equipment recommendations

[Dale, Philip S.]

> Thanks to everyone who sent information on my request for suggestions and
> recommendations for equipment for an observational facility. They fall
> into three groups:
>
> 1. The first issue is choosing between analog and digital equipment. I
> received pithy comments from Amy Sheldon ("do all recording digitally")
> and Brian Macwhinney ("Time to go all digital"). As I understand it,
> digital is higher quality, and even more important, permits video editing
> on your PC, tight integration of video with transcription and coding, and
> easy incorporation into presentations (e.g., PowerPoint). The equipment
> seems to run 2-3 times the cost of analog for now.
>
> 2. Letty Naigles and Johanna Nicholas reported continuing satisfaction
> with the Panasonic Proline (AG-series) analog equipment. It's difficult to
> find much information about specification and pricing on the web for this
> series, but specifying "Proline" helps. Letty also recommended a nonlinear
> video editing computer: "the digital vcrs, etc. were very tempting, and
> are indeed the new wave of the future--smaller, better images, and easily
> edit-able.  and the cost may have gone down considerably in the ensuing
> time.  but i would also encourage you to look into a nonlinear video
> editing computer, because it will enable you to do fabulously
> time-detailed coding of your tapes.  i use it for coding my
> preferential-looking tapes (i have an adaptor that can load analog images
> and digitize
> them), and the precision can't be beat.  they are, of course, also great
> for making new video footage, should you ever decide you want to do that.
> my system cost me 17K 2 years ago; i'm not sure whether that is
> medium-range for you?"
>
> 3. With respect to wireless microphones specifically, I received positive
> recommendations from John Grinstead and Adele Niccio:
> [Grinstead] "I use a wireless microphone made by Audio-technica (the model
> is Pro 88W). It was medium priced (a couple hundred dollars) and attaches
> to a video camera. These things can get "really" pricey. A friend of mine
> used to use one for discourse analysis that he borrowed from a radio
> station, which cost $1500." I, at least, am incapable of discerning a big
> difference between the quality of the one I have and that one."
> [Niccio] "With regard to wireless microphones, we have had very good luck
> with Countryman Associates (http://www.countryman.com). They make very
> tiny lavalier microphones (EMW model) with flat frequency resonses that
> work very well for children when you must consider clothing rubbing
> against the mike, things spilling on them, etc. We use TELEX ENG-1
> transmitters and receiver, with the receiver attached to a video camera
> (http://www.telex.com). The transmitter is in a pouch on a smock worn by
> the child. We use this equipment for language samples from children age 3
> and younger, including infants. The moste problems we've had have not been
> with the equipment per se, but with making students understand the
> importance of the child's wearing the mike a uniform distance from the
> mouth."
>
> 4. Johanna Nicholas raised a related question: "I'm also interested to
> know how people feel about filming through the glass of a one-way mirror
> vs. mounting a camera in the room vs. some other arrangement."  I've been
> most satisfied by filming through a one-way mirror provided that you can
> keep the observation room dark, and the mirror is a large one so that it's
> possible to move the camera around and follow the child. In-room cameras
> are distracting for some children, though not all. They also require a
> video game-like skill at moving the joystick while watching the monitor.
> Of course with either approach there is the inevitable problem of the
> child facing away from the camera so that his/her actions are not visible.
> The only solution for this is to have a second camera mounted on the far
> side of the room, and be able to switch to it as needed.
>
> Thanks again to all,
>
> Philip Dale
>