Ah...yes... True. HD may be overkill for the web. People should perfect their craft with lesser cameras. SD cameras have a certain charm due to their low resolution (VHS and Super 8 even more so!) It has nothing to do with the camera because it's the operator behind it...err...or the person editing it. All valid points.
Small HD cameras are dirt cheap. It's actually getting difficult to find SD cameras these days. If you do, they're pieces of garbage. I have no inhibitions about telling anyone to go out and get a small HD camera. Why? Why not? Really...why not shoot in HD? Dont like uploading a big file? Export it out to a smaller size. Prefer that "old skool" look that SD give you? "Fix" it in post. Shooting with HD allows one to play so much more with editing than SD cameras do. If you can make something 1/2 decent with a small brick HD camera, you got some talent...at editing. If you make something decent while using an SD camera, you got some talent...at editing. Getting the point I'm trying to make? It doesnt matter what you use...it's the content you produce. These little HD cameras are great to carry around in ones pocket (or motorcycle helmet ;)). They're so small now days that I dont go anywhere without it. Hell, I have an Xacti and a Kodak Zx1. Both shoot HD. They're great things to carry around and shoot decent enough video that give me room enough to play with while editing. Bottom line...yeah...go get a small HD camera and have fun with it. Play with it. Shoot High Def vids of your cats lapping milk at 60fps in slow motion. Why not? Give me one reason why one should buy an SD camera over it? It's not going to make you a better filmmaker. Neither is a Red camera though. While these small HD cameras arent going to make you a better vlogger, They'll certainly give give you pretty pictures that you can manipulate and play with later on. David --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Rupert Howe <rup...@...> 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, David Jones <david.jones@> > > 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/productID.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] >
