You are viewing an archive of the old fxhome.com forums. The community has since moved to hitfilm.com.

Buying a New Camera

Posted: Thu, 25th Oct 2007, 1:43am

Post 1 of 60

irishcult

Force: 1965 | Joined: 6th Jul 2005 | Posts: 440

CompositeLab Pro User EffectsLab Pro User VideoWrap User FXhome Movie Maker FXpreset Maker Windows User

Gold Member

I am going to be buying a new camera in the next month and i was looking for something professional. I really don't know anything about Professional end cameras. I have used Canons for years but they never seemed to hold up well in low light so i'm up for any brand. So any suggestions would greatly be appreciated.
Price Range:$300-$2000
Quality: High Def would be nice
Format: Mini DV or Hard drive

Thanks for Reading
Posted: Thu, 25th Oct 2007, 2:45am

Post 2 of 60

VRBstudios

Force: 700 | Joined: 5th May 2006 | Posts: 432

CompositeLab Lite User EffectsLab Pro User FXpreset Maker FXhome Movie Maker

Gold Member

I have the Cannon HV10 for 640$ and it works perfectly for me. But if your budget is 2000$ I hear the GL2 is really good.
Posted: Thu, 25th Oct 2007, 2:50am

Post 3 of 60

szczepanski

Force: 346 | Joined: 10th Aug 2007 | Posts: 227

Windows User

Member

Search the forums, I'm sure people get sick of telling people what cameras to buy all the time. there's a topic called "what camcorders to buy" or something, everyone's had their say in it, so read it smile
Posted: Thu, 25th Oct 2007, 3:07am

Post 4 of 60

SGB

Force: 2199 | Joined: 9th Aug 2005 | Posts: 855

VisionLab User VideoWrap User FXpreset Maker MacOS User FXhome Movie Maker

Gold Member

I use the Canon GL2, and its simply a pleasure to use. Its got an incredible lense, and great color capture and picture quality. It also works quite well in low light. SD is also a much easier format to deal with than HD, so I'd suggest sticking to non HD cameras (like the GL2) unless you need it. You'll a powerful computer and a lot of harddrive space to edit HD video, while most home computers can edit SD.
Posted: Thu, 25th Oct 2007, 3:08am

Post 5 of 60

Atom

Force: 4300 | Joined: 9th May 2004 | Posts: 7014

EffectsLab Lite User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

Rating: +2

3 Cameras and only 3 cameras I would recommend right now, all in different price ranges:

Canon HV10- Flawlessly perfect for the price. A trendy and reliable (Canon, come on smile) camera that travels well and has ridiculous resolution for its size and price.

Canon GL2- It's not HD, no, but I think we have another 5 years before that becomes a major deal. And a camera lasting and being used 5 years is a lot in this age.

Canon XH-A1- In my opinion, the best camera out there right now. Period. It's prosumer, it's versatile and sleek, it's HD, it runs on miniDV/HDV tape, and it's around $4,000. (Yes, I know it's out of your pricerange, just thought if you were worth going to $2,000 it might as well be mentioned.)
Posted: Thu, 25th Oct 2007, 6:50am

Post 6 of 60

A Pickle

Force: 1235 | Joined: 7th Sep 2004 | Posts: 1280

EffectsLab Lite User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

Mmk -- no offense to the HV10 owners out there... but the HV20 is out... and it's basically a better HV10. It's been named the best camcorder of 2007! biggrin

The GL2... I hear it's great, and I'm sure it is... but... SD is out man. Way out. 'S all I can say. HD changes... your life.

You'll want to avoid hard-drive/DVD based cameras out there using the AVCHD standard -- reviews seem to express that AVCHD cameras have... lower video quality than their HDV counterparts using miniDV or other type of tape-based media.

Premiere Elements 3.0 can be had for $100, and it handles HD video, though I've heard that other editing suites offer superior HD video handling. I have Premiere Pro CS3, which is nice. biggrin
Posted: Fri, 26th Oct 2007, 4:36am

Post 7 of 60

Atom

Force: 4300 | Joined: 9th May 2004 | Posts: 7014

EffectsLab Lite User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

A Pickle wrote:

The GL2... I hear it's great, and I'm sure it is... but... SD is out man. Way out. 'S all I can say. HD changes... your life.
Not really true at all. At least, not in my opinion. At its current stage, the mass differences in the quality of HD products and media are too convoluted and the major issue of not having a widely-accepted portable media-type kill the prospect of HD being the best choice right now. Sure Blu-Ray and HD-DVD are on their way in, but that's really where they are for now. And have been for 5 years now.

Oh, and yes, I misspoke. I meant to put the HV20. Reading someone put the HV10 before me got me in that mindset, I guess. smile
Posted: Tue, 30th Oct 2007, 1:13pm

Post 8 of 60

GeeksGoneBad

Force: 1350 | Joined: 15th Apr 2002 | Posts: 664

EffectsLab Lite User Windows User

Gold Member

I've got an HV20 and it's a very nice camera and so far I'm very happy with it... although editing HD is killing my computer LOL smile
Posted: Sat, 3rd Nov 2007, 4:26pm

Post 9 of 60

Dead Iris

Force: 1329 | Joined: 24th Jul 2007 | Posts: 199

VisionLab User VideoWrap User Windows User

Gold Member

Atom wrote:

3 Cameras and only 3 cameras I would recommend right now, all in different price ranges:

Canon XH-A1- In my opinion, the best camera out there right now. Period. It's prosumer, it's versatile and sleek, it's HD, it runs on miniDV/HDV tape, and it's around $4,000. (Yes, I know it's out of your pricerange, just thought if you were worth going to $2,000 it might as well be mentioned.)
Actually I think I've seen those as low as 1000$.
Posted: Sat, 3rd Nov 2007, 4:33pm

Post 10 of 60

Fill

Force: 1257 | Joined: 1st Jul 2005 | Posts: 1652

CompositeLab Lite User EffectsLab Lite User Windows User

Gold Member

Then it was probably a scam.

The lowest legit price I've seen an XH-A1 for is $3,499. I messed with one of these last weekend... and it was spectacular. Pickle, no, HD doesn't change your life, a manual focus, exposure, and zoom ring on top of HD changes your life. smile
Posted: Sat, 3rd Nov 2007, 5:10pm

Post 11 of 60

Dead Iris

Force: 1329 | Joined: 24th Jul 2007 | Posts: 199

VisionLab User VideoWrap User Windows User

Gold Member

Heres where I found it.

http://www.bestpricecameras.com/prodetails.asp?prodid=674426

The sight was rated as a trusted seller on a google sponsored link. But you tell me, I guess.
Posted: Sat, 3rd Nov 2007, 5:27pm

Post 12 of 60

GeeksGoneBad

Force: 1350 | Joined: 15th Apr 2002 | Posts: 664

EffectsLab Lite User Windows User

Gold Member

Here's what I found... you want to take a chance on $1000? I don't wink

http://www.newyork.bbb.org/reports/businessreports.aspx?pid=44&page=1&id=12668
Posted: Sat, 3rd Nov 2007, 5:49pm

Post 13 of 60

Fill

Force: 1257 | Joined: 1st Jul 2005 | Posts: 1652

CompositeLab Lite User EffectsLab Lite User Windows User

Gold Member

Rating: +1

Always, always, always, check Resellerratings.com to see if an online store is legit.
Posted: Sat, 3rd Nov 2007, 5:57pm

Post 14 of 60

Tim L

Force: 580 | Joined: 4th Aug 2006 | Posts: 297

Windows User

Member

For any online purchase, www.resellerratings.com is your best friend.

http://www.resellerratings.com/store/Best_Price_Cameras_6

Overall Customer Satisfaction Rating for Best Price Cameras, on a scale of 0 to 10, is 0.23 for the past six months, and 0.24 lifetime. (i.e. 0.23 out of 10.00)

Tim L

(Ooops -- Fill posted while I was still typing, cutting, and pasting...)
Posted: Sat, 3rd Nov 2007, 7:13pm

Post 15 of 60

Chief Corn

Force: 1329 | Joined: 15th Oct 2006 | Posts: 31

VisionLab User MacOS User

Gold Member

I just moved up to the HVX200 so if you're looking for a Canon GL2 I have my rig on eBay.

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=250181018333
Posted: Sat, 3rd Nov 2007, 8:59pm

Post 16 of 60

Dead Iris

Force: 1329 | Joined: 24th Jul 2007 | Posts: 199

VisionLab User VideoWrap User Windows User

Gold Member

Well then it's a very good thing I wasn't planning to buy from them, lol!

They must have rigged their ratings or something on the website I found them on, because they were rated 5/5 o.0
Posted: Sun, 25th Nov 2007, 5:24pm

Post 17 of 60

DVStudio

Force: 4983 | Joined: 22nd Nov 2007 | Posts: 1845

CompositeLab Pro User EffectsLab Pro User PhotoKey 4 User FXpreset Maker FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

I have a few options:

-Sony HDR-SR8 It is a hard drive camcorder (HD) w/ a 100 gb hard drive for $1600

-Also, the sony HDR-FX1 9even though it is above your budget- $3700) it looks pretty good.

-As a few people said, GL2
Posted: Sun, 25th Nov 2007, 5:24pm

Post 18 of 60

DVStudio

Force: 4983 | Joined: 22nd Nov 2007 | Posts: 1845

CompositeLab Pro User EffectsLab Pro User PhotoKey 4 User FXpreset Maker FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

I have a few options:

-Sony HDR-SR8 It is a hard drive camcorder (HD) w/ a 100 gb hard drive for $1600

-Also, the sony HDR-FX1 9even though it is above your budget- $3700) it looks pretty good.

-As a few people said, GL2
Posted: Mon, 26th Nov 2007, 4:33am

Post 19 of 60

Serpent

Force: 5426 | Joined: 26th Dec 2003 | Posts: 6515

CompositeLab Pro User EffectsLab Pro User FXhome Movie Maker FXpreset Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

The search tool is so incredibly underused...

$1,000 - Canon HV20. Hands down. Search for it.

Above that, in this order (look it up for prices):

DVX100a
XH-A1
HVX200

Anything less than $1,000, I have no idea. Honestly I'd save for the HV20, it's that good. Reviews and output are unmatched in that range.

EDIT: Didn't realize I was posting on page 2 and there had already been a bunch of responses.

Last edited Mon, 26th Nov 2007, 4:52am; edited 1 times in total.

Posted: Mon, 26th Nov 2007, 4:49am

Post 20 of 60

Atom

Force: 4300 | Joined: 9th May 2004 | Posts: 7014

EffectsLab Lite User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

Serpent wrote:

The search tool is so incredibly underused...

$1,000 - Canon HV20. Hands down. Search for it.

Above that, in this order (look it up for prices):

DVX100a
XH-A1
HVX200

Anything less than $1,000, I have no idea. Honestly I'd save for the HV20, it's that good. Reviews and output are unmatched in that range.
Agreed. Although I'd hands down put the XH-A1 way above the DVX. For price/quality ratio and as a generally better camera.
Posted: Mon, 26th Nov 2007, 6:04am

Post 21 of 60

Bryce007

Force: 1910 | Joined: 5th Apr 2003 | Posts: 2609

VideoWrap User Windows User

Gold Member

Atom wrote:



Agreed. Although I'd hands down put the XH-A1 way above the DVX. For price/quality ratio and as a generally better camera.
I'd most certainly disagree.


DVX100B can be had for around $2,500

XH-A1 is $3,500 everywhere I've seen.


The 24P cadence is quite a bit better on the DVX, as are the ergonomics, as well as a host of other features...
Posted: Mon, 26th Nov 2007, 7:50pm

Post 22 of 60

Atom

Force: 4300 | Joined: 9th May 2004 | Posts: 7014

EffectsLab Lite User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

Bryce007 wrote:

DVX100B can be had for around $2,500..
Well, sure, the DVX can be had for $2,500 granted you do a lot of searching around or buy it used. And if you're saying what can be done, don't give the sticker price for the XH-A1 everywhere when comparing them.
Posted: Mon, 26th Nov 2007, 11:43pm

Post 23 of 60

BlueSmudge

Force: 808 | Joined: 30th Dec 2004 | Posts: 401

CompositeLab Pro User Windows User MacOS User FXhome Movie Maker

Gold Member

I'm also going to have to suggest the XH-A1. I got mine for $3250 after a $250 canon rebate which came real fast, I think its still out there. Really comparable to the DVX, but more control over image, and ITS HD. I shot a wedding in SD and they matched real nice. Both have good 24p(f). DVX (a little) better in low light, but shouldn't be a problem for movies.
If you don't want to save up, then the HV20 is supposed to be amazing for the price, but you sacrifice some manual control.

I just can't recommend non-HD cameras anymore...
Posted: Tue, 27th Nov 2007, 1:19am

Post 24 of 60

Serpent

Force: 5426 | Joined: 26th Dec 2003 | Posts: 6515

CompositeLab Pro User EffectsLab Pro User FXhome Movie Maker FXpreset Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

Atom wrote:

Bryce007 wrote:

DVX100B can be had for around $2,500..
Well, sure, the DVX can be had for $2,500 granted you do a lot of searching around or buy it used. And if you're saying what can be done, don't give the sticker price for the XH-A1 everywhere when comparing them.
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/406855-REG/Panasonic_AGDVX100B_Panasonic_AG_DVX100B_3CCD_24p.html

That took me under a minute.
Posted: Tue, 27th Nov 2007, 1:41am

Post 25 of 60

BlueSmudge

Force: 808 | Joined: 30th Dec 2004 | Posts: 401

CompositeLab Pro User Windows User MacOS User FXhome Movie Maker

Gold Member

But if you are already spending that much, as an indi filmmaker, does it make sense to force yourself into buying another camera in a few short years. SD is already becoming so oldschool...sorta.
Posted: Tue, 27th Nov 2007, 2:29am

Post 26 of 60

Bryce007

Force: 1910 | Joined: 5th Apr 2003 | Posts: 2609

VideoWrap User Windows User

Gold Member

But really, you should consider your delivery method. HD isn't even remotely "standard" yet.


Also, HDV isn't HD. Period. I'll never use it again. Either Go real HD or go home. (HVX200 with firestore FTW).

"Oldschool" would be Digital 8 or Micro MV.



EDIT: But if you only have a small amount of money to spend on a camera, go with the HV20 for sure. You can get that thing for under $1000 at most places now.

Last edited Wed, 28th Nov 2007, 12:10am; edited 1 times in total.

Posted: Tue, 27th Nov 2007, 7:47pm

Post 27 of 60

Atom

Force: 4300 | Joined: 9th May 2004 | Posts: 7014

EffectsLab Lite User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

Bryce007 wrote:

But really, you should consider your delivery method. HD isn't even remotely "standard" yet.


Also, HDV isn't HD. Period. I'll never use it again. Either Go real HD or go home. (HVX200 with firestore FTW).

"Oldschool" would be Digital 8 or Micro MV.
I completely agree.
Posted: Tue, 27th Nov 2007, 8:11pm

Post 28 of 60

Goldwing Productions

Force: 401 | Joined: 1st Oct 2006 | Posts: 175

CompositeLab Pro User EffectsLab Pro User FXhome Movie Maker

Gold Member

I would say DVX100A or B. HVX is nice but still expensive with the P2 cards right now.
Posted: Wed, 28th Nov 2007, 3:34pm

Post 29 of 60

pdrg

Force: 5405 | Joined: 4th Dec 2006 | Posts: 4143

VisionLab User Windows User

Gold Member

Bryce007 wrote:

Also, HDV isn't HD. Period. I'll never use it again. Either Go real HD or go home. (HVX200 with firestore FTW).
Totally agree - just to open up the discussions slightly though, also have a look at the Sony EX1 - XDCAM (solid state storage) near-HDCAM quality but with far cheaper storage than P2 cards (unless P2's come down a lot to match!)
Posted: Wed, 28th Nov 2007, 3:46pm

Post 30 of 60

A Pickle

Force: 1235 | Joined: 7th Sep 2004 | Posts: 1280

EffectsLab Lite User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

HDV not HD? I'm... confused. >unsure
Posted: Wed, 28th Nov 2007, 5:21pm

Post 31 of 60

Bryan M Block

Force: 2260 | Joined: 9th Jul 2002 | Posts: 1505

EffectsLab Lite User Windows User

Gold Member

A Pickle wrote:

HDV not HD? I'm... confused. >unsure
It's a Hi-Def image that is compressed to fit on a DV tape. But the true leap to uncompressed HD is still rather expensive, with cameras running up in the $8000 range and storage solutions being rather expensive. HDV captures a higher resolution image than Standard Def and then compresses it, but even then the compressed HDV image is generally a higher quality image than a standard def DV image, so moving to HDV makes lots of sense in many ways. I am currently looking at the Canon XH A1- But I would rather have the XH G1, for the uncompressed output options- but again, you are looking at a price difference between the A1 at around $3000 and the G1 at closer to $7000 and then needing the storage solutions such as a firestore.
Posted: Wed, 28th Nov 2007, 6:10pm

Post 32 of 60

pdrg

Force: 5405 | Joined: 4th Dec 2006 | Posts: 4143

VisionLab User Windows User

Gold Member

A Pickle wrote:

HDV not HD? I'm... confused. >unsure
As a format it's not terribly robust, and rather vulnerable to banding, compression artifacts, etc.

However I think the fact that HDV as a standard only supports 1080i and 720p, and not the 1080p that pretty much all serious HD formats support is one of the chief limitations, and main reasons why it's not really used in industry in a big way.
Posted: Wed, 28th Nov 2007, 6:19pm

Post 33 of 60

Bryce007

Force: 1910 | Joined: 5th Apr 2003 | Posts: 2609

VideoWrap User Windows User

Gold Member

Basically, you get higher resolution, but the trade off is heavy color compression, artifacts, and longer then normal dropouts. And wicked ghosting.
Posted: Wed, 28th Nov 2007, 7:10pm

Post 34 of 60

Bryan M Block

Force: 2260 | Joined: 9th Jul 2002 | Posts: 1505

EffectsLab Lite User Windows User

Gold Member

Bryce007 wrote:

Basically, you get higher resolution, but the trade off is heavy color compression, artifacts, and longer then normal dropouts. And wicked ghosting.
You can get a great image out of any camera really- take a look at this low-light footage shot with the Canon XH A1 with no color correction in post.

http://joesimonproductions.com/shootout/downtown.mov


It looks pretty darn good to me. While eveything you posted can be true, there is a difference between a $700 "consumer" HDV camera and a professional camera that happens to shoot in HDV.

HDV is kind of like a "bridge" format between DV and HD I guess.
Posted: Wed, 28th Nov 2007, 8:49pm

Post 35 of 60

A Pickle

Force: 1235 | Joined: 7th Sep 2004 | Posts: 1280

EffectsLab Lite User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

I know what HD is, and I know that HDV records at 1440x1080, and I know that this is all squeezed onto a MiniDV tape by both tightening the color compression as well as using much more advanced video compression codecs.

Artifacts? I have no idea what you mean. My HV20 shoots absolutely beautiful, stunning image quality -- even with the tighter color compression.

Ghosting? None. I have no idea where you get that, unless you're referring to video shot in 24P, in which case... most consumer HDV camcorders shoot in 60i.
Posted: Wed, 28th Nov 2007, 9:10pm

Post 36 of 60

Merrick

Force: 1067 | Joined: 12th Apr 2007 | Posts: 548

CompositeLab Pro User EffectsLab Pro User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

That looks really nice. Anyone have footage from the HV20?
Posted: Wed, 28th Nov 2007, 9:13pm

Post 37 of 60

pdrg

Force: 5405 | Joined: 4th Dec 2006 | Posts: 4143

VisionLab User Windows User

Gold Member

A Pickle wrote:

most consumer HDV camcorders shoot in 60i.
Just a reminder and clarifier to all - interlaced images are half the lines twice as often, so those are 60 fields of 540 lines, and with that 'video look' interlacing contributes to, meaning that 720p (and remember it's often interpreted to 720p, and non-native - check with your manufacturer).

This is why I challenge that HDV really reaches pro spec as a format - there are some pretty good cameras out there (the Z1 does 1080i as well as you'll see pretty much anywhere) which can record to HDV, but as a format and specification, it's just not terribly rugged - and dropout/artifacting will happen more readily with tape wear on the small form-factor tapes than on a chunkier HDCAM or D5, etc.

I believe HDV to be a GREAT consumer/prosumer format - it's dead clever and fits a huge amount of data onto a tiny tiny tape, but it comes at a price. After all, what %age of feature films are shot digitally? Then what %age of those are shot HDV?
Posted: Wed, 28th Nov 2007, 11:58pm

Post 38 of 60

Merrick

Force: 1067 | Joined: 12th Apr 2007 | Posts: 548

CompositeLab Pro User EffectsLab Pro User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

never mind my queshtion, I found some HV20 footage. biggrin

Would it look terrible to shoot in 1080i and de-interlace by blending the fields? Why wouldn't that give me 1080p? Also, would it be better to shoot in frame mode or to de-interlace in post?
Posted: Thu, 29th Nov 2007, 1:08am

Post 39 of 60

A Pickle

Force: 1235 | Joined: 7th Sep 2004 | Posts: 1280

EffectsLab Lite User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

I've got LOTS of HV20 footage. biggrin
Posted: Thu, 29th Nov 2007, 5:01am

Post 40 of 60

Dancamfx

Force: 2558 | Joined: 7th Sep 2006 | Posts: 873

VisionLab User FXpreset Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

I must say the GL2 has served me well. You can get it for about $2,000 after rebates and I havent found a 3ccd camera I would rather use. If you have any specific questions about the GL2 I would be more than happy to answer them.
Posted: Thu, 29th Nov 2007, 7:51am

Post 41 of 60

ben3308

Force: 5210 | Joined: 24th May 2004 | Posts: 6433

VideoWrap User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

I dunno what's up with the people who say HDV has had no ghosting. It has terrible ghosting. Joel Simon goes into more heavily-lit environments, then burns everything down a little in post. It just darker than it is.

Watch Marathon. The opening shots of it are all shot on HDV, on the Canon XH-A1. There is ghosting all over the place, most noticeably in the shot showing the title of the movie. While shooting it, I almost couldn't believe the ghosting was there- but it was.

HDV 'ghosts' the image all over the place, almost all the time. Light is not the issue. This is not the same thing as the HV20 automatically lowering its shutter in low light, this is ghosting due to the format.

That being said, I still the the GL3-ness of the XH-A1 make it the best camera a prosumer can get nowadays (barring the HVX) and short of the the next best bet is the GL2 or slightly pricier DVX-100b.
Posted: Thu, 29th Nov 2007, 10:39am

Post 42 of 60

pdrg

Force: 5405 | Joined: 4th Dec 2006 | Posts: 4143

VisionLab User Windows User

Gold Member

Merrick World wrote:


Would it look terrible to shoot in 1080i and de-interlace by blending the fields? Why wouldn't that give me 1080p? Also, would it be better to shoot in frame mode or to de-interlace in post?
Hiya, deinterlacing by any method will give you a compromise which you may or may not find 'good enough', but it will not look the same as progressively shot footage, the 2 combined fields will be 20ms apart for a start!
HDV Interlacing is great if you're finishing to HDTV via HDDVD/BluRay, but if you're finishing to other formats it's not ideal - if you're going out to film, it'll show, if you're scaling to SD, you may get scaling artifacts and mouse teeth exaggerated by the sampling algorithm, etc. If you know what you're looking for it's painfully obvious when you see it!

I suspect that if your camera has something it calls 'frame mode' as opposed to 'progressive' that it's a bit of a fiddle in-camera - it'll deinterlace/blend etc by algorithm as opposed to shooting and recording progressively. Progressive recording requires the handling of massive quanta of data at any moment (uncompressed 1080p is about 150Mb/sec - faster than most recording media except hard drive arrays) which is why cameras often can't handle it natively and so offer compromises like 'frame mode' - it may well be 'good enough', especially if you don't plan on showing in the cinema!

Also, make sure your NLE/workflow can work 1080p if you plan on blending fields to synthesize 1080p - it would be a shame if it couldn't :-%

Last edited Thu, 29th Nov 2007, 2:56pm; edited 1 times in total.

Posted: Thu, 29th Nov 2007, 2:37pm

Post 43 of 60

Bryan M Block

Force: 2260 | Joined: 9th Jul 2002 | Posts: 1505

EffectsLab Lite User Windows User

Gold Member

Again,
PDRG is right on- which is why I said HDV is like a "bridge format" between DV and HD. And yes, Canon cameras use what they call "frame mode" which is not "true progressive" shooting-
However, these types of technical discussions can go on and on, with the only real solution is to shoot everything with the RED camera system and be done with it (which the project I'm currently involved in is doing! Excitement!) or just shoot on a Varicam or that Arri cam with the super resolution (although i hear they burn up quick...) But the truth is that most people here are working in SD and looking to improve image quality and features, with most "films" never going to see the up-res to actual film print. making the move to HDV is a step in the right direction. From everything I've seen and read, the Canon XHA1 can be had for $3000 has a slightly better low-light performance than the HVX, and it has a nice lens on it. It also can "mimic" the much loved panasonic saturated color look to a degree, and still put that image on cheap DV tape. Right now, HDV is an affordable leap forward from SD for the hobbyist or indie film maker, while HD would require a more substantial investment- whether or not that investment is worth it to you is really the question- and as PDRG said, it depends on your distribution method and goals for your projecets. As for ghosting and all that I'd only suggest that the camera operator has got to learn his camera and understand it's strengths and limitations- that's is true for every camera.
Posted: Thu, 29th Nov 2007, 4:24pm

Post 44 of 60

ccirelli

Force: 1196 | Joined: 23rd Jan 2007 | Posts: 182

VisionLab User MacOS User

Gold Member

That's a pretty broad price range.. wink

I've been shooting on MiniDV for some time now, using Panasonic camcorders, a GL2 and an XL2. Just yesterday I decided to pick up a Canon HV20, after doing some research on HDV this past week.

If you are even somewhat serious about filmmaking, especially effects-heavy and keyed footage - go HD. MiniDV is fine, and you'll get a more "professional" (I always chuckle at that word) camera for your money - but, SD is on the way out. Still useful, but on the way out.

Again the big thing for me is the quality of the keys you can pull in HD vs. SD - they're not even in the same ballpark.

BTW, if you want a great price on the HV20 - B&H Photo has them for what amounts to $649 ($899 - $100 instant rebate, and you get a $150 B&H gift card - also comes with a free $25 HV20 instructional DVD).
Posted: Thu, 29th Nov 2007, 5:15pm

Post 45 of 60

ben3308

Force: 5210 | Joined: 24th May 2004 | Posts: 6433

VideoWrap User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

ccirelli wrote:

If you are even somewhat serious about filmmaking, especially effects-heavy and keyed footage - go HD. MiniDV is fine, and you'll get a more "professional" (I always chuckle at that word) camera for your money - but, SD is on the way out. Still useful, but on the way out.
I disagree completely.

Maybe if you're serious about keying, then yes, HD is a great idea, but this makes you a serious effects artist, not a serious filmmaker. There's a huge difference here.

As you grow more and more professional, you lose a lot of your 'jack-of-all-trades' functionality and are inherently required to take up a more narrow job. That's how professionals work, they do one job, usually.

If you want to do a lot of greenscreening, then HDV is the best. But this isn't true if you want to be a serious cinematographer, director, and even editor for that matter. You need control over your image if you're actually serious about filmmaking. Shutter, aperture, gain, custom white balance: these are all changeable tools quintessential to setting the camera correctly. Selling yourself out on the (most oftentimes) gimmick of 'HD!!!!!' on a lesser-capable camera will hinder you creatively in getting the proper looks you want from your footafe.

And, to me at least, being able to correctly set my camera after I light and stage it is the most important thing for me. Not resolution, not widescreen, not even framerate- but proper setting.

In short, HDV is good but a bit tired in today's world of small-ish, cheaper camcorders. It's becoming sort of a gimmick and while the HV20 is an extremely strong camera, you're sadly mistaken if you don't think an upper end DV camera like a Panasonic DVX-100b or Canon XL2 isn't more 'serious' a choice for an aspiring filmmaker.
Posted: Thu, 29th Nov 2007, 5:53pm

Post 46 of 60

ccirelli

Force: 1196 | Joined: 23rd Jan 2007 | Posts: 182

VisionLab User MacOS User

Gold Member

Rating: +1

Hi ben,

Fair enough, you bring up some valid points. Although, you may have misunderstood my quoted statement (which, is my fault).

Keeping in mind the forum we are in, FXhome - I believe it is very safe to say that many people here have a strong interest in working on effects-heavy projects, many of which involve keying footage. Again, keying SD vs. HD - not even a contest. Not to mention the huge boost in image quality you will get as well, any filmmaker (serious or hobbyist) should appreciate this.

For the projects I am interested in producing, I feel like I'm wasting my time by putting shots down on SD (that's just me talking, I'm not trying to convert SD folks). Especially when HDV is now so affordable - it is a very, very small investment move up to this format. Sure both formats have their technical advantages and disadvantages, but I'm trying to look at this from the point of view of someone that is interested in filmmaking and visual effects. You can always down-res HD, but you're more or less stuck with SD resolution if that's what you're shooting on. Up-res'd SD takes a lot of effort to look good, and it still doesn't match HD.

I really don't mean this to be an SD vs. HD flame, but since the original post was looking for opinions, I just wanted to offer mine. And I agree, having a higher-res camera doesn't make someone a better or more serious filmmaker - BUT, it opens you up to a lot of options that SD, by nature, does not. Especially for filmmakers that are serious about visual effects.

Incidentally, you can be both a serious filmmaker and a serious vfx artist. smile
Posted: Thu, 29th Nov 2007, 8:09pm

Post 47 of 60

A Pickle

Force: 1235 | Joined: 7th Sep 2004 | Posts: 1280

EffectsLab Lite User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

ben3308 wrote:

Watch Marathon. The opening shots of it are all shot on HDV, on the Canon XH-A1. There is ghosting all over the place, most noticeably in the shot showing the title of the movie. While shooting it, I almost couldn't believe the ghosting was there- but it was.
Um... update your graphics drivers? It looks just fine to me.
Posted: Thu, 29th Nov 2007, 9:10pm

Post 48 of 60

ccirelli

Force: 1196 | Joined: 23rd Jan 2007 | Posts: 182

VisionLab User MacOS User

Gold Member

No, it's not a drivers issue. I see what he is saying. Although, could this be a result of shooting in 24p on the HV20 and panning too quickly? You have to really watch those fast pans with shooting in 24p, the same actually holds true for shooting film as well.

Other factors: the reverse telecine process prior to editing, what about the shutter speed, what was the de-interlacing process?

Other than the shot of them running along the bridge, the shots looked good. Hard to say for sure since I was watching the 320 version.
Posted: Thu, 29th Nov 2007, 10:00pm

Post 49 of 60

ben3308

Force: 5210 | Joined: 24th May 2004 | Posts: 6433

VideoWrap User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

To be clear, it's not the HV20, it's the Canon XHA1, a considerably more expensive camera. And it was not shot (nor was it converted) to 24p.

If not noticeable on the web compress, there are hugely, hugely noticeable differences between the XHA1 and the GL2 (Marathon is half-and-half on either camera). The opening running shots, the fight scene, and the crane shot in the Bill Black scene all suffer form ghosting to some degree. I pointed out the title shot because it is the most obvious on the web version.

There is no such ghosting on the GL2 footage (most of the Bill Black scene, the other bits in between). Ghosting happens on HDV with fast camera movement. And it happens quite often. And I always shoot at a shutter S1/180 or higher, so that I will avoid any ghosting in my SD footage.

Now I'm not trying to completely condemn the format, as I have mentioned I think the HV20 is a very, very, very strong camera, as is the unparalleled XHA1.
Posted: Tue, 4th Dec 2007, 3:27pm

Post 50 of 60

Bryan M Block

Force: 2260 | Joined: 9th Jul 2002 | Posts: 1505

EffectsLab Lite User Windows User

Gold Member

ben3308 wrote:

To be clear, it's not the HV20, it's the Canon XHA1, a considerably more expensive camera. And it was not shot (nor was it converted) to 24p.

If not noticeable on the web compress, there are hugely, hugely noticeable differences between the XHA1 and the GL2 (Marathon is half-and-half on either camera). The opening running shots, the fight scene, and the crane shot in the Bill Black scene all suffer form ghosting to some degree. I pointed out the title shot because it is the most obvious on the web version.

There is no such ghosting on the GL2 footage (most of the Bill Black scene, the other bits in between). Ghosting happens on HDV with fast camera movement. And it happens quite often. And I always shoot at a shutter S1/180 or higher, so that I will avoid any ghosting in my SD footage.

Now I'm not trying to completely condemn the format, as I have mentioned I think the HV20 is a very, very, very strong camera, as is the unparalleled XHA1.
Regarding the "ghosting" - were you using the NR (noise reduction) feature at all? I've read that that is the culprit...
Posted: Tue, 4th Dec 2007, 6:47pm

Post 51 of 60

pdrg

Force: 5405 | Joined: 4th Dec 2006 | Posts: 4143

VisionLab User Windows User

Gold Member

Just to needle into the SD/HD debate, but I know I'd rather watch a well lit, well set-up SD shot than a cheap handycam home user HDV shot
Posted: Tue, 4th Dec 2007, 7:26pm

Post 52 of 60

Atom

Force: 4300 | Joined: 9th May 2004 | Posts: 7014

EffectsLab Lite User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

If I remember correctly, there wasn't noise reduction on.
Posted: Wed, 5th Dec 2007, 12:30am

Post 53 of 60

BlueSmudge

Force: 808 | Joined: 30th Dec 2004 | Posts: 401

CompositeLab Pro User Windows User MacOS User FXhome Movie Maker

Gold Member

You can check the noise reduction setting in the custom preset menu. Its listed as NR1 and NR2. Make sure NR1 is set to off. Even on the low setting is produces a lot of ghosting on fast moving objects. NR2 can be left on, but I find it doesn't do enough to be worth the loss of fine detail.

The A1 has so many settings, almost too many, but it is extremely nice to have so much control over every little way the camera pics up its image. If you need a very flat image because you will be doing heavy color grading in post, you can do that, or if you know you need a fast turn around, you can pretty much get any image you want. Super vibrant, bleach bypass, blue tint, whatever.
Posted: Fri, 7th Dec 2007, 7:13am

Post 54 of 60

ArringtonProductions

Force: 200 | Joined: 16th Oct 2007 | Posts: 2

VideoWrap User FXhome Movie Maker

Gold Member

Actually, the NR was on NR1 with a custom preset...sorry andrew. Really, with HDV the issue isn't with the ghosting...actually, I've shot at least 20 different things since I got the A1 and there hasn't been any ghosting on any shots as long as the NR is off.

A good idea for a camera would be the HV20 hands down. I mean it's going for $750 at bhphoto
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/481076-REG/Canon_2059B001_HV20_2_96MP_CMOS_HDV.html#goto_itemInfo

get that camera, and I'd spend around $700+ on some audio/support equipment. I haven't read every post, so I'm not entirely sure that I know what you need this for or what you have already, but you can't go wrong with some good audio. Here are my suggestions, go to Bhphoto.com and get the Beachtek XLR adapter as well as the Rode NTG-2 microphone or the Sennheiser G2 wireless. Get yourself a nice fluid head tripod and you have everything you need. That comes out to be less than 2,000.

Really, if you're making a new camcorder purchase, you gotta buy the extras to get the best out of the camera. Audio being the most important, then support...and get a nice bag to put it all in.

cheers,
chase
Posted: Sat, 8th Dec 2007, 5:28pm

Post 55 of 60

Bryan M Block

Force: 2260 | Joined: 9th Jul 2002 | Posts: 1505

EffectsLab Lite User Windows User

Gold Member

ArringtonProductions wrote:

Actually, the NR was on NR1 with a custom preset...sorry andrew. Really, with HDV the issue isn't with the ghosting...actually, I've shot at least 20 different things since I got the A1 and there hasn't been any ghosting on any shots as long as the NR is off.

cheers,
chase
THAT is what I wanted to hear. You have to be very careful making statements like "ghosting is part of the HDV format"- I knew it wasn't true- we shoot HDV sometimes, no problems, but since I don't actually HAVE a Canon XHA1, I wanted to make sure it was set up properly when the shots were taken.

Thanks for clarifying.
Posted: Sat, 8th Dec 2007, 11:29pm

Post 56 of 60

ben3308

Force: 5210 | Joined: 24th May 2004 | Posts: 6433

VideoWrap User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

Actually, Mr. Arrington Productions (biggrin), the outdoor scenes with the intro running, downtown, and the stuff at the lake we all shot without NR on. Brian insisted we set up the shot all crazy and in doing that we flipped that hoe to off.
Posted: Sun, 9th Dec 2007, 2:31am

Post 57 of 60

Bryan M Block

Force: 2260 | Joined: 9th Jul 2002 | Posts: 1505

EffectsLab Lite User Windows User

Gold Member

ben3308 wrote:

Actually, Mr. Arrington Productions (biggrin), the outdoor scenes with the intro running, downtown, and the stuff at the lake we all shot without NR on. Brian insisted we set up the shot all crazy and in doing that we flipped that hoe to off.
were you shooting in 24F and did you capture/edit and render in HDV or did you downconvert at any point in the process? Ghosting always seems like a field order error to me and I can't seem to locate anyone else making the claim that ghosting is just "part of the HDV format" that we would have to live with. Canon's "Frame Modes" are not true progressive images- so it may be something that is an issue with Cannon 24f in HDV, and not HDV itself... or at any point in the downconvert process- I am still not sold on the idea that ghosting is partof the HDV format... confused

I wonder if in your NLE you told the clip to flip field orders or something if that would help...
Posted: Sun, 9th Dec 2007, 4:12am

Post 58 of 60

ben3308

Force: 5210 | Joined: 24th May 2004 | Posts: 6433

VideoWrap User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

Now it could have been in 24F, I don't precisely remember.
Posted: Sun, 9th Dec 2007, 5:05pm

Post 59 of 60

pdrg

Force: 5405 | Joined: 4th Dec 2006 | Posts: 4143

VisionLab User Windows User

Gold Member

And 24f by definition is NOT a valid format in the HDV standard (24p is)
Posted: Sun, 9th Dec 2007, 9:15pm

Post 60 of 60

ryboog

Force: 0 | Joined: 9th Dec 2007 | Posts: 3

Member

I'm told that the panasonic AG-DVX 100 is a good one it give you a film look because of the 24fps it's alittle out of the price range you mention below but you can get it for under $2500. Good luck to you.