Just realised why the footage of the riots this weekend is so jerky and unsteady. It seems it is being shot by reporters holding phones.
"John Williamson" <johnwilliamson@btinternet.com> wrote in message news:lh9uk8Ffd12U1@mid.individual.net...
Just realised why the footage of the riots this weekend is so jerky
and unsteady. It seems it is being shot by reporters holding phones.
I imagine a lot of that footage, especially if the camera is held
vertically and is waved around aimlessly instead of moving purposefully
to follow the action, is shot by punters - bystanders in the crowd -
rather than by news reporters' camera crews.
John Williamson wrote:
Just realised why the footage of the riots this weekend is so jerky and
unsteady. It seems it is being shot by reporters holding phones.
Would you want to stand there poking an expensive broadcast camera in the thugs' faces?
"Andy Burns" <usenet@andyburns.uk> wrote in message news:lha3vpFg0v0U1@mid.individual.net...
John Williamson wrote:
Just realised why the footage of the riots this weekend is so jerky
and unsteady. It seems it is being shot by reporters holding phones.
Would you want to stand there poking an expensive broadcast camera in
the thugs' faces?
If they are using mobile phones instead of broadcast cameras because of
the cost if a thug decides to steal/trash the camera, you'd think they
would at least invest in a gimbal (effectively a poor-man's Steadicam)
to iron out the worst of the camera shake. One problem with mobile phone cameras in video mode is that they usually can only record in 30 fps,
and 25 fps is not an option; not sure whether the same restriction
applies to live-streaming as opposed to recording to H264 .ts file.
Hence you get motion artefacts if the camera pans or someone walks
across shot, due to the conversion in the studio between 30 (probably
29.97) and 25 fps.
Even a prosumer camcorder would be better than a phone - a) because it
has an optical zoom, and b) because it probably allows switching between
30 and 25, and to allow easy adjustment of exposure when the auto meter
gets it wrong. That would be a damn sight cheaper than a
broadcast-quality camera.
Just realised why the footage of the riots this weekend is so jerky and unsteady. It seems it is being shot by reporters holding phones.
John Williamson wrote:
Just realised why the footage of the riots this weekend is so jerky
and unsteady. It seems it is being shot by reporters holding phones.
Would you want to stand there poking an expensive broadcast camera in
the thugs' faces?
On 04/08/2024 21:15, John Williamson wrote:
The disadvantage would be that it would need its own internet
connection, and very few domestic camcorders allow you to stream live
from the sensor,
Pro versions with that do exist
https://pro.sony/en_GB/filmmaking/professional-live-streaming
The disadvantage would be that it would need its own internet
connection, and very few domestic camcorders allow you to stream live
from the sensor,
On 05/08/2024 10:46, Mark Carver wrote:
On 04/08/2024 21:15, John Williamson wrote:That has been possible for quite a while now for pro gear.
The disadvantage would be that it would need its own internet
connection, and very few domestic camcorders allow you to stream live
from the sensor,
Pro versions with that do exist
https://pro.sony/en_GB/filmmaking/professional-live-streaming
The suggestion was to use cheaper domestic or semipro units for risky
areas instead of phones. I am only aware of one series of phones with
optical zoom which could stream live video. I am not aware of anything
short of pro camera gear which can do what is wanted.
On 05/08/2024 11:06, John Williamson wrote:
On 05/08/2024 10:46, Mark Carver wrote:
On 04/08/2024 21:15, John Williamson wrote:
The disadvantage would be that it would need its own internet connection, and very few domestic camcorders allow you to
stream live from the sensor,
Pro versions with that do exist
https://pro.sony/en_GB/filmmaking/professional-live-streaming
That has been possible for quite a while now for pro gear.
The suggestion was to use cheaper domestic or semipro units for
risky areas instead of phones. I am only aware of one series of
phones with optical zoom which could stream live video. I am not
aware of anything short of pro camera gear which can do what is
wanted.
I'm surprised that consumer camcorders can't produce a live HDMI
output.
Analogue camcorders usually/always had the ability to produce a
composite output that could drive a TV or monitor - useful to use as
a viewfinder, especially if the camcorder itself only has a mono
viewfinder. I've used it sometimes for making a very long continuous recording - record to VHS with a 3-hour tape, rather than have to
keep swapping little 8 mm tapes.
In the same way, I'd expect most digital camcorders to be able to
produce an HDMI output directly from the camera (without having to
record and play back) which could either drive a monitor or feed an
external streaming transmitter. Not to provide that functionality on
consumer kit seems perverse.
I'll have to dig out my wife's digital camcorder which is about 15
years old, and see if that can output the live camera image from its
HDMI output.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 546 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 150:27:13 |
| Calls: | 10,383 |
| Files: | 14,054 |
| Messages: | 6,417,788 |