Posted by Richard Crowley on 11/18/07 23:19

"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.

[Back to original message]