The Ultimate Camera Debate

T

TheDark12

Hey everyone,
To cut to the chase I have decided that I want to become an indie film maker without ever owning a camera before. I have never filmed anything before and for my first camera I want something good. As good as I can economically find at least.

For starters, I don't want to dive into the semipro cameras until I've had experience in filming in small projects. I do however want to start filming in HD.

For the first camera I was thinking Sony HDR-SR7. Then I checked out this forum and noticed that the Canon HV20 is favoured.

Secondly, I want to buy with an aim to upgrade to something closer to the $4,000-$5,000 mark, mostly for the features that will offer. The XH A1 interests me. For now though I want the features and versatility that I can learn from and a camera cheaper than $1500 so that when I'm finished with it I can hand it down to my parents.

As far as First camera goes I am looking at either:
Sony HDR-SR7
Canon HV20

As far as semipro:
XH A1
HDR-FX1

I'm mostly interested in what you guys recommend based on your experiences and what you actually use. If there are any samples on the net they might be helpful too.

Thanks :)
 
Sort by date Sort by votes
Haha, I'm with Clive and I'm going to stop arguing my point.

All I meant to point out was with HD products storming the market, 1080p tv's already dropping to $1500, within a couple years everyone will have one. The transition is going to be like the transition from VHS to DVD. It took a while to start, but once it was in there was no stopping it. I remember walking into the shopping centre as a kid thinking VHS was all the world and seeing a huge basket of every VHS video imaginable for $2 ea. DVD had just emerged and most people still didn't have a player and already people wouldn't buy it.

I don't mean to say that any SD cam like the DVX100's won't still be pumping out indie films in five years time. I just can't picture anyone thinking, "I need a new camera and people would love to watch my SD indie film on their 1080p tv's and HD DVD drives. So instead of buying current technology, I'll buy one of those ol' DVX100's."

And if you still think people will be buying DVD's in five years, prepare to be surprised.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0 Downvote
OH, I agree... SD, HDV and film are all on the way out. Film will probably survive the longest because they'll always be people interested in the tonal values you get. But what will eventually kill film will be the economical crash of the support industries. The question will be, "how long will it remain profitable to process film, or to produce film stock?" You only have to see what digtal stills cameras have done the film manufacturers, to figure cine-film will be going the same way.

I guess the only point I was trying to make was, in this fast moving environment it's not possible to future proof yourself, so you have to make buying decisions based on what you need right now.

Now the irony of this... is I'd argue the complete opposite with editing equipment.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0 Downvote
examples of video shot?

Hi everyone,

i have been closely following this debate... I thought I had my mind set on a Canon XH A1 but now that i've read such great things about the canon hv20 I'm not so sure. Right now I'm shooting on a sony dv camcorder and my biggest problem with it is the grain - not to mention it jumps and is terrible in low light. Since I already have a camcorder, I don't know how much sense it makes to buy another... I guess that's part one of my question. Since my camcorder is over 4 years old should i just upgrade with a better camcorder i.e. canon hv20? Or should i just go bang out and get the xh a1?

Part two of the question is does anyone have any actual footage online from the hv20 and/or xh a1 that I could view for comparison?

thanks!
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
I've heard that the footage can be very similar under proper conditions with the HV20 and XH A1.

However if I was you I would probably be thinking "do I/will I make indie films?"
If you answer yes to this question buy an XH A1.
If you answer no to this question, consider the HV20.

Furthermore you should definitely note that HV20 is a shocker in low light. From all my research, that much has been unanimous. No doubt there are tricks that you can play to get it to perform, but if you are serious about your film and low-light quality I'd recommend the XH A1 over the HV20.

Don't forget to consider other cameras too though. I hear that the XH A1 is great but I'm sure there are others out there that might do exactly what you want or need for cheaper.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
yeah, low light operation is irrelevant unless you're doing event taping...for narrative work, you want the best picture possible, so you use lighting to bring the image to the point where you can have the iris almost as wide as possible (but not all the way open as there are funky optics things that happen at those settings).

If you're doing event taping, low light is very important...what do you intend to make with the camera?
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
I'd guess that it's a bit of both because he mentioned "my biggest problem with it is the grain - not to mention it jumps and is terrible in low light." (Speaking of his Sony.)

So if low light is a problem for you then HV20 isn't going to help.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
One of the biggest problems with indie productions is people trying to create the final "look" of a scene in camera. even a scene that is supposed to look dark should be lit and properly exposed -- even the shadow areas to a certain degree.

This gives you the best possible image for color correction and post production because it will cheat around the latitude issues of digital video, it will eliminate (or at least minimize) noise and grain, and it will give you options when choosing the look. You can then in post crunch the levels way down and make it very contrasty (film noir-ish) or adjust to virtually any look/feel you're after.

If you DON'T do this, you're limited pretty much to what was shot, and shooting in low light is never really going to yield very good results. In some cases it's unavoidable -- that would be, as knightly said, events... and that's basically it. Only in situations where it is impossible to gain control over lighting.

Considering that even in properly lit footage a certain amount of coloring attention should be given -- something else that's sadly overlooked too often on these low/no budget projects (one starts to wonder if ANYTHING gets proper attention, since lighting, sound, and coloring are given such little attention) -- it's not adding additional work to the post production workflow. It is ensuring that the proper effort is put into finishing the film though, which isn't a bad thing. :)

But, to give you an example of the HV20's exposure... I was shooting 24p footage this weekend, using a 1/48th shutter setting. We had somewhere around 2k of light on the scene the whole time and I was able to run at the highest exposure for most shots without over (or under) exposing anything. I haven't imported anything yet, so I can't post any screen grabs, but I'll do that in the next day or so.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0 Downvote
Hey Will,
Got those screen grabs yet? I should be getting my HV20 tomorrow (woohoo!) just wanted to add to this little debate and ask some people whether they think that depth of field adapters are worthwhile.
I'm not super concerned at this point but that may change as I start filming. Just wondering what the general opinions are on adapters (like what Matt Miller mentioned on page one).
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
no screen grabs, but I did put up a sample clip on my blog:
http://will-fx.blogspot.com/2007/11/head-hitting-concrete-sample-footage.html

That's straight from camera, no color correction, no alterations of any kind.. just a quick and dirty assembly edit.. Nothing done to the picture or audio.

It was shot in 24p though I didn't remove pulldown for this quick test. So, 24p, 1/48 shutter, f2.6 in most of the shots. Custom picture settings on the camera with color, contrast, etc all turned all the way down. And there is about 1000-2000 watts of light involved. Oh, and I imported it as standard def -- just so it would be quick for editing this clip together.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Who's the stupid bitch now!? Haha.

Very cool. That does look great for indie footage, I'd love to learn to light like that. Are there any other informative lighting sights apart from the ones that you suggested to a guy in the "Lighting for someone who has never lit" topic?

I get the basics of lighting from most of those links but it's very hard to visualise the setup, particularly if there is a huge background to be lit.

Question correct me if I'm wrong, fill lights also light the background?

Anyway, whichever one lights background, does putting lights IN the background but out of view of the camera run the risk of (I forget the term) overexposing? the shot (or making it darker??

Is it better to light the scene from a point behind the camera?
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Well.. the basic 3-point lighting is important...

Aside from that, I just try to add light to keep the whole image fairly even in exposure, so even the shadow areas aren't totally dark. Basically I just play with the lights until it looks right. I don't really have it down to a science (yet) but I should mention that I don't normally do the cinematography, so I'm usually not responsible for the lighting.

As for other references, ummm... I found these very helpful:
http://downloads.digitaljuice.com/djtv/DJTV-ProdNotes-s01e102-iPod.mp4
http://downloads.digitaljuice.com/djtv/DJTV-ProdNotes-s01e105-iPod.mp4
http://downloads.digitaljuice.com/djtv/DJTV-ProdNotes-s01e109-iPod.mp4
http://downloads.digitaljuice.com/djtv/DJTV-ProdNotes-s01e111-iPod.mp4
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
TheDark12 said:
I don't mean to trash SD cameras, I only mean to say that I don't see much future in them. Undoubtedly, the DVX100a & b are great cameras, but from my perspective, I can't see too many people still seeking out SD cameras half a decade from now.
Click to expand...

I think it depends on how you look at it.

Considering the fact that there are people trying to make movies with $500 3 chip Handi-cams, I think that people will probably still look at Standard Definition. Granted it will be used, but a used DVX with the audio it provides and the fact that it does shoot in 24p and that the pictures are good, I think that any new person just starting out will take a second look at a camera like this. The price will be low enough for beginners to actually get their hands on a camera that shoots real pictures and it will be enough until they can afford something HD.

That is what I am doing. But I am working on becoming a better filmmaker technically, visually and creatively. Once the video/filmmaking thing begins to pay off, I will be looking at the next level of HD cameras....just not right now. Right now, I am using what I have....

-- spinner :cool:, a DVX user
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
knightly said:
HD is the future, but the scope of that future is still on the horizon and we have much travelling to do. I'd rather travel with something that'll reach the widest audience and save my money for production costs now, and upgrade later when HD becomes a viable release platform. HD is currently too expensive to be a viable consumer option for the masses, especially with more concerning costs for the stability of the family, fuel and heating/cooling costs.
Click to expand...

...I agree with this....

-- spinner :cool:
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Yeah, that's a fair point spinner. My reasoning is simply that in five years time other cameras that are far more technologically advanced by todays standards will be the same price as the DVX and therefore more likely to be bought.

The main reason that I think this is because to me it already looks like SD is on its way out. I went to my local HiFi store yesterday to find that they dont sell SD televisions anymore. Surprising but true. If people won't buy the TV's anymore how long before they won't buy the cameras? My best guess is five years and thus my comments.

I guess only time will tell.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
Isn't there still a stigma associated with the videotape look? We've all been raised on films in the theater, and there are distinct features to the "film look." It tends to be softer, shallow depth...fuzzy around the edges. These are all things that HD is not. Even when these films are converted to DVD, they still retain the look of the source media. And this is what the viewing audience expects from a feature movie. It seems to me that currently, people are more willing to accept a DV production as a feature if it can trick viewers into believing they are watching a film product. The stigma is -- video still looks cheap because it doesn't look like film.

So, how does HD play into this? I'm asking this as a serious question because I haven't done much research into HD. Wouldn't the HD qualities of DV (razor sharp clarity) create an even wider distance from the look of film, thereby making it even harder to "filmify" the product?
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
HD shares the same "non-film" issues as SD... but where HD differs is it offers an exposure latitude closer to film than SD. So, when it comes to creating a filmic look, HD does have advantages.

The Depth of Field issues are almost exactly the same as SD.

But, I think the key isn't really format related... somehow I don't think the people who now own HD TV's will stop watching 28 Days Later, which was shot on cheap, nasty SD camcorders.

The acquisition issue isn't anywhere near as important as the story you tell or the way you use the format you choose.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
actually, 28 days later was shot on relatively expensive nasty SD Prosumer camcorders...specifically Canon XL1's with P+S Technic 35mm adapters and nice 35mm lenses. And the story was written to make the use of video part of the story telling so it didn't stand out as much. The immediacy of news footage (60i-limited lattitude & contrasty) is the effect they were going for to make it feel more immediate and real.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
For the most part what jumps out as a video-y look is shutter speed. Because most video cameras -- unless set otherwise -- with drop down to a shutter speed equal to or slower than the frame rate at least some times... Since that is physically impossible to do on film (as it would mean the shutter was open all the time, or longer per frame than that frame is in the gate) it looks "wrong".

That's why, even if you can't shoot 24p, you should always use a shutter speed of at least twice the speed of your frame rate. So if you were shooting 30fps footage, you'd want a shutter speed of 1/60th or faster. Twice the speed is equivalent to a 180 degree shutter (meaning that as the shutter spins, light passes beyond it and hits the film plane for exactly half of one rotation, with one rotation being the speed the frames are passing through the gate).

Faster than that starts to look stroby, and you get the kind of effects seen in the storming of Normandy Beach scenes in Saving Private Ryan. That would be the same as using a smaller angle shutter, so effectively less light is hitting each frame, and depending on that angle it can end up being a little random in feel.

Video looks cheap because it doesn't look like film, sure.. but more over, video looks cheap because when shot without taking it's quirks and limitations in mind it ends up looking like the 5 o'clock news.. and Nobody in their right mind is going to drive somewhere, and drop $6 or more to watch the 5 o'clock news... I don't care how compelling the top story might be.

The other issues you mentioned, depth of field, soft edges, softer overall image... they can all be addressed very easily. A 35mm adapter will eliminate the depth of field issue. Soft edges can be added with a little vignetting in post (though it's not prevalent in all films) and the softer overall image is a contrast issue.. ideally you should evenly expose all of your shots (that is not a huge difference in levels between the brightest and darkest points, but still a few stops so it's apparent) and shoot with a lower contrast setting in camera. The overall contrast and exposure should be determined in post because shooting this way will allow you to cheat around the latitude limitations of the format, and you can produce some very filmic images -- even without making use of shallow depth of field.

Everything you shoot, with any kind of serious or semi-serious exhibition/distribution in mind, should have a large amount of attention given to coloring (primary and secondary color correction), as it should sound design. These two things would increase the production value of most of the shorts found online today at least ten fold.
 
Upvote 0 Downvote
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top