Assorted posts from 2002Q1 -- more

Ed Smith · February 8th, 2002, 01:54 PM

Bestpages,

Sony PC120 is only a 1CCD camera and being that will not give the quality of a 3CCD camera, but is still pretty decent (530 lines). Many TV companies use them to shoot interior shots of cars with the presenter talking down the camera while driving. With that camera you are paying for some features which you would probably not use i.e. Bluetooth technology etc.

The little Canon cameras are pretty decent i.e. MV400/i versions and they come with Analog in/out and I think they give you about the same resolution as the Sony (but not some of the features). (They are about half price of the PC120!!!)

The only portable DV decks I know are the sony's costing about the same as the PC120.

Hope this helps,

Ed Smith

February 11th, 2002, 07:27 AM

Hello,
I have buy the magiqcam II stabilisator for my XL1, it's a terrific stabilisator. It costs less than half price of the glidecam V8 and the performance are better !!!!

This stabilisator is delivered with:

1/ VEST
2/ ARMS
3/ SLED
4/ LCD SUPPORT

http://animagique.safeshopper.com

Bye

Kyle Baker · February 11th, 2002, 11:27 AM

is there anything out there that can be plugged into the cannon XL1S or sony vx1000 that will allow live feed transmission for a 3+ mile range.. if you know, please fill me in ...
Thnx for the assist

Respectfully,

Kyle R Baker
Freefly Navigator

Vic Owen · February 11th, 2002, 08:14 PM

My guess is that anything that has the power to operate over that range would need to be licensed. Probably expensive, since you're into the stuff that the mobile TV crews use.

Maybe someone else has jumped this hurdle....

Elmar Tewes · February 12th, 2002, 09:23 AM

Really looks interesting. Thx for the info !

February 13th, 2002, 05:29 AM

I currently own a trv900 and a trv 310 digital 8mm (which is not used for capture much).
I am looking into purchasing a vx2000 to go with my 900.
What are the opinions on how the two would work together in post?
I have heard differing opinions as to how a scene from one camera would blend with a scene shot on the other camera. Some saying the 2000's image in low light is so much better than the 900's that it would be quite noticable. Others offer that if one were to use the 900 shooting wide and the 2000 on closer shots the difference is very little.
Thanks for any advice from anyone with experience using these two models.
Jeff

Ken Tanaka · February 13th, 2002, 11:05 AM

... is in its last days. I sure hope so. I'm getting real tired of looking at b&w circa 1960 viewfinders for critical focus. No matter what "old pro's" will tell you, it's rediculously anachronistic.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=73&u=/zd/20020213/tc_zd/5103136

Vic Owen · February 13th, 2002, 11:59 AM

Ken--

Interesting article. What a concept, to not have to carry a power-sucking B&W TV around on the camera! It'll be interesting to see how they're priced.

Cheers

John Klein · February 14th, 2002, 01:12 AM

I was thinking that the 900 might be better on the tighter shots and the 2000 on the more distant shots from the standpoint of higher res with the 2000 will pick up the smaller details more readily.

If you manually white balance, and the scene isn't too dark (ie-darker than the 900 @12 dB of gain) I'd think the two would work great.

I'm thinking of adding one to go with my canon (rt. now I've got D8, too, which is pretty good as long as you're zoomed in tight enough not to test the limit of it's resolving power). The sonys are much better mated, but I think the keys are: manual (and proper) exposure and manual white balancing. And of course, 3chips will mate better, too.

Ken Tanaka · February 20th, 2002, 01:04 AM

While I was looking for someplace to get lighting gels and other obscuria I came across StudioDepot.com and thought others might also find it a handy and interesting source for such stuff. It's actually a division of Mole-Richardson, a 75 year old film supply house in Hollywood.

Bon Appetit!

John Locke · February 20th, 2002, 02:05 AM

I've ordered several things from Studio Depot in the past.

I rate them an A+.

Adam Lawrence · February 25th, 2002, 12:40 PM

Im kinda confused..

what is the exact image resoultion tha the xl1 produces?

is it 640X480 or 720X480?

does anyone know the exact res?

Joe Redifer · February 25th, 2002, 06:04 PM

720x480 non square pixels. It will look a little stretched on a computer monitor since computers use square pixels.

Ed Frazier · February 28th, 2002, 09:06 AM

I just received my VZ-TFT monitor and have come up with an alternative to using the shoe mount. It was simple to fabricate and attaches to the tripod in such a way that the monitor pans but does not tilt with the camera. I'll post a couple of pics if anyone is interested.

A question for those that have this monitor; mine has a bright metalic strip running along the bottom edge of the LCD panel inside the plastic frame. It is about 3/16" high and appears to be part of the internal structure of the actual LCD panel. Possibly the LCD is not centered properly in the plastic housing. Does everyone else see this same thing or did mine flunk QC?

Ken Tanaka · February 28th, 2002, 12:24 PM

Mine doesn't have such a strip, Ed. Your must be the special Quicksilver Edition <g>.

I'm interested in your mounting technique. I've been either using the shoe mount or a gooseneck clamp (which works with the assistance of a 5" piece of gaffers tape <g>)

February 11th, 2002, 07:27 AM	#32
flashman Posts: n/a	Stadycam for XL1 Hello, I have buy the magiqcam II stabilisator for my XL1, it's a terrific stabilisator. It costs less than half price of the glidecam V8 and the performance are better !!!! This stabilisator is delivered with: 1/ VEST 2/ ARMS 3/ SLED 4/ LCD SUPPORT http://animagique.safeshopper.com Bye Last edited by flashman; February 11th, 2002 at 02:43 PM.

February 11th, 2002, 11:27 AM	#33
Kyle Baker New Boot Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: san diego Posts: 22	live feed transmission is there anything out there that can be plugged into the cannon XL1S or sony vx1000 that will allow live feed transmission for a 3+ mile range.. if you know, please fill me in ... Thnx for the assist Respectfully, Kyle R Baker Freefly Navigator

February 11th, 2002, 08:14 PM	#34
Vic Owen Major Player Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Seattle, WA Posts: 540	My guess is that anything that has the power to operate over that range would need to be licensed. Probably expensive, since you're into the stuff that the mobile TV crews use. Maybe someone else has jumped this hurdle.... __________________ -- Vic Owen --

February 13th, 2002, 05:29 AM	#36
Jeff1769 Posts: n/a	Using a vx2000 with a trv900 I currently own a trv900 and a trv 310 digital 8mm (which is not used for capture much). I am looking into purchasing a vx2000 to go with my 900. What are the opinions on how the two would work together in post? I have heard differing opinions as to how a scene from one camera would blend with a scene shot on the other camera. Some saying the 2000's image in low light is so much better than the 900's that it would be quite noticable. Others offer that if one were to use the 900 shooting wide and the 2000 on closer shots the difference is very little. Thanks for any advice from anyone with experience using these two models. Jeff

February 13th, 2002, 11:05 AM	#37
Ken Tanaka Retired DV Info Net Almunus Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Chicago, IL Posts: 6,943	Perhaps the High-Res B&W CRT Viewfinder... ... is in its last days. I sure hope so. I'm getting real tired of looking at b&w circa 1960 viewfinders for critical focus. No matter what "old pro's" will tell you, it's rediculously anachronistic. http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=73&u=/zd/20020213/tc_zd/5103136 __________________ Lady X Films: A lady with a boring wardrobe...and a global mission. Hey, you don't have enough stuff! Buy with confidence from our sponsors. Hand-picked as the best in the business...Really! See some of my work one frame at a time: www.KenTanaka.com

February 8th, 2002, 01:54 PM	#31
Ed Smith Wrangler Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: Hampshire, England Posts: 1,545	Bestpages, Sony PC120 is only a 1CCD camera and being that will not give the quality of a 3CCD camera, but is still pretty decent (530 lines). Many TV companies use them to shoot interior shots of cars with the presenter talking down the camera while driving. With that camera you are paying for some features which you would probably not use i.e. Bluetooth technology etc. The little Canon cameras are pretty decent i.e. MV400/i versions and they come with Analog in/out and I think they give you about the same resolution as the Sony (but not some of the features). (They are about half price of the PC120!!!) The only portable DV decks I know are the sony's costing about the same as the PC120. Hope this helps, Ed Smith

February 12th, 2002, 09:23 AM	#35
Elmar Tewes Regular Crew Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: Frankfurt Germany Posts: 104	Really looks interesting. Thx for the info !

February 13th, 2002, 11:59 AM	#38
Vic Owen Major Player Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Seattle, WA Posts: 540	Ken-- Interesting article. What a concept, to not have to carry a power-sucking B&W TV around on the camera! It'll be interesting to see how they're priced. Cheers __________________ -- Vic Owen --

February 14th, 2002, 01:12 AM	#39
John Klein Regular Crew Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Wisconsin, USA Posts: 182	I was thinking that the 900 might be better on the tighter shots and the 2000 on the more distant shots from the standpoint of higher res with the 2000 will pick up the smaller details more readily. If you manually white balance, and the scene isn't too dark (ie-darker than the 900 @12 dB of gain) I'd think the two would work great. I'm thinking of adding one to go with my canon (rt. now I've got D8, too, which is pretty good as long as you're zoomed in tight enough not to test the limit of it's resolving power). The sonys are much better mated, but I think the keys are: manual (and proper) exposure and manual white balancing. And of course, 3chips will mate better, too. __________________ < >< . . . . . < >< . . . . . < ><

February 20th, 2002, 01:04 AM	#40
Ken Tanaka Retired DV Info Net Almunus Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Chicago, IL Posts: 6,943	StudioDepot.com While I was looking for someplace to get lighting gels and other obscuria I came across StudioDepot.com and thought others might also find it a handy and interesting source for such stuff. It's actually a division of Mole-Richardson, a 75 year old film supply house in Hollywood. Bon Appetit! __________________ Lady X Films: A lady with a boring wardrobe...and a global mission. Hey, you don't have enough stuff! Buy with confidence from our sponsors. Hand-picked as the best in the business...Really! See some of my work one frame at a time: www.KenTanaka.com

February 20th, 2002, 02:05 AM	#41
John Locke Retired DV Info Net Almunus Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: Austin, TX USA Posts: 2,882	I've ordered several things from Studio Depot in the past. I rate them an A+. __________________ John Locke SursumFilms.com

February 25th, 2002, 12:40 PM	#42
Adam Lawrence _redone_ Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: Las Vegas, NV Posts: 224	xl1 resolution Im kinda confused.. what is the exact image resoultion tha the xl1 produces? is it 640X480 or 720X480? does anyone know the exact res?

February 25th, 2002, 06:04 PM	#43
Joe Redifer Regular Crew Join Date: Nov 2001 Location: Denver, CO Posts: 290	720x480 non square pixels. It will look a little stretched on a computer monitor since computers use square pixels.

February 28th, 2002, 09:06 AM	#44
Ed Frazier Major Player Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: Las Cruces, NM Posts: 343	Varizoom 5.6 TFT Monitor I just received my VZ-TFT monitor and have come up with an alternative to using the shoe mount. It was simple to fabricate and attaches to the tripod in such a way that the monitor pans but does not tilt with the camera. I'll post a couple of pics if anyone is interested. A question for those that have this monitor; mine has a bright metalic strip running along the bottom edge of the LCD panel inside the plastic frame. It is about 3/16" high and appears to be part of the internal structure of the actual LCD panel. Possibly the LCD is not centered properly in the plastic housing. Does everyone else see this same thing or did mine flunk QC? __________________ Ed Frazier

February 28th, 2002, 12:24 PM	#45
Ken Tanaka Retired DV Info Net Almunus Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Chicago, IL Posts: 6,943	Mine doesn't have such a strip, Ed. Your must be the special Quicksilver Edition <g>. I'm interested in your mounting technique. I've been either using the shoe mount or a gooseneck clamp (which works with the assistance of a 5" piece of gaffers tape <g>) __________________ Lady X Films: A lady with a boring wardrobe...and a global mission. Hey, you don't have enough stuff! Buy with confidence from our sponsors. Hand-picked as the best in the business...Really! See some of my work one frame at a time: www.KenTanaka.com