I've been working with video since its earliest days in the 1970s - first as a film and television student and then as a producer with a cable TV network. It was during this phase that I started to gain experience with the whole range of TV production techniques - from camerawork to studio operations to vision mixing and video editing (using some of the earliest Sony 3/4" UMatic recording and editing systems). Even as a student I'd worked in broadcast TV studios and on location and had observed the staffing practices that had been around for years and thought that I'd not only like to write and present the stories (which I was doing on a freelance contract) but also shoot them and edit them too. This was totally taboo in the strictly-controlled TV environment then. After more than ten years as a freelance video producer and editor, using BVU-SP, Betacam-SP, DVC-Pro and DVCAM systems, I was suddenly awakened by a new revolution that was happening under my very nose. The Sony VX1000 has been launched (1995) and not only was this a joy to use in a one-man environment but the quality was really good. That was a "life changing moment".

I'd been writing for specialist publications for some time, and DV's launch coincided with a sudden increase in demand for my freelance writing skills at magazines like Camcorder User, Computer Video and Video Camera (now What Camcorder). Readers had their kit and wanted ideas on how to do something meaningful with it - and that's where I was able to contribute, and have continued to do since.

SimplyDV was a direct spin-off of this. I'd been learning how to knock up web pages (out of curiosity) and I wanted to extend the life of the stuff I'd been writing beyond a single publication in a magazine that disappears in a month. I've designed and delivered video-making training workshops for various organisations for years, and I've always had this "keep it simple" philosophy to my work. One night I had a brainwave - a website whose aim is to offer a no-nonsense guide to choosing and using digital video. What better name (to match the philosophy) than "SimplyDV"? Within one day, I'd searched for - and registered - the domain name, bought some web space (not enough) and uploaded my first holding page. I also wanted the website itself to be clean and simple and easy to download (I hate heavy download times due to lots of un-necessarily dynamic visual content). That was in September 2000, and it's gone from strength to strength to the point where it demands a huge amount of my time.

I get an increasing number of wannabes, for sure. I guess it's due to the huge number (35,000 at any one time in the UK alone, reputedly) of media students in British higher-education. To be honest, I think that film and TV is in a dire state (and dying) with so much absolute crap being produced by eager young hopefuls who see their next project being the all-time blockbuster. Trouble is that these same people appear only to want the glitzy lifestyle that Hollywood brings and seem lacking in the true passion that artists should really have. So, although Hollywood is the last place on earth I'd want to live in, there are lots of people who aspire to it. My SimplyDV philosophy is that desktop video is the means by which anyone can do it for their own pleasure. I'm a bit of a radical (despite my age) in that respect. With a DV camcorder, a computer and some good ideas it really is possible to make a difference on your own terms - and I like that. Having said all that, it's interesting to see the website attracting so many retired people; they have disposal income, they're buying (or have bought) a camcorder and they really do want to make better video movies - not for the mass market but just to please themselves, their families and their friends. And who can blame them? I enjoy and encourage their involvement in the website.

I reckon that at UK prices you can get set up to do all this for less than £2,000, and that figure is going down all the time. When you think that when I was editing broadcast-quality productions back in the 80s and early 90s, you'd need an expenditure of roughly £200,000 to do what I can do on one of my two desktop PCs at home (and even on my Apple Powerbook laptop), you can see how cheap it is. You don't need an expensive camcorder - £600 or less will buy a good one for general domestic use - though I would always recommend DV inputs and preferably analogue ones too. It's daft not to have DV-in at least. I bought a P3 1Ghz editing computer with DVD-RW drive in June 2001 for £1,299, and it serves me remarkably well. So, with £2,000 to spend, a shopping list could reasonably include a camcorder, computer, tripod, decent mic and a few other bits too!

Personally, I would say always try and buy a pre-configured computer. I know a lot of people will disagree with that and prefer instead to build their own, but I've witnessed so much stress, heartache and loss of hair to recommend the installation of PCI cards, drivers, hardware etc., to anybody who isn't made of titanium steel. I have two desktop machines that were bought off the shelf and pre-configured for FireWire video capture. I have undertaken a few modifications, that's true, but minor ones. The only other thing I have added is the ability to capture from non-DV sources, because I have a mountain of U-Matic, BVU, BVU-SP, Betacam-SP and even VHS/S-VHS that I want to re-master to DVD, so for this job I got hold of the excellent little Canopus ADVC-100 2-way converter. I'd reviewed it for Camcorder User and Mac User magazines and liked it so much that I actually bought the review sample off the distributor! Other equipment I'd always recommend are a second PC monitor (needs a dual graphics adaptor card to drive it); this is very handy for spreading editing timelines and windows across two monitors - immensely useful when working with Premiere, for instance. The other thing that I insist upon when performing professional-quality work is a good-quality video monitor screen to see "actual" video pictures. This goes back to my tape-based video days - I like to see what it looks like in the real world. I use the Canopus to provide a downstream feed from the computer's FireWire ports to the monitor via RCA Phono or S-Video connectors. I like to monitor audio through a proper amp & speakers, too. You simply can't mix audio properly through desktop PC speakers.

I think it's nonsense! The reason a Digital Betacam is so large and heavy is that it provides total stability both on the tripod and on the shoulder - and I don't believe that a tiny little cam of this sort can beat it on quality, either! A colleague of mine owns a full DigiBeta kit in order to service his broadcast TV clients, and his lenses alone are bigger than even large DV camcorders for a reason. The problem with little camcorders is that offer no controllability in terms of movement. The heavier the camera the more fluid your pans, tilts and zooms will be. Even hand-held work is a whole load better when you have a good, evenly-distributed weight on the shoulder. You usually find that the people criticising the "big camera ripoffs" haven't actually spent much time using them on a day after day basis. I'd hate to try and get a 180-degree smooth pan with a tiny palm cam, no matter how good the quality is. A good example of this is the Sony DCR-IP7 MICROMV camcorder that's creating such a fuss. It's a tiny little thing. Whilst the quality might far outshine the sort of stuff I grew up with at professional level, I think that from an ergonomic point of view it's a horrible little toy! The only uses I can see for high-quality palm-cams is in covert jobs, where concealment is important, or for putting the cam in difficult places to get those awkward shots. Other than that they're a waste of money. And I like to see somebody attach a prime lens to one, too!