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."
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 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,
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
Well, in this case, the ask slashdot question is stupid. How can you recommend a camera without any idea for a budget? It's impossible. Obviously, get the best camera you can with the money you have budgeted for it. If he or she said in particular "i have 3000 to spend", then I'm sure people could make specific recommendations. But as it is now, no one can.
Best slashdot comment
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.
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."
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
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..."
I use these cameras every day and love them. They produce a great picture and even the standard batteries aren't that bad.
And Final Cut does support 24fps natively.
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.
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
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.