Posted by PTravel on 07/16/07 18:51

"Joe" <abc@xyz.com> wrote in message news:eXMmi.3070$4J4.994@trndny05...

<interesting explanation of forestry project snipped for brevity>

>
> I'd then like to upload these clips (maybe a dozen or so) to the net where
> they can be viewed by other forestry people (private and gov. sectors and
> environmentalists, forest owners, etc.).

Is the idea to advertise your forestry consulting services?

>
> I'm concluding that I shouldn't waste money and time trying to go with
> hidef if the main goal is to produce online clips.

Definitely not. Streamable or readily-downloadable video requires
significant compression, and the maximum resolution you would want to ensure
compatibility with most computers would be 800 x 600 -- that's close enough
to 720 x 480, the standard for NTSC standard definition video, so that any
resolution gain from HD would not really be seen.


> I don't need professional quality equipment- I can be careful enough to
> get decent video, I think- by using a tripod and being careful as possible
> about lighting- as one would do with any camera. Tape seems to be the way
> to go for decent quality on a consumer camcorder.

Well, a few things come to mind:

1. Shooting in forests can present some significant lighting challenges.
Clearings in bright sunlight are easy for any camera. However, under the
forest canopy it is really quite dark -- low-light capability will be very
important. Hardest of all will be a mix, where the sun penetrates in some
places but not others. This takes considerable dynamic range. You'll need
a camera with good low-light capability and manual exposure setting.

2. The human eye (actually the human brain) is very good at doing color
correction. Camcorders are not. Leaf-filtered light has a distinct shift
towards the green. Getting a good white balance is going to be a challenge
and, particularly, when there is a mix of filtered light and direct
sunlight. You'll probably need a camera that has manual white balance.

3. Forests are, essentially, bichromatic -- there's the color of the tree
trunks and ground, and then there are the leaves. A camera with good color
saturation can capture subtle differences in hue. You might consider a
(good) 3-ccd machine (there are cheapie 3-ccd machines on the market that
exist as marketing tools and don't offer significantly better color
saturation than higher-end consumer 1-ccd machines).

4. There are tripods and there are tripods. For video, you need a tripod
with a fluid head. Otherwise, your pans and tilts will be jerky. I use a
Manfrotto 3444D tripod with a Bogen 3160 video head. The 3444D is a carbon
fiber tripod -- it's very light but very stiff and folds down quite small,
which makes it easy to carry. The 3160 is a relatively light video head,
but there are lighter ones available (I chose it because the quick-release
plate is compatible with a bracket I use for still shooting).


> A main reason for wanting to do this- is that nobody else involved with
> forestry is doing it- and I'd like it to show forest owners that I know my
> stuff and that they should consider retaining me to manage their forest.

Ah, so you do want to advertise. My personal opinion, only, but I think
it's not hard to see the difference between video from a good camera and one
from a consumer cheapie. Cheap amateur video suggests, at least to me,
cheap amateur services. You want to present your services in the best light
possible -- I'd invest in reasonably decent equipment.

> And, because I've been involved for over a decade in major forestry policy
> debates within Massachusetts- I'd like to have an impact on policy making.
>
> BTW, I saw at Best Buy recently a Panasonic DV camcorder with 3 CCDs and
> it was only about $470 on sale- I don't recall the model name and number.
> I thought you'd have spend a lot more to get the 3 CCDs.

The Panasonic 3-ccd machines were the ones I had in mind when I said that
some manufacturers offer 3-ccd as a marketing ploy. I don't consider the
video from these machines to be of particulaly high quality when compared
to, for example, higher-end Canon and Sony 1-ccd machines. However, I also
don't consider these to be acceptable for anything other than casual amateur
use.

You probably won't be happy with my recommendation, but I'd suggest either a
new or used Sony VX2100 (street price for a new one is around $2200) or a
used VX2000 or PD150 (substantially less, but find out about head hours --
video tape is abrasive and can wear down the heads). These are prosumer
3-ccd machines with extraordinary low-light capability, beautiful,
noise-free, saturated video, auto as well as full manual controls, great
lenses -- in short, everything you'd need for your project. These cameras
offer more bang-for-the-buck than anything else on the market, and compare
favorably to prosumer and semi-pro gear costing twice as much.

> That camera was connected to a small monitor which was running a program
> discussing the camera's features- and it showed (indicating it was a
> simulation) of the difference between what you'd see with 1 CCD and with 3
> CCDs- that program worked with whatever that camera was pointed to- which
> in this case was my nice, colorful tee-shirt. I could see the difference,
> but since it was just a simulation, perhaps it exaggerated the effect?

Hard to say. I don't see how it could provide a 1-ccd image for comparison
without also including a 1-ccd sensor (which it doesn't). Compare that
cheap Panny to a VX2100 if you want to see what a good 3-ccd machine can do.

> Maybe this camera would be a good "started camera" for me. Maybe I just
> need to jump in and get my feet wet. If I later need a high end hidef
> camera, I'd got that too.

You don't need a high-def camera for internet distribution. For what you've
described, though, I think you need better than the Panny. Others may
differ.

Also, editing is going to be important for your project. It's harder than
you might think to keep a video of this sort well-paced and coherent. Are
you planning to add a narration? Music? Titles?

> I'm willing to spend the money if I'm convinced that a much better camera
> would be worth it. Obviously a much better camera will be nice when I want
> to watch it on my own hidef TV, but I don't yet have one- though I do have
> a very nice 24" flat screen monitor which I got with my new duel core PC-
> unfortunately, the PC is not in a good spot for casual viewing.
>
> Anyways, perhaps I'm getting closer to a solution.

The project that you're proposing is, essentially, a professional one, even
though you intend to do it yourself. You might want to ask this question in
rec.video.production (I've cross-posted this over there) and over at
www.dvinfo.net. Expect to hear this, though (and it's something that I
agree with): the best gear in the hands of an amateur will produce, at best,
amateur-looking video. An experienced pro who understands lighting, video,
optics, etc., on the other hand, can produce professional looking product
with the meanest of gear. It doesn't mean you shouldn't try it, but it's
something to keep in mind so you don't wind up disappointed in the result.

BTW, I'm strictly an amateur, albeit an obsessed one. You can see examples
of my videos (highly compressed for the net, but shot with a VX2000) at
www.travelersvideo.com.


>
> Joe

[Back to original message]