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."
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
cannon xl1 if you'd like to see if its up to cinematagraphic snuff, just watch "Dancer In The Dark" Cannes winner... shot using the XL1. supurb color saturation and all the features you want, at an attractive price, plus what most camcorders lack... lens options... try that with a panasonic/sony.
if budget is a concern, go with the gl1... same ccd chip, fixed lens.
Just as irrigation is the lifeblood of the Southwest, lifeblood is the soup of cannibals. -- Jack Handy
Normally I'd agree with you, but there are a handful of high-end camcorders that can answer the question. Low-end... well, truth be told I've heard quality is pretty much the same for all the low-end 1CCD consumer cameras, so it comes down to what you need and the general reputation of the brand. A few semi-informed brand opinions:
Sony: excellent quality but you pay a premium for the name. Probably the only important manufacturer of Digital8 hardware, which might be important if you have a large library of 8mm tapes to be digitized, but they don't make any D8 hardware even close to pro-quality. Sony is also a fan of proprietary formats -- Memory Stick instead of SD/MMC or CompactFlash, MicroMV (which is nothing but a marketing gimmick as far as I'm concerned).
JVC: I use a JVC myself. JVC tends to hide occasional pro features in their camera menus (particularly manual white balance) but the quality of the product depends on the model year. Mine is 2002 and I've never had a complaint; the 2003 models, though, looked and felt like junk. Their 2004 models are too small and seem to have ergonomic issues. JVC does have the only consumer HDTV camcorder available right now.
Canon: They seem to keep their designs pretty consistent from year to year, and the GL and XL series pretty much define the high end for consumer/prosumer camera hardware. Their ZR series is a little on the small side for me, though I'd probably buy one of them if I was in the market for a second camcorder.
Panasonic: The only cheap 3CCD camcorders on the market is one of theirs -- I think the low-end one costs around $800. I can't say much about the quality, though I do find their ergonomics to be awkward -- the cameras are too small, and you have to unplug the battery and put it in a separate charger. To me this is an utterly ridiculous sort of design flaw.
Samsung: Junk for now, though it's gotten better over the years. Tends to be rather gimmicky, though apparently they can play back PAL-format miniDV on an NTSC TV, which would make for a powerful advantage in certain markets.
I think that covers most of the major manufacturers, at least those you'll find at Best Buy or Circuit City. My thinking is that Sony and Canon probably offer the best product available for most purposes, with JVC being a decent choice on the high end but dodgy at best on the Best Buy level of things.