What type of camcorder

J

John C.

Member
This is a question from a completely novice:
I usually shoot with a Canon mini camcorder (on miniDV tapes). I'm now starting a new short film for a festival that will take place in September, where the films will be projected on an enormous screen in a movie theater. Do you believe I need a professional camera for such a big magnification? Or is my mini camcorder good? And, if I need another camera, what are the features I have to look for?
Thanks for your help
John
 
I don't believe your mini camcorder will be sufficient. I would try to acquire in HD. Many choices for pro cameras depending on your budget. Look at some of the new Panasonic P2 products if you only have $4K to $5K to spend.
 
First, depending on the film festival, submissions will have been shot on all sorts of stuff. So technically, you have a camera that will work fine for you (though, I'd focus on getting usable audio on a separate recorder in that case). What model is your camera, by the way?

Second, there are miniDV cameras that will look much better on the big screen... like the DVX. You can get a good deal on a used DVX100a (I wouldn't get the 100 if I were you).

If you are looking at investing in a better camera, here are some things to look for:

- Three chips are better than one. A single-chip camera may look okay, but a 3-chip camera will have much better color reproduction and much sharper images. That said, the new single-chip, HDV cameras from Canon's Vixia line make some fantastic images, especially for having only one chip.
- Manual controls are your friends. Auto iris/exposure/focus/white balance are the marks of an amateur and will cause weird and noticeable shifts in your images. The best features are a manual zoom ring (stopped, meaning it won't rotate infinitely), manual focus ring (stopped is better, but usually only available on high-end cameras), manual iris wheel, white balance with both factory presets (usually for indoor/incandescent and outdoor/sun lighting) and user-set custom settings, and manual audio controls.
- XLR audio inputs allow for use of much better sound equipment. Sound is half the picture. More, really. The audience will forgive a shot that is slightly soft or underlit long before a scene with terrible audio. If you can't get a camera with XLR ins and manual audio level controls, look at recording to an external audio recorder (Zoom H4n) instead.

You'll find all of these in the DVX, or in the Sony PD-170, or in various other cameras. Another feature to consider is 24p shooting, but that decision should also be made based on the editing system that will be used.

If you go with something like the Canon Vixia (HV30, HV40, etc.), you won't have a lot of the lens-based manual controls, and you won't have manual audio control with XLR ins. The images can still be stellar, and the camera can be used effectively even without the ready access to some manual controls. The audio can be fixed by using an external recorder, or adding an XLR converter like Juicedlink or Beachtek.
 
Thank you both. I realise I must go for a HD camcorder. I'm now searching the Internet based on the information you gave me.

One thing that impressed me is how expensive the P2 cards are and how small their capacity is (in terms of recording time). On the other hand, the miniDV tapes, although cheap, they don't last (I mean: the quality deteriorates rapidly after they are used 2-3 times). Do you believe I should prefer either medium over the other?

I understand that 3CCD is a must for high quality shooting, but I must admit that the Canon Vixia models mentioned by C2V seem a very attractive alternative on account of their price and ease of use. Does anybody have any experience of a Canon Vixia? How do they behave in low lighting conditions?

From a quick inquiry in my town, I came up with two camcorders which I'd like you to comment. First is the Canon XH A1S, which I liked very much and which is at the upper limit of my budget, and second the Sony HVRHD1000E, which is very much cheaper and non-3CCD.

Thanks again

John
 
John C. said:
One thing that impressed me is how expensive the P2 cards are and how small their capacity is (in terms of recording time). On the other hand, the miniDV tapes, although cheap, they don't last (I mean: the quality deteriorates rapidly after they are used 2-3 times). Do you believe I should prefer either medium over the other?
Click to expand...

There is no reason to use a miniDV tape more than once. Tapes are cheap, and you never know when you're going to want to go back to some old footage. Use them once and store them properly and they'll last quite a while.

That said, if you really want a tapeless work flow, there's always the Panasonic AG-HMC150. It records to SD card media... cheap, reusable, and much more storage-per-dollar than P2 ($50 for a 16GB SD card).

As for tape vs. tapeless, well... I'm still in a place where I love knowing I have the footage on tape. Tapes don't fail like computer media will. Yes, there can be problems with tape (jammed, eaten, degaused, etc.), but they are time-tested and very reliable. On the other hand, solid-state media recording doesn't suffer from dirty tape heads or head alignment issues. I'll leave it there.

John C. said:
I understand that 3CCD is a must for high quality shooting, but I must admit that the Canon Vixia models mentioned by C2V seem a very attractive alternative on account of their price and ease of use. Does anybody have any experience of a Canon Vixia? How do they behave in low lighting conditions?
Click to expand...

I'm not sure exactly what the low-light limitations of the HV30 are. It's not the best, but nothing with a chip that small is going to be. Go to Vimeo and search HV30 and you'll get tons of examples of footage from that camera.

One challenge with this camera's picture is the fact that it has a CMOS chip instead of a CCD. CMOS has a rolling shutter where CCD has a global shutter. In layman's terms, the CMOS image can't handle fast camera movements (pans, tilts, or running hand held) without some major artifacts that we call Jell-O Vision (the image actually jiggles like a bowl of gelatin dessert). You can work around this, but it means that you have to plan your shots carefully and learn what works and what doesn't.

John C. said:
From a quick inquiry in my town, I came up with two camcorders which I'd like you to comment. First is the Canon XH A1S, which I liked very much and which is at the upper limit of my budget, and second the Sony HVRHD1000E, which is very much cheaper and non-3CCD.
Click to expand...

I know some folks who love the Canon XH-A1. I have not been a fan of Canon's camcorders since the days of the GL1/XL1. The XH-A1 has some frustrating features on it, such as audio signal routing, that are simply annoying. That's about all I can say there. But if you're going to consider that camera, you're already in the price range for the HMC150.

I wouldn't touch the Sony. It's a really little camera wrapped in a really big chassis. It's too limited for what it's supposed to be. Yeah, shoulder-mount is still a huge benefit, but for that size of a camera I would expect three chips as well as XLR ins and better tactile lens control. It's also not large enough to counterweight itself behind your shoulder, so it'll be front-heavy. Any benefits of a shoulder mount are absent without some modification. And the low-light rating isn't impressive. And you have to deal with a CMOS chip.

I'd say that the HMC150, if you can afford it, will be your best bang for the buck, CCDs included.
 
Last edited:
John C. said:
Does anybody have any experience of a Canon Vixia? How do they behave in low lighting conditions?



John
Click to expand...

I've worked with the Canon HV-20, which was the predecessor to the Vixia line. Wonderful camera capable of great picture. The major limitation is that it permits little manual control and the audio section is lacking compared to a prosumer or pro camera. Nonetheless, pros who I work with routinely thought the images from my HV20 were taken by much more expensive cameras.

C2V's comments about features are spot-on but you have to decide:

1. What is your budget?
2. Will you get a return on your investment? If you'll use the camera once for the festival and then put it away, don't spend more than a Vixia. If this is something you'll use every day or every week then make the investment and get the best camera you can afford.
3. Do you have a strong opinion about your workflow: tapeless or tape? Having done tape with the HV20 and now tapeless with an EX-1, I'll never go back...ever! It is SUCH a timesaver to be able to delete a clip on scene without worrying about erasing tape or overwriting a good tape. I also find it immensely easier to import digital clips rather than tape.

Before you purchase, see if you can borrow or rent a unit to make sure you're happy with it.

Bob
 
C2V said:
If you are looking at investing in a better camera, here are some things to look for:

- Three chips are better than one. A single-chip camera may look okay, but a 3-chip camera will have much better color reproduction and much sharper images. That said, the new single-chip, HDV cameras from Canon's Vixia line make some fantastic images, especially for having only one chip.
Click to expand...


If you are going to propagate this, please qualify it at least. Nearly every one of the best video cameras in the world are single sensor, so blanket statements like this really can be misconstrued.
 
PerroneFord said:
If you are going to propagate this, please qualify it at least. Nearly every one of the best video cameras in the world are single sensor, so blanket statements like this really can be misconstrued.
Click to expand...

Wow... way to approach that in a friendly, non-threatening manner.

Okay... cameras with big-ass chips such as RED ONE or the Sony CineAlta F35 certainly achieve great things with a single chip. They do that because of very large, high-resolution imagers. Those cameras are cost-prohibitive to many.

For cameras that sport smaller (under 1") chips, i.e. chips that aren't super-35mm sized imagers, splitting the incoming light into the primary colors and capturing and processing them each separately effectively allows for greater resolution than from a single chip of similar size.

And the HD footage shot with the Panasonic GH1, Nikon D-90, and Canon 5DmkII is all stunning and from a single chip. But those, again, are larger sensors. And they are certainly worth considering, though the challenges of shooting with a DSLR are to be weighed heavily. And after adding a shoulder-mount rig with extended battery and a decent monitor, and a couple extra lenses, plus the need for double-system audio since the cameras are still deficient in the sound department, the cost goes up considerably.
 
Didn't mean for it to sound harsh, but it gets really disheartening after a while when new users come in asking for help with something when they've been steered wrong by something "they heard on the internet". I think we at least owe it to people to say WHY 3-chip cameras might be better, or WHY recording to an off-board audio solution is better. If we take the time to educate, we give a better service to newer shooters.

And yes, both large digital cinema cameras ($50k, $100k, $200k, and up) mostly use single sensors, but the new small SLR style cameras do also. For someone looking at spending $2500 - $3000 on a new camera this is a viable way to get into some REALLY nice technology. It's not perfect by any means, but certainly worth considering depending on the shooting scenario.

It would be a real shame for a newer shooter to completely dismiss things like the GH1, 5DMk2, and others just because they hard that single chip cameras weren't good.
 
PerroneFord said:
And yes, both large digital cinema cameras ($50k, $100k, $200k, and up) mostly use single sensors, but the new small SLR style cameras do also. For someone looking at spending $2500 - $3000 on a new camera this is a viable way to get into some REALLY nice technology. It's not perfect by any means, but certainly worth considering depending on the shooting scenario.

It would be a real shame for a newer shooter to completely dismiss things like the GH1, 5DMk2, and others just because they hard that single chip cameras weren't good.
Click to expand...

Which is why I mentioned them. But there are challenges to be weighed, as I said. There are tight storage limits (not that P2 doesn't have that problem), meaning that you have to switch cards out often over a long shoot (of course, RED ONE has the same limit, too).

The basic camera will get you started, but audio is a challenge since not one of the cameras supports XLR in or manual control, meaning that audio must be recorded on a separate system. There are also post-production work flow issues, meaning that the editing system should be examined to make sure it can handle the file size and format.

The basic camera is also harder to use hand-held, though it can be done. Many users have external monitors for critical focus and exposure issues, since the eye piece may not be of a practical, workable size.

Basic lens shades (snap-on/lens-mount) can be purchased cheap, which would be a bare-bones must. A rail system is needed to convert to shoulder-mount for better shooting stability, or to attach a matte box, and to attach the external monitor and battery should you choose to use one.

Again, the pictures are amazing. They do use CMOS, though, and we've already talked about CMOS vs. CCD.

The DSLR cameras range in price. The GH1 and the D90 are comparable in price (around $1500 for body and basic lens). The 5DmkII is about $1k more. So for the same cost as an HMC150, one could conceivably get a D90 or GH1 and still have room to trick it out a little. Just don't forget the sound.
 
Last edited:
C2V said:
...So for the same cost as an HMC150, one could conceivably get a D90 or GH1 and still have room to trick it out a little. Just don't forget the sound.
Click to expand...

This is precisely why I thought it would be prudent to not summarily dismiss single sensor cams. The DSLR solution wont work for a lot of folks. I am not a big fan of them right now, but maybe I might come around in the next generation or two.

But for someone setting up to shoot narrative work, the shorter record times aren't an impediment, shooting dual system is no big deal, I do that on every shoot anyway. Getting the camera onto some rods and sticks is good practice no matter what kind of camera you have. External monitors for critical focus can be seen on $2500 handy-cams or $250k F35s. It's just a smart idea to do it.

Again, much of this depends on what is going to be filmed. You mention workflow, but I don't think the workflow is any more onerous than for Mpeg4 handycams, and certainly not as onerous as shooting real film. I think we've all gotten a bit spoiled with the miniDV/HDV capture, edit, finish workflow. Doing good work often requires more steps. When you look at the workflow to shoot 8mm or 16mm film, ALL these cameras look like a BREEZE in post!

I hope the OP processes what we are saying here and gives it due weight. It might be that these large sensor cameras are TOTALLY impractical for the intended use, and that's ok. Or it may merit real consideration. Who knows, but I thiink we've done a good thing by putting it out there.
 
PerroneFord said:
Who knows, but I thiink we've done a good thing by putting it out there.
Click to expand...

I'll agree to that. But next time, please pose it as a "hey, have you thought of this?" instead of a public shaming for an oversight or omission.

I originally didn't mention the DSLRs because they didn't seem to fit the vibe from the OP. And I'm impressed by much of what I've seen from some of the test shoots on these DSLRs, but I'm still not a huge fan of CMOS sensors. Though, didn't Zak shoot "Model/Photographer" on a DSLR? That looked great.

Rails are a great tool no matter what camera, as you said... I have a rails system on my DVX... but depending on how far you go, a rail rig (with matte box, handles, shoulder pad, and follow focus) can add up to $5k, on top of the $2500 monitor. Suddenly, you have spent enough to get a pretty impressive HVX kit, a very nice HPX kit, or a killer HMC kit. That said, you can do a lot more out of the box with an HMC than with a DSLR, since the latter requires a few more accessories just to get to shoot-able.
 
Great debate from you guys....a lot of good information came out of it. At the end of the day, I think the HMC-150 would be a good choice for John C. It would immediately help his current situation and provide a longer term solution should he wish to expand his endeavors. Although we don't know all of his future plans for shooting, this cam would probably cover most of the basics with the ability to jump into higher quality productions .... all for a fairly reasonable price. Just my thoughts.
 
I'm so late in posting as I was away from home for some days.

Thank you all. Your posts made many things clear to me.

Given that my work will have mainly to do with street shooting (my film will be a sort of documentary), I believe I should go for a camera that can be carried in my photographic bag. C2V mentioned the Canon Vixia series (called Legria here in Europe) and I think I'll give a try to HFS10. I also use a Canon EOS 5DmkII (being a photographer myself) but I found it very difficult to use as a camcorder especially in "point and shoot" situations when moving objects and changing light are involved.

I have now a question on the editing side:

Unlike my old Canon camcorder, which recorded on miniDV tapes, the HFS10 uses SD cards and makes mp4 files. Is it wise to edit the mp4 files as they are (in Sony Vegas) or should I convert them to avi? And if so, will I lose quality (given that some quality has already been lost in the compression of mp4). I saw a post where someone was speaking of "decompression to avi". Is that so, or does he simply mean "conversion to avi"? What is the right way to proceed?

Thanks again
 
Last edited:
John C. said:
...the HFS10 uses SD cards and makes mp4 files. Is it wise to edit the mp4 files as they are (in Sony Vegas) or should I convert them to avi? And if so, will I lose quality (given that some quality has already been lost in the compression of mp4). I saw a post where someone was speaking of "decompression to avi". Is that so, or does he simply mean "conversion to avi"? What is the right way to proceed?

Thanks again
Click to expand...

I would not edit the original .mp4 files. They are a bad choice for editing from a speed perspective, a compression perspective, and a color perspective. The AVI conversion does not have to lose any information, so that need not be a worry.
 
... the same question applies to the .mov files of my 5DmkII camera. Should I edit them as they are, or convert them to avi?
 
Could you please advise me on how to make the conversion of .mp4 and .mov files into .avi? I use a video converter application I bought over the Internet, which produces very small files, which makes me suspect that much information is lost. For example, I just converted a 92MB .mov file and it returned a 21MB .avi file. Although this is fine for YouTube, it does not seem good for a film that's going to be presented in a movie theatre.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top