--- Forwarded Message from "Patrick Davis" <[log in to unmask]> ---

>Return-Receipt-To: "Patrick Davis" <[log in to unmask]>
>From: "Patrick Davis" <[log in to unmask]>
>To: "'Language Learning and Technology International Information Forum'"    <[log in to unmask]>
>Subject: RE: #5839.3 Digital camcorders
>Date: Wed, 29 Nov 2000 10:45:42 -0400
>In-Reply-To:  <[log in to unmask]>
>Importance: Normal
>Disposition-Notification-To: "Patrick Davis" <[log in to unmask]>

------------------
We use a Sony Digital 8 and love it.  It works very well with our video
editing software, it has a memory stick to capture stills (2 cameras in 1)
and for the price we couldn't happier.

We use the stills from the camera to make our student id cards.  It is much
faster than scanning images and the quality is fine because we are taking a
head shot and shrinking it to 1 inch by 1 inch (or slightly smaller).  For
large prints the output would not be all that good and in low light the
colour is often off.

As for sound we bought a uni-direction mic to be used for interviewing and
we get excellent quality sound with it.  It plugs right into the camera and
does not require external power.  The mic with the camera does not provide
very good quality sound.

Pat



> -----Original Message-----
> From: Language Learning and Technology International Information Forum
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]]On Behalf Of LLTI-Editor
> Sent: Wednesday, November 29, 2000 9:45 AM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: #5839.3 Digital camcorders
>
>
> --- Forwarded Message from Derek Roff <[log in to unmask]> ---
>
> >Date: Tue, 28 Nov 2000 07:25:44 -0700
> >From: Derek Roff <[log in to unmask]>
> >To: LLTI-Editor <[log in to unmask]>,        David
> Pankratz <[log in to unmask]>
> >Subject: Re: #5839 Digital camcorders
> >In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]>
>
> >> Date: Wed, 22 Nov 2000 13:59:36 -0600
> >> From: "David Pankratz" <[log in to unmask]>
> >> Subject: Digital camcorders
> >
> > I'm wondering if anyone has experience with any of the "consumer'
> > variety digital video cameras, i.e., digitial camcorders,  those
> > costing app. $1000. I'm looking for one that is relatively easy to
> > use and that will easily produce still images as well as motion
> > video.
>
> Still images from a camcorder will be inferior to those of a digital
> still camera costing much less.  The resolution of the DV standard is
> the equivalent of 640x480, with designed-in 5-1 compression.  Some
> camcorders can capture stills at slightly better resolutions, but
> they are well below the quality of the current crop of still cameras.
> If you plan to produce stills for web or screen images, they will be
> fine, but if you are planning to make paper prints, you will probably
> be disappointed by the low resolution.  However, when I want web or
> other low resolution stills, the camcorder can offer a big advantage.
> I shoot about 10 seconds of video, while talking to the subject,
> trying to get a good expression on their face.  Using the computer
> video-editing software, I can quickly select and export the best
> frame from the ~300 frames shot.
>
> I have experience with several of the consumer mini-DV camcorders
> from Sony, JVC and Canon.  The JVCs that I tried have a proprietary
> implementation of the FireWire interface, and were incompatible with
> the video editing software that I chose.  This problem apparently
> doesn't affect all JVCs.  The three models of Sony and two of Canon
> that I have used all worked well for computer editing of the DV
> footage.
>
> Sony models released this year have the advantage of analog video
> "pass-through", which means you can plug a VHS VCR into the camera,
> and it will output a DV video stream to your computer, for editing.
> Older Sonys and all other camcorder brands require you to record the
> analog signal onto DV tape first, and then play that tape to get the
> footage into the computer.  This extra step doubles the time needed
> and multiplies the wear on the DV camera, so it is a bad idea if you
> need to transfer and edit lots of analog tape.
>
> Most of the Canon cameras require an extra "dock" accessory to
> connect an external microphone.  An external mic can really improve
> the quality of your sound.  Canon offers a feature on many of their
> camcorders called alternately "progressive scan" and "digital motor
> drive."  Using this option to film your video can produce better
> still frames and interlace-free video for web and CD use.
>
> I haven't used the ZR-10, Canon's cheapest mini-DV camcorder.  It has
> been very well reviewed.  I have tried one of the Sony Digital-8
> models, which records DV video onto an 8mm video cassette tape.
> Digital-8 cameras will also playback 8mm and Hi-8 videos, and convert
> the signal to DV for computer editing.  The camera worked fine, and
> might be good if you already own a bunch of 8mm video.  However, I
> really like the smaller size and lower weight of the mini-DV cameras.
>
>
> My first choice for a camcorder at the lower end would be the Sony
> TRV 11 or the Canon Optura PI, which have street prices a bit over
> $1000.  If I couldn't spend that much, I would investigate the ZR-10.
> For still images, I would buy a cheaper, smaller, lighter,
> ergonomically superior digital still camera.
>
> Derek Roff
> Language Learning Center, Ortega Hall Rm 129, University of New Mexico
> Albuquerque, NM 87131  505/277-4804 fax 505/277-3885
> Internet: [log in to unmask]
>