[Dakkon]

I'm in the military, and need something small.. I will be purchasing a 12” pb in a few months, and will most likely purchase the camera in about 5months or so? I’m in the navy so space is at a premium so the best quality in the smallest box would be the ideal solution.. I will be using I movie and Idvd so I can share where I have been with the family. Thanks for any advice you guys may have for me!

actualy doesnt need to be a HD but can be a regular DV cam... thanks.

[loki74]

hmm. small DV isn't that hard to do, but small HD is a bit trickier, mainly because the consumer market which demands smaller devices is less ready for HD.

The smallest HD camcorder I know of is the Sony HVR-Z1U. It uses HDV. It can also use DVCAM or DV, but then you may as well get a more compact DV cam.

I'm not sure how small you're talking, becasue by my standard the HVR-Z1U is moderately small, about 6" x 7" x 14" including the lens. However I would not recommend HD as it causes a fair number of complications, especially given how much it is compressed to fit onto a MiniDV casette.

As for DV... well thats mcuh easier due to the amount of focus in the consumer/low-end prosumer market.

High end, youre looking at probably the Canon GL2 which is about 4.5" x 5.5" x 12" or the Panny AG-DVC30 which is about 4.5" x 4.5" x 10". There are some others out there (I believe there is a similar quality model out from JVC)

Now those two cams are in more of a prosumer level, so they are bigger than strictly consumer models. For those, you really sacrifice quality, but they can get pretty small. I would take a look at the Canon ELURA or OPTURA series. But I really don't know a whole lot about consumer cams, these are just names I've heard and seen frequently.

[SVass]

"According toSony's new HDR-HC1 is the world's smallest and least expensive HD camcorder. At 7.4 by 2.8 by 3.7 inches, it's about a third the size of previous HD models, and small enough to pass for an ordinary digital camcorder. At $1,750 online" per David Pogue in yesterday (Thursday) NY Times sam

[Dakkon]

i got the new videomaker mag today, and it has a review on the HDR cam..

idealy somthing as small as possible, i only have about 4 inched of dept to deal with under my rack so the GL2 would be to big, need somthing about palm size.. and the dvd's are for the parents, would like to get as good quality as possible.. ill be using idvd most likely, unless i grow out of it and start using final cut.. the cheep version..

[evildede]

I was also interested in getting an HD cam. does the HDR-HC1 film at 24 frames per second like real movies? and can anyone also tell me at what resolution? like, is it 480p, 720p or (highly unlikely) 1080p? The price is low enough that I could consider getting one but I'd really like to film my stuff at 24 FPS because other cams film at 30 fps and it destroy the "film" look.

[Dakkon]

the hc1 is at 1080i in the article they didn’t say how many frames per second, but they did say that the picture was wonderful on a 42" plasma hd

hope this helps some

[wulf]

It's 1080/60i. I've used the Z1E on a few shoots recently instead of DigiBeta. The quality of HDV footage is very impressive (well, in lighting-controlled situations, anyway).

I'm much less worried about the lack of 1080p or 24 fps because, at this quality, one can render 24p in post with very good results. It also leaves the flexibility of altering motion blur on troublesome pans or other movement. HDV cameras don't have angled shutter like film cameras so it's impossible to achieve this level of control of the motion effect in progressive scan. Which means that a lot of motion effects look terrible on cheaper progressive scan systems.

I used to believe that progressive scan was a must-have feature for pro DV cameras and would not consider buying one without it. But I've changed my mind; for the cost of a couple of plug-ins one has all the flexibility of a 60i (in my case, 50i) master and a 24p (or 25p) render. And the software will only get better.

[evildede]

So I could film footage with this camera and then change it to 24 fps using FCP or other software? If that's the case then wonderful! It's just that I used to convert stuff form Pal to NTSC and it caused some sync issues so I thought the same thing would happen here.

Also, you say 1080/60i, does that mean 60 frames per second or if it's something else?

[wulf]

Originally Posted by evildede

So I could film footage with this camera and then change it to 24 fps using FCP or other software? If that's the case then wonderful! It's just that I used to convert stuff form Pal to NTSC and it caused some sync issues so I thought the same thing would happen here.

Sure, you can use filters like Natress's Film Effects, which is quite affordable. I use Nattress GFilm to do deinterlacing and Magic Bullet for film stock emulation. There is also DV FilmMaker from DVFilm which Indie filmmakers use to process their video to 24p before blowup to film, but I've not used it myself. Nattress also does a standards conversion filter (if you need to go from PAL to NTSC) which is actually pretty good for software, unlike trying to do it directly in FCP which is basically rubbish!

Originally Posted by evildede

Also, you say 1080/60i, does that mean 60 frames per second or if it's something else?

60i means 60 interlaced fields. In normal video although NTSC is 30fps, it is actually comprised of 60 fields per second, two fields are interlaced per second to create a frame. However, this differs from true 30fps (e.g., 30 fps progressive scan, known as 30p) because the interlaced fields are updated every 60th of a second. So, although the NTSC is technically 30fps, one actually sees motion update at 60Hz (60 times a second) and this is why normal video seems much more 'live' than film. (With PAL it's 25fps and 50 Hz, i.e., 50 interlaced fields per second.)

Even true 30p will look much more like film than standard 60i. Many US dramas are shot for TV on 16mm, but rather than shoot the standard film rate of 24fps, they shoot 30fps which is straightforward to convert to a broadcast-friendly video master.

Hope this helps.

[evildede]

I've bookmarked this page. Thanks for the info! I'll be using it in the near future.

[loki74]

evildede, if you want a higher quality camera and true 24p, you might want to look into the new JVC GY HD100U. I'm not sure how the price compares, but the features are very good--my main thing is that it records in 720p, which is in my opinion far superior to 1080i. You can record in 24p, edit it 24p, and print to film with no framerate conversion.

One thing I feel I should mention--neither of the mentioned HD standard meets the ATSC standard for high definition. Also, IIRC you will either have to stop down or open the aperature a little, esp if you plan to film in low light. Opening the iris (aperature) decreases depth of field, so less things will be in focus simultaneously. This can be good and bad.

[evildede]

I don't think I can afford the JVC one as it costs nearly twice as much as the Sony cam, unfortunately. I did read the specs though and I have to admit that it's one hell of an HD cam but since I'm gonna have to sacrifice everything in order to be able to get the Sony cam as it costs a LOT, I really can't afford the JVC one.

I don't mind though in a way as it seems like I'll be able to do it in post production and with good results so I can't wait to experiement with that.

[Dakkon]

if you can wait a while, im sure the others will be coming out with HD cameras also, cannon cant be far behind, they have to replace the GL2 pretty soon i would emagine, that cam is going on what 2 years old?

[dwd3885]

I'm not sure if this has been said, but the market is small for HD camcorders to begin with. The rest of the technology just isn't there yet. First, You'd need an HDTV for the display, you need an HD dvd, which haven't been invented yet and an HD dvd player to export. So you could watch your HD video but can't put them on anything just yet in their native HD format. I'd hold off the 5 months you have and look at something then

[loki74]

Originally Posted by evildede

I don't think I can afford the JVC one as it costs nearly twice as much as the Sony cam, unfortunately. I did read the specs though and I have to admit that it's one hell of an HD cam but since I'm gonna have to sacrifice everything in order to be able to get the Sony cam as it costs a LOT, I really can't afford the JVC one.

I don't mind though in a way as it seems like I'll be able to do it in post production and with good results so I can't wait to experiement with that.

Hmm.. If you're going to get the sony I would suggest you stick with SD and get something like the GL2 or the DVX100/100A, or (and were starting to get expensive here) the XL2. Those are very high quality cams and will serve you pretty good in comparison, esp since HDV is NOT ATSC standard--not true HD. IIRC, true HD is WAY higher rez and has 4:4:4 colorspace. HDV has 4:2:0.

Originally Posted by dwd3885

I'm not sure if this has been said, but the market is small for HD camcorders to begin with. The rest of the technology just isn't there yet. First, You'd need an HDTV for the display, you need an HD dvd, which haven't been invented yet and an HD dvd player to export. So you could watch your HD video but can't put them on anything just yet in their native HD format. I'd hold off the 5 months you have and look at something then

This is true. As far as home use, SD is definately the way to go. However, if you want to transfer to film, blowing up to 35mm is pretty drastic from SD, and this is where HD, even the substandard HDV can help. That being said, the signal must be progressive and not interlace, and recorded at 24fps--the resolution lost in de-interlacing an HDV signal would be pretty mcuh the same as a good 24p signal.

Case and point: HD is pointless unless its for film transfer; de-interlacing HDV makes it almost as bad as SD; so because the Sony can only record in interlaced HDV, it is literally pointless.

I say, if you want HD, it better be for film, and it may as well be all-or-nothing.

(^ Just IMHO ^)

[barang]

Wait for Panasonic to introduce their newest member; it's based on the DVX-100, with all its benifits, but shoots 24p HD to either tape or p2 cards.

It's going to be awesome......

[DeathMan]

I would really be interested in a camera that could capture at an accelerated rate, like 60 frames per second or more. I imagine the technology just isn't there yet.

[loki74]

dude.. P2 is so not there yet..... way to expensive for something way to inefficient. But you're right--if they could get those cards as cheap as tapes and to hold as much.. that would be (will be?) awesome.

it would be so cool if they were to make an XL3 thats HDV. Cause I'm fairly certain they could probably do it better than JVC. (just imho) But the HD100U's Fujinon lens is definately a plus when looking at that particular cam. I've never been particularly impressed with Panny; the DVX100 is good, but I'd rather save a wee bit more and grab an XL2.

[Dakkon]

So in yoru opinions, what is the best camera in the 800-1200$ range? It will probably be about 6 months or so until I buy a camera.. is there anything coming out soon that would be a good buy?

[loki74]

hmmm.. thats a very very low price if you want something good...

The immediate prosumer cam that comes to mind is the Panny AG-DVC7. I think its only 1-CCD, but has been said to have very good high (outdoor) light porformace, almost at good as DigiBeta... but in low light forget it. (Anything indoors or at evening/morning, etc)

In some quick looking I find the Panny PV-GS400. Its 3-CCD, a definate plus, and it seems to have gotten a lot of good reviews.

It's hard to find a good camera at that price, but something I would ephasize especially if you're using a low end camera--make sure you have 100% control over ALL light, (except if you're outdoors) and make sure you manually white balance to achieve the color you want. Good Luck!

[Dakkon]

what would a good price range be? i dont want to spend 5k on a camera.. but i guess i could go a bit higher, if need be say 2-2.2k?

[Dakkon]

what would a good price range be? i dont want to spend 5k on a camera.. but i guess i could go a bit higher, if need be say 2-2.2k?

[loki74]

For 2 grand I would reccomend the Canon GL2

[loki74]

Originally Posted by DeathMan

I would really be interested in a camera that could capture at an accelerated rate, like 60 frames per second or more. I imagine the technology just isn't there yet.

IIRC, most news broadcasting stations use 60p. There are cams that can record ridiculously fast--you know, like the ones they use to photograph flying bullets etc?

[travisimo]

the panasonic HVX-200 is hands down the answer for this question. 24p DVCPRO HD and you can save directly to ipod via firewire while shooting. so no dumping time or machine is needed.

[Dakkon]

i tried to search the hvx-200, and came up with nothing?

nm i found it, but im not looking to spend 5,790$$......... more like 2,000$... not even half the cost of that camera...

[loki74]

Hrm... I'm not sure about the HVX200. You'll need to have a good amount of storage to film it to which would be carted around behind your camera operator. Using P2 cards I think is silly, and recording to your iPod is a no-no if you ask me.

The most impressive thing I see in the unit is its ability to record in 1080/24p. One should also note that as far as the colorspace DVCPRO HD is superior to HDV. But that very high resoultion and the higher quality compression = not only a huge investment in a cam, but an equally huge investment in mass storage.

But it sounds like its out of your budget anyway--just thought I'd mention it for information's sake. I read an article about it in Videography magazine, and while it's ability to capture a high resolution picure is amazing, it is by no means the sole factor. Thus I was not overly impressed. I would still go with the JVC GY HD100U if I had the same money--it may only be able to do 720/24p, but it seems to be much higher quality, not to mention the Fujinon lens.

[travisimo]

dakon, in the world of entertainment, like all others, you get what you pay for. it's like buying a 499 PC from dell or a g5 dp... while they're both "computers" it's pretty obvious which one is actually "worth" the money. i've used panasonic cams all my life and they're superior when it comes to color and contrast (which makes the image so nice and crisp) the hvx is a ridiculous deal and it's worth the investment. With DVCPRO not only can you provide beyond industry standards for most post production houses, you can provide footage directly to live broadcast formats. 2k ain't gonna get you what you need. Just like 10k won't buy a car thats worth a damn or 499 won't buy a computer thats worth a damn.

loki, recording to ipods is totally harmelss btw, as much seeking as the devices to anyway it's actually a break for them to do a continous read write for an extended period of time. friends of mine in the industry to it where they work on higher end varicams with firewire output for thier own "fun" footage..

[loki74]

Originally Posted by travisimo

dakon, in the world of entertainment, like all others, you get what you pay for. it's like buying a 499 PC from dell or a g5 dp... while they're both "computers" it's pretty obvious which one is actually "worth" the money. i've used panasonic cams all my life and they're superior when it comes to color and contrast (which makes the image so nice and crisp) the hvx is a ridiculous deal and it's worth the investment. With DVCPRO not only can you provide beyond industry standards for most post production houses, you can provide footage directly to live broadcast formats. 2k ain't gonna get you what you need. Just like 10k won't buy a car thats worth a damn or 499 won't buy a computer thats worth a damn.

loki, recording to ipods is totally harmelss btw, as much seeking as the devices to anyway it's actually a break for them to do a continous read write for an extended period of time. friends of mine in the industry to it where they work on higher end varicams with firewire output for thier own "fun" footage..

Panasonic is okay... but I do not think the HVX is as good as you make it out to be... like I said, image resolution is not all that matters. Personally I would rather spend the money on an XL2 or the JVC.

In all seriousness, P2 just isnt there yet, and neither is consumer/prosumer level HD. It's just not. my philosophy when dealing with this kind of money is give it all or nothing. If you can't afford a varicam, viper, etc etc, (in otherwords, higher resolution, 4:4:4 colorspace) just save your money on getting something cheap right now, so you can build a good portfolio. Once you have sufficient funds, go all the way.

I'd also like to stress yet again that filming in HD is COMPLETELY POINTLESS unless you plan to transfer to 35mm!! So few people have HDTV's, much less HD DVD players, and the jury regarding HD discs is still out, IIRC/AFAIK. (BluRay??) Things just aren't settled in yet, not only in production, but also in matters of distribution.

I say if you're spending this kind of money, you need to be absolutely sure. Comparing a Dell to a Mac, you're absolutely sure. This, I wouldn't be so quick. I say, for now stick with good ol' DV. At least until Canon comes out with a prosumer HD cam. (Even if you don't buy a Canon, I think that thier patience/hesitance as far as embracing new technology is a good example to follow)

$0.02

[wulf]

Originally Posted by loki74

I'd also like to stress yet again that filming in HD is COMPLETELY POINTLESS unless you plan to transfer to 35mm!!

I don't agree. There are plenty of good reasons for acquiring in HD (including HDV) even when finishing in SD. All else being equal, the image from a Z1E compared to its equivalent from, say, a PD170 will look noticeably sharper and cleaner - even when rendered down to SD. I agree it's probably overkill for home movies, though.

By the way, your earlier comment about deinterlacing 1080i making it "almost as bad" as SD does not correspond with my experience - unless by "deinterlacing" you just mean "field doubling". The deinterlaced footage from 1080i still looks noticeably better than its DV equivalent.

YMMV.

[loki74]

<slaps head>

bad as DV? aww stupid me. I think I may have meant to say bad as 720p..

From Videography Magazine, Summer 2005

Psychovisual studies have shown that, for normal moving-image sequences, a smaller number of progressively scanned lines subjectively mateches the resolution of a higher interlaced number. Thus, the vertical resolution of 1080i is said to be about the same as tha tof 720p

Yeah, it is true that scaling down from HD to SD will get you a sharper image; that's why I would consider the JVC GYHD 100U... its got a nice lens, and HDV. So I can downsize to SD or transfer to 35mm. The Panny could do the same ture, but my big hangup on that is I think the lens is dedicated, and the whole P2 thing...

[travisimo]

It dosn't show too much intellegence to speculate a product that isn't even out yet, furthermore you say P2 isn't "there yet"... the technology exsisted long before the hvx was ever dreamt of and has been a successful technology in the industry from it's origin. Also you should know that the ratios you speak of (4:4:4) and (4:1:1) are NOT colorspace ratios, they're chroma subsampling ratios.

You speak of the panasonic as if it's lacking in someway yet you compasre it to miniDV cameras such as the xl2 and jvc like they're better?.. the hvx is not a miniDV camera.. sure it can film miniDV but it's natively a DVCPRO50 camera.. anyone who knows anything about the standards will know that you're comparing 4:1:1 cameras to a 4:2:2 and saying that the 4:1:1 IS BETTER! Not only that but the HighDef the HVX produces is superior to any FAUX highdef that a HDV camera will produce. A good friend on my has the JCV hdv camera, now please understand it has hd resolution but it still compresses at MINIDV (4:1:1) the HVX however has the resolution but compresses at a much higher quality (4:2:2). My point is the JVC is NOT TRUE HD. The next step up from 4:2:2 is 4:4:4 and that is anywhere from 10 to 20 times as much money. The gap from XL2 to HVX however is exponentially smaller.

You're very opinionated but i just want you to realize the comparisons you're making and how funny they are. You should really read up on what you're talking about before you consider a side or a position on the matter. I work for a nationaly broadcast tv network that uses P2 cards on a day to day basis and there are never any problems. People hate tapes here because dumping at 1x as opposed to 10x is insane. I've used both the XL2 and the JVC and seen thier "HDV" and it is not nearly the quality from a DVCPRO50 camera.

[loki74]

I know the JVC is not true HD. I believe I mentioned that HDV does not meet ATSC HD standards.

My opinion on P2 is based on the numbers I see... two 8 GB P2 cards will cost $4000. At 8 mins each you end up with 16 mins of HD foodage... (the HVX has 2 slots, correct?)

I do not think the Panny is lacking... but for just under 10 grand (inluding the P2 cards) I think that I should have interchangeable lenses and more than 16 mins worth? I have used the Panny DVX100A and was quite impressed. That being said, for whatever reason, I am slightly partial to Canon.

So this is what leads me to my skepticism about consumer/prosumer HD in general... I mean, on one hand you have cameras that don't even qualify as HD, and on the other hand you have a camera that can shoot 16 mins of HD... I dunno.

But... if you work for a national broadcast network and you use P2 cards... surely you record more than 16 mins at a time?? How is this done? Are my sources (numbers) wrong? If you can record as long on P2 as you can on tape, then hell I say you may as well go completely P2 (as long as you can afford it)... but I have not seen this...

[travisimo]

you can buy larger than 8gb p2 cards, much larger.. but they're not for public consumption nor are the prices. the hvx is breaking down barriers between professional and consumer by offering this type of solid state storage. while they are expensive now as the demand for them rises (which is inevitable) because of a "prosumer" market the price will drop. Panasonic has already released statments of offering p2 cards of "four to five times more storage compacity at close to the same price" of course you could bypass the p2 route all together by saving directly to a firewire 400 hdd (like an ipod or a 250gig lacie)

[dlefebvre]

Originally Posted by loki74

But... if you work for a national broadcast network and you use P2 cards... surely you record more than 16 mins at a time?? How is this done? Are my sources (numbers) wrong? If you can record as long on P2 as you can on tape, then hell I say you may as well go completely P2 (as long as you can afford it)... but I have not seen this...

From the discussion I had with Panasonic reps during the last NAB, they're really planning the succes of the P2 on the superiority of DVCPro HD over HDV. They are aware that the solution is expensive right now (you pay as much for the cards than you pay for the camera) but they seem hopeful that the cards will get bigger as the price gets lower. For the same price you're buying a 8Gb card today, you could get a 4Gb card last year and a 2Gb card the previous year. They're palnning 16Gb cards next year and 32Gb the year after. When you get to that point it will be a very interesting solution.

Panasonic are also using the P2 technology on other models. Some cameras have 4 slots for P2 cards. There is also a Panasonic accesory, a hard drive withs a P2 slot. You put the card in and it transfers the footage to the HD.