The Way Forward (1 Viewer)

phyllosc · May 22, 2003

I don't wish to knock digiscopers, as they do produce some very good results. However, I cannot help but think the future is with video. Still images will always have a place on the printed page but with the advent of the internet (and the progress towards broadband connection) and an expansion of TV media, video footage of birds will come to the fore.

Recently I took my Canon (not attached to my scope) on its first serious outing: two weeks in Goa. With a maximum optical mag of x22 and most of the footage hand-held I brought back some quite impressive images. Of course it's not the BBC Naturual History Unit but it does relate to how birders see birds in the field.

With appropriate editing through a PC I'm sure most birders could produce video sequences good enough for inclusion of web sites.

How many birders out there on Bird Forum take a camcorder with them in the field? If you've got one you should try it!

Dave Carr
Essex, UK

walwyn · May 22, 2003

Ohhh a broadband connection. The exchange we use is so knackered it drops the dialup connection more often than an ECB slip fielder.

The chances of them upgrading it is officially 'no chance mate', because its a rural area and there is not enough people.

Cable runs down the A road outside of the village about 400yds away.

That leaves...

birdman · May 22, 2003

Oh, Dave, I disagree entirely!!!

Granted we can't see into the future so anything we believe might be superceded by events - but IMHO the reason I think you are mistaken is because the still image and the moving image serve two different purposes - (although I've reread this and I'm not sure I've proven that, but I still believe it is the case).

There will always (always?) be people who require still images for whatever reason, and the will certainly be people who require moving images, but I don't think the latter will ever entirely replace the former.

If we assume that technological advances will ultimately solve any image quality issues, surely a moving image will always take up more storage space than a still image, and as such will maintain it's usefulness.

Any more takers?

Surreybirder · May 22, 2003

If digital camcorders came up with 4.1 megapixel images, then I think there would be a case for chucking out the digital still camera and relying on videograbbing stills from the camcorder. But, if I understand correctly, the best videograbbed images now are only equivalent to 1 megapixel images. So I don't think still cameras are redundant just yet.
I look forward to the day when:
a) a digital camcorder can provide high quality still 'frames'
b) the camcorder can be attached securely to a scope and also locked on to a bird (some sort of heat-seeking mechanism???) and
c) I win the Lottery so I can afford all the gear!

stevo · May 22, 2003

A video camera that says it can record both moving & still images will only do one of them well,IE what the device was originally designed for in this case recording moving images.

pauco · May 22, 2003

still cant beat good old 35mil or better still medium format.
bert.
there can be no rainbow without a cloud and a storm.

Tattoo ian · May 22, 2003

Hello Dave,
Nice to see someone starting a new post on this forum and I'm glad you are enjoying you're Videoscoping.But i have to agree with Birdman there is two distinct camps on this,still cameras for stills and camcorders for moving images.Never mind what the relevant manufacturers say about combining the two elements it just helps sell more equipment instead of them concentrating on improving more important aspects on cameras and camcorders respectively.As for using video footage over the internet what a joke!,i for one cannot get broadband (i live in a village 8 miles from Canterbury) and even if i could to send video involves compression and spending time and effort to get quality results on video and miniDV why would i want to ruin this by compressing and getting inferior quality.No for the forseeable future the still picture is best for the internet.

peter hayes · May 22, 2003

They said that television would kill off newspapers. It hasn't happened yet.......

Karl J · May 23, 2003

No, don't agree with the opening post whatsoever. I readily admit to knowing nothing about photography whatsoever but for me moving images & stills serve, as a prev. post put it, different purposes. Both very useful purposes I'd add.

But you can't - well I can't anyway - look at a moving image and take in the entirety of the image detail in quite the same way as a still shot.

phyllosc · May 25, 2003

the way forward again

Well my first posting on 'forum generated some interesting replies!

I don't actually envisage a future were the still image is redundant. There will always be a place for it, especially when looking at some finer points of bird id. What I do think will change, however, is how we use the internet and TV media; in general I think they will tend to 'merge'. For example those with digital TV can press the 'red button' to go interactive.

I appreciate that broadband isn't available to all - me included - but one day perhaps we'll all be using a wire free connection via satelite.

What impresses me most about camcorders is that I can bird and film at the same time. The use of the camcorder has little impact on my birdwatching and still I come home with pretty good results. I've been in the field with those using digital and 35mm and the action of gathering images brings a halt to the birding.

Any more thoughts out there?

Dave Carr
Essex, UK

Andy Bright · May 25, 2003

Re: the way forward again

Certainly an very good discussion, Dave.

Although my prime interest is a print of the bird, I'll have to admit that moving images are far better in getting across the characteristics/lifestyle of the subject. After all, a bird's most distinguishing feature is it's ability to fly.... something rarely captured by a still (digiscoping isn't the method for that). From an artistic viewpoint, stills will always have the edge over moving images

Things are certainly changing.....many of the newer digital photographers are only interested in an image to be shown on a monitor, despite the lack of resolution from these devices. When high definition tv finally appears, video will become even more appealing..... we are already in the curious state that our cheap minidv's can produce images that a domestic tv struggles to cope with. At least I no longer have to transfer my video footage to old vhs anymore, recordable dvd has made life far easier.

Andy

phyllosc said:
Well my first posting on 'forum generated some interesting replies!

I don't actually envisage a future were the still image is redundant. There will always be a place for it, especially when looking at some finer points of bird id. What I do think will change, however, is how we use the internet and TV media; in general I think they will tend to 'merge'. For example those with digital TV can press the 'red button' to go interactive.

I appreciate that broadband isn't available to all - me included - but one day perhaps we'll all be using a wire free connection via satelite.

What impresses me most about camcorders is that I can bird and film at the same time. The use of the camcorder has little impact on my birdwatching and still I come home with pretty good results. I've been in the field with those using digital and 35mm and the action of gathering images brings a halt to the birding.

Any more thoughts out there?

Dave Carr
Essex, UK

sphenisc · May 29, 2003

I tend to agree with phyllosc. The anti comments so far seem to be largely based on the inadequacies of current video technology to match

Paul Hackett · Jun 27, 2003

In trying to add to this debate regarding still images from camcorders -

Attached is a Pacific Golden Plover taken up in Whitburn in the North East

This picture was taken as a "still" not a video grab and shows what can be achieved with a little patience !

There are now 2 million pixel still camcorders ( which i have just bought, the Sony TRV80 but it is big and bulky but works !) on the market and even a 3 million still camcorder but this particular model is not suitable for digiscoping, believe me ! i spent 3 hours in Dixons two months ago trying to make it work on my scope. Sony are bringing out a new range of 2 million pixel camcorders in June but they wont hit the english market for a while yet

equipment used for this pic -

Sony PC100 Camcorder ( 1million pixel still facility )
Leica APO Scope
Eagleeye 10X lens

The technology is here to produce acceptable images but the images are just not there yet to match to the cameras. saying all that, i think that they can look well on 6 X 4 prints but no larger

In time the amount of pixels will increase on the camcorder still images . what i would really like to see is a palmcorder with 3 CCD chips giving full colour, 10X optical zoom and 3 - 4 million pixel still images thats my dream !!

it cant be that far away, the technology is there, we are all playing the consumer game, every 6 months a new model a few more pixels etc etc new batteries, different leads, that doesnt fit on this model etc sounds familiar ?

Michael Frankis · Jun 27, 2003

The thing I find very depressing about all this is the way that to get anywhere in birding these days, you have to be a Fat Cat of the worst sort.

It'd be nice if people could restrict their recommendations to what is affordable, say under £100.

Michael

Paul Hackett · Jun 27, 2003

Michael

have noticed on this forum that you tend to go off the thread from the actual subject and be quite negative to people but that is your choice but here is the reply -

"To put you straight ! i am a working man earning a modest wage and have built up my equipment over the last four years digiscoping. the equipment i have is not cheap but with the advent of a visa and being able to pay back over time allows me to purchase these items."

If all you can comment on is "fat cat" and not the actual subject which is "still images" then you obviously dont have an opinion or no experience in this particular subject, if you dont know my circumstances why bother commenting ?

a positive repy would be most welcoming

and i thought this was a friendly website !

Nuff said !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Michael Frankis · Jun 27, 2003

Hi Paul,

Depends on your definition of 'modest wage'. I'd call that under £2,000/year - I'm currently making rather less than that, self-employed. Any recommendations on what to get to take decent stills, that won't break the bank?

Michael

CJW · Jun 27, 2003

Nicely put Paul.
I too have just started doing a bit of video-scoping following your lead at the Southern Grey Shrike last weekend and am quite pleased with the results (although my tripod isn't really up to the task of holding the scope and video-camera as steady as I would like) - especially when viewed on a 39" wide screen! The video grabbing quality isn't that great though and only really provides record shots.
As for Fat Cats Michael, I'm sure you've used this phrase before and on a similar subject (expensive optics). I'm not a fat cat, indeed am only paid an average salary, but I take my birding very seriously indeed and if the best equipment for the job is more expensive than I just have to save up for it (spending hard-earned money on 'inferior equipment' is not an option for me.) As with all things in life, the best costs but is ultimately worth it. You're simply not going to get the quality by spending £100 or less (or £500 pounds for that matter).

CJW · Jun 27, 2003

God damn it Paul, I just posted my reply only to find you had beaten me to it.

digi-birder · Jun 27, 2003

Please let's try not to end up in a slanging match.

Michael, it would have been helpful if you had expanded on your comment, rather than just making a terse statement with no real substance.

I know all too well that equipment costs a lot of money, although I don't have the expensive green items! And I, too, am from a working class background. Unfortunately, I have discovered to my cost that the old credit card is far too easy to flash around!!

Try and keep it friendly, which, on the whole, we are. That's why we have moderators.

:t:

Paul Hackett · Jun 27, 2003

Michael

as CJW points out to purchase an item under a £100 pounds new in this subject that will at least give you an image is impossible unless you look at the second hand market ( the paper loot if you get it up your way) or on this website or optical equipment shops if you leave your name with them and give them your price range

these are the only options i can think of, if any others can help with ideas ????

The Way Forward (1 Viewer)

Well-known member

Well-known member

&#1054;&#1088;&#1085;&#1080;&#1090;&#1086;&#1083;&

Ken Noble

Well-known member

&#1057;&#1090;&#1072;&#1088;&#1083;&#1080;&#1085;&

Member

peter hayes

Guest

Well-known member

Well-known member

Administrator

Member

Well-known member

Attachments

conehead

Well-known member

conehead

Hit-and-run WUM

Hit-and-run WUM

Well-known member

Well-known member

Similar threads

Users who are viewing this thread

Орнитол&

Старлин&