|
|
Posted by PTravel on 01/10/07 02:24
"Jim S" <Jim S@jimsplace.com> wrote in message
news:45a40007$1@clear.net.nz...
>
> "PTravel" <ptravel@travelersvideo.com> wrote in message
> news:50h1g8F1g0so0U1@mid.individual.net...
>>
>> "Jim S" <Jim S@jimsplace.com> wrote in message
>> news:45a306c7$1@clear.net.nz...
>>>
>>> "Dave Martindale" <davem@cs.ubc.ca> wrote in message
>>> news:enubu4$khj$1@swain.cs.ubc.ca...
>>>
>>>>> "Jim S" <Jim S@jimsplace.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>>So because the AVCHD format is said to have a bit rate that is "very
>>>>>close
>>>>>to tape based standard definition", doesn't this improve the appeal of
>>>>>hard
>>>>>drive and DVD camcorders that record in this format?
>>>>
>>>> Not unless it allows you to record high-quality SD video, which I
>>>> doubt.
>>>> It certainly doesn't give high-quality HD video, as other readers
>>>> have attested.
>>>>
>>>> Dave
>>>
>>> So what would your advice be to a person who wants to buy NOW a good
>>> camcorder for home use that will produce the best video possible for not
>>> much more than say $US2000?
>>
>> That's easy: a VX2100. You'll get stunning video, incredible low-light
>> performance, and not-half-bad audio from the on-camera microphone. The
>> VX2100 occupires a unique niche -- to better it's performance, you'd have
>> to spend another $1,000 on a Canon XL2. Anything priced less will take a
>> considerable and dramatic hit on performance.
>>
>>
>>> At any point in time, there are always improved models and technologies
>>> that aren't far away. We can see that happening with future blu-ray
>>> products. But in practical terms, some people can't keep on waiting, so
>>> would you advise people to steer clear of the new AVHCD format? What do
>>> you think about the new Sony HDR-HC3 miniDV tape camcorder, it has HDMI
>>> connectivity and can record HDV at 1080i, see:
>>>
>>> http://www.goodgearguide.com.au/index.php/taxid;2136212591;pid;2004;pt;1
>>>
>>> The reviewer, James Dickinson, says that:
>>>
>>> "Unsurprisingly, the video quality from the HC3 blows away the
>>> competition. The native 1080i images are crisp and sharp with fantastic
>>> levels of detail. No standard definition DV camcorder can get anywhere
>>> near the HC3 in terms of video quality. "
>>>
>>> This seems to be a pretty good recommendation don't you think?
>>>
>>> Cheers, Jim
>>>
>
> Yes, the Sony DCR-VX2100, which came out in 2003, was certainly a great
> camera, but rather too bulky for many of today's travelers.
Sorry, but you're falling into the "good enough for the masses" trap. I am
one of "today's travelers," and I'd wager that I've travelled,
internationally, more than most people on this newsgroup, and done it with
my VX2000, which I've had since 2002. Yes, I'd prefer a smaller form
factor, but not at the expense of getting good video under a variety of
conditions. Similarly, I'm sure little point-and-shoot still cameras are
good enough for many people who only want 4 x 6 mass market machine prints.
However, I want high quality stills up to 13 x 19, so I carry a heavier and
more bulky Canon 10D.
There is a market for cameras for people like me, as evidenced by the
popularity of cameras like the Canon 10D (and 20D and 5D), and the
VX2000/2100. That market is serviced by the still camera industry. It has
been abandoned by the video camera industry.
> It must be getting harder to buy new VX2100's after all this time? But if
> you are prepared to cart around a camera of this size, why not buy the
> Sony HDRFX1E?
What is that, an FX1 for PAL? I'm unfamiliar with this camera, but if it's
a version of the FX1, I'm not interested -- it has poor low-light
performance and fairly evident digital artifacts from the
artificially-crippled bandwidth.
>
> http://www.sonystyle.com/is-bin/INTERSHOP.enfinity/eCS/Store/en/-/USD/SY_DisplayProductInformation-Start?ProductSKU=HDRFX1&Dept=cameras&CategoryName=dcc_DICamcorders_HighDefinitionVideo
>
> I sometimes feel sorry for people who are compelled to lug around big bags
> of camera gear and tripods when on holiday.
Whereas I feel sorry for those people who think that, because something
meets their needs, it should meet everyone's needs. You have no idea what I
do on holiday, how I do it, or why, yet you feel sorry for me? Save your
pity for the people in Darfur. If I didn't like what I was doing, I
wouldn't do it. As I said, I travel internationally far more than most, and
by "international travel" I don't mean sitting on my butt on a cruise ship
and taking 1-day, carefully-sheparded, bus excursions. I'm writing this on
top of the Yellow Mountain (Huang Shan) in China, and we (my wife and I)
just came back from watching the sunrise. I shot it with my VX2000, mounted
on my Manfrotto 3444D carbon fiber tripod with a Bogen 3160 video head. It
was exquisite to see, and will be wonderful to relive, over and over, once I
transfer the video to my computer at home, complete post, and product a
digital backup and DVD of our trip. I would feel sorry for those whose idea
of travel is a once-in-a-lifetime cruise to the Bahamas, except people tend
to do what they like and what they're most comfortable with, so I'll reserve
my pity for the victims in Darfur.
> Those people who can fit their movie and still cameras into one small bag,
> or even into a pocket, can still produce great travel memories at a
> quality that is satisfactory to them.
Satisfactory to them, not to me. My wife and I view our travel videos over
and over. I wonder how many other people can say that.
As I said, some people are satisfied with p&s 4 x 6 machine prints that they
stick in a photo album and never see again. I'm satisifed with my carefully
shot and post-processed and home-printed 13 x 19 prints that displayed in a
hallway we use as a photo gallery.
To each his own.
I don't make the mistake of thinking that every should do what I do. Why in
the world do you think that everyone should do what you do?
> I have helped lots of such people to edit video and produce slide shows,
> and they are very happy with the results.
So what? What's your point? My parents where happy with a black and white
Zenith television that they kept until the 1980s, despite the ready
availability of color sets. It was good enough for them. Would it have
been good enough for you?
I guarantee you that I wouldn't be happy with your edit of my video, given
your belief that cameras like the FX1 are "good enough."
> Even some enthusiasts are buying tiny digital cameras that also take
> movies so they can have a still and movie camera with them in a pocket at
> all times. OK, you may not get perfection,
Or anything remotely close. I had a TRV20, which was Sony's top-of-the-line
single-ccd at the time I bought it. It is better than Sony's current
single-ccd machines. And it was not remotely close to "good enough" for
me -- it's low light performance was dismal, it's color saturation poor, and
it displayed an unacceptable level of digital artifacts. That's why I
bought my VX2000 -- the TRV900 was no longer available (it would have been
"good enough" for me), and the TRV950 was a joke. I'm very, very happy with
the quality of video I get from my VX2000 --- the result is that my travel
videos look their absolute best, and the only limitations on me are my own
artistic ones, and not imposed by the hardware.
> but you can get 10megapixel stills and even passable video at times when
> it's simply not practical to have your big gear with you!
What makes you think everyone is interested in, much less satisfied by,
"passable video"? As for 10 megapixel stills, pixel density is a very small
part of the story when it comes to the quality of digital still photography.
I'll put up a 13 x 19 print from my Canon 10D, a 6 megapixel camera, against
a 10 megapixel point and shoot any day of the week. My camera has superior
glass, superior metering, a superior shutter, and better optical tolerances
than any 10 megapixel p&s on the market.
> For example, when on long walks, or when simply going out for a meal, a
> little combo camera is the way to go.
What has that to do with travel photography and travel videography? A
cellphone camera is handy to have if you find yourself in the midst of a
shoot out with bank robbers. It is in no way relevant to the needs of
someone who likes to do travel videography.
>
> Before buying gear that even a donkey would find difficult to cart around,
I'm not a donkey, and I have no difficulty "carting around" my gear.
Really, I don't understand your smug, "as do I, so should the world"
attitude. You don't make the kind of videos that I do (and, I suspect, you
don't travel as I do, either). Why would I have any interest in the kind of
gear that you find "good enough," but, nonetheless, far below the quality
standard that I require for the video that I produce?
> have a look at a nice little combo like this:
>
> http://www.sonystyle.com/is-bin/INTERSHOP.enfinity/eCS/Store/en/-/USD/SY_DisplayProductInformation-Start?ProductSKU=DSCN2
>
That is, apparently, the FX1 (as I said, I'm in China and my internet
connection is too slow to surf webpages). The FX1 has poor low light
performance compared to the VX2000 (and that's a critical requirement for
what I shoot), and also has artificilly-limited bandwidth that results in
signficant and quite visible digital artifacts. In other words, it produces
video that looks like it was shot on an amateur camera. I'm not spending
$2,500 for a camera with those kinds of limitations.
> And if you must, then buy your TV-studio-type gear from which to create
> your Lord of the Rings type movies.
I don't make Lord of the Rings type movies. Really, your attitude is rather
remarkable. In your world, there are only two levels of video -- rank
amateur with quality-crippled video gear, or Hollywood feature film. Just
as in the still photography world, there is an entire spectrum of production
in between. Not everyone goes on cruises, and not everyone is satisfied
with grainy pictures of the kids blowing out the candles on their birthday
cake. I wouldn't recommend my gear (or my shooting style) to everyone and,
particularly, to anyone who only wants to shoot their cruise vacation or
their kid's birthday to show grandma. Why do you think your
one-size-fits-all philosophy is, in anyway, applicable to the world of
amateur video?
> And don't forget to buy a DSLR digital still camera with 5 or 6 top
> quality lenses, you never know when you'll want to photograph bees' knees.
> But if you want to feel liberated from heavy weights when on holiday, a
> camera like the Sony DSC-N2 may just be for you.
I really wonder if this is just a question of you're not being able to
afford better gear, so you feel the need to belittle anyone who can (and
believe, I had to save up for some time to buy what I have -- I'm not rich)?
Either you know very little about the physics and mechanics of both digital
and still photography, or you're simply arrogant and can't understand why
your "good enough" isn't everyone's "good enough."
My gear isn't the "bee knees." It does, however, give me considerable (and
almost complete) control over the images that I produce, and doesn't impose
any technical limitations on those images. And that is what I require for
what I shoot. Your gear might make acceptable "vacation videos" and
snapshots for you, but would be entirely unacceptable for me.
>
>
>
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|