chaset1 ([info]chaset1) wrote,
@ 2009-05-11 03:30:00
Previous Entry  Add to memories!  Tell a Friend  Next Entry
Current location:home
Current mood: annoyed
Current music:mostly silence
Entry tags:bean, camera

Chase and the beanstalk
At least one person asked how the little 'bean' is doing, and I'm sure mom would like to know, so here's the picture. (one of many, many to come, I'm sure).



This is actually from the last examination. This time, the doctor didn't take a picture because it would be too big to fit in the frame. This is all too fast...

I'm looking for a video camera now... it looks like they're not tape any more. Which, I suppose, is a good thing. However, they also don't have 1394... so here's another case of mediocre technology supplanting a technically superior one. USB2.0 has been significantly slower than Firewire in all of my experience--sometimes frustratingly so... and have you seen what a hack-on kludge USB3 is going to be? The way they are doing it makes it obvious the standard was never designed to do what it's being shoehorned into doing. If only consumers were clueful and picked the right tool for the job... ok, that's enough of a tech rant.

In any case, if there is a hard disk based camera with a 1394 port and analog inputs anywhere in this universe, I'd like to hear about it.


(6 comments) - (Post a new comment)


[info]stereotype441
2009-05-11 10:03 pm UTC (link)
I had a similar rant about USB 2.0 vs Firewire when I had to work on USB protocol support code for a project at work. We investigated using both USB 2.0 and Firewire for the interface, and you could just tell from reading the protocol specs that the Firewire folks knew what they were doing and the USB 2.0 folks didn't. But USB 2.0 was obviously winning market share by a landslide, sigh.

If you are looking for a video cam for baby documentation purposes, you might consider just using the video capabilities of a run-of-the-mill digital camera. They are remarkably good these days. My pocket digicam is 1.5 years old, and it claims to be able to fit 1.5 hours of NTSC quality video, with audio, on its 2GB memory card. I don't think its battery would last that long, of course. But I've shot videos of a few minutes length with it, and the quality is quite good enough for television. Probably the video quality that comes with a digital camera these days is even better. My camera is a Sony Super SteadyShot DSC-T70, in case you're curious.

(Reply to this) (Thread)

[info]xertheevil
2009-05-14 11:53 pm UTC (link)
As a father with a normal digital camera I have some comments on this:
1) Yes, it is nice to be able to take short bits of video. They come out of the camera pretty much ready to dump on YouTube. You don't need a whole lot of editing.
2) However, as times goes on you start to wish that you had a bit higher resolution. It is so hard to catch those fleeting little expressions on your kid's face that sometimes the only place you can catch them is on video. Suddenly, a grainy still from a 640x480 compressed to heck video stream is just not so enticing.

Yes, it's good enough, I suppose, but if you can drop the change on a HD resolution, records to hard-disk/flash small handheld, you're probably going to be happier in the long run. I think its better to have a video camera that can take stills than a still camera which can take video.

--
Also, I stand my my assessment that those stupid sonogram pictures aren't really pictures of your child. The only time I have ever been able to "see" anything in them is when I was watching the live picture and it was clear that it was a 2D cross section. You just can't tell in the still frame.

I look forward to the 3D sonograms becoming much more common.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)
Pictures
[info]chaset1
2009-05-17 02:58 am UTC (link)
I almost dread the amount of data I'm going to start generating once the little Bean comes out. I'm already annoyed enough at the backup and stuff that I have to do. Ah well, I'm guessing that's the least of my worries when the time comes.

Until we get a camera in there (I'm guessing Midori's not going to enjoy that), that's the best we get. At least in that shot, you see the head and torso. They've also been shoving each session to a DVD, which might be easier to decode.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)
Re: Pictures
[info]xertheevil
2009-05-17 06:58 am UTC (link)
Dunno if you've ever seen these, but check out the "3D Sonograms"
http://images.google.com/images?q=3d+sonogram

Insurance won't pay for one unless you've got something really bad happening with your kid, but you can get them yourself if you want. I just looked it up and it's only $50, which is pretty cool. I kinda wish I'd thought about it. Way better picture than the grainy thing you normally get.

(Reply to this) (Parent)(Thread)
Re: Pictures
[info]chaset1
2009-05-18 04:53 pm UTC (link)
I've heard of it... but I don't know whether the country doctor out here in the sticks have the equipment, or how much it costs here. Midori is sort of the ... uh... thrifty ... type. The regular examinations are all free courtesy of the Japanese gov't, but anything extra would be out of pocket.

On the flip side, Japanese doctors in general do a heck of a lot more sonograms than in the 'states, I hear. (pretty much every session, as opposed to 2-3 times only in the 'States) Don't know how true that is in general, though.

(Reply to this) (Parent)
Agreed
[info]chaset1
2009-05-17 02:56 am UTC (link)
Yeah, I think for more spur-of-the-moment videos, the digicam is probably good enough. Unfortunately, my camera is already 4-5 years old, and although it can take video, I may not like the quality for "life's precious moments".

The thing I have against Sony is that if I get a Sony camera, I'll have to get a memory stick... yet another type of card to worry about.

(Reply to this) (Parent)

(6 comments) - (Post a new comment)

Create an Account
Forgot your login or password?
Login w/ OpenID
English • Español • Deutsch • Русский…