Posted by MG on 11/19/07 00:02

"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.


Your best bet to start, since you seem to really be new to this, might be to
figure out what you want to spend, then try to get the most bang for your
buck. As Richard said, what you are proposing is hardly "basic." And as
helpful as newsgroups can be, if you really want to do it right, you might
need to think about a consultant.

mg



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

[Back to original message]