|
|
Posted by mv on 09/26/42 11:39
In message <1139504924.497179.239580@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>,
Barrius <barrybridges2002@hotmail.com> writes
>Well thanks very much for your extremely helpful and constructive reply
>John. Why do you feel it necessary to be so aggressive and rude, when
>all I wanted was a little advice from someone who is knowledgable
>enough to provide it?
>
>If I can't get a camera for that price, then what price could I get a
>suitable camera for. If it takes more cash, then it takes more cash:
>money is not an issue.
>
>To satisfy those who wishes to be so horribly condascending, perhaps I
>ought to rephrase my post:
>
>1) I want to produce a budget training video for my staff
>2) I want to be able to film at a very high picture quality
>3) I wish to get a camera that is relatively easy to get to grips with
>suitable even for an 'idiot' like me.
>
Yes you are quite right Barry but your initial presumption did demand
sarcastic condescension, it's always been effective in education!!! A
bit like the apprentice being sent off to get a left handed screwdriver,
it might make the apprentice feel silly but he'd never make such a fool
of himself again, it's traditional ;-)) I had hoped that a little
metaphorical light hearted sarcasm might serve to illustrate the point
without getting to laboured about it. But I guess you've demanded that I
labour the point after all.
Since money is not a problem you might ask yourself a couple of
questions;
If this is an in-house training video, is it likely to effect the
perceptions of those vital to your business, clients and customers for
example? If yes then anything that seems markedly less in quality than
people see on TV is likely to be counter productive. If no, you can do
what ever you want as long as the training message works well enough. If
the former though you might then ask a further question of yourself; If
you need this production are you likely to need more in the future and
do you want to provide for potential future development of this
presumably new in-house resource? If yes and you are indeed located in
the UK then buy an HDV camera, the cheapest with good ergonomic and
fully controllable features is the Sony FX1 at round £1,900 plus VAT
(There's also an amazing super compact A1 HDV camera for 1,400 pounds
plus VAT but I wouldn't recommend it as an only camera) . It offers both
Standard Definition (DV) and High Definition (HDV) functions at full
resolution 16x9 ratio (wide screen). For an additional £1,000 plus VAT
you can have the Sony Z1 version of the FX1 with a large number of
additional features, that are very much worth having. A cheaper option
would be to buy something like a Sony VX2100 for about £1,400 plus VAT.
This is an excellent Standard Definition DV only camera prioritised for
4x3 recording, but I'd suggest that in our European PAL Digital Plus
16x9 TV world all 4x3 SD formats are obsolete for any production with
'high quality' aspirations.
Fundamentally though, editing should be considered from the outset. HDV
post (editing) requires very specific and appropriate computers
(powerful) and the market is currently littered with half baked and ill
conceived software options whose only virtues are cheapness and a few
others which add insult to injury by not even being cheap.
The trouble with both your original post and subsequent reply is that
you load your questions with assumptions that are non secitur to any
simple reply. What do you mean by low budget? I just worked on a 'low
budget' production that cost 1.1 million pounds ($1.8 million) on the
other hand I've just quoted for a ten minute information film that at
23,000 pounds is not low budget. However I recently got paid six
thousand pounds for a two minute piece that was not at all profitable. A
colleague makes commercials where a thirty second production can cost
anything from 100,000 to a million or more. The term low budget without
a frame of reference is utterly meaningless.
When you talk of a "very high quality" picture, but what does that
mean to you? One mans high quality picture is another's poor one. To any
professional, very high might more likely be taken to mean High
Definition or film. Most modern consumer DV cameras, even single CCD
models, can produce pictures that are quite decent on a 4x3 TV monitor
but fall considerably below the quality of professional 3 CCD types and
fall even further below hen tasked with showing on a 16x9 TV/monitor.
Video image quality is measured and or defined by vertical and
horizontal lines of resolution, numbers of active pixels, colour and
contrast handling latitude, dynamic range in terms of detail and colour
registration, signal to noise ratio, light sensitivity (which determines
how much artificial light is required to maintain quality in low ambient
light environments), the size and shape of the CCD's and generational
development in terms of HAD, Hyper HAD, Super HAD and now even non CCD
'CMOS imaging devices', optical precision of the lens and indeed a shed
load of other factors not the least of which is the competence and craft
of the operator and director. Now that we're transiting from Standard
Definition to High Definition the goal posts have been dramatically
moved on, though as yet many domestic consumers and ersatz professionals
will remain largely unaware of this until they see the neighbours new HD
LMD LCD instant refresh rate 90 inch Super Broad Band Ready surround
sound home cinema that they had previously presumed did not exist.
You then say you'd like something you can relatively easily get to grips
with, what you mean like a proper cameraman whose just spent a couple of
years trying to become craftsmen enough to have someone actually pay him
to shoot a programme, or perhaps you meant something altogether less
demanding?
Finally your original concern about motion blur whilst talking of
consumer priced cameras was indeed ridiculous. Unless you're willing to
spend over 20,000 on a camera, you'd have no choice but to accept the
motion handling of 5 to 1 compressed DV or 20 to 1 compressed HDV
formats, there's little difference between them and in any event such
motion blurring should not be an issue for anything that you would seem
to be attempting. I suspect that you have heard something of the now
declining chatter recently going around regarding motion issues and HDV,
mostly misconceived ones caused by erroneous post production and
inappropriate monitoring, a debate that then follows in further
misleading ways concerning the issues differentiating HDV in it's 1080i
and 720p forms, but I won't go there just now because it'll take another
ten minutes to write an explanation.
There's quite a few of us who regularly frequent this news group, that
is really miss named rec.video because most regulars are professional or
semi professional TV and film folk. I really am sorry to have poked fun
at you Barry old chap but think of it as an amusingly informative
incident. I was minded of the hilarious moment when General Jan Smuts,
the turn of the century South African Premier, revealed himself to be
flat earther when he argued with Joshua Slocum, the first person to sail
single handed around the world, that the mariner had in fact only sailed
in a circle on top of the World, hence my earlier joke. Just how does
one reply to someone asking the wrong questions?
--
John Lubran
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|