DaveS

I'm right with you on this one Wayne, soaps, soaps, and then more soaps, but while she sits and watches her soaps, I'll be sitting outside fishing, and supping a can or two. Dave

I have one of those 'floating around' in my gadget bag, but it fits a 58mm lens. The problem is most camcorders have a 37mm filter thread, which is quite small, and this makes finding a lens hood much more difficult. Unless of course, the source of yours, has them down to a 37mm size? Dave

I bought a UV Filter for my new HD camcorder. For the same reason that I fit a Skylight filter to all my DSLR lenses, which primarily is to protect the lens. As filters 'sit' right on the front of the lens barrel, they are exposed to unwanted direct sunlight, and as such we most always use a lens hood. However, lens hoods for camcorders, at least consumer models, aren't as commonplace, as those for DLSR lenses. I found the one in the photo below, on e-bay, albeit it China. So, for £7.79 (inc p&p), I ordered one. About a week later it arrived and I have to say, I'm quite impressed with it. It even comes with a cap. of the filter. A locking ring on the lens hood thread, enables the hood to be locked in the correct orientation. Dave

I went from an AE1P(35mm) to a 300D DSLR, and the plastic bodied 300D just didn't have that rugged feel of the metal bodied AE1P. That said, the 300D was a lot lighter to carry around, especially when fitted with the plastic bodied 18-55 lens, and the results were impressive, as was the versatility of the camera. However, I still missed the rugged pro feel of a metal bodied camera, so I upgraded to a 30D. Bigger and much heavier yes, especially when fitted with a quality metal bodied lens, but it feels right, and is an absolute pleasure to use. Albeit, given the significant difference in price, it ought to If I'm going somewhere, and don't fancy carrying the 30D, like when I went up to the boat show, then I borrow my wife's little Sony Cybershot compact, which while not as flexible as the DSLR, produces very nice results. Dave

It certainly does . Bad enough with SD, so I dread to think what it would do to HD. That's if any of the sites, could actually accomodate it!! Dave

Hmmm, £200 'ish' for a DLSR with "standard" lens, is a bit of a 'tall order' Neil. Fixed lens digital cameras, and compacts, then there is wide choice in that 'price bracket', but DSLR's You would likely pick up a good second hand Canon 350D for that sort of price, and that would be a lot of camera for that money. Dave

The 'bottom line' Neil, is what's your budget? Dave

Make sure that you set the Authoring/burning software to 'burn' as to a Blu-ray disc, even though 'burning to standard DVD. Otherwise it will likely re-encode it down to mpeg-2 (standard definition). You'll need to check that is the case with your software (Pinnacle ?), but it certainly is with Sony Vegas and Ulead etc. Dave

I think the idea is Brian, that if people move on to buying a Blu-Ray player, then they don't have to run a standard DVD player as well. A nice feature is that if you set your Blu-Ray Player's output to either 720 of 1080 (depending on what your HD TV will support), then it will upscale the output from your standard DVD, to HD. Its not true HD, as its digitally enhanced, but its pretty damn good all the same. Most Blu-Ray players are set to 'automatic' output as a default, which means it will output a standard definition DVD, as just just that. So, you would need to go into the setup menu, and set the output manually, to 720 or 1080. Dave

As I understand it Brian, AVCHD video is the same mpeg code as Blu-ray, hence the Blu-player will play it, as it has the necessary codec. A Blu-ray player has two Lasers, one standard laser (as in a normal DVD player), so that it can be backwards compatible, and read non-blu-ray discs. The second Laser a Blue Light Laser, which works at a much higher frequency (e.g. in the visible light spectrum, red light is at the low frequency end, up to blue light at the high frequency end) and reads Blue -ray discs. ACVHD video burned to a normal DVD, will not play in a normal (standard definition) DVD player. The major difference between a Blu-ray disc, and a standard DVD, is the amount of data a dual-layer Blu ray disc can accomodate, which is in the region of 50Gb. Whereas a dual-layer DVD holds around 8 and and bit Gb. Dave

Yes, it is quite versatile Perry, albeit not in the 'same league' as Premiere, but then given the price difference, I wouldn't expect it to be. Still more than adeaquate for editing AVCHD video, and creating 1080 quality DVDs, with 5.1 surround sound. I haven't as yet, got a Blu-ray 'burner', but can create HD quality videos on standard DVD, albeit of limited size compared to SD. However, my DVD 'burner' is Dual-Layer, and the blank discs aren't at all expensive, so I'll be getting some of these, which will give me 30-40mins of HD video on a standard DVD. Probably more than enough for the average holiday video. Dave

Sorted!! Downloaded a few 30 Day trials, and have settled on Sony Vegas Movie Studio 9 Platinum (Pro Pack). It handles AVCHD editing well, including the 5.1 surround sound, with more than adequate editing functions available. Authors and 'burns' the finished video to standard DVD in Blu-ray format, producing excellent quality HD video, via a Blu-ray player. Adobe Premiere Pro CS4, is probably at the top of the 'pile', but just too expensive, so Sony Vegas it is. Dave

Now that I have the HD camcorder Brian, I have a question for you Editing the AVCHD (m2ts) files doesn't seem to be a problem. So far so good However, I want to 'burn' them to a standard DVD, at full 1080 definition, so that they can be played back in HD using a Blu Ray disc player. Something that I am lead to understand, can be done. The software that I use to convert any format (including AVCHD) to SD mpeg2, is ConvertXtoDVD. Having tried numereous popular 'packages', I have found that convertX, produces the cleanest SD DVD quality. Unfortunately, it does exactly what 'its says on the tin', and that is to convert pretty much any format to SD mpeg2 DVD format. In other words, it takes my 1080 HD video, and converts it to SD. What I want to do is retain the HD, while burning to a standard DVD. Of course this will only allow 15-20mins of HD video on a 4.7Gb DVD, or 30-40mins on a dual-layer disc (just discovered that the 'burner' in my PC is dual-layer ). I know that although it will still be a standard DVD, it won't play in a normal DVD player, but will play in a Blu-Ray player, which of course can read the coding of HD video(mpeg4). So,the question is, do you 'burn' full HD to standard DVDs, and if so, what software do you use? Dave

As my boat is out of the water for the winter, both batteries are back home in my garage, and will be given a 'top-up' charge if necessary. If lead acid batteries are left in too low a charge condition, the plates will sulphate, and knacker the battery, but then you probably knew that anyway Dave

Having an outboard, which can be considered a 'single outdrive', I fitted a 'twin blade' Rudder Safe unit, which made a vast improvement to the handling at low speeds, especially when reversing into my mooring at the marina. I believe there is also a model for 'outdrives'. Having said that, two outdrives means two Ruddersafe units, which is double the expense, and they are ridiculously overpriced for what they are. Then again, isn't everthing else that's classed as boat/marine Dave

Sorted!! Have 'bitten the bullet' and ordered the Sony HDR XR520VE HD camcorder, which should arrive tomorrow Managed to get a reasonable deal, and ahead of the vat going back up to 17.5% Dave

Sounds good Brian Corel also bought out Ulead, which is ok if buying up the competion doesn't mean that they can wack their prices up, because there is no competion. Have finished doing all the tech research, and if I decide to go ahead, it will be with the Sony HDR-XR520 with the 240GB HDD. At the moment, using only genuine UK sources, the price varies from £800 to £1100+, so given that the company selling it for £800 will still be making a profit, what is the 'mark-up' on these products If I'm going to make the 'hyper jump' to HD, then it really needs to be before Jan 1st, as the VAT goes back up to 17.5% then. I find that with items like cameras, the after Christmas sales, generally target the lower end of the range, that more people are likely to buy. So, I guess I'll be talking to a few outlets before the 31st. Even the local Jessops shop might 'play ball', as I managed to get them to match an on-line outlets price, when I bought my Canon 30D. I came across an on-line price comparison site, that provided a 'print-off' Jessops voucher for a 5% discount, which brings their price down to £938, but they will have to do better than that, if they want my money The bonus is that at the moment, there is a £60 'cash back' offer from Sony Dave

Is that original HD Brian, or the newer AVCHD format? You are right about the software, it always lags behind the hardware, and usually the software that the camera maunfacturers package with the video camera, is pretty grim. My main PC is Dual-Core 2Gb, with 2Gb of high speed RAM, two HDDs, and running 64 bit XP Pro. It 'whistles' through editing standaerd def video, but we'll have to to see what it can do with HD (AVCHD). Dave

There are a great many video format converting software packages out there, some reasonably priced, and others over priced. I find that in general, you tend to get what you pay for, althought this doesn't necessarily apply to the over priced ones. It is in the conversion from one format to another, especially where compression is involved, that quality can be seriuosly compromised. For encoding my edited DV from avi format to mpeg2 DVD format, I have tried numerous software offerings, and encoded the same bit of video using each different encoder. Burning these to DVD, and comparing the result on the TV. Each and every one, produced different quality results, ranging from b****y awful, to as good (to the eye) as the the original. For me, the one that I now use, is 'ConvertX to DVD', which is of French origin, downloadable and reasonably priced. How this will perform with AVCHD HD video, remains to be seen. Dave

I'm in no rush Perry, unless the camera I'm considering (Sony HDR-XR520 circa £1000) appears at a 'knock down' price in the Jaunuary sales, in which case it might make up my mind I think that the two market leaders in camcorders (Sony and Panasonic) have stopped producing HD DV cameras in their consumer range (up to around the £1000+ mark). But I know Sony still offer HD DV on tape based cameras in the £3000+ range, but these are for the really serious hobbyists. So, unless you are looking at spending £3000+ on a camcorder, which I'm not , then AVC HD is pretty much the only option between standard definition and the Prosumer range. I have read countless reviews, but technical and user based, and Sony and Panasonic seem to share the 'top spot', with Sony just having 'the edge'. Canon, come next, with JVC in 4th place. All the others seem to be aimed at the lower end of the market. I guess the 'driving force', is having an HD TV and Disc Player, standard definition 25 fps camcorder video, looks very 'average'. I believe, although I could be wrong, that HD camcorders capture at 50 fps. The only thing I am sure of, is that Father Christmas won't be bringing me an HD camcorder Dave

As any of you that are are into camcorders, will be well aware that most all of the 'new breed' of HD camcorders are of the AVC HD format, pioneered by Sony and Panasonic. I've been using Mini DV (Standard Definition) for some considerable time, a format that goes 'hand in glove' with easy video editing, and DVD production. However, I've now reached the stage where I'd like to move on to HD video. While Mini DV tape is still readily available, and is likley to be so for the forseeable future, HDD or SD card (or combination of both) storage is probably the direction in which I'd like the head. I've held off on making this move, for some considerable time, as editing software for AVCHD was a bit 'thin on the ground', and what there was, was very limited in what it could do. That situation now seems to have changed, as the software industry seems to have accepted that AVCHD is now an established and "accepted" ? format. From what I have read, it appears that it is possible to readily convert AVCHD to an mpeg format, and 'burn' it to standard DVD, without reducing the image quality to that of standard definition. Albeit, only being able to store 15-20 mins of video on a standard DVD (30-40 mins on a dual-layer DVD). So, are any of you guys using AVCHD camcorders, editing, and 'burning' the video to DVD ?. If so, how do you find it ? Dave

Well done indeed Pete Its not as easy as some might think, light pollution is a major problem, and of course anything but 'green'. The street lighting only needs to be projected downwards, and the latest generation of street lights, known as 'full cut off', actually do this, and consume much less power. Unfortunatley, the vast majority of street lights are still of the old inefficient type, and waste megawatts of energy, lighting up the sky. You captured the constellation of Orion very nicely in the first picture, with the 'belt' and 'sword' showing up very well. You could have captured a Geminid, but its difficult to be sure. All in all, a very good effort, and clearly a budding astro photographer in the making Dave

Hi Jonny I don't know of any off sort of galaxies, a they are pretty much either 'spiral' (like a catherine wheel) or 'barred spirals' (two spiral arms). As for colour, bear in mind that galaxies, as we see them, are predominantly stars, so the light they emit is that of star light. Stars do vary in colour, depending on whether they a young 'hot' stars, and as such blue/white, or old stars getting close to the end of their working life, and seen as orange to red in colour. Betelgeuse in the constellation of Orion is a 'read giant'. Some galaxies with have 'clumps' of hot hydrogen gas, which show up as red/pink patches in the galaxy, when photographed. The really colourful objects are the Nebulas, which are vast clumps of gas and dust, and are the birth place of stars. The gas gets 'excited' by the new born 'hot stars', which makes it glow. The colour is dependant on the gas, which is mostly Hydrogen (which glows red), and Oxygen (which glows blue). As for the projectile that was fired into one on the Moon's craters, that is in permanent shade (VERY cold!!), in the hope of releasing water ice molecules into the air (not really air, but you'll know what I mean), where it could be oberved and analysed (spectroscopy) by Earth based telesopes. The 'jury' is very much 'still out' on this one. NASA claim that the mission was a success, and that the presence of water ice, was detected. However, some scientists dispute this. Hope this answers your questions Dave

Not a silly question at all Mark, but I've yet to see a photo taken from an Earth based telescope that shows anything of the lunar landings. However, high res pictures taken by the latest lunar orbiters, that are looking for potential landing sites for future mission, do actually show the Lunar Landers. Not close up, but certainly good enough to see that they are there, and good enough to convince the doubters. Dave

I see that Clive has already answered that one for you Colin , but in 'short' the answer is yes. Dave