"Alienjones" <> wrote in message
news:h43oso$v5n$...
> If you want to get exceptional video you need a big lens. This could cost
> you bucks. Learning how to take a movie without the now familiar zoom lens
> requires patience and understanding how real movies are actually filmed.
I was just wondering whether or not you have a particular reason
for using the term video and movie.
I've been told or rather it's been suggested to me that the quality of a
video
is dependant on the technology used whereas the quality of a movie is
dependent
on the framing and transitions, because of this it is very difficult
producing a movie
with just ONE camera even if it's excellent quality.
This is due to the fact that to get a proper movie you need a minimum of two
cameras
just to get enough scenes to join creating the angles neccessary for a good
movie.
An example of this would be (time for a plug) my two cat flap videos.
webcam with timeplapse & motion detection.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IUBgEZ5fteU
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gHNeKgu1k34
for a movie I'd have needed to add views from inside too, and perhasp follow
the cats.
A friend suggested that if I wanted to take better movies or rather band
'videos,
rather than get one great camera get two or three good ones mixing scenes
and
angles in to a movie.
I liked your reply to the OP but I was wondering whether the OP
had considered what makes a movie rather than a video.
Although I don;t always define movies/videos very precisely myself.