--- Arnold Krille <arnold.krille(a)gmail.com> wrote: That isn't necesarry, it's time consuming and time is money. What I described with the television truck is productions that have a requirement for good production quality. We produce final product in the field as a rule. Our product always meets or exceeds the quality expectation. This is an enviroment where zero tolerance for error is the rule. If an error, best case can be a client that doesn't pay. The worst case is someone loses their job. Disclaimer: My assertions are based on actual experience acquired over a number of years of doing this work professionaly. They are not college level hypotheses so it's likely I'm to naive and belligerent to see or admit to the shortcomings in producing final product from live events while in the field. :) In all seriousness productions like the one described are done with the methods I describe. ron Even the __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com

On 3/7/06, Arnold Krille <arnold.krille(a)gmail.com> wrote: in my experience (pub. tv, radio) you either a.) have a crew of at least two, preferably three, and produce final product live to storage media in-field, or b.) you have one to two guys in field and you put it together in an editor back home. i prefer the latter, but most of my colleagues prefer the former, for the reasons ron stated. i think i just get better work done left alone in a dark, windowless room. a second person in the field is always welcome and never affordable. if putting it together in an editor later, i'd prefer people on separate channels, to cover my butt relative dynamics wise. that said, i usually (in tv interviews) put the lavalier mics through a mixer into one channel of the recorder (a camcorder, in this case), and the camera's mic (an omni) into the other channel, as a lousy quality backup, in case either lav or the mixer craps out. our equipment's old. this would be a two-person crew - one person interviewing while the other runs camera and the mixer. of course, if anybody sways around too much in their chair, it gets difficult to keep them in frame. more people in the field is always better - the chance of scaring your subject with a big crew is far less important than having lots of people to remember to bring batteries. -- dan(a)towndowner.com dan(a)burntpossum.com daneasley(a)gmail.com http://towndowner.com http://burntpossum.com

2006/3/7, Paul Davis <paul(a)linuxaudiosystems.com>om>: And for merchandising "now" on ardours website: The ardour-shutter! Making big noise and promoting your favourite DAW to the crowds editing the movies... I would buy one. Arnold -- visit http://dillenburg.dyndns.org/~arnold/ --- Wenn man mit Raubkopien Bands wie Brosis oder Britney Spears wirklich verhindern könnte, würde ich mir noch heute einen Stapel Brenner und einen Sack Rohlinge kaufen.

--- Eric Dantan Rzewnicki <rzewnickie(a)rfa.org> wrote: I haven't got much experience with cam coders. I own a couple Canon XL1 cameras which are pretty cheap. They use tiny screws that set into plastic in the lense mounts. One drop and the lense is shot. Definitely a cheap product with piss poor engineering. The newer lenses I've been told have been improved. The XL1 is suitable for producing good looking digital video product and it's a good camera for anyone that takes care of their gear. The cameras we run at the television studio are in an entirely different league of expense and quality. ron __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com

On 3/7/06, Arnold Krille <arnold.krille(a)gmail.com> wrote: Exactly thing I want to avoid. alex -- Alex Polite http://flosspick.org - finding the right open source