Camera Help! Vids and Stills Question

[LadyDiznee123]

Hello Fellow Dis Nerds:

This will be my fourth trip to WDW but this time I plan to vlog. I have never done so before and so I have a question that may seem elementary to some but I remain ignorant.

I want to Vlog but I also still look forward to shooting stills. Nothing like a beautiful still, and I am always snapping.

I plan on getting a camera (have not purchased it yet) that allows you to shoot a still while in video mode. But I still think there is a limit to how often you can do that. With me being a constant "Snapper" - this may hinder me.

So here are my questions:

ONE:
Do people ever carry TWO camera's - one specifically for stills. This seems like quite a bit of trouble. I can't imagine - but I am just asking. Perhaps it's less trouble than I imagine.

TWO:
Having never vlogged, my common sense began to kick and tell me that most people are not vlogging every second of their trek. They are in video mode mostly for a few seconds or short few minutes at a time. From this realization - is it safe to surmise that this is when people are taking their STILLS ... and that it's far less difficult that I am imagining in my head?

This is all new to me, so I thank every in advance for indulging me!

PS - Also, If anyone can recommend camera's that shoot stills while recording vids please do post that info. Right now there is one that is a SONY RX00 MKIII on my list, and another is a SAMSUNG WB350F WIFI CAMERA. If anyone has any of these two camera's - I'd love to get your input on how they function.

Thanks so much!!!

 

[jec6613]

The entire Nikon 1 lineup will shoot nearly unlimited stills during video, and it also has motion snapshot (think Harry Potter's moving pictures), plus interchangeable lenses. The Nikon 1 J5 shares a sensor with the Sony RX100 IV, and is considerably cheaper, and adds faster autofocus, and interchangeable lenses. In an integrated body without worrying too much about quality, it's the closest to what you're looking for.

Here's the gotcha: yes, primarily still cameras are worse at video than dedicated video cameras, and to get to the level of an OK camcorder ($300 or so) you need to spend at least $1,000 on a still camera. There are three major problems to remedy when using a still camera for video and doing it seriously:

1. Microphone: The built-in microphone is pretty poor on most regular digicams, but the one in a video camera is a reasonably good shotgun style. A decent microphone to mount to your camera is about $100
2. Lens: A typical still camera has a varifocal zoom (focus changes while zooming), and you can often hear focusing and zooming in movies as the motors are optimized for speed, not silence. There are dedicated video lenses available (the Nikon 1 system has a 10-100 mm PD Zoom lens) which are parifocal and quiet, but they're the exception and you need to seek them out. If you don't ever zoom during video, you can get away with a non-dedicated video lens, but it's still not recommended.
3. Battery: Video cameras just have much bigger batteries - usually four or so times higher capacity. This means while a video camera can get you two hours of video, a similar still camera will net you 30 minutes - less if you are shooting stills with it as well. You'll need half a dozen batteries and two chargers, at least, if you plan on VLOGing a lot.

So, yes, people often carry a separate still and video camera around, and it's a lot less trouble than carrying that list of items with them. Those that use still cameras for any sort of serious video are typically using pretty serious cameras - DSLRs are common, but fairly quickly are being replaced with Micro 4/3, APS-C and 1" mirrorless, and they're almost always adapted with bigger battery packs, microphones, and specialized lenses.

It's a big rabbit hole to go down, but the Nikon 1 line is where I'd look to keep costs reasonable if you want an all-in one solution, but it's not light at all.

If those were my requirements and I had to bring only one camera, I'd pick up a used Nikon 1 V1 (it has a much bigger battery than almost anything else in mirrorless, so it lasts a long while, but it's been discontinued for a bit), a Rode microphone with the adapter to fit it to the V1's hot shoe, and the Nikkor 10-100mm PD Zoom lens. It looks like this, and when you click on the image you'll see why most people pack two cameras: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nikon..._+_Nikkor_10-100_+_Stereo_Microphone_ME-1.jpg

 

[LadyDiznee123]

The entire Nikon 1 lineup will shoot nearly unlimited stills during video, and it also has motion snapshot (think Harry Potter's moving pictures), plus interchangeable lenses. The Nikon 1 J5 shares a sensor with the Sony RX100 IV, and is considerably cheaper, and adds faster autofocus, and interchangeable lenses. In an integrated body without worrying too much about quality, it's the closest to what you're looking for.

Here's the gotcha: yes, primarily still cameras are worse at video than dedicated video cameras, and to get to the level of an OK camcorder ($300 or so) you need to spend at least $1,000 on a still camera. There are three major problems to remedy when using a still camera for video and doing it seriously:

1. Microphone: The built-in microphone is pretty poor on most regular digicams, but the one in a video camera is a reasonably good shotgun style. A decent microphone to mount to your camera is about $100
2. Lens: A typical still camera has a varifocal zoom (focus changes while zooming), and you can often hear focusing and zooming in movies as the motors are optimized for speed, not silence. There are dedicated video lenses available (the Nikon 1 system has a 10-100 mm PD Zoom lens) which are parifocal and quiet, but they're the exception and you need to seek them out. If you don't ever zoom during video, you can get away with a non-dedicated video lens, but it's still not recommended.
3. Battery: Video cameras just have much bigger batteries - usually four or so times higher capacity. This means while a video camera can get you two hours of video, a similar still camera will net you 30 minutes - less if you are shooting stills with it as well. You'll need half a dozen batteries and two chargers, at least, if you plan on VLOGing a lot.

So, yes, people often carry a separate still and video camera around, and it's a lot less trouble than carrying that list of items with them. Those that use still cameras for any sort of serious video are typically using pretty serious cameras - DSLRs are common, but fairly quickly are being replaced with Micro 4/3, APS-C and 1" mirrorless, and they're almost always adapted with bigger battery packs, microphones, and specialized lenses.

It's a big rabbit hole to go down, but the Nikon 1 line is where I'd look to keep costs reasonable if you want an all-in one solution, but it's not light at all.

If those were my requirements and I had to bring only one camera, I'd pick up a used Nikon 1 V1 (it has a much bigger battery than almost anything else in mirrorless, so it lasts a long while, but it's been discontinued for a bit), a Rode microphone with the adapter to fit it to the V1's hot shoe, and the Nikkor 10-100mm PD Zoom lens. It looks like this, and when you click on the image you'll see why most people pack two cameras: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nikon_1_series#/media/File:Video_Nikon_1_V1_+_Nikkor_10-100_+_Stereo_Microphone_ME-1.jpg

OH MY WORD. Your answer was lengthy - but that is just the kind of answer I was looking for. Ugh. I have my work cut out for me.

Thanks so much!

 

[LadyDiznee123]

The entire Nikon 1 lineup will shoot nearly unlimited stills during video, and it also has motion snapshot (think Harry Potter's moving pictures), plus interchangeable lenses. The Nikon 1 J5 shares a sensor with the Sony RX100 IV, and is considerably cheaper, and adds faster autofocus, and interchangeable lenses. In an integrated body without worrying too much about quality, it's the closest to what you're looking for.

Here's the gotcha: yes, primarily still cameras are worse at video than dedicated video cameras, and to get to the level of an OK camcorder ($300 or so) you need to spend at least $1,000 on a still camera. There are three major problems to remedy when using a still camera for video and doing it seriously:

1. Microphone: The built-in microphone is pretty poor on most regular digicams, but the one in a video camera is a reasonably good shotgun style. A decent microphone to mount to your camera is about $100
2. Lens: A typical still camera has a varifocal zoom (focus changes while zooming), and you can often hear focusing and zooming in movies as the motors are optimized for speed, not silence. There are dedicated video lenses available (the Nikon 1 system has a 10-100 mm PD Zoom lens) which are parifocal and quiet, but they're the exception and you need to seek them out. If you don't ever zoom during video, you can get away with a non-dedicated video lens, but it's still not recommended.
3. Battery: Video cameras just have much bigger batteries - usually four or so times higher capacity. This means while a video camera can get you two hours of video, a similar still camera will net you 30 minutes - less if you are shooting stills with it as well. You'll need half a dozen batteries and two chargers, at least, if you plan on VLOGing a lot.

So, yes, people often carry a separate still and video camera around, and it's a lot less trouble than carrying that list of items with them. Those that use still cameras for any sort of serious video are typically using pretty serious cameras - DSLRs are common, but fairly quickly are being replaced with Micro 4/3, APS-C and 1" mirrorless, and they're almost always adapted with bigger battery packs, microphones, and specialized lenses.

It's a big rabbit hole to go down, but the Nikon 1 line is where I'd look to keep costs reasonable if you want an all-in one solution, but it's not light at all.

If those were my requirements and I had to bring only one camera, I'd pick up a used Nikon 1 V1 (it has a much bigger battery than almost anything else in mirrorless, so it lasts a long while, but it's been discontinued for a bit), a Rode microphone with the adapter to fit it to the V1's hot shoe, and the Nikkor 10-100mm PD Zoom lens. It looks like this, and when you click on the image you'll see why most people pack two cameras: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nikon_1_series#/media/File:Video_Nikon_1_V1_+_Nikkor_10-100_+_Stereo_Microphone_ME-1.jpg

Regarding that 30 minute time limit.... doesnt that only mean 30 minutes maximum per one video???

If I am hitting pause and only vlogging a few seconds / a couple of minutes at a time I can get a number of vlogs in... correct? But aren't I able to start a NEW video at another 30 max length? And I can always send the video to my cloud to keep space on the camera.
Please advise jec6613?????

Thanks.

 

[jec6613]

Regarding that 30 minute time limit.... doesnt that only mean 30 minutes maximum per one video???

If I am hitting pause and only vlogging a few seconds / a couple of minutes at a time I can get a number of vlogs in... correct? But aren't I able to start a NEW video at another 30 max length? And I can always send the video to my cloud to keep space on the camera.
Please advise jec6613?????

Thanks.

Actually, still cameras have a 20 minute limit per video (it's a tax thing in the EU), after which you can immediately re-start taking video, but it's 30 minutes per battery, total. Obviously each model is a bit different, but generally 30 minutes of video is what you can get on a single battery charge with most still cameras. You can swap batteries and continue filming, obviously, but over the course of the day that's a lot of batteries,.

Dedicated video cameras are often limited by storage capacity before they run out of battery, and have no artificial 20 minute limit per recording.

 

[LadyDiznee123]

The entire Nikon 1 lineup will shoot nearly unlimited stills during video, and it also has motion snapshot (think Harry Potter's moving pictures), plus interchangeable lenses. The Nikon 1 J5 shares a sensor with the Sony RX100 IV, and is considerably cheaper, and adds faster autofocus, and interchangeable lenses. In an integrated body without worrying too much about quality, it's the closest to what you're looking for.

Here's the gotcha: yes, primarily still cameras are worse at video than dedicated video cameras, and to get to the level of an OK camcorder ($300 or so) you need to spend at least $1,000 on a still camera. There are three major problems to remedy when using a still camera for video and doing it seriously:

1. Microphone: The built-in microphone is pretty poor on most regular digicams, but the one in a video camera is a reasonably good shotgun style. A decent microphone to mount to your camera is about $100
2. Lens: A typical still camera has a varifocal zoom (focus changes while zooming), and you can often hear focusing and zooming in movies as the motors are optimized for speed, not silence. There are dedicated video lenses available (the Nikon 1 system has a 10-100 mm PD Zoom lens) which are parifocal and quiet, but they're the exception and you need to seek them out. If you don't ever zoom during video, you can get away with a non-dedicated video lens, but it's still not recommended.
3. Battery: Video cameras just have much bigger batteries - usually four or so times higher capacity. This means while a video camera can get you two hours of video, a similar still camera will net you 30 minutes - less if you are shooting stills with it as well. You'll need half a dozen batteries and two chargers, at least, if you plan on VLOGing a lot.

So, yes, people often carry a separate still and video camera around, and it's a lot less trouble than carrying that list of items with them. Those that use still cameras for any sort of serious video are typically using pretty serious cameras - DSLRs are common, but fairly quickly are being replaced with Micro 4/3, APS-C and 1" mirrorless, and they're almost always adapted with bigger battery packs, microphones, and specialized lenses.

It's a big rabbit hole to go down, but the Nikon 1 line is where I'd look to keep costs reasonable if you want an all-in one solution, but it's not light at all.

If those were my requirements and I had to bring only one camera, I'd pick up a used Nikon 1 V1 (it has a much bigger battery than almost anything else in mirrorless, so it lasts a long while, but it's been discontinued for a bit), a Rode microphone with the adapter to fit it to the V1's hot shoe, and the Nikkor 10-100mm PD Zoom lens. It looks like this, and when you click on the image you'll see why most people pack two cameras: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nikon_1_series#/media/File:Video_Nikon_1_V1_+_Nikkor_10-100_+_Stereo_Microphone_ME-1.jpg

http://www.amazon.com/Nikon-Digital-Camera-System-10-30mm/dp/B005OGQXJW


Looking at that NIKON 1 ! Thanks so much. This may be my go-to! I never lose when I post to these boards!!!

Thanks jec6613

 

[LadyDiznee123]

Actually, still cameras have a 20 minute limit per video (it's a tax thing in the EU), after which you can immediately re-start taking video, but it's 30 minutes per battery, total. Obviously each model is a bit different, but generally 30 minutes of video is what you can get on a single battery charge with most still cameras. You can swap batteries and continue filming, obviously, but over the course of the day that's a lot of batteries,.

Dedicated video cameras are often limited by storage capacity before they run out of battery, and have no artificial 20 minute limit per recording.

Oh my word. Ugh. Thanks so much.

 

[jec6613]

The J1 you linked to is a much older model. Not necessarily bad, but for not that much more the newer J5 is out:
nikonusa.com/en/Nikon-Products/Product/Nikon1/Nikon-1-J5.html?cid=web-0402-J5

It has a newer, higher performing Sony sensor, a PD-Zoom lens that's better for video, and additional batteries for it are cheaper, so it's probably worth the extra money. Oh, and it includes Wi-Fi built in, if that's important. If you want an external microphone, you'll need a V1, V2 or V3, which cost somewhat more money still and are more serious cameras.

For $300 though, the Nikon S2 is a bit better than the old J1 (and it's newer, too).

 

[biim85]

Before my last Disney trip I picked up a new camera. I had actually considered the J5, but I didn't wan to deal with the lenses in the parks. I know some people don't mind, especially if they don't need to change them as often as I would. So I was tying to look for a good alternative that offered me as many mega pixels as the J5, but move convenience. What I ended up buying was the Sony Cyber-shot DSC HX300. In store it was a little pricey (not as pricey as the J5 by far though) but if you find a good discount or in-store coupon it can make it worth it. The J5 has 20.8 mega pixels and the Cyber-shot has 20.4 mega pixels so not too big of a difference. It has 50x optical zoom and 100x digital. Shoots up to 29 minutes of video at a time, but you can go right back into shooting video at the press of a button after the 29 minute mark. You can also shoot still images while recording video by pressing the shutter button just like you would any other time you take a pic. I like it a lot because it's easy to take video and edit that video on most any editing program, as well as the picture quality being pretty good too. Also, and probably my favorite aspect, it's pretty smart. It will rack focus automatically if I'm trying to get a shot in a hurry. This is the first camera I've had where on "smart" or "intelligent" mode, it actually behaves intelligently, logically, and focuses on what I want. As for the video quality, it shoots HD video great. The battery life is fantastic and lasted multiple long days in the parks without charging (though I did pick up a few extra ones on ebay for super cheap since I'm terrible at remembering to charge). For an example, here's a picture I took of a little tree lizard. I was maybe about 15-20 feet away from the actual tree and the camera was still good enough to pick up the lizard, great detail on the tree, and blur the background to create the rack focus effect. The button placement is also, in my opinion, a little better than the J5. I've always worked with Nikons prior to this and found it easier and faster to work through the menus and options without a whole lot of thought or effort which I appreciated since there were many times when I didn't want changing camera settings to be sucking up my attention. It's not a super heavy camera (it has some weight to it, but not anything that's really noticeable after a few minutes), and the lens cover and strong body are great for just throwing it in a backpack without any extra case. They have this model on display at a lot of electronics stores if you want to check it out for yourself before ruling it in or out as one of your options.

 

[jec6613]

...in-store coupon it can make it worth it. The J5 has 20.8 mega pixels and the Cyber-shot has 20.4 mega pixels so not too big of a difference. It has 50x optical zoom and 100x digital. Shoots up to 29 minutes of video at a time, but you can go right back into shooting video at the press of a button after the 29 minute mark. You can also shoot still images while recording video by pressing the shutter button just like you would any other time you take a pic. I like it a lot because it's easy to take video and edit that video on most any editing program, as well as the picture quality being pretty good too. Also, and probably my favorite aspect, it's pretty smart....

Not to knock the super zoom category (which is what that is) ... but that's a massive camera to lug around. Sure, it has a lot of zoom, but most of that goes to waste at WDW (there are no real opportunities to use a lens like that, even in Animal Kingdom). To put this in perspective: it weighs more than one of my DSLRs with a walk-around image stabilized lens, and nearly three times as much as the J5.

As far as megapixels, let me kill that right now: above 10-12 Megapixels, your lens has more to do with your image quality than the megapixels on the sensor. And the smaller the sensor and the longer the zoom range, the harder it is to get a good quality lens in front of it. Super zooms almost universally have 1/2.3" sensors, including your Sony, which both have trouble shooting in low light. The Sony RX100 and Nikon 1 series have sensors four and a half times larger than the one in a super zoom, and therefore can isolate depth of field better, mount better lenses, and shoot in lower light.

What super zooms are, and are fantastic for (and why I owned and used one for quite a while) a great way to get a lot of lens length and versatility into a portable-ish package. My long lens rig for Africa comes in at about 7.5 lbs, considerably heavier than going with a super zoom (which rigged similarly would be about 3 lbs). And to shoot wide, I need either to change lenses or bring another body, while a super zoom user can just zoom out. Tremendous versatility, but not for everyone.

Edit: As an aside, the J5 (and all Nikon 1 cameras) also do focus bracketing (and faster than the Sony, since they do it at 60 FPS), but they also track focus faster than the 1DX or D4s professional DSLRs - you tap the screen and it's taken the picture before you lift your finger, even if racking focus from one end of the range to the other. They use phase detect autofocus, the same system used in a DSLR, which makes them very, very fast to focus and track.

 

[biim85]

I use the zoom mostly at concerts and not at WDW, but find no trouble with low light environments at all. The only times I've used the zoom at WDW in any sort of capacity near the max optical is at Epcot at World Showcase and at Bay Lake Tower. I find it easier to take a picture of say Mexico from somewhere like Canada. I never use a zoom over it's digital capacity cause I think the difference is noticeable when any camera kicks into the digital zoom, but it's nice to have in a pinch. Personally, I don't find the camera to be very heavy, and it's a comfortable fit to use one handed for me even using the manual control ring on the lens (which is another plus in my opinion). Keeps my other hand free to stuff my face with a mickey pretzel But in comparison to the two cameras the OP listed as options they were considering so far, yes, this is considerably larger, and more pricey. If you ask politely enough most stores will unbox one for you, or take the display off of those annoying security display sticks so you can judge the weight for yourself even if you don't plan to buy. Also it does not have a touchscreen, which isn't a big deal to me, but might be to the OP since I think both of those have touchscreens. It does have a tilt-able/moveable screen as well though like the J5 and the Sony the OP mentioned. Here's couple low light pics at WDW so you guys can judge quality and see if it's decent enough for what the OP is trying to achieve. The second two were taken while also shooting video.

Castle shot taken at Ye Olde Christmas Shop in Liberty Square.


Eat to the Beat (Boyz II Men) at America Gardens Theatre at Epcot

 

[jec6613]

... those aren't actually low light. Spot-lit performers are very bright (even amateur stages have them at light levels approaching 1/4 daylight). That it metered them properly is impressive, but it's not actually a low light picture.

A lit castle with that many point sources isn't that dark either and it's not a moving subject, so your IS can compensate for quite a bit.

You didn't leave the shooting data intact, but the EV on those is pretty high. These are examples taken in far lower light:

APS-C sensor, 85mm, f/1.8, 1/15, ISO 51,200. Light source: moonlight.


1/1.7" sensor, 5 mm, f/1.8, 1/5, ISO 1600. Light source: candlelight.

 

[LadyDiznee123]

Okay, Camera Geek Guys -

Here's another part I forgot to ask.
What about video editing software that will allow you cut a still out of any frame. Is this another route I can take. Do the stills look good? Any suggestions for the best software!?

Thanks in advance!

 

[LadyDiznee123]

I use the zoom mostly at concerts and not at WDW, but find no trouble with low light environments at all. The only times I've used the zoom at WDW in any sort of capacity near the max optical is at Epcot at World Showcase and at Bay Lake Tower. I find it easier to take a picture of say Mexico from somewhere like Canada. I never use a zoom over it's digital capacity cause I think the difference is noticeable when any camera kicks into the digital zoom, but it's nice to have in a pinch. Personally, I don't find the camera to be very heavy, and it's a comfortable fit to use one handed for me even using the manual control ring on the lens (which is another plus in my opinion). Keeps my other hand free to stuff my face with a mickey pretzel But in comparison to the two cameras the OP listed as options they were considering so far, yes, this is considerably larger, and more pricey. If you ask politely enough most stores will unbox one for you, or take the display off of those annoying security display sticks so you can judge the weight for yourself even if you don't plan to buy. Also it does not have a touchscreen, which isn't a big deal to me, but might be to the OP since I think both of those have touchscreens. It does have a tilt-able/moveable screen as well though like the J5 and the Sony the OP mentioned. Here's couple low light pics at WDW so you guys can judge quality and see if it's decent enough for what the OP is trying to achieve. The second two were taken while also shooting video.

Castle shot taken at Ye Olde Christmas Shop in Liberty Square.
View attachment 113679

Eat to the Beat (Boyz II Men) at America Gardens Theatre at Epcot
View attachment 113687

View attachment 113689

Hey!????

Was this last year? I plan on seeing Boyz II Men in November. I thought this concert series was new? Was this from last year???

 

[jec6613]

Okay, Camera Geek Guys -

Here's another part I forgot to ask.
What about video editing software that will allow you cut a still out of any frame. Is this another route I can take. Do the stills look good? Any suggestions for the best software!?

Thanks in advance!

Stills grab software from a video frame can be OK, but you have to be at a relatively high frame rate (usually 60p), with good glass and in good light, and then you're getting a bit under a 2 MP image. Stills grabbed during shooting by the camera are of significantly higher quality, as they're usually using most of the resolution of the camera, so at least 12-14 MP of data. Although the jump from 10-20 isn't very noticeable, the 2-12 jump is.

 

[LadyDiznee123]

Stills grab software from a video frame can be OK, but you have to be at a relatively high frame rate (usually 60p), with good glass and in good light, and then you're getting a bit under a 2 MP image. Stills grabbed during shooting by the camera are of significantly higher quality, as they're usually using most of the resolution of the camera, so at least 12-14 MP of data. Although the jump from 10-20 isn't very noticeable, the 2-12 jump is.

Ah. Gotcha. Thanks!

 

[biim85]

Hey!????

Was this last year? I plan on seeing Boyz II Men in November. I thought this concert series was new? Was this from last year???

Yeah, those are from last year. I also plan on seeing Boyz II Men this year as well. It's the only WDW trip I'm taking this year so I'm excited already.

I use Avid for most video editing, but I'm sure that's not something the average consumer wants to run out and buy, so I don't really know which software would allow for still grabs. A buddy of mine has Premier Elements and it seems to work relatively well for every day projects. Your comp might even come with a couple. Usually PC's have something like Cyberlink or Windows Movie Maker, and newer Macs come with iMovie, which would probably all be suitable for editing vlogs and uploading to YouTube or your own site. If the software you choose seems incompatible with the programs you already have, try downloading Any Video Converter. It's free and will convert from one format to another very quickly to allow you to edit in a program you may already have.

But you can do still grabs on any computer with any play back software that comes with the comp. Usually it's the print screen button on the key board. The still will only be as good as the play back on the player you're using and the video quality though so if you're looking for great quality, this might not be the best option.

 

[LadyDiznee123]

Yeah, those are from last year. I also plan on seeing Boyz II Men this year as well. It's the only WDW trip I'm taking this year so I'm excited already.

I use Avid for most video editing, but I'm sure that's not something the average consumer wants to run out and buy, so I don't really know which software would allow for still grabs. A buddy of mine has Premier Elements and it seems to work relatively well for every day projects. Your comp might even come with a couple. Usually PC's have something like Cyberlink or Windows Movie Maker, and newer Macs come with iMovie, which would probably all be suitable for editing vlogs and uploading to YouTube or your own site. If the software you choose seems incompatible with the programs you already have, try downloading Any Video Converter. It's free and will convert from one format to another very quickly to allow you to edit in a program you may already have.

But you can do still grabs on any computer with any play back software that comes with the comp. Usually it's the print screen button on the key board. The still will only be as good as the play back on the player you're using and the video quality though so if you're looking for great quality, this might not be the best option.

Hello Blim:

Thanks for the info. I will take note.

So we will be at WDW at the same time. Hopefully we can say hello! I am there from Oct 28 to Nov 4th. But may add an extra day to Nov 5th.