Professional camcorder or DSLR?

T

Thomas Theron Cooper

Member
I"m planning some videos with a single person talking to te camera. I was hoing to have a chroma key effect and use varius relevant backgrounds but due to space limitations that isn't working out. I'm using Canon T3i an after muchtesting, the results are good. I'm happy with the way it's turning out though the sound needs some improvement. However when I look at some other videos on YouTube I find some of their indoor footage to be very professional. I'm using LED lights and reflectors and after much testing have got it 'right' or atleast close to professional looking.

Now I'm greedy and this is my first real production, very important to me. So Please tell me, If I were to get a professional camcorder costing $5,000 or a little more, would I get a better result than with using the T3i and a 50mm 1.4 lens? Would it be too much power for the job?

I have no budget to hire a proessional. I'm a relatively quick learner and usually patient. I love what I have been doing with the T3i. Please give me some advice. Thank you!
 
The H.264 codec that the Canon uses doesn't hold up that well to post processing. I have a 5D3 that I love to shoot with, but if I'm doing green screen work it never comes out of the bag. I use a Sony PMW-200 for that. The XD 422 50mbs codec holds up far better for that type of work.
 
I am shooting in a very tiny space. Usable area is about 11 sq.metres. I would love if I can do a green screen. That isn't the idea now.

Yes. I did read something similar about canon, codecs and green screen.

More than green screen I want to have perfect professional footage. The companies I'm comparing with have huge resources. To match their quality on YouTube do I need a professional handling the camera? Will the camcorder be a significant improvement for this sort of shoot, over the T3i?

The replies were so fast! Thanks!
 
Yes, the Canon codec is not great for this job.

Some low-budget alternatives that would be particularly good for greenscreen:
* hacked GH2: that one is also H.264 but very very clean, the problem it has is the low DR, but if you can control the light it could be a very good option for low budget
* BMC: with the body at $2K, if you can find a lens set for it that suits your needs, and if you can cope with the RAW workflow, well, that's a whole different world: by far the best tool for this job (right now, and at this kind of price)
* if you can cope with the RAW workflow but the lens selection for the BMC is an issue, the 5D3+RAW could be an option too; very clean too, just beware of media costs
 
I can +1 for the GH2 and chroma keying. I do it all the time with Premiere and its Ultra plugin and I can pull off very clean keys with very little effort. Ultra IS amazing though. Best keyer I've used.
 
If I'm reading this right, the OP is not using the Green Screen right now. He seems to just be comparing his indoor footage from the T3i to other indoor (maybe studio?) professional talking head videos he sees online.

Can you post some examples, one of your videos and one of the professional results you are looking to match? Maybe then people can provide more specific help.
 
Thanks for the green screen tips Samuel H, jlpskydive, blazer003.

Funny, I have never equated quality, with videos on YouTube. In my opinion video from even the best cameras look just so so on YouTube.
Click to expand...

I understand that. However some of the major channels like the BBC seem to have videos on YouTube of a quality comparable to their TV broadcasts. I may be wrong in my assumption.

Can you post some examples, one of your videos and one of the professional results you are looking to match? Maybe then people can provide more specific help.
Click to expand...

Here are some videos with the sort of quality I'm hoping for:

BBC HARDtalk - Richard Holloway - Former Bishop of Edinburgh (BBC)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-YYoxqd8Xwc&feature=c4-overview&list=UULA1hmG9tc0RNnqnoDn8bOg

J.K. Rowling Interview on 'The Casual Vacancy': 'Harry Potter' Author on Rihanna's Influence (ABC News)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y461sAi_Blw

What You Need To Know About Wearing A Fedora (AskMenVideo)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FtqQtkngM6Y&list=PLhpgqs3H_aI6BXScJXal54v-EsVf77Xsq

I especially find the BBC video very impressive in quality. The indoor footage is so clear, sharp and grain-free. What sort of camera can help replicate this quality? I'm currently using a Canon T3i 600D as I mentioned. Would any of the professional camcorders costing upwards of $5000 help? Would a better DSLR such as the Canon 5D Mark III be the right choice for this? I can learn about the camera from books and through videos but can't afford a professional at this point. Do you think that it is my limitations more than the camera itself which prevent me from having that sort of quality? The footage I have is good. It was shot with indoor LED lighting, reflectors and at ISO 100/400 with a 50mm 1.4 Canon lens but it still falls short of the sort of indoor footage BBC has. What is the most realistic route to eventually having this quality? All I will probably have is a talking head or maybe two. Thanks.
 
Netflix has shown a number of BBC programs that just floor me with their production values. That piece with the former Archbishop was an example of great graphics, perfect lighting (audio couldve been better) and really engaging content. Almost any camera could have been used with the same result. It has been said here that cameras available now, t3i and the like have crossed a threshold of quality that have leveled the playing field. The camera is important, but it is only a piece of the puzzle.
 
Thomas, a friend of mine wanted to do a similar thing. After talking with me and finding out how much he'd have to spend he hired me. Buying ４：２：２ gear or better won't likely solve your problems in that small space. I don't think you'll find spending more on you cameras will help. If anything, i might suggest a GH3, which has fabulous quality image and decent sound monitoring for not much more than your T3. You say you can't afford a pro but you are asking about spending thousands on a 5d (with lenses). Most of us running one man shops have spent well over 10k to get the gear needed to turn out bbc like quality. It might not cost you that much to act as producer rather than cameraman, unless you see a carreer ahead of you as a shooter. You might be able to hire someone in your area with the gear you need for the $5k you would spend on a camera alone, and you could focus on figuring out how to sell the results rather than shoot them.

but i would suggest investing in the lighting course DVD by Doug Jenson, a cheap great course, and then invest in decent sound and lighting gear next. Your T3i isn't your limiting factor, though there are better options.
 
Last edited:
Thomas Theron Cooper said:
Here are some videos with the sort of quality I'm hoping for:

BBC HARDtalk - Richard Holloway - Former Bishop of Edinburgh (BBC)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-YYoxqd8Xwc&feature=c4-overview&list=UULA1hmG9tc0RNnqnoDn8bOg

I especially find the BBC video very impressive in quality. The indoor footage is so clear, sharp and grain-free. What sort of camera can help replicate this quality? I'm currently using a Canon T3i 600D as I mentioned. Would any of the professional camcorders costing upwards of $5000 help? Would a better DSLR such as the Canon 5D Mark III be the right choice for this? I can learn about the camera from books and through videos but can't afford a professional at this point. Do you think that it is my limitations more than the camera itself which prevent me from having that sort of quality? The footage I have is good. It was shot with indoor LED lighting, reflectors and at ISO 100/400 with a 50mm 1.4 Canon lens but it still falls short of the sort of indoor footage BBC has. What is the most realistic route to eventually having this quality? All I will probably have is a talking head or maybe two. Thanks.
Click to expand...

I'm not a pro, but I would guess that the BBC footage was taken with either an ENG style camera or possibly a full-frame DSLR like the 5D MII. But, I'm leaning towards an ENG camera. I shoot on the GH2 so I'm not familiar with the Canons, but I know that many love the Canon full frame look. But, I would think that is more for narrative films and not as applicabile to simple interviews.

That being said, I think the difference could be in the lighting. If you "properly" light an interview you should be able to get very good results from your T3i. It has an APS-C size chip, which is much bigger than the 1/3" CCDs folks used to use in prosumer camcorders.

I would read up and practice interview style 3-point lighting setups. Get that down and test the results. I would do that before upgrading the camera.
 
I would read up and practice interview style 3-point lighting setups. Get that down and test the results. I would do that before upgrading the camera.
Click to expand...
I guess that's probably best. I have been gathering information about the Canon 5D Mark III and it seems the major advantage is that of the full frame sensor and the effectiveness in low lighting. If My 50mm lens gives a real focal length of 50mm I would need a 70mm lens to do my work. I think I'll probably work more on the lighting before upgrading.

Thomas, a friend of mine wanted to do a similar thing. After talking with me and finding out how much he'd have to spend he hired me.
Click to expand...
If I spent my budget on hiring a crew, I'll have spent everything in a schedule or two and have learned very little myself.

That piece with the former Archbishop was an example of great graphics, perfect lighting (audio couldve been better) and really engaging content.
Click to expand...
Yes. Indeed! I'll experiment with my T3i.

Thanks, guys!
 
All the above notwithstanding...but HDSLRs are mainly used by those that have never used real "movie" cameras to shoot motion picture work.

Intentionally harsh I know but the is a massive difference in practical aspects of shooting with any HDSLR and true motion picture cameras such as Arri Alexa , Red down thru to Panny AF100s.

Much of the difference eventuates in "quality".

Audio is one example..HDSLR audio control is a nightmare!
Waveforms and image monitoring is a nightmare!
Connections, mounts, accessories..a joke! (eg focus , matteboxes, mini plugs, viewfinders...)
Codecs are generally "light weight"!
etc.....
 
The choice of recording device is much more than just sensor size and resolution. Most BBC programmes are shot on conventional format cameras - they have some quite severe rules on what can and can't be used. Oddly, all the DSLRs seem to be very low on their list of 'quality equipment' because they are looking at sensors, codecs, bitrates compression etc. Conventional HD cameras with good glass seem to feature in all their flagship programmes, the ones that win awards for images. DSLRs would appear to be better in the resolution stakes, but it's the entry to exit chain that's important. All the on-line services crunch the data, and they seem to do it less obtrusively on the conventional camera's output. Adobe bought the excellent Serious Magic's Ultra keyer, and it's good (although SM's product was sooo much better before Adobe scrapped the extras and just kept the keyer).
 
DSLR's are not certified for broadcast use by the BBC as they have too many problems in the post processes and for transmission chains.

I do see them used on other channels but the pictures look dreadful once they have been through the transmission chain, what looks great on your PC or Vimeo/You Tube does not look so good once it has been through lots of transmission processing.

I have also recently seen major interviews with members of Queen and The Who where the shallow DOF was a huge distraction as the subjects moved around as there had been no attempt to do any focus pulling and it actually spoiled the interviews.

Right tools for the job and all that and it now seems to be standard that a cutaway now seems to have to be a foreground brick or some other object in focus with 95% of the frame out of focus!

The sony PMW-500 and the arri alexa seem to be the pro camera standards in UK TV with the canon XF305 or HPX-250 for smaller doco production and trash TV such as the X-factor etc but I can see the new PMW-400 and PMW-300 from sony being used more often too.

The BBC HD approved camera list is here:
BBC APROVED HD CAMERAS
Studio Cameras
• Sony HDC1500 • Sony HDC1550 • Sony HDC1400 • Sony HDC1450 • Sony HSC300 • Sony HXC100 • Grass Valley LDK8000 Elite Worldcam • Grass Valley LDK8000 Elite Standard • Grass Valley LDK4000 Elite 1080i
HD Handheld
• Canon XF305 • Canon XF300 • Sony PMW-EX1R – with external recorder using a bitrate of 50Mbps or above • Sony PMW-EX3 - with external recorder using a bitrate of 50Mbps or above
HD Shoulder Mount
• Panasonic HDX900 • Panasonic HPX371 • Panasonic HPX3000 • Panasonic HPX3100 • Panasonic HPX3700 • Sony PMW320 – with an external recorder using a bitrate of 50Mbps or above • Sony PMW350 – with an external recorder using a bitrate of 50Mbps or above • Sony PMW500
• Sony HDW F900R & 900 • Sony HDW 790, 750 & 730
HD Specialist
• Panasonic HPX2700 HDC27F & H • Panasonic AF101 – with an external recorder using a bitrate of 50Mbps or above • Sony CineAlta F35 • Sony SRW 9000 • Sony PMW F3 – with an external recorder using a bitrate of 50Mbps or above • Arri D21 • Arri Alexa • Panavision Genesis • Thompson Viper • Red
Mini Cameras
• Iconix HD-RH1 • Panasonic HCK10/HMR10 • Toshiba IK-HR1S • Toshiba IK-HD1

Personally I have used the panasonic HPX371 for over four years now and it has been used to shoot numerous HD and SD BBC productions.
 
Last edited:
All the above notwithstanding...but HDSLRs are mainly used by those that have never used real "movie" cameras to shoot motion picture work.
Click to expand...
Yes. I do realize that. I'm one of them! :)

The BBC HD approved camera list is here:
Click to expand...
This is so informative! Some of those cameras seem to cost over $30K.

I just read that the new Sony PXW-Z100 seems to be going on sale next month for $6500 or less. This seems like it might help with quality. I'm looking forward to reading the reviews.

DSLR's are not certified for broadcast use by the BBC as they have too many problems in the post processes and for transmission chains.
Click to expand...
Is it really that footage with any DSLR doesn't transmit well on TV. Would this be true even for the most expensive Canon DSLR FF cameras? How do movies made with them end up at prominent film festivals? Would you say they spend a lot on post production to make that possible?

Thanks!
 
I think certain DSLR footage can be stabilised in post but you have to remember that showing a master file through a projector at a festival or viewing it on a monitor at home is totally different to bouncing the data off a satellite or putting it through multiple post processed for grading etc.

You can read the initial BBC test on a canon 5D DSLR here: http://thebrownings.name/WHP034/pdf/WHP034-ADD39_Canon_5D_DSLR.pdf

Yes a pro video camera can cost over $30k but we are talking high end production here and to expect a $2k camera to match it is a big ask, DSLR's are also impractical for pro sound recording and that is why ENG type cameras tend to be mostly used for TV production in the UK.

4K may be the latest marketing buzz format to sell product now that 3D has hit the deck again but for broadcast 1920x1080 will be the standard for some time to come yet, besides there is no delivery format for full 4K and no blu ray or similar disc has the capacity to handle it. There are also very few TV's or monitors that you can view it on either so we shall see how things map out but just having a 4K handycam will not instantly give you the quality of the BBC programmes you have highlighted.
 
Last edited:
I think certain DSLR footage can be stabilised in post but you have to remember that showing a master file through a projector at a festival or viewing it on a monitor at home is totally different to bouncing the data off a satellite or putting it through multiple post processed for grading etc.....
Click to expand...

That really helped. Thank you! Right now I'm planning to only produce video for YouTube and want to have the highest quality I can manage with my efforts and the equipment I can afford. Eventually I hope to produce for TV. Would you say that the mid-level camcorders of $5000 or so are similar in operation and use to the higher end ENG cameras? Would it be better for someone learning the ropes to work with a mid-level camcorder rather than a DSLR (Whether cropped sensor or FF) to be able to transition to producing for television in a 2-3 years time and work with the ENG cameras eventually?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top