Hi

Any advice on roughly how much money we'd need to spend to get "good
quality" video results that we could post on the web? (Sorry I am a
total newbie at video...)

£100? £200?

We would be hosting it either on YouTube or similar albeit in the best
resolution that they can deliver, so there is obviously no need for
high resolution. In fact we should probably shoot in the final
resolution i.e. "720p" (or "352p")?

Thanks


Ship
Shiperton Henethe

P.S. Also if you have any particular recommendations of model or
review sites, that would be much appreciated!

On Jul 8, 9:38 pm, John  wrote:
> Hi
>
> Any advice on roughly how much money we'd need to spend to get "good
> quality" video results that we could post on the web? (Sorry I am a
> total newbie at video...)
>
> £100? £200?
>
> We would be hosting it either on YouTube or similar albeit in the best
> resolution that they can deliver, so there is obviously no need for
> high resolution. In fact we should probably shoot in the final
> resolution i.e. "720p" (or "352p")?
>
> Thanks
>
> Ship
> Shiperton Henethe
>
> P.S. Also if you have any particular recommendations of model or
> review sites, that would be much appreciated!

From my research the Panasonic SDR-S26 looks quite promising (about
£181) but no sign of an external microphone hole. ??
http://www.panasonic.co.uk/html/en_GB/Products/Camcorders/SD঩鲢띞껏툍S26/Specification/1974018/index.html?trackInfo=true

The Samsung VP-MX20 also looks quite promising (£132) but again no
sign of any way of connecting an external microphone.
http://www.samsung.com/uk/consumer/detail/spec.do?group=cameracamcorder&type=camcorder&subtype=flashcamcorder&model_cd=VP-MX20/XEU&fullspec=F

Gads - don't most camcorder even allow external microphones?

John wrote:
> snip <
 >
> Gads - don't most camcorder even allow external microphones?


I have no idea why (manufacturers are cheaping out?) but it's becoming 
extremely difficult to find an inexpensive camcorder with an external 
mic jack these days :-(

Mike

"Mike Kujbida" wrote ...
> John wrote:
>> Gads - don't most camcorder even allow external microphones?
>
> I have no idea why (manufacturers are cheaping out?) but it's becoming 
> extremely difficult to find an inexpensive camcorder with an external mic 
> jack these days :-(

It was ALWAYS difficult to find an *inexpensive* camcorder
with a mic input connector.  Dosen't seem significantly easier
or harder these days than it ever was.

John wrote:
> Gads - don't most camcorder even allow external
> microphones?

You haven't established a need for audio of any kind.
We really can't read your mind. Certainly not at this
distance.

John wrote:
> Any advice on roughly how much money we'd need to spend to
> get "good quality" video results that we could post on the web?
> (Sorry I am a total newbie at video...)

Any attempt to answer your question would be completely
irresponsible as we have not the slightest clue what, when,
how, where or why you are shooting "video"?????

For some kinds of things, you might get away with a very cheap
"webcam" or even a "still" camera. And to achive "good quality"
video in other cases may require high-end broadcast-quality gear
in the hands of experienced professionals.

But since we know absolutely nothing about what you are
wanting to do, there are too many questions to even begin
trying to post them here.

On Jul 9, 7:01 am, "Richard Crowley"  wrote:
> John wrote:
> > Any advice on roughly how much money we'd need to spend to
> > get "good quality" video results that we could post on the web?
> > (Sorry I am a total newbie at video...)
>
> Any attempt to answer your question would be completely
> irresponsible as we have not the slightest clue what, when,
> how, where or why you are shooting "video"?????
>
> For some kinds of things, you might get away with a very cheap
> "webcam" or even a "still" camera. And to achive "good quality"
> video in other cases may require high-end broadcast-quality gear
> in the hands of experienced professionals.
>
> But since we know absolutely nothing about what you are
> wanting to do, there are too many questions to even begin
> trying to post them here.

I find your comments slightly surprising, but well if you need more
details they are as follows:

I am a 'PC literate' but am a total newbie at this video stuff...
Here is the background of what we are trying to achieve:

My client is an e-commerce website, and because the site uses a rather
quirky selling mechanism, we are trying to create a video to put on
the website that explains how the site actually works.

We are planning some talking heads. Probably both indoors and
outdoors. We will probably also use some screen capturing stuff too
later on.

Regarding picture quality, because it will be hosted on the web
(possibly via youtube.com [or similar]) there is obviously no need for
ultra high resolution video picture. Basically we want the video to
look 'competant' - i.e. 'good quality'. But on the other hand we
definitely do NOT want it to look like it came out of a professional
studio - just competant that's all !

We have almost zero budget for this project, but I have been given a
Samsung Sports Camcorder (VP-X220L), which has 2GB of internal memory
but is a couple of years old now.

From our initial experiments but it seems clear for most people to
look good, you dont want to got too wide angle on the person you are
shooting, but that if the camcorder is not physically close enough to
the person then the quality of sound suffers a lot. Thus it seems like
we'll need an external mike in order to get half decent sound.

To recap, what we are trying to create is a video, that will be hosted
on the web (possibly youtube). The video needs to appears to be
amateur but "very good quality" amateur.

It has been suggested that we buy a separate sound recording device
and match up the sound with the video later (e.g. a little Olympus
voice recorder). This seems like it will be a pain to synchronise the
sound with the moving pictures, but if necessary I suppose we might
have to go this way. (Cheaper than buying a entire new camcorder I
strongly suspect!)

Is that any clearer?

John wrote:
> On Jul 9, 7:01 am, "Richard Crowley"  wrote:
>> John wrote:
>>> Any advice on roughly how much money we'd need to spend to
>>> get "good quality" video results that we could post on the web?
>>> (Sorry I am a total newbie at video...)
>> 
>> Any attempt to answer your question would be completely
>> irresponsible as we have not the slightest clue what, when,
>> how, where or why you are shooting "video"?????
>> 
>> For some kinds of things, you might get away with a very cheap
>> "webcam" or even a "still" camera. And to achive "good quality"
>> video in other cases may require high-end broadcast-quality gear
>> in the hands of experienced professionals.
>> 
>> But since we know absolutely nothing about what you are
>> wanting to do, there are too many questions to even begin
>> trying to post them here.
> 
> I find your comments slightly surprising, but well if you need more
> details they are as follows:
> 
> I am a 'PC literate' but am a total newbie at this video stuff...
> Here is the background of what we are trying to achieve:
> 
> My client is an e-commerce website, and because the site uses a rather
> quirky selling mechanism, we are trying to create a video to put on
> the website that explains how the site actually works.
> 
> We are planning some talking heads. Probably both indoors and
> outdoors. We will probably also use some screen capturing stuff too
> later on.
> 
> Regarding picture quality, because it will be hosted on the web
> (possibly via youtube.com [or similar]) there is obviously no need for
> ultra high resolution video picture. Basically we want the video to
> look 'competant' - i.e. 'good quality'. But on the other hand we
> definitely do NOT want it to look like it came out of a professional
> studio - just competant that's all !
> 
> We have almost zero budget for this project, but I have been given a
> Samsung Sports Camcorder (VP-X220L), which has 2GB of internal memory
> but is a couple of years old now.
> 
> From our initial experiments but it seems clear for most people to
> look good, you dont want to got too wide angle on the person you are
> shooting, but that if the camcorder is not physically close enough to
> the person then the quality of sound suffers a lot. Thus it seems like
> we'll need an external mike in order to get half decent sound.
> 
> To recap, what we are trying to create is a video, that will be hosted
> on the web (possibly youtube). The video needs to appears to be
> amateur but "very good quality" amateur.
> 
> It has been suggested that we buy a separate sound recording device
> and match up the sound with the video later (e.g. a little Olympus
> voice recorder). This seems like it will be a pain to synchronise the
> sound with the moving pictures, but if necessary I suppose we might
> have to go this way. (Cheaper than buying a entire new camcorder I
> strongly suspect!)
> 
> Is that any clearer?

Post lip sync will be a pain even if you well up on Video and editing so Forget the Separate devise.

The Camcorder you have Is Not very good Quality.
Unless you can Borrow another or borrow someone with one that knows How to use it. Then your going to struggle. And Not all consumer level camcorders can Use an External mic

John wrote:
> We are planning some talking heads. Probably both indoors and
> outdoors. We will probably also use some screen capturing stuff too
> later on.

Good. THAT is what we were needed to know.

> We have almost zero budget for this project, but I have been given a
> Samsung Sports Camcorder (VP-X220L), which has 2GB of internal
> memory but is a couple of years old now.
>
> From our initial experiments but it seems clear for most people to
> look good, you dont want to got too wide angle on the person you are
> shooting, but that if the camcorder is not physically close enough to
> the person then the quality of sound suffers a lot. Thus it seems like
> we'll need an external mike in order to get half decent sound.
>
> To recap, what we are trying to create is a video, that will be hosted
> on the web (possibly youtube). The video needs to appears to be
> amateur but "very good quality" amateur.

Don't go out of your way to make your video appear to be "amateur"
It is likely you can achieve that without doing anything.  :-)

> It has been suggested that we buy a separate sound recording device
> and match up the sound with the video later (e.g. a little Olympus
> voice recorder). This seems like it will be a pain to synchronise the
> sound with the moving pictures, but if necessary I suppose we might
> have to go this way. (Cheaper than buying a entire new camcorder I
> strongly suspect!)

What software are you using to edit your video?  Most NLE apps
(even low-end versions) allow you to separately manipulate the audio
and video track(s).

IMHO, (and IME) using a $5 clip-on "computer mic" plugged
directly into the computer and recording on the computer produces
a quite reasonably good sound track whether you are shooting live-
action "talking head" video, or capturing computer screen action.
Note also the importance of decent acoustic environment discussed
further below.

You are correct that the onboard microphone on virtually all
cameras (even professional ones) is usually inappropriate (too
far away, etc.) for acceptable audio. But as long as the camera
mic is picking up *some* audio, you can use it as a "guide track"
in editing to sync up the audio from the real mic. You can then
mute the "guide track" and use the better audio track.

Since you already have a camera, try it indoors and outdoors with
better-than-average lighting.  Many recent low-end cameras will
make quite respectable video when they have a lot of light to
work with.  Frequently a few $$ spent on lighting will have better
results on the screen than the same amount of $$ spent on a camera.

Very often the things that distinguish between embarassing amateur
looking/sounding video and professional-looking video are AUDIO
and LIGHTING.

For lighting try your camera in well-lit locations and don't ignore
the sometimes dramatic improvement from putting an extra light
or two in strategic places.  There are many websites that show
low-cost video lighting ideas.  Most of them are very clever and
inexpensive but produce very impressive improvement to the
final video image.

Remember that the *direction* and *color* of the light are
often  more important than the *quantity*. And note that even
expensive video cameras don't have a very wide dynamic range
for exposure, so shooting in direct sunlight or indoors with a
window behind the subject rarely works well with amateur
cameras and should be avoided.

And be sure to get "clean" audio. Few things make video sound
more amateur than hearing background noises (traffic, phones
ringing, people talking next door, etc.)  It is also important to
be sure that you are recording in a place without close-by
(2-4 ft) reflective surfaces. Those near reflections cause a
"hollow" sound which cause most people to instantly and sub-
consiously think "amateur" and "home movies".

Trev wrote:
> Post lip sync will be a pain even if you well up on Video
> and editing so Forget the Separate devise.

That is the opposite of my experience. Even multi-camera
productions of live music are quite easy to "pull-up" the
video to match the audio track.  Especially for short shots
such as the OP is suggesting, using a separate sound recording
seems like an excellent way of working around the problem of
a camera without a mic input.  I use that very technique quite
regularly.

> The Camcorder you have Is Not very good Quality.

But try it with really good lighting before deciding it isn't
good enough for what you need to do.

"Richard Crowley"  wrote in message
news:cpydnXey48nod8jXnZ2dnUVZ_tudnZ2d@posted.pcez...
> Trev wrote:

>> Post lip sync will be a pain even if you well up on Video
>> and editing so Forget the Separate devise.

> That is the opposite of my experience. Even multi-camera
> productions of live music are quite easy to "pull-up" the
> video to match the audio track.  Especially for short shots
> such as the OP is suggesting, using a separate sound recording
> seems like an excellent way of working around the problem of
> a camera without a mic input.  I use that very technique quite
> regularly.

I agree. A suggestion: for each scene/take, use the
old-fashioned film "trick" of using a "clapper" (one
stick hinged on another or on a board that something
can be written on) at the beginning. The closing of the
gap between the clapper parts and the spike in the
audio track from the resulting sound can be easily
synchronized in a high magnification view of the
timeline in a video editor.

>> The Camcorder you have Is Not very good Quality.

> But try it with really good lighting before deciding it isn't
> good enough for what you need to do.

Again, I agree. But since YouTube now permits 16x9
"HD" (well, kinda.....;-) images that are surprisingly
decent, it may be worth, at least eventually, an HD
camcorder to shoot this (especially if reasonably
high quality stills are to be included).
--DR