Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

What about the student film maker?

Last response: in Graphics & Displays
Share
August 4, 2004 6:17:27 PM

Archived from groups: alt.art.video,alt.video,alt.video.avid-editors,rec.video.desktop,rec.video.production (More info?)

It would seem that the next video camcorder should be
something simple that the everyday student film maker
can afford. Every year, there are new "students of
film making" and many schools are teaching using dv
format. It would seem that this could be a huge
market. I think every photographer is aware of the
inexpensive ubiquitous entry level 35mm camera known
as the PENTAX K1000.

Why not create a similar market in camcorders?
It seems that manufactures do have many "cheap"
cameras, but that is exactly what they are....cheap.
Everything they offer is watered down, poorly made,
half-baked features, and transports that eventually
chew up tapes.

I have 3chip camcorders mainly, but I wouldn't
hesitate to buy an inexpensive camcorder that was
durable, small, and featureless with the exception of
decent sound, and good low light.

What I am suggesting is a 1 ccd camcorder, with a huge
chip of say 2/3"
(the huge sensor will give great pictures even in low
light, but being only 1ccd, protect the manufactures
from losing sales on 3 chip cameras, while also
keeping costs down)

A durable case, maybe pollycarbon or plastic but
coated in rubber for durability, something like a
glock handgun.

A nice fixed lens that is tack sharp
(fixed lens is cheap to make, and sharp by nature)
(possibility of future interchangability, fixed lens
will also protect sales of higher end cameras whos
users need zoom)

Durable tape transport.

xlr mics, and decent built in mic.
(this can be done cheap look at rolls products)

Flat surfaces for future mounting of velcroed devices.

Unique look maybe like an old super 8mm film camera.

Price retail around $800.

I think this can be done, all the parts are already
out there, and once the camera gets out there, the
entry guys will eat this up!

Lets create an outrage for not having this NOW~!




--
www.fiveminutesoffame.com
Get your five minutes of FAME

More about : student film maker

Anonymous
August 5, 2004 3:40:03 AM

Archived from groups: alt.art.video,alt.video,alt.video.avid-editors,rec.video.desktop,rec.video.production (More info?)

On Wed, 04 Aug 2004 14:17:27 GMT, Five <Niko@fiveminutesof____.com>
wrote:

>It would seem that the next video camcorder should be
>something simple that the everyday student film maker
>can afford. Every year, there are new "students of
>film making" and many schools are teaching using dv
>format. It would seem that this could be a huge
>market. I think every photographer is aware of the
>inexpensive ubiquitous entry level 35mm camera known
>as the PENTAX K1000.
>
>Why not create a similar market in camcorders?
>It seems that manufactures do have many "cheap"
>cameras, but that is exactly what they are....cheap.
>Everything they offer is watered down, poorly made,
>half-baked features, and transports that eventually
>chew up tapes.
>
>I have 3chip camcorders mainly, but I wouldn't
>hesitate to buy an inexpensive camcorder that was
>durable, small, and featureless with the exception of
>decent sound, and good low light.
>
>What I am suggesting is a 1 ccd camcorder, with a huge
>chip of say 2/3"
>(the huge sensor will give great pictures even in low
>light, but being only 1ccd, protect the manufactures
>from losing sales on 3 chip cameras, while also
>keeping costs down)
Many of us would like to see this. Though it's unlikely as it would
impact the 3chip market. Many would buy the 1chip camera rather than
make the jump up to the makers low end 3chip offerings.

>
>A durable case, maybe pollycarbon or plastic but
>coated in rubber for durability, something like a
>glock handgun.
>
That's not feasible. A glock is made of a high density ceramic, very
expensive.
Better to use a one piece, milled internal alloy frame with a good
plastic skin for average shocks. If more is needed they could offer a
high impact weatherproof case as an option thereby keeping the cost of
the camera down.
>A nice fixed lens that is tack sharp
>(fixed lens is cheap to make, and sharp by nature)
>(possibility of future interchangability, fixed lens
>will also protect sales of higher end cameras whos
>users need zoom)
No, no. A standard lens mount ring with several adapter rings to
accomodate a variety of lenses much as was offered in the low end
industrial gear of the 80's.(Basis cine/video bayonet with adapter
rings for the use of film/35mm still lenses.)
That way you could save even more by just buying the head and using
whatever lenses you already own or could obtain.
>
>Durable tape transport.
Better yet offer a dockable head. Then you could use whatever tape
format the job requires.
>
>xlr mics, and decent built in mic.
>(this can be done cheap look at rolls products)
>
>Flat surfaces for future mounting of velcroed devices.
That is a sore spot for manufacturers. They like to make their cameras
as proprietary as they possibly can forcing you to purchase their
options.

>
>Unique look maybe like an old super 8mm film camera.
>
>Price retail around $800.
We know that the markup for gear is to say the least high.
That said I don't think the manufacturers will let anything out
that'll do pro level work at that price.
One thing that may chnge that is the entry into the market of gear
made by newer companies in the Pacific rim. They're always trying to
establish themselves in the market by offering much more for less.
This in turn has forcd the Japaneese companies to turn out more for
less in turn or at least cut the price of their current offerings.
>
>I think this can be done, all the parts are already
>out there, and once the camera gets out there, the
>entry guys will eat this up!
>
>Lets create an outrage for not having this NOW~!


If you tell me what type of work/project you're trying to do I could
give you some pointers in how to cut cost on hardware.
Anonymous
August 5, 2004 4:52:35 AM

Archived from groups: alt.art.video,alt.video,alt.video.avid-editors,rec.video.desktop,rec.video.production (More info?)

Five wrote:

> It would seem that the next video camcorder should be
> something simple that the everyday student film maker
> can afford.

SHOULD be? On what grounds? Maybe you haven't noticed, but the
entities that make these things are for-profit organizations, and if
they thought for ONE second they could make a profit following your
formula, they'd be all over it like....wait for it....white on rice.
(Who could resist that one?)



> Lets create an outrage for not having this NOW~!

For student film makers? Screw 'em, there's already too many.
Related resources
Anonymous
August 5, 2004 4:52:36 AM

Archived from groups: alt.art.video,alt.video,alt.video.avid-editors,rec.video.desktop,rec.video.production (More info?)

On 5 Aug 2004 00:52:35 GMT, Seattle Eric <noone@erehwon.gov> wrote:

>Five wrote:
>
>> It would seem that the next video camcorder should be
>> something simple that the everyday student film maker
>> can afford.
>
> SHOULD be? On what grounds? Maybe you haven't noticed, but the
>entities that make these things are for-profit organizations, and if
>they thought for ONE second they could make a profit following your
>formula, they'd be all over it like....wait for it....white on rice.
>(Who could resist that one?)
>
>
>
>> Lets create an outrage for not having this NOW~!
>
> For student film makers? Screw 'em, there's already too many.
>
That's a pretty pissy attitude to take.
Weren't you a beginner once yourself?
From the sound of it you don't give a fig about the future of the
industry/craft either if you don't care if there's anyone to follow
you.
The democratization of the craft by advances in technology has got to
be one of the best things that's happened in a long time.
Look at all the really good filmakers it's produced in just the last
decade alone.
As for designs in cameras, I do believe we'll see a fair amount of
hardware aimed at niche markets whether we pro's like it or not.(I can
remember how tough it got with the advent of handheld low cost
camcorders to compete in the video market back in the 80's. But I did
adapt and survive as did many others.)
The marketplace has always been an ever evolving beast, and those who
sat too long hve always been left behind.
It's good to have competition to keep on sharp and it helps keep the
market from stagnating as well.
Anonymous
August 5, 2004 6:20:12 AM

Archived from groups: alt.art.video,alt.video,alt.video.avid-editors,rec.video.desktop,rec.video.production (More info?)

Um, they are already out (just not quite in the price range you'd like). In
fact we're in the second generation (and in some cases third generation) of
high-quality, low-cost, ease of use camcorders, that have many of the
features of their expensive professional counterparts.

Let's see:
Canon XL-1 - now the XL-2
Sony PD-150, now PD-170
Panasonic AG-DVX100, now the AG-DVX100a
also
JVC GY-DV300U
Sony DCR-VX2100

About $2000-$3500 for cameras that rival the professional cameras of many
years ago.

The companies have already attempted to create the type of camcorder you're
talking about and they've been less than successful. I only need to mention
the Panasonic AG-DVC7 (although the DVC15 was almost identical to all of the
things you mentioned, but was discontinued shortly after)

The one thing you may not understand is that these companies make huge
amounts of money from the professional market and have images to maintain
within that market (very much like the photographic market, yes the Pentax
exists, but there are high end photographic companies that would NEVER
release something like that because of their name association. For another
example look at the car market - some companies will never, ever make an
inexpensive vehicle even though they could, because of the damage to their
name brand). Sony would have to sell over 65 of your described camcorders
to make the same money as a DVW-790WSPs. Only look at what Panasonic went
through to finally crack into the professional market. Really, until
DVCPro, Panasonic was seen by most people as strictly a consumer level
manufacturer (except for the occasional monitor and stuff).

What it comes down to is technique. A professional can make any camera look
pretty good (both still & video), whereas a professional camera is the hands
of someone who doesn't know what they're doing is going to look shoddy.
It's not about the equipment. You can learn all the technique you want on a
$200 camcorder at your local electronics store.

My suggestion always is (as someone who runs a PA station), for those
getting interested in shooting video with more than their home camcorder,
should check out their local Public Access facilities. Then those who want
to invest $2000-$3500 on a camera can do so. Making a less expensive
camera is not necessarily the answer, because no one is going to make a
living utilzing the $800 camcorder you mention, (just like no one's really
going to make a living off of the Pentax K1000). Or rent higher-end cameras
to try them out on projects. If you see this $800 camcorder as a stepping
stone piece of equipment, there are other means already to do that. If you
see it as an final end product for a filmmaker to use, it could never
possibly offer what a person looking to become a professional would require.


Ryan

--
---------------------------------------------
Ryan Boni
Public Access Director
Peters Township Community Television
McMurray, PA
www.geocities.com/ptct7/







"Five" <Niko@fiveminutesof____.com> wrote in message
news:Xd6Qc.87043$eM2.33270@attbi_s51...
> It would seem that the next video camcorder should be
> something simple that the everyday student film maker
> can afford. Every year, there are new "students of
> film making" and many schools are teaching using dv
> format. It would seem that this could be a huge
> market. I think every photographer is aware of the
> inexpensive ubiquitous entry level 35mm camera known
> as the PENTAX K1000.
>
> Why not create a similar market in camcorders?
> It seems that manufactures do have many "cheap"
> cameras, but that is exactly what they are....cheap.
> Everything they offer is watered down, poorly made,
> half-baked features, and transports that eventually
> chew up tapes.
>
> I have 3chip camcorders mainly, but I wouldn't
> hesitate to buy an inexpensive camcorder that was
> durable, small, and featureless with the exception of
> decent sound, and good low light.
>
> What I am suggesting is a 1 ccd camcorder, with a huge
> chip of say 2/3"
> (the huge sensor will give great pictures even in low
> light, but being only 1ccd, protect the manufactures
> from losing sales on 3 chip cameras, while also
> keeping costs down)
>
> A durable case, maybe pollycarbon or plastic but
> coated in rubber for durability, something like a
> glock handgun.
>
> A nice fixed lens that is tack sharp
> (fixed lens is cheap to make, and sharp by nature)
> (possibility of future interchangability, fixed lens
> will also protect sales of higher end cameras whos
> users need zoom)
>
> Durable tape transport.
>
> xlr mics, and decent built in mic.
> (this can be done cheap look at rolls products)
>
> Flat surfaces for future mounting of velcroed devices.
>
> Unique look maybe like an old super 8mm film camera.
>
> Price retail around $800.
>
> I think this can be done, all the parts are already
> out there, and once the camera gets out there, the
> entry guys will eat this up!
>
> Lets create an outrage for not having this NOW~!
>
>
>
>
> --
> www.fiveminutesoffame.com
> Get your five minutes of FAME
August 5, 2004 6:20:13 AM

Archived from groups: alt.art.video,alt.video,alt.video.avid-editors,rec.video.desktop,rec.video.production (More info?)

"Ryan Boni" <impliedi@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:wPgQc.3417$rX6.628@trndny02...
> Um, they are already out (just not quite in the price range you'd like).
In
> fact we're in the second generation (and in some cases third generation)
of
> high-quality, low-cost, ease of use camcorders, that have many of the
> features of their expensive professional counterparts.
>
> Let's see:
> Canon XL-1 - now the XL-2
> Sony PD-150, now PD-170
> Panasonic AG-DVX100, now the AG-DVX100a
> also
> JVC GY-DV300U
> Sony DCR-VX2100
>
> About $2000-$3500 for cameras that rival the professional cameras of many
> years ago.

If you look around, you can find VX-1000's for under $1000 (I've seen as low
as $700), and you can get a VX-3, which is Hi-8, but has most of the
features of the 1000, for around $300-500.
August 5, 2004 6:22:35 AM

Archived from groups: alt.art.video,alt.video,alt.video.avid-editors,rec.video.desktop,rec.video.production (More info?)

"gothika" <Vampyres@nettaxi.com> wrote in message
news:npc3h01lngupj6bu2i9hb7ah0f4qgp2uqv@4ax.com...
> On 5 Aug 2004 00:52:35 GMT, Seattle Eric <noone@erehwon.gov> wrote:
> >
> > For student film makers? Screw 'em, there's already too many.
> >
> That's a pretty pissy attitude to take.
> Weren't you a beginner once yourself?
> From the sound of it you don't give a fig about the future of the
> industry/craft either if you don't care if there's anyone to follow
> you.

I don't know about Seattle Eric, but when I wanted to make movies, I bought
a super-8 camera and paid for my film and developing. When I got more
professional about it and decided to get seriously into it, I sold my Camaro
and used half of the money for equipment, including a new VX-1000 that cost
about $2500 at the time.

Basically, the way I feel is: Quit whining. If you want to make movies, find
a way to get the money. If you're serious about it, you will.
August 5, 2004 4:50:12 PM

Archived from groups: alt.art.video,alt.video,alt.video.avid-editors,rec.video.desktop,rec.video.production (More info?)

In article <wPgQc.3417$rX6.628@trndny02>,
impliedi@verizon.net says...
> Um, they are already out (just not quite in the price range you'd like).

No they are not out

> In
> fact we're in the second generation (and in some cases third generation) of
> high-quality, low-cost, ease of use camcorders, that have many of the
> features of their expensive professional counterparts.
>
> Let's see:
> Canon XL-1 - now the XL-2
> Sony PD-150, now PD-170
> Panasonic AG-DVX100, now the AG-DVX100a
> also
> JVC GY-DV300U
> Sony DCR-VX2100
>
> About $2000-$3500 for cameras that rival the professional cameras of many
> years ago.

The above mentioned cameras all cost over the $800
street mark. Thinks new college student (no money) or
first time film makers wannabe who just wants
something to do the job that they can afford. The
above mentioned camcorders are out of the above
targeted buyer's range. Current camcorders in the
$800 price range, are simply cheap with gadgets and
gimicks added onto a $200 camcorder to make them
"under $1,000". In reality, no one can use these.
They are purchased at walmart only to find out that
they can not record an interior setting with any
quality, and are just shoved in a closet somewhere.

>
> The companies have already attempted to create the type of camcorder you're
> talking about and they've been less than successful. I only need to mention
> the Panasonic AG-DVC7 (although the DVC15 was almost identical to all of the
> things you mentioned, but was discontinued shortly after)
>

All of these are too big. I am talking about
something to throw in your back pack. Many
highschools are now teaching dv film making. I am
looking for something under $800 street price that
even they can afford. That is usable.

Criteria again:

small enough to fit in a back pack
durable like a glock handgun
simple with few add ons to keep price low, and less to
go wrong.
Around $1,000 ($800 street)
HUGE CCD 2/3" or at least 1/2" but can be 1 ccd to
keep price down, and prevent siphoning of pro market
sales of higher end cameras.
Looks cool like a super 8 (this is not a must have
criteria)
XLR AUDIO (this can be done cheap, just look at rolls
products)


> The one thing you may not understand is that these companies make huge
> amounts of money from the professional market and have images to maintain
> within that market (very much like the photographic market, yes the Pentax
> exists, but there are high end photographic companies that would NEVER
> release something like that because of their name association. For another
> example look at the car market - some companies will never, ever make an
> inexpensive vehicle even though they could, because of the damage to their
> name brand). Sony would have to sell over 65 of your described camcorders
> to make the same money as a DVW-790WSPs.

Every manufacture currently makes a $300 walmart
camera. I doubt they are trying to "protect a
reputation" or else that would be killing theirs such
as JVC has done to it's own reputation with the
"cigarette pack" camcorder that is not reliable. Good
idea, but terrible quality, and it is simply too
small, and had shitty ccd's.

As for profit potential, the camera I suggest could be
considered a loss leader to create new customers.
Back to the pentax k1000 comparison. That camera was
so cheap anyone could afford it. ALL schools who
taught photography would suggest THAT camera to start
on. Can you imagine the sales they had? Unfortunately
Pentax has few cameras to migrate up to when the
person becomes more advanced. In the DV world,
current manufacturers have many cameras to move up to.
The camera I am suggesting would not necessarily be
something disposable, actually I am thinking quite the
oposite. It could be so simple in design, that
everything electronic fits on one board. If it fails,
you send it in, and for a flat price they replace the
board, or the user could do it (board, and ccd assy
all on one block, tape transport on another). you
could dress it up with add on's like rubber hand grips
like a glock handgun. This camcorder could soon be
known as the camcorder to "cut your teeth on". So
when anyone asks the continual question, "what
camcorder should I get, I am a neewbie", there would
be only one answer. The camcorder I am suggesting
would be usable to create moving images in all
lighting conditions due to it's huge ccd, provide good
audio, and be user servicable on the cheap, modular in
design, and a camcorder that not necessarily is
replaced, but added to when the user NEEDS 3ccd,
dvcam, dvcpro, better color space, better audio,
longer tapes. This would be the camcorder you pass on
to your son, or just keep as a backup when you outgrow
it. Imagine this, the camcorder has only 3 parts or
subassemblies consisting of: chassis(the shell and
buttons), the tape transport, and the electronic ccd
assy. It would be modular in design so that if any of
these items broke, it would be a third of the cost
new. In other words, if the camcorder sold for $800,
each subassy could be sold for shell=$200, transport
$300, electronics board/ccd array $300. Don't say it
can't be done as they currently sell compleate
camcorders for $300 at walmart.

This would not cut sales from higher end cameras as
the user will want 3CCD's some day. In fact this cult
classic would definately have a certain "look" using
2/3" single ccd (low noise less color saturation then
3 ccd's) humm maybe that would have more of a "film,
low depth of field look".

> Only look at what Panasonic went
> through to finally crack into the professional market. Really, until
> DVCPro, Panasonic was seen by most people as strictly a consumer level
> manufacturer (except for the occasional monitor and stuff).

Are you kiding me? Panasonic had a camcorder in every
range, and was arguably better in all. They only
recently broke into the prosumer area due to FINALLY
bringing the price down to an affordable level in that
market.

All their low end stuff is junk, that they are not
selling anyway.

>
> What it comes down to is technique. A professional can make any camera look
> pretty good (both still & video), whereas a professional camera is the hands
> of someone who doesn't know what they're doing is going to look shoddy.
> It's not about the equipment. You can learn all the technique you want on a
> $200 camcorder at your local electronics store.

Dude, I totally understand that, I have photographed
real supermodels, worked for KODAK, and Canon and
dealt with imagery for private and in the work place
as my career. The problem is, you wouldn't want to do
anything with todays $200 camera. That makes you
unmotivated, and it is the motivation that will make
you do it. Anyone with todays $200 camera will be
trying to figure out a way to buy a dvx100a. If you
financially can not do it, you will give up. A sub
$1,000 camera is in reach of everyone. Having
replaceable subassemlies would make it great on a used
basis as well. This camera could be in every
household. It does not need to change much from year
to year or at all (like the pentax K1000).
The reason everyone who buys a sub $1,000 camcorder
does not make movies with them is more to do with the
bad quality of the image than with it being a low
priced camera. Shoot one interior (probably 90% of
any student film) and you soon learn the image is
unusable. After that, they give up when they realize
they need the DvX100a to do what they need. They can
not afford that. Consequently they also do not learn
technique.

>
> My suggestion always is (as someone who runs a PA station), for those
> getting interested in shooting video with more than their home camcorder,
> should check out their local Public Access facilities.

Not a bad suggestion, however, the reality is that
many newbies are intimidated by doing so. They would
much rather prefer a setting with newbies like
themselves, or to start on their own by doing, and
reading books. Then when they get to a higher level
than entry, they most likely would do the public
access thing.

> Then those who want
> to invest $2000-$3500 on a camera can do so.

You still do not address the person who can only
afford a $1,000 camera.

> Making a less expensive
> camera is not necessarily the answer, because no one is going to make a
> living utilzing the $800 camcorder you mention, (just like no one's really
> going to make a living off of the Pentax K1000). Or rent higher-end cameras
> to try them out on projects.

That is not necessarily true, nor was I attempting to
suggest one make a living from this camera. My
suggestion was to fill a void where therin lies many
persons who wish to make movies for whatever
use..think Paris Hilton, or any student film maker
wannabe, gadget freek geek, computer nerd, high school
student for public access, father with newborn
children etc. Think the guy who, back in the day,
would purchase a super 8. Think extreem sport
documentary, skateboarders, bmx stunts, highschool
sprorts etc. Currently nothing under $1,000 is small
enough to carry durable enough to be stowed in a back
pack, or quality enough to shoot an interior with out
additional lighting.

Any many have made a living on a pentax K1000

> If you see this $800 camcorder as a stepping
> stone piece of equipment, there are other means already to do that.

No there are not ANY camcorders to do this that are
small enough to be stowed in a back pack, or durable
enough, or quality enough to shoot an interior without
any additional lighting.

> If you
> see it as an final end product for a filmmaker to use, it could never
> possibly offer what a person looking to become a professional would require.
>

Similar things have been said of many film makers whos
names I need not even mention because I am sure you
already know that it has been done many times on dv.
When DV first came out, they said that, now look how
many dv films are out there. What you say is not true
if it is made with the criteria suggested.

>
> Ryan
>
> --
> ---------------------------------------------
> Ryan Boni
> Public Access Director
> Peters Township Community Television
> McMurray, PA
> www.geocities.com/ptct7/
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> "Five" <Niko@fiveminutesof____.com> wrote in message
> news:Xd6Qc.87043$eM2.33270@attbi_s51...
> > It would seem that the next video camcorder should be
> > something simple that the everyday student film maker
> > can afford. Every year, there are new "students of
> > film making" and many schools are teaching using dv
> > format. It would seem that this could be a huge
> > market. I think every photographer is aware of the
> > inexpensive ubiquitous entry level 35mm camera known
> > as the PENTAX K1000.
> >
> > Why not create a similar market in camcorders?
> > It seems that manufactures do have many "cheap"
> > cameras, but that is exactly what they are....cheap.
> > Everything they offer is watered down, poorly made,
> > half-baked features, and transports that eventually
> > chew up tapes.
> >
> > I have 3chip camcorders mainly, but I wouldn't
> > hesitate to buy an inexpensive camcorder that was
> > durable, small, and featureless with the exception of
> > decent sound, and good low light.
> >
> > What I am suggesting is a 1 ccd camcorder, with a huge
> > chip of say 2/3"
> > (the huge sensor will give great pictures even in low
> > light, but being only 1ccd, protect the manufactures
> > from losing sales on 3 chip cameras, while also
> > keeping costs down)
> >
> > A durable case, maybe pollycarbon or plastic but
> > coated in rubber for durability, something like a
> > glock handgun.
> >
> > A nice fixed lens that is tack sharp
> > (fixed lens is cheap to make, and sharp by nature)
> > (possibility of future interchangability, fixed lens
> > will also protect sales of higher end cameras whos
> > users need zoom)
> >
> > Durable tape transport.
> >
> > xlr mics, and decent built in mic.
> > (this can be done cheap look at rolls products)
> >
> > Flat surfaces for future mounting of velcroed devices.
> >
> > Unique look maybe like an old super 8mm film camera.
> >
> > Price retail around $800.
> >
> > I think this can be done, all the parts are already
> > out there, and once the camera gets out there, the
> > entry guys will eat this up!
> >
> > Lets create an outrage for not having this NOW~!
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > www.fiveminutesoffame.com
> > Get your five minutes of FAME
>
>
>

--
www.fiveminutesoffame.com
Get your five minutes of FAME
August 5, 2004 5:08:47 PM

Archived from groups: alt.art.video,alt.video,alt.video.avid-editors,rec.video.desktop,rec.video.production (More info?)

In article <1gd3h0prjg5gfk8hneo085sluril10i4hb@
4ax.com>, Vampyres@nettaxi.com says...
> On Wed, 04 Aug 2004 14:17:27 GMT, Five <Niko@fiveminutesof____.com>
> wrote:
>
> >It would seem that the next video camcorder should be
> >something simple that the everyday student film maker
> >can afford. Every year, there are new "students of
> >film making" and many schools are teaching using dv
> >format. It would seem that this could be a huge
> >market. I think every photographer is aware of the
> >inexpensive ubiquitous entry level 35mm camera known
> >as the PENTAX K1000.
> >
> >Why not create a similar market in camcorders?
> >It seems that manufactures do have many "cheap"
> >cameras, but that is exactly what they are....cheap.
> >Everything they offer is watered down, poorly made,
> >half-baked features, and transports that eventually
> >chew up tapes.
> >
> >I have 3chip camcorders mainly, but I wouldn't
> >hesitate to buy an inexpensive camcorder that was
> >durable, small, and featureless with the exception of
> >decent sound, and good low light.
> >
> >What I am suggesting is a 1 ccd camcorder, with a huge
> >chip of say 2/3"
> >(the huge sensor will give great pictures even in low
> >light, but being only 1ccd, protect the manufactures
> >from losing sales on 3 chip cameras, while also
> >keeping costs down)
> Many of us would like to see this. Though it's unlikely as it would
> impact the 3chip market. Many would buy the 1chip camera rather than
> make the jump up to the makers low end 3chip offerings.

That maybe true, but I think it would be offset by
higher sales and dominating a market segment. Perhaps
they can curtail this by offering limited production,
say 800 units a year, once sold, you have to wait next
year, or just buy the 3 chip. You could use that in
your marketing, and call it the super 800 (800 made
per year, for $800 dollars, and look like a super 8 mm
cam)

> >A durable case, maybe pollycarbon or plastic but
> >coated in rubber for durability, something like a
> >glock handgun.
> >
> That's not feasible. A glock is made of a high density ceramic, very
> expensive.
> Better to use a one piece, milled internal alloy frame with a good
> plastic skin for average shocks. If more is needed they could offer a
> high impact weatherproof case as an option thereby keeping the cost of
> the camera down.

This guy is understands what I am talking about

> >A nice fixed lens that is tack sharp
> >(fixed lens is cheap to make, and sharp by nature)
> >(possibility of future interchangability, fixed lens
> >will also protect sales of higher end cameras whos
> >users need zoom)
> No, no. A standard lens mount ring with several adapter rings to
> accomodate a variety of lenses much as was offered in the low end
> industrial gear of the 80's.(Basis cine/video bayonet with adapter
> rings for the use of film/35mm still lenses.)
> That way you could save even more by just buying the head and using
> whatever lenses you already own or could obtain.
> >

The only problem with that is the built in zoom a 35mm
lens would add on such a camera. Most users would
need something wide, not zoomed.


> >Durable tape transport.
> Better yet offer a dockable head. Then you could use whatever tape
> format the job requires.

I could go for that.

> >xlr mics, and decent built in mic.
> >(this can be done cheap look at rolls products)
> >
> >Flat surfaces for future mounting of velcroed devices.

> That is a sore spot for manufacturers. They like to make their cameras
> as proprietary as they possibly can forcing you to purchase their
> options.
>
> >
> >Unique look maybe like an old super 8mm film camera.
> >
> >Price retail around $800.

> We know that the markup for gear is to say the least high.
> That said I don't think the manufacturers will let anything out
> that'll do pro level work at that price.
> One thing that may chnge that is the entry into the market of gear
> made by newer companies in the Pacific rim. They're always trying to
> establish themselves in the market by offering much more for less.
> This in turn has forcd the Japaneese companies to turn out more for
> less in turn or at least cut the price of their current offerings.

MAybe this would be a good way for a company like
Russia to jump in..similiarly to how they did with the
hasselblad clones. Only they might not provide the
quality I would like.

> >
> >I think this can be done, all the parts are already
> >out there, and once the camera gets out there, the
> >entry guys will eat this up!
> >
> >Lets create an outrage for not having this NOW~!
>
>
> If you tell me what type of work/project you're trying to do I could
> give you some pointers in how to cut cost on hardware.
>


Not really looking to cut on hardware, I have large
cameras now, but am often in the car and run across
many things where I wish i had a camera i could keep
in the car, or backpack for whatever comes up. I knew
a guy who did this but his camera took lots of abuse

--
www.fiveminutesoffame.com
Get your five minutes of FAME
August 5, 2004 5:19:04 PM

Archived from groups: alt.art.video,alt.video,alt.video.avid-editors,rec.video.desktop,rec.video.production (More info?)

In article <10h3v2joti3b44f@corp.supernews.com>,
tony23@dslextreme.com says...
> "gothika" <Vampyres@nettaxi.com> wrote in message
> news:npc3h01lngupj6bu2i9hb7ah0f4qgp2uqv@4ax.com...
> > On 5 Aug 2004 00:52:35 GMT, Seattle Eric <noone@erehwon.gov> wrote:
> > >
> > > For student film makers? Screw 'em, there's already too many.
> > >
> > That's a pretty pissy attitude to take.
> > Weren't you a beginner once yourself?
> > From the sound of it you don't give a fig about the future of the
> > industry/craft either if you don't care if there's anyone to follow
> > you.
>
> I don't know about Seattle Eric, but when I wanted to make movies, I bought
> a super-8 camera and paid for my film and developing. When I got more
> professional about it and decided to get seriously into it, I sold my Camaro
> and used half of the money for equipment, including a new VX-1000 that cost
> about $2500 at the time.
>
> Basically, the way I feel is: Quit whining. If you want to make movies, find
> a way to get the money. If you're serious about it, you will.

I am totally in agreeance with you, however there is a
market out there of many who want to make films but do
no want to give up their transportation to do so, or
are at the maturity level to take that risk of the
current required investment...think highschool
freshman.

For example, I met a kid who was only in junior high,
and he wrote story after story that was actually very
good. He probably has 30 screenplays. This kid could
use such a camera I am suggesting. Fortunately, I
think his parents are about to get him something good
to start with, but they just happpend to have money to
do so, many others may not. I make pretty good money,
and even for me, sinking $3,500 into a camcorder is
never a quick choice to make. With money comes other
finanical responsibilities that divide your gross into
something gross. A $1,000 investment, I believe is in
the range of everyone.




--
www.fiveminutesoffame.com
Get your five minutes of FAME
Anonymous
August 5, 2004 6:41:39 PM

Archived from groups: alt.art.video,alt.video,alt.video.avid-editors,rec.video.desktop,rec.video.production (More info?)

or... simply one of those on-sale DV camcorders dirt-cheap, like the
Sharp VL-Z3U everyone bought this Jan/Feb for ~$150 after rebate (see
www.fatwallet.com/forums/ -> hot deals for other such deal postings).

I think any 'student' should and would be able to make quite many fun to
watch movies with a camcorder like this, and even though it doesn't have
many manual features, it is a solid camcorder that will do the basics well.

After all, back in the old days (home 8mm/16mm in the 60s,70s), who had
control of anything beyond start and stop?

Anyways, I ask anyone who is a professional - while you may not achieve
a great picture with a low-end camcorder, can you, with your keen
abilities, be able to get a decent video? Yes, of course! we all know
that the keys aren't in just the camcorder alone, but in the lighting,
setup, sound, post, etc. Just amazing lighting and sound alone will
make any low-end camcorder video look good.

---

I don't think any of the asthetic features would matter at all to the
filmmaker/student.

---

I think that besides manual white balance and exposure (which the Sharp
VL-Z3U has), the only 'main' feature that would be nice to have on many
low-end camcorders is manual aperture control with a wide range of
apertures. Many of the depth-of-field effects used in modern movies
simply can't be achieved without it.

===

At the $800 suggested, might as well just not bother making a new
camcorder, but rather buy any of the 3CCD and/or HiDef camcorders on
sale if the low-end camcorders don't work, or a used Canon XL-series off
ebay.com

====

The cheaper, lighter, smaller, pocketable low-end camcorders like the
VL-Z3u encourage students to take them everywhere unlike massive 10+lbs
pro units. the ability to explore at a moments thought is much more
useful, IMO, to a student that having to plan when to carry all that
pro-gear with them for a shoot. Also, not having to worry so much about
banging around a $150 camcorder takes a lot off their minds when they
are exploring filmmaking in the field.

----

The cheaper cost of a low-end also allows for valuable accessories --
light bouncers, lights, filters, camera stabilizer pods, tripods, etc.
that many not be possible if one has already spent $800 on a higher-end
camcorder on a student's budget.

Like a NASCAR driver, it's best to start off with something low-end,
like go-karts, then when you're good on those, move up to the higher-end
equipment. You'll already know how to squeeze a great video out of a
low-end cam, so you'll be able to squeeze a whole lot more out of the
high-end equipment after learning how to film.

Sometimes, people just worry too much about the equipment vs. what's
really important -- a good story, good actors, good lighting and sound,
and good editing.
Anonymous
August 5, 2004 11:07:02 PM

Archived from groups: alt.art.video,alt.video,alt.video.avid-editors,rec.video.desktop,rec.video.production (More info?)

On Wed, 04 Aug 2004 14:17:27 GMT, Five <Niko@fiveminutesof____.com>
wrote:

>It would seem that the next video camcorder should be
>something simple that the everyday student film maker
>can afford. Every year, there are new "students of
>film making" and many schools are teaching using dv
>format. It would seem that this could be a huge
>market. I think every photographer is aware of the
>inexpensive ubiquitous entry level 35mm camera known
>as the PENTAX K1000.
>
>Why not create a similar market in camcorders?
>It seems that manufactures do have many "cheap"
>cameras, but that is exactly what they are....cheap.
>Everything they offer is watered down, poorly made,
>half-baked features, and transports that eventually
>chew up tapes.

I don't think that the quality is that bad, except on the very low
end. Even there, camcorders are generally durable enough for most
users.

To create a market, you need consumers who will pay for the thing.
For most purposes, a typical consumer DV camcorder is quite sufficient
to practice serious videography. It isn't as capable as higher end
models, but it is still way above Hi8 or SVHS-c -- the semi-pro
formats of a few years ago -- with pretty decent image quality.

>I have 3chip camcorders mainly, but I wouldn't
>hesitate to buy an inexpensive camcorder that was
>durable, small, and featureless with the exception of
>decent sound, and good low light.
>
>What I am suggesting is a 1 ccd camcorder, with a huge
>chip of say 2/3"
>(the huge sensor will give great pictures even in low
>light, but being only 1ccd, protect the manufactures
>from losing sales on 3 chip cameras, while also
>keeping costs down)

A CCD that big is going to push the cost up a *lot*. Consider the
Panasonic AG456 SVHS camcorder. They made many of them, and
throughout the run the price never fell very far. I bet that the CCD
and lens alone is worth over $1000 themselves. You can find the
things used at decent prices.

Who would be making the huge CCDs? Even at the higher end, CCDs are
tending to 1/3 inch or less in size (even in 3 CCD models). Part of
what makes the things cheaper is that the parts are made in large
numbers.

I think you're barking up the wrong tree with the idea of some maker
coming out with an oversized single CCD (with attendant higher costs
for larger optics).

>A durable case, maybe pollycarbon or plastic but
>coated in rubber for durability, something like a
>glock handgun.

A trade-off which doesn't happen even for pro models. The thing
needs to be tough enough to handle a bit of abuse, but most users just
aren't going to be that rough.

Unless you're talking about a camera for preschoolers ;-)

>A nice fixed lens that is tack sharp
>(fixed lens is cheap to make, and sharp by nature)
>(possibility of future interchangability, fixed lens
>will also protect sales of higher end cameras whos
>users need zoom)

I haven't seen a fixed lens on a camcorder in, like, forever? For
that matter, except for security and fixed-position cams, not on
cameras either (barring cheap webcams and such). I really don't see
where this would be a marketing bonus for anyone, since most users
would look at it and ignore it, lacking something which is pretty much
essential for a lot of practical videography.

>Durable tape transport.
>
>xlr mics, and decent built in mic.
>(this can be done cheap look at rolls products)

XLR can be done readily with an attachment; probably $100 or so or
thereabouts for decent semipro grade. Fitting them on the camera
itself isn't very practical for anything intended for compact handheld
use -- the space doesn't allow it.

>Flat surfaces for future mounting of velcroed devices.
>
>Unique look maybe like an old super 8mm film camera.
>
>Price retail around $800.
>
>I think this can be done, all the parts are already
>out there, and once the camera gets out there, the
>entry guys will eat this up!
>
>Lets create an outrage for not having this NOW~!

I don't think that the parts are already out there. OK, the best
single CCD midlevel camcorder was the Panasonic AG456, and just maybe
Panasonic might see a point to adapting the optics to a DV format.
But you're likely talking a $2000 model, or more. Note that the lens
price for a decent fixed lens won't be all that much different from a
good zoom, unless you upgrade the entire lens assembly -- at which
point, the price will definitely be higher than the conventional zoom
lens.

What features are critical?

I think once you look at it all, you'll see that the camera most
people want is something like the Sony VX2000 -- an ideal entry level
3 CCD model. Lots of manual controls, good audio and video. Used
VX1000 and comparable era models are around the price you're looking
for.

How many student film makers are there who, given the option, would
choose a very limited special purpose cheaper camera over either a
higher price but much better model (best option) or a less expensive
but readily resellable model?

For that matter, for class work, you just use a more expensive
borrowed camera. So, the students share it half the time -- one
person is going to be doing talent, editing, audio, script, whatever
else besides camera work anyway.

Nope, I just don't see where there is a market to sell the thing
too. If there was, somebody surely would have hit on it.

However, I think you're underestimating the price tag to really
build the thing. I figure you're talking a $2000 range machine, and
at that price point, there are far better options.

OTOH -- there is room for a mid-level ($1000) consumer sort of
camcorder with better manual controls. However, having played with
the auto on PD150 and PDX10, I think that when the consumer models get
improved, manual might disappear entirely ;-)

In any case, much of what is involved in camera work is scene
composition, and even a cheap camcorder can do that part well.
Practice with the cheap stuff first, then later, use the better
equipment for the serious projects.
--
*-__Jeffery Jones__________| *Starfire* |____________________-*
** Muskego WI Access Channel 14/25 <http://www.execpc.com/~jeffsj/mach7/&gt;
*Starfire Design Studio* <http://www.starfiredesign.com/&gt;
Anonymous
August 6, 2004 5:59:55 AM

Archived from groups: alt.art.video,alt.video,alt.video.avid-editors,rec.video.desktop,rec.video.production (More info?)

On Thu, 5 Aug 2004 02:22:35 -0700, "Tony" <tony23@dslextreme.com>
wrote:

>"gothika" <Vampyres@nettaxi.com> wrote in message
>news:npc3h01lngupj6bu2i9hb7ah0f4qgp2uqv@4ax.com...
>> On 5 Aug 2004 00:52:35 GMT, Seattle Eric <noone@erehwon.gov> wrote:
>> >
>> > For student film makers? Screw 'em, there's already too many.
>> >
>> That's a pretty pissy attitude to take.
>> Weren't you a beginner once yourself?
>> From the sound of it you don't give a fig about the future of the
>> industry/craft either if you don't care if there's anyone to follow
>> you.
>
>I don't know about Seattle Eric, but when I wanted to make movies, I bought
>a super-8 camera and paid for my film and developing. When I got more
>professional about it and decided to get seriously into it, I sold my Camaro
>and used half of the money for equipment, including a new VX-1000 that cost
>about $2500 at the time.
>
I had some old Bolex gear in my youth, worked many months doing just
about anything to get the funds to buy it.
Later went into the service and trained as combat camera.
Had the luck of having some very good schooling along the way as well.
That's what's made all the difference the knowledge, not simply the
hardware.
I still shoot with some very basic gear to this day.
>Basically, the way I feel is: Quit whining. If you want to make movies, find
>a way to get the money. If you're serious about it, you will.
>
>
Anonymous
August 6, 2004 6:03:04 AM

Archived from groups: alt.art.video,alt.video,alt.video.avid-editors,rec.video.desktop,rec.video.production (More info?)

On Thu, 5 Aug 2004 02:19:15 -0700, "Tony" <tony23@dslextreme.com>
wrote:

>"Ryan Boni" <impliedi@verizon.net> wrote in message
>news:wPgQc.3417$rX6.628@trndny02...
>> Um, they are already out (just not quite in the price range you'd like).
>In
>> fact we're in the second generation (and in some cases third generation)
>of
>> high-quality, low-cost, ease of use camcorders, that have many of the
>> features of their expensive professional counterparts.
>>
>> Let's see:
>> Canon XL-1 - now the XL-2
>> Sony PD-150, now PD-170
>> Panasonic AG-DVX100, now the AG-DVX100a
>> also
>> JVC GY-DV300U
>> Sony DCR-VX2100
>>
>> About $2000-$3500 for cameras that rival the professional cameras of many
>> years ago.
>
>If you look around, you can find VX-1000's for under $1000 (I've seen as low
>as $700), and you can get a VX-3, which is Hi-8, but has most of the
>features of the 1000, for around $300-500.
>
I've seen the Xl-1's going for as little as 400 bucks second hand.
Would probably have picked one up if my current gear wasn't doing what
I required.(My next step up in digital gear will probably be something
in the Panasonic line capable of doing something approaching "film" in
appearance.)
August 6, 2004 6:51:32 AM

Archived from groups: alt.art.video,alt.video,alt.video.avid-editors,rec.video.desktop,rec.video.production (More info?)

In article <dkh5h01bgavstugs0m885alcv8dr42oe82@
4ax.com>, jeffsj@execpc.com says...
> On Wed, 04 Aug 2004 14:17:27 GMT, Five <Niko@fiveminutesof____.com>
> wrote:
>
> >It would seem that the next video camcorder should be
> >something simple that the everyday student film maker
> >can afford. Every year, there are new "students of
> >film making" and many schools are teaching using dv
> >format. It would seem that this could be a huge
> >market. I think every photographer is aware of the
> >inexpensive ubiquitous entry level 35mm camera known
> >as the PENTAX K1000.
> >
> >Why not create a similar market in camcorders?
> >It seems that manufactures do have many "cheap"
> >cameras, but that is exactly what they are....cheap.
> >Everything they offer is watered down, poorly made,
> >half-baked features, and transports that eventually
> >chew up tapes.
>
> I don't think that the quality is that bad, except on the very low
> end. Even there, camcorders are generally durable enough for most
> users.
>

I disagree. I think every camcorder out there under a
grand is lousy. I have tried many, and come to that
conclusion. They all have absoulely no detail, and
are unusable in low light.

As for durability, just walk through walmart and see
the display models with all of their doors broken off,
and buttons scratched or removed.

> To create a market, you need consumers who will pay for the thing.
> For most purposes, a typical consumer DV camcorder is quite sufficient
> to practice serious videography. It isn't as capable as higher end
> models, but it is still way above Hi8 or SVHS-c -- the semi-pro
> formats of a few years ago -- with pretty decent image quality.

I have based my "what users want" on a typical film
school college, where I personally asked them.
They just want something cheap that can do good
interior shots without mosquitoes.
Sure it is a niche market of sorts, but one where
every year the purchase power returns for the same
thing. Currently there is a void there.
The current breed only offer the ability to edit
digitally, and that is all.

>
> >I have 3chip camcorders mainly, but I wouldn't
> >hesitate to buy an inexpensive camcorder that was
> >durable, small, and featureless with the exception of
> >decent sound, and good low light.
> >
> >What I am suggesting is a 1 ccd camcorder, with a huge
> >chip of say 2/3"
> >(the huge sensor will give great pictures even in low
> >light, but being only 1ccd, protect the manufactures
> >from losing sales on 3 chip cameras, while also
> >keeping costs down)
>
> A CCD that big is going to push the cost up a *lot*. Consider the
> Panasonic AG456 SVHS camcorder. They made many of them, and
> throughout the run the price never fell very far. I bet that the CCD
> and lens alone is worth over $1000 themselves. You can find the
> things used at decent prices.

Actually that is a perfect example. Take that ccd,
improve it to modern specs, and throw it into a tank
built camcorder that is easily held, and modular in
design. The costs have already been amoritorized.

>
> Who would be making the huge CCDs?

Panasonic could

> Even at the higher end, CCDs are
> tending to 1/3 inch or less in size (even in 3 CCD models). Part of
> what makes the things cheaper is that the parts are made in large
> numbers.
>

True


> I think you're barking up the wrong tree with the idea of some maker
> coming out with an oversized single CCD (with attendant higher costs
> for larger optics).
>

Not if they already have the ccd, and optics, which
they do in the case of the panasonic.

> >A durable case, maybe pollycarbon or plastic but
> >coated in rubber for durability, something like a
> >glock handgun.
>
> A trade-off which doesn't happen even for pro models. The thing
> needs to be tough enough to handle a bit of abuse, but most users just
> aren't going to be that rough.
>
> Unless you're talking about a camera for preschoolers ;-)

I got a laugh out of that ;-0

>
> >A nice fixed lens that is tack sharp
> >(fixed lens is cheap to make, and sharp by nature)
> >(possibility of future interchangability, fixed lens
> >will also protect sales of higher end cameras whos
> >users need zoom)
>
> I haven't seen a fixed lens on a camcorder in, like, forever? For
> that matter, except for security and fixed-position cams, not on
> cameras either (barring cheap webcams and such). I really don't see
> where this would be a marketing bonus for anyone, since most users
> would look at it and ignore it, lacking something which is pretty much
> essential for a lot of practical videography.

Ok. Probably the masses would want a zoom lens.

>
> >Durable tape transport.
> >
> >xlr mics, and decent built in mic.
> >(this can be done cheap look at rolls products)
>
> XLR can be done readily with an attachment; probably $100 or so or
> thereabouts for decent semipro grade. Fitting them on the camera
> itself isn't very practical for anything intended for compact handheld
> use -- the space doesn't allow it.
>
> >Flat surfaces for future mounting of velcroed devices.
> >
> >Unique look maybe like an old super 8mm film camera.
> >
> >Price retail around $800.
> >
> >I think this can be done, all the parts are already
> >out there, and once the camera gets out there, the
> >entry guys will eat this up!
> >
> >Lets create an outrage for not having this NOW~!
>
> I don't think that the parts are already out there. OK, the best
> single CCD midlevel camcorder was the Panasonic AG456, and just maybe
> Panasonic might see a point to adapting the optics to a DV format.
> But you're likely talking a $2000 model, or more.

Not really. A simple case can easily be done for the
price mentioned. In fact, if anyone has the
schematics from the panasonic ag456, I will go into a
prototype utilizing the aformentioned parts.
(an auto cad mock up)

> Note that the lens
> price for a decent fixed lens won't be all that much different from a
> good zoom, unless you upgrade the entire lens assembly -- at which
> point, the price will definitely be higher than the conventional zoom
> lens.
>
> What features are critical?
>
> I think once you look at it all, you'll see that the camera most
> people want is something like the Sony VX2000 -- an ideal entry level
> 3 CCD model. Lots of manual controls, good audio and video. Used
> VX1000 and comparable era models are around the price you're looking
> for.

Yeah they want a vx2000, acutally the dvx100a, but it
is out of this segments price range. People who buy
the vx, and dvx, have, either parents who foot that
bill, or they make decent incomes already, not the
typical student who will be paying for it themselves.

The camera I am suggesting is in some ways better but
still under the level of the cameras your suggesting.

Buying an old vx1000, is a thought to be a mistake
from anyone who I have talked to. Not that it is a
bad camera. It is great, however, for that age, you
would be a fool to gamble a grand on something so worn
by years.

> How many student film makers are there who, given the option, would
> choose a very limited special purpose cheaper camera over either a
> higher price but much better model (best option) or a less expensive
> but readily resellable model?

I think many are budget consious, yet still dreamers
of the expensive toys. If you filled out a survey, it
may say they would buy a $3,000 camera, but given 3
grand, they would spend it on lesser gear and other
stuff in reality. You have seen the AG 456 image.
It is great! Take that ccd, and lens, and move it to
this camcorder. After all the parts are there in the
warehouse.

> For that matter, for class work, you just use a more expensive
> borrowed camera. So, the students share it half the time -- one
> person is going to be doing talent, editing, audio, script, whatever
> else besides camera work anyway.

No arguement ther, that does happen.
Still, some people want their own.

>
> Nope, I just don't see where there is a market to sell the thing
> too. If there was, somebody surely would have hit on it.

Sooner or later, sure....

>
> However, I think you're underestimating the price tag to really
> build the thing. I figure you're talking a $2000 range machine, and
> at that price point, there are far better options.

For $2 grand, maybe. For 1 grand there are no options
just junk!

>
> OTOH -- there is room for a mid-level ($1000) consumer sort of
> camcorder with better manual controls. However, having played with
> the auto on PD150 and PDX10, I think that when the consumer models get
> improved, manual might disappear entirely ;-)
>

So how is what I am asking for different from your
statement of saying there is a market for one with
manual controls in the 1 grand range? I guess insted
you would rather have a 1/6" ccd with manual controls.
To me that is like having a moped engine in a GSXR750.
I am asking for a Fuji GW690III film camera in
camcorder form. E.G.

Fuji gw690III Proposed camcorder

6x9 negative 2/3" or 1/2" ccd
largest roll film neg

durable body durable body
manual controls manual controls
sharp lens sharp lens
limited audience limited audenience


equals= continued sales for years.

> In any case, much of what is involved in camera work is scene
> composition, and even a cheap camcorder can do that part well.
> Practice with the cheap stuff first, then later, use the better
> equipment for the serious projects.
>

--
www.fiveminutesoffame.com
Get your five minutes of FAME
Anonymous
August 6, 2004 6:16:28 PM

Archived from groups: alt.art.video,alt.video,alt.video.avid-editors,rec.video.desktop,rec.video.production (More info?)

On Thu, 05 Aug 2004 13:19:04 GMT, Five <Niko@fiveminutesof____.com>
wrote:

>In article <10h3v2joti3b44f@corp.supernews.com>,
>tony23@dslextreme.com says...
>> "gothika" <Vampyres@nettaxi.com> wrote in message
>> news:npc3h01lngupj6bu2i9hb7ah0f4qgp2uqv@4ax.com...
>> > On 5 Aug 2004 00:52:35 GMT, Seattle Eric <noone@erehwon.gov> wrote:
>> > >
>> > > For student film makers? Screw 'em, there's already too many.
>> > >
>> > That's a pretty pissy attitude to take.
>> > Weren't you a beginner once yourself?
>> > From the sound of it you don't give a fig about the future of the
>> > industry/craft either if you don't care if there's anyone to follow
>> > you.
>>
>> I don't know about Seattle Eric, but when I wanted to make movies, I bought
>> a super-8 camera and paid for my film and developing. When I got more
>> professional about it and decided to get seriously into it, I sold my Camaro
>> and used half of the money for equipment, including a new VX-1000 that cost
>> about $2500 at the time.
>>
>> Basically, the way I feel is: Quit whining. If you want to make movies, find
>> a way to get the money. If you're serious about it, you will.
>
>I am totally in agreeance with you, however there is a
>market out there of many who want to make films but do
>no want to give up their transportation to do so, or
>are at the maturity level to take that risk of the
>current required investment...think highschool
>freshman.
>
>For example, I met a kid who was only in junior high,
>and he wrote story after story that was actually very
>good. He probably has 30 screenplays. This kid could
>use such a camera I am suggesting. Fortunately, I
>think his parents are about to get him something good
>to start with, but they just happpend to have money to
>do so, many others may not. I make pretty good money,
>and even for me, sinking $3,500 into a camcorder is
>never a quick choice to make. With money comes other
>finanical responsibilities that divide your gross into
>something gross. A $1,000 investment, I believe is in
>the range of everyone.
>
I really don't think the thing about young, struggling film-makers and
affordable equipment has much to do with anything.

The camera you suggest would not make a video that would be acceptable
for commercial release, so what's the point? Even semi-pro 3CCD
cameras struggle to reach commercial quality in any from but
documentary or guerilla style film-making and there are plenty of
cheap 1 CCD DV cameras out there for people who just want to
experiment.

Your specification for low light capability only compounds the
weakness of your argument. It suggests that you'd use this camera to
make an available light video, which, except for the styles I've
mentioned, is not going to be up to commercial standard.

You were talking about a kid with scripts, so I'm assuming these are
some sort of drama. You'd need good lighting and good sound equipment
for these, and if you're paying to buy, or hire those, why would you
want to use a toy camera. If you think a good dramatic video can be
made using only available light I utterly agree, it's just that the
camera operator would need to have extensive experience to pull it
off, and that doesn't sound like somebody who would want to fart
around with a toy camera.

Sorry, I can't see any use for it.

JJD
Anonymous
August 6, 2004 6:16:29 PM

Archived from groups: alt.art.video,alt.video,alt.video.avid-editors,rec.video.desktop,rec.video.production (More info?)

JJD wrote:
> On Thu, 05 Aug 2004 13:19:04 GMT, Five <Niko@fiveminutesof____.com>
> wrote:
>
<snip>
>
> Even semi-pro 3CCD
> cameras struggle to reach commercial quality in any from but
> documentary or guerilla style film-making

I can name 35 news rooms off the top of my head that have switched
completely to DVCAM. Your idea of "commercial quality" is subjective, I
think.

>
> Your specification for low light capability only compounds the
> weakness of your argument. It suggests that you'd use this camera to
> make an available light video, which, except for the styles I've
> mentioned, is not going to be up to commercial standard.

Not necessarily. Even controlled lighting is often low. Watch any drama or
action flick you can rent and notice that darkness and shadow are very
important. Granted, light levels can and should be matched with the
camera/lense etc capabilities, and light levels not fitting the scene
perfectly can probably be corrected/fixed in post, but a large portion of
any story can and should be told with lighting. A cam that can't handle low
light limits your story.

>
> You were talking about a kid with scripts, so I'm assuming these are
> some sort of drama. You'd need good lighting and good sound equipment
> for these, and if you're paying to buy, or hire those, why would you
> want to use a toy camera. If you think a good dramatic video can be
> made using only available light I utterly agree, it's just that the
> camera operator would need to have extensive experience to pull it
> off, and that doesn't sound like somebody who would want to fart
> around with a toy camera.

"Toy Camera". Sounds like a bit of snobbery, really. There is a 9 year old
kid who gets in my local paper three or four times a year for awards he wins
for videography. He recently did a 6 minute for NASA and he has had his
work on the Discovery-Kids channel several times (as well as National PBS
and local PBS and a few festivals etc etc). He is shooting with a used Hi-8
and editing on some rudimentary NLE software that came installed on his
mother's laptop two years ago. (in fact, my company is going to donate his
choice of Premier or UMSP before the school year starts).

Toy camera? LOL. If the person using it is skilled and/or artistic,
results can be produced.
August 7, 2004 5:25:18 AM

Archived from groups: alt.art.video,alt.video,alt.video.avid-editors,rec.video.desktop,rec.video.production (More info?)

"gothika" <Vampyres@nettaxi.com> wrote in message
news:v3b6h0t438pf8itidldghl9f28c0vcamu2@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 5 Aug 2004 02:19:15 -0700, "Tony" <tony23@dslextreme.com>
> >If you look around, you can find VX-1000's for under $1000 (I've seen as
low
> >as $700), and you can get a VX-3, which is Hi-8, but has most of the
> >features of the 1000, for around $300-500.
> >
> I've seen the Xl-1's going for as little as 400 bucks second hand.
> Would probably have picked one up if my current gear wasn't doing what
> I required.(My next step up in digital gear will probably be something
> in the Panasonic line capable of doing something approaching "film" in
> appearance.)

Next time you run across one of those deals, let me know. I'll even throw in
an extra $100 for you if the thing works and I buy it!

I haven't seen them anywhere close to that.
Anonymous
August 9, 2004 8:55:32 PM

Archived from groups: alt.art.video,alt.video,alt.video.avid-editors,rec.video.desktop,rec.video.production (More info?)

oh... why do students not understand that being a student doesn't mean
everyone is going to come running to you to solve your problems. Get a clue.
Anonymous
August 9, 2004 8:55:33 PM

Archived from groups: alt.art.video,alt.video,alt.video.avid-editors,rec.video.desktop,rec.video.production (More info?)

THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A COMMERCIAL STANDARD. NOWHERE. NOT IN SMPTE NOT
IN NAB ... NOWHERE.

THERE IS ALSO NO SUCH THING AS "BROADCAST QUALITY"

sorry to yell but this argument gets old so fast.

"JJD" <jefdrab@newsguy.com> wrote in message
news:adp5h0p4jgckncbqmgrnpjgr04nfqndcbn@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 05 Aug 2004 13:19:04 GMT, Five <Niko@fiveminutesof____.com>
> wrote:
>
> >In article <10h3v2joti3b44f@corp.supernews.com>,
> >tony23@dslextreme.com says...
> >> "gothika" <Vampyres@nettaxi.com> wrote in message
> >> news:npc3h01lngupj6bu2i9hb7ah0f4qgp2uqv@4ax.com...
> >> > On 5 Aug 2004 00:52:35 GMT, Seattle Eric <noone@erehwon.gov> wrote:
> >> > >
> >> > > For student film makers? Screw 'em, there's already too many.
> >> > >
> >> > That's a pretty pissy attitude to take.
> >> > Weren't you a beginner once yourself?
> >> > From the sound of it you don't give a fig about the future of the
> >> > industry/craft either if you don't care if there's anyone to follow
> >> > you.
> >>
> >> I don't know about Seattle Eric, but when I wanted to make movies, I
bought
> >> a super-8 camera and paid for my film and developing. When I got more
> >> professional about it and decided to get seriously into it, I sold my
Camaro
> >> and used half of the money for equipment, including a new VX-1000 that
cost
> >> about $2500 at the time.
> >>
> >> Basically, the way I feel is: Quit whining. If you want to make movies,
find
> >> a way to get the money. If you're serious about it, you will.
> >
> >I am totally in agreeance with you, however there is a
> >market out there of many who want to make films but do
> >no want to give up their transportation to do so, or
> >are at the maturity level to take that risk of the
> >current required investment...think highschool
> >freshman.
> >
> >For example, I met a kid who was only in junior high,
> >and he wrote story after story that was actually very
> >good. He probably has 30 screenplays. This kid could
> >use such a camera I am suggesting. Fortunately, I
> >think his parents are about to get him something good
> >to start with, but they just happpend to have money to
> >do so, many others may not. I make pretty good money,
> >and even for me, sinking $3,500 into a camcorder is
> >never a quick choice to make. With money comes other
> >finanical responsibilities that divide your gross into
> >something gross. A $1,000 investment, I believe is in
> >the range of everyone.
> >
> I really don't think the thing about young, struggling film-makers and
> affordable equipment has much to do with anything.
>
> The camera you suggest would not make a video that would be acceptable
> for commercial release, so what's the point? Even semi-pro 3CCD
> cameras struggle to reach commercial quality in any from but
> documentary or guerilla style film-making and there are plenty of
> cheap 1 CCD DV cameras out there for people who just want to
> experiment.
>
> Your specification for low light capability only compounds the
> weakness of your argument. It suggests that you'd use this camera to
> make an available light video, which, except for the styles I've
> mentioned, is not going to be up to commercial standard.
>
> You were talking about a kid with scripts, so I'm assuming these are
> some sort of drama. You'd need good lighting and good sound equipment
> for these, and if you're paying to buy, or hire those, why would you
> want to use a toy camera. If you think a good dramatic video can be
> made using only available light I utterly agree, it's just that the
> camera operator would need to have extensive experience to pull it
> off, and that doesn't sound like somebody who would want to fart
> around with a toy camera.
>
> Sorry, I can't see any use for it.
>
> JJD
>
>
!