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

Camera reviews

Posted: Sun, 2nd Mar 2008, 4:50am

Post 1 of 36

Rabbit Hole Pictures

Force: 430 | Joined: 25th Apr 2005 | Posts: 198

EffectsLab Lite User Windows User

Gold Member

Hey everyone. I'm leaning toward getting a Canon GL2. Anyone have any objections to it? Is it worth getting? Is it a good camera? bad? reviews?
Posted: Sun, 2nd Mar 2008, 5:09am

Post 2 of 36

Thrawn

Force: 1995 | Joined: 11th Aug 2006 | Posts: 1962

CompositeLab Pro User EffectsLab Lite User FXhome Movie Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

Great Camera. If you want to hear it be praised, contact Ben3308. If you want it to be put down, then I think your out of luck. wink But, yeah, it's a great camera.
Posted: Sun, 2nd Mar 2008, 5:14am

Post 3 of 36

Rabbit Hole Pictures

Force: 430 | Joined: 25th Apr 2005 | Posts: 198

EffectsLab Lite User Windows User

Gold Member

Alright that is cool. I know its not an HD camera. But, with proper grading could it have that HD look? I also know it doesn't film in 24p, but if you render the video out of Adobe Premiere, would it have a good look to it?

Sorry if I am playing the whole 20 questions game, I just want to make sure I make the best decision possible.
Posted: Sun, 2nd Mar 2008, 5:21am

Post 4 of 36

Thrawn

Force: 1995 | Joined: 11th Aug 2006 | Posts: 1962

CompositeLab Pro User EffectsLab Lite User FXhome Movie Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

Not quite sure what you mean by "HD" look, but if you mean film look, then yes. The GL2 is known for capturing video that looks proffesional, and even more so when properly lighted. Check out some of the videos by GL2 users and you will see what I mean.

Oh, and just some advice. I wouldn't get it used, but brand new. I believe the older ones have been known for having some problems.. expensive problems. Otherwise the GL2 is a great camera. I highly reccomend it. Good luck with your purchase. biggrin
Posted: Sun, 2nd Mar 2008, 6:17am

Post 5 of 36

EvilDonut

Force: 200 | Joined: 22nd Feb 2008 | Posts: 595

Member

I suggest you learn a bit more about video, cameras, lenses, aspect ratios, color sampling, frame rate, drop/non-drop frames, pulldown frames, hd resolution, hd bit rates, 24f vs 24p, 35mm adapters+lens, p2 cards, white balance, 16:9 vs 4:3, h.264, f-stops, shutter speeds, gain, etc. etc.

Since you want to run off and spend a lot of money - it behoves you to learn all that. It's not that hard really.

If you don't, either take the time to learn everything, or buy small and work your way up.

Otherwise you'll have an expensive camera, and know little about it. Great way to waste $.

and Canon XH A1 FTW.

d
Posted: Sun, 2nd Mar 2008, 5:57pm

Post 6 of 36

Rabbit Hole Pictures

Force: 430 | Joined: 25th Apr 2005 | Posts: 198

EffectsLab Lite User Windows User

Gold Member

I do know what all of that means, I'm not a camera "noob". But its just that I've heard alot of praise towards the GL2 and I just want to know if its worth the money, ya know? I've had this shitty Sony DCR camera for over 5 years now and I've finally acquired enough money for my better camera. The thing is about the GL2 is that it's affordable. It's not too expensive, and I hear it's better than some of the cheap HD cameras out there, like the JVC ones and the Sony ones. Is this all correct?
Posted: Sun, 2nd Mar 2008, 6:20pm

Post 7 of 36

pdrg

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

VisionLab User Windows User

Gold Member

It'll come down to taste a lot, but I certainly prefer a good quality SD shot over a cheap HD (and all the bottom end are HDV = 40:1 compression). Your post workflows are also easier as you don't need a fancier NLE and HD monitor.

What are you finishing to? Web? TV? HDTV? That'll help inform your choice of format and camera.

As for the GL2, never used one, but I imagine it'll be a fairly safe bet - it's not comprimising quality for size's sake, at least. One big thing going for it is that you have superior optics compared with a cheap handycam, although I don't know if it can take a mic in (valuable for sync/factual shoots), I suspect the manual focus is likely to be servo-driven, etc. Canon sell it as a 'pro' camcorder, but it'll be absolute bottom rung pro. Make of that what you will smile
Posted: Sun, 2nd Mar 2008, 7:15pm

Post 8 of 36

FreshMentos

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

VisionLab User MacOS User

Gold Member

Thrawn wrote:

Great Camera. If you want to hear it be praised, contact Ben3308. If you want it to be put down, then I think your out of luck. wink But, yeah, it's a great camera.
Just to be curious Thrawn, have actually even used a GL2? wink

I own one and I've very impressed with it so far. The camera obviously records to SD so it's not going to be in high-definition. period. But, because it has such an amazing lens, the camera picks up more detail than a regular consumer cam. For example, I was filming my friend one time from about 1 meter away. When I was watching the footage, I could see drops of sweat rolling down his face. To answer your second question, I think that the GL2 is much better than a cheap HDV sony or JVC cam.
Posted: Sun, 2nd Mar 2008, 8:07pm

Post 9 of 36

Dancamfx

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

VisionLab User FXpreset Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

I own one and its one hell of a camera, even though I just purchased a Canon XHA1 Im still keeping my Gl2 for other jobs. If you put a nice Century Optics Wide angle lens on it you will get an even clearer and better looking image.
Posted: Sun, 2nd Mar 2008, 10:41pm

Post 10 of 36

Atom

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

EffectsLab Lite User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

Of course. The GL2 interest will never die. smile


Bam!

Bam!

Bam!

(All recent GL2/XM2 threads/questions)

And of course the commonly-used 'seller post' from me and Ben: Sha-bing!

Me wrote:

Ben wrote:

Buy the Canon GL2.

Why? Mainly, because it is the best priced 3CCD camcorder in its range; meaning you won't find a better price:quality ratio for $2,000 and under.

The Canon GL2 has 3CCDs- meaning it picks up color better than lower-end cameras- and a fluorite lens, which is made to prevent chromatic abberation and digital artifacts- meaning the image is pretty damn good.

If you need examples, here are some below....

Links to video are in blue.


standard graded, Marathon, short film


extreme graded, Marathon, short film


standard graded, Redemption, short film


standard graded, Redemption, short film


standard graded, Rebirth Promo, corporate promotional video


ungraded, Thomas the Drum Major, documentary


ungraded, Pandarosa concert, event footage


lightly graded (desaturation, luminance), Cover's Story, short film


standard graded, Cover's Story, short film


standard graded, Cover's Story and Splinter Cell, short film


graded, Splinter Cell, short film

graded, test footage, short film


lightly graded (hue shift), SWEET myspace pic, personal use


Baaaaaaaasically, the GL2 rocks. There are naysayers out there who will tell you to buy the Sony VX2100 or the Panasonic GS400/500 (CRAP camera compared to the GL2), but don't listen.

I think the GL2 will suit you and your budget nicely.
Throw this all together and you've got a really nice setup for the price, especially. That's my SD suggestion. Second to that I'd suggest the Panasonic DVX100b, although I'm not a big fan of it.

HD-wise, I would seriously look into my current favorite, the Canon XH-A1. Hands down. It's a tad more expensive, but totally versatile and great in quality. About half of my movie, Marathon, was shot on it. Past that, I've heard good things about the Panasonic HVX200, but don't like it enough myself (or them P2 cards) to really suggest it. Plus it's way out of the price-range.
Might I also say, though, that this all, of course, requires proper lighting and cinematic know-how. This kinda stuff isn't achievable, on any level with any camera, if it isn't accompanied with many other things. Talent included.
Posted: Sun, 2nd Mar 2008, 11:47pm

Post 11 of 36

Big Rob

Force: 734 | Joined: 16th Jun 2006 | Posts: 140

EffectsLab Pro User

Gold Member

Atom wrote:


Might I also say, though, that this all, of course, requires proper lighting and cinematic know-how. This kinda stuff isn't achievable, on any level with any camera, if it isn't accompanied with many other things. Talent included.
Very well put Atom. Makes a great quote for a signature too biggrin
Posted: Sun, 2nd Mar 2008, 11:48pm

Post 12 of 36

Thrawn

Force: 1995 | Joined: 11th Aug 2006 | Posts: 1962

CompositeLab Pro User EffectsLab Lite User FXhome Movie Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

FreshMentos wrote:

Thrawn wrote:

Great Camera. If you want to hear it be praised, contact Ben3308. If you want it to be put down, then I think your out of luck. wink But, yeah, it's a great camera.
Just to be curious Thrawn, have actually even used a GL2? wink

Yes, i've used one,. Do I own one? No. I sacraficed the purchase for the Macbook Pro (with final cut) that I'm getting this comming weekend.
Posted: Mon, 3rd Mar 2008, 12:11am

Post 13 of 36

FreshMentos

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

VisionLab User MacOS User

Gold Member

Thrawn wrote:

FreshMentos wrote:

Thrawn wrote:

Great Camera. If you want to hear it be praised, contact Ben3308. If you want it to be put down, then I think your out of luck. wink But, yeah, it's a great camera.
Just to be curious Thrawn, have actually even used a GL2? wink

Yes, i've used one,. Do I own one? No. I sacraficed the purchase for the Macbook Pro (with final cut) that I'm getting this comming weekend.
Nice choice! I hope that works out well for you! Did you get FCE or FCP?

I was just asking that question because I hate it when FXhomers recommend the GL2 when they never used it themselves. Glad you knew what you were talking about biggrin
Posted: Mon, 3rd Mar 2008, 12:14am

Post 14 of 36

Thrawn

Force: 1995 | Joined: 11th Aug 2006 | Posts: 1962

CompositeLab Pro User EffectsLab Lite User FXhome Movie Maker MacOS User

Gold Member

FCE for now. Though I plan to upgrade to FCP once I get a little more cash. Oh and, I know what you mean about the recomendation thing. Happens a lot around here.
Posted: Mon, 3rd Mar 2008, 12:56am

Post 15 of 36

EvilDonut

Force: 200 | Joined: 22nd Feb 2008 | Posts: 595

Member

Rabbit Hole Pictures wrote:

I do know what all of that means, I'm not a camera "noob". But its just that I've heard alot of praise towards the GL2 and I just want to know if its worth the money, ya know? I've had this shitty Sony DCR camera for over 5 years now and I've finally acquired enough money for my better camera. The thing is about the GL2 is that it's affordable. It's not too expensive, and I hear it's better than some of the cheap HD cameras out there, like the JVC ones and the Sony ones. Is this all correct?
If you want SD (eww) go with the proven king : Panasonic DVX100B.

For HD - the Canon XH A1 HDV is becoming quite the popular camera.

In fact Canon is really putting out great cameras. HV 20, XH A1. So I guess you can't go wrong GL2, but why - when XH A1 can do that job well.

If you want to know 'specifics' - like I said, you'll have to learn all that lingo above. Or you'll feel like a dork when someone starts talking 'camera geek talk'. smile

d
Posted: Mon, 3rd Mar 2008, 1:13am

Post 16 of 36

FreshMentos

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

VisionLab User MacOS User

Gold Member

You got to remember EvilDonut, The XH-A1 is more than twice the price of a GL2. wink
Posted: Mon, 3rd Mar 2008, 1:18am

Post 17 of 36

Atom

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

EffectsLab Lite User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

Also we have to now ask, EvilDonut, the new member who has yet to show any cinema work, have you used both the GL2 and DVX and taken into account all the factors of each? (pricerange/quality/etc.)

I clearly concurred with the DVX being a great cam in my previous post, but it's hardly the "proven king". I would think that title would go to the bestselling and widest-renowned miniDV 3CCD camcorder.

That's right, I'm talking about the GL2.

I completely agree with you on the Canon side. In fact, they're possibly the most progressive camera company right now (announced they are stopping the production of actual 'film' cameras soon) and the XH-A1, GL2, and HV20 are arguably (and also in my opinion) the best cams at each tier right now.

See my comments on the XH-A1 in my previous post. It's a great cam and my next camera purchase. But don't ever rule out SD. Not yet at least. It's hardly mainstream. Less than 18% of all purchased HDTVs actually receive HD service, Blu-Ray is just now becoming the transferable HD format (a few more years until everyone we be burning them, too), and it just isn't "standard" just yet. Not HDV either.

SD, to me, is fine for now. At least for a year or two. Completely fine. People get too caught up in the word (err....letters) "HD" these days.
Posted: Mon, 3rd Mar 2008, 10:57am

Post 18 of 36

Simon K Jones

Force: 27955 | Joined: 1st Jan 2002 | Posts: 11683

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 5 Pro User MuzzlePlug User PowerPlug User PhotoKey 3 Plug-in User FXhome Movie Maker FXpreset Maker Windows User

FXhome Team Member

Rabbit wrote:

I do know what all of that means, I'm not a camera "noob".
That's fair enough, but you did make some odd statements...

Rabbit Hole Pictures wrote:

Alright that is cool. I know its not an HD camera. But, with proper grading could it have that HD look?
There's no such thing as an 'HD look'. HD isn't a 'look', it's a resolution. HD is inherently higher res than miniDV, so there's absolutely no way a miniDV camera can ever produce an HD resolution image.

You could blow up the miniDV footage in post to HD, but it'd look pretty crappy and would be a bit pointless.

I also know it doesn't film in 24p, but if you render the video out of Adobe Premiere, would it have a good look to it?
Rendering out of Premiere won't make any difference to the video one way or another. Unless you're planning to actually theatrically project your video there isn't a huge point in shooting 24p, either. All it does is make it less compatible with televisions.

As Atom says, don't expect any camera to offer a magical "make my movie look professional" feature. But the GL2 combined with good lighting, grading and camerawork can produce some excellent results.

Currently, unless you can afford something like an HVX-200, I'd definitely recommend going for a high quality miniDV camera over an HDV camera. HDV is just a nasty format. Best to go for a good quality, much cheaper miniDV camera and wait for proper HD to become affordable.
Posted: Mon, 3rd Mar 2008, 12:27pm

Post 19 of 36

pdrg

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

VisionLab User Windows User

Gold Member


HDV is a nasty format
I dislike HDV intensely myself, but I think a fairer assessment would be 'HDV is a consumer format' - 40:1 compression and poor chroma sampling is fine for home wedfing videos, but nobody should be under any illusion they'll get even comparable results to a genesis recording to HDCAM SR, for instance.
Posted: Mon, 3rd Mar 2008, 11:24pm

Post 20 of 36

EvilDonut

Force: 200 | Joined: 22nd Feb 2008 | Posts: 595

Member

Go ahead film in SD. And when you go to tv networks, distributors, cable, etc. - and they throw your film/tv show in the trash - you have no one to blame but yourself.

I've worked in TV for 13 years, and trust me - EVERYONE is starving with HD content. I talk to these people every day.

If you're cheap on your camera, i'd hate to see what else you're cheap on.

But hey, it's your media project. I don't care. If you think you can change the industry with your SD stuff - go right ahead sir.

d
Posted: Tue, 4th Mar 2008, 1:21am

Post 21 of 36

pdrg

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

VisionLab User Windows User

Gold Member

Rating: +2

EvilDonut wrote:

Go ahead film in SD. And when you go to tv networks, distributors, cable, etc. - and they throw your film/tv show in the trash - you have no one to blame but yourself.

I've worked in TV for 13 years, and trust me - EVERYONE is starving with HD content. I talk to these people every day.

If you're cheap on your camera, i'd hate to see what else you're cheap on.

But hey, it's your media project. I don't care. If you think you can change the industry with your SD stuff - go right ahead sir.

d
Mr Donut, what's going on here?!

Yes, of course HD is growing in popularity, yes of course networks want HD programming, but seriously are they crying out for HDV/handycam programming? Are they really rejecting Dr Who now because it's well-produced digibeta not HDV? Clearly an unfair comparison, but your statements are also broad-brush and sweeping.

I would still rather see a picture off of a decent SD camera with good glass than off of a HDV camcorder with more pixels of lower quality. Indeed, above all, and I'm sure we agree on this, a good HD picture with good glass is what we're aiming for, but if someone can't afford that, then there's a toss-up between good glass and pixel density - I'd take the glass any day.

Just for the record, off and on, I could wave the 18 years flag. I started when betacam was new. I was an engineer on the 1" C-format machines, we had the odd hi-band Umatic too, mostly C though. I do understand about broadcast formats, I can calculate the bandwidth requirements of an analogue signal from first principles (13MHz, 8 thanks to vestigial sidebands). As such, I'm not keen to accept consumer-format HDV camcorder footage as being better than all SD footage to the degree that all SD is all binnable and useless now.

Especially for a student/aspiring filmmaker - cheap on his camera? Come on, why don't we all shoot on Vipers and Geneses? Or are we all too cheap? Or are certain cameras more suited to certain jobs, and halfway decent SD suited to a learner?

My apologies if this comes across a bit ranty, it is, but I'm still stunned.
Posted: Tue, 4th Mar 2008, 1:27am

Post 22 of 36

EvilDonut

Force: 200 | Joined: 22nd Feb 2008 | Posts: 595

Member

pdrg wrote:


Mr Donut, what's going on here?!

Yes, of course HD is growing in popularity, yes of course networks want HD programming, but seriously are they crying out for HDV/handycam programming? Are they really rejecting Dr Who now because it's well-produced digibeta not HDV? Clearly an unfair comparison, but your statements are also broad-brush and sweeping.

I would still rather see a picture off of a decent SD camera with good glass than off of a HDV camcorder with more pixels of lower quality. Indeed, above all, and I'm sure we agree on this, a good HD picture with good glass is what we're aiming for, but if someone can't afford that, then there's a toss-up between good glass and pixel density - I'd take the glass any day.

Just for the record, off and on, I could wave the 18 years flag. I started when betacam was new. I was an engineer on the 1" C-format machines, we had the odd hi-band Umatic too, mostly C though. I do understand about broadcast formats, I can calculate the bandwidth requirements of an analogue signal from first principles (13MHz, 8 thanks to vestigial sidebands). As such, I'm not keen to accept consumer-format HDV camcorder footage as being better than all SD footage to the degree that all SD is all binnable and useless now.

Especially for a student/aspiring filmmaker - cheap on his camera? Come on, why don't we all shoot on Vipers and Geneses? Or are we all too cheap? Or are certain cameras more suited to certain jobs, and halfway decent SD suited to a learner?

My apologies if this comes across a bit ranty, it is, but I'm still stunned.
Yes, but let's narrow the focus here:

Most people here are trying to create 'profit-oriented' productions. Profit meaning sell to tv or distributors. And choosing SD as your platform for just such a purpose is well, insane.

Maybe you're different - but whatever you shoot, i'd rather watch it in HD if given the choice. So why not offer the viewer that choice? It's not that much more $, so what's the benefit of going SD in 2008? I see none.

d
Posted: Tue, 4th Mar 2008, 1:48am

Post 23 of 36

pdrg

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

VisionLab User Windows User

Gold Member

In fairness, the majority on here are students and fan-filmers, only a few industry types.

In an ideal world, yes, where affordable, shoot HD. Light for HD, makeup for HD, build sets for HD, shoot HD, edit HD (or SD, more likely), conform HD, colour/grade HD, play out to HD master, broadcast HD. Yep, ideal. Except I didn't say HDV. I also dislike MiniDV, another consumer format, DVCAM's no better, but the lower compression results in less artifacting, and the ability to get away with simpler makeup, lighting, sets, post, etc. Doing it properly is so much more than spending an extra few hundred $ for a handycam.

I do agree that where you have the money to shoot an episodic TV drama, shoot it HD (Dr Who is all digi still, whilst Torchwood is HDCAM - why?! nuts!), but if you're just learning composition, lighting, storytelling, etc, then a good quality SD image will beat a lower quality HD one.

This thread seems to run in opposition to the Red thread, where the lack of a 4k workflow on your PC frustrates you, so you may have to down-res. It could be argued that you're being cheap not upgrading to a Quantel, but it would be unfair, you can't afford one, it's not the right scale for what you want to do. Same as shooting HDCAM for most of the guys here. Especially as the majority of the films shot here will not go much further than youtube!
Posted: Tue, 4th Mar 2008, 5:25pm

Post 24 of 36

EvilDonut

Force: 200 | Joined: 22nd Feb 2008 | Posts: 595

Member

pdrg wrote:

In fairness, the majority on here are students and fan-filmers, only a few industry types.

In an ideal world, yes, where affordable, shoot HD. Light for HD, makeup for HD, build sets for HD, shoot HD, edit HD (or SD, more likely), conform HD, colour/grade HD, play out to HD master, broadcast HD. Yep, ideal. Except I didn't say HDV. I also dislike MiniDV, another consumer format, DVCAM's no better, but the lower compression results in less artifacting, and the ability to get away with simpler makeup, lighting, sets, post, etc. Doing it properly is so much more than spending an extra few hundred $ for a handycam.

I do agree that where you have the money to shoot an episodic TV drama, shoot it HD (Dr Who is all digi still, whilst Torchwood is HDCAM - why?! nuts!), but if you're just learning composition, lighting, storytelling, etc, then a good quality SD image will beat a lower quality HD one.

This thread seems to run in opposition to the Red thread, where the lack of a 4k workflow on your PC frustrates you, so you may have to down-res. It could be argued that you're being cheap not upgrading to a Quantel, but it would be unfair, you can't afford one, it's not the right scale for what you want to do. Same as shooting HDCAM for most of the guys here. Especially as the majority of the films shot here will not go much further than youtube!
It all comes down to the law of diminishing returns. If put $2k in my camera, and result in a product that is so much nicer to the eye - i'd say go for it. Kids spend more on their 15g turbo's and bodykits nowadays. lol.

The jump to RED is huge. And if you're just developing for school, indie film, commercial, documentary - it's not worth the additional cost and labour (diminishing return).

Yeah you're right - i've noticed now that most here are kids, amateur, film student type posters - rather than Hollywood/TV/Cable pros.

d
Posted: Tue, 4th Mar 2008, 5:28pm

Post 25 of 36

Simon K Jones

Force: 27955 | Joined: 1st Jan 2002 | Posts: 11683

VisionLab User VideoWrap User PhotoKey 5 Pro User MuzzlePlug User PowerPlug User PhotoKey 3 Plug-in User FXhome Movie Maker FXpreset Maker Windows User

FXhome Team Member

EvilDonut wrote:

Most people here are trying to create 'profit-oriented' productions.
While we encourage a wide range of people here at FXhome.com, that's not really an accurate assumption. I'm sure it is on some forums, but the FXhome.com forums are populated primarily by students/amateurs who are still learning the ropes. They are a long way from selling anything for a profit, even if that is an ultimate goal. Most people here are still indulging a hobby, rather than making a career of it.

There are exceptions, of course - PDRG, Sollthar, Arktic, Ashman, CX3, AJ, MMMprod etc - and some others are clearing heading towards proper careers, but, by and large, FXhome.com is an amateur community that has the great benefit of enjoying the input and vast knowledge of the aforementioned pros and semi-pros. It is not primarily a pro community, though.

As such, recommending a professional high-end HD workflow isn't really going to be of much practical use to most people, however desirable it might be!

Maybe you're different - but whatever you shoot, i'd rather watch it in HD if given the choice.
Obviously. Unfortunately for most hobbyists, amateurs and students it simply isn't a choice.

Perhaps you're getting confused between HD and HDV?

It's pretty clear that Rabbit Hole Pictures isn't a professional, career-oriented filmmaker at this point, and he's certainly not trying to 'change the industry'. He's 16 years old, so it's important to make recommendations that are actually useful to him.

Chastising him about TV networks rejecting his work is frankly a bit silly!
Posted: Tue, 4th Mar 2008, 5:31pm

Post 26 of 36

EvilDonut

Force: 200 | Joined: 22nd Feb 2008 | Posts: 595

Member

Yeah i already corrected that. I just assumed that by the topic name 'filmmakers' forum.

d
Posted: Tue, 4th Mar 2008, 5:43pm

Post 27 of 36

ben3308

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

VideoWrap User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

My friend has a paid job as a videographer (as in, he doesn't freelance, he's signed with Verizon Superpages) and even though he owns a Canon XH-A1, if here showed up to shoot with a GL2 or XL2 as opposed to, say, an HV20, he would immediately get more respect. In fact, the automatic nature of the latter camera would probably get him fired.

As pdrg says, (though he's speaking in larger industries than I am) even for more local ventures, when profits are involved, good glass and image control is essential. A dinky HDV cam will- especially given the lack of latitude of the format- likely get you laughed at on the job. I've used my GL2 for what seems like 100 videography gigs now and I have yet to receive a quality complaint. When HD is more universal, it will matter. But right now, as pdrg says, people aren't crying out for a format of crappy HDV.

As for your assumptions about the 'Filmmaker's Forum': people here can be filmmakers and still not use HD. I take my work extremely seriously, yet I've come to the realization that it's better to invest all-around in a production (namely a good mic and lighting) than to splurge on an expensive HDV camera that I create a substandard (as in, ill-lit) film with. I try to be accomplished in what I do, and I do not think my camera is really limiting me right now. For a great example of this, compare my work on an SD camera with good glass(Marathon, Redemption, etc in the FXHome cinema) to the work of others using worse-glass HD cameras (Switch Twisted, etc in the FXHome cinema). While the HD-filmed ones are no doubt good, solid films, the differences in lighting and production elements make mine a bit more cinematic. You might disagree here, but hopefully you'll see what I'm saying.
Posted: Wed, 5th Mar 2008, 2:48am

Post 28 of 36

EvilDonut

Force: 200 | Joined: 22nd Feb 2008 | Posts: 595

Member

ben3308 wrote:

I've come to the realization that it's better to invest all-around in a production (namely a good mic and lighting) than to splurge on an expensive HDV camera
Yeah but things change drastically when profit is your motive - and you're dealing with a tv/cable/distributor. ie: the people with the money. And they know what they want. And 99% of the time, you're not in a position to tell them what they should accept.

If learning is your motive - more power to ya!

d
Posted: Wed, 5th Mar 2008, 3:04am

Post 29 of 36

Atom

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

EffectsLab Lite User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

EvilDonut wrote:

ben3308 wrote:

I've come to the realization that it's better to invest all-around in a production (namely a good mic and lighting) than to splurge on an expensive HDV camera
Yeah but you're focusing on "it's all about my product" and not about "what the guys above want".
I'm sorry, but I'm going to throw some membership seniority generalizing in here. Who are you to tell this constantly-changing but established community of many years 'what they want' or what 'the industry wants' or anything for that matter?

There seems to be a constant naysayer-attitude in your posts, and I simply don't see the seniority at this site, the filmmaking credentials, experience, portfolio of work, or concrete facts on what you're saying to make it worth......well...........anything. Get on me if you must about playing the 'I've been here much longer than you game', but I think there's a factor there new members have to overcome in order to be noticed and, more importantly, credible.

No doubt 4 years past, Tarn know exactly who I am (smile); but the same probably can't be said for you. It's alright to come into a new place with an amount of confidence in your own word, but you've got to make sure you're not acting like you own the place. Not yet, anyway. smile

And if you are a relatively new member and want to express such a countering and outspoken viewpoint on several things: Do so in the way relative newcomer pdrg does. He offers clear experience, links, and solid insight and facts wherever possible; likely because he's not well-known enough here. Not just yet. (Although, I guess he kind of is by now. smile)

Let me put it this way: I make movies and am right on my way to hitting a semi-professional if not professional level. I really believe that. And my work ethic and 'marketing of myself' has been pretty successful thus far. Who are you to tell me I'm doing things wrong? Do you have larger success to make me be swayed by your point?

See what I'm saying? I surely hope you do. Otherwise this donut might just go stale and all this community will end up with from you is....well......evil. (Look at how clever I am. wink)
Posted: Wed, 5th Mar 2008, 3:05am

Post 30 of 36

ben3308

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

VideoWrap User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

EviDonut, all I'm saying that if your product with, say, an XH-A1 is laughable because of the lack of sound quality from an otherwise purchased mic or dark flesh tones from a lack of light: you still don't have a marketable product. You need to knock out the basics first (super or hypercardioid mic, 3CCD camera at least, and appropriate lighting/other equipment) before you even think about budgeting in an HD camera.

Otherwise, it's like buying a Ferrari without having a driver's license: you've got a big, fancy rig that you can do absolutely nothing with.

With an SD prosumer, like the GL2 and these accoutrements, however, that's another story.

But back to the original topic:

The GL2, being a 3CCD camera with a nice fluorite lens is extremely versatile and robust in image quality. I have used mine from everything from simple home video, to paid videography, to award-winning filmmaking. It's a 'do-it-all' camera, if you will; and it's relatively affordable. Check out Marathon or Redemption or Cover's Story (they're linked in a previous post) for examples of movies done using a GL2. Between the Lines- the number one movie on this site- was also done using the PAL version of the GL2, the Canon XM2.

Altogether it's a great camera, and I really wouldn't trade it for anything else anywhere near its price range. Either GL2, or HVX/XH-A1. That's how my 'step up' goes.
Posted: Wed, 5th Mar 2008, 5:34am

Post 31 of 36

sfbmovieco

Force: 2354 | Joined: 19th Mar 2002 | Posts: 1552

VideoWrap User PhotoKey 2 User Windows User MacOS User

Gold Member

I hate to see people call HDV crappy. It certainly may not be the best. But I've seen some amazing results with it. Again, it's about what you can do with it. No matter what anyone says I really like my HV20. I got it for $500 bucks and you just cannot beat that. As I learn to better use it, I'm sure my end product will get better.

Obviously the camera has some drawbacks with only being able to control either aperture or shutter speed at any given time. But there are some nice workarounds posted on their site forums. Anyways, this short was shot with an HV20 with HDV.

http://www.vimeo.com/680353

The director could have lighted better but check out the scene at 3:32. It looks amazing to me. Anyways, that's my rant. No matter what camera you get make sure you know how to use your editor, how to properly condense for what your eventual output medium will be.

EDIT: BTW EvilDonut, meet Ben & Atom smile
Posted: Wed, 5th Mar 2008, 6:09am

Post 32 of 36

ben3308

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

VideoWrap User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

sfb,

As far as the HV20 goes for filmmaking, non-commercial, I think it's a great, great camera. Truly superb. Have you seen 'A Thousand Words' done on the HV20? An amazing movie.

Buuuuuut.....

I don't think you can work for profit with the HV20. It's not 3CCD, and the lens isn't large enough, and for those reasons it's not up to snuff. Of course it has its strengths (I hear CMOS is actually good) but the drawbacks are enough to prevent it from use in the more money-based markets.
Posted: Wed, 5th Mar 2008, 8:22am

Post 33 of 36

sfbmovieco

Force: 2354 | Joined: 19th Mar 2002 | Posts: 1552

VideoWrap User PhotoKey 2 User Windows User MacOS User

Gold Member

Well I agree with the moneymaking part but I don't think the 3ccd thing is the issue. It depends on each ones size. I think what holds it back is the aperture or shutter speed only options. I've seen lots of reviews recommend it for your b-role stuff. I plan on making a movie with some friends for fun with it, but I also plan on doing some documentary work with it and I think it wouldn't be so bad.

I think if you work hard with any camera, your non profit stuff could always open some doors though.
Posted: Wed, 5th Mar 2008, 8:55am

Post 34 of 36

ben3308

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

VideoWrap User FXhome Movie Maker Windows User

Gold Member

For B-roll the HV20 is hands down the best camera you can buy. Even rolling B-camera with an HVX, the camera still performs. As mentioned, though, it's the control over aperture and shutter (both technical and ergonomical) that take issue with me. But if you can adapt to it: more power to you. biggrin
Posted: Wed, 5th Mar 2008, 6:19pm

Post 35 of 36

Tim L

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

Windows User

Member

ben3308 wrote:

I don't think you can work for profit with the HV20. It's not 3CCD...
Ben, I don't want to be too picky here, because I know that specifying "3CCD" is really kind of a way to distinguish better cameras at the low end than lesser cameras, but I think the number of CCD's (or CMOS imagers) in a camera will soon be a thing of the past. Don't forget that the almighty "Red One" has a single imaging sensor (CMOS). And nobody (that I know of) complains about Digital SLR's only having a single imager.

My somewhat uneducated guess is that in the future we will see more exciting prosumer video cameras coming with a single, larger imager (like a Digital SLR imager), which will give us more cinematic, limited depth of field than a similar camera with three smaller imagers.

But in the end, I know you are mainly saying 3CCD because in general it helps separate the classes of cameras at the lower end (below $2500 or so). 3CCD's might have been a very good demarcation several years ago, but I think that line will be fading.

And this one kind of made me chuckle:

ben3308 wrote:

You need to knock out the basics first (super or hypercardioid mic, 3CCD camera at least, and...
...just because the "3CCD at least" part made it sound like a 4CCD or 5CCD camera would be even better...

Tim L

Last edited Wed, 5th Mar 2008, 6:21pm; edited 1 times in total.

Posted: Wed, 5th Mar 2008, 6:19pm

Post 36 of 36

EvilDonut

Force: 200 | Joined: 22nd Feb 2008 | Posts: 595

Member

ben3308 wrote:


I don't think you can work for profit with the HV20.
'

That's cuz if you showed up to a set with an HV20 - you'd get laughed at. smile

But it is quite the workhouse in Hollywood tho. I see it everywhere for non-principal uses. (My friend did a casting yesterday, and hooked up an HV20 to record everything)

d