paulears

Oh yes, ⅔" mount lenses are on ebay in all sorts of ages and prices all the time. The only snag is that they too are designed for the optical system of the day - so ⅔" lenses may well fit on newer cameras, but the limitations of the glass resolution can be awkward. My studio has 3 JVC HD cameras - I have my old SD very expensive lenses, and a couple have built in 2X converters. I can tale off the standard and wide angle HD lenses and put the old mega expensive lenses from the 90s on the modern camera, and it effectively makes the lens have a VERY long focal length. If I do something like a parachute video, from the ground I can see the jumpers exit nearly full frame. However, on a white cloud background, around the edges of the dark objects in the frame are coloured artefacts. Like you see when trying to project gobos on older lighting gear with rougher lenses - coloured fringing. For the few times I use these lenses I get away with it. The cost of HD long focal length lenses is crazy. I'd definitely think about camera and lens separately if you sell, because the cameras are probably not a draw at all, but you could get interest on the glass - depending on what you actually have.

The valuable bit is the glass. The cameras, frankly are just too old. SD and composite video limits any form of connectivity with modern gear. A few people still collect 2/3" glass

Short shotguns are nowhere as narrow as people often think. Critically, it's the rejection at the rear that's important, so making sure the rear faces the unwanted sound sources is good. You might discover from the lighting bar position, that the stage sound creeps into the side lobes. Maybe you could hire/borrow some different types - Sennheiser 416, Audio technical (the longer and shorter ones) and simply try them out and record their output to assess. They might work better lower down, so the rear faces the amps and drums, PA etc. Don't expect too much, they'll be much better than boundaries - but the usual caveats apply - unless they sing out, it doesn't work that well.

The Twins FX - but as Tom says, radio gear is not cheap, plus the motors and control. That said - your local model aircraft club have the radio experience, and the rest depends on the size. How big is it? Second hand or death bed disabled scooters are great sources of batteries, wheels and drive components. If it's much smaller then model racing clubs who race those big wheel things might work, like robot wars.

Still less than a happy meal?

For me, HDMI and HDMI converted to SDI is always a punt. Even worse, so many computer monitors are locked to very precise frame rates, and TV's that have HDMI inputs are much better at producing a picture. You grab a camera, it says 1980x1080 and you discover it has SDI out, so grab the blackmagic converter and stuff a short (because they're more reliable than long)HDMI cable in to the monitor, and get a framerate mismatch message, or worse, nothing. You plug a camera with HDMI out into a monitor with HDMI and it doesn't work - maybe 1080i not p, or maybe the length of the HDMI is just a tad too long? I've never found the answer, but it's infuriating.

Over the panto season I made a series of youtube videos, and I picked one to share - somebody asked me what I put in my show reports. Might be interesting to newcomers, and old lags too!

Over the panto season I made a series of youtube videos, and I picked one to share - somebody asked me what I put in my show reports. Might be interesting to newcomers, and lags too!

'Takes' sort of works, but we'd also use clips - but using your example, if I'd recorded them I'd probably describe them as Capture 1 close, capture 1 medium or capture 1 distant, or capture 1 position A etc. Describing them I would be happy with "listening to clip 3, distant perspective" or Clip 14, position 6 ..." Personally, I'd probably use clip or capture almost interchangeably In my head, I'd use 'take' for clips that are re-recorded over and over again - so take 3 would be the third attempt. I have 'capture' more as a good word for a process, so the microphone in the recorder would capture the sound in the room, and stick into a number of audio clips that can be collated and used later? So for me 'capture' would be really a verb? Does that help? Other may well have other terms they'd use. As it's all digital nowadays a file could be a good description, but I don't think I'd use in in your context? 'Takes' sort of works, but we'd also use clips - but using your example, if I'd recorded them I'd probably describe them as Capture 1 close, capture 1 medium or capture 1 distant, or capture 1 position A etc. Describing them I would be happy with "listening to clip 3, distant perspective" or Clip 14, position 6 ..." Personally, I'd probably use clip or capture almost interchangeably In my head, I'd use 'take' for clips that are re-recorded over and over again - so take 3 would be the third attempt. I have 'capture' more as a good word for a process, so the microphone in the recorder would capture the sound in the room, and stick into a number of audio clips that can be collated and used later? So for me 'capture' would be really a verb? Does that help? Other may well have other terms they'd use. As it's all digital nowadays a file could be a good description, but I don't think I'd use in in your context?

None of my expensive or cheap LED gear flickers - a thing of the past really. Garden or workshop floods are hardly that useful for event lighting - but most of those are flicker proof on video now.

None of my expensive or cheap LED gear flickers - a thing of the past really. Garden or workshop floods are hardly that useful for event lighting - but most of those are flicker proof on video now.

I guess a Lee swatchbook and thumb through or an RGB LED and white screen and experiment.

Yep - get the other things, but such a shame that theatre is one of the three most impossible areas for young people to work in. I even tried to enable it for a university student, and discovered that while old enough to be outside the Childrens Act blanket ban, the insurance in place did know about the legal issue and had determined that any student required serious paperwork with responsible persons having to supervise and sign off - and I could not, as a visitor too, be that person. Clearly theatres are far too risky places, full of iniquity and danger.

Pantone Reflex Blue seems to be the colour, but apparently this is very difficult to match to both RGB LED or Gel colours as it's one of those colours that isn't quite what is seems and attempts to create it only get close. Just one of the colours that works as subtractive in reflection, but doesn't work by illumination. Like Lee 126 violet - where to the eye the colour of the gel is obvious but when you look through it red and yellow get sort of reversed. I suspect it will be a torch and swatch book - because the look up calculators fail on this one - producing a purple that is not in the flag version.

Sadly, this will probably be a non-starter in any theatre who know the law. There are three places where it is illegal for people in school, so up to 16, to work. Abatoirs - I get this one Nightclubs - this too really, but Theatres. My local theatre were approached by the council for a work experience placement. I mentioned the law, they laughed and said don't worry - but then in five minutes, discovered it was accurate. It even applies to amateur theatre - unless chaperones and licences are done. Of course you might find somewhere where they don't know ....... but what if there's an accident? TV is OK, but theatres are on th naughty list.