Is there any camera on earth meeting 4 simple requirements (AA,CF,7x)

All of those cameras seem fine. If you are looking to buy any one of
those cameras frugally, www.livinginstyleonline.com. click on
electronics picture on home page and view those brandsMany of those
brands are on discount.


wrote:
ya..
ihave a fuji s3000 .. AAs 4 of them.. 6 X optical zoom.. with xD...
and I have been over impressed with it.. low light capture. is great..

http://www.pricegrabber.com/search_g...s3000%2520fuji

On 21 Jun 2005 19:55:04 -0700, Paul Rubin
wrote:

Bill Funk writes:
My Elura 2 will record on MiniDV for 2 hours. This isn't a standard
option?

You mean with 80 minute tapes and recording at reduced speed. Yeah I
guess you can record for 2 hours that way, but with hi-8 you can
record for 6 hours (180 minute tape at half speed) if you're willing
to make such sacrifices.

No, 60 minute tapes; LP on that camera is 120 minutes.
I am under the impression this is a standard option on MiniDV cameras.
I only have the one, but when I bought it, I remember this being a
standard option on these cameras. It isn't anymore? (I'm not in the
market, so I haven't been keeping track.)

Is the quality of Hi-8 as good as MiniDV?

No, not as good. But I'm not terribly fussy about video quality for
now, so I stay with hi-8 anyway.

Actually, I gather that the main disadvantage of reduced speed with
mini-dv is that the tapes won't reliably play except in the camera
that recorded them. But if you're going to transfer the tapes to DVD
as soon as you get home, that lack of interoperability between cameras
may not be a big problem.

I've only got the one video cam, so that's not a problem!

That's what I do; I transfer to the computer, and store the tapes as
an original. I have no idea how long they will last in normal (in my
room) storage, but it seems like a good thing to have the originals
around. It may turn out to *not* be a good thing. :-(
Once in the computer, and mpeg can be put on DVD for (probably much
more secure) storage, and the video can then be edited and processed
afterwards.

--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"

On Wed, 22 Jun 2005 12:23:28 +1000, "Rod Speed"
wrote:


"Bill Funk" wrote in message
.. .
On Tue, 21 Jun 2005 16:15:15 +1000, "Rod Speed"
wrote:


"Susan (Graphic Artist)" wrote in message
egroups.com...
Paul Rubin wrote:
Huh? DV25 needs about 10GB per hour.

My experience is similar.

I input a 2.5 hour tape to a 35 gigabyte AVI file on my portable
computer hard drive (mine was about 4 megabytes per second but it
depends a lot on the data).
At an average of around 4 megabytes per second (my experience) that's
about 15 gigabytes per hour of uncompressed digital video (in my
experience).

DVD is supposed to hold several hours.
I can easily get that 2.5 hour tape onto a single layer full-size DVD
in DVD format VOB/IFO files.

I want to send the DVD's to other people. I'm not willing to tell them
to go buy a new player to watch the DVD with.
I concur.
The whole point is to create a standard video DVD (not a data DVD).

Makes a hell of a lot more sense to use mpeg4 capable DVD players
when you only have a few individuals that need to play the DVDs.

Not if your target audience doesn't have those top-of-the-line players.

They're so cheap that it makes a lot more sense to get
them if the DVDs are only going to a few individuals.

I do not presume to tell others what to buy for their own use.
I have found a great reluctance on the part of non-geeks to spend
money to replace something that works as they want it to.
I dare say that I am not alone in this.
Obviously my target audience is different from yours.

--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"

"Bill Funk" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 22 Jun 2005 12:23:28 +1000, "Rod Speed"
wrote:


"Bill Funk" wrote in message
. ..
On Tue, 21 Jun 2005 16:15:15 +1000, "Rod Speed"
wrote:


"Susan (Graphic Artist)" wrote in message
legroups.com...
Paul Rubin wrote:
Huh? DV25 needs about 10GB per hour.

My experience is similar.

I input a 2.5 hour tape to a 35 gigabyte AVI file on my portable
computer hard drive (mine was about 4 megabytes per second but it
depends a lot on the data).
At an average of around 4 megabytes per second (my experience) that's
about 15 gigabytes per hour of uncompressed digital video (in my
experience).

DVD is supposed to hold several hours.
I can easily get that 2.5 hour tape onto a single layer full-size DVD
in DVD format VOB/IFO files.

I want to send the DVD's to other people. I'm not willing to tell them
to go buy a new player to watch the DVD with.
I concur.
The whole point is to create a standard video DVD (not a data DVD).

Makes a hell of a lot more sense to use mpeg4 capable DVD players
when you only have a few individuals that need to play the DVDs.

Not if your target audience doesn't have those top-of-the-line players.

They're so cheap that it makes a lot more sense to get
them if the DVDs are only going to a few individuals.

I do not presume to tell others what to buy for their own use.

More fool you if you give them DVDs much.

I have found a great reluctance on the part of non-geeks to spend
money to replace something that works as they want it to.
I dare say that I am not alone in this.
Obviously my target audience is different from yours.

Wrong again.

Bill Funk writes:

I agree.
It's like watching your brother's four hour slide show from his trip
to Yellowstone.

No, it's even worse. At least, each of the shots in the slide show was
captured at a moment when your brother's brain that that what was going
on might possibly make an interesting picture. The photographer might
find all of them worth looking at, at least for a second each, though he
shouldn't expect anyone else to feel the same way.

But when a video camera is set up to capture half an hour of the kids
playing (for example), you can guarantee that *most* of the frames
captured contain nothing of interest, nothing that a still photographer
would think worthy of moving their shutter finger for. It's enough to
put even the photographer to sleep, let alone anyone else watching.

Video has to be edited to be worth watching.

Dave

On Thu, 23 Jun 2005 03:27:23 +1000, "Rod Speed"
wrote:

I do not presume to tell others what to buy for their own use.

More fool you if you give them DVDs much.

More fool you if you think to presume to tell others what they should
do.

I have found a great reluctance on the part of non-geeks to spend
money to replace something that works as they want it to.
I dare say that I am not alone in this.
Obviously my target audience is different from yours.

Wrong again.

Really?
I seriously doubt that.
But I notice that this is a trait of yours; belittle with nothing to
explain your response.
Probably because your intent is not to illuminate or enlighten, but
rather to insult.
Given that presumption on my part, your input will be considered in
thaqt light.
IOW, you're full of ****.


--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"

On Wed, 22 Jun 2005 17:40:02 +0000 (UTC), (Dave
Martindale) wrote:

Bill Funk writes:

I agree.
It's like watching your brother's four hour slide show from his trip
to Yellowstone.

No, it's even worse. At least, each of the shots in the slide show was
captured at a moment when your brother's brain that that what was going
on might possibly make an interesting picture. The photographer might
find all of them worth looking at, at least for a second each, though he
shouldn't expect anyone else to feel the same way.

But when a video camera is set up to capture half an hour of the kids
playing (for example), you can guarantee that *most* of the frames
captured contain nothing of interest, nothing that a still photographer
would think worthy of moving their shutter finger for. It's enough to
put even the photographer to sleep, let alone anyone else watching.

Video has to be edited to be worth watching.

Dave

Didn't I say that?
I thought I did.
Yup, I did: "Same with family photos and videos."
Maybe a quoting slip?

--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"

Bill Funk wrote in message
news
Rod Speed wrote

I do not presume to tell others what to buy for their own use.

More fool you if you give them DVDs much.

More fool you if you think to presume
to tell others what they should do.

More fool you if you dont realise that the non-geeks often
doesnt realise what makes most sense with stuff like DVD players.

I have found a great reluctance on the part of non-geeks to spend
money to replace something that works as they want it to.
I dare say that I am not alone in this.
Obviously my target audience is different from yours.

Wrong again.

Really?

Yes, really. My 'target audience' with DVDs I do to
give to others is likely identical, almost all non-geeks

I seriously doubt that.

You problem.

But I notice that this is a trait of yours;
belittle with nothing to explain your response.

Obvious lie.

Probably because your intent is not to
illuminate or enlighten, but rather to insult.

Corse you never ever do anything like that yourself with
your stupid pig ignorant claim that Sue is a troll, eh ?

Given that presumption on my part, your
input will be considered in thaqt light.

Yours by me in spades.

IOW, you're full of ****.

Any 2 year old could manage a better insult than that pathetic effort.

Get one to help you before posting again. If anyone is
actually stupid enough to let you anywhere near one.

On Thu, 23 Jun 2005 07:43:33 +1000, "Rod Speed"
wrote:


Bill Funk wrote in message
news
Rod Speed wrote

I do not presume to tell others what to buy for their own use.

More fool you if you give them DVDs much.

More fool you if you think to presume
to tell others what they should do.

More fool you if you dont realise that the non-geeks often
doesnt realise what makes most sense with stuff like DVD players.

This is funny.
You seem to think that you should tell others what they should buy,
and think that those who don't think the way you do are too stupid to
be allowed to make their own minds up?

I have found a great reluctance on the part of non-geeks to spend
money to replace something that works as they want it to.
I dare say that I am not alone in this.
Obviously my target audience is different from yours.

Wrong again.

Really?

Yes, really. My 'target audience' with DVDs I do to
give to others is likely identical, almost all non-geeks

So they all let you make their decisions for them?
Well, wait, this makes sense, actually.
You surround yourself with idiots to make yourself feel like a god.

I seriously doubt that.

You problem.

But I notice that this is a trait of yours;
belittle with nothing to explain your response.

Obvious lie.

Sure.
Except above is an obvious example.

Probably because your intent is not to
illuminate or enlighten, but rather to insult.

Corse you never ever do anything like that yourself with
your stupid pig ignorant claim that Sue is a troll, eh ?

Not so ignorant. She knows next to nothing, thinks CR is the last word
on camera reviews, claims to take a huge amount of photographs yet
knows of no way to find out, knows so little about what's available
yet she actually takes the camera makers to task for not doing what
she thinks they should do.
Sounds like either a troll or an arrogant idiot.
Which do you prefer?

Given that presumption on my part, your
input will be considered in thaqt light.

Yours by me in spades.

Yet, I manage to contribute much better than simple "wrong again"
remarks.

IOW, you're full of ****.

Any 2 year old could manage a better insult than that pathetic effort.

You wouldn't understaqnd anything more esoteric.
Oh, wait:
(Greek "esoterikos", "inner") beyond ordinary knowledge or
understanding; hidden or inner knowledge reserved for initiates

Get one to help you before posting again. If anyone is
actually stupid enough to let you anywhere near one.


Ooh! I'm insulted now!
--
Bill Funk
replace "g" with "a"

Bill Funk wrote in message
...
Rod Speed wrote
Bill Funk wrote
Rod Speed wrote

I do not presume to tell others what to buy for their own use.

More fool you if you give them DVDs much.

More fool you if you think to presume
to tell others what they should do.

More fool you if you dont realise that the non-geeks often doesnt
realise what makes most sense with stuff like DVD players.

This is funny.

Nope, completely pathetic in your case.

You seem to think that you should tell others what they should buy,

Just another of your pathetic little drug crazed fantasys.

I just point out the advantages of a particular approach, ****wit.

and think that those who don't think the way you do are
too stupid to be allowed to make their own minds up?

Just another of your pathetic little drug crazed fantasys.

Plenty of the non-geeks being discussed actually ask me
what I think is the best approach in particular areas, ****wit.

I have found a great reluctance on the part of non-geeks to spend
money to replace something that works as they want it to.
I dare say that I am not alone in this.
Obviously my target audience is different from yours.

Wrong again.

Really?

Yes, really. My 'target audience' with DVDs I do to
give to others is likely identical, almost all non-geeks

And some geeks who dont know as much about the detail as I do too.

So they all let you make their decisions for them?

Nope, just ask about what is the best approach in some areas,
and consider what I say in other areas if they dont ask.

I do sometimes manage to produce a tad of a rash in some
areas like when I physically built my own house from scratch
and had a surprising number of those I knew decide to do that
themselves when I had done that. Some did the detail differently,
not doing that much of the physical work themselves etc.

Well, wait, this makes sense, actually.
You surround yourself with idiots to make yourself feel like a god.

Even a terminal ****wit such as yourself should be able to bull****
your way out of your predicament better than that pathetic effort.

And see below on 2 year olds.

I seriously doubt that.

You problem.

But I notice that this is a trait of yours;
belittle with nothing to explain your response.

Obvious lie.

Sure.
Except above is an obvious example.

Pity one example says sweet **** all about other posts
where I have done nothing like that, in this thread alone, liar.

Probably because your intent is not to
illuminate or enlighten, but rather to insult.

Corse you never ever do anything like that yourself with
your stupid pig ignorant claim that Sue is a troll, eh ?

Not so ignorant.

Completely pig ignorant.

She knows next to nothing,

Another lie.

thinks CR is the last word on camera reviews,

She never said that, you pathological liar.

claims to take a huge amount of photographs
yet knows of no way to find out,

Another lie. She asked in here and got some quite valid responses.

knows so little about what's available yet she actually takes the
camera makers to task for not doing what she thinks they should do.

Her prerogative. You get to like it or lump it.

Sounds like either a troll

Best get those ears tested, they need it bad.

or an arrogant idiot. Which do you prefer?

Usual utterly bogus binary choice.

There are a number other possibilitys, ignorance,
a rather irrational approach, a rather illogical
approach, not very aware of the technical
detail with digital cameras, etc etc etc.

Only a pig ignorant fool starts shrieking about trolls.

You qualify.

Given that presumption on my part, your
input will be considered in thaqt light.

Yours by me in spades.

Yet, I manage to contribute much better than simple "wrong again" remarks.

So do I, you pathetic excuse for a bull**** artist/pathological liar.

IOW, you're full of ****.

Any 2 year old could manage a better insult than that pathetic effort.

reams of your puerile **** any 2 year old could leave for dead flushed where it
belongs