internet content aquisition at DVinfo.net

John M. McCloskey · April 9th, 2007, 07:51 AM

When taking into consideration aquiring footage for internet what are the pros and cons of shooting the footage on tape versus tapeless. What camera would you use to get your video to the internet the quickest. I am assuming the XDHD cam would be the answer due to digitizing greater than real time. What is the best way to get a huge amount of content to the internet fast. Thanks

Liam Hall · April 9th, 2007, 08:31 AM

Tape versus HDD all depends on your work-flow. Choice of camera depends on many things, not least the content and the audience who will view it. You need to give more information.

One thing is for sure though, live streaming is the fastest way to get content on the net.

John M. McCloskey · April 9th, 2007, 08:51 AM

Lets say for instance I have been on a TV show shoot and have shot 20 (63 minute tapes) and while I am logging the tapes I come accross several 3 to 5 minute segments that would be considered tips for how to survive in the wilderness. The main guts of the shoot are for TV which will air several months from now, but I have many short segmnets in the batch of 20 tapes that I would like to get on the internet within 24 hours. Lets also say there are 7 other guys who will be doing the same scenario 3 times a month. So 7 guys once a week bring in 20 tapes each. 140 tapes a week main purpose of the tapes is to build TV shows, secondary purpose is to get short segments within the batch of tapes to the internet quickly. What would be the best way to aquire the footage tape or tapeless. either way we would be saving the footage to a huge storage facility where a flip factory would have access to the footage also. Thanks

Liam Hall · April 9th, 2007, 09:35 AM

Now that sounds like a good gig.

I can see why you're thinking XDcam - thumbnail browsing and essence markers would be perfect for pulling out your short segments. It also integrates very well with final cut pro which would make it easy to edit and encode for the net.

A tapeless workflow would also be a benefit shooting out in the wilderness for many reasons, no lugging round a big box of tapes and worrying about humidity causing a tape clog. It Sounds to me like you've answered your own question.

Good luck with it.

Liam.

Carlos Rodriguez · April 9th, 2007, 09:09 PM

speaking of wilderness and XDCam, did any of you see the sony footage from the iditarod in Alaska? Amazing stuff. A colleague of mine went to SF for a conference where the XDCam was discussed, and they said they set the camera up for timelapse overnight. When they woke up the next morning, the camera was completely frozen, temperature wise. All they did was remove the battery (by force) attach a new one, and continued to record. They said the camera was that rugged. Kudos to Sony for that one.

April 9th, 2007, 07:51 AM	#1
John M. McCloskey Major Player Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: West Point, MS Posts: 313	internet content aquisition When taking into consideration aquiring footage for internet what are the pros and cons of shooting the footage on tape versus tapeless. What camera would you use to get your video to the internet the quickest. I am assuming the XDHD cam would be the answer due to digitizing greater than real time. What is the best way to get a huge amount of content to the internet fast. Thanks

April 9th, 2007, 08:31 AM	#2
Liam Hall Major Player Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: London, England Posts: 969	Tape versus HDD all depends on your work-flow. Choice of camera depends on many things, not least the content and the audience who will view it. You need to give more information. One thing is for sure though, live streaming is the fastest way to get content on the net. __________________ Writer-Director-DOP www.liamhall.net

April 9th, 2007, 09:35 AM	#4
Liam Hall Major Player Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: London, England Posts: 969	Now that sounds like a good gig. I can see why you're thinking XDcam - thumbnail browsing and essence markers would be perfect for pulling out your short segments. It also integrates very well with final cut pro which would make it easy to edit and encode for the net. A tapeless workflow would also be a benefit shooting out in the wilderness for many reasons, no lugging round a big box of tapes and worrying about humidity causing a tape clog. It Sounds to me like you've answered your own question. Good luck with it. Liam. __________________ Writer-Director-DOP www.liamhall.net

April 9th, 2007, 08:51 AM	#3
John M. McCloskey Major Player Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: West Point, MS Posts: 313	Lets say for instance I have been on a TV show shoot and have shot 20 (63 minute tapes) and while I am logging the tapes I come accross several 3 to 5 minute segments that would be considered tips for how to survive in the wilderness. The main guts of the shoot are for TV which will air several months from now, but I have many short segmnets in the batch of 20 tapes that I would like to get on the internet within 24 hours. Lets also say there are 7 other guys who will be doing the same scenario 3 times a month. So 7 guys once a week bring in 20 tapes each. 140 tapes a week main purpose of the tapes is to build TV shows, secondary purpose is to get short segments within the batch of tapes to the internet quickly. What would be the best way to aquire the footage tape or tapeless. either way we would be saving the footage to a huge storage facility where a flip factory would have access to the footage also. Thanks

April 9th, 2007, 09:09 PM	#5
Carlos Rodriguez Major Player Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Modesto, California Posts: 206	speaking of wilderness and XDCam, did any of you see the sony footage from the iditarod in Alaska? Amazing stuff. A colleague of mine went to SF for a conference where the XDCam was discussed, and they said they set the camera up for timelapse overnight. When they woke up the next morning, the camera was completely frozen, temperature wise. All they did was remove the battery (by force) attach a new one, and continued to record. They said the camera was that rugged. Kudos to Sony for that one.