Archived from groups: alt.art.video,alt.video,alt.video.avid-editors,rec.video.desktop,rec.video.production (More info?)

It would seem that the next video camcorder should be
something simple that the everyday student film maker
can afford. Every year, there are new "students of
film making" and many schools are teaching using dv
format. It would seem that this could be a huge
market. I think every photographer is aware of the
inexpensive ubiquitous entry level 35mm camera known
as the PENTAX K1000.

Why not create a similar market in camcorders?
It seems that manufactures do have many "cheap"
cameras, but that is exactly what they are....cheap.
Everything they offer is watered down, poorly made,
half-baked features, and transports that eventually
chew up tapes.

I have 3chip camcorders mainly, but I wouldn't
hesitate to buy an inexpensive camcorder that was
durable, small, and featureless with the exception of
decent sound, and good low light.

What I am suggesting is a 1 ccd camcorder, with a huge
chip of say 2/3"
(the huge sensor will give great pictures even in low
light, but being only 1ccd, protect the manufactures
from losing sales on 3 chip cameras, while also
keeping costs down)

A durable case, maybe pollycarbon or plastic but
coated in rubber for durability, something like a
glock handgun.

A nice fixed lens that is tack sharp
(fixed lens is cheap to make, and sharp by nature)
(possibility of future interchangability, fixed lens
will also protect sales of higher end cameras whos
users need zoom)

Durable tape transport.

xlr mics, and decent built in mic.
(this can be done cheap look at rolls products)

Flat surfaces for future mounting of velcroed devices.

Unique look maybe like an old super 8mm film camera.

Price retail around $800.

I think this can be done, all the parts are already
out there, and once the camera gets out there, the
entry guys will eat this up!

Lets create an outrage for not having this NOW~!




--
www.fiveminutesoffame.com
Get your five minutes of FAME

Archived from groups: alt.art.video,alt.video,alt.video.avid-editors,rec.video.desktop,rec.video.production (More info?)

Five wrote:

> It would seem that the next video camcorder should be
> something simple that the everyday student film maker
> can afford.

SHOULD be? On what grounds? Maybe you haven't noticed, but the
entities that make these things are for-profit organizations, and if
they thought for ONE second they could make a profit following your
formula, they'd be all over it like....wait for it....white on rice.
(Who could resist that one?)



> Lets create an outrage for not having this NOW~!

For student film makers? Screw 'em, there's already too many.

Archived from groups: alt.art.video,alt.video,alt.video.avid-editors,rec.video.desktop,rec.video.production (More info?)

Um, they are already out (just not quite in the price range you'd like). In
fact we're in the second generation (and in some cases third generation) of
high-quality, low-cost, ease of use camcorders, that have many of the
features of their expensive professional counterparts.

Let's see:
Canon XL-1 - now the XL-2
Sony PD-150, now PD-170
Panasonic AG-DVX100, now the AG-DVX100a
also
JVC GY-DV300U
Sony DCR-VX2100

About $2000-$3500 for cameras that rival the professional cameras of many
years ago.

The companies have already attempted to create the type of camcorder you're
talking about and they've been less than successful. I only need to mention
the Panasonic AG-DVC7 (although the DVC15 was almost identical to all of the
things you mentioned, but was discontinued shortly after)

The one thing you may not understand is that these companies make huge
amounts of money from the professional market and have images to maintain
within that market (very much like the photographic market, yes the Pentax
exists, but there are high end photographic companies that would NEVER
release something like that because of their name association. For another
example look at the car market - some companies will never, ever make an
inexpensive vehicle even though they could, because of the damage to their
name brand). Sony would have to sell over 65 of your described camcorders
to make the same money as a DVW-790WSPs. Only look at what Panasonic went
through to finally crack into the professional market. Really, until
DVCPro, Panasonic was seen by most people as strictly a consumer level
manufacturer (except for the occasional monitor and stuff).

What it comes down to is technique. A professional can make any camera look
pretty good (both still & video), whereas a professional camera is the hands
of someone who doesn't know what they're doing is going to look shoddy.
It's not about the equipment. You can learn all the technique you want on a
$200 camcorder at your local electronics store.

My suggestion always is (as someone who runs a PA station), for those
getting interested in shooting video with more than their home camcorder,
should check out their local Public Access facilities. Then those who want
to invest $2000-$3500 on a camera can do so. Making a less expensive
camera is not necessarily the answer, because no one is going to make a
living utilzing the $800 camcorder you mention, (just like no one's really
going to make a living off of the Pentax K1000). Or rent higher-end cameras
to try them out on projects. If you see this $800 camcorder as a stepping
stone piece of equipment, there are other means already to do that. If you
see it as an final end product for a filmmaker to use, it could never
possibly offer what a person looking to become a professional would require.


Ryan

--
---------------------------------------------
Ryan Boni
Public Access Director
Peters Township Community Television
McMurray, PA
www.geocities.com/ptct7/







"Five" <Niko@fiveminutesof____.com> wrote in message
news:Xd6Qc.87043$eM2.33270@attbi_s51...
> It would seem that the next video camcorder should be
> something simple that the everyday student film maker
> can afford. Every year, there are new "students of
> film making" and many schools are teaching using dv
> format. It would seem that this could be a huge
> market. I think every photographer is aware of the
> inexpensive ubiquitous entry level 35mm camera known
> as the PENTAX K1000.
>
> Why not create a similar market in camcorders?
> It seems that manufactures do have many "cheap"
> cameras, but that is exactly what they are....cheap.
> Everything they offer is watered down, poorly made,
> half-baked features, and transports that eventually
> chew up tapes.
>
> I have 3chip camcorders mainly, but I wouldn't
> hesitate to buy an inexpensive camcorder that was
> durable, small, and featureless with the exception of
> decent sound, and good low light.
>
> What I am suggesting is a 1 ccd camcorder, with a huge
> chip of say 2/3"
> (the huge sensor will give great pictures even in low
> light, but being only 1ccd, protect the manufactures
> from losing sales on 3 chip cameras, while also
> keeping costs down)
>
> A durable case, maybe pollycarbon or plastic but
> coated in rubber for durability, something like a
> glock handgun.
>
> A nice fixed lens that is tack sharp
> (fixed lens is cheap to make, and sharp by nature)
> (possibility of future interchangability, fixed lens
> will also protect sales of higher end cameras whos
> users need zoom)
>
> Durable tape transport.
>
> xlr mics, and decent built in mic.
> (this can be done cheap look at rolls products)
>
> Flat surfaces for future mounting of velcroed devices.
>
> Unique look maybe like an old super 8mm film camera.
>
> Price retail around $800.
>
> I think this can be done, all the parts are already
> out there, and once the camera gets out there, the
> entry guys will eat this up!
>
> Lets create an outrage for not having this NOW~!
>
>
>
>
> --
> www.fiveminutesoffame.com
> Get your five minutes of FAME

Archived from groups: alt.art.video,alt.video,alt.video.avid-editors,rec.video.desktop,rec.video.production (More info?)

On Wed, 04 Aug 2004 14:17:27 GMT, Five <Niko@fiveminutesof____.com>
wrote:

>It would seem that the next video camcorder should be
>something simple that the everyday student film maker
>can afford. Every year, there are new "students of
>film making" and many schools are teaching using dv
>format. It would seem that this could be a huge
>market. I think every photographer is aware of the
>inexpensive ubiquitous entry level 35mm camera known
>as the PENTAX K1000.
>
>Why not create a similar market in camcorders?
>It seems that manufactures do have many "cheap"
>cameras, but that is exactly what they are....cheap.
>Everything they offer is watered down, poorly made,
>half-baked features, and transports that eventually
>chew up tapes.
>
>I have 3chip camcorders mainly, but I wouldn't
>hesitate to buy an inexpensive camcorder that was
>durable, small, and featureless with the exception of
>decent sound, and good low light.
>
>What I am suggesting is a 1 ccd camcorder, with a huge
>chip of say 2/3"
>(the huge sensor will give great pictures even in low
>light, but being only 1ccd, protect the manufactures
>from losing sales on 3 chip cameras, while also
>keeping costs down)
Many of us would like to see this. Though it's unlikely as it would
impact the 3chip market. Many would buy the 1chip camera rather than
make the jump up to the makers low end 3chip offerings.

>
>A durable case, maybe pollycarbon or plastic but
>coated in rubber for durability, something like a
>glock handgun.
>
That's not feasible. A glock is made of a high density ceramic, very
expensive.
Better to use a one piece, milled internal alloy frame with a good
plastic skin for average shocks. If more is needed they could offer a
high impact weatherproof case as an option thereby keeping the cost of
the camera down.
>A nice fixed lens that is tack sharp
>(fixed lens is cheap to make, and sharp by nature)
>(possibility of future interchangability, fixed lens
>will also protect sales of higher end cameras whos
>users need zoom)
No, no. A standard lens mount ring with several adapter rings to
accomodate a variety of lenses much as was offered in the low end
industrial gear of the 80's.(Basis cine/video bayonet with adapter
rings for the use of film/35mm still lenses.)
That way you could save even more by just buying the head and using
whatever lenses you already own or could obtain.
>
>Durable tape transport.
Better yet offer a dockable head. Then you could use whatever tape
format the job requires.
>
>xlr mics, and decent built in mic.
>(this can be done cheap look at rolls products)
>
>Flat surfaces for future mounting of velcroed devices.
That is a sore spot for manufacturers. They like to make their cameras
as proprietary as they possibly can forcing you to purchase their
options.

>
>Unique look maybe like an old super 8mm film camera.
>
>Price retail around $800.
We know that the markup for gear is to say the least high.
That said I don't think the manufacturers will let anything out
that'll do pro level work at that price.
One thing that may chnge that is the entry into the market of gear
made by newer companies in the Pacific rim. They're always trying to
establish themselves in the market by offering much more for less.
This in turn has forcd the Japaneese companies to turn out more for
less in turn or at least cut the price of their current offerings.
>
>I think this can be done, all the parts are already
>out there, and once the camera gets out there, the
>entry guys will eat this up!
>
>Lets create an outrage for not having this NOW~!


If you tell me what type of work/project you're trying to do I could
give you some pointers in how to cut cost on hardware.

Archived from groups: alt.art.video,alt.video,alt.video.avid-editors,rec.video.desktop,rec.video.production (More info?)

On 5 Aug 2004 00:52:35 GMT, Seattle Eric <noone@erehwon.gov> wrote:

>Five wrote:
>
>> It would seem that the next video camcorder should be
>> something simple that the everyday student film maker
>> can afford.
>
> SHOULD be? On what grounds? Maybe you haven't noticed, but the
>entities that make these things are for-profit organizations, and if
>they thought for ONE second they could make a profit following your
>formula, they'd be all over it like....wait for it....white on rice.
>(Who could resist that one?)
>
>
>
>> Lets create an outrage for not having this NOW~!
>
> For student film makers? Screw 'em, there's already too many.
>
That's a pretty pissy attitude to take.
Weren't you a beginner once yourself?
From the sound of it you don't give a fig about the future of the
industry/craft either if you don't care if there's anyone to follow
you.
The democratization of the craft by advances in technology has got to
be one of the best things that's happened in a long time.
Look at all the really good filmakers it's produced in just the last
decade alone.
As for designs in cameras, I do believe we'll see a fair amount of
hardware aimed at niche markets whether we pro's like it or not.(I can
remember how tough it got with the advent of handheld low cost
camcorders to compete in the video market back in the 80's. But I did
adapt and survive as did many others.)
The marketplace has always been an ever evolving beast, and those who
sat too long hve always been left behind.
It's good to have competition to keep on sharp and it helps keep the
market from stagnating as well.

Archived from groups: alt.art.video,alt.video,alt.video.avid-editors,rec.video.desktop,rec.video.production (More info?)

"Ryan Boni" <impliedi@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:wPgQc.3417$rX6.628@trndny02...
> Um, they are already out (just not quite in the price range you'd like).
In
> fact we're in the second generation (and in some cases third generation)
of
> high-quality, low-cost, ease of use camcorders, that have many of the
> features of their expensive professional counterparts.
>
> Let's see:
> Canon XL-1 - now the XL-2
> Sony PD-150, now PD-170
> Panasonic AG-DVX100, now the AG-DVX100a
> also
> JVC GY-DV300U
> Sony DCR-VX2100
>
> About $2000-$3500 for cameras that rival the professional cameras of many
> years ago.

If you look around, you can find VX-1000's for under $1000 (I've seen as low
as $700), and you can get a VX-3, which is Hi-8, but has most of the
features of the 1000, for around $300-500.

Archived from groups: alt.art.video,alt.video,alt.video.avid-editors,rec.video.desktop,rec.video.production (More info?)

"gothika" <Vampyres@nettaxi.com> wrote in message
news:npc3h01lngupj6bu2i9hb7ah0f4qgp2uqv@4ax.com...
> On 5 Aug 2004 00:52:35 GMT, Seattle Eric <noone@erehwon.gov> wrote:
> >
> > For student film makers? Screw 'em, there's already too many.
> >
> That's a pretty pissy attitude to take.
> Weren't you a beginner once yourself?
> From the sound of it you don't give a fig about the future of the
> industry/craft either if you don't care if there's anyone to follow
> you.

I don't know about Seattle Eric, but when I wanted to make movies, I bought
a super-8 camera and paid for my film and developing. When I got more
professional about it and decided to get seriously into it, I sold my Camaro
and used half of the money for equipment, including a new VX-1000 that cost
about $2500 at the time.

Basically, the way I feel is: Quit whining. If you want to make movies, find
a way to get the money. If you're serious about it, you will.

Archived from groups: alt.art.video,alt.video,alt.video.avid-editors,rec.video.desktop,rec.video.production (More info?)

In article <wPgQc.3417$rX6.628@trndny02>,
impliedi@verizon.net says...
> Um, they are already out (just not quite in the price range you'd like).

No they are not out

> In
> fact we're in the second generation (and in some cases third generation) of
> high-quality, low-cost, ease of use camcorders, that have many of the
> features of their expensive professional counterparts.
>
> Let's see:
> Canon XL-1 - now the XL-2
> Sony PD-150, now PD-170
> Panasonic AG-DVX100, now the AG-DVX100a
> also
> JVC GY-DV300U
> Sony DCR-VX2100
>
> About $2000-$3500 for cameras that rival the professional cameras of many
> years ago.

The above mentioned cameras all cost over the $800
street mark. Thinks new college student (no money) or
first time film makers wannabe who just wants
something to do the job that they can afford. The
above mentioned camcorders are out of the above
targeted buyer's range. Current camcorders in the
$800 price range, are simply cheap with gadgets and
gimicks added onto a $200 camcorder to make them
"under $1,000". In reality, no one can use these.
They are purchased at walmart only to find out that
they can not record an interior setting with any
quality, and are just shoved in a closet somewhere.

>
> The companies have already attempted to create the type of camcorder you're
> talking about and they've been less than successful. I only need to mention
> the Panasonic AG-DVC7 (although the DVC15 was almost identical to all of the
> things you mentioned, but was discontinued shortly after)
>

All of these are too big. I am talking about
something to throw in your back pack. Many
highschools are now teaching dv film making. I am
looking for something under $800 street price that
even they can afford. That is usable.

Criteria again:

small enough to fit in a back pack
durable like a glock handgun
simple with few add ons to keep price low, and less to
go wrong.
Around $1,000 ($800 street)
HUGE CCD 2/3" or at least 1/2" but can be 1 ccd to
keep price down, and prevent siphoning of pro market
sales of higher end cameras.
Looks cool like a super 8 (this is not a must have
criteria)
XLR AUDIO (this can be done cheap, just look at rolls
products)


> The one thing you may not understand is that these companies make huge
> amounts of money from the professional market and have images to maintain
> within that market (very much like the photographic market, yes the Pentax
> exists, but there are high end photographic companies that would NEVER
> release something like that because of their name association. For another
> example look at the car market - some companies will never, ever make an
> inexpensive vehicle even though they could, because of the damage to their
> name brand). Sony would have to sell over 65 of your described camcorders
> to make the same money as a DVW-790WSPs.

Every manufacture currently makes a $300 walmart
camera. I doubt they are trying to "protect a
reputation" or else that would be killing theirs such
as JVC has done to it's own reputation with the
"cigarette pack" camcorder that is not reliable. Good
idea, but terrible quality, and it is simply too
small, and had shitty ccd's.

As for profit potential, the camera I suggest could be
considered a loss leader to create new customers.
Back to the pentax k1000 comparison. That camera was
so cheap anyone could afford it. ALL schools who
taught photography would suggest THAT camera to start
on. Can you imagine the sales they had? Unfortunately
Pentax has few cameras to migrate up to when the
person becomes more advanced. In the DV world,
current manufacturers have many cameras to move up to.
The camera I am suggesting would not necessarily be
something disposable, actually I am thinking quite the
oposite. It could be so simple in design, that
everything electronic fits on one board. If it fails,
you send it in, and for a flat price they replace the
board, or the user could do it (board, and ccd assy
all on one block, tape transport on another). you
could dress it up with add on's like rubber hand grips
like a glock handgun. This camcorder could soon be
known as the camcorder to "cut your teeth on". So
when anyone asks the continual question, "what
camcorder should I get, I am a neewbie", there would
be only one answer. The camcorder I am suggesting
would be usable to create moving images in all
lighting conditions due to it's huge ccd, provide good
audio, and be user servicable on the cheap, modular in
design, and a camcorder that not necessarily is
replaced, but added to when the user NEEDS 3ccd,
dvcam, dvcpro, better color space, better audio,
longer tapes. This would be the camcorder you pass on
to your son, or just keep as a backup when you outgrow
it. Imagine this, the camcorder has only 3 parts or
subassemblies consisting of: chassis(the shell and
buttons), the tape transport, and the electronic ccd
assy. It would be modular in design so that if any of
these items broke, it would be a third of the cost
new. In other words, if the camcorder sold for $800,
each subassy could be sold for shell=$200, transport
$300, electronics board/ccd array $300. Don't say it
can't be done as they currently sell compleate
camcorders for $300 at walmart.

This would not cut sales from higher end cameras as
the user will want 3CCD's some day. In fact this cult
classic would definately have a certain "look" using
2/3" single ccd (low noise less color saturation then
3 ccd's) humm maybe that would have more of a "film,
low depth of field look".

> Only look at what Panasonic went
> through to finally crack into the professional market. Really, until
> DVCPro, Panasonic was seen by most people as strictly a consumer level
> manufacturer (except for the occasional monitor and stuff).

Are you kiding me? Panasonic had a camcorder in every
range, and was arguably better in all. They only
recently broke into the prosumer area due to FINALLY
bringing the price down to an affordable level in that
market.

All their low end stuff is junk, that they are not
selling anyway.

>
> What it comes down to is technique. A professional can make any camera look
> pretty good (both still & video), whereas a professional camera is the hands
> of someone who doesn't know what they're doing is going to look shoddy.
> It's not about the equipment. You can learn all the technique you want on a
> $200 camcorder at your local electronics store.

Dude, I totally understand that, I have photographed
real supermodels, worked for KODAK, and Canon and
dealt with imagery for private and in the work place
as my career. The problem is, you wouldn't want to do
anything with todays $200 camera. That makes you
unmotivated, and it is the motivation that will make
you do it. Anyone with todays $200 camera will be
trying to figure out a way to buy a dvx100a. If you
financially can not do it, you will give up. A sub
$1,000 camera is in reach of everyone. Having
replaceable subassemlies would make it great on a used
basis as well. This camera could be in every
household. It does not need to change much from year
to year or at all (like the pentax K1000).
The reason everyone who buys a sub $1,000 camcorder
does not make movies with them is more to do with the
bad quality of the image than with it being a low
priced camera. Shoot one interior (probably 90% of
any student film) and you soon learn the image is
unusable. After that, they give up when they realize
they need the DvX100a to do what they need. They can
not afford that. Consequently they also do not learn
technique.

>
> My suggestion always is (as someone who runs a PA station), for those
> getting interested in shooting video with more than their home camcorder,
> should check out their local Public Access facilities.

Not a bad suggestion, however, the reality is that
many newbies are intimidated by doing so. They would
much rather prefer a setting with newbies like
themselves, or to start on their own by doing, and
reading books. Then when they get to a higher level
than entry, they most likely would do the public
access thing.

> Then those who want
> to invest $2000-$3500 on a camera can do so.

You still do not address the person who can only
afford a $1,000 camera.

> Making a less expensive
> camera is not necessarily the answer, because no one is going to make a
> living utilzing the $800 camcorder you mention, (just like no one's really
> going to make a living off of the Pentax K1000). Or rent higher-end cameras
> to try them out on projects.

That is not necessarily true, nor was I attempting to
suggest one make a living from this camera. My
suggestion was to fill a void where therin lies many
persons who wish to make movies for whatever
use..think Paris Hilton, or any student film maker
wannabe, gadget freek geek, computer nerd, high school
student for public access, father with newborn
children etc. Think the guy who, back in the day,
would purchase a super 8. Think extreem sport
documentary, skateboarders, bmx stunts, highschool
sprorts etc. Currently nothing under $1,000 is small
enough to carry durable enough to be stowed in a back
pack, or quality enough to shoot an interior with out
additional lighting.

Any many have made a living on a pentax K1000

> If you see this $800 camcorder as a stepping
> stone piece of equipment, there are other means already to do that.

No there are not ANY camcorders to do this that are
small enough to be stowed in a back pack, or durable
enough, or quality enough to shoot an interior without
any additional lighting.

> If you
> see it as an final end product for a filmmaker to use, it could never
> possibly offer what a person looking to become a professional would require.
>

Similar things have been said of many film makers whos
names I need not even mention because I am sure you
already know that it has been done many times on dv.
When DV first came out, they said that, now look how
many dv films are out there. What you say is not true
if it is made with the criteria suggested.

>
> Ryan
>
> --
> ---------------------------------------------
> Ryan Boni
> Public Access Director
> Peters Township Community Television
> McMurray, PA
> www.geocities.com/ptct7/
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> "Five" <Niko@fiveminutesof____.com> wrote in message
> news:Xd6Qc.87043$eM2.33270@attbi_s51...
> > It would seem that the next video camcorder should be
> > something simple that the everyday student film maker
> > can afford. Every year, there are new "students of
> > film making" and many schools are teaching using dv
> > format. It would seem that this could be a huge
> > market. I think every photographer is aware of the
> > inexpensive ubiquitous entry level 35mm camera known
> > as the PENTAX K1000.
> >
> > Why not create a similar market in camcorders?
> > It seems that manufactures do have many "cheap"
> > cameras, but that is exactly what they are....cheap.
> > Everything they offer is watered down, poorly made,
> > half-baked features, and transports that eventually
> > chew up tapes.
> >
> > I have 3chip camcorders mainly, but I wouldn't
> > hesitate to buy an inexpensive camcorder that was
> > durable, small, and featureless with the exception of
> > decent sound, and good low light.
> >
> > What I am suggesting is a 1 ccd camcorder, with a huge
> > chip of say 2/3"
> > (the huge sensor will give great pictures even in low
> > light, but being only 1ccd, protect the manufactures
> > from losing sales on 3 chip cameras, while also
> > keeping costs down)
> >
> > A durable case, maybe pollycarbon or plastic but
> > coated in rubber for durability, something like a
> > glock handgun.
> >
> > A nice fixed lens that is tack sharp
> > (fixed lens is cheap to make, and sharp by nature)
> > (possibility of future interchangability, fixed lens
> > will also protect sales of higher end cameras whos
> > users need zoom)
> >
> > Durable tape transport.
> >
> > xlr mics, and decent built in mic.
> > (this can be done cheap look at rolls products)
> >
> > Flat surfaces for future mounting of velcroed devices.
> >
> > Unique look maybe like an old super 8mm film camera.
> >
> > Price retail around $800.
> >
> > I think this can be done, all the parts are already
> > out there, and once the camera gets out there, the
> > entry guys will eat this up!
> >
> > Lets create an outrage for not having this NOW~!
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > www.fiveminutesoffame.com
> > Get your five minutes of FAME
>
>
>

--
www.fiveminutesoffame.com
Get your five minutes of FAME

Archived from groups: alt.art.video,alt.video,alt.video.avid-editors,rec.video.desktop,rec.video.production (More info?)

In article <1gd3h0prjg5gfk8hneo085sluril10i4hb@
4ax.com>, Vampyres@nettaxi.com says...
> On Wed, 04 Aug 2004 14:17:27 GMT, Five <Niko@fiveminutesof____.com>
> wrote:
>
> >It would seem that the next video camcorder should be
> >something simple that the everyday student film maker
> >can afford. Every year, there are new "students of
> >film making" and many schools are teaching using dv
> >format. It would seem that this could be a huge
> >market. I think every photographer is aware of the
> >inexpensive ubiquitous entry level 35mm camera known
> >as the PENTAX K1000.
> >
> >Why not create a similar market in camcorders?
> >It seems that manufactures do have many "cheap"
> >cameras, but that is exactly what they are....cheap.
> >Everything they offer is watered down, poorly made,
> >half-baked features, and transports that eventually
> >chew up tapes.
> >
> >I have 3chip camcorders mainly, but I wouldn't
> >hesitate to buy an inexpensive camcorder that was
> >durable, small, and featureless with the exception of
> >decent sound, and good low light.
> >
> >What I am suggesting is a 1 ccd camcorder, with a huge
> >chip of say 2/3"
> >(the huge sensor will give great pictures even in low
> >light, but being only 1ccd, protect the manufactures
> >from losing sales on 3 chip cameras, while also
> >keeping costs down)
> Many of us would like to see this. Though it's unlikely as it would
> impact the 3chip market. Many would buy the 1chip camera rather than
> make the jump up to the makers low end 3chip offerings.

That maybe true, but I think it would be offset by
higher sales and dominating a market segment. Perhaps
they can curtail this by offering limited production,
say 800 units a year, once sold, you have to wait next
year, or just buy the 3 chip. You could use that in
your marketing, and call it the super 800 (800 made
per year, for $800 dollars, and look like a super 8 mm
cam)

> >A durable case, maybe pollycarbon or plastic but
> >coated in rubber for durability, something like a
> >glock handgun.
> >
> That's not feasible. A glock is made of a high density ceramic, very
> expensive.
> Better to use a one piece, milled internal alloy frame with a good
> plastic skin for average shocks. If more is needed they could offer a
> high impact weatherproof case as an option thereby keeping the cost of
> the camera down.

This guy is understands what I am talking about

> >A nice fixed lens that is tack sharp
> >(fixed lens is cheap to make, and sharp by nature)
> >(possibility of future interchangability, fixed lens
> >will also protect sales of higher end cameras whos
> >users need zoom)
> No, no. A standard lens mount ring with several adapter rings to
> accomodate a variety of lenses much as was offered in the low end
> industrial gear of the 80's.(Basis cine/video bayonet with adapter
> rings for the use of film/35mm still lenses.)
> That way you could save even more by just buying the head and using
> whatever lenses you already own or could obtain.
> >

The only problem with that is the built in zoom a 35mm
lens would add on such a camera. Most users would
need something wide, not zoomed.


> >Durable tape transport.
> Better yet offer a dockable head. Then you could use whatever tape
> format the job requires.

I could go for that.

> >xlr mics, and decent built in mic.
> >(this can be done cheap look at rolls products)
> >
> >Flat surfaces for future mounting of velcroed devices.

> That is a sore spot for manufacturers. They like to make their cameras
> as proprietary as they possibly can forcing you to purchase their
> options.
>
> >
> >Unique look maybe like an old super 8mm film camera.
> >
> >Price retail around $800.

> We know that the markup for gear is to say the least high.
> That said I don't think the manufacturers will let anything out
> that'll do pro level work at that price.
> One thing that may chnge that is the entry into the market of gear
> made by newer companies in the Pacific rim. They're always trying to
> establish themselves in the market by offering much more for less.
> This in turn has forcd the Japaneese companies to turn out more for
> less in turn or at least cut the price of their current offerings.

MAybe this would be a good way for a company like
Russia to jump in..similiarly to how they did with the
hasselblad clones. Only they might not provide the
quality I would like.

> >
> >I think this can be done, all the parts are already
> >out there, and once the camera gets out there, the
> >entry guys will eat this up!
> >
> >Lets create an outrage for not having this NOW~!
>
>
> If you tell me what type of work/project you're trying to do I could
> give you some pointers in how to cut cost on hardware.
>


Not really looking to cut on hardware, I have large
cameras now, but am often in the car and run across
many things where I wish i had a camera i could keep
in the car, or backpack for whatever comes up. I knew
a guy who did this but his camera took lots of abuse

--
www.fiveminutesoffame.com
Get your five minutes of FAME

Archived from groups: alt.art.video,alt.video,alt.video.avid-editors,rec.video.desktop,rec.video.production (More info?)

In article <10h3v2joti3b44f@corp.supernews.com>,
tony23@dslextreme.com says...
> "gothika" <Vampyres@nettaxi.com> wrote in message
> news:npc3h01lngupj6bu2i9hb7ah0f4qgp2uqv@4ax.com...
> > On 5 Aug 2004 00:52:35 GMT, Seattle Eric <noone@erehwon.gov> wrote:
> > >
> > > For student film makers? Screw 'em, there's already too many.
> > >
> > That's a pretty pissy attitude to take.
> > Weren't you a beginner once yourself?
> > From the sound of it you don't give a fig about the future of the
> > industry/craft either if you don't care if there's anyone to follow
> > you.
>
> I don't know about Seattle Eric, but when I wanted to make movies, I bought
> a super-8 camera and paid for my film and developing. When I got more
> professional about it and decided to get seriously into it, I sold my Camaro
> and used half of the money for equipment, including a new VX-1000 that cost
> about $2500 at the time.
>
> Basically, the way I feel is: Quit whining. If you want to make movies, find
> a way to get the money. If you're serious about it, you will.

I am totally in agreeance with you, however there is a
market out there of many who want to make films but do
no want to give up their transportation to do so, or
are at the maturity level to take that risk of the
current required investment...think highschool
freshman.

For example, I met a kid who was only in junior high,
and he wrote story after story that was actually very
good. He probably has 30 screenplays. This kid could
use such a camera I am suggesting. Fortunately, I
think his parents are about to get him something good
to start with, but they just happpend to have money to
do so, many others may not. I make pretty good money,
and even for me, sinking $3,500 into a camcorder is
never a quick choice to make. With money comes other
finanical responsibilities that divide your gross into
something gross. A $1,000 investment, I believe is in
the range of everyone.




--
www.fiveminutesoffame.com
Get your five minutes of FAME