video cameras

[Aidan Wilson]

While it is certainly true that raw is best, DV tapes are also highly 
irritating to work with. I can't tell you the number of times final cut 
pro has encountered a 'dropped frames' issue when re-digitising from a DV 
tape. Also, some may be tempted to leave them as is for some time before 
they digitise/transfer them to a machine, thinking the data is safely 
stored on a DV tape. The cassettes themselves are as fragile as any 
physical medium, and the magnetic tape can become affected, allowing the 
signal to deteriorate. Granted though, it is much better then the 
deterioration of VHS.

If you transfer from a HDD camera as soon as you can, then the file will 
be in .mov format, which is about the best format around when it comes to 
forward-compatibility and cross-platform-ness, and it will be an exact 
clone of what's on the camera.

Both methods yield very good results when used properly (I should 
emphasise that last point), and it depends on the individual user or group 
whether they go for tapes or for HD/solid state.

-- 
Aidan Wilson

The University of Sydney
+612 9036 9558
+61428 458 969
aidan.wilson at sydney.edu.au

On Fri, 26 Mar 2010, Daryn McKenny wrote:

> I would like to add to what we as an Aboriginal Language centre would want alongside of supporting what Felicity has said:
>
> We don't want just audio recordings, I cant emphasise enough how important video is for us when receiving language spoken evidence back to community.
>
> Ourselves only use quality (Sony/Canon) HDDV recorders recording to tape, we will not go to hard drive or any other format yet because of proprietary formats and compressions/codecs used, raw is best and that is what tapes give us.
>
> Regards
>
> Daryn
>
> Arwarbukarl Cultural Resource Association Inc. Trading as:
> Miromaa Aboriginal Language and Technology Centre
>
> P | 02 4927 8222    F | 02 4925 2185    E | daryn at acra.org.au    W | www.acra.org.au<http://www.acra.org.au/> & www.miromaa.com.au<http://www.miromaa.com.au/>
>
> P  Please consider the environment before printing this email
>
> The Arwarbukarl Cultural Resource Association Inc. respects the privacy of individuals and strives to comply with all areas of the Privacy Act. The contents of this email are intended for the purpose of the person or persons named in either the "To" or "CC" boxes of the email. Any person not named in these boxes in receipt of this email should immediately delete this email and advise the sender accordingly.
>
> From: Felicity Meakins [mailto:f.meakins at uq.edu.au]
> Sent: Friday, 26 March 2010 9:33 AM
> To: Laura Robinson; r-n-l-d
> Subject: Re: video cameras
>
> I haven't been overly impressed with the quality of the hard drive cameras I've looked at. I have a Canon HV30 Black Progressive HDV which rates better than the Sony equivalent. The HDDV quality is infinitely better than the normal DV cameras and better than any of the hard drive cameras I've used. The digitised files require more hard drive space, but it is worth it for the image.
>
> I think that as linguists doing documentation we spend more time worrying about sound quality and good sound equipment and not enough about the quality of footage. We think of it as just adding a bit of context to our recordings rather than considering them as the primary recording that language communities are going to be interested in in decades to come.
>
>
> On 26/3/10 6:57 AM, "Laura Robinson" <lcrobinson1 at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hello all,
>
> I am looking to buy some video cameras for my fieldwork this summer.  I'm thinking to get a couple of the new tiny video cameras, plus something more mid-range, like a solid-state video recorder.  It would be nice to get away from miniDV if possible, and I was wondering what this list thought of the various kinds of new video cameras on the market?
>
> Thanks,
> Laura
> --
> Laura C. Robinson
> Postdoctoral Researcher
> Department of Linguistics
> University of Alaska, Fairbanks
> http://go.alaska.edu/lcrobinson
>
>