andrew rogala

For your price range and using mini DV (HDV), check out the Canon HV20... runs in the 300 pound range on ebay UK... it is a CMOS cam tho, so google "rolling shutter" to make sure you can deal with those results. If not, go for a 3 CCD cam. If you don't need good on camera audio, I'd say pick up a consumer HD camera at your local electronics retailer. JVC everio line and Canon vixia have plenty to offer. If you do go that route, though, I'd recommend going with SD cards. They are as cheap as tape, and will give your camera better resale. The DVX100 is a great SD prosumer cam, well supported and relatively cheap now. That will still give you better images than most consumer HD, as it has larger imaging sensors and better glass, plus won't require as much power or time to crunch. Plus it has far more manual features. If you've got more time than money, boost the ram up (at least to 2gb), get the camera best for your budget and play around... After a year of tinkering, you'll better assess your needs for your final year... And there is always a market for used cameras on eBay if you need to sell the one you get to upgrade to the next...

I agree with Adrian on 4GB of RAM. You still are going to have to wait it out because of hard drive speed limitations, but that's the nature of the $2000 macbook instead of the $38,000 8-core Mac pro with a 4 drive raid setup (and even those guys want it to go faster). The extra ram should help expedite your "pinwheel" time, though. Also, the secondary monitor is great purchase, especially if you are working with HD. A couple hundred bucks will get a 23" monitor that you view 1920x1080 at full scale and still allow you to follow your timeline and catch any glitches (titles, artifacts, CMOS distortion) you may miss in FCP's viewer. Plus, if you pickup a $30 HDMI to DVI cable, you've got a hi-res playback monitor for shooting on location. Best Buy currently has an Acer 23" with 1920x1080 res and an HDMI input (not dvi converter needed) for $139... bang for your buck, anyone? Also, get an external hard drive. HD files are big and you don't want have to trash a project once it's complete just so have enough hard drive space for the next one. I taped a musical theater show my sister was in on an AVCHD (1080/30p) camcorder. Given that I was only trimming the beginnings and ends of each act and adding a couple title slides, I used iMovie. The project file is over 100GB. Once I'm done with it, I'm putting it on an external drive to archive, though, and freeing up space for the next project. Finally, you need to pick out a camera. Depending on your budget and also what you want to do with it, there are nearly limitless options. If you are working on a consumer budget (Best Buy, Target- under $1000), make sure the camera has some type of mic input. You can get DoF adapters, use lighting tricks or even add post production effects (grain, color mods, etc) to make up for some small CMOS/CCD limitations. Unless you have an ADR setup, you won't be able to fix the crappy audio from the on camera mic. Even a radioshack unidirectional mic duct taped to a broom handle will better serve you. In this range you're only going to AVCHD or maybe a few HDV cameras, so codecs won't be your biggest hurdle. If you are looking in the prosumer range, I'd recommend getting something that has a native progressive shooting option. If you are only going to do documentary style shooting, with little movement, this is less important. I've shot on cameras that take beautiful 1080i, but after filming sports and scripted chases, the product looks less cinema and more video (in the local tv news sense). AVCHD, XDCAM (SxS), HDV and DVC pro are all supported in FCP, so just make sure you set it correctly before importing (unless you want to wait for 12 hours for it to convert). Also, JVC has a new camera, JVC HM100, that shoots directly to .mov format on two hot-swappable SDHC cards. It's a 3 1/4" CCD camera with a fixed lens. It does have 1080p at 24, 30 or 60 fps and 2 XLR inputs. It runs about $3500, not dirt cheap, but a pretty solid price champ. Hope this helps. And if it really comes down to it, get the HD camera and just shoot SD until you've got the setup to crunch HD...

I think 3D used the way Cameron did, enhancing depth and scope of the film, could translate well to the home marketplace. Unfortunately, it seems like most 3D features rely on gimmicky effects (hatchet flying at you in My Bloody Valentine 3D, spears/arrows in Beowulf). Gimmicky effects don't translate well to home viewing, even on a 60" HDTV. They'll be completely lost on anyone sitting 10 feet away from their 32" LCD. I also agree with David that gaming will drive the market, but even if 3D gaming catches on, it doesn't guarantee that demand will continue into mainstream viewing. I think what it's going to boil down to for non-interactive 3D, is who has "final cut." If Sam Raimi has "final cut" on Spider-man 4 and uses the 3D like Cameron did on Avatar, it could start a trend. If Sony, however, gets "final cut" and says, "Let's shoot some webs at the audience," it won't work outside the theater environment, regardless of how popular GTA 3D for PS3 is. As for the film purists shooting in 3D, it absolutely can be done, but not practically. Nolan had complaints about the noise from IMAX cam on Dark Knight. Two 35's rolling are loud enough, but four if you have an A and B setup could be too much. And it always seems like you need an A and B when you're relatively tight and shooting indoors on location (budget an extra day for ADR). Beyond the noise, you've got double the stock, double the processing, etc. Shooting 3D to film the way the Pace/Cameron Fusion does (basically twin Panavised F950's) isn't practical or cost efficient. The more realistic approach is the post 3D. Tim Burton did shoot Alice in Wonderland on a digital Pana Genesis, but not in 3D. They shot 2D and are converting to 3D in post. That's a more cost effective way Nolan and Bay could still shoot to Kodak and the studios get 3D without killing the budget. I'm anxious to see if Avatar will coerce some of these guys to try out the Fusion. I can see Bay and Abrams experimenting with it, maybe for motion control/crane shots, if not an entire film. The real test will be how the next 5 features shot with the Fusion look, compared to the next 5 features converted from 2D to 3D.

Thanks. That's the answer I was hoping for.

JVC sells adapters from the 1/3" bayonet mount to use 1/2" or 2/3" broadcast lenses and PL lenses. For budget and flexibility the 2/3" adapter is a great option. I've seen the adapter priced as low as $300 up to about $1200 from Fujinon. The JVC brand adapter is $700 at B&H. This will let you use the same lenses as the Cinealta F900. Shows like Gossip Girl, Damages & Rescue Me use these lenses for HDTV, so rental access is relatively easy. The PL adapter is about $4000, plus the cost goes up for lens rentals, but you can find some top quality glass. Also, it flips the image. I don't know if the HD111 has image-flip but the 200 & 700 series do. There was a feature called Gabriel (2007) shot entirely on the HD100. The final product was blown up to 35mm prints and released in theaters worldwide. For all the hate toward JVC's mount, the guts are a great bang for your buck.

I'm shooting a pilot for SAG web series on a JVC HD200UB, recording in 720p. I love the camera, but I'm a bit torn as to which frame rate to use. I love the cinematic look of 24p, especially with a 1/32nd shutter, but will that look come through once it's uploaded? Is shooting in 30p going to give me a more accurate translation? Also, I want an HD iTunes option and high quality DVD option, so it can't just be "good enough for YouTube." It's being edited on FCP and recorded to SxS with HDV backup. Any input or ideas are greatly appreciated. Cheers- A

I enjoy the lighting very much, as well. The overall feel is solid, but the insert shots did bother me a bit. The general elements were good, but slight modifications in framing/focus paired with some editing adjustments (obviously out of your control as DP) could have enhanced the impact. Something like an option framing the elbow to hand, instead of just the hand and pencil gives you an option beyond just the macro. Keep in mind, beyond my own productions, I've worked as a photodouble (hand specialty) for dozens of actors on several projects in the NYC area (from 9-figure films to tv shot on the F900 with 6-figure budgets). Experimenting with other framing/ focus for your inserts could produce some great results you typically would not think of. For example, something like texting on a cellphone, even if your interest shot is a macro with the thumbs on the keys typing, having a shot over/side shoulder and from the back of the phone, catching the phone and actor's torso, gives your editor options for assembly. Each one is going to be it's own setup, but the time/cost associated with that is far less expensive than realizing after the fact and having to go back to the location for reshoots... Just an idea. Take my input, put your stamp on it and make it brilliant. I think you've got a solid start though.