Re: DV capture
- From: info@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (SM)
- Date: Mon, 2 Jan 2006 13:12:23 +0000
Alan Frame <alan.frame@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> SM <info@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> > Alan outline a slightly strange workflow, Peter said
> > it's the only way that makes sense. You say log the tape in FCP and
> > batch capture. Fine.
>
> Hey, it's not /that/ strange compared to some still photogs - use many
> small CF cards, back up to iPod/etc, burn CD in cybercafe, upload
> previews to buereau/website, etc, etc...
Sorry, strange was the wrong word. I meant it's unusual, in that I'd
guess most people using DV for documenting their kids etc would just
capture as DV, or more likely end up with a shoebox of tapes.
> > But there is quite a difference using decent RS422 deck
> > control and a FireWire controlled player, or worse still camera. I've no
> > idea how many people using DV have a decent edit deck to capture from,
> > but I'd bet on it being a minority. Zooming about using JKL, IO and F2
> > on a decent deck (and the subsequent batch capture) is a world away from
> > trying to do the same with a DV camera.
>
> In what way? I've never played with those toys.
I think Graeme was suggesting that the one true way to import video is
to shuttle through the tape logging and marking shots for capture, then
get FCP to batch capture the selected clips.
Nothing wrong with that at all, but on a DV camera controlled through
FireWire the shuttling is quite slow, changing direction takes a few
seconds, lining the tape up for pre-roll before capturing a clip seems
to take for ever etc etc. Just not very fluid.
More expensive edit decks including Sony's DSR-45P DVCAM and older
analogue BetaSP recorders, for example, are controlled by an RS-422
serial connector. These spool backwards and forward quickly so if you
don't mark the start of a shot and then change your mind you can
instantly stop the tape, rewind, mark, spool forward an so on.
> > It is easier at first to capture the lot, and a lot gentler on a
> > camera's tape transport, but sooner or later the footage has to be
> > sorted.
>
> I capture using my old camera, so I'm not too worried about that - Im
> doing the sorting with CatDV.
Your method seems completely sensible for your circumstances. If you
were logging and batch capturing every shot you thought might be worth
having, i.e. not using CatDV, it would be quite tough on your camera's
tape transport, and you'd have GBs of DV on your disks.
> > Which sort of brings things back to CatDV, and whether there's much
> > point having everything you shoot accessible on a hard drive but in a
> > compressed format. I'm not convinced.
>
> Why bother with a photo album when you've got a box full of negatives?
I do "get it", but scanning the shelves of tapes from various projects
in the next room, most haven't been looked at for years, and I guess
that compressed clips on a disk from these tapes wouldn't be looked at
either.
On the other hand, a few years ago I documented a public art project
that went on for years. There were occasional large events that needed
covering, and a continual stream of smaller things to film, ending up
with - you've guessed it - a box of unlogged tapes with footage on some
tapes covering several months, occasionally with filming out of sequence
recorded on the end of a tape. If I was doing the same today I'd film it
on DV or DVCAM and use CatDV or similar to keep on top of the footage
(it started being filmed on BetaSP and Hi8, and ended on DV)
> HNY, Alan
HNY2U2
Stuart
--
cut that out to reply
.
- References:
- Re: DV capture
- From: Graeme Wall
- Re: DV capture
- From: SM
- Re: DV capture
- From: Graeme Wall
- Re: DV capture
- From: SM
- Re: DV capture
- From: Alan Frame
- Re: DV capture
- Prev by Date: Re: Mac's & Guitar - Was: Re: Apple UK ITPro site
- Next by Date: Re: DV capture
- Previous by thread: Re: DV capture
- Next by thread: Re: DV capture
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
