|
|
Post by wiggy on Jun 11, 2006 8:37:26 GMT
I'm thinking of buying a new dv camcorder or hi-def camera so i was just wondering if anyone out there new of any good deals.
it could be a good idea if people leave links to camera reviews and deals if that is allowed dave!!!
what do you think?
|
|
|
|
Post by RydCook on Jun 11, 2006 16:18:17 GMT
i highly reccomend just going for DV at the moment, firstly because it is cheaper, secondly because it takes up less hard drive space, and thirdly because it is not standard yet. Someone told me in another thread Hi-def is 200meg a second! so its all well and good if you have a massive hard drive, but chances are you dont, and if you do they're pretty expencive. so firtly i'd go for DV. now it depends on the price your willing to pay, if its under 300 quid, theres plenty of camera's out there and it hard to know which one to get. i've used panasonic, jvc, canon and sony 300 quid cammcorders, and i can honestly say the canon is the most reliable, and maybe not the best spec, but just an all round great camera. i have a sony at the mo, its good, but has un nessicary features like a touch screen.. which i can't really see the point in, and at times its kinda in-practical. i'd recomend the Canon MV800 because it's an all round good camera, and i have found canon product very very reliable.
the next best sorta cameras are high quality dv cameras, and the only 3 i have experiance with are the Sony V2000, the Canon XM2 and canon XL1. My mate has a Sony V2000 and it is an awesome good-quality camera with a handle, carl zeiz lens (as with all sony cameras) and a good LCD screen, and the footage looks great. i dont know much about reliability, but my mates has had a good battering (he uses it for skating) and it still works fine. i tend not to trust sony, as ive had loads of their products in the past, nearly all of them have broke! (how many times have you heard someone has a proken PS2? lol). This Camera usually costs around 2000 quid.
One of Canon's high quality DV cameras is the XL1 or the new XL2 (the XL1 is still avaliable on ebay, new it'd have to be the XL2 i dont know the difference.) My mate owns an XL1 and it looks very very professional, fully customisable, brilliant mic, and many other great features. to get an idea of how good the footage is, this is the model that Danny Boyle's 28 Days Later was shot on. the only reason i dont own one of these, is because they've no LCD screen, and are kinda bulkly (has to be held on shoulder.) this is all good if your just using for film making, no problem, but i also use my camera for skating, so this would be impractical for me. the XL1 on ebay is usually around 1.500 but i've seen it go for lower. the new XL2 is abround 3,000 big difference!
now finaly onto the camer i own, the Canon XM2. it is, in essence, a comprewssed version of the XL1 with adeed LCD screen and handle on top. this is perfect for me, as the handle is superb for me akting shots, and the LCD is neccisary for this. the camera is ssuprirsingly light, and the footage is of amazing quality. the fcus ring is an ease to use, and depth of field is a breeze (not like the crappy focus on 300 quid camera's) everything i've shot on it looks and sounds prime, unfortuantely i dont have an example, but i will soon! i got this camera for 1400, i got jessops down from 1600 because i found a cheaper price on the net, and showed it to jessops, and they did a price match, well worth doing. i also got tapes, uv lens, and warrenty all included, for an over all price of 1600. which was awesome.
if your shooting just films and like the sound of the XL1 go for that, if your willing t spend 3000 go for the XL2, and be sure to get warrenty. if the XM2 sounds more practiccal, and what you want for a cheapoer price, i'd recceomend that.
hope this helps mate
|
|
|
|
Post by wiggy on Jun 11, 2006 17:38:14 GMT
cheers for the very informative reply, i have at the moment a panasonic nv-gs35, it is ok but i am thinking of buying somthing that could film in broadcast quality, hi-def is the future and you can pick one up for around 2 grand so i might go down that road, i don't know about the 200mb per second thing but it does sound rather excessive i think it would be more like 20mb per second but i could be wrong...so if any one has a hi-def camera what do you think of it and is it worth getting one.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dave on Jun 11, 2006 18:07:12 GMT
I mentioned it elsewhere, but we screened an HDCam tape at work the other day. A resolution of 1920x1080. When we projected it onto the cinema screen it looked blummin good. However, if you sat in the front row, and had pretty good eye sight, you could make out the pixels.
I don't think there's really any need for getting the leatest HD cams. As long as your work is good, it doesn't really matter what format it's on. As I'm sure Wiggy can testify to with his Tash McDermot film getting some fantastic interest!
|
|
|
|
Post by RydCook on Jun 11, 2006 22:47:42 GMT
"I don't think there's really any need for getting the leatest HD cams. As long as your work is good, it doesn't really matter what format it's on."
i completely agree with this statment. Just because High Definition is the future, doesnt mean its the best thing to get at the moment.
|
|
|
|
Post by PatrickCoyle on Jun 11, 2006 23:17:08 GMT
It depends on the camera (HDCAM, HDV etc) and there are some pro-sumer HD camcorders that can compress data at 25Meg per second, but the real hardcore stuff like the Viper FilmStream need special hard drives and stuff. And either way, if you're editing at home to get a computer up to handle hi-def video, you need to spend a small fortune on hardware upgrades. The danger with a hi-def camcorder is that it'll often just be edited at miniDV resolution. But if you can afford it, go for it.
|
|
|
|
Post by wiggy on Jun 12, 2006 13:56:34 GMT
ta very much for your replys, i am purely looking at it from an ambitious perspective and maybe editing on a pc isn't the best way to make a broadcast quality film if you don't want to get that handycam look so i think the best way is to hire an hd cam and test it out first using different editing methods. my mate is a teacher at a college and he has said he could bag me a bit of gear for a while so i think ill try that.
|
|
|
|
Post by Tom on Jun 16, 2006 19:20:29 GMT
I'm gonna poke me chops in on this one, as I've shot two features - one on DV and one HDV. As a word of warning - don't get HDV unless your PC (or mac - which is better suited) can handle it. Night-Bird - my first film, was shot DV, and the film, at 81 mins, is a total of 16gb on a hard drive. Icharus Broken - as you will see Wiggy when you get the DVD - is gorgeous in HDV, but it's 98 mins long, and takes up 70gb! A world of difference. And most PC's just can't handle the images. So you'd need to either upgrade your graphics card and get plenty of hard drive space (I used a total of 400gb to store all my footage before the cut). I actually went and bought a new Intel iMac (because it was HDV capable out of the box) and it processes the footage so much quicker. My Top end PC couldn't render the footage. Obviously, HDV is pushing DV away - and with a decent camera costing About £700 - they really are getting cheaper all the time. They will be standard very soon. But like I say - although they still use miniDV tapes, a min of film is about 700meg - so it'll eat memory for breakfast. You still get 60mins of tape, but it's on the hard drive you'll struggle. Broadcast quality though - I have to say, the image is just pristine. Look at the footage of Icharus and then play Colin on the DVD I've posted. You'll see what I mean. Colin is DV. If you do want to hire one - try hireacamera.co.uk - they're spot on, and relatively cheap. Broadcast films ARE being made on PC's. But mostly on Macs  As far as cutting on a PC - that's fine you know. When I went to Toronto last year, my film was one of ten features selected for competition from 500 submitted. I'd shot DV and cut on a laptop. My film played just before a film that cost $1,000,000 - mine was a fraction of that at £6,000. And I wasn't laughed at or anything! Ha ha. I was just another film maker, working out how to get his films made. Best way to deal with it is definitely hire a camera, shoot something short, try cutting it on your PC, and if it goes shit, you've lost nothing. Otherwise, you will have to shell out. But golden rule is always the quality of ths story. Icharus was shot 90% in my own house. We got away with it using tight shots and a tight script. Cheers - hope this helps. |
|
|
|
Post by wiggy on Jun 16, 2006 19:30:02 GMT
that helps a lot cheers for that. hard drive space is no worrys as i have 450 gig i have 3.2 mhz intel and an ati hi end g/card so i may be ok, i will hire one and give it a whirl.
thanks again that is great.
ps cheers for the dvd i will give you my opinion as soon as i get it.
|
|
|
|
Post by RydCook on Jun 18, 2006 18:04:02 GMT
very interesting and informative post icharus, excellent that you can share your experiance and thoughts with us. very helpful mate
|
|
As far as cutting on a PC - that's fine you know. When I went to Toronto last year, my film was one of ten features selected for competition from 500 submitted. I'd shot DV and cut on a laptop. My film played just before a film that cost $1,000,000 - mine was a fraction of that at £6,000. And I wasn't laughed at or anything! Ha ha. I was just another film maker, working out how to get his films made.