Jump to content

aledosius

Basic Member
  • Posts

    12
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by aledosius

  1. thank you! i'll look ino this.

     

     

    I haven't followed mini DV technology much very recently but i'll tell you what i can. The cameras come in two major categories, single ccd (that is the part that recieves light) and 3ccd.

     

    I have what was a top of the range single ccd camera and it is quite good, but not really good enough for any professional work. If you can afford it get a 3ccd camera, not only do they have better picture quality but they also have more controls and better sound. A feature that i really wish my camera had is the ability to turn off digital sharpening. The top end has always been between sony and canon, personally i would stick to those makes.

     

    I do not know much about HD but i know that you can get HD equivilent of the sony VX2000 for not much more money. HD is probably going to take the place of mini DV in terms of video cameras so it might be a better idea to go for that instead of mini DV. Also i know there are cheaper consumer HD cameras available but i don't know anything about them.

  2. thanks for the question AND replies. I'M learning much from this discussion. just wanted to ask, since so many are referencing XL1, wasn't 28 DAYS LATER (danny boyle dir.) shot with this camera? i loved the look of the movie. anyone wanna elaborate on how this was achieved?

    -ac

     

     

    Hi,

     

    Well I don't think you will get anywhere near the quality of an usher music

    video shooting on video, on a consumer digital quality camera, no matter

    how much you spend on lighting..in the end a XL1 or whatever just won't

    cut it.... it will still look like video, but maybe good video!

     

    Most of public television stuff I have seen is usually shot on low quality

    1CCD older style domestic camcorders with no studio style lighting used,

    plus really bad sound (muffled voices) run along with the visuals. Hence

    a poor looking video image with crappy sound.

     

    The big corporate television studios most of the time do use professional

    equipment such as Digibeta, BetaSX, 3CCD highend broadcast camera's

    and skilled operators etc..that's why the visuals look that much better

     

    Of course it's unfair to compare the vision from a 60K Digital Beta Camera with

    top glass worth 20K against say a  XL1, the XL1 will never look as good as the

    Digi-Beta period..!

     

    I think in the end you can get a "pleasing image" with consumer gear, with

    good lighting, patience and a bit of tweaking with the manual settings on

    the camera.

     

    I just would not be expecting to imagine that you can have the

    "glossy britney spears look or the usher look" from consumer

    or pro-sumer gear.

     

    Cheers

    Sean Morris.

  3. would love to share and get feedback from the dv cinematography mavericks for my project

    (shot w/ panasonic dvx100):

     

    http://www.thecasper.com/

    -click on YELLOW windows, start with first floor window (req. QUICKTIME)

    -click on LOGO for info.

     

    they're a bit provocative, but i'm realizing that's very relative, considering what kind of art you do.

    they're little slices of people's lives in hotel rooms. and why we engage in the most nonsensical when it comes to affairs of the heart. :)

  4. would love to share and get feedback from this awesome community for my project:

     

    http://www.thecasper.com/

    -click on YELLOW windows, start with first floor window (req. QUICKTIME)

    -click on LOGO for info.

     

    they're a bit provocative, but i'm realizing that's very relative, considering what kind of art you do.

    they're little slices of people's lives in hotel rooms. and why we engage in the most nonsensical when it comes to affairs of the heart. :rolleyes:

×
×
  • Create New...