I was thinking about recording a show my band was doing.
All I have is an 8mm Sony Cam and plenty of tape.
They scoffed at the idea that it wasn’t…(cough)…DIGITAL.
WTF???
I can upload to my computer just fine with it.
They even scoff at the actual Film Camera I have. :rolleyes:
Why buy something of less pixel quality just for the ability upload it instantly to ‘whatever’ over the net?
I don’t have $1000 for the latest Digital ‘I’-whateverabob’s, but I do have functional ways to accomplish the same thing for free, because I already have that.
Is this what everyone thinks, or am I just being out of touch?
To the OP, I would assume that they are worried about about loss of quality when it’s put into digital form for editing and distribution. I don’t know how easy it is to get a film transfer, but I can see reflexively not wanting to do it.
And for the tape, I’d be worried of the level of quality you’d get off an old cam. I could be wrong, knowing nothing about non-digital AV stuff, but as a general person who uses imaging technology in my job, I’d be hesitant to use non-digital cameras when good HD digital is getting awfully cheap.
Speaking as someone who’s fond of both retro and modern tech, my concern at someone showing up with an actual film camera for something like filming a concert or event would be that they were doing to make an artistic or expressive statement rather than necessarily having “the best tools for the job.”
Now, as you rightly observe, the older tech may be absolutely suitable for the job, but just as if someone was taking interview or lecture notes with a fountain pen, I’d be alternating between admiring their sense of style and raising my eyebrow at them for such a deliberately anachronistic choice in the setting.
It’s getting to the point where they may not even understand the old tech. So may immediately assume “less quality”… I mean, dude, how do you even get a picture onto a cassette tape? That’s probably how Mini-8 looks to them.
Analog 8mm camcorder? Even if it originally cost thousands of dollars, even a professional grade high-band 8mm is still going to produce video that looks like ass by today’s standards. It will be easily outperformed in virtually every way by sub-$100 digital gear you can buy just about anywhere. NTSC was not a pretty thing, and nobody should be inflicting it on their friends.
If your only goal is to save money, then you shouldn’t have bought any shit in the first place.
If your goal was to record something for others to watch then its a good bet that they would expect at least some minimum quality level that met the standards of today’s technology
Get it transferred, at $20 a reel, wait a couple weeks, rip it from the DVD, upload.
And you get something that is one generation removed from a bad quality original. Or borrow someone’s iPhone, and upload it to Facebook the second the concert ends.
Me too. Set the film speed, set the shutter speed, set the aperture, and click. No menus, no firmware updates, or operating systems. Mine still work perfectly (except for the film availability and development thing)
Welcome to forced obsolescence, and the never ending treadmill of buyng more shit you don’t need or want, simply because the old stuff is “no longer supported”.
It’s just a way to keep taking our money over and over and over.
What? You thought this" new new new" all the time was for OUR benefit? <smirk>
Lobohan is correct about 8mm film, but the OP was talking about 8mm video.
To upload that, you plug the video output of the camcorder into the video card of your computer, and then play the tape (in real time) while recording on your computer. Not quite as time-consuming as a film transfer, but not as quick as transferring a digital file, either.
