Robert Morein, sorry for the direct question (others invited to converse)

[Deal Maker]

Robert,

Apologies for the directness but from the google archive you appear to
be one of the most active and knowledgable of this (and other)
newsgroups.

Cut to the chase, awhile back I made some posts about a no budget
feature and the methodology of shooting it a certain way. You
encouraged me to instruct my filmmaker to not handicap the production
from the outset but to strive for the best sound and degrade later (if
needed) in post.

Without raising the budget, my filmmaker said he could use a boom
operator and have it feed into the rca port audio-in on his digital
camera.

He has proposed a dual camera setup. A Canon L2 Hi-8mm (he likes the
lens and the aesthetics it gives) feeding a super small Sony Digital
camera that has a hi-resolution 4" LCD monitor. He claims he can have
the audio go into the rca audio in and record everything locked to the
picture.

Small mixer and Audio Tech shotgun feeding the rca port. He is
recording everything in VCR mode on the camera so he claims he needs a
mixer to bring the audio levels up.

Outside of the rather bulky rig, are there any issues missing?

Thank you for your time Mr. Morein.

DM

[Robert Morein]

"Deal Maker" > wrote in message
om...
> Robert,
>
> Apologies for the directness but from the google archive you appear to
> be one of the most active and knowledgable of this (and other)
> newsgroups.
>
> Cut to the chase, awhile back I made some posts about a no budget
> feature and the methodology of shooting it a certain way. You
> encouraged me to instruct my filmmaker to not handicap the production
> from the outset but to strive for the best sound and degrade later (if
> needed) in post.
>
> Without raising the budget, my filmmaker said he could use a boom
> operator and have it feed into the rca port audio-in on his digital
> camera.
>
> He has proposed a dual camera setup. A Canon L2 Hi-8mm (he likes the
> lens and the aesthetics it gives) feeding a super small Sony Digital
> camera that has a hi-resolution 4" LCD monitor. He claims he can have
> the audio go into the rca audio in and record everything locked to the
> picture.
>
> Small mixer and Audio Tech shotgun feeding the rca port. He is
> recording everything in VCR mode on the camera so he claims he needs a
> mixer to bring the audio levels up.
>
> Outside of the rather bulky rig, are there any issues missing?
>
> Thank you for your time Mr. Morein.
>
It would work. There are still some problems with the sound.

I'm guessing the D.P. objects to the the hard look of DV recorded on cheap
cameras. You will lose resolution in this approach, but there is aesthetic
justification. There are other old cameras occasionally used to provide a
softer image. The old Panasonic tube cameras used with the first portable
VCRs have credible sharpness. I ran one into a High-8 machine, at the time
out of necessity rather than aesthetic preference. The lower contrast image
had some appeal.

Why not look at a test image? It's within the purview of the producer to
approve the acquisition format.

Personally, I have a problem with the audio, for the following reasons.
1. Cheap cameras do not have manually adjustable audio gain. Instead, these
cameras use "AGC", ie., automatic gain control. As the sound level at the
mic changes, the camera adjusts the input sensitivity of the microphone
circuit. This causes a shout and a whisper to converge toward the same
volume. In any room, there is an ambient noise known as "room tone." AGC
creates a "breathing effect", as the room tone goes up and down in volume
while the camera circuit attempts to adjust to the dialog level.

2. The microphone preamp for inexpensive cameras is compromised.

3. You must test the shotgun mic to be assured that it has adequate
performance. Unlike lapel mics, vocalist mics, and short-range camera mics,
the technology in a shotgun is strained at low price points. This manifests
in two ways. The working distance for an inexpensive shotgun is two to three
feet. For the best shotguns, it's six to eight feet. Some inexpensive
shotguns sound so wretched that one wonders about the intended use. Shotguns
have two basic parameters: self-noise (generated in the mic) and tonality.

4. The effect of points 2 & 3 is that the soundtrack will not be completely
quiet. There will be some hiss, emanating from the shotgun and the preamp,
and there will be anomalies in room tone. The combination is not correctable
in post at reasonable cost.

All this is testable by you at nominal cost. Unlike the mic-on-camera
approach, it is worth testing. Personally, I would allocate my budget in a
somewhat different fashion:

1. I would shoot with a single DV camera, as opposed to the lashup, in order
to free up funds for the use of better sound equipment. The missing feature
is manually adjustable microphone gain. Prosumer DV cameras have this, and
record pretty good sound. Since this is not within your budget, I would look
for a used Sony DAT walkman. All these recorders have manually adjustable
gain.

2. Even if you must record to the camera, any extra bucks you could scrape
up should be spent on the shotgun. In your price range, you're stuck with
"electret condenser" microphones. However, there is a considerable range of
quality here.

But as I said, the approach is worth a shot. TEST it. Then find someone with
a high end rear projection HDTV to view it on. These sets have line
doublers, and will give you some insight as to what the product would look
like when projected on a larger screen in a film transfer.

You can always give me a call: (215) 646-4894

[Jack Perry]

Robert

you should check the true identity of "Deal Maker" as it's none other than
ejn, the convicted felon poseur that you have
commented on in the past. I wouldn't give that guy the
*&^ing TIME...check his email headers

It's pretty funny that he wants to know how to work gl2 / Hi8 cameras under
the guise of "aethetics" doesn't the great
"filmmaker" know the basics? bwah ha ha.....









"Robert Morein" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Deal Maker" > wrote in message
> om...
> > Robert,
> >
> > Apologies for the directness but from the google archive you appear to
> > be one of the most active and knowledgable of this (and other)
> > newsgroups.
> >
> > Cut to the chase, awhile back I made some posts about a no budget
> > feature and the methodology of shooting it a certain way. You
> > encouraged me to instruct my filmmaker to not handicap the production
> > from the outset but to strive for the best sound and degrade later (if
> > needed) in post.
> >
> > Without raising the budget, my filmmaker said he could use a boom
> > operator and have it feed into the rca port audio-in on his digital
> > camera.
> >
> > He has proposed a dual camera setup. A Canon L2 Hi-8mm (he likes the
> > lens and the aesthetics it gives) feeding a super small Sony Digital
> > camera that has a hi-resolution 4" LCD monitor. He claims he can have
> > the audio go into the rca audio in and record everything locked to the
> > picture.
> >
> > Small mixer and Audio Tech shotgun feeding the rca port. He is
> > recording everything in VCR mode on the camera so he claims he needs a
> > mixer to bring the audio levels up.
> >
> > Outside of the rather bulky rig, are there any issues missing?
> >
> > Thank you for your time Mr. Morein.
> >
> It would work. There are still some problems with the sound.
>
> I'm guessing the D.P. objects to the the hard look of DV recorded on cheap
> cameras. You will lose resolution in this approach, but there is aesthetic
> justification. There are other old cameras occasionally used to provide a
> softer image. The old Panasonic tube cameras used with the first portable
> VCRs have credible sharpness. I ran one into a High-8 machine, at the time
> out of necessity rather than aesthetic preference. The lower contrast
image
> had some appeal.
>
> Why not look at a test image? It's within the purview of the producer to
> approve the acquisition format.
>
> Personally, I have a problem with the audio, for the following reasons.
> 1. Cheap cameras do not have manually adjustable audio gain. Instead,
these
> cameras use "AGC", ie., automatic gain control. As the sound level at the
> mic changes, the camera adjusts the input sensitivity of the microphone
> circuit. This causes a shout and a whisper to converge toward the same
> volume. In any room, there is an ambient noise known as "room tone." AGC
> creates a "breathing effect", as the room tone goes up and down in volume
> while the camera circuit attempts to adjust to the dialog level.
>
> 2. The microphone preamp for inexpensive cameras is compromised.
>
> 3. You must test the shotgun mic to be assured that it has adequate
> performance. Unlike lapel mics, vocalist mics, and short-range camera
mics,
> the technology in a shotgun is strained at low price points. This
manifests
> in two ways. The working distance for an inexpensive shotgun is two to
three
> feet. For the best shotguns, it's six to eight feet. Some inexpensive
> shotguns sound so wretched that one wonders about the intended use.
Shotguns
> have two basic parameters: self-noise (generated in the mic) and tonality.
>
> 4. The effect of points 2 & 3 is that the soundtrack will not be
completely
> quiet. There will be some hiss, emanating from the shotgun and the preamp,
> and there will be anomalies in room tone. The combination is not
correctable
> in post at reasonable cost.
>
> All this is testable by you at nominal cost. Unlike the mic-on-camera
> approach, it is worth testing. Personally, I would allocate my budget in a
> somewhat different fashion:
>
> 1. I would shoot with a single DV camera, as opposed to the lashup, in
order
> to free up funds for the use of better sound equipment. The missing
feature
> is manually adjustable microphone gain. Prosumer DV cameras have this, and
> record pretty good sound. Since this is not within your budget, I would
look
> for a used Sony DAT walkman. All these recorders have manually adjustable
> gain.
>
> 2. Even if you must record to the camera, any extra bucks you could scrape
> up should be spent on the shotgun. In your price range, you're stuck with
> "electret condenser" microphones. However, there is a considerable range
of
> quality here.
>
> But as I said, the approach is worth a shot. TEST it. Then find someone
with
> a high end rear projection HDTV to view it on. These sets have line
> doublers, and will give you some insight as to what the product would look
> like when projected on a larger screen in a film transfer.
>
> You can always give me a call: (215) 646-4894
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

[Robert Morein]

" Jack Perry" > wrote in message
. net...
> Robert
>
> you should check the true identity of "Deal Maker" as it's none other than
> ejn, the convicted felon poseur that you have
> commented on in the past. I wouldn't give that guy the
> *&^ing TIME...check his email headers
>
> It's pretty funny that he wants to know how to work gl2 / Hi8 cameras
under
> the guise of "aethetics" doesn't the great
> "filmmaker" know the basics? bwah ha ha.....
>
Jack,
It wouldn't be the first time I'm a patsy. Could you go into a little
detail? Is there something in the posting pattern that leads you back to
him?

[Deal Maker]

Folks,

This is what usenet is all about! What a informative response. Thank
you Mr. Morein for sharing your knowledge and insight.

I will follow your tips and will most definitely give you a ring as to
the results of testing this set-up.

Thank you again,

DM


"Robert Morein" > wrote in message >...
> "Deal Maker" > wrote in message
> om...
> > Robert,
> >
> > Apologies for the directness but from the google archive you appear to
> > be one of the most active and knowledgable of this (and other)
> > newsgroups.
> >
> > Cut to the chase, awhile back I made some posts about a no budget
> > feature and the methodology of shooting it a certain way. You
> > encouraged me to instruct my filmmaker to not handicap the production
> > from the outset but to strive for the best sound and degrade later (if
> > needed) in post.
> >
> > Without raising the budget, my filmmaker said he could use a boom
> > operator and have it feed into the rca port audio-in on his digital
> > camera.
> >
> > He has proposed a dual camera setup. A Canon L2 Hi-8mm (he likes the
> > lens and the aesthetics it gives) feeding a super small Sony Digital
> > camera that has a hi-resolution 4" LCD monitor. He claims he can have
> > the audio go into the rca audio in and record everything locked to the
> > picture.
> >
> > Small mixer and Audio Tech shotgun feeding the rca port. He is
> > recording everything in VCR mode on the camera so he claims he needs a
> > mixer to bring the audio levels up.
> >
> > Outside of the rather bulky rig, are there any issues missing?
> >
> > Thank you for your time Mr. Morein.
> >
> It would work. There are still some problems with the sound.
>
> I'm guessing the D.P. objects to the the hard look of DV recorded on cheap
> cameras. You will lose resolution in this approach, but there is aesthetic
> justification. There are other old cameras occasionally used to provide a
> softer image. The old Panasonic tube cameras used with the first portable
> VCRs have credible sharpness. I ran one into a High-8 machine, at the time
> out of necessity rather than aesthetic preference. The lower contrast image
> had some appeal.
>
> Why not look at a test image? It's within the purview of the producer to
> approve the acquisition format.
>
> Personally, I have a problem with the audio, for the following reasons.
> 1. Cheap cameras do not have manually adjustable audio gain. Instead, these
> cameras use "AGC", ie., automatic gain control. As the sound level at the
> mic changes, the camera adjusts the input sensitivity of the microphone
> circuit. This causes a shout and a whisper to converge toward the same
> volume. In any room, there is an ambient noise known as "room tone." AGC
> creates a "breathing effect", as the room tone goes up and down in volume
> while the camera circuit attempts to adjust to the dialog level.
>
> 2. The microphone preamp for inexpensive cameras is compromised.
>
> 3. You must test the shotgun mic to be assured that it has adequate
> performance. Unlike lapel mics, vocalist mics, and short-range camera mics,
> the technology in a shotgun is strained at low price points. This manifests
> in two ways. The working distance for an inexpensive shotgun is two to three
> feet. For the best shotguns, it's six to eight feet. Some inexpensive
> shotguns sound so wretched that one wonders about the intended use. Shotguns
> have two basic parameters: self-noise (generated in the mic) and tonality.
>
> 4. The effect of points 2 & 3 is that the soundtrack will not be completely
> quiet. There will be some hiss, emanating from the shotgun and the preamp,
> and there will be anomalies in room tone. The combination is not correctable
> in post at reasonable cost.
>
> All this is testable by you at nominal cost. Unlike the mic-on-camera
> approach, it is worth testing. Personally, I would allocate my budget in a
> somewhat different fashion:
>
> 1. I would shoot with a single DV camera, as opposed to the lashup, in order
> to free up funds for the use of better sound equipment. The missing feature
> is manually adjustable microphone gain. Prosumer DV cameras have this, and
> record pretty good sound. Since this is not within your budget, I would look
> for a used Sony DAT walkman. All these recorders have manually adjustable
> gain.
>
> 2. Even if you must record to the camera, any extra bucks you could scrape
> up should be spent on the shotgun. In your price range, you're stuck with
> "electret condenser" microphones. However, there is a considerable range of
> quality here.
>
> But as I said, the approach is worth a shot. TEST it. Then find someone with
> a high end rear projection HDTV to view it on. These sets have line
> doublers, and will give you some insight as to what the product would look
> like when projected on a larger screen in a film transfer.
>
> You can always give me a call: (215) 646-4894

[Sylvan Morein]

On 2/17/04 10:34, in article , "Robert
Morein" > wrote:

> It wouldn't be the first time I'm a patsy

And it won't be the last time either, "son".

[Sylvan Morein]

On 2/17/04 11:02, in article , "Seattle Eric"
> wrote:

> Boycott the term "filmmaker", unless you're talking emulsions.

My "son" says he's a "filmmaker". Of course he was a "college student" at
Drexel for over 10 years, and still failed to get his degree. Even after
suing them.

I guess he'll stop pretending to be a "filmmaker" when he finds out he can't
sue anyone.

[Jack Perry]

Yep

Look up "Deal Maker" in a google search and you'll see that
most of his posts refer to some sort of lamo "film" festival featuring among
other limp selections, one or two amateur "films" "Directed" by our spammer
pal ejn .

The ONLY person who ever mentions this prick in a positive light is
himself...







"Deal Maker" > wrote in message
om...
> Folks,
>
> This is what usenet is all about! What a informative response. Thank
> you Mr. Morein for sharing your knowledge and insight.
>
> I will follow your tips and will most definitely give you a ring as to
> the results of testing this set-up.
>
> Thank you again,
>
> DM
>
>
> "Robert Morein" > wrote in message
>...
> > "Deal Maker" > wrote in message
> > om...
> > > Robert,
> > >
> > > Apologies for the directness but from the google archive you appear to
> > > be one of the most active and knowledgable of this (and other)
> > > newsgroups.
> > >
> > > Cut to the chase, awhile back I made some posts about a no budget
> > > feature and the methodology of shooting it a certain way. You
> > > encouraged me to instruct my filmmaker to not handicap the production
> > > from the outset but to strive for the best sound and degrade later (if
> > > needed) in post.
> > >
> > > Without raising the budget, my filmmaker said he could use a boom
> > > operator and have it feed into the rca port audio-in on his digital
> > > camera.
> > >
> > > He has proposed a dual camera setup. A Canon L2 Hi-8mm (he likes the
> > > lens and the aesthetics it gives) feeding a super small Sony Digital
> > > camera that has a hi-resolution 4" LCD monitor. He claims he can have
> > > the audio go into the rca audio in and record everything locked to the
> > > picture.
> > >
> > > Small mixer and Audio Tech shotgun feeding the rca port. He is
> > > recording everything in VCR mode on the camera so he claims he needs a
> > > mixer to bring the audio levels up.
> > >
> > > Outside of the rather bulky rig, are there any issues missing?
> > >
> > > Thank you for your time Mr. Morein.
> > >
> > It would work. There are still some problems with the sound.
> >
> > I'm guessing the D.P. objects to the the hard look of DV recorded on
cheap
> > cameras. You will lose resolution in this approach, but there is
aesthetic
> > justification. There are other old cameras occasionally used to provide
a
> > softer image. The old Panasonic tube cameras used with the first
portable
> > VCRs have credible sharpness. I ran one into a High-8 machine, at the
time
> > out of necessity rather than aesthetic preference. The lower contrast
image
> > had some appeal.
> >
> > Why not look at a test image? It's within the purview of the producer to
> > approve the acquisition format.
> >
> > Personally, I have a problem with the audio, for the following reasons.
> > 1. Cheap cameras do not have manually adjustable audio gain. Instead,
these
> > cameras use "AGC", ie., automatic gain control. As the sound level at
the
> > mic changes, the camera adjusts the input sensitivity of the microphone
> > circuit. This causes a shout and a whisper to converge toward the same
> > volume. In any room, there is an ambient noise known as "room tone." AGC
> > creates a "breathing effect", as the room tone goes up and down in
volume
> > while the camera circuit attempts to adjust to the dialog level.
> >
> > 2. The microphone preamp for inexpensive cameras is compromised.
> >
> > 3. You must test the shotgun mic to be assured that it has adequate
> > performance. Unlike lapel mics, vocalist mics, and short-range camera
mics,
> > the technology in a shotgun is strained at low price points. This
manifests
> > in two ways. The working distance for an inexpensive shotgun is two to
three
> > feet. For the best shotguns, it's six to eight feet. Some inexpensive
> > shotguns sound so wretched that one wonders about the intended use.
Shotguns
> > have two basic parameters: self-noise (generated in the mic) and
tonality.
> >
> > 4. The effect of points 2 & 3 is that the soundtrack will not be
completely
> > quiet. There will be some hiss, emanating from the shotgun and the
preamp,
> > and there will be anomalies in room tone. The combination is not
correctable
> > in post at reasonable cost.
> >
> > All this is testable by you at nominal cost. Unlike the mic-on-camera
> > approach, it is worth testing. Personally, I would allocate my budget in
a
> > somewhat different fashion:
> >
> > 1. I would shoot with a single DV camera, as opposed to the lashup, in
order
> > to free up funds for the use of better sound equipment. The missing
feature
> > is manually adjustable microphone gain. Prosumer DV cameras have this,
and
> > record pretty good sound. Since this is not within your budget, I would
look
> > for a used Sony DAT walkman. All these recorders have manually
adjustable
> > gain.
> >
> > 2. Even if you must record to the camera, any extra bucks you could
scrape
> > up should be spent on the shotgun. In your price range, you're stuck
with
> > "electret condenser" microphones. However, there is a considerable range
of
> > quality here.
> >
> > But as I said, the approach is worth a shot. TEST it. Then find someone
with
> > a high end rear projection HDTV to view it on. These sets have line
> > doublers, and will give you some insight as to what the product would
look
> > like when projected on a larger screen in a film transfer.
> >
> > You can always give me a call: (215) 646-4894

[Chris Koehn]

Hi,

Just a question. I am new to this newsgroup and I am wondering what the
problem with Sylvan Morein is? I keep seeing that person take every
opportunity to post negative stuff about Robert Morein?

Is it the general consensus that Sylvan is to be ignored?

I am just trying to get a little history on this. If I am being too nosy I
apologise.

[Sylvan Morein]

On 17/2/04 12:20, in article , "Chris Koehn"
> wrote:

> Just a question. I am new to this newsgroup and I am wondering what the
> problem with Sylvan Morein is? I keep seeing that person take every
> opportunity to post negative stuff about Robert Morein?

Not nosy at all.

I don't mean to be so 'negative' about my 51 year old son, but you should
read up on HIM a bit so that you can see the problem. He's sitting upstairs
in his room right now, probably abusing himself while looking at videos of
sick sexual scenes he downloads from eastern european websites. You'd be
feeling a little "negative" about such a son - who has yet to do a
productive day's work in his life.


--
Sylvan Morein
Sad Father of Bob

[Robert Morein]

"Deal Maker" > wrote in message
om...
> Robert,
>
[snip]
Examining the below statement, you may not have a problem with AGC. If the
camcorder functions just like a VCR, and you are using the line input, as
opposed to the mic input, AGC SHOULD be absent.

Also, the mixer will probably provide a good mic input.

If the above prove true, the remaining challenge is to secure a shotgun mike
that's good enough.



> Small mixer and Audio Tech shotgun feeding the rca port. He is
> recording everything in VCR mode on the camera so he claims he needs a
> mixer to bring the audio levels up.
>
> Outside of the rather bulky rig, are there any issues missing?
>
> Thank you for your time Mr. Morein.
>
> DM

[Chris Koehn]

On 2/16/04 6:43 PM, in article ,
"George M. Middius" > wrote:

>
>
> Chris Koehn said:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> Just a question. I am new to this newsgroup
>
> Which one?
>
> rec.audio.opinion
> rec.arts.movies.production
> alt.movies.independent
> rec.video.production
>

***rec.video.production

>> Is it the general consensus that Sylvan is to be ignored?
>
> Yes, unless you like codependency with psychotic stalkers. (No
> offense, Arnii.)
>
>

***Scary...

>
>
>
>
>

[Sockpuppet Yustabe]

"Robert Morein" > wrote in message
...
>
> But why would McCarty want to escape his own identity so badly?
Speculation
> centers around the possibility that he did something not socially
acceptable
> in Los Angeles
>

He praised Bush?




----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

[Robert Morein]

"Sockpuppet Yustabe" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Robert Morein" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > But why would McCarty want to escape his own identity so badly?
> Speculation
> > centers around the possibility that he did something not socially
> acceptable
> > in Los Angeles
> >
>
> He praised Bush?
>
Close.
He tried to get unauthorized bush.

:):):).

I doubt McCarty has any politics in the conventional sense.
All his energies are consumed by his obsessions.

[Deal Maker]

Robert,

Better news! Great.

Yes, he proposed using line in and video in. The Sony Digital Camera
operating as a VCR of sorts.

That is good news about the gain issue. Will run tests as you
suggested.

Thank you so much.

DM



"Robert Morein" > wrote in message >...
> "Deal Maker" > wrote in message
> om...
> > Robert,
> >
> [snip]
> Examining the below statement, you may not have a problem with AGC. If the
> camcorder functions just like a VCR, and you are using the line input, as
> opposed to the mic input, AGC SHOULD be absent.
>
> Also, the mixer will probably provide a good mic input.
>
> If the above prove true, the remaining challenge is to secure a shotgun mike
> that's good enough.
>
>
>
> > Small mixer and Audio Tech shotgun feeding the rca port. He is
> > recording everything in VCR mode on the camera so he claims he needs a
> > mixer to bring the audio levels up.
> >
> > Outside of the rather bulky rig, are there any issues missing?
> >
> > Thank you for your time Mr. Morein.
> >
> > DM

[Deal Maker]

From Jack Perry,

Posts refering to a certain filmmaker (in a negative light).

http://www.google.com/groups?selm=qzeYb.22708%24cE3.25397382%40news4.srv .hcvlny.cv.net&oe=UTF-8&output=gplain

http://www.google.com/groups?selm=SM9Wb.4751%24rv1.2944697%40news4.srv.h cvlny.cv.net&oe=UTF-8&output=gplain

http://www.google.com/groups?selm=XOiUb.13133%24%2593.4457452%40news4.sr v.hcvlny.cv.net&oe=UTF-8&output=gplain

http://www.google.com/groups?selm=o00Ob.82244%24G04.19625598%40news4.srv .hcvlny.cv.net&oe=UTF-8&output=gplain

And the list goes on, the above four from recent history.

I honestly comment on a festival I attended.

And I go to a lot of festivals.

Who is spamming for who, Jack?

That is the question.

DM


" Jack Perry" > wrote in message >...
> Yep
>
> Look up "Deal Maker" in a google search and you'll see that
> most of his posts refer to some sort of lamo "film" festival featuring among
> other limp selections, one or two amateur "films" "Directed" by our spammer
> pal ejn .
>
> The ONLY person who ever mentions this prick in a positive light is
> himself...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> "Deal Maker" > wrote in message
> om...
> > Folks,
> >
> > This is what usenet is all about! What a informative response. Thank
> > you Mr. Morein for sharing your knowledge and insight.
> >
> > I will follow your tips and will most definitely give you a ring as to
> > the results of testing this set-up.
> >
> > Thank you again,
> >
> > DM
> >
> >
> > "Robert Morein" > wrote in message
> >...
> > > "Deal Maker" > wrote in message
> > > om...
> > > > Robert,
> > > >
> > > > Apologies for the directness but from the google archive you appear to
> > > > be one of the most active and knowledgable of this (and other)
> > > > newsgroups.
> > > >
> > > > Cut to the chase, awhile back I made some posts about a no budget
> > > > feature and the methodology of shooting it a certain way. You
> > > > encouraged me to instruct my filmmaker to not handicap the production
> > > > from the outset but to strive for the best sound and degrade later (if
> > > > needed) in post.
> > > >
> > > > Without raising the budget, my filmmaker said he could use a boom
> > > > operator and have it feed into the rca port audio-in on his digital
> > > > camera.
> > > >
> > > > He has proposed a dual camera setup. A Canon L2 Hi-8mm (he likes the
> > > > lens and the aesthetics it gives) feeding a super small Sony Digital
> > > > camera that has a hi-resolution 4" LCD monitor. He claims he can have
> > > > the audio go into the rca audio in and record everything locked to the
> > > > picture.
> > > >
> > > > Small mixer and Audio Tech shotgun feeding the rca port. He is
> > > > recording everything in VCR mode on the camera so he claims he needs a
> > > > mixer to bring the audio levels up.
> > > >
> > > > Outside of the rather bulky rig, are there any issues missing?
> > > >
> > > > Thank you for your time Mr. Morein.
> > > >
> > > It would work. There are still some problems with the sound.
> > >
> > > I'm guessing the D.P. objects to the the hard look of DV recorded on
> cheap
> > > cameras. You will lose resolution in this approach, but there is
> aesthetic
> > > justification. There are other old cameras occasionally used to provide
> a
> > > softer image. The old Panasonic tube cameras used with the first
> portable
> > > VCRs have credible sharpness. I ran one into a High-8 machine, at the
> time
> > > out of necessity rather than aesthetic preference. The lower contrast
> image
> > > had some appeal.
> > >
> > > Why not look at a test image? It's within the purview of the producer to
> > > approve the acquisition format.
> > >
> > > Personally, I have a problem with the audio, for the following reasons.
> > > 1. Cheap cameras do not have manually adjustable audio gain. Instead,
> these
> > > cameras use "AGC", ie., automatic gain control. As the sound level at
> the
> > > mic changes, the camera adjusts the input sensitivity of the microphone
> > > circuit. This causes a shout and a whisper to converge toward the same
> > > volume. In any room, there is an ambient noise known as "room tone." AGC
> > > creates a "breathing effect", as the room tone goes up and down in
> volume
> > > while the camera circuit attempts to adjust to the dialog level.
> > >
> > > 2. The microphone preamp for inexpensive cameras is compromised.
> > >
> > > 3. You must test the shotgun mic to be assured that it has adequate
> > > performance. Unlike lapel mics, vocalist mics, and short-range camera
> mics,
> > > the technology in a shotgun is strained at low price points. This
> manifests
> > > in two ways. The working distance for an inexpensive shotgun is two to
> three
> > > feet. For the best shotguns, it's six to eight feet. Some inexpensive
> > > shotguns sound so wretched that one wonders about the intended use.
> Shotguns
> > > have two basic parameters: self-noise (generated in the mic) and
> tonality.
> > >
> > > 4. The effect of points 2 & 3 is that the soundtrack will not be
> completely
> > > quiet. There will be some hiss, emanating from the shotgun and the
> preamp,
> > > and there will be anomalies in room tone. The combination is not
> correctable
> > > in post at reasonable cost.
> > >
> > > All this is testable by you at nominal cost. Unlike the mic-on-camera
> > > approach, it is worth testing. Personally, I would allocate my budget in
> a
> > > somewhat different fashion:
> > >
> > > 1. I would shoot with a single DV camera, as opposed to the lashup, in
> order
> > > to free up funds for the use of better sound equipment. The missing
> feature
> > > is manually adjustable microphone gain. Prosumer DV cameras have this,
> and
> > > record pretty good sound. Since this is not within your budget, I would
> look
> > > for a used Sony DAT walkman. All these recorders have manually
> adjustable
> > > gain.
> > >
> > > 2. Even if you must record to the camera, any extra bucks you could
> scrape
> > > up should be spent on the shotgun. In your price range, you're stuck
> with
> > > "electret condenser" microphones. However, there is a considerable range
> of
> > > quality here.
> > >
> > > But as I said, the approach is worth a shot. TEST it. Then find someone
> with
> > > a high end rear projection HDTV to view it on. These sets have line
> > > doublers, and will give you some insight as to what the product would
> look
> > > like when projected on a larger screen in a film transfer.
> > >
> > > You can always give me a call: (215) 646-4894

[Jack Perry]

You must be sproutin a semi because you managed to
once again get your name online again - geeps you really
are the Orson W of the usenet

[Deal Maker]

Jack,

Let me apologize. I don't want to get dragged into the biz of other
people.

I thought I was being unbiased and sincere in all my posts. If I came
across otherwise I do apologize.

If you have a beef with someone it isn't my business.

Again, I apologize.

DM



" Jack Perry" > wrote in message >...
> response <

[Richard Crowley]

"traveler" wrote ...
> Just an observation that I hope you will take in the right way. New
> to this group, I have already noticed the blood feud going on between
> yourself and this guy (and that other guy, the filmmaker looking for
> investors, who may be the same person). Aren't you sort of stalking
> him in the same he he is stalking you? I mean, when you take it upon
> yourself to thoroughly investigate his activities and then post them
> on here, when you find out his exact identity (how do you accomplish
> that?) and post it on here, vowing to follow his movements and
> continue to post his location, you appear to be guilty of the same
> sort of thing you accuse him of.

IMHO Mr. Morein is simply defending himself with the facts.
Unless he posted good documentation about Mr. McCarty, we
could indeed write them both off as nutcases involved in a
"blood feud". If you check any of the facts you will quickly
see who is who in this scenario.

[DK]

> It is why the internet
> ought to be regulated, in my opinion. The freedom to say whatever you
> want about anyone (anonymously or otherwise) is more than offset by
> the emotional damage done. ... The spamming alone
> is enough to warrant regulation.

A) How do you propose to regulate something that technically doesn't
actually exist, and

B) Who would you have do the regulating?

Maybe I'll do the regulating. My first rule is that anyone who disagrees
with me can't post. Since I don't agree with you, you can't post. So sorry.

Regulation of speech is the first step toward tyranny. Freedom is worth any
amount of emotional damage.

Besides, if the rantings of a juvenile lunatic can hurt you, you need to
grow up!

[traveler]

"DK" > wrote in message >...
> > It is why the internet
> > ought to be regulated, in my opinion. The freedom to say whatever you
> > want about anyone (anonymously or otherwise) is more than offset by
> > the emotional damage done. ... The spamming alone
> > is enough to warrant regulation.
>
> A) How do you propose to regulate something that technically doesn't
> actually exist, and


Who contends that the internet doesn't actually exist? You mean to
say I'm not really typing this and you can't read it?


> B) Who would you have do the regulating?


The same people who regulate broadcast media and telecommunications,
ie, the duly elected governments of the world.



> Maybe I'll do the regulating.


Not bloody likely.


My first rule is that anyone who disagrees
> with me can't post. Since I don't agree with you, you can't post. So sorry.


Sorry for what? You'd never be in a position to do the regulating and
regulating doesn't mean that people cannot post. It just implies a
certain standard existing, such as that applied to callers on radio
talk shows, where you can pretty much say whatever you want so long as
you don't commit a crime while doing it. Libel and slander are common
on the internet and they are crimes. Personal attacks and threats
also are common and the latter are also crimes. Stalkers and
harassment are common and they are crimes. Anyone who has spent any
amount of time on the internet soon learns what is wrong with it.
It's no big mystery.

> Regulation of speech is the first step toward tyranny. Freedom is worth any
> amount of emotional damage.


A very idealistic and naive view. There are already laws against
unlimited speech, such as yelling "fire" in a crowded theater and
causing a dangerous stampede simply for a prank. Purposefully inciting
a riot is another example of proscribed speech. Libel and slander are
other forms of illegal speech. Stalking and harassment, common on the
net, are also illegal and potentially serious crimes. Emotional
damage can be a very serious issue with potentially dire consequences.
If you don't know that yet, my guess is you haven't lived very long.


> Besides, if the rantings of a juvenile lunatic can hurt you, you need to
> grow up!


Feel better now? There there, let mommy tuck you in and go night
night.

[Arny Krueger]

"traveler" > wrote in message
om
> "DK" > wrote in message
> >...
>>> It is why the internet
>>> ought to be regulated, in my opinion. The freedom to say whatever
>>> you want about anyone (anonymously or otherwise) is more than
>>> offset by the emotional damage done. ... The spamming alone
>>> is enough to warrant regulation.
>>
>> A) How do you propose to regulate something that technically doesn't
>> actually exist, and

> Who contends that the internet doesn't actually exist? You mean to
> say I'm not really typing this and you can't read it?

RAO is part of Usenet. Usenet is not the same thing as the Internet. There
were Usenet newsgroups long before there was an Internet, a world wide web,
or HTML.

http://www.faqs.org/faqs/usenet/software/part1/

[Endoukido]

"George M. Middius" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> traveler said:
>
> > > A) How do you propose to regulate something that technically doesn't
> > > actually exist, and
>
> > Who contends that the internet doesn't actually exist? You mean to
> > say I'm not really typing this and you can't read it?
>
> What is the nature of the Internet?

The Internet is everywhere. It is all around you. It is there where you
work, it is there when you eat, it is there when you go to church. It is the
wool pulled over our eyes to keep us from the truth.

(sorry Wachowski brothers!)

[S888Wheel]

>
>RAO is part of Usenet. Usenet is not the same thing as the Internet. There
>were Usenet newsgroups long before there was an Internet, a world wide web,
>or HTML.

I suppose it's good to know the history of one's home. Congradulations Arny on
knowing something about your home.

[Arny Krueger]

"S888Wheel" > wrote in message

>> RAO is part of Usenet. Usenet is not the same thing as the Internet.
>> There were Usenet newsgroups long before there was an Internet, a
>> world wide web, or HTML.
>
> I suppose it's good to know the history of one's home.
> Congradulations Arny on knowing something about your home.

I don't think I deserve any congradulations.

Note to dumb bunnies like Weil: "Congradulations" is a word that sockpuppet
wheel just made up. Apparently, English isn't a big enough language for his
monumental IQ to be satisfied with.

[dave weil]

On Mon, 23 Feb 2004 13:09:59 -0500, "Arny Krueger" >
wrote:

>Apparently, English isn't a big enough language for his monumental IQ to be satisfied with.

Probably not, since I've got a second language (presumably unlike you,
since you have monumental problems with the one that you try to
practice).

[S888Wheel]

>>> RAO is part of Usenet. Usenet is not the same thing as the Internet.
>>> There were Usenet newsgroups long before there was an Internet, a
>>> world wide web, or HTML.
>>
>> I suppose it's good to know the history of one's home.
>> Congradulations Arny on knowing something about your home.
>
>I don't think I deserve any congradulations.
>
>Note to dumb bunnies like Weil: "Congradulations" is a word that sockpuppet
>wheel just made up. Apparently, English isn't a big enough language for his
>monumental IQ to be satisfied with.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

To bad Krueger is too stupid to know the difference between missellings and
made up words. I'm still waiting to see if Arny can fix his car wreck or a
sentence on the other thread. Anyone can look up spellings. Arny's inability to
negotiate basic grammar and understand basic word usage are problems that will
always plague him. Just look at what he did in this post. Here is a quick fix
for Arny's failed sentence. "English apparently isn't a big enough language to
satisfy his monumental I.Q." Note the fact that the fix eliminates the misuse
of a preposition. It is also far more direct, understandable and efficient. Of
course when the sentence is corrected it soon becomes obvious that it begs the
question does an I.Q. need to be satisfied? Arny does not seem to know the
difference between I.Q. and ego or intelectual curiosity. So Arny makes a fool
of himself with his poor English skills when he hypocritically attacks others
for their spelling errors.

[Arny Krueger]

"S888Wheel" > wrote in message

>>>> RAO is part of Usenet. Usenet is not the same thing as the
>>>> Internet. There were Usenet newsgroups long before there was an
>>>> Internet, a world wide web, or HTML.
>>>
>>> I suppose it's good to know the history of one's home.
>>> Congradulations Arny on knowing something about your home.
>>
>> I don't think I deserve any congradulations.
>>
>> Note to dumb bunnies like Weil: "Congradulations" is a word that
>> sockpuppet wheel just made up. Apparently, English isn't a big
>> enough language for his monumental IQ to be satisfied with.


> To bad Krueger is too stupid to know the difference between
> missellings and made up words.

How are missellings relevant in this context?

[S888Wheel]

>
>"S888Wheel" > wrote in message

>>>>> RAO is part of Usenet. Usenet is not the same thing as the
>>>>> Internet. There were Usenet newsgroups long before there was an
>>>>> Internet, a world wide web, or HTML.
>>>>
>>>> I suppose it's good to know the history of one's home.
>>>> Congradulations Arny on knowing something about your home.
>>>
>>> I don't think I deserve any congradulations.
>>>
>>> Note to dumb bunnies like Weil: "Congradulations" is a word that
>>> sockpuppet wheel just made up. Apparently, English isn't a big
>>> enough language for his monumental IQ to be satisfied with.
>
>
>> To bad Krueger is too stupid to know the difference between
>> missellings and made up words.
>
>How are missellings relevant in this context?

Are you really this stupid? Are you so stupid that you cannot figure ou that
"congradulations" was a misselling of congratulations?

[Acne Krooker]

(S888Wheel) wrote
>>
>>"S888Wheel" > wrote in message

>>>>>> RAO is part of Usenet. Usenet is not the same thing as the
>>>>>> Internet. There were Usenet newsgroups long before there was an
>>>>>> Internet, a world wide web, or HTML.
>>>>>
>>>>> I suppose it's good to know the history of one's home.
>>>>> Congradulations Arny on knowing something about your home.
>>>>
>>>> I don't think I deserve any congradulations.
>>>>
>>>> Note to dumb bunnies like Weil: "Congradulations" is a word that
>>>> sockpuppet wheel just made up. Apparently, English isn't a big
>>>> enough language for his monumental IQ to be satisfied with.
>>
>>
>>> To bad Krueger is too stupid to know the difference between
>>> missellings and made up words.
>>
>>How are missellings relevant in this context?
>
>Are you really this stupid? Are you so stupid that you cannot figure ou that
>"congradulations" was a misselling of congratulations?
>
Thank you sockpuppet Wheel for admitting you're abysmal Ebay track
record here on RAO, like its Bamborrorouhghg that is familiar with.
Hardly.

Delusional jet fighter's biggots, anyone? NOt ! ;-(

[DK]

"traveler" > wrote in message
om...
> "DK" > wrote in message
>...
> > > It is why the internet
> > > ought to be regulated, in my opinion. The freedom to say whatever you
> > > want about anyone (anonymously or otherwise) is more than offset by
> > > the emotional damage done. ... The spamming alone
> > > is enough to warrant regulation.
> >
> > A) How do you propose to regulate something that technically doesn't
> > actually exist, and
>
>
> Who contends that the internet doesn't actually exist? You mean to
> say I'm not really typing this and you can't read it?

The INTERNET is a concept, not a physical thing. It consists of a global
netowrk of computers that are linked together in a variety of ways. It is
too vast to even begin to try to regulate, as those who have thus far
attempted to do so have discovered.

> > B) Who would you have do the regulating?
>
>
> The same people who regulate broadcast media and telecommunications,
> ie, the duly elected governments of the world.

Duly elected, like Hussein & Co? Or do tyrants not get a say in regulating?
What about countries that choose not to regulate anything?

>
> > Maybe I'll do the regulating.
>
>
> Not bloody likely.

> My first rule is that anyone who disagrees
> > with me can't post. Since I don't agree with you, you can't post. So
sorry.
>
> Sorry for what? You'd never be in a position to do the regulating and
> regulating doesn't mean that people cannot post. It just implies a
> certain standard existing, such as that applied to callers on radio
> talk shows, where you can pretty much say whatever you want so long as
> you don't commit a crime while doing it. Libel and slander are common
> on the internet and they are crimes. Personal attacks and threats
> also are common and the latter are also crimes. Stalkers and
> harassment are common and they are crimes. Anyone who has spent any
> amount of time on the internet soon learns what is wrong with it.
> It's no big mystery.

You obviously missed my entire point.

> > Regulation of speech is the first step toward tyranny. Freedom is worth
any
> > amount of emotional damage.
>
> A very idealistic and naive view. There are already laws against
> unlimited speech, such as yelling "fire" in a crowded theater and
> causing a dangerous stampede simply for a prank. Purposefully inciting
> a riot is another example of proscribed speech. Libel and slander are
> other forms of illegal speech. Stalking and harassment, common on the
> net, are also illegal and potentially serious crimes. Emotional
> damage can be a very serious issue with potentially dire consequences.
> If you don't know that yet, my guess is you haven't lived very long.

Stalking and harassment already have remedies in civil venues, as well as
some criminal ones. Libel and slander also have remedies - which I have
pursued in the past, BTW.

I am well aware of how bad emotional damage can be. Personally, I am not
willing to give up any amount of freedom to protect myself against it, or
anyone else for that matter. Freedom is too hard won and too easily taken to
willingly give up any.

I have lived long enough to not only have dealt with emotional damage but
also to have learned how to handle such attacks. I have also lived long
enough to not let morons on the internet with their heads up their asses
bother me.

Now, try crossing the line into harassment, stalking, or defamation and see
what you get.

>
> > Besides, if the rantings of a juvenile lunatic can hurt you, you need to
> > grow up!
>
> Feel better now? There there, let mommy tuck you in and go night
> night.

Rather childish response. Guess I'm not too surprised.

Go have Big Brother take care of you. I can take care of myself.

[S888Wheel]

>
>The INTERNET is a concept, not a physical thing.

Really?

> It consists of a global
>netowrk of computers that are linked together in a variety of ways.

Those components are not physical things?


>It is
>too vast to even begin to try to regulate, as those who have thus far
>attempted to do so have discovered.

But it is a real, physical entity.

[Sockpuppet Yustabe]

"traveler" > wrote in message
om...
>
> If all you say is true, he certainly sounds like bad news. I suppose
> you have considered taking legal steps to suppress his libel and
> slander of your reputation? Like I said, I've run into a number of
> very strange people on some of these forums. I've spent most of my
> time on the political ones, where emotions run high as it is. The
> real nutjobs have a way of taking issue with you in almost benign ways
> at first but there is always something about the way they express
> themselves that you realize in retrospect ought to have given them
> away had you held your tongue and ignored them. Unfortunately, once
> you "take them on," you are soon very sorry indeed. Speaking of
> computers, that is what they are like. All the insults and
> retaliations you can mount against them seldom accomplish a thing
> because they are sick and feed off of the humiliation. They actually
> enjoy that which would twist a normal person into knots.

so, you have met Arny.




----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---