›

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Sign In Register

In this Discussion

Video Cameras

Loose_ThreadLoose_Thread
edited July 2011
I'm looking to spend about $600 on a video camera.

Do any of you beautiful people have something to recommend to me???
«1

Comments

  • UncleBoatShoes2011UncleBoatShoes2011
    It's my understanding that there may not be a lot of advantages to having a camera that is dedicated to video at that price point at this point in time.

    Judah? Zuckerberg? Do you guys know? Like it seems you buy an entry level DSLR like a Canon T3i at this price point and that's the best video you are getting for the dollar.
  • Loose_ThreadLoose_Thread
    Hmm. Interesting.

    Should I go HD?
  • UncleBoatShoes2011UncleBoatShoes2011
    You might have a hard time avoiding HD.

    I think it makes sense. You might not be interested in it aesthetically, but you can always downconvert or whatever.

  • ThickeningAgentThickeningAgent
    what are you looking to do with the camera? how important is sound/image quality? do you want something that will fit in your pocket or that you'd put on a tripod? lots of questions.

    you do want HD. that is the format of now and the older standard resolution formats are having a hard time making the jump.
  • Loose_ThreadLoose_Thread
    I want to get down with the D. Can it be had for $600?

    I may be a middle-of-the-road consumer. I want to be able to mount it to a tripod for slow nature footage, but also maybe to have handy for crowd shots during a music show or something. Sound is not much of a concern, as I overdub. Image quality... I would be happy with something low quality, so I was just open to whatever my money would get me.

    Thank you very much!
  • UncleBoatShoes2011UncleBoatShoes2011
    almost all new still cameras for $200 and up have at least 720p HD video. Those lower models will have the big image but be pretty grainy in a weird digital way. You can easily get the D for your dollar.
  • Loose_ThreadLoose_Thread
    I like to do close-ups of faces. Going to vid some sandy nature. We want close-up detail... so maybe I should really think about getting something with detachable lense? Marcus suggests the Panasonic GH2, a DSLR. It is around $1,000.

    It might not need to be really good. It is my first video camera and I am learning what I use it for. I do a lot of close-ups so end up using digital zoom to the max. As opposed to technically beautiful, sustained shots, I use video to collage and mix with found footage, short cuts that blend together different media (ends up being pretty lowest common denominator, technology-wise).

    But I do want to be able to use it for interviews. So I guess sound will matter there.
  • UncleBoatShoes2011UncleBoatShoes2011
    edited July 2011
    What about

    Traditional camcorder style with great zooms!
    http://www.amazon.com/Panasonic-HDC-TM90K-Compatible-Camcorder-Internal/dp/B004I43MJA/ref=sr_1_1?s=photo&ie=UTF8&qid=1309988177&sr=1-1

    Digital SLR style
    http://www.amazon.com/Canon-Rebel-T3-Digital-18-55mm/dp/B004J3Y9U6/ref=sr_1_4?s=electronics&ie=UTF8&qid=1309988225&sr=1-4
  • ThickeningAgentThickeningAgent
    the cool thing about DSLRs is that you get great images, you have both high quality video and still photo capabilities, and you can buy different lenses- (allowing you to invest in stages, essentially) and then when it comes time to upgrade the camera body you will still have the lenses. the bad thing about the DSLRs is that they are really bad for hand-held work due to the type of censor that most of them use, and they have very mediocre sound recording capabilities. the more traditional HD Camcorders are pretty much the opposite in terms of strengths/weaknesses.

    i spend a lot of time on this website before i buy a camera: www.dpreview.com - lots of good info and reviews and feedback on just about every camera ever made.

    make sure you get something that you can operate manually!
  • Loose_ThreadLoose_Thread
    Wow! These both look cool. Thank you!
  • Loose_ThreadLoose_Thread
    Thank you Mc. I will go to that web site and view these suggestions! Didn't know that DSLR is bad for hand held. So good to know.
  • Loose_ThreadLoose_Thread
    p.s. my boyfriend just referred to his Apple laptop as a CPU
  • Judar_SpitzerJudar_Spitzer
    DSLR can be ok handheld but you need an image stabilized lens. I have a kit stabilized zoom with my 7D that works surprisingly well.

    I agree though; a DSLR or a micro 4/3 style camera is the best bet for covering all of your options.

    dalas has the 60d, which is 1k, but he seems to really like it. Though your focus may be video, you might be surprised how much you use the still photo capabilities. At least I am.
  • the_owlsthe_owls
    BB, knowing what you like to do I'd imagine a camcorder would be better than a DSLR.
    I think you'll spend less money and hit the right level of image quality- not fancy or slick but not garbage. It has great zoom/macro!
    Also it's easier to hold for filmin'.

    With DSLR you get best quality, but more $$ and usually will need to buy new/different lenses, and so = more $$$$

  • Loose_ThreadLoose_Thread
    Wow!! I give this site a 5/5. Thank you, all you beautiful people!!!
  • MirandaJulyMirandaJuly
    GH2 and t3i are both solid options. I do agree with owls tho, that I picture you holding a camcorder.
  • Loose_ThreadLoose_Thread
    Here's my new fantasy--spend $600 on like a dozen camcorders.
  • UncleBoatShoes2011UncleBoatShoes2011
    meaning you would get old tape based machines? the problem there is then getting your content onto the computer for editing.
  • Loose_ThreadLoose_Thread
    nah it'd be no problem i'll just hold my digital picture camera up to the tv and make a video while the camcorder runs through the TV

    ; - )
  • MarcusMarcus
    PROBLEM SOLVED
  • ThickeningAgentThickeningAgent
    one thing i will say: DO NOT GET SUCKERED BY THE WHOLE '24 FRAMES PER SECOND' CHARADE! the only reason shooting 24 fps makes any sense is if you plan on transferring your video footage to 35mm film. consumer cameras marketing themselves as having the 24 fps 'film look' is the lamest marketing ploy of the decade.
  • MirandaJulyMirandaJuly
    Disagree. I prefer the look of 24fps to 30fps. Not that most people will care, but I do.
  • MarcusMarcus
    Can we please nerd-war about this for several pages?

    MOTION BLUR! JUDDER! What have you. Thanks in advance.
  • MirandaJulyMirandaJuly
    Codecs.
  • MarcusMarcus
    James Cameron.
  • ThickeningAgentThickeningAgent
    D- are you sure that the improvements in image that you are seeing aren't just the result of improvements in the camera itself? back when the Panasonic DVX100 (which i think was the first prosumer level camera to have 24p) everyone raved about 24p but it was really the censor that took that camera to the next level. i think a lot of people mistakenly got hooked on the 24p idea and never let go, but the thing is that most people haven't even seen their 24p footage playback at 24p. TVs, HDTVs, computer monitors, etc, typically work at a 30hz or 60hz rate, meaning that when you look at your 24fps footage you are actually seeing it playback at aprox 30fps, and the computer/DVD/whatever has had to compensate and essentially create an extra 6 frames out of those 24- a process that can create lots of digital artifacts and problems (the fore-mentioned JUDDER)

    the only way to see true 24p playback is to view your footage on a $30K HD Cam deck connected to some fancy monitor like a Cinetal (which i agree looks pretty darn good) but if the final viewing destination is DVD, broadcast TV or the internet, than 30 fps is the best way to go*

    *until everything goes to 60p

  • ThickeningAgentThickeningAgent
    my OTHER grievance with the "24p marketing ploy" is why 24? if this alternate frame rate is in fact for better image, why was the clunky number 24 decided upon? 24 frames per second didn't come along until the advent of movies with sound. the 24fps thing was entirely due to the scientific limitations of SOUND WAVES and had nothing to do with image quality. silent movies were shot and projected at 16 frames per second- the true 'persistence of vision' in cinema figured out by legendary cool dude Eadweard Muybridge. MANY filmmakers strongly believe that film (as in celluloid) looks significantly better shot and projected at 16fps- so much so that dudes like Stan Brakhage, Nathanial Dorsky, and many others decided to skip sound so they could indulge the beauty of 16 frames per second. (Dorsky is still making 16fps films to this day, but it is very hard to see his work since there are so few 16fps projectors in the world)
  • ThickeningAgentThickeningAgent
    I HOPE YOU ARE HAPPY NOW MARCUS
  • Loose_ThreadLoose_Thread
    cool!!!
  • ThickeningAgentThickeningAgent
    image

    off topic but a great read: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eadweard_Muybridge
  • MarcusMarcus
    I haven't yet developed a crackpot opinion on this issue but I'm working on it. You've got an interesting point about the refresh rate on a monitor. But what about the fact that a lower framerate affords a slower shutter speed, which provides a smoother motion blur? I know that James Cameron produced dozens of unique "visual masters" for Avatar intended for different displays, and I' pretty sure that higher frame rates were part of the deal. But when I walk by the LCD TV demos showing Avatar at Fred Meyer, the crystal-clarity of the scenes make it look like bad British television somehow. It's hyper-real and while it kinda has its own terrible appeal, it also looks by most reasonable accounts like total dookie. Too little motion-blur?

    Let's do some blind tests!
  • ThickeningAgentThickeningAgent
    edited July 2011
    well, again, if you are talking about a "film look" than the typical (celluloid) motion picture camera's shutter speed is 1/48 of a second. significantly slower(faster?) than 1/30 of a second that most prosumer video cameras can shoot at (in either 30p or 24p). the inner workings of film cameras and HD/video cameras are so different it is really difficult to directly translate things like shutter speed, but you can essentially get more motion blur shooting video at 30p than you can shooting film at 24p. also, very few video cameras will let you shoot faster at than 1/30 even if you are shooting 24p, so in terms of shutter speed/motion blur- 24p and 30p are relatively the same.

    I think the issues with Avatar go way beyond frame rate and motion blur. He may be victim to his own success in some ways, in that he has seen this stuff look amazing on the state of the art equipment he is able to create it on, but when it dumbs down to home-viewing standards it just doesn't hold up. with Avatar and so many of these new special effect films, the real challenge is making computer animation look real- most of this stuff hasn't even gone through a camera!



  • MirandaJulyMirandaJuly
    You'll just have to believe that I can see a difference. I've actually, at times, shown non-video-nerds different examples of different framerates, and they usually can't even see a difference. For some reason, I'm really sensitive to it. 30fps progressive looks very close to 24fps progressive, but I can still see it.
  • Loose_ThreadLoose_Thread
    fast eyes
  • 12341234
    Blind tests seem like a good idea.
  • the_owlsthe_owls
    Blindfolded tests?
  • MarcusMarcus
    Let's blindfold Zuckerburg and see if he can vibe the difference.
  • Loose_ThreadLoose_Thread
    or we could blind fold you and see if you're ticklish
  • MarcusMarcus
    Please don't
  • ThickeningAgentThickeningAgent
    i don't mean to rain on your parade Zuckerburg, if you like shooting 24p than fair enough. one thing for sure is that it uses less disk space, so that's a total advantage.

    my beef is just with the marketing minds behind the whole 'film look' thing- it's as disingenuous as touting the 'digital quality' of mp3s or DVDs, aimed at suckering people who don't know better into buying something they think will deliver a higher quality but in fact doesn't match up quality wise to the analog systems they replaced. SHIT GETS ME MAD!
  • Judar_SpitzerJudar_Spitzer
    I can definitely tell the difference between 24p & 29.97, but I use both for different things. I definitely agree though, that 24p as a term is very generally used by most consumer camera companies as selling points, where this is essentially one tiny part of why something "looks good" on video.

    The camera I have and use for my low key shoots has an okay sensor for still or minimally moving shots, but I get judder with any frenetic shooting. This is something you should not see on a non-dslr style camera, since the sensor is better optimized for movement.
  • MirandaJulyMirandaJuly
    Last night I was bouncing a racquetball and I could tell the lights in the room were CFLs. Just so sensitive to this stuff.
  • MirandaJulyMirandaJuly
    Also: I love switching my TV into "120Hz" mode when watching movies and "film" style TV shows. It makes them look like cheap Mexican soap operas. It also makes it so much easier to figure out the lighting setups used on each shot for some reason.
  • ThickeningAgentThickeningAgent
    "This is something you should not see on a non-dslr style camera, since the sensor is better optimized for movement."

    I have been victimized by the Judder Monster using the Red Cam! HD and horizontal movement are still a ways away from being a happy couple.
  • Loose_ThreadLoose_Thread
    M_Z, so impressed by your acute perceptions
  • Judar_SpitzerJudar_Spitzer
    BigMac: 4 reals? I haven't seen much judder with the RED. I haven't done much action shooting with it though, mostly 120fps / minimal movement. But yes, any digital sensor will have some degree of judder, but DSLR's seem to be the worst of the lot IMO.

    I also get weird banding issues if the image has busy horizontal lines of any sort. My DP friends all say this is just because the sensor is not 100% dedicated to video capturing, which makes sense. My guess is that companies like Canon / Nikon will have to meet this challenge, and soon.

    Marcus and I checked out the AF100 at the annual video dork fest I go to and I was pretty impressed. That thing has a fancy chip that removes judder, as well as some other aliasing and moire effects. It looked real decent for the price point.
  • MirandaJulyMirandaJuly
    http://www.budgetgadgets.com/cameras-photo-camcorders-c-21_225.html
  • Loose_ThreadLoose_Thread
    it's red and it comes with a parrot on the screen what more could anyone want
  • ThickeningAgentThickeningAgent
    J- Judder on the Red indeed, on some deep horizontal dolly pans. dude at the fancy post production house said it was a combination of the CMOS sensor and the ARTIFACTING THAT SHOOTING 24FPS CREATES!!!
  • MirandaJulyMirandaJuly
    The only reason I'm interested to see the new Hobbit movie is that he's shooting it in 60fps. Should look REALLY weird.
Sign In or Register to comment.