Get your fill of sci-fi, science, and mockery of stupid ideas
http://stardestroyer.dyndns-home.com/
http://stardestroyer.dyndns-home.com/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=14206
Incidentally, Ali said that a friend of his is selling a Canon XL1S digital video camera (Pretty sure it's DVC-PRO...) with some accessories for 4 grand.phongn wrote:They are good, my dad has a C-3040Z and it takes great pictures (though obviously not up to par with something like a Canon EOS-10D)
XL1S is straight miniDV. But an XL1S + accessories (and presumable a lens) for only $4000? That's a damn good deal!Dalton wrote:Incidentally, Ali said that a friend of his is selling a Canon XL1S digital video camera (Pretty sure it's DVC-PRO...) with some accessories for 4 grand.phongn wrote:They are good, my dad has a C-3040Z and it takes great pictures (though obviously not up to par with something like a Canon EOS-10D)
*digs through log*phongn wrote:XL1S is straight miniDV. But an XL1S + accessories (and presumable a lens) for only $4000? That's a damn good deal!
Nice. I still wonder why Canon doesn't just make the XLR input standard, though. I never had the chance to play with either the XL1 or XL1S, but I've seen them at the Florida Scholastic Press Assocation conference (my high school used to do it until the head guy went in for heart surgery). They looked quite good (especially on a SteadicamDalton wrote:*digs through log*phongn wrote:XL1S is straight miniDV. But an XL1S + accessories (and presumable a lens) for only $4000? That's a damn good deal!
-Canon XL-1S with original box, all original manuals and cables.
-3 Hour Canon Battery
-MA-100 Adapter (for 3 pin audio connections)
-Custom case designed specifically to house the camera, unlike a generic camera case.
)The XLR isn't standard on a Canon?phongn wrote:Nice. I still wonder why Canon doesn't just make the XLR input standard, though. I never had the chance to play with either the XL1 or XL1S, but I've seen them at the Florida Scholastic Press Assocation conference (my high school used to do it until the head guy went in for heart surgery). They looked quite good (especially on a Steadicam
456?! Agh! Evil!!!! I've had to wrestle with both 456s and 460s. One of the better Panasonic SVHS cams I've used was the Supercam. I've also used their DVC-PRO cams (not sure of the model numbers).phongn wrote:My experience with shoulder-mount cameras is more or less limited to the Panasonic AG-456 (evil...and I saw them around USF and actually shuddered) and the Sony DSR-200 (quite nice, even if they suck tons of pwoer).
DVCAM. Similar to Panasonic's DVCPRO (locked audio and all that goodness).Dalton wrote:The XLR isn't standard on a Canon?phongn wrote:Nice. I still wonder why Canon doesn't just make the XLR input standard, though. I never had the chance to play with either the XL1 or XL1S, but I've seen them at the Florida Scholastic Press Assocation conference (my high school used to do it until the head guy went in for heart surgery). They looked quite good (especially on a Steadicam
Alas, no. That's what the MA-100 and MA-200 (the latter has four XLR connections) are for.
Our AG-456s were the models without XLR, so we had to use an adapter cable for our mics. Those stupid minijack connectors always failed after a few months and we'd have to play with the camera to get it to work. (The less experienced who didn't check levels would sometimes come back with no audio(!)) Their built-in mic wind atennuator would fall off (out comes the gaff tape), the white balancing sucked...ugh.456?! Agh! Evil!!!! I've had to wrestle with both 456s and 460s. One of the better Panasonic SVHS cams I've used was the Supercam. I've also used their DVC-PRO cams (not sure of the model numbers).phongn wrote:My experience with shoulder-mount cameras is more or less limited to the Panasonic AG-456 (evil...and I saw them around USF and actually shuddered) and the Sony DSR-200 (quite nice, even if they suck tons of pwoer).
Actually, the worse thing I had to see was at USF; some people were being interviewed but the camera crew was doing it in a massively-shaded area (open-walk area between four buildings with on over-roof). No lighting at all! I was shocked at that.
I've heard of DSRs but never actually used them. What format are they?
How annoying...phongn wrote:Alas, no. That's what the MA-100 and MA-200 (the latter has four XLR connections) are for.Dalton wrote:The XLR isn't standard on a Canon?
I share your pain. We had the same exact camerasphongn wrote:Our AG-456s were the models without XLR, so we had to use an adapter cable for our mics. Those stupid minijack connectors always failed after a few months and we'd have to play with the camera to get it to work. (The less experienced who didn't check levels would sometimes come back with no audio(!)) Their built-in mic wind atennuator would fall off (out comes the gaff tape), the white balancing sucked...ugh.
No lighting?! Ouch!phongn wrote:Actually, the worse thing I had to see was at USF; some people were being interviewed but the camera crew was doing it in a massively-shaded area (open-walk area between four buildings with on over-roof). No lighting at all! I was shocked at that.
Oh yes, DVCAM. I've heard of that format. DVC-PRO decks can play those tapes as well as MiniDV (with an adapter).phongn wrote:DVCAM. Similar to Panasonic's DVCPRO (locked audio and all that goodness).
Very. Apparently the stock case can't hold the camera with it attatched, either, since it juts out too far. A useful device, true, but it really should be built-in, considering it's target market.Dalton wrote:How annoying...phongn wrote:Alas, no. That's what the MA-100 and MA-200 (the latter has four XLR connections) are for.Dalton wrote:The XLR isn't standard on a Canon?
Luckily we ditched them for the far-superior DSR-PD150 (and never used manual audio gain, so we didn't fall prey to the infamous "the noise levels are hideous" flaw). OTOH, the lack of a shoulder mount was troublesome, hand-cameras (especially one that large) being inherently less stable.I share your pain. We had the same exact camerasphongn wrote:Our AG-456s were the models without XLR, so we had to use an adapter cable for our mics. Those stupid minijack connectors always failed after a few months and we'd have to play with the camera to get it to work. (The less experienced who didn't check levels would sometimes come back with no audio(!)) Their built-in mic wind atennuator would fall off (out comes the gaff tape), the white balancing sucked...ugh.
Well, the bit of natural light that reflected in from outdoors...I hope they got chewed out for that. We were often screamed at in CATCOM for doing something similar.No lighting?! Ouch!phongn wrote:Actually, the worse thing I had to see was at USF; some people were being interviewed but the camera crew was doing it in a massively-shaded area (open-walk area between four buildings with on over-roof). No lighting at all! I was shocked at that.
[/quote]Oh yes, DVCAM. I've heard of that format. DVC-PRO decks can play those tapes as well as MiniDV (with an adapter).phongn wrote:DVCAM. Similar to Panasonic's DVCPRO (locked audio and all that goodness).
Yeah, tell me about it. Though the XL1S does break down into separate components, IIRC.phongn wrote:Very. Apparently the stock case can't hold the camera with it attatched, either, since it juts out too far. A useful device, true, but it really should be built-in, considering it's target market.
No shoulder mount on that? I hope you at least had sticks.phongn wrote:Luckily we ditched them for the far-superior DSR-PD150 (and never used manual audio gain, so we didn't fall prey to the infamous "the noise levels are hideous" flaw). OTOH, the lack of a shoulder mount was troublesome, hand-cameras (especially one that large) being inherently less stable.
Wish we had one of those mofos.phongn wrote:We had a single Steadicam Jr., but that required quite a bit of training to use right.
And with good reason! I hope you didn't shoot under fluorescent lights too much either.phongn wrote:Well, the bit of natural light that reflected in from outdoors...I hope they got chewed out for that. We were often screamed at in CATCOM for doing something similar.
Ew, 1CCD?phongn wrote:Yeah. They're close enough to each other; we mostly used DVCAM (though sometimes I'd use my dad's 1CCD camera with miniDV).
Yeah, but that's a PITA. Taking off the shoulder extension, the lens...Dalton wrote:Yeah, tell me about it. Though the XL1S does break down into separate components, IIRC.
Alas, noNo sahhoulder mount on that? I hope you at least had sticks.
IIRC, we didn't have one, but there are high schools in Florida that have the full steadicam (not the little handheld one).Wish we had one of those mofos.
We had little choice in the matter; it was done quite often (esp. for interviews)And with good reason! I hope you didn't shoot under fluorescent lights too much either.
We mostly used that camera in outdoor areas, so the lackage of CCDs was not so much of an issue. Indoors, yes, the picture is very grainy (especially in low-light situations like when my dad films christmas...he finally got annoyed and got some cheap Home Depot halogen light sets)Ew, 1CCD?phongn wrote:Yeah. They're close enough to each other; we mostly used DVCAM (though sometimes I'd use my dad's 1CCD camera with miniDV).
True, true.phongn wrote:Yeah, but that's a PITA. Taking off the shoulder extension, the lens...
*wince* Sounds painful. How heavy were they?phongn wrote:Alas, noDalton wrote:No sahhoulder mount on that? I hope you at least had sticks.
I envy them. We have a good studio setup, but not that much field equipment.phongn wrote:IIRC, we didn't have one, but there are high schools in Florida that have the full steadicam (not the little handheld one).
I hope you had at least a sungun. Shooting interviews under flories is a pain in the balls.phongn wrote:We had little choice in the matter; it was done quite often (esp. for interviews)Dalton wrote:And with good reason! I hope you didn't shoot under fluorescent lights too much either.
LOL!phongn wrote:We mostly used that camera in outdoor areas, so the lackage of CCDs was not so much of an issue. Indoors, yes, the picture is very grainy (especially in low-light situations like when my dad films christmas...he finally got annoyed and got some cheap Home Depot halogen light sets)Dalton wrote:Ew, 1CCD?
How much were they?Bah, it makes perfect sense!Coyote wrote:Heehee!
Look everyone! Technobabble!
You do not know the power of the video side.Coyote wrote:Heehee!
Look everyone! Technobabble!
Wasn't painful...just hard to stabilize.*wince* Sounds painful.
Not even thatI hope you had at least a sungun.
Jeez! Sucks.phongn wrote:Wasn't painful...just hard to stabilize.
How did you manage? phongn wrote:Not even that
I'm so sorry On way to do it was to attatch it to the tripods (ours were decently weighted) and use inertia to stabilize. A PITA, but it worked.Dalton wrote:Jeez! Sucks.phongn wrote:Wasn't painful...just hard to stabilize.
We got around it by careful white balancing and post-processing, though (though when we were still using the P166 MJPEG+Premiere boxes that was a coin-toss about whether it'd crash or not)phongn wrote:Not even that
::points a camera at God's face with bright lights while Dalton interviews God and assorted angels for a Man On The Street package::Pablo Sanchez wrote:May God have mercy on you sinners.
As long as you got stable shots.phongn wrote:On way to do it was to attatch it to the tripods (ours were decently weighted) and use inertia to stabilize. A PITA, but it worked.
I remember those painful daysphongn wrote:We got around it by careful white balancing and post-processing, though (though when we were still using the P166 MJPEG+Premiere boxes that was a coin-toss about whether it'd crash or not)
How far we've come!Not cinematography. That's for the artsy fartsy film kids. This is VIDEO!HemlockGrey wrote:This would be the dark art of cinematograhpy, ne?
Where would I learn?
'Tis all that mattered. Though once when we were shooting elsewhere I had to use my dad's friction-head tripod (very light, though) and, well, the results weren't too pretty when we panned.Dalton wrote:As long as you got stable shots.phongn wrote:On way to do it was to attatch it to the tripods (ours were decently weighted) and use inertia to stabilize. A PITA, but it worked.
Yes. When the Avid boxes came in there was much rejoicing. And when the SCSI drives began failing they was much screaming (it happened here and there for some reason; I fear what happened to CNN since our order was tagged on to it).I remember those painful daysphongn wrote:We got around it by careful white balancing and post-processing, though (though when we were still using the P166 MJPEG+Premiere boxes that was a coin-toss about whether it'd crash or not)
Well, film does have a better light-capture range than video, but the latter is so much easier to work with. And Lucas's custom 24P HD cameras look decent.Dalton wrote:Not cinematography. That's for the artsy fartsy film kids. This is VIDEO!HemlockGrey wrote:This would be the dark art of cinematograhpy, ne?
Where would I learn?