Buying a new camera and need HELP
- Thread starter nho
- Start date
Don't get the GH1. DSLR cameras can produce great images, but there are still too many challenges for them to be reliable as primary cameras.
Regarding the Glidecam, a 2000 will be enough for any of the smaller cameras but you'll be pushing it past its limit with an XL2. Remember also that the Glidecam alone is hand-held and you'll tire very quickly in any given shot... the lighter the better, but you really need to look at vest support if you're seriously wanting to use a Glidecam.
As for SD vs. HD, for film school it's not going to matter that much. The DVX(100a/100b) is still a very relevant, capable camera that can look great projected in a theater or up-rezzed to HD. It may be your most economical choice, and will serve you well.
Past that, it really boils down to the camera that you are most comfortable with, and that you feel can yield the best results in your hands. The quality of the footage depends on the skill of the shooter, not so much on which camera or NLE is used.
Regarding the Glidecam, a 2000 will be enough for any of the smaller cameras but you'll be pushing it past its limit with an XL2. Remember also that the Glidecam alone is hand-held and you'll tire very quickly in any given shot... the lighter the better, but you really need to look at vest support if you're seriously wanting to use a Glidecam.
As for SD vs. HD, for film school it's not going to matter that much. The DVX(100a/100b) is still a very relevant, capable camera that can look great projected in a theater or up-rezzed to HD. It may be your most economical choice, and will serve you well.
Past that, it really boils down to the camera that you are most comfortable with, and that you feel can yield the best results in your hands. The quality of the footage depends on the skill of the shooter, not so much on which camera or NLE is used.
nho
Well-known member
yes, and no.
I really don't like it when people say that. if you gave a $400 sears camera to darren aronofsky, sure, he'll probably film some story that is awesome, but will it LOOK good? will the picture actually be clear? will there be any kind of shallow depth of field? will the audio be clear? will the coloring of it all look nice? of course not.
all of those things come into play when creating a film that lives up to one's standards. if you don't have any standards for those eye-pleasing aspects, then sure the story will be cool, but it will look awful. there is also plenty of stuff out that there looks great but has an awful story. it's about perfecting both of those aspects.
I'm sorry that you don't like it, but it's the truth. Of course, VHS and crap formats like that aren't (necessarily) factored in here, but even Hi8 has been used in talented hands in the past.
As for clear picture, the smaller the chip, the more light is needed. Even lesser cameras can look stunning if there's enough light... so yeah, that $400 camera might just be enough if the director knows how to light for it. Panasonic has a new HD camera that's selling for $300, and I have seen footage out of it that blew me away. And as limited as the controls are in them, the Canon Vixia HV20/30/40 cameras have certainly taken off, even in indie film making.
If it's shot with enough light, the color grading is all a matter of post. As for DOF, that can be cheated in small cameras by backing the camera up and zooming in... but shallow DOF is not the mark of "professional" film production. Folks get 35mm adapters thinking that it is, and then proceed to shoot everything shallow. "Professionally," it's used sparingly and intentionally.
And sound? Well, if you are relying on in-camera audio to compare/evaluate professional sound, you're never going to make it. Good, clean sound depends on a pretty hefty audio kit with a secondary recorder. It also depends on a dedicated, and experienced, sound person to put that kit to its most effective use.
And at the heart of effective film making? Putting the tools and resources you have available to you to the best use in order to craft your story, no matter how in/expensive they may be. You can talk all you want about "standards for those eye pleasing aspects." People said that about the DVX when it first came out ("it'll never be an acceptable film maker's tool... film is king"). Look at motion pictures like "Broken," shot entirely on the DVX. $50k film camera, or $3k miniDV? And yes, it looks good. Standards are changing.
Digital technology is catching up with film more and more each hour, and even though film is still used on most big-budget Hollywood films, miniDV and other compact cameras are still very useful. Lots of seasoned vets scoffed at the idea of shooting a compressed format with miniDV until it was battle-tested. Same with MPEG compression... but look at XDCAM and the new h.264 HD! It just took some folks realizing that it's lack of being "standard" didn't mean it wasn't useful. Hell... Soderbergh shot a feature with an XL-1 when it first came out.
Even the new vDSLR cameras have their critics. They also have their fans, and have already been used for some amazing things. I think they have a little way to go yet, but they are still ready for smaller projects (needing a secondary audio system, by the way).
Like I said, this all boils down to what you think you can do with any given tool. Do what you want, but if you aren't willing to hear other opinions or advice, don't ask.
Last edited:
I'm a little bit biased, but I'd go with a panasonic hmc150 if you can afford it and find it used. I just finished a little mini-fest in my film practicum class. Everyone else used the school's GL2's, but I borrowed the panny from a friend and the quality was night an day (among those films). It's HD (which won't be as soft as SD in full size projection), 24p, AVCHD (SD cards), has all the manual controls you'll need, great in low light, xlr for audio, wide enough lens to think twice about an WA adapter (28mm), great cine-gamma, and smaller form factor than an xl2 for skate videos.
XH-A1 is pretty close to the 150, the codec is easier to edit and will be a little bit sharper (but not extensively) when blown up.
XL2/DVX is a personal preference, mostly dependent on form factor (big or small) but they are both great SD cams for narrative work.
Honestly, depending on your budget I'd spend more cash on accessories if your school doesn't have em (mine is lacking in gear). You need lights, audio gear, and a pro tripod more than a more expensive camera, you'll much happer with the results that way.
DoF adapters are great, but require more light, and if you know your camera well and plan your shots beforehand, you can get a lot of the same benefit from simply moving back and zooming in (space permitting).
Good luck with your purchase! I wish could afford a new (or used) cam right now. I'm always stuck borrowing if I need something bigger than my pv-gs500.
XH-A1 is pretty close to the 150, the codec is easier to edit and will be a little bit sharper (but not extensively) when blown up.
XL2/DVX is a personal preference, mostly dependent on form factor (big or small) but they are both great SD cams for narrative work.
Honestly, depending on your budget I'd spend more cash on accessories if your school doesn't have em (mine is lacking in gear). You need lights, audio gear, and a pro tripod more than a more expensive camera, you'll much happer with the results that way.
DoF adapters are great, but require more light, and if you know your camera well and plan your shots beforehand, you can get a lot of the same benefit from simply moving back and zooming in (space permitting).
Good luck with your purchase! I wish could afford a new (or used) cam right now. I'm always stuck borrowing if I need something bigger than my pv-gs500.
nho
Well-known member
I get the feeling that you're trying to insult be by, pretty much saying, the reason for me wanting a new and better camera, which doesn't actually exist according to you, is because I think I need a crutch to make my films look better because I have no talent, but they actually won't even look better because, like yo usaid, the camera in no way affects image quality or my final product, only talent, which again, I feel you're saying I pretty much don't have simply because I'm asking about a better camera.
I'm really having a hard time wrapping my head around the fact that you're telling me the image produced will look the way I want it to no matter what camera I use, as long as I have talent. is that not like saying a professional race car driver will win the indy 500 even if he uses a 2001 ford focus? That the car doesn't matter, just his driving talent? is that not like saying a baby will work just as well as Daniel Day-Lewis in a film because it's not about the actor, it's about the talent of the artist creating the film? Should the driver feel bad for wanting a better car? Should Paul Thomas Anderson feel bad for wanting Daniel Day-Lewis rather than a baby?
Will HD not look better when blown up vs. that sears camera? Will lighting echniques I use not come in clearer or not work better with a higher-end camera? Doe 24fps not matter anymore? (why is it used in larger-budget films?) Should the driver feel bad for wanting a better car? Should Paul Thomas Anderson feel bad for wanting Daniel Day-Lewis rather than a baby?
Is it your intention to make me feel bad about wanting a higher end camera than the sears one? I'm not saying it is your intention, but it certainly seems like it.
It sounds to me like he's saying the camera doesn't do miracles. Which one shouldn't get defensive about.
There's someone on another forum I go to who answers all of these threads with videos he and his partner shoot on a $500 camera with good lighting and composition. They look pretty damn good, because they concentrate enough on the important parts. Yes, the camera will change the look; but not nearly as much as all the other elements.
That said, the jump from SD to HD makes a very noticable difference.
The options your looking at all give you manual controls and have no major issues. So you should be fine with any of them. The only thing that actually matters is your personal preference. So see if you can find some, or something similar, to try out for a few minutes first.
There's someone on another forum I go to who answers all of these threads with videos he and his partner shoot on a $500 camera with good lighting and composition. They look pretty damn good, because they concentrate enough on the important parts. Yes, the camera will change the look; but not nearly as much as all the other elements.
That said, the jump from SD to HD makes a very noticable difference.
The options your looking at all give you manual controls and have no major issues. So you should be fine with any of them. The only thing that actually matters is your personal preference. So see if you can find some, or something similar, to try out for a few minutes first.
Oh, for Pete's sake.
This is not about you personally (starts singing Carley Simon quietly to himself).
I am in no way trying to insult you. You're taking this way too personally. If you go back to my original post, I said that the DVX is a fine tool that will serve you well. To elaborate: it produces a professional image (3 CCD), has plenty of manual (pro-level) control, and looks great blown up both to HD and to theater projection. It's also a very cost-effective tool for film school.
I never asserted that camera quality does not impact the image, just that there are ways to make even lesser cameras look really good. And when did I ever assert that you only had enough talent for the "$400 Sears Camera?!" Please...
I gave you my opinion (which you solicited, by the way), but that only goes so far. You can ask everyone you want about which camera you want... lots of it comes down to personal taste and comfort level. So I say again: it really boils down to the camera that you are most comfortable with, and that you feel can yield the best results in your hands.
You're the one who took up arguing that the technology is just as important as the skill. I disagree... and that's NOT a crack at you at all. And you're the one who mentioned the Sears camera. I merely pointed out that the argument there only goes so far, and said absolutely nothing about your personal level of talent/skill in the process.
Yes, the camera can impact image quality. No, it isn't a huge deal if you know how to use it. Yes, folks underestimate their own capabilities and invest too much of it in the technology sometimes. It is not the equipment that necessarily makes you a professional... and I know that can be taken as a limiting statement, as I would never show up on a paid gig (or any gig at all) with a VHS-C handycam.
You want an HVX? If you can afford it, go for it. Hell... buy a RED ONE or a Sony CineAlta for all I care. But for the money that you seem to have available to you, the DVX is still a pretty good contender with a COMPLETE set of image controls at your disposal.
I'm not a fan of the Canon XH-A1. Yeah, it can make some nice images, but there's an audio routing limitation, and the infinite zoom ring is a real pain (slow/soft response, no stops). My personal comfort level prefers something with a stopped zoom ring. I'm also not a fan of CMOS chips, due to rolling shutter and the resulting "Jell-O" vision. And the GH1 (or D90 or 7D) not only has some shooting challenges, but it will require a few more costly accessories, including double-system audio, that will drive up the cost of the $1700+ body alone. I think the DVX will allow you to focus more on telling your story and less on overcoming some of the challenges of newer technology that is still in a relative infancy. There, is that better?
And in the end, you took one sentence out of my first post and decided it was a personal attack, bypassing the meat of what I said. Sheesh. Read the rest of the post again and try not to take it personally.
Last edited:
Nick Walters
Mentholated Member
I must admit I only briefly scanned through all the posts. The intial post though screams for a DVX-100!
I've made many a film on the DVX, and a few in the last year. Hi-def sounds cool and all that, but a solid format, camera, media, and workflow...along with the all present dollar factor calls out to me like siren song "DVX", "DVX".
This comes from an HVX OWNER. I may own hi-def, but I STILL FILM ON DVX. don't confuse yourself with consumer grade compression, still cameras with motion, and sub standard sound...just get what a working man suggests...the good ol' workhorse, DVX-100.
I've made many a film on the DVX, and a few in the last year. Hi-def sounds cool and all that, but a solid format, camera, media, and workflow...along with the all present dollar factor calls out to me like siren song "DVX", "DVX".
This comes from an HVX OWNER. I may own hi-def, but I STILL FILM ON DVX. don't confuse yourself with consumer grade compression, still cameras with motion, and sub standard sound...just get what a working man suggests...the good ol' workhorse, DVX-100.