ranichols

You'll need to get creative and do some testing. I picked up some 500 watt halogen work lights for low budget lighting. I haven't yet used them. They have wire protectors over light which probably would have to be removed and diffusers added somehow. But you can probably find them in your price range. I'm toying with the idea of making very portable lights out of those "1 million candle power" flashlights you see advertised in auto stores and various places. I'm thinking of putting a big fresnel lens in front to spread the beam, or some other diffuser. You can find pretty big fresnel lenses used for reading aids. Or bounce it into an umbrella reflector. Another good item to experiment with is the windshield sun shields, which work as reflectors. A good video camera is pretty sensitive so you can experiment with normal light bulbs in the high wattage range to see what you get. Color balance is the main problem, so you just need to play with that and see if you can get something you like. I think lighting is an art that takes a while to get the hang of and tough to do on a budget, but we'd like to hear what you come up with. Wish I had something really useful for you.

I recently joined this forum, and find the discussion very useful. I'm in the market for a 24P camcorder; main interest is "filmlook" dramatic productions, but also interested in other commercial uses for survival. The Panasonic DVX and Canon XL2 discussion is particularly interesting since they seem closest to the tool I can afford. The issues raised are in line with areas I'm concerned with when choosing this equipment. From what I've read here, my comments are: I feel Pete Wright has a valid point about lens resolution, but also agree with David Mullen's advice (that the proof is in the pudding, i.e. the end result). Numbers aside, Pete's argument rings true from a relative standpoint. It would seem inevitable that the same lens projecting on a smaller, denser CCD is going to have its resolving power sorely tested. It also will behave as a more "telephoto" lens since less of its field will be mapped onto the imaging device. Generally speaking, smaller CCDs would be more prone to noise (all other things being equal), which can translate to poorer low-light performance. But if for some reason the difference is unnoticeable or unobjectionable (for instance, if video compression is the limiting factor), then it doesn't really matter, David Mullen's point. These systems are so complex that sometimes integration engineering can get improved results where the components would lead you to believe otherwise. That being said, the Canon configuration with a smaller, denser CCD would make me think twice, and I would look very hard in the area of resolution and low-light performance. You almost wonder if it was done just to get the "native 16:9" label. To me the "math" is useful in making you look harder at the subjective results. The math may be telling the truth but you just don't see it until you hit that one situation where the theoretically compromised design lets you down. A particularly subtle area is low-light performance. Resolution charts should be used to compare products in the low-light range, because so many electronic tricks can be used to suppress noise, sometimes at the expense of resolution (pixel combining, for instance). Then again, maybe you never shoot in these borderline cases, and that last dot of resolution is not important compared to getting the story, lighting, sound, etc. right. If one camera helps you get the big picture easier than another, that may pay off more than some small technical advantage. Personally, though, I'd rather add my own distortion, rather than have it forced on me. Just from the comments posted here, the Panasonic DVX seems attractive in the areas of: - cost - wider angle zoom - maybe low light performance - maybe video "quality" in certain circumstances The killer feature of the Canon seems to be: - interchangeable lens (if you can afford the extra lenses). That's from a movie-making perspective. A news gatherer would probably much prefer the more telephoto Canon. On Juan's DVX modification -- I'd be interested in what kind of hardware is required to capture that video stream. -RAN