| GarySheehan | 07-11-2002 05:57 PM |
Camera for In-Car Video Footage?
I'm about to go get a camera for recording in-car video footage. I've seen some DV cameras for $499 locally. On the other hand, there are some Hi8 cameras available for $229. Is a DV camera that much better to pay over double the price?
I'm not looking for bells and whistles. Just a stable image during racing.
Thanks,
Gary
Sheehan Motor Racing
[url]www.teamSMR.com[/url]
I'm not looking for bells and whistles. Just a stable image during racing.
Thanks,
Gary
Sheehan Motor Racing
[url]www.teamSMR.com[/url]
| tifosi77 | 07-11-2002 06:08 PM |
Gary as a video professional I will tell you that you should forget about HI 8 and go with DV the image quality is much better which is what you will need if you want to be able to analyze your footage. I would tell you to go with sony of cannon since they have the best image stabilization in the business. I let Subiegal borrow one of my cameras fro Rim of the World and we just couldn't get it to work and I suspect vibration was the factor. I was using a high end camera (about 3 grand) so I would tell you to find a way to get some dampening or look at one of those lipstick cameras that people are advertising in Grassroots they may work the best. If you have any video questions email me [email][email protected][/email]
| GarySheehan | 07-11-2002 06:18 PM |
I noticed that the Panasonic and JVC have more pixels vs. the Sony. What's more important, image stabilization or resolution?
Gary
Gary
| eric m. | 07-11-2002 07:01 PM |
miniDV is much better quality than Hi8. usually the image stabilization is better on the miniDV cameras, as well. i would spend the extra couple hundred dollars, it's well worth it.
| Subie Gal | 07-11-2002 07:16 PM |
Gary...
i have a digi Sony DV that i just purchased...
I just went through the research you are now doing! :)
The camera works fantastically - even in rally/rough rally!
very stable... excellent quality...
i just havent had time to upload any video yet...
sometyhing like this should be perfect for what you do!
they can be had beginnning at $300 and up...
depending on how many bells/whistles you need...
anyhoo...that's my recommendation...
cheers!
Jamie
[url]www.subiegalracing.com[/url]
[url]www.subiegal.com[/url]
i have a digi Sony DV that i just purchased...
I just went through the research you are now doing! :)
The camera works fantastically - even in rally/rough rally!
very stable... excellent quality...
i just havent had time to upload any video yet...
sometyhing like this should be perfect for what you do!
they can be had beginnning at $300 and up...
depending on how many bells/whistles you need...
anyhoo...that's my recommendation...
cheers!
Jamie
[url]www.subiegalracing.com[/url]
[url]www.subiegal.com[/url]
| randy zimmer | 07-11-2002 09:32 PM |
in-car camera
I use a digital-8 because I had a huge # of tapes from a previous 8mm camera.
I put the camera in a foam-filled box and run a cheap camera lens to the camcorder input.
The lens and mic suck but it tells the story and allows many neat views because it is cheap and small and you can mount it anywhere. Put it on the front spoiler or behind a wheel. If it gets killed, its just $80.
The best part is when you hit something (the part you want to see). Because the tape deck is cushioned, the tape doesn't come away from the drum and turn white.
See [url]www.randyzimmer.com[/url] for compressed examples of the "quality" - not great but affordable and does the job.
Newer clips are better because I screwed the lens on instead of just velcro.
rz
I put the camera in a foam-filled box and run a cheap camera lens to the camcorder input.
The lens and mic suck but it tells the story and allows many neat views because it is cheap and small and you can mount it anywhere. Put it on the front spoiler or behind a wheel. If it gets killed, its just $80.
The best part is when you hit something (the part you want to see). Because the tape deck is cushioned, the tape doesn't come away from the drum and turn white.
See [url]www.randyzimmer.com[/url] for compressed examples of the "quality" - not great but affordable and does the job.
Newer clips are better because I screwed the lens on instead of just velcro.
rz
| dch | 07-12-2002 12:45 AM |
What I've learned is that the image stabilization is not such a huge factor. A digital recording format is much better (be it Digital8 or MiniDV) because a lot of the jitter comes into play in the recording mechanism, not the image stabilization (unless you have a crappy mount). The best method is as Randy said, and Speed Channel does, using a remote video camera (CCTV type, check [url]www.supercircuits.com[/url]) and some sort of digital recording deck with the deck in a foam soft-sided case of some kind. I have a nice solid mount in my car, with no image stabilization whatsoever of the remote camera, and the picture is rock solid.
$0.02
-Doug
$0.02
-Doug
| travmn | 07-12-2002 02:04 AM |
This may not apply to you gary, but you may also consider whether you would want your video to be used by another source ( ie Speed Channel). IIRC if a pro rally driver wants there footage aired, it must be from a digital source such as miniDV.
miniDV's are simply put, great. The guy I ran with at HW had a sony miniDV camera and the footage turned out great. The best part with most miniDV camera's is you can use the firewire connection straight to your computer (if you have the port - you can always upgrade) and then use the footage to make a Video CD or DVD or highlights reel with some video editing software.
I just bought a sony miniDV not too long ago, and for the better camera's, sony seems to be a preferred brand. but they do get a bit expensive. if you aren't sure what to get, check out some incar footage from someone that runs hi8 or digi8 to miniDV.
miniDV's are simply put, great. The guy I ran with at HW had a sony miniDV camera and the footage turned out great. The best part with most miniDV camera's is you can use the firewire connection straight to your computer (if you have the port - you can always upgrade) and then use the footage to make a Video CD or DVD or highlights reel with some video editing software.
I just bought a sony miniDV not too long ago, and for the better camera's, sony seems to be a preferred brand. but they do get a bit expensive. if you aren't sure what to get, check out some incar footage from someone that runs hi8 or digi8 to miniDV.
| Surly | 07-12-2002 10:57 AM |
go with miniDV
If you can afford it go with miniDV it's night and day compared
to Hi-8. miniDV is also a lot better in low light.
Digital-8 is pretty good but not as good as dv.
As others have mentioned miniDV is really easy to edit, put on the web, DVD etc..
IMHO I would try to avoid using the image stabilization on the Sony cameras. It digitally zooms in a few pixels then uses those pixels as a buffer. It costs you some resolution, not a lot but still noticeable. Although the newer cameras are better this image stabilization can also cause stuttering in the picture and make the bouncing look worse.
More important is getting a good mount. If you have a good mount and stay fully zoomed out (very important) you should be fine.
[url]http://www.ioportracing.com/video.htm[/url]
I haven't used that one but I heard it works well.
Having recently shot some in car footage I can tell you the best way to do it is, like DCH said, using a mini camera and then recording that to a deck or camcorder of some kind.
But to do this you are going to have to buy a DV camera to record to it anyway. (A portable DV deck is a couple thousand). Then if you want to get a mini-camera with the same resolution as your typical miniDV camcorcer that's going to cost you several thousand.
I guess what I'm trying to say is spend the extra $200 you won't
regret it.
Peter
to Hi-8. miniDV is also a lot better in low light.
Digital-8 is pretty good but not as good as dv.
As others have mentioned miniDV is really easy to edit, put on the web, DVD etc..
IMHO I would try to avoid using the image stabilization on the Sony cameras. It digitally zooms in a few pixels then uses those pixels as a buffer. It costs you some resolution, not a lot but still noticeable. Although the newer cameras are better this image stabilization can also cause stuttering in the picture and make the bouncing look worse.
More important is getting a good mount. If you have a good mount and stay fully zoomed out (very important) you should be fine.
[url]http://www.ioportracing.com/video.htm[/url]
I haven't used that one but I heard it works well.
Having recently shot some in car footage I can tell you the best way to do it is, like DCH said, using a mini camera and then recording that to a deck or camcorder of some kind.
But to do this you are going to have to buy a DV camera to record to it anyway. (A portable DV deck is a couple thousand). Then if you want to get a mini-camera with the same resolution as your typical miniDV camcorcer that's going to cost you several thousand.
I guess what I'm trying to say is spend the extra $200 you won't
regret it.
Peter
| GarySheehan | 07-12-2002 01:19 PM |
I picked up a Sony Digi8 camera that had more outputs than the more expensive DV cameras. Is the difference between the DV and D8 that noticeable? Also, I'd like to get the racing footage here, to people on the i-club. The above post made it sound that DV is easier. Even if my D8 camera has USB and Firewire connections?
Thanks,
Gary
Thanks,
Gary
| Surly | 07-12-2002 01:42 PM |
DV vs. D8
Gary
If your Digi-8 camera has firewire, then it's just as easy as dv to put on the net and or edit. AFAIK Digi-8 actually records the same DV signal it's just on a different kind of tape.
The difference between the two formats, is in general the dv cameras are made with higher quality components (lens, mic, etc).
Is the difference between the two that noticeable?
between a $300 Digi-8 and a $500 dv cam not really and after you compress it for the internet, it's probably impossible to tell the difference.
I think the camera you picked out should work great for what
you need it to do.
good luck
Peter
If your Digi-8 camera has firewire, then it's just as easy as dv to put on the net and or edit. AFAIK Digi-8 actually records the same DV signal it's just on a different kind of tape.
The difference between the two formats, is in general the dv cameras are made with higher quality components (lens, mic, etc).
Is the difference between the two that noticeable?
between a $300 Digi-8 and a $500 dv cam not really and after you compress it for the internet, it's probably impossible to tell the difference.
I think the camera you picked out should work great for what
you need it to do.
good luck
Peter
| Patrick Olsen | 07-12-2002 05:41 PM |
Peter pretty much nailed it on the head, Gary. With the Firewire output it's really easy to capture video - it'll work exactly the same whether it is Digital8 or DV. Just get a Firewire card to add to your computer and you'll be good to go. The Firewire card will probably come with capture software, which you may or may not need depending on how new your computer is. I bought a Dell about 5 or 6 months ago that has Windows XP on it, and it came with Windows Movie Maker. That allows me to capture video in .WMV format, which produces video about 1/2 to 1/3 the size of the .MPGs I used to capture, and the clarity is noticeably better.
And, as Peter pointed out, by the time you save the video in an internet-friendly size, whatever difference in picture quality there may be between DV and Digital8 won't matter.
Pat Olsen
'97 Legacy 2.5GT sedan
PS - Here's a really short (210kb) video of me passing Gary during the 2002 OTC. :lol: (Video was shot using my Cone Cam [url]www.conecam.com[/url] mounted to the side of the car with their 3-suction-cup mount, and my Sony digital mic was located in the engine compartment resting behind the driver side strut tower.)
And, as Peter pointed out, by the time you save the video in an internet-friendly size, whatever difference in picture quality there may be between DV and Digital8 won't matter.
Pat Olsen
'97 Legacy 2.5GT sedan
PS - Here's a really short (210kb) video of me passing Gary during the 2002 OTC. :lol: (Video was shot using my Cone Cam [url]www.conecam.com[/url] mounted to the side of the car with their 3-suction-cup mount, and my Sony digital mic was located in the engine compartment resting behind the driver side strut tower.)
| rkkwan | 07-12-2002 08:08 PM |
Ah.... Pat... Did you forget something? Where's the link? :)
-Ray
-Ray
| Patrick Olsen | 07-12-2002 09:09 PM |
Ahhh, just testing you guys! :lol: Good catch, Ray. Here's the link...
[url]http://www.submariner.org/thepno95/Video%20clips/OTC%202002/Passing%20Gary%20Sheehan.WMV[/url]
Pat
[url]http://www.submariner.org/thepno95/Video%20clips/OTC%202002/Passing%20Gary%20Sheehan.WMV[/url]
Pat
| rkkwan | 07-12-2002 09:29 PM |
Wow! You passed him so quickly that Gary's like standing still! Go silver Legacy!!! :lol:
-Ray
-Ray
| ldivinag | 07-12-2002 11:37 PM |
folks,
you are missing the importance of optics!!!!
you can get the best damn digital video deck and plug in a cheap-a$$ fisher price b/w camera and guess what you have?
mini DV vs D8, it comes down to size and backwards compatilbity.
if you take the output (via firewire) from both, you will notice a very small difference. assuming that the same type of optics are used.
3 CCD chip camcorders are expensive. $1500+. i think maybe sony has a 3 chipper D8 camcorder, but the rest use mini DV.
what's cool about the mini DV is that it's a small tape format that holds around 60 minutes. even the D8 limits the tape in half that of the HI8 due the amount of data stored (since the highest cap 8MM tape is 120 min analog, you get 60 minutes digital...). bad news is that the 3 chipper cam are gigantic, vs the truly mini DV cams. my favorite, the [url=http://www.cameratopia.com/products.asp?product_id=10042&dept_id=1105&shelf=1112]canon XL-1s[/url] is gigantic. then take a look at the [url=http://www.cameratopia.com/products.asp?product_id=11296&dept_id=1105&shelf=1112]mini canon[/url] one looks like it could fit in the XL-1... :)
anyway, another factor is the mount. i made a set of cheapy aluminum headrest mount that was little bit long (cheaper to cut long that short...). but that made a short drive during the RIM rally of boquet canyon jumpy. i checked afterwards and i did have the stabilization circuit turn on in my sony D8 deck.
oops... back to the drawing boards. actually back to cutting the mount shorter.
you are missing the importance of optics!!!!
you can get the best damn digital video deck and plug in a cheap-a$$ fisher price b/w camera and guess what you have?
mini DV vs D8, it comes down to size and backwards compatilbity.
if you take the output (via firewire) from both, you will notice a very small difference. assuming that the same type of optics are used.
3 CCD chip camcorders are expensive. $1500+. i think maybe sony has a 3 chipper D8 camcorder, but the rest use mini DV.
what's cool about the mini DV is that it's a small tape format that holds around 60 minutes. even the D8 limits the tape in half that of the HI8 due the amount of data stored (since the highest cap 8MM tape is 120 min analog, you get 60 minutes digital...). bad news is that the 3 chipper cam are gigantic, vs the truly mini DV cams. my favorite, the [url=http://www.cameratopia.com/products.asp?product_id=10042&dept_id=1105&shelf=1112]canon XL-1s[/url] is gigantic. then take a look at the [url=http://www.cameratopia.com/products.asp?product_id=11296&dept_id=1105&shelf=1112]mini canon[/url] one looks like it could fit in the XL-1... :)
anyway, another factor is the mount. i made a set of cheapy aluminum headrest mount that was little bit long (cheaper to cut long that short...). but that made a short drive during the RIM rally of boquet canyon jumpy. i checked afterwards and i did have the stabilization circuit turn on in my sony D8 deck.
oops... back to the drawing boards. actually back to cutting the mount shorter.
| randy zimmer | 07-13-2002 12:03 AM |
optics!
I'm not missing anything. I shoot the video with stuff that I can afford to trash for my own use and I share it with others for fun. This isn't broadcast quality but it works for me.
Besides, after compression for the web, everything looks crappy.
I have tires to buy.
Others may want to impress with their camera's image and cost, I want to see what I hit and not do it again.
rz
Besides, after compression for the web, everything looks crappy.
I have tires to buy.
Others may want to impress with their camera's image and cost, I want to see what I hit and not do it again.
rz
| tifosi77 | 07-13-2002 12:29 AM |
Sorry but I do disagree with if it is firewire Digi8 is nearly as good as Mini DV but if you are not using it for broadcast than it won't matter to you. Just a trick when shooting in any digital format under expose you can always correct the exposure in post because the information is already there, if you over expose then you cannot do anything to correct it later. TO the comment made about using a DV deck I would tell most people to scrap that idea unles they feel like paying 1800 and up (for anything decent). Gary if you ever want to edit your footage let me know I would be happy to help you out if I have time in between projects. Jamie I just got my camera back from Sony and the reason that it didn't work at Rim was because it had a software glitch, sorry it didn't work out but I am glad to see that you picked up a camera. To all of those that do not believe image stabilization is important go look at footage shot on early high 8 cameras.
Ldivinag: PD 100, PD 150, Vx2000, VX1000, and GL1 all are 3CCD cameras that are not that big, if I remeber correctly one of the Sony TRV models is also a 3CCD camera.
Canon has the best color according to some (I would dipute this) and sony has the best resolution (there is a reason a lot of television is shot on the PD 150) Just remember to get some sort of dust shield if it is being used for rally (This does not apply to Gary obviously)
Ldivinag: PD 100, PD 150, Vx2000, VX1000, and GL1 all are 3CCD cameras that are not that big, if I remeber correctly one of the Sony TRV models is also a 3CCD camera.
Canon has the best color according to some (I would dipute this) and sony has the best resolution (there is a reason a lot of television is shot on the PD 150) Just remember to get some sort of dust shield if it is being used for rally (This does not apply to Gary obviously)
| wrxinfx | 07-13-2002 04:28 AM |
Gary - I borrowed a Sony MiniDV camera that is about 2 years old. I mounted it on a square "pipe" that goes between the head rests. Here's a link from Thunderhill - I was plenty happy with the results!
[url]http://208.184.121.11/vids/HPDE_vids/thill_Jan18.wmv[/url]
[url]http://208.184.121.11/vids/HPDE_vids/thill_Jan18.wmv[/url]
| Chromer | 07-15-2002 09:16 AM |
Point of order on Digital8
It uses the EXACT SAME byte stream as miniDV. The only difference is that it gets stored on a different size tape. If you can see a difference between them, you are seeing the difference in the optics and the CCD's, not in the mechanism used to store the data.
That said, I have a Sharp miniDV, and quite like it. I wish the CCD were "sharper" though. The deck is more capable than the lens and CCD, as it takes beautiful recordings from a S-Video input or a ripped DVD source via the firewire, but footage through the lens is "soft."
That said, I have a Sharp miniDV, and quite like it. I wish the CCD were "sharper" though. The deck is more capable than the lens and CCD, as it takes beautiful recordings from a S-Video input or a ripped DVD source via the firewire, but footage through the lens is "soft."
| Narcisse91 | 07-15-2002 01:12 PM |
I've been shopping around for a camera lately for the same reason. Right now, I'm mainly looking at a Sony Digital8 camera, as it seems like a good compromise of price, quality, and quick interface to a PC.
A lot of people are talking about how easy firewire makes things, but in my shopping, a lot of the cameras I've looked at also have USB outputs. It seems to me that that's even easier, since no firewire card is needed. Or is there something that I'm not taking into account?
I also wondered how all these cameras held up to dust. Mine will be mainly for recording rallycross runs and TSD rallies. During the rallycross runs, the car can get dusty inside. What steps do you guys take to protect the camera from getting dust where it shouldn't be?
A lot of people are talking about how easy firewire makes things, but in my shopping, a lot of the cameras I've looked at also have USB outputs. It seems to me that that's even easier, since no firewire card is needed. Or is there something that I'm not taking into account?
I also wondered how all these cameras held up to dust. Mine will be mainly for recording rallycross runs and TSD rallies. During the rallycross runs, the car can get dusty inside. What steps do you guys take to protect the camera from getting dust where it shouldn't be?
| travmn | 07-15-2002 01:18 PM |
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Narcisse91 [/i]
[B]A lot of people are talking about how easy firewire makes things, but in my shopping, a lot of the cameras I've looked at also have USB outputs. It seems to me that that's even easier, since no firewire card is needed. Or is there something that I'm not taking into account?
[/B][/QUOTE]
a few notes about that: 1) most USB connections are used to transfer images (since most digicams take pictures as well as video) 2) USB is inferior (lower bandwidth) than firewire so there may be additional time required to transfer.
I'd double check to see if the USB is used to transfer video. I have USB support on my Sony, but it's only for things stored on the memory stick, not video stored on the tape.
[B]A lot of people are talking about how easy firewire makes things, but in my shopping, a lot of the cameras I've looked at also have USB outputs. It seems to me that that's even easier, since no firewire card is needed. Or is there something that I'm not taking into account?
[/B][/QUOTE]
a few notes about that: 1) most USB connections are used to transfer images (since most digicams take pictures as well as video) 2) USB is inferior (lower bandwidth) than firewire so there may be additional time required to transfer.
I'd double check to see if the USB is used to transfer video. I have USB support on my Sony, but it's only for things stored on the memory stick, not video stored on the tape.
| wrxinfx | 07-15-2002 01:25 PM |
for Digital cameras - firewire has become the universal standard. The current USB 1.1 spec. is far too slow for lots of video, hence firewire's accpetence for digital video. USB 2.0 on the other hand is just rolling out now and has speeds equal to or better than firewire. But because of firewire is so entrenched in the DV world, it will take years, (if ever) that USB will take the place of firewire.
| Narcisse91 | 07-15-2002 01:58 PM |
travmn, I appreciate you checking on that for me. The camera I'm looking at says this on the description on Sony's website: "Connect USB terminal to a PC and broadcast live video with audio, capture still images or even playback recorded videos scenes". It's a Sony DCRTRV140, and I don't think it can take still images.
If it just comes down to a matter of speed, I can deal with not using Firewire.
If it just comes down to a matter of speed, I can deal with not using Firewire.
| ConeMasher | 07-15-2002 05:24 PM |
The latest issue of SportsCar (the SCCA publication) has a big article on cameras for in-car (or on-car) footage.
I'm not at home, but I'll give you the page numbers (and the month of the issue) when I get home if you need it.
-- ConeMasher
I'm not at home, but I'll give you the page numbers (and the month of the issue) when I get home if you need it.
-- ConeMasher
| sv_racr | 07-15-2002 06:30 PM |
lipstick camera
Randy zimmer-
where did you find a small camera to plug into your video camera for $80 ???
thank you
where did you find a small camera to plug into your video camera for $80 ???
thank you
| randy zimmer | 07-15-2002 06:44 PM |
cheap camera
HA HA,
From RANDYZIMMER.COM of course!
I've been playing with the things for close to 10 years, buying all the cameras I could find but not many have been reliable enough.
This one is made for the cheapskate.
Not perfect but nearly disposable.
12V DC
70 degree wide angle
built-in mono mic
RCA plugs for video and sound output
Self-adjusting but it adjusts pretty slow so it will flare and change color as the sun hits it - If you want perfect, pay more.
A couple in stock but I think I can get more.
From RANDYZIMMER.COM of course!
I've been playing with the things for close to 10 years, buying all the cameras I could find but not many have been reliable enough.
This one is made for the cheapskate.
Not perfect but nearly disposable.
12V DC
70 degree wide angle
built-in mono mic
RCA plugs for video and sound output
Self-adjusting but it adjusts pretty slow so it will flare and change color as the sun hits it - If you want perfect, pay more.
A couple in stock but I think I can get more.
| Narcisse91 | 07-16-2002 07:09 AM |
There used to be a website that bare cameras (basically lenses on small PCBs with a few solder pads for output) for as little as $30. Color were a little more expensive, but not much. I haven't ordered from them for years, though, and I couldn't find the site again. I wonder if I have an invoice from a past order...
| randy zimmer | 07-16-2002 07:26 AM |
B&W
I still have a bunch of "chip cameras".
B&W with sound and a bunch of do-it-yourself plastic boxes to mount them in.
Once I cound a good color lens I quit promoting the B&W.
They also have 12VDC input, a 90 degree wide angle and are good in low light conditions, have a faster adjustment to light levels - if focused well, a crisp picture. Super light, just vecro to the spoiler and the stones and cracks in the pavement make anything look like 500MPH!
rz
B&W with sound and a bunch of do-it-yourself plastic boxes to mount them in.
Once I cound a good color lens I quit promoting the B&W.
They also have 12VDC input, a 90 degree wide angle and are good in low light conditions, have a faster adjustment to light levels - if focused well, a crisp picture. Super light, just vecro to the spoiler and the stones and cracks in the pavement make anything look like 500MPH!
rz
| ldivinag | 07-16-2002 08:35 PM |
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Narcisse91 [/i]
[B]travmn, I appreciate you checking on that for me. The camera I'm looking at says this on the description on Sony's website: "Connect USB terminal to a PC and broadcast live video with audio, capture still images or even playback recorded videos scenes". It's a Sony DCRTRV140, and I don't think it can take still images.
If it just comes down to a matter of speed, I can deal with not using Firewire. [/B][/QUOTE]
it's acting like a regular USB webcam then. take a look at the output of most webcams and you'll see a big diff...
remember, USB 1.x maxes out 11 mbps. USB 2.0 specs out at around 480 mbps. firewire maxed out at 400 mbps. but like someone said, firewire is king at digital video and unless more and more cams are USB 2 aware, that wont change. (btw, mbps = mega BITS per second, as opposed to MBps, mega BYTES...)
as for keeping it dust-free, nothing is cheaper and easier than the old plastic bag and duct tape trick. just dont cover the lens!!!!
:D
[B]travmn, I appreciate you checking on that for me. The camera I'm looking at says this on the description on Sony's website: "Connect USB terminal to a PC and broadcast live video with audio, capture still images or even playback recorded videos scenes". It's a Sony DCRTRV140, and I don't think it can take still images.
If it just comes down to a matter of speed, I can deal with not using Firewire. [/B][/QUOTE]
it's acting like a regular USB webcam then. take a look at the output of most webcams and you'll see a big diff...
remember, USB 1.x maxes out 11 mbps. USB 2.0 specs out at around 480 mbps. firewire maxed out at 400 mbps. but like someone said, firewire is king at digital video and unless more and more cams are USB 2 aware, that wont change. (btw, mbps = mega BITS per second, as opposed to MBps, mega BYTES...)
as for keeping it dust-free, nothing is cheaper and easier than the old plastic bag and duct tape trick. just dont cover the lens!!!!
:D
| Narcisse91 | 07-16-2002 09:15 PM |
I see what you're saying about the "streaming" part, but I'm reading "playback recorded video" as download from the camera to the PC and play it there, in which case the data rate of the bitstream should only affect how long you have to wait to watch it.
I guess this is something I'll have to check if I decide to buy the camera.
I guess this is something I'll have to check if I decide to buy the camera.
| GoodFinder | 07-16-2002 10:02 PM |
Thanks everybody for the dialog in this thread. At some point hopefully this year I'll be wanting to start shooting video when I'm on the track. The only video I have ever done (with me driving on a track) was when I went to the Bob Bondurant 4-day school. I love playing that tape back, it is very informative. I'd love to lay down some good video of proper lines from a variety of tracks, and then the next time I go to that particular track, break out the latest video(s) specific to that track, to visualize and better prepare.
GoodFinder :)
GoodFinder :)
| GarySheehan | 10-29-2002 01:54 PM |
I've got some video I'd like to put up from our race at Las Vegas this past weekend, but when downloading from the camera (Sony TRV140) it is coming out pretty jerky. Is this because I'm using the USB streaming function? Would this be resolved if I used the i.link (firewire) port instead?
Thanks!
Gary
Thanks!
Gary
| sdecker | 10-29-2002 02:12 PM |
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by GarySheehan [/i]
[B]I've got some video I'd like to put up from our race at Las Vegas this past weekend, but when downloading from the camera (Sony TRV140) it is coming out pretty jerky. Is this because I'm using the USB streaming function? Would this be resolved if I used the i.link (firewire) port instead?
Thanks!
Gary [/B][/QUOTE]
Hi Gary:
Instead of streaming, I would use the firewire port to capture the video to a file on your hard disk. Assuming you're using a Microsoft box, it should come in as an .AVI file, which will be very large.
Then, run this .AVI file through a compressor/converter program like TMPGEnc (freeware/shareware) to turn it into whatever size and type of file you want. Personally, I turn everything into MPEG files, MPEG-1 for web downloads and MPEG-2 for DVD burns.
Take a look if you want, I captured this on my Canon miniDV and converted it just as I mention above:
[url]http://www.routerlabonline.com/trackday/CRoad%20Atlanta%20BMWCCA%20092202%20AVI_002.mpg[/url]
Tell you what: I'll help you do your video if you'll help me learn how to drive. That sounds real fair, hehe! :D
Let me know if you have further questions. PM, e-mail, no problem.
Scott
[B]I've got some video I'd like to put up from our race at Las Vegas this past weekend, but when downloading from the camera (Sony TRV140) it is coming out pretty jerky. Is this because I'm using the USB streaming function? Would this be resolved if I used the i.link (firewire) port instead?
Thanks!
Gary [/B][/QUOTE]
Hi Gary:
Instead of streaming, I would use the firewire port to capture the video to a file on your hard disk. Assuming you're using a Microsoft box, it should come in as an .AVI file, which will be very large.
Then, run this .AVI file through a compressor/converter program like TMPGEnc (freeware/shareware) to turn it into whatever size and type of file you want. Personally, I turn everything into MPEG files, MPEG-1 for web downloads and MPEG-2 for DVD burns.
Take a look if you want, I captured this on my Canon miniDV and converted it just as I mention above:
[url]http://www.routerlabonline.com/trackday/CRoad%20Atlanta%20BMWCCA%20092202%20AVI_002.mpg[/url]
Tell you what: I'll help you do your video if you'll help me learn how to drive. That sounds real fair, hehe! :D
Let me know if you have further questions. PM, e-mail, no problem.
Scott
| randy zimmer | 10-29-2002 05:41 PM |
video on line
Scott D,
I found it is a lot better to ask others to right click and "save target as" rather than streaming a download.
Yours was going at 2kb and threatening 5-1/2 hours.
A smaller clip might be better for a demo.
I find QT4 to be a better size/quality compression than mpeg1.
Gary, your USB can't keep up. It'll be fine after it's saved.
rz
I found it is a lot better to ask others to right click and "save target as" rather than streaming a download.
Yours was going at 2kb and threatening 5-1/2 hours.
A smaller clip might be better for a demo.
I find QT4 to be a better size/quality compression than mpeg1.
Gary, your USB can't keep up. It'll be fine after it's saved.
rz
| sdecker | 10-29-2002 06:52 PM |
Re: video on line
[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by randy zimmer [/i]
[B]Scott D,
I found it is a lot better to ask others to right click and "save target as" rather than streaming a download.
Yours was going at 2kb and threatening 5-1/2 hours.
A smaller clip might be better for a demo.
I find QT4 to be a better size/quality compression than mpeg1.
Gary, your USB can't keep up. It'll be fine after it's saved.
rz [/B][/QUOTE]
Haha, you're right...my bad. I forgot and left I-mesh running so everyone was soaking up my bandwidth.
Gary, Randy is correct, just right click the link and 'save as...' to your hard disk, then play it from there.
This is not intended to be a demo, it was just some stuff I put up for family/friends. It does however show the quality that can be obtained. Frankly, it's way overkill for most web users. I do need to rig up an external mic though...
Thanks Randy, have fun all! Let me know if you have questions...
Scott
[B]Scott D,
I found it is a lot better to ask others to right click and "save target as" rather than streaming a download.
Yours was going at 2kb and threatening 5-1/2 hours.
A smaller clip might be better for a demo.
I find QT4 to be a better size/quality compression than mpeg1.
Gary, your USB can't keep up. It'll be fine after it's saved.
rz [/B][/QUOTE]
Haha, you're right...my bad. I forgot and left I-mesh running so everyone was soaking up my bandwidth.
Gary, Randy is correct, just right click the link and 'save as...' to your hard disk, then play it from there.
This is not intended to be a demo, it was just some stuff I put up for family/friends. It does however show the quality that can be obtained. Frankly, it's way overkill for most web users. I do need to rig up an external mic though...
Thanks Randy, have fun all! Let me know if you have questions...
Scott
| Patrick Olsen | 10-29-2002 10:36 PM |
My new desktop (new = 7 or 8 months ago) came with Microsoft Movie Maker on it. It'll capture videos using my Firewire and generate WMV files. I think the quality is pretty damn good, and the videos are about 1/3-1/2 as big as the AVIs I used to create.
Pat
Pat
Không có nhận xét nào:
Đăng nhận xét