Every nn frame
Dmitri Shvetsov
Does anybody know if it possible to create a movie from the DV source
downloaded from camcoder so that we get only n-th frame? For example, I'd
like to make a movie of a sunset, the sunsets in AZ are so beautiful! I can
manipulate with camcoder and play with the frames, but I'd like to play with
the DV movie stream to get every 5, maybe every 30, every 100 frame etc. to
see what combination is better.
Any suggestions?
Thanks,
Dmitri.
Michiel Rapati-Kekkonen
see
www.scenalyzer.com
and I could program my Sony camera to do so with DV-IN Lite
Choice of several intervals and several lengths
michiel
"Dmitri Shvetsov" <dshvetsov[I really don't like spam shit @]cox.net> wrote
in message news:f_odc.17396$Vo.3035@fed1read03...
Gorf
> > downloaded from camcoder so that we get only n-th frame? For example,
I'd
> you can do so with Scenalizer
This may sound ignorant, but what's wrong with speeding up the clip on the
timeline? If you're looking for individual frames, you can export the
project as a UIS, otherwise just save the speeded up AVI.
1 in 5 = 500%
1 in 30 = 3,000%
1 in 100 = 10,000%
There is a limit to how much you can speed a clip - so you may have to save
an intermediate AVI and work on that.
Also, Dynapel's MotionPerfect blends the motion, so it looks like fast
action rather than speeded up film.
Tony Morgan
<dshvetsov@[I really don't like spam shit @].invalid> writes
It would help if you identified which camcorder you are using.
--
Tony Morgan
http://www.camcord.info
Dmitri Shvetsov
I wrote in this newsgroup before, Canon GL2.
Dmitri Shvetsov
Tony Morgan
>I wrote in this newsgroup before, Canon GL2.
>
Sorry I missed that. I have no knowledge of that camcorder (nor of any
other Canon) nor have any of my friends.
Most Sony's (at least the mid-range and upwards) allow you to do
something similar to what you require in one of two ways;
1. Interval Recording: However the recording time is selectable
through 0.5s --> 1s --> 1.5s --> 2s and the interval
selectable through 30s --> 1m --> 5m --> 10m.
2. Cut Recording: This records 6 frames but returns to standby,
so to get what you want you've got to keep re-pressing the Record
button.
I know this won't help you, but it might be of interest to others who
have (or may get) a Sony camcorder.
I have a friend BTW who produces very impressive Wallace and Grommet
style movies using the Cut Recording with playdough characters. He's got
a nine-year-old daughter who's got really fired up with video as a
result. She's even got a group of her school-friends together writing
scripts for future productions. I's great to see kids get involved with
video making - especially at that age.
Dmitri Shvetsov
> >I wrote in this newsgroup before, Canon GL2.
> Sorry I missed that. I have no knowledge of that camcorder (nor of any
> other Canon) nor have any of my friends.
Yes, Canon has these features as well, but I wrote before that I wanted to
write a full movie and only then to play with the frames. Ok, if I rich some
good result I will write here about it.
> I have a friend BTW who produces very impressive Wallace and Grommet
> style movies using the Cut Recording with playdough characters. He's got
> a nine-year-old daughter who's got really fired up with video as a
> result. She's even got a group of her school-friends together writing
> scripts for future productions. I's great to see kids get involved with
> video making - especially at that age.
The time's going away...) I knew a boy about 10-12 years ago, he was in a
second grade, he was using a 3D Studio to create his own cartoons with
sounds etc., using... (don't cry) 80286 to render these images...) The
result was really cool, slowly donw but excellent run.
Dmitri Shvetsov
Jake P
news:s1cUJ2NrsvdAFwk$@aoyh98.dsl.pipex.com...
<snip>
> Most Sony's (at least the mid-range and upwards) allow you to do
> something similar to what you require in one of two ways;
>
> 1. Interval Recording: However the recording time is selectable
> through 0.5s --> 1s --> 1.5s --> 2s and the interval
> selectable through 30s --> 1m --> 5m --> 10m.
I tried that once and was very disappointed with the result. 12 frames
(0.5s) makes for a pretty awful time lapse.
Jake
Jukka Aho
> Does anybody know if it possible to create a movie from the
> DV source downloaded from camcoder so that we get only n-th
> frame?
Yes, try either VirtualDub <http://www.virtualdub.org/> or
AVISynth <http://www.avisynth.org/>. Both should be able to
do the job.
> I'd like to play with the DV movie stream to get every 5,
> maybe every 30, every 100 frame etc. to see what combination
> is better.
In VirtualDub, this functionality can be found from the
menus. (Choose "Video" -> "Frame rate".)
In AviSynth, you need to use the ChangeFPS filter:
<http://www.avisynth.org/index.php?page=FPS>.
--
znark
Dmitri Shvetsov
That's good, thank you for your advice. But only one problem. I know about
VirtualDub and I was working with this program for a few years. I didn't
find what codec should I install to let it read my DV files. It can't read
these files by default, although I'm having a lot of codecs in the system.
Thanks,
Dmitri Shvetsov
http://members.cox.net/dshvetsov/pictures.htm
"Jukka Aho" <jukk...@iki.fi> wrote in message
news:SOtfc.1686$193...@reader1.news.jippii.net...
Jukka Aho
> I know about VirtualDub and I was working with this
> program for a few years. I didn't find what codec
> should I install to let it read my DV files.
> It can't read these files by default, although I'm
> having a lot of codecs in the system.
The Microsoft DV codec (that comes free with Windows) is
built around the new DirectShow API. VirtualDub does not
(yet) support these new-fangled DirectShow codecs, so it
cannot use the Microsoft DV codec to read DV AVI files.
However, VirtualDub _can_ read and write DV AVI files if
you install an older-style VfW (Video for Windows) DV
codec in the system.
You can download MainConcept's VfW DV codec for free, but
the free version only allows reading DV data, not writing
it: <http://www.mainconcept.com/products.shtml>
There are other VfW DV codecs as well - some of which
apparently allow (re)compressing, too - but I have not
personally tried them.:
The Panasonic VfW DV codec:
<http://www.softpedia.com/public/cat/11/2/2/11-2-2-41.shtml>
The Matrox VfW DV codec (the VFWSoftwareCodec.zip file):
<http://www.rt2500.tv/download/goodies.html>
--
znark
Tony Morgan
<jukk...@iki.fi> writes
I know it's off-topic, but perhaps I could mention that there is a
Sorensen codec available (at a cost) for converting Flash movies to
various video formats. I've seen some very nice movie intro's and
titling produced via Flash.
Again OT, but Camtasia also includes a codec for the production of
movies in various video formats.
Dmitri Shvetsov
By the way, I don't know why, but I'm having problems with interlaced audio.
This codec can read DV video stream, excellent quality, but I have no chance
to recode audio, it refuses. And almost all programs are not able to run
audio on, only Nero Player, it has no problems. That's strange. Even when I
grab the stream from the camcoder I don't hear sound, but it exists and
later some applications can demonstrate that.
Thanks,
Dmitri Shvetsov
http://members.cox.net/dshvetsov/pictures.htm
"Jukka Aho" <jukk...@iki.fi> wrote in message
news:fCEfc.1821$Ln3...@reader1.news.jippii.net...
nesredep egrob
I use a Sony 355 and generate AVI files with Roxio. I used one of
those files to drag to the timeline in VideoEdit Magic and pushed the
time line in by 50% and I now have a file running at twice the speed -
I presume that is what is wanted. Magic handles that fine - you have
to generate a movie but that consists of AVI files - so there is no
trouble there.
B.Pedersen Latitude -31,48.21 Longitude115,47.40 Time=GMT+8.00
If you are curious look here http://www.mapquest.com/maps/latlong.adp
Dmitri Shvetsov
I'm answering the question that I asked a couple of weeks ago. The question
was like: "If I have a real record can I create a video using every nn
frame, for example to play with different variations of sunset, clouds,
flowers etc."
The answer is pretty simple. Microsoft Movie Maker 2 (I didn't try 1) can
increase or decrease the speed of the movie (or some fragment) in 2 times.
But funny, that I didn't notice that before. If we drag-n-drop this effect a
few (n) times we can change the speed in 2^n times and if we then create a
DV movie file then, we get the required speed. Advantage or disadvantage
is - the sound changes same way...) So the plains fly like bullets, same
sound, looks funny.. I can demonstrate if somebody wants, putting the final
sunset avi to my ftp...)
I made a bad thing although, I didn't disable the stabilizer in camcoder and
didn't fix the exposition, that's why the speeded up movie vibrates. Next
time I will do all required adjustments...)
Tony Morgan
<dshvetsov@[I really don't like spam shit @].invalid> writes
There's a good free program called WinMorph that will morph between two
frames giving you smooth transitions between "snap-frames".
Sorry I can't give an address to download it (my main PC's in for
repair) but a Google should find it. You need to look on the website to
see how to configure it for video.
--
Tony Morgan
Dmitri Shvetsov
> Drifting slightly, but still very relevant.
Yes, especially keeping in mind that camcoder was fixed on the top of the
stone wall.
> There's a good free program called WinMorph that will morph between two
> frames giving you smooth transitions between "snap-frames".
You know, I found that MM makes the same, otherwise I couldn't explain why
this process was moving so slowly. It was another reason of this
"vibration", maybe because of the movements of clouds, maybe car lights, the
focusing points were moving as well and the camcoder was trying to
compensate this thinking that this is a hands effects and the picture should
be stabilized. It was my mistake, I didn't expect that it can be significant
for the fixed camcoder. This feature is helpful when you're shooting from
hands. But tripod or something else like that doesn't require this
stabilizer.
But anyway thanks, I will try this program as well.
Dmitri Shvetsov
There's a good free program called WinMorph that will morph between two
> frames giving you smooth transitions between "snap-frames".
It was easy.
http://www.debugmode.com/winmorph/download.php
Thanks,
Dmitri Shvetsov
Gorf
You mean the one I answered less than ten hours after you asked it?
> The answer is pretty simple. Microsoft Movie Maker 2 (I didn't try 1) can
> increase or decrease the speed of the movie (or some fragment) in 2 times.
> But funny, that I didn't notice that before.
Ah yes, that would be EXACTLY the answer I gave. Even though you hadn't said
anything about what software you were using (and I didn't know MMM2 is only
capable of 2x speed changes) I pointed out that if you might have to do some
iterations to get the results you want, as there is a limit on the
percentage you can change the speed of a clip in most software.
I thought maybe I'd made a mistake posting it, so it only showed on my local
server, but my ignored contribution to the thread can be seen quite clearly
on Google Groups - http://tinyurl.com/35p22
Tony Morgan
>You know, I found that MM makes the same, otherwise I couldn't explain
>why this process was moving so slowly. It was another reason of this
>"vibration", maybe because of the movements of clouds, maybe car
>lights, the focusing points were moving as well and the camcoder was
>trying to compensate this thinking that this is a hands effects and the
>picture should be stabilized. It was my mistake, I didn't expect that
>it can be significant for the fixed camcoder. This feature is helpful
>when you're shooting from hands. But tripod or something else like that
>doesn't require this stabilizer.
Up to a year ago a lot of people here and elsewhere asserted that you
must use a 3-chipper camcorder to avoid the movement artefacts that you
often see with today's camcorder when shooting with fast pans or
shooting fast moving subjects. I soon discovered that these artefacts
can be avoided by switching off the auto-stabilisation and learning to
shoot steady pictures without having to rely on it.
Jerry.
<snip>
> Up to a year ago a lot of people here and elsewhere asserted that you
> must use a 3-chipper camcorder to avoid the movement artefacts that you
> often see with today's camcorder when shooting with fast pans or
> shooting fast moving subjects. I soon discovered that these artefacts
> can be avoided by switching off the auto-stabilisation and learning to
> shoot steady pictures without having to rely on it.
>
Yes, what ever camera you use, both auto focus and auto-stabilisation should
be switched off (better still on fitted to the camera in the first place
IMO), and were ever possible use a tripod if you want decent images to work
with - but that all means people would have to learn how to handle their
cameras correctly....
Dmitri Shvetsov
> Yes, what ever camera you use, both auto focus and auto-stabilisation
should
> be switched off (better still on fitted to the camera in the first place
> IMO), and were ever possible use a tripod if you want decent images to
work
> with - but that all means people would have to learn how to handle their
> cameras correctly....
So you try to avoid any auto stabilization, is it correct? You use tripods,
never work from hards, etc.? That's good but I'm guessing not always
acceptable. What if you really need to make a movie "from hands" and you
don't have any choice?
Jerry.
> Hi Jerry,
>
> > Yes, what ever camera you use, both auto focus and auto-stabilisation
> should
> > be switched off (better still on fitted to the camera in the first place
> > IMO), and were ever possible use a tripod if you want decent images to
> work
> > with - but that all means people would have to learn how to handle their
> > cameras correctly....
>
> So you try to avoid any auto stabilization, is it correct? You use
tripods,
> never work from hards, etc.? That's good but I'm guessing not always
> acceptable. What if you really need to make a movie "from hands" and you
> don't have any choice?
>
It means learning how to hold / support a camera correctly to minimise
shake etc., most consumer camcorders are now just point and shoot devices,
not helped by the marketing images used to sell the camcorder as being
'kool' (camera in the hand on an out stretched arm etc.).
Dmitri Shvetsov
You're right that everybody should learn how to... That's a destiny of all
smart people. But the percent if lazy people is too high and they prefer
just to use without any knowledge hot to. We both know that the process
allowing us to get the good images or movies requires a good knowledge of
the process at all and a lot of details. For example we can hold the camera
in one hand, in both hands but push the button like using the hammer, or use
one hand and another hand more ot less fixed using the body, a lot of
technics and tricks. I'm not going to discuss it here, why, we all know what
and why. When I make an image I stop breathing for a while to minimize all
movements and I suspect that I'm not one. We can spend hours discussing all
these tricks here, but why, it looks like a spam, nobody asked about it here
in this news group.
I'm sure that you're right that the most consumers use computers, cameras,
camcoders, etc. "as is", without an additional knowledge, only in
"auto-mode". And the developers use a lot of tricks to prove that their
machines/cameras/camcoders are the best, just point and click, start and
sit.
This reminds me an old anecdote.
One man bought a new computer, turned it on, and started waiting for
something..When his friend asked him why he does nothing with this powerful
machine, he answered, that one expert told him when he was buying this
machine, that "this computer will solve all your problems". I'm sitting and
waiting when it happens.
Another one anecdote, again about computers - This powerful machine will
solve all your problems, even those that you've never been expecting or
predicting, before you bought this machine.
We can say the same about video devices.
Regards,
Dmitri.
"Jerry." <m...@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:c6er7c$b78ks$1...@ID-228253.news.uni-berlin.de...
Tony Morgan
>
>> Yes, what ever camera you use, both auto focus and auto-stabilisation
>should
>> be switched off (better still on fitted to the camera in the first place
>> IMO), and were ever possible use a tripod if you want decent images to
>work
>> with - but that all means people would have to learn how to handle their
>> cameras correctly....
>
>So you try to avoid any auto stabilization, is it correct?
I'd go along with Jerry on this (surprise, surprise). There's no excuse
in my view, for just not bothering to learn even the most basic of
camera skills - that of shooting (by hand) a steady picture.
>You use tripods,
>never work from hards, etc.?
You don't have to use a tripod to shoot a steady picture (if you indeed
do and have to always use stabilisation then you obviously have no
interest or inclination in learning the very basics of shooting video).
>That's good but I'm guessing not always
>acceptable. What if you really need to make a movie "from hands" and you
>don't have any choice?
I think what Jerry is trying to say is that always relying on
stabilisation to compensate for a failure to use your camcorder
effectively is OK for an empty-headed popsie who picks up your camcorder
and pushes that little red button while trembling with excitement in
anticipation of the night to come, but I would have thought that you
have aspired to learning a few basic shooting skills - and improving
your movies by doing so.
Here's something you might like to try Dmitri. Take your camcorder down
to the nearest road with a good bit of traffic, Set to WA, than take two
clips at 45 degrees to the direction of traffic, one clip with
stabilisation on and one off. Hold your camcorder properly while doing
so - use the eye viewfinder, place your feet about 18" apart, hold the
camcorder steady in both hands, elbows in to the sides when shooting.
Then run the two shots through your editor and put on whatever media you
like (you can even use your editor's preview if you've set it to a high
resolution). Look at both shots, and do a few freeze frames just to
emphasise the defects of using auto-stabilisation. Have a look at the
edges of the moving objects.
Now tell me if stabilisation is a good thing.
A lot of folk never pick up their camcorder from one of their kids
birthday parties to another, and stabilisation is a great thing for them
- but because you're here I'd hazard a guess that you aren't one of
them.
And no - you don't always have to use a tripod - especially if you teach
yourself basic camera handling skills. But it can help if you're
shooting a "planned move" especially if you're using even moderates
amounts of zoom. And perhaps ask yourself if you could shoot the same
shot by moving forward and going to WA. All sorts of advantages here;
the effects of hand-tremble (and heavy breathing) are minimised, you get
less foreshortening, you get greater depth of field because you're
working at a larger effective aperture, you can shoot in lower light
levels again because you're working at a larger effective aperture, and
your focussing is likely to be sharper because of the increase of depth
of field.
Humping a tripod around is a pain in the arse, but as I say, simply by
practising a little in shooting without stabilisation and *choosing* to
not work at tele settings [1] rather by moving yourself, you can shoot
just as good video in most circumstance as you would with a tripod.
[1] My wide-angle lens rarely comes off my camcorder for
the reasons given above.
Finally, you might like to ask yourself why pro and semi-pro camcorders
are so large (most can only be used from the shoulder). It's not because
they *have* to be used with a tripod - but because they ensure that
camera shooting skills *have* to be used (and without stabilisation).
The challenge is so much greater for you and I because of the small size
of today's consumer camcorders.
Tony Morgan
<dshvetsov@[I really don't like spam shit @].invalid> writes
> When I make an image I stop breathing
Blue movies ?
:-)
Dmitri Shvetsov
> Blue movies ?
What does it mean?-) Say in English...)
Thanks,
Dmitri Shvetsov
http://members.cox.net/dshvetsov/pictures.htm
> > When I make an image I stop breathing
Dmitri Shvetsov
You know, you're right. I'm not a professional in this area. I started
making my own photo collection in 1979, i.e. in last century, but I can't
say that I'm a professional. Maybe only an experienced shooter, who likes to
work with camera. The second different level experience I got when I bought
my first VHSC JVC camcoder 10 years ago. I made many tapes increasing my own
experience and I'm happy that I was having this ability. All this period I
was having a lot of friends - professional photographers, but only few movie
makers. So this field, I can't say that new, but I'd like to get more skills
in this area, that's my dream. When I bought Canon ZR90, this camcoder
killed me by its quality, I returned it back in the store and started
searching for a model that I really can like. I think that I found a good
model for the home movies and I'm happy that all we are having a newsgroup
where we can speak and discuss our problems together. I'm the ex-geologist,
currently a professional programmer and working with any digital devices is
a pleasure for me. I know nothing about you guys here, maybe you're
professional in video of photo, but if you need some advice in computers,
please welcome in email.
> I'd go along with Jerry on this (surprise, surprise). There's no excuse
> in my view, for just not bothering to learn even the most basic of
> camera skills - that of shooting (by hand) a steady picture.
This is not a very big surprice as you were expecting. I have already
noticed the artefacts around moving cars, running people, plains, etc. But
it's not killing me. Maybe the "progressive" is causing more problems ans
questions. For example if these moving objects are divided by horizontal
lines, it's little bit annoying. From the other size I assume that without
"progressive" it could be even worst. That's the downside of movements.
> You don't have to use a tripod to shoot a steady picture (if you indeed
> do and have to always use stabilisation then you obviously have no
> interest or inclination in learning the very basics of shooting video).
Absolutely. I've never used tripods in geology, my collection is huge. I
don't have shaking hands, even when I was making images during nights, I
tried to fix my back to something stable, camera as well, and I was able to
get the pictures with 10-12 second-length exposition. I will try to find
these images if you want. But I'm living currently so far from my house and
can't get all pictures to show the best one. But I will try.
> I think what Jerry is trying to say is that always relying on
> stabilisation to compensate for a failure to use your camcorder
Yes, absolutely, we shouldn't rely on stabilization, but sometimes when we
make some "long" shots we probably can use it, especially if we can't use a
tripod. I don't know, maybe you can say something else about it. My Olympus
digital camera by the way doesn't have this stabilization, but probaby you
say my pictures on my site. It depends, if the Sun is bright, exposition is
too short.
> Here's something you might like to try Dmitri. Take your camcorder down
> to the nearest road with a good bit of traffic, Set to WA, than take two
Yes, thanks for this advice, I will try asap. It's interesting for me. I'm
sure you're right, but I need to get my own sense.
> A lot of folk never pick up their camcorder from one of their kids
> birthday parties to another, and stabilisation is a great thing for them
> - but because you're here I'd hazard a guess that you aren't one of
> them.
Yes, I never give camera/camcoder if I can't stop or correct my children and
even wife. There are a lot of thin things, including the framing, exposition
etc.
> And no - you don't always have to use a tripod - especially if you teach
> yourself basic camera handling skills. But it can help if you're
Probably basical skills have been already gotten about 10 years ago, I need
something more deep to make it more professionally, even for my family and
not for money.
> shooting a "planned move" especially if you're using even moderates
> amounts of zoom. And perhaps ask yourself if you could shoot the same
Yes, especially for the Grand Canyon with its size. I will think about it
next time when I go there. It should be well planned...)
> [1] My wide-angle lens rarely comes off my camcorder for
> the reasons given above.
Just to hide shaking? Interesting.
> Finally, you might like to ask yourself why pro and semi-pro camcorders
> are so large (most can only be used from the shoulder). It's not because
I suspected that just because of the features, of the sensor size, optics,
lenses, media, etc. From the other side, it's easier to stabilize the heavy
one, than the small light one that most of people are holding in one hand,
holding the child in another one.
> they *have* to be used with a tripod - but because they ensure that
> camera shooting skills *have* to be used (and without stabilisation).
By the way, are the professional camcoders are having this stabilization? My
one is not professional -- Canon GL2, but anyway it's not so bad and it's
having one.
> The challenge is so much greater for you and I because of the small size
> of today's consumer camcorders.
Exactly!
Jerry.
"Dmitri Shvetsov" <dshvetsov[I really don't like spam shit @]cox.net> wrote
in message news:tAGic.91909$U83.11793@fed1read03...
> > > When I make an image I stop breathing
> >
> > Blue movies ?
> > :-)
> > --
> Tony,
>
> > Blue movies ?
>
> What does it mean?-) Say in English...)
>
He is playing with words and their (UK) meanings.
If you hold your breath to long you would start to turn blue due to the lack
of oxygen in your blood (a medical fact).
Another name for a pornographic film is a blue movie.
It doesn't seem funny when it needs to be explained, but most people in the
UK would have chuckled at Tony's play on words.
--
Jerry.
Location - United Kingdom.
In the first instance please reply to group,
The quoted email address is a trash can for Spam only.
Tony Morgan
<m...@privacy.net> writes
>It doesn't seem funny when it needs to be explained, but most people in
>the
>UK would have chuckled at Tony's play on words.
Thanks for that :-)
I think I'm warming to you :-)
Tony Morgan
>> the reasons given above.
>
>Just to hide shaking? Interesting.
God - no. That's not even on the list :-)
I've gone through the reasons for trying to shoot at the wide settings
on your standard lens. All these reasons are even more relevant when
using a WA convertor lens. And you can still use your camcorder's zoom -
though even though I've got an HQ lens specifically matched for my Sony
camcorder lens, at max zoom there is a slight fall-off in sharpness at
the edges of the field of view - but for obvious reasons I can live with
that. Street scenes are much, much better with the WA on.
>
>> Finally, you might like to ask yourself why pro and semi-pro camcorders
>> are so large (most can only be used from the shoulder). It's not because
>
>I suspected that just because of the features, of the sensor size,
>optics, lenses, media, etc. From the other side, it's easier to
>stabilize the heavy one, than the small light one that most of people
>are holding in one hand, holding the child in another one.
That wasn't the point I was making. Larger cameras (aka camcorders) are
less prone to camera-shake. It's also a question of inertia. Like cars I
suppose. Drive a mini and it's bobbing around all over the place. Drive
a large car and the ride is so much smoother - irrespective of the
make/model.
Dmitri Shvetsov
> >Just to hide shaking? Interesting.
> God - no. That's not even on the list :-)
Sorry, it was a joke, I forgot to add a smile...)
> that. Street scenes are much, much better with the WA on.
What magnification of this WA are you using? 0.6x? I'm just wondering. I saw
only one for my GL2, and even more, Canon wrote in the manual that they
promise that the autofocus will work only with clear lenses OR UV filter,
nothing more. Any additional lenses will cause a problem and we need to use
a manual mode. Hard to believe, but who knows... I tried WA for ZR90, it was
working if I can say that about ZR90 at all...
> That wasn't the point I was making. Larger cameras (aka camcorders) are
> less prone to camera-shake. It's also a question of inertia. Like cars I
Yes, exactly, I understood that, but the features and also important for
professional ones. I assume that even a hyroscope stabilizing system is
acceptable for some models.
Dmitri Shvetsov
Tony Morgan
You start getting noticeable barrel distortion with the 0.6 ones.