George Socka
Forum Replies Created
-
P Pro’s titler is just plain boring, Been that way since version 4.2
-
Realors here in the Great White North seem to be paying $100 for 3D walkthroughs. Hard to make a living at that rate.
-
I like the last part. Even better with a simple web page with links because then they can right click and “save as” as well as view. The save as lets them play it back later, share it around the office, and lets people on slow connections actually be able to see the whole file without buffering, or in Flash – breaking up. And Windows media files sseem to be useable by everyone so far.
-
Pardon my ignorance of the complexities of FTP. I am obviously new to this technology and look at each day as a learning experience.
Hard to argue tho, with a Cow host who is pushing his company’s product in the forum. And probably a bit cheekly to do so. Ron will probabaly ban me again. NOOOOOOOOOOOO
-
too light – you touch the camera an dteh whole thing jiggles
-
Not sure I understand what makes ftp hard to use – maybe its a Mac thing. On my PC I can type ftp://www.xxx.xxx in IE and Firefox and download as required.
Uploading with IE is a royal pain, but then there are web folders and My Network Places that are drag and drop on Windows XP.
Am I overlooking something?
-
The XL1 that started all this is not a fixed lens camera, but it does not have a user accessible back focus adjustment.
-
The referenced article talks at length about the not surprising difference in Dof between a 35mm film camera and a 1/3 inch SD television CCD. I suggest that the original poster not worry about the minuscule difference in Doff of his XL1 and, lets say, a 2/3 inch Varicam at 10 times the price.
If you use the calculations referred to in https://www.dof.pcraft.com/dof.cgi
and change c from say .033 to .008 (4 times larger imager area, same number of scan lines) you get even shallower depth of field for the smaller imager. I suggest this because in SD you get only 480 or so scan lines. On the larger chip, each line is simply fatter – thus a larger circle of confusion. The strange pixel shifting function of the XL1 may poke a hole in this argument however.His XL1 will work fine.
-
2 points to keep the original poster from running our and renting a Viper because his gear might be deemed inferior:
The XL1 that the original poster has does indeed provide a backfocus adjustment, but only with Canon tech magic.
When wide open with the stock lens, he will get as shallow a depth of field as anything else at f 1:1.6. What would make a so-called professional camera with 1/2 inch chips camera a shorter depth?
-
None of these will change the low light quality or lack of it of the camera. My V1U is equally bad in low light whether I put in a DVCAM tape or miniDV. Just Sony marketing Koolaid. Sip with care.