Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [videoblogging] Re: Mic for Flip?

Expand Messages
  • Bohuš
    ... Just to throw one more thought out there, I ve been super happy with a Canon HV-20 that I bought used for next to nothing. True, it shoots on tape... which
    Message 1 of 29 , Mar 5, 2011
    • 0 Attachment
      On 3/5/2011 7:12 PM, neophoto3000 wrote:
      > I understand these "pocket" camcorders aren't quite up to the specs of some models just a few hundred dollars more expensive, but every buck counts at the moment. And this is just a short-term means of bumping the quality of my videos until I can afford to go all out and splurge on some super-fancy mega-cam.

      Just to throw one more thought out there, I've been super happy with a
      Canon HV-20 that I bought used for next to nothing. True, it shoots on
      tape... which is nice because it doesn't compress the image quite as
      hard. It also has the flip out LCD that I can face toward myself, which
      is indispensable. You can wide angle add-on lenses as well as use any
      mic that has an 1/8" jack. It shoot 24p too, which is a favorite mode
      for me.

      So the only liability I see is that it takes a bit longer to get
      material off of the camera's tape than if it were entirely digital, but
      it's a trade-off I don't mind. Were I using a FLIP style cam for
      blogging myself, I'd likely go with the Kodak... though I'd really miss
      being able to see myself in the LCD display. I also do a lot of product
      close-ups, so the macro lens it offers would be valuable to me... adn
      though the mic input setup is a little funky, it does work...

      Not that any of that was helpful... ;)




      --
      --
      Bohus Blahut
      (BOH-hoosh BLAH-hoot)

      modern filmmaker
    • Richard Amirault
      ... From: Bohus (snip) ... (snip) It *is* entirely digital . Just because it is recorded on tape does not automatically make it analog. Richard Amirault
      Message 2 of 29 , Mar 6, 2011
      • 0 Attachment
        ----- Original Message -----
        From: "Bohus"
        (snip)
        > So the only liability I see is that it takes a bit longer to get
        > material off of the camera's tape than if it were entirely digital,
        (snip)

        It *is* "entirely digital". Just because it is recorded on tape does not
        automatically make it analog.

        Richard Amirault
        Boston, MA, USA
        http://n1jdu.org
        http://bostonfandom.org
        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J7hf9u2ZdlQ
      • Bohuš
        ... I m well aware it s a digital file - sorry, i can see where it sounds like I was saying the opposite. Right - the tie aspect comes in that the transfer
        Message 3 of 29 , Mar 6, 2011
        • 0 Attachment
          On 3/6/2011 10:34 AM, Richard Amirault wrote:
          > ----- Original Message -----
          > From: "Bohus"
          > (snip)
          >> So the only liability I see is that it takes a bit longer to get
          >> material off of the camera's tape than if it were entirely digital,
          > (snip)
          >
          > It *is* "entirely digital". Just because it is recorded on tape does not
          > automatically make it analog.


          I'm well aware it's a digital file - sorry, i can see where it sounds
          like I was saying the opposite. Right - the tie aspect comes in that the
          transfer from a digital tape will always be in real time, where if it
          were a file on a camera's SD card it would be somewhat faster.

          I struggle with this at work actually - we use broadcast cameras that
          record directly onto memory cards, but occasionally I bring in my Canon
          XL-H1 HDV camera, and some guys at my work think I'm delivering an
          inferior product... even though they're both digital material as you say.




          --
          --
          Bohus Blahut
          (BOH-hoosh BLAH-hoot)

          modern filmmaker
        • mikemoon_ca
          Hey folks, thought I d chime in. Currently I own the Kodak Playsport. It s basically the same as the Zi8, except it can go underwater and doesn t have a mic
          Message 4 of 29 , Mar 6, 2011
          • 0 Attachment
            Hey folks, thought I'd chime in.

            Currently I own the Kodak Playsport. It's basically the same as the Zi8, except it can go underwater and doesn't have a mic port. I really like this camcorder and the video is wonderful. It is NOT Final Cut file format friendly and will require converting for it to work. I did add a fish-eye (super wide angle) lens as I felt the regular POV was too close. Just a $20 magnetic lens ment for cell phones, but it works great. ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IKxUu1d5EB8 ).

            BUT...
            I got an iPod Touch (basically an iPhone without the phone), and I find I'm using it way more than the Kodak. It's small, fits in my pocket, so I carry it everywhere with me. It has two lenses/camcorders built in. One shoots forward and one towards you. Lots and lots of different apps to allow you to play. The Kodak is relegated to my briefcase. I find the iPod is way better in low light situations. David Lee King recently got a mic for his iPhone, and the audio is wonderful. (Can't find the link). With all the processor power in this unit, I can shoot, edit, add textures, upload, post and share, right from the iPod. No need to go to the computer.
            The front facing lens is wide angle, but not HD. I added the same magnetic lens as the above. ( http://mikemoon.net/vlog/2010/12/28/fisheye-ipod-touch/ )

            ALSO...
            I use to own the Canon HV20 camcorder, and it's SWEET! Yes you have to run the tape through the PC/Mac to capture, but it's very beautiful video and sound. Certainly a highend camcorder with a much lower price point. I personally wanted portability and was the only reason I got rid of the HV20. You won't be disappointed. Very high ratings on most review sites.

            I have lots of samples if you'd like. Let me know.

            Mike
            http://MikeMoon.ca


            --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Bohuš <bohus@...> wrote:
            >
            > On 3/6/2011 10:34 AM, Richard Amirault wrote:
            > > ----- Original Message -----
            > > From: "Bohus"
            > > (snip)
            > >> So the only liability I see is that it takes a bit longer to get
            > >> material off of the camera's tape than if it were entirely digital,
            > > (snip)
            > >
            > > It *is* "entirely digital". Just because it is recorded on tape does not
            > > automatically make it analog.
            >
            >
            > I'm well aware it's a digital file - sorry, i can see where it sounds
            > like I was saying the opposite. Right - the tie aspect comes in that the
            > transfer from a digital tape will always be in real time, where if it
            > were a file on a camera's SD card it would be somewhat faster.
            >
            > I struggle with this at work actually - we use broadcast cameras that
            > record directly onto memory cards, but occasionally I bring in my Canon
            > XL-H1 HDV camera, and some guys at my work think I'm delivering an
            > inferior product... even though they're both digital material as you say.
            >
            >
            >
            >
            > --
            > --
            > Bohus Blahut
            > (BOH-hoosh BLAH-hoot)
            >
            > modern filmmaker
            >
          • neophoto3000
            I generally only have 2 or 3 spare GB on my iPod Touch. About how much footage could I record? Chris
            Message 5 of 29 , Mar 6, 2011
            • 0 Attachment
              I generally only have 2 or 3 spare GB on my iPod Touch. About how much "footage" could I record?

              Chris

              --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, "mikemoon_ca" <mgmoon@...> wrote:
              >
              > Hey folks, thought I'd chime in.
              >
              > Currently I own the Kodak Playsport. It's basically the same as the Zi8, except it can go underwater and doesn't have a mic port. I really like this camcorder and the video is wonderful. It is NOT Final Cut file format friendly and will require converting for it to work. I did add a fish-eye (super wide angle) lens as I felt the regular POV was too close. Just a $20 magnetic lens ment for cell phones, but it works great. ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IKxUu1d5EB8 ).
              >
              > BUT...
              > I got an iPod Touch (basically an iPhone without the phone), and I find I'm using it way more than the Kodak. It's small, fits in my pocket, so I carry it everywhere with me. It has two lenses/camcorders built in. One shoots forward and one towards you. Lots and lots of different apps to allow you to play. The Kodak is relegated to my briefcase. I find the iPod is way better in low light situations. David Lee King recently got a mic for his iPhone, and the audio is wonderful. (Can't find the link). With all the processor power in this unit, I can shoot, edit, add textures, upload, post and share, right from the iPod. No need to go to the computer.
              > The front facing lens is wide angle, but not HD. I added the same magnetic lens as the above. ( http://mikemoon.net/vlog/2010/12/28/fisheye-ipod-touch/ )
              >
              > ALSO...
              > I use to own the Canon HV20 camcorder, and it's SWEET! Yes you have to run the tape through the PC/Mac to capture, but it's very beautiful video and sound. Certainly a highend camcorder with a much lower price point. I personally wanted portability and was the only reason I got rid of the HV20. You won't be disappointed. Very high ratings on most review sites.
              >
              > I have lots of samples if you'd like. Let me know.
              >
              > Mike
              > http://MikeMoon.ca
              >
              >
              > --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Bohuš <bohus@> wrote:
              > >
              > > On 3/6/2011 10:34 AM, Richard Amirault wrote:
              > > > ----- Original Message -----
              > > > From: "Bohus"
              > > > (snip)
              > > >> So the only liability I see is that it takes a bit longer to get
              > > >> material off of the camera's tape than if it were entirely digital,
              > > > (snip)
              > > >
              > > > It *is* "entirely digital". Just because it is recorded on tape does not
              > > > automatically make it analog.
              > >
              > >
              > > I'm well aware it's a digital file - sorry, i can see where it sounds
              > > like I was saying the opposite. Right - the tie aspect comes in that the
              > > transfer from a digital tape will always be in real time, where if it
              > > were a file on a camera's SD card it would be somewhat faster.
              > >
              > > I struggle with this at work actually - we use broadcast cameras that
              > > record directly onto memory cards, but occasionally I bring in my Canon
              > > XL-H1 HDV camera, and some guys at my work think I'm delivering an
              > > inferior product... even though they're both digital material as you say.
              > >
              > >
              > >
              > >
              > > --
              > > --
              > > Bohus Blahut
              > > (BOH-hoosh BLAH-hoot)
              > >
              > > modern filmmaker
              > >
              >
            • David Jones
              ... Any decent 1280x720 H.264 footage is going to be around 8-9Mbit/sec, but depends on the codec. At that ballpark you are talking approx 1MB/sec = 60MB/min =
              Message 6 of 29 , Mar 6, 2011
              • 0 Attachment
                On Mon, Mar 7, 2011 at 11:30 AM, neophoto3000 <cjburdick@...> wrote:
                >
                > I generally only have 2 or 3 spare GB on my iPod Touch. About how much "footage" could I record?

                Any decent 1280x720 H.264 footage is going to be around 8-9Mbit/sec,
                but depends on the codec.
                At that ballpark you are talking approx 1MB/sec = 60MB/min = 3.6GB/hour.

                Dave.
              • David Lee King
                Here s the link to that video/info about the i-Microphone - http://www.davidleeking.com/2011/02/21/i-microphone-for-the-iphone/ It plugs into an iphone/ipod
                Message 7 of 29 , Mar 6, 2011
                • 0 Attachment
                  Here's the link to that video/info about the i-Microphone -
                  http://www.davidleeking.com/2011/02/21/i-microphone-for-the-iphone/

                  It plugs into an iphone/ipod touch/ipad, and basically boosts the audio
                  quite a bit. You'll definitely hear the difference in my video!

                  And an aside - it's a small mic, fits in your pocket ... and mine has just
                  survived the washing mashine/dryer, too. Still works, and it's now very
                  clean :-)

                  David Lee King
                  davidleeking.com - blog
                  davidleeking.com/etc - videoblog
                  twitter | skype: davidleeking <http://www.twitter.com/davidleeking>


                  On Sun, Mar 6, 2011 at 5:59 PM, mikemoon_ca <mgmoon@...> wrote:

                  >
                  >
                  > Hey folks, thought I'd chime in.
                  >
                  > Currently I own the Kodak Playsport. It's basically the same as the Zi8,
                  > except it can go underwater and doesn't have a mic port. I really like this
                  > camcorder and the video is wonderful. It is NOT Final Cut file format
                  > friendly and will require converting for it to work. I did add a fish-eye
                  > (super wide angle) lens as I felt the regular POV was too close. Just a $20
                  > magnetic lens ment for cell phones, but it works great. (
                  > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IKxUu1d5EB8 ).
                  >
                  > BUT...
                  > I got an iPod Touch (basically an iPhone without the phone), and I find I'm
                  > using it way more than the Kodak. It's small, fits in my pocket, so I carry
                  > it everywhere with me. It has two lenses/camcorders built in. One shoots
                  > forward and one towards you. Lots and lots of different apps to allow you to
                  > play. The Kodak is relegated to my briefcase. I find the iPod is way better
                  > in low light situations. David Lee King recently got a mic for his iPhone,
                  > and the audio is wonderful. (Can't find the link). With all the processor
                  > power in this unit, I can shoot, edit, add textures, upload, post and share,
                  > right from the iPod. No need to go to the computer.
                  > The front facing lens is wide angle, but not HD. I added the same magnetic
                  > lens as the above. (
                  > http://mikemoon.net/vlog/2010/12/28/fisheye-ipod-touch/ )
                  >
                  > ALSO...
                  > I use to own the Canon HV20 camcorder, and it's SWEET! Yes you have to run
                  > the tape through the PC/Mac to capture, but it's very beautiful video and
                  > sound. Certainly a highend camcorder with a much lower price point. I
                  > personally wanted portability and was the only reason I got rid of the HV20.
                  > You won't be disappointed. Very high ratings on most review sites.
                  >
                  > I have lots of samples if you'd like. Let me know.
                  >
                  > Mike
                  > http://MikeMoon.ca
                  >
                  >
                  > --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Bohuš <bohus@...> wrote:
                  > >
                  > > On 3/6/2011 10:34 AM, Richard Amirault wrote:
                  > > > ----- Original Message -----
                  > > > From: "Bohus"
                  > > > (snip)
                  > > >> So the only liability I see is that it takes a bit longer to get
                  > > >> material off of the camera's tape than if it were entirely digital,
                  > > > (snip)
                  > > >
                  > > > It *is* "entirely digital". Just because it is recorded on tape does
                  > not
                  > > > automatically make it analog.
                  > >
                  > >
                  > > I'm well aware it's a digital file - sorry, i can see where it sounds
                  > > like I was saying the opposite. Right - the tie aspect comes in that the
                  > > transfer from a digital tape will always be in real time, where if it
                  > > were a file on a camera's SD card it would be somewhat faster.
                  > >
                  > > I struggle with this at work actually - we use broadcast cameras that
                  > > record directly onto memory cards, but occasionally I bring in my Canon
                  > > XL-H1 HDV camera, and some guys at my work think I'm delivering an
                  > > inferior product... even though they're both digital material as you say.
                  > >
                  > >
                  > >
                  > >
                  > > --
                  > > --
                  > > Bohus Blahut
                  > > (BOH-hoosh BLAH-hoot)
                  > >
                  > > modern filmmaker
                  > >
                  >
                  >
                  >


                  [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                • John Cardenas
                  after almost 3 years of being away from China I am back and one of my first issues was to try to use my usual social network sites and video ones too...sad to
                  Message 8 of 29 , Mar 6, 2011
                  • 0 Attachment
                    after almost 3 years of being away from China I am back and one of my first issues was to try to use my usual social network sites and video ones too...sad to realize that the blocking and filtering by the great firewall of China is stronger than before....
                     
                    It affects to the ones that we have nothing to do with other issues.I just wanna interact with my tribe and friends and my audience in general all over the world through my usual photovideoblogging style.
                     
                    anyways I can access my american server through FTP but I can not see my website on line from here.... so, to the ones who are in contact with me through youtube,facebook and twitter,check my updates in my website  http://www.cardren.com
                     
                    regards from inside the Great Firewall of China
                     
                    John Dkar .... The Photovideoblogger




                    [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                  • neophoto3000
                    Wow! Pretty amazing difference.
                    Message 9 of 29 , Mar 6, 2011
                    • 0 Attachment
                      Wow! Pretty amazing difference.

                      --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, David Lee King <davidleeking@...> wrote:
                      >
                      > Here's the link to that video/info about the i-Microphone -
                      > http://www.davidleeking.com/2011/02/21/i-microphone-for-the-iphone/
                      >
                      > It plugs into an iphone/ipod touch/ipad, and basically boosts the audio
                      > quite a bit. You'll definitely hear the difference in my video!
                      >
                      > And an aside - it's a small mic, fits in your pocket ... and mine has just
                      > survived the washing mashine/dryer, too. Still works, and it's now very
                      > clean :-)
                      >
                      > David Lee King
                      > davidleeking.com - blog
                      > davidleeking.com/etc - videoblog
                      > twitter | skype: davidleeking <http://www.twitter.com/davidleeking>
                      >
                      >
                      > On Sun, Mar 6, 2011 at 5:59 PM, mikemoon_ca <mgmoon@...> wrote:
                      >
                      > >
                      > >
                      > > Hey folks, thought I'd chime in.
                      > >
                      > > Currently I own the Kodak Playsport. It's basically the same as the Zi8,
                      > > except it can go underwater and doesn't have a mic port. I really like this
                      > > camcorder and the video is wonderful. It is NOT Final Cut file format
                      > > friendly and will require converting for it to work. I did add a fish-eye
                      > > (super wide angle) lens as I felt the regular POV was too close. Just a $20
                      > > magnetic lens ment for cell phones, but it works great. (
                      > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IKxUu1d5EB8 ).
                      > >
                      > > BUT...
                      > > I got an iPod Touch (basically an iPhone without the phone), and I find I'm
                      > > using it way more than the Kodak. It's small, fits in my pocket, so I carry
                      > > it everywhere with me. It has two lenses/camcorders built in. One shoots
                      > > forward and one towards you. Lots and lots of different apps to allow you to
                      > > play. The Kodak is relegated to my briefcase. I find the iPod is way better
                      > > in low light situations. David Lee King recently got a mic for his iPhone,
                      > > and the audio is wonderful. (Can't find the link). With all the processor
                      > > power in this unit, I can shoot, edit, add textures, upload, post and share,
                      > > right from the iPod. No need to go to the computer.
                      > > The front facing lens is wide angle, but not HD. I added the same magnetic
                      > > lens as the above. (
                      > > http://mikemoon.net/vlog/2010/12/28/fisheye-ipod-touch/ )
                      > >
                      > > ALSO...
                      > > I use to own the Canon HV20 camcorder, and it's SWEET! Yes you have to run
                      > > the tape through the PC/Mac to capture, but it's very beautiful video and
                      > > sound. Certainly a highend camcorder with a much lower price point. I
                      > > personally wanted portability and was the only reason I got rid of the HV20.
                      > > You won't be disappointed. Very high ratings on most review sites.
                      > >
                      > > I have lots of samples if you'd like. Let me know.
                      > >
                      > > Mike
                      > > http://MikeMoon.ca
                      > >
                      > >
                      > > --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, Bohuš <bohus@> wrote:
                      > > >
                      > > > On 3/6/2011 10:34 AM, Richard Amirault wrote:
                      > > > > ----- Original Message -----
                      > > > > From: "Bohus"
                      > > > > (snip)
                      > > > >> So the only liability I see is that it takes a bit longer to get
                      > > > >> material off of the camera's tape than if it were entirely digital,
                      > > > > (snip)
                      > > > >
                      > > > > It *is* "entirely digital". Just because it is recorded on tape does
                      > > not
                      > > > > automatically make it analog.
                      > > >
                      > > >
                      > > > I'm well aware it's a digital file - sorry, i can see where it sounds
                      > > > like I was saying the opposite. Right - the tie aspect comes in that the
                      > > > transfer from a digital tape will always be in real time, where if it
                      > > > were a file on a camera's SD card it would be somewhat faster.
                      > > >
                      > > > I struggle with this at work actually - we use broadcast cameras that
                      > > > record directly onto memory cards, but occasionally I bring in my Canon
                      > > > XL-H1 HDV camera, and some guys at my work think I'm delivering an
                      > > > inferior product... even though they're both digital material as you say.
                      > > >
                      > > >
                      > > >
                      > > >
                      > > > --
                      > > > --
                      > > > Bohus Blahut
                      > > > (BOH-hoosh BLAH-hoot)
                      > > >
                      > > > modern filmmaker
                      > > >
                      > >
                      > >
                      > >
                      >
                      >
                      > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                      >
                    • neophoto3000
                      After mulling everything over, I decided to order the Kodak Zi8. The video I shoot with my iPod Touch is decent, but I m not happy with the way it handles skin
                      Message 10 of 29 , Mar 7, 2011
                      • 0 Attachment
                        After mulling everything over, I decided to order the Kodak Zi8. The video I shoot with my iPod Touch is decent, but I'm not happy with the way it handles skin tones. And anyway, the Zi8 is just a hundred bucks on Amazon.

                        Thanks again, everybody!
                        Chris



                        --- In videoblogging@yahoogroups.com, David Jones <david.jones@...> wrote:
                        >
                        > On Mon, Mar 7, 2011 at 11:30 AM, neophoto3000 <cjburdick@...> wrote:
                        > >
                        > > I generally only have 2 or 3 spare GB on my iPod Touch. About how much "footage" could I record?
                        >
                        > Any decent 1280x720 H.264 footage is going to be around 8-9Mbit/sec,
                        > but depends on the codec.
                        > At that ballpark you are talking approx 1MB/sec = 60MB/min = 3.6GB/hour.
                        >
                        > Dave.
                        >
                      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.