Tweeters,
Anna Coles requested a copy of responses to my request for info on video cameras be posted. Here it is:
From: IN%"acoles at u.washington.edu" "Anna Coles" 27-FEB-1995

10:25:11.43

To: IN%"MBEB1215 at delphi.com"

CC:

Subj: RE: Video Birding



Date: Mon, 27 Feb 1995 07:23:50 -0800 (PST)



Michael, I would be interested in the answers to your questions.

Would

you post a summary to tweeters? TIA, --ANna Coles, Seattle, WA

acoles at u.washington.edu



***************************************************************-





From: IN%"pollockj at elwha.evergreen.edu" "Joe Pollock" 27-FEB-1995

01:27:59.49

To: IN%"MBEB1215 at delphi.com"

CC:

Subj: RE: Video Birding



Date: Sun, 26 Feb 1995 22:27:29 -0800 (PST)



Check out the Canon L-2 videocamera with interchangable lenses.

Not cheap - about $2K for a typical setup, but the quality is good enough

that news folks use one when they don't want to risk their $30K models.



I'd really like to try one with a 1000mm lens and a tripod.



The setup should be about as portable as an equivalent 35mm

camera/tripod/etc.





On Sun, 26 Feb 1995 MBEB1215 at delphi.com wrote:



> Hi Tweeters,

> A friend has asked about the practicality of birding with a camcorder.

She is interested in finding out what kind of equipment she might need and

what the cost would be.

> My first reaction to this is that to get equipment with the necessary

magnification and clarity would be very pricey. I have tried it with a

standard department store camcorder and been disappointed with the results.



> Does anyone out there have expertise in this?

> Feel free to reply directly to me.

> Thanks!

> Michael Brown

> mbeb1215 at delphi.com

> Puyallup, WA

>

***************************************************************************

From: IN%"DNUN461 at ecy.wa.gov" "Nunnallee, Dave" 27-FEB-1995

12:53:46.67

To: IN%"mbeb1215 at delphi.com" "'Michael Brown'"

CC:

Subj: Video birding



Date: Mon, 27 Feb 1995 09:52:00 -0800 (PST)



Hi, Michael;



Saw your note on Tweeters about video birding. I have done a fair amount,



but far more "video butterflying" during the past year. I have been

extremely pleased with the results. With today's modern camcorders, it is



possible to get some startlingly superb results.



There are many kinds of camcorders on the market with a wide range of

prices, as I'm sure you have noticed. If your friend wants to do any

significant editing and/or production-type work beyond their own personal

use, the high quality format camcorders (Hi-8 in 8 mm format, or S-VHS in

VHS format) are virtually mandatory. They produce about 400 "lines of

resolution" across the TV screen, whereas standard format is only 250 lines



- a very large difference indeed. The high resolution units are, of

course,

more expensive; figure on $800 plus. These more expensive units have other



features which enhance the images, like motion stabilization.



The camcorder is only the tip of the iceberg. If you want to EDIT in high



resolution, you also need a high resolution VCR; one with S-video

connections ($1000). And if you want to SEE the full quality on your TV,

you also need a TV capable of S-video (some available at $350). Starting

to

get expensive, now! (Note that a Hi-8 camcorder played through a standard



VCR will give you only 250 lines of resolution.)



Of course, you can use any standard format camcorder to video birds, and

you

will get reasonable results with a much smaller investment, maybe as low as



$350. A tripod is truly a necessity; hand-held bird videos are pretty

grim.



But undoubtedly the crown jewel benefit of video is that you can put long,



long lenses on a camcorder for a quite small investment. This allows you

to

get right up in their feathers! In addition to the 1:10 or 1:12 built-in

zoom features, you can screw a doubler or a telephoto onto the front of the



camcorder and really reach out there. A full-frame Junco at 50 feet is a

snap. Try to do this with a 35mm camera, short of several thousand dollars



worth of lenses! I use a 2-4X zoom attached to my 1:10 built-in zoom.

That

gives me 40 power at the outside end. If you can keep it steady, and can

keep the bird in the viewer, it will give you some stunning images.



Anyway, there's a whole new world out there in video. Today's high

resolution, compact camcorders bear little resemblance to the

shoulder-mounted monsters of a decade ago.



Good luck.



Dave Nunnallee

dnun461 at ecy.wa.gov

Bellevue, WA



***************************************************************************

From: IN%"dwright at u.washington.edu" 27-FEB-1995 16:03:54.70

To: IN%"MBEB1215 at delphi.com"

CC:

Subj: RE: Video Birding



Date: Mon, 27 Feb 1995 13:00:30 -0800



Michael,



Your friend might want to look at "Hi-8" camcorders. They are a lot

smaller than VHS, of course, and they are also higher-resolution than

regular 8mm video or VHS. The Hi-8 has a CCD that captures over 400

horizontal lines of resolution, whereas regular 8 mm video and regular VHS



each capture only a little over 200 lines. (Super VHS does 400+ lines

also, but it is still big and clunky.)





Another factor that limits the quality of video is of course the *lens* of



the camcorder. Most camcorders have dedicated lenses that do everything

from wide-angle to telephoto, but unfortunately they don't do anything

particularly well. There is at least one camcorder on the market that

accepts multiple lenses, however -- the Canon L2. You can use special

video lenses, or with an adapter you can use Canon EOS lenses (autofocus,



for Canon 35 mm cameras). Because the CCD uses only the central part of

the image, the effective focal length of the lens is increased by a factor



of about 5.4. This means that a 200 mm telephoto is effectively a 1080 mm



lens, producing a 22x image (that is, about like a low-power eyepiece in a



spotting scope).





We use S-VHS cameras in our lab. The CCD has the same level of resolution



as the Hi-8, CCD, so the comparison should be valid. Our Panasonic S-VHS



5100 has its own do-it-all dedicated lens, and presumably it

represents a fairly high-end Panasonic video lens as this is part of their



"professional" line. The lens is OK, but it is not adequate for our

image-analysis work. When we replace the stock Panasonic lens with a

Nikon 60 mm macro lens, however, we get gorgeous images, proving that the



CCD is indeed capable of producing better images than the stock lens

allows. The situation with the Canon L2 should be similar (the specs

sound good, but I haven't seen one in person). One could use a Canon L2

with an EOS telephoto zoom. For example, a simple 70-200 mm zoom would go



from to 7 to 22x -- binocular to spotting scope range. A 400 mmm lens

would give you 43x. And these lenses can be also be used on a Canon 35 mm



camera, of course.





I think a Canon L2 and EOS telephoto lens is somewhere in the neighborhood



of $2,000 to 2,500 street price. The standard Hi-8 with dedicated lens is



probably in the ballpark of 1,000. Your friend should definitely compare



a Hi-8 camcorder to a regular 8-mm one, and the Canon L2 with good lens

seems hard to beat if $2,500 sounds like a reasonable amount to spend for



good video.





BTW, Camera World of Oregon has the L2 and lots of other video stuff. I

don't have their phone number here, but you should be able to get it

through directory assistance (they are in Portland) or from one of their

ads in a photo magazine.





Hope this is of some help.





David Wright

dwright at u.washington.edu