Recommendation on MiniDV Camcorder Selection...

Archived from groups: rec.video,rec.video.desktop,rec.video.production (More info?)

Are you sure you have it set to use only Optical Zoom? 10X should be plenty
for what you need unless your trying to get the facial expressions on those
football players. I assume you are in a typical bleachers type setting
rather than a stadium.


"Bob Evans" <robert_evans_yah@yahoo.com._NOSPAM> wrote in message
news:6iIZc.358489$%_6.317420@attbi_s01...
> I just purchased a Sony DCR-HC30 MiniDV Camcorder. I chose this based upon
> numerous recommendations I had seen in newsgroups, reviews, and that is in
> the same family of models favorably reviewed by Consumer Reports. Good
> picture quality, great image stabilization, Analog-Digital conversion, ...
>
> I am not completely satisfied with my first attempts with it however. I
> purchased for recording my children's athletic events. Football, baseball,
> basketball, and tennis. Each has very different requirements considering
the
> size of playing area, degree of movement, indoors vs. outdoors.
>
> I filmed my sons football game last weekend. These are intended to serve
as
> game films for the coaches and players to review, so they need to be taken
> from a high vantage point showing formations and team player movement. In
> most of the parks we play in, this means the top row of bleachers which
puts
> you some distance from the field. Overall, I was not overly impressed with
> the quality of the picture. I think it might be due to having to zoom far
> enough that the digital zoom caused some loss of clarity. The game was
> filmed at SP speed in Easy mode (fully auto).
>
> Crutchfield shows the specs on this camera as having a 10x optical zoom
and
> a 12x digital zoom (see
>
htthttp://www.crutchfield.com/S-VaQTNEmAWiR/cgi-bin/ProdView.asp?id=features
> _and_specs&i=158DCRHC30 ). Additionally, it has an effective pixel count
> for taping of 340,000.
>
> What is the best means of obtaining a better quality picture for playback
by
> the camera?
>
> By quality in this case I mean sharpness and detail. Two options I see
are:
>
> 1. Investing in another camera in this same family that has a effective
> pixel count for taping of 690,000 ( DCR-HC40 ).
>
> 2. Purchasing an add-on telephoto lens.
>
> There are lens available from Sony that do 2x effectively doubling the
> optical zoom to 20x. There are also others from 3rd party vendors that go
up
> to 8x. There is a about a $100 difference between cameras, while $50 for
the
> telephoto lens.
>
> Would these make any perceivable difference?
>
> Would the resolution make a difference when importing to a PC and burning
> DVD's ?
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Archived from groups: rec.video,rec.video.desktop,rec.video.production (More info?)

"RS" <idontthinkso@mail.com> wrote in message
news:4137584e$1_2@newspeer2.tds.net...
> Are you sure you have it set to use only Optical Zoom? 10X should be
plenty
> for what you need unless your trying to get the facial expressions on
those
> football players. I assume you are in a typical bleachers type setting
> rather than a stadium.
>

Excellent point. Upon reviewing the camera settings, the default for Digital
Zoom is Off so the digital zoom wasn't a factor. You are absolutely correct
about zoom level needed. The optical 10x was more than plenty. This rules
out an addon lens solving the problem (good to know before I purchased).
That leaves me with my other assumption regarding the number of effective
pixels on tape and whether that would make a difference going from 340,000
to 690,000.

Finally, given my lack of knowledge of the settings at this point, I wonder
if there are any other settings that would improve quality. Upon review,
there are several Auto exposure modes available with one being Sports. The
manual seems to imply it is for sports and action filmed up close (like a
golf swing, batting, etc.) I will give that a shot tonight and see if there
is a difference. There appear to be enough that trying all permutations
seems impractical though. Hopefully I can stumble across the correct one or
benefit from collective expertise of the groups.

Archived from groups: rec.video,rec.video.desktop,rec.video.production (More info?)

On Thu, 02 Sep 2004 16:57:42 GMT, "Bob Evans"
<robert_evans_yah@yahoo.com._NOSPAM> wrote:

>I just purchased a Sony DCR-HC30 MiniDV Camcorder. I chose this based upon
>numerous recommendations I had seen in newsgroups, reviews, and that is in
>the same family of models favorably reviewed by Consumer Reports. Good
>picture quality, great image stabilization, Analog-Digital conversion, ...
>
>I am not completely satisfied with my first attempts with it however. I
>purchased for recording my children's athletic events. Football, baseball,
>basketball, and tennis. Each has very different requirements considering the
>size of playing area, degree of movement, indoors vs. outdoors.
>
>I filmed my sons football game last weekend. These are intended to serve as
>game films for the coaches and players to review, so they need to be taken
>from a high vantage point showing formations and team player movement. In
>most of the parks we play in, this means the top row of bleachers which puts
>you some distance from the field. Overall, I was not overly impressed with
>the quality of the picture. I think it might be due to having to zoom far
>enough that the digital zoom caused some loss of clarity. The game was
>filmed at SP speed in Easy mode (fully auto).
>
>Crutchfield shows the specs on this camera as having a 10x optical zoom and
>a 12x digital zoom (see
>htthttp://www.crutchfield.com/S-VaQTNEmAWiR/cgi-bin/ProdView.asp?id=features
>_and_specs&i=158DCRHC30 ). Additionally, it has an effective pixel count
>for taping of 340,000.

That is DV resolution. No MiniDV camcorder is going to have a
higher resolution than that (barring going to some high definition
format).

Digital zoom, OTOH, works by increasing the size of the pixels --
thus reducing actual resolution. If you want the sharpest picture,
disable digital zoom in the menu.

Different cameras do have different quality optics and electronics,
so some produce better, clearer, cleaner pictures than others. But
the actual image resolution of DV is fixed in the format itself.

>What is the best means of obtaining a better quality picture for playback by
>the camera?
>
>By quality in this case I mean sharpness and detail. Two options I see are:
>
>1. Investing in another camera in this same family that has a effective
>pixel count for taping of 690,000 ( DCR-HC40 ).

Higher pixel counts are used for digital stills and image
stablization, as well as digital zoom. If you have four times the
pixels you need, you can use a 2x digital zoom without compromising
resolution (megapixel cameras like the above can almost do that,
making the digital zoom a bit useful -- but it is still a compromise
in other areas; you are best off not using it if possible).

>2. Purchasing an add-on telephoto lens.

Or else, move the camera closer if you can. Either way, if you want
a closer image, that is what you need.

>There are lens available from Sony that do 2x effectively doubling the
>optical zoom to 20x. There are also others from 3rd party vendors that go up
>to 8x. There is a about a $100 difference between cameras, while $50 for the
>telephoto lens.
>
>Would these make any perceivable difference?
>
>Would the resolution make a difference when importing to a PC and burning
>DVD's ?

No. DV resolution is fixed, the same on all camcorders. Some do
take better picture than others, though, but that isn't something
which shows up in the specs as such. In outdoor light, though, most
get pretty close to the best image quality you can get on a standard
TV.

--
*-__Jeffery Jones__________| *Starfire* |____________________-*
** Muskego WI Access Channel 14/25 <http://www.execpc.com/~jeffsj/mach7/>
*Starfire Design Studio* <http://www.starfiredesign.com/>

Archived from groups: rec.video,rec.video.desktop,rec.video.production (More info?)

"Tim Mitchell" <timng@sabretechnology.co.uk> wrote in message
news:WHT8YRSGkEOBFA8U@tega.co.uk...
> In article <hYKZc.105242$Fg5.79239@attbi_s53>, Bob Evans
> <robert_evans_yah@yahoo.com._NOSPAM> writes
>>Also, I was wondering how well a monopod would work. You see them used a
>>great deal with still photography at sporting events. Seems like it would
>>offer stability and allow enough range of motion given the distance from
>>the
>>field. Only problem I can envision is when we are on aluminum bleachers
>>and
>>they move due to crowd excitement. Hopefully the sound of people cheering
>>along with the picture movement will make people feel like they are there
>>rather annoyed by the motion.
>>
> Sounds like you are not using a tripod ... a tripod with a fluid head
> would really help to give you a better result.
>
> Also what are the lighting conditions? Is it daylight, floodlight, what?
> The amount of light can have a big impact on the picture quality
> --
> Tim Mitchell
Frae Auld Bob Peffers:
Here is a little tip about using a monopod. If you strap some kind of weight
to the bottom end of the monopod it acts to stabilise the camera or
camcorder.
--

Aefauldlie, (Scots word for Honestly),
Robert, (Auld Bob), Peffers,
Kelty,
Fife,
Scotland, (UK).
Web Site, "The Eck's Files":- http://www.peffers50.freeserve.co.uk



---
Aa ootgannin screivings maun hae nae wee beasties wi thaim..
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.747 / Virus Database: 499 - Release Date: 01/09/2004

Archived from groups: rec.video,rec.video.desktop,rec.video.production (More info?)

"Bob Evans" <robert_evans_yah@yahoo.com._NOSPAM> wrote in message
news:MW1_c.232619$8_6.162057@attbi_s04...
>> Sounds like you are not using a tripod ... a tripod with a fluid head
>> would really help to give you a better result.
>>
>> Also what are the lighting conditions? Is it daylight, floodlight, what?
>> The amount of light can have a big impact on the picture quality
>> --
>> Tim Mitchell
>
> I was not. The first attempt was a learning experience. If I use a tripod,
> I
> will need to use it basically like a monopod since I will be filming from
> the top row of standard bleachers or lower the back leg so it rests across
> 2
> rows. This would lower the camera height sufficiently and increase the
> likelihood of filming someones backside. The film needs to be made from as
> high a vantage point as possible using existing facilities at the field. I
> will keep in mind the fluid head tripod for other filming opportunities.
>
> The lighting conditions that day was outdoors in clear / sunny conditions.
> It was very bright that day. All our football games are outdoors during
> the
> day (sometime between 1pm and 5pm). Right now it varies based only upon
> the
> weather. Once it starts getting dark earlier, there should be a difference
> in the lighting towards the end of the game (although not dark).
>
>
>
Frae Auld bob Peffers:
Ah! A little light is beginning to glimmer here. If you are sitting in a
stand then the camcorder is looking out from a comparative dim area into a
brighter light. The Auto functions will have the effect of dimming out the
actual picture. You may need to set up manually. The recommendations are -
When shooting using reverse lighting or where the background is too bright -
Use Manual Exposure.
When shooting on a reflective natural backgrounds such as a beach of when
skiing.
When the background is overly dark or the subject is bright.
Furthermore you should use Iris Lock when -
Shooting moving subjects.
When the distance to the subject changes, (so its size in the LCD or
viewfinder changes), such as the subject is backing away.
When shooting on a reflective natural background, (beach, water, snow).
When shooting objects under a spotlight.
When zooming.


When the subject is close, keep the iris locked. Even when the subject moves
away from you, the image will not darken or brighten. You may just get away
with it by using, "Backlight compensation". That is if I am reading you
right and you are in a dimmer area and trying to shoot subjects in a
brighter lit area. Try also turning on or off AGC.

Shutter speed alterations may also be in order depending on the speed of the
action. Finally there may be a case for adjusting the White Balance. It
looks like you will need to set-up without using auto. It probably is not
quite as daunting as it sounds for in most cases you can set it once and
forget it. The pros usually have a focus ring and a zoom ring that they can
operate manually and they set up manual iris and white balance before they
start too.
--

Aefauldlie, (Scots word for Honestly),
Robert, (Auld Bob), Peffers,
Kelty,
Fife,
Scotland, (UK).
Web Site, "The Eck's Files":- http://www.peffers50.freeserve.co.uk



---
Aa ootgannin screivings maun hae nae wee beasties wi thaim..
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.747 / Virus Database: 499 - Release Date: 01/09/2004

Archived from groups: rec.video,rec.video.desktop,rec.video.production (More info?)

Also, most image stabilization features worsen the image quality.
Tripod the camcorder, turn IS off, and you'll see a difference.

--

Also, the Sony DCR-HC40 (step up) was tested in Salon magazine a few
months back in Japan, and it really doesn't stand out from the other
camcorders by that much in image quality for a consumer level camcorder.
One of the better ones, but nothing you'd go filming a commercial TV
show on one.... I was interested in the comparison article to see how
much better it would do against my Sharp VL-Z3U, but nothing I saw would
even get my attention.

--

You can also try renting a Canon XL/GL series from a local shop one day,
and simply use the same tape and film side-by-side shots with the two
camcorders (or even try in store if they let you). There's definitely a
huge world of difference between these pro-level Canon's vs. the
consumer level camcorders you use. Maybe that and $2k (for the Canon)
is all you need =)

Archived from groups: rec.video,rec.video.desktop,rec.video.production (More info?)

Or go the other way, get yourself a wide angle lens and move the camera a
lot closer to the action, further down in the bleachers...



"David Chien" <chiendh@uci.edu> wrote in message
news:chav3v$b1f$1@news.service.uci.edu...
> > By quality in this case I mean sharpness and detail. Two options I see
are:
> >
> > 1. Investing in another camera in this same family that has a effective
> > pixel count for taping of 690,000 ( DCR-HC40 ).
> >
> > 2. Purchasing an add-on telephoto lens.
>
> 1. get the telephoto lens first if you don't want to spend a lot of
> money -- it'll get you out of the digital zoom range fast, and help keep
> image quality up.
>
> 2. otherwise, an HD video camcorder if you can afford it.
>
> ---
>
> It may just be the lower resolution of this consumer level camcorder
> that's bugging you.
>
> see how consumer vs. pro level DV camcorders differ in quality:
> http://bealecorner.com/trv900/cats/cats.html
>
> ---
>
> But, DV is limited to about 500 lines of resolution max (even lower
> than a 640x480 PC screen), so to get much better, you'll have to go to a
> HD camcorder, esp. if you need more image details for reviews.
>
> Here's an example where you can see approximations of the differences:
> http://ieba.com/events/IEBA_HD.html

Archived from groups: rec.video,rec.video.desktop,rec.video.production (More info?)

"Ryan Boni" <impliedi@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:Cyb%c.5023$dC4.2400@trndny06...
> Or go the other way, get yourself a wide angle lens and move the camera a
> lot closer to the action, further down in the bleachers...

That is an excellent idea for a highlight film. For game films though, I
have to trade off being further from the action for being higher off the
ground. I move to the highest point in the bleachers so that I can look down
on the field as much as possible. In other words, the higher off the ground
I am the better the playback viewing angle to see formations, break down
plays, and in general see what happened during the play. I am assuming that
is also one of the reasons that the pressbox at most fields and arenas is
elevated. Easier to diagram and breakdown the action. Our highschool
actually has a scissor lift (large portable platform used in place of
scaffolding where portability is necessary) that they setup past one end
zone. I am not sure of the exact height, but I would guess they are easily
35-40ft off the ground.

At this point, the poor quailty I experienced initially was due to a couple
factors:

1. Auto focus. The line of sight from our point in the bleachers (highest
available mind you) to the action was sometimes partially disrupted by the
down marker and chains. If I had used manual focus or spot focus I would
have gotten better results.

2. Auto exposure. The camera has several modes of autoexposure one of which
is Sports. Being new and not have enough time to read the manual prior to
filming the first game resulted in us using the default auto setting which
didn't handle the extreme brightness or movement very well. I filmed a
second game in sports mode and got much better results.

The next game I am going to film using a tripod and attempt at turning image
stabilization off. I am already very happy with the quality I have gotten
just with the Auto Exposure change, so hopefully being able to turn off
image stabilization will enhance a little further.

Thanks for the posts!