From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

I appreciate the feedback I've been getting here, but perhaps you Richard
and many others do not understand, that I am by no means a professional in this field. I have had a love for video, but my love is just a pleasure. Although I have worked for newspapers, and at organizations where it was my job to take pictures, none of these were as a "professional" photographer.
But then again not everyone taking pictures for newspapers, or whatever are professional. And besides these were still photo jobs. Someone else was
doing the video in each of these jobs, as I have a bit more experience in
the still photo area. But then again I am not a professional.

I do believe my standards, and your standards are very different and this might explain the communication problem we have been having.


Thanks for your help. Especially to you Richard. Its obvious your a video
and audio expert.


John

--
1 Pet 3:15-But sanctify the Lord God[a] in your hearts, and always be ready
to give a defense to everyone who asks you a reason for the hope that is in you, with meekness and fear
CERM-Church Education Resource Ministries
Founder and director
http://johnw.freeshell.org/bible


--- Synchronet 3.18b-Win32 NewsLink 1.113

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

"Professional" is a matter of attitude rather than pay or whether one
does it for a source of income. The professional is committed to
doing the job as right as it can be done within the limitations of
assets he or she has available with which to do it. To put it the way
a boss of mine expressed her business philosophy many years ago "Good
enough, never is!"


On Sun, 16 Apr 2006 21:29:08 -0700, "Bible John"
<johnw_94020@yahoo.com> wrote:

I appreciate the feedback I've been getting here, but perhaps you Richard >and many others do not understand, that I am by no means a professional in >this field. I have had a love for video, but my love is just a pleasure. >Although I have worked for newspapers, and at organizations where it was my >job to take pictures, none of these were as a "professional" photographer. >But then again not everyone taking pictures for newspapers, or whatever are >professional. And besides these were still photo jobs. Someone else was >doing the video in each of these jobs, as I have a bit more experience in >the still photo area. But then again I am not a professional.

I do believe my standards, and your standards are very different and this >might explain the communication problem we have been having.

Thanks for your help. Especially to you Richard. Its obvious your a video >and audio expert.

John

--- Synchronet 3.18b-Win32 NewsLink 1.113

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

Steve House wrote:

"Professional" is a matter of attitude rather than pay or whether one
does it for a source of income.

Perhaps in your mind. But you should buy a dictionary someday.
--- Synchronet 3.18b-Win32 NewsLink 1.113

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

I have several, thank you very much, and I even know how to read them.
Would you be happier with the phrase "professional approach?"

S

On Mon, 17 Apr 2006 13:49:43 GMT, Phil Wheeler <w6tuh-ng7@yahoo.com>
wrote:

Steve House wrote:

"Professional" is a matter of attitude rather than pay or whether one
does it for a source of income.

Perhaps in your mind. But you should buy a dictionary someday.

--- Synchronet 3.18b-Win32 NewsLink 1.113

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

And by the way, one of my dictionaries gives the following as one of
the definitions for the word "professional:"
...
3. very competent: showing a high degree of skill or competence


S
On Mon, 17 Apr 2006 13:49:43 GMT, Phil Wheeler <w6tuh-ng7@yahoo.com>
wrote:

Steve House wrote:

"Professional" is a matter of attitude rather than pay or whether one
does it for a source of income.

Perhaps in your mind. But you should buy a dictionary someday.

--- Synchronet 3.18b-Win32 NewsLink 1.113

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system


"Phil Wheeler" <w6tuh-ng7@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:X1N0g.4386$543.673@tornado.socal.rr.com...

Steve House wrote:

"Professional" is a matter of attitude rather than pay or whether one
does it for a source of income.

Perhaps in your mind. But you should buy a dictionary someday.

The term is used more than one way. To some it only means that
you get paid (hopefully well paid) to do what you do, but it has little
do with the quality of your work, or what kind of attitude you have.
Sadly a lot of union people have this perspective. Non-union people
usually don't last very long with this approach.

While others think of it in the context of professionalism, and feel
that it is all about doing quality work, and having a good work
attitude and ethic. You don't even have to make any money to
be professional in the way you accomplish work you do.

The best of both worlds is when you can put the two together.

David


--- Synchronet 3.18b-Win32 NewsLink 1.113

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

Absolutely: On that I can agree with what you said 100%, Steve :)

Steve House wrote:

I have several, thank you very much, and I even know how to read them.
Would you be happier with the phrase "professional approach?"

S

On Mon, 17 Apr 2006 13:49:43 GMT, Phil Wheeler <w6tuh-ng7@yahoo.com>
wrote:

Steve House wrote:

"Professional" is a matter of attitude rather than pay or whether one >>>does it for a source of income.

Perhaps in your mind. But you should buy a dictionary someday.

--- Synchronet 3.18b-Win32 NewsLink 1.113

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system


"Bible John" <johnw_94020@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:124669ikefad1e@corp.supernews.com...

I appreciate the feedback I've been getting here, but perhaps you Richard >and many others do not understand, that I am by no means a professional in >this field. I have had a love for video, but my love is just a pleasure.

I'm not a professional -- I'm strictly an amateur. I shoot and edit video
for my own pleasure, and my audience is limited to my wife, my in-laws, and
a couple of friends who are kind enough to pretend an interest in the travel videos that I shoot. As an amateur, I'm concerned with getting the most bang-for-the-buck -- I want the best video quality for the least investment
of dollars. In the present market, miniDV camcorders are the least
expensive, and also offer the best quality when compared to other consumer formats. Additionally, a miniDV camcorder with AV-inputs and pass-through
can do real-time digitalization of analog video as well, or better, than any comparably-priced consumer capture card.

I looked at a couple of your videos on your website. These entailed
editing, as well as some elementary compositing (adding titles uses compositing). Though what I do is a little more advanced than your videos, it's comparable in scope -- I shoot travel videos, edit them and add titles
(I also do the occassional special effect, add soundtracks, match color, correct exposure, stabilize, incorporate digital stills, etc.). It is far easier to keep my video all-digital, much easier to manipulate it without image degradation, and and the (technical) quality at any point in the process, whether source or final master, is far, far better than what you
can accomplish using an analogue machine.

MiniDV was invented as an amateur format (DVCAM was the pro equivalent). However, miniDV is so robust that it has been used in professional applications -- there are Hollywood-released feature films that were shot on miniDV, the BBC uses miniDV camera for ENG (Electronic News Gathering), and many network reality television programs are shot on miniDV.

At this point, it makes no sense for an amateur to use any amateur format EXCEPT miniDV.

Although I have worked for newspapers, and at organizations where it was
my job to take pictures, none of these were as a "professional" photographer. But then again not everyone taking pictures for newspapers,
or whatever are professional. And besides these were still photo jobs. Someone else was doing the video in each of these jobs, as I have a bit
more experience in the still photo area. But then again I am not a professional.

I do believe my standards, and your standards are very different and this might explain the communication problem we have been having.

Thanks for your help. Especially to you Richard. Its obvious your a video and audio expert.

John

--
1 Pet 3:15-But sanctify the Lord God[a] in your hearts, and always be
ready to give a defense to everyone who asks you a reason for the hope
that is in you, with meekness and fear
CERM-Church Education Resource Ministries
Founder and director
http://johnw.freeshell.org/bible

--- Synchronet 3.18b-Win32 NewsLink 1.113

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

The videos on the site were done by my friend. But the original footage was in analog. My friend is attached to his Amiga and video toaster and he does not want to leave the platform. So for him a video capture card is his
life.

http://johnw.freeshell.org/JWPaul.com

--
1 Pet 3:15-But sanctify the Lord God[a] in your hearts, and always be ready
to give a defense to everyone who asks you a reason for the hope that is in you, with meekness and fear
CERM-Church Education Resource Ministries
Founder and director
http://johnw.freeshell.org/bible
"PTravel" <ptravel@ruyitang.com> wrote in message news:4ahu03Ft79utU1@individual.net...

"Bible John" <johnw_94020@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:124669ikefad1e@corp.supernews.com...

I appreciate the feedback I've been getting here, but perhaps you Richard >>and many others do not understand, that I am by no means a professional in >>this field. I have had a love for video, but my love is just a pleasure.

I'm not a professional -- I'm strictly an amateur. I shoot and edit video for my own pleasure, and my audience is limited to my wife, my in-laws,
and a couple of friends who are kind enough to pretend an interest in the travel videos that I shoot. As an amateur, I'm concerned with getting the most bang-for-the-buck -- I want the best video quality for the least investment of dollars. In the present market, miniDV camcorders are the least expensive, and also offer the best quality when compared to other consumer formats. Additionally, a miniDV camcorder with AV-inputs and pass-through can do real-time digitalization of analog video as well, or better, than any comparably-priced consumer capture card.

I looked at a couple of your videos on your website. These entailed editing, as well as some elementary compositing (adding titles uses compositing). Though what I do is a little more advanced than your
videos, it's comparable in scope -- I shoot travel videos, edit them and
add titles (I also do the occassional special effect, add soundtracks,
match color, correct exposure, stabilize, incorporate digital stills,
etc.). It is far easier to keep my video all-digital, much easier to manipulate it without image degradation, and and the (technical) quality
at any point in the process, whether source or final master, is far, far better than what you can accomplish using an analogue machine.

MiniDV was invented as an amateur format (DVCAM was the pro equivalent). However, miniDV is so robust that it has been used in professional applications -- there are Hollywood-released feature films that were shot
on miniDV, the BBC uses miniDV camera for ENG (Electronic News Gathering), and many network reality television programs are shot on miniDV.

At this point, it makes no sense for an amateur to use any amateur format EXCEPT miniDV.

Although I have worked for newspapers, and at organizations where it was
my job to take pictures, none of these were as a "professional"
photographer. But then again not everyone taking pictures for newspapers, >> or whatever are professional. And besides these were still photo jobs.
Someone else was doing the video in each of these jobs, as I have a bit
more experience in the still photo area. But then again I am not a
professional.

I do believe my standards, and your standards are very different and this >> might explain the communication problem we have been having.


Thanks for your help. Especially to you Richard. Its obvious your a
video and audio expert.


John

--
1 Pet 3:15-But sanctify the Lord God[a] in your hearts, and always be
ready to give a defense to everyone who asks you a reason for the hope
that is in you, with meekness and fear
CERM-Church Education Resource Ministries
Founder and director
http://johnw.freeshell.org/bible

--- Synchronet 3.18b-Win32 NewsLink 1.113

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system


"Bible John" <johnw_94020@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:1247h0jam3uepf8@corp.supernews.com...

The videos on the site were done by my friend. But the original footage
was in analog. My friend is attached to his Amiga and video toaster and he does not want to leave the platform. So for him a video capture card is
his life.

Right. Except that he could also capture his analog video through a miniDV camcorder with pass-through -- they'll digitize analog video on the fly.

http://johnw.freeshell.org/JWPaul.com

--
1 Pet 3:15-But sanctify the Lord God[a] in your hearts, and always be
ready to give a defense to everyone who asks you a reason for the hope
that is in you, with meekness and fear
CERM-Church Education Resource Ministries
Founder and director
http://johnw.freeshell.org/bible
"PTravel" <ptravel@ruyitang.com> wrote in message news:4ahu03Ft79utU1@individual.net...

"Bible John" <johnw_94020@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:124669ikefad1e@corp.supernews.com...

I appreciate the feedback I've been getting here, but perhaps you Richard >>>and many others do not understand, that I am by no means a professional >>>in this field. I have had a love for video, but my love is just a >>>pleasure.

I'm not a professional -- I'm strictly an amateur. I shoot and edit
video for my own pleasure, and my audience is limited to my wife, my
in-laws, and a couple of friends who are kind enough to pretend an
interest in the travel videos that I shoot. As an amateur, I'm concerned >> with getting the most bang-for-the-buck -- I want the best video quality
for the least investment of dollars. In the present market, miniDV
camcorders are the least expensive, and also offer the best quality when
compared to other consumer formats. Additionally, a miniDV camcorder
with AV-inputs and pass-through can do real-time digitalization of analog >> video as well, or better, than any comparably-priced consumer capture
card.

I looked at a couple of your videos on your website. These entailed
editing, as well as some elementary compositing (adding titles uses
compositing). Though what I do is a little more advanced than your
videos, it's comparable in scope -- I shoot travel videos, edit them and
add titles (I also do the occassional special effect, add soundtracks,
match color, correct exposure, stabilize, incorporate digital stills,
etc.). It is far easier to keep my video all-digital, much easier to
manipulate it without image degradation, and and the (technical) quality
at any point in the process, whether source or final master, is far, far
better than what you can accomplish using an analogue machine.

MiniDV was invented as an amateur format (DVCAM was the pro equivalent).
However, miniDV is so robust that it has been used in professional
applications -- there are Hollywood-released feature films that were shot >> on miniDV, the BBC uses miniDV camera for ENG (Electronic News
Gathering), and many network reality television programs are shot on
miniDV.

At this point, it makes no sense for an amateur to use any amateur format >> EXCEPT miniDV.

Although I have worked for newspapers, and at organizations where it was >>> my job to take pictures, none of these were as a "professional"
photographer. But then again not everyone taking pictures for
newspapers, or whatever are professional. And besides these were still
photo jobs. Someone else was doing the video in each of these jobs, as I >>> have a bit more experience in the still photo area. But then again I am >>> not a professional.

I do believe my standards, and your standards are very different and
this might explain the communication problem we have been having.


Thanks for your help. Especially to you Richard. Its obvious your a
video and audio expert.


John

--
1 Pet 3:15-But sanctify the Lord God[a] in your hearts, and always be
ready to give a defense to everyone who asks you a reason for the hope
that is in you, with meekness and fear
CERM-Church Education Resource Ministries
Founder and director
http://johnw.freeshell.org/bible

--- Synchronet 3.18b-Win32 NewsLink 1.113

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

David McCall wrote:

"Phil Wheeler" <w6tuh-ng7@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:X1N0g.4386$543.673@tornado.socal.rr.com...

Steve House wrote:

"Professional" is a matter of attitude rather than pay or whether one
does it for a source of income.

Perhaps in your mind. But you should buy a dictionary someday.

The term is used more than one way. To some it only means that
you get paid (hopefully well paid) to do what you do, but it has little
do with the quality of your work, or what kind of attitude you have.
Sadly a lot of union people have this perspective. Non-union people
usually don't last very long with this approach.

While others think of it in the context of professionalism, and feel
that it is all about doing quality work, and having a good work
attitude and ethic. You don't even have to make any money to
be professional in the way you accomplish work you do.

The best of both worlds is when you can put the two together.

David

"Profession" came into English in the 13th Century to mean the vows for entering a religious order. It came to mean three privileged
occupations: clergy, lawyers, and doctors. In the 19th and 20th
Centuries, the term was increasingly used to include other skilled occupations. For example, at one time a nurse was hired as a servant.
Now a nurse is expected to know more than the patient, probably more
than the employer, and perhaps more than the doctor, so nursing is a profession.

Late in the 19th Century, as more people were learning skilled
occupations as leisure activities, "professional" came to be used to
exclude amateurs. Along came the Wrights, amateurs whose approach to aeronautics was far more competent than that of renowned professionals
like Langley. To say the Wrights were more than hobbyists, the
criterion for professionalism must be competence and not employment.
--- Synchronet 3.18b-Win32 NewsLink 1.113

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

I like cake

--- Synchronet 3.18b-Win32 NewsLink 1.113

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

In article <o52742d38vudq0408cjdvdh7av6h24mgcb@4ax.com>,
Steve House <filmmaker.remove@this.cogeco.ca> wrote:

"Professional" is a matter of attitude rather than pay or whether one
does it for a source of income.

Without getting into semantics, there seems to be an operational
definition of an app targeted for professional users.

Most of the vendors of pro-tour video gear and software assume that professionals are willing to pay fairly large amounts of money, and
spend fairly large amounts of time, because the target's income depends
on the product. Thus, ease of use often takes a back seat to
functionality.

For example: photoshop has whole courses devoted to it, and buying it
will do severe damage to a thousand dollar bill, but professionals keep
buying it. Their businesses usually produce enough to afford it, when amortized over a year. A home user, on the other hand, is less likely
to just write off that cost as part of doing business.

Put another way, in a pro app, you can assume that a user will spend a
day figuring out your workflow system. In a consumer app, you often
have to assume that they will only spend a few minutes, and thus you
need to get _something_ out of it _right away_.

The prosumer (and I hate that word very much) market seems to focus on
taking the low hanging fruit from the pro apps, and moving them to the consumer apps after some careful UI engineering. Thus, a consumer app
gets a feature beyond most casual users, but with an interface such that
they will not likely screw up their project.

A fraction of the hobbyist market is often _more_ concerned with getting
'it' done right, because it is a labor of love. Another fraction is
less, because they are not burdened with excess time to work.

Scott

--
Scott Ellsworth
scott@alodar.nospam.com
Java and database consulting for the life sciences
--- Synchronet 3.18b-Win32 NewsLink 1.113

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

In article <scott-B4911E.16115917042006@news.west.cox.net>,
Scott Ellsworth <scott@alodar.com> wrote:

In article <o52742d38vudq0408cjdvdh7av6h24mgcb@4ax.com>,
Steve House <filmmaker.remove@this.cogeco.ca> wrote:

"Professional" is a matter of attitude rather than pay or whether one
does it for a source of income.

Without getting into semantics, there seems to be an operational
definition of an app targeted for professional users.

There are only three true professions and thus professionals. They
are doctors, lawyers, and clergy. At least according to one of my Soc
profs. Thus, this whole thread seems to be silly.
--- Synchronet 3.18b-Win32 NewsLink 1.113

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system


"Kurt Ullman" <kurtullman@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:kurtullman-B87E51.20014417042006@news.west.earthlink.net...

In article <scott-B4911E.16115917042006@news.west.cox.net>,
Scott Ellsworth <scott@alodar.com> wrote:

In article <o52742d38vudq0408cjdvdh7av6h24mgcb@4ax.com>,
Steve House <filmmaker.remove@this.cogeco.ca> wrote:

"Professional" is a matter of attitude rather than pay or whether one
does it for a source of income.

Without getting into semantics, there seems to be an operational
definition of an app targeted for professional users.

There are only three true professions and thus professionals. They
are doctors, lawyers, and clergy. At least according to one of my Soc
profs. Thus, this whole thread seems to be silly.

All those girls in the oldest profession are all amatures
as far as you have been able to tell?

David


--- Synchronet 3.18b-Win32 NewsLink 1.113

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

On 2006-04-17, Scott Ellsworth <scott@alodar.com> wrote:

For example: photoshop has whole courses devoted to it, and buying it
will do severe damage to a thousand dollar bill, but professionals keep buying it.

A thousand dollars is nothing for a "professional" app. In the
mid 1990's I was working for a company where I was asked to set
up a system for doing large strain finite element analysis of
rubber engineering components. There were only two packages that
could do what we needed, ABAQUS and MARC. They both cost about
forty thousand dollars.

It is like with business and economy airline tickets. Most
people who are paying their own flights will go economy but
if the company is paying then no one bats an eyelid when they
book a business class ticket costing ten times as much.

Ian

--
Ian Gregory
http://www.zenatode.org.uk/ian/
--- Synchronet 3.18b-Win32 NewsLink 1.113

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

In article <ZeW0g.3395$DH2.794@trndny06>,
"David McCall" <david.mccall@comcast.net> wrote:

"Kurt Ullman" <kurtullman@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:kurtullman-B87E51.20014417042006@news.west.earthlink.net...

In article <scott-B4911E.16115917042006@news.west.cox.net>,
Scott Ellsworth <scott@alodar.com> wrote:

In article <o52742d38vudq0408cjdvdh7av6h24mgcb@4ax.com>,
Steve House <filmmaker.remove@this.cogeco.ca> wrote:

"Professional" is a matter of attitude rather than pay or whether one
does it for a source of income.

Without getting into semantics, there seems to be an operational
definition of an app targeted for professional users.

There are only three true professions and thus professionals. They
are doctors, lawyers, and clergy. At least according to one of my Soc profs. Thus, this whole thread seems to be silly.

All those girls in the oldest profession are all amatures
as far as you have been able to tell?

But it isn't a profession according to my Prof., it is an
occupation. While those in the occupation in question, probably have a
unique body of knowledge, I would submit that automony is what is
lacking. They have no legal standing, they don't have their own
standards of education and training, the practitioner is not relatively
free of lay person evaluation and control. Some would say that most legislation concerned with the profession is shaped by the profession,
but that is probably more related to the high percentage of whores in
the legislature.
--- Synchronet 3.18b-Win32 NewsLink 1.113

From Newsgroup: comp.sys.mac.system

In article <kurtullman-8D6108.08295418042006@news.west.earthlink.net>,
Kurt Ullman <kurtullman@yahoo.com> wrote:

In article <ZeW0g.3395$DH2.794@trndny06>,
"David McCall" <david.mccall@comcast.net> wrote:

"Kurt Ullman" <kurtullman@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:kurtullman-B87E51.20014417042006@news.west.earthlink.net...

In article <scott-B4911E.16115917042006@news.west.cox.net>,
Scott Ellsworth <scott@alodar.com> wrote:

In article <o52742d38vudq0408cjdvdh7av6h24mgcb@4ax.com>,
Steve House <filmmaker.remove@this.cogeco.ca> wrote:

"Professional" is a matter of attitude rather than pay or whether one >> > does it for a source of income.

Without getting into semantics, there seems to be an operational
definition of an app targeted for professional users.

There are only three true professions and thus professionals. They are doctors, lawyers, and clergy. At least according to one of my Soc profs. Thus, this whole thread seems to be silly.

All those girls in the oldest profession are all amatures
as far as you have been able to tell?

But it isn't a profession according to my Prof., it is an occupation. While those in the occupation in question, probably have a unique body of knowledge, I would submit that automony is what is
lacking.

Remind your professor that Professional Engineers have legal standing in
most states, as well as autonomy. For that matter, licensed general contractors have legal standing and control their own profession's
training.

Scott

--
Scott Ellsworth
scott@alodar.nospam.com
Java and database consulting for the life sciences
--- Synchronet 3.18b-Win32 NewsLink 1.113