Camera Heads

  • Thread starter Thread starter Patrick_Bateman
  • Start date Start date
Re: Camera Heads

It was you elevating things David, you didn't buy a toy.

Buy another camera for playback...LOL.

Sorry, the myth lives on and on and on.


btw David, you never did say what the magic head failure number in hours was.....care to....?
 
Re: Camera Heads

[quote author=pookie link=board=Offtopic;num=1104273877;start=15#20 date=12/28/04 at 19:56:34]It was you elevating things David, you didn't buy a toy.

Buy another camera for playback...LOL.

Sorry, the myth lives on and on and on.


btw David, you never did say what the magic head failure number in hours was.....care to....[/quote]

Dude, what's with the antagonism? Why are you picking a fight?

Head life of the DVX is estimated to be about 1,000 hours, according to all I've read. But no one will really know until they get there, will they?

Why is it you think there's an hour meter on your camera?
 
Re: Camera Heads

I always thought that just under six weeks of continous shooting time was kind of a lame number. I'd be willing to bet they will far outlive that esimate....I hope they will ;)
 
Re: Camera Heads

Well "dude", I think we can safely conclude the "hour meter" is designed to count the hours on the heads.

You have yet to supply the magic number at which the heads fail.
Reading somewhere 1000 hours just won't cut it.

If your 1000 hours were to be considered correct, the hour meter would reset to zero at 1000 wouldn't it [start rolling over at 999]? There would be absolutely no reason to keep counting after 1000, as that would introduce the fear of imminent failure. The same reasoning can be used for your 1000 hour count....at 973 hours, fear of failure would be introduced, stopping many from using the camera, trying to "save" it for those "important" shots.

Shot logging eliminates capturing every minute of a tape in any case, you do advise shot logging, and do so yourself, right?

This fear of the hour meter only creates the image of a delicate, flimsy, cheap camera....one that has a life expectancy of 1000 hours [your number] before failure, and an [expensive] repair.

This is also one of the only forums I've seen where the almighty hour meter has such a grip on the users.
 
Re: Camera Heads

Hey Pookie...The fear has left me....I'm gonna keep using mine as a deck. I'm not afraid anymore...praise god I'm not afraid.
 
Re: Camera Heads

We can all debate in good fashion or agree to disagree.  

Yes, David, I did mean a 1CCD camera and yes, it is recommended to use a VTR instead of the DVX for this.  I don't for the simple fact that I have not reached insane capture hours (Not shooting FULLTIME but a hobbyist at this point) and I, like Hartley NEVER view in-camera but instead shoot and capture; period.

Am I 100% positive on this subject matter?  No I am not.  But it makes sense to me to keep my hours as low as possible when not actually recording; it's not a VCR.

Perhaps Barry Green would care to educate us on this subject?
 
Re: Camera Heads

I don't know whether I can educate anyone about this, necessarily, but I could offer up an opinion.

I actually agree with both Pookie and David.  They're both making perfectly valid points, which don't necessarily need to be completely contradictory.

Racking up fewer hours on your camera's heads is always a good idea.  Fewer = better, right?  Not only for the camera's usage itself, but also for wear on the fragile firewire port -- constantly plugging and unplugging isn't all that good for the tiny little port.

However, the DVX isn't going to be slain by using it to capture.  It is a professional tool from the professional division of Panasonic.  It's built to be pro-tough.

That doesn't mean it's a good idea to use a $3500 camera to do the same job a $299 DV camera could do (or a $1300 DV deck could do much better), but it's not likely going to kill the camera.  It certainly shouldn't, that's for sure.  But it will put more wear on it than necessary, obviously.

Using the camera as your primary capture deck is, I think, a silly notion, if it can be avoided, because a) you'll run up more hours and more wear than necessary, b) a deck can shuttle much faster and is designed for that type of work, whereas a camera is not, and c) your camera is then slaved to your computer, instead of being able to do its job as a camera, and d) constantly plugging/unplugging the firewire port is putting unnecessary strain on a not-too-ruggedly-designed connector.

If all you've got is the one camera, and you just need to capture some stuff in, the DVX will do fine.  If you're doing heavy-duty input/output, you would probably be wiser to just get a dedicated deck or at the very least a cheap camera that you can devote to the job, that you can leave plugged in and working.
 
Re: Camera Heads

hi -

I'm sorry this is off topic..but does anyone have any idea how long it might take me to read the thread on "head cleaning" and do that myself? Either I will do this or have my friend do it. I've been putting it off and need to be clean for a new years' eve shoot.
 
Re: Camera Heads

Probably 10-15 minutes to read and RE-READ. then another 10-15 to clean the heads CAREFULLY.

:)
 
Re: Camera Heads

We are in a state of normality when we are hijacking threads.

(Spoken like the 28 Days Later speech about states of normality.)
 
Re: Camera Heads

I don't know about you guys but I used my DVX as my primary deck. I also used it to cook, clean, take out the garbage, feed my dog that I don't have, feed the homeless and pimp my 1 chip sony cameras. I can't believe you guys are arguing about cleaning heads when a damn Tsunami just killed 40+ thousand innocent people. Oh and I also take my DVX for walks in the park. ....
 
Re: Camera Heads

[quote author=Barry_Green link=board=Offtopic;num=1104273877;start=15#29 date=12/28/04 at 23:37:20]
Using the camera as your primary capture deck is, I think, a silly notion, if it can be avoided, because a) you'll run up more hours and more wear than necessary, b) a deck can shuttle much faster and is designed for that type of work, whereas a camera is not, and c) your camera is then slaved to your computer, instead of being able to do its job as a camera, and d) constantly plugging/unplugging the firewire port is putting unnecessary strain on a not-too-ruggedly-designed connector.[/quote]

And that’s all I’m saying. No more, no less.
 
Re: Camera Heads

This is a subject I've thought about alot too. I guess I'd have to agree with Pookie. MY fear is that it seems something would have to br lost in the process. You're shooting on a $3500 camera and capturing on a $300 camera.It just seems to me that between head alignment, cheaper heads, cheaper drive mechanism etc, you're boumd to lose something in the process. Capturing from the same drive you shot on just makes more sense to me. My guess is that before the heads wear out, I'll be drooling over some HD 3ccd 16:9 direct to drive camera for $3000 anyway...
 
Re: Camera Heads

[quote author=pptphoto link=board=Offtopic;num=1104273877;start=30#37 date=12/29/04 at 07:11:54]This is a subject I've thought about alot too. I guess I'd have to agree with Pookie. MY fear is that it seems something would have to br lost in the process.  You're shooting on a $3500 camera and capturing on a $300 camera.It just seems to me that between head alignment, cheaper heads, cheaper drive mechanism etc, you're boumd to lose something in the process.  Capturing from the same drive you shot on just makes more sense to me. My guess is that before the heads wear out, I'll be drooling over some HD 3ccd 16:9 direct to drive camera for $3000 anyway...[/quote]

You don’t lose anything. It’s all digital data. As long as you get it all, it’s exactly the same was what you recorded, no matter what you play it on.

You don’t lose anything by saving a Word file on one drive and then opening it with another, right? You wouldn’t think twice about that. Digital video is exactly the same concept. Data are data. All ones and zeroes. A video file is no different from a Word file except that it’s a lot bigger.

If you miss a bit – a one or a zero – you might see a black or white square on a frame. (And you’ll do that now and then no matter what you use to capture.) But everything else will be perfect. It’s not like analog where quality, alignment, mechanism, tape sensitivity, etc., all play a factor.
 
Re: Camera Heads

[quote author=pookie link=board=Offtopic;num=1104273877;start=15#25 date=12/28/04 at 20:34:45]Well "dude", I think we can safely conclude the "hour meter" is designed to count the hours on the heads.[/quote]

Yeah. And whyever would that be useful information? Hmmmm?

Shot logging eliminates capturing every minute of a tape in any case, you do advise shot logging, and do so yourself, right?
Click to expand...

I used to, but that’s kind of archaic now. I have a dedicated deck and plenty of drive space. It takes far less time, and is far more efficient, to capture a tape and delete anything I don’t want or need. Subclips are created automatically at capture, and every clip’s first frame is a slate, so it’s a pretty quick process. Far quicker than logging everything and setting up a batch capture. Hit “capture tape,” walk away, do other things (like shooting, with my free DVX), come back, delete some clips. Simple.

And logging/capturing plays hell with your drive mechanism, as Barry pointed out, with all the stopping, forwarding, rewinding, etc.. I would want to use a deck even more if I were still logging everything, because a deck is built for that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top