Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Enthusiast Zone > Art & Graphic Design > I want to buy a cinema-film camera

I want to buy a cinema-film camera
Thread Tools
macintologist
Professional Poster
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Smallish town in Ohio
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 21, 2005, 09:35 PM
 
I absolutely hate 8mm "camcorders".

They film this crappy TV resolution, 4:3 ratio, and they film at 30fps. It's like watching a news broadcast.

When I film, I want to film REAl film, like the kind you watch in the cinema, or in a BBC documentary. 24fps....kind of grainy image. I want a real film camera, something which is semi-portable, which I can carry around, like what Michael Moore uses to make his films.

What model should I buy? How much will it cost? What's the terminology you use for these cameras so I can shop around?
     
hadocon
Mac Elite
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Internet
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 22, 2005, 01:42 AM
 
Originally posted by macintologist:
I absolutely hate 8mm "camcorders".

They film this crappy TV resolution, 4:3 ratio, and they film at 30fps. It's like watching a news broadcast.

When I film, I want to film REAl film, like the kind you watch in the cinema, or in a BBC documentary. 24fps....kind of grainy image. I want a real film camera, something which is semi-portable, which I can carry around, like what Michael Moore uses to make his films.

What model should I buy? How much will it cost? What's the terminology you use for these cameras so I can shop around?
Get this idea out of your head. Impossible. It cost Michael Moore millions to produce his documentaries. The cheapest 35mm film cameras are tens of thousands of dollars _used_ (check out the Bolex brand, this is what MM uses). They do not record sound, you will need separate equipment to do this (search for Nagra). Also thousands of dollars minimum (need to sync to film). Cost of film: hundreds per hour, add processing and telecine (getting film into digital format) also, hundreds of dollars per hour. You want to save money and edit film directly? Find yourself a working Steinbeck - pay cash cash cash. You would also have to buy lights, without lights your images woud look like shite. Again, thousands of dollars. Oh crap, those lights make too much noise, now you have to record your sound separatly on a sound-stage.... crap... another $10K You would have to hire gaffers to place and operate your microphones. etc...

Hollywood does this on purpose, they are like Microsoft. They create and maintain a large barrier to entry so as to make it difficult for the average joe to break into their market and compete with them. This is why we will not see digital cinemas overtake traditional cinemas anytime soon - it would be to easy for the average Joe to create and distribute their films.. If the average Joe had the power to create (and reproduce) media content, mass media would loose it's stronghold on Western culture... NEVER GOING TO HAPPEN.

Jeez I sound like a film proff...

There, you just had film 101 in 5 minutes.

How do I know this? I went to film school as an undergraduate and worked on films and video features for the CBC. I left film partially becasue of the barrier to entry, and the fact that I hate production. Now I am a CS grad student. ... Still involved in industry however, I act as consultant to Post Production houses in Toronto, Montreal and Kingston.
20+ year MacNN forum member. MacBook Air 11" 1.6Ghz 4GB 128GB Backlit Keyboard, 4S, iPad Mini
     
k_munic
Mac Enthusiast
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Germany
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 22, 2005, 04:24 AM
 
I'm old enough to remember 8mm film-cameras - it was a pain in the a**; 8 minutes, and you needed a new film; 2 weeks for developing; fumbling with glue, stripes, scissors; the projector ate the final products; no sound; and: quality? what quality??

"chemical" movie is not intented for the rest of us - you can get 16mm cameras cheap, but� as mentioned above, post-production will kill your budget

have a look for some 3ccd camcorders with progessive shutter; look for hd camcorders from Sony; have a look for "movie look"/After Effect, grain effects etc..........

the "high value look" of "real" movie means� high spending, that simple.
     
grovberg
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Harrisonburg, VA USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 22, 2005, 12:08 PM
 
I agree to a degree that you'll never get something that is exactly like film from a video camera (and that getting a 35mm film setup is impossibly expensive), but I disagree with the idea that a modern 3ccd video camera is such a huge step down. I'm not saying it's perfect, but a camera that can do progressive 24fps is pretty darn close. Didn't Steven Soderbergh do a commerical release entirely in DV and FInal Cut? And won't anything on the level we're talking about primarily be distributed through video anyway?
"Make good fight."
-Mr. Miyagi
     
gautch
Forum Regular
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Over there->
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 22, 2005, 04:21 PM
 
There is so much post productions these day, with color correction, and visual effects, ect.... If you spend all that money on Film then take it into after effects.. and mess with the color to get that "Feel" you want.. then you wasted all the money on the Film Camera. That dosent even take in count, editing. Are you going to edit it reel to reel like in the olden days? If so its ganna be even more expensive! If you didnt blow your budget on your "Film camera", you will with out a doubt blow it in editing. Not to mention when you are actully in production on set. Go with what the others are saying, get a DV camera.

Shoot the Cannon GL2 and Cannon XL2's are going to be more than enough. Get Premier Pro and After Effects, then look into Magic Bullet for that "Film/Movie Look".
PC or Mac.. what ever route you want to take. Get Final Cut if you dont want Premier Pro. Add Photoshop to your list, and you'll have a full production suite.
     
willab
Mac Enthusiast
Join Date: Jun 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 22, 2005, 08:02 PM
 
Get a Panasonic DVX100a and Final Cut Pro. The 24p images from the DVX look great. It includes Magic Bullet. The XL2 is a little nicer and it shoots native 16:9, but it is more expensive and bigger. Do not consider the Gl2 it does not any of the features you are looking for. Panasonic will come out with a 24p HD camera for under $10,000 next month at NAB. I'd definitely wait until then to buy anything.
Dual 1.8 GHz G5
PB G4 1.67 GHz
     
macintologist  (op)
Professional Poster
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Smallish town in Ohio
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 23, 2005, 10:44 AM
 
So these cameras film at a 16:9 ratio and 24fps?? That's the most important thing to me.

Color correction....post production.. BAH

My Final Cut Pro rig can handle all of that (When I get it)
     
macintologist  (op)
Professional Poster
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Smallish town in Ohio
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 23, 2005, 10:49 AM
 
Ok, so if I buy a high definition camera, like the one Steve Jobs demonstrated at MCSF 2005, those can film 24fps?

If i use Final Cut HD or even iMovie HD, it can load HD film directly into the computer. No expensive digitizing process necessary!
     
grovberg
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Harrisonburg, VA USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 23, 2005, 11:06 AM
 
Just thought I'd clarify that it isn't inherent to a HDV camera that it film at 24fps. I again have to wonder why that's so important, since it's only really useful if you plan to output the digital video to 35mm to be played in movie theatres (and if that is indeed your plan, then please ignore me).

Also, I thought I'd throw my weight behind the XL2. It's not high def, but the lenses...oh lordy the lenses. The optics on this camera blows anything from Sony away (to be fair, I haven't actually used the HDV camera everyone is referring to, but I'm going to assume that the optics are in line with all their other offerings in this range). XLRs right on the camera for good solid audio. Native capture of 24p, 30p and 60i, 4:3 or 16:9. It is bigger than the Sony, but since we started this conversation talking about 35mm cameras, then I'm assuming size isn't an issue. And for me, the size of the Sony is a liability since i can't shoulder mount it without extra hardware.

Seriously. It's just a damn fine camera.
"Make good fight."
-Mr. Miyagi
     
dlefebvre
Mac Elite
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Where my body is
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 23, 2005, 01:24 PM
 
Originally posted by macintologist:
Ok, so if I buy a high definition camera, like the one Steve Jobs demonstrated at MCSF 2005, those can film 24fps?

If i use Final Cut HD or even iMovie HD, it can load HD film directly into the computer. No expensive digitizing process necessary!
HDV is not supported yet by FinalCut HD. Being a MPEG-2 format, it's tricky to make it editing friendly. But with NAB just in a few weeks, I would not be suprised by HDV support in the next relase of FCP HD.

I also played with Sony's HDV camera while at CES and I was very impressed by the quality. At 24p with an HD resolution, it looks very slick and hundreds of miles away from the broadcast news feel.
     
dlefebvre
Mac Elite
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Where my body is
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 23, 2005, 01:29 PM
 
Originally posted by grovberg:
Just thought I'd clarify that it isn't inherent to a HDV camera that it film at 24fps. I again have to wonder why that's so important, since it's only really useful if you plan to output the digital video to 35mm to be played in movie theatres
It's all about the look and feel. Shooting a 24p gives you the same motion feel as shooting with a film camera. The regular interlaced 30 frames per second video looks more real, but it's not suited for anything but news, talk shows and documentaries.
     
macintologist  (op)
Professional Poster
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Smallish town in Ohio
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 23, 2005, 04:30 PM
 
Originally posted by dlefebvre:
It's all about the look and feel. Shooting a 24p gives you the same motion feel as shooting with a film camera. The regular interlaced 30 frames per second video looks more real, but it's not suited for anything but news, talk shows and documentaries.
It depends what kind of documentary. BBC documentaries (arguably the best in the world) are all 24fps. I don't know what kind of cameras they use, their documentaries don't look so much like cinema-film. Perhaps they are using high definition cameras because there are borderlines on the TV when I watch them.
     
direktor
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 23, 2005, 06:20 PM
 
Originally posted by hadocon:
Get this idea out of your head. Impossible. It cost Michael Moore millions to produce his documentaries. The cheapest 35mm film cameras are tens of thousands of dollars _used_ (check out the Bolex brand, this is what MM uses). <snip>

How do I know this? I went to film school as an undergraduate and worked on films and video features for the CBC. I left film partially becasue of the barrier to entry, and the fact that I hate production. Now I am a CS grad student. ... Still involved in industry however, I act as consultant to Post Production houses in Toronto, Montreal and Kingston.
Hadocon, I appreciate that you're somehow connected with the business, but you should realize that you have a lot of misinformation in your post. (You can get cameras cheaper, hardly anybody uses Nagras anymore professionally, it doesn't cost a ton to sync audio if you have a FCP rig, etc etc). I realize you're exagerrating to make your point Hadocon, but don't go nuts.

To the original poster: Shooting film is expensive, there's no two ways about it unless your uncle owns a camera rental house and your grandpa owns a lab. Don't fret however.

I recommend a couple things if you hate the look of video...either get a Bolex 16mm and prepare to pay about $120 a minute to get the shot film to tape so you can edit, or get a 24P video camera.

A 24P DV camera like the Panasonic DVX, or the Canon XL2 can look amazingly filmic if you take care not to expose it's shortcomings, and you color-correct in post (in your case, FCP). For somebody trying to learn and get the most bang for their buck, it is THE way to go. Then if you get good at it, you'll be able to start shooting film on OTHER people's dime.

In the meantime I'd recommend finding somebody in your area with a 16mm cam, and asking if you can sit down with it. Modern 16mm cameras cost $50,000 and up, modern 35mm start at about $100,000. Most people who use them rent, which runs about $500-$2000/day. This means that even a short production (like a music video), for just camera rental, raw film stock, processing and telecine will run about $7,000. Almost triple that number for 35mm.

Again, whether you know it or not, what you want it a 24P miniDV camera. You'd be blown away to know how many things on TV are being shot on them and being passed off for film.

Good luck!
     
Tyre MacAdmin
Mac Elite
Join Date: Feb 2002
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 23, 2005, 07:25 PM
 
I think any HDV camera out now... (not that many but hey) should do just fine for you. If you want 24p you'll have to do a telecine pulldown to convert the fps from 30 to 24... not too sure why you would want to do that other than if you actually wanted to take the HDV and put it on actual film. 30fps will always look smoother than 24fps. If you want the grain effect there is no reason to to a pulldown... just use a filter... that will give you a look of film with the motion quality of 30fps... you always lose a little quality with a pull-down.
     
macintologist  (op)
Professional Poster
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Smallish town in Ohio
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 23, 2005, 07:25 PM
 
Hey thanks, that's basically what I wanted to hear!

24p it is! I also learned that 24p is progressive scan as opposed to interlaced. I don't know exactly what difference that makes except that it's better quality and can be blown up to cinema-levels, which is good

So those two models are the most popular 24p HD Camera models? Any other popular models that I should know about?

Wasn't there a model that Steve Jobs mentioned specifically at MWSF 2005?

And how do you feel about me starting out with iMovie (yea I know, it's childish) and just seeing how that is, and then working up into Final Cut Express HD and then Final Cut Pro.

I am NOT a film major or anything, but I have made short films before with an 8mm camcorder and iMovie, I have even made a movie trailer using a still-camera with movie mode

http://homepage.mac.com/lorna/c257-trailer.mov

I am looking into the future. I have ideas for documentary films, that's all.
     
direktor
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 23, 2005, 07:34 PM
 
There is no 24P HDV camera available right now, but some are being expected late summer, early fall..one from Panasonic and one from JVC. Both are expected to be around $7,000-$8,000.

The Sony FX-1 does NOT do 24p, but it does have a fake 24 frame mode and a psuedo 30 frame progressive mode. The pro model bigger brother to the FX1, the Z1, DOES shoot 25fps progressive mode, which can be slowed down in FCP to 24fps. The FX1 is about $3400.

You DO know how much it costs to transfer video to film, right? I wouldn't base my purchase decision on the idea that SOMEDAY I MIGHT have the $20-40,000 needed to put my HD film on real film for projection. Besides, all the film festivals (with very few exceptions) are screening digital films digitally now.

Personally, (and I DO work professionally in the business) I'd buy either an XL2, DVX, or if you do your homework and figure out how to get more filmic images out of the FX1, the FX1.
     
stevesnj
Mac Elite
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Southern, NJ (near Philly YO!)
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 23, 2005, 07:36 PM
 
Originally posted by willab:
Get a Panasonic DVX100a and Final Cut Pro. The 24p images from the DVX look great. It includes Magic Bullet. The XL2 is a little nicer and it shoots native 16:9, but it is more expensive and bigger. Do not consider the Gl2 it does not any of the features you are looking for. Panasonic will come out with a 24p HD camera for under $10,000 next month at NAB. I'd definitely wait until then to buy anything.
I agree...unless you have the ability to broadcast in HD your wasting your money on an HD camera...like the Sony FX1. remeber no-one has yet made HD-DVD's so buring toHD to DVD will not make an HD film. After months of research it seems the Panasonic DVX100a is the way to go.
MacBook Pro 15" i7 ~ Snow Leopard ~ iPhone 4 - 16Gb
     
macintologist  (op)
Professional Poster
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Smallish town in Ohio
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 23, 2005, 07:56 PM
 
Originally posted by direktor:
There is no 24P HDV camera available right now, but some are being expected late summer, early fall..one from Panasonic and one from JVC. Both are expected to be around $7,000-$8,000.

The Sony FX-1 does NOT do 24p, but it does have a fake 24 frame mode and a psuedo 30 frame progressive mode. The pro model bigger brother to the FX1, the Z1, DOES shoot 25fps progressive mode, which can be slowed down in FCP to 24fps. The FX1 is about $3400.

You DO know how much it costs to transfer video to film, right? I wouldn't base my purchase decision on the idea that SOMEDAY I MIGHT have the $20-40,000 needed to put my HD film on real film for projection. Besides, all the film festivals (with very few exceptions) are screening digital films digitally now.

Personally, (and I DO work professionally in the business) I'd buy either an XL2, DVX, or if you do your homework and figure out how to get more filmic images out of the FX1, the FX1.
I don't understand, why do I need to transfer my work to film? Can't I shoot digitally, edit digitally, and then distribute on DVDs and internet and tapes? What is the film for?

If I sent my film to Film Festivals, don't they take care of the de-digitization?
     
macintologist  (op)
Professional Poster
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Smallish town in Ohio
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 23, 2005, 08:01 PM
 
     
direktor
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 23, 2005, 08:16 PM
 
Originally posted by macintologist:
I don't understand, why do I need to transfer my work to film? Can't I shoot digitally, edit digitally, and then distribute on DVDs and internet and tapes? What is the film for?

If I sent my film to Film Festivals, don't they take care of the de-digitization?
Nevermind. Some people, and I thought you were one of them but I misread, are obsessed with the idea of having a film print to exhibit for their end product.

You have the right idea...DVDs, digital projection, etc are all you really need.
     
direktor
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 23, 2005, 08:20 PM
 
Originally posted by macintologist:
Check out this price!

http://www.amphotoworld.com/product....100a&l=Froogle

There are a class of photo/electronics shops, mostly in NYC or nearby, that make their living advertising cameras at prices they will NOT sell at. You call, and then they (sometimes) inform you that you'll have to buy an accessories package for an additional $1000, or whatever.

Other times they'll sell you the camera at the price advertised, but it will be a camera with no U.S. warranty, and missing everything you need to make it work like AC adpapters and batteries.

In other words, if it seems to good to be true, it is.

Rule of thumb is that you'll never be able to find a given camera (that's legit) for less than say 5-8% of what B&H Photo in NYC will sell it for.
     
grovberg
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Harrisonburg, VA USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 23, 2005, 11:52 PM
 
Originally posted by macintologist:
I don't understand, why do I need to transfer my work to film? Can't I shoot digitally, edit digitally, and then distribute on DVDs and internet and tapes? What is the film for?

If I sent my film to Film Festivals, don't they take care of the de-digitization?
You don't, but since you started this thread talking about wanting a film camera and have latched onto 24p which is only useful if you are transferring to film I think most of us have assumed that's what you want.
"Make good fight."
-Mr. Miyagi
     
Tyre MacAdmin
Mac Elite
Join Date: Feb 2002
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 24, 2005, 06:20 AM
 
Originally posted by macintologist:

And how do you feel about me starting out with iMovie (yea I know, it's childish) and just seeing how that is, and then working up into Final Cut Express HD and then Final Cut Pro.
Normally I would say no... but the new iMovieHD looks promising... granted you used the correct HD codec that it uses (and I think there is only one that works with iMovie vs several with FCP & FCE)

I would say that if you do not have a ton of editing to do to your work then a simple program like iMovie will do. But if you plan on making graphics with 3rd party apps like Ilustrator or Photoshop you should at least use FCE. Peachpit Press has a great Book on FCE (that I just bought) I think it will help you greatly with your project. I would suggest FCE for you project... especially since you'll be converting it to 24p. You'll just have a gamut of better options with a relatively small learning curve with FCE vs iMovie. Not to mention RT effects.
     
macintologist  (op)
Professional Poster
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Smallish town in Ohio
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 24, 2005, 06:55 AM
 
Originally posted by grovberg:
You don't, but since you started this thread talking about wanting a film camera and have latched onto 24p which is only useful if you are transferring to film I think most of us have assumed that's what you want.
What is transferring to film useful for, vs. digital distribution (DVD) and digital projections?
     
Tyre MacAdmin
Mac Elite
Join Date: Feb 2002
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 24, 2005, 07:54 AM
 
Only for projector veiwing at flim shows
     
Tyre MacAdmin
Mac Elite
Join Date: Feb 2002
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 25, 2005, 04:44 AM
 
The XL2 is a little nicer and it shoots native 16:9
That's not *exaclty* correct... technically. Even thogu the XL2 shoots in a 16:9 format it actually uses a 4:3 chip and disregaurds the upper an lower part of the chip to make a 16:9 exposure.
     
dlefebvre
Mac Elite
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Where my body is
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 25, 2005, 11:19 AM
 
Originally posted by Tyler McAdams:
That's not *exaclty* correct... technically. Even thogu the XL2 shoots in a 16:9 format it actually uses a 4:3 chip and disregaurds the upper an lower part of the chip to make a 16:9 exposure.
Actually that is true for the GL2. but here's what Canon says on his website about the XL2:

16:9: 960x480 effective pixels (460,800 pixels per CCD, total 1,382,400)
4:3: 720x480 effective pixels (345,600 pixels per CCD, total 1,036,800)

But like Panasonic's DVX100a or Sony's HDV cameras, the XL2 doesn"t really shoot in 24p. They all do a 3:2 pulldown and record at 30fps.
     
willab
Mac Enthusiast
Join Date: Jun 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 25, 2005, 11:05 PM
 
Originally posted by grovberg:
have latched onto 24p which is only useful if you are transferring to film
Why do you say that? 24p is very useful without going to film. It is a completely different look. It looks more like film without using film.
Originally posted by Tyler McAdams:
That's not *exaclty* correct... technically. Even thogu the XL2 shoots in a 16:9 format it actually uses a 4:3 chip and disregaurds the upper an lower part of the chip to make a 16:9 exposure.
The XL2 is native 16:9. The 16:9 is higher resolution than the 4:3.

To the original poster:
The more I think about it the more convinced I am that the DVX is for you. It sounds like you are new to this and the DVX is easier to use than the XL2 and is easier to carry around. I am borrowing 2 DVXs for a shoot this weekend, if you want me to I can post a short clip of some footage for you. I'll need your email address though. I don't have the bandwidth to post the video at a high enough resolution for you to judge the quality with more than one or two viewers.
Dual 1.8 GHz G5
PB G4 1.67 GHz
     
willab
Mac Enthusiast
Join Date: Jun 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 25, 2005, 11:35 PM
 
Originally posted by macintologist:
24p it is! I also learned that 24p is progressive scan as opposed to interlaced. I don't know exactly what difference that makes except that it's better quality and can be blown up to cinema-levels, which is good
Basically, interlaced combines two pictures in each frame. Progressive is just one. Therefore, progressive is higher quality. We associate 24p with film because that is what we are used to. When film with audio was first developed they found the minimum acceptable number of fps to reduce the amount of film needed which in turn reduces the price. I read a great article about 24p a few months ago, but I can't find the link.
If you do buy the DVX shoot in 24p standard, not advanced. Buy from bhphotovideo.com. evsonline.com, or zotzdigital.com. If you don't buy from an authorized dealer you will not get a warranty. If it seems too good to be true it is.
Dual 1.8 GHz G5
PB G4 1.67 GHz
     
QuadG5Man
Mac Enthusiast
Join Date: Oct 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 25, 2005, 11:53 PM
 
Go with the SONY HDV cams, the FX1 or Z1. These cameras give you more resolution, so you could edit a master produciton in HD which you could then re-purpose from.

The High Def video will look far better if you ever transferto film, too.

The days of DV camcorders are over thanks to these Sony cameras, drool...
     
willab
Mac Enthusiast
Join Date: Jun 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 26, 2005, 04:21 PM
 
Originally posted by QuadG5Man:
Go with the SONY HDV cams, the FX1 or Z1. These cameras give you more resolution, so you could edit a master produciton in HD which you could then re-purpose from.

The High Def video will look far better if you ever transferto film, too.

The days of DV camcorders are over thanks to these Sony cameras, drool...
It sounds to me that the extremely crisp image is exactly what he does not want. He wants a film, not a video look. HDV does not look promising to me. Why would I buy a camera that is prone to drop outs and when there is a dropout it is long and noticeable? MP2 is fine for delivery, but I would not touch it for acquisition. I'm going to find something to shoot to give you some sample footage.
Dual 1.8 GHz G5
PB G4 1.67 GHz
     
barang
Forum Regular
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: South Carolina
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 27, 2005, 02:56 PM
 
The DVX-100a is a must for Macintologist. Great quality image, very filmlike. There's a depth to the picture that looks like film. Great camera, for pro and beginner.
"But the beauty of Grace is that it makes life not fair."

My Flickr
     
macintologist  (op)
Professional Poster
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Smallish town in Ohio
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 27, 2005, 04:02 PM
 
Originally posted by barang:
The DVX-100a is a must for Macintologist. Great quality image, very filmlike. There's a depth to the picture that looks like film. Great camera, for pro and beginner.
That one has been mentioned a lot and looks like a winnar.

The thing is, how do I know what the MRSP is?

I found this prcie: http://www.amphotoworld.com/product....100a&l=Froogle

1400 dollars. Isn't that kind of low.. too good to be true?

Should I be expecting a price more in the 4000 range?
     
macintologist  (op)
Professional Poster
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Smallish town in Ohio
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 27, 2005, 04:06 PM
 
And one other question (separate from the previous post)

Do the 24p progressive-mode cameras, whether HD or not, import properly in iMovie HD? Does iMovie import at 24 frames per second? That would be weird because in iMovie we are accustomed to working with 30 frames to a second.

It says on one website:
Movie: iMovie cannot edit at 24 fps, it can only be used to capture and record NTSC DV Stream files. DVFilm Maker will read a DV Stream file directly, and can export a DV Stream file from the File->Export Menu. If you're using iMovie, get Quicktime Pro for editing your 24 fps movie files.
Are they right or wrong?

I know I shouldn't be making movies with iMovie but sometimes it's useful for quick easy jobs.
     
k_munic
Mac Enthusiast
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Germany
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 27, 2005, 04:45 PM
 
Originally posted by macintologist:
And one other question (separate from the previous post)

Do the 24p progressive-mode cameras, whether HD or not, import properly in iMovie HD? Does iMovie import at 24 frames per second? That would be weird because in iMovie we are accustomed to working with 30 frames to a second.

It says on one website:


Are they right or wrong?

I know I shouldn't be making movies with iMovie but sometimes it's useful for quick easy jobs.
from the European point of view:
iM does not only support NTSC, but PAL either

another info, foudn here (http://www.hdvinfo.net/):
"HDV is native 16:9 at a resolution of 1280 pixels wide by 720 pixels tall. Supported frame rates are 60i (frames-per-second interlaced), 30p (progressive), 50i, and 25p"

so, if iMHD supports the HD standard, it should handle progressive, but NOT with 24fps.

afaik, 24p is only supported by FCP(HD)
     
barang
Forum Regular
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: South Carolina
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 27, 2005, 05:47 PM
 
Originally posted by macintologist:
That one has been mentioned a lot and looks like a winnar.

The thing is, how do I know what the MRSP is?

I found this prcie: http://www.amphotoworld.com/product....100a&l=Froogle

1400 dollars. Isn't that kind of low.. too good to be true?

Should I be expecting a price more in the 4000 range?
Generally speaking, you should be expecting something more in the 3000-4000 range. The $1400 prices are usually an almost-scam (in other words, you may get the camera, but no battery, cables, nothing else, no warranty, etc.) I'd stay away from that kind of thing.

Yeah, 3000 is a lot of money to spend on a camcorder, but it should last for a while, and be more or less up to date for 4 or 5 years.
"But the beauty of Grace is that it makes life not fair."

My Flickr
     
willab
Mac Enthusiast
Join Date: Jun 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 27, 2005, 06:56 PM
 
As I said in a previous post, buy from bhphotovideo.com, zotzdigital.com, or evsonline. They are all authorized dealers. If you order from an unauthorized store it will be a grey market unit which means there will not be a warranty. I think BH is currently the cheapest. The MSRP is $4000 and has been since the camera's release. BH sells it for $3400 not including the $300 MIR. So $3100 after rebate. Make sure to buy batteries, tapes, and a case. If I were you I'd spent the extra money to get Panasonic batteries. Always use Panasonic AY-DVM63MQ tapes. Switching tape brands will mess up the heads because different brands use different lubricants. You'll still need to buy a head cleaning tape, but they will not have to be cleaned as much. Kata and Porta Brace both make great cases. I have always used Porta Brace and I have no first hand experience with Kata, so I can not comment on the differences. You'll get much better audio if you buy a shotgun mic. The Audio-Technica AT897 is supposed to sound good, but I've never used it. I usually use a Sennheiser ME66 which is great as long as it is not moved or if it is shock mounted. I've also used the Panasonic shotgun mic which is sold separately. It sounds OK. I'll check iMovie compatibility for you, but you should go ahead and learn FCP. It is faster to edit in FCP once you learn the software.
Dual 1.8 GHz G5
PB G4 1.67 GHz
     
macintologist  (op)
Professional Poster
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Smallish town in Ohio
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 27, 2005, 07:27 PM
 
Originally posted by willab:
As I said in a previous post, buy from bhphotovideo.com, zotzdigital.com, or evsonline. They are all authorized dealers. If you order from an unauthorized store it will be a grey market unit which means there will not be a warranty. I think BH is currently the cheapest. The MSRP is $4000 and has been since the camera's release. BH sells it for $3400 not including the $300 MIR. So $3100 after rebate. Make sure to buy batteries, tapes, and a case. If I were you I'd spent the extra money to get Panasonic batteries. Always use Panasonic AY-DVM63MQ tapes. Switching tape brands will mess up the heads because different brands use different lubricants. You'll still need to buy a head cleaning tape, but they will not have to be cleaned as much. Kata and Porta Brace both make great cases. I have always used Porta Brace and I have no first hand experience with Kata, so I can not comment on the differences. You'll get much better audio if you buy a shotgun mic. The Audio-Technica AT897 is supposed to sound good, but I've never used it. I usually use a Sennheiser ME66 which is great as long as it is not moved or if it is shock mounted. I've also used the Panasonic shotgun mic which is sold separately. It sounds OK. I'll check iMovie compatibility for you, but you should go ahead and learn FCP. It is faster to edit in FCP once you learn the software.
Thanks for all that advice! I will definitely take all that into account when making purchases.

For audio - would it be practical to use one of those microphones they have on the long pole that hang over the person's head out of camera sight? (I don't know the technical term )

One of the big annoyances with shooting amateur using an 8mm consumer camcorder is that the audio quality is awful..not the actual quality itself, but the fact that when you're in a room, or even outside, it sounds so horribly amateurish whereas when you watch professional interviews and talk shows, the audio is very professional sounding.
     
willab
Mac Enthusiast
Join Date: Jun 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 27, 2005, 10:21 PM
 
Originally posted by macintologist:
Thanks for all that advice! I will definitely take all that into account when making purchases.

For audio - would it be practical to use one of those microphones they have on the long pole that hang over the person's head out of camera sight? (I don't know the technical term )

One of the big annoyances with shooting amateur using an 8mm consumer camcorder is that the audio quality is awful..not the actual quality itself, but the fact that when you're in a room, or even outside, it sounds so horribly amateurish whereas when you watch professional interviews and talk shows, the audio is very professional sounding.
You're referring to a boom. Yes they sound great, but you'll need a boom operator. I don't know what you're planning on shooting, but get the mic off the camera whenever possible. Some people use their shotgun mics for interviews by unmounting it and handing it to the subject. You can also buy a wireless kit, which would sound great for interviews. The Sennheiser video combo set with a lav. and a plug in unit is $600. Then an extra $100 for the Sennheiser e835 handheld to plug the plug in unit into when the lav. isn't practical. http://www.bhphotovideo.com/bnh/cont...=324227&is=REG
On camera is the worst place for a mic, but it is convenient. What do you plan to shoot?
Dual 1.8 GHz G5
PB G4 1.67 GHz
     
filmmaker2002
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Milwaukee, Wisconsin
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 27, 2005, 11:40 PM
 
For what it's worth, I just spent the weekend shooting with my new XL2 and it is....<<drool>> sweeeeeeet. 24P looks awesome, as does the 16:9. Great film look and texture, in comparison to my GL2s, one of which I am selling now btw if anyone is interested...

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll...tem=7502432722
It's just an ordinary day and it's all your
state of mind, at the end of the day, you
just gotta say it's alright!
     
macintologist  (op)
Professional Poster
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Smallish town in Ohio
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 28, 2005, 04:19 AM
 
Filmmaker: Is there any 24p XL2 footage on the net somewhere? I am interested in how the 24 fps turn out as well as how it captures color in the environment (2 things that video compression can't distort)
     
barang
Forum Regular
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: South Carolina
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 28, 2005, 08:59 AM
 
Originally posted by filmmaker2002:
For what it's worth, I just spent the weekend shooting with my new XL2 and it is....<<drool>> sweeeeeeet. 24P looks awesome, as does the 16:9. Great film look and texture, in comparison to my GL2s, one of which I am selling now btw if anyone is interested...

http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll...tem=7502432722
I'm also interested in whether iMovie will capture 24p video. Have you tried importing XL2 video into iMovie?
"But the beauty of Grace is that it makes life not fair."

My Flickr
     
filmmaker2002
Dedicated MacNNer
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: Milwaukee, Wisconsin
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 28, 2005, 01:07 PM
 
Originally posted by macintologist:
Filmmaker: Is there any 24p XL2 footage on the net somewhere? I am interested in how the 24 fps turn out as well as how it captures color in the environment (2 things that video compression can't distort)
I can post some later today or tomorrow for you to get a look at.
It's just an ordinary day and it's all your
state of mind, at the end of the day, you
just gotta say it's alright!
     
macintologist  (op)
Professional Poster
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Smallish town in Ohio
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 28, 2005, 09:06 PM
 
Originally posted by filmmaker2002:
I can post some later today or tomorrow for you to get a look at.
Awesome thanks
     
RBKR
Fresh-Faced Recruit
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: USA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 29, 2005, 11:18 AM
 
go over to http://www.dvxuser.com/V3/ and look around. Great site. While you're there go to their screen capture/clips section. There is some awesome work there and make sure and look up footage by "Disjecta". They also have an XL2 and Sony HD section where users have posted clips.
     
U n i o n 0015
Forum Regular
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Arlington, VA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 29, 2005, 03:37 PM
 
Originally posted by RBKR:
go over to http://www.dvxuser.com/V3/ and look around. Great site. While you're there go to their screen capture/clips section. There is some awesome work there and make sure and look up footage by "Disjecta". They also have an XL2 and Sony HD section where users have posted clips.
Great post...I am surprised no one has mentioned the DVX User forums.

I am about to pull the trigger on a DVX100A after well over a year of research. It was either that or an XL2 and the general concensus is that despite being 16:9 native and shooting at 24p, the XL2 image still looks very much like video.

The Sony FX1/Z1U are great for high-def video-like images, but not for the amateur filmmaker. Someone posted a music video shot on a FX1 over that the DVX forums that looked a lot like film, but that's probably after a lot of post work.

I wholeheartedly recommend that people go sign up at the DVX forums if you are interested in digital filmmaking. There is a wealth, an ABSOLUTE treasure of information there, to the point it can be overwhelming. But they have some seriously knowledgeable people who will help you out.

EVS is an amazing shop to deal with, btw.
12" 1.5GHz Aluminum PowerBook G4
15" 1GHz Titanium PowerBook G4
     
hmurchison2001
Senior User
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Seattle
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 29, 2005, 04:37 PM
 
I'm REALLY looking forward to NAB

http://www.videosystems.com/e-newsle.../index.html/#1

Mmmmmmmmm "real" 24p, removable lenses and....

In addition to providing HD recording in the 24p format, the GY-HD100U can output an uncompressed 720/p60 HD signal. This is ideal for live broadcasting, remote news, and POV applications. A third party HD-SDI converter can output (with no signal delay) a full-resolution uncompressed signal.
Yes $8k is a lot but this and the Panny P2 unit are kicking off HD the right way. I imagine in 5 years we'll look at tape as archaic.
http://hmurchison.blogspot.com/ highly opinionated ramblings free of charge :)
     
macintologist  (op)
Professional Poster
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Smallish town in Ohio
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 30, 2005, 09:31 PM
 
Wasn't this supposed to be the year of HD though? I like that iMovie is HD compatible now, but doesn't is seem a bit redundant?
     
k2director
Senior User
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Los Angeles
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 5, 2005, 01:41 PM
 
Anyone interested in shooting in HD, or a high-quality SD (without DV compression) should check out the new SD/HD unit from Panasonic (HVX200). It doesn't use the highly-compressed HDV format that the "prosumer" HD cameras do (ie, MPEG), and from the specs, looks to be one of those "watershed" products like the XL-1 years ago, or the DVX100a.

Check out this forum for more. http://www.dvxuser.com/V3/forumdisplay.php?f=45

It's going to be unveiled by Panasonic on April 18, I believe, at NAB.
( Last edited by k2director; Apr 5, 2005 at 01:57 PM. )
     
hmurchison2001
Senior User
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Seattle
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Apr 5, 2005, 04:50 PM
 
Originally posted by k2director:
Anyone interested in shooting in HD, or a high-quality SD (without DV compression) should check out the new SD/HD unit from Panasonic (HVX200). It doesn't use the highly-compressed HDV format that the "prosumer" HD cameras do (ie, MPEG), and from the specs, looks to be one of those "watershed" products like the XL-1 years ago, or the DVX100a.

Check out this forum for more. http://www.dvxuser.com/V3/forumdisplay.php?f=45

It's going to be unveiled by Panasonic on April 18, I believe, at NAB.
HK

I'm pretty exited about the Panny unit as well. HDV is nice but I'd rather record my footage in a lesser compressed format that's easier to edit. The Panny DVC Pro HD codecs would be ideal. April 18th can't get here soon enough.
http://hmurchison.blogspot.com/ highly opinionated ramblings free of charge :)
     
 
Thread Tools
 
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 09:30 PM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2017 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.,