DAVID RUETHER'S PHOTO-VIDEO POSTS

From 3/23/2011 Through 7/6/2011, Part 8

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

Hi, again... 

[Sent earlier: ]

Just to let you know after a VERY brief trial: NeoScene does work, 
but the video is not smooth unless the quality (resolution) is 
reduced in the preview. It will then play with four filters on 
the video, including the tough "color curves". It's up to $129, 
and the clips are HUGE, but this *may* make things practical for 
working with the TM700 files. NeoScene is similar (I guess) to 
Mac's ProRes422, and NeoScene also up interpolates the color 
resolution to 422. More on it later - but it retains the 59.940 
frame rate progressive... --DR 

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


I've been playing more with NeoScene, so here's more info. This 
is not straight-up real-time unless the filters are turned off, 
the resolution is reduced, and/or RAM preview is used. There are 
mysteries with the last - the Neoscene RAM previews form faster, 
do not require more space, and have the same time limits (per 
resolution) as the ones for regular TM700 files even though the 
new files are 15.5(!) times larger. This last is a major drawback 
for using NeoScene, even with my enormous drives. The drive space 
for a half hour edit would be overwhelming, not to mention the 
conversion time needed. Oddly, the only capture-with-conversion 
tool is for HDV, which really doesn't need NeoScene for reasonably 
efficient editing. I did notice a VERY slight loss in sharpness 
when comparing original TM700 footage with the NeoScene copy, but 
not enough to worry about. When the "preliminaries" are done, I 
will see how well simple edits made with NeoScene files (including 
feathered-edge iris transitions, which did not work well with TM700 
original 60p files) work while making 60p 50Mbps MP4s for archiving 
(this works well made with TM700 edits directly off the timeline). 
and Blu-ray files, also made directly off the timeline. So far, 
I'm not convinced that this is worth the $129 for some improvement 
(but not a lot...) during editing, but with huge drive space 
requirements and considerable time needed for making the file 
conversions. If I got real-time preview with filters and transitions 
in place at half-size plus the full-size display on the secondary 
monitor with no rendering, then it would be a "give-away" piece of 
software, well worth its negatives. But this isn't the case, at 
least on my computer...

--DR

"Draft-Full" is max for reasonable preview length with 3 gigs assigned to 
RAM preview in Vegas Pro 9 64-bit with four filters applied; RAM previews 
with the same material and with the same filters and transitions in both 
types of files (60p TM700 AVCHD files, and 60p Neoscene AVI files) take 
about the same amount of time to render; with filters bypassed and no 
transitions, 60p TM700 original is almost smooth with "Draft-Full" set for 
previewing without using RAM previewing (except with transitions and 
filters) but the NeoScene files are unexpectedly not quite as smooth while 
playing them without RAM previewing. Given the (even though moderate) 
price, less than ideal performance with my gear, the file conversion time, 
and the huge (about 15.5X) file size increase over the original files after 
conversion, I think I will pass on this software (darn, I had such high 
hopes for it...!). 
BTW, the preview smoothness (or lack thereof...) was the same with both 
the 32-bit and 64-bit versions of Vegas Pro 9. 
--DR

PANASONIC TM700 60P, VEGAS PRO 8, 9 (32bit, 64bit), and NEOSCENE PLAYBACK...
With footage from a Panasonic HDC-TM700 camcorder that produces 
very high quality 28Mbps "60P" files using a very sharp lens, 
I was using Windows XP 32bit with a quad-core CPU and 4 (3.3) 
gigs of RAM with Sony Vegas Pro 8 - but lately I've been using 
Windows 7 64bit with Vegas Pro 9 64bit with the same quad-core 
processor but now 6 gigs of RAM with my 60P (59.940...) video 
for editing. I found little difference in preview playback 
smoothness among the above (the minimum acceptable resolution 
for seeing the video image acceptably in a half-sized preview 
window plus a full-sized side monitor is in "Draft-Full", which 
is the same as "Preview-Half"), but RAM previews must be made 
for reliably smooth playback with my gear and software. If there 
are no filters or transitions in place (in Vegas, the filters can 
be turned off easily), these previews form acceptably rapidly, 
with acceptable length for most "local editing" purposes. Since 
updating my hardware slightly and software somewhat (to the 
acceptable limits of my financial resources...) provided no 
real improvement in either preview smoothness for the format 
type I want to use (this TM700 produces GREAT-LOOKING video!) 
or rendering speed, I thought I would give Cineform's $129 
NeoScene (with 15-day free trial) a spin. Supposedly, it improves 
performance by increasing the file size (while interpolating color 
from 4:2:0 to 4:2:2) and enclosing it in an easier-to-handle AVI 
wrapper. Once I had it on the computer, I converted an 18-second 
file of about .66-gigs to a NeoScene file of about 1-gig (15.5X 
larger!). This took some noticeable amount of time for this single 
short clip, but it was still 60P, which is what I wanted. The 
NeoScene files were detectably inferior to the originals in 
sharpness, but by so little it doesn't really matter. Two things 
were unexpected: RAM previews took about the same amount of time 
to render as with the original material, and the available time 
for the preview on the timeline was the same for both file types 
for a given preview image quality selection. 
Now to the "nitty-gritty"... Without RAM previews being made, 
the NeoScene timeline playback, even in relatively low quality 
"Draft-Full" mode, was not at all smooth (DARN!). In the 18-second 
clip, it "jumped" from still to still about 20-22 times. The 
original jumped about 15 times, so I guess there was some 
improvement with Neoscene...;-) Ah, well, given the (even though 
moderate) price, less than ideal performance with my gear, the 
file conversion time, and the huge (about 15.5X) file size increase 
over the original files after conversion, I think I will pass on 
this software (darn, I had such high hopes for it...!) unless I 
have missed something basic that someone can offer. 
BTW, the preview smoothness (or lack thereof...) with timeline 
playback of the original TM700 files was the same with both the 
32-bit and 64-bit versions of Vegas Pro 9. Also, the free 
CineForm player works well for playing my 50Mbps 1920x1080 "60P" 
edit-archive MP4s (nothing else does). And, oddly, the only 
capture-with-conversion tool in NeoScene (as far as I can tell) 
is for HDV, which really doesn't need NeoScene for reasonably 
efficient editing. 
--DR 

[And another copy, slightly changed, of the above...] 

PANASONIC TM700 60P, VEGAS PRO 8, 9 (32bit, 64bit), and NEOSCENE PLAYBACK...
With footage from a Panasonic HDC-TM700 camcorder that 
produces very high quality 28Mbps "60P" files using a very sharp 
lens, I was using Windows XP 32bit with a quad-core CPU and 
4 (3.3) gigs of RAM with Sony Vegas Pro 8 - but lately I've been 
using Windows 7 64bit with Vegas Pro 9 64bit with the same 
quad-core processor but now 6 gigs of RAM with my 60P 
(59.940...) video for editing. I found little difference in preview 
playback smoothness among the above (the minimum acceptable 
resolution for seeing the video image acceptably in a half-sized 
preview window plus a full-sized side monitor is in "Draft-Full", 
which is the same as "Preview-Half"), but RAM previews must be 
made for reliably smooth playback with my gear and software. If 
there are no filters or transitions in place (in Vegas, the filters 
can be turned off easily), these previews form acceptably rapidly, 
with acceptable length for most "local editing" purposes. Since 
updating my hardware slightly and software somewhat (to the 
acceptable limits of my financial resources...) provided no real 
improvement in either preview smoothness for the format type I 
want to use (this TM700 produces GREAT-LOOKING video!) or 
rendering speed, I thought I would give Cineform's $129 
NeoScene (with 15-day free trial) a spin. Supposedly, it improves 
performance by increasing the file size (while interpolating color 
from 4:2:0 to 4:2:2) and enclosing it in an easier-to-handle AVI 
wrapper. Once I had it on the computer, I converted an 18-second 
file of about .66-gigs to a NeoScene file of about 1-gig (15.5X 
larger!). This took some noticeable amount of time for this single 
short clip, but it was still 60P, which is what I wanted. The 
NeoScene files were detectably inferior to the originals in 
sharpness, but by so little it doesn't really matter. Two things 
were unexpected: RAM previews took about the same amount of 
time to render as with the original material, and the available 
time for the preview on the timeline was the same for both file 
types for a given preview image quality selection. 

Now to the "nitty-gritty"... Without RAM previews being made, 
the NeoScene timeline playback, even in relatively low quality 
"Draft-Full" mode, was not at all smooth (DARN!). In the 
18-second clip, it "jumped" from still to still about 20-22 times. 
The original jumped about 15 times, so I guess there was some 
improvement with Neoscene...;-) Ah, well, given the (even though 
moderate) price, less than ideal performance with my gear, the 
file conversion time, and the huge (about 15.5X) file size increase 
over the original files after conversion, I think I will pass on this 
software (darn, I had such high hopes for it...!) unless I have 
missed something basic that someone can offer...

BTW, the preview smoothness (or lack thereof...) with timeline 
playback of the original TM700 files was the same with both 
the 32-bit and 64-bit versions of Vegas Pro 9. Also, the free 
CineForm player works well for playing my 50Mbps 1920x1080 
"60P" edit-archive MP4s (nothing else does). And, oddly, the 
only capture-with-conversion tool in NeoScene (as far as I can 
tell) is for HDV, which really doesn't need NeoScene for 
reasonably efficient editing. 

--DR

[More...] 

"Dennis Long" wrote in message news:08Odnd4nWLGUsBLQnZ2dnUVZ_oadnZ2d@mchsi.com... 

Actually I am having a problem with a particular 720/480 avi. It plays fine 
outside of any adobe suite program but when imported for edit it seems 
normal during "conforming peak file" process but hangs when this is 
complete. I think possibly the audio track is the culprit and have been 
trying to figure out a way to separate the audio/video tracks. I don't 
really need the audio. How can this be done outside of CS5? I don't have any 
other software other than WindowsMM. I am waiting on the trial version of 
Neoscene to see if it would convert and correct the file problem. I have not 
actually tried any other known good avi for testing the combined edit. I 
will try now. TIA Dennis

--This reminds me that I forgot to mention that in the conversion of the 
TM700 files with NeoScene, the audio was missing in the NeoScene 
files. With Vegas, it was easy to ungroup the audio from the original 
files on the timeline and copy them and group them with the NeoScene 
files... 
--DR 

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

"Dennis Long" wrote in message news:08Odnd4nWLGUsBLQnZ2dnUVZ_oadnZ2d@mchsi.com... 

Actually I am having a problem with a particular 720/480 avi. It plays fine 
outside of any adobe suite program but when imported for edit it seems 
normal during "conforming peak file" process but hangs when this is 
complete. I think possibly the audio track is the culprit and have been 
trying to figure out a way to separate the audio/video tracks. I don't 
really need the audio. How can this be done outside of CS5? I don't have any 
other software other than WindowsMM. I am waiting on the trial version of 
Neoscene to see if it would convert and correct the file problem. I have not 
actually tried any other known good avi for testing the combined edit. I 
will try now. TIA Dennis

>I have Premiere CS5 and want to combine edit the tm700 1080P files with 
>(720/480)AVI files. Do I need to convert the mts files with say neocene to 
>avi to accomplish this and then export to desired format? 

--You can turn off any track you want in any of the Adobe, or other decent, 
video editors so that its contents are not included in a render. To keep the 
other audio, you must move it (or the one you want to mute) to another 
track(s). It appears that NeoScene does not include audio in its output files. 
Also, if you convert from "60p" source files and do not choose something 
like "use original file type for NeoScene conversions" in the dialogue box 
settings, it will convert the 60p to 48p (beginning with 60i, it would convert 
to 24p) files. Swell... ;-) (Well, I don't like 24p much, anyway, so I don't care.) 
On the plus side, if I had my computer connected to my HD TV with an HDMI 
or DVI cable, I could play my 50Mbps 60p edited archive files directly to the 
TV for best quality using the free CineForm player on the computer. 
--DR


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

"Brian" wrote in message news:66o2p6p32s0prd38g7ioshbrf9qcktqqet@4ax.com... 

When moving a single video clip on a track I notice that the video
clips, above the track of the single video clip, moves also. How do I
stop other video tracks from moving?
I think ungroup only seperates the sound from the video so sound and
video can be moved indipendly which is not what I want in this case.
I know some aree going to say "Look it up in the manual" which I'd so
if i knew what I was looking for.

Regards Brian

,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

As "ushere" pointed out, "Ripple" is involved. You have clicked on 
"Auto Ripple" on the top tool bar (hover the mouse on the icons 
until you find it). You have also likely clicked on the drop-down 
selector box to its right and clicked on "All tracks, markers, and 
regions", which "glues" everything together on all tracks to the 
right of what you have grabbed on the timeline. If you don't want 
to read the manual (I admit that I don't find that "fun"...;-), I suggest 
putting up three short clips in a test project and just trying everything 
until you are more familiar with how things work. When you find 
something that is mysterious, click on the "Arrow+?mark" and then 
on what you want information about to get that information. For 
processes in Vegas, click on the "upturned hand with finger" icon to 
get the "Tutorials" menu. After selecting one, you will be led through 
the procedure for doing it... But, don't try to learn everything all at 
once on a "serious" project, though...;-)
--DR 

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

"Mary" wrote in message news:338e33e3-1e05-43a2-9c13-ed451c4dfba5@e8g2000vbz.googlegroups.com... 

I am thinking about buying a Sony Handycam HDR-XR150 and it has a res
of 1920x1080i. I use Pinnacle Studio hd 14 and I can render in hd but
I saw a Sony Vegas rendering of the some footage from that camera and
it turned out looking a lot better than any other program with the
same camera. Is there any special compatability using Vegas for Sony
cameras or is it just a matter of choosing the right setting? 

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

[Sorry, I'm using an email/NG program that I detest...] 

That Sony camcorder looks like a great buy for the money, BUT, editing 
AVCHD memory-card material may not be much fun. (I just completed 
a Panasonic 60p video and put it on Blu-ray [60i 1920x1080 is 
unfortunately the maximum quality for that, but it still looks GREAT! ;-]). 
Unless you have a somewhat "bleeding edge" computer, previewing 
will be generally slow (and I've tried a bunch of things to speed it up, 
without success). The HDV tape format was MUCH easier to edit with. 
There will be no incompatibility problems between the camera and the 
very cheap ($70, including shipping) Sony Vegas Media Studio HD 
Platinum 10 Suite from Amazon.com at -- 
http://www.amazon.com/Sony-Vegas-Movie-Studio-Platinum/dp/B003L51CZ8/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1301864356&sr=8-1 
Vegas is known for its high quality output, and it does have a feature 
that can make working with AVCHD somewhat easier. If you have enough 
RAM in the computer, you can assign up to that amount minus maybe two 
gigs to be available for making RAM previews. Hit "Shift+B" to start these 
under the work area bar (they will stop when the RAM runs out). You can 
also reduce the preview window quality to "Draft-Full" for still-good 1/2-sized 
(and full-sized on a side monitor) previews. Vegas is a program of amazing 
capability (especially given the price), and it is very stable (unlike Pinnacle...). 
Vegas accepts a wide range of formats, and can export a wide range, and 
these can even be customized (and the above program and older Vegas Pro 
versions accepted 60p footage before most others did). If you want to see 
how it works, go here for some videos -- 
http://www.sonycreativesoftware.com/support/trainingvids.asp?prod=moviestudio 
I wrote a basic manual (soon to be updated) here -- 
http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/Sony-editing.htm 
A 30-day free trial download is at www.sonycreativesoftware.com. 
Have fun with it! ;-)
--DR 

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

"Mike Kujbida" wrote in message news:inj1ko$63r$1@news.albasani.net... 

On 4/6/2011 8:30 PM, ushere wrote:
> On 7/04/2011 10:04 AM, newguy wrote: 

>> I have a p4 pc 3.2 ghz 4 gig ram. Pc is about 5 years old. Could I use
>> that to edit in hi-def? Speed is of no concern (money is). Also, I
>> plan on getting a avchd hd camera soon, and wondered what file
>> format hd videos are saved as (in the camera).
>>
>> Thanks and regards,
>> Dan

> bit slow for editing avchd. however, transcode to mxf and you're good to
> go.
>
> on the other hand, fine for hdv.

To put it more bluntly than ushere did, if you try to edit AVCHD with 
that slow of a computer, you'll end up wanting to seriously hurt 
yourself because of the pain of trying to edit :)
The recommendation is an i7 processor with 64 Windows 7, as much RAM as 
you can afford and at least two hard drives.
If you don't believe me, check out the various Vegas forums and read the 
horror stories of folks with machines like yours.
BTW, AVCHD saves in either m2t or m2ts format.

Mike 

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

Or, due to marketing, and some people's prejudices against tape 
based camcorders (HDV for HD, which provides automatic source 
material archiving and relatively easy editing compared with AVCHD), 
HDV has essentially disappeared as an available format for entry-level 
camcorders (it is still used by some mid-level ones). After people start 
shooting video with their handy-dandy new AVCHD memory-card based 
camcorders, unfortunately the "unfun" begins when they try to edit 
the material and encounter slow and jerky previewing with even fairly 
"able" computers. Adding RAM doesn't help, and working with miserable 
low-resolution proxy video reveals little about what you are working 
with if you want to carefully apply color/contrast/brightness/sharpness/
etc. corrections to the material. Windows 7 64-bit and Vegas Pro 9 
64-bit with 6-gigs RAM vs. Windows XP 32-bit and Vegas Pro 8 32-bit 
with 3.3-gigs of RAM made no difference in playback smoothness, but 
did speed rendering by a paltry factor of 16/15 times... I also tried 
CineForm's NeoScene. It multiplied file sizes by 15 times(!), but did 
not improve preview playback smoothness. In Vegas, one can reduce 
the resolution of the half-sized preview window (and full-sized side 
monitor) to a still-acceptable (for checking source smoothness only) 
"Draft-Full" mode and use "RAM preview" ("Shift+B" keys). But, the 
ONLY reason I would accept the above disadvantages (plus the greater 
difficulty in preserving material) is to be able to edit the wonderful 60P 
material from the Panasonic TM700 compact camcorder (it is that good!). 
--DR 

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

"Martin Heffels" wrote in message news:nc5rp6hmlk52sre2fds5rt5p4qr5m3pm3g@4ax.com... 
On Wed, 06 Apr 2011 20:48:20 -0400, Mike Kujbida <mkujbida@gmail.com> wrote:
>On 4/6/2011 8:30 PM, ushere wrote:
>> On 7/04/2011 10:04 AM, newguy wrote:

>>> I have a p4 pc 3.2 ghz 4 gig ram. Pc is about 5 years old. Could I use
>>> that to edit in hi-def? Speed is of no concern (money is). Also, I
>>> plan on getting a avchd hd camera soon, and wondered what file
>>> format hd videos are saved as (in the camera).
>>>
>>> Thanks and regards,
>>> Dan

>> bit slow for editing avchd. however, transcode to mxf and you're good to
>> go.
>>
>> on the other hand, fine for hdv. 

>To put it more bluntly than ushere did, if you try to edit AVCHD with 
>that slow of a computer, you'll end up wanting to seriously hurt 
>yourself because of the pain of trying to edit :)
>The recommendation is an i7 processor with 64 Windows 7, as much RAM as 
>you can afford and at least two hard drives.
>If you don't believe me, check out the various Vegas forums and read the 
>horror stories of folks with machines like yours.
>BTW, AVCHD saves in either m2t or m2ts format. 

Or use proxies to edit on your old computer :) 
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, 

This can work, but if you care anything about careful adjustment 
of color/contrast/tonal-relationships/brightness/sharpening/etc., 
proxies are poor. They only help in smoothing preview playback 
on something less than an expensive bleeding-edge computer and 
software combination, sigh... Even with a quad-core, 64-bit Win 7, 
64-bit editing software, 6-gigs of RAM, and a 1-gig video card (not 
bleeding-edge, but good...), I cannot smoothly preview even what 
I consider lower-than-HDV-quality 60I 17Mbps AVCHD material. But 
I will try transcoding some material to .mxf this morning (I thought I 
had tried everything, including transcoding to uncompressed .avi ;-). 
--DR 

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

"David Ruether" wrote in message news:inkihf$fl8$1@ruby.cit.cornell.edu... 
"Martin Heffels" wrote in message 
news:nc5rp6hmlk52sre2fds5rt5p4qr5m3pm3g@4ax.com...
On Wed, 06 Apr 2011 20:48:20 -0400, Mike Kujbida <mkujbida@gmail.com> wrote:
>On 4/6/2011 8:30 PM, ushere wrote:
>> On 7/04/2011 10:04 AM, newguy wrote:

>>> I have a p4 pc 3.2 ghz 4 gig ram. Pc is about 5 years old. Could I use
>>> that to edit in hi-def? Speed is of no concern (money is). Also, I
>>> plan on getting a avchd hd camera soon, and wondered what file
>>> format hd videos are saved as (in the camera).
>>>
>>> Thanks and regards,
>>> Dan

>> bit slow for editing avchd. however, transcode to mxf and you're good to
>> go.
>>
>> on the other hand, fine for hdv.

>To put it more bluntly than ushere did, if you try to edit AVCHD with
>that slow of a computer, you'll end up wanting to seriously hurt
>yourself because of the pain of trying to edit :)
>The recommendation is an i7 processor with 64 Windows 7, as much RAM as
>you can afford and at least two hard drives.
>If you don't believe me, check out the various Vegas forums and read the
>horror stories of folks with machines like yours.
>BTW, AVCHD saves in either m2t or m2ts format.

Or use proxies to edit on your old computer :)
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

This can work, but if you care anything about careful adjustment
of color/contrast/tonal-relationships/brightness/sharpening/etc.,
proxies are poor. They only help in smoothing preview playback
on something less than an expensive bleeding-edge computer and
software combination, sigh... Even with a quad-core, 64-bit Win 7,
64-bit editing software, 6-gigs of RAM, and a 1-gig video card (not
bleeding-edge, but good...), I cannot smoothly preview even what
I consider lower-than-HDV-quality 60I 17Mbps AVCHD material. But
I will try transcoding some material to .mxf this morning (I thought I
had tried everything, including transcoding to uncompressed .avi ;-).
--DR
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, 

[More....] 

This morning I tried transcoding an 18-second 28 Mbps VBR 60P 
clip to various formats available in Vegas using "Custom" settings to 
maintain the 60P characteristic with the same 1920x1080p clip. As I 
recall, I tried MPEG2, EXF, MOV, AVI, MP4, and possibly one or two 
more. Some would not make files with the desired characteristics, 
and some that did could not be imported into Vegas. The only 
successful one was a 50 Mbps 60P MP4 (which I have been using 
for archiving my edited videos - and I also to make 60I Blu-ray ISO files 
directly from the timeline for viewing), and these MP4s play smoothly 
in Windows Media Player with the free CineForm player installed. 
Performance in Vegas playing the original material and the MP4s 
from the timeline is about equal - sometimes mostly smooth, 
sometimes rather "choppy". The only dependably smooth previews 
with my equipment and software are with Vegas RAM previews. 
I'm not rich (an egregious understatement! ;-), so this is where I 
stop - at least until what is now "bleeding edge" becomes cheap. I 
trade awkwardness and slowness for high quality output since I have 
little money, but much time available...
--DR 

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

"Martin Heffels" <goofies@flikken.net> wrote in message news:vsf0q691ogk1oi1p70og7eesjg6tbbr6t3@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 09 Apr 2011 06:10:24 -0400, Mike Kujbida <mkujbida@gmail.com> wrote: 
>>On 4/9/2011 4:07 AM, ushere wrote:
>>> On 9/04/2011 5:53 PM, Martin Heffels wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 8 Apr 2011 12:18:15 -0400, "David
>>>> Ruether"<d_ruether@hotrmail.com>
>>>> wrote:

>>>>> Yes - that is what I thought I had pointed out in other posts - but I
>>>>> work
>>>>> not with proxies but with lower resolution playback of the original
>>>>> files

>>>> Errrr, that *are* proxy files :) Low resolution of the original material.

>>> bit confused here -
>>>
>>> low res playback in vegas can mean setting preview to 'draft' mode
>>>
>>> a proxy is (so i believe) an actual file created to be swapped out
>>> eventually for the original footage?
>>ushere, I agree with your definition of proxy.
>>I think what Martin is referring to is the way Avid (amongst others) 
>>used to do it in the early days.
>>A low res capture of your source footage and then once you had your 
>>timeline sorted out, a high res capture was done.

> As Mike says :)

> Draft mode is playback of the same material. only not in the full resolution.
> Some programs use "1/8, 1/4, 1/2" but it's the same thing. It just doesn't
> decode the whole picture when it is played back.
> This will help as well for slower computers, but you will have to look at a
> "blocky" picture. With proxies you don't have that issue. Some modern codecs,
> like the one used for RED, have proxies already built-in, so you can playback
> a lower resolution version of the material on slower computers, and don't have
> the hassle of needing to convert the material to a lower-resolution version. 

Hmmm... Different experiences with different programs, I guess...;-)
With Ulead, the proxy files looked terrible, but with Vegas, even 
with the nearly-lowest playback quality level ("Draft-Full"), the video 
looks good even for full 1920x1080 previewing (but this level is not 
good enough for careful making of picture adjustments, especially 
of sharpening). At lower quality setings ("Draft-Half" and 
"Draft-Quarter"), the image quality is so low (blocky, similar to the 
Ulead proxies) that little useful information can be gleaned from the 
video, no matter how smooth the playback is. In Vegas, though, 
RAM previews can be made at any desired quality you want (but 
the duration of the preview is limited by the quality chosen and the 
available amount of RAM available and assigned to RAM 
previewing). Even with the above (including careful "point-to-point" 
checking of footage for filtering) and the making of a "first draft" 
copy and the viewing of it, I often go back and revise parts of the 
video, not surprisingly...;-) 
--DR 

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

"David Ruether" <d_ruether@hotmail.com> wrote in message 
news:inr5l9$cgd$1@ruby.cit.cornell.edu... 
> "Mxsmanic" <mxsmanic@gmail.com> wrote in message 
> news:i502q6pu8r3t2uj2eoadh6t6e4lo22vd60@4ax.com...

>> Okay, now that I've made a few short videos, I have another problem: how 
>> do I give these videos to anyone? Even a short HD video is a couple of 
>> gigabytes long. What if I want to give a half-hour video to someone? It's 
>> too big for a CD-R; it's even too big for a DVD-R. It's too large to upload 
>> and download, and too large for an e-mail. How do I pass it on to someone 
>> else?
>>
>> What methods do you use to pass on videos to your friends/clients/family?
>>
>> I guess I can upload stuff to YouTube, but I'd like to have an offline,
>> higher-quality version to give away as well.

1/2 hour may be too long for YouTube, but you can upload 720p videos 
to that site. For longer videos (which can be 720p), look into Vimeo. 

> I write Blu-rays - I just saw an LG computer desktop internal writer/player
> at Best Buy for $95 (! I use this one, and it works well ;-) and I just bought
> a 25-disk spindle of Kodak B-R blanks with printable labels for $1.40 
> each. You can also write AVCHD files in HD to standard DVDs (but a 
> B-R player must be used for playback). 

With the latter you must also keep the data rate within the acceptable DVD 
limit of about 16-18 Mbps, whereas with some software, you can write 
Blu-ray disks at up to 48Mbps peak, 40Mbps average for higher quality 
(but red-laser HD disks can look fine, made with good software). Both 
need Blu-ray players for viewing. And -- 

> You can also write standard definition versions that can look good on 
> standard DVD discs. The better the source material (as with using HD 
> material...;-), the better these standard discs look. 
> Many solutions, but none is very expensive anymore...

--DR 

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

"HerHusband" <unknown@unknown.com> wrote in message news:Xns9EC37131EE2A6herhusband@188.40.43.213...

>> Okay, now that I've made a few short videos, I have another problem:
>> how do I give these videos to anyone? Even a short HD video is a
>> couple of gigabytes long. What if I want to give a half-hour video to
>> someone? It's too big for a CD-R; it's even too big for a DVD-R. It's
>> too large to upload and download, and too large for an e-mail. How do
>> I pass it on to someone else? 
>> What methods do you use to pass on videos to your
>> friends/clients/family? 

> First and foremost, you have to know something about the recipients of 
> your videos. For example, neither my mom nor in-laws have internet 
> access, so uploading videos to YouTube/Vimeo or sending by email are not 
> an option.

> My mom and in-laws also do not have Blu-Ray players. So burning a blu-ray 
> disk is out of the question. It also means those recipients do not care 
> about high definition video, so trying to maintain that quality for them 
> would be pointless.

> My mom doesn't even own a computer, and my in-laws have an old computer 
> that probably wouldn't play HD video even if I delivered it on a flash 
> drive or something.

> For me, the easiest solution is to make standard 720x480 MPEG2's from my 
> HD sources, then burn a regular video (not data) DVD. Both parents have 
> DVD players that can handle DVD-R disks, so it's an easy way to send them 
> copies of our home movies.

> Also, consider the fact your videos may not mean as much to the recipient 
> as they do to you. I always try for the highest quality and nit pick 
> over the smallest editing details. But the reality is most people won't 
> care about any of that (my wife and daughter included). They may not even 
> be all that interested in watching the video, and if they do they'll 
> probably watch it once quickly then move on.

> In the past I have loaded HD videos on my laptop to show in person to 
> family members. They're not real computer literate and usually prefer 
> watching a lower quality SD video on a TV than an HD quality video on my 
> laptop. They're just more familiar and comfortable with a TV.

> In short, maintain the highest quality stuff for yourself, and distribute 
> the video to friends and family on whatever medium they have access to.

> Anthony Watson
> Mountain Software
> www.mountain-softare.com/videos.htm 

Hmmmm....., it appears that you have hit a **VERY** large number of 
nails directly on their heads! Well put! 8^) 
--DR 


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

<CLicker> wrote in message news:q094q69dbjivfd1tqj9631bjl9kdsrfe2o@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 10 Apr 2011 15:47:18 -0400, "David Ruether"
> <d_ruether@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>"Mxsmanic" <mxsmanic@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>news:9in3q69728u0nh9jm6bk9sipm1jel534pv@4ax.com...
>>> David Ruether writes: 

[With a few additions/changes...]

>>>> 1/2 hour may be too long for YouTube, but you can upload 720p videos
>>>> to that site.

>>> They let you upload 1/2 hour as long as you don't have copyright strikes
>>> against you or things like that.

>>Then this would appear to be your solution - or standard SD DVDs
>>made from the HD material (both would be playable by most...).

>>>> With the latter you must also keep the data rate within the acceptable 
>>>> DVD limit of about 16-18 Mbps, whereas with some software, you can 
>>>> write Blu-ray disks at up to 48Mbps peak, 40Mbps average for higher 
>>>> quality (but red-laser HD disks can look fine, made with good software). 
>>>> Both need Blu-ray players for viewing.

>>> The videos out of the camera are up to 24 Mbps.

>>You could not make DVD AVCHD discs directly from these. You could,
>>if you take a "hit" in quality and shoot and edit 17Mbps material - but you
>>would still need a Blu-ray player to view it...

>>> Not sure what the output files
>>> from the editor are--I think as much as 18 Mbps, but more typically 8 
>>> Mbps, I'm not clear on it and the documentation is sparse.

>>What program are you using? I found the HD DVDs made with Ulead 
>>[now Corel] were very poor [full of very obvious artifacting - made at 
>>8Mbps(?)], but those made with Vegas were quite good (and could
>>be made at 16Mbps, as I recall). But, it looks like that for compatibility
>>with standard SD DVD players and computers (including the internet),
>>you are limited to fewer choices without considering Blu-ray discs or
>>red-laser HD discs, although the USB memory-gizmo idea seems to be
>>possibly a good additional solution [except for the price and possible 
>>vulnerability to viruses that you noted...].
>>--DR 

> Dave, I'm pretty sure you're wrong about DVD bit rates and the NEED
> for a Blu-Ray player (as opposed to a player which handles Blu-Ray)
> for playback.

There are issues here: whether or not the OP wants to have his videos 
of whatever media type play conveniently on table-top stand-alone 
players (such as DVD players which most people already have, or 
Blu-ray players which many people now have), or just from computer 
optical drives or from online sources for viewing on computers, or 
from files first transferred from optical discs or USB gizmos to the 
computers' hard drives (and for playing these, suitable software may 
need to be installed). Direct playing of USB gizmos to a TV may also 
require an additional device, which is about the same price as a Blu-ray 
player. For HD, most of this assumes that the viewer has an HD TV, 
which may not be true...

> Since the 90's, the 1x specified bit rate for DVD has been 10 mbps.
> Typical drives today will spin and play DVDs at 4x, 8x, and 16x. A
> Blu-Ray .m2ts file or .ISO image can be stored on any medium which
> will contain it. This includes DVD, memory sticks, and HDD.
> Inexpensive players, such as WDC's TV Live plus will play DVD or
> Blu-Ray ISO directly to a TV from any of those three storage media via
> USB2 in and HDMI or component out. In addition many contemporary PCs,
> running open source or commercial playback software, are capable of
> playing commercial Blu-Ray quality h264 as well as all their currently
> supported audio encoding methods from media other than a Blu-Ray
> optical disc.

See above - and also your comments in your last paragraph. But, as was 
concluded earlier, likely the best solution for sending video to people who 
are not tech-savvy and/or cannot or will not appreciate the differences in 
quality among the various media transfer choices, is to supply simple 
VERY cheap and easy-to-make and ship SD DVD copies since almost 
everyone has a suitable player (or can get one VERY cheaply now, and 
can then also use it for viewing other movies...). 

> While memory sticks are still pricey vs. optical media, they are
> reusable, compact, and extremely easy to use. HDD takes the cake
> though for both capacity and price per gigabyte. With 2 TB drives
> selling for $80 or less than $0.20 per SSSD DVD, there's just no
> optical price competitor.

> Sadly, the HD infrastructure is way behind the technology, so the OP's
> plight of "how do I distribute my art" is poorly addressed by the
> industry, requiring both the artist and the recipients of the art to
> delve into the techie aspects of video distribution that perhaps
> neither wants to. 

--DR 

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

"Gary Eickmeier" <geickmei@tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message 
news:mevop.588788$k67.364874@unlimited.newshosting.com...

> All it is is a 30 minute HDV video, a set of camera clips I want to show to 
> some clients. Thought I would just render it out to a Windows Media file and 
> put it on a disc for them. It has been 8 1/2 hours now, and it says it has 
> another hour and a half to go. And I am not that sure of the video quality 
> when it gets done. Trusting the preset bitrate with a few modifications.

> So I have been without my main editing computer for close to 9 hours now, 
> absolutely useless to me for other important tasks. This just stinks. It is 
> a purpose built editing PC with AMD two core processor 2.8G or so, 4G RAM, 
> Windows XP Pro 32 bit, all specs dictated by the Matrox requirements for the 
> RTX2 card and Adobe Premiere CS4.

> Yes, you all know the story on that one, superseded by CS5 and 64 bit a week 
> after I was done saving up for it, collecting all of the components over a 
> one year period, having it built, and customizing its settings for video 
> editing. It crashed about a dozen times while slapping these clips onto the 
> timeline, and it is so slow at export it is useless, and I can't imagine 
> what it would be like to work with AVCHD instead of HDV. That is what I 
> built it for, because my CS3 could not handle AVCHD and modern memory chip 
> cameras.

> No shit - what should a fellow do to take care of this crap once and for 
> all? Are Macs that much better at handling graphics and video processing? Is 
> CS5 and 64 bit the gold standard that could slice thru this project like 
> butter? Or are we all being sold another bill of goods?

> Just put me out of my misery. I'm tired of this bullshit.

> Gary Eickmeier 

BEEN THERE, DONE THAT!!! (And as "ushere" points out, 
we've ALL been there...) Eventually we learn (maybe best by 
using, say, a "standard" 60-second clip and experimenting with 
it to see how things go), but I must say, I HATE THE PROCESS 
OF LEARNING!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! (I am NOT a calm person!) 8-{]. 
As for your comments -- 
- In Vegas (and in other programs with "Smart Rendering", and 
*with it turned on*), *unchanged* HDV (and in some versions, 
AVCHD) files are very rapidly copied from the timeline to the 
new file, no rendering required. This improves both export 
speed and image quality (since no recompression is done with 
unchanged footage). 
- Changing *anything* in the source file will prevent "Smart 
Rendering" from being used in the part(s) changed, but no Adobe 
product has this feature except for SD Mini-DV... 
- Converting to WMV *will* take time. 
- Moving to a quad-core CPU from a dual-core cut render times 
in half for me, and you may be able to find a drop-in replacement 
quad-core CPU for your motherboard, and it should be FAR 
less expensive than some other things you've done... 
- This was the ONLY thing that significantly speeded rendering 
for me (not more RAM, not 64bit vs. 32bit for the OS and 
editing program, not a faster [SS] HD, etc. - or even trying 
CineForm's NeoScene, with its lower-compression HUGE 
files or even working with uncompressed AVIs). 
- My software (Vegas) does not efficiently use more than four 
threads, but it can use all four at 100%. It also doesn't use 
a video card "CUDA" feature, but CS4/5 *may* be able to use 
that to speed rendering(?). 
- Moving to Windows 7 from XP did not improve render speed 
(and I lost some favored programs in the process, so I'm trying 
to set up a virtual XP maching within 7 to get them back [or 
give that up, and return to XP, or go to a dual-boot system]). 
- Fortunately for me, even my two-versions-old Vegas Pro 8 
handled the 28Mbps 60p material from my TM700 even before 
Adobe and FCP could...;-) 
- But, yes, there is a bunch of (expensive!) crap being sold us, 
which is why I prattle on about the wonders of the very cheap 
Sony Vegas Media Studio HD Platinum 10 (whew! ;-). It does 
(most of...) the job, for "peanuts". Maybe best not to listen so 
much to people who are into selling expensive things, the 
brands of which often begin with the letter "A"...;-) 
- But, in conclusion, "AAARRRRRGGGGGGHHHHHH!!!!!!", 
too! 
--DR 

~~~~~~~~~~~

"Mxsmanic" <mxsmanic@gmail.com> wrote in message news:0dg6q61l0mdkac28i5otda7226q4rkgo12@4ax.com...
> David Ruether writes:

>> There are issues here: whether or not the OP wants to have his videos
>> of whatever media type play conveniently on table-top stand-alone
>> players (such as DVD players which most people already have, or
>> Blu-ray players which many people now have), or just from computer
>> optical drives or from online sources for viewing on computers, or
>> from files first transferred from optical discs or USB gizmos to the
>> computers' hard drives (and for playing these, suitable software may
>> need to be installed).

> Essentially I want sharing videos to be as easy as sharing songs.

> If I compose and perform a song today, I can create a MP3 file that I can
> easily pass on to others in many different ways. But a MP3 is typically only a
> few megabytes, whereas video files are at least two orders of magnitude
> larger, and often more. I can upload 3 MB even with my highly asymmetric ADSL
> line in about 30 seconds, but uploading an HD video of the same duration takes
> an hour and 12 minutes (at 24 Mbps). Video files are too large to e-mail, and
> even if they could be e-mailed, they take too long to upload. They won't fit
> on CDs. They won't fit on DVDs, either. They'll fit on blu-ray discs, but the
> person at the other end needs a blu-ray disc. Even more frustrating is that
> the files cannot be moved electronically, because networks are still way too
> slow. I'd have to put a disc in an envelope and send it by postal mail.

> I've heard that in Japan you can get Internet service at 150 Mbps (not sure if
> that is symmetric, though). That's still a ten-minute upload for a one-hour
> video. And there's also the matter of where to put that one-hour video, since
> it takes up 12 GB.

> A lot of this is mathematically inevitable. I think the only solution is still
> larger storage capacities and still faster network connections ... and I mean
> hundreds or thousands of times more, not just a 20% improvement. 

But, to repeat, if all you want to do is share videos (NOT at maximum 
quality, since what is the point [and you cannot even see them on your 
own computer at maximum quality]?), then either make SD DVDs that 
are easy and cheap to mail, put them up on YouTube, or make small 
dimension VERY highly compressed MP4 files that can be put in emails... 
For yourself and the future, you can make higher data rate archive files 
(I make 50 Mbps "60"p 1920x1080 of my edits for this) and Blu-ray 
(or SD DVDs, if necessary) copies for people to view (plus there are 
other ways of doing this, as covered in this thread [which is beginning 
to become somewhat "thread-bare"...;-]). 
--DR 

~~~~~~~~

"Mxsmanic" <mxsmanic@gmail.com> wrote in message news:avg6q6118v9rr6mrccj3jql3v5t83q70b7@4ax.com...
> Smarty writes:

>> High definition video, especially of the type we have been addressing at 
>> 1920 by 1080 is a rich and beautiful format, worthy of 18-24 Mbits/sec 
>> of recoding space. Taking it through some path of recompressing it to 
>> some Windows Media format or some other comparable path is, in my humble 
>> opinion, a huge waste of the native quality you paid for when you bought 
>> the camera, to say nothing of the time wasted transforming it to another 
>> lesser format.

> I fully agree.

The exception is that even the best camera work requires the careful 
application of image-modifying filters to make the best of it. Rarely 
can one shoot "perfect" video except under very carefully controlled 
conditions. As a result, the footage will go through at least one layer 
of additional compression - although there are ways to reduce the 
ill effects of this. In addition, for presentation, the footage may need 
to go through yet another layer of transcoding, such as for the making 
of a Blu-ray disc... (and it was disappointing for me to find that I 
could not make a "60"P 1920x1080 Blu-ray disc - and both 1280x720-
"60"P and 1920x1080-24P looked very inferior to me compared with 
the remaining choice, 1920x1080-"60"I being the best compromise. 
I make 50 Mbps 1920x1080-"60"P MP4s for archiving. 

> In fact, I'm getting tired of HD that is here-but-not-here. Actually getting
> 1920x1080 at 60 images per second, progressive scan, seems to be a sort of
> Holy Grail that nobody can actually afford. Everything done in practice seems
> to be a significant sacrifice of quality. 

See above... And ask Gary Eickmeier what he thinks of the Blu-ray 
"60"I disc I sent him recently of footage shot with the Panasonic 
TM700...;-)

> And HD isn't new. I recall seeing HDTV at least 20 years ago. Twenty years and
> it's still not commonplace.

'Pends...;-) Just about everyone I know has it. 

> Worse yet, we are still far away from the limits imposed by human vision. To
> actually push the envelope of human visual acuity, we need resolution closer
> to 3600x2025, around three or four times better than so-called HD today. 

This depends on the viewing distance. For my 42" LCD viewed at 
6.5', on the best programming I can see even more detail by moving 
closer. But, people often make the mistake of treating an HD TV as if 
it were a wall picture, and they place it W A Y over there, or worse 
yet, up above the fireplace. I cringe when I see this, and some of the 
same people put miserable little badly-placed speakers with the TV (or 
worse yet, use the TV's sound, or "53.627" surround sound systems 
instead of just a good pair of properly-placed *stereo* speakers up 
front). But, I rant...;-) Since Vegas can already edit 4096x4096 material, 
well.............;-)

> Sixty
> images a second is fine (even 30 works pretty well), but the resolution is
> still too low.

See above (it also depends on the sharpness of the TV - some are better 
than others...). And BTW, I've been amused by those "demos" showing 
that "120 fps" refresh rate is better than 60 fps, and that "240 fps" is even 
better (all generally using 60I source material, so unless "inbetweener" 
frames are being created, someone is trying to fool someone...;-). With 
my new "60P" camera, though, I've become convinced that that (*whole*) 
frame rate is generally satisfactory with slow movement in the video - but 
with faster movement, elements still do smear more than I would like. 

> Anyway, lots of frustration ... true HD still seems to be far in the future.

"Perfection" is ALWAYS far in the future (and never here), but compare 
a good 40"-50" LCD with even an expensive 20" CRT of not so long ago, 
and MAYBE you will better appreciate what we have! 8^) But, maybe not. ;-)

>> The good news is that optical disks, both Blue and red, are cheap, as 
>> are the players and the burners. If your recipient does not care enough 
>> about the quality they view to invest 100 bucks in such a device, then 
>> you always have the ability to convert the video into the older, 
>> standard definition format. Indeed some cameras will do this for you 
>> automatically.

> I guess that makes sense. There aren't too many other options, it seems.

> I still would like to be able to do things electronically, as I can with
> audio. But as long as telecom companies insist on 99.5% margins on their
> tariffs, I guess that won't be happening.

>> You are already at the "sweet spot" for HD in terms of cheap players, 
>> distribution, cameras, and editing software, and it is altogether 
>> possible to create, edit, distribute, and play HD 1920 by 1080 at prices 
>> well below anything seen in the history of computing / video editing 
>> using ***TODAY's*** products.

> I'm definitely impressed by the bang for the buck that I'm getting with my
> tiny little Handycam. Far superior to broadcast of even just a few years ago.
> The problem today seems to be storage and bandwidth, although I know that
> vendors are still deliberately crippling their consumer equipment.

??? Proof...? 

>> AVCHD disks have the distinct advantage of pretty generous recording 
>> time at the highest camera bitrate they support, and hours of recording 
>> if you drop the bitrate, along with very cheap production and extremely 
>> low cost media. The players are plentiful and cheap, install easily, 
>> take no expertise to use, and play back your content faithfully in all 
>> respects. This is why I originally suggested it as the preferred method.

> Unfortunately many of my potential recipients can barely turn on a PC, much
> less understand how to use something like AVCHD. I still haven't been able to
> get them to understand what it means to display a YouTube video in full-screen
> mode. 

Hmmm.... Looks like we are back to making SD DVDs for these folks. 
Surely they can pit a disc in and hit "Play", no? 8^) 
--DR 

~~~~~~~~~~

"Mxsmanic" <mxsmanic@gmail.com> wrote in message news:pmb7q6d2orlptfbalghullbcr7e327mo7a@4ax.com...
> David Ruether writes:

>> The exception is that even the best camera work requires the careful
>> application of image-modifying filters to make the best of it. Rarely
>> can one shoot "perfect" video except under very carefully controlled
>> conditions.

> What sort of image-modifying filters?

Color-balance/hue/saturation corrections, brightness/contrast corrections, 
tonal-relationships adjustments, sharpening/unsharp-mask adjustments, 
among others... 

> The vast majority of my camera mistakes are improper framing, a lack of smooth
> movement or a steady hand, or just poor composition. I don't know of a way to
> fix any of that with filters. The camera is very good at handling exposure, so
> I'm not too worried about that.

You may not yet be aware of image shortcomings with footage straight 
out of the camera, but they are almost certainly present - and mostly 
correctable. The ones you mentioned are more difficult to correct, but 
even some "unsteady-hand" footage can often be improved with a 
digital stabilizer filter, and some framing and smoothness problems can 
be improved with editing (often some part of a clip is at least OK...). 
BTW, even with good AE, I often correct the exposure of a clip locally 
with many key-framed brightness/contrast adjustments. 

>> Since Vegas can already edit 4096x4096 material, well.............;-)

> But what do you use to shoot it?

The "RED" camera can do it (but I'm VERY unlikely to have one...;-). 
What I can do, though, is import a large still and move around in it 
smoothly while maintaining full 1920x1080 60p video output 
characteristics. 

> I note that YouTube has some very high definition content on an experimental
> basis, but with a 1600x1200 screen, I'm not going to be able to appreciate it.

I should check into it. With two screens, I have 3840x1200 resolution 
available...;-) 

> On the other hand, I do see a difference between 720 and 1080.

>> See above (it also depends on the sharpness of the TV - some are
>> better than others...). And, I've been amused by those "demos" 
>> showing that "120 fps" refresh rate is better than 60 fps, and that 
>> "240 fps" is even better (all generally using 60i source material, so 
>> unless "inbetweener" frames are being created, someone is trying 
>> to fool someone...;-).

> Well, the cinema has traditionally projected each frame twice, for 48 fps with
> 24 ips source material. I'm not sure what the advantage really is.

None. It is an artifact of early film making and technical and economic 
problems of the time. I DO NOT UNDERSTAND the appeal of 24p 
frame rate now when smoother 60i and even 60p is available. WHY 
duplicate the characteristics of a faulty process, to get what I consider 
to be ugly "film look" motion...?! 

> As for interlace, it is a pox on humanity, and should have disappeared as soon
> as digital video entered the picture.

If one is limited to a slow frame rate (30fps in the early days of video), 
60i helps greatly to smooth the image with motion...

>> With
>> my new "60P" camera, though, I've become convinced that that (*whole*)
>> frame rate is generally satisfactory with slow movement in the video - but
>> with faster movement, elements still do smear more than I would like.

> It also depends on the exposure time. Very bright scenes mean short exposures,
> which in turn really emphasizes motion artifacts. The classic example is
> sports video of downhill skiers in sunlight, with 1/20000 shutter speeds that
> make the video look like stop-motion animation.

Yes. This is why competent cameramen use neutral density filters to 
adjust the shutter speed downward toward something that is more 
appropriate. Some cameras even have filters built in (my Sony 
VX2000 did). One tries to balance too much smear against too 
much flicker with motion for a given light level, not always easy...;-)

>> "Perfection" is ALWAYS far in the future (and never here), but compare
>> a good 40"-50" LCD with even an expensive 20" CRT of not so long ago,
>> and MAYBE you will better appreciate what we have! 8^) But, maybe not. ;-)

> I appreciate it, but I'm never satisfied. It just takes too long for things to
> get from the lab to reality. A lot of "brand-new" technologies today were
> actually invented decades ago, but it took that long for them to get to
> market. Like HDTV. I was very impressed with it 20 years ago, and I wondered
> how long it would take to actually show up in living rooms. It took a lot
> longer than I expected, and I was already being pessimistic (I thought).

>> ??? Proof...?

Here, HD TV happened much more rapidly than I thought it would, 
once it started - which did take quite a while...

> My Handycam, which shoots 1080/50i instead of 1080/50p. There was no technical
> obstacle to the latter. I'm certain it was a marketing decision. I would have
> preferred 25p to 50i. I hate interlace. Did I mention that I hate interlace?

It is also a matter of technical and economic issues. 60p was practical 
on inexpensive camcorders only recently (mine, the first, appeared less 
than a year[?] ago). I had a Panasonic years ago that would shoot 60i or 
30p, but for a tiny camcorder with many shortcomings, it entered the 
market at a very high $4,000(!). I reviewed it here -- 
http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/camcorder-comparison.htm 

>> Hmmm.... Looks like we are back to making SD DVDs for these folks.
>> Surely they can pit a disc in and hit "Play", no? 8^)

> Sometimes I wonder, what with some of the questions they ask me. 

Ah, one of the hazzards of being the "techie" in the family...? ;-) 
--DR 

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

"Paul" <nospam@needed.com> wrote in message news:io4ac7$pr3$1@dont-email.me...
> Gary Eickmeier wrote:

>> Some good food for thought. Yes, the edit program is set up properly for the 
>> format of the HDV clips that I am using. And yes, I have tried to carefully 
>> choose the right components that work for video editing, according to all 
>> that's holy in the Matrox and Adobe systems recommendations. 

I have probably lost track of the "pieces" of this thread, but if so, 
let me ask a few questions from what I remember from the thread 
and from the past... 

- Are you trying to edit/export HDV exclusively with the current 
project? 
- Are you making modifications in the HDV clips other than trimming? 
- Do you care about maintaining the full original quality of the HDV 
source clips in the export file? 
- Do care about export speed to the finished file?
- Are you having stability problems? 
- Are you using Adobe for editing HDV? 
- Are you really using all the parts of the expensive Adobe suite (with 
its expensive updates)? 

Some comments: 
- I have seen no Adobe editor that did not require recompression 
of unchanged HD material at export (and I was not very impressed 
with the quality of the Adobe recompression...) and with the even 
further recompression required when exporting the exported file again. 
- Some programs do not do this with HDV (and some don't even do 
it with AVCHD - but this ability is less reliable than with HDV). 
- When a program that has this "Smart Render" feature exports HDV, 
it merely (RAPIDLY!) copies *unchanged* material to the exported 
file. For these reasons alone, so long as you stick with HDV, I would 
recommend getting one of these under-$100 programs that have this 
feature. No fancy video card, unusual or particularly able HD or its 
arrangement or hardware, more than 2-3 gigs of RAM, or better than 
a dual-core (quad is nicer, though...;-) CPU is needed. I highly 
recommend the VERY stable (and cheap aand versatile) Sony Vegas 
Movie Studio HD Platinum 10 software for about $70. It should make 
things easier with HDV, and also improve export quality (not to sound 
TOO much like a broken record, but... ;-). 
- Vegas can import a wide range of file types and also export easily to 
any common file type, and you can even modify their characterics. 
- The built-in titler combined with, or alone with keyframed image 
motion effects and filters, can produce a wide range of special effects 
in a video in addition to easily controlling correction filtering. ("Color 
curves" is a favorite of mine since it permits the "lifting" of mid-tone 
values without modifying the blacks or whites [but these can also be 
adjusted with it]. This filter alone can accomplish miracles even with 
properly exposed material.) 
- Maybe you should look at the motives of sales people who "advise" 
you and who have gotten you into buying VERY expensive system 
software and "doo-dads" that do not appear to be working very well 
for you... (Heck, try the 30-day free download of the Vegas software, 
at least, and use it to finish the current project. Little lost, and maybe 
much to gain by doing this...;-). If you like it, even the "full blown" 
Sony Vegas Pro is far cheaper than just about any part of what you've 
bought (and the Vegas updates are either free or cheap), and it really 
IS VERY GOOD! ;-) 

--DR 

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

"Mxsmanic" <mxsmanic@gmail.com> wrote in message news:h4j9q6lnv98sqs0vditgun6nrhp17ik5bu@4ax.com...
> David Ruether writes:

>> Color-balance/hue/saturation corrections, brightness/contrast corrections,
>> tonal-relationships adjustments, sharpening/unsharp-mask adjustments,
>> among others...

> For video? I've rarely seen any need for that, apart from some slight
> anomalies that I've noticed in YouTube uploads (although I don't see them now,
> so maybe I was imagining them).

Then you have not been very critically viewing your own video footage, 
just as most people also do not... The worst instance I saw of this was 
a documentary shot inside with just a swapping of side views of people 
on a couch. Even though this video was made by the chairman of the 
video department of a major university for wide distribution and with 
important subject matter, the alternating mismatching of exposures and 
color balances was distracting, as were the overall poor color-quality and 
exposures of this incompetently made video. But even with video footage 
that is considerably higher in quality, the careful application of key-framed 
filtering can usually very noticeably improve it. 

>> You may not yet be aware of image shortcomings with footage straight
>> out of the camera, but they are almost certainly present - and mostly
>> correctable. The ones you mentioned are more difficult to correct, but
>> even some "unsteady-hand" footage can often be improved with a
>> digital stabilizer filter, and some framing and smoothness problems can
>> be improved with editing (often some part of a clip is at least OK...).
>> BTW, even with good AE, I often correct the exposure of a clip locally
>> with many key-framed brightness/contrast adjustments.

> I'm not sure that extensive correction is practical if you don't have a great
> deal of control over the original photography. I don't think television
> networks spend a lot of time tweaking video for the nighttime news, for
> example (at least it sure doesn't look like it).

They DO spend a lot of time tweaking the lighting, and with the network 
news programs, it DOES show...;-) But with careful filtering, you can 
often save underexposed or off-color footage (and also footage with parts 
lost in the shadows but otherwise well-exposed). You can also correct 
skin color/tone, etc., and even adjusting and balancing simple contrast 
and brightness can make a big difference. Learn to use your filters, and 
you may be surprised by what you can do and how much better the video 
can look...;-)

>> I should check into it. With two screens, I have 3840x1200 resolution
>> available...;-) 

> There are a couple of samples out there. But as is often the case with
> YouTube, something advertised as being of a high resolution often turns out to
> be well below the theoretical resolution promised. I've seen tons of videos
> that are marked HD and yet look like VHS. How they got the HD tag is a mystery
> to me.

Probably from the uploaded resolution, which doesn't specify how 
"sharp" something looks, or how compressed it was... In my experience, 
it is not possible to upload REALLY sharp 720p material to YouTube 
that approaches the sharpness of the original. Anything that would look 
sharp at 720p (let alone 1080p) would not stream adequately from a 
site such as YouTube. Other sites can *almost* get there with 720p, 
but they often have obvious streaming difficulties. 

>> None. It is an artifact of early film making and technical and economic
>> problems of the time. I DO NOT UNDERSTAND the appeal of 24p
>> frame rate now when smoother 60i and even 60p is available. WHY
>> duplicate the characteristics of a faulty process, to get what I consider
>> to be ugly "film look" motion...?!

> It's like interlace. These are monsters that refuse to go away.

Unlike 24p, interlacing can be your friend if you understand what it does 
for you...;-)

>> Yes. This is why competent cameramen use neutral density filters to
>> adjust the shutter speed downward toward something that is more
>> appropriate. Some cameras even have filters built in (my Sony
>> VX2000 did). One tries to balance too much smear against too
>> much flicker with motion for a given light level, not always easy...;-)

> Pro cameras I've used in the past had dial-up ND filters. Still, it seems that
> many professional sports broadcasts fail to use them. Or maybe sunlit snow is
> just too bright. Or maybe, for some reason, they want individual images to be
> very sharp. 

Front filters can be added, but sometimes one wants detail over smoothness 
with moving things (but I MUST remember to drop my shutter speed to 
1/60th or below with moving water and waterfalls...! ;-). 
--DR 

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

"Mxsmanic" <mxsmanic@gmail.com> wrote in message news:q9i9q6l75bf4vciolfk0kakd1a3ml8hjd2@4ax.com...
> HerHusband writes:

>> THEM: The wife, kids, parents, grandparents. They just watch the show. 
>> They don't care about the technology. As long as they can make out what 
>> is happening in the video, that's all they care about. I have shown my 
>> wife the difference between SD and HD video and in most cases she can't 
>> see a difference. I'm like WHAT? Are you BLIND! :)

8^) But, sometimes I get surprised. I showed to a friend who is not 
"tech savvy" a video shot with two cameras, the very good HDV 60i 
Canon HV20 for the first 2/3rds, and the "troolee soo-poib" AVCHD 
60p Panasonic HDC-TM700 for the rest. Even though I had converted 
the TM700 footage to HDV (with resultant obvious quality loss) to 
simplify the editing and exporting, he spotted the change-over point, 
once he knew there was one. 

> They may not consciously notice the difference, but the improvement will have
> an indirect influence on their viewing experience. It depends on the subject
> matter, though. Greater image quality is more immersive.

See above...;-)

> I was looking at some very early color movies on YouTube just a few days ago.
> I was surprised at how much more real and relevant a color movie from the
> 1920s seemed as opposed to blurry, contrasty, overcranked black and white.
> It's hard to accept history as being real when the image quality is poor. When
> the image quality is great, history comes alive.

Ummm, your dates may be wrong. At least for high-quality, 3-color 
Technicolor appeared about 1930 and Kodachrome appeared in the mid 
to late 1930s. Technicolor required very large (and relatively immobile) 
cameras, so it was mostly used for movie studio work, not shooting 
documentary work. Once Kodachrome appeared in 16mm, good (if 
not great, given the ASA 10 speed rating, etc.) documentary and amateur 
work could be done in color (and I remember even 8mm shot by my 
father in 1939 looking OK...;-). BUT, previous to that, MUCH technically 
very high quality and beautiful B&W work had been done in silent 
movies, and later with "talkies". Even today, some film makers prefer 
to work either partly or entirely with B&W film. My advice: go rent some 
good B&W movies, like Trauffaut's "Wild Child", "Sunset Boulevard", 
"Touch of Evil", "Schindler's List", Metropolis", "On the Waterfront", 
"To Kill a Mockingbird", "The Big Sleep", "Manhattan", "Night of the 
Living Dead" (low-quality B&W, but you will NOT care!!! ;-), "Young 
Frankenstein", "Casablanca", etc. and many of the "film noir" 
crime/detective movies. There are MANY more...

> It applies even to family videos. When you first shoot video of your toddler,
> the fact that it's HD may not seem like a big deal, since you see your toddler
> in person daily. But wait 30 years and look again. After a couple of decades,
> the higher image quality makes a big difference in bringing back memories, or
> at least I've found that to be the case.

I remember the 8mm B&W movies of me (now lost, DARN!!!) as a kid 
on a tricycle, and it is plenty good for bringing memories back! ;-) 

> You see the same thing with movie stars. Celebrities who were filmed with the
> best equipment in their childhood look a lot more real in those recordings
> than the average Joe who has only blurry, silent Super 8 of his youth.

Hmmm....;-)

>> For many folks, there is no benefit to HD. 

> For things like broadcast TV, I agree. I don't see any benefit to HD myself
> for that. 

WHAT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!? YOU'VE ***GOT*** TO BE JOKING!!!!!!!!!
HD broadcast is SO VERY MUCH better than SD that it is absurd to 
write the above! HD is where brodcast material comes ALIVE! Try some 
good pop or classical concerts on a good large screen with good sound; 
try the "exquisite" science, travel, etc. programming now available in HD; 
try PBS or in Britain, the BBC, and *try* to write that again! Have you 
ever seen "Dr. Who" in HD?! A Shakespeare play? A good movie? 
Anything at all in HD...? (I hate sports, but even that can be fun in HD...;-)

> In fact, I don't watch TV at all. There's nothing interesting to
> see, SD or HD.

Um, you must be a VERY dull person (in my opinion) if that is true... 
My HD TV is (almost literally) my "window on the world" for travel, 
art, movies, politics, knowledge about basic science, concerts, history, 
biography, biology, entomology, zoology, plants and gardening, 
architecture, astronomy, and MUCH MUCH more! WHEW! 

>> Remember, just a couple years 
>> ago, many people were still struggling with analog TV broadcasts that 
>> were grainy, ghosted, etc. While digital video may be the norm now, many 
>> are still using converters to watch it on tiny old analog TV's. On those 
>> small screens, it's hard to see much difference between SD and HD.

Yes. Better sources do improve slightly the SD output, but one is still 
trapped within the 640x480 (approximate) pixel "box"... 

> True. But see my comments above. HD today might be hard to appreciate without
> a way of displaying it in all its glory, but a few decades from now, it might
> be less than the norm, so the closer you can get to future formats today, the
> better they will look in the future. And in the future it will be all the more
> important because it will be the only thing you have to remind you of the
> past.

I think 1920x1080 even at 60i will do nicely in the forseeable future. 
Look at how good SD 720x480 DVDs look upsampled to HD. One 
must know what to look for to see much difference between that and 
Blu-ray or good HD broadcast. With VHS, however......;-) But, even 
some of that can look decent upsampled for viewing on an HD TV. 

>> Just as an example, I do not own a blu-ray burner. I stream HD video 
>> directly to my TV from my computer, so I do not need the time or expense 
>> of blu-ray disks. None of the people I share video with own a Blu-ray 
>> player yet, so I have no need for a blu-ray burner.

> Same here.

My guess is that you would see a difference if you rented SD DVDs, 
particularly with motion. I generally recommend to people that they 
not pay a premium for Blu-ray discs, but buy cheap ones if they want, 
and with the low prices for BR players (which generally play ANYTHING, 
often including SD memory cards also), why not have one of those? For 
those who don't care about the best casually-obtained material (DVDs), 
there's streaming video, I guess...;-) 

> Now imagine what it would be like if you had filmed those old movies
> in 70mm Technicolor, which certainly existed 40 years ago and beyond. 

Unlikely in 70mm...

> Today
> they would stand up well against HD and would bring back the memories a lot
> more effectively than some blurred mess that separates you from the reality of
> the time.

I have a couple of 70mm-sourced IMAX videos on Blu-ray. Guess 
what? At least in good light, I can now shoot (with a tiny camcorder) 
higher-quality video in terms of sharpness and apparent "grain" than I 
see in those BR videos. Technology *does* move on, I guess...;-) 

> Newsreels are the same way. Most from the past are a grainy, blurry, contrasty
> mess, and we get used to seeing historical figures and situations that way,
> which makes them seem unreal and irrelevant. But if you stumble across some
> really clean, color footage that dates way back (like the early color movies I
> mentioned above), you get a whole different impression, and history no longer
> seems to be a cartoon. 

As an "art" photographer, I used to "look down my nose" at news and 
documentary photographers who appeared to have relatively little skill or 
interest in producing technically high-quality work. Much of the best of 
this work is often saved by people with the skills and interest in presenting 
the work with much improved prints or reproductions. Some of this sort 
of thing can now be done digitally with motion film (see the latest version 
of "Metropolis", which contains some really rough footage, but mostly 
restored footage). BUT, there can be an appeal to seeing the *original* 
(unmessed with) photos, film, etc. for some, just as I can prefer old 
cylinder or 78rpm recordings of rough "mountain music", since that 
seems to me to be more "real" than redone, smoothed-out, studio-mixed, 
and over-produced versions of the same musicfrom more recent times...;-) 

BTW, since you don't watch TV, you missed a superb documentary 
on the US presidents' documentary photographers, especially the current 
one. WOW! Lotsa behind-the-scenes scenes, family/press/dignitary 
interactions, in meetings, background material, views inside the White House, 
AF-1, the Pres's helicopter, what its like to cover events, plus a "TON" of 
other "neat" material, well presented - and all quite interesting (unless one is 
"dead in the head", anyway...;-). 

--DR 

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

"Mxsmanic" <mxsmanic@gmail.com> wrote in message news:cui9q6tuih3ub10ope3no08etg6ihgt5hr@4ax.com...

> Video is all about money, and always has been. But digital photography is
> going down exactly the same path now, as is digital cinema. Whereas in the old
> film days you could get good results at relatively low cost. 

Have you ever priced 3-minutes worth of film with processing vs. 
an hour's worth of digital material; or even decent 16mm gear 
vs. the price of a compact camcorder capable of producing top 
quality results? Costs now are FAR lower - and ease-of-use also 
is... Too bad I didn't have access to this stuff 20 years ago!!!!!! 
--DR 

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

"Laszlo_Lebrun" <Lazlo_Lebrun@laszlomail.com> wrote in message 
news:io50p8$m7p$1@tota-refugium.de... 

> I'm searching for an affordable video editor that can keep the timing 
> of a master track while overdubbing from other tracks.

> It should be obvious but most of the video editors can't do that simple 
> task.

> I use to film events with 3 or 4 (cheap) camereas on tripods, running 
> all the time.

> A main camera filming the stage.
> A side camera to give some variety
> A camera filming the audience or the surroundings
> A hand camera to get some close-ups.

> I would like to keep the first film uncut and overdub it with some clips 
> from the other ones, with some limited transition effects. That's it. If 
> I have to displace the overdubbing clips, I dont want have to change 
> the master track.
> That should not be that difficult, isn't it?

> Most of the programs i've seen just cannot do that. They expect me to 
> cut all the clips and concatenate all the clips computing milliseconds 
> to keep the timing. Bah!
> It should be doable in an easier way!
> I can't afford to pay for professional tools like final cut.

> Has anyone got an hint which freeware or cheap cutting software could do 
> what I need? Windows, Mac, or Linux i don't care.

> Thank you for any advice.

> Laszlo. 

If your camcorders are digital (Mini-DV, HD, whatever...), this is 
very easy with editors that permit at least four video-audio tracks 
(I like, for cheap [less than $80], Sony's Vegas Media Studio HD 
Platinum 10, but there are others - but I don't like Adobe Premiere 
for HDV...). Vegas (as do others) permits muting of tracks to 
see or hear various tracks, or not. Even if you are using analogue 
camcorders, if your cut-aways are short, you should not run into 
serious problems with timing (although if the camera distances are 
quite varied, there can be time delays of a frame or two in the 
audio tracks). 
--DR

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

"Laszlo_Lebrun" <Lazlo_Lebrun@laszlomail.com> wrote in message 
news:io55q1$7f4$1@tota-refugium.de...
> On 13.04.2011 22:39, David Ruether wrote:

>> If your camcorders are digital (Mini-DV, HD, whatever...), this is
>> very easy with editors that permit at least four video-audio tracks
>> (I like, for cheap [less than $80], Sony's Vegas Media Studio HD
>> Platinum 10, but there are others - but I don't like Adobe Premiere
>> for HDV...). Vegas (as do others) permits muting of tracks to
>> see or hear various tracks, or not. Even if you are using analogue
>> camcorders, if your cut-aways are short, you should not run into
>> serious problems with timing (although if the distances are quite
>> varied, there can be time delays of a frame or two in the audio
>> tracks).
>> --DR

> Thank you David for the fast reply.
> Can I get the "Takes" and multicamera Tracks from the cheapest version 
> of Vegas or do I need the pro?
> Laszlo 

Here is a comparison of the various Vegas versions -- 
http://www.sonycreativesoftware.com/moviestudiohd/compare 
Specifically, the version I mentioned above can handle 10 each 
video and audio tracks (the cheapest version can handle 4 of each). 
http://www.sonycreativesoftware.com/moviestudiopp 
The expensive version permits real-time take switching (not 
something I've ever found useful, although I have that version). 
With the ability to line up in vertical synch all your tracks and then 
individualy select and cut tracks (video or audio, without moving 
them) in a "checkerboard" pattern but with overlaps, and pulling 
upper pieces down produces dissolves (the lengths of which can 
easily be modified afterwards) - and any other transitions you may 
want can then be dropped on top of the dissolves, and modified with 
the box that opens. There are unlimited "undoes" possible, and the 
program includes built-in step-by-step tutorials. A neat feature is 
that with a dual-head video card, you can run a 1920x1080 monitor 
or HD TV at the same time as the program's monitor. Here is a 
"beginner' guide" to Vegas that I wrote, with screen grabs, at -- 
http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/Sony-editing.htm 
and there are some Sony video tutorials, at -- 
http://www.sonycreativesoftware.com/support/trainingvids.asp?prod=moviestudio 
There are 30-day free trial downloads available, at -- 
http://www.sonycreativesoftware.com/download/trials/moviestudiopp 
(available in English, German, French, Spanish, Chinese (i think...;-). 
--DR 

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

"Mxsmanic" <mxsmanic@gmail.com> wrote in message news:7tjcq6tn7hcokj56uni4389cr199j2f55t@4ax.com...
> David Ruether writes:

[Probably pointless going farther with this, but............;-] 

>> Ummm, your dates may be wrong. At least for high-quality, 3-color
>> Technicolor appeared about 1930 and Kodachrome appeared in the mid
>> to late 1930s.

> The video I saw claimed that it was made in the 1920s, and the clothing on the
> models matched that period. I don't know the exact process used, but it was
> Kodak.

Not "main-line" commercial, then... 

>> Even today, some film makers prefer to work either partly or entirely
>> with B&W film. 

> Filmmakers might like that, studios generally don't.

Maybe not for the "pop" stuff, but some of what was listed below 
WAS released by major studios ("Hollywood"). 

> There are times when B&W photography has a purpose, but it's much harder to
> justify with motion pictures.

Maybe for the "shootem-up, BANG-BOOM!" crowd, but for more 
serious viewers.... 

>> My advice: go rent some
>> good B&W movies, like Trauffaut's "Wild Child", "Sunset Boulevard",
>> "Touch of Evil", "Schindler's List", Metropolis", "On the Waterfront",
>> "To Kill a Mockingbird", "The Big Sleep", "Manhattan", "Night of the
>> Living Dead" (low-quality B&W, but you will NOT care!!! ;-), "Young
>> Frankenstein", "Casablanca", etc. and many of the "film noir"
>> crime/detective movies. There are MANY more...

> And nobody knows what they would have been like in color.

That is an absurd comment, since the makers in most cases CHOSE 
B&W over color! Or, one could as well say say, "Nobody knows 
how much better color movies would look in B&W...;-)

> Not as good as color HD with 5.1 sound would have been.

Heck, I wouldn't shoot such a thing TODAY that way! It would 
have been an absurd way to shoot it (except for the HD part...;-). 

>> WHAT!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!? YOU'VE ***GOT*** TO BE JOKING!!!!!!!!!
>> HD broadcast is SO VERY MUCH better than SD that it is absurd to
>> write the above! 

> The problem with television is content, not image quality. Bad television in
> HD is still bad television.

Yes, but unless you are completely insensitive to good video material, 
the multitudes of HD broadcast channels available (in the US at least) 
offer an almost continuous wealth of excellent content. Often, I must 
chose from among as many as three good things showing at the same 
time! 

>> HD is where brodcast material comes ALIVE! Try some
>> good pop or classical concerts on a good large screen with good sound;
>> try the "exquisite" science, travel, etc. programming now available in HD;
>> try PBS or in Britain, the BBC, and *try* to write that again! 

> I don't need HD for concerts, since that's a listening exercise. Travel would
> be nice in HD, if anyone still did travel. I haven't seen a decent travelogue
> in decades.

Then you haven't been watching HD TV (oh, you don't watch TV...;-). 
As for concerts, they add more than you can experience even being there, 
and can be REALLY FUN!!! 

>> Have you ever seen "Dr. Who" in HD?!

> Dr. Who is boring, so I don't watch it at all.

Ummm......;-)

>> A Shakespeare play? 

> See above.

Ummm....., you have been proving my point. "Good" enjoyable 
video/movie-watching does require *SOME* intelligence, appreciation, 
and skills on the part of the participant, just as it does for literature, etc. 
It appears that you do not have this. I'm sorry for you, since you are 
missing many riches that others have access to. Maybe you should not 
have started this thread - and maybe I should not have joined it. 

>> A good movie?

> Movies have been in HD for decades. Even poor 35mm film can match HD.

Not necessarily true... It is easy to spot even recent movies that were 
shot on film instead of video, even on TV. They generally have more 
"grain" and are less sharp than ones shot on video. 

>> Anything at all in HD...? 

> Mostly just stuff I film myself, or videos on YouTube. I don't have a
> television set.

Then how can you judge things??? And your standards are VERY likely 
of a VERY low standard...;-) 

>> Um, you must be a VERY dull person (in my opinion) if that is true...

> In my experience, people who sit staring at a television for hours each day
> are among the dullest people in the population.

Often true, but as I pointed out before, the material can be wonderful. 
I recently saw *on TV* AMAZING huge, sharp images from the Hubble 
telescope, including images of newly-forming stars(!). Along with it came 
the history of the 'scope and the story of how it will end (already planned), 
plus information about its successor. In another beautifully-produced 
program using many graphic devices, I learned the story of the 
discovery of the cause of the aging process, and how it can be stopped 
(potentially giving us immortality), and about the two women who got 
the Nobel prize for their discoveries. ETC. !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 
You know, "diddly" and "dull" stuff like that....;-)

>> My HD TV is (almost literally) my "window on the world" for travel,
>> art, movies, politics, knowledge about basic science, concerts, history,
>> biography, biology, entomology, zoology, plants and gardening,
>> architecture, astronomy, and MUCH MUCH more! WHEW!

> I use the Web for all that. It has the advantage of being interactive.

And you claim that things are better big, in color, and immersive. 
Methinks at this point that you just have "TV-envy"...;-) Especially 
given all your claims and complaints given in this thread, made without 
even having a large enough and good enough TV to (possibly!) 
justify making them, and stuck in a broadcast system that has, as I 
recall, only a few channels(?) instead of the hundreds available to 
some of the rest of us... 

>> Yes. Better sources do improve slightly the SD output, but one is still
>> trapped within the 640x480 (approximate) pixel "box"...

> It's small, but I do prefer the aspect ratio. Widescreen formats are less
> flexible. It irritates me that it's very hard to find 4:3 monitors these days.
> Not everyone uses his computer just to watch movies.

A large 16:9 HD TV does well resizing and upsampling and can show 
good 4:3 material well... BTW, you can still find 24" monitors that 
are 16:10 (1920x1200) instead of 16:9 (1920x1080), and I generally 
recommend the former over the latter, especially for better video-editing 
software layout... 

>> I think 1920x1080 even at 60i will do nicely in the forseeable future.

> Then you haven't seen 4K. But 2 megapixels is obviously better than 0.3
> megapixels.

Obviously - but as I pointed out earlier, with my set-up, even 2-meg 
images show more detail if I lean forward - and high-res photos played 
through the Blu-ray player's card slot look GREAT, even though 
they are limited to 2-megs... 

>> Look at how good SD 720x480 DVDs look upsampled to HD.

> They don't look good. They look the same as they did at 720x480, only bigger.

AGAIN, then you HAVE NOT seen them upsampled well on a GOOD 
HD TV! 

>> One must know what to look for to see much difference between that and
>> Blu-ray or good HD broadcast.

> Just look at details, and it's obvious. Hair on the heads of people in the
> video is a good metric.

Yes, but since the differences are quite subtle, so what? You are using 
viewing methods and gear that simply don't support what others see 
with better gear... 

>> With VHS, however......;-) But, even
>> some of that can look decent upsampled for viewing on an HD TV.

> Upsampling just makes it bigger. It does not get better.

AGAIN, (see comment above....). While it is true that upsampling cannot 
truly produce more detail than was there in the first place, it CAN make 
it look MUCH better, and surprisingly almost undistinguishable from 
a better (if average-quality) source. I'll take that. 8^) Similarly, if you have 
done any work with video filtering (it's obvious that you haven't...), you 
would also know that careful sharpening/unsharp-masking will give the 
*appearance* of more information without actually adding any. You can, 
with processes, fool the viewer into thinking that the quality is higher 
than it is - and standard DVDs CAN look like HD. 

>> My guess is that you would see a difference if you rented SD DVDs,
>> particularly with motion.

> The image quality cannot be better than the original.

See above - it actually can be... 

>> Unlikely in 70mm...

> True. Even today, it's rare to shoot more than 35mm. But 35mm can be optically
> enlarged to 70mm, although that's no different than upsampling SD to HD.

Not quite, unless the upsizing also involves digital upsampling...;-) 

>> I have a couple of 70mm-sourced IMAX videos on Blu-ray. Guess
>> what? At least in good light, I can now shoot (with a tiny camcorder)
>> higher-quality video in terms of sharpness and apparent "grain" than I
>> see in those BR videos. Technology *does* move on, I guess...;-)

> Maybe the original production values were low. It's hard to find good IMAX.
> But since it's usually ruined by projection on a spherical screen, it doesn't
> matter much.

This was Blu-ray made from IMAX 70mm original film... 

>> BTW, since you don't watch TV, you missed a superb documentary
>> on the US presidents' documentary photographers, especially the current
>> one. WOW! Lotsa behind-the-scenes scenes, family/press/dignitary
>> interactions, in meetings, background material, views inside the White 
>> House, AF-1, the Pres's helicopter, what its like to cover events,
>> plus a "TON" of other "neat" material, well presented - and all
>> quite interesting (unless one is "dead in the head", anyway...;-).

> Who produced it? It might be on the Web. PBS Frontline documentaries are on
> the Web, for example. 

Dunno, but it likely is/will-be on the web, but what a waste viewing it that 
way. It was big, sharp, and beautifully-done - in addition to being very 
informative, and with much "insider-view" material, and also material of 
historical interest. Too "interesting" and "well-done", I'm sure, for you to 
appreciate...;-) Anyway, enough of this, I think. Bye! 
--DR 

~~~~~~~~~~

"Mxsmanic" <mxsmanic@gmail.com> wrote in message news:9pkcq6toh1fs2qm5goigniip3d3cc4kfj7@4ax.com...
> David Ruether writes:

[He's "sucking me in" again...;-] 

>> Have you ever priced 3-minutes worth of film with processing vs.
>> an hour's worth of digital material; or even decent 16mm gear
>> vs. the price of a compact camcorder capable of producing top
>> quality results? 

> Yes. Digital has dramatically, hugely increased the capital investment
> required for photography. Video was always expensive, so the difference there
> is smaller.

>> Costs now are FAR lower - and ease-of-use also
>> is... 

> Agreed, but the initial investment is far larger, and it's not clear that
> there really is that much savings in the long run.

> In the old days, you could get better image quality by buying a newer type of
> film. Today, you have to replace the entire camera body. 

??????????????????
You can buy a REALLY excellent 60p camcorder that will shoot 
hours of VERY high quality video for $0.00 after the initial investment 
of about $55 in a 32-gig card. Back in the "bad old days" of film, 
a Bolex 16mm camera (with much lower image quality than the above 
Panasonic TM700 can produce) would cost a couple of thousand 
dollars with a set of three good lenses (with no zoom). These were 
totally manual, and for the most part, mistakes with focus, exposure, 
etc. could not be corrected. They shot VERY short film loads unless 
equipped with bulky and awkward large reels - and these were VERY 
expensize to buy the film for and to have the film processed (and 
the processing was too often poor and uneven). That was for B&W. 
You don't want to even want to hear about color costs! In film, you 
had two choices in color: good(ish), and terrible; in B&W you had 
maybe three: good(ish) but very slow, OK, and terrible. Current video 
gear is FAR cheaper to buy for MUCH better image quality (with 
sound, which most film cameras did not have), MUCH cheaper to 
buy, and MUCH easier to use! I DO NOT WANT TO RETURN 
TO FILM!!!!!!!!!!!!! UGH, it was TERRIBLE! There are reasons 
that even very good "art" and commercial people now use video 
and expensive film gear stands idle, and that "Hollywood" has been 
moving to it (think of the advantages of getting your "rushes" *as 
you shoot* and you can then reshoot immediately if something went 
wrong). As for your last comment, the best camcorders, now even 
of the smallest type, can produce images (in good light...) surpassing 
the image quality of 35mm-film movie cameras, so there is no need to 
"replace the body" unless you want to improve low-light range. But 
doing that will set you back about $4,000 rather than $100,000+ 
as it did in the "olden" days - and then, faster film did generally not 
look very good... YAY for the present! ;-) 
--DR 

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

"Mxsmanic" <mxsmanic@gmail.com> wrote in message news:3tkcq6l172cpckeal6j15g16orr43rnc4q@4ax.com...
> David Ruether writes:

[Here we go again - but I REALLY SHOULD be doing something else!] 

>> Then you have not been very critically viewing your own video footage,
>> just as most people also do not ...

> I review the content, which is much more important to most viewers than any
> technical image quality. I still worry about image quality, but I've outgrown
> the belief that image quality overrides content, or that a spotless image can
> compensate for terrible content.

You have repeatedly rejected in this thread suggestions to make SD 
DVDs to send to people even though these can be quite good made 
from HD source material. Don't "change the goal line"... 

>> The worst instance I saw of this was
>> a documentary shot inside with just a swapping of side views of people
>> on a couch. Even though this video was made by the chairman of the
>> video department of a major university for wide distribution and with
>> important subject matter, the alternating mismatching of exposures and
>> color balances was distracting, as were the overall poor color-quality and
>> exposures of this incompetently made video.

> What was the documentary about?

Aids, but what does that matter? I used this as an example of a video of 
such low technical quality that that fact itself interferred with the content 
of the video. 

> If you ask most people, they'll remember what it was about and some of what
> was said, but they won't remember anything about mismatched exposures or color
> balance.

Unless it was REALLY bad (which this was), and you are a video 
producer...

>> They DO spend a lot of time tweaking the lighting, and with the network
>> news programs, it DOES show...;-)

> I never see them using any special lighting in the field, maybe one little
> light and that's it.

Then you have not seen the "pros" do it - they light like there is no sun 
ever to be again! ;-) 

>> But with careful filtering, you can often save underexposed or off-color
>> footage ...

> If the footage shows a tsunami washing away a town, the color balance isn't
> going to matter (unless it's truly horrible).

Of course! If I catch the Pope in mid-fall from the local bell-tower, 
it goes out to news agencies IMMEDIATELY in RAW form - but 
you and I generally have time to make improvements in the video 
footage that we use. It does appear that you are being argumentative 
just for the sake of arguing at this point... 

>> Unlike 24p, interlacing can be your friend if you understand what it does
>> for you...;-)

> There is no situation that I can think of in which I'd prefer interlaced
> video. 

Car drives past you. In 30p, it "flutters" by; in 60i (with 60 half-frames 
per second instead of 30 whole frames per second, giving twice the 
movement information for the same interval of time), it looks smoother. 
Same with most video with motion... Sure, I prefer to now work in 60p, 
but I must then drop down to 60i when going to Blu-ray unless I use 
a totally unacceptable frame rate of 24p or reduced resolution. 60i at 
the final point with 1920x1080 resolution still looks very good. 
--DR


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

"Gary Eickmeier" <geickmei@tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message 
news:_arpp.410563$NK.367062@unlimited.newshosting.com... 

>I will answer David's first, then the great, extensive post from Paul.

> "David Ruether" <d_ruether@hotmail.com> wrote in message 
> news:io4gb1$fkv$1@ruby.cit.cornell.edu...

>> - Are you trying to edit/export HDV exclusively with the current
>> project?
>> - Are you making modifications in the HDV clips other than trimming?
>> - Do you care about maintaining the full original quality of the HDV
>> source clips in the export file?
>> - Do care about export speed to the finished file?
>> - Are you having stability problems?
>> - Are you using Adobe for editing HDV?
>> - Are you really using all the parts of the expensive Adobe suite (with
>> its expensive updates)?

> Not sure what you mean by that last one, 

Um, just that FAR cheaper software can do the job...;-) 

> but in general this project is 
> nothing more than laying clips onto the timeline to show the client what I 
> shot. I have corrected some exposure problems with the Matrox filters, which 
> require no rendering. I added some simple graphics. It is an HDV project. My 
> first big problem on export was trying to go to a .wmv file and converting 
> to 1920 x 1080 at the same time. That took ten hours, but was successful. 
> Great video, correct aspect ratio. My next export was with no recompression, 
> just convert to a single file with the same HDV specs as the original. That 
> went out at half realtime (twice as fast as realtime). But it had the wrong 
> aspect ratio, being a 1440 x 1080 AVI file. And it was 20 gig.

>> Some comments:
>> - I have seen no Adobe editor that did not require recompression
>> of unchanged HD material at export (and I was not very impressed

> Well, now you have. With Matrox at least.

Then why didn't it work right...? 

>> with the quality of the Adobe recompression...) and with the even
>> further recompression required when exporting the exported file again.
>> - Some programs do not do this with HDV (and some don't even do
>> it with AVCHD - but this ability is less reliable than with HDV).
>> - When a program that has this "Smart Render" feature exports HDV,
>> it merely (RAPIDLY!) copies *unchanged* material to the exported
>> file. For these reasons alone, so long as you stick with HDV, I would
>> recommend getting one of these under-$100 programs that have this
>> feature. No fancy video card, unusual or particularly able HD or its
>> arrangement or hardware, more than 2-3 gigs of RAM, or better than
>> a dual-core (quad is nicer, though...;-) CPU is needed. I highly
>> recommend the VERY stable (and cheap aand versatile) Sony Vegas
>> Movie Studio HD Platinum 10 software for about $70. It should make
>> things easier with HDV, and also improve export quality (not to sound
>> TOO much like a broken record, but... ;-).
>> - Vegas can import a wide range of file types and also export easily to
>> any common file type, and you can even modify their characterics.
>> - The built-in titler combined with, or alone with keyframed image
>> motion effects and filters, can produce a wide range of special effects
>> in a video in addition to easily controlling correction filtering. (Color 
>> curves" is a favorite of mine since it permits the "lifting" of mid-tone
>> values without modifying the blacks or whites [but these can also be
>> adjusted with it]. This filter alone can accomplish miracles even with
>> properly exposed material.)
>> - Maybe you should look at the motives of sales people who "advise"
>> you and who have gotten you into buying VERY expensive system
>> software and "doo-dads" that do not appear to be working very well
>> for you... (Heck, try the 30-day free download of the Vegas software,
>> at least, and use it to finish the current project. Little lost, and maybe 
>> much to gain by doing this...;-).

> Sales people? You mean like the Videoguys or Matrox people? I designed this 
> whole system from the recommended components listed under the Matrox 
> field-tested page with various choices and performance ratings.

> Don't give up on me with your Vegas sales pitch - I am thinking about a 
> second computer I have standing by, that could be upgraded with faster 
> processor, maybe even 64 bit MB. Then I might need an inexpensive edit 
> program to work with it.

And you just might like Vegas...8^) 

>> If you like it, even the "full blown"
>> Sony Vegas Pro is far cheaper than just about any part of what you've
>> bought (and the Vegas updates are either free or cheap), and it really
>> IS VERY GOOD! ;-)
>>
>> --DR

> Thanks David. So how about $600 for the camera, including shipping?

> Gary 

Thanks, but, "nope". 'Sides, I've pretty much decided to keep this 
second great camera (Panasonic TM700) and bought "doo-dads" and 
another 32-gig card for it, and made a bar to hold the two cameras 
on small ball heads with quick releases. Too much fun to be had 
with two, and I don't need the money. I also know that with the 60p 
material, I can now reverse the video and/or turn it up-side-down 
without (interlacing) artifacts - an' Ah got sum planz fer thet...;-) 
BTW, how about letting people here know what you think of the 
quality of the images shot with this camera are in the Blu-ray disc 
I sent you? 
--DR 

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

"Gary Eickmeier" <geickmei@tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message news:_xPpp.5$pJ2.1@unlimited.newshosting.com... 

> The best video camera I have seen so far was the Panasonic HMC-150, which 
> seemed really great at low light and could record at 24mB/sec or so. I 
> couldn't afford one, so I just put it in the back of my mind.

I wasn't impressed with the picture quality of the HCM-150 in bright light 
compared with even the little Canon HV20 (they appeared about equal), but 
in low light, there was **NO** contest! 8^) BTW, HDV records at 25 Mbps, 
and even though the AVCHD format is considered more efficient, it appears 
to me that 24 Mbps is a *minimum* data rate with it is required for reasonably 
artifact-free video. Surprisingly, with the Canon HV20, I have NEVER seen 
compression artifacts in the original material, but I have seen them in exported 
edited video with some programs that have inferior codecs. With Vegas, so 
long as there are at most two layers of compression (one going to the archive 
file with all filters/transitions/titles/etc. in place, the other going to the viewing 
medium - but it is of course better if this is done directly off the edit timeline, 
if possible...). 

> David Ruether has been touting the Panasonic TM700 three chipper, which is 
> one of the smaller, more amateur level cameras, but with what is probably 
> the same imagers and processors as the big boys. Great concept. Anyway, one 
> of the only three chip cameras below $1000.

The imaging chips are different, especially in size. (but then so are the camera 
sizes and prices...). 

> The street fight right now is between the dedicated video cameras and the 
> new DSLRs with video capability. The video cameras have all of the controls 
> you need to shoot video, such as power zoom lens of great zoom range and 
> continuous focus. But the DSLRs have these huge imagers that have limited 
> depth of field (if you count that as an advantage) and should be pretty good 
> at low light. But their lenses are limited in the video arena. But you need 
> only the one camera for still and video, and the pros are using these things 
> a lot nowadays, and.... I am still on the fence on their video quality.

The choice depends on a few things. If you are looking at a full-frame dSLR 
that shoots 1920x1080 video with *GOOD* lenses and which provides good 
video controls (like continuous AE, AF, MF over-ride, and relative ease of use), 
then a still camera *can* be a good choice *for some types of work* (mostly 
"set-up" types rather than casual or "run-'n'-gun" reportage type), at a VERY 
high price. If you are looking at cameras that output 720p video, I have never 
seen really good results with these, although the potential is there... If you are 
thinking of small and shirt-pocket cameras that can shoot MOV or AVCHD-
Lite, forget it except for so-so quality snap-shot level video (better than nothing, 
and certainly MUCH better than "iPhone"-type results, but still, UGH! ;-) 

> Well, so, David sent me some video from his TM700 on a BlueRay disc, and 
> it was sensational. I projected it 13 ft wide and it was like looking thru a 
> window. Sharp as hell, grain free, perfect color, great low light - couldn't 
> fault it anywhere. And the resolution of the reds was MUCH better than with 
> my single chip Canon HV20, which I thought was pretty good in bright light, 
> but now not so much.

> Bottom line, for around $750 you can have one of the best HD cameras out 
> there, if you don't mind the small size and some amateur controls. Ruether 
> is starting to hoard them - has two of them now. Not sure why. Just to taunt 
> me I guess.

> Gary Eickmeier 

It is cheap for what it is, but while there are many ways to control the many 
things that can be controlled on the camera, it takes a while to feel confident 
operating it for best results. Also, don't forget the not-cheap memory card, 
not included (about $55 for a good class-6 100x 32-gig one) and the extra 
*mid-sized* battery (NOT cheap!). You also need a good mic with a fuzzy 
wind screen and maybe a filter and a better lens shade - and maybe a quick-
release, a bag, and......;-) 

An', yup, jes' t' taunt ya...! ;-) But, I've got ideas for using these two, with 
their abilities (especially the 60p feature) - but maybe later, I would consider 
selling one..., maybe.......;-)
--DR

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

"Smarty" <nobody@nobody.com> wrote in message news:io9jk1$p5l$1@dont-email.me...
> On 4/15/2011 12:11 AM, Gary Eickmeier wrote:

>> Well, so, David sent me some video from his TM700 on a BlueRay disc, and 
>> it was sensational. I projected it 13 ft wide and it was like looking thru a
>> window. Sharp as hell, grain free, perfect color, great low light - couldn't
>> fault it anywhere. And the resolution of the reds was MUCH better than with
>> my single chip Canon HV20, which I thought was pretty good in bright light,
>> but now not so much.

> Gary (and David),

[I ***PROBABLY SHOULD NOT RESPOND TO THIS***, or, "here we 
go, again", but......;-] 

> Literally for YEARS, I have been recommending 1920 by 1080 HD AVCHD, 
> and David has been unrelentingly recommending HDV, in particular HDV from 
> his revered HV20 Canon camcorder, as being superior. Having owned the 
> HV20 (and the HV30) as well as several other HDV camcorders (the FX-1, 
> the HC3, the HC5 and others) and doing a ton of controlled testing with 
> ISO targets, it has been altogether and entirely clear as a broadcast 
> engineer that the AVCHD camcorders have been delivering superior 
> resolution all along.

The issues are not as they appear here. With equal-quality chips and lenses 
(or even with models with the *SAME* chips and lenses), **with no motion**, 
1920x1080-60i *can* win (*slightly*) over 1440x1080i-60i, **with about the 
same recording data rate**, BUT, until recently most AVCHD cameras peaked 
at 17 Mbps *maximum* while HDV is 25 Mbps, also at 60i. In motion, 
though (and even with no motion), there was no particular superority with 
17 Mbps AVCHD even with its slightly higher resolution, and in fact, it often 
looked worse. Once 1920x1080-60p AVCHD appeared, with 28 Mbps peak 
data rate, the game changed considerably - and it was finally worth putting 
up with the far greater difficulties (for most) of editing this new material. 

> HDV at 1440 pixels across just does NOT encode detail to the same extent 
> as AVCHD at 1920 across. It doesn't take 2 degrees in Electrical 
> Engineering to know or understand this.

"Au contraire"...;-) If you have looked at resolutions in still cameras and 
the effects of even a ***DOUBLING*** of pixel counts, the practical 
positive effects can be suprisingly minimal (depending on several things, 
of course...;-). Moving from 1440x1080 pixels to 1920x1080 improves 
the resolution of the image *somewhat* in *one dimension only*, but that 
improvement can easily be swamped by other factors, including codec 
quality differences, lens quality differences, recording data rate differences, 
etc. One can say things like, "larger chips make better images", "higher 
pixel counts are better/worse", etc., etc., but none is necessarily true... 

> I am therefore, DELIGHTED, that your comparison of David's TM700 is 
> noticeably superior to your HV20 video. It has been my contention all 
> along, and David has never acknowledged or agreed to seeing any of this 
> superiority as recently as just within the last few months where he 
> continues to recommend HDV on the basis of image quality equity / 
> superiority.

See above - and add the much greater ease of editing with HDV. I still 
recommend the HV40 to people who want excellent results and who also 
want to edit but don't want to get bogged down with the hardware/software 
problems most have with AVCHD. To recommend AVCHD, without 
warnings, would be unfair...

> And yes, I admit, AVCHD does take a more powerful computer to edit. I 
> have been agreeing to that point since 2006 when I made the switch 5 
> years ago when AVCHD was introduced......

Even with 64-bit OS and editing software, 6-gigs of RAM, several HDs 
dedicated to various editing functions, a good video card, a reasonably 
fast quad-core Intel CPU, and a good MB, editing even 17 Mbps 60i 
AVCHD is P A I N F U L, and the quality of that is very much below 
28 Mbps 60p - and it is also below that of 25 Mbps HDV, so I stand by 
what I have written in the past. ;-) 
--DR 

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

"Gary Eickmeier" <geickmei@tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message news:ScPpp.4262$fQ3.4194@unlimited.newshosting.com... 
> "David Ruether" <d_ruether@hotmail.com> wrote in message 
> news:io71p5$d02$1@ruby.cit.cornell.edu...

>> Thanks, but, "nope". 'Sides, I've pretty much decided to keep this
>> second great camera (Panasonic TM700) and bought "doo-dads" and
>> another 32-gig card for it, and made a bar to hold the two cameras
>> on small ball heads with quick releases. Too much fun to be had
>> with two, and I don't need the money. I also know that with the 60p
>> material, I can now reverse the video and/or turn it up-side-down
>> without (interlacing) artifacts - an' Ah got sum planz fer thet...;-)
>> BTW, how about letting people here know what you think of the
>> quality of the images shot with this camera are in the Blu-ray disc
>> I sent you?
>> --DR

> Yes, OK, but why exactly? Just proud of your choice? 

Most people are likely unaware of this camcorder and its capabilities, 
and since you and I have the same Canon HV20 HDV model, I thought 
your comments would act as a third-party, relatively unbiased opinion 
on the results. (You know how reliable those "I just bought a "Super 
Whatzis, an' it's GREAT!" are...;-) I do hasten to add that the footage 
you saw was NOT "raw". It had been edited in 60p and heavily modified 
to make it look as good as I could (the best "reality" is often achieved 
through artifice...;-) before exporting the timeline directly to 60i Blu-ray. 
Short a 50 Mbps 60p MP4 file, that is as good as I can do at this point. 

> What on Earth are you 
> doing with two cameras mounted on a bar? 3D?

> Gary Eickmeier 

Unlikely, although it can range from "nothing" to some weird 
simultaneously-shot video possibilities, I guess............;-) Dunno.... 
--DR 

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

"HerHusband" <unknown@unknown.com> wrote in message news:Xns9EC75D914F4F8herhusband@81.169.183.62...

>>> The problem with television is content, not image quality.
>>> Bad television in HD is still bad television.

> I agree, 80% of what is on TV is just stupid. Lot's of dumb sitcom's and 
> reality TV, but they seem to be popular so I guess that says something 
> about the general population... :)

>> Yes, but unless you are completely insensitive to good video material,
>> the multitudes of HD broadcast channels available (in the US at
>> least) offer an almost continuous wealth of excellent content. Often,
>> I must chose from among as many as three good things showing at the
>> same time! (--DR)

> I have four TV tuner's in my computer and can record four shows at once 
> while I'm watching live TV in the living room. :)

> I have the commercials stripped out automatically every night before we 
> watch them. I stream the HD and SD recordings from my computer over our 
> home network to a media player in our living room. At any time I usually 
> have 20-30 recordings to watch. I only get the major networks, plus 
> Discovery and a couple of PBS channels.

> I also have our home movies, download several video blogs like the "Wood 
> Whisperer", and occasionally purchase music videos from iTunes. Add Netflix 
> DVD's, BluRay's, and streaming video, and we always have something to watch 
> when it is convenient for us.

> Anthony Watson

Ah, what we call the "Disaster" channel...;-) 
From what I can remember at the moment all in HD, I like these among the 
channels we have access to -- 
- Smithsonian
- National Geographic
- Science
- Independent Films
- Turner Movie Classics
- MGM
- RFD TV
- American Movie Classics
- Palladia (music performances)
- A&E
- TDC
- TNT
- CNN
- CNBC
- The Learning Channel
- Home and Garden
- Food
- Planet
- Animal Planet
- Crime (some of the shows are clever, well-done, and often funny...;-)
- Travel
- MSNBC
- Biography
- Disney
- Toon
- USA
- Sci-Fi
- FX
- Speed
- HD on Demand
- WE
- BBC America
- PBS
And probably more... No wonder I watch TV from about 6:00 PM to 
about 1:00-2:00 daily...;-) There is a LOT of GOOD STUFF ON TV!!!! 8^)
--DR

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

"HerHusband" <unknown@unknown.com> wrote in message news:Xns9EC75A9843664herhusband@81.169.183.62...

>> Car drives past you. In 30p, it "flutters" by; in 60i (with 60
>> half-frames per second instead of 30 whole frames per second, giving
>> twice the movement information for the same interval of time), it
>> looks smoother. Same with most video with motion.

> The differences between odd and even fields in interlaced video can really 
> cause problems in post processing, especially if the camera is moving while 
> filming (i.e. handheld).

In what I consider "special cases", it certainly can - but for most 
people, most of the time, I find interlacing preferable for minimizing 
that slow frame rate "fluttering" look... 

> For example, I always try to reduce shaking in my videos in post 
> processing. This works great with 30P video, but was nearly impossible to 
> get good results with 60i video. You can stabilize the movement of the 
> frame, but you can't get rid of the slight differences between interlaced 
> fields. So the result is kind of wavy or jittery even though the subject is 
> stationary in the frame.

My stabilizing software (which I use rarely, and which has never 
produced this effect that I have seen) does not work as well as 
yours does for you, but I prefer it for various reasons...

> Of course, even with progressive video, there are slight variations in 
> viewing angles that can cause problems with post stabilizing. It's not as 
> bad as interlaced footage, but it's still an issue if the camera is moving 
> a lot (think filming while walking). Anything you can do to reduce shaking 
> while filming makes a big difference when stabilizing.

YES! 8^) 

> I currently film everything at 60P, but convert to 30P when post processing 
> for compatibility. I look forward to the day when 60P is considered the 
> norm. :)

> Anthony Watson
> Mountain Software
> www.mountain-software.com/videos.htm 

As do I - but then 120i may become interesting.....! ;-) Meanwhile, this 
summer I may finally face the fact that I may need to use a tripod with 
a *GOOD* fluid head to continue shooting video. I hate the limitations 
of tripods, but I have tremors and jerks, so the resulting HD video 
viewing can get "interesting" 8-{. I've attacked the problem so far with 
complex-but-compact multi-armed braces, but this technique may not 
now be sufficient (and the problem is WAY beyond anything that 
software stabilization can help - but the excellent stabilizers in my new 
camcorders do help some).
--DR 

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

"Jack Santos" <jsantos554@hotmail.com> wrote in message 
news:io9qks$tea$1@dont-email.me... 

>A friend of mine has the TM700 and has been using it in a unique way:

> http://vimeo.com/14003107 
> http://vimeo.com/13733028 


I was unable to view the videos (darn!), but I can guess what they 
were like. I found that I can not only make the 60p TM700 footage go 
backwards and/or up-side-down in editing without artifacts (difficult 
with interlaced material!), but I could often slow it to 1/4 speed or 
speed it up to 4x with good results. P H U N . . . . ! 8^) 

> Videos #10 and #9 were shot with the TM700, the remainder with a much 
> cheaper priced camera that Sanyo (or Samsung?) had out a couple of years 
> back. May take a little while to load before playing on slower DSL 
> connections, but well worth the wait.

> He tells me that 60fps is really under par for properly capturing wing 
> motion, but taking the next step to 120fps or more takes a giant leap in 
> price range (if you want to retain HD).

As I said above (at least in Vegas), it is very easy to do many things 
and still have it look good...;-) 

> Just from these videos, I was impressed enough to buy the '700 for family 
> and friend shots last year. Does pretty good in low light, but I sometimes 
> use an overhead homemade flood lamp made from "sunlight an noon" spectra 
> CFL's and the color balance is great. ANY reasonable light source in the 
> house is enough for it however and very easy to color balance. Outdoors is 
> no problem at all and the "intelligent" settings do a great job as well as 
> IS.

> Jack

Yes. For indoors, try dropping the shutter speed below 1/60th - that 
can work well. Also (with slow moving of the camera), try "color night 
vision". 
--DR 

~~~~~~~~~~

"Jack Santos" <jsantos554@hotmail.com> wrote in message 
news:io9vn2$skf$1@dont-email.me... 
> "David Ruether" <d_ruether@hotmail.com> wrote in message 
> news:io9t9d$1a1$1@ruby.cit.cornell.edu...
>> "Jack Santos" <jsantos554@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:io9qks$tea$1@dont-email.me...

>>>A friend of mine has the TM700 and has been using it in a unique way:
>>>
>>> http://vimeo.com/14003107

>> I was unable to view the videos (darn!), but I can guess what they
>> were like.

I just tried again, and it started immediately. Great at 1920x1080 
when the bird is in focus (most of the time...). NEAT! 

> I think the default is in HD. Try turning off HD and it will load much more 
> quickly. You won't get the wonderous resolution of HD, but it's still darn 
> good in SD.

"Prolly", but it looks darn good in HD! ;-) 

>> I found that I can not only make the 60p TM700 footage go
>> backwards and/or up-side-down in editing without artifacts (difficult
>> with interlaced material!), but I could often slow it to 1/4 speed or
>> speed it up to 4x with good results. P H U N . . . . ! 8^)

> The fast speeds available (60 fps p) and setting the shutter high can allow 
> very acceptable slow downs, which is what my friend did with his videos.

Yes. Blowing leaves on a tree is what I had used for experiments. 

>>> Videos #10 and #9 were shot with the TM700, the remainder with a much 
>>> cheaper priced camera that Sanyo (or Samsung?) had out a couple of years 
>>> back. May take a little while to load before playing on slower DSL 
>>> connections, but well worth the wait.

I just looked at 9. AMAZING!!! 

>>> He tells me that 60fps is really under par for properly capturing wing 
>>> motion, but taking the next step to 120fps or more takes a giant leap in 
>>> price range (if you want to retain HD).

I 'spose - but these video images are REALLY GOOD! 

>> As I said above (at least in Vegas), it is very easy to do many things
>> and still have it look good...;-)

> Both of us have Vegas and also I have After Effects. It doesn't take long 
> at all to convert the videos from the '700 to AVI and then do all editing in 
> AVI before recompression to some format. I usually choose Main Concept MP4 
> in Vegas and it looks great on the HDLCD TV. I've found that the Main 
> Concept codec is one of the highest quality out there and keeps artifacts 
> and other nasties of compression almost unnoticeable.

Yes - lucky us...! ;-) 

>>> Just from these videos, I was impressed enough to buy the '700 for family 
>>> and friend shots last year. Does pretty good in low light, but I 
>>> sometimes use an overhead homemade flood lamp made from "sunlight an 
>>> noon" spectra CFL's and the color balance is great. ANY reasonable light 
>>> source in the house is enough for it however and very easy to color 
>>> balance. Outdoors is no problem at all and the "intelligent" settings do 
>>> a great job as well as IS.
>>>
>>> Jack

>> Yes. For indoors, try dropping the shutter speed below 1/60th - that
>> can work well. Also (with slow moving of the camera), try "color night
>> vision".

>> --DR 

> I've tried below 1/60, but then I start getting blurs in the video. In 
> fact, the "cinema mode" I think it's called is 24 fps, but I really don't 
> like that mode too well and prefer to keep it at 1/60 or better. I can 
> always do *some* color/ contrast correction in After Effects without 
> compromising quality too much, but there's always a cost if too much 
> processing is done on less than optimal lighting vids.

> Jack

You should be able to get one shutter speed under 1/60th without problems 
if you are careful (you need to go to "P" mode, I think...). I agree, I also dislike 
"cine mode" (yuck! ;-). Have you tried the "color curves" filter in Vegas? 
It's "magic" for its ability to improve somewhat underexposed video with 
minimal ill effects. In general, I'm happy using the filters in Vegas for moderate 
to medium levels of modifications. Anything needed beyond that, and I dump 
the clip...;-( 
--DR

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

"Gene E. Bloch" <blochxxxx@someplace.invalid> wrote in message news:90rp5dF881U1@mid.individual.net...
> On 4/15/11, Mxsmanic posted: 

>>> I recently saw *on TV* AMAZING huge, sharp images from the Hubble
>>> telescope, including images of newly-forming stars(!).

By "huge", I meant 42" diagonal on a sharp 1080p LCD, at a distance 
of 6.5', viewed *properly* on-axis...;-) Since these were made from 
MANY images (as in, sometimes hundreds of individual images put 
together, sometimes taking a year each to finish), the detail was 
astonishing. And, yes, you could see vast numbers of stars and 
galaxies in the images, and even embrionic and new stars in the 
nebulae. Astounding stuff...! 

>> I'm sure they were tiny compared to the still images that you can see from 
>> the telescope.

???

> It would be hard to get a ride up there to look through the telescope, 
> but I can assure you that the pictures David was talking about were 
> still images. 
> -- 
> Gene E. Bloch (Stumbling Bloch)

Indeed yes - galactic time is *generally* (but NOT always!) very slow! ;-) 
As amazing as the images in this program were, the connection made 
between novae and super novae, chemistry, and biology (and the origins 
of life), and new thoughts about the structure of the universe that came 
from Hubble telescopic observations were even better. It appears now 
that much of the mass of the universe is made up of unseen "dark matter", 
the gross structure of which has been mapped (and apparently the rest 
of missing mass is accounted for with "dark energy"). The telescope was 
also used to look at (with a long time-exposure) a small "dark" area of 
the universe - but this revealed vastly more galaxies beyond what had 
been photographed before. One of the most interesting discoveries 
(beyond the many new types of star forms and galaxy interactions and 
collisions - and the far larger number of them that had been thought to 
exist) is that the universe will likely expand at least until all of its atoms 
are reduced to their component subatomic particles. Then, who knows. 
Maybe this will be followed by a "recollection" of all the pieces and yet 
another "big bang"... 
Ain't astronomy gran'? (And I used to think it was dull....! ;-) Oh, I 
should amend an earlier description of my TV by saying that my TV is my 
"window on the universe"...;-)
--DR

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

"Smarty" <nobody@nobody.com> wrote in message news:ioam5d$1ob$1@dont-email.me...
> On 4/15/2011 11:37 AM, David Ruether wrote:
>> "Smarty"<nobody@nobody.com> wrote in message
>> news:io9jk1$p5l$1@dont-email.me...
>>> On 4/15/2011 12:11 AM, Gary Eickmeier wrote:

[Um, I ***SHOULD*** know better than to once again "slog 
through the mud" with "Smarty" (an apt handle...;-), but....]

>> The issues are not as they appear here. With equal-quality chips and lenses
>> (or even with models with the *SAME* chips and lenses), **with no motion**,
>> 1920x1080-60i *can* win (*slightly*) over 1440x1080i-60i, **with about the
>> same recording data rate**, BUT, until recently most AVCHD cameras peaked
>> at 17 Mbps *maximum* while HDV is 25 Mbps, also at 60i.

> David,

> For (literally) a couple years or more, you declared HDV superior 
> without ever owning an AVCHD camera. I urged you over and over again to 
> purchase one, so as to make meaningful comparisons. You had clearly and 
> stubbornly decided that the Canon HV20 you owned was unquestionably 
> superior, and had never had so much as a single comparative test upon 
> which to base your (false) conclusions.

For years, I have cited this (I think reputable) comparison 
between HDV and AVCHD using two cameras using THE 
SAME SENSORS AND LENSES! The results are CLEAR, 
and they are consistent with what others reported, and what 
I saw in other reviews of AVCHD camcorders, especially with 
*motion* video, and with my own experiences. Stop ignoring 
what I have cited (including my own experience with 17 Mbps 
AVCHD, and even 24 Mbps AVCHD - the quality of which 
is about equal to HDV)! See -- 
http://www.camcorderinfo.com/content/Canon-HG10-Camcorder-Review-33146/Performance.htm# 

> I found it entirely offensive to see such drivel and mis-information, 
> and reacted accordingly, although perhaps with a lack of diplomacy after 
> the 2nd, 3rd, and subsequent occasions.

Yuh............. (the word "jerk" came to mind rather often, 
and I eventualy "PLONKED" you when it became clear 
that further "conversation" with you was useless. (I have 
lost my blocks with OS changes, and I'm about to change 
the OS again, so you are "slipping through the cracks", 
again with your annoying and insulting posts.) 

> It is altogether satisfying for me to see that you finally did join the 
> AVCHD community within the last year, and indeed have a very nice 
> camcorder to use for comparisons.

BUT, this TM700 is FAR better in image quality than 
anything that preceeded it. So it is an "apples and oranges" 
comparison between it and earlier AVCHD camcorders. 
Nothing is "proved" except that a better camcorder (of 
whatever type) has appeared on the market at a reasonable 
price). What remains, though, is that AVCHD is VERY 
much more difficult to edit - and the choice to use it, 
MUST take that fact into account. With this camera, its 
superior output made that choice reasonable. 

> As you may or may not be aware, the data rate is essential irrelevant 
> for still / static video content. Since both mpeg2 and mpeg4/h.264 
> encode deltas / differences, it makes no sense technically to infer 
> superiority or inferiority based on comparing 17 versus 25 Mbit/sec 
> bitrates. Furthermore, it is well established, documented, and proven 
> through practical examples that mpeg4/h.264 has essentially twice the 
> encoding efficiency of mpeg2. Thus, concluding as you do that 17 
> Mbit/sec AVCHD camcorder somehow displays less or equal detail to an HDV 
> camcorder at 25 Mbits/sec reveals that you neither comprehend the codec 
> efficiency differences nor that static detail comparisons are not 
> meaningfully discussed in the context of data rate whatsoever.

"Whatever"...;-) But, I again point the reader to a direct comparison 
with identical sensors and lenses, at -- 
http://www.camcorderinfo.com/content/Canon-HG10-Camcorder-Review-33146/Performance.htm# 
and the differences are not subtle. In a comparison of a 3-chip 
(fairly expensive camcorder) with 24 Mbps data rate shooting 
similar material such as difficult fairly distant bare tree limbs, 
the results compared with the HV20 were nearly indistinguishable. 

>> In motion,
>> though (and even with no motion), there was no particular superority with
>> 17 Mbps AVCHD even with its slightly higher resolution, and in fact, it
>> often
>> looked worse. Once 1920x1080-60p AVCHD appeared, with 28 Mbps peak
>> data rate, the game changed considerably - and it was finally worth putting
>> up with the far greater difficulties (for most) of editing this new
>> material.

> If you intend to conflate ease of editing issues with picture quality 
> issues, a line of reasoning I once again reject for obvious reasons, I 
> offer the very same comment to you as I have many times before. Yes, 
> yes, yes, a million times yes.....AVCHD takes a more powerful computer 
> to edit. Does that make it somehow inferior to [HDV]? Not in my book. 

It does, if you want ease and simplicity in editing while retaining 
very high quality - and the "price of admission" for this is FAR 
lower for HDV than for AVCHD with its (until now) questionable 
image superiority. You may have the resources to make AVCHD 
editing practical and efficient, but most do not. 

> Does it require enormous computer power? Comparatively speaking, yes it 
> does. And although there are some who struggle here with HDV processing, 
> I fully admit and agree that AVCHD requires more resources. I will, 
> however, state, having done tons of AVCHD and BluRay since the inception 
> of these technologies, that editing is very achievable using moderately 
> priced hardware if the software is chosen carefully and especially if 
> hardware assistance from CUDA, SpursEngine, and the Sandy Bridge chipset 
> are employed. 

As in. "bleeding edge" and "hardly cheap" for most...

>>> HDV at 1440 pixels across just does NOT encode detail to the same extent
>>> as AVCHD at 1920 across. It doesn't take 2 degrees in Electrical
>>> Engineering to know or understand this. 

>> "Au contraire"...;-) If you have looked at resolutions in still cameras and
>> the effects of even a ***DOUBLING*** of pixel counts, the practical
>> positive effects can be suprisingly minimal (depending on several things,
>> of course...;-). Moving from 1440x1080 pixels to 1920x1080 improves
>> the resolution of the image *somewhat* in *one dimension only*, but that
>> improvement can easily be swamped by other factors, including codec
>> quality differences, lens quality differences, recording data rate
>> differences,
>> etc. One can say things like, "larger chips make better images", "higher
>> pixel counts are better/worse", etc., etc., but none is necessarily true...

> So if resolution increases and the resulting increases in detail are, as 
> you say, "surprisingly minimal", then why do folks like me and Gary 
> observe distinct benefits when comparing AVCHD footage to HDV? Are you 
> saying that the Panasonic TM700 is better in other ways that make the 
> HV20 color and other characteristics pale by comparison?

Ummm, gee, maybe "yes"...;-) 1), the lens on that camera is 
superb, and it is a noticeable improvement over the Canon lens; 
2), every 1/60th of a second, a 2+ megapixel image is on the 
screen as opposed to a 1+ megapixel image; 3), there may be 
other image-forming electronic improvements, since the TM700 
produces a "cleaner" looking image with better color than the 
HV20; 4), the end result is what counts, and finished footage 
from this camera simply looks great. BTW, while the in-camera 
conversion from 60p to 60i results in files that look almost as 
good as the 60p originals (and noticeably better than the 60i 17 
Mbps originals shot in the camera), these 17 Mbps files do not 
hold up well with the addition of multiple filters while editing, 
unlike the 60p material. 

> To the contrary, my ownership of the Canon HV20, the HV30, my loaning of 
> the HV40, and the simultaneous ownership of several Canon AVCHD 
> camcorders, most recently their latest larger HDPro sensor AVCHD 
> camcorder make it consistently and quantitatively evident that the AVCHD 
> format outperforms any prosumer HDV camcorder I have ever had in my 
> possession since they (HDV camcorders) were introduced in 2003 with the 
> first JVC and my FX-1 and with every one henceforth.

Well, why am I not surprised...? A friend here is using a 
Panasonic 4/3rds camera with some of my Nikkor lenses, and 
the results have been superb. Larger sensor, "pro" quality, etc. 
show - but do try to compare "apples with apples", something 
you sometimes fail to do...;-) 

>>> I am therefore, DELIGHTED, that your comparison of David's TM700 is
>>> noticeably superior to your HV20 video. It has been my contention all
>>> along, and David has never acknowledged or agreed to seeing any of this
>>> superiority as recently as just within the last few months where he
>>> continues to recommend HDV on the basis of image quality equity /
>>> superiority. 

>> See above - and add the much greater ease of editing with HDV. I still
>> recommend the HV40 to people who want excellent results and who also
>> want to edit but don't want to get bogged down with the hardware/software
>> problems most have with AVCHD. To recommend AVCHD, without
>> warnings, would be unfair...

> I share your sincere and diligent efforts to "warn" people about the 
> added processing required to handle AVCHD. It is both well-intended and 
> well thought-out.

Yes, good... 

> I continue to reject, categorically, emphatically, and technically your 
> pre-conceptions that AVCHD is either less than or perhaps equal to HDV 
> but not superior, and I particularly reject your attribution of same to 
> bitrate or encoding method, neither of which yield the "slightly worse" 
> conclusion you have drawn for years now, long before ever seeing and 
> using AVCHD firsthand yourself.

See above... 

> I will also comment that h/.264 AVC is the very, very same format now 
> being used on the vast majority of all commercial BluRay disk content, 
> as well as all direct from studio to digital theater satellite links. It 
> is a SUPERIOR format, whether you accept or don't accept it, and others 
> who do not bring your pre-conceived notions of "nothing will ever beat 
> my HV20 HDV camcorder" have been seeing and enjoying it for years now. 

See above...

>> Even with 64-bit OS and editing software, 6-gigs of RAM, several HDs
>> dedicated to various editing functions, a good video card, a reasonably
>> fast quad-core Intel CPU, and a good MB, editing even 17 Mbps 60i
>> AVCHD is P A I N F U L, and the quality of that is very much below
>> 28 Mbps 60p - and it is also below that of 25 Mbps HDV, so I stand by
>> what I have written in the past. ;-)
>> --DR

> As above, I entirely disagree with your comparison of 17 Mbit/sec AVCHD 
> to 25 Mbit/sec HDV, and the "very much below" quality HDV reference. 
> This is absolutely NOT TRUE. What you are 'standing by' is a position 
> you adopted literally years before you acquired an AVCHD camcorder, and 
> you are not willing to accept or adopt any different point of view 
> regardless of the facts or the opinions and observations of others 
> including me and Gary. 

See above... And remember that the disc that you are referring 
to with the material on it that Gary commented on was made 
by me...;-) 

And again, here is a reputable direct comparison (no "apples and 
oranges" between HDV and AVCHD ;-) I repeat this since you 
appear never to have looked at it -- 
http://www.camcorderinfo.com/content/Canon-HG10-Camcorder-Review-33146/Performance.htm# 

But, enough of this. I will not respond to your next post no 
matter how much it misrepresents what I have said (*over time*), 
and how annoying it may be. As I have pointed out before, you 
do have much to offer, but you do stay out of the group most 
of the time, and when you do enter it, due to ill manners and 
who knows what else, it often just results in nit-picking, insults, 
misrepresentations, and pointless arguements from you. 
I don't need that. 
Bye. 

--DR 

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

"Gary Eickmeier" <geickmei@tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message 
news:046qp.11395$V_2.9616@unlimited.newshosting.com... 

> Wow - didn't know I would be opening a can of worms. David asked me to post 
> a review of the TM700 clips he sent me because they were that good. I just 
> wish I had a super duper 64 bit CS5 suite with NVidea card and a city block 
> of RAM. Not in my near future, but I am learning to do some tricks with my 
> HV20 to be able to shoot in low light. Still not as good as the Panasonic, 
> but I will have to get along for now.

> Gary Eickmeier 

See my comments in my (last!) response to a "Smarty" post. 
Responding to Smarty is pointless, unless your post doesn't 
counter anything he believes to be true...;-( Best just to avoid 
the annoyance, since there is little point in doing anything else. 

As for you, yes, a complete "bleeding edge" (and VERY 
EXPENSIVE) system of hardware/software would make 
editing the TM700's 60p AVCHD material easier, but it is 
possible to do it (but not very efficiently) on even the $70 
Vegas software (no 64-bit needed) with a single quad-core 
CPU, no CUDA video card , just 2-3 gigs of RAM, and 
Windows XP. NOT "bleeding edge", just slower, and 
FAR cheaper than what you have been *trying* to build... 
I made the video you saw using essentially that cheap 
system. Looks fine, huh? 8^) Or, quite wasting time, and 
just get one of those "wonder cameras" and have fun! ;-) 
--DR 

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

"Mxsmanic" <mxsmanic@gmail.com> wrote in message news:oqliq6pdsticnffphvtelg1ig3t7cqv7d7@4ax.com...
> Gene E. Bloch writes:

>> It would be hard to get a ride up there to look thorugh the telescope, 
>> but I can assure you that the pictures David was talking about were 
>> still images.

> Yes, but if they were on TV, they were not shown at their full, original
> resolution. 

Pointless comment, but.... The finished "originals" come off a 
large ink-jet printer, and they are somewhat smaller than a 42" HD 
TV screen is - but the detail level on TV is AMAZING! Another 
point (but, why......? ;-), there is no "eyepiece" to view through 
on the Hubble - it is all done with photography (often with VERY 
long time exposures). It is also done with B&W, often using 
filters to make images that can later be combined (and colored) 
to make single images. For wider coverage, multiple images are 
made and combined...
--DR 

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

"Jack Santos" <jsantos554@hotmail.com> wrote in message 
news:ioc4pd$s39$1@dont-email.me... 
> "David Ruether" <d_ruether@hotmail.com> wrote in message 
> news:ioa3au$9u7$1@ruby.cit.cornell.edu...
>> "Jack Santos" <jsantos554@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:io9vn2$skf$1@dont-email.me...
>>> "David Ruether" <d_ruether@hotmail.com> wrote in message 
>>> news:io9t9d$1a1$1@ruby.cit.cornell.edu...
>>>> "Jack Santos" <jsantos554@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:io9qks$tea$1@dont-email.me...

>>>>>A friend of mine has the TM700 and has been using it in a unique way:
>>>>>
>>>>> http://vimeo.com/14003107
[and -- http://vimeo.com/13733028 ]

>>>> I was unable to view the videos (darn!), but I can guess what they
>>>> were like.

>> I just tried again, and it started immediately. Great at 1920x1080
>> when the bird is in focus (much of the time...). NEAT!

> Vimeo can be slow loading vids at times, especially if they are longer HD 
> ones. I sometimes get if I remember correctly, "index at end instead of 
> beginning" errors when I've uploaded there, but there is a program to fix 
> this, which I forget the name of now. For this vid, he used the fixed 10x 
> zoom feature. I've never used this, but it's the "macro" mode on the '700. 
> I think it's a little more difficult to keep things always in focus, but the 
> camera must have a darn good quality lens to catch that kind of detail from 
> that distance. I can think of many digicams that, when used beyond 2-3x, 
> the video quality goes way downhill.

Yes - I had one... The lens on this camera is certainly better. 

>>> I think the default is in HD. Try turning off HD and it will load much 
>>> more quickly. You won't get the wonderous resolution of HD, but it's 
>>> still darn good in SD.

>> "Prolly", but it looks darn good in HD! ;-) [Especially in 1920x1080.] 

>>>> I found that I can not only make the 60p TM700 footage go
>>>> backwards and/or up-side-down in editing without artifacts (difficult
>>>> with interlaced material!), but I could often slow it to 1/4 speed or
>>>> speed it up to 4x with good results. P H U N . . . . ! 8^)

>>> The fast speeds available (60 fps p) and setting the shutter high can 
>>> allow very acceptable slow downs, which is what my friend did with his 
>>> videos.

>> Yes. Blowing leaves on a tree is what I had used for experiments.

>> I just looked at 9. AMAZING!!!

> This one he told me was taken about 3-4" away from the bird and no zoom. 
> Hence the slightly sharper quality, but both lighting and bird have to be 
> absolutely cooperative!

Or the set-up well-planned! ;-) With a LOT of luck!!! 

>>>>> He tells me that 60fps is really under par for properly capturing wing 
>>>>> motion, but taking the next step to 120fps or more takes a giant leap 
>>>>> in price range (if you want to retain HD).

>> I 'spose - but these images are REALLY GOOD!

>>>> As I said above (at least in Vegas), it is very easy to do many things
>>>> and still have it look good...;-)

>>> Both of us have Vegas and also I have After Effects. It doesn't take 
>>> long at all to convert the videos from the '700 to AVI and then do all 
>>> editing in AVI before recompression to some format. I usually choose 
>>> Main Concept MP4 in Vegas and it looks great on the HDLCD TV. I've found 
>>> that the Main Concept codec is one of the highest quality out there and 
>>> keeps artifacts and other nasties of compression almost unnoticeable.

I use 50 Mbps 1920x1080-60p MP4 files to archive edits. 

>> Yes - lucky us...! ;-)

Yuh! I used a couple of programs before settling on Vegas. There is a 
bit of a learning curve - but afterward, one wonders why, since the 
program is so logically designed. 

>>>>> Just from these videos, I was impressed enough to buy the '700 for 
>>>>> family and friend shots last year. Does pretty good in low light, but 
>>>>> I sometimes use an overhead homemade flood lamp made from "sunlight an 
>>>>> noon" spectra CFL's and the color balance is great. ANY reasonable 
>>>>> light source in the house is enough for it however and very easy to 
>>>>> color balance. Outdoors is no problem at all and the "intelligent" 
>>>>> settings do a great job as well as IS.
>>>>>
>>>>> Jack

>>>> Yes. For indoors, try dropping the shutter speed below 1/60th - that
>>>> can work well. Also (with slow moving of the camera), try "color night
>>>> vision".
>>
>>>> --DR

>>> I've tried below 1/60, but then I start getting blurs in the video. In 
>>> fact, the "cinema mode" I think it's called is 24 fps, but I really don't 
>>> like that mode too well and prefer to keep it at 1/60 or better. 

>> You should be able to get one shutter speed under 1/60th without problems
>> if you are careful (you need to go to "P" mode, I think...). I agree, I 
>> also dislike "cine mode" (yuck! ;-). 

>>> I can 
>>> always do *some* color/ contrast correction in After Effects without 
>>> compromising quality too much, but there's always a cost if too much 
>>> processing is done on less than optimal lighting vids.

>> Have you tried the "color curves" filter in Vegas?
>> It's "magic" for its ability to improve somewhat underexposed video with
>> minimal ill effects. In general, I'm happy using the filters in Vegas for moderate
>> to medium levels of modifications. Anything needed beyond that, and I dump
>> the clip...;-(

> I'll try that filter next time. 

I most often double-click on the diagonal line in the filter box 
and push that control point toward the upper left to brighten the 
mid-tones (doing the reverse darkens them) without touching the 
black or white levels. Moving that control point along the line 
emphasizes high or low parts of the tonal range. Rotating the 
"handles" at the top (highlights) or bottom (shadows) or middle 
reshapes the curve - and so long as you avoid sharp shape changes 
or "looping", you can do MUCH to adjust tonal relationships 
with this single filter, and you can pull out the handles to smooth 
the curve shape (but I often add contrast/brightness/sharpening/
unsharp-mask/color-balance/etc. to the mix). In Vegas, any or all 
filters can be turned off to compare the video with/without the 
filter(s). I also like being able to name and save filters, especially 
complex ones that may be useful in the future or with other clips 
on the timeline. 

> Not sure how many know or do this, but once 
> as an AVI, I sometimes open videos in Photoshop CS to do tweaks and then 
> resave. As long Photoshop is in video working mode and you convert the 
> video to a smart object, you can do almost as much as you can with still 
> images. Sometimes I do this instead of working in After Effects. Vegas 
> seems to do the fastest rendering to AVI though, something I really 
> appreciate with larger files.

> Lighting issues are far less concern with the better videocams these days 
> because you record at such a low noise level to begin with. So, when a 
> correction is made, the noise is far less likely to rear its ugly head. 
> What a shame that we can't record our vids in the equivalent of RAW mode, 
> the preferred still photo mode of digital cameras. Of course, the resulting 
> files would be huge (and I thought uncompressed AVIs were big), but think of 
> all the opened up possibilities one would have.

> Jack

8^) 

--DR 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 

"J. Clarke" <jclarkeusenet@cox.net> wrote in message news:MPG.2813a47d17e881fe989db1@hamster.jcbsbsdomain.local...
> In article <iocglm$3pl$1@ruby.cit.cornell.edu>, d_ruether@hotmail.com 
> says... 
>> "Mxsmanic" <mxsmanic@gmail.com> wrote in message 
>> news:oqliq6pdsticnffphvtelg1ig3t7cqv7d7@4ax.com...
>> > Gene E. Bloch writes:

>> >> It would be hard to get a ride up there to look thorugh the telescope,
>> >> but I can assure you that the pictures David was talking about were
>> >> still images.

>> > Yes, but if they were on TV, they were not shown at their full, original
>> > resolution.

>> Pointless comment, but.... The finished "originals" come off a
>> large ink-jet printer, and they are somewhat smaller than a 42" HD
>> TV screen is - but the detail level on TV is AMAZING! Another
>> point (but, why......? ;-), there is no "eyepiece" to view through
>> on the Hubble - it is all done with photography (often with VERY
>> long time exposures). It is also done with B&W, often using
>> filters to make images that can later be combined (and colored)
>> to make single images. For wider coverage, multiple images are
>> made and combined...

> Many of the most famous and spectactular images coming from the Hubble 
> have a resolution of 1200x1200--they were made with the Wide Field and 
> Planetary Camera 2, which uses four 800x800 CCDs but doesn't produce a 
> square image--when it's cropped to square the resolution is about 
> 1200x1200 which any 1080i or better HDTV can display at full horizontal 
> resolution with a 16 percent vertical crop.

> There are some other instruments with higher resolution but until the 
> Wide Field and Planetary Camera was replaced with an improved model in 
> 2009 it was the preferred instrument for images of diffuse objects.

Thanks for the information. 
--DR 

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

"Jack Santos" <jsantos554@hotmail.com> wrote in message 
news:ioc4pd$s39$1@dont-email.me... 
> "David Ruether" <d_ruether@hotmail.com> wrote in message 
> news:ioa3au$9u7$1@ruby.cit.cornell.edu...

>>> Both of us have Vegas and also I have After Effects. It doesn't take 
>>> long at all to convert the videos from the '700 to AVI and then do all 
>>> editing in AVI before recompression to some format. I usually choose 
>>> Main Concept MP4 in Vegas and it looks great on the HDLCD TV. 
>>> I've found that the Main Concept codec is one of the highest quality 
>>> out there and keeps artifacts and other nasties of compression almost 
>>> unnoticeable.

I just tried converting an 18-second 60p 60 Mb TM700 clip to 
uncompressed 60p AVI (it took 4.5 minutes and resulted in an 
8+ gig file...). I then played both the original MTS file and the 
AVI file from the Vegas timeline, and both played about equally 
poorly with my computer (not terrible, but with considerable 
"hitching"). I then tried making RAM previews for both. The 
MTS file (using "Draft-Full", good enough to look good at 
1920x1080 on a monitor) RAM preview formed fairly rapidly 
and then played smoothly. The AVI RAM preview took 
"forever" to form, although it played smoothly when it finally 
finished - and equal length RAM previews could be made 
from both file types. Given the above (with the faster MTS 
RAM previewing), I will continue to edit with the original file 
type (also saving potential transcoding losses, even if they are 
very minor), then export 60i Blu-ray files for writing to discs 
for viewing and 50Mbps 60p MP4 files for archiving, both 
directly from the timeline. 
--DR 

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

"Gary Eickmeier" <geickmei@tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message news:F6tqp.11$aE.9@unlimited.newshosting.com... 

> I think we are all agreed on the superiority of the Panasonic, so let's 
> analyze why. The differences between cameras are:

> Lens imagers - three chip vs single chip 

Possibly, but a *good* large-sensor single-chipper can beat a 
small-sensor three-chipper (think half/full-frame 35mm-equivalent 
dSLR vs. a tiny-chipped compact camcorder - with the former 
being relatively far more expensive and harder to operate, but better 
in low light and better for shallow DOF effects (if those are desired), 
and with the possibility of using interchangeable lenses...). 

The lens quality also affects image quality ("Duh...!" ;-). The lens 
on the TM700 is superior to the one on the HV20 (sharper toward 
the long end of the zoom range, with no chromatic problems evident, 
sharp to the corners at the short end even at f1.5 - and there is 
a general feeling of greater "precision" and better color quality 
in the image (possibly due at least partly to other non-related 
characteristics, though). 

> recording medium, HDV tape vs AVCHD chip
> Speed - 15 mB/s for HDV, more like 28 for the Pannasonic

HDV is 25 Mbps. Data rate *does* matter (*all else being equal*, 
and it can be selectably variable with AVCHD), but it is not directly 
comparable between format types - but using higher data rates with 
AVCHD, and/or "p" vs. "i", will affect the appearance of relative 
sharpness and freedom from image artifacting (but it does not *strictly*
affect "resolution", which is a different issue...;-). 
Common AVCHD (constant and variable) data rates used with better 
"amateur" camcorders are: 
- 28 Mbps (VBR - the TM700, with 60p) 
- 24 Mbps (VBR - some Panasonic and Canon camcorders, possibly 
others now) 
- 21 Mbps (VBR) "PH" 
The more common data rates for amateur cameras are: 
- 17 Mbps (VBR) "HA" 
- 13 Mbps (CBR) "HF" 
- 13 Mbps (VBR) "HG" 
- 9 Mbps (VBR) "HN" 
- 6 Mbps (VBR) "HE" 
Some semi-pro and pro cameras can use much higher data rates. 

Doubling the pixel number on the screen per unit of time will improve 
sharpness (*all else being equal*), as with 60p vs. 60i - and increasing
the frame rate will also improve sharpness and motion smoothness 
(*all else being equal*), as with 60p or 60i vs. 24p. 

As now noted several times, AVCHD does have a considerable price 
in terms of reduced ease of editing and with its hardware/software 
requirements compared with HDV. Using memory cards instead of tape 
when shooting may or may not seem preferable, but the choice made has 
greater consequences when it comes time to edit... 

Of course other factors can be important in the choice of a camcorder, 
such as the ease of use, how well the manual/auto controls work, special 
features, quality of the audio, price, battery recording time, weight/size, 
etc.

> I wish there were a web site that could do all of this for all reviews.

> Gary Eickmeier 

www.camcorderinfo.com has had some good reviewing methods 
that often permitted direct comparisons between cameras. 
--DR 

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

"Jack Santos" <jsantos554@hotmail.com> wrote in message 
news:iodja1$7bt$1@dont-email.me... 
> "David Ruether" <d_ruether@hotmail.com> wrote in message 
> news:iod7pd$98q$1@ruby.cit.cornell.edu...
>> "Jack Santos" <jsantos554@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:ioc4pd$s39$1@dont-email.me...
>>> "David Ruether" <d_ruether@hotmail.com> wrote in message 
>>> news:ioa3au$9u7$1@ruby.cit.cornell.edu...

>>>>> Both of us have Vegas and also I have After Effects. It doesn't take 
>>>>> long at all to convert the videos from the '700 to AVI and then do all 
>>>>> editing in AVI before recompression to some format. I usually choose 
>>>>> Main Concept MP4 in Vegas and it looks great on the HDLCD TV. I've 
>>>>> found that the Main Concept codec is one of the highest quality out 
>>>>> there and keeps artifacts and other nasties of compression almost 
>>>>> unnoticeable.

>> I just tried converting an 18-second 60p 60 Mb TM700 clip to
>> uncompressed 60p AVI (it took 4.5 minutes and resulted in an
>> 8+ gig file...). I then played both the original MTS file and the
>> AVI file from the Vegas timeline, and both played about equally
>> poorly with my computer (not terrible, but with considerable
>> "hitching"). I then tried making RAM previews for both. The
>> MTS file (using "Draft-Full", good enough to look good at
>> 1920x1080 on a monitor) RAM preview formed fairly rapidly
>> and then played smoothly. The AVI RAM preview took
>> "forever" to form, although it played smoothly when it finally
>> finished - and equal length RAM previews could be made
>> from both file types. Given the above (with the faster MTS
>> RAM previewing), I will continue to edit with the original file
>> type (also saving potential transcoding losses, even if they are
>> very minor), then export 60i Blu-ray files for writing to discs
>> for viewing and 50Mbps 60p MP4 files for archiving, both
>> directly from the timeline.
>> --DR

> I almost never try playing AVIs above 3 GB or so due to the issues you 
> mentioned. I only really use them for archiving purposes, especially after 
> I have done any editing, processing, etc. Yes, some files will take quite 
> some time to convert and I usually do it when I'll be away from the PC for a 
> while. I have some AVIs approaching 100 GB and I usually save them to one 
> of the TB external hard drives I have here. Of course, the "raw" mts files 
> are always saved to a DVD or a separate hard drive. I can always redit 
> later if I lose the AVIs, but the original mts is irreplaceable, so I tend 
> to keep several copies on different drives/ discs.

> Jack 

I guess I was confused then. I thought you were working with 
uncompressed AVIs (maybe that was "Her Husband"...;-). Since 
there is so little loss (basically undetectable with 50 Mbps MP4s), 
these play smoothly on the timeline, and they are a bit less than twice 
the size of the original MTS files (108 Mb vs. 60 Mb for the original 
18-second MTS file), maybe this is a good file type to use for editing. 
I just also tried making a 135 Mbps MP4 from the original MTS file, 
and this took about 25% longer to make and was 291 Mb, still FAR 
short of trying to work with uncompressed files, but this file did not 
play smoothly on the timeline so that one is out. I also just tried 
adding the same two filters to the original MTS and 50 Mbps MP4 
18-second clips, and neither played smoothly (surprise...;-). It looks 
like I will go back to my original plan of working directly with the 
camera 60p MTS files, exporting 50 Mbps MainConcept files for 
archiving and 40 Mbps (average) 60i Blu-ray files, both directly from 
the timeline. BTW, the MP4 archive files will play in Windows Media 
Player with CineForm's free player installed. As for archiving, I do 
not trust DVDs for this, and certainly not a single HD either. Which 
reminds me to add an external drive to my two large internal ones, 
not that preserving my videos is THAT necessary...;-) Ah, the 
advantages of using (*logged*) tapes with HDV, instead of memory 
cards! 8^) 
--DR 

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

"Gary Eickmeier" <geickmei@tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message 
news:CpGqp.11075$cr5.5084@unlimited.newshosting.com... 
> "David Ruether" <d_ruether@hotmail.com> wrote in message 
> news:ioep0k$mic$1@ruby.cit.cornell.edu...

>> HDV is 25 Mbps. Data rate *does* matter (*all else being equal*,
>> and it can be selectably variable with AVCHD), but it is not directly
>> comparable between format types - but using higher data rates with
>> AVCHD, and/or "p" vs. "i", will affect the appearance of relative
>> sharpness and freedom from image artifacting (but it does not *strictly*
>> affect "resolution", which is a different issue...;-).
>> Common AVCHD (constant and variable) data rates used with better
>> "amateur" camcorders are:
>> - 28 Mbps (VBR - the TM700, with 60p)
>> - 24 Mbps (VBR - some Panasonic and Canon camcorders, possibly
>> others now)
>> - 21 Mbps (VBR) "PH"
>> The more common data rates for amateur cameras are:
>> - 17 Mbps (VBR) "HA"
>> - 13 Mbps (CBR) "HF"
>> - 13 Mbps (VBR) "HG"
>> - 9 Mbps (VBR) "HN"
>> - 6 Mbps (VBR) "HE"
>> Some semi-pro and pro cameras can use much higher data rates.
>>
>> Doubling the pixel number on the screen per unit of time will improve
>> sharpness (*all else being equal*), as with 60p vs. 60i - and increasing
>> the frame rate will also improve sharpness and motion smoothness
>> (*all else being equal*), as with 60p or 60i vs. 24p.
>>
>> As now noted several times, AVCHD does have a considerable price
>> in terms of reduced ease of editing and with its hardware/software
>> requirements compared with HDV. Using memory cards instead of tape
>> when shooting may or may not seem preferable, but the choice made has
>> greater consequences when it comes time to edit...
>>
>> Of course other factors can be important in the choice of a camcorder,
>> such as the ease of use, how well the manual/auto controls work, special
>> features, quality of the audio, price, battery recording time, 
>> weight/size, etc. 
>> --DR

> It seems on the surface that HDV should be less compressed, 

HDV is 25 Mbps, from 60i (NTSC) with 1440x1080 non-square pixels 
per frame. With AVCHD, as "Smarty" (and I think I did earlier...;-) 
pointed out, MP4 is considered more efficient for compression than 
is the MPEG-2 of HDV. But, as I pointed out above, AVCHD offers 
a variety of often selectable data rates (with corresponding image 
quality differences even if the pixel resolutions may be the same. 

> more convenient to archive and edit, 

HDV is easier to work with, but one could argue for either side for 
archiving, at least for finished edits... ;-)

> and potentially superior to AVCHD. So does anyone make 
> an HDV camera that is even better than the TM700? If not, why not? HDV 
> not worth further development?

Unlike AVCHD, HDV is a "rigidly-defined" format - but there are 
some semi-pro HDV cameras (about the same $3,000-$4,000 price 
range as AVCHD ones) that are quite good. The remarkable thing 
about the AVCHD TM700 is that a tiny, cheap "amateur" camera 
could be produced with such outstanding image quality. BTW, 
AVCHD comes in a variety of forms (unlike HDV), ranging from 
tiny AVCHD-Lite shirt-pocket still cameras with barely acceptable 
results, through less-than-ideal image-quality of early dSLRs with 
poor controls for shooting video, to very good ones - but selecting 
low data rates for recording will lower the image quality of any camera. 

>>> I wish there were a web site that could do all of this for all reviews.
>>>
>>> Gary Eickmeier

>> www.camcorderinfo.com has had some good reviewing methods
>> that often permitted direct comparisons between cameras.
>> --DR

> I think I have been there a few times, but it is nothing like dpreview.com 
> for still cameras. 

What is? ;-) But it can be useful for comparisons so long as they have 
not changed their testing methods between tests of interest...;-) 
--DR 

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

"Jack Santos" <jsantos554@hotmail.com> wrote in message 
news:iofbi6$a3p$1@dont-email.me... 
> "David Ruether" <d_ruether@hotmail.com> wrote in message 
> news:iof902$g5n$1@ruby.cit.cornell.edu...
>> "Jack Santos" <jsantos554@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:iodja1$7bt$1@dont-email.me...
>>> "David Ruether" <d_ruether@hotmail.com> wrote in message 
>>> news:iod7pd$98q$1@ruby.cit.cornell.edu...
>>>> "Jack Santos" <jsantos554@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:ioc4pd$s39$1@dont-email.me...
>>>>> "David Ruether" <d_ruether@hotmail.com> wrote in message 
>>>>> news:ioa3au$9u7$1@ruby.cit.cornell.edu...

>>>>>>> Both of us have Vegas and also I have After Effects. It doesn't take 
>>>>>>> long at all to convert the videos from the '700 to AVI and then do 
>>>>>>> all editing in AVI before recompression to some format. I usually 
>>>>>>> choose Main Concept MP4 in Vegas and it looks great on the HDLCD TV. 
>>>>>>> I've found that the Main Concept codec is one of the highest quality 
>>>>>>> out there and keeps artifacts and other nasties of compression almost 
>>>>>>> unnoticeable.

>>>> I just tried converting an 18-second 60p 60 Mb TM700 clip to
>>>> uncompressed 60p AVI (it took 4.5 minutes and resulted in an
>>>> 8+ gig file...). I then played both the original MTS file and the
>>>> AVI file from the Vegas timeline, and both played about equally
>>>> poorly with my computer (not terrible, but with considerable
>>>> "hitching"). I then tried making RAM previews for both. The
>>>> MTS file (using "Draft-Full", good enough to look good at
>>>> 1920x1080 on a monitor) RAM preview formed fairly rapidly
>>>> and then played smoothly. The AVI RAM preview took
>>>> "forever" to form, although it played smoothly when it finally
>>>> finished - and equal length RAM previews could be made
>>>> from both file types. Given the above (with the faster MTS
>>>> RAM previewing), I will continue to edit with the original file
>>>> type (also saving potential transcoding losses, even if they are
>>>> very minor), then export 60i Blu-ray files for writing to discs
>>>> for viewing and 50Mbps 60p MP4 files for archiving, both
>>>> directly from the timeline.
>>>> --DR

>>> I almost never try playing AVIs above 3 GB or so due to the issues you 
>>> mentioned. I only really use them for archiving purposes, especially 
>>> after I have done any editing, processing, etc. Yes, some files will 
>>> take quite some time to convert and I usually do it when I'll be away 
>>> from the PC for a while. I have some AVIs approaching 100 GB and I 
>>> usually save them to one of the TB external hard drives I have here. Of 
>>> course, the "raw" mts files are always saved to a DVD or a separate hard 
>>> drive. I can always redit later if I lose the AVIs, but the original mts 
>>> is irreplaceable, so I tend to keep several copies on different drives/ 
>>> discs.
>>>
>>> Jack

>> I guess I was confused then. I thought you were working with
>> uncompressed AVIs (maybe that was "Her Husband"...;-). Since
>> there is so little loss (basically undetectable with 50 Mbps MP4s),
>> these play smoothly on the timeline, and they are a bit less than twice
>> the size of the original MTS files (108 Mb vs. 60 Mb for the original
>> 18-second MTS file), maybe this is a good file type to use for editing.
>> I just also tried making a 135 Mbps MP4 from the original MTS file,
>> and this took about 25% longer to make and was 291 Mb, still FAR
>> short of trying to work with uncompressed files, but this file did not
>> play smoothly on the timeline, so that one is out. I also just tried
>> adding the same two filters to the original MTS and 50 Mbps MP4
>> 18-second clips, and neither played smoothly (surprise...;-). It looks
>> like I will go back to my original plan of working directly with the
>> camera 60p MTS files, exporting 50 Mbps MainConcept files for
>> archiving and 40 Mbps (average) 60i Blu-ray files, both directly from
>> the timeline. BTW, the MP4 archive files will play in Windows Media
>> Player with CineForm's free player installed. As for archiving, I do
>> not trust DVDs for this, and certainly not a single HD either. Which
>> reminds me to add an external drive to my two large internal ones,
>> not that preserving my videos is THAT necessary...;-) Ah, the
>> advantages of using (*logged*) tapes with HDV, instead of memory
>> cards! 8^)
>> --DR

> No, you were right, uncompressed AVI's but only for editing. I hardly ever 
> even try previewing them. I pretty much know from experience how the family 
> vids will turn out, so I usually end up doing the same editing/ effects 
> routines. Since the lighting is usually similar throughout the video, I'll 
> take a very small clip first, save to uncompressed AVI, do the edits/ 
> effects, and then resave to MP4 to double check. I keep the AVI under 2 GB 
> so it will play ok. Once I have double checked, I will then make two copies 
> from the mts: one as the uncompressed AVI, which I never intend to play, 
> only for archiving; and another as MP4, which I can play on just about 
> everything I have here.

Hmmm.....;-) I'm curious why you don't just edit using the original 
60p TM700 MTS files. I assume you have used RAM previews(?). 
If not, these form quickly after drawing out the "task bar" (I forget 
if that is what it is called or "work area bar", or what - I've used too 
many different editing programs to remember...;-) to select the area 
of interest to preview - and then simultaneously hit the "Shift" and 
"B" keys. First, though, go in Vegas to "Options", "Preferences", 
"Video" and increase the amount of RAM available to RAM 
previewing from 128 Mb to about 2-3 gigs less than the maximum 
you have in the computer. I have 6-gigs, so I assign 3072 (1024x3) 
there to RAM previewing. I use "Draft-Full", since with this even at 
1920x1080 I can see everything I need except for sharpening - but 
this can be done at "Best-Full" using "point-to-point" or with the 
short RAM previews possible at this "RAM-eating" setting. This 
way, there is no need for huge intermediate files, and there is no 
compression stage before export. 

> I wouldn't do this if I could edit/ apply effects/ whatever to the original 
> mts and then save as mts without re-encoding. There's supposed to be a way 
> to do this in Vegas, but I have tried and it still re-encodes, 

I've never found the "formula". The nearest I got was matching the 
file size, but it still recompressed. But, now I realize I have no need 
for it. I just edit with the original, then export files of the types 
needed. 

> plus I mainly 
> use After Effects or Photoshop for editing/ correction. 

Why? I haven't found anything I can't do with the Vegas motion 
effects and video filters. Maybe I'm missing something...? ;-)

> I can sometimes do 
> extremely simple editing in Avidemux, but I find the program unpredictable 
> as to what is saved. Too bad.

> Ideally, it would be nice to work with MTS files all throughout any 
> editing/ effects routines and in multiple programs without having it 
> re-encode each time. That would truly be the way to go, but since I can't 
> the best I can do is save to AVI first and then do all the stuff.

> Jack 

Try Vegas-only - maybe it will surprise you(?). I've been able to 
do undulating double-layer titles, wildly shifting colors, etc. - and 
also many more "sedate" effects without feeling the need to move 
to another program...;-)
--DR 

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

"Mark" <i@dontgetlotsofspamanymore.invalid> wrote in message 
news:d8snq6h00v4tu5iqd70cj7rrjfr6i6rk0f@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 15 Apr 2011 17:42:29 -0400, "David Ruether"
> <d_ruether@hotmail.com> wrote:

>>Indeed yes - galactic time is *generally* (but NOT always!) very slow! ;-)
>>As amazing as the images in this program were, the connection made
>>between novae and super novae, chemistry, and biology (and the origins
>>of life), and new thoughts about the structure of the universe that came
>>from Hubble telescopic observations were even better. It appears now
>>that much of the mass of the universe is made up of unseen "dark matter",
>>the gross structure of which has been mapped (and apparently the rest
>>of missing mass is accounted for with "dark energy"). 

> Dark matter and dark energy are only theories used as an attempt to
> explain observed behaviour. Dark matter "explains" the apparent
> difference between the actual rotation of galaxies and what would be
> expected calculating the mass of the galaxy.

> Dark energy is another attempt to explain the acceleration of galaxies
> when there is no observed forces to cause this.

> I'm skeptical about both theories.
> -- 
> (\__/) M.

Yes, thanks for the clarifications. And, it does seem sometimes to some 
of us, without the math background or knowledge base sufficient to go 
on, that much on the "bleeding edge" of science is moving toward 
beliefs more than facts, alas... ;-) 
--DR 

~~~~ 

From: "Mark" <i@dontgetlotsofspamanymore.invalid>
Subject: Re: So how do I give my video to someone?
Date: Monday, April 18, 2011 11:04 AM
On Mon, 18 Apr 2011 10:39:34 -0400, "David Ruether"
<druether@twcny.rr.com> wrote:
>"Mark" <i@dontgetlotsofspamanymore.invalid> wrote in message
>news:d8snq6h00v4tu5iqd70cj7rrjfr6i6rk0f@4ax.com...
>> On Fri, 15 Apr 2011 17:42:29 -0400, "David Ruether"
>> <d_ruether@hotmail.com> wrote:

>>>Indeed yes - galactic time is *generally* (but NOT always!) very slow! ;-)
>>>As amazing as the images in this program were, the connection made
>>>between novae and super novae, chemistry, and biology (and the origins
>>>of life), and new thoughts about the structure of the universe that came
>>>from Hubble telescopic observations were even better. It appears now
>>>that much of the mass of the universe is made up of unseen "dark matter",
>>>the gross structure of which has been mapped (and apparently the rest
>>>of missing mass is accounted for with "dark energy").

>> Dark matter and dark energy are only theories used as an attempt to
>> explain observed behaviour. Dark matter "explains" the apparent
>> difference between the actual rotation of galaxies and what would be
>> expected calculating the mass of the galaxy.
>>
>> Dark energy is another attempt to explain the acceleration of galaxies
>> when there is no observed forces to cause this.
>>
>> I'm skeptical about both theories.

>Yes, thanks for the clarifications. And, it does seem sometimes to some
>of us, without the math background or knowledge base sufficient to go
>on, that much on the "bleeding edge" of science is moving toward
>beliefs more than facts, alas... ;-)

Science has always been based on theories. Someone proposes a theory
and, if it cannot be disproven, then it is accepted. As time goes on
new theories are built upon old ones and so on. There are so many
theories in Physics now that we cannot easily test. So you could say
things are based more on beliefs than facts. ;-)
-- 
(\__/) M.


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

"HerHusband" <unknown@unknown.com> wrote in message 
news:Xns9ECB5A362FB4Dherhusband@188.40.43.213...

>> I guess I was confused then. I thought you were working with
>> uncompressed AVIs (maybe that was "Her Husband"...;-). Since
>> there is so little loss (basically undetectable with 50 Mbps MP4s),
>> these play smoothly on the timeline, and they are a bit less than
>> twice the size of the original MTS files

> Here's the basic procedure I use to take my videos from the TM700 to a 
> final edited video:

> 1. Copy the raw MTS clips from my TM700 and save them to a temporary 
> folder on my hard drive. No need for any of those complicated Blu-ray 
> folders.

> 2. Use TMPEGEnc 4.0 Express to convert and combine the MTS clips into a 
> single AVI using the Lagarith "Lossless" codec (1920x1080x30p). This 
> keeps file sizes down compared to uncompressed video.

> 3. Load the AVI into VirtualDub to "Deshake", and apply any other filters 
> I need to, saving out as a Lagarith lossless AVI again. I use the 
> Lagarith AVI's because VirtualDub does not support MPEG2 or MP4, only 
> AVI's.

> 4. Use TMPEGEnc 4.0 Express to convert the deshaked AVI to my final 
> archive format, 1920x1080x30p MPEG2 at 30Mbps.

> 5. Do my final editing in Pinnacle Studio 14. The MPEG2 format plays 
> smoothly so edits are fast and easy. Studio only recompresses 
> transitions, titles, etc., so the remaining video is simply passed from 
> input to output.

> While there are several conversions that take time, the intermediate 
> steps are "lossless". So, my video essentially only undergoes one 
> conversion from MTS to the final MPEG2. While I'm sure there are some 
> technical conversion losses in there somewhere, I have experimented with 
> multiple generation copies of test videos and couldn't see any "visible" 
> difference from the original MTS clips. That's good enough for my needs.

> My biggest quality loss probably comes from the deshaking process itself. 
> The video is rotated, cropped, zoomed, and resharpened which clearly 
> results in less quality than the original. But having stable video MORE 
> than makes up for the minor quality loss I encounter, in my opinion. 
> Despite the manipulation of the video, I usually have to look VERY VERY 
> close to see any differences compared with the source. Certainly nothing 
> we notice in casual viewing.

>> As for archiving, I do not trust DVDs for this,
>> and certainly not a single HD either.

> I chose 1920x1080x30p MPEG2 at 30Mbps as my archive format. This is a 
> higher bitrate than the original MTS clips, but I'm only using half the 
> framerate (30p vs the filmed 60p). I chose this format based on 
> compatibility. I can watch it directly on my TVIX M6600 media player, or 
> burn it directly to a Blu-Ray disk if needed. MPEG2 is also supported by 
> a large number of video editors and converters, so support for the format 
> in the future is more likely.

> I tried higher bitrates but could not see any visible differences, other 
> than larger file sizes. The 30Mbps rate seems like a good balance for 
> quality and storage space.

> I opted to convert to 30p as many video programs I have used still do not 
> support 60p. While things may be improving, it didn't make sense to me 
> to archive a format that has limited support.

> Basically, I didn't want to have separate "archive" video and "viewing" 
> video. The 1920x1080x30p MPEG2 at 30Mbps achieves both goals with a 
> single file.

> I save my videos on my hard drive, then backup that drive to two external 
> USB drives. I keep one in my desk drawer for recovering from 
> "accidents", and rotate it monthly with the second backup I keep in my 
> safe deposit box. This offers protection against more serious losses like 
> fire, flood, or theft.

> Anthony Watson
> Mountain Software
> www.mountain-software.com/videos.htm 

I guess "different strokes for different folks"...;-) I prefer to edit the 60p 
TM700 files directly. It's simpler, and there is not the visible-to-me 
reduction of quality resulting from halving the frame rate. Since this is 
practical (although not completely straight-forward in practice, since 
RAM previews are needed to check the footage in motion with filters 
applied - and at highest quality, if desired), the result is a 50 Mbps 
60p MP4 that retains *all* of the (visible) quality of the original for 
archiving, or for computer-viewing on a TV. A 60i high data rate 
Blu-ray disc (40 Mbps average, 48 Mbps peak) can also be made for 
convenient viewing which retains most of the image quality of the MP4 
and source material. Since I rarely digitally stabilize material, this 
works, with little additional "fuss" - although this may be the year 
I "give-in" and use a decent tripod with a pro-grade fluid head instead 
of braces to aid my "hand-holding", sigh...... 
--DR


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

"Savageduck" <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote in message 
news:2011041808511375249-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom...
> On 2011-04-18 08:27:44 -0700, Dymphna 
> <Dymphna.4sec6j@no-mx.forums.travel.com> said:

>> My daughter is in photography at Montana State University. She is trying
>> to purchase a lens. She called me on Saturday asking me to go halves
>> with her on a $600 lens and $200 warranty. Over night the price of the
>> lens went up another $200. What is happening and does anyone have an
>> outlet that does better on the cost of lenses? Thanks

> Find out what lens she is talking about, that would help us provide an 
> intelligent response.

> There are online vendors such as B&H and Adorama, or even Amazon.com 
> who provide good service and reasonable prices:
> < http://www.bhphotovideo.com/ >
> < http://www.adorama.com/ >

> Then as far as the $200 warranty on a $600 lens goes, IT IS A SCAM. The 
> store or vendor making that offer to you daughter is just attempting to 
> take advantage of her.

> If the lens is built by one of the reputable manufacturers it will have 
> a warranty which should cover any latent defects for at least 12 months.
> There are some so called "gray market" lenses where the vendor will 
> sell a third party warranty, but for the most part these are not in the 
> $200 range.

> I would advise your daughter to shop elsewhere.

> -- 
> Regards,

> Savageduck

I AGREE HEARTILY WITH ALL OF THE ABOVE! 8^) I will add 
that "new" does not necessarily mean "without faults". CHECK ANY 
NEW GEAR, since reputable dealers (the main ones are listed above, 
but add Costco and some others) will generally refund/exchange on 
defective gear within a short time period (two weeks, generally) after 
receipt. Also, few lens problems that did not exist at the time of purchase 
will develop until years later unless the lens has been mishandled or not 
taken care of - and, using some credit cards will double the warranty 
period...
--DR

~~~~~~~~~

"ray" <ray@zianet.com> wrote in message news:91352nFejeU5@mid.individual.net...
> On Mon, 18 Apr 2011 10:27:44 -0500, Dymphna wrote:

>> My daughter is in photography at Montana State University. She is trying
>> to purchase a lens. She called me on Saturday asking me to go halves
>> with her on a $600 lens and $200 warranty. Over night the price of the
>> lens went up another $200. What is happening and does anyone have an
>> outlet that does better on the cost of lenses? Thanks

> I should think she ought to be able to get some good discounts through 
> the university. 

This is unlikely in my experience, at least compared with the sources 
mentioned above... 
--DR

~~~~~~~~~ 

"David Dyer-Bennet" <illegalname@gmail.com> wrote in message 
news:c0d59154-6a3c-438b-b10a-f8f486906d5a@glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com...
> On Monday, April 18, 2011 10:27:44 AM UTC-5, Dymphna wrote:

>> My daughter is in photography at Montana State University. She is trying
>> to purchase a lens. She called me on Saturday asking me to go halves
>> with her on a $600 lens and $200 warranty. Over night the price of the
>> lens went up another $200. What is happening and does anyone have an
>> outlet that does better on the cost of lenses? Thanks

Other information has been given here on this...

> There's such a wide range of lenses. For somebody studying
> photography professionally, buying cheap (in the pejorative
> sense) lenses is a waste of money. And frankly in today's 
> market $600 is pretty cheap for anything other than a mid-range
> prime. 

Possibly... But, depending on the seriousness of the daughter's 
interest/involvement/plans-for photography, much cheaper gear 
(including used and "third-party") may be appropriate. There is 
nothing intrinsically wrong with this, even for professional use. 

> The price benchmark for photographic gear is bhphotovideo.com 
> (B & H Photo in New York). Not that they're always the very
> lowest; but they have a huge selection, good stock levels,
> are quite honest, and their prices are always reasonable. 

I agree. 

> Oh, and I would NEVER buy an add-on warranty for a lens. 

And the use of a warranty period-doubling credit card can serve 
as well, and that may be free... 
--DR 

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


"Bob AZ" <rwatson767@aol.com> wrote in message 
news:2907d88a-d78c-4b4e-b098-e5450dc36901@k3g2000prl.googlegroups.com... 
>> Dymphna
>> Message origin: TRAVEL.com

> Sadly my first instinct is that somebody is tring to shake "Old Dad"
> down.

> What lens and where or what dealer in Montana? Then compare the price
> with B&H in NY and also online with Ebay.

> Bob AZ 

I do not buy from eBay although I have sold there. People who 
sell on eBay in my experience have no idea how to evaluate 
gear (if it barely operates but it is also a mess otherwise, it's 
"like new" to too many sellers), or are trying to get away with 
misrepresenting their photo gear. A good example of this can 
be found by doing a search on "LN" or "Mint Nikon F3 body". 
Lots of results with "not a scratch on it" descriptions, but right 
in the sharp (or even fuzzy!) photos of them is the proof (with 
evident dings, dents, scrapes, and scratches) that the descriptions 
do not fit the items in the photos. This is often with sellers with 
"100%" ratings. "How can that be?", I asked a friend who does 
a lot of eBay selling...;-) The answer was that they give refunds 
if the buyer is dissatisfied - but that still involves a cost to the 
buyer in time and likely the one-way return shipping. Bleah! 
Reputable sellers of used gear are www.KEH.com, 
www.BHphotovideo.com, and www.craigslist.com (if the 
item is near enough to go examine it conveniently, and the 
seller agrees to a refund if it doesn't perform properly after a 
check-out. As was pointed out earlier, new from good dealers 
(like B&H, Adorama, Amazon) may be a good way to go 
(WITH CHECK-OUT DURING THE RETURN/EXCHANGE 
PERIOD!), since this avoids finding out the hard way why 
someone is selling a used item of gear (although I have successfully 
purchased some excellent, and normally very expensive, used 
gear over the years at relatively low prices...). 
--DR 


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

"HerHusband" <unknown@unknown.com> wrote in message 
news:Xns9ECC591F33664herhusband@85.214.73.210...

>> I guess "different strokes for different folks"...;-)

> Yep, I agree. What works for me could be entirely unworkable for others 
> (due to equipment, time constrants, or whatever).

Yes. I meant to indicate that while my (rather simpler...;-) methods 
work for me, you (and others) have your reasons for doing otherwise, 
and that I don't have "THE" way of doing it...;-) But still, I will make 
some comments, below...

>> I prefer to edit the 60p TM700 files directly.

> There are three main reasons I do not edit the raw MTS files:

> 1. My computer does not play back AVCHD files smoothly enough to make 
> editing "comfortable".

Your editing software cannot make RAM previews, I guess. The 
under-$100 Vegas Platinum 10 can, for smooth previewing of short 
stretches of the original material (and the "pro" version can assign 
much more RAM for this purpose, making that feature even more 
useful). Without smooth timeline playback, editing would NOT be 
"pleasant"... Likely neither of us is interested in paying for a VERY 
expensive hardware/software system that can play this material 
smoothly. ;-)

> 2. I consider deshaking an absolute necessity, and the software I use 
> (VirtualDub) does not support AVCHD MTS files.

Yes, I also have not figured out how-to/if Mercalli can be used for 
this material - but I use stabilization less anyway. I do not try to 
shoot "still-camera" video for two reasons: I prefer to "look around" 
with the camera; and when moving the camera intentionally, it often 
looks smoother/steadier than when an attempt is made to look that 
way without using a tripod (ugh, but!). 

> 3. The media player I watch the final video on does not play MTS files well 
> (if at all), so there's no reason to keep the original format.

50 Mbps MP4s can retain the 60p aspect and the full detail and 
smoothness of the original material, and this can be played smoothly 
from the computer to a TV (and the free CineForm player helps with 
this). 

>> It's simpler, and there is not the visible-to-me reduction
>> of quality resulting from halving the frame rate.

> My process is certainly complicated and time consuming, but I usually only 
> edit a few videos a year. It is no big deal for me to start a video 
> processing when I go to bed and leave it running overnight, or even during 
> the day while I'm working on other things. I can easily spend days or even 
> weeks working on video from a vacation or something. But the computer does 
> most of the work. :)

Yes...;-) 

> Granted, your process undoubtedly retains more of the original quality. Of 
> course, I have to factor in my source material which is usually handheld 
> video, with whatever lighting conditions are available, in a variety of 
> environments (working around other tourists, quickly jumping out of the car 
> to film something, no time to set up a tripod, etc.).

Sounds like the way I shoot - and I do a LOT of corrective work 
while editing...

> The reality is I don't NEED the absolute maximum quality. It's kind of like 
> using 9000Kbps MPEG2 to archive VHS recordings. Yes, it will maintain as 
> much of the original as possible, but do you really NEED to retain perfect 
> quality for less than perfect source material?

The TM700 offers noticeably superior sharpness, color, and motion 
smoothness compared with that of other small hand-held cameras, and 
good editing software permits not only retaining that, but making some 
corrections/improvements to cover shooting "misses" - so I prefer to get 
the highest (and amazingly high) quality results I can from video shot 
with this camera. 

> It is highly unlikely I will ever need to edit my home movies again in the 
> future. If I can't see any "visible" difference from the source today, it 
> should look just as good 20 years from now. Yes, I may need to convert my 
> video to new formats in the future, but those formats will most likely have 
> better quality than today's formats (such as archiving an old VHS tape to a 
> DVD, and then to a Blu-Ray).

Yes. For you, since you shoot what becomes 30p with things of little 
motion, that would be fine. I like (intentional!) camera movement 
(sometimes rapid), and I often shoot things that are moving, so 60p 
is preferable for me. 

>> A 60i high data rate Blu-ray disc (40 Mbps average, 48 Mbps peak)
>> can also be made for convenient viewing

> I do not own a Blu-Ray burner and don't really need one since we stream our 
> video directly from the hard drive to the TV. None of our family members 
> have blu-ray players yet, so there's no need to burn blu-ray's for them 
> either.

Internal Blu-ray writers are now under $100 and players under $70, 
so........;-) 

> Regardless, Blu-Ray supports MPEG2 video so I could make a Blu-Ray from my 
> files if it came to that.

Yes. 

> I am always open to learning something new. Support for h264 MP4 format has 
> improved in recent years, so I may run some experiments with using MP4 
> instead of MPEG2 to see how file sizes and video quality compare. I do 
> know from limited experiments in the past that h264 does much better with 
> dark images (such as fading to and from black). MPEG2 tends to get rather 
> blocky when fading, especially at lower bitrates.

> Anthony Watson
> Mountain Software
> www.mountain-software.com/videos.htm 

Since HDV days I have seen no compression artifacting ***so long as 
a good codec was used with sufficient data rate***, but I saw a lot of 
it even with HDV with Ulead (Corel) and Adobe software (but not with 
Vegas, with the exception of when trying to use too low of a data rate). 

But, I think there is nothing we really disagree on...8^) 
--DR

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

"M.L." <me@privacy.invalid> wrote in message 
news:ejetq65nqhm32ddch48c6lsmbl7cipbu3r@4ax.com...

>>>> The worst part about watching old videos is wishing those
>>>> memories were filmed in HD... :) 

>>> Exactly. Now imagine what it would be like if you had filmed those old
>>> movies in 70mm Technicolor, which certainly existed 40 years ago and
>>> beyond. Today they would stand up well against HD and would bring back
>>> the memories a lot more effectively than some blurred mess that
>>> separates you from the reality of the time.

>>The older 8mm movies (like the one of me as a baby) were filmed by others 
>>who didn't care for the films like I would have. They were tossed in 
>>boxes, stored in attics, copied to VHS tapes, and who knows what else 
>>before I received a copy of them. I wish I had the original's to many of 
>>these, but unfortunately those folks are dead and gone and the films 
>>disappeared along the way.

> I find it disturbing that people here are more interested in video
> quality than the emotional impact of reliving memories of times gone
> by and of people long gone.

> The memories should count more than the media. 

Um, this *is* a *VIDEO* NG (and we are interested in 
improving/optimizing video technical quality....;-), and no one 
but "Mxsmanic", as I recall, has insisted that the highest media 
quality is necessary for triggering memories or for conveying 
emotional content (and I, "quality-nut" that I am, would love 
to have back the old family 8mm films, even moldy as they had 
become). Many here are also likely aware that intentionally 
"low quality" film/video images are often used to help convey 
"atmosphere", as in the original "Night of the Living Dead" 
movie. I think you may have misunderstood some of the 
responses to "Mxsmanic"... 
--DR 

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

"HerHusband" <unknown@unknown.com> wrote in message 
news:Xns9ECD5244247B7herhusband@85.214.73.210... 

[Stupidly trying to write while recovering from a "stupid" event...]

>> Your editing software cannot make RAM previews, I guess.

> Pinnacle Studio 14 does make previews, but I think they are disk based and 
> not in RAM.

Yes. The RAM previews arelikely faster-forming, and they play 
smoothly with any kind of material - but files made to HDs often 
will not play smoothly on the timeline. The RAM preview feature 
is something I like about Vegas. ;-) 

>> Without smooth timeline playback, editing would NOT be "pleasant".

> Yep, that's why I originally started using MPEG2. My computer plays it 
> perfectly in real-time. Of course, I developed many of my editing 
> procedures years ago on slower computers, so it may be time to experiment 
> again and see if anything works better.

Ah, the care-free days of MPEG-2 HDV... (it played smoothly on 
the timelines on just about any fairly recent computer...;-). 

>> Likely neither of us is interested in paying for a VERY
>> expensive hardware/software system that can play this
>> material smoothly. ;-)

> Nope, I'm cheap. :)

So am I, in addition to having a low income - but still with a desire 
to make high-quality video. It can be done, but it does require more 
effort and time. 

>> Yes, I also have not figured out how-to/if Mercalli can be used for
>> this material - but I use stabilization less anyway.

> Unfortunately, even slightly shaky video makes me feel very nauseous in 
> just a couple minutes. I even get a little queezy watching some TV shows 
> these days that have those handheld shots. That's one of the main reasons I 
> place such a high value on stabilizing video. Reliving old memories 
> shouldn't make you sick! :)

8^) 
I don'y like "shaky" video, but I do like camera motion, preferably 
*smooth*, though (as with a smoothly "flying" camera with slow 
pan/zooms included - but I no longer have the muscle-control to do 
this well, sigh... (I'm not sure what abilities I will have this summer.) 

> I spent a fair amount of money on Mercalli and never could get decent 
> results from it. Certainly nothing near what I can do with Deshaker in 
> VirtualDub.

Yes. It works for you, but Mercalli worked well enough for me for 
the few times I needed/wanted it (and I found ways to minimize 
sharpness loss with it) - but I would not want to need to switch to 
30p from 60p (with the motion I like, 30p is clearly inferior). 

>> 50 Mbps MP4s can retain the 60p aspect and the full detail and
>> smoothness of the original material, and this can be played smoothly
>> from the computer to a TV (and the free CineForm player helps with
>> this).

> I will have to experiment and give it a try when and if I can find the 
> time.

You may like it - but not if you lose your stabilizer. I'm also considering 
the use of a light-weight tripod (with no fluid-head) for stationary 
camera shots (ugh, but if I must, or stop shooting, then....). 

>> Sounds like the way I shoot - and I do a LOT of corrective work
>> while editing...

> I rarely do any corrective work other than deshaking and minor sharpening 
> to regain some of the detail lost from deshaking. I have calibrated my 
> monitor with a Spyder 3, but I don't know what I'm doing and would probably 
> make the video look worse if I tried tweaking colors or anything. :)

Try it - you might be surprised! ;-) I use a 1920x1200 side monitor in 
addition to the 1/2-sized in-program preview window (Vegas can run 
both [or the program plus an HD TV] symultaneously off a dual-head 
video card). This has helped enormously for judging what I'm doing, 
especially for sharpening. With practice comes confidence with using 
filters. I find that almost all TM700 (and other camcorder) footage needs 
a bit of brightness reduction and some contrast increase to look right, 
and often mid-tone adjustment (and black-end and sometimes highlight 
darkening) with the "color curves" filter to get the right tonal response 
throughout the image, often key-framed. I also use color-correction 
filtering to match-up clips, and sharpening and often also unsharp-mask 
sharpening to get the most out of an already good image (although some 
may say I overdo things - but see Gary Eickmeier's comments [first in 
this thread, 4/15/'11] on a Blu-ray disc I sent him...;-). Or, "Sometimes 
artifice looks more real than reality..." 8^)

> On some occasions I will process some video clips with "Neat Video". This 
> really helps remove the grainy appearance of videos shot in dark 
> conditions. But, it is painfully slow even on my Q9400 quad core, so I 
> reserve that for special clips I can't bear to part with. :)

If you are using the TM700 (I seem to remember you are), you can 
enable "slow shutter" and go to 1/30th second for an extra stop of 
"reach"... 

> More than anything, I discard a LOT of video when editing. On a couple of 
> recent vacations, I only kept about 30 minutes from 8-10 hours of footage. 
> If I have the time, I will often shoot a scene two or three times so I can 
> pick which one turned out best when I get back home. Of course, the 
> wildlife doesn't always cooperate and stand still so I can get a better 
> shot. :)

8^) 
I generally also shoot 2-3 (short!) takes since I have problems with muscle 
control and tremors (phun - NOT!) and choose/cut-parts later while editing. 
One video this year had about 500 clips in it (MUCH narrowed!) for 
an 18-minute video. 

>> Internal Blu-ray writers are now under $100 and players under $70

> Until I have a reason to burn a blu-ray disk, that is $100 I could spend on 
> other toys. :) Although, I wish my mom would get a Blu-Ray player so I 
> didn't have to downsize everything to standard SD DVD disks.

Well, get the writer, then have her get the cheap player so she can view 
your discs in all their original grandeur! 8^) That's easy! 8^) 

>> Since HDV days I have seen no compression artifacting ***so long as
>> a good codec was used with sufficient data rate***, but I saw a lot of
>> it even with HDV with Ulead (Corel) and Adobe software (but not with
>> Vegas, with the exception of when trying to use too low of a data
>> rate). 

> Yes, the blocky artifacts appear mostly with low bitrate material. MP4 
> seems to handle that better than MPEG2. I just assumed that behaviour 
> would translate into the higher bitrates also, even if I can't see them.

Nope. Think about taking a still photo and "jpg-ing" first at a compression 
factor of three, then of 12. You will easily see the difference at 1:1 pixel 
viewing (which video is often done at). 

>> I think there is nothing we really disagree on...

> Agreed... :)

> Anthony Watson
> Mountain Software
> www.mountain-software.com/videos.htm

--DR 
www.David-Ruether-Photography.com 


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


[Sent to the alt.support.sleep-disorder NG...] 

"bianconiglio" <bianconiglio7@tiscali.it> wrote in message 
news:f27aa19c-46ee-4557-b429-d6e90020c0d1@y31g2000vbp.googlegroups.com... 

[MY COMMENTS BELOW ARE GUESSES ONLY!!!] 
I’m going to describe a problem that I have which is causing major
trouble in my life, hoping that someone will help me understand it’s
nature and possibly find a cure for it.

I’m 56, physically fit and in good health, but I suffer from what
could be described as a form of “mental fatigue” that happens every
day for several hours and makes it very difficult to do my work, which
is 100% intellectual (I’m a software architect).

Doctors have trouble making a diagnosis because there is no real pain,
it’s a feeling of great tiredness of the mind (not of the body, since
I don’t feel tired and sometimes physical activity can help alleviate
the symptoms). A possible analogy is that the brain feels extremely
tired, like your muscles after lifting heavy weights or running for
one hour.

I have found many different terms that describe similar symptoms, like
“brain fog”, Fatigue, “Daytime tiredness”, “inability to concentrate”,
“chronic daily headache”, but none of these is associated with a
precise diagnosis and a possible cure.
Somebody talked about “feeling your head gripped in a vise”, which is
also close to what I feel, but I think that “brain fog” is the best
word for it.
This thing has been going on for years, the problem could appear at
any time of the day although it seems to happen mostly in the
morning.

The most likely cause is bad sleep, but apparently there is no close
correlation between the quality of my sleep and how I feel in the
morning. I usually take melatonin to get a better sleep, but I can
also sleep without it, and even after a good sleep my head feels very
heavy and it’s usually several hours before I can use my brain
effectively.

Years ago I went to see a neurologist, she diagnosed a “tension
headache” and told me to take serotonin, which is used to cure
depression. I took serotonin for 5 months, but I didn’t see any
significant improvements and so I stopped taking it. Then I went to
see a neurologist specialized in headaches, he said that the previous
cure was wrong but he couldn’t suggest any cures because I didn’t feel
any real pain.

There are a few things that usually make me feel better (especially
number 1):
1. A little nap. If I can sleep for 30 minutes during the day, usually
after that I feel much better
2. Some physical activity and a shower
3. Drinking coffee and/or tea

I know I’m not alone, many other people report similar symptoms, but
unfortunately this is the sort of thing that doctors find very
difficult to diagnose and classify.
By doing some personal research I’ve found a few things (diseases)
that have similar symtoms, they are: sleep apnea, Lyme disease,
fibromyalgia, Hypothyroidism, tension headache, silent migraine.

Summary of symptoms:
• Feeling of “heavy head”, inability to concentrate and do
intellectual work
• Desire to lay down and take a nap
• Usually present at wakeup time, but can happen any time of the day
• Happens every day, sometimes more than once per day and usually
lasts several hours
• I can switch from feeling well to “brain fog” in 10 minutes or less
• Often accompanied by continuous yawning, that can last 10-20 minutes
• Possibly correlated: I have had tinnitus for 30 years, but this was
caused by an accident 

--I have sleep apnea, and untreated SA (or other sleep-disturbing 
condition, like restless-legs, or poor eating/drinking/sleeping habits) 
can cause what you describe. You do not say if you get headaches, 
and I do not (apparently some people who have "auras" for those do 
not feel the headache when it arrives[!] - but I do get the intermittant 
visual, aural, depressed-consciousness-level, muscle-control, balance, 
and speech problems that can accompany what is called something 
like "cerebellar basal cell migraine" that ***may*** account for 
what you [or I] experience). Unfortunately, this is all "a can of worms" 
when it comes to diagnosis (a VAST understatement!!!), but I would 
start with a formal sleep test if you can, since this may bring answers 
the most quickly (and I'm surprised that you have not already been 
sent for one [if not], given your stated symptoms). Also try a search 
on Google for "cerebellar+basal+cell+migraine" and see if anything 
that fits comes up. Also search "narcolepsy+cataplexy", which are 
other possibilities, but these seem much less likely than sleep-apnea 
and/or restless-legs syndrome... Other possibilities that just dawned 
on me are a sinus condition, and allergies. The accident that caused the 
tinnitus may also be a clue if it caused brain trauma. Your descriptions 
also sound like migraine headache, but experienced as "pressure" 
rather than pain(?). Have you had a head MRI? 

--To add - for me, I do feel great physical weakness when this "brain 
fog" occurs (and I feel like my I.Q. has dropped to 45 or so, and I 
can no longer think at all, or move much, although I'm aware of my 
surroundings). Tea or a cold "fizzy" drink can help with rousing me 
*after* the main event. I commonly fall asleep after an event for 1-3 
hours, but I often then wake with extreme stomach gas (bleah!). 
My events come on within seconds, with only a little warning (and 
often after a meal, while playing with the cat, geting excited, talking 
too long on the 'phone, etc.), although I often begin to seriously lose 
muscle and speech control before one. Sometimes I have visual auras 
preceding events - but the other problems mentioned above can 
also be the "auras" for other event types (as I said, all this can be 
"a can of worms" to figure out, especially since, as you noted, there 
are few definitive tests for most of the possibilities). But, for you, it 
does look to me (a very distant "amateur"...;-) to be caused by a sleep 
problem, and this can be checked out with a *GOOD* overnight 
sleep test, conducted at a facility where the people know what they 
are doing. 

[MY COMMENTS ABOVE ARE GUESSES ONLY!!!] 

--Good luck in sorting things out. I'm still trying to do that for me 
after about a decade of looking - but the good news for me is that my 
severe sleep apnea was discovered, and I now treat it "religiously" with 
the use of a CPAP machine to stop further deterioration (and even to 
correct some of the damage already done - but I suspect that is 
involved with my difficulties that remain...). 

--DR

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

"Sue Morton" <867-5309@domain.invalid> wrote in message 
news:iopgf7$mb9$1@appyface.eternal-september.org... 
> "bianconiglio" <bianconiglio7@tiscali.it> wrote in message 
> news:f27aa19c-46ee-4557-b429-d6e90020c0d1@y31g2000vbp.googlegroups.com... 

>> I’m going to describe a problem that I have which is causing major
>> trouble in my life, hoping that someone will help me understand it’s
>> nature and possibly find a cure for it.
[...] 

> Your description is fairly textbook for a disrupted sleep architecture IMO 
> (I am not a doctor). Regardless, any cure lies is finding and successfully 
> treating the root cause(s).

> Unfortunately in the area of sleep this field is still fairly young. 
> Although more is known now than ever before, there are still many areas of 
> trouble that cannot be diagnosed yet, and areas that can be diagnosed but 
> cannot yet be successfuly treated.

> Your own perceptions of your sleep quality/quantity, and/or those of any 
> partner who observes you while sleep, are not realiable measures of your 
> true sleep architecture or changes in your body during sleep.

> If you haven't ever had a sleep study, or not had one in some time, please 
> consider asking your physician to set one up for you. A polysomnogram will 
> be administered during the study, with good possibility of yielding an 
> accurate diagnosis and treatment, or at the very least ruling out potential 
> sources of your symptoms so no time is wasted on those.

> Best of luck to you in getting this sorted.
> -- 
> Sue Morton 

Ah, I always enjoy reading Sue Morton's succinct and very knowledgeable 
posts on sleep issues here. I would take her advice... 
--DR

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

"HerHusband" <unknown@unknown.com> wrote in message 
news:Xns9ECE59B90DD78herhusband@188.40.43.230...

> Hi David,

>> I don't like "shaky" video, but I do like camera motion, preferably
>> *smooth*, though (as with a smoothly "flying" camera with slow
>> pan/zooms included - but I no longer have the muscle-control to do
>> this well, sigh... , and I'm not sure what abilities I will have this
>> summer.)

> The Deshaker plug-in for VirtualDub actually helps smooth out those pans 
> and zooms too. I use a cheap monopod almost exclusively these days which 
> has eliminated the vast majority of the "shakes". But, my panning can still 
> be a little jerky at times. Deshaker really helps smooth those out.

>> Yes. It works for you, but Mercalli worked well enough for me for
>> the few times I needed/wanted it (and I found ways to minimize
>> sharpness loss with it)

> With Deshaker, I get the best results by deshaking and leaving the black 
> borders that result. Then I use separate filters to crop those out, resize 
> back to the full frame, and a light sharpen to perk it up a little. In most 
> cases, it's hard to tell the difference between the source and final 
> product, except it's stable.

Your videos look very steady. 

> Anytime I tried to let Deshaker handle the cropping stuff automatically I 
> got weird results as it zoomed in and out depending on the severity of the 
> correction needed.

>> I would not want to need to switch to 30p from 60p
>> (with the motion I like, 30p is clearly inferior).

> I don't remember if I've ever tried deshaking 60p material. Something to 
> try when I can find the time... :)

Let us know. I don't yet know if Mercalli works with 60p. 

>> You may like it - but not if you lose your stabilizer. I'm also
>> considering the use of a light-weight tripod (with no fluid-head) for
>> stationary camera shots (ugh, but if I must, or stop shooting,
>> then....). 

I think we've covered all the ground, and we understand our 
differences (with no thought that one approach is better than the 
other, just different, with different needs/wants for the resultant 
video...;-). 

> I have never owned a tripod with a fluid-head, so I don't know what 
> advantage it would offer. Maybe smoother pans? But, I rarely use a tripod 
> unless the camera is completely stationary (filming myself working on a 
> home improvement project or something). A cheap fixed head works fine for 
> my needs (I think I paid less then $30 for my tripod, and less than $25 for 
> my monopod).

Fluid heads come in three grades - cheap and useless; moderately 
priced and often useless unless you buy VERY carefully and try 
a few samples to select the smoothest and choose legs that don't 
"wind up" with head movement; and the GOOD ones, but these are 
*** V E R Y *** expensive (think many thousands of dollars) - but 
with these, you can make VERY smooth pan/tilt/zoom combination 
shots. With a steady hand, braces, a good back, etc., you can simulate 
this well enough for casual work, but it will not look as professional 
unless the movement defects are consistent with the style of the video 
wanted (which is my "out"...;-). I was lucky many years ago to get at 
a reasonable price what I call "The Wreck of the Cartoni", and I 
modified the head arm with a joint that would flex some to give with 
my jerks (the fluid head provides the smooth and constant resistence 
to do what was needed, with just a finger tip at the rear of the arm). 
Fortunately, even though only one each of the several adjustments 
provided on the head still worked properly, those were the right ones 
for me. I have since moved the heavy head to mid-light legs - and I 
hope this will work well enough. I'm also prepared, if necessary, 
to do as you do and just plop down the camera on a light/cheap 
tripod (monopods and I don'y get along at all...). 

>> Try it - you might be surprised! ;-) I use a 1920x1200 side monitor
>> in addition to the 1/2-sized in-program preview window (Vegas can run
>> both [or the program plus an HD TV] symultaneously off a dual-head
>> video card). This has helped enormously for judging what I'm doing,
>> especially for sharpening. With practice comes confidence with using
>> filters. I find that almost all TM700 (and other camcorder) footage
>> needs a bit of brightness reduction and some contrast increase to look
>> right, and often mid-tone adjustment (and black-end and sometimes
>> highlight darkening) with the "color curves" filter to get the right
>> tonal response throughout the image, often key-framed. I also use
>> color-correction filtering to match-up clips, and sharpening and often
>> also unsharp-mask sharpening to get the most out of an already good
>> image (although some may say I overdo things - but see Gary
>> Eickmeier's comments [first in this thread, 4/15/'11] on a Blu-ray
>> disc I sent him...;-). Or, "Sometimes artifice looks more real than
>> reality..." 8^) 

> Thanks for the tips, I will see what kind of damage I can do next time I 
> edit video. :)

8^)

> Unfortunately, I'm still using a 1280x1024 monitor, so it's not an exact 
> 1:1 pixel representation of the video I'm editing. I work on my computer 
> all day, so I'm REALLY picky about backlight bleeding, viewing angles, 
> color oddities, etc. I tried a newer monitor recently but had a really bad 
> experience with it and returned it. I have been a little apprehensive to 
> try another one after that.

I like my Acer 24" 1920x1200 monitors (cheap [about $225], sharp, 
with good color). If you don't do gaming, choose one with an 8 ms 
refresh rate - it may have better color and tonal relationships. I bought 
a 25" Hannspree 16:9 for a side monitor, but I could not tone down the 
highlights enough to see what was going on there, so I traded it with a 
friend for his Acer 24" who now loves the bright/snappy color and tones 
for gaming of the Hannspree...;-) It is true, though, that you must "light 
the room" properly for LCDs, and they are critical of viewing angle. 
I set my two monitors at an angle side-by-side so both are viewed 
on-axis - which causes some "neck-cricking" as I turn between them 
and bob my head up and down to check the top-to-bottom brightness 
of the full-video screen on the right (but I still much prefer them to CRTs). 

>> If you are using the TM700 (I seem to remember you are), you can
>> enable "slow shutter" and go to 1/30th second for an extra stop of
>> "reach"...

> Another great tip, thanks. I'll have to save this message. :)

8^) I think you need to go into "MNL" mode to access it, though...

>> I generally also shoot 2-3 (short!) takes since I have problems with
>> muscle control and tremors (phun - NOT!) and choose/cut-parts later
>> while editing. One video this year had about 500 clips in it (MUCH
>> narrowed!) for an 18-minute video.

> Don't you hate it when you get this nice panning shot and someone walks in 
> front of the camera at the last minute? 

Jes' part o' th' lan'-scape, huh...? ;-) Just cut the tail, if necessary, I guess. 
What gets me bugged is when I'm shooting "nay-chur", and people come 
through yakking noisily. There goes the "ambient" sound...! ;-( But, I 
guess it's their "nay-chur" too - but they COULD be quieter, and more 
involved in that, I think! 8^) 

> Or you're zooming in slowly and 
> you shift or something and cause this super quick zoom? :) The fixed zoom 
> speeds can help with that, but sometimes I want to zoom in faster.

The HV20/30/40 had a nice feature of pre-selectable zoom speeds, so 
all I needed to do was "mash" the zoom control. Canon has recently 
introduced a $71 hot-shoe Lanc port so their $350 6-speed(?) 
controller can be used with it. Even with my jerks, I was surprised 
to find how easy the TM700 zoom is to control smoothly, and it also 
has a VERY slow minimum zoom speed, which I like... The controls on 
this camera are VERY smooth-operating - although the menu navigation 
is another matter...:-( 

>> Well, get the writer, then have her get the cheap player so she can
>> view your discs in all their original grandeur! 8^) That's easy! 8^)

> Unfortunately, she lives on the other side of the state and doesn't keep in 
> contact with me. For the most part, communication is one-way only, me 
> sending DVD's to her. So, I don't really have any say in whether she gets a 
> Blu-ray player (or even know if she already has one for that matter). Sad 
> but true.

I know the feeling...

>> www.David-Ruether-Photography.com

> I checked out some of the videos on your web site. Good Lord, you are rock 
> solid compared to anything I ever shoot handheld. :) Looks good.

> Anthony Watson
> Mountain Software
> www.mountain-software.com/videos.htm 

Thanks, but my "shivers-'n'-shakes" have been getting ever worse. I 
remember being able to manually focus and hand-hold a 35mm f1.4 
lens at f1.4 and 1/4 second and get about every second or third frame 
sharp during candle-lit receptions way back when. Now, 'course, stabilizers 
and effective "film" speeds FAR above the 400 ASA I worked with 
are now available, making this kind of still shooting MUCH easier. With 
what you saw, I used the "trick" of rarely trying to hold the camcorder still, 
since it is easier to move it and make it look steadier. Now, though, I'm 
losing that ability, sigh... 
--DR 

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

"HerHusband" <unknown@unknown.com> wrote in message 
news:Xns9ECF5290FB6D9herhusband@188.40.43.230... 

>> I'm also prepared, if necessary, to do as you do and just plop
>> down the camera on a light/cheap tripod (monopods and I don't
>> get along at all...).

> I LOVE my monopod. It's about all I use these days. It takes up very 
> little space and sets up quick so I can leave the camera attached and set 
> it in the floorboard of the car next to me. Pull over, grab the camera, 
> flip a couple of levers, extend, latch, film. :) 

> It works just as well shortened to prop on a rock, hood of the car, fence 
> post, or whatever.

As you have noted earlier, a monopod does little to resist horizontal 
rotation, a big problem for me. I used to have a monopod that had 
short legs at the bottom to help with this, but it didn't help very much 
then, and likely less now - but maybe it is worth giving it a try again... 

> It even makes a halfway decent stabilizer by leaving it collapsed and 
> using it as a counterweight for handheld video. This works better 
> partially extended, you just have to be careful not to extend too far and 
> accidently bump the ground while moving (ask me how I know). :)

8^) 

> It doesn't take any space to use, so I can stand in the middle of a crowd 
> and use it, something a tripod doesn't do well. In fact, sometimes I use 
> it as a pole to stick the camera up in the air to look over the top of 
> everyone. :) I did that recently in my Leavenworth video to get a view 
> of a waterfall I couldn't find any other way to get the right angle.

I've used a small tripod for this with a fisheye pointed down, lying on the 
edge of a cliff near a big falls (Taughannock - see it from a distance here -- 
http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/digital-photos1.htm - the spot was 
where the smaller part is on the left where it is dry much of the year, and 
also from an overhang up the left slope [now gone - BTW, this falls is just 
up the road from me...]). I also used this technique for shooting from other 
high places, as here from the top of the Cornell bell tower with a 6mm fisheye 
(notice that the 220 degree angle of view shows the sky, too - and you can 
see the folded tripod in the photo at -- 
http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/eyes-view.htm ). I've also used this 
for shooting over crowds (easier now with side-screens that can be pointed 
downward). 

> I have even used it hanging upside down to make a "flying bug" type of 
> video along the ground (inverting the video in VirtualDub in post 
> processing). It was with one of my old camcorders that didn't have a very 
> good stabilizer, and the interlaced video made it hard to stabilize in 
> post, so the quality isn't that great. I didn't put it on my web site, 
> but it was fun to make. :)

I like these too, and the non-interlaced 60p footage makes it easy to 
invert the footage without degradation. 

> I usually hold the monopod in my right hand, then flip out the camcorder 
> screen and hold the outer edge of the screen to steady tilting and 
> rotating movements. I keep thinking a longer "outrigger" arm would make 
> things even more steady (getting farther away from the monopod to 
> minimize movements), but I would have to rig something up and probably 
> lose the portability factor.

See mine here, to which I've added a "chest-post" supported by a neck strap 
for shooting this year -- http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/brace.htm . The 
additional piece (not in the photos) was kindly provided by Mike Price. 

> One final bonus, a monopod makes a great walking stick. I used it a lot 
> when we were hiking up the virgin river in the Zion narrows last summer.

I would need a VERY strong one...;-) 

> Oh, and in a pinch you can use it as a stick to defend yourself against 
> jealous husbands or approaching bears. :)

Um, not the light-weight ones I have - they would just make the beasts 
madder! ;-) 

> I don't use it much, but I like my little cheapie tripod too. It's small 
> and lightweight so I can fit it in my suitcase when we go on vacations. 
> Though I have mostly stopped taking it since getting my monopod.

> I like my tiny Ultrapod II for vacations though. I can fit it in my 
> camera bag, or even stick it in my pocket if we're going hiking or 
> something. I occasionally set it on a rock or the roof of the car (did 
> that in Arches national park recently to get a shot of my wife and I), or 
> use the velcro strap to attach it to a tree, post, or fence (I strapped 
> it to a fence to get the sunset shot in my Maui video). I also used it 
> with our digital camera to take family portraits on our Canada trip a 
> couple years ago.

Good ideas... 

> There are lots of expensive (and home made) stabilizers out there, but 
> most come at the expense of portability, weight, or just looking like a 
> dork in public. :)

I used to have a gyro stabilizer, but it wasn't very practical. 

>> I like my Acer 24" 1920x1200 monitors (cheap [about $225], sharp,
>> with good color). If you don't do gaming, choose one with an 8 ms
>> refresh rate - it may have better color and tonal relationships. I
>> bought a 25" Hannspree 16:9 for a side monitor, but I could not tone
>> down the highlights enough to see what was going on there, so I traded
>> it with a friend for his Acer 24" who now loves the bright/snappy
>> color and tones for gaming of the Hannspree...;-) It is true, though,
>> that you must "light the room" properly for LCDs, and they are
>> critical of viewing angle. I set my two monitors at an angle
>> side-by-side so both are viewed on-axis - which causes some
>> "neck-cricking" as I turn between them and bob my head up and down to
>> check the top-to-bottom brightness of the full-video screen on the
>> right (but I still much prefer them to CRTs).

> I can't stand most of the TN monitors on the market today. They're cheap 
> and fast but the color accuracy, backlight bleed, black levels, etc. all 
> suck. I don't play games, so the speed is of little interest to me.

Then, see above...;-) I gather there are three main types - fast and cheap 
but with the poorest color; 8ms, not much more expensive, with very good 
color and tonality possibe; and the VERY expensive, intended for critical 
work. Neither of us needs the last, but the middle group suffices for me 
and I like the Acer (although there are likely other acceptable ones). With 
it, I can judge sharpness FAR better than on a CRT, and color quite well, 
once adjusted. Good room lighting takes care of most of the rest, with 
"head-bobbing" still necessary for top-to-bottom brightness checks... 
Good enough - and it's nice to have all that "real-estate" available on a 
3840x1200-pixel "desktop" at low cost. 

> I currently have a S-PVA Samsung P193+ monitor which I really love. It 
> cost me something like $600 when I bought it, but it has perfect colors, 
> no backlight bleeding, excellent viewing angles, etc. It has a tiny bit 
> of black crush and some gamma issues, but I don't notice these issues in 
> typical use. My only gripe is that it isn't 1920x1200. :)

Ah, yes. How about running it as the side monitor for color/etc.-checking? 

> These days most of the high end monitors are IPS based, though I still 
> prefer the look of PVA monitors. It's also getting hard to find a high 
> end 1920x1200 monitor, most are 1920x1080. That's great for video, not so 
> much for daily computing.

Yes. That's why I recommend 1920x1200 (or more) to people - and two
or three pages of text fit nicely side-by-side for working, with the remaining 
space reserved for menus, web sites, etc. How/why ever did we 
work-with/think-15"-monitors-were-adequate ??? 8^) Gear changes, 
fortunately, and improves and gets cheaper (I remember paying $350 for 
a 15" monitor[!]). 

> I bought a Dell IPS monitor recently (I can't remember the model number). 
> It was highly rated but the viewing angles were terrible. If I stood up 
> next to my desk, the screen looked completely black, I couldn't see 
> anything. I also learned how awkward the 1920x1080 screen size was for 
> computing. Anyway, I was completely disappointed and returned it two days 
> later.

> So, I'm staying with my current monitor a while longer.

See above - if your software and video card supports dual monitors, uh...;-) 

>> What gets me bugged is when I'm shooting "nay-chur",
>> and people come through yakking noisily.

> That's why I usually delete the sound and insert my own. :)

> Anthony Watson
> Mountain Software
> www.mountain-software.com/videos.htm 

I've had to do that with unsolved wind noise problems, but I prefer ambient 
sound and I can now deal with wind. 
--DR 

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

"Steve King" <steveSPAMBLOCK@stevekingSPAMBLOCK.net
> wrote in message news:iosa6u$6c7$1@news.albasani.net... 
> "David Ruether" <druether@twcny.rr.com> wrote in message 
> news:ioq854$igh$1@ruby.cit.cornell.edu...

> BIG SNIP>

>> I like my Acer 24" 1920x1200 monitors (cheap [about $225], sharp,
>> with good color)

> .BIG SNIP> --DR

> David,

> What Acer monitor model do you have? I have a P244w, which has a 
> manufacturer's listed resolution of 1920 x 1080.

> Steve King 

I have the Acer X243W and the P241W, both 1920x1200... 
http://support.acer.com/acerpanam/MONITOR/2010/Acer/X243W/X243Wsp2.shtml 
http://support.acer.com/acerpanam/monitor/0000/Acer/P241/P241sp2.shtml 
These were bought before 16:9 became more common, and 
I'm happy to have them (I traded a new 25" 16:9 Hannspree 
for a used Acer which had better color and tonality, and it 
better-matches [surprise...;-] my other one ;-). 
--DR 

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

"Savageduck" <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote in message 
news:2011042115100044303-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom...
> On 2011-04-21 13:41:01 -0700, Dymphna 
> <Dymphna.4skdca@no-mx.forums.travel.com> said:

>> She was looking on line. From talking to others she may be looking at a
>> gray lens or one that is an import and being sold as an original.

> Then she needs to go to one of the reputable online vendors such as B&H 
> < http://www.bhphotovideo.com > or Adorama < http://www.adorama.com >. 
> Both offer "gray market lenses" with their warranties, which are 
> usually in the $25-$50 range, not $200.
> Stay away from stuff which is seems too good to be true, including bait 
> & switch vendors, They will only bring frustration and anger.

> Ultimately the only valid reason for buying a "gray market lens" in the 
> US market, is non-availability of a legitimate US distributed 
> same/similar lens. The price difference once the third party warranty 
> is added can be the same or higher, therefore no bargain at all.

> For example A Nikkor 18-200mm VRII can be had as a "gray market" lens 
> for $799, or as a "US" lens for $849. If you add any third party 
> warranty the "gray" choice becomes silly.

> Your daughter is being steered towards a bargain which is an illusion.

> -- 
> Regards,

> Savageduck

If there is not much of a price difference on a new lens or camera 
from the dealers above (plus a VERY few others), I will buy the 
US version. If the price difference is noticeable ($50 or more on a 
mid-priced item), I will buy "grey-market" from the dealers above. 
These dealers include their own similar-length warranty coverage. 
I NEVER buy any warranty extension, since the manufacturer's 
or seller's warranty is long enough (and can be doubled using some 
credit cards) and most defects are inherent or appear soon after 
purchase, and with checking the gear out *on receipt*, you get the 
best possible warranty, which is immediate replacement or refund. 
Otherwise, faults are likely to show up only after years of use, and 
these would never be covered by a warranty anyway. Also, with 
lenses, I've not generally been happy with service work. So, I give 
myself a "discount" on the purchase by bypassing all additionally-
priced warranties...;-) 
--DR 

~~~~~~~~~

"J. Clarke" <jclarkeusenet@cox.net> wrote in message 
news:MPG.281c9dc625185894989e10@hamster.jcbsbsdomain.local...
> In article <iosd1e$nhm$1@ruby.cit.cornell.edu>, druether@twcny.rr.com says... 
>> "Savageduck" <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote in message
>> news:2011042115100044303-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom...
>> > On 2011-04-21 13:41:01 -0700, Dymphna 
>> > <Dymphna.4skdca@no-mx.forums.travel.com> said:

>> >> She was looking on line. From talking to others she may be looking at a
>> >> gray lens or one that is an import and being sold as an original.

>> > Then she needs to go to one of the reputable online vendors such as B&H < 
>> > http://www.bhphotovideo.com > or Adorama < http://www.adorama.com >. Both 
>> > offer "gray market lenses" with their warranties, which are usually in the 
>> > $25-$50 range, not $200.
>> > Stay away from stuff which is seems too good to be true, including bait & 
>> > switch vendors, They will only bring frustration and anger.
>> >
>> > Ultimately the only valid reason for buying a "gray market lens" in the US 
>> > market, is non-availability of a legitimate US distributed same/similar 
>> > lens. The price difference once the third party warranty is added can be 
>> > the same or higher, therefore no bargain at all.
>> >
>> > For example A Nikkor 18-200mm VRII can be had as a "gray market" lens for 
>> > $799, or as a "US" lens for $849. If you add any third party warranty the 
>> > "gray" choice becomes silly.
>> >
>> > Your daughter is being steered towards a bargain which is an illusion.
>> > -- 
>> > Regards,
>> >
>> > Savageduck

>> If there is not much of a price difference on a new lens or camera
>> from the dealers above (plus a VERY few others), I will buy the
>> US version. If the price difference is noticeable ($50 or more on a
>> mid-priced item), I will buy "grey-market" from the dealers above.
>> These dealers include their own similar-length warranty coverage.
>> I NEVER buy any warranty extension, since the manufacturer's
>> or seller's warranty is long enough (and can be doubled using some
>> credit cards) and most defects are inherent or appear soon after
>> purchase, and with checking the gear out *on receipt*, you get the
>> best possible warranty, which is immediate replacement or refund.
>> Otherwise, faults are likely to show up only after years of use, and
>> these would never be covered by a warranty anyway. Also, with
>> lenses, I've not generally been happy with service work. So, I give
>> myself a "discount" on the purchase by bypassing all additionally-
>> priced warranties...;-)

> Note that some extended warranties also cover accidental damage--for 15 
> bucks on a 600 buck product one of those is worthwhile insurance 
> regardless of likelihood of failure due to defect.

A very good point, thanks. 
--DR

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

"HerHusband" <unknown@unknown.com> wrote in message 
news:Xns9ECF68DDA2D0herhusband@188.40.43.230... 

>> As you have noted earlier, a monopod does little to 
>> resist horizontal rotation, a big problem for me.

> Holding the very outer tip of the view screen really cuts down on that, 
> at least for me. It steadies both the horizontal rotation and the side to 
> side leaning. Not so much on the front to back leaning, but that's 
> usually not as big of an issue.

Yes - but my jerks can be rather "aggressive" now... :-(

>> http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/digital-photos1.htm

I meant to add that the 215' waterfalls is in the last photo on that 
page - but you probably found it... 

> You have some beautiful photos. 

HRUMPH! Some? SOME!?!? They're ALL beautiful!!! 8^) 

> Sadly, I have just never had an eye for 
> photography. I try to compensate by buying bigger toys, but my daughter 
> takes amazing shots with her little pocket camera. She see's the world in 
> ways I wouldn't think to look at it. Ironically, she has no interest in 
> photography. :)

I'd been a photographer for (too many to admit....;-) decades, and 
prided myself on my ability to see and organize compositions quickly 
and easily - but then along came digital, and (I'm actually happy to say) 
every "Tom, Dick, Harry, Sally, and even Aunt Margaret" became 
good photographers. I've been astonished by the work of people 
who, slowed down by older processes, would not have reached their 
current abilities to make fine photos using digital photography. With 
video, though, digital has helped A LOT, but good work in that 
medium is more difficult. 

>> http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/brace.htm

> Too funny, I already had that link in my collection and never made the 
> connection with you and that link... :)

8^) 

>>> One final bonus, a monopod makes a great walking stick. I used it a
>>> lot when we were hiking up the virgin river in the Zion narrows last
>>> summer. 

>> I would need a VERY strong one...;-)

> I was actually surprised how well it held up. I thought for sure the thin 
> aluminum would bend or the clamped sections would collapse, but I leaned 
> on it heavily several times without incident. Since I was the only 
> person crazy enough to take a $600 camcorder hiking up a river, it also 
> worked well to hold the camera up high in the air as I walked through 
> waist deep water. :)

> If you need strength, I'm pretty sure they make dedicated solid walking 
> sticks with the 1/4x20 threaded mount on top for cameras/camcorders. They 
> usually have a knob that threads on when you don't have a camera 
> attached.

A good idea. But, the monopod would need to sustain 270+ pounds of 
pressure, not always straight down...;-) The other idea seems good for me. 
(Now, if only I could get the stick to actually walk, and also to carry me...8^) 

> By the way, if you need a cheap way to temporarily waterproof your TM700 
> (for storage, not filming) I discovered it fits nicely inside a cleaned 
> out Miracle Whip container. :) I slipped the camera inside a zip lock 
> baggie for secondary protection, then slipped those inside the Miracle 
> Whip jar. I tested it several times at home before leaving to be safe, 
> and it survived a couple of dunks in my backpack before I got brave (i.e. 
> stupid) and just stuck the camera in the air on my monopod. 

I don't like Miracle Whip, but I guess substitutes are available...;-) I 
leave a 46mm-->52mm adapter, Nikkor 52mm multicoated UV filter, 
and a Nikon (HN-3? the one for 35mm lenses) shade on each of the 
two cameras (I gave up on using a 46mm-->58mm adapter with a 
.66X Raynox on the camcorder since even though it is sharp, 
low-distortion, and W I D E, unlike with the HV20, the ghosting is 
horrendous). I also leave a mic on the camera, with a "fuzzy" wind 
shield, so the rig is no longer small, alas...;-) 

>>> Oh, and in a pinch you can use it as a stick to defend yourself
>>> against jealous husbands or approaching bears. :)

>> Um, not the light-weight ones I have - they would
>> just make the beasts madder! ;-)

> Don't beat them with it, poke 'em in the eyes! :) Or throw it at them and 
> run!

8^)

>> I used to have a gyro stabilizer, but it wasn't very practical.

> Sounds cool. I've often wondered about suspending the camera from a 
> helium balloon. :) It would make for some cool "floating" shots, but 
> would probably take a rather large ballon to support the weight. 

Someone around here does shoot aerials that way... He uses a radio 
VF for aiming. 

> They 
> have those robo-copters but I don't know that I'm ready to crash my TM700 
> into the ground from 50' in the air. :)

AGREED!!!! ;-) 

>> I like my Acer 24" 1920x1200 monitors

> What model do you have?

X243w and P241w. Not perfect, but I like them. 

>> See above - if your software and video card supports dual monitors

> Ironically, my video card is the oldest component in my computer. Since 
> I sit at the computer all day, I'm really picky about noise levels so I 
> made sure my video card was fanless. It does what I need, so I haven't 
> had any real reason to upgrade.

> Not to mention, I don't have room for additional monitors. My laser 
> printers and scanner eat up all my desk space.

Put one above the other...;-) But, this can drive you nuts while trying 
to move the mouse across screens (I use a "heavy-looking 3-D" mouse 
pointer, and I also turn on the "concentric-circle" targeting feature for 
showing the mouse position when the "Ctrl" key is hit). 

>> I've had to do that with unsolved wind noise problems, but I prefer
>> ambient sound and I can now deal with wind.

> On the few occasions when I keep the ambient sounds, I will copy sound 
> from earlier or later in the clip and use that to replace someone talking 
> in the background, or a jet flying over. Obviously you can't do that in 
> every situation, but in many cases you won't notice the duplicated sound.

> Anthony Watson
> Mountain Software
> www.mountain-software.com/videos.htm 

I've done that too - and it can work well. 
--DR 

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

"Savageduck" <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote in message 
news:2011042312522051816-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom...
> On 2011-04-23 10:48:12 -0700, "Geoff" <geoff.newbould@hotmaill.co.uk> said:

>> I'm trying to copy photos from computer back to SD card. They 
>> transfer to SD card Ok but my camera does not recognise them.
>> I'd be grateful for any advice.
>> 
>> Thanks,
>> Geoff.

> The question which comes to mind is, "Why would you want to do this in 
> the first place?"

> Having asked that I would ask the following:
> Have you reformatted the SD card?
> Have you changed the naming convention for the image files?
> Did you follow the filing route for your camera on that SD card? or did 
> you just copy to the card?

> ...and finally; Why would you want to do this in the first place?
>
> -- 
> Regards,

> Savageduck

I can think of one reason - some Blu-ray players and HD TVs 
can read memory cards and play the (adjusted...) images on 
the TV as slide shows (including timed display and dissolves 
between images). Nifty, and the images can look VERY GOOD 
seen this way. 
--DR 

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

"Bruce" <docnews2011@gmail.com> wrote in message news:a7s7r61ag0hernp393j78phdlo30p320i4@4ax.com...
> "David Ruether" <druether@twcny.rr.com> wrote:
>>"Savageduck" <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote in message
>>news:2011042312522051816-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom...
>>> On 2011-04-23 10:48:12 -0700, "Geoff" <geoff.newbould@hotmaill.co.uk> 
>>> said:

>>>> I'm trying to copy photos from computer back to SD card. They transfer 
>>>> to SD card Ok but my camera does not recognise them.
>>>> I'd be grateful for any advice.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> Geoff.

>>> The question which comes to mind is, "Why would you want to do this in the 
>>> first place?"
>>>
>>> Having asked that I would ask the following:
>>> Have you reformatted the SD card?
>>> Have you changed the naming convention for the image files?
>>> Did you follow the filing route for your camera on that SD card? or did 
>>> you just copy to the card?
>>>
>>> ...and finally; Why would you want to do this in the first place?

>>I can think of one reason - some Blu-ray players and HD TVs
>>can read memory cards and play the (adjusted...) images on
>>the TV as slide shows (including timed display and dissolves
>>between images). Nifty, and the images can look VERY GOOD
>>seen this way.

> If the OP wanted to display these images on an HD TV screen there is
> no earthly reason why he would want to view them in his camera.

He did say, "I'm trying to copy photos from computer back to SD card", 
presumably after modifying the images to improve them. This is a reasonable 
thing to want to do for some purposes given above. Did anyone say anything 
about viewing them in his camera? 

> "VERY GOOD" is a matter of opinion. Even a "Full HD" screen with 1920
> x 1080 pixels is only displaying a mere 2 MP of your 12+ MP images. 

Have you ever seen this done??? It sure beats most projected 35mm 
slide film in quality (remember the grain, popping-film, dim, off-color, 
uneven-illumination slide projections of "olde"?), and it DOES look 
VERY good! 

> Digital may have caught up with film when it comes to capturing
> images, but when it comes to projecting them, digital is way behind.

Uh-huh..... 8^) 
--DR 

~~~~~~~~~~~

"Bruce" <docnews2011@gmail.com> wrote in message 
news:6i69r6p2idq4a07ghj6i35eslgubuiu8p0@4ax.com...
> "David Ruether" <druether@twcny.rr.com> wrote:
>>"Bruce" <docnews2011@gmail.com> wrote in message 
>>news:a7s7r61ag0hernp393j78phdlo30p320i4@4ax.com...
>>> "David Ruether" <druether@twcny.rr.com> wrote:
>>>>"Savageduck" <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote in message
>>>>news:2011042312522051816-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom...
>>>>> On 2011-04-23 10:48:12 -0700, "Geoff" <geoff.newbould@hotmaill.co.uk>
>>>>> said:

>>>>>> I'm trying to copy photos from computer back to SD card. They 
>>>>>> transfer
>>>>>> to SD card Ok but my camera does not recognise them.
>>>>>> I'd be grateful for any advice.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thanks,
>>>>>> Geoff.

>>>>> The question which comes to mind is, "Why would you want to do this in 
>>>>> the first place?"
>>>>>
>>>>> Having asked that I would ask the following:
>>>>> Have you reformatted the SD card?
>>>>> Have you changed the naming convention for the image files?
>>>>> Did you follow the filing route for your camera on that SD card? or did
>>>>> you just copy to the card?
>>>>>
>>>>> ...and finally; Why would you want to do this in the first place?

>>>>I can think of one reason - some Blu-ray players and HD TVs
>>>>can read memory cards and play the (adjusted...) images on
>>>>the TV as slide shows (including timed display and dissolves
>>>>between images). Nifty, and the images can look VERY GOOD
>>>>seen this way.

>>> If the OP wanted to display these images on an HD TV screen there is
>>> no earthly reason why he would want to view them in his camera.

>>He did say, "I'm trying to copy photos from computer back to SD card",
>>presumably after modifying the images to improve them. This is a reasonable
>>thing to want to do for some purposes given above. Did anyone say anything
>>about viewing them in his camera?

> Well, he did say his camera "doesn't recognise them". 

And we *could* argue that if the camera doesn't recognize them, 
that likely nothing else would either...;-) 

>>> "VERY GOOD" is a matter of opinion. Even a "Full HD" screen with 1920
>>> x 1080 pixels is only displaying a mere 2 MP of your 12+ MP images.

>>Have you ever seen this done??? 

> Yes, I have seen this done, and done it myself, and a 2 MP image of my
> 12 MP files is not of the standard I want. 

>>It sure beats most projected 35mm
>>slide film in quality (remember the grain, popping-film, dim, off-color,
>>uneven-illumination slide projections of "olde"?), and it DOES look
>>VERY good!

> It sure beats the worst of cheap 35mm slide film projected using cheap
> equipment. It is nowhere near as good as the best 35mm slide films
> projected using high quality equipment.

Like the Ektagraphic III and German Kodak projectors that I have, 
with good lenses, and Fuji Velvia and 100, with the projector carefully 
aligned perpendicular to the center of the screen? I'll take the 2-Mb 
image on a good 42" HD TV any day over the problems with projecting 
film and trying to make it look good, thanks...;-)

> As usual, digital gets compared with film's worst standards. I could
> write a book on how not to give slide presentations, and it would
> include plenty of advice about why not to trust digital. ;-) 
--DR


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

On Sat, 23 Apr 2011 18:48:12 +0100, "Geoff"
<geoff.newbould@hotmaill.co.uk> wrote:

>I'm trying to copy photos from computer back to SD card. They transfer to 
>SD card Ok but my camera does not recognise them.
>I'd be grateful for any advice.

Try TVwriter if you have made any changes to the files at all.
http://www.tvwriter.com-about.com/ 

~~~~~~~

> I'm trying to copy photos from computer back to SD card. They transfer 
> to SD card Ok but my camera does not recognise them.
> I'd be grateful for any advice.
>
> Thanks,
> Geoff.

Geoff,

You may want to try my TVwriter program - there is some advice in the 
read-me file.

http://www.satsignal.eu/software/imaging.html#TVwriter

Cheers,
David 

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


"Gary Eickmeier" <geickmei@tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message 
news:DOdtp.1$b31.0@unlimited.newshosting.com...

> Say what you will, Adobe Premiere CS4 has just saved my butt. I had a 
> daunting Spanish translation to put onto a 10 minute commercial video. As 
> you may know, Spanish translations have more words than the original 
> English, and the track was running 14 1/2 minutes long minimum. In the past, 
> I have used Adobe Audition to speed up the sound while retaining pitch, but 
> this was not desireable in this case. I thought I would have to use freeze 
> frames here and there to let the audio catch up to the video, which would 
> have been boring and clumsy.

> So I looked up the Time Remapping feature of Premiere. With this, you can 
> speed up or slow down the video or freeze frame it or go backwards and then 
> forward again with smoothness so perfect you cannot tell you have applied a 
> slomo effect. All I had to do was stretch the video out in several strategic 
> spots by applying some Time Remapping, and the audio and video matched 
> perfectly, and it was seemlessly undetectable.

> I almost feel like I am cheating the client, it was so easy.

> Gary Eickmeier 

Glad it worked! 'Course other programs (like one that begins with a 
"V"...;-), can do all the audio/video time stretch/shrink from within the 
program - but do you still have (or need) mouth-movement/audio-track 
synch? (Maybe a Spanish-speaker could tell the synch. was wrong - but 
if this was voice-over material, synch wouldn't matter...) 
--DR 

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

"Gary Eickmeier" <geickmei@tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message 
news:c5ptp.32590$HX7.13205@unlimited.newshosting.com... 
> "David Ruether" <druether@twcny.rr.com> wrote in message 
> news:ip404v$4b5$1@ruby.cit.cornell.edu...

[...]
>> No need to go out to other programs (like Audition) to do what you 
>> you want...;-)
[...]

> No no - Audition is a sound editing program. In the past, we had used it to 
> speed up the sound of the audio portion of a Spanish track. That was in the 
> Premiere 6.5 days. My post was about Premiere Pro CS4 and Time Remapping to 
> do slomo and freeze frame and such with the video. If we had wanted to speed 
> up the audio, we could have done that from within the program too. 

Ah-HAH! Then, never mind...! ;-)

> So does Vegas have the Time Remapping feature? Something similar to After 
> Effects? Soundbooth? Photoshop? I know it must have a DVD creation program 
> like Encore.

It has video/audio time-stretch/compress capability, plus image reverse/invert, 
and it has extensive audio filters, such as five (5!) different E.Q. types, etc. 
From what I gather, Vegas began as an audio-editing program (it can even 
handle high bit-rate and high sample-rate audio and 32-bit video). Once on the 
timeline, any of the many video filters can be applied to stills. Also, "sub" edits 
can be done elsewhere and dropped onto the main timeline as if they were clips. 
Vegas does have a DVD/Blu-ray creation program included (and the Blu-ray 
part appears able to produce files with higher than usual bit-rates [40Mbps 
average, 48Mbps peak vs. 25Mbps average, 30Mbps peak], and you saw a 
sample of that...;-). 

> It just can't play Windows Media Video files.

> Gary Eickmeier 

I managed to play your 16:9 WMV from your *DVD* made from 1440x1080i 
HDV, and it looked good for what it is (only motion with its interlacing artifacts, 
and motion-smear,presented some problems in the images). It certainly looks 
much better than 1280x720p AVCHD-Lite or MOV from a pocket camera. 
Vegas should have no problems with WMV files, although I have not tried that 
(Vegas handles a very wide range of file types, and to my pleasant surprise, that 
included the new 60p file type even with an older Vegas version, when current 
versions of Adobe and FCP could not yet handle it). 
--DR 

~~~~~~~~~~~

"Gary Eickmeier" <geickmei@tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message 
news:Ayrtp.52342$9_7.32383@unlimited.newshosting.com... 
> "David Ruether" <druether@twcny.rr.com> wrote in message 
> news:ip5f0s$gsf$1@ruby.cit.cornell.edu...

>> I managed to play your 16:9 WMV from your *DVD* made from 1440x1080i
>> HDV, and it looked good for what it is (only motion with its interlacing 
>> artifacts, and motion-smear, presented some problems in the images).

> Hmmm.... there are no "artifacts" due to interlacing, or motion smear in 
> what I see from it....it should look like a good ol' hi def video. Oh well.

> Gary 

I used Windows Media Player with a 1920x1080 (1200) monitor - how 
did you view it? It certainly makes for an easy way to give out HD disks 
cheaply, but many people may not have ideal gear/software to view it 
properly/easily (or know that they can play it - your file/disc did not 
auto-play on my computer when inserted, as all others do). 
--DR 

~~~~~~~~~~~ 

"David Ruether" <druether@twcny.rr.com> wrote in message 
news:ip6gsh$1g3$1@ruby.cit.cornell.edu... 
> "Gary Eickmeier" <geickmei@tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message
> news:Ayrtp.52342$9_7.32383@unlimited.newshosting.com...
>> "David Ruether" <druether@twcny.rr.com> wrote in message 
>> news:ip5f0s$gsf$1@ruby.cit.cornell.edu...

>>> I managed to play your 16:9 WMV from your *DVD* made from 1440x1080i
>>> HDV, and it looked good for what it is (only motion with its interlacing 
>>> artifacts, and motion-smear,presented some problems in the images).

>> Hmmm.... there are no "artifacts" due to interlacing, or motion smear in 
>> what I see from it....it should look like a good ol' hi def video. Oh 
>> well.
>>
>> Gary

> I used Windows Media Player with a 1920x1080 (1200) monitor - how
> did you view it? It certainly makes for an easy way to give out HD disks
> cheaply, but many people may not have ideal gear/software to view it
> properly/easily (or know that they can play it - your file/disc did not
> auto-play on my computer when inserted, as all others do).
> --DR 

Out of curiosity, I just made 17Mbps and 50Mbps WMV 1920x1080-60p 
files (the 17Mbps file would possibly write to DVD) and played them on the 
Vegas timeline and compared them directly with the original TM700 file (both 
played less smoothly than the original, the 50Mbps file looked somewhat 
different but sharp, and the 17Mbps files was quite noticeably less sharp). 
With 50Mbps MP4s, I can't tell the difference between the original MTS and 
the MP4 copy. For doing what you are doing (distributing HD video on 
red-laser DVDs, so long as people know-how-to/can play them), what you are 
doing appears to work well. The alternative of converting the HD to SD for 
DVDs looks less sharp, but that format may be more universally playable. 
--DR 

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

"Gary Eickmeier" <geickmei@tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message 
news:W3Ktp.1352$bc4.754@unlimited.newshosting.com... 
> "David Ruether" <druether@twcny.rr.com> wrote in message 
> news:ip6nt2$abq$1@ruby.cit.cornell.edu...

>> Out of curiosity, I just made 17Mbps and 50Mbps WMV 1920x1080-60p
>> files (the 17Mbps file would possibly write to DVD) and played them on the
>> Vegas timeline and compared them directly with the original TM700 file (both
>> played less smoothly than the original, the 50Mbps file looked somewhat
>> different but sharp, and the 17Mbps files was quite noticeably less sharp). 
>> With 
>> 50Mbps MP4s, I can't tell the difference between the original MTS and the
>> MP4 copy. For doing what you are doing (distributing HD video on red-laser
>> DVDs, so long as people know-how-to/can play them), what you are doing
>> appears to work well. The alternative of converting the HD to SD for DVDs
>> looks less sharp, but that format may be more universally playable.
>> --DR

> Don't count me as an expert on all of the possible digital file types, 
> bitrates, envelopes, framerates, compression schemes, and all the other 
> things they have done to make life easier for us, but I always thought that 
> the two main ones that can be played on ANY computer were Windows Media and 
> Quicktime. This is because you can download free player software for both, 
> and do it on either Mac or PC. These are the formats you would encode to in 
> order to put a video on a web site. Flash is up and coming, but I still 
> don't understand it, so I leave it alone.

Flash has been around quite a while, but limited since it was an Adobe 
product (surprise...;-). 

> Nor do I know precisely when a disc will auto load and when you have to 
> click on [the file on the disc, specifying the program for playing it - not 
> handy, and not the way it normally works...] it. I know you can set it to auto 
> load or not, but there are variations even within a given setting scheme.

> Anyway, glad you could open and view the disc. Hope you can see what I was 
> up against. I didn't want to use lighting on-camera, because it was an art 
> show, and I didn't want to get in people's faces with a bright light. Most 
> of the time I got away with it, but there were some exhiibts that were 
> (unbelievably) not lit at all. In an art show.

> Gary 

There is a filter in Vegas that make brightening dark material easy. This 
is "color curves", and I used this in the video I sent you on the last scene 
(with the goose backlit at sundown). In Adobe, try "levels", although it is 
not so easy to control or as versatile as "color curves". 
--DR 

~~~~~~~~~

"Gary Eickmeier" <geickmei@tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message 
news:No6up.877$7x7.218@unlimited.newshosting.com... 
> "David Ruether" <druether@twcny.rr.com> wrote in message 
> news:ip9d85$otc$1@ruby.cit.cornell.edu...

>> There is a filter in Vegas that make brightening dark material easy. This
>> is "color curves", and I used this in the video I sent you on the last 
>> scene
>> (with the goose backlit at sundown). In Adobe, try "levels", although it 
>> is
>> not so easy to control or as versatile as "color curves".
>> --DR

> Premiere has a lot more than just color curves and levels. With the Matrox 
> addition, some of them work in realtime with no rendering.

> Gary 

That's not the point...;-) It is the *degree* of control available 
for the image tonal scale that "color curves" provides. For instance, 
say the image is too dark. Simple brightness and contrast adjustments 
may help, but likely you would not get an image that has good dark 
tones, light enough mid tones, and also highlights that still retain 
all the original detail (but "color curves" can do this, or even, 
with careful adjustment, bring out a bit more detail in the lighter 
and darker tones without losing whites or blacks). Often it is useful 
to darken just the nearest-black tones a bit to give more "snap" to 
the image. It would take too much time, but I could show you the 
improvement possible with applying just this one filter to the video 
you sent me - and I think you would be surprised that the video shot 
in the darker areas could look as good as video shot elsewhere...;-) 
--DR


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

"Paul Furman" <paul-@-edgehill.net> wrote in message 
news:88ydnXdyuLIzLCTQnZ2dnUVZ5tCdnZ2d@giganews.com...
> Neil Harrington wrote:
>> "Bruce"<docnews2011@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:7s3hr6dqufoesi540dc1isr9448fmguuvo@4ax.com...
>>> On Wed, 27 Apr 2011 13:55:38 -0700 (PDT), RichA<rander3127@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>> Pretty much par for the course for them these days.
>>>> http://dpreview.com/news/1104/11042710nikon50mmf1p8.asp

>>> You get all-new optics with one aspherical element - the latter is a
>>> very unusual feature for a standard (50mm) lens of modest aperture.
>>>
>>> You get an AF-S motor for fast, near silent focusing.

>> And an M/A - M switch.

> AF-S lets you override any time without fumbling with the switch like 
> screw-drive D lenses. The new one with M/A-M lets you put it in M if you 
> don't want it ever attempting AF, the M/A option lets you override.

>>> For all this you pay 50% more than for a 32 year old optical design
>>> which is *far* from telecentric. That sounds like reasonable value
>>> for money.

>> Yep. I'm up for it.

Me, too - it sounds like it may be an outstanding lens for both 
image quality and ease of use, at a low price compared with the 
f1.4G. 

> The Series-E is practically a pancake lens, if your body allows non-cpu 
> lens data and you prefer manual focus. I'm not sure if other versions 
> have better coatings, the series E is purplish. The new one has rounded 
> aperture blades, which is nice. Even the Ai-S f/1.2 with 9 blades has 
> polygonal highlights stopped down. 

The "E" was single-coated, but a metal-barreled compact version 
was multi-coated, and then there were the compact MF "P" with 
CPU, and the AF versions with the longer barrels. All had the same 
optical formula, which was quite good (very low linear distortion, 
flare, and ghosting - and very good sharpness to the corners even 
wide open with full-frame). This new one should be a real "winner", 
at a very moderate price. 
--DR


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

"Gary Eickmeier" <geickmei@tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message 
news:q6tup.4734$Ca3.3325@unlimited.newshosting.com... 
> "David Ruether" <druether@twcny.rr.com> wrote in message 
> news:ipbvpl$pqu$1@ruby.cit.cornell.edu...
>> "Gary Eickmeier" <geickmei@tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message
>> news:No6up.877$7x7.218@unlimited.newshosting.com...

>>> Premiere has a lot more than just color curves and levels. With the 
>>> Matrox addition, some of them work in realtime with no rendering.
>>>
>>> Gary

>> That's not the point...;-) It is the *degree* of control available for 
>> the image tonal scale that "color curves" provides. For instance, 
>> say the image is too dark. Simple brightness and contrast adjustments 
>> may help, but likely you would not get an image that has good dark 
>> tones, light enough mid tones, and also highlights that still retain all the 
>> original detail (but "color curves" can do this, or even, with careful 
>> adjustment, bring out a bit more detail in the lighter/darker tones 
>> without losing blacks/whites). Often it is useful to darken just the 
>> nearest-black tones a bit to give more "snap" to the image. It would
>> take too much time, but I could show you the improvement possible 
>> with applying just this one filter to [some parts of] the video you sent 
>> me - and I think you would be surprised that the video shot in dark 
>> areas could look as good as video shot elsewhere...;-)
>> --DR

> You're right, we are miscommunicating here. I read your post as "my Vegas is 
> better than your Premiere, because it has color curves." Well, of course 
> Premiere has color curves and so many more ways to correct primary and 
> secondary color and exposure that it's hard to investigate them all. In 
> still photography, I prefer Levels, but I am willing to learn more about 
> Curves. I'm thinking the main advantage of Curves is that the black and 
> white anchor points remain steady, while you can manipulate all values in 
> between. 

Yes - leaving the "global" shifts to "contrast/brightness" plus some other 
filters. 

> I did in fact use Curves on several of those dark clips, but I 
> raised the black point a little to get the darkest areas lit up better, 
> which maybe I shouldn't have.

Maybe yours works the same way, but in the "C-C" filter in Vegas, you 
can pull-out/push-in the control bar handle lengths to soften/sharpen the 
tone change, and of course add more control points - and even move 
the end points up/down (if you dare - but this will lower end-point 
contrast! ;-). 'Course, you will also NOT like the effects resulting from 
introducing loops into the curve - unless you are looking for "funny" color 
effects...;-) 

> But anyway, those were just camera clips that I was trying to share. Some 
> good shots, some included as examples of available light shooting problems. 
> If they actually hire me to do this next time, I will bring a large LED 
> camera light, that I can set the color temp on with filters. Too bad cameras 
> need more light than humans do; means we've got to keep pointing bright 
> lights at people or popping flash bulbs in order to make it look good.

> Gary Eickmeier 

I think that all that I saw could be brought up to look like the better 
parts with a little more work, but the HV20 would not be my first choice for 
a "do-all-in-any-light" commercial camera since it does have serious low 
light shooting limitations, but unfortunately, anything that is very 
noticeably much better is far more expensive (surprise... ;-{). One "trick" 
that helps with the HV20 (if you shoot carefully, with little fast motion), 
is to drop the shutter speed to 1/30th. BTW, I hate flash for stills, and 
used it only for fill for my still commercial work. And most video lights 
are just plain T E R R I B L E . . . ! UGH!!!!! I would do just about 
anything to avoid using them! BTW, in the "bad old days" of SD video, the 
Sony VX2000/VX2100 could just about shoot things that were "unreasonable", 
like receptions with only one candle in the middle of each large table, or 
once a dark green car at night in the rain with a single porch-light bulb
at a considerable distance, or kids playing outside in the almost-no- 
light from a couple of reception hall windows - and it still looked good, 
but this is likely hard to do well in HD at a reasonable price, I think. :-{
--DR

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

"PeterN" <peter.new@nospam.verizon.net> wrote in message 
news:4dbabd01$0$12514$8f2e0ebb@news.shared-secrets.com...
> On 4/29/2011 2:01 AM, David J. Littleboy wrote:
>> "Charlie Groh"<charlie@charliegroh.combyte> wrote:
>>> On 4/28/2011 10:35 PM, nospam wrote:
>>>> In article<4dba468e$0$12492$bd467cd0@news.dslextreme.com>, Charlie
>>>> Groh<charlie@charliegroh.combyte> wrote:

>>>>> ...so I sent my trusty (but now third down the line) D70s to the guys in
>>>>> Washington to get set up for Infrared. I actually plan on using it for
>>>>> a "second" while I shoot what amounts to be sports...kids on a football
>>>>> field or in a gym. Just looking for some solid info...should be fun!

I'm not sure that IR would lend itself well to this kind of subject 
matter... Also, if you are inquiring about a suitable video light for 
this, it would probablt need to be of such power that you would 
singe your "subjects"...;-) 

>>>> why would you need infrared for sports, especially outdoors?

>>> ...just a thought...I like the 'negative' look, if I can get something
>>> going that doesn't require gobs of 'puter time in post, people might like
>>> the option...but, really, I'm just looking for sources. Got any?

>> IR is one of the things landscape types used to do. Blues skies get very
>> dark, foliage gets bright; rather a neat effect for folks with pretentions
>> at art. I have no idea of what use it'd be other than that. I had my old 5D
>> converted, took it out a few times*, and haven't done much with it since
>> then. The light meter will often be quite wrong, so you need to chimp the
>> histogram and reshoot.
>>
>> *: http://www.pbase.com/davidjl/image/128239765/large
>> (Click "previous" for a couple of others.)

> It can be effective if not overused.

> http://www.pbase.com/shootin/image/129743999

> -- 
> Peter 

This is a beautiful image. I never did much of value with IR with stills, 
but a friend took to it and has been doing wonderful work. I have 
used IR for video, though -- 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OOe3c5x3VRU&fmt=18 
--DR 

~~~~~~~~~

Thank you.
Many scenes in your video would make beautiful IR stills.

-- 
Peter

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

"Brian" <bclark@es.co.nz> wrote in message 
news:ovanr6tt0lm7crs5paa08b8fgs0tb246do@4ax.com...

> Now that still photo camera's are offering better quality videos
> (better than 640 x 480) are there any still cameras where the zoom
> works while the video camera mode is recording video?

> I'm hoping someone can recommend a camera or knows of a camera with
> active zoom.

> Regards Brian

For a "shirt-pocket" camera, the Panasonic ZS-6 (or 7) shoots 
good-quality stills (and they are 25mm->300mm in 35mm film 
equivalent). It also can shoot AVCHD-Lite or MOV 1280x720p 
video with all the controls still functional while shooting the video. 
Video quality is "acceptable", but not of the highest quality. Many 
other cameras of this and larger form-factor are around that have 
similar functionality. Look up the specs for various Nikon, Canon, 
etc. models. You can also go the other way. The small and fairly 
cheap Panasonic HDC-TM700 can shoot video of superb technical 
quality (although editing it is challenging), and it can also shoot 
very good stills...
--DR

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

"Gary Eickmeier" <geickmei@tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message 
news:1bNup.33209$I02.7745@unlimited.newshosting.com... 
> "Smarty" <nobody@nobody.com> wrote in message 
> news:ipg4g9$khk$1@dont-email.me...
>> On 4/30/2011 12:47 AM, Gary Eickmeier wrote: 

>>> I'm not sure how to say this one without exposing my ignorance
>>> unnecessarily, but I am sometimes without a paddle on bitrates when I am
>>> trying to convert/compress a video into another format. I have several
>>> programs on my computer that can convert video files, and there are so 
>>> many
>>> formats and purposes for these conversions that the program cannot always
>>> give you a ballpark number in the presets.
>>>
>>> For example, I have finished editing a Hi Def video, and I want to 
>>> convert
>>> it to Windows Media File, or Quicktime. I can figure out most everything
>>> except when it asks me what bitrate I want, or it offers me a very low
>>> bitrate in the presets, it hits me cold what a good figure would be. What 
>>> I
>>> want is a simple table for most situations with bitrates for upper and 
>>> lower
>>> quality limits of the various formats. So it might say, Windows Media 
>>> Video,
>>> Hi Def, full frame, you want 2000 to 5000 kbps.
>>>
>>> I realize that I could make my own table after a lot of experimentation, 
>>> but
>>> why don't The Videoguys or someone already have such tables? My Premiere
>>> textbooks aren't real helpful either. Perhaps there is a website that 
>>> lays
>>> this out for me. Anyone know?
>>>
>>> Gary Eickmeier

>> Gary,
>> The information below is copied directly from Wikipedia/Bitrates 
>> description of bitrates for audio and video. Other "rules of thumb" and 
>> ball-park estimates can be found with Googling "typical video bitrates".
>>
>> Video
>>
>> * 16 kbit/s - videophone <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Videophone>
>> quality (minimum necessary for a consumer-acceptable "talking
>> head" picture using various video compression schemes)
>> * 128 - 384 kbit/s - business-oriented videoconferencing
>> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Videoconferencing> quality using
>> video compression
>> * 1.15 Mbit/s max - VCD <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VCD> quality
>> (using MPEG1 <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MPEG-1>
>> compression)^[6] <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bit_rate#cite_note-5>
>> * 3.5 Mbit/s typ - Standard-definition television
>> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard-definition_television>
>> quality (with bit-rate reduction from MPEG-2 compression)
>> * 9.8 Mbit/s max - DVD <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DVD> (using
>> MPEG2 <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MPEG2> compression)^[7]
>> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bit_rate#cite_note-6>
>> * 8 to 15 Mbit/s typ - HDTV
>> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High-definition_television> quality
>> (with bit-rate reduction from MPEG-4 AVC compression)
>> * 19 Mbit/s approximate - HDV <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HDV>
>> 720p (using MPEG2 <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MPEG2>
>> compression)^[8]
>> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bit_rate#cite_note-hdv-info.org-7>
>> * 24 Mbit/s max - AVCHD <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AVCHD> (using
>> MPEG4 AVC <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H.264/MPEG-4_AVC>
>> compression)^[9] <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bit_rate#cite_note-8>
>> * 25 Mbit/s approximate - HDV <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HDV>
>> 1080i (using MPEG2 <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MPEG2>
>> compression)^[8]
>> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bit_rate#cite_note-hdv-info.org-7>
>> * 29.4 Mbit/s max - HD DVD <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HD_DVD>
>> * 40 Mbit/s max - Blu-ray Disc
>> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blu-ray_Disc> (using MPEG2
>> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MPEG2>, AVC
>> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H.264/MPEG-4_AVC> or VC-1
>> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VC-1> compression)^[10]
>> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bit_rate#cite_note-9>

> So now you see what I mean. I don't believe all of this table. DVD I know is 
> between 2 and 4 Mbit/s, not 9.8. And where are the compressed formats, WMV 
> and Quicktime? Again, my example problem was I have made a Hi Def video and 
> I want to convert it to WMV at full frame size, 29.97 fps, high quality. How 
> would you look that up on that table?

> Gary Eickmeier 

[BJ's response: 
"I believe the values Smarty posted are maximum values. The DVD's you
watch may be between 2-4 mb/s, but the maximum value for DVD (which
is mpeg2 ONLY) is 9.8 mb/s. (8 mb/s video, 1.8 mb/s audio, iirc.)

THAT'S PART OF THE DVD STANDARD. If you don't know what the
standards are for the different formats, then you're probably
going to have difficulties to start with. 

Those formats which he posted are *all* standard formats. Once you
start transcoding into wmv (don't know about quicktime, but it's
probably the same), you can create any video size at any bit rate,
so there are *no* standards.

Also remember detail is what really pushes bit-rates. A video of
a stationary white wall can have a lower bit rate than a moving
crowd scene while still showing the same amount of detail. It's
how the compression formats work. So trying to get someone
to tell you what values you should use for your video is probably
useless.

I'd take a few short clips and transcode to the final format you
want using several bit rates and look at the results. You're
the final arbiter on what the final result should look like anyway.
You can make your video look anywhere from a netflix stream to
Blu-Ray. There are those who think a stream from netflix is all
the resolution they'd ever want...

BJ"] 

For Gary, I do as "BJ" suggests, and take a *short* clip of high 
quality and detail (with motion in *part* of it), and I convert it to 
whatever I want to try (within the limits of the maximum data 
rate for the new format, or the lower data rate I want to try out) 
and return it to the timeline in synch with the original. I may try 
several different transcodes, each on a new track in synch with 
the original clip. Once on the timeline, I choose a particularly 
detailed frame in the original to place the cursor on, which then 
(using a 1920x1080 LCD monitor for the video) permits me to 
see the differences when tracks are switched on/off to compare 
their contents with the original material. It can also be useful to 
play the tracks (assuming that their formats play smoothly from 
the timeline - or in the case of Vegas, RAM previews can be 
made to guarantee smooth playback) to see what the clips 
look like in motion. 
--DR

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

"Gary Eickmeier" <geickmei@tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message 
news:m9Kup.53304$HX7.38143@unlimited.newshosting.com... 
> "David Ruether" <druether@twcny.rr.com> wrote in message 
> news:ipegft$j6c$1@ruby.cit.cornell.edu...

>> One "trick" that helps 
>> with the HV20 (if you shoot carefully, with little fast motion, is to drop
>> the shutter speed to 1/30th). BTW, I hate flash for stills, and used it 
>> only for fill for my still commercial work. And most video lights are 
>> just plain
>> T E R R I B L E . . . ! UGH!!!!! I would do just about anything to
>> avoid using them! BTW, in the "bad old days" of SD video, the Sony
>> VX2000/VX2100 could just about shoot things that were "unreasonable",
>> like receptions with only one candle in the middle of each large table, or
>> once a dark green car at night in the rain with a single porch-light bulb
>> at a considerable distance, or kids playing outside in the almost-no-
>> light from a couple of reception hall windows - and it still looked good,
>> but this is likely hard to do well in HD at a reasonable price, I think. 
>> :-{
>> --DR

> Well, even with the 2000 we use lights at the reception of a wedding, 
> because it is the quality of the light as much as the amount that makes for 
> good looking video. It would look amateurish without the lights. During the 
> ceremony, we have to make do with the available light, but most venues are 
> lit on the altar.

Here is where "enough, even if *ARTIFICIAL-looking*, light" differs 
from the opposite "*NATURAL-looking light at ALL costs" side. I 
am in the latter group, and here is where the skilful use of *FILTERS* 
comes in, for restoring less-than-ideal images to ones that are more 
than acceptable...;-) I know a wedding videographer who shoots 
all available light, but never bothers to correct the results. I showed 
him on a clip what could be done, taking the video color and brilliance 
from a muddy purplish-orange to good-looking video. His reaction 
was, "Yuh, but the clients don't notice, and I don't have the time (or 
ability...;-) to do it."

> I really like the new LED lights. The one that I bought (from FloLight 
> Microbeam I think) is the larger one, about 10 inches by 3 inches, and it 
> has a filter slot. It is dimmable, but its sheer size makes most people 
> wince and think it is too bright, so I might get a smaller one too. They 
> just aren't bright enough to light a larger scene, but we shouldn't need 
> more than a little boost.

Rule number one, for me, was NEVER to be intrusive or irritating 
at an event. It is the event that is more important, not the coverage. 
But, YMMV - and a friend is a very successful and liked "director" 
type of wedding photographer...;-) 

> I must investigate your shutter speed trick on the HV20. Didn't really 
> realize. But how could it do a 1/30th shutter during a 1/60th field? Anyway, 
> must try it.

> Another subject is bugging me right now, so I think I will start a new 
> thread. No one else is interested in this one. Wonder what is the most 
> popular editing program.

> Gary Eickmeier 

Why would it matter? You have a heck of a lot of money already 
tied up in an incomplete expensive system that keeps "moving the 
goalpost" in terms of financial commitment, and your work type 
and capabilities (and income from video) may not support it, so 
you are stuck between starting over (and getting off the famous 
"treadmill" - which may be one that is justifiable for *some* pros 
to stay on) and going to something else more modest. Is this the 
reason for asking? Also, video editors range from "Mac-heads" 
for whom nothing less is adequate (the purdy computer cases 
have got to be worth *something*, even if the hardware is the 
same as what is in a PC at a fraction of the price...;-), to "If I 
haven't built it myself (for cheaps), I don't wanna use it!" types, 
with people, for various reasons (not necessarily related to how 
good the software is compared with other software, whether 
cheaper or not) favoring "whatever" software...;-). So, there may 
not really be a meaningful conclusion to be drawn from your 
proposed survey...
Sorry to be so blunt about all this...;-) And, of course, ignore 
my opinions/prejudices/cussedness related to this or anything 
else! 8^)
--DR 

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

"Mxsmanic" <mxsmanic@gmail.com> wrote in message 
news:pj8or6prcav5nvn5lqbsgf3akj7aiu0ra8@4ax.com...

> I'm a bit confused about Sony Vegas.

> I see there's a Pro version for about $600, and a Platinum-something version
> for ten times less. Do both products have the same code base, and if so, what
> does the Pro version provide that the Platinum version doesn't have, in
> exchange for the extra $530?

The various versions of Vegas are described here -- 
http://www.sonycreativesoftware.com/vegassoftware 
and compared here -- 
http://www.sonycreativesoftware.com/vegaspro/compare 
The "little secret" is that for most work, the cheap version works 
just fine for most people (and it is cheap at amazon.com...;-). 
The Platinum 10 "consumer $129.95" version is worth the bit 
extra to get the extra transitions, filters, and sounds. If you are 
doing 3D, subtitles, crawls, sub-edits, multi-camera, etc., the 
Pro 10 version may be worth the money, but otherwise, they 
all look and work like the others. You can see "how-to" videos 
for these programs here -- 
http://www.sonycreativesoftware.com/support/trainingvids.asp?prod=vegaspro 
http://www.sonycreativesoftware.com/support/trainingvids-stroud.asp 
http://www.sonycreativesoftware.com/support/trainingvids.asp?prod=moviestudio 
(the programs also have built-in tutorials). 

> Also, do the Vegas products install rootkits or other squirrely "protection"
> mechanisms? (I haven't trusted Sony software since it put rootkits on its
> CDs.) 

Dunno. I've had no problems that I may associate with anything 
like this... 
--DR

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

"Bruce" <docnews2011@gmail.com> wrote in message 
news:nglnr61nvqi0otqbmu3o2rpdf1rif3op3e@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 28 Apr 2011 16:36:55 -0400, "David Ruether"
> <druether@twcny.rr.com> wrote:

>>The "E" was single-coated, but a metal-barreled compact version
>>was multi-coated, and then there were the compact MF "P" with
>>CPU, and the AF versions with the longer barrels. All had the same
>>optical formula, which was quite good (very low linear distortion,
>>flare, and ghosting - and very good sharpness to the corners even
>>wide open with full-frame). 

> The early Series E lens had inferior coating, but some elements were
> still multi-coated, just not to the full standard of the contemporary
> "Nikon Integrated Coating" or NIC. The later version of the Series E
> lens had full NIC multi-coating. You can tell the later version
> because a knurled AIS-style chrome ring around the lens replaced the
> black moulded plastic ring.

You have added a version of the "E" that I had forgotten about...;-) 
There was also a fully "AIS-style" pancake lens, fully multicoated 
that I once owned - said to have been available only in Japan, or 
some such...;-). 

>>This new one should be a real "winner", at a very moderate price.

> Agree 100%. Despite the price rise, and Rich's whining, this is still
> a very inexpensive lens. 

> However, I don't expect that we will sell many. I predict that we
> will sell more to our staff than to our customers, most of whom rely
> entirely on zoom lenses.

I think you are right. But a lens that surpasses most zooms (and 
likely most 50mm lenses too) for a bargain price should have at 
least SOME appeal among people who care about image quality 
and don't want to pay for and lug around a large and heavy f2.8 
zoom that has only some chance of not being too inferior in 
performance...;-) Also, practically speaking, there has been some 
interest in the much more expensive 50mm f1.4 Nikkor, which is 
likely not much faster in reality, and it likely performs less well at 
f2 and f2.8 than the new f1.8. Lots of guesses, I know, but they 
are based on experience with many lenses, and a look at the f1.8's 
new features. If I weren't out of still photography and into video 
now, I would likely buy this lens..;-)
--DR 

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

"Gary Eickmeier" <geickmei@tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message 
news:HL%up.23901$Yv5.14693@unlimited.newshosting.com... 
> "Smarty" <nobody@nobody.com> wrote in message 
> news:iphk40$fpp$1@dont-email.me...

>> To muddy the water slightly Gary, the ultimate compression choice should 
>> attempt to factor the viewer's environment if at all possible, so the 
>> process which all of us have recommended is correct but not necessarily 
>> complete.
>>
>> Under the best of circumstances, you should actually view the resulting 
>> compressed video on the target player. I was, for example, surprised to 
>> find that video I had compressed to be "artifact-free" when viewed on my 
>> computer revealed rather obvious flaws when played on my grand-daughter's 
>> iPad, a smaller and lower resolution device. I attribute the flaws to the 
>> iPad h.264 decoder, and overcame the problem by using a somewhat higher 
>> bitrate during subsequent encodes.
>>
>> My point in adding this caveat is to caution you that the complexity of 
>> choosing the "correct" bitrate is regrettably complex, and not amenable to 
>> a "cookbook" solution in many cases. Erring on the side of higher bitrates 
>> is often used by people who make their livings as professional 
>> "compressionists" to avoid surprises and unhappy viewers.

> OK, fine, but that again illustrates my point. There certainly would be 
> ballpark figures that we could write down as we learn lessons like you have 
> just described. What we are after is the fact that we don't want to go so 
> LOW that it looks terrible on most players, and we don't want to go so HIGH 
> that it uses up unnecessary bandwidth. Sometimes we can stand a smaller than 
> fullframe size, which would probably affect the bitrate.

> As you suggest, it is probably more a matter of long experience than a cut 
> and dried computation. So let's get together and srart sharing.

> Gary Eickmeier 

OK, as an example I was surprised to find how "off" my sharpening 
was when I went from half-sized video monitoring to full 1920x1080 
monitoring. Doing this also permitted me to make more accurate 
judgements about how good various file transcodes and data rates 
were compared with the original material. So, for 1920x1080-60p 
28 Mbps VBR material from the Panasonic TM700 camcorder, 
it appears to me that a 1920x1080-60p 50 Mbps CBR MP4 file 
can retain all the detail of the original (but possibly with some data 
rate to spare - but I will use this for archiving my edited video...;-), 
but that a Blu-ray disc, even one of 60i 40 Mbps, cannot, due to its 
interlacing. BTW, I think "Smarty" has covered the issues well, 
and shows why there can be no "set in stone" (or even very good) 
guide for what you are looking for, alas. 
--DR 

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

"Mike Kujbida" <mkujbida@gmail.com> wrote in message 
news:ipjbr6$p4g$1@news.albasani.net...
> On 5/1/2011 5:55 AM, Mxsmanic wrote:
>> Mike Kujbida writes:

>>> The boxed version is (almost) always am update or two behind which is
>>> why most users go with the download version.
>>> With Vegas, you gain nothing getting the boxed version.
>>> My recommendation is to go with the download version as that way you're
>>> up and running immediately instead of waiting for the other one to
>>> arrive in the mail.

>> The only payment method allowed for the downloaded version is a credit card,
>> which I don't have (I have PayPal, but they won't accept that). If I bought a
>> boxed version, could I just use the activation code from the boxed version to
>> make the trial version I've already downloaded permanent?

> I think you can but, as I always get the download version, I can't say 
> for sure.
> An email to customer service will answer your question. 

The boxed version has the advantage that the disk is "pressed", and 
therefore more permanent than a home-made disk, and the (free) 
updates for various versions seem to remain on Sony's site "forever" 
(not that you are likely to need the program readable for more than 
a few years...;-). 
--DR 

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

"Superzooms Still Win" <ssw@N0address.org> wrote in message 
news:3kpor61b10re710v64uftmpjlm7a0mdck8@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 30 Apr 2011 13:53:56 -0400, "David Ruether" 
<druether@twcny.rr.com>
> wrote:

>> [...] But a lens that surpasses most zooms (and
>>likely most 50mm lenses too) for a bargain price should have at
>>least SOME appeal among people who care about image quality
>>and don't want to pay for and lug around a large and heavy f2.8
>>zoom that has only some chance of not being too inferior in
>>performance...;-) 

> Some of us lug around f2.8 (and even f2.0) zoom lenses that aren't large
> and heavy. Many that even exceed the performance of all DSLR zoom lenses.

The latter I VERY much doubt. I have a not very compact, or 
"super-zoom" Sony 707, and the lens is very sharp even at f2, 
but the overall image quality can't touch that of even so-so lenses 
on a dSLR. And, have you ever seen what a lens like the Nikkor 
14-24mm can do, let alone several lesser lenses? 

> And need I remind everyone again? Image quality will *ALWAYS* *ALWAYS*
> *ALWAYS* take a distant backseat to IMAGE CONTENT. True pro photographers
> know this. 

Yes, but "true photographers" have included a range from old-time 
photojournalists who cared little about technical quality (to the 
detriment of the effectiveness of their "messages"), to people who 
did care, and who produced very beautiful (and effective) photography. 

> A fact that seems to escape the minds of those who can only
> live-by and spew their tech-head nonsense in newsgroups. But then ...
> that's all they have in their lives, isn't it.

One wonders what is in yours, as a pesistent proponent of using only 
"point-'n'-shoot" cameras for photography. There is a wider world 
out there...;-)
--DR 

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

"Gary Eickmeier" <geickmei@tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message 
news:_n4vp.109211$8X6.50000@unlimited.newshosting.com... 
> "David Ruether" <druether@twcny.rr.com> wrote in message 
> news:ipi9tn$6h8$1@ruby.cit.cornell.edu...

[...]
>> BTW, I think "Smarty" has covered the issues well,
>> and shows why there can be no "set in stone" (or even 
>> very good) guide for what you are looking for, alas.
>> --DR

> You guys know I didn't say set in stone, I said ballpark.
[...]
> Gary Eickmeier 

Well, OK (not that I'm into baseball, but...;-), "ballpark" 
figures for data rates range from less than 1 Mbps in the 
bleachers to more than 300 Mbps at home-plate...8^) 
This should be as useful as giving specific recommendations 
for unknown video conditions...;-) Sorry! 8^), 8^), 8^) 
--DR 

~~~~~~~~ 

"Gary Eickmeier" <geickmei@tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message 
news:Gugvp.14777$8b3.8305@unlimited.newshosting.com... 
> "Smarty" <nobody@nobody.com> wrote in message 
> news:ipjnv6$3vp$1@dont-email.me...
>> On 5/1/2011 9:08 AM, David Ruether wrote:
>>> "Gary Eickmeier"<geickmei@tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message
>>> news:_n4vp.109211$8X6.50000@unlimited.newshosting.com...
>>>> "David Ruether"<druether@twcny.rr.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:ipi9tn$6h8$1@ruby.cit.cornell.edu...

>>> [...]
>>>>> BTW, I think "Smarty" has covered the issues well,
>>>>> and shows why there can be no "set in stone" (or even very good) guide
>>>>> for what you are looking for, alas.
>>>>> --DR

>>>> You guys know I didn't say set in stone, I said ballpark.
>>> [...]
>>>> Gary Eickmeier

>>> Well, OK (not that I'm into baseball, but...;-), "ballpark"
>>> figures for data rates range from less than 1 Mbps in the
>>> bleachers to more than 300 Mbps at home-plate...8^)
>>> This should be as useful as giving specific recommendations
>>> for unknown video conditions...;-) Sorry! 8^), 8^), 8^)
>>> --DR

>> Gary,
>> David really is correct since your expectation for a 'cookbook' style 
>> table of bitrates ignores the artistic nature of the choice, and the 
>> myriad of variables. Even if the various permutations were summarized to a 
>> table, they would, at, best, become a starting point for your own 
>> experimentation. It is true that there are "ballpark" estimates such as 
>> found in Fuinal Cut Pro templates and elsewhere which will stipulate:
>>
>> "512Kbps 640 by 480 for web streaming" but only you can judge what level 
>> of quality / bitrate actually works well for your specific content and 
>> your specific target hardware.
>>
>> You COULD download a variety of clips in the media format you and your 
>> clients most commonly use, and look at their bitrates (size in MB divided 
>> by clip duration in seconds) to form your own basis of reference. YouTube, 
>> Vimio, and many other sources can get you started.
>>
>> You will also note that there is a 'plateau' in mpeg encoding generally, 
>> where the improvements become comparatively smaller for continued 
>> increases in bitrates. Thus, the leap from 5 to 15 Mbits/sec will, in 
>> general, look much more apparent than the same sized leap from 15 to 25 
>> Mbits/sec.

> OK, I'll stop asking about this one for now and start doing a few 
> experiments for my own benefit and amusement. If I learn something useful, 
> I will share it.

> At least I got you two to agree on something.

> Gary 

8^), 8^), 8^) 
--DR 

~~~~~~~~~

"Smarty" wrote:
On 5/1/2011 8:00 PM, Gary Eickmeier wrote:
> "David Ruether"<druether@twcny.rr.com> wrote in message
> news:ipkjt4$ld7$1@ruby.cit.cornell.edu...
>> "Gary Eickmeier"<geickmei@tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message
>> news:Gugvp.14777$8b3.8305@unlimited.newshosting.com...

>>> At least I got you two to agree on something.
>>>
>>> Gary

>> 8^), 8^), 8^)
>> --DR 

> Eight Up David!
>
> Gary

David brings a wealth of very useful knowledge to this forum, and I once 
again apologize if my manners or posts have been hurtful. Such has never 
been my intention. I am glad both of us have been able to offer opinions 
here, and look forward to continuing to do so as time, health, and 
continuing interest in this area allow. I entirely share in the desire 
to keep this forum positive, informative, and without finger-pointing.

Thanks Gary for providing an opportunity for some reconciliation. 

~~~~~~~ 


> David brings a wealth of very useful knowledge to this forum, and I once 
> again apologize if my manners or posts have been hurtful. Such has never 
> been my intention. I am glad both of us have been able to offer opinions 
> here, and look forward to continuing to do so as time, health, and 
> continuing interest in this area allow. I entirely share in the desire to 
> keep this forum positive, informative, and without finger-pointing.
>
> Thanks Gary for providing an opportunity for some reconciliation.

Liar! 8^

Gary 

~~~~~~~

[Posted by "Smarty"]

Gary,

I have made numerous efforts to help you on this forum, most recently on 
this very thread. A very simple "thank you" goes a hell of a lot further 
than a "Liar" reply.

8^

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

"Gary Eickmeier" <geickmei@tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message 
news:0URvp.75407$1R7.51109@unlimited.newshosting.com...

> Smarty,

> The 8^ is David's preferred symbol for a smiley, which indicates a joke. I 
> didn't think you would get it without that. Your bending over backwards 
> effort at reconciliation was just too juicy to resist.

> Gary 

Hmmm..., where is the rest of it, as in ";-)" for the complete smiley? 
One is used to indicate a somewhat "lighter" or a "tongue-in-cheek" 
comment - or, for a less subtle joke or comment or for "hearty and 
good-spirited agreement", there is this: "8^)". Maybe the confusion 
comes from my constructing the final part of the "smiley" using the 
second part of parentheses (as here ;-). (Or, here... 8^) Maybe the 
confusion in their use comes from not knowing how to interpret them 
(usually contexturally, but ";-)" and ":-)" have obvious expressive 
differences, as do others...) - but even misinterpretation is often 
preferable to thinking comments are always "dead serious" when 
there is room for cheery disagreement, laughter, different opinions, 
etc. This is a *REC* NG after all, although it is a good place to 
discuss and learn about video, too ;^). 

And, BTW, I did appreciate "Smarty's" comments. 

Not to get too personal, but you and I have had misunderstandings 
between us resulting from our different "editing-program-centricities" 
among other things. For me, I've had to learn communication skills 
and "modes" for overcoming aspects of my Asperger's syndrome... 
Still a-larn-nin', though...! ;^)

--DR 

~~~~~~~~~

[To Gary in email.] 

Hi-- 

I thought I would add to you off-line that this -- 

"Not to get too personal, but you and I have had misunderstandings
between us resulting from our different "editing-program-centricities"
among other things. For me, I've had to learn communication skills
and "modes" for overcoming aspects of my Asperger's syndrome...
Still a-larn-nin', though...! ;^)" 

was meant mainly for "Smarty", although it was necessary to use it 
in a response to you so as not to trigger yet another "exchange" with 
him. I hope you don't mind, and that he "reads" it as I intended it...8^) 

--DR 

~~~~~~~~~~

"Gary Eickmeier" <geickmei@tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message 
news:VY3wp.7186$ZN1.5623@unlimited.newshosting.com... 
> "David Ruether" <druether@twcny.rr.com> wrote in message 
> news:ippbc4$18c$1@ruby.cit.cornell.edu...
>> "Gary Eickmeier" <geickmei@tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message
>> news:0URvp.75407$1R7.51109@unlimited.newshosting.com...

>>> Smarty,
>>>
>>> The 8^ is David's preferred symbol for a smiley, which indicates a joke. 
>>> I didn't think you would get it without that. Your bending over backwards 
>>> effort at reconciliation was just too juicy to resist.
>>>
>>> Gary

>> Hmmm..., where is the rest of it, as in ";-)" for the complete smiley?
>> One is used to indicate a somewhat "lighter" or a "tongue-in-cheek"
>> comment - or, for a less subtle joke or comment or for "hearty and
>> good-spirited agreement", there is this: "8^)". Maybe the confusion
>> comes from my constructing the final part of the "smiley" using the
>> second part of parentheses (as here ;-). (Or, here... 8^) Maybe the
>> confusion in their use comes from not knowing how to interpret them
>> (usually contexturally, but ";-)" and ":-)" have obvious expressive
>> differences, as do others...) - but even misinterpretation is often
>> preferable to thinking comments are always "dead serious" when
>> there is room for cheery disagreement, laughter, different opinions,
>> etc. This is a *REC* NG after all, although it is a good place to
>> discuss and learn about video, too ;-).
>>
>> And, BTW, I did appreciate "Smarty's" comments.
>>
>> Not to get too personal, but you and I have had misunderstandings
>> between us resulting from our different "editing-program-centricities"
>> among other things. For me, I've had to learn communication skills
>> and "modes" for overcoming aspects of my Asperger's syndrome...
>> Still a-larn-nin', though...! ;^)
>>
>> --DR

> David & Smarty,

> My main error was assuming too much familiarity before springing my dry 
> sense of humor on Smarty. If you don't know someone that well, shouldn't be 
> sarcastic.

> On the smileys, I really did miss the part about the ^). I was reading it as 
> a parenthesis! Maybe I have Aspergers too! Anyway, Shalom.

> Gary 

8^) !!!
It is easy with text-only communication to "misread" a writer's 
intent and meaning - which is why I began years ago to liberally 
add "smileys" to what I wrote in an attempt to keep things light 
in exchanges. It doesn't always work, alas...;-) 
--DR


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

"tony cooper" <tony_cooper213@earthlink.net> wrote in message 
news:fr3sr6p5a497kiptnfe7u1jgo9vhufieob@4ax.com...

[...]
> The table of mostly Nikons was
> brought by a friend of Mike's, but about an hour after he got there he
> turned to Mike and said something like "I can't take this. Nobody
> wants film bodies anymore. Give me $x and I'll sell you the entire
> table." Mike took him up on the offer and the Nikon guy left. Mike
> didn't tell me the amount. There were a lot more bodies and lenses on
> that table than my shot shows.
[...]

There appears to be a new market for old (non-AF, non-I/S,non-G) 
Nikkors since they can be fitted (with adapters) to a 4/3rds format 
(serious...;-) Panasonic video camera, giving VERY sharp results 
with the best lenses. I've parted with several Nikkors for this use 
to a friend and the video has looked great. I have more FS here -- 
<http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/fs.htm> 
For choosing the best Nikkors for this purpose, this may be useful -- 
<http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/slemn.html> 
(Other-brand MF lenses can be adapted, and if there are other 
video-dedicated 4/3rds cameras, these could also be used...) 
--DR


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

"Ptas" <panskajazdaAA@pocztaBB.onetCC.pl> wrote in message 
news:iprgo0$sjp$1@news.onet.pl...
> Uzytkownik "Mxsmanic" <mxsmanic@gmail.com> napisal w wiadomosci 
> news:pj8or6prcav5nvn5lqbsgf3akj7aiu0ra8@4ax.com...

>> I'm a bit confused about Sony Vegas.
>>
>> I see there's a Pro version for about $600, and a Platinum-something 
>> version
>> for ten times less. Do both products have the same code base, and if so, 
>> what
>> does the Pro version provide that the Platinum version doesn't have, in
>> exchange for the extra $530?
>>
>> Also, do the Vegas products install rootkits or other squirrely 
>> "protection"
>> mechanisms? (I haven't trusted Sony software since it put rootkits on its
>> CDs.)

> I have tested both using files coming from Canon 5Dkm2 (without conversion). 
> Platinum does not support those files well and programme crashes after 
> adding 15-20 short clips. Pro version works very well, simple i3 is enough, 
> I faced no problems.

> I have asked Sony for support and explanation. After few emails Sony 
> explained that Platinum is not based on the same code as Pro. After 30 day 
> testing of both products it looks very like it. for me no way to buy cheap 
> this nice software .....

Thanks for the information. While working with Platinum 10 on a friend's 
computer, I did find it quite useable with more "normal" source material, 
but even with that, the track ordering and naming needs to be reset in 
order to work as easily and in as straight-forward a way as with the 
"Pro" version - but for most, editing most material, this may be a minor 
inconvenience compared with the huge difference in price between the 
two programs. The Pro version does seem to handle almost any format 
easily (I was able to edit the new 60p TM700 footage on an older version 
of Vegas Pro while Adobe and FCP users were still waiting for updates 
for their programes to do the same thing - and the now one-version-older 
Vegas 9 can edit 4096x4096 RED video, which I may find useful for 
"roaming" around inside of high-resolution stills while maintaining full 
1920x1080-60p output characteristics). 
--DR 

~~~~~~~~~~

"Ptas" <panskajazdaAA@pocztaBB.onetCC.pl> wrote in message 
news:iprnsq$p2m$1@news.onet.pl...
> Użytkownik "David Ruether" <druether@twcny.rr.com> napisał w wiadomo¶ci 
> news:iprjqf$jp3$1@ruby.cit.cornell.edu...

>> Thanks for the information. While working with Platinum 10 on a friend's
>> computer, I did find it quite useable with more "normal" source material,
>> but even with that, the track ordering and naming needs to be reset in
>> order to work as easily and in as straight-forward a way as with the
>> "Pro" version - but for most, editing most material, this may be a minor
>> inconvenience compared with the huge difference in price between the
>> two programs. The Pro version does seem to handle almost any format
>> easily (I was able to edit the new 60p TM700 footage on an older version
>> of Vegas Pro while Adobe and FCP users were still waiting for updates
>> for their programes to do the same thing - and the now one-version-older
>> Vegas 9 can edit 4096x4096 RED video, which I may find useful for
>> "roaming" around inside of high-resolution stills while maintaining full
>> 1920x1080-60p output characteristics).
>> --DR

> Just found comments from Sony:

> <quote>
> The Vegas Movie Studio HD Platinum 10 is a native 32-bit application, which 
> means that it can only access up to 2GB of memory. Vegas Pro 10 is a native 
> 64-bit application, which means that it can access up to 8TB of memory. This 
> is why are will likely see better HD file handling within the Vegas Pro 10 
> program. I understand if you do not wish to upgrade at this time. However if 
> you don't upgrade, the best option would be to try splitting your video into 
> sections, editing each section, then importing the edited sections into 
> Vegas Movie Studio HD Platinum 10 to render the project as one file.
> <unquote>

> By the way have tested both on very average desktop i3, 4GB RAM, GForce 240. 
> For me the only way is to buy Pro version .....

> Ptas

Likely true, given what you pointed out earlier, and the "PITA" aspect of 
editing sections and combining them later (although I used to need to do that 
with even Mini-DV in the very early days, and more recently, with different 
file types on the timeline at the same time which caused problems). As for 
the above, I think 64-bit Pro must run on a 64-bit OS, but in practice I saw 
little difference in the two Pro versions (which are sold together) except 
that I can make longer RAM previews in the 64-bit version where I can 
assign 3-4 gigs of RAM for previewing with 6 gigs in the computer (this is 
very useful). If not for this, I would return to 32-bit XP and get back some 
programs I lost with Win 7 64-bit - and not need to deal with a dual-boot 
system or a virtual XP within Win 7 to use the "lost" programs. 
--DR 






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

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





[[[ABOVE IS ON ALL BACK-UPS -- BELOW IS ONLY ON "F" DESKTOP]]]
[[[ABOVE IS ON ALL BACK-UPS -- BELOW IS ONLY ON "F" DESKTOP]]]
[[[ABOVE IS ON ALL BACK-UPS -- BELOW IS ONLY ON "F" DESKTOP]]]




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

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






"les" <idea@localnet.com> wrote in message
news:N92dnblNd7k4rl_QnZ2dnUVZ_tWdnZ2d@posted.localnet...

> This is a loaded question, but I need to get a 42 " (or so) screen, and
> wanted a sharp, accurate HD image. I'll possibly need a PC input,
> a composite and obviously HDMI. I 'll also use it for HD editing.
> Perhaps mistakenly, I assume most TV studios have favored some model
> for their control rooms, and I was wondering if anyone knows what seems
> to be the favorite workhorse.
> thanks......Les

What "ushere" said, to which I would add that you want to be sure
that the TV has a defeatable auto black level (or "dynamic blacks",
if it has that feature). Otherwise, you cannot use the TV picture as
much of a reference. You will likely find that "out of the box", the
menu set-up is not very good for monitoring use, and it will take
some time to get the TV as neutral as possible by adjusting contrast,
brightness, backlight, sharpness, hue, saturation, color-balance (if
possible without going into service menus), TV placement relative
to light sources, room-lighting, etc. There used to be professionals
who provided this service (at rather high prices), but I haven't
heard much about them for a while. Patience, learning the
subtleties of what you are seeing while making adjustments, using
different video sources and many TV channels, and keeping records
of your changes may lead you toward success in this effort over
time (keeping in mind that there are inherent shortcomings in the
picture characteristics that cannot be compensated for no matter
how hard one tries). One guide, though, is becoming critical of
what is being demonstrated in showrooms. You may learn to
avoid some brands that look "splashy" there, but which may be
harder to tame at home. Also, if you look at white text on a
black background, it is surprising how TVs vary showing this,
with oversharpening "halos", stairstepping on diagonals and
curves, soft "ghosting" on edges, repeated edges, etc. The only
TV I've ever seen that passes this check perfectly is mine (with
text that looks like it was cut with a very sharp mat knife), but
while I also like it for many other reasons, I rarely recommend
it...;-) BTW, most TVs come with far more inputs than you
mentioned (maybe two HDMI, two DVI, a VGA, a couple of RGBs, 
an "S", and an "RCA" plus RCAs for right and left audio (it can 
get messy back there...! ;-).
--DR

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

"Gary Eickmeier" <geickmei@tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message 
news:e5nwp.69893$xh5.2061@unlimited.newshosting.com... 
> "Smarty" <nobody@nobody.com> wrote in message 
> news:ipsif1$72r$1@dont-email.me...

>> No problem remaining in my mind Gary, and my thanks to David for replying 
>> as well. We are all after the same outcome here, to help others, to 
>> inform, and to share what knowledge we have in a constructive way, 
>> hopefully avoiding offending or disrespecting one another in the process.
>>
>> It is very difficult using keyboards as a communication device to convey 
>> sarcasm, humor, outrage, or most other forms of human emotive expressions, 
>> so I guess all of us may have misinterpreted intentions and motives from 
>> time to time. I certainly have.
>>
>> In a sincere spirit of goodwill and friendship, I hope we will all move 
>> forward with this underlying theme and attitude, and continue to provide 
>> helpful assistance to those seeking advice.

> like, 8^, and :)

> Gary 

While my use of emoticons is generally far from exact and well 
thought-out, I do try to make them not incomplete, as in, where's 
the mouth in the first, and the nose in the second (although the 
second is, as is, a standard emoticon...;-). But, you *can* use 
your imagination in making up your own emoticons! 
/<o^ }\
\<o^ }/
Although differences in letter widths will probably spoil the 
above (and others are more clever with these than I am...;^).
--DR 

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

"Keith W. Blackwell" <keith.blackwell@homemail.com> wrote in message 
news:ipuivh$o0m$1@usenet01.boi.hp.com...
> Ptas <panskajazdaAA@pocztabb.onetcc.pl> wrote:

>> My experience was much better. Loaded just two video lines but both fullHD, 
>> 25fps mov from Canon 5Dmk2. About 50 short takes per line, most of takes 
>> with color correction, gamma modified, some transparency added, etc. One 
>> audio line.
>> 
>> Was quite surpeised it worked quite smooth, preview was very acceptable, 
>> almost smooth. No crashes of Vegas at all. Rendering was working fine.

> I'm going to give it another try, this time getting everything sync'ed up
> first. Who knows -- maybe Sony will have some patch or update or something
> that fixes the problem. 
> -- 
> Keith W. Blackwell

Since a bug fix appeared for Vegas Pro 8, I've had *NO* crashes with 
either Pro 8 or Pro 9 *at all*, *ever*, **UNLESS** I mixed file types 
on the same timeline (using XP with 32-bit Vegas Pro 8 and Win 7 with 
64-bit Vegas Pro 9). So, the problems with crashes *may* be related 
to mixing file types...;-) 
--DR 

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

"Gary Eickmeier" <geickmei@tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message 
news:bHRwp.89451$9_7.34734@unlimited.newshosting.com... 
> "David Ruether" <druether@twcny.rr.com> wrote in message 
> news:ipuh0p$2q9$1@ruby.cit.cornell.edu...
>> "Gary Eickmeier" <geickmei@tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message
>> news:e5nwp.69893$xh5.2061@unlimited.newshosting.com...

>>> like, 8^, and :)
>>>
>>> Gary

>> While my use of emoticons is generally far from exact and well
>> thought-out, I do try to make them not incomplete, as in, where's
>> the mouth in the first, and the nose in the second (although the
>> second is, as is, a standard emoticon...;-). But, you *can* use
>> your imagination in making up your own emoticons!
>> /<o^ }\
>> \<o^ }/
>> Although differences in letter widths will probably spoil the
>> above (but others are more clever with these than I am...;^).
>> --DR

> THE EMOTICON WARS!

> ******************
> WARNING: HUMOR - take no offense, assign no blame, do not categorize, plonk, 
> or issue a Fatwah

> What follows, for the benefit of all those who may be now or in the future 
> humor deprived or sarcasm challenged, is intended as pure humor; that is, a 
> statement which should not be taken literally or interpreted as the writer's 
> feelings toward any individual or group.

> This warning is, in fact, itself an attempt at humor, based on Mr. 
> Eickmeier's past history of getting his ass in trouble whenever and wherever 
> he attempts some kind of left handed joke.... whoops.....no offense to the 
> left handed out there.....omigod....
> *****************************

> Reminds me (chuckle) of the sign seen on a co-worker's desk: "Have a nice 
> day, asshole..."

> This in the heyday of all of the "Have a nice day" and "Baby aboard" and "My 
> child is an honor student" signs you began to see on cars, trucks, whatever. 
> Another one that I can't help but laugh whenever I think about it - remember 
> the signs that started appearing on all work trucks from major corporations 
> that said what number to call if the driver was not obeying all traffic 
> laws? I was driving behind a privately owned dump truck in San Francisco one 
> day when I spied his: "To report my driving, dial 1-800-E-A-T-S-H-I-T."

> **************************
> END OF HUMOR, PLEASE INSERT SMILEY
> **************************

> Whew. I'm glad that's over. Couldn't resist. I know you are just making 
> tongue-in-cheek humor about the smileys David. Just messing with you. 
> Smarty - I appreciate all of the help you both give daily. Keep smiling, and 
> you and David kiss and make up.

> 8^)

> Have I got it now?

> Gary 

Ummmm....., more or less...;-) BTW, I always found those 
"Caution - Baby On Board" signs often seen in car windows 
(which block the driver's view out of the car at least some...) 
rather stupid, as if, without the sign, I as a driver would 
carelessly (or even intentionally) crash into their car! The sign 
is totally useless (or worse - and maybe it is even challenging 
me to collide with their car! ;-). Who knows...? 8^)
--DR 

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

"Bruce" <docnews2011@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:m45as6pdhko4a9ru6dj8pj8g6rtkqtv3kq@4ax.com...
> "mmyvusenet" <usenetmmyv@invalid.invalid> wrote:

>>I recently took this photo from an interesting view:
>>
>>http://www.flickr.com/photos/mmyv/5685552366/
>>
>>Thanks for your comment.

> What is the subject of the photo?

??? "Park of the Wall - Historical Center of Lima" (as
seen with the photo) kinda covers it, I think. The photo
is a rather good location photo, I also think...;-)
--DR


~~~~~~~~

"shiva das" <shiv@nataraja.invalid> wrote in message 
news:shiv-2E7543.11581607052011@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com...
> In article <m45as6pdhko4a9ru6dj8pj8g6rtkqtv3kq@4ax.com>,
> Bruce <docnews2011@gmail.com> wrote: 
>> "mmyvusenet" <usenetmmyv@invalid.invalid> wrote:

>> >I recently took this photo from an interesting view:
>> >
>> >http://www.flickr.com/photos/mmyv/5685552366/
>> >
>> >Thanks for your comment.

>> What is the subject of the photo?

> Good diagonal composition, good use of the bottom corners. 
> Edges and corners are at least as important as the center of 
> an image. 

I agree. All that is in a photograph (and the relationships 
between the parts) are important, not just a supposed "subject"... 
--DR 

~~~~~~~~

"PeterN" <peter.new@nospam.verizon.net> wrote in message 
news:4dc57af9$0$12453$8f2e0ebb@news.shared-secrets.com...
> On 5/7/2011 12:06 PM, David Ruether wrote:
>> "shiva das"<shiv@nataraja.invalid> wrote in message
>> news:shiv-2E7543.11581607052011@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com...
>>> In article<m45as6pdhko4a9ru6dj8pj8g6rtkqtv3kq@4ax.com>,
>>> Bruce<docnews2011@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> "mmyvusenet"<usenetmmyv@invalid.invalid> wrote:

>>>>> I recently took this photo from an interesting view:
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.flickr.com/photos/mmyv/5685552366/
>>>>>
>>>>> Thanks for your comment.

>>>> What is the subject of the photo?

>>> Good diagonal composition, good use of the bottom corners.
>>> Edges and corners are at least as important as the center of
>>> an image.

>> I agree. All that is in a photograph (and the relationships
>> between the parts) are important, not just a supposed "subject"...
>> --DR

> Sometimes the concept of "subject" is used as substitute for interesting.
> Certainly color field paintings lack a subject.

This can be disputed, since the color fields themselves 
(and their interactions) *are* the subject, as with Rothko, 
Motherwell, etc...;-)

> Few Jackson Pollock images have a subject. 

This, too, can be disputed, since the whole can easily be taken 
as "subject"...;-) 

> Having said that I can think 
> of some abstract expressionist images that indeed have an almost 
> traditional subject.

> e.g. 
> <http://tinyurl.com/3rfb3r4>

This is a *very* interesting image, but in *all* of its parts, the 
assumed "backgrounds" are as interesting as the supposed 
"subjects", and they are an integral part of the whole of the 
image. *All* of its parts are necessary to complete this image. 
If the "heads" were cut out and placed individually on white 
backgrounds, most of the power of the combination would 
be lost. 

> In my opinion the subject photo is a simple flat snapshot that says: 
> this is what <fill in the blank> looks like. It it's probably an 
> accurate portrayal of the area, but the image lacks interest to me. 
> -- 
> Peter 

Tastes can vary, but ALL such images are "flat", and what is 
done within the entire frame is what counts (which is why I 
hate soft photo edges - they destroy the graphics within 
relative to the frame). IMNSHO, the OP's photo is a rather 
good one, if not one I would likely spend money on to have 
a copy of for hanging on my wall...;-) This one is a different 
matter, however, since I like <http://tinyurl.com/3rfb3r4> a 
lot. 
--DR 

~~~~~~~~~~~

"Bruce" <docnews2011@gmail.com> wrote in message 
news:cpbbs69ftagu6i2a1b45dl1t19t9fe4lac@4ax.com...
> "David Ruether" <druether@twcny.rr.com> wrote:
>>"shiva das" <shiv@nataraja.invalid> wrote in message
>>news:shiv-2E7543.11581607052011@5ad64b5e.bb.sky.com...
>>> In article <m45as6pdhko4a9ru6dj8pj8g6rtkqtv3kq@4ax.com>,
>>> Bruce <docnews2011@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> "mmyvusenet" <usenetmmyv@invalid.invalid> wrote:

>>>> >I recently took this photo from an interesting view:
>>>> >
>>>> >http://www.flickr.com/photos/mmyv/5685552366/
>>>> >
>>>> >Thanks for your comment.

>>>> What is the subject of the photo?

>>> Good diagonal composition, good use of the bottom corners.
>>> Edges and corners are at least as important as the center of
>>> an image.

>>I agree. All that is in a photograph (and the relationships
>>between the parts) are important, not just a supposed "subject"...

> Who mentioned the centre of the image? Since when was the subject
> defined as "the centre of the image"?

Huh? I don't think anyone did... It was just pointed out that all 
parts of (and the relationships between the parts of) an image 
(which includes center, edges, and corners, not just some 
supposed "subject", which may or may not be near the middle) 
are important. Too often, I think, people see in images things 
they regard as "the subject" while neglecting "context" which 
may be an equally important part of the whole...;-) 
--DR 

~~~~~~~~

"Bruce" <docnews2011@gmail.com> wrote in message 
news:jkmbs6dj2s86bj9hkmulfcugkh99kc2gh4@4ax.com...
> "David Ruether" <druether@twcny.rr.com> wrote:
>>"Bruce" <docnews2011@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>news:cpbbs69ftagu6i2a1b45dl1t19t9fe4lac@4ax.com...

>>> Who mentioned the centre of the image? Since when was the subject
>>> defined as "the centre of the image"?

>>Huh? I don't think anyone did... 

> I think it was 'shiva das'.

"Shiva das" wrote,"Good diagonal composition, good use of the 
bottom corners. Edges and corners are at least as important as 
the center of an image." I don't see anything there about defining 
the center of the image as "the subject"...

>>It was just pointed out that all
>>parts of (and the relationships between the parts of) an image
>>(which includes center, edges, and corners, not just some
>>supposed "subject", which may or may not be near the middle)
>>are important. Too often, I think, people see in images things
>>they regard as "the subject" while neglecting "context" which
>>may be an equally important part of the whole...;-)

> Well then, David, the quality of this multiple award winning image
> cannot possibly be in any doubt, can it.

That does not follow from anything that has been written in this 
thread to date... 
--DR

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

"PeterN" <peter.new@nospam.verizon.net> wrote in message 
news:4dc5f249$0$12522$8f2e0ebb@news.shared-secrets.com...

[...]

> I not only agree that the image itself can be the subject, I think it 
> should be the subject. However, in my comments above I was referring to a 
> "traditional" type subject. One judge at our camera club, when viewing 
> any landscape, can be reliably counted on to say something like, "it 
> needs a person in a red canoe in the stream." He like too many others, 
> cannot understand the abstract as a complete image. When a competition 
> judge says something like: "Interesting, but I don't know what it is,' I 
> know the image will not score well.

I've never had much patience with camera-club aesthetics and 
judgings - they tend to insure the continuance of the premacy of 
the uninspiring and uninspired...;-) 

[...]
> Hopefully, I will have some sort of website where I can show my personal 
> preferences, which tend towards the abstract. My entries in the shoot in 
> this month will contain slightly different views of what one sees at a 
> museum. None will be straight shots of someone Else's art. Please give 
> me your honest comments. 
> -- 
> Peter 

I used to teach photography at a well-known small college. 
The hardest thing to accomplish was getting the students past 
preconceptions of what was "good" (which was generally 
work that resembled already "recognized-as-good" work, 
styles, and approaches). My solution was to insist that all 
students bring in EVERY piece of exposed paper to show 
for class discussion (we worked with 5x7 no.2 double-weight 
glossy paper dried matte to level one aspect...). Often, even 
with images that were far from successful in any way, there 
was much of interest to see in them, and to learn from them. 

BTW, it's easy to prattle on about "art", so here is some of 
mine - and you are quite free to disagree about its worth...! ;-) 
<http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/aht1.html>
<http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/aht2.html>
<http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/aht3.html>
<http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/aht4.html>
<http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/sunplant1.html>
<http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/digital-photos1.htm>
<http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/digital-photos2.htm>
<http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/digital-photos3.htm>
<http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/digital-photos4.htm>
<http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/digital-photos5.htm>
<http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/digital-photos6.htm>
<http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/digital-photos7.htm>
<http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/digital-photos8.htm>
<http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/digital-photos9.htm>
<http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/digital-photos10.htm>
--DR 

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

"tony cooper" <tony_cooper213@earthlink.net> wrote in message 
news:gdccs6lnhcb2m3mjofccouooi77vuupkp5@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 8 May 2011 00:28:01 -0400, "David Ruether"
> <druether@twcny.rr.com> wrote:

>>BTW, it's easy to prattle on about "art", so here is some of
>>mine - and you are quite free to disagree about its worth...! ;-)
>> <http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/aht1.html>
>> <http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/aht2.html>
>> <http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/aht3.html>
>> <http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/aht4.html>
>> <http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/sunplant1.html>
>> <http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/digital-photos1.htm>
>> <http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/digital-photos2.htm>
>> <http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/digital-photos3.htm>
>> <http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/digital-photos4.htm>
>> <http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/digital-photos5.htm>
>> <http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/digital-photos6.htm>
>> <http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/digital-photos7.htm>
>> <http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/digital-photos8.htm>
>> <http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/digital-photos9.htm>
>> <http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/digital-photos10.htm>
>>--DR

> There are a lot of photographs there, so I'll take my time and go
> through all before I comment.

> However, I must say I find the presentation lacking. One page with
> two photographs, and the need to scroll to get to the second
> discourages looking at more pages. (In my opinion). On that page
> (aht1), the photographs are too small to appreciate considering what
> is portrayed. Are you presenting bricks or photographs?

Then I question your monitor choice, or its set-up...;-) "Aht1" 
through "sunplant1" are old pages, which have worked well on 
monitors from 15" through 24". BTW, it is common to display 
photos on painted brick walls in galleries, and I wanted some 
interesting background that would simulate that effect. Also, the 
original photos *are* small (most are 6"x9", actually smaller than 
their relation to the brick pattern would indicate...;-). BTW, I 
once double-hung a show of 3.5"x5" photos on 12' high walls 
in a museum where John Lennon and Yoko Ono were also 
having a show. Needless to say, I got less assistance while 
doing the work of hanging my show than they did! 8^) 

> Just wandering around, the too-small problem seems rampant. It's a
> good thing you have titled the Prairie Home Companion shot. (Phun
> Fotoz) It's hard to look at the photograph and get a sense of what was
> shot.

You wandered far afield from the work I would consider "good" 
into the work that is "just of possible interest, given what was shot". 
There is a difference...;-) Also, most of my early web photos (I 
started the site in 1995) were intentionally made small since that 
was the era of slow dial-up internet service. And many were 
intentionally made useless for copying in order to control the photo 
uses. 

> You do seem to do well with cats, though. The cat with the moon over
> its' shoulder works at that size. 
> -- 
> Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida 

Ah, "Hester", our best cat so far...;-) 
--DR 

~~~~~~~~~~~

"tony cooper" <tony_cooper213@earthlink.net> wrote in message 
news:vb9cs6l1f33qi2h5064l64kkdt4hmc728a@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 8 May 2011 00:28:01 -0400, "David Ruether"
> <druether@twcny.rr.com> wrote:

>>I've never had much patience with camera-club aesthetics and
>>judgings - they tend to insure the continuance of the premacy of
>>the uninspiring and uninspired...;-)

> Doesn't that have more to say about the camera clubs you have been
> involved with than camera clubs in general?

I've never had much "stomach" for "art contests"... 

[...]

>>I used to teach photography at a well-known small college.

> If you were in this area, you might be asked to judge here as our
> outside judge. 
> -- 
> Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida 

Well, during the winter (this last one was TERRIBLE here in the 
NE), I would be happy to come and be a judge, assumming all 
expenses were paid...8^) 
--DR 

~~~~~~~

"tony cooper" <tony_cooper213@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:bc9ds656u3shkp5soics9bm06mke91d0jv@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 8 May 2011 08:35:40 -0400, "David Ruether"
> <druether@twcny.rr.com> wrote:
>>"tony cooper" <tony_cooper213@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>>news:gdccs6lnhcb2m3mjofccouooi77vuupkp5@4ax.com...
>>> On Sun, 8 May 2011 00:28:01 -0400, "David Ruether"
>>> <druether@twcny.rr.com> wrote:

>>>>BTW, it's easy to prattle on about "art", so here is some of
>>>>mine - and you are quite free to disagree about its worth...! ;-)
>>>> <http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/aht1.html>
>>>> <http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/aht2.html>
>>>> <http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/aht3.html>
>>>> <http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/aht4.html>
>>>> <http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/sunplant1.html>
>>>> <http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/digital-photos1.htm>
>>>> <http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/digital-photos2.htm>
>>>> <http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/digital-photos3.htm>
>>>> <http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/digital-photos4.htm>
>>>> <http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/digital-photos5.htm>
>>>> <http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/digital-photos6.htm>
>>>> <http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/digital-photos7.htm>
>>>> <http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/digital-photos8.htm>
>>>> <http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/digital-photos9.htm>
>>>> <http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/digital-photos10.htm>
>>>>--DR

[...]

>>Then I question your monitor choice, or its set-up...;-)

> I have a Samsung SyncMaster 2253LW 21.6-inch LCD monitor.
> It is not a swivel monitor that allows me to turn the screen to
> portrait mode, but the physical vertical screen dimension is 11.25"
>
> That's not a huge monitor, but it's of reasonable size.

It should be fine, since that page has displayed well on monitors
from 15" (800x600) to 24" (1920x1200)...

> Look...you provided the links and the aht1 was the first link listed.
> Don't blame me if you directed me to an old page.

I don't. So, you may need to scroll even with your browser
stretched full height (but it should be possible to see all of the photos, 
complete, one at a time) - but the browser should NOT be stretched 
full width! ;-) Many web sites will not display ideally if that is done, 
and it appears from your sample below, that you have done that... 

>> BTW, it is common to display
>>photos on painted brick walls in galleries, and I wanted some
>>interesting background that would simulate that effect.

> I like the background. My comment had more to do with the fact that
> there's more detail seen in the bricks than in the photos.

??? Are you sure you have set your LCD to its native resolution
and refresh rate? Otherwise, it will not be optimally sharp. Those
images are quite sharp, given their size (even the cat) on my monitor, 
viewed from the web site.

> This is a screenshot of your first link as I see it:
> http://i48.photobucket.com/albums/f244/cooper213/DavidR1.gif

It looks terrible, not what I see viewing the same web page here... 

> I'm not looking for detail in the cat because that's obviously not a
> shot intended to be viewed in detail, but I want a better sense of
> what you've captured. That's one of those shots where you take in the
> entire image as a whole and don't look for a central point or the
> details. I don't want to squint, though, to see the whole.

I will send you a couple of screen shots, one of "aht1", and another 
of the below (and the cat does have some fine detail - but if it is 
your LCD set-ups that are at fault, you may see no improvement 
in the images I send...

> This is a screenshot of another page:
> http://i48.photobucket.com/albums/f244/cooper213/DavidR2.gif

Are these at 100%??? They are TINY! No wonder you can't see 
anything! 

> Due to the size of image as presented, I really can't tell if this is
> a good photo or a bad photo. Composition isn't going to determine it.
> In this type of shot, the detail determines it, and the detail cannot
> be determined. The next shot, grasshopper on a yellow flower, is also
> a problem. In this small size, the center of the flower is one dark
> brown mass. In a decent-sized image, this well may be a much better
> image than it shows here.

No need to go further, since you are, for possible reasons given above, 
seeing these pages as I do not see them (on anything from an old 15" 
CRT to a good 24" LCD). Check your monitor settings... The ones I'm 
sending you are not as good-looking as the originals from the site since 
the finest detail is damaged by the further jpg compressions, but they 
should look much better than what you sent (or maybe not, if you view 
them on the same monitor - check the settings...). 

>>You wandered far afield from the work I would consider "good"
>>into the work that is "just of possible interest, given what was shot".

> You asked for comments and presented access to all photos. If you
> want to restrict the comments to your better photos, tell us what you
> think they are.

I did (the URLs for those groups were specifically listed, above...). 

> How would you handle this as a teacher to your students? If a student
> submitted a 3" x 5" print of a scene that needs at least an 8" x 10"
> print to show well, and you knew you couldn't effectively critique the
> student's effort from the 3" x 5", what would you tell him/her?

I think we are dealing with a technical problem with the way you are 
viewing the work, rather than with an aesthetic one... 

> Asking for comments on your photography is like your wife asking if
> this dress makes her butt look big. Does the questioner really want
> an honest answer?

"Butt";-), did I really ask for comments, not that I don't appreciate your 
efforts and comments! ;-)

> -- 
> Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida 

--DR

~~~~~~~~~~~

"tony cooper" <tony_cooper213@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:4bsds6d4tifec3jbm75m3b5fiu6pc7cuei@4ax.com...

[...]
> -- 
> Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

I think I've narrowed the "problem" to this -- 
I choose to make my browser about 1/2 screen width 
on my 24" 19:10 screen. Most sites, new or old, design 
for about this screen width. Leaving the browser width 
full across the large screen will introduce anomalies with 
many sites, like having a lot of "dead" space at the sides, 
needed long horizontal scrolling, the splitting of parts, or 
"endless" text lines... I see no need to redesign the web 
site for your decision not to narrow your browser width 
to something more reasonable. As is, the photos under 
discussion still serve their original purpose well (and 
appear even sharper on LCDs than they did on CRTs), 
but, of course, YMMV...;-) BTW, you probably 
discovered that all the pages cited in my earlier post have 
multiple photos on each, requiring (GASP! 8^) vertical 
scrolling to view them all...! ;-) We choose our browser 
(and site layouts) to suit *our* needs, I guess...;-) 
--DR

~~~~~~~~~~

"David Dyer-Bennet" <illegalname@gmail.com> wrote in message news:08b2b043-7b3a-45c5-a92d-72527c8a7ad4@glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com...
> On Monday, May 9, 2011 4:14:33 PM UTC-5, tony cooper wrote:
>> On Mon, 9 May 2011 08:50:58 -0400, "David Ruether"
>> <drue...@twcny.rr.com> wrote:
>> >"tony cooper" <tony_co...@earthlink.net> wrote in message 
>> >news:4bsds6d4tifec3jbm75m3b5fiu6pc7cuei@4ax.com...

>> >[...]

>> >> -- 
>> >> Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

>> >I think I've narrowed the "problem" to this -- 
>> >I choose to make my browser about 1/2 screen width
>> >on my 24" 19:10 screen. Most sites, new or old, design
>> >for about this screen width. Leaving the browser width
>> >full across the large screen will introduce anomalies with
>> >many sites, like having a lot of "dead" space at the sides,
>> >needed long horizontal scrolling, the splitting of parts, or
>> >"endless" text lines... I see no need to redesign the web
>> >site for your decision not to narrow your browser width
>> >to something more reasonable. As is, the photos under
>> >discussion still serve their original purpose well (and
>> >appear even sharper on LCDs than they did on CRTs),
>> >but, of course, YMMV...;-) BTW, you probably
>> >discovered that all the pages cited in my earlier post have
>> >multiple photos on each, requiring (GASP! 8^) vertical
>> >scrolling to view them all...! ;-) We choose our browser
>> >(and site layouts) to suit *our* needs, I guess...;-)
>> >--DR

>> That's fine...it's your website and you should do whatever you want
>> with it. 
>> 
>> Funny, though, that you feel that the viewer should be responsible for
>> adjusting to what you present. 

> I don't see how the user has to. His pages look perfectly reasonable
> to me both in my normal partial-screen browser window, and when I 
> kick it up to full screen. 

> He's presenting multiple pictures per page, which means I have to
> scroll vertically to see additional photos, but I prefer that
> to having to click and wait for each additional photo. Scrolling is
> fast and easy (vertically; I don't have to move my mouse anywhere
> more precise than inside the window, and then roll the wheel).

>> I think you could solve the problem by designating the images to be a
>> percent, rather than a fixed width, but I'm not into website design.

> Resizing the pictures on the fly in HTML? PLEASE don't do that! First,
> it encourages sending big jpeg files. Second, it tends to make
> bad images (small resampling adjustments don't work that well, and then
> not having custom sharpening afterwards is bad). 

>> This is the first website I've ever come across where this is a
>> problem. The others adjust for widescreen monitors. I don't see
>> those anomalies or problems you refer to.

> Strange, I find not adjusting sensibly to widescreen monitors is
> ubiquitous, still, on the web. I got so annoyed, over a decade ago,
> that I wrote my own thumbnail gallery generator and template to do
> something vaguely useful with the space, and I STILL haven't seen
> a commercial gallery site or package that does anything like it.

>> >We choose our browser
>> >(and site layouts) to suit *our* needs, I guess...;-)

>> Really? Most people who post their photos on a website design it for
>> the *viewer*. Otherwise, what's the point? You have the images on
>> your computer for your viewing, so putting them up on the web is for
>> others to view.

> Yes, but we also all know, deep down inside, that everybody else
> is about like us. :-)

> More seriously, for my personal site, I'm not going to make something
> I hate. I will probably make compromises to make sure it works
> tolerably to the standards of other people using other tools; but I won't
> do things I really despise. I suppose I might if it were a money-making
> site and I thought those compromises would net me a bunch of cash. 

Thanks for the comments (and "clarifications") - I had given up 
my exchanges with "tony" on this, since nothing more was being 
accomplished by my continuing with them. Your "second opinion" 
is useful (maybke...8^). 
--DR


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

"Mike Kujbida" <mkujbida@gmail.com> wrote in message 

> Allow me to re0phrase ushere's comment.
> You have no idea what you're talking about with respect to the 64 bit 
> version of Vegas as it most definitely equates to better performance. 

I'm curious why (with the same hardware and software, except 
for using Vegas Pro 8 32-bit on XP 32-bit with 4 gigs of RAM 
installed versus Vegas Pro 9 64-bit on Win 7 64-bit with 6 gigs 
of RAM) render times for the same 18-second clip were nearly 
identical, as were timeline playing smoothness (or lack thereof). 
I just wanna know since I did expect improved performance, 
which I did not appear to get... :-( 
--DR 

~~~~~~~

"Mike Kujbida" <mkujbida@gmail.com> wrote in message 
news:iq6716$mtu$1@news.albasani.net...
> On 5/8/2011 8:08 AM, David Ruether wrote:
>> "Mike Kujbida"<mkujbida@gmail.com> wrote in message

>>> Allow me to re0phrase ushere's comment.
>>> You have no idea what you're talking about with respect to the 64 bit
>>> version of Vegas as it most definitely equates to better performance.

>> I'm curious why (with the same hardware and software, except
>> for using Vegas Pro 8 32-bit on XP 32-bit with 4 gigs of RAM
>> installed versus Vegas Pro 9 64-bit on Win 7 64-bit with 6 gigs
>> of RAM) render times for the same 18-second clip were nearly
>> identical, as were timeline playing smoothness (or lack thereof).
>> I just wanna know since I did expect improved performance,
>> which I did not appear to get... :-(
>> --DR

> David, more CPU power is the only thing that will make a major 
> difference in render times. 

Yes, but...

> Going from 32-bit to 64-bit will improve timeline as well as overall 
> Vegas performance but has virtually no effect on render times.

> Mike

"...render times for the same 18-second clip were nearly identical 
[covered in your response], as were timeline playing smoothness 
(or lack thereof)." It was the lack of improvement with the latter that 
was the more disappointing of the two aspects. I would like to have 
smooth timeline playback, even if the filters must be disabled and 
RAM previews must be made for transitions. This would help a lot, 
and it is *almost* there in my set-up, but it is still too far from "good 
enough" for adequacy for judging timings and flow. Too bad moving 
to 64-bit software did not improve anything noticeably - except for 
providing longer available RAM previews...
--DR 

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

"J. Clarke" <jclarkeusenet@cox.net> wrote in message news:MPG.2830a6ebd0a7611b989ec2@hamster.jcbsbsdomain.local...
> In article <iq6id9$lpq$1@ruby.cit.cornell.edu>, druether@twcny.rr.com 
> says... 
>> "Mike Kujbida" <mkujbida@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:iq6716$mtu$1@news.albasani.net...
>> > On 5/8/2011 8:08 AM, David Ruether wrote:

>> >> I'm curious why (with the same hardware and software, except
>> >> for using Vegas Pro 8 32-bit on XP 32-bit with 4 gigs of RAM
>> >> installed versus Vegas Pro 9 64-bit on Win 7 64-bit with 6 gigs
>> >> of RAM) render times for the same 18-second clip were nearly
>> >> identical, as were timeline playing smoothness (or lack thereof).
>> >> I just wanna know since I did expect improved performance,
>> >> which I did not appear to get... :-(
>> >> --DR

>> > David, more CPU power is the only thing that will make a major difference 
>> > in render times.

>> Yes, but...

>> > Going from 32-bit to 64-bit will improve timeline as well as overall Vegas 
>> > performance but has virtually no effect on render times.
>> >
>> > Mike

>> "...render times for the same 18-second clip were nearly identical
>> [covered in your response], as were timeline playing smoothness
>> (or lack thereof)." It was the lack of improvement with the latter that
>> was the more disappointing of the two aspects. I would like to have
>> smooth timeline playback, even if the filters must be disabled and
>> RAM previews must be made for transitions. This would help a lot,
>> and it is *almost* there in my set-up, but it is still too far from "good
>> enough" for adequacy for judging timings and flow. Too bad moving
>> to 64-bit software did not improve anything noticeably - except for
>> providing longer available RAM previews...

> Are you monitoring RAM utilization in Windows Performance Monitor?

> The major benefit of going to 64 bit is that it allows large amounts of 
> RAM to be accessed--if you're seeing significant paging then more RAM 
> will probably help.

Yes, but, "Too bad moving to 64-bit software did not improve anything 
noticeably - except for providing longer available RAM previews..." 
This last is a distinct advantage, and likely why I will stay with Vegas 
64-bit, but I sure was hoping for better timeline playback of AVCHD 
material which I did not get (and an improved CPU and/or an expensive 
CUDA video card is not a possibility for quite a while - even assuming 
that these would help noticeably more than what I have already tried...). 
--DR

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

A friend's Sony Vegas Movie Studio HD Platinum 10 (what a 
lengthy name! ;-) has a stabilizing filter built in. I tried it yesterday, 
and it appears that it works differently from ones I've seen before. 
With others, the image is moved within the frame to achieve a 
steadier image. This leaves a poor border area (where the original 
image is pulled away from the frame edge), with a "diffused" image 
sometimes used to try to expand the look of the original material out 
to the frame edge, or with a wide black border used to cover this 
area, or with enlargement to expand the image out to the frame edge 
everywhere (with some loss of sharpness, which can sometimes be 
compensated for by presharpening the image before stabilizing it). 
The Vegas stabilizer appears to enlarge (slightly) the image only 
when a very strong stabilization level option is selected. I used a 
clip with bare dead branches in much of it, a pond in the middle 
with a row of ducks swimming, and tall grasses beyond the pond. 
The stabilization was better with stronger settings, but the sharpness 
went down some (easily corrected, I think), although the smoothness 
of the ducks' swimming got worse(! ;-). They began to "jerk" in 
their swimming motion (not surprising, but, "darn!" ;-). For most 
clips that need little post-shooting stabilization, and which have 
no "motion events" within the clip that do not work well with this 
stabilization, it may be useful (once in a while...;-). 

BTW, I tried tripod-shooting yesterday using a very light-weight 
tripod with my TM700. The stationary framing for each clip was 
boring, but at least I was able to get steady images and to manually 
focus very accurately (the TM700 can "light-up" sharp edges with 
bright blue when in MF mode). I can still "hand-hold" fairly well 
if I use a now-clumsy-and-complicated rig for an aid, but I'm now 
tempted to move to a medium-light tripod with a pro-grade fluid head 
grafted onto it (but, carrying it, UGH!!!). 

--DR 

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

"David Ruether" <druether@twcny.rr.com> wrote in message 
news:iqbrfs$ii0$1@ruby.cit.cornell.edu...

> A friend's Sony Vegas Movie Studio HD Platinum 10 (what a
> lengthy name! ;-) has a stabilizing filter built in. I tried it yesterday,
> and it appears that it works differently from ones I've seen before.
> With others, the image is moved within the frame to achieve a
> steadier image. This leaves a poor border area (where the original
> image is pulled away from the frame edge), with a "diffused" image
> sometimes used to try to expand the look of the original material out
> to the frame edge, or with a wide black border used to cover this
> area, or with enlargement to expand the image out to the frame edge
> everywhere (with some loss of sharpness, which can sometimes be
> compensated for by presharpening the image before stabilizing it).
> The Vegas stabilizer appears to enlarge (slightly) the image only
> when a very strong stabilization level option is selected. I used a
> clip with bare dead branches in much of it, a pond in the middle
> with a row of ducks swimming, and tall grasses beyond the pond.
> The stabilization was better with stronger settings, but the sharpness
> went down some (easily corrected, I think), although the smoothness
> of the ducks' swimming got worse(! ;-). They began to "jerk" in
> their swimming motion (not surprising, but, "darn!"). For most
> clips that need little post-shooting stabilization, and which have
> no "motion events" within the clip that do not work well with this
> stabilization, it may be useful (once in a while...;-).

> BTW, I tried tripod-shooting yesterday using a very light-weight
> tripod with my TM700. The stationary framing for each clip was
> boring, but at least I was able to get steady images and to manually
> focus very accurately (the TM700 can "light-up" sharp edges with
> bright blue when in MF mode). I can still "hand-hold" fairly well
> if I use a now-clumsy-and-complicated rig for an aid, but I'm now
> tempted to move to a mid-light tripod with a pro-grade fluid head
> grafted onto it (but, carrying it, UGH!!!).

> --DR 

Um, er..., some corrections are in order after looking more closely 
at the results using the Vegas MS Platinum 10 stabilizer with the 
clip described above...;-) With a RAM preview made of the clip 
using "general-intense" smoothing with the built-in software stabilizer, 
the results were better than I had thought. The original had a few 
jerks, and some unintended slower movements (and the clip was 
slightly enlarged by the software to avoid losing image at the frame 
edges, and the resulting slight loss of sharpness was easily corrected), 
but the stabilized image looked good, and the uneven duck swimming 
motion that I thought I had seen earlier was not evident with more 
careful viewing of the RAM-previewed clip. It appears that this 
software stabilizer works quite well if stronger settings are applied 
to fairly smooth original material, and I think I will find it useful when 
the image can stand the sharpening without increasing artifacting too 
much and I want that bit of extra motion smoothing... BTW, it works 
with 60p material, a plus for me.
--DR. 

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



"xman_charl" <xman_charl@hotmail.com> wrote in message 
news:fd12008e-62b9-4047-935e-eae0ae8fabe5@r33g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
On May 10, 10:09 am, "David Ruether" <druet...@twcny.rr.com> wrote: 

> A friend's Sony Vegas Movie Studio HD Platinum 10 (what a
> lengthy name! ;-) has a stabilizing filter built in. I tried it yesterday,
> and it appears that it works differently from ones I've seen before.
> With others, the image is moved within the frame to achieve a
> steadier image. This leaves a poor border area (where the original
> image is pulled away from the frame edge), with a "diffused" image
> sometimes used to try to expand the look of the original material out
> to the frame edge, or with a wide black border used to cover this
> area, or with enlargement to expand the image out to the frame edge
> everywhere (with some loss of sharpness, which can sometimes be
> compensated for by presharpening the image before stabilizing it).
> The Vegas stabilizer appears to enlarge (slightly) the image only
> when a very strong stabilization level option is selected. I used a
> clip with bare dead branches in much of it, a pond in the middle
> with a row of ducks swimming, and tall grasses beyond the pond.
> The stabilization was better with stronger settings, but the sharpness
> went down some (easily corrected, I think), although the smoothness
> of the ducks' swimming got worse(! ;-). They began to "jerk" in
> their swimming motion (not surprising, but, "darn!"). For most
> clips that need little post-shooting stabilization, and which have
> no "motion events" within the clip that do not work well with this
> stabilization, it may be useful (once in a while...;-).
>
> BTW, I tried tripod-shooting yesterday using a very light-weight
> tripod with my TM700. The stationary framing for each clip was
> boring, but at least I was able to get steady images and to manually
> focus very accurately (the TM700 can "light-up" sharp edges with
> bright blue when in MF mode). I can still "hand-hold" fairly well
> if I use a now-clumsy-and-complicated rig for an aid, but I'm now
> tempted to move to a mid-light tripod with a pro-grade fluid head
> grafted onto it (but, carrying it, UGH!!!).
>
> --DR

I got vegas movie studio hd platinum 10.0

I ran a couple clips through it, fooling around with the stabilizing
thingy.

Selected...general footage, medium analysis....sure are many
selections
for stablize.

I used a .mp4 clip from a fox news tv capture.

charl 

,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

And the results were............? 8^) 
If you think the settings there were numerous, you should (or not...;-) 
see Mercalli. Also, those settings have mysterious names, such as, 
"On The Deck Of The Titanic, As It Is Going Down", "While Holding 
Onto A Fence As A Tornado Passes Directly Overhead", etc. 8^) 
MOST unhelpful, thus necessitating MANY guesses and trials...8-( 
--DR 

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

"Gary Eickmeier" <geickmei@tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message 
news:rkwyp.1072$Jr7.1046@unlimited.newshosting.com... 

> Those things must have limits, right? Like, if you try it with too much 
> movement, then it will hit the stops and look kinda funny? Probably your 
> philosophy should be to approach it just with reasonable footage, for final 
> "trimming."

> Gary Eickmeier 

"With others, the image is moved within the frame to achieve a
steadier image. This leaves a poor border area (where the original
image is pulled away from the frame edge), with a "diffused" image
sometimes used to try to expand the look of the original material out
to the frame edge, or with a wide black border used to cover this
area, or with enlargement to expand the image out to the frame edge
everywhere (with some loss of sharpness, which can sometimes be
compensated for by presharpening the image before stabilizing it)." 
There ain't no "magic" - one way or another, there is a loss when 
the image is moved around within the pre-existing frame. The 
Vegas solution shows less than most, and it is without the "funny 
edges", but the maximum stabilization possible with it appears to 
be very minor...
--DR 

~~~~~~~~

"Gary Eickmeier" <geickmei@tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message 
news:rkwyp.1072$Jr7.1046@unlimited.newshosting.com... 

[About software stabilizers...] 

> Those things must have limits, right? Like, if you try it with too much 
> movement, then it will hit the stops and look kinda funny? 

Likely yes. 

> Probably your 
> philosophy should be to approach it just with reasonable footage, for final 
> "trimming."

> Gary Eickmeier 

Definitely yes! ;-) If I'm going to use stabilizing software at all, I do as 
I also do when preparing clips - I remove the shakey ends, and judge 
which clips are appropriate for including in the video (and for possible 
"tidying up"). 
--DR 

~~~~~~~~~~

"Gary Eickmeier" <geickmei@tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message 
news:nZGyp.200$ud7.169@unlimited.newshosting.com... 
> "HerHusband" <unknown@unknown.com> wrote in message 
> news:Xns9EE25282276DCherhusband@188.40.43.213...

>> Moving objects in a shaky image is one of the issues that seems to
>> confuse most stabilizer programs. For instance, if you're filming that
>> pond and a bird flies in from overhead occupying much of the frame. Most
>> stabilizers mistake the bird as frame movement and try to compensate with
>> weird results. Deshaker can sometimes be confused also, but the default
>> settings work fine most of the time. I can usually tweak the settings to
>> handle a more complicated image when needed, though it does increase
>> processing time.

> Does it know when you are panning or tilting purposely?

> Gary Eickmeier 

No (how could it? ;-), but using the settings available in some 
software stabilizers, you can "damp down" the levels for some 
corrections, or the reaction sensitivities for them. None of these 
is perfect, and their success (and your preference) may also 
depend on how you shoot. "Herhusband" prefers static framing, 
and Deshaker works well for him; I prefer fluid camera motion, 
and when I (rarely) use it, I like Mercalli (but, it's too bad the 
control options have such useless names in this program). 
--DR 

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

"xman_charl" <xman_charl@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:8103005a-9259-4c31-95a0-531931dbc0c1@e17g2000prj.googlegroups.com:
> On May 14, 1:32 pm, "David Ruether" <druet...@twcny.rr.com> wrote:
> > "Gary Eickmeier" <geick...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message
> > news:rkwyp.1072$Jr7.1046@unlimited.newshosting.com...

> > [About software stabilizers...]

> > > Those things must have limits, right? Like, if you try it with too much
> > > movement, then it will hit the stops and look kinda funny?

> > Likely yes.

> > > Probably your philosophy should be to approach it just with reasonable
> > > footage, for final "trimming."
> >
> > > Gary Eickmeier

> > Definitely yes! ;-) If I'm going to use stabilizing software at all, I do as
> > I also do when preparing clips - I remove the shaky ends, and judge
> > which clips are appropriate for including in the video (and for possible
> > "tidying up").
> > --DR

> AE 5.5 has a newer stablizer feature. Its much better than vegas's
> stabilizer as its not frame based.

> My clips came out very good, compared to vegas.

> Here is some info from adobe's site:

> Stabilize motion with the Warp Stabilizer in After Effects CS5.5. Warp
> Stabilizer is a new option for stabilizing unsteady footage. It
> removes jitter caused by camera movement, making it possible to
> transform shaky, handheld footage into steady, smooth shots. It
> replaces the previous stabilizer .

> I think it uses 6 or 8 points in the video for stablizing, as its
> clearly not frame based, like sony.

> charl 

??? This doesn't make sense...;-) Maybe...;-) All stabilization 
software must use several points in sequences of frames to 
stabilize the video motion image. None could use just one frame, 
or even just the frame edges in a sequence for successful 
stabilization (in the former case, there would be no references 
for it to work with; in the latter, the same would also be true). 
Mercalli uses several points in the successive frames (and you can 
see it work as it arrives at a solution for reducing and smoothing 
several kinds of motion irregularities), and while the Vegas 
stabilizer may be more "gentle" with the image, it must also 
work the same way. I take the claims made for software stabilizers 
"with a grain of salt", since in the end, there are two choices 
to balance regardless of the claims: good stabilization at the 
expense of sharpness loss due to enlargement of the image (or if 
not that, the presence of a wide added border); or more modest 
stabilization leaving some irregular motion. There ain't no "free 
lunch" with this kind of software, but if the original footage 
is reasonably steady to begin with, the Vegas version does appear 
to work fairly well for reducing/removing jitters and jerks in 
the image, as likely do others. But, sigh, a *good* tripod, with 
a ***GOOD*** fluid head will beat any post-shooting stabilization 
easily (but too bad such is dang heavy and awkward, and the head 
alone is VERY 'SPENSIVE!!!). 
--DR 

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

"Mxsmanic" <mxsmanic@gmail.com> wrote in message 
news:u1gms6tll33fnm1c80inf3ik81c9v784t1@4ax.com...
> Laszlo_Lebrun writes:

>> Ideally one should have invented the notebook with two hard disks...

> A notebook is not the ideal platform for video editing. Editing requires a
> huge amount of hardware, and whenever you elect to use a portable computer,
> you sacrifice horsepower for portability (and you pay more for the horsepower
> you get). 

Yuh kin allus ad ta it -- 
- external drives 
- mouse 
- keyboard 
- larger monitor 
buht bie then, yuh mite as wel 
yooz a desk-top kum-pyoo-tr, 
I rec-con...... 8^) 

Maybe for those who must edit "on-the-go", or just save files, 
the laptop makes sense for video, but otherwise............... 
--DR 

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

"Brian" <bclark@es.co.nz> wrote in message 
news:00dns619ab30lmtmm3ts7i9r0md9e9ld9f@4ax.com...

>I recently brought a Sony WX7 pocket sized camera.
> The problem is when I'm recording a video and use the zoom that I find
> the picture jumps to one side for a moment (shake problem) at first I
> thought it was me not holding the camera steady but now I find that
> it's the camera causing the shake.
> Is there a fault on this camera or do all Sony WX7 camera's do this?

Put the camera on a tripod and see if it still does the same thing. 
Likely it is your moving the camera, since these pocket cameras 
in video mode are VERY hard to hold steady and the stabilizer 
doesn't appear to work as well as it does for stills (at least this 
is true for the Panasonic ZS7 we have...). 
--DR 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,


On 5/15/2011 7:33 PM, Brian wrote:

> I'm working on an old video I recorded on a camcorder in the 1980's.
> When I load it into Vegas I noticed that the audio is on one sound
> channel (mono sound) to balance the sound is there a way of copying
> the sound from one sound channel to the other sound channel (L and R
> sound)?

> Regards Brian


Right-click the audio event and select "Channels - Left only" or "Channels - Right only".
The signal is now mono and is fed to both channels equally.
If there are multiple audio events like this, do it to the first one, right-click it and select "Copy", click and shift+click all remaining events, right-click any one of them and select "Paste Event Attributes".

Mike Kujbida


,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

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

"Frank" <frank@nojunkmail.humanvalues.net> wrote in message news:i0q0t615taits001022jg1gi46tm3egj7i@4ax.com:
> On Sun, 15 May 2011 22:05:49 +0000, in 'rec.video.desktop',
> in article <Re: The Vegas Software Stabilizer...>,
> "David Ruether" <d_ruether@hotmail.com> wrote:

> >??? This doesn't make sense...;-) Maybe...;-) All stabilization
> >software must use several points in sequences of frames to
> >stabilize the video motion image. None could use just one frame,
> >or even just the frame edges in a sequence for successful
> >stabilization (in the former case, there would be no references
> >for it to work with; in the latter, the same would also be true).
> >Mercalli uses several points in the successive frames (and you can
> >see it work as it arrives at a solution for reducing and smoothing
> >several kinds of motion irregularities), and while the Vegas
> >stabilizer may be more "gentle" with the image, it must also
> >work the same way. I take the claims made for software stabilizers
> >"with a grain of salt", since in the end, there are two choices
> >to balance regardless of the claims: good stabilization at the
> >expense of sharpness loss due to enlargement of the image (or if
> >not that, the presence of a wide added border); or more modest
> >stabilization leaving some irregular motion. There ain't no "free
> >lunch" with this kind of software, but if the original footage
> >is reasonably steady to begin with, the Vegas version does appear
> >to work fairly well for reducing/removing jitters and jerks in
> >the image, as likely do others. But, sigh, a *good* tripod, with
> >a ***GOOD*** fluid head will beat any post-shooting stabilization
> >easily (but too bad such is dang heavy and awkward, and the head
> >alone is VERY 'SPENSIVE!!!).
> >--DR

> David, just curious, but since you usually seem to shoot handheld but
> still prefer smooth motion in your shots, I was wondering if you've
> ever considered purchase of a Steadicam/Glidecam type of stabilization
> product?

> It seems to me that one of the under-$1000 models just might be your
> best purchase ever.

> Steadicam Camera Stabilizing Systems
> http://www.steadicam.com/

> Glidecam Industries, Inc.
> http://www.glidecam.com/

> This way you should be able to avoid use of stabilizing software, none
> of which I've ever really cared for, personally, except in the most
> extreme situations.

> 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 for the suggestion. It is "funny" that you should suggest 
the above, since I already have in my possession one of these 
due to the generosity of Mike Price who noted a comment I had 
made here about my current muscle-control and tremor conditions, 
and who supplied an original version of the Steadicam Jr. to try. 
The problems *for me* with using it are that it is too heavy for 
me now (the added weight alone induces greater tremor) and there 
is no damping (and the often-regular rhythm of the tremor builds 
the amplitude of the swinging). That leaves three choices: bare 
camera hand-holding (this produces unacceptable results now); 
using a tripod (if without a fluid head, the framings are 
unacceptably static [but the tripod can be conveniently light 
for carrying], or a tripod sufficiently sturdy to support a pro 
grade fluid head [but this is awkwardly heavy for me to carry, 
and it still limits framing freedom]); and using a brace (this 
can be a good compromise for me for permitting some freedom for 
framing during shooting, although not as much as hand-holding 
alone [and it does not guarantee complete image smoothness]). The 
last, combined with the trimming of shaky clip ends and selection 
of clips for the smoothest among multiple takes, and the software 
processing of some clips gives me results that are admittedly not 
"pro-grade", but they are acceptable to me. The brace I use for 
very small cameras is shown here -- 
<http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/brace.htm> 
A video with which I used only camera hand-holding, plus Mercalli 
software for a few clips, is here -- 
<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pPhPA8IP_ig&fmt=18> 
A video with which also I used only camera hand-holding is here -- 
<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GqCd9vOHEXE&fmt=18> (I need to 
"update" the uploads - these were uploaded back in YouTube's low 
quality days...;-). I do not have anything uploaded yet that was 
shot using the brace. BTW, the Steadycam Jr. is available... 
Thanks for the comments.
--DR 

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

"Justin" <Justin@nobecauseihatespam.edu> wrote in message news:
iqt5j0$joh$1@dont-email.me:
> On 5/10/11 1:08 AM, Gary Eickmeier wrote:

> > Yer local fabric store or hobby/crafts emporium might also help. They have
> > sheets or blocks of foam. I prefer a soft case myself, especially for a
> > carry-on.
> >
> > Gary Eickmeier

> Thanks!
> That might be my best bet - since I'm on somewhat of a budget. 

Be careful storing gear in foam (or in plastic bags without 
properly "charged" silica gel, for that matter - otherwise 
mold can be a problem). Foam can turn into a flaky, gooey 
mess that is hard to clean off gear. Best maybe is to store 
gear on open shelves, and place gear in the bags of choice 
for carrying it or for traveling with it... 
--DR 

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

"Justin" <Justin@nobecauseihatespam.edu> wrote in message news:iqt5pi$l4g$1@dont-email.me:

> I have a Panasonic SD10 with 30.5mm filter threads. I already have a UV 
> filter to protect the lens - which also has filter threads.
> Anyway, I'm looking for a wide angle lens, and I'm on somewhat of a 
> budget. :(
> I see these 0.45x lenses on eBay for fairly cheap. My question is, will 
> I get that "fish eye" effect? What is the limit for minimal distortion?

> Also, should I get a set of Neutral density filters too?
> Polarizer? 

Buying a cheap .45X add-on lens converter on eBay is a "shot in the 
dark". With VERY few exceptions, the resulting image quality depends 
more on the combination of the original camera lens and the particular 
converter used with it (I have shelves of cheap WA converters, and 
have tried them on numerous camcorders, mostly with poor results). 
One converter stands out, though, and that is the Raynox .66X Pro 
(note that the actual price is lower when it is in the "cart", about 
$120 for 58mm thread version). This means that you can use it with 
subsequent camcorders, using different stepping rings to fit the lens 
to a camera with larger mounting threads. This converter, as with 
most WA converters, is not fully "zoom-through" (it does not perform 
well near the tele end). On the plus side, it is sharp, wide on every 
camcorder lens I've tried it on (it is .66X, afterall...;-), and it 
has remarkably low linear distortion (much lower than any other I've 
tried). It is also remarkably light weight, useful with a small and 
light camcorder. It is here -- 
< http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/219741-REG/Raynox_HD_6600PRO_58_HD_6600_Pro_58mm_0_66x.html > 
Another source is here -- 
< http://www.adorama.com/searchsite/default.aspx?searchinfo=raynox+hd+6600+pro > 
For a stepping ring (these tend to be thin from this source, usually 
a good thing...), go here -- 
< http://www.adorama.com/SearchSite/Default.aspx?searchinfo=30.5mm%20to%2058mm%20step-up%20ring > 
Unfortunately, after looking through 10+ pages of rings, I did not 
find a *single* ring that would do the job, so it will take two 
step-*up* rings, a 30.5mm to a more standard size, such as to a 49mm, 
and then a 49mm step-up ring to a 58mm - or I think I saw a 30.5mm 
to 52mm ring (if so, you could either get a 52mm->58mm ring, or get 
the Raynox converter in 52mm thread size). BTW, the price is the same 
at both Adorama and B&H for it, but Adorama has free shipping. 
Also BTW, the Raynox has a 72mm front thread, which *may* make it 
possible to put a WA shade on it. Additionally BTW, a wide-angle 
used at maximum wide makes steady hand-holding easier. Moving in 
with a WA also tends to get you better sound. 

As for polarizer's, I tend to dislike them (you lose about 1.5 stop 
of light through them, the color looks "odd", and with WA the 
illumination can be uneven. They can be fun for fall color, and 
when shooting into shallow water with fall leaves just below the 
surface while rotating the filter, but otherwise.....;-) 

Likely you will not need any ND filter... 

And, read "Scubajam's" post - he has some good advice... 

--DR 



!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Frank:]

On Thu, 26 May 2011 17:37:34 +1200, in 'rec.video.desktop',
in article <Re: Is the recording resolution 1440 x 1080 of any use?>, Brian <bclark@es.co.nz> wrote:
>Frank <frank@nojunkmail.humanvalues.net> wrote:

>>On Thu, 26 May 2011 05:46:56 +0200, in 'rec.video.desktop',
>>in article <Re: Is the recording resolution 1440 x 1080 of any use?>,
>>Mxsmanic <mxsmanic@gmail.com> wrote:
>> 
>>>Brian writes:
>>> 
>>>> Recently I brought a pocket csmera that had the option of recording
>>>> video at a resolution of 1440 x 1080 in either AVC HD (50i) or MP4.
>>>> Is there any real use for using the 1440 x 1080 option as it's ratio
>>>> of 4:3 and the tend seems to be more for the 16:9 ratio.
>>> 
>>>The 1440x1080 is high definition with a standard 4:3 aspect ratio.
>> 
>>I may be ignorant, but I've never heard of such a thing. It doesn't
>>exist as far as I know.
>> 
>>All three high definition formats (720p, 1080i, and 1080p) have a
>>display aspect ratio of 16:9.
>> 
>>>It's very
>>>useful if you intend to make videos in a standard aspect ratio. It's simply
>>>the 4:3 high-definition equivalent of 16:9.
>> 
>>Again, with all due respect, I say, "no such thing".
>> 
>>What's happening in the 1440x1080 recording mode is that the frames of
>>video are stored anamorphically squeezed using so-called non-square
>>pixels. When displayed, the frames of video will be shown at
>>1920x1080. This is the same way that 1080i and 1080p HDV format video
>>works. AVCHD is no different in this regard.
>> 
>>We are talking about a USD $229 Sony DSC-WX7 pocket camera here,
>>right, and not some exotic $100K specialty camera that supports
>>non-standard frame sizes?

>Thanks Frank.

You're welcome. 

>I was wondering why both picture sizes looked the same on my computer
>monitor rather than have black bars on the left and right of the
>picture for the 1440 x 1080 resolution compared to 1280 x 720.

Right. I was even going to ask Mxsmanic how he purported to display his "1440x1080 is high definition with a standard 4:3 aspect ratio" video on a native 1920 by 1080 panel. With black bars on each side? 

>So as the frames of video are stored anamorphically squeezed using
>so-called non-square pixels for 1440 x 1080 does that result in a
>better recording?

Usually not as good as full-raster 1920 by 1080, but other factors certainly come into play such as the quality of the glass. 

>I suspect the quality is likely to be better than
>1280 x 720.

This might depend upon the specific camcorder. A lower-end model with cheap glass that can't resolve a lot of detail just might produce better looking 720p video than it does 1080i video. Also, the DSP algorithms used is a factor as well.

In other words, although a particular low-end pocket-sized camcorder might offer both 720p and 1080i modes of operation, the product just might be optimized for 720p. 

>Yes I'm referring to the Sony Cybershot DSC WX7 camera. The camera
>claims to have a fast processor so I have not noticed any defects in
>the video even at AVC HD 1920 x 1080 17 Mbps.

Okay, but 24 Mbps would be a better rate. :)

Just as a point of reference, the current best consumer-grade palmcorder-sized camcorder is probably the Canon HF G10.
>I'm wondering if it takes longer to render a AVC HD video compared to
>a MP4 video.

As I keep reminding people, MPEG-4 video comes in two basic flavors: Part 2 and Part 10.

Part 2 is the older version, also used in 3ivx, DivX, and XviD. It's relatively easy to compress and decompress.

Part 4 (also called AVC and also called H.264) is a newer codec. It's computationally complex, and thus requires higher speed processor chips to encode or decode, but provides the same quality at lower data rates or higher quality at identical data rates (within limits, of course). It also offers a number of post processing options
(deblocking, etc.).

The AVCHD camcorder video format uses MPEG-4 Part 10 as its video codec, not the older Part 2 codec.

Usually, when people use the term "MPEG-4", they're referring to the older MPEG-4 Part 2 specification and not the newer MPEG-4 Part 10 specification.

MPEG-4 Part 2 video is defined in the ISO/IEC 14496-2 standard.

MPEG-4 Part 10 video is defined in the ISO/IEC 14496-10 standard.

ITU-T Recommendation H.264 is essentiality a copy of the ISO/IEC 14496-10 standard, thus the two can be considered to be equivalent to each other.

The terms "MPEG-4 Part 10", "AVC", and "H.264" are all functionally equivalent to each other and can, for most all intents and purposes, be used interchangeably.

It's when someone says, "MPEG-4", where the definition isn't always clear, since they might be referring to Part 2 or they might be referring to Part 10.

MPEG-4 Part 10 video is supported in the BD (Blu-ray Disc) format; MPEG-4 Part 2 is not. 

>Is it true that the resolution for DVD ie PAL 720 x 576 (I think it's
>720 x 480 for widescreen? If so then saving the video to DVD means I
>won't see the 1920 x 1080 resolution that I original shot.

An ordinary DVD-Video disc is always standard definition, whether in PAL format or NTSC format. In fact, the terms PAL and NTSC (and SECAM too, for that matter) pertain only to standard definition video. 

>Regards Brian

Hope this helps. Must get back to one of my Web site projects now.

-- 
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].

!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!



"Mxsmanic" <mxsmanic@gmail.com> wrote in message news:
c59st65c59l93k7o3d7rinnr7fiuc9hl2m@4ax.com:
> Martin Heffels writes:

> > If you learn to do proper shot composition, 16:9 is not a problem :)

> I'm sure that's true most of the time, but part of that "proper shooting"
> means completely avoiding shots that won't fit. It's very hard to shoot a
> towering pine tree effectively in a frame that is nearly twice as wide as it
> is high. 

Naw, it's easy! Just do as friends did when shooting video and 
stills of their European trip (that I edited - fun...! ;-) and 
simply upend the camera and shoot in "portrait" mode. That way, 
tall buildings, cathedral interiors, Flamenco dancers, etc. can 
be framed "properly"... 8^) I was able to pull it off in the 
finished product, but it was scary when I first saw the 
material I was to work with! ;-)
--DR 

~~~~~~~~

"J. Clarke" <jclarkeusenet@cox.net> wrote in message news:
MPG.284841552d72943989f71@hamster.jcbsbsdomain.local:
> In article <irlp5l$nrh$1@ruby.cit.cornell.edu>, d_ruether@hotmail.com 
> says... 
> > "Mxsmanic" <mxsmanic@gmail.com> wrote in message news:
> > c59st65c59l93k7o3d7rinnr7fiuc9hl2m@4ax.com:
> > > Martin Heffels writes:

> > > > If you learn to do proper shot composition, 16:9 is not a problem :)

> > > I'm sure that's true most of the time, but part of that "proper shooting"
> > > means completely avoiding shots that won't fit. It's very hard to shoot a
> > > towering pine tree effectively in a frame that is nearly twice as wide as it
> > > is high.

> > Naw, it's easy! Just do as friends did when shooting video and
> > stills of their European trip (that I edited - fun...! ;-) and
> > simply upend the camera and shoot in "portrait" mode. That way,
> > tall buildings, cathedral interiors, Flamenco dancers, etc. can
> > be framed "properly"... 8^) I was able to pull it off in the
> > finished product, but it was scary when I first saw the
> > material I was to work with! ;-)

> Just saw something on youtube that might be of compositional interest:

> <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=opZDtyec4u0&feature=related>

> This was reported by Al Jazeerah--the report can be seen at 
> <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BT-3I5jg1xg>.

> Note the original composition and Al Jazeerah's editing of it. 

8^) 
This was what I did with the Flamenco dancers (I just let the 
dark interior mostly conceal the black side bars). Otherwise, 
one can either do a moderate or full enlargement to fill the 
sides (not necessary with stills), and/or move the image within 
the frame to better crop it, or introduce keyframmed motion to 
move up or down in the narrow image (this works very well with 
stills). 
--DR 

~~~~~~~~~

"bclark@es.co.nz" <bclark@es.co.nz> wrote in message news:
de2ut6pghknpkre4ivd9v0097epglvdpih@4ax.com:
> "David Ruether" <d_ruether@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >"Mxsmanic" <mxsmanic@gmail.com> wrote in message news:
> >c59st65c59l93k7o3d7rinnr7fiuc9hl2m@4ax.com:
> >> Martin Heffels writes:

> >> > If you learn to do proper shot composition, 16:9 is not a problem :)

> >> I'm sure that's true most of the time, but part of that "proper shooting"
> >> means completely avoiding shots that won't fit. It's very hard to shoot a
> >> towering pine tree effectively in a frame that is nearly twice as wide as it
> >> is high.

> >Naw, it's easy! Just do as friends did when shooting video and
> >stills of their European trip (which I edited - fun...! ;-) and
> >simply upend the camera and shoot in "portrait" mode. That way,
> >tall buildings, cathedral interiors, Flamenco dancers, etc. can
> >be framed "properly"... 8^) I was able to pull it off in the
> >finished product, but it was scary when I first saw the
> >material I was to work with! ;-)
> >--DR

> But wouldn't that mean the audience would have to turn their head to
> one side to see the tall buildings the correct way up?

Naw, since you would have turned the video or still image 90 
degrees to "present" it properly in the video while editing...;-) 

> A wideangle camera close to a tall panning upwards seems effective.

> Regards Brian 

'Pends on how wide, how close, and how tall the subject is 
whether or not this would work - and whether or not the 
subject width and framing work very well with this (nothing 
like viewing a "slot view" frame being run up a tall, 
skinny subject with little else to look at for a great 
viewing experience...! ;-). 
--DR

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

"Mxsmanic" <mxsmanic@gmail.com> wrote in message news:
guirt6ljt2f4j2pompepljv8sa7bdk1793@4ax.com:
> Brian writes:

> > I've known only one person in the past to have this problem and if it
[Sound and picture sometimes out of synch.]
> > was a bug a lot of people would be reporting it. It could be some
> > program on my computer interferring with Vegas.

> Incorrect behavior is always a bug, even in Vegas. You may have found a bug
> that is exposed only under very specific conditions, however, which would
> explain why others aren't seeing it. There could be something in your
> configuration that is causing it.

> The solution is to fix the bug. But if your bug requires very specific
> conditions to appear, Sony might elect not to fix it, since hardly anyone
> (other than yourself) is affected. In that case, you'll have to figure out
> what is different about your configuration and change it. It is possible that
> performance issues could expose a bug, but your configuration isn't low enough
> in performance for that to be completely plausible. There are lots of people
> using Vegas with similar configurations and no problems (apparently), so if
> it's in your configuration, it's most likely something other than just a lack
> of storage or horsepower. 

Here is a story....: 
With the first version of Vegas Pro 8 and HDV, I was being 
driven "nuts" by endless apparently random appearances of 
red, green, and black frames while editing and exporting. 
This is a known issue with HDV when Vegas detects a bad 
frame (from a dropout) and it indicates its presence with 
the red frames, but going through the clips frame-by-frame 
(whew!) and eliminating clips or parts of clips that showed 
problems did not solve the problem. After seven months of 
running tests on the computer gear, reloading software, 
and being VERY UNHAPPY with not being able to edit or 
export video reliably - and not getting any useful help 
from people online or Sony, and everyone reporting that 
they had never had or heard of the problem, "Smarty" 
directed me to a thread on the Vegas forum in which several 
people were reporting the same problem(!). Ah-HAH! Soon 
after, Sony offered a patch with instructions on how to 
install it in Vegas, and it worked! 8^) Soon after that, 
Sony offered a free update that included the bug-fix. 
--DR 

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

"HerHusband" <unknown@unknown.com> wrote in message news:
Xns9EF152FF33B7Eherhusband@88.198.244.100:
> Brian wrote

> > As the camera has a fast processor I don't get wavy images.

> You might want to test how good your camera deals with "rolling shutter" 
> issues. Pick a stationary vertical item like a light post or a tree, then 
> pan back and forth quickly while filming. When you review the footage 
> back on the computer (drag through the video so you can see invidual 
> frames), you may see the straight post now has a bit of a curve to it. 
> This is just the nature of the way some sensors (CCD I believe) process 
> the video. They scan the image in lines from top to bottom. If you pan 
> quickly the image changes before the sensor completes the scan, and can 
> make straight objects appear curved. With slow sensors (like my Playsport 
> has) this effect can be rather pronounced, especially at higher 
> resolutions when there is more information to scan.

> Most of the time, minor rolling shutter effects are minimal and not an 
> issue unless you pan quickly (which generally looks bad anyway). Other 
> sensor types (CMOS if I remember correctly), aren't as sensitive to the 
> effect.

As I recall, CMOS sensors show "rolling shutter" effects 
(but less vertical smear from bright light sources than 
CCD sensors). If an even-rate rapid pan is made with a 
camera with a CMOS sensor, straight verticals that cross 
the camera's field of view exactly vertically will appear 
to be tilted within the frame, but they will still be 
straight. If the pan rate varies through the pan, the 
vertical straight lines will be rendered as curves in 
the video. 
--DR 

~~~~~~~~~

"Gene E. Bloch" <blochxxxx@someplace.invalid> wrote in message news:
94a4h7F4ojU1@mid.individual.net:
> On 5/27/2011, HerHusband posted:
>> David Ruether wrote:

> >> As I recall, CMOS sensors show "rolling shutter" effects
> >> (but less vertical smear from bright light sources than
> >> CCD sensors). If an even-rate rapid pan is made with a
> >> camera with a CMOS sensor, straight verticals that cross
> >> the cameras field of view exactly vertically will appear
> >> to be tilted within the frame, but they will still be
> >> straight. If the pan rate varies through the pan, the
> >> vertical straight lines will be rendered as curves in
> >> the video.
> >> --DR 

> > Thanks for the clarification. It has been a while since I paid much 
> > attention to the sensor types, so I couldn't remember which showed the 
> > effect more.

> > Anthony

> To *really* see the effect, find some pictures from the 20s and 30s 
> taken with Graflex cameras.

Not the rangefinder ones with between-the-lens shutters, of 
course... 

> They were large SLRs (4x5, usually) with a vertical focal plane shutter 
> that, even at a thousandth of a second, took as much as 1/10 to 1/30 of 
> a second to cross the film plane.

> They are the most frequent source of the pictures that you may have 
> seen, of race cars with seriously tilted oval wheels.

> Fun.

> -- 
> Gene E. Bloch (Stumbling Bloch) 

Indeed - but these photos made the cars look S-O-O-O fast! ;-)
So fast that the bottoms of the wheels couldn't keep up with the 
tops! 8^) 
--DR 

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

"trusso11783@yahoo.com" <trusso11783@yahoo.com> wrote in 
message news:osaou69f86jujeemuegm8e5enltonuvnnm@4ax.com:

> I have been shooting stuff semi pro for the past 
> twenty years or so. I bought this camera last
> christmas and I cannot stand the small size of 
> this thing. I seem to have no control over this
> camera like I did in the old days when a camera 
> weighed 10 lbs. The worst part for me is the zoom. 
> I cannot control it. It is never smooth for me. 
> It is either too fast or varies too much, which of
> course, ruins my entire shot. What are you guys 
> doing to get around this? Is this something that I
> can control after tons of practice or am I just 
> screwed with the way it is? It is too sensitive 
> for me. Thanks for your input.

> Tony

It does take a bit of practice, but even I, with poor 
fine muscle control at this point, can fairly easily 
control this smooth rocker zoom control. Otherwise, 
try the very smooth lens front ring. This is *not* 
a shoulder-mount camera, but with braces and the use 
of its excellent stabilizer, good results can be had. 
(My brace is pictured here -- 
<http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/brace.htm> ) 
Of course a tripod (preferably with a really pro 
grade fluid head) would make all easier - although 
it is unfortunate that the camera lacks a Lanc port, 
which would help. Another solution is the Panasonic 
AF-100 4/3rds body, which will accept (with adapters) 
almost any lens (a friend, whose TM700 I now have), 
moved to this one with a 140 Mbps recording unit 
attached and using some of my Nikkor 35mm lenses, 
with spectacular results). Some samples are here -- 
<http://exposureroom.com/members/Flip50/a3fedb0bb05141798df7d608cfdda26c/> 
<http://exposureroom.com/members/Flip50/4604bc29b9ec44529675b39d7b56e9ee/> 
<http://exposureroom.com/members/Flip50/145f38966c2b48dbb3d1ddd5e1bb21c2/> 
And some 60p TM700 video by the same person is here -- 
<http://exposureroom.com/members/Flip50/634538e14ea34d62aa907358da479f45/> 
<http://exposureroom.com/members/Flip50/3e3aa8a69e454ee8b9d0eb6210bb895b/> 
BTW, one advantage of the TM700 is its 60p shooting 
mode, which with the excellent lens on the TM700, can 
produce VERY high image sharpness (the larger HMC40 
does not provide this capability, which can also be 
useful when slowing the video to half speed during 
editing). 
--DR 

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

"Gary Eickmeier" <geickmei@tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message news:
CrBHp.2482$il1.78@unlimited.newshosting.com:

> Digital Juice has some nifty templates for After Effects and Apple Motion. 
> There are 3 sets so far, with some pretty good choices. I just used one for 
> After Effects in a big commercial project. They did all the work, you just 
> drop in your text and video clips and render away.

> But now they have developed a series for Vegas! Go take a look:

> http://www.digitaljuice.com/products/products.asp?pid=1739&utm_source=WhatCountsEmail&utm_medium=DJ%20All%20Subscribers%20-%20Last%20Updated%2020080416%20-%20AutoSync&utm_campaign=20110607%20-%20Tuesday%20-%201PM%20ready2go%20Sony%20Vegas


> Gary Eickmeier 

Oooooooh, UGH! 8^) What, pay real money for THAT??? I can do 
better myself with simple tools already in Vegas, with results 
that look more "pro", I think. But, tastes DO vary, I guess, 
so......8^)
--DR 

~~~~~~~

"Gary Eickmeier" <geickmei@tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message news:myNHp.335076$716.96908@unlimited.newshosting.com:
> "David Ruether" <d_ruether@hotmail.com> wrote in message 
> news:iso3pc$pim$1@ruby.cit.cornell.edu...
> > "Gary Eickmeier" <geickmei@tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message 
> > news:CrBHp.2482$il1.78@unlimited.newshosting.com:

> >> Digital Juice has some nifty templates for After Effects and Apple 
> >> Motion.
> >> There are 3 sets so far, with some pretty good choices. I just used one 
> >> for
> >> After Effects in a big commercial project. They did all the work, you 
> >> just
> >> drop in your text and video clips and render away.
> >>
> >> But now they have developed a series for Vegas! Go take a look:
> >>
> >> http://www.digitaljuice.com/products/products.asp?pid=1739&utm_source=WhatCountsEmail&utm_medium=DJ%20All%20Subscribers%20-%20Last%20Updated%2020080416%20-%20AutoSync&utm_campaign=20110607%20-%20Tuesday%20-%201PM%20ready2go%20Sony%20Vegas
> >>
> >> Gary Eickmeier

> > Oooooooh, UGH! 8^) What, pay real money for THAT??? I can do
> > better myself with simple tools already in Vegas, with results
> > that look more "pro", I think. But, tastes DO vary, I guess,
> > so......8^)
> > --DR

> OK, I'll try and break it to them gently.

8^) 
But the images/effects did bring to mind the term "tasteless 
garbage...;-) 

> Hey David - did you see that Best Buy is selling the 3D version of the 
> Panasonic, the SDK-750, which is your camera with a 3D lens attachment, for 
> a "clearance" price of $643? I wonder if I could trick my wife.... nah. But 
> it is tempting.

> Gary 

Quick, do "hand-stands" for her, or WHATEVER it takes - that is 
a STEAL! The 3D part is something to just put away and store, but 
that price for what is essentially the TM700 is CHEAP!!! I'd go 
for it...;-) 
--DR 

~~~~~~~~~

"Gary Eickmeier" <geickmei@tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message news:
hGXHp.50274$kn.43875@unlimited.newshosting.com:
> "David Ruether" <d_ruether@hotmail.com> wrote in message 
> news:isodul$9o9$1@ruby.cit.cornell.edu...
> > "Gary Eickmeier" <geickmei@tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message 
> > news:myNHp.335076$716.96908@unlimited.newshosting.com:

> >> Hey David - did you see that Best Buy is selling the 3D version of the
> >> Panasonic, the SDK-750, which is your camera with a 3D lens attachment, 
> >> for a "clearance" price of $643? I wonder if I could trick my wife.... 
> >> nah. But it is tempting.
> >>
> >> Gary

> > Quick, do "hand-stands" for her, or WHATEVER it takes - that is
> > a STEAL! The 3D part is something to just put away and store, but
> > that price for what is essentially the TM700 is CHEAP!!! I'd go
> > for it...;-)
> > --DR

> I had trouble convincing her to get me a $130 portable DVD player. Nor do I 
> have the bread right now to get it without going into more debt. Also 
> interested in the Sony a55 DSLR with video capability on the large imager.

> I am pathetic.

> Gary

No, just being sensible...;-) Best to avoid debt, and the HV20 
is just fine for many things (and certainly it's FAR easier to 
edit the HDV source material than the 60p AVCHD TM700's source 
material!). BTW, the Sony a55 does not offer 60p video recording, 
and it's limited to 17Mbps, which is not all that great... 
--DR

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

"ilyas patel" <ilyaspatel87@gmail.com> wrote in message news:
2a2ec905-a773-4895-8a51-e02451ed565a@w10g2000yqh.googlegroups.com:

> I have purchased a sony WX7 camera.
> While recording a video, I did not find a pause button.
> There is one button called movie, If click this button while recording
> a video then the first video stop and another video will start. Can
> anybody tell me how to pause video recording and continue after
> sometime. 

With ALL amateur video cameras or still cameras that shoot video that 
I've heard of, pressing the record button starts video recording, 
pressing it again stops the recording (but while the camera is powered 
up, "stop" is often represented by a "pause" symbol in the VF). The 
only things that I can think of for the above behavior (of not being 
able to stop the recording, but just pause it momentarily) is that 
the camera is defective, or that some odd menu selection (or 
combination of menu items) is causing the problem... 
--DR

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

"les" <idea@localnet.com> wrote in message news:
quidnSYL-OjJwG7QnZ2dnUVZ_q2dnZ2d@posted.localnet:

> I'm running Vegas 7 (Movie Studio) in HD mode and find that playing material
> in preview mode, from the timeline is atrocious. It plays at 3 fps, even in
> draft mode.
> I don't know if it's a setting, or hardware.
> This is my configuration: Win XP/ SP2
> 2.8 GHZ dual core Xeon
> not hyperthreaded
> bus clock 133 MHZ
> 2 Gig mem
> NVIDIA Quadro4-980 XGL video
> USB 2.0

> So, I'm wondering if I'm limited by my video card, or something else. Also,
> would an
> external monitor solve the speed problem? If so, how does the software
> recognize
> the additional video card? Could I run 2 cards simultaneously?
> I've seen USB/VGA converters for $70, which I assume let you add external
> monitors,
> but now you rely on the hardware to port video out the USB (which I don't
> know Vegas
> would support). It seems to me that an additional video card would
> distribute the work more
> evenly.
> Would any of this bring my preview up to say 20 fps?
> I'd appreciate any ideas or thoughts.....

> Les

THE main thing that will affect timeline playback smoothness
(at least in Pro 8-9) is the CPU AND the number of threads that
Vegas can access. Not the CPU clock speed (by much...), not
the buss speed (by much...), not the RAM quantity, not the
presence of more than 256 megs RAM on the video card, not the
"CUDA" feature on the video card, not the 64-bit vs. 32-bit
version of any OS or Vegas version you may be using, not using
an external monitor, not increasing file sizes with a utility
like Cineform's NeoScene, and not even by using a solid-state
"C" drive - NOTHING but the CPU. The new Vegas Studio 11 may
help (but MS 10 didn't, with AVCHD) since it is a much later
version of Sony's excellent cheap editing software. Certainly
shooting HDV instead of AVCHD would help enormously unless you
are shooting AVCHD-Lite, which is easier to work with than the
higher-quality AVCHD types. BTW, later versions of Vegas permit
simultaneous viewing of a full-resolution image on a second
monitor while editing (with a dual-head video card), but the
playback speed is identical to the one within the program's
preview window... You can also use "RAM preview" to see very
short video parts smoothly (in real time, once rendered).
Otherwise, I see only two solutions: switching to HDV, or
buying a more up-to-date computer (basic but very able computers
are not very expensive now), and also updating the editing
software (currently about $50 from Sony).
--DR 

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

"Alan Browne" <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote in message news:GuCdnYMel8OBI2nQnZ2dnUVZ_qydnZ2d@giganews.com:
> On 2011-06-12 08:38 , Bob wrote:

> > Just bought a new JVC Camcorder.
> >
> > For a Component Cable to mate with a TV from their website, and also via
> > Best Buy, they want $30.
> > Wow!
> > Our TV is older, and can't use an HDMI cable
> >
> > Amazon seems to have the same type of cable for 5 or 10 bucks.
> >
> > Think there's anything special about the JVC one ?
> >
> > The cable in question is their part No.QAM 1266-001
> >
> > It's a 3X RCA to 12 Pin Male (Red, Blue, Green for the RCA connector ends)

> Stores that sell audio/video components make very high margin off of 
> cables. I looked at that cable on the JVC site and I'm not familiar 
> with it - it _may_ be a specialty item so be sure about compatibility 
> before buying from another source.

> Amazon's a good bet. But any fair sized town usually has a place where 
> all the electronics hackers go and these places have all the cables you 
> could want at 1/2 (or better) of the price you'd get at the audio/video 
> store.

> When I bought my widescreen television, the store HDMI was $60.00. I 
> bought it at the local electronics store for less than $20.

> -- 
> gmail originated posts filtered due to spam. 

A good place to look (there may be other similar places...) is 
www.monoprice.com - the prices are *VERY* low, shipping is fast 
and the rates are low, and the cables and adapters appear to be 
of good quality. The only time I got "caught" was with an HDMI 
cable that didn't have an iron "blob" RF-blocker on it and 
something caused interference with the video signal. 
--DR 

~~~~~~~~

"Alan Browne" <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote in message news:KpidndPqTfdRWGnQnZ2dnUVZ_jidnZ2d@giganews.com:
> On 2011-06-12 09:38 , David Ruether wrote:
> > "Alan Browne" <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote in message
> > news:GuCdnYMel8OBI2nQnZ2dnUVZ_qydnZ2d@giganews.com:
> >> On 2011-06-12 08:38 , Bob wrote:

> >> When I bought my widescreen television, the store HDMI was $60.00. I
> >> bought it at the local electronics store for less than $20.

> > A good place to look (there may be other similar places...) is
> > www.monoprice.com - the prices are *VERY* low, shipping is fast
> > and the rates are low, and the cables and adapters appear to be
> > of good quality. The only time I got "caught" was with an HDMI
> > cable that didn't have an iron "blob" RF-blocker on it and
> > something caused interference with the video signal.

> A correctly terminated cable should be no issue. You can also buy a 
> ferrite bead (choke) and just add it to the cable - though it might be 
> tough finding one that's a snug fit - but that shouldn't matter - just 
> tape it in place.

Since a good 6' HDMI cable (with gold connections, even!;-) 
including the ferrite bead is about $6 from monoprice, it 
was easier to just order another cable. BTW, some of their 
HDMI cables come with in-wall tough casings (which makes 
them VERY stiff), so I've learned to avoid those in addition 
to making sure there is the ferrite bead "blob" on the 
cable (and also in addition to ordering a cable with the 
right terminals!;-). Monoprice is good about returns and 
exchanges, though...
--DR 

~~~~~~~~~

"John McWilliams" <jpmcw@comcast.net> wrote in message news:it8440$3hj$1@dont-email.me:
> On 6/14/11 9:05 AM, David Ruether wrote: "Alan Browne" 
> <alan.browne@FreelunchVideotron.ca> wrote in message

> >> A correctly terminated cable should be no issue. You can also buy a
> >> ferrite bead (choke) and just add it to the cable - though it might be
> >> tough finding one that's a snug fit - but that shouldn't matter - just
> >> tape it in place.

> > Since a good 6' HDMI cable (with gold connections, even!;-)
> > including the ferrite bead is about $6 from monoprice, it
> > was easier to just order another cable. BTW, some of their
> > HDMI cables come with in-wall tough casings (which makes
> > them VERY stiff), so I've learned to avoid those in addition
> > to making sure there is the ferrite bead "blob" on the
> > cable (and also in addition to ordering a cable with the
> > right terminals!;-). Monoprice is good about returns and
> > exchanges, though...
> > --DR 

> I've heard nothing but good reports on Monoprice, and will use them on 
> next purchase. In the recent past, good buys at Amazon, though usually
> in connection with other purchases.

> A few HDMI and DVI cables have the ferrite choke, but several don't. 
> Never noticed a difference in using either. Where/how would it show up 
> if one is useful? 

I saw some minor but very apparent horizontal breakup in the 
picture in my set-up, corrected when I switched to a cable 
with the bead in place. 
--DR 

~~~~~~~~~~

"Bob Dobbs" <chupacabra@operamail.com> wrote in message news:
4df90924.1397359@chupacabra:
> David Ruether wrote: 

> >> A few HDMI and DVI cables have the ferrite choke, but several don't.
> >> Never noticed a difference in using either. Where/how would it show up
> >> if one is useful?

> >I saw some minor but very apparent horizontal breakup in the
> >picture, corrected when I switched to a cable with the bead
> >in place.

> Could that improvement have possibly resulted from the replacement
> activity itself, like moving and maybe re-routing the cable, or just the
> cleansing action of reinserting the plugs? 
> -- 
> http://bit.ly/g2PCII 

Unlikely since I pulled/reinserted the plugs at both ends 
a few times with the old cable and the routing was the same 
with the new cable (and a properly-made and RF-filtered 
cable should not show interference effects in this application 
no matter how it is routed unless the source of the interference 
was unusually strong...). 
--DR 

~~~~~~

"Bob Dobbs" <chupacabra@operamail.com> wrote in message news:
4df94535.1716531@chupacabra:
> David Ruether wrote: 
> >"Bob Dobbs" <chupacabra@operamail.com> wrote in message news:
> >4df90924.1397359@chupacabra:
> >> David Ruether wrote:

> >> >> A few HDMI and DVI cables have the ferrite choke, but several don't.
> >> >> Never noticed a difference in using either. Where/how would it show up
> >> >> if one is useful?

> >> >I saw some minor but very apparent horizontal breakup in the
> >> >picture, corrected when I switched to a cable with the bead
> >> >in place. (DR) 

> >> Could that improvement have possibly resulted from the replacement
> >> activity itself, like moving and maybe re-routing the cable, or just the
> >> cleansing action of reinserting the plugs?
> >> --
> >> http://bit.ly/g2PCII

> >Unlikely since I pulled/reinserted the plugs at both ends
> >a few times with the old cable and the routing was the same
> >with the new cable (and a properly-made and RF-filtered
> >cable should not show interference effects in this application
> >no matter how it is routed unless the source of the interference
> >was [unusually strong]...).
> >--DR

> I was just thinking of rat's nests I've had in the past with some cumulative 
> ad hoc installations as I was able to add gear to the stack. 
> Sometimes you just have to pull it all apart and redo it with cosmetic factors
> in mind, of course the ferrite chokes are mandatory in my systems, bundling
> various cables together and decoupling any surface currents. 
> BTW: I have an active HAM shack in another room, and although I seldom run both
> together, I feel it's safer to avoid RF overload and component burnout. 
> I did once have an instance where I had a TV on and powered and the RF from the
> transmitter was too proximal to the TV's rooftop yagi and killed it, best I
> could tell from terminal symptoms and location of charring was an overload and
> melting of the TV's flyback XFMR. 
> -- 
> http://bit.ly/g2PCII 

Makes one wonder about the possible effects of RF on people, let 
alone on gear.... (or, let's all stick our heads in our microwaves, 
and find out...! 8^). 
--DR


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

"David Dyer-Bennet" <illegalname@gmail.com> wrote in message news:
252a413e-61c3-4cb9-9206-9bd9415e1942@v8g2000yqb.googlegroups.com:
> On Jun 11, 1:27 am, "David J Taylor" <david-
> tay...@blueyonder.co.uk.invalid> wrote:

> > How many lenses do you carry with you at any one time? My 
> > usual maximum is the lens on the camera plus one other.

> My usual minimum is one on the camera plus two more.

> If I'm taking the D700 kit, I ALWAYS take the 24-70/2.8 and the
> 70-200/2.8.
> Then, depending on what I'm doing (and it gets worse fast if I'm doing
> a
> range of things), I'll add the Sigma 120-400/5.6, the Nikkor 85/1.8,
> the
> Sigma 105/2.8 macro, the Sigma 12-24 (full-frame).

> Sometimes I'll add a few of the low-use lenses I've got, too. 

Yikes! ;-) 
For trips back in the days of slide film (ahem! ;-), I would 
fit a Nikon FA body with folding steadying handle and 16mm 
f3.5 fisheye, 20mm f2.8, 35mm f2, and 85mm f2 compact MF 
lenses plus about 25 rolls of film in a small case that fit 
under a plane seat... That was last done in 2006, after which 
I used a Sony 707 with an excellent permanently attached zoom 
lens. Now I use a video camera that produces exceedingly sharp 
video images...;-) 
--DR 

~~~~~~~~~~~

"RichA" <rander3127@gmail.com> wrote in message news:88fa93fd-d504-4b43-a94e-737ef1fd414b@w4g2000yqm.googlegroups.com:
> On Jun 14, 10:28 pm, Michael <adunc79...@mypacks.net> wrote: 

> > Thanks to all who answered my query about this lens.
> > Amazon has it in stock for $199 with free shipping and a Tiffen UV
> > filter, so I ordered it and expect it in about 10 days (free shipping
> > on Amazon is kind of slow) and will report on it in due time.
> > --
> > Michael 

> You can get a good Hoya or B&W filter to replace the Tiffen on Ebay
> for about $20.00 as well. The one they supply with it might not even
> be coated. Check it once you get it. 

At least in the past, Tiffen filters were "bottom of the barrel", 
being uncoated and tending to self-fog within a couple of months 
to the point that using them without first cleaning them was 
similar to using a diffusion filter. They also have unusually 
thick rims that can cause vignetting with some lenses. Ugh... 
--DR

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

"Chris Shearer Cooper" <chris.shearer.cooper@gmail.com> wrote in message news:
f7386ed4-debc-423b-95f5-ddba8d280de1@h12g2000pro.googlegroups.com:
> On Jun 15, 11:54 pm, Frank <fr...@nojunkmail.humanvalues.net> wrote:
> > On Wed, 15 Jun 2011 19:46:06 -0700 (PDT), in 'rec.video.desktop',
> > in article <Trying to pick a good video format ...>,
> > Chris Shearer Cooper <chris.shearer.coo...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > >I've been downloading the videos from my camcorder into AVI files, not
> > >sure which codec it uses (probably "DV")

"DV-AVI" (using later information...). 

> > Is this an SD (standard definition) or HD (high definition) camcorder?

Apparently SD (720x480 in US). 

> > Ordinary DV (and Panasonic's DVCPRO and Sony's DVCAM) is a
> > lossy-compressed intraframe SD format.

> > >but my understanding is that it's a lossless compression.

> > I don't know of any camcorders that use lossless video compression.

I think he may be thinking that while editing, *unchanged* 
material (when exported to a final video) will be copied 
losslessly - this is called "Smart Rendering", and it is 
also found with HD HDV format and sometimes with AVCHD 
in some editing programs. 

> > Perhaps you could help us out a bit and let us know the exact make and
> > model of camcorder that you're using? Also, what country you're in.

> > >My BluRay player will play videos it finds on shared folders over the
> > >LAN, but only in MP4 format (no AVI, at least not using any of the
> > >codecs supplied with Pinnacle Studio 14).

Likely. 

> > >I could go through and convert all my AVI files to MP4, but that would
> > >use up an awful lot of disk space. So I'm hoping to be able to do the
> > >conversion and then delete the original AVI files.

NO! Keep the original files, edit in DV-AVI, keep the edited 
video in that format, and also author standard DVDs for 
displaying. 

> > >The reason I'm hesitant to do that, is that I may want to go through
> > >and edit those individual videos into a compilation or something. So
> > >I don't want to store my videos using a lossy compression (at least
> > >not too lossy).

MP4s can be made with very high data rates that essentially 
preserve all the original information. I currently use 50Mbps 
"60"p MP4s for computer-preserving my HD, and a friend shoots 
to 140Mbps MP4 for his source material. 

> > >The only option I have (in Pinnacle Studio 14) when creating MP4
> > >files, is the data rate - I can set it anywhere from 200 to 12,000
> > >Kbits/sec. 

This is WAY too low for acceptable data rate...

> > >The original AVI for the video I'm using as my sample is
> > >500M long, an MP4 created at 4,000 Kb/sec is only 68M long, an MP4
> > >created at 8,000 Kb/sec is 77M long. So it looks like whatever I do,
> > >the MP4 file has some significant compression going on? 

As Frank pointed out, NO camcorder (that you are likely to 
use, anyway ;-) shoots without considerable compression with 
any format...

> > >I'm worried
> > >about getting artifacts in the video if I try to take one of these
> > >MP4s, edit it into a new video, and then compress it into a new MP4 -
> > >the double-compression seems like a bad idea.

In this case, with these low data rates, it would be a VERY bad 
idea. Why not stick with DV-AVI for editing and either write 
standard MPEG-2 DVDs or get cheap software (like Sony's Vegas 
HD 11 - for under $100) that can write much higher data rate 
MP4s and also MPEG-2s to DVDs? 
--DR 

~~~~~~~~~~~

"Gene E. Bloch" <blochxxxx@someplace.invalid> wrote in message news:
95uut4Fb79U1@mid.individual.net:

> In the light of the other replies, I would add this:

> Keep your original tapes, don't reuse them. That's generally agreed on 
> these newgroups as the best archiving method.

> Tapes are relatively cheap and they contain all the original data. 
> Moreover, they are pretty robust. *But* you are safer if you don't use 
> the camcorder's LP or extended play format to record video. That's not 
> so robust. 
> -- 
> Gene E. Bloch (Stumbling Bloch) 

Good advice! To which I would add: log the tapes when shot 
(with footage points and content, numbering the tapes in order 
of shooting) so that you can easily find wanted material - and
store the tapes upright in a cool, DRY, and dark area (often 
in a box on an upper shelf, not in the basement, with a loose 
paper cover over the box of tapes works well). LP mode can 
sometimes be used (often useful with 80-minute tapes) if you 
are sure your particular camcorder's LP mode is reliable (for 
recording long events only, for immediate transfer to the 
computer and used for editing, after which copies are exported 
to the camcorder in SP mode for archiving), BUT(!!!), often one 
camcorder's LP recordings WILL NOT PLAY in another Mini-DV 
camcorder's LP mode due to the precision needed in head 
alignment for this to work. Otherwise, the picture and sound 
quality are identical in both modes...
--DR


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

"PeterN" <peter.new@nospam.verizon.net> wrote in message news:
4df9f24d$0$12517$8f2e0ebb@news.shared-secrets.com:
> On 6/15/2011 11:43 PM, Michael wrote:
> > On 2011-06-15 13:37:31 -0400, David Ruether said:
> >> "RichA" <rander3127@gmail.com> wrote in message
> >> news:88fa93fd-d504-4b43-a94e-737ef1fd414b@w4g2000yqm.googlegroups.com:
> >>> On Jun 14, 10:28 pm, Michael <adunc79...@mypacks.net> wrote:

> >>>> Thanks to all who answered my query about this lens.
> >>>> Amazon has it in stock for $199 with free shipping and a Tiffen UV
> >>>> filter, so I ordered it and expect it in about 10 days (free shipping
> >>>> on Amazon is kind of slow) and will report on it in due time.
> >>>> --
> >>>> Michael

> >>> You can get a good Hoya or B&W filter to replace the Tiffen on Ebay
> >>> for about $20.00 as well. The one they supply with it might not even
> >>> be coated. Check it once you get it.

> >> At least in the past, Tiffen filters were "bottom of the barrel",
> >> being uncoated and tending to self-fog within a couple of months
> >> to the point that using them without first cleaning them was
> >> similar to using a diffusion filter. They also have unusually
> >> thick rims that can cause vignetting with some lenses. Ugh...
> >> --DR

> > I will but frankly I don't often use UV filters.

> You don't really need one.
> You can easily cut through most haze in post processing.

I have ***NEVER*** seen one honest demonstration of a UV 
filter "cutting through haze". Most "demonstrations" are 
faked by filter manufacturers to sell the filter, although 
some will give a yellow tint to the image which reduces 
apparent blue a tad. What UV filters do, though, is protect 
the lens front surface from dust, cleaning scratches, 
accidents, oily finger marks (which can be hard to remove, 
and which WILL affect the image), etc. A *GOOD* UV filter 
will have NO ill effect on the performance of a lens, and 
it can be removed for cleaning, washing, or replacement. 

> One method:
> <http://www.jakeludington.com/photography/20060921_fixing_haze_in_digital_photos.html>

> Google "digital haze tutorial" for tons of other methods.

> Look at the archives for debates on the issue of lens protection.

> -- 
> Peter 

~~~~~~~~~~

"Neil Harrington" <not@home.net> wrote in message news:
tqmdnfAGn6FlAGbQnZ2dnUVZ_tidnZ2d@giganews.com:
> David Ruether wrote:
> > "PeterN" <peter.new@nospam.verizon.net> wrote in message news:
> > 4df9f24d$0$12517$8f2e0ebb@news.shared-secrets.com:
> >> On 6/15/2011 11:43 PM, Michael wrote:
> >>> On 2011-06-15 13:37:31 -0400, David Ruether said:
> >>>> "RichA" <rander3127@gmail.com> wrote in message
> >>>> news:88fa93fd-d504-4b43-a94e-737ef1fd414b@w4g2000yqm.googlegroups.com:
> >>>>> On Jun 14, 10:28 pm, Michael <adunc79...@mypacks.net> wrote:

> >>>>>> Thanks to all who answered my query about this lens.
> >>>>>> Amazon has it in stock for $199 with free shipping and a Tiffen
> >>>>>> UV filter, so I ordered it and expect it in about 10 days (free
> >>>>>> shipping on Amazon is kind of slow) and will report on it in due
> >>>>>> time. --
> >>>>>> Michael

> >>>>> You can get a good Hoya or B&W filter to replace the Tiffen on
> >>>>> Ebay for about $20.00 as well. The one they supply with it might
> >>>>> not even be coated. Check it once you get it.

> >>>> At least in the past, Tiffen filters were "bottom of the barrel",
> >>>> being uncoated and tending to self-fog within a couple of months
> >>>> to the point that using them without first cleaning them was
> >>>> similar to using a diffusion filter. They also have unusually
> >>>> thick rims that can cause vignetting with some lenses. Ugh...
> >>>> --DR

> >>> I will but frankly I don't often use UV filters.
> >
> >> You don't really need one.
> >> You can easily cut through most haze in post processing.

> > I have ***NEVER*** seen one honest demonstration of a UV
> > filter "cutting through haze". 

> Neither have I.

> I have seen some interesting examples of IR filters cutting through fog, 
> though. RichA posted a link to one here some time ago that was very 
> impressive. But UV "haze" filters, phooey.

> > Most "demonstrations" are
> > faked by filter manufacturers to sell the filter, although
> > some will give a yellow tint to the image which reduces
> > apparent blue a tad. What UV filters do, though, is protect
> > the lens front surface from dust, cleaning scratches,
> > accidents, oily finger marks (which can be hard to remove,
> > and which WILL affect the image), etc. A *GOOD* UV filter
> > will have NO ill effect on the performance of a lens, and
> > it can be removed for cleaning, washing, or replacement. (DR) 

> In about 60 years of photography I have never once used a filter "to protect 
> the lens" and have never suffered any lens damage as a result. I have been 
> reasonably careful with my cameras. And I do think a proper lens hood offers 
> useful protection, especially on those lenses that have the front element 
> right up at the very front. 

You have been lucky (not that damage is likely to happen often, 
and some lenses, such as fisheyes and some superwides, cannot 
be fitted with front filters anyway). Someone did grab at my 
camera once, though, damaging the filter although it had a shade 
on it. I have several lenses I could not easily replace that I 
would not want to risk... 
--DR 

~~~~~~~~~

"Doug McDonald" <mcdonald@scs.uiuc.edu> wrote in message news:
itdgqc$ml8$1@dont-email.me:
> On 6/16/2011 11:58 AM, PeterN wrote:
> > On 6/16/2011 9:52 AM, David Ruether wrote:

> > snip>

> >> I have ***NEVER*** seen one honest demonstration of a UV
> >> filter "cutting through haze".

> I have seen such a thing using B&W film on a view camera
> with a simple (Angulon, not "Super Angulon") lens. It
> was about half the difference of using a yellow filter.

> But color film today, and all color digital, simply
> does not detect UV.

> Doug McDonald 

I think your experience has another possible explanation: 
early lenses, which also had few elements (the Angulon 
had four, as I recall) passed considerable UV (not helped 
by the early film sensitivity to UV...). The two together 
could result in some "gawd-aweful" spilling of skies over 
and around buildings and trees shot in overcast light. This 
does not happen with modern lens glass and multi-element 
design or with modern films and sensors, as you noted. It 
is actually difficult now to shoot with UV illumination. ;-) 
As it is, a yellow filter weaker than a dark yellow one 
had little effect on color-related tonal balance, and I 
used to be amused by the emphasis given for using a medium 
or light yellow filter on an overcast day let alone on a 
clear, sunny day (I preferred dark yellow, orange, or red 
with B&W...;-). But, now what to do with my large collection 
of filters? 8^(
--DR 

~~~~~~~~~~

"PeterN" <peter.new@nospam.verizon.net> wrote in message news:
4dfa54db$0$12485$8f2e0ebb@news.shared-secrets.com:
> On 6/16/2011 2:08 PM, Doug McDonald wrote:
> > On 6/16/2011 11:58 AM, PeterN wrote:
> >> On 6/16/2011 9:52 AM, David Ruether wrote:

> >> snip>

> >>> I have ***NEVER*** seen one honest demonstration of a UV
> >>> filter "cutting through haze".

> > I have seen such a thing using B&W film on a view camera
> > with a simple (Angulon, not "Super Angulon") lens. It
> > was about half the difference of using a yellow filter.
> >
> > But color film today, and all color digital, simply
> > does not detect UV.

> I have certainly seen haze interference on digital shots. Many of which 
> can be easily cleared up by using various post processing techniques. 
> All I know is what works.

> -- 
> Peter 

But, the question is, Was the haze really there or not...? 
If yes, a UV filter will do nothing to remove it. 
--DR 

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

"bob" <nospam@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:
itr280$fd6$1@speranza.aioe.org:

> I’m shooting a dance recital in a theatre.
> Due to fire code, I’m not allowed to use a tripod.
> Is there some sort of brace I can use while seated 
> to reduce fatigue and help stablize the image?
> The camcorder is about 5 lbs (canon xh-a1).

> Use of the LCD screen is discouraged to reduce 
> distraction. So I have to glue my eye to the 
> viewfinder. The show is 1.5 hours long.

> Suggestions?

Given the length of the production, the weight of the 
camera, and the need to have it near to your face, 
there appears to be little choice but the use of a 
monopod. BTW, some monopods have short legs that 
drop out or fold out nearly flat at the bottom - and 
two of these small legs could fit under your legs on 
the seat to help keep the monopod from rotating...
--DR 

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

"Peter" <nospam@no-spam.nospam.co.uk> wrote in message news:
tutb07l9pk2em7b98lnitrpur649jp7cc8@4ax.com:

> Hi All,

> I am using Premiere Elements v4, with some patches applied.

> It mostly works but as soon as you do something a little more
> involved, like adding titles to a movie, it shows itself to be a buggy
> piece of crap, and crashes frequently.

> It does this on three different PCs, all running winXP SP3, with loads
> of RAM (3GB), big hard drives, 256/512MB video cards, etc.

> Is the current version seems to be v9. Is it any good? 

I've used Elements v4, and I have a recommendation: 
switch to the VERY versatile and stable Sony Vegas 
Movie Studio HD Platinum 11, which has most of the 
features of the Pro version, but sells for around 
$100 (the v10 suite is only $60.29 including free 
shipping, which is almost identical, is at -- 
http://www.amazon.com/Sony-Vegas-Movie-Studio-Platinum/dp/B003L51CZ8/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1309016297&sr=8-1 ); 
the v11 suite, which has a few new features that may 
(or may not) be useful to you, for $104.99 is here -- 
http://www.amazon.com/Sony-Creative-Software-Studio-Platinum/dp/B0051M6IPI/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1309016297&sr=8-2 . 
For a feature comparison, go here -- 
http://www.sonycreativesoftware.com/moviestudiope/compare . 
BTW, if you edit HDV, Elements is a VERY poor program 
choice ( http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/hdv-editing.htm ). 
Also BTW, the newer versions of Elements appear to be 
even more "dumbed down" (true also, apparently, of FCP), 
but successive versions of Vegas get more features. 
--DR 

~~~~~~~~

"Peter" <nospam@no-spam.nospam.co.uk> wrote in message news:1jgc0712jve0sdnfajkta4eienotv4h2pe@4ax.com:
> "David Ruether" <d_ruether@hotmail.com> wrote
> >"Peter" <nospam@no-spam.nospam.co.uk> wrote in message news:
> >tutb07l9pk2em7b98lnitrpur649jp7cc8@4ax.com:

> >> I am using Premiere Elements v4, with some patches applied.
> >>
> >> It mostly works but as soon as you do something a little more
> >> involved, like adding titles to a movie, it shows itself to be a 
> >> buggy piece of crap, and crashes frequently.
> >>
> >> It does this on three different PCs, all running winXP SP3, with 
> >> loads of RAM (3GB), big hard drives, 256/512MB video cards, etc.
> >>
> >> Is the current version seems to be v9. Is it any good?

> >I've used Elements v4, and I have a recommendation:
> >switch to the VERY versatile and stable Sony Vegas
> >Movie Studio HD Platinum 11, which has most of the
> >features of the Pro version, but sells for around
> >$100 (the v10 suite is only $60.29 including free
> >shipping, which is almost identical, is at -- 
> > http://www.amazon.com/Sony-Vegas-Movie-Studio-Platinum/dp/B003L51CZ8/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1309016297&sr=8-1 
> >The v11 suite, which has a few new features that may
> >(or may not) be useful to you, for $104.99 is here -- 
> > http://www.amazon.com/Sony-Creative-Software-Studio-Platinum/dp/B0051M6IPI/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1309016297&sr=8-2 
> >For a feature comparison, go here --
> > http://www.sonycreativesoftware.com/moviestudiope/compare 
> >BTW, if you edit HDV, Elements is a VERY poor program
> >choice -- http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/hdv-editing.htm 
> >Also BTW, the newer versions of Elements appear to be
> >even more "dumbed down" (true also, apparently, of FCP),
> >but successive versions of Vegas get more features.
> >--DR

> That's interesting - many thanks.

> Can Vegas be installed on multiple PCs? I have 3 PCs - home, work, and
> a laptop.

I think so. I intend to put Platinum MS v10 on my computer 
(it is currently on another) to make use of some features 
that Pro9 doesn't have...

> You also do not mention Premiere Elements' bugginess. The program
> crashes on almost every session. 

For me, it was quite stable. Since I was using HDV at the 
time (for which Elements is not a good choice), that was 
the issue I had with using it. Vegas appears to be very 
stable, versatile, and compatible with a wide range of 
formats. 
--DR

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

"trusso11783@yahoo.com" <trusso11783@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:cp0c07dsv41pfnvtqj1p2g69tj12dsljnj@4ax.com:

> OK .You made your case. Quick question. I can get a Panasonic HMC-40. 
> Please see the following:

> Panasonic HMC40 Video Camera for sale plus extras $1700 
> Includes: Original Box, Battery, Charger, connection cables
> Hours used: 162 
> Used just for work for the past year. Great Condition. 

> Also included: XLR Adapter (Retail $280)
> Rode Microphone (Retail $150)
> Extra Battery (Retail $80)
> 32gb Kingston sdhc memory card (retail $60)

> Is that camera the same as my TM-700? Do you think it is close to 
> the Canon XF300? The 40 is newer
> than the 150, so maybe it is a bit better?

> Tony 

The TM700 can shoot 28Mbps peak data rate "60"p video; the AG-HMC40 
(which is similar except in form-factor (and the addition of XLR 
connections) cannot shoot in "60"p mode (it's limited to "60"i, 
at 1/2 the resolution per 1/60th second frame, and 24Mbps peak data 
rate). From other's input, the EVFs are equally poor (although the 
surround on the 40's eyepiece is an improvement). There are some 
other features that may be of use to some shooters (but not to 
me, but maximum image quality is...;-) 
The camera is described here -- 
http://catalog2.panasonic.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/ModelDetail?displayTab=O&storeId=11201&catalogId=13051&itemId=361001&catGroupId=112502&surfModel=AG-HMC40PJ . 
--DR 

~~~~~~~~~~

"Frank" <frank@nojunkmail.humanvalues.net> wrote in message news:
dt9c07huuk6v2c3553f2icgjjfu7uk72ol@4ax.com:
> On Sat, 25 Jun 2011 16:24:26 +0000, in 'rec.video.production',
> in article <Re: ATTN: Panasonic HDC-TM700 users>,
> "David Ruether" <d_ruether@hotmail.com> wrote:

> >The TM700 can shoot 28Mbps peak data rate "60"p video; the AG-HMC40
> >(which is similar except in form-factor (and the addition of XLR
> >connections) cannot shoot in "60"p mode (it's limited to "60"i,
> >at 1/2 the resolution per 1/60th second frame, and 24Mbps peak data
> >rate). From other's input, the EVFs are equally poor (although the
> >surround on the 40's eyepiece is an improvement). There are some
> >other features that may be of use to some shooters (but not to
> >me, but maximum image quality is...;-)
> >The camera is described here --
> > 
> >http://catalog2.panasonic.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/ModelDetail?displayTab=O&storeId=11201&catalogId=13051&itemId=361001&catGroupId=112502&surfModel=AG-HMC40PJ 
> >.
> >--DR

> David, I've mentioned the 28 Mbps 1080p59.94 issue a couple of times
> in this thread and have received no indication from Tony as to whether
> or not this is an important point to him.

> I do believe, however, that if one is going to purchase a camcorder
> with such a capability, that it makes sense to own an HDTV that can
> support it. I did a very quick survey for someone a couple of weeks
> ago and one of the few televisions that I came up with where it was
> clearly indicated in the specs that it supported 1920 by 1080 at "60p"
> was the LG (formerly Lucky Gold, now Life's Good) model 55LW9500.
[...] 

It had been my impression that all TVs rated for "1080p" were 
capable of displaying 60fps 1080p. Perhaps I was mistaken? 
My own TV, an older Westinghouse (with a surprisingly excellent 
picture...;-) is not rated to display at 1080p using its HDMI 
ports, but it is when using its DVI ports, and also its RGB inputs. 
(I think that this is an unusual, and disappointing, limitation 
on the part of this TV, but I have found work-arounds for having 
good sound with the picture.) Comparing the TM700's image quality 
with its 60i 17Mbps maximum AVCHD data recording rate with its 
60p 28Mbps using the DVI input on the TV shows the latter to be 
very noticeably superior. Even with Blu-ray as the final product 
(with its limit of being 60i - but with a much higher data rate 
possible), editing in 60p shows a superior end product. With the 
TM700, one can also in-camera convert from 28Mbps 60p to 17 Mbps 
60i, and the end product looks better than if the video were shot 
originally in 17Mbps 60i. Also, when it comes to applying multiple 
filters and other image manipulations during editing, the 60p 
footage appears to hold up better, and the losses appear to be 
less in the end product. But this is all hooey, right...? 8^) 
--DR 

~~~~~~~~

"Frank" <frank@nojunkmail.humanvalues.net> wrote in message news
:r7pc071ncj0k3ic1firbf81e58kmq561o4@4ax.com:
> On Sat, 25 Jun 2011 20:15:06 +0000, in 'rec.video.production',
> in article <Re: ATTN: Panasonic HDC-TM700 users>,
> "David Ruether" <d_ruether@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >"Frank" <frank@nojunkmail.humanvalues.net> wrote in message news:
> >dt9c07huuk6v2c3553f2icgjjfu7uk72ol@4ax.com:
> >> On Sat, 25 Jun 2011 16:24:26 +0000, in 'rec.video.production',
> >> in article <Re: ATTN: Panasonic HDC-TM700 users>,
> >> "David Ruether" <d_ruether@hotmail.com> wrote:

> >> >The TM700 can shoot 28Mbps peak data rate "60"p video; the AG-HMC40
> >> >(which is similar except in form-factor (and the addition of XLR
> >> >connections) cannot shoot in "60"p mode (it's limited to "60"i,
> >> >at 1/2 the resolution per 1/60th second frame, and 24Mbps peak data
> >> >rate). From other's input, the EVFs are equally poor (although the
> >> >surround on the 40's eyepiece is an improvement). There are some
> >> >other features that may be of use to some shooters (but not to
> >> >me, but maximum image quality is...;-)
> >> >The camera is described here --
> >> >
> >> >http://catalog2.panasonic.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/ModelDetail?displayTab=O&storeId=11201&catalogId=13051&itemId=361001&catGroupId=112502&surfModel=AG-HMC40PJ
> >> >
> >> >--DR

> >> David, I've mentioned the 28 Mbps 1080p59.94 issue a couple of times
> >> in this thread and have received no indication from Tony as to whether
> >> or not this is an important point to him.

> >> I do believe, however, that if one is going to purchase a camcorder
> >> with such a capability, that it makes sense to own an HDTV that can
> >> support it. I did a very quick survey for someone a couple of weeks
> >> ago and one of the few televisions that I came up with where it was
> >> clearly indicated in the specs that it supported 1920 by 1080 at "60p"
> >> was the LG (formerly Lucky Gold, now Life's Good) model 55LW9500.
> >[...]

> >It had been my impression that all TVs rated for "1080p" were
> >capable of displaying 60fps 1080p.

> Your impression may well be right, as I spend almost no time these
> days keeping up with HDTV specs (the recent research that I mentioned
> above was as a favor for someone), but my impression was the exact
> opposite of yours. After all, especially prior to say two or so years
> ago, where would a consumer have gotten 1080p59.94 (or 1080p60)
> signals to display on their consumer-grade HDTV, especially
> considering that it's not part of the ATSC standard and thus of no use
> to broadcasters.

TVs (and DVD/Blu-ray players) claim to upsample 60i signals to 
60p, although only the Panasonic TM700 and a couple of other 
camcorders actually supply a true "60p" signal to a TV, as you 
point out. It does appear to me that I lose less image quality 
while editing in 60p even if the end result must be 60i... 

> >Perhaps I was mistaken?

> Or perhaps I was?

> We couldn't both be wrong, right? :)

We could be (depending on variations in gear...), but you rarely 
(if ever) are wrong...8^) 

> >My own TV, an older Westinghouse (with a surprisingly excellent
> >picture...;-) is not rated to display at 1080p using its HDMI
> >port,

> That would make it older than me!

8^)

> >but it [does] using its DVI port, and also its RGB inputs.
> >(I think that this is an unusual, and disappointing, limitation
> >on the part of this TV, but I have found work-arounds for having
> >good sound with the picture.) Comparing the TM700's image quality
> >with its 60i 17Mbps maximum AVCHD data recording rate with its
> >60p 28Mbps using the DVI input on the TV shows the latter to be
> >very noticeably superior. Even with Blu-ray as the final product
> >(with its limit of being 60i - but with a much higher data rate 
> >possible), editing in 60p shows a superior end product. With the
> >TM700, one can also in-camera convert from 28Mbps 60p to 17 Mbps
> >60i, and the end product looks better than if the video were shot 
> >originally in 17Mbps 60i. Also, when it comes to applying multiple 
> >filters and other image manipulations during editing, the 60p
> >footage appears to hold up better, and the losses appear to be
> >less in the end product. But this is all hooey, right...? 8^)

> Well, I never said that it was hooey, just that it wasn't
> broadcastable (and still isn't part of the BD spec either, as far as I
> know) and therefore of little to no interest to those with whom I
> work. All they care about is what's broadcastable either over-the-air
> or via the local cable system (or that can be used on a commercially
> produced Blu-Ray Disc and played on an ordinary BD player), and I can
> guarantee you that neither of the local cable systems (we have two
> here in Manhattan, Time Warner and RCN) have any interest in offering
> 1080p59.94 or 1080p60 content. All that they care about is further
> compressing an already heavily compressed signal so that they can cram
> more channels on to the cable and thereby increase their revenue.

Yes - this was my assumption... 

> In years to come, most likely after I'm dead and gone, we may see
> higher frame rates and higher frame sizes in the home. 

Some TVs are claimed to have 120fps or even 240fps rates, but I 
think this is hooey, since none makes any claim for synthesizing 
the "in-between" frames that would be necessary to accomplish this. 

> I probably
> shouldn't talk about it, since some of it is speculation, but I know
> that there are people working on 4K for the home. The really big
> problem is delivery - not to mention that anything available in the
> home needs to be of lower quality than that which a theater can offer
> so as not to steal eyeballs (and ticket sales) away from that market.

Hmmm...;-) Already, at the current level of development, I and many 
I know prefer viewing movies at home due to the more comfortable 
conditions, lower price, and excellent picture and sound available 
there rather than suffering the booming audio and often less 
satisfactory picture in theaters. 

> Another problem is that there are still a lot of OTA broadcasters who
> are still in love with interlacing. After all, it served them well for
> fifty years.

It still does for me. I hate 24p, much preferring the smoother 
rendering of motion of 60i...

> It's really a shame that the final approval process for the ATSC
> standard was occurring in a parallel fashion with the move away from
> direct view CRTs to flat panel displays (LCD, plasma, and DLP). If the
> migration to flat panel technology had occurred sooner, or if the
> approval (by the FCC) of the ATSC standard had been further delayed
> (it took a good ten years or so as it was), the ATSC spec might look a
> bit different than it does.

> I laugh to myself every time that I remind myself that a couple of
> years (approximately, I forget the exact time period and am in a hurry
> right now and can't look up the precise date) after the FCC approved
> the ATSC standard, they came out with an update that added MPEG-4 Part
> 10 AVC / H.264 encoding in addition to the original MPEG-2 encoding.
> They did this even though they knew full well that it was way too late
> as millions of HDTVs had already been sold in this country (that only,
> by definition, supported MPEG-2 and not MPEG-4 AVC) and that no
> broadcaster was about to switch from MPEG-2 to MPEG-4 AVC because no
> one in their audience would be able to view their programming if they
> did so.

> 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]. 

That's the way of such things, I guess. I would have preferred Blu-ray 
to accept "60p" as an option at 1920x1080 - that would have been 
a good standard, and Blu-ray discs have plenty of capacity to permit 
it even at fairly high data rates (at least for shorter videos), 
but.......... 
--DR 

~~~~~~~~

"Frank" <frank@nojunkmail.humanvalues.net> wrote in message news:
4ace07h9cghvequmji6h59r643s7q4989u@4ax.com:
> On Sun, 26 Jun 2011 03:06:42 +0000, in 'rec.video.production',
> in article <Re: ATTN: Panasonic HDC-TM700 users>,
> "David Ruether" <d_ruether@hotmail.com> wrote: 
> >"Frank" <frank@nojunkmail.humanvalues.net> wrote in message news
> >:r7pc071ncj0k3ic1firbf81e58kmq561o4@4ax.com:
> >> On Sat, 25 Jun 2011 20:15:06 +0000, in 'rec.video.production',
> >> in article <Re: ATTN: Panasonic HDC-TM700 users>,
> >> "David Ruether" <d_ruether@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> >"Frank" <frank@nojunkmail.humanvalues.net> wrote in message news:
> >> >dt9c07huuk6v2c3553f2icgjjfu7uk72ol@4ax.com:
> >> >> On Sat, 25 Jun 2011 16:24:26 +0000, in 'rec.video.production',
> >> >> in article <Re: ATTN: Panasonic HDC-TM700 users>,
> >> >> "David Ruether" <d_ruether@hotmail.com> wrote:

> >> >> >The TM700 can shoot 28Mbps peak data rate "60"p video; the AG-HMC40
> >> >> >(which is similar except in form-factor (and the addition of XLR
> >> >> >connections) cannot shoot in "60"p mode (it's limited to "60"i,
> >> >> >at 1/2 the resolution per 1/60th second frame, and 24Mbps peak data
> >> >> >rate). From other's input, the EVFs are equally poor (although the
> >> >> >surround on the 40's eyepiece is an improvement). There are some
> >> >> >other features that may be of use to some shooters (but not to
> >> >> >me, but maximum image quality is...;-)
> >> >> >The camera is described here --
> >> >> >
> >> >> >http://catalog2.panasonic.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/ModelDetail?displayTab=O&storeId=11201&catalogId=13051&itemId=361001&catGroupId=112502&surfModel=AG-HMC40PJ
> >> >> >
> >> >> >--DR

> >> >> David, I've mentioned the 28 Mbps 1080p59.94 issue a couple of times
> >> >> in this thread and have received no indication from Tony as to whether
> >> >> or not this is an important point to him.

> >> >> I do believe, however, that if one is going to purchase a camcorder
> >> >> with such a capability, that it makes sense to own an HDTV that can
> >> >> support it. I did a very quick survey for someone a couple of weeks
> >> >> ago and one of the few televisions that I came up with where it was
> >> >> clearly indicated in the specs that it supported 1920 by 1080 at "60p"
> >> >> was the LG (formerly Lucky Gold, now Life's Good) model 55LW9500.
> >> >[...]

> >> >It had been my impression that all TVs rated for "1080p" were
> >> >capable of displaying 60fps 1080p.

> >> Your impression may well be right, as I spend almost no time these
> >> days keeping up with HDTV specs (the recent research that I mentioned
> >> above was as a favor for someone), but my impression was the exact
> >> opposite of yours. After all, especially prior to say two or so years
> >> ago, where would a consumer have gotten 1080p59.94 (or 1080p60)
> >> signals to display on their consumer-grade HDTV, especially
> >> considering that it's not part of the ATSC standard and thus of no use
> >> to broadcasters.

> >TVs (and DVD/Blu-ray players) claim to upsample 60i signals to
> >60p,

> Unlike CRTs, which are neither natively progressive nor natively
> interlaced, virtually all flat display panel technologies are natively
> progressive. Consumer-grade HDTVs aren't capable of displaying
> interlaced video in an interlaced fashion, so they must deinterlace
> interlaced input signals prior to display (and, in general, they do a
> very good job of this).

I forget things that I once knew, but now that you remind me of 
this......;-) 

> There are a few professional-grade LCD panel television monitors that
> simulate the display of interlaced input signals. The Sony BVM-L231
> and BVM-L170 monitors, for example, do this using a "black frame
> insertion" technique. Consumer-grade HDTVs do not offer such a
> feature.

> >although only the Panasonic TM700 and a couple of other
> >camcorders actually supply a true "60p" signal to a TV, as you
> >point out. It does appear to me that I lose less image quality
> >while editing in 60p even if the end result must be 60i...

> Because lossy compressed codecs, such as the MPEG-4 Part 10 AVC /
> H.264 codec used in your TM700, do a better job of compressing
> progressive frames of video than they do at compressing interlaced
> frames of video, you will indeed wind up with better looking pictures
> by shooting and editing in progressive mode - even when your final
> output format requires interlaced video.

Thanks for the confirmation - although I was *fairly* sure 
I wasn't "just seeing things"...;-) 

> >> >Perhaps I was mistaken?

> >> Or perhaps I was?
> >>
> >> We couldn't both be wrong, right? :)

> >We could be (depending on variations in gear...), but you rarely
> >(if ever[!]) are wrong...8^)

> I try, but there are only so many hours in the day.

> >> >My own TV, an older Westinghouse (with a surprisingly excellent
> >> >picture...;-) is not rated to display at 1080p using its HDMI
> >> >port,
> >
> >> That would make it older than me!
> >
> >8^)
> >
> >> >but it [does] using its DVI port, and also its RGB inputs.
> >> >(I think that this is an unusual, and disappointing, limitation
> >> >on the part of this TV, but I have found work-arounds for having
> >> >good sound with the picture.) Comparing the TM700's image quality
> >> >with its 60i 17Mbps maximum AVCHD data recording rate with its
> >> >60p 28Mbps using the DVI input on the TV shows the latter to be
> >> >very noticeably superior. Even with Blu-ray as the final product
> >> >(with its limit of being 60i - but with a much higher data rate
> >> >possible), editing in 60p shows a superior end product. With the
> >> >TM700, one can also in-camera convert from 28Mbps 60p to 17 Mbps
> >> >60i, and the end product looks better than if the video were shot
> >> >originally in 17Mbps 60i. Also, when it comes to applying multiple
> >> >filters and other image manipulations during editing, the 60p
> >> >footage appears to hold up better, and the losses appear to be
> >> >less in the end product. But this is all hooey, right...? 8^)

> >> Well, I never said that it was hooey, just that it wasn't
> >> broadcastable (and still isn't part of the BD spec either, as far as I
> >> know) and therefore of little to no interest to those with whom I
> >> work. All they care about is what's broadcastable either over-the-air
> >> or via the local cable system (or that can be used on a commercially
> >> produced Blu-Ray Disc and played on an ordinary BD player), and I can
> >> guarantee you that neither of the local cable systems (we have two
> >> here in Manhattan, Time Warner and RCN) have any interest in offering
> >> 1080p59.94 or 1080p60 content. All that they care about is further
> >> compressing an already heavily compressed signal so that they can cram
> >> more channels on to the cable and thereby increase their revenue.

> >Yes - this was my assumption...

> >> In years to come, most likely after I'm dead and gone, we may see
> >> higher frame rates and higher frame sizes in the home.

> >Some TVs are claimed to have 120fps or even 240fps rates, but I
> >think this is hooey, since none makes any claim for synthesizing
> >the "in-between" frames that would be necessary to accomplish this.

> There you go with that "hooey" word again. :)

But, this time it refers to what my feelings are about what others 
claim for their products...;-)

> The LG model that I had mentioned does 480 Hz, but keep in mind that
> what that means is simply that the same frame of video is being
> flashed on the screen multiple times. This is to help produce a more
> stable looking image and to try to overcome the ghosting artifacts
> that are so common to LCD panels. Even the most advanced LCDs don't
> have the quick response time of a CRT. This is why you see gamers
> complaining about the poor look of some games on LCD computer
> displays.

Thanks for the explanation - although I've noticed motion effects 
that I don't like only with 24-30p material, but not with 60i or 
especially 60p material... 

> >> I probably
> >> shouldn't talk about it, since some of it is speculation, but I know
> >> that there are people working on 4K for the home. The really big
> >> problem is delivery - not to mention that anything available in the
> >> home needs to be of lower quality than that which a theater can offer
> >> so as not to steal eyeballs (and ticket sales) away from that market.

> >Hmmm...;-) Already, at the current level of development, I and many
> >I know prefer viewing movies at home due to the more comfortable
> >conditions, lower price, and excellent picture and sound available
> >there rather than suffering the booming audio and often less
> >satisfactory picture in theaters.

> Projection quality can and does vary from theater to theater; some are
> truly better than others. Brightness in theaters using digital
> projection, especially of 3D movies, can be an issue. Some theater
> owners try to save money by turning down the brightness level and by
> using bulbs beyond their rated life.

I'm basing my judgment on early movie-viewings at a new "stadium-seating" 
"googleplex" theater with presumably recent-technology projection and 
audio. One of the Harry Potter movies was very sharp (and sharper than an 
upsampled DVD of the same movie that still looked very good here, but I 
have not tried the Blu-ray version of it here...), but the sound was not 
very good (I'm an audio nut, and have been for decades - but as with 
video, I prefer finding excellent gear [mostly used, or built by me 
when possible] and optimizing the conditions for experiencing it instead 
of just throwing vast sums of money at it). 
< http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/Audio.html > 
BTW, I was also not all that impressed with IMAX, other than for size. 
Same bad sound, similarly over-enlarged picture... 

> >> Another problem is that there are still a lot of OTA broadcasters who
> >> are still in love with interlacing. After all, it served them well for
> >> fifty years.

> >It still does for me. I hate 24p, much preferring the smoother
> >rendering of motion with 60i...

> The situation is getting more fractured than ever. We've got 10
> percent of the population in love with 24p (actually 23.976p unless
> you're a high-end pro), 10 percent of the population in love with 60p
> (actually 59.94p unless you're a high-end pro), and the remaining 80
> percent in the middle - and they don't know or care. They're happy if
> the picture fills the screen, despite the pixelation, and if you talk
> to them about maintaining proper aspect ratios they think that you're
> from another planet.

I think you have it right! 8^)

> Studies have shown that there are an alarming number of U.S.
> households that own HDTVs and who believe that they're watching HD
> imagery on their HDTVs when in fact their primary signal source is a
> standard def cable converter box.

I experienced this once with the head of a local school video 
department who had not set the HD box to accept HD resolutions... 8^( 

> Not only that, but even when the converter box offers component and/or
> S-Video (Y/C) outputs, most people will hook it up to their telly
> using the composite output jack. After all, it easier to connect just
> a single cable, right?

8^(, 8^(, 8^(, SIGH......!

> A few months ago I visited a household with two converter boxes and
> two televisions. The primary television only had the left channel
> audio connected (so that what they were hearing was actually a
> dual-mono signal) and the secondary television had the left and right
> channel audio cables reversed.

My deepest sympathies...........! 
What gets me is that two (2!) 4-channel home audio systems failed 
way back when (when most people just plunked their *stereo* speakers 
together on the floor or on a shelf), but now we have "5.1" and "7.1" 
audio for video when a well-placed ***PAIR*** of ***GOOD*** speakers 
will easily outperform by a WIDE margin anything of the multi-channel 
sort that I have yet heard (or suffered through the demo of...;-). 
Simplicity, and care with set-up details, pays off more than gadgets, 
I think... 

> >> It's really a shame that the final approval process for the ATSC
> >> standard was occurring in a parallel fashion with the move away from
> >> direct view CRTs to flat panel displays (LCD, plasma, and DLP). If the
> >> migration to flat panel technology had occurred sooner, or if the
> >> approval (by the FCC) of the ATSC standard had been further delayed
> >> (it took a good ten years or so as it was), the ATSC spec might look a
> >> bit different than it does.
> >>
> >> I laugh to myself every time that I remind myself that a couple of
> >> years (approximately, I forget the exact time period and am in a hurry
> >> right now and can't look up the precise date) after the FCC approved
> >> the ATSC standard, they came out with an update that added MPEG-4 Part
> >> 10 AVC / H.264 encoding in addition to the original MPEG-2 encoding.
> >> They did this even though they knew full well that it was way too late
> >> as millions of HDTVs had already been sold in this country (that only,
> >> by definition, supported MPEG-2 and not MPEG-4 AVC) and that no
> >> broadcaster was about to switch from MPEG-2 to MPEG-4 AVC because no
> >> one in their audience would be able to view their programming if they
> >> did so.

> >That's the way of such things, I guess. I would have preferred Blu-ray
> >to accept "60p" as an option at 1920x1080 - that would have been
> >a good standard, and Blu-ray discs have plenty of capacity to permit
> >it even at fairly high data rates (at least for shorter videos),
> >but..........

> Yes, and therein lies the problem. 1080p59.94 and 1080p60 movies would
> often require two discs, and consumers like the convenience of a
> single disc. I mean, who really wants to get up in the middle of a
> movie to swap discs so as to see the second half of the film?

The 50-gig capacity now should be sufficient, and Blu-ray discs 
with more than two layers are coming soon... 

> Besides, the true film buff wants 24p (as it was shot), not 60p. 
> -- 
> 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]. 

Yes, some will still prefer duplicating a shortcoming of an older 
medium, I guess. But, why not shoot at least in 60p now, and distribute 
it that way when that becomes possible...? Older movies shot on film 
rather than digital could still get 24p releases (as could newer ones, 
with conversions, for the "stick-in-the-mud" "worse-is-better" 
crowd, I guess ;-). Thanks for your comments, as usual (and, sorry for 
simplifying frame-rate numbers, but....;-). 
--DR

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

"gmark" <gmark99@gmail.com> wrote in message news:
36381025-977e-48bb-bb42-097cf280f2c2@c41g2000yqm.googlegroups.com:

> My TH46PZ85U Panasonic 46" plasma picture is great, 
> but there are some times where I can see a line or 
> two of flickering, seemingly-distorted information 
> at the top of the screen, AND some captions that are 
> cut off at the bottom. I suspect this top is that 
> band of information used to transmit extra information 
> to older sets, like closed captioning, time, etc., 
> but I'm not sure. In any event, I was wondering if 
> I could just move the picture up a bit and eliminate 
> this, AND possibly see more of the captions I'm missing. 
> Or do I just have to live with it?

> TIA!

> Mark

I'm interested in the answer to this also. While I do not 
have this problem with HD, but when I have occasionally seen 
a broadcast graphic intended to check the centering of the 
broadcast picture of the cable company, it shows the picture 
to be VERY slightly left, and more placed low (the TV covers 
very nearly 100% of the broadcast picture area, so I don't 
get noticeable picture cutoffs, as you appear to have). 
With SD, though, there is often an annoying band of closed 
captioning signal at the top. I use the TV's picture expansion 
control to get rid of this, but it would be nice to have the 
picture properly centered. I don't know if this is an issue 
with the cable company, or if going into the TV's service 
menus could solve it... 
Frank? 
--DR 

~~~~~

"Frank" <frank@nojunkmail.humanvalues.net> wrote in message news:
pqai07l4ar8f68i23ag9jq39lt4jcno2h7@4ax.com:

> I should note that the problem is *not* usually related to a defective
> television; rather it's just the result of having a full display,
> something that only pros had in the old days.

Yes, mine does appear to display the entire 1920x1080 area 
(the test pattern indicated this, since the tiny side and 
corner arrow points indicated the whole pattern could appear, 
but that it was very slightly off center). 

> The usual solutions range from placing a long strip of black
> electrician's tape across the top of the panel (yes, I've actually see
> people do this)

I've been tempted...;-) But since the problem is one mostly 
evident in SD, with that I use the TV's ability to somewhat 
enlarge the overall picture, which can look quite good. 

> to getting your hands on a copy of the service manual
> and availing yourself of any relevant adjustments that might help to
> resolve, or at least hide, the problem.

Scary for some of us...! 
[..., but thanks for the further comments.]

> -- 
> 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]. 

--DR 

~~~~~~~~~

"Frank" <frank@nojunkmail.humanvalues.net> wrote in message news:
kgvj07599pdhd04bsqng3p7o3bd40gogl2@4ax.com:
> On Tue, 28 Jun 2011 13:50:01 +0000, in 'rec.video',
> in article <Re: How to Move Panasonic Plasma Picture?>,
> "David Ruether" <d_ruether@hotmail.com> wrote: 
> >"Frank" <frank@nojunkmail.humanvalues.net> wrote in message news:
> >pqai07l4ar8f68i23ag9jq39lt4jcno2h7@4ax.com:

> >> I should note that the problem is *not* usually related to a defective
> >> television; rather it's just the result of having a full display,
> >> something that only pros had in the old days.

> >Yes, mine does appear to display the entire 1920x1080 area
> >(the test pattern indicated this, since the tiny side and
> >corner arrow points indicated the whole pattern could appear,
> >but that it was very slightly off center).

> I'm still on my first cup of coffee so I'm not fully awake yet, but if
> the panel is native 1920 by 1080 and no portion of it covered by
> (hidden behind) the bezel, and you feed it with a 1920 by 1080 signal,
> and you can see, as you claim to, all 2,073,600 pixels, how could the
> displayed image be "very slightly off center"?

You do seem to get little sleep - I hope I do not intrude 
too much on what you do get...!;-) As for the above, as I 
recall, the test-pattern graphic had VERY small outward 
pointing triangles at the image borders. It was evident that 
the points were VERY slightly missing at the right edge and 
more so along the bottom. Since these were opposite the sides 
that sometimes show extra material (sometimes on the left, 
with a pixel or two width of a vertical line the color of 
the "bug", and sometimes at the top [much more often with 
SD] with closed captioning material) and the other sides 
showed complete triangles (although the possible extra black 
edge of the graphic, if present, was difficult to see against 
the black bezel so I don't know if it was present). In any 
case, the picture is clearly slightly decentered, and it is 
not obvious if the cause is in the TV or in the cable signal, 
or what, if anything, can be done about it. Since the problem 
is minimal with HD (and solvable with SD by expanding the 
picture size somewhat), I have not worried too much about 
it - but it would be interesting to know what is going on, 
and if a complaint to the cable company would be justified. 

> >> The usual solutions range from placing a long strip of black
> >> electrician's tape across the top of the panel (yes, I've actually see
> >> people do this)

> >I've been tempted...;-)

> LOL.

> >But since the problem is one mostly evident in SD,

> That's really the only time that you should even encounter this
> problem. It's caused by old standard definition material that was shot
> in some analog format and then digitized into a computer for editing.
> It's not uncommon in this scenario to see garbage around the edges of
> the captured picture.

See above, but it is usually "busy" broken white horizontal 
rectangles, often seen with SD, but occasionally also seen 
with HD with cable service. 

> This can be caused by a number of reasons. Head switching on the
> playback VCR is a typical reason, especially with VHS and S-VHS decks.
> Inserting a few of lines of video black at the top and bottom of each
> frame of video will hide the problem and few viewers will ever notice
> the difference. I've done this with old Sony U-matic content.

> >with that I use the TV's ability to somewhat
> >enlarge the overall picture, which can look quite good.

> It may "look quite good", but aren't you decreasing the apparent
> resolution of the video when you do this?

Yes, technically I am, but it does generally still look 
good even with SD material, and losing that busy distraction 
at the top of the picture is WORTH IT!;-) Since this is not 
generally necessary with HD, there is no loss with that...;-) 

> >> to getting your hands on a copy of the service manual
> >> and availing yourself of any relevant adjustments that might help to
> >> resolve, or at least hide, the problem.

> >Scary for some of us...!

> Manuals don't bite! Manuals are your friend!

Not if I "mess up"! 8^( 

> Are you in possession of the service manual for your particular telly?

No, or I would possibly be more aware of my limits while 
tinkering with this...

> Note that modern HDTVs, and especially anything designed and built in
> the last two years or so, are really just computers with some
> peripheral devices attached, such as the display panel. Most
> adjustments, therefore, are made by changing the values of items in
> the service menus. This is usually done using the HDTV's remote
> control. Very little, if any, electronic test equipment
> (oscilloscopes, volt meters, etc.) is required. Because of this,
> almost anyone can go in and tweak their HDTV's various internal
> settings.

This is good to know...

> And if you're concerned about screwing things up, there's usually a
> Reset function that will return all settings back to their factory
> defaults.

This is also good to know... 

> Of course, writing down the values of all of the initial settings,
> prior to making any changes, is also a good idea.

This is also VERY good to know...! 8^) 

> >[..., but thanks for the further comments.]

> You're very welcome.

> -- 
> 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 - but please do get enough sleep! (I also sometimes 
write on the alt.support.sleep-disorder NG.........zzzzzzzzzz! 8^) 
--DR


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

"M-M" <nospam.m-m@ny.more> wrote in message news:
nospam.m-m-DF9DFE.09221328062011@cpe-76-190-186-198.neo.res.rr.com:

> Here is a series of photos taken at a sculpture garden/arboretum. The 
> infrared captures the eerie atmosphere. Here is an example:

> http://home.comcast.net/~mhmyers/sculptir/images/19.html 

> The rest of the photos are here:
> http://home.comcast.net/~mhmyers/sculptir/sculptir.html 

> -- 
> m-m
> Photo Gallery:
> http://www.mhmyers.com 

NICE WORK! 8^) 
BTW, I have some IR video here -- 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OOe3c5x3VRU&fmt=18 
The camera used is here, with a soon-to-be-lowered 
price since I haven't used it in years -- 
http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com/fs-camcorders.htm 
--DR

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

"Steve King" <steveSPAMBLOCK@stevekingSPAMBLOCK.net> wrote in message news:
iuvern$mv6$1@news.albasani.net:
> "Paul Furman" <paul-@-edgehill.net> wrote in message 
> news:DLqdnRTbMuuRd4zTnZ2dnUVZ5gudnZ2d@giganews.com...
> > ushere wrote:
> >> Brian wrote:
> >>> Paul Furman wrote:
> >>>> Brian wrote:
> >>>>> Thakns ushere.

> >>>>> I'm using Vegas so I'll try that out.
> >>>>
> >>>> It works pretty well, although there are limits where it'll crash with
> >>>> large stitched panoramas so downscale some if you aren't zooming in 
> >>>> all the way. Also just having a bunch of those back to back can crash 
> >>>> Vegas eventually. What I really like is that's about the only way to 
> >>>> really appreciate high res stills - apart from enormous paper prints.
> >>>>
> >>>> When attempting a very wide high res pano once, I was unable to get it
> >>>> to render without crashing so I had to break it in two. Then it was
> >>>> pretty much impossible to align them back together but I was able to
> >>>> start over from a different zoom with a fade and got the whole scene 
> >>>> in well enough.

> >> try converting the jpg to png....

> > Here's the previous discussion:
> > http://groups.google.com/group/rec.video.desktop/msg/5974a4ac38c5b9ee
> > I believe that was on platinum, about a year ago. I haven't pushed it on 
> > pro like that since but even 12MP images slow things down a lot. That's 
> > not really what Vegas was designed for - there may be better programs for 
> > this.

> FYI Using a number of large scale stills with pan & crop also dramatically 
> slows down and sometimes crashes Final Cut Pro on a quad core G5 with lots 
> 'o ram. Renders of even small sections of the time line seem to take 
> forever, and that's when the crases occur. Not always, but often enough to 
> be a pain. My editor now reduces the size of the stills in PhotoShop to 
> just what's needed rather have FCP do it. So, this is not just a Vegas 
> problem.

> Steve King 

Vegas Platinum may not be designed for this, but Pro 
from ver. 9 permits working with 4096x4096 video. But 
with ver. 8, I was able to combine 4000x3000 JPG stills 
with 720p MOV video from the same camera (the Panasonic 
ZS7). The final file type was HDV, though, which is 
very easy to work with - and the three crashes I had 
while exporting a 25 min. video left intact four HDV file 
pieces behind. Using the "Smart Rendering" characteristic 
of HDV, I could assemble the pieces on a new timeline and 
make a new complete file quickly, simply copying the 
pieces into a new HDV file with no recompression losses. 
--DR

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