On Sun, 2009-03-15 at 11:02 -0700, jdow wrote: > You even have problems when recording if you have a little Logitech > style video camera and a microphone to the computer input. The audio > will drift away from the video causing loss of lip sync with remarkable > rapidity. Ooh, but that's amongst my pet hates for digital video! The number of times I've had to put up with something out of lipsync... It's distracting, and makes it very hard to lipread. Everybody does it, to some degree. It's how you tell apart some similar sounding words. I'm sure if we could see the person voicing the adverts on our local TV station for "national (channel) nine news at six (pm)," we wouldn't all by thinking we heard him say "national nine nudes at six," this past fortnight. That's been highly amusing to some of us, but trying to work out what someone's saying in the middle of a speech really throws off your concentration. Computer editing may be quite nifty for some things, but I find it really falls apart when you have to edit anything lengthy. Lipsync is something that really suffers, in that regards. The other being how slow the whole thing can be to work with when its having to manage that many gigabytes of data. The average home PC isn't too bad for editing video shorts, but you need to beef up a system quite expensively to make it nice to work on a production that's an hour long, or more. Tim: >> The benefit of standalone video gear is generally that it "just works". >> There's no fiddling around trying to figure out what to do with the >> software, which of the gazillion options you need or should never use. >> No time consuming importing and rendering. > Use a firewire connection from a real camera with microphones attached. > Or use SDI video connections with embeded or AES/EBU digital audio that > has been properly synchronized with the video at the source. Otherwise > you'll look like the crumby YouTube videos with unsynchronized audio and > video. I've generally found analogue into a DVD/HDD recorder to work quite well. Bad equipment not withstanding, but with hundreds of hours of video recorded that way, I've not encountered it. Certain playback devices, on the other hand, can throw lipsync out on perfectly synced original material. But on the digital side, sometimes you'll find a camera and recorder that doesn't work well when you connect them via firewire (glitches every now and then, or the recorder continues to complain that there's nothing connected, or wants to control the cameras's VCR rather than just record the video out). I haven't found a good reason for it, I think it's just another of those strange compatibility issues, and manufacturers trying to make "too helpful" technology. Of course, once you get into this sort of thing, it's quite easy to hook two cameras up to a recorder, and live switch between them. Which makes things far less boring to watch, and gives you a way out of some filming difficulties (e.g. simply switch to a wide shot, rather than fumble around trying to follow someone in closeup when you don't have a super tripod; or switching to the input signal for a video projection, rather than filming off a screen, as someone uses a visual aid during their speech). Likewise, if you have a sound system, you can record mixed audio, rather than take it from one source which might be in the worst place possible to record from (e.g. the camera mike, or a mike on one person who does the main speaking, but isn't the sole source of audio). That sort of thing's easy to do in the analogue domain. >> But, if you're /that good/ at producing a recording, in the first place, >> that you don't need to edit. And you're an organisation that sells off >> quite a few copies of your recordings. Having a bank of five DVD >> recorders patched up to your camera means that you can record live, and >> distribute several discs straight away. I've seen churches that do that >> sort of thing. The operators need to know little more than how to start >> and stop recording. > That's a good way to capture your edit source, too, if you record 420 > or better. But that uses a lot of disk fast if you are trying to do HD. > Of course, HD is not "zero budget" so I presume you're using SD. For > NTSC that bogeys out to about 2.5 megabytes an hour for 422 video plus > some modest amount for the audio. I think you mean gigabytes... And truly high-def does that in minutes, not hours. And therein lay another problem with using a computer: Hard drives fill up very rapidly with video data. You want a whopping great big one to accommodate recording *and* editing. And even bigger if you're likely to leave last weeks recording on file to be worked on next week. Unless you have a need for HD, and a means a way to give your viewers HD on a format that they can watch in HD (which precludes ordinary DVDs), then there's little point to it. Sure, if you have a special occasion that you want to archive for posterity, do it. But ordinarily, for simple video production, keep everything in the same format (same definition input, recording, any editing, and duplications). -- [tim@localhost ~]$ uname -r 2.6.27.19-78.2.30.fc9.i686 Don't send private replies to my address, the mailbox is ignored. I read messages from the public lists. -- fedora-list mailing list fedora-list@xxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Communicate/MailingListGuidelines
