Some video shooters lazy and cheap

On Sep 24, 9:12 pm, George Kerby wrote:
> On 9/24/10 3:48 PM, in article
> 6bf4a042-7ad1-46dc-a634-f763e90f5... RemoveThis @m16g2000vbs.googlegroups.com, "RichA"
>
> wrote:
> > They cry and whine about what their DSLR's cannot do right in video,
> > but if they'd just bought a VIDEO camera and had been willing to carry
> > both, they wouldn't have any problems.
> > DSLR video is a "quick fix" for not having video, it isn't a perfect
> > substitute for a REAL video camera.
>
> If you had your way, you'd still be carrying around a #35 Ikegami with a 24'
> cable hooked to a Sony 6800 3/4" U-Matic deck.
>
> You are the ultimate fool...

And you dated yourself, grandpa.
 >> Stay informed about: Some video shooters lazy and cheap 

On 9/24/10 3:48 PM, in article
6bf4a042-7ad1-46dc-a634-f763e90f5251.DeleteThis@m16g2000vbs.googlegroups.com, "RichA"
wrote:

> They cry and whine about what their DSLR's cannot do right in video,
> but if they'd just bought a VIDEO camera and had been willing to carry
> both, they wouldn't have any problems.
> DSLR video is a "quick fix" for not having video, it isn't a perfect
> substitute for a REAL video camera.
>

If you had your way, you'd still be carrying around a #35 Ikegami with a 24'
cable hooked to a Sony 6800 3/4" U-Matic deck.

You are the ultimate fool...
 >> Stay informed about: Some video shooters lazy and cheap 

"RichA" wrote in message

> They cry and whine about what their DSLR's cannot do right in video,
> but if they'd just bought a VIDEO camera and had been willing to carry
> both, they wouldn't have any problems.
> DSLR video is a "quick fix" for not having video, it isn't a perfect
> substitute for a REAL video camera.
>



On the subject of video, I came across this nice fake tilt/shift vid of New
York:
http://vimeo.com/10130305

Shot on a D3 using over 35,000 stills.
 >> Stay informed about: Some video shooters lazy and cheap 

On Sep 26, 9:21 am, "Kyle" wrote:
> "RichA" wrote in message
>
>
>
> > They cry and whine about what their DSLR's cannot do right in video,
> > but if they'd just bought a VIDEO camera and had been willing to carry
> > both, they wouldn't have any problems.
> > DSLR video is a "quick fix" for not having video, it isn't a perfect
> > substitute for a REAL video camera.
>
> On the subject of video, I came across this nice fake tilt/shift vid of New
> York:http://vimeo.com/10130305
>
> Shot on a D3 using over 35,000 stills.

Reminds me of realistic looking claymation.
 >> Stay informed about: Some video shooters lazy and cheap 

Superzooms Still Win wrote:

> >well done to you. but the point being you wouldn't have to say 'not as
> >good as you want it to be' rather than just stating what it can do,
> >rather than blowing out of all proportion its abilities. they sell
> >point and shoot cameras for £50 which sound like they could out shoot
> >any DSLR easily.
>
> Most of them can.
>
> You just need someone who knows how to actually use a camera to accomplish
> this simple task.

well, I have some older point and shoots that knocked spots off a
couple of newer more expensive ones I have tried. it felt like they
were trying to do too much rather than doing what they should do well.

--
Paul (we break easy)
-------------------------------------------------------
Stop and Look
http://www.geocities.com/dreamst8me/
 >> Stay informed about: Some video shooters lazy and cheap 

On 9/26/2010 5:43 AM, Paul Heslop wrote:
> Peter wrote:
>>

>>
>> Not always a lie.
>> How many<blanks> would you buy if they were promoted as "not really as good
>> as you want it to be?"
>>
>> When I was much younger I was interviewed for a job as a sales trainee.
>> As part of the interview the sales manager asked me to sell him a pencil.
>> I told him I would not sell him the pencil if he didn't need it, as I was
>> looking for a long term relationship. Not to make a quick buck on the sale
>> of a pencil.
>> Turned out that was the attitude they were looking for. They offered me the
>> job, but I turned it down for other reasons.
>>
> well done to you. but the point being you wouldn't have to say 'not as
> good as you want it to be' rather than just stating what it can do,
> rather than blowing out of all proportion its abilities. they sell
> point and shoot cameras for £50 which sound like they could out shoot
> any DSLR easily.


I don't consider what I said to be particularly "well done." It's just
the natural way business should be conducted if you are looking for a
long term relationship. I call it smart business.


This afternoon I passed a restaurant with a sign that said "best
brownies in the world." Clearly that's the puffery Tony referred to in
an earlier post.


As to your last comment: From what I've seen they say you are getting a
lunch. The performance cost is not clear. I don't know what you mean by
"blowing out of proportion."

--
Peter
 >> Stay informed about: Some video shooters lazy and cheap 

On 9/26/2010 3:33 PM, Paul Heslop wrote:
> Superzooms Still Win wrote:
>
>>> well done to you. but the point being you wouldn't have to say 'not as
>>> good as you want it to be' rather than just stating what it can do,
>>> rather than blowing out of all proportion its abilities. they sell
>>> point and shoot cameras for £50 which sound like they could out shoot
>>> any DSLR easily.
>>
>> Most of them can.
>>
>> You just need someone who knows how to actually use a camera to accomplish
>> this simple task.
>
> well, I have some older point and shoots that knocked spots off a
> couple of newer more expensive ones I have tried. it felt like they
> were trying to do too much rather than doing what they should do well.
>

Valid point.

--
Peter
 >> Stay informed about: Some video shooters lazy and cheap 

peter wrote:
>
> On 9/26/2010 3:33 PM, Paul Heslop wrote:
> > Superzooms Still Win wrote:
> >
> >>> well done to you. but the point being you wouldn't have to say 'not as
> >>> good as you want it to be' rather than just stating what it can do,
> >>> rather than blowing out of all proportion its abilities. they sell
> >>> point and shoot cameras for £50 which sound like they could out shoot
> >>> any DSLR easily.
> >>
> >> Most of them can.
> >>
> >> You just need someone who knows how to actually use a camera to accomplish
> >> this simple task.
> >
> > well, I have some older point and shoots that knocked spots off a
> > couple of newer more expensive ones I have tried. it felt like they
> > were trying to do too much rather than doing what they should do well.
> >
>
> Valid point.
>
> --
> Peter

cheers, the cheque is in the post :O)

--
Paul (we break easy)
-------------------------------------------------------
Stop and Look
http://www.geocities.com/dreamst8me/
 >> Stay informed about: Some video shooters lazy and cheap 

peter wrote:
>
> On 9/26/2010 5:43 AM, Paul Heslop wrote:
> > Peter wrote:
> >>
>
> >>
> >> Not always a lie.
> >> How many<blanks> would you buy if they were promoted as "not really as good
> >> as you want it to be?"
> >>
> >> When I was much younger I was interviewed for a job as a sales trainee.
> >> As part of the interview the sales manager asked me to sell him a pencil.
> >> I told him I would not sell him the pencil if he didn't need it, as I was
> >> looking for a long term relationship. Not to make a quick buck on the sale
> >> of a pencil.
> >> Turned out that was the attitude they were looking for. They offered me the
> >> job, but I turned it down for other reasons.
> >>
> > well done to you. but the point being you wouldn't have to say 'not as
> > good as you want it to be' rather than just stating what it can do,
> > rather than blowing out of all proportion its abilities. they sell
> > point and shoot cameras for £50 which sound like they could out shoot
> > any DSLR easily.
>
> I don't consider what I said to be particularly "well done." It's just
> the natural way business should be conducted if you are looking for a
> long term relationship. I call it smart business.
>
> This afternoon I passed a restaurant with a sign that said "best
> brownies in the world." Clearly that's the puffery Tony referred to in
> an earlier post.
>
> As to your last comment: From what I've seen they say you are getting a
> lunch. The performance cost is not clear. I don't know what you mean by
> "blowing out of proportion."
>
virtually every electronic item nowadays sounds like it is
professional when you read the fluff. I can't recall which camera I
saw a blurb for recently but it was cheap, about £60 and cheerful and
that was how it should have been sold. in stead it was making claims
about its abilities that it had the best of everything, including a
whopping "3x zoom!"

Of course we will get puffery, and we expect it to an extent, but
false advertising, as far as I recall, IS an offence of sorts in the
UK. It's like those shopping channels. How on earth do they get away
with the obvious lies that they tell about products?



--
Paul (we break easy)
-------------------------------------------------------
Stop and Look
http://www.geocities.com/dreamst8me/
 >> Stay informed about: Some video shooters lazy and cheap 

Paul Heslop wrote:
> RichA wrote:
>> On Sep 25, 4:22 am, Paul Heslop wrote:

>> > I blame manufacturers for the claims they make nowadays. If they claim
>> > that their DSLR (OR video camera) has fantastic video capabilities and
>> > it doesn't then they should be liable to action for false
>> > representation.

In the hands of a trained professional a DSLR has fantastic video
capabilities (and some annoyances).

>> The users need to establish a set of specific criteria that defines
>> what good video performance is.

And reseach is what any user should perform.

> certainly, but the claims should not be made.

The claim is correct. Just as the claim "a good photographer can
make a striking photo with any camera"[1] is correct and should
be made.

Without the claim for video capabilities, you'd not research that
and you'd never realize that in specific circumstances you might
want to use these capabilities.

> I don't know if it is a
> general failing of digital cameras but I find it increasingly hard to
> believe many of the claims made by most companies for just about
> anything.

Maybe you are not the trained professional who's needed to make
these claims true. Maybe you have become too cynic. Maybe you
realise that gear often does not matter as much as it seems to
many people. Maybe you were too trusting before and now are
too distrusting.

-Wolfgang

[1] It's just that better gear allow broader circumstancs of
shooting and so on. If you have a specific image in mind,
you may well need tons of expensive gear.
 >> Stay informed about: Some video shooters lazy and cheap 

Wolfgang Weisselberg wrote:
>
> Paul Heslop wrote:
> > RichA wrote:
> >> On Sep 25, 4:22 am, Paul Heslop wrote:
>
> >> > I blame manufacturers for the claims they make nowadays. If they claim
> >> > that their DSLR (OR video camera) has fantastic video capabilities and
> >> > it doesn't then they should be liable to action for false
> >> > representation.
>
> In the hands of a trained professional a DSLR has fantastic video
> capabilities (and some annoyances).
>

:O) I should hope so

> >> The users need to establish a set of specific criteria that defines
> >> what good video performance is.

>
> > certainly, but the claims should not be made.
>
> The claim is correct. Just as the claim "a good photographer can
> make a striking photo with any camera"[1] is correct and should
> be made.
>
but that isn't the claim made. usually they'll say something like
'stunning pictures every time' which we know isn't true.

> Without the claim for video capabilities, you'd not research that
> and you'd never realize that in specific circumstances you might
> want to use these capabilities.
>
> > I don't know if it is a
> > general failing of digital cameras but I find it increasingly hard to
> > believe many of the claims made by most companies for just about
> > anything.
>
> Maybe you are not the trained professional who's needed to make
> these claims true. Maybe you have become too cynic. Maybe you
> realise that gear often does not matter as much as it seems to
> many people. Maybe you were too trusting before and now are
> too distrusting.
>
yeah, that's me, fingers burned too many times :O)

--
Paul (we break easy)
-------------------------------------------------------
Stop and Look
http://www.geocities.com/dreamst8me/
 >> Stay informed about: Some video shooters lazy and cheap 

On 9/27/2010 4:30 PM, Paul Heslop wrote:
> peter wrote:
>>
<snip>>

>> So there is a right of return. I don't see a problem.
>> Assume I claim my new PS plug in will automatically set your levels,
>> curves and sharpening so that the image will be exactly what you want.
>> If you have right the to return it if not satisfied, I see nothing wrong.

>
> good grief mate, I am not talking about me in person but the general
> public. joe bloggs who believes that when he buys this little miracle
> he is getting something that takes perfect pictures every time.
>
>
So. Why is there a need to protect these people from their own stupidity.

Anyhow! To most of these guys the images of his little Suzie and his
"Tuesday in Belgium," will always be perfect.



--
Peter
 >> Stay informed about: Some video shooters lazy and cheap 

On 9/27/2010 5:09 PM, Paul Heslop wrote:
> Paul Heslop wrote:
>>

>
> I don't know what is going on peter but my news reader isn't letting
> me click on your next message. it kind of bounces back to mine every
> time. just so you know I am not ignoring you. hopefully it will
> rectify itself.


Since I can't stand being ignored, I will resend as a reply to my reply.

Don't worry, I don't take too much around here personally,



--
Peter
 >> Stay informed about: Some video shooters lazy and cheap