Prev: The Canon SX1 IS doesn't have a date stamp!
Next: For the LAST TIME...raise your right hand and repeat:
From: clw on 18 Dec 2009 10:37
Anyone here use a DSL cameras video function?

Is it any good or should I just get a separate video camera?
From: David Ruether on 18 Dec 2009 12:26

"clw" <clw(a)ohsu.gov> wrote in message
news:clw-79A4D5.07374918122009(a)news.isp.giganews.com...

> Anyone here use a DSL cameras video function?
>
> Is it any good or should I just get a separate video camera?

This is in many ways "a can of worms". But, *in general*, for HD,
the still cameras may have limited functionality for video (such as
no external mic input, mono-only sound, no good wind screen,
pick up of internal noises and handling noises, maybe no AF and/or
no auto exposure while shooting video, and maybe no stabilization
of the video image - and the video formats used are often far less
than easy to edit for anything more than simple cuts with a title, if
even that). I have just been editing Panasonic FZ35 footage shot
by two friends, and the raw footage has obvious stabilization and
compression-failure problems, and even with my fast quad-core
computer with 3-gigs of RAM, editing was no fun even with the
"low" file data rate of 17 Mbps.
Get a separate video camera unless your video needs are specific
and simple and can therefore be handled by what is available
(although things are easier if you stick with [UGH!] SD instead of
HD) - although there are some fancy cameras that do shoot good
HD video if you can afford them, and if you can afford what is
necessary to edit the results adequately.
If you do go with a separate HD camcorder, I strongly recommend
avoiding those that write to memory card or hard drive, unless your
standards are low (and you write at a reduced data rate for easier
editing), or you have the resources to handle the hard-to-edit higher
data rate files. This format does offer the advantages of freedom from
tape dropouts and easy export of files to/from the computer - but,
what then......
HDV tape offers both easier editing and automatic good archiving
of raw footage - and the finished footage has pretty much the same
image quality as the highest data rate memory card file footage. More
on this (and more...;-) is at --
http://www.donferrario.com/ruether/articles.html#video
--DR


From: David J Taylor on 18 Dec 2009 13:09
"clw" <clw(a)ohsu.gov> wrote in message
news:clw-79A4D5.07374918122009(a)news.isp.giganews.com...
> Anyone here use a DSL cameras video function?
>
> Is it any good or should I just get a separate video camera?

If, like me, all you want is short clips just to capture some of the
atmosphere of an event, they are fine. If you want a long recording with
all mod cons on the controls, a separate video camera is better.

David

From: ray on 18 Dec 2009 14:42
On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 07:37:49 -0800, clw wrote:

> Anyone here use a DSL cameras video function?

DSL is Digital Subscriber Line - a form of broadband access available
over phone lines. I'm not quite sure how that relates to cameras.


>
> Is it any good or should I just get a separate video camera?

From: Pete D on 19 Dec 2009 00:14

"clw" <clw(a)ohsu.gov> wrote in message
news:clw-79A4D5.07374918122009(a)news.isp.giganews.com...
> Anyone here use a DSL cameras video function?
>
> Is it any good or should I just get a separate video camera?

Depends really, they are fantastic for some specialised applications ( I
have been playing with some HD macro) but generally will take a lot more
effort that a basic cheap HD camcorder for basic shooting.

Pete


 |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3
Prev: The Canon SX1 IS doesn't have a date stamp!
Next: For the LAST TIME...raise your right hand and repeat: