|
|
Posted by Pre-Meltdown on 11/19/07 01:29
"Richard Crowley" <rcrowley@xp7rt.net> wrote in message
news:13k1i3g2rj7cf7a@corp.supernews.com...
> "Pre-Meltdown" wrote...
>> I'm trying to get a basic strategy going for setting up a video
>> studio for basic instructional videos.
>
> Doing what? Assembling ships in a bottle, or building a 24 foot
> boat? Or painting watercolors of boats? This may not work very
> well as a generic question.
>
>> I don't think I need super-high quality, as a lot of the stuff I see on
>> youtube seems to be quite watch-able--
>
> Is that your goal? "Watchable" on YouTube?
>
>> unless those were done with expensive cameras!
>
> Some of them almost certainly were.
>
>> I was under the impression most of youtube stuff was done
>> with webcam-type equipment.
>
> Perhaps some of the more obvious low-quality, fixed-position
> ones might have been. But I'll bet the majority were shot
> with conventional camcorders.
>
>> Since the cameras will be fixed at various angles/locations (maybe in
>> about 6-10 locations, I'm thinking),
>
> Yikes! Do you know how hard it is to do a live-switched
> video with that many cameras? Even professionals don't
> try that without weeks/months of pre-planning and huge,
> experienced crews.
>
> OTOH even if you are recording all the cameras "iso",
> keeping them all lit and framed is a very daunding task.
> And then editing all that stuff after the fact is not a
> trivial process.
>
>> and hopefully piped directly into a PC in the studio
>
> Using what software? Were you planning on recording
> each camera separately ("iso"), or were you planning to
> do live-switched?
>
>> what quality/features would I need, visavis someone who is doing
>> hi-quality on-location shoots?
>
> I'd start by eliminating the idea of using "webcams".
> The low quslity video on YouTube is mostly due to
> the heavy-handed compression, not the quality of
> the original video. If you feed "webacm quality"
> video into YouTube you get something that even
> more resembles visual mush.
>
>> I'm assuming that if the camera is wired directly into a PC, the demands
>> on its own memory/electronics/software might be substantially diminished.
>
> Very capable mini-DV camcorders can be had for the cost
> of only 2-3 of your webcams. They will produce much better
> pictures than any webcam gadget could dream of.
>
> There is no great benefit in recording directly to your PC
> unless extremely rapid turnaround time is required (such
> as breaking news, etc.)
>
>> I've been at wize.com, where they have ratings for $4,000 Canons in the
>> 90's, AND they have ratings for sub-$200 units in the 90's as well. I
>> even saw, I think, a decent looking Sony for $34!!
>> Are these ratings anything someone can hang their hat on?
>
> I would be dubuious. The appear to be synthisizing
> reviews/ratings from consumers and "experts" Consumers,
> particularly those that just bought their shiny new gadget
> are not objective reporters, and even most "experts" who
> are writing for popular consumption are influenced by
> business and economic factors that prevent their complete
> objectivity. This is a chronic problem with reviews of
> consumer goods in popular magazines, websites, etc.
> Independent, add-free sources like "Consumer Reports"
> are not subject to these influences, but then you must
> consider whether their reviewers have sufficient knowledge
> of the subject area to offer useful opinions.
>
>> Are there programs that can take/record 6-10 video inputs, for subsequent
>> editing?
>
> Two, probably, Three, maybe. 6-10, I seriously doubt it.
>
>> What are the minimal tech specs on a camera for this type of application?
>
> Better than any "webcam" gadget I've ever seen. Start out
> by considering that the optics on "webcams" are OK for
> surveillance, but not for even amateur video production.
>
> If you care to reveal what kind of stuff you are shooting,
> likely many of us could offer some practical suggestions.
I greatly appreciate the kind thoroughness of your response, and will try to
address your points.
And indeed, not just "watchable on youtube", but an instructional dvd to be
supplied with a product I'm just on the verge of bringing to market, which
is an exercise/rehab device for, among many other things, quickly
stretching/rehab-ing bad backs--not every bad back, of course, but a
surprising number of them.
I developed/make this unit in a full machine shop I have downstairs. Nicely
machined product, a rarity in today's retail market.
The unit permanently installs in a doorway, which is mocked up in the middle
of a 5-600 sq ft studio (8' ceilings) upstairs, so the video would be shot
around this doorway, front, back, left, right.
This studio/video equipment will be permanent, and likely not moved from
this location.
I reasoned that since turn-key surveillance systems with up to eight cameras
can be viewed simultaneously on one partitioned monitor, that several
cameras could stream their images via a suitable program, from which I could
then grab whatever view was the best for that particular demo/instruction.
I gather this strategy does *not* extend to production video?
I assumed that this could also be done straight into the computer, altho I
guess it doesn't really matter whether the playback is from the computer's
HD or from the camcorder's themselves.
The point being, RE the "ISO" you mentioned:
Yes, I would like to have multiple cameras just running, and LATER be able
to select the best footage from the various vantage points.
With sufficient field of view on each camera to cover my motion within/about
the doorway. I was hoping to be able to play back all the footage
simultaneously, to make selection easier.
Realistic, in a real-life video world?
Since I will be starting all this from scratch (new everything), I don't
have a program in mind, and could use suggestions along those lines as well.
I've seen Pinnacle and Premier demo'd at B&H in Manhattan, but don't really
grok their full capabilities. The simpler the program the better, for now.
You mentioned "very capable mini-DV camcorders" for 2-3x a webcam. What
might some of these be, ito general brands/models, and what ballpark price
range?
And where would one find a reliable/objective evaluation of these and other
products?
I will be setting up from scratch (new computer, lighting, mics, software,
etc.), and as MG mentioned ito of bang for my buck, would basically like
spend the minimum (for now, to get started, at least), with the best
bang/buck, hopefully in a way that can be upgradeable.
In essence, a basic but serviceable studio for these demos.
I'll have to spend whatever I gotta spend, and hopefully not wind up
homeless. :)
I'm not against the idea of a consultant, but would sort of like to get my
feet wet first, and maybe get a little income stream in first, so I can get
to the "next level".
This will also be an ongoing project, with a regular output of instructional
dvds for a variety of machined products.
Again, I can start real basic, but would like to do it in a way where I can
also expand/upgrade without scrapping what I've already bought. Wishful
thinking??
Looking for "decent" quality, but not for any prizes in a film festival.
One last Q:
What is the difference between this ng and rec.video.desktop? What types of
Qs are more suitable there, vs here?
Appreciate your time, and any further help and guidance.
--
------
Mr. P.V.'d (formerly Droll Troll), Yonkers, NY
entropic3.14decay at optonline2.718 dot net; remove pi and e to reply--ie,
all d'numbuhs
>
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|