> First, we're not going to have "who is right and who is wrong"
> discussion in here. I was already afraid it would go that way but
> It's just not going to happen. This should be clear and sufficient
> enough, I never ask things like this twice.
?? We're talking about facts, there is no emotion behind what I'm saying and
I'm not trying to put anyone down. Saying that digital devices record at
precisely the speed you expect is simply wrong (incorrect).
I only replied to this thread to provide useful information, if that's not
appreciated here I'm happy to give this group a miss (but then what's it's
point?).
> Second and more important, I agree there are tolerances but what's
> acceptable and what's not acceptable and it depends on what you do.
Sure. Typically short takes should always be fine, but you can expect to see
problems with longer takes.
> I > think the 1/24s drift per 5 minutes of the Zoom isn't acceptable
> especially because the drift is always going one way (ahead of the video),
> the drift is not going forth and back like a drift due to crystal differences
> would.
It typically doesn't go back and forth, one is likely to be slightly faster
than the other, so the mis-sync will gradually get worse.
> So the problem in the Zoom can't be blamed to
> crystals alone. Also how is Tascam able to produce a similar device
> that doesn't have this drift or a drift that is so small that's not
> noticalbe during normal video work?
I have no idea about either of these devices. Is the Zoom known to have this
extreme drift on every instance of that particular model, or are we talking
about the experience of one or two people only? As I said, every instance of a
device is different, although devices from the same batch seem to have a better
chance of having similar speeds.
> Do they purchase they're crystal's from some secret factory? Also if playback
> can be guaranteed at a certain speed, then how is that done then? Don't use
> playback devices things like crystals or other electronics for timing as well?
Sure, playback also isn't 100% exact. In general, cheaper devices will have
looser tolerances (just as it's always been), so it probably gets tighter the
more you spend. But you never get away from having to synchronize in
professional environments.
> What you're doing sounds interesting. Apart from the drift you're
> also dealing with the absolute timing of each frame especially when
> working with faster shutter speeds. You could get rid of the drift
> somehow but will a genlock also make each frame start at exactly the same
> moment?
Yes that's what genlock does, it synchronizes the capture down to the pixel
level. It is absolutely crucial in live TV for example - if the cameras
weren't pixel-level synced, then switching between them would cause a glitch.
> By the way I shoot productions using two Panasonic GH2 camera's, one Europe
> model and one USA model, both set to 24fps and even with 30 minute shots I
> never notice anything of a drift, the only thing I
> notice is the frames of both camera's starting at different moments
> but for what I do, this isn't a problem, in the final product it's
> not noticible.
I use two GH2s for my 3D rig. As I said, the speed is different from body to
body, so you may be lucky and have a pair that don't drift too much. Of course
we're generally talking about reasonably small differences here, but they're
pretty important for 3D.
------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Adobe-Premiere/
<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional
<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Adobe-Premiere/join
(Yahoo! ID required)
<*> To change settings via email:
[email protected]
[email protected]
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[email protected]
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
