Serious video advice needed for Prosumer camera and Disney parks
The Surge!
I need the advice of someone who is fairly knowledgeable with video
cameras, tripods, lenses, and the like, and who's video'd Disney
parks, attractions, fireworks, etc., or similar situations.
I've done a lot of Disney videoing in my day, starting with a Sony
TRV65 Hi8 camera, to a Sony DCR-PC9, and now the new Sony 3CCD
DCR-VX2100 (1 lux!!) prosumer model. I *love* the color definition of
this camera and the 1 lux capability (I can finally tape Peter Pan!!)
I also bought the Sony High-Grade 58mm Wide Angle & Telephoto Lens,
and a 58mm UV filter.
Although I told myself upfront this was an experimentation trip, I was
ultimately disappointed with the factors below and would appreciate
any advice!
1) The footage was jerkier than I expected since I thought optical
stabilization would be superior to digital stabilization, although I
do recognize that the resulting image quality is better with optical.
In hindsight, I'm sure this was because the VX2100 is significantly
heavier than the PC9 and I know my arms often got tired! So I've
decided to buy a tripod and a photographer I met at Disney World
introduced me to Bogan and B+H video. I have *no* clue which of these
models is appropriate but I'd prefer to keep it under US$300.00.
2) I wasn't able to review my footage during the trip and thus
sometimes taped with AE mode (Sunset mode) off when I should have had
it on. Some dark rides were fine without it, others looked OK but too
grainy and would have benefited from the Sunset mode. The autofocus
also got confused more often than on the PC9, especially during
fireworks and/or dark rides like Peter Pan. I know now I need to
manually focus more often. I also am not sure when to practically use
the White Balancing feature.
3) Sony recommended using Spotlight and Backlight mode but, in an
attraction or stage show, each might look OK at some point of the show
(i.e. spotlight when a single actor is focused on, backlight when the
stage is filled, lots of activity, lights). The result was sometimes
overly bright main peformers although everything else looked great.
4) During fireworks shows, I occasionally saw lens reflection off the
wide-angle lens during extremely bright fireworks or lights that shone
directly onto the lens. Is there anything that can be done about
this?? It was pretty annoying. I had the UV filter on top of the
primary and the wide-angle on top of the UV. I tried to make sure my
lenses were always clean but, admittedly, I didn't have a lens cleaner
kit with me (i.e. microfiber cloth, etc.)
5) During nighttime shooting, the camera did fantastically well but I
noticed that some outdoor lighting produced a weird effect. The
lights would seem to have other little mini-lights dancing/circling
around the real light fixture. I'm guessing this is because of the
fact that there are 3-CCD lenses. Is this normal?? It made me wonder
if the lenses were somehow out of sync with each other although, as I
said, the rest of the image looked great. This is a brand new camera.
Thanks in advance for any suggestions!!
Steve
Randy Berbaum
<snip>
: Although I told myself upfront this was an experimentation trip, I was
: ultimately disappointed with the factors below and would appreciate
: any advice!
: 1) The footage was jerkier than I expected since I thought optical
: stabilization would be superior to digital stabilization, although I
: do recognize that the resulting image quality is better with optical.
: In hindsight, I'm sure this was because the VX2100 is significantly
: heavier than the PC9 and I know my arms often got tired! So I've
: decided to buy a tripod and a photographer I met at Disney World
: introduced me to Bogan and B+H video. I have *no* clue which of these
: models is appropriate but I'd prefer to keep it under US$300.00.
Unfortunately, any kind of consumer grade stabilization can only go so
far. Rapid or broad movements will overcome any internal stabilizer
system. Also some units use a physical system to take out slight shake
(such as a gyroscope) and others use an optical system (where the
electronics try to keep any bright object in the same location on the
pickup device). Either one can be confused when you are on a moving
vehicle. This may explain the jerky motion. You may be better off turning
off stabilization when you are on a moving vehicle.
As to tripods. There is always a trade off of how heavy and bulky a tripod
is and how much stiffness it supplies. If you get a tripod that will
support the weight of your camera, but still be light enough that you
won't need a pack mule to carry it around the parks, you will have the
right one for you.
One suggestion. On rides, there is rarely enough room to set up a full
tripod in the vehicle. So you may want to look at a mono pod that will
give you a bit of stability but will only require a single "foot" to
support it. But be aware, either a tripod or a monopod will transmit any
vibration and other movement of the ride vehicle to the camera and so you
may find that even slight vibrations (that you may not even notice in
person) will become extremly noticable.
: 2) I wasn't able to review my footage during the trip and thus
: sometimes taped with AE mode (Sunset mode) off when I should have had
: it on. Some dark rides were fine without it, others looked OK but too
: grainy and would have benefited from the Sunset mode. The autofocus
: also got confused more often than on the PC9, especially during
: fireworks and/or dark rides like Peter Pan. I know now I need to
: manually focus more often. I also am not sure when to practically use
: the White Balancing feature.
Unfortunately, knowing when and in what conditions to use different modes
on a particular camera and for a particular result will mostly have to
come from personal experience and exploration.
: 3) Sony recommended using Spotlight and Backlight mode but, in an
: attraction or stage show, each might look OK at some point of the show
: (i.e. spotlight when a single actor is focused on, backlight when the
: stage is filled, lots of activity, lights). The result was sometimes
: overly bright main peformers although everything else looked great.
This is a problem with no easy solution, short of having multi cameras and
control of the lighting, as a professional production should. For a
vacation picture, you just have to live with it to some extent. One
possible solution is to tape multiple performances. Each performance using
a different set of settings. Then when you get home you have to edit the
best video available for each portion of the show.
: 4) During fireworks shows, I occasionally saw lens reflection off the
: wide-angle lens during extremely bright fireworks or lights that shone
: directly onto the lens. Is there anything that can be done about
: this?? It was pretty annoying. I had the UV filter on top of the
: primary and the wide-angle on top of the UV. I tried to make sure my
: lenses were always clean but, admittedly, I didn't have a lens cleaner
: kit with me (i.e. microfiber cloth, etc.)
Clean lenses are important. Also using coated lenses can reduce flare of
light sources. But they are inevidable to some degree. The UV filter will
have little or no effect on light flare. This is mostly to reduce the
effect of invisible (to the naked eye) light that the camera may see and
adjust to. For example, a daytime sky will tend to look more sharply blue
with a UV filter than without. This is because the camera is seeing the UV
rays that your eye does not, and the white (that the camera translates the
UV into) washes out the blue color. But when you are indoors, there is
little UV (if any) and the filter will do absolutely nothing. In fact,
some cameras use a UV (or IR) camera light for night shots. And if you are
filtering this out, the camera will not get the benefit of this
"invisible" spotlight.
Now one other use of the UV (or haze) filter is to protect the front lens
element. I normally put such a filter on all my cameras. This way, if
there is a problem and a scratch happens, it happens to a cheep,
replaceable filter and not an expensive lens. :)
: 5) During nighttime shooting, the camera did fantastically well but I
: noticed that some outdoor lighting produced a weird effect. The
: lights would seem to have other little mini-lights dancing/circling
: around the real light fixture. I'm guessing this is because of the
: fact that there are 3-CCD lenses. Is this normal?? It made me wonder
: if the lenses were somehow out of sync with each other although, as I
: said, the rest of the image looked great. This is a brand new camera.
If the mini lights are moving, it is more likely that these reflections
are being generated in the lens. Cameras tend to search (even slightly)
for a focus and this is accomplished by turning various lens elements. So
any reflection generated in a particular lens or group of lenses will
rotate back and forth as the lenses move.
One way to reduce the movement (but not the reflections) is to turn off
auto focus. In fact most fireworks or dark rides are best recorded this
way. Set the focus manually (or use auto to set the focus and then turn it
off). This way the camera will not constantly search for a focus that it
can't really see to do.
: Thanks in advance for any suggestions!!
Just remember that what you are taking are videos to enhance your
memories. Unless you can afford several hundred thousand dollars in
professional equipment like steadycam harnesses and a couple dozen people
to handle lights and reflectors, you will NEVER get a professional grade
video, on the level of a hollywood movie (or even most TV commercials).
Just try to get the best images you can, and be happy when you get the
occasional "WOW" shot. :) Most of the time, even a blurry, uncentered
image with poor, echoing audio will still inspire you to remember the fun
you had and the people you were with. :)
Randy
==========
Randy Berbaum
Champaign, IL
Jackie
Don't forget that a good sound track, suitable to the video being shown
can greatly enhance any 'home video'. I seem to get more compliments on
the sound tracks I use than the video content.
Perhaps the viewers are trying to tell me something!
Many more experienced people than me have said that the importance of a
good sound track is as important as the video content.
Jackie
Randy Berbaum
: Many more experienced people than me have said that the importance of a
: good sound track is as important as the video content.
True. On the subject of sound, there are a few ideas. First If you can use
external stereo microphone input to your camera, try using one to record
the ambient sounds (the sounds coming from the set pieces you are riding
through) and the other mic for the narration (frequently coming from
speakers behind your head or from the front of the vehicle..near your
knee). This way when you get home and do your video editing you edit the
two tracks in relative volume to get a good sound mix. Some videos record
only the ambient sound and you can kind of hear a faint narration. Others
concentrate on the narration and all that wonderful ambient sound is
overpowered. Of course if you really want to go all out, use the stereo
camera mic to get the ambient, and use a seperate audio recorder to get
the narration. To synch the two, just before getting on the ride vehicle,
start the recording of both recorders (video & audio) and clap or snap
your fingers infront of both mics at the same time. Then when you edit the
sound you can line up the two sharp claps to synchronize all the audio
tracks together. Of course you will have to keep both recording devices
running the entire time so that the synch remains true. :) The ability to
have more than two channels of audio when editing is why I use programs
that allow many different audio channels (and for ease of vid editing I
also want multiple layers of vid).
erik phoxie
describing sounds like bad (over/under) exposure, auto white balance
and focus-related problems. Stop using AE, and do it yourself.
Especially make sure you set the GAIN to 0dB if possible.
And for white balance, I don't see a reason why to set it at all.
People have shot on film for ages with nothing but a daylight and an
artificial light-filter. So: outdoor: set on outdoor, indoor: use
indoor :)
Never use AWB, correcting in post is very, very hard.
e.p.
surg...@yahoo.com (The Surge!) wrote in message news:<b18c4e76.04020...@posting.google.com>...
PTRAVEL
"The Surge!" <surg...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:b18c4e76.04020...@posting.google.com...
> Hello,
>
> I need the advice of someone who is fairly knowledgeable with video
> cameras, tripods, lenses, and the like, and who's video'd Disney
> parks, attractions, fireworks, etc., or similar situations.
I've never shot at Disneyland (don't really care for the place), but I do a
lot of travel video which presents similar problems. I have a VX2000, which
is the VX2100's predecesser.
>
> I've done a lot of Disney videoing in my day, starting with a Sony
> TRV65 Hi8 camera, to a Sony DCR-PC9, and now the new Sony 3CCD
> DCR-VX2100 (1 lux!!) prosumer model. I *love* the color definition of
> this camera and the 1 lux capability (I can finally tape Peter Pan!!)
> I also bought the Sony High-Grade 58mm Wide Angle & Telephoto Lens,
> and a 58mm UV filter.
I bet I know what's coming.
>
> Although I told myself upfront this was an experimentation trip, I was
> ultimately disappointed with the factors below and would appreciate
> any advice!
>
> 1) The footage was jerkier than I expected since I thought optical
> stabilization would be superior to digital stabilization, although I
> do recognize that the resulting image quality is better with optical.
Yep, I was right. The optical image stabilization system of the VX2000/2100
(or any OIS, for that matter) is designed to work with the specifc elements
of the lens that come with the camera. Adding additional elements throws it
off and, in the case of the wide angle lens, it renders the OIS considerably
less effective.
You have five choices (and I use three of the five, and actually a bit of
the fourth as well):
1. Shoot without the accessory lens. Yes, it's easier to shoot what you
want with a WA, but with practice, you'll find you can get the same virtual
coverage without it -- you just need to pay more attention to composition
and framing.
2. Use a tripod. When I travel, I carry a nice carbon-fiber set of sticks,
with a fluid video head. It makes all the difference in the world. If you
don't want to carry one around, get a good monopod with a small, lockable
head.
3. Improve your hand-held technique. There's lots of ways to do it --
brace your elbows against your chest, or, hold the camera out in front of
you and tighten the straps, or, lean against buildings, railings, trees,
etc., whenever possible.
4. Get some kind of steady-cam or glide-cam device. These range from small
versions of the commercial steadicam, with gyroscopes and the like to keep
things rock solid, to pendulum-balance counterweights that offset movement.
With practice, you can approximate the effect of a glidecam by using a
monopod, making an "O" with your fingers, and letting the monopod rock free
in between (adding some weight, e.g. a camera bag, to the bottom helps).
5. Get a shoulder brace. I've seen good light ones for the VX2000/VX2100.
If you go over to dvinfo.net, you'll find lots of good information on
tripods, braces and techniques.
> In hindsight, I'm sure this was because the VX2100 is significantly
> heavier than the PC9 and I know my arms often got tired!
Nope. Heavy is better when it comes to stable shooting.
>So I've
> decided to buy a tripod and a photographer I met at Disney World
> introduced me to Bogan and B+H video. I have *no* clue which of these
> models is appropriate but I'd prefer to keep it under US$300.00.
That won't be easy. You have two requirements, a stable platform, which is
provided by the sticks, and the ability to smoothly pan and tilt, which is a
function of the video head.
Carbon fiber tripods are the lightest. I use the Manfrotto 3444D, which is
a four section tripod with snap-action locks. It's very fast to set up and
take down, provides plenty of height, and weighs very little. It also costs
around $400 (I don't remember how much I paid).
For video heads, Bogen has the 700RC2, their smallest and lighest fluid
video head. I had one, and liked it fine, but it wouldn't work with an
elbow bracket I want to use with my digital still camera. I replaced it
with the older Bogen 3150, which weighs one-ounce more, but will work with
the bracket. The 700RC2 lists for $99. I think I paid $79 for mine. The
3150 isn't made any more, but turn up on eBay from time to time for about
the same as a 700RC2. Incidently, I'm planning to sell my 700RC2 if you're
interested.
Adorama makes a wonderful monopod for $99.
> 2) I wasn't able to review my footage during the trip and thus
> sometimes taped with AE mode (Sunset mode) off when I should have had
> it on.
If you're serious about this, you'll want to set exposure manually for each
shot. You may want to set white balance as well.
> Some dark rides were fine without it, others looked OK but too
> grainy and would have benefited from the Sunset mode. The autofocus
> also got confused more often than on the PC9, especially during
> fireworks and/or dark rides like Peter Pan.
I've found autofocus on my VX2000 to be rock solid. However, for low
contrast and back-lit scenes, it's best to turn it off.
> I know now I need to
> manually focus more often. I also am not sure when to practically use
> the White Balancing feature.
Well, whenever the color looks off. Seriously. If you like what you see in
the viewfinder, then you're fine.
> 3) Sony recommended using Spotlight and Backlight mode but, in an
> attraction or stage show, each might look OK at some point of the show
> (i.e. spotlight when a single actor is focused on, backlight when the
> stage is filled, lots of activity, lights). The result was sometimes
> overly bright main peformers although everything else looked great.
I don't use either for stage shows. Custom settings are your friend.
> 4) During fireworks shows, I occasionally saw lens reflection off the
> wide-angle lens during extremely bright fireworks or lights that shone
> directly onto the lens. Is there anything that can be done about
> this??
Try a lens hood, though it's going to be difficult, if not impossible, to
find one for your WA, which doesn't have screw threads in the front. You
can use a matte box, which clamps on, but these are expensive and rather
ungainly.
>It was pretty annoying. I had the UV filter on top of the
> primary and the wide-angle on top of the UV. I tried to make sure my
> lenses were always clean but, admittedly, I didn't have a lens cleaner
> kit with me (i.e. microfiber cloth, etc.)
Microfiber cloths are your friend when you do travel videography. I always
keep one in my pocket.
> 5) During nighttime shooting, the camera did fantastically well but I
> noticed that some outdoor lighting produced a weird effect. The
> lights would seem to have other little mini-lights dancing/circling
> around the real light fixture. I'm guessing this is because of the
> fact that there are 3-CCD lenses. Is this normal??
More likely it was the result of screwing your WA adapter into a filter. If
you have the WA in place, there is no need for the UV filter, which only
alters the focal length of the WA somewhat and introduces an opportunity for
internal reflections. Also, when you shoot with a UV, i.e. when you have
one in place because you're NOT shooting with the WA or telephoto, make sure
it's high-quality, multi-coated, and not the cheap glass that's sold for $8
or so.
Finally, note that the VX2100, like all Sony camcorders, uses HAD CCDs.
These give superior low light performance but, under some circumstances,
will smear a bright, pinpoint light source vertically, giving it a
"starburst" appearance, though only in the vertical direction. There's no
way to eliminate the effect, but I don't find it particularly objectionable.
> It made me wonder
> if the lenses were somehow out of sync with each other although, as I
> said, the rest of the image looked great. This is a brand new camera.
>
> Thanks in advance for any suggestions!!
You're welcome. As I said, I'm not a big Disney fan, but I'm a travel
videography maniac (my wife thinks I'm nuts). I'd be happy to share any
tips or tricks I've picked up (you haven't even asked about sound ;) ).
>
> Steve
PTRAVEL
"Randy Berbaum" <rber...@bluestem.prairienet.org> wrote in message
news:c07fqk$5qp$1...@wildfire.prairienet.org...
> In rec.arts.disney.parks The Surge! <surg...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> <snip>
> : Although I told myself upfront this was an experimentation trip, I was
> : ultimately disappointed with the factors below and would appreciate
> : any advice!
>
> : 1) The footage was jerkier than I expected since I thought optical
> : stabilization would be superior to digital stabilization, although I
> : do recognize that the resulting image quality is better with optical.
> : In hindsight, I'm sure this was because the VX2100 is significantly
> : heavier than the PC9 and I know my arms often got tired! So I've
> : decided to buy a tripod and a photographer I met at Disney World
> : introduced me to Bogan and B+H video. I have *no* clue which of these
> : models is appropriate but I'd prefer to keep it under US$300.00.
>
> Unfortunately, any kind of consumer grade stabilization can only go so
> far. Rapid or broad movements will overcome any internal stabilizer
> system. Also some units use a physical system to take out slight shake
> (such as a gyroscope) and others use an optical system (where the
> electronics try to keep any bright object in the same location on the
> pickup device). Either one can be confused when you are on a moving
> vehicle. This may explain the jerky motion. You may be better off turning
> off stabilization when you are on a moving vehicle.
I'm sorry, but this is all wrong. Optical image stabilization uses motion
sensors and physical motors to change the alignment of an element (or
elements) within the lens. Electronic image stabilization analyzes the
digital image and uses different windows within the CCD to stabilize motion.
The VX2100 uses OIS, not EIS. The problem the OP is experiencing is the
result of using an accessory lens on top of the camera's built-in lens. An
OIS system is calibrated for a specific arrangement of elements -- changing
that arrangement by adding additional elements will interfere. The VX2100
(and its predecessor, the VX2000) have an excellent OIS system. Moreover,
the camera itself is _not_ "consumer grade." It's a prosumer machine used,
among others, by the BBC for ENG.
>
> As to tripods. There is always a trade off of how heavy and bulky a tripod
> is and how much stiffness it supplies. If you get a tripod that will
> support the weight of your camera, but still be light enough that you
> won't need a pack mule to carry it around the parks, you will have the
> right one for you.
Um, not quite. The trade-off is not stiffness vs. weight, but weight of the
tripod vs. weight of the camera that it can support. Carbon fiber tripods
are great solutions to this kind of situation.
>
> One suggestion. On rides, there is rarely enough room to set up a full
> tripod in the vehicle. So you may want to look at a mono pod that will
> give you a bit of stability but will only require a single "foot" to
> support it. But be aware, either a tripod or a monopod will transmit any
> vibration and other movement of the ride vehicle to the camera and so you
> may find that even slight vibrations (that you may not even notice in
> person) will become extremly noticable.
Well, the OIS should handle any vibration. The monopod is a good idea.
There are also small, short-legged tripods that are good for things like
this.
>
> : 2) I wasn't able to review my footage during the trip and thus
> : sometimes taped with AE mode (Sunset mode) off when I should have had
> : it on. Some dark rides were fine without it, others looked OK but too
> : grainy and would have benefited from the Sunset mode. The autofocus
> : also got confused more often than on the PC9, especially during
> : fireworks and/or dark rides like Peter Pan. I know now I need to
> : manually focus more often. I also am not sure when to practically use
> : the White Balancing feature.
>
> Unfortunately, knowing when and in what conditions to use different modes
> on a particular camera and for a particular result will mostly have to
> come from personal experience and exploration.
The best solution is to simply set everything manually, which is easy to do
with a VX2100. All the preset modes represent compromises that a
videographer may or may not be willing to live with.
>
> : 3) Sony recommended using Spotlight and Backlight mode but, in an
> : attraction or stage show, each might look OK at some point of the show
> : (i.e. spotlight when a single actor is focused on, backlight when the
> : stage is filled, lots of activity, lights). The result was sometimes
> : overly bright main peformers although everything else looked great.
>
> This is a problem with no easy solution, short of having multi cameras and
> control of the lighting, as a professional production should. For a
> vacation picture, you just have to live with it to some extent. One
> possible solution is to tape multiple performances. Each performance using
> a different set of settings. Then when you get home you have to edit the
> best video available for each portion of the show.
I've shot lots of stage performances with my VX2000 and never had any
problems whatsoever. Use manual settings. That's all you need to do.
>
> : 4) During fireworks shows, I occasionally saw lens reflection off the
> : wide-angle lens during extremely bright fireworks or lights that shone
> : directly onto the lens. Is there anything that can be done about
> : this?? It was pretty annoying. I had the UV filter on top of the
> : primary and the wide-angle on top of the UV. I tried to make sure my
> : lenses were always clean but, admittedly, I didn't have a lens cleaner
> : kit with me (i.e. microfiber cloth, etc.)
>
> Clean lenses are important. Also using coated lenses can reduce flare of
> light sources.
Coated are good. Multicoated are better.
> But they are inevidable to some degree. The UV filter will
> have little or no effect on light flare.
Well, that's not necessarily true. The OP has it between the camera lens
and the accessory WA. That could result in the introduction of internal
reflections.
> This is mostly to reduce the
> effect of invisible (to the naked eye) light that the camera may see and
> adjust to. For example, a daytime sky will tend to look more sharply blue
> with a UV filter than without.
Um, no it wont. A UV filter filters UV, which is invisible to the eye.
> This is because the camera is seeing the UV
> rays that your eye does not, and the white (that the camera translates the
> UV into) washes out the blue color.
That's a nice theory, but I've never seen any video camera that exhibits
this effect. If I'm wrong, I'd welcome a reference to a source that has
some examples that demonstrate this.
>But when you are indoors, there is
> little UV (if any) and the filter will do absolutely nothing. In fact,
> some cameras use a UV (or IR) camera light for night shots. And if you are
> filtering this out, the camera will not get the benefit of this
> "invisible" spotlight.
>
> Now one other use of the UV (or haze) filter is to protect the front lens
> element.
That's the only use for a UV filter on a video camera (though a very
important use -- filters are cheap, lenses are expensive).
>I normally put such a filter on all my cameras. This way, if
> there is a problem and a scratch happens, it happens to a cheep,
> replaceable filter and not an expensive lens. :)
>
> : 5) During nighttime shooting, the camera did fantastically well but I
> : noticed that some outdoor lighting produced a weird effect. The
> : lights would seem to have other little mini-lights dancing/circling
> : around the real light fixture. I'm guessing this is because of the
> : fact that there are 3-CCD lenses. Is this normal?? It made me wonder
> : if the lenses were somehow out of sync with each other although, as I
> : said, the rest of the image looked great. This is a brand new camera.
>
> If the mini lights are moving, it is more likely that these reflections
> are being generated in the lens. Cameras tend to search (even slightly)
> for a focus and this is accomplished by turning various lens elements. So
> any reflection generated in a particular lens or group of lenses will
> rotate back and forth as the lenses move.
This doesn't sound like a focus effect but, more likely, the result of the
OIS, which is moving an internal lens element around to damp shakes.
>
> One way to reduce the movement (but not the reflections) is to turn off
> auto focus.
Hunh? Autofocus effects . . . well . . . focus. It doesn't produce
movement. Poorer autofocus systems will hunt, i.e. go in and out of focus,
but they won't cause movement. The VX2100 has a very good autofocus
system -- it should only be an in issue if there is very low contrast to the
scene. I've had particularly good look with the VX2000 at night.
>In fact most fireworks or dark rides are best recorded this
> way. Set the focus manually (or use auto to set the focus and then turn it
> off). This way the camera will not constantly search for a focus that it
> can't really see to do.
That's a good idea.
>
> : Thanks in advance for any suggestions!!
>
> Just remember that what you are taking are videos to enhance your
> memories. Unless you can afford several hundred thousand dollars in
> professional equipment like steadycam harnesses and a couple dozen people
> to handle lights and reflectors, you will NEVER get a professional grade
> video, on the level of a hollywood movie (or even most TV commercials).
I've got to disagree with this, too. A professional look is 90% technique
and only 10% equipment. Steadycams are nice, but there are other ways to
achieve steady video. Lighting is the most important factor, but under most
conditions the VX2100 will do very nicely without anything special IF you
pay attention to what you are shooting.
Practice is the key. I'm not there yet, but I'm getting closer.
PTRAVEL
> In rec.arts.disney.parks Jackie <nor...@bigpond.com> wrote:
>
> : Many more experienced people than me have said that the importance of a
> : good sound track is as important as the video content.
>
> True. On the subject of sound, there are a few ideas. First If you can use
> external stereo microphone input to your camera, try using one to record
> the ambient sounds (the sounds coming from the set pieces you are riding
> through) and the other mic for the narration (frequently coming from
> speakers behind your head or from the front of the vehicle..near your
> knee).
Better still, carry a small MD recorder (I use a Sharp MT-15) for recording
the narration (the VX2100 has a pretty nice mike and audio system). The
advantage is that you can run the MD recorder continuously and not lose any
audio continuity, while you shoot whatever you want with the video camera.
Sony makes a small and relatively inexpensive stereo mike (I think the model
number is 907). I use one of those, and also have small stereo lapel mike
(bought it from some outfit in Britain -- I don't recall the name and
number, but I can look). This is a great solution to ambient sound
recording -- just clip on the mike, put the MD recorder in your pocket, turn
it on and you're good for an hour of audio.
> This way when you get home and do your video editing you edit the
> two tracks in relative volume to get a good sound mix. Some videos record
> only the ambient sound and you can kind of hear a faint narration. Others
> concentrate on the narration and all that wonderful ambient sound is
> overpowered. Of course if you really want to go all out, use the stereo
> camera mic to get the ambient, and use a seperate audio recorder to get
> the narration.
Ah, I see you're way ahead of me. ;)
> To synch the two, just before getting on the ride vehicle,
> start the recording of both recorders (video & audio) and clap or snap
> your fingers infront of both mics at the same time. Then when you edit the
> sound you can line up the two sharp claps to synchronize all the audio
> tracks together.
Of course, that assumes that you want to keep everything real time. The
nice thing about video editing is that you can shoot in whatever order your
want, and assemble things to make the most pleasing video, rather than the
most accurate document of what you saw.
> Of course you will have to keep both recording devices
> running the entire time so that the synch remains true. :)
It is surprisingly easy to sync audio sources during an edit. I shot a
wedding once in which the audio master got destroyed. I wound up mixing
audio from each of 4 cameras. It was no trouble at all to sync things by
eye.
PTRAVEL
"erik phoxie" <phox...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:7947648b.0402...@posting.google.com...
> Uhhhhmmm... sounds like you're using automatic settings? What you're
> describing sounds like bad (over/under) exposure, auto white balance
> and focus-related problems. Stop using AE, and do it yourself.
> Especially make sure you set the GAIN to 0dB if possible.
Sorry, but nothing the OP described sounds like exposure, focus or white
balance problems.
>
> And for white balance, I don't see a reason why to set it at all.
Are you kidding? The difference between tungsten and outdoor illumination
is several thousand Kelvin. Without setting white balance, one will be too
yellow and the other too blue. Most camcorders handle this automatically,
i.e. the camcorder works out the white balance. Problems arise when there
is a mix of the two, e.g. sunlight coming through an open window, cloudy
days, or, worst of all, sodium-vapour or mecury-vapour lights at night.
These conditions absolutely require white balancing (which is very easy to
do on cameras that allow it -- just point the camera at a white subject and
press the white balance button).
> People have shot on film for ages with nothing but a daylight and an
> artificial light-filter.
And those people have gotten crappy pictures. Chemical films were made in
different emulsions for tungsten and daylight illumination. Regardless of
the emulsion, pros (and amateurs who knew what they were doing) ALWAYS
compensated for white balance, if not when shooting then in the darkroom.
> So: outdoor: set on outdoor, indoor: use
> indoor :)
> Never use AWB, correcting in post is very, very hard.
Depends on what software you're using. It's not that hard with the better
prosumer packages.
The Surge!
Thanks so much to you guys for truly thoughtful and helpful responses.
They're much appreciated by this video enthusiast and new hobbyist.
Thanks for not being annoyed with my newbie-ness... I wanted to
respond to Randy and PTravel in the same response since they have
commonalities. Forgive the length of this reply.
[PTravel]
> I've never shot at Disneyland (don't really care for the place), but I do a
> lot of travel video which presents similar problems. I have a VX2000, which
> is the VX2100's predecesser.
Cool! I know they are very similar cameras so I'm interested in your
insights!
[Randy]
> Unfortunately, any kind of consumer grade stabilization can only go so
> far. Rapid or broad movements will overcome any internal stabilizer
> system. Also some units use a physical system to take out slight shake
> (such as a gyroscope) and others use an optical system (where the
> electronics try to keep any bright object in the same location on the
> pickup device). Either one can be confused when you are on a moving
> vehicle. This may explain the jerky motion. You may be better off turning
> off stabilization when you are on a moving vehicle.
Yes, I never expected moving attractions to come out smooth and,
frankly, I think the roughness gives it a more authentic look. I've
learned over the years not to pan to try and get everything but
instead I tape it once on the left, once on the right, and once
straight ahead. That also helps with getting the best soundtrack I
can. I have Premiere Pro (as well as the Adobe Video Collection) that
I use for "post-production" and I can easily splice together the best
elements from each taping.
Where my arms got really tired where things like long-running stage
shows or theatre-type attractions. I did try resting my elbow on a
chair armrest but, often, to get an appropriate angle and elevation, I
needed to physically hold the camera, especially if I wanted a
centered view, widest angle possible, or to make sure the camera was
above the audience. Someone suggested a monopod and maybe that would
be a good idea. If I could fit a monopod into a Pirates-type ride
vehicle, or even Fantasyland ride vehicles, that'd be even better! To
be honest, I don't think I've ever seen a monopod so I can't quite
picture how it balances itself, or do I hold it?
[PTravel]
> Yep, I was right. The optical image stabilization system of the VX2000/2100
> (or any OIS, for that matter) is designed to work with the specifc elements
> of the lens that come with the camera. Adding additional elements throws it
> off and, in the case of the wide angle lens, it renders the OIS considerably
> less effective.
This makes a lot of sense to me and something I just never thought
about. So does that imply for optimal OIS I shouldn't use *any*
additional lenses? This seems a bit like what's the point then,
especially if a UV is *recommended* for protecting the primary.
[PTravel]
> 1. Shoot without the accessory lens. Yes, it's easier to shoot what you
> want with a WA, but with practice, you'll find you can get the same virtual
> coverage without it -- you just need to pay more attention to composition
> and framing.
I will try to do this more often outdoors, however the main reason I
wanted a good quality WA is because, in a theme park environment,
there are some situations where you simply can't back up further or
moving defeats the angle and shot you want. E.g. in a theatre type
attraction, I want the entire width of the stage and just can't do
that without a WA, even sitting in the very back row. Hall of
Presidents, Great Movie Ride finale, Illuminations, all come to mind,
but I'm sure you can relate.
[PTravel]
> 2. Use a tripod. When I travel, I carry a nice carbon-fiber set of sticks,
> with a fluid video head. It makes all the difference in the world. If you
> don't want to carry one around, get a good monopod with a small, lockable
> head.
[Randy]
>As to tripods. There is always a trade off of how heavy and bulky a
tripod
>is and how much stiffness it supplies. If you get a tripod that will
>support the weight of your camera, but still be light enough that you
>won't need a pack mule to carry it around the parks, you will have
the
>right one for you.
>
>One suggestion. On rides, there is rarely enough room to set up a
full
>tripod in the vehicle. So you may want to look at a mono pod that
will
>give you a bit of stability but will only require a single "foot" to
>support it. But be aware, either a tripod or a monopod will transmit
any
>vibration and other movement of the ride vehicle to the camera and so
you
>may find that even slight vibrations (that you may not even notice in
>person) will become extremly noticable.
Given my needs, it seems like I'd have a use for both a monopod
(attractions) and tripod (outdoors). If I moved up what I'd be
willing to spend on a monopod, can I get one that will be a good
enough for pan/still outdoor shots? If not, I'd probably opt for the
tripod to get outdoor/fireworks/parades (stillness and shooting over
people's heads) and the like. As I said, I'm not so concerned about
ride vehicle jitter because that's reality. Theatre attractions I
could probably take a tripod (smaller or telescoped down?) if I'm in
the last row (which I always am when taping).
I've been *very* confused about reading the best tripod/monopod to get
because most of the advice seems geared toward still pictures.
Although I'd obviously like lighter, I'm more concerned about image
quality. I read someone said that if you don't get the right head,
video panning across a landscape is totally ruined because of the
jitter. What's to consider about monopods, same factors? If I got a
tripod I would separate days I want to have fun and days I want to do
serious video so I'll be prepared for the extra weight.
I'd really like some specific suggestions to brand/model. I know part
of this is a personal choice, but I have no idea what the terminology
all means yet. If there's a FAQ website that provides good detail on
this, I'd be happy not to take up your time here!
[PTravel]
> 3. Improve your hand-held technique. There's lots of ways to do it --
> brace your elbows against your chest, or, hold the camera out in front of
> you and tighten the straps, or, lean against buildings, railings, trees,
> etc., whenever possible.
Yeah, I tried all that but, like I said, my hand either just got too
tired from the weight during a 20-30 minute attraction, the
holding-against-chest or leaning-elbow-on-armrest didn't provide the
right elevation, angle, or people's heads got in the way (fireworks -
where I needed the Castle to be in the shot as well, and theatre type
attractions). Buidings were sometimes possible but there are also
things where you want a center shot up Main Street to the Castle where
there's absolutely nothing to lean against. :-)
[PTravel]
> 4. Get some kind of steady-cam or glide-cam device. These range from small
> versions of the commercial steadicam, with gyroscopes and the like to keep
> things rock solid, to pendulum-balance counterweights that offset movement.
> 5. Get a shoulder brace. I've seen good light ones for the VX2000/VX2100.
> If you go over to dvinfo.net, you'll find lots of good information on
> tripods, braces and techniques.
Do you recommend the above *over* a tripod or monopod?
[PTravel]
> That won't be easy. You have two requirements, a stable platform, which is
> provided by the sticks, and the ability to smoothly pan and tilt, which is a
> function of the video head.
Another point's that been confusing - are these two separate things I
have to buy? I assumed I mounted the camera to the top of the tripod
which I assumed made up the end of the pan handle. Forgive the
consumer-level knowledge of tripods. Like I said, never would have
guessed how many aspects of tripods there were to consider.
[PTravel]
> Carbon fiber tripods are the lightest. I use the Manfrotto 3444D, which is
> a four section tripod with snap-action locks. It's very fast to set up and
> take down, provides plenty of height, and weighs very little. It also costs
> around $400 (I don't remember how much I paid).
I read on here that lighter=less sturdy and more likely for wind to
blow/knock over. Since you have a VX2000, I'll trust your insight on
this since you know how much the camera weighs and its dimensions.
I'd really love a website that could explain each of the differences
between the different tripod/monopod technologies/mechanisms. I don't
necessarily mind spending around $500 if I know I'm getting something
good.
[PTravel]
> For video heads, Bogen has the 700RC2, their smallest and lighest fluid
> video head. I had one, and liked it fine, but it wouldn't work with an
> elbow bracket I want to use with my digital still camera. I replaced it
> with the older Bogen 3150, which weighs one-ounce more, but will work with
> the bracket. The 700RC2 lists for $99. I think I paid $79 for mine. The
> 3150 isn't made any more, but turn up on eBay from time to time for about
> the same as a 700RC2. Incidently, I'm planning to sell my 700RC2 if you're
> interested.
>
> Adorama makes a wonderful monopod for $99.
Not sure what an elbow bracket is used for but I have seen fluid heads
mentioned as the best for video panning. And I'm not at the
sophistication level where I feel ready to invest in a lot of
equipment I wouldn't know how to use or utilize. $99 is completely
reasonable. Any drawbacks to the model?
[Randy]
This is a problem with no easy solution, short of having multi cameras
and
control of the lighting, as a professional production should. For a
vacation picture, you just have to live with it to some extent. One
possible solution is to tape multiple performances. Each performance
using
a different set of settings. Then when you get home you have to edit
the
best video available for each portion of the show.
[PTravel]
> If you're serious about this, you'll want to set exposure manually for each
> shot. You may want to set white balance as well.
The big problem with this is that I find the VF and LCD almost
useless. Sure, they're good for lining up shots and getting a general
idea, but I don't really know what I have until I watch it on the TV,
which, as I said, I couldn't do on the last trip while I was there
because the TV in the hotel room didn't have the right inputs. The
VF/LCD looked fine with AE sunset mode off and it wasn't until I got
home that I saw graininess I know wouldn't have been there in sunset
mode (or at least reduced). So even if I did adjust the exposure
manually, I might think it looked too dark and thus would have
adjusted and it ending up being too grainy when I got home. I'm not
sure I would have known the difference using only the VF/LCD. I say
this specifically with regard to graininess in nighttime shots or dark
attractions. Otherwise the VF/LCD is fine.
I think Randy may have a point here. I have taped almost all this
stuff before with the DC9 and can revert back to footage from it as
needed. However, the color definition is such so superior in the
VX2100 and the low-lux capability that I eventually want to retape
most everything with the VX2100. Which is why I really want to learn
technique better for the next time.
[PTravel]
> I've found autofocus on my VX2000 to be rock solid. However, for low
> contrast and back-lit scenes, it's best to turn it off.
Yes, in most situations I agree. But like I side, dark rides like
Pirates, Peter Pan, and sometimes lots of fireworks confused it.
Probably right, I know serious people never use autofocus. I will use
your suggestion and have it on manual and possibly press the auto
button to adjust periodically.
[PTravel]
> Well, whenever the color looks off. Seriously. If you like what you see in
> the viewfinder, then you're fine.
Good rule of thumb. :-)
[PTravel]
> > 3) Sony recommended using Spotlight and Backlight mode but, in an
> > attraction or stage show, each might look OK at some point of the show
> > (i.e. spotlight when a single actor is focused on, backlight when the
> > stage is filled, lots of activity, lights). The result was sometimes
> > overly bright main peformers although everything else looked great.
>
> I don't use either for stage shows. Custom settings are your friend.
What do you adjust to balance the two seemingly competing factors I
mention above (backlight stage show and spotlighted performers)?
[PTravel]
> > 4) During fireworks shows, I occasionally saw lens reflection off the
> > wide-angle lens during extremely bright fireworks or lights that shone
> > directly onto the lens. Is there anything that can be done about
> > this??
>
> Try a lens hood, though it's going to be difficult, if not impossible, to
> find one for your WA, which doesn't have screw threads in the front. You
> can use a matte box, which clamps on, but these are expensive and rather
> ungainly.
I will probably take your advice and try to avoid the use of the WA
for big outdoor events like fireworks, where I can reasonably back up.
I used it for fireworks because I could get everything I wanted in my
shot and be nearby a speaker/subwoofer to get more audio versus crowd
noise.
[PTravel]
> >It was pretty annoying. I had the UV filter on top of the
> > primary and the wide-angle on top of the UV. I tried to make sure my
> > lenses were always clean but, admittedly, I didn't have a lens cleaner
> > kit with me (i.e. microfiber cloth, etc.)
>
> Microfiber cloths are your friend when you do travel videography. I always
> keep one in my pocket.
[Randy]
>Clean lenses are important. Also using coated lenses can reduce flare
of
>light sources. But they are inevidable to some degree.
Points taken and I'd already planned to rectify this situation for
next time. Unless there a million factors to consider with cleaning
solutions as well, I was planning on buying a Monster video lens
cleaning kit I saw at a local store. The UV lens I got I think was
like $20, so I guess not the expensive kind. Is it *really* going to
make a significant difference if I ditch the one I have and look for a
more expensive one with the coatings you mentioned? If so, any
brand/model recommendations?
[Randy]
>In fact,
>some cameras use a UV (or IR) camera light for night shots. And if
you are
>filtering this out, the camera will not get the benefit of this
>"invisible" spotlight.
PTravel, is this a factor with our camera?
[PTravel]
> > 5) During nighttime shooting, the camera did fantastically well but I
> > noticed that some outdoor lighting produced a weird effect. The
> > lights would seem to have other little mini-lights dancing/circling
> > around the real light fixture. I'm guessing this is because of the
> > fact that there are 3-CCD lenses. Is this normal??
>
> More likely it was the result of screwing your WA adapter into a filter. If
> you have the WA in place, there is no need for the UV filter, which only
> alters the focal length of the WA somewhat and introduces an opportunity for
> internal reflections. Also, when you shoot with a UV, i.e. when you have
> one in place because you're NOT shooting with the WA or telephoto, make sure
> it's high-quality, multi-coated, and not the cheap glass that's sold for $8
> or so.
[Randy]
>If the mini lights are moving, it is more likely that these
reflections
>are being generated in the lens. Cameras tend to search (even
slightly)
>for a focus and this is accomplished by turning various lens
elements. So
>any reflection generated in a particular lens or group of lenses will
>rotate back and forth as the lenses move.
>
>One way to reduce the movement (but not the reflections) is to turn
off
>auto focus. In fact most fireworks or dark rides are best recorded
this
>way. Set the focus manually (or use auto to set the focus and then
turn it
>off). This way the camera will not constantly search for a focus that
it
>can't really see to do.
So, you guys seem to have competing views on this. Both make absolute
sense to me and seem extremely plausible explanations for what I'm
seeing. So, who's right? :-> I guess I can try both easily enough.
[PTravel]
> Finally, note that the VX2100, like all Sony camcorders, uses HAD CCDs.
> These give superior low light performance but, under some circumstances,
> will smear a bright, pinpoint light source vertically, giving it a
> "starburst" appearance, though only in the vertical direction. There's no
> way to eliminate the effect, but I don't find it particularly objectionable.
I have absolutely noticed this but, as you said, this is unobtrusive
and not significant compared to the other factors. I noticed it in
situations where there weren't the dancing lights. Thanks for letting
me know this!
[Randy]
>Just remember that what you are taking are videos to enhance your
>memories. Unless you can afford several hundred thousand dollars in
>professional equipment like steadycam harnesses and a couple dozen
people
>to handle lights and reflectors, you will NEVER get a professional
grade
>video, on the level of a hollywood movie (or even most TV
commercials).
Yes, all valid points and I realize it's never going to be Hollywood
because, you're exactly right, I can't control lighting and other
factors. I guess what I'm searching for is true-to-the-ride video,
true-to-the-color video. I just don't want dancing lights, grainy
video, or jittery video. The rest I can deal with. And for me, part
of the "memory", is capturing the changing nature of the Disney parks.
I've seen so many attractions come and go that part of it is
documentation that I enjoy. And I got tired of seeing people's
home-video-quality footage of an attraction that I really liked.
[PTravel]
> You're welcome. As I said, I'm not a big Disney fan, but I'm a travel
> videography maniac (my wife thinks I'm nuts). I'd be happy to share any
> tips or tricks I've picked up (you haven't even asked about sound ;) ).
Yes, my non-Disney friends all think I'm nuts. I drive friends that
aren't into this crazy sometimes, especially if they go with me on a
trip, heheh. My very first videotaping experience was at the Grand
Opening of Euro Disney in 1992. I *so* wish that hadn't been my first
time taping because it was pretty much a disaster. I've learned a lot
since then and part of the reason I'm asking for all this advice is
because I'm going back to Disneyland Paris in April. I want to do it
right this time and tape it the way it should have been taped in 1992!
As for sound, I'm pretty OK with the sound front. As I said, I am
also really into video editing. For the most part, I have access to
pure soundtracks for most rides, shows, etc. that I want so I can
overlay the soundtrack on top of whatever is there from the taping.
In cases where I don't have this, I've taped some of these enough
times where I can pick the best audio from one of the other tapings.
But overall I've been really pleased with improved audio quality of
the VX2100. I know I could get a directional mic but I don't wanna to
be weighed down with too much equipment and a boom microphone all over
the place.
Again, thanks you guys for the great great information you've
responded with. It really is genuinely appreciated!!
Steve
PTRAVEL
<snip>
> Yes, I never expected moving attractions to come out smooth and,
> frankly, I think the roughness gives it a more authentic look. I've
> learned over the years not to pan to try and get everything but
> instead I tape it once on the left, once on the right, and once
> straight ahead. That also helps with getting the best soundtrack I
> can. I have Premiere Pro (as well as the Adobe Video Collection) that
> I use for "post-production" and I can easily splice together the best
> elements from each taping.
>
> Where my arms got really tired where things like long-running stage
> shows or theatre-type attractions. I did try resting my elbow on a
> chair armrest but, often, to get an appropriate angle and elevation, I
> needed to physically hold the camera, especially if I wanted a
> centered view, widest angle possible, or to make sure the camera was
> above the audience. Someone suggested a monopod and maybe that would
> be a good idea. If I could fit a monopod into a Pirates-type ride
> vehicle, or even Fantasyland ride vehicles, that'd be even better! To
> be honest, I don't think I've ever seen a monopod so I can't quite
> picture how it balances itself, or do I hold it?
A monopod looks like a single tripod leg, i.e. a long, collapsible stick.
Monopods will take up the weight of the camera, which should make it easier
on your arms. However, you'll still have to balance the camera -- a monopod
is not a substitute for a tripod. If you want really rock-solid video, the
only way to do it (short of a steadycam) is with a tripod.
>
> [PTravel]
> > Yep, I was right. The optical image stabilization system of the
VX2000/2100
> > (or any OIS, for that matter) is designed to work with the specifc
elements
> > of the lens that come with the camera. Adding additional elements
throws it
> > off and, in the case of the wide angle lens, it renders the OIS consider
ably
> > less effective.
>
> This makes a lot of sense to me and something I just never thought
> about. So does that imply for optimal OIS I shouldn't use *any*
> additional lenses?
For optimal OIS, yes. You'll still get some benefit with your adapters in
place. However, the best results are achieved without them.
>This seems a bit like what's the point then,
> especially if a UV is *recommended* for protecting the primary.
The UV won't throw off the OIS as it doesn't (or shouldn't) change the
refractive properties of the lens.
>
> [PTravel]
> > 1. Shoot without the accessory lens. Yes, it's easier to shoot what
you
> > want with a WA, but with practice, you'll find you can get the same
virtual
> > coverage without it -- you just need to pay more attention to
composition
> > and framing.
>
> I will try to do this more often outdoors, however the main reason I
> wanted a good quality WA is because, in a theme park environment,
> there are some situations where you simply can't back up further or
> moving defeats the angle and shot you want. E.g. in a theatre type
> attraction, I want the entire width of the stage and just can't do
> that without a WA, even sitting in the very back row. Hall of
> Presidents, Great Movie Ride finale, Illuminations, all come to mind,
> but I'm sure you can relate.
Yep. Common problem in travel videography. I passed on the Sony WA adapter
because it's screw-mount. I bought an Optex, which is bayonet-mount. That
makes it easy to take it on and off. I'll slip it on for the shots that
absolutely require it, then take it off for everything else.
Your telephoto will require a tripod -- there's no way around that.
I usually carry both.
> If I moved up what I'd be
> willing to spend on a monopod, can I get one that will be a good
> enough for pan/still outdoor shots?
Well, yes and no. As I said, all the monopod does it take up the weight of
the camera. You still need to keep steady -- even breathing will change the
position of the camera. Panning would take some practice.
> If not, I'd probably opt for the
> tripod to get outdoor/fireworks/parades (stillness and shooting over
> people's heads) and the like. As I said, I'm not so concerned about
> ride vehicle jitter because that's reality. Theatre attractions I
> could probably take a tripod (smaller or telescoped down?) if I'm in
> the last row (which I always am when taping).
That's the nice thing about the 4-section Manfrotto. Most tripods have only
3-sections. 4-sections lets it collapse smaller, and makes it ideal for
setting up in front of your seat.
>
> I've been *very* confused about reading the best tripod/monopod to get
> because most of the advice seems geared toward still pictures.
> Although I'd obviously like lighter, I'm more concerned about image
> quality. I read someone said that if you don't get the right head,
> video panning across a landscape is totally ruined because of the
> jitter.
Right. You must have a fluid head for smooth video work.
>What's to consider about monopods, same factors?
Not really. As long as the monopod can take the weight, it's fine (the
Adorama works perfectly with my VX2000 -- I even use it for occassional
crane shots, i.e. put the camera on and hold it up over my head. It gets me
above the crowds).
> If I got a
> tripod I would separate days I want to have fun and days I want to do
> serious video so I'll be prepared for the extra weight.
The weight isn't that bad, though there's no question you're carting gear
and not just a little consumer camcorder. I use a Lowepro Minitrekker
backpack, which handles everything quite nicely and comfortably (including
the tripod).
>
> I'd really like some specific suggestions to brand/model. I know part
> of this is a personal choice, but I have no idea what the terminology
> all means yet. If there's a FAQ website that provides good detail on
> this, I'd be happy not to take up your time here!
Manfrotto 3444D sticks.
Bogen 700RC2 head if you're not going to use the tripod with a still camera
in the vertical position. Bogen 3501 if you are (and you can still find
one -- they're not made anymore).
<snip>
> [PTravel]
> > 4. Get some kind of steady-cam or glide-cam device. These range from
small
> > versions of the commercial steadicam, with gyroscopes and the like to
keep
> > things rock solid, to pendulum-balance counterweights that offset
movement.
> > 5. Get a shoulder brace. I've seen good light ones for the
VX2000/VX2100.
> > If you go over to dvinfo.net, you'll find lots of good information on
> > tripods, braces and techniques.
>
> Do you recommend the above *over* a tripod or monopod?
Not really. I'll probably break down and get a shoulder brace one of these
days, but at that point I'm not longer travelling -- I've become a
cameraman. A true steadycam is prohibitively expensive and LARGE. It's
also heavy (watch the movie "Russian Arc" for the longest continuous
steadycam shot in history -- the whole film was done in one take, and the
cameraman, who was using a full-sized steadycam, nearly collapsed from the
strain of using it).
>
> [PTravel]
> > That won't be easy. You have two requirements, a stable platform, which
is
> > provided by the sticks, and the ability to smoothly pan and tilt, which
is a
> > function of the video head.
>
> Another point's that been confusing - are these two separate things I
> have to buy? I assumed I mounted the camera to the top of the tripod
> which I assumed made up the end of the pan handle. Forgive the
> consumer-level knowledge of tripods. Like I said, never would have
> guessed how many aspects of tripods there were to consider.
Cheap consumer tripods have the sticks and head as one unit. Pro gear sells
them separately, since it's often mix-and-match. Sticks have a screw post
sticking out of the top. Heads have a thread. You screw the head to the
sticks. Most heads that you'll be interested in have a quick-release.
This is a little plate that screws into the camera. The plate snaps onto
the head, making it easy to put on and remove.
>
> [PTravel]
> > Carbon fiber tripods are the lightest. I use the Manfrotto 3444D, which
is
> > a four section tripod with snap-action locks. It's very fast to set up
and
> > take down, provides plenty of height, and weighs very little. It also
costs
> > around $400 (I don't remember how much I paid).
>
> I read on here that lighter=less sturdy and more likely for wind to
> blow/knock over.
Nope, not at all. Carbon sticks use carbon-fiber -- same thing they use to
make the Stealth Bomber. The stuff is wonderfully rigid -- more so than
aluminum or magnesium -- but much lighter. Of course, the trade-off is the
cost. As for the whole thing blowing over, I wouldn't worry about it. What
I do worry about is people knocking into it, which is why I always have one
hand around the camera strap when the camera is mounted on a 'pod.
> Since you have a VX2000, I'll trust your insight on
> this since you know how much the camera weighs and its dimensions.
> I'd really love a website that could explain each of the differences
> between the different tripod/monopod technologies/mechanisms. I don't
> necessarily mind spending around $500 if I know I'm getting something
> good.
'Fraid I don't know a website for tripod comparisons. dvinfo.net is a great
place to get advice from pro videographers.
>
> [PTravel]
> > For video heads, Bogen has the 700RC2, their smallest and lighest fluid
> > video head. I had one, and liked it fine, but it wouldn't work with an
> > elbow bracket I want to use with my digital still camera. I replaced it
> > with the older Bogen 3150, which weighs one-ounce more, but will work
with
> > the bracket. The 700RC2 lists for $99. I think I paid $79 for mine.
The
> > 3150 isn't made any more, but turn up on eBay from time to time for
about
> > the same as a 700RC2. Incidently, I'm planning to sell my 700RC2 if
you're
> > interested.
> >
> > Adorama makes a wonderful monopod for $99.
>
> Not sure what an elbow bracket is used for but I have seen fluid heads
> mentioned as the best for video panning.
Video heads differ from still heads in that they move in only two
directions. The elbow bracket lets me mount my digital SLR to the tripod in
a vertical position.
Fluid heads are required for good video work. Otherwise it's impossible to
get smooth tilts or pans.
> And I'm not at the
> sophistication level where I feel ready to invest in a lot of
> equipment I wouldn't know how to use or utilize. $99 is completely
> reasonable. Any drawbacks to the model?
You mean the monopod? Yeah, it's a monopod. It's not a tripod replacement.
It's just a different tool that helps steady the camera.
>
> [Randy]
> This is a problem with no easy solution, short of having multi cameras
> and
> control of the lighting, as a professional production should. For a
> vacation picture, you just have to live with it to some extent. One
> possible solution is to tape multiple performances. Each performance
> using
> a different set of settings. Then when you get home you have to edit
> the
> best video available for each portion of the show.
>
> [PTravel]
> > If you're serious about this, you'll want to set exposure manually for
each
> > shot. You may want to set white balance as well.
>
> The big problem with this is that I find the VF and LCD almost
> useless. Sure, they're good for lining up shots and getting a general
> idea, but I don't really know what I have until I watch it on the TV,
Really? That's odd. The viewfinder is high-res enough for focusing (most
pro cameras use a b&w finder for this reason). Either the swing-out LCD or
the view finder should let you evaluate white balance. If you can't judge
exposure, turn on the zebra stripes.
> which, as I said, I couldn't do on the last trip while I was there
> because the TV in the hotel room didn't have the right inputs. The
> VF/LCD looked fine with AE sunset mode off and it wasn't until I got
> home that I saw graininess I know wouldn't have been there in sunset
> mode (or at least reduced).
Well, that's just a question of experience. You need to know how to set
your camera for different lighting situations.
> So even if I did adjust the exposure
> manually, I might think it looked too dark and thus would have
> adjusted and it ending up being too grainy when I got home.
Again, it's just a matter of experience.
>I'm not
> sure I would have known the difference using only the VF/LCD. I say
> this specifically with regard to graininess in nighttime shots or dark
> attractions. Otherwise the VF/LCD is fine.
>
> I think Randy may have a point here. I have taped almost all this
> stuff before with the DC9 and can revert back to footage from it as
> needed.
You may be unpleasantly surprised with the result. The VX2100 is so far
superior to 1-CCD consumer camcorders that you might not like the mix.
> However, the color definition is such so superior in the
> VX2100 and the low-lux capability that I eventually want to retape
> most everything with the VX2100. Which is why I really want to learn
> technique better for the next time.
>
> [PTravel]
> > I've found autofocus on my VX2000 to be rock solid. However, for low
> > contrast and back-lit scenes, it's best to turn it off.
>
> Yes, in most situations I agree. But like I side, dark rides like
> Pirates, Peter Pan, and sometimes lots of fireworks confused it.
The fireworks were a problem because it was trying to autofocus on a black
sky. Just leave autofocus off and set it to infinity. I've been on the
Pirates ride. I don't know why your camera would have problems with it.
You might want to get that checked.
> Probably right, I know serious people never use autofocus.
Well, I guess I'm not serious. ;) I use it all the time. Only when I know
it's an issue will I turn it off.
> I will use
> your suggestion and have it on manual and possibly press the auto
> button to adjust periodically.
>
> [PTravel]
> > Well, whenever the color looks off. Seriously. If you like what you
see in
> > the viewfinder, then you're fine.
>
> Good rule of thumb. :-)
>
> [PTravel]
> > > 3) Sony recommended using Spotlight and Backlight mode but, in an
> > > attraction or stage show, each might look OK at some point of the show
> > > (i.e. spotlight when a single actor is focused on, backlight when the
> > > stage is filled, lots of activity, lights). The result was sometimes
> > > overly bright main peformers although everything else looked great.
> >
> > I don't use either for stage shows. Custom settings are your friend.
>
> What do you adjust to balance the two seemingly competing factors I
> mention above (backlight stage show and spotlighted performers)?
I have some friends who staged a 4th of July show every year. I've been
shooting it for about the last 10 years, the last 5 doing multi-camera
shoots. The last two used my VX2000. I simply don't worry about. I set
it on manual, balance for the light that's available and start shooting.
The VX2000 has enough dynamic range to handle it without blooming. The
VX2100 should, too.
>
> [PTravel]
> > > 4) During fireworks shows, I occasionally saw lens reflection off the
> > > wide-angle lens during extremely bright fireworks or lights that shone
> > > directly onto the lens. Is there anything that can be done about
> > > this??
> >
> > Try a lens hood, though it's going to be difficult, if not impossible,
to
> > find one for your WA, which doesn't have screw threads in the front.
You
> > can use a matte box, which clamps on, but these are expensive and rather
> > ungainly.
>
> I will probably take your advice and try to avoid the use of the WA
> for big outdoor events like fireworks, where I can reasonably back up.
> I used it for fireworks because I could get everything I wanted in my
> shot and be nearby a speaker/subwoofer to get more audio versus crowd
> noise.
You might try a shotgun mike, which is highly directional. Personally, I
like crowd noise -- it recaptures the feel of being there.
>
> [PTravel]
> > >It was pretty annoying. I had the UV filter on top of the
> > > primary and the wide-angle on top of the UV. I tried to make sure my
> > > lenses were always clean but, admittedly, I didn't have a lens cleaner
> > > kit with me (i.e. microfiber cloth, etc.)
> >
> > Microfiber cloths are your friend when you do travel videography. I
always
> > keep one in my pocket.
>
> [Randy]
> >Clean lenses are important. Also using coated lenses can reduce flare
> of
> >light sources. But they are inevidable to some degree.
>
> Points taken and I'd already planned to rectify this situation for
> next time. Unless there a million factors to consider with cleaning
> solutions as well,
I wouldn't use cleaning solutions at all. Microfiber clothes will remove
dust. If there's gunk on the lens, you might want to have it cleaned at a
shop -- don't experiment on your own glass.
>I was planning on buying a Monster video lens
> cleaning kit I saw at a local store.
Monster is, IMHO, a complete rip-off, and that applies to everything that
they make. Get a good microfiber cloth. If dirt is resistant, try a little
cool water. If that won't get it off, you need a pro's assistance.
> The UV lens I got I think was
> like $20, so I guess not the expensive kind.
For $20, it should be coated, but not necessarily multicoated.
> Is it *really* going to
> make a significant difference if I ditch the one I have and look for a
> more expensive one with the coatings you mentioned? If so, any
> brand/model recommendations?
It depends. I shoot with cheap filters because I'm pretty rough on the
camera. I'm quite satisfied with my results. However, occassionally I'll
get color fringing at wide angle, internal reflections, etc. It might be
the result of the filter, or it might not. It's not so bad that it matters.
>
> [Randy]
> >In fact,
> >some cameras use a UV (or IR) camera light for night shots. And if
> you are
> >filtering this out, the camera will not get the benefit of this
> >"invisible" spotlight.
>
> PTravel, is this a factor with our camera?
The cameras that Randy is talking about are all consumer-grade. The
VX2000/VX2100 has internal filters for both UV and IR, so as to make the
sensors match the visible spectrum as much as possible. I've experimented
with IR video (similar to IR still photography). It works, but just
barely -- there is very, very little sensitivity in the IR range.
I can guarantee you that autofocus hunting will not cause the effect you
described. All that happens is the image goes in and out of focus,
sometimes fairly quickly.
If you go to:
and click on the India video, you'll see some shots that were made into the
sun. Those that have internal reflections exhibit exactly the effect you
are talking about -- it's from the OIS moving the internal elements around.
Internal reflections themselves may exacerbated by using a UV filter between
the adapter and the lens. I wouldn't do it.
> Both make absolute
> sense to me and seem extremely plausible explanations for what I'm
> seeing. So, who's right? :-> I guess I can try both easily enough.
You can try both, but I'd put money on my answer.
>
> [PTravel]
> > Finally, note that the VX2100, like all Sony camcorders, uses HAD CCDs.
> > These give superior low light performance but, under some circumstances,
> > will smear a bright, pinpoint light source vertically, giving it a
> > "starburst" appearance, though only in the vertical direction. There's
no
> > way to eliminate the effect, but I don't find it particularly
objectionable.
>
> I have absolutely noticed this but, as you said, this is unobtrusive
> and not significant compared to the other factors.
I actually like it -- it's dramatic.
I started travel videography with a TRV22, just to preserve memories for my
wife and myself. My projects have gotten so elaborate that I'm planning to
start offering DVDs over the internet (the India video will be the first).
You never know where stuff like this could lead.
>
> As for sound, I'm pretty OK with the sound front.
The VX2100 should do pretty well, as it's similar (but not identical) to the
VX2000. There is a run of VX2100s that have a hum problem when the LCD is
swung out and titled. Better make sure yours isn't one of them.
>As I said, I am
> also really into video editing.
Evidently! I have Premiere Pro, and a lot of other software toys. My wife
would have my hide, though, if I got the Production Bundle.
>For the most part, I have access to
> pure soundtracks for most rides, shows, etc. that I want so I can
> overlay the soundtrack on top of whatever is there from the taping.
> In cases where I don't have this, I've taped some of these enough
> times where I can pick the best audio from one of the other tapings.
> But overall I've been really pleased with improved audio quality of
> the VX2100. I know I could get a directional mic but I don't wanna to
> be weighed down with too much equipment and a boom microphone all over
> the place.
>
> Again, thanks you guys for the great great information you've
> responded with. It really is genuinely appreciated!!
My pleasure! Have fun!
>
> Steve
>
Randy Berbaum
: Thanks so much to you guys for truly thoughtful and helpful responses.
: They're much appreciated by this video enthusiast and new hobbyist.
: Thanks for not being annoyed with my newbie-ness... I wanted to
: respond to Randy and PTravel in the same response since they have
: commonalities. Forgive the length of this reply.
No problem. I will bow to PT when it comes to specifics about your camera,
as I do not have personal experience with this brand/model. Each camera
has its own tricks and traps and so all my comments were purely generic
from various cameras (some of late 70's vintage) and a few studio cameras.
When it comes to your particular (or cameras that have come out in the
past 4 or 5 years) I would give more weight to PT's responses, as he has
obviously had more recent and specific experience. :)
: Where my arms got really tired where things like long-running stage
: shows or theatre-type attractions. I did try resting my elbow on a
: chair armrest but, often, to get an appropriate angle and elevation, I
: needed to physically hold the camera, especially if I wanted a
: centered view, widest angle possible, or to make sure the camera was
: above the audience. Someone suggested a monopod and maybe that would
: be a good idea. If I could fit a monopod into a Pirates-type ride
: vehicle, or even Fantasyland ride vehicles, that'd be even better! To
: be honest, I don't think I've ever seen a monopod so I can't quite
: picture how it balances itself, or do I hold it?
For a very cheap monopod I have gone to an "outdoor" shop. I found a
walking stick that is expandable from 3' to 5' and has a camera screw
under the ball on the top. There is no pan/tilt head, but just for a way
to support a camera's weight while all aiming and movement is still
accomplished by the hand holding the camera. Specificlly, on rides such as
Pirates, you can place the rubber foot of the stick between your feet,
collapse the stick to about 3' and then your arm can work the camera as if
you were holding it, but the weight of the camera is supported by the
stick. This walking stick cost about $30. But if you want a pan/tilt head
(giving a bit more flexability in usefulness) or a more wide range of
possible heights (more than 2 telescoping sections and twist lock instead
of the spring button and series of holes as my walking stick has) you can
visit a local camera center (or an on-line equivalent) and look at
monopods that have these functions. It may even be possible to find a
simple ball head that can be screwed between the walking stick and the
camera to make it easier to angle the camera to shoot something above your
eye level without sacrificing the camera support and ease of use of the
walking stick/monopod.
: Yeah, I tried all that but, like I said, my hand either just got too
: tired from the weight during a 20-30 minute attraction, the
: holding-against-chest or leaning-elbow-on-armrest didn't provide the
: right elevation, angle, or people's heads got in the way (fireworks -
: where I needed the Castle to be in the shot as well, and theatre type
: attractions). Buidings were sometimes possible but there are also
: things where you want a center shot up Main Street to the Castle where
: there's absolutely nothing to lean against. :-)
This situation is where a good steady tripod will be your best bet. Since
I can not speak to your camera specificly I will just say that you want a
tripod that has the ability to lock down solidly and have no wobble to the
legs (I have had a wonderful light tripod for park touring for my still
cameras, but the legs were way too thin to support a vid without
wobbling), or adjustment points (I had another tripod that would hold up
one of my early camcorders, but the tilt tended to not absolutely secure
the camera and so over time the lens would slowly angle down). As to which
brands or models will fulfill these minimum requirements, I'll bow to PT
with his experience of the camera.
<snip of sholder brace discussion)
: Do you recommend the above *over* a tripod or monopod?
All of these devices have their strengths, weaknesses, and perfect
situations. To some extent, which you use will be partly personal
preference and be somewhat limited by how many seperate devices you will
be comfortable dragging around a park all day. For example, a sholder
brace would be prefered for a shot that involves walking down Main St.
Tapeing the fireworks show would be best with a tripod. And just a monopod
would be best for just a support for the camera while on rides (also easy
to set up/take down in the short loading/unloading time of constantly
moving ride vehicles). So you would probably want to have all three. But
after a long exhausting day of walking around the parks, even an extra 16
oz of weight (not to mention the additional bulk to be carried, loaded
onto and pulled off of rides, and generally carted all over the place) may
make the difference between a good trip and a bad trip. So you will have
to look at the options and decide what will be the best for you.
: [PTravel]
:> That won't be easy. You have two requirements, a stable platform, which is
:> provided by the sticks, and the ability to smoothly pan and tilt, which is a
:> function of the video head.
: Another point's that been confusing - are these two separate things I
: have to buy? I assumed I mounted the camera to the top of the tripod
: which I assumed made up the end of the pan handle. Forgive the
: consumer-level knowledge of tripods. Like I said, never would have
: guessed how many aspects of tripods there were to consider.
If you go to a walmart or target store, you can buy a simple tripod that
will support your camera, and the "head" is part of the entire unit. But
as you move up to more desired features in the equipment, you will
probably want to customize your tripod design. In this case you would go
to a camera store (either local or on-line) and purchase the leg unit that
best fits your uses and budget, and then a head unit with the best
pan/tilt/angle functions to install on the legs. So you can get a useable
all in one tripod that will do the things you want, or you can make a
custom system. Its the difference between buying off the rack and going to
a tailor. Sometimes off the rack is just fine, and other times it is worth
the extra expense for custom tailored.
: I will probably take your advice and try to avoid the use of the WA
: for big outdoor events like fireworks, where I can reasonably back up.
: I used it for fireworks because I could get everything I wanted in my
: shot and be nearby a speaker/subwoofer to get more audio versus crowd
: noise.
I will mention an idea that I have not tried, but have concidered for a
while now. I don't know if it is practical with currently available
components. What about using a small wireless mic that you can hide near
or on a speaker which would transmit to your camera, which is at the best
place for visuals. If you (or anyone) tries this I'd be interrested in
hearing how it works. :)
<snip discussion about the moving mini lights>
: So, you guys seem to have competing views on this. Both make absolute
: sense to me and seem extremely plausible explanations for what I'm
: seeing. So, who's right? :-> I guess I can try both easily enough.
It may be a combination of both, but this is one of the cases where I will
bow to direct experience over my generalized comments. :)
PTRAVEL
"PTRAVEL" <ptr...@ruyitang.com> wrote in message
news:Z_ZVb.11033$Ji5....@newssvr29.news.prodigy.com...
>
Quick followup: the older video head is a Bogn 3160, not 3150.
The Surge!
Quick question before the full reply when I get home today :-)
So, I looked at the tripod/head system you suggested on B+H's website.
They offer a bundle of the 3444D and the 3433(501) head. I noticed
separately that the 501 is more expensive than the 700RC2. Can you
offer an evaluation of the two? What about the 3444D versus the 3444?
I was pretty pleased with the minimum heights offered by both because
it seems like it'd be *possible* for me to take it on an
attraction/ride vehicle??
As always, thanks!
Steve
PTRAVEL
> PTravel,
>
> Quick question before the full reply when I get home today :-)
>
> So, I looked at the tripod/head system you suggested on B+H's website.
> They offer a bundle of the 3444D and the 3433(501) head. I noticed
> separately that the 501 is more expensive than the 700RC2. Can you
> offer an evaluation of the two? What about the 3444D versus the 3444?
I haven't used the 501, so I'm going just by the specs. For starters, it is
much, much heavier than the 700RC2, more than three times the weight. It
can also carry double the load, but that's not a factor with your VX2100
which, even with an accessory lens, heavy-duty battery, etc. is still well
under the 5.5 pound max of the 700RC2.
My recollection is that the 3444D has retractable spike feet, whereas the
3444 doesn't (and can collapse a little smaller, though it doesn't stand
quite as high).
>
> I was pretty pleased with the minimum heights offered by both because
> it seems like it'd be *possible* for me to take it on an
> attraction/ride vehicle??
They should. As I said, I'm not really a Disney guy. I used to live in
Southern California so I went a couple of times, but I don't remember a lot
about it (except screaming kids and clever simulations of the real thing).
My 3444 sits well below lap-level when the legs are collapsed and, of
course, you don't have to spread the legs all the way open (though you'll be
a little less steady that way).
>
> As always, thanks!
My pleasure. Why not post some of your video so we can see it?
>
> Steve
The Surge!
> I haven't used the 501, so I'm going just by the specs. For starters, it is
> much, much heavier than the 700RC2, more than three times the weight. It
> can also carry double the load, but that's not a factor with your VX2100
> which, even with an accessory lens, heavy-duty battery, etc. is still well
> under the 5.5 pound max of the 700RC2.
Yeah, I noticed the weight difference to be sure. But I think I saw
that the 501 had a greater tilt range than the other. But I think
you're right, in this case I'd rather go for lighter since that will
be combined with the tripod weight.
> My recollection is that the 3444D has retractable spike feet, whereas the
> 3444 doesn't (and can collapse a little smaller, though it doesn't stand
> quite as high).
> My 3444 sits well below lap-level when the legs are collapsed and, of
> course, you don't have to spread the legs all the way open (though you'll be
> a little less steady that way).
Cool, thanks. Just made me wonder why the 3444D was about $50 cheaper
than the 3444. But I think I've settled on your recommendation.
> My pleasure. Why not post some of your video so we can see it?
Hey, great idea!! Then you can see the effects I'm talking about.
I'll work on assembling some representative footage tonight. Do our
emails show up on these things? If so, I'll email you a link,
otherwise I guess I can post it.
Steve
PTRAVEL
>
> > I haven't used the 501, so I'm going just by the specs. For starters,
it is
> > much, much heavier than the 700RC2, more than three times the weight.
It
> > can also carry double the load, but that's not a factor with your VX2100
> > which, even with an accessory lens, heavy-duty battery, etc. is still
well
> > under the 5.5 pound max of the 700RC2.
>
> Yeah, I noticed the weight difference to be sure. But I think I saw
> that the 501 had a greater tilt range than the other. But I think
> you're right, in this case I'd rather go for lighter since that will
> be combined with the tripod weight.
I'm not certain extended tilt range is all that important. I shot with the
700RC2 for a month or so in Spain and Italy last fall. The most was hand
held, I did a fair bit of tripod shooting (I'll be posting "Venice at Night"
and "Luca at Night" in a month or two). I never once felt the need to
exceed the tilt range of the head. In fact, even if I needed to, it would
have been a simple matter to arrange the legs, shortening one, to provide
any extra tilt.
Trust me on this one -- when you're schlepping a ton of gear around,
anything you can do to make it lighter is better. That's why I spent an
extra hundred or so for a carbon 'pod -- it shaved a pound off the carry
weight.
>
> > My recollection is that the 3444D has retractable spike feet, whereas
the
> > 3444 doesn't (and can collapse a little smaller, though it doesn't stand
> > quite as high).
> > My 3444 sits well below lap-level when the legs are collapsed and, of
> > course, you don't have to spread the legs all the way open (though
you'll be
> > a little less steady that way).
>
> Cool, thanks. Just made me wonder why the 3444D was about $50 cheaper
> than the 3444. But I think I've settled on your recommendation.
Okay, I think I may have gotten the two models mixed up. Here's a re-post
from dvinfo.net that I wrote right after I got the set. It has the correct
designations, as well as the costs and suggested sources:
"After much research, looking for a good travel tripod setup for my VX2000,
I wound up with an all-Bogen/Manfrotto setup. I got 3444D legs and a 700RC2
mini fluid video head. The combination weighs less than 5 pounds. The legs
are carbon-fiber, with quick-release leg-locks and 4 sections, which makes
setup quick and easy. Fully extend, the tripod is completely rigid and
easily supports my VX2000 with an Optex wide angle lens on the front and a
960 battery on the back. The head has a standard quick release and nice
fluid movement for pans and tilts. The sticks are, of course, black, as is
the head, so the rig even looks "cool."
"Total cost came to about $425. I got the head from B&H and the legs from an
outfit called Digital Foto Discount Club. I was a little leery about the
latter (found them on Yahoo), but they shipped promptly and offered a price
nearly $50 below B&H. In "reselleratings.com-speak," I'd order from them
again."
"If you're looking for solid, but light-weight, sticks that are a good match
to the VX2000 (or, I imagine the XL1), you might want to consider the 3444D
and 700RC2."
So it's the D version that I have (which doesn't have spikes). Incidently,
spikes can be problematic if you take the 'pod on a plane -- TSA won't allow
them. I've never had a problem with the 3444D or my monopod, no one has
even looked at them, but I recall seeing somewhere that TSA bans spiked
tripods. Makes sense, if you think about it -- the tripod becomes nothing
less than a spear (or, more accurately, a trident).
>
> > My pleasure. Why not post some of your video so we can see it?
>
> Hey, great idea!! Then you can see the effects I'm talking about.
> I'll work on assembling some representative footage tonight. Do our
> emails show up on these things? If so, I'll email you a link,
> otherwise I guess I can post it.
I'm not quite sure what you mean. Posting the link would, I think, be of
interest to most on rec.video -- it's always nice to see what other folks
are doing, particularly with good equipment and a subject with which most
people are familiar. If you just want to email me, the email link in my
post is valid (though not primary).
>
> Steve
The Surge!
Sorry for the delay, work has been kickin' my butt this week. I'll
post links this weekend and anxiously await your analysis.
Take it easy,
Steve
"PTRAVEL" <ptravel8...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<c0dvb0$15qb7o$1...@ID-101118.news.uni-berlin.de>...
PTRAVEL
>
> Sorry for the delay, work has been kickin' my butt this week. I'll
> post links this weekend and anxiously await your analysis.
>
> Take it easy,
>
> Steve
No problem. We're away for the long weekend, and my internet access is via
slow and expensive cellphone. I'll look for your video later in the week.
Have a good one!
Paul
erik phoxie
> > Uhhhhmmm... sounds like you're using automatic settings? What you're
> > describing sounds like bad (over/under) exposure, auto white balance
> > and focus-related problems. Stop using AE, and do it yourself.
> > Especially make sure you set the GAIN to 0dB if possible.
> Sorry, but nothing the OP described sounds like exposure, focus or white
> balance problems.
I do read AE stuff like "sunset mode" and "auto focus" ... and
graininess ...so... it made me think.
> > And for white balance, I don't see a reason why to set it at all.
> Are you kidding? The difference between tungsten and outdoor illumination
> is several thousand Kelvin. Without setting white balance, one will be too
> yellow and the other too blue.
No, I'm serious. Besides, that's what they invented those 3200 and
5600k filters for, I guess :)
> These conditions absolutely require white balancing (which is very easy to
> do on cameras that allow it -- just point the camera at a white subject and
> press the white balance button).
Yeah, I know. I do set black balance. White is (except for some
extreme situations) almost always on preset. Colours look more
natural to me.
Could be personal taste though. I still like the equally sharp but
softer pics from my tubed dxc-m3a better than the average 3CCD.
> > So: outdoor: set on outdoor, indoor: use indoor :)
> > Never use AWB, correcting in post is very, very hard.
> Depends on what software you're using. It's not that hard with the better
> prosumer packages.
ok, agreed. Fixed balance is still easier though :)
e.p.
The Surge!
OK, the files are up and you can find them at:
http://66.135.138.126/recvideo
There are three files, in AVI and MPEG-2 formats. I left the AVI's
there in case you wanted the pure, uncompressed versions although
obviously they're much larger. The MPEG's I kept at the highest
quality possible and stripped the audio.
I've never had this happen before, but the MPEG-2's seem to be at the
correct brightness you'd see on a TV or external monitor. I've always
read that computer monitors are just darker so, unless you have an
external monitor, you basically have to wait until you burn it and see
it on TV to get the right brightness. Hope I don't have some skewed
brightness setting on TMPGEnc somewhere.
I will post more detailed descriptions about the scene/settings in a
few hours.
Separately, my Manfrotto/Bogan tripod/head are on their way and I went
with your recommendations. Thanks so much!! How sensitive is the
fluid head? I assume it's gotta be sturdy enough that it doesn't
shake when you move it or resettle once you release the handle? Do
you have to lock it in place? What if I want to make minor adjustments
to the camera (i.e. focus/exposure adjustments) but still keep the
head still? Just curious.
Steve
The Surge!
Quick addendum about BouncingLights.avi... I did notice that the
syndrome seems more pronounced the brighter/more intense the light
source. It seems that anything as bright as a light fixture or
brighter will result in it. There's gotta be something to be done
about it.
Exposure.avi
============
This one is meant to highlight problems I had with theatre-type shows,
spotlights, backlights, etc. It seems to me that everyone says just
manually adjust exposure, but is that really all the spotlight,
backlight, and program AE modes adjust? There's nothing else that it
does other than adjust the exposure? Given that the exposure dial I'd
assume affects the whole frame, that implies you can never really
balance the conflicting elements of a shot? Then again, maybe that's
the difference between pro videography and prosumer? :-) The last
scene is a reflection off the wide angle lens I wanted to get an
opinion on.
Scene 1:
(Country Bear Jamboree, portrait) Just basically showing the
difference between no Program AE at all (camera default settings) and
Sunset/Moon mode. Color saturation obviously better with the latter
mode. I kept it in this mode for the remainder of the show.
Scene 2:
(Country Bear Jabmoree, Liver Lips) Problem with spotlight, even in AE
mode. You can tell that about midway through the scene I pressed the
spotlight button. In this case, this did the trick because that was
the only thing going on in the shot...
Scene 3:
(Festival of the Lion King, fire) I'm using this as an establishing
shot. I loved the richness and dynamism of the colors in this scene
as well as all the activity. These same factors cause problems in the
next scenes. This scene is with Program AE (Sunset/Moon) mode. I
can't remember if I had pressed the backlight button or not. Other
than that, no adjustments. Notice that bouncing lights doesn't seem
to be a problem here.
Scene 4:
(Festival of the Lion King, ballet) This scene demonstrates the
problem of good color saturation versus spotlit performers. Although
I guess you could argue the primary action takes places in a small
area so I should have zoomed in and used spotlight, the rapid change
in stage lighting would have left me unprepared to turn spotlight off.
This show is full of rapid fire lighting changes like that and I
guess I ultimately chose color vibrancy over spotlight.
Scene 5:
(Festival of the Lion King, start of finale) The problem here is that
I did choose to press the spotlight button so that the primary
performers weren't washed out. When the scene first starts, I haven't
pressed it yet so you can see the color levels. As soon as I press
out, there's a noticeable difference in saturation and the colors
ended up looking faded and unpleasant even though the performers look
better.
Scene 6:
(Italy) This scene is just to note the difference between camera with
all default/auto settings and then with Program AE Sunset/Moon mode.
Auto settings are too bright.
Scene 7:
(Spaceship Earth) Scene starts with all default settings, switches to
Sunset/Moon. Go to closeup of Spaceship Earth with Sunset/Moon (not
sure if backlight button is pressed here). Then I press the spotlight
button here and causes obvious color fading.
Scene 8:
(Cinderella Castle, FL->TL walkway) Basically wanted to get your idea
on how I could have better shot this. Just manual exposure dial? I
like the color of the foreground but the castle itself is obviously
nearly washed out. This is with the ND setting the camera flashed as
a recommendation (I think ND-2). As I zoom in it gets better but
still a little washed out.
Scene 9:
(Illuminations) This scene shows the wide-angle lens reflection I
mentioned earlier. Think this is because of the lens configuration or
because the UV filter is not multi-coated? Or would this have
happened no matter what I put on the camera? If I had just had the
primary and UV (which would mean I could use the lens hood), would
that have prevented this?
Steve
PTRAVEL
> PTravel/Randy/whoever,
>
> OK, the files are up and you can find them at:
> http://66.135.138.126/recvideo
Steve, even the mpgs of these clips are 81meg each. Any chance you
can post them as wmvs?
>
> There are three files, in AVI and MPEG-2 formats. I left the AVI's
> there in case you wanted the pure, uncompressed versions although
> obviously they're much larger. The MPEG's I kept at the highest
> quality possible and stripped the audio.
>
> I've never had this happen before, but the MPEG-2's seem to be at the
> correct brightness you'd see on a TV or external monitor. I've always
> read that computer monitors are just darker so, unless you have an
> external monitor, you basically have to wait until you burn it and see
> it on TV to get the right brightness. Hope I don't have some skewed
> brightness setting on TMPGEnc somewhere.
That is pretty surprising. My monitor is calibrated (a necessary step
for digital still photography), but it never matches an NTSC monitor.
>
> I will post more detailed descriptions about the scene/settings in a
> few hours.
>
> Separately, my Manfrotto/Bogan tripod/head are on their way and I went
> with your recommendations. Thanks so much!! How sensitive is the
> fluid head?
I'm not sure what you mean by sensitive. If you tighten it, it is
very resistant to movement. If you loosen it, it moves freely. The
advantage of it being fluid is that, when it moves, it doesn't stick
or catch like a friction head.
> I assume it's gotta be sturdy enough that it doesn't
> shake when you move it or resettle once you release the handle?
Right, it doesn't "overshoot".
> Do
> you have to lock it in place?
You do if you do want it to move.
> What if I want to make minor adjustments
> to the camera (i.e. focus/exposure adjustments) but still keep the
> head still?
It should.
>Just curious.
>
> Steve
The Surge!
> > OK, the files are up and you can find them at:
> > http://66.135.138.126/recvideo
>
> Steve, even the mpgs of these clips are 81meg each. Any chance you
> can post them as wmvs?
OK, done. They are WM9 files, 2000kbps, 720x480, approx 20 MB each.
> > I've never had this happen before, but the MPEG-2's seem to be at the
> > correct brightness you'd see on a TV or external monitor. I've always
> > read that computer monitors are just darker so, unless you have an
> > external monitor, you basically have to wait until you burn it and see
> > it on TV to get the right brightness. Hope I don't have some skewed
> > brightness setting on TMPGEnc somewhere.
>
> That is pretty surprising. My monitor is calibrated (a necessary step
> for digital still photography), but it never matches an NTSC monitor.
With the WMV files, the brightness is as I expect. I must have messed
up my TMPGEnc settings somewhere.
> I'm not sure what you mean by sensitive. If you tighten it, it is
> very resistant to movement. If you loosen it, it moves freely. The
> advantage of it being fluid is that, when it moves, it doesn't stick
> or catch like a friction head.
I played around with it when I got home today. I like the quick
release head. I like the 4-seg legs. I definitely like the way the
fluid head moves. Can't wait to practice on something! I sorta wish
there was a level but I can use the guide frame in the viewfinder for
that if I really need to. And I'm very surprised at how light it is.
I guess I expected it to be heavier. Even with the camera it's not
too bad although I'm sure a day of walking around with it will change
my mind. :-)
The lock snaps are tougher than I thought they'd be which may make it
more difficult to adjust to ride vehicles in a hurry than I was
hoping. Either that or it will just take me a bit to get used to the
snaps and they'll be faster, or I'll just have to be more prepared. I
was thinking perhaps I'd take a day where I just outdoor
shooting/theatre attractions/shows and another day where I just do
moving attractions.
> > I assume it's gotta be sturdy enough that it doesn't
> > shake when you move it or resettle once you release the handle?
>
> Right, it doesn't "overshoot".
I'll have to practice a bit with the knobs to determine the
appropriate locking vs swivel ease. Do these locking knobs become
"loose" after a while? The manual also mentioned something about "if
it needs lubrication..."... Have you had to do this/have done? If so,
how often?
Steve
PTRAVEL
I'm not sure why bright sections are getting blown out. It could be
your use of the backlight button, or else choosing the programmed AE
modes. I'm going to post a short section from a video I shot in India
which has comparable, though not exactly the same, lighting
conditions. I just used standard autoexposure, no programmed modes,
no backlight, etc. You'll see that exposure is even, highlights don't
get blown out and colors are rich. I'll post the URL as soon as I
finish exporting it to WMV.
> Scene 7:
> (Spaceship Earth) Scene starts with all default settings, switches to
> Sunset/Moon. Go to closeup of Spaceship Earth with Sunset/Moon (not
> sure if backlight button is pressed here). Then I press the spotlight
> button here and causes obvious color fading.
> Scene 8:
> (Cinderella Castle, FL->TL walkway) Basically wanted to get your idea
> on how I could have better shot this. Just manual exposure dial? I
> like the color of the foreground but the castle itself is obviously
> nearly washed out. This is with the ND setting the camera flashed as
> a recommendation (I think ND-2). As I zoom in it gets better but
> still a little washed out.
You might get some improvement with a polarizing filter. It will
darken the sky and remove a lot of glare from the castle.
> Scene 9:
> (Illuminations) This scene shows the wide-angle lens reflection I
> mentioned earlier. Think this is because of the lens configuration or
> because the UV filter is not multi-coated? Or would this have
> happened no matter what I put on the camera? If I had just had the
> primary and UV (which would mean I could use the lens hood), would
> that have prevented this?
Hmmmm. That's kind of weird. It might partly be due to the HAD CCDs,
though I've shot fireworks with HAD CCD cameras (though not the
VX2000) and not had this problem. It very well might be having the UV
filter between the WA lens and the camera.
>
> Steve
The Surge!
BTW, I posted a few questions about the tripod in this thread. Also,
I notice that the camera leans slightly to the right so it's
off-centered in the VF. I assume that's because the weight is greater
on the right side what with the tape mechanism and all? I thought
about take the pin screw off and turning the plate the other way
because the plate side seems to extend down a bit longer on that side
and maybe offset the off-centered-ness. I really hope you know what
I'm talking about!
> I'm not sure why bright sections are getting blown out. It could be
> your use of the backlight button, or else choosing the programmed AE
> modes. I'm going to post a short section from a video I shot in India
> which has comparable, though not exactly the same, lighting
> conditions. I just used standard autoexposure, no programmed modes,
> no backlight, etc. You'll see that exposure is even, highlights don't
> get blown out and colors are rich. I'll post the URL as soon as I
> finish exporting it to WMV.
OK, I'll look at your clip and try this. I'll have a day at
Disneyland coming up before I head off to Disneyland Paris. I'll use
that day to experiment with technique, hopefully fireworks and/or
shows. Maybe I'll try one where I use standard auto-exposure and
another where I manually do it.
BTW, you said in a previous post that you "adjust white balance
whenever the color looks off". Realistically, have you ever had to do
this? In what situations? Thinking back, I don't think I've ever had
a need to do this.
> You might get some improvement with a polarizing filter. It will
> darken the sky and remove a lot of glare from the castle.
I bought one but then sold it because it wasn't as useful as I'd
thought it'd be. That scene is the only time I've been in that
situation.
> > Scene 9:
> > (Illuminations) This scene shows the wide-angle lens reflection I
> > mentioned earlier. Think this is because of the lens configuration or
> > because the UV filter is not multi-coated? Or would this have
> > happened no matter what I put on the camera? If I had just had the
> > primary and UV (which would mean I could use the lens hood), would
> > that have prevented this?
> Hmmmm. That's kind of weird. It might partly be due to the HAD CCDs,
> though I've shot fireworks with HAD CCD cameras (though not the
> VX2000) and not had this problem. It very well might be having the UV
> filter between the WA lens and the camera.
Unfortunately I don't think I'll be able to test that out until I go
back to Disney World.
Thanks very much for all your excellent advice. I'm sure glad you
have a VX2000!!! You've mentioned the zebra striping a few times. I
didn't really know what that was used for so I'll read the manual for
some more info.
Steve
PTRAVEL
> I'll have to practice a bit with the knobs to determine the
> appropriate locking vs swivel ease. Do these locking knobs become
> "loose" after a while? The manual also mentioned something about "if
> it needs lubrication..."... Have you had to do this/have done? If so,
> how often?
If it's the 3444D, you can adjust the tension with a screw driver. I've
done that, but I haven't lubricated it.
I've finally gotten the Venice clip up. It's at www.ruyitang.com, third
clip down. It was shot entirely with a tripod -- it really makes a
difference.
>
> Steve
PTRAVEL
> PTravel,
>
> BTW, I posted a few questions about the tripod in this thread. Also,
> I notice that the camera leans slightly to the right so it's
> off-centered in the VF. I assume that's because the weight is greater
> on the right side what with the tape mechanism and all?
No, this isn't right. If the tripod is on level ground AND the legs
are all fully extended, it should be level (check it with a small
hardware store level). If you're using the 3444D, mine took a little
while to loosen up -- to get one of the legs to extend completely I
had to give it a pretty good pull.
> I thought
> about take the pin screw off and turning the plate the other way
> because the plate side seems to extend down a bit longer on that side
> and maybe offset the off-centered-ness. I really hope you know what
> I'm talking about!
Check the set screws underneath the head (where the circular base sits
on the tripod top). You can use them to level up the head.
>
> > I'm not sure why bright sections are getting blown out. It could be
> > your use of the backlight button, or else choosing the programmed AE
> > modes. I'm going to post a short section from a video I shot in India
> > which has comparable, though not exactly the same, lighting
> > conditions. I just used standard autoexposure, no programmed modes,
> > no backlight, etc. You'll see that exposure is even, highlights don't
> > get blown out and colors are rich. I'll post the URL as soon as I
> > finish exporting it to WMV.
>
> OK, I'll look at your clip and try this. I'll have a day at
> Disneyland coming up before I head off to Disneyland Paris. I'll use
> that day to experiment with technique, hopefully fireworks and/or
> shows. Maybe I'll try one where I use standard auto-exposure and
> another where I manually do it.
>
> BTW, you said in a previous post that you "adjust white balance
> whenever the color looks off". Realistically, have you ever had to do
> this? In what situations? Thinking back, I don't think I've ever had
> a need to do this.
I have to do this a lot for the kind of travel stuff that I shoot.
Outdoor illumination at night is frequently sodium or mercury vapor
lamps, which have a weird color temperature and really skew colors.
Worse, still, is a new lamp being used in Europe which has a truly
strange color to it. If you want to see the difference between WB and
non-WB footage, take a look at my Venice clip at www.ruyitang.com .
The third to the last scene shows a pharmacy, for which I did a quick
white balance. The scenes before it weren't white balanced.
>
> > You might get some improvement with a polarizing filter. It will
> > darken the sky and remove a lot of glare from the castle.
>
> I bought one but then sold it because it wasn't as useful as I'd
> thought it'd be. That scene is the only time I've been in that
> situation.
I used to use polarizers quite a bit, but the colors are so rich on
the VX2000 that I found them unnecessary, unless there's a high-glare
situation.
>
> > > Scene 9:
> > > (Illuminations) This scene shows the wide-angle lens reflection I
> > > mentioned earlier. Think this is because of the lens configuration or
> > > because the UV filter is not multi-coated? Or would this have
> > > happened no matter what I put on the camera? If I had just had the
> > > primary and UV (which would mean I could use the lens hood), would
> > > that have prevented this?
> > Hmmmm. That's kind of weird. It might partly be due to the HAD CCDs,
> > though I've shot fireworks with HAD CCD cameras (though not the
> > VX2000) and not had this problem. It very well might be having the UV
> > filter between the WA lens and the camera.
>
> Unfortunately I don't think I'll be able to test that out until I go
> back to Disney World.
>
> Thanks very much for all your excellent advice. I'm sure glad you
> have a VX2000!!! You've mentioned the zebra striping a few times. I
> didn't really know what that was used for so I'll read the manual for
> some more info.
>
> Steve
Have a great trip, and, please, tell me that you'll spend some time
wandering around Paris besides at EuroDisney! ;)
Dave Althoff Jr
:
: > I'm not sure what you mean by sensitive. If you tighten it, it is
: > very resistant to movement. If you loosen it, it moves freely. The
: > advantage of it being fluid is that, when it moves, it doesn't stick
: > or catch like a friction head.
: I played around with it when I got home today. I like the quick
: release head. I like the 4-seg legs. I definitely like the way the
: fluid head moves. Can't wait to practice on something! I sorta wish
: there was a level but I can use the guide frame in the viewfinder for
: that if I really need to. And I'm very surprised at how light it is.
: I guess I expected it to be heavier. Even with the camera it's not
: too bad although I'm sure a day of walking around with it will change
: my mind. :-)
Ideally, you should (if possible) fiddle with the adjustment of the camera
position on the head so that with the tilt unlocked the camera tends not
to move. Lock it if you aren't moving, but you should be able to unlock
the tilt and easily move the camera or not, as you prefer, with the handle.
: The lock snaps are tougher than I thought they'd be which may make it
: more difficult to adjust to ride vehicles in a hurry than I was
: hoping. Either that or it will just take me a bit to get used to the
: snaps and they'll be faster, or I'll just have to be more prepared. I
: was thinking perhaps I'd take a day where I just outdoor
: shooting/theatre attractions/shows and another day where I just do
: moving attractions.
:
: > > I assume it's gotta be sturdy enough that it doesn't
: > > shake when you move it or resettle once you release the handle?
: >
: > Right, it doesn't "overshoot".
: I'll have to practice a bit with the knobs to determine the
: appropriate locking vs swivel ease. Do these locking knobs become
: "loose" after a while? The manual also mentioned something about "if
: it needs lubrication..."... Have you had to do this/have done? If so,
: how often?
Did I see that this is a set of Manfrotto/Bogen sticks? Looking at the
locks on the legs...are these the ones that rotate a quarter-turn, or the
ones that rock up and down? Either way, they DO loosen up with age, and
eventually you'll be looking for a ball-head Allen wrench to tighten them up.
The locking knobs on the head are essentially bolts; they shouldn't change
much with use. The other thing to watch for are the three set-screws that
secure the head to the sticks; those tend to spontaneously back out in use.
Please note that my experience with Bogen/Manfrotto tripods is from the
ones we have in a University media center for student use. They get
unbelievable abuse, and I've been pretty happy with the way they hold up.
Your experience will probably be far more trouble-free than mine because
you probably take better care of your gear than our students take care of
"mine".
--Dave Althoff, Jr.
(in case you're wondering about me...
http://capital2.capital.edu/admin-staff/dalthoff )
--
/X\ _ _ *** Closed for the season. ***
/XXX\ /X\ /X\_ _ /X\__ _ _ _____
/XXXXX\ /XXX\ _/XXXX\_ /X\ /XXXXX\ /X\ /X\ /XXXXX
_/XXXXXXX\__/XXXXX\/XXXXXXXX\_/XXX\_/XXXXXXX\__/XXX\_/XXX\_/\_/XXXXXX
The Surge!
> No, this isn't right. If the tripod is on level ground AND the legs
> are all fully extended, it should be level (check it with a small
> hardware store level). If you're using the 3444D, mine took a little
> while to loosen up -- to get one of the legs to extend completely I
> had to give it a pretty good pull.
The tripod itself and the head *are* level. It's just that when
placing the quick release plate (with attached camera) onto the head,
I notice that when I tighten the side screw (the one that keeps the
camera in place), I notice that the screw ends up causing the camera
to tilt toward the heavy side, the camera's right side. I can hold
the camera in place while tightening the screw, but there is still
some tilting. I haven't had a chance to play with it further, but I
have some ideas including checking to see if the camera is in place
good enough without tightening the screw.
> Check the set screws underneath the head (where the circular base sits
> on the tripod top). You can use them to level up the head.
Good idea, I'll play with that.
> > > which has comparable, though not exactly the same, lighting
> > > conditions. I just used standard autoexposure, no programmed modes,
> > > no backlight, etc. You'll see that exposure is even, highlights don't
> > > get blown out and colors are rich. I'll post the URL as soon as I
> > > finish exporting it to WMV.
I finally got some free time to take a look at your clips. I looked
at all the clips actually. Specifically, about India, yes, my camera
wouldn't have had a problem in those lighting conditions either. I
couldn't tell whether the last few seconds of the clip were similar
because there weren't wide shots to compare with, say, the Lion King
segments of my video. Had I zoomed in, I could have adjusted
appropriately, it was the wide shots where I had the most obvious
examples of having to choose between faded out actors or colorless
stage sets. But having watched all 3 of your clips, I'm convinced I'm
going to try cutting out the UV between the WA and primary, or cutting
out the UV and the WA both to see the difference, especially with
respect to bouncing lights. I think I saw maybe 2 scenes (in your
Vegas clip) where I saw miniscule bouncing lights but that was it.
And I can't even be sure it was bouncing lights. But the Venice and
Vegas showed the nighttime shots I wanted to have.
In Venice and Vegas, did you adjust exposure and leave program ae off?
I ask because the quality of the shot looked the same except for
yours didn't have bouncing lights. I'm wondering if our color
saturations were the same. I'm at a different computer right now so I
can't look, but it seems to me that when I had no ae mode and just
used auto exposure that Italy/Epcot at night looked too light in
Exposure.wmv. That was the scene where I showed the shot without AE
and then turned AE on.
> I have to do this a lot for the kind of travel stuff that I shoot.
> Outdoor illumination at night is frequently sodium or mercury vapor
> lamps, which have a weird color temperature and really skew colors.
> Worse, still, is a new lamp being used in Europe which has a truly
> strange color to it. If you want to see the difference between WB and
> non-WB footage, take a look at my Venice clip at www.ruyitang.com .
> The third to the last scene shows a pharmacy, for which I did a quick
> white balance. The scenes before it weren't white balanced.
Watching the Venice clip again I do think we'd have had the same
problem with the Lion King. I noticed at about 03:17 when you're
shooting down an alley and there's a lit shop at the back of the shot
that the inside of the shop is washed out. This seems essentially
like the same problem I had with spotlighted actors in the show. And
sorta seems to make sense given what you said about the camera trying
to adjust exposure for the whole scene versus a particular light
source. You were saying it about light fixtures, but it seems to
apply to spotlighted actors as well, no?
Anyway, re: WB, what did you white balance on for that shot? The
light fixture, the wall? The difference between the other scenes
seems so subtle. It also seemed like you adjusted something at 01:11
but that may be just the encoding talking. I thought the camera did a
good job at 01:36. Seemed like a lot of things going on in that scene
that the camera did a good job of representing.
In retrospect, I wonder if you think there's too much saturation in my
night shots? Again, the Italy scene in my Exposure.wmv comes to mind
when I have autoexposure, no AE, and then with AE/SunsetMoon mode.
> I used to use polarizers quite a bit, but the colors are so rich on
> the VX2000 that I found them unnecessary, unless there's a high-glare
> situation.
I'll probably agree. And how often do I shoot through water & windows
anyway? :-)
> > > Hmmmm. That's kind of weird. It might partly be due to the HAD CCDs,
> > > though I've shot fireworks with HAD CCD cameras (though not the
> > > VX2000) and not had this problem. It very well might be having the UV
> > > filter between the WA lens and the camera.
> >
> > Unfortunately I don't think I'll be able to test that out until I go
> > back to Disney World.
Now that I'll have a chance to go to Disneyland before heading off to
Paris, I'll definitely make sure I get all these nighttime issues
resolved. I want to do as little experimenting as possible in France.
> Have a great trip, and, please, tell me that you'll spend some time
> wandering around Paris besides at EuroDisney! ;)
Heheh, well, to be honest I'm not sure. Since this is a bargain
basement trip, I don't feel so guilty about going only to accomplish
this mission. I've been to France before and will go back next year
(mostly for Italy though, so seeing your clip was pretty cool!). So I
can sort of afford to just use this trip for Euro Disney filming.
Plus, like I said, my very first videography *ever* was at the grand
opening. A mistake I very much regret and it's really important to me
to do the Resort right this time around!
Steve
The Surge!
> I've finally gotten the Venice clip up. It's at www.ruyitang.com, third
> clip down. It was shot entirely with a tripod -- it really makes a
> difference.
Yes, I agree! And the Venice clip was my favorite of the three,
probably because I'll be going next year but still! The background
music was well chosen and the mix of wow-shots and ordinary-life shots
was well done.
I'll probably show it to my mom since we both love Europe! :-)
Steve
The Surge!
> Ideally, you should (if possible) fiddle with the adjustment of the camera
> position on the head so that with the tilt unlocked the camera tends not
> to move. Lock it if you aren't moving, but you should be able to unlock
> the tilt and easily move the camera or not, as you prefer, with the handle.
Hmm... not sure what you mean. I can definitely loosen the tilt and
get a comfortable balance between steadyness and ease of tilt
manuvering, but if I completely unlock the tilt, it will definitely
rotate down. The lock does a good job of locking and, like I said, I
have found that comfortable balance. It does seem, however, that
after time I'll need to lock it tighter and tighter as it loosens with
age. Makes me afraid to "overtighten" any of the locks on the head.
Hence my question in the previous post about the locking knobs
becoming loose after a while.
> Did I see that this is a set of Manfrotto/Bogen sticks? Looking at the
> locks on the legs...are these the ones that rotate a quarter-turn, or the
> ones that rock up and down? Either way, they DO loosen up with age, and
> eventually you'll be looking for a ball-head Allen wrench to tighten them up.
Definitely don't rock, but I wouldn't say they rotate either. More
like the snap sideways. Unsnap them to adjust the sticks, snap to
lock in place.
> The locking knobs on the head are essentially bolts; they shouldn't change
> much with use. The other thing to watch for are the three set-screws that
> secure the head to the sticks; those tend to spontaneously back out in use.
Do you agree with PTravel that adjusting these screws might solve my
camera-tilt problem caused by the side-locking knob (the knob that
holds the quick-release plate (w/camera) in place?
> Please note that my experience with Bogen/Manfrotto tripods is from the
> ones we have in a University media center for student use. They get
> unbelievable abuse, and I've been pretty happy with the way they hold up.
> Your experience will probably be far more trouble-free than mine because
> you probably take better care of your gear than our students take care of
> "mine".
Good to know!!
Steve
The Surge!
In addition, I posted a clip of shots I *liked* from MK to the same
URL (http://66.135.138.126/recvideo). It's almost 3.5 mins, WMV
format, 1500kbps, 720x480. I used the PPro SteadyMove plugin on the
fireworks scene but that's it. As with anything, there were a million
more shots I wanted to use, but it's probably good that the soundtrack
constrained me. I tried to include a cross-section of stuff.
Enjoy,
Steve
The Surge!
Long time no type?? :-)
Since you've obviously used your VX2000 in Europe, wanted to ask you
what I need for my upcoming Paris trip. I bought outlet adapters but
then I read something about voltage adapters (220V -> 110V) as well??
Do I need the latter or is the former fine?
I did notice that one of my appliances has a 220V/110V selector
switch. Definitely wanna make sure I don't ruin the camera!!
Also, I'd like to preview the video I've shot at the end of the day on
the hotel room TV. Is there a "good-enough" NTSC->PAL converter you
recommend for solely that purpose (watching what I've shot on the
hotel TV)?
As always, thanks...
Steve
Dillon Pyron
>PTravel,
>
>Long time no type?? :-)
>
>Since you've obviously used your VX2000 in Europe, wanted to ask you
>what I need for my upcoming Paris trip. I bought outlet adapters but
>then I read something about voltage adapters (220V -> 110V) as well??
>Do I need the latter or is the former fine?
Some chargers are dual voltage, others will need a transformer. Check
the specs on the device.
>
>I did notice that one of my appliances has a 220V/110V selector
>switch. Definitely wanna make sure I don't ruin the camera!!
>
>Also, I'd like to preview the video I've shot at the end of the day on
>the hotel room TV. Is there a "good-enough" NTSC->PAL converter you
>recommend for solely that purpose (watching what I've shot on the
>hotel TV)?
Hopefully someone else can answer this question, but the last time I
look, video converters were not cheap.
>
>As always, thanks...
>
>Steve
--
dillon
Life is always short, but only you can make it sweet
andrew
>
> >what I need for my upcoming Paris trip. I bought outlet adapters but
> >then I read something about voltage adapters (220V -> 110V) as well??
> >Do I need the latter or is the former fine?
> >
> >the hotel room TV. Is there a "good-enough" NTSC->PAL converter you
> >recommend for solely that purpose (watching what I've shot on the
> >hotel TV)?
I'm not an expert, so don't quote me on this, but isn't France on SECAM (
i.e. neither NTSC nor PAL)?
Another option of course, would be to take your own portable television set.
I have a very neat set than runs on car cigar lighter & mains adaptor, with
a 5" LCD screen. The set is about 6"x4"x3/4 inch thick plus mains adaptor. I
use mine to view TV at home in the kitchen and it has a video/digital camera
input socket. I can even use it as a remote viewfinder for my camera &
camcorder.
Mine doesn't have a battery, but others I looked at before making my
purchase did.
Andrew
Dave Althoff Jr
: Since you've obviously used your VX2000 in Europe, wanted to ask you
: what I need for my upcoming Paris trip. I bought outlet adapters but
: then I read something about voltage adapters (220V -> 110V) as well??
: Do I need the latter or is the former fine?
: I did notice that one of my appliances has a 220V/110V selector
: switch. Definitely wanna make sure I don't ruin the camera!!
Don't know about yours, but the power specs on my Sony AC adapter
(#AC-L10A) say AC in 100-240V, 50/60 Hz, which means it will work in
almost any AC outlet in the world if there's a way to plug it in.
Note that some AC-motor driven devices will work on European power, but
will run slow.
--Dave Althoff, Jr.
Dave Althoff Jr
: > On 5 Mar 2004 14:36:07 -0800, surg...@yahoo.com (The Surge!) wrote:
: >
: > >what I need for my upcoming Paris trip. I bought outlet adapters but
: > >then I read something about voltage adapters (220V -> 110V) as well??
: > >Do I need the latter or is the former fine?
: > >
: > >Also, I'd like to preview the video I've shot at the end of the day on
: > >the hotel room TV. Is there a "good-enough" NTSC->PAL converter you
: > >recommend for solely that purpose (watching what I've shot on the
: > >hotel TV)?
: I'm not an expert, so don't quote me on this, but isn't France on SECAM (
: i.e. neither NTSC nor PAL)?
That's France for you: "System Essentially Contrary to the American Method."
(USA and Japan are NTSC: Never Twice Same Color)
: Another option of course, would be to take your own portable television set.
: I have a very neat set than runs on car cigar lighter & mains adaptor, with
: a 5" LCD screen. The set is about 6"x4"x3/4 inch thick plus mains adaptor. I
: use mine to view TV at home in the kitchen and it has a video/digital camera
: input socket. I can even use it as a remote viewfinder for my camera &
: camcorder.
: Mine doesn't have a battery, but others I looked at before making my
: purchase did.
That would make sense. Or, the high-tech option is to bring a laptop with
FireWire input and video editing software...dump the video each night into
the computer and log it so that on return home, you're ready to edit. Or
you can do your editing on the trip home! 8-)
High tech, and expensive, though... 8-)
The Surge!
Thanks so much guys for your help on this. Of course, it never
occurred to me that the manual might have this information :-)
So, yes, I see by the manual that the power consumption accepts from
100 to 240 V. It's the same for the separate Sony battery charger as
well. What a relief!
As for how to preview my video, I do have a laptop but it doesn't have
Firewire inputs. I also did think about buying Sony's little MiniDV
player. But my main purpose was to preview the video on a live,
decently large television set. That way I can ensure thinks like
exposure and graininess, etc. If not a TV, a laptop or MiniDV player
is just as good as the VF/LCD screen. I was really hoping for some
little NTSC->SECAM (thanks for the correction!) cheapie on-the-fly
converter.
Steve
dal...@gcfn.org (Dave Althoff Jr) wrote in message news:<c2drul$bjt$1...@acme.gcfn.org>...
Dave Althoff Jr
: Dave, Dillon, and Andrew,
: Thanks so much guys for your help on this. Of course, it never
: occurred to me that the manual might have this information :-)
: So, yes, I see by the manual that the power consumption accepts from
: 100 to 240 V. It's the same for the separate Sony battery charger as
: well. What a relief!
: As for how to preview my video, I do have a laptop but it doesn't have
: Firewire inputs. I also did think about buying Sony's little MiniDV
: player. But my main purpose was to preview the video on a live,
: decently large television set. That way I can ensure thinks like
: exposure and graininess, etc. If not a TV, a laptop or MiniDV player
: is just as good as the VF/LCD screen. I was really hoping for some
: little NTSC->SECAM (thanks for the correction!) cheapie on-the-fly
: converter.
You have the added problem that if you preview on a television set that is
a different video standard from your camera, you will see artifacts from
the conversion process as well, so if you're wanting to look critically at
NTSC video, you really need an NTSC monitor. Even portable LCDs can be
misleading because the brightness won't be the same as with a monitor.
PTRAVEL
> PTravel,
>
> Long time no type?? :-)
I've been on the road.
>
> Since you've obviously used your VX2000 in Europe, wanted to ask you
> what I need for my upcoming Paris trip. I bought outlet adapters but
> then I read something about voltage adapters (220V -> 110V) as well??
> Do I need the latter or is the former fine?
You don't need voltage adapters. All you need are plug adapters -- a
couple of bucks at any Radio Shack or travel stroe.
>
> I did notice that one of my appliances has a 220V/110V selector
> switch. Definitely wanna make sure I don't ruin the camera!!
You won't. I've used my VX2000 all over Europe, Asia and the Indian
sub-continent. No problems at all.
>
> Also, I'd like to preview the video I've shot at the end of the day on
> the hotel room TV. Is there a "good-enough" NTSC->PAL converter you
> recommend for solely that purpose (watching what I've shot on the
> hotel TV)?
Why would you want to do this? I'm not aware of any NTSC-PAL
converters, though I'm sure they exist. However, many hotel TVs are
used in "hotel" mode, which will preclude your plugging in an external
source.
>
> As always, thanks...
>
> Steve
Dave Althoff Jr
production techniques and such...
Have a look at http://www.video101course.com . The materials there are
fairly decent, and as a matter of fact the professors where I work are now
using that site for supplemental material in the television production
classes. It's decent stuff.
The Surge!
I was actually pretty excited the other day to be watching a movie and
noticed that it had a background exposure problem too. So I don't
feel so bad about my prosumer-level camera not being perfect :-)
It was a shot whether there was a lot of background foliage (trees,
shrubs, grass, etc.) and foreground characters. There were gaps
between the trees but you couldn't make out the sky - it was basically
just a bright blob.
Steve