i'm just giving you my opinion only. i don't have side-by-side footage to post of that morning shoot because the testing was for myself, just me looking through lenses trying to ascertain the difference in reach between two different camera set-ups, and not necessarily pressing the record button. i only posted that bit of GL2 footage because i was surprised at the level of CA when i reviewed it, and i was still trying to understand the uses/limits of the 2x, which was brand new...

the climbing footage was on a different day entirely, for a different purpose, to test for vignetting.

if you find this stuff is not helpful, feel free to disregard it. i'm not intending to add to the confusion!

Hi Brendan - sorry I took so long to get back to you. My extender will not work for you. It is an extender which goes between the lense and and camcorder body on my XL1s. It's made by Canon (I think it's called simply an "XL 1.6X").

I do some video of larger subjects such as deer etc., but I do a great deal of bird videography. What I actually meant by bringing in shots closer is filling the viewfinder or screen with the subject. I believe in filling the screen as much as possible when shooting wildlife . I might go up to 300mm if I purchased an EOS zoom lense, though I'm sure 210mm would be plenty. I believe the focal length is 7.2X what it would be if I put the same lense on an SLR. Then I'd have to lug around a heavy tripod to keep the footage steady.

Very helpful Phil, thank you.
I'm glad to get those facts before I disappear for a week.

Xl2 Plus Ef Adapter And 134-400
 

Hi Brendan

Go to this link http://www.xyris.tv/%20%20%20pages/diary.htm and look at the still of the bird. Imagine this area cropped right into the bird and that's exactly what I got on film using an XL2 with an EF adapter.

Rod C

Thanks for the link Rodney. 3 questions please.

Did you superimpose (e.g import using Photoshop) a still of the owl on to a still of the trellis?
About how far were you from the bird?
Did you use a tripod or was your XL2 handheld?

Owls
 

Hi Brendan

No of course I didn't superimpose the owl, but it's an interesting question. That sort of separation is due to the 700 mm lens effect =(400x1.6), plus a halo of back lighting.

Interestingly I am an expert at superimposition, or comping as we used to call it and I have been working on Photoshop since version 3. Before that I did transparency comping and dye transfer printing, from which we get the term 'unsharp mask'. Have you ever wondered why an unsharp mask tool increases sharpness? It's because, in traditional comping - with film overlays, there was a thick masking film material that was exposed soft, and overlayed with the film separations to reverse tone - allowing detail to be printed in when the final comp or transparency dupe was exposed. It used to take a whole day to do one dye transfer print, but I remember that Benson and Hedges paid £30000 for one multi-part image; the most I ever got was £3000 for one comp image. Incidentally, Tecnicolor, which was the standard for Movie Film colour, was based on Dye Transfer or the Imbition process back in the 1940's-50's. The Cameras held three spools of black and white negative stock which was exposed simultaneously through beam splitters and separation filters then recombined as a dyed up colour film positive- all in register. We use the same concept in our modern three chip video cameras, but the recombination is done electronically - hence the superb colour quality.

The camera was tripod mounted - I have been a professional for thirty years and have about six good tripods for all eventualities. If you are selling your work, it has to be either deliberately sharp or deliberately fuzzy, sometimes both, but rarely neither of these options.

I have hand held that 135-400 lens though and got sharp results, but usually in bright light and with an increased ASA/ISO speed. When I started I would not have given you tuppence for a long or zoom lens - you guys don't know how lucky you are.

Rod C

Good points Rodney, thank you.

I'll be looking for help in due course setting up the odd link to the odd still or video snippet. No hurry at all, but the sooner I have some basic info the better e.g. Do I have to have a website to provide a link? If so what's the simplest way to set up a website, without commercial strings attached? There may well be a thread on this subject, but where is it?

some answers
 

John Hewat asked the following question on the DV Challenge thread ...

<<< How to find webspace to host the video - is it easy?

Hello,

If and when I complete the video I will need to find some webspace to host it but haven't a clue how to go about findind it.

Is it easy? Costly? >>>

The answers offered to that question by several experienced members were most helpful to me and I'm sure others too. Search for that thread if you're hunting for answers like I was ...

Equipment for wildlife film-making
 

I just went through this process and bought the following. Total comes to $8474. This is an HDV set-up, since, as folks have noted, networks want HD content.
JVC GY-HD100A
JVC Tripod Plate
Anton Bauer Gold mount for JVC camera
Anotn Bauer Dionic90 Battery
Anton Bauer Titan Twin charger
Anton Bauer Ultralight
PortaBrace CTC-3 camera case
PortaBrace RS-HD100 Rain Slicker
Sachtler DV 4 II/2 Tripod System
Anotn Bauer Multi Power Tap

Audio I would rent until you find out what works best for your situations.
The GY-HD100A captures stunning pictures in HDV and kicks Bootie in DV.
Have Fun and two things to remember....1 By the time you purchase the EQ it will already be obsolete. 2 NAB is right around the corner so look for b-stock equipment to start showing up in May.