Welcome! Log In Create A New Profile Recent Posts
Yosemite Falls

The Moon is Waning Crescent (31% of Full)


Advanced

Re: Movie Maker Found Guilty

All posts are those of the individual authors and the owner of this site does not endorse them. Content should be considered opinion and not fact until verified independently.

avatar Movie Maker Found Guilty
April 03, 2009 06:43PM
A Sonora man is awaiting a U.S. District Court judge’s decision in his appeal of two misdemeanor convictions related to a film he recorded in Yosemite National Park.

The case stems from the 2002 film Lorenzo Baca produced called “Yosemite Big Time,” which depicts Native American dance ceremonies, interviews with Yosemite National Park employees and Baca’s narration inside a park roundhouse and sweat lodge.


http://www.uniondemocrat.com/news/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=96335&Itemid=199

avatar Re: Movie Maker Found Guilty
April 03, 2009 06:48PM
"He alleged Magistrate Judge William Wunderlich should have removed himself from the trial because of a hangman’s noose he keeps in his chambers,..."

What a hoot!!

B
avatar Re: Movie Maker Found Guilty
April 05, 2009 10:37AM
avatar Re: Movie Maker Found Guilty
April 05, 2009 01:37PM
This whole case is ridiculous.

The red tape you have to go through to video in Yosemite for commercial purposes is unreasonable. In addition to paying for a "filming permit" ($150 per permit, if I remember) you are also required to have a million dollars insurance policy. I can see where this makes sense for filming crews that include trucks, lights, power lines, etc. But even if you're one person, and you have only tripod and camera (no different from the many other visitors) you are held to the same requirements.

A few years ago I made a DVD on Yosemite Hiking Trails. I spent thousands more than I anticipated on equipment, then found out about the need to get a permit. What a heavy burden it was.

A couple of years later I decided to put together a similar guide on the Grand Canyon, and contacted them about getting a permit. When they found out that I wasn't going to be interviewing people, wasn't going to be shooting inside buildings, and was by myself (no assistant) they said that not only did I not need $million insurance, but also didn't need to pay for permits. This, I thought, was reasonable.

Now I want to revise my Yosemite Hiking DVD to update some information, replace maps, re-do DVD menus, and other odds and ends that I've learned after doing 2 DVDs. While I'm at it, I'd like to completely revamp the video footage; but since I can't afford to spring for insurance or permits again I'm limited to using video that I took while making the original (sales have paid for expenses, but little else and I just can't see forking out so much more $$ on it).

Sorry for the rant, but it frustrates me, and I find it unreasonable and stifling that Yosemite burdens "the little guy" with the same load that a big Hollywood studio has to bear.

avatar Re: Movie Maker Found Guilty
April 05, 2009 01:42PM
sierranomad wrote:

>The red tape you have to go through to video in Yosemite for
> commercial purposes is unreasonable.

Nobody would have cared if he hadn't decided to go inside the roundhouse without permission.

avatar Re: Movie Maker Found Guilty
April 05, 2009 04:34PM
eeek wrote:


>
> Nobody would have cared if he hadn't decided to go inside the
> roundhouse without permission.
>

Oh, contrare! I was told "if you sell a DVD that says 'Yosemite National Park' on it, and you didn't have a permit, we will come after you."

avatar Re: Movie Maker Found Guilty
April 05, 2009 04:55PM
sierranomad wrote:


>
> Oh, contrare! I was told "if you sell a DVD that says 'Yosemite
> National Park' on it, and you didn't have a permit, we will
> come after you."
>

Sounds like the Disney company. Does the NPS have the trademark for Yosemite National Park??
An interesting problem is under litigation here in Montana-- some guy want to trademark "the last best place". Not clear what will happen. Some would consider Montana at the end of winter (the mud season) to be "the place best left"





The cure for a fallacious argument is a better argument, not the suppression of ideas.
-- Carl Sagan
avatar Re: Movie Maker Found Guilty
April 05, 2009 07:43PM
sierranomad wrote:

>
> Oh, contrare! I was told "if you sell a DVD that says 'Yosemite
> National Park' on it, and you didn't have a permit, we will
> come after you."
>


Let's see, $150 for a permit for a commercial enterprise. Unreasonable? Sorry, no sympathy here.

An insurance policy for $1M for a month or two isn't going to cost that much either. (Although you probably could find someone to grant you a waiver on that if you ask enough people.)

You did write off the audio/video equipment and all other costs (travel, food, boots, camping equipment, etc.) of making your DVDs on your taxes, I hope.



Post Edited (04-05-09 20:04)



THE YOSEMITE POST
Voice of the Rocky Marmot Empire
avatar Re: Movie Maker Found Guilty
April 05, 2009 08:27PM
szalkowski wrote:

>
> Let's see, $150 for a permit for a commercial enterprise.
> Unreasonable? Sorry, no sympathy here.
>

Well, you have the right to agree or disagree with their policy.

But it's $150 per permit application. I crammed to get everything in, in I think 4 visits. That was $600 for permits. The insurance was $400 - 500, totaling over $1,000.

I don't know about your bank account, but to mine, that's not chump change.

It also made filming a pain. Instead of just being able to head to Yosemite for a day here and there, I had to arrange for multiple days in clumps.



Post Edited (04-05-09 21:01)
avatar Re: Movie Maker Found Guilty
April 06, 2009 06:09AM
sierranomad wrote:

> The insurance was $400 - 500


A couple years ago, I was looking into running an evening electronics class. General Liability Insurance from The Hartford was $673 for a full year ($1M per occurrance, $2M aggregate based on anticipated $30k income).

As for the permit, it seems that if you want to play by their rules, then the cost is $150. If you want them to play by your rules, then the cost is $600.



Post Edited (04-06-09 06:19)



THE YOSEMITE POST
Voice of the Rocky Marmot Empire
avatar Re: Movie Maker Found Guilty
April 06, 2009 07:44AM
szalkowski wrote:

>
> As for the permit, it seems that if you want to play by their
> rules, then the cost is $150. If you want them to play by your
> rules, then the cost is $600.


I played by their rules and it cost $600. Believe me, I did everything I could to keep these expenses down. Could I take a month off and shoot, getting all the filming done in one permit? No. I just couldn't swing it. I am, after all, "the little guy"; like the poor fellow that this thread started with, and who has now been sued. Seems a lot like David & Goliath. But nowadays, Goliath usually wins.

With regards to insurance, I got the policy for a year. I didn't know if I could get all the shooting done in a couple months, and two policies of 2 months in length would have cost more than one policy for a year.



Post Edited (04-06-09 09:26)
avatar Re: Movie Maker Found Guilty
April 06, 2009 10:28AM
Let me get this straight.

Assuming anyone would buy my low-res videos of Yosemite in DVD form. Let's just say I'll sell them at cost...price of DVD (about 30 cents) and a bubble pack ($1) and postage ($1.50 tops). I make this DVD of deer and waterfalls and other adventures and you buy it.

I need a $150 permit for each little clip I took over the span of a few years?

Is the NPS familiar with the letters KMA?
avatar Re: Movie Maker Found Guilty
April 06, 2009 11:34AM
Vince wrote:

> Let me get this straight.
>
> Assuming anyone would buy my low-res videos of Yosemite in DVD
> form. Let's just say I'll sell them at cost...price of DVD
> (about 30 cents) and a bubble pack ($1) and postage ($1.50
> tops). I make this DVD of deer and waterfalls and other
> adventures and you buy it.
>
> I need a $150 permit for each little clip I took over the span
> of a few years?
>
> Is the NPS familiar with the letters KMA?

They don't really care unless professional crews are used. For the most part they're not going to bother with the average nature photographer not using a tripod. It certainly sounds to me as if he had the use of the dancers pre-planned, and that definitely runs into the requirement for a permit.

If you behave like the average tourist taking snapshots or hand-holding a consumer-grade camcorder, the permit doesn't really matter.

http://www.nps.gov/yose/planyourvisit/filming.htm

However - if you can manage to secure a filming permit, you would be exempt from paying entrance fees.
Quote

Park Entrance Fees
Commercial photographers and crews that obtain a filming permit from the National Park Service, are recognized as using the park for business purposes for the duration and purpose of that permit, and as such, are exempted from paying entrance fees. All vehicles entering the park must show a copy of the approved film permit at entrance stations.

avatar Re: Movie Maker Found Guilty
April 06, 2009 05:00PM
Vince wrote:

> Let me get this straight.

>
> I need a $150 permit for each little clip I took over the span
> of a few years?
>

Not for each clip, but for each "filming episode" (not their phrase). Every trip you are in Yosemite and took video; if you used a clip or clips in said DVD, yes you would have to have a permit (and insurance) for that trip.

avatar Re: Movie Maker Found Guilty
April 06, 2009 12:24PM
A person, an amateur photographer, can use any equipment that is hand carried not just hand held. Anyone is welcome to use larger cameras, tripods, flash, etc. as long as they are a non-professional and not engaged in work that will make money.





Old Dude
avatar Re: Movie Maker Found Guilty
April 06, 2009 12:32PM
mrcondron wrote:

> A person, an amateur photographer, can use any equipment that
> is hand carried not just hand held. Anyone is welcome to use
> larger cameras, tripods, flash, etc. as long as they are a
> non-professional and not engaged in work that will make money.

From my reading of the rules, even someone taking postcard pictures isn't likely to require a permit. If it's just one person with an SLR on a tripod, that's not going to be an issue even if it is of a commercial nature. If models or props are used - then it becomes an issue.
avatar Re: Movie Maker Found Guilty
April 06, 2009 01:17PM
You're right. I read it as one to two people with a camera and tripod can shoot for just about any reason as long as they don't violate any of the restrictions and are not engaged in shooting an advertisement for a service or product and are using hand carried gear, no hand trucks, dollies, etc.

It seems that if you are shooting to make a video for sale of cool stuff in the park but again don't do anything that violates any of the restrictions or that requires special permission you should be good to go without insurance, bond, or permits.





Old Dude
avatar Re: Movie Maker Found Guilty
April 06, 2009 01:38PM
mrcondron wrote:

> It seems that if you are shooting to make a video for sale of
> cool stuff in the park but again don't do anything that
> violates any of the restrictions or that requires special
> permission you should be good to go without insurance, bond, or
> permits.

Sounds to me like this guy arranged to have some dancers ("talent"winking smiley perform. And when he went into the sweat lodge without authorization, that definitely wasn't in the scope of any filming permitting process. That was just flat out trespassing.

avatar Re: Movie Maker Found Guilty
April 06, 2009 01:47PM
y_p_w wrote:

> That was just flat out trespassing.

I'm glad not to be the only one to notice that.

avatar Re: Movie Maker Found Guilty
April 06, 2009 08:03PM
Has anyone actually seen “Yosemite Big Time" ?





The cure for a fallacious argument is a better argument, not the suppression of ideas.
-- Carl Sagan
avatar Re: Movie Maker Found Guilty
April 06, 2009 01:55PM
I think there is more to Jon's story than we have been let to know.





Old Dude
avatar Re: Movie Maker Found Guilty
April 06, 2009 05:17PM
mrcondron wrote:

> I think there is more to Jon's story than we have been let to
> know.
>

No, Mike. I'm not holding anything back.

If you don't believe me, call the permit office and explain that you want to make a DVD on Yosemite and that it is to have "Yosemite National Park" on its title.

Tell them that you are by yourself and have only hand-held equipment.

Then let us know what response you get.

If they tell you anything different from what I've said, please get the person's name and phone number. As I've mentioned, I'd love to shoot some more video to use when I update my DVD. I do have quite a bit I shot when I had the permit but didn't use because I was still trying to figure video editing out (current DVD is primarily animated slideshow) - so I can use that, but I don't have as much vidoe as I'd like.

If they've changed their policy, or if you talk to someone that gives a different story, I'd be a happy man.



Post Edited (04-07-09 09:07)
avatar Re: Movie Maker Found Guilty
April 06, 2009 08:41PM
Jon,
I watched your footage on the hike to Columbia Rock. The only thing I can figure is that if you set up a camera with a tripod on the trail you could conceivably be blocking the trail and thus meet the "not being in the way" restriction. I have considered shooting footage of some hikes in other parts of the parks either for family and friends use or perhaps to do a DVD similar to yours. Other ideas I've had are to shoot some of the older stuff in the park with a bit of history. Your posts are driving me to dig into the permit, insurance, bond issue.





Old Dude
avatar Re: Movie Maker Found Guilty
April 06, 2009 11:17PM
mrcondron wrote:

> Jon,
The only
> thing I can figure is that... you could conceivably be blocking the trail and
> thus meet the "not being in the way" restriction. Your posts
> are driving me to dig into the permit, insurance, bond issue.
>

Mike:

I make it a point to not be in the way. The way I look at it is that I don't have any more right to Yosemite's "space" as anyone else and I am very conscious of not becoming a nuisance. I always have my tripod set up off the trail, if at all possible, and if on the trail I move it promptly if someone is coming.

I'm pleased that you are going to check out the permit & insurance issue. Someone earlier suggested that had I asked enough people the insurance requirement may have been dropped. I don't have the personality for that type of haggling. It's just not me. I'm hopeful that if someone who does have that skill checks into it I will also benefit. Who knows, maybe even the need for a permit would be dropped. Really, it only seems reasonable.

avatar Re: Movie Maker Found Guilty
April 06, 2009 05:10PM
mrcondron wrote:

> You're right. I read it as one to two people with a camera and
> tripod can shoot for just about any reason as long as they
> don't violate any of the restrictions and are not engaged in
> shooting an advertisement for a service or product and are
> using hand carried gear, no hand trucks, dollies, etc.
>
> It seems that if you are shooting to make a video for sale of
> cool stuff in the park but again don't do anything that
> violates any of the restrictions or that requires special
> permission you should be good to go without insurance, bond, or
> permits.
>

That's what I read, too. But just to be sure, I called and asked (because there is a quick blurb on their site about any commercial filming requiring a permit). Even though they were well aware that I was by myself and had only hand-carried gear they were adamant that I needed to have a permit and insurance.

avatar Re: Movie Maker Found Guilty
April 06, 2009 02:08PM
http://www.yosemitetrailsdvd.com/yosemite_dvd_hiking.html

Yup.

And if I had the gumption to do it too I'd blatantly advertise anywhere and everywhere.

smiling smiley

The information I give you is free. smiling smiley Although at times I feel so unappreciated. sad smiley
avatar Re: Movie Maker Found Guilty
April 06, 2009 08:54PM
>Has anyone actually seen “Yosemite Big Time" ?

You can go to the visitors center and completely miss the Indian Village.
I only checked it out this year in February. I didn't see Vince in any of
the huts though. He must have been out practicing Native American
or something. I'm pretty sure he was burning wood somewhere tho...

Mike,
Don't I take enough pictures already?!?!?
avatar Re: Movie Maker Found Guilty
April 06, 2009 10:08PM
Bill-e-g: > I didn't see Vince in any of the huts though. He must have been out practicing Native American or something. I'm pretty sure he was burning wood somewhere tho...<

My vote for the best post on this thread thus far smiling smiley

I tried taking video once and I kept forgetting to pan the camera...or I would pan it too fast...there must be rules about how to shoot moving pictures of still objects.

B
avatar Re: Movie Maker Found Guilty
April 07, 2009 01:02AM
Bee wrote:

> I tried taking video once and I kept forgetting to pan the
> camera...or I would pan it too fast...there must be rules about
> how to shoot moving pictures of still objects.

Pan slow...if you're too slow, you can always speed it up by dropping frames; you can't slow the pan down.

avatar Re: Movie Maker Found Guilty
April 07, 2009 07:11AM
Another rule: Use panning sparingly. Only do it when you have a reason to do so. Excessive pan or zoom is distracting and detracts from your presentation.

avatar Re: Movie Maker Found Guilty
April 07, 2009 08:38AM
sierranomad: Use panning sparingly

which related to my other problem: my video looked like an extended still shot. Perhaps you switch subject matter at quicker intervals? There is an old film called Koyaniskatsi (sp) and one scene that sticks in my mind was a 'video' shot of a group of waitresses -- posing as if for a still shot that was uncomfortabley long.

B
avatar Re: Movie Maker Found Guilty
April 07, 2009 08:54AM
The Ken Burns effect handily deals with shots of stills. It can be used shooting live also.





Old Dude
avatar Re: Movie Maker Found Guilty
April 07, 2009 08:58AM
mrcondron: The Ken Burns effect handily deals with shots of stills. It can be used shooting live also.

would you liken this style similar to a slideshow effect? I have seen all of the Ken Burns productions, and his style is preferable to anything I have seen in the genre, but I was unsure of WHY his style works so well.

B
avatar Re: Movie Maker Found Guilty
April 07, 2009 09:30AM
If you look at the Ken Burns stuff you will see that he does his pans so that your attention is held because you know something is coming. His zoom-ins will take you into greater detail and the zoom-outs will take you to the bigger picture. All this coupled with a careful selection of still shots and a great narrative with superb timing relative to the video.





Old Dude
avatar Re: Movie Maker Found Guilty
April 07, 2009 09:12AM
Bee wrote:

my video looked like an
> extended still shot. Perhaps you switch subject matter at
> quicker intervals?
> B

Yes, that's right. I only have each clip/image showing for just a few seconds (around 3-6, not counting the transition time - and I've found that for nature work a simple crossfade works best, or no special transition effect at all, just overlap on your time line and let them blend tranquilly from one to the next.

avatar Re: Movie Maker Found Guilty
April 07, 2009 09:19AM
Sierranomad: >Yes, that's right. I only have each clip/image showing for just a few seconds (around 3-6, not counting the transition time - and I've found that for nature work a simple crossfade works best, or no special transition effect at all, just overlap on your time line and let them blend tranquilly from one to the next.<

I just popped in my DVD's, and realized that all the stills are waaay too long. I guess that it is subliminal that the comfort zone is much much shorter than I perceived.

B
avatar Re: Movie Maker Found Guilty
April 07, 2009 10:22AM
Bee wrote:

realized that all the stills are
> waaay too long. I guess that it is subliminal that the comfort
> zone is much much shorter than I perceived.
>
> B

Keeping lengths to hold audience interest CAN be a challenge. When I get a shot that was really difficult and/or one that I am especially fond of the temptation is there to allow it to show for too long. Also, same is true of multiple shots of the same subject. Say you tried really hard and it took lots of patience to get some good wildlife shots. The temptation is there to show several clips of the same animal; but unless the different clips show your subject doing something altogether different you have to be very careful about doing so.

What I like to do is go through my clips immediately after shooting, weeding out the ones that don't measure up. Then, before actually putting them in a project, I look at them again a month or so later. I always find that there are a few shots I liked initially, but upon viewing them w/o the fond memories of taking that shot being so fresh in mind I see them in a different light and more end up getting cut.

avatar Re: Movie Maker Found Guilty
April 07, 2009 11:42AM
Brutality is the friend of editing.



Post Edited (04-07-09 17:49)



Old Dude
avatar Re: Movie Maker Found Guilty
April 07, 2009 04:59PM
mrcondron wrote:

> Brutality us the friend of editing.
>

Ha-Ha. Yes, no room for sentimentality!

avatar Re: Movie Maker Found Guilty
April 07, 2009 06:08PM
mrcondron wrote:

> Brutality us the friend of editing.
>

Sierranomad: Ha-Ha. Yes, no room for sentimentality!<

okay, Im back with more questions!(excuse me if I may seem a little off on the flow of the posting; I can only see one post atta time, so I dont know what the general chat was) Speaking of editing, when you are shooting video, do you shoot with a "theme" in mind that will pretty much stay put, or will you sit down and slice and dice and splice, or is that considered un-professional. One of my buddies is a pro photog, and he gets incensed with me if I use too much cropping, color correction -- Photoshop et al, with my prints. Is there such a thing for video?


B
avatar Re: Movie Maker Found Guilty
April 07, 2009 08:33AM
eeeek: Pan slow...if you're too slow, you can always speed it up by dropping frames; you can't slow the pan down.

I saw one of your videos; the panning was really smooth/consistant with no distracting up or down movement (at the same time) is there a rule of thumb about tripods and video?

B

PS this new way to view the posts is GREAT on these larger threads!



Post Edited (04-07-09 08:41)



The body betrays and the weather conspires, hopefully, not on the same day.
avatar Re: Movie Maker Found Guilty
April 07, 2009 09:28AM
Bee wrote:

> I saw one of your videos; the panning was really
> smooth/consistant with no distracting up or down movement (at
> the same time) is there a rule of thumb about tripods and
> video?

Moi?

> PS this new way to view the posts is GREAT on these larger
> threads!

I only had to tell you three times.

avatar Re: Movie Maker Found Guilty
April 07, 2009 09:36AM
eeek: Bee wrote:

> I saw one of your videos; the panning was really
> smooth/consistant with no distracting up or down movement (at
> the same time) is there a rule of thumb about tripods and
> video?

Moi?<

It was "Secret Place" video on youtube (I had to view it on a friend's puter cause it kept stopping and re-loading with dial-up)(I dont see much youtube, normally)

EEEK; >I only had to tell you three times.<

three times -- you sure? That would be a record winking smiley

B
avatar Re: Movie Maker Found Guilty
April 07, 2009 09:41AM
Bee wrote:

> It was "Secret Place" video on youtube (I had to view it on a
> friend's puter cause it kept stopping and re-loading with
> dial-up)(I dont see much youtube, normally)

I didn't have a tripod for that one. Just tried real hard to be steady.

avatar Re: Movie Maker Found Guilty
April 07, 2009 09:51AM
Eeek: I didn't have a tripod for that one. Just tried real hard to be steady.


wow; the panning is soo consistant -- patience(not my forte except when shooting pix of bugs) I was thinking that I would not have made it 23 seconds without speeding up in the end.

B
avatar Re: Movie Maker Found Guilty
April 07, 2009 09:38AM
A tripod or a steady-cam are almost necessities for video that is showing scenery. Any camera movement will distract to the point of distraction. If there is something exciting going on then some camera movement is OK. Run and gun.





Old Dude
avatar Re: Movie Maker Found Guilty
April 07, 2009 09:46AM
mrcondron: A tripod or a steady-cam are almost necessities for video that is showing scenery

ahh, yes, driven to distraction. I think that I should put a Motion Sickness warning on my video, enclose some dramamine.

B
avatar Re: Movie Maker Found Guilty
April 07, 2009 07:16PM
Bee,
The more you have planned things prior to shooting the video the less you have to edit out. The big time pros have everything storyboarded and stick to a very specific plan. Guys like me have a vague idea but shoot a lot of stuff that causes cringing during editing. "What was I thinking when I shot this crap?" I try hard to have an idea about what I want but it still runs about 1 minute kept vs 10 minutes shot. Even then when a year or two later I look at stuff that has been put on a DVD I groan.

I hiked the West Highland Way in Scotland a few years ago and had over 10 hours of tape. It edited down to 30 minutes and I think it's still boring.

The still photographers get all upset if you do anything except dodge and burn. Those cretins.





Old Dude
avatar Re: Movie Maker Found Guilty
April 07, 2009 07:53PM
mrcondron: >I hiked the West Highland Way in Scotland a few years ago and had over 10 hours of tape. It edited down to 30 minutes and I think it's still boring.<

Is there a 'more is better' credo? Is it easy to chop things out? My photo buddy offered me one of his video cameras, but I shied away, maybe I might give it a try again in May with a little more clarified this time (like bringing a tripod for the shorter day hikes).

mrcondron: >The still photographers get all upset if you do anything except dodge and burn. Those cretins.<

THAT has me rolling in the aisles!! My buddy just rants and raves when he sees the chop job I do to pix (I took my first uncropped picture only two months ago)

B
avatar Re: Movie Maker Found Guilty
April 07, 2009 09:17PM
Bee,
When editing you have to watch the tape in real time, over and over and over ad infinitum until you think you have all the bad stuff cut. Then the transitions have to be put in. Then the audio has to be made whole. The more planning upfront the less time in post production.

It's easy to cut stuff out. Just mark it and hit the cut button. But it's the watching it over and over.....to find the good stuff. The rule of thumb is one hour of editing for one minute of bearable product.

Make a plan.





Old Dude
avatar Re: Movie Maker Found Guilty
April 07, 2009 11:44PM
mrcondron wrote:

> When editing you have to watch the tape

Tape?

avatar Re: Movie Maker Found Guilty
April 08, 2009 07:40AM
Shot, clip, tape, movie, film, sequence, scene, file, reel, whatever, you still have to watch it over and over....





Old Dude
avatar Re: Movie Maker Found Guilty
April 07, 2009 08:19PM
mrcondron wrote:

I try hard to have an idea about what I want
> but it still runs about 1 minute kept vs 10 minutes shot. Even
> then when a year or two later I look at stuff that has been
> put on a DVD I groan.
>

I second Mike's comments. There's another help I have with editing, and that's my wife. She doesn't hold back giving a negative comment that comes to mind. After I've edited out what I think needs to be cut, I put the best of what remains on a DVD and show it to her. It's not unusual that another clip or two get cut...or even revamp the entire thing!

avatar Re: Movie Maker Found Guilty
April 07, 2009 05:08PM
mrcondron wrote:

> A tripod or a steady-cam are almost necessities for video that
> is showing scenery. Any camera movement will distract to the
> point of distraction. If there is something exciting going on
> then some camera movement is OK. Run and gun.
>

Yes! There are programs that can help with shaky video, but only to a point. I always use a tripod, but my tripod has limitations because I'm not going to carry a 10lb tripod all over the sierra. So at times I end up with a pan that's not completely smooth (though I do shoot multiple times to get the very best I can).

So I use programs in attempt to improve those that need it. I do find that they have limitations, and at times they degrade the resolution, but not always. Here is a link to a free program, called "deshaker". http://www.guthspot.se/video/deshaker.htm

Hope it helps.

avatar Re: Movie Maker Found Guilty
April 07, 2009 07:30AM
http://www.onnetworks.com/videos/beautiful-places-in-hd/yosemite-north-dome

This guy has Mt. Tallac too.

Me. I'd prefer to hike it myself and see with my own eyeballs... smiling smiley
My dad... well.. the schmo didn't even make it to Mirror Lake!
ok... ya ya ya... he's old... but cmon! I guess he got sick of me telling
him it was just around the corner! And then he reads Mirror Lake
"disappears"/doesn't exist. Now everywhere we go he asks if I'm
taking him to "Mirror Lake". parents!
O, right... I was gonna say my mom would buy it.
smiling smiley
avatar Re: Movie Maker Found Guilty
April 08, 2009 06:15AM
>Tape?

Bee Cavewoman.
Mike Caveman.

Still waiting for that vid of HD from Turlock to show up on scoobydoobyoutooby.
avatar Re: Movie Maker Found Guilty
April 08, 2009 07:42AM
I thought that whole thing had been put to rest.





Old Dude
avatar Re: Movie Maker Found Guilty
April 08, 2009 08:16AM
bill-e-g: >Tape?

Bee Cavewoman.
Mike Caveman.

The T-Rex is good eating this time of year...pass the torch if you will..

B
avatar Re: Movie Maker Found Guilty
April 08, 2009 12:28PM
Well here is a shot taken from Turlock with my new ultra-10,000Xtele lens with total haze reduction and infinite depth of field. Sorry but the silo didn't stay in the frame.







Old Dude
avatar Re: Movie Maker Found Guilty
April 08, 2009 05:17PM
mrcondron: Well here is a shot taken from Turlock with my new ultra-10,000Xtele lens with total haze reduction and infinite depth of field. Sorry but the silo didn't stay in the frame.

The best! I got it, I laughed, and I did not need a dictionary for translation..!

B
avatar Re: Movie Maker Found Guilty
April 08, 2009 05:42PM
Bee wrote:

> The best! I got it, I laughed, and I did not need a dictionary
> for translation..!

When the rain started here last night the petrichor was strong. Made me fell good.

avatar Re: Movie Maker Found Guilty
April 08, 2009 05:47PM
Eeek: >When the rain started here last night the petrichor was strong. <

*PAUSE* Regular programming will return in a few minutes....(while I look up the **** word)

petrichor: The scent of rain on dry earth

In spite of myself and my useless dictionary...I LOVE this word. (I wish I could use this word without getting laughed at)

eeeeeK: >Made me fell good.<

I HOPE YOU DIDN'T HURT YOURSELF!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


B



Post Edited (04-08-09 17:58)



The body betrays and the weather conspires, hopefully, not on the same day.
avatar Re: Movie Maker Found Guilty
April 08, 2009 07:01PM
Bee wrote:

> Eeek: >When the rain started here last night the petrichor was
> strong. <
>
> *PAUSE* Regular programming will return in a few
> minutes....(while I look up the **** word)

Made you look!

> petrichor: The scent of rain on dry earth
>
> In spite of myself and my useless dictionary...I LOVE this
> word. (I wish I could use this word without getting laughed
> at)

Use it anyway. Maybe it'll catch on.

> eeeeeK: >Made me fell good.<
>
> I HOPE YOU DIDN'T HURT YOURSELF!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Damn these stupid fingers!

avatar Re: Movie Maker Found Guilty
April 08, 2009 08:11PM
eeeek: Damn these stupid fingers!

Gotcha!

B
avatar Re: Movie Maker Found Guilty
April 08, 2009 08:18PM
Bee wrote:

> eeeek: Damn these stupid fingers!
>
> Gotcha!

Never claimed to always type what my brain thinks.



avatar Re: Movie Maker Found Guilty
April 08, 2009 08:38PM
eeeeek: Never claimed to always type what my brain thinks.

Hopefully, my brain isn't thinking what my fingers are typing most of the time, either winking smiley

B
avatar Re: Movie Maker Found Guilty
April 08, 2009 07:49PM
Wow! Nice shot MIke!


P.S. Don't let them bother you, I use digital tape, too. smiling smiley



Post Edited (04-08-09 19:51)
Re: Movie Maker Found Guilty
April 08, 2009 02:13PM
FUNNY! I was gonna do the same thing.

After hiking Buena Vista to Eagle Peak (west of Foresta) it is incredibly
lucky that you can see HD from Central Valley. I almost changed my mind
seeing HD, etc. from there.
Sorry, only registered users may post in this forum.

Click here to login