Editing question

Ken Hodson · September 13th, 2003, 08:29 PM

I agree that JVC probably wasted cash on the XLR's, but I can understand their reasoning. XLR has become standard with anything in the pro catagory, so they are sort of forced by the market to include it. I wish they had upped the price $200 and made it a solid solution though.
ken

Eric Bilodeau · September 13th, 2003, 09:25 PM

It was more about having XLR to differenciate the proSUMER from the consumer, try to make it more attractive. Of course they did waste money and should have invested in a solution to control the iris and shutter instead of that. It is always about catching the fish, a lure is a lure. XLR now seems to be a PRO attribute as Ken said, personnally I don't take my sound in camera most of the time, I do not have sufficient control so I don't care much about XLR, balanced or not on the camera.

Steve Mullen · September 13th, 2003, 09:39 PM

<<<-- Originally posted by Eric Bilodeau : I do not have sufficient control so I don't care much about XLR, balanced or not on the camera. -->>>

And why would you want to control audio during capture? :)

Eric Bilodeau · September 13th, 2003, 09:46 PM

I do not do much documentary work, mostly fiction, so sound has to be carefully monitored, I usually work with another person doing the sound, and of course it would be a pain to have him hooked up to the camera, following me all the time, that's all...

September 13th, 2003, 08:29 PM	#46
Ken Hodson Trustee Join Date: Aug 2003 Location: Vancouver BC Canada Posts: 1,315	I agree that JVC probably wasted cash on the XLR's, but I can understand their reasoning. XLR has become standard with anything in the pro catagory, so they are sort of forced by the market to include it. I wish they had upped the price $200 and made it a solid solution though. ken __________________ Damnit Jim, I'm a film maker not a sysytems tech.

September 13th, 2003, 09:25 PM	#47
Eric Bilodeau Major Player Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: Chicoutimi, Canada Posts: 334	It was more about having XLR to differenciate the proSUMER from the consumer, try to make it more attractive. Of course they did waste money and should have invested in a solution to control the iris and shutter instead of that. It is always about catching the fish, a lure is a lure. XLR now seems to be a PRO attribute as Ken said, personnally I don't take my sound in camera most of the time, I do not have sufficient control so I don't care much about XLR, balanced or not on the camera. __________________ Eric Bilodeau video SFX,DOP ___________________ http://www.fictis.net info@fictis.net

September 13th, 2003, 09:39 PM	#48
Steve Mullen HDV Cinema Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: Las Vegas Posts: 4,007	<<<-- Originally posted by Eric Bilodeau : I do not have sufficient control so I don't care much about XLR, balanced or not on the camera. -->>> And why would you want to control audio during capture? :) __________________ Switcher's Quick Guide to the Avid Media Composer >>> http://home.mindspring.com/~d-v-c

September 13th, 2003, 09:46 PM	#49
Eric Bilodeau Major Player Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: Chicoutimi, Canada Posts: 334	I do not do much documentary work, mostly fiction, so sound has to be carefully monitored, I usually work with another person doing the sound, and of course it would be a pain to have him hooked up to the camera, following me all the time, that's all... __________________ Eric Bilodeau video SFX,DOP ___________________ http://www.fictis.net info@fictis.net