goofus_magee

Today's NYT says the new compression format jpeg2000 will be used in

new cameras in the fall of 2002.

Here's a URL withsome more opinions:

 

http://www.bealecorner.com/trv900/filmlook.html

Beerbrain,

 

Thanks for that response to John's question. I had always assumed that the "rich" video look was all in the lighting, and I'm sure much of it is.

 

There is a signficant difference is what I call the "production values" of the local news broadcasts in my area. One network affiliate is top-of-the-line and the other three are playing catchup.

 

It seems that the high quality broadcast has a slight soft-focus effect. Is diffusion common to jobs that are shot for the "film" look?

Thomas,

 

I just got a tripod and head to do double-duty for my still camera and for the MiniDV video camera (which I have yet to buy.)

 

I went with Bogen/Manfrotto 3221 legs and the Manfrotto 3160 Fluid Head. This is a solid set-up at a reasonable price and reasonable weight. It extends easily to my standing eye-level.

 

For my still camera, I also got a Manfrotto 3229 head. This is designed to be a monopod head, but at the suggestion of a photo.net user, I'll use it on top of the 3160 Fluid Head to give me the option of tilting the still camera for vertical framing. The 3160 does not tilt for vertical framing since it is sold as a video head.

 

If this 3229 head is important to you for any reason, please not in advance that the threaded bolt coming up from a standard quick-release plate in the 3160 head is not large enough. You'll have to order the quick-release plate with the larger size threaded post. I did not notice this until my order arrived and I attempted to put it all together.

 

Note that I ordered 3021 model legs from B&H, but I received 3221 model. I'm not sure what the difference is. Maybe the 3221 indicates that it's the black anodized metal, which is what I ordered.

I recommend against the lens hood from Porter. I got one (about $17 plus $6 s&h) and the cosmetic quality is appalling. I was initially scared to put it on the camera for fear that it might damage something, but I did put it on. It fit, and I'm sure it will shade the lens as well as the best Rollei, but it's not pretty to look at.

My parents have a number of snapshots from the 1950s and 1960s which

are square prints. I don't recall what kind of camera was used for

these, but I'm sure it was not a high-quality 6x6. Were these shots

most likely exposed on 120 rollfilm on an inexpensive consumer grade

6x6?