Ron Shook
Forum Replies Created
-
Steve and all,
After following links here to other forums I tracked down this Libec zoom controller. It’s their standard Fuji/Canon Pro controller with an adapter at the end. The picture doesn’t show the adapter:
As I researched, even though at $250 this is the least expensive of the bunch, a couple of folks who’e tried it comparatively to VZ and another brand thought it worked the best. I’m not sure if they tried it with EX, but it seems like very much worth a try. Plus it’ll work with just about any other pro lens you have. BTW, I found it another place and they wanted $400 for it.
Ron Shook
Shoulder-High Eye Productions
CreativeCOW Forum Host for Discreet edit* -
Craig,
Pardon me!
Ron Shook
Ron Shook
Shoulder-High Eye Productions
CreativeCOW Forum Host for Discreet edit* -
Craig,
[Craig Seeman] “If it is a a general characteristic of the motor than maybe they could have limited the lower zoom speed . . . unless there was a reason they couldn’t.”
I’m not entirely following this. How is this characteristic different from the zoom rocker on the grip? Or is it just that the zoom rocker is just that, a rocker and not buttons? Can you or not duplicate the problem with the rocker?
Ron Shook
Ron Shook
Shoulder-High Eye Productions
CreativeCOW Forum Host for Discreet edit* -
Jason,
Archiving is the biggest bugaboo of the whole file based production system. There ain’t no simple answers that answer every need. We’ve been discussing it at the Discrete edit*ors Cow Forum. You might want to take a look at this thread for some ideas.
https://forums.creativecow.net/thread/13/861726
[Jason H] “Since the footage isn’t degraded by converting from the SxS cards to quicktime, isn’t saving the original files a waste of storage space if I save the quicktime files too?
Does anyone know any reason why I would need to save the originals?”It depends on how important the files are, how long you want to keep ’em, whether they may need to be used on a non-QT system, and what you are using to archive with. If they are important, you want ’em for a long time and you are using hard disks to archive, for safety’s sake I’d put the originals on one drive and the .mov files on another.
LTO3 Data tape is large capacity, cheap, reliable (at least the tapes themselves) and fairly fast; hard disks are cheap, large capacity and very fast, but none too reliable for long term storage; and HD optical is too small, too expensive for media, and too slow, but other forms of optical should have long term potential. This is a problem for the whole IT industry and better alternatives should be coming, but who knows how quickly. Somebody’s gonna make a large fortune when they solve the problem of an archiving medium for digital files that’s inexpensive, reliable, fast, has large capacity, and will last reliably for at least 20 or 30 years. It ain’t there yet.
Ron Shook
Shoulder-High Eye Productions
CreativeCOW Forum Host for Discreet edit* -
Paul,
First, let me say that I share your sentiments about the proliferation of formats and codecs. It’s a PITA in multiple ways. I’m not an apologist for the Big Fish of the industry, by a long shot. I’m just saying “Look where they’re coming from and how the march of technology has threatened to decimate them, for an understanding of how they are behaving, and why to a considerable degree they have to or feel they have to behave in this manner.” Your’s is only the most recent in a long stream of similar feelings and it won’t be the last by a long shot. The pendulum is swinging inexorably towards some of the openness that you and I desire, but it will never happen to the degree that we desire and perhaps it shouldn’t (more about that later).
[Paul King] “Actually I am doing Sony and Pana favour. This path they are on will probably be self-destructive anyway.”
Just as they probably won’t listen with more than an irritating scratch at we little mosquitos, they will surely be aware of the broadcast predators nipping at their heels and have to respond to them to everyone’s benefit.
[Paul King] “greed is the answer. ….you get a strong sense of the motivation being self preservation rather than providing their customers with great products.”
Exactly! Greed is not the only answer because self preservation is not greed. Nor is their desire to keep their hundreds of thousands of employees emplyed and their millions of investors satisfied. Customers are 3rd or 4th on the list of corporate motivations and that’s not going to change anytime soon.
[Paul King] “why are Sony and Pana dictating the terms of reference?”
Because they can and they have to. Going back to my original thesis, the march of technology has given them terrible hits over the last 10 years, the not so gradual demise of VTRs being only the most graphic. If they are going to continue to deliver tools for us to use, they have to replace those lost traditional profits in other ways. Some ways have worked out for them, some haven’t.
Technology brings along with it opportunities for everyone, not just Sony and Pany, but those opportunities have to translate into products and profits if they are going to deliver. The products that we employ make use of highly varied technologies. Every year brings more than one significant advancement that threatens to shove the whole camcorder, NLE, Server, or Codec equation into a cocked hat and in the meantime these uber companies must always be guessing and pushing development cycles ever harder. Standardization has a heck of a time working in this environment. Can anyone honestly say that they would stick with a “standard codec” if someone delivered a clearly superior codec to their competitors? Probably not, I’d guess.
And what happens when someone delivers a camcorder with a completely programmable codec subsection and it becomes ever more difficult for Sony or Pany to dictate compression codecs to the industry. How will they finagle their profits then, assuming you will allow them some?
Or what happens to codec’s themselves when someone delivers cheap, reliable, huge, powerlite, molecular or atomic based digital storage that makes compression unnecessary? This will surely happen, probably sooner than we think. Would you deny Sony and Panasonic their profits (greed) so that they are unable to respond to such a drastic change in possibilities and capabilites? Perhaps someone else will be more nimble in adapting and one or both of these companies will disappear from our industry. That might be good in the long run, but will make our lives even more difficult in the interim.
Sorry, but the NLE companies will have to keep scrambling to support new codecs because no one puts up with second best too long. The saving grace is that the NLE companies are getting better at this with each new necessity and the response cycle keeps dropping.
It ain’t as simple as “greed.”
Ron Shook
Shoulder-High Eye Productions
CreativeCOW Forum Host for Discreet edit* -
Derek,
[Derek Hall] “However I’m also wondering about the value of one of those shoulder mount adaptors for ‘palm-held’ cameras. The camera performs so well it’s worth doing some experimentation to get the handheld side of things worked out.”
This and other considerations are why I’m going to hold off purchase until after cruising at NAB.
Ron Shook
Ron Shook
Shoulder-High Eye Productions
CreativeCOW Forum Host for Discreet edit* -
Paul,
[Paul King] “So can anyone help me understand why this is so?”
Sure! It’s so obvious that you’ll kick yourself for not seeing it. In one word, “VTRs.” As in “soon” there will be little need for them except for archival purposes and these babies along with their associated consumable media were a huge, huge source of product and income for Pany, Sony and JVC. First, NLEs made it possible to go from 3 or more VTRs for post-production to only 1. Now file based production using inexpensive solid state, optical and hard drives is moving us along to a tapesless world.
There will always be some need for VTR like substitutes that can be operated by dummies, but for the most part these expensive stand alone devices will be cut back very drastically, and thus the product and profits of the big boys unless they can find substitutes. They are all scrambling for these substitutes. Proprietary formats and media are part of that scramble and it ain’t probably gonna end soon.
I say “probably” because the pace of technology is real hard to predict and coupled with software smarts, things can change almost overnight. Look at how long it took for the On2 codec in Flash to decimate the use of WMV and QT for WEB delivery. Not everything is that “one year” volitile, but most things in our biz are now 2-5 years volitile.
[Paul King] “I beta test for a couple of different companies in the NLE area. I keep hearing complaints about support for this format and what about that new camera?”
NLE Manufacturers will just have to keep scrambling to accomodate to the world they are given. It’s a tough slog. 10 years ago in the Pro NLE world there was Avid and a dozen contenders. Now when you talk about encompassing general purpose NLEs there are 4: Avid, Apple, Adobe and Vegas. IMO, there wouldn’t be Avid without Unity, nor Apple, Adobe and Vegas without their bundled integrated applications.
[Paul King] “Why are we putting up with Sony and Pana developing their own standards instead of settling on one? What if hard drive makers each had their own version of SATA or SCSI, there would be a huge outcry.”
Pany and Sony are in the same boat of protecting their place and profits, and trying to perpetuate the proprietary in an increasingly open, non-proprietary, commodity computer world. They not only have to watch and repond to each other, but they have to keep looking behind because every piece of proprietary hardware and media in their warehouses can be essentially obsoleted in a twinkling by the march of technology.
They’re good at proprietary pro codecs, but have a significant failure history when it comes to broad based software. So they perpetuate what they are the best at to stave off each other and possible contenders. The Red and Dulca cameras which are essentially commodity computers with glass wouldn’t have been possible 10 years ago. Although they don’t threaten Pany and Sony significantly now, as commodity computer elements shrink in size and power draw they likely could in another 5 years.
[Paul King] “But Sony and Panasonic seem to get away with it. And it’s not like their camera products are really that good, most of them are a series of compromises in a metal and plastic box.”
So’s my automile. (g) As long as Sony and Pany present us with products of real and/or perceived usefullness that are on balance better than the competition, they’ll be able to stay where they are. If they can’t, they’ll either adapt or die. “A centillion number of formats and standards” is enabling them to adapt for the time being. It may not always be so, and will call for other strategies.
That’s enough. I feel an article coming on. (g)
Ron Shook
Shoulder-High Eye Productions
CreativeCOW Forum Host for Discreet edit* -
Philip,
[Philip Bloom] “that’s a lot of questions!”
Yeah, but it gave you a chance to display your unprecedented expertise and quell my every fear. (g)
[Philip Bloom] “I have many Nikor lenses and they are great, don’t know where you read that. I have a 28mm, 35mm, 105mm, 180mm and a nice 70-200mm zoom which are all suberb!”
I thought you said it when discussing follow focus concerns in a comparison between the Nikors and your Nikon mount Leitz lenses. Perhaps I misunderstood and the comparison was about fiddly follow focus on the Nikors which have less focus barrel rotation than the Leitz lenses?
Thanks profusely for answering all of my lot of questions with such reassuring and I must assume factual answers. A+
Ron Shook
Shoulder-High Eye Productions
CreativeCOW Forum Host for Discreet edit* -
Mike,
[Mick Haensler] “So to sum it up…. If shooting for video, shoot 30. If shooting for a filmout, shoot 24.”
That’s how I grok it. Of course, if the temporal resolution is more important than the spatial resolution, such as with dance and sports, shoot 1080-60i or 720-60p. The EX does it all.
[Mick Haensler] “OTOH…. If you really think 24 looks better and are shooting for video, go ahead and shoot 24 and add pulldown in post.”
Yeah, but you don’t see pulldown in the optical projection theatre. It’s an artificial adaptation to NTSC electronic display and I believe does effect spatial resolution to some degree, which is why I prefer 30p production for electronic display. The other side of the coin is that we’ve gotten used to seeing movies on TV with pulldown, so we accept some degradation due to the pulldown that we wouldn’t see in the optical projection theatre.
So to each his own.
[Mick Haensler] “Did I get it??”
Ya gots it for me, but perhaps not for you or the next person. (g)
Ron Shook
Ron Shook
Shoulder-High Eye Productions
CreativeCOW Forum Host for Discreet edit* -
Philip,
Like everyone else who sees them, I find your images to have a gorgeous factor way beyond most things I see, and your work with 35mm adapters and tilt-shift lenses has been a real eye opener for me. I’ve been video with no 35mm film experience, but some 35mm still experience my entire life (60 yrs.) and career (40 yrs.), and I’ve finally seen conclusively for the first time the value of selective 35mm focus through your work.
I’ve mined your web-site pretty comprehensively (g), and have several questions if you (or others) have the time to address them.
Can I assume that the field of view using 35mm lenses with 35mm adapters is similar to my experience with 35mm still photography with some loss for fiddling the adapter to the video camera, i.e., would I get an essentially 28mm field of view with say a 24mm still lens?
There is some light loss in the 35mm adapter. I think Letus claims about 1/2 f-stop. Is the Letus device as good or better in this respect than other adapters? And assuming you have a fast (f2 or better) 35mm still lens in front of the adapter is there some additional light loss from the whole process and can you quantify it? If so, what factors come into play? It must be extremely fortuitous that the EX1 does such a good job at lower light levels, making it possible to use the 35mm adapter in situations that other camcorders couldn’t handle.
You mentioned some place on your website that Nikor lenses don’t quite cut it. Since I have a couple of good ones, how much don’t they cut it and in what respect? Not sharp enough, not good edge sharpness or what?
How much fiddling to reset the adapter for near optimum results is involved when switching lenses?
Thanks for any illumination you can shed on these concerns.
Ron Shook
Ron Shook
Shoulder-High Eye Productions
CreativeCOW Forum Host for Discreet edit*