1st Feature Camera Choice

seunosewa said:
The best thing about HDV camcorders is that they all have a DV mode.
Click to expand...

That may be true, but for the price range, a DVX is better and has more image control.

seunosewa said:
The second best thing about HDV editing is that it doesn't require that much juice. My single core[/b] PM laptop can play HDV videos in real time, so how can editing HDV be a problem for the average editing systems?
Click to expand...


I can play DVCPRO HD videos on my dell desktop with Intel 1.8GHz Core 2 Duo processor, but that doesn't mean I can edit those clips. Any HD format requires a lot of power for editing because of the added resolution. Also, rendering will take you a hell of a lot of time without at least 3 GHz of power and at least 4 GB of RAM.

seunosewa said:
Things get a little bit slower when you start applying visual effects to your high definition footage, but: (1) You don't have to do this. (2) All it requires from you is a bit more patience if you can't afford a new PC (3) For many projects, you can do it all in camera using the extensive manual controls on expensive camcorders.
Click to expand...

Transitions would be considered visual effects because the computer has to make a seperate clip of those fades or whatever. Rendering those would be a pain in the ass. And also, doing those effects in camera requires an expensive camera. Key Word: "EXPENSIVE" - LIKE WAY OVER BUDGET.
 
Should I start a poll and see which cameras get the most votes. If I'm willing to go used I think all of the cameras listed below would be within budget.


1. Used HVX200 fire wire into a laptop
2. New DVX100b
3. Used Canon XH A1
4. 2 NewCanon HV 30's then I could go 2nd angle + have a back up
5. Used JVC GY-HD100


I want to start shooting the 1st of August, so time is getting away from me. Remember my parameters. I need low light capabilites, minimal panning, hope-
fully staying around 5K allowing upgrades to my PC or swithcing to a Mac & FCP. I already have lighting and sound covered. Thanks!!!
 
Last edited:
If you want HD, and are willing to buy a used HD100/110 and a FCP system, which would put you a little over budget, then I recommend you read this article that I found in HD Video Pro:

http://www.digitalcinemainfo.com/jvcprofessional_11_14_07.php

If a GY-HD100 was good enough for 35mm, it's most likely good enough for your purposes. I am almost sold on getting one for a concert I will be shooting this August.

Good Luck in your search.
 
JCal11379 said:
That may be true, but for the price range, a DVX is better and has more image control.
Click to expand...

JCal - honestly where do you get your info? The A1, has far more image control than a DVX. Sorry to keep pulling you up like this but in real world youre making invalid statements that mislead.

Ive used both cameras extensively and know the real world pros and cons. Heres a quote I just found reading another thread, which supports me in what I am saying (doesnt talk about the DVX, but HVX. But the point remains). The DVX is a good camera and I loved using it, Im not saying it isnt. I just have a problem when the real world is skewed by interpretations.

Dennis Wood said:
Here's a few more thoughts for you on the XH-A1 vs HVX200

1. The guys from FreshDV tested the HVX200's DVCPROHD 100, compared to the EX1 35Mbit variation HDV, and found that the pany codec did not hold up nearly as well as expected at its high bit rate. Canon's HDV codec is excellent at 25Mbits and their implementation is better than the older Sony HDV cams.

2. Resolution wise, the XH-A1 has more than the HVX200, even in 24f mode.

3. In low light I find the HVX200 image very noisy, less so with the Canon. Both need good light to get very clean images. Our HPX500 (2/3" chips) is incredibly clean, and if the HVX200a comes close, then I'd have a close look.

4. The XH-A1 does have chromatic issues, however they disappear when using our flipped config MP.1 lens adapter. I haven't tested any other flip adapters...so I can't comment on them. The XH-A1 lens with respect to close macro focus (edge to edge sharpness) is close to perfect.

5. The XH-A1 presets are outstanding and offer a huge amount of image control. Using the camera in its "stock" mode is a big mistake particularly when a great variety of presets can be freely downloaded and transferred via an SD card.

6. We've been using both P2 cards and SxS cards here and I have to admit that with a laptop, capturing footage via the ether express slot is miles faster than tape. With a 1920x1200 pixel screen we can instantly preview footage right from P2 or SxS cards to ensure we didn't miss anything. The solid state workflow is incredibly efficient and almost 100% of our studio shoots are done on P2 or SxS these days. That said, if going on an extended shoot where equipment had to be limited...I'd bring our XH-A1 and a few tapes.

7. You didn't mention overcranking but the HVX200 and EX1 are your only options under $7000 if this is required. You can get excellent slow motion from the XH-A1, but it requires a lot of rendering time and a steep learning curve if you're using tools like Twixtor.

8. The Panasonic "Cinegamma" footage (DVX/HVX/HPX) has an organic feel to it that no other camera quite emulates.

9. If you plan on a lot of keying/green screen use, then 4:2:2 (DVCPROHD) is best. HDSDI to a capture card from the EX1, or XH-G1 would work well too at 4:2:2 for studio use.

9. Battery life on the XH-A1 with the larger battery is something like 8 hours...it blows every other camera we have out of the water in that regard.

If you're considering the XH-A1 vs the HVX200 then you really should be looking at the XH-A1 vs the HVX200a or EX1. One thing to consider though is that you can likely purchase two XH-A1s under $7000..and you don't need to budget another $1000(s) for cards.

Hope that helps with your decision :-)
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
I've actually used both in the real world and I prefer the DVX over the XH-A1 or any other HDV camera. I never like the HDV format and found it to be troublesome compared to the DVCPRO HD format. Now, I have used the HVX in B&H and liked it, but I think the 1/3" sensors really hurt the performance, but now the new HVX200a has new sensors that are less noisy and better resolution. That is the same price as the original HVX, so you would have to compare that new one to the XH-A1 to be a fair comparison. If you compare an HDV camera to a DVCPRO HD camera, both with 1/3" sensors and shooting the same format, let's say 1080/24p/f, then the HDV format may be better, just for the fact that it is a consumer format, meant to get the best quality out of small sensors. Use any camera that shoots native progressive with 2/3" sensors, like the HPX500, and compare it to a comparable camera using the HDV format, then the HPX would be so much better. In other words, for small sensors, HDV is better. The only reason that I don't recommend the HDV format is because it requires more editing power and there is no real way to distribute it in full 1080i/p.
 
The DVX100B and the XH-A1 are not in the same price range. The XH-A1 is approximately $1000 more than a DVX100B. Of course, I am not taking into account a comparison between a new DVX and a used A1 because I, personally, would not even consider buying used video equipment. When buying used, one is never really sure what one is getting. For me, it would be adding just one more worry to the filmmaking process.

When I was ready to purchase my own, high-end digital camcorder a few months ago, I did pretty much the same thing Focal 7 is doing right now: I read everything I could find on the different cameras and formats, balancing costs against what it was I wanted to do.

As for the work for my film class (I am a graduate student working on a Master of Arts Degree in Digital Media) I have a Panasonic PV GS320 that is more than adequate for the task. I wanted a professional level camera because, like Focal 7, I want to make a feature length horror film of my own (among other projects).

Of course, I realized that a theatrical release for my film is unlikely and that release to DVD is most probably the final output medium that will be used. In this case, an HD camera is overkill. Output to DVD (MPEG2) down rezzes even the DVX100B's image quality. Besides, the image quality of the DVX100B is more than adequate for transfer to film when done by a competent lab.

But the costs do not stop at the initial purchase price of the camcorder. To edit HD, I would have had to build a more powerful (and more expensive) PC to properly handle the HD editing process. But then, output to DVD would down rez the final product back down to SD level. Yes, I am aware of Blue-Ray, but it has not yet made that much of an impact on the market and DVD is still the most common format and probably will be for a few years yet.

Further, to work with HD, I would have to buy a new NLE such as Premiere Pro, costing another $800 or so, in order to process and edit the footage.

Once I had considered the cost/quality equation, I realized that, in my opinion, the DVX100B strikes a very good balance between the two and is an excellant choice for the budget-minded independent filmmaker.

We who have been responding to this thread have gotten away from answering Focal 7's needs (a suitable camera and support system for a low/no budget feature) and have let the thread fall into an argument over HD vs SD.

There is no argument that HD has better image quality than SD. But the question is, does Focal 7 need a more expensive HD camera and its more expensive support systems?

No one would argue that the image quality of modern, theatrical films has improved dramatically over the past one hundred years. Film technology has advanced by light years over the decades and films produced since 1980 have much better image quality than those produced, say, in the 1940s. Yet people still watch the old movies (many in black and white) and enjoy them just as much as they do the more recent stuff. Why? Because it's the story that grabs them, not the medium by which it is told.

If entering a film festival is one's aim, then DVD seems to be the most common format for many of the festivals, though some are still screening 16mm film. I can attest that images from a DVX100B look great on the big screen and do, indeed, rival film. The thing is, at film festivals, content is king. It's the story, acting, and basic cinematography that count. I would be willing to bet that a film shot on grainy Super 8mm film would beat out one shot with the most expensive 35mm film or HD camera, if the Super 8mm film had the more engaging story.

Focal 7 has asked advice on what camera would best suit his need for producing a low/no budget film. He says he has a good script and, we assume, good talent. The question is, then, does he need to spend all the extra money to produce his film on HD or would a quality SD camera suit his purpose; allowing more money to be spent on other production necessities?

One must consider all the peripheral costs involved in making a feature film. First, there are the travel expenses of getting to selected locations. With gas at over $4 per gallon, this is not a small consideration these days. Then there is the feeding of the cast and crew. They might be working for free, but you can't let them starve, even if all you provide is a cooler full of cold drinks and sandwich makings. Then there are such things as props, makeup etc. There is more to making a feature film than buying a camera and going out to shoot. At least, not if you want a good movie as your outcome.

Personally, I believe that acquiring a new DVX100B would suit that purpose admirably. It would be a new camera, protected by a warranty, that has been an industry standard for years. The DVX100 series of cameras are still being used for the production of network TV programming. It's Always Sunny in Philadelphia and Arrested Development, for example, were produced using the DVX100 series. In addition, its lower costs (both in purchase and use) would leave more money to be used for all the other expenses of producing a good movie.

Granted, everyone has his or her own favorite camera and preferred format. We have all made our own choices based on personal needs, esthetics and budget. But Focal 7's request requires logical consideration, not techno-snobbery (no offense meant). What camera/format would be the most cost effective and best fit Focal 7's situation? What would best allow him to make the feature he wants to make, within the budget he has to work with? What would allow him to concentrate on the more important aspects of making his film rather than how much money he has left to spend on it?

I, personally, actually prefer tape to P2 or SD cards. My reasoning is simple: P2 cards are very expensive. Oh, sure, you can reuse them again and again, but each time you do, you've lost what was on it before. If you're going to make a feature film for distribution, you'll need to keep all of your raw footage intact for archival purposes. At hundreds of dollars per, that can amount to some significant expense. Tape is cheap and all your raw footage can be stored away for future use, if need be.

Focal 7, it all boils down to this: which camera/format will allow you to make your film the best you can, within your budget, with a final product in which you can take a measure of pride?

You have a film to make, a story to tell. All this quibbling is just getting in the way of doing what you really want to do. Any one of the cameras mentioned in this thread will do the job. You just have to decide, for yourself, which one fits your needs now and keeps you within your financial limits.
 
Last edited:
Paladin,
Thank you for bringing my questions back in focus. I had no intention of seeing this thread grow into what it has. I just had a few simple questions.
Buy the way, my total budget for this flick is 15k......I just allowed 5K for equipment. I was originally going with the DVX 100b and just trying to see if you folks thought the HV-30 would cut the mustard. The XH A1, HVX200, & JVC units were a little out of my price range, but I figured if I could buy a used, low hour unit off a trusted board member, I would be all right. Thanks again everyone for your help. I am sure I will have more questions during the shoot, but I will be more specific with those.
 
For a movie, the main problem with the HV30 (or an other consumer CAM) is low light performance. If your lighting kit is limited in strength, and most of your scenes are indoor scenes this can be a serious issue. Image controls can be a minor issue.

If you can afford $2600 for a DVX (amazon.com) out of a $5000 budget, I don't see why you can't afford a $3200 XH A1 (amazon.com). I just don't see it.

If you go with the DVX, I'm sure you'll still make a fine film. But it's 2008, for goodness sake! That's all we're saying. It's like buying a new SD TV in the US in 2008! It's going to work perfectly well, but it's just not a timely choice.
 
Hmm. As a matter of fact, I did just buy a new SD, 4:3 TV, simply because I needed a new TV and the HD TVs are too expensive for my budget and, as seunosewa pointed out, it works perfectly well for my purposes.

'Nuff said.
 
Hate to start any argument, but how many channels produce HD content, I have Time Warner Cable and have seen Direct TV, both have less than 110 channels in HD, so what would be the point unless all you want to watch is in HD? Then, by all means, buy a $800+ TV, but for me, I don't need an expensive HDTV...but I would sure as hell like one.
 
It's not really 75-85%, more like 50-60% (depending on the size), but any savings means buying more accessories for you camera: on camera lights, more batteries, DTE Recorders, etc. I know I would like to buy a DTE recorder if I saved some money from a purchase.
 
DVX 100B on Amazon.com => $2663.99 with $250 rebate.
Canon XH A1 on Amazon.com => $3299.88 with 20 free photo prints.
Without rebate => 80.73%. With rebate => 73.15%.

Another reason not to buy a DV cam: In the NTSC world, DV cams record with 4:1:1 color sampling while DVDs are recorded with 4:2:0 color sampling. This mismatch could lead to weird color artifacts in your DVDs. (Fortunately I'm in PAL-land)
 
i like this Paladin cat telling them wats wats haha, i too am in a similar situation regarding whether i should buy the dvx or hdv for features projects. Here in Europe the A1 is a good 500euro more which is not a lot but a lot if ya havent got it. The main thing that bothers me with the dvx is its 4.3 chip so your losing resolution whatever way ya go regarding a 16.9 look. However if ya shoot real well the loss of resolution might not be a problem if your trying to interest distributors. I think i'm gona buy the dvx but if i had a trusty friend with a low hours a1 then? I'm guessing if both cameras are used right with all the rest of it i.e. production design, concept, actors and all that, i say either would suffice...
 
hahaha theres nothing wrong with a hv30, i thought you mentioned elsewhere ya had hvx? I want a pro cam and can afford one and i think the time has come for me to get one. The Hv30 dosent add much of a professionalism vibe to your production, if ur working with aspiring actors and crew i feel they'd be more involved if your not using "your daddies little hi8 camcorder" and working with something more professional - it depends on the individual and what stage of your creative journey your at. That said use watever you got...we've never had it so good
 
lol. no harm no foul worley. yeah, i have the hv20, dvx100b and hvx200a. specs and codecs and numbers and whatnot are all meaningful and great, but if you ask me, it all comes down to the image you can squeeze out of your camera, and what you like best.

and you're definitely right. we've never had it so good.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top