Jump to content


Which do you reccomend?


  • Please log in to reply
13 replies to this topic

#1 Drew12345

Drew12345
  • Guests

Posted 09 November 2005 - 10:36 PM

I am getting into video production, and we are looking for a good video camera. We have been looking at the new sony models, the sony HVR-Z1 is one, the Panasonic AG-DVX100A and others like it. I am looking for high quality video, possibly HD, but I am really looking for a "Film" look. We have a limited budget, what camera would you recommend to achieve that high quality, good low light, film camera?

Thank you very much :)
  • 0

#2 sneeze proof

sneeze proof
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 40 posts
  • Other
  • Melbourne - Australia

Posted 10 November 2005 - 08:28 PM

If 24P is important to you, then I think this would interest you:
Z1 & 24P discussion

Other than that, everything I've seen from the Z1 (which has been 50i) is beautiful
  • 0

#3 Chris Cooke

Chris Cooke
  • Sustaining Members
  • 246 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Lethbridge, AB Canada

Posted 10 November 2005 - 08:29 PM

Read David Mullen's post in this thread.
http://www.cinematog...showtopic=10002

I'm shooting a short on the DVX 100 right now and I love look that it gives me especially for the price. Although, I was all the way open the other day and the video started looking quite noisy in the blacks and mid tones. Good lighting is very critical with mini dv and you must understand the medium.
  • 0

#4 Seth Mondragon

Seth Mondragon
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 71 posts
  • Camera Operator

Posted 10 November 2005 - 09:56 PM

if you want it to look like film, then....hmmm.....shoot it on film. I'm glad you're getting started in the field, but I'm really tired of hearing so many people saying they're trying to get the look of film. Sorry, that's just how I feel. Don't have the budget for film? Then raise the budget. Afraid it'll take a little more time to get a bigger buget? Then be patient. It'll be worth it once you see your real FILM footage. Trust me. Don't get me wrong, there's video cameras that will look great....but it's video. I have nothing against video (i shoot it for a living) but trying to make your video look like film is played out in my opinion.
  • 0

#5 sneeze proof

sneeze proof
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 40 posts
  • Other
  • Melbourne - Australia

Posted 10 November 2005 - 11:33 PM

:blink:
I believe he asked for advice of which camera to buy, not what medium to use. ;)
  • 0

#6 Seth Mondragon

Seth Mondragon
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 71 posts
  • Camera Operator

Posted 11 November 2005 - 01:15 AM

sneeze proof wrote:

I believe he asked for advice of which camera to buy, not what medium to use

well excuuuuse me. Maybe the ARRIFLEX 16 SR3 will produces some satisfactory results. Or, obviously budget is an issue, so maybe get started with the K3 16mm cam. There......ya' happy?
  • 0

#7 Drew12345

Drew12345
  • Guests

Posted 11 November 2005 - 08:27 AM

Its ok guys and gals, he?s just giving his view, if you want film just use FILM. I don't have that budget.

So as technology always grows, and i personally want the Panasonic one, my partner can order both the Panasonic and the Sony HD one wholesale and can get accessories for the Sony one cheap, but I?m not sure if that?s what i want. Some of the things we already video tape are top DJ?s, top nightclubs and bars, (lowlight), promoters, artists, corporate videos, but mostly they go on the internet. I LOVE what the dvx100 shoots out, it looks amazing. But is it really time just to go HD when in 4 years, 60% of North America will have hd Tvs, (Right now Its 4%) ??

Which would you do if you wanted the best broadcast quality camera? Sony or Panasonic? Thanks alot.! :D
  • 0

#8 Tim J Durham

Tim J Durham
  • Sustaining Members
  • 742 posts
  • Director
  • East Coast, Baby!

Posted 11 November 2005 - 10:38 AM

Which would you do if you wanted the best broadcast quality camera? Sony or Panasonic? Thanks alot.! :D

Neither of those is a "broadcast quality" camera. That's a whole different ballpark. People have shot things on the DVX which have ended up being broadcast but it's not a "broadcast quality" camera in the sense that broadcasters themselves would employ. If, as you say, you're mostly shooting for internet you don't need HDV. And you want to be able to shoot in progressive scan which rules out the HVR-Z1 which is interlace only.

The DVX-100a/b has plenty of life left in it and would most likely suit your needs.
  • 0

#9 Matt Irwin

Matt Irwin
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 389 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles

Posted 11 November 2005 - 11:56 AM

If your end format is primarily webcast, DV should be fine. If anything, you will probably be downresing the footage rather that upresing. If you like the features on the DVX, get the DVX. If you think you might be doing some narrative work that will be shown on a larger medium, you might consider the Panasonic or Sony HD(V) cams, but the DVX will still work just fine for low budget work.
Just my 2ยข.

Edited by Matt Irwin, 11 November 2005 - 11:57 AM.

  • 0

#10 sneeze proof

sneeze proof
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 40 posts
  • Other
  • Melbourne - Australia

Posted 14 November 2005 - 03:13 AM

well excuuuuse me. Maybe the ARRIFLEX 16 SR3 will produces some satisfactory results. Or, obviously budget is an issue, so maybe get started with the K3 16mm cam. There......ya' happy?

sorry man, it just sounded like you were getting in his face about the film look thing .. my mistake

anyway, I certainly agree with Matt, that if your primary target is web, then dv should be quite adequate as the size of most monitors are quite small.
  • 0

#11 Nate Downes

Nate Downes
  • Basic Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1638 posts
  • Florida, USA

Posted 14 November 2005 - 11:19 AM

Its ok guys and gals, he?s just giving his view, if you want film just use FILM. I don't have that budget.


If you don't have the budget for film, you don't for any of the other choices listed either. Film is not this uber-exensive monster you make it out to me.
  • 0

#12 David Silverstein

David Silverstein
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 96 posts
  • Student
  • New York City

Posted 20 November 2005 - 12:50 PM

if you want it to look like film, then....hmmm.....shoot it on film. I'm glad you're getting started in the field, but I'm really tired of hearing so many people saying they're trying to get the look of film. Sorry, that's just how I feel. Don't have the budget for film? Then raise the budget. Afraid it'll take a little more time to get a bigger buget? Then be patient. It'll be worth it once you see your real FILM footage. Trust me. Don't get me wrong, there's video cameras that will look great....but it's video. I have nothing against video (i shoot it for a living) but trying to make your video look like film is played out in my opinion.


Id rather shoot a DVX100 over Super 8 anyday. Super8 doesnt look as good and you dont get freedom becuase your still using film so you have to keep a certain ratio. With Mini-Dv you can go crazy and shoot everything and get shoots you didnt think you were going to use but wound up using it.
  • 0

#13 David Mullen ASC

David Mullen ASC
  • Sustaining Members
  • 19765 posts
  • Cinematographer
  • Los Angeles

Posted 20 November 2005 - 01:13 PM

Id rather shoot a DVX100 over Super 8 anyday. Super8 doesnt look as good and you dont get freedom becuase your still using film so you have to keep a certain ratio. With Mini-Dv you can go crazy and shoot everything and get shoots you didnt think you were going to use but wound up using it.


I'm not sure you articulated the best argument for Mini-DV over Super-8... i.e. being able to "go crazy and shoot everything". This will hardly teach you how to direct movies someday -- I mean, a computer could direct in your place if you never had to make hard decisions about where to put the camera and where to cut. Best directing class I ever took (taught by Alexander Mackendrick) required that we only could shoot a dialogue scene from two angles and only make one cut during the scene. This taught me a lot about scene analysis, where the camera should go for dramatic purposes, why and when in the scene one needs to make a cut, etc.

In terms of arguments for shooting DV over Super8, how about:

(1) Sound recording. It's easier to shoot sync-sound with a Mini-DV camera and edit the material.
(2) Editing. It's simpler and cheaper to get the footage into a computer for editing. No telecine involved.
(3) Sensitivity to light. Unless you are willing to use the high-speed color negative stocks in Super-8, generally the Super-8 stocks are very slow in speed.
(4) Exposure latitude. If you're shooting Super-8 reversal film, there is no real advantage in exposure latitude over video, perhaps there's even less latitude. (However, the Super-8 negative stocks have better exposure latitude than video.)

But in terms of having to plan better in advance before a Super-8 shoot and having to watch how much footage you shoot, I don't see that as necessarily a bad thing for a learner. People who shoot nothing but DV can pick a LOT of bad habits, often rely too heavily an automatic features and hence never really knowing what gain or shutter speed they are using, etc. -- not mention just covering a scene for the sake of coverage, shooting everything handheld, etc. So they become lost when they have to use a professional video camera, let alone a film camera, and they don't know how to effectively block and cover a scene when there is a limitation on time (which is standard operating procedure on most movies except the biggest in budget.)

Art benefits to some extent from restrictions, whether self-imposed or imposed from the outside. You have to learn your craft and you have to be disciplined. Unless you just plan on shooting DV for fun with your friends for the rest of your life and have no career ambitions in the film industry, nor a need to create cinematic art.

Edited by David Mullen, 20 November 2005 - 01:17 PM.

  • 0

#14 David Silverstein

David Silverstein
  • Basic Members
  • PipPip
  • 96 posts
  • Student
  • New York City

Posted 26 November 2005 - 04:25 PM

All good points I should have said if rather shoot dv its cheaper and looks good nonetheless. Super8 will cost a lot of money for telecine,processing,stock. Id rather just shoot minidv and then work my way up to film when I am ready.
  • 0


Visual Products

Ritter Battery

CineTape

FJS International, LLC

Abel Cine

Paralinx LLC

Broadcast Solutions Inc

CineLab

The Slider

Technodolly

Wooden Camera

Willys Widgets

Opal

Aerial Filmworks

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Glidecam

Metropolis Post

rebotnix Technologies

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

Rig Wheels Passport

Tai Audio

Broadcast Solutions Inc

Opal

Media Blackout - Custom Cables and AKS

rebotnix Technologies

Glidecam

CineTape

Abel Cine

Aerial Filmworks

Wooden Camera

FJS International, LLC

Technodolly

Tai Audio

Metropolis Post

CineLab

Gamma Ray Digital Inc

Rig Wheels Passport

Willys Widgets

The Slider

Paralinx LLC

Visual Products

Ritter Battery