I have recently been trying to find a decent high-range consumer camcorder that fits my needs, (And budget) when I was pointed to the Canon EOS Rebel T2i video-capable DSLR. Yesterday, I went to BestBuy in Bismarck, and was able to get my hands on one for a while and get a feel for the camera. WOW! I have to say I was impressed! I had taken along a SDHC card so I could bring home some footage for comparison with some other cameras, and I have to say the footage is very impressive. The difference between the T2i and a Canon HF-M31 which I also got some footage from is like night and day... The HF-M31 had terrible motion trailing, and poor stabilization compared to the T2i... I thought I had found something, until I read the following sentences from http://www.digitalcamerainfo.com/content/Canon-Rebel-T2i-Digital-Camera-Review-21736/Video-Features.htm :
"However, the camera does have file size limitations of 4GB or 30 minutes — at which the clip will automatically stop recording when reached. You can begin recording again as a new clip, but you must press the record button to start recording again."
That sounds like an annoying problem, but something that could be dealt with. The real deal breaker came at the bottom of the page when I read:
"The T2i also suffers from overheating issues, which is something we've seen from most video-capable DSLR cameras. It is unclear how long the camera can record video before automatically shutting down due to sensor overheating, but we got an internal temperature increase warning from the T2i after roughly 45 minutes of continual use in video mode. When this warning appears, Canon recommends you stop using video mode on the T2i and let the camera rest, which isn't something you may necessarily be able to do if you're in the middle of an important shoot."
Ouch! That I could not deal with, as I do mostly event recording which often ends up being a couple of hours at least. O well, storing the footage from the T2i would have been a problem anyway, as it records at a bit rate of 47 Mbps! Even the standard definition footage is very large, at 22 Mbps it takes up almost as much room as most HD camcorders do! Needless to say, the quality is very good!
So now I am back to browsing the web for the best camcorders that don't cost a fortune, while trying to save up a fortune to purchase one! :-) The search goes on... Anybody have a good suggestion?
Andrew B.
Wednesday, January 26, 2011
Monday, January 24, 2011
Still time...
Hi all,
Just a quick note to remind any fellow North Dakotans out there that there's still time to get an entry put together for the ND Teen Drivers Traffic Safety Video contest! The deadline isn't until February 11, so there's still time! Check out the contest page here: http://www.ndteendrivers.com/contest/ Be sure to read all of the rules, as you also have to hold some sort of "Traffic Safety Event"... And for any homeschoolers, yes you are eligible! Jacob and I have been working on our entry the past couple of days, and hope to get a little more footage today...
Andrew B.
Just a quick note to remind any fellow North Dakotans out there that there's still time to get an entry put together for the ND Teen Drivers Traffic Safety Video contest! The deadline isn't until February 11, so there's still time! Check out the contest page here: http://www.ndteendrivers.com/contest/ Be sure to read all of the rules, as you also have to hold some sort of "Traffic Safety Event"... And for any homeschoolers, yes you are eligible! Jacob and I have been working on our entry the past couple of days, and hope to get a little more footage today...
Andrew B.
Tuesday, January 18, 2011
If you would like to read...
It seems I have hit a hot topic with my reference to the UNCRC. I have recieved another long comment from Come Out to Play, which due to the limitations of the commenting system of blogger, he has posted over at his blog: http://fairplayforchildren.blogspot.com/2011/01/man-of-courage.html If you would like to read what he has to say, just follow the link above... I will probably be posting another reply to him here in the near future.
Andrew B.
Andrew B.
Sunday, January 16, 2011
In Response...
After my latest post, I received this comment from "Come Out to Play", (hereinafter referred to as COP):
"Hysterical bunk. Yes it helps protect children where it has been signed. (Like every other nation except the US and basket case Somalia who say they will sign when they can start acting as a nation again.) America is not good because it is out of step. You cannot say whether it protects kids in the States or not, you haven't signed it so you don't know. The Convention makes clear that PARENTS have the job of upbringing and guidance - the state is there to support that and to step in when parenting fails. It also says kids have rights like what they believe (a big no-no for some christians, muslims and others) and to be consulted about the things that matter in their lives. Oh, and to be protected against abuse, to have a decent standard of living, the right to a name and registration, to play, to be educated ..... dangerous stuff indeed - if you are someone who wants to run your family like a tyrant. Some seem to argue that children are property, to be commanded and forced at the complete whim of parents, others like me regard the choice to have children as a joyous right, then it becomes responsibility, it becomes holding a life in sacred trust. That is what is behind the Convention, the PRA talk hogwash and spread untruths and myths."
Whew! That's quite a strong comment, but I think it is one which deserves a little analysis. Just exactly who is "Come Out to Play"? If you look at his (I don't know the gender of the commenter, so I use the term "his" figuratively) User Profile, you will see that he is from "Llandestyn : Powys : United Kingdom". I thought so... Someone running down the USA is probably not from here. Also, if you click on the link to go to his web page, it takes you to http://www.fairplayforchildren.org/, an organization dedicated to "Promoting the Child's Right to Play since 1973 in the UK and Worldwide according to the Convention on the Rights of the Child." HA! I found out who you really are! So the big backers of the CRC have to send out their 'COP's in order to silence the opponents of their agenda with a pre-written form to copy and paste onto the blogs of every single objector their trolls can find... It's a little annoying! Anyway, we'll humour 'COP' by responding to his comment below:
"Hysterical bunk." -- That is your opinion, which you are entitled to, at least here in the USA. "Yes it helps protect children where it has been signed." -- Yes, certain portions of it do protect children. Nobody is saying that children should be mistreated. "(Like every other nation except the US and basket case Somalia who say they will sign when they can start acting as a nation again.) America is not good because it is out of step." -- Not good because it is out of step? The whole basis of our country is "Out of step" with the rest of the world, that's what makes our country great! Of course to those of you who can't stand the thought of people thinking for themselves and governing themselves, and want to set up the One World government, being out of step is terrible! "You cannot say whether it protects kids in the States or not, you haven't signed it so you don't know." -- No, I haven't signed it, and don't intend to. Have you signed it? Also, just because you sign something doesn't mean you know everything in it... "The Convention makes clear that PARENTS have the job of upbringing and guidance - the state is there to support that and to step in when parenting fails." Yeah, that's what I'm scared of. The state already has too much power. "It also says kids have rights like what they believe (a big no-no for some christians, muslims and others) and to be consulted about the things that matter in their lives. Oh, and to be protected against abuse, to have a decent standard of living, the right to a name and registration, to play, to be educated" Nobody is arguing that children shouldn't have a name, shouldn't be able to play, shouldn't get an education, etc. What we are arguing is who should have the authority of making those decisions. As long as the parent's aren't abusive, or totally incapable, the responsibility is the parents. Period. As for beliefs, nobody can make anybody believe anything. We can only try to impress others with what we believe. That being said, it is ultimately the responsibility of the parents, not the Government, to decide what children are taught. "..... dangerous stuff indeed - if you are someone who wants to run your family like a tyrant." -- There are already laws on the books to deal with people like that. "Some seem to argue that children are property, to be commanded and forced at the complete whim of parents," -- Who is responsible for raising children? Who pay the bills, take care of them when they get sick, who provide children with shelter and food? Who is ultimately responsible for their actions? Is it not the parents? In a way, children are the property of the parents, in that the parents are completely responsible for them. "others like me regard the choice to have children as a joyous right, then it becomes responsibility, it becomes holding a life in sacred trust." --Good for you! If only the rest of the world took the high calling so seriously... "That is what is behind the Convention, the PRA talk hogwash and spread untruths and myths." -- The PRA is not an organization, it is a proposed amendment to the constitution. If you are referring to ParentalRights.org, all I can say is once again, that is your opinion, which you are entitled to. Until you give me some good hard proof, don't call anybody a liar.
In conclusion, I have to say that 'COP' didn't offer anything more than an opinion, one which holds little bearing on us here in the US of A. He doesn't know any more than we do about how this treatise would actually effect us in America.
What are your thoughts? I would love to hear from you on this topic!
Andrew B.
"Hysterical bunk. Yes it helps protect children where it has been signed. (Like every other nation except the US and basket case Somalia who say they will sign when they can start acting as a nation again.) America is not good because it is out of step. You cannot say whether it protects kids in the States or not, you haven't signed it so you don't know. The Convention makes clear that PARENTS have the job of upbringing and guidance - the state is there to support that and to step in when parenting fails. It also says kids have rights like what they believe (a big no-no for some christians, muslims and others) and to be consulted about the things that matter in their lives. Oh, and to be protected against abuse, to have a decent standard of living, the right to a name and registration, to play, to be educated ..... dangerous stuff indeed - if you are someone who wants to run your family like a tyrant. Some seem to argue that children are property, to be commanded and forced at the complete whim of parents, others like me regard the choice to have children as a joyous right, then it becomes responsibility, it becomes holding a life in sacred trust. That is what is behind the Convention, the PRA talk hogwash and spread untruths and myths."
Whew! That's quite a strong comment, but I think it is one which deserves a little analysis. Just exactly who is "Come Out to Play"? If you look at his (I don't know the gender of the commenter, so I use the term "his" figuratively) User Profile, you will see that he is from "Llandestyn : Powys : United Kingdom". I thought so... Someone running down the USA is probably not from here. Also, if you click on the link to go to his web page, it takes you to http://www.fairplayforchildren.org/, an organization dedicated to "Promoting the Child's Right to Play since 1973 in the UK and Worldwide according to the Convention on the Rights of the Child." HA! I found out who you really are! So the big backers of the CRC have to send out their 'COP's in order to silence the opponents of their agenda with a pre-written form to copy and paste onto the blogs of every single objector their trolls can find... It's a little annoying! Anyway, we'll humour 'COP' by responding to his comment below:
"Hysterical bunk." -- That is your opinion, which you are entitled to, at least here in the USA. "Yes it helps protect children where it has been signed." -- Yes, certain portions of it do protect children. Nobody is saying that children should be mistreated. "(Like every other nation except the US and basket case Somalia who say they will sign when they can start acting as a nation again.) America is not good because it is out of step." -- Not good because it is out of step? The whole basis of our country is "Out of step" with the rest of the world, that's what makes our country great! Of course to those of you who can't stand the thought of people thinking for themselves and governing themselves, and want to set up the One World government, being out of step is terrible! "You cannot say whether it protects kids in the States or not, you haven't signed it so you don't know." -- No, I haven't signed it, and don't intend to. Have you signed it? Also, just because you sign something doesn't mean you know everything in it... "The Convention makes clear that PARENTS have the job of upbringing and guidance - the state is there to support that and to step in when parenting fails." Yeah, that's what I'm scared of. The state already has too much power. "It also says kids have rights like what they believe (a big no-no for some christians, muslims and others) and to be consulted about the things that matter in their lives. Oh, and to be protected against abuse, to have a decent standard of living, the right to a name and registration, to play, to be educated" Nobody is arguing that children shouldn't have a name, shouldn't be able to play, shouldn't get an education, etc. What we are arguing is who should have the authority of making those decisions. As long as the parent's aren't abusive, or totally incapable, the responsibility is the parents. Period. As for beliefs, nobody can make anybody believe anything. We can only try to impress others with what we believe. That being said, it is ultimately the responsibility of the parents, not the Government, to decide what children are taught. "..... dangerous stuff indeed - if you are someone who wants to run your family like a tyrant." -- There are already laws on the books to deal with people like that. "Some seem to argue that children are property, to be commanded and forced at the complete whim of parents," -- Who is responsible for raising children? Who pay the bills, take care of them when they get sick, who provide children with shelter and food? Who is ultimately responsible for their actions? Is it not the parents? In a way, children are the property of the parents, in that the parents are completely responsible for them. "others like me regard the choice to have children as a joyous right, then it becomes responsibility, it becomes holding a life in sacred trust." --Good for you! If only the rest of the world took the high calling so seriously... "That is what is behind the Convention, the PRA talk hogwash and spread untruths and myths." -- The PRA is not an organization, it is a proposed amendment to the constitution. If you are referring to ParentalRights.org, all I can say is once again, that is your opinion, which you are entitled to. Until you give me some good hard proof, don't call anybody a liar.
In conclusion, I have to say that 'COP' didn't offer anything more than an opinion, one which holds little bearing on us here in the US of A. He doesn't know any more than we do about how this treatise would actually effect us in America.
What are your thoughts? I would love to hear from you on this topic!
Andrew B.
Saturday, January 15, 2011
The Child Documentary
Here is the offical trailer for "The Child" -- Read post below for more information. Enjoy!
Another week gone by... -- "The Child"
Where does time always go? I don't know about you, but it sure seems to fly by awful fast for me...
Today we got around to watching the documentary, "The Child". (www.thechilddocumentary.com) I found it very informative, and more than a little unsettling. At our time in history, with the removal of God from the public schools, the proliferation of the Humanist agenda, and the increasing size of Government, etc. the rights of parents to raise their own children the way they want to is in dire danger. The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, UNCRC, is a very dangerous document seeking to give the government more power to dictate to parents what they can and can not do. Although the thought of the "Rights of the Child" sounds like a very harmless concept, the UNCRC doesn't really protect children, it protects the "Right" of the government to interfere for what THEY decide is the "Best interest of the child." Please consider checking out www.parentalrights.org, signing the petition, and signing up to host a screening of "The Child" in your neighborhood.
Best get to bed,
Andrew B.
Today we got around to watching the documentary, "The Child". (www.thechilddocumentary.com) I found it very informative, and more than a little unsettling. At our time in history, with the removal of God from the public schools, the proliferation of the Humanist agenda, and the increasing size of Government, etc. the rights of parents to raise their own children the way they want to is in dire danger. The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, UNCRC, is a very dangerous document seeking to give the government more power to dictate to parents what they can and can not do. Although the thought of the "Rights of the Child" sounds like a very harmless concept, the UNCRC doesn't really protect children, it protects the "Right" of the government to interfere for what THEY decide is the "Best interest of the child." Please consider checking out www.parentalrights.org, signing the petition, and signing up to host a screening of "The Child" in your neighborhood.
Best get to bed,
Andrew B.
Thursday, January 6, 2011
18 Rules for Good Riting
Hello!
I was reading through a book I got from the library, and found this good advice. Thought I would share it with you:
"18 Rules for Good Riting:
Andrew B.
I was reading through a book I got from the library, and found this good advice. Thought I would share it with you:
"18 Rules for Good Riting:
- Each pronoun agrees with their antecedent.
- Just between you and I, case is important.
- Verbs has to agree with their subjects.
- Watch out for irregular verbs which has cropped into our language.
- Don't use no double negatives.
- A writer mustn't shift your point of view.
- When dangling, don't use participles.
- Join clauses good, like a conjunction should.
- Don't use a run-on sentence you got to punctuate it.
- About sentence fragments.
- In letters themes reports articles and stuff like that we use commas to keep a string of items apart.
- Don't use commas, which aren't necessary.
- It's important to use apostrophe's right.
- Don't abbrev.
- Check to see if you any words out.
- In my opinion I think that an author when he is writing shouldn't get into the habit of making use of too many unnecessary words that he does not really need.
- And, of course, there's that old one: Never use a preposition to end a sentence with.
- Last but not least, lay off clichés."
Andrew B.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)