Question regarding a Sony Dvcam DSR-PD150P video camera?

SelfConfes

I was just wondering how much they are worth these days? Looks to be in pretty good condition - came with battery and cords etc etc I would also appreciate any information about them such as if they are still commonly used, or if they are now more collectors items?

Any help would be much appreciated thanks :)

Answer
that is the professional version of Sony's DCR VX2000 series. they are still used by action sports enthusiasts. originally they were intended for the broadcast news market and professional videographers so it is a good quality camera. miniDV is better for motion analysis and sports because it has very little compression compared to file based codecs. The American version of the camera sells for about $500 USD.

would the Flip MinoHD 120-Minute be good to record sports?

Logen

I'm a hurdler and i want people to record my track races and i was wondering if this would be a good camera to video tape with.

Answer
no, not if you intend to slow down the video for precise motion analysis. no HD format works for that because they all use Group of Frames architecture. AVCHD for example uses a frame rate of 4 fps for recording, and then on playback it interpolates to reproduce the missing frames. A lot can happen in a 1/4 second that will be entirely missed or falsely interpolated on playback. A better choice would be miniDV. DV takes 60 fields per second, each field is a unique full picture and you can move frame to frame with no missing motion details.

Powered by Yahoo! Answers

anyone please help with language analysis english homework please?

johnny

Below is an article i need to Analyse.i need to mention what persuasive techniques are used and examples of these techniques.

Andrew Bolt

June 10, 2009 12:00am

GORDON Ramsay didn't realise Australians had suddenly developed a few manners. Well, some of us.

Not that I blame him. It's taken even The Chaser by surprise, which is why the boys found themselves yanked off air by the ABC last week for mocking dying children.

* Blog: Chat with Andrew

Nor did Channel 9's Sydney version of The Footy Show twig, thinking a mere apology from host Matthew Johns for having group sex with a now devastated teenage fan was all that was required to keep him on air.

Sam Newman didn't get it, either, and was startled to find himself sin-binned by Channel 9 for fondling a cut-out likeness of a female sports writer.

Even our artists - or should I say especially our artists - have been caught short, defending with their baas photographer Bill Henson for stripping and snapping a 13-year-old model for a perv's-delight portrait, only to find the police busting in, the Prime Minister roaring of his disgust, and the Australia Council waving a censor's scissor.

So if locals didn't see our new prudery coming, who can blame a mere British blow-in like Ramsay for giving his audience at the Melbourne Good Food and Wine Show more of the gobful he assumed they'd seen before and had paid good money to see again?

He'd drawn them through the turnstiles by abusing people, hadn't he? And the fouler the better, he'd learned to his profit.

Oh, yes. How we've coaxed Ramsay into this charmless caricature of his better self. Talk about Dorian Gray.

Ramsay in his earlier and terrific Kitchen Nightmares series had been passionate, direct and honest, and his bad language seemed just the natural, if unfortunate, byproduct.

But it quickly became clear that his abuse, not his cookery or his passion, was tastiest to the mob, so Ramsay made it the signature dish of Hell's Kitchen - a series I found too thuggish to watch, but which made him a star in the US.

And Channel 9 lasciviously screened it all - every screaming Ramsay tirade against some fumbling kid, diner, cook or housewife who'd dare to take their dreams of chefdom on to his set.

Not once did Nine complain. Abuse meant ratings, after all.

But now Ramsay has abused not some kitchen nuff-nuff, but Nine's own Tracy Grimshaw - and done so just weeks after she won praise and viewers for so comprehensively damning Johns.

Once again, Ramsay could hardly be blamed for not seeing the line he'd crossed. Was there even one?

After all, Grimshaw had just had him on her show, hoping to profit yet again from his viewer-drawing foul mouth.

So delighted was she with his efforts after their flirtatious banter that she even included - for ratings points - Ramsay's jeering at a mole on her face: "Is that a wart? It looks like your little sister's on your lip."

Ramsay actually said that after their recorded interview was over, but before the cameras were turned off.

Yet Channel 9 wanted so badly to use it that it put to air what it now condemns. How often the media feeds on what it then claims in mock-horror is foul.

Little wonder that Ramsay the next day gave his food show audience more of the very same, with extra sauce.

Grimshaw, he haw-hawed, was ugly, wide and cold inside. Joking about swine flu, he flashed up pictures of Miss Piggy and a woman on all fours with the teats of a sow, and snickered that they were of the Current Affair host.

It was boorish, brainless and without even the slightest excuse of "context".

Yet on the video I've seen of Ramsay's presentation I could hear the audience laugh and laugh again. They were getting exactly the shock show they'd paid for. Ooh, that wicked Gordon.

But there were also gasps and groans from a few - although mostly at Ramsay's even fouler mockery of Susan Boyle, the Britain's Got Talent singer and a much weaker target for a bully.

Even then, however, Ramsay might have felt he'd get away with it.

AFTER all, his tirade was all over almost every newspaper and TV news bulletin, guaranteeing him yet more eyeballs for his next show.

Even Nine responded by offering him yet more of what keeps his show on the road, reportedly asking him back on A Current Affair to confront the hurt Grimshaw.

For Ramsay, it seemed so much like just another day in the kitchen that he couldn't believe this time he'd gone too far: "I find it hard to believe that anyone was offended . . . I never thought of anyone in Australia having to be wrapped up in cotton wool."

Indeed, rather than apologise, he gave the same dose to Rove McManus on Channel 10, calling him a "dwarf" and sneering at the alleged size of his penis.

Ramsay may still have judged his audience correctly, of course, if ratings is all he's after. We'll see when - and if - his next series screens here.

Yet, I suspect he's actually reached o

Answer
Hi

Just get he essential key ideas from this article and summarize it

Cheers!!!!!

Which smartphone should i buy?

ariane

I reaserched between the sony xperia c & samsung galaxy grand. I found out that the xperia has a 0.3 mp front cam wheras the grand has a 2mp front cam.The xperia has a 4gb memory whereas the grand has 8gb. I dont have budget prblms but which one do you think is better? Please help!

Answer
Sony has given the Xperia C its signature design aesthetic with its well defined rectangular shape, barely there curves and its premium build quality. The handset is slimmer, sleeker and lighter than its competitor and thus more portable.

The Galaxy Grand Duos looks like a typical Samsung handset with its curved edges, large body and plasticy casing. Though not as light and portable as the Xperia C, the handset is convenient to hold and use.

Display
The Xperia C packs in a 5-inch TFT qHD display that comes with a resolution of 960 x 540 pixels and a pixel density of 220ppi. The screen is clear and quite sharp, and its size makes it ideal for communication and entertainment on the go.

The Galaxy Grand Duos sports a 5-inch TFT LCD screen with a resolution of 480 x 800 pixels and a pixel density of 187ppi. Its size makes it useable for media and entertainment and its screen is clear and easy on the eyes, though it lacks the sharpness of its competitor.

Sony wins the display round with its sharper display.

Camera


The Xperia C comes with an 8-megapixel rear camera with LED Flash, Exmor R sensor which allows user to capture images in challenging light conditions. In addition the phone is also capable of shooting videos in full-HD (1080p) mode. The camera comes with features like face detection and Sweep Panorama. The phone also sports a 0.3-megapixel front camera. Also, the phone body comes with a dedicated camera button that lets you access it in a jiffy.

Samsung Galaxy Grand also has a 8 MP primary camerathat comes with an LED flash and a very powerful BSI sensor. The smartphone comes with features such as geo-tagging, touch focus, face and smile detection and image stabilization. The camera allows HD filming at 30 frames per second. The phone has a 2 MP secondary camera. The primary or the rear camera comes equipped with picture modes catering to user requirements. The user can also adjust the brightness of the shooter to take clearer and brighter images with the camera even in dull indoor conditions. Some great camera modes in the camera include the Burst, Smile and Panorama. The Panorama mode provides a maximum angle 180 degree for the panorama pictures.

The analysis suggests that the Xperia C fares better in terms of having a quad-core processor, powerful battery and better resolution. On the other hand, Samsung scores in terms of storage capacity and better front facing camera.

Powered by Yahoo! Answers

Which smartphone should i buy?

sports video analysis camera image

ariane

I reaserched between the sony xperia c & samsung galaxy grand. I found out that the xperia has a 0.3 mp front cam wheras the grand has a 2mp front cam.The xperia has a 4gb memory whereas the grand has 8gb. I dont have budget prblms but which one do you think is better? Please help!

Answer
Sony has given the Xperia C its signature design aesthetic with its well defined rectangular shape, barely there curves and its premium build quality. The handset is slimmer, sleeker and lighter than its competitor and thus more portable.

The Galaxy Grand Duos looks like a typical Samsung handset with its curved edges, large body and plasticy casing. Though not as light and portable as the Xperia C, the handset is convenient to hold and use.

Display
The Xperia C packs in a 5-inch TFT qHD display that comes with a resolution of 960 x 540 pixels and a pixel density of 220ppi. The screen is clear and quite sharp, and its size makes it ideal for communication and entertainment on the go.

The Galaxy Grand Duos sports a 5-inch TFT LCD screen with a resolution of 480 x 800 pixels and a pixel density of 187ppi. Its size makes it useable for media and entertainment and its screen is clear and easy on the eyes, though it lacks the sharpness of its competitor.

Sony wins the display round with its sharper display.

Camera


The Xperia C comes with an 8-megapixel rear camera with LED Flash, Exmor R sensor which allows user to capture images in challenging light conditions. In addition the phone is also capable of shooting videos in full-HD (1080p) mode. The camera comes with features like face detection and Sweep Panorama. The phone also sports a 0.3-megapixel front camera. Also, the phone body comes with a dedicated camera button that lets you access it in a jiffy.

Samsung Galaxy Grand also has a 8 MP primary camerathat comes with an LED flash and a very powerful BSI sensor. The smartphone comes with features such as geo-tagging, touch focus, face and smile detection and image stabilization. The camera allows HD filming at 30 frames per second. The phone has a 2 MP secondary camera. The primary or the rear camera comes equipped with picture modes catering to user requirements. The user can also adjust the brightness of the shooter to take clearer and brighter images with the camera even in dull indoor conditions. Some great camera modes in the camera include the Burst, Smile and Panorama. The Panorama mode provides a maximum angle 180 degree for the panorama pictures.

The analysis suggests that the Xperia C fares better in terms of having a quad-core processor, powerful battery and better resolution. On the other hand, Samsung scores in terms of storage capacity and better front facing camera.

video camera suggestions for action movies?

Q. Hi, I am searching for good videocamera that got 1080p and high-speed so there won't be any motionblur. So I was looking at the HR-115CX and wondering if it is any good? come with more suggestions if you know wanother good one. (It HAS to be atleast 60FPS so I can make slow motion ffects)

Answer
you won't like what i have to say, but it is based on experience.

first motion blur has nothing to do with the frame rate. almost every CCD video camera ever made has independent shutter speed ranging from 1/100 to 1/1000 second. the only limitation on shutter speed is available light, but normal daylight will allow for a pretty fast shutter.

second is the fact that ALL digital video except for miniDV uses "Group of Frames" architecture. Only movie cameras and miniDV take video as successive frames, making accurate slo motion analysis possible. The most common HD codec, AVCHD uses a fixed GOF of eight. That means an effective frame rate of 4 FPS, the missing frames are guessed at on playback. The interpolation process can be very inaccurate with action sports. i think that is the source of what you are calling motion blur. Going to 60 FPS won't help, you will still have 7 missing frames for each actual one.

third is datarate. the more data, the better the quality. miniDV is 25 Mbps, your camera is 6 Mbps, which wins? if you must go with HD, then HDV is the best solution. It has high datarate and MPEG2 codec which allows for variable GOF to keep up with action.

These are the most essential reasons that professional action sports is almost universally done with miniDV format camcorders.

Powered by Yahoo! Answers