Replies

1. 
   Guest_ | Jul 25, 2000 05:58am | #13

   *
   Again, the depths of my ignorance is showing. Does anybody know how doable it is to upload a still from a camcorder to a website? I have future plans for a website, and was discussing digital cameras with a photographer friend. He suggested the camcorder idea (have camcorder, don't have digital camera). I know the image quality doesn't have to be amazing for website stuff, but he had never done it, so I'm wondering.

   BTW, I'm planning to use the cam corder on site visits for a record (just have to remember to pack it along). Anybody else doing this?

1. 
   Guest_ | Jul 19, 2000 04:10am | #1

   *Yes it's possible. There's a device called a Snappy that makes it possible to capture stills off videotape and store them on your computer. From there you can upload them to your website or to Breaktime. My brother has one, but I don't know if he's ever used it. I have no experience with it.

1. 
   Guest_ | Jul 19, 2000 05:11am | #2

   *Stay away from the Snappy unless you capture direct from camera to computer. Going through a tape renders the pictures nearly unusable.I went with a 1 meg pixel digital camera for my web site and I've been happy with the results. Someday the monitors and cards will change in personal computers so that 2+ meg pixel cameras will be the way to go; but today 1 meg is adequate.

1. 
   Guest_ | Jul 19, 2000 05:43am | #3

   *Adrian, I'm guessing you have an analog (non-digital) camcorder? Try this link for a review of several cards.Scroll down to "Analog MJPEG Capture Cards", it's the first batch to be reviewed. Ron is correct in that digital-to-digital is far superior to analog input, but for basic website uploads many of the basic cards will work fine for uploading pics to show off your daughter and your e-cabinetry.Analog input is weak for video streaming, but okay for simple JPEG conversions.

1. 
   Guest_ | Jul 20, 2000 06:26am | #4

   *Lots of video cards do this; the $100 ATI card I just bought will encode analog signals from whatever source. Yes, videotape quality is not so great.I have the 1.7 megapixel Canon A50, very nice package and many times the resolution commonly used online at this point. A cheap USB reader transfers the pics quickly from the "compactflash" memory cards the camera uses, serial was just unbearably slow.For quality "show-off" pics, use stills and compose your shots -- the resolution, color, clarity, etc. will all be better.

2. 
   Robert_Macaione | Jul 20, 2000 05:33pm | #5

   *Adrian,The quality from the camcorder setup is awful. To avoid the expense of a digital cam, take pictures with a regular film cam, and have pg files created when you develop them... Even grocery stores offer this service, usually $5 extra

3. 
   Guest_ | Jul 20, 2000 07:19pm | #6

   *Okey dokey. Sometimes you have to ask the question, know what I mean? Scratch the camcorder idea. I can borrow a digital camera until I get a better idea odf what I'm looking for in one. Thanks for the responses.

4. 
   Guest_ | Jul 20, 2000 09:23pm | #7

   *adrian.. i bot a kodak DC215 zoom.. and they threw in a USB card reader...it was about $300 then (DEC.'99)... i've taken about 1000 pictures with it so far (it keeps track.. so i know)......i carried a nikon FM for 27 years with a wide angle zoom.. .. i still got it , but i never use it now.. maybe for those studio shots in my next book (which will also be my first book)....i can't believe how versatile these things are..the 4 meg card that came with it will take 25 Pics.. then i download and dump it into the computer and edit them there.. wipe the card.. and start over..battery charger..flash.. fill-in flash..close up.. wide angle and telephoto (nothing to write home about compared to my 300 MM telephoto on the nikon).. but as a work camera.. and estimating and web site photos.. these things are great....take a pic. of your customers furniture.. download it into the computer with the software that comes with the camera..browze your pictures and ((attach)) them.. it's just too easy...

5. 
   Guest_ | Jul 21, 2000 03:02am | #8

   *MikeySo where's the bod that goes with the boobs on the bridge??what a great line. . . remind me to use that sum thyme-pm

6. 
   Guest_ | Jul 21, 2000 04:08am | #9

   *Adrian,Just because the resolution of web images doesn't need to be that great doesn't mean that the quality of the initial picture doesn't need to be that great too. If you're making a web site for your business, use only high quality photos. Maybe even get a pro to snap them for you. It's advertising. You wouldn't go to Kinkos and photocopy some pictures to use as an ad would you?I didn't think so.One cool thing about bringing a video camera to potential job sites (as someone in another thread pointed out a while back -- or maybe I read it in JLC...), is that you can shoot the job area, then leave the camera running as you converse with the potential client. You get an audio tape of the conversation so it's easier to keep straight exactly what was said by whom.Which, I suppose, comes in handy every once in a while.Dan

7. 
   Guest_ | Jul 21, 2000 01:59pm | #10

   *paddy.. that's the old babe in the background and the new swelte trophy wife in the foreground....they're about 150 feet apart...hah, hah, hah....

8. 
   Guest_ | Jul 24, 2000 07:33am | #11

   *Adrian, If your camcorder has a time lapse setting you can get some interesting footage. I've used mine on several projects. Mine takes one second of tape every minute and one taping caught one of the helpers leaning on his shovel for twenty seconds ( do the math).It was not set up for surveillance and the fellow on the shovel had a lapse of memory among other things. Skip

9. 
   Guest_ | Jul 24, 2000 01:24pm | #12

   *I allow only 8 seconds of slacking every two hours. If I caught a guy who was supposed to be digging holes resting for 20 seconds, he'd be so out of here.

10. 
    Guest_ | Jul 25, 2000 05:58am | #14

    *Ryan You did catch the comment about 1 second of tape every minute of real time? at that rate the leaner was there 20 minutes. We did the math for him and took away the shovel. Didn't see him in the lens any more.. guess he fell over. Skip