~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


"Charlie Groh" <chasgroh@dslextremerage.com> wrote in message news:rid8k49vpjhsooppc33ec18t2c2j24toav@4ax.com...

> I was just fishing around for a simple arithmatic to define how much
> magnification I'm getting from any given focal length. Ran into a
> bunch of things/explanations that made my head hurt...so anyone here
> have a simply (hah) way to calculate magnification...

> cg

You may add this to the confusion, showing that halving/doubling the 
focal lengths doesn't necessarily halve/double the angle of view, all 
else being equal, and the same would be true for "magnification". ;-)
www.donferrario.com/ruether/lens-angle-of-view-and-perspective.htm 
--DR


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"David Ruether" <d_ruether@thotmail.com> wrote in message news:gi31ec$34$1@ruby.cit.cornell.edu... 
> "Charlie Groh" <chasgroh@dslextremerage.com> wrote in message news:rid8k49vpjhsooppc33ec18t2c2j24toav@4ax.com...

>> I was just fishing around for a simple arithmatic to define how much
>> magnification I'm getting from any given focal length. Ran into a
>> bunch of things/explanations that made my head hurt...so anyone here
>> have a simply (hah) way to calculate magnification...
>>
>> cg

> You may add this to the confusion, showing that halving/doubling the
> focal lengths doesn't necessarily halve/double the angle of view, all
> else being equal, and the same would be true for "magnification". ;-)
> www.donferrario.com/ruether/lens-angle-of-view-and-perspective.htm
> --DR 

To the above, which covered mainly angles of view changes with 
FL changes, and WA perspective quirks, I have added the effects 
of FL types on magnification, and the effects of various lens focus 
types. 
--DR 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

<sligoNoSPAMjoe@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:u9aak4heqn2574nd35h9dfjgt5dis0jnvg@4ax.com...

> I am sorry if that is not as clear as I would like. To do it right
> would require a few photos and examples. More like a chapter in a
> book. Maybe someone else can get it clearer than I.

It may not be very clear, but you are right that there are many 
variables. Try wading through this (the math is not complex):
www.donferrario.com/ruether/lens-angle-of-view-and-perspective.htm, 
although in the end, (if you compensate for viewfinder error if 
you use that to judge...), Paul Furman's advice may be the best, 
which was, "If you have the lens, just photograph a ruler." ;-)
--DR


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"John McWilliams" <jpmcw@comcast.net> wrote in message news:gi5rur$v6j$1@reader.motzarella.org...
> Pete D wrote:
>> "mianileng" <mianileng@invalid.invalid> wrote in message 
>> news:gi3g4t$1lq$1@news.motzarella.org...
>>> mianileng wrote:

>>>> I've borrowed several MiniDV tapes covering my kids' school
>>>> function and want to capture them in my computer for editing at a
>>>> convenient time. Windows Movie Maker lets me do this in AVI, WMV,
>>>> etc. But it will take up 100+ GB in AVI and since the cameras
>>>> were operated by amateurs and the stage lighting was poor, I
>>>> think storing them in AVI would be overkill. OTOH, I would like
>>>> to avoid a serious drop in quality and I'm not sure about the
>>>> quality or versatility of WMV. So I thought capturing them as
>>>> MPEG-2 would be a good compromise (please correct me if I'm wrong
>>>> here), but WMM doesn't do mpeg-2.
>>>>
>>>> I didn't have much success searching for a free tool that will
>>>> let me capture in mpeg-2. Can anyone please point in the right
>>>> direction?

>> Mini DV to AVI will be around 13Gb per hour so if you only have a "couple" 
>> of tapes just record direct with firewire, edit then convert to MPEG2 or 
>> whatever format and then delete the original files if you need the room. 

> I'd think this is key: Edit in the original format, then delete the 
> cuts, empty trash, then convert.

> You can do this on Macs in iMovie, or Final Cut Pro.
> -- 
> john mcwilliams

And with 'most any other editing program - but I would keep 
the edited Mini-DV video for safety since it is higher quality 
than the MPEG-2 converted file and that is not all that much 
smaller than a Mini-DV file (if the MPEG-2 file is high quality).
--DR

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"John Navas" <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote in message news:nm4dk4pgqi0dckasamdt7nlgemddrjdrhs@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 15 Dec 2008 22:49:17 +0530, "mianileng"
> <mianileng@invalid.invalid> wrote in <gi63j1$bid$2@news.motzarella.org>:

>>My thanks to you and the others for all the helpful replies. I 
>>decided to capture them as uncompressed AVI files after all as I 
>>have to return the tapes soon and don't have time to experiment 
>>with alternatives. I'm now on the last of seven cassettes and it 
>>looks like they're going to take up about 100 GB. Some were shot 
>>in 4:3, some in widescreen, some in LP mode.

> Consider investing in a Blu-ray burner -- great way to archive them.
> -- 
> Best regards,
> John Navas

Huh??? Since when is any optical disk "archival", and at a 
current price of $12 each for Blu-ray blanks, that would 
hardly be cheap. Better would be FireWire copying of the 
tapes to other tapes using a (borrowed?) second Mini-DV 
camcorder - or after being captured in the computer, the 
files could be sent back out to Mini-DV tapes for storage 
if immediate use of the files is not desired. (BTW, for the 
OP, Mini-DV is compressed 5:1...) For final archiving 
of edited material, writing the videos to multiple internal 
hard drives and also to a couple of (checked) Mini-DV 
tape copies works well.
--DR

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"John Navas" <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote in message 
news:o99dk4ljhooc37atfj867c0s3a4hffc86f@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 15 Dec 2008 13:11:14 -0500, "David Ruether"
> <d_ruether@thotmail.com> wrote in <gi66k2$t63$1@ruby.cit.cornell.edu>:
>>"John Navas" <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote in message 
news:nm4dk4pgqi0dckasamdt7nlgemddrjdrhs@4ax.com...

>>> Consider investing in a Blu-ray burner -- great way to archive them.

>>Huh??? Since when is any [recordable] optical disk "archival", 

> Optical disc is considered archival, far more so than tape or hard disk.

> Blu-ray recordable has longer life expectancy than DVD recordable:
> <http://www.blu-raydimensions.com/recordable-blu-ray/recordable-blu-ray-discs/>

There is nothing there that indicates anything about absolute longevity, 
just likely relative longevity of the various types of recordable disks. 
But guess what decades old music is archived on...;-)

> Standard Blu-ray life expectancy is at least 30-50 years:
> <http://www.businesswire.com/portal/site/google/index.jsp?ndmViewId=news_view&newsId=20060410005113&newsLang=en>

Whew! $20 and $48 for the write-only TDK disks. Mighty expensive 
potential "coasters" (maybe cheaper now...), but the piece does make 
some claims for longer-term stability due to the choice of writable layer 
materials choice (but, then, I once believed in Santa Claus...;-).

> Delkin Archival Gold is rated at 200 years:
> <http://www.delkin.com/products/archivalgold/archival-blue-ray-delkin.html>

Delkin (at $27 per disk) is very expensive, and nothing on this site does 
anything but make claims about longevity.

> New technology may have a 500 year life:
> <http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/Xplore/login.jsp?url=/iel5/10873/34238/01632781.pdf?tp=&isnumber=&arnumber=1632781>

"Vaporware"...

>>and at a
>>current price of $12 each for Blu-ray blanks, that would
>>hardly be cheap. 

> About half that price in a cake box:
> <http://www.supermediastore.com/memorex-32020013358-blu-ray-write-once-4x-25gb-bd-r-single-layer-media.html>

If one wants them by the ton...;-) Tape is still cheaper, good long 
term, and it doesn't rely on an often-fleeting die image for recording. 

>>Better would be FireWire copying of the
>>tapes to other tapes using a (borrowed?) second Mini-DV
>>camcorder - or after being captured in the computer, the
>>files could be sent back out to Mini-DV tapes for storage
>>if immediate use of the files is not desired. (BTW, for the
>>OP, Mini-DV is compressed 5:1...) 

> Tape is not a good archival media.

Ridiculous. It has been used for that purpose for decades, and 
properly stored tapes, especially digital ones in good formats, are 
quite reliable over long periods. Heck, even my decades old 
analogue VHS tapes are just fine. Commercially pressed CDs, 
DVDs, and Blu-ray disks *are* relatively permanent, but I have 
seen writable optical disks become useless within a couple of 
weeks. Trust them if you want for archiving (or for use in showing 
material to others), but I will continue to use a combination of 
multiple hard drives and tapes for archiving (although nothing is 
permanent, of course...).

>>For final archiving
>>of edited material, writing the videos to multiple internal
>>hard drives and also to a couple of (checked) Mini-DV
>>tape copies works well.

> Hard drives have less life than Blu-ray, and are subject to accidental
> erasure.
> -- 
> Best regards,
> John Navas

I therefore keep material on multiple drives for those reasons.
The remaining drive (or a tape) after a failure can be used to 
restore the stored video contents of a lost drive or tape. I use 
internal drives since they can be cooled better than external ones 
if those are run continuously, and if they are not, external ones 
can freeze up from disuse. The above should not be taken to 
mean that I don't also back up to writable optical disks, but that 
I trust these the least for long term storage...
--DR


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"John Navas" <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote in message news:grkfk4dlerql5d51sjh0seje32dnr3qklb@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 16 Dec 2008 10:32:49 -0500, "David Ruether"
> <d_ruether@thotmail.com> wrote in <gi8hmv$dca$1@ruby.cit.cornell.edu>: 
>>"John Navas" <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote in message
>>news:o99dk4ljhooc37atfj867c0s3a4hffc86f@4ax.com...

>>> Blu-ray recordable has longer life expectancy than DVD recordable:
>>> <http://www.blu-raydimensions.com/recordable-blu-ray/recordable-blu-ray-discs/>

>>There is nothing there that indicates anything about absolute longevity,
>>just likely relative longetivity of the various types of recordable disks.
>>But guess what decades old music is archived on...;-)

> Optical disc. Check with the Library of Congress.

Yes - I think they made the early assumption that "digital is better" and 
that *written* optical disks have the longevity of *pressed* ones, both 
of which are unlikely correct. Century old music recordings are still 
playable, and often sound better than the digital copies. Paper originals 
of documents or film copies of them have extremely long lives, unlike 
optical disks. The L. of C. is still issuing music recordings made from 
tapes made in the early days of that medium.

>>>>and at a
>>>>current price of $12 each for Blu-ray blanks, that would
>>>>hardly be cheap.

>>> About half that price in a cake box:
>>> <http://www.supermediastore.com/memorex-32020013358-blu-ray-write-once-4x-25gb-bd-r-single-layer-media.html>

>>If one wants them by the ton...;-) 

> 15 in a cake box for less than $100, typical of many optical disc
> purchases, is hardly a "ton". ;)

The "better" ones...? And $100 buys a fairly large HD...

>>Tape is still cheaper, good long
>>term, and it doesn't rely on an often-fleeting die image for recording.

> True, false and false. Tape is known to be a poor archival medium due
> to problems of print-through*, binder breakdown, shedding, physical
> damage, etc. 

It can have problems, but guess what old music masters were/are stored 
on - and I have 35+ year old tape masters that are just fine.

> * <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Print-through>

It is real, but generally not significant even in analogue music recordings, 
and it is insignificant in digital tape music recordings.

>>> Tape is not a good archival media.

>>Ridiculous. 

> True nonetheless. Do some research.

I have some experience with it...

>>Heck, even my decades old
>>analogue VHS tapes are just fine. 

> That's anecdotal, you are very lucky, and I'm willing to bet there has
> been significant signal degradation.

Theoretically, yes - but the tapes I own from many sources and of 
many ages are fine.

>>Commercially pressed CDs,
>>DVDs, and Blu-ray disks *are* relatively permanent, but I have
>>seen writable optical disks become useless within a couple of
>>weeks. 

> Then they were probably cheap junk in the first place or improperly
> written. 

Improperly stored, as an experiment. I dislike potentially fleeting 
media permanence.

> When people buy the cheapest junk they can find and then complain about
> problems I just shake my head. If you want your optical media to last,
> then you need to buy a top brand like Taiyo Yuden or Verbatim
> DataLifePlus that actually makes their own media. Most brands are the
> cheapest discs they can find at the moment on the OEM market.

True, and good advice. But none of this really helps the OP's situation, for 
which there is a much simpler solution.

>>Trust them if you want for archiving (or for use in showing
>>material to others), but I will continue to use a combination of
>>multiple hard drives and tapes for archiving (although nothing is
>>permanent, of course...).

> OK. "Different strokes for different folks." 

Yes. 

> I've already long since retired all of my LPs and tapes, digitizing and
> transferring to optical disc (high-grade CD-R and MO). Further
> degradation is no longer a concern.

But some would argue that by digitizing these, you have at that point 
degraded the sound of the LPs and tapes. (Have you heard that LPs 
are making a minor comeback - and maybe this is for a reason...;-)

> Please note that, unlike recordable CD and Blu-ray, I give only a
> qualified recommendation to the various recordable DVD formats, because
> they are based on a laminated technology that might lead to problems, as
> compared to the single polycarbonate layer in the other formats.

Good information. I still wonder about the reliability of the MUCH 
higher density of the information on Blu-ray disks compared with CDs, 
though...

> Please also note that I speak from experience, having been in management
> of a company that made tapes and discs.
> -- 
> Best regards,
> John
--DR

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"John Navas" <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote in message news:3rhik4h55vt4evtjpvcso6bkb3655bk4ac@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 17 Dec 2008 12:41:54 -0500, "David Ruether"
> <d_ruether@thotmail.com> wrote in <gibdl1$kp8$1@ruby.cit.cornell.edu>:
>>"John Navas" <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote in message news:grkfk4dlerql5d51sjh0seje32dnr3qklb@4ax.com...

[Excerpting things we either agree on, or are unlikely to...;-]

>>Century old music recordings are still
>>playable, and often sound better than the digital copies. 

> Subjectively perhaps, but not when careful double-blind testing is done.

Yes, but that is the point. I sit on both sides of this. When I play a recording 
that I have in both vinyl and digital, the digital sounds fine (and has some 
obvious advantages in freedom from "wow" [my damped tone arms take 
care of bump-induced flutter] and surface noise), but my limit for pleasurable 
listening seems to be consistently about two to three disks in a session. 
The LPs do not sound "better" short term, but I enjoy much longer listening 
sessions with them, being eager to pop on one after another, unlike with CDs.
Anecdotal, perhaps, but this has been a consistent experience for me.

>>Paper originals
>>of documents or film copies of them have extremely long lives, unlike
>>optical disks. 

> Both paper and film degrade badly is not stored in ideal conditions, 
> which is why people are now desperately working to restore them. 
> Non-archival paper is particularly bad.
> And see <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Film_preservation#Film_decay>

Yes, of course. And try putting a written CD/DVD in the sun for a couple 
of weeks. One assumes that good storage methods will be used for media 
that are intended for archiving, regardless of the media type.

>>> * <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Print-through>

>>It is real, but generally not significant even in analogue music recordings,
>>and it is insignificant in digital tape music recordings.

> I respectfully disagree -- you can't really have it both ways -- an
> analog recording with print-through sounds pretty bad.

I agree - but I have many, decades old, that are fine. It may have to do 
with recorded levels, whether the tape is stored tail first or last, and whether 
a noise reduction system was used while recording and playing back the 
audio tape content.

>>> Then they were probably cheap junk in the first place or improperly
>>> written.

>>Improperly stored, as an experiment. I dislike potentially fleeting
>>media permanence.

> You'll have even more problems that way with tape, LPs, film and paper.
> Again, you can't have it both ways.

Silly argument. One should assume (reasonably) ideal storage for 
all, but be willing to test all for fragility. No medium so far devised is 
permanent, but the standard is, "is it good enough for the purpose". 
Anything else is an exercise - but that may have some value if a 
particular medium that is convenient to use, likely to be playable long 
term, and inexpensive stands out well above the others for permanence 
(your point also, I know, but we may be "jiggling" the desired parameters 
differently in coming to conclusions...;-).

>>> I've already long since retired all of my LPs and tapes, digitizing and
>>> transferring to optical disc (high-grade CD-R and MO). Further
>>> degradation is no longer a concern.

>>But some would argue that by digitizing these, you have at that point
>>degraded the sound of the LPs and tapes. (Have you heard that LPs
>>are making a minor comeback - and maybe this is for a reason...;-)

> See comment above about double-blind, and you're probably assuming 
> I used consumer audio CD encoding, which I didn't. 

In that particular case, not likely easily available to most, then yes. The 
best audio recordings I have yet heard of any type are the very high definition 
digital ones - but these appear unfortunately to be dying out for lack of 
enough popularity to support disks and players. Darn!

>>> Please note that, unlike recordable CD and Blu-ray, I give only a
>>> qualified recommendation to the various recordable DVD formats, because
>>> they are based on a laminated technology that might lead to problems, as
>>> compared to the single polycarbonate layer in the other formats.

>>Good information. I still wonder about the reliability of the MUCH
>>higher density of the information on Blu-ray disks compared with CDs,
>>though...

> The difference in laser frequency is comparable, and technology has
> improved considerably in the decades since the audio CD was invented.
> Blu-ray shouldn't be worse -- if anything, it should be better.
> -- 
> Best regards,
> John

OK, "sounds" good...! 8^) I hope this is right. I have all the "goodies" for 
writing and playing Blu-ray, but I don't like the prospect of writing even 
one $7 "coaster", so it will be a while before I write Blu-ray disks (other 
than rewritable ones).
--DR

~~~~~~~~~~~

"John Navas" <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote in message news:ld5lk4l1c44dnnlukg6em80eh5vsqrtbdb@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 18 Dec 2008 13:03:14 -0500, "David Ruether"
> <d_ruether@thotmail.com> wrote in <gie390$l55$1@ruby.cit.cornell.edu>: 
>>"John Navas" <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote in message news:3rhik4h55vt4evtjpvcso6bkb3655bk4ac@4ax.com...
>>> On Wed, 17 Dec 2008 12:41:54 -0500, "David Ruether"
>>> <d_ruether@thotmail.com> wrote in <gibdl1$kp8$1@ruby.cit.cornell.edu>:
[Comparing LPs and CDs]

>>When I play a recording
>>that I have in both vinyl and digital, the digital sounds fine (and has some
>>obvious advantages in freedom from "wow" [my damped tone arms take
>>care of bump-induced flutter] and surface noise), but my limit for pleasurable
>>listening seems to be consistently about two to three disks in a session.
>>The LPs do not sound "better" short term, but I enjoy much longer listening
>>sessions with them, being eager to pop on one after another, unlike with CDs.
>>Anecdotal, perhaps, but this has been a consistent experience for me.

> I'm not surprised -- studies I've seen say that pressed LP has a
> slightly warmer and blurrier "analog" sound, more and more as the LP
> wears, whereas CD audio has a slightly crisper and harsher "digital"
> sound, depending on the D-A conversion circuitry. This is why better CD
> players really do sound a bit better, although the difference is small,
> and why it can be more fatiguing to listen to CD than to LP. Audio CD
> encoding is on the edge of not being good enough 

This has been my experience, at least short-term. The ordinary commercial 
CD may be slightly "flatter" in response, with a slightly wider frequency range 
and more impressive sound short term, but for long term listening, the LP is 
generally more satisfying and pleasing, likely for the reasons you gave. I
prefer the latter conditions for listening to music...

> -- it's a shame that
> Super Audio CD (dynamic range of 120 dB from 20 Hz to 20 kHz and an
> extended frequency response up to 100 kHz, somewhat comparable to PCM
> format with bit depth of 20 bits and sampling frequency of 192 kHz)
> and/or DVD Audio (up to 24 bits at up to 192 kHz) [never] caught on.

I agree. These formats appear to combine accuracy with pleasantness.

>>>>[Print-through]

[...]
>>> --an analog recording with print-through sounds pretty bad.

>>I agree - but I have many, decades old, that are fine. It may have to do
>>with recorded levels, whether the tape is stored tail first or last, and whether
>>a noise reduction system was used while recording and playing back the
>>audio tape content.

> It's partly due to the formulation and characteristics of the magnetic
> material, and partly due to poor storage -- stored magnetic tapes should
> be rewound end-to-end regularly. ;)

[...] 
>>> and you're probably assuming
>>> I used consumer audio CD encoding, which I didn't.

[...]
> DVD Audio is supported by software and some DVD players (e.g., Technics
> DVD-A10)

> Audio DVD (DVD Video with just audio tracks, up to 24-bits/96 kHz PCM
> format, also AC-3) can be played on any DVD player. That's my
> recommendation for you.

> Professional audio recorders are available at not unreasonable prices to
> record high quality audio for DVD Audio and/or audio DVD, which can be
> authored on a personal computer.

> I personally have a video recorder that's also capable of
> high-resolution PCM audio recording. I then transferred the recordings
> to optical disc for archiving as data.
> -- 
> Best regards,
> John

Thanks for the information. I do operate on a VERY tight budget these 
days, unfortunately, and my equipment purchases are mostly behind me.
--DR

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"John Navas" <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote in message news:vailk4hh4buivf17jiotctvpn2l8mncd1h@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 18 Dec 2008 16:56:09 -0500, "David Ruether"
> <d_ruether@thotmail.com> wrote in <giegto$hc5$1@ruby.cit.cornell.edu>: 
>>"John Navas" <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote in message news:ld5lk4l1c44dnnlukg6em80eh5vsqrtbdb@4ax.com...

>>> I'm not surprised -- studies I've seen say that pressed LP has a
>>> slightly warmer and blurrier "analog" sound, more and more as the LP
>>> wears, whereas CD audio has a slightly crisper and harsher "digital"
>>> sound, depending on the D-A conversion circuitry. This is why better CD
>>> players really do sound a bit better, although the difference is small,
>>> and why it can be more fatiguing to listen to CD than to LP. Audio CD
>>> encoding is on the edge of not being good enough

>>This has been my experience, at least short-term. The ordinary commercial
>>CD may be slightly "flatter" in response, with a slightly wider frequency range
>>and more impressive sound short term, but for long term listening, the LP is
>>generally more satisfying and pleasing, likely for the reasons you gave. I
>>prefer the latter conditions for listening to music...

> Different strokes and all that sort of thing -- LP surface noise drives
> me crazy in short order -- I'd much rather have audio CD sound. True,
> new premium virgin vinyl LP can sound very good indeed, but I can't
> justify that kind of cost.
> -- 
> Best regards,
> John

I've always been a "nut" about LP condition, sometimes returning 
new disks a few times to get quieter ones - and I have taken 
great care with my many disks. With originally-good disks, surface 
noise is close to inaudible, or marred only occasionally by the slightest 
of "ticks". Using a properly aligned cartridge and tone arm with no 
significant resonances within the audible range (and no resulting 
exaggerated high frequency roughness and peaking or bass flabbiness), 
a speaker system that is similarly smooth (that means NOT HORNS! - I 
use electrostatics or ribbons, but many dynamic types can also be good, 
if less detailed), and good electronics (the cartridges, speakers, and 
preamps vary widely in sound quality, amplifiers somewhat less, and 
there are a few other variables - but I do not indulge in the common 
audio nuttiness about those...;-), then my up to 40 year old LPs still 
sound great (at least those that originally sounded that way - although 
I do have some that for various reasons I still value that were never 
sonically very good). Which is not to say that I will never opt for the 
convenience of playing CDs (I have many), but they are noticeably 
less satisfying and more fatiguing to listen to than most good LPs. 
Again, in a "side-by-side" test, there may be very little difference, or 
the CD may "win". It is in longer listening sessions that I want to quit 
early when playing CDs, but want to just keep playing LPs. (My 
anectdotal info - and it likely would not hold true if high definition 
audio disks were added to the mix, since I would probably prefer 
those...;-)
--DR

~~~~~~~~~~~

"John Navas" <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote in message news:rvplk4lek28iqsigb4gs5s7m8bitp6a072@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 18 Dec 2008 19:12:38 -0500, nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote
> in <181220081912386130%nospam@nospam.invalid>: 
>>In article <ld5lk4l1c44dnnlukg6em80eh5vsqrtbdb@4ax.com>, John Navas
>><spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote:

>>> it's a shame that
>>> Super Audio CD (dynamic range of 120 dB from 20 Hz to 20 kHz and an
>>> extended frequency response up to 100 kHz, somewhat comparable to PCM
>>> format with bit depth of 20 bits and sampling frequency of 192 kHz)
>>> and/or DVD Audio (up to 24 bits at up to 192 kHz) caught on.

>>it was a solution looking for a problem. the difference is inaudible
>>to just about everyone. what human can hear 50khz let alone 100khz? i
>>suppose it might matter if someone was buying a stereo for a dog or
>>cat. even people who spend ridiculous amounts of money on fancy
>>speaker cables couldn't tell the difference between their overpriced
>>lamp cord and a coat hangar.

> I can hear the difference. It's not just a matter of frequency.
> -- 
> Best regards,
> John

I agree. My thoughts about it were similar to "nospam's" before hearing 
it, but the differences are easily audible ***THROUGHOUT*** the 
audible range, as an increased sense of space, depth, image "firmness", 
instrumental sound accuracy and "tonal completeness", etc. The experience 
was a real "ear opener". ;-) On good gear, even with hearing that cuts 
off not much above 10kHz, the differences were not subtle. Having been 
an audio nut for decades, and having designed and built gear (and having 
done some testing regarding why some things sound different from others), 
I can say that some of the "cheap tricks" for detail increase were not used.
HD audio just plain *is* better! Too bad MP3s rule, and the best lost...
--DR

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"nospam" <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote in message news:181220082213154448%nospam@nospam.invalid...
> In article <qmrlk4dr38ss165f80cblqnmp7egncbse9@4ax.com>, John Navas
> <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote:

>> Better audio never caught on because of the copy protection issue.

> copy protection didn't stop apple's itunes music store from catching on
> and becoming the largest music retailer in the usa, surpassing walmart. 
> the reason exotic high end audio doesn't catch on and remains a niche
> is because most people can't tell the difference.

Possibly true, since most people don't really care about the quality 
of their sound playback gear or its ideal placement in a room, thus 
concealing the many potential advantages of having better sources. 
Yet people will buy those dreadful five-tiny-speakers-plus-boom-box 
systems for their TVs, or mistake the "Bozo" table radios for a decent 
(even cheap) stereo system. Meanwhile, the remaining market for 
decent sound quality (let alone for the highest quality audio) dries up 
when most accept the trade-off of sound quality from MP3s that is 
inferior to even standard CDs in favor of convenience (although there 
is still some market for LPs, surprisingly - but I suspect that this may 
be more fad than long-lasting...).
--DR


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"Jan Poulsen" <jpoulsen2@tiscali.dk> wrote in message news:494a77bc$0$56793$edfadb0f@dtext02.news.tele.dk...

>I am often near the Rockies and I have for years tried to get at photo that 
> really reflects the size of the mountains, but they always turn out more 
> like hills than the majestic giants they are. Is there a trick to doing 
> this, or do I need to use a specific type of lense?

> My equipment is a Nikon D70 with the standard Nikkor AF-S 18-70mm 1:3.5-4.5G 
> ED. I have also tried with a Sigma DC 18-200mm 1:3.5-6.3 D, but neither 
> gave the wanted result.

> I would appreciate any suggestions. Thanks. 

You can do it with long lenses, framing the scene tightly with 
mostly mountains (by moving in), and also by giving size 
references (as with foreground subject elements of familiar 
scale, like bodies of water with trees, etc. - and you can also 
use the reflections of the mountains in the water to increase 
their apparent height). Clouds also help to show scale. You 
can also shoot with wide lenses, but these must be level or 
pointed down somewhat so as to minimize the "building falling 
over backward" effect, and you can even exaggerate the 
"building falling over forward" effect to make the mountains 
look taller. Play with the framing - the tighter, usually the better 
(and don't forget about using vertical framing...). Another "trick" 
is to shoot taller mountains. ;-) While the Rockies are tall, the 
plain they spring from is also high, limiting their visual height 
to about 5,000'. Did you know what the highest mountain in the 
world is as viewed from its *visible* base to its peak? It is Mt. 
Rainier, in Washington State! 8^) While we're at it, did you 
know what the highest mountain in the world is from its physical 
base (something that someone could conceivably stand on...;-) 
and its peak? Mt.Kilawaia, in Hawaii...;-) Compared with these 
(and many others, like many mountains in the Canadian Rockies, 
the Olympics, the Himalayas, and the range that Denali [which 
has more bulk and rise than Everest] is in), the American 
Rockies look rather small - which is to say, start with other than 
"pip-squeak" mountains to begin with... 8^)
--DR

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"Alan Smithee" <me@privacy.net> wrote in message news:TcSdnS7yhNdMGNfUnZ2dnUVZ8oidnZ2d@pipex.net...
> "David Ruether" <d_ruether@thotmail.com> wrote in message 
> news:gie09u$g4i$1@ruby.cit.cornell.edu...
>> "Jan Poulsen" <jpoulsen2@tiscali.dk> wrote in message 
>> news:494a77bc$0$56793$edfadb0f@dtext02.news.tele.dk...

>>>I am often near the Rockies and I have for years tried to get at photo 
>>>that really reflects the size of the mountains, but they always turn out 
>>>more like hills than the majestic giants they are. Is there a trick to 
>>>doing this, or do I need to use a specific type of lense?
>>>
>>> My equipment is a Nikon D70 with the standard Nikkor AF-S 18-70mm 
>>> 1:3.5-4.5G ED. I have also tried with a Sigma DC 18-200mm 1:3.5-6.3 D, 
>>> but neither gave the wanted result.
>>>
>>> I would appreciate any suggestions. Thanks.

>> You can do it with long lenses, framing the scene tightly with
>> mostly mountains (by moving in), and also by giving size
>> references (as with foreground subject elements of familiar
>> scale, like bodies of water with trees, etc. - and you can also
>> use the reflections of the mountains in the water to increase
>> their apparent height). Clouds also help to show scale. You
>> can also shoot with wide lenses, but these must be level or
>> pointed down somewhat so as to minimize the "building falling
>> over backward" effect, and you can even exaggerate the
>> "building falling over forward" effect to make the mountains
>> look taller. Play with the framing - the tighter, usually the better
>> (and don't forget about using vertical framing...). Another "trick"
>> is to shoot taller mountains. ;-) While the Rockies are tall, the
>> plain they spring from is also high, limiting their height to about
>> 5,000'. Did you know what the highest mountain in the world
>> is as viewed from its *visible* base to its peak? It is Mt. Rainier,
>> in Washington State! 8^) While we're at it, did you know what
>> the highest mountain in the world is from its physical base
>> (something that someone could conceivably stand on...;-) and
>> its peak? Mt.Kilawaia, in Hawaii...;-) Compared with these 
>> (and many others, like many mountains in the Canadian Rockies, 
>> the Olympics, the Himalayas, and the range that Denali [which 
>> has more bulk and rise than Everest] is in), the American 
>> Rockies look rather small - which is to say, start with other than 
>> "pip-squeak" mountains to begin with... 8^)

> My missus has some big Himalayas. What's the best way to photograph them?

Hmmm... Well, gosh, I guess you will just need to try applying some 
of the suggestions already made in this thread. The principles are the 
same...8^)
--DR

~~~~~~~~~~~

"Shankar Bhattacharyya" <sbhattac@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message news:Xns9B86EAFE62808sbhattacatattnet@127.0.0.1...

> Rainier is, of course, a dramatic peak with a dramatic rise. I have
> looked at it often from up on Queen Anne Hill in Seattle, looking across
> the harbour. It is a beautiful mountain.
>
> There are places in the Himalaya and associated ranges which are quite
> spectacular in their prominence to the eye.
>
> From the spot called Concordia, south of K2 in the Karakoram, you can
> see K2 rise 13-14000 feet above where you stand, a three or four hour
> hike from the base of the mountain. In fact, you can see four peaks
> higher than 8000 metres in height, more than you can see from any other
> single location in the world. That includes all four 8000 m peaks in the
> Karakoram.
>
> From the Shaksgam valley just north of K2 there is a spot where you get
> a close up view straight at the northern face of the mountain, soaring
> above the valley. However, there are so many high mountains in the
> rather small area that there are few places from which you can see even
> the top of this, the second highest mountain in the world. this is onew
> of the closest. Both views I mention are from glaciers running down off
> K2.
>
> In the Everest region the best view of the mountain is probably from the
> north, say near the Rongbuk monastery, from where you see the dramatic
> north face.
>
> In the central Himalaya, in the Annapurna region, there are dramatic
> views. One is of Macchapuchare from the Pokhara region of Nepal, easily
> one of the most beautiful mountains anywhere. The Annapurna range has a
> rather dramatic rise, from the Pokhara vallless than 3000 ft to the
> 26000 plus feet of some of the mountains, over a distance of only about
> 30 miles, without serious intermediate ranges.
>
> From Darjeeling, where the tea comes from, at about 7000 ft above sea
> level, you can look out across a valley whose floor is at perhaps 3000
> ft, across a distnce of 45 miles, to Kanchenjunga, third highest
> mountain in the world, soaring to 21,000 feat above where you stand.
> Between you and the mountain there is a dinky little peak called Dome
> Peak, completely insignificant against the backdrop, its 20000 ft height
> barely noticeable.
>
> The only view I have seen of these, regrettably, is that of
> Kanchenjunga. I took a lot of pictures but this was in the film era and
> I have no scans. I spent more than five hours one morning, from well
> before sunrise, taking pictures of the mountain as it glowed under
> moonlight before dawn, through the spectacular changes in colour as the
> sun rose behind me and lit up the mountain, to a pale white to pink to
> gold to a brilliant white against the blue sky. Some of those pictures
> are fairly acceptable. If I get them scanned at some point, I will post.
> I have slides. My pictures were taken with a Canon FTb and a 50mm f/1.4
> lens.
>
> The visual effect greatly exceeds what my pictures captured, not least
> because over a fairly dramatic field of view the skyline is above 20,000
> ft. You cannot capture that and emphasize the height of the centre of
> that field of view at the same time.
>
> Images of K2 from Concordia, Everest from everywhere around it,
> Machhapuchare from Pokhara and Kanchenjunga from Darjeeling are easily
> available via a Google search. A satisfactory view of Macchapuchare
> (which means fish-tail, for its split peak, not visible in this view) is
> at: http://www.jungle-medicine.eu/Alex/pic/phewa_lake.jpg . I am a
> sucker for reflected mountains.
>
> - Shankar

NEAT comments! Thanks!
--DR 

~~~~~~~~~~~

"David Ruether" <d_ruether@thotmail.com> wrote in
news:gjlr5s$kjd$1@ruby.cit.cornell.edu: 

> You may note that I snipped out my own original post and also
> those parts that referred to it in "Shankar's" post. I normally do
> severe editing when replying (but in a way that preserves relevant
> material in the original exchanges), but since "Shankar's" post not
> only added vast amounts to mine, it also corrected (gently...)
> some of my material. 

Allow me to apologize for seeming to correct your material, however 
gentle that might have seemed. I had no correction to offer.

I think you are probably right about Rainier having the largest clear 
view of a mountain from base to summit. I have come across that idea 
before and I have no reason to doubt it. The rest of what you wrote 
about clearly viewable altitude was also carefully stated and I have 
no reason to question any of it.

I am quite conscious of the fact that some of the views I wrote about 
have a major mountain on the far side of an intermediate range between 
the viewer and the mountain. That does not meet the criterion of a 
clearly viewable vertical height for the mountain itself.

Thus, the view of Kanchenjunga from Darjeeling is not of all of 
Kanchenjunga. It is of the upper 8000 feet of Kanchenjunga, over on 
the far side of the mid-sized range of 20000 ft mountains between 
Darjeeling and Kanchenjunga.

Other views are from sufficiently high altitude that less than half 
the nominal height of the mountain remains.

For instance, the more dramatic views of K2 are from glaciers at about 
15000 ft. At that point you are already more than half-way "up" K2 
relative to sea level, with about 13000 ft to go (the most lethal 
13000 ft climb in the world). 13000 ft is less than the rise of 
Rainier.

Similarly, Rongbuk monastery in Tibet is by a glacier of the same 
name, at about 17000 ft. At that point there is only 12000 ft of 
Everest left. It is, however, only a few miles away and the ice-face 
is enormous.

I am just mentioning a few views which probably do not meet the clear-
height criterion but are reasonably dramatic nonetheless.

Finally, I don't want this to become a thread about views. The 
original poster asked how to capture the dramatic aspect presented to 
the eye. I am as interested in answers to that question as he is. His 
question is about technique, relevant to every view we have written 
about here.

I'll shut up now and wait for an answer. I got quite reasonable 
pictures of Kanchenjunga but my attempt to capture the towering 
mountain did not work. I hope to learn something, just as he does.

- Shankar

~~~~~~~~~~


"Shankar Bhattacharyya" <sbhattac@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message news:Xns9B87D490A3D5Csbhattacatattnet@127.0.0.1...

[...]
> Finally, I don't want this to become a thread about views. The 
> original poster asked how to capture the dramatic aspect presented to 
> the eye. I am as interested in answers to that question as he is. His 
> question is about technique, relevant to every view we have written 
> about here.
>
> - Shankar

I had given some ideas earlier, as had others, that may help 
(or not...;-) -- 

">> You can do it with long lenses, framing the scene tightly with
>> mostly mountains (by moving in),

This often causes a resulting "shooting up the hill" effect, which is 
very contraproductive. I have many of those, which turned the 
huge Rainier into a "molehill"..;-) One needs to shoot level or 
pointing down a bit, preferably from a good, but nearby, vantage 
point (*if* such is possible...;-). I have some impressive photos 
of Rainier shot from a ridge that is across a deep valley from the 
main mass of the mountain, with a stream at its bottom, and some 
from another ridge shooting across a glacier far below, with the 
mountain peak lost in fog (which soon after became a very scary 
situation as the fog rolled down over the glacier and then over us, 
with zero visibility - and we could not see the nearby cliff and 
trails). Afterward we had severe sun burns when we did get out, 
even though there was no sun out that day. Dumb tourists! ;-)

>> and also by giving size
>> references (as with foreground subject elements of familiar
>> scale, like bodies of water with trees, etc. - and you can also
>> use the reflections of the mountains in the water to increase
>> their apparent height). 

Masses of distant trees of familiar scale in the photo can be 
useful.

>> Clouds also help to show scale. You
>> can also shoot with wide lenses, but these must be level or
>> pointed down somewhat so as to minimize the "building falling
>> over backward" effect, and you can even exaggerate the
>> "building falling over forward" effect to make the mountains
>> look taller. Play with the framing - the tighter, usually the better
>> (and don't forget about using vertical framing...)." 

I thought of another method, which should help you and the OP:
shoot a string of photos and make them into a panorama. This 
gives the opportunity to use multiple scaling techniques in one 
photo, to compare the various peaks that are together, to show 
the grandeur of the overall view (often difficult with a single frame), 
and to severely crop the photo into a long, thin format that can 
remove "dead" space in the image and which looks good with this 
kind of subject. Here are a couple from Zion National Park (US),
http://www.people.cornell.edu/pages/rpn1/kolob5.htm
http://www.people.cornell.edu/pages/rpn1/zion18.htm,
with a "reverse" situation at Goose Necks,
http://www.people.cornell.edu/pages/rpn1/goose-necks4.htm,
and the Grand Canyon,
http://www.people.cornell.edu/pages/rpn1/grand-canyon18.htm.
Have fun!
--David Ruether
www.donferrario.com/ruether
d_ruether@hotmail.com


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"John Navas" <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote in message news:ttlsl45j16dd3oa7orajahhomobl313ffg@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 2 Jan 2009 10:53:36 -0500, "David Ruether"
> <d_ruther@thotmail.com> wrote in <gjld9t$18f$1@ruby.cit.cornell.edu>: 
>>"Shankar Bhattacharyya" <sbhattac@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message news:Xns9B86EAFE62808sbhattacatattnet@127.0.0.1...

>>>[HUGE SNIP]

>>NEAT comments! Thanks!

> Please don't quote the whole thing for a one-line reply. Thanks!
> -- 
> John

You may note that I snipped out my own original post and also 
those parts that referred to it in "Shankar's" post. I normally do 
severe editing when replying (but in a way that preserves relevant 
material in the original exchanges), but since "Shankar's" post not 
only added vast amounts to mine, it also corrected (gently...) 
some of my material. Also, I archive my posts and eventually 
publish them on my web site. This was one of those great posts 
well worth repeating for anyone who had lost it in the thread, and 
it deserved praise, however relatively brief it was compared with 
"Shankar's" original post...
--DR


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"Brian" <bclark@es.co.nz> wrote in message news:7s7nk41lbhh0b7srtp8bg6ckh5jgdl6d6v@4ax.com...
> glenzabr@xmission.com (GMAN) wrote: 
>>In article <egs3k4lglll5kgf3b1fm1oenf9c5ue0nlr@4ax.com>, bclark@es.co.nz wrote:

>>>With more video camera's being able to record in HD 1080p I'm
>>>wondering how you store your video from the video camera. HD
>>>video seems too big to put on a DVD, even a double layered DVD.
>>>Blu-ray recorders are too expensive to buy and the blank Blu-ray
>>>media is also expensive. You could store it on an external hard drive
>>>but there is always the risk of a fault on the hard drive.
>>>
>>>I guess what I'm saying is what is the point of using a HD cameera if
>>>you can't safely and cheaply store the HD video?
>>>
>>>Regards Brian 

>>The best storage is on the original tapes. You can make a backup digital copy. 
>>I have 2 copies of all of my Mini DV tape masters and a 3rd of the edited 
>>ready for family consumption version. $3 a tape is well worth it for the extra 
>>copies IMHO!

> The problem is that not all video cameras record on DV tape. Some have
> a built-in hard drive.

> Regards Brian

Some also use memory cards (both hard drive and card HD camcorders 
are AVCHD format rather than tape's HDV format). Copy the edited 
videos to multiple hard drives for storage (and copy the files from a surviving 
HD if one fails and is replaced), and make disk copies for showing or 
handing out. These HD AVCHD disks can be made cheaply using 
standard DVD burners and cheap standard DVD blanks. It can be 
somewhat slower processing AVCHD files rather than than HDV, but it 
does have some advantages in shorter transfer times, freedom from 
dropouts, and cheaper disk writing.
--DR 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"mcp6453" <mcp6453@gmail.com> wrote in message news:S8v3l.102968$5i4.80018@en-nntp-05.dc1.easynews.com...

> The sum and substance of my video edition knowledge are limited to
> VideoReDo TVSuite (MPEG editing) and Windows Movie Maker (AVI and WMV
> editing.)

> I'm looking for software that will allow me to make a professional video
> presentation using DV files from a camcorder (13GB/hour video files -
> AVI). My needs are probably very similar to broadcast mode, as some
> software refers to it. That is, I'm looking for very simple transitions
> and no major effects. (After Effects is way beyond what I need.)

> The ideal program would allow me to switch between several files as if
> the software were a video switcher. (I'm told that almost all software
> does this now.) After edits are made, the results would be immediately
> viewable without having to go through a timely rendering process.

> It seems that Adobe Premiere Pro and Sony Vegas meet these requirements.
> (After Ef

Premiere Pro is overkill (and VERY expensive) for what you 
want to do, and it is a poor choice if you later want to move 
on to editing HD. For Mini-DV, my first choice would be 
Premiere Elements 4 - it has a beautiful user interface, it is 
easy to learn, and it is just plain "nice" when working with 
SD (and you can "stack" tracks [upper ones predominate] 
with fade-in/outs added at their ends for blends with the 
material below on the timeline). Tracks are easily turned 
on/off also. Personally, I detest the interface of Ulead 
VideoStudio, but it is also cheap (but, UGH!). Sony Vegas 
Pro 8 is very expensive, and also overkill for what you want, 
but it and the far cheaper Vegas Platinum 9 will handle HD 
nicely for later, but I'm finding (to my surprise) that Platinum 
9 is not as user friendly as even Pro 8, which is not very easy 
to learn. So, I guess if you want to stay with SD for now, 
the modest price for Premiere Elements 4 (v.7 just adds a 
lot of junk, without improving the program...) is money 
well spent. For more, see my article on editing programs, 
at -- http://www.donferrario.com/ruether/hdv-editing.htm
--DR

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"Arny Krueger" <arnyk@hotpop.com> wrote in message news:AfWdnW7Oo8aaINLUnZ2dnUVZ_gednZ2d@giganews.com...
> "David Ruether" <d_ruether@thotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:giodkj$po7$1@ruby.cit.cornell.edu
>> "David Ruether" <d_ruether@thotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:gim17e$7i9$1@ruby.cit.cornell.edu...
>>> "mcp6453" <mcp6453@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>> news:S8v3l.102968$5i4.80018@en-nntp-05.dc1.easynews.com...

>>>> I'm looking for software that will allow me to make a
>>>> professional video presentation using DV files from a
>>>> camcorder (13GB/hour video files - AVI). My needs are
>>>> probably very similar to broadcast mode, as some
>>>> software refers to it. That is, I'm looking for very
>>>> simple transitions and no major effects. (After Effects
>>>> is way beyond what I need.)
>>>> 
>>>> The ideal program would allow me to switch between
>>>> several files as if the software were a video switcher.
>>>> (I'm told that almost all software does this now.)
>>>> After edits are made, the results would be immediately
>>>> viewable without having to go through a timely
>>>> rendering process.

You may need to do a (very quick) render of changed SD 
material before seeing real-time playback of transitions, 
added filters, or any other changes made to footage. Straight 
cuts with SD and any program will not require any rendering, 
even with "stacked" tracks. Depending on your computer's 
capabilities, you may not need rendering of anything to 
get real-time playback.

>>> Premiere Pro is overkill (and VERY expensive) for what
>>> you want to do, and it is a poor choice if you later want to
>>> move on to editing HD. For Mini-DV, my first choice would 
>>> be Premiere Elements 4 - it has a beautiful user interface, it is 
>>> easy to learn, and it is just plain "nice" when working with
>>> SD (and you can "stack" tracks [upper ones predominate]
>>> with fade-in/outs added at their ends for blends with the
>>> material below on the timeline. Tracks are easily turned
>>> on/off also.

> I read the OP, and it seemed like the guy was providing the architectural 
> specs for Adobe Premiere Elements. ;-)

Yes (see above...;-).

> I'm using APE release 2 and 4 on various computers with very good results. 
> It is very much a DV-AVI centric program, and that's what the OP seems to 
> saying he wants specifically.

> The major current end-user situations with APE seems to relate to editing 
> MPEG files, particularly those from consumer HD camcorders. It seems to be 
> gaining maturity in handling the 1001+ flavors of MPEG, but as of release 4, 
> users of a variety of formats might find that it has a ways to go, or not. 

PE-4/7 can be used (as can CS3/4) with HD, but all suffer the 
serious shortcomings of recompressing everything on the HD 
timeline at export (this takes a VERY long time, and introduces 
image damage from multiple compression passes not generally 
experienced with SD or with other HD editing programs, if the 
OP later wants to use PE-4 later for HD), and not producing a 
streaming file that can be used with Premiere for exporting 
additional copies of a video out to tape. If the OP is satisfied 
for now with using what is likely the best possible program for 
doing what he wants with SD, then PE-4 would likely be that 
program, and it is not so expensive that it would be difficult 
replacing it later with another program that is better designed 
for handling HD. (Which I guess sums up what we have said. 8^)
--DR

~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"Mike Kujbida" <kXuXjXfXaXm@xplornet.com> wrote in message news:6r9ts0F79qtU1@mid.individual.net...
> Arny Krueger wrote:
>> "David Ruether" <d_ruether@thotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:giodkj$po7$1@ruby.cit.cornell.edu
>>> "David Ruether" <d_ruether@thotmail.com> wrote in message
>>> news:gim17e$7i9$1@ruby.cit.cornell.edu...
>>>> "mcp6453" <mcp6453@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:S8v3l.102968$5i4.80018@en-nntp-05.dc1.easynews.com...

>>>>> I'm looking for software that will allow me to make a
>>>>> professional video presentation using DV files from a
>>>>> camcorder (13GB/hour video files - AVI). My needs are
>>>>> probably very similar to broadcast mode, as some
>>>>> software refers to it. That is, I'm looking for very
>>>>> simple transitions and no major effects. (After Effects
>>>>> is way beyond what I need.)
>>>>>
>>>>> The ideal program would allow me to switch between
>>>>> several files as if the software were a video switcher.
>>>>> (I'm told that almost all software does this now.)
>>>>> After edits are made, the results would be immediately
>>>>> viewable without having to go through a timely
>>>>> rendering process.

>>>> Premiere Pro is overkill (and VERY expensive) for what
>>>> you want to do, and it is a poor choice if you later want to
>>>> move on to editing HD. For Mini-DV, my first choice 
>>>> would be Premiere Elements 4 - it has a beautiful user 
>>>> interface, it is easy to learn, and it is just plain "nice" when 
>>>> working with SD (and you can "stack" tracks [upper ones 
>>>> predominate] with fade-in/outs added at their ends for blends 
>>>> with the material below on the timeline. Tracks are easily 
>>>> turned on/off also.

And, as with other SD editing programs, if no changes are made 
to the video material, playback will be real time. With changes 
and depending on the computer's capability, quick rendering of 
the changes may be necessary for smooth playback.

>> I read the OP, and it seemed like the guy was providing the architectural 
>> specs for Adobe Premiere Elements. ;-)
>> 
>> I'm using APE release 2 and 4 on various computers with very good results. 
>> It is very much a DV-AVI centric program, and that's what the OP seems to 
>> saying he wants specifically.
>> 
>> The major current end-user situations with APE seems to relate to editing 
>> MPEG files, particularly those from consumer HD camcorders. It seems to be 
>> gaining maturity in handling the 1001+ flavors of MPEG, but as of release 4, 
>> users of a variety of formats might find that it has a ways to go, or not. 

> In that case, take a look at Sony Vegas Movie Studio Platinum 9.
> It handles DV, miniDVD, HDV & AVCHD.

> Mike

It does, but as a user of Vegas Pro 8, I was surprised by two 
things - the inexpensive Platinum 9 looks almost identical to the
far more expensive Vegas Pro 8, and it is also more difficult to 
figure out how to use it for doing some basic operations than 
Pro 8 is - and it is FAR more difficult to learn than Elements 4, 
which is a very straight-forward, easy to use program. Again, 
*for SD only*, PE-4 is very hard to beat for price, ease of 
learning, good user interface, and reasonable versatility, but 
unfortunately, I cannot recommend it for HD. I have 
recommended Platinum 9 for HD, and have paid for that in 
the returned frustration of would-be editors. I have also at times 
recommended Ulead's VideoStudio, to my subsequent grief. 
Why mess with what works for SD, although PE-4 is barely 
adequate for HD...?
--DR

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"mcp6453" <mcp6453@gmail.com> wrote in message news:w5s4l.5908$kG.1171@en-nntp-06.dc1.easynews.com...
> David Ruether wrote:
>> "David Ruether" <d_ruether@thotmail.com> wrote in message news:giohmm$3rk$1@ruby.cit.cornell.edu...
>>>>>> "mcp6453" <mcp6453@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>>>>> news:S8v3l.102968$5i4.80018@en-nntp-05.dc1.easynews.com...

>> [More for the OP...]
>> 
>>>>>>> The ideal program would allow me to switch between
>>>>>>> several files as if the software were a video switcher.
>>>>>>> (I'm told that almost all software does this now.)
>>>>>>> After edits are made, the results would be immediately
>>>>>>> viewable without having to go through a timely
>>>>>>> rendering process.
>> 
>> You may need to do a (very quick) render of changed SD
>> material before seeing real-time playback of transitions,
>> added filters, or any other changes made to footage. Straight
>> cuts with SD and any program will not require any rendering,
>> even with "stacked" tracks. Depending on your computer's
>> capabilities, you may not need rendering of anything to
>> get real-time playback.
>> --DR 

> Thanks to all for the meaningful responses. You have provided me with 
> just the information I need. The reason I don't want to use WMM is that 
> it is buggy. PapaJohn's excellent web site shows a lot of problems, many 
> of which I have experienced (including not being able to export a movie 
> that was originally edited in WMM. The export fails, and even though I 
> spent several hours working through the problems on PJ's page, I was not 
> able to solve the problem. Luckily I found the VOB files that were 
> created when the originally created.)

> The video is an educational course, which is why the requirements are 
> pretty simple. Why professional? I anticipate that the presentation will 
> need to be more the just home movies but not as complicated as editing, 
> say, "American Idol".

> I'm going to give APE a try. Maybe it will do everything I need. When I 
> need to move to HD, hopefully the APE experience will help transition to 
> the subsequent software, just as being proficient in Adobe Audition 
> helps transition to other audio editing software.

Yes, that is true - Premiere Elements works in a very straight-forward 
manner, and once you are used to using it, the basic concepts are the 
same for other editing programs (although the differences in the details 
in some others can drive you nuts...;-).
--DR

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"Richard Crowley" <rcrowley@xp7rt.net> wrote in message news:DcWdnaTABbTlg87UnZ2dnUVZ_obinZ2d@posted.pcez...
> "Tony" wrote ...

>>I know a few guys that are running Mac OS 10.5 Leopard on an Intel machine, 
>>and therefore, running
>> FCP. Is anyone doing this in this newsgroup successfully?
>>
>> I am about to build a new pc based on the Intel I7 chip with 8GB Ram. from 
>> what I understand, the
>> Mac OS will see all 8GB of ram (vs 32 bit Windows seiing a max of 3GB). 
>> What do I need to look out
>> for? Drivers? Is there a site I can see what drivers are available? I will 
>> not buy a real Mac, so I
>> would like to hear from those that have done this. Thanks.

> Have you checked with the OSx86 Project people?
> http://wiki.osx86project.org

Windows Vista 64 can use 8 gigs of RAM and there are now 
many drivers available for it - and Sony Vegas Pro (the 64-bit 
version) will run on it. But, why do you need more than 3 gigs 
of RAM? 
--DR


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"Soundhaspriority" <nowhere@nowhere.com> wrote in message news:upadnaEP0rAl9fzUnZ2dnUVZ_hOdnZ2d@giganews.com...

> The only digital artifactation that I have personally seen resulting from 
> mpeg compression is always in the form of blocks, not clouds.

From our local cable company (Time-Warner), we often suffer with 
SD material what looks like excessive JPG compression artifacts 
along edges, similar to what one sees when overcompressing a still 
image with tree branches in a sky. We get the "wubblies" in the 
smooth tone areas intruded on by areas of higher detail. Quite 
annoying visually, and likely due to the jamming of too many SD 
channels into too little bandwidth using JPG compression rates that 
are too high for good quality. Fortunately, the HD material suffers 
not at all here from this (except for the occasional picture black-outs, 
picture "blocking", sound garbling and collapse, and other delights 
of the "superior" digital TV system we are now forced to experience). 
Weeeeeee........! 8^(
--DR 


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"D-Mac" <writeme@this.ng> wrote in message news:gjupas$9gh$1@news.motzarella.org...

> "Alan Smithee" <me@privacy.net> wrote in message 
> news:Tbadne0G-bo3BP_UnZ2dnUVZ8q2dnZ2d@pipex.net...

>> Looks like a cool trip (quite literally):
>> http://photoshopnews.com/feature-stories/antarctica-expedition/
>>
>> Not sure about the "Polar Plunge" part though!

> Well that's a site to hold you captive!
> Thanks for the link.

> Douglas 

Great site!
But that "Polar Plunge", brrrr-r-r-r-r-r-r-r-r!!! 
And that 54 degree rolling of the ship, oh 
b-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-a-r-r-r-r-r-f-f-f!!!!!!!!!! 
8^)
--DR

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"Mike Kujbida" <kXuXjXfXaXm@xplornet.com> wrote in message 
news:6ssfueF7ri0nU1@mid.individual.net...
> rrstudio2@icqmail.com wrote:

>> Just purchased a new 64 bit, quad core computer and will be upgrading
>> all my software. I do some wedding videos and slideshows as a hobby.
>> I was wondering what people recommend for editing multi-cam video? I
>> am currently using Premiere Elements 2.0 which I like for most things,
>> but it sucks when trying to edit multi-video feeds. Is the newest
>> full (non-elements) version of premiere better for multicams? I would
>> like what I think should be basic functions, like the ability to have
>> all the video feeds showing in different windows so I can see them all
>> at once without have to shrink each one down so they all fit in the
>> one window like I do in elements. I haven't used any of the other
>> video editing software packages, so let me know if there are some
>> other ones I should try. I do need the software to encode DVD with
>> dolby digital.
>> 
>> Thanks,
>> Andrew V. Romero

> Take a look at Vegas 8 Pro (32 bit and Vegas 8.1 Pro (64 bit).
> It has a built-in multi-cam feature and, if that's not feature-packed 
> enough, there are add-on packages called Excalibur (64 bit capable) and 
> Ultimate-S (currently 32 bit only) that you can buy.
> Trial versions of each are available.

> Mike

I second this. Vegas Pro makes Premiere CS4 look "kludgy", especially 
for HD. I like Premiere Elements 4 a lot for SD single or two camera 
shoots (no need for anything fancier), but NOT for HD - and Vegas 
permits seeing all your camera footage playing at once, with "real-time" 
switching between the tracks possible.
--DR

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"Mike Kujbida" <kXuXjXfXaXm@xplornet.com> wrote in message news:6su8dpF89dotU1@mid.individual.net...
> rrstudio2@icqmail.com wrote:

>> It sounds like I should give it a try. Now, what is the normal cost
>> for Vegas Pro...the Sony website says it is $550 but a quick internet
>> search find it for like $130-270...are these low prices a scam or is
>> the sony site just way over priced? I don't have a need for HD video
>> yet as none of my camcorders are HD, but I suppose I could get it just
>> in case. Now with the different versions, do they all have the same
>> multicam functionality or is it just the pro that includes that
>> functionality?
>> 
>> Thanks,
>> Andrew V. Romero

> Unless it's from a reputable source (sorry but eBay doesn't count), I'd 
> be cautious of sites that promise such low prices.
> Having said that, B&H (a trusted vendor) has Vegas Pro 8 only for as 
> low as $129.95.

And $169.95, with "training" - a steal! And, upgrades from either to 
version 8c (the latest 32bit version) if it is not that already, and to version 
8.1 (the 64 bit version) are likely free with registration.

> This is Vegas Pro 8 only and does not include the companion DVD 
> authoring software that comes bundled with it if you buy it direct from 
> Sony. 
>
> If you want the bundle that includes it, B&H has it for $459.95.

The cheap Ulead VideoStudio works fine for DVD authoring, even 
for HD disks...

> If you buy this version, you might be eligible for the upgrade to the 
> full version for $234.95.
> Details are at 
> http://www.sonycreativesoftware.com/upgrade/vegaspro?disp=1 but I'd 
> confirm this with Sony Customer Service first.

> If you're a student, the price can be substantially less.

> Sorry but the Pro 8 version is the only one that has the multicam feature.
> http://www.sonycreativesoftware.com/vegaspro/compare is a comparison 
> chart of the different versions.

--DR

~~~~~~~~~

"Mike Kujbida" <kXuXjXfXaXm@xplornet.com> wrote in message 
news:6t75ugF9e68rU1@mid.individual.net...
> David Ruether wrote:

>> It does not appear to be listed in the comparison, but it is in the program.
>> I forget how many different source tracks can be displayed and switched
>> from, but Vegas Pro has long had this feature...
>> --DR 

> David, while you could do multicam in earlier versions with the use of 
> Track Morion and Pan/Crop as well as tools like Excalibur and Ultimate 
> S, Sony themselves didn't add multicam as a feature until Vegas Pro 8.

> Mike

Thanks for the info. I'd remembered reading about multitrack 
capability in Vegas a long time ago in NGs, but I started with 
Pro 8 (which clearly has it), so I jumped to a conclusion 
about earlier versions...
--DR


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"lvallecillo" <lvallecillo.3lus29@no-mx.forums.travel.com> wrote in message 
news:lvallecillo.3lus29@no-mx.forums.travel.com...

> After using a 50mm f1.4, and 85mm f1.8, an 80-2mm f2.8, my results are
> the followings: 50mm is an exellent choice for for low-light and sharper
> images, impressively enough the photos I produce with this lens are way
> sharper than the others in close range. The 80mm-200mm produces sharper
> results throughout the range than the 85mm.

> The 85mm f1.8 continues collecting dust in my bag, my suggestion is if
> you do not want to use the zoom lens, 135mm f2 DC is a much better
> choice yielding higher quality work. visit my flickr site to see some
> of my work. 'Flickr: LuisVallecillo's Photostream'
> (http://www.flickr.com/Luisvallecillo).

> I wish someone would have told me this before I purchased the 85mm f1.8
> lens.

> Good luck,

> Luis

Which is it? The 85mm f1.4 (AF?) of the title, or the 85mm f1.8 (I assume 
AF, rather than the also-excellent old 85mm f1.8 MF...)? Since the 85mm 
f1.8 AF is one of Nikon's very best lenses (see my Nikkor evaluation list, 
at -- http://www.donferrario.com/ruether/slemn.html), if that is the one you 
have, I must assume that it is defective. ALL lenses should be tested immediately 
after purchase, and returned/exchanged if not up to *reasonable* expectations.
--DR

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"eugene" <eugene@home.com> wrote in message news:D5udnc9z2N5ggvTUnZ2dnUVZ8jWdnZ2d@bt.com...

>I have recently bought the 40D with the 17-85 Canon lens. Should I now get a 
> skylight filter to protect the lens?

Yes (but advice will vary...;-). Best: get a good UV filter (the "skylight"
feature does nothing useful - and for that matter, neither does the "UV" 
feature, so "clear" is OK). Get a good quality one (no need for a super 
expensive one, and only some lenses in some extreme lighting conditions 
are benefited by multicoated filters) - I like Hoya single-coated filters 
(and I do not like Tiffen). Then, *also* use a proper shade for the lens. 
Ta-DAH! If carried and stored face down, the lens front is likely to 
remain free of spray, fingerprints, dust, grease, and scratches from being 
cleaned or from being grabbed at by an angry nut (I had it happen to me 
once, and he damaged the filter, which is relatively easily and cheaply 
replaced...). I have been able to discern **NO** ill effects from using 
good filters on lenses (although others claim "theoretical" ones...;-), even 
with careful testing, so long as the above conditions are met, the lens and 
filter are clean, and the lens and lighting conditions are not so unusual 
that the rare conditions can cause problems.
--DR

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"Alan Browne" <alan.browne@Freelunchvideotron.ca> wrote in message news:GpydnY4-as3C0vfUnZ2dnUVZ_v_inZ2d@giganews.com...

> Someone at the photoclub I sort of belong to is selling this lens. I've 
> seen it and it is in great (9 or better) condition.

> It's non-VR and about 5 years old. At the time he paid nearly $2K 
> (Canadian) for it (exchange rate then was pretty poor).

> Value today?

> On e-bay I see a couple at about $900 or so...

It is a rather unpleasantly heavy and large lens to carry/use 
(for me, at least - I turned down an opportunity to buy 3 in 
decent shape for about $500 each a ways back). For a 
pleasant lens (tiny/light/cheap/surprisingly-sharp-by-f5.6), I 
like the now-discontinued 28-70mm f3.5-4.5 (not that much 
loss in speed compared with f2.8, although the f2.8 is better 
wide open...). A better alternative (also discontinued - come 
on Nikon, stop doing such stupid things as dumping this 
gem and keeping the bigger/heavier/more-expensive/inferior 
24-70mm f2.8-4!!!) is the 24-85mm f3.5-4.5, which is 
sharp to the corners wide open FF at all FLs and focus 
distances (although it does have rather noticeable linear 
distortion...). BTW, I *may* sell the tiny 28-70 in mint 
(and tested) condition, since I have a new 24-85 I like...
--DR

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"Bob Williams" <mytbobnospam@cox.net> wrote in message news:JaXal.44654$1s6.24455@newsfe01.iad...
> measekite wrote:

>> Other than some additional speed what does the faster of these lenses
>> (either Canon or Nikon) give you other than 3 times the price?
>> 
>> Is the image quality any better?
>> If, so is it so substantially better as to jusify the price?

> At any aperture larger [smaller] than f=5.6, I don't think you will see 
> ANY difference. At f=1.8 you may see a slight difference.
> It is a lot harder to grind a BIG piece of glass so that the resolution 
> is acceptable at f 1.4, than it is to grind a smaller piece of glass to 
> give the same resolution at f 1.8. That's what you are paying for.
> I never could understand why people with DSLRs would pay such a premium 
> for such a slight increase in light gathering power.
> After all, if you need more sensitivity most quality DSLRs will let you 
> shoot at ISO 1600 or more.
> See what a user of a Nikon 1.4 and 1.8 has to say on the subject.
>> http://www.amazon.com/review/R1YRAW0K3WMUDB/ref=cm_cr_pr_viewpnt#R1YRAW0K3WMUDB

> Bob Williams

And also read the follow-up comments. I, too, think the original 
poster had a bad sample of the 50mm f1.4 Nikkor. Having had 
several, it is basically sharp short the far corners (with FF) at f1.4, 
but with a *slightly* reduced overall contrast. By f2, most of the 
full frame is quite sharp and contrasty (and better than the f1.8 
at f2, FF), short the far corners (again, for FF...), which are not 
bad even wide open. LENS SAMPLES VARY! The two lenses 
are close, even at the widest stops, and the f1.8 is cheaper, not 
much slower, and it has essentially no linear distortion, making 
the 50mm f1.8 Nikkor a bargain lens. You may find my listings 
for these lenses, at www.donferrario.com/ruether/slemn.html, 
interesting...
--DR


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"Michael J" <michael@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:a9k6n4htmrrufvcntdfbgnj1mmo4kpqba3@4ax.com...

> Hey all,

> How do you export good quality AVCHD video using PPCS4 and Adobe Media
> Encoder CS4? I was excited when I heard that PPCS4 was going to be
> supporting AVCHD. Up until now I had always been using Cineform to
> edit AVCHD and I thought I would finally be able to bypass that
> process.

> But when encoding AVCHD from PPCS4/AMECS4, the quality is honestly
> terrible. I've always encoded to either Quicktime MPEG-4 or Quicktime
> H.264 formats, and the results had always been outstanding using the
> Cineform/AVCHD setup. But somehow it seems the new Adobe Media Encoder
> leaves something seriously to be desired. 

> I've downloaded and installed all patches and updates, everything, for
> CS4. Updated AMECS4, updated to Quicktime 7.5.5, etc. Still the
> encoded quality from AVCHD is crap. When encoding to Quicktime
> MPEG-4/H.264, you can't even set the bitrate. Well you can "set" it
> but the bitrate always seems to default to 1000kbps, no matter where
> you set it, when encoding from AVCHD to Quicktime. Double checked that
> with Gspot.

> Has anyone else had this problem, and if so found a fix?

Maybe it's called Sony Vegas Pro 8? That did a far better and faster 
rendering of HDV, and it even does a good job of converting edited 
HDV to AVCHD for writing cheap HD DVDs with standard DVD 
writers. BTW, I didn't like what Ulead's VideoStudio did with converting 
HDV to AVCHD. Maybe it's best to continue doing things the way you 
have been doing them?
--DR

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


"Smarty" <nobody@nobody.com> wrote in message news:FUTcl.638$aI1.586@nwrddc01.gnilink.net...
> "David Ruether" <d_ruether@thotmail.com> wrote in message 
> news:gl0e92$16o$1@ruby.cit.cornell.edu...

>> "Michael J" <michael@yahoo.com> wrote in message 
>> news:a9k6n4htmrrufvcntdfbgnj1mmo4kpqba3@4ax.com...

>>> How do you export good quality AVCHD video using PPCS4 and Adobe Media
>>> Encoder CS4? I was excited when I heard that PPCS4 was going to be
>>> supporting AVCHD. Up until now I had always been using Cineform to
>>> edit AVCHD and I thought I would finally be able to bypass that
>>> process.
>>>
>>> But when encoding AVCHD from PPCS4/AMECS4, the quality is honestly
>>> terrible. I've always encoded to either Quicktime MPEG-4 or Quicktime
>>> H.264 formats, and the results had always been outstanding using the
>>> Cineform/AVCHD setup. But somehow it seems the new Adobe Media Encoder
>>> leaves something seriously to be desired.
>>>
>>> I've downloaded and installed all patches and updates, everything, for
>>> CS4. Updated AMECS4, updated to Quicktime 7.5.5, etc. Still the
>>> encoded quality from AVCHD is crap. When encoding to Quicktime
>>> MPEG-4/H.264, you can't even set the bitrate. Well you can "set" it
>>> but the bitrate always seems to default to 1000kbps, no matter where
>>> you set it, when encoding from AVCHD to Quicktime. Double checked that
>>> with Gspot.
>>>
>>> Has anyone else had this problem, and if so found a fix?

>> Maybe it's called Sony Vegas Pro 8? That did a far better and faster
>> rendering of HDV, and it even does a good job of converting edited
>> HDV to AVCHD for writing cheap HD DVDs with standard DVD
>> writers. BTW, I didn't like what Ulead's VideoStudio did with converting
>> HDV to AVCHD. Maybe it's best to continue doing things the way you
>> have been doing them?
[I didn't try directly outputting AVCHD files with Adobe, but it did such 
a poor job in terms of efficiency and quality with HDV that I didn't at the 
time care about trying it.]
>> --DR

> Ulead VideoStudioPro X2, which is the latest version as well as the 
> predecessor Video Studio 11.5 version, do a very fine job with AVCHD 
> content, and can produce 'smart rendered' and menued AVCHD disks which are 
> entirely indistinguishable from the original AVCHD content from both 17 and 
> 24 Mbit/sec AVCHD camcorders.

This may be true, but 11.5+ produced seriously inferior conversions from 
HDV original footage, but Vegas Pro 8 conversions are ***VERY*** 
nearly indistinguishable from the HDV original (and it converts the files at a 
constant 16 Mbits/sec rate, nearly the 17 of most AVCHD camcorders...). 
I do use Ulead, though, for authoring cheap AVCHD disks using a standard 
DVD writer...

> Re-rendering mpeg2 content from an HDV camcorder into AVCHD using this or 
> any other software including Final Cut HD, Edius, Vegas 8 Pro as well as any 
> of the cheaper AVCHD authoring programs is an invitation to disappointment. 
> These highly compressed formats do especially poorly when converting from 
> one compressed format to another, and this is NOT the reason why AVCHD 
> authoring software was released.

> Smarty 

True, but I prefer to shoot and edit with HDV (even a quad core 2.83 GHz 
CPU and a video card with 1 gig of RAM can't play AVCHD smoothly, 
and I will not tolerate the reduced preview resolution when using proxy 
files or low resolution previewing). The whole point of smooth, sharp 
previewing is being able to tell what is sharp or not, and also to be able to 
see "the flow" of the video instead of jerky motion. Since my gear (camera 
and computer) can handle HDV well, it makes sense to use it. At output 
for showing, Blu-ray is still impractical due to price, but cheap AVCHD 
disks can be made on standard DVD blanks with standard cheap DVD 
writers. The only requirement for playback is an AVCHD-compatible 
Blu-ray player. With **CAREFUL** comparison of detailed and also 
hard-to-recompress material with the HDV original (all on the timeline, 
with a sharp monitor, viewed frame-by-frame), the Ulead-converted material 
often showed very noticeable compression problems (greatly reduced detail 
in "busy" areas and loss of of almost all detail in low contrast areas, especially 
in shadows), but the Sony-converted material didn't show these faults, and it 
looked fine - and when shown on a good 42" 1080p TV viewed close in, 
the Sony-converted AVCHD disks appear so essentially equal to the HDV 
original material that neither I nor anyone else can tell the difference, even 
with careful viewing). So for me, it is more practical to shoot, edit, and output 
HD material using HDV, with AVCHD conversions made at the end for 
making disks (which are then so cheap that they can be freely given away). 
I know you have greater "resources" than I do, so alternative practices may 
be both more practical and affordable for you than for me. ;-) But for the 
OP, if he cannot get CS4 to work for what he wants, perhaps Vegas 
Pro 8 will work...
--DR

~~~~~~~~~~~~~
~~~~~~~~~~~~~

["SMARTY'S" RESPONSE TO THE ABOVE]

> David,
>
> With all due respect, your insistence on transforming AVCHD issues into 
> the domain with which you are familiar, HDV, is, to me, both inappropriate 
> and confusing to people posing AVCHD questions.
>
> It matters not what your experience with HDV is as far as I am concerned, 
> and your comments and recommendations overlook basic AVCHD issues in the 
> process. Most confusing to new users is your NLE editing recommendation 
> approach, which totally and obviously reflects a lack of understanding of 
> working with AVCHD content.
>
> AVCHD has a complex set of issues which arise from its own unique format, 
> and the NLE issues are themselves complex, since there are a half a dozen 
> native AVCHD editing suites on the PC, more on the Mac, and each has a 
> variety of bugs, strengths, weaknesses, etc. Many of these if not most are 
> AVCHD-specific. Moreover, the computing platform becomes far more 
> problematic, as do the differing profiles used in Sony, Canon, and 
> Panasonic AVCHD camcorders.
>
> Making AVCHD disks is yet another layer of complexity, and the authoring 
> performances of the 6 or more NLE programs which make these disks have 
> many subtle and not so subtle trade-offs.
>
> I would personally suggest you get yourself an AVCHD camcorder and get 
> immersed yourself if you want to really know and understand this stuff.
>
> I mean do disrespect by this reply. I just find it maddening when confused 
> and inexperienced visitors here get led off on these HDV and other 
> tangents.
>
> Smarty

[AND]

David,

Just to illustrate my point regarding AVCHD complexity in only one of the 
areas I previously cited, consider the following quote from a well-informed 
recent source I found:

"Sony and Panasonic (consumer AVCHD) use H.264 Main Profile at Level 4.0. 
Canon and AVCCAM use H.264 High Profile at Level 4.1. (Blu-ray’s H.264 uses 
High Profile at Level 5.1.)

What does 4.0 vs 4.1 vs 5.1 mean -- everything!

First: BD supports 5 Reference frames because it is Level is 5.1. AVCHD 
supports only 4 because it's Level is 4.0 or 4.1.

Second: Level 4.0 with a MAIN Profile supports a maximum data rate of 20 
Mbps while Level 4.1 with a HIGH Profile supports a maximum data rate of 25 
Mbps.

What all this means is Sony -- in keeping with it's public stance that AVCHD 
is a "consumer" format only cares about MAIN Profile at Level 4.0 -- which 
means a max data rate of 20Mbps. It need support HIGH Profile at Level 4.1 
in VEGAS only if it chooses to.

Panasonic has the same stance which is why it's calling it's 21 Mbps HIGH 
Profile at Level 4.1 -- AVCCAM.

Canon, which has always used HIGH Profile at Level 4.1 is simply extending 
the data rate to its maximum. Since Canon is aware that Sony and Panasonic 
need only support MAIN Profile at Level 4.0, it knows there MAY be 
compatibility issues with some Sony and Panasonic products.

In fact, ANY company that only supports MAIN Profile at Level 4.0 is not 
going to be able to import 24 Mbps video. And, any device that only supports 
MAIN Profile at Level 4.0 is not going to be able to play Canon files copied 
to a DVD.

Thankfully, now that Sony accepts Canon AVCHD, it MUST be able to import 24 
Mbps. However, it need not export 24 Mbps.

In a real sense this is like HDV where there were HD1 and HD2. Only the 
difference was obvious: 720p vs 1080i.

With AVCHD, two companies are calling two specs by the same name.


It looks like in the Vegas Burn-to-Disk, the encoder being is used is Level 
4.0 with a MAIN Profile supporting a maximum data rate of 20 Mbps. In other 
words, the one that would be used to make AVCHD. Likely this means not 
having to pay for an AVC encoder -- it can use its own AVCHD encoder.

If you create Main 5.1 file content on red-laser disc -- some BD plays will 
see this as an error. Or, they will try to play it, but the use of 5 
Reference frames in the source will cause stutter. Anything burned to a 
red-laser disc, must be 4.0 or 4.1. It need NOT be AVCHD. "

Smarty

[Me]

Thanks for the info. I guess it points out reasons why I may have even less 
interest now in working with AVCHD compared with before - if I cannot 
import, edit easily, export, write to red-laser disk, and then play 24 Mbps 
AVCHD material (although I'm still interested in continuing to make surprisingly 
good-looking conversions from HDV at 16 Mbps for distribution on red-laser 
disks, which play well and look fine on many BD players...). So, what software 
can import, edit, export, and write to disk 24 Mbps AVCHD material?
--DR

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"Smarty" <nobody@nobody.com> wrote in message news:CBbdl.768$Aw2.548@nwrddc02.gnilink.net...
> "David Ruether" <d_ruether@thotmail.com> wrote in message 
> news:gl328a$dct$1@ruby.cit.cornell.edu...

>> Thanks for the info. I guess it points out reasons why I may have 
>> even less interest now in working with AVCHD compared with 
>> before, if I cannot import, edit easily, export, write to red-laser 
>> disk, and then play 24 Mbps AVCHD material (although I'm 
>> still interested in continuing to make surprisingly good-looking 
>> conversions from HDV at 16 Mbps for distribution on red-laser
>> disks, which play well and look fine on many BD players...). So, 
>> what software can import, edit, export, and write to disk 24 
>> Mbps AVCHD material?
>> --DR

> David,

> All of the programs below can import and easily edit 24 Mbps 
> Canon HF11 AVCHD:

> Cyberlink Power Director 7 Ultra, Nero Vision 8 Ultimate, Arcsoft 
> Total Media Extreme, Corel Video Studio X2 Pro, Ulead / Corel 
> DVD Factory 6, Pinnacle Studio 12 Ultimate.

> Of the above list, only Nero 8 and ArcSoft TME can make 24 
> Mbps AVCHD disks. The other programs downsample, typically 
> to between 14 and 18 Mbps.

> Both Nero 8 and ArcSoft TME smart render extremely quickly, 
> whereas the others do not smart render 24 Mbps content.

> Smarty

Thanks, again, for the information! It looks like I will stay with HDV 
for now, with making 16 Mbps AVCHD conversions of HDV edited 
files with Vegas Pro 8 and authoring them to red-laser disks using 
VideoStudio for distribution - a simple, easy, high-quality, and cheap 
process (but, I may eventually look into Nero Vision 8 Ultimate, if I 
ever get an AVCHD camcorder that shoots 24 Mbps AVCHD - but 
if most BD players will not play red-laser Level 5.1 disks, then what 
is the point of writing AVCHD disks of that type since I can write BD 
disks now which will play in all BD players [but I prefer not to]?). 
Anyway, maybe I now "get it", and if so, it makes more sense for me 
to stick with what I have than to "open yet another can of worms"...;-) 
I don't want to learn more about yet another format - I want to shoot, 
edit, preserve, and distribute the highest quality video possible that 
can be accomplished easily, cheaply, and reliably...
--DR

~~~~~~~~~

"Smarty" <nobody@nobody.com> wrote in message news:n0sdl.896$Aw2.497@nwrddc02.gnilink.net...
> "David Ruether" <d_ruether@thotmail.com> wrote in message 
> news:gl4ucu$961$1@ruby.cit.cornell.edu...
>> "Smarty" <nobody@nobody.com> wrote in message 
>> news:CBbdl.768$Aw2.548@nwrddc02.gnilink.net...
>>> "David Ruether" <d_ruether@thotmail.com> wrote in message 
>>> news:gl328a$dct$1@ruby.cit.cornell.edu...

>>>> Thanks for the info. I guess it points out reasons why I may have even 
>>>> less interest now in working with AVCHD compared with before, if I 
>>>> cannot import, edit easily, export, write to red-laser disk, and then 
>>>> play 24 Mbps AVCHD material (although I'm still interested in continuing 
>>>> to make surprisingly good-looking conversions from HDV at 16 Mbps for 
>>>> distribution on red-laser
>>>> disks, which play well and look fine on many BD players...). So, what 
>>>> software can import, edit, export, and write to disk 24 Mbps AVCHD 
>>>> material?
>>>> --DR

>>> David,
>>>
>>> All of the programs below can import and easily edit 24 Mbps Canon HF11 
>>> AVCHD:
>>>
>>> Cyberlink Power Director 7 Ultra, Nero Vision 8 Ultimate, Arcsoft Total 
>>> Media Extreme, Corel Video Studio X2 Pro, Ulead / Corel DVD Factory 6, 
>>> Pinnacle Studio 12 Ultimate.
>>>
>>> Of the above list, only Nero 8 and ArcSoft TME can make 24 Mbps AVCHD 
>>> disks. The other programs downsample, typically to between 14 and 18 
>>> Mbps.
>>>
>>> Both Nero 8 and ArcSoft TME smart render extremely quickly, whereas the 
>>> others do not smart render 24 Mbps content.
>>>
>>> Smarty

>> Thanks, again, for the information! It looks like I will stay with HDV
>> for now, with making 16 Mbps AVCHD conversions of HDV edited
>> files with Vegas Pro 8 and authoring them to red-laser disks using
>> VideoStudio for distribution - a simple, easy, high-quality, and cheap
>> process (but, I may eventually look into Nero Vision 8 Ultimate, if I
>> ever get an AVCHD camcorder that shoots 24 Mbps AVCHD - but
>> if most BD players will not play red-laser Level 5.1 disks, then what
>> is the point of writing AVCHD disks of that type since I can write BD
>> disks now which will play in all BD players [but I prefer not to]?).
>> Anyway, maybe I now "get it", and if so, it makes more sense for me
>> to stick with what I have than to "open yet another can of worms"...;-)
>> I don't want to learn more about yet another format - I want to shoot,
>> edit, preserve, and distribute the highest quality video possible that
>> can be accomplished easily, cheaply, and reliably...
>> --DR

> David,

> To answer your specific question, the point of writing Level 5.1 red laser 
> BD disks which, regrettably, only play on certain players is to permit those 
> for whom 24 frame per second video (which is not part of the AVCHD disk 
> spec) to create a distribution format without the expenses of Bluray media 
> and burner. A number of unsupported functions which were never intended to 
> be part of the consumer AVCHD disk format such as 24fps are eagerly sought 
> after by both AVCHD and HDV photographers who attempt to make AVCHD 
> disks, only to learn that these disks cannot play anywhere. Thus, a number of 
> people, myself included, seek alternative formats such as the BD5 and BD9 
> formats which can be used with the proper hacks to "trick" some BluRay 
> players into thinking they are seeing a true BlueRay disk even though they 
> are actually playing a red laser DVD+R or DVD-R creation.

YIKES! ;-) BTW, there is an interesting comparison between the recorded 
quality of HDV and AVCHD (17Mbps) using the same optics and sensors, at --
www.camcorderinfo.com/content/Canon-HG10-Camcorder-Review-33146/Performance.htm
that clearly shows the image quality resulting from that data rate for AVCHD 
inferior to the HDV 25 Mbps results. Likely higher quality results would 
result from 24 Mbps AVCHD, but if one cannot import, edit, export, and 
write disks easily and cheaply without at some point in the chain reducing 
the data rate or making some other possibly undesired change, then again, 
what's the point (for someone like me)?

> Regarding your own HD interests, no doubt HDV certainly has a number of 
> redeeming virtues, and I have absolutely no motive or interest in "selling 
> you" on the idea of switching to [from] HDV.

> My point previously, and now, is to urge you NOT to reply to AVCHD questions 
> with HDV answers. It only adds confusion, and you will have to trust me or 
> learn yourself that the two formats and the way they are to be handled are 
> very different. Thus, you cannot easily make leaps as you always seem to do 
> from your Vegas and other HDV experiences to guide others as to how to solve 
> their AVCHD problems.

> Smarty

Yes, but the point of my posts (and those of others) is to provide the results 
of personal experience and/or research, especially if the experience is related 
to the OP's question, even if only indirectly. Information, even if only indirectly 
related, can be valuable - at least, it has been for me on these NGs. So, I urge 
you NOT to try to discourage discussion that may well (as it has here) advanced 
the state of our knowledge about the topic at hand. And, what you consider my 
"leaps" are based on experience, and logical extensions from that experience 
(which you are completely free to disagree with if you can provide more "solid" 
information - that is how we learn...;-). 
--DR

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"ppp" <pg@ton.it> wrote in message news:49785921$0$1121$4fafbaef@reader2.news.tin.it...

>I would like to buy a zoom for my D700.

> (Being short of money), which is a 24-200 0r better 24-300 FX (not dx) not 
> too expensive? Tamron / Sigma ? other trens?

> Possibly from somebody who is already using such a zoom lens.

> Thanks for any advice.

> ppp

The obvious question is, "Having spent a 'ton' of money on the 
body, why put a low quality lens on it?". Look around for some 
good used AF lenses (or even MF lenses) that will work well 
on the body and are of high optical quality - and consider some 
non-zooms, which are often faster and better than even very good 
zooms that include the same focal-lengths. My Nikkor evaluation 
list may help, at - http://www.donferrario.com/ruether/slemn.html, 
and I have some FF lenses for sale, at - 
http://www.donferrario.com/ruether/fs.htm.
--DR

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"Twibil" <nowayjose6@gmail.com> wrote in message news:ab1deede-3699-4f13-a446-7279b9419ebd@t39g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
On Jan 22, 8:49 pm, Paul Furman <pa...@-edgehill.net> wrote:

> If the lens won't meter on the camera, that means you can't even look at
> the meter & adjust, you'll just have to guess.

Well, no, that's why they invented primitive stone hand-held light
meters many eons ago. };-P

My old Gossen Luna Pro still works just fine, and will even do a
couple of things that in-camera light meters won't.

--My 1939 Weston also works well in this digital age, and it 
--is easy with it to introduce exposure compensations while 
--taking the readings, an often useful advantage with snow, 
--backlight, etc.
--DR

 

Go to:  More Posts Index
Go to:  Articles Index
Go to: 
David Ruether Photography