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."
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.
Hey, let's not forget the Sony DSR-PD170, or for that matter, the new Canon XL2. If there is a need to shoot underwater, it is going to be likely that low-light capability is going to be essential. From what i have read and experienced, the low light capabilities of the Sony cannot be beat by any other camera in the same catrgory (3x 1/3 inch CCD, prosmuer cameras). Of course, underwater housings are also available for the PD170.
...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).
Here's an interesting interview with Spike Lee on his usage of prosumer cameras.
Panasonic probably has the only cheap 3CCD camera going, if you're on a budget and color is important to you -- you can get one for $7-800, though you're stuck with the limitations of consumer equipment (particularly the obnoxious ergonomic quirks of Panasonic hardware -- too small, and what-were-they-thinking battery design). You can also snag a Sony TRV-950 for as little as $1500 if you buy it refurbished, or a used Canon GL-1 for about the same amount.
I think the Canon GL-2, with the manual audio controls and the built-in shotgun mike, is the prosumer cam of choice these days though -- I think it's around $3K and it's a very reasonable size for something that loaded. As for the XL-1(S) and XL-2... well, they've got their advantages for pros, but the one time I got to work with an XL-1 I grew to hate the bulk of the thing quite rapidly. For the hardcore pro on an infinite budget, the XL-2 is probably worth the money (especially where being able to swap lenses is a necessity, as in nature documentaries and the like), and the ability to use it off the shoulder instead of having to hold it up is nice, but I would think it's not worth it for nine out of ten video producers. (Hell, I do a cooking show with a two-year-old JVC consumer camcorder... of course JVC does sneak the odd pro feature like manual white balance into even their junkier hardware...)
One thing to consider: HDTV. The JVC GR-HD1 has a reputation for being kind of balky with color, but it's pretty much your only option if you're shooting for a high-def end result.
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.
Agreed. The XL1-S is far better. Having used both, and GL1s, I highly recommend the XL1-S.
The XL series in particular are very easy to hold, especially with the shoulder pad that has XLR plugs on it. The balance of the camera is superb. I suggest going to a store where you can pick them up and use them.
The 3CCD cameras all produce a good picture, HD is not necessary at this point in time. Also, audio quality may not be important, but you should look at your needs--perhaps you will always use an external mic, perhaps not. The XL and GL1 do not pick up too much motor noise, but the XL sounds far better than the GL.
The XL has interchangable lenses, such as a 3X zoom lens, and has focus and zoom rings, which makes it far easier and faster to control.
Take a look at:
I don't recommend FCP, having used it. I highly recommend Vegas Video. There are a number of essential tools missing from both, but they are absolutely incompatable--FCP being from Apple, and Vegas only running on Windows.
Hello little man. I will destroy you!
According to "DV museum" it was shot with Sony PD 100 & Sony DXC D30WS. Another source says they used Sony DSR500WS. Yet another one tells they were using Sony DSR-PD150. Many sources seem to agree that there were one hundred Sony DSR-PD100s. I advice you not to make your decision based on what you saw in Dancer In The Dark. I suppose you'll have to ask the film crew to find out what cameras really were used. And the DV to film transfer process that you can't afford, supposedly plays as big role in the image quality.
Anyway, whatever those cameras were, they seem to produce utterly sad movies. Please avoid all cameras listed in my post at all cost.
--
No sig.