Slashdot Mirror
Which Digital Video Camera for Amateur Video?
Maznafein asks: "I'm about to leave the IT world, after just finishing a degree in audio engineering, and I'd like to start doing some A/V work on the side as I attempt to make the transition to a new career. I want to make a my first short film either in the late fall, or early spring. I want to do everything in the digital domain as I currently use Logic and Ableton Live on my power book. I have all the gear I need to use up to eight microphones and I can easily pick up some shot gun mics. I don't really know which [video camera] to go with. Like every geek I want the best resolution available other than that the only thing I know I'll need is it to be water resistant/proof, or be able to purchase a housing, for up to a 15 minute scene in the short film I am adapting. What should I go with?"
"I've always been a firm believer that to make it in any field you have to show that you want to do it. I currently write my own tracks (bangin' german techno) and engineer/mix down local artists (rock, pop and hip hop) on the side already. I just have yet to get into the nitty gritty of doing film production."
the James Bond Stealth Camera.
ResidntGeek
Panasonic AG-DVX100A
Not cheap, but 3 CCD and progressive scan. And there's an underwater housing available (which isn't cheap, either). And Final Cut Pro on your Powerbook can edit 24p native.
More importantly, where do you get the actresses for the, uh, amateur videos?
Show me on the doll where his noodly appendage touched you.
Ha shows what you know. Slashdoters make amateur porn? They're consumers not producers!
These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
Dude,
You need a girlfriend first.
"I'd rather be a lightning rod than a seismometer." -Ken Kesey
Okay, lets start the easy question: What is your budget? You can drop $100,000 on a Sony HDCAM setup, but in all odds you'll be staying in the good 'ol NTSC realm. Again it depends on how much money you have in your pocket. Visit DV.com for some camera ideas. I would try and get a 3-CCD Camera. Visit http://www.saferseas.com/ for some package ideas, also DV.com is a good site.
I shot this on a Canon ZR40 and edited in iMovie. I'm sure it's way under the level the article is talking about, but everyone is impressed with the quality.
Mind you, the Mpeg version on the internet has a fraction of the quality the fill DV version does.
A programmer is a machine for converting coffee into code.
Obligatory Amateur Pornography Comment.
If artistic black and white is your thing, consider picking up an old security camera and a video input card. Sure, the focus is terrible, there is no sound, the contrast sucks, and it is real grainy, but this just adds to the consuming intensity of your work. No?
Unknown host pong.
Just don't ask me to watch it later.
I've made a fairly obvious realization:
Every Ask Slashdot has a healthy bunch of comments questioning the validity of the ask slashdot, telling the person to google, and whatnot.
Maybe it's time to just hardcode that into the Ask Slashdot section to save all these folks their precious time?
Whoa. I actually can't tell if I'm being sarcastic.
20 answers and only 1 is useful to the chap who asked the question.
/. is the place to look for an answer.
I am increasingly beginning to wonder if
Wanted : A Signature.
Progressive scan is a good feature to look for. Normal video is interlaced, meaning each frame only contains every other line. Progressive scan records a complete frame everytime. Another feature to look for is a CCD capture. One CCD per color. The image quality is generally much higher with a 3 chip capture. This said: The Canon XL-1S is certainly a nice camera, if you've got the budget... around $3500. The Sony VX-2000 is also quite good and a bit cheaper. Both have progressive scan and 3 CCD capture.
...and I would suggest, in particular, either the optura 20 (as it can be had for around 450 on buy.com) if you're on a budget (still, this camera is 1.3MP CCD), the optura Xi which is around 1000 and features 2MP CCD, or the de-facto GL2 (which since has been "upgraded" and rebranded as the XL2) which is around 2200 bux. All depends on how much you want to spend (and what features you need, in particular HD/progressive scan and widescreen support)
slack.at.trib.dot.com
I've always wondered how those 640x480 webcams would work. Stick a 70w peltier on the back and its concievable you'd have decent gear. So long as your not trying to convert to 23.99 NTSC or 25 PAL fps's (iirc).
Arent non-digies only like ~480 x 360 at best, or some such? And interlaced.... eeewww.
The main flaw I'd expect from digital cameras is that they're trying to make movies for a classically analog system. Their output requirements damn them from the start.
Just another uneducated heathen. Still, I'd be interested to hear some webcam usage stories. Anyone ripped out IR lenses, slapped a peltier on the back?
Myren
It really depends on your price range, but if you're looking for good 'entry-level' pro cameras, I've heard good things about the Panasonic AG-DVX100A, as well as the Canon GL & XL series. I actually believe Steven Soderbergh's "Full Frontal" was shot with a Canon XL1S.
Do you really think this is the place to ask that question?
I am sure there is going to be a list of better sites to find your answer.
Keep the Classic Slashdot.
It's so much more interesting--I didn't even think of this angle to the story.
-I am an elective eunuch.
Okay, here's the deal. First, you need a tripod. A remote for the camera would help, too. Next, you need a grainy green night vision adapter. Finally, find a barely literate heiress and video tape your sexual exploits. Step 3) Profit!
We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
Paris recommends...
I am defenseless. Use your button. Mod me down with all of your hatred.
The follow up the years old XL1 was finally released by Canon last week. It's probably hard to get now, but does 24P, 30i, 60i and has update CCD's (in comparison to the old, but quality XL1). If you're really planning on doing investing, it also supports the universal connector for Canon lenses. It probably runs around 5K, but supply and demand will drive it up higher for a while.
No you don't!
The higher the resolution, the less light you get per pixel for a given lens size -- this results in higher noise levels when you're in relatively low-light situations (e.g. indoors).
Why would you need higher resolution in a video camera, anyways? Sure there's HDTV, but if you're talking about regular TV resolution, there's absolutely no point. If you want to take stills, get a separate digital still camera; don't compromise your video.
"Orthodoxy is unconsciousness" - Orwell
digital camera buying guide
The other major 24fps camera is the Panasonic AG-DVX100A, but I've seen a lot of so-so reviews about it.
No matter what you buy, you'll have to buy a underwater casing for it.
...you want the newly announced Canon XL2.
It has vast third-party support, shoots 4:3 and 16:9 (although it is still a DV-format cam with the limitations that the 720x480 pixel resolution the standard requires), shoots in 60i, 30p and 24p, has XLR connectors, and will even take (with an adapter) Canon EOS lens from the still photography line in case you need something special like a super telephoto or a tilt-shift lens.
You really couldn't ask for more (except a lower price and native HDTV capabilities).
s it to be water resistant/proof, or be able to purchase a housing, for up to a 15 minute scene in the short film I am adapting.
What kind of films are you making again?
Are you sure you want to own a camera? What is your budget? If you are spending significant time/expense staging scenes, and the production will not run very long, it might be wiser to rent a professional camera. If you do buy, you may get a better deal on a used Sony VX1000 or VX2000 (a favorite of documentary filmmakers) than you could on a new model.
? O= productlist&A=details&Q=&sku=260806&is=REG
You can find some information about most of the currently available consumer video cameras at http://www.camcorderinfo.com/
I know of no waterproof or even water-resistant video cameras. You can get waterproof housings for any camera, ranging from Ewa-Marine's plastic-bag-with-window (which does actually work) up to regular diving housings for $2k - $5k and up. http://www.ewa-marine.de/english/
I own a VX2k myself. Gates has a nice housing for it, the VX2000M, which is $9369.00 plus tax.
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/controller/home
I've been reading, reading and reading for a bit on digital camcorders. A really good site with low noise forums I ran across is http://www.camcorderinfo.com which has in-house reviews a huge number of camcorders. I appreciated that they gave as much info as possible and let you make your own decisions based on their findings.
The short answer is there isn't a perfect camcorder. I'm looking at the under $750 range and feel I've narrowed my choice to the 3 CCD Panasonic PV-GS120. Excellent color and saturation. MiniDV tapes. Reasonable zoom though it's stabilization is iffy when zoomed in -- tripod will be needed for that -- which isn't an uncommon shortcoming with the super small camcorders. Video quality is identical to its higher priced brother the GS200 but it lacks some minor upgrades that I can live without. The Canon Optura 40 in this price range is well regarded as well and is a close contender for me.
I'd like to hear some testimonials from folks. What do they like about their camcorder and what would they look for in a new one today.
It should be noted that the digital-to-film transfer was purposely driven down to contract the quality in Full Frontal. Also, 28 Days Later was shot with XL1's. The quality loss is minimal if you invest in a good director of photography.
It depends a lot on what level of post-production you're going to use on the digital film. Most low-end video cameras, digital or not, don't support the three keys of Red, Green and Blue in post-production, where you could otherwise learn to heavily manipulate the RGB values on a frame-by-frame or skein basis in your output.
:-).
That said, check out the Canon XL1 or XL1s cameras (they don't support RGB keys), and if you can go higher, check out the Panasonic DVC200, which does support RGB keys and is a terrific camera. I'm not aware of any cameras that come standard with waterproof enclosures - that will probably be extra unless I'm mistaken.
One other tip I **strongly** suggest - if there's a film association near you, go to one of their meetings and talk to the people who do this as serious amateurs or paid professionals. You will learn a lot very quickly. If an association isn't an option, find your closest university, politely request an appointment with any filmmaker on staff, and then soak 'em for info for ~2 hours.
Good luck. FWIW, like HTML, it's easy to do and hard to do well,
Go by your local magazine rack and pickup a copy of DV magazine and dig in. The newest ideas that are coming down the pike lately are HDV cameras, VTR's etc. AND since Sony, Canon, JVC and Sharp are ALL on board for this newest of the new formats, you can be rest assured that it will become a defining standard for the DV world (Canon's XL2 is supposed to be HDV). If you want to get started right away check out all the eBay listings for Sony PD150's. It's a good solid camera that uses miniDV tapes and works well for most budding artists. As one post stated, and is TRUE, a lot of people have also chosen to go with the 24p Panasonic DVX100 because it gives a smooth transition to film. I'm gonna leave you with this tidbit though. It really all depends on how much you can spend, what acquistion you looking at going with, how your going to edit it and what the finally output needs to be...... Good luck with your new career!
I'll have you know I'm 26 you insensitive clod!!!
/.er
Sincerely,
A random
Of more importance is lighting. If you have bad lighting, the video will look bad no matter what kind of camera you have. This book is highly recommended for learning how to light.
I'm working through this question right now for my church. Here's some advice from a video journalist I work with on projects.
1. Nothing less than mini DV
2. Nothing less than a 3 CCD
3. Nothing less than the Canon GL-2 (or equivalent level of sophistication) and this type of chassis so you can hold and maneuver the camera properly during shooting
4. You want to have the option of inputting XLR audio to the camera from a shotgun, lapel or boom mic. This means either pony up for a cam that has these inputs or get a solid, professional grade adapter plate
5. I'd get a firewire mini DV deck so you don't have to use the cameras deck all the time
6. A GOOD tripod. These are, unfortunately, not cheap.
You can get into a decent DV cam and some gear for $3k, maybe less if you buy used. Video is so much more accessable now to the masses, it's awesome. While there is some coin to be spent to get up to speed, the quality of these 3 chip cams is amazing. If you're seriously hurting for cash, go for any mini DV camera with 3 CCD's.
Flappinbooger isn't my real name
. . . from someone with a burgeoning interest in film: the picture quality means nothing if the content is boring, or the audio sucks.
People will forgive less than great picture quality, and in some cases it even adds a bit of flare. If the movie isn't actually worth watching, or you can't hear dialogue . . . then, the money on the latest and greatest cam is wasted. It looks like you've got the sound aspect of this pretty well covered though.
Maybe think mid-range and work on technique; then consider the most expensive stuff. That's my plan, anyway. The greatest filmmakers probably didn't start out with best equipment at their disposal (Clerks was shot entirely in B&W, for example). Genius has a tendency to arise from severe limitations, especially in arts. Making the most out of perceived limitations is what hacking is all about, right?
Note that the resolution of all standard TV cameras is the same, 720x480 or something like that. There is just one consumer HDTV camera (made by JVC) which costs about $3K and is 800x600, but it's a 1-CCD camera. Professional HDTV cameras start a lot higher, like, $50K or who knows, more than you want to think about.
Beale Corner's video pages are a good place to surf around from about this stuff.
Well, the exact specifics depend on how much cash your going to stump up, but forget resolution. Accept that your home movie won't be HDTV, get something that does DV. It's a standard resolution, well supported.
The area's where you want to put the extra cash are:
0) Second camera. It will be much more help than you can imagine. Filming a take from two angles makes syching cuts straight forward, backup for battery / reliabilty etc. If you see the use of 8 mikes, I'm sure you can accept that multiple cameras are handy too.
1) Picture signal-to-noise ratio. You can tweak it in post, but it's better if you don't have to.
2) Optical Zoom. If you've a particular project in mind, you might not need much, but in general, it's handy to have.
The only other feature that's worth looking at is connection methods (IEEE-1394 all the way, really), and if you can push footage back to tape with the camera (very useful for backups for rendered scenes).
Normally, I'd add something about microphone quality, but I get the impression that's not an issue for you.
For filmmakers.
digital camera buying guide
another link for filmmakers
I wondered the same thing as you not long ago, then found this excellent link describing the key difference between amateur and pro video cameras--the YUV sampling rate. (Article needs an editor but is strong on info.)
"4:1:1 is the sampling rate used with the consumer DV format, along with DVCAM and DVCPRO. The 4:2:2 sampling rate is used with Digital-S (from JVC), DVCPRO-50 (from Panasonic), Digital Betacam, D-1 and D-5."
etc.
Funny you should ask. I'm in the middle of editing a video highlighting my internship... I did everything myself. Very low-budget, using my Sony Digital-8 Camcorder that I bought about 4 years ago for ~ $600.
Anyway, I bought 3 sheets of neon green posterboard, taped them together and used it as a green screen which I sit in front of. The software (Premiere) actually does a good job of keying out the green so I have my head floating in front of a transparent alpha-channel, and so I can manipulate the background easily.
Here's the problem: The camera sees all that green. In fact, it thinks it sees too much green and tries to tint the picture toward red to compensate. As a result, I come out looking like I have a bad sunburn. Now, I think I've figured out how to correct the color in the editor, but it sure was a PITA.
I know that the professional cameras have a lot more features (at much, much higher prices), but my dinky little camcorder does almost everything I want, except there's no way to tell it what white looks like.
The other thing to make sure to get is the ability to add a wide-angle lens. Really increases your options for framing your shots.
CHeck out wwug.com and digitalvideoediting.com for all sorts of cool information.
Kind of a nerdy reference, but here's some advice from the Star Wars fans eager to use DV for special effects: Fan Films FAQ
(and this site's usually helpful too: filmaking.net)
A Canon with interchangeable lens? act=Mo delDetailAct&fcategoryid=114&modelid=7471 :t =Mo delDetailAct&fcategoryid=114&modelid=10350 ? act=Mo delDetailAct&fcategoryid=154&modelid=8178
http://consumer.usa.canon.com/ir/controller
or this one
http://consumer.usa.canon.com/ir/controller?ac
and you use it with this lens
http://consumer.usa.canon.com/ir/controller
Or any other EOS lens.
Ceci n'est pas une Signature !
So this is my question to those of you that do film. Is film really that much more complicated. Are we going to lose and gain as much as when we moved from black and white to color stock? I look at the old movies and the lack of color seemed to force a creativity, just like the lack of simple fx seems to force more creative solutions. Can some of the artistic manipulation done with film be done with digital, or does it matter? For digital fx, clearly digital is better, but for practical shots?
I have no idea how to shoot a film, and barely can shoot a picture, but am curious about the art form.
"She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
You need to decide what your target medium will be.
If you forsee yourself producing material that will be delivered at standard definition on TVs (delivered by broadcast, intranet or DVD) then you can select any of a dozen good consumer level cameras. Sony, Canon. It's all good. A 3 CCD system will serve you better.
If you want true widescreen, then factor that in as well. Canon XL2 seems to be the one to beat these days.
If you want to transfer to film, a camera that records at 24 progressive frames per second may make life easier. Once again, the Canon XL2 would be the one to look at.
If you want HD on FCP, I'd recommend you use what Apple recommends, which at the moment seems to be the Pansonic DVCPRO range. Some HD systems work by compressing the video on the fly to MPEG2, which is less than optimal.
So it's difficult to recommend a camera until you know yourself what you want.
Then I'd recommend a you check out sites that deal with this sort of stuff a bit more than here. 2-pop.com and places like that.
When they came for the communists, I said "He's next door. Take him away. Goddam commies."
A 3CCD camera is a must just like the ability to manually focus.
Something that will help the look of your final product considerably is color correction. Apple's Final Cut Express has decent color correction capabilities and it won't set you back too much.
While a nice camera makes things look better, it's the content that keeps people watching. Think about what you are trying to convey and shoot accordingly. Spend time to plan your shots and get to know your camera before you start shooting your movie.
Check out my movies if you want to see what can be done for under $1000.
I bought a Canon MV600i around 9 months ago, and I'm *very* pleased with it.
I made a mini-documentary of a Stop Bush ( Dubya ) protest in Canberra when the bastard came to Australia, and used Kino to edit it. I'll be releasing it for download soon, at my site: http://enthalpy.homelinux.org. When I say 'soon', I mean 'in the next couple of weeks', so if you're interested, bookmark it and come back later...
The quality is absolutely amazing. No problems with compatibility. No problems with capture. Optical & digital zoom is also amazing.
I think the MV600i is replaced with the 700i or something now. If I were buying another one, I'd certainly buy a Canon.
You can find a description here.
I like the fact that I can use different lenses, including certain Canon still camera lenses.
actually, i would reccomend avsforums for this kind of question.
Speaking from someone who sunk thousands of dollars into equipment that still has yet to be used much, I'd suggest for your first foray that you consider renting or borrowing or finding the cheapest used DV camera you can find.
Don't freak about 3CCD elements and "all that jazz" because your first movie will be the exercise in which you make all your first mistakes. The degradation of substandard video equipment will be ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE less than all sorts of issues you will face.
If you're really serious and have some money to rub together, check out one of the programs of the New York Film Academy. They offer 4- or 8-week intensive courses that are really good, concentrated, and destined to give you the most bang for your buck. It'll do you a whole lot more good than spending several extra dollars on top-notch equipment.
Murray Todd Williams
http://www.murraywilliams.com
P.S. My projects from the NYFA are on my website. They may seem rough around the edges, but I learned VOLUMES in making them!
Murray Todd Williams
All camera's are the same in that they capture light through a lense. In fact, still cameras are nothing more then light tight boxes that capture light. A video camera is more complex obviously, but it still needs to see light through a lense.
Last time that I was at a camera store, I remember glancing down at a nice Sony digital vid camera and being surprised to see that the optics were Carl Zeiss. If this holds true to the Sony line, then this is deffinatly a major pro for the Sony line, Carl Zeiss is one of, if not the best producer of optics in the camera business.
In nature, there are neither rewards or punishments, there are only consequences.
Firstly, you're shooting a short, it sounds like your first venture, don't spend the money buying outright... If you're in or near a sizable metropolitan area you shouldn't have any trouble finding a rental house, check around, get some rates... You're going to want more than a camera anyway, you'll want lights, stands, c clamps, gobos, scrims, gels, reflectors, a decent tripod (but don't get married to it, stay fluid), gaffers tape, lenses, etc. I'd try to find a weekend rate package on a decent HD camera, offline it to DV for editing, and then online it somewhere where you can do it in native HD. This isn't cheap of course, but I suspect you can find a rate on a decent rental package for about the same as you'd pick up a mid-level DV cam retail. Again, poke around a metropolitan area, snag yourself some film students (they also tend to work on the cheap, for free, or for beer), they also would likely be familiar with the rental houses or may have some interesting equipment themselves. I don't think an outright retail purchase is the way to go in your case... though, I'd be *really* careful about the water, most rental houses won't take kindly to you dunking their camera in the bathtub for that ECU of your leading lady's assests.
btw, aren't flash intros annoying when you're listening to music and they come on all loud?
and what is the price btw?
This is my Sig, this is my Gun. One is for Slashdot and one is for Fun.
Unless you're going to be under water you don't need an expensive underwater housing. If it's weather or rain a good weather cover like Porta Brace is very effective.
After that a good shotgun mic like a Sennheiser ME66 and you'll be right in business. Oktava also makes a very respectable mic for dialogue. There are numerous mic comparison clips at DVFreelancer in the Audio section.
That's our life, the big wheel of shit. - The Fat Man, Blue Tango Salvage
Get a decent 3 CCD camera. That's it. Spend ALL of the rest of your budget on lighting. Maybe even hire somebody to do it for you.
Good lighting is EVERYTHING when it comes to video and film. Everything. If you aren't lighting your scenes properly, they will look light shit.
The quality of your camera comes a distant second to the quality of your lighting scheme/equipment.
If it is really Amateur stuff, it doesn't really matter, it will suck anyhow. Badly lighted, poorly edited, etc.
If it is professional, you can probably use the same equipment, if you know what you are doing. However, there are lots of reviews in other forums that are probably more appropriate than "ask slashdot".
This issue is a bit more complicated than you think.
Moderators, please moderate parent comment down, Spytap is a KNOWN TROLL and his post contains hidden links to the GNAA LastMeasure virus.
The only things I can think to add to the above list is a few lights, reflectors and high quality bags to carry everything. Spend a few hundred on the bags as cheap ones with fail within a month.
Going too cheap gets you local cable access results. A few extra dollars spent correctly goes a long ways and can give you a pro look.
"I hate to advocate drugs, alcohol, violence or insanity but they've always worked for me" - HST
Check out:
http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/
They have fantastic boards, very active, mostly on-topic (*ahem*), and with tons of information on every aspect of video production, from planning to purchasing to shooting to editing. They also have a decent classifieds section, you might find a good used camera, now that the XL2 has been announced, it would be a good time to get an XL1s for a steal.
Seriously, you probably have to narrow it down a bit more money wise. However as a general recommendation, I like to stick with Canon for anything under $1000 and Canon or Sony for $1000+.
Now what range you should look to spend depends on what you want to do. If this is just a film for fun, and quality isn't an issue, get a cheap Canon MiniDV cam. They have lots of them, often for under $400 if you scout around. These will not give good quality, however.
For about $800-$1000, you can get a camera that is pretty close to broadcast NTSC quality. The Canon Optura Xi is what I like. It's good enough to be low end broadcast TV.
If you are willing to drop some more, well look at getting a Canon GL2 or maybe Sony DCR-VX2100. These are basically broadcast quality, and in some ways even better than DVD quality. You won't be sorry with the picture you get out of these. Around $1800-$2200.
If you want to max out on MiniDV, hard to go wrong with a Canon XL1s or their new XL2. I haven't personally used the XL2, but it sounds even better than the XL1, which just rocks. Real pro quality stuff here that gets great pictures right out of the box. Talking in the $3000 range.
More than that? Well now you are talking real DVCam or DVPro, and in that arena I don't have much experience. Again my inital recommendation would be to stick Canon or Sony. I'm more partial to Canon becuase I like their lenses better, but I imagine you can put a Canon lens on a Sony DVPro unit.
You can't go wrong with the Canon XL-1. It's not water resistant, but I'm sure you can get a water-resistant/water-proof housing for it.
"In prison you just have to shut your eyes and take it. Here you have to shut your eyes and give it."
The Canon XL1S has an underwater housing.
Since several people have pointed out that Canon has just announced the XL2, I'll point out that that new model will likely cause an increase in used XL1's on the market as XL1 owners upgrade -- and a subsequent drop in prices. Sounds like the best choice for you ... the XL2 hits the market next month, so wait a month or two past that and then start looking for a used XL1.
One simple rule for its versus it's
I work in a SDI studio, and have had the oppertunity to work with many cameras and edit footage from a few different camera. I have used Gl2's XL1 and XL1s's and also the Panasonic DVX100a. The DVX100a has been the greatest camera I have ever used, 24p is amazing, and Final Cut Pro HD lets you take out the 2:3 pulldown the camera induces on the 29.97 video to make it seem 24p. It does not actually shoot 24p, the video looks and feels like it though, you can actually edit it in a regular NTSC sequence at 29.97. The DVX100a has a servo zoom but you can flip a switch and the front of the camera and use a manual zoom, for super fast zoom, and on the LCD display, there is a number correlating with the zoom position. Same with the manual focus, there is a number on the LCD display to help with rack focus shot. Yes, the lens is not interchangable, but with a small camera, you are usually as close as you can and as open as you can. The blacks on this camera and just ungodly. It percieves color amazingly well. I would highly suggest it, once you try it you'll have to buy one.
Anyone know of a nice, decent and relatively cheap ( as in, below 500 euro ) video camera? Preferably digital, but I don't really know much about cameras so before someone starts screaming that cameras with tapes are by far superior, please enlighten me. Anyways, I'm looking for a simple camera. High resolution, perfect quality and all that are nice, but I just want to record simple things with it. I'm by no means whatsoever a professional and spending 2000 euro on a camera still makes me a crap cameraman. I just want something nice and simple for average home stuff. Record family, stuff, dad's shiny motorbike he's oh-so-proud of, mom's new creative stuff, friends, etc.
So, anyone got a few nice suggestions regarding that? I'm open to all kinds of ideas, just with a few minor preferences, which are all open to discussion. I'd like it to store data on some sort of flash memory, preferably encoded in a rather normal format such as divx or xvid or whatever. Also, USB connections would be best, considering my current lack of firewire. Some simple video-editing program would be nice too, so I can recode/encode the video to mpeg2 and burn it on DVD afterwards.
So, if anyone got a suggestion as to what camera would be ideal and on which notions I'm horribly wrong, feel free to reply. Cheers!
Hate me!
That's going to be my choice, whether I like it or not I think. On my round the world trip, I'd like to put together a short video of me asking random people, "What do you think of the USA?"
Fist full of CF cards and the hopes of running into people/cafes with burners. Unless someone else can think of a better idea that has to be cheap. I'm traveling on a Meister Brau budget.
riding round the world on an old motorcycle
You've got dual Athlons baby? You need ram? I need ram badly. My hard drive is so full it's about to burst. I feel so SCSI.
[This comment was aborted due to it's graphic content)
A good resource for filmmakers is B-Independent. While they are mainly horror guys, their message boards have lots of good advice on amature filmmaking from people who are actually making their own films with the equipment.
http://www.popularculturegaming.com -- my blog about the culture of videogame players
I just bought a camera panasonic something 72 for 400 bucks from frys, next week same camera was 600 bucks. After using its software it would only transfer 4 minutes of video at one time before it would reach its limit (about a cd's worth). I returned the camera because I figure i will wait till the dvd cameras get better and their price comes down because that way you do not have to worry about transferring data because it will all be on mini dvd. only problem i noticed is that the quality on the dvd cameras are not up to par with other less expensive cameras, as well as the mini dvds are about 15 bucks each(dont know how much th rw ones are). Just depends on where you want to spend your time, in transfers or in editing. I did use other programs to transfer files but the all seemed to clock out around 4 minutes. (it was a minidv camera, so it could be the reason that they were on sale, the fact that it would only allow tranfers of 4 mins at a time). So for family videos transferring 4 minutes at a time over and over again can get tedious. So as I said I recommend finding a camera that makes transferring data to the pc/mac easy. Hope that helps, -Cycil
I'm a Junior in a college film program; I just purchased a Panasonic DV-953 for about $1000 for my own work since I got tired of dealing with the process involved in checking out equipment if I just wanted to experiment and play around, or shoot video for my family/friends/etc. It hasn't got the features of the DVC100 or a XLS-1, since it's a high end consumer-level camera but I've been told the video quality is on par with a GL-1. It has three 1/3" ccds, external audio in, headphone jack for monitoring levels, and I know that a waterproof enclosure is available for about $900. If I had to nitpick anything, it would be that audio levels are only adjustable through the onscreen menu (no dedicated sliders/knobs) and that the mic/headphone connectors are located on the front of the camera, but far enough behind the lens that the cables shouldn't get in the way if managed properly.
For my recommendation, see my post: Canon.
For what I recommend you avoid, Sony is at the top of the list, because of their attitude towards their customers. They are one of the major backers of the DMCA & TCPA. Sony's latest round of advertisements here in Australia highlight their understanding of their customer's perception of them. I'm not sure if you get the ads whereever you are, but they're basically trying to achieve a soft, artistic, humanistic image by avoiding mentioning their product at all through ads that show eccentric artistic people doing things that make you want to smile, with happy Reggae music playing in the background and basically everyone's happy and cool, and then at the end, the advert says "It's a Sony". Like adding those 3 words at the end somehow connects the preceding images to their company. I think not.
Apart from my general boycott of Sony products, I've also found them to be quite overpriced compared to products of similar or better quality from the competition.
You're jumping from one field where its hard to get a job, to yet another field where its hard to find work. Way to go!
Go to film school.
If you just got a sound degree why don't you get a job doing sound while you then pursue an education in film? I mean do you want to do sound or do you want to direct your own movies?
I also find it funny that what you are an expert in (sound) will be fucking useless the only instance you are specific about. Water resistant? Bangin german techno? You're gonna film porn, and as far as jizz resistant goes, get a casing.
p.s. underwater pron's been done.
Here's an interesting interview with Spike Lee on his usage of prosumer cameras.
Forget about the equipment, writing, cast, so on. With an accent that thick, any movie that he makes is guaranteed to be brilliant.
xScruffx
as noted earlier, don't use less than DV for the money shots
the sony vx[1,2]000 are nice
the canon xl series allows you to change lenses as needed,
jvc and panasonic both make affordable(?) HD.
ditto info from the local users group/union hall
and now onto the other questions:
Film == complications? - film can be complicated if you don't have the skills or experience, you'll be wasting precious $$$ processing and seeing potentially crappy results. While film does have a 'feel', it's really who's directing, who the cinematographer is, grips(lighting), etc. Since the poster is doing this himself, he's all of the above and should take advantage of tape and digital. digital-8, DV, and HD are more forgiving while learning; you can always shoot again and reuse tape. don't like that last shot? do it again. and again. and again. and again. try doing that with film on a limited budget. anyway, it's really easy to make a crappy movie in B&W _or_ color, digital _or_ film; it's hard to make a _great_ movie, period.
as for F/X, the less obvious and obtrusive the better; pretty much anything done traditionally, miniatures, composites, fx(laser beams, explosions, dust, smoke, water) can be done digitally, either with composited practicals or CG(your results may vary.) try to avoid digital effects unless you really, really have to. a side note here: for the lord of the rings trilogy, you probably already know the the hobbits and normal sized people were all shot separately and recombined digitally; this used to be done optically with multiple layers/strips of film at some expense for lab time, processing, etc. the LOTR composites were actually quite good(imnsho), but the point here is the camera angles were all planned far, far in advance _knowing_ that a composite would be used to create the illusion of the height differences. on the other hand there's 'Lost In Translation' - purposely done on film for the look and feel(no dramatic fx necessary to tell the story...)
I think the reason we perceive older films as being more thoughtful and creative is because 50 years ago, it took a long time to make a movie so everything had to be decided upon _before_ anyone stepped in front of a camera. have you watched a Bergman film with the extraordinarily long shots? do you think they ad-libbed it? planning down to the last detail (beyond your limit of patience during screenwriting)will save your show whether you originate on film or digital.
regarding practicals: if you can do it well and quickly with a practical, that's one less thing to mess with in compositing later. i've stopped keeping track of how often a shot goes back for a 'quick tweak' just because it's digital. if you've planned it out(story board, test shots, etc.) ahead of time, it should be relatively easy. don't be afraid of a miniature set if you need something in the distance, detail is naturally low for shots with stuff way out back in the distance. when we worked on Reign of Fire, the shots of London burnt in the distance were done with miniatures, same with 102 dalmations.
finally, about underwater; you may be able to get away with hi-8, digital-8, or DV due to the natural softening of subject material under water, ie. digital-8 for water, DV/HD for the hero/money shots. also, it's amazing what you can do with a camera outside a fish tank looking _in_;-)
to the original poster - Best of Luck! I look forward to seeing your work(consider on-line trailers/teasers, hint, hint)
"...that's as white as it gets; all the bits are on..."
Is a consumer handheld camcorder that
1) Shoots 16:9 or 2.85:1 or whatever
2) Shoots in at LEAST 480p if not 720p
3) Records straight to DVD
The ultimate network admin tool needs HELP!
I've been using a Canon XM1 (the PAL version of the GL1) for a couple of years now. It's a decent semi-pro camera which is a fair bit cheaper than the XL1, and produces footage which is as good as the more expensive version.
What it lacks is the capacity to change lenses, and more importantly for me, it uses automatic level controls for sound. That means for anything serious you need off-camera sound, which is sometimes a complication I could do without, but otherwise I haven't missed the extra features of the XL.
I work in a film school and I shoot with various cameras all the time, but the personal fave, if I have a choice, is the Panasonic AGDVX100a.
The 24p is the hottest thing around, but I absolutely love the layout of the camera itself. I do a lot of guerilla shooting around a town (Vancouver) that will shut you down faster than you can drop an ND filter. I have to be able to adapt to shooting indoors or outdoors, low light or high light, really fast, and without thinking. And the layout of the DVX serves that just perfectly.
Plus it's a big enough camera that if you mount it on a nice enough tripod like a miller 510 or the manfrotto 501 then you can get a crew together that will take you seriously and get some real shooting done.
A little bit costly, but a friend of mine picked up an AGDVX100, manfrotto 501 tripod, and an oktava mic for $4200 Canadian. That's a full rig right there.
Yes, its belly dancing. Enough with the shamless plug.
Anyways, the camera worked fabulously. True, its not an XL-1, but it has handled all situations that I've thrown at it - even really bad lighting (Belly dance performances). It is quite easy to use (do read the manual, though), and there are plenty of features, including a "movie mode" which shoots non-internlaced video.
I also know several other local videographers who use them.
I've always been partial to Canon GL-2 and the XL-1S. Both use 30fps progressive that looks gorgeous. The optics are amazing. Canon has always been a leader in optics. The XL-1S has interchangeable lenses. Optional lenses include a red/green 3D stereo lens.
I haven't used it, but I hear that the Panasonic AG-DVX100A. It does 24fps progressive.
My two cents.
Hmmm... I don't see the DVD camcorders catching on for most people. As for transfer limits... Firewire should make transfers easy. Not sure what your problem is.
I own one myself. It's an amazing cammera. amd really the only one that does 24p natively.
However, if you want to do short films (with the "film" look) with it and choose to not get the Panasonic model, you should really go with the PAL of one of the other models. This tends to make your postproduction eaiser when your droping frames.
Also, and I can't stress this enough, *buy only from a respectable cammera store* you'll probably have to spend up to an extra $500 or so, but you'll want that warenty and reliablity. *DO NOT* go with those first hits you see on google, you will almost certianly regret it.
F) depending on the effect you're trying to get, consider alternatives. Think: Pixelvision. Think VHS. Think cheapie DV camera. Process the the bejesus out of it. If it's your first work, don't bother with trying to make it look Hollywood, or even Daytime TV. just get something out the door, that you feel good about. It's better to make some not-so-great art that you find personally fulfilling and was a great learning experience than some primetime dogfood commercial.
G) Here's another tip: Shoot with a cheap DV camera (like I dunno - a Canon ZR60 - $300 when you can find 'em) and then take all the colour out in post. There is no loss to the luminance signal (DV is 4.1.1), so a cheapie is going to look a lot more like a high end camera in Black and White than it will in colour, due to the loss from using a single chip NTSC camera.
H) CONCENTRATE ON CONTENT. If the content is compelling, the formal inadequacies are often not as noticeable, or can even be used as a foil to amplify the content. Having something important and insightful to say with your work will trump any HDTV camera and lighting crew and prima donna actors you can find. Life is too short to make stupid crap, but if your budget doesn't permit hiring Walter Murch and a REAL CAMERA then focus on what you're trying to say, and strive to say it well.
I) there is no point I.
J) Pracitce your editing chops doing some video smashups. Rent a bunch of DVDs of movies that make you go "THAT WAS FUCKING GREAT", rip them to your drive as QT movies, and then edit the crap out of them. Study the really well edited ones - see how they're put together.
K) It seems you're going for a "music video" from what I can gather, so look at the masters of the genre, especially Chris Cunningham and Godley and Creme for fancy stuff, and then check out the works of the Emergency Broadcast Network. you don't need fancy cameras and actors and lighting to make an extremely effective video. You just need a vision and the will and some small amount of money to get you going.
Good luck,
RS
Shoes for Industry. Shoes for the Dead.
I bought a Sony DCR-HC12 a few weeks ago, and am very happy with the results. I've edited some into fairly professional looking video, but others have carried it around, and it looks like amateur home video footage. Really, it's all in how you shoot. The camera doesn't make you a professional. Good camera work, good lighting, good sets, good editing, and good camera friendly talent are all very important.
I have access to much better cameras, but this is small enough for me to stick in my pocket, and not kill my arm shooting for hours. The Canon XL1s is very popular. It's full of really nice features (the steady shot is amazing), but if you have no experience with shooting video professionally, I'd make a better video than you with an old Sony Handycam.
Serious? Seriousness is well above my pay grade.
...or the Panasonic. I made the mistake of buying Canon and had problems with the autofocus. After the third time of taking it directly to their service center in Garden Grove, I had the manager there tell me "they all do that, we're not going to do anything to repair or replace it, take your camera and get the hell out of here." Sony's professional service, on the other hand, has always been professional and thorough... they've even loaned me manuals for equipment that manuals were no longer available for so I could photocopy them.
For any piece of equipment that's going to see real use in the field, after-the-sale service is every bit as important as initial specs.
... you must be seeing some really cheap whores.
+++ATH0
Seriously. Get a good heavy tripod. This is more important than the video camera. Having the camera stable is key to making video look good. HD video would look terrible hand held.
Get one with a fluid head (bogon/monfroto make sume). Usually the heads are sold separately.
Nothing says ametuer video like a handheld camera. You can't hold it steady enough even with the stabilizers they build into the cameras, I started using a tripod with my minidv camera and was surprised how much better the video looked.
Also if you need the camera for a limit time need you can probably rent a better one than you can afford to buy.
The new JVC GR-HD1 looks pretty amazing.
It allows you to record HD images onto a standard MiniDV tape.
It does NTSC recording in 4:3 480i, which is standard DV recording for playback on any TV in the United States. In digital mode, you can record in either standard-definition 525/60p (525 lines at 60 fields per second) or high-definition 720/30p using MPEG-2 compression.
Also get a screw-on UV filter (if your camera can hold one). It doesn't really do anything to the picture, but it's an extra lair of protection in case the lens gets bumped/scratched. They're cheap. A new lens isn't.
DO NOT WRITE IN THIS SPACE
okI have been using the Sony TRV900E (when in Europe) and the TRV900 in the US for about four years now, and I can say that it still wipes the floor with camcorders that currently cost almost three times as much. It was the Sony "prosumer" model, but when they found it was hurting sales of the VX2000 and other low end pro models, they replaced it with the significantly less capable TRV900.
The TRV900 can be had on eBay for well under USD1000 now. I love it...
Call me old fashioned, but I like a dump to be as memorable as it is devastating - Bender
The XL 1 is a classic, but I used the Sony PD 170 for a 5 week project. The extended life batteries go for 400 minutes! The filters are a must as well, and the included shotgun mic is incredible. Total cost about $5000 for everything you'll ever need (unless you need multiple angles)...
you just have to lick all the chocolate off it.
I like microcars
I know it sounds stupid but I made a big mistake with the Canon ZR80. My G/F has the Canon ZR75, a nice camera I'll say. When the new line of ZR cameras came out they were 18% smaller so I picked up the low end of the 3. The ZR80 had just what I needed and none of what I didnt (Still camera, etc). What I failed to notice was that the camera did not have an audio in jack. My audio capture is limited to the crappy mic built into the unit. This has really hindered my creativity. I should have waited and got the ZR75 when the prices went down dispite the fact that its somewhat larger.
My question to you fellow slashdotters, is, what alternatives to capturing audio do I have? I've never messed with recording to a dat or something similar and trying to sync the audio, that sounds like a real pain. Any suggestions are truly welcome.
Thanks,
Aardwolf
Im dreaming ofa big bndwdth, That can resist the
I suggest "Ask Paris Hilton" may be the appropriate category for this type of request in future
Intentionally Overengineered.
you got a little baby program there, a hobby "degree."
Pardon, poofy school does not a sound engineer make.
Now go to a university and get a proper Broadcast Engineering License.
Okay?
Good luck.
PS the only way to learn production arts is to DO THE WORK with some real mentors. Best not to mention this "school" that took your money.
PS When I mix a concert it sounds better than the live album. In twenty years, you can tell me about it. A lot of work though.
Audio engineer?
Okay, list out 20 compressors and the attributes of each and where and how they are applied.
From my research, a Canon GL-2 is my dream cam. It's not huge, and there are a few housings for it. Until my wife finds truly gainful employment, I can't buy it. For now I've got a JVC GR-DVL520. Picked it up for $200 on ebay from a repair shop. It scans nicely for logging timecodes. I use a Powerbook G4 Aluminum 1Ghz w/768MB Ram, 60GB hd, etc. I use a firewire drive to do all the video work. For my work, a 120GB maxtor in a firewire 400 housing. If I needed to work on a bigger production, I'd get a firewire 800 board that can support 4 drives. These are around $80. Put it into a 4 bay scsi case from Halted electronics with some decent drive caddys. Your powerbook can raid the four drives into one big drive. Then you'll have some redundancy if you want as well. I use a contour design shuttle Xpress. It's about $50 vs $120 for the prov2. It's very handy for stepping through frames. You may want to consider getting a FCP keyboard as well. It'll make editing much quicker. I buy my DV tapes from SAMS Club. For $22, I get 8 Maxell MiniDV tapes. I've seen some ebay prices be a little cheaper, but not by much and that was in lots of 50 to 100. BTW, two of the same tapes are $8 at Wallyworld. For serious editing work, get a Deck. More money, but really reduces the wear on your camera. Sony makes a MiniDV walkman that's supposedly excellent. You can get a used pro quality deck of ebay for decent money. That's where I'd buy. For the camera, get an extended warranty. I have a $300 sharp cam that's not worth getting fixed. It eats tapes, and needs a simple alignment, but service is ~$200 minumum. Not worth replacing. The GL2 does 3:2 pulldown, which is film style. Many people prefer the canon cams just for this reason. For an excellent example of this stuff, check out www.crewoftwo.com They used canon cams with digital production and just came out sweet.
I work in Los Angeles as a television editor, and I can tell you this much- I have _never once_ used FCP on a professional shoot. Additionally I know many audio editors, and they all without exception use Protools. I'm not saying this to slight any competing programs, I'm volunteering this info to let you know that if you're looking for a _career_ in the film/TV biz, those are the programs you should start to become very comfortable with. I've edited tons of network TV shows and it's always been Avid Media Composer/Adrenaline/XPressDV. the great thing about avid is that the interfaces are all the same, so if you know XPressDV, you em all, so I recommend that program whole-heartedly.
For everything else, do what the others say and RENT first. Don't blow a ton of money on expensive gear- especially digital equipment that runs the course to obsolence so quickly these days. Rent some decent gear- it will force you to budget your time and shoot efficiently. It will also force you to pre-produce effectively- you should have the entire film/video/short/whatever shot in your head (or storyboarded) before you roll a single frame of actual tape or film. You should spend most of your time WRITING!!!! That's where the craft is- making story count, because there isn't a bell or whistle on any of these fancy cameras that will save a crappy story- I guarantee you.
The most important things to rember are
1. get a Tripod (and use it god damnit)
2. read the manual of the camera you want to use (get it offline before hand)
3. reserve the camera
4.pick up the camera
5. pick up film
6. DON'T leave ANYTHING for the editing room, you can't make it better, just make it different, so get the best you can.
the new canon XL2 is sweet or the panisonic dvx100a
...when so many cheap movie(film) cameras are out there? Come on, being retro is fun. :-)
-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+ *** http://www.mountainfort.com *** +-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-=-+-
But what if I pay her by the dinner, movie, travel, and anniverasy, valentine's day, sweetst day, birthday, christmas, and other anniversay gifts?
paintball
We're not so good with answers. But if you already have them, we've got no trouble coming up with questions.
paintball
$5 / month hosted VPS on linux = awesome!
Nancy Schreiber won the Best Cinematography award at the last Sundance festival using a DVX-100, and the DVX100A is even better. 'nuff said.
If you check out www.dvxuser.com, you'll see a whole bunch of folks in love with their camera, along with test footage that's amazing.
If imitation is the most sincere form of flattery, then Panasonic is feeling really flattered right now. The Canon XL2 that's coming out next month is a veritable copy of the DVX. It does have a few new features available though, mainly native 16:9, a 20x telephoto (versus the DVX's 10x), and more lines of resolution. On the down side, it has 8bit color (the DVX has 12 bit), it has no wide angle lens to speak of which will require an extra lens and constand lens changes which is a drag (the DVX goes down to 32.5mm), it weighs a lot more, attracts more attention (not good -- cops will ask for permits), and it costs $1400 more. Plus there haven't been any reliable tests done yet, so it's likely to be buggy.
And don't listen to the know-it-alls that says "rent, don't buy." That was advice popularized by Scott Billups in his book "Digital Moviemaking," but it only applies to the high end DV cameras ($40,000 and greater). Scott goes on to recommend buying a miniDV to practice your craft. If you don't own, you won't be able to shoot to your heart's content, consequently you will take forever to get good.
sounds like youre pretty keen on the audio side and just now getting into the video side. i'm focusing on ideas you presented like 'amateur' and 'shooting a 15 minute story' and that youre thinking of doing this in the 'late fall, early spring'. i suggest going to your local Target store and buy whatever is your favorite miniDV cam of the ones they have there. that's a perfect place to start and dont forget the tripod. there are many others who might get into arguements about all kinds of other stuff and we cant overlook the ever present discussions about what's "the best". trouble is "best" is a moving target. when i get into something new i start with the cheap stuff cuz sometimes i realize, six steps into it, that i dont like this "new" thing as much as i thought i would. if you start with the cheap stuff then there's no heartache when it sits on a shelf for two months or when you finally decide to liquidate through ebay or even when you decide to step up to the next level and hand this stuff off to your little brother. it's like starting with a pencil and paper before deciding to buy a full compliment of drafting equipment, or cheapo watercolors befores oils and canvases or like learning to drive using a ... well youre getting the idea. dont make "making a film" into deciding all the perfect stuff that you think needs to accompany making a film. a film is a story being told with pictures. that root thing, the most important thing, is the story. is it a picturesque kind of story? can you use your camera and editing skills to make it into one? then shoot it with your cheapo miniDV camera and your inexpensive tripod and shoot it all outdoors in the early morning light so you dont have to get hung up on many of the details of lighting and dont use any dialogue so you dont have to get hung up on all the details of audio either, at least not right away.
my first short film for film school was this: a guy is awakened in the morning by a phone call. he answers the phone. listens. then gets up and runs. he runs all the way through the city and finally arrives at the hospital emergency room. that's it. it took about six hours to shoot and after editing it was about three minutes long. shoot a simple story like that and, when youre ready, begin adding layers. add sound effects. add music. add another character. then add some dialogue. edit it several times to try and change the timing. re-shoot it as a comedy. then as a horror story. then as an action-adventure. then as a porn film or whatever. add more interior scenes when youre ready to practice with some lighting. but dont burden yourself with all that extra stuff when youre starting. start something simple. finish something simple. rinse and repeat. then when fall or early spring rolls around youll be confident and ready to shoot your 15 minute short or youll be on to the next new thing without any heartache at all. ... and if you dont spend too much money on camera or tripod initially youll have some money to actually learn the craft of filmmaking. read some books and watch some movies. the silent films from 1900 thru 1920s show what you can do without any of the technology we have available today. i'd also recommend buying a big book on Film History at your local book store. then maybe buy a book titled Portable Video. i read it while in film school and found it to be a quick and dirty kind of "just give me the answers" type book slanted toward situations those news guys probably find themselves in a lot when theyre showing up somewhere to shoot something that's happening right now. just my suggestions for where to start.
in the beginning just do it. then later do it well.
good luck.
Ok, today we're looking at the Sony DVDA-69, a mid range digital video camera from one of the world's leading electronics manufacturers. As always, we subjected the DVDA-69 to our usual array of real-world tests...not the fake kind you see in "Camcorder Enthusiast Magazine" where they test colour reproduction on scences of bounching beachballs, or testing the zoom lens on closeup shots of the Sydney Opera House, but real life stuff. Let's begin.
Tripod stability: This is important. The DVDA-69 has a shock-stabilised tripod mount, which allowed it to score a perfect 5 out of 5 for the "4-way fat bitch fuck fest test". As regular readers know, this is where we get over 500kg of pounding lesbian flesh to get jiggy in a tub of jelly and film the whole damn thing. Lesser cameras produce an unwatchable shaking mess due to the harsh vibrations. The DVDA-69 felt barely a tremor during this tough test due to the inertial stabilisation and digial shake correction. Fantastic.
Flesh and genital colour tone reproducibility: The DVDA-69 was presented with our standard test panel of 3 vaginas (one hairy, one pierced, one shaved) and 3 penises (one regular, one large, one 'rock splitter'), and tested for accurate flesh tone reproducibility. The CCD sensor did a reasonable job, reporting back 89% faithful colour repro even on an 8x macro pussy zoom shot, but for those seeking ultimate chromatic reproduction, try the new Panasonic CockViewer 7000 (see our previous review). 3 stars out of 5 on this test.
Sound capture authenticity: Again, we used our standard voice test panel of "Oh yeah do you like that bitch?", "I'm gonna cum all over your titties!" and "Give it to me give it to me give it to me SQUEEAAALLL", captured through the standard camera microphone. The DVDA-69 did a good job of capturing mid to high end frequencies (it scored a perfect 100% in the 'anal jab scream' test, but there was some distortion in the optional 'blacks on blondes' sub test where our Barry White sound-alike test subject was able to induce a bit of fuzziness with an orgasmic "Oooooohhh yeeeaaaahhh". 4 out of 5 stars.
Environmental robustness:. The toughest test of all. Basically everyone just jizzes all over the camera lens and we see if it still works. Things were going well until some spooge leaked into the tape compartment, requiring tedious manual cleaning. Not a real competitor here, and certainly bested by the Canon PowerGyno A700 Intruder Edition, which was not disturbed by even the most savage gang banging facial action. Sony is really going to need to work on this if it is going to be seen as a serious player in the home market. 2 out of 5.
Summary: A reasonable entry by Sony into the crowded home camcorder market. Good performance for standard types of fuck-filming, and you can expect your pounding, flabby buttocks to be faithfully presented on the screen during playback. The camera has several ease-of-use features, such as a 'Thumb-off' record button, allowing the user to simply hang the camera around their neck when filming 1st-person blow job scenes, allowing both hands to be used to guide the girl's head onto the end of your cock. But the lack of moisture resistance means that hardcore users will need to look elsewhere for top-quality gyno movies. 3 out 5 stars overall.
Bro, sounds like you are not following the evolution of amateur videos very closely. You can get any girl to perform amateur videos with just $20! Don't believe me? Go watch some of those new trendy reality pr0n videos! You can get any girl to do one of those videos with $20 nowadays, you should ask some ladies at your local bus stop next time. Remember to record the whole encounter with a new Digital Camera, and remember to post the results of your broken nose . . . I mean, experiment for us to see!
A really good site I've been lurking on is dvxuser which is a collection of folks who are shooting on the 24p DVX100(a) Panasonic camera. Some of these folks have produced some very amazing footage.
There is a new forum on that board looking at the new 24p model of the Canon that was just announced.
Another thing to think about is the next gen of camera which is 'just around the corner' - the HDV standard. While it doesn't look to support the 24p the above cameras offer, 720p & 1080i on a mini-dv tape sure looks exciting.
There's always new gear though. The DVX and XL crowds have an almost religious zeal to their love of their kit so maybe start by looking at these two cameras if you can afford them - at least you then keep your options open. 'film look' as well as 'news report' settings depending on your vision.
Check out http://www.channel101.com/ and submit a pilot tv show. See if you can top the production value of "Computer Man". The story line can't be touched!
A good camera is the Panasonic AG-DVX100A. I shot a feature on it last year. It's a 3CCD miniDV. The quality was excellent for a 3 grand camera. One big benefit is it has dual XLR plugs. If you are into sound you really should go for a camera with XLRs. The standard mini plugs can get a lot of interference. The XLRs are a lot cleaner. Most prosumer cameras only have mini plugs. The Canon XL-1 had an add-on shoulder pad with XLR connectors. If you go to an editing system that handles 24P, Premiere or Final Cut, I strongly recommend it. The look is a lot closer to film. Good luck with the short.
work on the script a bit more
work on the script alot more
finish working on the script (this is IMPORTANT)
Plan how long I will need to shoot for
Hire the actors
Organise to hire a digibeta camera ( Note that this isn't anywhere near the first step)
shoot
edit.
People are too keen to start shooting. This can work sometimes, but 99.99% of the time you need to plan properly and have a script.
But to answer your question, Id hire a digibeta camera. You will be able to attract better quality people if you aren't shooting on dv/dvcam
Even cheap DV camcorders are leaps and bounds ahead of the high-end analogue gear of 10-15 years ago, provided you don't go for the very bottom end of the price range, you won't get results that are unacceptably bad from any manufacturer.
If you want to have more flexibility in editing than simply cutting out the bits that you don't need, then shooting everything from at least 2 angles is essential. Wouldn't you rather watch a well editied exciting but slightly noisy/blurry film than a pin-sharp dull one? It's going to be much easier to get people excited by your work if you say "if only I had better gear" at the end than if you say "if only I had more footage".
Also, don't skimp on the accesories - you should NEVER be in a situation where you don't have enough spare fully charged batteries and enough tape to record on. Do your research here, you might well be horrified at the cost of spare batteries and chargers!
A pizza of radius z and thickness a has a volume of pi z z a
OTOH, to keep this post on topic, the hourly girlfriend may be more willing to let you take movies of her in situations that a long-term girlfriend may not.
Those who sacrifice security to condemn liberty deserve to repeat history or something. - Benjamin Santayana
From the "I can see you, but you can't see me" dept.
come on down to India...we'll do it for you...;) btw a Canon XL1S would be perfect( it has interchangeable lenses....i've shot a wildlife documentary using a still camera lens attached to a lil device which we could plug in to the lens socket of the XL1). If you're a lil low on cash The Panasonic or SONY PD 150 are great options too...they all have Firewire or USB output so that shouldnt be a problem. but my vote goes to the XL1.
Google is not Microsoft, Apple is not Orange, Ibm is Lenovo.
Cut all the crap, here I come for your rescue
:o
1) First Some Inspiration : Robert Rodriguez's 10-Minute Film School
2) Rough Guide to Camera Formats and some shooting tips.
3) Compare Sony DSR-PD150 Vs. Canon XL-1. Dude I am recommending something without knowing your budget. I am such a smart (_|_)
4) Hey where is the moderator, he allows imcomplete ASK Slashes and Rejects my Stories. >-
5) Hollywood & Slashdot are both illogical.
I work with video professionally every day in a broadcast environement, and I have absolutely idea what you are talking about?
I assume you mean Three CCDS? RGB Keys means nothing to me.
No standard video format uses RGB sampling, they are all based on YUV, YC or Composite signals, which are all at least one step removed from try RGB.
As for 3CCDs (a seperate one for Red, Green and Blue) -- many 'prosumer' cameras feature this, most mentioned so far are the PD150/170 and Panasonic DVX100.
The Panasonic AG-DVC200 is an ENG style camera, and in a significantly different price range to the prosumer style cameras that have been mentioned here. The most notable features of an ENG style camera over a handycam style one are the lenses (fully manual, all glass, with large elements) and the larger CCDs. In a similar nature would be Sony's DSR300, which is a better camera (in my opinion) than the DVC200. Also the DSR250 is an odd balance between the features (and size) of an ENG camera and the specifications of a PD150.
Anyway, what are RGB Keys?
My personal advice is waiting on buying the gear until you are ready for the field work. Couple of reasons:
1) Gear is expensive.
2) It may take longer than 6 months before you can get everything in order to shoot you're short film.
3) Depending on the script, locations, etc...the gear you've purchases may not suit the shoot. Maybe you will want a different look that a different camera, lens or format will provide etc...
You can always rent the equipment from a rental house. Their all over the place and they will ship the gear to you too.
A great resource (free too) for understanding more about producing a film is the Film and Video magazine. They run articles about peoples experiences making all types of "movies" including shorts.
Good luck! Its a lot of fun. A lot of work. Make no mistake about it. But it's enjoyable, IMO.
You're not going to use the camera except during shooting. If you consider how many days a year you are going to use a camera and assuming that you are going to want a better one after about two to three years, renting could be a cheaper option.
:P)
Then buy a cheap consumer camera for playing around and practicing.
But I know... it is more fun own your own equipment, and it's always available. I just bought a Panasonic AG-DVC30E. Cheaper than the DVX100 and has the same signal processors. It does not have real 25p though, but it's okay for my purposes. (Well... overkill, actually.... I should be renting
Looks to be a very nice upgrade, if you can wait, do.
The parent and grand-parent are the most clueful answers you have gotten.
Several posters have also suggested that you connect with other people doing video. That's also really good advice. With decent connections, you can get resources that you could never get or afford otherwise.
Locally, we have a video cooperative. They have professional cameras and edit suites. They have courses and workshops. They have a venue for presenting members' work. If you can find one of these anywhere near you (I don't know how common these are), sign up immediately.
Local cable channels often have volunteers doing local coverage. If you can do that, you will make other contacts and gain access to equipment.
Colleges and universities usually have someone doing video. They may have courses. Again, you are looking for contacts.
The August 2004 issue of Mac Addict addresses this topic - focusing on MiniDV. They review nine cameras across three spending levels.
"Population 1,656"
...through the comments here, I'd suggest you ask your question on an A/V board, where people will actually *know* that of which they speak.
Definitely rent. And definitely go with 24p.
Oh and forget the shotgun mics. Well ok bring 1, but go lapelle. You'll be glad you did.
the BEST in my mind is the just released Canon XL2....24p, 16:9 beautiful lense....680k pixels per 3 CCD's. 120k more than the new Panasonic 24p.
...which is also a GREAT cmaera - and just got about a thousand bucks cheaper when the XL2 came out last week.
the second best would be the Canon xl1S
I faced a similar decision last year. I needed to get some cameras to shoot robotic combat. Since I needed to have multiple camera angles, cost was a serious consideration.
I settled on the Panasonic PV-GS70D. It's their consumer 3-chipper, about $700-800 street. It doesn't have all the bells and whistles of the $3000 prosumer 3-chippers, but the video quality is damn close (close enough that a non-videophile audience won't notice, in particular after being compressed for DVD). And the bang-for-the-buck can't be beat; I got 5 of them, and usually have 4 filming the action.
Assuming the videos are a success (blatant plug: http://www.metalmunchingmaniacs.com/) I plan on moving up the the GR-HD10U prosumer HD camera ($3K+). It's a single chipper and people have noted some minor issues with chroma noise, but it's a progressive scan camera, and when you downconvert to standard video resolution the results should be stellar. It also has a 60p standard resolution mode that should be good for catching slow motion shots.
"World Domination - a fun, family activity"
1) Audio is more important than video. Use professional mics, preferably boom-mounted if possible, or pro lavs that take phantom power and have XLR connectors. As a result, you really should get a camera that has XLR mic connectors with phantom power.
2) I have yet to see a DV camera with a better image than the Panasonic AG DP-800 S-VHS "SUPERCAM" which you can now get on Ebay for about $1000. The issue is that the imaging circuitry and lenses on all the prosumer cameras are far below broadcast quality. It isn't a matter of resolution or gain, it is a matter of looking "good", particularly people's skin. Of course this S-VHS camera does not record to digital tape so you need to do an A/D conversion to capture it on an NLE, but you know what, it will still look better than an XL-1 image!
3) Or ignore what I said, get a little single CCD DV camera you can hold in your hand, and go wild shooting, and have fun. That is how you will actually learn.
Arriving late, as usual.
We work with the XL1s and even a standard XL1. They are a great workhorse camera for all our needs. They do have some issues with low lighting, but if you know how to light a scene properly that won't be an issue.
I wouldn't get too caught up on the type of camera you use. A professional camera is great, but if you don't understand composition, know your story, know how to light a scene (and so on) a kickass camera won't help you. A person that understands these and knows how to push the technology of their camera to the limit (even if it is a small inexpensive camcorder) will always make a good movie.
...on what shows up better on the camera, blonde, brunette, or redhead. Of course, we should test them all together... :->
-- Game Developers: Stop porting badly-textured games from crappy console systems!
Hey, I'm pretty much a FCP guy, but do you think it is worth getting some cross-training? Are the advantages substantial enough to make it worth learning both?
Why do I have this? I don't smoke.
The PDX-10 absolutely does have native 16:9. The camera uses different portions of the ccds depending on which mode you use it in. You will actually get a wider angle image when used in widescreen, and higher resolution than 16:9 squash or crop cameras.
The major drawback of the pdx-10 is it's relatively small ccds: 1/2.7". I use the pdx-10 all the time, it's a great camera, plenty of housing options (it's nearly identical to the trv-900/950). It also supports DVCAM recording for better reliablility including less dropouts.
The pdx-10 doesn't support 24p, but, do you really need it? Will you ever be transfering to film? If you have a lot of action scenes then some sort of progressive scan would be desirable (24, 30 or 60p). It's mostly a style issue, just stay consistent throughout the project.
http://www.adamwilt.com/24p/
d 17 0-camcorder-review.htm
f i_ camcorder_review.htm
http://www.camcorderinfo.com/content/sony-dsr-p
http://www.camcorderinfo.com/content/jvc_grhd1_
these are the best prosumer DV cameras on the market now for under $5000
the panasonic 24p has had much praise and i'm curious to see what comes next.
later,
marcusgfunk
It really depends on your budget, and, barring that, the quality of work you want to put out.
First, let's talk about quality. Your standard video camera is going to be a 1 CCD deal, have maybe 1 audio input jack, and run 5-600 bucks. It's going to look okay on a TV, but if it's going to be projected, that 720x480 image is going to be really pixellated.
Next are the 3 CCD cameras. If you compare these side by side with the 1 CCD cams, you'll see the difference. Really. There is a dramatic step up in color and image quality. Moreover, these cameras will probably have advanced color balance features and other fun things. Of course, these cameras will run you more money, and are still 720x480.
Then come the HDTV cameras, which are really expensive and boast extreme resolution. For the price you pay, you'd best be getting a good picture!
Since you're doing stuff in digital, I won't go into film cameras, but film gives you the best image quality at the cost of less portability, more difficulty in editing, and higher cost of media. Plus, you can't rerecord over film.
So if you're serious about this video thing, and have enough cash, get a 3 CCD camera by all means. Or rent one, like others have suggested.
Waterproofing is probably going to be bulky and/or expensive. That's all I know; I wouldn't want to be taking a $1000 camera into the water, even with waterproofing gear, is what I think of this business...
Since you have a Powerbook, play around with iMovie a bit. Go to an Apple store and mess around with Final Cut Pro/Express and see if you like/need the program and its features. IMO FCP is pretty good to work with, though I use Premiere and After Effects primarily (as I don't have a Mac, and typically could care less about them, but use them when they're the best thing availible, which tends to be often. Sorry for the rant.).
So yeah. Research. Buy. Enjoy.
You are absolutely right on the PDX-10, I stand corrected. Thank you: at least I embarrassed myself in front of Slashdot instead of a client. I had no idea there was a native 16:9 camera that cheap.
1/2" chips: I used to love the PD-150 with 1/2" chips, but I'd find it hard to go back now that I've tried 2/3" - much easier to muddy the background.
While I'm here: I've done 30p (and interpolated it from 60i via software, and 25p PAL, and so on), and I have to say that while 30p is most of the way there from 60i, 24p is still superior to my eye. I've used them side by side in a documentary - 24p with pulldown and 30p without - and 24p just feels better to me, even if it's staying on video. This was with both interviews and fast sports action.
For what it's worth, I'm told this is cultural, and that the Japanese always prefer 60fps, progressive or interlaced, for that sharp look. So YMMV.
I worked pretty extensively with the XL-1 and XL-1S in a number of independant shorts, including directing two. With ToeKnee, my awesome DP, and the right lighting, we managed to get some very beautiful shots out of those cameras.
.
However, I just finished a stint as AD on a foreign market feature using the DVC80. The DVC80 is the "News Video" 60i version of the DVX100A. Lemme tell ya, the picture on the Panasonic was a quantum leap in quality from the XL's. Better color and a sharper, more detailed image without looking chunky or aliased. Also much more forgiving with lighting, which is good, 'cause ToeKnee (as Camera) and I were about ready to throttle the DP on that project!
Anyhoo. .
The Panasonics are shaping up to be the next XL1 for the amateur video market. And with good reason. They rock! As for specs, they have a very high capture resolution per CCD (actually the same chips as the painfully expensive 720p model), which allows for more accurate interpolation, hence the higher detail, full 16bit stereo audio (as opposed to 16bit joint/shared stereo on the XL's), XLR jacks w/ phantom power for audio (as opposed to a separate attachment for the XL's), magnesium alloy chassis (on the DVC80 and 100A), and, my favorite, an anamorphic lens option.
I have also been very impressed with the Audio Technica AT835b shotgun microphones. They have a bass rolloff feature that kills anything below 100Hz (including the bane of all amateur films, the 60 cycle hum), and boosts the mid-bass, to give a rich, clear sound. They don't have that quirky voice/personality that the Sennheiser's do, which is just fine with me.
Also, I remember reading an article about six months or so ago about a 100K indie project in LA where they filmed on HD and then shot pickups with a DVX100 (this was before the 100A was out). From what they said in the article, there was virtually no difference between the two once the HD footage was downconverted to NTSC for editing.
Welcome! Next thing you know, you'll be buying Mole 5K's off Ebay and then wondering how the hell you're gonna power them. Which is a bummer, 'cause they'd be perfect for this one scene...
Moekandu
Mediocrity knows nothing higher than itself; but talent instantly recognizes genius. -- Sir Arthur Conan Doyle
Decide what you want to "Try" not what you want to buy. You'll want to use the thing in action before you commit, especially if you haven't had a lot of experience with filming in general. There's features, there's size, there's shape, there's customizability. A camera can have a great lens that you don't happen to like, and you might not know it until you're sitting down to edit.
With "used in good condition" you can do what a lot of my musician friends do to try out a lot of different equipment. Know thy local pawn shop and always get a good deal, whether you buy or sell. Personally, I stay away from used electronics almost as a rule (you never know if it something was stored in a humid environment or a smoking room), but it works well for a people who are willing to take the chance.
1) Native 16:9
;)
2) 720p/30 or 1080p/24
3) 3CCD
Looks like the Sony's HDV cam will be first up (only a prototype shown at NAB), est. price tag 5000$.
All depends on what you can get away with though. For a "studio" shoot, I would go for the GR-HD1. I've seen some footage made using JVCs HDTV cam (only 1CCD), and if you put it on a tripod (as you should anyway, but shaky HD video will make you more seasick than regular) it will look extremely good. Yes, the colors aren't quite like 3CCD, but good lighting will make the colors clear anyway. If you can't supply good lighting (e.g. if you're filming a street or landscape), a 3CCD cam will have much better colors.
Anyway, I would put more thought into the accessories and other equipment than just camera. Tripod and/or steadycam, lighting (studio and mobile) and sound (poor audio is really annoying). That just leaves the small task of making an interesting video
Kjella
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
I think any time you have a chance to get a look at the other side it is well worth your time. Of course, I also have tried at least 8 different Linux distributions in the last two years and still run Slackware on my network server.
The most important thing in this particular conversation is to remember that there are limitless ways to edit a video and each piece of editing software will reveal its strengths and weaknesses as you use it. I personally think Avid is the best and encourage you to try the free version available at
http://www.avid.com/freedv/welcome.asp
Remember, however, that this free version has only a fraction of the options available in Xpress DV or Xpress Pro.
You teach a child to read and he or her will be able to pass a literacy test. - George W. Bush
I own the PD-150 and just recently bought a PDX10http://bssc.sel.sony.com/Professional/webapp/ ModelInfo?m=0&sm=0&p=2&sp=11&id=65 263 which is pretty much just a miniature version of the 150/170. The chips are smaller (1/4.7), and don't perform as well in low light, but are wider so you get a true 16:9 compared tof the 150 which just crops the top and bottom the frame. The XLR/Mic mount on top comes off and it switches to imternal mic so you can easily become very discreet if necessary. I would definately get a wide-angle adapter through like the Century Optics one http://www.centuryoptics.com/products/dv/65xhr_wa/ 65xhr_37mm.htm. But it also fits perfectly into the Sony Handycam sports casing http://www.sonystyle.ca/commerce/servlet/ProductDe tailDisplay?storeId=10001&langId=-1&catalogId=1000 1&productId=166371&navigationPath=32080n47120n4712 8 which lets you shoot up to 2 metres underwater with audio.