What camcorder to buy

[Timmo Liiva]

Hello Community!

I am interested of buying camcorder. I want to use it for making amateur films, special effects, screen screen must have very important role in it. And alsou is it possible to get it above 1000$?

[Timmo Liiva]

I forgot to mention on thing. I don't know much about camcorders, it would be very great, when that camera can record data to harddisk.

[alex thin]

You can take a look to the sony HDV camera like hdr-hc1 if you can find it , it is around $1200, you can try the Hc3, around that price too, they are not professional cameras, but you can get 1080i for a good price, filming in day light they are fantastic, specially the HC1.

 

Anyway, sure other poeple can give you other options.

[Nicholas Jenkins]

I'd suggest finding a DVX 100B. You can find them around $1800 (or less more than likely). Nice lense, does a damn good faux 24p for filmmic look and allot of decent control over everything.

[David Mullen ASC]

Note to "Timmo"

 

From:

http://www.cinematography.com/forum2004/in...?act=boardrules

 

Please read the following rules and guidelines very carefully. By proceeding to post you agree to these guidelines and must obey them at all times. Refusal to obey these guidelines will result in the appropriate responsive actions.

 

Members on this forum are required to use their full real names for their Display Name. The format to use is your first name followed by a space followed by your last/family/surname. Please capitalize the first letter of each. Accounts that do not comply will be removed and cannot be reactivated. Display names can be edited in My Controls / Change Display Name once you?re logged in.

[Timmo Liiva]

Now it's ok :)

 

Let's talk about that DVX 100B, i don't know much about cameras, but does most of them(including DVX 100B) uses tape to record or they use somekind of a harddrive?

[Daniel Smith]

Canon XM2 is a nice piece of kit.

[Timmo Liiva]

yes, but his costs way too much :huh:

[Edgar Smith]

You ain't finding a dvx100b for 1800, at least not one without an ungodly amount of hours and abuse on it. You might could get an original dvx100 for that price, and I've seen a few A's go for close to that with several hundred hours on them, but never a B, the cheapest I've seen a B go for was about 2200, and I got mine for 2300, 2300-2500 seems to be the ballpark right now for one of them that's in decent shape.

 

The dvx is a great camera, though, in whatever version.

Edited January 6, 2007 by Edgar Smith

[Edgar Smith]

Another thing: you can find ads for the DVX100B online for 1800 or less, but those are unauthorized dealers (scam shops) that will tell you that the price is camera only, then try to sell you the accessories for an outrageously inflated price. Even if you somehow actually managed to get a camera delivered, panasonic would deny your warranty and refuse you the rebate and extra software because the camera is a grey market model from overseas, plus you wouln't be able to read your manual or any documentation due to it being in japanese or something.

 

I wouldn't buy from them unless you want to experience the financial equivalent of an aggravated sexual assault.

Edited January 6, 2007 by Edgar Smith

[Thomas James]

I think a better camera for around $1350 would be the JVC GR-HD1. Like the DVX the JVC features true progressive film like recording but the JVC can capture footage in high definition while the DVX can only shoot standard definition. The JVC also features a hybrid primary complimentary color filteration system which can sample colors at higher resolutions than the DVX100 is capable of.

[Edgar Smith]

One thing to remember about the JVC GR-HD1 is that it is a 30p 1-chip camera with a proprietary codec that can only be played back from a HD1, It also doesn't have any sort of Gamma adjustment like the DVX does to give it more of a film look.

 

Personally, the HD1 footage I've seen didn't look near as good as the DVX as far as color.

[Nicholas Jenkins]

I think you'll find that if you do enough shopping, you can find a good deal on a DVX. Give it a shot before you just give up on it.

[Edgar Smith]

I think you'll find that if you do enough shopping, you can find a good deal on a DVX. Give it a shot before you just give up on it.

 

Yep, a DVX would be a GREAT choice.

 

www.dvxuser.com would be a great place to go to find a used one, plus If you want to buy new they can steer you to an authorized dealer so you don't get screwed over.

 

ETA: the DVX doesn't do a 'faux' 24p, it has progressive chips and records a true 24 fps image. Some other cameras(notably the fx-1) have a fake 24 fps mode (the fx-1 calls it's "cineframe"), but the DVX is pure 24p goodness.

Edited January 6, 2007 by Edgar Smith

[Nicholas Jenkins]

Yep, a DVX would be a GREAT choice.

 

www.dvxuser.com would be a great place to go to find a used one, plus If you want to buy new they can steer you to an authorized dealer so you don't get screwed over.

 

ETA: the DVX doesn't do a 'faux' 24p, it has progressive chips and records a true 24 fps image. Some other cameras(notably the fx-1) have a fake 24 fps mode (the fx-1 calls it's "cineframe"), but the DVX is pure 24p goodness.

 

Actually I don't think the DVX is native. It does its own 3-2 pulldown. At least that's what we were taught in our Tech Classes and Cinematography.

[Troy Warr]

Actually I don't think the DVX is native. It does its own 3-2 pulldown. At least that's what we were taught in our Tech Classes and Cinematography.

 

I believe that the chip is progressive scan, but the processor does the pulldown before recording to tape in 60i. Using editing software you can reverse the pulldown to edit true 24fps, progressively-shot footage.

 

This is going from memory though, so somebody please correct me if I'm wrong here.

 

A little more info here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panasonic_DVX100

[Edgar Smith]

Actually I don't think the DVX is native. It does its own 3-2 pulldown. At least that's what we were taught in our Tech Classes and Cinematography.

 

MY understanding is that it records true 24p at a 24 hz clock rate, but it does have to add either 2-3-2-3 pulldown or 2-3-3-2 advanced pulldown to print to tape in a 60i format that 's MiniDV compatible.

 

Some camcorders use a fake 24p that basically just cuts out frames, but the DVX has native 24p coming straight off the chips. Pulldown is only added after compression and right before the image is printed to tape.The initial uncompressed image has the same 24fps framerate that a film camera has.

 

I believe that the chip is progressive scan, but the processor does the pulldown before recording to tape in 60i. Using editing software you can reverse the pulldown to edit true 24fps, progressively-shot footage.

 

This is going from memory though, so somebody please correct me if I'm wrong here.

 

A little more info here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panasonic_DVX100

 

No, you are correct.

[David Mullen ASC]

The DVX100 does capture at true 24P (takes a progressive-scan picture 24 times a second) but always records it to 480/60i, so has to add a pulldown of some sort (two types available, standard and "advanced") which can be removed in post to return to the original "P" frames.

[Daniel Smith]

Oops I meant GL2, the American version. (Not XM2) About $1800 brand new.

[Nicholas Jenkins]

The DVX100 does capture at true 24P (takes a progressive-scan picture 24 times a second) but always records it to 480/60i, so has to add a pulldown of some sort (two types available, standard and "advanced") which can be removed in post to return to the original "P" frames.

 

Man, so this confuses me. It's true 24p, but it still does a pull down? ACK! Brain hemorage!!!

[David Mullen ASC]

It's true 24p, but it still does a pull down?

 

It has to, otherwise how are you going to turn 24 frames into 60 fields for recording and tape playback on an NTSC monitor? Same for 24 fps film transferred to 60i video. 24 frames can be split simply into 48 fields, but you need to add 12 more fields in there in some sort of pattern to add up to 60.

 

It's all because there is no such thing as a common 24 fps tape system in standard def video (and because these are still semi-consumer cameras and everyone works with NTSC at home). A DVD, however, can store 24P and convert it to 60i on playback.

 

Some cameras, like the Sony HDV cameras that have a 24F feature (CineFrame) capture at 60i, convert to 24 frames, then re-convert to 60 fields again by adding a pulldown to the 24 frames -- now that's a mess.

[Edgar Smith]

Man, so this confuses me. It's true 24p, but it still does a pull down? ACK! Brain hemorage!!!

 

The image is recorded at the sensor at 24p, pulldown is added only for storage on tape.

 

Think of it this way: a 60i camcorder records 60 half frames a second at the sensor and records them straight to MiniDV tape,while a 24p camcorder records 24 progressive scan frames a second at the sensor, but has to somehow fit those 24 full frames into 60 half frames for compatibility reasons. Like David said, if you split each frame you still only get 48 half frames, so the camera just doubles enough half frames (in a 2-3 or 2-3-3-2 pattern) to get 60 total and prints to tape. Most editing programs can recognize the pulldown pattern and remove it, so it is possible to edit in a native 24p timeline and do a proper film out with the original framerate if necessary.

 

That's why with a progressive scan camcorder you have a few seconds delay when you hit the record button on or off, the camera has a slight delay while it performs the calculations and processing.

Edited January 7, 2007 by Edgar Smith

[Thomas James]

First of all the JVC GR-HD1 cannot be considered a single chip camcorder because its revolutionary primary hybrid complimentary filteration system is capable of sampling 2.4 megapixels of color information while the DVX even with its three chips can only sample 1 megapixel of color information. Your assertation that the JVC resolves color poorly is only because of bias because you think that the JVC is a just a single chip camcorder. The only scientific way to overcome bias in a professional testing situation is for you to view the footage in a double blind test without being aware of which camera shot the footage and only then can you fairly judge the color reproduction of the JVC.

 

Also the JVC not only meets but also exceeds the minimum 24p standard by offering 30 full progressive frames of capture per second. If anything the JVC looks even more filmlike when viewed on a 720p television because it employs full progressive recording rather than 24p progressively segmented frames recorded in an interlace stream because it does not require 2-3 pulldown which result in an uneven cadence and interlace judder frames. The JVC rather plays back its footage by doubling its framerate from 30p to 60p just like in a real movie where the projector displays each frame twice.

[Nicholas Jenkins]

It has to, otherwise how are you going to turn 24 frames into 60 fields for recording and tape playback on an NTSC monitor? Same for 24 fps film transferred to 60i video. 24 frames can be split simply into 48 fields, but you need to add 12 more fields in there in some sort of pattern to add up to 60.

 

It's all because there is no such thing as a common 24 fps tape system in standard def video (and because these are still semi-consumer cameras and everyone works with NTSC at home). A DVD, however, can store 24P and convert it to 60i on playback.

 

Some cameras, like the Sony HDV cameras that have a 24F feature (CineFrame) capture at 60i, convert to 24 frames, then re-convert to 60 fields again by adding a pulldown to the 24 frames -- now that's a mess.

 

AH! Ok, I see. Man, this is why I'm not into building the things. EEEK!

[Edgar Smith]

First of all the JVC GR-HD1 cannot be considered a single chip camcorder because its revolutionary primary hybrid complimentary filteration system is capable of sampling 2.4 megapixels of color information while the DVX even with its three chips can only sample 1 megapixel of color information. Your assertation that the JVC resolves color poorly is only because of bias because you think that the JVC is a just a single chip camcorder.

 

lol, are you a JVC salesman? :D seriously, here is a review from CNET on the JVC's color performance:

"Unfortunately, the color subtlety and latitude--the ability to handle a range of brightness without blowing out highlights or losing shadow detail--aren't nearly as impressive as the resolution. In fact, they're inferior to what's available from similarly priced standard-definition cameras. Why? Any competing SD camera will likely have a three-chip imaging system, which handles the nuances of color and brightness substantially better than the JVC's single chip. Another weakness: The HD1 delivers a fairly marginal performance in low light. It's important to realize that, when it comes to image quality, resolution isn't the whole picture."

 

Apparently I'm not the only one who thinks the color performance is less than stellar. I viewed samples comparing several different camcorders before I bought my DVX, and noticed at that time that the JVC's color didn't look up to par. As for double-blind scientific tests, I mean come on, this isn't a drug testing trial, this is about camcorders and it isn't THAT important. It's not like I hear 'single chip' or 'three chip' and start rooting for one or the other to win, I only care about performance.

Also the JVC not only meets but also exceeds the minimum 24p standard by offering 30 full progressive frames of capture per second. If anything the JVC looks even more filmlike when viewed on a 720p television because it employs full progressive recording rather than 24p progressively segmented frames recorded in an interlace stream because it does not require 2-3 pulldown which result in an uneven cadence and interlace judder frames. The JVC rather plays back its footage by doubling its framerate from 30p to 60p just like in a real movie where the projector displays each frame twice.

 

Here's another part of the review:

"In HD mode, the JVC shoots at 30 frames per second, which gives a pleasant, filmic motion quality. However, it's not quite as filmic as the much-hyped 24P, which is the ideal HD variant for transfer to film--and which, unfortunately, this camera does not offer."

 

The DVX scans 24 full progressive frames a second just like a film camera, the fact that it is interlaced for storage on tape doesn't matter and doesn't affect the original image at all. Once you capture into an editing system that removes the pulldown you can edit and output in native 24p, which won't have the cadence problems you claim. And anyway, the DVX has a 30p option also that I could use if I wanted, which I don't.

 

In the end it doesn't really matter; while we're discussing latitude and color response David Lynch is out there shooting Inland Empire with a ragged pd-150. Heck, Spielberg could probably win an Oscar with a camera phone. Content is king.

 

BTW, are you androbot from camcorderinfo, or did you just cut-n-paste from his post? :P

Edited January 7, 2007 by Edgar Smith