Junk Camera Cinematography

QuickHitRecord

QuickHitRecord

Veteran
Just for fun, I started a new group on Facebook if anyone is interested. Here's the write up.

Low resolution? Compression artifacts? Clipped highlights? One person's image quality nightmare is another person's sought-after look.

This group is for filmmakers of all levels who want a little break from thinking about image quality. Whether you're someone who enjoys the challenge of trying to shoot something with less than adequate tools, or you just like the lo-fi texture of older point-and-shoots, early smartphones, CCD camcorders, or industrial/security cameras, this group embraces the cameras that serious filmmakers would NEVER use...

Or would they?

Spend as little as possible or use what you already have. Learn the quirks, make something interesting, and experience the creativity that comes with limitations.
Click to expand...

I'm hoping that this group can be a soothing balm for those that feel like there's too much emphasis on new and better gear, or those who just want to shoot something for fun without worrying so much about image quality. It would be great to see some of you in there.
 
Last edited:
Cool idea.

Although I literally have woken up from nightmares in the past five years, freaking out about Hi-8 tape dropouts. When I was shooting mostly film,
one of my first small video cameras I owned was the Sony CCD-TR81, a little Hi-8 fixed lens camcorder. I used it to shoot underwater a lot all over the world shooting off of
dive boats. I ran into some situations with beautiful, once in a lifetime shots of divers with Whale Sharks, big Tiger and Mako sharks, huge fish, Mantas, Eels, night dives that
were completely marred by Hi-8 dropouts. Drove me crazy. But the alternative was dragging a relatively huge Arri SR2 in housing underwater with 10 minute mags. Versus I could
shoot almost an hour with the Sony.

I can deal with lo fi, but those damn huge tape dropouts, not so much.
 
Don’t miss tape in the least. Had an entire shoot ruined for a network from Canada that carried/re-broadcast NFL back in the early 2000’s. They booked me to shoot what were essentially scenics inside the stadium here during a game in a fashion so that they could insert their virtual billboards, graphics, etc. coming back from and going to break, etc. Sent them the tapes(Betacam SP) and they really liked what I did, but it was covered by hits and drop-outs and just an un-airable mess. Unfortunately I didn’t know at the time that the pinch roller had gone out and therefore proper tension couldn’t be maintained on the tape, so it couldn’t record properly.

For some reason, they actually had me go back and re-shoot it after I had my camera repaired and partially paid me for the second shoot(I offered to re-shoot it for free).

And if you’ve ever had a camera lock-up because of humidity and you couldn’t roll when you needed to, you’ll thank God(!) we don’t shoot on tape anymore, either.
 
puredrifting said:
Although I literally have woken up from nightmares in the past five years, freaking out about Hi-8 tape dropouts. When I was shooting mostly film, one of my first small video cameras I owned was the Sony CCD-TR81, a little Hi-8 fixed lens camcorder. I used it to shoot underwater a lot all over the world shooting off of dive boats.
Click to expand...

Would love to see some of this footage if it's online. As I recall from my short-lived Hi-8 days, those cameras needed a lot of light. It would be interesting to see how it did underwater.

Run&Gun said:
Don’t miss tape in the least.
Click to expand...

I love the look of this old cameras but I don't think I could go back to tape. For all of the reasons you mentioned and then some. It is kind of intriguing to me that some of these older cameras had composite out and with the help of a composite to HDMI conversion box, it would be possible to record them digitally. I tried that with an old XH-A1 and was actually pretty impressed with the quality of the footage. But after working with the modern cameras for so long, the dynamic range on that camera was a hard pill to swallow.
 
QuickHitRecord said:
Would love to see some of this footage if it's online. As I recall from my short-lived Hi-8 days, those cameras needed a lot of light. It would be interesting to see how it did underwater.



I love the look of this old cameras but I don't think I could go back to tape. For all of the reasons you mentioned and then some. It is kind of intriguing to me that some of these older cameras had composite out and with the help of a composite to HDMI conversion box, it would be possible to record them digitally. I tried that with an old XH-A1 and was actually pretty impressed with the quality of the footage. But after working with the modern cameras for so long, the dynamic range on that camera was a hard pill to swallow.
Click to expand...

No, this was quite a long time ago, none of this footage is on-line. I have actually been considering buying a Hi-8 deck or camcorder on Ebay because I have a small pile of Hi-8 tapes laying around and no way to view them or edit the material. WIth this rig, I never had any problem with lighting levels since part of the rig was two powerful incandescent underwater lights that were heavy and bulky. The whole Hi-8 cam in housing with the two handles, brackets and video lights weighed, I think, at least 15lbs, maybe 20lbs? I have shot with Betacam sized video cameras underwater and the size and weight was ridiculous, the size of a large block V8 engine and it cost something like $70k or $100k just for the housing.

The Hi-8 underwater footage, other than the dropouts, looked decent, but of course it was interlaced 4x3 480i, which looks pretty primitive these days when we are all shooting 4K or higher.
 
I did this a while back with a crappy handycam.

I remember the post process being basically backwards of my usual trickery so I..

Increased the highlight saturation to induce clipping and other things for example.

And cropped to 4:3

 
A couple short films I shot and acted in 13 years ago with a crappy point and shoot camera that had video on it as an afterthought, in combination with YouTube's poor image quality at the time. 240p!

As I'd put in the YouTube description at the time, "'Pre-visualization' meaning very low production values, shot on a poor quality camera, and quickly put together. Basically, it gets the story across."

The camera recorded to a spinning disk, like a small CD.


 
morgan_moore said:
I did this a while back with a crappy handycam.

I remember the post process being basically backwards of my usual trickery so I..

Increased the highlight saturation to induce clipping and other things for example.

And cropped to 4:3

Click to expand...

That was actually quite funny, using up most of your batteries while waiting in line.
 
Eric Coughlin said:
A couple short films I shot and acted in 13 years ago with a crappy point and shoot camera that had video on it as an afterthought, in combination with YouTube's poor image quality at the time. 240p!

As I'd put in the YouTube description at the time, "'Pre-visualization' meaning very low production values, shot on a poor quality camera, and quickly put together. Basically, it gets the story across."

The camera recorded to a spinning disk, like a small CD.


Click to expand...

I made a couple of these too, back in the day. But you are a much better actor than I ever was.
 
Do 1st gen video DSLRs fall into the "Junk Camera" category? Soft line skipping down sampling, Moiré artifacts, low bitrate, inefficient compression, sub HD output over HDMI, no clean HDMI out, no usable exposure aid, BT.601 color on Canons, etc.
 
Imamacuser said:
Do 1st gen video DSLRs fall into the "Junk Camera" category? Soft line skipping down sampling, Moiré artifacts, low bitrate, inefficient compression, sub HD output over HDMI, no clean HDMI out, no usable exposure aid, BT.601 color on Canons, etc.
Click to expand...

We're leaving "junk" ambiguous for now because it's a relative term but I'm sure they do. I'm looking at it as basically anything older and inexpensive that I'd never bring on a paid shoot. It's a very new group but so far there have been posts about the Fujifilm J20, Panasonic SDR-H200, Panasonic GF3, JVC-KY1900, among others.
 
Imamacuser said:
Do 1st gen video DSLRs fall into the "Junk Camera" category? Soft line skipping down sampling, Moiré artifacts, low bitrate, inefficient compression, sub HD output over HDMI, no clean HDMI out, no usable exposure aid, BT.601 color on Canons, etc.
Click to expand...

I still play around from time to time with an Olympus ELP1 and some old OM Zuiko glass. Limited to 720p30, but the image is awfully pretty and it's easy to tote.


Deployed my daughter's (formerly my) GH2 on a job this past year, so not sure it qualifies as "junk" yet :D
 
mcbob said:
I still play around from time to time with an Olympus ELP1 and some old OM Zuiko glass. Limited to 720p30, but the image is awfully pretty and it's easy to tote.

Deployed my daughter's (formerly my) GH2 on a job this past year, so not sure it qualifies as "junk" yet :D
Click to expand...

Nice. I don't know the ELP1. Does it have full manual control? I have an Olympus XZ-1 point and shoot that I've been meaning to take out and it definitely doesn't.

Personally, I wouldn't consider the GH2 "junk" but I'm sure it will get there eventually. It's still a lot easier to use than a lot of this stuff. Charles Papert's work on Key & Peele turned me onto the idea of old tube cams and now it's an itch I can't wait to scratch, ridiculous workarounds and all.
 
The GH2s, and especially hacked ones, hold up well, although they don't have as much dynamic range and low light ability as modern cameras.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top