Zi6 was my option to get into vlogging, when I started into this I had an iPhone that did not do video. I now own a 3GS now if I have a spur of the moment vlog I do it on the 3GS and upload it directly to TwitVid, there is a link on my blog to my TwitVids and as many will see there are more TwitVids than there are blog entries on my blog :)
On 23/10/2009 14:35, "Rupert Howe" <rup...@twittervlog.tv> wrote: > > > > > Don't get me wrong - I'm having some angry go at you or anybody in > particular. The tools are out there, they're cheap and that's what > everybody's using. More than anything, I'm frustrated with the > manufacturers selling products competing using numbers as if they're a > measure of quality. And the real reason I get worked up about it is > all the file sizes and energy usage. It just feels we're being forced > to be excessive at a time when we're supposed to be going the other > way. I obviously have a lot of latent guilt about geek energy > consumption. > > On 23-Oct-09, at 2:22 PM, Ernie wrote: > >> > The only reason I use my Kodak Zi8 and Zi6 is because I feel >> > comfortable >> > using them. The quality only comes into play when I want to do >> > something for >> > my family. >> > >> > Ernmander >> > >> > On 23/10/2009 14:16, "Rupert Howe" <rup...@twittervlog.tv >> <mailto:rupert%40twittervlog.tv> > wrote: >> > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > OK. I've got to get this off my chest. >>> > > >>> > > I think that HD is massively overrated for shooting videoblog >> > posts of >>> > > people talking. >>> > > Or even videoblog posts of pretty things. >>> > > That beautiful video I posted by Jay the other day, with all those >>> > > super detailed little moving photographic moments - that was >> > 320x240. >>> > > >>> > > If you're Robert Croma, and you're doing something insanely visually >>> > > beautiful at a large scale, great. >>> > > >>> > > But it's about the skill and artistry, not the resolution. Liss >>> > > produces more beauty than most of us can handle, at 640x360. >> > Speakman >>> > > at 320x240. >>> > > >>> > > If you only want a cheap pocket camera for videoblogging, why is >>> > > resolution your priority? >>> > > >>> > > Why not get a camera that shoots much better images and colours at >>> > > lower res video? >>> > > >>> > > And is great in Low Light - surely one of the most important >> > things of >>> > > all for videoblogging? >>> > > >>> > > I've always been impressed by the visuals and low light capabilities >>> > > of the good Canon point and shoots. Although they are getting sucked >>> > > into HD now. >>> > > >>> > > Nokia's blogger marketing people sent me a Nokia N86, which their >> > ex- >>> > > Kodak imaging chief has put a lot of effort into - a beautiful Zeiss >>> > > lens and great processor. Shoots lovely video at 640x480, and great >>> > > photographs at 8MP. Or even 5MP. That's a *phone* that shoots better >>> > > quality video than your Kodak or your Flip. >>> > > >>> > > If you're not convinced by any of that, but you believe in energy >>> > > conservation and limiting your emissions, then consider this: a >> > report >>> > > by McKinsey published before the explosion in HD video predicted >> > that >>> > > data centers would outstrip airlines in carbon emissions by 2020. >>> > > Think about the energy costs of uploading *and* transcoding *and* >>> > > storing *and* delivering all the multiple formats of your video >>> > > (YouTube converts to and stores 3 copies: flv, mp4, HD) hundreds or >>> > > thousands of times. And the power required by your computer to edit >>> > > and playback HD. All to see your face in 1920x1080. >>> > > >>> > > RAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA >>> > > >>> > > Rupert >>> > > http://twittervlog.tv >>> > > >>> > > On 23-Oct-09, at 1:10 PM, compumavengal wrote: >>> > > >>>>> > >> > I'd like to bring something up that is often forgotten about >> > under >>>>> > >> > $200 camcorders. These camcorders were originally designed for >> > point >>>>> > >> > and shoot users. >>>>> > >> > >>>>> > >> > Having said that the features of the Zi8 are stunning: >>>>> > >> > >>>>> > >> > # 1080p (1920 × 1080, 30 fps) >>>>> > >> > # 720p/60 fps (1280 × 720, 60 fps) >>>>> > >> > # 720p (1280 × 720, 30 fps) >>>>> > >> > USB 2.0 (high speed), AV out, HDMI, DC in, external microphone >> > jack >>>>> > >> > (support stereo) >>>>> > >> > >>>>> > >> > in an under $200 camcorder. I don't expect it to do low light >>>>> > >> > shooting. I don't have expectation of white balancing. There is >> > no >>>>> > >> > optical zoom. I won't ever use the digital zoom. >>>>> > >> > >>>>> > >> > I've owned a Xacti camcorder, never a problem with it. I have a >> > Zi6 >>>>> > >> > and I love it. But I understand the constrictions these >> > camcorders >>>>> > >> > by imposes on me. >>>>> > >> > >>>>> > >> > If I shoot hand held I'm gonna get jerky video unless I'm really >>>>> > >> > careful. I have to be next to the person I'm talking to or no >> > more >>>>> > >> > than 4 feet away. >>>>> > >> > >>>>> > >> > I have to be creative in finding ways to stabilize the >> > camcorder as >>>>> > >> > I walk; like having the camcorder on a very small tripod braced >> > in a >>>>> > >> > handbag pocket. This may or may not work for you. >>>>> > >> > >>>>> > >> > If I am recording an event or lecture I'm taking my 30x optical >> > zoom >>>>> > >> > JVC Hard Drive Camcorder and a tripod. >>>>> > >> > >>>>> > >> > My point is that comparing $1,200 features to a $200 camcorder is >>>>> > >> > inherently frustrating. >>>>> > >> > >>>>> > >> > If you need more stuff then you'll have to willing to jump to the >>>>> > >> > next price class. >>>>> > >> > >>>>> > >> > Gena >>>>> > >> > http://outonthestoop.blogspot.com >>>>> > >> > http://createvideonotebook.blogspot.com >>>>> > >> > >>>>> > >> > --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com >>>>> <mailto:videoblogging%40yahoogroups.com> >>>> > >> <mailto:videoblogging%40yahoogroups.com> , David Jones >> > <david.jo...@...> >>>>> > >> > wrote: >>>>>>> > >>> > > >>>>>>> > >>> > > My quest for a cheap new videoblogging camera continues... >>>>>>> > >>> > > I came across the Kodak Zi8 HD pocket camcorder: >>>>>>> > >>> > > >>>>> > >>> >>>>> http://store.kodak.com/store/ekconsus/en_US/pd/Zi8_Pocket_Video_Camera/produ >>>>> > >>> ctID.156585800 >>>>>>> > >>> > > Test footage looks really good: >>>>>>> > >>> > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JX-raL4iQoY >>>>>>> > >>> > > and the main benefit is that it has an external mic jack. >>>>>>> > >>> > > It even has a remote which is essential for solo video >> > blogging. >>>>>>> > >>> > > Only downside seems to be lack of swivel head, so I won't be >> > able to >>>>>>> > >>> > > see myself in the video. That would be annoying, but not a >>>>>>> > >>> > > showstopper. At least it would stop me looking off-lens all >> > the >>>>>>> > >>> > > time... >>>>>>> > >>> > > >>>>>>> > >>> > > The real test will always under my own conditions of course, >> > I shoot >>>>>>> > >>> > > in mostly the same location indoors in a fluoro lit workshop. >>>>>>> > >>> > > >>>>>>> > >>> > > I was considering the Canon FS200 SD card camcorder (looking >> > for >>>>>>> > >>> > > second hand because new is out of my price range), but the >> > sensor is >>>>>>> > >>> > > only 1/6" so most likely has fairly horrible low light >> > performance, >>>>>>> > >>> > > and the reviews mention this as well. >>>>>>> > >>> > > >>>>>>> > >>> > > I don't need the full HD, but 720 HD would be nice. >>>>>>> > >>> > > >>>>>>> > >>> > > Any comments on the Zi8 for video blogging? >>>>>>> > >>> > > Anyone know of any other pocket video cams with an external >> > mic jack >>>>>>> > >>> > > like the Zi8? >>>>>>> > >>> > > >>>>>>> > >>> > > My current cam is an old Canon Optura60 DV (NTSC), not >> > exactly a >>>>>>> > >>> > > stand-out performer, so I figure a good pocket cam today >> > will likely >>>>>>> > >>> > > beat it. >>>>>>> > >>> > > >>>>>>> > >>> > > Thanks >>>>>>> > >>> > > Dave. >>>>>>> > >>> > > >>>>> > >> > >>>>> > >> > >>>>> > >> > >>> > > >>> > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>> > > >>>> > >> >> > >> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] >> > >> > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > > >> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
