best camcorder for sports 2012 image
Carrie
I would like it to be something new 2011/2012 and nothing too expensive. I want to vlog inside and outside. Also maybe something that can film sports such as football and motorcross.
Thanks for the answers! :)
Answer
Sony HDR-CX190 High Definition Handycam 5.3 MP Camcorder with 25x Optical Zoom (2012 Model) has been a great HD camcorder so far. It is very small and lightweight, to say the least. I think the 70 series battery I bought for this unit weighs almost as much as the camera. The controls are good with the little screen joystick and menus. The color is very good on the screen, and the video is sharp. I like the 30x for videoing my stepsons' wrestling matches.
Sony HDR-CX190 High Definition Handycam 5.3 MP Camcorder with 25x Optical Zoom (2012 Model) has been a great HD camcorder so far. It is very small and lightweight, to say the least. I think the 70 series battery I bought for this unit weighs almost as much as the camera. The controls are good with the little screen joystick and menus. The color is very good on the screen, and the video is sharp. I like the 30x for videoing my stepsons' wrestling matches.
Why film an event with a old movie camera instead of todays standard tape pro cameras ? 1990-2012 cameras?
When i was watching FIFA world cup italia 1990. I was watching it live on tv... i remember the quality of the matches was 100% brilliant live.. like todays quality live match images on tv. I remember that. But in 1994 fifa world up usa.. the quality was still good but it looked more snowy and more ghosty then previewsly in 1990. Im in australia so not sure why the quality was less quality in 1994 when 1990 was very brilliant quality on at the time.
Okies QUESTIONS: When i was watching fifa world up on tv in 1990. notice there was a guy in his business clothes filming a match close to the field which looked like it was a movie camera a round shape camera looked like a old filming camera shape in his shoulder...
My question is... why on earth would someone at the field film a match on film rather then virtually a normal profetional camera that uses TAPE rather then roll films like the old days ?
What was it for... was he just doing a documentry meant mainly for a documentry about fifa world up and had to be film in roll film camera ? I don't understand why.. since old film cameras would make a playback image look like a movie or not so clear viewing as in tapes.
I remember watching north korea this year the dearth of the piggy who the guys where filming the ceremony like old roll film cameras.. you can exactly see the type of cameras.. again thats 2012... why would they use these types of cameras when there is profetional camcorder cameras that does more clear and brilliant picture then old days films ?
I wonder if its been used yet other countrys for live events.... not sure why they use something that wont make the image super clean... roll film filming means the image your just recorded aventually will have scratches all over the documentry making it out as if the stuff you just film was a 1940s film era.
Love to know this.. could you be kind to explain it all to me? im very interested about this. thanks very much.
Answer
Hi again, Mofina:
Part of your Question asks about equipment used 22 years ago, and a lot of technological advancements in portable camcorders have been made since then, although film cameras haven't changed very much in that time period.
But just like with American football matches and the NFL Films documentary team, many camera crews that don't need to broadcast "live" prefer to work with film rather than videotape for many reasons. And when it comes to international event coverage, using film eliminates the worry about the various television broadcast formats that exist (and are quite different!) from country to country. (With modern camcorders, this is why the "24p" cinema-emulation frame-rate setting is becoming more popular rather than having to choose between North American/Japan 30/60fps and European 25/50fps settings.)
Contrary to what you might think, brand new film footage can have a better image quality (both in resolution and contrast rendering) than your average news & sports camcorder. And unlike in the 1940s, the original footage is usually scanned (electronically) or an intermediate negative (called a CRI or "interneg") is made so the original remains pristine & unscratched. Plus, film stock chemistry has greatly improved since the World War II era. You'd be surprised at the number of Hollywood-quality films that have been made using modern 16mm color film stock and camera/lens combinations.
And finally, when it comes to fast-action sports like soccer/football, it's simpler and less-costly to use fast-shutter speeds (to eliminate blurring in single frames) or higher frame rates (for extreme slow-motion capture) with a mechanical film camera than with an electronic camcorder.
It all boils down to selecting the right tool for the job, and which tools or media that work best for the project.
And as I mentioned in my earlier Answer to your Y!A Question about microphones used at FIFA matches, sometimes older technology is more reliable than the newest stuff.
hope this helps,
--Dennis C.
Â
Hi again, Mofina:
Part of your Question asks about equipment used 22 years ago, and a lot of technological advancements in portable camcorders have been made since then, although film cameras haven't changed very much in that time period.
But just like with American football matches and the NFL Films documentary team, many camera crews that don't need to broadcast "live" prefer to work with film rather than videotape for many reasons. And when it comes to international event coverage, using film eliminates the worry about the various television broadcast formats that exist (and are quite different!) from country to country. (With modern camcorders, this is why the "24p" cinema-emulation frame-rate setting is becoming more popular rather than having to choose between North American/Japan 30/60fps and European 25/50fps settings.)
Contrary to what you might think, brand new film footage can have a better image quality (both in resolution and contrast rendering) than your average news & sports camcorder. And unlike in the 1940s, the original footage is usually scanned (electronically) or an intermediate negative (called a CRI or "interneg") is made so the original remains pristine & unscratched. Plus, film stock chemistry has greatly improved since the World War II era. You'd be surprised at the number of Hollywood-quality films that have been made using modern 16mm color film stock and camera/lens combinations.
And finally, when it comes to fast-action sports like soccer/football, it's simpler and less-costly to use fast-shutter speeds (to eliminate blurring in single frames) or higher frame rates (for extreme slow-motion capture) with a mechanical film camera than with an electronic camcorder.
It all boils down to selecting the right tool for the job, and which tools or media that work best for the project.
And as I mentioned in my earlier Answer to your Y!A Question about microphones used at FIFA matches, sometimes older technology is more reliable than the newest stuff.
hope this helps,
--Dennis C.
Â
Powered by Yahoo! Answers
No comments:
Post a Comment