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."

Comments

Gotta be...

[ResidntGeek]

the James Bond Stealth Camera.

Re:Gotta be...

[Erick the Red]

He's not making that kind of movie!

Go 24p

[1984]

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.

Re:Go 24p

[whyme27]

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.

Re:Go 24p

[asparagus]

Yeah, get FCP. The AG-100 is a good cam, as are Canon's GL2 and Sony's PD-150's. All can be had for around $2-3k, and are worth the upgrade over single CCD cams, esp. for short filmmaking. Remember to blow another $500-$1k on some long-life batteries, a car charger, a good fluid-head tripod, plenty of tapes, a boom pole + mike, a set of basic filters, and a sturdy case to carry everything around in.

Good luck ;-)
-Brett

Re:Go 24p

[chadjg]

I liked the Cannon XL1, and I hear the XL1-S is even better.

I'd like to second asparagus's comments about the auxiliary gear. People will forgive lesser video quality, but are quite intolerant of bad camera movement, poor sound, the like.

Have fun!

Re:Go 24p

[sith]

I've got a DVX-100 and love it. Have shot about 300 hours with it. For indie film work, it's almost the defacto choice these days. The XL2 is very interesting, though I'd personally not buy it right out of the gate. For indie film work, the PD-170 is kind of "meh" - if anything get the much cheaper PDX-10. It'll give you native 16x9 (anamorphic), good low light, XLR inputs and all that jazz. The image it produces is quite nice - even compares OK with higher end Sony cams like the DXC-D35.

Head over to 2-pop.com for far more info though...

Re:Go 24p

[Rorschach1]

I've got the Sony TRV-900, the consumer version of the PD-100. Great camera. Cost me about $1,400 used with lots of accessories a couple of years ago. It's a progressive scan 3 CCD camera, and I've got a friend who shoots weddings with it on a regular basis.

Several waterproof housings are available for it. I've been trying to justify getting one, but the cheapest that's usable for SCUBA is about $1,300 (with no lights), and since I only dive a few times a year I can't justify the expense.

Re:Go 24p

[RobNich]

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:

• Video quality (get a 3CCD)
• Lens quality
• Availability of different lenses and adapters
• Audio quality in built-in mic
• Ability to connect other audio inputs
• Tape format! I highly recommend either DVcam (broadcast quality), or MiniDV (not quite, but still very good).

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.

Re:Go 24p

[mikehihz]

Firstly, as far as your editing software, try them all out and remember that Apple has creativity in it's DNA. They make the OS, hardware and software for the way the creative person thinks. I'm sure Vegas does the job, but FCP will make you happy and you'll join 250,000 other FCP users including top end film and TV editors.

Apart from that, Canon introduced the XL2, which does 24p. It's a shoulder mount camera, which might be what you are looking for. Having been a one-man show with the Canon XL series, if would say going with an XL series camera means you should also have a monopod or tripod. It gets heavy after a while. I prefer smaller 3-chip cameras like the DVX100a, PD150, etc...

However, you need to educate yourself if you want to shoot in 24p. Basically, in order to pad out 24 frames of video (a film frame rate) to 30 frames of video (how we view good ole NTSC video) a pattern of duplicated frames and fields called a pulldown pattern is introduced. These patterns (there are a few) were NEVER meant to be edited. They need to be removed before editing.

At the risk of slashdotting someone else website, adam wilt dot com, has very good information on working with 24p.

Re:Go 24p

[RobNich]

Although the bandwidth may be the same, the tape moves faster around the head, which results in better quality of data on the tape. Fewer errors, artifacts, etc. In addition, for some reason (probably marketing) nearly all MiniDV equipment records the audio "unlocked" from the video, so the two could go out of sync under certain conditions. DVCAM equipment locks the audio by default.

As far as broadcast, DVCAM is minimum quality needed to hand a tape in. Most stations use DigiBeta, however, which is supposedly far better in quality. I have not yet seen the results in dubbing from DV to DigiBeta, but I will soon.

Re:Go 24p

[ibmman85]

Canon definitely makes a solid camera, I used 3 GL1s for a few years when my school bought 3 of them for use for student video classes.. someone even signed one out and brought it on a 3-day ski trip to vermont when it was -30 degrees and they still survived (and the footage looked good) the same person also ended up bringing one on their vacation to hawaii (after all that theyre not allowed to take out those cameras anymore) There are a few problems with the GL1 though mostly with audio, anything loud will distort using the built in mic because the auto gain can't turn the gain down low enough, this usually happened during concerts and such but it got pretty annoying. They fixed that on the GL2,which also provides a manual gain control. When I get the money I'll probably buy a GL2 since i think the XL1 is a little excesive for what I need but theyre definitely good cameras.

Re:Go 24p

[nattt]

As I said, the picture quality is IDENTICAL, but DVCAM may be more resilient to dropout. Although all DVCAM has locked audio, miniDV cameras can support locked audio without supporting DVCAM. The unlocked audio basically means that the sample rate is not guaranteed to be precisely 48khz, as it is with DVCAM, so historically Canon cameras have had audio-sync issues because they never quite hit 48 precisely enough. In a linear environment this means you never have audio drift in any case, but in a firewire digital environment that captured audio file may be shorter or longer than the video!

DigiBeta is indeed superior in quality. It's 10bit rather than 8bit which makes loads of difference for post production work, but as video is broadcast 8bit, it doesn't help improve the broadcast quality of uncorrected video (but who leaves video uncorrected??) DigiBeta is compressed, but with a very low rate of compression that for all practical purposes is visually lossless.

A DV to DigiBeta dub will preserve all the DV quality visually losslessly, although there will be a slight mathematical loss. A DigiBeta to DV dub will look excellent. However, in going from DV to DigiBeta the chroma resolution gets converted from 4:1:1 to 4:2:2 via a linear interpolation if you use the SDI output on the DVCAM deck. This can be improved in software using clever algorithms which decode extra chroma information from the full resolution luma, but I know of no hardware implementation.

Large TV stations like the BBC do use digiBeta extensively, but smaller sations are usually stuck with BetaSP due to financial constraints, although our local CTV station here upgraded to BetacamSX which is a format specifically designed for news aquisition. Other local stations use DVCPro (same codec as DVCAM and miniDV, different tape format again) and are now upgrading to Panasonic's new P2 memory card based formats for even more efficient ENG. A lot of TV stations don't use DVCAM - not because it isn't good, but because they've bought into the betacam line and don't have the DVCAM gear. DVCAM is at least as good as BetaSP, but even still the safest format to deliver news footage on is BetaSP. The BBC do a lot of production work with DVCAM, especially using the Sony PD-150, but the mastertape output will be digiBeta for broadcast.

Re:Go 24p

[TekkonKinkreet]

Posting late (because I was out yesterday DPing a short film with a DVX100), but it's been ages since a subject has come up where I feel so well qualified to pipe up, so what the hell.

1) I agree with parent, the DVX100 (or 100A) is what you want. Don't argue with me, I've shot with most of the other cameras people are mentioning here, and it's one of those cases where I can recommend one model without qualification. Mostly because...

2) ...24p trumps all other concerns at the prosumer level, assuming you want your results to "look like film". Go to 2-Pop or http://www.cinematography.net/, where such issues have been addressed dozens of times by people who know *exactly* what they're talking about. The DVX100(A) also has great color, a great lens, good sound, a large LCD, manual *and* servo focus, and a good line of accessories.

3) Get an anamorphic adaptor, if you have any intention of blowing up to film or projecting on a large screen. Research 4:3, 16:9 native, 16:9 squash, and anamorphic.

4) If resolution is really your bag, remember, prosumer HDV is around the corner (i.e., November for Sony's 3-chip, I believe). JVC's HDV is already available, but falls short for various reasons, mostly through being a 1-chipper. I wouldn't give up 24p to go HDV, though.

5) If your goal is to make a presentable short film, a good microphone is just as important as the camera. Bad sound kills even more amateur films than bad picture, and audiences are particularly unforgiving with sound. Get the nicest Sennheiser you can afford.

6) You also need to light, but there are lots of ghetto solutions to that, and to moving the camera. For Jebu's sake, get a good fluid tripod head. Do your research, find out why filmmakers usually have a wheelchair in their garage.

7) Re. PDX-10 and XL2: I'm virtually certain the PDX-10 has 16:9 squash, not native (16:9 squash is one of the few features the 100A has that the 100 doesn't, another being autofocus in 24p mode, btw.) The XL2 does look interesting, and the choice of lenses is a big draw as it was for the XL1, but it's getting some thumbs down over aliasing, color, and ergonomics. Personally I couldn't get enthused over the XL1, but I only shot with it for a day.

8) The underwater work probably shouldn't drive your decision, you can rent a rig for that. Or find a pool with a window, half-submerge a large fishtank, shoot dry for wet, etc. That's the fun part, being innovative enough to do things you shouldn't be able to do with the available equipment.

9) One last note: while I support the idea that you need to own a camera to experiment with, there's much to be said for renting a different camera for each project, too. No one camera has it all.

Re:Go 24p

[write_with_numbers]

I agree with Rob on camera choice, and I think you should get the XL1-S. I tend to disagree on software though. Vegas is a good Sony product but it lacks some of the power you will probably want if you are taking work in film seriously. I would recommend Avid Xpress Pro as my editing suite of choice. I am the Director of media services at a Community College, and we have found that while the learning curve on Avid is a little bit steeper than Final Cut Pro or Vegas, the flexability of the program is unmatched.

Whatever your choice best of luck and have fun.

Which Digital Video Camera for Amateur Video?

[pyrrhonist]

Which Digital Video Camera for Amateur Video?

More importantly, where do you get the actresses for the, uh, amateur videos?

Re:Which Digital Video Camera for Amateur Video?

[Kenja]

"where do you get the actresses for the, uh, amateur videos?"

Bus stops, homeless shelters, AA meetings.

Wait.... That was a rhetorical question wasn't it?

Re:Which Digital Video Camera for Amateur Video?

[w3weasel]

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.

Re:Which Digital Video Camera for Amateur Video?

[k31bang]

I called the number, and some creep named john doe answered. Said to stop all the prank calls.

Re:Which Digital Video Camera for Amateur Video?

[khiitola]

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.

Re:Aren't there...

[syousef]

Ha shows what you know. Slashdoters make amateur porn? They're consumers not producers!

Budget????

[mikejz84]

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.

Re:Budget????

[connorbd]

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.

Here's an idea

[k4_pacific]

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?

Re:Here's an idea

[Ohreally_factor]

Why not a pixelvision? Why, just by using the word pixelvision (twice now), I've greatly increased the artistic value of this post.

"Not an ask slashdot"?

[Rhesus Piece]

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.

Re:"Not an ask slashdot"?

[afay]

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.

Re:"Not an ask slashdot"?

[connorbd]

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.

Re:"Not an ask slashdot"?

[DakotaSandstone]

Every Ask Slashdot has a healthy bunch of comments questioning the validity of the ask slashdot, telling the person to google, and whatnot.

So then, after all these years, Slashdot's unilateral & collective response to all questions seems to be, "Fuck off, dumbass. You bother us!"

Oh well. There's always the real world, where questions may actually be listened to...

Re:"Not an ask slashdot"?

[swv3752]

Memory Stick is no more proprietary than SD or SmartMedia (and less so than XD).

I think it was either Canon or JVC (maybe both) that had cameras with oneway firewire ports. You could stream video out fo the camera but not control the camera over firewire or upload video.

All the recent (last couple of years) Sony cameras, have A/D converters. This is useful if you have some analog video that you want to convert to digital and don't want to have to invest in a TV capture card. Typically will give better quality as well.

Also, make sure the camera has at least a 10x optical zoom. There are better ways to evaluate lens quality, but not easily from most marketing specs.

I personally would advise the DCRHC1000. It is a quality low-end prosumer camcorder with a 3chip ccd. Because of the $1.7k price, it probably won't be in Best Buy, and it is hidden at Sonystyle, under the small business section. A friend has one though, and it is fantastic.

Re:My Family Videos

[inertia187]

...everyone is impressed with the quality.

I meant everyone in my family is impressed. I'm sure the jerks on this site will find every fault and then some. But that's Slashdot. ;-)

Re:Missing equip for amatuer video?

[syousef]

You need a girlfriend first.

And if you pay her by the hour, she's not a girlfriend!

Progressive Scan

[EMNDev]

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.

Re:Progressive Scan

[ArsonPerBuilding]

I'll second the canon XL1S camera. I've used it for some amateur work before and it gets the job done well. It is a very versatile camera, with the right training/experience its worthy for real studio quality work.

Re:Progressive Scan

[RobNich]

"the Canon its either all auto, or all manual. If you want manual white balance you got manual everything else, at least as far as i have found..."

Uh, no. White balance, focus, framerate, iris, etc can each be set to manual or automatic. This is true on the GL1, XL1, and XL1-S.

Price range?

[Dr_Nick_Riveria]

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.

Dont ask /. !

[Monoman]

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.

XL2

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Resolution...

[dcmeserve]

Like every geek I want the best resolution available...

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.

Re:Resolution...

[Anonymous Coward]

As a photography professional, I just wanted to lend you my hearty agreement. In order to get the best stills and video in low light situations, you want the lowest possible digital resolution. The Sorny MegaVideo 4P is always a favorite, with a total of 4 pixels for maximum light gathering potential.

Re:Resolution...

[Spytap]

The above commenter has no idea what they're talking about.

My advice is this:
A) Rent a camera, don't buy. You can rent a much better camera than you can ever afford and it'll show.
B) res does matter. You shoot with a shitty camera, and no amount of color correction or digital post-production is going to change the fact that it looks like you shot it with a shitty camera. You can always subtract information for video, DVD, or HDTV, you can always compress it, but you cannot ADD information that isn't there to begin with. If you're talking about regular tv resolution, than you're a fucking idiot and don't know shit about filmmaking.
C) If you're shooting indoors, and you're shooting a film, you're lighting a scene. Make sure you whit-balance it to the tungsten filament indoor lights you're using. If you're shooting it outside, likewise to the sun, which has more blue in in.
D) No camera is water-resistant/proof. You'll need a housing, and you'll need to be willing to run the risk of ruining the camera. If you're going to be shooting legally (i.e. with permits, insurance, etc.) shooting in the water will add about $30,000 in insurance premiums alone (trust me, I've done it before). Save yourself the trouble, the time, and the money: change the scene while it's in the script stage; it's free to change now, it'll cost you to change it later.
E) If you want more advice/some tips/anything else from someone who's shot more than a few short films (and produced as well) email me and we can chat.

30fps or 24fps?

[lordmoose]

Nowadays the main question (if you want to shoot with prosumer cameras) is if you want to shoot at 30 fps interlaced or progressive, or 24fps. For 30fps, I would recommend the Sony PD170 (this is the camera I have). It has 2 XLR inputs, a nice little lcd flip-out screen, and all the manual controls that you would really need. The other 30fps option is the Canon XL1s, which has interchangeable lenses along with a sleek look (hey, it matters!). But, Canon just announced the specs for the XL2 camera, which will record at 24fps and have more of the film-style controls that really helps take the edge out of the "video look". By the time this camera comes out, most NLE will probably support editing on 24fps with a variety of pull-down options (this is the camera I'm waiting on).

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.

Re:30fps or 24fps?

[cybercyph]

as a user of the DVX, and one having used many other digital video cameras, i can honestly say that any 'so-so' review you've read was written in ignorance. the DVX is a beautiful camera that delivers beautiful images. it's handles beautifuly, and i couldn't reccomend it more whole-heartidly.

Re:30fps or 24fps?

[josh3736]

Canon's XL-1 can shoot in 24p.

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.

Easy choice....

[speleo]

...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).

Keys

[anonicon]

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, :-).

Here's some solid advice

[flappinbooger]

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.

Forget resolution, get 2 cameras.

[DarkMan]

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.

Get Adjustible White Balance

[cfulmer]

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.

OT: Is film going away?

[fermion]

I just finished watching the commentary on Once Upon a Time in Mexico by Robert Rodriguez, which was really just a 100 minute rant on how much film cameras suck, and how great digital cameras are. He is clearly not a film maker that feels the texture and grain of film justifies the additional complications. The art form is not in the processing of film. He might have a point since he did the shoot in seven weeks. It is also interesting that the movie seems to be all practical shots.

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.

Definately DV

[MacFury]

All of my short movies have been shot with either an old Canon Ultura or the newer GL2 and XL1.

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.

Re:"Not an ask slashdot"? No, AVSforums instead.

[Anonymous Coward]

actually, i would reccomend avsforums for this kind of question.

Make it cheap

[MurrayTodd]

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!

Re:Make it cheap

[tcdk]

Good advice.

When I started to switch to digital photagraphy (still), I started by buying a fairly cheap 2040 olympus. When I had had it about a year, I knew what I really wanted in a digital camera and eps. what I didn't want.

Anyway, it's like sex in a relationship. If is works it's only 10% of the relationship, but if it doesn't work it suddenly become really important.

Buy any old camera the works and is easy to operate. If you spend 300$ now and make a short film and get a hell of a lot of experience, you can easily save a ton of money later.

Okay, the 300$ camera will not look as impressive as a 10.000$ camera, but if that's what you are going for maybe you could try case modding it ;-).

Borrow or rent.

[Ridge]

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.

Lights

[realmolo]

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.

The best you can afford?

[Sycraft-fu]

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.

Canon XL-1

[Adrian Lopez]

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.

Get a Canon XL1 used

[ChrisCampbell47]

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.

DVX100a

[sraesttam]

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.

Something to think of when purchasing a camcorder

[Cycil]

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

Spike Lee and DV

[bedouin]

Here's an interesting interview with Spike Lee on his usage of prosumer cameras.

It really doesn't matter...

[xScruffx]

I want to make a my first short film ...

Forget about the equipment, writing, cast, so on. With an accent that thick, any movie that he makes is guaranteed to be brilliant.

xScruffx

and back ON-topic - Re:OT: Is film going away?

[cwg_at_opc]

first, re the original post:

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)

what i want

[rosewood]

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

As another video geek, I say:

[Ralph Spoilsport]

I'd like to agree with everything the parent said, but completely disagree with his suggestions. not because he's wrong (he's totally correct, esp. about renting - with HD around the courner buying a high end NTSC camera is a waste of money for a beginner.) but because his correct answers don't answer the problem. You're new and you're trying to get something done. You need to make LOTS of mistakes, and you need to make them cheaply. So I would suggest downshifting your aesthetics and go for a more "low-fi" effect. To that end:

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

Re:As another video geek, I say:

[eds3]

I've worked on a few amateur films (48 Hour Film Project films, so keep in mind that time constraints may be disproportionate in my experience). I'd say whatever camera you're considering, consider getting TWO. It is easier to intercut DV shot from two identical sources, and it is far easier to get identical cameras to look the same. If you're ever going to need two cameras going simultaneously (e.g. one for the two-shot, and one for closeups and coverage) having two that shoot the same will simplify your life. Consider buying a model that you know you can rent a second one.

That said, a lot of the differences between cameras occur in low or excessive light situations, so good lighting is a much less expensive way to improve your footage.

Get A Good tripod

[acomj]

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.

also get...

[Erick the Red]

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.

how about a slightly used $500,000 camera?

[microcars]

you could get this one pretty cheap

you just have to lick all the chocolate off it.

Love the slogan....

[El Camino SS]

Intentionally Overengineered.

On cams and producing video...

[starfighter_org]

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.

Get Avid, get Protools

[mustardayonnaise]

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.

Wait on buying gear

[objwiz]

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.

Don't buy. Rent.

[keli]

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.

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 :P)

Some thoughts

[TheSync]

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.

The XL1s and some advice.

[Recovery1]

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.