Another "which camera should I buy"

[DirectX]

I know you guys must be getting sick of this topic so I apologize in advance. I'm a brand new member and I'm new to the film world. I've never followed my heart until now and hopefully it's not to late (I'm 35). I've learned so much in the last month just from reading books, forums, etc that my head hurts :) Through research I've narrowed down my choices:

Panasonic DVX100b
Panasonic HVX200
Canon XHA1

I want to get the film look but I also want to make documentaries. HDV seems to be a great choice but it has a very "videoish" look to it maybe not suitable for an independent film. I've heard HDV is hard to edit. But then again a travel documentary would look great on it (a documentary as opposed to a feature film would probably be easier to get off the ground as a first project). HVX is my first choice but that means a lot more money for upgrades. Even the A1 would probably need an HD deck and HD DVD burner to finish the project. Plus I don't want to be this new person running around saying "look at me and my new HVX200". Just because I have a hammer doesn't mean I know how to build a house. Is the DVX100b the best choice for a beginner to learn focus, shooting, etc? Or Canon XHA1? Or should I bite the bullet and move back home and inhale secondhand smoke at mom's house for 6 months for the HVX? Sorry for this long first post, I look forward to getting to know everybody here. Thanks in advance,

Mark

[Huy Vu]

HDV seems to be a great choice but it has a very "videoish" look to it maybe not suitable for an independent film.

The codec itself has nothing to do with the video or film look.

Basically you'll want to ask yourself how you're looking to distribute your work. If you're going to be selling DVD then there's little reason to get an HD camera. In a few years maybe enough people will have HDTV to justify delivering in HD, but right now SD is still very much the norm and the DVX does a fine job. But if you want to prepare for that future eventuality then the A1 and the HVX are both fine cameras. Except the differences in workflow for both is huge and you'll have to figure out which is best for you. The main difference of course is P2 cards vs. Tape.

[William_Robinette]

Get a DVX.

It can deliver astounding pictures.

Best Cinematography at Sundance a few years back was "November" shot on a DVX, so don't let anyone tell you it cannot do the job. Any editor can handle DV.

HD is nice, but not a necessity right now by any stretch of the imagination.

[cecil995]

get an hvx if you can afford it.....you can shoot standard and hd with it, plus the ability to shoot variable bit rates and frame rates....its the best of all those cameras all in one package.

[Morox]

Get a DVX.

It can deliver astounding pictures.

Best Cinematography at Sundance a few years back was "November" shot on a DVX, so don't let anyone tell you it cannot do the job. Any editor can handle DV.

HD is nice, but not a necessity right now by any stretch of the imagination.

How about 28 Days Later? It was shot on a Canon XL and it looks A LOT better than November.

[Jan_Crittenden]

Hi Mark,

Get the DVX, learn the craft and go from there. It really is all about the talent behind the camera, talent in front of the camera and a good story. Irag in Fragments, and Murderball, both Academy Award nominees were shot with the DVX100. But it wasn't the DVX that got them there it was the story and the talent.

My .02,

Jan

[Duct Tape Films]

I know you guys must be getting sick of this topic so I apologize in advance. I'm a brand new member and I'm new to the film world. I've never followed my heart until now and hopefully it's not to late (I'm 35). I've learned so much in the last month just from reading books, forums, etc that my head hurts :) Through research I've narrowed down my choices:

Panasonic DVX100b
Panasonic HVX200
Canon XHA1

I want to get the film look but I also want to make documentaries. HDV seems to be a great choice but it has a very "videoish" look to it maybe not suitable for an independent film. I've heard HDV is hard to edit. But then again a travel documentary would look great on it (a documentary as opposed to a feature film would probably be easier to get off the ground as a first project). HVX is my first choice but that means a lot more money for upgrades. Even the A1 would probably need an HD deck and HD DVD burner to finish the project. Plus I don't want to be this new person running around saying "look at me and my new HVX200". Just because I have a hammer doesn't mean I know how to build a house. Is the DVX100b the best choice for a beginner to learn focus, shooting, etc? Or Canon XHA1? Or should I bite the bullet and move back home and inhale secondhand smoke at mom's house for 6 months for the HVX? Sorry for this long first post, I look forward to getting to know everybody here. Thanks in advance,

Mark

If it's docs you're wanting to make, and budget is an issue, I would suggest the XH-A1, simply because of the long form ease of use/cost per minute factor. If budget is an issue, I would not even consider the HVX right now, simply because to get the same kind of flexibility that HDV allows on the XH-A1, you'd need large storage, which can push the actual cost of the HVX closer towards 10K than the 5K pricetag belies. Besides, who wants to live their mom at age 35? As a DVX owner for years, I really think that unless they are able to position it for much cheaper than they are selling it right now, they have officially lost the position of the best value in it's price range, a title that would subsequently belong to the XH-A1 in that price range. Don't get me wrong, the DVX is legendary and will always have a place in my heart, but it's now offiicially overpriced at it's list price. Used, that perhaps is a different story. New: it's a non-starter in my mind.

Also, I think the time for prefered HD origination is drawing much closer than anyone is realizing right now, even despite the delivery woes/lack of uniformity this entails. At this point in time, I've got give it to Canon - they've got themselves a winner with the A1, for docs especially. Got to tell you, I do know quite a few other documentarians who didn't jump on the HVX bandwagon, simply because of the media cost - and the inability to run HD tape at will to get that one tiny moment. If having immediate editing access is desirable to you, you can always add a Firestore to the A1, which is also another argument FOR the XH-A1 in documentary settings - you can have two indentical copies, both in HD, without breaking the bank.

If it's narratives you're considering, then the move back to momma's house might be called for - this is where the feature set of the HVX really shines, otherwise, save your lungs and get an A1. There are documentarians who ARE shooting on the HVX obviously, but to me it just seems like the wrong camera for that. Perhaps Panasonic will come out with something aimed more at long form HD aquisition, aimed squarely at the niche that the A1 is building, but right now former DVXuser's are kind of falling into two camps, with narrative filmmakers pursuing the HVX, as which they should, but documentarians pursuing the XH-A1. It's a matter of choosing the right tool for the job.

In my opinion, the HVX/P2 combo, in documentary settings, seems a leap forward in technology, accompanied by leap backward in time in terms of workflow - the switching in and out of P2 cards, etc. (save for the immediacy of editing - which is a leap forward). Whether it's operator error or some kinks that still need to be worked out, this workflow lends itself more towards something that can have mulitple takes, and makes me quite reticent it in one-take only scenarios that happen when filming real life. The A1/Firestore combo can have the best of both worlds, in my mind. Do keep in mind some of the things that you'll be giving up by going with the A1 over the HVX are quite significant in narrative storytelling (multiple frame rates among the biggest), while for the most part insignificant in documentary filmmaking, unless you're shooting for NFL films. Hope that helps giving you a documentarian's perspective.

To wrap, I would drop a NEW DVX from the running, and actually consider getting that used (which can be had for what I am figuring the price of new DVX's should actually be - hope they actually don't drop the price before I sell mine). Narrative = get an HVX and an oxygen mask. Docs = A1. Oh, and in case no one cleared it up for you, the HVX and DVX shoot natively progressive 24P, while the A1 also shoots 24F, and interlaced method of aquiring 24P, all of which are arriving at same place - the motion of film, the integral part of the "film look". Some may argue that good lighting and shallow focus are what gives you a film look, and while those can contribute to one type of film look, they are not exclusive to film (ahem, soap operas) - and many films have been shot with bad lighting and deep focus. It is the progressive frame that gives that film look - and all three cameras are capable of delivering that.

[Jeff Anderson]

DVX! I've got an HVX and for me to use it well I needed to get several p2 cards, a laptop, and now I'm looking into an HD monitor. Awesome camera, just be prepared for the "extras" to use it to its full potential. HDV is a pain to edit with on an average computer without something to convert it to something easily editable like Cineform. The DVX however has real live 24P, is smaller than the HVX (dont know about the A1) and uses inexpensive and readily available DV tapes to shoot on. Its not HD, but unless you are turning out broadcast or feature film material then I wouldnt be concerned about that.

Like Jan and others have pointed out its about content. If I was just getting into this with a limited amount of money I would spend the least total (editing system, accessories included) possible on a camera possible. Then you can spend more money on lights, sound, etc.

[Duct Tape Films]

HDV is a pain to edit with on an average computer without something to convert it to something easily editable like Cineform.

Not true. Since 5.1.2, Final Cut Pro has had an easy preset for caputuring 24F 1080 HDV, without an intermediary like Cineform.

The top listed PDF document on the following link has the details for working with the A1/G1/H1 on page 32.

http://searchcgi.apple.com/cgi-bin/sp/nph-searchpre11.pl

[Zim]

how many movies made HDV have made it to the big screen? Just wondering.

The DVX is going to be around for awhile. I agree it is overpriced right now. Hopefully now that the $500 rebate is over we see something better and cheaper.

[Duct Tape Films]

how many movies made HDV have made it to the big screen? Just wondering.

The DVX is going to be around for awhile. I agree it is overpriced right now. Hopefully now that the $500 rebate is over we see something better and cheaper.

How long did it take before the DVX made it to the big screen with a smash success? If I remember correctly, it took quite a little while, there were still many DV films for film transfer being made on PAL XL-1's and PAL PD-150's at the time - the DVX made that unnecessary. That benchmark is not really a viable measuring tool of a camera's potential uses. Not to mention, it's NOT the camera that gets your movie transferred to film, it's the filmmaker, their ability to make compelling content, and a significant chunk of change either provided by the filmmaker or someone else who wants to pay for the transfer. $40,000, a pixelvision camera, some time, and a good story, will get you a 35mm film transfer, the main part of that equation being $40,000.

Right now, the A1 is at the stage of transfer to film that the DVX the first year after it's introduction - some tests, some transfers, but no biggie yet, still you KNOW it's going to happen, especially with docs, and more likely sooner than later. It's like comparing fishpoles by the size of the fish they have caught. We can resume the topic "has anything from the A1 been transferred to film that has been an Oscar winner or smash success?" in a few years, as that is an argument that has been bandied about in favor of the DVX - "Murderball" was shot on a DVX, it's therefore better than the A1. That's when we'll have the apples to apples comparison (A1 + three years or so, DVX now). Right now it's apples and orangutans. I would venture to bet that right now someone is using an A1 to shoot that very movie - when will it make it to the big screen? I really don't know their production schedule, or their budget, or if they even have the savvy to get THAT distributor, so I couldn't tell you.

Nonetheless, the DVX is a good way to get your feet wet, and a great value if purchased used. New, it's simply not worth it now, at least to me. A used DVX provides for the most pad for getting other gear, that is undeniable. On the other hand, if $3500 is what he wants to spend on a camera specifically, the A1 is the answer I would personally give, and I've owned and used a DVX for years. If he's really thinking that moving in with momma would be even tolerable at 35, being in debt for an HVX is going to be the least of his problems, so why not? It all depends what your total budget is, the aims for which you're planning on using the gear, and the amount of time you're planning to have it around.

As far as the film transfer comparison goes, I would be willing to bet cash money that going forward three to five years in time, we will have seen more transfers to film from the A1 (perhaps even pre-hdv conversion 4:2:2) than we will DVX transfers in that same timespan, which I'm guessing will both be less than the HVX transfers - especially in the narrative department. Although PAL XL-1 movies can, and still do get transferred to film, we don't see that nearly as much as DVX tranfers these days, right? The DVX will always have a place, for sure, it was the most forward thinking DV camera of it's time, something that makes it relevant to this day. That level of relevance has been diminshed though, make no doubt about it. We all love the camera, that's why we're here in the first place - but the bottom line is, it is a tool, and tools change in this business.

[Zim]

I agree too if spending $3500 I would get the A1. But with the rebate the DVX was around $2800. If Panasonic was smart they would drop the price or put on another nice rebate. $2,000 for a new DVX100b would be nice. I plan on DVD and internet work so HD/HDV isn't going to matter. Iraq in Fragments was uprezzed to HD using a DVX100 and looks great.

[DirectX]

Even though I'm new to this I know that (for me) the story and the characters have to come first before anything else. It still amazes me to this day how many times I walk out of a movie saying "They raised millions of dollars for this?" Keep in mind these were shot on 35mm film and regardless of how good it looks, crap is still crap. I watched 28 days later last night and was amazed at the quality considering it was filmed using a Canon XL1 which is standard defintion (correct me if I'm wrong). The Canon A1 is HDV so wouldn't that look even better if transferred to film? I'm leaning towards the A1 with the intent of getting an HVX 2 or 3 years down the road. On the other hand if I find a used DVX for dirt cheap that will change ;) I just wish youtube didn't have such sub-par video quality as it makes comparing footage pretty much useless.

Mark

[DirectX]

Now I just watched the trailer for "Murderball" and it looks fantastic. Ughh. Choices. Ebay here I come :)

[Duct Tape Films]

I agree too if spending $3500 I would get the A1. But with the rebate the DVX was around $2800. If Panasonic was smart they would drop the price or put on another nice rebate. $2,000 for a new DVX100b would be nice. I plan on DVD and internet work so HD/HDV isn't going to matter. Iraq in Fragments was uprezzed to HD using a DVX100 and looks great.

Forgot about the current Canon rebate, knocking it down to $3250 over at B&H. So even at a $480 difference, I would still lean towards that A1. Agreed, about $2000 is right, I just hope it's not too soon, so I can get rid of my DVX. It could continue to hold a new purchase niche at that price point, although for how long, I don't know. Something tells me Panny is seriously considering that $3500 price point again, and a new product to place there. Can't wait to see what they might place there.

[skrott]

Listen, I have been in the film Industry for 2o years and Jan hit it on the head.
Anyone can make a movie but very few people can tell a story, It is about how well you can tell a story. and the DVX is your best bet to get your story out there. You can have the most expensive camera on the market and make crap. Or you can have a 1 chip camcorder and if the story being told good nobody is going to care about how you shot it and if it was a DVX or HVX or A1.

[Elton]

DirectX,

I would offer a few humble suggestions. I think it's not even worth mentioning anymore that talent behind and front of the camera is all that's truly required for anyone to get noticed. All of the available "affordable" cams can get you there.

Possibly the most important technical thing is to shoot a quality 16x9 widescreen image, even in SD, for transfer to HD. (which is what most festivals will be screening films from in the future)
With the dvx this requires an anamorphic adapter, (signifigantly increasing cost) electronic image squeezing or (ugh) cropping to 16x9 from a 4x3 image. The A1 and HVX can both give you excellent widescreen footage, and the option of HD if you want to add a certain amount of future flexibility with your material.

Sundance FF requires all digital films to be transferred to HDCAM for festival screening. I've seen dvx entries that looked good on the big screen from HD projection, and then I've seen HD entries. Guess which looked signifigantly better? With current uprezzing techniques, a quality SD 16x9 acquisition can somewhat hold its own on the big screen. But if you can acquire in an HD format, well, it just helps that much more. Consider this: An XL-H1 HDV feature called "The Signal" was picked up for well over 2 million at Sundance this year and is likely to have a theatrical release sometime in the near future. That means HDV's good enough because the talent and execution were there...and I'm sure even humble HDV origination didn't hurt either.

Forget film transfer. It's just not even a consideration unless you made a miraculous film that will be seen in theatres everywhere. A very deep-pocketed distributor would be taking care of this requirement, not you.

I'm sure the dvx won't be a hindrance to anyone's fledgling filmmaking career, but I would suggest reaching for the A1 or HVX--new or used.

[skrott]

Question, With the DVX i save the heads by playing back into my computer using a less expensive Pany cam. Now if one goes HD don't you need an HD deck to capture?
that would put much more wear on the heads?

[Jeff Anderson]

Yeah we had to get a seperate deck at work. Its the Sony MV15u or something like that. Works fine for Sony 60i stuff but dont know about canon 24F. Or get a firestore for the Canon...

[skrott]

so then go A1 and wear the heads using for shooting and capture? or buy another HD can for capture to save heads. either way going A1 is much more expensive

[Vincent Wong Yoon Wei]

Canon doesn't make decks. Their only 'decks' are the HV10 and HV20. Even then, transferring using the camera is not big of a deal. Just rewind once and transfer everything in one go. We have been doing that with my college DVXs for years since the deck's firewire port stop working (Panasonic told us that the deck has been discontinued and they can't fix it) and it's not an issue.

As much as I love the DVX (I have shot everything from events, corporates, music videos, shorts, to feature length with it) and I still can get amazing images from it, the A1 can do everything the DVX can and more with just a minor price difference.

In fact, the A1 is what I would call the 'true' successor to the DVX throne. It is affordable and a similiar form factor as the DVX. I predict it fast becoming the champion of indies like the DVX. The HVX, while an amazing piece of technology has alienated a lot of indie filmmakers because of the high costs.

Despite HD not being very common now, it is good to have a camera that is at least HD ready.

[DavidChia]

the A1 can do everything the DVX can and more with just a minor price difference.


Really? I've tried my friend's A1 and it could not focus and zoom at the same time.But I could only do that with a DVX.

[cecil995]

Does the A1 shoot true 24p?

[Duct Tape Films]

Does the A1 shoot true 24p?

You edit 24F in true 24P. The chips themselves are interlaced, and Canon uses a method they have referred to as 24F to extract 24 progressive frames using pixel shift, but this is NOT the same frame mode they employed with the XL1. Upon capture to Final Cut Pro, it is 24 discrete frames - from 24 discrete moments per second in time. So to answer, the end result is true 24P, how they get there, is more complicated than most are willing to take a close look at, and sometimes therefore pronouncing that it ain't 24P. This is not true, even to film out houses, as they will transfer Canon's 24F material to film, but will NOT transfer Sony's CF24. That should be enough to put the question to rest. Granted had the chips been progressive, the camera would keep the maximum available resolution, even with the slight loss of resolution in 24F mode it still leaves the camera, at a resolution higher than anything else in it's class.

[Vincent Wong Yoon Wei]

Really? I've tried my friend's A1 and it could not focus and zoom at the same time.But I could only do that with a DVX.
If you want to get really anal about it, yes, the A1 could not zoom and focus at the same time.

But let's look at the bigger picture, extensive image customization, progressive, 20x zoom, records HD to cheap DV tape, etc, etc...it is the DVX and more.

[Duct Tape Films]

Look at it this way. If you could mod your DVX to shoot HD for $480, wouldn't you jump on it? I know I would, and that is the price distance between a new DVX-100 and a new XH-A1. Not that the DVX is a slouch in what it does, it certainly is not, I'm just saying if he goes that route, there are many used DVX's, with low head hours, to be had, and will make up for what I see as a current overpricing of a new DVX.

[Vincent Wong Yoon Wei]

Look at it this way. If you could mod your DVX to shoot HD for $480, wouldn't you jump on it? I know I would, and that is the price distance between a new DVX-100 and a new XH-A1. Not that the DVX is a slouch in what it does, it certainly is not, I'm just saying if he goes that route, there are many used DVX's, with low head hours, to be had, and will make up for what I see as a current overpricing of a new DVX.
I agree, with Duct Tape Films. If you want a DVX, go used, they are just not worth it buying new these day. The DVX will still be usable for a few more years and it's a simple enough camera to get started on.

[Zim]

I think some of the used DVX prices were to high. New ones were $2800 after the rebate and people asking the same or just a little less for a used! I would go with the new. But that is all old news now that the rebate is over. B&H has the DVX100 in stock for $3,399. The Canon XH-A1 in stock after the rebate is $3249.

You would have to go with the Canon unless your MTV and not worried about the money. Come on Panasonic,,,

[Duct Tape Films]

I think some of the used DVX prices were to high. New ones were $2800 after the rebate and people asking the same or just a little less for a used! I would go with the new. But that is all old news now that the rebate is over. B&H has the DVX100 in stock for $3,399. The Canon XH-A1 in stock after the rebate is $3249.

You would have to go with the Canon unless your MTV and not worried about the money. Come on Panasonic,,,

Exactly. I like Panasonic's products better, but the XH-A1 suits my needs better right now, and I imagine many are in the same boat as well, especially documentary (or other types of long form shooting style) filmmakers. I didn't know the DVX rebate had expired. If that's the case, a new one is completely a non-starter to me. Pay more money to specifically NOT have HD? :huh:


Also, about the zoom/focus at the same time issue. Perhaps I'm alone in this, but I never zoom in the middle of a shot. I just don't. I know it's in style to do so, ahem, Twenty-freaking-four I'm looking you're general direction (and you keep looking at me closer, and closer, and wider, and closer again, cut it out man and hold the freaking shot will ya?), but I only zoom while reframing. So, personally, it's not something I miss with the A1. I'm sure there are others who consider the snap zoom part of their style, if you like that, well God bless ya, then certainly perhaps the A1 is not for you. However, if your style is more like mine, and zooming mid shot is not your bag either, the lack of full manual capability remains a non-issue on the A1.

[DavidChia]

If you want to get really anal about it, yes, the A1 could not zoom and focus at the same time.

But let's look at the bigger picture, extensive image customization, progressive, 20x zoom, records HD to cheap DV tape, etc, etc...it is the DVX and more.


I'm not being anal, just that seeing claims of incorrect facts really should be pointed out.

both camera are great. But when you say that one does everthing that the other is and better. You got to read more and back your facts ....

If you would say that the A1 in your opion is a better camera then the dvx.Well , that is o.k, because it is your opion.But to say that A1 is everything that the dvx is and better, then you are wrong in claimimg that.claims like yours are very misleading.

[Barry_Green]

Saying that it's "everything the DVX is" is just wrong. Saying "it does everything I need, so in my case it's even better than a DVX" is fine, but to say that it does everything a DVX does is just plain factually incorrect. Someone else made that claim a few weeks ago and I tried to list a whole bunch of features that the DVX has that the XHA1 doesn't, so people could look through that list and see if there's anything they can't live without.

[DavidChia]

No, it isn't. It may be everything you need, but it isn't everything the DVX is. DVX includes manual zoom, cinegamma, is at least a stop faster, has precise repeatable focus, better audio, individually controllable audio channels for line/mic and phantom power and routing one mic to both channels, two levels of zebras, zebras and peaking at the same time, etc. The XHA1 has many things to it that the DVX doesn't as well. They're not the same, and the XHA1 does many things the DVX doesn't (including high def!) But to say that it's "everything the DVX is" is just not true. Might be everything you needed from a DVX, but that won't apply to everyone.

As compared to the DVX, I'd say the XHA1 takes six steps forward and two steps back. But with the aggressive pricing, it's the better buy for most circumstances; a prospective owner would have to look at the list of things the DVX does that the XHA1 doesn't and determine if those were dealbreakers. If they can live without those features, get the XHA1 by all means. If the user can't live without those features, the XHA1 is not the better camera for them.


I think Barry was refering to this above.

Which i very much agree.What is good for you might not be good for me.

[Vincent Wong Yoon Wei]

This is getting to the point of semantics but I know better than to argue with Barry :) .

Therefore I will admit that I was wrong in making such a sensitive and inconsiderate remark.

The camera at the end of the day is just a tool. Buy what works for you, features, functions, price, etc, etc...

[Duct Tape Films]

I think Barry was refering to this above.

Which i very much agree.What is good for you might not be good for me.

That quote is so dead on. Exactly what I feel about the DVX and A1 in direct comparison. Nail, meet head. They are not the same, they have similarities, under most circumstances, prices being equal, the A1 probably edges out the DVX for many people, which is why I think the best recommendation for the original poster, if the DVX's feature set has things you certainly cannot live without, and don't really care about HD right now, getting a used DVX with low head hours. It is the cheapest way in, yet still is by no means, cheaping out. If not, and HD is your priority, and you're willing to pony up the extra cash, the A1 is the way to go. There is no uber answer here - only the answer that will suit the needs of the original poster the best.

[Barry_Green]

Exactly -- what suits some, will not suit others. But unless the price is adjusted significantly, the A1 makes a compelling case for itself in contrast to the DVX as of right now. Just be aware of what it does and doesn't do, and match your needs to the appropriate feature set.

DavidChia, thanks for digging that up, that's exactly what I was referring to. Doesn't make the DVX "better" for everyone, but it does list the things that you won't be getting from an A1, so a properly-informed buyer is better prepared to make the right choice for them.

[DirectX]

Great posts guys. Do you believe in fate? I was driving to work today and happened to glance at the license plate on the car in front of me and the last 4 letters and numbers were XHA1! I'm currently leaning towards the Canon as it does offer HDV and after watching "28 Days Later" I was blown away and that was on a Canon. An SD Canon if I'm not mistaken. The one financial advantage I can see for an HVX is that I could rent it out and recoup some of my investment, but I think the Canon is a good middle ground. I can learn the craft and then in 2 or 3 years time I can go for the HVX. In reality the HVX is probably the better camera but the only way to shoot HD is the expensive P2 cards or a Firestore which adds thousands to an already expensive (for me) piece of equipment. Even though the HVX is now $4,200 on Amazon, it will still require thousands more to fully take advantage of it. So I'm looking at:

Canon XHA1-$3,500
Apple PC-$1,500
Final Cut Pro-$1,000
Basic Lighting/Mic and boom-$1,500 (can anyone recommend a decent starter kit?)
Total to start-$7,500
Talent-priceless (LOL sorry couldn't resist :) )

Sound about right?

Mark

[Jeff Anderson]

I'd up that lighting and sound number to closer to 2000 for a very basic kit. And add a tripod, case, uv filter, and a few hundred dollars worth of extras.

The A1 sounds like a good choice for you though - the HVX definitely has lots of extra expenses required to shoot HD. Tape is much cheaper and has doesnt require the workflow rethinking of p2. P2 works for me though and I'll be doing anything and everything to never use a tape again :) My only HDV warning though is that it takes some serious horsepower to edit it.

The license plate thing is creepy, maybe my wife will see a plate that says sd-302 and buy me one....

[cecil995]

ummm i don't know what kind of mac your gonna get for 1500.......but with hdv you need ram and storage storage storage! I would suggest getting at least 500 gigs of hard drive to work with.

[MemphisMourns]

If you need 500 gigs of storage for the HDV, what are you looking at for the HVX? I figure storage equals out... And from what I always could tell, and XHA1 was just a weird camera. HDV is NOT HD. It's compressed. And since it's not the G1, there's no way to get the HD out, it's trapped into a Mini DV which cannot hold HD, right?

And sure P2 cards and Store are a little pricey, but you're looking at about 2 grand more for an HVX system then running the A1... and is it safe to say that the HVX does all that the A1 and 100b do and more? You don't gotta go HD once you get it. Buy the cam, and save some dough shooting SD, before you can afford the P2's and then go HD maybe?

By the way, don't buy the 4299 HVX from Amazon. It's not from an Auth. Dealer.

New guy here.

[ecking]

HDV is NOT HD. It's compressed.


Umm that is some insane logic. HD is a pixel size for a picture, not a compression format. It doesn't matter whether it is captured on p2 card, mini dv tape, or a piece of cardboard. If the end result is a picture equal or greater than 1280x720 pixels, it is HD.

If hdv is really that bad you would not see such a great many people on this board interested, espcially in something as lowly as the hv20, let alone the XH-A1.

[OldCorpse]

When it comes to opinions, I believe in "the more the merrier". All the advice you've gotten so far has been quite good, but with all due respect... pretty predictable.

So, it's time for something completely from left field. And I'm willing to play the role of the fool here :) . And so, my advice is going to be quite different from most you got so far.

I think you should consider two possibilities.

1) Get no camera at all.

Look at this whole thing from a higher altitude. What do you want to accomplish, and what is the best way to do it? Without getting into a book length philosophical discussion, let's just say you want to (a) learn to become a filmmaker OR (b) make a film... most often both.

I found that when probed, many folks actually reclassify (b) to (a) - i.e. they want to make a film as a way of learning to become a filmmaker. Either way, think about it.

Do you want to be a director? It's good to have a basic knowledge of all aspects of filmmaking. Sure. But let's get real here - there's a sweet spot. You can take it too far into diminishing returns: for example, while it may be useful to have a basic understanding of cinematography, it's not necessary to be Nobel Prize winning physicist in the field of light theory, and also a brilliant engineer who can design his own camera etc. There isn't enough lifetime to learn all those crafts so thoroughly that you'll be tops in all. You must make a judgment call. Learn enough - and not more.

Moreover (and I'll catch massive flak for this) I actually think too much technical knowledge can hurt you (as Andy Warhol maintained) - this is not to promote amateurism or ignorance or downplay technical expertise, but there's a tendency for some not to see the forest for the trees... actually something changes in your brain, as if it's made of clay, and once you stamp it with something too strongly (say, cinematography), it won't leave enough room for anything else. Have you ever noticed how many DP's try to become directors, and how tiny a percentage ever get to be any good as a director? These are the practical consequences of what I pointed out (and yes, there are exceptions, but exceedingly rare, like Nicolas Roeg etc.). You see this on a smaller scale, even here, where there'll be technical wankery aplenty, but when one of these (actually very competent) technical gurus submits a film sample as director (i.e. not as DP work), all of a sudden you realize that however brilliant they are as a DP they suck as director. Again, I'm not saying you should ignore it all - but there are many ways to be a director. There's only one way to be a DP. A director can be great with story, but suck with camera placement - and the audience will forgive him, because story is 95% of the impact of film on audiences (and no, I'm not talking about the 3% of film nerds in film school). A director may have a great way with actors, but be so-so as far as his eye for cinematography goes (think Robert Altman). He may be very good with special effects, but suck in every other way (Michael Bay - OK, I'm kidding a bit). So, you may have almost zero technical skills, but be good with actors and story, and you'll be a great director. But a DP has to be good as DP, and what that means is much, much more limited - end of story.

Furthermore, some things cross better into a directing than others. Counterintuitively, I'll claim cinematography is one of the worst - watch them draw and quarter me here :) But I'm serious. That skillset just doesn't translate to directing (again, yes there are exceptions) - how can it be, since film is a visual medium? I don't know why, it just is - again, the proof is in the pudding - there really are few DPs who cross to becoming good directors (every DP seemingly gets 1 or 2 shots at it). Maybe we overvalue the "visual" impact on an audience compared to story and acting elements? Writers cross a lot better (screenplay writers). Editors cross a lot better. DP's? Not so much.

OK, my point is: don't get a camera. Get a brilliant/good/competent/decent/tolerable/ DP who brings his own camera. (I)He'll be better at DP'ing than you'll ever be, and a better camera operator. (II)He'll know his camera a lot better than your half a$$ed study of a few dozen hours of your camera. (III)It'll free you to concentrate on other tasks - a director has a lot to do, why take on another duty. Leave the technical wankery to the technical guys - they're better at it, and you'll never match them... unless you want to be the cam operator or DP as a career, then go knock yourself out. (IV)Finally, there's always money needed on a shoot. It's cheaper not to buy a camera if the DP has one he's more comfortable with anyway. Problem solved.

What you must do as a director is have a vision - know what you want, pick a DP and then trust him (and supervise - that's the job of a director), and guide him to get you what you want.

You'll get a lot more out of studying writing and editing - which you can do without a camera. Write. Edit. Hire/cajole the technical people - the DP's, the sound people, the rest.

Brutal truth: if you write something good enough (or obtain the rights to, or get ahold of a script), MONEY WILL COME TO YOU with just a bit of work, and then, you won't have to worry about which camera to get, and how you'll pay for it. If you have that kind of backing and legitimacy, you'll get a real DP involved and the camera will be his problem - as long as you know what you want from him in broad strokes.

And if your writing is not strong enough (or you property not strong enough) to get financing, and you're forced to do it on your own? Well, read that again. Honey, if your project sucks, maybe you should work hard enough to unsuck it, maybe it's not ready for prime time - in which case you should not shoot it, and again, the question of "which camera do I get" is irrelevant.

Now, OK, since not every project can be brilliant and get financing - maybe you feel there's value in just shooting a film to learn the art. In that case, my friend, I submit, option two.

2)Get the cheapest camera around - maybe the Canon HV20.

Ask yourself - if your film is strictly for learning, does it matter that it's "wow 16:9", "wow 24p", "wow filmlike"?

I submit it's a lot of rubbish. What you'll get from a shoot is how to handle actors, how to tell a story, how to edit, how to run a production - almost none of this involves "which exact camera do I get".

And if you insist that there's something for a director to learn from a camera - OK, for example, shot blocking - friend, you can do it with a $5 camera.

Bottom line, think more about the important things, look at it from a higher altitude, and you'll either get no camera or a total cheapie.

Sorry for the length. All IMHO.

[MemphisMourns]

Umm that is some insane logic. HD is a pixel size for a picture, not a compression format. It doesn't matter whether it is captured on p2 card, mini dv tape, or a piece of cardboard. If the end result is a picture equal or greater than 1280x720 pixels, it is HD.

If hdv is really that bad you would not see such a great many people on this board interested, espcially in something as lowly as the hv20, let alone the XH-A1.

Well, from all of the DP's I've talked to (I'm not one, just camera shopping) - they've all said HDV is like a gimmick. They throw "HD" in the title and everybody gets excited. Obviously the A1 is a good camera... not only the CCD's, but the lens etc. is all an upgrade from the XL2 - and incredibly priced. But hey, you gotta admit that HDV is not HD. And OldCorpse... great post. It's gonna scare a lot of people I think.

[Evro]

Wow, talk about latteral thinking. What a refreshing post OldCorpse.
In fact you've inspired me to prove a point by digging up my old Sony handycam and do a short with it this weekend. :)

[cecil995]

If you need 500 gigs of storage for the HDV, what are you looking at for the HVX? I figure storage equals out... And from what I always could tell, and XHA1 was just a weird camera. HDV is NOT HD. It's compressed. And since it's not the G1, there's no way to get the HD out, it's trapped into a Mini DV which cannot hold HD, right?

And sure P2 cards and Store are a little pricey, but you're looking at about 2 grand more for an HVX system then running the A1... and is it safe to say that the HVX does all that the A1 and 100b do and more? You don't gotta go HD once you get it. Buy the cam, and save some dough shooting SD, before you can afford the P2's and then go HD maybe?

By the way, don't buy the 4299 HVX from Amazon. It's not from an Auth. Dealer.

New guy here.

The major advantage with HDV is that you can store HD footage on a regular miniDV tape, so its cheap and accesible to many people, where p2 cards are a major expense right now.

[Duct Tape Films]

If you need 500 gigs of storage for the HDV, what are you looking at for the HVX? I figure storage equals out... And from what I always could tell, and XHA1 was just a weird camera.

Hmmm. Where to begin, other than you don't necessarily need half a terrabyte of storage, although it's always nice to have extra storage. Really depends on what you're working on, and whethere you really need to bring all of it into your system in the first place. As for the XHA1 being a "weird" camera, is it a form factor issue for you? Actually when you think about it, nearly ALL cameras are little weird - and at the very least, most of us behind them are.


HDV is NOT HD. It's compressed.

I'm not sure WHERE people keep coming up with this conclusion, but this needs to be put to bed, once and for ALL TIME. I'm sorry but you have simply been misinformed on this topic, unfortunately by people who should know better. The statement you have made that "HDV is NOT HD", is akin to saying "DV is NOT SD", comparing apples and orangutans, or more specifically comparing aquisition/storage methods with delivery methods. Let's clear this up. There are only TWO (let's not count the Viper and Red for this discussion - that will just cloud things) possible types of resolutions - SD & HD. An image is recorded, and played back, as one, or the other. What may be confusing some people on this topic is that there are multiple resolutions WITHIN HD, 720P, 1080i, and 1080P being the most known and common. Even HD-CAM SR is compressed (3:1:1), so that therefore has nothing to with what resolution something is - an easy way to look at resolution is like "dimensions"....

a) SD is 640x480 (although DV is 720x480).
b) 720P HD is 1280x720 (although there are many ways of getting there).
c) 1080i HD is 1920x1080 (although there are many ways of getting there).
d) 1080P HD is 1920x1080(although there are many ways of getting there)

An image you shoot, and play back, will pretty much fall into one of those categories.

Those dimensions are what differentiates if something is SD or HD. That's all, not compression - not anything else.


And since it's not the G1, there's no way to get the HD out, it's trapped into a Mini DV which cannot hold HD, right?

Wrong. I won't go into how you capture from an HDV camera, so do what many of us do, and download the owner's manual of say the XL-H1. It's a good thing to do in general on cameras you don't know, just in case you have to work on a set asking for a camera that you haven't worked with before. In addition, since 5.1.2, Final Cut Pro has been able to take 24F 1080 HDV directly in, without any conversion. FCP is now on 5.1.4. There's a downloadable PDF that I referenced earlier in this thread, which addresses the fact that Final Cut Pro has a bunch of easy presets for bringing HDV material in.


New guy here.

We were all new once. That said, when you're new, the LAST thing you might want to do is spout misinformation as if it were the undeniable truth. It makes people's heads hurt. Then again, maybe that's just the wine from last night.:beer:

[Captain Pierce]

Movies on Blu-Ray discs are encoded with the same MPEG-2 compression that regular DVD movies are--does that make them not HD as well? Or HD-DVD's that use MPEG-4?

Let's face it, these days compression is a fact of life (well, OK, unless you get an Andromeda DVX or Hydra HVX :), but even then, your final product will probably involve some sort of compression); and as resolutions go higher, there will only be more of it, I'm guessing.

[Duct Tape Films]

Movies on Blu-Ray discs are encoded with the same MPEG-2 compression that regular DVD movies are--does that make them not HD as well? Or HD-DVD's that use MPEG-4?

Let's face it, these days compression is a fact of life (well, OK, unless you get an Andromeda DVX or Hydra HVX :), but even then, your final product will probably involve some sort of compression); and as resolutions go higher, there will only be more of it, I'm guessing.

Unless they've done so already, I'm thinking Barry or Jarred needs to write an article clarifying the biggest misnomers about HD out there. Every time I see one these misguided, but firmly formed, opinions (ie HDV is NOT HD - it has compression) it just makes me want to throw something.

[Barry_Green]

I've tried to explain that one a dozen times. It's like saying "DV is not SD because it's compressed." Er, yeah. Duh.

Every form of recording digital video in common use is compressed. Even analog video is compressed in some ways; interlacing is a form of analog compression, as is sampling the chroma at a lower bandwidth. Those are both ways of compressing the signal.

HD is determined by what Duct Tape said: frame size, and frame rate. 1920x1080 @ 24p/25p/30p/50i/60i. 1440x1080@24p/25p/30p/50i/60i. 1280x720 @ any frame rate up to 60. Those are HD. How you compress it does not define whether it's "HD" or not. SMPTE and the ATSC and the EBU decide what "HD" is, not an arbitrary discussion of whether something is compressed or not. If compression means something isn't HD, then that rules out D-VHS, DVCPRO-HD, HDCAM, HD D5, AVC-HD, AVC-Intra, HDCAM SR, and basically every other form of HD recording that's ever been devised.

There are many various ways to record HD. HDV happens to be the lowest-quality, most-compressed way (in common use) to store an HD signal; it also happens to be largely identical to how HDTV gets broadcast in the US. Professional HD formats use less compression, more bandwidth, and usually frame-discrete compression, but that doesn't mean that they're "true HD" and HDV isn't "true HD". It's just a different way to record an HD signal.

[MemphisMourns]

Thanks guys, I guess I was way off here. Like I said, I was quoting DP's and AC's from set - and am not at all a camera guy. I've apparently got some reading to do. Resolution/Compression (how it's stored), that all makes a lot of sense. I am eternally impressed by what those little tapes can actually do.

Eating crow, buying books and going back to my writing career now.

[Duct Tape Films]

Thanks guys, I guess I was way off here. Like I said, I was quoting DP's and AC's from set - and am not at all a camera guy. I've apparently got some reading to do. Resolution/Compression (how it's stored), that all makes a lot of sense. I am eternally impressed by what those little tapes can actually do.

Eating crow, buying books and going back to my writing career now.

I prefer deep fried crow myself - actually did you know they actually eat pigeons in some parts of the world - FREAKING SKYRATS?!? This is a profession that requires so much constant changes in the tools, that usually books can't be published in time for their information (especially about gear) to be up to date. My suggestion, don't get books that are gear based - get ones that are broad stroke filmmaking process books - from pre-production to distribution. Either that, or get something from Barry here - the guy is a storehouse, I would be shocked if there were many other people who carry around as much info about gear and the process as Barry.

But I digress, as far as books go, some of the best ones are kind of out of date, actually as I was saying, by the time a filmmaking book hits the shelves anymore - nonetheless, there are some permanent gems to be had - "Feature Filmmaking At Used Car Prices" is one of those, and it does get updated regularly enough to make it a good starting point at least conceptually in the steps. I've had mulitple copies over the years, which I always give to new filmmakers. There's another book, and I can't remember the name right now - which pretty much has great small crew ideas, limiting all roles on a film to three people, someone help me out here, that was a good one, too. Then there's the ASC film manual - kind of dry, but you can put some butter on it. To keep on top of gear - download owner's manuals online, read magazines, visit here and other places online, rent gear you've got to get your hands on, but can't buy. That's really the best way to keep abreast of important gear (don't do it with EVERYTHING or you surely will drive yourself crazy).

Don't go away so soon, back to writing, that is. There are many fine filmmakers that can't write for crap, myself included (is it bragging to call myself a fine filmmaker - I guess I'm probably fine - I'm comfortable with that much boasting). My dialogue always was stilted, and despite my best efforts writing five feature screenplays, it was NOT my forte'. That's when I found docs, or rather, they found me. It was a nice fit, and that's where I've stayed, and plan on staying for the foreseeable future. I'm less of a "visionary", I guess, and more of a "cultural anthropologist", at least that's what I very well might have done had I not chosen this route. Somebody'll need your writing talents surely....if you're not a screenwriter already, just learn the format - and see if what you've done previously doesn't apply.

[MemphisMourns]

Thanks Duct Tape, may I ask one more question of the forum? Is it silly for one to purchase the HVX200 and use it as DV (for it's superior chips and lens) until one can afford to run the HD properly (Comp P2 Storage)? Wouldn't this, even as DV, look a little more Pana 24p "film like" then the A1?

[Captain Pierce]

That's actually something I've considered suggesting for my company if it turns out that we do need to replace one of our DVX's here, but I think the price may not appeal to my boss. :) But yeah, if you've got the money now and see the need for HD in your future, then either the HVX or the A1 in SD mode (assuming that the A1 has one, I don't know much about it) should give you a good SD picture now.

As for which is more "film like," I think that's something you're going to have to decide for yourself. The A1 forum is starting to see more and more footage in it--you might want to check some out and see what you think...

[Duct Tape Films]

Thanks Duct Tape, may I ask one more question of the forum? Is it silly for one to purchase the HVX200 and use it as DV (for it's superior chips and lens) until one can afford to run the HD properly (Comp P2 Storage)? Wouldn't this, even as DV, look a little more Pana 24p "film like" then the A1?

I'm going to take the two questions seperately, because they require individual answers. Yes, it would be perferctly rational, and almost logical, to buy the HXV and use it as a DV camera until you came up with the money for P2 cards, etc., that is if you really don't want to get into HD right now, and can resist the incredible temptation to put yourself in debt a few days later. Yes, if it is THAT camera you've got to have, you know you will certainly move on up to HD, that is a perfectly viable way to do it. Unless you don't have the will power to follow your plans and intentions, in which case, just pony up already, or get something else if you can't afford it, like say the A1.

The answer to the second part as far as looking more "film like" is an emphatic no. Once on a 24P timeline, and eventually delivered as such, heck even WHILE shooting, there is no forgoing the "film look" - see any number of the 24F versus 24P arguments - you'll see that the voices with most weight come down on the side that "this is the truth, Ruth" - for most purposes, between 24P/24F it just doesn't matter - they both move like film. There is an AWFUL lot of disinformation out there about these Canon cameras, most of the bias people are having against HDV being based on previous JVC & Sony models. Canon pushed HDV as far as it could possibly go, and then some, and all things being equal - as far as HDV goes, the A1/G1/H1 are without peer.

If you want to know the the truth about the A1, even though some have accused him wrongly of bias (I'd think personal perspective is far more accurate - but WHO among us can rightfully say they don't have that?) read Barry's shoot out between the HVX and the A1. Some of those who come to the defense of the A1 in the thread also provide some useful links - more or less better images from the A1. In the article, Barry comes to the conclusion, which was to be expected, in a shoot out, the HVX's beats (was edges out the phrase?) the A1. No worry, it still provides excellent facts about the camera.

Basically, in my mind, it comes down to this between the HVX and A1 - what kind of filmmaker are you? Do you make narratives? If so, the HVX is probably your best choice, unless you can't afford it, in which the A1 ain't exactly a slouch either. If not, and say you're a documentarian, you probably will be better suited with the A1, unless you have enough money to justify the long form storage you'll need for shooting with an HVX, and have a good idea how to best make the workflow invisible to your style of shooting. For some documentarians, myself included, I just can't give up that long form, almost disposable, but immediately archivable format, love the idea of having two identical copies (with a Firestore) immediately, and really can't justify the duckets it would take to do the same thing on the HVX. Which tool do YOU personally need? Me personally, that's about the only thing that could have been added to Barry's article about the two, yet it still kinda goes without saying - the A1 suits me better, simply because the pros/cons aimed that way - but that's just for me.

[MemphisMourns]

It's terms like "More Film Like" that immediately point me out as a novice, without having to glance up at my name. I'm just a huge Super 16 fan is why I am asking, and hoping to shoot a very warm seventies feeling short. I'll read the A1 HVX shootout, that should really help a lot. Thanks again, Duct Tape. Thread Hijack over.

[MemphisMourns]

Barry, kudos! You truly are a wise archive. I am happy that these tired eyes have located as many of your words as they have...

[DirectX]

Oldcorpse:

Good post and definitely something to think about. I'm relieved that maybe I don't have to know it all (even though I want to). I was thinking if I wasn't ace at writing, directing, cinematography, lighting, sound, and editing that I suck. I would still like to concentrate on directing, cinematography, lighting, and editing. Writing is my weak point (although I've never tried) but I do have some cool ideas if I could find someone to flesh out the stories and write the scripts. Not getting a camera right now is not an option for me, I'm 35 and I don't have time to waste. Even if it's just filming alligators in the Everglades where I live, I need to do something. Everything I know I've learned in the past 10 days from reading books, forums, articles, etc (which is probably why I sound like an idiot everytime I post). I've read the manuals for the HVX, DVX, and Canon XHA1 cover to cover twice (still baffled by some of the terms) Up until 4 days ago I didn't even know what an "NLE" was :) I want to do narratives as well as documentaries and I need a camera that can do both. I think a documentary would be the best bet for me to get started as it requires a minimum of equipment and crew to get started.

Duct Tape: (gotta say it feels weird addressing someone this way ;))

As far the HDV and HD argument goes, check out the following link for a clip of the Canon XHA1 from Steven Dempsey. I defy anyone to tell me that HDV isn't true HD after watching this:

P.S. I don't live IN the everglades just NEAR-not like like I live in a thatched hut
feeding alligators out of my front door or anything (like my sister does)

"This morning, there was about a half hour of sun so I dropped by my favorite park (Marymoor in Redmond, WA) on the way to work.

What you see here is just raw footage right out of the camera. There is no color correction at all. The only thing I did with the footage was apply a 2.35:1 matte.

Rendered at 10mbps, it's about 93mb. There is definitely a drop in the sharpness due to this high compression and a little noise is there that's not at all obvious in the original footage.

All of these shots are at the wide end of the lens because I really wanted to shoot to show off the pixels.

I'm using my PANALOOK preset which is still my favorite. Thanks to Chris Hurd for the conversion from XLH1 to XHA1, he did a nice job."

Anyway, enjoy:

http://www.pinelakefilms.com/XHA1/marymoorHD.wmv

Right click and "save as"

[ZephyrStar]

First off, this is an amazing thread. So many of my questions have been answered here as I've been also looking at these different cameras and trying to decide on if I want to buy one.

I might also start by saying that I'm really glad to see everyone posting advice about making a good film vs "omg filmlook." I thoroughly believe that writing, story, acting, lighting, and real effort are what it takes to crank out a good film, reguardless of whether it's shot on a high dollar prosumer camera, or my TRV280 digital 8. I'm a noob to filmmaking, but I really want to give it my best shot.

So. I have this TRV280 digital 8, which I want to shoot a couple of projects with to learn from and cut my teeth on. I'm a graphic artist as a living, so I know my way around all the Adobe products, as well as some 3d packages, and some NLE's. I'm technically competent to edit I think. Where I might be not competent to edit is in the things I mentioned above, the writing, lighting, and overall meat and potatoes of filmmaking. So I want to do a few experiments.

I want to decide whether I have what it takes to write and direct a good film. I'm going to start small. I have a kind of documentary/tutorial style video idea, in which I will detail the construction of an art project I did, and show the viewer how they can use the same tools and materials to achieve similar results. This is my funding project. I hope to be able to put enough value on a DVD that people will pay me 15$ at events for an extras packed DVD related to the hobby. (the hobby is computer case modding, I might add, something I feel I'm pretty good at) And with distro like RocketIndie, that might be easy to do once I have something put together ;)

Then I want to do a few 10 or 20 minute shorts, and try to see what I can do at film festivals. Maybe I'll need something better than a TRV280, but the way I see it, if I can create a 10 minute film for next to no budget and get a decent response, I can justify spending more money to make better stuff to get a better response.


So my dilemma is, at what point do I need to look at getting an HVX / XHA1? I'd really like to shoot in HD, so I can get used to working with it. Since my target format for my documentary/howto is DVD, I'm sure the TRV280 will be fine. For film festivals, it might be ok? Will I get laughed out of the building for shooting on a TRV280? (Probably not if my filmmaking is really solid?)

Ultimately I want to do a feature indy film. When I get that far, I want to shoot HD. Granted distribution will probably be on DVD, so I will need to downsize it, but the quality will definately be there, and I'll have a HD master should I ever decide to go to film (invest that 40k) with it. I'm looking at doing that in a year or two, so I probably shouldn't be even asking the camera question now. By then things will probably come way down in price or I can rent something.

Sorry for ranting and getting a little off topic, but I'm inspired :)

[Duct Tape Films]

First off, this is an amazing thread. So many of my questions have been answered here as I've been also looking at these different cameras and trying to decide on if I want to buy one.

I might also start by saying that I'm really glad to see everyone posting advice about making a good film vs "omg filmlook." I thoroughly believe that writing, story, acting, lighting, and real effort are what it takes to crank out a good film, reguardless of whether it's shot on a high dollar prosumer camera, or my TRV280 digital 8. I'm a noob to filmmaking, but I really want to give it my best shot.

For a self proclaimed noob, that's certainly some wisdom, and a great attitude.


So. I have this TRV280 digital 8, which I want to shoot a couple of projects with to learn from and cut my teeth on. I'm a graphic artist as a living, so I know my way around all the Adobe products, as well as some 3d packages, and some NLE's. I'm technically competent to edit I think. Where I might be not competent to edit is in the things I mentioned above, the writing, lighting, and overall meat and potatoes of filmmaking. So I want to do a few experiments.

In my opinion, there is no better way to grow your filmmaking style than experiments. Don't be afraid to do something "wrong" - as it very well might lead to something you like. That is important, to learn what you like - and make it repeatable. Hands-on wins hands down over book learning - although learning all you can (from good sources particularly) should be a very high priority as well.


I want to decide whether I have what it takes to write and direct a good film. I'm going to start small. I have a kind of documentary/tutorial style video idea, in which I will detail the construction of an art project I did, and show the viewer how they can use the same tools and materials to achieve similar results. This is my funding project. I hope to be able to put enough value on a DVD that people will pay me 15$ at events for an extras packed DVD related to the hobby. (the hobby is computer case modding, I might add, something I feel I'm pretty good at) And with distro like RocketIndie, that might be easy to do once I have something put together ;)

Go for it - writing and directing a good film is only the half of it, if even that - the fact that before you're make anything you're thinking about how to sell it - well, that's the other half at the very least.


Then I want to do a few 10 or 20 minute shorts, and try to see what I can do at film festivals. Maybe I'll need something better than a TRV280, but the way I see it, if I can create a 10 minute film for next to no budget and get a decent response, I can justify spending more money to make better stuff to get a better response.

If it's the TRV280 you're going to use, it may be a good idea to simply not try to mask that fact. Let the digital 8 be a digital 8 - incorporating that into how you tell the story, and not trying to pretend it's a Red One. It's been done to death sure, but what the hell hasn't? Come up with your own spin on it and see how it goes. If you're going to move on up to another camera - so be it. I'm one of those, it's not the camera, it's the person behind it guys - that said, there are some things you're not going to be as cognisant of working with a TRV280, simply because they're not readily accesable or the option doesn't exist on the camera - although you can learn proper framing and a good deal of basics with damn near anything, even your hands made into a square in front of your eyes.


So my dilemma is, at what point do I need to look at getting an HVX / XHA1? I'd really like to shoot in HD, so I can get used to working with it. Since my target format for my documentary/howto is DVD, I'm sure the TRV280 will be fine. For film festivals, it might be ok? Will I get laughed out of the building for shooting on a TRV280? (Probably not if my filmmaking is really solid?)

Get the HVX/XHA1 whenever you personally think it's necessary, and not because you just want one. If you simply think you've outgrown the TRV280, that you've taken it as far as it will take you - that's a good time to upgrade, that or if you need one for a gig - which is usually the circumstance I upgrade under. Truth is, in general, the source medium matters less than the quality of the audio - the example everyone gives here is Blair Witch Project. If it sounds good, people will put up with a craptacular image far longer than if it doesn't sound good.


Ultimately I want to do a feature indy film. When I get that far, I want to shoot HD. Granted distribution will probably be on DVD, so I will need to downsize it, but the quality will definately be there, and I'll have a HD master should I ever decide to go to film (invest that 40k) with it. I'm looking at doing that in a year or two, so I probably shouldn't be even asking the camera question now. By then things will probably come way down in price or I can rent something.

Renting is always a viable option, and depending on your needs, may be the best option. Personally, even though I have a few camera(s), if I had to choose between having a camera available at all time and having an NLE, I'd get the NLE, and the cheapest way to get my stuff into the computer, over and over and over again. That said, have you considered the Canon HV20 (especially if you're leaning towards the A1) - then you can start getting into HD, take a step up from the Sony, and have a camera to to bring your A1 footage in with so you don't wear out the heads- or heck use it to make your movies to start with?


Sorry for ranting and getting a little off topic, but I'm inspired :)

:beer:

[dogcat]

i think the original question that was posed about the film look should really have been answered that yes, he was going to get the film look he wanted from the hvx. I don't think he was refering to anything other than the 24p that panny is famous for. Using it in sd is a good way to learn tons. You will quickly grow to want more from yourself and the cam. As you start learning in sd you save cash for an hd workflow. Unless you want distribution and easier festival entry, you won't need hd. Also, don't expect your first attempt at anything to get you anywhere more than experienced. So i say start working on your ideas, and keep the projects very small. Learn the rule of thirds, and your' on your way. If you are not confident that the film medium is for you, buy the dvx. Otherwise not getting the hvx will make you feel handicapped.

[Duct Tape Films]

i think the original question that was posed about the film look should really have been answered that yes, he was going to get the film look he wanted from the hvx. I don't think he was refering to anything other than the 24p that panny is famous for. Using it in sd is a good way to learn tons. You will quickly grow to want more from yourself and the cam. As you start learning in sd you save cash for an hd workflow. Unless you want distribution and easier festival entry, you won't need hd. Also, don't expect your first attempt at anything to get you anywhere more than experienced. So i say start working on your ideas, and keep the projects very small. Learn the rule of thirds, and your' on your way. If you are not confident that the film medium is for you, buy the dvx. Otherwise not getting the hvx will make you feel handicapped.

I don't blame you for not reading the whole thread, but the original poster, and perhaps you, are/was (as in the original poster "DirectX's" case - see his post just a few above on this page) are/were (in his case) working from under the misimpression, that somehow the XH-A1 is not capable of the "film look". If that is so for you, I suggest you read Barry Green's HXV vs. XH-A1 article for shorthand, and this thread fully - especially all of Barry's great responses. His question was specifically answered, from multiple points of view, each valid, weighing all the positives and negatives of each camera he was considering, and then some, and he did ask if the Canon XH-A1 would be suitable for what he was planning, a documentary if you'll note - and the XH-A1 is third on his list in the original question. The thread has disgressed at this point, and will probably die off, but at this point - does it really matter if it digresses slightly? Understand, it is a misnomer that only the Panasonic DVX-100 (which I've owned for years and love), and HVX-200 (which I've used a few times, and also love, but have no use for owning - I'm a doc guy) are capable of a "film look". If you don't believe me, read what I've suggested, look at some footage, and then go to your local rental house and rent one.

Short hand of some of the discussion....

In many documentarians' case, which is what the original poster plans to do with the camera for the most part it sounds like, the HVX can be highly impractical, and the XH-A1 may be FAR more suited to the task. If he was only making narratives - HVX all the way if possible. Docs: XH-A1/G1/H1 are simply more long form friendly right now, at a price point that allows the camera to be long form friendly. (Meaning, yes the HVX certainly CAN be long form friendly - but we don't want to make this guy to have to move back in with his mother). If a DVX, a used one with low head hours - it will be the cheapest way in, save him the most money that he can use on other things, and moreover, a new DVX is overpriced, and needs to come down in price if it wants to remain competitive. There were many wishes expressed along the way that Panny would offer something HD 24P in direct competition with the Canon, in between the DVX & HVX, not only in cost and features, but directed at documentarians, and other folks who cannot give up wasting tape like directors who work with improvisational narrative material. The HVX or a used DVX may be the answer for some people, for this fella, it may very well be the XH-A1 right now, as it sounds like he not only has 24P needs, but long form needs as well.

[dogcat]

He also mentioned he had no problem working with dv tapes on a new hvx. If he's not experienced then that's a great way to grow into your' own camera. If he was experienced then maybe he would know exactly what workflow he needs. That being the case , the hvx is the right camera to grow with. But i do agree with you Duck, the canon can pack a whop. It does have a film look, no one said it doesn't. At the same time you are on a dvx (Panny) forum, so you're swimming against the tide.

[Duct Tape Films]

He also mentioned he had no problem working with dv tapes on a new hvx. If he's not experienced then that's a great way to grow into your' own camera. If he was experienced then maybe he would know exactly what workflow he needs. That being the case , the hvx is the right camera to grow with. But i do agree with you Duck, the canon can pack a whop. It does have a film look, no one said it doesn't. At the same time you are on a dvx (Panny) forum, so you're swimming against the tide.

Yeah, which is viable, if one could actually hold off from the HD section, and not turn around and get the P2 cards/Firestore/what have you the next day - if this camera would actually fit his style of working - but you did also read the part about his purchase of an HVX would prompt him to have to move back in with his mother right? It's obvious that his set of circumstances are such that, at the very least, the HVX is out of his price range in and of itself - which is probably a good enough reason to rule that camera out in favor of an XH-A1 or at an even lower price point, a used DVX. All things that were responded to him in the thread.

Well aware this forum was originally formed as a DVX forum, I have been here since close the beginning, when Noah first started the thing shortly after the camera came out. Just because the name of a forum is one thing, it doesn't mean that someone asking a particular set of questions should get a pat answer without taking into account their circumstances, especially when another brand of camera is part of their original question. His set of circumstances were docs, "maybe" narratives, HVX will make me move back with mom. If even talking about, or suggesting someone take a look at non-Panny camera, based on the needs of the person, & the merits and drawbacks of all three models, is enough to say someone's swimming against the tide, you might want to read Barry's posts as well.

How buying the HVX, with those circumstances taken into account - and only to use it as a DV camera - is the best suggestion, or possibly not the worst choice for him between those three cameras with his specific needs in mind is beyond me. He's more or less starting from scratch, and getting the camera is the least of it. This thread made it this far WITHOUT turning into a pissing match between the HVX, XH-A1, and the DVX somehow - they are all just tools after all, and you've got to pick the right one for the job - and you'll see above the poster is quite happy with the advice he's received.

[dogcat]

fair enough

[DirectX]

I HAVE received some great advice in this forum and I feel comfortable with my choice. I'm not ruling out the HVX for the future (quite the opposite) as directing/making independent films is a dream of mine as well. Unfortunately, at this point in time I'm not surrounded by people who share my interest in film and as much as I'd like to do it all, film is a collaborative effort. Hence the move to Orlando this fall. I'm pretty much starting from scratch as Duct Tape pointed out. A documentary would be an easier project to start off with as it doesn't necessarily require as much of a crew (or even any). My first project this fall is a travel style documentary with a friend of mine that lives in a small town with a rich history on the East coast of Florida. Not much, but it's start. When I first started reading this forum I was very concerned about the "film look". The more I learn, the more that expression makes me cringe. Whether or not it's your taste in movies "28 Days Later" (filmed with a Canon BTW) proved that it's the story that makes the difference. My opinion is if you don't have a good story with compelling characters (or can find someone who does and can write) why bother? As my needs change I'll probably get an HVX down the road or I may find that the Canon will suit my needs for narrative as well. As Duct Tape also pointed out, getting a camera will be the least of my challenges :) I appreciate ALL the advice and it's nice to see a forum where people aren't ripping each other to shreds.

Mark

[ZephyrStar]

:beer:

Ordered my trv280 + battery today, might try some fun stuff soon. Probably will be choosing Vegas as my NLE. (will probably add photoshop later).

Thanks again for the great info and attitudes here, I'm glad there are mature people around :)

(oh, also will be re-watching my copy of 28 Days Later carefully, never knew it was shot on a Canon)

[DirectX]

ZephyrStar (http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/member.php?u=24487),

It is nice not to have attitudes here, especially for a newbie like me. You bought a trv280? Hah! What a piece of crap. Loser. LOL...just kidding :)
I might need to get that one too as I have some wedding videos that I filmed in Hi8 for relatives that I've been promising them for oh I don't know...about 5 years now. Digital 8 is a great format...miss my old HI8 camcorder :(

Mark

[Simmy]

Guys, one thing i couldn't really see in here is just how much the DVX100b camera is?

I live in the UK so i would be purchasing one from here, just to be on the safe side. Can someone tell me where the best places to buy one are, and how much (preferrably in pounds) one costs new and used?

I've never owned a camera before but im DESPERATE to give film-making a huge shot. I've got ideas buzzing around in my head but with no means of turning them into a reality without a camera, and i'm thinking the DVX-100b looks like a great camera for both newcomer and expert alike.

Hope someone can help me out here and i hope i've posted this in the right area... If not, correct me and i'll move it to a more appropriate area :)

EDIT: I've also noticed there's a DVX102B camera. I live in scotland, just what one should i be going for? I'm guessing PAL version is my best bet.

I'm so clueless in this field... Everyone has to start somewhere though, so hopefully someone can guide me in the right direction :)

EDIT (Part 2): Ok, just found the camera here for £1999

http://www.videokit.co.uk/cgi-bin/store1/commerce.cgi?product=CAMCORDERS!PANASONIC&pid=72.htm

Is this probably the best price I can hope for for this camera in the UK?

Also, my work has a lot of tripods available; will this camera work with most tripods? Is there a standard?

[Noel Evans]

WOW this thread is refreshing. Lots of great advice and narly a whisper of my gun is bigger than yours.

DirectX I got your email, and seems others have really said enough about camera choices. But based on other things you mentioned I wanted to somewhat point you in some directions for further information.

First point of call is the Audio section of this forum. Go back as far as you can and read as many posts as you can about mic choices for situations and how best to get the best audio for your budget. There are AUDIO pros that use the audio forum and lots of great info. Dont spend a cent until you have a grasp on what you actually need , and cant rent (cheaper and will getter you better equipment for your $ - better yet hire a sound guy with his won equipment). You may prefer your own, but still save your $ until you have a clear understanding.

Lighting - do the same. Then go to a retailer and if they have lights out - see if you can turn them on to see what lights mentioned in the forum are what. Then once your done there (especially as you stated you wanted to start on doco) - for one mans perspective on head shots for interviews (a perspective I happen to subscribe to) get The head shot and light and shade - both DVDs by Walter Graff. Available from here: http://www.bluesky-web.com/new-pagemerchandise.html

A book I recommend to you - since youre alone in the world on this right now - and one that will give you a good perspective on what your aiming for is Sidney Lumets - Making Movies.

[Simmy]

Anyone able to help me with my questions earlier on this page?

Thanks :)

[Huy Vu]

Anyone able to help me with my questions earlier on this page?

Thanks :)

I don't really know how much the DVX and the A1 goes for in the UK but here in the US the DVX isn't priced attractively enough at this point. It's roughly $3300-3400 without a rebate while the A1 is $3500 with a rebate that brings it down to $3250. Comparatively priced, the A1 is the better value because it does MOST of what the DVX does, and it does it in HD. I would recommend you wait a few months to see if Panna decides to bring down the price on the DVX, because if you're looking at prices, A1 currently offer better value for the money.