Page 01.pub - Institute of Videography

Industry NewsLocal IOV News Continued...East Anglia &A1 CorridorBy Bill PlattsLast night weheld our Area 7meeting inPeterboroughand had a verygood attendance- it was the best and most livelymeeting in a long while. It wasgood to see a member of theExecutive there in the form ofRobert Scarfe and we freelyexchanged ideas with him.Our meeting had two agendas:1). to compare the Sony HDVcamera with the JVC HDV camera,and 2). to discuss the proposedWhite Paper.Item 1. In order to comparethe two cameras we were provided(by Kevin O’Malley of JVC) with aHD player/recorder, a JVC GY-HD100 HD camera and a JVC20S60BU flat screen. GeorgeBinns brought in the new HD SonyHVR-Z1E camcorder for directcomparison. Luckily, we also hadthe benefit of Jim Panks’ expertisewho recently wrote the articles onthe JVC camcorder for Focusmagazine.The Sony camera is aninterlaced system with an overallresolution of 1080 lines and theJVC camera is a 720 lineprogressive system. This meansthat it shoots complete frames thatare non-interlaced.The footage from the Sony wasexcellent. It was sharp, had goodcolour saturation and there waslittle distortion due to movement.The footage we filmed with the JVCcamera was also excellent and withgood saturation and sharp edges.However, I felt that the interlacingon the Sony provided a less jerkyimage where movement wasconcerned.The Sony viewfinder was incolour only whilst the JVC had anoption of switching its viewfinderinto black and white which enabledan easy focus option.The JVC camera was comfortableon the shoulder and for me it feltright. The Sony camera was notdesigned to be shoulder mounted -the only option for the customer isto buy an expensive shouldermount which I understand is notvery comfortable.If I was to choose my idealcamera it would be a hybrid of thetwo – the Sony workings inside aJVC body!Item 2. The White Paper. Wehad a long discussion about thisand we would offer this feedbackto the Executive:a). Overall it is a good ideathat members attend courses inorder to build up their skill leveland at the same time maintaintheir awareness in importantthings such as Health & Safety. Itwas thought that these elementsshould be mandatory for allmembers and should be providedby the IOV as seminars.This could be located at one ortwo sites in the UK for members toattend and gain a ‘tick in the box’.These courses could be funded inone of two ways – either by raisingthe cost of the membership, and ineffect subsidising the courses, orby not raising the membership costbut charging the going rate for thecourses.b). In respect of the coursesit was felt that the skills levelsinstructors would benefit from alittle training themselves. Ifthese courses are to representsomething in terms ofqualifications, the lecturersshould be independently auditedby external education experts (ineffect an OFSTED). This wouldraise standards and allow theinstructors to benefit fromprofessional feedback.c). The IOV logo should bemade available to all and the term‘Non Qualified’ dropped as it is anoffensive title. The logo could bemade available as a bare logo forthe current non-qualified (needs tobe re-named) members with theusual M.M.Inst.V. and F.Inst.V.additions for those who havequalified. This would serve to gainadditional publicity for the IOV andraise the profile of the Institute.d). Finally, the IOV shouldconsider using the web in the formof web casts to produce educationvideos to enable its members tobecome better informed aboutimportant issues such as H&S, etc.This report is meant as adiscussion point and not as a gripe,however, we do think there aresome important points which weurge management to consider. 12 March 2006 Focus Magazine www.iov.com