LLTI Archives

July 2003, Week 4

LLTI@LISTSERV.DARTMOUTH.EDU

Options: Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
LLTI-Editor <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Language Learning and Technology International Information Forum <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Fri, 25 Jul 2003 08:17:39 EDT
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (124 lines)
--- Forwarded Message from Derek Roff <[log in to unmask]> ---

>Date: Wed, 23 Jul 2003 15:28:38 -0600
>From: Derek Roff <[log in to unmask]>
>To: Language Learning and Technology International Information Forum <[log in to unmask]>
>cc: Victoria Badalamenti <[log in to unmask]>
>Subject: Re: #7207 Digital Camcorder
>In-Reply-To: <[log in to unmask]>
>References:  <[log in to unmask]>

------------------
>> Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2003 14:15:40 -0400
>> From: "Victoria Badalamenti" <[log in to unmask]>
>> To: <[log in to unmask]>
>> Subject: Digital Camcorder
>
> I would like to know if anyone has recommendations on buying a
> digital camcorder for the English Language Center at LaGuardia
> Community College in NYC?

A full-sized VHS camcorder is the simplest choice for a teacher who 
wants to tape something, and then play it back to students or others 
on a regular VCR and TV.  I love digital, but in this scenario, which 
is the most common at our school, it gives no advantages, and 
playback is harder.

To playback a digital tape on a TV, you can: a) make a copy onto VHS, 
b) plug the digital camcorder into the VCR, (use the Input Select 
button on the VCRs remote control to select the proper inputs, so 
that the camcorder image is relayed to the TV) or c) plug the digital 
camcorder directly into the TV, if it has RCA-jack audio and video 
inputs (some TVs do, some don't.  Again, selecting the proper inputs 
will be necessary).  None of this is really difficult, but for a 
teacher who uses the equipment once per semester, it can be daunting. 


Digital is great when you want to edit the video before presenting 
it.  We do almost all our video editing in the free iMovie software, 
although we use Final Cut Pro for the most advanced projects.  If it 
is appropriate for the situation, we can teach the basics of editing 
to the students in half an hour, and let them do the editing 
themselves in our computer lab.  Or, as appropriate, I train the 
teacher or I do the editing.  Basic editing on a computer is fast and 
easy with iMovie, and the results are much better than anything that 
can be done with VHS VCRs and a linear editing controller.  There are 
other good editing software choices available (as well as some bad 
ones), but I don't have personal experience with them.

There are a few variations on the digital camcorder theme, including 
mini-DV, micro-MV, Digital 8, and disk-based recorders.  Mini-DV is 
the biggest part of the market.  This format (and the compatible 
DV-Cam and DV-Pro) is the logical choice for most departments 
entering the field, offering many equipment options and easy computer 
editing.  If you don't know which to buy, buy a mini-DV camcorder.

I have used various digital camcorder models from the low-end 
consumer (<$400) to the low-end professional levels (>$3000).  I have 
not had good luck with the very cheapest camcorders.  We have gotten 
good service from the Canon ZR series (ZR-60 and ZR-70, for example), 
which hover somewhere around $500 from the online discounters.  You 
may be able to find discontinued models for $400.

TV video is a low-resolution standard, roughly equivalent to the old 
640 x 480 VGA computer resolution of 15 years ago.  There is nothing 
a camcorder-maker can do to improve on this basic resolution, so they 
put a lot of hype into things that don't matter much to video.  A 
race is on to produce the smallest camcorder.  I avoid these for our 
department, because they are more delicate, more expensive, harder to 
use, and more stealable.  More expensive cameras often come with 
higher and higher resolution still photo capabilities.  We have not 
found this useful, since digital still cameras are smaller, lighter, 
cheaper and easier to use for taking stills.  Camcorders also offer 
an array of digital effects, which we prefer to do in the computer, 
if at all (that allows you to undo the effect).  Wireless networking 
is another feature that we can do without.  I haven't yet figured out 
why I want my camcorder to communicate with my cell phone via 
BlueTooth.  Manufacturers make it difficult to buy a model with only 
the features that we want, but we try to avoid unnecessary frills.

Low-light capability is important to us, since many classrooms are 
under-lit from a video perspective.  Better image quality and better 
low-light capability is often found on cameras with three imaging 
chips (often advertised as "3-CCD" camcorders) rather than one 
imaging chip (1-CCD).  These cameras used to be substantially more 
expensive, but Panasonic recently announced a couple of new models, 
one of which is selling (but still not shipping) for around $800.  I 
am very interested in seeing this camera.

In the $800-$1200 range, the camcorders are a bit more robust, have 
better lenses, and are better in low light.  I have liked the Sony 
models best in this price range, although Panasonic, Canon and JVC 
make models that have worked well for me.  If anyone wants to discuss 
higher cost cameras, let's start another discussion thread.  Our most 
recent purchase (last Spring) was the Sony TRV-38, for about $800. 
As with all electronics, prices drop and features increase, sometimes 
to the detriment of features that matter.  I would rather buy another 
Sony TRV-30 (discontinued) than any of their currently available 
models in a similar price range.

Using a tripod with a video (fluid) head, and an external microphone 
can improve the quality of the video more than $400 in extra 
camcorder features.  Make sure that the camera that you buy will 
accept an external microphone, without having to buy an extra dock or 
adapter.  A wireless mic can be very valuable in some situations. 
The recently released Sony WCS-99 wireless mike has gotten good 
reviews for its price range ($120 from www.buy.com) 900MHz, three 
channels, very small clip-on  transmitter and receiver...with some 
nice extras like an included lavaliere mike (also extremely small) 
and a monitoring headphone.  We often use the $50 Audio Technica 
ATR-25 stereo mic, with a $24 Ettore-brand 3-stage extendable 
aluminum window washing pole as our mic boom.  We also use the 
ATR-55, a directional mono mic.

Is this more than you wanted to know?

Derek

Derek Roff
Language Learning Center, MSC03-2100
Ortega Hall Rm 129, 1 University of New Mexico
Albuquerque, NM 87131-0001
505/277-7368, fax 505/277-3885
Internet: [log in to unmask]

ATOM RSS1 RSS2