[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]

Resend: Ron Rennie Re: (meteorobs) Tape Recorders

<< start of forwarded material >>

>Date: Fri, 29 Nov 1996 20:19:51 -0800 (PST)
>To: meteorobs@latradedot com
>From: Ron Rennie <astron@earthlinkdot net>
>Subject: Re: (meteorobs) Tape Recorders
>
>At 08:11 PM 11/21/96 +0100, you wrote:
>>Hi Ron
>>
>>> approach.  My plan was to use my video camera and run it continuously
>>> throughout the session to record the time only on the video track.  I could
>>> then talk to it and I would have an audio record of my commentry and a video
>>> record of the exact time of my comments.  I did discuss this with Bob who
>>> pointed out that it would be a long and boring process transcribing these
>>> tapes, which is true.  With a little practice it should be possible to "Fast
>>> Forward" between comments and speed up the process.  Thinking this a little
>>> further as I type, you could switch the camera  On and Off while recording,
>>> just as with a regular tape recorder.  In fact my camera has a remote
>>> control, which would make that task easier.   It would still record the
>>> correct time on the video.
>>
>>I think that the main reason for you suggesting the use of a camcorder is
>>the fact, that such a camera does automatically record the time very
>>accurately. This is true, but you have to consider certain serious
>>disadvantages:
>>You mentioned already the problems with the camera batteries, temperature,
>>etc., but there are other things you need to consider, too:
>>You need to copy the video tapes on audio tapes first, if you want to'
>>inspect' the tape using fast forward. That is because tape recorders give
>>a sound during fast forward, whereas camcorders or VCRs don't. If you
>>want to switch the camcorder on and off, you always have to wait a little,
>>since it takes a second or two until the record stars. So you may easily
>>miss the beginning of your comments.
>>By then the system is that complicated (and expensive), that it doesn't
>>have anymore advantages over a simple tape recorder. In fact, there are
>>tapes recorders, which do automatically store the time (with minute
>>accuracy). They are almost perfectly that's what we need ... if they would
>>not needeach time  at least a record of ~30s to store the time on the
>>tape.
>>I've used the method you're suggesting on other occasions (during gracing
>>lunar occultations, for example), but I find a tape recorder much easier
>>to handle for meteor observation. In fact, due to our video system I
>>often record the audio signals in parallel, but I would not try to
>>use that for the analysis of my visual observations. There is one
>>exception: I've used the recordings for the accurate timing of fireballs.
>>Sirko
>>
>>**************************************************************************
>>*           Sirko Molau             *                    __              *
>>*          Str.246 Nr.16            *             " 2B v 2B "            *
>>*          D-13086 Berlin           *                                    *
>>*   smo@informatik.tu-chemnitzdot de   *                       Shakespeare  *
>>*   http://www.tu-chemnitzdot de/~smo  *                                    *
>>**************************************************************************
>>
>Hi Sirko
>
>Thank you for your comments regarding using my video camera as an audio
>recorder with a built in clock.  You got me thinking again, and that's
>always dangerous.  I remembered reading in the manual for the camcorder
>about an index marker feature.  Well, I have just checked that out and I
>think it will work out better than originally anticipated.
>
>The idea is that it will put index markers along the tape and will fast
>forward up to them and then go to normal play speed.  I have never used this
>feature but I guess it is intended for use when using the camcorder for
>crude editing.  I just tried it out by setting the camera on record with all
>the displays showing.  These include a clock which records to the second
>(which I would set to UT) and a timer which shows RCTC.  I laid down an
>audio track by counting down the second and minutes for about five minutes.
>After a couple of dummy runs I found the best way to do this and made a
>serious attempt for a five minute recording.   I then rewound the tape and
>started it on play, pressed the "Index " button,  (which brought up an
>"Index Scan" display on the monitor) and pressed the "Fast Forward" button.
>The camcorder then fast forwarded to the first index mark and went into
>"Play" mode, in which my counting was audible.  After twelve seconds it
>automatically fast forwarded to the next index mark, and so on.  With a
>little practice this would seem to be a neat and speedy  way to do it, if
>you can make your meteor observation comment in twelve seconds.  Otherwise
>the tape would fast forward and you would miss some of the commentary, in
>which case it  would be necessary to switch to "Play" each time when
>transribing the comments.  If the meteors come fast and furious you would
>probably have to do that anyway, as there wouldn't be enough time to write
>down the notes.
>
>In the field, operation should be fairly simple, even in the cold when
>batteries become a problem.  I would keep the camcoder warm in the sleeping
>bag beside me, positioned so that I can use the IR remote control
>unobstructed. I would use my battery pack belt  which will give me more than
>two hours of operation.  I would have my car nearby with an extension cord,
>so that I can recharge the batteries, as they run down, without getting out
>of the sleeping bag. Each Hi8 tape cassette is good for two hours, and they
>are quick and easy to change.  All I need now is somebody to keep me
>supplied with hotdogs and coffee!   Seriously though, I feel that with a
>little practice and experience it may work out to be a very practical way to
>record meteors.
>
>There is of course the other problem you mentioned; expense.  This is a
>$1900 camera, but I already have it and this use would help to justify its
>expens.  But I wouldn't buy one just to count meteors.  The next step on
>from this setup would also be a great expense.  That would be an image
>intensifier to image the actual meteor as I am recording its data, but then
>all the data on the screen would be an annoyance so then a second camcorder
>would be required to record it separately.  Oh, where do you stop!
>
>Any comments would be appreciated.
>
>Ron
<< end of forwarded material >>
Follow-Ups: