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

Canon gl1 of HV20

Posted: Mon, 14th Jan 2008, 12:32am

Post 1 of 68

RodyPolis

Force: 805 | Joined: 28th Apr 2007 | Posts: 1839

CompositeLab Lite User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

Which one is better for a starting film maker. I want the pros and cons. Thanks
Posted: Mon, 14th Jan 2008, 12:46am

Post 2 of 68

pdrg

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

VisionLab User Windows User

Gold Member

You know what, they'll both be just fine! Film is about telling a story, and you can tell a story perfectly well using even a cameraphone, from there it's about the degree of polish on the finished item.

Whichever you can afford will be great for you to learn about story, script, composition, pace, directing actors, lighting, working with a crew, editing, etc., all of which will make 100x more difference than the camera brand/model you choose smile
Posted: Mon, 14th Jan 2008, 12:48am

Post 3 of 68

Bryce007

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

VideoWrap User Windows User

Gold Member

True. But the HV20 will look quite a bit better then the GL1...
Posted: Mon, 14th Jan 2008, 1:13am

Post 4 of 68

Atom

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

EffectsLab Lite User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

Bryce007 wrote:

True. But the HV20 will look quite a bit better then the GL1...
True, in resolution. But for a starting filmmaker I'd think manual control and learning this is more important. True, the HV20's image looks better. But for a filmmaker, I'd go with the GL1. Or while we're at it, the GL2.

It'll help you learn about white balance, lighting, and shutter speed and help you use these things, the HV20 won't, as it's automatic.
Posted: Mon, 14th Jan 2008, 1:19am

Post 5 of 68

Bryce007

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

VideoWrap User Windows User

Gold Member

True again, But something else to consider...


HV20 has a nice progressive mode, and it's $650 on Amazon. The Gl1 is fairly outdated by now, and it's also $1500 on Amazon...
Posted: Mon, 14th Jan 2008, 1:29am

Post 6 of 68

RodyPolis

Force: 805 | Joined: 28th Apr 2007 | Posts: 1839

CompositeLab Lite User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

I was looking at some prices and the HV20 is fairly cheap and it's HD. I might go with that, but what I want it not just good image, but good lens, sound recording and all these thing a filmmaker would want.
Atom, what is so great about the gl2 cause I found one for about $750(camera only) and I want to know more about it since you've used it.
I heard that it has a powerful lens but that's all. I read reviews about it but since you've used it, I thought you could tell me more.
Thanks to both of you.
Posted: Mon, 14th Jan 2008, 2:01am

Post 7 of 68

Serpent

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

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

Gold Member

Bryce007 wrote:

The Gl1 is fairly outdated by now, and it's also $1500 on Amazon...
I got mine several years ago for exactly $1,000.

But I will be the first to not recommend it. It is a great camera, but the HV20 is just better quality. GL1 has manual controls, build in ND filter, manual focus ring, and a superior lens. But the HV20 will give you much better quality picture. However if you get the HV20, I'd still research f/stops and aperture, shutterspeed, etc.

Atom: the HV20 offers manual white balance. It also has shutter and aperture priority modes, which is basically semi-auto, but it's certainly not fully point and shoot.
Posted: Mon, 14th Jan 2008, 2:36am

Post 8 of 68

RodyPolis

Force: 805 | Joined: 28th Apr 2007 | Posts: 1839

CompositeLab Lite User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

do u know of any good cameras. I want to do research but i don't know where to start
Posted: Mon, 14th Jan 2008, 2:39am

Post 9 of 68

Serpent

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

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

Gold Member

RodyPolis wrote:

HV20
Unless your price range is $1,800+
Posted: Mon, 14th Jan 2008, 3:33am

Post 10 of 68

neoglitz

Force: 1011 | Joined: 15th Dec 2005 | Posts: 156

CompositeLab Pro User EffectsLab Pro User FXhome Movie Maker

Gold Member

Atom wrote:

It'll help you learn about white balance, lighting, and shutter speed and help you use these things, the HV20 won't, as it's automatic.
Not exactly true at all. You can control several aspects of the HV20, including but not limited to, white balance, shutter and aperture settings.
Posted: Mon, 14th Jan 2008, 3:37am

Post 11 of 68

FreshMentos

Force: 1667 | Joined: 10th Jun 2006 | Posts: 1141

VisionLab User MacOS User

Gold Member

I'd have to recommend the HV20 because of what I've seen of it. A guy I know locally has one and the video quality it produces is fantastic. Here's an example of what the footage looks like: http://vimeo.com/455052

Atom has a point about learning how to use the manual controls, but I think you'd be just fine using the HV20. I would like to make a point though. I noticed that the succesor to the HV20 will be coming out soon because B&H has a listing for the HV30. So you may want to wait.

RodyPolis wrote:

Atom, what is so great about the gl2 cause I found one for about $750(camera only)
Scam!
Posted: Mon, 14th Jan 2008, 4:25am

Post 12 of 68

Atom

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

EffectsLab Lite User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

Sigh. Resolution isn't everything. Who are you going to show it to? Your friends, family? On DVD? I don't expect you to burn Blu-Ray discs and show each movie on an HDTV, right? Then why would it matter, really? Gl1 and GL2 resolution is comparable to SDTV broadcast quality. Surely that's enough, even if just for a few years.

Does the HD matter, or are you realistically going to care about the final image quality when the difference is great versus fantastic.

Because really, either way, you get a great image. All of my films in the cinema, save "Found", use a GL2 with proper lighting, grading, and manual controls. If this looks even adequate to you, then you know what you're getting into.

Filmmakers don't need point-and-shoot 12-megapixel digital cameras, they need something mutable and controllable and most of all artistic in their arsenal. And while the HV20 is a very, very good camera for an amazing price, I cannot stress enough how much I think it is an unfitting alternative to great prosumer cameras for the filmmaker.

You want to record your family vacation and have it look fantastic, the HV20 is more than capable. It's even more than capable of being an adequate camera for storytelling. But you want to become more professional, hone your craft, it is- strictly in my opinion- not an appropriate segway camera from your old handicam. It's the alternative to your handicam, not the next step. If that makes any sense.

And no, Rody, you didn't find a GL2 for $750. You found a scam, likely. smile
Posted: Mon, 14th Jan 2008, 7:56am

Post 13 of 68

A Pickle

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

EffectsLab Lite User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

Rating: +1

Atom wrote:

Sigh. Resolution isn't everything. Who are you going to show it to? Your friends, family? On DVD? I don't expect you to burn Blu-Ray discs and show each movie on an HDTV, right? Then why would it matter, really? Gl1 and GL2 resolution is comparable to SDTV broadcast quality. Surely that's enough, even if just for a few years.
Yes... it matters a lot. Look at reality here: HD is happening. A lot of my friends and family are already moving to HD living room setups, and already have HD-capable stuff in the form of their PC's etc. HD video isn't necessarily HUGE over the internet these days, either -- I have a 720P video of myself (and some friends) firing my AR-15 for the first time, it's 80 MB in size.

Most people at the VERY least have a display capable of 1280x1024, and even if they run at 1024x768 (which is still the dominant display resolution), there'll be a marked increase in display quality. Any new computer these days (unless you're talking about an EeePC or something) can play any HD content, up to and including 1080P.

And "for just a few years" means that Blu-Ray (shameless hopefulness: and HD-DVD) will be making further inroads into consumer homes as HDTV's continue their sonic plummet in price? You're seriously advocating an SD camera? No. That's absurd. It's 2008, it wouldn't have been terribly smart for anyone to buy an SD camera LAST year, it certainly isn't a wise investment this year.

Atom wrote:

Does the HD matter, or are you realistically going to care about the final image quality when the difference is great versus fantastic.
That's a really ambiguous statement. Is great better or worse than fantastic? How do you quantify each? And seriously, resolution may not be everything... but it's a TREMENDOUS part of it, especially when you're making the jump from 720x480 to 1920x1080. That... makes a HUGE difference... I can attest to that.

Atom wrote:

Because really, either way, you get a great image.
Just, one of those images happens to be four times the resolution at half the cost.

Atom wrote:

But you want to become more professional, hone your craft, it is- strictly in my opinion- not an appropriate segway camera from your old handicam.
I really feel that camera controls are a tremendously small part of the filmmaking craft. Camera angles, lighting, mood of the scene, effects, acting, character placement... I feel that all of these have a tremendously greater importance on a film's outcome than someone's ability to adjust the white balance manually (which the HV20 can do, thank you).

A camera... is a camera. Any camera can be used to make a movie and thus, tell a story... and to suggest that someone will not progress because they have an HV20 versus a GL2 is... wrong. The HV20 gives them some flexibility that the GL2 simply cannot. To subscribe to the idea that the GL2 is outright better (in 2008, the eve of HD's global hegemonic takeover) is almost elitist, in my mind. I would've loved a GL2... four years ago.

As far as I'm concerned, the affordability of the HV20 in conjunction with the features it offers as a consumer camera is unmatched -- perfect for the budding filmmaker. Seriously, a GL2 for a starting filmmaker is like giving your kid a Hummer as their first car -- it's absurd and deathly overpriced as an initial tool. Later, when and if he or she decides that filmmaking is becoming a serious enough aspect of their lives, they can make the decision then to invest in a high-end, professional $1,000-$3,000 camera. But right now? The HV20 is a clear choice, particularly in light of the glaring lack of HD offered by the GL2.
Posted: Mon, 14th Jan 2008, 8:22am

Post 14 of 68

ben3308

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

VideoWrap User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

One thing I think you're missing out on, A Pickle, is that any prosumer SD camera, be it a GL2, DVX, or VX2100 has a lot of capability of manipulating light and focus. They all, respectively, have ready-made focus rings and fully-functioning toggles for aperture, gain, and shutter speed. These three settings of exposure aren't just settings as you seem to have flippantly thrown out the window, but what is essentially required for proper lighting. You say the HV20 gives a filmmaker flexibility while I think that it actually limits him. As Joey Lawrence would have you think, light is everything, and lessening control over such a medium- simply for the sake of resolution- will always seem a foolish choice to me.

High resolution will always be an increasing matter, but control over one's image and camera will not. Have we not taken note of this from the increasing trend in not including a mic jack in newer handheld cameras? Let me pose this scenario: I can buy one of the first Canon digital SLR cameras (like a 5 megapixel) for roughly 800 bucks, or get a much higher resolution, NEW Sony Cybershot (10 megapixels these days, man) for 250 bucks. One's cheaper and of higer resolution right, the way of the future? Wrong. In buying the newer, bigger edition the consumer has robbed himself of unlocking his artistic integrity by being able to appropriately control his image and the light in it.

If you're looking to become a professional, or even just get good: you'll be limiting yourself by not having control over your image. As was said: any camera can make a movie. But good art direction, lighting, and photography cannot be captured by every camera. Even in the absence of megapixels and savings, a camera with the adequate capability for its user to adapt it to the light in the scene makes for a more cinematic image. There's just no arguing that.

HD may be the way of the future. But a handycam intended for birthdays and event footage is likely not the way of the future for the auteur or aspiring maverick filmmaker. The camera I own (Canon GL2) I got for a reason above the other little handheld HD cameras at the time, and that was to learn and to produce some good films; both of which I'd like to think I have accomplished.

The future may lie in more resolution, but it is a crippling effect to transition from resolution to learning the cinematographic process (HV20 to HVX, let's say) than to simply upgrade resolution (GL2/what-have-you to HVX, where most settings are already known and therefore easier to control).

This being said, the HV20 is a great camera. But there's a reason it's so small, cheap, and pretty, and that reason is it's justifiable lack of control.
Posted: Mon, 14th Jan 2008, 8:33am

Post 15 of 68

Bryce007

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

VideoWrap User Windows User

Gold Member

Personally, I could never go back to a camera without manual iris control. that's the one thing that always looks painfully amateur.

But for $650, and particularly because many, many people I know have thought they wanted to be filmmakers, but really are just interested in making a couple random videos and maybe a wedding or two, the HV20 is a less excessive possible anti-asset.

But if you find a GL2 for under a grand, I say, get it. The GL1 is too big of a step backwards, especially for the money.
Posted: Mon, 14th Jan 2008, 9:39am

Post 16 of 68

Gnome326

Force: 10 | Joined: 21st Mar 2005 | Posts: 436

Windows User

Member

I just got a Canon HG10. It has a 24p frame rate option. While I would prefer a mini dv camera, having the hard drive isn't that bad. Plus I suppose you can always buy an external hard drive if you wanted to keep an archive of your footage. The AVCHD technology does a fine job at keeping sizes down, but also keeping the HD quality there. Of course I had to buy new software so I would having an editing app which would support the application. It currently looks like Adobe is the only major application which has not come out with software that supports it yet, though the other major ones do. I got pinnicle 11 along with it as a quick fix until I can afford something pricier.

I bought the camera through some 3rd party off of Amazon at a pretty cheap price, considering. It was like $750 or around that price range. Not to shabby, especially considering what you're getting. I think that's like half off the suggested retail price. Definately look into it. It was a great deal, imo.

Give it a look
http://www.amazon.com/Canon-AVCHD-Definition-Camcorder-Optical/dp/B000U8HBRW/ref=pd_bbs_1?ie=UTF8&s=electronics&qid=1200303435&sr=8-1
Posted: Mon, 14th Jan 2008, 12:11pm

Post 17 of 68

GeeksGoneBad

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

EffectsLab Lite User Windows User

Gold Member

The HV20 does have manual focus FWIW smile it doesn't have a "ring" it's got a little wheel - which is a little to adjust to - but it's manual focus nonetheless...
Posted: Mon, 14th Jan 2008, 2:00pm

Post 18 of 68

petet2

Force: 2899 | Joined: 27th Dec 2005 | Posts: 1043

VisionLab User VideoWrap User Windows User

Gold Member

GeeksGoneBad wrote:

The HV20 does have manual focus FWIW smile it doesn't have a "ring" it's got a little wheel - which is a little to adjust to - but it's manual focus nonetheless...
While this type of manual focus is useful for tricky situations when auto focus might get fooled or to lock focus so the auto doesn't hunt it is not comparable to a lens with a focusing ring. Pulling focus with the wheel you mention would be very difficult.

When I think back to the days of super 8mm (Warning - old guy reminisence alert!) while exposure was often automatic all (bar the very cheapest fixed focus cameras) had a lens with a focus ring with distances marked in feet and metres.

The very few auto focus cine cameras were never well received by any users and seen as a gimmick. Now you have to pay £1000s to get anything other than auto focus and even the cameras with a manual focus ring have servo motor rings rather than a "proper" focus ring with set positions corresponding to focus postions. That's why so many people resort to adapters (which basically mean filiming a screen attached to a 35mm lens) to be able to truly control focus.

I agree with Ben's comments to A Pickle above that manual exposure and focus are essential to control image quality and lighting. However pdrg's initial comments are the most relevant - ultimately it is about making movies rather than aspiring to better equipment. Decide what your budget is and buy the best camera you can for that money. If that means that sometimes autoexposure messes up your shot then learn how to avoid those situations by repositioning your actors. However much you spend there will always be someone telling you why their (more expensive camera) is better. It doesn't mean their movies will be!
Posted: Mon, 14th Jan 2008, 10:33pm

Post 19 of 68

A Pickle

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

EffectsLab Lite User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

GeeksGoneBad wrote:

The HV20 does have manual focus FWIW it doesn't have a "ring" it's got a little wheel - which is a little to adjust to - but it's manual focus nonetheless...
It's a little tough to get used to, but it's not too bad. Added to the fact that it can focus on stuff literally ONE centimeter away from the lens is... breathtaking. I mean, it's... incredible.

pete2 wrote:

I agree with Ben's comments to A Pickle above that manual exposure and focus are essential to control image quality and lighting.
With respect, the HV20 has both. It doesn't have a focus ring, which I will concur, is vastly superior to the wheel offered by Canon in the HV20... but the features are there and can be used. I might add, I'm not too keen on the abilities of the GL2... but the HV20 is advertised to focus on items one centimeter away -- and that isn't marketing. I've tried it. I focused on my friend's eye which was impressive enough on it's own -- but when my friend and I saw the footage on my computer screen versus the tiny LCD -- we could see the reflection of ME WITH MY CAMERA IN HIS EYE.

The HV20 is a stunning camcorder for the price, there hasn't been this good a mix of features, quality, or price for YEARS. In my opinion, there isn't a better camera on the market for starting filmmakers.

My friend's hand.
The actual pixels from my 28" LCD computer monitor.
A string switch for the lights in my basement.

Just some framegrabs of what this camera is capable of -- focus-wise. Here's footage of the Grand Canyon (WMV, 10.4 MB, 1080i, Courtesy of an anonymous user at HV20.com).
Posted: Mon, 14th Jan 2008, 10:48pm

Post 20 of 68

RodyPolis

Force: 805 | Joined: 28th Apr 2007 | Posts: 1839

CompositeLab Lite User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

Thanks to all of you all. Now I have a ton of information about stuff like that. I really would like the gl2 but it's expensive. I read some stuff about the HV20 and it seems to be descent. I heard it has that cine mode where it shoots at 24p and I thought that was neat. Plus it's HD and the last thing I want if to buy a new camera that gets out dated soon. I am sure the gl2 is way better in manual stuff, but the HV20 can get external mics, headphones and you can plug an earphone. I mostly would like the lens in the gl2 but I can get an adapter, or I could just stand from a distance and zoom. It also let you change the white balance. It is not fully auto, it's semi-auto.

Like many of you stated, the camera doesn't make the movie, the directors do. And the HV20 is what I can afford and it really shouldn't be that bad. I've always hated my bad resolution problems so it should fix it. Who knows, I might get the HV30.
Thanks again for your help. If you have any last really really important thing to say please say it now. Thanks
Posted: Mon, 14th Jan 2008, 11:02pm

Post 21 of 68

neoglitz

Force: 1011 | Joined: 15th Dec 2005 | Posts: 156

CompositeLab Pro User EffectsLab Pro User FXhome Movie Maker

Gold Member

Alright, you'll made me do it lol...
http://fxhome.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=313374#313374
Posted: Mon, 14th Jan 2008, 11:26pm

Post 22 of 68

RodyPolis

Force: 805 | Joined: 28th Apr 2007 | Posts: 1839

CompositeLab Lite User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

A Pickle wrote:

GeeksGoneBad wrote:

The HV20 does have manual focus FWIW it doesn't have a "ring" it's got a little wheel - which is a little to adjust to - but it's manual focus nonetheless...
It's a little tough to get used to, but it's not too bad. Added to the fact that it can focus on stuff literally ONE centimeter away from the lens is... breathtaking. I mean, it's... incredible.

pete2 wrote:

I agree with Ben's comments to A Pickle above that manual exposure and focus are essential to control image quality and lighting.
With respect, the HV20 has both. It doesn't have a focus ring, which I will concur, is vastly superior to the wheel offered by Canon in the HV20... but the features are there and can be used. I might add, I'm not too keen on the abilities of the GL2... but the HV20 is advertised to focus on items one centimeter away -- and that isn't marketing. I've tried it. I focused on my friend's eye which was impressive enough on it's own -- but when my friend and I saw the footage on my computer screen versus the tiny LCD -- we could see the reflection of ME WITH MY CAMERA IN HIS EYE.

The HV20 is a stunning camcorder for the price, there hasn't been this good a mix of features, quality, or price for YEARS. In my opinion, there isn't a better camera on the market for starting filmmakers.

My friend's hand.
The actual pixels from my 28" LCD computer monitor.
A string switch for the lights in my basement.

Just some framegrabs of what this camera is capable of -- focus-wise. Here's footage of the Grand Canyon (WMV, 10.4 MB, 1080i, Courtesy of an anonymous user at HV20.com).
Thanks that was helpful. So do you own this camera. If so, did it come with some kind of CD. Cause I've never used Minidv on computer before and I want to know how it does things. Cause I'd hate having to lose resolution due to lack of information.
Posted: Mon, 14th Jan 2008, 11:29pm

Post 23 of 68

GeeksGoneBad

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

EffectsLab Lite User Windows User

Gold Member

For more discussions on the HV20 go here http://www.hv20.com/
Posted: Mon, 14th Jan 2008, 11:35pm

Post 24 of 68

FreshMentos

Force: 1667 | Joined: 10th Jun 2006 | Posts: 1141

VisionLab User MacOS User

Gold Member

RodyPolis wrote:

If so, did it come with some kind of CD. Cause I've never used Minidv on computer before and I want to know how it does things. Cause I'd hate having to lose resolution due to lack of information.
It does come with a CD, but what would you want it for?

I can see why you would be afraid of losing resolution. You current cam is a hard drive cam! DV and HDV barely lose any resolution, so you'll be fine.

Keep in mind though, WMM does not support HDV. You're going to need an NLE that supports it. A great affordable solution would be Sony Vegas Movie Studio Platinum. If it's not the platinum version, it will not support HDV.
Posted: Tue, 15th Jan 2008, 12:10am

Post 25 of 68

RodyPolis

Force: 805 | Joined: 28th Apr 2007 | Posts: 1839

CompositeLab Lite User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

FreshMentos wrote:

RodyPolis wrote:

If so, did it come with some kind of CD. Cause I've never used Minidv on computer before and I want to know how it does things. Cause I'd hate having to lose resolution due to lack of information.
It does come with a CD, but what would you want it for?

I can see why you would be afraid of losing resolution. You current cam is a hard drive cam! DV and HDV barely lose any resolution, so you'll be fine.

Keep in mind though, WMM does not support HDV. You're going to need an NLE that supports it. A great affordable solution would be Sony Vegas Movie Studio Platinum. If it's not the platinum version, it will not support HDV.
"The Windows Vista version includes about 20 new effects, a few new transitions, and support for the DVR-MS file format which Windows Media Center records television in. The HD version in Premium and Ultimate editions of Windows Vista adds support for capturing from HDV camcorders. The capture wizard will create DVR-MS type files from HDV tapes. However, the Windows Vista version of Windows Movie Maker no longer supports importing video from an analog video source such as a VCR or from a webcam."
I just got that from wikipedia. So do you think it will do the job? And what is a DVR-MS file. Cause it'd be good to be able to import it in Fxhome products and Fxhome products only accept avi.
Posted: Tue, 15th Jan 2008, 12:41am

Post 26 of 68

pdrg

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

VisionLab User Windows User

Gold Member

I'm not certain but I'd guess DVR-MS is another highly compressed codec suited to recording and playing back, not editing. Seriously, get the cheaper camera and spend the difference on a decent NLE - WMM is meant for home users to edit holiday videos badly and with vile transitions nobody with taste would touch :-$ People who use Vegas seem to love it, Premiere and FCP have their homeboys too, I'm in the AVID camp, but pretty much everyone will agree you should get away from WMM ASAP if you want any chance of making a decent job of editing, it just won't give you the level of control you need.

And as I said before, the HV20 will do you perfectly well for now, you can splash cash on an upgrade in a few years and understand why the manual features are so useful! As much as automatic features limit what you can do, there's a lot less to worry about - unless you understand about focal lengths, depth of field and hyperfocals, and the elementary physics of light, all the manual controls will make it easier to take bad shots :-$
Posted: Tue, 15th Jan 2008, 12:55am

Post 27 of 68

RodyPolis

Force: 805 | Joined: 28th Apr 2007 | Posts: 1839

CompositeLab Lite User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

alright, I also onw Power Director and I just checked and it can capture HDV. but when you would render it, it can't open in fxhome products
Posted: Tue, 15th Jan 2008, 1:17am

Post 28 of 68

pdrg

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

VisionLab User Windows User

Gold Member

I don't know 'power director', but it doesn't sound like a particularly good NLE. Check the export/render options for something like AVI (uncompressed) which will make huge files (so only do the bits you need!) and they should import into FXware ok. Experiment a bit, if you can't get ANY of the exports/renders to import into your FXware, dump it and get a decent NLE wink or be prepapred for a heap of transcoding in Super (search here for links)!
Posted: Tue, 15th Jan 2008, 1:37am

Post 29 of 68

RodyPolis

Force: 805 | Joined: 28th Apr 2007 | Posts: 1839

CompositeLab Lite User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

is there any nle u would suggest. something not expensive. because it does not have the avi uncompressed. Is there any other NLE that have avi uncompressed, because I could just capture it with power director then save it in HD(I have used that program for a while and it doesn't seem to lose any resolution. way better than WMM cause it wasn't for free) then I could import it in the other NLE and save as avi uncompressed.
Posted: Tue, 15th Jan 2008, 1:43am

Post 30 of 68

ben3308

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

VideoWrap User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

Vegas has had previous, cheaper generations that have gone by many names. Vegas Lite, Sonic Video Explosion Deluxe, and Sony MovieStudio are all names.

Vegas Movie Studio is what you want now. The ridiculously cheaper, less full-featured but still extremely capable Vegas Pro alternative from Sony is honestly better than anything you'll ever find for that price. Even the trimmed-down Premiere Elements doesn't come close.
Posted: Tue, 15th Jan 2008, 1:48am

Post 31 of 68

FreshMentos

Force: 1667 | Joined: 10th Jun 2006 | Posts: 1141

VisionLab User MacOS User

Gold Member

ben3308 wrote:

Vegas Movie Studio is what you want now. The ridiculously cheaper, less full-featured but still extremely capable Vegas Pro alternative from Sony is honestly better than anything you'll ever find for that price. Even the trimmed-down Premiere Elements doesn't come close.
Agreed.

You can even buy an earlier version of Movie Studio if you want to save more cash!
Posted: Tue, 15th Jan 2008, 1:50am

Post 32 of 68

Bryce007

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

VideoWrap User Windows User

Gold Member

I just recently got a chance to try out Adobe Premiere CS3, and when compared to Sony Vegas 8 pro (Which I use primarily), there was basically no competition. Just the speed alone makes Vegas top anything I've used. Including the newest Final cut pro. Not to mention, you can now work in a deeper colorspace than even FCP can handle.


And it's unreasonably efficient with HDV, Even on a less than impressive computer.


EDIT:

Also, if you look at it as ONLY an NLE, and you consider that editing is almost entirely about proper timing, then the fact that you can play back edits in realtime at 80% quality as soon as you hit the spacebar, it's (without question) the most efficient and useful editor out there for the price (Or otherwise)

Last edited Tue, 15th Jan 2008, 2:06am; edited 1 times in total.

Posted: Tue, 15th Jan 2008, 1:57am

Post 33 of 68

Atom

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

EffectsLab Lite User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

Bryce007 wrote:

I just recently got a chance to try out Adobe Premiere CS3, and when compared to Sony Vegas 8 pro (Which I use primarily), there was basically no competition. Just the speed alone makes Vegas top anything I've used. Including the newest Final cut pro. Not to mention, you can now work in a deeper colorspace than even FCP can handle.


And it's unreasonably efficient with HDV, Even on a less than impressive computer.
Agreed. Thank god there's another person who sees Vegas as the genuine article above others for NLE. Even FCP, I'd go as far as saying. Not that it entirely matters what you edit on as to how good your movies come out, but it's nice to see a strong filmmaker here follow it as well. It really says something about it and the bandwagon that is "FCP IS PRO-GRADE and nothing else!"
Posted: Tue, 15th Jan 2008, 4:50am

Post 34 of 68

Bryan M Block

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

EffectsLab Lite User Windows User

Gold Member

Atom wrote:

Bryce007 wrote:

I just recently got a chance to try out Adobe Premiere CS3, and when compared to Sony Vegas 8 pro (Which I use primarily), there was basically no competition. Just the speed alone makes Vegas top anything I've used. Including the newest Final cut pro. Not to mention, you can now work in a deeper colorspace than even FCP can handle.


And it's unreasonably efficient with HDV, Even on a less than impressive computer.
Agreed. Thank god there's another person who sees Vegas as the genuine article above others for NLE. Even FCP, I'd go as far as saying. Not that it entirely matters what you edit on as to how good your movies come out, but it's nice to see a strong filmmaker here follow it as well. It really says something about it and the bandwagon that is "FCP IS PRO-GRADE and nothing else!"
Can I just also add my voice to the chorus of those that use Vegas professionally? We have an AVID at work, which I learned to use because I figured I MUST be missing SOMETHING! I mean I've heard nothing but AVID since I started in this business 10 years ago- and then I found Vegas- I've been using Vegas since it was Vegas Video version 3.0- and honestly, I've cut ALL of our projects in Vegas this year, the AVID has gone UNUSED. I am a HUGE Vegas fan. FCP is a great package though and we are upgrading to the new Adobe CS3 integrated package- which I am in favor of, but for speed and ease of use (and even quality in many instances) I suggest Vegas.
Posted: Tue, 15th Jan 2008, 4:55am

Post 35 of 68

Harvey

Force: 2050 | Joined: 29th Apr 2005 | Posts: 513

VisionLab User MacOS User

Gold Member

Not to hijack this thread or anything, but, how does Vegas 8 compare to Vegas 6 specifically in terms of speed? Because I own Vegas 6 and it's maddeningly slow and just feels like a very early beta version of FCP to me when I use it, so I'm just curious how much they've improved it.
Posted: Tue, 15th Jan 2008, 5:19am

Post 36 of 68

Bryan M Block

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

EffectsLab Lite User Windows User

Gold Member

Harvey wrote:

Not to hijack this thread or anything, but, how does Vegas 8 compare to Vegas 6 specifically in terms of speed? Because I own Vegas 6 and it's maddeningly slow and just feels like a very early beta version of FCP to me when I use it, so I'm just curious how much they've improved it.
I've only used Vegas 8 in demo form, but I have Vegas 7 and it was a huge step forward. I don't know what exactly you are having issues with performance wise that would lead you to compare it to "beta" version of FCP. I concede that FCP is made by Apple for Apple and that as a rule Apples are MUCH more efficient computers with regard to usage- so yeah, a kick ass PC will do wonders with Vegas, a mid-line PC will feel like a mid-line PC, etc...

B
Posted: Tue, 15th Jan 2008, 5:29am

Post 37 of 68

Harvey

Force: 2050 | Joined: 29th Apr 2005 | Posts: 513

VisionLab User MacOS User

Gold Member

Ah, that's nice to know. Basically, Vegas is just generally slow for me especially with clips rendered out of VisionLab (they won't even play in real time for me). But maybe that's just a hardware issue as my computer is far less than kick ass.

My school has FCP so I've used that extensively for projects and such, and to me, Vegas has a similar layout with similar features (i.e. the way the trimmer works etc.) but in a much less streamlined and efficient form than FCP. Overall, Vegas just feels much clunkier to me than FCP does. That's where the beta version comment came from.

Thanks for the info, Bryan. I'll have to try out the demo of Vegas 8 and see for myself.
Posted: Tue, 15th Jan 2008, 6:03am

Post 38 of 68

Atom

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

EffectsLab Lite User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

In comparison to Vegas 5, Vegas 6 is particularly slow. But nowhere near maddening, much less than the minuscule actions that require the pinwheel of death in FCP. (But it's not all bad.)

A large bit of the gradual slowing down of Vegas 6 has to do with the growing temp files. It helps to delete them once you're sure you don't need certain project files directories completely. Otherwise, every time it says "Building/Finding Media Libraries" it's backing up your files somewhere else.

I'm about to upgrade from 6, as I did from 5, to Vegas 8 and I've only heard great things. So much so I can't see what makes it any less than elite comparably. The titler and speed are both supposed to be incredibly advanced steps forward, as is the integration with DVD Architect. (My understanding is that you can even cue subtitles in Vegas as you edit, then transfer them seamlessly in DVD Architect to render just like that.)
Posted: Tue, 15th Jan 2008, 6:05am

Post 39 of 68

A Pickle

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

EffectsLab Lite User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

You know... I've been a happy user of Adobe Premiere for something on the order of five years now... and my experience with Premiere Pro CS3 has been utterly abysmal. It feels like it's trying to render a brick. Even Windows Movie Maker can display real-time HDV as it's importing, and I can MULTITASK when I'm importing. WOW.

Yeah... I'm... gonna go download the demo of Vegas... and maybe be a convert...

RodyPolis wrote:

Thanks that was helpful. So do you own this camera. If so, did it come with some kind of CD.
I do own this camera, and it does indeed come with a CD. The CD contains drivers for both Windows and Mac OS X, and some very rudimentary video capture/editing software. I don't use that -- and I'd advise you invest in an NLE (such as Premiere Elements or Vegas Studio -- preferably the latter) along with the camera.

RodyPolis wrote:

Cause I've never used Minidv on computer before and I want to know how it does things.
MiniDV doesn't so much "do things" on your computer so much as the camera does. All you need to know, really, is that you plug your camera into your computer with a Firewire/i.Link/IEEE-1394 (these are different names for the same thing) cable. You may need a 4-pin to 4-pin firewire cable if you have a laptop, otherwise you'll probably be using a 4-pin to 6-pin Firewire cable (going from the HV20 to a desktop).

Aside from finding the right cable, it's really very straightforward -- plug your camera into your computer, and use your video editing software (preferably something like Adobe Premiere Elements or Sony Vegas -- preferably the latter given Adobe's recent lack of quality control and service) to capture the video. It's really VERY straightforward from there.

It doesn't matter if you're using MiniDV tapes, Digital8 tapes, a built-in hard drive... the process is very much the same. Hooray for industry standards. biggrin

RodyPolis wrote:

Cause I'd hate having to lose resolution due to lack of information.
Not entirely sure what that means, but I'd relax. You're only going to lose video resolution if you either, a.) use an inferior capturing technique (such as via USB or RCA cables) or b.) record your video at an SD resolution (because the HV20 can scale back if needbe).

Question for you: What are the hardware specifications of the computer you're running? We should probably know this before thrusting you into the purchase of an HD camera... HD video is not like SD video at ALL... it eats very good computers for breakfast...
Posted: Tue, 15th Jan 2008, 1:35pm

Post 40 of 68

Bryan M Block

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

EffectsLab Lite User Windows User

Gold Member

Harvey wrote:

Ah, that's nice to know. Basically, Vegas is just generally slow for me especially with clips rendered out of VisionLab (they won't even play in real time for me). But maybe that's just a hardware issue as my computer is far less than kick ass.

My school has FCP so I've used that extensively for projects and such, and to me, Vegas has a similar layout with similar features (i.e. the way the trimmer works etc.) but in a much less streamlined and efficient form than FCP. Overall, Vegas just feels much clunkier to me than FCP does. That's where the beta version comment came from.

Thanks for the info, Bryan. I'll have to try out the demo of Vegas 8 and see for myself.
Are you trying to preview them in full size and full resolution? That's a tall order for Vegas since it is totally computer dependent with only recent support for hardware acceleration. Are you previewing on an external monitor or just in the edit window? Try reducing the quality to "Good" or "preview" instead of "best". ALso, there are several settings in Vegas that tell it how much of your RAM you want to dedicate to that program and previews etc... You should boost those up. Settting up any program like this (even photoshop) requires some tnkerng with the settings for best performance. Also, remember that each new version of software is usually optimized to run on faster, more robust machines since the last version- that's just how it goes- so if your Vegas 5 system was working happilly, it may groan a bit under Vegas 8, etc... That said- I think Vegas could use some improvements. They've gone a long way in version 8, but there are still lots of things that I'd like to see.

P.S. As a lifetime Buckeye and graduate of Ohio State, i must say that really enjoyed Michigan's trouncing of the Florida Gators this year smile Especially since OSU again could not carry the Big Ten banner against the SEC yet again. Go Blue! well, until next season...wink
Posted: Tue, 15th Jan 2008, 1:43pm

Post 41 of 68

pdrg

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

VisionLab User Windows User

Gold Member

Bryan M Block wrote:

...We have an AVID at work, which I learned to use because I figured I MUST be missing SOMETHING! I mean I've heard nothing but AVID since I started in this business 10 years ago
Did you self-train or go on an approved course? So many of the things people deeply love about AVID are not intuitive from the interface (eg script-based editing, multicamera as-live edits, excellent interoperability across the range, mindbogglingly robust, media server support (great for newsrooms, for instance)). Granted the interface is often counterintuitive, and there's no way I'd suggest to a newcomer, but with those who feel the love, it's a big love wink !
Posted: Tue, 15th Jan 2008, 2:16pm

Post 42 of 68

Bryan M Block

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

EffectsLab Lite User Windows User

Gold Member

pdrg wrote:

Bryan M Block wrote:

...We have an AVID at work, which I learned to use because I figured I MUST be missing SOMETHING! I mean I've heard nothing but AVID since I started in this business 10 years ago
Did you self-train or go on an approved course? So many of the things people deeply love about AVID are not intuitive from the interface (eg script-based editing, multicamera as-live edits, excellent interoperability across the range, mindbogglingly robust, media server support (great for newsrooms, for instance)). Granted the interface is often counterintuitive, and there's no way I'd suggest to a newcomer, but with those who feel the love, it's a big love wink !
Good point- I am 85% self trained on the AVID, however since I am usually a director, I have had the opportunity to sit down with several editors on my projects that have shared their extensive experience with me and showed me how to do things first hand. The script based editing is a god-send, and yes- there are a few things that AVID does VERY well, but 90% of the time I can get the same results faster on Vegas. The only thing i HATE on Vegas, that has really been sub par is the titler- It's fine for simple titles, but building bullet point lists and all kinds of things that you need in corporate video are just not really possible with Vegas- They are FINALLY possible with the new titler in Vegas 8 however! Out of everything you named above, there is only one of those that I need on a regular basis- and having worked in two other production companies I don't see much need for things like multicam as live editing very much (Vegas can do this too however...)
Posted: Tue, 15th Jan 2008, 3:40pm

Post 43 of 68

GeeksGoneBad

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

EffectsLab Lite User Windows User

Gold Member

I upgraded to Vegas 8 when it came out but I still use 7 for some reason - They changed the interface just a bit and I haven't taken the time to get used to it - and 7 edits HD just fine still so I'm not pushed into using 8 - I guess I should research what's new LOL I jsut don't have the time hehe

if anyone's interested - I've posted a few pics of my gear (the HV20, etc...) I'm still taking more pics as I get the gear set up - I need to take a pic of the crane and dolly at least! smile

http://www.geeksgonebad.com/static-page/ggb-gear.html
Posted: Tue, 15th Jan 2008, 9:31pm

Post 44 of 68

RodyPolis

Force: 805 | Joined: 28th Apr 2007 | Posts: 1839

CompositeLab Lite User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

A Picle: I have a New vista, 250 GB. It's the fastest computer I've used and so far only i/4 is used.
The reason I wanted to know about if it comes with CD is for the capturing. Does the capturing device it comes with do a good job? Cause the main reason I wanted a new NLE is because of the "avi uncompressed" rendering format so I can use it in composite lab. So if the CD it comes with allows you to save it like that then I won't need a new NLE after all.
Posted: Tue, 15th Jan 2008, 11:01pm

Post 45 of 68

A Pickle

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

EffectsLab Lite User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

RodyPolis wrote:

A Picle: I have a New vista, 250 GB. It's the fastest computer I've used and so far only i/4 is used.
Er... that doesn't entirely help me much. I need to know what kind of processor you have, and how fast it is... how much memory you have... and what kind (if any) of graphics card you have. In order to edit and manage high-definition video, you need a fairly fast computer with a fast CPU, a good lot of RAM, and a nice video card certainly helps.

You can tell me this information very easily:
-Click "Start"
-Right-click "Computer"
-Click "Properties"

A window should pop up, and should list some information about your computer. Under the "System" category, it'll tell you "Processor" and "Memory (RAM)." I need to know what it says under those categories. Then we can figure some stuff out. biggrin

RodyPolis wrote:

The reason I wanted to know about if it comes with CD is for the capturing. Does the capturing device it comes with do a good job?
Well, the camera doesn't come with a capturing device. The camera has a four pin Firewire port on it, looks like this:


Your computer, if it's a desktop, will probably have a 6-pin firewire port on it -- and those look like this:


If your computer is a laptop, then you'll probably have one of those 4-pin Firewire ports on it -- it should look exactly like the one on your camera (the top picture).

You'll need a Firewire cable to connect the two, and obviously you'll need a cable that connects the appropriate ports. So, if you have a laptop you'll need a 4-pin to 4-pin Firewire cable, because the port on your camera is 4-pin, and the port on your laptop is also 4-pin. If you have a desktop, you'll need a 6-pin to 4-pin Firewire cable -- again, because desktops have 6-pin ports, but your camera still has a 4-pin port.

If you need a 4-pin to 4-pin Firewire cable, both ends need to look like this:


If you need a 6-pin to 4-pin Firewire cable, one end needs to look like the one above, and the other end needs to look like this:


You can pick these cables at any local Circuit City, Radio Shack, Best Buy, or any of those retail electronics stores.
Posted: Tue, 15th Jan 2008, 11:57pm

Post 46 of 68

RodyPolis

Force: 805 | Joined: 28th Apr 2007 | Posts: 1839

CompositeLab Lite User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

Wow. Thanks for taking your time to write all this. It's also very good information. So ok, I have to get an editing program. Well, I'll look some up. It should be that hard to find find one cause I have all this information here. Again, thanks to everyone who helped me out. This topic is now closed(I hope) but if you got anything else that might be useful to me or any other member here, feel free to say it.
Posted: Wed, 16th Jan 2008, 12:35am

Post 47 of 68

Harvey

Force: 2050 | Joined: 29th Apr 2005 | Posts: 513

VisionLab User MacOS User

Gold Member

Bryan M Block wrote:

Are you previewing on an external monitor or just in the edit window? Try reducing the quality to "Good" or "preview" instead of "best". ALso, there are several settings in Vegas that tell it how much of your RAM you want to dedicate to that program and previews etc... You should boost those up.
Just previewing in the regular edit window. I'll mess around with it and see what I can do.

Bryan M Block wrote:

P.S. As a lifetime Buckeye and graduate of Ohio State, i must say that really enjoyed Michigan's trouncing of the Florida Gators this year smile Especially since OSU again could not carry the Big Ten banner against the SEC yet again. Go Blue! well, until next season... wink
Hehe, that game was probably the best I've seen them play in a long time. Glad they sent Carr out on a high note too. See you in November. wink
Posted: Wed, 16th Jan 2008, 12:46pm

Post 48 of 68

A Pickle

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

EffectsLab Lite User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

Again, I need your computer's specifications.

RodyPolis wrote:

So ok, I have to get an editing program.
Actually, your first course of action should be to get a Firewire cable. For the moment, you have an editing program if you have Windows Vista Home Premium or Windows Vista Ultimate. It's called Windows Movie Maker 6.0.

Afterwards, I would agree -- you should get a better editing program, preferably sticking to one of two product lines: Sony Vegas or Adobe Premiere. Those packages will offer you the most capabilities for the lowest price -- the other editing softwares out there, like Pinnacle or Ulead, are child's play. They don't begin to offer the power in editing that Premiere or Vegas offer you.

Both Premiere and Vegas come in low-end, affordable packages for roughly $100. Beyond that price point, it becomes iffy: Adobe offers a package deal of Premiere and Photoshop Elements for $150. That's a potent deal right there, Adobe has made Photoshop and Premiere interact and work with one another in a stellar manner -- so you may consider that. On the other hand, there's a decently high-end version of Vegas available for just $120 -- $20 more than the starting edition. Can't beat that...

...unless you need image editing capabilities... which are pretty nice, not gonna lie.

Whatever you decide to go with, please TRY THE TRIAL VERSIONS! Both Adobe Premiere and Sony Vegas have 30-day trial versions of every software edition! You can try out the $100 Sony Vegas or the $700 Premiere Pro CS3. Do so! It will save you so much heartache in the future!
Posted: Wed, 16th Jan 2008, 9:35pm

Post 49 of 68

RodyPolis

Force: 805 | Joined: 28th Apr 2007 | Posts: 1839

CompositeLab Lite User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

Processor: AMD Athlon(tm) 64 X2 Dual Core Processor 4200+ 2.20 GHz
Memory Ram: 894 MB
Posted: Thu, 17th Jan 2008, 12:00am

Post 50 of 68

A Pickle

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

EffectsLab Lite User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

Ah, you should be pretty good with that. I would recommend an upgrade of your RAM (memory), 894 MB is enough to run Vista well, but is probably a good deal less than what you should have for editing HD video. You can upgrade to 2 GB (2048 MB) of RAM pretty cheaply these days -- particularly if you have a desktop. If you do decide to do the upgrade, please do so online. Retail stores are overly expensive. Here's a good 2 GB of memory kit for only $44.99, and Kingston is a very good memory brand.

Also, I can tell by the amount of RAM that you have that you have what is known as an integrated graphics processor. This may get technical, bear with me. Every computer has a graphics processor, used for drawing what you see on your screen.

Some computers come with what's called a "discrete" or "dedicated" graphics processor. They are sort of like your central processing unit, or CPU (your CPU is the Athlon 64 X2 4200+), except that they are for rendering graphics especially, rather than simply general purpose tasks. "Discrete" or "dedicated" graphics cards are fairly powerful, and they can do a multitude of graphics-related tasks VERY efficiently. These often come with their own memory built-in to the card, which is one of the reasons that they're so fast.

Most computers, however, come with what are known as "integrated" graphics processors -- these are "integrated" directly onto your computer's motherboard. These are generally fairly weak in terms of what they can do. For example, you couldn't play a modern 3D game at all on on an integrated graphics chip. Integrated graphics chips are generally pretty weak because they don't come with their own, dedicated cache of memory -- they "steal" memory from your system main memory. Also, "integrated" graphics chips generally rely on the CPU (your Athlon 64) to do a LOT of the work -- so... it also steals from CPU performance.

This is what's happening on your system -- I guarantee you have 1024 MB of RAM in your system -- and 128 MB of it is being used by your integrated graphics processor. 1024 minus 128 equals 894... so... biggrin I would recommend getting a graphics card, even a simple inexpensive one like this ATI Radeon X1300.

If you decide to invest in more RAM and a new video card, please don't use the links I've provided. Those links are to hardware that I *think* will work -- but it may be incompatible with your system. I will need more information about your computer if you decide to buy the new hardware.
Posted: Thu, 17th Jan 2008, 12:46am

Post 51 of 68

RodyPolis

Force: 805 | Joined: 28th Apr 2007 | Posts: 1839

CompositeLab Lite User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

You've got to be kidding me. I can't think of any good reason to tell my dad to do all that stuff just so I can edit some stuff I make. I still don't get some of it. What exactly makes would cause HD to crash the computer. Would it be that HD takes to much space( has a lot of mb) Cause I seriously don't get it.
Based on what you said does that mean that I won't be able to run HD on the computer unless I do all these changes? That would suck. I'd just have to trow my whole HV20 plan away.
Would deleting what you don't need and keeping it simple work. I need more information about what actually happens. Cause I thought I had a good computer but apparently I don't...
Does the computer just crash cause HD takes to much space, or does it crash just for the sake that it's HD. Thanks for your help. You've helped me a lot so far but I need to know more. This is ridiculous. I might as well quit film making. Sigh... Thanks for your help man.
Posted: Thu, 17th Jan 2008, 1:17am

Post 52 of 68

FreshMentos

Force: 1667 | Joined: 10th Jun 2006 | Posts: 1141

VisionLab User MacOS User

Gold Member

FYI, HD is not the same as HDV. The HV20 records in HDV. HDV takes up the same amount of space MiniDV does. I think what A Pickle means is that HDV uses up a LOT of RAM.

For example, you're working with your project that's been shot in HDV in CLab and your are chroma keying your green screen. With the tech specs that you listed for your computer, it would probably be maddeningly slow or it could crash.

You don't have a bad computer. It just may not be the best to edit HDV. But someone you may want to talk to about this would be Arktic. I recall that he stated that he uses a Sony FX7 (which is HDV) and he uses it on a very old machine.

RodyPolis wrote:

This is ridiculous. I might as well quit film making. Sigh... Thanks for your help man.
That comment is ridiculous. Don't give up on something you love for a dumb reason like that smile
Posted: Thu, 17th Jan 2008, 1:42am

Post 53 of 68

RodyPolis

Force: 805 | Joined: 28th Apr 2007 | Posts: 1839

CompositeLab Lite User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

Thanks man. Right after I posted this I was thinking about what I would do if I quit. Then I realized, this is the only thing I like. My parents have tried to get me in many things including music and nothing works for me so... That was a dumb comment I was just mad I guess.
Posted: Thu, 17th Jan 2008, 5:05pm

Post 54 of 68

A Pickle

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

EffectsLab Lite User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

FreshMentos wrote:

FYI, HD is not the same as HDV. The HV20 records in HDV. HDV takes up the same amount of space MiniDV does. I think what A Pickle means is that HDV uses up a LOT of RAM.
It does. A graphics card isn't entirely necessary -- but oh man, RAM RAM RAM. You need RAM to edit HD. Especially in Vista.

RodyPolis wrote:

Does the computer just crash cause HD takes to much space, or does it crash just for the sake that it's HD.
Well, the big thing is that HD is... so much more to handle. High Defition video, as pulled from the HV20, is 1920x1080 pixels. That's a lot, compared to old Standard Definition cameras that only had 720x480 pixels. It doesn't really compare. So when you're doing stuff, you need a lot, a lot a lot a lot of RAM.

An RAM... is really all you need. You're looking at a $50, easy-to-do upgrade for you computer that will make it SO much faster, not only in video-related tasks, but in general usage.

RodyPolis wrote:

This is ridiculous. I might as well quit film making. Sigh... Thanks for your help man.
Yeah... don't do that. We want to see what you can do on the cinema (or on YouTube biggrin).
Posted: Thu, 17th Jan 2008, 9:28pm

Post 55 of 68

RodyPolis

Force: 805 | Joined: 28th Apr 2007 | Posts: 1839

CompositeLab Lite User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

Alright I get it. BUt the upgrade you're talking about, how do I get it on the computer. Do I buy it online and just download it? Or do I order something and place it in the computer. I really don't know much about how computers work on the Inside. Well thanks man you made it easy. Also did you mention that I needed 2 GB?
Posted: Thu, 17th Jan 2008, 9:43pm

Post 56 of 68

FreshMentos

Force: 1667 | Joined: 10th Jun 2006 | Posts: 1141

VisionLab User MacOS User

Gold Member

RodyPolis wrote:

Alright I get it. BUt the upgrade you're talking about, how do I get it on the computer. Do I buy it online and just download it?
hehe, RAM is not software biggrin

You need to order it and it will come in the mail. The RAM A Pickle mentioned sounds great, but you should still do research to see if it's compatible with your computer. A good place to ask for help on that kind of thing would be Best Buy's geek squad or Circuit City's Firedog.

Installing the RAM shouldn't be to difficult if you follow instructions. It's fairly easy for me to put RAM into my iMac. So it should be even easier for you to install it since you're using a desktop PC.
Posted: Thu, 17th Jan 2008, 9:48pm

Post 57 of 68

RodyPolis

Force: 805 | Joined: 28th Apr 2007 | Posts: 1839

CompositeLab Lite User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

do you have to open up your computer? That was the main thing I wanted to know. I'm not good at opening up computers.
Posted: Sat, 19th Jan 2008, 12:54am

Post 58 of 68

Dead Iris

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

VisionLab User VideoWrap User Windows User

Gold Member

I would think a camera with more controls would be harder to use for a beginner. I would rather skip half the confusion to start out with and get a better picture quality.
Posted: Sat, 19th Jan 2008, 7:13am

Post 59 of 68

A Pickle

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

EffectsLab Lite User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

RodyPolis wrote:

do you have to open up your computer? That was the main thing I wanted to know. I'm not good at opening up computers.
Yes, you do -- but it's cake. Assuming you got the right type of RAM (which, in your case, I'm almost positive is DDR2 -- which is cheap as dirt these days), you would do the following:

  1. Turn off and unplug your computer.
  2. With the computer off and unplugged, press the power button a few times.
  3. Open your computer.
  4. Pull out the old RAM.
  5. Put in the new RAM.
  6. Plug in and turn on your computer.
  7. If it successfully boots into Windows, close your computer. You've succeeded.


That's seriously all there is to it. It's the easiest (and probably cheapest) way to give your computer a full-on boost in performance.
Posted: Sat, 19th Jan 2008, 4:42pm

Post 60 of 68

RodyPolis

Force: 805 | Joined: 28th Apr 2007 | Posts: 1839

CompositeLab Lite User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

I just found that out. What do you guys think. Fake? Scam? Does sound to good to be true.
http://www.xtremecameras.com/prodetails.asp?prodid=26471
Posted: Sat, 19th Jan 2008, 4:55pm

Post 61 of 68

pdrg

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

VisionLab User Windows User

Gold Member

RodyPolis wrote:

I just found that out. What do you guys think. Fake? Scam? Does sound to good to be true.
http://www.xtremecameras.com/prodetails.asp?prodid=26471
Canon HV20 1/2.7in. 2.96 Megapixel CMOS Sensor, 10x Optical/200x Digital Zoom, HDV Camcorder
List Price: $1,399.99
Our Price: $329.00

You have to ask?!
Posted: Sat, 19th Jan 2008, 4:57pm

Post 62 of 68

FreshMentos

Force: 1667 | Joined: 10th Jun 2006 | Posts: 1141

VisionLab User MacOS User

Gold Member

Xtremecameras? HV20 for $320? SCAM!!! I didn't check Reseller Ratings for it but it has that "scammy" (new word I made up) feel about it. If you want to buy a camera online. Your only option is B&H Photo/Video or Ebay.

NEWSFLASH!
The HV30 is now coming out in March. If I were you I would definitely wait for it to come out.

Because either:
A) You might want to get this one over the HV20
or
B) The HV20's price will definitely go down.

EDIT: PDRG beat me to the website.
Posted: Sat, 19th Jan 2008, 7:08pm

Post 63 of 68

RodyPolis

Force: 805 | Joined: 28th Apr 2007 | Posts: 1839

CompositeLab Lite User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

dang it man. I hate those websites that are all scams? but I just don't get why they don't get sued. Cause if I bought something but never got it, I would at least try doing something. Anyways thanks. But how do you guys know all these things? cause there hasn't been a something I wanted to know that you all don't know.
What about this one?
http://www.bestpricecameras.com/prodetails.asp?prodid=902378
This website looks more serious than the other one
Posted: Sat, 19th Jan 2008, 8:41pm

Post 64 of 68

Atom

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

EffectsLab Lite User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

RodyPolis wrote:


What about this one?
http://www.bestpricecameras.com/prodetails.asp?prodid=902378
This website looks more serious than the other one
Sigh. You need to start researching these yourself, buddy. I feel like the community is doing a lot of work just to push some sensibility into you with this camera and editing business. Don't get me wrong, it's fine to ask questions. But try some trial and error or research before you immediately pop up another question after the last answer to the previous one wouldn't do you any harm. In fact, you might figure out the answer to your question without even having to ask it.

The link you provided is to 'Best Price Cameras'. As you can see here, the site has a customer satisfaction rating of 0.11/10. That's more than dismal. That's a scam.

Rody, let me put it this way: You're not going to 'find' some great deal that no one else knows about. Unless you barder for something used, camera prices don't fluctuate heavily from store to store. If it's $700, it's about $700 at every other legitimate place. A good rule of thumb is if it ain't the same price as listed on B & H, it ain't real. Reseller Ratings will show you for sure if a site is a scam or not. But most times it isn't terribly hard to tell. It's always "too good to be true".

And either way, B & H Photo will almost always give you the fairest price for legitimate, quality equipment. Don't buy 'new' from anywhere else. You won't find better deals that aren't likely scams.

I'm not trying to rag on you, man. Just trying to watch out for you and help you learn some sense about this so that when you do decide to make a purchase on your own, it isn't something fake.
Posted: Sat, 19th Jan 2008, 9:37pm

Post 65 of 68

RodyPolis

Force: 805 | Joined: 28th Apr 2007 | Posts: 1839

CompositeLab Lite User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

This was great, Thanks. And about all my questions, I'm not used to the whole buying online process so sorry if I'm annoying. Thanks again to all of you.
Posted: Sun, 20th Jan 2008, 12:14am

Post 66 of 68

A Pickle

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

EffectsLab Lite User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

RodyPolis wrote:

I just found that out. What do you guys think. Fake? Scam? Does sound to good to be true.
http://www.xtremecameras.com/prodetails.asp?prodid=26471
Looking at the pricetag alone, I vote scam. HV20's sell for $700 --> $1,000. I bought mine for what, at the time, was a SCREAMING deal. It still cost me $850.

But there are more resources online that can help you. See the name of that store in that website? XtremeCameras? Just plug that name (or their website URL -- www.bestpricecameras.com ) into Reseller Ratings (you should bookmark this site). Resellerratings.com is a website that allows users to vote on and critique online vendors, which is a DAMN handy tool for safer online transactions.

I tried plugging the name "XtremeCameras" into Reseller Ratings' search, but couldn't find anything -- so I tried "www.bestpricecameras.com." That yeilded something -- a six-month score of 0.11 out of 10. Yes, you read that correctly: That store has an all-time rating of less than one. That means, in a nutshell: DON'T BUY FROM THEM. biggrin

In other news, I'm all for Berger-Bros cameras. I did a little online searching for low HV20 prices, and I got them. For $1,000, I got an HV20, a five year warranty, a UV polarized lens (mostly to protect the built-in lens) and five MiniDV tapes that I intend to use to death. They have a score of 9.29 out of 10 on Reseller Ratings -- and I didn't have any hassle with them. I called, I ordered... I filmed. smile
Posted: Sun, 20th Jan 2008, 2:51am

Post 67 of 68

Atom

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

EffectsLab Lite User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

A Pickle wrote:

Just plug that name (or their website URL -- www.bestpricecameras.com ) into Reseller Ratings (you should bookmark this site). Resellerratings.com is a website that allows users to vote on and critique online vendors, which is a DAMN handy tool for safer online transactions................
Heh.

Atom Before A Pickle Posted wrote:

RodyPolis wrote:


What about this one?
http://www.bestpricecameras.com/prodetails.asp?prodid=902378
This website looks more serious than the other one
Sigh. You need to start researching these yourself, buddy. I feel like the community is doing a lot of work just to push some sensibility into you with this camera and editing business. Don't get me wrong, it's fine to ask questions. But try some trial and error or research before you immediately pop up another question after the last answer to the previous one wouldn't do you any harm. In fact, you might figure out the answer to your question without even having to ask it.

The link you provided is to 'Best Price Cameras'. As you can see here, the site has a customer satisfaction rating of 0.11/10. That's more than dismal. That's a scam.

Rody, let me put it this way: You're not going to 'find' some great deal that no one else knows about. Unless you barder for something used, camera prices don't fluctuate heavily from store to store. If it's $700, it's about $700 at every other legitimate place. A good rule of thumb is if it ain't the same price as listed on B & H, it ain't real. Reseller Ratings will show you for sure if a site is a scam or not. But most times it isn't terribly hard to tell. It's always "too good to be true".
Start reading before you post, Pickle. I said the exact same thing 2 posts before you. wink
Posted: Sun, 20th Jan 2008, 4:58pm

Post 68 of 68

A Pickle

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

EffectsLab Lite User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

Oops. biggrin