While I look at my presently-useless HV30
(its HDV output socket is spoiled);
I'm gonna have to send it to Factory Service in N.J.,
just to get an estimate. Someone here at this place guesstimated
it will be in the $200 range to fix the HV30.
I like the tapes for the inexpensive archival quality;
they could last for decades in cold storage, bagged
with dessicant gel.
Have original Edison Home Kinetoscope prints,
made prior to 1915, still projectable. I've kept
them in the freezer these past thirty years,
for they were just beginning to "turn sour" in '79.
(cellulose diacetate: the first generation of "safety film)
The "aging" process halted upon freezing.
~~~~~~~Regarding the archiving raw footage?
Have old tapes from my childhood, late sixties,
Norelco cassette tapes: they still play fine.
I should freeze them too....
Pondering, no answer needed: rhetorical:
can today's HD or memory card be so...permanent, or cheap???
(I tend to think not, not, quite yet)
But, the wave of the future is this sort of camera.
Gosh, it takes pretty pictures.
Tape is finito, for us, anyway; it sure seems:
all things must pass away...
OK. My want is for the =smoothest= motion, when a file is
rendered and then sent up to YT.
Q: what did this fellow do "wrong", that his bird video,
very pretty, shows that old "herky jerky" effect?
Does anyone have a pointer to save me time,
to see these various cameras, shooting, say,
automobile traffic from a tangential angle?
I mean, as put up to YT, for instance. Different
cams and renderings of basically the same sort
Seems to me, that would be the acid test.
Am still so... "sloan d. uptake" on the various editing options,
and need to just study.
But, oh, people, for a casual YT'r, me,
who just wants to make modest videos in daylight,
of the outdoors,
and just wants smoooth motion,
well, this fellow's video, it does not quite cut it, imo.
Q: what, if anything, did he do wrong with the rendering?
Or is the motion artifacting inherent to YT's flv, 15fps,
conversion of a conversion of a conversion?
not mine, but, gee, shouldn't we be able to do better with either this,
or with the old HV20/30/40, yes, right?
I mean, in reducing motion artifacts: note the swaying feeder?
I've got a fast video card and it does not look so good if I play
this in full screen at its rated max. of 720P. I don't suppose the artifacts
are of the video card in this new computer, or its 23" LCD monito...
...tips? How to do it better?
Yes, I know: read, read, read and all will be clear.
Mom and Pop can never master the means, not so far, it seems:
I will have some bird seed in the meanwhile
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o8hN-H-XtOk"]YouTube- Canon Vixia HF S100 HD Testing (motion)[/ame]
maybe this fellow's video will play "smoother" in the embed window?~~~~~~~~~~~
gonna find out now...
cheers, sorry for all the wordings, so long winded:
like rewinding a mini DV tape by hand: my postings....