|
pc
newsgroups
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Need a mid-range camera for digital filmmaking...I apologize in advance if this appears too frequently, but... I want to get into digital filmmaking, and I'm looking for recommendations for a digital camcorder. Just to be clear, I don't want to capture my newborn's (or lack thereof, thank god - I'm only 25) first steps, family gatherings (perfectly forgettable as is) and whatnot. I want to produce short films that look as close to a decent low-budget indie film as possible, maybe even something worthy of submitting to a short-film festival or contest. For example, maybe like some of the Dogme 95 films? (Celebration (Festen), Italian for Beginners...etc). I have every resource needed (in terms of hardware and software) for post-production, so that shouldn't factor into my buying decision. As far as budget goes, if there exists a camera under $1000 that might suit my purposes, that would be great. But If I'm better off just saving up the cash and getting the XL1S or XL2, I might be willing to do it. So I suppose my first question is, does a mid-range camera exist capable of producing legitimate quality films? I'm don't need any of the gimmicky crap like in-camera special effects, analog-to-digital conversion, zoom, web-access, still-photos (I don't want anything to do with this, that's why I have a still digital camera) and whatever else used to target home-video consumers. I just want the best quality film by the time I bring it to the computer. So I suppose my interests lie in good quality film in all lighting situations, the ability to add external devices to better the filming, image stabilization, and whatever else. I want to be able to add lighting, microphones, and whatever else to make the film better. I've been doing a little research around the Web, and it seems to be the case that digital filmmaking uses the higher end XL1-type cameras while everything mid-range and down is dedicated for home video use. I've actually used an XL1S for a little while, but not all that extensively. Seems like a nice camera, but quite frankly, it's freaking expensive. So my next question is... does a mid-range camera exist under $1000 that will suit my aforementioned purposes? Or is it either prosumer or consumer and nothing in between? Other questions... Can I get by without the 3 CCDs for what I want to do? Are the mid-range cameras that have 3 CCDs (for example, the Panasonic PV-G120) that much better for developing that feature? So far, it seems that Panasonic cameras might be the best choice for my interests... any truth to that? In my experience with still digital cameras, zooming should be avoided for the most part, as it jeopardizes the image stability, and you should be able to frame your image without it. Is this accurate for camcorders as well? And thus, is zooming, both optical and digital, in digital camcorders an unnecessary feature? Do I need anything besides a Firewire port? What's the point of having both a USB and Firewire? Some of these cameras are really freaking small! Are the smaller ones harder to control? Thanks, any help or direction would be greatly appreciated. Doug "Mid-range" implies the middle of the cost range. The low end of mid-range
would be a $20,000 Ikegami with an entry level Fujinon lens. Anything below $10,000 would be considered 'low end' and anything below $5,000 would be considered consumer-level. In the $1,000 range would be salvage/junk. If you plan to shoot anything that will appear on a theater screen, shoot at least 35mm film or get an HD cam for about $80,000. Film is cheaper. Chances are you can find a decent used Panavision camera for less than that. -- Take care, Mark & Mary Ann Weiss VIDEO PRODUCTION . FILM SCANNING . DVD MASTERING . AUDIO RESTORATION Business sites at: www.dv-clips.com www.mwcomms.com www.adventuresinanimemusic.com - "Mid-range" implies the middle of the cost range. The low end of mid-range
would be a $20,000 Ikegami with an entry level Fujinon lens. Anything below $10,000 would be considered 'low end' and anything below $5,000 would be considered consumer-level. In the $1,000 range would be salvage/junk. If you plan to shoot anything that will appear on a theater screen, shoot at least 35mm film or get an HD cam for about $80,000. Film is cheaper. Chances are you can find a decent used Panavision camera for less than that. -- Take care, Mark & Mary Ann Weiss VIDEO PRODUCTION . FILM SCANNING . DVD MASTERING . AUDIO RESTORATION Business sites at: www.dv-clips.com www.mwcomms.com www.adventuresinanimemusic.com - "Mark & Mary Ann Weiss" <mweissX***@earthlink.net> writes: Oh come on. Tons of films are being shot with VX2000-level equipment> Anything below $10,000 would be considered 'low end' and anything > below $5,000 would be considered consumer-level. In the $1,000 range > would be salvage/junk. If you plan to shoot anything that will > appear on a theater screen, shoot at least 35mm film or get an HD > cam for about $80,000. Film is cheaper. Chances are you can find a > decent used Panavision camera for less than that. and shown in theaters. We're not talking about Hollywood blockbusters, but rather the type of filmmaking that would have used 16mm in the old days, and that stuff was also shown in (small) theaters all the time. Blair Witch Project was shot on hi-8 if I remember right. For that matter, Fahrenheit 9/11 was one of the top 10(?) grossing films this year and I believe it was also shot with (fancier) mini-DV gear. Sony now has a 1080i HDTV camera for under $4K, sort of an HD upgrade for the VX2000: http://tinyurl.com/57ex4 It sounds a lot nicer than that JVC single-chip camera that made a big splash last year. I'm sure people are making movies with these things now. But always remember that the most important ingredient of quality filmmaking is imagination, not equipment.
Show quote
"Paul Rubin" <http://phr.cx@NOSPAM.invalid> wrote in message Sure, you can shoot a film with just about anything, but it takes a rarenews:7xekhp6eim.fsf@ruckus.brouhaha.com... > "Mark & Mary Ann Weiss" <mweissX***@earthlink.net> writes: > > Anything below $10,000 would be considered 'low end' and anything > > below $5,000 would be considered consumer-level. In the $1,000 range > > would be salvage/junk. If you plan to shoot anything that will > > appear on a theater screen, shoot at least 35mm film or get an HD > > cam for about $80,000. Film is cheaper. Chances are you can find a > > decent used Panavision camera for less than that. > > Oh come on. Tons of films are being shot with VX2000-level equipment > and shown in theaters. We're not talking about Hollywood > blockbusters, but rather the type of filmmaking that would have used > 16mm in the old days, and that stuff was also shown in (small) > theaters all the time. Blair Witch Project was shot on hi-8 if I > remember right. For that matter, Fahrenheit 9/11 was one of the top > 10(?) grossing films this year and I believe it was also shot with > (fancier) mini-DV gear. > > Sony now has a 1080i HDTV camera for under $4K, sort of an HD upgrade > for the VX2000: > > http://tinyurl.com/57ex4 > > It sounds a lot nicer than that JVC single-chip camera that made a big > splash last year. I'm sure people are making movies with these things now. > > But always remember that the most important ingredient of quality > filmmaking is imagination, not equipment. audience to sit through two hours of blurry images. Granted, some of the new HD consumer cams are starting to generate images that rival the standard def pro cameras, but being mired in 4:1:1 colorspace makes a low-resolution image look even worse. To look good on a theater screen, you need at least 4K pixels per frame. I don't see that coming out of anything that Panny or Sony or anyone else is cooking up this year or last. The difference becomes even greater when shooting a scene that is lit by red or blue light. The real color resolution of the consumer stuff is about 1/4 of the stated specification, which is 1/4 of 960x1080 for the Sony HD-FX1. Another point is that when you quantize a picture with almost infinite detail into a fixed grid of 'pixels', the process generates noise in form of beat patterns or moire and jaggies. These things don't occur with film. The reason Moore and others can shoot such poor quality productions and get away with it may be related to the mentality that MP3 is considered "CD quality". The public's standards are going downhill. No wonder HDTV isn't getting anywhere in the US. "Mark & Mary Ann Weiss" <mweissX***@earthlink.net> writes: Oh come on. Tons of films are being shot with VX2000-level equipment> Anything below $10,000 would be considered 'low end' and anything > below $5,000 would be considered consumer-level. In the $1,000 range > would be salvage/junk. If you plan to shoot anything that will > appear on a theater screen, shoot at least 35mm film or get an HD > cam for about $80,000. Film is cheaper. Chances are you can find a > decent used Panavision camera for less than that. and shown in theaters. We're not talking about Hollywood blockbusters, but rather the type of filmmaking that would have used 16mm in the old days, and that stuff was also shown in (small) theaters all the time. Blair Witch Project was shot on hi-8 if I remember right. For that matter, Fahrenheit 9/11 was one of the top 10(?) grossing films this year and I believe it was also shot with (fancier) mini-DV gear. Sony now has a 1080i HDTV camera for under $4K, sort of an HD upgrade for the VX2000: http://tinyurl.com/57ex4 It sounds a lot nicer than that JVC single-chip camera that made a big splash last year. I'm sure people are making movies with these things now. But always remember that the most important ingredient of quality filmmaking is imagination, not equipment.
Show quote
"Paul Rubin" <http://phr.cx@NOSPAM.invalid> wrote in message Sure, you can shoot a film with just about anything, but it takes a rarenews:7xekhp6eim.fsf@ruckus.brouhaha.com... > "Mark & Mary Ann Weiss" <mweissX***@earthlink.net> writes: > > Anything below $10,000 would be considered 'low end' and anything > > below $5,000 would be considered consumer-level. In the $1,000 range > > would be salvage/junk. If you plan to shoot anything that will > > appear on a theater screen, shoot at least 35mm film or get an HD > > cam for about $80,000. Film is cheaper. Chances are you can find a > > decent used Panavision camera for less than that. > > Oh come on. Tons of films are being shot with VX2000-level equipment > and shown in theaters. We're not talking about Hollywood > blockbusters, but rather the type of filmmaking that would have used > 16mm in the old days, and that stuff was also shown in (small) > theaters all the time. Blair Witch Project was shot on hi-8 if I > remember right. For that matter, Fahrenheit 9/11 was one of the top > 10(?) grossing films this year and I believe it was also shot with > (fancier) mini-DV gear. > > Sony now has a 1080i HDTV camera for under $4K, sort of an HD upgrade > for the VX2000: > > http://tinyurl.com/57ex4 > > It sounds a lot nicer than that JVC single-chip camera that made a big > splash last year. I'm sure people are making movies with these things now. > > But always remember that the most important ingredient of quality > filmmaking is imagination, not equipment. audience to sit through two hours of blurry images. Granted, some of the new HD consumer cams are starting to generate images that rival the standard def pro cameras, but being mired in 4:1:1 colorspace makes a low-resolution image look even worse. To look good on a theater screen, you need at least 4K pixels per frame. I don't see that coming out of anything that Panny or Sony or anyone else is cooking up this year or last. The difference becomes even greater when shooting a scene that is lit by red or blue light. The real color resolution of the consumer stuff is about 1/4 of the stated specification, which is 1/4 of 960x1080 for the Sony HD-FX1. Another point is that when you quantize a picture with almost infinite detail into a fixed grid of 'pixels', the process generates noise in form of beat patterns or moire and jaggies. These things don't occur with film. The reason Moore and others can shoot such poor quality productions and get away with it may be related to the mentality that MP3 is considered "CD quality". The public's standards are going downhill. No wonder HDTV isn't getting anywhere in the US. "Mark & Mary Ann Weiss" <mweissX***@earthlink.net> writes: Or a very good film.> Sure, you can shoot a film with just about anything, but it takes a rare > audience to sit through two hours of blurry images. > Granted, some of the new HD consumer cams are starting to generate images The only HD consumer cams I know of are the unimpressive JVC, and this> that rival the standard def pro cameras, but being mired in 4:1:1 colorspace > makes a low-resolution image look even worse. more impressive Sony. > To look good on a theater screen, you need at least 4K pixels per frame. I Do you mean 4 megapixels? Star Wars Episode 2 had only 2 megapixels.> don't see that coming out of anything that Panny or Sony or anyone else is > cooking up this year or last. Whether it looked good in theaters is a matter of opinion, but Lucasfilm clearly thought it was good enough. > The difference becomes even greater when shooting a scene that is Why 1/4? The HD-FX1 is a 3-ccd camera, won't it get the full resolution?> lit by red or blue light. The real color resolution of the consumer > stuff is about 1/4 of the stated specification, which is 1/4 of > 960x1080 for the Sony HD-FX1. > Another point is that when you quantize a picture with almost infinite Oh come on, this is the same nonsense that's been beaten to death in> detail into a fixed grid of 'pixels', the process generates noise in form of > beat patterns or moire and jaggies. These things don't occur with film. the film-vs-digicam controversy in still photography. But still photoraphy with film is now practically dead at almost every level. > The reason Moore and others can shoot such poor quality productions and get Yeah, they said the same thing when CD's replaced LP's.> away with it may be related to the mentality that MP3 is considered "CD > quality". The public's standards are going downhill. No wonder HDTV isn't > getting anywhere in the US. > > Sure, you can shoot a film with just about anything, but it takes a rare It would take very-well-done story content to get me to sit through two> > audience to sit through two hours of blurry images. > > Or a very good film. hours of blurred video on a big screen (and the resulting headaches that it would cause), and even then, I'd hesitate to do it. > > Granted, some of the new HD consumer cams are starting to generate So far, but there will be more on the bandwagon soon.images > > that rival the standard def pro cameras, but being mired in 4:1:1 colorspace > > makes a low-resolution image look even worse. > > The only HD consumer cams I know of are the unimpressive JVC, and this > more impressive Sony. > > To look good on a theater screen, you need at least 4K pixels per frame. No. 4k x 4k, or 16.7 Mega pixels.I > > don't see that coming out of anything that Panny or Sony or anyone else is > > cooking up this year or last. > > Do you mean 4 megapixels? Star Wars Episode 2 had only 2 megapixels. > Whether it looked good in theaters is a matter of opinion, but Lucasfilm > clearly thought it was good enough. > > The difference becomes even greater when shooting a scene that is Sure, directly off the CCDs, but DV and MPEG are downsampled to 1/4> > lit by red or blue light. The real color resolution of the consumer > > stuff is about 1/4 of the stated specification, which is 1/4 of > > 960x1080 for the Sony HD-FX1. > > Why 1/4? The HD-FX1 is a 3-ccd camera, won't it get the full resolution? resolution to fit the signal on tape. Try reading a resolution chart in red or blue light. What? Only 120lph? Pshaw! > > Another point is that when you quantize a picture with almost infinite But I can spot a digital photo every time. And even my analog film> > detail into a fixed grid of 'pixels', the process generates noise in form of > > beat patterns or moire and jaggies. These things don't occur with film. > > Oh come on, this is the same nonsense that's been beaten to death in > the film-vs-digicam controversy in still photography. But still photoraphy > with film is now practically dead at almost every level. processing went digital and I complained to the film processor about the jaggies in my film to prints. They finally admitted that it wasn't optical enlargements they did anymore--all film was scanned digitally to print. I wasn't even looking for it and my eye spotted the tell-tale signs of digital on my 4x6 prints. > > The reason Moore and others can shoot such poor quality productions and Yup, because the quantizing is so coarse. Now with 24/96, it sounds a lotget > > away with it may be related to the mentality that MP3 is considered "CD > > quality". The public's standards are going downhill. No wonder HDTV isn't > > getting anywhere in the US. > > Yeah, they said the same thing when CD's replaced LP's. better. CDs don't fool me for a live performance, even without the surface noise, although I've done a few dbx type I recordings on open reel that, after hearing the performer live in the studio, mimicked it so well that none of us could tell with our eyes closed. I'm waiting to engage a local symphony orchestra for a 24/96 recording session this year, where I'll be able to tell of 24 bits is enough to convey the details and spacial timings accurately enough for me to point out each instrument in the sound field on playback. 16-bit CDs utterly destroy the subtle delays in time arrivals, causing a flattening of the sound stage, something my analog LPs didn't suffer from. And that was comparing the LP and CD versions of the same analog mastered recording. As opposed to, say, the standards of the audience that viewed "Earnest
Saves Christmas" or "Return to Gilligan's Island"? Who knows what they'll settle for next! "Clerks"? "Anniversary Party"? "Celebration"? "Primer", "Blair Witch Project"? The advantages of having the technology available to people who have creative skills but not much money, and who don't have the connections needed to get access to Hollywood money, far outweight the technical disadvantages of the medium. If you have the money for a great camera, fine. But if you've got ideas and something worthwhile to say, don't let technology snobbery stop you. And yes, there is clearly a significant audience out there-- not nearly a majority, but a significant number-- who value content highly enough to find technical deficiencies tolerable. Mark & Mary Ann Weiss wrote: Show quote > > quality". The public's standards are going downhill. No wonder HDTV isn't > getting anywhere in the US. > > > -- > Best Regards, > > Mark A. Weiss, P.E. > www.mwcomms.com > - > > > I don't disagree that "DV" has opened a new range of opportunities for the
'average' audience to experience 'indy' filmmaking, but that wasn't what my original reply was about. I replied for the purporse of setting straight the definition of "consumer", "mid-range" and "professional" cameras. Show quote > As opposed to, say, the standards of the audience that viewed "Earnest > Saves Christmas" or "Return to Gilligan's Island"? > > Who knows what they'll settle for next! "Clerks"? "Anniversary Party"? > "Celebration"? "Primer", "Blair Witch Project"? > > The advantages of having the technology available to people who have > creative skills but not much money, and who don't have the connections > needed to get access to Hollywood money, far outweight the technical > disadvantages of the medium. If you have the money for a great camera, > fine. But if you've got ideas and something worthwhile to say, don't > let technology snobbery stop you. > > And yes, there is clearly a significant audience out there-- not nearly > a majority, but a significant number-- who value content highly enough > to find technical deficiencies tolerable. > > As opposed to, say, the standards of the audience that viewed "Earnest
Saves Christmas" or "Return to Gilligan's Island"? Who knows what they'll settle for next! "Clerks"? "Anniversary Party"? "Celebration"? "Primer", "Blair Witch Project"? The advantages of having the technology available to people who have creative skills but not much money, and who don't have the connections needed to get access to Hollywood money, far outweight the technical disadvantages of the medium. If you have the money for a great camera, fine. But if you've got ideas and something worthwhile to say, don't let technology snobbery stop you. And yes, there is clearly a significant audience out there-- not nearly a majority, but a significant number-- who value content highly enough to find technical deficiencies tolerable. Mark & Mary Ann Weiss wrote: Show quote > > quality". The public's standards are going downhill. No wonder HDTV isn't > getting anywhere in the US. > > > -- > Best Regards, > > Mark A. Weiss, P.E. > www.mwcomms.com > - > > > I don't disagree that "DV" has opened a new range of opportunities for the
'average' audience to experience 'indy' filmmaking, but that wasn't what my original reply was about. I replied for the purporse of setting straight the definition of "consumer", "mid-range" and "professional" cameras. Show quote > As opposed to, say, the standards of the audience that viewed "Earnest > Saves Christmas" or "Return to Gilligan's Island"? > > Who knows what they'll settle for next! "Clerks"? "Anniversary Party"? > "Celebration"? "Primer", "Blair Witch Project"? > > The advantages of having the technology available to people who have > creative skills but not much money, and who don't have the connections > needed to get access to Hollywood money, far outweight the technical > disadvantages of the medium. If you have the money for a great camera, > fine. But if you've got ideas and something worthwhile to say, don't > let technology snobbery stop you. > > And yes, there is clearly a significant audience out there-- not nearly > a majority, but a significant number-- who value content highly enough > to find technical deficiencies tolerable. > > "Mark & Mary Ann Weiss" <mweissX***@earthlink.net> writes: Or a very good film.> Sure, you can shoot a film with just about anything, but it takes a rare > audience to sit through two hours of blurry images. > Granted, some of the new HD consumer cams are starting to generate images The only HD consumer cams I know of are the unimpressive JVC, and this> that rival the standard def pro cameras, but being mired in 4:1:1 colorspace > makes a low-resolution image look even worse. more impressive Sony. > To look good on a theater screen, you need at least 4K pixels per frame. I Do you mean 4 megapixels? Star Wars Episode 2 had only 2 megapixels.> don't see that coming out of anything that Panny or Sony or anyone else is > cooking up this year or last. Whether it looked good in theaters is a matter of opinion, but Lucasfilm clearly thought it was good enough. > The difference becomes even greater when shooting a scene that is Why 1/4? The HD-FX1 is a 3-ccd camera, won't it get the full resolution?> lit by red or blue light. The real color resolution of the consumer > stuff is about 1/4 of the stated specification, which is 1/4 of > 960x1080 for the Sony HD-FX1. > Another point is that when you quantize a picture with almost infinite Oh come on, this is the same nonsense that's been beaten to death in> detail into a fixed grid of 'pixels', the process generates noise in form of > beat patterns or moire and jaggies. These things don't occur with film. the film-vs-digicam controversy in still photography. But still photoraphy with film is now practically dead at almost every level. > The reason Moore and others can shoot such poor quality productions and get Yeah, they said the same thing when CD's replaced LP's.> away with it may be related to the mentality that MP3 is considered "CD > quality". The public's standards are going downhill. No wonder HDTV isn't > getting anywhere in the US. > > Sure, you can shoot a film with just about anything, but it takes a rare It would take very-well-done story content to get me to sit through two> > audience to sit through two hours of blurry images. > > Or a very good film. hours of blurred video on a big screen (and the resulting headaches that it would cause), and even then, I'd hesitate to do it. > > Granted, some of the new HD consumer cams are starting to generate So far, but there will be more on the bandwagon soon.images > > that rival the standard def pro cameras, but being mired in 4:1:1 colorspace > > makes a low-resolution image look even worse. > > The only HD consumer cams I know of are the unimpressive JVC, and this > more impressive Sony. > > To look good on a theater screen, you need at least 4K pixels per frame. No. 4k x 4k, or 16.7 Mega pixels.I > > don't see that coming out of anything that Panny or Sony or anyone else is > > cooking up this year or last. > > Do you mean 4 megapixels? Star Wars Episode 2 had only 2 megapixels. > Whether it looked good in theaters is a matter of opinion, but Lucasfilm > clearly thought it was good enough. > > The difference becomes even greater when shooting a scene that is Sure, directly off the CCDs, but DV and MPEG are downsampled to 1/4> > lit by red or blue light. The real color resolution of the consumer > > stuff is about 1/4 of the stated specification, which is 1/4 of > > 960x1080 for the Sony HD-FX1. > > Why 1/4? The HD-FX1 is a 3-ccd camera, won't it get the full resolution? resolution to fit the signal on tape. Try reading a resolution chart in red or blue light. What? Only 120lph? Pshaw! > > Another point is that when you quantize a picture with almost infinite But I can spot a digital photo every time. And even my analog film> > detail into a fixed grid of 'pixels', the process generates noise in form of > > beat patterns or moire and jaggies. These things don't occur with film. > > Oh come on, this is the same nonsense that's been beaten to death in > the film-vs-digicam controversy in still photography. But still photoraphy > with film is now practically dead at almost every level. processing went digital and I complained to the film processor about the jaggies in my film to prints. They finally admitted that it wasn't optical enlargements they did anymore--all film was scanned digitally to print. I wasn't even looking for it and my eye spotted the tell-tale signs of digital on my 4x6 prints. > > The reason Moore and others can shoot such poor quality productions and Yup, because the quantizing is so coarse. Now with 24/96, it sounds a lotget > > away with it may be related to the mentality that MP3 is considered "CD > > quality". The public's standards are going downhill. No wonder HDTV isn't > > getting anywhere in the US. > > Yeah, they said the same thing when CD's replaced LP's. better. CDs don't fool me for a live performance, even without the surface noise, although I've done a few dbx type I recordings on open reel that, after hearing the performer live in the studio, mimicked it so well that none of us could tell with our eyes closed. I'm waiting to engage a local symphony orchestra for a 24/96 recording session this year, where I'll be able to tell of 24 bits is enough to convey the details and spacial timings accurately enough for me to point out each instrument in the sound field on playback. 16-bit CDs utterly destroy the subtle delays in time arrivals, causing a flattening of the sound stage, something my analog LPs didn't suffer from. And that was comparing the LP and CD versions of the same analog mastered recording. There's a wide range to choose-DV, mini DV micro DV, digital 8, DVD RAM
etc.etc.all of them can be connected to a computer for editing and processing.My ex-dentist got one that has a memory stick (a sony one) and can act as a digital camera. -- Show quoteTzortzakakis Dimitri?s major in electrical engineering, freelance electrician FH von Iraklion-Kreta, freiberuflicher Elektriker dimtzort AT otenet DOT gr ? <drpar***@phreshdesign.com> ?????? ??? ?????? news:1103141979.653348.154250@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com... > Hi - > I apologize in advance if this appears too frequently, but... I want to > get into digital filmmaking, and I'm looking for recommendations for a > digital camcorder. Just to be clear, I don't want to capture my > newborn's (or lack thereof, thank god - I'm only 25) first steps, > family gatherings (perfectly forgettable as is) and whatnot. I want to > produce short films that look as close to a decent low-budget indie > film as possible, maybe even something worthy of submitting to a > short-film festival or contest. For example, maybe like some of the > Dogme 95 films? (Celebration (Festen), Italian for Beginners...etc). > > I have every resource needed (in terms of hardware and software) for > post-production, so that shouldn't factor into my buying decision. As > far as budget goes, if there exists a camera under $1000 that might > suit my purposes, that would be great. But If I'm better off just > saving up the cash and getting the XL1S or XL2, I might be willing to > do it. So I suppose my first question is, does a mid-range camera > exist capable of producing legitimate quality films? I'm don't > need any of the gimmicky crap like in-camera special effects, > analog-to-digital conversion, zoom, web-access, still-photos (I don't > want anything to do with this, that's why I have a still digital > camera) and whatever else used to target home-video consumers. I just > want the best quality film by the time I bring it to the computer. So > I suppose my interests lie in good quality film in all lighting > situations, the ability to add external devices to better the filming, > image stabilization, and whatever else. I want to be able to add > lighting, microphones, and whatever else to make the film better. > > I've been doing a little research around the Web, and it seems to be > the case that digital filmmaking uses the higher end XL1-type cameras > while everything mid-range and down is dedicated for home video use. > I've actually used an XL1S for a little while, but not all that > extensively. Seems like a nice camera, but quite frankly, it's > freaking expensive. > So my next question is... does a mid-range camera exist under $1000 > that will suit my aforementioned purposes? Or is it either prosumer or > consumer and nothing in between? > > Other questions... > Can I get by without the 3 CCDs for what I want to do? > Are the mid-range cameras that have 3 CCDs (for example, the Panasonic > PV-G120) that much better for developing that feature? > So far, it seems that Panasonic cameras might be the best choice for my > interests... any truth to that? > In my experience with still digital cameras, zooming should be avoided > for the most part, as it jeopardizes the image stability, and you > should be able to frame your image without it. Is this accurate for > camcorders as well? And thus, is zooming, both optical and digital, in > digital camcorders an unnecessary feature? > Do I need anything besides a Firewire port? What's the point of > having both a USB and Firewire? > Some of these cameras are really freaking small! Are the smaller ones > harder to control? > Thanks, any help or direction would be greatly appreciated. > > Doug > OK, thanks for everyone who has replied. Some of this technical
discussion is a little bit over my head, but I'm getting some ideas. Just to clarify, By "mid-range," I was referring to consumer DV cameras. Thanks guys, I really appreciate it. Dimitrios Tzortzakakis wrote: Show quote > There's a wide range to choose-DV, mini DV micro DV, digital 8, DVD RAM > etc.etc.all of them can be connected to a computer for editing and > processing.My ex-dentist got one that has a memory stick (a sony one) and > can act as a digital camera. > > -- > Tzortzakakis Dimitri?s > major in electrical engineering, freelance electrician > FH von Iraklion-Kreta, freiberuflicher Elektriker > dimtzort AT otenet DOT gr > ? <drpar***@phreshdesign.com> ?????? ??? ?????? > news:1103141979.653348.154250@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com... > > Hi - > > I apologize in advance if this appears too frequently, but... I want to > > get into digital filmmaking, and I'm looking for recommendations for a > > digital camcorder. Just to be clear, I don't want to capture my > > newborn's (or lack thereof, thank god - I'm only 25) first steps, > > family gatherings (perfectly forgettable as is) and whatnot. I want to > > produce short films that look as close to a decent low-budget indie > > film as possible, maybe even something worthy of submitting to a > > short-film festival or contest. For example, maybe like some of the > > Dogme 95 films? (Celebration (Festen), Italian for Beginners...etc). > > > > I have every resource needed (in terms of hardware and software) for > > post-production, so that shouldn't factor into my buying decision. As > > far as budget goes, if there exists a camera under $1000 that might > > suit my purposes, that would be great. But If I'm better off just > > saving up the cash and getting the XL1S or XL2, I might be willing to > > do it. So I suppose my first question is, does a mid-range camera > > exist capable of producing legitimate quality films? I'm don't > > need any of the gimmicky crap like in-camera special effects, > > analog-to-digital conversion, zoom, web-access, still-photos (I don't > > want anything to do with this, that's why I have a still digital > > camera) and whatever else used to target home-video consumers. I just > > want the best quality film by the time I bring it to the computer. So > > I suppose my interests lie in good quality film in all lighting > > situations, the ability to add external devices to better the filming, > > image stabilization, and whatever else. I want to be able to add > > lighting, microphones, and whatever else to make the film better. > > > > I've been doing a little research around the Web, and it seems to be > > the case that digital filmmaking uses the higher end XL1-type cameras > > while everything mid-range and down is dedicated for home video use. > > I've actually used an XL1S for a little while, but not all that > > extensively. Seems like a nice camera, but quite frankly, it's > > freaking expensive. > > So my next question is... does a mid-range camera exist under $1000 > > that will suit my aforementioned purposes? Or is it either prosumer or > > consumer and nothing in between? > > > > Other questions... > > Can I get by without the 3 CCDs for what I want to do? > > Are the mid-range cameras that have 3 CCDs (for example, the Panasonic > > PV-G120) that much better for developing that feature? > > So far, it seems that Panasonic cameras might be the best choice for my > > interests... any truth to that? > > In my experience with still digital cameras, zooming should be avoided > > for the most part, as it jeopardizes the image stability, and you > > should be able to frame your image without it. Is this accurate for > > camcorders as well? And thus, is zooming, both optical and digital, in > > digital camcorders an unnecessary feature? > > Do I need anything besides a Firewire port? What's the point of > > having both a USB and Firewire? > > Some of these cameras are really freaking small! Are the smaller ones > > harder to control? > > Thanks, any help or direction would be greatly appreciated. > > > > Doug > > "Doug" <drpar***@phreshdesign.com> wrote in message Just by introducing the word "consumer DV", you've centered your searchnews:1103294946.046708.231380@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com... > OK, thanks for everyone who has replied. Some of this technical > discussion is a little bit over my head, but I'm getting some ideas. > > Just to clarify, By "mid-range," I was referring to consumer DV > cameras. > > Thanks guys, I really appreciate it. results on 'low end' --there is no 'mid-range' coming from 'consumer DV' in the grand landscape of cinematography. Now if you had asked about shooting home movies, or pictures of your kids on holidays, the category would be narrowed to 'consumer' formats and then we could talk about 'mid range' cameras IN THAT CONTEXT. Shooting movies for the big screen means shooting 16.7 megapixel images per frame, the resolution of which being defined over the whole range of color, not just monochrome images. The top consumer HDV camera manages just about 1 megapixel and consumer DV cameras, about 1/6th of that! OK, thanks for everyone who has replied. Some of this technical
discussion is a little bit over my head, but I'm getting some ideas. Just to clarify, By "mid-range," I was referring to consumer DV cameras. Thanks guys, I really appreciate it. Dimitrios Tzortzakakis wrote: Show quote > There's a wide range to choose-DV, mini DV micro DV, digital 8, DVD RAM > etc.etc.all of them can be connected to a computer for editing and > processing.My ex-dentist got one that has a memory stick (a sony one) and > can act as a digital camera. > > -- > Tzortzakakis Dimitri?s > major in electrical engineering, freelance electrician > FH von Iraklion-Kreta, freiberuflicher Elektriker > dimtzort AT otenet DOT gr > ? <drpar***@phreshdesign.com> ?????? ??? ?????? > news:1103141979.653348.154250@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com... > > Hi - > > I apologize in advance if this appears too frequently, but... I want to > > get into digital filmmaking, and I'm looking for recommendations for a > > digital camcorder. Just to be clear, I don't want to capture my > > newborn's (or lack thereof, thank god - I'm only 25) first steps, > > family gatherings (perfectly forgettable as is) and whatnot. I want to > > produce short films that look as close to a decent low-budget indie > > film as possible, maybe even something worthy of submitting to a > > short-film festival or contest. For example, maybe like some of the > > Dogme 95 films? (Celebration (Festen), Italian for Beginners...etc). > > > > I have every resource needed (in terms of hardware and software) for > > post-production, so that shouldn't factor into my buying decision. As > > far as budget goes, if there exists a camera under $1000 that might > > suit my purposes, that would be great. But If I'm better off just > > saving up the cash and getting the XL1S or XL2, I might be willing to > > do it. So I suppose my first question is, does a mid-range camera > > exist capable of producing legitimate quality films? I'm don't > > need any of the gimmicky crap like in-camera special effects, > > analog-to-digital conversion, zoom, web-access, still-photos (I don't > > want anything to do with this, that's why I have a still digital > > camera) and whatever else used to target home-video consumers. I just > > want the best quality film by the time I bring it to the computer. So > > I suppose my interests lie in good quality film in all lighting > > situations, the ability to add external devices to better the filming, > > image stabilization, and whatever else. I want to be able to add > > lighting, microphones, and whatever else to make the film better. > > > > I've been doing a little research around the Web, and it seems to be > > the case that digital filmmaking uses the higher end XL1-type cameras > > while everything mid-range and down is dedicated for home video use. > > I've actually used an XL1S for a little while, but not all that > > extensively. Seems like a nice camera, but quite frankly, it's > > freaking expensive. > > So my next question is... does a mid-range camera exist under $1000 > > that will suit my aforementioned purposes? Or is it either prosumer or > > consumer and nothing in between? > > > > Other questions... > > Can I get by without the 3 CCDs for what I want to do? > > Are the mid-range cameras that have 3 CCDs (for example, the Panasonic > > PV-G120) that much better for developing that feature? > > So far, it seems that Panasonic cameras might be the best choice for my > > interests... any truth to that? > > In my experience with still digital cameras, zooming should be avoided > > for the most part, as it jeopardizes the image stability, and you > > should be able to frame your image without it. Is this accurate for > > camcorders as well? And thus, is zooming, both optical and digital, in > > digital camcorders an unnecessary feature? > > Do I need anything besides a Firewire port? What's the point of > > having both a USB and Firewire? > > Some of these cameras are really freaking small! Are the smaller ones > > harder to control? > > Thanks, any help or direction would be greatly appreciated. > > > > Doug > > "Doug" <drpar***@phreshdesign.com> wrote in message Just by introducing the word "consumer DV", you've centered your searchnews:1103294946.046708.231380@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com... > OK, thanks for everyone who has replied. Some of this technical > discussion is a little bit over my head, but I'm getting some ideas. > > Just to clarify, By "mid-range," I was referring to consumer DV > cameras. > > Thanks guys, I really appreciate it. results on 'low end' --there is no 'mid-range' coming from 'consumer DV' in the grand landscape of cinematography. Now if you had asked about shooting home movies, or pictures of your kids on holidays, the category would be narrowed to 'consumer' formats and then we could talk about 'mid range' cameras IN THAT CONTEXT. Shooting movies for the big screen means shooting 16.7 megapixel images per frame, the resolution of which being defined over the whole range of color, not just monochrome images. The top consumer HDV camera manages just about 1 megapixel and consumer DV cameras, about 1/6th of that! "Mark & Mary Ann Weiss" <mweissX***@earthlink.net> writes: Absolute nonsense. See Star Wars Episode 2, Attack of the Clones, for> Shooting movies for the big screen means shooting 16.7 megapixel images per > frame, example. Was it not shot for the big screen? How many megapixels did it have? all very interesting.....
but at the end of the day, if your story is worth telling, and people are interested, they'll even watch it on vhs.... leslie "Mark & Mary Ann Weiss" <mweissX***@earthlink.net> writes: Absolute nonsense. See Star Wars Episode 2, Attack of the Clones, for> Shooting movies for the big screen means shooting 16.7 megapixel images per > frame, example. Was it not shot for the big screen? How many megapixels did it have? all very interesting.....
but at the end of the day, if your story is worth telling, and people are interested, they'll even watch it on vhs.... leslie "Paul Rubin" <http://phr.cx@NOSPAM.invalid> wrote in message George Lucas is experimenting with the then-current state-of-the-artnews:7xbrcpdg8v.fsf@ruckus.brouhaha.com... > "Mark & Mary Ann Weiss" <mweissX***@earthlink.net> writes: > > Shooting movies for the big screen means shooting 16.7 megapixel images per > > frame, > > Absolute nonsense. See Star Wars Episode 2, Attack of the Clones, for > example. Was it not shot for the big screen? How many megapixels did > it have? technology. The film looks okay to an average audience, especially the teen couples petting in the back rows, so who cares, right? But it didn't look as good as film. And I didn't even mention EXPOSURE LATTITUDE. Film's 8+ stops of lattitude, vs. digitals 4-5 stops of lattitude. Notice the blown highlights on these DV films of late? Notice the muddy blacks with no real detail? Notice the ringing caused by edge enhancement circuits? To even approach good 35mm film, images are rendered in 4K resolution. Ever see Toy Story, or Shrek, or Lord of the Rings? All the CG sequences are rendered in 4K, ie., 16 megapixels/frame. Someday there will be 4K digital cinema cameras, perhaps in 2-3 years' time. There's a lot of room for improvement. "Mark & Mary Ann Weiss" <mweissX***@earthlink.net> writes: You really think he's going to do technology experiments with> George Lucas is experimenting with the then-current state-of-the-art > technology. high-profile movies like Star Wars episodes? No, he did his experiments before deciding that the results were good enough to go forward with. > The film looks okay to an average audience, especially So? 35mm cine doesn't look as good as 70mm either, but only> the teen couples petting in the back rows, so who cares, right? But > it didn't look as good as film. big-budget studio movies use 70mm, and that's just because of large screens. And the OP is trying to make low-budget indie films, which in the old days would have been made on 16mm or even super-8. The issue isn't making the movie look as good as it possibly can; it's just a matter of making it look good enough to convey the story. > And I didn't even mention EXPOSURE LATTITUDE. Film's 8+ stops of Should I care? I'll take a good script and blown highlights over> lattitude, vs. digitals 4-5 stops of lattitude. Notice the blown > highlights on these DV films of late? technical excellence and a stupid story every time. A friend of mine wanted to shoot a documentary about a semi-historical building that was scheduled to be torn down. The idea was to show some stuff inside the building and interview some of the people who worked in it, while the building was still standing. He putzed around for months trying to get hold of professional mini-DV equipment so the interviews would look nice. Finally as the last minute was getting near, he shot a few interviews using his cheap consumer hi-8 camera since that was all he had. They were excellent interviews and some of what he shot was shown on local cable TV. Yeah, the video didn't look as good as it would have with better equipment, but nobody cared; what was interesting was the subject matter. And while he got some nice footage, he could have gotten a lot more if he'd simply stopped obsessing about equipment and used the hi-8 camera from the beginning. I'm thinking of shooting something along similar lines. If I get really serious, I might plop a couple grand for a VX2000 or something comparable, but at least at the beginning I'm certainly going to use my hi-8 Sony TRV87 that was $300 on Ebay. Remember that some of the most powerful parts of Fahrenheit 9/11 was off-the-air clips that looked much worse than hi-8 camcorder output, and F911 became one of the top 10 grossing films of the year. "Paul Rubin" <http://phr.cx@NOSPAM.invalid> wrote in message George Lucas is experimenting with the then-current state-of-the-artnews:7xbrcpdg8v.fsf@ruckus.brouhaha.com... > "Mark & Mary Ann Weiss" <mweissX***@earthlink.net> writes: > > Shooting movies for the big screen means shooting 16.7 megapixel images per > > frame, > > Absolute nonsense. See Star Wars Episode 2, Attack of the Clones, for > example. Was it not shot for the big screen? How many megapixels did > it have? technology. The film looks okay to an average audience, especially the teen couples petting in the back rows, so who cares, right? But it didn't look as good as film. And I didn't even mention EXPOSURE LATTITUDE. Film's 8+ stops of lattitude, vs. digitals 4-5 stops of lattitude. Notice the blown highlights on these DV films of late? Notice the muddy blacks with no real detail? Notice the ringing caused by edge enhancement circuits? To even approach good 35mm film, images are rendered in 4K resolution. Ever see Toy Story, or Shrek, or Lord of the Rings? All the CG sequences are rendered in 4K, ie., 16 megapixels/frame. Someday there will be 4K digital cinema cameras, perhaps in 2-3 years' time. There's a lot of room for improvement. "Mark & Mary Ann Weiss" <mweissX***@earthlink.net> writes: You really think he's going to do technology experiments with> George Lucas is experimenting with the then-current state-of-the-art > technology. high-profile movies like Star Wars episodes? No, he did his experiments before deciding that the results were good enough to go forward with. > The film looks okay to an average audience, especially So? 35mm cine doesn't look as good as 70mm either, but only> the teen couples petting in the back rows, so who cares, right? But > it didn't look as good as film. big-budget studio movies use 70mm, and that's just because of large screens. And the OP is trying to make low-budget indie films, which in the old days would have been made on 16mm or even super-8. The issue isn't making the movie look as good as it possibly can; it's just a matter of making it look good enough to convey the story. > And I didn't even mention EXPOSURE LATTITUDE. Film's 8+ stops of Should I care? I'll take a good script and blown highlights over> lattitude, vs. digitals 4-5 stops of lattitude. Notice the blown > highlights on these DV films of late? technical excellence and a stupid story every time. A friend of mine wanted to shoot a documentary about a semi-historical building that was scheduled to be torn down. The idea was to show some stuff inside the building and interview some of the people who worked in it, while the building was still standing. He putzed around for months trying to get hold of professional mini-DV equipment so the interviews would look nice. Finally as the last minute was getting near, he shot a few interviews using his cheap consumer hi-8 camera since that was all he had. They were excellent interviews and some of what he shot was shown on local cable TV. Yeah, the video didn't look as good as it would have with better equipment, but nobody cared; what was interesting was the subject matter. And while he got some nice footage, he could have gotten a lot more if he'd simply stopped obsessing about equipment and used the hi-8 camera from the beginning. I'm thinking of shooting something along similar lines. If I get really serious, I might plop a couple grand for a VX2000 or something comparable, but at least at the beginning I'm certainly going to use my hi-8 Sony TRV87 that was $300 on Ebay. Remember that some of the most powerful parts of Fahrenheit 9/11 was off-the-air clips that looked much worse than hi-8 camcorder output, and F911 became one of the top 10 grossing films of the year.
Show quote
"Paul Rubin" <http://phr.cx@NOSPAM.invalid> wrote in message I worked at a place that used a lot of 70mm in the 80s. I don't think anyone news:7x3by1fbpp.fsf@ruckus.brouhaha.com... > "Mark & Mary Ann Weiss" <mweissX***@earthlink.net> writes: >> George Lucas is experimenting with the then-current state-of-the-art >> technology. > > You really think he's going to do technology experiments with > high-profile movies like Star Wars episodes? No, he did his > experiments before deciding that the results were good enough to go > forward with. > >> The film looks okay to an average audience, especially >> the teen couples petting in the back rows, so who cares, right? But >> it didn't look as good as film. > > So? 35mm cine doesn't look as good as 70mm either, but only > big-budget studio movies use 70mm, and that's just because of large > screens. is using it anymore.
Show quote
"Paul Rubin" <http://phr.cx@NOSPAM.invalid> wrote in message I worked at a place that used a lot of 70mm in the 80s. I don't think anyone news:7x3by1fbpp.fsf@ruckus.brouhaha.com... > "Mark & Mary Ann Weiss" <mweissX***@earthlink.net> writes: >> George Lucas is experimenting with the then-current state-of-the-art >> technology. > > You really think he's going to do technology experiments with > high-profile movies like Star Wars episodes? No, he did his > experiments before deciding that the results were good enough to go > forward with. > >> The film looks okay to an average audience, especially >> the teen couples petting in the back rows, so who cares, right? But >> it didn't look as good as film. > > So? 35mm cine doesn't look as good as 70mm either, but only > big-budget studio movies use 70mm, and that's just because of large > screens. is using it anymore. "Paul Rubin" <http://phr.cx@NOSPAM.invalid> wrote in message He may as well for as lousy as they end up.news:7x3by1fbpp.fsf@ruckus.brouhaha.com... > "Mark & Mary Ann Weiss" <mweissX***@earthlink.net> writes: >> George Lucas is experimenting with the then-current state-of-the-art >> technology. > > You really think he's going to do technology experiments with > high-profile movies like Star Wars episodes? "nappy-iou" <go_f***@yourself.com> writes: The movies stunk because of the scripts. The technology was the part> > You really think he's going to do technology experiments with > > high-profile movies like Star Wars episodes? > > He may as well for as lousy as they end up. that he did very well. Compare "Dark Star" with far more imagination and crummy technology. Much better movie. "Paul Rubin" <http://phr.cx@NOSPAM.invalid> wrote in message He may as well for as lousy as they end up.news:7x3by1fbpp.fsf@ruckus.brouhaha.com... > "Mark & Mary Ann Weiss" <mweissX***@earthlink.net> writes: >> George Lucas is experimenting with the then-current state-of-the-art >> technology. > > You really think he's going to do technology experiments with > high-profile movies like Star Wars episodes? "nappy-iou" <go_f***@yourself.com> writes: The movies stunk because of the scripts. The technology was the part> > You really think he's going to do technology experiments with > > high-profile movies like Star Wars episodes? > > He may as well for as lousy as they end up. that he did very well. Compare "Dark Star" with far more imagination and crummy technology. Much better movie. "Paul Rubin" <http://phr.cx@NOSPAM.invalid> wrote in message Actually I suspect HE did little. Sony and Panavision probably did the work. news:7x1xdivqlu.fsf@ruckus.brouhaha.com... > "nappy-iou" <go_f***@yourself.com> writes: >> > You really think he's going to do technology experiments with >> > high-profile movies like Star Wars episodes? >> >> He may as well for as lousy as they end up. > > The movies stunk because of the scripts. The technology was the part > that he did very well He probably shot a little and ran frames through the drones at ILM. When I saw the movie I was severely unimpressed at the imagery of most of it. But you can not polish a terd so it was truly a waste with the worst acting and directing I have seen in a decade. Thankfully he will stop with the next one. .. Show quote > > Compare "Dark Star" with far more imagination and crummy technology. > Much better movie. "Paul Rubin" <http://phr.cx@NOSPAM.invalid> wrote in message Actually I suspect HE did little. Sony and Panavision probably did the work. news:7x1xdivqlu.fsf@ruckus.brouhaha.com... > "nappy-iou" <go_f***@yourself.com> writes: >> > You really think he's going to do technology experiments with >> > high-profile movies like Star Wars episodes? >> >> He may as well for as lousy as they end up. > > The movies stunk because of the scripts. The technology was the part > that he did very well He probably shot a little and ran frames through the drones at ILM. When I saw the movie I was severely unimpressed at the imagery of most of it. But you can not polish a terd so it was truly a waste with the worst acting and directing I have seen in a decade. Thankfully he will stop with the next one. .. Show quote > > Compare "Dark Star" with far more imagination and crummy technology. > Much better movie. Ok thanks, I get it. I think you know what I'm looking for at this
point. I obviously have neither the capital nor the desire to produce these types of movies, I'm just looking for suggestions for a capable camera to produce the type of film I mentioned in the first post. Thanks Ok thanks, I get it. I think you know what I'm looking for at this
point. I obviously have neither the capital nor the desire to produce these types of movies, I'm just looking for suggestions for a capable camera to produce the type of film I mentioned in the first post. Thanks  |
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Other interesting topics