Critique My First Film (and advise on gear)
I haven't had formal film school training, and have never worked in videography, but I have always wanted to try to tinker around with making my own low-budget films. I have recently lost my job and now I only work part time. I now have the opportunity to invest my extra time into part-time videography. If I cannot find someone willing to take me under their wing to let me work in their videography business, I am even considering investing in some equipment and taking the plunge on my own. If I could get by with only two cameras to start, maybe that would let me do smaller weddings and promotional videos, and things like that-- just to help pay for the cost of the equipment. If I went that route, what would I need to get started?
I wouldn't be filming any local news footage, any sports coverage, or anything like that to earn cash, just simple occasional standing talent and wedding-like events. Dabbling in bringing my own screenplays to life would involve much more action shots, tracking, and motion.
Is there any chance a TV commercial could be filmed with a simple 8-bit camera with a single 1/3-inch sensor and ultimately be good enough quality to air on local cable TV in the U.S.?
Here are some of the things I am currently debating:
1. Canon XF30x or Canon XF10x?
I am leaning toward the 100 series, just as a sheer cost factor, but am willing to be talked into making an investment in different equipment if you want to make the case for doing the 300 series instead.
Here's my thinking: I really, really want the optical zoom, superior lens, and triple CMOS of the Canon XF300/305, but right now I think my budget would be better allocated toward the smaller XF100/105 instead-- so I can invest in other equipment. (I currently have no mics, rigs, lights, matte box, editing software,... not even a quality tripod or head.) I could buy two Canon XF105s for the cost of one XF305 or two XF100s for the cost of one XF300. The XF305 costs $1200 more than the XF300, and the XF105 costs $700 more than the XF100. (Current online price check yeilds: Canon XF305 at $6,995.00; Canon XF105 at $3,495.00; Canon XF300 at $5,799.00; and Canon XF100 $2,809.00.) Twice the zoom is nice but not worth twice the price. Plus, I can use the XF100 as a family camcorder, whereas the 300 is way bigger.
2. Canon XF100 or XF105?
I have been browsing the Canons and heretofore haven't even looked at the XF105 or the XF305 because I didn't have sufficient computer hardware to make use of the HDSDI.
This might end up being a completely moot issue, if my current computer will not run any good video editing software anyway. If you can help me discern that I can't run the software without upgrading my old hardware, I could get a card to take advantage of the $700 HD-SDI output on the XF105. Maybe this is one of those cases such that, if I have to ask what it does, I don't need it. Nonetheless, I'm afraid if I do not ask I will never learn. So, what will I lose (what money-making opportunities will I miss) if I do not invest in the 105 and do not upgrade my computer to make use of a 1.485Gbps data rate?
3. Adobe Premiere Pro 5.5/6 or Sony Vegas Pro 11?
This one is really a question of whether I have to upgrade my computer or not. If the answer is yes in order to use either software option, I would probably rather have Premiere 5.5. Premiere is not that much more expensive than Sony Vegas 11, but I'm really concerned that Premiere would require me to beef up my computer system.
I have a 4yr old PC. It currently only has one PCX 512MB NVIDIA® GeForce™ 9800 GT; 6GB DDR3-1333 (3x204
memory; Creative Labs SoundBlaster® X-Fi™ XtremeAudio; and a 3-way SLI Motherboard EVGA X58 based chipset with PCI Express; and an Intel® Core™ i7 processor i7 Intel® Core™ i7 with quad 2.66GHz cores, 8MB Cache (4.8 GT/sec); but only one 500GB Hitachi 7200rpm 16MB Cache SATA 300w/NCQ; a built-in card reader and one 20x DVD+/-RW Dual Layer Burner; and Windows 7.
Would Premiere work on my machine at all? Or would it work, but just be very slow? I suspect that if I went with Premiere CS5.5 and didn't upgrade my video card, then it would tell me that it could not find one of the “certified“ video cards and would therefore set the Mercury Playback Engine to use only the computer’s CPU and not the video card’s GPU. Even if I hacked it to recognize my old card, it still only has 512MB and GPU Acceleration Mode requires at least 896 megs of video ram, right? I think that even the buggier CS5 required at least 756 MB.
Would I have to upgrade my cpu and graphics card even if I went the Vegas route? The Sony Vegas Pro website says their acceleration only requires at least 512 MB of GPU memory, but my computer is feeling sluggish now even when it is not doing video editing.
If I can't manage without upgrading my PC, which parts would I need to change or add to use Vegas comfortably? Which parts would I need to change or add to use Premiere comfortably? Would either of these answers make it more worth the expense to go ahead and choose the XF105 over the XF100? I assume I'd at least need another hard drive at the very minimum, but what else should I realistically expect to need?
If you were me, what gear would you get if you could invest $4,000.00?
I haven't had formal film school training, and have never worked in videography, but I have always wanted to try to tinker around with making my own low-budget films. I have recently lost my job and now I only work part time. I now have the opportunity to invest my extra time into part-time videography. If I cannot find someone willing to take me under their wing to let me work in their videography business, I am even considering investing in some equipment and taking the plunge on my own. If I could get by with only two cameras to start, maybe that would let me do smaller weddings and promotional videos, and things like that-- just to help pay for the cost of the equipment. If I went that route, what would I need to get started?
I wouldn't be filming any local news footage, any sports coverage, or anything like that to earn cash, just simple occasional standing talent and wedding-like events. Dabbling in bringing my own screenplays to life would involve much more action shots, tracking, and motion.
Is there any chance a TV commercial could be filmed with a simple 8-bit camera with a single 1/3-inch sensor and ultimately be good enough quality to air on local cable TV in the U.S.?
Here are some of the things I am currently debating:
1. Canon XF30x or Canon XF10x?
I am leaning toward the 100 series, just as a sheer cost factor, but am willing to be talked into making an investment in different equipment if you want to make the case for doing the 300 series instead.
Here's my thinking: I really, really want the optical zoom, superior lens, and triple CMOS of the Canon XF300/305, but right now I think my budget would be better allocated toward the smaller XF100/105 instead-- so I can invest in other equipment. (I currently have no mics, rigs, lights, matte box, editing software,... not even a quality tripod or head.) I could buy two Canon XF105s for the cost of one XF305 or two XF100s for the cost of one XF300. The XF305 costs $1200 more than the XF300, and the XF105 costs $700 more than the XF100. (Current online price check yeilds: Canon XF305 at $6,995.00; Canon XF105 at $3,495.00; Canon XF300 at $5,799.00; and Canon XF100 $2,809.00.) Twice the zoom is nice but not worth twice the price. Plus, I can use the XF100 as a family camcorder, whereas the 300 is way bigger.
2. Canon XF100 or XF105?
I have been browsing the Canons and heretofore haven't even looked at the XF105 or the XF305 because I didn't have sufficient computer hardware to make use of the HDSDI.
This might end up being a completely moot issue, if my current computer will not run any good video editing software anyway. If you can help me discern that I can't run the software without upgrading my old hardware, I could get a card to take advantage of the $700 HD-SDI output on the XF105. Maybe this is one of those cases such that, if I have to ask what it does, I don't need it. Nonetheless, I'm afraid if I do not ask I will never learn. So, what will I lose (what money-making opportunities will I miss) if I do not invest in the 105 and do not upgrade my computer to make use of a 1.485Gbps data rate?
3. Adobe Premiere Pro 5.5/6 or Sony Vegas Pro 11?
This one is really a question of whether I have to upgrade my computer or not. If the answer is yes in order to use either software option, I would probably rather have Premiere 5.5. Premiere is not that much more expensive than Sony Vegas 11, but I'm really concerned that Premiere would require me to beef up my computer system.
I have a 4yr old PC. It currently only has one PCX 512MB NVIDIA® GeForce™ 9800 GT; 6GB DDR3-1333 (3x204
memory; Creative Labs SoundBlaster® X-Fi™ XtremeAudio; and a 3-way SLI Motherboard EVGA X58 based chipset with PCI Express; and an Intel® Core™ i7 processor i7 Intel® Core™ i7 with quad 2.66GHz cores, 8MB Cache (4.8 GT/sec); but only one 500GB Hitachi 7200rpm 16MB Cache SATA 300w/NCQ; a built-in card reader and one 20x DVD+/-RW Dual Layer Burner; and Windows 7.Would Premiere work on my machine at all? Or would it work, but just be very slow? I suspect that if I went with Premiere CS5.5 and didn't upgrade my video card, then it would tell me that it could not find one of the “certified“ video cards and would therefore set the Mercury Playback Engine to use only the computer’s CPU and not the video card’s GPU. Even if I hacked it to recognize my old card, it still only has 512MB and GPU Acceleration Mode requires at least 896 megs of video ram, right? I think that even the buggier CS5 required at least 756 MB.
Would I have to upgrade my cpu and graphics card even if I went the Vegas route? The Sony Vegas Pro website says their acceleration only requires at least 512 MB of GPU memory, but my computer is feeling sluggish now even when it is not doing video editing.
If I can't manage without upgrading my PC, which parts would I need to change or add to use Vegas comfortably? Which parts would I need to change or add to use Premiere comfortably? Would either of these answers make it more worth the expense to go ahead and choose the XF105 over the XF100? I assume I'd at least need another hard drive at the very minimum, but what else should I realistically expect to need?
If you were me, what gear would you get if you could invest $4,000.00?
Last edited:
