OK, I'm still trying to think through which video camera to get.

I now understand that tape will generally have better quality because the
video on tape isn't compressed as much as on a hard drive or DVD camera.
But, I'm imagining that there must be some advantage to the hard drive
cameras- much longer recording capability (assuming you have a knapsack full
of batteries). And, it's easier to port your camera hard drive data to a PC
hard drive.

I also get the sense that editing video recorded on a hard drive is more
difficult- because the higher compression ratio is more difficult to work
with?

Can any relatively inexpensive editing software such as MS Movie Maker do
the trick with a hard drive camera?

Presumably some editing programs can work with all 3- tape, hard drive or
DVD data ported to your PC? Or are the editing programs customized to work
with only 1?

Is the convenience of a hard drive camera worth the loss of quality? Of
course this depends..... My problem is I don't have a grasp of the magnitude
of quality loss going from tape to the others and the magnitude of the
convenience of not using tape- so for me it's a tough choice.

I do read reviews and I am starting to get it- but not enough to spend my
money.

I guess I need to find a good review of editing software.

Joe

Do you really envision editing your videos? Consider this: of the 100
digital still pictures you take how many do you really edit (like crop
or sharpen) and how many do you really print? If the number is very
low, then you are probably too busy to edit videos. You will probably
end up assembling clips together and burning a DVD.

Now, about the picture quality concerns related to hard drive based
camcorder. Identify one camcorder that is best in the your price range
(based on reviews). Go to a reputable retailer and check their return
policy. If they don't charge restocking fee, just buy from them on a
Friday. Use it extensively in various conditions during the weekend.
You may find that the picture quality is good enough for you. If you
are not absolutely satisfied with the product, just return it and buy
a tape based camcorder.

To actually answer your questions,

No, there is no quality difference between Tape and Hard Drive cams.
DVD cams are more compressed. Tape cams give you more recording time
because you can just put in a new tape. Whereas with a Hard Drive cam
you have to dump the data to a computer once it's filled up - the
recording time depends on how large the drive is. Digital SD video off
tape or hard drive is aprox 220MB/minute (much smaller when compressed
to DVD).

The only thing that Hard Drive gives you over Tape is that it is much
quicker to download from the camera to your computer and it has less
of a chance of "dropout" - meaning corrupted data. Downloading Tape to
from the camera is 1:1, meaning it takes 30 minutes to capture 30
minutes of video. Downloading from a Hard Drive camera speed is
faster, depending on the speed of your firewire port and your hard
drive, normally 30 minutes of video will take 5-10 minutes to capture.

As far as editing. Movie Maker should be fine for your purposes, as
far as I can tell from your message above. There are many low-cost
options available for video editing and dvd creation. A lot of them
are under $100 and can be found at your local Fry's Electronics and on
Amazon.com, etc. You have to figure out your price range and the
features you really need and then go check out what is available to
you.

Hope this helps.

In article <1184340364.819141.307***@e9g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
DarkDragon <DarkDragon1***@gmail.com> wrote:

I understood that hard drive cams compressed more (quite a bit more), so
if you want the best quality use MiniDV.

On Jul 13, 8:58 am, Tim Streater <tim.strea***@dante.org.uk> wrote:
Usually there would be a setting for "good" , "best" etc like with a
digital still camera (this doesn't happen with tape cams). If you
select the best or highest setting, the video won't be compressed any
more than with a tape. Of course that will depend on the actual camera
you are looking at and you'd have to check the info from the
manufacturer.  My suggestion would be to check the user manual of the
particular camcorder before you buy it (most manufacturers have a pdf
version their website).

Now one thing you might want to consider, and this may be what you are
thinking of. HDV is compressed highly, and a lot more then standard
DV.  This is on tape or on hard drive.

That is absolutely untrue.  The "best" setting on hard-drive machines
matches DVD-compliant mpeg2, i.e. compression ratios of 10:1 or higher and
bandwidth no greater than 10 mbps.  DV-25/miniDV has a compression of ratio
fixed at 5:1 and has a 25 mbps bandwidth.  And, of course, mpeg is
temporally compressed, whereas DV-25 is not.

HDV is a version of mpeg2 at 25 mbps.  AVCHD is a version of mpeg4 with a
bandwidth of between 12 and 17 mbps.  Because of the relatively high
compression, HDV does exhibit some motion artifacts -- enough to disqualify
it from professional use, but still producing good video for
prosumer/consumer use.  AVCHD is artifically limited -- deliberately
handicapped by the manufactures -- and exhibits significant motion artifacts
that disqualify it from all but casual consumer use.

Show quote

Hide quote

Absolutely incorrect, at least with respect to standard definition video.
Hard drive camcorders use mpeg2 or mpeg4 compression which not only has a
higher compression rate than DV-25/miniDV, but also has a far lower
bandwidth.

DVD camcorders use mpeg2, just like many hard drive camcorders.

228 mb/minute or 13.7 gb per hour for DV-25, much less for hard drive or
DVD, depending on the compression ratio and bandwidth.

Show quote

Hide quote

The last is true -- transfers are faster.  However, there's no other
advantage and a number of disadvantages which have been previously
discussed.

Here's the problem (and it's not specifically related to compression rates).
Hard drive camcorders use temporal compression.  A reference frame is used
and then subsequent frames (and sometimes prior frames) are analyzed in
relation to the reference frame and only the differences are stored.  This
makes editing a challenge.  If you want to do simple cuts, the cut must
occur on a reference frame, or else the program has to calculate the
intermediate frames between the reference frame and the cut.  If you want to
add a title, effect or transition, the program must make the intermediate
calculation apply the effect, and then calculate new reference frame and all
subsequent frames.  Not only does this take considerable horsepower, but it
results in image degradation -- mpeg2/4 are both lossy compression formats.
When you add a title, effect or transition you are, in essence, introducing
an additional transcode step.  Each time you transcode you lose image
quality.

I have no idea what the consumer programs can do.  There are entry-level
programs, like Womble, that can handle mpeg and, I believe, there may be
other entry-level software that can as well.  I can tell you this: I use
Adobe Premiere Pro and, from time to time, I have to work with mpeg source
material.  On my 3 GHz P4 editing computer, it drags the work flow down
dramatically.  It's much, much easier and faster to work with
non-temporally-compressed source, i.e. DV-25 / miniDV.

See above.

Only you can answer that.  If you're satisfied with low-end consumer video,
then the answer would be yes.  If you want higher quality, the answer is
obviously no.

Go to brick-and-mortar dealer and play with the hardware.  Don't judge the
cameras by what they show realtime in the viewfinder.  Plug them into a
video monitor, record some video (remember, too, that retail stores tend to
be far better lit than the average home interior) and play it back on the
monitor.

Exactly what kind of projects do you want to do?  Who will see them?  How
will they be distributed?

Show quote

Hide quote

(snipped)

OK, this is my general idea- I am a consulting forester in Massachusetts- I
do forestry projects for private forest owners- including preparing long
term mgt. plans and managing forest stand thinning and harvests and do
appraisals of timber values, locate and mark property boundaries, etc.

I'd like to record myself doing my work (obviously I wouldn't do it myself-
a friend or helper would do it)- measuring trees, marking trees for harvest,
searching for boundaries. I act as a broker for forest owners, selling
timber to loggers and sawmills- I have to then oversee what they do. I have
to cooperate with various state and federal forestry agencies to follow the
various forestry and environmental laws.

So, I'd like to do a series of short videos (maybe 10-15 minutes each)-
showing me in the woods doing my work- a clip of a good logger doing his
work- possibly interviews in the woods of the agency employees discussing
the laws and their functions- and interviews of people concerned about
changes to the laws and other policy concerns- interviews of
environmentalists concerned about forestry practices. Oh, and I could show
different types of forests in the area explaining the differences in terms
of biodiversity, economics, etc.

Most clips will be outdoors, sometimes in fully sunlit areas or in the
woods- where in the summer you get only whatever light can penetrate the
foliage.

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.).

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. 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.

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.
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. 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? 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. 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.

Joe

<interesting explanation of forestry project snipped for brevity>

Is the idea to advertise your forestry consulting services?

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.


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).


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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

Show quote

Hide quote

Sorry to respond to my own post, but I missed something in my original
reply.

If the only venue for your project is the internet, you're probably okay
editing on the computer monitor.  However, computer monitors have very
different gamma characteristics than televisions (any television, i.e. LCD,
DLP, plasma and CRT televisions have different gamma than CRT and LCD
computer monitors).  If there is any chance that your projects are going to
be viewed on a television, it's important to try to set up the gamma on the
computer monitor to match, as closely as possible, that of a television.
When I edit, I use a small broadcast monitor (picked up on eBay for around
$100 to $150 or so).  The difference between the image on the television
monitor and the image on my computer monitor is, to say the least,
dramatic -- the computer image is, usually, darker, with very different
color saturation.

<interesting explanation of forestry project snipped for brevity>

Is the idea to advertise your forestry consulting services?

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.


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).


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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

Show quote

Hide quote

PTravel wrote:

Show quote

Hide quote

I agree with almost everything in PT's two posts but I'd try to steer
you to hiring a professional shooter. As mentioned earlier a low quality
video suggests less than professional services to be offered. I've
worked and hired in Mass and know there are good video folks up there.
I'd suggest hiring one for the shooting. You can get a ENG guy who'll do
his own audio and have the benefit of dynamic video.

My brother wanted the same basic type of shooting for his company and I
recommended going to the closest University to find hungry 3rd year
students. It gives them something to put on their reel and you something
for the web.

Remember that all this is a business expense and is deductible.

bill

Sorry to respond to my own post, but I missed something in my original
reply.

If the only venue for your project is the internet, you're probably okay
editing on the computer monitor.  However, computer monitors have very
different gamma characteristics than televisions (any television, i.e. LCD,
DLP, plasma and CRT televisions have different gamma than CRT and LCD
computer monitors).  If there is any chance that your projects are going to
be viewed on a television, it's important to try to set up the gamma on the
computer monitor to match, as closely as possible, that of a television.
When I edit, I use a small broadcast monitor (picked up on eBay for around
$100 to $150 or so).  The difference between the image on the television
monitor and the image on my computer monitor is, to say the least,
dramatic -- the computer image is, usually, darker, with very different
color saturation.

PTravel wrote:

Show quote

Hide quote

I agree with almost everything in PT's two posts but I'd try to steer
you to hiring a professional shooter. As mentioned earlier a low quality
video suggests less than professional services to be offered. I've
worked and hired in Mass and know there are good video folks up there.
I'd suggest hiring one for the shooting. You can get a ENG guy who'll do
his own audio and have the benefit of dynamic video.

My brother wanted the same basic type of shooting for his company and I
recommended going to the closest University to find hungry 3rd year
students. It gives them something to put on their reel and you something
for the web.

Remember that all this is a business expense and is deductible.

bill

On 7/16/2007, PTravel posted this:

<SNIP>

PTravel: Everything I thought of saying you said better; you also had
ideas I hadn't thought of.

When I was in about the 8th grade, my parents and I decided to try to
sell my violin. It was a very squeaky instrument that never sounded
good.

One of the potential buyers picked it up and played a tune or two. It
sounded beautiful! We were astonished...and maybe even embarrassed.

Also, I could always tell which slides in a roll of film were taken by
my then mother-in-law, an architect, vs my then father-in-law, a
chemist. (No, I don't mean that he was in the pictures she took or vice
versa!)

This is just to reinforce your remark about amateur versus professional
(at least for *some* values of 'amateur').

<SNIP>

To all- thanks for the comments- I agree that getting a pro would be the
best option- but I'm not sure if I can afford it- then again, if I don't buy
the equipment- I have some money for the pro- and, if I organize very well
what I want- I could probably get the most bang for the buck from that pro.

On the other hand (I'm a liberal so I have to say that <G>)- I discovered
when I bought a Nikon F100 35 mm about 10 years ago- that I could take some
good pictures. If I got decent equipment, I certainly wouldn't come up with
decent video right away, but I probably could come up with acceptable work
soon enough- as I'm not in a huge hurry- and I'd have that new skill- if in
fact I developed some talent, I might then buy some pro equipment (semi-pro
maybe).

But, I think looking for a pro is a great idea- and worth pursuing- after
all, that pro probably doesn't charge more per hour than I do.

I suppose many pros today offer examples of their work on the net?

Joe

Show quote

Hide quote

Joe wrote:

Show quote

Hide quote

start here...

http://www.mandy.com/

You're right on the one hand to hire the shoot out. You can learn to
edit if you want but getting good shots are no accident.

You're also right in scheduling. Getting the best bang for your buck
requires getting as much shot in a day as possible. Don't get caught
wondering on a shoot day.

bill

On 7/16/2007, PTravel posted this:

<SNIP>

PTravel: Everything I thought of saying you said better; you also had
ideas I hadn't thought of.

When I was in about the 8th grade, my parents and I decided to try to
sell my violin. It was a very squeaky instrument that never sounded
good.

One of the potential buyers picked it up and played a tune or two. It
sounded beautiful! We were astonished...and maybe even embarrassed.

Also, I could always tell which slides in a roll of film were taken by
my then mother-in-law, an architect, vs my then father-in-law, a
chemist. (No, I don't mean that he was in the pictures she took or vice
versa!)

This is just to reinforce your remark about amateur versus professional
(at least for *some* values of 'amateur').

<SNIP>

To all- thanks for the comments- I agree that getting a pro would be the
best option- but I'm not sure if I can afford it- then again, if I don't buy
the equipment- I have some money for the pro- and, if I organize very well
what I want- I could probably get the most bang for the buck from that pro.

On the other hand (I'm a liberal so I have to say that <G>)- I discovered
when I bought a Nikon F100 35 mm about 10 years ago- that I could take some
good pictures. If I got decent equipment, I certainly wouldn't come up with
decent video right away, but I probably could come up with acceptable work
soon enough- as I'm not in a huge hurry- and I'd have that new skill- if in
fact I developed some talent, I might then buy some pro equipment (semi-pro
maybe).

But, I think looking for a pro is a great idea- and worth pursuing- after
all, that pro probably doesn't charge more per hour than I do.

I suppose many pros today offer examples of their work on the net?

Joe

Show quote

Hide quote

Joe wrote:

Show quote

Hide quote

start here...

http://www.mandy.com/

You're right on the one hand to hire the shoot out. You can learn to
edit if you want but getting good shots are no accident.

You're also right in scheduling. Getting the best bang for your buck
requires getting as much shot in a day as possible. Don't get caught
wondering on a shoot day.

bill

On Mon, 16 Jul 2007 11:51:11 -0700, "PTravel"
<ptra***@travelersvideo.com> wrote:

All good suggestions. But I would add in relation to the lighting
problem, to check-out a model with CMOS-sensors, as they seem to have
a slightly larger dynamic range. You would end up with one of the
newer Sony models, which are AVCHD, which you mihgt reconsider as this
is a bear to edit (currently). Disadvantage is probably that due to
the high compression, leafs will look rather funky ;-)


cheers

-martin-

Particularly if they're moving the breeze -- far more mosquitos than
actually in the forest.

Show quote

Hide quote

On Mon, 16 Jul 2007 11:51:11 -0700, "PTravel"
<ptra***@travelersvideo.com> wrote:

All good suggestions. But I would add in relation to the lighting
problem, to check-out a model with CMOS-sensors, as they seem to have
a slightly larger dynamic range. You would end up with one of the
newer Sony models, which are AVCHD, which you mihgt reconsider as this
is a bear to edit (currently). Disadvantage is probably that due to
the high compression, leafs will look rather funky ;-)


cheers

-martin-

Particularly if they're moving the breeze -- far more mosquitos than
actually in the forest.

Show quote

Hide quote

*Frame* Rate vs. *Refresh* Rate
Pros and Cons of MiniDV and Hard Drive Camcorders
Lost original remote, how can I replace it?
Kodak c875
HDTV with Sony KV-36XBR400?