Welcome | Bird Images | Lessons & Links | Project Information | nwnature.net
Photo Galleries: Backyard Birds | Waterfowl | Raptors | Ridgefield NWR

Project Information

varied thrush

hermit thrush

American kestrel


Some Comments about "Video Birding"

There are advantages and disadvantages to using video, and especially analog video, in creating a project of this nature. The advantages include the speed, cost, and versatility of video media. The disadvantage, to be very honest and brief, can be summarized in one word -- quality. Under my (financial) circumstances, video was a compromise that enabled me to begin and continue this project.

To shoot video is fairly inexpensive. There are no processing costs and the medium is recyclable. That is, if you wish, you may tape over the existing information. I've read that this will reduce the quality of the imagery, but it may be satisfactory for general purposes. The tapes themselves are relatively inexpensive and a great deal of footage can be held on a single tape. It is also convenient to swap tapes between shoots so you can reserve designated cassettes for the project. This makes storage and retrieval of the information easier to manage.

Speed and magnification are both important aspects in capturing something as elusive as birds. In most instances, birds don't pose. If you are fortunate to find one standing or sitting still, it is generally at a considerable distance from the observer. An advantage of the video camera is its built-in zoom feature. Most video cameras on the market now have (optical) zoom in the 16X - 26X range. By contrast, 35mm SLR and digital cameras require a special (expensive!) telephoto lens to achieve similar levels of magnification. The 35mm film camera is also limited by its focus time (for those of us with manual focus lens) and low light limitations. The video camera generally has an advantage in both of these catagories. The ability to zoom and shoot in less than ideal light situations adds to the video camera's versatility.

As mentioned previously, birds seldom sit still. In fact, many of the birds were first spotted because they were moving. To track a small, moving bird with a still camera can be frustrating -- with many missed shots. With the video camera there is a greater chance of catching a bird in a momentary rest or "photographic" pose. There is also the advantage of catching the bird in action, and often times this permits viewing the bird from different angles as it moves about. There are numerous times this has aided in the post-trip identification process as I examined a sequence of frames and discerned various "markings." In addition to its ability to capture movement, the video camera has the added versatility of recording sound. With its ability to record bird behavior and sound, the video camera can be a valuable and fun field tool.

All of this is not to say there are not limitations to "video birding," especially with the equipment available to me. The most significant factor is the quality of images. While I would love to take National Geographic-quality images, it is not possible with a consumer-level video camera and not practical at a hobbist level. The results of video recording are "quick and dirty," not elegant and artful. Video does not record the detail and resolution of film photography. There is no way a single frame of film will produce an image with the same clarity and detail as a photograph or slide. In addition to this shortcoming, I have the disadvantage of needing to digitize the analog video. The conversion of analog (VHS, 8mm, Hi-8, ...) to a digital format further compromises the resulting images.

Compare the following images. At a small size both images appear acceptable. However, if you select the links below you'll get a better idea of the difference in image quality. The varied thrush was digitized on the computer from a video tape. The Canada goose was scanned from a 35mm slide using a film scanner.

Varied Thrush
Canada Goose

One further limitation should be noted to anyone using either a video camera or a digital still camera. In order to a achieve an increased zoom factor, these cameras come equipped with a digital zoom feature. While it appears that the object is brought closer and fills more of the view finder, it does this at a cost to image quality. If possible, limit your use to the optical zoom of your camera. Otherwise, you will begin to see a blurring of colors and loss of clarity. Again, it is a matter of compromise. If you want the increased magnification, you will inevitable suffer a reduction in quality.

Another tool I would recommend, though due to my own impatience I seldom use, is a tripod. The use of the tripod helps to stabilize the image and would reduce the shaky images often seen in my QuickTime video clips. The downside is the hassle of leveling the tripod and loss of freedom to pan (turn) with birds in flight. It is a relatively inexpensive piece of equipment I plan to use more frequently in the future.

While I'm at it, let me mention the importance of having a manual focus option on your cameras. Most of the time the autofocus on my Handycam is sufficient. There are times, however, when I missed shots because the camera focused on the wrong thing. The 8mm Handycam lacked a manual focus option, and I really regret the lack of this feature. My current Hi-8 Handycam, however, does have a manual focus option and it has been very helpful in several instances.

The other limitation to "video birding" is the initial equipment costs. It can be expensive to buy a decent video camera, although the price and feature list are likely to make these more compelling bargains as time goes on. The other expense here is the editing equipment. If you don't have a computer, or if you need to retro-fit a computer, this can cost you hundreds or thousands of dollars, depending on your level of sophistication. The prevalance of both computers and video cameras, however, makes this a low hurdle for many people to overcome. Especially with the growing availability and standardization of digital video equipment, this should become an increasingly interesting and exciting activity for birders or other nature observers.

Even with the limitation of video taping birds, I can honestly say that none of this would have happened without it. I love looking at crystal clear, close-up images of birds and wished I could do it. However, I am faced with the decision -- use what I have or do nothing at all. I choose to make do. In the future I hope to make improvements in my knowledge, my equipment, and my techniques both in the field and at home. It has been a pleasant, though time-consuming, process of uniting my interests in computers and nature. I have learned a great deal about birds, computers, and video taping along the way. While there are many more birds to tape and much more to learn about the digital process, I look forward to the journey. I am especially hopeful of encountering others with a passion for nature, a concern for education, and an interest in communication technology.

Michael R. Clapp

March 18, 2002
(updated January 10, 2004)

** Equipment update notice: As of Summer 2006, I have begun taking digital still images with a Panasonic-Lumix DMC-FZ20 digital camera, with a 12X optical zoom lens. Images are then cropped and enhanced (lighting & contrast) in Adobe Photoshop Elements. The image quality is much improved and has allowed me to crop more closely and to post the images at a larger size (480px X 360px, instead of 320px X 240px).

(amended January 15, 2007)

back to top

Equipment Needed to View this Project (for CD version)

This project should run on most Power Macintosh or Pentium PC computers equipped with a CD-ROM. The interface is constructed as an HTML (web-style) document with hypertext links. The pages contain links to JPEG images or QuickTime movies [removed for web version] saved using Photo-JPEG compression. A standard web browser and Apple's QuickTime plug-in are required.

back to top

How this Project was Created

All images, unless labeled otherwise, were taken by Michael Clapp (December 2000 - January 2004). Earlier images and video were created using a Sony 8mm Handycam video camera with 26X digital zoom. In 2003 I made a minor upgrade to a Sony Hi-8 video camera (with 20X optical zoom) after I began having problems with my standard 8mm Handycam. Video was digitized and processed on a beige PowerMacintosh G3 equipped with an AV card with S-video and composite (RCA-type) audio/video connections. Movie was captured using either Strata VideoShop (ver. 4.5) or Premiere LE (ver. 5.1). Still images were cropped and edited using Adobe Photoshop 4.0. Apple QuickTime 4.0 and Apple MoviePlayer 2.5.1 were also essential elements of the QuickTime video editing process. This page was created using Claris HomePage 3.0.

None of this is cutting edge technology! The computer was purchased in 1998. Even at that time it was not considered top of the line. My 8mm video camera was bought at a discount, surplus store (my newer Hi-8 was a closeout model at Wal-Mart for less than $300). The computer was purchased as a reconditioned model from a reputable online Macintosh vendor. It has since been upgraded with RAM (512 MB), processor (G3/400) and hard drive (40 GB). Again, by today's standards, these are behind the times. I run the computer using MAC OS 9, so I can use the AV-inputs and because all of my essential software still runs in classic mode. The project, however, is built on a teacher's budget with the school setting in mind. Most of this equipment I purchased for other family or professional purposes. While many schools have access to more recent equipment, many teachers feel fortunate to have older computers in the classroom. This project should run on older Power Macintosh or Pentium PC computers.

In the future I hope to switch to a digital video camera ($400 and up). This will greatly simplify the editing process. I will be able to go directly from the digital video camera to computer via Firewire. Apple has a nice video program (iMovie) and I am sure that there are fairly inexpensive video programs that will work on the PC/Windows computers, as well (-- I've recently become aware of Window Movie Maker, which comes with Windows XP - SP2).

In a couple of instances, I have added scanned still images from slides and negatives using a Nikon film scanner -- my only significant piece of recent (at the time) technology. As time, money, and chance permit, I will be taking and adding higher quality still pictures using a traditional 35mm SLR camera. (This may be a slow process. I currently lack a quality, high-powered telephoto lens to take decent bird pictures.) For those with the photography equipment, a new breed of flatbed scanners are equipped with negative & slide scanning capablities. There is even potential for using digital cameras. One article I read online talked about taking pictures using a digital camera attached to a spotting scope. A sample of the results were very impressive.

The final piece of equipment which enables me to "publish" this project (to CD) is a CDR/CDRW drive (commonly referred to as a CD burner). While not essential for creating the project, it is beneficial in preserving and distributing the results.

March 18, 2002

** Equipment update notice: As of Summer 2006, I have begun taking digital still images with a Panasonic-Lumix DMC-FZ20 digital camera, with a 12X optical zoom lens. Images are then cropped and enhanced (lighting & contrast) in Adobe Photoshop Elements. The image quality is much improved and has allowed me to crop more closely and to post the images at a larger size (480px X 360px, instead of 320px X 240px).

(amended January 15, 2007)


back to top
Created by Michael R. Clapp (2001-07). All rights reserved.
For more information, email your requests to: mclapp@nwnature.net