formatting is properly plain-text only, not HTML - and I do
have fun tweaking the "Mac-heads" (those who spend vastly
more for similar hardware in order to get the pretty Mac
"plastic goo" all over their computer cases - and let's not
even touch the "better" software issue, except for saying that
Apple finally got smart and made it possible to run PC apps
on a Mac...8^). So I buy/build cheap PCs, which I can
update easily and cheaply myself. As for being a Luddite,
you are right - but it's more a matter of not liking change,
being an Asperger...;-)
--DR
~~~~~~~~~~
"Savageduck" <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote in message
news:2010062315325825228-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom...
> On 2010-06-23 14:52:23 -0700, "David Ruether" <d_ruether@thotmail.com> said:
>> "Savageduck" <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote in message
>> news:2010062313550591745-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom...
>>> BTW, the first three url's are dead. --
>>> Regards,
>>>
>>> Savageduck
>> Those URLs work for me (from your response post, and from my
>> original [...]
> OK. I see the URL problem. It was the hard terminal comma on the first three.
Did you copy/paste each URL (inadvertently including the comma),
or click on a URL in your newsreader's display? (Inquiring minds
want to know - so I can get it right...;-).
> A D90 is very carriable. My old D70 is positively tiny and feather
> weight compared to my D300s + MB-D10. I am considereing the addition
> of a D700, or its replacement to my bag sometime in the future.
>
> I would have thought you would be able to handle a D700/D300 without
> the additional battery pack MB-D10 without too much problem.
>
> If not, it might be time to get a travelling assistant and camera bearer. ;-)
> --
> Regards,
>
> Savageduck
The last would be needed...;-( If the camera+lens is too heavy, I
begin to shake violently very quickly after raising them, and soon lose
the strength to hold them up. The FA with a handle remains practical
as does a Sony 707 (and I use braces for shooting with a very light
HD video camera). Sigh....
--DR
~~~~~~~~~~
"John McWilliams" <jpmcw@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:i010hg$emv$1@news.eternal-september.org...
> Savageduck wrote:
>> On 2010-06-24 16:43:04 -0700, John McWilliams <jpmcw@comcast.net> said:
>>> David Ruether wrote:
>>>> "Savageduck" <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:2010062409300315668-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom...
>>>>> On 2010-06-24 08:52:02 -0700, John McWilliams <jpmcw@comcast.net> said:
>>>>>> To ensure the maximum "readability" of links, put each on a
>>>>>> separate line, enclosed in angled brackets < >, with a space and a
>>>>>> c/r at the end; nothing else.
>>>>> Exactly.
I shall try to remember to keep a space "fore-'n'-aft" of a URL in the
future, but that's all...;-)
>>> Speaking of formatting, though, David: Your line wrap is awfully
>>> short- ca. 80 characters is a good choice.
I use short lines with hard returns for a reason. I like my reader since
its text size is reasonable for easy reading (the samples supplied of other
reader[s] have text that is too small [and I prefer B&W to color and ">>"s
to vertical lines for showing "age"...;-]), and I dislike having my text lines
broken at odd locations (making for odd-length bits) or not at all...
So, there! 8^) I also retain copies of what I write for archiving on my
web site, and my method provides "clean", consistent copies.
>>> And the sig. delimiter- two dashes, a space and a c/r- what Unison
>>> does to those is not cricket....
>>>
>>> Cheers.
>> David is using Outlook Express.
>> I am the one using Unison, and I fully agree with you regarding how
>> URL's should be entered. However I am not sure what you are getting at
>> with regard to sig delimiters. From what I see Unison keeps to the
>> convention as you stated when I compose a post, and I see yours as I am
>> sure you intended.
>> < http://homepage.mac.com/lco/filechute/JW-01.jpg >
> Ah, I see: OE is mangling your perfectly well formed sig delimiter, (as
> seen in DR's replies to you) but that's OE. David is, perhaps, missing a
> carriage return on his, or OE butchers it on the outgoing.
>
> All's well and nothing's changed: Google groups and OE are tied for the
> worst news handlers.
> --
> John McWilliams
'Pends on preferences.....;-)
--DR (with lack of return intended, but, "whatever"...... 8^)
~~~~~~~~~~~
"Peter" <peternew@nospamoptonline.net> wrote in message
news:4c22dec2$0$5517$8f2e0ebb@news.shared-secrets.com...
> "David Ruether" <d_ruether@thotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:hvto16$3dk$1@ruby.cit.cornell.edu...
>> Even though I had some early successes with showing and
>> sales of B&W prints to museums (see, for an idea of some:
>> http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/aht1.html,
>> http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/aht2.html,
>> http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/aht3.html, and
>> http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/aht4.html) but these
>> pages show only one of my many museum sales (and one
>> bunch was involved in a funny/complicated/finally-too-bad
>> story about their fate...). Now, though, I accept that I will
>> never be a famous photographer/videographer/painter/
>> graphics-printer/poet/writer/singer/actor/musician/etc., and
>> that what I can do is enjoy the work of others. It's funny how
>> I can approach with pleasure works that I would once have
>> dismissed (and this is now costing me serious money as I
>> collect movies, music, etc...;-).
>> --DR
> I must say I enjoyed looking at your work. Your style is refreshingly
> original.
> --
> Peter
Thanks. At the beginning (in the late '60s) I preferred to work
very graphically, pushing Panatomic-X to 64 ASA in Rodinol
and using benzotriozole for a limited 5-stop range with a clear
base (and "glittery"-looking negatives). I produced much using
this approach that I still consider the best of my work - but
while I still have the negatives (I hope!), I have misplaced
or lost many of the prints. My next "style" was the reverse,
involving pulling Tri-X to 25 ASA in POTA to give about a
25-stop range. *Everything* included in the frame at once
(from the sun in the sky to room interiors, even in the same
photo) was recorded. Talk about "F L A T"! ;-) But the photos
had their appeal, if not to most photographers (although the
well-known fashion photographer Richard Avedon is reported
to have liked them [ http://www.richardavedon.com/ ] when he
saw the traveling-show catalogue of these photographs...;-).
Oh, I can't resist relating the following...;-) I got a show at the
Everson Museum in Syracuse, and I arrived with the "Soft Images"
show in small metal frames (the prints are about 3 1/3"x5"), and
a bunch of 5"x7" unframed prints of the high-contrast images
mounted on relatively large mattes. I was a little astonished to
find that "my room" had walls maybe 12' (or more) high, so I
decided to double-hang the small prints and place the larger
white mattes over far larger black mattes, held in place by double
sheets of Plexiglas, for which I expected staff help in cleaning
surfaces, assembling, and hanging. I got nothing but "Can you
hurry up - we're closing." comments when anyone came in at all.
The reason for this lack of (useful) attention was that John Lennon
and Yoko Ono were hanging their own show elsewhere in the
museum and all the staff were there... I was too busy hanging my
own show to go see what they were doing, darn! ;-)
--David Ruether
www.David-Ruether-Photography.com
d_ruether....@....hotmail.com
~~~~~~~~~~
"Peter" <peternew@nospamoptonline.net> wrote in message
news:4c237668$0$5493$8f2e0ebb@news.shared-secrets.com...
> "David Ruether" <d_ruether@thotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:hvvnfg$qtk$1@ruby.cit.cornell.edu...
[...]
>> The reason for this lack of (useful) attention was that John Lennon
>> and Yoko Ono were hanging their own show elsewhere in the
>> museum and all the staff were there... I was too busy hanging my
>> own show to go see what they were doing, darn! ;-)
>> --David Ruether
>> www.David-Ruether-Photography.com
>> d_ruether....@....hotmail.com
> Darn! You mean you're not as well known as John Lennon?
> Ah! the tribulations of not being famous!
Yes, terrible, isn't it...? 8^)
> As a side note: I used to do a lot of lecturing to various accounting groups.
> After one lecture I was having dinner with my wife and in-laws. Someone came
> over to my table and mentioned that he thought my explanation of an
> accountant's potential liability when his client as the subject of a
> criminal fraud audit, was the clearest he had ever heard. He said that he
> would be calling me with a case involving that very issue. (He did and it as
> a substantial case.)
> I never told him that was not the subject of my lecture.
> --
> Peter
Being Asperger, and stupid, I likely would have...;-)
--DR
~~~~~~~
"Peter" <peternew@nospamoptonline.net> wrote in message
news:4c23bfe7$0$5545$8f2e0ebb@news.shared-secrets.com...
> "David Ruether" <d_ruether@thotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:i00248$cd3$1@ruby.cit.cornell.edu...
>> Being Asperger, and stupid, I likely would have...;-)
> Stupidity is not the issue. I know several people who have Asperger's.
> (Sorry Tony.) None of them seem to know when to keep quiet.
> --
> Peter
Yuh, "stupid" - we just don't know when to shut up, and we "blab all"
instead (which is often not "smart"...;-).
--DR
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Michael Benveniste" <mhb@murkyether.com> wrote in message
news:88h5tfFmqoU1@mid.individual.net...
> In 1979, the Nikon EM with a 50mm f/1.8 lens cost $250.
> In 2009 dollars, that works out to about $720. For that
> $720, you can buy a D3000, 35mm f/1.8 DX, and a decent sized
> memory card.
>
> In 1959, a Nikon F and 50mm f/2 lens would have set you
> back around $350. In 2009 dollars, that works out to about
> $2550. Today, you can buy a D700, 50mm f/1.8, and a memory
> card costs about $2650.
>
> Of course, it's barely possible that someone _might_ want to
> actually use a camera to produce actual _images. The dSLR
> prices listed above include the cost of the sensor -- the
> film cameras do not.
>
> A D3x, 50mm lens f/1.4 lens, 64 GB of memory cards, and 10
> terabytes of disk space will cost one about $9000. Based
> on shutter rating, this will allow you to shoot and store
> 300,000 shots as 14-bit raw files using non-lossy compression.
>
> Let's compare that with the least expensive legal way to get
> positive images out of 35mm film. To accomplish this, one
> would buy "short ends" of B&W movie film and respool it into
> used (ie free) 35mm still cartridges, process it yourself,
> and then make a contact print.
>
> Just counting the cost of consumables, I can find no time
> in history when you could accomplish that for 3 cents
> per 35mm frame.
> --
> Mike Benveniste
YIKES! Thanks for this illuminating reality-check! BTW,
I still have a few bulk film-loaders with old film in them,
plus my old chemicals have long since turned to crystals in
their containers and trays. Someday, I *MUST* clean out
that darkroom, sigh......! ;-)
--DR
~~~~~~~~~
"Michael Benveniste" <mhb@murkyether.com> wrote in message
news:88hk1rFdq9U1@mid.individual.net...
[...]
> It's particularly ironic that you chose the Nikon EM for your
> false analogy, as that marketing effort was the first time Nikon
> made a serious effort at increasing profits through market
> segmentation.
Interestingly, though, Nikon followed the EM with the not-very-
interesting FG-20, then the full-featured FG (TTL flash, M/A/S/P
exposure choices, and a "real" black or "chrome" finish instead
of unfinished plastic) based on the EM body. I still have one of
the delightful compact FG bodies...;-)
> Along with the EM, they introduced the E-series
> of lenses. While they had made consumer-grade lenses like the
> 43-86mm before, they were badged as Nikkors.
This lens in its first incarnation was terrible as was the early
80-250mm zoom (but useful at the time to photojournalists who
prized their zoom ability more than image quality).
> The E-series didn't
> carry the Nikkor brand and Nikon actively discouraged pros and
> "prosumers" from buying and using them.
The early E-Series were not well-finished, but were often optically
good. The later redesign made them look more like Nikkors, although
the optics were not changed. The 28mm f2.8 was variable, with good
samples being quite good stopped down some; the 35mm f2.5 also
varied a bit, but could be quite good stopped down some; the 50mm
f1.8 was quite good (and had VERY low linear distortion, as did the
longer non-zooms); the 100mm f2.8 was a gem I still have (sharp wide
open, light, and compact); the 135mm f2.8 was also very good (but,
oddly, it was much heavier than the 100mm); the 36-72mm f3.5
was surprisingly good, close-focusing, and constant-aperture; the
75-150mm f3.5 is a legend, being very sharp, compact, and constant-
aperture; the 70-210mm f4 was good, but not as "snappy" as one might
have wished (but it was constant-aperture). With heavy use, all of the
non-zooms could show wear (but the resulting looseness still seems
relatively "tight" compared with AF lenses...;-). The zoom barrels were
made of metal. Not bad, for "cheap" gear at the time...;-) I suspect
that Nikon simply wanted to expand into the lower-priced market by
offering generally high-quality optics at good prices with compromises
in finishing quality being made to cut costs.
--DR
~~~~~~~~~
"Michael Benveniste" <mhb@murkyether.com> wrote in message
news:88if4oF54rU1@mid.individual.net...
> "David Ruether" <d_ruether@thotmail.com> wrote:
>> Interestingly, though, Nikon followed the EM with the not-very-
>> interesting FG-20, then the full-featured FG (TTL flash, M/A/S/P
>> exposure choices, and a "real" black or "chrome" finish instead
>> of unfinished plastic) based on the EM body. I still have one of
>> the delightful compact FG bodies...;-)
> Actually, the FG came first (1982) before the FG-20 (1984).
Ah...;-)
> It also didn't have shutter priority, just M, A, and P.
Ummm... I just looked at mine to be sure, and to my surprise, you
are correct! I rarely used the FG, and was likely thinking of the FA,
which does have all those options...
> While I consider the FG the most underrated of the Nikon film
> bodies, my favorite compact Nikon film SLR was the last one,
> the N/F75.
I bought the N/F80 for a trip and hated it, mainly for its dark mirror
prism and unviewable metering in sunlight. Too bad I also bought
the handle, since both remain packed away, unused by me. The FA
is FAR better (and it is easier to hand-hold steady for me, since it
has a soft shutter release). If I wanted a motor, the N2000 was
essentially an FG with built-in motor, and the AAA batteries lasted
"forever". ;-). 'Course, other favorites were the N8008 (not "s")
with its fill-adjustable TTL flash capability (but the battery life was
short), the F100 (a superb body that finally combined all the "goodies"
in a single fairly compact entity) and the F3 with or without motor,
with the standard prism for compactness, the HP one for greater
eye-relief, or the "sports-finder" for easy composition with that image
rectangle "floating" in a large field of black). Overall, the one that gets
used now is the FA. It (with folding handle), and four compact lenses
plus 30 rolls of film can go into a compact rectangular case that fits
under my seat on a plane. On my wish list, though, is a Nikon digital
FF body that can properly mate with my many AIS lenses, and that
is as compact (thicker is OK) as the F100 (and weighs about the same)
and costs less than $1500. Dream on, huh......? ;-) Maybe in 10 years
or so...;-)
> {Excellent summary of the series E lenses snipped).
>> I suspect that Nikon simply wanted to expand into the lower-
>> priced market by offering generally high-quality optics at
>> good prices with compromises in finishings being made to cut
>> costs.
> Yes, but they also wanted to avoid cannibalizing sales to their
> current customers.
The original set of E-Series non-zoom lenses was SO ugly, that that
purpose was likely acomplished - but the later aesthetics may have been
improved to attract new customers to the low end of the Nikon line...
> It's also interesting to note that two of
> the Series E designs, the 28mm f/2.8 and the 70-210 f/4, evolved
> into AF-Nikkors.
> --
> Mike Benveniste
Yes - and I suspect that other than the coating, the 50mm f1.8 also
became an AF-Nikkor. Interestingly, the first Nikon digital SLR
body was shown with the 28mm f2.8 (42mm equivalent) AF as the
"standard" lens...;-) Then along came the "G" mount, first for cheap
lenses and bodies, but then for very expensive lenses (UGH - since
"G" lenses were not compatible with older AIS-only bodies. Annoying,
and something Nikon would not have done in the past! So, now I have
the excellent 24-85mm f3.5-4.5G that was intended for use on the
N80, but it can be used only on that (which I dislike) and the fairly
large F100 in my collection of bodies (with no possibility of using it
on my favored FA). Maybe it is time for a D90, but I'm more likely
to just wait...
--DR
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Dudley Hanks" <dhanks@blind-apertures.ca> wrote in message
news:u0UVn.8082$z%6.7843@edtnps83...
> While my pics aren't exactly masterpieces, and I've got a long way to go
> till I'm happy with what I produce, I'm getting close to "technically"
> acceptable shots.
>
> With that in mind, I'm starting to think about doing a shoot or two
> specifically with sales in mind.
>
> Anybody out there with insight as to the most effective way to market / sell
> semi-artistic prints, either locally or over the net...
>
> All info appreciated.
>
> Take Care,
> Dudley
I don't wish to discourage you, but here is my discouraging experience...
I've had about 50 museum/gallery shows (mostly museum shows, where
sales are not intended, unlike with galleries), with no sales *directly*
from any of the shows - but some later purchases by museums for their
collections. I've had articles written about my work, with no resulting
sales from these. I had a book of my photographs published, with no
sales resulting. (Hey, you, too can get a used copy at these sellers:
http://www.abebooks.com/servlet/BookDetailsPL?bi=1077038962&tab=1&searchurl=n%3D100200001%26vci%3D33956
http://www.abaa.org/books/263381396.html
http://www.jhbooks.com/details.php?record=104827&URLPAIR=%2F%2Fwww.jhbooks.com%2FsearchResults.php%3Faction% 3Drowse%26searchString%3D251%26kwconj%3Dand%26category_id%3D251%26orderBy%3Dauthor%26searchType%3Dauthor%26recordsLength%3D25%26want_id%3D0%26store_id%3D0%26browseLetter%3DQ
http://www.riverrunbookshop.com/cgi-bin/rrbooks/20559.html
http://www.bibliopolis.com/main/books/rrbooks_20559.html
http://www.amazon.com/s?ie=UTF8&rh=i%3Astripbooks%2Cp_27%3ADavid%20Ruether&field-author=David%20Ruether&page=1
and at many other fine retail used book sellers...;-) I also have some
of my photos on my web page (and have had for years) with info on
how to contact me for purchases (and no purchases). I suspect that
some of this was due to my giving up showing a long time ago, and
when I did, photography was not yet considered "art" (more like
"basket weaving" as one art professor at Cornell was reputed to
have said...;-) But, several local photographers are fairly successful
either maintaining a weekly booth at the Farmers Market for direct
sales, or setting up booths at various events, like the yearly music
festival, apple-harvest, chili-tasting, art-sale, etc. This is possibly the
best way for you to sell photos (with the added "hook" that they are
made by a nearly blind photographer...). BTW, the photos sell best
mounted on frame-ready suitably-sized mattes, usually wrapped in
clear thin plastic wrap for protection while people flip through them
in a "V"-shaped bin or when they are hung on the walls of a booth.
Do not under price your photos compared with others in sales, but
instead compete in quality/interest. Undercutting others' prices just
results in "grumpiness" toward you instead of goodwill, and nets you
less when you find your market...
--David Ruether
www.David-Ruether-Photography.com
d_ruether....@....hotmail.com
~~~~~~~~
"Kyle Abhams" <where@what.net> wrote in message
news:4tvh265g0776f6nh0re82uupammnkfjmv5@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 28 Jun 2010 09:11:30 -0400, "David Ruether"
> <d_ruether@thotmail.com> wrote:
>>But, several local photographers are fairly successful
>>either maintaining a weekly booth at the Farmers Market for direct
>>sales, or setting up booths at various events, like the yearly music
>>festival, apple-harvest, chili-tasting, art-sale, etc.
> This would be his best bet. Those that felt pity for the "blind
> photographer" sitting alongside his snapshots would buy his "art" out of
> guilt. Making sure he is sitting there with dog and white-cane at all times
> to get that message across. Not one of his snapshots would sell on their
> merits alone. A bit like buying a Parkinson's-afflicted scribbling from
> someone in a wheelchair at the park who looks like he needs a meal.
Hmmm.... Oh, yuh - now I remember what I was going to do!
<PLONK!>
--DR
~~~~~~~~~~~
"John Navas" <jncl1@navasgroup.com> wrote in message news:ejoh26llf52koifhnce18o521ka7ledshq@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 28 Jun 2010 14:24:01 GMT, in <5g2Wn.7918$Z6.7376@edtnps82>,
> "Dudley Hanks" <dhanks@blind-apertures.ca> wrote:
>>Just curious, do you think pics sell better signed or unsigned?
> Signed if you're famous; unsigned if you're not.
> --
> Best regards,
> John
I think most purchasers of photographs intend them as art, and they
also may wish for the possibility of value appreciation (even if that is
unlikely for most photographs, and a poor reason for buying one...;-).
So, the answer is to sign the photographs you sell - it takes but a
moment to do and it may increase the value to buyers...
--DR
~~~~~~~~~~
"John Navas" <jncl1@navasgroup.com> wrote in message news:p8vh26hgammk7imntf9sekrrvc051gorid@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 28 Jun 2010 15:17:58 -0400, in
> <i0ash7$6ll$1@ruby.cit.cornell.edu>, "David Ruether"
> <d_ruether@thotmail.com> wrote:
>>"John Navas" <jncl1@navasgroup.com> wrote in message news:ejoh26llf52koifhnce18o521ka7ledshq@4ax.com...
>>> On Mon, 28 Jun 2010 14:24:01 GMT, in <5g2Wn.7918$Z6.7376@edtnps82>,
>>> "Dudley Hanks" <dhanks@blind-apertures.ca> wrote:
>>>>Just curious, do you think pics sell better signed or unsigned?
>>> Signed if you're famous; unsigned if you're not.
>>I think most purchasers of photographs intend them as art, and they
>>also may wish for the possibility of value appreciation (even if that is
>>unlikely for most photographs, and a poor reason for buying one...;-).
>>So, the answer is to sign the photographs you sell - it takes but a
>>moment to do and it may increase the value to buyers...
> Then why do you suppose most art photographs sold have no signature?
> Are they all missing a great opportunity? Sellers could sign them and
> the buyers wouldn't even know the difference. ;)
> --
> Best regards,
> John
So far as I know (and have seen), most photos sold as "art" work
are signed...
--DR
~~~~~~~~~
"John Navas" <jncl1@navasgroup.com> wrote in message
news:70di265mg9tbf827cvmlp2vaacprgjb80m@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 28 Jun 2010 18:40:52 -0400, in
> <i0b8dk$ld9$1@ruby.cit.cornell.edu>, "David Ruether"
> <d_ruether@thotmail.com> wrote:
>>"John Navas" <jncl1@navasgroup.com> wrote in message
news:p8vh26hgammk7imntf9sekrrvc051gorid@4ax.com...
>>> On Mon, 28 Jun 2010 15:17:58 -0400, in
>>> <i0ash7$6ll$1@ruby.cit.cornell.edu>, "David Ruether"
>>> <d_ruether@thotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>"John Navas" <jncl1@navasgroup.com> wrote in message
news:ejoh26llf52koifhnce18o521ka7ledshq@4ax.com...
>>>>> On Mon, 28 Jun 2010 14:24:01 GMT, in <5g2Wn.7918$Z6.7376@edtnps82>,
>>>>> "Dudley Hanks" <dhanks@blind-apertures.ca> wrote:
>>>>>>Just curious, do you think pics sell better signed or unsigned?
>>>>> Signed if you're famous; unsigned if you're not.
>>>>I think most purchasers of photographs intend them as art, and they
>>>>also may wish for the possibility of value appreciation (even if that is
>>>>unlikely for most photographs, and a poor reason for buying one...;-).
>>>>So, the answer is to sign the photographs you sell - it takes but a
>>>>moment to do and it may increase the value to buyers...
>>> Then why do you suppose most art photographs sold have no signature?
>>> Are they all missing a great opportunity? Sellers could sign them and
>>> the buyers wouldn't even know the difference. ;)
>>So far as I know (and have seen), most photos sold as "art" work
>>are signed...
> That depends on the definition of "art". I was referring to low end
> stuff. I'm guessing you're not. As I wrote back at the beginning,
> "signed if you're famous; unsigned if you're not".
> --
> Best regards,
> John
Maybe we have a higher class of photographers/sellers here, but
all sign their work, whether all pieces by all people would be considered
"art" by all...;-) When in doubt, sign it - it shows that you have at least
that much confidence in your own work. The buyer can sort out the
"is it art?" end of things, and if the work is interesting/good enough to
cause him to cough up the cash to purchase it. It's really a non-issue,
and if in doubt, just sign it in soft pencil on the back...
--DR
~~~~~~~
"John Navas" <jncl1@navasgroup.com> wrote in message
news:arqk2690f4mhpocsbmll0mh5hv76v5tsa4@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 29 Jun 2010 14:52:15 -0400, in
> <i0dfcv$jie$1@ruby.cit.cornell.edu>, "David Ruether"
> <d_ruether@thotmail.com> wrote:
>>"John Navas" <jncl1@navasgroup.com> wrote in message
>>news:70di265mg9tbf827cvmlp2vaacprgjb80m@4ax.com...
>>> That depends on the definition of "art". I was referring to low end
>>> stuff. I'm guessing you're not. As I wrote back at the beginning,
>>> "signed if you're famous; unsigned if you're not".
>>Maybe we have a higher class of photographers/sellers here, but
>>all sign their work, whether all pieces by all people would be considered
>>"art" by all...;-) When in doubt, sign it - it shows that you have at least
>>that much confidence in your own work. The buyer can sort out the
>>"is it art?" end of things, and if the work is interesting/good enough to
>>cause him to cough up the cash to purchase it. It's really a non-issue,
>>and if in doubt, just sign it in soft pencil on the back...
> I was referring to signing on the front.
> I always stamp and/or sign my images on the back.
> --
> Best regards,
> John
Yes, that can be done, especially for commercial work - but work
intended for sale as "art" (whether or not it really is...;-), is more
properly signed on the front (which can be done at the time of sale, if
requested, if it is not done as a matter of course by the photographer),
but whatever way you want to do it (or not) is fine... ;-) This is really
not a big issue, and there is no absolute rule about it - although those
into gallery-selling do tend to sign on the front, often with the print
number in an edition, with the number available in that edition given
(but I consider this a very artificial-looking attempt to simulate the mode
used for graphics - where an edition may be printed all at once from
plates or screens, mainly for convenience or durability reasons). A
photo print can be made anytime, with it being rare that sales demand
would indicate the usefulness of making editions.
--DR
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Neil Harrington" <nobody@homehere.net> wrote in message
news:kYednV9TvKMt7LbRnZ2dnUVZ_qednZ2d@giganews.com...
> Yes, it's amazing how HDDs have grown in capacity. My first one (about 25
> years ago) was 30 megabytes (MEGABYTES!) and when I bought it I wondered
> what I'd ever do with all that space. Now you couldn't even put an operating
> system on a drive that small.
My first HD upgrade was to a "big" 10 megabyter(!), and I twice(!) bought
4 used RAM chips of 4 megs each for $360 a set! I think I've finally learned,
though, not to splurge on the "newest and greatest" computer gear, since it
so quickly comes to have been a waste of money... :-(
I'm definitely in the "buy-older/buy-used/build-my-own" mode now.
--DR
~~~~~~~~~
"Neil Harrington" <nobody@homehere.net> wrote in message
news:uuydnWQMyZHo_rDRnZ2dnUVZ_oCdnZ2d@giganews.com...
> "David Ruether" <d_ruether@thotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:i0g426$9b4$1@ruby.cit.cornell.edu...
>> "Neil Harrington" <nobody@homehere.net> wrote in message
>> news:kYednV9TvKMt7LbRnZ2dnUVZ_qednZ2d@giganews.com...
>>> Yes, it's amazing how HDDs have grown in capacity. My first one (about 25
>>> years ago) was 30 megabytes (MEGABYTES!) and when I bought it I wondered
>>> what I'd ever do with all that space. Now you couldn't even put an
>>> operating system on a drive that small.
>> My first HD upgrade was to a "big" 10 megabyter(!), and I twice(!) bought
>> 4 used RAM chips of 4 megs each for $360 a set! I think I've finally learned,
>> though, not to splurge on the "newest and greatest" computer gear, since it
>> so quickly comes to have been a waste of money... :-(
>> I'm definitely in the "buy-older/buy-used/build-my-own" mode now.
>> --DR
> Absolutely. The last "cutting-edge technology" computer I bought was in
> 1997, had a 266MHz Pentium II and Windows 95 OSR2. Since 1998 I've been
> building my own and I *never* buy the latest, biggest, fastest of anything
> in the parts department. Most every part I buy now was much more expensive
> two or three years ago, now has the bugs worked out of it and is more than
> adequate for me today.
Now the only reason I can think of for "amateurs" to buy "bleeding edge"
computers is to edit memory card AVCHD video, which is VERY CPU
intensive work, unless one can tolerate a very low-quality preview window,
or defeat the advantages of quick transfer of files by making transcoded
larger files that the CPU can handle more easily while editing. Funny, though,
that the output of tape-based HDV HD camcorders can be edited in real
time easily with the highest quality previewing on modest computers, and
the original tapes serve as excellent archiving media for the raw material,
which often must be thrown out with card material for space reasons.
Ah, the wonders of marketing...! ;-)
--DR
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"David Ruether" <d_ruether@thotmail.com> wrote in message
news:i0g3eq$8qj$1@ruby.cit.cornell.edu...
> "Pete" <available.on.request@aserver.invalid> wrote in message
> news:2010063011470496665-availableonrequest@aserverinvalid...
>> On 2010-06-30 05:37:49 +0100, krishnananda said:
> [...]
>> I found it most interesting, thanks. --
>> Pete
> But wait, there may be much more, and more accurate material to come! ;-)
> (Assuming I get permission from the author to place it here...;-)
> --DR
And here it is...
[I sent the following to a musicologist friend, and here are his
responses - with a few of my comments added inside "[...]s".]
> Hi--
>
> I found this in a *photo* newsgroup(!)!
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> In article <4C2AB60B.A196A26F@concentric.net>,
> John Turco <jtur@concentric.net> wrote:
>> 2 More Cents for the Carnival Freak-Show wrote:
>> <heavily edited for brevity>
>>
>> > Notes can also be selected by mathematical reasoning. Music has
>> > mathematical logic as the foundation.
>> <edited>
>>
>> Although, you're essentially correct, some clarification is
>> necessary.
>>
>> You see, in the West (unlike the Orient), the "musical scale"
>> is used. That's why Western music is so very different, from
>> its Eastern counterpart.
> Ah, no.
No. The Orient also uses scales and modes (see my website -- whoops,
I guess I'll have to reconstruct that page, because it seems to have
disappeared).
> The Indian Raga system is based on the same seven notes as the "Western"
> scale. It is referred to as the "Sargam" which is an abbreviation of the
> Hindi names of the first four notes, Sa Re Ga Ma. In the basic scale
> these are identical to C D E F. Because all the worlds instruments are
> based on the physics of either a vibrating string or a column or air all
> primary note are harmonics of that vibration frequency.
While seven-note ragas are common, there are many other ragas that
have more than seven notes and some that have less.
> The Raga [scale] Bilawal is identical to C major. The 12 primary Ragas
> are played with sharp and flat notes, all half-tones, to differentiate
> the scales. Exactly the same as the "Circle of Fifths".
I believe it's "Bilaval", although this may be a trivial distinction,
since it's a phonetic spelling anyway.
> One major difference is that while the modern Western scales consist
> only of whole and half notes,
This is a misconstruction, it is probably meant to read "wholetones
and semitones". Whole and half notes are time values, not intervals.
> Hindustani and Carnatic music recognized
> as many as 144 microtones between two adjacent notes. These microtones
> are played on fretted instruments like the Sitar by bending the string
> ("Meend") not unlike the way guitar and harmonica players bend notes up
> or down to the next half tone. In fretless instruments like the Sarod
> the microtones are played by sliding the left hand finger up or down the
> fingerboard.
Agreed, but only somewhat. Since microtones can and oftentimes ARE
played (sometimes accidentally and sometimes purposefully) on most
Western instruments (except for fixed-note keyboard instruments
[and even there, with accidentally or intentionally mistuning of
the instrument, as with the Ives quarter-tone piano pieces]), this
distinction is only theoretical. So-called "blue-notes" are microtonal.
> The Harmonium, a small reed organ, is extremely widely used in Indian
> music. Usually 2.5 octaves in length it has the same white and black
> keys as a piano with exactly the same intervals between keys as the
> "Western" original.
>
> Another difference is that in Western music the "A" note is pegged at
> 440 Hz. In India sometimes instruments are tuned with A at 420 Hz or 400
> Hz. Sometimes that renders the Bilawal scale as being in C# maj, but
> otherwise the intervals are exactly the same.
Agreed, somewhat, but A-440 isn't completely universal in Western music
either. [And this standard has changed over time.]
> It is worth noting that the Raga system was developed in the 14th
> Century, completely uninfluenced by "Western" music which at the time
> was under a significant amount of development. It is because of physics
> that the string/wind harmonics used in India are the same as those used
> in China (based on a pentatonic scale, like Scottish music), Europe, and
> wherever else uses vibrating strings or air columns.
Difficult to be certain about this, since we are discovering that
influences back and forth between East and West were much more common
than previously thought.
> Not based on scales? From the Indian point of view "Western" music is
> rather simplistic because of its rigid adherence to the semitone as the
> smallest musical unit.
While some traditional Western Music may be melodically simpler (not
"simplistic", which is pejorative) than some Indian music (actually most
is not so), Indian music is almost entirely monophonic (one note at a
time), discounting the pedals and nonpitched percussion, making it much,
much simpler in construction than polyphonic music, like in Mahler's
symphonies or in Bach. Microtones do occur in some types of Western
music, so this statement is false as well for that reason.
> Not entire sure what this has to do with photography...
>
> --krishnananda
The harmonic series, which is the basis of all music, as far as I know,
has no real counterpart in light, because light frequencies are so high
that the "harmonics" would be invisible.
Since we are witnessing the globalization of culture, the distinctions
between East and West (musical or otherwise) are fast disappearing.
Modern music in any culture now emulates the Western models, especially
American pop. Unless you confine your listening to "museum music" (music
that is rigidly frozen in the past), new postmodern styles have developed
throughout the world that homogenize traits from several once distinct
cultures. These new hybrid musics are still developing, and are therefore
very vital and exciting to hear. I experienced this live in the recent
performance done by the Kronos Quartet in SF. I believe this is the new
"New Music". (:^O) --> (Yeah!)
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> 8^)
> --DR
--DR, for "LS"
~~~~~~~~~
"Peter" <peternew@nospamoptonline.net> wrote in message
news:4c2c9806$0$5532$8f2e0ebb@news.shared-secrets.com...
> "David Ruether" <d_ruether@thotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:i0g50m$ah2$1@ruby.cit.cornell.edu...
> < lots of good stuff snipped >
>
>> The harmonic series, which is the basis of all music, as far as I know,
>> has no real counterpart in light, because light frequencies are so high
>> that the "harmonics" would be invisible.
> While this may be technically true, the influence culture and the
> photographer's backround on photographic style may be readily observed. e.g.
>
> compare
>
> http://www.johnisaac.com/galleries.html
>
> with
>
> http://www.sjphoto.com/
>
> and
>
> http://www.alisonshaw.com/bio.shtml
Yes, these represent different styles, but....;-)
>> Since we are witnessing the globalization of culture, the distinctions
>> between East and West (musical or otherwise) are fast disappearing.
>> Modern music in any culture now emulates the Western models, especially
>> American pop. Unless you confine your listening to "museum music" (music
>> that is rigidly frozen in the past), new postmodern styles have developed
>> throughout the world that homogenize traits from several once distinct
>> cultures. These new hybrid musics are still developing, and are therefore
>> very vital and exciting to hear. I experienced this live in the recent
>> performance done by the Kronos Quartet in SF. I believe this is the new
>> "New Music". (:^O) --> (Yeah!)
>> ["LS"]
> This is happening more quickly in photography. A series of photographs can
> be taken and printed in much less time, than the writing of even the most
> basic musical piece.
> --
> Peter
"LS", who recently wrote a short piece for piano, did it in some VERY
short period of time (sorry, I've forgotten how short, but it was SHORT...;-),
and he used to compose (beautifully, I might add...;-) in "real time" with
performances of improvised piano music (and much of jazz is also
improvised during the performance rather than being written/composed
in advance...).
--DR
~~~~~~~~~
"Peter" <peternew@nospamoptonline.net> wrote in message
news:4c2cb283$0$5511$8f2e0ebb@news.shared-secrets.com...
> "David Ruether" <d_ruether@thotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:i0i9fn$cl9$1@ruby.cit.cornell.edu...
>> "Peter" <peternew@nospamoptonline.net> wrote in message
>> news:4c2c9806$0$5532$8f2e0ebb@news.shared-secrets.com...
>>> "David Ruether" <d_ruether@thotmail.com> wrote in message
>>> news:i0g50m$ah2$1@ruby.cit.cornell.edu...
>>> < lots of good stuff snipped >
>>>
>>>> The harmonic series, which is the basis of all music, as far as I know,
>>>> has no real counterpart in light, because light frequencies are so high
>>>> that the "harmonics" would be invisible.
>>> While this may be technically true, the influence culture and the
>>> photographer's backround on photographic style may be readily observed.
>>> e.g.
>>>
>>> compare
>>>
>>> http://www.johnisaac.com/galleries.html
>>>
>>> with
>>>
>>> http://www.sjphoto.com/
>>>
>>> and
>>>
>>> http://www.alisonshaw.com/bio.shtml
>> Yes, these represent different styles, but....;-)
As I point out again, it seems to me that you are trying to pointlessly
compare "apples with oranges". But even given your own apparent
premise (and I'm mostly guessing what that really is...;-), it doesn't
"hold water" when one photographer radically changes styles (as I
have done several times...;-).
> Each of these three artists comes from a different cultural background. I
> say this from personal knowledge since I have met and spoken with all three.
> I have taken workshops with Stephen Johnson and Alllson Shaw. Because I am a
> firm beleiver in maintaining confidences, I will not mention anything about
> their personal backgrounds. My main point is that you can see the influencs
> in their work. Where they were born and how they were brought up is
> irrelevant. I figure what they want disclosed they have on their websites.
> Although each of their styles is different, I can appreciate the artist in
> each of them. I have tried to learn something from each and develop my own
> style.
>>>> Since we are witnessing the globalization of culture, the distinctions
>>>> between East and West (musical or otherwise) are fast disappearing.
>>>> Modern music in any culture now emulates the Western models, especially
>>>> American pop. Unless you confine your listening to "museum music" (music
>>>> that is rigidly frozen in the past), new postmodern styles have developed
>>>> throughout the world that homogenize traits from several once distinct
>>>> cultures. These new hybrid musics are still developing, and are therefore
>>>> very vital and exciting to hear. I experienced this live in the recent
>>>> performance done by the Kronos Quartet in SF. I believe this is the new
>>>> "New Music". (:^O) --> (Yeah!) ["LS"]
>>> This is happening more quickly in photography. A series of photographs
>>> can be taken and printed in much less time, than the writing of even the
>>> most basic musical piece. --
>>> Peter
>> "LS", who recently wrote a short piece for piano, did it in some VERY
>> short period of time (sorry, I've forgotten how short, but it was SHORT...;-),
>> and he used to compose (beautifully, I might add...;-) in "real time" with
>> performances of improvised piano music (and much of jazz is also
>> improvised during the performance rather than being written/composed
>> in advance...).
> True. Try this experiment.
But, why...? ;-)
> See if it takes you longer to look at a photograph, than listen to an
> improvised piece.
It depends on the particulars of each. Some photographs can take years to
appreciate fully, and some pieces of music are of the "instant throwaway"
variety - and the reverse can also be true.
> Do you claim my observation is incorrect, or my theory of why my observation
> exists.
> --
> Peter
I'm still trying to figure out what these theories and observations of yours
are, and why you have attempted to present them... So far, I see no point
to them except a partial one: *sometimes* in photography and music (and
in other fields), one's background (culturally and in upbringing) *may*
noticeably influence one's artistic output - but this is far from universally
true.
--DR
~~~~~~~~~
"Peter" <peternew@nospamoptonline.net> wrote in message
news:4c2d37af$0$5508$8f2e0ebb@news.shared-secrets.com...
> "David Ruether" <d_ruether@thotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:i0irh6$6pu$1@ruby.cit.cornell.edu...
>> I'm still trying to figure out what these theories and observations of yours
>> are, and why you have attempted to present them... So far, I see no point
>> to them except a partial one: *sometimes* in photography and music (and
>> in other fields), one's background (culturally and in upbringing) *may*
>> noticeably influence one's artistic output - but this is far from universally
>> true.
> All I was doing was responding to your comment about music becoming more
> international, by stating that this is also true about photography and other
> art forms.
Actually, that was not one of my comments, as I recall - and what you
point out has become almost an obvious "trueism" (and it does seem
somewhat counter to your premise about the origins of the different
styles in the instances you cite...;-).
> There is no ":may" in my observation. I believe we are all influenced by our
> culture and upbringing, at least initially. My examples merely illustrated
> the work of three fine photographers who were clearly so influenced.
There are, are-not, or may-be strong, or partial, influences on styles, making
any overall "theory" about their cultural and background origins often not very
useful, I think. You also appear to have supported this multi-sided view in your
posts (at the same time that you appear to argue one side or another...;-).
> I see no reason anyone would tae offense at that.
> --
> Peter
I did not take offense at anything, but I did comment on the lack of clarity
and consistency in whatever point(s) you were trying to make (which
also included "supportive" irrelevancies...;-). It was difficult to figure out
whether or not you had any relevant point to make, or if so, what it was.
Sorry - and I do not mean to offend.
--DR
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Peter" <peternew@nospamoptonline.net> wrote in message
news:4c2dcc71$0$5540$8f2e0ebb@news.shared-secrets.com...
[...]
> When I
> did such work on a computer I added a surcharge for computer hours. I
> deliberately used a dot matrix printer because in those days there was a
> perception that if work was done on a computer, it was accurate.
> --
> Peter
8^)
I've been relying on tax software for several years for my federal
and state income taxes, maybe hoping for that same perception - but
this year the IRS informed me that the software had made a mistake,
and that I owed money (of course...! ;-) Your post reminded me to
pay it... :-(
--DR
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"tomcervo" <tomcervo@aol.com> wrote in message
news:e8d3fd18-8990-46da-a6f1-541b3fa34a0c@i31g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
A VERY lengthy list of 'Bublican sexual miscreants and hypocrites deleted
for brevity - but I was surprised that judge G. Harold Carswell was not
included in the list. This conservative judge (who appeared to be against both
racial integration and women's rights) was nominated by Richard Nixon to fill
a vacancy on the Supreme Court, but he did not obtain the position. Somewhat
later, Carswell was arrested and convicted of battery for advances he made on
an undercover policeman in a men's room. After that, he was beaten by a man
he had invited to his hotel room. One wonders why so many conservatives
think they can hide their misdeeds by being so publicly against the wellbeing
and equality of others...;-)
--DR
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"GregS" <zekfrivo@zekfrivolous.com> wrote in message news:i17t58$33r$1@usenet01.srv.cis.pitt.edu...
> In article <d9ee2a91-2b3d-4c9f-8ea5-d24f3a5fda93@y11g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>,
Mark Sieving <mark_sieving@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>On Jul 9, 1:09=A0pm, zekfr...@zekfrivolous.com (GregS) wrote:
>>> I can't find the camera here, yet it seems to view everything ??
>>>
>>> http://www.fullscreen360.com/st-helens.htm
>>I'm not sure what the question is. The camera was clearly mounted on
>>the edge of the crater, and pivoted through 360 degrees. Unless
>>someone was holding up a mirror, the camera can't photograph itself.
>>
>>The technique would be to take a series of overlapping frames, and
>>then stitch them together.
> You did not go full up and down. From what i gather many frames were shot to get shots.
> Ther is NO view of the picture left untaken. Aparently the camera was moved and
> then more fill in shots were stitched together. It as if the camera is floating
> in mid air. Nothing below it, nothing above it.
>
> greg
There used to be a device using a conical/parabolic mirror that
pointed down at the upturned camera to shoot such pictures,
but these left a "hole" in the ground image which does not appear
in this image. It is a most remarkable image!
--DR
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Bruce" <docnews2011@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:t5cs36hc8r5240pstkpv4depss9gl38gfs@4ax.com...
> For example, the Canon EF 24-105mm L IS and 70-200mm f/4 L IS are
> outstanding mid-priced lenses. Nikon has nothing to compete with
> either of them; the AF-S VR Nikkor 24-120mm f/3.5-5.6G IFED and AF
> Nikkor 24-85mm f/2.8-4D are particularly weak performers, to the point
> of being embarrassing because of high distortion and CA and poor edge
> performance unless stopped way down. The comparatively inexpensive
> Canon EF 28-105mm f/3.5-4.5 performs better than either of them!
If one is willing to "step back in time" a bit, the 24-120mm non-VR
was a decent performer from f5.6, and the 24-85mm f3.5-4.5G was
very good to the corners even wide open (although linear distortion
was high), and it was reasonably compact and inexpensive. I think
Nikon should have kept that FF lens and dumped the other two...
'Course, as you noted, when it comes to the fast Nikkor wide and
super-wide zooms, Nikon pretty much stands alone in image quality
(but moderately-priced they aren't!). BTW, the 28mm-105mm
f3.5-4.5 was a very decent inexpensive Nikkor, with unusually low
linear distortion for a zoom...
--DR
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"GMAN" <Winniethepooh@100acrewoods.org> wrote in message
news:BM30o.306232$vX7.44507@en-nntp-11.dc1.easynews.com...
> In article <i1qbkc$433$1@news.eternal-september.org>, "David J Taylor"
<david-taylor@blueyonder.co.uk> wrote:
>>"GMAN" <Winniethepooh@100acrewoods.org> wrote in message
>>news:Ih20o.320818$iG7.125056@en-nntp-12.dc1.easynews.com...
>>[]
>>> Do you realize how much greassy crap comes flying out of your mouth
>>> when you breathe on your lens?
>>Your can speak for your own mouth and eating habits!
>>
>>David
> Says the one who eats meat pies made out of stomach and head cheese..
>
> Even Nikon says that its bad.
>
> http://support.nikonusa.com/app/answers/detail/a_id/539
>
> "Do not breathe on the lens to fog it for cleaning. There are harmful acids
> in breath that can damage lens coatings"
>
> Not only are there minute particles of what you have been eatting, but you
> are breathing out carbon dioxide, an acid !!!!!
I think the above is a "gross" exaggeration of things since the "acid"
is VERY mild, and only VERY temporarily on the lens surface. BTW,
if one breathes UP onto the down-facing lens surface, spit, etc. tend
not to reach the lens surface, just the fogging moisture. I have used this
method successfully for decades to clean lenses. For more difficult
"glop" on the lens, I VERY SLIGHTLY moisten a Q-Tip with Windex
(a window cleaner), then in turn use that to barely moisten another
Q-Tip for the actual cleaning, finishing with breath and a good lens
tissue (AFTER washing my hands with a dish washing detergent),
WITHOUT silicone in it (that's horrible stuff to remove from a lens
later, when it begins to fog). Some now prefer microfiber cloths for
lens cleaning, though...
--DR
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Mark F" <mark53916@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:i14946187cohq9kq2pgd5nbn47v74s9cu2@4ax.com...
> I've tried to watch various real estate, remodeling, and even shows on
> TV but I find that after a short time I become dizzy due to the
> distorted images.
>
> Isn't it possible to remove the distortion so objects don't change
> shape as they are panned across? If you know of such software
> please send me its name so I can send it to the production companies
> of the TV shows that I would like to be able to watch.
>
> Assuming that there is such software, why don't the shows fix the
> images? Possible reasons include:
> 1. Some "arty" effect - They actually think things look better
> 2. The budgets are so low that they can't afford to run a
> computer program unattended for a few hours.
> 3. Their view of reality is so warped that they don't notice
> that they are presenting a warped view.
I don't remember seeing what you seem to be describing, except
in shows that are changed from 4:3 to 16:9 by applying image
modification that maintains relatively little stretching near the center
of the picture at the expense of extra stretching of the edges. Oddly,
this process maintains straight lines and correct angles while panning
(a grid remains reasonably intact). Use of wide-angle lenses to cover
more interior space introduces visual effects (ahem, NOT "distortion")
that may seem strange to many people, and are, since we actually see
in fisheye perspective which eliminates these effects when we turn
while viewing things. For more on this, see these on my web page --
http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/lens_perspective_types.htm
http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/lens-angle-of-view-and-perspective.htm
http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/seeing_and_perspective.htm
It is possible to show a 360x360degree navigable image in a still
photo, but this is not necessarily easy. For an example, see
http://www.fullscreen360.com/st-helens.htm and click the mouse in
the photo. You can then move the mouse to rotate vertically/horizontally
through a full spherical view of Mt. St. Helens. The real estate photos
I've seen are but a mere shadow of this, though, and I think begin with
a fisheye view and then are processed to make the photos have
rectangular perspective, but with the consequence that they have soft
edges/corners. Also, as s Larry J points out, CMOS sensors will distort
images with panning, adding to what you may be seeing (but I have
not seen much of this in professional work...).
--David Ruether
www.David-Ruether-Photography.com
d_ruether....@....hotmail.com
~~~~~~~~~
"Steve King" <steveSPAMBLOCK@stevekingSPAMBLOCK.net>
wrote in message news:i22ll1$pig$1@news.albasani.net...
> "David Ruether" <d_ruether@thotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:i22evg$gl5$1@ruby.cit.cornell.edu...
> | "Mark F" <mark53916@gmail.com> wrote in message
> | news:i14946187cohq9kq2pgd5nbn47v74s9cu2@4ax.com...
> | > I've tried to watch various real estate, remodeling, and even shows on
> | > TV but I find that after a short time I become dizzy due to the
> | > distorted images.
> | >
> | > Isn't it possible to remove the distortion so objects don't change
> | > shape as they are panned across? If you know of such software
> | > please send me its name so I can send it to the production companies
> | > of the TV shows that I would like to be able to watch.
> | >
> | > Assuming that there is such software, why don't the shows fix the
> | > images? Possible reasons include:
> | > 1. Some "arty" effect - They actually think things look better
> | > 2. The budgets are so low that they can't afford to run a
> | > computer program unattended for a few hours.
> | > 3. Their view of reality is so warped that they don't notice
> | > that they are presenting a warped view.
> | I don't remember seeing what you seem to be describing, except
> | in shows that are modified from 4:3 to 16:9 by applying image
> | modification that maintains relatively little stretching near the center
> | of the picture at the expense of extra stretching of the edges. Oddly,
> | this process maintains straight lines and correct angles while panning
> | (a grid remains reasonably intact). Use of wide-angle lenses to cover
> | more interior space introduces visual effects (ahem, NOT "distortion")
> | that may seem strange to many people, and are, since we actually see
> | in fisheye perspective which eliminates these effects when we turn
> | while viewing things. For more on this, see these on my web page --
> | http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/lens_perspective_types.htm
> | http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/lens-angle-of-view-and-perspective.htm
> | http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/seeing_and_perspective.htm
> | It is possible to show a 360x360degree navigable image in a still
> | photo, but this is not necessarily easy. For an example, see
> | http://www.fullscreen360.com/st-helens.htm and click the mouse in
> | the photo. You can then move the mouse to rotate vertically/horizontally
> | through a full spherical view of Mt. St. Helens. The real estate photos
> | I've seen are but a mere shadow of this, though, and I think begin with
> | a fisheye view and then are processed to make the photos have
> | rectangular perspective, but with the consequence that they have soft
> | edges/corners. Also, as s Larry J. points out, CMOS sensors will
> | distort images with panning, adding to what you may be seeing (but I
> | have not seen much of this in professional work...).
> | --David Ruether
> | www.David-Ruether-Photography.com
> | d_ruether....@....hotmail.com
["Ty's" response was: "wide angle lenses make the room look bigger.
they distort."]
> Nope. Ty's got it right. The real estate people need to video relatively
> small rooms. A panning shot using a wide-angle lens is the best way to do
> this. The distortion results. Note that very expensive wide angle lenses
> don't distort as much as cheap lenses, but who puts an expensive lens on a
> camera that probably costs under a grand?
>
> Steve
Nope. Wide-angles, simply for being wide, do not "distort". Read
my articles cited above to understand more about perspective. For
true lens distortion, add this one --
http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/lens_distortion_types.htm
In practice, for the purposes described, there may actually be less
"distortion" using a cheap lens with greater linear barrel distortion
since a rotated fisheye introduces less of what many think of as
"distortion" in the moved camera's image. And, if it were possible
to use one this way, a moving-slit camera would likely produce
even less "distortion" with its cylindrical type of perspective when
rotated. The problem with much of this is the disconnect between
the way people *think* they see, and the way they really *do*
see - and with the faulty attempts made to approximate the first
while showing a wide angle of view in motion. In order to maintain
people's impression of how they see undisturbed, a long FL lens
with a narrow angle of view must be used (within that angle, the
appearance of the images made by all of the perspective types
looks nearly the same), but this defeats the desire to cover a wide
angle of view. If people realized that a "fisheye" perspective is
really the normal type for vision, "non-distorting" extreme wide
angle video and photography would be easy...;-)
--DR
~~~~~~~~~
"Ty Ford" <tyreeford@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:0001HW.C86B32E50453B762F0284530@News.Individual.NET...
> On Tue, 20 Jul 2010 08:59:19 -0400, David Ruether wrote
> (in article <i246j8$p7b$1@ruby.cit.cornell.edu>):
>> Nope. Wide-angles, simply for being wide, do not "distort". Read my articles
>> cited above to understand more about perspective.
> OK so when someone pans a wide angle lens and the image looks distorted, what
> do you call that?
>
> Regards,
>
> Ty Ford
Please read my articles on perspective for a better understanding
of what really is "distortion" and what is rather an "unfamiliar view",
often incorrectly called "distortion". Also, note the implications of,
"In order to maintain people's [incorrect] impression of how they
see undisturbed, a long FL lens with a narrow angle of view must
be used (within that angle, the appearance of the images made by
all of the perspective types looks nearly the same), but this defeats
the desire to cover a wide angle of view" from my last post. Or,
if you want to cover a wide angle of view and rotate the camera,
a fisheye (or a lens with very strong barrel distortion) works the
best for minimizing the "edge-stretching" effect you likely find
unpleasant with turned rectangular-perspective super-wides - but
you will necessarily get the alternative curving of straight lines
away from the image center which is characteristic of fisheyes.
You can, though, make cylindrical-perspective single images (not
moving) using a camera with curved film and a lens that swings
and exposes through a slit - and these can cover up to maybe
140 degrees, with straight vertical lines and curving off-center
horizontal lines in a horizontal image (and you can approximate
this by stitching enough narrow vertical digital images together).
This all just follows simple geometry - and, remember, "You
can't fool mother geometry!" 8^)
--DR
~~~~~~~~~~~
"Steve King" <steveSPAMBLOCK@stevekingSPAMBLOCK.net>
wrote in message news:i24pvn$l71$1@news.albasani.net...
> "David Ruether" <d_ruether@thotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:i24kjh$ec0$1@ruby.cit.cornell.edu...
> | "Ty Ford" <tyreeford@comcast.net> wrote in message
> | news:0001HW.C86B32E50453B762F0284530@News.Individual.NET...
> | > On Tue, 20 Jul 2010 08:59:19 -0400, David Ruether wrote
> | > (in article <i246j8$p7b$1@ruby.cit.cornell.edu>):
> | >> Nope. Wide-angles, simply for being wide, do not "distort".
> | >> Read my articles cited above to understand more about
> | >> perspective.
> | > OK so when someone pans a wide angle lens and the image
> | > looks distorted, what do you call that?
> | >
> | > Regards,
> | >
> | > Ty Ford
> | Please read my articles on perspective for a better understanding
> | of what really is "distortion" and what is rather an "unfamiliar view",
> | often incorrectly called "distortion". Also, note the implications of,
> | "In order to maintain people's [incorrect] impression of how they
> | see undisturbed, a long FL lens with a narrow angle of view must
> | be used (within that angle, the appearance of the images made by
> | all of the perspective types looks nearly the same), but this defeats
> | the desire to cover a wide angle of view" from my last post. Or,
> | if you want to cover a wide angle of view and rotate the camera,
> | a fisheye (or a lens with very strong barrel distortion) works the
> | best for minimizing the "edge-stretching" effect you likely find
> | unpleasant with turned rectangular-perspective super-wides - but
> | you will necessarily get the alternative curving of straight lines
> | away from the image center which is characteristic of fisheyes.
> | You can, though, make cylindrical-perspective single images (not
> | moving) using a camera with curved film and a lens that swings
> | and exposes through a slit - and these can cover up to maybe
> | 140 degrees, with straight vertical lines and curving off-center
> | horizontal lines in a horizontal image (and you can approximate
> | this by stitching enough narrow vertical digital images together).
> | This all just follows simple geometry - and, remember, "You can't
> | fool mother geometry!" 8^)
> | --DR
> I don't care what the "proper" name is for the unnatural looking images as a
> wide angle lens is panned. I just know that my clients are going to say,
> "How can we get rid of that distortion?" So, when the verticals in a room
> take on an hour-glass shape, that's just an "unfamiliar view"? Good luck
> selling that;-) Of course, I realize you may be right, but of all the
> things I might do this afternoon reading a learned treatise on unfamilair
> views ranks really, really far behind going sailing.
>
> Steve
Understandable - but if you are not willing to look at pretty
straight-forward articles on the subject (with examples), then you
cannot complain about the perspective effects and the resulting
complaints about them. Basically, a situation/question has been
posed that has only partial solutions, and I have tried to point out
those here. There is NO complete, completely satisfactory solution
to what I take to be the OP's question, but the stills shooting
method used for the Mt. St. Helens navigable image comes as
close as any I know of. [ www.fullscreen360.com/st-helens.htm ]
--DR
~~~~~~~~~~
"Steve King" <steveSPAMBLOCK@stevekingSPAMBLOCK.net>
wrote in message news:i2736s$mso$1@news.albasani.net...
> "David Ruether" <d_ruether@thotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:i24r6g$msl$1@ruby.cit.cornell.edu...
> | ...................................but if you are not willing to look at pretty
> | straight-forward articles on the subject (with examples), then you
> | cannot complain about the perspective effects and the resulting
> | complaints about them. Basically, a situation/question has been
> | posed that has only partial solutions, and I have tried to point out
> | those here. There is NO complete, completely satisfactory solution
> | to what I take to be the OP's question, but the stills shooting
> | method used for the Mt. St. Helens navigable image comes as
> | close as any I know of. [ www.fullscreen360.com/st-helens.htm ]
> | --DR
> David,
>
> That there is 'no complete, completely satisfactory solution' is what both
> Ty and I wrote in effect. I don't disagree with your statement. The OP was
> complaining about the 'distortion' that results from using (what I assume
> is) a cheap video camera using (what I assume is) a cheap wide-angle lens to
> show to best advantage a relatively small room by panning from a corner or a
> central postion in the room--at least that's what my wife shows me as
> appearing in many real estate listings. I believe we are all saying that it
> is what it is for this set of circumstances.
>
> Steve
Yes. But, going back to the OP's post, "I've tried to watch various
real estate, remodeling, and even shows on TV but I find that after
a short time I become dizzy due to the distorted images." I tried to
explain why the "distortion" likely was not distortion, but a dislike
for the (necessary) effects resulting from trying to show a wide angle
of view in rectangular perspective (which shows straight lines as
straight off axis of the center of the view). This has little or nothing
to do with the quality of the gear... Further, from the OP's post,
"Isn't it possible to remove the distortion so objects don't change
shape as they are panned across?" The answer is no, if a wide angle
rectangular-perspective lens is panned (but it is possible with a
fisheye lens - one which progressively curves off-axis straight
subject lines that are progressively farther from the image axis). BTW,
"pro" lenses used for TV productions tend to have low linear distortion
(a very real distortion type, beyond perspective characteristics...).
Further, "If you know of such software please send me its name
so I can send it to the production companies of the TV shows that
I would like to be able to watch." As I pointed out, such correction
can be made only in stills, or in navigable stills (often used in real
estate web pages), which are often shot with fisheye lenses
and "corrected" at least somewhat back toward super-wide
rectangular perspective at the expense of corner sharpness and
a return to "distortion". And, for the below, "Assuming that there
is such software, why don't the shows fix the images?
Possible reasons include:
1. Some "arty" effect - They actually think things look better
2. The budgets are so low that they can't afford to run a
computer program unattended for a few hours.
3. Their view of reality is so warped that they don't notice
that they are presenting a warped view." Again, there are simple
rules for imaging using the several different perspective types
available but these either will not permit covering the wide angles
of view desired, or there will be the "distortion" (which really isn't)
that some find objectionable, especially since they do not try
*seeing* in "wide angle". If they did, they would soon discover
that people see in fisheye perspective (necessary both logically,
and evidently by observation). In fisheye perspective, one *can*
pan whatever way one wants with little disturbing of the shapes
and proportions of subject elements...;-) Another thought - maybe
the OP is viewing a large-screen TV and/or computer monitor
too closely (is this possible?! ;-). This may also account for the
complaints, as may combining this with the often rapid TV scene
editing...
--DR
~~~~~~~~~~
"Richard Crowley" <richard@example.com> wrote in message
news:8ap57sFh80U1@mid.individual.net...
> We are assuming that the OP is complaining about the
> *geometric* distortion from wide-angle lenses, etc.
Likely, from his somewhat incomplete description...
> What disturbs me more is that the broadcasters (cable,
> satellite, online and even terrestrial) compress the heck
> out of the video so they can cram more channels into
> their allotted bandwidth. The compression artifacts are
> particularly bad when *everything* in the frame is
> changing at once.
I have seen this - but fortunately, it is relatively rare here.
Maybe I should stop complaining about our cable company's
exorbitant rates...;-)
--DR
~~~~~~~~~
"Ty Ford" <tyreeford@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:0001HW.C86CE22004B8C927F0284530@News.Individual.NET...
> On Tue, 20 Jul 2010 12:58:25 -0400, David Ruether wrote
> (in article <i24kjh$ec0$1@ruby.cit.cornell.edu>):
>> Please read my articles on perspective for a better understanding of what
>> really is "distortion" and what is rather an "unfamiliar view", often
>> incorrectly called "distortion".
> ::sigh:: Sorry David. I appreciate [y]our fervor, but the walking, talking of it
> makes it a duck to me.
>
> Regards,
>
> Ty Ford
If one cannot define the conditions and commonly name the terms that
apply, it is impossible to understand and discuss the subject...
--DR
~~~~~~~~~~
"Ty Ford" <tyreeford@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:0001HW.C86F2A9E00534004F0284530@News.Individual.NET...
> On Thu, 22 Jul 2010 10:18:19 -0400, David Ruether wrote
> (in article <i29jvc$73f$1@ruby.cit.cornell.edu>):
>> "Ty Ford" <tyreeford@comcast.net> wrote in message
>> news:0001HW.C86CE22004B8C927F0284530@News.Individual.NET...
>>> On Tue, 20 Jul 2010 12:58:25 -0400, David Ruether wrote
>>> (in article <i24kjh$ec0$1@ruby.cit.cornell.edu>):
>>>> Please read my articles on perspective for a better understanding of what
>>>> really is "distortion" and what is rather an "unfamiliar view", often
>>>> incorrectly called "distortion".
>>> ::sigh:: Sorry David. I appreciate [y]our fervor, but the walking, talking
>>> of it makes it a duck to me.
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>>
>>> Ty Ford
>> If one cannot define the conditions and commonly name the terms that
>> apply, it is impossible to understand and discuss the subject...
>> --DR
[Pointless, but...;-]
> Translation 1: Play by MY rules. You'll like the game better because I'll win
> more.
My intention is not to "win", but to inform. Choose to ignore the
information if you wish, but your responses indicate that you do not
understand much about perspective...
> Translation 2: I write with more words so I must be better than you.
Again, my intention is to help, not to "win", or to show that "I'm
better than you" - either would be inappropriate and foolish.
> Response: David, It's a DUCK. I understand it. Discussion is wasteful.
>
> Ty Ford
As you wish...
--DR
~~~~~~~~~~~
"Bruce" <docnews2011@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:nvsj46l1fse9t8s1vo9fc8rhgnm88r9u4o@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 23 Jul 2010 11:45:29 +0100, "David J Taylor"
> <david-taylor@blueyonder.co.uk.invalid> wrote:
>>"Bruce" <docnews2011@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>news:hmah46d44eql5al69cktajudm79givupd1@4ax.com...
>>[]
>>> Olympus offers an 8mm f/3.5 fisheye lens for Four Thirds. You can
>>> remove the fisheye "distortion" in post processing, just as you can
>>> with the AF Nikkor 10.5mm f/2.8G DX.
>>True, but not what I was thinking of as a compact, rectilinear lens.
> Not what you were thinking, perhaps. But Nikon actively markets the
> AF Nikkor 10.5mm f/2.8G DX as a lens for rectilinear results by
> including software to correct the fisheye "distortion".
>
> I say "distortion" because the results from a fisheye lens are
> actually *less distorted* than those from a rectilinear lens of the
> same focal length. But I'm sure you knew that anyway. ;-)
Um, ah..., perhaps "equally undistorted" would be closer to
the truth, provided that each followed closely the rules of
its perspective type (complicated by there being three distinctly
different ones for fisheyes...;-), although wide angle rectilinear
lenses are more likely to suffer from true (linear) distortions in
their images... But, if you meant, "fisheye lenses make images
that are more like the way we see", I think you are right! ;-)
--DR
~~~~~~~~
"Chris Malcolm" <cam@holyrood.ed.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:8b18gnFeeuU3@mid.individual.net...
> David Ruether <d_ruether@thotmail.com> wrote:
>> [...] But, if you meant, fisheye lenses make images
>> that are more like the way we see", I think you are right! ;-)
>> --DR
> Not the way I see. I can't detect any barrel distortion of straight
> lines in my eyesight, although there might be a little.
> --
> Chris Malcolm
OK, here are a few "exercises" for you...;-). First, learn to see
"wide angle" (as in being able to become aware of the visual
field beyond the center of your vision, without directly looking
at it). This does require some practice to widen your "field of
attention" when you want (fun while driving! ;-). Once this is
possible for you, if you are (for instance) at a computer desk
that is facing a wall, and you are directly facing that wall,
expanding your field of view (without moving your eyes, which
should remain aimed straight ahead), you should be able easily
to see the curvature of the wall/ceiling intersection as it passes
overhead in front of you (or at least see the left and right
simultaneous convergence of parallel lines - which could not
happen in rectangular perspective without abrupt bends or
breaks in the lines). This may be easier to see at first by standing
against one wall midway along a long hallway with doors (as in
a hotel) and looking fixedly directly across the hallway and
then observing the door tops and wall/ceiling and floor/wall
intersections as they move away from you (they clearly curve
to move toward intersection in the distance, something that
could not happen with rectangular perspective, by definition).
Also, next time you are at a beach with a clearly defined sky
and water intersection, try looking somewhat up. Guess what?
The horizon line clearly bends into an upward-facing bowl-curve!
Now you are ready to prove to your friends (and otherwise ;-)
that they don't see the way they think they do! 8^) Remember
when I pointed out earlier in this thread that within a narrow angle
of view, all the perspective types look about the same? It is when
you "can go wide" with your vision (or with photography, with
wide-angle lenses) that you can see the differences in perspective
types. Unfortunately, most people seem satisfied with "telephoto
sight", and must move their eyes around wildly to construct an
understanding of their surroundings. How limiting! 8^)
--David Ruether
~~~~~~
"David Ruether" <d_ruether@thotmail.com> wrote in message
news:i2hg79$kon$1@ruby.cit.cornell.edu...
> "Chris Malcolm" <cam@holyrood.ed.ac.uk> wrote in message
> news:8b18gnFeeuU3@mid.individual.net...
>> David Ruether <d_ruether@thotmail.com> wrote:
>>> [...] But, if you meant, fisheye lenses make images
>>> that are more like the way we see", I think you are right! ;-)
>>> --DR
>> Not the way I see. I can't detect any barrel distortion of straight
>> lines in my eyesight, although there might be a little.
>> --
>> Chris Malcolm
> OK, here are a few "exercises" for you...;-). First, learn to see
> "wide angle" (as in being able to become aware of the visual
> field beyond the center of your vision, without directly looking
> at it). This does require some practice to widen your "field of
> attention" when you want (fun while driving! ;-). Once this is
> possible for you, if you are (for instance) at a computer desk
> that is facing a wall, and you are directly facing that wall,
> expanding your field of view (without moving your eyes, which
> should remain aimed straight ahead), you should be able easily
> to see the curvature of the wall/ceiling intersection as it passes
> overhead in front of you (or at least see the left and right
> simultaneous convergence of parallel lines - which could not
> happen in rectangular perspective without abrupt bends or
> breaks in the lines). This may be easier to see at first by standing
> against one wall midway along a long hallway with doors (as in
> a hotel) and looking fixedly directly across the hallway and
> then observing the door tops and wall/ceiling and floor/wall
> intersections as they move away from you (they clearly curve
> to move toward intersection in the distance, something that
> could not happen with rectangular perspective, by definition).
> Also, next time you are at a beach with a clearly defined sky
> and water intersection, try looking somewhat up. Guess what?
> The horizon line clearly bends into an upward-facing bowl-curve!
> Now you are ready to prove to your friends (and otherwise ;-)
> that they don't see the way they think they do! 8^) Remember
> when I pointed out earlier in this thread that within a narrow angle
> of view, all the perspective types look about the same? It is when
> you "can go wide" with your vision (or with photography, with
> wide-angle lenses) that you can see the differences in perspective
> types. Unfortunately, most people seem satisfied with "telephoto
> sight", and must move their eyes around wildly to construct an
> understanding of their surroundings. How limiting! 8^)
> --David Ruether
[For an example of a "perspective-free" view, look here --
http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/500mm-Nikkor.htm ]
To add -- one of the advantages of fisheye perspective is that as
the point of view is changed, the peripheral "events" are relatively
undisturbed compared with extreme WA rectangular-perspective
views in motion (proportions remain relatively unchanged, as do
angles) - for an example, look at this image at --
http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/web_photos/aht_photos/ba09.jpg
and note that the building vertical parallel lines remain nearly vertical
and parallel, unlike what a super-wide rectangular lens would show
when tipped. Also note the "natural" front-to-back subject element
proportioning as opposed to the same that would be exaggerated
in a similarly wide rectangular-perspective view. For an example
of that, see --
http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/web_photos/phun_fotoz/people/ba17.jpg
or, for a more extreme example, see --
http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/12mm-Voightlander.htm
For an attempt at approximating what we see (including an angle of
view greater than 180 degrees horizontally), and with facial structural
obstructions, see --
http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/eyes-view.htm (note that
within narrower angles, the view is not extremely unlike a moderate
rectangular perspective type, so long as the straight parallel lines do
not occupy a relatively major part of the image). But, again, for more
on this (instead of making uninformed assertions...;-), it may be worth
one's while to look over these sites --
http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/lens_perspective_types.htm
http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/lens-angle-of-view-and-perspective.htm
http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/seeing_and_perspective.htm
http://www.fullscreen360.com/st-helens.htm
--David Ruether
www.David-Ruether-Photography.com
d_ruether....@....hotmail.com
~~~~~~~~~~
"Ryan McGinnis" <digicana@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:4c4d0899$0$24965$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com...
> I love ultrawide, don't get me wrong -- but it's not some magic type of
> lens where you can point it at anything and come out with a great photo.
> I think photographers who are more drawn to lines and shapes and
> symmetry tend to love ultrawide, and people who love lines and shapes
> will find those kinds of lenses to be astoundingly intuitive to compose
> with. But anecdotally, I've also known photographers who are less
> interested in lines and shapes and are heavily annoyed by the necessary
> distortion of ultrawide and thus are a bit lost in figuring out how to
> compose a shot in ultrawide.
> - --
> - -Ryan McGinnis
> The BIG Storm Picture -- http://bigstormpicture.com
> Vortex-2 image licensing at http://vortex-2.com
> Getty: http://www.gettyimages.com/search/search.aspx?artist=Ryan+McGinnis
I second this...;-) With the exception, of course, of the use of the word
"distortion" here - I think substituting "unfamiliar perspective imaging
characteristics" in the above is more accurate and less misleading...;-)
There is true lens distortion (the failure of a lens to follow accurately the
perspective type of the lens), but this is not it. Confusing the two does
not help.
--DR
~~~~~~~
"Chris Malcolm" <cam@holyrood.ed.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:8ba487FkkU2@mid.individual.net...
> In rec.photo.digital David Ruether <d_ruether@thotmail.com> wrote:
>> "Ryan McGinnis" <digicana@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:4c4d0899$0$24965$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com...
>>> I love ultrawide, don't get me wrong -- but it's not some magic type of
>>> lens where you can point it at anything and come out with a great photo.
>>> I think photographers who are more drawn to lines and shapes and
>>> symmetry tend to love ultrawide, and people who love lines and shapes
>>> will find those kinds of lenses to be astoundingly intuitive to compose
>>> with. But anecdotally, I've also known photographers who are less
>>> interested in lines and shapes and are heavily annoyed by the necessary
>>> distortion of ultrawide and thus are a bit lost in figuring out how to
>>> compose a shot in ultrawide.
>> I second this...;-) With the exception, of course, of the use of the word
>> "distortion" here - I think substituting "unfamiliar perspective imaging
>> characteristics" in the above is more accurate and less misleading...;-)
>> There is true lens distortion (the failure of a lens to follow accurately the
>> perspective type of the lens), but this is not it. Confusing the two does
>> not help.
> I've been wondering for some time how to describe that popularly
> miconceived "wide angle distortion" of a wide angle rectilinear
> lens. Your "unfamiliar perspective imaging characteristics" is
> excellent!
>
> Since that "unfamiliar perspective imaging characteristic" is exactly
> what would be produced by a pinhole camera with no lens at all, and
> can simply be removed by moving your eye close enough to the print to
> recreate the camera's angle of view, I've never liked the idea of
> calling it "distortion".
> --
> Chris Malcolm
Ah, I like your example for showing why super-wide rectangular
perspective images are not "distorted" (accomplished by replacing
familiar "reality" with the "distorted" images under the appropriate
conditions and then finding no appreciable differences in the views...;-).
So much of this is simply logical! ;-)
--DR
~~~~~~
"David Ruether" <d_ruether@thotmail.com> wrote in message
news:i2pjoa$m58$1@ruby.cit.cornell.edu...
> "Chris Malcolm" <cam@holyrood.ed.ac.uk> wrote in message
> news:8ba487FkkU2@mid.individual.net...
>> In rec.photo.digital David Ruether <d_ruether@thotmail.com> wrote:
>>> "Ryan McGinnis" <digicana@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>> news:4c4d0899$0$24965$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com...
>>>> I love ultrawide, don't get me wrong -- but it's not some magic type of
>>>> lens where you can point it at anything and come out with a great photo.
>>>> I think photographers who are more drawn to lines and shapes and
>>>> symmetry tend to love ultrawide, and people who love lines and shapes
>>>> will find those kinds of lenses to be astoundingly intuitive to compose
>>>> with. But anecdotally, I've also known photographers who are less
>>>> interested in lines and shapes and are heavily annoyed by the necessary
>>>> distortion of ultrawide and thus are a bit lost in figuring out how to
>>>> compose a shot in ultrawide.
>>> I second this...;-) With the exception, of course, of the use of the word
>>> "distortion" here - I think substituting "unfamiliar perspective imaging
>>> characteristics" in the above is more accurate and less misleading...;-)
>>> There is true lens distortion (the failure of a lens to follow accurately the
>>> perspective type of the lens), but this is not it. Confusing the two does
>>> not help.
>> I've been wondering for some time how to describe that popularly
>> miconceived "wide angle distortion" of a wide angle rectilinear
>> lens. Your "unfamiliar perspective imaging characteristics" is
>> excellent!
>>
>> Since that "unfamiliar perspective imaging characteristic" is exactly
>> what would be produced by a pinhole camera with no lens at all, and
>> can simply be removed by moving your eye close enough to the print to
>> recreate the camera's angle of view, I've never liked the idea of
>> calling it "distortion".
>> --
>> Chris Malcolm
> Ah, I like your example for showing why super-wide rectangular
> perspective images are not "distorted" (accomplished by replacing
> familiar "reality" with the "distorted" images under the appropriate
> conditions and then finding no appreciable differences in the views...;-).
> So much of this is simply logical! ;-)
> --DR
Ah, a bit more to add to the above... If a "distorted" fisheye photo is
projected onto a hemispherical surface and the eye is placed properly
at the center of the circle at the hemisphere's rear, the view will also
be undistorted, and an angle of view that is impossible to achieve with
rectangular perspective can easily be achieved with the fisheye view.
--DR
~~~~~~~
"Robert Coe" <bob@1776.COM> wrote in message news:mu98569mi10a4puo7vuv1eu5c384qnighl@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 28 Jul 2010 11:52:42 -0400, "David Ruether" <d_ruether@thotmail.com>
> wrote:
> : "Chris Malcolm" <cam@holyrood.ed.ac.uk> wrote in message
> : news:8ba487FkkU2@mid.individual.net...
> : > In rec.photo.digital David Ruether <d_ruether@thotmail.com> wrote:
> : >> "Ryan McGinnis" <digicana@gmail.com> wrote in message
> : >> news:4c4d0899$0$24965$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com...
> : >>> I love ultrawide, don't get me wrong -- but it's not some magic type of
> : >>> lens where you can point it at anything and come out with a great photo.
> : >>> I think photographers who are more drawn to lines and shapes and
> : >>> symmetry tend to love ultrawide, and people who love lines and shapes
> : >>> will find those kinds of lenses to be astoundingly intuitive to compose
> : >>> with. But anecdotally, I've also known photographers who are less
> : >>> interested in lines and shapes and are heavily annoyed by the necessary
> : >>> distortion of ultrawide and thus are a bit lost in figuring out how to
> : >>> compose a shot in ultrawide.
> : >> I second this...;-) With the exception, of course, of the use of the word
> : >> "distortion" here - I think substituting "unfamiliar perspective imaging
> : >> characteristics" in the above is more accurate and less misleading...;-)
> : >> There is true lens distortion (the failure of a lens to follow accurately
> : >> the perspective type of the lens), but this is not it. Confusing the two
> : >> does not help.
> : > I've been wondering for some time how to describe that popularly
> : > miconceived "wide angle distortion" of a wide angle rectilinear
> : > lens. Your "unfamiliar perspective imaging characteristics" is
> : > excellent!
> : >
> : > Since that "unfamiliar perspective imaging characteristic" is exactly
> : > what would be produced by a pinhole camera with no lens at all, and
> : > can simply be removed by moving your eye close enough to the print to
> : > recreate the camera's angle of view, I've never liked the idea of
> : > calling it "distortion".
> : > --
> : > Chris Malcolm
> : Ah, I like your example for showing why super-wide rectangular
> : perspective images are not "distorted" (accomplished by replacing
> : familiar "reality" with the "distorted" images under the appropriate
> : conditions and then finding no appreciable differences in the views...;-).
> : So much of this is simply logical! ;-)
> :
> : Ah, a bit more to add to the above... If a "distorted" fisheye photo is
> : projected onto a hemispherical surface and the eye is placed properly
> : at the center of the circle at the hemisphere's rear, the view will also
> : be undistorted, and an angle of view that is impossible to achieve with
> : rectangular perspective can easily be achieved with the fisheye view.
> : --DR
> And a further point is that some of these perspectives aren't as unfamiliar as
> they seem, because the human eye-brain system normalizes the image in a way
> that a camera can't. For a simple example, put on your eyeglasses and rotate
> your head clockwise and counter-clockwise. You will (correctly) see your
> glasses move while the scene remains upright. But this is a bit
> counterintuitive, since from the point of view of your eyes, it's the scene
> that moves. That's what makes it so devilish hard to keep the horizon level
> while looking through the viewfinder of a camera. You see the horizon as
> level, even when the camera doesn't.
>
> Bob
Hmmm.... If you stuck an empty picture frame out in front of you and
did the same thing, you would see the same thing, but it's just a tilted
frame or scene (and, so what...?). If you lie down on a bed and watch a
big TV close in, the TV image will look sideways. If you lie down on
the ground, the scenery will also look sideways (and uncorrected), but
you know what the relationships are and that you are at 90 degrees
from the scenery level-view. I've never had the problem you describe
leveling a camera (either with, or without, a "real" visible horizon
line), so the above doesn't make sense to me (but maybe I'm missing
something, or maybe I've learned to see things as they are, and not
"as they are supposed to be"...;-). Or, maybe you are referring to
trying to hold level at arm's length a little digital camera using its dark
(in daylight) rear screen (only)? Now THIS is difficult! 8^)
--DR
~~~~~~~
"David Ruether" <d_ruether@thotmail.com> wrote in message
news:i31j53$e3d$1@ruby.cit.cornell.edu...
> "Robert Coe" <bob@1776.COM> wrote in message
news:mu98569mi10a4puo7vuv1eu5c384qnighl@4ax.com...
>> And a further point is that some of these perspectives aren't as unfamiliar as
>> they seem, because the human eye-brain system normalizes the image in a way
>> that a camera can't. For a simple example, put on your eyeglasses and rotate
>> your head clockwise and counter-clockwise. You will (correctly) see your
>> glasses move while the scene remains upright. But this is a bit
>> counterintuitive, since from the point of view of your eyes, it's the scene
>> that moves. That's what makes it so devilish hard to keep the horizon level
>> while looking through the viewfinder of a camera. You see the horizon as
>> level, even when the camera doesn't.
>>
>> Bob
> Hmmm.... If you stuck an empty picture frame out in front of you and
> did the same thing, you would see the same thing, but it's just a tilted
> frame [or scene] (and, so what...?). If you lie down on a bed and watch
> a big TV close in, the TV image will look sideways. If you lie down on
> the ground, the scenery will also look sideways (and uncorrected), but
> you know what the relationships are and that you are at 90 degrees
> from the scenery level-view. I've never had the problem you describe
> leveling a camera (either with, or without, a "real" visible horizon
> line), so the above doesn't make sense to me (but maybe I'm missing
> something, or maybe I've learned to see things as they are, and not
> "as they are supposed to be"...;-). Or, maybe you are referring to
> trying to hold level at arm's length a little digital camera using its dark
> (in daylight) rear screen (only)? Now THIS is difficult! 8^)
> --DR
More...;-) I was just at the edge of a large lake with a well-defined
horizon line (with hills above), and what you ("R. C.") pointed out does
appear to be true for an angle of tilt up to around 45 to 60 degrees... ;-)
--DR
~~~~~~~~~
"Robert Coe" <bob@1776.COM> wrote in message
news:ti2956l08p4j96t0fj5l4iggu8i4t3pb7k@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 31 Jul 2010 12:41:21 -0400, "David Ruether"
<d_ruether@thotmail.com> wrote:
> : "Robert Coe" <bob@1776.COM> wrote in message news:j2c85692dig4smg5n3h8g7qums0gcou8j0@4ax.com...
> : > So far, Bowser is the only photographer in our group who has shown that he can
> : > consistently produce good pictures with a fisheye. And he chooses his subjects
> : > very carefully to make it happen.
> : >
> : > Bob
> : Samples?
> Sure, look in the Shoot-In gallery:
> http://www.pbase.com/shootin/open
> http://www.pbase.com/shootin/cxxx__wide
> http://www.pbase.com/shootin/tubes
>
> Bob
Thanks. The three images nicely demonstrate how it's done! ;-)
BTW, on western trips with film, my 16mm f3.5 FF fisheye was
always THE essential lens - and the "success" rate was high. If
one knows how to fill a sky with careful framing or how to make
use of a long straight "empty" horizon line splitting blue and tan (or
other...) or knows how to integrate the curves and other WA image
parts into an aesthetically satisfying whole, fisheye shooting is easy! 8^)
--DR
~~~~~~~~~
"Paul Furman" <paul-@-edgehill.net> wrote in message
news:gpSdnVmNOMIQ6cnRnZ2dnUVZ_sadnZ2d@giganews.com...
> David Ruether wrote:
>> "Robert Coe"<bob@1776.COM> wrote in message
news:mu98569mi10a4puo7vuv1eu5c384qnighl@4ax.com...
>>> And a further point is that some of these perspectives aren't as unfamiliar as
>>> they seem, because the human eye-brain system normalizes the image in a way
>>> that a camera can't. For a simple example, put on your eyeglasses and rotate
>>> your head clockwise and counter-clockwise. You will (correctly) see your
>>> glasses move while the scene remains upright. But this is a bit
>>> counterintuitive, since from the point of view of your eyes, it's the scene
>>> that moves. That's what makes it so devilish hard to keep the horizon level
>>> while looking through the viewfinder of a camera. You see the horizon as
>>> level, even when the camera doesn't.
>>>
>>> Bob
>> Hmmm.... If you stuck an empty picture frame out in front of you and
>> did the same thing, you would see the same thing, but it's just a tilted
>> frame (so what...?).
> I can relate to the way he describes it. It's really hard for me to see
> things objectively, even through a viewfinder, till I get home & see it
> again out of context. Chimping helps... or even squinting... or just
> making the effort to step back (in my mind) but it doesn't come natural.
Ah, THAT was the value of a good, sharp, contrasty SLR viewing screen
from the old days, combined with a DOF preview button and a "high
eyepoint" VF. You could see the composition in a well-defined rectangle
within a larger field of black, with the brights/darks compositionally
exaggerated by using the DOF button to darken the VF image.
--DR
~~~~~~~~~
"Bruce" <docnews2011@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:5k2r46pe2t2t7tsjn802pa3o5v7lla946f@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 26 Jul 2010 09:10:02 -0400, "David Ruether"
> <d_ruether@thotmail.com> wrote:
>>"Ryan McGinnis" <digicana@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>news:4c4d0899$0$24965$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com...
>>> I love ultrawide, don't get me wrong -- but it's not some magic type of
>>> lens where you can point it at anything and come out with a great photo.
>>> I think photographers who are more drawn to lines and shapes and
>>> symmetry tend to love ultrawide, and people who love lines and shapes
>>> will find those kinds of lenses to be astoundingly intuitive to compose
>>> with. But anecdotally, I've also known photographers who are less
>>> interested in lines and shapes and are heavily annoyed by the necessary
>>> distortion of ultrawide and thus are a bit lost in figuring out how to
>>> compose a shot in ultrawide.
>>> - --
>>> - -Ryan McGinnis
>>I second this...;-) With the exception, of course, of the use of the word
>>"distortion" here - I think substituting "unfamiliar perspective imaging
>>characteristics" in the above is more accurate and less misleading...;-)
>>There is true lens distortion (the failure of a lens to follow accurately the
>>perspective type of the lens), but this is not it. Confusing the two does
>>not help.
> It also doesn't help when people associate perspective with the lens's
> focal length. Perspective is purely a function of viewpoint and its
> relationship with the subject. The focal length of the lens is
> irrelevant.
Correct, and a good point. Also, associating "WA distortion" etc. with
specific FLs can result in odd results, as in a rectangular-perspective
10mm can be a super-wide on some formats (with the associated
"distortions" ;-), and it can also be a "distortionless" long FL on other
formats. 'Course, a rotating-slit camera or a stitched digital panorama
with their altered effective sensor shapes can also affect the perspective
type of the system (in this case, the perspective type is "cylindrical").
Understanding perspective can be fun! 8^)
--DR
~~~~~~~~
"David Ruether" <d_ruether@thotmail.com> wrote in message
news:i2k3ml$8ac$1@ruby.cit.cornell.edu...
> "Bruce" <docnews2011@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:5k2r46pe2t2t7tsjn802pa3o5v7lla946f@4ax.com...
>> On Mon, 26 Jul 2010 09:10:02 -0400, "David Ruether"
>> <d_ruether@thotmail.com> wrote:
>>>"Ryan McGinnis" <digicana@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>>news:4c4d0899$0$24965$c3e8da3@news.astraweb.com...
>>>> I love ultrawide, don't get me wrong -- but it's not some magic type of
>>>> lens where you can point it at anything and come out with a great photo.
>>>> I think photographers who are more drawn to lines and shapes and
>>>> symmetry tend to love ultrawide, and people who love lines and shapes
>>>> will find those kinds of lenses to be astoundingly intuitive to compose
>>>> with. But anecdotally, I've also known photographers who are less
>>>> interested in lines and shapes and are heavily annoyed by the necessary
>>>> distortion of ultrawide and thus are a bit lost in figuring out how to
>>>> compose a shot in ultrawide.
>>>> - --
>>>> - -Ryan McGinnis
>>>I second this...;-) With the exception, of course, of the use of the word
>>>"distortion" here - I think substituting "unfamiliar perspective imaging
>>>characteristics" in the above is more accurate and less misleading...;-)
>>>There is true lens distortion (the failure of a lens to follow accurately the
>>>perspective type of the lens), but this is not it. Confusing the two does
>>>not help.
>> It also doesn't help when people associate perspective with the lens's
>> focal length. Perspective is purely a function of viewpoint and its
>> relationship with the subject. The focal length of the lens is
>> irrelevant.
> Correct, and a good point. Also, associating "WA distortion" etc. with
> specific FLs can result in odd results, as in a rectangular-perspective
> 10mm can be a super-wide on some formats (with the associated
> "distortions" ;-), and it can also be a "distortionless" long FL on other
> formats. 'Course, a rotating-slit camera or a stitched digital panorama
> with their altered effective sensor shapes can also affect the perspective
> type of the system (in this case, the perspective type is "cylindrical").
> Understanding perspective can be fun! 8^)
> --DR
Ooops! I let slip by, "Perspective is purely a function of viewpoint and
its relationship with the subject." "Perspective" is also a function of the
specific perspective type the lens/sensor-shape renders when making
the image...
--DR
~~~~~~~~~
"Savageduck" <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote in message
news:2010080818434227544-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom...
> On 2010-08-08 18:27:40 -0700, "Mike Warren"
> <miwa-not-this-bit@or-this-csas.net.au> said:
>> I just performed a simple resize of the second image and laid it on
>> top of the first:
>>
>> http://www.mike-warren.net/play/savageduck.jpg
>>
>> Perspective is unchanged.
> Damn! I should have thought of doing that.
>
> So it seems the eye is easily fooled by focal length changes. Thanks
> for the proof you provided, I kind of takes the wind out of my sails,
> but there it is.
>
> --
> Regards,
>
> Savageduck
This shows that there actually *is* one more ingredient to the
conditions-list, the specification of sensor size relative to FL,
which then gives angle of view and an indication of what
perspective "look" might be expected. As I pointed out before,
a 10mm lens (for instance) can be a super-wide on one format,
and a tele on another format with a much smaller sensor...
--DR
~~~~~~~~
"David J Taylor" <david-taylor@blueyonder.co.uk.invalid> wrote in message
news:i3o7b5$4p5$1@news.eternal-september.org...
> "Savageduck" <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote in message
> []
>> Damn! I should have thought of doing that.
>>
>> So it seems the eye is easily fooled by focal length changes. Thanks for
>> the proof you provided, I kind of takes the wind out of my sails, but
>> there it is.
>> --
>> Regards,
>>
>> Savageduck
> But you are correct that the resulting image /looks/ different, although
> the change is not because of a perspective change as such, but because of
> a field of view change. I.e. a narrow-angle shot looks different to a
> wide angle shot, perhaps because of the amount of included material and
> the context of a part of the image compared to the rest of the image.
>
> Cheers,
> David
This shows that there actually *is* another ingredient to the
conditions-list, the specification of sensor size relative to FL,
which then gives angle of view and an indication of what the
perspective "look" might be. As I pointed out before, a 10mm
lens (for instance) can be a super-wide on one format (with its
notable perspective effects), and even a tele on another format
with a much smaller sensor. So, viewpoint, lens FL, lens/sensor
perspective type, sensor size, and the aperture used (assuming a
motionless camera and good exposure) combine to help predict
the appearance of a photo (with a given set of visual materials
out there in front of the camera...;-).
--DR
~~~~~~~~
"Savageduck" <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote in message
news:201008090937098930-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom...
> On 2010-08-09 09:05:28 -0700, "David Ruether" <d_ruether@thotmail.com> said:
>> "Savageduck" <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote in message
>> news:2010080818434227544-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom...
>> This shows that there actually *is* one more ingredient to the
>> conditions-list, the specification of sensor size relative to FL,
>> which then gives angle of view and an indication of what
>> perspective "look" might be expected. As I pointed out before,
>> a 10mm lens (for instance) can be a super-wide on one format,
>> and a tele on another format with a much smaller sensor...
>> --DR
> Not really. What I did does not demonstrate anything relative to sensor size.
> I did not change cameras, I changed lenses in an attempt to show a
> change in FL would change perspective. I noted the FF equivalent FL.
> Mike Warren demonstrated above, with my own shots that I was wrong.
> Here are those shots again.
> D300s on tripod 2 shots, position of tripod unchanged, aim point
> unchanged, distance between camera and subject constant, lenses
> changed, EXIF included;
>
> Shot #1 Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8 @ 11mm (16mm FF equiv.)
> < http://homepage.mac.com/lco/filechute/_DNC3876w.jpg >
>
> Shot #2 Nikkor 16-200mm VRII @ 35mm (52mm FF equiv.)
> < http://homepage.mac.com/lco/filechute/_DNC3877w.jpg >
>
> Side by-side comparison;
> < http://homepage.mac.com/lco/filechute/Merc-comp-01.jpg >
>
> and Mike's demonstration of unchanged perspective using those shots.
> < http://www.mike-warren.net/play/savageduck.jpg >
>
> --
> Regards,
>
> Savageduck
Yes - these prove what I pointed out, above. If you maintain
a constant "subject"/lens distance, and the same perspective
lens *type* is used for two photos, enlarging (or reducing)
the sensor size will change the angle of view covered in the
photo, and thus its appearance. All of the above shows this.
It is true that the perspective does not change, but increasing
the sensor size *can* include a wider angle of view, and thus
likely more WA "perspective effects", unless the subject is a
straight-on flat surface that is parallel with the sensor...
--DR
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Bruce" <docnews2011@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:74o06692o0kh4bf29glsnj8lvno7guev9l@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 9 Aug 2010 12:23:08 -0400, "David Ruether"
> <d_ruether@thotmail.com> wrote:
>>Ah, the above reminds me of my teaching days.......! ;-) I found it
>>easy using a blackboard and chalk, drawing a "lens", a "stick figure",
>>and a "film plane" to show the effects of keeping FL constant, changing
>>FL, keeping the film plane constant in size relative to the FL or changing
>>that, and the effect of changing the lens opening size on an out of focus
>>image on the film plane using drawn sections of "cones" of light...
>>Fun!
> It is fun, especially if you have a receptive audience. But it takes
> only one Neil Harrington to spoil the party. ;-)
8^)
>>(But the most fun was getting people to "see" that they don't see
>>straight lines off the center of their vision that are strait in the subjects
>>they look at - in other words, we don't see in rectangular perspective...;-)
> It's fascinating how the eye and brain work together. The eye "sees"
> like a fisheye lens, but the brain corrects it to rectilinear. It is
> rather like the Nikon 10.5mm fisheye, with software "correcting" the
> results to rectilinear ... ;-)
Ah, but the brain *doesn't* correct it to rectilinear perspective!
THAT'S what's so much fun to show people (that the way they
think they see isn't the way they really do see...;-). There are
simple exercises that permit people to attend to their off-center
field of vision, and once that is accomplished, it is easy to see under
some conditions of high color or tone contrast the clear curvatures
of the fisheye perspective type. Also, logically there can be no
180-degree rectangular perspective image (the image plane would
be infinitely large, and the "lens" FL would be zero), although we
do see slightly more than 180 degrees horizontally, so there cannot
be anything near a 180-degree fisheye-to-rectangular perspective
conversion by the brain. For more, with an image approximation
of how we do see, go here --
http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/seeing_and_perspective.htm .
There are more articles on perspective, here --
http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/articles.html .
--David Ruether
www.David-Ruether-Photography.com
d_ruether....@....hotmail.com
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Bruce" <docnews2011@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:s5gv56p210n9a8vr3l2q8f5ccrrkrnbemf@4ax.com...
> As your shots prove, the change of focal length changes only one thing
> - magnification. You used an 11mm wide angle lens to get an increased
> angle of view - "to get more into the picture". Compared to the 35mm
> lens, the magnification therefore has to reduce to get the larger
> image on the film or sensor.
>
> But as long as you don't move the camera, the relationship between the
> camera and the subject remains exactly the same. Since that is what
> defines perspective, the perspective hasn't changed at all.
>
> To remove the distracting effect of the change in magnification, you
> should crop the wide angle shot to give the same angle of view as the
> 35mm shot, then enlarge it to the same pixel x pixel size as the 35mm
> shot. You will find the perspective is *identical* because the camera
> position was the same.
>
> What I think confuses people is that using a wide angle lens allows
> them to move in closer on a subject and thereby obtain a different
> perspective. But it was moving the camera that changed the
> perspective, not their choice of focal length - even though the wide
> angle lens allowed them to do it, which may be the source of their
> confusion.
>
> My teaching experience has taught me that some students will "get
> perspective" straight away. Some have to think about it, perhaps for
> quite some time, but they eventually get it. But there is a hard core
> of people with closed minds who simply refuse to believe what their
> eyes tell them.
>
> Once again, experience shows that these are usually the same people
> who cannot, or will not, understand depth of field and hyperfocal
> distance. Often, it doesn't matter, because their artistic ability
> can take them way beyond scientific definitions of optics and
> rendering of subjects on film or a sensor. But those who lack any
> artistic ability *and* stubbornly refuse to learn about the basics
> such as perspective (etc., etc.) are hopeless cases and almost always
> fail their exams. So they should, one might say.
>
> The days of "free" higher education - even in Europe - are long gone,
> so such stubbornness can prove very expensive indeed. ;-)
Ah, the above reminds me of my teaching days.......! ;-) I found it
easy using a blackboard and chalk, drawing a "lens", a "stick figure",
and a "film plane" to show the effects of keeping FL constant, changing
FL, keeping the film plane constant in size relative to the FL or changing
that, and the effect of changing the lens opening size on an out of focus
image on the film plane using drawn sections of "cones" of light...
Fun! (But the most fun was getting people to "see" that they don't see
straight lines off the center of their vision that are strait in the subjects
they look at - in other words, we don't see in rectangular perspective...;-)
--DR
~~~~~~~~~~
"Alan Browne" <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote in message
news:BNGdnRpj-oZc5P3RnZ2dnUVZ_hidnZ2d@giganews.com...
> Perspective is merely and solely point of view (bearing in mind that a
> point is a point in space and a view is the orientation of the viewing
> device (be it an eye or a camera)).
Sigh...! There is a wide range of lens/image perspective *types*
(you should know this, since you have shot fisheye images...;-).
For more on this with the types, see --
http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/lens_perspective_types.htm ,
although, *within a given a perspective type*, what you write
above is correct...
> The "wideness" is how much is included in the view. That a subject has
> or doesn't have its own dimensional features or depth is irrelevant to
> perspective.
This is correct - but in wider views, the differences among
perspective types tend to be more evident.
> Perspective is where the viewer is - not what he is viewing.
Correct, but with the addition of "lens/image perspective type",
which can seriously affect image appearance.
> If all lenses were perfectly spherical-section in their "plane of focus"
> then a crop from a wider lens would look exactly like the image of a
> narrower lens when taken from the same point along the same view axis.
See above - and this was demonstrated for rectangular
perspective lenses/images earlier (and it is also true for other
perspective types...).
> As to the notion of "ultra wide" it's solely marketing jargon.
??? Some lenses are capable of covering only narrow angles of
view, but others are capable of covering quite wide angles of
view for their sensor formats...
--DR
~~~~~~~~~~
"Peter" <peternew@nospamoptonline.net> wrote in message
news:4c615c9c$0$5496$8f2e0ebb@news.shared-secrets.com...
> "David Ruether" <d_ruether@thotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:i3ppsj$3ln$1@ruby.cit.cornell.edu...
>> Ah, but the brain *doesn't* correct it to rectilinear perspective!
>> THAT'S what's so much fun to show people (that the way they
>> think they see isn't the way they really do see...;-).
> IIRC There have been some experiments where people were fitted with prism
> glasses to make everything appear upside down. The glasses were left on for
> some period of time. After a while the upside down illusion corrected itself
> and when the glasses were removed, everything appeared upside down again.
> I am going from memory and too lazy to find the paper.
>
> <good stuff snipped>
<good DR stuff restored...;->:
"Ah, but the brain *doesn't* correct it to rectilinear perspective!
THAT'S what's so much fun to show people (that the way they
think they see isn't the way they really do see...;-). There are
simple exercises that permit people to attend to their off-center
field of vision, and once that is accomplished, it is easy to see under
some conditions of high color or tone contrast the clear curvatures
of the fisheye perspective type. Also, logically there can be no
180-degree rectangular perspective image (the image plane would
be infinitely large, and the "lens" FL would be zero), although we
do see slightly more than 180 degrees horizontally, so there cannot
be anything near a 180-degree fisheye-to-rectangular perspective
conversion. For more, with an image approximation of how we do
see, go here --
http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/seeing_and_perspective.htm
(There are more articles on perspective, here --
http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/articles.html .)"
> --
> Peter
Yes - the brain can learn to apply *possible* corrections
(exchanges of up and down, left and right orientations - and
to synthesize missing parts in the visual field, which we all have),
but not impossible things, such as converting a 180+ degree
fisheye view into a 180+ degree rectangular-perspective view.
Partly (maybe mostly...;-) why most people assume that they
see in rectangular perspective is that most people visually
"attend" to only a narrow angle of view at any one moment
and "construct" their impression of visual reality from a large
series of such narrow views - and within a narrow angle of
view, all the several possible perspective types look nearly
the same...
--DR
~~~~~~~~~~
"Savageduck" <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote in message
news:201008100856127987-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom...
> On 2010-08-10 08:27:54 -0700, "David Ruether" <d_ruether@thotmail.com> said:
>> ...... the brain can learn to apply *possible* corrections
>> (exchanges of up and down, left and right orientations - and
>> to synthesize missing parts in the visual field, which we all have),
>> but not impossible things, such as converting a 180+ degree
>> fisheye view into a 180+ degree rectangular-perspective view.
>> Partly (maybe mostly...;-) why most people assume that they
>> see in rectangular perspective is that most people visually
>> "attend" to only a narrow angle of view at any one moment
>> and "construct" their impression of visual reality from a large
>> series of such narrow views - and within a narrow angle of
>> view, all the several possible perspective types look nearly
>> the same...
>> --DR
> ...and then there is telephoto compression when
> viewpoint/camera/subject "perspective" is maintained. I think a big
> point of contention is understanding that a change in how an image
> "looks" because of a change in FL, or sensor size is not a change of
> "perspective."
> This is an error I have been guilty of.
Yes. this is a common mistake...;-) It is due to a change of view angle
(a "telephoto" cropping, or a widening of the angle of view to include
unfamiliar aspects of the image edge effects of a *perspective type*).
> Strictly speaking perspective is related to viewpoint/camera/subject
> position. Where lens induced distortion, and compression, with
> maintained viewpoint/camera/subject position, is just that, a change to
> the image/scene from the same perspective.
Here I think this ignores what "perspective" is in optical/imaging terms.
See my http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/seeing_and_perspective.htm
for more on that. There really are several distinctive perspective *types*
possible, and these are not the same as what you mention above - although
with any perspective type, viewpoint, angle of view, etc. will certainly
affect the image appearance. I think a more definitive view of "perspective"
is being confused with the more casual use of the word "perspective"...
Also, be careful with that term, "lens distortion" - it does not refer to
apparent image "compression" or WA image edge effects, but to the
failure of a lens to follow the rules for its perspective type (barrel,
moustache, and/or pincushion distortion in a rectangular-perspective
lens type, for instance). More on that and other things related to
perspective (and MUCH more...! ;-) can be found here --
http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/articles.html
> So one could say you can get several different views of a single scene
> from the same perspective, with lenses of different FL, or even with
> different cameras, provided the subject to sensor plane is maintained
> as a constant.
> --
> Regards,
>
> Savageduck
Or, you can crop near the center (only!) of a wide view and do the
same thing, but I'm considering, and trying to show, things that go
beyond that...;-)
--DR
~~~~~~~~~~~
"Paul Furman" <paul-@-edgehill.net> wrote in message
news:AKCdnTDHmc6opfnRnZ2dnUVZ5oOdnZ2d@giganews.com...
> Neil Harrington wrote:
[Exercising NH's repeated stubborn inability to "learn" in this and other threads...]
>> I have already answered this in more than one previous post. I wish you
>> would read all the posts so I don't have to repeat the same thing over and
>> over. But I will again, this one time. (If the same question keeps coming up
>> I may make a boilerplate for it.)
>>
>> Perspective is a quality of the ENTIRE PICTURE, not one small part. All
>> "proofs" that perspective is solely a function of viewpoint (and that focal
>> length has nothing to do with it) are based in one way or another on
>> resizing the central portion of the picture only, as if the center and only
>> the center established perspective for the whole. Obviously, magnifying or
>> reducing one part of the picture does not (and cannot possibly) change the
>> perspective.
>>
>> Here's a reductio ad absurdum question for you. If only a small part of the
>> center were important to perspective, why not make that part smaller still?
>> Why not just keep shrinking it? Suppose at the very center of the picture
>> there is a pea -- if we should go so far as to crop away everything except
>> that one little pea, would that picture of the pea still convey the full
>> perspective of the original picture?
Yes, if there is still enough information to indicate the *perspective type*
used in taking the original WA photo from which the crop was made - but,
as I have pointed out earlier, with ever narrower angles of view, ALL the
several perspective *types* approach each other in appearance. You are
confusing the "look" of a photograph with the definition of "perspective",
and leaving out defining "angle of view". For more, see --
http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/lens_perspective_types.htm
http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/lens-angle-of-view-and-perspective.htm
http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/seeing_and_perspective.htm
http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/lens_distortion_types.htm
I know it is useless pointing these out since you refuse to consider anything
but what you already "know", but others might care to learn something...;-)
>> Wide-angle pictures often contain important elements of perspective that
>> simply are not there in long-lens pictures of the same subject taken from
>> the same viewpoint. And those elements of perspective near the edges of the
>> wide-angle picture CANNOT BE DUPLICATED with a long lens. This is of course
>> assuming there are three-dimensional objects there that can contribute to
>> perspective. (A wide-angle picture of blank sky would contain no perspective
>> at all.)
Again, consider what constitutes "a long lens". It is "narrow angle of view"
by what appears to be your definition, but this definition is incorrect since
it does not specify the FL *and* the sensor size - and a lens FL that is a
"long lens" on one format can be a "super-wide lens" (with "distortion",
as with a 90mm f5.6 Nikkor on 8x10, and the same lens used for 35mm)
on another format.
>> It is because of these differences in perspective that are unique to
>> wide-angle lenses that we can immediately tell a wide-angle picture when we
>> see one. If those important differences in perspective were not there, we
>> would not be able to tell a wide-angle picture from a normal or long-lens
>> one.
These are differences in "angle of view" [YEAH!!! Judge Walker has just
followed up his ruling declaring Prop. 8 in California unconstitutional with
a judgment that his own stay on implementation will be of very limited
duration. BTW, NH was ***TOTALLY*** and irrationally opposed
to this, as he also was on the issue of Health Reform. Talk about a "stick
in the mud"...! ;-], not differences in perspective, and differences would
also be seen for all perspective types with increased angle of view.
> This seems like mostly an argument about semantics but here's an example
> that supports the idea of real differences in wide angle 'perspective'.
Um, best to correct that to "angle of view"...;-)
> Take a pic with a super-wide, then crop the *corner* of the image. Now
> try to reproduce that perspective with a telephoto lens. It could be
> accomplished with a stitched pano, if the stitching software stretches
> things but not without software distortion.
>
> Check the drawing on the bottom of this page, of a distorted sphere in
> the cropped corner of a wide angle view:
> http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/lens-angle-of-view-and-perspective.htm
> I don't think that could be reproduced with a telephoto lens.
> Put a striped ball on the left side of your desk and try it.
Thanks for that drawing for my article. ;-) It also clearly shows that within
planes parallel with the sensor plane (with rectangular perspective) that
there is no "distortion" no mater how wide the angle of view is.
--DR
~~~~~~~~~~
"Paul Furman" <paul-@-edgehill.net> wrote in message
news:xLydnf4ncKnVEPnRnZ2dnUVZ5rGdnZ2d@giganews.com...
> David Ruether wrote:
>> as I have pointed out earlier, with ever narrower angles of view, ALL the
>> several perspective *types* approach each other in appearance. You ["NH"]
>> are confusing the "look" of a photograph with the definition of "perspective",
>> and leaving out defining "angle of view". For more, see --
>> http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/lens_perspective_types.htm
>> http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/lens-angle-of-view-and-perspective.htm
>> http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/seeing_and_perspective.htm
>> http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/lens_distortion_types.htm
>>> This seems like mostly an argument about semantics but here's an
>>> example that supports the idea of real differences in wide angle
>>> 'perspective'.
>> Um, best to correct that to "angle of view"...;-)
> OK, "angle of view" is a better term. Semantics solved! :-)
> http://www.google.com/#hl=en&source=hp&q=site%3Adonferrario.com+angle+of+view
8^)
>>> > Take a pic with a super-wide, then crop the*corner* of the image.
>>> > Now try to reproduce that perspective with a telephoto lens. It
>>> > could be accomplished with a stitched pano, if the stitching
>>> > software stretches things but not without software distortion.
>>> >
>>> > Check the drawing on the bottom of this page, of a distorted
>>> > sphere in the cropped corner of a wide angle view:
>>> > http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/lens-angle-of-view-and-perspective.htm
>>> > I don't think that could be reproduced with a telephoto lens.
>>> > Put a striped ball on the left side of your desk and try it.
>> Thanks for that drawing for my article.;-) It also clearly shows that within
>> planes parallel with the sensor plane (with rectangular perspective) that
>> there is no "distortion" no mater how wide the angle of view is.
> Well, there is distortion in the egg shaped silhouette of the sphere
> because it's at the far corner of a super-wide. If you swing the same
> lens around to center the sphere, it'll have a round outline again. The
> topographical lines parallel to the image plane are perfect circles though.
More than this is that the axes running through the parallel-plane-cut
sections of all the hemispheres are on the vanishing lines/point for the
rectangular perspective, so there really is no "distortion", although there
may be "unfamiliar visual effects due to viewing 3D objects imaged
near the edges of a wide angle of view" since the "stacking" of their
sections on the off-axis vanishing lines will cause offsets that change
the overall shape of the 3D object...
--DR
~~~~~~~~~
"Paul Furman" <paul-@-edgehill.net> wrote in message
news:qYOdnQoW6_rQLPnRnZ2dnUVZ5oCdnZ2d@giganews.com...
> Neil Harrington wrote:
>> "Paul Furman"<paul-@-edgehill.net> wrote in message
>> news:xLydnf4ncKnVEPnRnZ2dnUVZ5rGdnZ2d@giganews.com...
>>> David Ruether wrote:
["PF" answering "NH"...]
>>>>> This seems like mostly an argument about semantics but here's an example
>>>>> that supports the idea of real differences in wide angle 'perspective'.
>>>> Um, best to correct that to "angle of view"...;-)
>>> OK, "angle of view" is a better term. Semantics solved! :-)
>> But that doesn't solve it at all, Paul. Again: if you take a very wide-angle
>> shot of the distant horizon, with nothing else in the scene to lend
>> perspective, then there is NO perspective no matter how wide the "angle of
>> view" is. (Everything is at infinity for all practical purposes.) And
>> because there is no perspective, someone looking at the photo has no clue as
>> to whether its "angle of view" is wide, normal or narrow.
Neil is still confusing angle of view, distance, subject characteristics,
image "look", etc. with perspective. But, in his narrow example, it is
true that the characteristics of various lens perspective types would
likely not show (unless the lens were pointed up or down relative
to the horizon, especially with a lens of fisheye type, and/or the subject
foreground contained detail, hard to avoid...;-).
> Yep. Near the center angle, it doesn't matter much. Using a fisheye
> lens, you can put a person in the middle of the frame (with a little
> distance) and they look perfectly normal.
Yep! ;-)
>> Only when objects are reasonably close *and* three-dimensional do you get
>> perspective. Your drawing of a half-sphere that you linked to is a good
>> example of this. The half-sphere's surface at the corner of what would be a
>> very wide-angle photo shows the apparent distortion you'd get with a very
>> wide-angle lens. But the sections of the half-sphere, being flat, are still
>> round because they are two-dimensional.
> Right. And those same sections would appear as ovals once you turn the
> lens toward them because they are no longer parallel to the rectilinear
> projection (perpendicular to the axis of the lens).
Yep, again! As with tilting a photo relative to our visual axis...;-)
>>> http://www.google.com/#hl=en&source=hp&q=site%3Adonferrario.com+angle+of+view
>>>>>> Take a pic with a super-wide, then crop the*corner* of the image.
>>>>>> Now try to reproduce that perspective with a telephoto lens. It
>>>>>> could be accomplished with a stitched pano, if the stitching software
>>>>>> stretches things but not without software distortion.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Check the drawing on the bottom of this page, of a distorted sphere
>>>>>> in the cropped corner of a wide angle view:
Ahem! NOT "distorted" if you are strict about definitions! Although it may
look "unfamiliar"...;-)
>>>>>> http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/lens-angle-of-view-and-perspective.htm
>>>>>> I don't think that could be reproduced with a telephoto lens.
>>>>>> Put a striped ball on the left side of your desk and try it.
>>>> Thanks [Paul] for that drawing for my article.;-) It also clearly shows
>>>> that within planes parallel with the sensor plane (with rectangular
>>>> perspective) that there is no "distortion" no mater how wide the
>>>> angle of view is.
>>> Well, there is distortion in the egg shaped silhouette of the sphere
>>> because it's at the far corner of a super-wide. If you swing the same lens
>>> around to center the sphere, it'll have a round outline again. The
>>> topographical lines parallel to the image plane are perfect circles
>>> though.
>> Right. And those differences are the stuff of which perspective is made.
> On further thought, perspective has two properties: distance and angle.
> The word 'viewpoint' might encompass both. I agree that changing the
> angle changes the perspective.
No. Perspective is NOT a subject characteristic (nor any other characteristic),
but it is ONLY a lens/imaging-type characteristic!
> I learned to draw isometric in high
> school drafting class then perspective in college: 1 point, 2 point and
> even 5 point fisheye perspective constructed on paper with a 3D grid and
> vanishing points. When you get into macro beyond 1:1, it's not uncommon
> for some lenses or lens combinations to exhibit reversed perspective
> where the vanishing point is behind you, or a telecentric lens where
> there is no vanishing point. For telecentric, you can only capture an
> image as wide as the front element of the lens. Long telephoto
> perspectives come close.
I cover some of these in my articles...;-) And, as you point out with
the above, these *perspective types* have individual characteristics,
and names...;-)
--DR
~~~~~~~~~
"Paul Furman" <paul-@-edgehill.net> wrote in message
news:tZidnR5ILNmm6PjRnZ2dnUVZ5vmdnZ2d@giganews.com...
> Neil Harrington wrote:
>>> On further thought, perspective has two properties: distance and angle.
No! See my post, above (or read some of it in "PF's" post, since
you "plonked" me (and I see your posts also only in "PFs" posts...;-).
Again, "perspective" is defined by the lens perspective type, and
by NOTHING else.
>> Also shape and size, I would say. Just distance and angle perhaps if you're
>> only considering the relationship of viewer to subject(s), but shape and
>> size as well if you're considering the image itself that's shown in
>> perspective. Again, your drawing of the half-sphere being an example of
>> this. Or any photo of reasonably close three-dimensional objects, especially
>> when taken with short lenses. With long lenses there is what I think it's
>> reasonable to call a loss of perspective, as the photo approaches (though it
>> can never reach) the character of an isometric drawing.
I have pointed out that last a few times before - that within ever narrowing
angles, the appearance of the various lens types approach each other, but
do not ever really become the same. The perspective is defined by the
type the lens makes use of, and nothing else, contrary to your opinion.
But it does look like you [NH] are making progress...;-)
>>> The word 'viewpoint' might encompass both. I agree that changing the angle
>>> changes the perspective. I learned to draw isometric in high school
>>> drafting class then perspective in college: 1 point, 2 point and even 5
>>> point fisheye perspective constructed on paper with a 3D grid and
>> That 5 point fisheye perspective is something I'd like to see an example of.
>> The term sort of boggles my mind. :-)
> http://kurtssketchbook.blogspot.com/2008/09/room-sketch-in-5-point-perspective.html
This appears to me to have a single vanishing point...
>>> vanishing points. When you get into macro beyond 1:1, it's not uncommon
>>> for some lenses or lens combinations to exhibit reversed perspective where
>>> the vanishing point is behind you, or a telecentric lens where there is no
>>> vanishing point. For telecentric, you can only capture an image as wide as
>>> the front element of the lens. Long telephoto perspectives come close.
>> Can you explain that a little more? Or direct me to a source? I'm having a
>> problem grasping that "reversed perspective" and "telecentric" business. It
>> looks very interesting but I'm really floundering here.
> Well, it's not really relevant and was intended just for mind blowing
> <g>. But telecentric lenses are used for industrial measurement scopes.
> The light rays simply are gathered parallel from the front element so
> you can measure objects with depth accurately and there's no parallax
> errors. Focusing doesn't cause enlargement changes.
A good example...
> Reverse perspective, I believe is only a property of how the out of
> focus areas are rendered when stopping down so you couldn't do focus
> stacking and get that result. There is only ever one little slice in
> focus and the rest of the image is interpolated by shrinking the OOF
> circles. I probably explained that wrong but it's not all that unusual
> when using reversed lenses and various combos beyond 1:1.
>
> Here's a full explanation:
> http://www.janrik.net/PanoPostings/NoParallaxPoint/TheoryOfTheNoParallaxPoint.pdf
??? 8^)
--DR
~~~~~~~~~
"Paul Furman" <paul-@-edgehill.net> wrote in message
news:7dWdnSTwUdo-EvjRnZ2dnUVZ5oednZ2d@giganews.com...
> David Ruether wrote:
"NH" wrote:
>>>> That 5 point fisheye perspective is something I'd like to see an example of.
>>>> The term sort of boggles my mind. :-)
>>> http://kurtssketchbook.blogspot.com/2008/09/room-sketch-in-5-point-perspective.html
>> This appears to me to have a single vanishing point, [not 5...;-].
> Hmm, it is actually drawn wrong somewhat. The arcs should meet the other
> 4 points, or the points should be marked further off the page. I'm not
> sure I really understand the grids on this page but it shows it:
> http://nanarealm.blogspot.com/2008/09/fish-eye-and-curvilinear-perspective.html
This site makes some points I have also made about our seeing
in spherical (fisheye) perspective, but I disagree about the use of
the term barrel "distortion" - and the "5-point perspective" still makes
no sense to me in reference to spherical perspective... This site, at
http://www.scottmcdaniel.net/drawing/perspective/5_point.html
a l m o s t "gets there", but maybe not quite...;-)
>>> Reverse perspective
[...]
>>> Here's a full explanation:
>>> http://www.janrik.net/PanoPostings/NoParallaxPoint/TheoryOfTheNoParallaxPoint.pdf
>> ??? 8^)
> LOL, yep. I did actually grind through that whole thing once and sort of
> got it. The aperture selects rays when stopping down and if the aperture
> isn't in the correct position, it'll select the wrong rays and
> misrepresent things.
Hmmmm.......;-)
--DR
~~~~~~~~~
"Paul Furman" <paul-@-edgehill.net> wrote in message
news:R8OdnU4XgcQIjvvRnZ2dnUVZ5uWdnZ2d@giganews.com...
> David Ruether wrote:
>> Paul Furman wrote:
>>> I'm not sure I really understand the grids on this page but it shows it:
>>> http://nanarealm.blogspot.com/2008/09/fish-eye-and-curvilinear-perspective.html
>> This site makes some points I have also made about our seeing
>> in spherical (fisheye) perspective, but I disagree about the use of
>> the term barrel "distortion"
> Yeah, it's not damaged (distorted), just a different formula applied. I
> agree that it's beneficial to use the correct terminology as you have done.
>> and the "5-point perspective" still makes
>> no sense to me in reference to spherical perspective...
> Sorry, I can't vouch for those links - just a quick google search. What
> they attempt to show is a 3D mesh coordinate system for rectangular
> objects to be translated onto. There used to be grid paper that had
> various 2 point perspective grids for constructing architectural
> renderings. I never saw one for fisheye though <g>.
This makes more sense, and the above site does show a reasonable
spherical grid.
>> This site, at
>> http://www.scottmcdaniel.net/drawing/perspective/5_point.html
>> a l m o s t "gets there", but maybe not quite...;-)
>>>>> Reverse perspective
>> [...]
>>>>> Here's a full explanation:
>>>>> http://www.janrik.net/PanoPostings/NoParallaxPoint/TheoryOfTheNoParallaxPoint.pdf
>>>> ??? 8^)
>>> LOL, yep. I did actually grind through that whole thing once and sort
>>> of got it. The aperture selects rays when stopping down and
>>> if the aperture isn't in the correct position, it'll select the wrong rays
>>> and misrepresent things.
>> Hmmmm.......;-)
>> --DR
> I can vouch for this link. The guy is an exquisite educator and states
> things very clearly, oriented toward honest concise understanding for
> the common man. It is worth working through.
OK, I will take your word for it...;-) I don't make rotated panoramic images,
but if I did, this information could be very useful. The article is very detailed
and well thought out, but it is more than is needed here for a discussion of
lens perspective types (although I did learn a thing or two, especially about
aperture-change shifting the angle of view, the importance of which is a little
hard to believe in though, especially for infinity-shooting...;-).
--DR
~~~~~
"Paul Furman" <paul-@-edgehill.net> wrote in message
news:ANWdnefOytFU4PTRnZ2dnUVZ5vmdnZ2d@giganews.com...
> David Ruether wrote:
PF:
>>> It is worth working through.
DR:
>> OK, I will take your word for it...;-) I don't make rotated panoramic images,
>> but if I did, this information could be very useful. The article is very detailed
>> and well thought out, but it is more than is needed here for a discussion of
>> lens perspective types (although I did learn a thing or two, especially about
>> aperture-change shifting the angle of view, the importance of which is a little
>> hard to believe in though, especially for infinity-shooting...;-).
PF:
> I don't believe reverse perspective is possible for infinity shooting
> and isn't really relevant even for panorama shooters; just an
> explanation of why the nodal point matters... but all a person really
> needs to know is how to physically locate the nodal point, then rotate
> about that point. The understanding is useful for macro work, especially
> beyond 1:1 and if you like to tinker with lens combinations & home
> made optics, even for infinity work.
PF?:
> Whoah, check this out: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bba4rD00S-M
Sure, if you want to introduce "stretching" into the lens view - and you
should try a PC lens tilted in the reverse direction and then recentered
(by tilting/turning) back onto the "subject" for some interesting perspective
effects somewhate similar to what are in the above...;-).
> http://translate.google.com/translate?u=http%3A%2F%2Fbntr.livejournal.com%2F50306.html&sl=ru&tl=en&hl=&ie=UTF-8
I got lost in the google "translation"...;-(
--DR
~~~~~~~
"Paul Furman" <paul-@-edgehill.net> wrote in message
news:R8OdnU4XgcQIjvvRnZ2dnUVZ5uWdnZ2d@giganews.com...
> David Ruether wrote:
>> Paul Furman wrote:
>>> David Ruether wrote:
>> "NH" wrote:
>>>>>> That 5 point fisheye perspective is something I'd like to see an example of.
>>>>>> The term sort of boggles my mind. :-)
>>>>> http://kurtssketchbook.blogspot.com/2008/09/room-sketch-in-5-point-perspective.html
>>>> This appears to me to have a single vanishing point, [not 5...].
>>> Hmm, it is actually drawn wrong somewhat. The arcs should meet the other 4 points,
>>> or the points should be marked further off the
>>> page. I'm not sure I really understand the grids on this page but it shows it:
>>> http://nanarealm.blogspot.com/2008/09/fish-eye-and-curvilinear-perspective.html
Ahah! ;-) Combining the images from these two sites, I think
I "get" the 5 vanishing points in fisheye perspective! In the second
site, the two drawings are not accurately drawn, but they do
indicate 4 vanishing points (left, top, right, bottom) - and the
image on the first site shows the 5th (the one evident from
looking directly into a hemisphere).
--DR
~~~~~~
"Paul Furman" <paul-@-edgehill.net> wrote in message
news:yLydnRyCj-AEOPTRnZ2dnUVZ5uidnZ2d@giganews.com...
> David Ruether wrote:
>> Paul Furman wrote
>>> David Ruether wrote:
[...]
> Heh, I rented the new Alice in Wonderland last night... if there was a
> [reverse-perspective] lens that focused out further, it would've been
> useful in that movie!
[...]
8^)
In some outdoor concerts with very large audiences (like "Isle of Wight"
ones), a visual effect is sometimes used while moving over the crowd with
a video camera that "squeezes" or "expands" the picture sides. I suspect
that it is done with a variable anamorphic lens attachment - but this is not
the same as the above...;-)
--DR
~~~~~~~~
"ColinD" <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
news:i47lnv$nv5$1@news.eternal-september.org...
> Late into this discussion, but, no, cropping a photo does not change its
> perspective.
>
> You could imagine that the photo is a window frame allowing a view of
> part of a landscape, for instance. Changing the size of the window
> cannot change the perspective, it only allows you to see more or less of
> the view.
Ok...
> Another point I haven't seen come up is the viewing distance at which
> you look at an image. There is one, and one only, correct viewing
> distance, to reproduce perspective faithfully in your eye. You can
> calculate this simply by multiplying the focal length of the taking lens
> by the degree of magnification in the print. Incidentally, this is the
> real reason why a so-called 'normal' lens is 50mm on a 35mm camera. An
> 8-times enlargement from such a lens gives a picture 8x10 or 8x12, and
> the correct viewing distance is 50x8=400 mm, about 15 inches, a more or
> less natural distance from which to view such a print.
>
> If we adhere to this, an 8-times-up print from a wide-angle lens, say
> 20mm should be viewed from 160mm, about 7 inches - and a photo from a
> 10mm lens should be viewed at about 3 inches. have you ever viewed a WA
> 8x12 print from that distance? Try it, and you will find that the WA
> appearance disappears and the view looks normal.
>
> What does change the apparent perspective is the geometrical distortion
> produced by imaging a 3D image onto a 2D plane. More pronounced with
> wider lenses, this effect can distort objects - including humans! near
> the edge of the picture (I think this may be what is tripping Neil up
> here). This is why, when photographing groups of people you should
> avoid putting fatties at the ends of the row.
>
> I got interested in perspective and proper viewing distance when I was
> asked to provide a mural for a foyer wall, about 10 x 8 feet, but the
> room available to view was limited to about 8 feet. I wanted the
> perspective to look right from about 7 feet away, and because the mural
> was to be about 16 images (for sharpness reasons) stitched together,
> there was some arithmetic involved to figure the FL of the taking lens.
>
> Bloody job didn't get done though, he didn't like the quote, wanted the
> job done for peanuts.
>
> --
>
> Colin D.
All of the above has come up at length in this thread, especially
discussions of the definitions of "perspective", "distortion", etc.,
etc., etc. I think you are too narrowly choosing your material
in the above, and somewhat missing the "wider picture", although
there are some good points made...;-). I suggest that you read
the posts by myself (David Ruether) and by Paul Furman for
much more than you cover above. Also, don't you hate clients
that "put you through the wringer" figuring out what's needed to
do their jobs, and then they balk at paying reasonable prices to
*complete* the work? After all, what you put into the job was
work on the job, and that should be paid for.
--DR
~~~~~~~~
"ColinD" <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
news:i4ckon$s1p$1@news.eternal-september.org...
> David Ruether wrote:
>> "ColinD" <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
>> news:i47lnv$nv5$1@news.eternal-september.org...
[...]
>> Also, don't you hate clients
>> that "put you through the wringer" figuring out what's needed to
>> do their jobs, and then they balk at paying reasonable prices to
>> *complete* the work? After all, what you put into the job was
>> work on the job, and that should be paid for.
>> --DR
> Yes, that's the perennial problem with the quote system that all
> contracting businesses face. Quotes are great for the person wanting a
> quote, but a pain in the ass for the quoter. Quote too high, no job;
> quote too low, no profit, maybe even a loss.
> --
> Colin D.
Been there, done that, UGH! 8^(
But I was fortunate most of my working life to work for people
who understood what I offered and that my prices were reasonable,
so I did not need to bid the work. When personnel changed and that
became an issue, I often just quit working for their organizations...
--DR
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Alan" <alanremovecalan@excite.com> wrote in message
news:2qr566trd4aro3n7mgk3jqld9mor20mep2@4ax.com...
> I looked at the pictures again and there really
> doesn't seem to be any distortion once I used full screen mode on the
> Kodak Gallery. Perhaps because the photographer was tall, and he
> might have been a little taller than I first guessed, some of the
> shorter people looked shorter than they really are. I am going to be
> the Nikon 16-35 F4G VR for my D700.
[It is VERY difficult to get people past that concept of lens
"distortion" (see the thread here above and on rec.photo.digital,
especially my posts), but as "MB" points out, there is true linear
distortion in most rectangular-perspective lenses - but the barrel
type actually helps reduce some effects near the picture edges
that many associate with "distortion"...;-]
> I also need a new strobe. I've been using my SB28 in auto made but
> it's time for a 600 or a 900. Obviously for this lens the 600 is
> plenty powerful, however, what about covering the wider angle of the
> 16 mm. The SB 28 has a diffuser flap for wider angles and at parties
> where it's dark you need to cover a larger area or else you get a
> picture where you have to crop out the sides. Do the newer strobes
> adjust down to 16mm, the photographer I referred to used manual, and
> do you need the 900 for the wide angle?
I found (with a white wall test) that two Nikon flashes I had with
different rated maximum angles were nearly the same - but it
didn't matter. I generally preferred to cock the flash 45 degrees
to the side and invert a Styrofoam cup over its top. I rubber
cemented crumpled aluminum foil over the back half of the cup
to keep all the light going forward. The height eliminated any
problem with shadowing from the lens or shade. To increase
the light source size, I sometimes fitted two cups together, large
ends together, and cut a hole in the rear of one just big enough
to fit over the flash end. I got some laughs, but it worked. For
more distant subjects, the zoom and tilt was used to better direct
the light. I almost never used flash as the primary light, preferring
to use it as a slight fill or 1:1 in really dark areas (using a 1:1 mix
of ambient and flash light effectively almost doubles the sensor's
sensitivity...).
--DR
> Finally, this Nikon NC Neutral Clear protective filter, is it
> necessary and worthwhile. It's not that much money but it's $52. I
> usually use a $10 multi-coated UV filter. Will it make any difference
> in the picture.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Alan
A **GOOD** UV or clear filter will work fine - but I disliked
Tiffen filters rather a lot (for self-fogging, and their too-thick rims).
There is disagreement on this, but I have tested this and have found
NO degradation of the image from using filters so long as they are
good and clean, under most circumstances.
--David Ruether
www.David-Ruether-Photography.com
d_ruether....@....hotmail.com
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Bowser" <Canon@Nikon.Panny> wrote in message
news:3q4u66hm7qrhcve18sltgq8cvc2f4e63dj@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 20 Aug 2010 09:51:25 -0700, C J Campbell
> <christophercampbellremovethis@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>You know, Nikon used to make a really good 24-120 before they replaced
>>it with that last piece of garbage. Hopefully this new lens will be
>>more like that first one, only with VR. It is a lot heavier, though.
> Agreed, and I shot one of those for years and made the mistake of
> replacing it with the VR version, which was a dog. The older version
> was better, optically, at avery length and stop. Loved that lens.
This was my experience, also. I quit trying with the third sample
of the VR version and returned it, sorry I had sold the earlier one
in anticipation of buying the VR. I finally settled for the 24-85mm
f3.5-4.5 (NOT the f2.8-4!), which was superior to either of the
others, and in practical terms, not really much shorter at the long
end.
--DR
~~~~~~~
"Bruce" <docnews2011@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:pojv66hckv7o34hcgg0qf4vhteg7i908s1@4ax.com...
> "David Ruether" <d_ruether@thotmail.com> wrote:
>>"Bowser" <Canon@Nikon.Panny> wrote in message
>>news:3q4u66hm7qrhcve18sltgq8cvc2f4e63dj@4ax.com...
>>> On Fri, 20 Aug 2010 09:51:25 -0700, C J Campbell
>>> <christophercampbellremovethis@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>You know, Nikon used to make a really good 24-120 before they replaced
>>>>it with that last piece of garbage. Hopefully this new lens will be
>>>>more like that first one, only with VR. It is a lot heavier, though.
>>> Agreed, and I shot one of those for years and made the mistake of
>>> replacing it with the VR version, which was a dog. The older version
>>> was better, optically, at avery length and stop. Loved that lens.
>>This was my experience, also. I quit trying with the third sample
>>of the VR version and returned it, sorry I had sold the earlier one
>>in anticipation of buying the VR. I finally settled for the 24-85mm
>>f3.5-4.5 (NOT the f2.8-4!), which was superior to either of the
>>others, and in practical terms, not really much shorter at the long
>>end.
> Nikon seems to have lost its way in this (approximate) focal length
> range, several times over.
>
> The original 28-85mm manual focus zoom was a dog. A very, very bad
> dog. It not only had a bad name (very well deserved) but for years it
> gave all Zoom-Nikkors a bad name and, to some extent, its bad
> reputation affected zoom lenses in general.
Sample variation hit several Nikkors about then - the 35-105mm f3.5 and
35-200mm f3.5-4.5 Nikkors could range from near "pop-bottle-bottoms"
to really excellent. The 28-85mm f3.5-4.5s that I saw were quite decent.
Nothing was as bad, though, as the original-version of the 43-86mm f3.5!
This one was consistently TERRIBLE! (The later version, though, was not
great, but a BIG improvement.) BTW, my Nikkor evaluation list is at --
http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/slemn.html
> The AF Nikkor 24-85mm f/2.8-4.0 was also a dog. It had dreadful
> distortion which was complex at the wide end, making it very difficult
> to remove in post-processing.
>
> The AF Nikkor 24-120mm f/3.5-5.6 was a little better. I'm sorry,
> guys, but I cannot find much to say about this lens that's good. I
> suppose it's quite sharp, and its distortion at the wide end is easier
> to correct in post-processing than that of the 24-85mm I mentioned
> above. But that distortion is severe, and it also distorts badly at
> 120mm.
For some purposes, like shooting outdoor receptions, it was superb...;-)
And the big flat-fronted shade made it easy to place the camera face
down on a table top for efficiently changing film...;-)
> I agree with both of you about the AF-S Nikkor f/3.5-5.6G VR version
> of this lens. Putting AF-S *and* VR on this truly mediocre optic is
> like giving a stray dog two gold teeth. Best not to. ;-)
8^)
> Finally, though, Nikon made a good one. The AF-S Nikkor 24-85mm
> f/3.5-4.5G was a great lens. Yes, it had distortion, but it was
> simple to edit out. The main thing was, it was sharp across the frame
> at almost all apertures and focal lengths.
And distances, unusual for a zoom...
> So what did Nikon do? They discontinued it! Nikon still offers the
> AF Nikkor 24-85mm f/2.8-4.0D, which is just as much of a dog as it
> ever was.
Smart, huh? 8^(
I will be keeping mine, although I've used it only once (for testing). Its
performance throughout its range is very consistent, although compared
with non-zooms in its range the results can be interesting. Compared with
the Nikkor 24mm f2.8 AF, the zoom is better to the corners (infinity-focus)
at the widest stops; with the 35mm f2 AF, they are close (with the 35mm
very slightly ahead); with the 50mm f1.4 AF (older), the 50mm easily beats
the zoom at the same wider stops; with the 85mm f1.8 AF, that wonderful
lens easily beats the zoom - BUT, as noted, the zoom is very consistent
center-to-corners at all stops, FLs, and focus distances, not a small thing.
> So the new AF-S 24-120mm f/4G VR is Nikon's latest opportunity to
> redeem itself, and to finally offer a lens in the 24/28-85/120mm range
> that is worthy of the brand.
At the price asked (HIGH!), I expect it is part of a new Nikkor f4 very high
quality constant-aperture series, now with a 16-35mm, a 24-120mm, a
200-400mm, and likely soon to be 70-200mm (or some such - to compete
with Canon's excellent equivalent).
> Canon has had no such problems - the Canon EF 24-105mm f/4 L IS is
> significantly better than any of the Nikkors mentioned above. That's
> the lens Nikon has to beat, or at least match, for optical and build
> quality.
Nikon has been slow with introducing practically-sized high-quality
constant-aperture f4 zooms that some can conceive of actually buying and
carrying. ;-) Nikon has made some superb (unequaled) WA f2.8 zooms,
though, and it has had the excellent 200-400mm f4 in its line for quite a
while - althouth that one is NOT relatively cheap/light/small! ;-)
--DR
~~~~~~
"Bruce" <docnews2011@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:hcg576hmpq5cknrncee6sn9gsmb1e457un@4ax.com...
> "David Ruether" <d_ruether@thotmail.com> wrote:
>>Sample variation hit several Nikkors about then - the 35-105mm f3.5 and
>>35-200mm f3.5-4.5 Nikkors could range from near "pop-bottle-bottoms"
>>to really excellent. The 28-85mm f3.5-4.5s that I saw were quite decent.
>>Nothing was as bad, though, as the original-version of the 43-86mm f3.5!
>>This one was consistently TERRIBLE! (The later version, though, was not
>>great, but a BIG improvement.)
> David, my apologies, the 43-86mm was the one I meant was the real dog,
> not the 24-85mm. Woof, woof. :-(
8^)
>> BTW, my Nikkor evaluation list is at --
>> http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/slemn.html
> I know. I have referred to it many times over the last few years. ;-)
>
> Thank you for maintaining an *invaluable* Nikon resource.
I knew you had seen it, but I was taking an opportunity for "free"
advertisin'...;-) BTW, I stopped checking out the newer lenses on
the list quite a while ago (I couldn't keep up with them, and I literally
couldn't keep them up in the air reliably, especially the heavy ones
due to some health issues). I still keep the basic list of lenses current,
though, if not the evaluations.
--DR
~~~~~~
"Attila Jozsef" <attilaj@poetry.szeged.edu.hu.invalid> wrote in message
news:attilaj-32B8B2.00260724082010@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com...
>> > "David Ruether" <d_ruether@thotmail.com> wrote:
>> >>Nothing was as bad, though, as the original-version of the 43-86mm f3.5!
>> >>This one was consistently TERRIBLE! (The later version, though, was not
>> >>great, but a BIG improvement.)
> OMG, I had one of those Nikon 43 - 86 lenses in high school. It was my
> first zoom and it was so horrible it put me off zooms for many years!
When that original terrible 43-86mm Nikkor zoom was current,
I was working in a pro darkroom in San Francisco. Pros liked it
'cuz it was a zoom, and they weren't ones to generally care a lot
about image quality anyway (it was the "content" that mattered,
even if you could barely tell what that was in the photo - but I
exaggerate...;-).
--DR
~~~~~~~~
"Paul Furman" <paul-@-edgehill.net> wrote in message
news:HcOdnajR98EA8O3RnZ2dnUVZ5qadnZ2d@giganews.com...
> Robert Coe wrote:
>> Paul Furman wrote:
>> : C J Campbell wrote:
>> :> I have been putting off getting a fast 85, thinking a VR version was
>> :> just around the corner. Guess not.
>> :>
>> :> I am very disappointed.
>> : Nano Crystal coating and AF-S internal motor with no focus ring. The old
>> : fragile plastic ring/switch for manual focus sucks though it's sad to
>> : see the aperture ring go away. The price is higher but not astronomical
>> : at $1700.
>> :
>> : http://www.nikon.com/about/news/2010/0819_af-s_85_24-120_28-300-03.htm
>> : "A new optical design"
>> No manual focus?? I hope that's not the wave of the future.
> Oops, I wrote that wrong. No "aperture ring", and the old one has an
> AF/MF switch where to press a button and turn another ring (awkward).
> The new AF-S is nice, you just grab the manual focus ring any time.
The elimination of the aperture ring (with the "G" mount") was, and is, a bad
idea for those of us with older bodies. Gee, Nikon, you used to at least TRY
to keep forward/backward compatibility - and this isn't/wasn't even difficult!
Also, for a single lens, with little "special-function" capability, the price on
this one is outrageous, especially compared with previous versions (the optical
qualities of which were highly touted by many at the time...). This is the wave
of the future for Nikon, huh - the "Leitz/Zeissification" of Nikkors in terms of
marketing "image" with the resultant price-gouging? ;-( So much for affordable
new high-quality Nikkors, I guess (although there are some still remaining in
the line...).
--DR
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Robert Coe" <bob@1776.COM> wrote in message
news:mi76769q500daguemgq4j6gnqu42c4orfr@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 23 Aug 2010 11:14:27 +0200, Robert Spanjaard
<spamtrap@arumes.com>
> wrote:
> : On Mon, 23 Aug 2010 09:53:48 +0100, Bruce wrote:
> : >>My wife has a 550D (here they call it the T2i), and I have a 50D. We
> : >>each have the old Sigma 18-50 f/2.8 as our everyday lens. It's really
> : >>not a bad lens. Its AF is neither as fast nor as consistent as one might
> : >>wish, but we've gotten some very sharp pictures with ours. I've also
> : >>gotten good results with my Sigma 50-150mm f/2.8 telephoto. I suspect
> : >>that the lesson is that Sigma makes decent lenses except when they
> : >>wander into the realm of really long zoom ranges. I'd consider buying
> : >>the new Sigma unless the reviewers start finding serious problems with
> : >>it.
> : > The only decent Sigma lenses are their review samples.
> : Seems like I bought a couple of review samples then.
> Yeah, me too.
>
> Bob
I've had a couple, too - and I still keep one since it is both
uniquely excellent + compact (one of Sigma's 8mm fisheye
versions).
--DR
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Peter" <peternew@nospamoptonline.net> wrote in message
news:4c7089eb$1$5517$8f2e0ebb@news.shared-secrets.com...
> "Rich" <none@nowhere.com> wrote in message
> news:HpGdnQf0Zqe0zO3RnZ2dnUVZ_rsAAAAA@giganews.com...
>> Who is going invest any real money in a camera shooting with a 1/2.3"or
>> worse sensor size once all DSLR's have larger ones and better video
>> cameras
>> sport micro 4/3rd or similar sized sensors? Even the director who used
>> the
>> Canon 5DII to shoot the House episode said that he sees the demise of the
>> smaller sensor (in professional's case, smaller than FF) in the future.
>> Not much you can do expressively with a camera that shows every single
>> thing in focus from 4ft to infinity.
> Apple does it again!
>
> Apple announced today that it has developed a breast implant
> that can store and play music. A pair of "iTits" will cost between $600
> & $1000, depending on cup and speaker size. This is considered a major
> social breakthrough, because women are always complaining about men
> staring at their breasts and not listening to them.
>
> --
> Peter
8^) 8^) 8^) 8^) 8^)
8^) 8^) 8^) 8^) 8^)
8^) 8^) 8^) 8^) 8^)
8^) 8^) 8^) 8^) 8^)
8^) 8^) 8^) 8^) 8^)
8^) 8^) 8^) 8^) 8^)
8^) 8^) 8^) 8^) 8^)
8^) 8^) 8^) 8^) 8^)
--DR
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"shiva das" <shiv@nataraja.invalid> wrote in message
news:shiv-02B91C.03050314092010@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com...
> In article <a2kr8617u87m453kdc8np39ue4bfiqbbnk@4ax.com>,
> R <R@nospamorspam.com> wrote:
>> On Mon, 13 Sep 2010 03:06:25 -0400, R <R@nospamorspam.com> wrote:
>> >I've been trying to get pictures of some paintings, and having some
>> >trouble getting things 'framed' without curvature. Yes, I know I need
>> >an SLR with a good macro lens to do that right, and I'm intending to
>> >buy one later. But for now, I want to see what's possible with my
>> >Canon.
>> >
>> >I've taken everything outside, set up a tripod, etc. and tried to use
>> >the edges of the painting to center it within the view screen. That
>> >works to some extent, but I end up getting some curvature that's not
>> >very visible while I'm actually taking the photos. I presume that this
>> >is from 'perspective' effects.
>> >
>> >Are there any tricks that may help? Possibly backing up and using a
>> >bit of zoom?
> The longer the better. At barrel distortion is greatest at the widest
> angle of a zoom. Get as far back as you can, zoom in, shoot at maximum
> pixel size to you can comfortably crop all 4 edges.
Ummmm, as "TheRealSteve" pointed out, "Any zoom lens, especially ones
with a wide range, is going to curve straight lines especially along the edges
of the frame and especially at the very wide ["barrel distortion", or worse yet,
"moustache" distortion] or very long end ["pincushion" distortion] of the focal
range. Further, "Some tips are to experiment with the lens and find the focal
length that does not have very much distortion. Most will have that "sweet
spot" in their zoom range where there isn't any that's noticeable. Find that and
then move backward or forward so that focal length works for you." There
are only a very few zoom lenses that have minimal or no pincushion distortion
at the long end...
> Another trick from my view-camera-as-a-copy-camera days is to use a
> pocket level to make sure the painting and the camera are perfectly
> level and plumb. The only thing you can't measure with a level is
> whether the painting and the camera's sensor are perfectly parallel. But
> that's what Photoshop's Edit > Transform > Perspective is for.
>
> Good luck
>
> Shiv
Good points.
--DR
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Val Hallah" <michaelnewport@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:abbd9055-3906-4b5d-934c-02f2ec7b5a8f@g19g2000yqc.googlegroups.com...
[About a 3D camcorder attachment for standard camcorders.]
> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1298154/3D-home-movies-For-1-300-new-dimension-camcorders.html
I made a 3D video once using two identical Mini-DV camcorders
mounted side-by-side, with the resulting images cropped and
edited split-screen for cross-eyed viewing. It worked reasonably
well, some of the time. ;-) This would be much easier to do
successfully with the 16x9 frame split horizontally, and with the
greater image sharpness and smoothness of HD - but I don't have
two matched HD camcorders to try it with...;-)
--DR
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Chris Malcolm" <cam@holyrood.ed.ac.uk> wrote in message
news:8b4tvqF5k7U2@mid.individual.net...
[...]
> Is this autofocus uncertainty just due to the huge DoF of such wide
> lenses? Perhaps a contributor, but certainly not the whole story,
> because I find when using autofocus with both the 8-16mm and the
> 10-20mm that I'll often get a rather soft image, and occasionally a
> sharper one, indicating that the problem isn't the lens. Using manual
> focus gets me a higher proportion of sharp shots. So I usually either
> focus it manually or leave it preset at a handy hyperfocal setting for
> the kind of distance ranges I'm encountering.
> --
> Chris Malcolm
> Warning: none of the above is indisputable fact.
Back in the days of FF cameras while some still had very sharp
VFs (Nikon F/F2/F3, F100, FA/E/M), I could easily manually
focus lenses down to 8mm, but with AF came many VFs that
favored brightness over contrast and ease of use for manual
focusing. Eventually, good AF arrived for most lenses, but
I didn't bother with using it with the very short FLs since
they could be scale-focused so accurately - and I continued
to use this method for focusing superwides once I had established
that their were no mechanical errors in their focusing and with their
focus scales (but there often were such error, unfortunately). Using
a DSLR with enlargeable rear screen image for manual focus (as
you mentioned doing earlier) would appear to offer some
considerable advantage...
--DR
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Bob Fleischer" <bobfnospam@duxsysnospam.com>
wrote in message news:4C474A4B.2070405@duxsysnospam.com...
>I have footage I shot in 1080x60p on a Panasonic HDC-TM700K that I want
> to edit to produce a DVD that will play on any player.
>
> I have yet to find a workflow that will successfully do this for me
> without interlacing artifacts (I assume that is what they are -- I
> always thought that deinterlacing was the problem!).
You likely should not deinterlace the original material, especially
since it is already deinterlaced...
> Actually, there is one workflow that works -- if I use the software
> included with the camera, Panasonic's HD Writer AE 2.1, I get a very
> good SD DVD -- so what I want is possible. However, that software is
> very limited in its editing capability, and insists on burning its
> output directly to DVD. In particular, I need to do a lot of audio
> enhancements.
>
> The only commercial software I have available for editing is Premiere
> Pro CS3 -- which doesn't do AVCHD. How do I get there from here?
>
> Bob
I have found the Adobe editors to be poor choices for HD (at least
previous to CS5, which maybe finally fixed some of the basic problems).
A VERY able editor for editing, transcoding file formats, and making
DVDs/red-laser HD-DVDs/Blu-rays is Sony Vegas Movie Studio HD
Platinum 10, about $80 from Amazon.com. With this, you can edit in
the original format and either transcode to MPEG-2 for SD DVDs or
make HD disks using standard DVD blanks and a standard writer
(although these will only play on a Blu-ray player, and the playing time
will be considerably shorter than an hour per single-sided disk). Go to
http://www.sonycreativesoftware.com/moviestudiope for a description
of the program, and to see how generally easy it is to use, go to
http://www.sonycreativesoftware.com/support/trainingvids.asp?prod=moviestudio
I also wrote a basic guide for the Vegas editors - for that, go to
http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/Sony-editing.htm
--David Ruether
www.David-Ruether-Photography.com
d_ruether....@....hotmail.com
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Brian" <bclark@es.co.nz> wrote in message
news:4de1961c4qsit4812mef70q5ei84v723qe@4ax.com...
> Scubajam <jmcgauhey@usa.net> wrote:
>>> Maybe I'm expecting too much from the video editor I'm using
>>> (Adobe Premiere Elements 8) as freezing clips on the timeline is not
>>> possible in this program.
>>If in doubt, try a short version and do multiple renders. Regardless
>>of what is theoretical, I've heard some render 9X before it becomes
>>obvious there is a small loss. If you just do two, or even three,
>>it'll be OK. Don't worry too much about the theory, compression
>>details, etc. See what you can see! That's the real proof of the
>>project.
>>Jim
This is correct, in my experience (remember my forced 10X rerenders
experiment I used to have on my web site?). Two or three rerenders
with DV-AVI (what you are using) should introduce minimal degradation.
Worse, though, are the ill effects of using SD DV-AVI with green-screen,
since that doesn't work very well (but try it to see what it looks like).
> Some time I might try multiple renders to find out how much quality I
> lose.
Alternate a small change in color (or other minor change) with a return
to the original for a clip to force rerendering. Without that, Elements
will just copy the original and not rerender it (this is called "Smart
Rendering", which Adobe does with DV-AVI, but not with HD,
with which it rerenders everything, changed or not).
> I can see the benifits of a HD video comapred to a SD video as
> the HD video should be able to render more times than the SD can
> before the drop in quality is seen.
This is NOT true, due to the MUCH higher compression of HD and the
GOP rather than frame-by-frame compression of SD. HD should be
compressed ONLY ONCE (as I pointed out before), at the time of final
export. Most (all?) Adobe video editing programs do not do this properly
with HD for minimum damage to the video... A plus for HD, though
(beyond the obviously superior picture quality ;-), is the superior handling
of green-screen material, since the pixels are much smaller in HD than in
SD video.
> HD video is usful if you want to
> zoom into the video when editing it as the quality is better after the
> zoom.
Yes, and some programs (Sony Vegas Pro 9 is one) will accept both
video and stills with up to 4096x4096 resolution without reduction,
permitting full 1920x1080 pixel frameframe "roaming around" within
the larger images.
> There is some grouping in Premiere Elements 8 but this seems
> to apply for the thumbnail clips shown in the source window and not on
> the timeline. The program allow you to group the videos by lassoing
> them. What is ignoring is when you drop a video onto another video in
> the timeline then the video below will split apart. Holding dsown the
> Control key stops this from happening.
>
> Regards Brian
I don't remember Elements well enough to say, but in the Sony programs,
including the cheap-but-VERY-good "Platinum 11", you can select items
on the timeline and then hit the "G" key to group them, and they stay
"glued" together until you select some and hit the "U" key (this will not
work in Elements, but there may be a menu "switch" somewhere that
locks together clips selected while holding down the "Shift" key...).
--David Ruether
www.David-Ruether-Photography.com
d_ruether....@....hotmail.com
~~~~~~~~~~~
"Brian" <bclark@es.co.nz> wrote in message
news:lmt3969m20lev4ku0bo28qgcmu531n4c7t@4ax.com...
[...]
> Thanks David for the information.
> It's interesting to read the pro's ands con's with new technology such
> as HD video.
Yes. While it took away some procedures and the ease of editing
that were good with SD DV-AVI, it gave us a MUCH better picture,
a good trade, I think... I'm astonished by how good the best HD
is, and how cheap and easy it is to work with (with HDV tape
and the excellent Canon camcorders that use this format). More
attention may need to be paid to camera settings to get the best
out of it (but limited alterations can be made while editing to fix
minor shooting errors so long as the image was not shot overly
saturated in any colors, or with blown-out highlights), but the result
can be spectacularly good.
> I think I might avoid saving the video as a file and reloading until I
> experiment more on less vailable material. I was going to use DV-AVI
> but not if it's going to cause problems with a green screen special
> effect.
>
> I'm getting some earthquakes as I write where I live in Christchurch
> so I better send this message now while I can.
>
> Regards Brian
Aaaarrrrggghhh! 8^(
I hope all is OK now. I arrived in San Francisco just after the last
"big" quake there. "Fun" driving the narrow mountain roads (very
slowly...) while dodging the bolders all over the roads, not knowing
if we would be blocked at some point attempting to get back to SF
(we had driven down the coast to see Big Sur, but the mist made it
invisible).
--DR
~~~~~~~~~
"Brian" <bclark@es.co.nz> wrote in message
news:rn8596t3728r3dgvcmjggusj7ji2fpjp46@4ax.com...
> "David Ruether" <d_ruether@thotmail.com> wrote:
>>Aaaarrrrggghhh! 8^(
>>I hope all is OK now. I arrived in San Francisco just after the last
>>"big" quake there. "Fun" driving the narrow mountain roads (very
>>slowly...) while dodging the boulders all over the roads, not knowing
>>if we would be blocked at some point attempting to get back to SF
>>(we had driven down the coast to see Big Sur, but the mist made it
>>invisible).
>>--DR
> Hi David.
> At the moment we are getting many aftershocks from the 7.1 earthquake
> we got on 4th Sept in Christchurch. Most projects such as repairs to
> roofs are on hold until the aftershocks stop. The ground is unstable
> at the moment.
>
> Regards Brian
Umm, this must be a very "unsettling" experience...!
--DR
~~~~~~~~~~~
"HerHusband" <unknown@unknown.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9DF559BBA7CD9herhusband@85.214.73.210...
> Brian wrote...
>> My video editor can export to Microsoft AVI and Microsoft DV AVI as
>> well as other formats such as MPEG. The manual claims that the
>> Microsoft AVI is uncompressed and to use DV for better quality.
> There "is" a completely uncompressed codec for AVI's, but the file sizes
> would be HUGE, especially for HD video.
>
> Codecs like Lagarith or Huffy are "lossless" but they do offer compression
> to keep the file sizes smaller and more manageable. They're like ZIP files
> you use to compress programs and documents, except they're designed for
> video. You do need to download and install these codecs separately. You
> should be able to find them with a quick Google search.
>
> As far as I know, the "DV" format is only available for SD video.
> Technically it is a lossy format, and if I'm remembering correctly, was
> similar to MPEG encoding. The big advantage to DV was that every frame was
> encoded individually, rather than relying on information from past frames.
> DV is a good format for editing if you are still working with SD video, but
> for HD you would probably need to find a different codec.
>
> Anthony
DV-AVI (SD) is a form of MPEG encoding, which compresses
5:1 frame-by-frame - but additionally, it has a great error (dropout)
correction mechanism for "borrowing" missing material for a given
frame from the previous frame, so a small frame part borrowed may
go unnoticed by most viewers. With tape HD (which does offer
some advantages during editing and in image quality compared
with memory-card media), a dropout causing a damaged frame will
cause roughly a half second of picture freezing and audio silence
due to the 13-frame GOP being interrupted. Fortunately, if the
fault is near an end of a clip, or in still subject material, the offending
frame can often be cut out without ill effects, and the GOP will
reform. BTW, Adobe editors (Brian uses Elements) can be used
for editing HD, but they have had serious limitations for doing so
(I don't know if these have been corrected yet, or not...).
--DR
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Crash!" <Crashing@work.edu> wrote in message
news:CMydnawpIr8J4Q_RnZ2dnUVZ_vydnZ2d@pghconnect.com...
> Re: Problems w Irfanview ? It disappears.;
> On Thu, 16 Sep 2010, Irwell wrote:
>> On Thu, 16 Sep 2010 12:31:05 -0700, Crash! wrote:
>> > Supposedly this is not Irfanview's fault, it's my
>> > system, so I wonder if anybody else has had it?
>> >
>> > The way I most often use Irfan is:
>> > I'll paste an image from Clipboard over an Irfanview
>> > image that came from any handy file icon.
>> > I'll edit that image, often cropping, cutting,
>> > pasting, adding text, sharpening and reduce color
>> > depth.
>> >
>> > I go to Save As, and the Irfanview window disappears.
>> > Gone. All lost. It seems worse after heavy editing,
>> > and worse in Save As than Save. It might happen
>> > about 1/3 of the time that I save after editing.
>> >
>> > Anybody else had that problem?
>> What format are you using as Save As?
>> TIF files take a lot space compared to JPG.
> It never gets that far. It happens about a
> second after the Save As window pops up, before
> I can enter anything.
This used to happen to me after I began using Micrografx
together with Windows XP (this was the first time I'd had
a problem with new/old software on a PC). REALLY
ANNOYING! Much as I do not like Adobe Photoshop
Elements, that did solve the problem... 8^(
--DR
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"David J Taylor" <david-taylor@blueyonder.co.uk.invalid>
wrote in message news:i28otj$5uu$1@news.eternal-september.org...
> "Bruce" <docnews2011@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:mdqe46l3c6ffjt514ae042sgh1bp023vff@4ax.com...
>> The LX5 has a 24-90mm (equivalent) Leica f/2.0-2.3 lens, 10.1 MP plus
>> better sensitivity and more dynamic range than the current LX3.
> []
> Good, yes, but those huge add-on lenses remind me rather of the ill-fated
> Sony DSC-R1 - large and ugly. Why spoil an otherwise interesting 2/3-inch
> camera?
>
> David
If "those huge add-on lenses" can get you to 18mm equivalent
(LX5) or 19mm (R1) well (but I don't know how good the images
are to the corners with these converters on...), and you want such
a wide angle of view (I do), who cares? I sure don't! ;-)
--DR
~~~~~~~~~~
"J. Clarke" <jclarke.usenet@cox.net> wrote in message
news:i2a4mt12icv@news5.newsguy.com...
> On 7/22/2010 12:36 PM, David J Taylor wrote:
>> "David Ruether" <d_ruether@thotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:i29n22$b8j$1@ruby.cit.cornell.edu...
>>> []
>>> If "those huge add-on lenses" can get you to 18mm equivalent
>>> (LX5) or 19mm (R1) well (but I don't know how good the images
>>> are to the corners with the converters on...), and you want such
>>> a wide angle of view (I do), who cares? I sure don't! ;-)
>>> --DR
>> I find that my pictures cover the equivalent range 24mm - 450mm, and I
>> would often like a little more at the wide end. My feeling is that the
>> fixed lens camera works well if you can live with the built-in zoom
>> range. If not, then you might as well get an interchangeable lens
>> camera. If you are a wide-angle enthusiast, you might get a more compact
>> solution with one of the micro-4/3 cameras.
> Not really. Remember the crop factor.
While most add-on WA converters reduce lens performance (especially
if zoomed much away from the widest zoom setting), a few do not on
some camera lenses (a .8X Olympus is sharp on my Sony 707 to the
corners at f2 through maybe a quarter of the zooming range away from
WA, and the .66X Raynox is sharp on my Canon HV20 HD camcorder at
f1.8 through about half the zoom range). These converters can be relatively
compact and light, since much of the optics already are attached to the
camera. Often, these attachments at least partly use light-weight plastic
optics (as with a Sony ".6X" [actually about .5X]), and they can be quite
thin. For these reasons, it is worth checking into the performance of specific
converters with specific lenses since there can be advantages to using them...
--DR
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Gary" <midicad2001@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:3d84cb68-4849-4f23-83ad-bd565f8ba3b5@m35g2000prn.googlegroups.com...
[Partial answers...]
> I'm using an older version 7.0e. Not the studio version.
>
> I am on a Q6600 quad core overclocked to 3.0 GHz and Windows XP Pro
> with 4 GB of RAM.
You may be better off with 3 gigs of RAM - I've heard that RAM
in excess of 3.3 gigs can slow things somewhat with XP...
> When rendering a multi-track project I can see all 4 cores kick into
> action. Sometimes they are maxed at 100% and sometimes they bounce
> around a lot but at least above 50%. OK that's nice, as I got this
> quad core system specifically to keep up with video rendering - I'd do
> more of it if it wasn't so freaking slow!
What are you rendering to what? If from one format to the same,
there should be little work for the CPU to do except during changed
parts (at least with Mini-DV and HDV). If you are transcoding to
AVCHD from almost anything else, that can be VERY slow...
> Lots of time when I start playback or trimmer preview, the program
> will go "Not Responding" (menu bar turns white) for 10s of seconds or
> even longer. Argh! Sometimes it chooses this moment to crash.
>
> Also it seems the program crashes in other random places a lot more
> than I would like (which is of course none).
There are unanswered questions about the format of the material
you are editing (AVCHD is relatively more difficult, if it has a high
rate).
> Questions:
> 1. Any Vegas users can agree to the above behavior, or say for sure
> that later versions are more stable, snappier? I don't like the
> blanket "get the latest version" approach because, y'know, I work in
> sw development, and... sigh...
That is one solution - Vegas Pro 8c (with a quad-core) works well
with all but high data-rate AVCHD. Pro 9 is supposed to have improved
AVCHD handling.
> 2. Any program options I should be using, which maybe I'm oblivious
> to?
Sony just introduced Vegas Movie Studio HD Platinum 10 (WOW! ;-)
that can lay out and operate much as your current version does, and it
is very stable, able, and versatile - and a bargain at $70 at Amazon.com.
It works well with most formats, and can transcode from one to another.
> 3. Any comments on the new whiz-bang i7 Core CPUs, 4 cores, 8 threads,
> does it make a tangible difference? As I only see about 20%
> performance boost over my existing system for the fastest new CPUs in
> e.g. AnadTech benchmarks.
With Pro 8, when I moved from a dual-core to a quad-core Intel
CPU, the render speed doubled. In the past, upgrading CPUs showed
disappointing improvements at best for the time/effort/money spent.
> 4. Wax rhapsodic about the superiority of (other video editing
> program).
Vegas Pro 8c, Pro 9d, Platinum 10 - SOLID, EASY TO USE,
VERSATILE! What more can one want...? ;-) And you are already
familiar with one way these can be layed out and operated.
> 5. Anyone finding Windows 7 better/worse/mehh compared to XP for
> video rendering? I have been using Vista 64 ultimate for my desktop
> system at work for awhile and WOW is that a pig performance wise. 2.4
> GHz dual-core, 4 GB OK it's not a power system but c'mon!
>
> Thank you!
Again, what source format are you transcoding to what? Try shooting
and editing and exporting in the same format to make use of "Smart
Rendering" (it is turned on, isn't it...?). Again, transcoding anything else
to high data-rate AVCHD ain't fun...
--DR
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
<szeik@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:6d86dbe5-3fce-4f2b-a556-8a473c0436d0@v15g2000yqe.googlegroups.com...
[I'm not quite "with it" just now, but here goes anyway...]
> I posted quite a while back and never got around to doing this
> project. My last post on this topic was in 2004! And I never
> followed through on it.
>
> But now I am really wanting to do this project and I am hoping that in
> the last 6 years technology has improved a bit and will make the job
> easier.
>
> We have about 20 VHS-C type of analog tapes that we recorded on our
> old camcorder which has since broken. I can't even find a safe way to
> view these tapes on our television. Just yesterday I purchased an
> adapter from Radio Shack that is supposed to allow them to be played
> in regular video player but it jammed up and I had to take the player
> apart just to get the tape out. Thankfully it didn't eat the tape.
> I've done some googling and apparently these adapters are dangerous to
> use. But I can't find any alternative.
>
> So question one is simply : What is the safest way to view our old
> vhs-c tapes? Should I try to find a used camcorder that can play
> these tapes? Are there any adapters that are better than others?
I can't answer this one satisfactorily, but I would be inclined to
try to find a VHS-C camcorder or deck in good shape first, unless
someone knows of a good (reliable!) adapter...
> And the bigger question is, what is the easiest way to get all our
> videos onto DVD's? I now have a computer with a DVD burner although
> I've never used it to burn a DVD but I have burned a bunch of CD's and
> am comfortable using software have a background in software.
>
> I'm not sure if this computer has enough horse power and/or disk space
> to do a project like this. Right now it has 80 megs free on the hard
> drive and it has 3.25 gigabytes of ram. It is a Dell Dimension 4700
> with a pentium 4 CPU 2.8 GHZ.
You will need another (additional) HD for the DV-AVI video (about
13 gigs/hour) that you feed from the DV camcorder. The rest should be
OK, if a bit slow while making file conversions.
> I have a firewire port in the video card and I have transferred
> digital video from the camcorder to the computer in the past to create
> some mpeg videos.
If the camcorder permits you to input component video and audio
(through the red/white/yellow cords at the deck end to the camcorder
analogue input) and it converts it to DV-AVI (many do this, called
"pass through"), you are ready to go without needing software to get
the VHS-C material into the computer as DV-AVI (Mini-DV format).
> I remember when I got the new HD camcorder the
> software I tried using seemed to be too much for the computer but I
> have since upgraded and maxed out the ram so maybe it will work better
> now.
Any good inexpensive video editing software (I like the $70 Sony
Vegas Movie Studio Platinum 10, good for doing almost anything
you want, including converting the DV-AVI to MPEG-2 and writing
it to DVDs). Keep the original tapes, though - if stored properly,
they are likely more permanent than the DVDs you make...
> I checked one camera store in the area and they said they can create
> dvds for $24 per tape. That seems a bit high. 20 tapes would cost
> $500 and then I would have to deal with the newer digital tapes which
> we also have a bunch of now. I asked the guy at the camera store how
> he would deal with the VHS-C tapes and he said he would use that same
> type of converter I just had problems with.
>
> Would appreciate any feedback on the best way to do this project.
Good luck with this!
--DR
~~~~~~
<szeik@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:46df80c8-bc05-46dc-bf1f-8ff45dbea8b0@x25g2000yqj.googlegroups.com...
>> You will need another (additional) HD for the DV-AVI video (about
>> 13 gigs/hour) that you feed from the DV camcorder. The rest should be
>> OK, if a bit slow while making file conversions.
> It has 80 gigabytes free, not 80 meg. Would that be enough? Seems
> like I could do 1 tape at a time.
That should be fine.
> I also have an external drive I use for back up that I could probably
> free up 250 gigabytes on.
That should also be fine, but maybe not for archiving...
> Thanks for the feedback.
>
> Steve
Good luck with the project. BTW, maybe I was not clear. If the
DV camcorder can accept an analogue input using the three-color
RCA plugs at the deck end, and either the same plugs or a special
1/8th inch 3-conductor plug at the other end of that cord that then
goes into the camera, a FireWire cord then connects the camcorder
and computer to pass the digitized signal from the camcorder to the
computer. Some camcorders can do this directly (no tape needed),
but some may require you to record the video in the camcorder,
then play that into the computer (if there is any analogue input
available at all on the camcorder...).
--DR
~~~~~~~~
"Mark Burns" <marcus520520@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:69a42e92-edee-4a55-96c6-77dbc7941f32@d17g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
On Aug 3, 2:45 pm, "sz...@hotmail.com" <sz...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> I posted quite a while back and never got around to doing this
> project. My last post on this topic was in 2004! And I never
> followed through on it.
>
> But now I am really wanting to do this project and I am hoping that in
> the last 6 years technology has improved a bit and will make the job
> easier.
>
> We have about 20 VHS-C type of analog tapes that we recorded on our
> old camcorder which has since broken. I can't even find a safe way to
> view these tapes on our television. Just yesterday I purchased an
> adapter from Radio Shack that is supposed to allow them to be played
> in regular video player but it jammed up and I had to take the player
> apart just to get the tape out. Thankfully it didn't eat the tape.
> I've done some googling and apparently these adapters are dangerous to
> use. But I can't find any alternative.
>
> So question one is simply : What is the safest way to view our old
> vhs-c tapes? Should I try to find a used camcorder that can play
> these tapes? Are there any adapters that are better than others?
>
> And the bigger question is, what is the easiest way to get all our
> videos onto DVD's? I now have a computer with a DVD burner although
> I've never used it to burn a DVD but I have burned a bunch of CD's and
> am comfortable using software have a background in software.
>
> I'm not sure if this computer has enough horse power and/or disk space
> to do a project like this. Right now it has 80 megs free on the hard
> drive and it has 3.25 gigabytes of ram. It is a Dell Dimension 4700
> with a pentium 4 CPU 2.8 GHZ.
>
> I have a firewire port in the video card and I have transferred
> digital video from the camcorder to the computer in the past to create
> some mpeg videos. I remember when I got the new HD camcorder the
> software I tried using seemed to be too much for the computer but I
> have since upgraded and maxed out the ram so maybe it will work better
> now.
>
> I checked one camera store in the area and they said they can create
> dvds for $24 per tape. That seems a bit high. 20 tapes would cost
> $500 and then I would have to deal with the newer digital tapes which
> we also have a bunch of now. I asked the guy at the camera store how
> he would deal with the VHS-C tapes and he said he would use that same
> type of converter I just had problems with.
>
> Would appreciate any feedback on the best way to do this project.
>
> Thanks in advance,
> Steve
If it were me, I would try to find a used VHS-C camcorder. A quick
look at Amazon and I found one for $149.
Next I would get a DVD-recorder. I can find one of those at Amazon
for $150 and up. VHS-C was not great resolution and the DVD recorder
will upscale and capture them better than the original.
Use an existing television.
Plug the camcorder into the DVD-recorder input jacks using RCA cables,
yellow for video, red for right audio, and white for left audio. If
the camcorder is not stereo, just choose right for the audio. Connect
the recorder to the television using a second set of RCA cables from
the output to the television input or use a coax cable to monitor the
process.
Record the tapes onto the DVDs at the highest settings that the
recorder provides. This should be one hour per DVD. As I recall, VHS-
C was rather limited in its recording settings. Use one DVD per VHS-C
tape.
Now make a copy of each DVD that has been made on the computer. Also
copy to an external hard drive. Store second backup off-site in your
safe deposit box or reletives home in case your house burns down. We
can't replace memories.
From here you should be able to combine and convert your videos in any
fashion that you wish.
Now sell any of the above equipment that you no longer need on E-Bay
for some other guy to use.
Cheers,
Mark
P.S. It is not too late to become a charter member of the
International Procrastinators Club. However, I don't think they have
gotten around to setting up a website.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
8^) on the last...;-)
For the earlier advice, a couple of comments. Stand-alone DVD
recorders produce lower-quality DVDs since they record 704x480
rather than 720x480 and also must transcode in real time, unlike
with computer conversions. Going from VHS 640x480 to anything
(except maybe with a *good* upsampler - assuming there is such a
thing) is going to look bad, but going at least to DV-AVI *may* help,
and the smoothing effect of going from that to MPEG-2 DVDs often
looks reasonably good (at least from DV-AVI originals). Also,
standard DVD blanks should not be considered archival - but there
are some that are good (look up "archival DVDs" on google). You
can also make duplicate copies on hard drives.
--DR
~~~~~~~~~~~
"Mark Burns" <marcus520520@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:dec1115e-b4d9-48db-8bce-3d3d1b20c7b9@x21g2000yqa.googlegroups.com...
On Aug 7, 12:14 pm, "David Ruether" <d_ruet...@thotmail.com> wrote:
> For the earlier advice, a couple of comments. Stand-alone DVD
> recorders produce lower-quality DVDs since they record 704x480
> rather than 720x480 and also must transcode in real time, unlike
> with computer conversions. Going from VHS 640x480 to anything
> (except maybe with a *good* upsampler - assuming there is such a
> thing) is going to look bad, but going at least to DV-AVI *may* help,
> and the smoothing effect of going from that to MPEG-2 DVDs often
> looks reasonably good (at least from DV-AVI originals. Also,
> standard DVD blanks should not be considered archival - but there
> are some that are good (look up "archival DVDs" on google). You
> can also make duplicate copies on hard drives.
> --DR
No, they produce 720x480 mpeg. I have owned several of these over the
past half decade. Two are still in use and they both do DVD compliant
720x480. One is a Panasonic DMR-EH50. The other is a Phillips
DVDR3575H.
DV-AVI will not help. This is VHS-C that we are discussing here. If
the original format had been digital, then that would be true. Then
we would be discussing a good encoder such as TmpgEnc or Cinema
Craft. But it is an analog format.
Going from VHS to 720x480 IS an upconvert from VHS. VHS/VHS-C only
has 240 lines of resolution.
I have done over a hundred of these. They all look better on DVD
because of the upconvert. We are adding interpolated resolution
here. It should not be compared with original source encoded at 480i,
but it is better. It will play back at a slightly highere quality
than it does now.
Cheers,
Mark
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
OK, your experience is different from mine. Two DVD stand-alone
writers used produced 704x480 videos on DVDs (and as a result,
these files were not very easy to work with when trying to integrate
them with 720x480 material when the lower resolution material was
added, as I needed to do on one job since the original DV-AVI
material I needed was not available). I've also not been happy with
the look of such DVDs (made with stand-alone DVD writers) when
compared with ones made on the computer from DV-AVI files - but
certainly any transfer of 240-line material is going to be disappointing,
unfortunately...
--DR
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Mark Burns" <marcus520520@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:76c9b14a-bd86-4edb-afbb-4685356c7e90@q35g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
On Aug 7, 4:47 pm, "David Ruether" <d_ruet...@thotmail.com> wrote:
> OK, your experience is different from mine. Two DVD stand-alone
> writers used produced 704x480 videos on DVDs (and as a result,
> these files were not very easy to work with when trying to integrate
> them with 720x480 material when the lower resolution material was
> added, as I needed to do on one job since the original DV-AVI
> material I needed was not available). I've also not been happy with
> the look of such DVDs (made with stand-alone DVD writers) when
> compared with ones made on the computer from DV-AVI files - but
> certainly any transfer of 240-line material is going to be disappointing,
> unfortunately...
> --DR
I think that disappointing is the wrong word here. If the OP follows
my advice he will be at least as well off as before, and in my
experience slightly, but not dramaticaly, better.
We really can't compare digital video with VHS. The technology is
completely different. From AVI-DV we are doing a down convert when
going to DVD-mpeg 480i. I agree with you on the process. Always edit
in your best format and then transcode to the target format.
I have heard of some weird formats on DVRs provided by cable
companies. Do you have the make and model of the one that you had the
trouble with? It would be good to finish documenting this so that
future readers will not be mislead.
Cheers,
Mark
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
It "looks" like your way is preferable. Sorry, I don't have the
brand/model info - but I was told the files in both instances
were from stand-alone DVD recorders, not DVRs, and the
footage backed that up (it was obviously shot by the client,
and fit his Mini-DV footage). This was in the early days of
DVD stand-alone recording machines, and the client had had
problems with them producing compatible DVDs to clients,
as I recall...
--DR
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Mike" <huntm@worldwide.net> wrote in message
news:huntm-A63912.09311115082010@news.dsl-only.net...
> Anyone have any experience with these camcorders?
>
> TIA
From what I've seen from it, the fixed-focus can be a problem,
but a friend who has one attached a Sony HQ30 .7X to it which
seemed to improve things with DOF and hand-holding (it has
no stabilizer, and it shows!). I'd save my money for something
HD in the $600-700 area (I really like the Canon HV40 - see:
http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/Canon_HV20-HV30.htm ).
This is a FAR better camera and worth the increase in size,
weight, and price if you are serious about image quality. The
Flip 720p isn't terrible, but it has so many shortcomings that it
is not "fun" to use in a way that gets the most out of it...
--DR
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Richard Fangnail" <richardfangnail@excite.com> wrote in message
news:ce1a81ce-69cf-4505-aa06-4e3ff2e3d97e@s24g2000pri.googlegroups.com...
>I haven't shopped for a video camera since 2001. Back then it was Hi8
> or mini-DV.
> I went to the store and saw that camcorders don't use removable disks
> or tapes any more.
I still prefer tape-based HDV for HD shooting (the Canon models
are very good, with the HV40 at the low end [see my review at --
http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/Canon_HV20-HV30.htm ],
and the much more expensive 3-chip XH-A1s higher up). The image
quality of the HV40 (with careful set-up of the picture controls, and
careful exposure - with more on that in my review) can be really
excellent in good light.
> With most camcorders today, do you just use USB?
> And if you're using Windows Vista or 7, what software do you usually
> use to capture the inputted video?
The memory card based camcorders use either a card reader or
a USB connection to the computer (a plus, but editing this material
in its highest quality 24 Mbps format is not as easy to edit as HDV).
For HDV, a good applet called HDVSplit can be used for real-time
transfer to the computer. Tape also produces an "automatic" archiving
of the material shot, unlike with memory cards. For editing, I highly
recommend the under $100 but still very versatile Sony Vegas Media
Studio HD Platinum 10 (for more on editing programs, go here --
http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/Sony-editing.htm and also --
http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/hdv-editing.htm for a comparison
of programs). While Vegas may seem complex at first, the basics for
using it aren't. Go here for video guides for using this program --
http://www.sonycreativesoftware.com/support/trainingvids.asp?prod=moviestudio
As with most editing software, there is an available 30-day free
trial version...
--David Ruether
www.David-Ruether-Photography.com
d_ruether....@....hotmail.com
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Brian" <bclark@es.co.nz> wrote in message
news:buvt8616q4im3ab5umj7hndn6a21l9annh@4ax.com...
>I have a video I'm working on using several video tracks. I want to
> save the video as a file then load it back into the video editor as a
> single video track then work on other things such as transitions etc.
> Is AVI the best file format to use? as I don't want to lose too much
> quality by saving to a file then loading the saved file back into the
> video editor gain. Is there one type of uncompressed AVI file or are
> their several types of AVI files?
>
> Regards Brian
I suspect that you are working with "DV-AVI", a particular type. If
so, it is frame-by-frame compressed at 5:1, and generally (with a
good codec) you can recompress it with very little damage several
times. I have removed my comparison of a 10-times recompression
of DV-AVI using both the Raptor's codec and the MS codec, and
while the results were different, the negative visible effects were minor.
It is reasonable to "glue" edited material together so that you can bring
it back onto the timeline as a single piece. This is NOT advisable with
HD material, and that should all be exported only once from the
timeline, preferably using a program that uses "smart rendering" (which
doesn't recompress unchanged material) to avoid visible damage to
the video (one reason I have not liked any of the Adobe video editing
programs, at least through CS4 and Elements 7, is that they did not
have "smart rendering" capability - and the codec used by Vegas for
HD introduces no visible degradation with a single pass, unlike with
some others). BTW, so long as you have backup copies of your
source material on different drives, and also backup copies of your
current edit, you should have little need for combining tracks before
final output unless you are running out of vertical space for multiple
tracks on your monitor, and/or you are doing something particularly
complex.
--DR
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Existential Angst" <fitcat@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:4c94c625$0$31269$607ed4bc@cv.net...
> Ever watch Dr. Dan Amen on PBS, give his shpiel on the brain?
>
> It's a flawless delivery, yet I'm tempted to bet part of the farm that he
> does not use cue cards or a teleprompter.
Why, on the teleprompter part? These are composed of semi-silvered
mirrors through which the camera shoots and a reflection of an up-turned
teleprompter TV screen below the front of the lens superimposes a text
image visible to the reader (but not the viewier of the program). This
permits the reader to look directly into the camera as the written material
appears to pass in front of it. With a good actor (like most news "reporters"
on TV are...;-) in front of the camera, the result appears both "live" and
polished. Most readers also have tiny earphones so that live editors can
help with mistakes or changes in the teleprompter copy. So much for
"live"...;-)
--DR
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I had written in a response to "RC's" (?) post that our local Time
Warner cable HD service had been relatively free of "hic-cups",
but unfortunately I spoke too soon - soon after that the deluge of
picture/sound-freezes, pixilations, etc. began, sigh... Too much
material for too little bandwidth, I guess. Still, I wouldn't want to
go back to all SD.
--DR
~~~~
"Mark F" <mark53916@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:rdjl6653nba3ialrvjvhtb7kkb1l7og4m0@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 16 Aug 2010 15:28:30 -0400, "David Ruether"
> <d_ruether@thotmail.com> wrote:
>> I had written in a response to "RC's" (?) post that our local Time
>> Warner cable HD service had been relatively free of "hic-cups",
>> but unfortunately I spoke too soon - soon after that the deluge of
>> picture/sound-freezes, pixilations, etc. began, sigh... Too much
>> material for too little bandwidth, I guess.
> Freezes sound like data errors. Pixilations are possibly data errors
> also.
>
> What are your signal levels and signal to noise ratios on the
> channels with the worst problems? (Usually the set top boxes have
> some code sequences to enter to get the information for any particular
> channel, or at least some nearby in frequency channel.) Get the
> cable support people to walk you through stuff so you see the display
> of the numbers on your TV.
>
> Also: often what they consider an acceptable signal is not
> what you should. If they say -12 to +6 then you want at least 0.
>
>
> How much stuff do you have connected to you cable line? For coax,
> if you have more than 4 things (including phone) connected you may
> need another drop to your house. Turned off TVs count, put
> turned on TVs count more.
>> Still, I wouldn't want to go back to all SD.
>> --DR
Thanks for the info.
--DR
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Existential Angst" <fitcat@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:4c9bdbf5$0$7150$607ed4bc@cv.net...
[...]
> Shootings will eventually be a regular event, 2-3x/week maybe, and it would
> be certainly nice to have a "turnkey" filming session, at say 2 a.m. or
> whenever, where I can basically turn stuff, and demo away.
> I will be doing all the demos initially, which also involve a fair amount of
> explanation, as there is a bit of an underlying foundation to all this.
>
> Am I expecting too much? Can I be met "halfway"??
You can do this, fairly easily I think. I used to shoot wedding ceremonies
with up to six fixed-position camcorders, with an additional "controlled"
one to move around with (or use on a tripod) with *slow* zooming. These
can be synchronized with a flash gun after they have all been set recording.
Detail close-ups can be shot later and edited in. There is video editing
software that can handle this (and MUCH more, like color-matching,
effects, interesting blendings/transitions, etc.). A cheap one I like (which
makes multi-tracking easy on a big enough monitor [a 24" 1920x*1200*,
NOT 1920x1080], can be fairly cheap) is Sony's Vegas Media Studio
HD Platinum 10. See my articles on editing software here --
http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/hdv-editing.htm
http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/Sony-editing.htm
http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/video-editor-screens.htm
An old program I used for multi-tracking is here (but the principles are
basically the same - and Vegas makes it very easy to "turn off" tracks) and
the video and audio appear together (and the track heights can be adjusted
in Vegas to make more screen space for more tracks, so I often reduce the
audio tracks in Vegas to almost nothing until I'm ready to edit the audio) --
http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/multi-camera.htm
Sony offers basic video tutorials on their site for this software, at --
http://www.sonycreativesoftware.com/support/trainingvids.asp?prod=moviestudio
As for the shooting location, I would avoid having windows and mirrors
show in the video. Maybe all-black is best, with artificial lighting (be sure
to properly white-balance your cameras with a grey card, locking down the
balance afterward - rebalancing extreme errors and large disagreements in
white balance among cameras is NO fun, but minor rebalancing while
editing is to be expected).
--David Ruether
www.David-Ruether-Photography.com
d_ruether....@....hotmail.com
~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Brian" <bclark@es.co.nz> wrote in message
news:pv0o96p5afort8pqd5rnmmhk1cokvn2c5a@4ax.com...
> I'm interested in knowing what is popular in video editors.
> Can you tell me what video editor you use and give at least one reason
> why you prefer the video editor that your using.
> From what I've read on the internet Adobe Premiere Elements is very
> popular. A while ago Sony Vegas was popular I don't know if this is
> still a popular video editor.
> I use Adobe Premiere Elements 8 because it's easy to use and has many
> powerful features especially for adding special effects to a video.
>
> Regards Brian
OK, I can tell you why I do not like Premiere Elements (at least through 7)
or Pro (at least through CS4) was the lack of "Smart Rendering" with HD
("SR" doesn't rerender the already highly compressed material unless a
change has been made in the material, like a color-correction, etc.). PE's
codec also appeared to poorly rerender material. Worst, once edited HDV
video was exported as a file, unlike with other programs with "SR", there
was no way to export it again without retaining the original project and source
files(!). Totally unacceptable. For SD, it is a good program, but why not move
up now to a better one, which is not only VERY cheap, but also VERY
versatile (almost the equal of the FAR more expensive Vegas Pro), Sony Vegas
Media Studio HD Platinum 10. See my articles on editing software here --
http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/hdv-editing.htm
http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/Sony-editing.htm
http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/video-editor-screens.htm
Sony offers basic video tutorials on their site for this software, at --
http://www.sonycreativesoftware.com/support/trainingvids.asp?prod=moviestudio
Given the above flaw, I don't know why Elements would be considered a
serious editor, at least for HD, unless the "SR" feature is now included. Also,
Vegas can do many things easily, like multi-camera editing - and "color-curves"
tone relationship control plus MANY other filters (all adjusted with the same
keyboard slider controls) that Elements doesn't have... BTW, I just looked up
Elements 9 on Adobe's site, and it STILL doesn't give specs that would indicate
that it has "SR" for HD (it may, or may not - there is no way to find out without
trying it - but 7 and earlier didn't have that important feature). Instead, PE
appears now to be a very "dumbed-down" program for popping out videos
using simple templates. No thanks....
--DR
~~~~~~
"Brian" <bclark@es.co.nz> wrote in message
news:096q96dt4vgv610td7jm9sgqm5ksjgtqii@4ax.com...
> Far as I know in version 8 of Adobe Premierer Elements will render in
> the background for HD while you are working on the video.
> What is SR?
>
> Regards Brian
As I said, "OK, I can tell you why I do not like Premiere Elements (at least
through 7) or Premiere Pro (at least through CS4) is the lack of "Smart
Rendering" with HD ("SR" doesn't rerender the already highly compressed
material unless a change has been made in the material, like a color-correction,
etc.)." The "SR" feature merely copies unchanged video material into the new
exported video file without needing to rerender it, with the resultant (sometimes
very noticeable) loss of quality resulting from doing that. Perhaps someone can
tell us if Elements 8 or 9 and/or CS5 now has the "SR" feature for HD material?
--DR
~~~~~~~~~~
"Existential Angst" <fitcat@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:4c9cdfae$0$20147$607ed4bc@cv.net...
> "David Ruether" <d_ruether@thotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:i7il93$iv4$1@ruby.cit.cornell.edu...
>> "Existential Angst" <fitcat@optonline.net> wrote in message
>> news:4c9bdbf5$0$7150$607ed4bc@cv.net...
>> [...]
>>> Shootings will eventually be a regular event, 2-3x/week maybe, and it
>>> would be certainly nice to have a "turnkey" filming session, at say 2
>>> a.m. or whenever, where I can basically turn stuff, and demo away.
>>> I will be doing all the demos initially, which also involve a fair amount
>>> of explanation, as there is a bit of an underlying foundation to all
>>> this.
>>>
>>> Am I expecting too much? Can I be met "halfway"??
>> You can do this, fairly easily I think. I used to shoot wedding ceremonies
>> with up to six fixed-position camcorders, with an additional "controlled"
>> one to move around with (or use on a tripod) with *slow* zooming. These
>> can be synchronized with a flash gun after they have all been set
>> recording.
>> Detail close-ups can be shot later and edited in. There is video editing
>> software that can handle this (and MUCH more, like color-matching,
>> effects, interesting blendings/transitions, etc.). A cheap one I like
>> (which
>> makes multi-tracking easy on a big enough monitor [a 24" 1920x*1200*,
>> NOT 1920x1080], can be fairly cheap) is Sony's Vegas Media Studio
>> HD Platinum 10. See my articles on editing software here --
>> http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/hdv-editing.htm
>> http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/Sony-editing.htm
>> http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/video-editor-screens.htm
>> An old program I used for multi-tracking is here (but the principles are
>> basically the same - and Vegas makes it very easy to "turn off" tracks)
>> and
>> the video and audio appear together (and the track heights can be adjusted
>> in Vegas to make more screen space for more tracks, so I often reduce the
>> audio tracks in Vegas to almost nothing until I'm ready to edit the
>> audio) --
>> http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/multi-camera.htm
>> Sony offers basic video tutorials on their site for their software, at --
>> http://www.sonycreativesoftware.com/support/trainingvids.asp?prod=moviestudio
>> As for the shooting location, I would avoid having windows and mirrors
>> show in the video. Maybe all-black is best, with artificial lighting (be
>> sure
>> to properly white-balance your cameras with a grey card, locking down the
>> balance afterward - rebalancing extreme errors and large disagreements in
>> white balance among cameras is NO fun, but minor rebalancing while
>> editing is to be expected).
>> --David Ruether
>> www.David-Ruether-Photography.com
>> d_ruether....@....hotmail.com
> Yeah, I read your reviews about a week ago, useful perspectives. Nice site,
> you have really good stuff there.
Thanks.
> I have Studio 8, and just upgraded to V10, and got the phone support package
> as well. Altho mebbe with your links above, I may have bought too soon??
> :) :(
No - HD Platinum 10 offers some advantages, like...:
> V10 supports like 10 video tracks!
YES! ;-)
> Altho the bias at B&H is more toward adobe premier it seems, none of the
> guys have anything bad to say about Sony Vegas, and a number of them really
> like it.
The "Pro" Adobe stuff has long been known for unfortunately getting
people on the "Adobe expensive upgrade treadmill". UGH! (Good for
sales, though...;-). Their cheap stuff is sometimes good, but often more limited
or harder to use than some alternatives - or more aimed at the very low end.
And PE will not work well for multi-track editing.
> I have two 22" monitors, in a video editing set-up by ADK in Kentucky, a
> very nice outfit, and who just recently really helped me out with some disk
> problems. They really stand behind their work/products. Unusual....
> Before I bought my system, I tried The VideoGuys, but didn't seem to be able
> to get far with them.
Two 22" monitors should work well...
> What's also nice is that ADK is in Alexandria, a unique spot in KY with no
> southern drawl or 4-syllable dipthongs on one syllable words -- you cain't
> put a price on that.....
8^) Amazing, though, how southerners can sometimes reverse things and turn
perfectly good chances for doing the above into *single* syllable words,
like "awl" for "oil"...;-)
> A fascinating tidbit:
> The ADK guy was going through my computer remotely, and was able to read
> about a dozen *temperatures* within my box!!! Told me I need to blow it
> out, cuz some temps were getting high. I was actually able to see the temps
> he was looking at on my screen!!
> Well, fascinating to me, at any rate....
Also potentially important for long-term durability, if anything is excessively
hot. 'Minds me to take the cover off and clean my (many) fans - better some
noise from extra fans than risking overheating...
> Yeah, it seems like a good balance for my situation camera-wise might be a
> number fixed cameras and one roving camera on wheels. I'll proly get the
> additional cameras one by one, see how each add'l camera eases the filming
> burden.
>
> I currently have the Canon HV20, which everyone loves, and will upgrade to
> their flash-drive model (forgot the model, Vixia __?), at B&H for about
> $780, which has the advantage of saving capture time.
It has that advantage, BUT, with slightly reduced image quality and noticeably
increased editing difficulty (a "monster" computer helps, though...;-). Right now,
B&H is selling the HDV HV40 for $650, a better price, for a better camera...
With HDVSplit, you do not need to attend to the capture, and that free software
properly cuts the footage up into clips.
> I'm also using an Audio Technica Pro88W, the omni-directional, for about
> $150, which after some initial hum, works pretty well. Not high end, but
> sure beats the camera mic, and actually sounds pretty good to my untrained
> byt semi-finicky ear.
> The mic guy (Bill) at B&H is super-knowledgeable, apparently very
> experienced, super to deal with.
> --
> EA
I like the Sony 908C for a stereo near-omni (hard to find, since discontinued
(can you say, "STOOPID...!" ;-) and the Sennheiser short shotguns (MKE300,
also discontinued - there oughta be a law against doing that...! ;-). The Audio
Technica should be good, though (and Vegas has a LOT of sound editing filters
included, if needed).
--DR
~~~~~~~~~~~
"Steven J. Weller" <az941@lafn.org> wrote in message news:aeac5e1a-bb80-422f-a28c-e64585f30543@a15g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
> On Sep 25, 9:54 am, "Existential Angst" <fit...@optonline.net> wrote:
>> "Steven J. Weller" <az...@lafn.org> wrote in messagenews:149038aa-e71f-46f8-927a-956c1ac29dd2@y32g2000prc.googlegroups.com...
>> > We're a VERY sophisticated audience these days, even
>> > if many people can't say exactly what's wrong with what they're
>> > watching.
>> Point sort of taken, but consider this: Just how sophisticated can a
>> population, addicted to Reality TV/Housewives of NJ et al, really be????
>> Technologically finicky, mebbe, but certainly not sophisticated.
> I have friends who work on reality TV, and believe me - they're a lot
> more technologically sophisticated than you might realize. There's a
> LOT of coverage, from multiple cameras, so you do get OTS and matched
> singles and all the rest of it - you just don't notice that that's
> what you're watching. The only time it's obvious is when that kind of
> thing is missing.
>
> It's also worth noting that there's basically no such a thing as a
> locked-down camera in reality TV - it's all hand-held, or stedicam, or
> occasionally on a jib or whatever.
>> > Ask yourself these questions - who is it you expect to be watching?
>> > In what context? What else is that audience watching, in that
>> > context? Infomercials look the way they look, and sound the way they
>> > sound, because the format has been developed over a period of years.
>> Good point, and I would say somewhere between an infomercial -- or at least
>> what I think infomercials should be -- and, say, Charlie Rose.
>>
>> Now, you probably read where David did a wedding video with fixed cameras,
>> and one roving camera, which is surprising even to neophytic me! So if THAT
>> *non-studio* scenario lent itself to fixed cameras, to some degree, I'm
>> sure mine would.
> Not to try to make enemies here, and I don't know David and haven't
> seen any of his work, but wedding videos aren't really for public
> consumption. They're documents that the bride and groom might pull
> out once in a while, to relive the memory, but they're not something
> that other people will generally sit through except to be polite.
> That much said, there's no real reason to do more elaborate wedding
> videos, and lots of reasons not to - the point isn't the video, it's
> the event, and a large part of doing successful event photography and
> videography is not intruding.
>> Wouldn't you say that virtally ALL scenarios could utilize a fixed camera(s)
>> to *some* extent, with no loss of quality/naturalness?
> No, I really wouldn't. Again, take a look at what's out there, and
> you'll see that there are basically no fixed cameras in play. A fixed
> camera is a lot cheaper than a camera with an operator, so if they
> worked in a scenario, they'd be used. Every dollar not spent on
> making the finished product is another dollar of profit or another
> dollar less in your bid, but - again - there comes a point where
> saving those dollars results in a less-saleable product. You could
> save money by shooting it all on security cameras or $20 webcams, too,
> but the end result wouldn't be worth the effort.
>> For example, I believe Charlie Rose is shot with ALL fixed cameras, perhaps
>> one per guest, plus one group-focused camera. And, in that scenario, seems
>> perfectly OK.
> Those aren't "fixed" cameras, they're cameras on wheeled tripods, with
> union operators behind them. They might not move a lot, but they do
> move some - or are at least capable of doing so. Some news
> organizations use robotic cameras in the studio, which are a LOT more
> expensive, up-front, than paying an operator. they can all be
> controlled remotely by one person in the booth, though, and that makes
> them cheaper in the long run. But that's also a very contained
> environment, where there are only a handfull of shots necessary. No
> one's getting up and moving around except the weather bunny, and she's
> just standing there in a wide shot of the greescreen so the map can be
> keyed in. Beyond that it's Talking Head 1, Talking Head 2, 2-Shot,
> Wide Shot of the Whole Set, and 1 and 2 framed to include a box for a
> graphic on one side. That works if all you're doing is sitting still
> and talking, but if you're trying to demo something or otherwise on
> your feet and moving around, it's not going to be enough.
>> I'll experiment along. For now, I have no choice but to use fixed
>> cameras -- heh, and ONE fixed camera, at that -- so the real issue for me
>> right now will be to make the BEST possible use out of fixed cameras that I
>> can.
> A single camera presentation is pretty tough to get people to watch,
> but there are ways to deal with it. If what you're doing is
> presentational (you're selling fitness gear, right?) then you can do
> the same presentation several times, and shoot each one from a
> different angle. If you're on a weight bench machine (for a simple
> example) you can shoot the intro in a wide shot standing in front of
> it, then do some more explanation sitting on it, then get a MCU of
> yourself lying down on the bench, a CU of your hands grabbing the
> handle, another CU of the weights themselves, and so on. You'll end
> up doing a LOT more individual set-ups, and they'll be a LOT more
> specific than you could get with a dozen cameras scattered around the
> space.
>> And of course keep the roving camera option in mind, for when the
>> opportunity arises to implement it.
> Good thought.
>> What about three more cameras: back, and directly left/right?
>>
>> That would be 9 cameras, for nine different shots, which in a 500 sq ft
>> space would seem to provide a lot of coverage AND variety. Yes? No?
> No. It's no use to have nine, or twelve, or a hundred different
> angles to cut to, if none of them are what you need. The point of an
> operator is that people move, and even if it's a little bit, that can
> make the diffeence between a shot that's perfect and a shot that's
> useless.
>> You know, I'm currently using ONE camera, about 20 feet away, at about a 30
>> deg angle, and altho it certainly is not the optimal situation, it covers
>> the whole demo space, and allows me to get the ideas across quite well, esp.
>> with a half-decent mic -- see below.
> If all you're looking for is to cover the action, then a single locked-
> down camera might be enough. If you're looking to create a video that
> people will willingly watch, it's not.
>> > Another thing you have to worry about - which you haven't mentioned
>> > yet - is SOUND. You can have the best, most creative, most elaborate
>> > images in the world, and if it all sounds like it was recorded over
>> > the phone, or off the cameras' on-board mics, no one's likely to
>> > bother to watch.
>> I think I mentioned to David I just bought a wireless Audio Technica
>> Pro-88W, the omnidirectional version.
>> *Orders of magnitude* better than a camera mic, proly fairly
>> indistinguishable from a lot of infomercial/TV mic'ing, at least to the
>> untrained ear. I'm happy, and I've got a finicky ear, albeit untrained.
>> $150 at B&H.
> A lot of it depends on what kind of finished product you're looking
> for. Vince pitches ShamWow with a headset mic, just like he would if
> he were doing his pitch live on the boardwalk. Talk shows typically
> have each person mic'd with a wireless lav, plus an overhead
> directional boom mic of some description (though as lavs have gotten
> better, that's become less common), plus some ambience support off of
> omnis, and most important, a person whose job it is to mix all of the
> various audio sources into a cohesive final track.
>
> The short version (I know - too late) is that this isn't a one-man
> kind of thing, most especially if you're also going to be in front of
> the camera. Even the very simplest of local news field reports - just
> a reporter with a handheld mic doing a stand-up in front of the
> courthouse - is going to require both the on-camera talent and an
> operator.
>
> --
> Life Continues, Despite
> Evidence to the Contrary
>
> Steven
Thanks, "SW", for some very good information. BTW, here is an
example of an early promo I did for a comedian with a single camera
(SD) and on-camera microphone, on YouTube at --
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mVT7th01K88&fmt=18
and also on ExposureRoom, at --
http://exposureroom.com/members/druth/ce82bb6e3e9649fdb19b220c9256e691
It was done in a very small theater with far less than a quarter of the
seats filled (with an invited audience), using two takes as I recall. Not
"super professional", but it did the job at the time...;-)
--DR
~~~~~~~~~
"Existential Angst" <fitcat@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:4c9f76f7$0$31269$607ed4bc@cv.net...
[...]
> Basically I would like a "feel" for what my maximum expectation can be with
> this strategy, keeping in mind that the "genre" of the resulting product
> would be "corporate", at best, or "instructional".
> "Instructional" is a bit different, in my mind, than infomercials, or even
> the actual, say, P90X "sing along with me" videos. Think classroom teacher,
> moving around a bit (in very small "standing type" areas, variously
> performed in mebbe an overall 5x5 area), some portable chaulk-board stuff, a
> lot of yakking, hopefully inneresting yak..
> --
> EA
You may have been "over-thinking" much of what you originally wanted to do. For
years a local company has been producing award-winning films/videos for NatGeo,
the Smithsonian, PBS, web-sites, etc., mostly using single-camera takes. See --
http://www.photosynthesisproductions.com
http://www.photosynthesisproductions.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=blogcategory&id=5&Itemid=23
http://www.photosynthesisproductions.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=blogcategory&id=6&Itemid=43
These are nationally-viewed professional-level productions. Single-camera retakes
can do wonders for you on a budget with good editing and good reenactments...;-)
Good luck!
--DR
~~~~~~~~~
"Existential Angst" <fitcat@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:4c9cdfae$0$20147$607ed4bc@cv.net...
> I have Studio 8, and just upgraded to V10, and got the phone support package
> as well. Altho mebbe with your links above, I may have bought too soon??
> :) :(
>
> V10 supports like 10 video tracks!
[...]
> I currently have the Canon HV20, which everyone loves, and will upgrade to
> their flash-drive model (forgot the model, Vixia __?), at B&H for about
> $780, which has the advantage of saving capture time.
You may want to wait - there is a new Panasonic camcorder out for $799
at B&H that can shoot 28 Mbps 1080 *60p* to internal flash memory. This
finally may surpass the HDV of the Canon HV20/30/40 (which even 24 Mbps
AVCHD didn't - although editing these formats will not be as easy as handling
HDV). I may have some sample footage to look at in a week or so. As of
March 2010, apparently Adobe and Apple software could not handle this,
but Vegas Pro 8, 9, and 10 can (and likely the $70 Vegas Media Studio HD
Platinum 10 also can). HDV and 1080 60i may be easier to use, though...
BTW, the number of cameras really desirable depends on needs. For shooting
weddings, I used several stationary cameras to cover the ceremony (on clamps,
fake ivy-draped backdrop-roll poles, tripods placed in the back, etc.) plus
one controlled camera, to be as unobtrusive as possible. For the parts where that
didn't matter (rehearsal dinner, rehearsal, dressing, pre-ceremony people gathering,
post-ceremony conversations, rice/flower-throw, couple leaving, couple arriving
at the reception, the reception and diner, etc., etc., etc. ;-), I used a single camera,
with an identical camera available as backup. And, BTW, if you want to see a
very fine video shot using a single camera and operator (Peter Carroll, a local
one-man video producer), watch this (choose "HD") --
http://exposureroom.com/members/Flip50/d61b4feea2da4609bf901b8078124c3a
--DR
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"David Ruether" <d_ruether@thotmail.com> wrote in message
news:i82bk7$dm1$1@ruby.cit.cornell.edu...
> "Existential Angst" <fitcat@optonline.net> wrote in message
> news:4c9cdfae$0$20147$607ed4bc@cv.net...
>> I have Studio 8, and just upgraded to V10, and got the phone support
>> package as well. Altho mebbe with your links above, I may have
>> bought too soon?? :) :(
>>
>> V10 supports like 10 video tracks!
>> [...]
>> I currently have the Canon HV20, which everyone loves, and will
>> upgrade to their flash-drive model (forgot the model, Vixia __?),
>> at B&H for about $780, which has the advantage of saving capture time.
> You may want to wait - there is a new Panasonic camcorder out for $799
> at B&H that can shoot 28 Mbps 1080 *60p* to internal flash memory. This
> finally may surpass the HDV of the Canon HV20/30/40 (which even 24 Mbps
> AVCHD didn't - although editing these formats will not be as easy as handling
> HDV). I may have some sample footage to look at in a week or so. As of
> March 2010, apparently Adobe and Apple software could not handle this,
> but Vegas Pro 8, 9, and 10 can (and likely the $70 Vegas Media Studio HD
> Platinum 10 also can). HDV and 1080 60i may be easier to use, though...
> BTW, the number of cameras really desirable depends on needs. For shooting
> weddings, I used several stationary cameras to cover the ceremony (on clamps,
> fake ivy-draped backdrop-roll poles, tripods placed in the back, etc.) plus
> one controlled camera, to be as unobtrusive as possible. For the parts where that
> didn't matter (rehearsal dinner, rehearsal, dressing, pre-ceremony people gathering,
> post-ceremony conversations, rice/flower-throw, couple leaving, couple arriving
> at the reception, etc., etc., etc. ;-), I used a single camera, with an identical
> camera available as backup. And, BTW, if you want to see a very fine video
> shot using a single camera and operator (Peter Carroll, a local one-man video
> producer), watch this (choose "HD") --
> http://exposureroom.com/members/Flip50/d61b4feea2da4609bf901b8078124c3a
> --DR
Peter Carroll has just posted a video made with the Panasonic HDC-TM700 at -- http://exposureroom.com/members/Flip50/3e3aa8a69e454ee8b9d0eb6210bb895b
This is a 3x1/4"-chip small camcorder that sells for around $800(!!!!!) that
does 60p. The camera can transcode from its internal flash memory to an
accessory memory card in AVCHD format for editing with software that does
not yet handle 28 Mbps VBR 60p HD (as was done with the video here). It looks
like with software that can handle it, Blu-ray disks can be written from the
original higher bit rate material. Things are getting interestinger 'n' interestinger...;-)
--DR
~~~~~~~~~~~
A local video producer told me about an interesting camcorder he had
just ordered, the Panasonic HDC-TM700 (about $800 discounted).
It has 3x 1/4" CMOS chips, which gives it very high quality image
quality, and it can also shoot 28 Mbps VBR **60P** footage. The
camera can also shoot 60I at somewhat reduced quality, or in-camera
convert 60P to 60I AVCHD from its internal memory to an accessory
memory card for editing on software that cannot yet handle the new
format (Apple and Adobe - but Sony's Vegas 8, 9, and 10, and likely
the cheap Platinum 10, can handle it now). The camera just arrived,
and an early video by Peter Carroll (made in the rain - it has been
raining here for a long time) is now up at --
http://exposureroom.com/members/Flip50/3e3aa8a69e454ee8b9d0eb6210bb895b
Notable compared with the Canon single-chip HV20 are the lack of
blown-out highlights and the maintenance of excellent detail in the highly
saturated oranges and reds. There is also beautiful color and excellent
sharpness in the images. Peter has promised to bring over some
sunny-day material soon for me to see and to try editing in 60P. That
should be interesting... ;-)
Enjoy!
--DR
~~~~~~~~
"Gary Eickmeier" <geickmei@tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message
news:En1qo.5000$206.969@unlimited.newshosting.com...
> "David Ruether" <d_ruether@thotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:i850lm$mat$1@ruby.cit.cornell.edu...
>> A local video producer told me about an interesting camcorder he had
>> just ordered, the Panasonic HDC-TM700 (about $800 discounted).
>> It has 3x 1/4" CMOS chips, which gives it very high quality image
>> quality, and it can also shoot 28 Mbps VBR **60P** footage. The
>> camera can also shoot 60I at somewhat reduced quality, or in-camera
>> convert 60P to 60I AVCHD from its internal memory to an accessory
>> memory card for editing on software that cannot yet handle the new
>> format (Apple and Adobe - but Sony's Vegas 8, 9, and 10, and likely
>> the cheap Platinum 10, can handle it now). The camera just arrived,
>> and an early video by Peter Carroll (made in the rain - it has been
>> raining here for a long time) is now up at --
>> http://exposureroom.com/members/Flip50/3e3aa8a69e454ee8b9d0eb6210bb895b
>> Notable compared with the Canon single-chip HV20 are the lack of
>> blown-out highlights and the maintenance of excellent detail in the highly
>> saturated oranges and reds. There is also beautiful color and excellent
>> sharpness in the images. Peter has promised to bring over some
>> sunny-day material soon for me to see and to try editing in 60P. That
>> should be interesting... ;-)
>> Enjoy!
>> --DR
> "software that cannot yet handle the new format" - what new format are you
> talking about? Also, I am currently looking at the Sony NEX VG10 hybrid. It
> shoots video on the huge DSLR size CMOS, and from what I have seen it is
> very low noise. So the question is which is better, three-chip small imager
> or one chip huge imager.
See the video (URL) referred to below. The new format is 60p instead
of 50/60i or 30/25/24p. Also the upper limit of the data rate has been
raised from 24 Mbps to 28 Mbps (VBR) to accommodate the extra
information. And, single-small-chip sensors tend to have problems with
contrasty and color-saturated subject matter, although much larger chips
appear to have fewer problems with these. There are noise and sensitivity
advantages to the larger chip, but size/weight/price advantages to the
small ones. Yer teks yer cherse...;-)
> A technical question for me is why does AVCHD footage blur out when panning
> complex scenes? Who has also observed that? Is it a fault of the I-frame
> compression? Does any AVCHD camera avoid this artifact, or is it part of the
> deal and there is nothing we can do about it?
>
> Gary Eickmeier
This is evident not only with AVCHD. It depends on frame-rate,
whether the video is interlaced or not, on the codec used, the data
rate permitted, the format used, and maybe more. I suspect some blur
with motion is intentionally introduced to avoid codec compression
failure from excessive detail level change per unit time. BTW, I've been
happy with the appearance of motion with my HDV Canon HV20,
but in various comparisons (even with one with 24 Mbps data rate
and a camera using the same sensor and lens), the AVCHD cameras
produced slightly less sharp images and slightly more blur with motion,
even though MPEG-4 compression is supposed to be more efficient
than MPEG-2.
--DR
~~~~~~~~~~
"Gary Eickmeier" <geickmei@tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message
news:CLuuo.475$Hz4.81@unlimited.newshosting.com...
> "David Ruether" <d_ruether@thotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:i9cedr$g4j$1@ruby.cit.cornell.edu...
>> I have not yet tried the Panasonic HDC-TM700 camcorder, but it is
>> VERY appealing for video quality (it shoots a new format, 28Mbps
>> VBR 60p, editable directly with recent Vegas versions [Pro 8, 9, 10,
>> and Platinum 10] with a fast computer, and with other editors by
>> converting 60p original footage recorded to the internal 32 gig flash
>> memory to 60i internally to an SD card in its slot (there appears to be
>> little loss in quality doing this, compared with shooting relatively
>> inferior
>> 60i original footage...). It is also tiny, with apparently good controls
>> and ports (but unfortunately there is no Lanc port). Here is some
>> footage shot with this 3X 1/4" CMOS camcorder in the rain, at --
>> http://exposureroom.com/members/Flip50/3e3aa8a69e454ee8b9d0eb6210bb895b
>> Note the excellent detail in the saturated oranges and reds and in the
>> highlights, difficult for small single-chip camcorders to achieve. A still
>> from this camera also looks very good (after some adjustment). I have
>> yet to see bright-day footage, which would tell me if the image contrast
>> is OK or too high, but this camera looks like a real winner...
>> --David Ruether
>> www.David-Ruether-Photography.com
>> d_ruether....@....hotmail.com
> Wow, that is REALLY sharp footage David. Must look into it. I think that is
> one of the little amateur cameras but it has the same imager as the HMC40.
> Is this thing good in low light?
>
> Gary Eickmeier
By reputation, it is good in low light (but maybe not great - I just dunno...).
"Image quality" depends on MANY things, such as color-accuracy, good
tonality (including good retention of details in both highlights and shadows
without looking "flat"), good retention of detail in saturated colors, good
overall detail level, relative freedom from artifacting (including noise, edge,
and motion-effects, etc.). This camera (the Panasonic HDC-TM700)
looks VERY promising for a relatively cheap and tiny camcorder, but
I will not know for sure until I get one in my hot, shaky hands to try...;-)
Also, there is still the matter of the formats it shoots in, and the difficulty
of editing them without either transcoding them to larger file types or getting
a whiz-bang computer to handle the material. I already have compatible
software (Sony Vegas), but other software makers have been slower in
adapting to the 28 Mbps VBR 60p format. BTW, what was used in the
ExposureRoom example above was shot in 60p, transcoded in-camera
to 60i, brought into a Mac with transcoding again using ProRes, then
edited (whew! ;-).
--DR
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Steve King" <steveSPAMBLOCK@stevekingSPAMBLOCK.net> wrote in message news:i8n7ih$m2q$1@news.albasani.net...
> "Brian" <bclark@es.co.nz> wrote in message
> news:dv6ua657uctg9mo3v6mb3n049kes3mqd5n@4ax.com...
> | Recently I was using a monopod to video record plants and when playing
> | back the results I noticed some horizontal camera shake and the
> | panning was not smooth. I'm thinking of buying a head that I can screw
> | on the top of my monopod to improve it.
> | Does anyone have any tips on getting better videos when using a
> | monopod?
> |
> | Regards Brian
> You will be much happier with the results of extreme close-up photography if
> you use a good fluid head tri-pod. I do not think that a head on a monopod
> will provide much improvement. Your alternative is to brace your body
> against something solid if possible, hold your breath while shooting, and do
> many takes. Enought takes and you'll probably get lucky.
>
> Steve King
I heartily agree with the above, but I would add "GOOD" to the
description of fluid head, and these are NOT cheap, and require
a GOOD tripod that stays "planted" on the ground and does not
flex or "wind up" as the fluid head is operated. Another solution is
to forget frame-motion, and leave the camera planted on a tripod
head that is not moved (but I REALLY dislike this for my own
work - it is too much like an animated slide show...). I preferred
(when I could still hold a camcorder steady) to use a substantial
"L" still-camera flash bracket (with big comfy handle) on the left
side combined with the right-side camera strap, using a GOOD
(as in sharp to the corners) WA attachment on the lens, with the
zoom set for widest (this minimizes unwanted camera movement
in the image). This one was shot without the handle, and software
(Mercalli) was used to smooth the worst clips --
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pPhPA8IP_ig&fmt=18
A tripod was used here (for a "nifty slide show" look, which can
work for some things...;-) by a friend --
http://exposureroom.com/members/Flip50/3e3aa8a69e454ee8b9d0eb6210bb895b
For this video, the same person used a combination of tripod
mounted and shoulder supported camera, at --
http://exposureroom.com/members/Flip50/c17a22a564c54a1fb6ecbf58e4761ba7/
Editing helps (by cutting out the shakiest footage). But, for the
best, most interesting results, I would likely go with a high quality
fluid head tripod (a MINIMUM would be a hefty Bogen with an
accessory short center pole so it can be set up almost flat to the
ground, with one of their better fluid heads (which are at best just
OK - and their cheap ones are terrible). Pros spend over $5000
on their tripods for a reason...;-( Except for use by sports
photographers with huge heavy lenses where mobility is essential,
I have never seen much point in using a monopod for video...
--DR
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Brian" <bclark@es.co.nz> wrote in message
news:demhb6tsgrbjek65874gfpalrmk5bgd59d@4ax.com...
> "Andy" <woof@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>"Brian" <bclark@es.co.nz> wrote in message
>>news:q5bfb6p8a5jnjskhn4g7j6p7gohhc8pbkf@4ax.com...
>>> I recently created a video but just before I compiled it to a file I
>>> noticed that the music in the sound track would only play for less
>>> than a minute then there was silence. This must be some error in the
>>> Premiere Elements 8 program as the mp3 file I used for the sound track
>>> was over 4 minutes in length. I am able to go back to an older saved
>>> version of this project but I'm missing the start and end titles.
>>> Is there anyway I can copy the titles from the finished video version
>>> and put them into a older version of this video?
>>>
>>> Regards Brian
If PE8 is having problems integrating an mp3 file with the video,
try converting the mp3 to 48KHz 16-bit stereo WAV and
substituting that for the mp3 on the timeline. There are free audio
editors available online if PE8 cannot do this simple conversion
(all Sony Vegas versions can...).
>>Possibly your mp3 file is corrupt. It may play OK in your mp3 player
>>software (eg Windows Media Player) but not in PE8.
>>Can you substitute it for another mp3 file. and see if that works.
>>
>>This may help with your titles but I am not sure as I am not familiar with
>>PE8
>>Open your version with the good titles and highlight all the titles you want
>>to copy then right click and select 'copy'.
>>Now close the open project (File/Close), but do NOT close Premiere Elements
>>8. Next, go to File/Open and navigate to the older version.
>>When it's loaded right click where the title assets are and select 'Paste'.
This should also work...
> Thanks Andy.
> That's certainly worth a try and if it works it will save me time. The
> only otherway would be to delete the movie between the start and end
> titles and therefore save just the titles as a file then load the file
> in once I've loaded the older version. But I like your idea better.
>
> There must be a way of saving part of the video as a file using
> Premiere Elements. I'm hoping that someone knows of a way. Also does
> anyone know of a Premiere Elements forum?
>
> Regards Brian
You can save any part of a video as a separate file that can then be
brought into any other project you want with any decent video editor.
Specify the part you want to save on the timeline with the work area
bar, selected in PE8 (as I recall) by catching with the mouse the
very tiny triangles at each end and moving them to where you want
the file ends to be (this is s-o-o-o-o-o much easier to do in Vegas,
BTW, and doing this fiddly operation in PE used to drive me nuts...),
then exporting the selected part of the timeline as a file. Also BTW,
in Vegas it is easy to turn off both video and audio tracks that you
do not want in the file - and if you move to HD in any form, the $70
version of Vegas (HD Platinum 10) is just s-o-o-o-o-o much better
since it doesn't force the recompression of all timeline HD material,
and what it does recompress, it does so with less image damage than
Premiere.
--DR
~~~~~~~~~~
"Brian" <bclark@es.co.nz> wrote in message
news:lqekb6dcljursnk3cgbvcejdshomn87nmk@4ax.com...
> "David Ruether" <d_ruether@thotmail.com> wrote:
>>"Brian" <bclark@es.co.nz> wrote in message
>>news:demhb6tsgrbjek65874gfpalrmk5bgd59d@4ax.com...
>>> There must be a way of saving part of the video as a file using
>>> Premiere Elements. I'm hoping that someone knows of a way. Also does
>>> anyone know of a Premiere Elements forum?
>>>
>>> Regards Brian
>>You can save any part of a video as a separate file that can then be
>>brought into any other project you want with any decent video editor.
>>Specify the part you want to save on the timeline with the work area
>>bar, selected in PE8 (as I recall) by catching with the mouse [the tiny
>>triangles at each end of the grey bar] and moving them to where you
>>want the file ends to be (this is s-o-o-o-o-o much easier to do in Vegas,
>>BTW, and doing this fiddly operation in PE used to drive me nuts...),
>>then exporting the selected part of the timeline as a file. Also BTW,
>>in Vegas it is easy to turn off both video and audio tracks that you
>>do not want in the file - and if you move to HD in any form, the $70
>>version of Vegas (HD Platinum 10) is just s-o-o-o-o-o much better
>>since it doesn't force the recompression of all timeline HD material,
>>and what it does recompress [just changed footage], it does so with
>>less image damage than Premiere.
>>--DR
> Thanks David for your suggestions.
> I have not had much to do with the workbar so I'll try what you
> suggested in the future.
> What I did in the end was to delete the movie between the start and
> end titles then save the movie as a file so that only the start and
> end titles are saved. The[n] I loaded this file back into an older
> version of the video. It must be a bug in the program as it's happened
> to me twice but next time I'll convert the mp3 to a wav file and hope
> that works.
It will...;-)
> It looks like your a fan of Vegas Video.
Ummm, well, YES! 8^) It does just *almost* everything easily,
and it is VERY versatile (and I even use it lately for converting
downloaded MP3s to 44.1 KHz WAV files (these are made almost
instantly, ready for making audio disks) and for working on the
audio file (there are MANY audio filters and EQs included in the
program). All for $70...;-)
> There are times when viewing
> things on the screen are difficult using PE8. Dragging the line on the
> timeline to adjust the volume or some other parameter a small amount
> is also difficult in PE8.
>
> Regards Brian
Track height in Vegas can be adjusted from almost nothing (or turned
off, so it is greyed out), to GIANT - and as the level-adjust in a clip is
pulled down, there is a readout of the amount to the 1/10th decibel
(and there is also an overall track volume control, and in addition
there are channel volume controls [versatile...;-]) with good meters.
When clips are pushed together, both video and audio form a dissolve,
and the curves the program uses can be selected from among many,
or drawn with the mouse (with auto-smoothing added, if you want).
Also, catching the upper corner of the end of either end of an audio
or video clip permits you to easily introduce a fade-in/out of any length
you want. You can also turn on an overall track "rubber band" that
permits any amount of local or global level keyframing. (I did say,
"versatile", didn't I ...? 8^) I gather Vegas started life as an audio
editing program, and it shows. I do have a reservation in recommending
this program to you, though, since you do not appear to have mastered
PE at its simplest level (the work area bar...;-), but there is my Vegas
(probably confusing) instruction guide (good for all formats, but particular
to HDV), at --
http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/Sony-editing.htm and Sony has
some easy to follow video tutorials at --
http://www.sonycreativesoftware.com/support/trainingvids.asp?prod=moviestudio
and
http://www.sonycreativesoftware.com/support/trainingvids.asp?prod=vegaspro
and also within the "cheap" program is a built-in tutorial that leads you
through operations that you want to do (*IF* you can figure out what the
operation would be called in Sony-speak"...;-) But, the basics in these
programs are generally fairly easy, um, kinda...;-)
--David Ruether
www.David-Ruether-Photography.com
d_ruether....@....hotmail.com
~~~~~~~~
"mike" <mkujbida@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:e1a43e42-ea8f-47aa-8ace-3d9669cf4069@k22g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...
On Oct 19, 5:28 am, Brian <bcl...@es.co.nz> wrote:
>> Thanks for the info on Vegas. I tried it and for some unknown reason
>> when you want to create a new video/sound track the new sound track is
>> not below the new video track. The new video track is above the old
>> video track and the sound track is below the old sound track...there
>> might be an option to change this from happening.
>>
>> Regards Brian
> Brian, that's just the way Vegas does things.
> Any and all tracks can be re-ordered by clicking and dragging the
> track header up or down to the desired location.
> After you start a brand new project and before adding any media to the
> timeline, you can delete all the tracks that were created for you and
> start clean.
> That way, you add only what you want when you want it and you won't
> get confused :-)
>
> Mike
For Brian: the track headers are the boxes at the track left sides
(with several options available inside the headers, including "silencing"
the tracks, gross vertical resizing of the tracks, track audio level and
balance, and naming the tracks). As Mike pointed out, you can grab
any track header and move it anywhere else. If there is "no room", the
track will show as a narrow outline in the new position between two
other tracks until the mouse is released, after which it will open up and
take its place. If at some point during editing you have unused tracks,
you can click on a track's header and hit the "Delete" key. In Vegas,
you can back up as far as you want with "un-does", even beyond save
points, so you really can't do much wrong if you discover the mistake
soon enough. I prefer to save projects at different points with names
like "AAA-Fall Color", "BBB-Fall Color", "CCC-Fall Color", on two
physically different hard-drives (my "Fall Color" video project has
450 clips on the timeline, so I didn't want to lose track of things...! ;-).
Anyway, one could go on and on about why this program is so amazing,
and a true "steal" at around $70, but I guess I won't. I have learned most
of it by trying things (but there are still capabilities I don't yet know how
to make use of), but you may need to start with the video tutorials and
then read the book. Or, get local instruction (I was very surprised that
you did not know how to use that very basic work-area bar in PE,
which is also present in most other editing programs). Most of editing
is easy and fun, once you know the basics - and you can add much
more capability later as you explore what is possible with a versatile
program like Vegas.
--DR
~~~~~~~
"Brian" <bclark@es.co.nz> wrote in message
news:n9nsb6p7o339ah3j0584aoklavvcim4e3k@4ax.com...
> "David Ruether" <d_ruether@thotmail.com> wrote:
>>"mike" <mkujbida@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>news:e1a43e42-ea8f-47aa-8ace-3d9669cf4069@k22g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...
>>On Oct 19, 5:28 am, Brian <bcl...@es.co.nz> wrote:
>>>> Thanks for the info on Vegas. I tried it and for some unknown reason
>>>> when you want to create a new video/sound track the new sound track is
>>>> not below the new video track. The new video track is above the old
>>>> video track and the sound track is below the old sound track...there
>>>> might be an option to change this from happening.
>>>>
>>>> Regards Brian
>>> Brian, that's just the way Vegas does things.
>>> Any and all tracks can be re-ordered by clicking and dragging the
>>> track header up or down to the desired location.
>>> After you start a brand new project and before adding any media to the
>>> timeline, you can delete all the tracks that were created for you and
>>> start clean.
>>> That way, you add only what you want when you want it and you won't
>>> get confused :-)
>>>
>>> Mike
>>For Brian: the track headers are the boxes at the track left sides
>>(with several options available inside the headers, including "silencing"
>>the tracks, gross vertical resizing of the tracks, track audio level and
>>balance, and naming the tracks). As Mike pointed out, you can grab
>>any track header and move it anywhere else. If there is "no room", the
>>track will show as a narrow outline in the new position between two
>>other tracks until the mouse is released, after which it will open up and
>>take its place. If at some point during editing you have unused tracks,
>>you can click on a track's header and hit the "Delete" key. In Vegas,
>>you can back up as far as you want with "un-does", even beyond save
>>points, so you really can't do much wrong if you discover the mistake
>>soon enough. I prefer to save projects at different points with names
>>like "AAA-Fall Color", "BBB-Fall Color", "CCC-Fall Color", on two
>>physically different hard-drives (my "Fall Color" video project has
>>450 clips on the timeline, so I didn't want to lose track of things...! ;-).
>>Anyway, one could go on and on about why this program is so amazing,
>>and a true "steal" at around $70, but I guess I won't. I have learned most
>>of it by trying things (but there are still capabilities I don't yet know how
>>to make use of), but you may need to start with the video tutorials and
>>then read the book. Or, get local instruction (I was very surprised that
>>you did not know how to use that very basic work-area bar in PE,
>>which is also present in most other editing programs). Most of editing
>>is easy and fun, once you know the basics - and you can add much
>>more capability later as you explore what is possible with a versatile
>>program like Vegas.
>>--DR
> Thanks Mike and David for the info on Vegas. I'll take another look at
> Vegas as I like to try out different video editors. It will be
> interesting to compare it with PE8.
> I have not had much need to use the work-area bar and it seems to hide
> it's self as a thin bar so I need to catchup on some knowlege on it in
> the manual.
>
> Regards Brian
In PE (at least PE4), the bar is not subtle, depending on your screen size
and resolution - but in Vegas, it doesn't exist until you put the mouse in
the proper vertical area for the "<-->" symbol to appear. The left (then
the right, or reverse) ends snap to the clip/video ends, and a VERY wide
blue band covers the timeline in the area selected, kinda hard to miss...! ;-).
Without setting the work area and specifying that as the limits for rendering,
you may be exporting far more video than you intend - but the default in PE
may be a proper setting of these two items... But without using the work
area bar for making and exporting clips for later use (such as titles and
complex effects), you are missing something that can help you during
editing.
--DR
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Paul Furman" <paul-@-edgehill.net> wrote in message
news:EIednd2hipFHTiLRnZ2dnUVZ5oednZ2d@giganews.com...
> Paul Furman wrote:
>> That thread title is from the last time I struggled with this in 2008,
>> now I'm back at it and rusty. Here's the original thread:
>> http://www.photography-forums.com/frame-sizes-vegas-t100694.html
>> This time when I figure it out, I promise to post the solution!
>>
>> Problem is a DSLR time lapse in 2:3 aspect ratio dropped into a 16:9
>> frame and the Event Pan/Crop cannot overcome black bars on the side of
>> the preview.
>>
>> OK, I figured it out:
>>
>> Event Pan/Crop
>> Stretch to fill frame [Yes]
>>
>> I resisted that because I don't want the image stretched but it's OK, it
>> doesn't actually stretch the image, just allows you to crop and fill the
>> frame when the source is a different aspect ratio. The default behavior
>> makes no sense but it's solved!
> But, it's not obeying the tilt that I apply with Event Pan/Crop in the
> final 1920x1080 render to m2t HDV 108050i. Why? It shows right in the
> Vegas preview window but not in the rendered results. Should I be using
> the Track Motion video overlay for that? 'Cause I couldn't make much
> sense of that one, I tried going back and forth without useful results.
> Any tips appreciated.
You are using the two parts of Vegas that still m-y-s-t-i-f-y me... :-(
Perhaps these tutorials will help --
http://www.sonycreativesoftware.com/video/video.asp?Title=Training+%2D+Vegas+Pro+%2D+Pan+%26amp%3B+Scan+Techniques&File=training/vegas8/09PanScanTechniques&VideoPref=fastwm
and maybe --
http://www.sonycreativesoftware.com/video/video.asp?file=training/vegas8/10TrackMotion&title=Training+%2D+Vegas+Pro+%2D+Track+Motion&VideoPref=
Don't forget that right-clicking on a keyframe and selecting "smooth" will
soften the ketframmed shift into the new "whatever" on the timeline at that point...
--DR
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Etian" <54698212@sonic-news.com> wrote in message
news:264b7$4cb87e03$bda48973$29343@news.sonic-news.com...
> How did it happen that viewfinders became so unimportant on cameras?
> It's the primary point of interface between photographer and camera.
> Holding a camera at arms length to look at a screen, you lose direct eye
> contact with the subject. You can't even see the screen in bright
> sunlight. How did it happen that consumers grew to accept a product
> that's nearly useless in daylight?
>
> Of course, that's where the DSLR's came in. But you lose the benefit in
> video recording mode.
>
> My last camcorder had an optical viewfinder (Sony superbeta). I love
> how it was always on, even with the lens cap in place and the power
> turned off. It was bright, sharp, and I could accurately focus manually
> by zooming all the way in, then zooming back out to start shooting.
> There was a bit of parallax error, but I learned to allow for that.
>
> It's an awfully short list, tapeless digital camcorders with any
> viewfinder at all. I'm mainly considering these two Panasonics:
>
> HDC-TM700K
> DMC-FZ100
>
> I prefer the form factor of the FZ100. Sometimes you just want to look
> like a tourist snapping stills. Are the sensor and optics substantially
> better on the TM700K? (I don't need all that zoom of the FZ100, but I do
> like it's extra-wide angle.)
>
> But I haven't ruled out the Panasonic AG-HMC40 pro camcorder either.
> It's price, after all, is less than I paid for my Sony super-beta when
> it first came out.
I have not yet tried the Panasonic HDC-TM700 camcorder, but it is
VERY appealing for video quality (it shoots a new format, 28Mbps
VBR 60p, editable directly with recent Vegas versions [Pro 8, 9, 10,
and Platinum 10] with a fast computer, and with other editors by
converting 60p original footage recorded to the internal 32 gig flash
memory to 60i internally to an SD card in its slot (there appears to be
little loss in quality doing this, compared with shooting relatively inferior
60i original footage...). It is also tiny, with apparently good controls
and ports (but unfortunately there is no Lanc port). Here is some
footage shot with this 3X 1/4" CMOS camcorder in the rain, at --
http://exposureroom.com/members/Flip50/3e3aa8a69e454ee8b9d0eb6210bb895b
Note the excellent detail in the saturated oranges and reds and in the
highlights, difficult for small single-chip camcorders to achieve. A still
from this camera also looks very good (after some adjustment). I have
yet to see bright-day footage, which would tell me if the image contrast
is OK or too high, but this camera looks like a real winner...
--David Ruether
www.David-Ruether-Photography.com
d_ruether....@....hotmail.com
~~~~~~~~
"Gary Eickmeier" <geickmei@tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message
news:2PYwo.83901$bR2.78780@unlimited.newshosting.com...
> What would be the equivalent of dpreview for video cameras? Is there a site
> that does a thorough technical and usage review of most cameras?
>
> Gary Eickmeier
Good, but they often miss mentioning details I consider important,
and their written conclusions sometimes run counter to what I observe
in the samples they provide - but I usually check out the reviews at --
www.camcorderinfo.com . When I write a review, I try to include
subjective evaluations of the quality of the camcorder's output as well
as the good/bad things encountered while using it from my point of
view. It is VERY difficult to write a definitive review of anything that
will inform everyone/anyone of every particular item that may be
important, unfortunately. Nothing beats using the piece of gear
yourself over a period of time to know whether or not it serves its
purpose for you...;-)
--DR
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
"Smarty" <nobody@nobody.com> wrote in message
news:ia4msl$56h$1@news.eternal-september.org...
> On 10/24/2010 12:05 PM, Gary Eickmeier wrote:
>> What would be the equivalent of dpreview for video cameras? Is there a
>> site
>> that does a thorough technical and usage review of most cameras?
>>
>> Gary Eickmeier
> Gary,
>
> By far the most comprehensive site I have found for camcorder reviews is
> in Germany, where "VideoAktiv" has over 150 detailed camcorder reviews /
> reviews including extremely recent models, some yet to be released.
>
> Note that if you go to the link titled "Cam test video" in the upper left
> corner of the page, you will not only see the 150+ reviews sorted by
> manufacturer (near the bottom of the page) but you can download each and
> every original capture file. The capture files are all taken with
> identical test conditions and reveal the worst and best of each camcorder,
> in particular useful to compare autofocus performance, low light
> sensitivty, etc. on a camcorder to camcorder basis.
>
> I have downloaded many .mts files for this type of comparison and also to
> evaluate AVCHD software compatibility.
>
> This site entirely blows away the camcorderinfo.com site, which is written
> by far less capable and knowledgeable video and photography folks, and is
> filled with errors mostly of omission but also some plain stupid
> conclusions.
>
> The Google translator should return pages properly converted to English
> with the following link:
>
> http://tinyurl.com/29ldlex
>
> Good luck and happy hunting!
>
> Smarty
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
~~~~~~~~
"Gary Eickmeier" <geickmei@tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message
news:CLuuo.475$Hz4.81@unlimited.newshosting.com...
> "David Ruether" <d_ruether@thotmail.com> wrote in message
news:i9cedr$g4j$1@ruby.cit.cornell.edu...
>> I have not yet tried the Panasonic HDC-TM700 camcorder, but it is
>> VERY appealing for video quality (it shoots a new format, 28Mbps
>> VBR 60p, editable directly with recent Vegas versions [Pro 8, 9, 10,
>> and Platinum 10] with a fast computer, and with other editors by
>> converting 60p original footage recorded to the internal 32 gig flash
>> memory to 60i internally to an SD card in its slot (there appears to be
>> little loss in quality doing this, compared with shooting relatively inferior
>> 60i original footage...). It is also tiny, with apparently good controls
>> and ports (but unfortunately there is no Lanc port). Here is some
>> footage shot with this 3X 1/4" CMOS camcorder in the rain, at --
>> http://exposureroom.com/members/Flip50/3e3aa8a69e454ee8b9d0eb6210bb895b
>> Note the excellent detail in the saturated oranges and reds and in the
>> highlights, difficult for small single-chip camcorders to achieve. A still
>> from this camera also looks very good (after some adjustment). I have
>> yet to see bright-day footage, which would tell me if the image contrast
>> is OK or too high, but this camera looks like a real winner...
>> --David Ruether
>> www.David-Ruether-Photography.com
>> d_ruether....@....hotmail.com
> Wow, that is REALLY sharp footage David. Must look into it. I think
> that is one of the little amateur cameras but it has the same imager as
> the HMC40. Is this thing good in low light?
>
> Gary Eickmeier
By reputation, it is good in low light (but maybe not great - I just dunno...).
"Image quality" depends on MANY things, such as color-accuracy, good
tonality (including good retention of details in both highlights and shadows
without looking "flat"), good retention of detail in saturated colors, good
overall detail level, relative freedom from artifacting (including noise, edge,
and motion-effects, etc.). This camera (the Panasonic HDC-TM700)
looks VERY promising for a relatively cheap and tiny camcorder, but
I will not know for sure until I get one in my hot, shaky hands to try...;-)
Also, there is still the matter of the formats it shoots in, and the difficulty
of editing them without either transcoding them to larger file types or getting
a whiz-bang computer to handle the material. I already have compatible
software (Sony Vegas), but other software makers have been slower in
adapting to the 28 Mbps VBR 60p format. BTW, what was used in the
ExposureRoom example above was shot in 60p, transcoded in-camera
to 60i, brought into a Mac with transcoding again using ProRes, then
edited in FCP (whew! ;-).
--DR
~~~~~~~~~
"Gary Eickmeier" <geickmei@tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message
news:m9Guo.44793$bR2.10475@unlimited.newshosting.com...
> Yah, I certainly agree on the computer requirements. They are telling me I
> need CS5, but for that I need a new motherboard with AMD Phenom II quad-core
> at least processor, 8G of memory, an $800 NVidia video card, and perhaps the
> Matrox MX02 with MAX, whatever that is. All this, after I have upgraded my
> computer already and purchased CS4 Production Suite just so I could edit
> AVCHD footage. Haven't gotten down to installing it yet, so I will see how
> fast it is, but everyone is telling me from all angles that I am crazy if I
> don't get the CS5.
Run, do not walk, to Vegas Movie Studio HD Platinum 10. For $70(!!!),
you get good, versatile software that handles AVCHD (with acceleration
included) - AND, you are not stuck on Adobe's expensive upgrade
treadmill. If you have not opened/registered the CS4, try selling it and
move on...! ;-) (You may have guessed that I'm not a fan of Adobe's
generally overpriced software, except for specific needs...)
> Right now I am into those large imager still and video hybrids such as the
> Sony NEX line, because of some impressive low light performance. Wasn't real
> happy with the VG10 because it has such a stiff zoom ring it is unusable for
> a slow, steady push or pull. However, the less expensive little NEX-5 still
> camera does full HD video with the same imager, and may be good enough. Need
> to test one in the Sony store. Will let you know.
>
> They have no Panasonic 700s in the local stores.
>
> Gary Eickmeier
Why accept "good enough", especially if it is not cheap - except as before,
if there is some specific need to satisfy... If you want great low light
performance in a video camera, it is hard to beat the Panasonic 150.
--DR
~~~~~~~~~
"Gary Eickmeier" <geickmei@tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message
news:XOHuo.3813$8K6.174@unlimited.newshosting.com...
> "David Ruether" <d_ruether@thotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:i9fcp2$46v$1@ruby.cit.cornell.edu...
>> "Gary Eickmeier" <geickmei@tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message
>> news:m9Guo.44793$bR2.10475@unlimited.newshosting.com...
>>> Yah, I certainly agree on the computer requirements. They are telling me
>>> I need CS5, but for that I need a new motherboard with AMD Phenom II
>>> quad-core at least processor, 8G of memory, an $800 NVidia video card,
>>> and perhaps the Matrox MX02 with MAX, whatever that is. All this, after I
>>> have upgraded my computer already and purchased CS4 Production Suite just
>>> so I could edit AVCHD footage. Haven't gotten down to installing it yet,
>>> so I will see how fast it is, but everyone is telling me from all angles
>>> that I am crazy if I don't get the CS5.
>> Run, do not walk, to Vegas Movie Studio HD Platinum 10. For $70(!!!),
>> you get good, versatile software that handles AVCHD (with acceleration
>> included) - AND, you are not stuck on Adobe's expensive upgrade
>> treadmill. If you have not opened/registered the CS4, try selling it and
>> move on...! ;-) (You may have guessed that I'm not a fan of Adobe's
>> generally overpriced software, except for specific needs...)
>>> Right now I am into those large imager still and video hybrids such as
>>> the Sony NEX line, because of some impressive low light performance.
>>> Wasn't real happy with the VG10 because it has such a stiff zoom ring it
>>> is unusable for a slow, steady push or pull. However, the less expensive
>>> little NEX-5 still camera does full HD video with the same imager, and
>>> may be good enough. Need to test one in the Sony store. Will let you
>>> know.
>>>
>>> They have no Panasonic 700s in the local stores.
>>>
>>> Gary Eickmeier
>> Why accept "good enough", especially if it is not cheap - except as
>> before,
>> if there is some specific need to satisfy... If you want great low light
>> performance in a video camera, it is hard to beat the Panasonic 150.
>> --DR
> Yah, for what, about $3000? I am just really intrigued by the possibility of
> a single camera that can shoot still and video. And I don't mean on a 1/3"
> imager.
Yes, but what do you mean by "low light"? My old Sony VX2000 could
shoot fairly well (with color-correction during editing) under candlelight,
but now I have no need for that capability, and even the Canon HV20
is better than what I need, and the TM700 is likely better than even that.
And, it shoots good stills in addition to excellent video when there is
enough light. We all want a tiny, cheap camera that shoots both superb
stills and video even in the dark (the TM700 appears to be close enough,
though), but it isn't pocketable, it isn't under $400, it doesn't shoot in the
dark, it doesn't have 1" sensors, it doesn't have a 25X zoom, etc., etc., etc.
> I am somewhat committed to the Adobe Production Suite, because it has After
> Effects, Bridge, Soundbooth, Photoshop, and a few others. I am heavy into
> stills as well as video.
>
> Gary
It depends on what capabilities you need/want, and how much you have
to spend. I guess I was trying to say that one can make completely pro
level HD videos now with relatively modest gear and software. In other
words, you don't need to maintain the equivalent of an expensive sports
car to drive to the grocery store or to commute to work (and you can
still have a very "able" and interesting car anyway by buying wisely...;-).
But, whatever...8^)
--DR
~~~~~
"Gary Eickmeier" <geickmei@tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message
news:CBBvo.7765$3d1.5988@unlimited.newshosting.com...
> "David Ruether" <d_ruether@thotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:i9g3pf$ggo$1@ruby.cit.cornell.edu...
>> It depends on what capabilities you need/want, and how much you have
>> to spend. I guess I was trying to say that one can make completely pro
>> level HD videos now with relatively modest gear and software. In other
>> words, you don't need to maintain the equivalent of an expensive sports
>> car to drive to the grocery store or to commute to work (and you can
>> still have a very "able" and interesting car anyway by buying
>> wisely...;-).
>> But, whatever...8^)
>> --DR
> David -
>
> I have played with the Sony large frame cameras now, and am still not
> satisfied. Looking closer at the Panasonic HMC-40. This camera has small
> imagers (1/4 inch) but it is a 3-chip, and is known for good low light
> capability. Has all of the frame rates and settings, too. What do you think?
> Also $200 less than Sony VG10.
>
> Gary Eickmeier
I have not yet looked at the footage closely, but comparing the HV20
in the VF with the same with the HMC-TM700 with VERY low lighting
(and flowers in an even darker area), the two appeared surprisingly similar
(but the noise levels may not be, when viewed on a 42" screen...). It appears
that the HMC 40 and the TM-700 probably use the same 3 1/4" chips,
but the very tiny "guts" of the 700 may have been buried in the shoulder
mount style of the 40 (Panasonic has done this before, with two Mini-DV
camcorders). I just found the hidden focus adjust on the 700, but its VF
is still terrible, and likely FAR inferior to the 40's. One BIG advantage
for the 700 may be its ability to shoot 1080 60*p*, which is described
as superior in image quality to the 1080i footage shot by the same camera,
and by accounts (that I don't quite understand how they could be true),
the 60p footage transcoded in the camera to 1080i is superior to its
native 1080i. I shot some tests today with the HV20 with HDV, the 700
at 1080p (with later transcoding of some 1080p in-camera to 1080i),
and the 700 at 1080i to check this, but it may be some time before I sort
out the editing and a way to view the material in a meaningful way. So
it comes down to a few features, form factor, VF quality, and ultimate
image quality between the 40 and 700. BTW, I would also take a serious
look at the Canon XH-A1s (3 1/3rd" CCDs [no image "wubblies" with
panning or shaking...], and it is easier to edit and archive it's source
footage). Prices/features/capabilities vary among cameras, but, "It depends
on what capabilities you need/want, and how much you have to spend."
--DR
~~~~~~~~
"Gary Eickmeier" <geickmei@tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message
news:a1Pvo.78104$bR2.15474@unlimited.newshosting.com...
> The HMC-40 doesn't have a fine pixel count viewfinder like a lot of the
> newest cameras, but if it is workable all that counts is the video results.
> I don't imagine my VX2000 has a 921 meg viewfinder either, but I can focus
> with it just fine.
>
> I have found that the little Sony 350 and 550 are just splendid producers.
> Superior to the large imager Sonys that are really hybrids. Must be that
> cameras designed to be video cameras are a lot better than hybrids. The
> little Sonys have no visible grain, good low light (in Best Buy anyway), and
> are sharp as a tack. They just look like amateur cameras and don't have some
> of the features of the Panasonic. Not sure about the relationship between
> the Panasonic TM700 and HMC40, but I think you're right about same imager.
>
> Main problem is how to test anything that is not carried in convenient
> stores. I don't live in New York, and reviewers are idiots.
>
> Thanks,
> Gary Eickmeier
I try to offer user-reviews on gear I'm interested in, have access to,
or that I can afford. I'm still evaluating the Panasonic HMC-TM700.
(Of each of several clips shot/processed in four different ways I put
the Canon HDV HV20 footage on the top track, the Panasonic TM700
60p footage on the next track down, the 700 in-camera processed
60p-to-60i AVCHD on the next, and original 700 60i footage on the
bottom track. I then move them sideways to best-I-can line up the clips
for similar frames under the cursor position. I can then switch on/off
the various tracks to compare them. With the HV20 settings at exposure
bias at -1, saturation at -1, and contrast at -1, the various tracks look
very similar except that the 700 image is a bit warmer, and the HV20
image has a bit more red in it. As far as sharpness is concerned, the
order from best to worst is 700 60p, 700 60p-->60i in-camera
conversion (slow...) *or* the HV20, with the 700 60i being the least
sharp. I have much "pixel-peeping" ahead, but what I can say now is
that the 700 in 60p or 60i is better by maybe a stop in low light than
the HV20 for exposure, color, and relative freedom from noise (but
a VX2000 it is not...). With greater noise, the HV20 footage can
*almost* approximate the 700 footage with some work while editing.
My first impression is that the TM700 is a great little camera (with a
poor eyepiece VF), but if I could afford (and handle it), I would likely
want the Canon XH-A1s (and it is likely superior for low-light work,
although it is not cheap). BTW, I tried comparing the clips in Vegas
Platinum 10, but some quirk in its preview window setup prevented
correct framing and resolution, and as a result, footage looked worse
than it did when the material was moved to my computer with Vegas
Pro 8 on it, where, with the quad-core CPU, the 60p material also
played reasonably well, to my surprise.
--David Ruether
www.David-Ruether-Photography.com
d_ruether....@....hotmail.com
~~~~~
"David Ruether" <d_ruether@thotmail.com> wrote in message
news:i9sed8$pld$1@ruby.cit.cornell.edu...
> BTW, I tried comparing the clips in Vegas
> Platinum 10, but some quirk in its preview window setup prevented
> correct framing and resolution, and as a result, footage looked worse
> than it did when the material was moved to my computer with Vegas
> Pro 8 on it, where, with the quad-core CPU, the 60p material also
> played reasonably well, to my surprise.
> --DR
Right-clicking on the preview image gave me more control over the
preview resolution, so I was able to get the correct 960x540 resolution
for best image quality at "Best", "Full", but it still had narrow black bands
top and bottom, but that is better than the wide bands that were there
before that occupied much valuable timeline track space. BTW, in Vegas,
you can go to "Options", "Preferences", "Video" and reset the RAM
preview from the default 128 megs to 1024 megs. You can then stretch
the work area bar over a short area that may not be playing smoothly
and hit "Shift" + "B". Wait until the preview has copied or rendered to
RAM, then hit the space bar to play it...
--DR
~~~~~~~~~
"Gary Eickmeier" <geickmei@tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message
news:Kcqwo.1$YQ.0@unlimited.newshosting.com...
> "David Ruether" <d_ruether@thotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:i9sr0i$k35$1@ruby.cit.cornell.edu...
>> "David Ruether" <d_ruether@thotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:i9sed8$pld$1@ruby.cit.cornell.edu...
>>> BTW, I tried comparing the clips in Vegas
>>> Platinum 10, but some quirk in its preview window setup prevented
>>> correct framing and resolution, and as a result, footage looked worse
>>> than it did when the material was moved to my computer with Vegas
>>> Pro 8 on it, where, with the quad-core CPU, the 60p material also
>>> played reasonably well, to my surprise.
>>> --DR
>> Right-clicking on the preview image gave me more control over the
>> preview resolution, so I was able to get the correct 960x540 resolution
>> for best image quality at "Best", "Full", but it still had narrow black bands
>> top and bottom, but that is better than the wide bands that were there
>> before that occupied much valuable timeline track space. BTW, in Vegas,
>> you can go to "Options", "Preferences", "Video" and reset the RAM
>> preview from the default 128 megs to 1024 megs. You can then stretch
>> the work area bar over a short area that may not be playing smoothly
>> and hit "Shift" + "B". Wait until the preview has copied or rendered to
>> RAM, then hit the space bar to play it...
>> --DR
> David,
> I don't think the HV20 is any good in low light. Doesn't yours give a static
> pattern noise image behind the video in the darkest scenes? Looks kinda like
> a movie projected onto a leather suitcase.
Yes. It drops from "kinda acceptable" to what you describe, rather suddenly
as the light level gradually drops. The TM700 has very noticeably better low
light performance, but ultimately, it doesn't go much farther down... The 1/3rd"
3-chip larger Canon should be better, and the Panasonic 150 certainly is far
better in low light.
> I have had a problem viewing my test footage in Hi Def, because it is hard
> to put it on a large monitor without a WYSIWYG output for your editing
> system. So what I finally ended up doing was importing the footage I shot
> into Premiere Elements 7 and then outputting it on Blu Ray disc. I then play
> the disc on my Panasonic Blu Ray player into my projector. I have a 12 foot
> image in my viewing room, good enough to evaluate any hi def video. So far,
> the little Sony AVCHD camera looks best, with the NEX cameras the only other
> ones in the comparison.
A) I'm not a fan of projection systems for sharpness...
B) Nothing beats a ***GOOD*** 1080p LCD display for sharpness (and
they do vary in quality among brands and models and setups...).
C) With Vegas, you can run an HDTV off your video card while also using
a standard monitor for editing, and I find the 1/2-sized preview window in
Vegas (set at "Best" "Full") viewed within the program interface on a good
1920x1200 monitor sufficient for evaluations (see this for an idea, although
keep in mind that this image has been reduced in size and has been
considerably compressed) --
http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/SONY-NUMBERED-LAYOUT.htm
D) I'm not a fan of AVCHD cameras for sharpness and motion quality, except
*maybe* for a very few, like the TM700 (for sharpness, at least).
E) Editing AVCHD and its variants is a PITA compared with HDV.
> Will install my Premiere CS4 Production Suite this weekend and then I can
> compare anything real easily from the timeline. It plays out onto a 26"
> monitor in the editing room.
>
> Gary Eickmeier
This may work...;-)
--DR
~~~~~~~~~~~
"Gary Eickmeier" <geickmei@tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message
news:2PYwo.83901$bR2.78780@unlimited.newshosting.com...
> What would be the equivalent of dpreview for video cameras? Is
> there a site that does a thorough technical and usage review of
> most cameras?
>
> Gary Eickmeier
Good, but they often miss mentioning details I consider important,
and their written conclusions sometimes run counter to what I observe
in the samples they provide - but I usually check out the reviews at --
www.camcorderinfo.com . When I write a review, I try to include
subjective evaluations of the quality of the camcorder's output as well
as the good/bad things encountered while using it from my point of
view. It is VERY difficult to write a definitive review of anything that
will inform everyone/anyone of every particular item that may be
important, unfortunately. Nothing beats using the piece of gear
yourself over a period of time to know whether or not it serves its
purpose for you...;-)
--DR
~~~~~~~~~~
"Gary Eickmeier" <geickmei@tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message
news:us4xo.15958$RT7.12283@unlimited.newshosting.com...
> Well, David, I must say, that is the most useful advice I have ever been
> given on purchasing information. I read up on the Panasonic HMC-40, and it
> is astonishing how much better the TMS-700 is - better even than most other
> cameras they have evaluated, and costs half or even less than the HMC-40. I
> was just about ready to jump on into that briar patch, assuming the 40 MUST
> be better because it cost so much more.
Now if only the TM700 had a MUCH better eyepiece VF...! ;-)
> It was also useful to read about the Panasonic unique encoding for the 1080P
> mode, which is not editable in any program but theirs.
This is not true. I can directly edit the 60p footage in Vegas Pro 8 (and 9 and
10), but not (I found) in Platinum 10, alas. In Vegas Pro, I can save the edited
video in Blu-ray format on HDs and/or Blu-ray disks - and that is with an older
version of Vegas, and with a now-relatively-modest XP/quad-core computer...
> I don't know if you
> can capture it from the HDMI or the component output,
It is transferred from the camera's internal flash memory or accessory memory
card to the computer using USB 2, or you can in-camera transfer files to the
card, or transcode 1080p quite well to to the card from the internal memory
(and this footage *does* look almost as good as 1080p original, and noticeably
better than 60i original material shot in the camera [oddly], and then the card
can be read in a card reader attached to [or internal to] the computer). BTW,
the in-camera transcoding from 1080p to 1080i does take quite a bit of time.
With a Mac, 1080i AVCHD can be transcoded with ProRes422 for easier
editing, and on a PC, the $100 Cineform can do something similar - but I would
prefer editing and exporting the 1080p material directly, which I can do now,
but "souping up" my computer would make editing easier (and if I bought the
camera, a 64-bit i7 with Win 7 would be acquired soon after...;-). Pro 9 has
been sitting on my shelf unopened for quite a while now...
> but in digital it is a
> no-go for any editing program, and their unique program will not work on a
> MAC.
See above, but the cheapest/best solution is, I think, still Vegas Pro. There is
one new copy of Vegas 8 available here for $350 (and other places also likely
still have it), at --
http://www.amazon.com/gp/offer-listing/B000VVC01A/ref=dp_olp_new?ie=UTF8&condition=new
This can then be updated, if you choose to do that (see the Sony site for
prices on upgrades - and they are MUCH cheaper than Adobe's upgrades).
> But 1080P60 is not real editable anyway, except maybe on CS5 on a
> supercomputer. They also said nothing about the 24P mode, which I presume I
> would want to use for potential transfer to film.
>
> Thanks,
> Gary Eickmeier
The TM700 has only 60i, 60p (and internal transcoding from 60p to 60i), but
I hate the slower frame rates anyway (why degrade video to simulate a fault
in film?). Besides, most video is released now in video format, and video is
growing for commercial theater releases (it just plain looks better...;-). With
60p, it is tempting to explore converting it to 1/2-speed slow motion. BTW,
Sony Vegas permits considerable tonal adjustment while editing. Using the
"color curves" filter, you can leave the darkest and lightest ends in the image
fixed while bringing up the lower mid tones to open up shadows, etc. to get
the tonal appearance you want.
--DR
~~~~~~~~
"Gary Eickmeier" <geickmei@tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message
news:pToxo.185301$fK6.103435@unlimited.newshosting.com...
> "David Ruether" <d_ruether@thotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:ia40kf$3ot$1@ruby.cit.cornell.edu...
>> "Gary Eickmeier" <geickmei@tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message
>> news:us4xo.15958$RT7.12283@unlimited.newshosting.com...
>>> I don't know if you can capture it from the HDMI or the component output,
>> It is transferred from the camera's internal flash memory or
>> accessory memory card to the computer using USB 2, or you can
>> in-camera transfer files to the card, or transcode 1080p quite
>> well to the card from the internal memory (and this footage
>> *does* look almost as good as 1080p original, and noticeably
>> better than 60i original material shot in the camera [oddly],
>> and then the card can be read in a card reader attached to [
>> or internal to] the computer). BTW, the in-camera transcoding
>> from 1080p to 1080i does take quite a bit of time. With a Mac,
>> 1080i AVCHD can be transcoded with ProRes422 for easier
>> editing, and on a PC, the $100 Cineform can do something
>> similar - but I would prefer editing and exporting the 1080p
>> material directly, which I can do now, but "souping up" my
>> computer would make editing easier (and if I bought the camera,
>> a 64-bit i7 with Win 7 would be acquired soon after...;-). Pro 9
>> has been sitting on my shelf unopened for quite a while now...
> I'm not sure you are catching my meaning here. I know you are supposed to
> download the digital files, but if those files are not of a type that your
> programs can deal with, then why not capture the HDMI or component stream in
> real time with your capture card? It will then be in whatever format your
> capture program desires. And you couldn't care less about compatibility of
> capture format and edit format.
Think of it this way...;-) If your software and computer now could
handle only the single-RCA connector video signal quality level,
but your camcorder could export "S" video, would you be satisfied
with that, especially if your software cost "a fortune"? (Or, to carry it
forward to Mini-DV, with the camcorder having a FireWire connection
while you are still transferring with an "S" cable, then digitizing. ;-)
Doing what you suggest will result in a quality hit. Your only reasonable
option with Adobe to preserve as much as possible of the image quality
with the TM700 is to shoot in 60p, then in-camera convert that to 60i,
then transfer that as I described above. If your computer cannot
properly handle directly-loaded 17 Mbps 60i AVCHD files converted
from the 28 Mbps 60p files in-camera at this point, then...............
> And yes, I wish it had a 900mp viewfinder or LCD too, but will accept the
> low res one as long as I can focus at least as easy as my VX2000.
You can't - the TM700's eyepiece VF is REALLY poor... And, HD
has higher focusing accuracy needs than SD, especially with a camera
with an image as sharp as this one's.
> Wish I could go Vegas, but I am committed to Premiere with my Matrox capture
> card and plug-in software. I will now have After Effects and full Photoshop,
> which I have never had before. Bought a little Wacom tablet (Intuos) to go
> along with it all. Now I can work with the AVCHD format flash memory
> cameras, but I don't quite have that yet.
Sigh......, with visions of someone sinking into the quicksand...;-).
But wait! The seller of this year's quicksand will soon have "new and
improved" quicksand available, at a special (remarkably high) "upgrade"
price. Welcome to the wonderful world of the Adobe treadmill......:-(
Sorry, sometimes I just cannot resist saying things I shouldn't...;-)
> Thanks again,
> Gary
No problem...;-)
Good luck with it all - and it should work.
--DR
~~~~~~~~
"David Ruether" <d_ruether@thotmail.com> wrote in message
news:ia6lqb$emr$1@ruby.cit.cornell.edu...
More...
I noticed from another post that you shoot weddings(?).
This may be the ideal camera for that --
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/575992-REG/Panasonic_AG_HMC150PJU.html
Specs are at --
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/575992-REG/Panasonic_AG_HMC150PJU.html#specifications
This camera (which shoots 24 Mbps AVCHD to cards) goes
without WA converters to 28mm equivalent in 35mm-format WA,
and it is also excellent in very low light (I've played with footage
from a "no-light" wedding reception shot with it, and it was excellent).
BTW (not to rub it in TOO much...;-), Vegas Pro can do multi-camera
editing while seeing the multiple images in the preview window at
once...;-)
--DR
~~~~~~~
"Gary Eickmeier" <geickmei@tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message
news:UKMxo.98900$yb3.18741@unlimited.newshosting.com...
> "David Ruether" <d_ruether@thotmail.com> wrote in message
news:ia7l0t$dgt$1@ruby.cit.cornell.edu...
>> "David Ruether" <d_ruether@thotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:ia6nll$i3u$1@ruby.cit.cornell.edu...
>>> "David Ruether" <d_ruether@thotmail.com> wrote in message
>>> news:ia6lqb$emr$1@ruby.cit.cornell.edu...
>> I just bought a Panasonic HDC-TM700 (the footage just looked
>> too good to pass up, especially since B&H just lowered the price
>> to $751, but about $1000 with all the "goodies" needed, plus tax).
>> BTW, for Gary, I noticed in the Panasonic web site a mention of
>> a color low-light mode, but I know nothing yet about what it is.
>> --DR
> Would you put some test video on a card if I send you one?
Maybe...;-) Let me look more into the TM700's low-light capability,
if that is what you need. If it is poor in the low-light mode, then this
may still not be the camera for you if you want to use it for low-light
recepyions - but if not, then..........;-)
> In other areas, of course Adobe can do multi-camera editing the
> same as Vegas. Yes, I shoot weddings, but the market has dried
> right up, and I have never ever had a bride want to pay for a hi def
> wedding.
This has also been the experience of a local "go-getter" wedding shooter,
who used to have three VX2000s out on a Saturday shooting different
weddings.
> I shot one once, as a demo, for free, and gave her the disc.
> Panasonic 150? I have said before somewhere, not at that price,
> because it would never earn its keep. Great toy though. I saw
> one in action at the Wedding Photographers convention a couple
> years ago or so.
Yuh. I wasn't all that impressed with its bright-light footage compared
(indirectly) with the HV20's, but it was excellent in VERY low light.
> If the eyepiece VF in the 700 is so poor, can you connect up a high
> quality monitor to it for live view? They have some HD LCD
> lightweight monitors for shooting that have about a 5 to 7 inch
> screen. Probably pricey, but hey. Not as pricey as a 150!
I've thought about this also. If a powered one can be had that would run
off a mini-HDMI cable, it might work. I've also considered some rig with
a hood and maybe magnifier on the panel screen (but that makes using
the touch screen and bottom edge buttons more difficult).
> When you say you drove it up to $1000 before it was all over,
> what accessories are you talking about?
From BHphotovideo.com, TM700, $751; VBG 260 battery, $114.49
(the stock and slightly larger VBG130 batteries have short run times);
Lexmar 32gig class 6 (100X) SD card, $69; Century 46mm-->58mm
step-up ring (so I can use my many WA adapters), $9.95 = $944.44
plus 8% NYS sales tax (no shipping charge) = $1020.
> Finally, I bet you know that Blu-Ray can only accept 60i, not
> 60P - right? So I guess the magnificent 60P footage would have to
> eventually be converted to 60i anyway.
Um, Blu-ray videos are in 60p, and with Vegas I can make 60p B-r files.
I have not yet tried writing them to Blu-ray disk, though... If I cannot, so
long as 60i is not shot in-camera, or converted externally from 60p(?),
the in-camera internal flash memory 60p to memory card conversion
to 60i 17Mbps AVCHD looks very nearly as good as the 60p material
shot in the camera (how this can be is a mystery to me), and that can
then be edited and even transferred to red-laser (ordinary) DVD disks.
> BTW, I have the Panasonic Blu-Ray player with the SDHC slot in
> it for playback, so I would be able to play your video right from
> the chip if you could shoot something for me. I could also probably
> put that video on a Blu-Ray disc for you. Do you have a BluRay
> player?
>
> Gary
I have a likely similar Panasonic player, but it will not play videos, only
stills from the card (darn!) - but it does that VERY well! ;-) I also have
a Blu-ray writer (never used for writing B-r disks in the couple of years
I've had it - and I can't find the second rewritable B-r I KNOW I have,
darn! But at least I have one to play with. Thanks for the offer, though.
--DR
~~~~~~
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
[SEE BELOW!!!]
"Frank" <frank@nojunkmail.humanvalues.net> wrote in message
news:dtggc61u4selab7p9k21dj8ecndve82p9v@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 27 Oct 2010 09:17:51 -0400, in 'rec.video.desktop',
> in article <Re: Video Camera Reviews>,
> "David Ruether" <d_ruether@thotmail.com> wrote:
>>"Gary Eickmeier" <geickmei@tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message
>>news:UKMxo.98900$yb3.18741@unlimited.newshosting.com...
>>> "David Ruether" <d_ruether@thotmail.com> wrote in message
news:ia7l0t$dgt$1@ruby.cit.cornell.edu...
>>>> "David Ruether" <d_ruether@thotmail.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:ia6nll$i3u$1@ruby.cit.cornell.edu...
>>>>> "David Ruether" <d_ruether@thotmail.com> wrote in message
>>>>> news:ia6lqb$emr$1@ruby.cit.cornell.edu...
>>> Finally, I bet you know that Blu-Ray can only accept 60i, not 60P - right?
>>> So I guess the magnificent 60P footage would have to
>>> eventually be converted to 60i anyway.
>>Um, Blu-ray videos are in 60p, and with Vegas I can make 60p B-r files.
>>I have not yet tried writing them to Blu-ray disk, though...
> David, I believe that a regular 2D (two-dimensional) Blu-ray Disc (BD)
> supports only the following four 1920 by 1080 formats -
>
> 1080i59.94
> 1080i50
> 1080p24
> 1080p23.976 (aka 23.98)
>
> Except for the larger frame size, the 1080i59.94 format matches the
> rate of standard definition (SD) NTSC television transmissions while
> the 1080i50 format matches the rate of SD PAL television
> transmissions. The 1080p24 format matches that of motion picture film
> and the 1080p23.976 format is the usual "film shot on video" frame
> rate that's usually stored within an interlaced 1080i59.94 stream with
> 2:3 pulldown (telecine).
>
> BD doesn't support 60i (1080i60), although both 1080i59.94 and 1080i60
> are part of the ATSC over-the-air (OTA) television transmission
> standard.
>
> ATSC also supports 1080p29.97 and 1080p30, neither of which are
> supported by BD.
>
> If you want 59.94p (or 50p if you're in PAL-land) on BD, then you have
> to use a frame size of 1280 by 720, as follows -
>
> 720p59.94
> 720p50
>
> 720p59.94 is also supported by the ATSC standard. ATSC also supports
> 720p60, but BD doesn't.
>
> I don't mean to be picky with regard to differentiating between the
> terms "59.94" and "60" (and the terms "29.97" and "30"), but they
> really are different rates.
>
> Side note: While ATSC only supports square-pixel formats, BD supports
> not only the full-raster 1920 by 1080 frame size but also the
> anamorphically-squeezed 1440 by 1080 format (same as used by the 1080
> HDV video tape format).
>
> Regards,
>
> --
> 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].
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
HMMM......, and AAAAAARRRRRGGGHHH!!!! I may have purchased
this camcorder too soon, working with what I thought I knew. UGH! I also
got to thinking that I had not removed the WA converter (good as it is) from
the HV20 when shooting the comparison footage with the TM700. I'm now
***ASSUMING*** (I do hope not incorrectly...) that the 60p->60i video
conversion in-camera is to 1080i59.94 (at what seems like a "slow" 17 Mbps,
although the footage does look very good...) so that the edited video may be
compatible with making BR files/disks easily. Somewhere I got the impression
that commercial BR movie disks were 1080 60p, but................
Thanks much, and, S I G H . . . . . !
More... I checked the file properties for the 60p->60i footage converted in
the camera (that process was not fast, at least with the borrowed card, and it
appears to be 59.976fps, i, and likely 17Mbps VBR). I then made a BR file
from that (25Mbps) and that went fairly quickly and looked good in playback.
I was unable to bring that file back into the project to compare it directly on
the Vegas timeline with other things, but this looks like a good way to work
with the TM700, m a y b e . . . . . . , assuming all this is worthwhile. ;-)
Thanks, again, for the information.
--DR
~~~~~~
"Frank" <frank@nojunkmail.humanvalues.net> wrote in message
news:ef8hc61hsk5rrt17ammlccbfq3v6nvepit@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 27 Oct 2010 15:14:32 -0400, in 'rec.video.desktop',
> in article <Re: Video Camera Reviews>,
> "David Ruether" <d_ruether@thotmail.com> wrote:
>>HMMM......, and AAAAAARRRRRGGGHHH!!!! I may have purchased
>>this camcorder too soon, working with what I thought I knew. UGH! I also
>>got to thinking that I had not removed the WA converter (good as it is) from
>>the HV20 when shooting the comparison footage with the TM700. I'm now
>>***ASSUMING*** (I do hope not incorrectly...) that the 60p->60i video
>>conversion in-camera is to 1080i59.94 (at what seems like a "slow" 17 Mbps,
>>although the footage does look very good...) so that the edited video may be
>>compatible with making BR files/disks easily. Somewhere I got the impression
>>that commercial BR movie disks were 1080 60p, but................
>>Thanks much, and, S I G H . . . . . !
> No problem. As far as I know, the HDC-TM700 is an okay camcorder for
> the money, especially if you don't intend to use the EVF (electronic
> view finder) - and there are several programs out there that will
> handle its non-AVCHD-standard 1080p59.94 28 Mbps VBR recording mode.
I had intended to use the "60"p files for editing (which can be done
in my Vegas Pro 8), then saving in that format for archiving and also
converting it and writing it to Blu-ray for display - but you blew holes
in that latter part very handily...;-( Now my two options are to edit and
archive as before in "60"p, and convert that to a Blu-ray or a red-laser
compatible format for display - or to in-camera convert from "60"p
to "60"i (since these files look so nearly as good as the originals, for
reasons I do not understand) and edit that (more experiments today...).
The EVF is horrible on the TM700, and I have been thinking of possible
ways around that - but its image quality relative to its price and size is
amazing, at least in bright light, which is mostly what I now shoot in.
> In fact, some people like the camcorder's 1080p59.94 mode because
> 59.94 frames per second can be easily conformed to 60 frames per
> second (using a quick-and-dirty software conversion), which is the
> refresh rate used by almost all LCD computer display devices these
> days, even in Europe.
This is not primary for me, but it is good to know...
>>Thanks, again, for the information.
> You're welcome, sir, and please note that what I wrote came entirely
> from memory - no need to use Wikipedia to refresh my memory, unlike
> some "smart" people around here - and I was still on my first cup of
> coffee, too. :)
8^), 8^), 8^)
> Actually, I think that I may have contributed to that particular
> Wikipedia article at some time. I do know that I updated the HDV
> article on several occasions.
>
> Regards,
>
> --
> 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].
Thanks, again - and thanks for being right, and for adding useful
information without being snarky. You are a gentleman. ;-)
--DR
~~~~~
"David Ruether" <d_ruether@thotmail.com> wrote in message
news:iabtj1$p03$1@ruby.cit.cornell.edu...
> I had intended to use the "60"p files for editing (which can be done
> in my Vegas Pro 8), then saving in that format for archiving and also
> converting it and writing it to Blu-ray for display - but you blew holes
> in that latter part very handily...;-( Now my two options are to edit and
> archive as before in "60"p, and convert that to a Blu-ray or a red-laser
> compatible format for display - or to in-camera convert from "60"p
> to "60"i (since these files look so nearly as good as the originals, for
> reasons I do not understand) and edit that (more experiments today...).
After much more "pixel-peeping" and making a BR 24p 25Mbps
file from the "60"p footage to compare with a BR "60"i file made
from the same original file, I've decided to work in "60"p for editing
and archiving, and to make disks in "60"i for the best looking video,
best I can tell. The difference between "60"p->"60"i in-camera
conversions is subtle compared with the "60"p original, but doing
the above also saves the transcoding time. 24p BR is sharp, but the
motion video doesn't look as good to me.
--DR
~~~~~~~~
"Frank" <frank@nojunkmail.humanvalues.net> wrote in message
news:gkkjc69g83l5butdbs533n0rd4eva9bae5@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 28 Oct 2010 10:20:40 -0400, in 'rec.video.desktop',
> in article <Re: Does Sony Vegas create a menu for DVD>,
> "David Ruether" <d_ruether@thotmail.com> wrote:
>>While I'm waiting
>>for the other computer with Platinum 10 on it to boot, I will
>>mention that other than as a data disk, a playable video DVD has
>>a maximum data rate considerably below 28Mbps (I will try
>>writing DVDs at 17Mbps,
> David, if you're talking about burning a DVD-Video disc where the
> video stream has a datarate of 17 Mbps, please be informed that few
> authoring programs will allow you to do this as the maximum
> permissible datarate is about 9.1 Mbps or so (can't recall the exact
> figure, but personally I usually limit it to about 8 or 8.25 or 8.5
> Mbps just to be on the safe side).
Thanks. This means I will not be doing this. I just tried making a video
disk with a (presumably...) 17Mbps file from the TM700, and the
authoring program took 20X the time of the original file to recompress
it from its original size to the size now on disk, and its size on disk
indicated that the on-disk data rate was about 6.8Mbps. On to Blu-ray,
where 25Mbps files can be written, right..........?;-) (I'm afraid to come
to any conclusion or to make any assertion at this point, but I do
appreciate your corrections and information. Thanks, again - from this
we all learn.)
> If, OTOH, you simply want to burn data files to a DVD-ROM disc for
> storage purposes - and play back those files on a computer, that's a
> different story.
>
> --
> 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].
I must soon read your http://www.humanvalues.net/hdv/ , really! ;-)
--DR
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"ushere" <removethis.leslie.andthis.wand@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:2jKwo.278$gM3.77@viwinnwfe01.internal.bigpond.com...
> On 24/10/2010 10:14 AM, Brian wrote:
>> I've been looking at the Sony Vegas manual lately (always interested
>> in finding out about other programs) but can't find anything about the
>> program creating a menu when your burning to a DVD disc. Do Sony Vegas
>> users use another program for creating a front-end menu for creating a
>> video that can be used on a DVD player?
>>
>> Regards Brian
> sony dvd architect (comes with vegas). does everything you want and more....
More for Brian on Platinum 10...: I've been touting it as "the Almighty's
cheap gift to editors", but while playing with it and Panasonic HDC-TM700
footage, I've discovered that it appears to have serious shortcomings not
present in the Pro (8, 9, 10) versions relative to maximum data rates in
exported files. Unless I've missed something, I could not export at rates
greater than 16 Mbps, while the Pro versions will export VERY high data
rate files, including 30 Mbps peak, 25 Mbps ave., and 20 Mbps minimum
for Blu-ray files. Also, with my Pro 8, I can work directly with the 28 Mbps
60p TM700 footage on the timeline with an XP quad-core machine, and
also export the material in the same format, or directly to Blu-ray files, which
I couldn't do with Platinum 10. Ah, well...
--DR
~~~~~
"Brian" <bclark@es.co.nz> wrote in message
news:iesic6hk3fl5k5euqnl479v2l3tgbnm4fv@4ax.com...
> "David Ruether" <d_ruether@thotmail.com> wrote:
>>"ushere" <removethis.leslie.andthis.wand@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>news:2jKwo.278$gM3.77@viwinnwfe01.internal.bigpond.com...
>>> On 24/10/2010 10:14 AM, Brian wrote:
>>>> I've been looking at the Sony Vegas manual lately (always interested
>>>> in finding out about other programs) but can't find anything about the
>>>> program creating a menu when your burning to a DVD disc. Do Sony Vegas
>>>> users use another program for creating a front-end menu for creating a
>>>> video that can be used on a DVD player?
>>>> Regards Brian
>>> sony dvd architect (comes with vegas). does everything you want and more....
>>More for Brian on Platinum 10...: I've been touting it as the Almighty's
>>cheap gift to editors, but while playing with it and Panasonic HDC-TM700
>>footage, I've discovered that it appears to have serious shortcomings not
>>present in the Pro (8, 9, 10) versions relative to maximum data rates in
>>exported files. Unless I've missed something, I could not export at rates
>>greater than 16 Mbps, while the Pro versions will export VERY high data
>>rate files, including 30 Mbps peak, 25 Mbps ave., and 20 Mbps minimum
>>for Blu-ray files. Also, with my Pro 8, I can work directly with the 28 Mbps
>>60p TM700 footage on the timeline with an XP quad-core machine, and
>>also export the material in the same format, or directly to Blu-ray files, which
>>I couldn't do with Platinum 10. Ah, well...
>>--DR
> Thanks for the info David. Is this the rate at which the program
> compiles or the rate at which the file is saved to DVD?
> Is Platinum 10 a cutdown version of Pro 10?
>
> Regards Brian
At this point, I'm still finding my way (again...) with all this. I was
surprised (since I could import and view the 28Mbps footage in
Platinum 10) that export data rates (Mbps in the exported files)
could not exceed 16Mbps, unlike with the Vegas Pro versions,
regardless of the original file data rates, or of the editor's desired
end data rates. [I'm going to check this again now...] This (if true)
is kinda like being able to open and work on high-res stills in
PhotoShop, but then having the program limit the resolution of the
exported (saved) files of the photos, sorta...;-) While I'm waiting
for the other computer with Platinum 10 on it to boot, I will
mention that other than as a data disk, a playable video DVD has
a maximum data rate considerably below 28Mbps (I will try
writing DVDs at 17Mbps, which I seem to remember is the data
rate of the "60"p to "60"i files from the TM700 - it has been a while
since I've done this...). BTW, the camera arrives tomorrow...
[Back with more info... Even if you import the "60"p 28Mbps
VBR TM700 files into a new Vegas Platinum 10 project with the
program set to adjust its settings to match the file characteristics
(which it does, permitting you to work with it), at export (saving)
the file in either the same file type, or as a Blu-ray file, the maximum
data rate permitted by the program is 16 Mbps, DARN! With
Pro 8, I can save the same file as 24p or "60"i 25Mbps Blu-ray,
or as a Sony AVC file only up to 16Mbps, or as a MainConcept
AVC up to 240Mbps(!). I guess the 8X price of Vegas Pro does
have this (and other) advantages...]
--DR
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"clw" <clw@ohsu.gov> wrote in message news:clw-8684C5.09553115102010@news.dsl-only.net...
>I need to extract several single photos from a video. I have the video
> on DVD and in iMovie. I also have PS Elements 8 and Graphic convertor.
>
> Can anyone help with either directions or a web site that will explain
> how to do this
>
> TIA
>
> Charles
In edit mode in Elements in the lower right of the preview window
there is a "camera" icon. Select a frame you want with the cursor
and then click on the icon to save it.
--DR
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
In article <4s5h565idkmvivgj1ad07e5thp9u9p1od8@4ax.com>, Scotius
<yodasbud@mnsi.net> wrote:
> I've recovered "deleted" images on my computer before. Windows
> doesn't really "delete" anything on it's own.
> My Nikon D3000 has a 2 Gig memory card in it, and I just
> formatted it a little while ago, without making sure that all the
> images of a family reunion had transferred to the computer before
> doing so (last time I do that).
> It seems to me though that it "formats" awfully fast. Does it
> really format, or just say everything's deleted and over-write it
> later? If I use a file recovery program on it, will it work, and if
> so, can someone please recommend one?
the pictures are still there. there are many tools to recover them,
including photorescue which works quite well.
<http://www.datarescue.com/photorescue/>
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Die Faggots" <liberalsarefascists@leftist.com> wrote in message
> You might want to replace the polonium with the americium source. The
> polonium half-life isn't too long unless it's polonium 209. The source
> has to be open, alpha particles can't penetrate anything.
While the above information may be useful, I am kill-filing you due to
your obscene ID. <PLONK!>
--DR
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"bobwilliams" <mytbob@cox.net> wrote in message
news:K62dnYklyIGtBSXRnZ2dnUVZ5qadnZ2d@giganews.com...
> Man-wai Chang wrote:
>> Is there a simple physics equation that relates ISO, white balance,
>> aperture and exposure time?
As others have pointed out, not WB, but f-stop, shutter speed, and
"sensor speed" (as rated in ASA/ISO) do relate together and with the
amount of light available. On a hand-held meter with an analogue dial
and meter pointer and scale, the relationship among the various things
could be easily seen. Most obvious is that doubling of the light, the time
the shutter is open, and the sensor sensitivity each doubles the exposure,
but reducing the f-stop number by 1.4X also doubles the exposure, since
the aperture area for the light to pass through is doubled in this way.
> There is a "Rule of Thumb" that relates these variables
> It is called the "Sunny 16 Rule"
> In bright sunlight, The correct exposure for an average picture is f16
> at a speed of 1 / ISO number ......or some equivalent exposure.
> EX: At ISO 100, the speed would be 1/100 sec and the f stop at f16
> OR
> 1/200 at f11......or 1/400 at f8........
> You get the picture
> Bob Williams
I have never found this to be accurate (maybe our local "bright sunlight"
is less bright than yours...;-). Ours (on a BRIGHT, CLEAR day) is
closer to f11+1/2 stop...
--DR
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Michael Benveniste" <mhb@murkyether.com> wrote in message
news:8i3ahhFnmdU1@mid.individual.net...
> Ever hear of this stuff called 35mm film? I bought the 12-24mm
> well before I bought a dSLR.
I once compared *on film* (and FF) the Sigma 12-24mm at 12mm, the
Nikkor 15mm f5.6, and the Voightlander 12mm f5.6. With *these particular
samples* at the test aperture (either at f8, or more likely, at f11), the Sigma
had somewhat soft corners and almost acceptable edges; the Nikkor had
OK corners and good edges; the Voightlander had good corners and very
good edges (at least, best I can remember...;-). I have since checked
various lenses that I still have that performed well on film again on digital,
and would down-rate the 15mm considerably, as well as the 20mm (the
24mm, 28mm, 35mm, 50mm, and 85mm AF lenses performed well on
APS-C digital at f5.6 to the corners at infinity, my usual lens comparison
distance). BTW, my MF Sigma 8mm f4 also performed well at f5.6 on
digital to the edges, and the Nikkor 16mm f3.5 MF was, as usual, excellent
everywhere. WHAT a lens that is! ;-)
--DR
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"C J Campbell" <christophercampbellremovethis@hotmail.com>
wrote in message news:2010101822242150073-christophercampbellremovethis@hotmailcom...
> It will work just fine on any Nikon digital SLR, including the D7000.
> It will approximately function as the 35mm equivalent of a 35-450 mm
> lens. If you are looking for something wider than that then this is not
> your lens.
Um, shouldn't that be, "the 35mm equivalent of a 42-450 mm lens"
(at least at infinity focus, assuming that the 28-300mm Nikkor actually
is 28mm at its widest end)?
--DR
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Dudley Hanks" <dhanks@blind-apertures.ca> wrote in message
news:T9mdnaPGr4N64CfRnZ2dnUVZ_uydnZ2d@giganews.com...
> >In article <MIadnehkn8KppCfRnZ2dnUVZ_qmdnZ2d@giganews.com>,
>> Dudley Hanks <dhanks@blind-apertures.ca> wrote:
>>Socio-ecologically, as we enter the next century, water issues are
>>emerging at the forefront of the public's consciousness. Exhausting our
>>natural resources and polluting our environment, particularly our water
>>supply, continues to be a concern, another reason for the popularity of
>>blue for the future.
> I like that ....
>
> Take Care,
> Dudley
So do I - and it is a good counter to the current spate of local TV ads
touting the "wonderfulness" of hydrofracking to recover the natural gas
in this area, a process which can pollute the water table. Yet another
example of greed vs. public good...
--DR
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"bucky3" <bucky3@mail.com> wrote in message
news:ad7e32e5-2026-4fbb-b6e9-df5f4550cd77@n32g2000pre.googlegroups.com...
> I'm trying to figure out whether the distortion seen in wide angles
> lens is "real" distortion or "perceived" distortion.
>
> To me, "real" distortion means the lens is flawed, maybe due to size/
> weight/cost constraints. Or purposely distorted for effect like a
> fisheye lens.
>
> "Perceived" distortion means that it *seems* distorted, but only due
> to perspective. Like if you take a photo of a long road, it appears to
> converge in the distance. But it's not because the lens is defective,
> it's just perspective. You would see the same thing with your naked
> eye.
>
> For example, this is what a typical group photo looks like with an
> ultra wide angle lens:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Foto-wiki-Sigma1020-people.jpg
I have much on this on my web site, at --
http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/seeing_and_perspective.htm
http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/lens_perspective_types.htm
http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/lens-angle-of-view-and-perspective.htm
http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/lens_distortion_types.htm
and for video --
http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/perspective-correction.htm
http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/WA-converters.htm
--David Ruether
www.David-Ruether-Photography.com
d_ruether....@....hotmail.com
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Harry Putnam" <reader@newsguy.com> wrote in message news:87bp6oe5xr.fsf@newsguy.com...
>I hope someone here can offer a knowledgable opinion about this
> monitor to be used as video and graphics editing tool.
>
> There are probably better URLS with more info but this is what I saw:
>
> http://www.gadgetreview.com/2009/11/asus-vw266h-black-25-5-inch-widescreen-lcd-monitor-240-shipped.html
>
> Maybe a bit windy below... but wanted to make the needs clear. So
> someone could possibly know if this monitor would fill the bill.
>
> Usage:
> I'd like to be able to open as many layers and as many twirlies in
> After Effects as is possible. (Sometimes that is).
>
> Anyone who uses AE will know how you are constantly needing to expand
> verticly to get to settings or keyframe placement for (possibly) many
> layers. You often need to see quite a few of the layers opened like
> that to facilitate placement of keyframes.
>
> Also I often like to have several applications open and visable at
> once. Like maybe photoshop, premiere pro, after effects and adobe
> bridge, plus a file browser and maybe Firefox.
>
> Setup:
> My setup in part, is somewhat out of date... P4 with 3.2 Ghz, P4C800
> mobo and 3GB ram.
>
> But I have recently acquired a Sager Laptop that is pretty powerfull.
> i7 Q820 at 1.73 1.73 ghz cores with 8GB ram
>
> I work thru a KVM with 2 P4s, as above, A linux Desktop, an Opensolaris
> OS running zfs as NAS and the Sager laptop so the monitor would be on
> that KVM.
On the "surface" of this monitor (from the description), it looks like a
good deal - but things are almost never simple, of course... A further
solution is the addition of a second (second-hand, cheap) monitor
(I turn on my 19" sometimes while using my 24" 1920x1200) for
menus, etc.
--DR
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
USEFUL INFO --
Paul Furman <paul-@-edgehill.net> wrote:
> Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote:
>> Paul Furman<paul-@-edgehill.net> wrote:
>>> He's doing low light though. A D70 image at max ISO, underexposed, is
>>> going to look like hell even at 1024 pixels wide.
>> Old 20D (similar age to a D70), at max ISO (1600), underexposed
>> (pushed by 1.5 stops). Denoised with a bit of Noise Ninja (8,8,8
>> luma, 10,8,8 chroma). At 1024x786:
>> http://www.shooting4joy.com/photos/904594795_dWejv-XL-1.jpg
>> I don't think it looks like hell ... even if a 20D used to be
>> quite good at low light shots.
> Looks great. That's from raw with some noise reduction?
Yep. Bibble raw converter with inbuild Noise Ninja (with licence,
tuned down a bit from the defaults).
I regularly get good results from this technique, well printable
at 300dpi (which means about 20x30cm for 8MPix).
-Wolfgang Weisselberg
~~~
Me <user@domain.invalid> wrote:
> On 21/10/2010 10:32 p.m., Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote:
>> Old 20D (similar age to a D70), at max ISO (1600), underexposed
>> (pushed by 1.5 stops). Denoised with a bit of Noise Ninja (8,8,8
>> luma, 10,8,8 chroma). At 1024x786:
>> http://www.shooting4joy.com/photos/904594795_dWejv-XL-1.jpg
>> I don't think it looks like hell ... even if a 20D used to be
>> quite good at low light shots.
> I think the 20d had at least a stop better high ISO performance than the
> D70. I used to envy that.
OK, here is one pushed by 2.5 stops (otherwise same
settings):
http://www.shooting4joy.com/photos/1059762723_oGNzs-XL.jpg
Like hell? surely not.
Perfect? Nope, but you need to look closely, and IMHO it isn't
worse than film grain was. (and what does film grain do at
effective ISO 10.000?)
> I did some 12x18 prints from my D70 @ ISO 800 or so, and a few large
> 2x3m commercial posters, with some careful noise reduction they came out
> very well indeed, but sometimes typical screen (with poor calibration /
> over-bright, bad gamma) is less forgiving than print.
True.
-Wolfgang Weisselberg
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"eatmorepies" <jckipper@lineone.net> wrote in message
news:8jiq44FeduU1@mid.individual.net...
> "Bruce" <docnews2011@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:ot98d651iaro3fbbj2m76vd8afgvn63ean@4ax.com...
>> "eatmorepies" <jckipper@lineone.net> wrote:
>>>Reference my 300mm f4L IS with the disappointing performance. I was
>>>packing
>>>the lens to send to a Canon Service Centre and decided to shoot some snaps
>>>to show them how poor it was. To do this I removed the filter - hey
>>>presto -
>>>vastly better images.
[...]
>>>I always fit a filter (UV) to an expensive lens -
As do I, when possible...
>>>I'd better review this
>>>policy. I'm off to test some of my other lenses with and without their
>>>filters - although the other L lenses I have all seem nice and sharp, so
>>>it's probably a single rogue filter.
Likely. Among MANY Nikkor and Hoya filters, I have seen only one
"bad" one, a Nikkor that had a very slight power that caused a 200mm
Nikkor to not reach infinity focus. Tiffens were a different matter, though...
>> Wow! A surprising result.
Not really. Once in a great while, these things happen... :-(
Test, test, test immediately after purchase.
> This is a Hoya multicoated UV(N). I've got Hoya filters on all my other
> lenses. I tried a different filter (same brand) on the 300mm and that
> produced slightly softer images than without a filter but not as soft as the
> original filter I was using. I tried with and without filter tests on my
> 24-105L, the filter made no discernable difference. I shall try the same on
> my other 77mm filter lenses.
The greatest differences will show on your longest FL lens with the widest
stop, shot wide open. I have compared (on a 400mm f3.5 Nikkor) no filter,
rear filter only, front filter only, and both front and rear filters in place (with
Nikkor filters, and refocusing as necessary). No differences were noted with
careful viewing.
--DR
~~~~~~~
"David J Taylor" <david-taylor@blueyonder.co.uk.invalid> wrote in
message news:ib21aa$pbv$1@news.eternal-september.org...
> "eatmorepies" <jckipper@lineone.net> wrote in message
> news:8jikpnFcg9U1@mid.individual.net...
>> Reference my 300mm f4L IS with the disappointing performance. I was
>> packing the lens to send to a Canon Service Centre and decided to shoot
>> some snaps to show them how poor it was. To do this I removed the
>> filter - hey presto - vastly better images.
> []
>> I always fit a filter (UV) to an expensive lens - I'd better review this
>> policy. I'm off to test some of my other lenses with and without their
>> filters - although the other L lenses I have all seem nice and sharp, so
>> it's probably a single rogue filter.
> You may find this page interesting, John:
> http://www.clarkvision.com/articles/evaluating_filter_quality/index.html
I wrote essentially the same above with, "The greatest differences will show
on your longest FL lens with the widest stop, shot wide open. I have compared
(on a 400mm f3.5 Nikkor) no filter, rear filter only, front filter only, and both
front and rear filters in place (with Nikkor filters, and refocusing as necessary).
[Using a near infinity-focus full frame width target.] No differences were noted
with careful viewing."
The results reported in the URL site given above may just have proven that the
*particular* Hoya filter used really was not "top quality"...
--DR
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Brian" <bclark@es.co.nz> wrote in message news:msnnd61qb938er39b6evg15r6sjogl9qft@4ax.com...
> mike <mkujbida@gmail.com> wrote:
>>On Nov 10, 12:53 am, Brian <bcl...@es.co.nz> wrote:
>>> Using Vegas viewing a video in full screen mode (external monitor) I
>>> can start and stop the video by pressing the spacebar but is there a
>>> way to pause the video so that when I jump back to the editor pressing
>>> the esc the cursor line (or what ever you call it) will be at the
>>> position where I paused the video? This would be useful for finding a
>>> suitable place to make a split in the event.
>>>
>>> I created a subclip (useful feature) of an event so that the last
>>> frame in the subclip is where I want to create a still frame. When I
>>> created a still frame I have two frames appearing in the still frame
>>> video. This might have something to interlacing. It's a problem when
>>> there is movement in the picture that I made a still frame of. Is
>>> there a way to correct this problem?
>>>
>>> Regards Brian
>>The Enter key is the default Pause key.
>>This can be changed in Options - Preferences.
>>"Make spacebar and F12 Play/Pause instead of Play/Stop"
>>
>>I prefer to use the snapshot or Velocity envelope features to get a
>>still frame.
>>You can try setting your Project Properties to Progressive to see if
>>that helps.
>>
>>Mike
I prefer using the snapshot feature to grab a still - but remember to
turn the preview quality to "Best" "Full" for highest quality first.
> Thanks Mike.
> Good to know that the large viewing screen can be paused.
> I have not tried a velocity envolute, I must experiment with it.
> Do you know where I can get extra plug-ins for video FX's in Vegas?
> I wanted to turn a still image into a painting using a filter from
> Vegas.
>
> Regards Brian
Try this: http://www.newbluefx.com/videofx.html - NewBlue has
quite a few filters and effects that work in Vegas and other editors, and
if your software is registered with Sony, you will occasionally get offers
for these at reduced prices.
--DR
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
<newguy> wrote in message news:oibsd699qdcul8td99efq2j5qmq8lgtvgs@4ax.com...
> Thanks for your note, Jim. I do have software to actually make a slide
> show, but was trying to figure out some new way to display text on the
> screen (the looks of it). I've used the Star Wars effect a couple of
> times (scrolling text out into space), but that only goes for a few
> types of video. This is for a memorial and just wondered about any
> new ideas.
Maybe the best "new idea" for this is using an old one: using a nice
appropriate font for the occasion, with simple background (plain, or
with a stationary *restrained* decoration), with maybe text coming
and going within the frame as needed. I would avoid scrolling and
crawling text for this (that's too much like movie ending credits or
news program crawls, and they are too "busy" for a memorial - and
if this is SD, these generally don't look very good...).
--DR
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Tony" <trusso11783@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:nr5vd6leq7mvkuk9cg5k3hdaneh72ff483@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 24 Oct 2010 20:47:57 -0400, "Gary Eickmeier"
<geickmei@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
>>Well, David, I must say, that is the most useful advice I have ever been
>>given on purchasing information. I read up on the Panasonic HMC-40, and it
>>is astonishing how much better the TMS-700 is - better even than most other
>>cameras they have evaluated, and costs half or even less than the HMC-40. I
>>was just about ready to jump on into that briar patch, assuming the 40 MUST
>>be better because it cost so much more.
> I am looking to purchase two HD cams (one for family use\semi pro use
> and one for light commercial work. I want the TM-700 for family use but
> I am having a difficult time deciding on the better cam. It is either the hmc-40
> or 150. I like the 150 because it is uses 1/3: CCDs, is a bit larger and has XLRs
> on it (I know I can add an XLR adapter to the 40 [did you mean 700?] for about
> $250). My concern is the 150 is a few years old and may be using older
> technology. What do you guys think.
The 150 is still a top-end camera in this class. A friend here uses it for some
purdy "classy" work, and it can do low-light better than the 700/40, and it
uses a bit more standard 60i at 21 Mbps AVCHD. The 700 uses a unique
28 Mbps VBR 60p for best results, BUT without adding the very lengthy
time it takes to convert the 60p in-camera to 60i, the quality with the native
60i footage is good, but not as good, and there is no way I have found
to edit and then present the 60p material (I can edit it, but then....). Also,
I find the EVF and the menus a PITA (and the 40 is basically a 700 buried
in a bigger body, but without the 60p feature and the *potentially* higher
image quality of the 700). My friend here just bought the 700 as a
backup/second-camera for his 150 and added an XLR adapter to the bottom.
> Also, regarding the add on XLR unit for the MHC-40, how could the audio
> benefit from this when it uses a 1/8" mini plug to connect to the camera? Doesnt
> that defeat the purpose of the adapter as far as quality is concerned? Wouldnt
> it be better to have native XLR jacks rather than connecting them via mini
> plug circuitry, which is already in the audio chain?
Maybe, but the advantages of three-wire circuitry are vastly overblown
(except for the available phantom power for the mic), especially with the
short runs involved here. 3-wire is used for noise reasons with long cable
runs, but even for that it is often unnecessary. I used to do recordings with
50' runs of two-wire in a large city without problems. My friend is good at
video production, and from years of pro work, he can handle cameras well
(even the tiny 700). For samples of Peter's work with the 700, go here --
http://exposureroom.com/members/Flip50/3e3aa8a69e454ee8b9d0eb6210bb895b
http://exposureroom.com/634538e14ea34d62aa907358da479f45
--DR
~~~~~~
"Frank" <frank@nojunkmail.humanvalues.net> wrote in message
news:6qc0e69cd7o04as6q89aq61kgc7lo8jetu@4ax.com...
> Given that with precious few exceptions, professional mics are
> equipped with three-pin balanced XLR connections, and if condenser
> types require a source of 48 VDC phantom power in order to operate,
> having a camcorder with XLR capability - either built-in or via an
> add-on XLR adapter - is a requirement if you want to utilize almost
> anything but toy mics.
Um, I did forget a few things when responding to Tony...! ;-)
--DR
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Tony" <trusso11783@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:dj6vd6tmmppmfct14e297f5ve1b9tl1l62@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 26 Oct 2010 23:11:40 -0400, "Gary Eickmeier" <geickmei@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
>>"David Ruether" <d_ruether@thotmail.com> wrote in message
>>news:ia7l0t$dgt$1@ruby.cit.cornell.edu...
>>> I just bought a Panasonic HDC-TM700 (the footage just looked
>>> too good to pass up, especially since B&H just lowered the price
>>> to $751, but about $1000 with all the "goodies" needed, plus tax).
>>> BTW, for Gary, I noticed in the Panasonic web site a mention of
>>> a color low-light mode, but I know nothing yet about what it is.
>>Would you put some test video on a card if I send you one?
I did...;-)
>>In other areas, of course Adobe can do multi-camera editing the same as
>>Vegas. Yes, I shoot weddings, but the market has dried right up, and I have
>>never ever had a bride want to pay for a hi def wedding. I shot one once, as
>>a demo, for free, and gave her the disc.
Gary sent me a rather nice shooting with the Canon HV20 of the wedding...
>>Panasonic 150? I have said before
>>somewhere, not at that price, because it would never earn its keep. Great
>>toy though. I saw one in action at the Wedding Photographers convention a
>>couple years ago or so.
> It is only $3000. How could this not make you money back if you are doing
> weddings? I got out of doing weddings around the year 2000 and I was
> charging $2000 (and I was one of the lower priced guys in town). Two
> weddings would pay for that. How can you use a lesser camera for a wedding
> anyway? You surely couldnt show up with a 700. I'm not trolling here. Just
> curious how you could think $3000 is even remotely expensive for a camera
> when shooting weddings as a business.
I had two VX2000s, then three when they were about $2300 each, when I
was still shooting weddings (but how could anyone dare shoot with at least
two cameras on the ceremony, and a backup for the reception and other
parts?). I also charged +/- $2000 - but a rather prolific producer in town
churned out fornulaic wedding videos for about half that, and often has three
VX2000s out with three different shooters at three different weddings on a
weekend - and long after I got out of the business, he's still at it (he's been lucky
so far, though, and has not lost a camera on a wedding shoot - lucky "bahs-tahrd",
but those VX2000s were reliable...! ;-).
--DR
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Martin Heffels" <goofies@flikken.net> wrote in message
news:87r5e61jn4eu7oug7evr7ndntevugfdkab@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 13 Nov 2010 08:53:41 -0800, "james" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote:
>>If I set the color temp to lower than the actual value during shooting so
>>that the picture looks slightly bluish (i.e. giving more light to the blue
>>channel), and then correct the white balance during post, there should be
>>less noise in the blue channel. Would this result in an overall noise
>>reduction?
> You just create more noise. Using a more lightsensitive camera would be
> better.
>>What is the easiest way to correct the bluish picture in premiere cs4? It
>>doesn't have a color temperature video effect. The closest is a color
>>balance effect, not sure if this would accurately undo the effect of the
>>lower color temp.
> CS4 should have colourcorrection, even if it's basic. I think it even has
> automatic colourcorrection.
> The basic one works in a similar way to Photoshop. You aim the picker at
> something which should be gray or white, click OK, and hey presto, it's
> balanced.
I find both of these nearly unusable much of the time for fine-tuning color,
and these are also in PhotoShop Elements. I did once find a proper three
color adjustment control in PS-E (buried deeply and not at all obviously
located) in the menus, so Premiere probably also has something similar.
Vegas makes this easy, as likely do most editors. A "color balance effect"
in Premiere should be able to do what is wanted, maybe combined with
other effect(s) to restore/maintain best tonality.
> To reduce the noise, go to the curves and crush the blacks a bit. This will
> help you to reduce some noise without degrading the picture too much.
An interesting idea...;-)
--DR
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
<newguy> wrote in message news:dh0ie6loaseo7k37effpeslpi7m0o14t98@4ax.com...
> I need to upgrade my current set-up to HD, starting with a camera.
> I'm looking for one in the $2500-$3k range. Any advice? What
> are you using? (Maybe one with a hard drive)
What are your needs? If you are looking for good low light performance
and "knob/button" controls, something in a three-chip (1/3rd") camera
may be appropriate around that price or somewhat more. Canon, Sony,
and Panasonic make good ones, some recording in the HDV format on
tape, some to memory cards (do not dismiss tape without knowing that
tape provides automatic archiving of source material, and is easier to edit
than memory card AVCHD material). If good performance from daylight
light levels down to medium-bright interiors and the use of menu items that
may be somewhat inconveniently "buried" to control camera functions are
OK, there are good choices under $1000 with the "trimmings" included
(such as a larger extra battery, etc.). I like the Canon HV40 for ease of
use (tape), and the Panasonic HDC-TM700 for ultimate picture quality
(memory card). The latter can even shoot 60p, but..... then..... what.....? 8^{
More is here on these two --
http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/Canon_HV20-HV30.htm
http://exposureroom.com/members/Flip50/3e3aa8a69e454ee8b9d0eb6210bb895b
http://exposureroom.com/634538e14ea34d62aa907358da479f45
(The last two URLs "suckered" me into buying the TM700 - but Peter
is a pro, and can control the camera better than I ever will be able to,
but, BTW, my HV20 is still FS, I guess...)
> Question: Do HD cameras use Firewire to transfer the data, or
> do I have to use HDMI?
>
> Thanks
>
> Dan
Tape based cameras use FireWire for transfer; memory card and HD
based cameras use USB2 (either from the camera, or from a memory card
reader). Generally, HD-based cameras (USB) have disadvantages such
as sensitivity to shock and to high altitude. HDMI is generally used for
playback to an HD TV of material from all types of HD camcorders.
Editing of HDV is very similar to editing Mini-DV with most software
but Adobe's; editing AVCHD requires extra "oomph" from computer
hardware (either in CPU speed or in added compatible video card
features) for smooth previewing, and generally "Smart Rendering" doesn't
work with it - and more care is needed to preserve archival material.
--DR
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
> >>> Did you ever see a photo of the world's first transistor?
> >>> Massive looking thing, now we get millions on one wafer.
> >>
> >> Picture of it here.
> >> http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/talk/transistor.html
> >
> > Now THAT was a game-changer!
>
> IIRC the transistor was originally invented by AT&T. They didn't really
> have many practical applications for it and it was developed into a
> useful product by the Japanese.
You do not recall correctly.
AT&T had specific applications in mind that led to their supporting the
development effort, and were using transistors in those applications in
the early 1950s.
They were being used in hearing aids in the early 1950s--AT&T waived
patent royalties for that application.
IBM built their first all transistor computer in 1953.
Texas Instruments was making and selling transistor radios in 1954.
The Japanese didn't have a product until 1955, and didn't enter the US
market with one until 1957.
J. Clarke
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
thanks for the conformation of my memory. At the time Bell Labs was a
division of AT&T.
Don't know if you remember the famous picture of the Japanese surrender
delegation on the Missouri.
<http://www.worldwar2database.com/cgi-bin/slideviewer.cgi?list=japansurrender.slides&dir=&config=&refresh=&direction=forward&scale=0&cycle=off&slide=25&design=default&total=38>
Someone put a cartoon cloud where he was depicted as saying: "Oh!
Well! There's always transistor radios."
--
Peter
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
They should have added motorcycles & cars.
BTW; On August 19th & 21st, 1945 my father was part of the 5 plane P-38
escort of the Japanese peace envoys on the two "Surrender Betties" from
the Japanese island of Kyushu to Ie Shima and return.
< http://homepage.mac.com/lco/filechute/Surrender_Betty-h62865.jpg >
< http://homepage.mac.com/lco/filechute/Surrender_Betty-h62867.jpg >
< http://homepage.mac.com/lco/filechute/Surrender_Betty-h62868.jpg >
< http://homepage.mac.com/lco/filechute/Surrender_Betty-h62869.jpg >
< http://homepage.mac.com/lco/filechute/Surrender_Betty-h62870.jpg >
< http://homepage.mac.com/lco/filechute/Surrender_Betty-h81964.jpg >
< http://homepage.mac.com/lco/filechute/Surrender%20Betty%2014.jpg >
< http://homepage.mac.com/lco/filechute/Surrender%20Betty%2008.jpg >
On August 29, 1945, he was part of MacArthur's 8 plane, P-38 Escort,
Honor flight. They landed at Atsugi, Southeast of Tokyo, and were
established as the first tactical squadron, at what became the first
American airstrip in occupied Japan.
< http://homepage.mac.com/lco/filechute/HRO%20&%20P38.jpg >
--
Regards,
Savageduck
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
"Brian" <bclark@es.co.nz> wrote in message
news:6du3f69qclnnlu1bp6locq5qvv6f90jl3q@4ax.com...
> Since I have a widescreen TV I've been turning on the widescreen
> option for my DV video camera and recording in widescreen.
> My problem is in mixing standard frame video with wide frame video
> (widescreen). If I was to mask the standard frame video with black
> bars at the top and bottom of the picture and setup the video editor
> for wide screen mode then would this solve the problem?
>
> Regards Brian
It depends, I guess, whether or not your SD camera shoots widescreen
as cropped 4:3 or as anamorphic (squeezed) footage within the 4:3
frame. In the first case, though, you are throwing away (with the black
bars) a large amount of potential picture information, something you are
not likely to want to do with SD. These days, if you can, shoot only HD;
there are a few that are excellent and relatively cheap (and one that
stands out, the Panasonic HDC-TM700). You can mix HD and SD if
you REALLY must, but in general, the results are likely to be at least
somewhat degraded by the use of the SD material. If I needed to mix
SD and widescreen, I would likely choose either anamorphic-shot SD,
or uncropped 4:3-shot material centered within the widescreen frame
(with black bars on the sides).
--DR
~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Brian" <bclark@es.co.nz> wrote in message
news:k93pe69ttjpg58k7hu8fmjs5gaabikpg0i@4ax.com...
> Also a video tips for editing would be most useful. Like a lot of
> people I have ton's of video I've recorded on my family but what do
> you do with all the video tht's been recorded? Where do you start with
> hours and hours of recorded video?
>
> Regards Brian
Collect the clips into groups of like material (outings by date progression,
trips, birthdays, important events, etc. in folders), then choose and "attack"
the contents of a folder of interest and start "chugging" along with editing it.
The results do not generally require fancy effects and transitions (simple
cuts and dissolves are fine, with a title and fade in on a the beginning and
fade out on the end, and with a bit of black leader and tail at the ends, and
you are done! ;-), but I do prefer to get a little fancy with the titles, and to
do basic color/contrast/tonal corrections and cutting off of shaky clip ends.
--DR
~~~~~~~~~~
> "David Ruether" <d_ruether@thotmail.com> wrote:
>>"Brian" <bclark@es.co.nz> wrote in message
>>news:6du3f69qclnnlu1bp6locq5qvv6f90jl3q@4ax.com...
>>> Since I have a widescreen TV I've been turning on the widescreen
>>> option for my DV video camera and recording in widescreen.
>>> My problem is in mixing standard frame video with wide frame video
>>> (widescreen). If I was to mask the standard frame video with black
>>> bars at the top and bottom of the picture and setup the video editor
>>> for wide screen mode then would this solve the problem?
>>>
>>> Regards Brian
>>It depends, I guess, whether or not your SD camera shoots widescreen
>>as cropped 4:3 or as anamorphic (squeezed) footage within the 4:3
>>frame. In the first case, though, you are throwing away (with the black
>>bars) a large amount of potential picture information, something you are
>>not likely to want to do with SD. These days, if you can, shoot only HD;
>>there are a few that are excellent and relatively cheap (and one that
>>stands out, the Panasonic HDC-TM700). You can mix HD and SD if
>>you REALLY must, but in general, the results are likely to be at least
>>somewhat degraded by the use of the SD material. If I needed to mix
>>SD and widescreen, I would likely choose either anamorphic-shot SD,
>>or uncropped 4:3-shot material centered within the widescreen frame
>>(with black bars on the sides).
>>--DR
> Hi David
> You start to write about Widescreen but then you refer to HD. Are you
> saying that all HD camera's are widescreen?
All consumer (and also all pro) cameras that I know of are widescreen.
The SD widescreen formats were a kind of "sop" to try to duplicate the
widescreen effect, but they were all with disadvantages since they were
not truly HD, and some even degraded the SD image quality.
> I brought my DV camera in 2003 and widescreen was not as popular then
> as it is now so it crops off some of the picture at the top and bottom
> when 16:9 option is selected for recording.
>
> Regards Brian
If it does it by "black-barring" the top and bottom the 4:3 frame, this is
the worst way to do it in terms of retaining as much image quality as
possible.
--DR
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Brian" <bclark@es.co.nz> wrote in message
news:mcn4f6hed2vj60k0fan4a9oglhniknkrtf@4ax.com...
> "David Ruether" <d_ruether@thotmail.com> wrote:
>>"Brian" <bclark@es.co.nz> wrote in message
>>news:6du3f69qclnnlu1bp6locq5qvv6f90jl3q@4ax.com...
> "David Ruether" <d_ruether@thotmail.com> wrote:
>>"Brian" <bclark@es.co.nz> wrote in message
>>news:6du3f69qclnnlu1bp6locq5qvv6f90jl3q@4ax.com...
[Trying to sort out an exchange that got flipped into email due to
my posting mistake...]
>>> Since I have a widescreen TV I've been turning on the widescreen
>>> option for my DV video camera and recording in widescreen.
>>> My problem is in mixing standard frame video with wide frame video
>>> (widescreen). If I was to mask the standard frame video with black
>>> bars at the top and bottom of the picture and setup the video editor
>>> for wide screen mode then would this solve the problem?
>>>
>>> Regards Brian
>>It depends, I guess, whether or not your SD camera shoots widescreen
>>as cropped 4:3 or as anamorphic (squeezed) footage within the 4:3
>>frame. In the first case, though, you are throwing away (with the black
>>bars) a large amount of potential picture information, something you are
>>not likely to want to do with SD. These days, if you can, shoot only HD;
>>there are a few that are excellent and relatively cheap (and one that
>>stands out, the Panasonic HDC-TM700). You can mix HD and SD if
>>you REALLY must, but in general, the results are likely to be at least
>>somewhat degraded by the use of the SD material. If I needed to mix
>>SD and widescreen, I would likely choose either anamorphic-shot SD,
>>or uncropped 4:3-shot material centered within the widescreen frame
>>(with black bars on the sides).
>>--DR
> Hi David
> You start to write about Widescreen but then you refer to HD. Are you
> saying that all HD camera's are widescreen?
> I brought my DV camera in 2003 and widescreen was not as popular then
> as it is now so it crops off some of the picture at the top and bottom
> when 16:9 option is selected for recording.
All consumer (and also all pro) HD cameras that I know of are widescreen.
The SD widescreen formats were a kind of "sop" to try to duplicate the
widescreen effect, but they were all with disadvantages since they were
not truly 16:9 HD, and some even degraded the relatively low SD image
quality even further when attempts were made to modify the format to 16x9.
> I brought my DV camera in 2003 and widescreen was not as popular then
> as it is now so it crops off some of the picture at the top and bottom
> when 16:9 option is selected for recording.
If it does it by "black-barring" the top and bottom the 4:3 frame, this is
the worst way to do it in terms of retaining as much image quality as
possible.
--DR
Thanks David, for your reply. Maybe I should continue to use
the standard picture instead of widescreen as I'm losing information at the
top and bottom of the picture. I might experiment in both formats to see
what it looks like on my widescreen TV. Quality seems to be improving on
camera's as even still photo camera's now record in either HD or 720 x 576
and not the common 640 x 480. I have a feeling that very soon all video
cameras will be HD widescreen camera's.
Regards Brian
-- The good ones are now... BTW, at this point if you are more interested
-- in shooting video than with shooting both stills and video with the same
-- camera, unless you are willing to spend VERY big bucks for the VERY
-- few cameras that can do both well, stick with dedicated still and video
-- cameras, although the Panasonic TM700 can shoot very passable stills
-- and superb progressive-frame (or progressive converted to interlaced
-- *in-camera*) HD video, with a camera priced well below $1000 in the
-- US.
-- DR
~~~~~~~~~
"Brian" <bclark@es.co.nz> wrote in message
news:53fdf6p451rukdj7vlcpuqnnkd8a284l5n@4ax.com...
> I normally use a HDMI connection from my Western Digital media player
> that plays videos from my external hard drive but I had trouble in
> getting my TV to select the correct ratio for the type of picture on
> the video I was playing as it make the people look fat. I did find
> that when I connected the Western Digital media player to the TV using
> A/V cable then I was able to select a suitable ratio for the video.
> The video had recorded a picture that was orginally in 4:3 ratio and I
> suspect the person who made the recording had their software setup to
> record in widescreen.
I suspect that the TV "assumes" that anything coming into the HDMI
port is 16:9, even if it was not properly centered 4:3 within that format,
and it will therefore stretch it to 16:9. It's interesting to see, though, how
much 4:3 material is cleverly (but not entirely adequately) stretched to
16:9 by applying a bit of stretching near the center, with progressively
more stretching applied toward the edges (humorous, if someone is
watched while crossing from one edge to the opposite). Mysterious to
me is how geometric correctness of a grid can be maintained with this,
with no straight line bending and without apparent grid proportional
distortions. It does still look somewhat odd, though...;-)
> A good time to cature snow pictures on your video camera David.
And be out in that cold, grey, slippery, wet stuff, having to protect the
camera, and to put it into a sealed plastic bag when I bring it inside and
then wait until it warms up to room temperature?!?!?!?!? No, thanks!
I'll wait for warmer weather to come again, though that takes a minimum
of 17 months around here! 8^)
--DR
~~~~~~~~~~
"Gene E. Bloch" <not-me@other.invalid> wrote in message
news:1hh6qth9kmonm$.n34zr1xsct2y$.dlg@40tude.net...
> On Tue, 30 Nov 2010 08:46:21 -0600, Don Stauffer wrote:
>> On 11/28/2010 12:46 AM, Brian wrote:
>>> Since I have a widescreen TV I've been turning on the widescreen
>>> option for my DV video camera and recording in widescreen.
>>> My problem is in mixing standard frame video with wide frame video
>>> (widescreen). If I was to mask the standard frame video with black
>>> bars at the top and bottom of the picture and setup the video editor
>>> for wide screen mode then would this solve the problem?
>>>
>>> Regards Brian
>> I am amazed at how often the pros do not do it right on TV news
>> broadcasts. In fact, they screw it up both ways, showing widescreen
>> footage with side bars and skinny people as well as the narrow screen
>> footage expanded and distorted.
> Yes. I am trying to learn not to scream at them.
>
> No success so far :-)
>
> --
> Gene E. Bloch (Stumbling Bloch)
Yes, sigh...... 8^)
--DR
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
<pshaw@emmet.com> wrote in message
news:nvc6f6tn200pqdggrrv2dtku8k7cli5kmj@4ax.com...
> as my canon 17-40 was 'borrowed' from my suitcase i need to replace it
> ..
> i usually use it only for buildings, both inside and out (ceilings
> too)
>
> am considering another 17-40, a 16-35 and a canon 14 mm
>
> any suggestions as to which i should buy ...and why?
>
> tia
>
> steve
Why not do what many other Canon users "in the know" do, and
bypass the Canon offerings in this range and use the superb Nikkor
14-24mm f2.8 with a Nikkor-to-Canon body adapter? You lose
the auto functions (which is not necessarily a "show stopper"), but
you gain superior optics.
--DR
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Paul Furman" <paul-@-edgehill.net> wrote in message news:7qadnRVROqAW1G7RnZ2dnUVZ5gGdnZ2d@giganews.com...
> Frank ess wrote:
>> Paul Furman wrote
>>> Peabody wrote:
>>>> I have a Canon XT (crop sensor), and a 50mm 1.8 lens. I've found
>>>> that lens to be wonderful for lots of things, but a bit too long
>>>> for indoor shooting of full bodies or groups in average size rooms,
>>>> and would like to find something like a 28mm, or maybe 24 or 35, to
>>>> use instead, but it needs to be fast like the 50, although probably
>>>> not as fast as 1.8. 2 or 2.5 would probably work.
>>>>
>>>> The problem is that I have no budget for this, so I'm looking for
>>>> an idea for an older film-camera lens that I could use in manual
>>>> focus mode with an adapter. I already have a Pentax k-mount to EF
>>>> adapter that I use with an old Vivitar long zoom, but adapters are
>>>> relatively cheap, so it wouldn't necessarily have to be a k-mount.
>>>>
>>>> I would appreciate any suggestions anyone might have as to what
>>>> lens I might look for.
>>> The 28mm f/2 Ai-S Nikkor is a nice little lens, with CFC close focus.
>>> You can get an old beater for a reasonable price that was used by a
>>> news agency for decades. I don't know if you'll be able to get focus
>>> confirm on a Canon without a converter that includes a chip??? -just a
>>> vague recollection about that but the point is a fast wide lens can be
>>> tough to focus. 28mm f/2.8 is going to be pretty boring I think and a
>>> 24mm f/2 is kinda rare but I'd imagine there's a bunch of 28/2 lenses
>>> from various makers.
>> So, seems to me the 50mm on an XT is equivalent to a full-frame 80mm;
>> 28mm on a full-frame is barely or not quite "wide angle" itself, so
>> 1.6-times-it is even farther out of the ballpark. I'm afraid you'll have
>> to find a suitable 24mm or wider, and while the width is common enough,
>> fast ones are not.
>>
>> I have a nice Canon 10-22 that was a pleasure to use on a 20D, but it's
>> f:3.5-4.5, and pretty expensive, even today.
> I think there's a Nikon 24mm f/2 that's supposed to be good for what it
> attempts but assume it's in the $600+ range. The 28 would just be a bit
> wider than normal but still wider than 50mm :-) and more like $300. The
> 35mm f/2 is also a bargain and would be just barely longer than normal
> on APS. There is also an AF version of the 35/2. 24mm f/2.8 won't show
> much shallow DOF effects except when quite close up.
The Nikkor 24mm f2 covers full frame at f2, but the contrast is
rather low (it needs stopping down some to perform well); the
24mm f2.8 is quite good stopped down a bit; the 28mm f2 is
good short the corners at f2 full frame, so it *may* be good on
crop-frame; the 35mm f2 Nikkor (in the multi-coated version)
is exceptionally good FF, even wide open - BUT, this is on film,
and there can be surprises on digital (the excellent 28mm f2.8
AIS doesn't "make it" on digital; I was surprised by how poor
my excellent-on-film 20mm f2.8 was on digital; the good-on-film
15mm f5.6 was poor on digital; but the superb on film 16mm
*f3.5* fisheye was superb on digital, as was an 8mm fisheye
Sigma). For you, though, by the time you spend enough to use
the Nikkors on your body, even free lenses may cost too much
from what you say - and even old Nikkors are generally not very
cheap. Remember, though, that a super-wide may be easy to
hand-hold successfully at VERY slow shutter speeds due to the
lower magnification compared with longer FLs - and this combined
with high-sensitivity digital bodies makes shooting in low light easier.
--DR
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Harry Putnam" <reader@newsguy.com> wrote in message
news:877hfuxe3q.fsf@newsguy.com...
[I'm going to be repeating some things some others have pointed
out, for possibly a summation...;-]
> I'm a semi-professional videographer... and a neophyte by standards of
> this list.
>
> I grew weary of my oldschool 17" CRT monitor. Especially with things
> like adobe After Effects, where you may have a stack a layers, each
> with several of its properites scrolled out below it, leading to a
> need for every higher head room on the monitor.
>
> I saw what looked like a pretty good deal for an asus 25.5
> monitor...from walmart no less:
> http://www.walmart.com/ip/Asus-VW266H/12457226#ProductDetail
>
> And specifications here:
> http://www.walmart.com/ip/Asus-VW266H/12457226#Specifications
Several things:
- The choice of 1920x1200 is a better one than 1920x1080 for
computer work (more territory within the 1920 pixel width).
- The fast response time may be a problem, since it indicates a
monitor type better for gaming than for color accuracy - and 8ms
refresh is enough for video.
- The dynamic contrast ratio presents a problem for monitoring
with editing both video and stills, since there is no reference
(unaltered) tonal response in the monitor unless the dynamic feature
can be turned off (and brightness range specs are generally suspect
anyway...;-).
- Angle of view for judging brightness accurately with most LCDs is
extremely limited.
- For good monitoring of the audio, I recommend one of the compact
good speakers, such as the PSB Alpha (equalized with tone controls,
at least), driven by a decent small integrated amp or receiver (used is
good, to keep down the price).
- Look for "hot" pixels with no signal in - if there are none, or you
can live with a couple, OK, but if not, be prepared to exchange the
monitor.
- You *MUST* set the video card for 1920x1200 ONLY, at 60Hz
in the US, 50Hz some other places.
- Most good video cards permit the adjustment of color balance
and gamma of the monitor, the latter often for individual colors to
balance color throughout the tonal range.
> Quite a big leap from a 17 in.
>
> It is quite nice, but I was a little disappointed in this way.
>
> These modern monitors seem to go way overboard in width and not enough
> height for an editors purposes anyway.
The 16:9 instead of 16:10 is even worse...
There is a solution, since most newer video cards will drive two
monitors: use your 17" for menus, or get a second LCD monitor of
any usable size, new or used (I use a 19" 1440x900 on the side for
this purpose). You can then "stretch" the desktop to cover both
monitors, and adjust their relative positions. Using older monitors
also may avoid the problem of having an undefeatable
dynamic-range "feature".
> I had hoped to gain massive headroom by using the maximum resoltuion
> of 1920x1200, but what is happening is that the apps are growing into
> the much larger screen. So limiting to some degree, what I had hoped
> to gain. I could stand (far as eyesight goes) for the print and such
> to be a good bit smaller than it is at 1920x1200.
You can reduce the desktop size of most apps, and move parts of
some off elsewhere - and you can adjust text size. In my PhotoShop,
for instance, clicking on the small square (between the "-" and the "x"
in the program upper right corner) makes the program immediately
smaller.
> So the objects, print and etc have grown to match the much larger
> screen. But not on a 1:1 ratio compared to the 17 inch. So overall
> there is quite a nice gain... its just that I had hoped for even more.
>
> Still, overall a vast improvement.
>
> But now to the question: Is there no way to go higher in resoltuion?
Two monitors will effectively do that, and likely satisfy what you are
trying to accomplish.
> My display card (ATI Mobility Radeon HD 5870 Series (1024 mb)
>
> has some confusing stats showing several different maximum resolutions
> at this cite:
> http://hothardware.com/Reviews/AMD-ATI-Radeon-HD-5870-Unquestionably-Number-One/
>
> I don't understand what they mean. But I'd like to using a higher
> resolution if at all possible.
>
> This is just snipped from the page:
>
> ,----
> | # Integrated HDMI 1.3 output with Deep Color, xvYCC wide
> | gamut support, and high bit-rate audio
> |
> | # Max resolution: 1920x1200
HDMI is for HDTV, limited to 1920x1080 pixels.
> | # Integrated VGA output
> |
> | # Max resolution: 2048x1536
> `----
This is for CRT displays that will support this resolution.
> It looks to be saying that vga output can go as high as 2048x1536.
>
> I'd really like to see that on my new monitor.
S - O - R - R - Y . . . . This is not possible unless you have one
heck of a big, higher-resolution LCD monitor...
> I'm not sure how it all works. Is the monitor max resolution the
> limiting factor or is it the card capabilities.
Either may be..., but with LCDs, the card must be able to provide a
resolution equal to the needs of a particular display (but it may have
higher capability for use with other displays).
> The windows 7 OS (64bit) offers 1920x1200 as the max using the
> resolution setting tools supplied. It also has a setting for making
> `text and other objects smaller or larger' which is also maxed out
> toward small.
>
> So is there some way to get a higher resoltion to display on this
> monitor?
No.
--DR
~~~~~~~~~~
"Harry Putnam" <reader@newsguy.com> wrote in message
news:87y689wg1k.fsf@newsguy.com...
> Paul <nospam@needed.com> writes:
>> I thought there were some LCD TVs, that allowed a 1920 wide input
>> signal, when the LCD panel only had 1366 pixels across. I don't know
>> what the resampling/averaging effects would look like on that. For
>> video content, the human eye removes most of the artifacts. Humans are
> Where might I find out more about that... that sounds like exactly
> what I'd like to try. I'd like to send something like 2048x1536 when
> on windows.
>
> I can already do that under linux.
"720p" HD TVs (1280x720 nominally, but they may be worse...) do this
with signals that exceed their native resolutions (as with 1920x1080 feeding
them), but I don't think you want to do this since it involves interpolative
downsampling, and natively supported 1920 definitely looks better with
1920 source material, especially when viewed closely...
--DR
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"ushere" <removethis.leslie.andthis.wand@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:HEjJo.3720$MF5.3445@viwinnwfe02.internal.bigpond.com...
> On 1/12/2010 2:01 PM, Brian wrote:
>> I would be greatful for any tips on improving on the video from my 8mm
>> analog tape camera when it has been tranfered to my computer. I'd like
>> to sharpen and brighten the video. I'm using Vegas as a video editor.
>> Maybe there is a deicated program for enchancing older video.
>>
>> Regards Brian
> there are dedicated programs - reveal, for one. best do a search....
>
> in vegas you have all the facilities to sharpen / brighten / whatever.
> play with them and see what looks best....
The above is correct - Vegas has a "ton" of filters ("FX" in
"Sony-speak";-) that can be used. Try "contrast/brightness",
"saturation", and the wonderful-what-it-can-do "color-curves".
Note that in this last, you can double-click anywhere on the
line to introduce a control point that permits "bowing out/in"
midrange brightness without changing the blacks and whites,
and you can extend the control point handles to soften and
change the curves. Last night I used this to bring out of the
murk some swimming ducks after sunset while maintaining
a sense of good contrast and brilliance in the image. You can
do *almost* anything with this program to improve images.
One hint: if you are working with HD material, do ALL of
your filtering and transitions at once and render them to an
export file of the edited video all at once.
--DR
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"ushere" <removethis.leslie.andthis.wand@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:YZhJo.3715$MF5.828@viwinnwfe02.internal.bigpond.com...
> On 1/12/2010 11:03 AM, Brian wrote:
>> Don Stauffer<stauffer@usfamily.net> wrote:
>>> On 11/28/2010 12:46 AM, Brian wrote:
>>>> Since I have a widescreen TV I've been turning on the widescreen
>>>> option for my DV video camera and recording in widescreen.
>>>> My problem is in mixing standard frame video with wide frame video
>>>> (widescreen). If I was to mask the standard frame video with black
>>>> bars at the top and bottom of the picture and setup the video editor
>>>> for wide screen mode then would this solve the problem?
>>>>
>>>> Regards Brian
>>> I am amazed at how often the pros do not do it right on TV news
>>> broadcasts. In fact, they screw it up both ways, showing widescreen
>>> footage with side bars and skinny people as well as the narrow screen
>>> footage expanded and distorted.
>> Brian thinks...maybe I won't look fat on TV if I ever get on TV<grin>
>> TV advert...You too can look this slim if you buy this exercise
>> equipment.
>>
>> If I have a choice of a large distorted picture or a normal small
>> screen picture then I'd prefer the small screen.
>>
>> Regards Brian
> pet peeve - corporations showing well produced (read EXPENSIVE) internal
> 4:3 promo's stretched on 16:9 in their reception area lcd's.
>
> chaorman might be a 'fat cat' - but does he have to look like one!?
8^) One of my TV pet peeves is local and even national advertisers
spending big bucks on TV ads, STILL in *SD* that look HORRIBLE
(jaggy/fuzzy/just-generally-ugly) when broadcast on HD TV. Good HD
cameras are now relatively cheap for doing this kind of work - and
there is NO excuse I know of for doing this!
--DR
[Dang - it's snowing heavily, first time this year...]
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Brian" <bclark@es.co.nz> wrote in message
news:3lcgf6tdjk6n02ql5c51ve33lqt1ucqalv@4ax.com...
> The problem is that we are quick to judge and often the photograper is
> blaimed if the picture does not look right. The producer wants to
> deliver the best possible picture and it's beyond the producers
> control if the picture gets distorted due to showing it at the wrong
> ratio.
>
> The same problem happens when an action movie is shown on a small
> screen with low volume, low quality sound. Those that would have been
> an action movie on a big screen with surround sound would be more
> impressed with the movie than those that have watched in on a small
> TV.
>
> Also censorship can destory a good movie by the censor cutting out
> scenes in a movie. The story does not make sense, the build up to a
> scene is lost and one of the best scenes in the movie is missing.
> When Robocop was shown on TV they cut out the scene where a gang of
> men open fired on him. Everyone watching the movie on TV wondered how
> he died.
>
> Regards Brian
Another example of the above is the DVD of "Blow Up". The VHS
copy (which I will keep) shows the scenes between the photographer
leaving the work area of a factory, grungy from the day's work as a
(pretend) factory worker (to get photos), and his appearing on the
street all cleaned up and about to get into his Rolls Royce. Missing
are the transition scenes in the locker-room/showers, making for story
confusion. And then there is the shortening of the "voluptuous" song
scene in Roger Rabbit...;-)
--DR
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Mark Burns" <marcus520520@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:595161c6-0d11-4f8c-85e2-c43ee012cad3@l8g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...
On Dec 5, 2:20 am, Martin Heffels <goof...@flikken.net> wrote:
> On Fri, 03 Dec 2010 17:24:06 -0600, Harry Putnam <rea...@newsguy.com> wrote:
> >Since some things can only be on one monitor like the start button and
> >most icons (unless moved by hand), it seems to me to cause an awful
> >lot of extra motions to get back to the one where certain activities
> >have got to be performed.
> Time to learn all the shortcut keys then :) It's what you need to do or else
> you make indeed a lot of unneccessary mouse miles.
The increased productivity of dual screens is well documented. Those
gains to not carry over to three monitors however, as several studies
that I have looked at show no improvement or a decrease in
productivity.
This may be because there is a maximum that the "eyes can track" and/
or as you state that the wrist can travel.
Cheers...
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
In Windows, one can change the appearance of the mouse pointer
(I've recently changed mine to a sort of 3-D yellow...), and you can
make a shrinking circle surround the mouse pointer to locate it by
holding the left mouse button down while clicking the "Ctrl" key.
[BTW, I hate Yahoo and others such as gmail and AOL for not
maintaining the "time-sequence" markers in posts and emails...]
--DR
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Harry Putnam" <reader@newsguy.com> wrote in message
news:878w0489ct.fsf@newsguy.com...
> "David Ruether" <d_ruether@thotmail.com> writes:
>> It would appear that you do...;-)
> Hehe, yeah, point taken. But note the word `strongly'.. I admitted
> that my trial of it was done by a novice and didn't really last long
> enough to say I truly tried it out.
>> Why not a dual-monitor setup with one mounted above the
>> other, since you seem so concerned about vertical monitor
>> "real estate"? That is a reasonably-priced solution compared
>> with others, and that would seem to satisfy your desires(?).
> Wouldn't that be gigantically tall? Something on the order of 3 feet,
> wouldn't it. Just on the surface that sounds like a neck ache waiting
> to happen... my old neck is not as supple as it was when I was 60.
If you look at the setups used by major news networks and
by stock dealers, they use monitors with stands removed and
mounted on bars with adjustments for vertical angles. Since what
you want (since LCD panels are best viewed on-axis anyway),
is that the panels be mounted with minimum space between them,
and with them angled relative to each other so that they are each
viewed on-axis from your standard sitting position. These mounts
generally offer a way to lift the pair of joined monitors (or more...;-)
the desired amount above the work table surface. Voila! ;-)
> So are you saying to spread Afer Effects across the two of them
> vertically? And have a big gulf in the middle where the monitor frames
> come together or come close at the horizontal bottom of one ant top of
> the other?
See above...
> I have a very high regard for your views on this, but is there
> something intrinsically wrong with my notion of a very high
> resolution monitor or do you just think expense and availability sort
> of rule that out?
The latter...
> Even if one did use two monitors, it seems the higher the resolution
> available the more room each would have... Of course visibility
> comes into play at some point, but I can see on this 1920x1200 that
> even my sorry old sight could stand a higher resolution.
Are you sure? On mine, at a little more than a foot, I still cannot see
the individual pixels very well - and the image looks SHARP!
--DR
~~~~~~~~~~
"Harry Putnam" <reader@newsguy.com> wrote in message
news:87fwua2a6s.fsf@newsguy.com...
> "David Ruether" <d_ruether@thotmail.com> writes:
>>> Even if one did use two monitors, it seems the higher the resolution
>>> available the more room each would have... Of course visibility
>>> comes into play at some point, but I can see on this 1920x1200 that
>>> even my sorry old sight could stand a higher resolution.
>> Are you sure? On mine, at a little more than a foot, I still cannot see
>> the individual pixels very well - and the image looks SHARP!
> Sure? Do you mean about standing a higher resoltution? Well I've made
> the system fonts there smallest and where I can force them smaller
> like firefox or the text editor I use (emacs) I'm down to 8 and
> could stand smaller but smaller is not offered that I've found in the
> mono fonts. Anything but mono sucks in a text editor.
>
> But where the system controls fonts... they appear quite a bit larger
> than necessessary for my work.
>
> What is your setup .... maybe you mentioned it somewhere... I don't
> see it though.
>
> I'm usually about a foot from mine... maybe 16 inches or even 18 at
> most.
>
> And what do you mean about the individual pixels... do you mean with
> size way up in photohop or something? I don't often have reason to
> deal with individual pixel more than a little every day or two.
>
> Mainly when removing background or cloning on a face or the like.
The pixel size is the limiter for monitor resolution, and if that size (for a
given monitor size, pixel resolution, and viewing distance) is so small
that making the pixel size smaller offers no effective increase in information,
then one has reached a limit going beyond which there is no advantage.
I have reached that point with my 24" 1920x1200 Acer LCD at my
viewing distance, and the only way to improve upon that for me is to get
a larger monitor of higher resolution (impractical), or to add a second
monitor (very practical) - and I do this for adding extra "real estate" for
having additional windows open while using my video editor, or for writing
articles. Try it - you'll like it! 8^)
--DR
~~~~~~~
"Harry Putnam" <reader@newsguy.com> wrote in message
news:87vd36z08w.fsf@newsguy.com...
> "Gene E. Bloch" <not-me@other.invalid> writes:
>> On Mon, 06 Dec 2010 09:27:39 -0600, Harry Putnam wrote:
>>> And what do you mean about the individual pixels... do you mean with
>>> size way up in photohop or something? I don't often have reason to
>>> deal with individual pixel more than a little every day or two.
>> He means seeing the pixels of the monitor.
>>
>> I.e, the items that are 1/1900 of the width and 1/1200 of the height of
>> your monitor (IIRC, yours is 1902x1200, right?).
> I hadn't really looked before... but I start to see them at about a
> foot I guess. But it seem kind of incredible to think if they were
> smaller there would be no gain in headroom.
>
> I'm not sure I followed Davids reasoning there.
It's simple: the very smallest detail bit you can see on the LCD monitor
is limited by the size of the smallest pixel you can perceive on the monitor
at your normal working distance. With a sharp 1920x1200 24" monitor
viewed at somewhat over a foot away, I cannot see the individual pixels
of the monitor image (unless I move closer). If I move farther away
without changing anything (except maybe including more "real estate" to
the monitor surface by enlarging it, with a compensating increase in pixel
count, NOT a cheap thing to do except by using multiple monitors), I lose
real information, so what's the point of doing that? I would think you
would have gotten tired of the less detailed *and* smaller area of your
17" CRT by now...;-)
--DR
~~~~~~~
"Harry Putnam" <reader@newsguy.com> wrote in message
news:87r5duyzeu.fsf@newsguy.com...
> "David Ruether" <d_ruether@thotmail.com> writes:
>> "Harry Putnam" <reader@newsguy.com> wrote in message
>> news:87fwua2a6s.fsf@newsguy.com...
>>> "David Ruether" <d_ruether@thotmail.com> writes:
>>>>> Even if one did use two monitors, it seems the higher the resolution
>>>>> available the more room each would have... Of course visibility
>>>>> comes into play at some point, but I can see on this 1920x1200 that
>>>>> even my sorry old sight could stand a higher resolution.
>>>> Are you sure? On mine, at a little more than a foot, I still cannot see
>>>> the individual pixels very well - and the image looks SHARP!
>>> Sure? Do you mean about standing a higher resoltution? Well I've made
>>> the system fonts there smallest and where I can force them smaller
>>> like firefox or the text editor I use (emacs) I'm down to 8 and
>>> could stand smaller but smaller is not offered that I've found in the
>>> mono fonts. Anything but mono sucks in a text editor.
>>>
>>> But where the system controls fonts... they appear quite a bit larger
>>> than necessessary for my work.
>>>
>>> What is your setup .... maybe you mentioned it somewhere... I don't
>>> see it though.
>>>
>>> I'm usually about a foot from mine... maybe 16 inches or even 18 at
>>> most.
>>>
>>> And what do you mean about the individual pixels... do you mean with
>>> size way up in photohop or something? I don't often have reason to
>>> deal with individual pixel more than a little every day or two.
>>>
>>> Mainly when removing background or cloning on a face or the like.
>> The pixel size is the limiter for monitor resolution, and if that size (for a
>> given monitor size, pixel resolution, and viewing distance) is so small
>> that making the pixel size smaller offers no effective increase in information,
>> then one has reached a limit going beyond which there is no advantage.
> Is that really true? I mean if they were smaller, while there may be
> no noticable increase in information, wouldn't the apps shrink a bit
> with no loss in visibility.
If you made the pixels smaller than the size limit that you can now perceive,
you would conceivably increase "real estate", but at the price of losing
information, not something most would want to do...
> I mean up to a point, not beyond ridiculous but where you can still
> see things ok, but you've shrunk the apps down leaving more room
> around them.
>
> Say if you were able to go to 2048x1536 Or maybe it would be
> something less but isn't there still room for improvement even though
> the information level doesn't change much?
You would likely need to view the monitor from a shorter distance...
> Your screen and resolution is about the same as mine. When I open
> after effects, if I let it cover the screen its too big to work
> comfortably on... so bringing it down a bit. Looking at the project
> window on the left the uppercase P in Project is very close to a
> quarter inch tall, and the `8bpc' at the bottom of that panel looks even
> a bit bigger by a bit... too close to say really.
>
> But that P could be half that size and I'd be able to see it
> comfortably. Or maybe more like 2/3 the size.
You can adjust the bar widths and text sizes within them in Windows,
and you can make the main bottom bar disappear (and reappear
only when you take the mouse to the bottom of the screen). Not
much, but with some screen-hungry programs these can help. You
can also use the "box" icon between the "-" and "X" at the upper
right to "ensmallen" the program...;-)
> This isn't a complaint at all... I'm quite enjoying my new monitor. I
> was just a little surpised to find it would not go any higher so the
> text is smaller and more room in virticle area. The horizontal is
> already wider than I really need.
>
> I'm pretty happy with the purchase all in all. Now if only my skill
> level were up to the quality of my monitor... I'd really in business.
Ah, the wish of many of us....! 8^)
--DR
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Frank" <frank@nojunkmail.humanvalues.net> wrote in message
news:a6l1g61otno8a2d5605v2hlnshohi1voc3@4ax.com...
> >On 9/12/2010 5:34 PM, Richard Lane wrote:
>>> Have viewfinders entirely disappeared from consumer grade camcorders?
> If by "consumer grade camcorders" you're referring to palmcorder-sized
> AVCHD-format camcorders, no, they haven't entirely disappeared.
> Several of the higher-end models have EVFs (electronic view finders),
> although they're usually of such low resolution that you can't
> seriously use them for purposes of critical focusing.
>
> The Canon HF S21, Panasonic HDC-TM700, Sony HDR-CX550V, and Sony
> HDR-XR550V all have EVFs, just to name four models off the top of my
> head, and all are very much in the "consumer grade camcorders" product
> category.
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
> On Thu, 09 Dec 2010 18:09:45 +1100, in 'rec.video.desktop',
> in article <Re: Consumer camcorders that still have viewfinder?>,
> ushere <removethis.leslie.andthis.wand@gmail.com> wrote:
>>like everything else; tape,
> Well, the Canon HV40 and the Sony HDR-HC9 are still available, at
> least for the moment. Grab them while you still can. :)
>>external mic input,
> The better models have an external microphone input jack, with plug-in
> power.
>>external video input,
> It is true that no AVCHD camcorder has a video input jack.
>>firewire....
> There really and truly is no need for FireWire on a file-based
> camcorder. USB serves this function quite well.
>
> FireWire made sense on tape-based products such as DV, DVCAM, and HDV
> since tape is linear by nature and all that's on the tape is a
> datastream, but not on file-based products such as camcorders that
> record to flash memory, whether internal flash memory or a removable
> flash memory card (CompactFlash, Secure Digital, Memory Stick, etc.),
> or even to an optical disc (DVD or BD) or an internal hard disk drive
> (HDD).
> --
> Frank, Independent Consultant, New York, NY
Also dropped is the Lanc port (useful for remotely controlling camera
start/stop and zooming), although Canon now offers a $71 gizmo that
fits the hot shoe of the HDV HV20/30/40 models which provides a
Lanc port for these camcorders.
--DR
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"peter" <peternew@nospam.optonline.net> wrote in message
news:4d02417b$0$5536$8f2e0ebb@news.shared-secrets.com...
> On 12/9/2010 5:08 PM, Rich wrote:
>> Right now, screens beyond 2M are very expensive. There are no screens
>> that I know of with very high resolution. Now they have LED (which
>> I'm told from a television standpoint is still not as good as plasma)
>> which should make the resolution increase easier. Maybe.
> And how much are you willing to pay for one? --
> Peter
8^)
But, going back to Rich's post (since I now block his...), "LED"
is just a method of backlighting the LCD panel, different from
using fluorescent tubes(?). And, from my viewing experience,
the best LCD screens (when properly set up and viewed) are
sharper than the best plasmas I've seen (although plasmas do
provide a wider angle of view than do LCDs...).
--DR
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Brian" <bclark@es.co.nz> wrote in message
news:814dg6dpqq60hcgcg6uhn3chog958jk7n4@4ax.com...
> Martin Heffels <goofies@flikken.net> wrote:
>>On Sun, 12 Dec 2010 18:26:18 +1300, Brian <bclark@es.co.nz> wrote:
>>Did you check out our very own David Ruether's online guide?
>> http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/Sony-editing.htm
> Thanks Martin.
> It seems to be aimed at editing HD video but there's still a lot of
> useful info for us SD video users.
>
> Regards Brian
It should be almost equally usable for both SD and HD, the main
differences being in how the video files are acquired, and in what
form they are exported (depending on the file format used while
editing and desired as an end product). There are excellent, very
clear instructional videos on line (beginning with "Screen Walk") at,
http://www.sonycreativesoftware.com/support/trainingvids.asp?prod=vegaspro
and with more advanced instruction available here --
http://www.sonycreativesoftware.com/support/trainingvids-stroud.asp
(by Les Stroud of the TV series "Survivorman", in which he takes
a couple of tiny HD camcorders with him as he is dropped into a
wilderness, to find a way out - and the show consists entirely of
his solo adventure and video efforts).
--DR
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"shiva das" <shiv@nataraja.invalid> wrote in message
news:shiv-E208D6.22522614122010@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com...
> In article <tr0gg6dlikrvehu3ef5h2rbi54a6n5tt1t@4ax.com>,
> Eric Stevens <eric.stevens@sum.co.nz> wrote:
>> On Wed, 15 Dec 2010 00:27:36 +0100, Alfred Molon
>> <alfred_molon@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >Why is a 50mm lens "normal" (in a full frame camera)? Because it
>> >corresponds to the usual angle of view of the human eye, or just because
>> >this focal length lies in the middle between wide and tele?
>>
>> I think you will find that it's acceptance stems from the original
>> f3.5 Elmar lens fitted to the early Leica. The lens telescoped into
>> the camera body and could be no longer than the thickness of the body.
>> When extended the length of the lens plus the thickness of the body
>> came to 50mm.
>>
>> Eric Stevens
> Yes, but they chose a 50mm for a reason. As Savageduck points to in the
> wiki, the angle of view of a 50mm lens on a 24mm x 36mm negative is very
> similar to the angle of view of the human eye. Anything from 40mm to
> 60mm can be considered normal for 35mm.
Ummmm!!! I've heard and read this "hokum" too many times
to count, but as I've tried to point out in several articles on sight
and photographic imaging on my web site, the "mechanics" of
photographic imaging and seeing have almost nothing to do with
each other in too many instances to come to the simple conclusion
above. In this particular instance, the angle of view of human sight
may be specified as anything from about 220 degrees to a tiny
fraction of one degree! ;-)
> In general the diagonal of the
> imaged area on film is approximately "normal", with room for
> interpretation.
This is an acceptable (and accepted) photographic standard that
has very little to do with human sight...
--David Ruether
www.David-Ruether-Photography.com
d_ruether....@....hotmail.com
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"W" <persistentone@spamarrest.com> wrote in message
news:Avydne85rJ1q45HQnZ2dnUVZ_gWdnZ2d@giganews.com...
> Is there a low cost device focused on converting 8mm video/audio to digital
> format? I need a device that would mount the 8mm movie and then output
> audio and video on RCA cable outputs.
>
> I'll feed that to any commodity analog capture device that will then convert
> to digital.
>
> I'm really hoping to feed the video directly from the projector to the
> analog capture device. I don't much like the idea of trying to record from
> 8mm project to a video camera, since that would have a lot of quality loss
> unless carefully set up and run by a person with a lot of experience.
>
> --
> W
I take from the above that you are going from 8mm *film*/audio
and not 8mm *video*/audio? If the latter, the easiest/most-reliable
way to do it is with a used D8 camcorder, FireWire-connected to
the computer (the camcorder can be resold after you have finished
with it). If the former, it can be done, but quality is unlikely to be
very high unless done professionally, and even then, the results can
be disappointing...
--DR
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@sonic.net> wrote in message
news:4d0db528$0$43979$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net...
> David Ruether <d_ruether@thotmail.com> wrote:
>>"peter" <peternew@nospam.optonline.net> wrote in message
>>> On 12/9/2010 5:08 PM, Rich wrote:
>>>> Right now, screens beyond 2M are very expensive. There are no screens
>>>> that I know of with very high resolution. Now they have LED (which
>>>> I'm told from a television standpoint is still not as good as plasma)
>>>> which should make the resolution increase easier. Maybe.
>>> And how much are you willing to pay for one? --
>>> Peter
>>8^)
>>But, going back to Rich's post (since I now block his...), "LED"
>>is just a method of backlighting the LCD panel, different from
>>using fluorescent tubes(?). And, from my viewing experience,
>>the best LCD screens (when properly set up and viewed) are
>>sharper than the best plasmas I've seen (although plasmas do
>>provide a wider angle of view than do LCDs...).
> They can't be sharper. Both technologies use three emitters per pixel
> with no overlap.
> --
> Ray Fischer | Mendacracy (n.) government by lying
> rfischer@sonic.net | The new GOP ideal
8^)
But, going back to our earlier comments, an LCD does appear
to be sharper on axis than off axis (this is not just a color brilliance
effect...), or at least mine is, which is VERY sharp on-axis and
sharper than any plasma I have seen. I have not compared my
LCD and a good plasma side-by-side, but plasmas always look
a bit softer to me...
--DR
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Paullie" <spamtrap@invalid.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9E54892EEA27583F16A@%ip...
> Is there a standard angle of inclination for LCD displays to get the best
> definition and color?
>
> My wife insists on having the screen vertical but I like to have it facing
> me squarely.
You are correct, if you care about the very best picture quality.
While some claim very wide angles for viewing, you can easily
see the decline in color quality and sharpness with VERY little
change in angle, if you are particular about best color quality and
sharpness. BTW, DO NOT let your wife convince you to hang
the TV on a wall w a y o v e r t h e r e . . . . . (you may as
well get a small TV and view it closely! ;-). A good 1080p 42"
looks good around 6-7 feet away (and permits 3-couch-cushion
viewing, with the side positions being acceptably good - but grab
the center, if you can...;-), and with some programming, much
closer viewing still looks good. And, DO NOT hang the dang
thing over the fireplace! UGH! This bespeaks users who care
little about the quality of the viewing experience. OK, while I'm
at it, forget about the miserable built-in sound on TVs. Hook
the cable-box, dish receiver, etc. directly to an integrated amp
or receiver (and forget the hokey "surround-sound" mush and
go for a good pair of front speakers [used older ones can be
good], properly placed for best sound [something few people
bothered to do even with "hi-fi"...]). So, there! ;-)
--DR
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Harold Lathom" <75537.1644@compuserve.com> wrote in message
news:ietfr0$bo1$1@speranza.aioe.org...
> On Wed, 22 Dec 2010 18:18:58 +0000, Harold Lathom wrote:
>> My kid wants to make movies with his articulated toys moving - I think
>> that's called stop action animation.
>
> I just realized that URL to the Sony DCRSX44 camcorder specifications
> was too long so I tinyurl'd it to make it easier for you to see the specs:
> http://tinyurl.com/3ahq2b2
>
> What do I look for in camcorder specs that tells me the camcorder can do
> stop action animation (either manually or every so many seconds) and then
> turn the results into a movie?
"Digital camera" should do it, but you would need to bring onto a
timeline all the 640x480 photos in order, specifying in the editing
program how long each should last. Preferably, the camera should
have a cable release socket or Lanc socket (which it won't have),
but it may have a wireless remote that can be used for taking the
individual photos. A reasonably sturdy short tripod would help.
Could be fun, but this takes a lot of patience to do well...;-)
--DR
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I offered to edit a friend's AVCHD Lite and .MOV video clips
shot with a Panasonic ZM35 and ZS6 in Europe on a recent trip,
but was horrified to find many clips that were very short, jerky,
and even shot in portrait orientation(!!!). To save things, I asked
for the couple of hundred 4000x3000 stills that were put up on
the Kodak photo site to "fatten" the video content, intending to
use Mercalli to stabilize some of the clips, and the "pan and scan"
feature of Sony Vegas to animate them. Having avoided trying
to use P&S in the past (it is a tad less than intuitive...), I took a
4000x3000 image last night, imported it and placed it on the
timeline, and with a little playing around, found that keyframed
pan, tilt, rotation and combination effects were not all that hard
to do - and that right-clicking on the first keyframe and selecting
"smooth" made for very nice results without aliasing, and with
sharp video. Neat. (This was never very satisfactory for me
using SD Mini-DV video.)
--David Ruether
www.David-Ruether-Photography.com
d_ruether....@....hotmail.com
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
<newguy> wrote in message
news:pdvhh65afsl6ao74t53s8l83gk9iuu0eik@4ax.com...
> Is one better than the other?
> Thanks
Ooooooooh! 8^) The answer is, "maybe" - but "Frank" can tell you
far more about this, and has written good articles on it. The short
answer is that HDV is tape-based (and therefore it provides automatic
archiving of the source material, unlike memory-card/HD-based
AVCHD which requires greater care in archiving material reliably);
being tape-based, dropouts are possible with HDV; HDV is easier
to work with and it requires less "able" computer gear unless relatively
lower quality "AVCHD-Lite" is used; HDV uses non-square pixels
for operations (at 1440x1080 resolution) while working with it
although the sensor may actually be 1920x1080, as will be the viewed
image; even though AVCHD's compression type may be more efficient
than that of HDV, for the most part (short of using the highest data rate
that any amateur camcorder is capable of), HDV as yet still often looks
better than AVCHD - but AVCHD is getting better. The new small
Panasonic HDC-TM700 can shoot very sharp-looking 28Mbps peak
1920x1080*p* footage, but I have yet to find a good way to export
the edited video in a usable form without noticeable loss (the best way
so far is with 60i Blu-ray).
--DR
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Brian" <bclark@es.co.nz> wrote in message
news:8ncih6hirktn1s4o4l1vpfe6pohe712nph@4ax.com...
> I like to create different ideas for videophotography and find ways to
> make them possible. So far I have not found a way to show a view as
> seen thru a bird's eyes when the bird is flying low over a garden or
> landing in a garden.
>
> Regards Brian
Back when I could still move smoothly and control muscles well I
used to use a number two Nikkor close-up lens on my VX2000
camcorder, which would provide the ability to have infinity focus
(in addition to close focus) when the lens was zoomed mostly wide,
and VERY close focus when the lens was zoomed mostly long. With
this, I could swoop in on a blossom and follow bees or other insects,
using my back (a-a-a-r-r-g-g-h . . . . ), legs, and arms for crane and
dolly work, or start close in, and then zoom wide for wide angle
distant-focus views. Sometimes I would add handles to the camera
for "flying" the camera under big-leafed plants. Fun! ;-) Unfortunately,
now with my HD cameras, it is all I can do to get short clips that are
reasonably steady without such fancy shooting, sigh....
--DR
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Brian" <bclark@es.co.nz> wrote in message
news:jbfih650bpalkak65ob6hk2n2cd57iuqn7@4ax.com...
> My camera's resolution is 720 x 576. I tried recording a test video
> using 4:3 ratio and 16:9 ratio. I was expecting the resolution to be
> different but for both recordings the resolution was 720 x 576 (and
> not 720 x 480). When viewed on a 16:9 computer monitor or TV it shows
> the full 16:9 video and does not have black bars at the top and bottom
> of the picture.
> I'm thinking that maybe there is some signal within the video to tell
> the player to display it at a certain ratio. If I decide to record at
> 16:9 am I going to have a reduction in video quality?
>
> Regards Brian
If one shoots SD video as 4:3, the 16:9 TV should show the whole
frame area with added black bars at the sides (or it may distort
the image by stretching it horizontally to fit the 16:9 TV screen, not
a very desirable solution...). If one shoots 4:3 as cropped 16:9
(as it appears you would be doing), the top and bottom areas are
tossed out, and the rest is enlarged to fill the 16:9 TV frame - and
with the loss of material and the enlargement of what remains comes
inevitable picture degradation... BTW, you are in a PAL country,
so for you, SD is 720x576 - but in NTSC-land, it is 720x480 (or
so...;-). Except with a very few cameras, you cannot easily choose
between the standards.
--DR
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Brian" <bclark@es.co.nz> wrote in message
news:rqnkh6d5brnjqvpr1pdveh8r0qpb6ttv31@4ax.com...
> "David Ruether" <d_ruether@thotmail.com> wrote:
>>"Brian" <bclark@es.co.nz> wrote in message
>>news:jbfih650bpalkak65ob6hk2n2cd57iuqn7@4ax.com...
>>> My camera's resolution is 720 x 576. I tried recording a test video
>>> using 4:3 ratio and 16:9 ratio. I was expecting the resolution to be
>>> different but for both recordings the resolution was 720 x 576 (and
>>> not 720 x 480). When viewed on a 16:9 computer monitor or TV it shows
>>> the full 16:9 video and does not have black bars at the top and bottom
>>> of the picture.
>>> I'm thinking that maybe there is some signal within the video to tell
>>> the player to display it at a certain ratio. If I decide to record at
>>> 16:9 am I going to have a reduction in video quality?
>>>
>>> Regards Brian
>>If one shoots SD video as 4:3, the 16:9 TV should show the whole
>>frame area with added black bars at the sides (or it may distort
>>the image by stretching it horizontally to fit the 16:9 TV screen, not
>>a very desirable solution...). If one shoots 4:3 as cropped 16:9
>>(as it appears you would be doing), the top and bottom areas are
>>tossed out, and the rest is enlarged to fill the 16:9 TV frame - and
>>with loss of material and enlargement of what remains comes
>>inevitable picture degradation... BTW, you are in a PAL country,
>>so for you, SD is 720x576 - but in NTSC-land, it is 720x480 (or
>>so...;-). Except with a very few cameras, you cannot easily choose
>>between the standards.
>>--DR
> Thanks David and Gavino for your replies.
> It's difficult to know which format to use (4:3 or 16:9)
> If I choose 16:9 and want to add older video clips when creating a
> video I'm mixing 4:3 with 16:9. The 16:9 enlarges the picture causing
> a loss of picture quality. On the otherhand it fits on a widescreen TV
> and gives me a wider view.
> I guess the 4:3 ratio will die out and camera's will no longer have
> the choice of ratios. I can't see why they can't have still photo
> camera's with the choice of 16:9 ratio so when yoy have a slideshow on
> a widescreen TV then the picxture fits the screen.
>
> Regards Brian
Some cameras do have proportion options. We just got a Panasonic
ZS7 that offers a choice of square, 4:3, 3:2 (FF 35mm proportion)
and 16x9 options, as I recall...
--DR
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Brian" <bclark@es.co.nz> wrote in message
news:d0gjh691vneqbts280cuj4b409q47ic27j@4ax.com...
> newguy wrote:
>>Is one better than the other?
>>Thanks
> Many still photo cameras can now record high resolution video. Do
> these camera's use AVCHD?
>
> Regards Brian
Or MJPEG (.MOV), or both..., but it is not just the "HD or
not" issue, but resolution and data rate - and most still cameras
do not shoot very high-quality HD video (and even basic
features like AF, AE, and zooming while shooting are just
coming into being with still cameras that can also shoot video).
For formats, AVCHD for instance, comes in many different
"flavors", from 1280x720(p) resolution, low frame rate, and
low data rate to much better than that, but the quality of the
output is still generally not equal to the best that the best small
camcorders can produce. Still cameras are good for a
"snap-shooting" level of video quality, but not generally yet
for high quality...
--DR
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Brian" <bclark@es.co.nz> wrote in message
news:kddqh6lqghkhkbl6o791omvaui1nqn4kt2@4ax.com...
> There has been a lot of talk about the changes in camera's in this
> forum. I just wanted to say that I'm pleased that most camera's allow
> you to record on a SD card. The problem with cameras that use tape was
> that the format keep changing.
Heck, it keeps changing with card recordings, too...! ;-) 5/6/7/9/13/15/
17/21/24/35/50Mbps data rates; VBR and CBR; 25/30p, 50/60i, and
50/60p frames; low-resolution SD, plus HD in 720p, 1080i, and 1080p.
Want more variations? With tape, so long as I could find decks to play
them with, I could easily digitize tapes - but right now, I can only marvel
at the very sharp files from my 60p 28Mbps peak VBR 1920x1080
Panasonic TM700, while wondering how to archive the edited video
without significantly reducing video quality. Even Blu-ray has a lower
data rate and half the pixels per "frame"...
> I started with the 30 minute half inch
> video tapes on my first video camera then my next camera took the
> Video8 tapes and my current camera tapes the DV tapes. If I sell my
> older camera then I can't play back my Video8 tapes. There's a
> converter that allows you to put a compact half inch tape into a VCR
> player but there are sometimes problems and the tape works better when
> played on the camera. I hope to eventually to move all my video
> recordings over to my computer. In the past video editing on the
> computer was not always possible and you needed hardware to
> control the video player when trying to edit the recording.
Those were "the bad old days", and I knew someone who edited weddings
that way (whew! ;-). We sold him one of our first editing computers...
> I also wonder how people check video cameras for video quality
> when buying a new camera. Most video cameras have a small screen
> which is too small to judge the quality of the camera unless the store is
> willing to connect the video camera to a large screen.
>
> Regards Brian
Word of mouth from users helps, as does borrowing a camera to see
what it does (preferably comparing it with others under the same
conditions - and I did this long ago when choosing Mini-DV camcorders
[see - http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/camcorder-comparison.htm ]).
I use familiar subjects, and lately, with the improved resolution of cameras,
I use distant hillside cityscapes to evaluate resolution and also some types
of image flaws. There is no easy way to do a thorough check (and you
also cannot assume that a new piece of gear will be without manufacturing
defects in addition to design shortcomings).
--DR
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Harry Putnam" <reader@newsguy.com> wrote in message
news:87aajlpgtx.fsf@newsguy.com...
> [Note... be wary of a bit of windbaggedness]
>
> I'm still pretty green as a wannabe event videographer. I wondered
> how more experienced people handle the question of space during a
> wedding shoot, since weddings have made up by far the largest part of
> the work I've had.
[...]
"Gary Eickmeier" <geickmei@tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message
news:lfyTo.37339$Yo.22598@unlimited.newshosting.com...
> Harry -
>
> I think your wedding shooting ideas are pretty bad. The wedding is not your
> show, it is the bride's and the minister's. Your job is to stay discretely
> out of the way and out of sight. If you are trying to place yourself right
> behind the minister you are not only being obnoxious to everyone present,
> but also in your own back camera's field of view.
>
> The proper position for the front camera is about 45 degrees to the right,
> on the groom's side, so you can see the bride's face and possibly the side
> view of the minister. When the couple is facing forward - at the minister -
> you can see both of their faces. You can also see the wedding party coming
> up the aisle, at least until the groomsmen block you.
>
> And the worst thing you can do during a wedding is move around the altar
> (not alter) and call attention to yourselves, trying to get all kinds of
> "great" shots. People are there to watch two people get married, not to
> watch you work.
>
> You are dressing like the wedding party, right? Doesn't have to be a tux,
> just a nice black suit.
>
> Quick tip: Get a little digital recorder and lapel mike to stick on the
> groom in an inside pocket, and pick up the vows better than any other
> technique. It is easily syced up to the video in editing.
>
> Gary Eickmeier
Having shot many a wedding video, I agree heartily with "Gary's"
comments. A wedding is not primarily an "event shoot", but a
ceremony during which minimal interference may be permissible
to have some record of the event. To add to what Gary wrote, I
never had a "roving" camera during the ceremony, but in addition
to two fixed VX2000s (great for low light), one in the pews at
45 degrees, and one (if an elevated location was available) at the far
end of the aisle (or if not, further back at 45 degrees on the other
side). In addition I would sometimes set up TRV900s (decent low
light capability) or even tiny mini camcorders (the picture brightness
could be brought up with corrections while editing, and the brief
"cut-aways" from them were acceptable) either on clamps or on
light stand poles with multi-way heads (thin and very tall, with
artificial ivy wrapped around them to make them more acceptable
near the ceremony). BTW, some of the best footage came from
the rehearsal, the time just before the wedding as people gathered,
just after the ceremony, and of course at the reception. I usually
had about two hours of good material in my edited wedding
videos...;-)
--DR
~~~~~~~~
"Harry Putnam" <reader@newsguy.com> wrote in message
news:87fwt9j0ba.fsf@newsguy.com...
> "David Ruether" <d_ruether@thotmail.com> writes:
>
> [...]
>
> Harry wrote:
>>> I'm still pretty green as a wannabe event videographer. I wondered
>>> how more experienced people handle the question of space during a
>>> wedding shoot, since weddings have made up by far the largest part of
>>> the work I've had.
>> [...]
>
>> "Gary Eickmeier" <geickmei@tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message
>> news:lfyTo.37339$Yo.22598@unlimited.newshosting.com...
>
> [...]
>
>>> I think your wedding shooting ideas are pretty bad. The wedding is not your
>>> show, it is the bride's and the minister's. Your job is to stay discretely
>>> out of the way and out of sight. If you are trying to place yourself right
>>> behind the minister you are not only being obnoxious to everyone present,
>>> but also in your own back camera's field of view.
>
> [...]
>
>>> You are dressing like the wedding party, right? Doesn't have to be a tux,
>>> just a nice black suit.
>
> [aside to Gary: Yes, we do dress in kind
I used to wear black pants and a light-weight short-sleeved black
shirt (or even a black cotton T-shirt), explaining to the couple at the
first meeting that I'm heat-sensitive, and some church interiors are
insufferable in the summer - and I must either dress for the heat
(including wearing a black sweat band on my head), or I likely
could not shoot the wedding. All who hired me agreed to my
condition (it beats having the videographer pass out during the
ceremony... ;-).
> David writes:
>
>> Having shot many a wedding video, I agree heartily with "Gary's"
>> comments. A wedding is not primarily an "event shoot", but a
>> ceremony during which minimal interference may be desired to have
>> some record of the event.
>
>> To add to what Gary wrote, I never had a "roving" camera during the
>> ceremony, but in addition to two fixed VX2000s (great for low
>> light), one in the pews at 45 degrees, and one (if an elevated
>> location was available) at the far end of the aisle (or if not,
>> further back at 45 degrees on the other side).
> Your are talking of unmanned cameras right?
All but one unmanned, but it was generally on a tripod (or tall light
stand - controlled with a remote Lanc controller, using the down-facing
screen to see what I was shooting). All the cameras can be started a
bit ahead of time, and synchronizing later using the flash pops, then
correcting the slight errors by listening to the tracks if all the sound
tracks were used in addition to the recorder on the groom. In a large
church, due to the speed of sound, the difference between correct
visual synchronization and correct audio synchronization could be
quite noticeable...;-)
>> In addition I would sometimes set up TRV900s (decent low
>> light capability) or even tiny mini camcorders (the picture brightness
>> could be brought up with corrections while editing, and the brief
>> "cut-aways" from them were acceptable) either on clamps or on
>> light stand poles with multi-way heads (thin and very tall, with
>> artificial ivy wrapped around them to make them more acceptable
>> near the ceremony).
> Good details... lots of good ideas to try out. I guess you are
> talking about using something like 4 cameras, all unmanned?
>
> [...]
>
> Thanks for the good input
Up to 6 on a "nuttier" shoot, often with a couple very close in with
fisheye converters on...;-) And, you're welcome.
--DR
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>> Hi--
>>> http://www.youtube.com/sonyelectronics?&mid=&rid=&clid=&cid=&lid=&XID=E:49298:YOUTUBE3
>> Interesting, along with the 60p mono shooting capability. I made a 3D
>> cross-eyed video years ago, but the viewing was too difficult for most
>> people. BTW, the comment that there was no software for editing the 3D
>> footage was odd since Vegas Pro 10 can edit the various types of 3D now.
>> Also, I've found a way that is good enough to retain all the detail of the
>> Panasonic TM700 60p footage, and it was already on Pro 8. I can make 35 or
>> 50 Mbps 60p EX (*.exf) files that are as good as the original and
>> noticeably better than Blu-ray! ;-) I'm in-process on three videos now,
>> the TM700 samples, the Fall Color one, and one I'm making for a friend of
>> a trip to Europe of stills (some with motion) and .mov and .avc
>> files. --DR
> Sounds good. Does it require long render times? Have you ever investigated
> Cineform Neoscene? Might be good for those of us who don't have a CS5
> capable computer yet.
I haven't looked into it yet, but I can edit reasonably well now with 60p
TM700 footage (it plays more smoothly from the timeline than even 17Mbps
AVCHD does for some reason, and I have one more improvement ready
to go once these three videos are finished - 64bit Windows 7 and 64bit
Vegas Pro 9), so I will probably not need the intermediary file type - but
final rendering to .exf files does take maybe three times longer than Blu-ray,
but the quality is a good bit higher, useful for archiving edited video. I just
looked at the Cineform web site, and found what for me is a BIG negative
for Neoscene - it extracts/converts to 24p (no 60p). I have NEVER figured
out the appeal of this very obviously inferior frame rate, and I think I never
will. It's like expecting all cars to look like 1915 Fords. YUCK! Time to get
beyond the flicker and time smear of old-timey "movie-look"! BTW, I tried
24p Blu-ray and 60i Blu-ray from the 60p footage, and 24p was the worst,
60i next, and the original a good bit better (but 60p Blu-ray is not possible,
darn!).
> This new 3D camera looks like the real McCoy. The Panasonic one is a toy,
> with its 1 inch interocular at most, and shooting on the same chip side by
> side. The Sony shoots full 1920 on two different chips. I guess the stream
> must be twice as data hungry, but no specs yet. All we know is that it can
> be shown directly on the 3D system currently in place.
It looks like it can shoot 60p as mono, and likely it splits that unknown data
rate in half for each side of the stereo, making each "side" noticeably lower
in quality. But, in any case, I consider this whole 3D thing a gimmick, and I'm
not going to "bite"...;-)
> Even more so than hi-def, however, there is no market for such a thing yet.
> All you would be doing is shooting 3D and producing in standard Blu-Ray,
> with the come-on that it could be re-edited into 3D later. Camera looks not
> too expensive, though. I wonder what the production problems will be.
>
> It's getting interesting! They want our money!
>
> Gary
$1600 for this Sony toy, half that for a "real" camera in the TM700...;-)
--DR
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Gary Eickmeier" <geickmei@tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message
news:rWdVo.26063$Au3.10071@unlimited.newshosting.com...
> "Brian" <bclark@es.co.nz> wrote in message
> news:362ai6lvb6eu6mh94u816nh139m8sga3il@4ax.com...
>> "bob" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote:
>>>Moving the groomsmen discretely is a little tricky. At the rehearsal you
>>>could ask them to move a step or two to give you a better shot. Just hope
>>>they remember this during the ceremony.
>> People are more difficult to move and some might refuse. By taking a
>> small step stool you might be able to get a better view over the heads
>> of people, providing you've not blocking the view of others.
> A videographer's peashooter can be a valuable aid. Just remember to erase
> the "ptoo" sound in editing.
>
> Gary
8^)
--DR
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Stark" <me@mynation.com> wrote in message
news:oj2bi65bpi05gmp5fvq67jcitckf5nkgct@4ax.com...
> i wanted to buy a compact super zoom camera and i'm undecided among
> these
>
> panasonic -tz-10
> sony hx 5
> samsung w650 (but this have a noisy video recording while zooming)
>
> what do you suggest? or you have other models to tell me about?
>
> tnk
I'll join in the "throw out a model" game, but the Panasonic ZS7 (or ZS6,
same without GPS) is popular for its fairly sharp images with 25-300mm
equivalent lens, compactness, and video quality. It's not great in low light,
though, but for general daylight trip shooting, it is very good.
--DR
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
<sgordon@changethisparttohardbat.com> wrote in message
news:4d25dabc$0$44061$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net...
> Gary Eickmeier <geickmei@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
> : The wedding is not your show, it is the bride's and the minister's.
> I once went to a wedding that was totally ruined by the videographers.
> They literally were all over the wedding party, front and center the
> entire time, with two cameras just like it was a photo shoot. They
> blocked the view of the vows, the cutting of the cake, the first dance,
> it was atrocious. The couple even complained at one point, and the
> crew said "your wedding is today, but the video will last a lifetime."
> Outrageous and obnoxious.
UGH!!! A local wedding videographer has three shooters (one each)
at three different weddings each weekend, and I had the misfortune
of seeing some of the results. Besides the total lack of concern for the
color correcting of the results, the cameramen were obviously zipping
around the priests/ministers/rabbis and couples, going anywhere that
"got the best shot" close in. I have no religion, but I respected the wishes
of the couple and especially the officiant at weddings, even if that meant
that I could get no closer than a church balcony or at a distance away
from the group in a field or yard. Again, a wedding is a ceremony! It
is possible to get good videos even with strict limitations on movements,
even though not all things may be covered (go over with the couple and
officiant what is permissible). I was never fond of "recreations", but
that is an alternative for getting missed events, artificial as that seems to
me (as in, "and this was the video made while we were redoing the ring
exchange for the video..." ;-).
--DR
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"David McCall" <mccallmail@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:ig79hq$sgf$1@news.albasani.net...
> "Gary Eickmeier" <geickmei@tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message
> news:vGEVo.89415$T92.40709@unlimited.newshosting.com...
>> <sgordon@changethisparttohardbat.com> wrote in message
>> news:4d25dabc$0$44061$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net...
>>> Gary Eickmeier <geickmei@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
>>> : The wedding is not your show, it is the bride's and the minister's.
>>> I once went to a wedding that was totally ruined by the videographers.
>>> They literally were all over the wedding party, front and center the
>>> entire time, with two cameras just like it was a photo shoot. They
>>> blocked the view of the vows, the cutting of the cake, the first dance,
>>> it was atrocious. The couple even complained at one point, and the
>>> crew said "your wedding is today, but the video will last a lifetime."
>>> Outrageous and obnoxious.
>> Seems that every vendor at a wedding thinks that it is their show, or the
>> whole thing depends on their skills.
>>
>> Gary Eickmeier
> It is their job to get the best photos or videos they can to please the
> bride's mother. All of those events are key elements of the wedding
> that will be expected in the pictures. Their attitude is that the event
> comes and goes in a couple hours, but the video and photos are
> going to be around forever.
>
> A really talented photographer will manage to get those shots
> without getting in the way.
>
> David
I never made it a point to do "interviews" during wedding shoots, since
there was so much of interest that happened spontaneously - but the
mother-in-law asked to say something, so I obliged. 'Course, after the
finished video was delivered, the bride's mother called and INSISTED
that I remove that part, and added, "How dare could I have included it!"
This did not appear to bode well for future relations between the two
mothers, but of course, I removed it...8^)
--DR
~~~~~~~~~~~
"mike" <mkujbida@gmail.com> wrote in message news:6bea0abd-fdb6-4782-8b46-6a1d41f3a7c7@r19g2000prm.googlegroups.com...
On Jan 7, 12:04 pm, "David Ruether" <d_ruet...@thotmail.com> wrote:
> I never made it a point to do "interviews" during wedding shoots, since
> there was so much of interest that happened spontaneously - but the
> mother-in-law asked to say something, so I obliged. 'Course, after the
> finished video was delivered, the bride's mother called and INSISTED
> that I remove that part, and added, "How dare could I have included it!"
> This did not appear to bode well for future relations between the two
> mothers, but of course, I removed it...8^)
> --DR
David, you broke wedding interview rule #1 which is "Never let the
mother-in-law say something on camera without letting the mother of
the bride have equal (preferably longer) screen time".
:)
Mike
8^), but she coulda had as much time as she wanted (and others spoke,
once they saw the mother in law do it - but she didn't) - but you are right,
I should probably have just cut them all (and as it was, at the reception
a line of people reaching into outer space wanted to make toasts, the
longest of which was 45 minutes[!!!!]). Such is wedding work, I guess,
at least at Italian weddings! 8^)
--DR
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"mike" <mkujbida@gmail.com> wrote in message news:bba00c30-ff7b-42e8-a8a9-5322aeb43489@r40g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
On Jan 7, 2:49 pm, "David Ruether" <d_ruet...@thotmail.com> wrote:
> "mike" <mkujb...@gmail.com> wrote in messagenews:6bea0abd-fdb6-4782-8b46-6a1d41f3a7c7@r19g2000prm.googlegroups.com...
> On Jan 7, 12:04 pm, "David Ruether" <d_ruet...@thotmail.com> wrote:
> > I never made it a point to do "interviews" during wedding shoots, since
> > there was so much of interest that happened spontaneously - but the
> > mother-in-law asked to say something, so I obliged. 'Course, after the
> > finished video was delivered, the bride's mother called and INSISTED
> > that I remove that part, and added, "How dare could I have included it!"
> > This did not appear to bode well for future relations between the two
> > mothers, but of course, I removed it...8^)
> > --DR
> David, you broke wedding interview rule #1 which is "Never let the
> mother-in-law say something on camera without letting the mother of
> the bride have equal (preferably longer) screen time".
> :)
>
> Mike
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
> 8^), but she coulda had as much time as she wanted (and others spoke,
> once they saw the mother in law do it - but she didn't) - but you are right,
> I should probably have just cut them all (and as it was, at the reception
> a line of people reaching into outer space wanted to make toasts, the
> longest of which was 45 minutes[!!!!]). Such is wedding work, I guess,
> at least at Italian weddings! 8^)
> --DR
That's why I don't do weddings.
I've grudgingly recorded a few for very close friends with the
understanding that it's a single camera shoot with no editing and
they've been happy with that as all they wanted was a recording of the
ceremony and the speeches at the reception.
I read what some of you folks do and shake my head while saying "you
couldn't pay me enough".
Mike
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,
Most of my clients were good and fun to work with, maybe due to their
not realizing that when they thought they were interviewing me about
whether or not they wanted me to shoot their weddings, I was interviewing
them to see if I wanted to shoot their weddings...;-) I had very few less
than great experiences over the years, and the few that weren't ideal weren't
very bad (and I had no "bridezillas"...;-). The pay per wedding toward the
end for a small city 'weren't too bad neither ($2500), and many of the
weddings were also memorable for various reasons (I could write a small
book about couples that got married at the edges of a high cliffs, on small boats,
in gushing downpours, in front of large waterfalls, on in-line skates, in cow
pastures, in medieval costumes, with large groups of VERY interesting people,
at wineries and a castle and various interesting old churches ;-). And the food
and music were generally superb, too! 'Course there was that unfortunate
incident when a nearly deaf relative was to play the pipe organ in a beautiful
Victorian chapel with a superb trumpeter accompanist, and he kept slipping
a note or so out of place on the organ keyboards - but the trumpeter really
was VERY good and he made things generally come out sounding OK...! ;-)
Then there was the time at a reception at a park that I was too "slow on the
draw" to catch what happened when everyone on one side of a picnic table
got up, leaving the other side too heavy and it flipped over next to me...;-)
But, wait - there's MORE......! 8^)
--DR
~~~~~~~~~~~
"Brian" <bclark@es.co.nz> wrote in message
news:tirfi6lcmdkjp0jqaovngajcfedqrna9ju@4ax.com...
> "David McCall" <mccallmail@verizon.net> wrote:
>>"Gary Eickmeier" <geickmei@tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message
>>news:vGEVo.89415$T92.40709@unlimited.newshosting.com...
>>> <sgordon@changethisparttohardbat.com> wrote in message
>>> news:4d25dabc$0$44061$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net...
>>>> Gary Eickmeier <geickmei@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
>>>> : The wedding is not your show, it is the bride's and the minister's.
>>>> I once went to a wedding that was totally ruined by the videographers.
>>>> They literally were all over the wedding party, front and center the
>>>> entire time, with two cameras just like it was a photo shoot. They
>>>> blocked the view of the vows, the cutting of the cake, the first dance,
>>>> it was atrocious. The couple even complained at one point, and the
>>>> crew said "your wedding is today, but the video will last a lifetime."
>>>> Outrageous and obnoxious.
>>> Seems that every vendor at a wedding thinks that it is their show, or the
>>> whole thing depends on their skills.
>>>
>>> Gary Eickmeier
>>It is their job to get the best photos or videos they can to please the
>>bride's mother. All of those events are key elements of the wedding
>>that will be expected in the pictures. Their attitude is that the event
>>comes and goes in a couple hours, but the video and photos are
>>going to be around forever.
>>
>>A really talented photographer will manage to get those shots
>>without getting in the way.
>>
>>David
> What is sometimes missed by Professional photographers is the people
> at the wedding. They seem to concerate on the bide and groom. I know
> of a bride that was disappointed that no photos were taken of the
> people that came to the wedding as it would have reminded her who had
> come to the wedding.
>
> Regards Brian
I used to shoot everyone I could find in good-looking/sounding
situations, as with interactions during the rehearsal, afterwards at the
wedding, and at the reception. I included "utility table-shots" (ugh!)
to catch everyone, but I also shot many 1 or 2 on one conversations,
etc., or unusual things going on (like "spoon-hanging" contests, wine
glass pyramid constructions, kids playing close-in, or intense
conversations) a for more intimate view of the goings-on... But, I
always tried for the "fly-on-the wall" approach - not interrupting or
directing what was going on
--DR
~~~~~~~~~
"Harry Putnam" <reader@newsguy.com> wrote in message
news:87lj2vl4sj.fsf@newsguy.com...
> "David Ruether" <d_ruether@thotmail.com> writes:
[Warning: as a former photographer, I will respond to several of the
following posts...! ;-]
>> I used to shoot everyone I could find in good-looking/sounding
>> situations, as with interactions during the rehearsal, afterwards at the
>> wedding, and at the reception. I included "utility table-shots" (ugh!)
>> to catch everyone, but I also shot many 1 or 2 on one conversations,
>> etc., or unusual things going on (like "spoon-hanging" contests, wine
>> glass pyramid constructions, kids playing close-in, or intense
>> conversations) a for more intimate view of the goings-on... But, I
>> always tried for the "fly-on-the wall" approach - not interrupting or
>> directing what was going on
> Even with just the few weddings I've had a hand in shooting, I already
> have a bellyful of the Professional photographers.
>
> I guess these guys know there craft, but for my money all those posed
> shots and phony setups suck.
As a photographer, I used to explain to clients that they had choices to
make. One was that I disliked flash (with the light-bulb-in-a-cave look)
intensely, and I used flash only for fill - and that this risked some unsharp
photos which is why I would take 2-5 images for each, depending on
light levels and motion. I also reminded the bride, etc. that photography
means "the recording of light" - and with little light "for atmosphere",
photography is VERY difficult without using "the ugly option". Another
one was that I preferred not to pose anyone, but if someone else posed
groups, I would shoot them (but not TOO many, please - not EVERY
combination imaginable needs be shot - and doing so takes me away
from making the "good" photos...;-)
--DR
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"David McCall" <mccallmail@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:iga7ci$5vh$1@news.albasani.net...
> "Harry Putnam" <reader@newsguy.com> wrote in message
> news:87lj2vl4sj.fsf@newsguy.com...
>> "David Ruether" <d_ruether@thotmail.com> writes:
>> [...]
>>> I used to shoot everyone I could find in good-looking/sounding
>>> situations, as with interactions during the rehearsal, afterwards at the
>>> wedding, and at the reception. I included "utility table-shots" (ugh!)
>>> to catch everyone, but I also shot many 1 or 2 on one conversations,
>>> etc., or unusual things going on (like "spoon-hanging" contests, wine
>>> glass pyramid constructions, kids playing close-in, or intense
>>> conversations) a for more intimate view of the goings-on... But, I
>>> always tried for the "fly-on-the wall" approach - not interrupting or
>>> directing what was going on
>> Even with just the few weddings I've had a hand in shooting, I already
>> have a bellyful of the Professional photographers.
>>
>> I guess these guys know there craft, but for my money all those posed
>> shots and phony setups suck.
I forgot to add to the last post that I also explained to wedding clients
that there were two extremes of styles of shooting, "the fly-on-the-wall"
with no interference, and "the director", who controls everything. The
first (which I was) risks some missed or poor photos, but makes up for
it with a multitude of natural-looking images; the second guarantees
the standard photos, but...;-) I also explained that photographers have
different personalities, and even a strong "director" can be fun to have
at a wedding (I used to work with one who was/is...;-).
> They may indeed suck, but I think many brides and their moms expect
> to see those shots at minimum. If you get a bunch of other stuff too,
> that is good too. If it were me, I'd want to ask before hand just what the
> expectations are going to be.
Yes. C o m m u n i c a t i o n . . . .
> I've seen the single use cameras on tables at the reception several times.
> I don't know how many gems actually come out of those cameras, but I'll
> bet there are some great ones. They may still want the basic set-up shots
> as well though.
I used to dislike these since the budget was often tight, and these (plus
processing) could eat up a lot of budget, limiting me; the users could also
be a "pain", like having not only one "Uncle George" shooting and in the
way, but a whole bunch of them, often kids...
--DR
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Harry Putnam" <reader@newsguy.com> wrote in message
news:87sjx3l4yi.fsf@newsguy.com...
> Brian <bclark@es.co.nz> writes:
>> What is sometimes missed by Professional photographers is the people
>> at the wedding. They seem to concerate on the bide and groom. I know
>> of a bride that was disappointed that no photos were taken of the
>> people that came to the wedding as it would have reminded her who had
>> come to the wedding.
> Here is a trick you fellows might think is a good one.
>
> This happened before I had taken any interest in videography and was
> the brain child of my own wife at our very own wedding.
>
> She bought a bag full of those cheapo throw away cameras and passed them
> around to many of the guests with the admonition to take any candid
> shots they saw fit with the only proviso that they return the cameras
> too her some time after the wedding.
>
> We ended up with dozens of pictures of course, and in the batch there
> were quite a few really good ones that we would never have gotten any
> other way.
See my post above for why I didn't like them. For the price paid for them
(with little return), I could deliver far more useable photos (and FAR more
photos total to choose from - I usually took 800-1200 photos per wedding...).
--DR
~~~~~~~~~~~
"Gary Eickmeier" <geickmei@tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message
news:bw9Wo.11167$N74.7308@unlimited.newshosting.com...
> "David Ruether" <d_ruether@thotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:igalav$idi$1@ruby.cit.cornell.edu...
>> See my post above for why I didn't like them. For the price paid for them
>> (with little return), I could deliver far more useable photos (and FAR
>> more photos total to choose from - I usually took 800-1200 photos per
>> wedding...).
>> --DR
> I didn't know you did still photography too DR!
I began with still photography and museum-showing (see my web site
at www.David-Ruether-Photography.com ), then added publicity work and
weddings, then also video to what I liked to do for myself, plus weddings.
> You didn't pose them? Hardly
> possible! Candid stuff seems desirable at first, but by the time you see all
> of the crap frames where no one was paying attention or looking at the
> camera or in the right position for a decent shot, you realize that the
> posed shots are the meat and potatos of wedding photography.
This is what separates the good, fast "fly-on-the-wall" type photographers
from those who aren't, or those who can't compose photos quickly, taking
advantage of things as they go by in real time...
> The altar
> return photo session is one of the main events, that no bride can do
> without. Coming up with great, creative poses is what separates the men from
> the boys (women from girls etc etc) of high priced photogs.
>
> Gary Eickmeier
That depends on the client and the photographer. If a good set of photos
were supplied from the ceremony and the other parts of the event that were
shot "live", who cares about the missing stilted couple and group photos
that would have been taken after the event...? ;-) I rarely asked people
to stop what they were doing to "pose" for me (UGH! A horrible concept
to me!). If the couple requested a few posed photos (ugh....;-), I generally
obliged, and I would also shoot a few group photos organized by someone
else if requested by the couple, but this was not part of my usual service.
I was there to show people (and the environment they were in) enjoying
themselves and each other, not pulling them away from that and "directing"
them to do something else.
--DR
~~~~~~~~~
"Gary Eickmeier" <geickmei@tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message news:Y_mWo.72661$Yo.72246@unlimited.newshosting.com...
> "David Ruether" <d_ruether@thotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:igcelk$ie6$1@ruby.cit.cornell.edu...
>> That depends on the client and the photographer. If a good set of photos
>> were supplied from the ceremony and the other parts of the event that were
>> shot "live", who cares about the missing stilted couple and group photos
>> that would have been taken after the event...? ;-) I rarely asked people
>> to stop what they were doing to "pose" for me (UGH! A horrible concept
>> to me!). If the couple requested a few posed photos (ugh....;-), I
>> generally
>> obliged, and I would also shoot a few group photos organized by someone
>> else if requested by the couple, but this was not part of my usual
>> service.
>> I was there to show people (and the environment they were in) enjoying
>> themselves and each other, not pulling them away from that and "directing"
>> them to do something else.
>> --DR
> OK, fair enough, but what about the "romantics" as we call the posed special
> shots of the bride and groom in some romantic poses, such as (typically)
> near a window or in a pretty garden kissing.
I regarded these as artificial cliché images, which were not what I offered...
> If all you end up with is her
> shoving some wedding cake in his face, they may not like your proofs.
I caught FAR more than this!!! 8^)
> I am probably on the other side of the argument, in general. I have seen
> these guys who think they should shoot a "candid" wedding like a street
> photographer in grainy black and white. I think that some beautifully posed,
> fine-grained, sharp, well-lit color photos will be prized way above any
> candids you can "snapshot" off. And it takes more work as well.
Some couples may have preferred these (but they were not my clients...;-),
but if it came down to a choice (and it generally would, given time constraints),
I preferred spending the available time shooting people happily interacting
instead of following my directions to make clichéd photos... BTW, I always
turned down requests "to shoot some B&W" for the same reason, explaining
that each has its particular aesthetic, and trying to do both in the "heat of the
action" would be counterproductive. I also mentioned that color photos
could be printed as B&W, if desired...
> For the record, I hate posing too, because I'm not much good at it. I don't
> do stills for a living, and don't have a portfolio of poses that I can whip
> out. I do try to get the technical part right so that if and when I do shoot
> some formals they look professional and well exposed and good white balance
> and lighting. I have been lucky. My first one was a freebie for an Iranian
> couple (in the early 90s), shot with my Pentax medium format still camera.
> Turned out great, some posed some candid during events. Should almost always
> have them look up toward the camera, even for such as cutting the cake,
> because it is as if they are inviting the viewer in to their picture and
> showing how proud they are.
But, but, but..., you're imposing YOUR "story" on the photos by doing this,
not the couple's (who knows - maybe they actually hated each other...! ;-).
> Nowadays, of course, with digital, you can tell
> right away if you screwed up a shot due to white balance or exposure.
>
> But hey - it is very easy to outclass the amateurs who are waiving their new
> Nikons around, if you just know a little about posing and the technicals.
> And, of course, by you posing them you are assured that they are looking at
> your camera and not Uncle Harry's.
>
> Gary Eickmeier
I almost always let "Uncle Harry" have first crack at it, if it came down to
that - then I had the freedom to proceed without interference...;-)
--DR
~~~~~~~~~~~
"Gary Eickmeier" <geickmei@tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message
news:7_FWo.99332$T92.27448@unlimited.newshosting.com...
> "David Ruether" <d_ruether@thotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:igf6hf$960$1@ruby.cit.cornell.edu...
>> But, but, but..., you're imposing YOUR "story" on the photos by doing
>> this, not the couple's (who knows - maybe they actually hated each
>> other...! ;-).
> I'll leave you with one thought on this subject. I shot my nephew's wedding.
> He is a car guy. I shot him and his brother, his best man, standing around
> his Corvette engine block, which was on a stand sitting in the rec room in
> his house! Then I shot the groom and all of the groomsmen in the back yard,
> standing around his blood red Dodge Viper, casually, as if it were the most
> natural place for them to find themselves at any given moment. These were
> posed shots that would not have happened during the ceremony at the church
> or reception, or without my creativity knowing his life and his treasures.
> The bride had a similar favorite shot, with her ladies standing around mom's
> dining room table. They both will treasure those shots forever, which were
> enlarged to 11x14 in their album.
>
> Oh yes - and talk about posed shots! For my wedding I scheduled a studio
> session with my friend from the photographers' guild a couple days before
> the wedding. My betrothed and I put on our garb and posed for the most
> gorgeous couple shot you could wish for, something that could not have been
> created at the church quite as nicely. You can do some "environmentals,"
> which are like the ones when they get married on the beach, or perhaps at a
> mansion that is impressive, and you can use those for backgrounds and do
> some great stuff.
>
> I have more examples of the most prized photos from weddings, but the point
> is, those are the shots that they will want to enlarge and put on their
> walls or in their albums.
>
> Three images here:
>
> http://www.pbase.com/eickmeier/image/68114411
>
> Gary Eickmeier
I have no problem with *adding* supplemental photos, if doing so doesn't
take time (and people) away from the main events - but posing photos *at*
the events usually does do just that. Again, choices must be made, usually
between staging photos artificially or letting people interact naturally and
without interruption - and during the latter, taking advantage of the MANY
opportunities that present themselves to take good photos. I guess if you can't
see and take advantage of these frequently-occurring opportunities quickly
enough for making successful photos on the fly, then you must rely on posing,
I suppose... But, as I pointed out earlier, I do know a "director-type" wedding
photographer who works well at weddings and is fun and a "plus" due to his
very winning personality that makes people feel good and not oppressed by
his efforts. He is a very positive addition to most weddings, rather than an
annoyance. "Diff'rent strokes fer diff'rent folks" - and for different types of
weddings (I would never recommend him for Quaker weddings for instance,
but I have photographed two...;-).
BTW, on the stairway photo, I would have shot it a little tighter, aimed the
flash a bit up and toward the left (the colorless door and wall below are the
best-lit...), reduced the lower right brightness much more in the photo editor,
and carefully sharpened the photo. On the church, I probably would have
shot a vertical (the sides do nothing for the image...), possibly used "levels" or
something like "color curves" in Vegas to bring the people up out of the "murk",
and sharpened it carefully. The car-and-men photo is pretty good, although it
looks like the one at the left is VERY short (rearranging the people and the
angle of shooting a bit would have helped, and/or bringing the left end people
forward [nothing specifies that they must be in the line of the car position]),
darkened the lower left corner a bit, and sharpened the photo carefully. Just
my thoughts...;-)
--DR
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Ah, there IS a way to retain the original 60p 1920x1080 quality of the
edited Panasonic HDC-TM700 material for archiving! Blu-ray's 25Mbps
60i was not sufficient (there was noticeable loss of sharpness compared
with the original, but Blu-ray is still a good format for displaying the edited
material). I found the answer while looking around in Vegas Pro 8 at
available format types. MainConcept AVC/AAC, with custom settings of
1920x1080p (no interlacing), "Main", 59.940060fps, CBR at 35 or 50
Mbps produces .exf files that do what I was looking for. The render time
may be lengthy, but worth it to be able to preserve edited video at the
highest quality. BTW, it appears to be easier to edit the 28Mbps VBR
60p AVCHD camera files on my computer than 60i 17Mbps AVCHD
files, or even lower quality material, like AVCHD Lite, although the
"winnuh an' troo champeen" for easy editing is still HDV (And I chose
that format for editing a friend's collection of compact camera .MOV and
.AVC videos and stills from a European trip [with reframing, and with
adding motion to some photos]).
--DR
~~~~~~~~~~
"Gary Eickmeier" <geickmei@tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message
news:3xDWo.36270$Wz.20111@unlimited.newshosting.com...
> "David Ruether" <d_ruether@thotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:ig4po5$i8k$1@ruby.cit.cornell.edu...
>> Ah, there IS a way to retain the original 60p 1920x1080 quality of the
>> edited Panasonic HDC-TM700 material for archiving! Blu-ray's 25Mbps
>> 60i was not sufficient (there was noticeable loss of sharpness compared
>> with the original, but Blu-ray is still a good format for displaying the edited
>> material). I found the answer while looking around in Vegas Pro 8 at
>> available format types. MainConcept AVC/AAC, with custom settings of
>> 1920x1080p (no interlacing), "Main", 59.940060fps, CBR at 35 or 50
>> Mbps produces .exf files that do what I was looking for. The render time
>> may be lengthy, but worth it to be able to preserve edited video at the
>> highest quality. BTW, it appears to be easier to edit the 28Mbps VBR
>> 60p AVCHD camera files on my computer than 60i 17Mbps AVCHD
>> files, or even lower quality material, like AVCHD Lite, although the
>> "winnuh an' troo champeen" for easy editing is still HDV (And I chose
>> that format for editing a friend's collection of compact camera .MOV and
>> .AVC videos and stills from a European trip [with reframing, and with
>> adding motion to some photos]).
>> --DR
> OK, you can archive it that way to a hard drive, right? So where does that
> leave you for showing it? Can you stream that from a hard drive to your
> video display? You must be viewing it on your edit monitor at least.
This was my main concern for now, being able to archive on hard drives the
edited material at the original quality. For displaying, there are two options,
Blu-ray (sufficient for displaying Hollywood movies, right?) and playing from
the computer to an HD TV via DVI plus audio (for me at the moment...) - and
a friend just bought a solid-state hard drive that is F A S T, far more than
sufficient for playing these files smoothly. I can also play to my new 25"
1080p editing side-display, viewed close-in...
> I know
> they have some kind of streaming delivery system from hard drive to video
> display, but I haven't messed with them yet.
>
> And how long would it take to render out your friend's European vacation
> video? Whew!
>
> Gary Eickmeier
I don't know yet...8^) EVERYTHING is filtered heavily, resized, animated,
and/or rotated. It has been a LOT of work, but most of it looks good at the
moment (one can perform "magic" with Vegas, especially with using a good
1080p monitor to see what I'm doing). I chose to work in HDV for its
relative ease, even though the source material is 720p .mov and .avc and
the stills are mostly 4000x3000 - but some are mysteriously FAR lower in
resolution (but "miracles" made it possible to still use them...;-) There are
almost 200 video clips and stills in the video, and it is likely to be about
22-25 minutes long (the final render time will be L - O - N - G ! ! !). Also,
1440x1080 HDV is close enough to 1440x1080 Blu-ray so that making
a BR file for BR disks will take relatively little time. "Whew!" is right - I
have spent some long days on this project, and some difficult ones learning
new "tricks" (I hate learning...;-).
--DR
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Brian" <bclark@es.co.nz> wrote in message
news:tinvi6tifu88i3fm3moggr74033fmbc3oh@4ax.com...
> I'm trying to find a way of making the Vegas viewing window (Top right
> of the Vegas layout) bigger so I can see more detail when stepping
> through a video. I read somewhere that the viewer can be detached
> (undocked)but I have not found a way to do this. If the windows was
> detached would I be able to pull the window bigger?
> I'm aware that I can playback a video I'm editing in full screen but
> that does not allow me to pause the picture and step thru it.
> Later on I'll consider having two monitors so that one can be an
> external monitor.
>
> Regards Brian
Here is my layout on a 24" 1920x1080 display with a half-sized preview
window -- www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/video-editor-screens.htm (bottom),
and -- www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/SONY-NUMBERED-LAYOUT.htm
As you cross the thin divider bars in Vegas, the mouse pointer turns into either
a vertical or a horizontal double-ended arrow (depending on the direction of
the bar), and holding down the mouse button when this arrow appears permits
dragging that bar. You may need to "fudge" movements to get what you want,
but a 1/2-sized preview window, Project: 1920 (or 1440 for HDV)x1080,
Preview: 1920 (or 1440 for HDV)x1080, Display: 960x540, at "Best-Full"
can be useful for 1080 HD. BUT, more useful is having an additional 1080p
HDTV or 1920x1080p second monitor (* WITH DEFEATABLE AUTO
BLACK LEVEL *) running off a dual-head video card. Clicking on the small
"TV" icon above the upper left corner of the preview window will activate the
second monitor for full-screen viewing without losing the program editing-view.
Also, from having just added an LCD of the correct resolution to my outfit,
the improvement in my ability to see what the image actually looks like as I
work is amazing! To answer some things, grabbing the window by the vertical
row of dots at the window upper left permits moving the window (and it will
"snap" into other locations as they are approached) - but this is not needed for
resizing. For someone else, with most computers, smooth timeline playback of
SD is likely. For HDV, smooth playing is likely with a dual-core, and HDV +
a filter or two will likely play smoothly with a quad-core. As for AVCHD,
H.264, MOV, etc., to my surprise, 720p did not play as smoothly on my
computer as 1080p (but neither played perfectly smoothly). Vegas does
permit the making of short RAM previews (set work area bar, then hit "Shift+
B" - but first set "Options", "Preferences", "Video" (tab), "Dynamic Maximum
Preview RAM" to 1024Mb, if you have 3+ Gigs of RAM in your computer.
--DR
~~~~~
"David Ruether" <d_ruether@thotmail.com> wrote in message
news:igpt56$mk0$1@ruby.cit.cornell.edu...
> Here is my layout on a 24" 1920x1080 display with a half-sized preview
> window -- www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/video-editor-screens.htm (bottom),
> and -- www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/SONY-NUMBERED-LAYOUT.htm
Ooops! That was a 1920x1200 monitor - which gives more vertical room
for multiple tracks - but the vertical height of both the audio and video
tracks can be switched/adjusted to provide more track room.
--DR
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Paul Furman" <paul-@-edgehill.net> wrote in message news:3N2dneuelMd1A7PQnZ2dnUVZ5tWdnZ2d@giganews.com...
> Rich wrote:
>> Paul Furman<paul-@-edgehill.net> wrote in news:34idnbI_
>> 7ajJsrPQnZ2dnUVZ5tKdnZ2d@giganews.com:
>>> RichA wrote:
>>>> $800 for a 70-300mm Oly or a 100-300mm Panasonic. Neither is a star
>>>> optically, both are slow. Meanwhile, standard DSLR lenses are faster,
>>>> better optically
>>> How would they work on 4/3 though?
>> As far as I know, there are no micro 4/3rd to 4/3rd mounts. You can get
>> electronic adapters (or manual) to go the other way, but the electrical
>> performance of 4/3rds lenses on micro 4/3rds mounts is iffy. Focusing can
>> be slow, not all of them work, etc.
> My question is would a full frame or DX cheap 300mm zoom be sharp on 4/3
> format? I suspect not. You could easily make the adapter with cardboard
> tubes.
I may soon have at least part of the answer. A friend is borrowing a
couple of my sharper (on film) Nikkor AIS lenses (the 35-135mm
f3.5-4.5 and the 135mm f2) to try on his new "fawn-see" Panasonic
4/3rds pro video camera...
--DR
~~~~~~~~~
"David Ruether" <d_ruether@thotmail.com> wrote in message
news:igmvte$obo$1@ruby.cit.cornell.edu...
> "Paul Furman" <paul-@-edgehill.net> wrote in message news:3N2dneuelMd1A7PQnZ2dnUVZ5tWdnZ2d@giganews.com...
>> Rich wrote:
>>> Paul Furman<paul-@-edgehill.net> wrote in news:34idnbI_
>>> 7ajJsrPQnZ2dnUVZ5tKdnZ2d@giganews.com:
>>>> RichA wrote:
>>>>> $800 for a 70-300mm Oly or a 100-300mm Panasonic. Neither is a star
>>>>> optically, both are slow. Meanwhile, standard DSLR lenses are faster,
>>>>> better optically
>>>> How would they work on 4/3 though?
>>> As far as I know, there are no micro 4/3rd to 4/3rd mounts. You can get
>>> electronic adapters (or manual) to go the other way, but the electrical
>>> performance of 4/3rds lenses on micro 4/3rds mounts is iffy. Focusing can
>>> be slow, not all of them work, etc.
>> My question is would a full frame or DX cheap 300mm zoom be sharp on
>> 4/3 format? I suspect not. You could easily make the adapter
>> with cardboard tubes.
> I may soon have at least part of the answer. A friend is borrowing a
> couple of my sharper (on film) Nikkor AIS lenses (the 35-135mm
> f3.5-4.5 and the 135mm f2) to try on his new "fawn-see" Panasonic
> 4/3rds pro video camera...
> --DR
From what my friend reports, the zoom above is sharper than the Panasonic
4/3rd lenses he has, with the 135mm f2 being much sharper... He reports
a new market for Nikkor AIS lenses (with diaphragm ring detents removed)
for use on the new 4/3rd video cameras. Good, since I have many to sell --
http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/fs.htm ;-)
--DR
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"BIG DAVE" <big.david.nj@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:8a098150-cea0-4aa0-bd76-ed2c03ac875b@glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com...
> I am thinking of spending about $100 (give or take) on an entry
> level point and shoot digital camera. Lots of the features of these
> cameras are quite similar however there is one difference that I am
> curious about. Video resolution.
>
> Some cameras have a video resolution listed as VGA and some
> claim to have HD resolution. Almost all of them say 30 FPS.
>
> How much better would the quality of the video be on the cameras
> that have HD video capability? Should it be a deal breaker/maker?
>
> All I intend to do is perhaps shoot some home video clips or maybe
> even upload a clip or two to YouTube etc...
>
> Are the so called HD clips gonna be that much clearer? Are they
> much bigger from a technical standpoint?
>
> Again, the specs of these cameras as far as shooting stills are very
> similar. Is it worth the extra $20-$40 for the HD?
>
> Thanks...
>
> DAVE
What the others said...;-) With a few additions: Even for YouTube,
the 16x9 format and larger playing size can "present" better. I've
been doing some editing for a friend using AVCHD-Lite and Mov
material (plus stills), and while the stills can look spectacular in the
video from a *good* pocket camera (after a little work...), the video
from the 720p material was marginal at best, even with MUCH work,
when viewed on a good 1080p TV. If the camera will AF, AE, AWB,
and also permit zooming while shooting, get it (but at $100?????), but
as an experiment, I placed on a timeline 640x480 WMV (with the
resultant black bars all around), the same blown up to fit the 16x9
format, MOV, AVCHD-Light, and HDV files and rendered them to
one HDV file. To my surprise, the first two looked better than I thought
they would (and, OK, but...), the next two were better (in different
ways, but not by as much as I had expected), and not surprisingly, the
HDV (video camera only) was the best. BTW, better yet is the new
Panasonic 60p 1080 format - it is SHARP in their TM700 camcorder.
And, BTW, I have available a mint, low-use HV20 (HDV - easy to edit)
and a mint, low-use AVCHD 60p Panasonic (I just acquired a second
one in a trade for lenses, and I don't need two...;-).
--DR (My email address can be had at www.David-Ruether-Photography.com
if interested in either camcorder...)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Gary Eickmeier" <geickmei@tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message
news:HNL_o.2948$WW2.2459@unlimited.newshosting.com...
> "Mike S." <retsuhcs@xinap.moc> wrote in message
> news:ihemj8$icp$1@reader1.panix.com...
>> In article <f4ikj69mkkqau8mlqjnfgqh1php9l9a3ph@4ax.com>,
<newguy> wrote:
>>>Should I be able to see a file structure, like DVD's, while
>>>looking at a Blu-Ray Disc, with windows explorer?
>>>My Slyfox doesnt work :(
>> If you're using XP, you will see nothing because XP does not support UDF
>> 2.5 used on Blu-Ray video discs. There is an elusive patch released by
>> Toshiba for its laptops in support of HD-DVD that does the job; however
>> there are occasional reports of machines' removeable device support (and
>> other things) getting "de-stabilized" after this add-on is installed.
> I have an XP Pro based edit computer with BluRay burner. I don't believe it
> can play or capture the BluRay content, but I did download some software
> from IMToo that claims to be able to rip BR discs. Haven't tried it yet. All
> I want to do is capture a few frames from the BR Test disc from Joe Kane.
> Then maybe I can calibrate my monitors by eye rather than those pucks you
> place on the screen and depend on ITS eye. Doesn't work real well on my
> video monitors.
>
> Gary Eickmeier
We used DVDFAB to rip my Blu-ray disk to recover the m2ts files for
writing a different Blu-ray disk using Ulead - but, while the m2ts files appeared
to be OK, the new disk had a line running through everything. I started over
with Sony DVD Architect. Ugly and awkward to use menus, but at least
(after about 7.5-8 hours) I had an iso image file that would burn in about
23 minutes (for a disk of less than an hour of material) and play properly.
This stuff takes TIME, and ANNOYANCE to (kinda...) get it right, darn!
--DR
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Well, FINALLY, that friend's European trip video is finished
and (successfully) on Blu-ray disk. What a PAIN it was! My
Vegas Pro 8 had been VERY stable since Sony corrected a
bug in the program that got a small percentage of users, But with
this project, combining nearly 200 short .MOV and .AVC 720p
clips (some of which were shot in "portrait" orientation[!!!], and all
of which needed the application of sharpening and unsharp-mask,
among other filters) with many 4000x3000 photos (which needed
cropping and/or movement using the pan/scan tool, plus other
filtering) drove me nuts, NUTS, I say! ;-) The plan was to prepare
the clips and photos as I went through the trip time sequence
during editing, and mix the ambient and prepared-piano sound I
had available, then render the whole as an HDV file for archiving,
and that as a Blu-ray iso file for writing to disk for viewing. One
JPG photo caused many crashes, as did a software-stabilized clip,
so I removed them. When I went to render the whole as an HDV
file, the program crashed several times, but fortunately I had
chosen HDV as the format for assembly. With each crash,
everything up to the crash was preserved, and a new render
could be started at a point just before the crash. I then assembled
the four pieces that resulted on a new timeline with overlaps to
restore the pieces to their proper places on the timeline. The next
step was simple and rapid since unchanged HDV in Vegas is just
copied and doesn't get recompressed. Making the Blu-ray iso file
was a challenge (this 26.5 minutes was added to six of my earlier
HDV videos...). After MANY, MANY hours of renderings, only
to have "duds", I produced a Blu-ray disk with "pretty" menus
with motion clips in the buttons - but it had a line through all the
videos that offset the picture slightly. UGH! Finally, I decided to
figure out how to use Sony DVD Architect (with its ugly, kludgey
menus) and try again. After "ONLY" eight hours of rendering and
burning (gosh, this stuff is fast..................), I had a successful disk.
It looked great, including the pocket-camera-originated 720p
.AVC/.MOV footage that I've said some nasty things about...;-)
But, it's done, and I'm happy with the result! 8^)
--DR
~~~~~
[Regarding the missing on my server of my posts on the editing of a
friend's European trip, Gary Eichmeier's response, and Gene Bloch's
final response, below...]
> On my setup, your first post shows up on Eternal-September and
> not on Albasani, but this one shows up on both...but all three of
> David's posts show up on both servers.
> I suggest that we just give up and call it a mystery - much easier
> than trying to solve the problem :-)
> --
> Gene E. Bloch (Stumbling Bloch)
I think that is a good plan, sigh....! ;-) As for Gary's comments, I
did the video to see how good it could look (surprisingly good for
the .MOV/AVCHD-Lite videos after much work on them, and the
stills looked generally wonderful). I also got to see the trip (rather
too often, though, for troublesome parts...;-). While many items
were, ah..., "challenging", the results were worth it. There were also
a couple of funny parts. I will also try to teach the people simple
editing when they are visiting this spring...
BTW, during this, I acquired a second Panasonic HDC-TM700
(wonderful, but I didn't really need two...;-) in a trade for a couple
of Nikkor lenses for a Panasonic 4/3rd interchangeable-lens video
camera. The results can be seen here (if only the camera weren't so
durned 'spensive - I have a bunch of lenses that would fit it!). --
http://exposureroom.com/members/Flip50/145f38966c2b48dbb3d1ddd5e1bb21c2/
--DR
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Troy Piggins" <usenet-1101@piggo.com> wrote in message
news:20110125161102@usenet.piggo.com...
>* Alan Browne wrote :
>>
>> http://tinyurl.com/48gb9lb
> LOL at some of the comments.
>
> "Wow, I bet that he's going to get a Lowpro or Manfrotto tattoo
> next. BTW us big boys use Hasselblads."
>
> "Oh my bad, I didn't know that I was insulting a bitch. Go back
> to HDRing something or mastering that tilt shift tutorial that
> you find so impressive. "
>
> FWIW first thing I thought was they were fake.
>
> --
> Troy Piggins
8^)
Besides mostly looking like "serious injuries" to me, and rather
universally stupid, I wonder if any of the people who get tattoos
when they are young think about what they will look like when
they are much older, with faded color over bulging or sagging
flesh... ;-(
--DR
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Harry Putnam" <reader@newsguy.com> wrote in message
news:87r5bvbycw.fsf@newsguy.com...
> Brian <bclark@es.co.nz> writes:
>> Is there a way where I can save 1 minute of video at the start of my
>> project and then load it back into another Sony Vegas project?
>> I've tried a few things but Sony Vegas wants to render the whole video
>> to a file rather than part of the video.
> To render a specific part you set the `loop' selected area with the
> little yellow selector handles that can be slid around where ever you
> want them.
>
> They can usually be found at the beginning of the track. If you home
> the play head, then right above it you will see a small yellow
> triangle.
>
> If you pull it out it creates a selection that is tinted blue.
>
> Then
>
> File/Render as
>
> In that dialog you will see a check box for:
>
> [X] render loop region only
>
> Be sure to check that
>
> If you don't see those selection handles handy, If I recall Correctly you can
> double click the timeline and they will zip out and enclose some or all of
> the timeline. From there just slide them where you want. Be sure to
> set the render dialog as indicated above
>
> ps -
> Those yellow handles are one of the more annoying aspects of vegas to
> me. You must have seen them a time or two by now if you've used Vegas
> more than ten minutes
"David Ruether" <d_ruether@thotmail.com> wrote in message news:ii1926$jak$1@ruby.cit.cornell.edu...
Oh, how quickly we forget how things work when (momentarily)
we are away from our editing...! 8^(
OK, here's the scoop: move the mouse pointer up through the tracks
(without a button held down), and when you reach the area of the
loop region, the mouse pointer will turn into a small double-ended
arrow. At this point, press and hold the left mouse button and drag
the mouse left or right to stretch the loop region over the part of the
video of interest. Either end can then be easily moved to any location
with a triangular yellow end, or the ends will snap to any track cut
or to any place marked by the timeline cursor. You do not need to
maintain the blue marking (it is useful for seeing what is covered in
multiple tracks by the loop region bar, but it has no functional purpose
other than that). BTW, you can also use "Ctrl+M" in addition to "File",
"Render As" to render and export the area marked by the loop region
bar...
--DR
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Chris F." <zappyman@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:4d45c440$0$8895$9a566e8b@news.aliant.net...
> I've been using an old CRT monitor for years - an NEC FP2141 - and have
> been well-satisfied with it. I use it for a variety of things, including
> gaming, websurfing, and photo/video editing. But I recently added an Xbox
> 360 to my gaming peripherals, and playing it on a CRT monitor is not an
> option due to its fixed 60Hz refresh rate. So for now I've got the Xbox
> connected to a cheap LCD monitor, which is better than nothing but the image
> quality just isn't cutting the proverbial mustard.
> So I'm considering replacing my old CRT monitor with a good LCD or LED
> flat-panel display, to which I could conveniently connect both my PC and
> Xbox. But letting go of my beloved CRT monitor will not be easy, and
> therefore any replacement display would have to meet certain criteria. This
> is where I need some advice....
Why do this. You can use both the LCD ("LED" is not a panel type, but
an illumination type for the panel, as opposed to fluorescent illumination type)
and the CRT on a dual-head video card, moving between them for specific
uses, or you can use one on the computer, the other on the Xbox.
> 1. Black level / background. This is a problem I have with many LCD
> displays - the backgrounds are not totally black, and make games look lousy
> when playing in the dark. I want to be able to play games in the dark (well,
> a dimly-lit room) and have the black areas be as perfectly black as they are
> on my CRT.
This will not happen - and LCD monitors with auto-black are useless for
monitoring for photo or video work unless you can turn off that feature
since otherwise you would have no constant reference monitor to work with.
> 2. Brightness. Many LCDs are too bright for my liking, even at their lowest
> setting. If I'm going to buy an LCD/LED display, I have to be able to turn
> the brightness down as low as I like, especially if playing in the dark.
LCDs work best with some ambient lighting in the room...
> 3. Color fidelity. LCD/LED displays are getting pretty good in this area,
> but to sell me on the idea, it will have to meet or exceed the quality of
> color I currently enjoy with my CRT.
This is unlikely unless you are willing to spend BIG bucks, and then the
screen refresh rate would likely be too slow to satisfy you for gaming...
> 4. Low-res upconversion. All LCD's lose at least some quality when
> upconverting from a non-native resolution, but are some monitors better than
> others at this?
I'm not familiar with any monitors that up convert in a way that disk players
and LCD/Plasma HD TVs can, but I may have missed something.
> Finally, I'm wondering if LED monitors offer any advantage over LCD. The
> aforementioned factors all apply, but LED must also be easy on my eyes. I
> find the cheap LCD I'm using on my Xbox to be pretty good in this area.
> The monitor I'm considering is an ASUS LED type, of about 20-23" in size.
> I'm told these are excellent monitors.
See above on "LED" monitors...
> Thanks for any advice.
Panel monitors offer no geometric distortion, very high sharpness, freedom
from color-conversion problems, and far lower heat and somewhat lower
radiation compared with CRTs, but CRTs can offer more accurate color,
better dynamic range, and somewhat faster refresh rate compared with
panel displays (although the 60Hz of the panel does not look as bad as
60Hz on a CRT). Another option may be a good upsampling "120" or
"240" fps 1080p TV with defeatable auto black level...
--DR
~~~~~~
"Jan Panteltje" <pNaonStpealmtje@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:ii4nim$dr9$1@news.albasani.net...
> On a sunny day (Sun, 30 Jan 2011 15:49:19 -0500) it happened "David Ruether"
> <d_ruether@thotmail.com> wrote in <ii4isg$g47$1@ruby.cit.cornell.edu>:
>>I'm not familiar with any monitors that up convert in a way that disk players
>>and LCD/Plasma HD TVs can, but I may have missed something.
> AFAIK all LCD monitors are basically a frame store at the resolution they have.
> So if you for example play 640x480 video on a 1680x1050 monitor,
> then the monitor electronics upconverts to 1680x1050.
> This always causes some aliasing, except perhaps if it is an integer scale factor.
> Some use better conversion hardware and algorithms than others.
Yes, but the "neat trick" that the best upsampling disk players and TVs
can do is to make the picture look almost as good as it would if it had been
from a higher-quality source, which as you point out, a computer monitor
does not do. Not that the upsampled image really has more detail - it just
looks like it does, which may be good enough...;-) But that characteristic
of upsampling in TVs may make them relatively poor for monitoring source
material while editing...
--DR
~~~~~
"David Ruether" <d_ruether@thotmail.com> wrote in message news:ii6gn7$71e$1@ruby.cit.cornell.edu...
> "Jan Panteltje" <pNaonStpealmtje@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:ii4nim$dr9$1@news.albasani.net...
>> On a sunny day (Sun, 30 Jan 2011 15:49:19 -0500) it happened "David Ruether"
>> <d_ruether@thotmail.com> wrote in <ii4isg$g47$1@ruby.cit.cornell.edu>:
>>>I'm not familiar with any monitors that up convert in a way that disk players
>>>and LCD/Plasma HD TVs can, but I may have missed something.
>> AFAIK all LCD monitors are basically a frame store at the resolution they have.
>> So if you for example play 640x480 video on a 1680x1050 monitor,
>> then the monitor electronics upconverts to 1680x1050.
>> This always causes some aliasing, except perhaps if it is an integer scale factor.
>> Some use better conversion hardware and algorithms than others.
Ignore my responses above, and read Frank's, below...;-)
--DR
~~~~~
[And, Frank's definitive words are...]
Chris, just a very quick response since I'm pressed for time, but with
regard to color accuracy, make certain to get an IPS type panel and
not a TN type panel. AFAIK, only an IPS type panel will provide true
8-bit (per channel) color. All of the TN type panels on the market are
6-bit types, although some use a so-called Hi-FRC (Frame Rate
Compensation) dithering algorithm in an attempt to compensate for the
small native color space of the device. What this probably means is
that you're almost never actually seeing truly accurate colors, which
may be just fine for general business use such as word processing and
spread sheeting, Web surfing, etc., and maybe even for gaming, but
which is totally unacceptable for serious graphics and/or video work.
Generally, I think that you'll find that most lower-priced monitors
(under about $500) are TN types while most of the higher-priced models
are IPS types.
Note that many if not most of the newer monitors coming onto the
market these days use an LED backlight rather than a CCFL backlight.
In general, I think that you're better off with LED backlighting than
with CCFL backlighting, the latter of which always seems to generate a
bluish color cast over the image.
LEDs should last longer than florescent tubes, too, and should provide
more even illumination as well.
As to upscaling, there are a few models where the automatic upscaling
feature can be turned off in the monitor's options, but this may not
always be mentioned in the manufacturer's published specifications.
Instead, you'll have to download and read the manual prior to making a
purchasing decision.
BTW, if I were in your position, I wouldn't consider anything as small
as "about 20-23" in size". I would go for something larger, say in the
27-inch to 30-inch range. Size *does matter* when it comes to
monitors, whether for computer use or television use and I think that
once you've spent some time in front of a larger monitor, you'll never
want to go back to a smaller model.
Also, I assume that the old CRT that you're replacing is a standard
4:3 aspect ratio device. Keep in mind that most of the newer models on
the market are widescreen 16:9 aspect ratio. This is just something
that you'll have to get used to.
Dell offers a couple of decent IPS TFT LCD monitors and, of course,
there's always the HP DreamColor LP2480zx 10-bit monitor.
You may find some useful information at the following Web site.
TFT Central - LCD Monitor Information, Reviews, Guides and News
http://www.tftcentral.co.uk/
Good luck, and do let us know what you decide.
Regards,
--
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].
With a comment by "ushere" --
"viewsonic vp2365wb + spyder. cheap and accurate"
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Gary Eickmeier" <geickmei@tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message
news:PTX7p.95403$3Z3.19195@unlimited.newshosting.com...
>I guess I'll have to send this on to The Videoguys...
>
> Gary Eickmeier
>
>
> "Gary Eickmeier" <geickmei@tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message
> news:ByF7p.53762$Sn6.16172@unlimited.newshosting.com...
>> We all know the story on the street. The Videoguys Guide to HD Formats
>> says:
>>
>>
>> AVCHD
>> AVCHD is the latest and greatest HD format. AVCHD camcorders are very
>> small and affordable. It supports 1080i, 720p and 1080p with the full
>> 1920x1080 HD spec.
Not with the "720" spec...;-)
>> The image quality is incredible,
Not in many implementations - the technically lower resolution (1440x1080)
tape-based HDV can more often beat AVCHD in appearance (and it is
easier to edit, too).
>> but it uses very strong compression (MPEG-4 AVC/H.264 ) to pack the
>> video into extremely small files.
The files may not be very small, but MP-4/AVCHD is regarded as a
somewhat more efficient file type than MPEG.
>> Video is recorded at 24 Mb/sec data rate, which means you can
>> get over 2 hours of 1080p video on a cheap 32GB memory card. Amazing!
AVCHD can be recorded at MANY different data rates, and the lowest
result (as would be expected) in inferior image quality. Even the highest data
rate found in most amateur camcorders (17 Mbps) is rather poor compared
with good HDV (which, again, is easier to edit). Some camcorders have
appeared with 24 Mbps data rates (1920x1080i), but......;-) The most
interesting "amateur" AVCHD camcorder to appear in terms of image quality
is "clearly" the Panasonic TM700, with its amazingly sharp images - but only
when shot originally at its highest data rate of 28 Mbps and highest quality
(1920x1080p ["60" fps]), and not at any of the other choices available for
shooting with it.
>> Unfortunately there is a downside to this compression. Because the files
>> are packed so tight, it makes editing AVCHD footage very difficult, even
>> with a super fast 8-core workstation. Only Adobe Premiere Pro CS4 and Sony
>> Vegas 9 support native editing of AVCHD files but they require a ton of
>> processing power.
This is not necessarily true. With my quad-core Intel and XP with 3 gigs of
RAM, using Vegas Pro *8*, basic editing of the 28 Mbps "60"p TM700 is
quite practical (if not always fun, since if filters are added to the video, I
must make short RAM previews for smooth previewing in the program's
preview window and simultaneously on a side 1920x1080p monitor - but
I find that this format is easier to edit with than with the inferior 17 Mbps
material. BUT, when it comes to exporting the edited material, this is
when the "fun" begins... I desire both an archive file that will retain ALL of
the quality of the original footage (even if I cannot view it), and a viewable
file that retains as much as possible of the great original material. The
solutions appear to be making directly from the timeline a 50 Mbps "60"p
MP-4 file for archiving, and also a Blu-ray file from the timeline for
writing to disk. I have made samples to decide, but unfortunately with
Blu-ray, one cannot write 1920x1080 "60"p files, but only 1920x1080
"60i" or 1440x720 "60"p files - so I am forced to make a choice
between best resolution and smoothest motion, DARN!!! I have just
finished a video (three years in the making...! ;-), and it uses some TM700
footage (along with HDV), so I must decide between the Blu-ray formats
for viewing (I will probably export it in both...).
>> ******************************
>>
>> So riddle me this: How the hell does the cheapest little video camera do
>> it in real time?
>>
>> Gary Eickmeier
Hardware?
--DR
~~~~~~~~
To add a bit more - apparently Vegas can use only one CPU (quad-core,
4-threads maximum) efficiently, and cannot use video card acceleration
(cuda) for aiding previewing - but even with these limitations, Vegas
works well enough with the unusual TM700 files...
--DR
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"ushere" <removethis.leslie.andthis.wand@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:Hb38p.10748$MF5.2216@viwinnwfe02.internal.bigpond.com...
> On 20/02/2011 5:52 PM, Brian wrote:
>> ushere<removethis.leslie.andthis.wand@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On 20/02/2011 10:38 AM, Brian wrote:
>>>> When adjusting the parameters of a video FX there is no change to the
>>>> picture on the video preview window. For example changing the
>>>> brightness of the video. I thought I might have accidently turned an
>>>> option on or off in the preferences.
>>>>
>>>> Does someone have any ideas on what would cause this?
>>>>
>>>> I'm using Sony Vegas 10
>>>>
>>>> Regards Brian
>>> check fx and by-pass in preview window
>> Thanks ushere.
>> That's what the problem was. I think I've been caught out once before.
>> I must start writing these things down.
>>
>> Regards Brian
> there's just TOO MANY things to remember in programs nowadays....
But (if you can remember them...;-), they enable SO much more versatility! ;-)
As for this one (with 60p 28 Mbps footage from the TM700, with 4 or 5
filters added to the video), previewing it is slowed down to "ker-klunk, ker-
klunk, ker-klunk, etc." as the preview moves slowly frame by frame unless
the filters ("effects" in Sony-speak) are bypassed while doing the basic clip
trimming and overlaps on the timeline, and the sound work. I'm happy this
and many other features are available in Vegas (if only I could remember
them, and how to use them.....;-).
--DR
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Gary Eickmeier" <geickmei@tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message
news:anc8p.11081$T03.10974@unlimited.newshosting.com...
> "David Ruether" <d_ruether@thotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:ijr79k$soe$1@ruby.cit.cornell.edu...
>>> "Gary Eickmeier" <geickmei@tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message
>>> news:ByF7p.53762$Sn6.16172@unlimited.newshosting.com...
>>>> So riddle me this: How the hell does the cheapest little video camera do
>>>> it in real time?
>>>>
>>>> Gary Eickmeier
>> Hardware?
>>
>> --DR
Maybe not...;-)
> Huh? Don't you have hardware in your computer? I'm just saying, the little
> camera can take real life images at 60p, process them into AVCHD files of
> highest resolution and great compression, and record them to software in
> real time. Then, you can select a clip, press Play, and see your recordings
> uncompressed and displayed on its little LCD screen, with sound, in real
> time as well.
>
> So then you take the little chip out of the camera, put it on your $5000
> super Sizemo computer with 4 banks of RAM and a multicore processor straight
> from Intel's finest reasearch labs, and try and play it back on your
> timeline and watch it spit, sputter, and crash. Oh, no problem - just get
> yerself a copy of Premiere CS5 Production Premium for $1600, an NVidia video
> card for $900, and a copy of Windows 7 64bit for about $200 - oh, and you're
> going to want a Matrox accelerator such as the MixMaster Max or some such
> for another $900....
>
> ....and just HOPE that it can do as smooth a job as your little $500 camera!
>
> What is going on here? Who is woofing who? Is the camera just using a thumb
> file that it records along with the full res file? But that still leaves us
> with the fact that it can do the compression and recording of the full file
> in real time.
??? With Vegas Pro 8 (which came out before the 28 Mbps 60p AVCHD
format shot by the Panasonic TM700), one can put that on the timeline and play
it smoothly (so long as no filters have been added), both in the program monitor
window and also on the secondary monitor (which can be a 1920x1080p
computer monitor or HD TV). You can also play the files full size on a 1920x
1080+ computer monitor using the free VLC media player. What else do you
need (although full-size/full-frame-rate playback with filters, effects, and transitions
added would be nice - but this is possible with short "RAM previews" in Vegas)?
> In addition to these technical questions, I am just wondering if there is
> some clever workaround to all this expense in computer power using the
> camera. Remember the DV days? If you wanted to convert some analog video to
> DV in real time, you got a camera that could pass through the signal to the
> computer with the firewire, and shezam, you had a digital file. You could
> also play back the timeline into your camera right away and record it
> digitally onto DV tape, in real time. Just try that with hi def. Even if I
> am editing HDV files, to put it back on tape I have to wiait for the
> computer to "render" the whole thing back to HDV, then it will start the
> camera recording after several hours of such processing.
The same was necessary with SD DV, *IF* you had changed anything in
the footage - but (W A I T F O R I T . . . ! 8^), with Vegas (unlike Adobe),
with HD HDV and the return of the edited timeline to the camcorder, rendering
of anything that has not been changed except for cuts is not needed and the
footage is simply copied in real time to the camcorder (or rapidly to a file to be
saved)! Also the (often visible) losses due to the additional compression pass
are avoided (and the forced recompression of Adobe with all HDV was
unacceptable to me...). Vegas through version 9c does the same simple copying
with unchanged AVCHD, but not without occasional problems.
> Just doesn't make much sense to me, and I am wondering if someone is either
> stupid or crazy - or maybe greedy to sell us computer junk.
>
> Gary Eickmeier
My computer is not "bleeding edge", and it is relatively cheap. 288 Mhz
quad-core Intel CPU, Biostar MB, 3 gigs RAM, originally an NVidia cheap
dual-head card, originally several old 45 and 80 gig drives, and Vegas Pro 8
(and there was a recent upgrade to Pro 10 for $250 from any version, including
the cheap Media Studio). Later updates for me were to a more expensive video
card (no performance difference) and a couple of 2-TB HDs to prepare for the
switch to AVCHD, and next will be Win 7 64-bit, and Pro 9 64-bit, plus
increasing the RAM to 6 gigs. As noted above, apparently Vegas can use only
one CPU (quad-core, 4-threads maximum) efficiently, and cannot use video
card acceleration (cuda) for aiding previewing - but even with these limitations,
Vegas works well enough with the unusual amazing TM700 files...
--DR
~~~~~~~~
"Gary Eickmeier" <geickmei@tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message
news:dBe8p.14751$Gv7.13072@unlimited.newshosting.com...
[...]
> I just finished a commercial edit using a little Quicktime file from the
> client. It drove me absolutely bonkers trying to get a clean render back of
> the edit. The original was beautiful - but I had to keep guessing about file
> types and bitrates until I got the edited result to look as good as what
> went in. It would only work right if I used PRECISELY the same frame size
> and frame rate for the project and the output as I had for the original. Of
> course, I didn't know what those specs were until I imported it into
> Premiere, pointed it to the file, and asked Premiere for the complete specs.
> Then, I could start a new project with the right specs, re-import the file,
> and edit.
[Ahem....! ;-] One of the interesting aspects of Vegas is that you can
set up a project with any characteristics you want, then import various
file types onto the timeline (even the same track) and export any part
or all as anything you want. I often use an AVCHD or HDV project to
try out an HDV, AVCHD-Lite, MOV, MP4, etc. idea or trial without
problems, except when I sometimes mix 60p with other things. The
appearance of the exported files is always good unless I reduce the
quality characteristics (60p vs. 60i, 1080 vs. 720, specified data rate,
etc.) for the exported files.
> Interesting sidelight, when I did learn which file types to use,
> the result rendered out faster than real time, unlike before, when it had to
> recompress everything to change formats.
Ahah! It looks like it has "Smart Rendering", at least for that format...
> Maybe that's the answer - the camera just has to do the compression ONE
> time, to its native format, and it has an IC dedicated to that task. It
> doesn't have to analyze file types, uncompress something, change format or
> file type or bitrate or frame rate, and recompress and render.
It just has to take the raw sensor data, somewhat modified by the camera,
and by the user in the menus and with the camera controls, and writes it to a
file somewhere (internal flash memory, removable card, HD, disk, whatever...).
> With HDV it was simple, slick, and quick. I don't have a lot of AVCHD files
> to play with yet, but I am just going by what the Videoguys have said on
> their site, which I quoted below. I do know that most of what I import,
> except for HDV, needs to be rendered before I can work with it.
??? Unless you are converting the files to low-resolution proxy files or
to a larger intermediate file type (less hard on the CPU while previewing),
there should be no need to pre-render AVCHD files...
> Premiere
> does, by the way, have a check block called Recompress, that I usually leave
> unchecked. But it still takes time to output anything.
>
> I am thinking about Cineform real hard, if this becomes a big editing issue.
> I am glad to let the computer process the files while I am doing something
> else, so that editing will become a breeze, for me and for the computer.
> Don't understand the difference between the $99 version and the $399
> version, but at least I can USE Cineform now, with CS4.
>
> Gary Eickmeier
I have not used it, but I would not expect Cineform to speed export(?), but it
should make previewing smoother - but so should what I seem to remember
you had in the way of (expensive...) hardware and software acceleration.
--DR
~~~~~~~~~~
"Brian" <bclark@es.co.nz> wrote in message
news:6l83m6166uuoktast5i3mn0hnbjuild5ur@4ax.com...
> "David Ruether" <d_ruether@thotmail.com> wrote:
>>"ushere" <removethis.leslie.andthis.wand@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>news:Hb38p.10748$MF5.2216@viwinnwfe02.internal.bigpond.com...
>>> On 20/02/2011 5:52 PM, Brian wrote:
>>>> ushere<removethis.leslie.andthis.wand@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> On 20/02/2011 10:38 AM, Brian wrote:
>>>>>> When adjusting the parameters of a video FX there is no change to the
>>>>>> picture on the video preview window. For example changing the
>>>>>> brightness of the video. I thought I might have accidently turned an
>>>>>> option on or off in the preferences.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Does someone have any ideas on what would cause this?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I'm using Sony Vegas 10
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Regards Brian
>>>>> check fx and by-pass in preview window
>>>> Thanks ushere.
>>>> That's what the problem was. I think I've been caught out once before.
>>>> I must start writing these things down.
>>>>
>>>> Regards Brian
>>> there's just TOO MANY things to remember in programs nowadays....
>>But (if you can remember them...;-), they enable SO much more versatility! ;-)
>>As for this one (with 60p 28 Mbps footage from the TM700, with 4 or 5
>>filters added to the video), previewing it is slowed down to "ker-klunk, ker-
>>klunk, ker-klunk, etc." as the preview moves slowly frame by frame unless
>>the filters ("effects" in Sony-speak) are bypassed for doing the basic clip
>>trimming and overlaps on the timeline, and the sound work. I'm happy this
>>and many other features are available in Vegas (if only I could remember
>>them, and how to use them.....;-).
>>--DR
> I read that Sony Vegas can render parts of a the video on the timeline
> which would be useful if you have FX video applied to parts of the
> video and wanted a smoother playback. I think on playback it would
> jump to the rendered parts of the video and playback non rendered parts
> normally.
If you have enough RAM (3 gigs with XP is enough), you can go to
"Options > Preferences > (Video tab)" and change the "Dynamic RAM
Preview max (MB)" to "1024". You can then (above the preview window)
select the quality you want for the preview, and place the work area bar
over the area you want to preview (the higher the quality, the shorter the
preview can be, so something like "draft, full" will give acceptable preview
image quality for longer than "best, full" will, which will not cover much
more than a long transition - but it will show the video in full quality) and
hit "Shift+B" to start the rendering. Make the work area bar as long as you
want, but when the assigned RAM is used up, the render will stop and the
work area bar right end will snap back to that position. Previewing begins
from whatever position the cursor is at, but it will be smooth only for the
area rendered (except with HDV with no, or maybe one, filter on, which
should be smooth with most recent computers without rendering). BTW,
if you want to see some of the filters but not all, you can open the filtering
box for a clip and uncheck filters that you want to bypass (but remember
to recheck them or remove the filters upon leaving the filter box after
previewing).
> I thought that you would do the basic editing first then apply the FX
> video effects, but maybe that's not possible as you might need to see
> if an event is suitable to remain in the main video after FX effects
> have been added.
That's why I like RAM previewing...;-)
> It's good that you found a use for the FX bypass option. One use I
> would have is to decide if I wanted to keep a FX video effect that I
> applied to an event by bypassing the FX effect to see the difference.
Also see above, for bypassing individual filters... I often place the cursor
on an appropriate frame, then switch a filter on/off or make adjustments
as desired (keeping in mind that conditions may change over time,
requiring keyframing that filter).
> Speaking of FX video effects...If you apply a FX video effect to an
> event then save the event as an subclip, does the FX video effect stay
> in the subclip?
>
> Regards Brian
Yes. I have never used another feature of Vegas, but you can also save
local edits you do elsewhere and place these as "clips" on the timeline,
which saves you from double-compression of the material.
--DR
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> On 2/03/2011 12:32 PM, Richard Crowley wrote:
>> <ijones@jejejeje.it> wrote ...
>>> Hi, I'm using Sony FX7 (PAL) and now I'd like to replace it with a
>>> better a camera. I'm a solitary traveler and I will use it in my trips
>>> around the world but rainfores, mountains, desert, etc.
>>> I don't know if I will buy an EX1 or a NX5U, I have confused ideas.
>>> EX1: better image performance, less wide angle, heavier, more
>>> expensive
>>> NX5U: lighter, more wide angle, more zoom
>>> Can I know your suggestions, please?
>> I have both, and the EX1 is visibly better in low light than NX5.
>> I would much rather have my EX1 for casual shooting (I.e. no
>> production lighting). OTOH, using SDHC cards with the NX5s
>> is much more convenient than using those expensive Sony SxS
>> cards. I just heard about people using commodity Express34
>> to USB or Firewire adapters to record directly to hard drive
>> from EX1. I'm going to experiment to see whether it can be
>> done with stuff available from Best Buy, et. al.
>>
>> PBS doesn't seem to post its "Technical Operating Specs" (TOS)
>> online. You must email them and ask for it.
>>
>> I seem to recall in a previous era that networks like Nat Geo(?)
>> had "Gold", "Silver", and "Bronze" production levels and even
>> EX1 did not make it into the "Gold" category.
> found them:
>
> discovery:
>
> Non-HD Footage Limitations:
> Maximum of 25% non-HD material is allowed in production, with no more
> than 1 minute of contiguous non-HD
> footage in any sequence.
>
> Use of HDV Footage:
> 1080 line HDV footage may be used in HD programs with the following
> restrictions:
>
> Program may not contain any more than 15% HDV footage.?
> ? The combined percentage of HDV and SD upconverted footage is not to
> exceed 30%.
> Producers wishing to use HDV must submit an approved? post production
> path outlining their handling of
> the footage in the editing process.
>
> pbs:
>
> 2.1.2 For standard definition, the image must have
> the high quality image resolution associated with
> modern 3-chip cameras and must not be derived from
> a smaller image area (such as the widescreen mode in
> some low cost DV cameras, which samples less than
> 480 vertical lines) except for special effects. The
> CCD chips must have at least a 1/3” diagonal with a
> minimum resolution of 640 x 480.
>
> For high definition, the camera must use three CCD
> chips, each with at least a 1/2” diagonal and a
> minimum resolution of 1280 x 720.
Interesting... I've been using a camcorder recently that is tiny,
(good for traveling with, but it is not great for low light). It has
amazingly high output quality with 1920x1080 at *59.95P*,
not "30"P or 24P (which are both inferior), and not 1280x720P,
or worse yet, any SD - although I've been getting some very
sharp-looking Blu-rays lately from HDV 1440x1080I. I think
the quality of the HD end results depend as much on shooting
technique and editing skills (with image enhancements) as on
the raw HD camera and format specs... BTW, I've been able to
preview the non-standard 28 Mbps VBR 1080 59.97P AVCHD
footage from the Panasonic HDC-TM700 smoothly at 1/2
size (and at full size on a second monitor) with a quad-core
computer with 32 bit XP and 32 bit Vegas Pro 8, so long as
there are no filters added (but short RAM previews work for
that when necessary). For archiving, I make a 35 Mbps 1080
59.95P MP4 file of the edited video, and this can be imported
into a Blu-ray authoring and burning program for making disks
that look GREAT! 8^) Even so, there can still be some very
slight losses compared with the original due to the limitations of
the Blu-ray format itself (no 1080 59.95P possible, DARN!).
[Also BTW, I just happen to have a spare low-use, perfect
and checked-out TM700 available...;-]
--DR www.David-Ruether-Photography.com (for my email address
and more information on the camera).
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Mxsmanic" <mxsmanic@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:sccrm69qrq4libqtmbdhiulv8arv9fj6uh@4ax.com...
> Here's an upload of a 16-second clip with no corrections:
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XBF9mSKmK-o
>
> And here's an upload with +8 contrast and -3 brightness (in Video Studio--I
> don't know what real-world parameters these numbers correspond to):
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LBdUa3qsLck
>
> Which looks better?
They look quite noticeably different (opening the two in two browser
windows and pausing each near the same spot). I prefer the second
in this case, but I think what you may be seeing is possibly a design
choice of the camera maker (which, and which model is it?) so that a
range of lighting conditions can be handled with minimal loss of highlight
or shadow information (this requires lower contrast...). Most better
cameras permit you to at least "bias" the auto exposure even if they
don't permit manual exposure. For work of this sort, if you are particular
and don't want to just go with the default settings, it is necessary to
calibrate (even if "by eye", using various test color patches and step
wedges) the monitor and the TV. In Vegas, I don't know if the units
used to control their filters ("FX") have any really universal meaning
beyond the Sony program or not - but with a good, well-adjusted
monitor, you should be able to make many adjustments by looking at
the monitor (preferably at a standard angle and in constant lighting
for you).
> Unfortunately, I haven't found a way to apply a correction to every segment in
> a video in Video Studio; it has to be applied to each clip, which is tedious.
It's called "editing", and it does take time... But, if you are applying
the same filter and values to everything, you can do it two ways. You
can render the whole video out as a single file and apply a filter and
render it again (with some losses due to recompression), or near the
top of a filter control box, after choosing values you want to save
("+8 contrast, -3 brightness", for instance), type in a name and click
on the "floppy disk" symbol near it. Then, just click on the filter button
on each clip, select "brightness and contrast", "add", "OK", and select
from the drop-down list of saved settings what you want - then go on
to the next. There may also be a way to copy/paste filters, but since
I customize all of mine, I don't know it...
--DR
~~~~~~~~~~
"Mxsmanic" <mxsmanic@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:le9um61luj4lho8fkkol3349eapjfmcrrb@4ax.com...
> David Ruether writes:
>> They look quite noticeably different (opening the two in two browser
>> windows and pausing each near the same spot). I prefer the second
>> in this case, but I think what you may be seeing is possibly a design
>> choice of the camera maker (which, and which model is it?) so that a
>> range of lighting conditions can be handled with minimal loss of highlight
>> or shadow information (this requires lower contrast...).
> Maybe. It's interesting that I see this on both the video camcorder and the
> small pocket digital camera (in the video mode--still photos look fine).
Yes, I'm not sure why this would be different. Have you compared
a few stills shot in one place with video shot in exactly the same place
at the same time (so that conditions are the same)?
>> Most better cameras permit you to at least "bias" the auto exposure
>> even if they don't permit manual exposure. For work of this sort,
>> if you are particular and don't want to just go with the default settings,
>> it is necessary to calibrate (even if "by eye", using various test color
>> patches and step wedges) the monitor and the TV.
> Neither camera is super-fancy. The still camera does allow you to change
> exposure by specific stops, although I don't know if it also applies to video.
> The video camera has a vague exposure control, but I'm still not clear on
> whether it applies to video or just still photos (the manual is vague).
It likely does. This may be a solution, so try it in video...
>> In Vegas, I don't know if the units
>> used to control their filters ("FX") have any really universal meaning
>> beyond the Sony program or not - but with a good, well-adjusted
>> monitor, you should be able to make many adjustments by looking at
>> the monitor (preferably at a standard angle and in constant lighting
>> for you).
Sorry, I thought you were using Sony Media Studio, not Corel Video
Studio... (I prefer the cheap Sony HD Platinum 11 over other cheap
programs, but it is not so easy to learn as most others are).
> It now looks like the nVidia driver might be playing with something. The
> driver control panel implies that the graphics card handles video differently
> from ordinary graphics, with its own set of adjustments. I reduced the gamma
> in this video section of the control panel and the images seem to look better,
> albeit not necessarily ideal.
I was curious, and found it also. Since I want my monitor to be as
"standard" as possible, I did not change anything.
> At least what I've read from others here implies that my videos look
> relatively normal on YouTube, even if for some reason they look a bit washed
> out on my own machine.
The first one in the pair you last gave did look slightly too light to me,
with the second possibly looking slightly too dark (but maybe better...;-).
> One of the unfortunate issues of video (as opposed to audio) is that I really
> can't keep any copies of my video, since even the smallest videos seem to take
> up a gigabyte, and while I do have some space now, I wouldn't have it for long
> if I tried to keep an archive copy of every video. Everything seems to require
> massive files. I guess it's still better than Super-8, though, and certainly
> it's better than analog video on tape, which was a constant frustration,
> especially for old-style editing.
Very large external drives (and internal drives, if you are using a desktop
computer) are amazingly cheap now (and for safety, you need to back up
everything to at least two drives). You can also use an online backup service
(but be sure to keep track of whether or not it is going out of business, or
better yet, use two different services). It is unfortunate if you have gone to
the trouble to shoot and edit material, only to let it evaporate. Digital is nice,
but long-term preserving of it is harder than it is with tape or film based
material.
--DR
~~~~~~~~~~~
"Mxsmanic" <mxsmanic@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:8uevm6dsguc1eblg1mu8cs9f8ahuemhfi4@4ax.com...
> David Ruether writes:
>> Yes, I'm not sure why this would be different. Have you compared
>> a few stills shot in one place with video shot in exactly the same place
>> at the same time (so that conditions are the same)?
> In the case of the digital still camera, yes. The still photos look fine, but
> video shot at the same time looks washed out. Or at least it did until I found
> the nVidia applet gadget that controls gamma on video playback, which seems to
> have helped.
Hmmm....;-)
>> Sorry, I thought you were using Sony Media Studio, not Corel Video
>> Studio... (I prefer the cheap Sony HD Platinum 11 over other cheap
>> programs, but it is not so easy to learn as most others are).
At Amazon, Sony Movie Studio HD, $26, including shipping; Vegas Movie
Studio HD Platinum 10, $73 with shipping; the same with extras for $75.
You can download 30-day trials from the www.sonycreativesoftware.com
site... The Platinum 10 has most of the most useful features of their $600
Pro software.
> The Corel software was recommended to me, so I downloaded that. I'm still in
> the trial period of 30 days. Unfortunately, Corel pulled a bait-and-switch
> fraud as soon as I downloaded it. The next day, the $59 for a full version had
> been replaced by $131.
>> I was curious, and found it also. Since I want my monitor to be as
>> "standard" as possible, I did not change anything.
> I have to wonder if the default nVidia settings for video playback are really
> standard, though, since they seem to wash out video and other computers
> without the nVidia applet don't seem to have that problem.
I have an nVidia card, and don't have the problem...
>> Very large external drives (and internal drives, if you are using a desktop
>> computer) are amazingly cheap now (and for safety, you need to back up
>> everything to at least two drives).
> I do have some external drives, but my intuition tells me that they would fill
> very fast if I started archiving video. As it is, they fill really fast just
> with photos. Apparently one needs racks and racks of terabyte drives to be
> able to archive video decently.
Not really. Right-click on a video file to get its properties. Divide its size
into one terabyte to see how many videos of that type and length would
fit on the drive. You may be surprised by how many...;-)
> This in turn makes me wonder what YouTube's server farm looks like.
They further compress the videos, but still.....;-)
>> It is unfortunate if you have gone to
>> the trouble to shoot and edit material, only to let it evaporate. Digital is nice,
>> but long-term preserving of it is harder than it is with tape or film based
>> material.
> Agreed. And digital is way more expensive. And while digital is theoretically
> better than analog, actually getting all the benefits of digital costs 100
> times more than it did with film.
Hmmmmmm........, not too sure I would agree on that...;-)
--DR
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Me" <user@domain.invalid> wrote in message news:ik73q2$ls8$1@news.albasani.net...
> In the Chch quake the other day, my D300 with 18-70 lens was thrown from
> the top of an antique scotch chest in our bedroom. It was about 2
> metres high, but was thrown about 3 metres laterally and landed on a
> wooden floor, collapsing furniture and debris just missing it.
> The lens is broken (twisted / bent by the zoom ring). The camera
> appears to have survived completely unscathed, works fine with my other
> lenses, and the 18-70 was my least favourite lens anyway.
> Our house has been destroyed - peak ground acceleration at the nearest
> strong-motion detecting seismograph - about 1km from my home - recorded
> 220%g acceleration. I suspect that such huge destructive force
> measurement from a relatively small quake is probably unprecedented.
> Exterior walls facing the epicentre imploded, walls facing away from the
> epicentre exploded, walls along the sides fractured with lateral shear.
> It's still standing, but the timber framework is clearly loose, if you
> thump any interior wall with the side of your fist, the whole house
> shakes. I was at home and actually looking at usenet on the computer
> when it hit. A very "interesting" experience, comparable (I expect) to
> being hit by blast from a bomb, just slightly slower (about 5-10 seconds
> to see your house destroyed before your eyes. My family and friends all
> survived. Stuff - cameras, cars, houses etc - doesn't matter.
I'm sorry for your misfortune - it makes me wonder if anyone is safe
from such things. We live on a hillside (possible landslide, or rush of
water from a breaking ice dam) on rock (possible earthquake, but
large ones are very rare here) in a woods (possible fire or falling
trees) next to and above a busy street (possible truck accident
[we've had two so far that took out power and communications] with
explosion or poisonous gas) and near an airport (yuh never know...).
BTW, I can cause minor quakes with a huge subwoofer, and the
house shakes with some recordings, and the couch jerks with one
recording I have (I need to have that stone that dropped out of the
basement wall replaced one of these days...). The comments above,
aside, though, I do hope you recover from this terrible experience.
I saved this bit of extreme abuse of cameras, with both (remarkably,
given their conditions and what they had been through) able to take
acceptable photos afterward --
www.digitalhomethoughts.com/news/show/99727/nikon-d70-vs-canon-400d-destruction-durability-test.html
--DR
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Paul Furman" <paul-@-edgehill.net> wrote in message
news:94SdnfWkyqu3OPXQnZ2dnUVZ5vidnZ2d@giganews.com...
[Most of an interesting thread left out, to comment on a few parts...]
> I went through the '89 Loma Prieta quake in an old brick warehouse on
> bay mud landfill in San Francisco. I headed straight out of the building
> as windows broke, down a flight of stairs with the walls moving
> sideways, maybe 8 inches back and forth... that wasn't as scary as the
> deep scare of aftershocks and the worry that night and in the following
> weeks, months and years, but I did get over it and didn't feel another
> quake till maybe a year or two ago - a small one and it didn't bother me.
>
> The building was condemned, my office at the time. My apartment was on
> solid rock and hardly anything fell over, just some small cracks in the
> plaster. Nothing like the pictures I saw in NZ. Only a handful of
> buildings folded on their foundations. There was one brick facade
> collapsed on cars that I knew of. A long stretch of double-deck freeway
> in Oakland collapsed horribly. Many other elevated freeways were damaged
> and took a decade or more to be demolished and rebuilt. The east span of
> the Bay Bridge is just now being rebuilt, one square section dropped
> like a hinged door on the lower level. One coworker had all the plaster
> shook off the inside of his house - it was built on a sand dune. The
> wood structure was fine but he was a wreck the next day at work. It is
> unnerving to mistrust the very earth under your feet.
>
> Another distinct memory was walking home from downtown with the crowds
> in silence, all the power and transit out, broken glass and cracked
> sidewalks. That part was almost kind of peaceful, being outdoors, but it
> was tough sleeping that night at home - dark everywhere.
My memories of this quake were that the plane trip from here in NY
took 24 hours since the plane first didn't land here due to bad weather
so we were then bussed to a larger city where we took off. We circled
Chicago for a remarkably long time "due to problems with the radar",
after which we were informed that a major quake had hit SF. We
landed in Denver, then Las Vegas (where we were told to take the
plane's blankets and pillows with us - but where we were provided
with a rather "splashy" suite and told to be ready the next morning for
a pick-up by an airport bus), then Berkeley (and let out onto the tarmac
with the plane door left open, with instructions to listen for a call back
to the plane for take off). We then proceeded to land in SF almost
exactly 24 hours after take off, and we all applauded...;-) If our original
plane had landed, we would likely have arrived in SF about 20 minutes
before the quake. We heard that a brick wall around the corner from
where we were staying had collapsed on cars, killing some people.
The night of the black-out, we traveled (free) on busses in the dark
streets (using flashlights to shine on street signs to see where we were,
and to walk to/from where we were staying in the Mission district)
and on cable cars (these run on cables pulled under the streets from
a central cable station, which apparently had power). In SF, there were
many lost windows and some building cracks (and fires near the Bay),
but overall, except for what "PF" described above, there was relatively
FAR less damage evident than occurred in Christchurch. Later in the
trip, in Santa Cruz where there had been considerable damage, we
experienced a magnitude 6 (I think...) aftershock while in a friend's
house, but there was no damage. But, as "PF" wrote, it is unnerving to
mistrust the very earth under your feet". SF is particularly vulnerable
since much of it is built on sand dunes and mud flats and fill, but I
gather that most tall buildings have supports that reach bedrock, and
they are relatively insensitive to quakes anyway compared with two
and three story buildings. The Japanese got it right centuries ago for
domestic architecture by using platforms with very light dividers above
them for "walls", and light-weight roofs. Many decades ago when I
lived in SF, I complained about what appeared to be the low quality
of housing construction (wood frame, covered with chicken-wire and
plaster for the exterior covering), but maybe that was good construction
for an earthquake area...
--DR
~~~~~~~~
[Not posted...]
"Eric Stevens" <eric.stevens@sum.co.nz> wrote in message
news:sbrmm61akv4t0ices6m72e2jhs3ok02hgr@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 28 Feb 2011 17:46:22 +1300, Me <user@domain.invalid> wrote:
>>On 27/02/2011 3:35 a.m., David Ruether wrote:
>>> "Paul Furman"<paul-@-edgehill.net> wrote in message
>>> news:94SdnfWkyqu3OPXQnZ2dnUVZ5vidnZ2d@giganews.com...
>>> [Most of an interesting thread left out, to comment on a few parts...]
>>>> I went through the '89 Loma Prieta quake in an old brick warehouse
>>>> on bay mud landfill in San Francisco. I headed straight out of
>>>> the building as windows broke, down a flight of stairs with the walls
>>>> moving sideways, maybe 8 inches back and forth... that
>>>> wasn't as scary as the deep scare of aftershocks and the worry that
>>>> night and in the following weeks, months and years, but I did
>>>> get over it and didn't feel another quake till maybe a year or two
>>>> ago - a small one and it didn't bother me.
>>>>
>>>> The building was condemned, my office at the time. My apartment
>>>> was on solid rock and hardly anything fell over, just some small
>>>> cracks in the plaster. Nothing like the pictures I saw in NZ. Only
>>>> a handful of buildings folded on their foundations. There was
>>>> one brick facade collapsed on cars that I knew of. A long stretch
>>>> of double-deck freeway in Oakland collapsed horribly. Many other
>>>> elevated freeways were damaged and took a decade or more to be
>>>> demolished and rebuilt. The east span of the Bay Bridge is just now
>>>> being rebuilt, one square section dropped like a hinged door on the
>>>> lower level. One coworker had all the plaster shook off the
>>>> inside of his house - it was built on a sand dune. The wood structure
>>>> was fine but he was a wreck the next day at work. It is
>>>> unnerving to mistrust the very earth under your feet.
>>>>
>>>> Another distinct memory was walking home from downtown with
>>>> the crowds in silence, all the power and transit out, broken glass and
>>>> cracked sidewalks. That part was almost kind of peaceful, being
>>>> outdoors, but it was tough sleeping that night at home - dark
>>>> everywhere.
>>> My memories of this quake were that the plane trip from here in NY
>>> took 24 hours since the plane first didn't land here due to bad weather
>>> so we were then bussed to a larger city where we took off. We circled
>>> Chicago for a remarkably long time "due to problems with the radar",
>>> after which we were informed that a major quake had hit SF. We
>>> landed in Denver, then Las Vegas (where we were told to take the
>>> plane's blankets and pillows with us - but where we were provided
>>> with a rather "splashy" suite and told to be ready the next morning for
>>> a pick-up by an airport bus), then Berkeley (and let out onto the tarmac
>>> with the plane door left open, with instructions to listen for a call back
>>> to the plane for take off). We then proceeded to land in SF almost
>>> exactly 24 hours after take off, and we all applauded...;-) If our original
>>> plane had landed, we would likely have arrived in SF about 20 minutes
>>> before the quake. We heard that a brick wall around the corner from
>>> where we were staying had collapsed on cars, killing some people.
>>> The night of the black-out, we traveled (free) on busses in the dark
>>> streets (using flashlights to shine on street signs to see where we were,
>>> and to walk to/from where we were staying in the Mission district)
>>> and on cable cars (these run on cables pulled under the streets from
>>> a central cable station, which apparently had power). In SF, there were
>>> many lost windows and some building cracks (and fires near the Bay),
>>> but overall, except for what "PF" described above, there was relatively
>>> FAR less damage evident than occurred in Christchurch. Later in the
>>> trip, in Santa Cruz where there had been considerable damage, we
>>> experienced a magnitude 6 (I think...) aftershock while in a friend's
>>> house, but there was no damage. But, as "PF" wrote, it is unnerving to
>>> mistrust the very earth under your feet". SF is particularly vulnerable
>>> since much of it is built on sand dunes and mud flats and fill, but I
>>> gather that most tall buildings have supports that reach bedrock, and
>>> they are relatively insensitive to quakes anyway compared with two
>>> and three story buildings. The Japanese got it right centuries ago for
>>> domestic architecture by using platforms with very light dividers above
>>> them for "walls", and light-weight roofs. Many decades ago when I
>>> lived in SF, I complained about what appeared to be the low quality
>>> of housing construction (wood frame, covered with chicken-wire and
>>> plaster for the exterior covering), but maybe that was good construction
>>> for an earthquake area...
>>> --DR
>>Apparently this quake in Chch has engineers in Ca and Japan very worried.
>>The pga of 2.2g near the epicentre (and unfortunately for me - only
>>about a mile from my home) is the highest level ever recorded in NZ
>>(this includes '09 M7.8 quake in Fiordland, and the September '10 M7.1
>>event in Chch - the highest recorded pga from that was 1.26g). I
>>believe that it (2.2g) may be one of the highest readings taken anywhere
>>in the world, yet only from a M6.3 event.
>>Of course in this case, following the September '10 event, a massive
>>network of seismometers / strong motion detectors was put in place over
>>the entire area, so they got to record data from close to an epicentre
>>of an event. The geeks got lucky.
>>Believe me - the ~2.2g pga shaking from such an event really does not
>>feel anything like an earthquake as most people experience. It was like
>>a bomb going off. Descriptions of the shaking from others I've spoken to
>>who were more distant, but still as close as 10km from the epicentre,
>>are very different from my experience.
>>So a building designed to withstand pga typical for close/shallow M7
>>quake may come nowhere near to it, if bad luck means that the area takes
>>a direct hit.
>>
>>My next home will probably be laminated timber ("lockwood") on timber
>>poles or similar. A heavily reinforced concrete / steel home adjacent
>>to my house, designed to latest standards (at least as stringent as Ca
>>or Japan), made the grade as far as protecting people inside (it did not
>>collapse), but suffered lateral displacement between levels of at least
>>6 inches. Support columns and floors are intact, but it's not
>>repairable. That one's going to be a $1m write off.
> My home is not laminated timber but it is heavily braced on a heavily
> braced structure of poles. I don't think it would survive such a
> quake.
>
> The sight of substantial timber poles in Christchurch sheared off at
> the ground gives me second (and third) thoughts about the ability of
> the diagonal timber bracing of my house's foundation to resist the
> lateral 'g' forces experienced in the Christchurch 'quake. That and my
> ancient recollection of the description of a late 1800's quake in
> India which threw timber lamp poles vertically right out of the ground
> leads me to suspect that there is no such thing as an entirely
> earthquake-resistant building.
>
> Regards,
>
> Eric Stevens
Just musing... I wonder about a house built of thick sections of Styrofoam
(including the furniture and fixtures) on a larger platform of the same material
and floated on a large shallow pond (with the house held centered with
"bungee"-like cables...). Impractical, but....) I did hear of a person (who
lived near the ocean) building his house of concrete, designing it to permit
flow-through of ocean storm surges and tsunamis (although the contents of
the house would be destroyed...). In reality, though, the scary thing is that
nothing reliable can realy be done to resist the greatest risks (but things can
be done to help resist lesser events), and one must rely mostly on luck if
the worst happens...
--DR
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Mxsmanic" <mxsmanic@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:9av2n61ma74bafhh0huhtr3ao7180dln89@4ax.com...
> mike writes:
>> I just looked and that software is now at version X4.
>> Mu suggestion is to download the trial version and see if it plays any
>> better with your footage.
> I'll probably buy X4 once the trial period runs out. My intuition tells me
> that it will bring no major changes, but we'll see.
>
> The key question, though, is: Should I buy a U.S. version, or a U.K. version,
> or what? I need an English version, but I'm wondering if the U.K. version,
> which probably is based on PAL, would be set for 25 images per second, as
> opposed to the U.S. version (my trial version is U.S., I think), which is set
> for 30 images per second.
>> You may also want to check out Vegas Movie Studio HD Platinum as the
>> price should be comparable and I know it keeps the PAL frame rate.
>> http://www.sonycreativesoftware.com/homestudio for more info.
> How does it compare to Video Studio? Has anyone here used both?
Yes, I compared three programs here --
http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/hdv-editing.htm
Although the versions of Corel Video Studio Adobe Elements
were earlier ones, I would not expect the basics for either to have
changed much, as they also did not for Vegas. Vegas was clearly
a more "professional" program, and the cheap Media Studio HD
version is almost literally "a steal" for what it is capable of (for
instance, what you are asking about for Video Studio is moot
for Vegas since it can accept and export a wide range of formats
[resolutions, frame rates, file types]). I didn't like the otherwise
pleasant Elements since it handles HDV so poorly, and I hated
the user interface for Video Studio, and the program is really
designed (as is Elements) for beginners. If you are going to get
serious with editing, Vegas is a better choice IM(NS)HO, and
the price is about the same as the others...;-) Download the
30-day free trial version here --
http://www.sonycreativesoftware.com/download/trials/moviestudiope
I wrote a beginner's manual for Vegas, here --
http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/Sony-editing.htm
Sony has a nice video tutorial here --
http://www.sonycreativesoftware.com/support/trainingvids.asp?prod=moviestudio
Media Studio itself also has step-by-step tutorials built into it.
--DR
~~~~~~~~~~~~
"xman" <xman@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:6ls2n6p31r43hcqh121h32giitba84c0l1@4ax.com...
>>Is it Vegas Pro 9 (rather than Media Studio)? If so, how much? Or, if it is
>>Vegas Media Studio HD Platinum 9, it is still very good (and usually quite
>>cheap). Mostly curious (I've had an unopened copy of Pro 9 waiting for me
>>to finish the video I FINALLY just finished), and Sony just had an amazing
>>upgrade deal from any Sony editing software ($250 plus a serial number for
>>a $600 program), but I passed it by, along with a direct 9-to-10 for about
>>$150 (I figured I didn't need upgraded closed captioning and 3-D editing
>>for the price...;-). Anyway, let us know...
>>--DR
> Use premiere CS5 and vegas movie studio HD.
>
> Vegas is a little bit better in my opinion...
Are you saying that you have used (the very expensive) Adobe CS5 and
(the very cheap) Sony Vegas Movie Studio HD, and that you slightly prefer
the cheap Sony program? If so, I would agree - and using Vegas also gets
one off the very expensive Adobe upgrade treadmill...;-)
--DR
~~~~~~~~~~~
"xman" <xman@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:dvq5n69nr9unnlacqdjgvlsa9u0c1fg0h2@4ax.com...
>>>>$150 (I figured I didn't need upgraded closed captioning and 3-D editing
>>>>for the price...;-). Anyway, let us know...
>>>>--DR
>>> Use premiere CS5 and vegas movie studio HD.
>>>
>>> Vegas is a little bit better in my opinion...
>>Are you saying that you have used (the very expensive) Adobe CS5 and
>>(the very cheap) Sony Vegas Movie Studio HD, and that you slightly prefer
>>the cheap Sony program? If so, I would agree - and using Vegas also gets
>>one off the very expensive Adobe upgrade treadmill...;-)
>>--DR
> I use adobe media encoder the most. I have sound forge pro 10.0 and it
> intergrates well with sony.
>
> The audio stuff in adobe, seems limited, unless you got their audigy
> product.
Is Audigy the program that was originally the $30 "Cool Edit 2000"
until Adobe bought it, renamed it, and upped the price to about $300...?
--DR
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~